analysis and significance second language teaching
TRANSCRIPT
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING
-a brief survey of the theoretical aspect of error analysis-
Masachika Ishida
I. From a Traditional Approach to Errors to a New Approach
1.1. Traditional Approach to Errors and Contrastive Analysis
Language teachers have been concerned with mistakes or errors
that students make in the process of Iearning a second er foreign
language. But until recently there has been no systematic way as to
how to deal with errors, even though it is a major part of teaching for i
ianguage teachers to correct their students' errors. When ESL teachers
spot various kinds of errors that occur in students' speech or writing,
they tend to correct thern automatically, hoping that they will never
repeat the sarne errors in the future.
It may safely be said that correcting errors used to be an ad hoc
attempt to deal with the practical needs of classroom teachers who
wanted to reduce their students' errors, and that it was with the advent
of contrastive analysis (CA hereafter) that serious and rigorous interest
began to be taken in errors. Being infruenced mainly by B. F. 2
Skinner's theory of language learning, applied linguists and ESL teachers
tried to identify areas of difficulties for the second language learner
by systematically comparing a description of the learner's native language
(NL hereafter) with that of the target language (TL hereafter). They
believed in CA pedagogically in that errors in the second language learn-
ing could be avoided if they were to make a thorough comparison of
these two Ianguages. C. C. Fries (1945: 9), who established contrastive
linguistic analysis as an integral component of the methodology of
foreign language teaching states:
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Societyof English Studies
2 Masachika lshida
The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a
scientific deseription of the language to be learned, carefully cornpared
with a parallel description of the native Ianguage of the learner.
Lado (1957: vii), who stroRgly advocated the need to include comparison
of cultures as an integral part of contrastive linguistics, writes in the
preface to Linguistics Across Cultures as follows:
The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict
and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty, by comparing
systematically the Ianguage and culture to be learned with the
native language and culture of the student.
During the 1950's CA was believed to represent the most immediate-
ly practical contribution of Iinguistic science to the teaching of English
as a second or foreign Ianguage. But language teachers have not
always appreciated the contribution of CA, because, as S. P. Corder
observes (1967: 19), their practical experience has usually shown them
where the areas of difficulty which the learner will encounter are and
so they have not felt that the work of CA g:ves any significantly new
information. CA has been criticized by some applied linguists for the
following two reasons:
(1) No complete linguistic comparison between any two languages has 3
been done,
(2) Many errors that turn up are not predicted by CA.
M. F. Buteau (1970:134) points out that "the
predlcting power of con-
trastive analysis is now seriously questioned: it is being confronted with
approaches that are most directly connected with pupil performance."
J. C. Richards throws doubt on the predictability of CA in an article
on "A
Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis" (1971:182), by
saying that "these
(errors caused by overgeneralization "He
can sings・",
ignoranee of rule restrictions-"the man who I saw him", incomplete
application of rules-teacher's question "Ask
her how long it takes." '
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING 3
-student's answer "How
long it takes?", and false concepts hypothesized-"I
was going downtown yesterday.") cannot be accounted for by contras-
tive analysis (supplementing mine)." As Wardhaugh (1970:129) pre-
dicts "the hypothesis of contrastive analy$is probably will have less in-
fluence on second language teaching ancl on course construction in the
next decade than it apparently has had in the last decade." Language
teachers are not satisfied with the work of CA any more, because they
have come to know that the contrast ,between the system of the learner's
NL and that of the TL is not the only factor involved in second lan- 4
guage learning and teaching, The failure of predictions, however, of CA
in particular instances does not neCessarily invalidate the theory of CA
itself.
1.2. New Trend of Error Analysis
During the past decade a new domain of error analysis (EA hereafter)
has been developed mainly by such linguists as S. P. Corder, P. S.
Strevens, L. F. Selinker, J. C. Richards, and so on. They have suggested
a new way of Iooking at errors made by the second language learner・
For example, Corder (1967:27) maintaind that errors are evidence of the
learner's strategies of acquiring the language rather than signs of in-
hibition or interference from native language habits. He also argues
that a systematic study of errors is important in order to discover the
learner's "buil・t-in
syllabus" and strategies of learning a first and a second
language, based upon the hypothesis that some of the strategies adopted
by the Iearner of a second language are the same as those by which a 5
first language is learned. S. N. Sridhar (1975) aptly sums up Corder's
notion of errors appearing in his influential paper (1967), in terms of
the relation between the first and the second Ianguage learning as fol-
lows :
From the perspective of the language Iearner, the observed devia-
tions are no more `errors'
than the first approximations of a child
learning his mother tongue are errors. Like the child struggling to
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglishStudies
4Masachika Ishida
achieve his Ianguage, the second language
successive hypotheses about the nature of
from this viewpoint, the Iearner's `Cerrors"
only inevitable but are a necessary" part
(pp. 76-77).
learner is also trying out
the target language, and
(or hypotheses) are "not
of the learning process
1.3. Errors vs. Mistakes
It is now believed that the learner's errors should not be looked at
as something harmful in the process of acquiring a second language,
but through the study of errors, language teachers get some insights
into the strategies that the learner uses. Corder is the first linguist
who has made a elear distinction between "errors" and
"mistakes".
Little or no attempt seems to have made to define "errors" either in
linguistic or pedagogical terms before. So these two words were used
interchangeably. According to Corder, "errors" refer to
"errors of com-
petence" which are systematic and represent transitional stages in the
development of grammatical rules or the final stage of the learner'sknowledge. "Mistakes",
on the other hand, refer to "errors of perform-
ance" which are occasional and haphazard and are related to such fac-
tors as fatigue, memory lapses, and psychological conditions such as 6
strong emotion. They should be organized or classified into some cate-
gorles.
In a paper on "Error
Analysis and Second Language Strategies"
(1971:12), Richards defines EA as "dealing
with the differences between
the way people learning a language speak, and the way adult native
speakers of the language use the language," emphasizing that the Ianguage
of "adult
native speakers" is the standard Ianguage while that of `Cpeople
learning a Ianguage" is in a transitional stage, sometimes deviating from
the norms of the language. Concerning errors in second language learn-
ing, he suggests that "second
Ianguage errors are not, by nature, differ- T
ent from those made by children learning English as a mother tongue."
He goes on to say that errors should not be treated as "occasional,
ac-
cidental, or as mere performance slips." He has the same view on the
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING s
learner's errors as Corder in that the second language Iearner's errors
are as systematic as the difference between the first language learning 8
of the child and the adult speaker of the first language.
II. A New Approach to Error Analysis: Interlanguage, Idiosyncratic
Dialects, and Approximative System
Recently researchers have paid little or no attention to studies of
errors alone. Instead it has been suggested that the entire linguistiesystem should be investigated, since there is a linguistic system which
underlies second language speech. This new Jinguistic system has been
proposed by L, Selinker (1972), W. Nemser (1971), and S. P. Corder
(1971). Their focuses are on the Iearner himself as generator of the
grammar of his sentenees in the new Ianguages. They are respectively
using such different terms as `Cinterlanguage,"
"approximative
system,"
and "idiosyncratic
dialects" to describe the evolving system of the learn-
er as he progresses from zero competence to native speaker competence
in a TL and to describe the successive linguistic systems that the
learner constructs on his way to the mastery of a TL.
2.1. Interlanguage
By the term interlanguage, Selinker (1972: 35) means a linguistic
system based upon "the
observable output which results frem a Iearner's
attempted production of a TL norm. Such a linguistic system invariably
differs from the TL until the learner has achieved native speaker compe-
tence which only a small number of second language learners can suc-
cessfully attain. In order to account for interlanguage phenomena, heintroduces a new notion of fossilization to refer to permanent charac-
teristics of the speech of bilinguals, irrespective of the age at which the
second Ianguage is acquired or the amount of instruction or practice in
it. He explains fossilization concretely as follows:
Fossilizable linguistic phenornena are linguistic items, rules, and
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglishStudies
6Masachika Ishida
subsystems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in
their IL (abbreviation for interlanguage) relative to a particualr TL
(p. 36).
Selinker also proposes the existence of a genetically determined "latent
psychological structure" within which interlingual identifications and the
processes and strategies undelying second Ianguage learning are claimed to
be Iocated. He explains that the "latent
psychological structure" is "activat-
9ed when one attempts to learn a second language" or
"achieved
whenever
an adult attempts to produce meanings, which he may have, in a second
10
language which he is learning." He hypothesizes that this "latent
psychological structure" contains the following five central processes;
(1) Ianguage transfer (errors attributable to NL-an Engiish structure
is used like "Father,
Mother Tokyo go," following the Japa-
nese structure "Otosan
to Okasan wa Tokyo ni ikimasu.),
(2) transfer of training (pedagogically-induced errors-" I like coffees."
after learning the pattern like+countable nouns),
(3) strategies of second language learning (e.g., omission of function
words, plural markers, etc-"What she doing?"),
(4) strategies of second language eommunication (the tendency to
stop learning once the learner feels he has attained a function-
al competence in the TL or to simplify the syntax of the TL
in an effort to make the Ianguage into an instrument of his own
intentions-"Yesterday we go for a drive and we stop near the
bench and we.......),
<5) overgeneralization of TL linguistic material (the use of previously
available strategies in new situations-"What did he intended to
say?" or "He
explained me the book.").
He further suggests that "each
process forces fossilizable material upon
surface TL utterances, controlling to a very large extent, the surface
・11
structure of these sentences." He characterizes the afore-mentioned flve
central proeesses in connection with fossilization in the following way:
t
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglishStudies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE INSECONDLANGUAGETEACHING 7
If it can be experimentally demontrated that fossilizable items, rules
and subsystems which occur in IL perforrnance are a result of the
NL, then we are dealing with the process of language tran.£flir: if
these fossilizable items, rules, and subsystems are a result of identi-
fiable items in training procedures, then we are dealing with the
process known as transfer of training;if they are a result of an
identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned,
then we are dealing with strategies qf' second language learning; if
they are a result of an identifiable approach by the learner to
communication with native speakers of the TL, then we are dealing
with strategies of second langecage communication;and finally, if
they are a result of a clear overgeneralization of TL rules and se-
mantic features, then we are dealing with the overgenerali2ation ofTL lin.cruistic material (p.37).
The interlanguage hypothesis has been applied to the learning of a second
language by the adult, but Selinker (1975) currently extends the hypothe-
sis to child-Ianguage acquisition settings, "when
the second language ac-
quistition is non-simultaneous, and also when it occurs in the absence 12
of native speaking peers of the TL."
2.2 Idiosyncratic Dialects
In contrast to Selinlcer's hypothesis, Corder (1971) does not seem
to consider "fossilization"
as an important issue. He argues that the
adult second language Iearner has a legitimate "idiosyncratic
dialect"which arises from the interface of his NL and the TL, or that the lan-
guage of the Iearner is special sort of dialect, mainly "idiosyncratic
dia-
Iect" with its own set of rules, some of which are peculiar to the Iearner's
NL, some to the learner himself. Corder also uses "transitional
dialect"
for "idiosyncratic
dialect" implying that it ultimately disappears as the 13
TL is eventually Iearned. Thomas Scovel (1976) comments on Corder's"transitional
dialect" negatively, by saying that "I
think it is more rea-
sonable to adopt the position of Selinker, Richards, and others that except
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglishStudies
8 Masachika lshida
in rare cases, the target language is never learned completely and fossil-
ized errors remain as evidence of the ultimate incompleteness of adult ]4
second language acquisition."
2.3 Approximative System
Nemser (1971) defines an "approximative
system" (La hereafter)as "a
deviant Iinguistic system actually employed by the learner attempting to 15
utilize the target language." He explains the assumption underlying the
concept of La as follows:
Our assumption is threefold:
1. Learner speech at a given time in the patterned product of a
linguistic system, La, distinct from Ls (sourse Ianguage) and LT
(target language) and internally structured.
2. La's at successive stages of learning from an evolving series,
Lai ... n, the earliest occurring when a learner first attempts to use
LT, the most advanced at the closest approach of La to LT (merger,
the achievement of perfect proficiency, is rare for adult Iearners).
3. In a given contact situation, the La's of Iearners at the same
stage of proficiency roughly coincide, with major variations ascrib-
able to differences in learning experience (p. 56).
This assumption of Nemser's is similar to Selinl{er's and Corder's.
It, however, may be noteworthy that Nemser provides some arguments
for the structural independence of La from LT and Ls systems, that is,
the learner's La exhibits frequent and systematie occurrence of elements 16
not attributable of either the learner's LT or the Ls and the constitutes 17
a system exhibiting internal coherence. Supporting his second assumption
written above, he notes that the amount and type of deviation in the
successive stages of language learning varies systematically, namely, the
earlier stages can be characterized by "syncretism"
(underdifferentiation) -
"He took a sleep." or
"I drove a bicycle.", while the later stages can
be marked by process of reinterpretation-Japanese students mistakenly
,
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE LIN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING g
use "bus
girl" for "conductress,"
"room-cooler"
for `"air-conditioner,"
"back mirror" for "rear-view
mirror," "decoration
cake" for "fancy
cake," etc・, hypercorrection-"He Iived happy." from "He
felt bad.",'
and analogy-C`in Monday morning" from "in
the morning," "enter
into
the room" from "go
into the room," "goed,"
and so on.
In order to aceount for the systematicity of deviant forms which is
equivalent to Sellnker's "fossilization"
at a given stage, Nemser suggests
two kinds of forces;(1) "the demands of communication force the
establishment of phonological, grammatical, and lexical categories," and
(2) "the
demands of economy force the imposition of the balance and 19
order of a Ianguage system."
Among the three terms "interlanguage;'
"idiosyncratic
dialects," and
"approximative system," the term
"interlanguage"
seems to be the rnost
appropriate for describing errors for the following reasons; (1) it captures
the intermediate status of the learner's system between his NL and the
TL, (2) it represents the "atypical
rapidity" with which the learner'sIanguage change, or its instability, and (3) it explicitly recognizes the
rule-governed, systematic nature of the learner's performance, and its
adequacy as a functional communicative system.
III. Pedagogical Implications of a New Approach to
Error Analysis
Until recently, a typical EA went- Iittle beyond impressionistic collec--
tjon of common errors and their taxonomic classification into categories.According to a traditional EA, errors were considered to be extremely
harmful and detrimental to optimal language Iearning and so they should
be eliminated as much as possible. But in the framework of such a
new approach to EA as "interlanguage,"
"idiosyncratic
dialects," and"approximative
system," errors are an integral part of the learning proc-
ess so that the deviations from the TL norm are treated as explanatory
factors of the learner's process. By making a comparison between the
new approach and CA, we find out that while the primary concern of
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
10 Masac'hika lshida -
CA is about the aspect of the learner's performance which can be cor-
related with the similarities in his NL, "interlanguage"
extends this lim-
itation. For example, the interference of the learner's NL is merely
one of the explanatory means of strategies adopted by the learner of the
TL in the repertories of the new approach to EA.
A major influence that the new approach has given to Ianguage
teaching is a radical change in the teacher's attitude toward the Iearner's
performance. The teacher is not to "demand that the sentences of second
20
language learners should be grammatical from the very beginning" or
he should not expect them to conform with the rules of full native com-
petence of the TL from the outset, since only about five percent of
second language learners can achieve "absolute"
native speaker compeL 21
tence. Instead of expecting the learner to pass to native speaker com-
petence in the TL, Richards and Sampson (1974:16) suggest that "more
realistic goals be set for particular situations, based on generalizations
derived from observation of how others have performed under similar
circumstances." They continue that "teacher
training manuals should
familiarlize future teachers with the varieties of language which learners
may be expected, and indeed encouraged, to produce at given stages of
Iearning." All new, broad, and deep perspective of EA comes from an
attempt to understand and explain the nature of the learner's strategies
of language acquisition.
It is true that EA as suggested by "interlanguage,"
"idiosyncratic
dialects," and "approximative
system" has opened a new domain to the
study of second language acquisition, but there remain many unanswered
questions concerning the nature and sequence of second language learning
such as whether the second language learner follows the same particular
learning sequencing as the native speaker, what ・errors
represent devel-
opmental stages in the acquisition of a rule and what errors represent
the final stages of the learner's competence, what kind of relationship 22
there is between the learner's receptive and produetive competence, and
so en.
In conclusion, the new approach to EA is pedagogically insightful
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglishStudies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING 11
and helpful. In order to make it useful for actual classroom instruction
and preparation of materials, language teachers, first of all, have to set
up the criteria to distinguish between "productive" errors and
'errors
resulting from false generalization, to ciarify the methodology to clearly
identify the sources of errors, say, in terms of Selinker's five central
processes, to make a clear distinction between `Cerrors"
and acceptable"deviation"
in second language learning contexts, and to organize and
classify types of errors in terms of the degree of disturbing effeetive
communication.
I am convinced that a more ethcient syllabus for teaching English
as a second or foreign language will be made up through the current
research of EA, by teachers who are struggling with their students' er-
rors in classroom situations.
NOTES
1. Marina K.Burt, "Error
Analysis in the Adult EEL CIassroom," TESOL Quarterly, 9.1, 1975, p. 53.
2. M.S. Scott and G.R. Tucl<er, "Analysis
and English Language Strategies
of Arab Students," Language Learningt 24.1, 1974, p. 69: Language acqui-
sition is viewed essentially "as
the formation of habits or as the result of the
individual's learning a large number of discrete elements and then gaining the ability through practice to manipulate these elements in a rapid and automatlc fashion."
3. Ronald Wardhaugh, "The
Contra$tive Analysis," TasOL Quarterly,4.2, 1970, p. 125. .
4. L.Duskova, "On
Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learninig." IRAL, 7, 1969, p. 12.
5. S.P. Corder, "The
Significance of Learner'$ Errors," in Error Analysist
Rerspectiwes on Second Language Acguisition, ed. Jack C.Richards, p. 22. 6. Corder, p. 24.
7. Jack C.Richards, "Errer
Analysis and Second Language Strategies," Language. Sbiences, 17, p. 12.
8. Richards, p. 14: "...such
errors (typical errors in the English verbal group
made by people learning English as a second language [supplementing rnine])
in second language speech reveal a systematic- attempt to deal with the data,
and that they should play the same role in our study of second Ianguage
Iearning as differences between child and adult speech play in the study of
first language acquisition."
9. Larry Selinker, "Interlanguage,"
Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
12 Masachika Ishida
Language Acguisition, ed. Jack C. Richards, p. 36.10. Selinker, p. 33.11. Selinker, p. 37.
12. L. Selinker, M. Swain, and G. Dumas, "The
Interlanguage Hypothesis
Extended to Children," Language Learning 35.1, 1975, p. 140.
13. S. P. Corder, "Idiosyncratic
Dialects and Error Analysis," in Error Analy-
sis, p. 162: "An
alternative name rnight be transitional dialect, emphasizing
the unstable nature of such dialects."14. Thomas Scovel, "Review
on NbTv Frontier in Second Language Learn-
ing," Language Learning 26.1, 1976, p. 18115. William Nemser, "Approximative
Systerns of Foreign Language Learners,"
in Error Analysis, p. 55.
16. Nemser, p. 56.
17. Nemser, p. 59.18. Nemser, p. 59.19. Nemser, p. 58.20. V. J. Cook, "The
Analogy Between First and Second Language Learning,"
LRAL, 7.3, 1969, p. 209.
21. Selinker, p. 34.
22. Scott and Tucker, p. 70, and also M. P. Jain, "Error
Analysis:Source,
Cause and Significance," in Error Analysis, p. 189.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhatia, Aban T. 1974. "An
Error Analysis of Students' Composition." IRAL,
12.Burt, Marina K. 1975.
"Error Analysis in the Adult ESL CIassroom3'
TEISOL 9uarterly, 9.1.
Buteau, M. F. 1970. "Students' Errors and the Learning of French as a
Second Language: a Pilot Study." IRAL, 8.
Cool, Vivian. 1969. "The Analogy Between First and Second Language
Learning." IRAL, 7.
Corder, S. P. 1974. "The
Significance of Learners' Errors." Error'Analysis.
Ed. Jack C. Richards. London:Longman. Also in IRAL, 5, 1967.
. 1974. "Idiosyncratic Dialects and ErroT Analysis." Error Analysis.
Ed. Jack C. Richards. London:Longman. Also in IRAL, 9, 1971.
Dulay, H. C. and Burt, M. K. 1974. "You
Can't Learn Without Goofing."
Error Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Riehards. London: Longman.
............... 1974. `Error
and Strategies in Child Second Language Acquisitionl'
TESOL Quarterly, 3.2.
Duskova, L. 1969. "On
Sou\ces of Errors in Foreign Language learning."
MAL, 7.
Fries, Charles C. 1945. Tleaching and Learning E]nglish as a Fbreign Language.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hammarberg, Bjorn. 1974. "The
Insufficiency of Error Analysis." LRAL, 12.
The Society of English Studies
NII-Electronic Library Service
The Society ofEnglish Studies
ERROR ANALYSIS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING 13
Jain, M. P. 1974. "Error Analysis:Source, Cause, and Slgnificance." Error
Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Richards. London: Longrnan.
Lado, Robert. 1957. Lingrtistics Across &tltures. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Nemser,William.1974. "Approximative
Systems of Foreign Language Learners."
Error Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Richards. London:Longman. AIso in
IRAL, 9, 1971.
Nord, James R. 1977. "Error Recognition as a Self-Monitoring Skill."
sSystem: A Jburnal for Eclv.cational Technology and Language Learning
,S},stems, 5.3.
O'Keeffe, Leo E. 1976. "Error Recognition Ss Not Enough." ,System:A
Jburnal for Educational Technology and Language Learning ,Systems, 4.3.
Richards, Jack C. 1974. "Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies."
Error Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Riehards. London:Longman. AIso in
Language Sciences, 17.
................ 1974. "A
Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis." Error
Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Richards. London: Longman. Also in English
Langatage Teaching 25.3, 1971.
................ 1974. "Social
Factors, Interlanguage, and Language Learning."
Error Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Richards. London:Longman. Also in
Language Learning3 22.2.
Richards, Jack C. and Sampson, G. P. 1973. "Learner
Language Systems."
Language Sct'ences, 26.
Schachter, J. 1974. "An Error in Error Analysis." Langztage Learni?rg3 24.2
Schumann, John H. and Stenson, Nancy. 1974. Nl3Tv Frontiers in Second
Langnage Learningt Massachusettes: Newbury House.
Sharma, Alex. 1977. "Error Analysis and the ESL Teacher." sSystem:A
Jburnal for Educational Tlechnology and Language Learning sSystems. 5.3.
Scott, M.S. and Tucker, G. R. 1974. "Error
Analysis and English Language Strategies of Arab Students." Language Learning 24.1.
Scovel, T. 1976. "Review on NkTv ,FV"ontiers in Second Language Learning."
Language Learning 26.1.
Selinker, Larry. 1974. "Interlanguage." Error Analysis. Ed. Jack C. Richards.
London:Longman. Also in IRAL, 10.
Selinker, L., Swain, M., and Dumas G. 1975. "Interlanguage Hypothesis
Extended to Children." Language Learning 25.1.
Sridhar, S. N. 1975. `tContrastive
Analysis, Error Analysis, and Interlanguage: Thee Phases of One Goal." Studies in Langzcage Learning 1.1.
Wardhaugh, R 1970. "The Contra$tive Analysis Hypothesis." TESOL
Quarterly, 4.2. J