ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#5: ERROR ANALYSIS AND THE INTERLANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS
(extracted in part from: Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning . In
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375).
1. The emergence of Error Analysis
Towards the end of the 1960s and in the early 1970s there was growing dissatisfaction with the
inconclusive findings of Contrastive Analysis. Criticisms addressed three key areas:
·ð empirical: doubts following analysis of learner output and concerning the ability of CAH to
predict errors;
·ð theoretical: reservations concerning the feasibility of comparing languages and the
applicability of the methodology of CAH;
·ð practical: doubts about whether CAH was relevant for language pedagogy.
Gradually, in the heyday of the audiolingual approach to foreign language teaching in the 1960s,
researchers (e.g. Corder 1967) began to realize not only that mistakes were a natural and inevitable
outcome of learning, but that a systematic study of learners errors could help in discovering the
processes underlying SLA. The new approach paved the way for ERROR ANALYSIS (EA). From an
EA perspective, the L2 learner is no longer perceived as a passive recipient of input, but rather as
someone playing an active role  processing input, as well as generating and testing hypotheses.
According to EA, learners errors are crucial because they indicate progress in the developing
system of L2.
2. Error typologies
An error can be defined in a number of ways. For example, a distinction is often made between
ERRORS  of competence and MISTAKES  of performance , whereby the former are instances of
genuine gaps in linguistic knowledge or noticeable and consistent dissentions from the grammar of
an adult native speaker, while the latter are mere random guesses or slips, i.e. failures  to utilize a
known system correctly (Brown 2007: 257).
There exist numerous typologies of errors and mistakes. Some of the most influential taxonomies
are actually those that were compiled in the early years of EA. For example, Corder (1973)
suggested four main categories:
·ð omission  learners avoid or leave out certain L2 forms because of their complexity in
production;
·ð addition  superfluous elements are attached to units of L2 utterances;
·ð selection  well-formed L2 morphemes, structures or lexical items are placed in the wrong
linguistic setting;
·ð ordering  L2 units (phonemes, words, verb phrase elements, etc.) are wrongly placed or
shifted.
In another EA taxonomy, the same author (Corder 1974a, 1974b; cf. also Zybert 1999) assigns
errors into three types, according to their systematicity:
·ð PRE-SYSTEMATIC errors, which occur when the learner is unaware of the existence of a
particular rule in L2 and would be unable to correct his/her utterance;
·ð SYSTEMATIC errors, which happen when the learner has discovered the wrong rule; self-
correction would likewise be problematic;
·ð POST-SYSTEMATIC errors, which occur when the learner knows the correct L2 rule but uses it
inconsistently; he/she should be able to both diagnose the problem and self-correct the
utterance; this type of error is indicative of the process of BACKSLIDING  the use of a rule
from a stage of development that is earlier than the learner s current stage.
Another major distinction made by Corder (1971) is one between OVERT and COVERT errors.
Overtly erroneous utterances are ungrammatical at the sentence level and cause no diagnosis
difficulty. In contrast, covertly erroneous utterances appear to be grammatically well-formed at the
sentence level, but at the same time they are either not interpretable within the context of
communication or interpretable in ways not intended by the learner.
Finally, Burt (1975) made a distinction between GLOBAL errors and LOCAL errors. She defined
global errors as those that affect overall sentence organisation, causing the sentence difficult to
interpret. Such errors may result from missing or wrongly placed sentence connectors and syntactic
overgeneralisation. Global errors impede communication and they prevent the hearer from
processing or comprehending some aspects of the message, e.g.
*She have do not to go for a tea.
Local errors, on the other hand, may be violations of important rules from a pedagogical point of
view, but they do not cause interpretation difficulties.
Insights into the psychology of language learner errors inspired more researchers to put forward
further ideas about SLA and FLL. In the early 1970s, a major development in this field was the
Interlanguage Hypothesis.
3. Interlanguage
The term INTERLANGUAGE (henceforth IL) was coined by Larry Selinker (1972). A logical outcome
of psycholinguistic inquiry into learners errors, it describes a competence that is at the same time
systematic and variable. The assumptions underlying early IL theory were (Selinker 1992) as
follows:
·ð at any given time the learner s IL is distinct from the L1 and L2;
·ð the systems form a series evolving towards L2 competence  an IL continuum;
·ð the systems of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide.
2
Fig. 1. The Interlanguage Model (Selinker 1972, 1992).
The IL hypothesis is essentially a mentalist theory of SLA. Although it has retained the
behaviourist concept of transfer (interference) as one out of many factors causing non-target
elements in the learner s output, it is primarily based on the evidence of internal processing such as
hypothesis-testing, characteristic for L1 acquisition. Selinker (1972) suggested that five central
processes operated in IL, namely three types of transfer and two types of strategies responsible for
the deviations from the adult native-speaker norm:
(i) LANGUAGE TRANSFER (i.e. the earlier concept of L1 interference, causing interlingual
errors);
(ii) OVERGENERALIZATION of L2 rules (leading to intralingual errors);
(iii) TRANSFER OF TRAINING (i.e. IL rules entering the learner s system as a result of instruction);
(iv) STRATEGIES OF L2 LEARNING (i.e. a conscious approach to the L2 material);
(v) STRATEGIES OF L2 COMMUNICATION (i.e. a conscious approach to communication with
proficient speakers of L2)
The goal of the IL hypothesis is to account for why SLA and FLL past the critical period rarely
attain the same proficiency levels as L1 acquisition. On the basis of the observation that most
learners never approximate native-speaker competence, Selinker came to the conclusion that the
few successful cases (a mere 5 per cent) must make use of Universal Grammar. And in the case of
the majority of learners, who are unable to reactivate latent language structure or get access to UG,
we are dealing with FOSSILIZATION.
4. Fossilization
Fossilization can be described as halting of acquisition (but not cessation of learning), with
incorrect forms being permanently fixed in L2 competence before the native-speaker level is
reached. Krashen (1985: 43) believes that there are several possible causes, viz.:
3
·ð insufficient QUANTITY OF INPUT
·ð inappropriate QUALITY OF INPUT (i.e. input filled with routines and patterns, a limited range of
vocabulary and little new syntax)
·ð a high AFFECTIVE FILTER
·ð 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.
According to Stevick (1982), such acquired deviant forms may be difficult or even impossible to
'forget', if acquired items enter in PERMANENT STORAGE.
Recapitulating, 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'. 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. However, as Selinker noted, relatively few adult L2 learners reach native-speaker
competence (5% of the cases). The vast majority fossilize some way short (Brown 2007).
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. White Plains, NY:
Pearson Education.
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: 161-170.
Corder, S. P. 1971a. "Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis". IRAL 9: 158-171.
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. 1974. "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Error Analysis.
London: Longman.
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.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. New
York: Routledge.
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.
Johnson, K. 2001. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.
Jordan, G. 2004. A Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
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: 115-123.
4
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schachter, J. 1974. "An error in error analysis". Language Learning 24: 205-214.
Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage". IRAL 10: 209-231.
Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Stevick, E. 1982. Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zybert, J. 1999. Errors in Foreign Language Learning. The Case of Polish Learners of English. Warszawa:
nakładem Instytutu Anglistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
5