2.3 E RROR A NALYSIS
2.3.2 Intra-language Studies
Conventionally, and as mentioned earlier from the above theories, the sole source of second language learners‟ errors was, for many decades, accepted as interference from the learner‟s first language, under the effect of the strong version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Nevertheless, in the field of Error Analysis, transfer from mother tongue, resulting from one‟s native language, is known as “interlanguage”, which by no means can be considered the only source of learners‟ errors. However, in the late 1960s, Selinker developed the nature of this theory, focused on the kinds of errors which are influenced by the native languages and interfere with target language learning. This idea spread rapidly and has become synonymous with the notion of the interlanguage theory.
Indeed, efforts have been made to recognise and identify a second common source of language learner error, in order to demonstrate the other factors that influence the learning process rather than the role played by one‟s native language. Various researchers have concentrated on those errors to investigate the relationship with the other factors, which relate to both internal and external factors that influence learning processes, rather than the widespread belief that first language interference is part of cognitive learning processes. At the outset, although it was and still is strongly believed that most foreign and second language errors are produced as a result of the transformation of rules and meaning from one language into another, and this was proven to be accurate in many studies mentioned earlier in this chapter, some researchers and linguists have looked into other language features, including which language aspects are transferable and which are not. Among those researchers, Richards in the early 70s was the first who challenged this belief and argued that there are many other factors that influence second language acquisition other than the interference of a
36
first language. Richards in his aforementioned linguistics theory argued: “Many of the learners‟ errors came from the strategies that they use in language acquisition and the reciprocal interference of the target language items. Error Analysis would allow teachers to figure out what areas should be focused on and what kind of attention is needed in an L2 classroom so that the language teachers can be better able to develop curriculum and select materials that can facilitate L2 learning processes” (Richards, 1971, p. 208, cited in Heydari & Bagheri, 2012, p.13). In relation to the investigation into learner errors, Richards (1971, cited in, Khansir 2012), classified these possible sources;
a) Over-generalisation, covering instances where the learners create a deviant structure on the basis of their experience of other structures of the target language;
b) Ignorance of rule restriction, occurring as a result of failure to observe the restrictions or existing structures;
c) Incomplete application of rules, arising when the learners fail to fully develop a certain structure required to produce acceptable sentences;
d) False concepts hypothesised, deriving from faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target language (Khansir, 2012, p. 4).
In this regard, researchers start to identify the concept of “intralanguage” as a different source of learner errors rather than the interference of the mother tongue. Brown (1980) identified a good model for second language errors, and he described it as the negative transfer and over-generalisation of rules within the target language itself rather than a transfer from a first language. James (1998) added that intralanguage can be used to describe the kind of errors which are a result of and caused by the on-going process of learning the target language itself. Errors appear as a result of incomplete application of rules, building a wrong hypothesis in the system of a new language. As well as the over-generalisation and under-over-generalisation of the target language, learners overlooking the restrictions of the rules of their target language and the simplification of grammar can lead to the production of errors within the new language itself during the learning process. Although, these classifications provide a sufficient justification of learner errors, it is important to point out that some errors can be a result of the weakness of a learner‟s memory. Accordingly, Gorbet (1979) has added to the concept of intralanguage. He believed that in order to learn a language, the learner during this process creates a system of different rules from the language they are exposed to, and
37
this system becomes in charge of the target language production, making the second language learner rely on it.
Consequently, researchers, instructors and linguists started to take into consideration the errors resulting from learning environments and observed different language features. In this regard, Collins (2007) stated that second language learners from different backgrounds and cultures may face similar learning obstacles and equal types of challenges. Thus, later studies were carried out in order to observe different sources of learners‟ errors. Kim (1987) identified in his studies on Korean intermediate learners that intralanguage errors were almost more than half the total of errors resulting from first language transfer. Noor (1978) argued in a study on linguistic analysis on adverbial clauses found that the transfer is less observed in adverbs than intralanguage errors.
Furthermore, Asfoor (1978) found the most frequent errors for Arabic learners were in auxiliaries as a result of intralanguage, and that only 10% were a result of first language interference. Kim (1988) likewise examined errors in English nouns and verbs with reference to voice, tense and mood along with the Korean language, during a study in which students were asked to translate 42 sentences from Korean to English. The results shown in regards to the sources of errors were that over-generalisation errors accounted for 65%, compared with 21% resulting from learners‟ first language. Additionally, Kim (2001) also oversaw another study in analysing learner errors. Indeed, the aim of conducting this study is to observe and analyse Korean students‟ writing at college level in order to scrutinise the influence of their first language on their second language production. He mentioned that “it is widely believed that Korean learners of English often show incorrect use of English expressions due to their L1 interference. Despite such a prevalent belief, the sources of learners‟ errors and L1 interference were not clearly identified” (p. 160, cited in Heydari & Bagheri, 2012, p. 11). In order to inspect learners‟ errors, he did further research on different features of writing by comparing 30 samples of students in different categories, looking at linguistic features such as omission of tenses and incorrect use of conjunctions and articles. The study revealed that the main source of error for the Korean students was in fact intralanguage, and first language intervention appeared to contribute less to learners‟ errors. This lends support to what Heydari & Bagheri (2012) have indicated about “the assumption that L2 learners follow similar developmental patterns to those found in children's L1 acquisition” (p. 5). Thus, it might be concluded from Kim‟s study that learner error is a result of a cognitive process where the student seeks out the rules they are familiar with
38
in the system of the target language rather than looking for a common deviant in the new language which could be corrected. Additionally, Bataineh (2005) also created a study of the sources of learner errors through examining Jordanian students at intermediate level. She mentioned that the role of the first language transfer proved to be minimal among other factors of language features (such as the simplification of rules, which he found to be the most common among those learners). She noted in her study that “the results obtained above suggest that the majority of errors made by the four groups are the result of common learning processes, such as over-generalisation and simplification of the English article system. The impact of the subjects‟ native language was found to be minimal” (2005, p.75). Furthermore, Sattayatham and Honsa focused their research in 2007 on first year of medical students at Mahidol University. The study showed that 44% of participants who were in total about 237 students produced errors as a result of intralanguage sources. The learners‟ task was to translate sentences from their first language (Thai) into the target language (English). The results showed that syntactic and the phonological errors made by students resulted in both sources from intralanguage and interlanguage interference. However, errors caused by intralanaguage were much more substantial than those that were a result of mother tongue interference, which were only represented by a small portion from the total of errors.
Likewise, Ahmadvand (2008) made several findings in his study analysing the errors in the writings of his Iranian second language learners. He examined the writing of around 40 students with both a pre-intermediate level of English and upper-intermediate level.
He found that the most common errors were the result of additions, regularisations and omissions. In consequence, and based on his data, negative transfer from their first language was only responsible for 30% of the total of errors. The other 70% were the result of other type of sources, such as rules of misinformation. Accordingly, it was claimed that the role of the first language has sharply declined and the negative transfer from learners‟ first language (Persian) to the target language in written production of English was neither the only source of errors nor the major one. Ahmadvand‟s study (2008), indeed, is strongly against the role played by a learner‟s first language, as he correlated learners‟ errors to other sources associated with their intralalnguge.
Henceforth, it follows from the above mentioned definitions of intralanguage, and the studies reported in this section, that many linguists and researchers in the field of second language acquisition and language learning have contemplated intralanguage causes as the prevalent source of foreign language errors. A tremendous number of studies done
39
by many researchers have signposted that foreign language learners on different levels of learning languages have produced a vast number of errors resulting from interlanguage sources. Among those researchers are Brown (1994), Littlewood (1995), and Ellis (1997), who also observed learners progress in acquiring the norms of the target language, and they found that interlanguage sources contributed to their errors and that intralanaguage sources of errors were less demonstrated (Lee, 2001).
In summary, we must take into consideration all previous studies and reports by researchers interested in the field of errors analysis when examining the sources of learner errors. Those research pieces have been conducted in order to find out the significance of errors and classify them into categories in order to provide the best understanding of the causes of these errors. However, based on the review mentioned in this section on both the theories of interlanguage and intralanguage and the vast controversial debates about the accuracy of these theories, researchers are conducting further studies in this field in order to provide sufficient evidence for any of these theories to be acceptable. In correlation with the importance of learner errors, researchers in the field of language learning have suggested different approaches and methods built on the perspective of these theories in order to find a cure to second language learner errors. Focus has been placed on the learning input and the role of using the communicative approach has been highly manifested due to the importance of adopting appropriate teaching strategies to seek a solution. As for the role of the communicative approach being one of the most important solutions, this will be represented in more detail in the next section.