Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis 6l1d6t

OR ANALl'SIS

Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz, Ph. D.

Rahnama Press

- H"'TA · ~.t....-. ·JJJL.!S

Keshavarz. Mohammad Hossein Contrastive Analys is and Error Analysis/ Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz

·r"· '' • ,.,..._.

·~)

:.,)'-*

...,.. Vl \VJ\- \\l -~V- 0•• - l

.y ~I

:...:,.....!.\.>.>~

· I ·'lS' .....___J . - l;i r.-r

:,JIr.J. ...,.__.._ ,;1: i

s l ~lA... ....,.....L!..JL J

:~ ~

s.).r.Jl5 su.·~' - - ~~ ..J~J

:~ ~

~LJ.a.> - - ..,:.;~1 s t.......'J -

.J~J

:~ ~

P \T'l!SoS'f ,.,..._ .

:._?.;.5 s~• .);

t'·

:.J..j!.) s ~•.)J

-

'TO\\ 'TV•

First Published Revised Edition Reprinted Revised Edition Reprinted New Edition Reprinted

:...r-'-r- .;+' ~ J

..)-- ....,-~L:S' OJ W

1993 1994 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 1999 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008, 2009, 2010 2011 2012

RAHNAMA PRESS Copyrlglll C'> 2012

All rights rn~rv~d. No p11rt of tit is book lllllY b~ r~produced in 11ny form or by any means without th~ pnmission, ill writillg,from til~ Publish~r. No. 112, Sltoltllllll)'e Zlt11ndllrmerle St. (Moslttllflt St.), Between Fa"'ardJn & Fakltre Raz/, Englte/ab .Ave., Oppo. Tehran University, Teltran, Iran. P.O. Box: IJUS/ 1845- Tel: (021) 66416604 & 66400927

E-IIUIU: lnfo@fllhn~~~~~~~press.com http://www.rahnllmapress.com

f'~ .:.-IJ!, ;I f'~ ~~ •iJ,l.:.! ~ ~ ;S) :UJ;..

•ui4i

\St.\La> ~ , ~~ , \SI~Ii. I.S""'W 0~..i

:'-"'Jll ,l..;...) .:,,)L.:.:;l :_,.:,li • .~ 0• • • :jlr-' •f'li.~ 4i~~ : ';-'~ ,l..;...) :uil}f.J ,\T'\\ :

, 1-1-'f\1·1-·'f .1-1-'f· ·\'N :~ ,\H' ..5~ •\S,./>.ilj \S~ 04~ ~ •0!lJl,t 04~

•ut_,.:, fY :~

, 'f • ~ ·..r.~

u!4J-IJ. 4e~ 0~4> ol4l.:...lt.., ,t....:.AJ .lt....:,,~

·u!',.. \S,r-i ,.~ 04~ ~ ui,~ 04~

:'f

•

·0'* o~b ~lA..

,_'fi-V'frf :~\i • ,_'fA \1-~T

.)u .lS:.:,,.,t '-"').)1 • ~,,.r

~1-\0·\0V :~ .o,l;j,} jl..,~

0 l*

(oJ..:. _,b; ~~)

=~

.

r' ..s~

.~b ~lA.. ,l..;...J ~I:! ·~L..i .VV'fATO·O

\YA- V'f- 'ri-V-0· ·-'f

:~1.:.

v

~ leind oiudent&

Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................ i

Abbreviations ............................................................................................... vi

Part I. Contrastive Analvsis .. ...................................................... ) C hapter I. Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis .......................... 3

1. 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 3 1.2 Historical Perspective .......................................................................... 4 1.3 Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological Ba is ........... 7 1.4 Di fferent Vcrsions of Contrasti ve Analysis Hypothe is .................... I0 1.4. 1 The Strong Version .................................................................... IO I .4.2 The Weak Version ..................................................................... 1I 1.4.3 The Moderate Version ............................................................... 12 1.5 Linguistic Levels of Analysis ............................................. ............... 13 1.6 Procedures for Comparing Languages............................................... 14 1.7 Hierarchy of Difficulty ...................................................................... 16 1.8 Markedness Theory ......................................... .................................. 20 1.9 Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis ................................ 2 1 Stud) Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 24

Chapter 2. CA of Some Selected Features of English and Persian ......... 27 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 27 2.2 A Sample of Phonological Contrastive Analysis .. ............................. 28 2.2.1 Syllable Types and Consonant Clusters in English and Persian 28 2.3 Contrastive Analysis of Some Grammatical Structures ................ .... 31 2.3.1 Prepositions in English and Persian ........................................... 31 2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Questions .................................................... 35 2.4 Contrastive Analysis of Lexis ............................................................ 38

2.5 Contrastive Pragmatics .................................. .................................... 40

Study Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 43

Part II Interlanguage and Error Analysis ..•.......................... 45 Chapter 3. Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis ......... 47

3. I Introduction ....................................................................................... 4 7

3.2 Cognitive-Learning Theory ............................................................... 48 3.3. Generative-Transformational Grammar and First Language Acquisition ....................................................................................... 49 3.4 Similarities and Differences between First and Second Language Acquisition ....................................................................................... 51

Study Questions ............................................... ........................................ 55 Chapter 4. Er-r or Analysis .......................................................................... 57 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 57 4.2 Receptive versus Productive Errors .................................................. 59 4.3 Errors versus Mistakes ....................................................................... 60

4.4 Significance of Errors ............................................................... ......... 62 4 .5 Branches and Uses of Error Analysis ................................................ 63 4.6 Types of Errors Representing Stages of Second Language Development .................................................................................... 66

Study Questions and Exercises .................................... ...................... ...... 69 Chapter 5. Hypotheses about Second-Language Learner's Language .. 71 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 71

5.2 The lnterlanguage Hypothesis ........................................................... 72 5.3 The Approximative System Hypothesis ............................................ 75

5.4 The Idiosyncratic Dialect .................................................................. 76

Study Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 78 Chapter 6. Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis ........ 79

6.1 IntrOOuct·ion ....................................................................................... 79 6.2 Data-collection Procedures ................................................................ 79 6.2.1 Spontaneous Procedures ............................................................ 80

6.2.2 Elicited Procedures .................................................................... 81

6.3 Methodology for the identification and interpretation of errors ... ..... 83

Stud_l Questions and Exercises .. ................. ........................... .................. 87

C hapter 7. Classification of Errors ........................................................... 89 7. I Introduction ....................................................................................... 89

7.2 Linguistic-Based C lassification ......................................................... 90 7 .2. I Orthographic Errors ......... .. .. ................................. .................... 9 1

7.2.2 Phonological Errors .................................................................. 93 7 .2.3 Lexico-Semantic Errors ............................................................ 94

7.2.4 Morpho-Syntactic Errors ........................................................... 95 7.3 Process-Based Classification .............. ............................................ I 05 7.3 .1 Omission .................................................................................. I 05 7.3.2 Addition ........................................................................... ........ I 05 7.3.3 Substitution .............................................................................. I 06 7 .3.4 Permutation .............................................................................. 106

Study Questions and Exercises ........................ .............................. .... .... 106

Chapter 8. Sources of Errors ................................................................... 117 8. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 117 8.2 Interlingual Errors ............................................................................ 120 8.2.1 Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1................................ 121 8.2.2 Transfer of Morphological Elements .............................. ......... 121 8.2.3 Transfer of Grammatical Elements .......................................... 121 8.2.4 Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements .......................... ......... 122 8.2.4.1 Cross-Association ............................................................ 123 8.2.4.2 False Cognates ............................................................... 123 8.2.5 Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements ............................. 124 8.3 Intralingual and Developmental Errors ............................................ 124 8.3.1 Overgeneralization ................................................ ........ .......... 125 8.3.2 Ignorance of Rule Restriction .................................................. 126 8.3.3 False Analogy .......................................................................... 126 8. 3. 4 Hyperextension ........................................................................ 127 8.3.5 Hypercorrection ....................................................................... 127

8.3.6 Faulty Categorization ............................................................. 128

.4 Teache r-Induced Errors .. ... .... .... ...... .... ..... .......... .. ... .. ......... .. ..... ...... 128

.5 Language Learning Strategies ....... ........... ..... .. ..... .... ... .......... ..... .... . 129 8.6 Communication Strategies .......... .... ... ........ ... ........ ... .... ........ .... ... ..... 130 Sfll(~r Questions and Exercises ......... ...... ................................... .......... .. 132

C hapter 9. Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis ......................... 137 9. 1 Introduction ...... .... ..... ... .... ................ ..... .................... .. ....... ....... ... ... 137 9.2 Errors Re lated to Different Communicative Tasks ...... ......... .... ....... 137 9.3 Nati ve Speakers' Judg ment of Lean1e rs' Errors ..... ... ... .... ... ....... ... . 138

Study Questions and Exercises ........................ ...................................... 142

C hapter 10. Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis ...................... 145 l 0 .1 Introduction ...... .... .. ... ... ... ... ........ ..... .............................. .... ........ ... 145 I 0 .2 Implications for ES L/E FL Teachers .............. ........ ......... .. ..... ... .. .. 145 l 0 .3 Implications for Syllabus Designers .... ....... .... ............ .. ... .. ........... 146 10.4 Implications for Test D evelopers ......... ... .. ... ....... ..... ........... .. .. .. .. .. 147 10.5 Error Correction and Attitudes towards Errors .............. ..... .. ......... 148

Stud)· Questions .......................................... .............. ........ ... ................ . 153 References .................................................................................................. 155 Glossary ..................................................................................................... 167

Author .Index ............................................................................................. 171 Subject Index ............................................................................................. l73

Preface to the First .E dition Teachers. linguists and psycholinguists have always been intere ted in errors produced by second-language learners, either in their speech or writing or both. In fact , learners' errors have been the subject of extensive investigation and heated controveL y for quite a long time. There have been two major approaches to the study of learner ' error . namely Contrasti ve Analysis and Error Analysis. The author's principal intention in writing thi s book has been to provide a text for the Contrasti\'c and Error Analysis course now widely taught at the uni versity level in Iran. The prev iously used material for this course failed to cover many aspects of Error Analy i which are dealt with in the present book. The book is also intended to provide practicing teachers with insights into the nature and types of errors, with which they have to deal in their daily profes ional life. The material in this book is based on the author's lectures on Contrastive and Error Analysis at major universities in Tehran. It has been worked out over several years and has proven to be satisfactory and successful. Attempts have been made to present the material systematically. It is strongly believed that this systematic presentation wiiirnake the teaching and reading of the material smooth and easy. It is hoped that this book, with all its shortcomings, wi II create a

positive attitude towards errors, both on the part of educators and students.

.

I

Preface to the New Edition Invaluable received from instructors and students since the last revised edition appeared in 1999 led to major revisions and changes in the book, both in content and in organization. In this current edition, attempts have been made to thoroughly revise and update the book, incorporating new materials in the field of Contrastive Analysis and Error analysis. Most noteworthy is the addition of two entirely new chapters, Chapters 2 and 9, on practical contrastive analysis and communicative aspects of error analysis, respectively. Other chapters of the book have also been revised and updated to varying degrees. Some theoretical issues which were found difficult for students have been omitted and instead more practical topics and exercises have been added. Many of the references consulted in the preparation of the current edition did not exist when the book was first published in 1993 (e.g., Brown, 2000; Cattsell, 2000; Odlin, 2005; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Lightbown & Spada, 20 I 0; Domyei, 20 I 0). The intention behind the book, however, remains the same - to provide English students and teachers with a textbook on Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. The book is organized in two parts and ten chapters. Part I deals exclusively with Contrastive Analysis and Part I I covers different aspects of Error Analysis. Chapter 1 begins with a historical overview of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, and its psychological and linguistic bases, namely Behaviorist Psychology and Structural Linguistics, respectively. This is followed by a discussion on different versions of this discipline. Next, different linguistic levels of analysis and procedures for comparing and contrasting languages are presented. This will be followed by hierarchy of difficulty and markedness theory. Finally, the chapter will close with the advantages and disadvantages of CA and a set of study questions and exercises. In Chapter 2 the reader will become familiar with the actual contrastive analysis of certain selected features of English and Persian.

..

11

First, a sample of phonological features will be presented. This will be followed by contrastive analysis of some grammatical structures. Next, a contrastive analysis of some lexical items will be presented. And finally an example of pragmatic contrastive analysi s will be provided. Chapter 3 deals with the psychological and lingui stic di sciplines related to Error Analysi s. First, psychological concepts of learning, in general, and language learning, in particular, are discussed within the frame of reference of Cognitive-Learning Theory. Then, Generative Transformational Grammar will be briefly di scussed. Finally, the similarities and differences between child-language acquisition and second-language learning are dealt with. Chapter 4 is devoted to the fundamental issues in Error Analysis. Topics such as receptive versus productive errors, errors vs. mistakes, significance of errors, branches and uses of error analysis, and different stages of language learning and errors which represent these stages will be discussed in this chapter. In Chapter 5, different hypotheses about second-language Ieamer's language namely Interlanguage Hypothesis, Approximative Systems Hypothesis, and Idiosyncratic Dialect will be discussed.

In Chapter 6, techniques and procedures for doing Error Analysis will be presented. First, data-collecting procedures will be discussed. Then, the methodology for identification and interpretation of errors will be presented. Chapter 7 is devoted to the classification of errors. First, linguisticbased classification will be presented, and then process-based classification will be discussed. Illustrative examples from authentic data collected by the author will also be provided. Chapter 8 deals with the psycholinguistic analysis and classification of errors. That is, different sources of errors will be discussed and a comprehensive taxonomy will be presented .

•••

Ill

Chapter 9 di cus cs the communicative aspects of error analysis. Error re lated to different communicative tasks a. well as the reaction o f nati ve speakers towards different types of errors wi II be di scussed . Finally, Chapter I 0 presents implications of error analy. is for EF L teachers. syllabus designers, and test constructor ·. Error correction and attitudes towards errors wi 11 also be di scussed .

It is hoped that this new edition, with all its shortcomings, wi ll be found useful by Engli sh and translation students and teachers. The author welcomes any suggestions and con1ments regarding the content and o rganization of the book. He can be reached at: keshavarz22(mgmai l.cotn .

To the Instructor: Since the present book is taught both to undergraduate students (BA & Associate or Kardani students) majoring in English teaching and translation as well as MA students, the followin g should be borne in mind with regard to the teaching of the book. For undergraduate courses, the focus should be on the practical aspects of Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis and abstract theoretical discussions should not be highlighted. However, at the MA level not only all the chapters and sections ought to be taught but also supplementary materials and textbooks should be introduced and presented by the instructor. Therefore, based on his/her judgment and assessment of the students' proficiency level the instructor can make necessary decisions and adjustments to suit the specific needs of his/her students.

Acknowledgements 1 owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues who have taught this book at different universities as well as Ehni-Karbordi Centers and have provided me with invaluable comments and . I am also indebted to my students who gave me the initial impetus for writing the book.

IV

Special thank· go to Mr. J\llohammad Javad Sabaei and the staff of Rahnama Pre. s. in particu lar M. . ajmeh Ebrahimi , for their kind cooperati on and encouragement. La t. but by no means lea. t. 1 am particularly grateful to my patient wife and my be loved children for hav ing tolerated a busy husband and father. respecti ely, over the year .

Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz Tehran

Marcb 2011

v

Abbreviations CA

Contrasti ve Analysis

CAH

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

EA

Error Analysis

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ES L

English as a Second Language

ID

Idiosyncratic Dialect

IL

Interlanguage

Ll

Native Language

L2

Second or Foreign Language

MT

Mother Tongue

TL

Target Language

VI

1PcA 1f(T OWT

Part I consists of two chapters. Chapter l provides a historical background of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis followed by psychological and linguistic bases of this theory. Next, different versions of contrastive analysis will be presented. Then, linguistic levels of analysis and procedures for comparing languages will be discussed. This will be followed by hierarchy of difficulty and markedness theory. Finally, the merits and drawbacks of contrastive analysis will be discussed. Chapter 2 deals with actual contrastive analysis of certain linguistic features of English and Persian. The features selected for contrastive analysis include phonological, grammatical, lexical as well as pragmatics. There are study questions and exercises at the end of each chapter.

Chapter 1 - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis

3

Chapter 1 Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis Important concepts and used in tbis chapter: Behaviorism Positive Transfer Negative Transfer Verification Parallel Description Hierarchy of Difficulty Coalescence Reinterpretation Underdifferentiation Overdifferentiation

1.1 Introduction With the outbreak of World War II, the need arose for the United States military personnel to be able to communicate with both their allies and their enemies. Therefore, structural linguists, teaching methodologists and behaviorist psychologists collaborated to devise the most effective and economic methods and techniques of teaching

foreign languages, in particular English as a foreign language. Since the advocates of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the most effective materials for teaching foreign languages would be those based on contrastive studies this discipline was recognized as an important and integrated part of foreign language teaching for quite a long time. In fact, Contrastive Analysis was considered the ultimate

4

Contrastive Analysis and f: rror Amllysi8

solution to all language teaching problems. Consequently, a series of contrastive studies were conducted both in An1erica and Europe. These studies were essentially pedagogical and aimed at predicting and solving learners' errors and difficulties. In view of the controversies surrounding the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, it seems necessary to discuss different aspects of this discipline in this chapter.

1.2 Historical Perspective The history of Comparative Linguistics (originally known as Comparative Philology) goes back to the 18th century when scholars began to compare different languages in a systematic and detailed manner in order to find out whether there were correspondences between them. The objective of such comparative studies was to find evidence for the existence of a common origin for a group of languages. This common origin was called the proto-language' or common ancestor of cognate2 or related languages. For instance, some linguists have compared features of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Old Persian in order to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language. These activities within the domain of Comparative Historical Linguistic.5 have aimed at determining what a proto-language must have been like before any written records. Some linguists have also been interested in comparing various stages in the development of a single language, such as comparing Old Persian with Middle Persian and Modem Farsi by some Iranian linguists. Linguists have also been comparing languages as they are used today in order, for example, to classify them into certain groups on the basis of similarities that exist between them. In other words, some linguists study the structural similarities between languages,

( 1) A proto-language is a language that has existed before other languages. (2) Cognate languages or words are those that have the same origin.

Chapter I - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis

5

regardless of their history, as part of an attempt to establish a satisfactory classification, or typology of languages. This type of activity has been referred to as Comparative Typological Linguistics. Yet another type of comparative studies, which is the main focus of this chapter, is Contrastive Linguistics or Contrastive Analysis. Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic study of a pair of languages in order to identify their structural differences and similarities, usually for translation and teaching purposes. Modern contrastive linguistics intends to show in what ways the two respective languages differ, in order to come up with some solutions to tackle practical problems. That is, two languages are compared and contrasted with the aim of assisting second-language learners by identifying the probable areas of difficulty they may encounter in learning the target language. CA has also been used as a tool in translation theory to investigate problems of equivalence (having the same meaning in two languages). Unlike the aforementioned types of comparative studies, CA deals solely with present day languages. Contrastive linguistic studies can also be applied to the description of one or more varieties within a language, such as dialects', s2 , and styles3 (Contrastive Rhetoric). (For more on Contrastive Rhetoric4 see Connor, 1996) There are two main types of contrastive studies: theoretical and applied. Theoretical contrastive studies, as Fisiak ( 1985, p. 2) puts it, "give an exhaustive of the differences and similarities between two or more languages, provide an adequate model for their comparison, and determine how and which elements are comparable,

(I) Dialect: A variety of a language spoken in one part of a country, or by people belonging to a particular social group. (2) : Words, style and grammar used by a particular group of people, usually sharing the same occupation or interest. (3) Style: Variation in a person's speech or writing according to the formality of the situation. (4) Rhetoric: Style or language that is used to influence people.

Contra!tive Analy!is and Error Analy!l!

6

thus defining such notions as congruence correspondence 2, etc." He further adds that:

1 ,

equivalence,

theoretical contrastive studies are language independent. They do not investigate how a given category present in language A is presented in language B. Instead, they look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B. Thus, theoretical contrastive linguistics does not have a direction from A to B or vice-versa, but rather as illustrated in Figure I below, the direction is from X to A and B.

B

A Figure 1

Fisiak ( 1985, p.2) On the other hand, applied contrastive analysis is part of applied linguistics. Since it was frrst introduced by Robert Lado in the 1950's, CA has been concerned with practical problems, for instance, (a) to avoid interference errors in foreign-language learning, as advocated by the proponents of CA such as Di Pietro ( 1971 ), (b) to assist interlingual (between two languages) transfer in the process of translating texts from one language into another, as demonstrated by Hatim ( 1996), and (c) to fmd lexical equivalents in the process of compiling bilingual dictionaries, as illustrated by Heltai ( 1988) and Hartmann (2007). A major task of applied contrastive studies is explaining why some features of the target language are more difficult to acquire than others. It is this kind of contrastive study, i.e. pedagogical contrastive analysis, with which we shall be concerned in the remainder of this chapter. ( 1) Congruence: Semantic similarities. (2)Correspondence: Similarity between words in two languages.

Chapter t - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis

7

1.3 Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological Basis Throughout the fifties and until the late sixties, pedagogical contrastive analysis was used extensively in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a method of explaining why some features of the target language are more difficult to acquire than others. As Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005, p.52) explain, CA involved describing comparable features across the two languages, identifying the differences and, then, predicting what errors learners would make. It served two major purposes: first it provided an explanation for why learners make errors, and secondly it served as a source of information for identifying which structural areas of the TL teachers needed to teach (i.e., those where negative transfer was likely).

The proponents of Contrastive Analysis maintained that once the areas of potential difficulty had been mapped out through CA, it would be possible to design language courses more efficiently. Contrastive Analysis, along with Behaviorist Psychology and Structural Linguistics had a profound effect on SLA curriculum design and language teacher education, and provided the theoretical foundation of Audio-Lingual Method. Pedagogical contrastive analysis rests on the underlying assumptions of Behaviorist Psychology. The Behaviorists, inspired by the ideas of Skinner ( 1957), viewed first language acquisition essentially as the formation of new habits acquired through repetition and strengthened by the reinforcement of correct responses. This is similar to the way certain animals can be trained, through the use of appropriate conditioning techniques, to perform certain tasks. In this theory, language acquisition was not viewed as an active mental process but as a ive mechanical one.

8

Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis

As far as second-language acquisition is concerned, behaviorist 1 psychologists along with structural linguists believed that native language habits which are acquired during childhood interfere with the acquisition of econd language habits which are usually quite different from the habits of the mother tongue. Thus, contrastive analys is is founded on the assumption that second or foreign language learners will tend to transfer to their L2 utterances t~e ·formal features of their L I. This assumption was clearly stated by Lado in his famous book, Linguistics Across culture (1 957, p.2), as foJlows: Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings. and the distribution of fom1s and meanings of their nati ve language and culture to the foreig n language and culture. both productively when attempting to speak the language and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language ... as practiced by natives.

Based on this assumption, structural linguistics - who strongly believed that languages greatly differ from one another and that only overtly observable data should be analyzed - set out to identify areas of difficulty for second language learners and produce appropriate teaching materials to overcome these difficulties. They did this by systematically comparing and contrasting the structure of the learners' native language with that of the target language. As mentioned earlier, this technique was referred to as Contrastive Analysis. The concept of transfer which is the psychological cornerstone of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is of two kinds. Depending on the similarities and differences between the structure of the learner's native language (NL) and that of the target language (TL), when an old habit (i.e., that of the learner' s NL) facilitates the formation of a new habit (i.e., a new element in the TL) positive transfer is said to take place, and when the old habit impedes a new habit negative transfer is believed to occur and learning becomes difficult. In the words ofLado (1957, p. 2): ( 1) A school of linguistics in America and Europe that was primarily concerned with the scientific description of the forma l properties of language.


9

The student who comes in with a foreign language will find features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.

Lado further claims that "the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning lies in the comparison between native and foreign language" (Lado, 1957, p.l ). It needs to be pointed out that more recently the term cross-

linguistic has been used instead of transfer in the literature of second language acquisition (see Odlin, 1987, and Brown, 2000). As mentioned above, during its hey-day, CA became the basis of teaching foreign languages, and it was the main criterion for the preparation of instructional materials. This criterion was established by Fries's (1945) guidelines that ".:.the most effective materials [for foreign langu~e tea£hing] are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner" (p.259). Based on these guidelines, materials were designed in a way to ensure that, as far as possible, learners performed without error. Error was considered as-an evil sign of deficiency in teaching and learning, and every attempt was made to prevent its occurrence. This tabooing of error gained from Skinner's (1957) view that if an error occurs the probability of its recurrence cannot be permanently reduced by punishment and that all the teacher's efforts should go into rewarding correct responses. This negative attitude towards second language learners' errors was reflected in the audio-lingual methodology guides in the sixties. In the manifesto of that decade's teaching profession, Language and Language Learning, Nelson Brooks ( 1960) asserted that " ... Like sin [emphasis is mine], error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected" (p. 58).


10

1.4 Different Versions of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Contrastive Analysis has been a field of heated controversy as its proponents have not shared the same views with regard to the main tenets of this discipline. Three different versions of contrastive analysis hypothesis have been discussed in the literature, namely the strong version, the weak version, and the moderate version. A brief of each version will be presented below. 1.4.1 The Strong Version

Deeply rooted in the behaviorist psychology and structural linguistics, the strong version of contrastive analysis hypothesis focused on the notion of interference coming from the first language as the principal barrier to second language learning. The strong version made some rather strong claims with respect to predicting the difficulties and ... errors of second language learners. The underlying assumptions of the strong version of CAH were outlined by Lee ( 1968, p.l86) as follows: I. The prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign-language learning is interference coming from the learners' NL; · 2. the difficulties are chiefly, or wholly, due to the differences between the two languages; 3. the greater these differences are, the more acute the learning difficulties will be; 4. the result of a comparison between the two languages are needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur in learning the foreign language; 5. what there is to teach can best be found by comparing the two languages and then subtracting what is common to them, so that what the student has to learn equals the sum of the differences established by the CA.

Chapter J - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis

11

The strong version and the idea that second or foreign language learners' difficulties and errors could be predicted remained highly influential for quite a long time.

1.4.2 The Weak Version Having realized that the strong claims of contrastive analysis were too ambitious and beyond the reach of contrastive grammars, Wardhaugh ( 1970) proposed a more reasonable weak version of contrastive analysis. "The ' weak' version", he writes, "requires of the linguist only that he use the best knowledge available to him in order to for observed difficulties in second language learning" (p.4). He adds: It [the weak version] starts with the evidence provided by linguistic interference and uses such evidence to explain the similarities and differences between the two systems ... reference is made to the two systems (NL and TL] only in order to explain actually observed interference phenomena. (Wardhaugh, 1970, p.5).

The weak version is a model with diagnostic and explanatory as opposed to the predictive claim of the strong version. In this version, errors are studied after they have been committed by second-language learners and explanations based on a contrastive analysis of those areas in question are offered as to why the errors have occurred. However, as it is evident from the above quotation, the weak version-though more realistic and practicable than the strong version-is still confined to the notion of linguistic interference and seems to be able to only for errors caused by language transfer. In other words, the weak version recognizes the significance of interference across languages, the fact that such interference does exist and can explain difficulties, but it also recognizes the fact that linguistic difficulties can be more profitably explained after they have been observed.

12


1.4.3 The Moderate Version In view of the shortcomings of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, its proponents were gradually forced to tone down the unrealistic claims of their discipline and make less ambitious ones. Along these lines, Oller & Ziahosseiny ( 1970) proposed a third version of Contrastive analysis on the basis of their analysis of the spelling errors made by some foreign learners of English with different native language backgrounds. Contrary to the prediction of the strong version of the CAH, they found that English spelling proved to be more difficult for learners whose native language used a Roman alphabet (French, Spanish, French, Gennanic, Slavic) than for those whose native language used a non-Roman alphabet (Chinese, Japanese, Semitic). Similarly, according to the weak version of the CAH students whose native language uses a Roman alphabet would be expected to do better that the other group because of great~er positive transfer. However, Oller & Ziahosseiny's data proved that this was not the case. Thus, they rejected the strong and weak versions, as being too strong and too weak, respectively, in favor of their proposed version, which they wished to call the Moderate Version. The authors claim that the moderate version has more explanatory power than the other two versions since it centers on the nature of human learning, and not just on the contrast between two languages. Oller & Ziahosseiny maintained that the learning of sounds, sequences and meanings will be the most difficult where the most subtle distinctions are required either between the target and native language, or within the target language itself. In fact, as Brown ( 1987) says, interference can actually be greater when items to be learned are more similar to the existing items than when they are entirely new and unrelated to the existing ones. Brown further explains that gross differences are often more easily per·c eived and stored in memory while minimal differences can be overlooked because of overgeneralization. Therefore, contrary to the assumption of the strong version of contrastive analysis hypothesis greater differences do not always result in greater difficulty. Such a view underscores the


13

significance of intralingual errors. which are as much a factor in second-language learning as interlingual errors. (For more on these two types of error, see Chapter 8).

1.5 Linguistic Levels of Analysis Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communjcation system, which must be analyzed on a number of levels: phonology, morphology, syntax , texis, and pragmatics. In other words, language can be divided into components corresponding to various levels of analysis narnely phonological, morphological , syntactic, texico-semantic, as well as pragmatic, and contrastive descriptions can be made at every level of linguistic structure. It needs to be pointed out that linguistics have differed in the degree of separateness/integration of these levels. For instance, while Chomsky once argued that grammar is autonomous and independent of semantics ( 1957), another tradition initiated by the British linguist Firth claims that there is no boundary between lexis and grammar. That is, lex is and grammar are in fact interdependent. Traditional contrastive studies produced inventories of similarities and differences between linguistic components of the two languages being compared and contrasted. The emphasis given to various linguistic levels has not been the same in different linguistic theories. For instance, while the main focus of research in GenerativeTransformational Grammar is syntax, the Communicative Theory is more concerned with the pragmatic uses of language. It needs to be pointed out that structural linguistics and traditional grammar are not the only models to be used for contrastive analysis. Generative-Transformational Grammar and other linguistic theories have also been used as a basis for comparing and contrasting languages (see, for example, Di Pietro, 1971 , and Krzeszowski, 1974).


14

1.6 Procedures for Comparing Languages Contrastive analysis is essentially founded on the assumption that languages can be compared and contrasted. The means for such comparison is provided by linguistics to render descriptive s of the learner's native language and the target language on various linguistic levels mentioned above. Thus, contrastive analysis can be considered as a linguistic activity aimed at producing contrastive twovalued typologies. James ( 1980) asserts that "executing [doing] a contrastive analysis involves two steps: description, and comparison" (p. 63 ). However, five different steps have been mentioned in the literature for comparing and contrasting two languages, or two subsystems for that matter. These are explained below. 1. Selection It must be realized that a comprehensive comparison of two languages for pedagogical purposes is neither feasible nor necessary. Therefore, the analyst should select certain features of the target language that may potentially cause difficulty for the learners and then compare and contrast those features with parallel features in the learners' native language. Selection can be based on the analyst's teaching experience and bilingual intuition, if s/he shares the same native language with the learners. It can also be based on a prior analysis of errors committed by the learners. In the process of selection, the analyst should decide what to compare with what. Also the elements compared and contrasted in the two languages should be similar in some respects. 2. Description After the selection of certain linguistic items, structures or rules, the linguist or language teacher, should explicitly describe the two languages in question. Scientific description has been the core of

Chapter I - Fundamental Issues in Contrasth•e Analysis

15

contrastive analysis and the proponents of this theory have always put emphasis on parallel description of the two languages. By parallel description it is implied that the two languages should be described through the same linguistic model or framework. For example, if the analyst uses Generative-Transformational Grammar for describing certain aspects of the gramn1ar of L 1 slhe should use the same model for the description of L2. This principle works in the n1ajority of cases; however, some languages may require the use of alternative models for their description. Of course, this is a controversial theoretical issue and it is beyond the scope of the present textbook. For further details, interested readers can consult James ( 1980, Chapter 4).

3. Comparison When the description of subsystems of the two languages is complete the job of the analyst is to compare and contrast the two systems by juxtaposing features of the two languages in order to find similarities and differences between them. At this stage, the analyst has to decide what to compare with what. Linguistic features of the two languages are compared on three levels: form, meaning, and distribution of forms. It needs to be pointed out that in some texts companson and juxtaposition have been treated as two distinct steps, but as Yarmohammadi (2009) has noted, trying to keep them separate " imposes some sort of redundancy and unnaturalness on the statements" (p. 36).

4. Prediction Having described and compared certain features across languages, the analyst can make predictions about difficulties learners may face in acquiring the second language. The analyst should judge whether similarities and differences found through the comparison of the two

16


languages are problematic for the learners or not. Predictions can be arrived at through the formulation of a hierarchy of difficulty, as discussed in Section 1.8 below.

5. Verification The final step in contrastive analysis is verification. In this stage, the analyst needs to find out whether the predictions made about errors and difficulties actually materialize or not. In other words, we need to ask whether second language learners in reality commit the type of errors predicted on the basis of the contrastive analysis of the two languages or sub-systems of those languages.

1.7 Hierarchy of Difficulty Since contrastive analysis involved some degree of subjectivity and this did not meet the scientific description criterion of behavioristic psychology, some of the proponents of CAH made an effort to formalize the prediction stage of contrastive analysis in order to remove some of the subjectivity involved. The best-known attempt was made by Stockwell, Bowen, & Martin ( 1965), who proposed what they called a hierarchy of difficulty by which a teacher or linguist can make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the second language. Though the authors devised their hierarchy for English and Spanish, they claimed a universal application of the hierarchy. For phonological systems in contrast, Stockwell and his associates suggested eight possible degrees of difficulty.. These degrees were based upon the notions of transfer (positive, negative, and zero) and of optional and obligatory choices of certain phonemes in the two languages in contrast. Through a very careful, systematic analysis of the properties of the two languages with reference to the hierarchy of difficulty, applied linguists were able to derive a reasonably accurate inventory of phonological difficulties that a second language learner would encounter. That inventory included a prediction of the difficulty - relative to other items in the inventory -


17

of a particular unit of contrast. Stockwell and his colleagues also constructed a hierarchy of difficulty for grammatical structures of the two languages in contrast. Their grammatical hierarchy included 16 levels of difficulty, based on the same notions used to construct phonological criteria with the added dimension of structural

correspondence and .functional/semantic correspondence. Prator ( 1967, cited in Brown, 2000, pp. 209-21 0) captured the essence of this grammatical hierarchy in six categories of difficulty. Prator' s hierarchy is applicable to both grammatical and phonological features of language. The six categories, in ascending order of difficulty, are presented by Brown (2000, pp. 209-21 0) as follows. The examples in this hierarchy are given from Persian and English (i.e., potential utterances produced by a native speaker of Persian learning English as a foreign language). It needs to be pointed out that these categories have direct implications both for second language teaching and translation.

Level 0 - Transfer No difference or contrast exists between the two languages. The learner can simply transfer (positively) a sound, structure, or lexical item from the native language to the target language. It is assumed that target language items in this case do not cause any difficulty for the learner, hence the label of level zero is used. Examples can be found in many vowels and consonants of Persian and English such as: a, ce, u:, i:, b, f, s, z, J, 3, tf, illustrates this kind of transfer.

ct3,

m, n. The following diagram

English

Persian

+

+

18


Level 1- Coalescence Two or more items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language. This requires that the learners overlook a distinction they have grown accustomed to. For example, the Persian learner of English must overlook the distinction between danefamuz and danefd:JU, and use just one English word namely student. This is illustrated in the following diagram.

English

Persian

+

++ +++

Level 2- Underdifferentiation As shown in the following diagram, an item that exists in the native language is absent in the target language. For example, the phonemes /x/ and /q/ which are present in Persian are absent in English. Thus, the Persian learners of English must avoid these phonemes when practicing English. Similarly, the learner must avoid using certain Persian words and expressions such as /tJakeretcem/ 'your devoted servant' or /naukceretcem/ 'I'm your servant'.

English

Persian

+

Level 3- Reinterpretation An item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution in the TL. The Persian learner of English, for example, must learn a new allophone for the phoneme /1/. That is, the Persian Ill


19

is mainly a clear Ill; whereas, this phoneme may be clear or dark in English depending on the phonological environment.

Level 4- Overdifferentiation An entirely new item in the target language, bearing little or no similarity to the native language item, must be learned. For example, the native speaker of Persian must learn English phonemes /9/, /o/, /1/, and /v/ since they do not exist in Persian. This also applies to many English idiomatic expressions that have no equivalent in Persian, such as eat like a horse.

English

Persian

+

LevelS- Split As illustrated in the following diagram, one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language, requiring the learner to make a new distinction. Split is the opposite of coalescence. For example, the Persian learner of English has to make a distinction between desk and table since the equivalent of these two words in his native language is one single word, namely /miz/. This also applies to he and she as the equivalent of /u:/ in Persian.

English

Persian

+

+

+++ For further elaboration and examples of this and other lexical relations between English and Persian see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.


20

The hierarchy of difficulty outlined above and the procedures for contrastive analysis described by Whitman ( 1970) are not without shortcomings, as Brown (2000) states. For one thing, subtle phonetic distinctions may be ignored. Phonological environments and allophonic variants of phonemes may be overlooked. Also determining which category a particular contrast fits into is not always as easy as it may appear so.

1.8 Markedness theory Due to the shortcomings mentioned above, markedness theory (also referred to as Markedness Differential Theory) was proposed by some scholars to for relative degrees of difficulty by means of principles of Universal Grammar (Eckman, 1977 and 1981; Rutherford, 1982; and Celce-Murcia & Hawkins, 1985). The markedness theory has been summarized by Celce-Murica & Hawkins as follows: It distinguishes of a pair of related forms or structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the unmarked (or natural) member of the pair is the one with a wider range of distribution than the marked one. For example, in the case of the English indefinite articles (a and an), an is the more complex or marked form (it has an additional sound) and 11 is the unmarked form with the wider distribution (CelceMurcia & Hawkins, 1985, p.66).

As Larsen-Freeman and Long ( 1991) put it, "the linguistic notions of markedness are usually defmed in tenns of complexity, relative frequency of use, or departure from something that is more basic, and typical in a language" (p. I 02). Unmarked items or structures, on the other hand, are those that are common, more basic and more core in a language. Second language learners master these items earlier and quicker. These items are considered universal in that they are common across all languages of the world (Kellerman, 1979).


21

Rutherford ( 1982) used markedness theory to explain why there seems to be certain order of acquisition of morphemes in English: marked structures are acquired later than unmarked ones. According to Gass & Selinker (2008), the mor,e marked and more difficult constructions entail the knowledge of less marked and easier constructions. In other words, learners may generalize their knowledge of a more difficult construction to a related and easier one. More specifically, as far as CA is concerned, the Markedness Theory claims that comparisons of the native language with the target language is crucial in order to make predictions or to understand errors in L2 acquisition. The Markedness Theory proposes that if the L2 structure is more marked than the one occurring in the L I, then the L2 learner will have more difficulty with that type of structure. However, if the L2 structure has the same degree of markedness or is less marked as compared to the L I structures then the L2 Ieamer wi 11 have little or no difficulty acquiring the structure. As Brown (2000) states, markedness theory gives us a more sophisticated method for predicting difficulty than earlier methods of contrastive analysis. But determining degrees of markedness is still to a large extent a subjective judgment. As is the case with virtually every problem of linguistic analysis, the objectivity of scientific methodology is still elusive.

1.9 Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis As it was mentioned earlier, CA was widely influential in the 1950s and 1960s in the field of foreign language teaching; however, from the 1970s its influence began to decline. This was due in part to the shortcomings of structural linguistics, with which it was closely associated. The CAH was also at odds with the views of second language acquisition and interlanguage theory, according to which only a small proportion of errors derived from first language interference. However, interest in CA has not faded away entirely. After it went under severe attacks in the United States, in Europe the

22


tradition of CA was followed more faithfully. Even after alternative methods for analyzing learner language have come to the vogue researchers cannot help but acknowledge the role of the mother tongue. As Odlin (2005) states, "several books, collection of articles, and state-of-the art papers in the last fifteen years or so show that interest in cross-linguistic influence [language transfer] remains strong" (p. 437). He further adds that "study after study has shown real effects of the negative language [negative transfer]" (p. 478). Also Granger (2002), commenting on the comparison between non-native speakers corpora, notes that "in cases where differences emerge among learners with different language backgrounds, the analyst will explore the likelihood that the variation is due to L l influence" (p.l3). As discussed earlier, contrastive analysis is based on two main assumptions: (i) the native language of the learner interferes with the learning of the target language and consequently interference from the mother tongue constitutes the main cause, if not the sole cause, of errors, and (ii) the greater the difference between the structure of the source and the target language the more difficult it is to learn a foreign language. With regard to the first issue, empirical studies have failed to substantiate interference as the sole or main cause of errors in secondlanguage learning. On the contrary, it has been shown that there are many cases of errors which cannot be attributed to a learner's mother tongue (Du§kova, 1967; Wilkins, 1968; Buteau, 1970; Nemser, 1971, to mention but a few). Critics of contrastive analysis have argued that since native language interference is only one of the sources of errors, indulging in CA with a view to predicting difficulties is not worth the time spent on it; moreover, they argue, many of the difficulties predicted by contrastive analysis do not show up in the actual learner performance at all. On the other hand, many errors that do tum up are not predicted by contrastive analysis. Thus, CA is criticized for ignoring factors such as learning and communication strategies, overgeneralization, transfer of training, and the like, which may affect


23

the learner's performance in the target language (For a more detailed discussion on the sources of errors, see Chapter 8). As to the second assumption of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, no simple one-to-one correlation can always be found between learning difficulty and the differences between the source and the target language. That is, as mentioned above, what contrastive analysis predicted as difficulty did not always tum out to be so (Whitman, 1970; Nickel, 1971; Whitman and Jackson, 1972).

It needs to be pointed out, however, that despite all the heated controversies surrounding the field of contrastive analysis, many language teachers from various comers of the world still find it useful in dealing with the learning problems of their students. On the phonological level, even its severest critics cannot help but acknowledge the predictive validity of CA (Richards, 1971 ). As Brown (2000, p.212) claims, "phonology remains the most reliable linguistic category for predicting learner performance" (p.212). As far as syntactic errors are concerned, it has been itted that a good proportion of errors are interference-based (George, 1972; Tran-ThiChau, 1974). Even those practitioners who, in theory, seriously question the validity of contrastive analysis and advocate alternative approaches to the study of second-language learners' errors incorporate CA in their methodology, at least implicitly, for the explanation of errors. In the 1980s and 1990s, some scholars have found new dimensions for contrastive analysis, such as Contrastive Analysis and Communicative Competence, Contrastive Rhetoric, Contrastive Analysis and Translation, Pedagogical Contrastive Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatic Transfer (James, 1985; K.rzeszowski, 1985; Sanders, 1985; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Kasper, 1992; Connor, 1996; and DeCapua, 1998).


24

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. I. What was CA concerned with?

2. What was the psychological basis of CA?

3. Which linguistic theory ed CA?

4. What are the pedagogical values ofCA?

5. How are second language learners' errors treated in CA?

6. What are the two types of transfer?

7. What are the main steps in comparing two or more languages?

8. What are the shortcomings of CA?

Part II. Complete the foUowing sentences. I. CA is the ........... study of a pair of languages in order to identify their . . . . . . . . . . . . differences and similarities, usually for .......... . and teaching purposes. 2. Contrastive linguistic studies can also be applied to the ............ . of one or more varieties within a language, such as .......... , .......... , and . . . . . . . . . .. .


25

3. This negative ... .. ... .. towards second language learners' .. . ... ... . was reflected in the ... ... .. . ... methodology guides in the sixties. 4. The 'weak' version is a model with ........ . and ........... as opposed to the ... ... .... claim of the 'strong' version. 5. By . ...... . .. description contrastive linguists implied that the two languages should be described through the same ....... .. .... or framework.

6. Linguistic features of the two languages are compared on three levels: .... .. ..... , ......... , and . .. . ...... ... of fonns. 7. Hierarchy of difficulty refers to the . . . . . . . . . of the relative . .. .... . of a given aspect of the target language.

8. The ...... ... (or natural) member of a pair is the one with a .. .. ... . range of . ... .. . .... 9. CA is criticized for ignoring factors such as .. ..... .. and .......... . strategies, ............., and ......... . .... , which may affect the Ieamer's performance in the target language I 0. Unmarked items or .... .. ... .. . are those that are ........, more .. . .. . . and more core in a language.

Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features ...

27

Chapter 2 Contrastive Analysis of Some Selected Features of English and Persian Important concepts and used in this chapter: syllable nucleus peak onset coda direct questions indirect questions lexical split convergence divergence cognates

2.1 Introduction Based on the theoretical discussion presented in Chapter I , in this chapter an actual contrastive analysis of certain features of English and Persian will be presented. In this task, ftrst the selected features from these two languages will be described in linguistic and then they will be compared and contrasted. Next, based on the differences found between the two languages certain predictions will be made about difficulties Persian-speaking learners of English may encounter. The selection is based on the author's years of experience

28

Contrasth~e

Analysis and Error Analysis

in teaching English to Iranian students and familiarity with their learning difficulties and errors.

2.2 A Sample of Phonological Contrastive Analysis 2.2.1 SyUable Types and Consonant Clusters in English and Persian The notion of syllable is a significant one since syllable is crucially important in the production of speech, and also because stress and intonation are features of syllable and not single sounds. Therefore, before comparing the structure of syllables in English and Persian it seems necessary to provide a definition of the term syllable, first. A syllable is a unit of pronunciation typically larger than a single sound and smaller than a word. For example, in the English word dis.ad.van.tage there are four syllables, and the Persian word /Je.ni.drenl 'hear' consists of three syllables. Therefore, a syllable is usually made up of more than one speech sound, i.e., a vowel plus one or more consonants. The vowel is an essential element in the structure of a syllable. In other words, a syllable is not possible without the vowel. The vowel being the obligatory element in a syllable is called the nucleus or peak. The peak may be preceded by one or more consonants, which constitute the onset of the syllable; it may also be followed by one or more consonants which form the coda. For instance, in the English word 'cat' the onset is /k/, the peak is I rei, and the coda is /tJ. (For more on this, see Keshavarz, 2009).

English and Persian Syllable types Compared to English, Persian has a rather limited range of syllable types. Disregarding some borrowed words like /lustr/ 'chandelier' and /septambr/ 'September', Persian has only six syllable types which are presented below with the help of the symbols V for vowels and C for consonants.

C hapter 2 - CA of Some Selected

Feature~ ...

29

Table 2.1 Syllable Types in Persian No.

Type of Syllable

Key Words /u/ ' s/hc '

V

3

cv eve

4

ve

/in/ 'this', /ab/ ' water', l aJI

5

vee

/a:sb/ 'horse'. /ard/ ' flour'

6

CVCC

2

l m ul ' hair', /paf 'foot', /mal 'wc' l muJ/ ·mouse', /ran/ 'leg' . /nan/ 'bread' ' broth ~

/drest/' hand', /ra tl ' right', /mast/ ' yoghurt'

As can be seen, the number of consonants that can occur before and after vowels ranges from one to two. The onset can consist of only one consonant while the coda varies from one to two consonants in length. As opposed to the small number of syllable types in Persian, English has quite a wide range of syllables. These are i1lustrated in Table 2.2 below. It must be ed that here we are dealing with pronunciation of the key words and not their spe11ing. For example, the pronunciation of ~awe' consists of only one vowel sound, namely /) /.

Table 2.2 Syllable Types in English No.

Type of Syllable

I

V

2 3

ev eve

4

VC

s

vee

Key Words a, awe he, she, key, fee, too, knee hit, feet, got, but, thought eat, it, egg, odd, on

ann, ant, aunt, act, and

30


No.

Type of Syllable

KeyWords

6

cvcc

cats, can't, sand, fact, hats

7

CCV

free, tree, ski, three, claw

8

CCCV

9 10

vccc ccvc

1I

CCCV

12

streets, screams, streams

14

cccvcc cvccc cvcccc

15

CCVCC

trunk, start, skirt, stamp

16

CCVCCC

17

CCCVCCC

18

vcccc

13

spree, straw, screw asks, anns, aunts, acts school, speak, stool, small, stop street, scream, spring, stream

hands, tanks, camps, ranks, nests texts, bursts, tempts

trunks, starts, skirts, stamps strengths, splints

pre-empts (the second syllable)

Through comparison of syllable types of English and Persian ( 18 compared to 6) one can realize how difficult acquiring the syllable structure of English is for Persian-speaking learners of this language. In fact, one of the major sources of pronunciation errors of Iranian EFL learners is the complexity of consonant clusters (i.e., the occurrence of more than one consonant in the onset or coda of a syllable), especially in the initial position. This is because Persian does not allow initial consonant clusters while in English up to three consonants can occur syllable initially. Therefore, when faced with initial consonant clusters, Persian-learners of English automatically insert a vowel before or in between the consonants. For example, they may pronounce school as /esku:V or street as /seterit/. Now let's apply the concept of markedness explained in Chapter I to syllable structure. As illustrated above, the basic syllable consists of

Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features •..

31

onset, nucleus, and coda. The degree of markedness is based on the length of the onset and the coda of the syllable. As Carlisle (200 1) has stated, the longer the onset or coda, the more marked the syllable is considered to be. Consequently, English syllable structure that allows up to three consonants word initially and up to four consonants in the final position is extremely difficult for Persian-speaking learners of English.

2.3 Contrastive Analysis of some Grammatical Features 2.3.1 Prepositions in English and Persian Prepositions are perhaps the most notorious aspect of the English language for Persian-speaking learners of English and they present enormous difficulties for them. The difficulty lies in the variety of forms and functions of prepositions in English, on the one hand, and the differences between English and Persian with regard to the form and function of prepositions, on the other hand. Prepositions carry very important semantic and discourse functions. They express notions such as: time, place, directions, purpose and manner, to mention but a few. For a comprehensive of various forms and functions of prepositions in English, see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvick (1985, pp. 655-716). Here we concentrate on the differences between English and Persian prepositions as one of the possible sources of difficulty and errors. To clearly illustrate the contrasted features, each example sentence below consists of: (a) English sentence (henceforth E), (b) Persian equivalent (P), (c) literal translation (LT) of the English sentence, and (d) finally the predictable error (PE). There are four possibilities in the case of English and Persian prepositions, as presented below.

32


Category 1. There exists a preposition in English with no equivalent in Persian. For instance, the Persian equivalents of the following English sentences lack any preposition. a. The book consists of five chapters. (E) ketab Jamele p~ndj f~sl ~st. (P) book consists 0 five chapter is. (LT) The book consists 0 five chapters. (PE)

b. I usually go swimming in the afternoon. (E) mren mre?mulren bre?d rez zorha be estrexr mirrevrem (P) I usually 0 afternoons to swimming pool go. (LT) I usually go swimming 0 afternoons. (PE)

Category 2. There is a preposition in Persian with no equivalent in English. Examples include marry with, enjoy from, resemble to,

discuss 11bout as illustrated in the following sentences. a. u ba doxtrer ?remujreJ ezdeva¢5 krerd (P) he with cousin-his married. (LT) He married with his cousin. (PE) He married his cousin. (E)

b. rna rez mrenazere ziba le~t bordim (P) we from sceneries beautiful enjoyed (LT) We enjoyed from the beautiful sceneries. (PE) We enjoyed the beautiful sceneries. (E)

Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features...

33

c. an do breradrer Jrebihe be hrem hrestrend (P) those two brothers resemble to each other are (LT) The two brothers resemble to each other. (PE) The two brothers resemble each other. (E)

d. anha raQ.Je? be an mowzu? brehs krerdrend (P) they about that matter discussed (LT) They discussed about that matter. (PE) They discussed the matter. (E)

Category 3. In this category, for several prepositions in English there exists only one counterpart in Persian. As an example, the preposition /zir/ in Persian can equally be used for the English prepositions below,

under, beneath, and underneath, as shown in the folJowing examples. a. bre?zi heivanat zir-e zrernin zendregi mjkonrenred (P) some animals below ground live make (LT) Some animals live below the ground. (E)

b. gorbe zir-e miz ~st/ (P) cat under table is (LT) The cat is under the table. (E)

c. ru:dxane?i zir-e pol bu:d (P) river beneath bridge was (LT) There was a river beneath the bridge. (E)

Contrasth·e Analysi5 and Error Analysis

34

d. mu:haj-e trela?ij-reJ zir-e ru:sreri pufande Jode bu:d (P) hairs blonde-hers underneath scarf hidden was (LT) Her blonde hair was hidden underneath her scarf. (E)

This, as can be imagined. creates a great deal of difficulty for Persian learners of English since they do not know which preposition to use in what context.

Category 4. Both languages have prepositions; however, the forms and functions of prepositions are different in English and Persian. For instance. the Persian equivalent of write to in the sentence 'I am writing this letter to my father· is write f or. which in English has a different meaning, i.e., write on beha(( of someone else. In the latter case, the expression /rez trerref-e .. ./ or /rez Q.Janeb-e .. ./ is used in Persian. This difference is, indeed, more serious than lack of an equivalent in Persian for an English preposition (i.e., category 1 above) as it creates a greater degree of confusion for the learners. Psycholinguistically, it has commonly been suggested that it is easier to acquire a new target language element with no equivalent in the learner' s mother tongue than to acquire similar, but not identical, elements (Brown, 2000). Further examples of this sort include: afraid from instead of afraid of, fight with instead offight against, arrive to instead of arrive in, live in instead of live on, as illustrated in the following erroneous sentences.

Most women are afraid from mice. The brave young Iranians fought with the enemy. It took us 5 hours to arrive to Rasht. They live in the second floor.

Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features...

35

The above differences between English and Persian with regard to the forms and functions of prepositions constitute one of the major causes of errors in the use of English prepositions. There are three main types of errors in the use of English prepositions, as follows: (i) omission of preposition, (ii) redundant use of preposition, and (iii) wrong use of preposition. For a comprehensive taxonomy of preposition errors as well as other types of errors see Chapter 7 of the present book. It needs to be pointed out that mother tongue interference is not the

only cause of errors in the use of prepositions; other factors need to be taken into consideration as well. As mentioned earlier, some of the English prepositions are absent in Persian, and some with apparently translation equivalents have different functions in the two languages. As a result, many of the errors can be attributed to the MT interference; however, once the learner starts learning English and gradually builds up his knowledge of the target language, interference from other prepositions in English will emerge as an intralingual factor. Consequently, the learner is in a state of doubt and confusion as to whether to use prepositions in a given sentence and if so what prepositions to use in what contexts. In addition, faulty teaching and learning and also strategies employed by the learner should also be taken into consideration in the explanation of errors (For more on the sources of errors, see Chapter 8).

2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Questions ln English, unlike direct questions in which the interrogative structure is an independent clause (e.g., where are you going?), in indirect questions the interrogative structure is a dependent or subordinate clause as in: He asked me where I was going. These subordinate clauses function as complements of verbs such as ask, wonder, know, , etc. The main syntactic difference between direct and indirect questions in English is that in direct questions subject-auxiliary order change is

36


obligatory while in indirect questions this operation nonna11y results in ungrammaticality, e.g., *He asked me where was I going. However, as Quirk et al. ( 1985) point out, there are some exceptions to this rule. More specifica11y, when the subordinate clause functions as complement and the subordinate verb is BE, or when it functions as appositive, the subject-verb inversion rule does apply, as shown in the following sentences. The problem is who can we get to replace her. Your original question, why did he not report to the police earlier, has not yet been answered. However, in the majority of cases the rule of subject-auxiliary order change does not apply to indirect questions. For a more detailed discussion of indirect questions in English see Quirk et al. ( 1985), and Radford ( 1992).

In Persian, the difference between direct and indirect questions is mainly found in the intonation pattern and there is no subject-auxiliary order change in either of the interrogative structures. That is, in direct questions there is a rising intonation, whereas in indirect questions the intonation is falling. To illustrate this point, the Persian equivalents of the above English example sentences are given below. a. (Joma) koctJa mirrev-id? (Rising Intonation) (colloquially, koctJa miri?) (you) where going-you? ' Where are you going?'

b. u: (rez mren) porsid ko

37

Several observations can be made on the basis of the above examples. 1. There is no copula or auxiliary in such direct or indirect questions in Persian. 2. The verbal ending changes from second to first person singular in the case of indirect questions. 3. The intonation patterns of direct and indirect questions are different. 4. When a direct question is transformed into an indirect question the sequence of tenses may or may not be observed in Persian, whereas in English the sequence of tenses is normally observed.

It is interesting to note that although there is no subject-auxiliary order change in Persian indirect questions (hence no predictable interlingual errors) Persian-speaking learners of English usually commit errors such as the ones below when they attempt to produce English indirect questions. These errors seem to be intralingual as they stem from the mutual interference of the target language structures and not from mother tongue interference. The learning strategy involved here appears to be 'overgeneralization', i.e., the learners overgeneralize the target language rule of subject-verb inversion and apply it in contexts where it is not appropriate. Examples of common errors in the use of indirect questions:

*I can't when did I meet him. *I don't know how did they got there.

•1 asked him why didn't he come to school yesterday. *Our teacher didn't tell us when was the final exam.


38

2.4 Contrastive Analysis of Lexis A detailed lexical analysis of English and Persian is beyond the scope of this textbook. Therefore, only some of the major lexical relations between these two languages will be briefly outlined below.

Category 1. Words that are similar or identical in meaning in English and Persian, but are different in form. Examples include: cat /gorbe/ mouse /muf/ teacher /mo?relem/ chair /srendreli/ A large number of words in English and Persian fall within this category. Category 2. For one lexical item in the target language there are two or more equivalents in the source language. This is called convergence. As an example, there are eight different equivalents in Persian for the English word cousin, as illustrated below: cousin

peszr?~mu

doxter?~mu

pes~rxale

pes~r?~me

doxterxale

pes~rda?i

doxterda?i

doxter?~me

This seems to be rooted in cultural differences. That is, in the Iranian culture, family bonds are much stronger than those in the English-speaking culture.

39


Category 3. For one lexical item in the source language there are two or more lexical items in the target language. This is the reverse of Category 2 above and is called divergence or lexical split. Lexical split is of two kinds: simple and multiple. Simple lexical split is when one lexical item in language A has two equivalents in language B. Examples include:

pa

/""'

foot

leg

hand

ann

In multiple lexical split one word in the source language has three or more equivalents in the target language. For example, the Persian word lbozorg/ has five different equivalents in English, as follows.

bozorg

big (city) large (house) great (discovery) grown up (person)

major (problem)

Category 4. Cognates: Words which are similar in form and meaning in both languages: brother /breradrer/, mother /madrer/, door /drer/ Category S. Deceptive Cognates These cognates, which are also called false friends, are similar in pronunciation, but may be only partially similar in meaning or may have quite different meanings: maJin/machlne, sigar/cigar, car/kar. Such words are, indeed, very difficult for learners since they may be deceived by the phonological similarities of the pairs of words. As Lightbown & Spada (20 10) assert, "when errors are caused by

40

Contrastive

Analysi~

and Error Analysis

learners' perception of some partial similarity between the first and second languages, they may be difficult to overcome, especially when learners are frequently in with other learners who make the same errors" (p. I 87).

2.5 Contrastive Pragmatics In the previous sections~ CA of certain linguistic features of English and Persian were presented. Contrastive Analysis can also be carried out with reference to how language functions or uses differ in the two languages. That is, how different languages express the same communicative functions . For example, how the two languages handle language functions such as request, compliment, apology, and the like. This kind of analysis is called contrastive pragmatics. Transfer of pragmatic features can, indeed, be more important than the transfer of grammatical or lexical items of the learner's MT. As Leech ( 1990) points out, uthe transfer of the norms of one community to another community may well lead to pragmatic failure [i.e., breakdown in communication], and to the judgment that the speaker is in some way being impolite" (p. 231 ). In other words, the linguistic choices appropriate in one language may not be appropriate in another language, and this may result in communication breakdown between EFL learners and native speakers of English. Unlike grammatical errors that are usually recognized by native speakers, pragmatic errors are more difficult to detect, and language learners who make such errors may be considered rude by native speakers (DeCapua, 1998). As Holmes ( 1992) puts it, "learning another language usually involves a great deal more than learning the literal meaning of the words, how to put them together, and how to pronounce them. We need to know what they mean in the cultural context in which they are normally used" (p 305). In fact, researc~ studies have shown that even the speech acts of advanced foreign language learners contain nonnative pragmatic features arising from pragmatic transfer (e.g., Scarcella, 1983; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Keshavarz, Eslami, & Ghahraman, 2006). Therefore, EFUESL syllabus designers and material

Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features ...

41

developers as well as teachers should take pragmatic features into consideration. Based on the above, this section is devoted to the comparison of the speech act of compliment in English and Persian. Compliments are expressions of positive evaluation and judgment on the addressee' s appearance or accomplishments. ln other words, in a compliment act the speaker praises or ires the appearance, behavior, characteristics, etc. of the person he talks to (the addressee). A compliment may be given to open a conversation or maintain a social relationship already established. Compliments are universal in the sense that each and every culture has some ways of iring and praising the positive attributes of its . However, variations are found in the way and the amount of compliments given in different cultures. As Wolfson ( 1983) states, "compliments differ cross-culturally not only in the way they are structured but also in their distribution, their frequency of occurrence, and the function they serve" (p.87). Also the object of compliment may vary from culture to culture. For example, in the American culture it is quite normal to openly compliment on the appearance of one's wife, e.g., Your wife is so beautiful! Whereas, in the Iranian culture such a compliment will, in the majority of cases, cause problems for both the complimenter and the recipient. The response to a compliment may also vary from culture to culture. For example, in the Iranian culture, the response to a compliment on possessions, such as I like your sunglasses is normally the offer of that item to the complementer. (Presumably the reader is familiar with the common expression in Persian: /qabeli ncedarced, piJkeJ/ = They are worthless, you can have them!). Whereas in the American culture, the appropriate response in this case would be: Thank you, /like them, too. Even if the recipient of the compliment in Iran will not offer the item of possession to the speaker, he/she may use expressions that might be different from those common in other languages. Consider the following examples:

42


I. Speaker A: pirahrenet xeili qreJrenge. 'Your shirt is very nice'. Speaker B: tfeJmatu:n qreJreng mibine 'It's your eyes which see them nice'.

2. Speaker A: (Commenting on a meal) qazatu:n xeili xofmreze bu:d, drestetu:n drerd nrekone. 'Your food was very delicious, your hands won't have pain'. Speaker B: xojbalrem ke du:st daJtid. 'I'm glad you liked it'

3. Student: (At the end of a class lecture): ostad xreste nrebaJid 'Professor, don't be tired' instead of'Goodjob', 'Well done'. Professor: motJrekerrem 'Thanks'.

4. Visitor (commenting on the host's son): tJe pesrere xu:bi! 'What a good boy!' Host: drestetu:n ra mibusred 'He kisses your hand' instead of 'Thanks'

Of course, it should not be implied from these examples that that all types and forms of compliments vary in English and Persian. In fact, adjectival compliments such as nice, good, beautiful, and wonderful and their equivalents in Persian seem to enjoy high frequency of occurrence. These adjectives carry positive evaluation in both languages, e.g., soxrenranjetu:n ali bu:d. 'Your lecture was wonderful', or tJeh baqt]eye qreJrengi darid 'What a beautiful garden you have'.

Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features ...

43

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. 1. How is syllabus nucleus defined? 2. What are the differences between onset and coda? 3. What is the difference between convergence and divergence? 4. What are the differences between direct and indirect questions in English? 5. What are the differences between simple and multiple lexical split?

Part II. Provide appropriate compliment expressions for the foUowing situations. 1. Your classmate has got the top grade in the fmal exam. What forms would you use to congratulate him? 2. What English words or expressions would you use to compliment your friend on a beautiful dress she is wearing? 3. Your neighbor has just bought a new car. How would you compliment him on that? 4. Your cousin has just given birth to a baby. What compliment form( s) would you use to congratulate her.

Part m. Carry out a contrastive analysis of the following features In English and Penlan: 1. Stress 2. Imperatives 3. Intonation Patterns 4. Relative Clauses

S. Defmite and Indefmite Articles

1PartTaMV

Having discussed Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis in detail followed by the contrastive analysis of certain selected features of English and Persian, in this part different aspects of Error Analysis and lnterlanguage will be discussed and the methodology for doing error analysis will be presented. Sources of errors, error correction and other related issues will also be included in Part II.

Chapter 3 _Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis

47

Chapter 3 Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis

Important concepts and used in this chapter: Creativity Mental Processes Nativist Approach Universal Grammar [nnate Capacity Hypothesis Testing Language Acquisition Device

3.1 Introduction The 1960s has been viewed as a decade of revolution both in linguistics and psychology. With the publication of Syntactic Structure (Chomsky, 1957}, followed by Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Chomsky, 1965), Structural Linguistics yielded to Generative Transformational Grammar. Soon it became evident that the psychological basis of Structural Linguistics was not compatible with the linguistic theory proposed by Chomsky. Thus, Behaviorist Psychology had to be replaced by a new theory, namely Cognitive Code-Learning Theory, to be compatible with Generative Transformational Grammar. ln these two disciplines the mind is viewed as an active agent in the thinking process and emphasis is on meaningful learning as opposed to rote learning of behaviorism. Cognitive learning theory and generative transformational grammar

48


are mentalistic in the sense that cognitive (n1ental) processes are believed to exist that are unobservable. These two disciplines will be discussed separately below.

3.2 Cognitive-Learning Theory Cognitive-Learning Theory is associated with the name of the psychologist David Ausubel who maintained that learning takes place in human beings through a meaningful process of relating new events or items to already existing cognitive concepts or propositions. In other words, as new material enters the cognitive field, it interacts with already existing materials. The very fact that new material is relatable to stable elements in cognitive structure s for its meaningfulness. Meaning, in this theory, is understood not as behavioral response, but rather as a " ... conscious experience that emerges when potentially meaningful signs, symbols, concepts, or propositions are related to and incorporated within a given individual's cognitive structure ... "(Ausubel, 1967, p. I 0).

In cognitive theory, language learning is viewed as the acquisition of a complex cognitive skill. In other words, learning is a cognitive process, because it is thought to involve internal representations that regulate and guide performance. According to McLaughlin ( 1987), these representations are based on the language system and include procedures for selecting appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules, and pragmatic features governing language use. As performance improves, there is constant restructuring as learners simplify, unify, and gain increasing control over their internal representations. With regard to second-language teaching methodology, as Chastain ( 1988) notes, uthe teacher's principal objective and task becomes that of making class material meaningful" (p. 45). Similarly, McDonough (1981) argues that "the teacher's principal task is neither repetition nor recycling, but that of helping the student discover strategies for organizing his or her knowledge into meaningful units" (p. 73).

Chapter 3 - Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis

49

Having briefly explained the cognitive learning theory, we may now tum to Generative Transformational Grammar and First Language Acquisition.

3.3 Generative Transformational Language Acquisition

Grammar

and

First

The shortcomings of behavioristic views of child language acquisition led researches to seek and formulate an alternative theory, namely the generative theory of first language acquisition. The generative theory with its typical rationalistic approach deals with deeper questions and looks for clearer explanation of the mystery of child language acquisition. This theory is also known as the nativist approach. The term nativist, according to Brown (2000), is derived from the fundamental assertion that language acquisition is innately determined (innate= inborn), that we are born with a built-in device of some kind that guides us to language acquisition. Obviously, as Cattsell (2000) puts it, "he/she [the child] does not know any particular language at birth, but exposure to the language in the immediate environment leads to the baby beginning to act as if (s)he knew something of the grammar of the language" (p. 83 ). In other words, the innateness hypothesis holds that all normal newborn children are predisposed to learn whatever natural language(s) they are exposed to in the course of their cognitive development. Innateness hypothesis gained from Eric Lenneberg' s ( 1967) biological hypothesis. Lenneberg proposed that language is species-specific (i.e., humans are the only species that use linguistic systems) and that certain modes of perception, categorizing abilities, and other language-related mechanisms are biologically determined. Similarly, Chomsky (1965) claimed that the acquisition and use of human language is not solely depended upon stimulus-response, which was the essence of Skinner's theory. He rejected the widelyheld, but untenable, view that children learn their native language by merely copying in whole, or in part, the utterances of adults in their


50

environment. He said: H... it seems to me impossible to accept the view that linguistic behavior is a matter of habit, that it is solely acquired by reinforcement and association .. . " (Chomsky, 1966, p. 43). Instead, Chomsky claimed that the child is equipped with an innate capacity, called Language Acquisition Device (an imaginary little black box), which enables him to acquire and produce his language creatively . Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is made up of a set of principles which allow the child to work out the deep structures of particular languages. These general principles are known as universal grammar. ln other words, Chomsky and his followers claimed that human languages, though isolated in time and space, share universal properties (while having unique characteristics as well). According to this view, the speaker of any language inherently and innately knows a set of principles that apply to all languages, and a set of parameters that vary from language to language. (For more on Universal Grammar, see Cook & Newson, 1996). McNeil ( 1966) described language acquisition device as consisting of four innate linguistic properties: I. the ability to distinguish speech sounds from other sounds in the environment,

2. the ability to organize linguistic events into various classes which can later be refined, 3. knowledge that only a certain kind of linguistic system is possible and that other kinds are not, and

4. the ability to engage in constant evaluation of the developing linguistic system so as to construct the simplest possible system out of the available linguistic input. (Cited in Brown,

2000,p.24) The child's language at any given developmental stage is systematic in that the child is constantly fonning hypotheses on the basis of his observation of the data exposed to him and then testing those hypotheses in speech as well as comprehension. As the child's language develops, those hypotheses get continually revised,


Sl

reshaped, or sometimes abandoned. Through hypothesis testing, the child derives an accurate concept of the syntactic rules of his or her native language. It needs to be emphasized that linguistic input is needed in order to activate the language acquisition mechanism. As Owens (200 1, p. 44) notes, "hypotheses are formulated on the basis of the speech the child hears". Another concept in the field of first language acquisition is the concept of creativity in human language, which was introduced by Chomsky ( 1965) as a reply to the behaviorists' view that utterances should be considered as learned responses to specific situations. Chomsky argues that individuals can produce novel utterances that they have never produced in precisely the same form before (with the obvious exception of set phrases like greetings), and the encoding and decoding of novel sentences create no problem for the language . ln Chomsky's view, creativity is a peculiar human attribute and it is rule-governed, i.e., the utterances we produce have a certain grammatical structure. Chomsky further claims that the control of these rules is acquired through the operation of innate processes which are common to all young children. Notice how Chomsky's views of child language acquisition contrast with those of behaviorists, as described in Chapter I, who believed that child language is a mirror of adult language rather than having unique qualities of its own.

3.4 Similarities and Differences between First and SecondLanguage Acquisition One of the main areas of interest to Chomsky and his followers has been the process of language acquisition. This interest has provided both linguists and psychologists alike with new insights into the way that a child acquires and develops his competence in his native language. As mentioned earlier, the child is believed to make a series of hypotheses about the structure of his native language. Evidence for this is to be found in the production of errors by children. A wellknown example of hypothesis-formation is the child's regularization of the English irregular verbs, which leads to overgeneralization errors

( 'ontnestivc Analysis and tt: rror Analysis ~uch a~ do Jo,•d.

t)hs~r\'atinn

and ~af.t:nt•tl. This is believed to be based on the child's t)f the P•lst h:nse of regular verbs such as walk and talk.

An in1portant inlpli,ation of Chon1sky's views, in so far as secondl~lngu:u.!.~' l~an1ing is concen1ed. is the shin of ernphasis from a study tlf tt ·achin~ to an investigation of lt!arning. A n1ajor outcome of this shitl f'f ~rnpha s is was the new research interest in the possible sitnilaritics between the processes of first and second language acquisition. Th~·r~

arc. of course. obvious di ffcrcnccs between first and second language acquisition. Most in1portant of these differences is that firstlanguage acquisition is part o f the natural growth of the child, while a second language nom1ally begins after the first language has been acquired. except for children who are brought up bilingually right tTotn birth. It should be pointed out that within the realm of second language acquisition itself several important distinctions should be made, such as the age of the learner (child versus adult) and the situation of learning (naturalistic versus formal). Regretfully, as is evident in the literature, many researchers have ignored such variables and have considered second-language acquisition as a whole in contrast to first language acquisition. Other important differences between the nature of first and second language acquisition include motivation of learning (Schumann, 1976), and the role of the MT, in the case of the second-language Ieamer. However~ Corder ( 1967) argues that such differences imply nothing about the processes that take place in the learning of the first and second language. In fact, Corder believes that the two processes are essentially the same. Corder's controversial proposition inspired two lines of inquiry, namely: I . Whether adults can learn a second language in the same way that children acquire their first language, and 2. whether children can learn a second language in the same way they acquire their first.


53

Since 1nany researchers in the fi eld of second language learning have drawn heavily on the similarities between ftrst and secondlanguage acquisition it is deemed relevant to include a brief discussion on this issue here. These lines of inquiry, as Cook ( 1973) observes, are two separate issues, and evidence in favor of one may prove nothing about the other. Cook herself attempted to provide evidence in of the first issue. Since Cook's study has been widely cited as one of the early attempts to find similarities between adult second-language learning and child first-language acquisition it will be discussed in some detail here. In an experiment which dealt with the imitation and comprehension of relative clauses in English, Cook found similarity in the performance of foreign adults and native children. More specifically, she found that foreign adults made the same kind of alternations, in the imitation of sentences with relative clauses, as native children. One of the interesting findings of Cook' s experiment was that many of the mistakes one had long accepted as typically foreign were also made by native children; However; such resemblance in the fonn of errors should not lead us to believe that sources of errors are also the same or fundamentally similar. Suffice it to mention only the influence of the mother tongue as a major source of errors made by foreign adults. Needless to say, such a factor is absent in the case of native children. In fact, one of the main drawbacks of Cook's study is that she does not acknowledge the role of the MT in the case of her non-native subjects. As an example, the deletion of the relative pronoun that, which occurred more frequently in the performance of foreign adults as opposed to native children, may have possibly been due, if only partially, to the influence of the MT. In the second part of her study, Cook tested the comprehension of the subjects in sentences such as The duck is happy to bite and The duck is hard to bite, where duck is the subject of happy in the frrst sentence and the subject of hard in the second. Again Cook reported similarities in the ways native children and foreign adults perceived

54


these structures. More importantly, on the basis of her results, she claimed that the two groups, went through the same stages and applied the same strategies. However, as Cook herself points out, while her experiment seems to show some similarities between the ways that native children and foreign adults understand sentences at different stages of development, it must be interpreted with caution as evidence for similarities of learning. Two other empirical studies (Palmero & Howe, 1970; and Stolz & Tiffany, 1972, cited in Cook, 1973), have also claimed to have found similarities between child first-language acquisition and adult secondlanguage learning. Palmero and Howe found that adults approached an experimental learning situation in the same way that children learn the past tense inflections in English. Stolz and Tiffany found that the characteristic differences between word associations of children and adults could be cancelled out by giving adults unfamiliar words. As to the second question above (i.e., whether children can learn a second language in the same way that they acquire their first), studies such as Dulay & Burt (1972); Milon (1974); Ravem (1974); and Hakuta (1974) suggest that this may well be the case. It must not be forgotten, however, that these studies, subject to their adequacy, can only hold true for children learning English in a naturalistic second language environment as they have been conducted on children in such environments. However, the results of these studies, quite often, have inappropriately been cited as evidence for the case of EFL adult learners regardless of significant variables such as age, amount of exposure to L2, and the like. It should be pointed out in ing that there are great differences between EFL and ESL with regard to the teaching and. learning of English. An ESL situation provides the learner with ample linguistic input and communicative opportunity as English serves a wide range of functions within the community, whereas in EFL situations the learner's exposure to the target language is confmed to classroom situation.


ss

Study Questions Answer the following questions. 1. How is language learning viewed in Cognitive-Code Theory? 2. Why is Generative Transformational Grammar called nativist? 3. What is Language Acquisition Device composed of? 4. What's the teacher's principal role in Cognitive-Code Theory? 5. What are the most important differences between first and second languages acquisition?

Chapter 4 - Error Analysis

57

Chapter 4 Error Analysis Important concepts and used in this chapter: Receptive Errors Productive Errors Systematic Errors Spoonerism Random Errors Self-correctability Performance Errors

4.1 Introduction Arising from the shortcomings of CAH to adequately for many aspects of second-language learners' language, a number of researchers began to look for an alternative approach for the study of errors; an approach which would be theoretically more justifiable and pedagogically practicable. This new approach, which is based on theories of first and second language acquisition and possible similarities between them, became known as Error Analysis (EA). As a result of the new research interest in the processes and strategies of frrst and second-language acquisition, as discussed in Chapter 3, the study of errors, both those made by the native child and the second-language learner, became crucially important. This is because errors were seen as evidence of the processes and strategies of language acquisition. With regard to first-language acquisition, Menyuk ( 1971) claims that the study of the child native language

58


learner's errors throws light on the types of cognitive and linguistic processes that appear to be part of the language learning process. In second-language learning, a more positive attitude developed towards learners' errors compared to what was prevalent in the Contrastive Analysis tradition. Errors were no longer considered as evil signs of failure, in teaching and/or learning, to be eradicated at any cost; rather, they were seen as a necessary part of language learning process. Error Analysis emerged as a reaction to the view of secondlanguage learning proposed by contrastive analysis theory, which saw language transfer as the ,central process involved in second and foreign language learning. Error Analysis tries to for learner performance in of the cognitive processes learners make use of in reorganizing the input they receive from the target language. A primary focus of error analysis is on the evidence that learners' errors provide to an understanding of the underlying processes of secondlanguage acquisition. It studies the unacceptable forms produced by second or foreign language learners. It is widely believed that language learning, like acquiring virtually any other human learning, involves the making of errors. As Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1982) assert, people cannot learn language without frrst systematically committing errors. The Ieamer profits from his/her errors by using them to obtain from the environment and in turn use that to test and modify his/her hypotheses about the target language. Thus, from the study of learner's errors (Error Analysis) we are able to get some information about the nature of his/her knowledge of the target language at a given point in his/her learning career and discover what s/he still has to learn. By describing and classifying the Ieamer' s errors in linguistic , we build up a picture of the features of the language which are causing him/her learning problems. In this respect, the information we get is similar to that provided by Contrastive Analysis. Error Analysis, thus, provides a check on the predictions of bilingual comparisons, and in as much as


59

it does this, it is an important additional source of information for the selection of items to be incorporated into the syllabus. The claim for using error analysis as the primary pedagogical tool was based on three arguments: (I) error analysis does not suffer from the inherent limitations of CA - restriction to errors caused by mother tongue interference: EA brings to light many other types of errors frequently made by learners (see Chapter 7); (2) error analysis, unlike contrastive analysis~ provides data on actual, attested problems and not hypothetical problems, and thus forms a more efficient and economical basis for deg pedagogical strategies; and (3) error analysis is not confronted with the complex theoretical problems encountered by CA. On the basis of the foregoing discussion it can be concluded that error analysis is based on three important assumptions, as follows:

I. Errors are inevitable as we cannot learn a language, be it frrst or second, without goofing, i.e. without committing errors. 2. Errors are significant in different ways. 3. Not all errors are attributable to the learner's mother tongue, i.e. first language interference is not the only source of errors.

4.2 Receptive versus Productive Errors Competence in a language is of two kinds: receptive and productive. These two competences do not develop at the same rate. It is not uncommon to hear people say that they understand a language better than they can speak it or vice-versa. Errors can also be classified as receptive and productive. Receptive errors are those which result in listener's misunderstanding of the speaker's intentions, and productive errors are those which occur in the language learner's utterances. It is easier to analyze productive

Contrasth'e Analysis and Error Analysis

'm)rs thru1 recc-pti\'e ones. Analysis of productive errors is based on k,m1~'rs · uttenmces. but to investigate receptive errors, one needs to l\X)k at pe pie's reactions to orders, requests. compliments, and the hkC'. The \HlY a listener behaves can give us some clues as to whether ~ h~ has understood the message or not. " If a person responds I am n' c:·h·e to a question like fVhat 's your name? it can be assumed that she did not understand the content of the question" (Corder, 1973, p. ~6~) . However. there are different ways in which receptive behavior operates. some of which are culture-specific. The response 1 am twelve may also illustrate the interlocutor's refusal to give his or her name. The investigator's interpretation in a situation like this is not black and white. A strange or unexpected response or reaction on the part of the interlocutor is not necessarily evidence that s/he has misunderstood the speaker' s intentions.

4.3 Errors versus Mistakes A distinction has been made between errors and mistakes. Errors are considered to be systematic, governed by rule, and appear because a learner's knowledge of the rules of the target language is incomplete. Thus, they are indicative of the learner's linguistic system at a given stage of language learning. They are likely to occur repeatedly and not recognized by the learner. Thus, only the teacher or researcher can locate them (Gass & Selinker, 1993). Systematic errors reveal something about the learner's underlying knowledge of the target language to date, i.e., his transitional competence. Errors are regarded as rule-governed since they follow the rules of the Ieamer's interlanguage (for a discussion on inter/anguage see Chapter 5). For instance, a Persian-speaking Ieamer of English who makes frequent use of subject-verb inversion in indirect questions (e.g. • I don't know where does he live) does, in fact, follow the grammar of his interlanguage which allows the use of such structures at that particular stage of development.

Chapter 4- Error Analysis

61

In contrast to errors, mistakes are random deviations, unrelated to any system, and instead representing the same types of performance mistakes that might occur in the speech or writing of native speakers, such as slips of the tongue or pen, false starts, lack of subject-verb agreement in a long complicated sentence, and the like.

A common type of performance mistakes is referred to as spoonerism after the name of an eminent dean of Oxford University, William A. Spooner, who often changed initial consonants around when he spoke. For example, instead of You have missed all my histOIJ' lectures he once said, complainingly, to a student who had been absent from his classes, You have hissed all my mystery lectures. Besides slips of the tongue and slips of the pen another type of slip, namely slips of the ear have been mentioned by Yule ( 1988) which may provide some clues to how the brain tries to make sense of the auditory signal it receives. This kind of slip can result, for example, in our hearing great ape for gray tape. Mistakes, which are due to non-linguistic factors such as fatigue, strong emotions, memory limitations, lack of concentration, etc., are typically random and can be corrected by the language if brought to his attention. Corder (1973) seems to be right in assuming that native speakers and second language learners are subject to similar external conditions (i.e., memory lapses, tiredness, etc.) when using first or second language, respectively. However, Corder appears to have overlooked the fact that the effect of such non-linguistic factors on first and second language s is not the same. Anyone who has attempted to express himself in a second or foreign language under such conditions would agree that he could have performed far more effectively in his native language. Distinguishing between learner's errors and mistakes has always been problematic for teachers and researchers. Nevertheless, a general criterion adopted by most error analysts for distinguishing between errors and mistakes is the frequency of occurrence. That is, errors which have a rather low frequency are considered as mistakes or perfonnance errors and those with high frequency as systematic


62

errors. However. it does not seem legitimate to consider frequency alone as the sole criterion for differentiating between an error and a mistake; low frequency of certain errors may. indeed, be due to low frequency of gratnmatical pattem(s) involved, or avoidance strategy employed by the learner (for a detailed discussion of avoidance see Schachter. 1974; and Kleinmann, 1977). It is suggested here that we should also consider the possible casual factors of the learner's deviant structures as a n1eans of distinguishing between errors and mistakes. For instance, let us assume that in the analysis of errors produced by Persian-speaking learners of English we come across utterances such as This is the man whom I talked about him yesterday, which have low frequency of occurrence in a given corpus of data. In such cases we should not hastily label such errors as mistakes on the basis of their low frequency alone. In fact, if we examine the cause of such errors (which is mother tongue interference) we come to realize that they are, indeed, systematic as they are rule-governed and reflect the learner's transitional competence. This seems to suggest that while high frequency can be considered as a characteristic of errors and not mistakes, low frequency does not necessarily reflect the existence of mistakes. Thus, systematic errors should be defined as those which are rule-governed and recur consistently in the performance of learners, i.e. they reflect features of learner's interlanguage consistently. James ( 1998) also proposes the criterion of self-correctabi/ity. That is, mistakes can be corrected by the learners if their attention were drawn to them, but errors cannot be self-corrected.

4.4 Significance of Errors Many scholars in the field of error analysis have stressed the significance of second-language learners' errors. Pit Corder, for instance, in his influential article (1967), remarks that . . . they are significant in three different ways. 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. St!cond, they


63

provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, and what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, 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. It is a way the learner has for testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning. (Corder, 1967, p. 167, reprinted in Corder, 1982, p.l 0).

Corder's views in this regard have been reiterated in the literature. Richards ( 1971 ), for example, remarks that errors are significant and of interest to: 1. Linguists, because as Chomsky suggests, the study of human language is the most fruitful way of discovering what constitutes human intelligence. 2. Psycholinguists, because by looking at children's speech and comparing it with adult speech, they have been able to examine the nature of the mental processes that seem to be involved in language. 3. Teachers, because by analyzing learners' errors they would be able to discover their difficulties and devise a method for comparing them.

4.S Branches and Uses of Error Analysis The field of error analysis can be divided into two branches: (i) theoretical, and (ii) applied. Theoretical error analysis, as stated above, is primarily concerned with the processes and strategies of second-language learning and its possible similarities with frrstlanguage acquisition. In this sense, error analysis is one of the central activities in the psycho linguistic investigation of language learning. In other words, it seeks to throw light on the nature of language learning

in general, i.e., what is going on in the mind when people learn languages.

64


True language learning is a process that necessarily involves errors. As learners are exposed to samples of the target language, they form hypotheses about it. Frequently, the initial hypotheses are inadequate, failing to recognize the limits of a particular rule or the exceptions to the rule. Thus, the study of errors made by foreign language learners reveals much about the process of language learning and the factors that affect this process. Another theoretical implication of error analysis is to infer that language learners use strategies in dealing with the second language, e.g., overgeneralization and simplification strategies (For the definition and examples of such strategies see Chapter 8 of the present book, and for a detailed study of second-language learning strategies see Chesterfield & Chesterfield, 1985). Yet another objective of theoretical error analysis is to contribute to the notion of universality. As Corder ( 1973) points out, the study of the learning of second languages, similar to child language studies and general linguistic studies, has the object of discovering universals. The study of errors, then, is part of the psycholinguistic search for the universal processes of second language learning. Two major questions dealt with in this respect are: (a) Do speakers of the same mother tongue learning a second language all follow the same course of development, and (b) Is there an internal syllabus for learning a second language which would represent the psychologically natural route between mother tongue and the target language. Psychologists believe that such a route is determined by the inherent cognitive properties of the human mind, but conditioned by the particular properties of the two languages involved. The objective of applied error analysis, on the other hand, is purely pragmatic and pedagogical such as organizing remedial courses and devising appropriate materials and strategies of teaching based on the findings of error analysis. It is worth pointing out that long before the theoretical dimension of error analysis came into existence, learners' errors were identified and classified by classroom teachers in an

Chapter 4- Error Analysis

65

attempt to deal with their practical needs and to dev ise appropriate materials and techniques of teaching. EA movement can be characterized as an at1etnpt to for learner errors that could not be explained or predicted by CA or behaviorist theory, and in this respect it has been quite successful. As Fallahi ( 1991 ) says, "in an ESL environment, error analysis can have greater value and usefulness than contrastive analysis, since the pedagogical value of the latter downplays under such environment" (p. 25). Also according to Johanson ( 1975), error analysis is the best tool for describing and explaining errors made by second or foreign language learners. Error analysis has made a significant contribution to the theoretical consciousness-raising of applied linguists and language practitioners. It has brought the tnultiple origins of learners ' errors to our attention. Sridhar ( 1981 , pp. 221-2) lists the goals of applied error analysis as follows: (i) determining the sequence of the presentation of target language items in textbooks and classrooms, with the difficult items following the easier ones; (ii) deciding the relative degree of emphasis, explanation, and practice required in putting across various items in the target language; (iii) devising remedial lessons and exercises; and finally (iv) selecting items for testing the learner's proficiency.

In so far as methodology is concerned, theoretical and applied error analyses share the basic procedures of identification of errors and their classification into different linguistic categories. However, at this point, the two branches of error analysis diverge from each other. While the applied error analyst attempts to find a therapy for the learners' difficulties in the target language by devising remedial materials, the goal of the theoretical error analyst is to address himself

66


to the psychological reality of errors. That is, he attempts to explain why and how errors occur. Such an attempt will bring the analyst faceto-face with the causes of errors. However, it needs to be pointed out that explanations with regard to the causes of errors are largely based on speculation for it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to read the mind of the learner. Nevertheless, this should not dissuade the analyst from trying to make correct interpretations of the learner's intended meaning in order to arrive at a plausible explanation with regard to the nature and possible sources of errors. Thus, Error Analysis proves useful both at the theoretical and practical levels. Apart from its intrinsic validity as an effective instrument for research in second-language acquisition, error analysis can be of great help to the syllabus designer, classroom teacher and the test maker. The insights gained from error analysis with regard to the processes and strategies of second-language learning provides valuable information for devising appropriate materials, effective teaching techniques and constructing tests suitable for different groups of learners at different levels of instruction.

4.6 Types of Errors Representing Stages of Second Language Development Learners go through different stages of language learning with each stage having certain characteristics. Relying on the findings of other researchers, particularly a model offered by Corder (1973, pp. 270-2) and based on observations of what the learner does in of errors alone, Brown (2000, pp. 227-28) proposes four stages of interlanguage development as follows: The first is a stage of random errors, a stage which Corder calls presystematic in which the learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic order to a particular class of items. The erroneous sentence, The different city is another one in the another two, surely comes out of a random error stage in which the learner is making rather wild guesses at what to write. Inconsistencies like John cans


67

sing, John can to sing, and John can singing said by the same learner within a short period of time, might indicate a stage of experimentation and inaccurate guessing. The second, or emergent, stage of interlanguage finds the learner growing in consistency in linguistic production. The learner has begun to discern a system and to internalize certain rules. These rules may not be correct by target language standards, but they are nevertheless legitimate in the mind of the learner. Generally, the learner at this stage is still unable to correct errors when they are pointed out to him by someone else. A voidance of structures and topics is typical. Consider the following conversation between a learner (L) and a native speaker (NS) of English: L: I go New York. NS: You are going to New York? L: (doesn't understand) what?

NS: You will go to New York? L: Yes.

NS: When? L:

1972

NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972. L: Yes, I go 1972.

The third stage is truly systeltllltic in the sense that the Ieamer is able to manifest more consistency in producing the second Language. While those rules inside the head of the learner are still not all well formed, they are more closely approximating the target language system. The most salient difference between the second and third stage is the ability of learners to correct their errors when they are pointed out, even very subtly, to them. Consider the English learner who described a popular fishing-resort area:

68


L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the restaurants near the lake. NS: (laughing) The fish are serving? L: (laughing) Oh, no, the fish are served in the restaurant.

A final stage, which Brown (2000) cal1s the stabilization stage in the development of interlanguage systems, is similar to what Corder (1973) calls a postsystematic stage. In this stage, the learner has relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that fluency and intended meaning are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized by the learner's ability to self-correct. The system is complete enough that attention can be paid to those few errors that occur and corrections be made without waiting for from someone else. As Brown (2000) rightly points out, these stages of systematicity do not describe a learner's total second language system. We would fmd it hard to assert, for example, that a learner is in an emergent stage, globally, for all linguistic subsystems of language. One may be in a second stage with respect to, say, the perfect-tense system, and in the third or fourth stage when it comes to simple present and past tense. Nor do these stages, whish are based on error analysis, adequately for sociolinguistic, functional, or nonverbal strategies, all of which are important in assessing the total competence of the second language Ieamer.


69

Study Questions and Exercises

Part I. Answer the following questions. 1. How did the Behaviorist Psychologists vtew second language acquisition? 2. What was the main cause of difficulty for second language learners according to Structural Linguistics and Contrastive Analysis? 3. How can learners benefit from their own errors?

4. What are the three main bases of Error Analysis?

5. What is the main difference between receptive and productive errors?

6. What are the main features of the emergent stage of secondlanguage development?

7. What is the day-to-day value of errors for the teacher?

8. What are the differences between systematic and post-systematic stages of second-language development?

Part II. Write E for errors and M for mistakes in front of the following statements and/or erroneous sentences, as appropriate . . . . . . . I. They show the Ieamer's linguistic competence.

70


... ... 2. They arc due to non-linguistic factors .

.. .. .. 3. They arc rule-governed .

.. .. .. 4. They are due to memory limitations .

.. .. . . 5. May I sew you to your sheet, Madam? (instead of ' May I show you to another seat, Madam?')

..... . 6. That's the man I was talking about him. (instead of 'That's the man I was talking about.')

Chapter 5 - Hypotheses about Second-Language ...

71

Chapter 5 Hypotheses about Second-Language Learner's Language Important and concepts used in this chapter: Learning Processes Fossilization Backsliding Interlanguage Approximative Systems Overtly Idiosyncratic Covertly Idiosyncratic Latent Psychological Structure

S.l Introduction Following the discovery of the weaknesses of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and the emergence of Error Analysis, attempts were made to develop an understanding of the processes of second language learning. Emphasis was shifted from studying and analyzing the systems of the native and target languages to the analysis of the learner's language which began to be seen as a phenomenon to be studied in its own right. In order to describe the learner's language, three hypotheses have been proposed by specialists in the field. These will be briefly described below.

72


5.2 The Interlanguage Hypothesis As stated earlier, with growing interest in EA in the late 60s and early 70s, the second-language Ieamer's errors gained unprecedented prominence and became the subject of rigorous investigation in their own right. Alongside this extended domain of EA, a revolutionary concept developed in the study of second-language learner's language which is commonly referred to as interlanguage, a language which is between two languages (the source and the target language). The tenn interlanguage was coined by Selinker in 1969 and elaborated on in 1972 in an influential paper bearing the title interlanguage to refer to the language-learner's language as a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner's attempted production of TL norms. Selinker put forward five processes as being central to second language learning: (a) language transfer, (b) overgeneralization, (c) transfer of training, (d) second-language learning strategies, and (e) second-language communication strategies. (For more on these see Chapter 8). The interlanguage hypothesis claims that learner languages are different from both the native and TL systems in one way or another while at the same time having features in common with both. The following diagram, borrowed from Krzeszowski ( 1985, p. 77), illustrates the mutual relations between the source language, the target language, the interlanguage, and the processes which are involved in the formation of interlanguage.

Chapter S - Hypotheses about Second-Language ...

73

Transfer of Training from TL _/\-----,

Source language

Interlanguage

"-..----'

<.------' Transfer from the Source language

Target Language

Overgeneralization ofTL Rules

Strategies of Communication

Strategies of TL learning

Diagram 5.1 The Interlanguage

As the diagram shows, transer from the source language, transfer of training from the TL, and overgeneralizations are horizontal processes which influence the form of the interlanguage. The other two processes cannot be handled in of any horizontal description since they do not involve any transfer either from the source or from the TL. According to McLaughlin ( 1987), "the term inter/anguage means two things: (l) the learner's system at a single point in time, and (2) the range of interlocking systems that characterizes the development of learner's language over time" (p. 60). The proponents of this theory maintain that the language-learner's language should be studied in its own right. Researchers within the Generative Transfonnational tradition, too, have reiterated this position (see White, 2003 for a review). These researchers have shown that L2 learners may arrive at representations which for the L2 input, though not in the same way as in the case of a native speaker. Some of the salient characteristics of interlanguages are as follows.

74


An important feature of interlanguages is that they are assumed to be systematic, i.e., they incorporate a system of linguistic rules which can generate novel utterances different, in structure, from both the form of utterances in the native language of the learner and from those in the target language. Another characteristic of interlanguage systems is that they are typically reduced systems, compared to native language systems, both with regard to the number and complexity of rules and the number of words they contain. A third feature of interlanguages, which they share with native languages is that they are assumed to be systematically variable. That is, learners vary their performance systematically, though not in the sense of using stylistic variants like native speakers, but regressing at times to previous stages of learning in more informal situations. Yet another interesting mechanism in interlanguage systems is fossilization. Fossilizations refer to the linguistic forms in the performance of a second-language learner that do not conform to TL norms even after years of instruction in and exposure to the standard form of the TL. In other words, fossilizations or fossilizable items are the permanent characteristics of interlanguages. Selinker maintains that fossilizable materials can be traced to one or a combination of the following sources: (a) the learner's MT, (b) training procedures, (c) the learner's approach to the instructional materials, (d) The learner's approach to communicating with native speakers, and (e) overgeneralization of TL rules. Fossilization also includes those aspects of the interlanguage which do not appear in the learner's linguistic productions under normal conditions, but are produced when the learner is forced to deal with very difficult materials (e.g., oral or written examinations), when he is in a state of anxiety, or when he is extremely relaxed. This phenomenon is referred to as backsliding, i.e., the reappearance of fossilized features of a learner language under certain conditions.

Chapter 5- Hypotheses about Second-Language ...

75

Proponents of the Interlanguage Hypothesis believe that the data they offer universal language processing strategies. Interlanguage hypothesis is also claimed to have certain implications for describing special language types such as pidgins, non-standard dialects, non-native varieties of a language, immigrant speech, and the like

5.3 The Approximative Systems Hypothesis Closely related to the lnterlanguage Hypothesis is the Approximative Systems Hypothesis introduced by Nemser ( 1971 ). This hypothesis emphasizes the developmental nature of the learner's language since with the addition of new elements the Ieamer's linguistic system is continually being modified and developed. According to Nemser, the acquisition of a second language involves systematic stages with an approximative system at each stage. These approximative systems are internally structured and are distinct from both the source and the target languages. They are by definition transient and are gradually restructured in successive stages. According to this hypothesis, there are a series of systems, unknown in number, which range from minimal knowledge of the second language to the knowledge approximating that of a native speaker of the second language. The proponents of the Approximative System Hypothesis maintain that the learner's language is directional, evolving in successive stages. In other words, a second language learner goes through different stages (i.e., develops different interlanguages) with each stage gradually approximating the target language. This is illustrated below.


76

Native Language

j} Approximative Systemt

n

Approximative System2

J} Approximative System3

J} Approximative SystemN

J} Target Language

The main difference between the approximative system hypothesis and the interlanguage hypothesis is that the latter emphasizes the structurally intermediate status of the learner's language system between mother tongue and target language, while the former emphasizes the transitional and dynamic nature of the system in successive stages of development.

5.4 The Idiosyncratic Dialect The Ieamer' s language is referred to by Pit Corder (1971) as idiosyncratic dialect to emphasize the idea that the learner's language is unique to a particular individual and the grammar of this language is peculiar to that individual alone. Corder maintains that idiosyncratic dialects are regular, systematic, meaningful, and unstable. Corder further explains that the language of the second-language learner is not the only kind of idiosyncratic dialect. One class of idiosyncratic dialects is the language of poems, where parts can be deliberately deviant; another is the speech of an aphasic, which categorizes as pathologically deviant. A third class of idiosyncratic dialects is that of an infant learning his mother tongue. However, the idiosyncratic

Chapter S- Hypotheses about Second-Language ...

77

dialect of the second-language learner differs from the rest in that it shares features of not one but two languages, the native language and the target language while maintaining some of its own. That is, some of the rules and characteristics are idiosyncratic (are unique to a particular individual). This is illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 5.2 The Idiosyncratic Dialect Source: Corder, 1971 , reprinted in Schumann and Stenson, 1974, p. l 03)

Corder further claims that every sentence produced by the second 1anguage learner is to be regarded as idiosyncratic until shown otherwise. A learner's sentence, therefore, may be superficially wellformed and yet idiosyncratic. Corder suggests that the interpretation of the learner's utterances is to be done by reconstructing the correct utterance of the TL (what a native speaker of the TL would have said to express the Ieamer's intended meaning in a given context) and then matching the erroneous utterance with its equivalent in the learner's native language. Of course, Corder is aware of the fact that the idiosyncratic nature of the Ieamer's dialect cannot be explained solely in of his mother tongue; it may as well be related to how and what he has been taught as well as many other sources. Thus, Corder's notion of idiosyncratic dialects, Nemser's concept of approximative systems, and Selinker's theory of interlanguage hypothesis have brought new dimensions to the study of secondlanguage learners' errors. According to these new notions, the study of learner's language system involves an analysis of: (i) the learner's NL utterances, (ii) the learner's IL or idiosyncratic utterances, and

78


(iii) utterances produced by native speakers of the TL, i.e., the target language norms. Such an approach to the study of errors seems essential in order to explain the learner's language system at a given stage of development. And learners ' errors are significant in this regard as they are evidence of this system.

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. l. What are the differences between Approximative System Hypotheses?

lnterlanguage

and

2. Wbjch hypothesis is associated with fossilization? 3. What processes are central to second language learning? 4. Explain how learner languages are different from native and target languages.

5. What are the characteristics of the Approximative System Hypothesis? 6. What are the sources of fossilizable materials? Part II. Complete tbe following sentences. (a) Corder lists three different kinds of idiosyncratic dialects: (1) the language of .. ..... ... . ., (2) ............ , which is the result of brain damage, and (3) .......... .... . (b) The ........ .... . hypothesis is concerned with the learner's language system between his mother tongue and target language while . .. ... . .. ... .. hypothesis regards the ............ nature of the language. (c) The three ........... discussed in this chapter show that the study of a learner's language .... ........ is based on the analysis of ........ . .

( 'h•pt('r 6 _ Terhnlques 11 nd Procedures for Doing Error Analysis

79

Chapter 6 Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis Important and concepts used in this chapter: Natural Spontaneous Data Error ldcnti tication Error Interpretation Grammaticality Authoritative Interpretation Plausible Interpretation Authoritative Reconstruction Plausible Reconstruction Ambiguous Utterances

6.1 Introduction Having dealt with the theoretical aspects of Error Analysis in Chapters 4 and 5, this chapter is devoted to the practical aspects of Error Analysis. First, different types of data-collecting procedures will be presented. Then, the methodology for the identification and interpretation of errors will be discussed.

6.2 Data-collecting Procedures Having adequate data is essential for any error analysis. The choice of appropriate procedures for collecting data is, in fact, one of the crucial steps in the investigation of the learner's language. The job of such procedures is either (a) to provoke a language learner into producing a linguistic response using the grammar of his interlanguage; or (b) to


80

examine his intuition regarding the grammaticality of an utterance presented to him. The choice of elicitation procedure is by and large dependent upon the overall objective of the interlanguage study in hand and the type of data required. There are basicalJy two types of data-collecting procedures: (a) spontaneous, and (b) elicited, each of which can be used for both spoken and written data. These are presented below. 6.2.1 Spontaneous procedures For collecting spontaneous (unplanned) data from spoken language, unmonitored conversation and interview are used, and for collecting spontaneous data from written language free composition and examination papers can be used where the learner's attention is focused on the content rather the form of what he wants to say or write. For collecting natural spontaneous data a variety of topics should be used. These include personal information, future plans, religious, social, and political issues, and the like. A spontaneous conversation calls for considerable flexibility in what the learner talks about. As Domyei (20 10) says, " ... the intention is to create a relaxed atmosphere in which the respondent may reveal more than he/she would in formal contexts" (p.l35-6). However, certain types of questions tend to naturally elicit conversation more readily than others. Following are some types of questions that can help obtain free conversational data.

1. Questions that must be answered by conversation rather than yes-no answers, such as questions that elicit narratives or descriptive s, e.g., Tell me how you spent your summer holiday.

2. Questions about the learner's interests and hobbies. Here the researcher can ask general questions, such as: What's your hobby? How do you spend your spare time?, or alternatively he may start with a yes-no question and then if the answer is

Chapter 6- Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis

81

positive he may ask the learner to elaborate on the subject. An example of this would be:

Researcher: Do you play football? Learner: Yes. Researcher: How often? Leamer: Once a week. Researcher: I don't know much about football. Could you tell me how it is played and what the rules of the game are? Since such questions relate to the learner's interests and hobbies they can elicit long and animated s. Asking the learner to describe one of his favorite television programs would be another example of specific questions in this respect.

3. Questions about the learner's future plans and aspirations, e.g., What are you planning to do after you are finished with your studies? 6.2.2 Elicited Procedures

Some of the most common types of elicited procedures are presented below.

Translation Since some speakers are reflective and reserved (Palladino, Poli & Galoriecle, 1997; Brown, 2000) and they use only what they are sure that they know in speaking the target language, we cannot easily compare the errors made by different speakers. For this reason, controlling the elicitation of specific grammatical constructions from foreign speakers of English is extremely difficult. In order to overcome this methodological problem, Corder (1974) has suggested an elicitation procedure which requires direct translation from the native language to the target language. Although it may be argued that


82

a translation test may encourage mother tongue influence, it has proven successful as an elicitation method in studies conducted at Edinburgh and elsewhere {Taylor, 1975). The translation technique has several advantages. First of all, it forces the subject to attempt to produce the structure under investigation. Secondly, it assures the researcher that the subject understands the semantics of the structure he is required to produce. Moreover, by forcing a subject to produce a structure which has not been completely mastered, the researcher can gain insights into how the subject understands the language to operate and how he/she organizes new syntactic constructions in his/her interlanguage. Translation tests are of two kinds: (a) oral, and (b) written. In oral translation, the subjects hear sentences in their native language and are asked to write the translation of each sentence in the target language. In written translation, on the other hand, the subjects are required to translate either individual sentences or a reading age containing the structures to be investigated. Oral translation has an advantage over the written one in that the use of immediate translation in the former requires an immediate frrst impression response and also limits the time the subjects have to reflect on the problem. The responses in both versions should be in writing since a written response is easier to evaluate than an oral one.

Multiple-Choice Test Traditionally, a multiple-choice item consists of an incomplete sentence followed by three or more choices, one of which is the correct response and the others are distracters. It is proposed here, however, that certain modifications should be made in a multiplechoice technique which is used for eliciting data from secondlanguage learners. That is, it must differ from the conventional multiple-choice tests in two respects, as follows.

( l) It should be free from the restrictions usually intrinsic in the latter, namely the assumption by the test constructor that one, and only


83

one, choice is correct. In the multiple-choice technique which is used for error analysis purposes, the subjects should be given the opportunity to provide their own responses (in a blank choice designed specifically for this purpose) besides the ones included in the alternatives. This is based on the assumption that the subjects' interlanguage grammar can generate structures which the researcher might not have been aware of. (2) The distracters should be chosen from the common errors of the subjects, if these are available.

6.3 Methodology for the Identification and Interpretation of Errors One of the common difficulties in understanding the linguistic systems of language learners is the fact that such systems cannot be directly observed. They must be inferred by means of analyzing production and comprehension data. What makes the task even more difficult is the unstable and changing nature of learners' systems. That is, when new information flows in it causes the existing structures of the interlanguage to be revised. Thus, in undertaking the task of performance analysis, the teacher and researcher are expected to infer order and logic in this unstable and variable system. According to Ellis (1997), the initial step for the analysis of errors requires the selection of a corpus of language followed by the identification of errors. The errors are then classified. The next step, after giving a grammatical analysis of each error, demands an explanation of different types of errors. Corder's (1973) views on data collection and analysis are summarized below. Corder maintains that the analysis of collected data involves several stages. The frrst stage in the technical process of describing the linguistic nature of errors is to detect and identify them. The difficulty in doing this lies in the fact that what looks or sounds a perfectly acceptable sentence may, nevertheless, contain errors. Of course, in many cases the sentence is not acceptable, i.e., the native

84

Contra~tive

Analysis and Error Analysis

speakers would not accept it as grammatical and then we know that it IS erroneous. Such utterances, which are unquestionably ungrammatical at the sentence level, are called overtly erroneous. Those which are erroneous, but not overtly so, are called covertly erroneous: sentences which are grammatically well-formed at the sentence level, but they are not interpretable in the context in which they occur. For example, ' Fine, thanks' is grammatical and correct at the sentence level, but not when it is used in answer to ' Who are you?'. In general, it is easier to detect productive errors, i.e., errors which occur in the speech or writing of second language learners as opposed to errors in the receptive skills: reading and listening comprehension. This is because productive linguistic behavior is easily recordable; whereas, receptive behavior is not. The hearer does not always demonstrate unambiguously that he has understood fully what we say. ln this case, the researcher or teacher should ask the learner further questions to check his comprehension. The use of the mother tongue is also recommended here. The next step in the linguistic analysis of the collected data is to interpret what the learner has intended to say and to reconstruct his sentence in the target language. There are basically two types of interpretations: (a) authoritative, and (b) plausible. If we cannot interpret and describe a learner's errors and if we have access to the Ieamer we can ask him to express his intention in his mother tongue, and then translate his sentence into the target language. This is called an authoritative interpretation and an authoritative reconstruction of his sentence in an acceptable form. Also when we can tell with certainty that the Ieamer's production of the target language is erroneous our statement is authoritative. However, when the Ieamer is not available we have to do the best we can to infer what he intended to say from his utterance, its context and whatever we know about his knowledge of the target language. This is called a plausible interpretation and the corresponding reconstruction is only a plausible reconstruction.


85

In some cases, the Ieamer's utterance might be ambiguous, i.e., more than one plausible interpretation is possible. This obviously presents a problem of interpretation and linguistic description. Corder suggests that such ambiguous utterances should be set aside. However, I believe that some ambiguous utterances can be clarified through making reference to the learner's mother tongue, if known to the researcher, since a good number of errors are typically based on the construction of the learner's mother tongue. Such errors always appear ambiguous to a researcher who does not know the native language of the learner. In any case, whether our interpretation is authoritative or merely plausible, we finish up with an erroneous utterance paired with a reconstruction of it in the target language. These paired sentences constitute the data for error analysis. The following figure, proposed by Corder ( 1971 ), can serve as a guide for the identification and interpretation of the data for error analysis.

e

iii'->

"'

-·-"' ~" .. ..

~

-==

fl'l

·-""' iii'->

" =

~

>

~

·-.. e

"'

-.."=

u

QC

\C

A IN -+I Is sentence superficially wellformed in tenus of the grammar of TL?

YES

YES

YES

Sentence is ovenly idiosy ncratic. Can a plausible interpretation be put on the sentence in context?

Is mother tongue of the learner known?

Hold sentence in store.

OUT 3

8

Does the nonnal interpretation according to the rules of the TL make sense in the contex1?

YES

YES

Sentence is not idiosyncratic

E

illlii

~

~

ci.

N N

.. E -

.5

a:l

r

N

•r.f. §

; =

~

..

g it

.a ·~

~

~.'0

c

();

tr) .5 f f

'-

-= ·-

~

f

Q,

"2

~

"0

5 8 s -2 ~

·.:

= .. -b :&

"'"

~

OUT = c ·-~ cr:: --2 oe'·- ..o.tcO\ ~ =-

Translate L I sentence back into TL to provide reconstructed sentence.

Compare reconstructed sentence with original idiosyncratic sentence. State in what respect did rules for ing for orieinal and reconstructed sentence differ?

Sentence is covertlv idiosyncratic. Make well-fonned reconstruction of the se111ence in target context

G Translate sentence literally into L 1. ls plausible interpretation in context possible?

i g .. e

~

A.


87

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. 1. What are the two main types of data collecting procedures? 2. What are the common procedures for collecting spontaneous data from written language? 3. What are some of the common topics used for collecting natural spontaneous data?

4. Why can't we easily compare errors made by different learners? 5. What are the advantages of the translation technique? 6. How are multiple-choice tests used for error analysis purposes different from conventional multiple-choice tests? 7. What are the differences between authoritative and plausible interpretations of errors?

Part D. Complete the following paragraph using the prompts in the box. cause nature classifying collecting identifying evaluating describing

Error Analysis as a procedure used by teachers and researchers involves: ........... samples of learner's language, ......... the errors in the sample, . . . . . . . . . . . . these errors, .......... them according to their ......... and ....... , and .......... their seriousness.

Chapter 7 - Classification of Errors

89

Chapter 7 Classification of Errors Important concepts and used in this chapter: Linguistic Specification Construction Taxonomy Permutation Substitution Orthography hip Criteria Subcategorization Grammaticalized Forms

7.1 Introduction After errors are being identified, it is necessary to group them according to their linguistic specifications. In this way, it would be possible to build up a clear picture of the features in the target language that might cause problems for the learners. It is crystal clear that a well-organized and systematic linguistic taxonomy (classification) of errors would be very helpful in assessing the nature and the probable causes of errors. In setting up a taxonomy of errors, linguistic features should be grouped into different classes. There are usually two general types of classifications: (a) category-based classification, and (b) samplebased classification. In category-based classification, the linguist or teacher establishes his own categorization of errors before he/she

90


actually stans to collect the necessary data. In doing so, he/she relies n1ainly on hi her previous knowledge of common linguistic ditTtculties o f a particular group of learners. An example would be Ethenon ·s ( 1977) suggested list of headings, below:

Adjecti\'es. Adverbs. Agreement, Apostrophe, Articles, As, Be, Can. Comparison, Conditionals, Conjunctions, Could, Direct qu~stions. Do, Future Perfect. Gerund, Have, Indirect questions, lnfinitive. Make. Must, Plural Problems. etc.

There are sotne problems with Etherton' s proposal. First, the headings are just listed alphabetically without any categorization whatsoever. The second problem with such a list is that the decision about choosing the errors is pre-judged by the researcher, i.e. , errors will be sorted out in of pre-determined error types to fill the headings. To avoid the shortcomings of the above methodology for the classi ficarion of errors, an alternative approach has been introduced: the sa1nple-based categorization. In sample-based categorization, the researcher should first collect the errors-following the procedures presented in the previous chapter-and only after the initial interpretation and analysis of errors should he establish an appropriate taxonomy. ln other words, it is the nature and type of errors that determine the categories and not the researcher's pre-determined error types. Another advantage of this approach is that headings are not just listed alphabetically; rather, major categories and sub-categories are assigned according to error types.

7.2 Linguistic-Based Classification Having presented some general remarks on establishing a linguistic classification of errors, we may now tum to a detailed description of the taxonomy below. In this taxonomy, four major categories of errors are introduced namely orthographic, phonological, Jexico-semantic,


91

and morphological-syntactic. These categories will then be classified into sub-categories in order to give a more detailed description of error types. The erroneous sentences in the taxonomy are culled from a corpus of data collected by the author. More specifically, they have been extracted from the written assignments of lranian university students over several years. The example sentences have been granunaticlalized to a certain extent to make them more intelligible. However, most of the examples may include types of errors other than those in question. With regard to hip criteria and the number of categories, several revisions have been made in the original taxonomy concerning the overlapping nature of some of the error types. Attempts have been made to amalgamate the overlapping errors and arrive at a more comprehensive classification. Some categories were also found to be too broad and somewhat ambiguous and as a result needed to be subclassified. For instance, the category Errors in the distribution and use of verb groups, in the original taxonomy, was further classified into four different sub-categories.

7.2.1 Orthographic Errors A large number of orthographic (spelling) errors are caused by the inconsistencies of English spelling system. ln the majority of cases, there is no one-to-one correspondence between letters of alphabet and the sounds they represent. Typical orthographic errors are presented below. Sound/Letter Mismatch

An example of sound/letter mismatch is the following spelling representations of the English sound lui:


92

Spelling Representation

Key Words to too two shoe June true soup juice threw through

0 00 WO

oe u ue ou U1

ew ough

The second typical orthographic error is when the same spelling has different pronunciations. For example, letter ' a' has the following pronunciations: Phonetic Symbol Ire/ /) /

Key Words apple, hat, mat, wagon wash, watch, want, water, wander

Ia:!

car, far, arm, farnn, star, father

/-;J/

/):/

ago, about, again, sugar, canal, dollar any, many, anything, an_y_body all, hall, ball, fall, talk, salt

III

usage, village, message, age

lei/ /e-;J/

ate, hate, cake, taste, change, April

lei

share, stare, compare, prayer, parent

The third source of difficulty and error in English orthography is found in many words similar in pronunciation but different in spelling and meaning. The following pairs are good examples of such errors, which are typically called homophones (Richards et al., 1989) ate

eight

air

heir


93

bare

bear

be

bee

beat

beet

berth

birth

There are hundreds of such pairs in English and they cause a great deal of confusion and difficulty for EFL learners. Yet another problem with English orthography is the students' ignorance of spelling rules such as the doubling of final consonants in monosyllabic words before a suffix beginning with a vowel, such as runner, swimmer, wrapping, etc.

7.2.2 Phonological Errors Phonological errors are of several kinds. Four maJor types of phonological errors are illustrated in the table below. Phonological Errors Lack of Certain TL Phonemes m the Leamer's NL Differences in Syllable Structures ofLl&L2 Spelling Pronunciation of Words The Problem of Silent Letters

Some phonological errors are due to lack of certain target language phonemes (vowels and consonants) in the learner's mother tongue. For instance, the English phonemes /I/, /8/, and /0/ do not exist in Persian. Therefore, Persian-speaking learners of English have problems with these phonemes. For example, they may pronounce think /8tl)k/ as /ttnk/ or then /Oen/ as /den/.

The second type of phonological errors is caused by the differences in the syllable structures of the two languages (the TL and MT). For a detailed discussion of the differences between English and Persian

94


syllable structures and errors attributed to such differences, see Chapter 2. The third source of making phonological errors is the spelling pronunciation of words. That is, the learner tends to pronounce words as they are spelled. Examples include wild /wild/, top /top/, flood /tlud/, watched /wat.fed/. The fourth cause of pronunciation errors, which is similar to the third type, is the problem of silent letters. In English, certain letters are spelled but not pronounced. This causes a great deal of problems for EFL learners since they are likely to pronounce these silent letters. For example, they tend to pronounce bomb as /bambi, calm as /kalm/, and honest as /hanestl.

7 .2.3 Lexico-Semantic Errors Lexico-semantic errors refer to errors related to the semantic properties of lexical items, as illustrated in the following examples.

* Iran is my mother country. *My father learned me the Koran. * Economic problems effect our lives. * I am working 24 o'clock each week. * I play different exercises in the evening. *Today we have a very speeding progress. * The teacher said we should read hard. * The bank where my cousin works was stolen last week. • I always want (ask) my teacher to help me with my English. *English is an alive language by which everyone can convey his ideas. • I think my tolerant for learning English is more than for learning anything else.

95

C hapter 7 - Classification of Errors

For a detailed description and classification of texico-semantic errors see Chapters 2 and 8.

7.2.4 Morpho-Syntactic Errors

I

TYPICAL MORPHO-SYNTACTIC ERRORS

I

Wrong Use of Plural Morpheme

* By learning English we can get much informations. * Our teacher always gives good advices. Wrong Use of Parts of Speech

* All people need food for being Uviog. • It is naturally that everybody needs money. Wrong Use of Tenses

Present Continuous instead of Simple Present

• I 11m going to work everyday.

* We are drinking tea after lunch everyday. • I am going to university at 8 o'clock every morning. • I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning.

Present Perfect instead of Simple Past • I have visited Mashad a few years ago. • I have graduated from high school two years ago.

• They have gone on a picnic last week. • My father hilS been born in Shiraz.

96


Simple Past instead of Past Perfect • He was angry about what his friend said.

• He asked him where he went. *Before I arrived there they left. Past Perfect instead of Simple Past • Our relatives from Isfahan had come to visit us last week. * I had enjoyed my stay in Chaloos last summer. Past Continuous instead of Simple Past • We were going to Ramsar every summer. *When I was a child, I was going to school by bicycle.

Wrong Use of Tenses

Present Continuous instead of Simple Present • I am going to work everyday. * We are drinking tea after lunch everyday. • I am going to university at 8 o'clock every morning.

• I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning.

Present Perfect instead of Simple Past • I have visited Mashad a few years ago.

* I have graduated from high school two years ago. • They have gone on a picnic last week. *My father has been born in Shiraz. Simple Past instead of Past Perfect • He was angry about what his friend said.

* He asked him where he went. *Before I arrived there they left.

Chapter 7 - C lassification of Errors

97

Past Perfect instead of Simple Past

• Our relatives from Isfahan had come to visit us last week.

* I had enjoyed my stay in Chaloos last summer. Past Continuous instead of Simple Past

• We were going to Ramsar every summer.

* When I was a child, I was going to school by bicycle. Wrong Sequence of Tenses

* I said I am sorry for making trouble for you. * He said that he will come with us to the picnic Wrong Use of Active and ive Voice

* I employed in a college last year. * When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died. Wrong Word Order

* In medical course should not no matter money. * Traffic very heavy is in Tehran.

Using It is instead of There is *It is a difference between a sport and a game. *It was 35 students in our classroom. Misplacement of Adverbs *We went last summer to the beach, but couldn't swim there. *Because he had to work he usually was absent from classes.


98

Errors in the Use of Prepositions Omission of Preposition *If we learn English well we can teach it 0 others. * Most 0 the people who travel abroad are businessmen. * I usually begin my work 0 the afternoon. * Most 0 the time I am board. Redundant Use of Preposition *We won't let foreign culture enter to our country. * I like to meet people who speak in English. * Reading foreign magazines helps to us in many ways. * We shouldn't discuss about politics. * We enjoyed from the sceneries of Chaloos and took many pictures. * When the teacher entered in the classroom the students stood

up. Wrong Use of Prepositions

From instead of Of * Children are afraid from dogs. From instead of With • The teacher was satisfied from our compositions.

In instead of On • There is a large library in the second floor. • In Iran people don't work in Friday.

In instead of At • He stays in home most of the time.


With instead of Against * Every young man should fight with Iraqis . .To instead of In * We arrived to Isfahan in the evening. To instead of On * The exam dates depend to our teachers. At instead of In * I have a class at the morning. * I can' t study at my bedroom.

With instead of To * He got married with his cousin. Into instead of In *He went into the bedroom without knocking at the door. On instead of In

* On the evening of the following day we went to the cinema. Than instead of From

• They are very different than other students. Until instead of To • Village boys usually walk from home until school. For instead of To

• I wrote a letter for my brother who lives in Shiraz. • After my work I go for shopping.

99


100

Errors in the Use of Articles Omission of The Before Superlative Adjectives

* Tabriz is one of 0 coldest cities in Iran. * He is one of 0 best students in our class. Before Restrictive Adjectives *0 main food in our country is rice. Before Restrictive Nouns

* I want to learn about 0

life of people in Africa.

Before nouns referring to times of day and night in a generic sense

• I have a class in 0 morning. • We left at three in 0 afternoon. Before nouns made particular in textual situations

*Then I heard some crashes from 0 sitting room. *I got up, went out and saw that 0 dog was eating some meat.

After nouns preceded by determiners such as 'some' and modified by relative clauses *Some of0 rice (which) we consume in Iran is imported from India.

Before Unique Nouns *0 president had a speech at Tehran University. *0 weather gets very warm in summer.


Before Geographical Names Tabbas is a city in 0 desert. Last summer we went to 0 beach. Redundant Use of The *We can improve our ability in the different ways. * The man is a social being. Omission of AlAN Before Professional Titles *My brother is 0 teacher in high school. *He comes from a rich family because his father is 0 doctor.

Before Indefinite Singular Nouns

* We can express our ideas in 0 international language. * He couldn't speak with 0 loud voice. Before Numerals *I told you not to do that 0 thousand time. Redundant Use of A/AN Before Abstract Nouns * He wanted to get an information about this. * I welcomed them with a great excitement. Before Uncountable Nouns modified by adjectives *They received a bad news about war.

101


102

Wrong Use of Articles

The instead of AIAn before generic singular nouns *We learn English as the second language. * I nearly cried like the baby.

AlAn instead of The before specific definite nouns * This is a school where I study.

Wrong Use of Active & ive Voice * I employed in a factory last year. * When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died.

Wrong Use of Conditional Sentences

* If I was a doctor, I help sick people. * I will visit Ali-Ghapoo in Isfahan, if I

will go there.

Double Negation

• Reza had no money with him. • I don't have nothing to do today.

Wrong Use of Negative Imperative *My father ordered me don't go to the party.

* Our teacher told us don't bother your parents.


103

Errors in the Use of Relative Clauses & Relative Pronouns Retention of Direct Object Pronouns *He is the person whom I have known him for many years.

* I tried to cook a delicious food that they like it. Retention of Subject Pronouns * The TV programs that they have many viewers show interesting programs. * It was a question which it didn't have any relation with my field of study.

Retention of Object of Preposition

* The subject that they talked about it was very interesting. * The house where they live in it is very large.

Wrong Selection of Object of Preposition:

* Reza had two brothers which were older than him.

*

It was a month ago which I received a letter from my brother.

Subject-Verb Inversion in WH-Questions

* Where you will go after lunch? * When you will finish your studies? Subject-Verb Invenion in Indirect Questions *I can't when did he get married. • I don't know how did they found my address.

104


Wrong Use of Verb Groups Wrong Construction of Verbs

* Main food in our country are included meat, ... * I was stood by the door when my father arrived. Wrong Use of Gerunds and Infinitives • It is necessary learning the English Language.

* My work consist to teach mathematics in our school. Wrong Use of Modals and Auxiliaries

* I would rather football to any other game.

* First I thought someone should be home.

* They don't afraid to be killed. Errors Due to Lack of Concord or Agreement Lack of Subject-Verb Agreement

* I often think of changes that has happened. *My parents was born in Yazd. Lack of Concord Within a Noun Group

* It was two hour since Ali had left his house.

* There are three clever student in this classroom. Typical Persian Constructions

* He wasn't agreed with me. * There is special nothing that one can do in that town. • It was near that I started to cry like a baby.

Chapter 7 - Classiflcation of Errors

105

7.3 Process-Based Classification Errors are sometimes classified according to their processes. Process here means the ways through which language learners make errors. Four main processes, which lead to erroneous constructions, have been cited in the literature (Corder, 1973; McKeating, 1981 ; Brown, 2000), as follows.

1. Omission: Leaving out some required linguistic elements *My father is 8 doctor.

for 'My father is a dodor'. * I am learn 8 English well. for 'I am learning English well'. * I bought three new book 8 yesterday. for 'I bought three new books yesterday'. * What 8 you want to do now? for 'What do you want to do now?'

As the above examples illustrate, this process usually involves the deletion of function words (e.g. prepositions and articles), auxiliaries (e.g. do, have), and morphemes (e.g. plural morpheme, 3rd Person singular morpheme, past and past participle --ed).

2. Addition: Redundant use of certain elements in a sentence

* He entered into the classroom. * They always discuss about different matters. * Please answer to my letter soon. * Good writing is depends on several factors. * He was going to home when I saw him.

106


3. Substitution: Replacement of incorrect elements for correct ones * I am not afraid from (of) dogs. *He was angry from (at) his bad marks. * His bigger (elder) brother is a teacher. *I always do (make) many mistakes in spelling.

4. Permutation: Incorrect word order * We last night went to the cinema. * He comes always late to school. * My brother is a driver careful * I don't know why is he late.

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. I. What are the differences between category-based and samplebased classifications of errors? 2. What are the main four processes of making errors? 3. What are the major linguistic categories of errors? 4. In what sense homophones are considered a source of difficulty and errors? 5. What is spelling pronunciation and how is it considered as a linguistic source of errors?

107

Cbapter 7 - Classification of Errors

Part II. Write the correct form of the following erroneous sentences and mention the process of error in each one. I. I don' t know how to use of my new computer .

. . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . ............ . .... . . ... ............ ..... .. .. . . . . . .... ( ............ .......... .. ... )

2. I bought two new book yesterday .

....... .. ........... . . . . . . .. . ............................ .. . . . . . . . . .. ( .......................... .)

3. My brother and I last night went to the cinema.

.............. ... ..................... ........................ . . . . . . . ( ..... .. ...... ............ .. )

4. Students are always afraid from final exams.

......................................................... .. . ...... .. . ( .. .........................)

Part Ill. First, correct the following sentences. Then, explain 1n linguistic why they are wrong. 1. He is the man whom I talked about him.

2. He usually is absent from class.

108

Contrastive Analysis aad Error Aaalysis

3. Teachers always give us good advices.

4. My father ordered me don't go to the party.

Part IV. Read the following erroneous sentences carefully. Tick P for Permutation, A for Addition,..S. for Substitution and 0 for Omission.

p 1. I want to be teacher when I finish my studies. 2. He always attends in the meeting late. 3. I'm not interested in discussing about politics. 4. You can ask from your parents to help you.

5. The teacher explained to us how to write letters. 6. I studied English yesterday all day. 7. I don't need to anybody's help in my studies. 8. You should carefully drive in Tehran. 9. Children are always afraid from darkness.

10. If you want to the exam you must to study hard. II . His parents were not happy from his behavior.

12. My father ed to the anny when he was 20 years old.

A

s

0

109

Chapter 7 - Classiftcadon of Errors

PART V. Put the letter for each of the following erroneous sentences into the correct classification box they belong to. The first sentence is done as an example.

a. • I think /stnk/ about my exams. b . • I play different exercises in the evening. c. • We have gone on a picnic last Friday. d. * My brother is a good swimer. e.* There are three bares in this zoo.

f. * I am working 24 o'clock each week.

g. * We practice /per~ktisl English on Mondays. h. * It was 36 students in our classroom. i. *Doctors try /teraii to help sick people.

j. * You should put the small baks into the big one.

k. * I always want my teacher to help me.

I. • Our teacher told us don't bother our parents.

Orthographic Erron Phonological Erron Leue~mantie

Erron

Syntactic-Morpbological Erron

a


110

PART VI. Read the following erroneous sentences carefully and then choose the best possible answer. 1.

* "I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning" is an example of. .. ... ........ .... . a. Misplacement of adverbs b. Wrong use of negatives c. Wrong use of tenses d. Lack of concord within verb group

2.

* "An apple a day .... ... .. .. ..... .. .

makes the man healthy" is an example of

a. Redundant us of the definite article b. Wrong word order c. Retention of subject pronoun d. Wrong use of preposition

. horne" ts . an examp1e o f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. • "They d'dn' 1 t argue tn a. Omission of preposition b. Redundant use of preposition c. Error in the use of article d. Wrong use of preposition

4. • "Last night I was very tired that I couldn't study" is an example

of .................. .

a. Use of Persian construction b. Wrong use of quantifiers


111

c. Wrong use of parts of speech d. Wrong use of plural morpheme

5. • "It was near that I started to cry like a baby" is an example of a. Use of plural morpheme b. Use of Persian construction c. Subject-verb inversion d. Wrong use of parts of speech

6. • "I would rather football to any other game" is an example of a. Wrong use of auxiliary b. Omission of copula c. Wrong use of clause complements d. Wrong selection of relative pronouns 7. • "Every food have special taste" is an example of.................. . a. Retention of subject pronoun b. Wrong sequence of tenses c. Retention of object of preposition d. Lack of subject-verb agreement

8. • "One thing that I always think about it is ... " is an example of a. Redundant us of definite article b. Wrong use of non-fmite clause complement


112

c. Wrong use of active/ive voice d. Retention of object of preposition

9 . • "I haven' t no work" is an example of. .. ....... ... ... .. . a. Misplacement of adverbs b. Wrong use of negative construction c. Wrong use of preposition d. Retention of object of preposition

10. • "I have graduated from college tow years ago·· is an example of

a. Wrong use of preposition b. Wrong use of tenses c. Omission of preposition d. Wrong use of negative imperatives

. an examp1eo f .. ... . ..... ........ . II . ...Am.1r d'dn' 1 ~ t agree me" 1s a. Misplacement of adverbs b. Wrong use of articles c. Omission of preposition

d. Retention of object of preposition

12. *"He always tries to get best score in composition'' is an example of ..... . .... ....... . . a. Misplacement of adjectives

b. Wrong use of active/ive voice


113

c. Wrong use of clause complements d. Omission of the definite article 13. * "When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died" is an example of. ... .... .......... . a. Wrong use active/ive voice b. Wrong use of negative imperative c. Subject-verb inversion d. Omission of copula 14. * "In medicine should not no matter money" is an example of a. Use of plural morpheme b. Wrong word order c. Omission of preposition d. Wrong use of tenses 15. * "He is the person whom I have known him for many years" is an example of.................. . a. Wrong selection of relative clause b. Redundant use of preposition c. Retention of direct object pronoun d. Lack of concord within verb group

114


16. * ""I can't when did he get married" is an example of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . a. Wrong use of subject-verb inversion b. Wrong use of negatives c. Retention of object of preposition d. Wrong use of plural morpheme

. my mother country" IS . an examp1e of ............ .. ... . . 17 . * "Iran IS a. Syntactic-Morphological error b. Phonological error c. Orthographic error d. Lexico-Semantic error

18. Homophones (like ate and eight) are examples of.... .. .. ......... . . a. Syntactic-Morphological errors b. Lexico-Semantic errors c. Phonological errors d. Orthographic errors

19. Differences in the syllable structure are examples of................. . a. Syntactic-Morphological errors b. Phonological errors c. Orthographic errors d. Lexico-Semantic errors


115

20. Pronouncing "bomb" as /bambi and "honest" as /hanest/ 1s an example of..... .. ............ .. . . a. Phonological error b. Lexico-Semantic error

c. Syntactic-Morphological error d. Orthographic error 21. * "Economic problems effect our lives"

IS

an example of

a. Orthographic error b. Syntactic-Morphological error c. Phonological error d. Lexico-Semantic error 22. When there is no one to one correspondence between letters of alphabet and sounds they represent, we are dealing with ........ . . a. Orthographic errors b. Syntactic-Morphological errors c. Phonological errors d. Lexico-Semantic errors

23. Doubling the final consonants in monosyllabic words before a suffiX beginning with a vowel is an example of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Lexica-Semantic error b. Orthographic error c. Syntactic-Morphological error d. Phonological error

117

Chapter 8 - Sources of Erron

Chapter 8 Sources of Errors Important and concepts used in this chapter: False Cognates Overgeneralization Cross-association Hypercorrection False Analogy Faulty Categorization Redundancy Reduction Language Switch Simplification Hyperextension Topic Avoidance Prefabricated Patterns

8.1 Introduction Errors have generally been attributed to cognitive causes, i.e., evidence of the learner's psychological process of rule formation. But, as Widdowson ( 1991) says, ''they can also be seen as communicatively motivated, the realization of available resources to get a message across" (p. 111). Long before EA was introduced as an alternative to CA, errors (produced by second or foreign language learners) were identified and classified into various categories to deal with practical needs of


118

foreign language teaching. However, these error counts were mainly imprecise collections of common errors (see, for example, Fitikides, 1963). ln such error counts, the probable causes of errors were ignored. In the Contrastive Analysis tradition, too, the task of asg errors to their sources was not a di fficult one since the major, if not the only, cause of errors was interference from the learner's native language. CA, of course, did not provide any (apart from interference) about the psychological reality of errors; that is, why learners commit errors and what cognitive strategies and styles underlie certain errors.

In Error Analysis, while interference from Ll is acknowledged as a source of errors, it is by no means considered to be the only source for making errors. In fact, one of the major contributions of Error Analysis was its recognition of the sources of errors, which extend beyond just interlingual errors in learning a second language. It is now clear that intralingual and developmental errors play an important role in second language learning. As Lightbown and Spada (20 10, p. 187) assert: The frrst language is not the only influence on second language learning. Learners from different language backgrounds often make the same kinds of errors, and some of these errors are remarkably similar to those made by frrst language learners. In such cases, second-language errors are evidence of the learners' efforts to discover the structure of the target language itself rather than attempts to transfer patterns from their first language.

In the late 60s and early 70s, empirical studies emerged with the realization that many kinds of errors, in addition to those due to

mother tongue interference, were apparent in learners' languages. Observations by scholars such as Duskova ( 1969), Buteau ( 1970), and

Chapter 8 - Sources of Errors

119

Richards ( 1971, 1974a) initiated numerous investigations into sources . of errors other than mother tongue interference. Richards ( 1971 ), for instance, points out that the limitation in certain rule-learning strategies gives rise to errors which are not caused by L 1 interference, but by wrong application of learning strategies. The sources of these errors are discovered within the structure of the target language itself and some of them result from faulty teaching techniques. He calls these types of errors intralingual and developmental. Dulay & Burt ( 1972) categorize second language learners' errors, or goofs in their terminology, into the following categories:

1. Interference-like Goofs: errors, which reflect the structure of the native language and are not found in L 1 acquisition data of the target language. For example, *Hers pajamas produced by a Spanish child reflects Spanish structure. 2. Ll Developmental Goofs: Errors which are found in L 1 acquisition data of the target language. For example, *He took his teeths off, produced by the Spanish learner does not reflect Spanish structure, but it is an overgeneralization typically produced by children acquiring English as their first language. 3. Ambiguous Goofs: Those errors that can be categorized as either interference-like goofs or Ll developmental goofs. For instance, *Terina not can go can be found in both Spanish and American children's speech.

4. Unique Goofs: These types of errors do not reflect L 1 structure, and also are not found in L 1 acquisition data of the target language. An example would be* He name is Victor, produced by a Spanish child, neither reflects Spanish structure, nor is found in L 1 acquisition data in English.

120


Corder (1975) distinguishes three types of errors with respect to their sources: (a) interlingual errors, which are caused by first language interference; (b) intralingual errors, which are caused by the learners' overgeneralization of particular grammatical rules; and (c) errors which are caused by faulty teaching techniques.

To give a detailed picture of the sources of errors, a more comprehensive taxonomy is presented below. It must be realized, however, that some degree of overlapping is to be expected in the categories presented and their corresponding sub-categories. This is a common problem in establishing taxonomies. However, to clarify possible ambiguities, all sources of errors will be furnished with illustrative examples. It needs to be pointed out that in the majority of cases an error might be attributed to more than one cause. Thus, the classification here is based on the primary causes of errors. This is because an error may primarily be attributed to one source while other causes may also be involved.

8.2 Interlingual Errors By definition, interlingual errors result from the transfer of phonological, morphological, grammatical, lexico-semantic, and stylistic elements of the learner's mother tongue to the learning of the target language. Five different types of interlingual errors are presented below:

1. Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1 2. Transfer of Morphological Elements 3. Transfer of Grammatical Elements 4. Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements


121

5. Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements

8.2.1 Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1 An obvious case of mother tongue interference ts m the area of pronunciation. Students tend to transfer the phonological features of their native language to those of the target language. For example, in Persian stress is predominantly on the fmal syllable of words (e.g. ~ srendreli 'chair') while in English the position of word stress is not so predictable and it varies according to parts of speech and the number of syllables in a word (see Keshavarz, 2009). Therefore, Persianspeaking learners of English, in many cases, tend to transfer rules of stress in their MT to English words (e.g., putting primary stress on the final syllable of words such as dentist and alphabet instead of the frrst syllable).

8.2.2 Transfer of Morphological Elements Some errors are caused by the transfer of morphological features of the mother tongue. For instance, the following erroneous sentence results from the fact that in Persian, nouns do not agree in number with quantifiers and consequently the plural morpheme is omitted:

* There are three clever student in our class. 8.2.3 Transfer of Grammatical Elements As an example of transfer of grammatical elements of the mother tongue, consider the following erroneous sentence: *I'm going to university at 8 o'clock everyday. This type of error is due to the fact that in Persian the present tense and the present progressive aspect have one single syntactic representation. Hence, Persian learners of English (mainly at elementary and intermediate levels) usually confuse these two and use them interchangeably. As the following pair of sentences illustrate, in

122


Persian it is the adverb of time /hrer ru: z/ meaning everyday in sentence (a), and /hala/ meaning now in sentence (b), which designate the proper tin1e of an action and not the tense or verb construction. Thus, the verb /mirrevrem/ by itself can be used both for go and to be going to.

(a) mren hrer ru:z be mredrrese mirrevrem. I everyday to school am going. (Literal Translation) I am going to school everyday. (Erroneous) I go to school everyday. (Target Sentence)

(a) mren hala be mredrrese mirrevrem. l now to school am going. (Literal Translation & Erroneous) lam going to school now. (Target Sentence)

Similarly, in the following erroneous sentence, the reason for the omission of have may be due to the fact that in Persian auxiliaries are not needed to change a statement into an interrogative sentence; this is done simply by changing the intonation pattern.

* I asked him, "Where you learned English so good? 8.2.4 Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements Errors in this category may be divided into two sub-categories: (a) Cross-Association, and (b) False Cognates. These will be dealt separately below.

C hapter 8 - Sources of Errors

123

8.2.4.1 C ross-Association Cros -association refers to cases where there arc two words in the target l a n ~uagc for which there is only one word in the learner's mother tongue. As a result. the learner may usc that single word in t~vo senses in the target language, e.g.

* I can't study in the dormitory because some students open their radios very loud. The reason for the occurrence of this error is that in Persian the equivalent o f open can be used for turning on electronic equipment in addition to the more common uses of the word such as opening the door.

* We will arrive

back to Tehran after about 13 o'clock (instead of 13

hours). This error results from the fact that in Persian the word /sa?ret/ is used for both hour and o'clock.

* He had a quarrel with his woman. The reason for the occurrence of this error is that in Pers ian the word /zrenl can be used both for woman and wife .

8.2.4.2 False Cognates A false cognate is a word, which has the same or very similar form in two languages, but which has a different meaning in each. This similarity may cause a second language learner to use the word erroneously. This kind of deceptive cognate has been referred to as false friend by Newmark (1988).

Example:

* My father bought a new machine last week. Note that the word machine in this sentence is used because of the influence of its cognate /rnafin/ (car) in Persian.

124


Similarly. the word cigar in the following sentence has been used because of its superficial similarity with the word /sigar/ in Persian. • He smokes a lot of cigars. (For further details of lexical errors, see Chapter 2) 8.2.5 Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements This type of error refers to the transfer of stylistic and cultural elements of the learner's native language and culture to the target language. In the following erroneous examples the learner has made use of a stylistic rule of Persian which allows the use of plural predicate with singular subjects when a social superior-inferior relationship exists in a speech event in order to show more respect for the person addressed or talked about. • Dr. Karimi are a good instructor. • Mr. Mokhtari are our writing teacher. Similarly, the following errors are due to the fact that in Persian, unlike English, titles such as Mr. and Mrs. can be used before a professional title. • Mr. Teacher is coming.

* Mrs. Doctor examined the patient. 8.3 Intrallngual and Developmental Errors Intralingual and developmental errors are caused by the mutual interference of items in the target language, i.e., the influence of one target language item upon another. For instance, a learner may produce *He is comes, based on the blend of the English structures: He is coming, and He comes. Such errors reflect the learner's competence at a particular stage of second language development and illustrate some of the general characteristics of language learning. In fact, such errors are similar to errors produced by monolingual


125

children, and result from the Ieamer's attempt to build up concepts and hypotheses about the target language from his/her limited experience with it. Intralingual and developmental errors are divided into six subcategories given below: Overgeneral ization Ignorance of Rule Restriction False Analogy Hyperextension Hypercorrection Faulty Categorization These subcategories, however, are very similar to one another and there might be only subtle differences between them. Nevertheless, their use here is considered legitimate in order to provide a detailed picture of the sources of errors. Now each of the above sub-categories will be briefly discussed below. 8.3.1 Overgeneralization (Also called Over-extension and Analogy) According to Richards et al. ( 1989), overgeneralization is a process common in both first and second-language learning, in which a Ieamer extends the use of a grammatical rule beyond its accepted uses. For example, a child may use ball to refer to all round objects. Thus, overgeneralization errors refer to the deviant structures produced by the learner on the basis of his limited knowledge of and exposure to other structures of the target language. For examples, in the first two examples below, the omission of the third person singular -s seems to have been caused by the overgeneralization of all other endingless forms in English.

• Iran extend almost 1600 kilometers from North to South.

* He always try to help other people.

126

Contrasthre Analysis and Error Analysis

Similarly, in the two following sentences, the learner has generalized the rule of subject-verb inversion in indirect questions where it is not needed.

* I don't know how did they found my address. * I can' t when did he get married. 8.3.2 Ignorance of Rule Restriction This type of error is due to the learner's ignorance of the restrictions of and exceptions to general target language rules. That is, the learner fails to observe restrictions of target language structures. The difference between overgeneralization and ignorance of rule restriction is that in the latter the learner may not be overgeneralizing as such, rather he may simply be ignorant of the rule restriction, e.g. • There were many fishes in the lake.

* Teachers always give us good advices. 8.3.3 False Analogy False analogy refers to the use of certain elements in inappropriate contexts through analogy. In other words, the learner having mastered certain elements of the target language may attempt to use those elements in contexts where they are inappropriate. False analogy is very similar to overgeneralization and can be considered as its subtype. Example: • I think most women should remain home and grow up children. In this erroneous sentence, the verbal expression grow up children seems to have been produced by analogy with utterances such as children grow up quickly.

By the same token, the following sentence indicates that the learner is familiar with the use of the preposition into in the expression 'run


127

into somebody' meaning ' meet somebody accidentally' and hence by false analogy he misused it with another verb (i.e., go) yielding an erroneous sentence. • He went into his father in the street, but couldn't say nothing.

8.3.4 Hyperextension Hyperextension refers to the extension of a rule to areas where it is not applicable. For instance, the rule that an adverb modifies a verb may be overextended and used in cases where an adjective would nonnally be used, as in: • The apple smeUed freshly (instead of smelled fresh) . Note that in the process of hyperextension the learner goes beyond what he knows of the target language, i.e., he talks about things and events for which he does not possess correct vocabulary items or grammatical patterns, for example: *My father is an employment of Melli Bank.

8.3.5 Hypercorrection Hypercorrection is a phenomenon that normally takes place when the speaker of a non-standard variety attempts to use the standard variety. In this process the speaker may go too far and produce a version which does not appear in the standard variety, such as replacing a long /a/ with the short vowel Ire/ in words like cap, mat, etc. Hypercorrection also occurs in second-language learning and refers to forms which are attempted corrections, but are used erroneously. For example: • He doesn't afraid of anything. Note that in the above sentence the learner has attempted to use the correct form afraid of instead of the previously used incorrect form

128


afraid from, but has hyper-corrected the sentence by using doesn't instead of isn' t. Similarly, an Arabic learner of English who uses hapit instead of habit in a mistaken attempt to avoid b/p substitution is clearly producing a hypercorrection error. Hypercorrection is usually the byproduct of over-correction and over-emphasis on prescriptive rules. For example, if a learner is over-corrected for his production of sentences such as *You and me will go there (which according to prescriptive grammar, should be You and I will go there), he is likely to produce sentences such as * He told you and I, in an attempt to correct himself. 8.3.6 Faulty Categorization Faulty categorization refers to incorrect classification of target language items by the learner. For example, in English, verbs are categorized into different classes: verbs followed by bare infinitives; those followed by gerunds, etc. However, the learner may categorize English verbs into incorrect classes. As a result, errors such as the following may be produced: * I enjoy to swim. *He didn't let me to go. * I want learn English very soon.

8.4 Teacher-induced Errors Teacher-induced errors (or Transfer of Training) are those which result from pedagogical procedures contained in a text or employ by the teacher. An induced error is an error, which has been caused by the method in which a language item has been presented or practiced (through teaching techniques or course design). A teacher may unintentionally mislead his students by the way he defines a lexical item, or by the order in which he presents teaching materials. For


129

example, introducing worship as a general word for pray, the students may immediately attach to the new word the same preposition they have already used with the familiar one, and therefore produce utterances such as *worshiping to God. To cite another example, look at the following sentence: *The cat is at the table. (Instead of The cat is under the table.) In this example, in teaching the preposition at, the teacher may

hold up a box and say: I'm looking at the box. The learners may infer that at means under, considering the position of the teacher and the box. Later the learners may use at for under. Similarly, errors like *I am liking to continue my studies may be due to overgeneralization of structures learned in pattern drills (or transformation exercises), such as: I write

I am writing

I read

I am reading

I study

I am studying

8.S Language-Learning Strategies In language learning, learning strategy is a way in which a learner attempts to work out the meanings and uses of words, grammatical rules, and other aspects of a language, for example by the use of generalization and inferencing (Richards et al. 1989). There are three main types of second-language learning strategies:

1. Overgeneralization 2. Transfer of Rules 3. Simplification The frrst two were explained earlier. The third instance of secondlanguage learning strategies is simplification through which the learner reduces the target language to a simpler system in order to

130


decrease the learning difficulties of the target language. Young children also use simplification when they produce telegraphic speech. This strategy is sometimes called redundancy reduction because it eliminates many items, which are redundant to conveying the intended message. For example, the omission of the verb inflection and the article in daddy want chair does not prevent the meaning from being understood. Here are some examples of simplification:

* I like air north of Iran.

* I am student English language. * We look up map to situation cities. * People in other countries have various

kinds of food not same in

Iran.

Note that in the last example the subordinate relative clause which are not the same as those in Iran has been simplified to not same in Iran.

In error analysis studies, simplification may be contrasted with errors which result from other processes, such as language transfer (Richards et al. 1989).

8.6 Communication Strategies Communication strategies are used when the learner is forced to express himself with the limited linguistic resources available to him. In other words, these strategies refer to the learner's tactics to bridge the gap between his limited linguistic knowledge and his communication needs by using elements, which are not linguistically appropriate for the context. Nevertheless, the learner communicates, but at the expense of grammatical accuracy. Here are some examples: • Sorry, /late (instead of Sorry, I am late). • a cloth for my nose (instead of handkerchief).

Chapter 8- Sources of Errors

131

* building (instead of apartment complex). Note that in such errors, the learner is not concerned about the ungrammaticality of the utterances he produces and only wants to communicate. Common communication strategies, based on Tarone ( 1981 ), Richards et al. ( 1989), Dornyei ( 1995), and Brown (2000), are as follows.

1. Avoidance Strategy: When speaking or wntmg a second or foreign language, the learner will often try to avoid using a difficult word or structure, and will use a simpler word or structure instead. In other words, the learner avoids taking risks and uses less difficult items. There are generally two types of avoidance:

Topic avoidance: In topic avoidance, the learner simply tries not to talk about concepts for which the target language item or structure is not known.

Message Abandonment: In this strategy, the learner begins to talk about a concept, but is unable to continue and stops in midutterance.

2. Language Switch: In this strategy, the learner uses native language items in English sentences, e.g., When I went to Isfahan, I bought some GAZ/grezJ (a kind of sweet).

3. Prefabricated Patterns: Sometimes the learner memorizes certain stock phrases or sentences without internalized knowledge of the components of the phrase. Tourist survival language is full of prefabricated patterns, most of which can be found in pocket bilingual phrase books, which list hundreds of stock sentences for various occasions. Where is the toilet?, How much does it cost?, and the like are the kinds of prefabricated utterances that one sometimes learns at the beginning of a language learning experience when the structures of the target language are not

132


known. Such phrases are rote-memorized to fit their appropriate context. 4. Appeal to Authority: A common strategy of communication is direct appeal to authority (a native speaker, a dictionary, etc.). The learner may, if stuck for a particular word or phrase, ask a native speaker for the correct form. Or he may his guess by asking native speakers for the correctness of the attempt. He might also choose to look up a word in a bilingual dictionary. The latter attempt can produce some rather amusing situations. Once a foreign student of English, when asked to introduce himself to the class and the teacher, said, "Allow me to introduce myself and tell you some of the •.••" at this point he quickly got out his pocket dictionary and, finding the word he wanted, continued, " ••. some of the HEADLIGHTS ofmy past." It should be mentioned that errors resulting from communication strategies are characteristic of spoken language and occur less in written performance of the learners.

Study Questions and Exercises Part I. Answer the following questions. 1. What was wrong with traditional error counts?

2. In what sense identifying sources of errors was not difficult in contrastive analysis?

3. What is the difference between interlingual and intralingual errors?


133

4. What is redundancy reduction?

5. What are cross-association errors?

6. What are L 1 developmental goofs?

7. What are the main categories of language learning strategies?

8. What are the characteristics of teacher-induced errors?

9. What are the main types of communication strategies?

I 0. What are the differences between topic avoidance and message abandonment?

Part II. Study the following erroneous sentences. First, reconstruct each sentence; then, explain in linguistic why it is erroneous; and finally determine to what source(s) each error can be assigned.

1. I would rather football to any other games and sport.

134


2. We aw a theater last night.

3. If I was a doctor I try to get better my patient.

4. Some kinds of foods is very cheap and some another is cheaper.

5. At that time I couldn ' t employed because I didn ' t have diploma.

6. Everyone has need to water because he don ' t die.

7. In each games, there are some players, who everyone of them do different works.

8. It is difference between sport and game.

9. My parents were homed there.


l 0. There is special nothing that one do in my town.

135

137

Chapter 9 Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis Important and concepts used in this chapter: Contntunicativc Tasks Spontaneous Speech Written Discourse Monitored Speech Planned Discourse

Sentence Comprehensibility Error Evaluation

9.1 Introduction In addition to their important role in the study of language acquisition in general and second or foreign language learning, in particular, errors are also important in of different communicative tasks learners perform and the effects their errors may have on communicating with native speakers of the target language. These are briefly discussed below.

9.2 Errors Related to Different Communicative Tasks Differences are observed in performance depending on whether the communicative task is spoken or written. Foreign language learners tend to commit relatively more errors in spontaneous speech than in written discourse. There tend to be various degrees of monitoring, and its degree of accuracy, depending on the task language learners

perform and the amount of attention they pay to form (Tarone, 1983,

138


1985; Ellis, 1987). Even native speakers exhibit differences in perfonnance between writing and spontaneous speech.

Compared to spontaneous speech, planned discourse allows for greater use of language and results in fewer errors. Time seems to play a determining role in this regard. Hulstin & Hulstin ( 1984) suggest that poor learners need more time to produce speech material because they have little control over their linguistic awareness. A similar hypothesis is made by Krashen ( 1981) in his monitor theory. He believes that the learners' monitor (i.e., their capacity for modifying utterances by using rule they have consciously learned) operates under three conditions: time, focus on form, and knowledge of the rule. Learners may have more control over linguistic forms for certain tasks, while for others they may be more prone to error. Krashen's Monitor Model is based on this premise. Krashen ( 1981 and elsewhere) suggests that tasks which require learners to focus on content are more likely to produce errors than those which force them to concentrate on form. Wenk (1986, p. 128), in his study of speech rhythms of French learners of English, noticed that the learners could produce target-quality vowels "in mimicry of contextualized disyllables [words consisting of two syllables]", but they were unable to do so when they had to "programme a connected utterance involving numerous successions of accented and unaccented syllables."

9.3 Native Speakers' Judgment of Learners' Errors While earlier studies of Error Analysis concentrated on types and frequency of errors in an effort to discover linguistic and communication strategies of the learners, in the late seventies and early eighties researchers began to explore the effe·ct of errors on communication by asking native speakers to evaluate second language learners' speech or writing samples. Gunterman ( 1978) and Politzer ( 1978) focused on oral samples, while Chastain ( 1980) and Delisle (1982) studied written ones. Piazza (1980) contrasted reaction to oral

C hapter 9- Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis

139

and written errors. Piazza & Politzer's samples consisted of sentences while those of Gunterman were made up of lengthier, contextualized samples. These communicative error studies typically emphasized phonology, semantics, and syntax as three major components in which errors of the type mentioned were be lieved to manifest themselves. A good proportion of communicative error studies was and is concerned with errors in pronunciation and their e ffects on the perception of the spoken message. Successful communication seems to be mostly dependent on the correct pronunciation of the target language sound system. However, in the studies conducted by Politzer ( 1978) and Ensz ( 1982) concerning the phonology of the learners' interlanguage, it is implied that although the acquisition of accent-free pronunciation seems to be difficult for second language learners, this linguistic component has not been viewed as a severe barrier to successful communication. Nevertheless, too deviant and faulty pronunciation can lead to failure in communication. Ensz ( 1982) reports that French listeners will accept slightly deviant pronunciation "whereas a strong accent may bring a different reaction" (p. 134). The degree to which errors in vocabulary use affect the comprehensibility of learners' utterances has been studied by using the native speakers' intuitive knowledge for judging them. Using this approach, Chastain ( 1980) found that Spanish native speakers reacted severely to errors in vocabulary. The incomprehensible sentences, he noted, "contained some type of word error: wrong, extra or omitted" (p.214). Similarly, to investigate how Gennan native speakers comprehend and judge errors made by English learners of German, Politzer ( 1978) asked Gennan listeners to evaluate sixty pairs of sentences containing different types of errors. He reports that German natives judged vocabulary errors to be the most serious barrier to the comprehension of the utterances. In another experiment, Delisle ( 1982) replicated Politzer' s study in written fonn. In both studies, she noted, "vocabulary errors are ranked at the top, indicating that incorrect choice of words is the greatest handicap to effective communication. However, the differences in percentages suggests that

140


a breakdown in communication due to vocabulary errors happens more easily in the spoken language than in the written one" (p. 41 ). Chastain ( 1981) also examined Spanish native speakers' reaction to sentences written by American students. In this experiment, he found that vocabulary errors in noun phrases were judged to be the most severe cause of sentence comprehensibility. Sheorey ( 1986), through another approach, comparing the error perception of native and non-native ESL teachers from India and the United States, reported that "lexical errors are judged considerably more serious by native than non-native teachers" (p.309). The possible explanation for this finding is that lexical nuances of the language may not be grasped as well by non-native speakers as by native speakers. From these studies, it can be concluded that errors in vocabulary are a sever handicap for successful communication. Thus, learners who fail to choose appropriate words may not be understood by native speakers. With regard to grammatical errors some researchers have conducted studies to find out what aspects of the grammar of a target language may severely interfere with comprehension and eventually disrupt the flow of communication. An experiment in this area was made by Burt and Kiparsky ( 1975). They maintained that ESL learners' errors are hierarchical. They further divided errors into two broad categories, global and local:

Global errors are those that violate rules involving the overall structure of a sentence, the relations among constituent clauses or, in a simple sentence, the relations among major constituents. Local errors cause trouble in a particular constituent or in a clause of a complex sentence. Burt & Kiparsky (1975, p.73).

The following sentences are examples of global and local errors, quoted from Richards et al. (1989, p. 123):

Chapter 9 - ('ommunicativc Aspects of Error Analysis

141

Global Error: •t like take taxi but my friend said so not that we should be late to r school. Local Error: If I heard from him I will let you know. The first sentence is the kind of sentence that would be marked by a language teacher or an error analyst as erroneous, and in the second sentence only heard would be marked as erroneous. For Burt & Kiparsky, global errors are higher in the hierarchy than local errors. This suggests that errors involving word order, missing subjects, the misuse of connectors or those that confuse the relationship of clauses are more important than an omitted article or inflectional morpheme in the third person singular. The authors found that errors within a constituent or a clause affect the comprehension of a sentence far less than those which are made in major constituent order or across clause boundaries. In other words, errors in pluralization, article usage, tense usage, etc. are less important in tenns of sentence comprehensibility than errors in word order, or the choice and placement of appropriate connectors. The obvious disadvantage of Burt & Kiparsky's of errors is that it is confined to syntax, and other types of errors such as lexiconsemantic errors are not taken into consideration. Later, Hendrickson (1977) modified Burt & Kiparsky's global/local errors distinction. He defined a global error as a communicative error that causes a proficient speaker of a foreign language either to misinterpret an oral or written message or to consider the message incomprehensible within the textual content of the error. On the other hand, a local error is a linguistic error that makes a form or structure in a sentence appear awkward but, nevertheless, causes a proficient speaker of a foreign language little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of the sentence, given its contextual framework. It was found that most global errors in compositions written by intermediate students of English as a second language resulted from inadequate lexical knowledge, misuse of prepositions and pronouns, and seriously misspelled lexical items. Most local errors, on the other hand, were

142

C ontrastive Analysis and Error Analysis

caused by omission of prepos itions, lack of subj ect-verb agreement, misspelled words, and faulty lex ical choice. In of communication, Sheory ( 1986) reported that "both nati ves and non-nati ves in hi s study considered [errors in] tense, agreement, and question formation to be more serious than other kinds of errors" (p. 308). Such studies provide useful insights into the error gravity of perception of nati ve speakers as well as teachers. and will increase their sensitivity to the com"municative effects of errors. It should be pointed out in ing that errors have variable effect on intelligibility. Some errors have little effect in the sense that they do not impede comprehension. Others, however, can cause cotnprehension problems. Let us consider the following pair of sentences given by Richards et al. ( 1989, p.96):

* Since the harvest was good, was rain a lot last year. * The harvest was good last year, because plenty of rain . In spite of its ungrammaticality, the second sentence makes sense. However, the reader or listener is unable to tell whether the first sentence is a question or statement. It looks like a question because of the inversion of subject and verb in the main clause, but at the same time, it looks like a statement because it ends in a period. If the sentence were spoken perhaps the intonation would solve this problem with a rising intonation suggesting it is a question, and a falling intonation indicating a statement.

Study Questions I. Do foreign language learners make relatively more errors tn spontaneous speech or written discourse? 2. According to Krashen ( 1981 ), which types of task are more likely to produce errors.

Chapter 9- Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis

143

3. How did researchers in the 70s and early 80s assess the effect of errors on communication? 4. According to the rese·arch conducted by Delisle ( 1982), \vhat is the greatest barrier to effective communication: vocabulary or grammar? 5. Which of the two categories of errors is more serious in of communication: global or local?

Chapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis

145

Chapter 10 Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis Important concepts and used in tbis chapter: Error Prevention Error Leamer's Syllabus Teacher's Syllabus Error Avoidance Negative Attitude Positive Attitude Error Correction

10.1 Introduction Students' errors have always been important to teachers, syllabus designers, and test developers. It is widely held that insights gained from the study of learners' errors can provide invaluable information for devising appropriate materials and effective teaching techniques as well as constructing tests suitable for different groups of learners at various stages of second language development. Accordingly, this chapter is intended to offer some pedagogical implications of error analysis.

10.2.1mplications for EFLIESL Teachers Teachers can benefit from the fmdings of error analysis in different ways. As mentioned earlier, long before the theoretical dimension of error analysis came into existence, learners' errors were identified and

146


classified by classroom teachers in an attempt to deal with their practical needs, and to devise appropriate materials and teaching techniques. From the study of learners' errors teachers can identify the problematic areas for learners at different levels of instruction. They will be able to infer the nature of the learners' knowledge of the target language at a given stage in his learning career and discover what he still has to earn. A course based on the frequency of errors will enable the teacher to teach at the point of error and to put more emphasis on those areas where the error frequency is higher. As mentioned earlier, errors provide ; they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show him what parts of the syllabus be has been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need further attention. They enable him to decide whether he can move on to the next item in the syllabus or whether he must devote more time to the item he has been working on.

10.3 Implications for Syllabus Designers Errors are significant to syllabus designers to see what items are important to be included in the syllabus and what items are redundant and should be excluded. An error-based analysis can provide reliable results upon which remedial materials can be constructed. In other words, analysis of second-language learners' errors can help identify learners' linguistic difficulties and needs at a particular stage of language learning. This can serve as a basis for remedial courses and programs of re-teaching. Error analysis can be used as a means for both assessing the students' learning in general and the degree of match between the Ieamer's learning syllabus and that of the teacher.

C hupter 10 - Peda~OJ!icullmplications of Errur A nal~~is

147

I 0.4 I n1plications for Test Developers The discussion of the pedagogical implications of error analysis would not be con1plctc without a bri ef note on testing, since it is beli eved that tl;aching and testing do, indeed, go hand in hand . Thus, testing should be based on what has been taught and the test developers should be fan1iliar with students' di fficultics and errors. Test constn1ctors can concentrate on parts of the teaching materials which are proved by error analysis to be tnore difficult for the students. Moreover, errors can fonn good distracters for test constructors, especially in multiplechoice items. In fact, as suggested earlier (Chapter 6), the distracters of a multiple-choice test designed for eliciting data from secondlanguage lean1ers should be selected from the common errors of the students. Having mentioned the pedagogical values of error analys is, a word of caution seems necessary here. First of all, care should be taken not to give undue attention to errors. While errors are, indeed, revealing of a system at work, the foreign/second language teacher may get so much involved in paying attention to errors that the correct utterances in the target language may go unnoticed. Thus, in their observation and analysis of errors teachers must take necessary precautions not to pay too much attention to errors and lose sight of the positive reinforcement in con1munication. Secondly, teachers should be made aware of the strategy of avoidance, i.e., the tendency of second-language learners to avoid producing forms they do not feel sure of. As Schachter ( 1974) points out, a learner who for one reason or another avoids a particular sound, word, structure, or discourse category may be assumed by the teacher to have no difficulty therewith. The absence of error, therefore, does not necessarily reflect native-like competence since learners may be avoiding the structures that pose difficulty for them. However, the present author believes that avoidance can be controlled to some extent by using certain elicitation techniques (e.g. , direct translation from Ll into L2) which force the learners to produce the grammatical structure or lexical items under investigation.

148

Contrastive

Analy\1~

and Error Analysl!l

10.5 Error Correction and Attitudes towards Errors Another pedagogical implication of error analysis is error correction and attitudes towards errors. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant change in foreign language methodologies and teaching materials. Similarly, there has been a significant change of attitudes towards student ' errors. Throughout the fifties and well into the sixties, when Contrastive Analy is and Audiolingual Approach to teaching foreign languages were at the peak of their popularity, a rather negative attitude towards errors was prevalent. Some of the well-known scholars during that period regarded second-language learners' errors from a somewhat puritanical perspective. For example, Nelson Brooks ( 1960), in his then famous book, Language and Language Learning, which became a manifesto of the language teaching profession of the 1960s, considered error to have a relationship to learning resembling that of sin to virtue. He stated: "Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected" (p.58). Brooks suggested an instructional procedure that would help language learners produce error-free utterances: "The principal method of 11voiding error in language learning is to observe and practice the right model a sufficient number of times; the principal way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response and the presentation once more of the correct model" (p.58). Such guidelines for the prevention and correction of errors were followed in the preparation of materials for the teaching of foreign languages. For instance, in The Teacher's Manual for German, Level One, prepared by the Modem Language Materials Development Center ( 1961 ), one finds the advice that "teachers should correct all errors immediately" (pp. 3, 17, 21, and 26), and that "students should be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own mistakes" (pp. 28 and 32). Similar pieces of advice can be found in

other audio-lingual manuals and instructional materials.

Chapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis

149

With the emergence of error analysis in the late sixties, as a reaction to contrastive analysis, and with the wave of research interest in the processes and strategies of first and second language acquisition as well as possible similarities between the two, second-language learners' errors gained unprecedented significance. As a result, the negative attitudes held towards errors in the fifties and early sixties changed to a positive one. Errors were no longer considered as evil signs of failure, in teaching and/or learning, to be eradicated at any cost; rather, they were seen as a necessary part of language learning process. Alongside the emergence of such theoretical views towards errors, innovative methodologies and materials for teaching foreign languages were developed that encouraged creative self-expression and not error-free communication. Instead of expecting students to produce flawless sentences in a foreign language, students nowadays are mostly encouraged to communicate in the target language about things that matter to them. As Chastain ( 1988) writes, "more important than error-free speech is the creation of an atmosphere in which the students want to talk" (p 330). Research has shown that the type of input that allows corrective to occur after an error has been made is more meaningful than input that attempts to prevent an error from occurring (see Tomasello & Herron, 1988, 1989). Gass (2003) also asserts that "allowing a natural process to occur and 'interrupting' it has a greater likelihood of bringing the error to a learner's attention" (p. 232). Many language educators today propose that foreign language teachers should expect many errors from their students, and should accept those errors as a natural phenomenon integral to the process of learning a second language. When teachers tolerate some errors, students feel more confident ing the target language than if all their errors are corrected. Teachers of today should be aware of the fact that generation of teachers before them have employed different methods to get rid of their students' errors, such as punishment, scorn, and ridicule - all in vain - in an attempt to prevent students from making mistakes.

ISO

Contrasti\•(•

Anal~· sis

und Error Analysis

ever. it should not he implied fron1 the above that errors hould n t be corr~ctcd at all. ven today. the role of error correction in E L EFL classes i acknowledged (sc~. e.g., Hedge, 2000: Ellis & Barkhuizen. 2005: Ru cl & Spada. 2006: Nassaji. 2007~ Lightbown & Spada. 10 I 0). As assaj i (2007) points o ut. .. dea ling with learner's erro rs i ~ an important aspect of L2 teaching ... [andl . .. most of the evidence point to the usefulness of error correction versus no error correction .. (p. ll ). However, too n1uch correction should certainly be avoided . Teacher hould realize that con·ection of errors is a very delicate task, and if it is not tackled appropriately it may do more hann than good as it may cause embarrassn1ent and frustration for the learner. This in tum may lead to linguistic insecurity, i.e. the learner \viii be discouraged to speak out in class and/or write freely in the target language. He will be reluctant to do so lest he n1ay reveal his inability in perfom1ing in the target language. As Lightbown and Spada (20 l 0) note, "excessive on error can have a negative effect on motivation and teachers must be sensitive to the way their students react to correction" (p. 167). H O\\

Based on the foregoing discussion, the following suggestions are offered for the correction of second-language learners' errors: ( 1) The teacher should make sure that an error has been committed before attempting to do something about it. That is, it is possible that the teacher does not hear accurately what the student bas said. This is especially true in large classes where noise can often be considered as a distracter. The teacher may also misinterpret what the student has meant.

(2) The teacher should feel confident and competent about correcting the error. If he is not sure of the correct model or appropriate correction procedures he should refrain from correcting his students. In this case, he should consult those colleagues of his who have a better command of the target language or his authoritative reference books.

C bapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis

151

(3) Since no teacher has time to adequately deal with all the errors made by his students, a hierarchy should be established for the correction of errors according to the nature and significance of errors. ln such a hierarchy, priority should be given to errors which may hamper communication and distort comprehensibility, such as errors in the wrong pronunciation of minimal pairs, e.g. pronouncing sheep for ship, and vice-versa, and lexicosemantic errors (for more details, see Chapter 7 of this volume). With regard to syntactic errors, Burt & Kiparsky (1975), as mentioned in Chapter 9, classify second-language learners' errors into two distinct categories: (a) global, and (b) local. Global errors are those that cause a listener or reader to misunderstand a message or to consider a sentence incomprehensible, and local errors are those that do not significantly hinder communication of a message. Thus, in error correction priority should be given to global errors in order to give the student the greatest possible mileage in of acquiring the ability to communicate in the target language. Next in the hierarchy of error correction are errors which cause listeners or readers, in the case of written errors, irritation. A number of language educators suggest that errors that stigmatize the learner from the perspective of native speakers should be among the first to be corrected (Hanzeli, 1975; Corder, 1975; Birckbicher, 1977). Undoubtedly, deviation from the linguistic norms of a speech community elicits evaluational reactions that may classify a person unfavorably. In other words, native speakers usually attach a certain degree of stigma to the phonologically, lexically, grammatically, and orthographically deviant forms and structures that non-native learners produce frequently in their speech or writing. Errors which neither distort comprehensibility nor cause irritation on the part of native speakers should receive the 1owest priority in error correction. The difficulty here, of course, lies in the fact that the EFL teacher may not have access to a native speaker of the target

152


language. In this case, he should rely on his own best judgment based on his knowledge of the target language as well as his teaching expenence. Several additional criteria have been suggested by language educators for establishing priorities of error correction. For instance, it has been suggested that high-frequency errors should be among the first errors that teachers should correct in students' oral and written performance (George, 1972; Dresdner, 1973; Bhatia, 1974; Holley & King, 1975; and Allwright, 1975). It has also been suggested that errors relevant to a specific pedagogical focus deserve to be corrected before other less important errors (Cohen, 1975). With regard to the timing of error correction, it is the present author's strong conviction that, with the exception of pronunciation errors, a student should not be interrupted for his error(s); rather, errors should be corrected after the classroom activity, such as a dialogue or a reading age, is over. The teacher should make a note of the errors during such activities then explain them to the class as a whole, and not directly to the individual student who has made the error. ln this way, a more relaxed atmosphere will be created in the classroom whereby the learners would feel free to express themselves in the target language. A technique employed by the present author in correcting composition errors, and was found effective, was to write the common errors on the board and explain them to the class as a whole. Then, students were asked to examine their compositions and try to discover their errors. This discovery procedure was followed by classroom exercises on the points with which the students had problems.

Chapter 10 - Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis

153

Study Questions I . What are the implications of error analysis for syllabus designers?

2. Explain how English teachers can benefit from the findings of error analysis studies. 3. What are the implications of error analysis for test constructors? 4. What was the attitude towards errors when contrastive analysis and audio-lingual method of teaching were popular? 5. How did error analysis affect the attitude towards second-language learners' errors? 6. What suggestions are offered for the correction of secondlanguage learners' errors? 7. Is error correction still considered important in second language teaching and learning? 8. What types of errors should enjoy priority in error correction?

All wright, R. L. ( 1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher' s treatment of learner errors. In M. K. Burt and H. C.

Ausube l. D . P. ( 1967). Learning Theory and Classroom Practice. Bulletin, No. I., Toronto: Ontario lnstitute for Studies in Education. Beebe, L., Takahasbj. T., & Uliss-Waitz, R. (I990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen ( eds. ), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 5573). New York: Newbury House. Bhatia, A. T. ( I974). An error analysis of students' compositions.IRAL. Vol. 12, pp. 33 7 - 350. BrickbicMer, D. W. ( I977). Communication and beyond. In J. K. Philips (ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the world (pp. 53-94). Illinois: National Textbook Company. Brooks, N. ( 1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New York: Hacourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Brown, H. D. ( 1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

------ (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. C. (eds.) (1975). New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education. On TESOL '75. Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Burt, M. K. &, C. Kiparsky (1975). Global and local mistakes. ln J. H . Schumann and N. Stenson (eds), New frontiers in second Language learning (pp. 71 - 80). Rowtey, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.

Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysi!l

156

Buteau. M. F. ( 1970). Students' errors and the learning of French as a second language: A pilot study. IRAL. Vol. 8. pp. 133- 145. Carlisle. R. S. (200 1). Syllable structure uni versals and second language acquisition. International Journal of English Studies, 1( I ), 1-1 9. Cansell. R. (2000). Children 's language: Consensus and controversy. London: Cassell. Celce-Murcia. M. & B. Hawkins ( 1985). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and lnterlanguage Analysis. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Beyond basics: Issues and research in TESOL. Rowley, MA : Newbury House Publishers. Chastain, K. ( 1980). Nati ve speaker reactions to instructor identified second language errors. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 64, No.2. pp. 2 10-215. ------ ( 1981 ). Native speaker evaluation of student composition errors. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.288-294. ------- (1988). Developing second-language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Harcout Brace Javanovich Publishers. Chesterfield, R. & Chesterfield, K. B. (1985). Natural order in children' s use of second language learning. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6, pp. 45-49. Chomsky, N. ( 1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton. ------ (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner' s ' Verbal Behavior'. Language, Vol. 35, No. I, pp. 26-58. -------- ( 1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The M.l. T . Press. - -- -- (1966). Linguistic theory. Northeast Conference Reports on Language Teaching: Broader Contexts. Menasha, Wisconson. Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. Modem Language Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 414 - 422. Connor, U. ( 1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. IRAL 1, pp.l3-28. Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's universal grammar: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cook, V. &

157

References

Corder, S. Pit ( 1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 147 - 170. --------- ( 1971 ). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 147-1 60 (Reprinted in J. H. Schumann, & N. Stenson (eds.), New f rontiers ofsecond language learning, 1975, pp. I 00-11 3). ----------( 1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin Books.

Harmondsworth,

U. K.:

--------- ( I 974). The elicitation of interlanguage. IRAL (Special issue on the occasion of Bertol Molmberg's 60th birthday, Edited by G. Nickel), pp. 51 63.

---------- ( 1975). The language of second- language learners: The broader issues. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 409-4 18. --------- ( 1982). Error analysis and inter/anguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeCapua, A. ( 1998). The transfer of native language speech behavior into a second language: A basis for cultural stereotypes. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 9, pp. 21-35. Di Pietro, R. J. (1971). Language structures in contrast. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass. Delisle, H. H. (1982). Native speaker judgment and evaluation of errors in Gennan. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 66, pp.39-48. Domyei, Z. ( 1995). On the teachablity of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 55-84.

--------- (20 10). Research methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dresdner, M.P. (1973). Your students' errors can help you. English Language Journal, Vol. l, pp. 5- 8. Dulay, H. C. & Burt, M. K. ( 1972). Goofmg: An indicator of children's second language learning strategies. Language Learning, Vol. 22, pp. 235- 52. Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Du~kova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language teaching. Vol. 7, pp. 11- 36.

IRAL,

158


Eckman, F. R. ( 1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, Vol. 27, pp. 315-330. -------- ( 198 L). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological nales. Language Learning, Vol. 31, pp. 195-2 16. Ellis, R. ( 1987). lnterlanguage variability in narrati ve discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 9, No.I, pp. 1-20. ------- ( 1997). Second language acquis ition research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Ieamer language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ensz, K. (1982). French attitudes toward typical speech errors of American speakers of French. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 66, No.2, pp.l33-1 39. Etherton, A. R. T. S. (1977). Error analysis: Problems and procedures.. English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 68- 78. Fallahi, M. (1991). Contrastive linguistics and analysis of errors. Tehran: Iran University Press. Fisiak, J. (ed.) (1985). Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fitikides, T. J. (1963). Common mistakes in English. London: Longman. Fries, C. C. ( 1945). Teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (eds.) (1993). Language transfer in Language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory book. (3rd ed.) London: Routledge. George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

References

159

Granger, S. (2002). A bird's-eye view of computer Ieamer corpus researc h. In S. Granger. J. Hung. and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer l~arner corpora. second language acquisition. and foreign language teachmg. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Guntermann. G. ( 1978). A study of the frequency and communicati ve effects of errors in Spanish. A1odern Language Journal. Vol. 62, Nos. 5 & 6, pp.249253. Hakuta, K. ( 1974). Preliminary report on the development of grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second languag~. Working Papers in Bilingualism, Vol. 3, pp. 18-43. Toronto: Ontano Institute for Studies in Education. Hanzeli. V. E. ( 1975). Leamer' s language: Implications of recent research for foreign language instruction. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 59. pp. 426432. Hatim, B. ( 1996). Communication across cultures: Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Exeter, U.K.: Exeter University Press. Hartmann, P. R. K. (2007). Interlingual lexicography: Selected essays on translation equivalence, contrastive linguistics, and the bilingual dictionary. Lexicagraphica, Series Major Volume I 33. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heltai, P. (1988). Contrastive analysis of terminological systems and bilingual technical dictionaries. International Journal ofLexicography, Vol. 1, No. I , pp. 32-40. Hendrickson, J. M. (1977). Error analysis and selective correction in adult ESL classroom: An experiment. ERIC: Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, Virginia. EDRS: ED 135260. Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1975). Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. In J. H. Schumann and N. Stenson (eds.), New frontiers in second language learning. (pp. 81-89). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Holmes, J ( 1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Hulstin, J. H., & Hulstin, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, VoL 34, pp.23-43.


160

Jain. M. P. ( 1974). Error analysis: Source, cause and significance. Ln J. C. Richards (ed.), Error analysis: Perspective on second language learning (pp. 189-2 15). London: Longman. James, C. ( 1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman. -------- ( 1985). The Transfer of Communicative Competence. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Contrasti\ e Linguistics and the Language Teacher (pp. 57-70). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

---------- ( 1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman . Johanson. S. ( 1975). The uses of error analysis and contrastive analysis. English Language Teaching. Vol. 29, No.3, pp.246-253 . Kasper, G. ( 1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, Vol. 8, pp. 203-231. Kellerman, E. ( 1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 2, pp. 37-57. Keshavarz, M . H. (1984). Techniques and procedures for teaching pronunciation to Iranian students. ROSHD. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-5. ------- (2009). A practical course in phonetics and phonology (II th ed). Tehran: Samt Publisher. Keshavarz, M. H., Eslami, Z. R., & Ghahraman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, pp. 359-402. University of Hawaii Press. Kleinmann, H. ( 1977). A voidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, Vol. 27, pp. 93-107. Krzeszowski, T. P. ( 1974 ). Contrastive Generative Grammar: Theoretical foundations. Lodz University Press. -------- ( 1985). Contrastive analysis in a new dimension. In J. F isiak ( ed. ), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. (pp. 71-85). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lado, R. (I 957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

References

161

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. ( 199 1). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. Lee, W. R. (1968). Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of foreign language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and its pedagogical implications: Monograph series on language ·and linguistics, No. 2 1, pp. 185-1 94. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Leech, G. N. ( 1990). Principles ofpragmatics (7th ed.). London: Longman. Lenneberg, E. H. ( 1967). Biological foundation of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (201 0). How languages are learned. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. McDonough, S. H. ( 1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: George Allen and Unwin. McKeating, D. (1981). Error Analysis. In G . Abott (ed.) The teaching of English as an international language: A practical guide (pp. 211-224). McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories ofsecond-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Menyuk, P. H. (1971). The acquisition and development of language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Milon, J. ( 1974). The development of negation in English by a second language learner. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 137-143. Nassaji, H. (2007). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners' written errors. In S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor ofRod Ellis (pp.117-129). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nemser, W. (1971). Approximate systems of foreign languages learners. /RAL, Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 115-123. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International Inc. Nickel, G. (1971). Papers m Contrastive Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.

162


Odlin, T. ( 1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --------- (2005). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Oxford: Blackwell. Oller, J. W., & S. M. Ziahosseiny ( 1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Lan&ruage Learning, Vol. 20, pp. 183-189. Owens, R. E. (2001 ). Language development: An Introduction (5th ed.). London: Allyn and Bacon. Palladino, B., Poli, P., Masi, P., & Galoriecle, F. ( 1997). Impulsive/reflective cognitive style, metacognition, and emotion in adolescence. Perception and motor skills, Vol. 84, pp.47-57. Piazza, L. G. ( 1980). French tolerance for grammatical errors made by Americans. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 64, No.4, pp. 422-27. Politzer, R. ( 1978). Errors of English speakers of Gennan as perceived and evaluated by German natives. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 253261. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvick, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar ofthe English language. London: Longman. Radford, A. (1992). Transformational Syntax: A Student 's Guide to Chomsky 's Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ravem, R. ( 1974). The development of WH-questions in first and second language learners. In J. C. Richards (ed.), Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Learning (pp. 143-155). London: Longman. Richards, J. C . (1971a). A non-i;ootrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching, Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 204-219. -------- ( 1971 b). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Science, Vol. 17, pp. 12-22. -------- ( 1972). Social factors, interlanguage and language learning. Language Learning, Vol. 17, pp. 159-188. --------- (ed.) (1974). Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Learning. London. Longman.

References

163

Richards, J. C .. Platt, J., & Weber, H. ( 1989). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. London: Longman. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. ( 1983). Conversational analysis. In J. C. Richards, J. C., & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman. Russel, J., & Spada, N . (2006). The effectiveness of corrective for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Bejamins. Rutherford, W. ( 1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning, Vol. 32, pp. 85-108. Sanders, C. ( 1985). Recent developments in contrastive analysis and their relevance to language teachers. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp. 21-33). Oxford: Pergamon Press. ScarceiJa, R. ( 1983 ). Discourse accent in second language performance. In G. Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 306-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, Vol. 24, pp. 205-214. Schumann, J. H. (1975). Implications of pidginization and creolization for the study of adult second language acquisition. In J. H. Schumann, & N. Stenson (eds.), New frontiers in second language learning. (pp. 137- 152). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. ---------- ( 1976). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis. Language Learning, Vol. 26, pp. 391-408. Schumann, J. H., & Stenson, N. (eds.) (1975). New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers,

Inc. Selin.ker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 67-92. --------- (1972). lnterlanguage. /RAL, Vol. 10, No. 3,pp. 219-31. --------- ( 1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.

164


Selinker. L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. ( 1975). The Interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, Vol. 25, pp. 139-152. Sheorey, R. ( 1986). Error perception of native-speaking and non-native speaking teachers of ESL. ELT Journal, Vol. 40, No.4. pp.306-312. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Han Inc. Sridhar, S. N. ( 198 1). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage: Three phases of one goal. In J. Fisiak, (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp. 207- 24 1). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Stockwell, R., Bowen, J. D., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The Grammatical Structure of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Takahashi, S. and Beebe, L. ( 1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 131-155. Tarone, E. (1981 ). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 285- 295. ----- (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics. Vol.4, pp.l42-63. ------- ( 1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, Vol.35, No.3, pp.373-404. Tarone, E., Frauenfelder, U., & Selinker, L. ( 1976). Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. In H. D. Brown (ed.), Papers in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Applied Linguistics. University Of Michigan, Language Learning, Special Issue, No. 4, pp. 93-134. Taylor, B. P. ( 1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intennediate students of ESL. Language Learning, Vol. 25, pp.73-l07. Tomasello, M. and Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol. 9, pp.237-46. ----------- ( 1989). for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 11, pp. 385-95.

References

165

Tran-Thi-Chau ( 1975). Error analysis, contrastive analysis, and students' perception: A study of difficulty in second-language learning. IRAL , Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 11 9-143. Wardhaugh, R. ( 1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 4. pp. 120-130. Wenk, B. ( 1986). Cross-linguistic influence in second language phonology: Speech rhythms. In E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood-Smith (eds.), crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Widdowson, H. G. ( 1991). Aspects of language teaching (2"d ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, L. (2003). On the nature of inter1anguage representation: Universal grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.l9-42). Oxford: Blackwell. Whitman, R. L. ( 1970). Contrastive Analysis: Problems and procedures. Language Learning, Vol. 20, pp. 191-197. Whitman, R. and Jackson, K. L. ( 1972). The unpredictability of contrastive analysis. Language Learning, Vol. 22, pp. 29-42. Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically-based analysis of complementing in American English. InN. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbery House. Yarmohammadi, L. (2009). Practical contrastive analysis of English and Persian with special emphasis on grammar. Tehran: Rahnama Press. Yule, G. (1988). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Audio-Lingual

An approach to second or foreign language teaching that is based on the behaviorist theory of learning and structural linguistics. In this method, the formation of habits is emphasized through repetition, practice. and memorization of sentence patterns.

Backsliding

The reappearance of fossilized features of a learner language under certain conditions.

Behaviorism

A school of psychology which claims that learning. both verbal and non-verbal, takes place through stimulusresponse and the formation of habits.

Code

The systems (phonological, grammatical, semantic) of language.

Cognates

Words that have similar form and meaning in two or more languages. This may confuse learners when meanings are not exactly the same.

Cognitive

Concerned with thought processes.

Cognitive-Code Theory

A theory which maintains that language learning is best achieved by conscious understanding of the rules underlying language behavior.

Communication Strategy

A strategy used by learners to convey their meaning; it may not be 'grammatical'.

Covert Error

An error which is not immediately apparent.


168

Cross-linguistic [nfluence

The influence of the learner's MT on his/her acquisition of LT.

Developmental Errors

Errors that do not result from first language influence but rather are caused by mutual interference of TL items. These errors often resemble those made by children acquiring their NL.

Deviant Structure

An incorrect grammatical item.

Dialect

Dialects are subcategories of the parent language that use similar but not identical rules. All s of a language follow certain dialectal rules that differ from the standard dialect.

Error

A systematic deviation from the accepted TL rules.

Error Analysis

A procedure used by both researches and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness.

Fossilization

Language behavior which becomes fixed at a certain point in second language development. It refers to permanent characteristics of interlanguages.

Global Errors

Errors which affect the meaning of the whole sentence.

Goof

Errors, mistakes.

Hierarchy

Classification of linguistic units consisting of a series of successive levels.

Hypercorrection

Inappropriate use of a form due to excessive concern over the use of another form.

lnput

Input constitutes the language to which the learner is exposed. It can be spoken or written. Input serves as the

Glossary

169

data which the Ieamer must use to determine the rules of the target language. Interference

The influence of one type of behavior (e.g., MT linguistic behavior) on one that is learned later (e.g., TL linguistic behavior). This may be either beneficial or harmful.

Intral ingual Errors

Errors caused by faulty or partial learning of the target language.

Language Transfer

The influence of linguistic features of one language on the learning of another, in contexts such as bilingualism and second-language acquisition.

Latent Psychological Structure

An already formulated arrangement in the brain which is activated whenever an adult attempts to learn a second language.

Local Error

An error which only affects the meaning of the clause in which it is found.

Nativism

Nativist or mentalist theories of language learning emphasize the learner's innate mental capacities for acquiring a language, and minimize the contribution of linguistic environment.

Negative Transfer

Negative Transfer takes place when the use of a native language structure produces an error in the TL.

Overgeneralization

Use of a linguistic rule that goes beyond the normal domain of that rule.

Overt Error

An immediately apparent error.

Pidgin

A language with a markedly reduced grammatical structure, lexicon, and sty listie range which emerges when of two or more distinct languages attempt to communicate with each other.


170

Positive Transfer Positive transfer takes place when the forms of NL make the learning of the TL easier. Pragmatics

The study of language from the point of view of language s, especially the choices they make and the effects their use of language has on other participants.

Prefabricated Patterns

Fixed or routine patterns or forms such as 'greetings' and farewell.

Redundancy Reduction

Reducing or omitting linguistic forms that are not necessary.

Simplification

Leaving out elements of a sentence resulting in linguistic structures which are simpler that TL norms.

Structural Linguistics

A school of linguistics in America and Europe that was primarily concerned with the scientific description of the formal properties of language.

Transfer of Training

Influences on the production or comprehension of a second language that are due to the ways learners have been taught.

Translation Equivalents

Words which approximately have the same meaning in two or more languages.

Typology

Classification

Universal

The properties inherent in the human mind. Universal grammar consists of a set of general principles common to all languages rather than a set of particular rules.

Grammar

1 Allwright 152 Ausubel 48 Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz 23 Bhatia 152 Birckbicher 151 Brooks 9. 148 Brown 9, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 34, 49, 50,66,68,80, 105,131 Burt and Kiparsky 140, 141, 151 Buteau 22, 118 Carlisle 31 Cattsell 49 Celce-Murcia & Hawkins 20 Chasmin 48, 138, 139, 140, 149 Chesterfield and Chesterfield 69 Cho~ky 13, 47, 49,50,51,52,63 Cohen 152 Connor 5, 23 Cook 53, 54 Cook and Newson 50 Corder 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 105, 120, 151 DeCapua 23,40 Delisle 138, 139, 143 Domyei 80, 131 Dresdner 152 Dulay & Burt 54, 119 Dulay et al. 54 Duskova 22, 118 Di Pietro 6, 13 Eckman 20 Ellis 83, 138 Ellis & Barkhuizeo 7, 150 Ensz 139 Etherton 90

Fallahi 65 Fisiak 5, 6 Fitikides 11 8 Fries 9 Gass 149 Gass & Selinker 21 , 60 George 23, 152 Granger 22 Guntennan 138, 139 Hakum 54 Hanzeli 151 Hartmann 6 Hatim 6 Hedge 150 Helmi 6 Hendrickson 141 Holley & King 152 James 14, 15, 23 Johanson 65 Holmes 40 Kasper 23 Kellerman 20 Keshavarz 28, 121 Keshavarz et al. 40 Kleinmann 62 K.rashen 138, 142 Krzeszowski 13, 23, 72 Lado 8,9 Larsen-Freeman & Long 20 Hu1stin & Hulstin 138 Lee 10 Leech 40 Lightbown & Spada 39, 118, 150 Lenneberg 49 McDonough 48 McKeating 105

172 McKeating I 02 McLaughlin 45, 69 McNeil 47 Milon 51 Nassaji I 44 Nemser 21, 71 Newmark 119 Nickel 22 Odlin 8, 2 J Oller & Ziahosseiny 11 Owens 48 Palladino et al. 78 Palmero & How 51 Piazza 133, 134 Politzer 133, 134 Prator 16 Quirk et al. 29, 34 Radford 34 Ravem 51 Richards 22, 59, 115 Richards et al. 89, 121 , 125, 126, 127, 135, 137 Russel & Spada 144 Rutherford 19, 20 Sanders 22

Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis Scarcella 38 Schachter 58, 14 7 Schumann 49 Schumann & Stenson 73 Selinker 68 Sheorey 135, 137 Skinner 6, 8 Sridhar 61 Stockwell, Bowen and Martin 15, 16 Stolz & Tiffany 51 Takahashi & Beebe 38 Tarone 127, 132 Taylor 79 Tomasello & Herron 143 Tran-Thi-Chau 22 W ardhaugh 10 Wenk 133 White 69 Whitman 19, 22 Whitman & Jackson 22 Widdowson 113 Wilkins 21 Wolfson 39 Yule 57 Y annohammadi 21

Applied Contrastive Analysis 6 Applied Error Analysis 60, 61 Approximative System Hypothesis 71, 72, 73,74 Authoritative Interpretation of Errors 76, 81 ' 82, 84 Authoritati ve Reconstruction of Errors 76, 8 1 Avoidance (Strategy) 58. 63. 113. 127, 129, 139, 141 Behaviorist Psychology 2, 6, 7, 9, 44, 61' 65 Coalescence 17, 18 Cognitive-Code Learning Theory 44, 45,46, 52 communication strategies Cognate(s) 3,37 Contrastive Analysis I, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, II, 13,20,21,22,26,36,43, 54,55,61 Strong Version 9 Weak Version 10 Moderate Version 11 Contrastive Rhetoric 4, 22 Convergence 36, 41 Correspondence 5, 16 Divergence 37, 41 Equivalence 4, 5 Error Analysis 43, 44, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 76, 80, 82, 84, 85, 114, 126, 132, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146 Error Correction 43, 139, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 First/Child Language Acquisition 46, 48, 50, 51, 52

Fossilization 67, 70, 74, 160 Generative-Transformational Grammar 12, 14, 44, 46,52 Hierarchy of Difficulty 1. 2, 15, 16, 19,24 Idiosyncratic Dialect 72, 73, 74 Interference 5, 9, I0, 11 . 20. 2 1, 22, 33, 35, 55, 58, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 160. 16 1 lnterlanguage 20, 43, 56, 58, 62, 63, 64, 68,69, 70 lnterlanguage Systems 64, 70 lnterlanguage Hypothesis 68, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 74 lnterlingua1 Errors 12, 35, 114, 116, 149 lntralingual Errors 12, 35, 116, 128 Language Acquisition device (LAD) 47, 52 Language Learning Strategies 60, 68, 125, 129 Language Transfer 10, 21 , 54, 68, 126 Markedness Theory 19, 20, 28, 29 Mistakes SO, 56, 57, 58, 65, 142, 143, 160 Nativist Approach 46 Negative Transfer 2, 6, 7, 21, 161 Overgeneralization 11, 21 , 35, 48, 60, 68, 69, 70, 113, 115, 116, 121 , 122, 125, 161 Positive Transfer 2, 7, 11 , 162 Pragmatics 12, 22, 38 Second-Language Learning! Acquisition 6, 48, 49, SO, 51, 52, 62,68

174 Split 19, 27, 39, 43 Sources of Errors 22, 23, 35, 45, 53, 66, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125. 132 Structural Linguistics 7. 8, I 0, 13,

21. 47. 69' 167

Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis Theoretical Contrastive Studies 4, 6 Transfer 6, 22, 24, 72, Universal Grammar 20, 47, 50

Moham mad Hossein Keshavarz. Ph.D.

Teacher Training ll nh ersity. Tehran This book is inte nded to provide English teachers and students with a standard text on Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. It covers a wide range of topics and attempts have been made to present the material systematically to make the teaching and reading of the book smooth and easy. The book has been taught by English instructors at

different universities for two decades now and has proven to be satisfactory and successful. RAHNAMA PRESS

I]N :97~964-367trn 9 7896 4 3

67500 4

Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis 6l1d6t

Overview 4q3b3c

More details 26j3b

Related Documents 171j1w

Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis 6l1d6t

Contrastive Analysis 1t6p73

What Is Contrastive Analysis yk4v

Criticism On Contrastive Analysis 6e5i6g

Contrastive Analysis Theory e5w6

Error Analysis 4y3u3p

More Documents from "Jannah Wardani" 5j424

Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis 6l1d6t

Cheat Gta San Andreas Ps2 Lengkap 711m3h

Link Full Bts Memories 2017 3d1i5i

Lp Urs + Dj Stent.docx ee6q

Contoh Kasus Etika Keperawatan 543v3r

Akuntansi Internasional 1w304k