4. sources of Error
Interference
Language transfer (also known as L1 interference, linguistic interference, and
crossmeaning) refers to speakers or writers applying knowledge from their native language to a
second language. It is most commonly discussed in the context of English language learning and
teaching, but it can occur in any situation when someone does not have a native-level command
of a language, as when translating into a second language.
Positive and negative transfer
When the relevant unit or structure of both languages is the same, linguistic interference can
result in correct language production called positive transfer — "correct" meaning in line with
most native speakers' notions of acceptability. An example is the use of cognates. Note, however,
that language interference is most often discussed as a source of errors known as negative
transfer. Negative transfer occurs when speakers and writers transfer items and structures that
are not the same in both languages. Within the theory of contrastive analysis (the systematic
study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and
similarities), the greater the differences between the two languages, the more negative transfer
can be expected.
The results of positive transfer go largely unnoticed, and thus are less often discussed.
Nonetheless, such results can have a large effect. Generally speaking, the more similar the two
languages are, and the more the learner is aware of the relation between them, the more positive
transfer will occur. For example, an Anglophone learner of German may correctly guess an item
of German vocabulary from its English counterpart, but word order and collocation are more
likely to differ, as will connotations. Such an approach has the disadvantage of making the
learner more subject to the influence of "false friends".

5. Proactive interference and negative transfer in psychology
During the 1950‟s, memory research began investigating interference theory. This refers to the
idea that forgetting occurs because the recall of certain items interferes with the recall of other
items. Throughout the 1950s, researchers provided some of the earliest evidence that the prior
existence of old memories makes it harder to recall newer memories and he dubbed this effect,
proactive interference.[1][2][3][4] During the same time, researchers, began investigating negative
transfer.[1][5] Negative transfer concerns itself with a detrimental effect of prior experience on the
learning of a new task, whereas proactive interference relates to a negative effect of prior
interference on the recall of a second task.[6]
The most obvious and used proactive interference and negative transfer paradigm from the 1950s
and 1960s was the use of AB-AC, or AB-DE lists. Participants would be asked to learn a list of
paired associates in which each pair consists of a three letter consonant vowel consonant,
nonsense syllable (e.g. DYL), used because it was easy to learn and lacked pre-learned cognitive
associations, and a common word (e.g. road). In this paradigm two lists of paired associations are
learned. The first list, (commonly known as the AB list) would consist of nonsense syllables as a
primer (which constituted the „A‟ term), followed by a word (which constituted the „B‟ term).
The second list would consist of either the same nonsense syllable primer and a different word
(A-C list) or a different nonsense syllable primer and a different word (D-E list). The AB-AC list
was used because its second set of associations (A-C) constitutes a modification of the first set of
associations (A-B), whereas the AB-DE list were used as a control.[4][7][8][9][10]
Shortly afterwards proactive interference was demonstrated with the Brown-Peterson
paradigm.[2] A single Brown-Peterson trial consists of a study list, a retention interval and then a
recall period. Each list may consist of a handful of related items and are presented individually
every few seconds. For the duration of a short retention interval, subjects are then asked to
perform an engaging distractor task such as counting backwards in sevens, or thinking of an
animal with every letter in the alphabet to minimize rehearsal.[4][2][10] Subjects are then asked to
recall the items from this second list. Although the lists from previous trials are now irrelevant,
the fact that they were studied at all makes it difficult for subjects to recall the most recent list.
Negative transfer was examined by researchers in the 60s[7][8][9][10] and found differential learning
between trials. Specifically, differences in the learning rates of list 2 provided clear evidence of
the negative transfer phenomenon. Subjects learned an A-C paired association list to a criterion
of all associations correct, following learning a list of A-B paired associations to criterion.
Ultimately, it was found that those subjects took an increased amount of trials to complete the
learning task compared to subjects who didn‟t learn the A-B list or from subjects who had to
learn a D-E list.
Conscious and unconscious transfer
Transfer may be conscious or unconscious. Consciously, learners or unskilled translators may
sometimes guess when producing speech or text in a second language because they have not
learned or have forgotten its proper usage. Unconsciously, they may not realize that the
structures and internal rules of the languages in question are different. Such users could also be

6. aware of both the structures and internal rules, yet be insufficiently skilled to put them into
practice, and consequently often fall back on their first language.
Language transfer in comprehension
Transfer can also occur in polyglot individuals when comprehending verbal utterances or written
language. For instance, German and English both have relative clauses with a noun-noun-verb
(=NNV) order but which are interpreted differently in both languages:
German example: Das Mädchen, das die Frau küsst, ist blond
Word by word this German relative clause translates to
English example: The girl that the woman is kissing is blonde.
The German and the English examples differ in that in German the subject role can be taken by
das Mädchen (the girl) or die Frau (the woman) while in the English example only the second
noun phrase (the woman) can be the subject. In short: The German example is syntactically
ambiguous because it can be the girl or the woman who does the kissing. In the English example
it can only be the woman who does the kissing.
The ambiguity of the German NNV relative clause structure becomes obvious in cases where the
assignment of subject and object role is disambiguated. This can be because of case marking if
one of the nouns is grammatically male as in Der Mann, den die Frau küsst… (The man that the
woman is kissing…) vs. Der Mann, der die Frau küsst (The man that is kissing the woman)
because in German the male definite article marks the accusative case. The syntactic ambiguity
of the German example also becomes obvious in the case of semantic disambiguation. For
instance in Das Eis, das die Frau isst… and Die Frau, die das Eis isst… (both: The woman that
is eating the ice cream) only das Eis (ice cream) is a plausible object.
Because in English relative clauses with a noun-noun-verb structure (as in the example above)
the first noun can only be the object, native speakers of English who speak German as a second
language are more likely to interpret ambiguous German NNV relative clauses as object relative
clauses (= object-subject-verb order) than German native speakers who prefer an interpretation in
which the first noun phrase is the subject (subject-object-verb order).

7. Interlanguage
An interlanguage is an emerging linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a
second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is approximating the target
language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1), or overgeneralizing target
language rules in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An
interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can fossilize,
or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage rules are claimed to
be shaped by several factors, including: L1 transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning
(e.g. simplification), strategies of L2 communication (or communication strategies like
circumlocution), and overgeneralization of the target language patterns.
Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain"
which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is usually
credited to Larry Selinker but others such as Uriel Weinreich have claimed to have formulated
the basic concept before Selinker's 1972 paper. Selinker noted that in a given situation the
utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had
they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic
system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who attempts to
produce meaning in using the target language; it is not seen when that same learner does form-
focused tasks, such as oral drills in a classroom. Interlanguage can be observed to be variable
across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one
discourse domain than in another (Tarone, 1979; Selinker & Douglas, 1985).
To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage utterances
of the learner with two things:
1. Utterances in the native language to convey the same message produced by the learner
2. Utterances in the target language to convey the same message, produced by a native
speaker of that language.
Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage
perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system
(interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and
language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).
By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms,
interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in
SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

8. Definition and relation to other types of language
The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially pidgins and
creoles. Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The difference is mostly
one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage changes frequently as they become more proficient
in the language. In addition, pidgins and creoles have many speakers and are developed as a
group process. An interlanguage, on the other hand, is something that has only one speaker, the
learner.
At the very beginning of language learning, the learner has some idea of what the foreign
language is like, and how it works. According to these ideas, they produce utterances, some of
which may be correct, and others which may be wrong. Then, as the learner gains more
knowledge about the language, they may come up with new and better ideas of how it works.
That's what interlanguage is: the developing "idea of how the other language works".
Variability
Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own right, this
language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. A learner may produce
a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no') in
another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views on the importance of this
phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to SLA typically regard variability as
nothing more than "performance errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other
hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view
variability as an inherent feature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for
one linguistic variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables
such as the status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic
variables such as the phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or
informality. Naturally, most research on variability has been done by those who presume it to be
meaningful (Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu, 1995).
Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which has not
been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features, and
"systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is subject to debate.
Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully
acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms.
This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be
entirely absent among the more advanced.
Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social context.
Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of a difficult
phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a syllable.
Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance
with Communication Accommodation Theory, learners may adapt their speech to either

9. converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately
choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher in order to assert identity
with a non-mainstream ethnic group (Rampton 1995).
The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is related
to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like their production
may be. Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for
which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they must produce language
with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability
to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen, 2009).
Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation. For example, learners in a
stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like forms than they would
in a comfortable setting. This clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the
interlocutor and topic also play important roles.
When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they sometimes show
what has been termed U-shaped behavior. For instance, Lightbown (1983) showed that a group
of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate usage of the “-ing” present
progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. This is
explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the “-ing” form as a chunk, second, lost
control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the
tense and aspect systems of English, and third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater
control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners
were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present
progressive morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems apparently contained the rule
that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for
the use of “-ing.” Finally, their systems did contain such a rule.
Developmental patterns
Ellis (1994)[vague] distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different
language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specific language
feature is acquired

10. Communication Strategies
A communication strategy is defined as "a systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his
meaning when faced with some difficulty" because of his "inadequate command of the language used in
the interaction". (Corder, 1981 : 103) Some familiar communication strategies employed by language
learners are avoidance, prefabricated patterns, appeal to authority, approximation, word coinage,
circumlocution and language switch. Let us look at each of these briefly.
Avoidance
Learners tend 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 leads to replacement of
erroneous items. A learner who did not know the expression I lost my way, said I lost my road instead.
(Brown, 1987 : 84) This is an instance of lexical avoidance.
Prefabricated patterns
Set phrases and stock sentences for different occasions may sometimes be used inopportunely by
learners. An example is *I don't understand how can you do that, formed from two separate sentences "I
don't understand", and "How can you do that?" The two sentences have been juxtaposed without deleting
"can".
Cognitive and personality style
One own personality style aor style of thinking can be a sources of error .highlighrting the
idio A.reflective and conservative style might result in very Carefur bur hesitant production of
speech with perhaps fewer errors but errors indicative of the conscious application of rules
.such a person might also commit errors of over formality
A person with high self esteem may be willing to risk more errors ,in the interest of
comucation . because he does not feel as threatened by committing error with a person with
low self esteem
Appeal to authority
This strategy is aimed at referring to an authoritative source - the native speaker, teacher, or dictionary.
The third source may not always be effective. A BM-English bilingual dictionary which has the meaning of
pinjam as both "to lend", and "to borrow" is a possible contributor of error. In BM pinjam corresponds to
the antonyms in English. Thus, if a student were to say *"Can you borrow me ten dollars?", it is a
deviation from standard English.
Approximation
In this strategy, the learner employs a lexical item which is not specific enough, but shares certain
common semantic features, for example "knife" for "breadknife", "stick" for "truncheon", and "The visiting
minister met the king" for "The visiting minister had an audience with the king".
Word coinage
A learner creates a new word or phrase which is usually non-existent to convey the intended meaning.
For example, a learner who is not aware of the vocabulary items "bucket" and "kettle" may come up with
*"water-holder" and *"water-boiler" respectively.

11. Circumlocution
The learner who is not familiar with the appropriate lexical item, goes on to describe the characteristic
of the target object or action. For example, a learner who does not know the word "clothes line" may say
"the thing to hang clothes on". Similarly if one cannot recall the word "optician", one might say "the person
who tests our eyes". Although the circumlocution strategy may not lead to errors, it shows the learners'
inadequate lexical competence.
Language switch
This is the strategy of weak learners. They simply fall back on their first language without attempting
anything in the target language, for example: Every Sunday and Wednesday, the "Post Bergerak" will
come to my village. The equivalent of the mobile post office in BM is pos bergerak.
Thus far I have identified the major contributory factors to students' errors in their written English and I
have also included spoken English where appropriate.

12. Caouses of Error
Carelessness
Carelessnes is often closely relatecd to lack of motivation many teacher will admit that its not
always the student fault if he loses interest.Perhaps the matrial and or style of presentation do
not him .
Firs language
Norish states that learning a language ( a mother tonguage
Translation
Overgeneralization
Richards cites overgeneralization as one of the contributory factors. He explains thus:
"Overgeneralization covers instances where the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of his
experience of other structures in the target language."
(Richards, 1974: 174)
After having read or heard sentences such as He reached the house at 10.00 p.m. a student may
produce He leaved the house at 6.00 a.m.
A learner may write She walked fastly to catch the bus because he already knows He walked quickly to
catch the train.
One who has read often about drug trafficking may think that there is *drug addicting.
Overgeneralization is also applied in the pronunciation of certain words on the basis of what they already
know, eg. words like Beauchamp and Arkansas.
Indeterminacy
This is the term used by Jain to refer to an inconsistency or uncertainty in handling a linguistic item. He
calls errors arising from such a situation asystematic errors (Jain, 1974). Below is an example given by
him to show asystematic errors with respect to article use:
I started from hostel to go to see a movie. When we were still waiting at bust stop ........I could only get
some space to keep my one leg on foot-board ........I had to request conductor ........At last bus moved.
The bus stopped at a bus stop with a jerk. All the time I was trying to balance myself on the footboard. I
was more worried about movie.
(Jain, 1974: 213)
The underlined words show that the articles have been used asystematically.

13. 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 a word when the other medium is being used. If a pupil pronounces a word according to its
spelling, then medium transfer has taken place. If a student spells a word according to its pronunciation,
that too is medium transfer, e.g. *teribel, *prestigous, and *surp
References
Brown, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs. N.J. Prentice
Hall.
Burt, M, Dulay, H. and Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York. Oxford University Press.
Corder, S.P. 1974. Error Analysis in Allen, J.L.P. and Corder, S.P. (eds) Techniques in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Corder, S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Hornby, A.S. 1974. Oxford Advanced Dictionary of Current English. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Jain, M.P. 1974. Error Analysis : Source, Cause and Significance in Richards, J.C. (ed) Error Analysis.
London. Longman.
Mohideen, H. 1991. An Error Analysis in the Written English of Malay Students at Pre-University Level
with Special Reference to Students at the Matriculation Centre, International Islamic University, Malaysia.
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of Wales.
Mohideen, H. 1993. Towards Effective Error Correction of Written Grammatical Errors. H. Gaudart and
M.K. David, (eds). Towards More Effective Learning and Teaching of English. Petaling Jaya. Malaysian
English Language Teaching Association.