Errors are crucial part of dialect acquisition. The happening of mistake has long interested SLA experts. In a normal second language teaching situation, they may be thought to be the linguistic phenomena deviant from the vocabulary guidelines and standard usages, reflecting learner’s deficiency in vocabulary competence and acquisition device. Many instructors simply correct specific errors as they occur, with little attempt to see patterns of errors or even to seek causes in anything other than learner ignorance. Currently, however, with the introduction of linguistics, applied linguists, psychology and other relevant content, people’s frame of mind toward errors transformed greatly. Rather than being problem to be get over or evils to be eradicated, problems are believed to be proof the learners’ phases in their target terminology (TL) development. It is through examining learner problems that errors are elevated from the statue of “undesirability compared to that of a guide to the inner working of the words learning process” (Ellis, 1985, p 53) In neuro-scientific SLA, there were three influential methods to errors with a general movement from approaches emphasizing the merchandise, the problem itself, to solutions concentrating on the fundamental process under that your errors are created.
The analysis of error resources has been regarded as a central aspect in the study of learner errors. Researchers assume that the clearer the understanding of the resources of learners’ mistakes, the better second words teachers will be able to detect the process of L2 learning.
Making errors is the most natural thing in the earth and it is evidently attached to the human beings. But, how do we define error? There are different definitions of the word as Ellis talks about “learners make mistakes in both comprehension and production, the first being rather scantly looked into. All learners make mistakes which have a different name based on the group committing the problem. Children’s mistakes have been viewed as “transitional forms”, the native speakers’ ones are called “slips of the tongue” and the second language errors are considered “unwanted varieties” (George 1972).
We use the word “problem” to make reference to a organized deviation from a determined norm or group of norms. Relating to Lennon (1991) one is “a linguistic form or combination of varieties which in the same framework and under similar conditions of development would, in all likelihood, not be made by the loudspeakers ‘native speaker’s counterparts”. Similarly, it was regarded as an indicator of inadequacy of the teaching techniques, something negative which must be avoided, and on the other side it was seen as a natural result of the fact that since by nature we can’t avoid making mistakes, we should allow the reality and try to deal with them.
The error-as-progress conception is based on the Chomsky’s proven fact that a child produces dialect through innate widespread structures. So, by using symbolic code, one can get access to different pieces of knowledge much less something mechanically learned but as emotionally constructed through try and error. The theory is now that the next terminology learners form hypotheses about the rules to be shaped in the mark dialect and then test them out against insight data and change them appropriately.
There can be an strategy which concerns mistake as being the result of social-cognitive interaction. This means that the mistake implicitly posesses social norm as well as cognitive process. The problem also carries a social and ethnic component which makes it different in various societies.
Previous research shows that cultural variations can be found in the susceptibility of earning fundamental attribution error: folks from individualistic cultures are inclined to the problem while people from collectivistic ethnicities commit less of it (Miller, 1984). It has been found that there is a differential focus on social factors between 3rd party individuals and interdependent peoples in both public and nonsocial contexts: Masuda and his fellow workers (2004) in their toon figure presentation experiment revealed that Japanese’s judgments on the mark character’s facial expression are more influenced by surrounding faces than those of the People in the usa; whereas Masuda and Nisbett (2001) concluded from other underwater scenes animated cartoon experiment that Us citizens are also much more likely than Japanese members to mark recommendations to focal objects (i. e. seafood) instead of contexts (i. e. rocks and crops). These discrepancies in the salience of different facets to people from different cultures claim that Asians have a tendency to attribute habit to situation while Westerners attribute the same habit to the acting professional. Constantly, Morris & Peng (1994) found from other fish action attribution experiment that more American than Chinese participants understand the habit (e. g. a person fish swimming before a group of seafood) as internally somewhat than externally brought on. One explanation for this difference in attribution lies in the way folks of different ethnical orientation perceive themselves in the environment. Specifically, Markus and Kitayama (1991) mentioned how (individualistic) Westerners tend to see themselves as unbiased agents and for that reason vulnerable themselves to individual objects rather than contextual details.
in the second language coaching/ learning process the error is definitely thought to be one of the very most generally known solutions concerning the error throughout history is to consider it a negative effect or final result, even well worth to be punished. Corresponding to Corder (1967):
A learner’s errors then, provide evidence of the system of the language that he’s using. They are significant in three different ways: first to the educator, for the reason that they simply tell him is he undertakes a organized analysis, what lengths towards the target the learner has advanced. Second, they provide the analysts with evidence of how dialect is discovered or bought. Third they are simply indispensible to the learner himself because he can respect the making of errors as a tool used in order to learn. The resources of mistake might be psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, epistemic or surviving in the discourse structures. Richards(1971), when hoping to identify the sources of competence mistakes he came up with three types of problems: interference problems, which reflect the use of elements from one language to the other, intralingual errors, subdivided into mistakes anticipated to overgeneralization, or even to ignorance of guidelines restriction, which is imperfect application of the guidelines, or finally because of the false theory hypothesis, which show the overall characteristics of guideline learning and third developmental mistakes when the learner develops hypothesis about the prospective language predicated on limited experience.
Assuming a term “hierarchy of errors”, Burt and Kiparasky (1974) claim that there’s a difference between global and local errors. They state:
Global faults are those that violate rules relating to the overall structure of your sentence, the relationships among constituent clauses, or, in a simple sentence, the relationships among major constituents. Local problems cause trouble in a specific constituent, or in clause of an complex sentence.
They claim that global problems are more serious and list higher in the error hierarchy than local ones, plus they should be corrected prior to all or any others in language classrooms. Accordingly, mistakes in tense and aspect are thought to be local errors. They might be minor problems, for they might not cause grave breakdowns in communication. However, they are extremely common blunders among second terms learners of British and very much worth investigating since tense and aspect represent one of the most essential elements of British grammar.
Corder (1967) will go a step further to propose different terminologies for both of these kinds of errors and stresses that people must make a distinction between faults and mistakes; the former refers to non-systematic performance mistakes of chance circumstances, whereas the latter can be defined as “the systematic errors of the learner from which we are able to reconstruct his knowledge of the language thus far”. In the next discussion, the analysis focuses on competence problems:
There are two major approaches to analyzing errors determined by a concentrate on language learner.
Contrastive Evaluation (CA), Error Research (EA). “Theoretical bottom part of CA is based on Behaviorist Learning Theory; as the EA is closely related to the introduction of Interlanguage Theory” (Ellis, 2005)
Behaviorist learning theory accounts of problems:
The behaviorist learning theory illustrates the TL learning is a mechanised process of behavior development. Habits entail ‘over-learning’, which ensures that learning of new behaviors consequently of proactive inhibition. Thus, the task facing the L2 learner is to defeat the disturbance of L1 patterns. Basing on the behavior formation, contrastive evaluation sought to recognize the features of the L2 that differed from those of the L1 so that learners could be helped to create the new patterns of the L2 by rehearsing them intensively. Most errors created by L2 learners were the result of distinctions between L1 and L2 framework. (Martin 1996)
Interference, the CA insists, is the result of unfamiliarity with the guidelines of an TL and internal triggers, such as limited learning (Swan, 2001). ‘Transfer’ can maintain positivity or negative: linguistic features of the L1 that act like those of the TL will accomplish learning (positive transfer); those aspects of the L1 that will vary to the TL grammatical and phonological system will prevent SLA and cause the learner to make numerous creation errors(negative transfer). Thus difference between the L1 and L2 create learning difficulty which results in problems, as the similarities between them assist in speedy and easy learning (Ellis, 1985 cited Corder). Regarding to behaviorist learning theory, both types of transfer are the results of automatic and unconscious use of old behaviors in new learning situations (Dulay, Burt &Krashen)
Rod Ellis (1985) assesses, ‘problems, based on the theory, were the result of non-learning, somewhat than wrong learning’. By checking the L1 with TL, distinctions could be identified and used to anticipate areas of potential errors. The idea of the mistake as an impact to be avoided has been especially backed by behaviorism, being considered an obstacle to language learning. To them error is a symptom of ineffective teaching or as proof failure and they believed that when they take place they are to be remedied by provision of appropriate forms; in other words, use of intensive drilling and over-teaching. It was also thought that interference takes place whenever there’s a difference between local mother tongue and the mark terminology. A hypothesis based on Lado’s suggestion in linguistic across cultures where he states “in comparison between native and spanish lies the key to help ease all issues in spanish learning” (Lado, 1957)
2. Interlanguage (IL) theory accounts of errors
(i) Selinker (1972) coined the term ‘interlanguage’ to refer to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is unbiased of both these learner’s L1 and the mark language. The word has become used with different but related meanings:
To make reference to the group of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition
To make reference to the system that is noticed at a single stage of development
To refer to particular L1, L2 combinations. Other conditions that make reference to the same basic idea are ‘approximate system’ and ‘transitional competence’.
(ii) Interlanguage is the kind of language produced by second and foreign language learners who are in the process of learning a terminology, whose errors are brought on by several different processes. Included in these are:
Borrowing habits from the mom tongue.
Extending patterns from the target language
Expressing meanings using the words and sentence structure which already are known from Richards, Jack et al (1992).
(iii)Interlanguage identifies the separateness of a second language learners system, a system that has a structurally intermediate position between the local and target words. Interlanguage is neither the machine of target words nor the system of the indigenous terminology, but instead falls between your two; it is something based upon the best make an effort of learners to provide order and structure to the linguistic stimuli bordering them. By continuous process of learning from your errors and hypothesis tests, learners gradually and tediously flourish in establishing better and nearer approximations to the system used by indigenous speaker systems of the words.
(iv)Rod Ellis (2005, 54) views Mistake Analysis to be based on emergence of IL theory, that may be utilized to explain effectively the mistakes dedicated in SLA processes. Slinker (1972) tried out to ‘find ways to explain the problems that some students make, have nothing to do with their foreign language; for example a Spanish presenter, an Arabic loudspeaker and a Japanese loudspeaker might all make the same mistake in English which was not related to their respective languages’. According to Slinker, L2 learners proceed through a process of earning and tests hypotheses about the mark language. They commence with understanding of language in general, gained from other native terminology, and move toward the prospective language. Piece by piece, they readjust their mental model of the new dialect, increasing their communicative competency in that words. Successful hypotheses become mental constructions that match the guidelines of the new terminology. Brown(1993) looked at, “truly successful students make the trip to a high degree of competency in the mark terms, while less successful students become fossilized somewhere over the IL continuum”. For around 35 years Selinker has viewed learner’s problems as proof positive efforts by the learner to learn a fresh words. This view of dialect learning allowed for the possibilities of learners making deliberate efforts to regulate their own learning and, along with ideas of cognitive procedures in words learning. Mistakes are indispensable to learners because the making of errors can be regarded as “a tool the learner uses in order to learn”. Today’s definition of terms transfer is provided by Slinker (1992): “language copy is best regarded as a cover term for a complete class of behaviors, processes and constraints, each of which has to do with CLI (Combination Linguistic Impact), the impact and use of preceding linguistic knowledge, usually but exclusively native vocabulary knowledge. Selinker (1992) pointed two highly significant efforts that Corder made: “that the errors of a learner, whether adult or child, aren’t random, but are in fact systematic and are not negative or interfering at all with learning a TL but are, on the contrary, a required positive factor, indicative of screening hypothesis”. In 1994 Gass and Slinker defined problems as “warning flag” offering evidence of the learner’s knowledge of the second words. The learner’s developing knowledge of second vocabulary may have characteristics of the learner’s indigenous language, characteristics of the next language, and some characteristics which seem to be to be very general and tend to occur in all or most interlanguage systems. Interlanguages are systematic, nonetheless they are also vibrant, continually innovating as learners obtain more input and revise their hypotheses about the next vocabulary. L2 learner’s process via an interlanguage, which can be an independent understanding of L1 and L2 system. Interlanguage Is systematic, because the learner selects the guidelines systematically, learners bases strategies on the guideline system, just as as the native speaker bases on the internalized understanding of L1 system.
(iv)One of the crucial contributions of IL was its actual assumption that the learner’s knowledge is included and systematically reorganized with earlier knowledge of the native words. By a continuous procedure for trial-and-error or hypothesis assessment, learners slowly and tediously flourish in building closer approximations to the machine utilized by the native presenter of the words.
The characteristics of IL are explained by many researchers the following:
Permeable, in the sense that rules that constitute the learners’ knowledge at anybody stage aren’t set, but are available to amendment(Ellis1985:50)
Dynamic, in the sense that L2 learner little by little revises their varying interim systems to support new hypothesis about the TL system.
Systematic, in that L2 learner’s IL is rule-governed, that is, the learner bases his performance designs on his existing guideline system much the same way as the local presenter bases his programs on his internalized knowledge of the L1 system.
The concept of interlanguage has already established a major effect on the field of second words acquisition, studies on interlanguage concentrate on the linguistic and mental health areas of second words acquisition research. I’ll first outline the way the interlanguage assumption developed. because the interlanguage concept isn’t just important for the development of the student’s sentence structure system; I’ll then explore how it pertains to other the different parts of language. I’ll also focus on the results of the concept for the tutor and his work in the school room. Prior to the 1960s language had not been regarded as a mental happening. Like other forms of human behavior terminology is learnt by operations of habit formation. A child learns his mom tongue by imitating the does sound and habits he hears around him. By authorization or disapproval, people strengthen the child’s tries and lead the attempts to the correct forms. Consuming cognitive linguists this justification of first dialect acquisition was criticized. Language can’t be verbal action only since children have the ability to produce an infinite number of utterances which may have never heard before. This creativity is merely possible just because a child develops a system of rules. A lot of studies show that children actually do build their own rule system, which evolves steadily until it corresponds to the machine of the individuals. Addititionally there is facts that they go through similar periods acquiring grammatical rules. Through the effect of cognitive linguists and first language acquisition research the notion developed that second language learners, too, could be viewed as actively making rules from the data they encounter and they gradually adjust these rules in direction of the target words. However wrong and unacceptable learner’s own words system, they can be grammatical in their own conditions, being that they are something of the learner’s own language system. This technique gradually advances toward the rule-system of the prospective language. The various forms of the learner’s terminology competence are called interlanguage. This pulls to the actual fact that the learner’s vocabulary system is neither that of his mom tongue nor that of the second language, but is made up of components of both. Therefore, problems need not be observed as indications of inability only, but as proof the learner’s developing system. As the behaviorist approach led to teaching methods designed to use drills and consider mistakes as symptoms of failure, the concept of interlanguage liberated language teaching and paved just how for communicative coaching methods. Since problems are believed a representation of the students’ temporary language system and for that reason a natural area of the learning process, professors could now use coaching activities which did not call for frequent supervision of the student’s dialect. Group work and set work became appropriate means for vocabulary learning.
A brief review of approaches to analyses of errors
Contrastive Examination (CA) Contrastive evaluation is an strategy made from behaviorist learning theory. Through CA applied linguists sought to work with the formal distinctions between the learners’ first and second languages to predict mistakes. The basic strategy behind CA was a structural picture of any language could be produced which might then be used in direct evaluation with the structural picture of another words. Through an activity of ‘mapping’ one system onto another, similarities and variations could be discovered. Identifying the distinctions would lead to an improved understanding of the issues that a learner of the particular L2 would face. (Corder, 1983). CA stresses the influence of mother tongue in learning another dialect in phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. It keeps that L2 would be damaged by L1. Here, language is taken as a set of habits and learning as the establishment of new patterns, a view sprung from behaviorism, under which terminology is essentially something of habits. In the course of dialect learning, L1 learning habits will be moved into L2 learning patterns. Therefore, regarding L1 copy into L2, if constructions in the MT have their related set ups in the TL and L1 patterns can be successfully found in the L2, learners would transfer similar properties efficiently used in the L2, learners would copy similar properties effectively and that could cause positive transfer. Contrastively, in the case of negative transfer or interference, certain components of the MT have no corresponding counterparts in the TL, L1 behaviors would cause mistakes in the L2 and learners would copy unacceptable properties of L1. CA places the surroundings as the predominant element in SLA, while learners are believed to play only a passive role in acknowledging the impositions of the environment. We must not forget that we now have numbers of problems made by terminology learners appear to be unrelated to the learner’s indigenous language. Corresponding to SLA analysts non-interference mistakes were more pervasive in learner performance than CA were ready to acknowledge. Dulay and Burt (1973) examined the errors created by Spanish-speaking children learning British as an L2 and claimed that all of the learner’s errors had accumulated, 85% were “developmental” (non-interference), 12% were unique and only 3% were results of L1 disturbance.
Primary tenets of CA are:
Prime cause of difficulty and problem in foreign language learning is disturbance coming from the learner’s native language.
Difficulties are chiefly scheduled to differences between the two languages
The greater the difference s, the more acute the learning issues will be
The results of your comparison between the two languages are needed to forecast th e issues and errors which will take place in learning the mark language
What needs to be taught is uncovered by comparing the dialects and subtracting what’s common to them. (Corder, 1981)
3. Error analysis (EA)
It is thought as the analysis of linguistics ignorance, the inspection of what people do not know and how they try to cope with their ignorance, by James (2001). Error analysis was first released by Fries (1945) and Lado (1957) who have claimed that international or second language learners’ mistakes could be expected on the basis of the differences between the learners indigenous and second dialects. They have also suggested that where in fact the aspects of the target language act like those of the learner’s native terminology, learning will be easy; normally, it’ll be difficult and second terminology learners are anticipated to make errors. The field of problem analysis in SLA was set up in the 1970s by S. P. Corder and co-workers. A widely-available review are available in chapter 8 of Dark brown (2000). Error evaluation was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach inspired by behaviorism by which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners’ first and second dialects to predict errors. Error analysis exhibited that contrastive examination was unable to forecast a great majority of errors, although it’s more valuable aspects have been contained into the research of language copy. A key finding of error evaluation has been that many learner errors are made by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new words. This is actually the examination of those errors determined by students in both spoken and written medium. Corder, who have added enormously to EA, writes this:
“The study of problem is area of the investigation of the procedure of vocabulary learning. In this value it resembles methodologically the study of the acquisition of the mother tongue. It offers us with a picture of the linguistic development of a learner and could give us signs as the learning process. “
Error analysts identify between errors, that happen to be systematic, and blunders, which are not. Corder(1967) made use of Chomsky’s the “competence versus performance” differentiation by associating errors with failures in competence and blunders with failures in performance. In his view, a blunder occurs as the results of finalizing limitations alternatively than lack of competence. It implies L2 learners’ failing of utilizing their understanding of a TL guideline. They often times seek to build up a typology of errors. Error can be labeled matching to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to term order. They can be grouped by how noticeable they are simply: overt problems such as “I angry” are obvious even out of context, whereas covert problems are obvious only in context. Closely related to the is the classification matching to domains, the breadth of context which the analyst must study, and magnitude, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to repair the error. Errors may also be classified in line with the level of language: phonological mistakes, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, etc. They might be assessed according to the degree to that they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to comprehend, while local mistakes do not. Inside the above example, “I upset” would be a local error, since the meaning is noticeable.
From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. Specifically, the above mentioned typologies are problematic: from linguistic data exclusively, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of mistake a learner is making. Also, problem analysis can offer effectively only with learner development (speaking and writing) rather than with learner reception (hearing and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use an application with that they are uncomfortable. Therefore, although error analysis continues to be used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the search for an overarching theory of learner mistakes has mainly been abandoned. Inside the middle-1970s, Corder and others shifted to a far more wide-ranging method of learner vocabulary, known as interlanguage.
Error analysis is tightly related to the analysis of mistake treatment in dialect teaching. Today, the study of errors is specially relevant for give attention to form teaching methodology.
EA stresses on the importance of problems in learners’ IL system, Dark brown (1994) may be, carried out immediately for pedagogic purposes.
Carl James (1998) viewed, ” EA developed out of the belief that mistakes signify the learner’s level of terminology learning and acquisition. th learner is seen as an active participant in the introduction of hypotheses regarding the rules of the target language equally a kid learning the first terms. Errors are believed to be proof the learner’s strategy as he or she creates competence in the target language. These mistakes are thought as global which inhibit understanding and local which do not interfere with communication”.
Error analysis has been criticized as being an inefficient tool for learning just how second terms learners develop their concentrate on language. It really is argued that problem analysis deals with the learner’s beneficial competence as opposed to the receptive one, which is also an imperfect tool for categorizing problems and describing them.
In the book ‘ Problem and Interlanguage’ written by Pit Corder, he mentioned that various classifications of these mistake systems have been developed by error analysis researchers, three of that can be helpful for the teacher and are as follows.
Pre-systematic; errors occur before the terms learner has became aware any system for classifying items being learned; the learner can neither right nor explain this type of mistake.
Systematic; errors arise after the learner has seen something and error constantly occurs; learner can explain but not right the error. This classification depends on three major groups: (1) interference errors; (2) intralingual mistakes; (3)development mistakes.
Interference mistakes are triggered by the impact of the native terminology, in presumably those areas where the languages vary markedly. Intralingual errors originate with the framework to TL itself. The complexity of language induces over-generalization, incomplete request of rules, and the failure to learn conditions for guideline application. Development errors mirror the student’s attempt to make hypotheses about the words from the local language.
Post-systematic; errors happen when learner is constant in his or her acknowledgement of systems; can explain and perfect the error.
The following steps are recognized in doing an EA: “assortment of a sample of learner vocabulary; identification of errors; explanation of problems; error analysis” (Ellis cited in 2005)
Richards (1971) centered on the intralingual and developmental problems seen in the acquisition of English as a second language and further grouped them into four categories:
(i) Overgeneralization; covering cases where the learners produce a deviant structure based on his connection with other structure of the TL.
(ii)Ignorance of the rule restriction, occurring consequently of failure to see the constraints or existing structures
(iii) Incomplete request of guidelines, arising when the learners fail to fully create a certain structure necessary to produce suitable sentences
(iv) False concepts hypothesized, deriving from faulty understanding of distinctions in the TL.
from the analyses of mistakes to the practice of problem correction
We know that in traditional classroom education is laid on precision, problems frequently corrected because the instructor thinks the mistake as a thorn in his/her flesh. Yet with the knowledge of IL theory, the role of mistake correction has changed. Errors are believed natural basic products in terminology learning and in fact reflect the methods of learners’ developing system.
The pursuing factors are recognized as the source and factors behind Errors
Wilkins (1972) observes:
“When learning a foreign language a person already is aware his mother tongue, and it is this which he tries to transfer. The transfer may prove to be justified because the structure of both languages is similar-in that case we get ‘positive transfer’ or ‘facilitation’- or may confirm unjustified because the composition of the two languages are different- in that case we get ‘negative copy’- or ‘disturbance’.
Loan Words BM papers in the united states are adopting English words into the vocabulary of the countrywide language. Since the spelling follows the pronunciation, students would think it is easier to bear in mind the spelling of the loan words rather than the spelling of the initial English words that the previous are produced. Such loan words come in the written work of students because of orthographic resemblance, for example:
*everyone who’s engaging is given nombors (volumes)
* Why he was murdered continues to be a mistri (puzzle)
English is a rich and complex terms, consequently certain top features of which are inherently difficult for the learner. To mention simply a few, in grammar as an example we’ve “preached” and “reached” as the easy past anxious form of “preach” and “reach” respectively. But we can not say that “teached” although the word “teach” rhymes with “preach” and “reach” and it is orthographically very close.
Another good example can be, the adverb “quickly” this is the consequence of the change in “quick”, based on which we can not form “scarcely” from “hard”.
In lexis, the language has many words that have several so this means and are of different part of conversation.
The post is fast in the bottom.
Steadfast: loyal, constant, close (a fast friend/friendship)
(Of colors) unfading
Quick, rapid (an easy train)
(Of the person, his way of living)
Spending a lot of time and energy on pleasure leads a fast life.
Don’t speak so fast
The teacher might not be considered a good model of the language in regards to to the way he speaks, writes or educates the words. So, a few of the errors are ironically instructor induced. For example:
*The learner must work more harder.
When a student views the above-mentioned comment by way of a educator who also educates English, he would guarantee his parents to work’ more harder’.
When an English teacher uses a preposition when it’s not needed, as in:
Now let us discuss about. . .
Teachers of English who’ve no trained in phonetics may pronounce British words according with their spelling, as with:
Etiquette may be pronounced as /etIkwltI/ rather than / etket /
In all the literature of EA assessed by the writer, the likelihood that errors could result from the inevitable exposure to non-native audio system of English teaching subject matter such as background, geography, knowledge in universities and colleges where the medium of training is English is not mentioned. With due value to these subject matter teachers, a few of them are also a source of mistakes, especially in spoken English.
Materials which have coaching items sequenced in a certain way or which lack organization could lead to errors.
Norrish (1983) offers a good example of material-induced errors. Although it is the simple present tense which is normally used to spell it out a series of occasions that take place at the present moment, some teaching materials use the present intensifying aspect. This leads to the utilization of English which is neither normal nor natural.
Students who are in a country where English is taught as a spanish obviously does not have adequate contact with the target terms. opportunities to use British in both the fruitful and receptive areas of the dialect are limited. Inadequate exposure to the mark language could give rise to errors such as those beneath in the regions of grammar, lexis, spelling and punctuation.
When students has a limited exposure to the language learnt, it’s possible for him to make problems in all respects of the vocabulary.
Richards (1974, 174) cites that overgeneralization among the contributory factors. He talks about thus;
“Overgeneralization covers circumstances where in fact the learner creates deviant framework based on his experience of other buildings in the prospective language. “
After ability to hear or reading the phrase such as he reached the house a 10:00 P. M, a student may produce he leaved the home at 6:00 A. M.
Overgeneralization is also applied in the pronunciation of certain words based on what they already know, e. g. A phrase like Arkansas
This is the term used by Jain (1974) to make reference to an inconsistency or uncertainty in controlling a linguistic item. He telephone calls errors due to such a predicament systematic problems. Below can be an example given by him showing asystematic errors with respect to article use :
I began from hotel to visit see a movie. Whenever we were still ready at bust stop
I could only get some space to keep my one calf on foot-board I had formed to to get conductor finally bus relocated.
The underlined words show that the articles have been used asystematically.
This is the term utilized by Tench (1983) for the learner’s undue reliance on either the spoken or the written form of your term when the other medium is being used. It a pupil pronounces a word matching to its spelling, and then medium transfer has occurred. If students spells a expression relating to its pronunciation, that too is medium transfer, e. g. teribel, exclusive, and amazed.
A communication strategy is thought as “a systematic technique utilized by a speaker to express his interpretation when faced with some difficulty’ because of his “inadequate demand of the terms used in the interaction’. (Corder, 1981:103) some familiar communication strategies utilized by language learners are avoidance, prefabricated routine, appeal to power, approximation, phrase coinage, circumlocution and terms switch. Let us look at each one of these briefly:
Learners have a tendency to shun lexical items whose meanings they are not sure of, tones they have difficulty in producing, and grammatical items they are not sure of. Their avoidance leads to replacement of erroneous items. A learner, who did not know the manifestation I lost my way, said I lost my street instead. (Brown, 1987) That is an example of lexical avoidance.
Prefabricated patterns placed phrases and stock phrases for different events may sometimes be utilized, made from two different sentences “I don’t understand” and “how can you do this?” both sentences have been juxtaposed without deleting “can”.
This strategy is aimed at referring to an authoritative source- the native speaker, instructor, or dictionary. The 3rd source may not always be effective. A BM British bilingual dictionary which has this is of pinjam as both “to have a tendency” and “to borrow” is a possible contributor or problem. In BM pinjam corresponds to the antonyms in British. Thus, if students were to state *”is it possible to borrow me ten dollars?” It really is a deviation from Standard English.
In this strategy, the learner employs a lexical item which is not specific enough, but stocks certain common semantic features, for example ‘blade” for “breadknife”, “stick”, for “truncheon” and “the visiting minister met the king” for “the visiting minister experienced an audience with the king”.
A learner creates a fresh word or key phrase which is usually non-existent to convey the intended so this means. For instance, a learner who’s not aware of the vocabulary items “bucket” and “kettle” may come up with *’water-holder” and *”water-boiler” respectively.
The learner, who is unfamiliar with the correct lexical item, continues on to describe the feature of the mark object or action. For instance, a learner who does not know the word “clothes brand” may say “the thing to hang clothes on”. In the same way if one can’t remember the term “optician”, one might say “the individual who testing our eyes”. However the circumlocution strategy might not lead to problems, it shows the learner’s insufficient lexical competence.
This is the strategy of poor learners. They simply fall season back on the first terminology without trying anything in the target words, for example: Every Sunday and Wednesday, the “Post BergeraK” will come to my town. The equivalent of the mobile postoffice in BM in pos bergerak.
The analyses of mistakes are coherently related with teachers’ behaviour toward mistakes, and the behaviour directly result in the teacher’s behavior along the way of error correction. The analyses of problems are generated from two different ideas: CA is dependant on Behaviorist Learning Theory and EA is based on Interlanguage Theory.
Allwright, Richard L. 1975. Problems in the study of the terminology teacher’s treatment of learner error.
Cathcart R L. & Olsen, J. E. (1972). Educators’ and students’ tastes for error modification of classroom dialog errors. .
Chastain, K. (1971). The development of modern language skills.
Burt and Heidi C. Dulay. New directions in second dialect learning, teaching, and bilingual education.
Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of problem modification in second words teaching.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in spanish teaching.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second dialect acquisition and second language learning.
Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their romance with learner repair in dyadic relationship.
Prabhu, N. S. (1989). Three models in second terms pedagogy.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.
Vigil, Nedd A. , and John Oiler. 1976. Guideline fossilization: A tentative model.