PART III

A COMMENTARY ON ERRORS ATTRIBUTABLE TO

INTERFERENCE
3.1 Errors Due to Perception of Analogy
Analogy enables a learner to predict that certain already perceived
relations will be paralleled by further relations. Such predictions often result in the
production of wanted forms, sometimes in the production of unwanted forms. To
some extent the application of analogy is under the teachers control; the process
itself is not.
Taking a common intelligence test example, we can see what analogy
involves from the point of view of language:
hot --------- cold
dry -------- ?
The relation between hot and cold, perceived horizontally, corresponds
to syntagmatic or sequential relations in language. The relation between hot and
dry, perceived vertically, corresponds to paradigmatic relations in language.
Prediction of the fourth element is not possible without perception of both
relations, and the production of linguistic forms and constructions by analogy is
not possible without perception of both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations.
The necessity of perception of paradigmatic as well as syntagmatic
relations is a fact sometimes lost sight of by critics of language exercises without
context, by which is meant without nonlinguistic context. It is true that speech
learned in association with a nonlinguistic context can be associationally recalled
and duplicated when the context is duplicated. However, it is also true that
perception of the paradigmatic relations essential for perception of the code
which underlies such speech depends not on contextualization but on
decontextualization of the speech. The course designer and teacher can help the
learner here, or leave him to decontextualize the input data as best he can; and
make up his own paradigms.

Let us consider a small section of a substitution table:

mothers
Her
sisters

belt
scarf
bag

matches

her

dress
sari
skirt

Any one sentence from the table might correspond to a real life context,
but it most unlikely that one would ever hear two successive sentences in a real
life. In this sense, the table presents language abstracted from the speech context
of the individual sentences.
However, the horizontal or syntagmatic relations which accompany the
communication of the meaning of each individual sentence are not the
principal relations revealed by the table. If interest in them is weakened by
decontextualization, this is amply compensated for by the realization of the
context of the vertical, paradigmatic relations, of which the learner becomes
increasingly aware as his familiarity with syntagmatic relations grows and his
need to give attention to them diminishes.
The learner perceives, for instance, that column 2 presents a class of
female relatives who own(ed) something. Nobody can question the reality of this
designatum. It is as real as a real dress waved before the class. If now the learner
knows aunt and daughter, and perceives them as members of the same class, he
can predict the forms aunts and daughters and the fact that these forms will
enter into the same syntagmatic relations. When, subsequently, he learns
grandmother and cousin, he can use his knowledge of language, the code, to
produce and contextualize sentences on his own initiative in the classroom, and
eventually, perhaps, to produce speech on the same pattern in an actual,
nonclassroom context.
It is a mistake to think that contextualization aids language learning
directly. It can provide, to some extent, motivation for language learning, in as
much as language in real life is used in contexts and the learner can imagine the
teacher-contrived contexts to be real.
The pretence does not apply only to the setting of the speech into the given
context. It applies to the speech itself. Any observation of (nonclassroom)
speech in context quickly indicates that the effect of context is to reduce both the

application of and the extent of speech. Even in the substitution table, context
(her, dress, sari) is seen to restrict the class of column 2 items to a class of female
relatives whereas the language class is, of course, that of animate creatures.
From native speakers use of language in context we can only make
limited inferences for the learning of language, precisely because the learner is not
really using the language but learning it, and is aware of the fact that he is
learning it; and is aware of the importance of the paradigmatic relations.
We have stressed the need for decontextualization of speech in order that
paradigmatic relations shall be perceived, and have stressed that speech activity
without immediate context is frequent and in no way unusual. There is still
another aspect of speech and especially of language learning which is
contextualized only to a minor extent. It is the whole aspect of the sound of a
language.
Many people can listen to the sound of music for a few seconds and say
without hesitation Portuguese, Turkish, or Romanian. The recognition and
distinction are effected entirely without reference to context or meaning of the
music. Moreover, extracts from the music can come to the persons mind at
almost anytime, in almost any circumstances. A song is only slightly more
contextualized, even when one understand the words.
Many people can identify a foreign language too, by distinctive features of
its sound, and without understanding what is being said.
Stress and intonation are commonly, and with very dubious justification,
taught in association with meaning. It is not a fact that we distinguish between
ally and ally by stress. It makes a negligible difference to communicate when an
Englishman says . . . our allies . . . and an American interrupts with Yes, our
allies . . . It makes little difference to communication when a speaker of a
regional variety of English uses for statements the intonation prescribed for verbal
questions in standard English.
The training of sensitivity to the sound of English is probably impeded by
reference to context. The recognition of words and meanings is noise when the
learners attention should be directed to the sound. A very simple illustration of
the unsatisfactory nature of the association of sound and meaning is afforded by

most phonetic readers in which the words are marked in transcription with the
same separation as in ordinary written English. The procedures of the books never
question the priority that the readers should know what is being said, not realizing
that their means of effecting this knowledge on the learners part distort the
representation of and hinder the perception of the sound. The writers who are
most successful in making one hear actual sounds are successful precisely
because they temporarily decontextualize the speech they are representing, using
the barrier of unfamiliar transcription, e. g. , Landers: Let stalk strine
(Australian).
The discussion of context may seem to have got out of touch with
processes of analogy. The contact is, nevertheless, there. Music which exists in
the mind is perhaps the example par excellence of decontextualized mental
activity. We have made the point that it is none the less real. And, of course, when
one listens and says Portuguese, assuming that the actual piece of music has not
been heard previously, the identification is through analogy.
Analogy underlies language production and language learning at all levels.
The learner selects his learning strategies by analogy too. If a certain analogy and
if a further task seems parallel to the previous one, then a similar strategy is likely
to be used.
For this reason too it is important that learners using analogy not be
frustrated by the rejection of the language forms which are analogically rational.
As between the process and the result of the process, the process requires the
greater respect. If the teacher convinces the learner that analogy cannot be trusted
as a process, the learner comes to depend on memory and to see the demands on
his memory as, typically, arbitrary: a demoralizing conclusion.
Now unfortunately many teachers are particularly condescending towards
errors resulting from analogy, finding them especially amusing. They give the
teacher a feeling of superiority, proving that the learner cannot rely on himself,
that he needs the teacher, the teacher who knows better. The teacher, of course,
should be apologetic. It is not the learner who at fault, but the language.

3.2 Errors Typically Occasioned by Analogical Thinking

Errors though following analogy are so frequent that there is no point in
describing more than typical occurrences, and attempting to describe how their
incidence can be reduced.
Clearly one cannot prevent even elementary learners from representing the
sound /i:/ by ee or ea or ie, for these representations are frequent. If the teacher
introduces /ti:p/ aurally, then he can expect some of the learners to spell it cheep
by analogy with deep, sleep, etc.
An obvious recommendation is to give together the aural and visual forms
of words which may be spelled incorrectly by analogy. Another is to group
words with similar representation of sounds. Unless and until all the learners in a
class have established visual impressions of the words, sentences like The chief
went out to sleep on the seat should be avoided. Such sentences ought never to be
used for dictation unless all the learners are sure to get the spelling right.
Analogous inflections occur in the English both of native speakers and of
foreign learners. For examples are oxes (by analogy with boxes), goed, thinked,
(by analogy with worked). One also meets predicative adjectives with inflections
to match the sentence subjects: The flowers are reds. The adjective inflections are
found in the English of learners whose mother tongues have adjective inflection,
in which case the analogy may be with mother-tongue usage, but the same
inflections also occur in the English of learners whose mother tongues neither
noun nor adjective inflection, in which case the analogy is with the noun
inflection. In the writers opinion, there is no need to correct mistaken
inflections of this kind; if left alone they will disappear as the learners familiarity
with English increases. If attention is drawn to them, they constitute individual
learning tasks and memory burdens at a time when the learner is obviously not
ready for them. Analogous inflection forms are not confined to beginners: from
the adjectives complete and incomplete and the verb to complete the analogical to
incomplete is derived: courses for those who have incompleted their studies. From
the adjective sure and noun surety and the adjective cocksure comes the
analogically derived noun cocksurety: of a cocksurety he will do as he promised.

The -ed inflection in Did you mended it? is analogically justified if the
teacher has taught simple present statement, simple present question, and simple
past statement forms in succession:

you mend

do you mend

you mended

did you mended

The reasoning is that in English one needs a question marker to indicate the
designatum question and a past marker to indicate the designatum past.
Therefore, one needs both the question marker and the past marker to indicate a
question in the past. It should be observed that this mistake occurs among
learners with a large variety of mother-tongue backgrounds. It is unlikely to have
been part of the learners aural or visual experience. The mistake may be avoided
by a reordering of the teaching. If the statement forms mend mended come first,
then the question markers do did match statement forms, the stem form mend
follows neutrally:
do
did

mend

We see an interesting example of analogy when the first tense of a course

is the present continuous and the past tense is introduced by was, were, in contrast
with is, are. Many learners thereupon produce sentences like Then, he was kicking
the ball and was smashing the window. The form is acceptable, but the use is not.
The learner knows the sentences: He is here (state), He is going to the . . .
(action), and He was here (state). The analogy is therefore: is represents a present
state is + stem + -ing represents a present action. On the other hand, was
represents a past state was + stem + -ing represents a past action. The result is
that the form was + stem + -ing comes into the learners mind, and into his
productive use of language, when this is permitted, though it has not yet appeared
in the syllabus. The use of the stem -ed form to represent past action has now to
be established against psychological pressure to use was/were stem + -ing.

The greatest number of unwanted forms produced by analogy occur when

sentence constructions determined by particular nouns and verbs do not conform
to expectations by analogy. For instance, we have compel/force/oblige someone to
do something and expect make to fit into the same pattern. Sometimes a
construction with homophonous noun and verb is similar: have an interest in, be
interested in; but sometimes not: place an order for twenty copies, order _ _
twenty copies.
The example of the construction with compel affecting the construction
with make is an example of a later construction affecting an earlier one. Let us
consider another example: ask/tell someone to do something. From this learners
analogize the unwanted construction say someone to do something. Now, the
second unwanted form, with say, ought to be more likely than the first, with make,
for all three verbs ask tell say (or ask and say in countries when request = ask and
ask = tell and tell is not used) are likely to be part of an early active vocabulary.
On the other hand, compel, force, and oblige could stay indefinitely in the
learners receptive vocabulary long enough for the construction with make to be
firmly established. If teachers would defer items with nonanalogous
constructions, earlier forms would have a greater chance of resisting the effect of
the later ones. Of course the effect of earlier constructions on later ones cannot be
reduced in a similar way: from tell/show someone how to do something we expect
explain to be used in the same constructions. There is non harm in such analogous
constructions, and indeed they are standard in some varieties of English.
In the section on Prediction, the value of a list of constructions was
shown. It is most useful to be able to take stock of the limits to substitution. Here
is a short list of verbs and constructions:
followed by:

stem + -ing

to + stem

start

yes

yes

begin

yes

yes

cease

yes

yes

stop

yes

1
7

finish

yes

no

continue

yes

yes

go on

yes

Note:
1 stop and go on may be followed by to + stem when to means in order to. The
equivalent to he ceased to look is he stopped looking, and the equivalent to he
continued to look is he went on looking.
followed by:

stem + -ing

to + stem

that . . . would (etc.) + stem

propose

yes

yes

yes

intend

yes

yes

hate

yes

yes

like

yes

yes

no

enjoy

yes

no

no

dislike

yes

no

no

want

yes

no

need

yes

no

desire

no

yes

wish

no

yes

yes

hope

no

yes

yes

promise

no

yes

yes

decide

no

yes

yes

suggest

yes

no

yes

Notes:
1 The construction with the object clause is not allowed unless the subject of the
object clause is different from the subject of the main clause: I hate that he
should feel disappointed.
8

2 These verbs may be followed by stem + -ing when we mean that the action
represented by the stem + -ing should be done to the subject of the finite verb:
he wants thrashing, he needs helping. Used in this construction, want means be
deficient; not desire.
From lists of this kind, teachers can plan their own policy of selection and
organization so as to minimize interference through analogy.
Here are three significant lists:
1.

A lot of
Enough

bananas

Some

tea

Not enough
No
2.

Many
A few

bananas

Few
3.

Much
A little

tea

Little
If five items go with bananas and tea, it will be assumed that further items
from either List 2 or List 3 will go with both bananas and tea. Here, information
is needed. It should be given, soon after the presentation of the second kind of
noun, in the form of Dont use many before tea, or Dont use much before
bananas according to whether countable or uncountable nouns are introduced
second.

Conclusion
Unwanted forms are certain to arise from the use of analogy. It is
especially to be expected that established forms will affect items introduced later.
9

Some mitigating procedures are the clustering in the course of items which
are analogous and the separation of items which are not; and the maintenance of
the distinction between productive and receptive knowledge, the nonanalogous
forms being left in the receptive category. It is also possible to reorder
presentation of items so that the appearance of analogy leading to unwanted forms
is avoided. Then, we can give straightforward information, warning against
analogy.
Finally, tolerance of forms which result from desirable mental effort is
strongly recommended. The eccentricities of languages do not merit the solicitude
which many teachers accord to them.

10