Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching (Journal)

The Concept Of Error Analysis And The Procedures

In order to analyze learners’ errors in a proper perspective, it is crucial to

make a distinction between “mistake” and “error”. According to Brown (2000), a
“mistake” refers to a performance error in that it is a failure to utilize a known system
correctly. While an “error” is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a
native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner. This
recognition process is followed by the error description process. We compare
learners’ sentences with the correct sentences in target language, and find the errors.
Then we come to the next step—explanation stage, finding the sources of errors.

The beginning stages of learning a second language are characterized by a

good deal of interlingual transfer from the native language. In the early stages, the
native language is the only linguistic system upon which the learner can draw. These
kinds of errors can be found in all aspects of language learning.

Intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) is also a major factor.
At an intermediate level, learners’ previous experience and existing subsumes begin
to influence structures within the target language itself. Most of time, negative
intralingual transfer or overgeneralization has occurred, and these kinds of errors are
called developmental errors. We have found that overgeneralization makes it
significant for us to study the psychological process of language learners.

Cultural interference can cause either linguistic errors or inappropriateness in

the context. In addition, it sometimes hinders communication, so it should be taken
seriously. For example, an American lady said to a Chinese lady “what a beautiful
dress!” Instead of saying: “Thank you, I’m glad to hear that”, her reply “No, no.” In
accordance with Chinese way of receiving compliment will make the American lady
feel at loss. Thus language learning is also the culture learning. Otherwise, we cannot
get a good understanding of the language. In some occasions, due to their insufficient
linguistic knowledge, learners have to express themselves with the help of
communicative strategies. The most frequently used communicative strategies are
avoidance, language switch and prefabricated patterns. Factually communicative
strategies do help learners a lot in expressing their ideas and the communicative
teaching approach need these strategies as well. On the other hand, teachers need to
pay more attention to the errors occurred, otherwise they will backfire.

Article From Error 3

What is Error Analysis?
There is an Italian proverb ‘Sbagliando simpara’¡(We can learn through our
errors)… making mistakes can indeed be regarded as an essential part of learning.
(Norrish 1983). Brown (1987) says that language learning, like any other human
learning is a process that involves the making mistakes.

In order to understand the process of L2 learning, the mistakes a person made

in the process of constructing a new system of language should be analyzed carefully.

Here we can give the definition of EA as a process based on analysis of learners’

errors.

The forerunner of EA, Corder (1987) explains the significance of learners errors in
three different ways. The first to the teacher in that they tell him, if he undertakes a
systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has progressed, and
consequently what remains for him to learn. Second, they provide to the researcher
evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the
learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly,(and in a sense this is
their most important aspect) they are indispensable to the learner himself, because we
can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. Brown
( (1987) gives the definition of error analysis as follows; The fact that learners do
make errors and these errors can be observed ,analyzed and classified to reveal
something of the system operating within the learner led to a surge of study of
learner’ errors, called error analysis.

As it is seen in the definitions the aim of this process is to suggest suitable and
effective teaching-learning strategies and remedial measures necessary in the target
language. It is a multidimensional process which involves much more than simply
analyzing errors of learners. EA becomes distinguished from CA in that it examines
all possible sources of errors.

a. Identification of errors
There are those so-called “errors” or “mistakes” that are more correctly
described as lapses. A mistake refers to a performance error; it is a failure to make use
of a known system. Everybody makes mistakes in both native and second language
situations. Normally native speakers are able to recognize and correct such “lapses” or
“mistakes” which are not the result of a deficiency in competence, but the result of
imperfection in the process of producing speech (Brown 1987).

Errors are deviances that are due to deficient competence (i-e “knowledge” of
the language, which may or may not be conscious).As they are due to deficient
competence they tend to be systematic and not self correctable. Whereas “mistakes”
or “lapses” that are due to performance deficiencies and arise from lack of attention,
slips of memory, anxiety possibly caused by pressure of time etc. They are not
systematic and readily identifiable and self correctable.(Corder1973).

b. Description of errors
As we know error analysis is a comparative process. So, in order to describe
the errors, in a way, we use a special case of contrastive analysis, and we compare
synonymous utterances in the learner’s dialect and the target language, in other words
we compare “erroneous utterance” and “reconstructed
utterance”.(Corder 1973)

According to Corder’s model (1973) any sentence uttered by the subsequently

transcribed can be analyzed for idiosyncrasies. A major distinction is made between
“overt” and “covert” errors.(Brown 1987) Overtly erroneous utterances are
completely ungrammatical at the sentence level. Covertly erroneous utterances are
grammatically well-formed at the sentence level, but are not interpretable within the
context.
 According to Corder’s model, in the case of both overt and covert errors, if we
can make a plausible interpretation of the sentence, then we should make a
reconstruction of the sentence in the target language and compare the reconstruction
with original idiosyncratic sentence, and then describe the differences.(Brown 1987)

The Studies of EA-Journal EA

Error Analysis

The field of EA in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) was established in the

1970s by Corder and colleagues. A widely-available survey can be found in chapter
eight of Brown (2000). A key finding of EA has been that many learner errors were
produced by learners misunderstanding the rules of the new language. EA is a type of
linguistic study that focuses on the errors learners make. It consists of a comparison
between the errors made in TL and within that TL itself. Corder is the “father” of EA
(the EA with the “new look”). It was in his article entitled “The significance of learner
errors”(1967) that EA took a new turn. Errors used to be “flaws” that needed to be
eradicated. Corder (1967) presented a completely different point of view. He
contended that those errors are “important in and of themselves”. In his opinion,
systematically analyzing errors made by language learners makes it possible to
determine areas that need reinforcement in teaching.

EA emphasizes “the significance of errors in learners’ interlanguages system”

(Brown 1994:204). The term interlanguages introduced by Selinker (1972), refers to
the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent on both the learner’s L1 and
the TL. Nemser (1974: 55) referred to it as the Approximate System, and Corder
(1967) as the Idiosyncratic Dialect or Transitional Competence.

According to Corder (1967), EA has two objects: one theoretical and another
applied. The theoretical object is to understand what and how a learner learns when he
studies an L2. The applied object is to enable the learner to learn more efficiently by
using the knowledge of his dialect for pedagogical purposes. At the same time, the
investigation of errors can serve two purposes, diagnostic (to in-point the problem)
and prognostic (to make plans to solve a problem). Corder (1967) said that it is
diagnostic because it can tell us the learner's grasp of a language at any given point
during the learning process. It is also prognostic because it can tell the teacher to
modify learning materials to meet the learners' problems.

EA research has limitations of providing only a partial picture of learner

language; and having a substantive nature in that it does not take into account
avoidance strategy in SLA, since EA only investigates what learners do. Learners who
avoided the sentence structures which they found difficult due to the differences
between their native language and TL may be viewed to have no difficulty. This was
pointed out by Brown (1994) and Ellis (1996).

Error analysis and SLA

EA received considerable attention and finally became a recognized part of
applied linguistics in the 1970’s since the strong version of CA turned out not to be a
productive pedagogical tool. James defined the notion of EA as “the study of
linguistic ignorance, the investigation of what people do not know and how they
attempt to cope with their ignorance” (James, 2001, p. 62). It was Corder who made
the first argument for the significance of learners’ errors in his 1967 seminal paper.
The significance of learners’ errors, which signaled the shift of pedagogical interest
from contrastive analysis to error analysis and provided the impetus for many
empirical studies.

In order to analyze learners’ errors in a proper perspective, EA enthusiasts

considered it crucial to make a distinction between mistake and error, which are
“technically two very different phenomena” (Brown, 1994, p. 205). Corder (1967)
made use of Chomsky’s the “competence versus performance” distinction by
associating errors with failures in competence and mistakes with failures in
performance. In his view, a mistake occurs as the result of processing limitations
rather than lack of competence. That is, it signifies L2 learners’ failure of utilizing
their knowledge of a TL rule. All people make mistakes, in both native and second
language situations. As a matter of fact, falling back on some alternative, non-
standard language uses like false starts, hesitations, random guesses, confusions of
structure or slips of the tongue is a regular feature of native speaker speech. Native
speakers are normally capable of recognizing and correcting such mistakes.
Nevertheless, an error, in this technical sense, is the breaches of rules of code; it is the
noticeable deviation in grammaticality resulting from a lack of requisite knowledge. It
arises because of the lack of competence. Native speakers may also make errors but
they are able to correct their own errors; nevertheless, L2 learners cannot, by any
means, always do so.

The analysis of error sources has been regarded as a central aspect in the study
of learner errors. Researchers believe that the clearer the understanding of the sources
of learners’ errors, the better second language teachers will be able to detect the
process of L2 learning. As already discussed above, it is competence errors that have
been considered to be central to the study of SLA. In his A non contrastive approach
to error analysis, Richards (1971) identified a number of different sources or causes of
competence errors: interference errors of MT interference, intralingual errors within
the TL itself and developmental errors, reflecting the learners’ attempts to construct
hypotheses about their target language from their limited experience.

Excluding interference errors from his discussion, Richards (1971) focused on

the intralingual and developmental errors observed in the acquisition of English as a
second language and further classified them into four categories: (1)
Overgeneralization, covering instances where the learners create a deviant structure
on the basis of his experience of other structure of the TL; (2) Ignorance of rule
restriction, occurring as a result of failure to observe the restrictions or existing
structures; (3) Incomplete application of rules, arising when the learners fail to fully
develop a certain structure required to produce acceptable sentences; (4) False
concepts hypothesized, deriving from faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL.

EA is a systematic study and analysis of errors made by the learners of a

foreign language in an attempt to account for their origin, their regularity, their
predictability and variability. It views both first and second language acquisition as a
process involving the active participation of the learners. In this approach, errors are
seen as a natural phenomenon that must occur when learning the first or second
language before correct language rules are completely internalized. Errors occur
systematically in learners’ language behavior and are, therefore, to be regarded as
manifestations of an inner-working system

From EA

Definitions of interlingual errors and intralingual errors

As Richards (cited in Johnson, 2002, p66) stated, the meaning of interlingual errors is
“errors coming from differences between L1 and FL”, while intralingual errors mean
“errors coming from within the language itself”. It is clearly observed that the former
is opposed to the latter errors. Two different types of theories about errors (Johnson,
2002): Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis, focus on analyzing interlingual
errors and intralingual errors respectively. As a result, intralingual errors are also
called “Non-Contrastive errors”, as opposed to the other----interlingual errors.

2.2. Contrastive analysis theory on analyzing interlingual errors

CA theory lies within behaviorism, which believes that learning is a question of habit
formation (means when a new habit was learned, old habits would affect the learning
process) (Johnson, 2002). The effects are known in psychology as the study of
transfer: effects from old habits on new habits being learned. Language Transfer----
mother tongue affects learners’ foreign language learning, is attributed to interlingual
errors. And this sort of transfer is negative transfer, also being called interference. In
contrast, positive transfer might occur when learners’ L1 is similar to their FL. When
does transfer occur? Does it happen in some situations more than others? Taylor’s
studies (cited in Johnson, 2002) revealed that two important factors might influence
its occurrence. One factor is learner level. It has revealed that lower-lever learners are
particularly prone to negative transfer, because they depend heavily on their native
language to help them in times of trouble. Another factor is language area.
Pronunciation is generally regarded as an area of transfer’s occurrence.

2.3 Creative construction theory on analyzing intralingual errors

A second theory on FL learning, creative construction theory, (Johnson, 2002) focuses
on analyzing developmental errors, namely, intralingual errors. These errors are
irrespective of their mother tongue, which come from the learner’s own head.
Namely, she has created the form of the errors herself. Richards (cited in Ghadessy,
1985, p.262) has proposed that a huge number of developmental errors are clue to
“the strategies employed by the learner in language acquisition” and “the mutual
inference of items within the target language”. Four types of intralingual errors
---developmental errors have been identified by Richards (cited in Johnson, 2002):

1. Over-generation includes “where the learner creates a deviant structure

on the base of his experience of other structures in the target language”.
2. Ignorance of rule restrictions----“failure to observe the restrictions of
existing structures”.
3. Incomplete application of rules--- “the occurrence of structures whose
deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules required to
produce acceptable utterances”.
4. False concepts hypothesized----“faulty comprehension of distinctions
in the target language”. (p67)
Previous studies-Thesis
Tham Mun Kit,1988/1987. EA: English Pronunciation of Cantonese Speaker:
A synchronic study of undergraduate USM, Kampar, Perak

The subjects are the undergraduates USM that include eight males and seven
female from Kampar, Perak. The undergraduates are from the first year until the final
year of the studies.15 cassette are used to record the subjects speech within a period
of 3 month are every speeches take about one hour. In the study, it has been found
that the mispronunciations from the undergraduates are influenced by the subjects’
linguistic background, sociolinguistics factors and contexts of communication. For the
Cantonese language, it has the non-contrastive feature as Cantonese does not have
aspirated forms of /p/, /t/ and /k/, or the contrastive feature of length variation between
long and short vowels, voicing in consonant clusters just like the English Language.
Besides that, the subjects have been explained that they talk the same way with other
speakers in the society since they do not realize that they have mispronounced the
words. The linguistic knowledge of English-sound system does not teach in school
also cause the mispronunciation of the undergraduates.

Interlingual and intralingual errors in the second language acquisition of the

present,past and perfect tenses in English: A study among malay learners in
Malaysian Secondary School

Lin Min Hwa 1998

The sample comprised 51 Malay students in their fourth form at Tunku Puan Habsah
National Secondary School in Penang, Malaysia

The data cited as examples in the discussion of the results come primarily from a
survey in the subjects’ responses to pre-structured multiple-choice items and
information on the subjects’ feedback and attitudes related to the use of English
tenses. Percentages of errors made in the use of the eight tenses were analyzed and
explained by 1) identifying the differences between the subjects’ mother tongue and
the target language,2) considering the subjects’ tendency to use certain verb forms in
various situations, and 3) referring to the rule governing the use of different tenses in
English. The findings suggest that both interlingual and intralingual errors occurred in
the second language acquisition of the tenses. Such errors can be ascribed to cross-
linguistic differences in the uses of verb phrases, confusion arising from the
complexities in the English verb forms and the subjects’ ignorance of a large number
of rules governing the use of the English tenses. Most of the errors can be attributed to
intralingual interference as that most plausibly occurred as a result of their ignorance
of the rules governing the uses of the tenses and their confusion with the verb forms
which resemble one another in certain aspects. Intra interference is comparatively
more noticeable than interlingual interference.

Review of studies related to Error Analysis

Duskova (1969)

Duskova in the studies, ‘On Sources of Errors in Foreign Language learning”,

describes the errors of fifty Czechoslovakian students using the English language.
These studies wrote three compositions of average of a hundred and seventy words
each. There were a thousand and seven errors, which were classified under grammar
and lexis. The grammatical errors were further reclassified into morphology, modal
verbs, tenses, articles, word order, syntax and prepositions. 25 percent of a thousand
and seven errors should be considered as mistakes, which the remaining one were
considered as errors. This analysis concluded that interference from the mother tongue
or the native language was traceable but other causes and sources were also evident.
The fact that no article existed in the Czechoslovakian language led both to omissions
of article (considered as interstructural interference) and to the use of definite article
instead of the indefinite (intrastructural interference).

Buteau (1970)

This analysis was carried out at the St. Joseph Teacher College at Montreal, Quebec
with a view to improve a foreign language instruction by establishing learners’
difficulties. A 124 first year English Speaking students between the ages of sixteen
and twenty were chosen. Some of these students also speak Italian, French and
various other languages at home. The basic of this analysis was on oral French
grammar and a short written essay. 85 percent of the students committed the same
types of errors. The survey thus indicates that for verb, the correct use of tenses was a
more difficult problem than inflection. In the written test, 90 percent of the students
successfully coped with gender agreement. However, these findings do not support
the notion of Contrastive analysis that is mother tongue interference.

Grauberg (1971)

For the German language, an error analysis, similar to that or Duskova 919690 was
undertaken at the German Department at Nottingham University. 23 first year
students wrote a 20 percent essay, varying in length from a 100 to 200 words. In this
study, 193 errors were categorized, and this classification was based partly on the
parts of speech and on concepts of transformational grammar. The three main classes
of errors were lexical (102), syntactic (70) and morphological (21). Out of the 193
errors, seven were considered as morphological. Out of the 193 errors, seven were
considered as mistakes.

Victor (1972)

In this analysis of compositional writing, victor attempts to assess accurately hat final
remedial work would be necessary after classifying errors obtained from 50 books of
composition. He classified his errors according to spelling, punctuation, sentence
structures, verb groups, noun groups, pronouns and repetition and circumlocution.

Victor believed that no two people could classify errors in the same way as several
errors would fall into two or more 4000 categories. 1081 errors were classified, out of
which sentence structure amounted to the most (695).

Scott and Tucker (1973)

This study examined the English Proficiency of twenty-two Arabic speaking students
at the American University at Beirut. Data was collected from written and oral
production samples of students and errors examined. The errors were categorized
according to finite verbs, prepositions, articles, relative clauses, repetition of subjects
and objects, nouns, pronouns. In their analysis, Scott and Tucker found that written
errors comprised of 229 errors, whereas oral errors amounted to 145. Verbs,
prepositions, and articles were the areas where students deviated most. However, in
general, a higher percentage of error was made in oral production (272 in oral
production and 269 in written).

Ghadessy (1980)

A study of a hundred compositions written by Freshmen students at Shirax University

was made, providing samples of each of the error types given by Richards (1970). The
written assignment were very short, a maximum of a hundred words.

Errors were analyzed and tabulated after being corrected by a native speaker. In doing
this, the procedure of analyzing error of Duskova (1969) was used. The results
indicated first language interference, accounting for only 4.7 percent of errors and
developmental errors amounted to 87.1 percent. This study indicated this high
percentage in developmental errors are related to transformation level due to what
Richards (1970) calls “ignorance of rule restrictions” and ‘incomplete application of
rules”.

An Error Analysis Of Written Compositions Of Selected Malaysian Female Students

At Form Five Level. By Marjindarjit Kaur a/p Ujagar Singh -March 1984

A total of 33 essays were collected from 33 Malaysian female students in the age of
16-18 years old and the essays are used as corpus for this investigation that collected
from three national type secondary schools in the district of Taiping.( SMJK Sri Kota,
SMJK Hwa Lian and SMJK Convent). There are different types of errors that can be
seen in that 33 essays, 23 percent in morphological errors (articles, pluralization,
genitival ‘of’ and omission of ‘be’), 44 percent in syntactical errors (include the use of
tense, prepositions, verb-to-be, word order, concord, infinite with or without ‘to’, 6.2
percent in lexical errors, 16.8 percent in the error in punctuations, and 10 percent in
the error in orthographic spelling.
English Error Analysis of Chinese Students in a Malaysian Secondary School-An
Examination-Based Approach.

By Margery Lim Phek Chu USM 1994

The objectives of this study were to identify the written errors produced by a group of
Chinese learners of English as a second language, trace the source of these errors, and
offer plausible explanations, for their occurrence. The data for this study were
gathered from 46 Chinese students in Malaysian Secondary School. Errors were
examined at the linguistic levels of syntax, lexis and morphology. The study produced
some interesting insights into the interim or transitional grammar of Chinese learners.
The findings should prove useful to those concerned with the teaching of English as a
second language to Chinese learners in particular. The study revealed that Chinese
learners applied various second language learning strategies.
 A B
Is sentence Does the normal Sentence is
superficially interpretation not
well formed according to the idiosyncratic
OUT¹
in terms of YES rules of the target YES
the grammar language make
of the target sense in the
language? context?