Feb. 2007, Volume 4, No.2 (Serial No.

38) Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072, US A

Errors in Language Learning

ZHA Ye-juan, HONG Yi-ming*

(Foreign Language Department，Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310015, China)

Abstract: Researchers have realized the importance of focusing on learners’errors. Then, as teachers, how
should we treat students’errors in their second language acquisition? This essay attempts to overview the
background theories about learners’errors, especially those committed in the process of second language
acquisition, and more importantly, to give some suggestions on how to deal with students’errors in the process of
second language acquisition.
Key words: second language acquisition; learners’errors

1. Introduction

As a famous saying goes, “To err is human.”In the process of language development, this is also the case.
When the utterances produced by learners are examined and compared with target language norms, they are often
found to be full of errors. The first part of this essay attempts to overview the background theories about learners’
errors, especially those committed in the process of second language acquisition.
There is also another saying that “A fall into the fit, a gain in one’s wit.”Since it is inevitable that learners
commit errors in the process of acquisition, as teachers, we should try to enable students to benefit from various
forms of feedback on those errors so that they do not commit them repeatedly and continuously. But it doesn’t
mean that every error ought to be pointed out and corrected. Therefore the latter part of this article is to deal with
classroom application: how to deal with students’errors in the process of second language acquisition.

2. Background Theories

There has long been an agreement among language researchers and teachers that learners unavoidably make
errors during the process of both first and second language learning. And many researchers have attached great
importance to learners’errors. Ellis, R. (1997: 15) once listed several good reasons for focusing on errors:
“First, they are a conspicuous feature of learner language, raising the important question of ‘Why do learners
make errors?’Second, it is useful for teachers to know what errors learners make. Third paradoxically, it is
possible that making errors may actually help learners to learn when they self-correct the errors they make.”
After reviewing the history of studies of first language acquisition, it turns out to me that attitudes about
learners’errors have changed a great deal. Littlewood, W. (1998) points out that after the 1950s , a child’s speech is
no longer seen as just a faulty version of the adult’
s. Instead, it is recognized as having its own underlying system
which can be described in its own terms, and later the system develops towards that of adults.
Attitudes towards second language learners’speech have evolved in a very similar way.

ZHA Ye-juan (1979- ), female, Master of Education, teaching assistant of Foreign Language Department, Zhejiang University City
College ; research field: ELT.
HONG Yi-ming (1979- ), male, M.A., teaching assistant of Foreign Language Department, Zhejiang University City College;
research field: ELT.

34
 Errors in Language Learning

Researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted contrastive analyses (CA), systematically comparing two
languages. According to Nunan, D. (2001: 89), Proponents of CA assumed that “where L1 and L2 rules are in
conflict, errors are likely to occur which are the result of interference between the two languages.”
However, a major shift in perspective occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Nunan (2001: 88) believed that
“linguists and language educators began studying the specific language learners used as they attempted to
communicate in the target language”and that “errors were seen not as evidence of pathology on the part of
learners, but as a normal and healthy part of the learning process.”Also Nunan told us that the subsequent study of
learners’errors revealed that learners made errors that were not predicted by the CA hypothesis and that the errors
made by learners were systematic, rather than random. And also Ellis, R. (1994) stated that, at that time EA (Error
Analysis) supplanted CA, for EA provided a methodology for investigating learner language rather than look at
only the learner ’s native language and the target language.
As a result, as is proved by Littlewood, W. , many researchers began to realize that “learners’errors need not
be seen as signs of failure. On the contrary they are the clearest evidence for the learner’s developing
systems”(1998: 22). And although Corder (1967) had long before maintained that by classifying the learners
errors, researchers could learn a great deal about the SLA process (cited in Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H.,
1991), still we have to admit that the sources of errors are too complicated and diverse to be classified easily.
According to Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991), certain errors are caused by the learners’failure to
observe the boundaries of a rule, which are classified as overgeneralization. Other errors are attributed to
simplification or redundancy. Still others are labeled communication-based errors, and induced errors.
Flick (1979) reported to identify clusters of errors in the speech elicited from 20 adult Spanish learners of L2
English by means of an oral translation task. He listed many factors, saying that transfer accounted for 34 percent
of the variance in the scores, performance for 23 percent, simplifications of function words for 17 percent,
overgeneralization for 16 per cent, and pronominal reference for 11 percent (cited in Ellis, R., 1994).
When mentioning transfer and overgeneralization, Littlewood, W. (1998) stated that overgeneralization is
learners’pervious knowledge of the second language that the learner use; while in the case of transfer, the learner
uses his previous mother tongue experience as a means of organizing the second language data. Yet in Brown, H.
D.’s opinion, transfer is “a general term describing the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to
subsequent learning”, while overgeneralization is “the incorrect application— negative transfer— of previously
learned second language material to a present second language context”(2000: 94-97).
Despite all these differences, by and large, one thing is clear: SL learners unavoidably make errors during the
process of language acquisition, some of which are due to transferring rules from the mother tongue, and others
only show that they are processing the second language in their own ways.

3. Application to Classroom Practice

Researchers have realized the importance of focusing on learners’errors. Then, as teachers, how should we
treat students’errors in their second language acquisition?
(1) Avoid continuously blaming students for their errors
In the mid-twentieth century, under the influence of behaviorists’learning theory, errors were often viewed as
the result of bad habits. If this were the truth, it would be wise for teachers to give as much rote learning and
pattern drilling as possible, and it would also be reasonable to blame students for their errors, since their laziness

35
 Errors in Language Learning

or carelessness had to be responsible for those errors.

Yet now that we have known committing errors is a natural part in second language acquisition, and even the
most careful and diligent students can not escape from making mistakes, how can we teachers have the reasons to
blame and criticize students for their errors? It is true that some of these errors and mistakes are the result of
carelessness or lack of concentration on the part of learners, but many other errors are not, and even if all of them
were, it does not follow that if learners try harder to avoid teachers’blame, their productions would be exactly in
agreement with what teachers have taught, free from all kinds of errors.
If students are always blamed for making mistakes, their success would often be impeded because they will
have to spend their energy avoiding mistakes rather tan focusing on learning. And what’s more, too much blame
does harm to the relationship between teachers and students, too much blame hurts students’proper pride, too
much blame makes learning unpleasant, and from the psychological perspective, too much blame may lead to
students’inferiority complex or even antagonistic psychology, which would all be disastrous for the process of
language learning.
(2) Necessary amount of correction
Brown, H. D. (2000) pointed out that just like first language learning, second language learning is a process
of trial and error. By carefully processing feedback from others, learners slowly but surely learn to produce what
is acceptable speech.
Some teachers, in order to avoid discouraging students, always let errors go uncorrected, and to indicate
understanding when understanding may not have occurred. But unfortunately, their goodwill may result in the
reinforcement of the learners’errors and even the persistence, and perhaps the eventual fossilization, of such
errors. Then, correcting would be far harder, if not impossible. And the influence may even reach other students,
for if they regard an un-corrected mistake to be true, they will employ it themselves.
And in the way of students’reaction, when they see their errors uncorrected, they may regard their teachers
as careless or even irresponsible. And since the teachers seem to pay no attention to their performance, why
should they work so hard and perform so cautiously?
In conclusion, necessary amount of correction is indispensable for teachers to improve students’language
performance.
(3) Differentiate students’errors and treat them accordingly
Although it is teachers’responsibility to correct students’errors and mistakes to help learners do their best in
the process of language learning, over-correction should be avoided. Just as is said by Lightbrown, P. M. and
Spada, N. (1999), excessive feedback on errors can have a negative effect on motivation. And Jeremy Harmer
(1998/2000: 84), when talking about correcting students’writing, stated that even when we find the pieces of
written work completely full of mistakes, “over-correction can have a very demotivating effect”, for a piece of
returned written work covered in red ink, underlines and crossings-out is “a powerful visual statement of the fact
that their written English is terrible.”
Since this is the case, teachers have to treat students sensitively and sympathetically in the meanwhile of
being accurate and truthful. Thus it is necessary to differentiate students’errors and correct only some kinds of
them.
It turns out that some errors are more likely to lead to failure of being understood, and some others do not
interfere with the process of communication. Obviously, the former ones can be considered more serious than
others and teachers will want to focus their attention on these.

36
 Errors in Language Learning

And Lightbrown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999) told us that when errors are persistent, especially when they are
shared by almost all students in a class, it is useful for teachers to bring the problem to the students’attention.
While on the other hand, if the error is based on a developmental pattern, the correction may only be useful when
the learner is ready for it.
Therefore, for different kinds of errors, we should treat differently.
(4) Give students more confidence by telling them the nature of errors
Lots of language learners are afraid of committing errors, which may ultimately lead to their shutting off
their attempts to communicate voluntarily, or even their attempts to learn the language. One of the important
factors for this phenomenon is that their errors discourage, frustrate them and even frighten them: since so much is
wrong and it is so hard to avoid errors, where is the hope of mastering the language? And since we are not clever
enough or not young enough to learn a language well, why bother continuing learning?
Theories about second language acquisition have shown us the nature of errors, but many students are
unaware of it. It is highly advisable that they should be informed of the fact that committing errors is a natural part
of language learning process, and everyone, man or woman, young or old, smart or ordinary, has to commit errors
while learning a language. Those successful learners, without exception, go through the process of committing
errors frequently, making improvements through considerable efforts, and after a long period of time, only
committing errors occasionally.
Thus, by giving students hope and confidence, teachers can help students to continue their study, and work
even harder than ever before.
(5) Generalize or summarize common errors and remind students to avoid them
Since researches have reflected that learners’errors were systematic, rather than random, and many learners
tend to commit the same kinds of errors during a certain stage of language learning, we teachers might as well
generalize and summarize these frequently appearing errors, and remind students of these errors as often as
possible, so that they would make greater efforts to avoid them. Hopefully, repeated warnings of certain mistakes
beforehand will even eliminate the chances of committing some of these errors.
For instance, through the author’ s teaching experience, it is found that many students use the word
“unfortune”instead of “misfortune”, after being taught that the antonym of “fortunate”is “unfortunate”. Here, the
error occurs as a result of overgeneralization. After noticing this error, when the next groups of students come,
they were told the different use of prefix in this context immediately after they come across “fortunate”and
“unfortunate”, and what is more, more similar examples are given (such as “comfortable”versus “uncomfortable”,
while “comfort”versus “discomfort”) so that this kind of mistakes are largely decreased due to students’extra
attention.
(6) Avoid contributing to students’errors
Everyone makes errors or mistakes, neither consciously or unconsciously, in using a language, including
teachers. Unfortunately, when students commit errors, teachers’help and correction are, more often than not,
available, but when teachers commit errors, there is often no one in the classroom to turn to. And what is worse,
the provided incorrect information may also become students’input, and lead to students’making the same
mistakes.
Here I mean much more than teachers’making grammatical mistakes. Misleading definitions, words or
grammatical generalization are not uncommon errors of teachers.
Take my own experiences as an example. When I was learning grammar points about past tense, I was told

37
 Errors in Language Learning

by my teacher that past tense is used only on occasions happened in the past. Then, when I later came across a
sentence in a reference book that “it is high time you went to school”, I judged it as a totally ungrammatical
sentences without hesitation. And even after I consulted the key and was informed that the sentence was right, I
still persisted in my own judgment and regarded the key to be wrong. If only the teacher had told me that
exceptions do exist! It turned out to take me quite a long time to realize the truth, and I came to a conclusion that
what the teacher says is not always true.
So we should be aware of the fact that if we don’t pay enough attention to our own performance, we teachers
would also contribute to students’errors and mistakes.

4. Conclusion

Various studies have showed that errors are a natural part of language learning. This is true of the
development of a child’s first language as well as of second language learning by both children and adults. To help
students to learn a language more smoothly, teachers should not only be clear about this truth, but also apply it to
their teaching practice. The author ’
s suggestion is that we avoid always blaming and criticizing students for their
errors, and rather, we should make full use of these errors and treat students’errors in an appropriate way.

References:
Brown, H.D.. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching[M]. 4th ed. White Plains, New York: Longman.
Ellis, R.. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R.. 1997. Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harmer J.. 2000. How to Teach English[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (Original work published
in 1998).
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H.. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research[M]. London: Longman.
Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N.. 1999. How Languages Are Learned[M]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W.. 1998. Foreign and Second Language Learning[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D.. 2001. Second Language Acquisition//Carter, R. & Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87-92.

(Edited by Doris, Wendy and Jessica)

38