Rijalda Dizdarevic

Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage Theory

“Errors are not in the art but in the artificers”

Isaac Newton

The one who learns is the one who makes mistakes. Language learning follows this principle
as well. When learners are in the process of acquiring the target language, they inevitably
encounter problems with the pronunciation of certain words, their meanings, or even the
structure. In order to explain, propose solutions and minimize the negative effects of errors,
three theories have been developed: Contrastive analysis (CA), Error analysis (EA) and
Interlanguage theory. Contrastive analysis studies linguistic systems of the learner's first and
second language, their structural differences and similarities with the assumption that the
similarities facilitate and the differences impede language learning (Fisiak 1981:7). This
approach relies on the behaviourist principles that the errors can be predicted and prevented.
However, the experience shows that not all of the errors may be successfully predicted. The
theory which takes one step further is error analysis. Richards (1971) refers to the field of
error analysis as the differences between the way people learning a language speak and the
way adult native speakers of the language use the language. However, even this approach has
certain limitations. The error data collection under the investigation excludes other corpus
relevant as well. The third option to stand in between these two is the Interlanguage theory. It
is a continuum between the first language and the target language (Larsen, et. al., 1992: 60).
Corder (1967) noted: “a learner’s errors are significant in that they provide to the researcher
evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is
employing in the discovery of the language.” Errors have long been banned and seen as an
indication of low progress on the part of language learner. Nowadays, they are widely
accepted and considered to be a common thing in the process of second language acquisition.
Selinker (1992) states that the making of errors can be regarded as “a device the learner uses
in order to learn.“ Theoretical framework for the Contrastive Analysis was developed in
Lado's Linguistics across Cultures (1957). In his book, Lado claimed that “those elements
which are similar to the learners native language will be simple for him, and those elements
that are different will be difficult.“ The objectives of this theory, Theo van Els, et al (1984:
38) are:

1) examining similarities and differences between languages

2) exploring, predicting and preventing problems in L2 learning
3) writing language materials to avoid the most frequently mistakes

CA ignores certain factors that affect second language learner performance such as
overgeneralization, communication strategies and learning. Native language interference is
only one of the sources of errors; also, predicting errors and difficulties is so time-consuming
since the errors either do not turn up or turn up when they are not predicted. Larsen, et al
(1992: 55) states “predictions arising from were subjected to empirical tests. Some errors it
did predict failed to materialize, i.e. it overpredicted.” CA has been largely based on
behaviourist theory and once it failed, this approach lost its theoretical foundation as well.
Teachers had very little benefit from it since they could not rely on what was predicted (the
list of potential errors they have to be aware of in learner’s performance) as it may or may not
appear i.e. those errors that are predicted to appear do not occur while certain linguistically
unaccepted forms turn up and make linguistic educators question the theory they are
following. Attention was shifted to error analysis as an approach to overcome these
deficiencies.

The error analysis is a technique for classifying, identifying, and interpreting the unacceptable
forms produced by foreign language learner (Cristal (1987: 12)). The focus of this
methodological approach is the description of errors made in writing or speaking in order to
recognize the difficulties that usually appear in any of these processes. Brown (1992: 205)
makes a distinction between errors and mistakes. Errors are systematic in their nature

2
(linguistic rules are wrongly perceived and learned) while mistakes present unsystematic
performance errors such as slips of the tongue. Teachers should concentrate on errors
(systematic violations of the rules) and not on mistakes (slips). There is a procedure which
teachers can use when documenting and analyzing learner errors (Corder, 1974):

1) Identify the errors

The first step is to identify the error. Learner’s language performance may contain a linguistic
anomaly either at phonological, morphological or syntactic level. It is important to help the
learner find the correct form and/or test different hypothesis (Carroll, 1995).

2) Explain the errors

When you have identified the error, the next step is to analyze its cause. Native language
transfer might be one of the possible causes (learner follows the patterns of their own
language structure). The errors may be developmental as well (errors that are a natural part of
the second language learning). Finally, there are errors in communication, when the learner
uses the wrong form to express himself (Selinker 1972). Richards (1971, p.1) stated “the field
of error analysis may be defined as dealing with the differences between the way people
learning a language speak and the way adult native speaker of the language uses the
language.” This approach aimed to validate the theoretical assumptions of the CA by paying
attention to the learner and their language performance, which is an important step since the
earlier practice favoured hypothesis formulation in the field of second language acquisition.
The results obtained under the EA view revealed that the errors were not caused by the native
language transfer. This fact posed a question of what determines and shapes the learner
second language acquisition, learning and performance. Finally, the theory focusing on the
linguistic system of adult second language learners and five psycholinguistic processes was
developed.

Interlanguage theory appeared in the mid-1970s as a reaction to the CAH, it focuses on the
process i.e. it examines learner’s current L1 abilities and their progress towards the target
language. It is a continuum between the first language and the target language along which all
learners traverse (Larsen, et al., 1992: 60).

3
 Figure 1. The Interlanguage Continuum

According to this approach second language learning is “a creative process of constructing a

system in which the learner is consciously testing hypothesis about the target language from a
number of possible sources of knowledge (Brown 1980: 162).” Although, Selinker first used
this term, it was Nemser who first mentioned “deviant” learner’s language. Nemser (1971:
116) states “learner speech at a given time is the patterned product of a linguistic system
distinct from NL and TL and internally structured”. The learner creates an interlanguage by
using learning strategies such as overgeneralization, simplification, strategies of learning,
transfer of training and language transfer. Students overgeneralise the learned rules and apply
these to the similar situations, e.g. past simple of the regular verbs in English is made by
adding “ed” or “d” to the infinitive verb form; however, this rule cannot be applied to
irregular verbs since another principle is required to get the past form. Students overgeneralise
it and say “goed” instead of went. The term fossilization is very important to stress out. In
Brown (1980: 181) it is defined as “relatively permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic
forms into a person’s second language competence.” This refers to certain errors that the
learner continues to produce. Selinker in his paper “Interlanguage” (Richards 1974: 36) states
that fossilization is a psychological phenomenon since “many of these fossilized phenomena
reappear in IL performance when the learner’s attention is focused upon new and difficult
intellectual subject matter or when he is in a state of anxiety or other excitement, and
strangely enough, sometimes when he is in a state of extreme relaxation.” Other theorists as
well explained the same phenomenon but under different name, Approximative System
(Nemser 1971), Transitional Competence (Corder 1967), and Idiosyncratic Dialect (Corder
1973). James (1986: 6) states that the main difference between Interlanguage theory and the
CA, EA, is that it is wholly descriptive and avoids comparison. Despite its strengths,
interlanguage theory has also a disadvantage - low explanatory powers. It relies on fault
learning as a result of which motivation can be reduced. Also, it is well known that the source
of an error cannot always be identified. Finally, it cannot determine how the exact learner’s
position between L1 and L2 will be interpreted.

4
The real revolution with the errors and their role in the second language acquisition started
after Corder had shown their significance to the teachers, researchers and learners. Examining
the students’ errors, teachers obtain insight into learners’ progress and accustom their
language input and the syllabus content towards it. Researchers benefit by observing the
strategies used by language learners and how language is acquired. Learner can benefit from
the errors in the way each time they are aware of it, the learning takes place. Carroll suggested
that the learner should not be given the correct form; rather, they have to search for it
themselves. Contrastive Analysis is the study of the two linguistic systems with the aim to
compare and contrast these and see which elements overlap and which differ. The primary
reason for this is the assumption that the similar elements in the learner’s native and target
language help the process of language acquisition, while those distinct and different elements
cause certain problems in second language acquisition. The main criticism of this theory
concerns the prediction of the errors i.e. some problems that were predicted to turn up,
actually did not occur while the errors which were not listed turned up. Error analysis
appeared as an alternative to this. It concentrated on the students’ tests to statistically
contribute to the area of error problematics. The quantitative approach proved to be more
valid and also supplemented the work of contrastive linguists. Within this theory, errors were
classified into two main areas: systematic errors and unsystematic ones (slips of the tongue).
EA contributed to the second language acquisition with its emphasis on strategies in L2
acquisition. However, even the contrastive analysis and error analysis could not completely
account for the errors encountered in second language learning. Interlanguage theory
appeared as a more elaborated theory in this field. It developed the theories of language
contact and language acquisition, examined non-standard speech varieties, immigrant speech
with the aim to scientifically approach and explain the errors and significance of these.
Although different in their scope, theoretical perspectives, methodologies and assumptions,
still, the main aim of all three schools is to facilitate second language learning and help the
learners successfully acquire the target language.

5
Bibliography

Brown, H. D. (1993). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. San Francisco:

Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching-4th edition. Englewood

Cliffs, N. J: Prentice Hall.

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis, In Allen, J. L. P. and Corder, S.P. (1974) Techniques in
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5: 161-9.

Els, Theo Van et al. (1984). Applied Linguistics and Learning and Teaching of Foreign
Languages, Edward Arnolds.

James, C. (1974). Linguistic Measures for Error Gravity. Audio –Visual Language Journal,
12, 1, 3-9.

James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.

James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Larsen, Diane, et al. (1992). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.

London: Longman

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Nemser, W. ( 1971). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learning. IRAL, 9, No. 2.

Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. English Language

Teaching, 25, No 3.

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Intralanguage. London: Longman

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL. 10 209-231.