Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learning PDF

CHAPTER FOUR ============ ((Sources of Errors)) --------------------- Traditionally, contrastive analysis classified errors of foreign language learners into categories. The aim was to meet the practical needs of foreign language teaching. However, such accounts and categories of errors did not pr...

CHAPTER FOUR ============ ((Sources of Errors)) --------------------- Traditionally, contrastive analysis classified errors of foreign language learners into categories. The aim was to meet the practical needs of foreign language teaching. However, such accounts and categories of errors did not provide any information on causes or sources of errors. Therefore, in the contrastive analysis tradition the causes of errors were not taken into account. The errors in this tradition were simply attributed to interference of the learner\'s native language with the target language learning. As a result, the psychological reasons behind errors remained unexplained. In other words, contrastive analysis did not answer the following two important questions about errors: Why learners commit errors? What are the underlying cognitive strategies and styles behind certain errors? A more sophisticated approach to the study of errors made by foreign language learners is presented here. This approach aims at determining the sources of errors: what causes errors. In contrast to the traditional contrastive analysis that saw interference of mother tongue as the sole and main source. of foreign/second language learning errors, error analysis does not consider interference as the only cause of errors. although it acknowledges interference as one of the error sources. One of the major contributions of error analysis is that it recognizes the sources of errors and now it is clear that interlingual and developmental errors play an important role in second language learning. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, many empirical studies emerged and they lead to the realization of many kind errors. It was found that limitations of certain strategies in learning the rules of the target language lead in errors. Such errors are caused by wrong application of certain learning strategies. In other words, the sources of these errors were not to be sought in the learner\'s mother tongue. Surprisingly, the sources of these errors were discovered to be in the structure of the target language itself as well as in certain teaching techniques used. T types of errors are known as interlingual and developmental errors. **Corder** classifies errors according to their sources and recognizes three categories or error types: 1. **Interlingual** **errors**: these are caused by the first language interference with the learning of the target language. 2. **Intralingual** **errors**: the reason behind these errors is the **generalization and overgeneralization** of certain target language rules. Here, the learner masters a target language rule and extends the application of the rule be what the rule makes for. 3. **Errors resulting from faulty teaching techniques:** the source of these errors is the techniques used by the teacher to teach certain rules, vocabulary items or grammatical structures. Careless use of appropriate techniques may also cause such errors. Another categorization of errors by their sources is the one by Dylan and Burt. They prefer to use the term goofs Instead of errors. So \'**goofs\'** simply means errors. Here are their categories: 1. **Interference-like Goofs**: Errors that reflect the learner\'s native language structure and are not found i language acquisition.\" 2. **First Language Developmental Goofs:** These errors do not reflect the learner\'s first language structure and are found in both first language and second language acquisition. 3. **Ambiguous Goofs:** these errors or goofs can be either interference-like goofs or first language developmental goofs. 4. **Unique Goofs:** these goofs do not reflect the structure of the learner\'s first language and they are not found in the acquisition of the target language as a first language (i.e. the native speakers of the target language do not make such errors when they are learning it). Error Sources**: (1) Interlingual; (2) Interlingual and Developmental; (3) Transfer of Training; (4) Language Learning strategies and (5) Communicative Strategies**. Each of these categories are explained below along with their sub-categories. ### 1- Interlingual Errors: These errors are further divided to: - Transfer of Phonological elements of the mother tongue - Transfer of morphological elements of the mother tongue - Transfer of grammatical structures of the mother tongue - Transfer of lexico-semantic structures of the mother tongue (further divided into cross association and false cognates) - Transfer of stylistic and cultural elements Interlingual errors result from transfer of learner\'s native language elements to target language learning. These elements may be at different linguistic levels: **1-1-Transfer of Phonological elements of the mother tongue:** This is an obvious case of mother tongue interference with target language learning. These errors involve the transfer of pronunciation features of the learner\'s native language to the target language sound system. In other words, the elements in the target language, say a word or morpheme, are pronounced according to the learner\'s first language pronunciation. **1-2-Transfer of morphological elements of the mother tongue:** The learner transfers morphological elements and rules from his native language to the target language learning. For example, in Persian it is the agreement of nouns and quantifiers in terms of number is not necessary. As a result, when á Persian speaker tries to learn English as a second/foreign language, he may omit the plural morpheme in the English. **1-3-Transfer of grammatical structures of the mother tongue;** The grammatical features are transferred to the target language learning. For example, in Persian the same tense forms are used for a particular purpose however in English different tenses are used for each use. Thus, the Persian learner of English as a foreign language uses the tenses interchangeably. As another example, in Persian auxiliary verbs are not necessary to change a sentence to interrogative (question) form. The learners of English, then, omit auxiliary verbs when they make a question. **1-4- Transfer of lexico-semantic structures of the mother tongue (further divided into cross association and alse cognates):** - **Cross association** occurs when two words in the target language are expressed using only one word. The learners uses the same word for both uses. - **False cognates** (Newmark calls this False Friends) are another source of lexical errors. The learner incorrect target language simply because it is phonologically similar to a word in his mother tongue. Cognates similar in form but not in meaning. **1-5-Transfer of stylistic and cultural elements:** Certain elements of learner\'s native style or culture are transferred to target language learning. For Persian plural form of verbs and pronouns are used to address someone respectfully (usually in formal situ Te This is not the same in English. Therefore a Persian learner of English may produce the following sentence: He are a good instructor. As another example, titles in Persian are used before titles of professions. The learner may produce: Mr. Doctor or Mr. Teacher! ### 2- Interlingual and Developmental Errors: The errors in this category are divided into: overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restriction, false analogy hyperextension, hypercorrection and faulty categorization. The cause of these errors is mutual interference of the target language items. That is the influence of on target language item upon another. This type of errors reflects that the learner is competent at a particular stage of second language learning as well as some general characteristics of language learning. These errors are similar to the errors a monolingual learner (a child learning his mother tongue) makes when they are learning their first language. The learner tries to build concepts and hypothesis about the target language based on limited experience and exposure to the target language. 2-1-**Overgeneralization**: the learner has limited exposure to the target language with relatively little knowledge of target structures. Thus, he produces structures which are deviant from the target language grammar. In other words the learners overgeneralize the limited knowledge to create new utterances. **2-2-Ignorance of Rule Restrictions:** The learner ignores the expectations and restrictions of a general target language rule. That is to say, the learner fails to observe the restriction to a target language structure. The difference between this sub-type of interlingual and developmental errors with overgeneralization is that in the former the learner simply is not aware of the restriction. **2-3-False Analogy:** The learner uses certain elements that are not appropriate for the context based on a comparison and analogy with other similar uses of the elements. The learner masters certain target language elements and tries to use them in other contexts that are not appropriate for those elements. This is very similar to overgeneralization and may be considered as a sub-type of overgeneralization. False analogies suggest that learner makes false hypotheses about the target language structure on based on his l exposure to the target language. The most salient errors in this type are the misuse of prepositions and articles. **2-4-Hyperextension:** The learner extends a rule to areas where the rule is not applicable. The learner goes beyond what he knows about the target language and talks about events and things while he lacks the necessary correct vocabulary items or grammatical patterns. **2-5- Hypercorrection:** This error type takes place when the speakers of a non-standard variety try to speak the standard variety but they! far in appropriateness and correctness. As a result, they produce a version that does not appear in the standard variety. It is also used in second language learning to refer to the erroneous forms of the target language produced b learners as the result of their attempts to make corrections. This is usually the by-product of overcorrection over emphasis on prescriptive rules. **2-6-Faulty Categorization:** These errors occur due to incorrect classification of the target language items by the learner. ### 3- Transfer of Training The course design and the teaching techniques used in the classroom by teachers may induce errors in language learners. These teacher-induced errors are the result of a transfer of the way teacher has taught a say, vocabulary item. Teachers may inadvertently mislead students through the way they explain different components (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, sounds etc.) of the target language. Certain teaching techniques may also potentially lead to errors by learners. Examples of these techniques would be pattern drills, transformations exercises that are made up of utterances that interfere with each other. As the result of such interfering structures, errors may occur. ### 4- Language learning Strategies The errors in this category are the result of the strategies that learners use to deal with the learning of the target language[. Some of the examples are overgeneralization and transfer from mother tongue]. Generally, the leaner uses knowledge previously acquired, whether of his mother tongue or the target language, to handle the learning task present to him. [A subtype of these errors is simplification. Simplification is simply the reduction of the target language to simpler system]. In other words, the learner reduces an aspect of the target language to a simpler form to make the learning task easier. This strategy aims at reducing learning difficulty involved in learning target language. This strategy is not only used by bilingual language learners (those who are learning a second/foreign language) but by monolingual children learning their first language. When a child learning his mother tongue produces telegraphic speech he is in fact using simplification strategy. [Simplification is sometimes also called \"redundancy reduction\". The reason is that through this strategy, many items that are redundant in conveying the intended message are eliminated.] ### 5- Communication Strategies When learners, with limited linguistic resources available to them, have to express themselves, they use some strategies to get their message through. These strategies are called communicative strategies since they are used to communicate while there are not sufficient language knowledge and resources. available to the learners. In other words, communicative strategies can be seen as the strategies used by learners to bridge the gap between the communicative needs, on one hand, and the learner\'s limited knowledge of the target language on the other. However, in since the linguistic knowledge is limited, the context-inappropriate elements of the target language are used to.. communicate. This means that the learner wants to communicate but at the expense of grammatical accuracy. When the learner attempts to communicate, he has to compensate lack of grammatical knowledge or vocabulary items by paraphrasing, using mime and gesture or even borrowing some words from his first language. The subtypes or more specific strategies used by learners are as follows: **Tarone** proposes a classification of communicative strategies: I. **Paraphrase:** 1**) Approximation:** is the use of a single target language vocabulary item or structure that, the learner knows are incorrect. However, these incorrect forms share features in common with the desired item and these common features are enough to satisfy the communicative needs. 2\) **Word Change**: the learners make a word to communicate a concept. 3**) Circumlocution:** the learner describes the characteristics or elements of an object or concept instead of using the target language vocabulary item or structure. II. **Borrowing:** the learner borrows some words from his native language to communicate the intended message. This is done in two ways: **(1) literal translation**: a word-for-word translation from the native language to the target language and **(2) language switch:** the learner uses a form in his native language without bothering to translate it to the target language. III. **Appeal for Assistance:** the learner simply asks the other party to the communication for the correct form. IV. **Mime:** the use of non-verbal means of communication (gesture, mime, body language, facial expression, etc) instead of lexical items or other forms of the target language. V. **Avoidance**: the learner simply avoids talking about a topic or communicating a message. The former is called topic avoidance where the learner tries not to talk about concepts for which he doesn\'t know the target language structures and/or vocabulary items. The latter is called message abandonment. In the latter case the learner starts to talk about a concept but is unable to continue and stops in the middle of utterance. The above mentioned categories by Tarone form a good basis for further investigations on communication strategies. Brown also proposes some broad categories of communicative strategies. These are explained below: 1. **Avoidance**: a very common communicative strategy used by second/foreign language learners. This strategy is used to avoid more complex and hence more difficult target language forms. In fact, the learner is not sure of the correctness or appropriateness of the target language structures/lexical items. As a result, the learner avoids taking risks and uses easier-to-produce items to avoid errors. Avoidance may be lexical or syntactic. A more direct type of avoidance occurs when a whole topic of conversation is abandoned or avoided. In order to do this the learner may resort to devising new methods[: 1) changing the subject, 2) pretending not to understand, 3) not responding at all and 4) abandoning the message noticeably]. These methods are used when a thought, idea or concept is too difficult for the learner to express in the target language. 2. **Prefabricated** **Patterns**: the learner memorizes some stock sentences and phrases but he lacks the internalized knowledge of the constituents of the phrase. For example, those who go to foreign countries and use tourist survival language, may memorize and use many prefabricated patterns but they don\'t know the grammatical structure of those sentences and phrases. As another example, learners at the early stages of their language learning use prefabricated patterns to communicate. In any case, these patterns are memorized to be used in appropriate contexts. However, it is quite likely that the learner uses such prefabricated patterns in similar yet inappropriate contexts due to insufficient knowledge of the target language. 3. **Appeal to Authority**: one of the most common strategies the learners use to communicate in the target language is direct appeal to authority. That is, the learners directly ask the teacher/native speaker of the target language for the correct or appropriate vocabulary item or structure. This strategy is often used when the structure necessary for a particular context is not known. The learners may also use this strategy to verify a guess about the correctness of a target language form by asking the native speaker. Appeal to authority is also used to refer to when a learner simply looks up the unknown item in a bilingual dictionary. 4. **Language** **Switch**: this strategy is often used as the last resort. Here the learner simply uses his first language to communicate a concept for which the word or structure is unknown regardless whether or not hearer knows the learner\'s first language. Sometimes the learner uses only a few words hoping that the hearer will get the gist. At other times, larger stretches of language maybe used by learner in his native language. In cases, the communication context along with universal and non-verbal means of expression enables the learner to communicative an idea in his native language to someone who is totally unfamiliar with the learner\'s native language. The reason lies in the universality of human experience. That is, all human beings seems to experience the outside world in relatively similar ways no matter what culture they\'re from or what language they have. It should be noted that errors resulting from communicative strategies are characteristics of spoken language and they hardly ever occur in written language produced by learners. **CHAPTER ONE** **((**Introduction **))** **For a long time, errors committed by second language learners has been an area of interest for language teachers, linguists and psycholinguists as well as a source of hot debates among both researchers and practitioners. To investigate second language learners\' errors, there have been two main approaches:** **(1) Contrastive Analysis (CA) and (2) Error Analysis** Contrastive Analysis **A Glimpse of CA History** **With the outbreak of the World War II, there was an increasing interest in foreign language teaching in many countries around the world, in particular the U.S. As a result of this interest, there were many attempts to provide effective materials for foreign language learning٫teaching. The aim of these attempts was mainly to construct pedagogical materials that could enable second language learners use a language accurately (without errors) in a relatively short time. As part of these attempts contrastive studies were carried out to provide the most effective materials for foreign language learning.** **In its early days, the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) advocated the claim that the most effective materials for foreign language learning can be created based on the results from contrastive studies. As a result, contrastive analysis became an important integral part of foreign language teaching for a long time. During this long time, many contrastive appeared with the pedagogical purpose of predicting the errors and difficulties of foreign language learners and eliminating such difficulties.** Historical Perspectives **Comparative studies and comparative linguistics has a long history. The aim has been to study and compare the development of different related languages at a certain stage of development. Three types of such studies can be recognized:** 1. ***Comparative Historical Linguistics*: compares languages, as used today to classify them based on the occurrence of certain features (e.g. structural similarities) no matter what history of development they have had. The aim is to clarify the similarities and differences between the languages being studied.** 2. Comparative Typological Linguistics: attempts at constructing typologies of languages based on the comparison carried out among them. 3. **Contrastive Studies: Compares two or more languages to determine both similarity and differences. This area has become known as Contrastive Analysis since the 1940s.** **Although Comparative Typological Linguistics and Contrastive Studies have different aims, they share two main elements: *(1) a comparative element (2) synchronous comparison (synchronic comparative linguistics)*** **In other words, in both comparative typological linguistics and contrastive analysis there is a common feature, or Tertium Comparitionis (TC), based on which the two languages are compared. As for the synchronous comparison, the languages are compared and studied at the same stage of development in time rather than diachronically.** Definition and Types of Contrastive Studies Contrastive Analysis, as defined by Fisiak (1878) is a sub-discipline of linguistics concerned with comparison, According to this vi two or more languages to determine both similarities and differences. There are two types of contrastive studies: (1) theoretical (2) applied. Theoretical Contrastive Analysis Theoretical contrastive studies provide exhaustive accounts of similarities and differences between the language being compared. They also provide adequate models for the comparison of the languages; they provide a basis for successful second٫ the comparison should be done and criteria for which elements are comparable. Further, Theoretical contrastive studies, are language independent. No direction is considered from either language to the other. The directi comparison is from a universal X element to both languages. Thus, it can be said that there is an implicit belief in language universals. Applied Contrastive Analysis Applied contrastive studies belong to the domain of applied linguistics. They use the theoretical contrastive studies as a basis to provide a framework for comparison of languages. Within this framework, the necessary information for different purposes are selected. These purposes may include language teaching, bilingual analyses as well as translation among others. This type of contrastive studies seeks to determine the realization of a universal x element in one language which is realized differently in another language. The main task of applied contrastive studies is to identify the areas in which there might be potential difficulties for language teaching (pedagogical contrastive analysis) and translation. Pedagogical Contrastive analysis and its Psychological Bases Pedagogical contrastive analysis aims at finding potential difficulties and errors in foreign language learning. It was an important part of foreign language teaching during the 1950s and the late 1960s. The underlying assumption the same as the behaviorist psychology and in particular, Skinner\'s view of learning. That is, first language acquisition is seen as essentially a process of habit formation which is acquired through repetition and consolid by reinforcement of the correct responses. This is the same view also known as operant conditioning which is used to teach animals behave in certain ways. Rather than an active mental process, behaviorists see language acquisition as a passive and mechanical process. One of the major views of both behaviorism and structural linguistics is that the language habits that are learned the childhood interfere with second language acquisition language habits. In other words, the old mother tongue habits influence the formation of new second language habits that are different from the learner\'s mother tongue habits. This view is the reflected in the fundamental assumption of pedagogical contrastive analysis: second a foreign language leaners transfer features of their first language to the utterances they produce in the second/foreign language. A seminal book that utterly states this assumption is Lado\'s \"Linguistics across Cultures\". He states that second language learners transfer the forms, meanings and the distribution of them in their mother tongue into the second language when they speak or write (production) as well as when they read or listen (perception). Based on the above-mentioned view structural linguists try to identify the areas in which there is potential difficulties for second language learners. The technique they adopt in order to do this and find solutions for the difficulties is contrastive analysis. The psychological basis of the CAH (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis) centers on the concept of transfer which can be either Positive Transfer or Negative transfer. Positive transfer, is said to occur when old language habits (je. mother tongue habits) helps to the formation of a new language habit (for example a new target language word grammatical rules etc.). Thus, positive transfer has a facilitating role in second language learning. Negative transfer, on the other hand, is when old habits complicates or impedes the formation of a new habit and makes the learning of the new habit (second language habit) more difficult. According to this view, transfer depends on the similarities and differences between the two languages (the first language and the target (second) language). Lado believes that those second language elements that are similar to the learner\'s first language are easier to learn. The learners can positively transfer the similar elements to their second٫foreign language production. In contrast, the elements on second language that are different from the learner\'s first language are more difficult to learn. In this case, negative transfer occurs and makes learning the Bu second language difficult for the learner. Therefore, the behaviorists and structural linguists believe that the key to for successful second٫foreign language learning and teaching lies in the study of both similarities and differences tra between the learners\' mother tongue and the target language (the language being learned or taught). Pedagogical values of Contrastive Analysis As mentioned before, the period, after the World War II was the heyday of contrastive analysis. During this period, contrastive analysis formed the basis of most foreign language (particularly English) teaching in terms of both theory and practice. In this respect, contrastive analysis was uses a main criterion for preparing instructional materials for foreign٫second language teaching. This criterion was established by Fries. He held that to provide the most effective materials for foreign٫second language teaching, a scientific description should be provided on the target language as well as one such description of the learner\'s mother tongue. The most effective materials then is to be based upon a careful comparison of the two descriptions. Error equals Sin! Behavioristic and structural views of foreign٫second language learning saw errors as being like sins in that they were signs of deficiencies in learning and teaching. As a result, they held, every attempt should be made to prevent errors. This very negative view of second language learning errors is also stated by Skinner in another way. He argues that punishment can not reduce the probability of error reoccurrence and thus teachers must try to encourage the correct responses. In addition, restating the same negative view, Skinner holds that teachers should effectively reward the correct response rather than punish the errors. The same negative attitude toward errors is also reflected in the Audio-lingual method that was fashionable in the 1960s. In his \"Language and Language Learning\", Nelson Brooks compares errors to sins as both are to be avoided. This book, being the manifesto of the 1960s, calls for overcoming the influence of errors although admits that the presence of errors in second٫foreign language learning is expectable. Three Versions of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis As contrastive analysis has been subject to much debate and controversies, there is much disagreement among its proponents about the main principles of this field. There are different views about the basic principles of the contrastive analysis which are not shared among all CA theoreticians and practitioners. This has lead to three versions of the contrastive analysis hypotheses (CAH) to emerge: (1) the Strong Version; (2) the Weak Version; and (3) the Moderate Version. - The Strong Version: Focuses on first language interference with learning a second language as the orily and. most important cause of errors and strongly claims to predict difficulties and errors of the second language learner. This version has its roots deep in behaviorism and structural linguistics. It holds that the main barrier. to learn a second language is the interference of Ll system with the L2 system. Negative transfer is seen as an important barrier interfering with learning a second٫foreign language. In \"linguistics across cultures\" Lado makes one of the strongest claims of contrastive analysis: through a systematic comparison of the target language culture and the learner\'s mother tongue culture, contrastive analysis can predict and describe those patterns that cause difficulty and those that do not. Another claim by Banathy, Trager and Waddle is strong as much as Lado\'s. They equate a foreign language learner\'s change of language behavior with differences between the structure of the learner\'s native language٫culture and the structure of the target language٫culture. Lee states the underlying assumption of the CAH. The main and only cause of difficulties and errors in foreign language learning is interference of the native language with the target language. These difficulties are mostly due to differences between the learner's source language and the target language. Thus, the greater difference between the two languages means more complex learning difficulties. He also holds that to predict the difficulties, results of comparison between the native and target languages is necessary. According to this assumption, the best materials for second/foreign language teaching must be found through comparing the languages. After this comparison is done, the similar and common features should be excluded, and what remain are only the differences between them established by CA. The differences are what to be taught and learned. The strong version of the CAH and the idea of predicting difficulties and learning difficulties caused by them had a great influence on language pedagogy for quite a long time. - The Weak Version: Tries to study errors only after the errors are committed by the learners and is more realistic and practicable than the strong version. The weak version uses the linguistic knowledge to explain the observed difficulties in second language learning. It starts with the evidence of linguistic interference actually occurred and uses it to explain similarities/differences between the systems of the learner's native language and the target language. In order to explain observed and occurred interference phenomena, reference is made to both native and second language systems. The weak version has diagnostic/explanatory claims while the strong version made predictive claims. Only after the errors are committed by the learners they are studied and explained based on a contrastive analysis of errors. The goal is to answer why the errors occurred. The weak version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis is more realistic than the strong version. However, it is still confined to linguistic interference and only accounts for errors caused by transfer. In other words, it recognizes the significance of interference across languages and holds that errors are caused by this phenomenon. Consequently, this version seeks to explain difficulties in second language learning a posteriori (after the errors are committed). This implies that interference exists and can be explained. - The Moderate Version: centers around the nature of Human learning and stimulus generalization. Oller and Ziahosseini (1970) proposed the moderate version of the CAH based on an analysis of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners' errors who came from different language backgrounds. The proponents of both strong and weak versions of the CAH were forced to abandon the unrealistic claims because of the shortcomings in both strong and weak hypotheses. Oller and Ziahosseini's study showed that spelling proved to be more difficult for learners with Roman-alphabet first language (e.g., Spanish, Germanic, and Slavic) than those learners from Roman-alphabet languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, and Semitic). According to the weak version, the Roman-alphabet learners are expected to perform better if their alphabet is similar to English alphabet and thus they can positively transfer the spelling system from their first language into the target language. However, it was not the case; the non-Roman-alphabet group outperformed the Roman-alphabet group. Oller and Ziahosseini proposed the moderate version of the CAH claiming that it has more explanatory power since it centers on the nature of human learning rather than a contrast between languages. The moderate version is the specialization of principles of stimulus generalization and states that categorization of abstract/concrete patterns according to perceived similarities/differences are the bases for learning. As a result, whenever the patterns are minimally different in form and meaning in one or more systems, confusion may result, and hence, learning becomes difficult. Oller and Ziahosseini proved that learning sound, sequence and patterns are most difficult to learn where more subtle distinctions are required between the two languages or in the target language system itself (the latter is called intra-system errors). In other words, when the differences are very small, the learner has to make a finer distinction and this is often more easily overlooked. In fact, interference is greater when the target language item to be learned are more similar to an existing item in the learner\'s native language than when a completely new item is to be learned. The reason is that gross and great differences are more salient and thus more easily perceived and stored in the learner\'s memory (i.e. they are more easily remembered). However, minimal differences are not always more difficult since they require making small distinctions on the part of the learner and can simply overlooked. This highlights the importance of intralingual errors (ie. errors within one language) as much as interlingual errors (errors caused by interference of the native language with the target language). Techniques and Procedures of CA The assumption that languages can be compared and contrasted is what contrastive analysis is essentially founded on. The means (methods and techniques) for such a comparison is provided by linguistics that leads to descriptive accounts of target language and native language. Thus, contrastive analysis is a branch of linguistics: an enterprise under the rubric of linguistics aimed at producing contrastive two-valued typologies. There are two main steps in carrying out contrastive analyses of two languages or subsystems of languages: (1) description; and (2) Comparison. All the three versions of CAH share these two steps but each account of the CAH may also have other features or steps. Whitman proposes one of such accounts in which contrastive analysis of two given languages proceeds in four steps: Step1-Description: in this step formal grammars are used to explicitly describe the two languages. Step2-Selection: certain forms٫structures are selected for the purpose of contrast Step3-Contrast: the relations of one language٫subsystems thereof are mapped to another Step 4-Prediction: errors٫ difficulties are predicted based on the accounts provided in steps 1 through 4. The step selection shows the investigator\'s assumption that whether consciously or unconsciously, affects what forms to be selected. Thus, selection rests upon the validity of a reference point. The prediction is made through a formulation of a hierarchy of difficulty which means a subjective application of psychological and linguistic theories. Therefore, contrastive analysis involved some degree of subjectivity which is in contrast to the scientific criterion that the behavioristic psychology set for scientific description. In order to meet the scientific criterion of scientific description, some of the proponents of the contrastive analysis hypothesis tried to formalize the prediction stage of CA through establishing a hierarchy of difficulty. One of such attempts is the hierarchy of difficulty proposed by Stockwell, Bowen and Martin (1965) which may be used by a teacher to predict relative difficulty of a second language aspect. Their proposed phonological hierarchy has 8 levels of difficulty and is based on transfer (positive, negative and zero) an optional٫obligatory choices of certain phonemes in the two languages. In addition, they also propose a 16-level hierarchy of difficulty for grammatical errors including structural correspondence and functional٫semantic correspondence. Prator took the essence of their hierarchy into 6 categories or levels of difficulty which is applicable to grammatical and phonological features of languages. The 6 levels are as follows: Level 0-Transfer: There is no difference and contrast between the two languages and learners can positively transfer a sound, structure or lexical item from their native language to the target language. Since there is no difference between the item existing in the native language and the second language item to be learned, this level is called zero transfer and no difficulty is involved. - Level 1- Coalescence: Two items in native language coalesce to one item in target language requiring the learne to overlook a distinction they are accustomed to. - Level 2-Underdifferentiation: An item existing in the native language is lacking in the target language. - Level 3-Reinterpretation: An item in the native language takes a new different shape or distribution in the targe language. The learner must reinterpret the use of the item. - Level 4-Overdifferentiation: A new item in the target language must be learned that is entirely different or ho very little similarity to the native language must be learned. - Level 5: Split. A native language item splits into a number of target language items. This requires the learner to make a new distinction. Split is the counterpart to coalescence. The above hierarchy of difficulty and Whitman's procedure (1970) for CA has shortcomings because subtle phonetic distinctions may be ignored. That is, the phonological environment and allophonic variants of phonemes may be overlooked. In addition, determining which category a particular contrast fits into is not always easy or even possible. Due to these shortcomings, some scholars later proposed the *markedness* *theory* to account for relative degrees of difficulty by means of a universal grammar. Markedness theory distinguishes members of a pair of items: one contains one or feature more than the unmarked one. The unmarked (natural) member has wider range of distribution than the marked one. Thus, learning the marked feature is more difficult judgment. This is perhaps the same problem with any linguistic analysis: the objectivity of the scientific methodology is still an allusion. CA and Linguistic Models Comparison of any given pair depends on description and the description is provided through applying linguistic theories and methods. Therefore, there is an inevitable relation between CA and linguistic theories. James (1989) defines this framework as consisting of three phases: 1\) CA adopts linguistic tactic of dividing up the concept of a language into 3 smaller and more manageable areas: phonology, grammar and lexis. 2\) CA Uses descriptive categories of linguistic unit, structure, class and system. 3\) CA uses the linguistic description under the same model of language. Bloomfield expounded (1933) structural linguistics and Harris (1963) elaborated on it in his article "Transformational Grammar". He claimed that this model could be used for comparative purposes. The task of structural and taxonomical CA was therefore to show the similarities/differences between languages in terms of form and distribution of comparative units. Generative transformational grammar criticized the above view of taxonomic contrastive analysis and taxonomic descriptive linguistics on the grounds that they were preoccupied with the surface structure of language rather than the deep structure. Three aspects of the transformational grammar models that had a profound influence on CA are: 1\. Universal base hypothesis 2\. Deep/surface structure distinction 3\. Rigorous and explicit description of linguistic phenomena Krzeszowski (1976-7) proposed another theoretical model for CA under the title of contrastive generative grammar. The difference of this model with structural models was that in structural models, each of the two languages or parts of them were involved in analysis (CA). These were analyzed independently first and then juxtaposed and compared. However, in contrastive generative grammar, the structures of L1 and L2 were generated from a common base and they were compared and contrasted during this generation process. This means that contrastive analysis has only one phase (a single-phase CA). According to Krzeszowski traditional (structural) contrastive analyses are conducted horizontally. That is, it is done through the dimensions necessarily involved in comparing one or more elements in L2 and vice versa. Thus, traditional CA must contain a set of motivating statements for the movement from a specific element in L1 to a specific element in L2. Further, any statements must be based on (1) semantic considerations associated with the notion of equivalent (Halliday, Catford, Krzezsowski) as well as on (2) structural considerations (e.g. syntax and phonology) associated with the of congruence. Since a particular linguistic theory is used to describe the two languages, the nature of the elements chosen for comparison strictly depends on that linguistic theory. Generally, the elements can be either *(1) a system (e.g. phonology, morpheme, non-finite clauses, syntax) or (2) a subsystem of the language (e.g. plosive sounds, personal pronouns).* Comparison is usually associated with adoption of structural theories as the foundation for the CA. it is also possible to contrast constructions in compared languages (e.g. passive, relative, nominal constructs). The latter can be done in almost all types of theoretical frameworks; that is, within any linguistic theory including the traditional grammar approach. Conducting traditional research into comparison of specific grammar rules in L1 and L2 is also possible. Therefore, horizontal CA is limited to three kinds of relationships. 1. The relationships existing between L1 and L2 systems 2. The relation between structures of the languages through successive stages of complication towards target 3. Transformational rules. Since these relations are language-specific, as James argues, one can never be sure to be comparing comparable elements. Classical CA implicitly admits that the in view it has resorted to there is potential incompatibility of system٫structure٫rules between languages and this incompatibility secures the independence prior to description. Corder argues that development of learners\' language into the target language involves universal process of complication. Further, as learners move from some basic language to a complication toward the TL, the process takes place along the vertical rather than horizontal dimensions. Therefore, Krzeszowski\'s process model is a vertical CA model. This process takes place when a baby learns a language. Krzeszowski hypothesized that the same vertical dimension of movement is involved in second language acquisition even though it may be distorted by other processes (including horizontal ones). Two defining characteristics of Krzeszowski\'s model are: 1\. Unlike traditional CA that used two monolinguistic grammars, it\'s based on a bilingual grammar. According to James, Krzeszowski tries to justify that the function of CA is exactly to render ani account of the intuitions of an ideal bilingual about relatedness of historical linguistics. 2\. Contrastive generative grammar proceeds from universal semantic inputs to language-specific surface structure outputs in five stages. The five stages are as follows: INPUTS 1) semantic →→ 2) categorical 3) syntactic 4) lexical 5) post lexical→ OUTPUTS Stagel. Category-neutral input of a universal semantic conceptual representation is generated that consists of a configuration of elementary primitive notions (e.g. AGENT, PATIENT, and LOCATION). The focus here is on language-neutrality. Therefore, no language is excluded since no language is included. Krzeszowski claims that structural and traditional grammars, can\'t meet the requirements of language neutrality. This is because its base component has many non-universal categories that are connected to surface grammar categories of English. Stage2. The language categorized configurations (from Stagel) which characteristically belong to each language are made. These are not necessarily unique to any one language; some categories are universal and some are shared by language types and some are unique.- Stage3. Syntactic rules are applied to arrange the categories into permissible orders in the form of an actual sentence. Function words are introduced here. Krzeszowski calls this step \"minor lexicalizations\". Stage5. This is the post lexicalization stage where semantic transformations are applied to create inflections and word boundary markers. Another linguistic model for CA is the Fillmore\'s (1968) case grammar and is based on the universal theory of languages. Di Pietro adopted this model in his book \"Language Structures in Contrast\" (1971). According to James says this book is the most substantial monograph on CA since Lado\'s \"Linguistics across Cultures\". Peters and Ritchie define the universal base hypothesis as a version of the transformational grammar theory in which there's a fixed base grammar B. This fixed base grammar serves as the base component of a grammar of any natural language. If this is true, then this B will be an ideal starting point for CA. Di Pietro asserts: "assumption of universal constraints on language is basic to implementation of CA". James further says without the constraints of the universal base grammar, CA can be nothing but making a list of language idiosyncrasies and a random itemization at best. The existence of some universal semantic set of basic categories enables the pairing of idiosyncrasies of languages because it provides a reference to the same underlying category (even the non-existing items). Case grammar is a model that is suitable to be used for CA purpose because: 1\) Its finite universal array of categories provides a common point of reference for any pair of sentences we want to compare. Thus the justification for comparing a pair of sentences is the fact that the sentences can be traced back to a common case. 2\) Surface structures are derived form deep structures (case configurations) by applying transformations. Therefore, the feasibility of tracing sentential derivations through intermediate structures applies here. This is an advantage of transformational grammar. 3\) The mechanism of deep case configurations is very simple. It can be easily used by applied linguists while the problem of involvement in uncertainties is avoided. That is the linguist is not uncertain about what syntactic categories to posit for any surface structure. This is the problem with deep structures of transformational generative grammars. Criticisms against Contrastive Analysis Most common contrastive analyses are unable to meet the objectives set for it in 1950s. Obviously, the strongest claims of CA are too ambitious and beyond the reach of contrastive grammars. In the early versions, CA was based on two major assumptions: - Learner's natural interference with the target language learning and thus interference is the only and main cause of errors in second/foreign language learning. - Greater difference between the first and target languages results in more difficulty in learning a foreign/second language. The first problem was that empirical studies failed to prove that interference is the main cause of errors in second language learning. In fact, there are many cases where errors are not the result of natural language interference with second language leaning. Critiques of CA argue that first language interference is only one source of errors. Indulging in CA with a view to predicting difficulties in language learning is not worth the time. In addition, many difficulties predicted by CA do not show up in real performance at all. There are many errors that language learners commit and are not predicted by CA. CA is also criticized for ignoring such factors as learning/communication strategies, overgeneralization and transfer of training which may affect learners performance in the target language. The second problem regarding CA is that it is not always possible to hypothesize a simple one-to-one correlation between learning difficulties and language differences. That is, what CA predicted as difficulty in language learning did not always turned out to be so. Merits of CA Despite all controversies and criticisms, many language teachers still find CA useful in dealing with learning problems. On phonological level even all the critics can admit that CA is valid in predicting phonological errors. A great portion of syntactic errors are interference-based. Even the practitioners who seriously question the validity of CA in theory, and advocate other methods to study SL errors incorporate CA in their methodologies at least implicitly to explain these errors. In the 1980s some scholars found new dimensions for CA. These are CA and: \- Communicative competence \- Translation \- Pedagogical Contrastive Sociolinguistics CHAPTER THREE ((Practical Aspects of Error Analysis )) Introduction This chapter deals with practical aspects of error analysis. The previous two chapters must have provided the reader with theoretical and conceptual grounds of error analysis. However, they didn\'t particularly explain what it is like to carry out an analysis of errors made by learners as well as how the results could be interpreted. Such practical aspects are dealt with in this chapter. First, the data collection procedures are introduced. Then the methodology used to identify and interpret errors is presented. This is followed by an account of linguistic analysis, the procedures used and classification of errors in linguistic terms. Finally, the processes in play when a learner makes errors are explained. Data Collection Procedures The first step in analysis of errors is to have some actually occurred errors to be analyzed. That is, to begin the analysis the analyst would need some raw material to work on. To be reliable, these data need to be gathered according to reliable procedures; the means to collect the data is very important in that it will influence our judgment later in the interpretation stage. Thus, the right procedure to collect data is a critical step in the investigation of learners\' language. But what is the purpose behind a procedure? The answer to this question is twofold: first, to provoke the learners to use their interlanguage grammar and produce linguistic responses. Second, to examine what is the learner\'s judgment about the grammaticality of an utterance that is presented to the learner. From the above purposes of data collection procedures, two main types of procedures for collecting data from language learners are distinguishable: 1. **Spontaneous procedures;** 2. **Elicited.** It should be noted that these procedures may be used to collect data from both spoken and written language produced by learners. To sum up, there are two types of procedures for data collection in error analysis: Spontaneous procedures and elicited procedures. Elicited procedures are further classified into translation (which can be both oral and written). and multiple choice tests. These are described in more detail below. Spontaneous Procedures: This type of data collection is in the form of unmotivated conversations and interviews. The aim, as the name suggests, is to collect spontaneous data from spoken language. To collect data from written language production, free compositions and examination papers are used. In this type of procedures, the learners focus on the content rather than the form of language. For collecting data from both spoken and written language, many different topics can be used including speaking/writing about personal information, future plans, relationships, social and political issues etc. Spontaneous conversations are very flexible. However, care should be taken when selecting questions since some questions elicit natural answers more readily and better than other types of questions. Questions must elicit a conversation. The answer must be natural spoken language not yes/no questions. Examples would be to elicit narratives, stories, descriptive accounts. Questions should be general and about learners\' interests and hobbies. Because the learners are interested in these topics, they produce long animated accounts. They are not also limited because of specificity and can answer the questions using their general knowledge. Elicited Procedures: Some speakers are reflective or reserved when they want to produce utterances in the target language. as a result, they only use what they\'re sure that they know when they try to speak in the TL. This makes a comparison of errors produced by several speakers extremely difficult. That is why controlling elicitation of specific grammatical constructions is challenging. Translation As way of removing this methodological problem of approximation, **Corder** proposed an elicitation procures that requires learners to directly translate utterances from their native language into the target language. Although translation test may encourage mother tongue influence this method is particularly proved to be successful*. The advantages of translation techniques used to collect learners\' errors are:* 1. Such tests force the subject to try to produce the structures that the analyst desires to investigate. 2. These tests make sure that the subject understands the meaning of the structures he is to produce. Thus, a lack of understanding of semantic contents of the structures does not interfere with the syntactic performance of the subject. 3. By forcing a subject to produce a structure that s/he has not yet mastered it perfectly may provide invaluable insights of the subjects understanding of language; that is, how language is understood by the learner, how the learner organizes syntactic structures in his inter-language. Translation tests may be either oral or written. The advantage of oral translation tests over written ones is that by requiring the subject to respond immediately, s/he is forced to produce immediate response in a limited time to think about the problem. On the other hand, written tests are much easier to evaluate. Thus, it is suggested that the responses to both should be taken into account. Multiple Choice Tests: The second type of elicited procedures of data collection is the use of multiple choice tests. Such tests are conventionally in the form of an incomplete sentence followed by a number of choices (usually three or more) to choose from. Only of one the choices is the correct answer and completes the sentence. The other choices are distracters. This is a classic (to avoid the word traditional!) form of multiple choice questions and such tests should be modified for the purpose of collecting second language learners\' errors. In fact, multiple choice tests for this purpose are different from the conventional multiple choice tests in the following ways: While conventional multiple choice tests set restrictions in terms of only one answer is possible, error analysis test should be free from this restriction allowing the subjects to also provide their own answers (in a blank choice). This is based on the assumption that the subject\'s interlanguage grammar can generate structures that the researcher may not be aware if its existence. The second difference is that, the distracters (i.e. the other alternative choices that are not correct) are chosen from common errors that the subjects commit (if available, off course). Identification and Interpretation of Errors: Methodology A common difficulty in understanding the linguistic systems of second language learners is that the learners\' systems can\'t be observed directly. Thus, it is inferred through an analysis of data of their linguistic production and comprehension. To make the understanding of the language learners\' linguistic systems even more difficult, these systems are not stable and are constantly changing from one point in the learner\'s development to another. With each and every piece of information a learner receives, existing structures of the learner\'s system are revised and modified. This change, leave the researcher no choice but to infer the order and logic in such a changing system. Once the errors are collected it is time to identify and interpret them: **1. Detection and identification of errors:** This is a much technical process of describing the linguistic nature of errors. The difficulty in this process is that in many cases a sentence that is acceptable may contain errors. In other cases, the sentence is not grammatically acceptable according to linguistic standards of the second language. Thus, we may make a distinction between covertly erroneous structures and overtly erroneous structures. Overtly erroneous structures are sentences that are wrong at the sentence level. Covertly erroneous structures are grammatically correct at the sentence level but are not interpretable in the context they appear. In general, detection of productive errors (errors in writing and speaking) is easier than perceptive errors (errors in listening and reading comprehension). The reason is that productive language behavior is easily recordable. In contrast, receptive language behavior has not observable concomitants (such as a piece of writing or recorded speech). To overcome this problem, the researcher may ask further questions to check the subject\'s comprehension. Here, using the subject\'s mother tongue is recommended. It will be helpful if the researcher knows the learner\'s mother tongue and to check comprehension in his mother tongue. **2. Interpretation of errors:** In this step, the speaker\'s intended meaning should be interpreted. This gives way to reconstruction of the subject\'s sentence in the target language. Basically there are two types of interpretation: (1**) authoritative** and (2**) plausible**. In **authoritative interpretation** the researcher has access to the learner and can ask him/her to express his intention in his/her mother tongue and then translate it into the target language. This leads to an authoritative reconstruction of the learner\'s acceptable form. In addition, when we can state with certainty that an utterance is erroneous we are making an authoritative interpretation. It is not always the case that the learners are available to the researcher. The researcher then has to infer the learner\'s intention to say the utterance, its context and what the researcher knows about his linguistic knowledge. This is called a **plausible interpretation**/construction of errors. There are cases where learner\'s errors are so ambiguous that they can\'t be plausibly interpreted. This is certainly problem for interpretation and linguistic description of learners\' errors. **Corder** suggests that such cases should be excluded from analysis altogether. However, if the researcher knows the learners\' mother tongue he may successfully clarify them by making references to the learner\'s mother tongue. The fact that a great number of ambiguous structures have typically their roots in the constructions of the learner\'s mother tongue supports the latter solution. Whatever interpretation of errors we have, authoritative or plausible, we end up with a pair of structures: the erroneous utterance and its construction in the target language. to interpret the data for error analysis an algorithm is proposed by Corder. It is explained below. According to Corder, after the errors are collected and identified, they are described and classified linguistically. Through the classification researchers will be able to understand what features of the target language cause problems for learners. Therefore, a systematic linguistic taxonomy of errors is necessary before assessment of the nature of errors. The above approach to classifying learners\' errors has an apparent drawback because the researcher relies on some previous knowledge/taxonomy of common linguistic difficulties of a group of learners. In other words, there is a prejudgment and previously defined categorization of errors on the part of researchers. However, many errors may be found that do not fit into any of the classes in this predefined taxonomy (predefined error types). The new approach to for classifying errors proposed by Keshavarz provides a better and more realistic categorization of errors while eliminating the shortcomings of the above mentioned approach. In this approach, the errors are collected and a preliminary interpretation and analysis are done. This will form the basis for an appropriate taxonomy for classifying errors. In other words, in this approach the nature and types of errors determines the categories of errors. In addition, the headings under which the errors are classified are not listed in alphabetical order. Rather, they are major categories and sub-categories established based on the types of errors. Thus, the problem inherent in the previous approach i.e. a pre-defined taxonomy by researcher is avoided. A Linguistic Taxonomy of Errors The new taxonomy has four major categories including orthographic, phonological, lexico-semantic and syntactic-morphological errors. These categories are often divided further into sib-categories to provide a more detailed account of error types. In the following, each of the major categories along with some of the most common sub- categories is briefly introduced. **1- Orthographic (spelling) Errors:** These errors are caused by: - Inconsistency of English spelling system. In many cases there is no correspondence between the letters and the sounds of a word. The words are pronounced differently than what they are written. - Elements with the same spelling but different pronunciation in English. A good example is vowel sounds and their representations. - Elements with similar pronunciation but different spelling and meaning (homonyms). - Learners\' ignorance of spelling rules (such as the rule of doubling the final consonant in monosyllabic words when a suffix is added that begins with a vowel sound). **2-Phonological Errors** This type of errors includes the following sub-categories: - A certain phoneme in the target language is lacking in the learner\'s mother tongue. - There is a difference in the syllable structure of the two languages. For example, in English initial syllables of words may begin with consonant cluster. This is not possible in Persian. - The pronunciation of words as they are spelled. - Silent letters. There are letters in some English words that are spelled (written) but not pronounced. **3- Lexico-semantic Errors: The use of the structurally correct words or elements with wrong semantic** contents. **4- Syntactic-Morphological Errors:** - Wrong use of verb tenses: - Present Continuous instead of Simple Past - Present Perfect instead of Simple Past - Simple Past instead of Past Perfect - Past Perfect instead of Simple Past - Past Continuous instead of Simple Past - Wrong use of Prepositions: - Omission of a preposition when necessary - Redundant (unnecessary and wrong) use of a preposition - Wrong use of articles: - Omission of the - Redundant use of articles - a/an omission - redundant use of a/an - wrong use of an article - Wrong construction/use of Relative Clauses/Pronouns - Retention of direct object pronoun - Retention of subject pronoun - Retention of object of prepositions - Wrong selection of relative pronouns - Wrong use of Active and Passive Voice - Wrong Word Order - Wrong Construction of Conditionals - \"it is\" where \"there is\" is appropriate - Misplacement of adverbs - Wrong Negative Constructions (Double Negative) - Wrong Construction of Negative Imperative - Lack of subject-verb inversion in Wh-questions - Lack of subject-verb inversion in indirect questions (double questioning) - Errors in the distribution and use of verb groups - Wrong verb/past participle construction - Wrong use of non-finite clause complements. - Wrong use of auxiliaries - Omission of copula/auxiliary - Lack of concord (agreement) - Verb groups: subject-verb agreement - Noun groups - Wrong use of the plural morpheme - Wrong use of quantifiers/intensifiers - Wrong use of parts of speech - Typical Persian constructs used in English Processes of Errors Errors may also be classified according to the processes that are in play when a second language learner commits them. In other words, the basis of this classification is how errors occur or are committed by learners. There are four general categories of errors on this basis as follows: 1- **Omission**: a linguistic element which is required to make a structure grammatical is omitted. A common type is the deletion of function words (e.g. prepositions and articles) or morphemes (e.g. plural, third- person singular, past and past participle, and auxiliary morphemes). 2- **Addition**: a redundant element is used in the sentence which makes the sentence grammatical incorrect. 3- **Substitution**: an incorrect element is used instead of a correct one. 4- **Permutation** (or wrong ordering): Sentence elements are misplaced and not used in the correct order. CHAPTER TWO »Error Analisys« Definition Error analysis is an alternative approach to the study of second language learning errors. It is based on theories of first and second language learning as well as possible similarities between them. This new approach was adopted by researchers mainly because the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) had shortcomings and it could not account for second language learning errors. Error analysis is an attempt towards a theoretically justifiable and pedagogically practicable approach. As a result of a new research interest in studying the processes and strategies of both first land second language acquisitions, the study of errors of first language learners and second language learners gained unprecedented momentum. The reason was that errors are seen as providing evidence of language learning processes and strategies. On first language acquisition, **Menyuk (1971) claims** that studying errors that children make when learning their first language can reveal the types of cognitive and linguistic processes involved in language learning. These processes and strategies seem to be a part of the overall learning process. *In error analysis, a more positive attitude was developed towards learner\'s errors compared to the negative view of errors in the CA tradition.* Errors were no longer seen as evil signed of failure in teaching or learning and should be prevented and eradicated by any means. This new attitude considers errors as a necessary part of the language learning process. Error analysis was a reaction against the view of second language learning proposed by the CA theory. The CA theory saw language transfer as the central process in second and foreign language learning. The notion of transfer was based on behavioral views of learning. In contrast, error analysis seeks to explain the cognitive processes that learners use to reorganize the linguistic input they receive from the target language. The primary focus is on understanding the underlying processes of second language learning through studying the evidence that learners\' errors provide. Generally, it is now widely believed that any learning involves making errors. Learners use these errors to get feedback from their environment. Then they use this feedback to test and modify hypothesis about the target language. Consequently, error analysis (the study of learners\" errors) may provide information on the learner\'s knowledge of the target language at a certain stage of the learning career and reveals what remains to be learned. Linguistic description and classification of errors shows what features of language may cause learning problems. In this sense, CA and error analysis are similar as the information provided by both CA and error analysis are the similar. Error analysis checks the predictions of bilingual comparisons being an invaluable source of information for selecting the items that should be included in the language learning٫teaching syllabus. The Basis of Error Analysis Error analysis is based on three assumptions: 1. Errors are inevitable in both first and second language learning 2. Errors are important in various ways 3. Native or first language interference with second language learning is not the only source of errors. The claim that error analysis can be used as a pedagogical tool is based on the following three arguments: 1. Error analysis doesn\'t have the limitations of the CA (CA saw first language interference as the only cause of second language learning errors). 2. Error analysis provides actual data of attested problems and observed errors (unlike CA that provided hypothetical problems). Thus, error analysis forms a more efficient and economical basis for designing pedagogical strategies. 3. Error analysis is not faced the complex theoretical problems that CA faced. The Significance of Errors in Second Language Learning The significance of errors has been stressed by many scholars. For example, Pit Corder\'s in his influential article (1967) notes that errors are significant in three ways: 1. **To the teacher**: errors tell the teacher how much the learners have progressed towards the goals and what is still left to be learned. It is to note that getting this information requires the teacher to use a systematic analysis of errors. 2. **To the researcher:** errors provide evidence of how language learning/acquisition takes place and what strategies and processes are used by learners in discovering the target language. 3. **TO the learner:** error making can be regarded as a device that learners use in order to learn. The learners use errors as a way of testing hypotheses about the nature of the target language. Thus, errors are indispensable part of learning. The same views by **Corder** are also restated by **Richards** (1971) who sees errors significant and interesting for the following: - **Linguists**: according to Chomsky studying human language is the most useful of understanding how human intelligence is constituted. - **Psycholinguists**: have been able to examine the nature of mental processes involved in language through studying child speech and then comparing it with the speech adults produce. - **Teachers**: by analyzing learner\'s errors, teachers will be able to discover difficulties in language learning and adopt methods to compare these errors. **Jain** (1971) also states two reasons why errors are important: - they enable one to understand the process of second language acquisition and - \(2) they help educators plan courses that incorporate the psycholinguistic features of second language learning. Branches and Uses of Error Analysis As CA, error analysis has two main branches namely Theoretical Error Analysis and Applied Error Analysis Theoretical error analysis seeks to: - contribute to the notion of universality; - explain how and why errors occur; and - read the mind of the learners. On the other hand applied error analysis uses the findings of theoretical error analysis to invent remedial solutions to learners\' difficulties in learning the target language. Sections: 1. Theoretical Error Analysis and 2. Applied Error Analysis below deal with these two branches in more to detail: **1.Theoretical Error Analysis:** The primary concern of theoretical error analysis is second language learning processes and strategies as well as their similarities with first language acquisition. Thus, as much as error analysis investigates language learning trying to clarify language nature in general, it is a central activity within the area of psycholinguistics (i.e. trying to find what is in the mind of people when they learn languages). Study of errors (error analysis) uncovers much of the language learning process and the factors that influence this learning process. Language learning process, in its true sense, involves errors. First in this process, the learner is exposed to target language samples and receives the samples as the input. Then the learner makes somehypotheses about the target language based on this input. These hypotheses are often inadequate in recognizing limitations and expectations of certain language rules. Next in the learning process, the learner produces chunks of the target language based on the hypotheses formed in the previous step. Due to the inadequacy of the learner\'s hypotheses, the output is often erroneous. By making these errors the learner receives a feed back from the environment and these feedbacks helps the learner to modify his hypotheses of the target language and build a system of target language which more closely resembles the standards of that language. Another objective of theoretical error analysis is to understand and identify the strategies that language learners use (such as overgeneralization and simplification). By studying the errors that language learners commit, the underlying strategies involved in learning the target language are brought to light. Finally, as Corder asserts, the study of second language and child language learning as well as general linguistic studies, discover universal features of language and language learning. Therefore, error analysis is a part of this psycholinguistic quest for universal processes of second language acquisition. **2.Applied Error Analysis** The objectives of theoretical error analysis are mainly pragmatic and pedagogic such as providing organized remedial courses for language teaching and devising appropriate strategies of teaching. It is noteworthy here that such attempts have been made long before there were theoretical aspects of error analysis. However, only recently error analysis has gone beyond the common classification of language learning errors. Before this, there were little attempts to kyxtomatically account for occurrence of errors in psycholinguistic terms. Goals of Applied Error Analysis. The main goals of applied error analysis, as postulated by Sridher, can be summarized as: 1. **Teaching materials sequencing:** to determine the sequence of presenting target language items in textbooks and classroom. The sequence is in difficulty order with easier items preceding more difficult ones. 2. **Degree of pedagogical emphasis:** to decide how much stress, explanation and practice is necessary for target language items. 3. **Remedial courses:** to devise remedial lessons and exercises to alleviate the second language learner\'s difficulties. Test construction: to select appropriate items in constructing tests that evaluates learners\' proficiency. Comparing Theoretical and Applied Error Analysis The methodology of both theoretical and applied error analysis shares the basic procedures of identification and classification of errors. *The difference between theoretical and applied error analysis is that while applied error analysis seeks to find remedial for difficulties in target language learning, theoretical error analysis deals with psycholinguistic reality and aspects of errors trying to explain how and why the errors occur.* With regard to theoretical error analysis, it is to note that finding the causes of errors is difficult, if not impossible due to difficulty of reading into learners\' minds. As a result, the explanations that theoretical error analysis provides are often speculative. However, this does not prevent one to interpret learners\' intended meaning in order to arrive at descriptions and explanations of the nature of error sources. Usefulness of Error Analysis Error analysis, both theoretically and practically is useful in the following ways: 1. Its validity as an effective instrument for second language research. 2. Supporting syllabus design through the selection of appropriate materials 3. Helpful to the classroom teachers in adopting effective teaching techniques 4. Useful in constructing suitable tests Errors and Mistakes semor analysis deals with errors, it is appropriate at this stage to define errors and distinguish them from mistakes. *Errors are in nature systematic and rule-governed and indicate learner\'s linguistic system. Systematic errors reveal about learner\'s underlying knowledge of target language, this knowledge is also called transitional competence.* Mistakes, on the other hand, are random deviations from the norms and rules of a language and they are not related to any linguistic system. Mistakes represent and arise from performance limitations and problems. The same types of performance mistakes are made by both native speakers and foreign speakers of a given language (such as slips of tongue, false starts, lack of subject-verb agreement). **Jain** defines systematic errors as showing a consistent system and having definable patterns. **Systematic errors** have internal principles and thus they are not arbitrary. Errors are governed by the rules of the learner\'s interlanguages. One of the most common types of performance mistakes is spoonerism (i.e. changing around the initial consonants of words). Yule mentions slips of tongue, pen and ear and states that the latter shows how brain tries to make sense of auditory input. Non-linguistic factors (such as lack of concentration, fatigue, strong emotions, and memory limitations) cause mistakes. Mistakes are typically random and if brought to the language user\'s attention are self-corrected. Both native and second language speakers٫learners are affected by similar external conditions. However, the effects of these factors are not the same on the performance of first language users and second language leaners Generally, native speakers of a language demonstrate more effective performance under such conditions compared to second language users. Although making distinction between errors and mistakes is difficult and problematic, error analysis uses a general criterion to distinguish between errors and mistakes. This general criterion is the frequency of occurrence. Low- frequency impeded cases are considered as mistakes and performance errors while high-frequency once are considered systematic errors. However, this is not a much good criterion since the low-frequency of occurance may well be associated with low frequency of grammatical patterns, avoidance strategy adopted by learners and other factors. Therefore the possible factors that cause errors٫mistakes should be used alongside. Thus, although a high frequency of occurrence is a characteristic of errors, a low frequency does not necessarily reflect mistakes. Error Types as Representing Learning Stage Systematic errors are defined as rule-governed and consistently recurring impaired structures. The systematic nature of errors, thus, reflects features of the learner\'s interlanguage. Throughout their learning career, learners make systematic errors that each may reflect a certain stage of their second language learning with each stage having its own characteristics. **Corder** provides a model of based on research findings and observations of learners\' errors and drawing on this Brown proposed 4 stages of interlanguage development: 1. **Random Errors** (what Corder calls pre-systematic stage); learners are only slightly aware of a systematic order of items in the second language. They mainly rely on speculations and inaccurate guessing. 2. **Emergent Stage of Interlanguage**: learners\' consistency grows in producing the TL. They begin to distinuish a system and internalize some rules. This system may not be in accordance with the TL system. Nevertheless, it is legitimate in learner\'s mind, One of the characteristics of this stage is backsliding (i.e. learners learn rule but regress to a previous stage of interlanguage development). They are unable to correct their errors when someone else points to the errors. Topic and structure avoidance is typical at this stage. 3. **Systematic Stage:** learners manifest more consistency in producing the second language. Although rules in their minds are not yet well-formed, the learners are internally more self-consistent. The rules more closely approximate the target language system. The most salient difference with Emergent Stage is that the learners are able to correct their own errors when pointed to by someone else even very subtly. 4. **Stabilization (in the development of interlanguage system):** **(also post-systematic stage**): there are relatively few errors at this stage and fluency and intended meaning are not problematic. The self-correction system is complete enough and the leamers correct themselves without feedback. Learners at this stage stabilize fast and only allow minor errors to slip by undetected. Therefore, the learners demonstrate fossilization of language. The above stages do not completely describe the total learner\'s second language system. Nor do they account for sociolinguistic, functional and non-verbal strategies the learners use and thus fail to provide full accounts learner\'s total competence. Second Language Learner\'s Language As the weaknesses of the CAH were discovered, error analysis evolved as a reaction to the CAH to attempt to develop understanding about the processes of second language learning. There was a shift from the emphasis that the CAH put on studying and analyzing the systems of native and target languages to the analysis of learners\' language. As a result, three hypotheses were proposed to study learner\'s language. These are: - - - I. **The Interlanguage Hypothesis** In the 1960s and 1970s study of second language learner errors became prominent and the concept of interlanguage hypothesis was developed. Interlanguage is a language between the first and second language in the mind of the learner. The term was coined by Selinker (1969). An interlanguage is a separate system based on observable output that results from a learner\'s attempts at producing TL norms. Seliker also states 5 processes as central to second language learning: 1\. Language transfer from the native language 2\. Overgeneralization 3\. Transference of training 4\. Second language learning strategies 5\. Second language learning strategies The interlanguage hypothesis claims that learner\'s languages are different from both the learner\'s native language. and the target language systems in some way. at the same time, it has features in common with both languages. As it can be seen from the model above, transfer from SL, transfer from TL and overgeneralization are horizontal processes. However, other processes can\'t be described horizontally since no transfer to interlanguage is involved from TL or SL. These processes should be dealt with vertically within the framework of contrastive generative grammar? The proponents of the interlanguage hypothesis believe that interlanguage deserves to be studied in its own right. The following are salient characteristics of interlanguages: Interlanguages: - are assumed to be systematic. They have a system of linguistic rules that generate novel utterances. These utterances may be structurally different from both NL and SL utterances. - are reduced systems when compared to NL and SL. The number and complexity of rules and the number of the words they contain are less. - are similar to native language as both of them are systematically variable. Learners systematically change their performance and regress to a previous learning stage (often in more informal situations). - involve the mechanism of fossilization. The forms in the learners\' performance do not conform to the norms of TL even after many years of standard target language instruction and exposure. Fossilization is a permanent characteristic of interlanguages. **Fossilization and Backsliding** **Selinker** tries to explain fossilization by the latent psychological structure. Latent psychological structure is an arrangement already formulated in learner\'s brain. It is activated whenever an adult tries to learn a second language. In addition to fossilization, 5 central processes are involved in psychological latent structure and these can be traced back to: 1. Learner\'s mother tongue 2. Training procedures 3. Learner\'s approach to instructional materials 4. Learner\'s approach to communication with native speakers 5. Overgeneralization of TL rules Fossilization also includes aspects of learner\'s language that do not normally appear in the learner\'s produced language. These aspects are only manifest when learners have to perform in difficult materials. Under such difficult circumstances (such as exams, anxiety or when they are extremely relaxed) the learners often resort to backsliding This switching back to a previous learning stage is always towards the learner\'s native language. Backsliding thus can be defined as the appearance of fossilized features of a learner\'s language that occurs under certain conditions. **Characteristics of interlanguage production:** 1\) The language that second language speakers produce is rarely in conformity with what that can be expected from a native speaker of that language. 2\) The productions of interlanguages are not precisely translations of the learner\'s native language utterances. Thus, interference of mother tongue plays no primary role. 3\) Second language utterances are not produced randomly. 4\) Adults or children speak interlanguages when second language is not simultaneous with first language learning. Proponents of the interlanguage hypothesis hold that there is a separate linguistic/psychological system in the mind of second language learners. This system can form a pidgin that this pidgin in turn develops into a new dialect of the second language. The surface form of this new dialect draws on features from TL and SL. There is a disagreement between the proponents of the interlanguage hypothesis and those of the approximate system hypothesis (see section 2 below). The latter sees learner\'s language as directional and evolving in stages that closely approximate the target language norms. These stages are also seen as discrete. The interlanguage hypothesis is not in amity with this view. Interlanguage hypothesis is claimed to have implications for describing special types of languages (e.g. pidgins and non-standard dialects, non-native varieties, immigrant speech). Another implication is that the data provided by the interlanguage hypothesis may add support to the universal strategies for language processing. II. **The Approximative Systems Hypothesis** The Approximative systems hypothesis is a goal directed development and stresses on the dynamic and transitonal nature of the learner\'s language systems. These systems are internally structured and have close relations to the interlanguage hypothesis. It was introduced by Nemser (1971) who stressed on the developmental nature of learner\'s language. By adding new elements to the system, it is continually modified and developed. According to this hypothesis, second language acquisition involves systematic stages with an Approximative system at each stage. These systems are transient (they change and are modified by adding new elements) and are gradually structured in a step-by-step manner and through successive stages. Sampson (1978) proposes a model of Approximative systems. This model is a series of systems (the number of the systems are unknown) that range from minimal knowledge of second language to knowledge approximating the knowledge of native speakers of the second language. The characteristics of this model are 1\) The system must be at least momentarily stable (i.e. it should be in a stable state at any given moment). 2\) These systems are variable in their nature. This variability is affected by the conditions of language functions (language use) rather than the structures and codes of the language. Thus, the systems shift as the result of the changes that learners make in their use of functions. Throughout learning, learners reevaluate their linguistic hypotheses about the structures of the second language. 3\) As soon as the shift in begins to take place in the structure of the approximative systems, syntactic and phonological forms are learned. After an Approximative system is arranged, through learning the forms, a new system is created. 4\) Up to the age of 3 or 4, learning is biologically based and relies on the learner\'s biological capacities for language learning. From this age on, learning is sociologically based which means learning takes place through social interaction of the learner. The reason is that learning functions of language rely on social interactions. 5\) Learners jump from one form or function to another since acquisition of syntactic forms in a second language i can not be sequential. According to this model, second language learners go through several stages of learning developing different interlanguages at each stage. The systems at each of these stages approximate more closely the target language system. The difference between the interlanguage hypothesis and the Approximative systems hypothesis is that the former stresses on the learner\'s linguistic systems as being in a structurally intermediate status (i.e. the systems are structures between the first and second language systems) while, the stress of the latter is on the nature of the systems as being transitional (shifting with learning) and dynamic. III. **The Idiosyncratic Dialect** An idiosyncratic dialect is a language unique to a particular individual (language user). The grammar of this language is specific to that individual. According to Corder idiosyncratic dialects are (1) regular, (2) systematic, (3) meaningful and (4) stable. Classes of idiosyncratic dialects include: - Language of poems (poets deliberately use a language that is deviant from the norms of the standard language to create stylistic and aesthetic effects). - The speech of aphasic patients (the language they produce is deviant from the norms of the standard language due to pathological problems and brain disabilities). - - The idiosyncratic dialect of a second language learner is different from. other types of idiosyncratic dialects because it has in common, features from both the learner\'s first language and the second language and at the same time it keeps some rules and characteristics of its own (i.e. idiosyncratic rules and characteristics). Corder holds that every sentence produced by second language learners are to be considered as idiosyncratic unless otherwise is shown. Learners may produce sentences that appear to be well-formed yet idiosyncratic. On the other hand, they may produce sentences that are superficially ill-formed but correct at the same time internally. Corder terms the former case as covertly idiosyncratic and the latter as overtly idiosyncratic. It should be noted that the sentences that second language learners produce may actually be neither of them. Corder proposes that to understand and interpret learners\' utterances one should reconstruct the correct utterance in the target language and then match the erroneous utterance with the correct equivalent in the learner\'s native language. Idiosyncratic sentences may be related to what and how has been taught about the target language as well as other sources of errors. Thus, idiosyncrasies can not be explained by simply matching them to the native language norms. Conclusions Corder\'s idiosyncratic dialects, Nemser\'s Approximative systems hypothesis and Selinker\'s interlanguage hypothesis added new dimensions to the study of learner\'s native errors that include an analysis of learner\'s n language utterances, learner\'s interlanguage/idiosyncratic utterances and utterances that native speakers of the target language produce. It seems that this type of analysis in studying errors is essential to understand leaners\' language systems at any given stage of development. Corder states that in such an investigation of errors, the same role is assumed for the investigator that is played when studying child language acquisition. In both case, the key concept is shared: at every development stage the learner uses a definite system of language which is not either the adult linguistic system or the second language system but something in between (i.e. the system shares features from both while maintaining features of its own.)