YEAR TWO
Second Language Acquisition
#7: Error Analysis and Interlanguage
1. Error Analysis (continued)
Corder (1973) believes that the most generalisable breakdowns in learning a target language fall into four
main categories:
omission means that learners omit certain linguistic forms because of their complexity in production. In writing English compositions,
the articles seem to be the most problematic cases for foreign learners;
addition of redundant things may be instigated by the learners' L1. For example, Japanese and many African learners may find it hard
to follow phonotactic rules of English (such as producing consonantal clusters or beginning a word with a vowel);
selection is another important type of error committed by foreign language learners; these errors may occur in the area of morphology
(e.g. *
My sister is oldest than me
), syntax (e.g. *
I want that she comes with me
) or lexis (e.g. *
My husband left smoking
);
ordering means that learners shift the position of certain phonemes, e.g. they may say *
fignisicant
instead of
significant
; learners very
often reverse elements of compound words, so that
car key
ends up as *
key car
, which might mean "a car carrying keys" or "the most
important car"; they can also make ordering errors in sentence structure, such as when putting words in the wrong order, e.g. *
What
she did yesterday?
In another taxonomy of Error Analysis, the same author (Corder 1974a; 1974b) classifies errors into three
types, according to their systematicity:
presystematic errors, which occur when the language learner is unaware of the existence of a particular rule in L2. This type of errors
is common in situations when the learner is unable to give any account of why a particular form has been selected;
systematic errors, which happen when the learner has discovered the rule, only it happens to be the wrong one; such errors appear
when the learner is unable to correct the errors, though she may be able to account for the mistaken rule and the type used;
postsystematic errors, which occur when the language learner knows the correct target language rule but uses it inconsistently; this
kind of error takes place when the learner can explain the rule that is normally used.
Burt (1975) makes a distinction between global errors and local errors. She defines the former as errors that
affect overall sentence organisation. Global errors impede communication and they prevent the hearer from
comprehending some aspects of the message, e.g. *
She have do not to go for a tea. Such an utterance may be
difficult or impossible to process. Global errors involve the overall structure of a sentence, or the sentence
might be difficult to interpret. Such errors may result from missing or wrongly placed sentence connectors
and syntactic overgeneralisation.
Another major distinction is made between overt errors and covert errors. According to Corder (1971b), any
sentence created by the learner and subsequently transcribed can be analysed for idiosyncrasies. Overtly
erroneous sentences are unquestionably ungrammatical at the sentence level. Covertly erroneous utterances,
on the other hand, are grammatically well-formed at the sentence level, but at the same time are not
interpretable within the context of communication. For more updated taxonomies of error types, involving
Polish interlanguage sources, refer to Zybert (1999).
2. Early interlanguage theory (Selinker 1972)
The term interlanguage (henceforth IL) was coined by Larry Selinker (1972). Various alternative terms were
used in the studies published in the early 1970s by different researchers to refer to the same phenomenon,
e.g. approximative systems (Nemser 1971), idiosyncratic dialects (Corder 1971a) or transitional competence
(Corder 1971b). The evolution of IL theory since the early 1970s is summarised in Selinker (1992). The
assumptions underlying early IL theory were:
at any given time the learner's IL is distinct from the L1 and L2
the approximative systems form an evolving series - an IL continuum
in a given contact situation, the approximative systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide
IL theory was a mentalist notion, based on the evidence of learner-internal processing ('hypothesis-testing',
like in L1 acquisition), and there was no place in it for behaviourist accounts of learning. Thus, CAH was
generally rejected, though the notion of L1 interference was retained. It was reconstituted as one factor (i.e.
transfer) among many of the cognitive processes responsible for L2 acquisition. Selinker (1972) suggested
that five central processes operated in IL. Those were:
(i)
language transfer (i.e. the earlier concept of L1 interference, causing interlingual errors)
(ii) overgeneralisation of target language rules (leading to intralingual errors)
(iii) transfer of training (i.e. a rule enters the learner's system as a result of instruction)
(iv) strategies of L2 learning (i.e. an identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned)
(v) strategies of L2 communication (i.e. an identifiable approach by the learner to communication with native
speakers)
IL theory sets out to explain why L2 acquisition past the critical period rarely achieves the same parameters as
L1 acquisition. Selinker suggests that those adults who successfully achieve native-like proficiency in the
target language do so because they continue to make use of the 'acquisition device', or, as Lenneberg (1967)
put it, latent language structure. Thus, like the child in L1 acquisition, the successful adult L2 learner is able
to transform the universal grammar into the structure of the grammar of the target language. This takes place
by reactivating the latent language structure.
However, as Selinker noted, relatively few adult L2 learners reach native-speaker competence (5% of the
cases). The vast majority fossilise some way short. It follows that for some reason they are unable to reactivate
the latent language structure. Selinker explained this by suggesting that these adult L2 learners fall back on a
more general cognitive mechanism, which he labelled latent psychological structure. This is still genetically-
determined, but does not involve recourse to universal grammar (or LAD). It is responsible for the five central
processes described above.
3. Modern interlanguage theory (Selinker 1992; Gass & Selinker 2008)
Fossilisation can be described as halting of acquisition, but not learning, before the native-speaker level is
reached. Krashen (1985:43) believes that there are several possible causes:
insufficient quantity of input
inappropriate quality of input (i.e. input filled with routines and patterns, a limited range of vocabulary and little new syntax)
a high affective filter
the output filter (there has been real acquisition, but affective forces prevent the learner from performing this competence;
the acquisition of deviant forms - the effect of exposure to interlanguage talk input, also referred to as peer talk input: the speech of
second-language acquirers directed at other second-language acquirers. Some methods encourage this kind of input emphasising
e.g. role-playing and problem-solving activities in which students hear a great deal of each other's language; a few methods avoid it
completely (see e.g. Winitz 1980); there is very little research and discussion dealing with whether interlanguage talk is helpful or
harmful (cf. Krashen 1985:9).
The reason for the above, according to Krashen, is that some students are exposed to a L2 in what can be
called 'extreme foreign-language' situations. The only comprehensible input such learners typically hear
comes either from the non-native-speaker teacher (who does not speak the language well) or from the
classmates (peer talk, interlanguage talk). Such input is filled with 'errors', intermediate or transitional forms
and L1-influenced errors. If this happens to be the only input available, the learner's LAD will consider it to be
'real language' (Krashen 1985: 46f.). According to Stevick (1982), such acquired deviant forms may be difficult
or even impossible to 'forget', if acquired items enter in permanent storage.
According to Selinker (1992; Gass & Selinker 2008), L2 acquisition can proceed in two different ways. It can
utilise the same mechanisms as L1 acquisition, or it can make use of alternative mechanisms, which are
presumably responsible for other types of learning apart from language. The term that eventually became
popular to describe the mechanisms responsible for the second type of learning was cognitive organiser
(Dulay & Burt 1977). The process of L2 acquisition that resulted from its operation was called creative
construction.
Corder (1974) stresses the role of interaction with native speakers of the target language, as a result of which
the learner "is engaged in the task of creating for himself an even more adequate internal grammar of the
language. He does this by two basic processes of
accommodation - adapting his IL grammar to fit the
perceived facts of the language, and
assimilation - attempting to fit newly perceived facts into the present
state of his IL grammar" (p. 79; cf. Piaget 1952). Summing up, we can ask after Hatch (1978: 35): is
interlanguage real (systematic), or is it merely a cover term for random fluctuation between accuracy/error or
learning/backsliding as the learner strives to acquire the target language?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES TO HANDOUTS #6 AND #7 + SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Bertkau, J. 1974. "Comprehension and production of relative clauses in adult second language and child first language acquisition".
Language Learning, 24
, 279-86.
Brown, H. D. 2000.
Teaching by Principles
.
An Integrative Approach to Language Pedagogy
. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Burt, M. K. 1975. "Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom".
TESOL Quarterly, 9
, 53-63.
Burt, M. K. & Kiparsky, C. 1972.
The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Corder, S. P. 1967. "The significance of learners' errors".
IRAL, 5
, 161-70.
Corder, S. P. 1971a. "Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis".
IRAL, 9
, 158-71.
Corder, S. P. 1971b. "Describing the language learner's language".
CILT Reports and Papers, no. 6
.
Corder, S. P. 1973.
Introducing Applied Linguistics
. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Corder, S. P. 1974a. "Error analysis". In Allen, J. & Corder, S. P. (Eds.)
The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Corder, S. P. 1974b. "Language learner language". In Richards, J. C. (Ed.)
Understanding Second or Foreign Language Learning. Issues and
Approaches
. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 71-93.
Corder, S. P. 1981.
Error Analysis and Interlanguage
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. 1973. "Should we teach children syntax?"
Language Learning
,
23
, 37-53.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. 1974. "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, J. C. (Ed.)
Error Analysis
. London: Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. 1977. "Remarks on creativity in language acquisition". In Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finocchiaro, M. (Eds.)
Viewpoints on
English as a Second Language
. New York: Regents.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. K. & Krashen, S. D. 1982.
Language Two.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. 1989.
Mistakes and Correction
. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Ellis, R. 1985.
Understanding Second Language Acquisition
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, H. V. 1972.
Common Errors in Language Learning
. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Hatch, E. M. 1978. "Acquisition of syntax in a second language". In Richards, J. C. (ed.)
Understanding Second Language Acquisition
.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 34-69.
James, C. 1980.
Contrastive Analysis.
Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Johnson, K. 2001.
An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching
. Pearson Education.
Kleinmann, H. 1977. "The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition".
Language Learning, 27
, 93-107.
Krashen, S. D. 1985.
The Input Hypothesis.
Issues and Implications
. London: Longman.
Lenneberg, E. 1967.
Biological Foundations of Language
. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Lightbown, M. P. & Spada, N. 1999.
How Languages are Learned.
Revised Edition
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nemser, W. 1971. "Approximative systems of foreign language learners".
IRAL, 9
, 115-23.
Piaget, J. 1952.
The Origins of Intelligence in Children
. New York: International Universities Press original French (Ed. 1932, Margaret
Cook, transl.).
Schachter, J. 1974. "An error in error analysis".
Language Learning, 24
, 205-14.
Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage".
IRAL, 10
, 209-31.
Selinker, L. 1992.
Rediscovering Interlanguage
. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Stevick, E. 1982.
Teaching and Learning Languages
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B. P. 1975. "Adult language learning strategies and their pedagogical implications".
TESOL Quarterly, 9, 4
, 391-399.
Winitz, H. 1980. "Comprehension and language learning".
Beziehungen zwischen Sprachrezeption und Sprachproduktion im
Fremdsprachunterricht Werkstattgesprach
. New York: Goethe House. 198-203.
Zybert, J. 1999.
Errors in Foreign Language Learning. The Case of Polish Learners of English
. Warszawa: nakładem Instytutu Anglistyki
Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.