Brief Overview This is a brief overview of error analysis for the reader to understand the main points. Readers are encouraged to study more in-depth to gain a full appreciation of error analysis. At the end are guiding questions for the educator to contemplate instruction and error analysis. Error analysis has had a long history as far as second language learning is concerned. Individuals have always been interested in why errors were made, but in the early years before WWII there was not a drive for deep research. Also, with behaviorism coming to the forefront, interest in error analysis began to wane as errors were seen as improperly formed habits or interference from the native language. However, as contrastive analysis began to crumble and the mentalist movement started gaining momentum, the emphasis transferred from the grammatical structure of language to the underlying rules governing language. Error analysis again emerged into scientific thought and fixated on two elements of the error produced: 1. what was the error? 2. why was it made? Stephen Pit Corder is credited with reviving the interest in error analysis with publishing several articles and providing a basis for research. Corder created five procedures to analyzing errors (Saville-Troike 2006): 1. Collect samples of learner language Data is collected over a period of time and compared. 2. Identification of errors What kind of errors are they? A difference is made between an error and mistake. An error is where the language learner does not possess the knowledge of the correct usage. A mistake is where the language learner possesses the knowledge, but has a lapse in memory. An example of a mistake is when a learner, who knows the distinction between men and women and pronouns, uses the pronoun ‘she’ when referring to a man. 3.Description of errors Once the mistakes are eliminated from the errors, what classification is the error? Is it language level (structural- phonology, etc…), general linguistic (passive sentences, etc…) or specific linguistic elements (nouns, articles, etc…) 4. Explanation of errors Why was the error made?
Interlingual (between two languages): the error could be interference from first language to the second language Intralingual (within the language): the error could be developmental which shows a gap in knowledge of the rule.
5. Evaluation of errors How serious are the errors? Does it cause a lack of understanding? These procedural steps would later spawn the interlanguage hypothesis by Larry Selinker, which asserts the language learner will occupy a limbo state between the rules of the native language and target language being learned. For now, interlanguage hypothesis will be left alone as it is an extremely deep concept that warrants its own article and study. Results Error analysis was extremely helpful in progressing research to delve deeper into understanding the errors language learners made. It has been a useful approach that has generated a lot of research. However, it is not without its faults (Saville-Troike 2006). First, how does one accurately classify errors? Some errors may be first language interference or an overgeneralization of a second language rule. Second, as the second language learner increases in level, the ability to avoid problematic structures becomes more common. Last, errors alone can not provide details on what the learner actually knows. How Not to Use
Error analysis is not a tool of judgment- it is a tool for helping. For example, a student may look straight ahead and not answer a question requiring the past tense. This may lead the educator to think the student is lower level and needs to be re-taught the past tense, but in reality, the student may have recently been studying the present perfect and the additional information has him unsure of how to respond.
Find out more information on how to not to use error analysis in our online SLA course. Get information and discounts on our course HERE. Strategies for Use
Writing is best: Writing classes are custom built for error analysis. Especially for large classes, the educator can collect a lot of data to analyze. Writing is a production skill where students have time to arrange their output and can clearly show areas of incomplete knowledge. For example, after the first writing assignment the educator may realize that half the students do not understand
capitalization rules, so capitalization may be incorporated later. However, receptive skills such as listening and reading will be difficult to assess errors as the root of those errors are not easily observable. Final Thoughts Error analysis can be a great tool in a writing class as there is a chance to collect errors on a large scale and document them. Speaking classes may not offer ample opportunity to fully assess errors, but logging errors, physically or mentally, will provide the educator a chance to formulate beliefs and strategies to deal with these errors. Also, depending on whether the class focuses on accuracy or fluency, errors will have varying degrees of importance. Error analysis can show glimpses into the mind of the student, but the errors do not always reveal the source of the problem. The educator has to be careful of assuming why the error happened. What is important is the error is happening and how the educator can present the correct usage in a manner that helps the student correct it. Methodology[edit] Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues. [2] Error analysis (EA) was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to develop atypology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereascovert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors,syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication:global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I angry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent. From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not
with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such asavoidance[disambiguation needed], in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage. Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology. Steps in error analysis[edit] According to linguist Corder,the following are the steps in any typical EA research:[3] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
collecting samples of learner language identifying the errors describing the errors explaining the errors evaluating/correcting the errors
collection of errors: the nature and quantity of errors is likely to vary depending on whether the data consist of natural, spontaneous language use or careful, elicited language use. Corder(1973) distinguished two kinds of elicitation:clinical and experimental elicitation. clinical elicitation involves getting the informant to produce data of any sort, for example by means of general interview or writing a composition. experimental elicitation involves the use of special instrument to elicit data containing the linguistic features such as a series of pictures which had been designed to elicit specific features. Definition Error analysis is a branch of applied linguistics. It is concerned with the compilation, study and analysis of errors made by second language learners and aims at investigating aspects of second language acquisition. Closely related to error analysis is the concept of interlanguage. Some researchers distinguish error analysis from transfer analysis, which compares the learner’s data with the respective first language, whereas error analysis compares the learner’s data with the target language norm and identifies and explains errors accordingly (cf. James 1998).
Development Error analysis was first used as a way of studying second language acquisition in the 1960s. Corder’s seminal paper "The Significance of Learner’s Errors" (1967) had shifted researchers’ attention from the teaching perspective to the learning perspective – and therefore also away from contrastive analysis, behaviorism and structuralism towards cognitive psychology. This development went hand in hand with the turn towards a communicative approach in language teaching. Drawing on knowledge about first language acquisition, Corder posited that second language learners discover the target language by hypothesizing about it and testing their hypotheses more or less like children do. This process does not happen randomly, but follows the learner’s built-in syllabus, so that errors will necessarily be made. Corder used the term transitional competence for what has since become a widely accepted and often used concept: that of interlanguage (cf. Selinker 1972), the learner’s individual, dynamic approximation of the target language. According to this view, errors indicate that a learner actively learns the target language, as they occur whenever a hypothesis tested by the learner does not work. In error analysis, the language learning process is regarded as being influenced by the learner’s first language, his or her interlanguage and the target language. Thus, all of these three language systems have an influence on which errors a learner makes. But the gap between the interlanguage and the target language is considered the most important factor of the three. Even more importantly, however, the learner makes errors because of the learning strategies he or she employs to ‘discover’ the target language. For all these reasons, inductive error analyses were carried out in order to arrive at generalizations about errors, interlanguage and, ultimately, second language acquisition. Error analysis reached its zenith in the 1970s, but soon turned out to be deficient as a research tool. By the late 1970s, it was merely contributing to broader second language acquisition theory and research, as it still does today. Aims The primary aims of error analyses were (i) to identify types and patterns of errors and (ii) to establish error taxonomies. These were supposed to be used to describe interlanguage and its development, i.e. the learner’s internal syllabus. Common difficulties in second language acquisitionwere to be identified. On this basis, error analysis was supposed to contribute to a comprehensive knowledge about processes of second language acquisition -- always assuming with Chomsky that there is something like a language acquisition device. In addition, results were intended to be used for a revision of theories of language learning as well as help to evaluate and improve language teaching. Results The main achievement of error analysis consists in a change of perspective. Firstly, it let learners’ errors appear in a new light. They were no longer regarded as "signs of inhibition" (Corder 1967) that needed to be eradicated. Instead, they were regarded as useful “evidence of [...] strategies of learning” (Corder 1967) and as perfectly natural aspects of second language acquisitin. Secondly, it widened the perspective on possible
causes of errors. Researchers recognized that the first language is not the only – in fact, not even the most important - factor that can lead to errors. Common errors typical of different target languages were identified and, in search of reasons why those errors were made, they were classified in a new way. Errors were distinguished from mistakes or lapses, which are performance errors that are not determined by the interlanguage but rather by situational factors such as tiredness. Only ‘true’ errors are connected to the state of the interlanguage, or the learner’s competence. Interlingual errors, a result of interference from the native language, were differentiated from intralingual errors, occuring for example when a target language rule is applied to areas where it is not applicable. Corder also pointed out that an utterance which is seemingly correct but does not mean what the speaker or writer intended it to mean contains, in fact, a covert error. Error analysis also played an important role in the development of the interlanguage hypothesis. Criticism Error analysis has been criticized for a number of practical problems, all of them connected to the fact that it tries to gather knowledge of language learning processes by examining the learner’s output. First of all, it has proved difficult to determine whether there is an error at all, and if so, what exactly constitutes it. The distinction between error and mistake cannot easily be made either. Secondly, there is usually more than just one way to classify an error. Thirdly, causes of errors are difficult to identify; there is a multitude of possible causes (e.g. communication strategies, personal factors, external factors), and since the learner’s output is the only source of evidence used, found causes are necessarily unreliable. In addition, “error taxonomies often confuse description with explanation” (Johnson & Johnson 1998:112), thus providing little to help learners. Other criticism has aimed at the simplistic approach that error analysis takes toward second language acquisition. Only looking at incorrect output and ignoring correct output as well as any other aspects of the learning process means leaving out important sources of information that could be used to describe the acquisition process. This is related to the fact that correct output does not necessarily imply that something has been learned – among other reasons, because the learner’s language production varies in several ways. As a result, error analysis has been subject to criticism. For example, it has been claimed that what was called ‘universal’ errors (errors that are made by any learner of a given target language, no matter what the first language) might in fact be interference errors (Byram 2004, cited in James 1998). Error Analysis is one of the major topics in the field of second language acquisition research. Errors are an integral part of language learning. The learner of English as a second language is unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English language. The learner’s errors have long been interested for second and foreign language researchers. The basic task of error analysis is to describe how learning occurs by examining the learner’s output and this includes his/her correct and incorrect utterances. There are two major approaches to the study of learner’s errors, namely contrastive analysis and error analysis. Error analysis cannot be
studied properly without touching upon the notion of contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysis and error analysis have been commonly recognized as branches of Applied Linguistic Science. This paper examines in detail the three most influential error theories: Contrastive analysis, Error analysis and Interlanguage theory. Corder (1978) maintains that interlanguage can be seen as a restructuring or a recreating continuum and, therefore; evaluates their role in second language acquisition.
14 deep structures even if on the surface they are markedly different" (1971, p.38), "deep structures" being defined in the sense of Lakoff (1968), in terms of basic grammatical relations, selectional restrictions and cooccurrence relations. While this is probably the closest we have ever come to rigorously defining the notion of "equivalence," even this formulation is still far from satisfactory, as is apparent from the works discussed below.Bouton (1975) points out that there are large classes of constructions which are translation equivalents but cannot be derived from a common deep structure (in the sense of Krezeszowski)i n s t a n c e s w h e r e d e e p structure parts contain crucial information with regard to notions of stativity,transitivity, tense/aspect, polarity of presupposition, etc.- thus calling foreither a redefinition of "deep structure" to include "contextual" structure orthe rejection of Krezeszowski's hypothesis as it stands. Y. Kachru (1976) has shown the limitation of a purely structural notiono f e q u i v a l e n c e a n d t h e r e l e v a n c e o f p r a g m a t i c s a n d " c o n v e r s a t i o n a l implicature" for defining "equivalence." Fillmore (1965) had earlier pointedout instances of translation equivalence "which are constructed along nonanalogous (structural) principles" and "cases where s e n t e n c e s i n o n e language cannot be translated into another language at all" (1965, p. 122).A different approach to defining equivalence is suggested in Sridhar(1980). In his crosslinguistic experimental study of sentence production,Sridhar found that common perceptual stimuli often produced structurallyd i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s i n d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s which, nevertheless, were 15
functionally similar. For example, in describing a s c e n e i n w h i c h a n inanimate object (e.g., a ball) acts upon an animate, human object (e.g., adoll), the inherent salience of the latter causes the movement of the objectN P t o t he s e n t en c e i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n p a s s i v e s an d t o p i c a l i z e d s en t e n c e s i n E n g l i s h , b u t a c t i v e s e n t e n ce s wi t h o b je c t f r o n t i n g i n o t h e r languages like Hungarian, Japanese, Kannada, Turkish, etc. This technique,therefore, demonstrates the possibility of establishing functional equivalenceacross structures in empirical terms.W h i l e d i s c u s s i o n , f o r m a l i z a t i o n , a n d r e f i n e m e n t o f t h e n o t i o n o f equivalence proceeds on the theoretical plane, the problems involved in thisendeavor have not significantly impeded the flow of practical contrastives t u d i e s a n d t h e ir a p p l i c a t i o n t o c l a s sr o o m an d t e x t m a t e r i a l s . I wi l l n o w briefly consider the state of the art in practical contrastive analysis. The Scope of Contrastive Studies By "scope" here I mean the levels of linguistic structure and language usec o v e r e d b y c o n t r a s t iv e s t ud i e s . E v en a c u r s o r y g l a n c e a t t h e e xt e n s iv e bibliographies by Hammer and Rice (1965) and Gage (1961), as well as thevolumes of IRAL, Language Learning and other journals, reveals that themajor emphasis has been on contrasting phonological systems. Also, it isconsistent with the structuralist dictum regarding the primacy of speech.However, as Stockwell rightly reminds us, it is time to face up to the fact that"pronunciation is simply not that important. ...Grammar and meaning are atthe heart of the matter" (1968, p. 22). Despite the "kiss of life" that syntax 16 has received with the advent of generative gramma r , t h e n u m b e r o f sophisticated studies of contrastive syntax still remains rather small. (Part of the problem may have to do with the rapid change in syntactic theory in thelast thirty years that has left the "applied" linguist constantly trying to catchup with the new developments.) The best full-length studies of contrastivesyntax still remain in the volumes produced under The Contrastive StructureSeries of the Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. The area of vocabulary has hardly been touched at all. One of the
notable exceptions isOksaar (1972). In that work, Oksaar reports on research using the semanticdifferential technique (Osgood, Hofstatter) in order to measure intraandi n t e r l i n g u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ( G e r m a n - S w e d i s h ) i n t h e a r e a o f c o n n o t a t i v e meaning. Taking certain operational terms to demonstrate the approach, shecomes to the following conclusion: the "competing" terms differ from eacho t h e r i n t h e t w o l a n g u a g e s ; a n d i n t e r f e r e n c e s a r e l i k e l y o n t h e n o n - denotative meaning level of the second language, the source of which lies inthe influence of the mother tongue. The extensive work done in bilingual lexicography has not been, as Gleason correctly points out, "deeply theory-informed work" (1968, p. 40). The huge area of usage still remains practicallyunchartered, and in the absence of a viable theory, the best that can bedone in this area is, in the words of Stockwell, "listing with insight." Lado(1957) strongly advocated the need to include comparison of cultures as anintegral part of contrastive linguistics, yet his example does not seem to have been pursued seriously. Thus the picture of contrastive studies today is 17 rather lopsided-leaning heavily on the side of phonology, moderately inclinedt o s yn t a x , b u t ( t o m i x m e t a p ho r s ) l e av in g e n t ir e f l a n k s o f l e x i c o g r a p h y,semantics and usage almost completely exposed.
24 encountered by CA (e.g., the problem of equivalence) (Wardhaugh 1970).Based on arguments such as these, some scholars (e.g., Wilkins 1968)have argued that there is no necessity for a prior comparison of grammarsand that an errorbased analysis is "equally satisfactory, more fruitful, andless time consuming" (p. 102). The experimental evidence, the little thatt h e r e i s , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a n e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n . T h e investigations in Duskova (1969), Banathy and Madarasz (1969), Richards(1971b), Schachter (1974), and CelceMurcia (1978), among others, revealthat just as there are errors that are not handled by CA, there are those thatd o n o t s u r f a c e i n E A , a n d t h a t E A h a s i t s r o l e a s a t e s t i n g g r o u n d f o r t h e predictions of CA as well as to supplement its results.
The Reorientation of EA At the same time that the extended domain of EA vis-à-vis CA came to beappreciated, a development took place, largely as a result of the insights of British linguists and those influenced by them (Corder 1967, 1971a, 1971b,1973, 1974; Strevens 1970; Selinker 1969, 1972; Richards 1971a, 1971b,1973) which has not only revolutionized the whole concept of EA, but alsoo p e n e d u p a n e x c i t i n g a r e a o f r e s e a r c h c o m m o n l y r e f e r r e d t o a s Interlanguage (IL). Although in the current literature the distinction betweenEA and IL is not always clear, we will, for the purpose of this chapter, studyt h e d e v e l o p me n t s i n t w o p a r t s t h o s e d i r e c t l y r el e v a n t t o t h e t h e or y a n d practice of EA in this part and those having to do with IL in the next. 25 a . O n t h e n o t i o n o f " e r r o r . " Pit Corder, in his influential paper (1967), suggested a new way of looking atthe errors made by the learner of a TL. He justified the proposed revision inviewpoint on the basis of "the substantial similarities between the strategiesemployed by the infant learning his native language and those of the secondl a n g u a g e l e a r n e r." Th e n o t i o n o f " e r r o r," h e a rgu e d , i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e traditional practice to take a teacher-centered viewpoint of the learner'sperformance and to judge the latter in terms of the norms of the TL. Fromthe perspec tive of the language learner, the observed deviations are nomore "errors" than the first approximations of a child learning his mothert o n g u e a r e e r r o r s . L i k e t h e c h i l d s t r u g g l i n g t o a c q u i r e h i s l a n g u a g e , t h e second-language learner is also trying out successive hypotheses about then a t u r e o f t h e T L , a n d f r o m t h i s v i e w p o i n t , t h e l e a r n e r ' s " e r r o r s " ( o r hypotheses) are "not only inevitab l e b u t a r e a n e c e s s a r y " p a r t o f t h e language learning process. b . E r r o r s v e r s u s m i s t a k e s A t t h i s p o i n t , C o r d e r i n t r o d u c e s a n i mp o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n "errors" and "mistakes." Mistakes are deviations due to performance factorssuch as memory limitations (e.g., mistakes in the sequence of tenses andagreement in long sentences), spelling pronunciations, fatigue, e motionals t r a i n , e t c . T h e y a r e t y p i c a l l y r a n d o m a n d a r e r e a d i l y c o r r e c t e d by t h e learner when his attention is drawn to them. Errors, on the other hand,
aresystematic, consistent deviances characteristic of the learner's lin guistic 26 system at a given stage of learning. "The key point," he asserts, is that thel e a r n e r i s u s i n g a d e f i n i t e s y s t e m o f l a n g u a g e a t e v e r y p o i n t i n h i s d e v e l o p me n t , a l t h o u g h i t i s n o t . . . t h a t o f t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . . . . T h e learner's errors are evidence of this system and are themselves systematic(1967, p. 166).Corder proposed the term "transitional competence" to refer to thei n t er m e d i a t e sy s t e m s c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e l e a r n e r i n t h e pr o c e s s o f h i s language learning. c . T h e g o a l s o f E A Given this redefinition of the notion of error, it follows that the goals of EA as conceived previously also need to be redefined. In a subsequent paper(1971b), Corder makes a distinction between the theoretical an d applied goals of EA. EA has too often, he argues, concerned itself exclusively with the "applied" goal of correcting and eradicating the learner's errors at the expense of the more important and logically prior task o f e v o l v i n g a n explanatory theory of learner's performance. The study of the systematic errors made by the learners of a TL yields valuable insights into the nature of language learning strategies and hypotheses employed by learners and the nature of the intermediate "functional communicative systems" or languages constructed by them. Thus the theoretical aspect of EA is as worthy of studyi n g a n d o f i t s e l f a s i s t h a t o f c h i l d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n a n d c a n , i n t u r n , provide insights into the process of language acquisition in general.
51 Endnotes 1 I am grateful to Professors Braj Kachru and Yamuna Kachru for their suggestionson an earlier version of this chapter. 2 See, for example, the following: George Whitworth, Indian English: AnExamination of the Errors of Idiom Made by Indians in Writing English
(Letch-worth: Herts, 1907); T.L.M. Pearse-Smith, English Errors in Indian Schools (London:Oxford University Press, 1934); F.Q. French, Common Errors in English (London:Oxford University Press, 1949). 3 The possibility of evolving a scientific theory of translation that could, in turn, beused in machine translation has been one of the additional motivations forpursuing CA (see Catford 1965). 4 Q. Sweet (1899): "There is another class of difficulties which may be regarded aspartly external, partly internal-those which depend on the relations of the foreignlanguage to the learner's native language, especially as regards similarity invocabulary and structure" (pp. 53-54 in the 1964 edition). Sweet warned againstthe formation of wrong "crossassociations" across seemingly similar items in"closely allied languages." Jespersen recognized NL interference, but advocatedcomparative analysis only as an "interesting" adjunct to the main task of teachingthe TL. "Comparisons between the languages which the pupils know, for thepurpose of showing their differences of economy in the use of linguistic means of expression ...may often become very interesting, especially for advanced students The teacher may call attention to the inconsistency of the languages; what is distinctly expressed in one case is in another case not designated by anyoutward sign (haus: hauser'. ..sheep: sheep)" Oespersen 1904, p. 135). H.E.Palmer deals at some length with the "illegitimate" substitutions made by Englishlearners in speaking French-in phonology, lexis and grammar. He also recognizescases of positive transfer. However, he sternly warns against "the temptation toreplace habit-forming by analysis and synthesis of problem items" (Palmer 1964,p. 58). 5 This view seems to derive from Lado (1957, p. 2): "Those elements that aresimilar to his native language will be simpler for him, and those elements that aredifferent will be difficult." 6 Bouton (1976) points out that the universal base hypothesis and the notion of equivalence in the sense of Krezeszowski are not strictly compatible.7. See Jakobson (1941). In the words of Ferguson (1968), ". ..Jakobson made clearthe notion that a child's language is always a coherent system [al- though withmore marginal features and fluctuation than adult language] and that thedevelopment of a child's language may profitably be regarded as a succession of stages, just as the history of a language may be." 7
See Jakobson (1941). In the words of Ferguson (1968), ". ..Jakobson made clearthe notion that a child's language is always a coherent system [al- though withmore marginal features and fluctuation than adult language] and that the development of a child's language may profitably be regarded as a succession of stages, just as the history of a language may be." Job Board About Press Blog Stories Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition Ali Akbar Khansir Bushehr University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Iran Email:
[email protected] Abstract—Error Analysis is one of the major topics in the field of second language acquisition research. Errors are an integral part of language learning. The learner of English as a second language is unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English language. The learner’s errors have long been interested for second and foreign language researchers. The basic task of error analysis is to describe how learning occurs by examining the learner’s output and this includes his/her correct and incorrect utterances. There are two major approaches to the study of learner’s errors, namely contrastive analysis and error analysis. Error analysis cannot be studied properly without touching upon the notion of contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysis and error analysis have been commonly recognized as branches of Applied Linguistic Science. This paper examines in detail the three most influential error theories: Contrastive analysis, Error analysis and Interlanguage theory. Corder (1978) maintains that interlanguage can be seen as a restructuring or a recreating continuum and, therefore; evaluates their role in second language acquisition. Index Terms—error, contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage I. INTRODUCTION The term applied linguistics seems to have originated in the United States in the 1940‟s. The creation of applied
linguistics as a discipline represents an effort to find practical applications for modern scientific linguistics (Mackey, 1965). Applied Linguistics is often said to be concerned with solving or at least ameliorating social problems involving language. “Applied Linguistics is using what we know about (a) language, (b) how it is learned, and (c) how it is used, in order to achieve some purpose or solve some problems in the real world” (Schmitt and Celce-Murcia 2002, p.l). Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis have been commonly recognized as branches of Applied Linguistics Science. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several researches pointed out that the language of second language learners is systematic and that learner errors are not random mistakes but evidence of rule-governed behavior (Adjemian 1976; Corder 1976;Nemser 1971; Selinker 1972). Applied Linguistics has viewed errors not merely by native speakers, but also by non-native speakers. According to Smith and Bisazza (1982) “A speaker‟s comprehensibility in a language is usually based solely up on the judgment of the native speakers of that language. We are convinced that this criterion is no longer appropriate for speakers of English as an international language. A more useful evaluation of one‟s English language comprehensibility should be based on the judgment of both native and non-native speakers. English native speakers should be judged for comprehensibility by non-native speakers too” (p.259). “In the 1950s and 1960s the favored paradigm for studying FL/SL leaving and organizing its teaching was Contrastive Analysis” (James, 2001, p.4). “Contrastive Linguistics has been defined as “a subdiscipline of Linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of language in order to determine both differences and similarities between them”(Fisiak,1981,p.l). Carl (1971) maintained that Contrastive Analysis is a necessary component of a second language learning model which reliably forecasts that the speaker of an arbitrary first language is liable to produce grammatically deviant second language sentences, the structural descriptions of which will resemble those of analogous first language sentences. Error Analysis, a branch of Applied Linguistics emerged in the sixties to reveal that learner errors were not only
because of the learner‟s native language but also they reflected some universal strategies. This is a reaction to Contrastive Analysis Theory which considered native language interference as the major source of errors in second language learning what behavioristic theory suggested. “Applied error analysis, on the other hand, concerns organizing remedial courses and devising appropriate materials and teaching strategies based on the findings of theoretical error analysis” ( Erdogan 2005). Richards (1971, p.l.) explained “the field of error analysis may be defined as dealing with the differences between the way people learning a language speak and the way adult native speakers of the language use the language”. Norrish (1983) argued that let us call a systematic deviation, when a learner has not learnt something and consistently gets it wrong, an error…A common example is using the infinitive with to after the verb must ( e.g. I must to go the shops). Let us suppose that the learner knows the verbs want (+ to), need (+ to) and perhaps ought (+ to); by analogy he then produces must (+ to) until he has been told otherwise, or until he notices that native speakers do not produce this form, he will say or write this quite consistently (Norish, ibid, p.7). From this developed the conception of “Interlanguage”, the proposal that second language learners have internalized a mental grammar, a natural languages system that can be described in terms of linguistic rules and principles (Doughty and Long 2003). When a learner of a language produces the processes are used in learning of the language differs from both his/her mother tongue and the target language is called an interlanguage.THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1028 II. CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH The American linguist C. C. Fries initiated the study of contrastive linguistics in 1945. This assumption was taken up by Robert Lado more than ten years later in his book, “Linguistic Across Cultures” (1957) in which the theoretical foundation of C.A was laid down. The supporters of C.A claimed that the similarities and differences between various languages was enough to deal with the problem of teaching these languages (Ghadessy 1980). Lado(1957) claimed that
for the students whose target language is second or foreign language, those elements of the target language that are similar to his/her native language will be simple for him/her and those elements that are different will be difficult. Therefore, Contrastive Analysis gained much important to investigate learner errors in the field of second language acquisition, in which two languages were systematically compared during the 40‟s and 50‟s. The various studies based on C.A have attempted to compare the systems of the native and target language either within the framework of the structure models of language description or within the framework of transformational generative model. The contribution of contrastive analysis relevant to second language pedagogy is: “The description of practical grammar which is made up of sum of differences between the grammar of the source language and that of the target language” (Nickel, 1971, p.9). Its objectives are summarized in Theovan Els, et al (1984:38) as follows: a) Providing insight into similarities and differences between languages; b) Explaining and predicting problems in L2 learning; c) Developing course materials for language teaching. Bose (2005) mentioned that one of the reasons for learner errors is the interference of his mother tongue, which is described as the negative and positive transfer between the mother tongue and the target language. The negative transfer happens when the forms of the target language and those of the learner's mother tongue are different from each other whereas, the positive transfer between the mother tongue and the target language is similar. He added that a teacher can plan remedial teaching after he corrects the written compositions of his learners and collects their common errors in a note book. Ferguson (1965) pointed out that one of the major problems in the learning of a second language is the interference caused by the structural differences between the native language of the learner and the second language. A natural consequence of this conviction is the belief that a careful contrastive analysis of the two languages offers an excellent basis for the preparation of instructional materials, the planning of courses and the development of actual classroom techniques (Ferguson ibid, p. 4). Mackey (1965) claimed that it has been stated as a principle of applied
linguistics that all the mistakes of the language learner are due to the makeup of his native language. This is demonstrably false. Many mistakes actually made have no parallel in the native language. He added that different learners with the same native language do make different mistakes. Mackey again argued “the first language itself is not the only influence on second language learning” (Mackey, ibid, p. 4). Fries (1945, p. 9) argued that “the most effective materials (for foreign language teaching) are those based on a scientific expression of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner. A. Different Versions of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Wardhaugh (1970) pointed out that the CA hypothesis can exist in two versions: a strong version claims that the difficulties of the learner can be predicated by a systematic contrastive analysis and teaching material can then be devised to meet those difficulties and a weak version claims that no more than an explanatory role for contrastive linguistics: Where difficulties are evident from the errors made by the learners. Comparison between the mother tongue and the target language of the learners may help to explain them. The third version of the Contrastive Analysis was proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny on the basis of their analysis of the spelling errors committed by some foreign learners of English with different native language backgrounds. They (1970, P. 184) stated that “the categorization of abstract and concrete patterns according to their perceived similarities and differences is the basis for learning; therefore, wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems, confusion may result”. In addition, spelling errors of foreign students whose native language employed a Roman alphabet were compared with spelling errors of foreign students whose native language had a little or no relation to such an alphabet. Oller and Ziahosseiny concluded that as far as English spelling is concerned, knowledge of one Roman writing system makes it more difficult, no less, to acquire another Roman spelling system. B. Criticisms of Contrastive Analysis Contrastive Analysis was criticized by the proponents of error analysis; they have argued that Contrastive Analysis
focus on differences between L1 and L2 and ignore factors which may affect the second language learner‟s performance such as his learning and communication strategies, training- procedures, overgeneralization, etc. It shows certain difficulties which do not actually apparent in the learner‟s performance and conversely and does not predicts many problems which are apparent in learner‟s actual performance. Fisiak (1981, 7) mentioned that “the value and importance of Contrastive Analysis lies in its ability to indicate potential areas of interference and errors. Not all errors are the result of interference. Psychological and pedagogical, as well as other extra linguistic factors contribute to the formation of errors”. A number of researches of learner‟s errors have been carried out by several researchers in the filed of error THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1029 analysis indicated that the influence of the L1 was much less than that said by Contrastive Analysis. Thus, all the mistakes of the language learner are not due to the makeup of his mother tongue. Researches show that factors such as analogical replacement, sheer muddle are cause of errors. Replacement based on analogy often causes the learner to make mistakes when he sets out to apply the rules of second language which he has learnt indiscriminately. Sometimes ignorance of the correct pattern, bad teaching or inadequate practice or a combination of the two yield samples of errors. It is not surprising to see the decline of Contrastive Analysis in the 1970 and replaced by other explanations of learning difficulties such as error analysis and interlanguage. III. ERROR ANALYSIS In recent years, studies of second language acquisition have tended to focus on learners errors since they allow for prediction of the difficulties involved in acquiring a second language. In this way, teachers can be made aware of the difficult areas to be encountered by their students and devote special care and emphasis to them. Error Analysis is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make. It consists of a comparison between the errors made in the target language and that target language itself. Error analysis emphasizes the significance of learners‟ errors in second
language. It is important to note here that Interferences from the learner‟s mother tongue is not only reason for committing errors in his target language. As Richards (1971) classified errors observed in the acquisition of English as a second language as follows: a) Overgeneralization, covering instances where the learners create a deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other structure of the target language; b) Ignorance of rule restriction, occurring as a result of failure to observe the restrictions or existing structures; c) Incomplete application of rules, arising when the learners fail to fully develop a certain structure required to produce acceptable sentences; d) False concepts hypothesized, deriving from faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target language. Some errors can be attributed to weaknesses or failure of memory (Gorbet, 1979).He added that the theory of error analysis proposes that in order to learn a language, a person creates a system of „rules‟ from the language data to which he is exposed; and this system enable him to use it. According to Sharma (1980)”Error analysis can thus provide a strong support to remedial teaching”, he added that during the teaching program, it can reveal both the successes and the failures of the program. Dulay et al (1982) mentioned that the term „error‟ to refer to a systematic deviation from a selected norm or set of norms. Error analysis is useful in second language learning because this will reveal to us- teachers, syllabus designers and textbook writers and the problem areas. It can used to design remedial exercises and focus more attention on the trouble spots. Corder (1974, p.125) stated that “The study of errors is part of the investigation of the process of language learning. In this respect it resembles methodologically the study of the acquisition of the mother tongue. It provides us with a picture of the linguistic development of a learner and may give us indications as to the learning process.” Richards et al (1992) mentioned the study of errors are used in order to (1) identify strategies which learners use in language teaching, (2) identify the causes of learners „errors, and finally (3) obtain information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid to teaching or in development of teaching materials ( cited in Khansir 2008).
Analysis of second language learner‟s errors can help identify learner‟s linguistic difficulties and needs at a particular stage of language learning. In general, Error analysis has several implications for the handling of learner‟s errors in the classroom as follows: 1. Devising remedial measures 2. Preparing a sequence of target language items in class rooms and text books with the difficult items coming after the easier, ones 3. Making suggestions about the nature or strategies of second language learning employed by both first and second language learners. A. Difference between Error Analysis and Contrastive Analysis Error analysis differs from contrastive analysis as follows: 1. Contrastive analysis starts with a comparison of systems of two languages and predicts only the areas of difficulty or error for the second language learner, whereas error analysis starts with errors in second language learning and studies them in the broader framework of their sources and significance. 2. EA unlike CA provides data on actual attested problems and so it forms a more efficient basis for designing pedagogical strategies. 3. EA is not confronting with the complex theoretical problems like the problem of equivalence encountered by CA. 4. EA provides a feedback value to the linguist, especially the psycholinguist interested in the process of second language learning in ascertaining. a. Whether the process of acquisition of first language and second language learning are similar or not? b. Whether children and adults learn a second language in a similar manner or not? 5. EA provides evidence for a much more complex view of the learning process- one in which the learner is seen as an active participant in the formation of and revision of hypotheses regarding the rules of the target language.THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1030 6. CA studies Interlingual error (interference) whereas EA studies intralingual errors besides Interlingual. B. Some Criticism of Error Analysis Some Criticism of Error Analysis is considered as follows:
Error Analysis Hypothesis might have many merits, but it has not escaped criticism at the hands of certain linguists. The main allegation laid against it is that it makes no allowance for “avoidance phenomena” (Schachter 1974). It is meant that the learner strategy of avoiding what is difficult. The informants may not use certain structures, because he knows he gets them wrong. Instead, he might use structures he is certain he will get right. CA predicts difficulties and therefore does not face this avoidance problem. Another reason for weakness of EAH is due to what Ellis (2008) mentioned: “weaknesses in methodological procedures, theoretical problems, and limitations in scope”. Schachter and Murcia (1977) argued that the Analysis of errors in isolation focuses the attention of the investigator on errors and thus excludes the other corpus from consideration, the classification of errors that are identified is not usually proper, statements of error-frequently are quite misleading, the identification of points of difficulty in target language is usually not very correct, the ascription of causes to systematic errors may not be right, and the biased nature of sampling procedures supplies another point of criticism of EA. It meant that so far the collection of data from a number of informants is considered, the very nature of data collection and selection of informants is biased. Therefore trying to drawn statistically significant findings from such samples may be a questionable practice. IV. INTERLANGUAGE THEORY The concept of interlanguage was suggested by Selinker (1972) in order to draw attention to the possibility that the learner‟s language can be regarded as a distinct language variety or system with its own particular characteristics and rules (jie,2008).Based on the theory that while learning a second language , learners build up a system for themselves which is different in some ways from their first language and second language systems. The system which the learners build up for themselves has been called interlanguage. According to Adjemian (1976) interlanguages consist of a set of linguistic rules which can generate novel utterances. He clamied about the structure of interlanguages can be derived from grammatical theory; and like natural language, interlanguages can be idealized to make them amenable to
linguistic analysis.He added that the universal generalizations that hold for the primary languages also hold for interlanguages. Eckman (1991) claimed that interlanguages are languages and, further, that proposed linguistic universals are fully universal, in the sense that they apply to non- primary as well as primary languages. Ellis (1990) maintains that interlanguage theory can provide an explanation for how both children and adults acquire a second language. According to Tarone,et al (1976) interlanguge productions have the following characteristics: a) Second Language speakers rarely conform to what one expects native speakers of the target language to produce , b) Interlanguage Productions are not an exact translation of native language utterances (i.e., first language interference does not play the primary role in the information of interlanguages), c) Utterances in the second language are not randomly produced, and d) Interlanguages are spoken either by adults or by children when second language acquisition is not simultaneous with that of the first language. Selinker (1972) used the term fossilization to refer to the tendency of many learners to stop developing their interlanguage grammar in the direction of the target language. He argued that interlanguage is a separate linguistic system resulting from the learner‟s attempted production of the target language norm; he identified five fossilization processes as follows: 1. Language Transfer: sometimes rules and subsystems of the interlanguage may result from transfer from the first language. 2. Transfer of Training: some elements of the interlanguage may result from specific features of the training process used to teach the second language. 3. Strategies of Second Language Learning: some elements of the interlanguage may result from a specific approach to the material to be learned. 4. Strategies of Second Language Communication: some elements of the interlanguage may result from specific ways people learn to communicate with native speakers of the target language. 5. Overgeneralization of the Target Language Linguistic Materials: some elements of the interlanguage may be the product of overgeneralization of the rules and semantic features of the target language.
Jie ( 2008) mentioned several important criticisms about interlanguage studies as follows: 1. “The concentration on morpho-syntactic development and the failure to deal with semantic development. Interlanguage study is mostly limited to the scope of morpheme and syntax. 2. The failure to define the concept clearly. Spolsky raised a problem with the notion of interlanlanguage which was the tendency to confuse a process with a competence model (Spolsky, 1989,p.33). Selinker seems to prefer a processing model in spite of his use of competence terminology. 3. The failure to develop effective approaches to facilitate empirical studies. The research methods of interlanguage study such as longitudinal and cross-sectional studies are technically inadequate in themselves”. V. CONCLUSIONTHEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1031 In summary, from what has been discussed above can be a positive learning experience in order to help the learners improve their language and use English flawlessly. All of the three theories can be considered as important factors in second language acquisition. In conclusion, it is important to bear in mind that assesses the contribution of the concept each of these three theories to our understanding of the process of second language acquisition. It is clear that the theories relevant to the issue of linguistic competence of English learner. In addition, the theories concentrate largely on the nature of the Learner‟s performance. Behaviorists believed that errors as a symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure. They also view it as being due largely to mother tongue interference that the teacher has failed to predict and allow for when errors do occur. They are to be remedied by a bombardment of correct forms. This bombardment is achieved by the use of intensive drilling or over teaching. However, for behaviorists, errors are wrong habits that can and should be eradicated while for some others are manifestation of “transitional competence". Corder (1973) called it as an "idiosyncratic dialect". Learner‟s errors are seen as an integral part of language learning which is used in teaching grammar, linguistics, psychology etc. Therefore, an integration of three schools is needed to deal with the complexities of second language
acquisition and provide empirical evidence for the improvement of teaching methodology, syllabus designs and teaching techniques in English language teaching classroom. REFERENCES [1] Adjemian, C. (1976). On the Nature of Interlanguage Systems. Language Learning, 26,297-320. [2] Boss, M. N. K. (2005). English Language Teaching (ELT) for Indian students. Chennai: New Century Book House. [3] Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmonds worth: penguin. [4] Culler, J.(1976). Saussure, Fontana: Collins. [5] Corder, S.P. (1974). Error Analysis, In Allen, J.L.P. and Corder, S.P. (1974). Techniques in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [6] Corder, S.P. (1976). The Significance of Learner‟s Errors. 1RAL, 5, 161170. [7] Corder, S.P. (1978). Simple Codes and the Source of the Second Language Learner‟s Initial Heuristic Hypothesis. Studies in Second Acquisition. 1, 1-10 [8] Doughty, C.J. and Long, M.H. (2003). The handbook of Second Language Acquisition. U.S.A: Black Well Publishing. [9] Dulay, H.C. Burt, M.K. and Kreshen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. [10] Eckman , F. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.13.23-41. [11] Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. UK: Basil Black Well. [12] Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford university press. [13] Els Van, T.etal. (1984) Applied Linguistics and The learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages. London: Edward Arnold. [14] Elsvan, T. Etal. (1984). Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages. Edward Arnold: London. [15] Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of Error Analysis to Foreign Language Teaching. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 2, 261-270. [16] Ferguson, C.A. ( 1965).General introduction to contrastive structural series. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. [17] Fisiak, J. (1981). Contrastive Linguistic and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Oxford Pergamon Press
[18] Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and Learning of English as a Foreign Language. Ann Avbor: University of Michigan Press. [19] Ghadessy, M. (1980). Implications of Error Analysis for Second/ Foreign Language Acquisition. IRAL. XVIII, 93-101. [20] Gorbet, F. (1979). To Err is Human: Error Analysis and Child Language Acquisition. Journal of ELT. XXXIV, 22-28. [21] James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. [22] Jie, X. (2008). Error Theories and Second Language Acquisition. USChina Foreign Language. 6, 35-42. [23] Khansir, A, A. (2008). Place of Error Analysis in Language Teaching. INDIAN LINGUSTICS.69,195-202. [24] Lado, R. (1957). Linguistic across Culture. Annrbor: University of Michigan Press. [25] Mackey , W. F. (1965) . Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman. [26] Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. IRAL. 9,115-123. [27] Nickel, G. (1971). Problems of Learner‟s Difficulties in Foreign Language Acquisition. IRAL. 9, 119-127. [28] Norish, J. ( 1983). Language Learners and their errors. London: Modern English Publications. [29] Oller,J. & Ziahosseiny,S. ( 1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning. 20. 183-189. [30] Richards, J.C. (1971). A Non- Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of ELT. 25, 204-219. [31] Richards, Et al. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Essex: Longman. [32] Schachter , J. (1974 ). An Error in Error- Analysis. Language Learning. 24.2, 205-214. [33] Schachter,J. and Mrianne,C, Murcia. (1977). Some Reservations Concerning Error Analysis. TESOL Quarterly.2.4,441-451. [34] Schmitt, N. and Celce- Murcia, M. (2002). An Overview of Applied Linguistics. In N. Schmitt (ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp.1-16). London: Arnold. [35] Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL. 10, 209-231. [36] Sharma, S. K. (1980). Practical and Theoretical Consideration involved in Error Analysis. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics. VI, 74-83. [37] Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[38] Tarone, E. el al. (1976). Systematicity/ Variability and Stability/ Instability in Interlanguage System. Papers in Second Language Acquisition: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Applied Linguistics. University of Michigan, Language Learning Special Issue 4.93-1341.THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1032 [39] Wardhaugh, R. (1970 ). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly.4. 120-130. Ali Akbar Khansir is an Assistant professor in English Language Teaching at the Bushehr University of Medical Sciences and Health Services in Iran. He has completed M.A. in English Language Teaching at the Aligarh Muslim University in 2003 and PhD in English Language Teaching at the Mysore University in 2010 in India. He has published some articles in the field of Applied Linguistics in Indian Journals of English Language Teaching and Linguistics and published a book of English Error Analysis in 2010 in Germany.
ER RO R AN ALYSI S Published 07/02/2013 | By RAS
QUESTION: Submitted by Imane Begag, Algeria How does error analysis explain the foreign language learners’ errors?
DR RICHARDS RESPONDS:
Some features of learner language The language learners produce when they are learning English reflects many different factors, such as their stage of grammatical development, the kind of communication they are engaged in, and the learner’s first language as well as the strategies the learner is making use of in communication. The result may be language that is sometimes inaccurate or inappropriate. Identifying the factors that contribute to the characteristics of learner discourse began in earnest with the field of error analysis in the 1970s, developing into what is referred to as second language acquisition today. The following processes
are often referred to, although it is not always possible to assign a feature of learner English unambiguously to a specific cause. Language transfer Transfer is the effect of one language on the learning of another. Positive transfer occurs when both the native language and English have the same form or linguistic feature. It makes learning easier and does not result in errors. Both French and English have the word table which means the same thing in both languages. Languages may share aspects of grammar such as some patterns of word order and the use of adverbs and these may allow for positive transfer. Negative transfer or interference is the use of a nativelanguage pattern or rule that leads to an error or inappropriate form in the target language. For example a French learner of English may produce I am here since Thursday instead of I have been here since Thursday because of the transfer of the French pattern Je suis ici depuis Jeudi and I like very much coffee instead of I like coffee very much transferring the pattern J’aime beaucoup le café. The following sentences show the result of transfer from Spanish: What understand the children? Can the director to speak with me now? Will not to watch TV the boys tonight? Learners with some language backgrounds such as German are likely to have relatively few difficulties learning how to use definite and indefinite articles in English because German has a similar article system to English. Japanese learners on the other hand find the English article system difficult because Japanese does not have a similar article system to English. An attempt to predict the linguistic difficulties of English by comparing the grammar of English with the grammar of other languages resulted in an activity known as contrastive analysis in the 1970s. Overgeneralization This process refers to extending the use of a form to an inappropriate context by analogy. This is a normal and natural process and both learners of English as a second language as well as children learning it as a first language often extend the use of grammatical rules to contexts where they do not occur, as in I breaked the vase. We goes to the beach. Other examples of overgeneralization are seen in the following: Under no circumstances we will accept these terms.
They didn’t like it; not I liked it. She was unhappy at the development: so I was. Now I see why did they behave like that. Sometimes overgeneralization may mean over-using a grammatical form such as the –ing form, as with these examples; I don’t know why people always talking me. Yesterday I didn’t working. A common form of overgeneralization is seen when learners attempt to make irregular verbs fit regular patterns, as with break above and also with cases such as seened (for saw), ated (for ate) , and wented (for went). Simplification This occurs when learners reduce a complex aspect of grammar to a much simpler set of rules and reflects a process that is used when messages need to be conveyed with limited language resources. For example instead of making the distinction between “he” and “she” the learner may use the masculine pronoun, or instead of distinguishing between first and third person in verbs (I like, She likes) the learner may use the first person rule for all persons (I like, He/ She like). Ortega notes that it is common in the early stages of language learning and particularly in naturalistic learning situations. Simplification of aspects of grammar such as questions tags occurs in some varieties of English. In colloquial Singapore English for example, one encounters: That was your sister, is it? You are from the States, is it? Underuse Sometimes learners may underuse a form they have studied and practiced many times. For example the learner may avoid using some constructions with if- (If I had known I would have told her about it) and use instead I didn’t know so I didn’t tell her, because it appears to them as more direct and easy to understand. Overuse: at other times a learner may become over-dependent on certain grammatically correct forms and use them in preference to other forms that might be known and available. For example the learner may become dependent on a phrase such as last time to refer to past events and use it when other ways of referring to past time could have been used:
I like Thai food. I tried it last time. I know her. We met last time. Fossilization Sometimes a learner’s grammatical development appears to have stopped at a certain level and recurring errors of both grammar and pronunciation have become permanent features of a learner’s speech. This is referred to as fossilization. Fossilization refers to the persistence of errors in a learner’s speech despite progress in other areas of language development. For example here are a few examples of fossilized errors in an adult fluent speaker of English who uses English regularly and effectively, though often with a high frequency of what we might regard as basic grammatical and other errors. I doesn’t understand what she wanted. He never ask me for help. Last night I watch TV till 2 am. She say she meeting me after work. Fossilized errors such as those above tend not to affect comprehension although they might be stigmatised due to the fact that they often reflect errors that are typical of very basic-level learners (such as omission of 3rdperson “s). Since fossilized errors do not generally trigger misunderstanding and hence do not prompt a clarification request from the listener, the learner may simple never notice them or be aware that they are there. The noticing hypothesis (see below) suggests that unless the speaker notices such errors, it is unlikely that he or she will correct them. When teachers begin to notice common features of learner language and features that appear to be fossilized. they need to decide, whether to address them or whether to accept them as evidence of learning.
