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. collecting samples of learner language

2. identifying the errors
3. describing the errors
4. explaining the errors
5. 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 co-
occurrence 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 non-
analogous (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 cross-
linguistic 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
f u n c t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r. F o r e x a m p l e , i n d e s c r i b i n g 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 h e s en t e n 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 w i t h o b j e 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 a n d
t e x t m a t e r i a l s . I w i 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 i v 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 x t e n s i v 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 grammar
, 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 intra-
andi 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 y n t a x , b u t ( t o m i x m e t ap h o r s) l e a v i n g en t i r 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 error-
based 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 Celce-
Murcia (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 m e 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. " T h e n o t i o n o f " e r r o r, " h e a rg u e d , i s a
f u n c t i o n of 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 m p or 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 b y 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 development, although it is not. ..that 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 s y s t e m s c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e l e a r n e r i n t h e pr o
c e s s of 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 "cross-
associations" 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: ahmad_2004_bu@yahoo.com
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 psycho-
linguist 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, 161-
170.
[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. US-
China 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 native-
language 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.