Error Analysis on

Applied Linguistics

By Naning Tri WahyuniMuhammadiyah University of

Surakarta 2015

Introduction According to Saville –Troike

(2006: 38), Error Analysis (EA) is the first approach to the study of Second language Acquisition (SLA) which includes an internal focus on learner’s creative ability to construct language

a method used to document the systematic errors that appear in learner language (Carla , University of Minnesota. 2013)

Error Documentation

EA provides evidence for:The system of language which a learner is using at any particular

point in the course of L2 development, Learner’s strategies on discovering of the language

Therefore, The errors which emerge from that learning process could:

tell the teacher what needs to be taught tell the researcher how learning proceeds, are a means whereby learners test their hypotheses about the L2 (James 1998; 12)

EA provides a validation for the classical contrastive analysis (CA) of which the goal is to find out something about the (1) psycholinguistic process and or (2) cognitive mechanism of second language learning.

The primary focus on EA is Learner Errors

Learner errors could provide an understanding of the underlying processes of second language learning/acquisition

Learner errors are

“windows into the language learner’s mind” (Saville-Troike 2006: 39)

The learning processes can be inferred from: An examination of learner language protocol Studies of learner introspections Case studies Diary studies Classroom observation Experimental studies (Long 1990)

Error Analysis on SLL and SLA The main Aspects of Error analysis include: Algorithm for conducting EAError description and classificationError correction.

The concept of Error Analysis has been applied to both of SLL and SLA Sharwood Smith (1994), Gass and Selinker (1994) and Selinker (1997) mentioned that the terms second language learning (SLL) and second language acquisition (SLA) are used interchangeably as umbrella terms for the learning and acquisition of an additional language.

THE ALGORITHM FOR CONDUCTING ERROR ANALYSISIn order to reach the intended goals

the researchers can employ a set of procedures to carry out in Error Analysis (EA)

According to Corder (1978: 126), the procedure basically consist of three major stages;

(a) Recognition(b) Description(c) Explanation of errors.

Sridhar (1980: 103) subsequently elaborated these stages into more following steps:Collection of data (e.g. From students’

compositions, examination answers)Identification of errors (labelling the

errors with varying degrees of precision, e.g., dangling preposition, anomalous sequences of tenses, etc.)

Classification into errors types (e.g. errors of agreement, articles, verb forms, etc.)

Statement of relative frequency of error types

Identification of the areas of difficulty in the target language

Remedial lesson therapy

Duskova and Rossipal (in Sridhar, 1980: 103) proposed 2 more stages to complete the procedures which had been set by Sridhar above, namely:Analysis of the source of error (e.g. mother

tongue interference, intralingual error, developmental error, etc.)

Determination of the degree of disturbance caused by the error (the seriousness impact of the error in terms of communication, norm, etc.)

Currently, The set of procedures above still applies for EA practices, and for this purpose, James (1998: 269) sets up the more applicative procedures shown below;

Sample learner language

Register each utterance of sample and its context

Is utterance x normal? (Wholly or in part?)

(a) in some plausible context? (b) in this context?If both of (a) and (b) are “yes”, it means “acceptable/non-deviant”

If both of (a) and (b) are “No”, or one of them “No”, it means “Ungrammatical” or “Unacceptable”

Reconstruct intended form (Target Language/TL form) and note the mis-correspondence(s);

Describe the error in terms of : Level and unit of TL system

Learner modification of the TL

Can the learner self-correct?Yes mistakes (han1)

No Error (han2)

Carry out a back – translation of deviant form into learner’s L1

Is the translation good?

Yes Interlingual/interference/transferNo Alternative diagnosis (intralingual, induced, etc.)

Determine gravity

Remedial work/modify syllabus

Error Identification Error can be identified by comparing what the learner

actually said with what he ought to have said to express what he intended to say, his erroneous utterances are compared with what a native speaker would have said to express that meaning.

The sentences can be judged as free from errors when they fulfil 2 criteria: (a) grammatically and (b) acceptability. Grammaticality has something to do with the

language code (well-formedness), while Acceptability has something to do with the proper use of the code.

Acceptability deals with actualization procedure (James 1989: 66). Therefore, it is judged not by linguistic factors, but by the users, in here means “native speakers”

Examples:Student: “How are you today, Mr Sheehan?” (Grammatically correct, acceptable)Student: “How are you today, old man?” (Grammatically correct, socially unacceptable)Student: “How are you today, Dude?” (Ungrammatical, social unacceptable)

In the daily life, addressing “dude” among friends often acceptable, for the example:Peter and Steve are old friends. They haven’t met each other for years. One day they met in City centre’s theatre, and they started greeting each other:Peter: ”wow, Steve! Is that you, bro?”Steve: “Yes, I remember you as well, Dude! Peter the flower boy in high school, ha-ha…”(ungrammatical, certain social acceptable)

In general:It seems easy to recognize the learner’s errors if they exhibit omission, additions, wrong selections, wrong ordering…etc. (grammatically error), however, even well-formed sentence still could be done erroneous in context, ambiguous in meaning, unusual/bizarre nature of the idea expressed, or reference to an inconceivable situation (unacceptability).

Error Description and Classification Errors are usually classified according to language

components (e.g. phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc.). Within syntax errors are classifiable into auxiliary system, passive sentences, negative construction, articles, proposition, verbs, nouns, etc.

Richards (1977), Dulay-Burt-Krashen (1982), and James (1998) present the most useful and commonly used bases for descriptive classification of errors by describing errors using different kinds of taxonomy, namely: (1) Linguistic category, )2) Surface strategy,

(3) Comparative taxonomy and (4) Communicative effect.

(1)Linguistic Category

Carries out errors in terms of where the error is located in the overall system of the TL based on the linguistic item which is affected by the error (James 1998; 105).

It indicates in which component of language the error is located. E.g. Phonology (pronunciation), syntax and morphology (clause, noun phrase, verb phrase, auxiliaries, preposition, adjectives, etc.)

This framework is useful and applicable to handle the errors of relatively advanced learners.

(2) Surface Strategy Taxonomy/target modification taxonomy (James 1998)

This classification based on the ways in which the learner’s erroneous version is different from the presumed target version (James 1998: 106).

It highlights the ways the surface structures deviate. For example; learners may omit necessary items (omission) or add unnecessary ones (addition), they may misform items (misformation) or misorder them (misordering) (an3)

This classification can give a clear description about cognitive processes that underlie the learner’s reconstruction of the new language being learned.

This classification also explains that learner’s errors result from their active way in using the interim principles to produce the TL.

(3) Comparative Taxonomy (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982: 164)

This is comparison between the structures of

second language errors and certain other type of constructions. For example, we might compare the structure of Indonesian student’s error in English learning to those of errors reported for student acquiring English as a first language.

These comparisons have resulted the 2 major error categories within this taxonomy:

Developmental errors are errors which are similar to those made by children learning the TL as L1. Example: “The dog eat it”. The omission of the past tense marker can be classified as developmental error because they also found in the speech of children learning English as L1.

Interlingual errors are defined as errors that reflect native language structure regardless of internal processes or external condition that spawn them (Dulay, Burt and Krashen,1982: 171). The similar type of error is interference or transfer, it means that the learner’s native language somehow interferes with the learning of L2, or transfer into the learner’s developing L2 system “the man skinny” (orang itu kurus), “the boy fat” (anak itu gemuk).

An additional for the two major errors above, there is “ambiguous error”, which could be classified equally as developmental or Interlingual errors. This error reflect to both the learner’s L1 and the type of errors in the speech of children acquiring English as their first language such as in; “I no have a car” ( Saya tidak mempunyai mobil). This (-) construction reflects to the learner’s native language (Indonesian) and also the characteristic of the speech of children learning English as first language.

Communicative Effect Taxonomy It based on the perspective of their effect on the listener and

reader (Dulay, Burt and Krashen,1982: 189) It deals much with distinguishing between errors that seem to

cause miscommunication and those that do not. Errors that reflect the overall organization of the sentence usually do not hinder communication.

According to Dulay, Burt and Krashen, this type of taxonomy is categorized errors into “Global errors” and “Local errors” (An4)

Global errors are errors that affect overall sentence organization and they significantly hinder communication (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982: 191). The errors include wrong order, Missing, wrong or misplaced the sentence connectors, missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic rules (an4).

Local errors are those that effect single elements (constituent in a sentence, and do not usually hinder communication significantly (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982: 191). These include error in noun and verb inflections, articles, auxiliaries etc.

-

Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis Richards (1977) gives specific attention to several types of errors,

observed in the English acquisition as a L2, which do not derive from transfer or interference from another language (L1). He classified errors into 2; (a) intralingual errors and (b) developmental errors. Intralingual errors are those which reflect the general

characteristics of rule learning (Richards, 1977: 174). Errors of this type include faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules, and failure to learn conditions under which rules are applied.

Developmental errors are those which illustrate the learner’s attempting to build up hypotheses about English language from his own limited experience of it in the classroom or textbook (Richards 1977: 174). This type of errors includes overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rule and false concept hypothesized.

Error Correction One of the purposes of conducting error analysis is “to identify the principles which should guide effective error correction (James, 1998: 235). EA’s supposed to help teachers to devise remedial lessons and exercises. Therefore, error corrections or treatments can help learners better learn the TL/develop their interlanguage system. With this method, it’s expected that the learners will produce fewer and fewer errors until they disappear completely after a certain period of time in learning

Direct error correction Audio-lingual approach It emphasizes the formal accuracy (Proper pronunciation, spelling, grammar, diction)

Indirect error correction Current communicative approach it emphasizes less formal accuracy and more importance to fluency 

Example:Indirect error correction Current communicative approach

Student: “I was in pub.”Teacher: “In the pub?”Student: “Yeah, and I was drinking beer with my friend.”Teacher: “Which pub did you go to?”(Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen 2001: 299)

Feedback from error correctionsAccording to Lyster and Ranta (1997: 38), there are 6 types of feedback from teacher (error correction), namely; Explicit correction, the teacher supplies the correct

form and clearly indicates that what student said was incorrect.

Recast, the teacher implicitly reformulates all or part of the student’s utterances.

Clarification request, the teacher uses phrases such as “Pardon?”

Metalinguistic feedback, the teacher provides comments or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s utterances.

Elicitation, the teacher directly elicits a reformulation from the students.

Repetition. The teacher repeats the student’s ill –formed utterance, adjusting intonation to highlight the error

James (1998: 236-237) summarized the use of the term error correction in 3 senses: Informing the learner that there is an error, and leaving them to correct it and repair it themselves. James calls this feedback. That is telling people whether their utterance or understanding is right or wrong. Providing treatment or information that leads to the revision and correction of the specific instance of error (the error token) without aiming to prevent the same error from recurring later. Providing learners with information that allows them to revise or reject the wrong rule they were operating with when they produced the error token.

ControversiesDespite the serious study about how far error corrections give significant impact on learner process, there are still some conflicting views as mentioned below; Krashen (1982) believed that error correction has

unconvinced value for second language acquisition . His view derived from possibility parallels between children’s acquisition of their L1 and adult’s L2. He claims that children do not generally receive explicit negative feedback on the accuracy of their language. Even they do, it often does not give good effect.

His view is strengthened by O’Grady, Dobrovolsky nd Katamba (1996) with the given example from parent and their children relationship, below the sample of the conversation;

(1) Child: “Want other one spoon. Daddy”.Father: ”You mean, you want the other spoon?”Child: “Yes, I want other one spoon, please Daddy”.Father: “Can you say “The other spoon?”Child: “Other…..one…..spoon”Father: “Say “other”Child: “Other”.Father: “spoon”Child: “spoon”Father: “Other spoon”Child: “Other …..spoon. Now give me other one spoon!”

In this case, Krashen claims that adults do not require constant correction in useful ways. It will be the role of the teacher to provide comprehensive inputs which learners can work on in order to refine their understanding and move to the next stage of IL.

Corder (1982) proposed the opposite view, he believed that error correction has a significant role in second language learning (SLL). According to Corder, some strategies used by the L2 learner are the same as those which L1 acquisition takes place. Making errors is strategy in order to test out certain hypothesis about the nature of the language they are learning, also it is becoming evidence of their internal processing. Corder then gave other example from the study record of mother-child interaction, below:

Mother: “Did Billy have his egg cut up for him at breakfast?”Child: “Yes, I showds him.”Mother: “You what?”Child: “I showed him”Mother: “You showed him?”Child: “I seed him”Mother: “Ah, you saw him”Child: “ Yes, I saw him”

Between controversies If Krashen supported by O’Grady, Dobrovolsky and

Katamba disbelieve the value of error correction in the SLL process by giving the evidence of the case of children acquiring L1, on the contrary, the opposite view explained that the case happened because the children have too little language awareness to benefit.

James (1998: 244) was following Corder’s view by mentioning that “Such argument above (Krashen and friends) is irrelevant to the classroom practice of error correction, where the effect upon learning is considerable”.

Eventually, it is obvious that there are substantial supports for a claim that error correction does aid SLL. For a teacher, of course , they have to provide their learners with corrections which is needed to modify their hypothesis about the functions and linguistic form they use. Presumably, by giving error corrections will help learners to alter their output in constructive ways.

To sum up

Error analysis can function as an analytical

tool for better understanding Of the learner‘s problem in learning the L2.

By conducting EA, Teachers/researchers can identify the principles for effective error corrections, and eventually It can

help teachers to devise remedial lessons which can help learners better learn the TL

and develop their interlanguage system

THE END AND THANK YOU

Hyperlink additional notes number 1&2 (an1& an2)The differences between “error” and “mistake”

Error the learner unintentionally to commit one Error is always systematic and consistent deviance which is

characteristic of the learner’s linguistic system at a given stage of learning.

Error are typically produced by learners who do not yet fully command some institutionalized language system. They arise due to the imperfect competence in the target language (TL)

Mistake The form the learner selected was not the one intended (fault) Mistake are deviation due to performance factors such as memory

limitation, fatigue, and emotional strain. They are typically irregular and can be readily corrected by the

learners themselves when their attention is drawn to them (James, 1998: 78).

Mistake is a kind of error which is not the result from deficiency in “competence”, but the result of the imperfection in the process of encoding and articulating speech.

These mistakes seem to increase in frequency under the conditions of stress, indecision, and fatigue.

Hyperlink additional note number 3 (an3)Surface strategy taxonomy classified errors into 4 types:

Omission is a type of error which is characterized by the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance. Example:John a new student (correct one should be “John is a new student”)He speak English well ( it should be “He speaks English well”)

Addition is a type of errors which is characterized by the presence of an unnecessary item in a well-formed utterance. Example; double marking, regularization and simple addition. It often occurs in the later stages of SLA where the learners usually have already acquired some target language rules, only they are too faithful in using certain rules which result in errors.

Misformation is errors which characterized by the use of the wrong form of structure or morpheme (James 1998: 108). There are 3 types of this error which have been frequently reported in the literature, namely: (1) regularization, is overlooking exception and spreading rules to domains where they do not apply such as runned, womans, hitted . They should be run, women and hit. (2) archi-forms, is selection of one member of a class of forms to represent others in the class, for example, out of the set this/that/those/these, the learner might use only that. (3) alternating form, is derivate from the use of archi-forms which gives way to the apparently fairly free alteration of various members of a class with each other, For example, the learner uses he for she, him for he, they for it, her for she…etc.

Misordering, is error which is characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morpheme in an utterance: “What Daddy is doing? “ (should be “What is Daddy doing?”), “I don’t know what is it?” (should be “I don’t know what it is”)

Hyperlink additional note number 4 (an4)Communicative Effect Taxonomy

Global Errors. The most systematic global errors include the following errors:

Wrong order of major constituents such as in, “English language use many people”, it should be “English language is used by many people” or “Many people use English language”

Missing, wrong or misplaced the sentence connectors such as in, “Not take this bus, we late for school” (missing connector). “He will be rich until he marry” (wrong connector). “He started to go to school since he studied very hard” (misplaced connector).

Missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic rules, such in, “The student’s proposal looked into the principle”.

Regulation of pervasive syntactic rules to exception, such as in, “He amused that movie very much”.

Local Errors, these include errors in noun and verbs inflection, articles, auxiliaries etc. These errors are labelled local because they are limited to a single part of the sentence such in, “Why we like each other?”