ERROR ANALYSIS

saw its heyday in the 1970s. It is an approach to understanding second language

acquisition (SLA) which consists of compiling a corpus of L2 learner deviations from the
target second language norms – the ‘errors’ learners make – classifying these errors by
type and hypothesizing possible sources for the errors.In the history of SLA research,
error analysis was a phase of enquiry which followed on from contrastive analysis.
Contrastive analysis had been interested in comparing two linguistic systems – the
learner's L1 and the target L2 – with a view to determining structural similarities and
differences. The view of SLA which underpinned contrastive analysis was that L2
learners transfer the habits of their L1 into the L2. Where the L1 and the L2 were the
same, the learner would transfer appropriate properties and be successful: a case of
positive transfer. Where the L1 and the L2 differed, the learner would transfer
inappropriate properties and learner errors would result: a case of negative transfer. This
was the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Errors on this account were predicted to occur
entirely at points of divergence between the L1 and the L2.The Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis lost favour with many researchers during the 1960s as the result of (a) a
growing scepticism about the plausibility of a behaviourist (i.e. habit formation) account
of language acquisition; and (b

Attitudes towards learner errors have changed considerably in recent decades.

Approaches based on behaviourist principles (particularly audiolingualism) advocate the
initial avoidance of errors, and their diligent correction should they occur. More recent
attitudes have displayed more tolerance; advocates of communicative language teaching,
for example, recognize the need for fluency practice, and this may lead to occasions when
errors are allowed to pass uncorrected, though perhaps only temporarily. Others point out
that in L1 acquisition mistakes often go uncorrected, yet are eventually eradicated; error
correction in this situation appears to be unnecessary, and to have little effect.Error
correction is a form of feedback, and there is a wide literature on the general topic of
feedback (see Annett, 1969, for example). In recent decades the topic has attracted much
attention in the language teaching field. Questions regarding the effectiveness of error
correction techniques, particularly entailing comparisons of various techniques, involve
great difficulties of research methodology, and the result is that in this area there tend to
be more expressions of opinion than of fact.Chaudron (1988) identifies a series of
questions that research has addressed: should errors be corrected? If so, when? Which
errors? How should they be corrected, and by whom? Learner and teacher attitudes ... log
in or subscribe to read full text

ERROR Evaluation
studies look at the effect of errors on addressees, rather than primarily on what role they
play for the learner. Ludwig (1982) surveys twelve such studies undertaken in the 1970s
and early 1980s, and Ellis (1994: 64) contains a useful table summarizing selected
papers. The term ‘error gravity studies’ is used to describe papers focusing on addressee
judgements about error seriousness.One common concern of error evaluation studies is
the nature of the criteria used to evaluate errors. Chief among criteria traditionally used is
what Ludwig (1982: 277) calls ‘acceptability’, defined as ‘the degree to which a given L2
violates language norms’. Hughes and Lascaratou (1982) mention a related criterion
which they call ‘basicness’, involving judgements that particular rules are somehow
‘more fundamental’ than others. This criterion is often likely (as Johansson, 1973, notes)
to relate to syllabus concerns; teachers understandably regard as serious errors in areas
which have been taught rather than in those that have not. Frequency of error occurrence
is a further criterion traditionally used.Many error evaluation studies may be seen as a
reaction to the use of such traditional criteria, born of a growing desire evident in all
areas of language teaching in the 1970s to give increasing attention to comprehensibility
as opposed to formal correctness. Johansson's (1973) early study well illustrates ... log in
error mistake lapse

oThese terms are associated with Corder. In various papers (e.g. 1967) the distinction is
drawn between errors on the one hand and mistakes or lapses on the other. An error is a
breach of the language's code, resulting in an unacceptable utterance; with L2 learners
this might occur because ‘the learners have not yet internalized the formation rules of the
code’ (1973: 259). Mistakes or lapses are ‘the result of some failure of performance’
(1967: 18). They occur when the language user (who might be a native speaker) makes a
slip such as a false start or a confusion of structure. Corder's (1973) example is ‘that's a
question which, if you were to press me, I wouldn't know how to answer it.’ (See
competence/performance.)The above use of these terms is the generally accepted one,
though Corder (1973) draws the distinctions differently. There he uses ‘error’ as above,
but distinguishes between ‘lapses’ (the performance failures above) and ‘mistakes’ which
are seen as the result of inappropriate usage; in a naval context, for example, a ‘ship’
might be referred to mistakenly as a ‘boat’. This usage has not become common.Johnson
(1988) regards it important to distinguish L2 mistakes from errors, suggesting that
different remedial action will be appropriate for each; to treat mistakes as if they were
errors is, he argues, unhelpful (see error analysis). (1967). The significance of learners' ...