Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis

New Edition
CONTRASTIVE ANALY'SIS
<l
E\RR>OR ANALl'SIS
Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz, Ph. D.
Rahnama Press
- H"'TA · ~.t....-. ·JJJL.!S
Keshavarz. Mohammad Hossein
Contrastive Analys is and Error Analysis/ Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz
·r"· '' • ,.,..._. ·~) :.,)'-*
...,.. Vl
\VJ\- \\l -~V- 0•• - l
.y :...r-'-r- .;+' ~ J
~I :...:,.....!.\.>.>~
.....___J · I ·'lS'
. - l;i r.-r .J. ...,.__.._ ,;1: i
:,JIr-
s l ~lA... ....,.....L!..JL J :~ ~
s.).r.Jl5 su.·~' - - ~~ ..J~J :~ ~

~LJ.a.> - - ..,:.;~1 s t.......'J - - .J~J :~ ~
P \T'l!SoS'f ,.,..._ . :._?.;.5 s~• .);
t'· :.J..j!.) s ~•.)J
'TO\\ 'TV• ..)-- ....,-~L:S' OJ W
First Published 1993

Revised Edition 1994
Reprinted 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
Revised Edition 1999
Reprinted 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008, 2009, 2010
New Edition 2011
Reprinted 2012
RAHNAMA PRESS
Copyrlglll C'> 2012
All rights rn~rv~d. No p11rt of tit is book lllllY b~ r~produced in 11ny form or by any means
without th~ pnmission, ill writillg,from til~ Publish~r.
No. 112, Sltoltllllll)'e Zlt11ndllrmerle St. (Moslttllflt St.), Between Fa"'ardJn & Fakltre Raz/,
Englte/ab .Ave., Oppo. Tehran University, Teltran, Iran.
P.O. Box: IJUS/ 1845- Tel: (021) 66416604 & 66400927
E-IIUIU: lnfo@fllhn~~~~~~~press.com
http://www.rahnllmapress.com
f'~ .:.-IJ!, ;I f'~ ~~ •iJ,l.:.! ~ ~ ;S) :UJ;.. •ui4i \St.\La> ~ , ~~ , \SI~Ii. I.S""'W 0~..i
:'-"'Jll ,l..;...) .:,,)L.:.:;l :_,.:,li • .~ 0• • • :jlr-' •f'li.~ 4i~~ : ';-'~ ,l..;...) :uil}f.J ,\T'\\ : (oJ..:. _,b; ~~)
, 1-1-'f\1·1-·'f .1-1-'f· ·\'N :~ ,\H' ..5~ •\S,./>.ilj \S~ 04~ ~ •0!lJl,t 04~ ·0'* o~b ~lA..
•ut_,.:, fY , 'f • ~ ·..r.~ u!4J-IJ. 4e~ 0~4> ol4l.:...lt.., ,t....:.AJ .lt....:,,~ • ,_'fi-V'frf :~\i • ,_'fA \1-~T
:~ ·u!',.. \S,r-i ,.~ 04~ ~ ui,~ 04~ :'f .)u .lS:.:,,.,t '-"').)1 • ~,,.r =~ . r' ..s~
~1-\0·\0V :~ .o,l;j,} jl..,~ 0 l* .~b ~lA.. ,l..;...J ~I:! ·~L..i .VV'fATO·O
\YA- V'f- 'ri-V-0· ·-'f :~1.:.
v
~ leind oiudent&
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................ i
Abbreviations ............................................................................................... vi
Part I. Contrastive Analvsis

.. ...................................................... )
C hapter I. Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis .......................... 3
1. 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Historical Perspective .......................................................................... 4
1.3 Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological Ba is ........... 7
1.4 Di fferent Vcrsions of Contrasti ve Analysis Hypothe is .................... I0
1.4. 1 The Strong Version .................................................................... IO
I .4.2 The Weak Version ..................................................................... 1I
1.4.3 The Moderate Version ............................................................... 12
1.5 Linguistic Levels of Analysis ............................................. ............... 13
1.6 Procedures for Comparing Languages............................................... 14
1.7 Hierarchy of Difficulty ...................................................................... 16
1.8 Markedness Theory ......................................... .................................. 20
1.9 Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis ................................ 2 1
Stud) Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 24
Chapter 2. CA of Some Selected Features of English and Persian ......... 27

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 27
2.2 A Sample of Phonological Contrastive Analysis .. ............................. 28
2.2.1 Syllable Types and Consonant Clusters in English and Persian 28
2.3 Contrastive Analysis of Some Grammatical Structures ................ .... 31
2.3.1 Prepositions in English and Persian ........................................... 31
2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Questions .................................................... 35
2.4 Contrastive Analysis of Lexis ............................................................ 38
2.5 Contrastive Pragmatics .................................. .................................... 40
Study Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 43
Part II Interlanguage and Error Analysis ..•.......................... 45
Chapter 3. Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis ......... 47

3. I Introduction ....................................................................................... 4 7
3.2 Cognitive-Learning Theory ............................................................... 48
3.3. Generative-Transformational Grammar and First Language
Acquisition ....................................................................................... 49
3.4 Similarities and Differences between First and Second Language
Acquisition ....................................................................................... 51
Study Questions ............................................... ........................................ 55
Chapter 4. Er-r or Analysis .......................................................................... 57

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 57
4.2 Receptive versus Productive Errors .................................................. 59
4.3 Errors versus Mistakes ....................................................................... 60
4.4 Significance of Errors ............................................................... ......... 62
4 .5 Branches and Uses of Error Analysis ................................................ 63
4.6 Types of Errors Representing Stages of Second Language
Development .................................................................................... 66
Study Questions and Exercises .................................... ...................... ...... 69
Chapter 5. Hypotheses about Second-Language Learner's Language .. 71

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 71
5.2 The lnterlanguage Hypothesis ........................................................... 72
5.3 The Approximative System Hypothesis ............................................ 75
5.4 The Idiosyncratic Dialect .................................................................. 76
Study Questions and Exercises ................................................................ 78
Chapter 6. Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis ........ 79

6.1 IntrOOuct·ion ....................................................................................... 79
6.2 Data-collection Procedures ................................................................ 79
6.2.1 Spontaneous Procedures ............................................................ 80
6.2.2 Elicited Procedures .................................................................... 81
6.3 Methodology for the identification and interpretation of errors ... ..... 83
Stud_l Questions and Exercises .. ................. ........................... .................. 87
C hapter 7. Classification of Errors ........................................................... 89

7. I Introduction ....................................................................................... 89
7.2 Linguistic-Based C lassification ......................................................... 90
7 .2. I Orthographic Errors ......... .. .. ................................. .................... 9 1
7.2.2 Phonological Errors .................................................................. 93
7 .2.3 Lexico-Semantic Errors ............................................................ 94
7.2.4 Morpho-Syntactic Errors ........................................................... 95
7.3 Process-Based Classification .............. ............................................ I 05
7.3 .1 Omission .................................................................................. I 05
7.3.2 Addition ........................................................................... ........ I 05
7.3.3 Substitution .............................................................................. I 06
7 .3.4 Permutation .............................................................................. 106
Study Questions and Exercises ........................ .............................. .... .... 106
Chapter 8. Sources of Errors ................................................................... 117

8. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 117
8.2 Interlingual Errors ............................................................................ 120
8.2.1 Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1................................ 121
8.2.2 Transfer of Morphological Elements .............................. ......... 121
8.2.3 Transfer of Grammatical Elements .......................................... 121
8.2.4 Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements .......................... ......... 122
8.2.4.1 Cross-Association ............................................................ 123
8.2.4.2 False Cognates ............................................................... 123
8.2.5 Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements ............................. 124
8.3 Intralingual and Developmental Errors ............................................ 124
8.3.1 Overgeneralization ................................................ ........ .......... 125
8.3.2 Ignorance of Rule Restriction .................................................. 126
8.3.3 False Analogy .......................................................................... 126
8. 3. 4 Hyperextension ........................................................................ 127
8.3.5 Hypercorrection ....................................................................... 127
8.3.6 Faulty Categorization ............................................................. 128
.4 Teache r-Induced Errors .. ... .... .... ...... .... ..... .......... .. ... .. ......... .. ..... ...... 128
.5 Language Learning Strategies ....... ........... ..... .. ..... .... ... .......... ..... .... . 129
8.6 Communication Strategies .......... .... ... ........ ... ........ ... .... ........ .... ... ..... 130
Sfll(~r Questions and Exercises ......... ...... ................................... .......... .. 132
C hapter 9. Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis ......................... 137

9. 1 Introduction ...... .... ..... ... .... ................ ..... .................... .. ....... ....... ... ... 137
9.2 Errors Re lated to Different Communicative Tasks ...... ......... .... ....... 137
9.3 Nati ve Speakers' Judg ment of Lean1e rs' Errors ..... ... ... .... ... ....... ... . 138
Study Questions and Exercises ........................ ...................................... 142
C hapter 10. Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis ...................... 145

l 0 .1 Introduction ...... .... .. ... ... ... ... ........ ..... .............................. .... ........ ... 145
I 0 .2 Implications for ES L/E FL Teachers .............. ........ ......... .. ..... ... .. .. 145
l 0 .3 Implications for Syllabus Designers .... ....... .... ............ .. ... .. ........... 146
10.4 Implications for Test D evelopers ......... ... .. ... ....... ..... ........... .. .. .. .. .. 147
10.5 Error Correction and Attitudes towards Errors .............. ..... .. ......... 148
Stud)· Questions .......................................... .............. ........ ... ................ . 153
References .................................................................................................. 155
Glossary ..................................................................................................... 167
Author .Index ............................................................................................. 171
Subject Index ............................................................................................. l73

Preface to the First .E dition
Teachers. linguists and psycholinguists have always been intere ted in
errors produced by second-language learners, either in their speech or
writing or both. In fact , learners' errors have been the subject of
extensive investigation and heated controveL y for quite a long time.
There have been two major approaches to the study of learner ' error .
namely Contrasti ve Analysis and Error Analysis.
The author's principal intention in writing thi s book has been to
provide a text for the Contrasti\'c and Error Analysis course now
widely taught at the uni versity level in Iran. The prev iously used
material for this course failed to cover many aspects of Error Analy i
which are dealt with in the present book. The book is also intended to
provide practicing teachers with insights into the nature and types of
errors, with which they have to deal in their daily profes ional life.
The material in this book is based on the author's lectures on
Contrastive and Error Analysis at major universities in Tehran. It has
been worked out over several years and has proven to be satisfactory
and successful. Attempts have been made to present the material
systematically. It is strongly believed that this systematic presentation
wiiirnake the teaching and reading of the material smooth and easy.
It is hoped that this book, with all its shortcomings, wi II create a
positive attitude towards errors, both on the part of educators and
students.
.
I
Preface to the New Edition
Invaluable feedback received from instructors and students since the
last revised edition appeared in 1999 led to major revisions and
changes in the book, both in content and in organization. In this
current edition, attempts have been made to thoroughly revise and
update the book, incorporating new materials in the field of
Contrastive Analysis and Error analysis. Most noteworthy is the
addition of two entirely new chapters, Chapters 2 and 9, on practical
contrastive analysis and communicative aspects of error analysis,
respectively. Other chapters of the book have also been revised and
updated to varying degrees. Some theoretical issues which were found
difficult for students have been omitted and instead more practical
topics and exercises have been added. Many of the references
consulted in the preparation of the current edition did not exist when
the book was first published in 1993 (e.g., Brown, 2000; Cattsell,
2000; Odlin, 2005; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Lightbown & Spada,
20 I 0; Domyei, 20 I 0). The intention behind the book, however,
remains the same - to provide English students and teachers with a
textbook on Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis.
The book is organized in two parts and ten chapters. Part I deals
exclusively with Contrastive Analysis and Part I I covers different
aspects of Error Analysis.
Chapter 1 begins with a historical overview of Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis, and its psychological and linguistic bases, namely
Behaviorist Psychology and Structural Linguistics, respectively. This
is followed by a discussion on different versions of this discipline.
Next, different linguistic levels of analysis and procedures for
comparing and contrasting languages are presented. This will be
followed by hierarchy of difficulty and markedness theory. Finally,
the chapter will close with the advantages and disadvantages of CA
and a set of study questions and exercises.
In Chapter 2 the reader will become familiar with the actual
contrastive analysis of certain selected features of English and Persian.
..
11
First, a sample of phonological features will be presented. This will be
followed by contrastive analysis of some grammatical structures.
Next, a contrastive analysis of some lexical items will be presented.
And finally an example of pragmatic contrastive analysi s will be
provided.
Chapter 3 deals with the psychological and lingui stic di sciplines
related to Error Analysi s. First, psychological concepts of learning, in
general, and language learning, in particular, are discussed within the
frame of reference of Cognitive-Learning Theory. Then, Generative
Transformational Grammar will be briefly di scussed. Finally, the
similarities and differences between child-language acquisition and
second-language learning are dealt with.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the fundamental issues in Error Analysis.
Topics such as receptive versus productive errors, errors vs. mistakes,
significance of errors, branches and uses of error analysis, and
different stages of language learning and errors which represent these
stages will be discussed in this chapter.
In Chapter 5, different hypotheses about second-language Ieamer's
language namely Interlanguage Hypothesis, Approximative Systems
Hypothesis, and Idiosyncratic Dialect will be discussed.
In Chapter 6, techniques and procedures for doing Error Analysis
will be presented. First, data-collecting procedures will be discussed.
Then, the methodology for identification and interpretation of errors
will be presented.
Chapter 7 is devoted to the classification of errors. First, linguistic-
based classification will be presented, and then process-based
classification will be discussed. Illustrative examples from authentic
data collected by the author will also be provided.
Chapter 8 deals with the psycholinguistic analysis and
classification of errors. That is, different sources of errors will be
discussed and a comprehensive taxonomy will be presented .
•••
Ill
Chapter 9 di cus cs the communicative aspects of error analysis.
Error re lated to different communicative tasks a. well as the reaction
o f nati ve speakers towards different types of errors wi II be di scussed .
Finally, Chapter I 0 presents implications of error analy. is for EF L
teachers. syllabus designers, and test constructor ·. Error correction
and attitudes towards errors wi 11 also be di scussed .
It is hoped that this new edition, with all its shortcomings, wi ll be

found useful by Engli sh and translation students and teachers. The
author welcomes any suggestions and con1ments regarding the content
and o rganization of the book. He can be reached at:
keshavarz22(mgmai l.cotn .
To the Instructor:
Since the present book is taught both to undergraduate students (BA &
Associate or Kardani students) majoring in English teaching and
translation as well as MA students, the followin g should be borne in
mind with regard to the teaching of the book. For undergraduate
courses, the focus should be on the practical aspects of Contrastive
Analysis and Error Analysis and abstract theoretical discussions
should not be highlighted. However, at the MA level not only all the
chapters and sections ought to be taught but also supplementary
materials and textbooks should be introduced and presented by the
instructor. Therefore, based on his/her judgment and assessment of the
students' proficiency level the instructor can make necessary decisions
and adjustments to suit the specific needs of his/her students.
Acknowledgements
1 owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues who have taught this book
at different universities as well as Ehni-Karbordi Centers and have
provided me with invaluable comments and feedback. I am also
indebted to my students who gave me the initial impetus for writing
the book.
IV
Special thank· go to Mr. J\llohammad Javad Sabaei and the staff of
Rahnama Pre. s. in particu lar M. . ajmeh Ebrahimi , for their kind
cooperati on and encouragement.
La t. but by no means lea. t. 1 am particularly grateful to my patient
wife and my be loved children for hav ing tolerated a busy husband and
father. respecti ely, over the year .
Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz

Tehran
Marcb 2011
v
Abbreviations
CA Contrasti ve Analysis
CAH Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
EA Error Analysis
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ES L English as a Second Language
ID Idiosyncratic Dialect
IL Interlanguage
Ll Native Language
L2 Second or Foreign Language
MT Mother Tongue
TL Target Language
VI
1PcA 1f(T OWT
Part I consists of two chapters. Chapter l provides a historical

background of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis followed by
psychological and linguistic bases of this theory. Next, different
versions of contrastive analysis will be presented. Then, linguistic
levels of analysis and procedures for comparing languages will be
discussed. This will be followed by hierarchy of difficulty and
markedness theory. Finally, the merits and drawbacks of contrastive
analysis will be discussed.
Chapter 2 deals with actual contrastive analysis of certain linguistic
features of English and Persian. The features selected for contrastive
analysis include phonological, grammatical, lexical as well as
pragmatics. There are study questions and exercises at the end of each
chapter.
Chapter 1 - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis 3
Chapter 1
Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis
Important concepts and terms used in tbis chapter:

Behaviorism
Positive Transfer
Negative Transfer
Verification
Parallel Description
Hierarchy of Difficulty
Coalescence
Reinterpretation
Underdifferentiation
Overdifferentiation
1.1 Introduction
With the outbreak of World War II, the need arose for the United
States military personnel to be able to communicate with both their
allies and their enemies. Therefore, structural linguists, teaching
methodologists and behaviorist psychologists collaborated to devise
the most effective and economic methods and techniques of teaching
foreign languages, in particular English as a foreign language. Since
the advocates of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the
most effective materials for teaching foreign languages would be
those based on contrastive studies this discipline was recognized as an
important and integrated part of foreign language teaching for quite a
long time. In fact, Contrastive Analysis was considered the ultimate
4 Contrastive Analysis and f: rror Amllysi8
solution to all language teaching problems. Consequently, a series of

contrastive studies were conducted both in An1erica and Europe.
These studies were essentially pedagogical and aimed at predicting
and solving learners' errors and difficulties. In view of the
controversies surrounding the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, it
seems necessary to discuss different aspects of this discipline in this
chapter.
1.2 Historical Perspective

The history of Comparative Linguistics (originally known as
Comparative Philology) goes back to the 18th century when scholars
began to compare different languages in a systematic and detailed
manner in order to find out whether there were correspondences
between them. The objective of such comparative studies was to find
evidence for the existence of a common origin for a group of
languages. This common origin was called the proto-language' or
common ancestor of cognate2 or related languages. For instance, some
linguists have compared features of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Old
Persian in order to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language.
These activities within the domain of Comparative Historical Linguistic.5
have aimed at determining what a proto-language must have been like
before any written records.
Some linguists have also been interested in comparing various
stages in the development of a single language, such as comparing Old
Persian with Middle Persian and Modem Farsi by some Iranian
linguists.
Linguists have also been comparing languages as they are used
today in order, for example, to classify them into certain groups on the
basis of similarities that exist between them. In other words, some
linguists study the structural similarities between languages,
( 1) A proto-language is a language that has existed before other languages.

(2) Cognate languages or words are those that have the same origin.
Chapter I - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis 5
regardless of their history, as part of an attempt to establish a

satisfactory classification, or typology of languages. This type of
activity has been referred to as Comparative Typological Linguistics.
Yet another type of comparative studies, which is the main focus of
this chapter, is Contrastive Linguistics or Contrastive Analysis.
Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic study of a pair of
languages in order to identify their structural differences and
similarities, usually for translation and teaching purposes. Modern
contrastive linguistics intends to show in what ways the two respective
languages differ, in order to come up with some solutions to tackle
practical problems. That is, two languages are compared and
contrasted with the aim of assisting second-language learners by
identifying the probable areas of difficulty they may encounter in
learning the target language. CA has also been used as a tool in
translation theory to investigate problems of equivalence (having the
same meaning in two languages). Unlike the aforementioned types of
comparative studies, CA deals solely with present day languages.
Contrastive linguistic studies can also be applied to the description
of one or more varieties within a language, such as dialects',
registers2 , and styles3 (Contrastive Rhetoric). (For more on
Contrastive Rhetoric4 see Connor, 1996)
There are two main types of contrastive studies: theoretical and
applied. Theoretical contrastive studies, as Fisiak ( 1985, p. 2) puts it,
"give an exhaustive account of the differences and similarities
between two or more languages, provide an adequate model for their
comparison, and determine how and which elements are comparable,
(I) Dialect: A variety of a language spoken in one part of a country, or by people

belonging to a particular social group.
(2) Register: Words, style and grammar used by a particular group of people, usually
sharing the same occupation or interest.
(3) Style: Variation in a person's speech or writing according to the formality of the
situation.
(4) Rhetoric: Style or language that is used to influence people.
6 Contra!tive Analy!is and Error Analy!l!
1
thus defining such notions as congruence , equivalence,
correspondence 2, etc." He further adds that:
theoretical contrastive studies are language independent. They
do not investigate how a given category present in language A
is presented in language B. Instead, they look for the realization
of a universal category X in both A and B. Thus, theoretical
contrastive linguistics does not have a direction from A to B or
vice-versa, but rather as illustrated in Figure I below, the
direction is from X to A and B.
A B
Figure 1
Fisiak ( 1985, p.2)

On the other hand, applied contrastive analysis is part of applied
linguistics. Since it was frrst introduced by Robert Lado in the 1950's,
CA has been concerned with practical problems, for instance, (a) to
avoid interference errors in foreign-language learning, as advocated
by the proponents of CA such as Di Pietro ( 1971 ), (b) to assist
interlingual (between two languages) transfer in the process of
translating texts from one language into another, as demonstrated by
Hatim ( 1996), and (c) to fmd lexical equivalents in the process of
compiling bilingual dictionaries, as illustrated by Heltai ( 1988) and
Hartmann (2007).
A major task of applied contrastive studies is explaining why some
features of the target language are more difficult to acquire than
others. It is this kind of contrastive study, i.e. pedagogical contrastive
analysis, with which we shall be concerned in the remainder of this
chapter.
( 1) Congruence: Semantic similarities.

(2)Correspondence: Similarity between words in two languages.
Chapter t - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis 7
1.3 Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological

Basis
Throughout the fifties and until the late sixties, pedagogical
contrastive analysis was used extensively in the field of Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) as a method of explaining why some
features of the target language are more difficult to acquire than
others. As Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005, p.52) explain,
CA involved describing comparable features across the two
languages, identifying the differences and, then, predicting what
errors learners would make. It served two major purposes: first
it provided an explanation for why learners make errors, and
secondly it served as a source of information for identifying
which structural areas of the TL teachers needed to teach (i.e.,
those where negative transfer was likely).
The proponents of Contrastive Analysis maintained that once the areas
of potential difficulty had been mapped out through CA, it would be
possible to design language courses more efficiently. Contrastive
Analysis, along with Behaviorist Psychology and Structural
Linguistics had a profound effect on SLA curriculum design and
language teacher education, and provided the theoretical foundation of
Audio-Lingual Method.
Pedagogical contrastive analysis rests on the underlying
assumptions of Behaviorist Psychology. The Behaviorists, inspired by
the ideas of Skinner ( 1957), viewed first language acquisition
essentially as the formation of new habits acquired through repetition
and strengthened by the reinforcement of correct responses. This is
similar to the way certain animals can be trained, through the use of
appropriate conditioning techniques, to perform certain tasks. In this
theory, language acquisition was not viewed as an active mental
process but as a passive mechanical one.
8 Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis
As far as second-language acquisition is concerned, behaviorist

1
psychologists along with structural linguists believed that native
language habits which are acquired during childhood interfere with
the acquisition of econd language habits which are usually quite
different from the habits of the mother tongue. Thus, contrastive
analys is is founded on the assumption that second or foreign language
learners will tend to transfer to their L2 utterances t~e ·formal features
of their L I. This assumption was clearly stated by Lado in his famous
book, Linguistics Across culture (1 957, p.2), as foJlows:
Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings. and the
distribution of fom1s and meanings of their nati ve language and
culture to the foreig n language and culture. both productively
when attempting to speak the language and receptively when
attempting to grasp and understand the language ... as practiced
by natives.
Based on this assumption, structural linguistics - who strongly

believed that languages greatly differ from one another and that only
overtly observable data should be analyzed - set out to identify areas
of difficulty for second language learners and produce appropriate
teaching materials to overcome these difficulties. They did this by
systematically comparing and contrasting the structure of the learners'
native language with that of the target language. As mentioned earlier,
this technique was referred to as Contrastive Analysis.
The concept of transfer which is the psychological cornerstone of
the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is of two kinds.
Depending on the similarities and differences between the structure of
the learner's native language (NL) and that of the target language
(TL), when an old habit (i.e., that of the learner' s NL) facilitates the
formation of a new habit (i.e., a new element in the TL) positive
transfer is said to take place, and when the old habit impedes a new
habit negative transfer is believed to occur and learning becomes
difficult. In the words ofLado (1957, p. 2):
( 1) A school of linguistics in America and Europe that was primarily concerned with
the scientific description of the forma l properties of language.
The student who comes in contact with a foreign language will

find features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult.
Those elements that are similar to his native language will be
simple for him, and those elements that are different will be
difficult.
Lado further claims that "the key to ease or difficulty in foreign

language learning lies in the comparison between native and foreign
language" (Lado, 1957, p.l ).
It needs to be pointed out that more recently the term cross-
linguistic has been used instead of transfer in the literature of second
language acquisition (see Odlin, 1987, and Brown, 2000).
As mentioned above, during its hey-day, CA became the basis of
teaching foreign languages, and it was the main criterion for the
preparation of instructional materials. This criterion was established
by Fries's (1945) guidelines that ".:.the most effective materials [for
foreign langu~e tea£hing] are those that are based upon a scientific
description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a
parallel description of the native language of the learner" (p.259).
Based on these guidelines, materials were designed in a way to
ensure that, as far as possible, learners performed without error. Error
was considered as-an evil sign of deficiency in teaching and learning,
and every attempt was made to prevent its occurrence. This tabooing
of error gained support from Skinner's (1957) view that if an error
occurs the probability of its recurrence cannot be permanently reduced
by punishment and that all the teacher's efforts should go into
rewarding correct responses. This negative attitude towards second
language learners' errors was reflected in the audio-lingual
methodology guides in the sixties. In the manifesto of that decade's
teaching profession, Language and Language Learning, Nelson
Brooks ( 1960) asserted that " ... Like sin [emphasis is mine], error is
to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be
expected" (p. 58).
1.4 Different Versions of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

Contrastive Analysis has been a field of heated controversy as its
proponents have not shared the same views with regard to the main
tenets of this discipline. Three different versions of contrastive
analysis hypothesis have been discussed in the literature, namely the
strong version, the weak version, and the moderate version. A brief
account of each version will be presented below.
1.4.1 The Strong Version

Deeply rooted in the behaviorist psychology and structural linguistics,
the strong version of contrastive analysis hypothesis focused on the
notion of interference coming from the first language as the principal
barrier to second language learning. The strong version made some
rather strong claims with respect to predicting the difficulties and
errors of second language learners. ...
The underlying assumptions of the strong version of CAH were
outlined by Lee ( 1968, p.l86) as follows:
I. The prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and
error in foreign-language learning is interference coming
from the learners' NL; ·
2. the difficulties are chiefly, or wholly, due to the differences
between the two languages;
3. the greater these differences are, the more acute the learning
difficulties will be;
4. the result of a comparison between the two languages are
needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur
in learning the foreign language;
5. what there is to teach can best be found by comparing the
two languages and then subtracting what is common to them,
so that what the student has to learn equals the sum of the
differences established by the CA.
Chapter J - Fundamental Issues in Contrastive Analysis 11
The strong version and the idea that second or foreign language
learners' difficulties and errors could be predicted remained highly
influential for quite a long time.
1.4.2 The Weak Version

Having realized that the strong claims of contrastive analysis were too
ambitious and beyond the reach of contrastive grammars, Wardhaugh
( 1970) proposed a more reasonable weak version of contrastive
analysis. "The ' weak' version", he writes, "requires of the linguist
only that he use the best knowledge available to him in order to
account for observed difficulties in second language learning" (p.4).
He adds:
It [the weak version] starts with the evidence provided by
linguistic interference and uses such evidence to explain the
similarities and differences between the two systems ...
reference is made to the two systems (NL and TL] only in order
to explain actually observed interference phenomena.
(Wardhaugh, 1970, p.5).
The weak version is a model with diagnostic and explanatory as
opposed to the predictive claim of the strong version. In this version,
errors are studied after they have been committed by second-language
learners and explanations based on a contrastive analysis of those
areas in question are offered as to why the errors have occurred.
However, as it is evident from the above quotation, the weak
version-though more realistic and practicable than the strong
version-is still confined to the notion of linguistic interference and
seems to be able to account only for errors caused by language
transfer. In other words, the weak version recognizes the significance
of interference across languages, the fact that such interference does
exist and can explain difficulties, but it also recognizes the fact that
linguistic difficulties can be more profitably explained after they have
been observed.
1.4.3 The Moderate Version

In view of the shortcomings of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, its
proponents were gradually forced to tone down the unrealistic claims
of their discipline and make less ambitious ones. Along these lines,
Oller & Ziahosseiny ( 1970) proposed a third version of Contrastive
analysis on the basis of their analysis of the spelling errors made by
some foreign learners of English with different native language
backgrounds. Contrary to the prediction of the strong version of the
CAH, they found that English spelling proved to be more difficult for
learners whose native language used a Roman alphabet (French,
Spanish, French, Gennanic, Slavic) than for those whose native
language used a non-Roman alphabet (Chinese, Japanese, Semitic).
Similarly, according to the weak version of the CAH students whose
native language uses a Roman alphabet would be expected to do better
that the other group because of great~er positive transfer. However,
Oller & Ziahosseiny's data proved that this was not the case. Thus,
they rejected the strong and weak versions, as being too strong and too
weak, respectively, in favor of their proposed version, which they
wished to call the Moderate Version. The authors claim that the
moderate version has more explanatory power than the other two
versions since it centers on the nature of human learning, and not just
on the contrast between two languages.
Oller & Ziahosseiny maintained that the learning of sounds,
sequences and meanings will be the most difficult where the most
subtle distinctions are required either between the target and native
language, or within the target language itself. In fact, as Brown ( 1987)
says, interference can actually be greater when items to be learned are
more similar to the existing items than when they are entirely new and
unrelated to the existing ones. Brown further explains that gross
differences are often more easily per·c eived and stored in memory
while minimal differences can be overlooked because of
overgeneralization. Therefore, contrary to the assumption of the strong
version of contrastive analysis hypothesis greater differences do not
always result in greater difficulty. Such a view underscores the
significance of intralingual errors. which are as much a factor in

second-language learning as interlingual errors. (For more on these
two types of error, see Chapter 8).
1.5 Linguistic Levels of Analysis

Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex
communjcation system, which must be analyzed on a number of
levels: phonology, morphology, syntax , texis, and pragmatics. In other
words, language can be divided into components corresponding to
various levels of analysis narnely phonological, morphological ,
syntactic, texico-semantic, as well as pragmatic, and contrastive
descriptions can be made at every level of linguistic structure. It needs
to be pointed out that linguistics have differed in the degree of
separateness/integration of these levels. For instance, while Chomsky
once argued that grammar is autonomous and independent of
semantics ( 1957), another tradition initiated by the British linguist
Firth claims that there is no boundary between lexis and grammar.
That is, lex is and grammar are in fact interdependent.
Traditional contrastive studies produced inventories of similarities
and differences between linguistic components of the two languages
being compared and contrasted. The emphasis given to various
linguistic levels has not been the same in different linguistic theories.
For instance, while the main focus of research in Generative-
Transformational Grammar is syntax, the Communicative Theory is
more concerned with the pragmatic uses of language.
It needs to be pointed out that structural linguistics and traditional
grammar are not the only models to be used for contrastive analysis.
Generative-Transformational Grammar and other linguistic theories
have also been used as a basis for comparing and contrasting
languages (see, for example, Di Pietro, 1971 , and Krzeszowski, 1974).
1.6 Procedures for Comparing Languages

Contrastive analysis is essentially founded on the assumption that
languages can be compared and contrasted. The means for such
comparison is provided by linguistics to render descriptive accounts of
the learner's native language and the target language on various
linguistic levels mentioned above. Thus, contrastive analysis can be
considered as a linguistic activity aimed at producing contrastive two-
valued typologies.
James ( 1980) asserts that "executing [doing] a contrastive analysis
involves two steps: description, and comparison" (p. 63 ). However,
five different steps have been mentioned in the literature for
comparing and contrasting two languages, or two subsystems for that
matter. These are explained below.
1. Selection
It must be realized that a comprehensive comparison of two languages
for pedagogical purposes is neither feasible nor necessary. Therefore,
the analyst should select certain features of the target language that
may potentially cause difficulty for the learners and then compare and
contrast those features with parallel features in the learners' native
language. Selection can be based on the analyst's teaching experience
and bilingual intuition, if s/he shares the same native language with
the learners. It can also be based on a prior analysis of errors
committed by the learners. In the process of selection, the analyst
should decide what to compare with what. Also the elements
compared and contrasted in the two languages should be similar in
some respects.
2. Description
After the selection of certain linguistic items, structures or rules, the
linguist or language teacher, should explicitly describe the two
languages in question. Scientific description has been the core of
Chapter I - Fundamental Issues in Contrasth•e Analysis 15
contrastive analysis and the proponents of this theory have always put
emphasis on parallel description of the two languages.
By parallel description it is implied that the two languages should
be described through the same linguistic model or framework. For
example, if the analyst uses Generative-Transformational Grammar
for describing certain aspects of the gramn1ar of L 1 slhe should use
the same model for the description of L2. This principle works in the
n1ajority of cases; however, some languages may require the use of
alternative models for their description. Of course, this is a
controversial theoretical issue and it is beyond the scope of the present
textbook. For further details, interested readers can consult James
( 1980, Chapter 4).
3. Comparison
When the description of subsystems of the two languages is complete
the job of the analyst is to compare and contrast the two systems by
juxtaposing features of the two languages in order to find similarities
and differences between them. At this stage, the analyst has to decide
what to compare with what. Linguistic features of the two languages
are compared on three levels: form, meaning, and distribution of
forms.
It needs to be pointed out that in some texts companson and
juxtaposition have been treated as two distinct steps, but as
Yarmohammadi (2009) has noted, trying to keep them separate "
imposes some sort of redundancy and unnaturalness on the
statements" (p. 36).
4. Prediction
Having described and compared certain features across languages, the
analyst can make predictions about difficulties learners may face in
acquiring the second language. The analyst should judge whether
similarities and differences found through the comparison of the two
languages are problematic for the learners or not. Predictions can be

arrived at through the formulation of a hierarchy of difficulty, as
discussed in Section 1.8 below.
5. Verification
The final step in contrastive analysis is verification. In this stage, the
analyst needs to find out whether the predictions made about errors
and difficulties actually materialize or not. In other words, we need to
ask whether second language learners in reality commit the type of
errors predicted on the basis of the contrastive analysis of the two
languages or sub-systems of those languages.
1.7 Hierarchy of Difficulty

Since contrastive analysis involved some degree of subjectivity and
this did not meet the scientific description criterion of behavioristic
psychology, some of the proponents of CAH made an effort to
formalize the prediction stage of contrastive analysis in order to
remove some of the subjectivity involved. The best-known attempt
was made by Stockwell, Bowen, & Martin ( 1965), who proposed what
they called a hierarchy of difficulty by which a teacher or linguist can
make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the
second language. Though the authors devised their hierarchy for
English and Spanish, they claimed a universal application of the
hierarchy. For phonological systems in contrast, Stockwell and his
associates suggested eight possible degrees of difficulty.. These
degrees were based upon the notions of transfer (positive, negative,
and zero) and of optional and obligatory choices of certain phonemes
in the two languages in contrast. Through a very careful, systematic
analysis of the properties of the two languages with reference to the
hierarchy of difficulty, applied linguists were able to derive a
reasonably accurate inventory of phonological difficulties that a
second language learner would encounter. That inventory included a
prediction of the difficulty - relative to other items in the inventory -
of a particular unit of contrast. Stockwell and his colleagues also

constructed a hierarchy of difficulty for grammatical structures of the
two languages in contrast. Their grammatical hierarchy included 16
levels of difficulty, based on the same notions used to construct
phonological criteria with the added dimension of structural
correspondence and .functional/semantic correspondence.
Prator ( 1967, cited in Brown, 2000, pp. 209-21 0) captured the
essence of this grammatical hierarchy in six categories of difficulty.
Prator' s hierarchy is applicable to both grammatical and phonological
features of language. The six categories, in ascending order of
difficulty, are presented by Brown (2000, pp. 209-21 0) as follows.
The examples in this hierarchy are given from Persian and English
(i.e., potential utterances produced by a native speaker of Persian
learning English as a foreign language). It needs to be pointed out that
these categories have direct implications both for second language
teaching and translation.
Level 0 - Transfer
No difference or contrast exists between the two languages. The
learner can simply transfer (positively) a sound, structure, or lexical
item from the native language to the target language. It is assumed
that target language items in this case do not cause any difficulty for
the learner, hence the label of level zero is used. Examples can be
found in many vowels and consonants of Persian and English such as:
a, ce, u:, i:, b, f, s, z, J, 3, tf, ct3, m, n. The following diagram
illustrates this kind of transfer.
English Persian
+ +
Level 1- Coalescence
Two or more items in the native language become coalesced into
essentially one item in the target language. This requires that the
learners overlook a distinction they have grown accustomed to. For
example, the Persian learner of English must overlook the distinction
between danefamuz and danefd:JU, and use just one English word
namely student. This is illustrated in the following diagram.
English Persian
+ ++
+++
Level 2- Underdifferentiation
As shown in the following diagram, an item that exists in the native
language is absent in the target language. For example, the phonemes
/x/ and /q/ which are present in Persian are absent in English. Thus,
the Persian learners of English must avoid these phonemes when
practicing English. Similarly, the learner must avoid using certain
Persian words and expressions such as /tJakeretcem/ 'your devoted
servant' or /naukceretcem/ 'I'm your servant'.
English Persian
+
Level 3- Reinterpretation
An item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or
distribution in the TL. The Persian learner of English, for example,
must learn a new allophone for the phoneme /1/. That is, the Persian Ill
is mainly a clear Ill; whereas, this phoneme may be clear or dark in

English depending on the phonological environment.
Level 4- Overdifferentiation
An entirely new item in the target language, bearing little or no
similarity to the native language item, must be learned. For example,
the native speaker of Persian must learn English phonemes /9/, /o/, /1/,
and /v/ since they do not exist in Persian. This also applies to many
English idiomatic expressions that have no equivalent in Persian, such
as eat like a horse.
English Persian
+
LevelS- Split
As illustrated in the following diagram, one item in the native
language becomes two or more in the target language, requiring the
learner to make a new distinction. Split is the opposite of coalescence.
For example, the Persian learner of English has to make a distinction
between desk and table since the equivalent of these two words in his
native language is one single word, namely /miz/. This also applies to
he and she as the equivalent of /u:/ in Persian.
English Persian
+ +
+++
For further elaboration and examples of this and other lexical

relations between English and Persian see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.
The hierarchy of difficulty outlined above and the procedures for

contrastive analysis described by Whitman ( 1970) are not without
shortcomings, as Brown (2000) states. For one thing, subtle phonetic
distinctions may be ignored. Phonological environments and
allophonic variants of phonemes may be overlooked. Also
determining which category a particular contrast fits into is not always
as easy as it may appear so.
1.8 Markedness theory

Due to the shortcomings mentioned above, markedness theory (also
referred to as Markedness Differential Theory) was proposed by some
scholars to account for relative degrees of difficulty by means of
principles of Universal Grammar (Eckman, 1977 and 1981;
Rutherford, 1982; and Celce-Murcia & Hawkins, 1985). The
markedness theory has been summarized by Celce-Murica & Hawkins
as follows:
It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or structures
by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least
one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the
unmarked (or natural) member of the pair is the one with a
wider range of distribution than the marked one. For example,
in the case of the English indefinite articles (a and an), an is the
more complex or marked form (it has an additional sound) and
11 is the unmarked form with the wider distribution (Celce-
Murcia & Hawkins, 1985, p.66).
As Larsen-Freeman and Long ( 1991) put it, "the linguistic notions of
markedness are usually defmed in tenns of complexity, relative
frequency of use, or departure from something that is more basic, and
typical in a language" (p. I 02). Unmarked items or structures, on the
other hand, are those that are common, more basic and more core in a
language. Second language learners master these items earlier and
quicker. These items are considered universal in that they are common
across all languages of the world (Kellerman, 1979).
Rutherford ( 1982) used markedness theory to explain why there

seems to be certain order of acquisition of morphemes in English:
marked structures are acquired later than unmarked ones. According
to Gass & Selinker (2008), the mor,e marked and more difficult
constructions entail the knowledge of less marked and easier
constructions. In other words, learners may generalize their
knowledge of a more difficult construction to a related and easier one.
More specifically, as far as CA is concerned, the Markedness
Theory claims that comparisons of the native language with the target
language is crucial in order to make predictions or to understand
errors in L2 acquisition. The Markedness Theory proposes that if the
L2 structure is more marked than the one occurring in the L I, then the
L2 learner will have more difficulty with that type of structure.
However, if the L2 structure has the same degree of markedness or is
less marked as compared to the L I structures then the L2 Ieamer wi 11
have little or no difficulty acquiring the structure.
As Brown (2000) states, markedness theory gives us a more
sophisticated method for predicting difficulty than earlier methods of
contrastive analysis. But determining degrees of markedness is still to
a large extent a subjective judgment. As is the case with virtually
every problem of linguistic analysis, the objectivity of scientific
methodology is still elusive.
1.9 Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis

As it was mentioned earlier, CA was widely influential in the 1950s
and 1960s in the field of foreign language teaching; however, from the
1970s its influence began to decline. This was due in part to the
shortcomings of structural linguistics, with which it was closely
associated. The CAH was also at odds with the views of second
language acquisition and interlanguage theory, according to which
only a small proportion of errors derived from first language
interference. However, interest in CA has not faded away entirely.
After it went under severe attacks in the United States, in Europe the
tradition of CA was followed more faithfully. Even after alternative

methods for analyzing learner language have come to the vogue
researchers cannot help but acknowledge the role of the mother
tongue. As Odlin (2005) states, "several books, collection of articles,
and state-of-the art papers in the last fifteen years or so show that
interest in cross-linguistic influence [language transfer] remains
strong" (p. 437). He further adds that "study after study has shown
real effects of the negative language [negative transfer]" (p. 478). Also
Granger (2002), commenting on the comparison between non-native
speakers corpora, notes that "in cases where differences emerge
among learners with different language backgrounds, the analyst will
explore the likelihood that the variation is due to L l influence" (p.l3).
As discussed earlier, contrastive analysis is based on two main
assumptions: (i) the native language of the learner interferes with the
learning of the target language and consequently interference from the
mother tongue constitutes the main cause, if not the sole cause, of
errors, and (ii) the greater the difference between the structure of the
source and the target language the more difficult it is to learn a foreign
language.
With regard to the first issue, empirical studies have failed to
substantiate interference as the sole or main cause of errors in second-
language learning. On the contrary, it has been shown that there are
many cases of errors which cannot be attributed to a learner's mother
tongue (Du§kova, 1967; Wilkins, 1968; Buteau, 1970; Nemser, 1971,
to mention but a few). Critics of contrastive analysis have argued that
since native language interference is only one of the sources of errors,
indulging in CA with a view to predicting difficulties is not worth the
time spent on it; moreover, they argue, many of the difficulties
predicted by contrastive analysis do not show up in the actual learner
performance at all. On the other hand, many errors that do tum up are
not predicted by contrastive analysis. Thus, CA is criticized for
ignoring factors such as learning and communication strategies,
overgeneralization, transfer of training, and the like, which may affect
the learner's performance in the target language (For a more detailed

discussion on the sources of errors, see Chapter 8).
As to the second assumption of the contrastive analysis hypothesis,
no simple one-to-one correlation can always be found between
learning difficulty and the differences between the source and the
target language. That is, as mentioned above, what contrastive
analysis predicted as difficulty did not always tum out to be so
(Whitman, 1970; Nickel, 1971; Whitman and Jackson, 1972).
It needs to be pointed out, however, that despite all the heated
controversies surrounding the field of contrastive analysis, many
language teachers from various comers of the world still find it useful
in dealing with the learning problems of their students. On the
phonological level, even its severest critics cannot help but
acknowledge the predictive validity of CA (Richards, 1971 ). As
Brown (2000, p.212) claims, "phonology remains the most reliable
linguistic category for predicting learner performance" (p.212). As far
as syntactic errors are concerned, it has been admitted that a good
proportion of errors are interference-based (George, 1972; Tran-Thi-
Chau, 1974). Even those practitioners who, in theory, seriously
question the validity of contrastive analysis and advocate alternative
approaches to the study of second-language learners' errors
incorporate CA in their methodology, at least implicitly, for the
explanation of errors.
In the 1980s and 1990s, some scholars have found new dimensions
for contrastive analysis, such as Contrastive Analysis and
Communicative Competence, Contrastive Rhetoric, Contrastive
Analysis and Translation, Pedagogical Contrastive Sociolinguistics,
and Pragmatic Transfer (James, 1985; K.rzeszowski, 1985; Sanders,
1985; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Kasper, 1992; Connor,
1996; and DeCapua, 1998).
Study Questions and Exercises
Part I. Answer the following questions.

I. What was CA concerned with?
2. What was the psychological basis of CA?
3. Which linguistic theory supported CA?
4. What are the pedagogical values ofCA?
5. How are second language learners' errors treated in CA?
6. What are the two types of transfer?
7. What are the main steps in comparing two or more languages?
8. What are the shortcomings of CA?
Part II. Complete the foUowing sentences.

I. CA is the ........... study of a pair of languages in order to identify
their . . . . . . . . . . . . differences and similarities, usually for .......... .
and teaching purposes.
2. Contrastive linguistic studies can also be applied to the ............ .
of one or more varieties within a language, such as .......... ,
.......... , and . . . . . . . . . .. .
3. This negative ... .. ... .. towards second language learners' .. . ... ... .
was reflected in the ... ... .. . ... methodology guides in the sixties.
4. The 'weak' version is a model with ........ . and ........... as
opposed to the ... ... .... claim of the 'strong' version.
5. By . ...... . .. description contrastive linguists implied that the two
languages should be described through the same ....... .. .... or
framework.
6. Linguistic features of the two languages are compared on three
levels: .... .. ..... , ......... , and . .. . ...... ... of fonns.
7. Hierarchy of difficulty refers to the . . . . . . . . . of the relative . .. .... .
of a given aspect of the target language.
8. The ...... ... (or natural) member of a pair is the one with a .. .. ... .
range of . ... .. . ....
9. CA is criticized for ignoring factors such as .. ..... .. and .......... .
strategies, ............., and ......... . .... , which may affect the
Ieamer's performance in the target language
I 0. Unmarked items or .... .. ... .. . are those that are ........, more .. . .. . .
and more core in a language.
Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features ... 27
Chapter 2
Contrastive Analysis of Some Selected Features of
English and Persian
Important concepts and terms used in this chapter:

syllable
nucleus
peak
onset
coda
direct questions
indirect questions
lexical split
convergence
divergence
cognates
2.1 Introduction
Based on the theoretical discussion presented in Chapter I , in this
chapter an actual contrastive analysis of certain features of English
and Persian will be presented. In this task, ftrst the selected features
from these two languages will be described in linguistic terms and
then they will be compared and contrasted. Next, based on the
differences found between the two languages certain predictions will
be made about difficulties Persian-speaking learners of English may
encounter. The selection is based on the author's years of experience
28 Contrasth~e Analysis and Error Analysis
in teaching English to Iranian students and familiarity with their

learning difficulties and errors.
2.2 A Sample of Phonological Contrastive Analysis

2.2.1 SyUable Types and Consonant Clusters in English and
Persian
The notion of syllable is a significant one since syllable is crucially
important in the production of speech, and also because stress and
intonation are features of syllable and not single sounds. Therefore,
before comparing the structure of syllables in English and Persian it
seems necessary to provide a definition of the term syllable, first.
A syllable is a unit of pronunciation typically larger than a single
sound and smaller than a word. For example, in the English word
dis.ad.van.tage there are four syllables, and the Persian word
/Je.ni.drenl 'hear' consists of three syllables. Therefore, a syllable is
usually made up of more than one speech sound, i.e., a vowel plus one
or more consonants. The vowel is an essential element in the structure
of a syllable. In other words, a syllable is not possible without the
vowel. The vowel being the obligatory element in a syllable is called
the nucleus or peak. The peak may be preceded by one or more
consonants, which constitute the onset of the syllable; it may also be
followed by one or more consonants which form the coda. For
instance, in the English word 'cat' the onset is /k/, the peak is I rei, and
the coda is /tJ. (For more on this, see Keshavarz, 2009).
English and Persian Syllable types

Compared to English, Persian has a rather limited range of syllable
types. Disregarding some borrowed words like /lustr/ 'chandelier' and
/septambr/ 'September', Persian has only six syllable types which are
presented below with the help of the symbols V for vowels and C for
consonants.
C hapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Feature~ ... 29
Table 2.1
Syllable Types in Persian
No. Type of Syllable Key Words

V /u/ ' s/hc '
2 cv l m ul ' hair', /paf 'foot', /mal 'wc'
3 eve l muJ/ ·mouse', /ran/ 'leg' . /nan/ 'bread'
4 ve /in/ 'this', /ab/ ' water', l aJI ' broth ~
5 vee /a:sb/ 'horse'. /ard/ ' flour'

6 CVCC /drest/' hand', /ra tl ' right', /mast/ ' yoghurt'
As can be seen, the number of consonants that can occur before and
after vowels ranges from one to two. The onset can consist of only one
consonant while the coda varies from one to two consonants in length.
As opposed to the small number of syllable types in Persian,
English has quite a wide range of syllables. These are i1lustrated in
Table 2.2 below. It must be remembered that here we are dealing with
pronunciation of the key words and not their spe11ing. For example,
the pronunciation of ~awe' consists of only one vowel sound, namely
/) /.
Table 2.2
Syllable Types in English
No. Type of Syllable Key Words
I V a, awe
2 ev he, she, key, fee, too, knee
3 eve hit, feet, got, but, thought
4 VC eat, it, egg, odd, on
s vee ann, ant, aunt, act, and
No. Type of Syllable KeyWords

6 cvcc cats, can't, sand, fact, hats
7 CCV free, tree, ski, three, claw
8 CCCV spree, straw, screw
9 vccc asks, anns, aunts, acts
10 ccvc school, speak, stool, small, stop
1I CCCV street, scream, spring, stream
12 cccvcc streets, screams, streams
13 cvccc hands, tanks, camps, ranks, nests
14 cvcccc texts, bursts, tempts
15 CCVCC trunk, start, skirt, stamp
16 CCVCCC trunks, starts, skirts, stamps
17 CCCVCCC strengths, splints
18 vcccc pre-empts (the second syllable)
Through comparison of syllable types of English and Persian ( 18

compared to 6) one can realize how difficult acquiring the syllable
structure of English is for Persian-speaking learners of this language.
In fact, one of the major sources of pronunciation errors of Iranian
EFL learners is the complexity of consonant clusters (i.e., the
occurrence of more than one consonant in the onset or coda of a
syllable), especially in the initial position. This is because Persian
does not allow initial consonant clusters while in English up to three
consonants can occur syllable initially. Therefore, when faced with
initial consonant clusters, Persian-learners of English automatically
insert a vowel before or in between the consonants. For example, they
may pronounce school as /esku:V or street as /seterit/.
Now let's apply the concept of markedness explained in Chapter I
to syllable structure. As illustrated above, the basic syllable consists of
Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features •.. 31
onset, nucleus, and coda. The degree of markedness is based on the

length of the onset and the coda of the syllable. As Carlisle (200 1) has
stated, the longer the onset or coda, the more marked the syllable is
considered to be. Consequently, English syllable structure that allows
up to three consonants word initially and up to four consonants in the
final position is extremely difficult for Persian-speaking learners of
English.
2.3 Contrastive Analysis of some Grammatical Features

2.3.1 Prepositions in English and Persian
Prepositions are perhaps the most notorious aspect of the English
language for Persian-speaking learners of English and they present
enormous difficulties for them. The difficulty lies in the variety of
forms and functions of prepositions in English, on the one hand, and
the differences between English and Persian with regard to the form
and function of prepositions, on the other hand. Prepositions carry
very important semantic and discourse functions. They express
notions such as: time, place, directions, purpose and manner, to
mention but a few. For a comprehensive account of various forms and
functions of prepositions in English, see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech &
Svartvick (1985, pp. 655-716). Here we concentrate on the differences
between English and Persian prepositions as one of the possible
sources of difficulty and errors. To clearly illustrate the contrasted
features, each example sentence below consists of: (a) English
sentence (henceforth E), (b) Persian equivalent (P), (c) literal
translation (LT) of the English sentence, and (d) finally the predictable
error (PE).
There are four possibilities in the case of English and Persian
prepositions, as presented below.
Category 1. There exists a preposition in English with no equivalent

in Persian. For instance, the Persian equivalents of the following
English sentences lack any preposition.
a. The book consists of five chapters. (E)
ketab Jamele p~ndj f~sl ~st. (P)
book consists 0 five chapter is. (LT)
The book consists 0 five chapters. (PE)
b. I usually go swimming in the afternoon. (E)

mren mre?mulren bre?d rez zorha be estrexr mirrevrem (P)
I usually 0 afternoons to swimming pool go. (LT)
I usually go swimming 0 afternoons. (PE)
Category 2. There is a preposition in Persian with no equivalent in

English. Examples include marry with, enjoy from, resemble to,
discuss 11bout as illustrated in the following sentences.
a. u ba doxtrer ?remujreJ ezdeva¢5 krerd (P)
he with cousin-his married. (LT)
He married with his cousin. (PE)
He married his cousin. (E)
b. rna rez mrenazere ziba le~t bordim (P)

we from sceneries beautiful enjoyed (LT)
We enjoyed from the beautiful sceneries. (PE)
We enjoyed the beautiful sceneries. (E)
Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features... 33
c. an do breradrer Jrebihe be hrem hrestrend (P)

those two brothers resemble to each other are (LT)
The two brothers resemble to each other. (PE)
The two brothers resemble each other. (E)
d. anha raQ.Je? be an mowzu? brehs krerdrend (P)

they about that matter discussed (LT)
They discussed about that matter. (PE)
They discussed the matter. (E)
Category 3. In this category, for several prepositions in English there

exists only one counterpart in Persian. As an example, the preposition
/zir/ in Persian can equally be used for the English prepositions below,
under, beneath, and underneath, as shown in the folJowing examples.
a. bre?zi heivanat zir-e zrernin zendregi mjkonrenred (P)

some animals below ground live make (LT)
Some animals live below the ground. (E)
b. gorbe zir-e miz ~st/ (P)

cat under table is (LT)
The cat is under the table. (E)
c. ru:dxane?i zir-e pol bu:d (P)

river beneath bridge was (LT)
There was a river beneath the bridge. (E)
34 Contrasth·e Analysi5 and Error Analysis
d. mu:haj-e trela?ij-reJ zir-e ru:sreri pufande Jode bu:d (P)

hairs blonde-hers underneath scarf hidden was (LT)
Her blonde hair was hidden underneath her scarf. (E)
This, as can be imagined. creates a great deal of difficulty for

Persian learners of English since they do not know which preposition
to use in what context.
Category 4. Both languages have prepositions; however, the forms

and functions of prepositions are different in English and Persian. For
instance. the Persian equivalent of write to in the sentence 'I am
writing this letter to my father· is write f or. which in English has a
different meaning, i.e., write on beha(( of someone else. In the latter
case, the expression /rez trerref-e .. ./ or /rez Q.Janeb-e .. ./ is used in
Persian. This difference is, indeed, more serious than lack of an
equivalent in Persian for an English preposition (i.e., category 1
above) as it creates a greater degree of confusion for the learners.
Psycholinguistically, it has commonly been suggested that it is easier
to acquire a new target language element with no equivalent in the
learner' s mother tongue than to acquire similar, but not identical,
elements (Brown, 2000). Further examples of this sort include: afraid
from instead of afraid of, fight with instead offight against, arrive to
instead of arrive in, live in instead of live on, as illustrated in the
following erroneous sentences.
Most women are afraid from mice.

The brave young Iranians fought with the enemy.
It took us 5 hours to arrive to Rasht.
They live in the second floor.
Chapter 2 - CA of Some Selected Features... 35
The above differences between English and Persian with regard to

the forms and functions of prepositions constitute one of the major
causes of errors in the use of English prepositions.
There are three main types of errors in the use of English
prepositions, as follows: (i) omission of preposition, (ii) redundant use
of preposition, and (iii) wrong use of preposition. For a
comprehensive taxonomy of preposition errors as well as other types
of errors see Chapter 7 of the present book.
It needs to be pointed out that mother tongue interference is not the
only cause of errors in the use of prepositions; other factors need to be
taken into consideration as well. As mentioned earlier, some of the
English prepositions are absent in Persian, and some with apparently
translation equivalents have different functions in the two languages.
As a result, many of the errors can be attributed to the MT
interference; however, once the learner starts learning English and
gradually builds up his knowledge of the target language, interference
from other prepositions in English will emerge as an intralingual
factor. Consequently, the learner is in a state of doubt and confusion
as to whether to use prepositions in a given sentence and if so what
prepositions to use in what contexts. In addition, faulty teaching and
learning and also strategies employed by the learner should also be
taken into consideration in the explanation of errors (For more on the
sources of errors, see Chapter 8).
2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Questions

ln English, unlike direct questions in which the interrogative structure
is an independent clause (e.g., where are you going?), in indirect
questions the interrogative structure is a dependent or subordinate
clause as in: He asked me where I was going. These subordinate
clauses function as complements of verbs such as ask, wonder, know,
remember, etc.
The main syntactic difference between direct and indirect questions
in English is that in direct questions subject-auxiliary order change is
obligatory while in indirect questions this operation nonna11y results

in ungrammaticality, e.g., *He asked me where was I going. However,
as Quirk et al. ( 1985) point out, there are some exceptions to this rule.
More specifica11y, when the subordinate clause functions as
complement and the subordinate verb is BE, or when it functions as
appositive, the subject-verb inversion rule does apply, as shown in the
following sentences.
The problem is who can we get to replace her.
Your original question, why did he not report to the police earlier,
has not yet been answered.
However, in the majority of cases the rule of subject-auxiliary
order change does not apply to indirect questions. For a more detailed
discussion of indirect questions in English see Quirk et al. ( 1985), and
Radford ( 1992).
In Persian, the difference between direct and indirect questions is
mainly found in the intonation pattern and there is no subject-auxiliary
order change in either of the interrogative structures. That is, in direct
questions there is a rising intonation, whereas in indirect questions the
intonation is falling. To illustrate this point, the Persian equivalents of
the above English example sentences are given below.
a. (Joma) koctJa mirrev-id? (Rising Intonation) (colloquially,
koctJa miri?)
(you) where going-you?
' Where are you going?'
b. u: (rez mren) porsid ko<Da miravrem. (Falling Intonation)

he (from me) asked where going-1.
'He asked me where I am/was going.'
Several observations can be made on the basis of the above

examples.
1. There is no copula or auxiliary in such direct or indirect questions
in Persian.
2. The verbal ending changes from second to first person singular in
the case of indirect questions.
3. The intonation patterns of direct and indirect questions are
different.
4. When a direct question is transformed into an indirect question the
sequence of tenses may or may not be observed in Persian,
whereas in English the sequence of tenses is normally observed.
It is interesting to note that although there is no subject-auxiliary

order change in Persian indirect questions (hence no predictable
interlingual errors) Persian-speaking learners of English usually
commit errors such as the ones below when they attempt to produce
English indirect questions. These errors seem to be intralingual as they
stem from the mutual interference of the target language structures
and not from mother tongue interference. The learning strategy
involved here appears to be 'overgeneralization', i.e., the learners
overgeneralize the target language rule of subject-verb inversion and
apply it in contexts where it is not appropriate. Examples of common
errors in the use of indirect questions:
*I can't remember when did I meet him.

*I don't know how did they got there.
•1 asked him why didn't he come to school yesterday.
*Our teacher didn't tell us when was the final exam.
2.4 Contrastive Analysis of Lexis

A detailed lexical analysis of English and Persian is beyond the scope
of this textbook. Therefore, only some of the major lexical relations
between these two languages will be briefly outlined below.
Category 1. Words that are similar or identical in meaning in English
and Persian, but are different in form. Examples include:
cat /gorbe/
mouse /muf/
teacher /mo?relem/
chair /srendreli/
A large number of words in English and Persian fall within this
category.
Category 2. For one lexical item in the target language there are two
or more equivalents in the source language. This is called
convergence. As an example, there are eight different equivalents in
Persian for the English word cousin, as illustrated below:
cousin
peszr?~mu doxter?~mu pes~rxale doxterxale pes~rda?i doxterda?i
pes~r?~me doxter?~me
This seems to be rooted in cultural differences. That is, in the

Iranian culture, family bonds are much stronger than those in the
English-speaking culture.
Category 3. For one lexical item in the source language there are two
or more lexical items in the target language. This is the reverse of
Category 2 above and is called divergence or lexical split. Lexical
split is of two kinds: simple and multiple. Simple lexical split is when
one lexical item in language A has two equivalents in language B.
Examples include:
pa
/""'
foot leg hand ann
In multiple lexical split one word in the source language has three
or more equivalents in the target language. For example, the Persian
word lbozorg/ has five different equivalents in English, as follows.
bozorg
big (city) large (house) great (discovery) grown up (person) major (problem)
Category 4. Cognates: Words which are similar in form and meaning

in both languages: brother /breradrer/, mother /madrer/, door /drer/
Category S. Deceptive Cognates

These cognates, which are also called false friends, are similar in
pronunciation, but may be only partially similar in meaning or may
have quite different meanings: maJin/machlne, sigar/cigar, car/kar.
Such words are, indeed, very difficult for learners since they may
be deceived by the phonological similarities of the pairs of words. As
Lightbown & Spada (20 10) assert, "when errors are caused by
40 Contrastive Analysi~ and Error Analysis
learners' perception of some partial similarity between the first and

second languages, they may be difficult to overcome, especially when
learners are frequently in contact with other learners who make the
same errors" (p. I 87).
2.5 Contrastive Pragmatics

In the previous sections~ CA of certain linguistic features of English
and Persian were presented. Contrastive Analysis can also be carried
out with reference to how language functions or uses differ in the two
languages. That is, how different languages express the same
communicative functions . For example, how the two languages handle
language functions such as request, compliment, apology, and the like.
This kind of analysis is called contrastive pragmatics. Transfer of
pragmatic features can, indeed, be more important than the transfer of
grammatical or lexical items of the learner's MT. As Leech ( 1990)
points out, uthe transfer of the norms of one community to another
community may well lead to pragmatic failure [i.e., breakdown in
communication], and to the judgment that the speaker is in some way
being impolite" (p. 231 ). In other words, the linguistic choices
appropriate in one language may not be appropriate in another
language, and this may result in communication breakdown between
EFL learners and native speakers of English. Unlike grammatical
errors that are usually recognized by native speakers, pragmatic errors
are more difficult to detect, and language learners who make such
errors may be considered rude by native speakers (DeCapua, 1998).
As Holmes ( 1992) puts it, "learning another language usually involves
a great deal more than learning the literal meaning of the words, how
to put them together, and how to pronounce them. We need to know
what they mean in the cultural context in which they are normally
used" (p 305). In fact, researc~ studies have shown that even the
speech acts of advanced foreign language learners contain nonnative
pragmatic features arising from pragmatic transfer (e.g., Scarcella,
1983; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Keshavarz, Eslami, & Ghahraman,
2006). Therefore, EFUESL syllabus designers and material
Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features ... 41
developers as well as teachers should take pragmatic features into

consideration.
Based on the above, this section is devoted to the comparison of the
speech act of compliment in English and Persian. Compliments are
expressions of positive evaluation and judgment on the addressee' s
appearance or accomplishments. ln other words, in a compliment act
the speaker praises or admires the appearance, behavior,
characteristics, etc. of the person he talks to (the addressee). A
compliment may be given to open a conversation or maintain a social
relationship already established.
Compliments are universal in the sense that each and every culture
has some ways of admiring and praising the positive attributes of its
members. However, variations are found in the way and the amount of
compliments given in different cultures. As Wolfson ( 1983) states,
"compliments differ cross-culturally not only in the way they are
structured but also in their distribution, their frequency of occurrence,
and the function they serve" (p.87). Also the object of compliment
may vary from culture to culture. For example, in the American
culture it is quite normal to openly compliment on the appearance of
one's wife, e.g., Your wife is so beautiful! Whereas, in the Iranian
culture such a compliment will, in the majority of cases, cause
problems for both the complimenter and the recipient.
The response to a compliment may also vary from culture to
culture. For example, in the Iranian culture, the response to a
compliment on possessions, such as I like your sunglasses is normally
the offer of that item to the complementer. (Presumably the reader is
familiar with the common expression in Persian: /qabeli ncedarced,
piJkeJ/ = They are worthless, you can have them!). Whereas in the
American culture, the appropriate response in this case would be:
Thank you, /like them, too. Even if the recipient of the compliment in
Iran will not offer the item of possession to the speaker, he/she may
use expressions that might be different from those common in other
languages. Consider the following examples:
I. Speaker A: pirahrenet xeili qreJrenge. 'Your shirt is very nice'.

Speaker B: tfeJmatu:n qreJreng mibine 'It's your eyes which see
them nice'.
2. Speaker A: (Commenting on a meal) qazatu:n xeili xofmreze bu:d,

drestetu:n drerd nrekone. 'Your food was very delicious, your
hands won't have pain'.
Speaker B: xojbalrem ke du:st daJtid. 'I'm glad you liked it'
3. Student: (At the end of a class lecture): ostad xreste nrebaJid

'Professor, don't be tired' instead of'Goodjob', 'Well done'.
Professor: motJrekerrem 'Thanks'.
4. Visitor (commenting on the host's son): tJe pesrere xu:bi! 'What a

good boy!'
Host: drestetu:n ra mibusred 'He kisses your hand' instead of
'Thanks'
Of course, it should not be implied from these examples that that

all types and forms of compliments vary in English and Persian. In
fact, adjectival compliments such as nice, good, beautiful, and
wonderful and their equivalents in Persian seem to enjoy high
frequency of occurrence. These adjectives carry positive evaluation in
both languages, e.g., soxrenranjetu:n ali bu:d. 'Your lecture was
wonderful', or tJeh baqt]eye qreJrengi darid 'What a beautiful garden
you have'.
Chapter 2- CA of Some Selected Features ... 43

1. How is syllabus nucleus defined?
2. What are the differences between onset and coda?
3. What is the difference between convergence and divergence?
4. What are the differences between direct and indirect questions in
English?
5. What are the differences between simple and multiple lexical split?
Part II. Provide appropriate compliment expressions for the

foUowing situations.
1. Your classmate has got the top grade in the fmal exam. What
forms would you use to congratulate him?
2. What English words or expressions would you use to compliment
your friend on a beautiful dress she is wearing?
3. Your neighbor has just bought a new car. How would you
compliment him on that?
4. Your cousin has just given birth to a baby. What compliment
form( s) would you use to congratulate her.
Part m. Carry out a contrastive analysis of the following features

In English and Penlan:
1. Stress
2. Imperatives
3. Intonation Patterns
4. Relative Clauses
S. Defmite and Indefmite Articles
1PartTaMV
Having discussed Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis in detail followed

by the contrastive analysis of certain selected features of English and
Persian, in this part different aspects of Error Analysis and
lnterlanguage will be discussed and the methodology for doing error
analysis will be presented. Sources of errors, error correction and
other related issues will also be included in Part II.
Chapter 3 _Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis 47
Chapter 3
Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis

Creativity
Mental Processes
Nativist Approach
Universal Grammar
[nnate Capacity
Hypothesis Testing
Language Acquisition Device
3.1 Introduction
The 1960s has been viewed as a decade of revolution both in
linguistics and psychology. With the publication of Syntactic
Structure (Chomsky, 1957}, followed by Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax (Chomsky, 1965), Structural Linguistics yielded to Generative
Transformational Grammar. Soon it became evident that the
psychological basis of Structural Linguistics was not compatible with
the linguistic theory proposed by Chomsky. Thus, Behaviorist
Psychology had to be replaced by a new theory, namely Cognitive
Code-Learning Theory, to be compatible with Generative
Transformational Grammar. ln these two disciplines the mind is
viewed as an active agent in the thinking process and emphasis is on
meaningful learning as opposed to rote learning of behaviorism.
Cognitive learning theory and generative transformational grammar
are mentalistic in the sense that cognitive (n1ental) processes are

believed to exist that are unobservable. These two disciplines will be
discussed separately below.
3.2 Cognitive-Learning Theory

Cognitive-Learning Theory is associated with the name of the
psychologist David Ausubel who maintained that learning takes place
in human beings through a meaningful process of relating new events
or items to already existing cognitive concepts or propositions. In
other words, as new material enters the cognitive field, it interacts
with already existing materials. The very fact that new material is
relatable to stable elements in cognitive structure accounts for its
meaningfulness. Meaning, in this theory, is understood not as
behavioral response, but rather as a " ... conscious experience that
emerges when potentially meaningful signs, symbols, concepts, or
propositions are related to and incorporated within a given individual's
cognitive structure ... "(Ausubel, 1967, p. I 0).
In cognitive theory, language learning is viewed as the acquisition
of a complex cognitive skill. In other words, learning is a cognitive
process, because it is thought to involve internal representations that
regulate and guide performance. According to McLaughlin ( 1987),
these representations are based on the language system and include
procedures for selecting appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules,
and pragmatic features governing language use. As performance
improves, there is constant restructuring as learners simplify, unify,
and gain increasing control over their internal representations.
With regard to second-language teaching methodology, as Chastain
( 1988) notes, uthe teacher's principal objective and task becomes that
of making class material meaningful" (p. 45). Similarly, McDonough
(1981) argues that "the teacher's principal task is neither repetition nor
recycling, but that of helping the student discover strategies for
organizing his or her knowledge into meaningful units" (p. 73).
Chapter 3 - Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis 49
Having briefly explained the cognitive learning theory, we may

now tum to Generative Transformational Grammar and First
Language Acquisition.
3.3 Generative Transformational Grammar and First

Language Acquisition
The shortcomings of behavioristic views of child language acquisition
led researches to seek and formulate an alternative theory, namely the
generative theory of first language acquisition. The generative theory
with its typical rationalistic approach deals with deeper questions and
looks for clearer explanation of the mystery of child language
acquisition. This theory is also known as the nativist approach. The
term nativist, according to Brown (2000), is derived from the
fundamental assertion that language acquisition is innately determined
(innate= inborn), that we are born with a built-in device of some kind
that guides us to language acquisition. Obviously, as Cattsell (2000)
puts it, "he/she [the child] does not know any particular language at -
birth, but exposure to the language in the immediate environment
leads to the baby beginning to act as if (s)he knew something of the
grammar of the language" (p. 83 ). In other words, the innateness
hypothesis holds that all normal newborn children are predisposed to
learn whatever natural language(s) they are exposed to in the course of
their cognitive development.
Innateness hypothesis gained support from Eric Lenneberg' s
( 1967) biological hypothesis. Lenneberg proposed that language is
species-specific (i.e., humans are the only species that use linguistic
systems) and that certain modes of perception, categorizing abilities,
and other language-related mechanisms are biologically determined.
Similarly, Chomsky (1965) claimed that the acquisition and use of
human language is not solely depended upon stimulus-response,
which was the essence of Skinner's theory. He rejected the widely-
held, but untenable, view that children learn their native language by
merely copying in whole, or in part, the utterances of adults in their
environment. He said: H... it seems to me impossible to accept the

view that linguistic behavior is a matter of habit, that it is solely
acquired by reinforcement and association .. . " (Chomsky, 1966, p.
43). Instead, Chomsky claimed that the child is equipped with an
innate capacity, called Language Acquisition Device (an imaginary
little black box), which enables him to acquire and produce his
language creatively . Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is made up
of a set of principles which allow the child to work out the deep
structures of particular languages. These general principles are known
as universal grammar. ln other words, Chomsky and his followers
claimed that human languages, though isolated in time and space,
share universal properties (while having unique characteristics as
well). According to this view, the speaker of any language inherently
and innately knows a set of principles that apply to all languages, and
a set of parameters that vary from language to language. (For more on
Universal Grammar, see Cook & Newson, 1996).
McNeil ( 1966) described language acquisition device as consisting
of four innate linguistic properties:
I. the ability to distinguish speech sounds from other sounds in
the environment,
2. the ability to organize linguistic events into various classes
which can later be refined,
3. knowledge that only a certain kind of linguistic system is
possible and that other kinds are not, and
4. the ability to engage in constant evaluation of the developing
linguistic system so as to construct the simplest possible
system out of the available linguistic input. (Cited in Brown,
2000,p.24)
The child's language at any given developmental stage is
systematic in that the child is constantly fonning hypotheses on the
basis of his observation of the data exposed to him and then testing
those hypotheses in speech as well as comprehension. As the child's
language develops, those hypotheses get continually revised,
Chapter 3 - Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis Sl
reshaped, or sometimes abandoned. Through hypothesis testing, the

child derives an accurate concept of the syntactic rules of his or her
native language. It needs to be emphasized that linguistic input is
needed in order to activate the language acquisition mechanism. As
Owens (200 1, p. 44) notes, "hypotheses are formulated on the basis of
the speech the child hears".
Another concept in the field of first language acquisition is the
concept of creativity in human language, which was introduced by
Chomsky ( 1965) as a reply to the behaviorists' view that utterances
should be considered as learned responses to specific situations.
Chomsky argues that individuals can produce novel utterances that
they have never produced in precisely the same form before (with the
obvious exception of set phrases like greetings), and the encoding and
decoding of novel sentences create no problem for the language user.
ln Chomsky's view, creativity is a peculiar human attribute and it is
rule-governed, i.e., the utterances we produce have a certain
grammatical structure. Chomsky further claims that the control of
these rules is acquired through the operation of innate processes which
are common to all young children. Notice how Chomsky's views of
child language acquisition contrast with those of behaviorists, as
described in Chapter I, who believed that child language is a mirror of
adult language rather than having unique qualities of its own.
3.4 Similarities and Differences between First and Second-

Language Acquisition
One of the main areas of interest to Chomsky and his followers has
been the process of language acquisition. This interest has provided
both linguists and psychologists alike with new insights into the way
that a child acquires and develops his competence in his native
language. As mentioned earlier, the child is believed to make a series
of hypotheses about the structure of his native language. Evidence for
this is to be found in the production of errors by children. A well-
known example of hypothesis-formation is the child's regularization of
the English irregular verbs, which leads to overgeneralization errors
( 'ontnestivc Analysis and tt: rror Analysis
~uch a~ do Jo,•d. and ~af.t:nt•tl. This is believed to be based on the child's

t)hs~r\'atinn t)f the P•lst h:nse of regular verbs such as walk and talk.
An in1portant inlpli,ation of Chon1sky's views, in so far as second-

l~lngu:u.!.~' l~an1ing is concen1ed. is the shin of ernphasis from a study
tlf tt ·achin~ to an investigation of lt!arning. A n1ajor outcome of this
shitl f'f ~rnpha s is was the new research interest in the possible
sitnilaritics between the processes of first and second language
acquisition.
Th~·r~ arc. of course. obvious di ffcrcnccs between first and second
language acquisition. Most in1portant of these differences is that first-
language acquisition is part o f the natural growth of the child, while a
second language nom1ally begins after the first language has been
acquired. except for children who are brought up bilingually right
tTotn birth. It should be pointed out that within the realm of second
language acquisition itself several important distinctions should be
made, such as the age of the learner (child versus adult) and the
situation of learning (naturalistic versus formal). Regretfully, as is
evident in the literature, many researchers have ignored such variables
and have considered second-language acquisition as a whole in
contrast to first language acquisition.
Other important differences between the nature of first and second
language acquisition include motivation of learning (Schumann,
1976), and the role of the MT, in the case of the second-language
Ieamer. However~ Corder ( 1967) argues that such differences imply
nothing about the processes that take place in the learning of the first
and second language. In fact, Corder believes that the two processes
are essentially the same. Corder's controversial proposition inspired
two lines of inquiry, namely:
I . Whether adults can learn a second language in the same way
that children acquire their first language, and
2. whether children can learn a second language in the same
way they acquire their first.
Chapter 3 - Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis 53
Since 1nany researchers in the fi eld of second language learning

have drawn heavily on the similarities between ftrst and second-
language acquisition it is deemed relevant to include a brief discussion
on this issue here.
These lines of inquiry, as Cook ( 1973) observes, are two separate
issues, and evidence in favor of one may prove nothing about the
other. Cook herself attempted to provide evidence in support of the
first issue. Since Cook's study has been widely cited as one of the
early attempts to find similarities between adult second-language
learning and child first-language acquisition it will be discussed in
some detail here. In an experiment which dealt with the imitation and
comprehension of relative clauses in English, Cook found similarity in
the performance of foreign adults and native children. More
specifically, she found that foreign adults made the same kind of
alternations, in the imitation of sentences with relative clauses, as
native children.
One of the interesting findings of Cook' s experiment was that
many of the mistakes one had long accepted as typically foreign were
also made by native children; However; such resemblance in the fonn
of errors should not lead us to believe that sources of errors are also
the same or fundamentally similar. Suffice it to mention only the
influence of the mother tongue as a major source of errors made by
foreign adults. Needless to say, such a factor is absent in the case of
native children. In fact, one of the main drawbacks of Cook's study is
that she does not acknowledge the role of the MT in the case of her
non-native subjects. As an example, the deletion of the relative
pronoun that, which occurred more frequently in the performance of
foreign adults as opposed to native children, may have possibly been
due, if only partially, to the influence of the MT.
In the second part of her study, Cook tested the comprehension of
the subjects in sentences such as The duck is happy to bite and The
duck is hard to bite, where duck is the subject of happy in the frrst
sentence and the subject of hard in the second. Again Cook reported
similarities in the ways native children and foreign adults perceived
these structures. More importantly, on the basis of her results, she

claimed that the two groups, went through the same stages and applied
the same strategies. However, as Cook herself points out, while her
experiment seems to show some similarities between the ways that
native children and foreign adults understand sentences at different
stages of development, it must be interpreted with caution as evidence
for similarities of learning.
Two other empirical studies (Palmero & Howe, 1970; and Stolz &
Tiffany, 1972, cited in Cook, 1973), have also claimed to have found
similarities between child first-language acquisition and adult second-
language learning. Palmero and Howe found that adults approached an
experimental learning situation in the same way that children learn the
past tense inflections in English. Stolz and Tiffany found that the
characteristic differences between word associations of children and
adults could be cancelled out by giving adults unfamiliar words.
As to the second question above (i.e., whether children can learn a
second language in the same way that they acquire their first), studies
such as Dulay & Burt (1972); Milon (1974); Ravem (1974); and
Hakuta (1974) suggest that this may well be the case. It must not be
forgotten, however, that these studies, subject to their adequacy, can
only hold true for children learning English in a naturalistic second
language environment as they have been conducted on children in
such environments. However, the results of these studies, quite often,
have inappropriately been cited as evidence for the case of EFL adult
learners regardless of significant variables such as age, amount of
exposure to L2, and the like.
It should be pointed out in passing that there are great differences
between EFL and ESL with regard to the teaching and. learning of
English. An ESL situation provides the learner with ample linguistic
input and communicative opportunity as English serves a wide range
of functions within the community, whereas in EFL situations the
learner's exposure to the target language is confmed to classroom
situation.
Chapter 3 - Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis ss
Study Questions
Answer the following questions.

1. How is language learning viewed in Cognitive-Code Theory?
2. Why is Generative Transformational Grammar called nativist?
3. What is Language Acquisition Device composed of?
4. What's the teacher's principal role in Cognitive-Code Theory?
5. What are the most important differences between first and second
languages acquisition?
Chapter 4 - Error Analysis 57
Chapter 4
Error Analysis

Receptive Errors
Productive Errors
Systematic Errors
Spoonerism
Random Errors
Self-correctability
Performance Errors
4.1 Introduction
Arising from the shortcomings of CAH to adequately account for
many aspects of second-language learners' language, a number of
researchers began to look for an alternative approach for the study of
errors; an approach which would be theoretically more justifiable and
pedagogically practicable. This new approach, which is based on
theories of first and second language acquisition and possible
similarities between them, became known as Error Analysis (EA).
As a result of the new research interest in the processes and
strategies of frrst and second-language acquisition, as discussed in
Chapter 3, the study of errors, both those made by the native child and
the second-language learner, became crucially important. This is
because errors were seen as evidence of the processes and strategies of
language acquisition. With regard to first-language acquisition,
Menyuk ( 1971) claims that the study of the child native language
learner's errors throws light on the types of cognitive and linguistic

processes that appear to be part of the language learning process.
In second-language learning, a more positive attitude developed
towards learners' errors compared to what was prevalent in the
Contrastive Analysis tradition. Errors were no longer considered as
evil signs of failure, in teaching and/or learning, to be eradicated at
any cost; rather, they were seen as a necessary part of language
learning process.
Error Analysis emerged as a reaction to the view of second-
language learning proposed by contrastive analysis theory, which saw
language transfer as the ,central process involved in second and foreign
language learning. Error Analysis tries to account for learner
performance in terms of the cognitive processes learners make use of
in reorganizing the input they receive from the target language. A
primary focus of error analysis is on the evidence that learners' errors
provide to an understanding of the underlying processes of second-
language acquisition. It studies the unacceptable forms produced by
second or foreign language learners.
It is widely believed that language learning, like acquiring virtually
any other human learning, involves the making of errors. As Dulay,
Burt & Krashen (1982) assert, people cannot learn language without
frrst systematically committing errors. The Ieamer profits from his/her
errors by using them to obtain feedback from the environment and in
turn use that feedback to test and modify his/her hypotheses about the
target language. Thus, from the study of learner's errors (Error
Analysis) we are able to get some information about the nature of
his/her knowledge of the target language at a given point in his/her
learning career and discover what s/he still has to learn. By describing
and classifying the Ieamer' s errors in linguistic terms, we build up a
picture of the features of the language which are causing him/her
learning problems. In this respect, the information we get is similar to
that provided by Contrastive Analysis. Error Analysis, thus, provides a
check on the predictions of bilingual comparisons, and in as much as
it does this, it is an important additional source of information for the

selection of items to be incorporated into the syllabus.
The claim for using error analysis as the primary pedagogical tool
was based on three arguments: (I) error analysis does not suffer from
the inherent limitations of CA - restriction to errors caused by mother
tongue interference: EA brings to light many other types of errors
frequently made by learners (see Chapter 7); (2) error analysis, unlike
contrastive analysis~ provides data on actual, attested problems and
not hypothetical problems, and thus forms a more efficient and
economical basis for designing pedagogical strategies; and (3) error
analysis is not confronted with the complex theoretical problems
encountered by CA.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion it can be concluded that
error analysis is based on three important assumptions, as follows:
I. Errors are inevitable as we cannot learn a language, be it frrst

or second, without goofing, i.e. without committing errors.
2. Errors are significant in different ways.
3. Not all errors are attributable to the learner's mother tongue,
i.e. first language interference is not the only source of
errors.
4.2 Receptive versus Productive Errors

Competence in a language is of two kinds: receptive and productive.
These two competences do not develop at the same rate. It is not
uncommon to hear people say that they understand a language better
than they can speak it or vice-versa.
Errors can also be classified as receptive and productive. Receptive
errors are those which result in listener's misunderstanding of the
speaker's intentions, and productive errors are those which occur in
the language learner's utterances. It is easier to analyze productive
Contrasth'e Analysis and Error Analysis
'm)rs thru1 recc-pti\'e ones. Analysis of productive errors is based on

k,m1~'rs · uttenmces. but to investigate receptive errors, one needs to
l\X)k at pe pie's reactions to orders, requests. compliments, and the
hkC'. The \HlY a listener behaves can give us some clues as to whether
~ h~ has understood the message or not. " If a person responds I am
n' c:·h·e to a question like fVhat 's your name? it can be assumed that
she did not understand the content of the question" (Corder, 1973, p.
~6~) . However. there are different ways in which receptive behavior
operates. some of which are culture-specific. The response 1 am twelve
may also illustrate the interlocutor's refusal to give his or her name.
The investigator's interpretation in a situation like this is not black and
white. A strange or unexpected response or reaction on the part of the
interlocutor is not necessarily evidence that s/he has misunderstood
the speaker' s intentions.
4.3 Errors versus Mistakes

A distinction has been made between errors and mistakes. Errors are
considered to be systematic, governed by rule, and appear because a
learner's knowledge of the rules of the target language is incomplete.
Thus, they are indicative of the learner's linguistic system at a given
stage of language learning. They are likely to occur repeatedly and not
recognized by the learner. Thus, only the teacher or researcher can
locate them (Gass & Selinker, 1993). Systematic errors reveal
something about the learner's underlying knowledge of the target
language to date, i.e., his transitional competence.
Errors are regarded as rule-governed since they follow the rules of
the Ieamer's interlanguage (for a discussion on inter/anguage see
Chapter 5). For instance, a Persian-speaking Ieamer of English who
makes frequent use of subject-verb inversion in indirect questions
(e.g. • I don't know where does he live) does, in fact, follow the
grammar of his interlanguage which allows the use of such structures
at that particular stage of development.
Chapter 4- Error Analysis 61
In contrast to errors, mistakes are random deviations, unrelated to

any system, and instead representing the same types of performance
mistakes that might occur in the speech or writing of native speakers,
such as slips of the tongue or pen, false starts, lack of subject-verb
agreement in a long complicated sentence, and the like.
A common type of performance mistakes is referred to as
spoonerism after the name of an eminent dean of Oxford University,
William A. Spooner, who often changed initial consonants around
when he spoke. For example, instead of You have missed all my
histOIJ' lectures he once said, complainingly, to a student who had
been absent from his classes, You have hissed all my mystery lectures.
Besides slips of the tongue and slips of the pen another type of slip,
namely slips of the ear have been mentioned by Yule ( 1988) which
may provide some clues to how the brain tries to make sense of the
auditory signal it receives. This kind of slip can result, for example, in
our hearing great ape for gray tape.
Mistakes, which are due to non-linguistic factors such as fatigue,
strong emotions, memory limitations, lack of concentration, etc., are
typically random and can be corrected by the language user if brought
to his attention. Corder (1973) seems to be right in assuming that
native speakers and second language learners are subject to similar
external conditions (i.e., memory lapses, tiredness, etc.) when using
first or second language, respectively. However, Corder appears to
have overlooked the fact that the effect of such non-linguistic factors
on first and second language users is not the same. Anyone who has
attempted to express himself in a second or foreign language under
such conditions would agree that he could have performed far more
effectively in his native language.
Distinguishing between learner's errors and mistakes has always
been problematic for teachers and researchers. Nevertheless, a general
criterion adopted by most error analysts for distinguishing between
errors and mistakes is the frequency of occurrence. That is, errors
which have a rather low frequency are considered as mistakes or
perfonnance errors and those with high frequency as systematic
errors. However. it does not seem legitimate to consider frequency

alone as the sole criterion for differentiating between an error and a
mistake; low frequency of certain errors may. indeed, be due to low
frequency of gratnmatical pattem(s) involved, or avoidance strategy
employed by the learner (for a detailed discussion of avoidance see
Schachter. 1974; and Kleinmann, 1977). It is suggested here that we
should also consider the possible casual factors of the learner's
deviant structures as a n1eans of distinguishing between errors and
mistakes. For instance, let us assume that in the analysis of errors
produced by Persian-speaking learners of English we come across
utterances such as This is the man whom I talked about him yesterday,
which have low frequency of occurrence in a given corpus of data. In
such cases we should not hastily label such errors as mistakes on the
basis of their low frequency alone. In fact, if we examine the cause of
such errors (which is mother tongue interference) we come to realize
that they are, indeed, systematic as they are rule-governed and reflect
the learner's transitional competence. This seems to suggest that while
high frequency can be considered as a characteristic of errors and not
mistakes, low frequency does not necessarily reflect the existence of
mistakes. Thus, systematic errors should be defined as those which are
rule-governed and recur consistently in the performance of learners,
i.e. they reflect features of learner's interlanguage consistently. James
( 1998) also proposes the criterion of self-correctabi/ity. That is,
mistakes can be corrected by the learners if their attention were drawn
to them, but errors cannot be self-corrected.
4.4 Significance of Errors

Many scholars in the field of error analysis have stressed the
significance of second-language learners' errors. Pit Corder, for
instance, in his influential article (1967), remarks that
. . . they are significant in three different ways. First to the
teacher, in that they tell him, if he undertakes a systematic
analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has progressed
and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. St!cond, they
provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned

or acquired, and what strategies or procedures the learner is
employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, they are
indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the
making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It
is a way the learner has for testing his hypotheses about the
nature of the language he is learning. (Corder, 1967, p. 167,
reprinted in Corder, 1982, p.l 0).
Corder's views in this regard have been reiterated in the literature.

Richards ( 1971 ), for example, remarks that errors are significant and
of interest to:
1. Linguists, because as Chomsky suggests, the study of human
language is the most fruitful way of discovering what
constitutes human intelligence.
2. Psycholinguists, because by looking at children's speech and
comparing it with adult speech, they have been able to
examine the nature of the mental processes that seem to be
involved in language.
3. Teachers, because by analyzing learners' errors they would
be able to discover their difficulties and devise a method for
comparing them.
4.S Branches and Uses of Error Analysis

The field of error analysis can be divided into two branches: (i)
theoretical, and (ii) applied. Theoretical error analysis, as stated
above, is primarily concerned with the processes and strategies of
second-language learning and its possible similarities with frrst-
language acquisition. In this sense, error analysis is one of the central
activities in the psycho linguistic investigation of language learning. In
other words, it seeks to throw light on the nature of language learning
in general, i.e., what is going on in the mind when people learn
languages.
True language learning is a process that necessarily involves errors.

As learners are exposed to samples of the target language, they form
hypotheses about it. Frequently, the initial hypotheses are inadequate,
failing to recognize the limits of a particular rule or the exceptions to
the rule. Thus, the study of errors made by foreign language learners
reveals much about the process of language learning and the factors
that affect this process.
Another theoretical implication of error analysis is to infer that
language learners use strategies in dealing with the second language,
e.g., overgeneralization and simplification strategies (For the
definition and examples of such strategies see Chapter 8 of the present
book, and for a detailed study of second-language learning strategies
see Chesterfield & Chesterfield, 1985).
Yet another objective of theoretical error analysis is to contribute to
the notion of universality. As Corder ( 1973) points out, the study of
the learning of second languages, similar to child language studies and
general linguistic studies, has the object of discovering universals. The
study of errors, then, is part of the psycholinguistic search for the
universal processes of second language learning. Two major questions
dealt with in this respect are: (a) Do speakers of the same mother
tongue learning a second language all follow the same course of
development, and (b) Is there an internal syllabus for learning a
second language which would represent the psychologically natural
route between mother tongue and the target language. Psychologists
believe that such a route is determined by the inherent cognitive
properties of the human mind, but conditioned by the particular
properties of the two languages involved.
The objective of applied error analysis, on the other hand, is purely
pragmatic and pedagogical such as organizing remedial courses and
devising appropriate materials and strategies of teaching based on the
findings of error analysis. It is worth pointing out that long before the
theoretical dimension of error analysis came into existence, learners'
errors were identified and classified by classroom teachers in an
Chapter 4- Error Analysis 65
attempt to deal with their practical needs and to dev ise appropriate
materials and techniques of teaching.
EA movement can be characterized as an at1etnpt to account for
learner errors that could not be explained or predicted by CA or
behaviorist theory, and in this respect it has been quite successful. As
Fallahi ( 1991 ) says, "in an ESL environment, error analysis can have
greater value and usefulness than contrastive analysis, since the
pedagogical value of the latter downplays under such environment"
(p. 25). Also according to Johanson ( 1975), error analysis is the best
tool for describing and explaining errors made by second or foreign
language learners. Error analysis has made a significant contribution
to the theoretical consciousness-raising of applied linguists and
language practitioners. It has brought the tnultiple origins of learners '
errors to our attention.
Sridhar ( 1981 , pp. 221-2) lists the goals of applied error analysis as
follows:
(i) determining the sequence of the presentation of target
language items in textbooks and classrooms, with the
difficult items following the easier ones;
(ii) deciding the relative degree of emphasis, explanation, and
practice required in putting across various items in the
target language;
(iii) devising remedial lessons and exercises; and finally
(iv) selecting items for testing the learner's proficiency.
In so far as methodology is concerned, theoretical and applied error

analyses share the basic procedures of identification of errors and their
classification into different linguistic categories. However, at this
point, the two branches of error analysis diverge from each other.
While the applied error analyst attempts to find a therapy for the
learners' difficulties in the target language by devising remedial
materials, the goal of the theoretical error analyst is to address himself
to the psychological reality of errors. That is, he attempts to explain

why and how errors occur. Such an attempt will bring the analyst face-
to-face with the causes of errors. However, it needs to be pointed out
that explanations with regard to the causes of errors are largely based
on speculation for it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to read
the mind of the learner. Nevertheless, this should not dissuade the
analyst from trying to make correct interpretations of the learner's
intended meaning in order to arrive at a plausible explanation with
regard to the nature and possible sources of errors.
Thus, Error Analysis proves useful both at the theoretical and
practical levels. Apart from its intrinsic validity as an effective
instrument for research in second-language acquisition, error analysis
can be of great help to the syllabus designer, classroom teacher and
the test maker. The insights gained from error analysis with regard to
the processes and strategies of second-language learning provides
valuable information for devising appropriate materials, effective
teaching techniques and constructing tests suitable for different groups
of learners at different levels of instruction.
4.6 Types of Errors Representing Stages of Second Language

Development
Learners go through different stages of language learning with each
stage having certain characteristics. Relying on the findings of other
researchers, particularly a model offered by Corder (1973, pp. 270-2)
and based on observations of what the learner does in terms of errors
alone, Brown (2000, pp. 227-28) proposes four stages of interlanguage
development as follows:
The first is a stage of random errors, a stage which Corder calls
presystematic in which the learner is only vaguely aware that there is
some systematic order to a particular class of items. The erroneous
sentence, The different city is another one in the another two, surely
comes out of a random error stage in which the learner is making
rather wild guesses at what to write. Inconsistencies like John cans
sing, John can to sing, and John can singing said by the same learner
within a short period of time, might indicate a stage of
experimentation and inaccurate guessing.
The second, or emergent, stage of interlanguage finds the learner
growing in consistency in linguistic production. The learner has begun
to discern a system and to internalize certain rules. These rules may
not be correct by target language standards, but they are nevertheless
legitimate in the mind of the learner. Generally, the learner at this
stage is still unable to correct errors when they are pointed out to him
by someone else. A voidance of structures and topics is typical.
Consider the following conversation between a learner (L) and a
native speaker (NS) of English:
L: I go New York.
NS: You are going to New York?
L: (doesn't understand) what?
NS: You will go to New York?
L: Yes.
NS: When?
L: 1972
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972.
L: Yes, I go 1972.
The third stage is truly systeltllltic in the sense that the Ieamer is
able to manifest more consistency in producing the second Language.
While those rules inside the head of the learner are still not all well
formed, they are more closely approximating the target language
system. The most salient difference between the second and third
stage is the ability of learners to correct their errors when they are
pointed out, even very subtly, to them. Consider the English learner
who described a popular fishing-resort area:
L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the
restaurants near the lake.
NS: (laughing) The fish are serving?
L: (laughing) Oh, no, the fish are served in the restaurant.
A final stage, which Brown (2000) cal1s the stabilization stage in

the development of interlanguage systems, is similar to what Corder
(1973) calls a postsystematic stage. In this stage, the learner has
relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that
fluency and intended meaning are not problematic. This fourth stage is
characterized by the learner's ability to self-correct. The system is
complete enough that attention can be paid to those few errors that
occur and corrections be made without waiting for feedback from
someone else.
As Brown (2000) rightly points out, these stages of systematicity
do not describe a learner's total second language system. We would
fmd it hard to assert, for example, that a learner is in an emergent
stage, globally, for all linguistic subsystems of language. One may be
in a second stage with respect to, say, the perfect-tense system, and in
the third or fourth stage when it comes to simple present and past
tense. Nor do these stages, whish are based on error analysis,
adequately account for sociolinguistic, functional, or nonverbal
strategies, all of which are important in assessing the total competence
of the second language Ieamer.

1. How did the Behaviorist Psychologists vtew second language
acquisition?
2. What was the main cause of difficulty for second language
learners according to Structural Linguistics and Contrastive
Analysis?
3. How can learners benefit from their own errors?
4. What are the three main bases of Error Analysis?
5. What is the main difference between receptive and productive

errors?
6. What are the main features of the emergent stage of second-

language development?
7. What is the day-to-day value of errors for the teacher?
8. What are the differences between systematic and post-systematic

stages of second-language development?
Part II. Write E for errors and M for mistakes in front of the
following statements and/or erroneous sentences, as appropriate .
. . . . . . I. They show the Ieamer's linguistic competence.
... ... 2. They arc due to non-linguistic factors .
.. .. .. 3. They arc rule-governed .
.. .. .. 4. They are due to memory limitations .
.. .. . . 5. May I sew you to your sheet, Madam? (instead of ' May I

show you to another seat, Madam?')
..... . 6. That's the man I was talking about him. (instead of 'That's the
man I was talking about.')
Chapter 5 - Hypotheses about Second-Language ... 71
Chapter 5
Hypotheses about Second-Language Learner's
Language
Important terms and concepts used in this chapter:

Learning Processes
Fossilization
Backsliding
Interlanguage
Approximative Systems
Overtly Idiosyncratic
Covertly Idiosyncratic
Latent Psychological Structure
S.l Introduction
Following the discovery of the weaknesses of Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis and the emergence of Error Analysis, attempts were made
to develop an understanding of the processes of second language
learning. Emphasis was shifted from studying and analyzing the
systems of the native and target languages to the analysis of the
learner's language which began to be seen as a phenomenon to be
studied in its own right. In order to describe the learner's language,
three hypotheses have been proposed by specialists in the field. These
will be briefly described below.
5.2 The Interlanguage Hypothesis

As stated earlier, with growing interest in EA in the late 60s and early
70s, the second-language Ieamer's errors gained unprecedented
prominence and became the subject of rigorous investigation in their
own right. Alongside this extended domain of EA, a revolutionary
concept developed in the study of second-language learner's language
which is commonly referred to as interlanguage, a language which is
between two languages (the source and the target language). The tenn
interlanguage was coined by Selinker in 1969 and elaborated on in
1972 in an influential paper bearing the title interlanguage to refer to
the language-learner's language as a separate linguistic system based
on the observable output which results from a learner's attempted
production of TL norms. Selinker put forward five processes as being
central to second language learning: (a) language transfer, (b)
overgeneralization, (c) transfer of training, (d) second-language
learning strategies, and (e) second-language communication strategies.
(For more on these see Chapter 8).
The interlanguage hypothesis claims that learner languages are
different from both the native and TL systems in one way or another
while at the same time having features in common with both. The
following diagram, borrowed from Krzeszowski ( 1985, p. 77),
illustrates the mutual relations between the source language, the target
language, the interlanguage, and the processes which are involved in
the formation of interlanguage.
Chapter S - Hypotheses about Second-Language ... 73
Transfer of Training from TL
_/\-----,
"-..----' Target
Source Interlanguage
language Language
<.------'
Transfer from the Overgeneralization
Source language ofTL Rules
Strategies of Strategies of
Communication TL learning
Diagram 5.1
The Interlanguage
As the diagram shows, transer from the source language, transfer of

training from the TL, and overgeneralizations are horizontal processes
which influence the form of the interlanguage. The other two
processes cannot be handled in terms of any horizontal description
since they do not involve any transfer either from the source or from
the TL.
According to McLaughlin ( 1987), "the term inter/anguage means
two things: (l) the learner's system at a single point in time, and (2)
the range of interlocking systems that characterizes the development
of learner's language over time" (p. 60).
The proponents of this theory maintain that the language-learner's
language should be studied in its own right. Researchers within the
Generative Transfonnational tradition, too, have reiterated this
position (see White, 2003 for a review). These researchers have shown
that L2 learners may arrive at representations which account for the
L2 input, though not in the same way as in the case of a native
speaker. Some of the salient characteristics of interlanguages are as
follows.
An important feature of interlanguages is that they are assumed to

be systematic, i.e., they incorporate a system of linguistic rules which
can generate novel utterances different, in structure, from both the
form of utterances in the native language of the learner and from those
in the target language.
Another characteristic of interlanguage systems is that they are
typically reduced systems, compared to native language systems, both
with regard to the number and complexity of rules and the number of
words they contain.
A third feature of interlanguages, which they share with native
languages is that they are assumed to be systematically variable. That
is, learners vary their performance systematically, though not in the
sense of using stylistic variants like native speakers, but regressing at
times to previous stages of learning in more informal situations.
Yet another interesting mechanism in interlanguage systems is
fossilization. Fossilizations refer to the linguistic forms in the
performance of a second-language learner that do not conform to TL
norms even after years of instruction in and exposure to the standard
form of the TL. In other words, fossilizations or fossilizable items are
the permanent characteristics of interlanguages.
Selinker maintains that fossilizable materials can be traced to one
or a combination of the following sources: (a) the learner's MT, (b)
training procedures, (c) the learner's approach to the instructional
materials, (d) The learner's approach to communicating with native
speakers, and (e) overgeneralization of TL rules.
Fossilization also includes those aspects of the interlanguage which
do not appear in the learner's linguistic productions under normal
conditions, but are produced when the learner is forced to deal with
very difficult materials (e.g., oral or written examinations), when he is
in a state of anxiety, or when he is extremely relaxed. This
phenomenon is referred to as backsliding, i.e., the reappearance of
fossilized features of a learner language under certain conditions.
Chapter 5- Hypotheses about Second-Language ... 75
Proponents of the Interlanguage Hypothesis believe that the data

they offer support universal language processing strategies.
Interlanguage hypothesis is also claimed to have certain implications
for describing special language types such as pidgins, non-standard
dialects, non-native varieties of a language, immigrant speech, and the
like
5.3 The Approximative Systems Hypothesis

Closely related to the lnterlanguage Hypothesis is the Approximative
Systems Hypothesis introduced by Nemser ( 1971 ). This hypothesis
emphasizes the developmental nature of the learner's language since
with the addition of new elements the Ieamer's linguistic system is
continually being modified and developed. According to Nemser, the
acquisition of a second language involves systematic stages with an
approximative system at each stage. These approximative systems are
internally structured and are distinct from both the source and the
target languages. They are by definition transient and are gradually
restructured in successive stages.
According to this hypothesis, there are a series of systems,
unknown in number, which range from minimal knowledge of the
second language to the knowledge approximating that of a native
speaker of the second language.
The proponents of the Approximative System Hypothesis maintain
that the learner's language is directional, evolving in successive
stages. In other words, a second language learner goes through
different stages (i.e., develops different interlanguages) with each
stage gradually approximating the target language. This is illustrated
below.
Native Language
j}
Approximative Systemt
n
Approximative System2
J}
Approximative System3
J}
Approximative SystemN
J}
Target Language
The main difference between the approximative system hypothesis

and the interlanguage hypothesis is that the latter emphasizes the
structurally intermediate status of the learner's language system
between mother tongue and target language, while the former
emphasizes the transitional and dynamic nature of the system in
successive stages of development.
5.4 The Idiosyncratic Dialect

The Ieamer' s language is referred to by Pit Corder (1971) as
idiosyncratic dialect to emphasize the idea that the learner's language
is unique to a particular individual and the grammar of this language is
peculiar to that individual alone. Corder maintains that idiosyncratic
dialects are regular, systematic, meaningful, and unstable. Corder
further explains that the language of the second-language learner is
not the only kind of idiosyncratic dialect. One class of idiosyncratic
dialects is the language of poems, where parts can be deliberately
deviant; another is the speech of an aphasic, which categorizes as
pathologically deviant. A third class of idiosyncratic dialects is that of
an infant learning his mother tongue. However, the idiosyncratic
Chapter S- Hypotheses about Second-Language ... 77
dialect of the second-language learner differs from the rest in that it

shares features of not one but two languages, the native language and
the target language while maintaining some of its own. That is, some
of the rules and characteristics are idiosyncratic (are unique to a
particular individual). This is illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 5.2
The Idiosyncratic Dialect
Source: Corder, 1971 , reprinted in Schumann and Stenson, 1974, p. l 03)
Corder further claims that every sentence produced by the second
1anguage learner is to be regarded as idiosyncratic until shown
otherwise. A learner's sentence, therefore, may be superficially well-
formed and yet idiosyncratic. Corder suggests that the interpretation of
the learner's utterances is to be done by reconstructing the correct
utterance of the TL (what a native speaker of the TL would have said
to express the Ieamer's intended meaning in a given context) and then
matching the erroneous utterance with its equivalent in the learner's
native language. Of course, Corder is aware of the fact that the
idiosyncratic nature of the Ieamer's dialect cannot be explained solely
in terms of his mother tongue; it may as well be related to how and
what he has been taught as well as many other sources.
Thus, Corder's notion of idiosyncratic dialects, Nemser's concept
of approximative systems, and Selinker's theory of interlanguage
hypothesis have brought new dimensions to the study of second-
language learners' errors. According to these new notions, the study of
learner's language system involves an analysis of:
(i) the learner's NL utterances,
(ii) the learner's IL or idiosyncratic utterances, and
(iii) utterances produced by native speakers of the TL, i.e., the

target language norms.
Such an approach to the study of errors seems essential in order to
explain the learner's language system at a given stage of development.
And learners ' errors are significant in this regard as they are evidence
of this system.

l. What are the differences between lnterlanguage and
Approximative System Hypotheses?
2. Wbjch hypothesis is associated with fossilization?
3. What processes are central to second language learning?
4. Explain how learner languages are different from native and target
languages.
5. What are the characteristics of the Approximative System
Hypothesis?
6. What are the sources of fossilizable materials?
Part II. Complete tbe following sentences.

(a) Corder lists three different kinds of idiosyncratic dialects: (1) the
language of .. ..... ... . ., (2) ............ , which is the result of brain
damage, and (3) .......... .... .
(b) The ........ .... . hypothesis is concerned with the learner's language
system between his mother tongue and target language while
. .. ... . .. ... .. hypothesis regards the ............ nature of the language.
(c) The three ........... discussed in this chapter show that the study of
a learner's language .... ........ is based on the analysis of ........ . .
( 'h•pt('r 6 _ Terhnlques 11 nd Procedures for Doing Error Analysis 79
Chapter 6
Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis

Natural Spontaneous Data
Error ldcnti tication
Error Interpretation
Grammaticality
Authoritative Interpretation
Plausible Interpretation
Authoritative Reconstruction
Plausible Reconstruction
Ambiguous Utterances
6.1 Introduction
Having dealt with the theoretical aspects of Error Analysis in Chapters
4 and 5, this chapter is devoted to the practical aspects of Error
Analysis. First, different types of data-collecting procedures will be
presented. Then, the methodology for the identification and
interpretation of errors will be discussed.
6.2 Data-collecting Procedures

Having adequate data is essential for any error analysis. The choice of
appropriate procedures for collecting data is, in fact, one of the crucial
steps in the investigation of the learner's language. The job of such
procedures is either (a) to provoke a language learner into producing a
linguistic response using the grammar of his interlanguage; or (b) to
examine his intuition regarding the grammaticality of an utterance

presented to him. The choice of elicitation procedure is by and large
dependent upon the overall objective of the interlanguage study in
hand and the type of data required.
There are basicalJy two types of data-collecting procedures: (a)
spontaneous, and (b) elicited, each of which can be used for both
spoken and written data. These are presented below.
6.2.1 Spontaneous procedures

For collecting spontaneous (unplanned) data from spoken language,
unmonitored conversation and interview are used, and for collecting
spontaneous data from written language free composition and
examination papers can be used where the learner's attention is
focused on the content rather the form of what he wants to say or
write. For collecting natural spontaneous data a variety of topics
should be used. These include personal information, future plans,
religious, social, and political issues, and the like. A spontaneous
conversation calls for considerable flexibility in what the learner talks
about. As Domyei (20 10) says, " ... the intention is to create a relaxed
atmosphere in which the respondent may reveal more than he/she
would in formal contexts" (p.l35-6). However, certain types of
questions tend to naturally elicit conversation more readily than
others. Following are some types of questions that can help obtain free
conversational data.
1. Questions that must be answered by conversation rather than
yes-no answers, such as questions that elicit narratives or
descriptive accounts, e.g., Tell me how you spent your
summer holiday.
2. Questions about the learner's interests and hobbies. Here the
researcher can ask general questions, such as: What's your
hobby? How do you spend your spare time?, or alternatively
he may start with a yes-no question and then if the answer is
Chapter 6- Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis 81
positive he may ask the learner to elaborate on the subject.

An example of this would be:
Researcher: Do you play football?
Learner: Yes.
Researcher: How often?
Leamer: Once a week.
Researcher: I don't know much about football. Could you
tell me how it is played and what the rules of the game are?
Since such questions relate to the learner's interests and
hobbies they can elicit long and animated accounts.
Asking the learner to describe one of his favorite television
programs would be another example of specific questions in
this respect.
3. Questions about the learner's future plans and aspirations,
e.g., What are you planning to do after you are finished with
your studies?
6.2.2 Elicited Procedures

Some of the most common types of elicited procedures are presented
below.
Translation
Since some speakers are reflective and reserved (Palladino, Poli &
Galoriecle, 1997; Brown, 2000) and they use only what they are sure
that they know in speaking the target language, we cannot easily
compare the errors made by different speakers. For this reason,
controlling the elicitation of specific grammatical constructions from
foreign speakers of English is extremely difficult. In order to
overcome this methodological problem, Corder (1974) has suggested
an elicitation procedure which requires direct translation from the
native language to the target language. Although it may be argued that
a translation test may encourage mother tongue influence, it has

proven successful as an elicitation method in studies conducted at
Edinburgh and elsewhere {Taylor, 1975).
The translation technique has several advantages. First of all, it
forces the subject to attempt to produce the structure under
investigation. Secondly, it assures the researcher that the subject
understands the semantics of the structure he is required to produce.
Moreover, by forcing a subject to produce a structure which has not
been completely mastered, the researcher can gain insights into how
the subject understands the language to operate and how he/she
organizes new syntactic constructions in his/her interlanguage.
Translation tests are of two kinds: (a) oral, and (b) written. In oral
translation, the subjects hear sentences in their native language and
are asked to write the translation of each sentence in the target
language. In written translation, on the other hand, the subjects are
required to translate either individual sentences or a reading passage
containing the structures to be investigated. Oral translation has an
advantage over the written one in that the use of immediate translation
in the former requires an immediate frrst impression response and also
limits the time the subjects have to reflect on the problem. The
responses in both versions should be in writing since a written
response is easier to evaluate than an oral one.
Multiple-Choice Test
Traditionally, a multiple-choice item consists of an incomplete
sentence followed by three or more choices, one of which is the
correct response and the others are distracters. It is proposed here,
however, that certain modifications should be made in a multiple-
choice technique which is used for eliciting data from second-
language learners. That is, it must differ from the conventional
multiple-choice tests in two respects, as follows.
( l) It should be free from the restrictions usually intrinsic in the latter,
namely the assumption by the test constructor that one, and only
one, choice is correct. In the multiple-choice technique which is

used for error analysis purposes, the subjects should be given the
opportunity to provide their own responses (in a blank choice
designed specifically for this purpose) besides the ones included in
the alternatives. This is based on the assumption that the subjects'
interlanguage grammar can generate structures which the
researcher might not have been aware of.
(2) The distracters should be chosen from the common errors of the
subjects, if these are available.
6.3 Methodology for the Identification and Interpretation of

Errors
One of the common difficulties in understanding the linguistic
systems of language learners is the fact that such systems cannot be
directly observed. They must be inferred by means of analyzing
production and comprehension data. What makes the task even more
difficult is the unstable and changing nature of learners' systems. That
is, when new information flows in it causes the existing structures of
the interlanguage to be revised. Thus, in undertaking the task of
performance analysis, the teacher and researcher are expected to infer
order and logic in this unstable and variable system.
According to Ellis (1997), the initial step for the analysis of errors
requires the selection of a corpus of language followed by the
identification of errors. The errors are then classified. The next step,
after giving a grammatical analysis of each error, demands an
explanation of different types of errors.
Corder's (1973) views on data collection and analysis are
summarized below. Corder maintains that the analysis of collected
data involves several stages. The frrst stage in the technical process of
describing the linguistic nature of errors is to detect and identify them.
The difficulty in doing this lies in the fact that what looks or sounds a
perfectly acceptable sentence may, nevertheless, contain errors. Of
course, in many cases the sentence is not acceptable, i.e., the native
84 Contra~tive Analysis and Error Analysis
speakers would not accept it as grammatical and then we know that it

IS erroneous. Such utterances, which are unquestionably
ungrammatical at the sentence level, are called overtly erroneous.
Those which are erroneous, but not overtly so, are called covertly
erroneous: sentences which are grammatically well-formed at the
sentence level, but they are not interpretable in the context in which
they occur. For example, ' Fine, thanks' is grammatical and correct at
the sentence level, but not when it is used in answer to ' Who are
you?'.
In general, it is easier to detect productive errors, i.e., errors which
occur in the speech or writing of second language learners as opposed
to errors in the receptive skills: reading and listening comprehension.
This is because productive linguistic behavior is easily recordable;
whereas, receptive behavior is not. The hearer does not always
demonstrate unambiguously that he has understood fully what we say.
ln this case, the researcher or teacher should ask the learner further
questions to check his comprehension. The use of the mother tongue is
also recommended here.
The next step in the linguistic analysis of the collected data is to
interpret what the learner has intended to say and to reconstruct his
sentence in the target language. There are basically two types of
interpretations: (a) authoritative, and (b) plausible.
If we cannot interpret and describe a learner's errors and if we have
access to the Ieamer we can ask him to express his intention in his
mother tongue, and then translate his sentence into the target
language. This is called an authoritative interpretation and an
authoritative reconstruction of his sentence in an acceptable form.
Also when we can tell with certainty that the Ieamer's production of
the target language is erroneous our statement is authoritative.
However, when the Ieamer is not available we have to do the best we
can to infer what he intended to say from his utterance, its context and
whatever we know about his knowledge of the target language. This is
called a plausible interpretation and the corresponding reconstruction
is only a plausible reconstruction.
In some cases, the Ieamer's utterance might be ambiguous, i.e.,

more than one plausible interpretation is possible. This obviously
presents a problem of interpretation and linguistic description. Corder
suggests that such ambiguous utterances should be set aside.
However, I believe that some ambiguous utterances can be clarified
through making reference to the learner's mother tongue, if known to
the researcher, since a good number of errors are typically based on
the construction of the learner's mother tongue. Such errors always
appear ambiguous to a researcher who does not know the native
language of the learner.
In any case, whether our interpretation is authoritative or merely
plausible, we finish up with an erroneous utterance paired with a
reconstruction of it in the target language. These paired sentences
constitute the data for error analysis. The following figure, proposed
by Corder ( 1971 ), can serve as a guide for the identification and
interpretation of the data for error analysis.
-·-"'
"'
iii'->
A
~"
8
.. IN -+I Is sentence Does the nonnal ..
E -
YES YES illlii ~
~
..
e superficially well-
formed in tenus of the
interpretation according to
the rules of the TL make
Sentence is not
idiosyncratic
-
~
N
N
ci.
grammar of TL? sense in the contex1?
-==
•r.f. §
·-""' N
-
"
=
~
fl'l
iii'->
;
~
=
r
a:l
·-..
~
>
Sentence is ovenly idiosy ncratic. Sentence is covertlv idiosyncratic.
E
c
~.'0
(); ..
.a ·~
.5
~
-.."=
tr) .5
"' Can a plausible Make well-fonned Compare reconstructed sentence with f f g it
interpretation be put on YES reconstruction of original idiosyncratic sentence. State in = c ·-~ cr::
·- ..o.tcO\
e OUT
--2 oe'-
~ =-
~
u the sentence in context? the se111ence in what respect did rules for accounting for
target context orieinal and reconstructed sentence differ? '- "'"
= .. -b
:& Q,
·.: "2
G 5 8
Is mother tongue of Translate sentence literally into Translate L I sentence back
-=
·- s
the learner known?
YES
L 1. ls plausible interpretation
YES
into TL to provide -2 ~
~ "0
in context possible? reconstructed sentence. f ~
i g
Hold sentence in
.. e
~
A.
store.
OUT 3
\C
QC

1. What are the two main types of data collecting procedures?
2. What are the common procedures for collecting spontaneous data
from written language?
3. What are some of the common topics used for collecting natural
spontaneous data?
4. Why can't we easily compare errors made by different learners?
5. What are the advantages of the translation technique?
6. How are multiple-choice tests used for error analysis purposes
different from conventional multiple-choice tests?
7. What are the differences between authoritative and plausible
interpretations of errors?
Part D. Complete the following paragraph using the prompts in

the box.
cause
nature
classifying
collecting
identifying
evaluating
describing
Error Analysis as a procedure used by teachers and researchers

involves: ........... samples of learner's language, ......... the errors in
the sample, . . . . . . . . . . . . these errors, .......... them according to their
......... and ....... , and .......... their seriousness.
Chapter 7 - Classification of Errors 89
Chapter 7
Classification of Errors

Linguistic Specification
Construction
Taxonomy
Permutation
Substitution
Orthography
Membership Criteria
Subcategorization
Grammaticalized Forms
7.1 Introduction
After errors are being identified, it is necessary to group them
according to their linguistic specifications. In this way, it would be
possible to build up a clear picture of the features in the target
language that might cause problems for the learners. It is crystal clear
that a well-organized and systematic linguistic taxonomy
(classification) of errors would be very helpful in assessing the nature
and the probable causes of errors.
In setting up a taxonomy of errors, linguistic features should be
grouped into different classes. There are usually two general types of
classifications: (a) category-based classification, and (b) sample-
based classification. In category-based classification, the linguist or
teacher establishes his own categorization of errors before he/she
actually stans to collect the necessary data. In doing so, he/she relies
n1ainly on hi her previous knowledge of common linguistic
ditTtculties o f a particular group of learners. An example would be
Ethenon ·s ( 1977) suggested list of headings, below:
Adjecti\'es. Adverbs. Agreement, Apostrophe, Articles, As, Be,

Can. Comparison, Conditionals, Conjunctions, Could, Direct
qu~stions. Do, Future Perfect. Gerund, Have, Indirect questions,
lnfinitive. Make. Must, Plural Problems. etc.
There are sotne problems with Etherton' s proposal. First, the headings
are just listed alphabetically without any categorization whatsoever.
The second problem with such a list is that the decision about
choosing the errors is pre-judged by the researcher, i.e. , errors will be
sorted out in terms of pre-determined error types to fill the headings.
To avoid the shortcomings of the above methodology for the
classi ficarion of errors, an alternative approach has been introduced:
the sa1nple-based categorization. In sample-based categorization, the
researcher should first collect the errors-following the procedures
presented in the previous chapter-and only after the initial
interpretation and analysis of errors should he establish an appropriate
taxonomy. ln other words, it is the nature and type of errors that
determine the categories and not the researcher's pre-determined error
types. Another advantage of this approach is that headings are not just
listed alphabetically; rather, major categories and sub-categories are
assigned according to error types.
7.2 Linguistic-Based Classification

Having presented some general remarks on establishing a linguistic
classification of errors, we may now tum to a detailed description of
the taxonomy below. In this taxonomy, four major categories of errors
are introduced namely orthographic, phonological, Jexico-semantic,
and morphological-syntactic. These categories will then be classified

into sub-categories in order to give a more detailed description of
error types. The erroneous sentences in the taxonomy are culled from
a corpus of data collected by the author. More specifically, they have
been extracted from the written assignments of lranian university
students over several years. The example sentences have been
granunaticlalized to a certain extent to make them more intelligible.
However, most of the examples may include types of errors other than
those in question.
With regard to membership criteria and the number of categories,
several revisions have been made in the original taxonomy concerning
the overlapping nature of some of the error types. Attempts have been
made to amalgamate the overlapping errors and arrive at a more
comprehensive classification. Some categories were also found to be
too broad and somewhat ambiguous and as a result needed to be sub-
classified. For instance, the category Errors in the distribution and use
of verb groups, in the original taxonomy, was further classified into
four different sub-categories.
7.2.1 Orthographic Errors

A large number of orthographic (spelling) errors are caused by the
inconsistencies of English spelling system. ln the majority of cases,
there is no one-to-one correspondence between letters of alphabet and
the sounds they represent. Typical orthographic errors are presented
below.
Sound/Letter Mismatch
An example of sound/letter mismatch is the following spelling

representations of the English sound lui:
Spelling Representation Key Words

0 to
00 too
WO two
oe shoe
u June
ue true
ou soup
U1 juice
ew threw
ough through
The second typical orthographic error is when the same spelling has
different pronunciations. For example, letter ' a' has the following
pronunciations:
Phonetic Symbol Key Words

Ire/ apple, hat, mat, wagon
/) / wash, watch, want, water, wander
Ia:! car, far, arm, farnn, star, father

/-;J/ ago, about, again, sugar, canal, dollar
lei any, many, anything, an_y_body
/):/ all, hall, ball, fall, talk, salt
III usage, village, message, passage
lei/ ate, hate, cake, taste, change, April

/e-;J/ share, stare, compare, prayer, parent
The third source of difficulty and error in English orthography is

found in many words similar in pronunciation but different in spelling
and meaning. The following pairs are good examples of such errors,
which are typically called homophones (Richards et al., 1989)
ate eight
air heir
bare bear
be bee
beat beet
berth birth
There are hundreds of such pairs in English and they cause a great
deal of confusion and difficulty for EFL learners.
Yet another problem with English orthography is the students'
ignorance of spelling rules such as the doubling of final consonants in
monosyllabic words before a suffix beginning with a vowel, such as
runner, swimmer, wrapping, etc.
7.2.2 Phonological Errors

Phonological errors are of several kinds. Four maJor types of
phonological errors are illustrated in the table below.
Phonological Errors
Lack of Certain TL Phonemes m the
Leamer's NL
Differences in Syllable Structures ofLl&L2
Spelling Pronunciation of Words
The Problem of Silent Letters
Some phonological errors are due to lack of certain target language

phonemes (vowels and consonants) in the learner's mother tongue.
For instance, the English phonemes /I/, /8/, and /0/ do not exist in
Persian. Therefore, Persian-speaking learners of English have
problems with these phonemes. For example, they may pronounce
think /8tl)k/ as /ttnk/ or then /Oen/ as /den/.
The second type of phonological errors is caused by the differences
in the syllable structures of the two languages (the TL and MT). For a
detailed discussion of the differences between English and Persian
syllable structures and errors attributed to such differences, see

Chapter 2.
The third source of making phonological errors is the spelling
pronunciation of words. That is, the learner tends to pronounce words
as they are spelled. Examples include wild /wild/, top /top/, flood
/tlud/, watched /wat.fed/.
The fourth cause of pronunciation errors, which is similar to the
third type, is the problem of silent letters. In English, certain letters are
spelled but not pronounced. This causes a great deal of problems for
EFL learners since they are likely to pronounce these silent letters. For
example, they tend to pronounce bomb as /bambi, calm as /kalm/, and
honest as /hanestl.
7 .2.3 Lexico-Semantic Errors

Lexico-semantic errors refer to errors related to the semantic
properties of lexical items, as illustrated in the following examples.
* Iran is my mother country.
*My father learned me the Koran.
* Economic problems effect our lives.
* I am working 24 o'clock each week.
* I play different exercises in the evening.
*Today we have a very speeding progress.
* The teacher said we should read hard.
* The bank where my cousin works was stolen last week.
• I always want (ask) my teacher to help me with my English.
*English is an alive language by which everyone can convey his
ideas.
• I think my tolerant for learning English is more than for learning
anything else.
C hapter 7 - Classification of Errors 95
For a detailed description and classification of texico-semantic

errors see Chapters 2 and 8.
7.2.4 Morpho-Syntactic Errors
I TYPICAL MORPHO-SYNTACTIC ERRORS I

Wrong Use of Plural Morpheme
* By learning English we can get much informations.
* Our teacher always gives good advices.
Wrong Use of Parts of Speech
* All people need food for being Uviog.
• It is naturally that everybody needs money.
Wrong Use of Tenses
Present Continuous instead of Simple Present

• I 11m going to work everyday.
* We are drinking tea after lunch everyday.
• I am going to university at 8 o'clock every morning.
• I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning.
Present Perfect instead of Simple Past
• I have visited Mashad a few years ago.
• I have graduated from high school two years ago.
• They have gone on a picnic last week.
• My father hilS been born in Shiraz.
Simple Past instead of Past Perfect

• He was angry about what his friend said.
• He asked him where he went.
*Before I arrived there they left.
Past Perfect instead of Simple Past
• Our relatives from Isfahan had come to visit us last week.
* I had enjoyed my stay in Chaloos last summer.
Past Continuous instead of Simple Past
• We were going to Ramsar every summer.
*When I was a child, I was going to school by bicycle.
Wrong Use of Tenses

Present Continuous instead of Simple Present
• I am going to work everyday.
* We are drinking tea after lunch everyday.
• I am going to university at 8 o'clock every morning.
• I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning.
Present Perfect instead of Simple Past
• I have visited Mashad a few years ago.
* I have graduated from high school two years ago.
• They have gone on a picnic last week.
*My father has been born in Shiraz.
Simple Past instead of Past Perfect
• He was angry about what his friend said.
* He asked him where he went.
*Before I arrived there they left.
Chapter 7 - C lassification of Errors 97
Past Perfect instead of Simple Past

• Our relatives from Isfahan had come to visit us last week.
* I had enjoyed my stay in Chaloos last summer.
Past Continuous instead of Simple Past
• We were going to Ramsar every summer.
* When I was a child, I was going to school by bicycle.
Wrong Sequence of Tenses

* I said I am sorry for making trouble for you.
* He said that he will come with us to the picnic
Wrong Use of Active and Passive Voice
* I employed in a college last year.
* When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died.
Wrong Word Order

* In medical course should not no matter money.
* Traffic very heavy is in Tehran.
Using It is instead of There is

*It is a difference between a sport and a game.
*It was 35 students in our classroom.
Misplacement of Adverbs
*We went last summer to the beach, but couldn't swim there.
*Because he had to work he usually was absent from classes.
Errors in the Use of Prepositions
Omission of Preposition
*If we learn English well we can teach it 0 others.
* Most 0 the people who travel abroad are businessmen.
* I usually begin my work 0 the afternoon.
* Most 0 the time I am board.
Redundant Use of Preposition
*We won't let foreign culture enter to our country.
* I like to meet people who speak in English.
* Reading foreign magazines helps to us in many ways.
* We shouldn't discuss about politics.
* We enjoyed from the sceneries of Chaloos and took many
pictures.
* When the teacher entered in the classroom the students stood
up.
Wrong Use of Prepositions

From instead of Of
* Children are afraid from dogs.
From instead of With
• The teacher was satisfied from our compositions.
In instead of On
• There is a large library in the second floor.
• In Iran people don't work in Friday.
In instead of At
• He stays in home most of the time.
With instead of Against

* Every young man should fight with Iraqis .
.To instead of In
* We arrived to Isfahan in the evening.
To instead of On
* The exam dates depend to our teachers.
At instead of In
* I have a class at the morning.
* I can' t study at my bedroom.
With instead of To
* He got married with his cousin.
Into instead of In
*He went into the bedroom without knocking at the door.
On instead of In
* On the evening of the following day we went to the cinema.
Than instead of From
• They are very different than other students.
Until instead of To
• Village boys usually walk from home until school.
For instead of To
• I wrote a letter for my brother who lives in Shiraz.
• After my work I go for shopping.
Errors in the Use of Articles
Omission of The
Before Superlative Adjectives
* Tabriz is one of 0 coldest cities in Iran.
* He is one of 0 best students in our class.
Before Restrictive Adjectives
*0 main food in our country is rice.
Before Restrictive Nouns
* I want to learn about 0 life of people in Africa.
Before nouns referring to times of day and night in a
generic sense
• I have a class in 0 morning.
• We left at three in 0 afternoon.
Before nouns made particular in textual situations
*Then I heard some crashes from 0 sitting room.
*I got up, went out and saw that 0 dog was eating some meat.
After nouns preceded by determiners such as 'some' and
modified by relative clauses
*Some of0 rice (which) we consume in Iran is imported from
India.
Before Unique Nouns

*0 president had a speech at Tehran University.
*0 weather gets very warm in summer.
Before Geographical Names

Tabbas is a city in 0 desert.
Last summer we went to 0 beach.
Redundant Use of The
*We can improve our ability in the different ways.
* The man is a social being.
Omission of AlAN
Before Professional Titles

*My brother is 0 teacher in high school.
*He comes from a rich family because his father is 0 doctor.
Before Indefinite Singular Nouns

* We can express our ideas in 0 international language.
* He couldn't speak with 0 loud voice.
Before Numerals
*I told you not to do that 0 thousand time.
Redundant Use of A/AN
Before Abstract Nouns

* He wanted to get an information about this.
* I welcomed them with a great excitement.
Before Uncountable Nouns modified by adjectives

*They received a bad news about war.
Wrong Use of Articles
The instead of AIAn before generic singular nouns

*We learn English as the second language.
* I nearly cried like the baby.
AlAn instead of The before specific definite nouns
* This is a school where I study.
Wrong Use of Active & Passive Voice

* I employed in a factory last year.
* When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died.
Wrong Use of Conditional Sentences

* If I was a doctor, I help sick people.
* I will visit Ali-Ghapoo in Isfahan, if I will go there.
Double Negation
• Reza had no money with him.
• I don't have nothing to do today.
Wrong Use of Negative Imperative

*My father ordered me don't go to the party.
* Our teacher told us don't bother your parents.
Errors in the Use of Relative Clauses & Relative Pronouns

Retention of Direct Object Pronouns
*He is the person whom I have known him for many years.
* I tried to cook a delicious food that they like it.
Retention of Subject Pronouns
* The TV programs that they have many viewers show
interesting programs.
* It was a question which it didn't have any relation with my
field of study.
Retention of Object of Preposition
* The subject that they talked about it was very interesting.
* The house where they live in it is very large.
Wrong Selection of Object of Preposition:

* Reza had two brothers which were older than him.
* It was a month ago which I received a letter from my
brother.
Subject-Verb Inversion in WH-Questions

* Where you will go after lunch?
* When you will finish your studies?
Subject-Verb Invenion in Indirect Questions

*I can't remember when did he get married.
• I don't know how did they found my address.
Wrong Use of Verb Groups

Wrong Construction of Verbs
* Main food in our country are included meat, ...
* I was stood by the door when my father arrived.
Wrong Use of Gerunds and Infinitives
• It is necessary learning the English Language.
* My work consist to teach mathematics in our school.
Wrong Use of Modals and Auxiliaries
* I would rather football to any other game.
* First I thought someone should be home.
* They don't afraid to be killed.
Errors Due to Lack of Concord or Agreement
Lack of Subject-Verb Agreement
* I often think of changes that has happened.
*My parents was born in Yazd.
Lack of Concord Within a Noun Group
* It was two hour since Ali had left his house.
* There are three clever student in this classroom.
Typical Persian Constructions

* He wasn't agreed with me.
* There is special nothing that one can do in that town.
• It was near that I started to cry like a baby.
Chapter 7 - Classiflcation of Errors 105
7.3 Process-Based Classification

Errors are sometimes classified according to their processes. Process
here means the ways through which language learners make errors.
Four main processes, which lead to erroneous constructions, have
been cited in the literature (Corder, 1973; McKeating, 1981 ; Brown,
2000), as follows.
1. Omission: Leaving out some required linguistic elements
*My father is 8 doctor.

for 'My father is a dodor'.
* I am learn 8 English well.
for 'I am learning English well'.
* I bought three new book 8 yesterday.
for 'I bought three new books yesterday'.
* What 8 you want to do now?
for 'What do you want to do now?'
As the above examples illustrate, this process usually involves the

deletion of function words (e.g. prepositions and articles), auxiliaries
(e.g. do, have), and morphemes (e.g. plural morpheme, 3rd Person
singular morpheme, past and past participle --ed).
2. Addition: Redundant use of certain elements in a sentence
* He entered into the classroom.

* They always discuss about different matters.
* Please answer to my letter soon.
* Good writing is depends on several factors.
* He was going to home when I saw him.
3. Substitution: Replacement of incorrect elements for correct ones
* I am not afraid from (of) dogs.

*He was angry from (at) his bad marks.
* His bigger (elder) brother is a teacher.
*I always do (make) many mistakes in spelling.
4. Permutation: Incorrect word order
* We last night went to the cinema.

* He comes always late to school.
* My brother is a driver careful
* I don't know why is he late.

I. What are the differences between category-based and sample-
based classifications of errors?
2. What are the main four processes of making errors?
3. What are the major linguistic categories of errors?
4. In what sense homophones are considered a source of difficulty
and errors?
5. What is spelling pronunciation and how is it considered as a
linguistic source of errors?
Cbapter 7 - Classification of Errors 107
Part II. Write the correct form of the following erroneous sentences
and mention the process of error in each one.
I. I don' t know how to use of my new computer .
. . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . ............ . .... . . ... ............ ..... .. .. . . . . . ....
( ............ .......... .. ... )
2. I bought two new book yesterday .

....... .. ........... . . . . . . .. . ............................ .. . . . . . . . . ..
( .......................... .)
3. My brother and I last night went to the cinema.

.............. ... ..................... ........................ . . . . . . .
( ..... .. ...... ............ .. )
4. Students are always afraid from final exams.

......................................................... .. . ...... .. .
( .. .........................)
Part Ill. First, correct the following sentences. Then, explain 1n

linguistic terms why they are wrong.
1. He is the man whom I talked about him.
2. He usually is absent from class.

108 Contrastive Analysis aad Error Aaalysis
3. Teachers always give us good advices.
4. My father ordered me don't go to the party.
Part IV. Read the following erroneous sentences carefully. Tick P for
Permutation, A for Addition,..S. for Substitution and 0 for Omission.
p A s 0
1. I want to be teacher when I finish my studies.
2. He always attends in the meeting late.
3. I'm not interested in discussing about politics.
4. You can ask from your parents to help you.
5. The teacher explained to us how to write letters.
6. I studied English yesterday all day.
7. I don't need to anybody's help in my studies.
8. You should carefully drive in Tehran.
9. Children are always afraid from darkness.
10. If you want to pass the exam you must to study
hard.
II . His parents were not happy from his behavior.
12. My father joined to the anny when he was 20
years old.
Chapter 7 - Classiftcadon of Errors 109
PART V. Put the letter for each of the following erroneous sentences
into the correct classification box they belong to. The first sentence is
done as an example.
a. • I think /stnk/ about my exams.

b . • I play different exercises in the evening.
c. • We have gone on a picnic last Friday.
d. * My brother is a good swimer.
e.* There are three bares in this zoo.
f. * I am working 24 o'clock each week.
g. * We practice /per~ktisl English on Mondays.

h. * It was 36 students in our classroom.
i. *Doctors try /teraii to help sick people.

j. * You should put the small baks into the big one.
k. * I always want my teacher to help me.
I. • Our teacher told us don't bother our parents.
Orthographic Erron
Phonological Erron a
Leue~mantie Erron
Syntactic-Morpbological Erron
PART VI. Read the following erroneous sentences carefully and then
choose the best possible answer.
1. * "I am saying my prayers before anything else every morning" is
an example of. .. ... ........ .... .
a. Misplacement of adverbs
b. Wrong use of negatives
c. Wrong use of tenses
d. Lack of concord within verb group
2. * "An apple a day makes the man healthy" is an example of

.... ... .. .. ..... .. .
a. Redundant us of the definite article
b. Wrong word order
c. Retention of subject pronoun
d. Wrong use of preposition
3. • "They d'dn'
1 . an examp1e o f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. horne" ts
t argue tn
a. Omission of preposition
b. Redundant use of preposition
c. Error in the use of article
d. Wrong use of preposition
4. • "Last night I was very tired that I couldn't study" is an example

of .................. .
a. Use of Persian construction
b. Wrong use of quantifiers
c. Wrong use of parts of speech

d. Wrong use of plural morpheme
5. • "It was near that I started to cry like a baby" is an example of
a. Use of plural morpheme

b. Use of Persian construction
c. Subject-verb inversion
d. Wrong use of parts of speech
6. • "I would rather football to any other game" is an example of
a. Wrong use of auxiliary

b. Omission of copula
c. Wrong use of clause complements
d. Wrong selection of relative pronouns
7. • "Every food have special taste" is an example of.................. .

a. Retention of subject pronoun
b. Wrong sequence of tenses
c. Retention of object of preposition
d. Lack of subject-verb agreement
8. • "One thing that I always think about it is ... " is an example of
a. Redundant us of definite article

b. Wrong use of non-fmite clause complement
c. Wrong use of active/passive voice

d. Retention of object of preposition
9 . • "I haven' t no work" is an example of. .. ....... ... ... .. .

b. Wrong use of negative construction
c. Wrong use of preposition
10. • "I have graduated from college tow years ago·· is an example of
a. Wrong use of preposition

b. Wrong use of tenses
c. Omission of preposition
d. Wrong use of negative imperatives
II . ...Am.1r d'dn'
1 ~ t agree me" 1s
. an examp1eo f .. ... . ..... ........ .
b. Wrong use of articles
12. *"He always tries to get best score in composition'' is an example

of ..... . .... ....... . .
a. Misplacement of adjectives
b. Wrong use of active/passive voice
c. Wrong use of clause complements

d. Omission of the definite article
13. * "When they took the soldier to the hospital he was died" is an
example of. ... .... .......... .
a. Wrong use active/passive voice
b. Wrong use of negative imperative
c. Subject-verb inversion
d. Omission of copula
14. * "In medicine should not no matter money" is an example of
a. Use of plural morpheme

b. Wrong word order
d. Wrong use of tenses
15. * "He is the person whom I have known him for many years" is an
example of.................. .
a. Wrong selection of relative clause
b. Redundant use of preposition
c. Retention of direct object pronoun
d. Lack of concord within verb group
16. * ""I can't remember when did he get married" is an example of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
a. Wrong use of subject-verb inversion
b. Wrong use of negatives
c. Retention of object of preposition
d. Wrong use of plural morpheme
17 . * "Iran IS
. my mother country" IS
. an examp1e of ............ .. ... . .
a. Syntactic-Morphological error
b. Phonological error
c. Orthographic error
d. Lexico-Semantic error
18. Homophones (like ate and eight) are examples of.... .. .. ......... . .
a. Syntactic-Morphological errors
b. Lexico-Semantic errors
c. Phonological errors
d. Orthographic errors
19. Differences in the syllable structure are examples of................. .

a. Syntactic-Morphological errors
b. Phonological errors
c. Orthographic errors
d. Lexico-Semantic errors
20. Pronouncing "bomb" as /bambi and "honest" as /hanest/ 1s an

example of..... .. ............ .. . .
a. Phonological error
b. Lexico-Semantic error
c. Syntactic-Morphological error
d. Orthographic error
21. * "Economic problems effect our lives" IS an example of
a. Orthographic error
b. Syntactic-Morphological error
c. Phonological error
d. Lexico-Semantic error
22. When there is no one to one correspondence between letters of

alphabet and sounds they represent, we are dealing with ........ . .
a. Orthographic errors
b. Syntactic-Morphological errors
c. Phonological errors
d. Lexico-Semantic errors
23. Doubling the final consonants in monosyllabic words before a

suffiX beginning with a vowel is an example of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Lexica-Semantic error
b. Orthographic error
c. Syntactic-Morphological error
d. Phonological error
Chapter 8 - Sources of Erron 117
Chapter 8
Sources of Errors

False Cognates
Overgeneralization
Cross-association
Hypercorrection
False Analogy
Faulty Categorization
Redundancy Reduction
Language Switch
Simplification
Hyperextension
Topic Avoidance
Prefabricated Patterns
8.1 Introduction
Errors have generally been attributed to cognitive causes, i.e.,
evidence of the learner's psychological process of rule formation. But,
as Widdowson ( 1991) says, ''they can also be seen as
communicatively motivated, the realization of available resources to
get a message across" (p. 111).
Long before EA was introduced as an alternative to CA, errors
(produced by second or foreign language learners) were identified and
classified into various categories to deal with practical needs of
foreign language teaching. However, these error counts were mainly

imprecise collections of common errors (see, for example, Fitikides,
1963). ln such error counts, the probable causes of errors were
ignored.
In the Contrastive Analysis tradition, too, the task of assigning
errors to their sources was not a di fficult one since the major, if not
the only, cause of errors was interference from the learner's native
language. CA, of course, did not provide any account (apart from
interference) about the
psychological reality of errors; that is, why learners
commit errors and what cognitive strategies and styles
underlie certain errors.
In Error Analysis, while interference from Ll is acknowledged as a

source of errors, it is by no means considered to be the only source for
making errors. In fact, one of the major contributions of Error
Analysis was its recognition of the sources of errors, which extend
beyond just interlingual errors in learning a second language. It is now
clear that intralingual and developmental errors play an important role
in second language learning. As Lightbown and Spada (20 10, p. 187)
assert:
The frrst language is not the only influence on second language
learning. Learners from different language backgrounds often
make the same kinds of errors, and some of these errors are
remarkably similar to those made by frrst language learners. In
such cases, second-language errors are evidence of the learners'
efforts to discover the structure of the target language itself
rather than attempts to transfer patterns from their first
language.
In the late 60s and early 70s, empirical studies emerged with the
realization that many kinds of errors, in addition to those due to
mother tongue interference, were apparent in learners' languages.
Observations by scholars such as Duskova ( 1969), Buteau ( 1970), and
Chapter 8 - Sources of Errors 119
Richards ( 1971, 1974a) initiated numerous investigations into sources

. of errors other than mother tongue interference. Richards ( 1971 ), for
instance, points out that the limitation in certain rule-learning
strategies gives rise to errors which are not caused by L 1 interference,
but by wrong application of learning strategies. The sources of these
errors are discovered within the structure of the target language itself
and some of them result from faulty teaching techniques. He calls
these types of errors intralingual and developmental.
Dulay & Burt ( 1972) categorize second language learners' errors,
or goofs in their terminology, into the following categories:
1. Interference-like Goofs: errors, which reflect the structure

of the native language and are not found in L 1 acquisition
data of the target language. For example, *Hers pajamas
produced by a Spanish child reflects Spanish structure.
2. Ll Developmental Goofs: Errors which are found in L 1
acquisition data of the target language. For example, *He
took his teeths off, produced by the Spanish learner does not
reflect Spanish structure, but it is an overgeneralization
typically produced by children acquiring English as their
first language.
3. Ambiguous Goofs: Those errors that can be categorized as
either interference-like goofs or Ll developmental goofs. For
instance, *Terina not can go can be found in both Spanish
and American children's speech.
4. Unique Goofs: These types of errors do not reflect L 1
structure, and also are not found in L 1 acquisition data of the
target language. An example would be* He name is Victor,
produced by a Spanish child, neither reflects Spanish
structure, nor is found in L 1 acquisition data in English.
Corder (1975) distinguishes three types of errors with respect to

their sources:
(a) interlingual errors, which are caused by first language
interference;
(b) intralingual errors, which are caused by the learners'
overgeneralization of particular grammatical rules; and
(c) errors which are caused by faulty teaching techniques.
To give a detailed picture of the sources of errors, a more

comprehensive taxonomy is presented below. It must be realized,
however, that some degree of overlapping is to be expected in the
categories presented and their corresponding sub-categories. This is a
common problem in establishing taxonomies. However, to clarify
possible ambiguities, all sources of errors will be furnished with
illustrative examples. It needs to be pointed out that in the majority of
cases an error might be attributed to more than one cause. Thus, the
classification here is based on the primary causes of errors. This is
because an error may primarily be attributed to one source while other
causes may also be involved.
8.2 Interlingual Errors

By definition, interlingual errors result from the transfer of
phonological, morphological, grammatical, lexico-semantic, and
stylistic elements of the learner's mother tongue to the learning of the
target language. Five different types of interlingual errors are
presented below:
1. Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1
2. Transfer of Morphological Elements
3. Transfer of Grammatical Elements
4. Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements
5. Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements
8.2.1 Transfer of Phonological Elements of L 1

An obvious case of mother tongue interference ts m the area of
pronunciation. Students tend to transfer the phonological features of
their native language to those of the target language. For example, in
Persian stress is predominantly on the fmal syllable of words (e.g. ~
srendreli 'chair') while in English the position of word stress is not so
predictable and it varies according to parts of speech and the number
of syllables in a word (see Keshavarz, 2009). Therefore, Persian-
speaking learners of English, in many cases, tend to transfer rules of
stress in their MT to English words (e.g., putting primary stress on the
final syllable of words such as dentist and alphabet instead of the frrst
syllable).
8.2.2 Transfer of Morphological Elements

Some errors are caused by the transfer of morphological features of
the mother tongue. For instance, the following erroneous sentence
results from the fact that in Persian, nouns do not agree in number
with quantifiers and consequently the plural morpheme is omitted:
* There are three clever student in our class.
8.2.3 Transfer of Grammatical Elements

As an example of transfer of grammatical elements of the mother
tongue, consider the following erroneous sentence:
*I'm going to university at 8 o'clock everyday.
This type of error is due to the fact that in Persian the present tense
and the present progressive aspect have one single syntactic
representation. Hence, Persian learners of English (mainly at
elementary and intermediate levels) usually confuse these two and use
them interchangeably. As the following pair of sentences illustrate, in
Persian it is the adverb of time /hrer ru: z/ meaning everyday in

sentence (a), and /hala/ meaning now in sentence (b), which designate
the proper tin1e of an action and not the tense or verb construction.
Thus, the verb /mirrevrem/ by itself can be used both for go and to be
going to.
(a) mren hrer ru:z be mredrrese mirrevrem.

I everyday to school am going. (Literal Translation)
I am going to school everyday. (Erroneous)
I go to school everyday. (Target Sentence)
(a) mren hala be mredrrese mirrevrem.

l now to school am going. (Literal Translation & Erroneous)
lam going to school now. (Target Sentence)
Similarly, in the following erroneous sentence, the reason for the

omission of have may be due to the fact that in Persian auxiliaries are
not needed to change a statement into an interrogative sentence; this is
done simply by changing the intonation pattern.
* I asked him, "Where you learned English so good?
8.2.4 Transfer of Lexico-Semantic Elements

Errors in this category may be divided into two sub-categories: (a)
Cross-Association, and (b) False Cognates. These will be dealt
separately below.
C hapter 8 - Sources of Errors 123
8.2.4.1 C ross-Association
Cros -association refers to cases where there arc two words in the
target l a n ~uagc for which there is only one word in the learner's
mother tongue. As a result. the learner may usc that single word in
t~vo senses in the target language, e.g.
* I can't study in the dormitory because some students open their

radios very loud.
The reason for the occurrence of this error is that in Persian the
equivalent o f open can be used for turning on electronic equipment in
addition to the more common uses of the word such as opening the
door.
* We will arrive back to Tehran after about 13 o'clock (instead of 13
hours).
This error results from the fact that in Persian the word /sa?ret/ is
used for both hour and o'clock.
* He had a quarrel with his woman.
The reason for the occurrence of this error is that in Pers ian the
word /zrenl can be used both for woman and wife .
8.2.4.2 False Cognates

A false cognate is a word, which has the same or very similar form in
two languages, but which has a different meaning in each. This
similarity may cause a second language learner to use the word
erroneously. This kind of deceptive cognate has been referred to as
false friend by Newmark (1988).
Example:
* My father bought a new machine last week.
Note that the word machine in this sentence is used because of the
influence of its cognate /rnafin/ (car) in Persian.
Similarly. the word cigar in the following sentence has been used
because of its superficial similarity with the word /sigar/ in Persian.
• He smokes a lot of cigars.
(For further details of lexical errors, see Chapter 2)
8.2.5 Transfer of Stylistic and Cultural Elements

This type of error refers to the transfer of stylistic and cultural
elements of the learner's native language and culture to the target
language. In the following erroneous examples the learner has made
use of a stylistic rule of Persian which allows the use of plural
predicate with singular subjects when a social superior-inferior
relationship exists in a speech event in order to show more respect for
the person addressed or talked about.
• Dr. Karimi are a good instructor.
• Mr. Mokhtari are our writing teacher.
Similarly, the following errors are due to the fact that in Persian,
unlike English, titles such as Mr. and Mrs. can be used before a
professional title.
• Mr. Teacher is coming.
* Mrs. Doctor examined the patient.
8.3 Intrallngual and Developmental Errors

Intralingual and developmental errors are caused by the mutual
interference of items in the target language, i.e., the influence of one
target language item upon another. For instance, a learner may
produce *He is comes, based on the blend of the English structures:
He is coming, and He comes. Such errors reflect the learner's
competence at a particular stage of second language development and
illustrate some of the general characteristics of language learning. In
fact, such errors are similar to errors produced by monolingual
children, and result from the Ieamer's attempt to build up concepts

and hypotheses about the target language from his/her limited
experience with it.
Intralingual and developmental errors are divided into six sub-
categories given below:
Overgeneral ization
Ignorance of Rule Restriction
False Analogy
Hyperextension
Hypercorrection
Faulty Categorization
These subcategories, however, are very similar to one another and
there might be only subtle differences between them. Nevertheless,
their use here is considered legitimate in order to provide a detailed
picture of the sources of errors. Now each of the above sub-categories
will be briefly discussed below.
8.3.1 Overgeneralization (Also called Over-extension and Analogy)

According to Richards et al. ( 1989), overgeneralization is a process
common in both first and second-language learning, in which a Ieamer
extends the use of a grammatical rule beyond its accepted uses. For
example, a child may use ball to refer to all round objects. Thus,
overgeneralization errors refer to the deviant structures produced by
the learner on the basis of his limited knowledge of and exposure to
other structures of the target language. For examples, in the first two
examples below, the omission of the third person singular -s seems to
have been caused by the overgeneralization of all other endingless
forms in English.
• Iran extend almost 1600 kilometers from North to South.
* He always try to help other people.
126 Contrasthre Analysis and Error Analysis
Similarly, in the two following sentences, the learner has

generalized the rule of subject-verb inversion in indirect questions
where it is not needed.
* I don't know how did they found my address.
* I can' t remember when did he get married.
8.3.2 Ignorance of Rule Restriction

This type of error is due to the learner's ignorance of the restrictions
of and exceptions to general target language rules. That is, the learner
fails to observe restrictions of target language structures. The
difference between overgeneralization and ignorance of rule
restriction is that in the latter the learner may not be overgeneralizing
as such, rather he may simply be ignorant of the rule restriction, e.g.
• There were many fishes in the lake.
* Teachers always give us good advices.
8.3.3 False Analogy

False analogy refers to the use of certain elements in inappropriate
contexts through analogy. In other words, the learner having mastered
certain elements of the target language may attempt to use those
elements in contexts where they are inappropriate. False analogy is
very similar to overgeneralization and can be considered as its sub-
type. Example:
• I think most women should remain home and grow up children.
In this erroneous sentence, the verbal expression grow up children
seems to have been produced by analogy with utterances such as
children grow up quickly.
By the same token, the following sentence indicates that the learner
is familiar with the use of the preposition into in the expression 'run
into somebody' meaning ' meet somebody accidentally' and hence by

false analogy he misused it with another verb (i.e., go) yielding an
erroneous sentence.
• He went into his father in the street, but couldn't say nothing.
8.3.4 Hyperextension
Hyperextension refers to the extension of a rule to areas where it is not
applicable. For instance, the rule that an adverb modifies a verb may
be overextended and used in cases where an adjective would nonnally
be used, as in:
• The apple smeUed freshly (instead of smelled fresh) .
Note that in the process of hyperextension the learner goes beyond
what he knows of the target language, i.e., he talks about things and
events for which he does not possess correct vocabulary items or
grammatical patterns, for example:
*My father is an employment of Melli Bank.
8.3.5 Hypercorrection
Hypercorrection is a phenomenon that normally takes place when the
speaker of a non-standard variety attempts to use the standard variety.
In this process the speaker may go too far and produce a version
which does not appear in the standard variety, such as replacing a long
/a/ with the short vowel Ire/ in words like cap, mat, etc.
Hypercorrection also occurs in second-language learning and refers
to forms which are attempted corrections, but are used erroneously.
For example:
• He doesn't afraid of anything.
Note that in the above sentence the learner has attempted to use the
correct form afraid of instead of the previously used incorrect form
afraid from, but has hyper-corrected the sentence by using doesn't

instead of isn' t.
Similarly, an Arabic learner of English who uses hapit instead of
habit in a mistaken attempt to avoid b/p substitution is clearly
producing a hypercorrection error. Hypercorrection is usually the by-
product of over-correction and over-emphasis on prescriptive rules.
For example, if a learner is over-corrected for his production of
sentences such as *You and me will go there (which according to
prescriptive grammar, should be You and I will go there), he is likely
to produce sentences such as * He told you and I, in an attempt to
correct himself.
8.3.6 Faulty Categorization

Faulty categorization refers to incorrect classification of target
language items by the learner. For example, in English, verbs are
categorized into different classes: verbs followed by bare infinitives;
those followed by gerunds, etc. However, the learner may categorize
English verbs into incorrect classes. As a result, errors such as the
following may be produced:
* I enjoy to swim.
*He didn't let me to go.
* I want learn English very soon.
8.4 Teacher-induced Errors

Teacher-induced errors (or Transfer of Training) are those which
result from pedagogical procedures contained in a text or employ by
the teacher. An induced error is an error, which has been caused by
the method in which a language item has been presented or practiced
(through teaching techniques or course design). A teacher may
unintentionally mislead his students by the way he defines a lexical
item, or by the order in which he presents teaching materials. For
example, introducing worship as a general word for pray, the

students may immediately attach to the new word the same
preposition they have already used with the familiar one, and therefore
produce utterances such as *worshiping to God. To cite another
example, look at the following sentence:
*The cat is at the table. (Instead of The cat is under the table.)
In this example, in teaching the preposition at, the teacher may
hold up a box and say: I'm looking at the box. The learners may infer
that at means under, considering the position of the teacher and the
box. Later the learners may use at for under.
Similarly, errors like *I am liking to continue my studies may be
due to overgeneralization of structures learned in pattern drills (or
transformation exercises), such as:
I write I am writing
I read I am reading
I study I am studying
8.S Language-Learning Strategies

In language learning, learning strategy is a way in which a learner
attempts to work out the meanings and uses of words, grammatical
rules, and other aspects of a language, for example by the use of
generalization and inferencing (Richards et al. 1989). There are three
main types of second-language learning strategies:
1. Overgeneralization
2. Transfer of Rules
3. Simplification
The frrst two were explained earlier. The third instance of second-
language learning strategies is simplification through which the
learner reduces the target language to a simpler system in order to
decrease the learning difficulties of the target language. Young

children also use simplification when they produce telegraphic speech.
This strategy is sometimes called redundancy reduction because
it eliminates many items, which are redundant to conveying the
intended message. For example, the omission of the verb inflection
and the article in daddy want chair does not prevent the meaning from
being understood. Here are some examples of simplification:
* I like air north of Iran.
* I am student English language.
* We look up map to situation cities.
* People in other countries have various kinds of food not same in
Iran.
Note that in the last example the subordinate relative clause which
are not the same as those in Iran has been simplified to not same in
Iran.
In error analysis studies, simplification may be contrasted with errors
which result from other processes, such as language transfer (Richards
et al. 1989).
8.6 Communication Strategies

Communication strategies are used when the learner is forced to
express himself with the limited linguistic resources available to him.
In other words, these strategies refer to the learner's tactics to bridge
the gap between his limited linguistic knowledge and his
communication needs by using elements, which are not linguistically
appropriate for the context. Nevertheless, the learner communicates,
but at the expense of grammatical accuracy. Here are some examples:
• Sorry, /late (instead of Sorry, I am late).
• a cloth for my nose (instead of handkerchief).
Chapter 8- Sources of Errors 131
* building (instead of apartment complex).
Note that in such errors, the learner is not concerned about the
ungrammaticality of the utterances he produces and only wants to
communicate.
Common communication strategies, based on Tarone ( 1981 ),
Richards et al. ( 1989), Dornyei ( 1995), and Brown (2000), are as
follows.
1. Avoidance Strategy: When speaking or wntmg a second or
foreign language, the learner will often try to avoid using a
difficult word or structure, and will use a simpler word or structure
instead. In other words, the learner avoids taking risks and uses
less difficult items. There are generally two types of avoidance:
Topic avoidance: In topic avoidance, the learner simply tries not
to talk about concepts for which the target language item or
structure is not known.
Message Abandonment: In this strategy, the learner begins to talk
about a concept, but is unable to continue and stops in mid-
utterance.
2. Language Switch: In this strategy, the learner uses native
language items in English sentences, e.g., When I went to Isfahan,
I bought some GAZ/grezJ (a kind of sweet).
3. Prefabricated Patterns: Sometimes the learner memorizes certain
stock phrases or sentences without internalized knowledge of the
components of the phrase. Tourist survival language is full of
prefabricated patterns, most of which can be found in pocket
bilingual phrase books, which list hundreds of stock sentences for
various occasions. Where is the toilet?, How much does it cost?,
and the like are the kinds of prefabricated utterances that one
sometimes learns at the beginning of a language learning
experience when the structures of the target language are not
known. Such phrases are rote-memorized to fit their appropriate

context.
4. Appeal to Authority: A common strategy of communication is
direct appeal to authority (a native speaker, a dictionary, etc.). The
learner may, if stuck for a particular word or phrase, ask a native
speaker for the correct form. Or he may verify his guess by asking
native speakers for the correctness of the attempt. He might also
choose to look up a word in a bilingual dictionary. The latter
attempt can produce some rather amusing situations. Once a
foreign student of English, when asked to introduce himself to the
class and the teacher, said, "Allow me to introduce myself and tell
you some of the •.••" at this point he quickly got out his pocket
dictionary and, finding the word he wanted, continued, " ••. some
of the HEADLIGHTS ofmy past."
It should be mentioned that errors resulting from communication
strategies are characteristic of spoken language and occur less in
written performance of the learners.

1. What was wrong with traditional error counts?
2. In what sense identifying sources of errors was not difficult in

contrastive analysis?
3. What is the difference between interlingual and intralingual errors?

4. What is redundancy reduction?
5. What are cross-association errors?
6. What are L 1 developmental goofs?
7. What are the main categories of language learning strategies?
8. What are the characteristics of teacher-induced errors?
9. What are the main types of communication strategies?
I 0. What are the differences between topic avoidance and message

abandonment?
Part II. Study the following erroneous sentences. First, reconstruct

each sentence; then, explain in linguistic terms why it is erroneous;
and finally determine to what source(s) each error can be assigned.
1. I would rather football to any other games and sport.
2. We aw a theater last night.
3. If I was a doctor I try to get better my patient.
4. Some kinds of foods is very cheap and some another is cheaper.
5. At that time I couldn ' t employed because I didn ' t have diploma.
6. Everyone has need to water because he don ' t die.
7. In each games, there are some players, who everyone of them do

different works.
8. It is difference between sport and game.
9. My parents were homed there.

l 0. There is special nothing that one do in my town.

137
Chapter 9
Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis

Contntunicativc Tasks
Spontaneous Speech
Written Discourse
Monitored Speech
Planned Discourse
Sentence Comprehensibility
Error Evaluation
9.1 Introduction
In addition to their important role in the study of language acquisition
in general and second or foreign language learning, in particular,
errors are also important in terms of different communicative tasks
learners perform and the effects their errors may have on
communicating with native speakers of the target language. These are
briefly discussed below.
9.2 Errors Related to Different Communicative Tasks

Differences are observed in performance depending on whether the
communicative task is spoken or written. Foreign language learners
tend to commit relatively more errors in spontaneous speech than in
written discourse. There tend to be various degrees of monitoring, and
its degree of accuracy, depending on the task language learners
perform and the amount of attention they pay to form (Tarone, 1983,
1985; Ellis, 1987). Even native speakers exhibit differences in

perfonnance between writing and spontaneous speech.
Compared to spontaneous speech, planned discourse allows for
greater use of language and results in fewer errors. Time seems to play
a determining role in this regard. Hulstin & Hulstin ( 1984) suggest
that poor learners need more time to produce speech material because
they have little control over their linguistic awareness. A similar
hypothesis is made by Krashen ( 1981) in his monitor theory. He
believes that the learners' monitor (i.e., their capacity for modifying
utterances by using rule they have consciously learned) operates under
three conditions: time, focus on form, and knowledge of the rule.
Learners may have more control over linguistic forms for certain
tasks, while for others they may be more prone to error. Krashen's
Monitor Model is based on this premise. Krashen ( 1981 and
elsewhere) suggests that tasks which require learners to focus on
content are more likely to produce errors than those which force them
to concentrate on form. Wenk (1986, p. 128), in his study of speech
rhythms of French learners of English, noticed that the learners could
produce target-quality vowels "in mimicry of contextualized
disyllables [words consisting of two syllables]", but they were unable
to do so when they had to "programme a connected utterance
involving numerous successions of accented and unaccented
syllables."
9.3 Native Speakers' Judgment of Learners' Errors

While earlier studies of Error Analysis concentrated on types and
frequency of errors in an effort to discover linguistic and
communication strategies of the learners, in the late seventies and
early eighties researchers began to explore the effe·ct of errors on
communication by asking native speakers to evaluate second language
learners' speech or writing samples. Gunterman ( 1978) and Politzer
( 1978) focused on oral samples, while Chastain ( 1980) and Delisle
(1982) studied written ones. Piazza (1980) contrasted reaction to oral
C hapter 9- Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis 139
and written errors. Piazza & Politzer's samples consisted of sentences

while those of Gunterman were made up of lengthier, contextualized
samples. These communicative error studies typically emphasized
phonology, semantics, and syntax as three major components in which
errors of the type mentioned were be lieved to manifest themselves.
A good proportion of communicative error studies was and is
concerned with errors in pronunciation and their e ffects on the
perception of the spoken message. Successful communication seems
to be mostly dependent on the correct pronunciation of the target
language sound system. However, in the studies conducted by Politzer
( 1978) and Ensz ( 1982) concerning the phonology of the learners'
interlanguage, it is implied that although the acquisition of accent-free
pronunciation seems to be difficult for second language learners, this
linguistic component has not been viewed as a severe barrier to
successful communication. Nevertheless, too deviant and faulty
pronunciation can lead to failure in communication. Ensz ( 1982)
reports that French listeners will accept slightly deviant pronunciation
"whereas a strong accent may bring a different reaction" (p. 134).
The degree to which errors in vocabulary use affect the
comprehensibility of learners' utterances has been studied by using
the native speakers' intuitive knowledge for judging them. Using this
approach, Chastain ( 1980) found that Spanish native speakers reacted
severely to errors in vocabulary. The incomprehensible sentences, he
noted, "contained some type of word error: wrong, extra or omitted"
(p.214). Similarly, to investigate how Gennan native speakers
comprehend and judge errors made by English learners of German,
Politzer ( 1978) asked Gennan listeners to evaluate sixty pairs of
sentences containing different types of errors. He reports that German
natives judged vocabulary errors to be the most serious barrier to the
comprehension of the utterances. In another experiment, Delisle
( 1982) replicated Politzer' s study in written fonn. In both studies, she
noted, "vocabulary errors are ranked at the top, indicating that
incorrect choice of words is the greatest handicap to effective
communication. However, the differences in percentages suggests that
a breakdown in communication due to vocabulary errors happens

more easily in the spoken language than in the written one" (p. 41 ).
Chastain ( 1981) also examined Spanish native speakers' reaction to
sentences written by American students. In this experiment, he found
that vocabulary errors in noun phrases were judged to be the most
severe cause of sentence comprehensibility.
Sheorey ( 1986), through another approach, comparing the error
perception of native and non-native ESL teachers from India and the
United States, reported that "lexical errors are judged considerably
more serious by native than non-native teachers" (p.309). The possible
explanation for this finding is that lexical nuances of the language
may not be grasped as well by non-native speakers as by native
speakers.
From these studies, it can be concluded that errors in vocabulary
are a sever handicap for successful communication. Thus, learners
who fail to choose appropriate words may not be understood by native
speakers.
With regard to grammatical errors some researchers have
conducted studies to find out what aspects of the grammar of a target
language may severely interfere with comprehension and eventually
disrupt the flow of communication. An experiment in this area was
made by Burt and Kiparsky ( 1975). They maintained that ESL
learners' errors are hierarchical. They further divided errors into two
broad categories, global and local:
Global errors are those that violate rules involving the overall
structure of a sentence, the relations among constituent clauses
or, in a simple sentence, the relations among major constituents.
Local errors cause trouble in a particular constituent or in a
clause of a complex sentence. Burt & Kiparsky (1975, p.73).
The following sentences are examples of global and local errors,

quoted from Richards et al. (1989, p. 123):
Chapter 9 - ('ommunicativc Aspects of Error Analysis 141
Global Error: •t like take taxi but my friend said so not that we
should be late to r school.
Local Error: If I heard from him I will let you know.
The first sentence is the kind of sentence that would be marked by
a language teacher or an error analyst as erroneous, and in the second
sentence only heard would be marked as erroneous.
For Burt & Kiparsky, global errors are higher in the hierarchy than
local errors. This suggests that errors involving word order, missing
subjects, the misuse of connectors or those that confuse the
relationship of clauses are more important than an omitted article or
inflectional morpheme in the third person singular. The authors found
that errors within a constituent or a clause affect the comprehension of
a sentence far less than those which are made in major constituent
order or across clause boundaries. In other words, errors in
pluralization, article usage, tense usage, etc. are less important in
tenns of sentence comprehensibility than errors in word order, or the
choice and placement of appropriate connectors.
The obvious disadvantage of Burt & Kiparsky's account of errors is
that it is confined to syntax, and other types of errors such as lexicon-
semantic errors are not taken into consideration. Later, Hendrickson
(1977) modified Burt & Kiparsky's global/local errors distinction. He
defined a global error as a communicative error that causes a
proficient speaker of a foreign language either to misinterpret an oral
or written message or to consider the message incomprehensible
within the textual content of the error. On the other hand, a local error
is a linguistic error that makes a form or structure in a sentence appear
awkward but, nevertheless, causes a proficient speaker of a foreign
language little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning
of the sentence, given its contextual framework. It was found that
most global errors in compositions written by intermediate students of
English as a second language resulted from inadequate lexical
knowledge, misuse of prepositions and pronouns, and seriously
misspelled lexical items. Most local errors, on the other hand, were
142 C ontrastive Analysis and Error Analysis
caused by omission of prepos itions, lack of subj ect-verb agreement,

misspelled words, and faulty lex ical choice.
In terms of communication, Sheory ( 1986) reported that "both
nati ves and non-nati ves in hi s study considered [errors in] tense,
agreement, and question formation to be more serious than other kinds
of errors" (p. 308).
Such studies provide useful insights into the error gravity of
perception of nati ve speakers as well as teachers. and will increase
their sensitivity to the com"municative effects of errors.
It should be pointed out in passing that errors have variable effect
on intelligibility. Some errors have little effect in the sense that they
do not impede comprehension. Others, however, can cause
cotnprehension problems. Let us consider the following pair of
sentences given by Richards et al. ( 1989, p.96):
* Since the harvest was good, was rain a lot last year.
* The harvest was good last year, because plenty of rain .
In spite of its ungrammaticality, the second sentence makes sense.
However, the reader or listener is unable to tell whether the first
sentence is a question or statement. It looks like a question because of
the inversion of subject and verb in the main clause, but at the same
time, it looks like a statement because it ends in a period. If the
sentence were spoken perhaps the intonation would solve this problem
with a rising intonation suggesting it is a question, and a falling
intonation indicating a statement.
Study Questions
I. Do foreign language learners make relatively more errors tn
spontaneous speech or written discourse?
2. According to Krashen ( 1981 ), which types of task are more likely
to produce errors.
Chapter 9- Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis 143
3. How did researchers in the 70s and early 80s assess the effect of
errors on communication?
4. According to the rese·arch conducted by Delisle ( 1982), \vhat is the
greatest barrier to effective communication: vocabulary or
grammar?
5. Which of the two categories of errors is more serious in terms of
communication: global or local?
Chapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis 145
Chapter 10
Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis
Important concepts and terms used in tbis chapter:

Error Prevention
Error Feedback
Leamer's Syllabus
Teacher's Syllabus
Error Avoidance
Negative Attitude
Positive Attitude
Error Correction
10.1 Introduction
Students' errors have always been important to teachers, syllabus
designers, and test developers. It is widely held that insights gained
from the study of learners' errors can provide invaluable information
for devising appropriate materials and effective teaching techniques as
well as constructing tests suitable for different groups of learners at
various stages of second language development. Accordingly, this
chapter is intended to offer some pedagogical implications of error
analysis.
10.2.1mplications for EFLIESL Teachers

Teachers can benefit from the fmdings of error analysis in different
ways. As mentioned earlier, long before the theoretical dimension of
error analysis came into existence, learners' errors were identified and
classified by classroom teachers in an attempt to deal with their

practical needs, and to devise appropriate materials and teaching
techniques.
From the study of learners' errors teachers can identify the
problematic areas for learners at different levels of instruction. They
will be able to infer the nature of the learners' knowledge of the target
language at a given stage in his learning career and discover what he
still has to earn.
A course based on the frequency of errors will enable the teacher to
teach at the point of error and to put more emphasis on those areas
where the error frequency is higher.
As mentioned earlier, errors provide feedback; they tell the teacher
something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his
teaching techniques, and show him what parts of the syllabus be has
been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need
further attention. They enable him to decide whether he can move on
to the next item in the syllabus or whether he must devote more time
to the item he has been working on.
10.3 Implications for Syllabus Designers

Errors are significant to syllabus designers to see what items are
important to be included in the syllabus and what items are redundant
and should be excluded. An error-based analysis can provide reliable
results upon which remedial materials can be constructed. In other
words, analysis of second-language learners' errors can help identify
learners' linguistic difficulties and needs at a particular stage of
language learning. This can serve as a basis for remedial courses and
programs of re-teaching.
Error analysis can be used as a means for both assessing the
students' learning in general and the degree of match between the
Ieamer's learning syllabus and that of the teacher.
C hupter 10 - Peda~OJ!icullmplications of Errur A nal~~is 147
I 0.4 I n1plications for Test Developers

The discussion of the pedagogical implications of error analysis would
not be con1plctc without a bri ef note on testing, since it is beli eved that
tl;aching and testing do, indeed, go hand in hand . Thus, testing should
be based on what has been taught and the test developers should be
fan1iliar with students' di fficultics and errors. Test constn1ctors can
concentrate on parts of the teaching materials which are proved by
error analysis to be tnore difficult for the students. Moreover, errors
can fonn good distracters for test constructors, especially in multiple-
choice items. In fact, as suggested earlier (Chapter 6), the distracters
of a multiple-choice test designed for eliciting data from second-
language lean1ers should be selected from the common errors of the
students.
Having mentioned the pedagogical values of error analys is, a word
of caution seems necessary here. First of all, care should be taken not
to give undue attention to errors. While errors are, indeed, revealing of
a system at work, the foreign/second language teacher may get so
much involved in paying attention to errors that the correct utterances
in the target language may go unnoticed. Thus, in their observation
and analysis of errors teachers must take necessary precautions not to
pay too much attention to errors and lose sight of the positive
reinforcement in con1munication.
Secondly, teachers should be made aware of the strategy of
avoidance, i.e., the tendency of second-language learners to avoid
producing forms they do not feel sure of. As Schachter ( 1974) points
out, a learner who for one reason or another avoids a particular sound,
word, structure, or discourse category may be assumed by the teacher
to have no difficulty therewith. The absence of error, therefore, does
not necessarily reflect native-like competence since learners may be
avoiding the structures that pose difficulty for them. However, the
present author believes that avoidance can be controlled to some
extent by using certain elicitation techniques (e.g. , direct translation
from Ll into L2) which force the learners to produce the grammatical
structure or lexical items under investigation.
148 Contrastive Analy\1~ and Error Analysl!l
10.5 Error Correction and Attitudes towards Errors

Another pedagogical implication of error analysis is error correction
and attitudes towards errors. Over the past few decades, there has been
a significant change in foreign language methodologies and teaching
materials. Similarly, there has been a significant change of attitudes
towards student ' errors. Throughout the fifties and well into the
sixties, when Contrastive Analy is and Audiolingual Approach to
teaching foreign languages were at the peak of their popularity, a
rather negative attitude towards errors was prevalent. Some of the
well-known scholars during that period regarded second-language
learners' errors from a somewhat puritanical perspective. For
example, Nelson Brooks ( 1960), in his then famous book, Language
and Language Learning, which became a manifesto of the language
teaching profession of the 1960s, considered error to have a
relationship to learning resembling that of sin to virtue. He stated:
"Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its
presence is to be expected" (p.58).
Brooks suggested an instructional procedure that would help
language learners produce error-free utterances: "The principal
method of 11voiding error in language learning is to observe and
practice the right model a sufficient number of times; the principal
way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the
incorrect response and the presentation once more of the correct
model" (p.58).
Such guidelines for the prevention and correction of errors were
followed in the preparation of materials for the teaching of foreign
languages. For instance, in The Teacher's Manual for German, Level
One, prepared by the Modem Language Materials Development
Center ( 1961 ), one finds the advice that "teachers should correct all
errors immediately" (pp. 3, 17, 21, and 26), and that "students should
be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own
mistakes" (pp. 28 and 32). Similar pieces of advice can be found in
other audio-lingual manuals and instructional materials.
Chapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis 149
With the emergence of error analysis in the late sixties, as a

reaction to contrastive analysis, and with the wave of research interest
in the processes and strategies of first and second language acquisition
as well as possible similarities between the two, second-language
learners' errors gained unprecedented significance. As a result, the
negative attitudes held towards errors in the fifties and early sixties
changed to a positive one. Errors were no longer considered as evil
signs of failure, in teaching and/or learning, to be eradicated at any
cost; rather, they were seen as a necessary part of language learning
process. Alongside the emergence of such theoretical views towards
errors, innovative methodologies and materials for teaching foreign
languages were developed that encouraged creative self-expression
and not error-free communication. Instead of expecting students to
produce flawless sentences in a foreign language, students nowadays
are mostly encouraged to communicate in the target language about
things that matter to them. As Chastain ( 1988) writes, "more
important than error-free speech is the creation of an atmosphere in
which the students want to talk" (p 330).
Research has shown that the type of input that allows corrective
feedback to occur after an error has been made is more meaningful
than input that attempts to prevent an error from occurring (see
Tomasello & Herron, 1988, 1989). Gass (2003) also asserts that
"allowing a natural process to occur and 'interrupting' it has a greater
likelihood of bringing the error to a learner's attention" (p. 232).
Many language educators today propose that foreign language
teachers should expect many errors from their students, and should
accept those errors as a natural phenomenon integral to the process of
learning a second language. When teachers tolerate some errors,
students feel more confident about using the target language than if all
their errors are corrected. Teachers of today should be aware of the
fact that generation of teachers before them have employed different
methods to get rid of their students' errors, such as punishment, scorn,
and ridicule - all in vain - in an attempt to prevent students from
making mistakes.
ISO Contrasti\•(• Anal~· sis und Error Analysis
H O\\ ever. it should not he implied fron1 the above that errors
hould n t be corr~ctcd at all. ven today. the role of error correction
in E L EFL classes i acknowledged (sc~. e.g., Hedge, 2000: Ellis &
Barkhuizen. 2005: Ru cl & Spada. 2006: Nassaji. 2007~ Lightbown
& Spada. 10 I 0). As assaj i (2007) points o ut. .. dea ling with learner's
erro rs i ~ an important aspect of L2 teaching ... [andl . .. most of the
evidence point to the usefulness of error correction versus no error
correction .. (p. ll ). However, too n1uch correction should certainly be
avoided . Teacher hould realize that con·ection of errors is a very
delicate task, and if it is not tackled appropriately it may do more
hann than good as it may cause embarrassn1ent and frustration for the
learner. This in tum may lead to linguistic insecurity, i.e. the learner
\viii be discouraged to speak out in class and/or write freely in the
target language. He will be reluctant to do so lest he n1ay reveal his
inability in perfom1ing in the target language. As Lightbown and
Spada (20 l 0) note, "excessive feedback on error can have a negative
effect on motivation and teachers must be sensitive to the way their
students react to correction" (p. 167).
Based on the foregoing discussion, the following suggestions are
offered for the correction of second-language learners' errors:
( 1) The teacher should make sure that an error has been
committed before attempting to do something about it. That
is, it is possible that the teacher does not hear accurately
what the student bas said. This is especially true in large
classes where noise can often be considered as a distracter.
The teacher may also misinterpret what the student has
meant.
(2) The teacher should feel confident and competent about
correcting the error. If he is not sure of the correct model or
appropriate correction procedures he should refrain from
correcting his students. In this case, he should consult those
colleagues of his who have a better command of the target
language or his authoritative reference books.
C bapter 10- Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis 151
(3) Since no teacher has time to adequately deal with all the
errors made by his students, a hierarchy should be
established for the correction of errors according to the
nature and significance of errors. ln such a hierarchy,
priority should be given to errors which may hamper
communication and distort comprehensibility, such as errors
in the wrong pronunciation of minimal pairs, e.g.
pronouncing sheep for ship, and vice-versa, and lexico-
semantic errors (for more details, see Chapter 7 of this
volume).
With regard to syntactic errors, Burt & Kiparsky (1975), as
mentioned in Chapter 9, classify second-language learners' errors into
two distinct categories: (a) global, and (b) local. Global errors are
those that cause a listener or reader to misunderstand a message or to
consider a sentence incomprehensible, and local errors are those that
do not significantly hinder communication of a message. Thus, in
error correction priority should be given to global errors in order to
give the student the greatest possible mileage in terms of acquiring the
ability to communicate in the target language.
Next in the hierarchy of error correction are errors which cause
listeners or readers, in the case of written errors, irritation. A number
of language educators suggest that errors that stigmatize the learner
from the perspective of native speakers should be among the first to be
corrected (Hanzeli, 1975; Corder, 1975; Birckbicher, 1977).
Undoubtedly, deviation from the linguistic norms of a speech
community elicits evaluational reactions that may classify a person
unfavorably. In other words, native speakers usually attach a certain
degree of stigma to the phonologically, lexically, grammatically, and
orthographically deviant forms and structures that non-native learners
produce frequently in their speech or writing.
Errors which neither distort comprehensibility nor cause irritation
on the part of native speakers should receive the 1owest priority in
error correction. The difficulty here, of course, lies in the fact that the
EFL teacher may not have access to a native speaker of the target
language. In this case, he should rely on his own best judgment based
on his knowledge of the target language as well as his teaching
expenence.
Several additional criteria have been suggested by language
educators for establishing priorities of error correction. For instance, it
has been suggested that high-frequency errors should be among the
first errors that teachers should correct in students' oral and written
performance (George, 1972; Dresdner, 1973; Bhatia, 1974; Holley &
King, 1975; and Allwright, 1975). It has also been suggested that
errors relevant to a specific pedagogical focus deserve to be corrected
before other less important errors (Cohen, 1975).
With regard to the timing of error correction, it is the present
author's strong conviction that, with the exception of pronunciation
errors, a student should not be interrupted for his error(s); rather,
errors should be corrected after the classroom activity, such as a
dialogue or a reading passage, is over. The teacher should make a note
of the errors during such activities then explain them to the class as a
whole, and not directly to the individual student who has made the
error. ln this way, a more relaxed atmosphere will be created in the
classroom whereby the learners would feel free to express themselves
in the target language. A technique employed by the present author in
correcting composition errors, and was found effective, was to write
the common errors on the board and explain them to the class as a
whole. Then, students were asked to examine their compositions and
try to discover their errors. This discovery procedure was followed by
classroom exercises on the points with which the students had
problems.
Chapter 10 - Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis 153
Study Questions
I . What are the implications of error analysis for syllabus designers?
2. Explain how English teachers can benefit from the findings of
error analysis studies.
3. What are the implications of error analysis for test constructors?
4. What was the attitude towards errors when contrastive analysis and
audio-lingual method of teaching were popular?
5. How did error analysis affect the attitude towards second-language
learners' errors?
6. What suggestions are offered for the correction of second-
language learners' errors?
7. Is error correction still considered important in second language
teaching and learning?
8. What types of errors should enjoy priority in error correction?
All wright, R. L. ( 1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher' s
treatment of learner errors. In M. K. Burt and H. C.
Ausube l. D . P. ( 1967). Learning Theory and Classroom Practice. Bulletin, No.

I., Toronto: Ontario lnstitute for Studies in Education.
Beebe, L., Takahasbj. T., & Uliss-Waitz, R. (I990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen ( eds. ), On the
development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-
73). New York: Newbury House.
Bhatia, A. T. ( I974). An error analysis of students' compositions.IRAL. Vol. 12,

pp. 33 7 - 350.
BrickbicMer, D. W. ( I977). Communication and beyond. In J. K. Philips (ed.),

The language connection: From the classroom to the world (pp. 53-94).
Illinois: National Textbook Company.
Brooks, N. ( 1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New
York: Hacourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Brown, H. D. ( 1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
------ (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New
York: Longman.
Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. C. (eds.) (1975). New directions in second language

learning, teaching and bilingual education. On TESOL '75. Washington,
D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Burt, M. K. &, C. Kiparsky (1975). Global and local mistakes. ln J. H .

Schumann and N. Stenson (eds), New frontiers in second Language
learning (pp. 71 - 80). Rowtey, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
156 Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysi!l
Buteau. M. F. ( 1970). Students' errors and the learning of French as a second

language: A pilot study. IRAL. Vol. 8. pp. 133- 145.
Carlisle. R. S. (200 1). Syllable structure uni versals and second language
acquisition. International Journal of English Studies, 1( I ), 1-1 9.
Cansell. R. (2000). Children 's language: Consensus and controversy. London:

Cassell.
Celce-Murcia. M. & B. Hawkins ( 1985). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis,

and lnterlanguage Analysis. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Beyond basics:
Issues and research in TESOL. Rowley, MA : Newbury House Publishers.
Chastain, K. ( 1980). Nati ve speaker reactions to instructor identified second

language errors. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 64, No.2. pp. 2 10-215.
------ ( 1981 ). Native speaker evaluation of student composition errors. Modern

Language Journal. Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.288-294.
------- (1988). Developing second-language skills: Theory and practice (3rd

ed.). New York: Harcout Brace Javanovich Publishers.
Chesterfield, R. & Chesterfield, K. B. (1985). Natural order in children' s use of

second language learning. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6, pp. 45-49.
Chomsky, N. ( 1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.
------ (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner' s ' Verbal Behavior'. Language, Vol.

35, No. I, pp. 26-58.
-------- ( 1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The M.l. T .
Press.
- -- -- (1966). Linguistic theory. Northeast Conference Reports on Language

Teaching: Broader Contexts. Menasha, Wisconson.
Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers.

Modem Language Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 414 - 422.
Connor, U. ( 1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second

language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children

and foreign adults. IRAL 1, pp.l3-28.
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's universal grammar: An

introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
References 157
Corder, S. Pit ( 1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 147 - 170.
--------- ( 1971 ). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
147-1 60 (Reprinted in J. H. Schumann, & N. Stenson (eds.), New f rontiers
ofsecond language learning, 1975, pp. I 00-11 3).
----------( 1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth, U. K.:

Penguin Books.
--------- ( I 974). The elicitation of interlanguage. IRAL (Special issue on the

occasion of Bertol Molmberg's 60th birthday, Edited by G. Nickel), pp. 51 -
63.
---------- ( 1975). The language of second- language learners: The broader issues.
Modern Language Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 409-4 18.
--------- ( 1982). Error analysis and inter/anguage. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
DeCapua, A. ( 1998). The transfer of native language speech behavior into a

second language: A basis for cultural stereotypes. Applied Linguistics, Vol.
9, pp. 21-35.
Di Pietro, R. J. (1971). Language structures in contrast. Newbury House,

Rowley, Mass.
Delisle, H. H. (1982). Native speaker judgment and evaluation of errors in

Gennan. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 66, pp.39-48.
Domyei, Z. ( 1995). On the teachablity of communication strategies. TESOL

Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 55-84.
--------- (20 10). Research methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Dresdner, M.P. (1973). Your students' errors can help you. English Language
Journal, Vol. l, pp. 5- 8.
Dulay, H. C. & Burt, M. K. ( 1972). Goofmg: An indicator of children's second

language learning strategies. Language Learning, Vol. 22, pp. 235- 52.
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language Two. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Du~kova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language teaching. IRAL,

Vol. 7, pp. 11- 36.
Eckman, F. R. ( 1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis.

Language Learning, Vol. 27, pp. 315-330.
-------- ( 198 L). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological nales.

Language Learning, Vol. 31, pp. 195-2 16.
Ellis, R. ( 1987). lnterlanguage variability in narrati ve discourse: Style shifting in

the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 9,
No.I, pp. 1-20.
------- ( 1997). Second language acquis ition research and language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Ieamer language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Ensz, K. (1982). French attitudes toward typical speech errors of American

speakers of French. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 66, No.2, pp.l33-1 39.
Etherton, A. R. T. S. (1977). Error analysis: Problems and procedures.. English

Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 68- 78.
Fallahi, M. (1991). Contrastive linguistics and analysis of errors. Tehran: Iran

University Press.
Fisiak, J. (ed.) (1985). Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Fitikides, T. J. (1963). Common mistakes in English. London: Longman.
Fries, C. C. ( 1945). Teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M H. Long (eds.),

The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (eds.) (1993). Language transfer in Language

learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An

introductory book. (3rd ed.) London: Routledge.
George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley,

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
References 159
Granger, S. (2002). A bird's-eye view of computer Ieamer corpus researc h. In S.

Granger. J. Hung. and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer l~arner corpora.
second language acquisition. and foreign language teachmg. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Guntermann. G. ( 1978). A study of the frequency and communicati ve effects of

errors in Spanish. A1odern Language Journal. Vol. 62, Nos. 5 & 6, pp.249-
253.
Hakuta, K. ( 1974). Preliminary report on the development of grammatical

morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second languag~.
Working Papers in Bilingualism, Vol. 3, pp. 18-43. Toronto: Ontano
Institute for Studies in Education.
Hanzeli. V. E. ( 1975). Leamer' s language: Implications of recent research for

foreign language instruction. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 59. pp. 426-
432.
Hatim, B. ( 1996). Communication across cultures: Translation theory and

contrastive text linguistics. Exeter, U.K.: Exeter University Press.
Hartmann, P. R. K. (2007). Interlingual lexicography: Selected essays on

translation equivalence, contrastive linguistics, and the bilingual dictionary.
Lexicagraphica, Series Major Volume I 33.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford:

Heltai, P. (1988). Contrastive analysis of terminological systems and bilingual

technical dictionaries. International Journal ofLexicography, Vol. 1, No. I ,
pp. 32-40.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1977). Error analysis and selective correction in adult ESL

classroom: An experiment. ERIC: Center for Applied Linguistics,
Arlington, Virginia. EDRS: ED 135260.
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1975). Imitation and correction in foreign

language learning. In J. H. Schumann and N. Stenson (eds.), New frontiers
in second language learning. (pp. 81-89). Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Holmes, J ( 1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Hulstin, J. H., & Hulstin, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of

processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, VoL
34, pp.23-43.
Jain. M. P. ( 1974). Error analysis: Source, cause and significance. Ln J. C.

Richards (ed.), Error analysis: Perspective on second language learning
(pp. 189-2 15). London: Longman.
James, C. ( 1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
-------- ( 1985). The Transfer of Communicative Competence. In J. Fisiak (ed.),

Contrasti\ e Linguistics and the Language Teacher (pp. 57-70). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
---------- ( 1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman .
Johanson. S. ( 1975). The uses of error analysis and contrastive analysis. English
Language Teaching. Vol. 29, No.3, pp.246-253 .
Kasper, G. ( 1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, Vol. 8, pp.

203-231.
Kellerman, E. ( 1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 2, pp. 37-57.
Keshavarz, M . H. (1984). Techniques and procedures for teaching pronunciation

to Iranian students. ROSHD. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
------- (2009). A practical course in phonetics and phonology (II th ed).

Tehran: Samt Publisher.
Keshavarz, M. H., Eslami, Z. R., & Ghahraman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer

and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross-cultural perspective of Persian and
English. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (eds.),
Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, pp. 359-402. University of
Hawaii Press.
Kleinmann, H. ( 1977). A voidance behavior in adult second language

acquisition. Language Learning, Vol. 27, pp. 93-107.
Krzeszowski, T. P. ( 1974 ). Contrastive Generative Grammar: Theoretical

foundations. Lodz University Press.
-------- ( 1985). Contrastive analysis in a new dimension. In J. F isiak ( ed. ),

Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. (pp. 71-85). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lado, R. (I 957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.
References 161
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. ( 199 1). An introduction to second language

acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lee, W. R. (1968). Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of foreign
language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and its
pedagogical implications: Monograph series on language ·and linguistics,
No. 2 1, pp. 185-1 94. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Leech, G. N. ( 1990). Principles ofpragmatics (7th ed.). London: Longman.
Lenneberg, E. H. ( 1967). Biological foundation of language. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (201 0). How languages are learned. (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, S. H. ( 1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London:

George Allen and Unwin.
McKeating, D. (1981). Error Analysis. In G . Abott (ed.) The teaching of English

as an international language: A practical guide (pp. 211-224).
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories ofsecond-language learning. London: Edward

Arnold.
Menyuk, P. H. (1971). The acquisition and development of language.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Milon, J. ( 1974). The development of negation in English by a second language

learner. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 137-143.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners'

written errors. In S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (eds.), Form-focused instruction
and teacher education: Studies in honor ofRod Ellis (pp.117-129). Oxford:
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximate systems of foreign languages learners. /RAL,

Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 115-123.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice-Hall

International Inc.
Nickel, G. (1971). Papers m Contrastive Linguistics. London: Cambridge

University Press.
Odlin, T. ( 1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language

learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--------- (2005). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Oller, J. W., & S. M. Ziahosseiny ( 1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis

and spelling errors. Lan&ruage Learning, Vol. 20, pp. 183-189.
Owens, R. E. (2001 ). Language development: An Introduction (5th ed.). London:

Allyn and Bacon.
Palladino, B., Poli, P., Masi, P., & Galoriecle, F. ( 1997). Impulsive/reflective
cognitive style, metacognition, and emotion in adolescence. Perception and
motor skills, Vol. 84, pp.47-57.
Piazza, L. G. ( 1980). French tolerance for grammatical errors made by

Americans. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 64, No.4, pp. 422-27.
Politzer, R. ( 1978). Errors of English speakers of Gennan as perceived and

evaluated by German natives. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 253-
261.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvick, J. (1985). A comprehensive
grammar ofthe English language. London: Longman.
Radford, A. (1992). Transformational Syntax: A Student 's Guide to Chomsky 's

Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ravem, R. ( 1974). The development of WH-questions in first and second

language learners. In J. C. Richards (ed.), Error Analysis: Perspective on
Second Language Learning (pp. 143-155). London: Longman.
Richards, J. C . (1971a). A non-i;ootrastive approach to error analysis. English

Language Teaching, Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 204-219.
-------- ( 1971 b). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language
Science, Vol. 17, pp. 12-22.
-------- ( 1972). Social factors, interlanguage and language learning. Language

Learning, Vol. 17, pp. 159-188.
--------- (ed.) (1974). Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language

Learning. London. Longman.
References 163
Richards, J. C .. Platt, J., & Weber, H. ( 1989). Longman dictionary of applied

linguistics. London: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. ( 1983). Conversational analysis. In J. C.

Richards, J. C., & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication.
London: Longman.
Russel, J., & Spada, N . (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for
second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of research. In J. Norris & L.
Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.
Amsterdam: John Bejamins.
Rutherford, W. ( 1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language

Learning, Vol. 32, pp. 85-108.
Sanders, C. ( 1985). Recent developments in contrastive analysis and their

relevance to language teachers. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Contrastive linguistics
and the language teacher (pp. 21-33). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
ScarceiJa, R. ( 1983 ). Discourse accent in second language performance. In G.

Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp.
306-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, Vol. 24, pp.
205-214.
Schumann, J. H. (1975). Implications of pidginization and creolization for the

study of adult second language acquisition. In J. H. Schumann, & N.
Stenson (eds.), New frontiers in second language learning. (pp. 137- 152).
Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
---------- ( 1976). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis.

Schumann, J. H., & Stenson, N. (eds.) (1975). New frontiers in second

language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers,
Inc.
Selin.ker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, Vol. 9, No.2, pp.

67-92.
--------- (1972). lnterlanguage. /RAL, Vol. 10, No. 3,pp. 219-31.
--------- ( 1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.

Selinker. L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. ( 1975). The Interlanguage hypothesis
extended to children. Language Learning, Vol. 25, pp. 139-152.
Sheorey, R. ( 1986). Error perception of native-speaking and non-native speaking

teachers of ESL. ELT Journal, Vol. 40, No.4. pp.306-312.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Han Inc.
Sridhar, S. N. ( 198 1). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage:

Three phases of one goal. In J. Fisiak, (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the
language teacher (pp. 207- 24 1). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Stockwell, R., Bowen, J. D., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The Grammatical

Structure of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Takahashi, S. and Beebe, L. ( 1987). The development of pragmatic competence

by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 131-155.
Tarone, E. (1981 ). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy.

TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 285- 295.
----- (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics.

Vol.4, pp.l42-63.
------- ( 1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in

morphology and syntax. Language Learning, Vol.35, No.3, pp.373-404.
Tarone, E., Frauenfelder, U., & Selinker, L. ( 1976). Systematicity/variability

and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. In H. D. Brown (ed.),
Papers in second language acquisition: Proceedings of the 6th Annual
Conference on Applied Linguistics. University Of Michigan, Language
Learning, Special Issue, No. 4, pp. 93-134.
Taylor, B. P. ( 1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning

strategies by elementary and intennediate students of ESL. Language
Learning, Vol. 25, pp.73-l07.
Tomasello, M. and Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and
correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom.
Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol. 9, pp.237-46.
----------- ( 1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path
technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 11, pp. 385-95.
References 165
Tran-Thi-Chau ( 1975). Error analysis, contrastive analysis, and students'

perception: A study of difficulty in second-language learning. IRAL , Vol.
13, No.2, pp. 11 9-143.
Wardhaugh, R. ( 1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly,

Vol. 4. pp. 120-130.
Wenk, B. ( 1986). Cross-linguistic influence in second language phonology:

Speech rhythms. In E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood-Smith (eds.), cross-
linguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Widdowson, H. G. ( 1991). Aspects of language teaching (2"d ed.). Oxford:

White, L. (2003). On the nature of inter1anguage representation: Universal

grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.l9-42). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Whitman, R. L. ( 1970). Contrastive Analysis: Problems and procedures.

Whitman, R. and Jackson, K. L. ( 1972). The unpredictability of contrastive

analysis. Language Learning, Vol. 22, pp. 29-42.
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically-based analysis of complementing in

American English. InN. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbery House.
Yarmohammadi, L. (2009). Practical contrastive analysis of English and

Persian with special emphasis on grammar. Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Yule, G. (1988). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Audio-Lingual An approach to second or foreign language teaching that
is based on the behaviorist theory of learning and
structural linguistics. In this method, the formation of
habits is emphasized through repetition, practice. and
memorization of sentence patterns.
Backsliding The reappearance of fossilized features of a learner

language under certain conditions.
Behaviorism A school of psychology which claims that learning. both

verbal and non-verbal, takes place through stimulus-
response and the formation of habits.
Code The systems (phonological, grammatical, semantic) of

language.
Cognates Words that have similar form and meaning in two or

more languages. This may confuse learners when
meanings are not exactly the same.
Cognitive Concerned with thought processes.
Cognitive-Code A theory which maintains that language learning is best

Theory achieved by conscious understanding of the rules
underlying language behavior.
Communication A strategy used by learners to convey their meaning; it

Strategy may not be 'grammatical'.
Covert Error An error which is not immediately apparent.

Cross-linguistic The influence of the learner's MT on his/her acquisition

[nfluence of LT.
Developmental Errors that do not result from first language influence but
Errors rather are caused by mutual interference of TL items.
These errors often resemble those made by children
acquiring their NL.
Deviant An incorrect grammatical item.

Structure
Dialect Dialects are subcategories of the parent language that use

similar but not identical rules. All users of a language
follow certain dialectal rules that differ from the standard
dialect.
Error A systematic deviation from the accepted TL rules.
Error Analysis A procedure used by both researches and teachers which

involves collecting samples of learner language,
identifying errors, classifying them according to their
nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness.
Fossilization Language behavior which becomes fixed at a certain

point in second language development. It refers to
permanent characteristics of interlanguages.
Global Errors Errors which affect the meaning of the whole sentence.
Goof Errors, mistakes.
Hierarchy Classification of linguistic units consisting of a series of

successive levels.
Hypercorrection Inappropriate use of a form due to excessive concern over

the use of another form.
lnput Input constitutes the language to which the learner is

exposed. It can be spoken or written. Input serves as the
Glossary 169
data which the Ieamer must use to determine the rules of

the target language.
Interference The influence of one type of behavior (e.g., MT linguistic

behavior) on one that is learned later (e.g., TL linguistic
behavior). This may be either beneficial or harmful.
Intral ingual Errors caused by faulty or partial learning of the target

Errors language.
Language The influence of linguistic features of one language on

Transfer the learning of another, in contexts such as bilingualism
and second-language acquisition.
Latent An already formulated arrangement in the brain which is

Psychological activated whenever an adult attempts to learn a second
Structure language.
Local Error An error which only affects the meaning of the clause in
which it is found.
Nativism Nativist or mentalist theories of language learning

emphasize the learner's innate mental capacities for
acquiring a language, and minimize the contribution of
linguistic environment.
Negative Negative Transfer takes place when the use of a native

Transfer language structure produces an error in the TL.
Overgeneraliza- Use of a linguistic rule that goes beyond the normal

tion domain of that rule.
Overt Error An immediately apparent error.
Pidgin A language with a markedly reduced grammatical

structure, lexicon, and sty listie range which emerges
when members of two or more distinct languages attempt
to communicate with each other.
Positive Transfer Positive transfer takes place when the forms of NL make
the learning of the TL easier.
Pragmatics The study of language from the point of view of language

users, especially the choices they make and the effects
their use of language has on other participants.
Prefabricated Fixed or routine patterns or forms such as 'greetings' and

Patterns farewell.
Redundancy Reducing or omitting linguistic forms that are not

Reduction necessary.
Simplification Leaving out elements of a sentence resulting in linguistic

structures which are simpler that TL norms.
Structural A school of linguistics in America and Europe that was

Linguistics primarily concerned with the scientific description of the
formal properties of language.
Transfer of Influences on the production or comprehension of a

Training second language that are due to the ways learners have
been taught.
Translation Words which approximately have the same meaning in

Equivalents two or more languages.
Typology Classification
Universal The properties inherent in the human mind. Universal

Grammar grammar consists of a set of general principles common
to all languages rather than a set of particular rules.
1
Allwright 152 Fallahi 65
Ausubel 48 Fisiak 5, 6
Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz 23 Fitikides 11 8
Bhatia 152 Fries 9
Birckbicher 151 Gass 149
Brooks 9. 148 Gass & Selinker 21 , 60
Brown 9, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 34, 49, George 23, 152
50,66,68,80, 105,131 Granger 22
Burt and Kiparsky 140, 141, 151 Guntennan 138, 139
Buteau 22, 118 Hakum 54
Carlisle 31 Hanzeli 151
Cattsell 49 Hartmann 6
Celce-Murcia & Hawkins 20 Hatim 6
Chasmin 48, 138, 139, 140, 149 Hedge 150
Chesterfield and Chesterfield 69 Helmi 6
Cho~ky 13, 47, 49,50,51,52,63 Hendrickson 141
Cohen 152 Holley & King 152
Connor 5, 23 James 14, 15, 23
Cook 53, 54 Johanson 65
Cook and Newson 50 Holmes 40
Corder 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, Kasper 23
76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 105, 120, Kellerman 20
151 Keshavarz 28, 121
DeCapua 23,40 Keshavarz et al. 40
Delisle 138, 139, 143 Kleinmann 62
Domyei 80, 131 K.rashen 138, 142
Dresdner 152 Krzeszowski 13, 23, 72
Dulay & Burt 54, 119 Lado 8,9
Dulay et al. 54 Larsen-Freeman & Long 20
Duskova 22, 118 Hu1stin & Hulstin 138
Di Pietro 6, 13 Lee 10
Eckman 20 Leech 40
Ellis 83, 138 Lightbown & Spada 39, 118, 150
Ellis & Barkhuizeo 7, 150 Lenneberg 49
Ensz 139 McDonough 48
Etherton 90 McKeating 105
McKeating I 02 Scarcella 38
McLaughlin 45, 69 Schachter 58, 14 7
McNeil 47 Schumann 49
Milon 51 Schumann & Stenson 73
Nassaji I 44 Selinker 68
Nemser 21, 71 Sheorey 135, 137
Newmark 119 Skinner 6, 8
Nickel 22 Sridhar 61
Odlin 8, 2 J Stockwell, Bowen and Martin 15, 16
Oller & Ziahosseiny 11 Stolz & Tiffany 51
Owens 48 Takahashi & Beebe 38
Palladino et al. 78 Tarone 127, 132
Palmero & How 51 Taylor 79
Piazza 133, 134 Tomasello & Herron 143
Politzer 133, 134 Tran-Thi-Chau 22
Prator 16 W ardhaugh 10
Quirk et al. 29, 34 Wenk 133
Radford 34 White 69
Ravem 51 Whitman 19, 22
Richards 22, 59, 115 Whitman & Jackson 22
Richards et al. 89, 121 , 125, 126, Widdowson 113
127, 135, 137 Wilkins 21
Russel & Spada 144 Wolfson 39
Rutherford 19, 20 Yule 57
Sanders 22 Y annohammadi 21
Applied Contrastive Analysis 6 Fossilization 67, 70, 74, 160
Applied Error Analysis 60, 61 Generative-Transformational
Approximative System Hypothesis Grammar 12, 14, 44, 46,52
71, 72, 73,74 Hierarchy of Difficulty 1. 2, 15, 16,
Authoritative Interpretation of Errors 19,24
76, 81 ' 82, 84 Idiosyncratic Dialect 72, 73, 74
Authoritati ve Reconstruction of Interference 5, 9, I0, 11 . 20. 2 1, 22,
Errors 76, 8 1 33, 35, 55, 58, 114, 115, 116, 117,
Avoidance (Strategy) 58. 63. 113. 120, 160. 16 1
127, 129, 139, 141 lnterlanguage 20, 43, 56, 58, 62, 63,
Behaviorist Psychology 2, 6, 7, 9, 64, 68,69, 70
44, 61' 65 lnterlanguage Systems 64, 70
Coalescence 17, 18 lnterlanguage Hypothesis 68, 70, 71 ,
Cognitive-Code Learning Theory 44, 72, 73, 74
45,46, 52 lnterlingua1 Errors 12, 35, 114, 116,
communication strategies Cognate(s) 149
3,37 lntralingual Errors 12, 35, 116, 128
Contrastive Analysis I, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Language Acquisition device (LAD)
9, 10, II, 13,20,21,22,26,36,43, 47, 52
54,55,61 Language Learning Strategies 60,
Strong Version 9 68, 125, 129
Weak Version 10 Language Transfer 10, 21 , 54, 68,
Moderate Version 11 126
Contrastive Rhetoric 4, 22 Markedness Theory 19, 20, 28, 29
Convergence 36, 41 Mistakes SO, 56, 57, 58, 65, 142,
Correspondence 5, 16 143, 160
Divergence 37, 41 Nativist Approach 46
Equivalence 4, 5 Negative Transfer 2, 6, 7, 21, 161
Error Analysis 43, 44, 53, 54, 55, 58, Overgeneralization 11, 21 , 35, 48,
59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 76, 80, 60, 68, 69, 70, 113, 115, 116, 121 ,
82, 84, 85, 114, 126, 132, 133, 139, 122, 125, 161
140, 141, 142, 143, 146 Positive Transfer 2, 7, 11 , 162
Error Correction 43, 139, 142, 144, Pragmatics 12, 22, 38
145, 146, 147 Second-Language Learning!
First/Child Language Acquisition 46, Acquisition 6, 48, 49, SO, 51, 52,
48, 50, 51, 52 62,68
Split 19, 27, 39, 43 Theoretical Contrastive Studies 4, 6

Sources of Errors 22, 23, 35, 45, 53, Transfer 6, 22, 24, 72,
66, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125. 132 Universal Grammar 20, 47, 50
Structural Linguistics 7. 8, I 0, 13,
21. 47. 69' 167
Moham mad Hossein Keshavarz. Ph.D.
Teacher Training ll nh ersity. Tehran
This book is inte nded to provide English teachers and students with a
standard text on Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. It covers a
wide range of topics and attempts have been made to present the
material systematically to make the teaching and reading of the book
smooth and easy. The book has been taught by English instructors at
different universities for two decades now and has proven to be satisfactory
and successful.
RAHNAMA PRESS
I]N :97~964-367trn
9 7896 4 3 67500 4

Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New Edition

Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz, Ph. D.

\VJ\- \\l -~V- 0•• - l

s.).r.Jl5 su.·~' - - ~~ ..J~J :~ ~

First Published 1993

Part I. Contrastive Analvsis

Chapter 2. CA of Some Selected Features of English and Persian ......... 27

Part II Interlanguage and Error Analysis ..•.......................... 45

Chapter 3. Linguistic and Psychological Bases of Error Analysis ......... 47

Chapter 4. Er-r or Analysis .......................................................................... 57

Chapter 5. Hypotheses about Second-Language Learner's Language .. 71

Chapter 6. Techniques and Procedures for Doing Error Analysis ........ 79

C hapter 7. Classification of Errors ........................................................... 89

Chapter 8. Sources of Errors ................................................................... 117

C hapter 9. Communicative Aspects of Error Analysis ......................... 137

C hapter 10. Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis ...................... 145

References .................................................................................................. 155

Glossary ..................................................................................................... 167

Author .Index ............................................................................................. 171

Subject Index ............................................................................................. l73

It is hoped that this new edition, with all its shortcomings, wi ll be

Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz

Part I consists of two chapters. Chapter l provides a historical

Important concepts and terms used in tbis chapter:

solution to all language teaching problems. Consequently, a series of

1.2 Historical Perspective

( 1) A proto-language is a language that has existed before other languages.

regardless of their history, as part of an attempt to establish a

(I) Dialect: A variety of a language spoken in one part of a country, or by people

Fisiak ( 1985, p.2)

( 1) Congruence: Semantic similarities.

1.3 Pedagogical Contrastive Analysis and Its Psychological

As far as second-language acquisition is concerned, behaviorist

Based on this assumption, structural linguistics - who strongly

The student who comes in contact with a foreign language will

Lado further claims that "the key to ease or difficulty in foreign

1.4 Different Versions of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

1.4.1 The Strong Version

1.4.2 The Weak Version

1.4.3 The Moderate Version

significance of intralingual errors. which are as much a factor in

1.5 Linguistic Levels of Analysis

1.6 Procedures for Comparing Languages

languages are problematic for the learners or not. Predictions can be

1.7 Hierarchy of Difficulty

of a particular unit of contrast. Stockwell and his colleagues also

is mainly a clear Ill; whereas, this phoneme may be clear or dark in

For further elaboration and examples of this and other lexical

The hierarchy of difficulty outlined above and the procedures for

1.8 Markedness theory

Rutherford ( 1982) used markedness theory to explain why there

1.9 Drawbacks and Merits of Contrastive Analysis

tradition of CA was followed more faithfully. Even after alternative

the learner's performance in the target language (For a more detailed

Study Questions and Exercises

Part I. Answer the following questions.

2. What was the psychological basis of CA?

3. Which linguistic theory supported CA?

4. What are the pedagogical values ofCA?

5. How are second language learners' errors treated in CA?

6. What are the two types of transfer?

7. What are the main steps in comparing two or more languages?

8. What are the shortcomings of CA?

Part II. Complete the foUowing sentences.