Error Analysis

ERROR ANALYSIS saw its heyday in the 1970s. It is an approach to understanding second language acquisition (SLA) which consists of compiling a corpus of L2 learner deviations from the target second language norms – the ‘errors’ learners make – classifying these errors by type and hypothesizing possible sources for the errors.In the history of SLA research, error analysis was a phase of enquiry which followed on from contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysis had been interested in comparing two linguistic systems – the learner's L1 and the target L2 – with a view to determining structural similarities and differences. The view of SLA which underpinned contrastive analysis was that L2 learners transfer the habits of their L1 into the L2. Where the L1 and the L2 were the same, the learner would transfer appropriate properties and be successful: a case of positive transfer. Where the L1 and the L2 differed, the learner would transfer inappropriate properties and learner errors would result: a case of negative transfer. This was the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Errors on this account were predicted to occur entirely at points of divergence between the L1 and the L2.The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis lost favour with many researchers during the 1960s as the result of (a) a growing scepticism about the plausibility of a behaviourist (i.e. habit formation) account of language acquisition; and (b Attitudes towards learner errors have changed considerably in recent decades. Approaches based on behaviourist principles (particularly audiolingualism) advocate the initial avoidance of errors, and their diligent correction should they occur. More recent attitudes have displayed more tolerance; advocates of communicative language teaching, for example, recognize the need for fluency practice, and this may lead to occasions when errors are allowed to pass uncorrected, though perhaps only temporarily. Others point out that in L1 acquisition mistakes often go uncorrected, yet are eventually eradicated; error correction in this situation appears to be unnecessary, and to have little effect.Error correction is a form of feedback, and there is a wide literature on the general topic of feedback (see Annett, 1969, for example). In recent decades the topic has attracted much attention in the language teaching field. Questions regarding the effectiveness of error correction techniques, particularly entailing comparisons of various techniques, involve great difficulties of research methodology, and the result is that in this area there tend to be more expressions of opinion than of fact.Chaudron (1988) identifies a series of questions that research has addressed: should errors be corrected? If so, when? Which errors? How should they be corrected, and by whom? Learner and teacher attitudes ... log in or subscribe to read full text ERROR Evaluation studies look at the effect of errors on addressees, rather than primarily on what role they play for the learner. Ludwig (1982) surveys twelve such studies undertaken in the 1970s and early 1980s, and Ellis (1994: 64) contains a useful table summarizing selected papers. The term ‘error gravity studies’ is used to describe papers focusing on addressee judgements about error seriousness.One common concern of error evaluation studies is the nature of the criteria used to evaluate errors. Chief among criteria traditionally used is what Ludwig (1982: 277) calls ‘acceptability’, defined as ‘the degree to which a given L2

violates language norms’. Hughes and Lascaratou (1982) mention a related criterion which they call ‘basicness’, involving judgements that particular rules are somehow ‘more fundamental’ than others. This criterion is often likely (as Johansson, 1973, notes) to relate to syllabus concerns; teachers understandably regard as serious errors in areas which have been taught rather than in those that have not. Frequency of error occurrence is a further criterion traditionally used.Many error evaluation studies may be seen as a reaction to the use of such traditional criteria, born of a growing desire evident in all areas of language teaching in the 1970s to give increasing attention to comprehensibility as opposed to formal correctness. Johansson's (1973) early study well illustrates ... log in error mistake lapse oThese terms are associated with Corder. In various papers (e.g. 1967) the distinction is drawn between errors on the one hand and mistakes or lapses on the other. An error is a breach of the language's code, resulting in an unacceptable utterance; with L2 learners this might occur because ‘the learners have not yet internalized the formation rules of the code’ (1973: 259). Mistakes or lapses are ‘the result of some failure of performance’ (1967: 18). They occur when the language user (who might be a native speaker) makes a slip such as a false start or a confusion of structure. Corder's (1973) example is ‘that's a question which, if you were to press me, I wouldn't know how to answer it.’ (See competence/performance.)The above use of these terms is the generally accepted one, though Corder (1973) draws the distinctions differently. There he uses ‘error’ as above, but distinguishes between ‘lapses’ (the performance failures above) and ‘mistakes’ which are seen as the result of inappropriate usage; in a naval context, for example, a ‘ship’ might be referred to mistakenly as a ‘boat’. This usage has not become common.Johnson (1988) regards it important to distinguish L2 mistakes from errors, suggesting that different remedial action will be appropriate for each; to treat mistakes as if they were errors is, he argues, unhelpful (see error analysis). (1967). The significance of learners' ...