Simplification
Simplification is the reduction of linguistic complexity in learner production, driven by cognitive processing constraints rather than conscious strategic choice. Learners systematically reduce morphological, syntactic, and lexical complexity to manage the demands of real-time communication within the limits of their working memory and developing interlanguage system.
How It Manifests
| Level | Example | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Morphological | Dropping inflections: He go yesterday | Reduction of redundant marking — tense already signalled by adverb |
| Syntactic | Avoiding subordination: I came. I saw her. instead of When I came, I saw her. | Paratactic (juxtaposed) structures replace hypotactic (embedded) ones |
| Lexical | Overusing general words: thing, do, make | High-frequency items substituted for specific vocabulary |
| Phonological | Consonant cluster reduction: bes fren for best friend | Articulatory complexity reduced |
Simplification vs Avoidance
Though related, simplification and avoidance are distinct:
| Simplification | Avoidance | |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Largely unconscious production strategy | Can involve deliberate steering away from difficulty |
| Mechanism | Cognitive processing constraints reduce output complexity | Learner bypasses specific structures they perceive as difficult |
| Evidence | Simpler forms produced in place of complex ones | Target form absent entirely |
| Cause | Limited processing capacity | L1–L2 distance, perceived difficulty, risk aversion |
A learner who says He go yesterday is simplifying (reducing morphology). A learner who restructures an entire sentence to avoid using the past tense is engaging in avoidance.
Simplification as a Universal Process
Simplification in learner language parallels patterns observed in:
- Pidgin formation — contact languages reduce morphological complexity
- Child L1 acquisition — children systematically simplify before mastering full complexity
- foreigner talk — native speakers simplify when addressing L2 learners
This parallel suggests simplification reflects fundamental cognitive processes related to language processing under constraint, not simply "bad" language learning.
The One-Form-One-Meaning Principle
Early interlanguage often exhibits a tendency toward one-to-one mapping between form and meaning. Where the target language uses multiple forms for related meanings (e.g., articles a/an/the), learners may reduce to a single form or omit the category altogether. This is a hallmark of simplification and connects to overgeneralisation — both reflect the learner's drive to systematise.
Teaching Implications
- Simplification is a natural stage, not a sign of carelessness — correction should be calibrated to the learner's developmental readiness
- Increased communicative pressure (time limits, complex tasks) will increase simplification — task design should account for this
- Gradual complexification of output is a better goal than eliminating simplification entirely
- Teachers can scaffold complexity by providing models that are just beyond the learner's current production level
References
- Meisel, J.M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In R.W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Newbury House.
- Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. Longman.