The significance of errors in Language Learning
A series of important changes worldwide such as the advent of colonialism, the immigration boom in specific historical periods, the phenomenon of globalization, the institution of the European Union, and other economic and political events has led to the introduction and reinforcement of formal education in languages like English, French, or Portuguese. In many cases, these have become second languages (L2) for specific countries; this may be the result of close political, economic, or other relations. For example, English, French, or Portuguese became a target second language for a significant number of individuals who were called to communicate both in their mother tongue as well as the second language for socioeconomic reasons. New learning requirements and challenges emerged in relation to the teaching and learning of a second language. An emerging area of interest is the domain of L2 learners’ errors. This domain is related to the so-called language transfer effects.
Different views exist on what constitutes a linguistic error and on how it should be treated within an L2 learning or usage frame. As previously discussed language transfer has always been a central issue in applied linguistics. Language transfer may occur either in the acquisition procedure or during language use between speakers who do not share the same language but need to communicate effectively. Varying definitions of language transfer are given by Corder (1981) in “Mother Tongue Influence”, Kellerman & Smith (1986) in “Cross Linguistic Influence”, and Selinker’s (1972) in “Interlanguage”.
Language transfer should necessarily be viewed through the perspective of an “error”. Two types of transfer exist, positive and negative. Positive transfer takes place when the speaker’s mother tongue and the L2 have similarities in structure and other elements that gradually lead to socio-linguistically “correct” language use, both written and spoken, and comprehension. Negative is the transfer of structures from the mother tongue to the target language in a way that does not conform to the latter’s rules. In this case, the influence of the mother tongue on the L2 of the speaker is often considered as a source of errors.
Speakers may or may not be aware of the fact that they mix language structures and elements as a result of mother tongue transfer effects. Conscious transfer is mostly related to the lack of certain linguistic skills. It may also be the result of the speaker having forgotten or falsely understood structure and form. Unconscious transfer takes place when non-native speakers don’t distinguish clearly the difference between structures and rules of the two languages, mother tongue and L2. In both cases, the so-called “errors” may result to misconceptions in communication or. However, if communication is effectively achieved transfer effects may be overlooked.
Throughout the years, the importance attributed to language follows the historical trends and theories on L2 teaching and learning. In the 1950s it was considered as an important factor of the learning process. Negative transfer was mostly highlighted. According to Kesharvaz (1994), language learners’ errors were severely criticized by well-known linguists of that era and it was strictly emphasized that L2 errors should be avoided and, in case of occurrence, corrected at all costs as they were considered dire. In the 1960s they had already lost much of their importance and impact since newer L2 approaches regarded learners’ errors as fully acceptable and treated them as part of a creative process towards the achievement of linguistic perfection and communicative meaning. Recently and in relation to the communicate approach in language learning a more balanced perspective has emerged according to which language transfer and the respective errors are seriously considered as important linguistic elements that can’t be avoided nor criticised. Errors are no longer seen as signs of failure that have to be prevented and eradicated, but are rather considered as signs of developmental processes involved in the learning of language and Corder ( 1967) adds to this:
“Errors 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 learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, 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 for testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning.”
According to Richards (1971) the study of errors made by language learners is significant in the following principles:
- Linguistics, because the study of human language can lead to discoveries on what constitutes human intelligence
- Psycholinguistics, because the study of children’s speech and its comparison with that of adults can reveal mental processes involved in language
- Teaching, because it enables the discovery, identification, and analysis of learner mistakes as well as the design of appropriate methods for their mitigation
Corder (1967) argues that errors provide evidence of how language is learnt. They serve as “tools” through which the learner discovers the rules of the target language. In summary, it may be argued that learners’ errors should not necessarily be considered significant problems and obstacles in the context of learning a second language; rather they can be viewed as natural elements to be dealt with through appropriate processes. In light of recent open and communicative approaches to language learning errors are tolerated if communicative goals are achieved and the central points of communication are not altered.
Please click here to go back to the Learning methodologies specific to language instruction page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
References
Corder, S. P. (1967). “The significance of Learners’ Errors”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161-169
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University Press
Sharwood Smith, M. and Kellerman, E. 1986. “Crosslinguistic influence in second language: an introduction”. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds), 1-9. Oxford: Pergamon.
Keshavarz, M. H. ( 1994 ) . Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Rahnama Publications. Richards, J.C. (1971). ‘A non-contrastive approach to error analysis’
English Language Teaching 25 pp 204-219
Selinker, L. (1972). “Interlanguage”. IRAL 10/3: 209-231.
