1. Error analysis (linguistics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In second language acquisition, error analysis studies the types and causes of language
errors. Errors are classified[1] according to:
modality (i.e., level of proficiency in speaking, writing, reading, listening)
linguistic levels (i.e., pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, style)
form (e.g., omission, insertion, substitution)
type (systematic errors/errors in competence vs. occasional errors/errors in
performance)
cause (e.g., interference, interlanguage)
norm vs. system
Methodology
Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues.[2]
Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by
behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between
the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that
contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more
valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding
of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty
inferences about the rules of the new language.
Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are
not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to
basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified
by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context,
whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification
according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent,
the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may
also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or
lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to
which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to
understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I angry" would be a local
error, since the meaning is apparent.
From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular,
the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to
reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal
effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner
reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of

2. communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form
with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used
to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner
errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a
more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.
Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today,
the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.
See also
Error analysis
Second language acquisition
Common Sources of Error in Physics Lab Experiments
There is no such thing as "human error"! This vague phrase does not describe
the source of error clearly. Careful description of sources of error allows future
experimenters to improve on your techniques. This long list of common sources of
error is meant to help you identify some of the common sources of error you might
encounter while doing experiments. If you find yourself stuck for words when
describing sources of error, this list may help. The list goes from the common to the
obscure.
Incomplete definition (may be systematic or random) - One reason that it is
impossible to make exact measurements is that the measurement is not always
clearly defined. For example, if two different people measure the length of the same
rope, they would probably get different results because each person may stretch the
rope with a different tension. The best way to minimize definition errors is to
carefully consider and specify the conditions that could affect the measurement.
Failure to account for a factor (usually systematic) - The most challenging part of
designing an experiment is trying to control or account for all possible factors
except the one independent variable that is being analyzed. For instance, you may
inadvertently ignore air resistance when measuring free-fall acceleration, or you
may fail to account for the effect of the Earth's magnetic field when measuring the
field of a small magnet. The best way to account for these sources of error is to
brainstorm with your peers about all the factors that could possibly affect your
result. This brainstorm should be done before beginning the experiment so that
arrangements can be made to account for the confounding factors before taking
data. Sometimes a correction can be applied to a result after taking data, but this is
inefficient and not always possible.
Environmental factors (systematic or random) - Be aware of errors introduced by
your immediate working environment. You may need to take account for or protect
your experiment from vibrations, drafts, changes in temperature, electronic noise or
other effects from nearby apparatus.
Instrument resolution (random) - All instruments have finite precision that limits
the ability to resolve small measurement differences. For instance, a meter stick
cannot distinguish distances to a precision much better than about half of its

3. smallest scale division (0.5 mm in this case). One of the best ways to obtain more
precise measurements is to use a null difference method instead of measuring a
quantity directly. Null or balance methods involve using instrumentation to measure
the difference between two similar quantities, one of which is known very
accurately and is adjustable. The adjustable reference quantity is varied until the
difference is reduced to zero. The two quantities are then balanced and the
magnitude of the unknown quantity can be found by comparison with the reference
sample. With this method, problems of source instability are eliminated, and the
measuring instrument can be very sensitive and does not even need a scale.
Failure to calibrate or check zero of instrument (systematic) - Whenever
possible, the calibration of an instrument should be checked before taking data. If a
calibration standard is not available, the accuracy of the instrument should be
checked by comparing with another instrument that is at least as precise, or by
consulting the technical data provided by the manufacturer. When making a
measurement with a micrometer, electronic balance, or an electrical meter, always
check the zero reading first. Re-zero the instrument if possible, or measure the
displacement of the zero reading from the true zero and correct any measurements
accordingly. It is a good idea to check the zero reading throughout the experiment.
Physical variations (random) - It is always wise to obtain multiple measurements
over the entire range being investigated. Doing so often reveals variations that
might otherwise go undetected. If desired, these variations may be cause for closer
examination, or they may be combined to find an average value.
Parallax (systematic or random) - This error can occur whenever there is some
distance between the measuring scale and the indicator used to obtain a
measurement. If the observer's eye is not squarely aligned with the pointer and
scale, the reading may be too high or low (some analog meters have mirrors to help
with this alignment).
Instrument drift (systematic) - Most electronic instruments have readings that drift
over time. The amount of drift is generally not a concern, but occasionally this
source of error can be significant and should be considered.
Lag time and hysteresis (systematic) - Some measuring devices require time to
reach equilibrium, and taking a measurement before the instrument is stable will
result in a measurement that is generally too low. The most common example is
taking temperature readings with a thermometer that has not reached thermal
equilibrium with its environment. A similar effect is hysteresis where the instrument
readings lag behind and appear to have a "memory" effect as data are taken
sequentially moving up or down through a range of values. Hysteresis is most
commonly associated with materials that become magnetized when a changing
magnetic field is applied.
9.3 Analyzing learners' language
Learners' language provides data for research into the nature of the learning
process. In order to gain insights into the process, researchers have engaged
themselves in the analysis of learners' language. Since the 1940s, there have been
three modes of analysis --- contrastive analysis, error analysis, and the study of
interlanguage, each of which is a milestone in understanding second language
acquisition.

4. Contrastive analysis was conducted from the 1940s to the 1960s as an effort to
understand the source of errors in learners' language. It was assumed that the greater
the difference between the native language and the target language, the greater the
learning problem and the potentiality of mother tongue interference. The
assumption was challenged by findings of later studies. Many errors were found that
had no relation with the native language. As interference makes up a small
proportion of errors, the contrastive analysis hypothesis has proved less powerful in
explaining why learners' language is as it is.
Error analysis was employed from the late 1960s as part of the methodology of
the study of second language acquisition. Corder (1967, 1973) pointed out that
errors have theoretical and practical significance. They are theoretically significant
in that they provide feedback to psycholinguistics in constructing theories of SLA.
They are of practical significance to language teachers, indicating to them the
effectiveness of the teaching materials and techniques.
The practice of error analysis is divided into identifying, describing and
explaining. Identifying errors is the first step of error analysis. To identify errors we
have to compare the sentences produced by the learner with the corresponding
sentences native speakers are likely to produce to express the same meanings. This
is not always straightforward. Sometimes it is not clear whether a deviation is a slip
of the tongue or a systematic error. Corder (1973) first distinguished errors from
mistakes. Errors reflect gaps in a learner's knowledge of the target language. The
learner does not know what is correct. Mistakes reflect occasional lapses in
performance. The learner knows the correct form but slips due to nervousness,
carelessness or tiredness. For example, many Chinese learners of English, even
advanced learners, use he to refer to a female person in conversations. This is a
mistake, not an error, as they know what the correct form is. Learners may correct
themselves once they have the time to monitor their own speech or writing. So,
accurate identification of errors as the starting point of error analysis is not as easy
as assumed. It is of importance to both researchers and teachers. For researchers, it
is important to collect the right data. For teachers, it is necessary to treat mistakes
and errors differently in their instruction.
Describing errors, the second step of error analysis, is categorizing errors
grammatically. Once errors are identified, they can be classified into categories.
Corder (1973) proposed four major categories: omission of some required elements,
e.g. “He went bus stop”; addition of some unnecessary or incorrect element, e.g.
“Does he can swim?”; selection of an incorrect element, e.g. “I lost my road”; and
misordering of elements, e.g. “I gave to him the book”. These categories are highly
generalized. Another way to describe errors is to classify them into grammatical
categories. For example, we can gather all the errors that have been identified
relating to verbs and then classify them. The latter is more practicable for language
teachers and provides more useful feedback to teaching.
Explaining errors, the final step, is the task of tracing the source of errors. This
task is more psychological than linguistic in essence. In terms of sources, errors are
divided into interlingual errors and intralingual errors, based on whether they are
caused by L1. Interlingual errors are caused by mother tongue interference. One's
knowledge of L1 contributes to learning L2. The positive role L1 plays is called
transfer. The negative role is termed interference. For example, many Chinese

5. learners of English use although and but in the same sentence. This is an instance of
interference, specifically, a kind of negative transfer of the learners' syntactic
knowledge. Interference also occurs in other aspects of language.
Intralingual errors are produced by second language learners regardless of their
mother tongue. If a learner says “I eated too much”, he has overgeneralized the
formation of past tense. Overgeneralization is found universal in SLA (also in L1
acquisition). Some errors are attributed to simplification (also called redundancy
reduction). Many Chinese learners of English omit the third person singular -s in
speech and writing. This is a typical error of simplification. The meaning of third
person singular is already expressed by the subject, the marker of the predicate verb
is redundant in terms of information. That is why the -s is often left out. Some
errors are attributed to cross-association, confusion in memory of two forms. The
word stalagmite is often confused with stalactite. Dessert (sweet food) and desert (a
large area of sand) are often mixed in pronunciation.
Although error analysis has gained some insights into the complex process of
SLA, it is not without limitations. By focusing only on errors, researchers may loose
sight of the whole picture of learners' language. Engaged in error analysis,
researchers study what learners are doing wrong, but not what they have done
successfully. Another flaw in error analysis is that it fails to account for all the areas
of L2 in which learners have difficulty. Schachter (1974) reported that Chinese and
Japanese learners of English committed fewer errors in relative clauses than Spanish
and Persian learners of English. It was discovered that the Chinese and Japanese
students avoided producing relative clauses. This result shows that fewer errors may
not necessarily prove achievement in learning a particular aspect of L2. It is equally
important to determine whether the learner's use of correct forms approximates that
of the native speaker. This idea gave rise to the study of interlanguage.
Interlanguage is the approximate language system that the learner constructs for
use in communication through the target language. The term was coined by the
American linguist Larry Selinker, (Selinker 1972). Corder (1971) called learners'
language an idiosyncratic dialect. Both terms suggest that learners' language is
between L1 and L2 and that it is a continuum along which all learners traverse.
Learners construct a series of mental grammars as they gradually accumulate their
knowledge of the target language.
From the perspective of interlanguage, errors can be seen as the evidence of
learning strategies. Overgeneralization reflects learners' cognitive activity in
working out the rules of L2. Omission errors suggest that learners are in some way
simplifying the learning task by ignoring some grammatical morphemes that they
are not yet ready to use.
Studies in interlanguage find that learners resort to communication strategies. In
communication through the target language learners every now and then are at loss
in saying what they want to say in the language due to inadequate knowledge. In
this case they will naturally employ communication strategies to continue the
conversation. They may avoid a particular syntactic structure. They may use a
superordinate (for example, worm for silkworm) or coin a word (airball for balloon,
apricot seed for almond, for instance). The choice of communication strategies
reflect the learner's stage of development along the interlanguage continuum. The

6. effect of using communication strategies on SLA will be an interesting topic in SLA
research.
http://digilib.petra.ac.id/viewer.php?page=2&submit.x=28&submit.y=11&qual=high&submitval
=next&fname=%2Fjiunkpe%2Fs1%2Fsing%2F2002%2Fjiunkpe-ns-s1-2002-11497119-352-local-
chapter1.pdf
http://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=3KglibyrZ5sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=the+study
+of+language+acquisition&ots=wCYjho3CtV&sig=_Cgy3ntriJ-
J4Cmuhvd2W1GHkJ4#v=onepage&q&f=false