TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 2. CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS AND CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS.......................................................................................................................4 2.1 History...........................................................................................................................4 2.2 Definitions and Terminology........................................................................................5 2.3 Division of Contrastive Studies....................................................................................5 2.4 Formulating Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis..............................................................! 2.5 "oderating Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis...............................................................# 3. INTERLANGUAGE THEORY.....................................................................................12 3.1 T e $irt of %nterlanguage..........................................................................................12 3.2 Selin&er's (ie) of %nterlanguage................................................................................13 3.3 *t er (ie)s of %nterlanguage and its +roperties........................................................14 3.4 Transfer, %nterferen-e and Cross.linguisti- %nfluen-e ................................................15 3.5 +ositive and /egative Transfer...................................................................................1! 3.! $orro)ing ..................................................................................................................10 3.0 Code S)it- ing ..........................................................................................................11 3.1 Fossili2ation................................................................................................................1# 4. ERROR ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................21 4.1 Definitions and 3oals..................................................................................................21 4.2 Development of 4rror Analysis..................................................................................22 4.3 T e %mportan-e of 5earners' 4rrors............................................................................23 4.4 T e Criti-ism of 4rror Analysis .................................................................................24 4.5 5inguisti- %gnoran-e and Devian-e.............................................................................25 4.! Defining "ista&e and 4rror........................................................................................20 4.0 +ro-edures of 4rror Analysis......................................................................................36 4.1 Sour-es of 4rror..........................................................................................................32 5. ERROR TAXONOMIES................................................................................................37 5.1 4rrors $ased on 5inguisti- Category..........................................................................31 5.2 Surfa-e Strategy Ta7onomy........................................................................................31 5.3 Comparative Ta7onomy..............................................................................................46 6. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................43 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................44

1. INTRODUCTION

4nglis

as undou8tedly 8e-ome today's glo8al lingua fran-a. Apart from t e 356.

456 million of native spea&ers of 4nglis t ere are also a8out 166 million of people ) o spea& it as a foreign language 9:ames, 1##1; 25<. T is suggests t at most of t e intera-tion in 4nglis ta&es pla-e among its non.native spea&ers 9Seidl ofer 2665<. 4nglis as a lingua fran-a 945F< t erefore serves as =a -onta-t language 8et)een persons ) o s are neit er a -ommon native tongue nor a -ommon 9national< -ulture, and for ) om 4nglis is t e - osen foreign language of -ommuni-ation> 9Firt 1##!; 246 -ited in Seidl ofer 2665; 33#<. *t er terms used for t is p enomenon are ?4nglis as an international language', 4nglis as a glo8al language' and ?4nglis as a )orld language', 8ut as Seidl ofer argues, t e preferred term ) en referring to people from different mot er. tongue and -ultural 8a-&grounds is ?4nglis as a lingua fran-a' 9Seidl ofer 2665; 33#<. Seidl ofer 92665; 33#< also -laims t at -urrent 4nglis is 8eing s aped 8y 8ot its native and non.native spea&ers, t e fa-t ) i- is @uite parado7i-al and -alls for furt er study of 45F. And t is is e7a-tly ) at led me to t e idea of analysing non.native spea&ers' 4nglis , i.e. 4nglis as a lingua fran-a. %n my t esis % )ill provide a t eoreti-al 8a-&ground for an analysis of 45F or ?4nglis as a se-ondAforeign language' 94S5A4F5< on t e level of le7is and grammar, )it attention to learners' errors influen-ed 8y t eir mot er tongue 9"T<. % )ill supply some of t e types of errors )it e7amples from my o)n -olle-ted data, demonstrating t at "T transfer is a fre@uent, 8ut not t e only sour-e of errors in 4S5A4F5. % )ill not ta&e into a--ount e7amples on t e level of p onology, alt oug % &no) t at it is t e level on ) i-

t e "T transfer is most apparent.

2. CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS AND CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS

%n t is - apter % )ill give a s ort overvie) of o) t e Contrastive Analysis movement )as formed, dis-uss t e related terminology and t en follo) t e development of t e Contrastive Analysis ypot esis t roug t e t ree versions until it )as displa-ed 8y ot er t eories.

2.1 Hi !"#$ Contrastive Analysis as 8een t e first maBor t eory dealing )it t e relations ip 8et)een t e languages a learner a-@uires or masters. 5inguists ave al)ays 8een interested in -omparing and -ontrasting different language systems and first pioneering )or&s appeared at t e end of t e nineteent -entury 9:ames 1#11<. T e term ?Contrastive Study' )as -oined 8y C orf in 1#41D 8efore t at t is dis-ipline ad 8een -alled ?Comparative 5inguisti-s' or ?Comparative Studies' 9Fisia& 1#11<. After t e Se-ond Corld Car t e interest in tea- ing foreign languages in-reased in t e ESA and many linguists )ere -on-erned )it pedagogi-ally oriented -ontrastive studies, espe-ially in trying to predi-t learning diffi-ulties on t e 8asis of -omparing t e native language )it t e foreign language 8eing learnt, and also )it t e study of 8ilingualism and language -onta-t p enomena. %t )as 8elieved t at pointing to t e similarities of t e t)o languages -ompared )ill ma&e t e pro-ess of foreign language learning easier for t e learner. Fo8ert 5ado's formulation of t e ?Contrastive Analysis

Hypot esis' in is Linguistics across Cultures 91#50< is -onsidered t e greatest -ontri8ution in t e field of -ontrastive studies 9Fisia& 1#11, :ames 1#11 and Gr2es2o)s&i 1##6<.

2.2 D%&i'i!i"' (') T%#*i'"+",$ Fisia& defines -ontrastive linguisti-s as =a su8dis-ipline of linguisti-s -on-erned )it t e -omparison of t)o or more languages or su8systems of languages in order to determine 8ot t e differen-es and similarities 8et)een t em> 9Fisia& et al. 1#01 -ited in Fisia& 1#11; 1<. As Gr2es2ovs&i e7plains 91##6; 11<, t ere is, unfortunately, not mu- -onsisten-y in t e terminology related to -ontrastive linguisti-s. Ho)ever, t e terms ?-ontrastive linguisti-s' and ?-ontrastive studies' are most often used. T e term ?-ontrastive linguisti-s' is usually used to refer to t e ) ole field of -ross. language -omparison, slig tly fo-using on t e instan-es related to t e t eory or met odology of -omparisons. Anot er term, ?-ontrastive analysis', -an 8e used inter- angea8ly )it t e a8ove mentioned terms, 8ut linguists tend to use it to refer to t e -omparison proper. And finally, ?-ontrastive grammar' refers to =t e produ-t of -ontrastive studies, as a 8ilingual grammar ig lig ting t e differen-es a-ross languages> 9Gr2es2o)s&i 1##6; 11<.

2.3 Di-i i"' "& C"'!#( !i-% S!.)i% Fisia& 91#11; 2.3< divides -ontrastive studies into t eoreti-al and applied;

=T eoreti-al -ontrastive studies give an e7 austive a--ount of t e differen-es and similarities 8et)een t)o or more languages, provide an ade@uate model for t e -omparison, and determine o) and ) i- elements are -ompara8le H> T ey are language independent, ) i- means t at t ey do not investigate o) a parti-ular -ategory or item present in language A is presented in language $, 8ut =t ey loo& for t e reali2ation of an universal -ategory I in 8ot A and $> 9Fisia& 1#11; 2<. Applied -ontrastive studies 8elong to applied linguisti-s. Fisia& 91#11; 2.3< e7plains t at =dra)ing on t e findings of t eoreti-al -ontrastive studies t ey provide a frame)or& for t e -omparison of languages, sele-ting ) atever information is ne-essary for a spe-ifipurpose H> T e main fo-us of applied -ontrastive studies is =t e pro8lem of o) a universal -ategory I, reali2ed in language A as J, is rendered in language $, and ) at may 8e t e possi8le -onse@uen-e on t is for a field of appli-ation> 9Fisia& 1#11; 2.3<. T ey are also -on-erned )it =t e identifi-ation of pro8a8le areas of diffi-ulty in anot er language ) ere, for e7ample, a given -ategory is not represented in t e surfa-e and interferen-e is li&ely to o--ur> 9Fisia&, 1#11; 3<. So t ey are rat er interested in t e surfa-e representation of language. $eing a part of applied linguisti-s, applied -ontrastive studies depend on several ot er dis-iplines, in-luding t eoreti-al, des-riptive and -omparative linguisti-s, psy- olinguisti-s, so-iolinguisti-s, dida-ti-s and psy- ology of learning and tea- ing 9Gr2es2o)s&i 1##6<.

2.4 F"#*.+(!i', C"'!#( !i-% A'(+$ i H$/"!0% i T e Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis 9CAH< )as )idely a--epted in t e 1#56s and

1#!6s ESA and its original purpose )as purely pedagogi-al. T e tea- ing met od ) iused t e CAH as its t eory of learning )as t e audiolingual met od. $ased on 8e aviorist and stru-turalist t eories, t e 8asi- assumption for t is ypot esis )as t at =t e prin-ipal 8arrier to se-ond language a-@uisition is t e interferen-e of t e first language system )it t e se-ond language system H> and =H t at se-ond language learning 8asi-ally involved t e over-oming of t e differen-es 8et)een t e t)o linguisti- systems K t e native and target languages> 9$ro)n 1#16; 141<. T e term ?interferen-e' ere refers to =any influen-e from t e 51 ) i- )ould ave an effe-t on t e a-@uisition of 52> 9+o)ell, 1##1; 2<. % )ill furt er dis-uss t e term ?interferen-e' in - apter 3.4. T e assumptions a8out 51 interferen-e )ere supported 8y t e eviden-e from spea&ers' performan-e in t eir se-ond language. As $ro)n states, =it is @uite -ommon, for e7ample, to dete-t -ertain foreign a--ents and to 8e a8le to infer, from t e spee- of t e learner alone, ) ere t e learner -omes from> 91#16; 14#<. 5ado's pra-ti-al findings )ere 8ased on is o)n e7perien-e and family 8a-&ground. $eing an immigrant to t e ESA and a native spea&er of Spanis , e o8served ) at diffi-ulties is Spanis .spea&ing parents ad )it learning 4nglis and o) interferen-e )as evident in t eir spee- . %n t e prefa-e to Linguistics across Cultures, Fo8ert 5ado e7plains;

T e plan of t is 8oo& rests on t e assumption t at )e -an predi-t and des-ri8e t e patterns t at )ill -ause diffi-ulty in learning, and t ose t at )ill not -ause diffi-ulty, 8y -omparing systemati-ally t e language and t e 0

-ulture to 8e learned )it t e native language and -ulture of t e student. 95ado 1#50; vii -ited in $ro)n 1#16; 14#<

5ater in t e same 8oo& e -laims

t at t e student ) o -omes in -onta-t )it a foreign language )ill find some features of it @uite easy and ot ers e7tremely diffi-ult. T ose elements t at are similar to is native language )ill 8e simple for im, and t ose elements t at are different )ill 8e diffi-ult. T e tea- er ) o as made a -omparison of a foreign language )it t e native language of t e student )ill &no) 8etter ) at t e real learning pro8lems are and -an 8etter provide for tea- ing t em. 95ado 1#50; 2 -ited in Fisia& 1#11; 4<

T is formulation of t e Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis )as later -alled 8y Fonald Card aug ?t e strong version' of t e Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis 9$ro)n 1#16; 150<. Anot er linguist supporting t e strong version of t e CAH )as Fries. %n is opinion, =t e most effe-tive Ltea- ingM materials are t ose t at are 8ased upon a s-ientifides-ription of t e language to 8e learned, -arefully -ompared )it parallel des-ription of t e native language of t e learner> 9Fries 1#45; # -ited in +o)ell 1##1; 1<. Alt oug t e pra-ti-al pro-ess of -ontrasting languages is not t e aim of t is paper, % am going to give a 8rief outline of t e pro-edure used, as 4llis 91##4; 360< mentions it. T e pro-edure involved four stages; 1. des-ription 9i.e. t e t)o languages )ere formally des-ri8ed< 1

2. sele-tion 9i.e. -ertain items or areas )ere sele-ted for -omparison< 3. -omparison 9i.e. finding similar and different items< 4. predi-tion 9i.e. in ) i- areas t e errors )ill most pro8a8ly o--ur< Card aug 8elieved t at t e strong version )as =unrealisti- and impra-ti-a8le>, sin-e =at t e very least, t is version demands of linguists t at t ey ave availa8le a set of linguisti- universals formulated )it in a -ompre ensive linguisti- t eory ) i- deals ade@uately )it synta7, semanti-s, and p onology> 9Card aug 1#06; 125 -ited in $ro)n 1#16; 150<.

2.5 M")%#(!i', C"'!#( !i-% A'(+$ i H$/"!0% i As a rea-tion to t e -riti-ism of t e strong version of t e CAH, Card aug offered a ?)ea& version'.

T e )ea& version does not imply t e a priori predi-tion of -ertain fine degrees of diffi-ulty. %t re-ogni2es t e signifi-an-e of interferen-e a-ross languages, t e fa-t t at su- interferen-e does e7ist and -an e7plain diffi-ulties, 8ut it also re-ogni2es t at linguisti- diffi-ulties -an 8e more profita8ly e7plained a posteriori K after t e fa-t 9$ro)n 1#16; 150<.

T us it as rat er e7planatory po)er, elping t e tea- ers of foreign languages understand t eir students' sour-es of errors. %n t e 1#06s, *ller and Nia osseiny proposed a -ompromise 8et)een t e t)o versions of t e CAH and -alled it a ?moderate version'. T eir t eory )as 8ased on t eir

resear- of spelling errors in learners of 4nglis as 52 ) i- s o)ed t at spelling errors )ere more -ommon among t ose learners ) o used a Foman s-ript in t eir native language 9e.g. Spanis or Fren- < t an among t ose ) o used a non.Foman s-ript 9e.g. Ara8i- or C inese<. Ho)ever, t e strong version of t e CAH )ould predi-t t e -ontrary, i.e. more diffi-ulties on t e part of t e learners ) o ad to a-@uire a ne) )riting system 9$ro)n 1#16<. $ro)n 91#16; 15#< -on-ludes t at interferen-e is more li&ely to o--ur ) en t ere is similarity 8et)een t e items to 8e learned and already &no)n items t an in t e -ase of learning items ) i- are entirely ne) to t e learner. He also points to t e fa-t t at most of t e errors -ommitted 8y 52 learners are ?intralingual' errors, i.e. errors ) i- result from 52 itself and not from 51. C itman and :a-&son -arried out a study in ) i- predi-tions made in four separate -ontrastive analyses 8y different linguists )ere used to design a test of 4nglis grammar ) i- )as given to 2,566 :apanese learners of 4nglis as 52. After -omparing t e results of t e test to t e predi-tions 8ased on t e four -ontrastive analyses, C itman and :a-&son found out t at t ey differed a lot. T ey -ame to t e -on-lusion t at =-ontrastive analysis, as represented 8y t e four analyses tested in t is proBe-t, is inade@uate, t eoreti-ally and pra-ti-ally, to predi-t t e interferen-e pro8lems of a language learner> 9C itman and :a-&son 1#02 -ited in $ro)n 1#16; 151<. $esides t e pro8lem of inappropriate predi-tions, To)el and Ha)&ins 91##4; 11. 1#< state t)o ot er pro8lems. *ne of t em is t at =not all areas of similarity 8et)een an 51 and an 52 lead to immediate positive transfer> 91##4; 1#<. To)el and Ha)&ins support t is argument 8y t e findings of *dlin's study in ) i- 51 Spanis learners of 52 4nglis omitted t e -opula ?8e' at t e early stages of learning regardless t e fa-t t at Spanis also 16

as a -opula ver8 ade@uate to 4nglis ?8e' and t us t e positive transfer )as possi8le. Ho)ever, it didn't appen. T e ot er pro8lem, t ey argue, is t at only a small num8er of errors -ommitted 8y 52 learners -ould 8e unam8iguously attri8uted to transfer from 51. T us, t e strong version of t e CAH as 8een proved inade@uate, e7-ept for t e p onologi-al -omponent of language, ) ere it is @uite su--essful in predi-ting t e interferen-e 8et)een t e 51 and 52 in pronun-iation in t e early stages of 52 a-@uisition. Dulay, $urt and Gras en similarly -on-lude t at =H present resear- results suggest t at t e maBor impa-t t e first language as on se-ond language a-@uisition may ave to do )it a--ent, not )it grammar or synta7> 91#12; #!<. T e )ea& version is not satisfa-tory 8e-ause it is only a8le to offer an e7planation for -ertain errors. T e only version ) i- remains a--epta8le is t e moderate version. Ho)ever, its findings as presented 8y *ller and Nia osseiny are in -ontradi-tion )it 5ado's original idea. T is doesn't mean t at t e idea of 51 interferen-e )as -ompletely reBe-ted, 8ut t e CAH is appli-a8le in pra-ti-e only as a part of 4rror Analysis, ) i- )ill 8e dis-ussed later.

11

3. INTERLANGUAGE THEORY

T is - apter is dedi-ated to %nterlanguage t eory or ypot esis, ) i- arose as a rea-tion to t e CAH. % )ill e7plain o) t e -on-ept of interlanguage emerged and o) it developed and )as understood 8y different linguists. T e fo-us )ill 8e on o) a learner's 52 system develops and o) transfer and interferen-e are related to t is issue.

3.1 T0% Bi#!0 "& I'!%#+(',.(,% T e CAH fo-used on t e influen-e of 51 on t e emerging 52 system and stressed t e similarities and differen-es 8et)een t e 51 and 52. T e %nterlanguage t eory, ) i- is a rea-tion to t e CAH, 8asi-ally understands se-ond language learning as =a -reative pro-ess of -onstru-ting a system in ) i- t e learner is -ons-iously testing ypot eses a8out t e target language from a num8er of possi8le sour-es of &no)ledge H> 9$ro)n 1#16; 1!2<D t ese sour-es in-lude, among ot er fa-tors, 8ot 51 and 52. T e term ?interlanguage' )as first used 8y Selin&er in 1#!# in referen-e to =t e interim grammars -onstru-ted 8y se-ond.language learners in t eir )ay to t e target language> 9"-5aug lin 1#10; !6<. Ho)ever, it )as /emser ) o in t e 1#!6s first mentioned ?deviant' learner language; =5earner spee- at a given time is t e patterned produ-t of a linguisti- system distin-t from L/5M and LT5M and internally stru-tured> 9/emser 1#01; 11! -ited in +o)ell 1##1; 3<. And, finally, it )as Corder ) o made t e ) ole issue important. %n "-5aug lin 91#10; !6< )e read t at t e term ?interlanguage' -an mean t)o

12

t ings; =91< t e learner's system at a single point in time and 92< t e range of interlo-&ing systems t at - ara-teri2es t e development of learners over time>. T erefore )e t in& t at one's interlanguage is different from one's mot er tongue and target language as )ell. %t is, as :ames 91##1; 3< suggests, a system ) iand not &no)ing t e T5. olds a alf.)ay position 8et)een &no)ing

3.2 S%+i'1%#2 Vi%3 "& I'!%#+(',.(,% %n Selin&er's vie), interlanguage is =a separate linguisti- system resulting from learner's attempted produ-tion of t e target language norm> 9"-5aug lin 1#10; !6.!1<. "-5aug lin 91#10; !1< also gives Selin&er's 8elief t at interlanguage )as =t e produ-t of five -entral -ognitive pro-esses involved in se-ond.language learning>; 91< language transfer, i.e. transfer from t e 51D 92< transfer of training, i.e. some features transferred from t e training pro-essD 93< strategies of se-ond.language learning, i.e. an approa- to t e material taug tD 94< strategies of se-ond.language -ommuni-ation, i.e. t ose )ays learners use to -ommuni-ate )it 52 spea&ersD and 95< overgenerali2ation of t e target language linguisti- material. Selin&er also 8elieved t at t e development of interlanguage )as different from t e first.language development 8e-ause of =t e li&e ood of fossili2ation in t e se-ond language> 9"-5auglin 1#10; !1<. Fossili2ation -an 8e 8asi-ally defined as t e state ) en a learner's interlanguage does not develop anymore, no matter o) long t e learner is e7posed to t e target language. $ased on t e analysis of - ildren's spee- , Selin&er found a =definite systemati-ity in t e interlanguage>, ) i- )as eviden-ed 8y -ertain -ognitive strategies; language

13

transfer, overgenerali2ation of target language rules and simplifi-ation. So is vie) of interlanguage is =an interim grammar t at is a single system -omposed of rules t at ave 8een developed via different -ognitive strategies H and t e interlanguage grammar is some -om8ination of t ese types of rules> 9"-5aug lin 1#10; !2.!3<.

3.3 O!0%# Vi%3 "& I'!%#+(',.(,% (') i! P#"/%#!i% AdBemian stressed t e dynami- - ara-ter of interlanguage systems. %n is opinion, interlanguage systems )ere =8y t eir nature in-omplete and in t e state of flu7>. He sa) t e individual's 51 system as relatively sta8le, 8ut not t e interlanguage. %n t is )ay, =t e stru-tures of t e interlanguage may 8e ?invaded' 8y t e first language> 9"-5aug lin, 1#10; !3<. So AdBemian s ares Selin&er's opinion a8out t e influen-e of t e first language on t e developing interlanguage. Tarone's vie) differed from t ose of Selin&er and AdBemian 8e-ause s e t oug t t at interlanguage )as =not a single system, 8ut a set of styles t at -an 8e used in different so-ial -onte7ts> 9"-5aug lin 1#10; !4<. So s e stresses t e so-ial fa-tor involved in t e use of interlanguage. /emser argued t at interlanguage )as an autonomous system and supported is argument 8y t e eviden-e t at t ere are =elements ) i- do not ave t eir origin in eit er Li.e. neit er 51 nor 52M p onemi- system> 9/emser 1#01; 134 -ited in +o)ell 1##1; 3<. He used t e term ?appro7imative system', as e t oug t t at a learner of a 52 undergoes a pro-ess of appro7imation of t e emerging system to t e target language 9$ro)n 1#16; 1!3<. Corder defines interlanguage as =a system t at as a stru-turally intermediate status

14

8et)een t e native and target language>. %n is opinion, every 52 learner -reates an interlanguage ) i- is uni@ue to t is individual and e -alled t is p enomenon ?idiosyn-rati- diale-t' 9$ro)n 1#16; 1!3<. He stressed t e importan-e of errors as a sour-e of information and argued t at =t e appearan-e of error in a learner's produ-tion )as eviden-e t at t e learner )as organi2ing t e &no)ledge availa8le to t em at a parti-ular point in time> 9+o)ell, 1##1; 4<. All t ese interpretations stress different aspe-ts of interlanguage. Ho)ever, all of t em s are t e 8asi- idea t at interlanguage is an independent language system lying some) ere 8et)een "T and T5. As :ames put it, it o--upies a = alf)ay position H 8et)een &no)ing and not &no)ing t e T5 91##1; 3<.

3.4 T#(' &%#4 I'!%#&%#%'5% (') C#" 6+i',.i !i5 I'&+.%'5% % ave already mentioned t e terms ?transfer' and ?interferen-e' in - apter 2.4 sin-e t ey ave t eir roots in t e 8e aviourist t eories of 52 learning and are -losely related to CAH. /o) )e &no) t at 8e aviourism does not give a satisfa-tory e7planation of t e learner's native language influen-e and t at, a-tually, any of t e previously a-@uired languages -an -ause interferen-e. T erefore S ar)ood Smit and Gellerman -ame up )it t e term ?-ross.linguisti- influen-e' ) i- is t eory.neutral and -an 8e used as a superordinate term for t e p enomena of ?transfer', ?interferen-e', ?avoidan-e', ?8orro)ing' et-. T e terms ?transfer' and ?interferen-e' are not synonymous; Transfer usually refers to t e influen-e of 51 on 52 in 8ot positive and negative )ay, ) ereas interferen-e is usually used in negative sense, so it -orresponds to negative transfer. Ceinri- 's definition

15

of interferen-e 91#53; 1 -ited in Dulay et al. 1#12; ##< supports t is idea; %nterferen-e are =t ose instan-es of deviation from t e norms of eit er language ) i- o--ur in t e speeof 8ilinguals as a result of t eir familiarity )it more t an one language, i.e. as a result of languages in -onta-t>. Ho)ever, % must note t at t ere is often in-onsisten-e in usage of t ese terms 8y various linguists. T erefore % )ill use ?transfer' as a neutral term in-luding 8ot positive and negative transfer, and ?interferen-e' as a synonym of negative transfer. Gellerman defined transfer as =t ose pro-esses t at lead to in-orporation of elements from one language into anot er> 9Gellerman 1#10 in 4llis 1##4; 361<. *dlin offers a ?)or&ing definition' of transfer; =Transfer is t e influen-e resulting from t e similarities and differen-es 8et)een t e target language and any ot er language t at as 8een previously 9and per aps imperfe-tly< a-@uired> 9*dlin 1#1#; 20 in 4llis 1##4; 361<. A--ording to Dulay, $urt and Gras en interferen-e -an 8e understood from t)o different perspe-tives. From t e psy- ologi-al or 8e aviourist perspe-tive it is t e influen-e from old a8its on t e ne)ly learned ones. From t e so-iolinguisti- point of vie) t ey see transfer as =t e language intera-tions H t at o--ur ) en t)o language -ommunities are in -onta-t> 9Dulay et al. 1#12; #1.##<. %n t is point of vie) )e are tal&ing a8out t e issues of 8orro)ing, -ode s)it- ing and fossilisation.

3.5 P" i!i-% (') N%,(!i-% T#(' &%# C en tal&ing a8out language transfer in t e 8e aviourist interpretation of t e term, )e usually differentiate 8et)een t)o types of transfer; ?positive transfer' and ?negative transfer'. +ositive transfer o--urs ) ere a language item in 51 is also present in 52, so

1!

a-@uisition of t is item ma&es little or no diffi-ulty for t e learner. An e7ample -ould 8e t e use of plural mar&ers ?.s' and ?.es' in 4nglis and Spanis . A 51 Spanis learner of 52 4nglis s ould use t e 4nglis plurals -orre-tly if t e positive transfer is operating. /egative transfer -omes ) en t ere is no -on-ordan-e 8et)een 51 and 52 and t us, a-@uisition of t e ne) 52 stru-ture )ould 8e more diffi-ult and errors refle-ting t e 51 stru-ture )ould 8e produ-ed 9+o)ell 1##1; 2 and Dulay et al. 1#12; #0<. %n my o)n resear- % ave found t at 51 Spanis learners of 52 4nglis tend to use t e 4nglis long. adBe-tive superlatives in-orre-tly. For e7ample, t ey say the more beautiful girl instead of the most beautiful girl. T e reason is pro8a8ly a negative transfer, sin-e in Spanis 8ot -omparative and superlative uses t e same )ord ms, Bust t e superlative uses it toget er )it a definite arti-le; ?elAla mOs P adBe-tive'.

3.6 B"##"3i', 5inguisti- 8orro)ing is a so-iolinguisti- p enomenon and a form of language interferen-e ) i- appears among 8ilingual spea&ers. %t is very -ommon in multilingual so-ieties all over t e )orld 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 113<. +o)ell defines 8orro)ing as =t e in-orporation of linguisti- material from one language into anot er> 91##1; 1<. "ost -ommonly 8orro)ed items are, Dulay et al. 91#12; 113< e7plain, =le7i-al items t at e7press eit er -ultural -on-epts t at are ne) to t e 8orro)ing group, or notions t at are parti-ularly important in a given -onta-t situation>. For e7ample, after dis-overing t e Ameri-an -ontinent, 4nglis and ot er old 4uropean languages 8orro)ed )ords from t e native Ameri-an languages, su- as mai2e, tomato, igloo, et-. Cords t at are 8orro)ed into a language usually preserve t eir general sound

10

pattern, 8ut t ey also modify it a--ording to t e p oneti- and p onologi-al system of t e 8orro)ing language. After t at, t e )ords are in-orporated into t e grammar of t e 8orro)ing language, i.e. t ey are given arti-les, infle-tions, et- 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 114<. ?%ntegrated 8orro)ing' refers to a )ord ) i- )as 8orro)ed into a language and spea&ers of t at language learn t is )ord from ea- ot er )it out understanding its original meaning in t e language of origin. *n t e ot er and, ?-reative 8orro)ing' is - ara-teri2ed 8y spea&ers using a )ord from anot er language to e7press a -on-ept -losely related to t e -ulture of t at language 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 114<.

3.7 C")% S3i!50i', T e term ?-ode.s)it- ing' refers to =an a-tive, -reative pro-ess of in-orporating material from 8ot of a 8ilingual's languages into -ommuni-ative a-ts> 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 115<. Fapid s)it- es from one language into t e ot er are very - ara-teristi- for -ode. s)it- ing. T ere is a )idespread opinion t at -ode.s)it- ing is an eviden-e of a la-& of profi-ien-y, fluen-y or -ontrol over t e language systems on t e part of t e spea&er. Ho)ever, t is is not true. *n t e -ontrary, -ode.s)it- ing is most fre@uent among t e most profi-ient 8ilinguals and is governed 8y stri-t stru-tural and grammati-al rules of 8ot t e languages involved. %t as a strong so-iolinguisti- fun-tion; most importantly, it )or&s as an et ni- mar&er 9Dulay et al., 1#12; 115<. Code.s)it- ing -an ta&e form of 9a< inserting )ords or s ort p rases from one language into single senten-es in anot er language or 98< altering t e languages in terms of entire p rases or -lauses. T e follo)ing e7amples ave 8een ta&en from a study of adultsQ

11

spee- in Spanis .4nglis 8ilingual -ommunity 8y Aurelio 4spinosa 9in Dulay et al. 1#12; 115<; 9a< Vamos a ir al football game y despus ... Were going to go to the football game, and then ...

Comieron turkey pa Christmas? id you eat turkey for Christmas?

98<

!e is doing the best he can pa no "uedarse atrs, pero lo #an a fregar. He is doing t e 8est e -an in order not to 8e &ept 8a-&, 8ut t ey're going to mess

im up.

3.7 F" i+i8(!i"' Fossili2ation is defined in $ro)n 91#16; 111< as =relatively permanent in-orporation of in-orre-t linguisti- forms into a personQs se-ond language -ompeten-e>. T at means t at t e 52 learner -ontinues -ommitting -ertain errors, no matter o) muinput e or s e re-eives, and is or er interlanguage doesn't develop anymore . it as fossili2ed. Selin&er in is paper titled ?%nterlanguage' 9pu8lis ed in Fi- ards 1#04; 3!< argues t at fossili2ation is a rat er a psy- ologi-al p enomenon sin-e

many of t ese Lfossili2edM p enomena reappear in %5 performan-e ) en t e learnerQs attention is fo-used upon ne) and diffi-ult intelle-tual su8Be-t matter or

1#

) en e is in a state of an7iety or ot er e7-itement, and strangely enoug , sometimes ) en e is in a state of e7treme rela7ation 9Selin&er pu8l. in Fi- ards 1#04; 3!<.

T e main property ) i- ma&es t e %nterlanguage t eory different from t e CA and also 4rror Analysis is t at it is ) olly des-riptive and avoids -omparison 9:ames 1##1; !<. T is fa-t -aused a revolution in 52 resear- and tea- ing 8e-ause it )as for t e first time ) en a learner's imperfe-t 52 system )as understood as an autonomous system.

26

4. ERROR ANALYSIS

4rror Analysis 94A<, t ird of t e maBor t eories dealing )it errors in 52 a-@uisition, )ill 8e t e fo-us of t is - apter. First % )ill define 4rror Analysis, summari2e its goals and -ompare it to t e CAH and %nterlanguage t eory. T is )ill 8e follo)ed 8y its 8rief istory and dis-ussion on t e importan-e of learners' errors and -on-epts of ignoran-e and devian-e. T e main fo-us )ill 8e on various linguists' interpretations of t e error. mista&e differen-e, pro-edures of t e 4A itself and finally, t e possi8le sour-es of errors.

4.1 D%&i'i!i"' (') G"(+ 4rror Analysis is a t eory repla-ing t e Contrastive Analysis, ) i- )as a8andoned 8y linguists and tea- ers due to its ineffe-tivity and unrelia8ility. 4A also 8elongs to applied linguisti-s 8ut it as no interest in e7plaining t e pro-ess of 52 a-@uisition. %t is rat er =a met odology for dealing )it dataR =9Coo& 1##3; 2 -ited in :ames 1##1; 0<. At t e very 8eginning of is $rrors in Language Learning and %se, Carl :ames defines 4rror Analysis as =t e pro-ess of determining t e in-iden-e, nature, -auses and -onse@uen-es of unsu--essful language> 9:ames 1##1; 1<. 5ater e goes on e7plaining t at 4A =involves first independently or ?o8Be-tively' des-ri8ing t e learners' %5 ... and t e T5 itself, follo)ed 8y a -omparison of t e t)o, so as to lo-ate mismat- es> 91##1; 5<. T ere is one differen-e ) i- distinguis es 4A from t e CA and t is is t e importan-e of t e mot er tongue; ) en doing 4A t e mot er tongue does not enter t e pi-ture at all and t erefore as no importan-e. %n t e CA, as % ave e7plained earlier, t e

21

mot er tongue is of vital importan-e. Ho)ever, t is does not mean t at 4A is not -omparative. %t is, 8e-ause it des-ri8es errors on t e 8asis of -omparing of t e learners' interlanguage )it t e target language. %t a-tually 8uilds on t e %nterlanguage t eory, 8ut t e distin-tion 8et)een t em is t at t e %5 t eory remains ) olly des-riptive and avoids -omparison 9:ames 1##1; !<. At t e same time 4A a-&no)ledges 51 transfer as one of t e sour-es of errors, ) i- ma&es it related to t e CAH. :ames 91##1; !2.!3< also refers to 4rror Analysis as t e study of linguistiignoran-e ) i- investigates =) at people do not &no) and o) t ey attempt to -ope )it t eir ignoran-e>. T e fa-t t at learners find )ays o) to -ope )it t eir ignoran-e ma&es a -onne-tion 8et)een 4A and learner strategies, ) i- )e divide into learning strategies and -ommuni-ation strategies. Corder suggests t at 4rror Analysis -an 8e distinguis ed from ?performan-e analysis' in t at sense t at =performan-e analysis is t e study of t e ) ole performan-e data from individual learners, ) ereas t e term 4A is reserved for t e study of erroneous utteran-es produ-ed 8y groups of learners> 9Corder 1#05; 260 -ited in :ames 1##1; 3<.

4.2 D%-%+"/*%'! "& E##"# A'(+$ i 4arly )or&s in 4A dealing )it 52 data )ere ta7onomi-, i.e. t ey fo-used on -olle-ting and -lassifying errors. *n t e ot er and, early analyses dealing )it native spea&ers' data )ere mainly interested in sear- ing for t e -auses of errors 9:ames 1##1<. %n t e 1#!6s 4A )as a-&no)ledged as an alternative to t e 8e aviourist CA and in t e 1#06s it 8e-ame so popular t at S- a- ter and Cel-e."ur-ia -ould -all it =t e darling of t e 06s> 9S- a- ter and Cel-e."ur-ia 1#00; 442 -ited in :ames,1##1; 11<. 4A and CA )ere

22

-ompeting to esta8lis suprema-y of one over t e ot er. H. (. 3eorge 91#02< and ". $urt and C. Gipars&y 91#02< pu8lis ed t)o of t e most signifi-ant ta7onomi- )or&s. 3eorge -on-ludes t at t e main -auses of 52 learners' errors are 9a< redundan-y of t e -ode, 98< unsuita8le presentation in -lass, and 9-< several sorts of interferen-e. %n &he 'ooficon 8y $urt and Gipars&y t e aut ors argue t at t e learners' "T as no effe-t on t e errors t ey ma&e in t e 52. T ey -ategori2ed errors into si7 groups; 9a< -lausal, 98< au7iliary, 9-< passive, 9d< temporal -onBun-tions, 9e< sentential -omplements and 9f< psy- ologi-al predi-ates 9:ames 1##1<. %n 1#10 :. $. Heaton and /. D. Turton pu8lis ed Longman ictionary of Common $rrors ) i- lists alp a8eti-ally t e 1,066 most -ommon errors in 4nglis made 8y foreign learners. T ey -olle-ted t e data from Cam8ridge First Certifi-ate in 4nglis ans)er papers 9:ames 1##1<.

4.3 T0% I*/"#!('5% "& L%(#'%# 2 E##"# T e most important and innovatory feature of 4A is t at it is @uite error.friendly, meaning t at errors are not seen as somet ing negative or patologi-al anymore, 8ut as Corder -laims, =a learner's errors H are signifi-ant in Lt atM t ey provide to t e resear- er eviden-e of o) language is learned or a-@uired, ) at strategies or pro-edures t e learner is employing in t e dis-overy of t e language> 9Corder 1#!0; 1!0 -ited in $ro)n 1#16; 1!4<. At t e very 8eginning of $rrors in Language Learning and %se :ames stresses t e uni@ueness of uman errors; =4rror is li&e)ise uni@ue to umans, ) o are not only sapiens and lo"uens, 8ut also homo errans> 91##1; 1<. He supports t e idea of t e importan-e of

23

learnersQ errors 8y -laiming t at =t e learners' errors are a register of t eir -urrent perspe-tive on t e T5> 91##1; 0<. :ames 91##1; 12< gives CorderQs five -ru-ial points, originally pu8lis ed in Corder's seminar paper titled ?T e signifi-an-e of learners' errors'; 1. 51 a-@uisition and 52 learning are parallel pro-esses, t ey are ruled 8y t e same me- anisms, pro-edures and strategies. 5earning a 52 is pro8a8ly fa-ilitated 8y t e &no)ledge of t e 51. 2. 4rrors refle-t t e learners' in8uilt sylla8us or ) at t ey ave ta&en in, 8ut not ) at t e tea- ers ave put into t em. So t ere is a differen-e 8et)een ?input' and ?inta&e'. 3. 4rrors s o) t at 8ot learners of 51 and 52 develop an independent language system . a ?transitional -ompeten-e'. 4. T e terms ?error' and ?mista&e' s ouldnQt 8e used inter- angea8ly. 5. 4rrors are important 8e-ause t ey 9a< tell t e tea- er ) at e or s e s ould tea- , 98< are a sour-e of information for t e resear- er a8out o) t e learning pro-eeds, and 9-< allo) t e learners to test t eir 52 ypot eses.

4.4 T0% C#i!i5i * "& E##"# A'(+$ i :ames parap rases CorderQs argument t at =it is not deemed legitimate ... to -ompare t e - ild's or t e F5 learnerQs %D Lidiosyn-rati- diale-tM to t e diale-t of adults or of native spea&ers respe-tively> 9:ames, 1##1; 1!<. T e reason is t at =t e - ild or t e F5 learner are neit er deli8erately nor pat ologi-ally deviant in t eir language, so it )ould 8e )rong to refer to t eir repertoires as erroneous> :ames 91##1; 1!<.

24

$ell also -riti-i2es 4A 8y -alling it =a re-ent pseudopro-edure in applied linguisti-s> 9$ell 1#04; 35 -ited in :ames 1##1; 10<. %n is opinion, t e 4A data are of only poor statisti-al inferen-e, errors are usually interpreted su8Be-tively and it la-&s predi-ative po)er 9:ames 1##1; 10<. S- a- ter -riti-i2es t at 4A does not ta&e into -onsideration t e strategy of avoidan-e, i.e. t at learners tend to avoid -ertain language items ) i- t ey are not sure a8out, and so t ey don't ma&e errors in t e areas ) ere t ey )ould 8e e7pe-ted to ma&e t em 9:ames 1##1; 11<. "ore -riti-ism -omes from Dulay et al. 91#12; 141.143< ) o point to t e fa-t t at 4A -onfuses e7planatory and des-riptive aspe-ts, in ot er )ords t e pro-ess and t e produ-tD and also t at error -ategories la-& pre-ision and spe-ifi-ity. Ho)ever, despite all t e -riti-ism 4A remains t e most )ide.spread pra-ti-e, 8e-ause it as proven to 8e t e most effe-tive approa- to 52 learners' errors.

4.5 Li',.i !i5 I,'"#('5% (') D%-i('5% % ave already introdu-ed :ames's vie) of 4A as a study of linguisti- ignoran-e. %n is opinion, t ere are t)o )ays in ) i- t e ignoran-e is usually manifested; silen-e and su8stitutive language. Silen-e means t at t e learner ma&es no response and )e -an distinguis 8et)een -ultural silen-e, referring to t e fa-t t at some -ultures are from t e nature more silent t an ot ers, and silen-e as a -onse@uen-e of ignoran-e ) i- is la8eled ?avoidan-e'. Ho)ever, t e fo-us of 4A is t e ot er -ategory . su8stitutive language, ) iis, in fa-t, a learner's interlanguage 9:ames 1##1; !2.!3<. Anot er issue related to 4A is %n-ompleteness ) i- :ames defines as t e =failure

25

to attain full /S.li&e &no)ledge of t e T5> or, similarly =an overall insuffi-ien-y 9-ompared )it /S -ompeten-e< a-ross all areas of t e T5> 91##1; !3<. %t is different from ignoran-e in t at sense t at a learner -an 8e ignorant of a parti-ular stru-ture, irrespe-tive of is or er profi-ien-y in t e T5. T ere are four -ategories of learnersQ ignoran-e of T5; 91< grammati-ality, 92< a--epta8ility, 93< -orre-tness and 94< strangeness and infeli-ity 9:ames 1##1; !4.!5<. 91< C en an utteran-e is grammati-al it means t at it is )ell.formed in terms of a parti-ular grammar. So a pie-e of language is ungrammati-al if t ere are no -ir-umstan-es under ) i- it -ould 8e used in t is )ay. Ce Budge grammati-ality of a senten-e out of -onte7t and regardless of it. 92< A--ording to 5yons 91#!1; 130 -ited in :ames 1##1; !0< =an a--epta8le utteran-e is one t at as 8een, or mig t 8e, produ-ed 8y a native spea&er in some appropriate -onte7t and is, or )ould 8e, a--epted 8y ot er native spea&ers as 8elonging to t e same language in @uestion>. T e )ord ?-onte7t' is t e &ey )ord in t is definition, sin-e )e ave to -onte7tuali2e t e utteran-e so t at )e -ould Budge its a--epta8ility. *n t e 8asis of grammati-ality and a--epta8ility, Corder 91#03; 202 -ited in :ames 1##1; !1< divided errors into -overt and overt errors. A -overtly erroneous utteran-e is superfi-ially )ell.formed and -an 8e revealed only ) en referring to t e -onte7t. T is utteran-e is grammati-al, 8ut una--epta8le. *n t e ot er and, an overtly erroneous utteran-e is ungrammati-al, so it -annot 8e used in any -onte7t. 4A is prin-ipally -on-erned )it utteran-es ) i- are 8ot ungrammati-al and una--epta8le 9:ames 1##1; !1.!#<. 93< An utteran-e is -orre-t ) en it is in -on-ordan-e )it pres-riptive normative standards of t e language in @uestion. Etteran-es t at are a--epta8le 8ut in-orre-t at t e same time are -ommon 9:ames 1##1; 04<. 2!

94< Allerton 91##6 -ited in :ames 1##1; 05< introdu-ed four -ategories of =linguisti-ally strange )ord -om8inations>; 9a< in erently strange -om8inations, 98< semanti-ally dis armonious -om8ination, 9-< -om8inations t at are simply ungrammati-al and 9d< instan-es of lo-utional devian-e ) i- are -ommon in foreigners' 4nglis sin-e t ey result from violating -oo--uren-e restri-tions of 4nglis 9:ames 1##1; 05<. %nfeli-ities refer to errors on pragmati- level 9Austin 1#!2 in :ames 1##1; 0!<. Austin differentiates 8et)een four &inds of infeli-ity; 9a< a gap appears if t e 52 spea&er la-&s =t e linguisti- means for performing t e desired spee- a-t> 9:ames 1##1; 0!<D 98< )e ave a misappli-ation ) en a spee- a-t is performed -orre-tly 8ut t e spea&er, t e addressee or t e -ir-umstan-es are inappropriate for t is spee- a-tD 9-< a fla) appears ) en t e linguisti- e7e-ution of t e spee- a-t is imperfe-tD and 9d< a it- means t at =t e e7e-ution of t e spee- a-t is -ut s ort> 9:ames 1##1; 0!<.

4.6 D%&i'i', Mi !(1% (') E##"# $ro)n 91#16; 1!5< insists t at =it is -ru-ial to ma&e a distin-tion 8et)een mista&es and errors> 8e-ause t ey are =te- ni-ally t)o very different p enomena>. T e -on-ept of intentionality plays an essential role ) en defining an error sin-e =an error arises only ) en t ere )as no intention to -ommit one> 9:ames, 1##1; 00<. So an erroneous utteran-e is t at ) i- )as made unintentionally, ) ereas ) en t ere is an intention to produ-e a deviant utteran-e, )e simply -all it devian-e. A good e7ample of a language devian-e is an advertising Bingle 9:ames 1##1; 00<. T e 8asi- distin-tion 8et)een a mista&e and an error is also 8ased on t e -on-ept of -orrigi8ility. %f t e learner is a8le to self.-orre-t after using an in-orre-t e7pression or

20

utteran-e, )e are tal&ing a8out a mista&e. *n t e ot er and, ) en t e learner produ-es an unintentionally deviant utteran-e and is not a8le to self.-orre-t, e or s e -ommitted an error 9:ames 1##1; 01<. Corder 91#!0 1#01 in :ames, 1##1; 01< asso-iates t e %##"# vs. *i !(1% distin-tion to t e issue of -ompeten-e vs. performan-e. %n t is )ay, errors are seen as failures of -ompeten-e and mista&es as failures of performan-e. Corder argues t at Smista&es are of no signifi-an-e to t e pro-ess of language learning sin-e t ey do not refle-t a defe-t in our &no)ledge> and =t ey -an o--ur in 51 as )ell as 52> 9Corder 1#!0; 1!!.1!0 -ited in :ames 1##1; 01.0#<. *n t e ot er and, errors =are of signifi-an-eD t ey do refle-t &no)ledgeD t ey are not self.-orre-ta8leD and only learners of an 52 ma&e t em> 9:ames 1##1; 0#<. 4dge 91#1# in :ames 1##1; 16.11< uses t e term mista&e as a -over term for all t e )rong instan-es ) i- foreign language learners produ-e and e divides mista&es into t ree -ategories; S+i/ o--ur, a--ording to 4dge, as a -onse@uen-e of pro-essing pro8lems or -arelessness. T e learner is usually a8le to self.-orre-t if e or s e as a - an-e to do so. E##"# refer, in 4dgeQs opinion, to =)rong forms t at t e pupil -ould not -orre-t even if t eir )rongness )ere to 8e pointed out> 8ut it is still evident ) at t e learner )anted to say 9:ames 1##1; 16<. A!!%*/! , 4dge's last -ategory, are =almost in-ompre ensi8le, and t e learner o8viously as no idea o) to use t e rig t form> 9:ames 1##1; 11<. %n t is situation learners usually employ t eir -ompensatory -ommuni-ation strategies. T e ne7t -lassifi-ation % )ould li&e to dis-uss is t at of Hammerly 91##1 in :ames

21

1##1<. For im, =t e status of learner devian-e must 8e determined in terms of t e -lassroom> 9:ames 1##1; 11<. Hammerly divides devian-es ) i- learners ma&e in t e -lassroom -onte7t into )i !"#!i"' and &(.+! . Distortions are, in is opinion, =unavoida8le and ne-essary, o--ur even )it &no)n T5 forms, and s ould 8e ignored 8y t e tea- er> 9:ames 1##1; 11<. He furt er distinguis es 8et)een learner distortions and mismanagement distortions and t is distin-tion is 8ased on t e fa-t ) et er or not t e item as 8een taug t in t e -lass. 5earner distortions appear ) en t e item as 8een =ade@uately taug t ... -learly understood and suffi-iently pra-ti-ed> 9Hammerly 1##1; 15 -ited in :ames 1##1; 11<, ) ereas mismanagement distortions are -onse@uen-es of inade@uate tea- ing and pra-ti-e of t e item in @uestion. Hammerly's se-ond -ategory, faults, appear ) en t e learners =attempt to e7press freely ideas t at re@uire t e use of stru-tures t ey aven't yet learnt> 9Hammerly 1##1; 02 -ited in :ames 1##1; 12<. He again distinguis es 8et)een learner faults and mismanagement faults, t e former 8eing -onse@uen-es of learners' overe7tension )it out 8eing en-ouraged 8y t e tea- er, and t e latter appear ) en t e tea- er -onnives )it t e students' overe7tension. As )e -an see, Hammerly's vie) is @uite e7treme and e as 8een -riti-i2ed for is -onstant sear- for someone to 8lame, eit er t e learners or t e tea- er. *n t e ot er and, 4dge's ideology is -ompletely different 8e-ause e =applauds learners ) o ... &eep trying and ta&ing ris& rat er t an playing safe or avoiding error> 9:ames 1##1; 12<. T e most re-ent -lassifi-ation of devian-es is t at of :ames 91##1; 13.14<; S+i/ refer to lapses of t e tongue or pen and t e aut or is a8le to spot and -orre-t t em. T e dis-ipline ) i- is engaged in studying t em is -alled lapsology.

2#

Mi !(1% -an 8e -orre-ted 8y t eir aut or only =if t eir devian-e is pointed out to im or er> 9:ames 1##1; 13<. :ames furt er divides t em into first.order mista&es, ) en simple indi-ation of t e devian-e is enoug to ena8le self.-orre-tion, and se-ond.order mista&es, ) en more information a8out t e nature of t e devian-e is needed to ena8le self.-orre-tion.

E##"# o--ur ) en t e learner is una8le to self.-orre-t until furt er relevant input is provided, i.e. some more learning as to ta&e pla-e.

S"+%5i * are defined 8y :ames as =8rea- es of t e rules of -orre-tness as laid do)n 8y purists and usually taug t in s- ools> 91##1; 13<. A good e7ample is split infinitives.

4.7 P#"5%).#% "& E##"# A'(+$ i 4rror analysis involves four stages 9:ames 1##1<; T e first stage is ) en errors are identified or dete-ted and t erefore :ames 91##1; #1< terms it %##"# )%!%5!i"'. %t is, a-tually, spotting of t e error itself. First )e -olle-t a set of utteran-es produ-ed 8y a 52 learner. A senten-e is usually ta&en as a 8asi- unit of analysis and t an t e informant, a native spea&er or t e analyst imself, points out t e suspi-ious or potentially erroneous utteran-es and de-ide if t e utteran-e in @uestion is really erroneous or not. Ho)ever, t is may not 8e so easy sin-e t ere are many fa-tors involved. %t is easier, for instan-e, to spot someone elseQs error t an oneQs o)n, or to find t e error in )ritten language t an in spo&en 9:ames 1##1; #1.166<. T e follo)ing stage is -alled %##"# +"5(!i"' and it is ) en t e informant lo-ates t e error. :ames argues t at some errors are diffi-ult to lo-ate 8e-ause t ey -an 8e diffused

36

t roug out t e senten-e or t e ) ole te7t and appear only after t e ) ole te7t is -arfully e7amined 91##1; #2.#3<. $urt and Gipars&y -all su- devian-es glo8al errors 9opposite to lo-al errors<; =t e senten-e does not simply -ontain an error; it is erroneous or fla)ed as a senten-e> 9:ames 1##1; #3<. T e t ird stage is %##"# )% 5#i/!i"'. %t is o8vious t at a learner's language as to 8e des-ri8ed in terms of some language system. T e %nterlanguage ypot esis )ould suggest t at t e =learner language is a language in its o)n rig t and s ould t erefore 8e des-ri8ed sui generis rat er t en in terms of t e target> 9:ames 1##1; #4<. %f )e ta&e Corder's idea of idiosyn-rati- diale-t, ) i- is t e learnerQs version of t e target language, )e -an -ompare it to t e native spea&erQs -ode sin-e 8ot t e -odes are -onsidered diale-ts of t e same language and t erefore =s ould 8e des-ri8a8le in terms of t e same grammar> 9:ames 1##1; #4<. Anot er reason ) y a learnerQs language s ould 8e des-ri8ed in terms of t e T5 is 8e-ause 4A is, 8y its nature, T5.oriented 9:ames 1##1; #5<. :ames 91##1; #5.#!< also argues t at t e grammar used for t e des-ription must 8e -ompre ensive, simple, self.e7planatory, easily learna8le and user.friendly. For t ese reasons, e reBe-ts s-ientifi- and pedagogi- grammars and re-ommends des-riptive grammars, parti-ularly CrystalQs 91#12< 'rammar (ssessment )emediation and *ampling +rocedure 9also &no)n as 3FAFS+<. T ere are, in :ames's opinion t ree main purposes of t e des-ription stage; 91< to ma&e t e errors e7pli-it, 92< it is indispensa8le for -ounting errors, and 93< it is a 8asis for -reating -ategories sin-e it reveals ) i- errors are different or t e same 9:ames 1##1; #!.#0<. And finally, t e last step in 4A is %##"# 5+( i&i5(!i"' or -ategori2ation 9:ames 1##1; #0<. Ce -an -ategori2e errors into di-tionaries or ta7onomies. Sin-e t e ) ole - apter 5 )ill deal )it various error ta7onomies, in t is se-tion % )ill -on-entrate on 31

di-tionaries only. Di-tionaries of errors are organi2ed alp a8eti-ally and -ontain 8ot le7i-al and grammati-al information. A good e7ample of up.to.date di-tionaries of errors is Turton's 91##5< (,C of Common 'rammatical $rrors, ) i- in-ludes not only grammati-al errors, 8ut le7i-al as )ell. Anot er one is t at of Ale7ander 91##4<, 8ased on is o)n data8ase of over 5,666 items -olle-ted during is 45T -areer. %nterestingly, one of t e -ategories in Ale7anderQs di-tionary is t at of errors -aused 8y 51 interferen-e )it 52 4nglis 9:ames 1##1; #0. 161<. Di-tionaries of ?false friends' represent anot er &ind of di-tionaries. T ey are, a--ording to :ames 91##1; 161<, =relevant to learners of a spe-ifi- 52 ) o spea& a parti-ular mot er tongue>. For C2e- learners of 52 4nglis t ere is Sparling's $nglish or C-english 91##1< ) i- -ontains t e most -ommon false friends and ot er items t at usually -ause trou8les for 51 C2e- learners.

4.7 S".#5% "& E##"# %dentifying sour-es of errors -an 8e, in fa-t, -onsidered a part of error -lassifi-ation. 4rror Analysis is innovatory in respe-t to t e CAH in t e sense t at it e7amines errors attri8uta8le to all possi8le sour-es, not Bust negative 51 transfer 9$ro)n, 1#16; 1!!<. Among t e most fre@uent sour-es of errors $ro)n -ounts 91< interlingual transfer, 92< intralingual transfer, 93< -onte7t of learning, and 94< various -ommuni-ation strategies t e learners use. :ames 91##1; 101.10#< similarly -lassifies errors a--ording to t eir sour-e into four diagnosis.8ased -ategories )it t e differen-e t at e terms -ategory 93< indu-ed errors. 91< I'!%#+i',.(+ !#(' &%#, i.e. mot er.tongue influen-e, -auses interlingual errors. 32

T ey are very fre@uent at t e initial stages of 52 learning sin-e t e 51 is t e only language system t e learner &no)s and -an dra) on and t erefore negative transfer ta&es pla-e 9$ro)n 1#16; 103<. $ro)n also argues t at ) en one is learning 53, 54 et-., transfer ta&es pla-e from all t e previously learnt languages 8ut t e degree of transfer is varia8le 91#16; 103<. 92< I'!#(+i',.(+ '%,(!i-% !#(' &%# or interferen-e is t e sour-e of intralingual errors 9$ro)n 1#16; 103.104<. $ro)n gives only overgenerali2ation as a representation of negative interlingual transfer, 8ut :ames 91#16; 115.110< goes into more details. He refers to intralingual errors as learning.strategy 8ased errors and lists 0 types of t em; False analogy arises ) en t e learner in-orre-tly t in&s t at a ne) item 8e aves li&e anot er item already &no)n to im or er. For e7ample t e learner already &no)s t at dogs is plural from dog, so e or s e t in&s t at Tsheeps is plural from sheep. "isanalysis means t at t e learner as formed an unfounded ypot esis in t e 52 and is putting it in pra-ti-e. :ames 91#16; 115< gives as an e7ample t e situation ) en t e learner assumes t at Tits -an 8e used as a plurali2ed form of it. %n-omplete rule appli-ation appens ) en t e learner doesnQt apply all t e rules ne-essary to apply in a parti-ular situation. %n fa-t, it is t e -onverse of overgenerali2ation. 47ploiting redundan-y appears 8e-ause t ere is a lot of redundan-y in every language, e.g. unne-essary morp ology, and intelligent learners try to avoid t ose items ) i- t ey find redundant to ma&e t eir learning and -ommuni-ation easier. T e opposite of e7ploiting redundan-y is overla8oration ) i- is usually

33

o8serva8le in more advan-ed learners. *verloo&ing -oo-urren-e restri-tions means t at t e learner doesnQt &no) t at -ertain )ords go toget er )it -ertain -omplements, prepositions et-. An e7ample given 8y :ames 91##1; 11!< is ) en t e learner ignores t at t e ver8 to en.oy is follo)ed 8y gerund and not 8are infinitive. Hyper-orre-tion, as :ames argues 91##1; 11!<, =results from t e learners over. monitoring t eir 52 output>. *vergenerali2ation means t at t e learner uses one mem8er of a set of forms also in situations ) en t e ot er mem8ers must 8e used. T is usually leads to overuse of one form and underuse of t e ot ers. Cell &no)n -andidates for overgenerali2ation are pairs as ot erAanot er, mu- Amany, someAany et-. 9:ames 1##1; 110< . t e learner uses one of t em instead of distinguis ing 8et)een t em and using ea- in t e appropriate situation. *vergenerali2ation of language rules is also -ommon, e.g. T oes she can dance? refle-ts t at t e learner overgenerali2es t e use of au7iliary ver8s in @uestions. 93< C"'!%9! "& +%(#'i', refers to t e setting ) ere a language is learnt, e.g. a -lassroom or a so-ial situation, and also to t e tea- er and materials used in t e lessons. All t ese fa-tors -an -ause indu-ed errors 9$ro)n 1#16; 104<. As $ro)n e7plains, =students often ma&e errors 8e-ause a misleading e7planation from t e tea- er, faulty presentation of a stru-ture or )ord in a te7t8oo&, or even 8e-ause of a patent t at )as rotely memori2ed in a drill 8ut not properly -onte7tuali2ed>. :ames 91##1; 1#1.266< divides indu-ed errors into t e follo)ing su8-ategories; materials.indu-ed errors

34

tea- er.tal& indu-ed errors e7er-ise.8ased indu-ed errors errors indu-ed 8y pedagogi-al priorities loo&.up errors

% don't t in& it is ne-essary to dis-uss t em furt er 8e-ause t e nature of t ese errors is evident from t eir names. Ho)ever, % )ill supply an e7ample Last time /hen 0 1ha#e been there ... 9SG spea&er< in ) i- t e in-orre-t appli-ation of present perfe-t pro8a8ly refle-ts defi-ient e7planation of t e use of present perfe-t on t e part of t e tea- er. 94< C"**.'i5(!i"' !#(!%,i% are -ons-iously used 8y t e learners to get a message a-ross to t e earer. T ey -an involve 8ot ver8al and non.ver8al -ommuni-ation me- anisms 9$ro)n 1#16; 101<. Ce distinguis among t e follo)ing -ommuni-ation strategies; Avoidan-e arises ) en a learner -ons-iously avoids -ertain language item 8e-ause e feels un-ertain a8out it and prefers avoiding to -omitting and error. T ere are several &inds of avoidan-e, e.g. synta-ti-, le7i-al, p onologi-al or topi- avoidan-e 9$ro)n 1#16; 101.10#<. +refa8ri-ated patterns are memori2ed p rases or senten-es, as in ?tourist survival' language or a po-&et 8ilingual p rase8oo&, and t e learner ) o memori2ed t em usually doesnQt understand t e -omponents of t e p rase 9$ro)n 1#16; 116<. Ho)ever, t eir advantage is, as Ha&uta 91#0!; 333 -ited in $ro)n 1#16; 10#< notes, t at t ey =ena8le learners to e7press fun-tions ) i- t ey are yet una8le to -onstru-t from t eir linguisti- system, simply storing t em in a sense li&e large le7i-al items>.

35

Cognitive and personality styles -an also -ause errors. For instan-e, $ro)n 91#16; 116< suggests t at =a person )it ig self.esteem may 8e )illing to ris& more

errors, in t e interest of -ommuni-ation, sin-e e does not feel as t reatened 8y -ommitting errors as a person )it lo) self.esteem>. Appeal to aut ority is a strategy ) en t e learner, 8e-ause of is un-ertainty a8out some stru-ture, dire-tly as&s a native spea&er, a tea- er or loo&s up t e stru-ture in a 8ilingual di-tionary 9$ro)n 1#16; 116<. 5anguage s)it- is applied 8y t e learner ) en all t e ot er strategies ave failed to elp im or er. So t e learner uses is or er native language to get t e message a-ross, regardless of t e fa-t t at t e earer may not &no) t e native language 9$ro)n 1#16; 111<

3!

5. ERROR TAXONOMIES Alt oug error ta7onomies are part of t e 4A, % de-ided to dedi-ate a ) ole - apter to t em, sin-e t ey are a uge topi-. A--ording to Dulay et al.91#12<, t e most -ommonly used ta7onomies are 8ased on 91< linguisti- -ategory, 92< surfa-e strategy, 93< -omparative analysis, and 94< -ommuni-ative effe-t. :ames 91##1; 162< dre) on t e 2e/ *horter 34ford $nglish ictionary 91##3<, ) i- defines ?ta7onomy' as =t e 8ran- of s-ien-e ) i- deals )it -lassifi-ation>. :ames 91##1; 162.163< also argues t at =a ta7onomy must 8e organi2ed a--ording to -ertain -onstitutive -riteria. T ese -riteria s ould as far as possi8le refle-t o8serva8le o8Be-tive fa-ts a8out t e entities to 8e -lassified>. Ho)ever, e notes, t e -riteria are not mutually e7-lusive; )e -lassify errors simultaneously a--ording to more -riteria at t e same time. Dulay et al. 91#12; 145< in t eir dis-ussion a8out ta7onomies =fo-used on error ta7onomies t at -lassify errors a--ording to some o8serva8le surfa-e feature of t e error itself, )it out referen-e to its underlying -ause or sour-e> and t ey -all t ese ?des-riptive ta7onomies'. % ave supplied t e most -ommon -ategories of errors )it e7amples from my o)n data -olle-tion. T is is t e -ase, a8ove all, in t e Comparative ta7nomy, sin-e t is ta7onomy 8est a--ounts for t e issue of mot er.tongue transfer. T e data )as -olle-ted mainly among e7- ange students at t e Aristotle Eniversity of T essaloni&i, 3ree-e, and among my o)n students in private language s- ools in t e C2e- Fepu8li-. "y su8Be-ts' level of 4nglis )as from pre.intermediate to upper.intermediate, none of t em )as a native spea&er of 4nglis . T e mot er tongue 8a-&ground of my su8Be-ts )as C2e- ASlova& 9CNASG<, Spanis 94S< or 3ree& 93F<.

30

5.1 E##"# B( %) "' Li',.i !i5 C(!%,"#$ T ese ta7onomies -lassify errors a--ording to t e language -omponent or linguisti-onstituent 9or 8ot of t em< ) i- is affe-ted 8y t e error. Among language -omponents )e -ount p onology, synta7 and morp ology, semanti-s and le7i-on, and dis-ourse 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 14!<. Fesear- ers use t e linguisti- -ategory ta7onomy as eit er t e only one or -om8ined )it some ot er ta7onomy. T is ta7onomy is also useful for organi2ing t e -olle-ted data. Dulay et al. 91#12; 140.154< give as e7amples t)o error analyses t at used t is ta7onomies for primary -lassifi-ation of t e -olle-ted data. T e first one )as -arried out 8y $urt and Gipars&y 91#02< and t e ot er 8y +olit2er and Famire2 91#03<. $ot of t em -lassified errors made 8y students of 4nglis as 52, Bust t e 8a-&ground of t e analyses )as different. T e former -ontains t e follo)ing main -ategories; A. T e s&eleton of 4nglis -lauses, -ontaining missing parts and misordered parts $. T e au7iliary system C. +assive senten-es D. Temporal -onBun-tions 4. Sentential -omplements F. +sy- ologi-al predi-ates

5.2 S.#&(5% S!#(!%,$ T(9"'"*$ T is ta7onomy -on-entrates on t e )ays in ) i- surfa-e stru-tures are altered. Esing t is ta7onomym Dulay et al. 91#12; 156< divide errors into t e follo)ing -ategories; 91< omission, 92< additions, 93< misformation, and 94< misordering. *mission is typi-al for

31

t e early stages of 52 a-@uisition, ) ereas in t e intermediate stages misformation, misordering, or overuse are mu- more -ommon 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 155< 91< O*i i"' means t at an item ) i- must 8e present in a )ell.formed utteran-e is a8sent. T ere is an eviden-e t at grammati-al morp emes 9e.g. noun and ver8 infle-tions, arti-les, prepositions< are omitted more often t at -ontent morp emes ) i-arry t e meaning 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 154.155<. For instan-e, in t e senten-e T5y father plumber t e grammati-al morp emes is and a are omitted. 92< A))i!i"' are t e se-ond -ategory of Surfa-e strategy ta7onomy and also t e opposite of omission. T e presen-e of an e7tra item ) i- mustnQt 8e present in a )ell formed utteran-e is - ara-teristi- for additions 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 15!<. Dulay et al. divide t em into t ree -ategories; 9a< dou8le mar&ings, as in T id you /ent there?, 98< regulari2ation, e.g.T sheeps, Tcutted, and 9-< simple addition, ) i- -ontains t e rest of additions 91#12; 15!.151<. 93< Mi &"#*(!i"' refers to =t e use of t e )rong form of t e morp eme or stru-ture> 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 151<. T ere are t ree types as )ell; 9a< %n regulari2ations an irregular mar&er is repla-ed 8y a regular one, as in Tsheeps for s eep. 98< Ar- i.forms refer to t e use of one mem8er of a -lass of forms instead of using all t e mem8ers, e.g. using this in t e situations ) en eit er this or these s ould 8e used. 9-< Alternating forms are represented 8y =free alternation of various mem8ers of a -lass )it ea- ot er>, as in Tthose dog and this cat used 8y t e same learner 9Dulay et al. 91#12; 150<. T e follo)ing e7amples of misformation are ta&en from my o)n data -olle-tion; o all the 1childs go through all the stages? 93F< regulari2ation 0 ha#e 1take one packet of 1tissue. 9FF< ar- i.form and omission 94< Ce tal& a8out *i "#)%#i', ) en )e -ome a-ross an utteran-e ) ere a 3#

morp eme or a group of t em is in-orre-tly pla-ed, as in T0 get up at 6 o7clock al/ays, ) ere al/ays is misordered 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 1!2<. 5.3 C"*/(#(!i-% T(9"'"*$ T e Comparative ta7onomy -lassifies errors on t e 8asis of -omparing t e stru-ture of 52 errors to ot er types of -onstru-tions, most -ommonly to errors made 8y - ildren during t eir 51 a-@uisition of t e language in @uestion. %n t is ta7onomy, )e )or& )it t)o main error -ategories; 91< developmental errors, and 92< interlingual errors, and, of -ourse, 93< am8iguous errors, and 94< t e ?gra8 8ag -ategory' of ot er errors 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 1!3.1!4<. 91< D%-%+"/*%'!(+ %##"# refer to errors ) i- are similar to t ose made 8y - ildren ) o are a-@uiring t e target language in @uestion as t eir mot er tongue. T ey are t e opposite of interlingual errors, i.e. t ose -aused 8y 51 interferen-e. T e researas

s o)n t at most of t e errors -ommitted 8y 52 learners are developmental. T ey are -alled developmental 8e-ause t ey are - ara-teristi- for 8ot 51 and 52 development 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 1!4.1!5<. T e follo)ing are my e7amples of developmental errors; 0 ha#e 1take one packet of 1tissue. 9FF< Lets 1close the light. 93F< 3n the 1opposite /e ha#e se#eral studies ... 94S< ... 1on the centre of the page ... 93F< 92< I'!%#+i',.(+ %##"# are, as Dulay et al. 91#12; 101< argue, =similar in stru-ture to a semanti-ally e@uivalent p rase or senten-e in t e learner's native language>, e.g. Tthe man skinny said 8y a Spanis spea&er of 4nglis refle-ts t e )ord order of t e Spanis

46

e@uivalent p rase el hombre flaco. %n my o)n resear- % ave -ome a-ross t ese deviant senten-es -ontaining interlingual errors; 1(mbulance is the place /here you go /hen you are sick. 9CN< false friends )it ambulance 0 must 1tell him for that. 9CN< refle-ts 89ci o n:co, intended ask for 0 1ha#e birthday. 9CN< instead of 0t is my birthday, refle-ts mm naro-eniny ;esterday /e discussed 1about these things. 95u-&a, CN< refle-ts diskuto#at o ;ou should buy a ticket because they 1control them #ery often. 9CN< false friends )it kontrolo#at 0 1ga#e this e4am last year. 93F< )rong -ollo-ation, refle-ts <=>?@ =A=BCDE U to 1gi#e an e4am 0 ha#en7t 1gi#en the e4am yet. 93F< )rong -ollo-ation, refle-ts <=>?@ =A=BCDE U to gi#e an e4am 93< A*:i,.". %##"# -ould 8e -lassified as 8ot developmental and interlingual errors. Su- erroneous utteran-es usually refle-t t e learner's 51 and, at t e same time, are similar to errors produ-ed 8y - ildren during t eir 51 a-@uisition 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 102<. 4.g. 0 don7t ha#e 1nothing 9SG<, as )ell as &hey are speaking 1before toilet doors 9CN< -ould 8e -onsidered 8ot interlingual and developmental error. 94< O!0%# %##"# are t ose ) i- simply do not fit in any of t e a8ove mentioned -ategories of t is ta7onomy 9Dulay et al. 1#12; 102<.

41

5.4 C"**.'i5(!i-% E&&%5! T(9"'"*$ T is ta7onomy fo-uses on t e effe-t t e errors ave on t e listener or reader. Dulay et al. 91#12; 11#< argue t at =errors t at affe-t t e overall organi2ation of t e senten-e inder su--essful -ommuni-ation, ) ile errors t at affe-t a single element of t e senten-e usually do not inder -ommuni-ation>. T ey -all t e former 91< glo8al errors and t e latter 92< lo-al errors. 91< Among ,+":(+ %##"# t ey in-lude; )rong order of maBor -onstituents missing, )rong, or mispla-ed senten-e -onne-tors missing -ues to signal o8ligatory e7-eptions to pervasive synta-ti- rules regulari2ation of pervasive synta-ti- rules to e7-eptions )rong psy- ologi-al predi-ate -onstru-tions 9i.e. predi-ates des-ri8ing o) a person feels< improper sele-tion of -omplement types 9i.e. su8ordinate -lauses< 92< L"5(+ %##"# in-lude, a--ording to Dulay et al. 91#12; 1#1.1#2<, errors in noun and ver8 infle-tions, arti-les, au7iliaries, formation of @uantifiers, et-.

42

6. CONCLUSION

%n t is paper % ave -ompared t ree main t eories -on-erning t e emergen-e, e7planation and -lassifi-ation of interlingual and intralingual errors in learners of 52 4nglis ; t e Contrastive Analysis Hypot esis, t e %nterlanguage t eory and 4rror Analysis. 4rror Analysis as proven to 8e t e most appropriate and su--essful in e7plaining learners' errors sin-e it a-&no)ledges more possi8le sour-es of errors t an t e CAH and %nterlanguage t eory do. 4rror Analysis is also su--essful in identifying t e sour-e of t ose errors ) i- t e CAH leaves un-lassified. T e e7amples from my o)n data testify t e already &no)n fa-t t at 8ot interlingual and intralingual negative transfer a--ount for t e sour-es of errors in 52 spea&ers of 4nglis .

43

REFERENCES $ro)n, H. Douglas 91#16< +rinciples of Language Learning and &eaching. 4ngle)ood Cliffs; +renti-e.Hall Fegents. Dulay, Heidi C., $urt, "arina G., and Gras en, Step en D. 91#12< Language &/o. /e) Jor&; *7ford Eniversity +ress. 4llis, Fod 91##4< &he *tudy of *econd Language (c"uisition. *7ford; *7ford Eniversity +ress. Fisia&, :a-e& 91#11< Contrasti#e Linguistics and the Language &eacher. /e) Jor&; +ergamon. 3r2ega, :oa- im 92665< ?Fefle-tions on Con-epts of 4nglis in 4urope'. %n; Fournal for $urolinguistics 2, 44.!2. :ames, Carl 91#11< Contrasti#e (nalysis. Harlo); 5ongman. ... 91##1< 4rrors in 5anguage 5earning and Ese. 5ondon; 5ongman. Gr2es2o)s&i, Tomas2 +. 91##6< Contrasting LanguagesG the *cope of Contrasti#e Linguistics. $erlin; "outon de 3ruyter. "-5aug lin, $arry 91#10< &heories of *econd Language Learning. 5ondon; 4d)ard Arnold +u8lis ers 5td. +o)ell, 3eraint 91##1< ?C at is t e Fole of Transfer in %nterlanguage'. Department of 5inguisti-s and "odern 4nglis 5anguage, 5an-aster Eniversity. 2! De-. 2660. V ttp;AA))).ling.lan-s.a-.u&AgroupsA-rileA)or&ingpapers. tmW Fi- ards, :a-& 91#04< $rror (nalysis. Harlo); 5ongman. Seidl ofer, $ar8ara 92665< ?4nglis as a 5ingua Fran-a'. %n; $L& Fournal 5#A4 9on.line<. ! :un. 2661. V ttp;AAeltB.o7fordBournals.orgA-giAreprintA5#A4A33#.pdfW

44

To)ell, Fi- ard, and Ha)&ins, Foger 91##4< (pproaches to *econd Language (c"uisition. Clevedon; "ultilingual "atters.

45