Difference between revisions of "Error Analysis Approaches"

Latest revision as of 13:34, 29 November 2013

The analysis of errors can lead to important information in relation to the learner’s progress towards the goal of L2 acquisition. Errors made b learners can be useful to teachers who can determine the process through which an L2 is learned. They can also be useful to learners who may use them as a basis for self-correction. The domain of learner error analysis and study has evolved into a significant aspect of language learning research. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) and eventually the Error Analysis Hypothesis (EAH) are approaches that help determine the source, types, and patterns of errors. According to Mclaughlin (1987) the Error Analysis Approach aims at determining mainly the source of errors in order to reach conclusions on language transfer and on language skill development. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis is oriented towards the study of the nature of learners’ errors.

Error analysis may be considered as a methodologically incomplete procedure. This is due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to determine the type of error committed by an L2 learner. In addition, analysis can locate only the errors in language production, i.e. speaking and writing, and not in language reception, i.e. listening and reading. For this reason, while error analysis can still be considered as an effective tool for investigating specific issues that must be addressed in L2 acquisition the quest for a universally accepted theory of learner errors has for the most part been abandoned. In the mid-1970s applied linguists such as Schumann (1976) moved to the different and wider approach to second language acquisition that involves what is also known as “interlanguage” (see also section 12.5 Language transfer, L1 interference, interlanguage). CAH and EAH error analysis theories are part of the broader interlanguage methodological perspective. Following is information found in research literature on these analysis methods:

• Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) was created/conceived by Charles Fries in 1945. It was later developed further by Robert Lado in the late 1950s. Ellis (1997) argues that Contrastive Analysis is “a set of procedures for comparing and contrasting the linguistic systems of two languages in order to identify their structural similarities and differences.” CAH is based upon the behaviorist learning approach which advocates that linguistic habits acquired while learning a first language (Mother tongue/L1) will be transferred to the L2. According to CAH, when differences occur between L1 and L2, the first language interferes with the learning of the second language; errors are the result of this influence.

• Error Analysis Hypothesis is regarded an alternative version of CAH. It aims at identifying the nature of learner errors. The method focuses on the study of the patterns of errors in order to explain their cause. Dulay and Burt (1972), Corder (1967), and McLaughlin (1987) among others seem to agree that errors are not merely a result of L1 interference as stated by CAH; they are evidence of the “gaps in learners’” knowledge of the target language’ (Ellis 1997). EAH does not focus on the causes of errors that are the result of L1 interference; rather, researchers that follow this theory consider errors as “an inevitable and positive part of language learning as the learner gets creative in the construction process” (Hedge 2000). Interlanguage is a term introduced by Selinker in 1969 to refer to “the interim grammars constructed by second language learners on their way to the target language”. Interlanguage possibly contains errors that error analysis theories aim to identify and analyze. However, EAH has been the target of criticism; some researchers argue that it is rather difficult if not impossible to precisely define the type of error a second language learner makes or why she makes it (McLaughlin 1987).

Linguistic errors are often analyzed as follows:

• Cause refers to conscious or unconscious transfer, interference, and interlanguage
• Type refers to systematic errors or occasional errors, errors in performance or competence; “global” errors introduce difficulties into communication whereas “local” errors do not
• Form may involve wrong word order, omission, addition, substitution, and more
• Modality refers to the level of proficiency in oral and written language communication, including reading, writing, and comprehension
• Linguistic levels refer to phonological errors, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, syntactic errors, and more
• Obviousness refers to how apparent errors are, overt vs. covert errors

Please click here to go back to the Learning methodologies specific to language instruction page.

Click here to go back to the homepage

[edit] References

Corder, S. P. ( 1967 ). The significance of learner's errors

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974), Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42.

Hedge, T. (2000), Teaching and Learning in the language Classroom. Oxford:Oxford University Press

MacLaughlin, B.(1987) Theories of Second Language Learning. Edward Anorld Publishers: London.

Schumann, J. H. (1976a). Second language acquisition research: Getting a more global look at the learner. In Brown, H. (Ed.), Papers in second language acquisition, language learning. Special Issue 4. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan State University.