Error Analysis and Interlanguage
Error Analysis and Interlanguage
Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis is an approach in applied linguistics that aims to compare two languages to identify
their similarities and differences. This method has three main objectives: to establish universals and
language-specific characteristics, to explain and predict problems in second language acquisition
(SLA), and to develop language teaching materials. Contrastive research dates back to 1786 when
William Jones compared Greek and Latin to Sanskrit and discovered similarities. In the 1950s and 1960s,
contrastive linguistics research in the US compared English to the major European languages taught in
American schools and influenced the development of language teaching materials. In the 1970s, CA
spread to other parts of the world, and scholars used it to identify learner errors resulting from language
contact or the persistence of existing mother tongue habits in the new language. CA also helped predict
the relative difficulty of different aspects of a target language.
Contrastive Analysis (CA) is a method used to compare two languages in order to identify similarities
and differences. It was believed that by doing this, it would help predict and explain the difficulties that
learners might face when trying to learn a second language (L2). However, some scholars argued that CA
was not effective in creating teaching programs, and suggested using Error Analysis instead. Error
Analysis focuses on understanding the sources of errors that learners make when learning an L2. Teachers
can use this information to help learners overcome these errors. Overall, Error Analysis is seen as a more
practical and beneficial approach to teaching a second language.
A "Mistake" is an error that occurs due to a random guess or a lapse in memory. It's a temporary
breakdown in the process of speech production, and can be corrected if pointed out to the speaker. An
"Error," on the other hand, is a noticeable deviation from the grammar of a native speaker. It reflects the
learner's competence and cannot be self-corrected
Error Analysis has replaced Contrastive Analysis as not all errors made by the learner are due to the
influence of their native language. Errors can arise from various sources, such as the learning context,
communication strategies, and affective variables.
1. Pre-systematic stage: The learner makes random errors and guesses inaccurately.
2. Emergent stage: The learner begins to identify patterns and internalize some rules.
3. Systematic stage: The learner becomes more consistent in producing the L2 and can correct errors.
4. Post-systematic stage: The learner reaches a stage of fluency and intended meanings are not
problematic, and they make relatively few errors.
5.Dealing with learner language in class: Form-focused Instruction (FFI)
Form-focused Instruction (FFI) is a teaching technique that draws the learner's attention to language form,
whether it is done explicitly or implicitly. It has been a topic of discussion among SLA researchers, who
have found that FFI can help improve learners' language skills if it is integrated into a communicative
curriculum. Feedback is most effective when given after communicative tasks. Certain learners, such as
analytic, field-independent learners, benefit more from FFI than others. Corder has emphasized that error
analysis should not only focus on obvious grammatical errors but also consider well-formed sentences
that may be inappropriate in a given context. There are two types of appropriateness that need to be taken
into account: referential appropriateness and social appropriateness. Referential appropriateness
refers to the truth value of a learner's structure concerning its referential relationship, while social
appropriateness relates to the learner's ability to select the appropriate style or register of language for a
given social situation.
Ex of referential appropriateness : A learner might say, "I want to go at the park" instead of "I want to
go to the park". The sentence is well-formed and grammatically correct, but the use of "at" instead of "to"
is contextually inappropriate. The learner has not grasped the appropriate use of prepositions in this
context. This is an example of referential appropriateness.
Ex of social appropriateness : Let's say a learner is giving a formal presentation to a group of business
professionals. If the learner uses very casual language and slang, it may be socially inappropriate for the
context. In this case, the learner would need to be able to select the appropriate register or style of
language for the social situation in order to effectively communicate with the audience.