INTERLANGUAGE SIMPLIFICATION AND METROPOLITANIZATION

This dissertation examined the English interlanguage of a native Arabic speaker who was enrolled in an intensive English program. Specifically examined were nominal forms, plurals and possessives; verbal forms, third person singular, past and future tenses; pronouns and the copula. Simplification through reduced redundancy of these constructions was then compared to pidgin constructions in Tay Boi, West African Pidgin English, New Guinea Pidgin English, English Japanese Pidgin, American Indian Pidgin English and Juba Pidgin Arabic. The subject's interlanguage simplification paralleled the structures of the various pidgins in six of the seven constructions examined; the nominal possessive forms did not parallel the pidgin structures. Metropolitanization occurred in six of the seven constructions although it decreased significantly in the future tense production during the final one-third of the study. No metropolitanization occurred in nominal possessive forms.;A wide social distance existed between the subject and the target language (TL) group. This and the subject's interlanguage simplification which paralleled pidgin forms which were not the result of L(,1) transfer support the belief that a wide social distance between the subject and the TL group contributes to basic pidgin pattern production in the initial stages of second language learning.;Since the subject had limited contact with speakers of the TL group due to a wide social distance, it was likely the formal instruction facilitated metropolitanization. The introduction of future tense copula + gonna + simple verb in the classroom, the subject's unsuccessful attempt to manipulate this structure and the concurrent decline in future tense metropolitanization led to the conclusion that formal instruction in this area had a negative effect on the subject's progressing degree of future tense metropolitanization.;The use of the subject's Arabic nominal possessive word order and its inclusion of the definite article relative to this construction's absence in the various pidgins led to the conclusion that first language (L(,1)) transfer resulted in the subject's nominal possessive simplification. It was not possible to determine if copula simplification was the result of L(,1) transfer. The subject's simplification in the five remaining structures was not the result of L(,1) transfer. In initial periods future tense production, rapid metropolitanization paralleled an Arabic future construction which led to the conclusion that L(,1) transfer facilitated future tense metropolitanization.