In his categorisation of learner error, Pit-Corder formally distinguishes between mistakes and two

different types of error. According to his scheme (Introducing Applied Linguistics, Penguin 1973)
there are three types of error: pre-systematic errors (the learner is ignorant of the rule, i.e. it is not
in their rule system); systematic errors (the learner has found a rule but is applying it wrongly –
note that this use of ‘systematic’ is different to the one used above); and post-systematic errors
(where the learner has lapses in his/her use of the correct rule).
1. Pre-systematic errors
At this stage the learner may simply be unaware of the existence of any rule, or may confused
about the rule, such that it is not yet part of his/her system for using the language. Pre-systematic
errors often result in learners ‘borrowing’ a rule from their first language or using an inappropriate
rule from the target language. For example, beginners who have not yet learnt how to form
questions in English might try to use the affirmative form with rising intonation, especially if this is
possible in their mother tongue, or students who have not yet encountered the past simple, may
simply use the infinitive to refer to past time.
At this stage, errors will tend to be rather erratic random guesses. On the same occasion the
learner may produce forms such as:
* I am get up early. * He’s get up. I get up early. He gets up. * I do get up early. * He
does get up.
* I gets up early. * He’s gets up.
Clearly the learner does not know how to form the present simple and is probably trying each
form out to see which is right. The more complex the rules for the formation of a structure, the
greater the number of wrong guesses. As you are no doubt aware, learning the linguistic forms of
the English present simple is in fact quite complex because of the numerous elements involved.
Learners will make pre-systematic errors when they are trying to articulate complex ideas above
their level of proficiency. On noting these types of errors in student talk, there are various
responses which the teacher may deem appropriate. For example, she may opt not to correct at
all, but merely to recognise that the learners are trying to push themselves by taking risks.
Alternatively, she may realise that the task she has set is too demanding and has overloaded the
students, which would suggest she should chose different materials in subsequent lessons. Then
again, she might decide that a follow-up lesson on the form in question is necessary at her
learners’ stage of proficiency, and so on.

2) Systematic errors
At this stage, the learner is still constantly making errors but each of the errors now follows a
definite pattern. They have internalised a rule, but not the correct one, and they are applying this
rule consistently. This means that they will be consistently wrong, unlike in the pre-systemic stage
where they might sometimes hit upon the correct rule by chance. At this stage, therefore, the
learner has a reason for choosing to use the language item in the way they have used it, and can
articulate this to the teacher, or the teacher can see the mistaken reasoning for herself. So, at the
systematic stage the learner is using an incorrect rule and cannot correct it alone. Teacher
intervention in explaining the correct rule and providing opportunity for practice will most likely
be beneficial.
For example, question formation is notoriously complicated in English, and a learner who has
learnt that to form questions in English it is necessary to use the auxiliary ‘do’ may go through a
stage where he/ she applies the rule even where it is not relevant, resulting in forms such as:
* Do you can swim? * Do you are retired?
Obviously this learner will profit from further classroom time spent on question formation, but at
the same time the teacher needs to be aware that learning how to produce correct question forms
is a gradual process and takes time.

Furthermore, a phenomenon known as U-shaped development is sometimes observable, where

learners seem to master a particular rule for a time, only to ‘regress’ at a later stage before
becoming fully competent. For example, an elementary learner who memorises some of the
irregular past simple forms may go through a stage where she/ he produces well-formed
sentences such as:
Yesterday I went to the supermarket. Last night I saw a film.
only to have the system upset when she/ he learns the rules for the formation of the regular past
simple, resulting in erroneous sentences such as:
* I wented to the supermarket. *I goed to the supermarket. * I did go to the supermarket.
Clearly a teacher benefits from being aware of such patterns of development. These errors should
be seen in a positive light, because they show evidence of the student’s progress in building an
internalised grammar system. That is not to say that the learners should not be made aware when
the language they produce deviates from standard forms, but systematic errors are a natural part
of the learning of a new structure and can provide valuable feedback to the teacher in terms of
planning remedial work or follow-up activities.
A related issue involves learners who have been introduced to a particular form with a particular
function, which they master for a time, only to meet subsequently another form with a very
similar function and run into difficulty because they are unable to distinguish between the two
forms. Thus they seem to return to an earlier stage of development while they grapple with the
new problem. An example would be the range of forms for expressing future time in English. A
learner may think they have mastered the form ‘going to’ (for planned intention), only to be
introduced to the ‘will’ future (for spontaneous intention). It will take some time for them to
master the distinction between the two forms, by which time the teacher may have decided to
introduce the future continuous (for the future as a matter of course), and another process of
distinguishing the forms has to begin. This process can be quite disturbing for some students,
because they see their well-established mental systems broken down time and again, and may feel
that they have to go back to square one in their learning. It is important for the teacher to be
aware of this and to offer encouragement to students who feel they are not making progress.
3) Post-systematic error (i.e. a mistake)
The learner has internalised the correct rule and, when thinking about it, can be accurate.
However, use is still rather conscious, and errors will probably occur in less controlled contexts
where the need for communication overrides the need for accuracy. This is usually the kind of
error which can be corrected by the learner when attention is drawn to it. This is also the type of
error that native speakers sometimes make when they are tired, distracted or particularly
emotional.
Although of course the situation in practice is far less cut and dried as the above classification
might lead one to think, Pit-Corder’s scheme is nevertheless helpful in offering a system that
allows teachers to distinguish different levels of importance in student’s errors, and therefore to
prioritise suitable areas for attention and remedial work. By recognising that learners can make
errors because they are being adventurous – i.e. that they are taking risks with language which
take them beyond the boundaries of their knowledge of that language – this system of
classification enabled teachers to diagnose areas which might need to be covered in addition to
those which needed review.