Whenever a language is learnt or acquired one is faced with the problem of errors. Errors are an inevitable feature of learning. They are not problems to be overcome or evils to be eradicated. They in fact are part of learning and reveal the strategies that learners use to learn a language. They provide valuable insight into the language learning process.

They help the teachers infer how much the students have learnt. They also give an indication as to whether they are ready to learnwhat the teacher wants to teach them next. Thus a lack of fit between the learner’s needs and the items taught could be avoided.

By analyzing their errors one could build up a picture of the features of language which cause the learning problems. Once their problems are understood in the right perspective remedial measures could be thought of. An important part of the teachers’ job is to undertake a systematic analysis learners’ errors.

Approaches to Errors

As Jean D’Souza (1977) points out. in the fifties and early sixties errors were looked upon as evils which had to be eradicated. It was believed that if the teacher taught well and drilled the patterns of thenew language efficiently. there was no reason for the learners to make any errors at all.

As more and more studies have been undertaken it has been proved that learners’ errors show evidence of a system. The learners try to evolve a language system of their own on the basis of the exposure they receive. They constantly try to bring their system in line with the system of the language they are exposed to. In so doing they formulate and discard hypotheses. According to Strevens (1969) ifa regular pattern of errors could be observed and the learners were seen to progress through this pattern. it was a sign of achievement in learning. With this change in attitude. the emphasis of error analysis has also changed.

As errors began to be considered as specific indications of the learning process. the emphasis of error analysis changed from the

‘product’ to the ‘process’ behind it. That is. in the early sixties the main concentration was on the errors themselves. Later the emphasis shifted to the process or systems behind the errors.

It was realized that the learners evolve a system for themselves which is much simpler than the system of language being learnt by them. They seemed to ignore certain redundancies. revise some rules if necessary and simplify their learning task. But they were also found to change this system as per the increasing exposure to the language they were learning. Hence errors can be looked upon as a developmental phenomena. providing evidence regarding the rules and categories used by the learners at a particular time.

The process is given importance because it throws light on how the language is learnt. The study of errors also helps us to infer what the nature of learners’ knowledge is at that point of time in their learning career and what more has to be learnt. As Corder (1973).says “By describing and classifying his errors in linguistic terms. we build up a picture of the features of language which are causing him learning problems”.

This would in turn help us to produce materials. which can help thelearners when and where. needed. At the same time it would warnus not to interfere too much in their learning process. For this asystematic analysis of the learners’ errors should be undertaken.

Stages of Error Analysis

Error Analysis is carried out in three successive stages. as

mentioned by Pit Corder (1973).Description. and (3) Explanation. There are a number of problems. These are (1) Recognition. (2)

which one has to face. in each of these stages. A thorough understanding of these problems along with possible measures toovercome them is necessary for a proper analysis of the errors.

1. Recognition of Errors

To recognize an error one should first of all know what is meant by the term ‘error’. Pit Corder uses the term “Erroneous” to mean those utterances. which are either superficially deviant or inappropriate in terms of the target language grammar. He distinguishes between mistakes. lapses and errors. They correspond to what he calls Pre-systematic. Post-systematic and Systematic errors.

i. Pre-systematic errors are those committed by the learners while he or she is trying to come to grips with a new point.

ii. Post-systematic errors occur when one temporarily forgets a

iii. point that has been previously understood.

Systematic errors are those which occur when the learner has formed inaccurate hypothesis about the target language (i.e. the language that he is learning).

Even native speakers utterances are full of slips of the tongue and lapses. These are supposed to increase under conditions of stress. indecision. and fatigue. If this is the case with native speakers. second language learners are sure to encounter these problems perhaps to a greater degree. In such cases the teacher may not always be able to distinguish such lapses from errors.

As Pit Corder points out. “Recognition of error is thus crucially dependent upon correct interpretation of the learners’ intentions”. He talks about two types of utterances:

The two types of utterances mentioned by Pit Corder are as follows:

(1) Overtly erroneous -Superficially deviant

(2) Covertly erroneous - Superficially well formed but not meaning what the learner intended to mean.

To arrive at a knowledge of what the learner intended to say one can ask the learner to explain in his mother tongue what he wanted to say. An interpretation based on this is called ‘authoritative interpretation’. Then the utterances are reconstructed keeping in mind what the native speaker would have said to convey that message in that context. This is called an ‘authoritative reconstruction’.

In cases where one does not have access to the learner. what is called a ‘plausible interpretation’ and a ‘plausible reconstruction’ could be made. This is done by studying the surface structure of the text-sentence in conjunction with the information derived from its context. Then the utterances are reconstructed to convey what the learner could possibly have intended to mean. To identify errors. the original utterances are compared with their plausible or authoritative reconstructions. Once the recognition has taken place. description could begin.

2. Description of Errors

In this step one tries to show the learners how they have failed to realize the intended message. There are problems. which prevent proper description as the researcher needs an extremely good insight into the learner’s mind. Mc. Donough (1981) remarks that it should not be supposed that all learners take the same route to the same error. “Nor should it be assumed that one learner may not at different times produce the same error for different reasons”.

But Pit Corder feels this is irrelevant for “ our object in error analysis is to explain errors linguistically and psychologically in order to help the learner to learn.” He suggests that we should lookfor errors that occur repeatedly so that we can observe the rule that the learner may be using and try to describe it.

This way only systematic errors are taken into consideration. This is a difficult task because individual learners may be highly inconsistent in their errors. Corder agrees that inconsistency is more characteristic of errors than systematicity. Once the errors are described properly explanation of errors can begin.

3. Explanation of Errors

Explanation is still largely speculative because of our limited knowledge of the psychological and neurological process involved in language learning. The same error could be looked at from various points of view. For example. a learner’s mother tongue has only one way of referring to future time while the target language has three ways of referring to the same. Here the learner has problems and commits errors. In this case it is difficult to decide whether the error was caused by mother tongue interference. or because of the confusion of the rules of the target language.

According to David Lott (1983) mother tongue does not actually interfere. though it does not give any guide to the learner. Nickel(1971) takes a wider view and considers the above example as an interference error. But he says in such cases we should distinguish between direct and indirect interference. Dulay and Burt (1974) define interference as the automatic transfer of the structure of the target language due to habit.

Pit Corder (1973) refers to three types of errors. These are : (1)transfer errors. (2) analogical errors and (3) teaching-induced errors. Selinker (1974) suggests five processes which are more or less similar to that suggested by Pit Corder. but in addition includes strategies of second language learning and strategies of second

language communication to explain the nature of errors. Once we have decided to give an explanation from a particular point of view. we can start classifying the errors. But there are a number of problems in classification too.

2.1.3 Classification of Errors

The main problem one faces in the area of classification is that one error can be classified in a number of ways. The following example dealt with by A.K.Sinha (1977) makes clear some of the problems one has to face while analyzing syntactic errors. The example is asunder:

(a) The plane reached Detroit. There it stopped for half an hour.

(b) The plane reached Detroit and stopped there for half an hour.

(c) The plane reached Detroit. There stopped for half an hour.

In (C) according to the structuralist. the sentence is erroneous because the subject is missing. The proper use of it is made in (a). According to a transformationalist a ‘conjoined coreference subject deletion rule’ is used in the wrong place in (c). It has been rightly used in (b).application of a Hindi-knowing speaker of English would say it is the ‘the coreference subject deletion rule’ in Hindi.

which permits intersentential deletion of a coreferential subject.

A number of examples of this type have been cited by many to make the point that differences of opinion exist with regard to classification of errors. But once the choice is made as to which type of classification one wants to employ. one can deal with it efficiently. Whatever the approach may be one thing stands out clear. Learners employ certain strategies to simplify their learning task. This is true whether they are learning their mother tongue or a second language. This fact is clearly seen when one studies their syntactic errors. Hence the study of learners’ errors could help us intwo ways. Firstly. we can understand the processes of language acquisition and secondly. we can prepare materials which are suited to the needs of the learner.

So far the discussion has focused on how Error Analysis helps us gain a better understanding of the processes of language learning. Looking at it from a different point of view it can be seen how various studies. which have been carried out with a view to finding out how language is acquired by children. have changed our attitude and approach towards errors.

Language learning and habit formation

In the fifties language learning was considered to be a matter ofhabit formation. The structural linguists thought that language could not be compared as every language has to be described in terms of its own structure. This coupled with the viewpoint of habit formation theory gave rise to what is known as ‘Contrastiveanalysis’. According to this when a child first acquires a language. its peculiar patterns are stamped in the mind of the child. Hence when he starts to learn a second language. those items which are the same as that of his first language causes him no difficulty. Those. which are more or less similar also. do not pose much of a problem. But the items. which are completely different from his mother tongue. give him a lot of trouble.

So. if we compare the phonology. lexis. syntax and semantics of hisfirst language with parallel items in his second language we would be able to predict the difficulties he might face with. As far back as1945. C. C. Fries remarked that effective materials could be produced if they are based on a scientific description of both the mother tongue and the target language of the learner. This was later elaborated by Lado in 1957. But no doubts have been raised about the use of contrastive linguistics to language teaching.

According to Pit Corder (1978) it is paradoxical to say that language cannot be compared. but such a comparison is necessary to produce effective materials. He gives three valid reasons why itis not as useful as it claims to be. The following are the three reasons:

(1) Not all difficulties and errors can be traced back to the influence of the mother tongue. (This is supported by Richards(1981). Dulay and Burt (1973). Duskova (1969)).

(2) What contrastive analysis predicted as a difficulty did not always in practice turn out to be so. (This is supported by Nickel).

(3) Adequate comparison of two languages can only have doubtfulvalidity because of theoretical problems. (Hamp (1969). VanBuren (1974). Kreszowski (1974)).

Wardhau (1970) makes a clear distinction between the strong and weak hypothesis of contrastive linguistics.

(1) The strong hypothesis states that the difficulties of the learner can be predicted by a systematic contrastive analysis and teaching material can then be devised to meet those difficulties.

(2) The weak hypothesis claims no more than an explanatory role. where when difficulties are evident from the errors made by the learner. comparison between the mother tongue and the target language of the learner may help to explain them.

Since 1968 there has been a gradual change and research projects in the area of contrastive analysis have broadened their scope in two directions. These two directions are as follows:

(1) Towards more theoretical objectives in language typology and the search for universals.

(2) Towards psycholinguistic orientation concerned with the explanation of second language acquisition.

This new development has been called ‘Contact analysis’. Nemser and  Slama-cazacu (1970-71) suggest that the task of contact analysis is to “explain and predict language learner behaviours. with the concrete aim of developing a more scientific approach to the process of foreign language teaching.” Here it merges significantly with error analysis which is based on the theory of language learning as a process of cognitive development.

Language learning and cognitive development

According to the cognitive development theory. the human brain is programmed to learn a language. It is programmed in such a way that it can learn any language to which it is exposed. From the amount of exposure received children collect some data. process it and try to build up a grammar for themselves. They do not possess a set of dispositions to respond mechanically to external stimuli. Instead they try to internalize certain rules and try to respond to the external stimuli to the best of their ability.

As cognitive development came to be associated with language learning. it was thought learners need not unlearn their first language to learn a second language. Instead they are said to use certain strategies to acquire a set of cognitive structures from the data they receive. These strategies could be similar to the ones used by them when they acquired their first language. As it is normally

observed that errors. it is considered natural for children acquiring a first language commit a lot of second language learners also to commit a number of errors.

The errors of the first language learners reveal the strategies they are using to learn the language. Similarly. the errors of the second language learners also give an indication as to what strategies they are using to learn the language. These speculations led to the study of errors as the most significant data on which a reconstruction of the learners’ knowledge of the target language could be made.

Pit Corder (1967) says that the processes of first and second language acquisition are fundamentally the same. If the utterances of the first and second language learners differed it could be accounted for by differences in. (1) maturational development. (2) motivation for learning and (3) the circumstances of learning. In spite of these differences. both first and second language learners build up their own grammar and gradually proceed towards the grammar of the language they are learning.

This system which the learners build up for themselves has been given various names. but the most widely used terminology is that suggested by Selinker (1974). He calls this Interlanguage. to emphasize the structurally intermediate status of the learner’s language system. between his mother tongue and his target language. A detailed study of this Interlanguage could help us to understand the learners’ problems better and try to provide timely help to our learners. so that they achieve competence in the language they are trying to learn.