#90, Research Paper: ‘An Account of Sources of Errors in Language Learners’ Interlanguage’ by Majid Ghelichi

ELTWeekly Newsletter Vol. 3 Issue#90 | June 20, 2011

Abstract

EFL learners’ errors are a major area of study in the field of contrastive linguistics and SLA research. In this article, a roughly representative account of the significance and importance of errors has been provided. Various volumes by specialists in applied linguistics, language teaching, and SLA research have been used as authoritative sources of information to provide as comprehensive an account of interlanguage errors as possible. In the course of the discussion it becomes clear that the sources of errors are no longer sought merely in the language learners’ mother tongue ( i.e., negative transfer from L1 ). But, unlike the traditional beliefs, it has become evident that mother tongue interference is not the sole source of errors, and there are many other sources from which errors originate. In this article, the writer has tried not only to show the importance of errors in EFL learners’ speech and writing but also to present a clearly-depicted and comprehensive framework regarding the sources of these errors so as to help readers especially teachers to recognize such sources easily and quickly and be able both to predict the critical interlingual and intralingual aspects which contribute to learners’ erroneous linguistic behavior and to deal with their errors effectively and efficiently.

Key words : learners’ errors, sources of error, contrastive analysis, L1 transfer/mother tongue interference, interlingual and intralingual errors

Introduction

The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines an error as” the use of a linguistic item (e.g., word, a grammatical item, a SPEECH ACT, etc.) in a way which a fluent or native speaker of the language regards as showing faulty or incomplete learning”(p. 184).

The concept of error, however, should not be confused with what is known as mistake. R. Ellis (2008) makes a distinction between errors and mistakes as follows : “An errors ( in the technical sense ) takes place when the deviation arises as a result of lack of knowledge ( i.e., a lack of competence). Mistakes are performance phenomena and are, of course, regular features of native-speaker speech, reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity.” (p.48).

Significance of Errors.

As Keshavarz ( 1994) puts it, during the heyday of Contrastive Analysis and Audio-lingual Approach to teaching foreign languages throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, there was a negative attitude towards errors. Language learners’ errors were regarded from a puritanical perspective by some well-known scholars during that period. Keshavarz refers to Nelson Brooks (1960) who in his famous book, Language and Language Learning, considered error to have a relationship to learning resembling that of sin to virtue. (Keshavarz, 1994, p. 127).

The SLA researchers and structuralist tradition prior to the 1960s strictly emphasized that second language learners’ errors be prevented and, in case of occurrence, corrected at all costs. They were believed to destroy the whole process of language learning. Over the past few decades, however, attitudes towards learners’ errors have undergone significant changes following the changes in the methodological approaches to foreign language teaching, new insights from SLA research about the nature and significance of errors, and revolutionary research into the nature of interlanguage ( Corder 1967, 1976,1981,  Selinker 1972, 1984, Eckman 1981,1984 )

Errors are no longer seen as devil signs of failure to be prevented and eradicated. On the contrary, errors are considered signs of developmental processes involved in the learning of language. Corder ( 1967 ) asserts:

They [ errors] 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. Second, they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, 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 ( p. 167 ).

The significant contributions of language learners’errors to the field of language learning and teaching have been widely reiterated in the literature. Keshavarz ( 1994, p. 45 ) quotes Richards ( 1971 ), for example, who recites the following areas as benefiting from the study of learners’ errors:

1.  Linguists, because they can efficiently discover, through the study of human language, what constitutes human intelligence;

2.  the area of Psycholinguistics also can take advantage of studying children’s speech and comparing it with adult speech to identify the mental processes that seem to be involved in language, and

3.  teachers, too, would be able to discover and identify the learners’ difficulties and devise appropriate methods for comparing them by analyzing learners’errors.

Corder (1967) noted that ERRORS provided the researcher with evidence of how language was learnt, and also that they served as devices by which the learner discovered the rules of the target language(TL). ( cited in R. Ellis (2008, p. 45)

H. D. Brown (2007) maintains that ” By the late 1960s, SLA began to be examined in much the same way that first language acquisition had been studied for some time: learners were looked on not as producers of malformed, imperfect language replete with mistakes but as intelligent and creative beings proceeding through logical, systematic stages of acquisition, creatively acting upon their linguistic environment as they encountered its forms and functions in meaningful contexts. By a gradual process of trial and error and hypothesis testing, learners slowly and tediously succeeded in establishing closer and closer approximations to the systems used by native speakers of the language.” ( p.256)

Regarding what has been discussed above, we can easily conclude that language learners’ errors should not be considered disappointing problems and insurmountable obstacles in the process of language learning. They, on the other hand, should be viewed as natural elements and insightful hints to be logically dealt with in case of occurrence.

So far, we have elaborated on the nature of errors as naturally occurring phenomena in the process of learning a second language. We also have given a brief account of the attitudes towards errors in the past and the changes in these attitudes during the more recent periods. Finally, we focused, if not comprehensively, but convincingly, on the significance of errors to linguists, language teachers, language learners, and psycholinguists. In the following sections we are going to discuss where these errors originate from. In other words, we want to demonstrate different sources of error from the perspective of different language specialists.

Sources of Errors

Traditionally, under the influence of the strong version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis , the sole source of language learners’ errors was recognized as transfer from the learner’s native language .Errors resulting from mother tongue interference were called Interlingual Errors. In Error Analysis, however, as Keshavarz ( 1994 ) believes, although interference from the mother tongue is acknowledged as a source of errors, it is by no means considered to be the only source. In the field of error analysis, many other sources of errors have been identified which extend beyond the scope of interlingual errors.

R. Ellis (2008, p. 53) writes: As Taylor (1986) points out, the error source may be psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, epistemic, or may reside in the discourse structure. Psycholinguistic sources concern the nature of the L2 knowledge system and the difficulties learners have using it in production. Sociolinguistic sources involve such matters as the learners’ ability to adjust their language in accordance with the social context. Epistemic sources concern the learners’ lack of world knowledge, while discourse sources involve problems in the organization of information into coherent ‘text’.

Richards (1971b) in R. Ellis (2008. p. 53) distinguishes three sources of psycholinguistic errors:

1. INTERFERENCE  ERRORS occur as a result of  ‘the use of element from one language while speaking another’.
2. INTRALINGUAL ERRORS ‘ reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply’.
3. DEVELOPMENTAL ERRORS occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses about the target language on the basis of limited experience.

H. Brown (2007) identifies four sources of error :

1. Interlingual Transfer

2. Intralingual Transfer

3. Context of Learning

4. Communication Strategies (pp.263-66)

The concept of interlingual errors was defined above. Interlingual errors can be subdivided further into different parts. The following overall classification would represent a comprehensive account of the different types of interlingual errors.

1. Interlingual Errors

According to  Keshavarz’s taxonomy of the sources of  errors, 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 ( Keshavarz, 1994, p.102). These five types of interlingual errors which have been taken from Keshavarz (1994) will be elaborated on drawing on some other scholars in the field for a broad-based view.

A. Transfer of Phonological Elements

Phonologically speaking, there are certain features specific to any individual language. Such features may not be found in another language, or even if they exist in another language, they may take new characteristics which again make them distinctive features in that particular language. Terence Odlin is completely right in saying “… sounds in two languages often show different physical characteristics, including both acoustic characteristics ( e.g., the pitch of a sound) and articulatory characteristics ( e.g., how widely the mouth is open in producing a sound )” ( 1990, p. 113). For example, Persian-speaking learners of English pronounce words such as / street / and / start / as / estrit / and / estart / respectively. This is because there is no initial consonant cluster in Persian, while English allows initial consonant clusters in its words. Persian learners of English, therefore, add an / e / before words which start with ‘s’ followed by another consonant.

B. Transfer of Morphological Elements

The domain of morphology is a complex and, meanwhile, fascinating area of study in any language. How morphemes, i.e., ” the smaller parts of which words are constructed including free morphemes and bound morphemes ” ( Falk, 1973, p. 29 ) of a language are used to form different parts of speech and the relationship between those morphemes of one language to another language are demanding areas of research. For example, ” the English word unfriendly is formed of friend, the adjective-forming suffix -ly, and the negative prefix un- ” (Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, p. 237).

Morphological elements can be a source of error in foreign language learning, for example, ”

when the semantic interpretation of some nouns is collective in one language, but the semantic

interpretation of their equivalents in another language is sometimes collective and sometimes [

these nouns ] are count plurals” (Fallahi, 1991, p. 125 ). The word ” cattle”, for example, is singular

in form, plural in number in English. This word in Persian, however, is singular in form, singular in

number. A Persian-speaking student may, therefore, produce an ungrammatical sentence like the

following based on his knowledge of his native language: That man has many * cattles ( cattle ).

Following the rule of adding the suffix of plurality to a  singular noun to make it plural, the Persian

student adds the plural’s’ to the word ‘cattle’ to make it plural, not knowing that this word, i.e.,

cattle, is plural by itself in English because it is a collective noun.

C. Transfer of Grammatical Elements

Variations in grammatical structures are one of the main sources of interference errors. Learners

of a foreign language transfer, to a considerable extent, the grammatical elements of their mother

tongue to the target language. Most Contrastive Analysis books devote far more sections to those

erroneous sentences which result from transfer of grammatical structures than from other areas of

transfer. In his Contrastive Linguistics and Analysis of Errors, Fallahi ( 1991 ) devotes all but two

chapters to analyzing interference errors resulting from transfer of grammatical structures.

In his Linguistics Across Cultures, Robert Lado recognizes many different aspects of

interference errors in grammatical structures. He elaborates on the notion of grammatical structures and maintains that by grammatical structures as sources of errors we mean ” the systematic formal devices used in a language to convey certain meanings and relationships” ( 1975, p. 52 ). Lado illustrates many problems in learning a foreign grammatical sructure, such as the varying degrees of the effect of transfer in production and recognition, what constitutes difference and therefore difficulty as to form, same medium-different item, problems caused by differences in distribution, etc.

As an example of transfer of grammatical elements, let’s refer to what Fisiak ( 1981, p. 200 ) has specified in his Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. In a comparison between possessive forms in English and Punjabi, Fisiak explains that the possessive construction in English may be formed in two ways: Either by an ‘s phrase before the noun, or by an ‘ of’ phrase after it; e.g., ‘ the man’s hat’, ‘ the hat of the man ‘. In Punjabi, there is only one possessive construction, coming before the noun, but similar in structure, to the English ‘ of’ phrase which comes after the noun, equivalently ‘ man of hat’. These contrasts appear to be the source of errors like the following:   ‘ There is a shoe of a pair ‘ for ‘ There is a pair of shoes ‘

‘ Some crisps of packets ‘   for ‘ Some packets of crisps ‘

‘ His hand of the fingers ‘   for ‘ The fingers of his hand ‘

D. Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements

This category can be divided into two subcategories. These subcategories include a) Cross-Association and b) False Cognates. Cross-association refers to cases where there are two words in the target language for which there is only one word in the learner’s mother tongue. As a result, the learner may use that single word in two senses in the target language ( Keshavarz, 1994, p. 104 ).

The following erroneous sentence would serve as an appropriate example: * The students should read hard before their exams. This error is due to the fact that in Persian the word / xandan / is used for both ‘ read ‘ and ‘ study ‘. False cognates refer to the incorrect use of a target language word because of its phonological similarity with a word in the learner’s mother tongue; similarity in form and not in meaning (Keshavarz, 1994, p. 105 ). For example, the sentence ‘ My father bought a new machine last week.’ is erroneous because of the influence of its cognate / masin /’ car ‘ in Persian.

E. Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements

This type of transfer has been defined by Lado ( 1957, p. 114 ) as transferring native culture habits when learning a foreign culture. Lado claims that” a very interesting kind of trouble spot is seen when any element of the form of a complex pattern has different classification or meaning across cultures.” ( 1957, p. 114). As Keshavarz puts it : In Persian, unlike English, titles such as ‘ Mr.’ and ‘ Mrs.’ can be followed by professional titles. [The culturally inappropriate sentences] ( brackets mine) ‘ Mr. teacher is coming. Mr. Doctor, can you examine my patient please? (p.106)

A survey of the literature on sources of error by the writer of this article shows that, in addition

to interlingual errors ( i.e., those errors originating in the learners’ L1), there are many other sources

of error.

2. Intralingual Errors

Keshavarz ( 1994, p. 107 ) defines intralingual and developmental errors as ” errors caused by

the mutual interference of items in the target language, i.e., the influence of one target language

item upon another.” These errors are divided into the following categories:

Overgeneralization, also referred to as ignorance of rule restriction, “occurs when the learner has mastered a general rule but does not yet know all the exceptions to that rule ” ( Ziahosseiny, 1999, p. 126 ). For example, a Persian learner of English may, on the basis of his limited knowledge of past tense form, use ‘ ed ‘ morpheme on irregular verbs. For example,’ Ali eated the apple. ‘ instead of’ Ali ate the apple .’

Transfer of training refers to the cases ” when teaching creates language rules that are not part of the L2…” ( Ziahosseiny, 1999, p. 126 ). In English classes, for example, students may hear their teacher say ” There is little snow.” , and by false analogy, they produce erroneous sentences like the following unacceptable sentences illustrated by Yarmohammadi ( 1995, p. 63 ) : ‘* The snow is little.’, ‘* The snow is much.’. Or as another example, the students may produce such sentences as ‘* The man is high.’, and ‘ * The mountain is tall.’ due to transfer of training, e.g., when the students hear their teacher say ‘ The man was highly admired.’ and ‘ It was a tall building.’. As another example, let’s refer to Keshavarz ( 1994, p. 113): The erroneous sentence ‘* I am liking to continue my studies.’ may be due to overgeneralization of structures learned in pattern drills, such as the following:

I write.    I am writing.

I read.     I am reading.

I study.   I am studying.

3. Language Learning Strategies

Oxford(1989, cited in R.Ellis,2008, pp.703-4)defines learning strategies as : ” behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable”.

These strategies refer to ” the strategies used by the learner in dealing with the target language” ( Keshavarz, 1994, p. 114). Overgeneralization and transfer of rules from the mother tongue are two instances of second-languag learning strategies. Another example as shown by Ziahosseiny ( 1999, p. 126 ) is a tendency to reduce the target language to a simpler system. This instance of language-learning strategy is called simplification. For example, ‘ telegraphic speech ‘ is used by Yule to refer to simplifying the language for communication. A child may produce such a simplified utterance as ‘ me water ‘ to indicate his need for water. Ziahosseiny ( 1999, p. 127 ) provides an example of simplification by foreign language learners: ‘What are you eating , John ? “Eat apple”

4. Communication Strategies

The limited linguistic sources of the language learner may force him to express himself without making the distinctions that native speakers do, because he feels the need to do so and avoid such distinctions. Such avoidance, Ziahosseiny asserts, is either because the learner can be understood perfectly well without distinctions, or because he finds that speech becomes rather slow if he tries to produce the exact form. Tarone (1981: 419, cited in Ellis, 2008, p. 503) defines communication strategies as involving ” a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where  requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared”.

Tarone’s (1981)  taxonomy of communication strategies ( cited in Brown, H. D., 1987, p.183 ) provides a useful description of these strategies which are as follows :

A. Avoidance

1.topic avoidance

The learner simply tries not to talk about concepts for which the TL item or structure is not known.

2.message abandonment,

The learner begins to talk about a concept but is unable to continue and stops in mid-utterance.

B. Paraphrase

1. approximation

Use of a single target language vocabulary item or structure, which the learner knows is not correct, but which shares enough semantic features in common with the desired item to satisfy the speaker (e.g., pipe for waterpipie)

2. word coinage

The learner makes up a new word in order to communicate a desired concept (e.g., airball for balloon)

3. circumlocution

The learner describes the characteristics or elements of the object or action instead of using appropriate TL item or structure (“she is, uh, smoking something. I don’t know what’s its name.

That’s, uh, Persian, and we use in Turkey, a lot of.”)

C. Conscious transfer or borrowing

1.literal translation

The learner translates word for word from the native language (“He invites him to drink,” for “They toast one another.”)

2. language switch

The learner uses the native language term without bothering to translate ( e.g., balon for balloon)

D. Appeal for assistance

The learnerasks for the correct term( “what is this? What called?”)

E. Mime

The learner uses nonverbal strategies in place of a lexical item or action ( e.g., clapping one’s

hand to illustrate applause)

Conclusion

What would you do if you had to give a guideline to a language teacher requesting you to help him with his students’ failure in learning a foreign language? Would you tell him to seek the remedy in their background knowledge of their native language or to search for many other possible sources of difficulty as well?

You would certainly go the second way if you were aware of the detailed studies related to the nature and sources of language learners’ errors.

Nowadays, unlike traditional beliefs, errors are not regarded evil signs of failure to be prevented and eradicated at all costs. Neither are they sought merely in the learners’ native language. On the contrary, errors are considered as signs of learners’ minds being actively involved in the learning process and also as signs of development. Furthermore, errors are viewed as resulting from different sources other than the mere interference from the L1 background knowledge.

What has been discussed so far can provide language teachers and course designers with insightful guidelines for better understanding of the nature of errors. Such an understanding can help them and all those in charge of foreign language teaching adopt appropriate systematic approaches to deal with and finally correct, if necessary, foreign language learners’ errors.

References

Brown, H. D. ( 1987 ). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Fifth Edition. Pearson-Longman

Corder, S. P. ( 1967 ). The significance of learner’s errors.

Ellis, R.. (2008). The study of  second language acquisition. Second Edition. OUP.

Fallahi, M. ( 1991 ) . Contrastive linguistics and analysis of errors. Vol. 1: The grammatical structure of English and Persian. Tehran: Iran University Press.

Falk, J. S. ( 1973 ). Linguistics and language. Michigan University Press.

Fisiak, J. ( 1981 ) . Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Pergamon Institute of English.

Keshavarz, M. H. ( 1994 ) . Contrastive analysis and error analysis.   Rahnama Publications.

Lado, R. ( 1957 ). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Odlin, T. ( 1990 ) . Language transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., Piatt, J., & Piatt, H. ( 1992 ). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics.

Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of “communication strategy”. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285-295.

Yarmohammady, L. ( 1995 ). Fifteen articles in contrastive linguistics and the structure of Persian. Shiraz University Press.

Ziahosseiny, S. M. ( 1999 ) . A contrastive analysis of Persian and English and error analysis. Tehran: Nashr-e Vira.