It is to S.P.

Corder that Error Analysis owes its place as a scientifc method in

linguistics. As Rod Ellis cites (p. 48! "it was not until the #$%&s that EA 'ecame a
recogni(ed part o) applied linguistics! a de*elopment that owed much to the wor+
o) Corder". ,e)ore Corder! linguists o'ser*ed learners- errors! di*ided them into
categories! tried to see which ones were common and which were not! 'ut not
much attention was drawn to their role in second language ac.uisition. It was
Corder who showed to whom in)ormation a'out errors would 'e help)ul (teachers!
researchers! and students and how.
/here are many ma0or concepts introduced 'y S. P. Corder in his article "/he
signifcance o) learners- errors"! among which we encounter the )ollowing1
# It is the learner who determines what the input is. /he teacher can present a
linguistic )orm! 'ut this is not necessarily the input! 'ut simply what is a*aila'le
to 'e learned.
2 3eeping the a'o*e point in mind! learners- needs should 'e considered when
teachers4linguists plan their sylla'uses. ,e)ore Corder-s wor+! sylla'uses were
'ased on theories and not so much on learners5 needs.
6 7ager (#$82 points out that the learners- 'uilt9in sylla'us is more e:cient
than the teacher-s sylla'us. Corder adds that i) such a 'uilt9in sylla'us e;ists!
then learners5 errors would confrm its e;istence and would 'e systematic.
4 Corder introduced the distinction 'etween systematic and non9systematic
errors. <nsystematic errors occur in one5s nati*e language= Corder calls these
"mistakes" and states that they are not signifcant to the process o) language
learning. >e +eeps the term "errors" )or the systematic ones! which occur in a
second language.
? Errors are signifcant in three ways1
9 to the teacher1 they show a student5s progress
9 to the researcher1 they show how a language is ac.uired! what strategies the
learner uses.
9 to the learner1 he can learn )rom these errors.
8 @hen a learner has made an error! the most e:cient way to teach him the
correct )orm is not 'y simply gi*ing it to him! 'ut 'y letting him disco*er it and
test diAerent hypotheses. (/his is deri*ed )rom Carroll-s proposal (Carroll #$??!
cited in Corder! who suggested that the learner should fnd the correct linguistic
)orm 'y searching )or it.
% 7any errors are due to that the learner uses structures )rom his nati*e
language. Corder claims that possession o) one5s nati*e language is )acilitati*e.
Errors in this case are not inhi'itory! 'ut rather e*idence o) one5s learning
strategies.
/he a'o*e insights played a signifcant role in linguistic research! and in
particular in the approach linguists too+ towards errors. >ere are some o) the
areas that were inBuenced 'y Corder-s wor+1
STUDIES OF LEARNER ERRORS
Corder introduced the distinction 'etween errors (in competence
and mistakes (in per)ormance. /his distinction directed the attention o)
researchers o) SCA to competence errors and pro*ided )or a more concentrated
)ramewor+. /hus! in the #$%&s researchers started e;amining learners5
competence errors and tried to e;plain them. @e fnd studies such as Richards-s
"A non9contrasti*e approach to error analysis" (#$%#! where he identifes sources
o) competence errors= C# trans)er results in inter)erence errors= incorrect
(incomplete or o*er9generali(ed application o) language rules results in
intralingual errors= construction o) )aulty hypotheses in C2 results in
de*elopmental errors.
Dot all researchers ha*e agreed with the a'o*e distinction! such as Eulay and
,urt (#$%4 who proposed the )ollowing three categories o) errors1
de*elopmental! inter)erence and uni.ue. Stenson (#$%4 proposed another
category! that o) induced errors! which result )rom incorrect instruction o) the
language.
As most research methods! error analysis has wea+nesses (such as in
methodology! 'ut these do not diminish its importance in SCA research= this is
why linguists such as /aylor (#$88 reminded researchers o) its importance and
suggested ways to o*ercome these wea+nesses.
As mentioned pre*iously! Corder noted to whom (or in which areas the study o)
errors would 'e signifcant1 to teachers! to researchers and to learners. In
addition to studies concentrating on error categori(ation and analysis! *arious
studies concentrated on these three diAerent areas. In other words! research was
conducted not only in order to understand errors per se! 'ut also in order to use
what is learned )rom error analysis and apply it to impro*e language
competence.
Such studies include 3roll and Scha)er-s "Error9Analysis and the /eaching o)
Composition"! where the authors demonstrate how error analysis can 'e used to
impro*e writing s+ills. /hey analy(e possi'le sources o) error in non9nati*e9
English writers! and attempt to pro*ide a process approach to writing where the
error analysis can help achie*e 'etter writing s+ills.
/hese studies! among many others! show that than+s to Corder-s wor+!
researchers recogni(ed the importance o) errors in SCA and started to e;amine
them in order to achie*e a 'etter understanding o) SCA processes! i.e. o) how
learners ac.uire an C2.
STUDIES OF L1 INFLUENCE ON SLA
Farious researchers ha*e concentrated on those errors which demonstrate the
inBuence o) one5s nati*e language to second language ac.uisition. ,e)ore
Corder5s wor+! inter)erence errors were regarded as inhi'itory= it was Corder who
pointed out that they can 'e )acilitati*e and pro*ide in)ormation a'out one5s
learning strategies (point %! listed a'o*e. Claude >agGge (#$$$ is a supporter o)
this concept and he mentions it in his 'oo+ "/he child 'etween two languages"!
dedicated to children5s language education. According to >agGge! inter)erence
'etween C# and C2 is o'ser*ed in children as well as in adults. In adults it is more
o'*ious and increases continuously! as a monolingual person gets older and the
structures o) his frst language get stronger and impose themsel*es more and
more on any other language the adult wishes to learn. In contrast! as regards
children! inter)erence )eatures will not 'ecome permanent unless the child does
not ha*e su:cient e;posure to C2. I) there is su:cient e;posure! then instead o)
reaching a point where they can no longer 'e corrected (as o)ten happens with
phonetics )eatures! inter)erence )eatures can 'e easily eliminated. >agGge
stresses that there is no reason )or worry i) inter)erence persists more than
e;pected. /he teacher should +now that a child that is in the process o) ac.uiring
a second language will su'consciously in*ent structures inBuenced 'y +nowledge
he already possesses. /hese hypotheses he )orms may constitute errors. /hese
errors! though! are completely natural= we should not e;pect the child to ac.uire
C2 structures immediately (p. 8#.
In addition to studies o) C# trans)er in general! there ha*e 'een numerous studies
)or specifc language pairs. /hanh >a Dguyen (#$$? conducted a case study to
demonstrate frst language trans)er in Fietnamese learners o) English. >e
e;amined a particular language )orm! namely oral competence in English past
tense ma+ing. >e tried to determine the role o) C# trans)er in the ac.uisition o)
this English linguistic )eature as a function of age! time of exposure to English!
and place and purpose of learning English.
/he inBuence o) C# on C2 was also e;amined 'y Ca++is and 7ala+ (2&&& who
concentrated on the trans)er o) Ara'ic prepositional +nowledge to English ('y
Ara' students. ,oth positi*e and negati*e trans)er were e;amined in order to
help teachers identi)y pro'lematic areas )or Ara' students and help them
understand where trans)er should 'e encouraged or a*oided. In particular! they
concluded that "an instructor o) English! whose nati*e language is Ara'ic! can
use the students- C# )or structures that use e.ui*alent prepositions in 'oth
languages. Hn the other hand! whene*er there are *er's or e;pressions in the C#
and C2 that ha*e diAerent structures! that ta+e prepositions! or that ha*e no
e.ui*alent in one o) the languages! instructors should point out these diAerences
to their students".
Dot only was C# inBuence e;amined according to language pair! 'ut according to
the type o) speech produced (written *s. oral. >agGge (p. 66 discusses the
inBuence o) C# on accent= he notes that the ear acts li+e a flter! and a)ter a
critical age (which >agGge claims is ## years! it only accepts sounds that 'elong
to one5s nati*e language. >agGge discusses C# trans)er in order to con*ince
readers that there is indeed a critical age )or language ac.uisition! and in
particular the ac.uisition o) a nati*e9li+e accent. >e uses the e;ample o) the
Irench language! which includes comple; *owel sounds! to demonstrate that
a)ter a critical age! the ac.uisition o) these sounds is not possi'le= thus! learners
o) a )oreign language will only use the sounds e;isting in their nati*e language
when producing C2 sounds! which may o)ten o'struct communication.
STUDIES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Corder ela'orated on Carroll5s wor+ to show that the most e:cient way to teach
a student the correct linguistic )orm is to let him test *arious hypotheses and
e*entually fnd the right )orm (point 8! listed a'o*e. In these steps! >agGge
points out the importance o) sel) correction (p. 82986. According to >agGge! it is
use)ul to always per)orm an error analysis 'ased on written tests administered 'y
the teacher! 'ut without in)orming the student o) the purpose o) the test. Hn that
'asis! sel)9correction is pre)era'le to correction 'y the teacher! especially i) the
latter is done in a se*ere or intimidating way. Sel) correction is e*en more
e:cient when it is done with the help o) children5s classmates. According to
teachers! the younger the children! the greater the cooperation among them and
the less aggressi*e or intimidating the corrections. >agGge dedicates a section in
his 'oo+ to the importance o) treating errors in a positi*e way. In this section!
titled "/he teacher as a good listener"! he notes that it is useless! i) not harm)ul!
to treat errors as i) they were Jdiseases or pathological situations which must 'e
eliminatedK! especially i) this treatment 'ecomes discouraging! as occurs when
teachers lose their patience 'ecause o) children5s numerous errors. /his! o)
course! does not mean that corrections should 'e a*oided= a)ter all it is the
teacher5s duty to teach the rules o) the C2. ,ut the correction o) e*ery error as
soon as it occurs is not recommended. /he 0ustifcation that >agGge oAers is the
)ollowing1 the linguistic message that the child tries to produce is a se.uence o)
elements which are interdependent= immediate corrections which interrupt this
message tend to produce negati*e conse.uences! e*en to the less sensiti*e
children= such conse.uences include an;iety! )ear o) ma+ing an error! the
de*elopment o) a*oidance strategies! reduced moti*ation )or participation in the
classroom! lac+ o) interest )or learning! reduced will )or sel) correction! and lac+ o)
trust towards the teacher. Esser (#$84! cited in >agGge also made a similar
point1 repetiti*e and immediate corrections! he noted! may cause sensiti*e
children to de*elop aggressi*e 'eha*ior towards their classmates or teacher.
/hus! >agGge concludes! correction must not 'e applied 'y the teacher unless
errors o'struct communication. /his is the main criterion )or error correction (i.e.
o'struction o) communication presented 'y >agGge= howe*er there ha*e 'een
studies which e;amined such criteria in greater detail! such as Ireiermuth-s "C2
Error Correction1 Criteria and /echni.ues" (#$$%. Ireiermuth accepts Corder-s
*iew (point 8 and proposes criteria )or error correction in the classroom. /hese
criteria are1 exposure! seriousness! and students' needs.
In the case o) e;posure! Ireiermuth claims that when a child creates language
()or e;ample! when he tries to e;press an idea 'y using a linguistic )orm he has
not yet ac.uired! he will most li+ely ma+e errors= correcting these errors will 'e
ineAecti*e 'ecause the learner is not aware o) them. /hus! error correction would
result in the ac.uisition o) the correct )orm only i) the learner has 'een pre*iously
e;posed to that particular language )orm.
As regards the seriousness criterion! Ireiermuth claims that the teacher must
determine the gra*ity o) an error 'e)ore deciding whether he should correct it or
not. >ere Ireiermuth sets a criterion which agrees with that o) >agGge-s1 "the
error! he states! must impede communication 'e)ore it should 'e considered an
error that necessitates correction". ,ut what constitutes a serious errorL @hich
errors are those which should not 'e correctedL As an e;amples o) non9serious
errors! Ireiermuth mentions those errors which occur due to learners5
ner*ousness in the classroom! due to their stress or the pressure o) ha*ing to
produce accurately a linguistic )orm in the C2. /hese errors can occur e*en with
)amiliar structures= in that case! they are not o) serious nature and are similar to
what Corder called "mista+es". >ere again we see Corder5s inBuence in error
analysis! and in particular in the distinction 'etween errors and mista+es.
Ireiermuth goes on to suggest a hierarchy o) errors (according to seriousness to
help teachers decide which errors should 'e corrected1 "Errors that signifcantly
impair communication MareN at the top o) the list! )ollowed 'y errors that occur
)re.uently! errors that reBect misunderstanding or incomplete ac.uisition o) the
current classroom )ocus! and errors that ha*e a highly stigmati(ing eAect on the
listeners". >e also clarifes what can causestigmatization1 pro)ound pronunciation
errors! or errors o) )amiliar )orms.
Another important criterion that must 'e considered 'y the teacher is indi*idual
students- needs. /he importance o) this )actor is mentioned in Corder! who in turn
notes that this idea had 'een suggested pre*iously 'y Carroll (#$??! cited in
Corder #$8% and Ierguson (#$88! cited in Corder #$8%. Each student is diAerent
and thus may react diAerently to error correction. @e in)er )rom Ireiermuth-s
claim that the teacher must per)orm two main tas+s1 frst! assess some specifc
character traits o) students! such as sel)9confdence and language ac.uisition
capa'ility. Ireiermuth agrees with @al( (#$82! cited in Ireiermuth that sel)9
confdent! capa'le students can proft )rom e*en minor corrections! while
struggling students should recei*e correction only on ma0or errors. /his claim
agrees with Esser and >agGge-s claim that repetiti*e corrections are li+ely to
decrease moti*ation= it is reasona'le to accept that students who lac+ sel)9
confdence will 'e "stigmati(ed" to a greater degree than confdent students.
/he teacher-s second tas+! according to Ireiermuth! is to listen to learners- C2
utterances in order to determine where errors occur (i.e. which linguistic )orms
cause students di:culties! their )re.uency! and their gra*ity (according to the
se*erity criteria mentioned a'o*e. /hen the teacher can com'ine the outcome
o) these tas+s and decide on correction techni.ues )or indi*idual students.
A diAerent approach to error correction was suggested 'y Porte (#$$6! who
stressed the importance o) sel)9correction. Porte re)ers to Corder-s distinction o)
errors and mista+es and points out that many students do not +now the
diAerence. It is important! Porte notes! that students +now how to identi)y an
error in order to a*oid it in the )uture. She agrees with Corder that it is more
e:cient )or learners to correct themsel*es than 'e corrected 'y the teacher! and
goes on to suggest a )our9step approach )or sel)9correction. /his approach
consists o) .uestions that the teacher pro*ides to students. A)ter writing an
essay! students should read it )our times! each time trying to answer the
.uestions included in each o) the )our steps. /hus! in each re9reading tas+ (each
step they concentrate on a diAerent aspect o) their essay. In 'rie)! the frst tas+
as+s them to highlight the *er's and chec+ the tenses= in the second tas+
students concentrate on prepositions= the third tas+ re.uires them to concentrate
on nouns (spelling! agreement 'etween su'0ect and *er'= fnally in the )ourth
tas+ students should try to correct potential personal mista+es. Porte also oAers
some clarifcation o) what is meant 'y personal mista+es! in order to help the
students identi)y them.
/he studies mentioned a'o*e are only a )ew e;amples that demonstrate how S.
Pit Corder-s wor+ inBuenced the area o) error analysis in linguistics. /he concepts
that Corder introduced directed researcher5s attention to specifc areas o) error
analysis= they helped linguists reali(e that although errors sometimes o'struct
communication! they can o)ten )acilitate second language ac.uisition= also they
played a signifcant role in training teachers and helping them identi)y and
classi)y students- errors! as well as helping them construct correction techni.ues.
REIEREDCES
Corder! S. P. #$8%. "/he signifcance o) learners5 errorsK. International Review of
Applied Linguistics 51 #8#9$.
Eulay! >.! and ,urt! 7.! JErrors and strategies in child second language
ac.uisitionK! TESL !uarterl" #1 #2$9#68! #$%4.
Ellis! R.! J/he Study o) Second Canguage Ac.uisitionK! xford $niversit" %ress!
#$$4.
Esser! <.! JIremdsprachenpsychologische ,etrachtungen (ur Iehlerpro'lematic
im IremdsprachenunterrichtK! &eutsc' als (remdsprac'e! 41#?#9#?$! #$84! (cited
in >agGge #$$$.
Ireiermuth! 7. R.! JC2 Error Correction1 Criteria and /echni.uesK! T'e Language
Teac'er nline ))*+,!
http144langue.hyper.chu'u.ac.0p40alt4pu'4tlt4$%4sep4)reiermuth.html! #$$%.
>agGge! C. JC5en)ant au; deu; languesK (/he child 'etween two languages!
Oree+ translation! Polis editions! Athens #$$$. (Hriginal pu'lication1 Editions
dile -aco.! #$$8.
3roll! ,arry! and Pohn C. Scha)er. "Error9Analysis and the /eaching o)
Composition"! /ollege /omposition and /ommunication )01 2429248! #$%8
Ca++is! 3. and 7ala+! 7. A.. J<nderstanding the /rans)er o) PrepositionsK. (R$12
3ol 4#2 5o 42 -ul"6Septem.er )+++. (Hnline edition1
http144e;changes.state.go*4)orum4*ols4*ol684no64p28.htm
7ager! R.I. JPreparing Instructional H'0ecti*esK! (earon %u.lis'ers! Palo Alto! CA
#$82.
Dguyen! /hanh >a. JIirst Canguage /rans)er and Fietnamese Cearners- Hral
Competence in English Past /ense 7ar+ing1 A Case Study.K! 1aster of Education
7TESL8 Researc' Essa"2 La Tro.e $niversit"! Fictoria! Australia#$$?.
Porte! O. 3.! J7ista+es! Errors! and ,lan+ Chec+sK! (R$12 3ol 492 5o )2 p* :)2
-anuar"61arc' 9004. (Hnline edition1
http144e;changes.state.go*4)orum4*ols4*ol6#4no#4p42.htm
Richards! P.! JA non9contrasti*e approach to error analysisK! Englis' Language
Teac'ing )51 2&492#$! #$%#.
Stenson! D. JInduced errorsK in Shumann and Stenson (eds.! #$%4! cited in Ellis
(p. 8&.
/aylor O.! JErrors and e;planationsK! Applied Linguistics ;1 #449#88! #$88.