analysis and significance second language teaching

13
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 itis 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 itwas 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 integralcomponent of the methodology of foreign language teaching states:

Upload: others

Post on 14-Apr-2022

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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:

Page 2: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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." '

Page 3: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 4: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 5: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 6: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 7: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 8: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

,

Page 9: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 10: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 11: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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

Page 12: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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.

Page 13: ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

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