Sources of Errors

Sources of errors are discussed and investigated by many researchers. Selinker (1972) identified five sources of errors: language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second language acquisition, strategies of second language interaction, and overgeneralization of linguistic structures. In addition, Corder (1974) noted three sources of errors: language transfer, overgeneralization or parallelism, and teaching-elicited error. Moreover, Richards and Sampson (1974) provided seven sources of errors: language transfer, intralingual obstruction, sociolinguistic context, modality, age, successions of approximate forms, universal hierarchy of difficulty. Brown (1980) proposed four sources of errors: interlingual errors, intralingual errors, context of learning, and communication strategies. James (1998) also indicated three sources of error: interlingual, intralingual, and induced errors. Chen (2007) concluded that sources of errors could be categorized into two types: interlingual errors and intralingual errors, and the latter could be further divided into overgeneralization and simplification. These are discussed in the following.

2.1.3.1 Interlingual Errors

Interlingual errors are the errors attributed to the native language. Therefore, they often refer to mother-tongue interference or L1 negative transfer (Lado, 1964).

Extensive studies have already been done in the area of native language interference by contrastive analysts. However, error analysis holds a different concept towards L1 negative transfer from the contrastive analysis. Error analysis does not consider errors to be the persistence of old habits, but rather as a significant source that learners are acquiring and exploring the system of the second language.

11

2.1.3.2 Intralingual Errors

Intralingual errors are considered as errors independent of learners’ native language.

Richards (1974) held that learners tried to derive the rules based on what they have learned, but produced incorrect forms that resemble neither the native language nor the target language due to wrong hypotheses. Further, Richards and Sampson (1974) proposed that intralingual errors displayed generalizations resulting from fractional exposure to the target language rather than the structures or forms of the native language.

Richards also categorized intralingual errors into four types: (1) overgeneralization or transfer of learned structures in the L2, (2) ignorance of rule limitations in L2 structures, (3) incomplete utilization of L2 rules, and (4) incorrect hypotheses caused by semantically or grammatically misunderstanding the rules in the target language. In addition, Ellis (1997) noted some types of errors were found to be prevalent because errors were the reflections of learners’ attempts to make language learning and application simpler. As for the differences between interlingual errors and intralingual errors, Brown (1994) argued that interlingual errors occurred more at the early stages of language learning; however, generalization within the target language appeared more when learners were gradually acquiring the second language.

Intralingual errors could be further classified into overgeneralization and simplification.

Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization often occurs due to the inappropriate application of target language rules. Richards (1974) maintained overgeneralization happened where the learner produced a deviant form based on his knowledge of other structures of the same

12

linguistic domain in the target language. After having learned sentences such as “He reached the house at 10:00 o’clock,” an English learner may produce another sentence

“*He leaved the house at 10:00 o’clock” (*leaved->left).

The following passage illustrates the example of overgeneralization.

(1) *一次，我的電腦軟體出了問題，我打通了服務熱線。接電話的是個小夥子，他 說能聽懂英語，我就用英語告訴他我的電腦的問題。但他不明白我說的問題。

以後我用漢語告訴他我的軟體的問題，他聽懂了，告訴了我解決辦法。

*Yícì, wǒde diànnǎo ruǎntǐ chūle wèntí, wǒ dǎtōng le fúwù rèxiàn. Jiē diànhuà de shì ge xiǎohuǒzi, tā shuō néng tīngdǒng yīngyǔ, wǒ jiù yòng yīngyǔ gàosù tā wǒde diànnǎo de wèntí. Dàn tā bù míngbái wǒ shuōde wèntí. Yǐhòu wǒ yòng hànyǔ gàosù tā wǒde ruǎntǐ de wèntí, tā tīngdǒng le, gàosù le wǒ jiějué bànfǎ.

One time, my computer has a software problem. I called the service center and one guy picked up the phone. He said he understood English, so I told him my problem in English. But he does not understand me. Then I spoke Chinese to explain my software problem. He understood me and told me how to solve the problem.

（Chao, 2005: 75）

In (1), the student was faced with a software problem in his computer. In the beginning of the example, he used English to express his problem, but the receptionist did not understand him. So, he tried to explain the situation in Chinese. However, yǐhòu (after) was chosen incorrectly in his attempt to connect the first part of the passage and the second part, since a reference point should be added before yǐhòu to express the time sequence, meaning “after” (the reference point) while ránhòu (“then”) could be used alone to connect the two sections. As a result, the learner mistakenly used yǐhòu alone to mark the time sequence of two things according to the rule of ránhòu.

These types of overgeneralization errors were made due to an unfamiliarity of the second language rules and extension of the rules in inappropriate contexts.

13

Simplification

Richards (1974) claimed that simplification was a learning strategy learners adopted to make learning easier. It occurred where a linguistic form in L2 was omitted by learners (George, 1972). Learners chose an easier and communication-driven method from a variety of hypotheses when they were learning or using a new language (Ellis, 1985).

For instance, when it comes to using conjunctions to link words or phrases, learners prefer to choose the easiest one hé instead of bìng, bìngqiě, jí, yǔ, and tóng (All correspond to “and” in English). Even though there are a great many options in Chinese, hé is usually used to join nouns or noun phrases. However, the conjunction has constraints when connecting adjectives and verbs. Consequently, learners make errors as the sentences below:

(2) *辦公室的環境比較有意思和年輕人在他們的工作上比較出色。

*Bàngōngshì de huánjìng bǐjiào yǒu yìsī hé niánqīng rén zài tāmen de gōngzuò shàng bǐjiào chūsè.

The office environment is more interesting and young people have better performance at work.

(3) *我們的教室很大和很乾淨。

*Wǒmen de jiàoshì hěn dà hé hěn gānjìng.

Our classroom is big and clean.

（Chao, 2005: 77）

Thus, simplification errors result from producing simpler linguistic forms.

2.1.3.3 Other Sources of Errors

In addition to interlingual and intralingual errors, researchers also discussed other

14

sources of errors, including communication strategy based errors and induced errors.

Brown (1980) believed communication strategy referred to learners’ conscious employment of verbal systems to deliver an idea when they had difficulties using linguistic forms correctly. Communication strategy was not discussed in this study because it was not related to learning process. As for induced errors, they were often initiated by the context of learning while interlingual and intralingual errors were usually elicited by learners themselves (Stenson, 1983). Brown specified that the context of learning consisted of teachers, teaching materials, and places where learning took place, such as a classroom or a social situation.

Brown (1980) indicated that learners made errors because of a misleading explanation from the teacher, improper examples in a textbook, or a structure practiced in a drill but not appropriately contextualized. James (1998) also noted that induced errors took place when students were misled by teachers’ definitions, examples, explanations and arrangements of practice. James further classified induced errors into the following subcategories: material-induced errors, teacher-talk induced errors, exercise-based induced errors, pedagogical priority induced errors, and look-up errors.

The sections that follow will present these induced errors.

Material-induced Errors

James (1998) stated that material-induced errors were caused by inappropriate examples or explanations in the textbook. He also provided the following example to elaborate that students might learn incorrect forms from their textbook in which sentence (b) with present progressive tense was used to respond sentence (a). The correct response should be sentence (c).

15 (4) (a) “What’s the weather like in autumn?”

(b) “*Many people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.”

(c) “Many people wear raincoats and carry umbrellas.”

(James, 1998: 191)

Chen (2007) noted instances of inappropriate explanations in the textbook. The pattern “shì…de” was used to describe something that happened in the past, as shown in example (5). However, it could also be used in the future context, as shown in example (6) and (7).

(5) 他是昨天來的．

Tā shì zuótiān lái de.

It is yesterday that he came.

(6) 他是明天才開學的，所以今天不會來了．

Tā shì míngtiān cái kāixué de, suǒyǐ jīntiān búhuì lái le.

It is tomorrow that the school starts, so he will not come today.

(7) 死了這條心吧！她是不會嫁給你的．

Sǐ le zhètiáo xīn ba! Tā shì búhuì jià gěi nǐ de.

Give it up! She will not marry you.

（Chen, 2007: 23）

Teacher-talk induced Errors

Teacher-talk induced errors result from teachers’ imprecise explanation which elicits its erroneous use of the second language (James, 1998).

Stenson (1983) mentioned the methods teachers used to present materials and define lexical words might cause learners to commit errors. For instance, the word

“worship” was often explained as “pray” by teachers. Thus, students produced

16

“worshipping to God” because they overgeneralized the rule based on the old knowledge that ‘to” was the preposition attached to “pray”.

In addition, grammatical errors may be caused due to insufficient or defective explanations by teachers. For example, Stenson found out that a teacher defined “as if”

more or less synonymous with “like” into sentences with “as if”, and then required students to transform sentences with “like” into sentences with “as if”. Hence “He climbs like a monkey” should be transformed into “He climbs as if he were a monkey.”

However, “*She cries as if the baby cries” was produced by a student for the original sentence “She cries like a baby” because the student thought “as if” was synonymous with “like” (Stenson, 1983).

Liu (2005) provided the following sentences to explain the incorrect use of “dōu”

caused by teachers’ inappropriate explanation.

(8) *我們班都有13個人。

*Wǒmen bān dōu yǒu 13 ge rén.

*Our class has 13 people.

（Liu, 2005: 123）

(9) *我們學校都有6個食堂。

*Wǒmen xuéxiào dōu yǒu 6 ge shítáng.

*Our school has 6 dining halls.

（Liu, 2005: 123）

In the two examples, “dōu” should be deleted. Liu (2005) pointed out the errors were elicited by the way teachers explained its meaning. Teachers tended to tell students

“dōu”, meant “all”; consequently, “dōu” was chosen to deliver the concept of the aggregate number.

17

Exercise-based induced Errors

Exercise-based induced errors refer to errors that result from specific exercises that require manipulation of language patterns (James, 1998). Students make errors when doing exercises of sentence combining, in which they are required to combine two simple sentences. Conditionals linked by “if” or “unless” are examples:

(10) (a) I can’t afford a new car.

(b) I shall win the lottery.

(c) I can’t afford a new car unless I win the lottery.

(d) *Unless I can afford a new car I shall win the lottery.

(Anchalee & Somchoen, 2007: 177) In (10), sentence (a) and (b) should be combined to form sentence (c); however, the sentence (d) was produced by students, especially when they were told that “unless”

was equivalent to “if…not”, which would cause them to replace the negative element in

“can’t” with “unless”.

Chen (2007) used the following examples to illustrate the problem:

(11) 那隻狗把你怎麼了？

Nà zhī gǒu bǎ nǐ zěnme le?

What did the dog do to you?

(12) 我被那隻狗咬傷了．

Wǒ bèi nà zhī gǒu yǎoshāng le.

I was bitten by the dog.

(13) 那隻狗把我咬傷了．

Nà zhī gǒu bǎ wǒ yǎoshāng le.

The dog bit me.

18

（Chen, 2007: 23）

In transformational drills, students were required to use bèi structure to answer (11).

Even though (12) was correct, but the two sentences were not coherent semantically.

The normal response would be sentence (13), “Nà zhī gǒu bǎ wǒ yǎoshāng le.” (the dog was bitten by me) “Wǒ bèi nà zhī gǒu yǎoshāng le” (I was bitten by the dog) would be the appropriate response to “Nǐ zěnme le?” (what happened to you?) because people want to know what happened to the person; therefore, the answer “being bitten by the dog” would be the appropriate response. As for the original sentence “What did the dog do to you”, “bit me” should be the answer to response. Hence, the actual function of a language is communication; thus, teachers should devise teaching activities which focus on authentic interaction rather than were structural drills.

Errors Induced by Pedagogical Priorities

Teachers’ expectations have a great influence on learners’ achievement. Some teachers choose to prioritize one of the following: accuracy, fluency or the idiomatic in teaching communication, hence if fluency is regarded as superior, accuracy would have a lower priority or vice versa (James, 1998).

Look-up Errors

Look-up errors are errors resulting from using a dictionary or grammar book then using the new words inaccurately (James, 1998). For example, a student wanted to speak “when” in “when I went to China, I went to Shanghai to buy things”, and she looked up the dictionary for the word. The dictionary used “shémeshíhòu” to explain the word. As a result, she misused the reference aid, producing “shémeshíhòu wǒqù Zhōngguó, wǒ qù Shànghǎi mǎi dōngxī”

19