Summary

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ON
PSYCOLINGUISTICS
Lecturer: Prof. Dr M. Zaim, M. Hum

SLA: TYPES OF DATA ANALYSIS

By: Larsen and Long

RODI HARTONO
11077

GRADUATE PROGRAM (S3)

Padang State University
2009
 SLA: TYPES OF DATA ANALYSIS
By: Larsen and Long

Introduction

This chapter focuses on means of collecting SLA data. Also,

it will discuss about the development of modes of inquiry and the
evolution of issues in the field over the past several decades.
There are some data analyses of second language analysis.
Those are contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance
analysis, and discourse analysis.

Contrastive Analysis
Since the 1940s to the 1960s the researchers conducted
contrastive analyses, systematically comparing two languages.
This is to identify points of similarity and difference between
particular native languages (NLs) and target language (TLs).
Contrastive analysis is an approach influenced by
behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the
formal distinctions between the learners' first and second
languages to predict errors was expressed by Lado. It is about
comparing two languages.
CAH (contrastive analysis hypotheses) where two
languages were similar, positive transfer would occur; where
they were different, negative transfer, or interference, would
result. Second language learning was viewed as a process of

2
overcoming the habits of the native language in order to acquire
the new habits in the target language. The behaviorist held that
language acquisition was a product formation. Habits were
constructed through the repeated association between some
stimulus and some response.
In the mean time, the field of language teaching was
dominated by the prevailing view of learning at the time-that of
behaviorism. The behaviorists held that language acquisition was
a product of habit formation.

Error Analysis
The enduring quality of CA was not due to sheer obstinacy;
it was observed earlier that no one could deny that the L1
influenced L2 performance, so that we can often identify with
some degree of assurance the native language of a foreign
speaker, at least where phonological evidence is available,
although we are less successful in identifying the L1 of SL
learners based on syntactic evidence alone
The field of error analysis in SLA was established in the
1970s by S. P. Corder and colleagues. Error analysis was an
alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by
behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the
formal distinctions between the learners' first and second
languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that
contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of
errors, although it’s more valuable aspects have been
incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of
error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by

3
learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new
language.
Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are
systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to
develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to
basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word
order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt
errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereas
covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is
the classification according to domain, the breadth of context
which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the
utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors
may also be classified according to the level of language:
phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors,
and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to
which they interfere with communication: global errors make an
utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the
above example, "I angry" would be a local error, since the
meaning is apparent.
From the beginning, error analysis was beset with
methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are
problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to
reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also,
error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production
(speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening
and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of
communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners
simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. For
these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate

4
specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of
learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s,
Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to
learner language, known as interlanguage.
Error analysis is closely related to the study of error
treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is
particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.

Wardhaugh (1970) proposed a distinction between a strong

version and a weak version of the contrastive analysis
hypothesis. The strong version involved predicting errors in
second language learning based upon an a priori contrastive
analysis of the L1 and L2.in the weak version researchers start
with learner errors and explain by pointing to the similarities and
differences between two languages.
According to Chomsky that language acquisition was not a
product of habit formation but rather one rule formation. So SLA
is as rule formation.
Ex: she doesn’t wants to go
I eated it
By classifying the errors that the learners, there are 5
errors are: interlingual errors and intralingual errors (proposed by
Corder), simplification, communication based or redundancy
reduction; when plural marker was omitted from a noun precede
by the cardinal number larger than one, and induced errors by
Richard (1971); errors which were brought about by a teacher’s
sequencing or presenting two linguistic items in a way which
created confusion in the mind of the language learners. An
interlingual error is L1 intereference and an intralingual error is

5
overgeneralization. Both of errors are caused by learners’ failure
to observe the boundaries of a rule.
Look at the table bellow
Type of Error Example Explanation
Interlingual  Is the book of The omission of
Interference my friend subject pronoun and
the use of the ‘ of
the’ possessive
appear to be due to
Spanish interference

Intralingual  I wonder The speaker has

Overgeneralization where are you perhaps over
going generalized the rule
of subject-auxiliary
inversion and
applied it here to an
embedded WH-
question incorrectly.

Simplification  I studied The omission of

(redundancy English for plural marker
reduction two year following the noun
year could be
termed redundancy
reduction as no
information is lost,
i.e. the cardinal
number already
signal plurality.

Corder made a distinction between mistake and error.

Mistake is a random performance slip caused by fatigue,
excitement, and can be readily corrected, and error is a
systematic deviation made by the learners who have not yet
mastered the rules of the L2. A learner cannot self- correct an

6
error because it is product reflectively of his or her current stage
of L2 development, or underlying competence.
The term of interlanguage is proposed by Nemser, 1971;
Selingker, 1972; and Corder, 1971. Interlanguage scholarship
seeks to understand learner language on its own terms, as a
natural language with its own consistent set of rules.
Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, the
view of learner language as merely an imperfect version of the
target language. Interlanguage is perhaps best viewed as an
attitude toward language acquisition, and not a distinct
discipline. By the same token, interlanguage work is a vibrant
microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage
perspective to learners' knowledge of L2 sound systems
(interlanguage phonology), and language-use norms found
among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).
By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to
universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has
contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals
in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

Performance Analysis
Performance analysis relates to morpheme studies. In this
case, it concerns with the acquisition of structure of language.
One of aspects in analyzing the morpheme is developmental of
acquisition. Studying developmental sequence or the steps leads
to acquisition of a particular structure. One of first major
discoveries was the degree of similarity between L1 and L2
developmental sequence (Ravem, 1968). One of the researches
that had been conducted by Ravem is development of English

7
negation and WH- questions in speech of his Norwegian speaking
children. Milon (1974) confirmed Ravem’s finding. Milon reported
that his subject produced negative utterances which were very
much like those of children acquiring English as a native
language.
Wode (1974 reported on in 1976) studied the ESL
acquisition of four German speaking children aged four to ten.
Wode disagreed with the claims instead, he argued that there
were differences were systematic and that they were due to the
children’s relying on their L1 only under a structural condition
where there was a crucial similarity. For example, Wode’s subject
exhibited a stage in their acquisition of the English negative in
which the negative was placed after the verb:
 John go not to the school.
It is not the case that English disallows post-verb negation.
In English the verb be and auxiliary verbs are followed by the
negative particle:
 He isn’t listening.
 She can’t meant that.
Another research was conducted by Huang (1970). He
studied the acquisition of English by Paul, a five-year-old
Taiwanese boy.
The strategy

8
Discourse Analysis
The analysis of discourse is the study of the input of the
learner (Larsen-Freeman, 1980). One sub of DA is conversational
analysis (CA). Hatch (1978) has perhaps been the SLA researcher
who has most promoted the value of examining what learners
can be learning when engaged in ‘collaborated discourse’. The
following conversation between H, a native speaker and Takahiro
(T), a non native speaker:
T: this
broken
H: broken
T: broken
This /az/ broken
Broken
H: upside down
T: upside down
This broken
Upside down
Broken
This conversation provides a good example of ‘vertical’
construction(Sscollon 1974)
References
Larsen. P and Long.M.1991. An Introduction to Second Language
Research. New York: Longman Inc.