Analysing and counteracting interference errors

David Lott
There are obvious advantages for teachers in conducting their own error analysis research: they can find out why their students
are making errors and then plan appropriate remedial lessons. But teachers wanting to undertake their own research are likely to
have problems with the confusing glut of information on error analysis, and the lack of information on how to apply the results.
After discussing some of the areas of contradiction and controversy in the field of error analysis, the article goes on to describe an
interference error analysis project, including a detailed definition of interference error. Finally several approaches to teaching out
interference errors are outlined.

In the course of teaching English to Italian students, I began to think about the extent to which interference (or transfer) from their native
language was disrupting the students attempts to master English. A colleague and I conducted some research into the errors that our students
made, in the light of current theories about second language acquisition. Finally we experimented with various ways of teaching out interference
errors. Below I shall seek to give a clear definition of interference, by identifying varieties of interference errors, but in the interim, I will define
interference errors as errors in the learners use of the foreign language that can be traced back to the mother tongue.
The value of error analysis
It is only comparatively recently that researchers have begun to develop hypotheses about the process of second language acquisition. This work
has had obvious advantages for teachers, in particular in offering them techniques which they can use to analyse their students errors. Teachers
can begin to attribute a cause to an error with some degree of precision. They can also build up a picture of the frequency of types of error; thus
they can find out whether, for example, mother tongue interference, or teaching techniques, or problems inherent in the target language are the
major cause of their students errors. In this way it is possible to plan classes giving very specific help to the students.
However, a teacher wanting to carry out such a procedure has serious hurdles to overcome: there is a glut of information on techniques of error
analysis, and a dearth of information on ways of applying the results. This makes both analysing errors and teaching on the basis of the results a
difficult business.
Controversy
The conflict of views and the contradictory results in the field of second language acquisition and error analysis can be attributed to the
complexity of errors, to our limited knowledge of the psychological and the neurological processes involved in language learning, and to the wide
scope for variety in a number of parameters: type of teaching, age, attitude, and motivation of the students, method of elicitation, and degree of
relatedness of the native language and the target language.
The variety of error categories that have been proposed presents the intending researcher with immediate difficulties. Corder (1973:271)
suggested that there are three basic categories of error:
1 pre-systematic errors: i.e. those made by a learner while he or she is trying to come to grips with a new point;
2 systematic errors: i.e. those which occur when the learner has formed an inaccurate hypothesis about the target language;
3 post-systematic errors: i.e. the temporary forgetting of a point that had been previously understood.

Selinker (1972:216-21) proposed nine different types of error, mainly systematic. These include:
a. language transfer (items and rules in the learners version of the target language which can be directly traced back to the native language) ;
b. transfer of training (the error is directly traceable to some fault in the teaching).
Linguists have drawn a distinction between competence errors and performance
errors, which might be likened to Corders systematic and
post-systematic errors respectively. This has led to a distinction between
errors and mistakes. Also in the wake of transformational generative
grammar, linguists have drawn a distinction between deep structure and
surface structure errors.
As many have remarked, the existing categories of error are often difficult to use when attempting to analyse students actual errors. Part of the
problem lies in the difficulty of judging the cause of error with some precision. Thus, when attempting to use an elaborate classification system
such as Selinkers, the problems are compounded and the researcher needs to have an extremely good insight into the learners mind. McDonough
remarks that it should not be supposed that all learners take the same route to the same error. Nor should it be assumed that one learner may not,
at different times, produce the same error for different reasons (1981:115). There are further difficulties in categorizing errors that arise from
conflicting interpretations of key concepts. For example, learners errors in the target language may be due to the non-existence of an item or rule
in their native language. For example, Italian students have difficulty with three of the ways of referring to the future in English (e.g. Im going to
stay, I will stay, Z am staying), because such a distinction of form and usage does not exist in Italian. Can this be defined as an interference error?
It might be argued that Italian gives no guide in this case but does not actually interfere with the learning of English, and that the error is simply
a confusion of the rules of the target language.
There is considerable controversy over the definition of interference. Dulay and Burt (1976:71) define interference as the automatic transfer,
due to habit, of the surface structure of the first language onto the surface of the target language. They would presumably not consider the above
example as an interference error. Nickel takes a wider view of interference and would consider that the above error is due to interference from the
native language, though he suggests in such cases that: One will have to distinguish . . . between direct and indirect interlingual interferences. It
may be that what one can call the macro-cause is interlingual and what one might call the micro-cause is intralingual (1981:9).
Error analysis projects have yielded wildly contradictory results. No doubt this is in part due to differences of definition. At one extreme, Dulay
and Burt stated that out of 513 errors made by Spanish children learning English, fewer than 5 per cent could be classified as interference errors.
At the other extreme, Nickel observes that some comparative linguistics researchers may have attributed as many as 80 per cent of errors to
interference, while the more realistic ones would have voted for an average of about 60 per cent. In our own research we found that
approximately 50 per cent of errors were due to interference.
To sum up, a teacher wanting to analyse students errors is likely to have problems with :
1 the considerable variety of error types that have been proposed;
2 the controversial nature of key concepts (e.g. interference) ;
3 the contradictory results of published error analysis projects.
It would seem helpful, given the general disagreement among researchers, to suggest guidelines that teachers might follow in conducting their
own error analysis.
Analysing interference errors
As it is not uncommon for researchers to attribute about 50-60 per cent of errors to interference, we recommend that teachers, at least initially,
concentrate on getting information on interference errors. Hypothetically, most teachers should thus be in a position to focus on at least half of
their students errors. There is also an obvious advantage in keeping the category choices to a minimum, given the problems in selecting the
correct error categories. Needless to say, if it becomes apparent that in the course of the analysis not many errors can be attributed to interference,
then an alternative category or categories should be considered.
The choice of material for analysis should be carefully considered. In our research we analysed written English in a selection of examination
papers. Nickel suggests that free conversation seems to produce different frequencies and qualities of error from those in written tests (1981:12).
However this is not borne out by our experience. He also asserts that there seems to be general agreement that there is more transfer in translations
than in other types of test; while multiple choice and cloze tests produce fewer contrastive errors (1981:12). Thus, suitable corpora would be
reasonably free compositions or spontaneous conversations. In a systematic analysis of the written English of a large number of students, one
might select the work of average students for analysis. In our research we selected the examination papers offered by students who just achieved
the pass-mark and no more.
To be able to categorize errors without great difficulty it is essential to have precise definitions. In our research we considered an error as due to
interference from the native language if it fulfilled one of the following criteria :
1 Overextension of analogy: The student misuses a vocabulary item because the item shares features, whether phonological, orthographic,
semantic, or syntactic, with an item in the native language. For example:
a. Eng. process is used to mean trial, because of the phonetic and orthographic similarities with It. processo, which does mean trial.
b. Eng. work is used to mean job, as in I have a good work, because of the wider semantic reference of It. lavoro, which can be used for
both work in general and a job in particular.
c. Eng. mad is used as a noun, as in Stop driving like a mad !, because of the greater grammatical flexibility of It. pazzo, which occurs as
both an adjective and a noun (madman).
2 Transfer of structure: The student makes an error of grammar because he or she is following the rules of the native language and not the rules of
the target language. One student in our sample wrote: My parents arrived, we decided to go home. This reflected the different rules governing
the use of the past participle in English and Italian.
3 Interlingual/intralingual error:
a. The student makes an error of grammar because a grammatical distinction does not exist in the native language. In our sample we found
students had difficulty with the present perfect (I have gone) as distinct from the simple past (I went), because in colloquial Italian the equivalent
forms are interchangeable in most contexts.
b. The student misuses a vocabulary item because a lexical distinction does not exist in the native language. For instance, a student wrote: The
company makes business in India; the make/do distinction does not exist in Italian, which would translate both make and do as fare.

It is obviously impossible to build a system of definitions where the analyst will not periodically have doubts about how to categorize particular
errors ; the quality of any research must be affected by the researchers intuitions about why the error occurred. The inclusion of the
third category might be considered to indicate too broad a view of interference, but by taking a fairly broad view, the teacher can get a complete
picture of how the mother tongue is affecting the learning of the target language.
Procedure
1 We systematically categorized the errors into interference and noninterference errors, keeping a count of both types so that at the end of the
analysis we could calculate the proportion of errors caused by interference.
2 We made a note of the individual interference errors.
3 We classified the interference errors into the categories outlined above - i.e. overextension of analogy, transfer of structure,
interlingual/intralingual errors. (The reason for this will become apparent when we consider ways of applying the results in the classroom.)
4 At the end of the analysis we checked which grammatical errors were repeated. In our analysis we found most of the errors conformed to a
surprisingly small number of types: e.g. tenses, prepositions, collective nouns, and articles.
5 We attempted to draw a distinction between performance and competence errors; we considered only those error types that occurred more
than three times in the sample as worthy of inclusion in the teaching programme.
Applying the results
If the results of the research indicate that a significant proportion of errors can be attributed to interference, considerable advantage should accrue
from attempting to teach out interference errors. But how? McDonough suggests that the analysis of errors can be the basis for a guided
discovery technique of teaching (1981:124). In other words, the teacher asks the student to complete a series of sentences incorporating a
particular problem, the exercises being organized so that potential mistakes are provoked and guidance is given by the teacher. In this way the
teacher helps the student to make valid hypotheses. A colleague and I experimented with a variety of methods for eliminating grammar and
vocabulary errors, including guided discovery. This proved to be effective in a number of cases, but certainly not in all. It quickly became
apparent that the variety of error types required a variety of remedial strategies. We found that the categorization of errors as transfer of structure
errors, interlingual/ intralingual errors, or overextension of analogy errors was a useful starting point.
Interlingual/ intralingual
Since these errors are caused by the lack of a distinction in the native language, there was no call to make any explicit comparison with the native
language. The problem was to establish lexical and grammatical distinctions in the learners conception of English. In many cases the most
effective method was the guided discovery technique. Thus, in teaching the difference between make and do, we asked the students to
consider two sets of sentences :
Set 1: Im sorry, Ive made an error.
They always make a lot of noise. etc
Set 2 : He likes doing the cooking.
She does the cleaning at the weekend. etc.
The students had to decide what the basis for the difference between Sets 1 and 2 was, and try to apply it to a series of mixed sentences. As the
students worked through the sentences, we helped them to develop and improve their hypotheses.
In a general consideration of language teaching techniques, McDonough suggests that where the rule is complicated, an imposed rule may have
advantages over a rule discovered by the student (McDonough 1981:34). Thus to help our students use the simple past and the present perfect in
English correctly, we began with an explanation of the grammar, using diagrams or pictures, and the contrasting usage was exemplified in a
dialogue. We then asked the students a series of questions involving the language point:
How long have you done this job?
What did you do before that ?
Describe yesterdays lesson.
Describe todays lesson so far.
The students could then move on to more elaborate communicative tasks, still centred around the grammar point.
Transfer-of-structure errors
Since transfer-of-structure errors are caused by a contrast of rules in the native and target languages, the initial problem was to make the students
aware of the contrasting grammar rules of Italian and English. It was obviously necessary to make direct comparisons with Italian. For instance,
in attempting to eradicate errors in the use of the past participle, we used the following procedure:
I We pointed out that such constructions as My parents arrived, we went home and The exam finished, I went to work were direct translations,
and not acceptable in English.
2 We asked students to suggest alternatives.
3 When the students came up with such constructions as When my parents had arrived, we went home, we helped the students to develop
hypotheses explaining the differences between Italian and English constructions.
4 We gave the students oral and written practice in using the correct form (e.g. skeleton sentences for the student to complete).
In appropriate cases, particularly with advanced students, we went on to help students to develop their understanding of the relevant rules of
English. Thus, in the example of the use of the past participle, we introduced the use of the past participle to replace a subject and a passive:
He was awoken by the crash and jumped out of bed.
Awoken by the crash, he jumped out of bed.
Overextension of analogy errors
Here, we had to establish in the learners minds a distinction between Italian and English (e.g. the difference between It. processo and Eng.
trial), and also a distinction in their conception of English (e.g. the difference between Eng. process and Eng. trial). However, we also had to
deal with a large number of small separate problems, and not large-scale integrated problems, as was almost always the case with the other two
error types. For this reason it seemed most appropriate not to try and eliminate these errors in one block of teaching, but to try and eradicate
individual errors periodically in the course of the general teaching programme.
One approach was periodically to give the students sentences to translate from Italian to English. These sentences included native language words
that had given rise to misuse of the target language vocabulary. In addition, other exercises (e.g. reading and listening comprehension exercises)
were peppered with the words the students had failed to produce correctly (in our sample trial, job, etc.). Finally, one could deliberately
contrast the meaning of the confused target language words (e.g. work and job), by including both words fairly close together in production
and comprehension exercises.
Conclusion
At a time when error analysis offers a considerable range of problems, both theoretical and practical, it is hoped that the essentially practical
approach outlined here will be of use to teachers who are wondering how to deal with the errors their students make.
Received February 1982

References
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics London: Penguin.
Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1976. Creative construction in second language learning and teaching. Language Learning, special issue 4.
McDonough, S. H. 1981. Psychologyin Foreign Language Teaching. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Nickel, G. 1981. Aspects of error analysis: errare humanum est . AILA Bulletin 29 : 1-2 7.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 1 0/3 : 201-3 1.

The author
David Lott studied English Literature at University College London and was awarded a BA Hons degree in 1978. He now works as a lettore at
the University of Genoa in northern Italy, where he teaches English, History of the English language, and Psycho- linguistics.

ELT Journal Volume 37/3 July 1983