Introduction
Errors are crucial part of terminology acquisition. The occurrence of mistake has long interested SLA analysts. In a traditional second language instructing situation, they may be thought to be the linguistic phenomena deviant from the dialect rules and standard usages, reflecting learner's deficit in language competence and acquisition device. Many professors simply correct individual errors as they take place, with little attempt to see patterns of errors or to seek causes in anything other than learner ignorance. Currently, however, with the development of linguistics, applied linguists, mindset and other relevant subject matter, people's attitude toward errors modified greatly. Instead of being problem to be defeat or evils to be eradicated, mistakes are believed to be proof the learners' periods in their aim for words (TL) development. It really is through analyzing learner errors that mistakes are raised from the statue of "undesirability compared to that of helpful information to the interior working of the language learning process" (Ellis, 1985, p 53) In the field of SLA, there have been three influential methods to errors with an over-all movement from methods emphasizing the merchandise, the error itself, to strategies focusing on the actual process under that your errors are made.
The research of error options has been seen as a central aspect in the study of learner problems. Researchers think that the clearer the understanding of the resources of learners' errors, the better second terminology teachers can detect the procedure of L2 learning.
Error
Making errors is the easiest thing in the entire world which is evidently attached to the human beings. But, how do we define mistake? There will vary definitions of the term as Ellis explains "learners make problems in both understanding and production, the first being somewhat scantly looked into. All learners make problems which have another name according to the group committing the mistake. Children's errors have been viewed as "transitional varieties", the native sound system' ones are called "slips of the tongue" and the second language errors are believed "unwanted varieties" (George 1972).
We use the word "error" to refer to a systematic deviation from a selected norm or set of norms. Matching to Lennon (1991) one is "a linguistic form or mixture of forms which in the same framework and under similar conditions of creation would, in all probability, not be made by the sound system 'local speaker's counterparts". On one hand, it was regarded as a sign of inadequacy of the coaching techniques, something negative which must be averted, and on the other side it was seen as a natural result of the actual fact that since naturally we can not avoid making mistakes, we should allow the truth and make an effort to offer with them.
The error-as-progress conception is based on the Chomsky's idea that a child generates terms through innate widespread structures. So, applying this symbolic code, one can get access to different bits of knowledge not as something mechanically discovered but as psychologically constructed through try to error. The theory is currently that the next terms learners form hypotheses about the rules to be shaped in the prospective terminology and then test them out against suggestions data and change them consequently.
There is an procedure which concerns problem being the result of social-cognitive interaction. This means that the problem implicitly posesses cultural norm as well as cognitive process. The error also carries a social and social component rendering it different in various societies.
Cultural variations in the error
Previous research has shown that cultural dissimilarities are present in the susceptibility of making fundamental attribution error: people from individualistic cultures are prone to the error while people from collectivistic ethnicities commit less of it (Miller, 1984). It has been found that there is a differential attention to social factors between unbiased peoples and interdependent peoples in both social and nonsocial contexts: Masuda and his co-workers (2004) in their animation figure presentation test showed that Japanese's judgments on the prospective character's facial appearance are more influenced by surrounding encounters than those of the Americans; whereas Masuda and Nisbett (2001) concluded using their company underwater scenes animated cartoon experiment that People in the usa are also much more likely than Japanese individuals to mark referrals to focal things (i. e. fish) instead of contexts (i. e. stones and plant life). These discrepancies in the salience of different factors to people from different cultures claim that Asians tend to attribute behavior to situation while Westerners feature the same habit to the professional. Regularly, Morris & Peng (1994) found off their fish tendencies attribution test that more American than Chinese participants understand the patterns (e. g. an individual fish swimming in front of a group of fish) as internally rather than externally brought on. One explanation for this difference in attribution is based on the way folks of different social orientation understand themselves in the surroundings. Especially, Markus and Kitayama (1991) described how (individualistic) Westerners have a tendency to see themselves as unbiased agents and for that reason susceptible themselves to specific objects somewhat than contextual details.
in the second language coaching/ learning process the error is definitely regarded as one of the most generally known solutions concerning the mistake throughout human history is to contemplate it a negative result or consequence, even worthy of to be punished. Regarding to Corder (1967):
A learner's mistakes then, provide evidence of the machine of the terms that he is using. They may be significant in three various ways: first to the teacher, for the reason that they tell him is he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has advanced. Second, they provide the experts with evidence of how language is discovered or acquired. Third these are indispensible to the learner himself because he can respect the making of errors as a device used in order to learn. The sources of problem might be psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, epistemic or residing in the discourse structures. Richards(1971), when trying to identify the sources of competence errors he came up with three types of problems: interference problems, which reflect the use of elements from one terminology to the other, intralingual problems, subdivided into errors credited to overgeneralization, or even to ignorance of guidelines restriction, which is incomplete application of the rules, or finally because of the false principle hypothesis, which show the general characteristics of rule learning and third developmental errors when the learner develops hypothesis about the target language based on limited experience.
Assuming a term "hierarchy of errors", Burt and Kiparasky (1974) suggest that there's a difference between global and local errors. They state:
Global flaws are those that violate rules relating to the overall structure of the sentence, the relations among constituent clauses, or, in a simple sentence, the relations among major constituents. Local mistakes cause trouble in a particular constituent, or in clause of any complex sentence.
They declare that global problems are much more serious and rank higher in the error hierarchy than local ones, and they should be corrected prior to all or any others in dialect classrooms. Accordingly, mistakes in tense and aspect are thought to be local errors. They might be minor problems, for they may well not cause grave breakdowns in communication. However, they are really common flaws among second terms learners of English and incredibly much worth looking into since tense and aspect symbolize one of the most essential elements of English grammar.
Corder (1967) goes a step further to propose different terminologies for both of these kinds of mistakes and stresses that people must make a clear distinction between problems and problems; the former identifies non-systematic performance mistakes of chance circumstances, whereas the latter can be explained as "the systematic errors of the learner that we're able to reconstruct his knowledge of the language thus far". In the next discussion, the evaluation focuses on competence mistakes:
There are two major approaches to analyzing errors devoted by a aim for words learner.
Contrastive Research (CA), Error Research (EA). "Theoretical base of CA lies in Behaviorist Learning Theory; as the EA is meticulously related with the emergence of Interlanguage Theory" (Ellis, 2005)
Behaviorist learning theory accounts of mistakes:
The behaviorist learning theory illustrates the TL learning is a mechanical process of habit creation. Habits entail 'over-learning', which ensures that learning of new habits therefore of proactive inhibition. Thus, the challenge facing the L2 learner is to get over the interference of L1 practices. Basing on the behavior formation, contrastive evaluation sought to recognize the features of the L2 that differed from those of the L1 so that learners could be helped to form the new practices of the L2 by rehearsing them intensively. Most problems created by L2 learners were the result of variations between L1 and L2 framework. (Martin 1996)
Interference, the CA insists, is the result of unfamiliarity with the guidelines of an TL and mental triggers, such as insufficient learning (Swan, 2001). 'Copy' can be positive or negative: linguistic features of the L1 that are similar to those of the TL will help in learning (positive transfer); those areas of the L1 that will vary to the TL grammatical and phonological system will hinder SLA and cause the learner to make numerous production errors(negative copy). Thus difference between your L1 and L2 create learning difficulty which results in errors, while the similarities between them help speedy and easy learning (Ellis, 1985 cited Corder). Relating to behaviorist learning theory, both types of copy are the result of programmed and unconscious use of old patterns in new learning situations (Dulay, Burt &Krashen)
Rod Ellis (1985) assesses, 'problems, according to the idea, were the consequence of non-learning, alternatively than incorrect learning'. By comparing the L1 with TL, distinctions could be determined and used to forecast regions of potential errors. The idea of the error as an effect to be avoided has been especially reinforced by behaviorism, being considered an obstacle to language learning. To them problem has been a symptom of ineffective teaching or as proof failure plus they believed that when they happen they are to be remedied by provision of right forms; in other words, use of extensive drilling and over-teaching. It was also presumed that interference occurs whenever there's a difference between local mother tongue and the target dialect. A hypothesis based on Lado's advice in linguistic across civilizations where he declares "in comparison between local and spanish lies the main element to ease all difficulties in foreign language learning" (Lado, 1957)
2. Interlanguage (IL) theory accounts of errors
(i) Selinker (1972) coined the term 'interlanguage' to make reference to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is self-employed of both these learner's L1 and the mark language. The term has become used in combination with different but related meanings:
To refer to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition
To make reference to the machine that is noticed at an individual stage of development
To make reference to particular L1, L2 combinations. Other conditions that make reference to the same basic idea are 'approximate system' and 'transitional competence'.
(ii) Interlanguage is the kind of language made by second and foreign language learners who are in the process of learning a terms, whose mistakes are induced by a number of different processes. Included in these are:
Borrowing habits from the mother tongue.
Extending habits from the mark language
Expressing meanings using the words and sentence structure which already are known from Richards, Jack et al (1992).
(iii)Interlanguage identifies the separateness of a second dialect learners system, something that has a structurally intermediate position between the local and target vocabulary. Interlanguage is neither the machine of target language nor the machine of the native terms, but instead comes between your two; it is a system based after the best attempt of learners to provide order and structure to the linguistic stimuli encompassing them. By progressive process of learning from your errors and hypothesis tests, learners gradually and tediously flourish in establishing deeper and deeper approximations to the system used by indigenous audio speakers of the words.
(iv)Fishing rod Ellis (2005, 54) views Mistake Analysis as being based on introduction of IL theory, that may be used to make clear effectively the errors committed in SLA functions. Slinker (1972) attempted to 'find ways to explain the errors that some students make, have nothing in connection with their foreign language; for example a Spanish presenter, an Arabic loudspeaker and a Japanese loudspeaker might all make the same fault in English that was not related with their respective languages'. Regarding to Slinker, L2 learners proceed through a process of earning and examining hypotheses about the target language. They start with knowledge about language in general, gained from their native dialect, and move toward the mark language. Bit by bit, they readjust their mental model of the new terms, enhancing their communicative competency in that language. Successful hypotheses become mental constructions that match the rules of the new vocabulary. Brown(1993) viewed, "truly successful students make the journey to a higher level of competency in the mark terms, while less successful students become fossilized someplace over the IL continuum". For about 35 years Selinker has looked at learner's errors as proof positive initiatives by the learner to learn a new dialect. This view of dialect learning allowed for the possibilities of learners making deliberate attempts to regulate their own learning and, along with ideas of cognitive procedures in dialect learning. Problems are vital to learners because the making of errors can be regarded as "a device the learner uses in order to learn". A modern definition of terminology transfer is provided by Slinker (1992): "language transfer is best thought of as a cover term for a complete class of actions, procedures and constraints, each of which has to do with CLI (Combination Linguistic Influence), the impact and use of prior linguistic knowledge, usually but entirely native terminology knowledge. Selinker (1992) directed two highly significant contributions that Corder made: "that the problems of a learner, whether adult or child, are not random, but are in fact systematic and are not negative or interfering in any way with learning a TL but are, on the other hand, a required positive factor, indicative of testing hypothesis". In 1994 Gass and Slinker defined problems as "warning flag" offering proof the learner's knowledge of the second terminology. The learner's producing understanding of second language may have characteristics of the learner's local vocabulary, characteristics of the second language, and some characteristics which seem to be to be very basic and have a tendency to occur in every or most interlanguage systems. Interlanguages are organized, however they are also active, continually changing as learners get more source and revise their hypotheses about the next dialect. L2 learner's process via an interlanguage, which can be an independent knowledge of L1 and L2 system. Interlanguage Is systematic, because the learner chooses the guidelines systematically, learners bases ideas on the guideline system, just as as the native loudspeaker bases on the internalized understanding of L1 system.
(iv)Among the crucial contributions of IL was its fundamental assumption that the learner's knowledge is included and systematically reorganized with past knowledge of the native language. By a progressive process of trial-and-error or hypothesis testing, learners slowly and gradually and tediously succeed in building closer approximations to the machine employed by the native loudspeaker of the dialect.
The characteristics of IL are identified by many researchers as follows:
Permeable, in the sense that rules that constitute the learners' knowledge at anybody stage aren't set, but are available to amendment(Ellis1985:50)
Dynamic, in the sense that L2 learner slowly but surely revises their variable interim systems to support new hypothesis about the TL system.
Systematic, in that L2 learner's IL is rule-governed, that is, the learner bases his performance plans on his existing guideline system much the same way as the native presenter bases his ideas on his internalized understanding of the L1 system.
The variable form of interlanguage
The idea of interlanguage has had a major impact on the field of second words acquisition, studies on interlanguage concentrate on the linguistic and internal aspects of second dialect acquisition research. I am going to first outline the way the interlanguage assumption developed. since the interlanguage concept isn't just important for the development of the student's grammar system; I will then explore how it applies to other components of language. I will also focus on the consequences of the concept for the teacher and his work in the class room. Prior to the 1960s language was not considered to be a mental trend. Like other forms of human behavior terminology is learnt by procedures of habit creation. A kid learns his mom tongue by imitating the may seem and patterns he hears around him. By acceptance or disapproval, adults reinforce the child's tries and lead the efforts to the correct forms. Under the influence of cognitive linguists this reason of first vocabulary acquisition was criticized. Language can not be verbal tendencies only since children are able to produce thousands of utterances which may have never noticed before. This imagination is merely possible just because a child develops a system of rules. A large number of studies have shown that children do construct their own rule system, which builds up gradually until it corresponds to the machine of the individuals. Addititionally there is facts that they go through similar periods acquiring grammatical guidelines. Through the effect of cognitive linguists and first language acquisition research the notion developed that second words learners, too, could be viewed as actively building rules from the info they encounter and that they gradually conform these rules in the direction of the target terms. However wrong and inappropriate learner's own language system, they are simply grammatical in their own conditions, being that they are a product of the learner's own language system. This technique gradually builds up toward the rule-system of the mark language. The many shapes of the learner's terminology competence are called interlanguage. This draws to the fact that the learner's terms system is neither that of his mother tongue nor that of the next language, but is made up of elements of both. Therefore, problems need not be seen as indications of failing only, but as proof the learner's expanding system. While the behaviorist approach led to teaching methods designed to use drills and consider problems as symptoms of failure, the idea of interlanguage liberated terminology coaching and paved just how for communicative teaching methods. Since problems are believed a reflection of the students' non permanent language system and for that reason a natural area of the learning process, teachers could now use coaching activities which didn't call for frequent supervision of the student's words. Group work and couple work became appropriate means for vocabulary learning.
A brief overview of approaches to analyses of errors
Contrastive Research (CA) Contrastive examination is an approach produced from behaviorist learning theory. Through CA applied linguists sought to utilize the formal distinctions between your learners' first and second dialects to predict mistakes. The basic principle behind CA was a structural picture of any vocabulary could be constructed which might then be used in direct evaluation with the structural picture of another terminology. Through a process of 'mapping' one system onto another, similarities and variations could be revealed. Identifying the distinctions would lead to a much better understanding of the issues that a learner of the particular L2 would face. (Corder, 1983). CA stresses the impact of mom tongue in learning a second vocabulary in phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. It holds that L2 would be afflicted by L1. Here, language is taken as a couple of behaviors and learning as the establishment of new behaviors, a view sprung from behaviorism, under which terms is essentially something of habits. In the course of dialect learning, L1 learning behaviors will be transferred into L2 learning habits. Therefore, regarding L1 transfer into L2, if buildings in the MT have their equivalent set ups in the TL and L1 habits can be effectively found in the L2, learners would copy similar properties effectively found in the L2, learners would transfer similar properties efficiently and that could bring about positive copy. Contrastively, regarding negative transfer or disturbance, certain elements of the MT have no corresponding counterparts in the TL, L1 behaviors would cause mistakes in the L2 and learners would copy inappropriate properties of L1. CA places the environment as the predominant element in SLA, while learners are thought to play only a unaggressive role in acknowledging the impositions of the environment. We must not forget that we now have numbers of mistakes made by vocabulary learners seem to be to be unrelated to the learner's indigenous language. Corresponding to SLA analysts non-interference problems were more pervasive in learner performance than CA were ready to discover. Dulay and Burt (1973) studied the errors created by Spanish-speaking children learning English as an L2 and said that all of the learner's problems had gathered, 85% were "developmental" (non-interference), 12% were unique in support of 3% were results of L1 interference.
Primary tenets of CA are:
Prime reason behind difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference coming from the learner's native terms.
Difficulties are chiefly scheduled to differences between your two languages
The increased the difference s, a lot more acute the learning challenges will be
The results of your comparison between your two dialects are had a need to anticipate th e challenges and errors that may appear in learning the prospective language
What must be educated is discovered by assessing the languages and subtracting what's common to them. (Corder, 1981)
3. Error analysis (EA)
It is thought as the study of linguistics ignorance, the exploration of what folks do not know and how they attempt to handle their ignorance, by James (2001). Error evaluation was first introduced by Fries (1945) and Lado (1957) who've claimed that international or second words learners' problems could be expected based on the differences between your learners indigenous and second dialects. They also have suggested that where in fact the aspects of the prospective language act like those of the learner's indigenous terms, learning will be easy; normally, it will be difficult and second vocabulary learners are expected to make problems. The field of problem evaluation in SLA was founded in the 1970s by S. P. Corder and acquaintances. A widely-available review can be found in section 8 of Brown (2000). Error evaluation was an alternative solution to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists searched for to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict problems. Error analysis showed that contrastive research was unable to predict a great most errors, although it's more valuable aspects have been integrated into the analysis of language transfer. An integral finding of error evaluation has been that lots of learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the guidelines of the new terminology. This is actually the examination of those errors determined by students in both spoken and written medium. Corder, who has added enormously to EA, writes this:
"The study of problem is area of the investigation of the procedure of terms learning. In this esteem it resembles methodologically the study of the acquisition of the mom tongue. It provides us with a picture of the linguistic development of a learner and could give us indications as the learning process. "
Error analysts differentiate between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. Corder(1967) used Chomsky's the "competence versus performance" difference by associating problems with failures in competence and problems with failures in performance. In his view, a blunder occurs as the results of finalizing limitations rather than insufficient competence. It implies L2 learners' failure of utilizing their understanding of a TL guideline. They often seek to develop a typology of mistakes. Error can be categorised corresponding to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to expression order. They could be classified by how visible they are really: overt errors such as "I angry" are apparent even out of context, whereas covert errors are visible only in context. Closely related to this is the classification corresponding to area, the breadth of framework that your analyst must take a look at, and level, the breadth of the utterance which must be transformed in order to repair the error. Mistakes may also be classified based on the level of terms: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical problems, syntactic errors, and so forth. They might be assessed based on the degree to that they hinder communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to comprehend, while local errors do not. Inside the above example, "I angry" will be a local error, since the meaning is visible.
From the start, error examination was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the aforementioned typologies are difficult: from linguistic data together, it is often impossible to reliably know what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can package effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) rather than with learner reception (tuning in and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. Therefore, although error evaluation continues to be used to research specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has mainly been abandoned. Within the middle-1970s, Corder among others moved on to a far more wide-ranging method of learner vocabulary, known as interlanguage.
Error research is directly related to the analysis of problem treatment in terms teaching. Today, the analysis of errors is specially relevant for give attention to form teaching strategy.
EA emphasizes on the significance of errors in learners' IL system, Brown (1994) may be, carried out immediately for pedagogic purposes.
Carl James (1998) viewed, " EA developed from the belief that errors reveal the learner's level of vocabulary learning and acquisition. th learner is seen as an active participant in the introduction of hypotheses about the rules of the mark language just as a young child learning the first vocabulary. Errors are considered to be evidence of the learner's strategy as he or she develops competence in the prospective language. These mistakes are thought as global which inhibit understanding and local which do not hinder communication".
Error research has been criticized to be an inefficient tool for learning the way second words learners develop their aim for language. It is argued that mistake analysis deals with the learner's fruitful competence rather than the receptive one, and it is also an imperfect instrument for categorizing errors and describing them.
In the book ' Mistake and Interlanguage' compiled by Pit Corder, he mentioned that various classifications of the error systems have been developed by error analysis research workers, three of which is often ideal for the professor and are as follows.
Pre-systematic; errors appear before the terminology learner has noticed any system for classifying items being learned; the learner can neither correct nor explain this kind of problem.
Systematic; errors occur following the learner has recognized something and error constantly occurs; learner can make clear but not appropriate the mistake. This classification depends on three major communities: (1) interference errors; (2) intralingual errors; (3)development errors.
Interference problems are caused by the impact of the indigenous language, in presumably those areas where in fact the languages fluctuate markedly. Intralingual errors originate with the composition to TL itself. The complexness of language promotes over-generalization, incomplete software of guidelines, and the failure to learn conditions for guideline application. Development errors reflect the student's try to make hypotheses about the terminology from the indigenous language.
Post-systematic; errors happen when learner is regular in his / her identification of systems; can clarify and correct the error.
The pursuing steps are recognized in executing an EA: "assortment of a sample of learner language; identification of problems; explanation of errors; error evaluation" (Ellis cited in 2005)
Richards (1971) focused on the intralingual and developmental errors observed in the acquisition of British as a second language and additional grouped them into four categories:
(i) Overgeneralization; covering instances where the learners produce a deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other structure of the TL.
(ii)Ignorance of the rule restriction, occurring consequently of failure to see the restrictions or existing structures
(iii) Incomplete application of guidelines, arising when the learners neglect to fully create a certain structure necessary to produce acceptable sentences
(iv) False principles hypothesized, deriving from faulty understanding of distinctions in the TL.
from the analyses of problems to the practice of mistake correction
We know that in traditional class teaching is laid on reliability, errors frequently corrected because the instructor thinks the problem as a thorn in his/her flesh. Yet with the understanding of IL theory, the role of error correction has evolved. Errors are believed natural products in words learning and in reality reflect the modes of learners' expanding system.
What will be the sources and factors behind Errors?
The subsequent factors are determined as the foundation and factors behind Errors
Mother tongue interference
Wilkins (1972) observes:
"When learning a foreign language a person already knows his mother tongue, and it is this which he attempts to transfer. The copy may prove to be justified because the framework of the two dialects is similar-in that case we get 'positive copy' or 'facilitation'- or may verify unjustified because the structure of both dialects are different- if so we get 'negative transfer'- or 'interference'.
Loan Words BM newspaper publishers in the united states are adopting English words in to the vocabulary of the nationwide language. Because the spelling practices the pronunciation, students would think it is easier to remember the spelling of the loan words as opposed to the spelling of the original English words from which the former are produced. Such loan words appear in the written work of students because of orthographic resemblance, for example:
*everyone who's engaging is given nombors (volumes)
* Why he was murdered continues to be a mistri (unknown)
Inherent difficulties of the prospective language
English is a rich and complex language, consequently certain features of that are inherently problematic for the learner. To say only a few, in sentence structure as an example we have "preached" and "reached" as the simple past anxious form of "preach" and "reach" respectively. But we can not say that "teached" although the term "teach" rhymes with "preach" and "reach" and it is orthographically very close.
Another good example can be, the adverb "quickly'' this is the result of the change in "quick", predicated on which we can not form "rarely" from "hard".
In lexis, the dialect has many words which have several so this means and are of different part of speech.
Used as an adjective
Firmly fixed
The post is fast in the ground.
Steadfast: loyal, continuous, close (a fast friend/friendship)
(Of colors) unfading
Quick, swift (an easy train)
(Of an person, his approach to life)
Spending too much time and energy on pleasure leads a fast life.
Used as an adverb
Quickly
Don't speak so fast
The model
The teacher may not be considered a good model of the language with regard to just how he speaks, creates or teaches the terminology. So, some of the problems are ironically professor induced. For instance:
*The university student must work more harder.
When a student sees the above-mentioned comment by a professor who also instructs English, he'd promise his parents to work' more harder'.
When an English teacher runs on the preposition when it is unnecessary, as in:
Now let us discuss about. . .
Teachers of English who have no training in phonetics may pronounce British words according to their spelling, such as:
Etiquette may be pronounced as /etIkwltI/ rather than / etket /
In all the books of EA analyzed by the article writer, the opportunity that errors could derive from the inevitable exposure to non-native loudspeakers of English teaching subject matter such as history, geography, knowledge in academic institutions and colleges where in fact the medium of training is English has not been mentioned. With anticipated respect to these subject matter teachers, some of them are also a source of errors, especially in spoken British.
The materials
Materials which have coaching items sequenced in a certain way or which absence organization could lead to errors.
Norrish (1983) gives a good example of material-induced errors. Although it is the easy present tense which is generally used to describe a sequence of events that take place at the present moment, some teaching materials use the present progressive aspect. This results in the use of English which is neither normal nor natural.
Inadequate Contact with the prospective language
Students who live in a country where English is educated as a spanish obviously does not have adequate exposure to the target terminology. opportunities to use British in both profitable and receptive regions of the vocabulary are limited. Inadequate exposure to the target language could bring about problems such as those beneath in the areas of sentence structure, lexis, spelling and punctuation.
When students has a limited contact with the dialect learnt, it is possible for him to make problems in all aspects of the language.
Overgeneralization
Richards (1974, 174) cites that overgeneralization among the contributory factors. He talks about thus;
"Overgeneralization covers circumstances where in fact the learner creates deviant framework based on his experience of other structures in the mark language. "
After reading or reading the sentence such as he reached the home a 10:00 P. M, students may produce he leaved the house at 6:00 A. M.
Overgeneralization is also applied in the pronunciation of certain words based on what they already know, e. g. A phrase like Arkansas
Indeterminacy
This is the word employed by Jain (1974) to make reference to an inconsistency or doubt in managing a linguistic item. He calls errors due to such a predicament systematic errors. Below can be an example given by him to show asystematic errors regarding article use :
I started out from hotel to visit visit a movie. Whenever we were still longing at bust stop
I could only get some good space to keep my one calf on foot-board I had to to demand conductor finally bus shifted.
The underlined words show that the articles have been used asystematically.
Medium transfer
This is the term used by Tench (1983) for the learner's undue reliance on either the spoken or the written form of any term when the other medium has been used. It a pupil pronounces a word corresponding to its spelling, and then medium copy has taken place. If students spells a term matching to its pronunciation, that too is medium transfer, e. g. teribel, prestigious, and astonished.
Communication strategies
A communication strategy is thought as "a systematic approach employed by a speaker to express his interpretation when faced with some difficulty' because of his "inadequate demand of the terminology found in the interaction'. (Corder, 1981:103) some familiar communication strategies employed by terms learners are avoidance, prefabricated style, appeal to expert, approximation, expression coinage, circumlocution and words switch. Why don't we look at each one of these briefly:
Avoidance
Learners have a tendency to shun lexical items whose meanings they are not sure of, sounds they have difficulty in producing, and grammatical items they are not familiar with. Their avoidance brings about replacement of erroneous items. A learner, who did not know the appearance I lost my way, said I lost my street instead. (Brown, 1987) That is an instance of lexical avoidance.
Prefabricated patterns set phrases and stock phrases for different occasions may sometimes be used, formed from two distinct sentences "I don't understand" and "how can you do that?" both sentences have been juxtaposed without deleting "can".
Appeal to authority
This strategy is aimed at discussing an authoritative source- the native speaker, tutor, or dictionary. The third source may well not continually be effective. A BM English bilingual dictionary which includes the meaning of pinjam as both "to tend" and "to acquire" is a possible contributor or error. In BM pinjam corresponds to the antonyms in English. Thus, if a student were to say *"is it possible to acquire me ten us dollars?" It is a deviation from Standard English.
Approximation
In this plan, the learner uses a lexical item which is not specific enough, but shares certain common semantic features, for example 'blade" for "breadknife", "stick", for "truncheon" and "the going to minister achieved the ruler" for "the visiting minister experienced an audience with the king".
Word coinage
A learner creates a fresh word or term which is usually non-existent to convey the intended meaning. For example, a learner who's not aware of the vocabulary items "bucket" and "kettle" may come up with *'water-holder" and *"water-boiler" respectively.
Circumlocution
The learner, who is unfamiliar with the appropriate lexical item, continues on to describe the feature of the prospective object or action. For instance, a learner who does not know the word "clothes line" may say "the thing to hang clothes on". Similarly if one can't remember the word "optician", one might say "the person who studies our eyes". Even though the circumlocution strategy might not lead to errors, it shows the learner's inadequate lexical competence.
Language switch
This is the strategy of poor learners. They simply fall season back on their first vocabulary without attempting anything in the prospective words, for example: Every Sunday and Wednesday, the "Post BergeraK" should come to my community. The equivalent of the mobile postoffice in BM in pos bergerak.
Conclusion
The analyses of errors are coherently related with teachers' attitudes toward problems, and the attitudes directly cause the teacher's behavior in the process of error correction. The analyses of problems are generated from two different theories: CA is dependant on Behaviorist Learning Theory and EA is dependant on Interlanguage Theory.
Sources:
Allwright, Richard L. 1975. Problems in the analysis of the dialect teacher's treatment of learner mistake.
Cathcart R L. & Olsen, J. E. (1972). Educators' and students' preferences for error modification of classroom conversation errors. .
Chastain, K. (1971). The introduction of modern vocabulary skills.
Burt and Heidi C. Dulay. New guidelines in second dialect learning, teaching, and bilingual education.
Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of error modification in second words teaching.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second terminology acquisition.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Problem correction in spanish teaching.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second words acquisition and second terminology learning.
Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their marriage with learner repair in dyadic discussion.
Prabhu, N. S. (1989). Three models in second terms pedagogy.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.
Vigil, Nedd A. , and John Oiler. 1976. Guideline fossilization: A tentative model.
