Korichi & Mohammedi

"A learner's errors ... are significant in [that] they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language" (Corder, 1967)

Introduction
Corder (1973, p.257) From the study of his [learner] errors we are able to infer the nature of his knowledge at that point in his learning career and discover what he still has to learn. By describing and classifying his errors in linguistic terms, we build up a picture of the features of the language which are causing him learning problems Error analysis thus provides a check on the predictions of bilingual comparisons, and inasmuch as it does this, it is an important additional source of information for the selection of items to be incorporated into the syllabus. The practical use of error analysis Errors provide feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show him what parts of the syllabus he has been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need further attention. This is the day-today value of errors. But in terms of broader planning and with new group of learners they provide the information for designing a remedial syllabus or a programme of reteaching.

Korichi & Mohammedi

1.
a)

An Overview
Concept of Error Analysis Error analysis is a research tool characterized by a set of procedures for identifying,

describing, and explaining L2 learners errors. Error analysis emerged as a reaction to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and the associated theory of behaviourism. Much of the early work in error analysis focused on determining whether SLA was the result of L1 transfer or creative construction (i.e., something similar to the processes L1 learners used to acquire language). What early error analysis showed was that not all errors could be attributed to L1 influence and that L2 learners were active creators of linguistic systems (VanPatten, and Benati 2010). The fact that learners do make errors, and that these errors can be observed, analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating within the learner, led to a surge of study of learners' errors, called error analysis.(Brown, 2007) James (1998) defines a language error as an unsuccessful bit of language, and Error Analysis as the process of determining the incidence, nature, causes and consequences of unsuccessful language. Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972), or idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971), is defined by James (1998) as being a term suggesting the half-way position it holds between knowing and not knowing the target language (TL); and this is exactly t b) Contrastive analysis (CA) versus Error analysis (EA)

Contrastive Analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of SLA which involves predicting and explaining learner problems based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences The goal of CA (as that of still earlier theories of L2 learning) was primarily pedagogical in nature: to increase efficiency in L2 teaching and testing. (Troike)
Contrastive analysis is a way of comparing languages in order to determine potential [predict] errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second-language-learning situation. ... one does a structure-by-structure comparison of the sound system, morphological system, syntactic system, and even the cultural system of two languages for the purpose of discovering similarities and differences. The ultimate goal is to predict areas that will be either easy or difficult for learners.(selinker)

Corder in James (1998), through his seminal paper entitled The significance of learners errors, made five crucial points: We should look for parallels between L1 acquisition and L2 learning, since these are governed by the same underlying mechanisms, procedures and strategies. However, one difference between the two is that L2 learning is probably facilitated by the learners knowledge of the MT. Errors are evidence of learners in-built syllabus, or of what they have taken in, rather than what teachers think they have put in: intake should not be equated with input.

Korichi & Mohammedi

Errors show that L1 and L2 learners both develop an independent system of language, although it is not the adult systemnor that of the second language (Corder, 1967) but is evidence of a transitional competence. Errors should be distinguished from mistakes. Errors are significant in three respects: they tell the teacher what needs to be taught; they tell the researcher how learning proceeds; and they are a means whereby learners test their hypotheses about the L2 [this point stresses the functions of error analysis].

Korichi & Mohammedi

2.

Steps of Error analysis

Ellis in Saville-Troike (2006) identifies the procedure for analyzing learners errors, which includes the following steps: a) Collection of a sample of learner language. Most samples of learner language which have been used in EA include data collected from many speakers who are responding to the same kind of task or test. Some studies use samples from a few learners that are collected over a period of weeks, months, or even years in order to determine patterns of change in error occurrence with increasing L2 exposure and proficiency. b) Identification of errors. This first step in the analysis requires determination of elements in the sample of learner language which deviate from the target L2 in some way. Corder (1967) distinguishes between systematic errors (which result from learners lack of L2 knowledge) and mistakes (the results from some kind of processing failure such as a lapse in memory), which he excludes from the analysis. c) Description of errors. For purposes of analysis, errors are usually classified according to language level (whether an error is phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc.), general linguistic category (e.g. auxiliary system, passive sentences, negative constructions), or more specific linguistic elements (e.g. articles, prepositions, verb forms). d) Explanation of errors. Accounting for why an error was made is the most important step in trying to understand the processes of SLL. Two of the most likely causes of L2 errors are interlingual (between languages) factors, resulting from negative transfer or interference from L1 and intralingual (within language) factors, not attributable to cross-linguistic influence. Intralingual errors are also considered developmental errors and often represent incomplete learning of L2 rules or The weather is been1 very hot in the2 Washington D.C. There climate3 last week overgeneralization of them. warm4. Distinguishing between (1) Use of is instead of has with been (intralingual/developmental error). interlingual and intralingual This is evidence that the speaker/writer is learning the English auxiliary errors implicitly builds verb system, but hasnt yet mastered the distinction between forms of be upon CA procedures, since the distinction requires and have, which doesnt exist in Korean. comparative knowledge of (2) Use of the with a place name (intralingual/developmental error). This L1 and L2. For example, is evidence that the speaker/writer is learning to use articles in front of the following passage was nouns (no articles are used in Korean) but hasnt yet learned that they in a letter written to Saville- dont occur before most place names. Troike by a native Korean (3) There climate is a direct translation of the Korean phrase which would speaker. The former have be used in this context (interlingual/interference error). underlined and numbered (4) In Korean the word for warm is a verb itself, so no additional verb the errors.
corresponding to English was would be used (interlingual/interference errors).

e) Evaluation of errors. This step involves analysis of what effect the error has on whoever is being addressed: e.g. how serious it is, or to what extent it affects intelligibility, or social acceptability (such as qualifying for a job). In the above example of the Korean L1 speaker making errors in a letter addressed to Saville-Troike, the errors are not serious at all. They are friends, and the ungrammaticality of many of her sentences has no bearing on the social relationship; furthermore, there is no resulting misinterpretation of meaning.

Korichi & Mohammedi

Identifying Errors

Corder in Brown (2007) provides a good model for identifying erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a second language. This model is as follows:

According to this model, any sentence uttered by the learner and subsequently transcribed can be analyzed for idiosyncrasies. A major distinction is made at the outset between overt and covert errors. Overtly erroneous utterances are those that are unquestionably ungrammatical, and covertly erroneous utterances are grammatically well formed but not interpretable within the normal context of communication. The model indicates that in both cases if a plausible interpretation can be made of the sentence than one should form a reconstruction of the sentence in the target language, compare the reconstruction with the original idiosyncratic sentence, and then describe the difference. If the native language of the learner is known the model indicates using translation as a possible indicator of native language interference as the source of error. In some cases, of course, no plausible interpretation is possible at all, and the researcher is left with no analysis of the error (OUT 3). These are the examples of idiosyncratic utterance of learners which can be identified through Corders procedure for error analysis:

Korichi & Mohammedi 1. "Does John can sing?" A. NO C. YES D. Can John sing? E. Original sentence contained pre-posed do auxiliary applicable to most verbs, but not to verbs with modal auxiliaries. OUT2 (Brown, 2007) 2. "I bought Dickenss novel from Giberts library." A. YES B. NO (Context was in a conversation about books of English literature bought recently in Paris) C. NO F. YES, French. G. Jai achet le roman de Dickens chez la librairie Gibert. YES H. I bought Dickenss novel from Giberts bookshop. E. Librairie was translated to false friend library. OUT2 3. "The other novel is another kind from different another one" A. NO C. NO F. YES, French. G. No plausible translation or interpretation. I. No analysis. OUT3

Korichi & Mohammedi

Taxonomies of learners errors :

Once the corpus had been compiled, the researcher would begin to classify the errors into types. The result of grouping together and labelling subgroups within a corpus is known generally as taxonomy. Various taxonomies for L2 learner errors have been used. (Keith Johnson, Helen Johnson, 1999:111) Each of these taxonomies is reflecting the aspect that it (taxonomy) focuses on. Concept of Error :( Error vs. Mistake) The concept of error, indeed, has evolved since Pit Corder article (1967) in which he first introduce the distinction between systematic and non-systematic errors. (Carmen Argondizzo, 2004:53) Mistakes are defined by both Brown (2007:257) and Ellis (1997:17) as performance errors either slips or occasional lapses because of a failure to use a known system and language competence. They can be due to learner or even native speaker inability to perform caused by fatigue, carelessness, or some kind of pressure to communicate. When awareness is called to them, they can be self-corrected. However, Brown (2007:258) defines the errors as noticeable deviations from the adult grammar of a native speaker that reflect the competence of the learner. Ellis (ibid) adds that errors are the result of gaps in a learners knowledge, and they happen when the learner does not know what is correct. Besides, A learner's errors, then, provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using (i.e. has learnt) at a particular point in the course (and it must be repeated that he is using some system, although it is not yet the right system). 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. Second, they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learnt or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly (and in a sense this is their most important aspect) 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 of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning. The making of errors then is a strategy employed both by children acquiring their mother tongue and by those learning a second language.(Corder, 1981: io-11) To distinguish between an error and mistake, Ellis (ibid) suggests two ways. The first one is to check the consistency of learners performance. If he sometimes uses the correct form and sometimes the wrong one, it is a mistake. However, if he always uses it incorrectly, it is then an error. The second way is to ask learner to try to correct his own deviant utterance. Where he is unable to, the deviations are errors; where he is successful, they are mistakes.

Korichi & Mohammedi

Sources of error: In Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Brown (2007:263) states that the identification of errors sources can help to understand how the learners cognitive and affective processes relate to the linguistic system ,then, to clarify the process of second language learning. He classifies these sources as follows: Interlingual Transfer: During the beginning of second language learning process, the learners rely on the only previous linguistic system of their native language in producing the target language, because they arent familiar yet with its system (TL).Consequently, this transfer may be negative and cause errors. For example, the incorrect French sentence Elle regarde les (She sees them), produced according to the word order of English, instead of the correct French sentence Elle les regarde (Literally, She them sees). Intralingual Transfer: Once L2 learners have begun to acquire parts of the new system of the target language, they try to produce it (TL) by the generalization of its rules which may result errors and cause a negative transfer. For example a learner may produce He is comes, based on a blend of the English structures He is coming, He comes. And other examples like He goed, I dont know what time is it, and Il a tomb. Context of learning: It can be a classroom context where the teacher or the textbook can lead the learner to make incorrect hypotheses about the language , which is called false concepts or induced errors. Such as a learner has the confusion between point at and point out, because of the contiguity of presentation. In the other hand, it may be a sociolinguistic context in which the untutored language learning can cause the memorization of certain incorrect dialect and utterances that make them sources of errors. Like the case of a Japanese immigrant who lived in a Mexican American area in a U.S. city produced a learner language that was an interesting blend of Mexican American English and the Standard English to which he was exposed in the university, colored by his Japanese accent. Communication strategies: a communication strategy is defined in Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards and Schmidt,2002:89) as a way used to express a meaning in a second or foreign language, by a learner who has a limited command of the language. The lack of TL knowledge within the learner can pushes him to use Avoidance strategy. This strategy occurs when communicating by a second/foreign language; the learner will often try to avoid using a difficult word or structure, and will use a simpler word or structure instead. For instance, an English learner may avoid using the relative clause when he is not sure about its rules and use two simpler sentences instead as follows: Thats my building. I live there replacing Thats the building where I live. The use of Paraphrase and other communication strategies such as word coinage and circumlocution characterize the interlanguage of some language learners which can all be sources of error.

Korichi & Mohammedi

Causes of error: According to Richards causes of errors in ELLIS (1994:59), he (Richards) distinguishes the following: Overgeneralization: It happens when the learner creates one deviant structure in place of two or more regular structures of the target language, but generally it replaces two structures , for instance: He can sings derived from the two English structures: He sings and He can sing . Incomplete Application of rules: It involves a failure in fully develop a structure. To clarify, some learners of English as L2 use declarative word order in questions, such as: You like to sing? instead of Do you like to sing?. False concepts hypothesized: They arise when the learner fails to comprehend fully a distinction in the target language, like using of was as a marker of past tense in One day it was happened. Ignorance of rule restriction: It involves the application of rules where they do not apply. For example, in He made me to rest, there is an application of the pattern found with the majority of verbs that take infinitival complements, like: He asked/invited/wanted me to go, on the verb to make. Fossilization: according to Ellis (1997:34), the learners grammar is likely to fossilize, when he/she stops developing his/her TL competence and does not reach the native speaker grammar. Incorrect aspects of pronunciation, vocabulary usage, and grammar may become fixed or fossilized in second or foreign language learning. It is unique to second language grammar. Other taxonomies of errors: In the description of errors, Brown (2007:262-263) divides them into four major categories: Very general errors: Addition: It refers to the presence of an item that must not appear in a well-formed utterance (Josefa J. Mardijono, 2003:70), such as in English, a learner may add do auxiliary in the following question: Does can he sing?. Omission: Omission errors are done by the learner to simplify the learning task through ignoring grammatical features which are not ready to process (Ellis, ibid). For example: I angry. Substitution: It happens when an item is substituted by an incorrect one. For instance: In French, a learner may say: Je sais Jean instead of Je connais Jean. Ordering: It refers to the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morpheme in an utterance. (Josefa J. Mardijono, 2003:71). Like in I to the store went.

Korichi & Mohammedi

10

Errors at the level of language: Errors occur when the learner violates these linguistic levels; Phonology: are errors in pronunciation. For e.g.: the mispronunciation of cheap by uttering the sound / / instead of /t /, or /I/ instead of /i:/. Orthography: are errors in spelling .For e.g.: writing developed with two /p/ in developped. Lexicon: are errors in vocabulary. For e.g.: an ESL learner may use well done as the incorrect lexis of welfare in the well done of our country. Grammar: are errors in syntax and morphology. For e.g.: producing ungrammatical structures in speech acts occurs (error in subject-verb agreement), and in the successful of our studies (error in using the adjective instead of the noun success). Discourse :( Semantics) are errors in the meaning. For e.g.: using road instead of way or path in I lost my road. Errors from the degree of interference with communication: (Global errors vs. local errors) Global errors prevent the hearer from understanding some aspects of the message, like in Well, its great hurry around which is difficult to interpret. On the other hand, local errors do not hurdle the message from being understand, usually because of the presence of a little violation in one sentence segment, which allows guessing the intended meaning. (Brown, 2007:263). Such as three sister is a local error in My three sister are older than me. Domain and extent of an error: According to Brown (ibid), Lennon suggests two related dimensions of error: Domain is the rank of linguistic unit (from phoneme to discourse) that must be considered to make the error apparent. However, extent is the rank of linguistic unit that should be deleted, replaced, supplied, or reordered for the purpose of repairing the sentence. For example: For the error a scissors, the domain is the phrase and the extent is the indefinite article. Errors at the level of appearance: Ellis (1994:52) states that Corder distinguishes the dichotomy of overt-covert errors. Overt errors are easy to identify since they are obvious and clear in form even out of context. For e.g.: I runned all the way. Covert errors are superficially well-formed in terms of TL surface structure, but semantically or pragmatically deviant, to put it differently, these superficially correct forms do not mean the learners intended meaning. As an illustration, the French speaker who says: I want to know the English. This sentence is covertly erroneous if the speaker means he wishes to know the language (presumably a transfer from the French, where the definite article is used before the names of languages). [However,] it is correct, if the intended meaning (i.e. ILparticular semantics) is I want to get to know the English people. (Gillian Brown, Kirsten Malmkjaer, John Williams Ed, 1996:101)

Korichi & Mohammedi

11

For this reason, Corder declares that there is no guarantee of error absence in correct surface structures from learners IL.

Criticisms and problems of Error Analysis: Though, Error Analysis reached many successful achievements in the study of second language learning, it remains unsatisfactory with these main problems determined by Saville-Troike (2006:40): Ambiguity in classification: The errors taxonomies are problematic; from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. As an illustration, it is difficult to say if a Chinese L1 speaker who omits number and tense word changes in English as L2 is doing so because of L1 influence (Chinese is not inflectional language) or because of a universal developmental process which results in simplified or concise utterances. Lack of positive data: The validity of Error Analysis has been called into question because of its reliance only on errors that learners produce rather than the whole of learner production. Focus on errors alone does not necessarily provide information on what the L2 learner has acquired. Potential of avoidance: Error Analysis fails in providing a methodology with adequate sensitivity to detect the crucial phenomenon of Avoidance. From Ellis (ibid, 68), Schachter pointed out an error in Error Analysis based on the result of her EA on two groups of learners (one Arabic and Iranian, and the other Chinese and Japanese) finding that the first group made more errors than the second one, though, the relative clause structures exists in their native language unlike the Chinese and Japanese languages. She concluded that Japanese/Chinese speakers made fewer errors simply because they avoided the construction of English relative clauses knowing that this structure was problematic for them. Briefly, Error Analysis ignored what learners were doing correctly. The classification of errors was subjective and unreliable. Analyses were unquantified. Explanations of errors were impressionistic and vague. They were based on were often biased so that valid generalizations were not possible. No account was made of the learners avoidance of certain structures. [] Some of these criticisms could overcome by improving the methodology but others could not; they indicated the need for an alternative technique (Ellis, 1990:46)

Korichi & Mohammedi

12

Conclusion
As we have seen in this research paper, a major contribution of Error Analysis approach

to Second Language Learning is its promotion of the status of the learners Interlanguage from an undesirable version of the Target language to a product of the active process of L2 learning. However, Ellis (ibid) states that it (EA) stills a partial and preliminary source of information at an initial stage of investigation of SLL process. Besides, Hakuta and Cancino (1977:302) argue that with increasing sophistication in the methods available to infer knowledge from performance, Error Analysis has introduced an attempt to describe the learners overall performance, not necessarily restricting the scope to errors alone. This result helped the application of Performance Analysis, which already was used in First Language Acquisition investigation, on the research of Second Language Learning process.

Korichi & Mohammedi

13

Bibliography
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. New York: Pearson Education. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170. Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin Books. Gass, S., M., and Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Third Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis. James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow: Pearson Education. Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. VanPatten, B., and Benati, A. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Gillian Brown, Kirsten Malmkjaer, John Williams Ed, Performance and competence in second language acquisition, 1996, Cambridge University Press.

Keith Johnson, Helen Johnson, Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: a handbook for language teaching, 1999, Blackwell Publishing S. P. Corder, Error Analysis and Interlanguage, 1981, Oxford university press.

Jack C. Richards and Richard Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2002, Longman Pearson.

Korichi & Mohammedi

14

ROD ELLIS, Second language acquisition, 1997, oxford university press, ROD ELLIS, The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 1994, oxford university press ROD ELLIS, Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom,1990, Blackwell Publishers

Carmen Argondizzo, Language learning through language use: an overview of case studies, Rubbettino Editore, 2004, Italy. KENJI HAKUTA, HERLINDA CANCINO, Trends in Second Language Acquisition Research, Harvard Educational Review Vol. 47 No. 3 August 1977:296-316, Harvard University Josefa J. Mardijono, Indonesian EFL Advanced Learners Grammatical Errors, Volume 5, Number 1, June 2003: 67 90, Universitas Kristen Petra