30

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction

This chapter is devoted to the literature related to this study. The first

section (2.1) presents a brief introduction about second language acquisition

[SLA] and second language learning [SLL] and a comparison between them. The

second section (2.1.1) briefly deals with theories and hypotheses of SLA and SLL.

The factors that affect SLA and SLL are presented in section (2.1.2). Section (2.2.)

is devoted to a survey to errors analysis. Error analysis versus contrastive analysis

is explained in section (2.2.1). Section (2.2.2) deals with errors and SLA/SLL. A

comparison between mistakes and errors is provided in section (2.2.3). The

concept of interlanguage is explained in section (2.2.4). Types of errors and causes

and/or sources of errors are explained in section (2.2.5) and (2.2.6) respectively.

The last section (2.3) is devoted to error analysis studies conducted on Arab EFL

learners.

2.1. Second Language Acquisition/Learning

Second language acquisition (SLA) has become one of the most important

fields in applied linguistics. SLA started "in earnest in the 1970s" (Cook, 2003, p.

71). Gass and Selinker (2008) pointed out that "SLA has expanded and developed

significantly in the past 40-45 years" (p. 1). They added that there was an interest

in the field before, but "since that time the body of knowledge of the field has seen

increased sophistication" (p. 1). They maintained that SLA, in the past 30-40

years, "has developed into an independent and autonomous discipline, complete

with its own research agenda" (p. xvi).

SLA can be defined as the process by which people learn one or more

languages after acquiring their native language(s). Gass and Selinker (2008) gave

many definitions for SLA. They put it as:

31

it is the study of how second languages are learned. … the acquisition of a

language beyond the native language. It is the study of how learners create

a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language. It

is the study of what is learned of a second language and what is not learned;

it is the study of why most second language learners do not achieve the

same degree of knowledge and proficiency in a second language as they do

in their native language; it is also the study of why only some learners

appear to achieve native-like proficiency in more than one language. (p. 1)

They stated that SLA is "a complex field whose focus is the attempt to understand

the processes underlying the learning of a second language” (p. 1). It "generally

refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment in what that

language is spoken" (p. 7).

SLA is significantly related to language teaching and learning. SLA

researchers have tended to apply their findings to suggest ways of improving

language teaching and learning. Cook (2003) pointed out that "SLA research

concerned itself with explaining and describing the process of acquiring a second

language … it has looked at the route, the rate, and the end state of SLA, and the

ways in which it is affected by external factors such as instruction, interaction, and

motivation … the degree of transfer from the first language/s, the degree of

systematicity" (p. 71).

Pica (1987) stated that "with few exceptions, … studies of second language

acquisition have focused solely on how learners acquire the grammar of the

second language, rather than how they learn to use this system for communicative

purposes" (p. 699). There are many opinions about what SLA is and what it

focuses on. SLA involves many different subjects or areas of knowledge. Gass and

Selinker (2008, p. xvi) argued that SLA is "one which everyone seems to have an

opinion". But one of the major goals, as observed in Gass and Selinker (2008) is

"the determination of linguistic constraints on the formation of second language

grammars" (p. 2). They concluded that SLA is "a complex field whose focus is

the attempt to understand the processes underlying the learning of second

language" (p. 5).

32

SLA researchers use both acquisition and learning interchangeably, but

Krashen (1981a & 1981b/2002) distinguished between them. The term "language

acquisition" became popular after Krashen compared second language with formal

learning. He proposed that acquisition is an unconscious process and learning is a

conscious one. In the case of acquisition, a learner acquires a language from the

ones who possess it. Nowadays, second language acquisition is concerned with the

processes of language learning. SLA researchers are concerned with understanding

the process of learning a second language without the factors outside learner

language. Some linguists claim that language acquisition and language learning

can be used interchangeably but most of them argue that language acquisition is

different from language learning. Edmondson (1999) stated that language

acquisition and language learning describe different ways of developing language

skills and that acquisition is a sort of 'natural' learning, and learning is unnatural

acquisition. According to him, acquisition occurs through contact with the society,

while learning occurs in classrooms. To distinguish between acquisition and

learning, Edmondson (1999, pp. 5-7) gave three criteria, which are as follows:

1. Social Context

Social context is the first criterion for distinguishing between acquisition

and learning. When a person, apart from his/her culture, learns in the environment

where the language itself is used in order to develop some skill in a second

language, then the process is acquisition. Whereas learning takes place only in

classroom and often in a culture that is different from the culture to which the

second language belongs. When there is teaching, there is learning.

2. Consciousness or unconsciousness

The way in which language development takes place is the second criterion

for distinguishing between acquisition and learning. If a person learns a language

unconsciously, then the process is acquisition, but if he/she learns it consciously,

the process is learning. In other words, language acquisition takes place

33

unconsciously without a considerable effort, while language learning takes place

consciously with a considerable effort. As there is consciousness in the process of

language acquisition and there is no consciousness in language acquisition,

language acquisition is easy and language learning is difficult.

3. Product

Language acquisition does not concern about grammar and other things

related to the system of a language, but language learning concerns about how

language is structured. In language acquisition, the acquirer corrects his/her

mistakes him/herself without a conscious awareness of the rules of the language,

but in language learning, the learner pays attention to the rules of the language,

and on the basis of the rules he/she possesses he/she can correct his/her mistakes

or errors.

To show the differences between acquisition and learning, Corder (1967)

used the term 'learning of the mother-tongue' to refer to acquisition and 'learning

of a second language' to refer to learning. He explained:

The differences between [acquisition and learning] are obvious but not for

that reason easy to explain: that the learning of the mother-tongue is

inevitable, whereas, … there is no such inevitability about the learning of a

second language; that the learning of the mother-tongue is part of the whole

maturational process of the child, whilst learning a second language

normally begins only after the maturational process is largely complete; that

the infant starts with no overt language behavior, while in the case of the

second language learner such behavior, of course, exists; that the

motivation … for learning a first language is quite different from that for

learning a second language. (p. 163)

Corder (1967) pointed out that "the process of learning a second language is of a

fundamentally different nature from the process of primary acquisition" (p. 164).

He added, "if the acquisition of the first language is a fulfilment of the

predisposition to develop language behaviour, then the learning of the second

language involves the replacement of the predisposition of the infant by some

other force" (p. 164). He proposed that “some at least of the strategies adopted by

34

the learner of a second language are substantially the same as those by which a

first language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the course of

sequence of learning is the same in both cases" (pp. 164-165). Gass and Selinker

(2008) used 'learning' to refer to the learning of foreign language and 'acquisition'

to refer to the learning of second language arguing that:

foreign language learning is generally differentiated from second language

acquisition in that the former refers to the learning of a nonnative

language in the environment of one's native language … [and SLA]

generally refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the

environment in which that language is spoken. …This may or may not

take place in a classroom setting. The important point is that learning in a

second language environment takes place with considerable access to

speakers of the language being learned, whereas learning in a foreign

language environment usually does not. (p. 7)

2.1.1. Theories and Hypotheses of SLA/SLL: An Overview

There are so many theories and hypotheses of SLA and SLL. As cited in

Thornton (2009, p. 15), Mangubhai (2006) said that “Long suggested in 1993 that

there were 40 to 60 current SLA theories”. Thornton (2009, p. 15) stated that “no

one theory can bring together all variables that go into learning a second

language”. The theories and hypotheses that have caused the greatest impact in the

field are behaviourism, cognitivism, sociocultural theory, acculturation, the

universal grammar theory, the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis,

Krashen’s Monitor Model/theory that consists of five central hypotheses – the

acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor

hypothesis, the input hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis.

Xiangui (2005) observed that "no universal agreement exists on how learning

occurs" (p. 120). Xiangui (2005, p. 120) put some observations about the history

of some of the SLA/SLL theories as the following:

- In the middle of the 20th

century, learning theory was dominated by the

principles of behavioural psychology … which maintains that learning

should be described as changes in the observable behaviour of a learner

made as a function of events in the environment.

35

- In the 1970s, the behavioural paradigm began to be expanded by the ideas

of cognitive psychology, which maintains that a complete explanation of

human learning also requires recourse to non-observable constructs, such as

memory and motivation.

- Over the last two decades, sociocultural theory has challenged the cognitive

approach, which holds that human development cannot be viewed

separately from social context.

Xiangui (2005) concluded that:

Behaviourism focuses on the formation of second language (L2) habits;

cognitivism focuses on a single hypothetical learner's internal information

processing and transmission of L2 input and output; sociocultural theory

attempts to capture the context, action, and motives of second language

events between individuals who are simultaneously social and cognitive.

(p. 120)

Behaviourism

Behaviourism is a theory that assumes that language is a set of structures

and acquisition is a matter of habit formation. Behaviourism focuses on observable

behaviours discounting the role of mental activities. Behaviourism hypothesizes

that learning occurs through the establishment of habits. Behaviourists see

learning as an observable behavior which is automatically acquired by means of

stimulus and response in the form of mechanical repetition. Johnson (2004)

pointed out that learning is "the ability to inductively discover patterns of rule-

governed behavior from the examples provided to the learner by his or her

environment" (p. 18). Cook (2001) said that "language to Skinner was learnt

through 'verbal operants' that are controlled by the situation, which includes the

social context, the individual's past history and the complex stimuli in the actual

situation" (p. 188). Behaviourism claims that environment is the source of learning

and development. Skinner (1957) claimed that learning is resulted from habit

formation through imitation and practice. Behaviourism claims that "language

learning comes from outside – from input from others and from interaction and

correction – rather than from inside the mind" (Cook, 1991, p. 122).

36

Cognitivism

In the 1970s, cognitive psychology, which emphasizes the unobservable

constructs, such as the mind, memory, attitudes, motivation, and other internal

processes, began to overtake behaviourism. Before that, Chomsky (1957) stood

against behaviourism interpreting that innate cognitive structures and not

behavioural reinforcement guide a learner's grammatical system. Cognitive theory

of learning assumes that the learner's behavior is only an indicator to the learner's

mental process(es). Cognitivists believe that language cannot be separated from

cognition. They argue that the human mind is able to process all kinds of

information. They assume that language acquisition/learning is understood

through study and analysis not through analogy. As cited in Xiangui (2005, p.

122), Mitchell and Myles (1998) pointed out that "the best way to understand both

L1 and L2 learning is through understanding the processes used by the learner to

learn new information and skills". McLaughlin (1987) maintained that "Second-

language learning is viewed as the acquisition of a complex cognitive skill. …

Learning is a cognitive process, because it is thought to involve internal

representations that regulate and guide performance" (p. 133).

There are two prominent models of cognitive learning theory. These

models are information processing model and connectionism. McLaughlin,

Rossman & Mcleod (1983) stated that the information-processing model is the

main model in cognitive learning theory. This model claims that "learning starts

from controlled processes, which gradually become automatic over time" (Cook,

2001, p. 188). To quote McLaughlin (1987),

Automatic processing involves the activation of certain nodes in memory

every time the appropriate inputs are present. This activation is a learned

response that has been built up through the consistent mapping of the

same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials. Since an

automatic process utilizes a relatively permanent set of associative

connections in long-term storage, most automatic processes require an

appreciable amount of training to develop fully. Once learned, an

automatic process occurs rapidly and is difficult to suppress or alter. …

37

Controlled processing, is not a learned response, but a temporary

activation of nodes in a sequence. This activation is under attentional

control of the subject and, since attention is required, only one such

sequence can normally be controlled at a time without interference.

Controlled processes are thus tightly capacity-limited, and require more

time for their activation. But controlled processes have the advantage of

being relatively easy to set up, alter, and apply to novel situations. (pp.

134-135)

As quoted in Cook (2001, p. 188), McLaughlin (1987) said that "controlled

processing can be said to lay down the "stepping stones" for automatic

processing as the learner moves to more and more difficult levels".

The information processing model of SLL works as:

memory is a network of nodes. New (L2) information temporarily

activates nodes in short-term memory. This is controlled process. When

nodes are repeatedly activated, they become less a product of controlled

processing and more automatic. When they are fully automatized, they are

then stored in the long-term memory (LTM), which frees the short-term

memory to tackle new, more complex learning. (Xiangui, 2005, p. 122)

According to this view, "SLL is a continual process from controlled to automatic

processes by repeated activation of controlled processes" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 122).

According to cognitive learning theory, second language learning "involves the

gradual integration of sub-skills as controlled processes initially predominate and

then become automatic" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 139).

The second model is connectionism which was developed by Rumelhart

and McClelland and others. This model "sees learning as establishing strengths

between the vast numbers of connections in the mind" (Cook, V., 2001, p. 188). It

claims that language processing does not take place in a gradual fashion but it

takes place when many things are being processed at the same time. This model,

as Mitchell and Myles (1998) stated,

likens the brain to a computer which would consist of neural networks,

complex clusters of links between information nodes. These links or

connections become strengthened or weakened through activation or non-

activation respectively. Learning in this view occurs on the basis of

associative processes. … the human mind is predisposed to look for

associations between elements and create links between them. (p. 79)

38

Connectionism rejects the innate endowment hypothesis but explains SLA

in terms of mental representations and information processing. Connectionists do

not deny the existence of universal behaviours but they claim that those

behaviours are not directly contained in the genes of human being. They believe

that language learning is the processing of experience and the repetition of

experiences that cause the strengthening of the connections. Ellis (2007) stated

that "the initial state of SLA is no longer a plastic system; it is one that is already

tuned and committed to the L1" (p. 82). Connectionism presupposes that learning

occurs in parallel stages not in sequenced stages.

Cognitive learning theory has been criticized. Felix (1981), as cited in

Xiangui, (2005, p. 123) claimed that "the general cognitive skills are useless for

language development. The only area that cognitive development is related to

language development is vocabulary and meaning, since lexical items and

meaning relations are most readily related to a conceptual base".

Sociocultural Theory

Based on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1986), Sociocultural theory

[SCT] holds that language is a socially constructed phenomenon. SCT claims that

language is a tool used to mediate social and psychological activities and language

learning is a mediation process. Lantolf (2000, p. 1), as cited in Xiangui, (2005, p.

123), pointed out that "internalization, inner speech, active theory, and the zone of

proximal development constitute the core concepts of SCT, and, in particular,

mediation plays a central role". According to SCT, "it is through the

internalization of this mediation that individuals experience cognitive growth and

higher-order intellectual abilities" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 123). This theory holds that

there is a link between society and mind through mediation. It argues that the

individual is fundamentally a social being and cannot be separate from the social

world and learners move from one stage to another by means of the collaboration

with other social actors. They observe others, imitate them and interact with them.

39

Xiangui (2005) said that, in sociocultural approach, the learner actively

participates in the process of teaching and learning; learner and teacher participate

in sociocultural activity. Sociocultural linguists see language learning as "a

process of group socialization, where language is a tool for teaching group traits,

values, and beliefs" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 123). Van Lier (1996) pointed out that

learning is not caused by environmental stimuli nor genetically determined. It is

rather the result of complex interactions between individual and environment.

This theory concludes that language learning is a social activity in which

the process is participating in a community of second language learners.

Acculturation

Acculturation is another environmental-oriented theory proposed by

Schumann in 1978. Schumann, in his view, pointed out that SLA is the result of

acculturation. Schumann (1978) defined acculturation as "the social and

psychological integration of the learner with the target language (TL) group" (p.

29). This model of second language acquisition is based on the social-psychology

of acculturation. Linton (1963), as cited in McLaughlin (1987, p. 110), described

the acculturation as the process that involves “modification in attitudes,

knowledge, and behavior”. McLaughlin (1987, p. 110) pointed out that "the

overall process of acculturation demands both social and psychological

adaptation". The acculturation model argues that the successful learners are those

who are socially and psychologically less distant from the speakers of the second

language. According to Schumann, there is a relationship between acculturation

and second-language acquisition. Schumann (1978) characterized this relationship

as "second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation, and the degree

to which the learner acculturates to the target language group will control the

degree to which he acquires the target language" (p. 34). In his view, as

McLaughlin (1987) stated, "acculturation … is determined by the degree of social

and psychological 'distance' between the learner and the target-language culture"

40

(p. 110). This theory claims that "social and psychological distance influences

second-language acquisition by determining the amount of contact learners have

with the target language and the degree to which they are open to the input that is

available" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 111). According to Schumann, "acculturation is

the causal variable in the second-language-learning process" (McLaughlin, 1987,

p. 111). Schumann (1978) proposed that the causal variable(s) in SLA is/are done

within the context of natural SLA. Schumann (1978) argued that social factors and

affective factors clustered as one variable to be the major causal variable in SLA,

which is called acculturation.

Krashen (2009a, p. 45) pointed out that "Acculturation can be viewed as a

means of gaining comprehensible input and lowering the filter" (p. 45).

Schumann (1978) stated that there are two types of acculturation. They are as

follows:

In type one acculturation, the learner is socially integrated with the TL group

and, as a result, develops sufficient contacts with TL speakers to enable him

to acquire the TL. In addition, he is psychologically open to the TL such that

input to which he is exposed becomes intake. Type two acculturation has all

the characteristics of type one, but in this case the learner regards the TL

speakers as a reference group whose life and values he consciously or

unconsciously desires to adopt. Both types of acculturation are sufficient to

cause acquisition of the TL, but the distinction is made in order to stress that

social and psychological contact with the TL group is the essential component

in acculturation (as it relates to SLA) and that adoption of the life style and

values of the TL group (characteristics traditionally associated with the notion

of acculturation) is not necessary for successful acquisition of the TL. (P. 29)

Brown (1987) stated that acculturation is "the process of becoming

adapted to a new culture" (p. 128). In his review of Stauble's study (1978)

conducted on how social distance accounted for the degree of acculturation,

Schumann (1978) reported that Stauble suggested that "psychological

distance may be more important in acculturation than social distance" (p. 37).

But he said that Stauble cautioned that her study was based on a

41

questionnaire which was a pilot instrument in which validity and reliability

had not been tested.

Universal Grammar Theory

According to Chomsky, language acquisition device [LAD] is "a cover

term for a battery mechanisms in the mind that are supposed to be responsible for

creating a highly complex grammar from the language experience that a learner …

undergoes" (Smith, 1994, p. 18). Smith (1994) stated that Chomsky means that

LAD on which the young, cognitive immature child relies is designed for creating

linguistic knowledge.

Chomsky (1976) defined universal grammar [UG] as "the system of

principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human

languages” (p. 29). Cook (2001) explained that principles of language are the

abstract principles that allow or prevent certain structures from occurring in all

human languages and parameters of language are the systematic ways in which

human languages are different. In the Universal Grammar theory, Chomsky (1965)

claimed that there is a set of principles and rules on which knowledge of language

develops. These principles and rules are assumed to be common in all languages.

This theory claims that learning is based on the principles and parameters of

language. Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 43) pointed out that this approach claims

that "all human beings inherit a universal set of principles and parameters which

control the shape human languages can take, and which are what make human

languages similar to one another". As cited in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 43),

Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b) argued that "the core of human language must

comprise [principles and parameters]". Here, principles are all the things that are

common in human languages and parameters are the differences among human

languages.

The UG theory considers that the input received by a learner from the

environment is not sufficient to account for language acquisition. The UG theory

42

claims that the "principles and parameters are built into the human mind. Children

do not need to learn structure-dependency because their minds automatically

impose it on any language they meet" (Cook (2001, p. 182). Chomsky sees

language as a mirror of the mind. He believes that language grows in the brain and

it is not learned. Alhosani (2008) put it:

this theory suggests that children are biologically born and equipped with

some special built-in ability to acquire and learn a language. Chomsky

suggests that children learn their first language in a similar way to how

they learn to walk. Their built-in ability enables them to become

component language users regardless of their learning environment. (p.

34)

Chomsky believes that children cannot learn their first language without the help

of their innate language faculty. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 35), Lightbown and

Spada (1999, p. 16) stated out that “the child is able to discover the structure of the

language to be learned by matching the innate knowledge of basic grammatical

relationships to the structures of the particular language in the environment”.

Cook (2001) added that "It is the parameter settings that have to be learnt … All

the learner needs in order to set the values for parameters are a few samples of the

language" (p. 182).

Cook (2001) reported that "Many feel that the UG model is the most

powerful of L2 learning" (p. 184). He went on observing that "the UG model

tackles the most profound areas of L2 acquisition, which are central to language

and to the human mind" (p. 184). UG model argues that UG shapes and restricts

the languages that are learned through principles and parameters.

Despite some challenges, this model persisted "right up to the end of the

late 1980s as the theoretical model on which both L1 and L2 learning was built"

(Macaro, 2003, p. 24). UG approach "has been much the strongest linguistic

influence on second language acquisition research in recent years, and has inspired

a great wealth of studies, articles and books on SLA, both empirical and

theoretical" (Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 42). Although UG theory is not

43

primarily a theory of second language learning and it does not make any claims in

this respect and it is not a language theory which aims to describe and explain

human language, it is indirectly relevant to second language acquisition research

and it has been very influential in the field of second language acquisition

(Mitchell and Myles, 1998). Mitchell and Myles (1998) observed that this theory

has been criticized for the following reasons:

- It studies language somewhat clinically, in a vacuum, as a mental object rather

a social or psychological one.

- It views the speaker/learner not as an individual with varied characteristics, nor

as a social being, but as some kind of idealized receptacle for the UG blueprint.

- In UG-based approaches to SLA, it has left untouched a number of areas which

are central to our understanding of the second language learning process and it

has been almost exclusively concerned with syntax.

As noted by Mitchell and Myles (1998), this theory is strong for the following

reasons:

- It has been very useful as a sophisticated tool for linguistic analysis, enabling

researchers to formulate well-defined and focused hypotheses which could

then been tested in empirical work.

- It attempts to explain and describe at least some L2 phenomena, and finally by

engaging increasingly with other theories in the field.

Interaction Hypothesis

Long (1981) extended Krashen’s Input Hypothsis and this extension came

to be called the Interaction Hypothsis. Interaction Hypothesis was defended by

Hatch (1983) and Long (1983 & 1990). They did not accept Krashen's Input

Hypothesis. Hatch (1983) said that interaction syntactic structures are developed

when one learns how to do conversation and how to interact verbally. Long (1983)

declared that in interaction there are modifications and he did not deny that there is

44

a positive role of modified input. He said that interactional modifications by the

native speaker(s) facilitate acquisition in connecting input and output in productive

ways. As quoted in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 128-129), Larsen-Freeman and

Long (1991, p. 144) stated:

Modification of the interactional structure of conversation … is a better

candidate for a necessary (not sufficient) condition for acquisition. The

role it plays in negotiation for meaning helps to make input

comprehensible while still containing unknown linguistic elements, and,

hence, potential intake for acquisition.

The interaction hypothesis proposes that “collaborative efforts between

more and less fluent speakers should be very useful for language learning”

(Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 128). Interactionists argue that interaction is more

powerful than other theories because it connects both innate and environmental

factors to explain language learning. They see language as a matter of syntactic

structures and a matter of discourse.

Output Hypothesis

Output hypothesis goes against the role of input and stands in favour of the

output. This hypothesis states that practicing the language helps learners observe

their production, which is essential to SLA. Swain supports this hypothesis and

states that output leads the learners to recognize what they do not know when they

observe their own production. Swain (1995) explained that learners "may output

just to see what works and what does not" (p. 132). It is argued that output helps

the acquirers/learners by making their knowledge more automatic through practice

and by providing a domain for error correction, which helps them arrive at a better

version of our rule.

As Krashen (2009b) claimed, the skill-building hypothesis “maintains that

we acquire language when we consciously learn rules of grammar and vocabulary,

and we learn to read by first consciously learning the rules of phonics” (p. 82).

45

The comprehensible output hypothesis claims that “language acquisition

occurs when we say something and our conversational partner does not

understand, forcing us to notice a gap in our competence. We then try again until

we arrive at the correct version of the rule” (Krashen, 2009b, p. 82). Krashen stood

against output claiming that “output fails as a predictor of language competence

when compared to reading more speaking or writing does not result in more

language or literacy development, but more reading does” (Krashen, 2009b, p. 86).

Krashen’s Monitor Model/Input Theory

Krashen (1982) argued that language acquisition does not require

comprehensible use of conscious grammatical rules or tedious drill. Krashen

developed a second language acquisition theory that consists of five hypotheses.

McLaughlin (1987) maintained that “the most ambitious theory of the second-

language learning process is Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model” (p. 19). In the

earlier years, Krashen’s theory was called the Monitor Model and in recent years,

it has become to be known as the Input hypothesis. Krashen (1985) argued that the

theory is a general theory of second language acquisition with important

implications for language teaching. Alhosani (2008) observed “since the 1980s,

this theory has a large impact in all perspectives of second language research and

teaching” (p. 27). McLaughlin (1987) explains that “[Krashen’s] theory begins

with a number of assumptions, from which [the five] hypothesis are derived” (p.

19-20).

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Because the distinction between acquisition and learning has been

discussed earlier in this chapter in section (2.1.), this hypothesis will be briefly

discussed in this section. Brown (2007, p. 294) pointed out that “Krashen claimed

that adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target

language”. These two means are acquisition and learning. Krashen (2009a) in this

46

hypothesis maintained that language acquisition is a process similar to the way

children develop ability in their first language. It is a subconscious process in

which acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language.

Acquisition includes implicit learning. While language learning is a conscious

process that results in knowing about language, knowing the rules, being aware of

them and being able to talk about them.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis suggests that “the acquisition of grammatical

structures proceeds in a predictable order. Acquirers of a given language tend to

acquire certain grammatical structures early, and others later” (Krashen, 2009a, p.

12). Krashen (1985) explained that “the order does not appear to be determined

solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order

in which rules are taught in language classes” (p. 1). In other words, this order is

independent of the age of the learners, the L1 background and the degree of

exposure to second language. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 30), Krashen (1994)

argued that “grammatical patterns of second language acquisition do not follow

those of first language acquisition”.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis suggests that learning has a monitor that functions

to help second language learners to alter the output of the second system or the

learner’s language. Lightbown and Spada (1993) stated out that this hypothesis

argues that the “learner system acts as a monitor, making minor changes and

polishing what the acquired system has produced” (as cited in Alhosani, 2008, p.

29). McLaughlin (1987) said that “the Monitor acts as a sort of editor that is

consciously controlled and that makes changes in the form of utterances produced

by acquisition” (p. 25). Krashen (2009a) claimed that “Conscious learning is

available only as a "Monitor", which can alter the output of the acquired system

before or after the utterance is actually spoken or written. It is the acquired system

47

which initiates normal, fluent speech utterances” (p. 16). As Brown (2007) stated

that “The ‘monitor’ is involved in learning not in acquisition, it is a device for

“watchdogging” one’s output, for editing and making alterations or corrections as

they are consciously perceived” (p. 294). For the use of the monitor, Krashen

(2009a) specifies three factors that must be met: (1) time, (2) focus on form, and

(3) knowledge of the rules. It was proposed by Krashen (1981b/2002) that the

monitor is not used in the same way by all second languages learners.

The Input Hypothesis

Krashen (2009a) stated that the input hypothesis is crucial because it is

relatively new and because of its importance, both theoretical and practical. It is

also important because it deals with the most important question in the field ‘how

do we acquire language?’. As cited in Brown (2007, p. 295), Krashen (1984, p. 61)

argued that the comprehensible input is “the only true cause of second language

acquisition”. Krashen (2009a, p. 20) argued that “the input hypothesis attempts to

answer what is perhaps the most important question in our field, and gives an

answer that has a potential impact on all areas of language learning”.

In this hypothesis, Krashen (2009a) gives an answer to the question with

which the hypothesis deals. He explained how an acquirer/learner moves from one

stage to another stating that acquirers/learners acquire “only when [they]

understand language that contains structure that is “a little beyond” where [they]

are now” (p. 21). This means that acquirers/learners use more than their linguistic

competence to help them understand language. He argued that “the input

hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning” (p. 21), adding that

acquirers/learners improve when they receive second language input that is

beyond their current linguistic competence, and “this is done with the help of

context or extra-linguistic information” (p. 21). Therefore, without the help of

context or extra-linguistic information, the learner is unable to reach the ‘i+1’

48

level. Krashen (2009a) clarifies it saying that if the acquirer is at a stage ‘i’, the

input he/she understands should contain ‘i+1’.

The input hypothesis says that if there is enough of the input that the

acquirer understands, ‘i+1’ will automatically be provided (Krashen, 2009a). This

is clearly stated by Krashen (2009a, p. 22) as “When communication is successful,

when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i+1 will be provided

automatically”. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 31-32), Krashen (1994) suggested

that “the natural communicative input is the keystone to design a syllabus that

gives each learner an opportunity to receive some ‘i+1’ that is suitable for his/her

current stage of linguistic competence”.

Moreover, this hypothesis suggests that second language acquirer should

not be forced to speak, but he/she should build up enough comprehensible input.

In this hypothesis, Krashen (2009a) gave recommendation saying that “production

ability emerges. It is not taught directly” (p. 22). In other words, speaking should

not be taught directly or very early in the classroom because speech emerges on its

own.

To conclude the concept of this hypothesis, McLaughlin (1987, p.36) put it in

the following two points.

1. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be

taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence

via comprehensible input.

2. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is

automatically provided. The language teachers need not attempt

deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order – it will be

provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the

student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.

49

Although Krashen regarded this hypothesis as the only most important one

of the current hypotheses in second language acquisition, this hypothesis has been

criticized because the learner’s current language level and the level above his/her

level cannot be determined. Therefore, the comprehensible input that should be

given to the learner cannot be determined. In addition, the comprehensible input

cannot be defined and it differs from one learner to another.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The affective filter hypothesis claims that a second language learner’s

emotions such as motivation, anxiety and self-confidence, work as filters to permit

or hinder language input. Krashen (2009a) said that second language learners with

high motivation, high self-confidence, a good self-image and low anxiety do or

attend to do better in second language acquisition. On the other hand, second

language learners with low motivation, low self-confidence and high anxiety will

have an affective filter that hinder language input and does not provide the learner

with as many ‘subconscious language acquisition’. McLaughlin (1987, p. 51)

clarified the concept of the affective filter hypothesis, citing Krashen (1985),

saying that according to this hypothesis

comprehensible input may not be utilized by second-language acquirers if

there is a ‘mental block’ that prevents them from fully profiting from it.

The affective filter acts as a barrier to acquisition: if the filter is ‘down’,

the input reaches the LAD and becomes acquired competence; if the filter

is ‘up’, the input is blocked and does not reach the LAD.

The following figure shows the operation of affective filter.

Filter

Input Acquired competence

Figure (2.1) showing operation of the affective filter. Taken from Krashen (2009a, p. 32)

Language

acquisition

device

50

Krashen (2009, p. 32) said; “input is the primary causative variable in second

language acquisition, affective variables acting to impede or facilitate the delivery

of input to the language acquisition device”.

This hypothesis has been criticized. McLaughlin (1987) criticized this

hypothesis saying that this hypothesis is:

of questionable validity because Krashen has provided no coherent

explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for

relating the affective filter to individual differences in language learning.

The hypothesis is incapable of predicting with any precision the course of

linguistic development and its outcome. (p. 56)

2.1.2. Factors That Affect SLA/SLL

SLA has been influenced by other disciplines and it in turn has influenced

those disciplines. At present, some conceptualize it as an independent field having

its own research agenda and a multidisciplinary focus and there are others who

conceptualize it as a subdiscipline of other disciplines. As explained by Gass and

Selinker (2008, p. 159-160), "linguistics focuses on the products of acquisition …

psychology focuses on the process by which those systems are created … and

sociolinguistics focuses on social factors that influence the acquisition of the

linguistic system and the use of that system". Apart from the disciplines that

influence SLA, there are many factors that can affect the process of SLA/SLL.

They can be divided into learner-external factors, learner-internal factors and

individual variation.

(A) Learner-External Factors

The study of learner-external factors primarily focuses on how learners get

information about the target language. The following are the main learner-external

factors that affect the process of SLA/SLL.

51

- Social Effects

The process of second language learning is affected by the attitudes of the

learner's surrounding society. The attitudes of the learner's society toward the

language being learned can have a strong effect on second language

acquisition/learning. If the society has a negative attitude toward the target

language and its speakers, learning that language becomes more difficult. On the

other hand, the community's positive attitude toward the target language and its

speakers may facilitate the learning of that language. Moreover, the learner's

parents' attitude towards the language being learned may affect the process of

learning the target language.

The relationship of gender roles to language achievement has also received

particular attention. Some studies have shown that women enjoy an advantage

over men.

- Input

The target language is the basic source of information about the target

language. Mackey and Abbuhl (2005) said, "Input refers to the linguistic forms to

which learners are exposed" (p. 207). Input is one of the most important factors

that affect the learners' learning. Input is defined by Nizegorodcew (2007) as "the

language intentionally presented to the learners by the teacher or other learners in

order to facilitate the process of L2 learning/acquisition" (p. x). As cited in Hassan

(2010, p. 30), VanPatten (1996, p. 13) stated, "input is an essential component of

second language acquisition”. It is argued that simple exposure to the target

language is not sufficient for second language learners to master the target

language. Swain (1985) pointed out that “input is not sufficient for L2 learning

and it cannot alone account for the entire process of acquiring an L2. Learners use

input in order to construct a mental representation of the grammar that they are

acquiring". There are some models and approaches such as Krashen’s

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982) and Michael Long's the

52

Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983) that regard the input as the main factor in L2

acquisition. Krashen (1982) claimed that comprehensibility is the first condition

for the input to be acquired. Long (1983) claimed that the input should be adjusted

in interaction to become comprehensible. Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 126)

pointed out that "the Input Hypothesis claims that exposure to comprehensible

input is both necessary and sufficient for second language learning to take place".

- Interaction

In the last decade, the interaction hypothesis has attracted more interest in SLA

research. The interaction hypothesis proposes that the use of the target language in

interaction facilitates language acquisition. The interaction hypothesis suggests

that interaction with other speakers facilitates second language development. Long

(1981) argued that interaction can be modified to make input more

comprehensible for second language learners. Long (1981) focused on negotiation

for meaning as the only type of interaction that affects L2 comprehension and

development. According to Long (1981), negotiation for meaning refers to "the

efforts learners and their interlocutors make to modify or restructure interaction to

avoid or overcome difficulties in input comprehensibility" (Mackey & Abbuhl,

2005, p. 208). Negotiation for meaning, according to Long, includes

comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests.

- Pedagogical Effects

The study of the pedagogical effects on SLA seeks to evaluate the

effectiveness of language teaching practices. Nowadays, it is proved that formal

instruction can help in language learning. There are many studies that have shown

the effects of teaching on SLA. Some of these studies have shown that many

traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient. Many SLA

scholars indicate that formal instruction plays an important role in language

learning. As explicit instruction takes place in the learner's L1, it is argued that it

prevents the learners from input and opportunities for practice. Some studies

53

“indicate that formal instruction helps second-language acquisition, while others

seem to argue that informal environments are superior or just as good”

(McLaughlin, 1987, p. 45). McLaughlin (1987, p. 45) pointed out that “Krashen

proposed that language classes are effective when they are the primary source of

comprehensible input”. On the basis of Krashen’s claim, McLaughlin (1987) said;

language classes are thought [by Krashen] to be less helpful when (1) the

students are already advanced enough to understand some input from the

outside world, and (2) the input is available to them” ( p. 45). McLaughlin

(1987) stated out that “not all studies show that instruction does not help

more advanced learners. (p. 45).

The process of learning a second/foreign language is dynamic; it is also

affected by other factors such as the structure of the target language and the

differences and similarities between the learner's mother tongue and the target

language.

(B) Learner-Internal Factors

The study of learner-internal factors in SLA focuses on how learners gain

competence in the target language or the internal resources with which learners

process the input to produce a rule-governed interlanguage. The most important

factors are language transfer, linguistic universals and intralingual interference.

The first two factors will be discussed below, and in order to avoid repetition, the

third factor will be discussed later in the causes and sources of errors.

Language Transfer

Language transfer refers to the learner’s trying to apply rules and forms of

his/her mother tongue into the second language. Contrastive analysis hypothesis

[CAH] claims that the learner’s errors are produced because of the transfer from

the learner’s first language to the second language.

Brown (1987) defined transfer as “the carryover of previous performance or

knowledge to subsequent learning” (p. 81). The direction of language transfer is

understood as it is only from the mother tongue to the second language, but it may

54

be reversed. Al-Fotih (2007) said that “[language transfer] may also be used in

studies of language loss where a previously learned language for example the first

language is changing under the influence of the new language” (p. 56). Gass and

Selinker (2008) stated that “it has always been assumed that, in a second language

learning situation, learners rely extensively on their native language” (p. 89).

Transfer is an important factor in language learning at all levels. The role of

transfer starts diminishing when learners progress and gain more experience with

the target language. Richards and Sampson (1974) considered language transfer as

“the major, but not the only, source of difficulty by linguists doing contrastive

analysis” (p. 5). Lu (2004, p. 1) defined language transfer as “the application of

native language rules in the attempted performance in a second language, in some

cases resulting in deviations from target-language norms and in other cases

facilitating second language acquisition” (cited in Al-Awaid, 2010, p. 55).

Transfer can affect the process of second language learning positively or

negatively. If the transfer is positive, it facilitates the process of second language

learning but if it is negative, it makes the process of second language learning

difficult and causes errors. If the transfer results in something correct, it is positive

transfer, but if it results in something incorrect, it is negative transfer. Edwards and

Zampini (2008) said that “since the 1950s, transfer has been considered to be a

dominant influence, both positively and negatively, in the acquisition of an L2” (p.

2). Gass and Selinker (2008) maintained that “the actual determination of whether

or not a learner has positively or negatively transferred is based on the output, as

analyzed by the researcher, teacher, native speaker/learner, when compared and

contrasted with target language output” (p. 90). Postman (1974, p. 1019) declared

that “transfer of training from [first language to target language] situations is part

and parcel of most, if not all, learning. In this sense the study of transfer is

coextensive with the investigation of learning” (Quoted in Gass and Slinker, 2008,

p. 94). Brown (1987) said;

55

positive transfer occurs when the prior knowledge benefits the learning

task – that is, when a previous item is correctly applied to present subject

matter. Negative transfer occurs when the previous performance disrupts

the performance on a second language task … [when] a previous item is

incorrectly transferred or incorrectly associated with an item to be learned.

(p. 81)

Ellis (2008) pointed out that “the learner’s L1 can also facilitate L2

learning. This occurs when there are similarities between the L1 and L2” (p. 355).

Language transfer can also have a negative effect on the process of second

language learning. Ellis (2008, p. 357) said that “the effects of the L1 are evident

not in what learners do (errors) but in what they do not do (omission)”. Language

transfer may manifest itself as errors, avoidance, overuse and facilitation. Ellis

(2008, p. 29) stated that, according to Odlin (1989), the transfer is significant in

the process of second language acquisition and “… there is a large and growing

body of research that indicates that transfer is indeed a very important factor in

second language acquisition”. It is thought by some researchers that mother tongue

transfer is helpful in syllabus design. Pica (1984) said that "L1 transfer and L2

complexity – can be used in selecting, sequencing, and grading items for the

syllabus" (p. 700).

So many scholars and researchers support the concept and effect of transfer

in second language learning. Ringbom (1987, p. 134), for example, stated out that

“similarities, both cross-linguistic and interlinguistic, function as pegs on which

the learner can hang new information by making use of already existing

knowledge, thereby facilitating learning” (as quoted in Gass and Selinker, 2008, p.

137). As cited in Richards and Sampson (1974, p. 5), George (1972) found out that

“one-third of the deviant sentences from second language learners could be

attributed to language transfer”. Al-Fotih (2007) pointed out that “most existing

data from transfer research emphasize the negative effects of first language

influence” (p. 56).

56

Some scholars, on the other hand, deny the influence of transfer on the

process of second language learning. Here are some of these statements as quoted

in Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 136):

- “language background did not have a significant effect on the way ESL

learners order English morphemes” (Larsen-Freeman, 1978, p. 372).

- “Interference, or native to target language transfer, plays such a small role

in language learning performance” (Whitman and Jackson, 1972, p. 40).

- “Direct interference from the mother tongue is not a useful assumption”

(George, 1972, p. 45).

Linguistic Universal

One of the internal mechanisms that are responsible for L2 acquisition is

linguistic universals. As defined by Ellis (2008),

Typological universals are identified ‘externally’ through the study of the

world’s languages in order to identify what features and structures they

have in common. Universal Grammar is viewed ‘internally’; that is, it

consists of the set of general, highly abstract linguistic principles, which

exist in the minds of individuals and are reflected in the rules of specific

languages. (p. 557)

As shown by studies, universal grammar has had a significant effect on SLA

theory. The interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages

conform to UG at all stages of development. However, research studies suggest

that UG is inaccessible as learner’s age. Studies do not deny the fact that all

learners’ processing of language is governed by UG, but it does not affect the

process of second language acquisition/learning because older learners have great

difficulty in gaining access to the target language’s underlying rules from input

alone.

(C) Individual Variation

Studies on individual variation investigate why some learners do better than

others. SLA researchers have examined many individual learner differences. As

57

cited in Ellis (2008, p. 643), Dornyei (2005) defined the individual differences as

“enduring personal characteristics that are assumed to apply to everybody and on

which people differ by degree” (p. 4). Some researchers, such as Altman (1980),

presented a long list of individual differences, but others have presented a small

list of these differences. The most important factors that affect second language

acquisition/learning are discussed below.

Language Aptitude

Language aptitude generally refers to the ability to learn a second language.

Studies have shown that language aptitude is quite distinct from general aptitude

or intelligence. Tests of language aptitude have proven effective in predicting

which learners will be successful in learning.

Although Cook (2001) referred to aptitude as “the ability to learn a

language from teaching in classrooms” (p. 123-124) and reported that there are

“people who have a knack for learning second languages and others who are rather

poor at it” (p. 123), he added that some immigrants who lived in a country for 20

years are very fluent and others from the same background with the same ages,

motivations, and so on living in the same circumstances for the same period are

rather poor. Cook (2001, p. 124) pointed out that “differences in L2 learning

ability are apparently only felt in societies where L2 learning is treated as a

problem rather than accepted as an everyday fact of life”. As cited in Cook (2001,

p. 124), Krashen (1981) suggested that “aptitude is important for ‘formal’

situations such as classrooms”.

Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) maintained “what is undeniable is that

individuals learn languages at different rates” (p. 167). This means that they assert

the role of aptitude in learning languages. Ellis (2008) said that “language aptitude

constitutes a special ability for learning an L2” (p. 652). Ellis (2008) cited Skehan

(1989) saying that “[aptitude] is typically held to involve a number of distinct

abilities including auditory ability, linguistic ability, and memory ability” (p. 652).

58

These are the specific abilities that are complicated with language aptitude.

Moreover, there are general abilities, such as intelligence and working memory,

which are complicated with language aptitude. Ellis (2008) concluded that

“language aptitude, then, is best viewed as a composite of general and specific

abilities” (p. 652). Carroll (1981) argued that aptitude is separate from

achievement, motivation and general intelligence and that aptitude is a stable

factor that is difficult to alter through training, while Pimsleur (1966), as cited in

Ellis (2008, p. 653), argued that motivation and intelligence are integral parts of

aptitude. Carroll (1981) regarded aptitude as a capacity that enhances the rate and

ease of learning. There are many studies that confirm the effect of aptitude in

language learning. As cited in Ellis (2008, p. 657), Skehan (1986a, 1986b, 1990)

reported that there are “significant correlations between aptitude and measures of

all four language skills” and Harley and Hart (1997) reported that there are “strong

correlations between language aptitude and l2 measures of proficiency involving

both formal and informal tasks”. There is a “clear evidence to show that language

aptitude predicts successful learning in learners with informal as well as formal

learning experiences and correlates with measures of communicative as well as

controlled language use” (Ellis, 2008, p. 657). Referring to the studies conducted

by Skehan (1986b, 1990) and Sparks, Ganschow, and Patton (1995), Ellis (2008,

p.658) concluded that it seems that “language aptitude is a factor in L1

development as well as L2 learning”. To quote Ellis (2008, p. 658) “the majority

of studies have addressed the relationship between aptitude and L2 proficiency”.

He came to conclude that “language aptitude is an important factor in both formal

and informal language learning” (Ellis, 2008, p. 659).

Age

In 1967, Eric Lenneberg hypothesized a critical period for L1 acquisition,

but nowadays there is an interest in age effects on SLA. There are theories that

argue that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and

59

language acquisition can primarily occur during childhood only because plasticity

of the brain loses after a certain age. It is commonly believed that children are

better than adults in learning a second language. Lenneberg’s Critical Period

Hypothesis claims that full language acquisition is not possible beyond a certain

age. Studies have shown that early exposure to a second language increases a

child's capacity to learn language, even their first language.

The functional reorganization hypothesis claims that "the loss of sensitivity

to foreign contrasts is not permanent" (Guasti, 2002, p. 44). Critical Period

Hypothesis claims, as Guasti (2002) put it;

early learners of a second language resemble native speakers, while adults

learning a foreign language keep a foreign accent. The later a language is

learned, the more a foreign accent is discernible. It has been shown that a

foreign accent is already detected in children who are exposed to a second

language before age 4. The effect of age is evident not only in production,

but also in perception, although in the former case it is more pronounced.

Late learners are less proficient in discriminating the phonemic contrasts

of the second language than early learners. (p. 44-45)

As stated by Pujol (2008, p. 1), there are several studies that “have shown the

benefits of starting to learn a new language as early as possible”. It has proved by

studies that “although children have a slower rate of development in the target

language, they quite often surpass older learners in the long run achieving a

superior ultimate attainment” (Pujo, 2008, pp. 1-2). Birdsong (1999, 2006), Harley

(1986) and Long (1990) assert that age is one of the individual learner variables

which has been most thoroughly investigated in the field of second language

acquisition. The CPH hypothesizes that there is a specific and limited period of

time for language acquisition. Scovel (2000) pointed out that it is a popular belief

that the earlier one starts learning a language is better than those who start later. It

is clearly stated in Gass and Selinker (2008) that “it is commonly believed that

children are better language learners than adults in the sense that young children

typically can gain mastery of a second language, whereas adults cannot” (p. 405).

60

Birdsong (1999) said that “the CPH states that there is a limited

developmental period during which it is possible to acquire a language be it L1 or

L2, to normal, nativelike levels. Once this window of opportunity is passed, how,

the ability to learn language declines” (p. 1). Lennenberg (1967) proposed that

“automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to disappear

[after puberty], and foreign languages have to be taught and learned through a

conscious and labored effort. Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after

puberty” (p. 176). Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 407) showed that “there is abundant

evidence that individuals generally do not achieve a native-like accent in a second

language unless they are exposed to it at an early age”. Long (1990) concluded

that the initial rate of acquisition and the ultimate level of attainment depend in

part on the age at which learning begins and there are sensitive periods governing

language development during which the acquisition of different linguistic ability is

successful and after which it is irregular and incomplete. As cited in Krashen and

Long (1991), Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979, p. 161) reached the following

three conclusions:

1. Adults proceed through the early stages of syntactic and morphological

development faster than children.

2. Older children acquire faster than younger children.

3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to a second language during

childhood achieve higher second-language proficiency than those

beginning as adults.

The conclusion Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) drew from the earlier studies

they reviewed is that “older is faster, but younger is better” (Larsen-Freeman and

Long, 1991, p. 155). There are some researchers who argue that “adults are really

better learners because they start off faster” (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p.

154). Cook (2001) stated that “Adults start more quickly and then slow down.

Though children start more slowly, they finish up at a higher level” (p. 135).

61

Richards and Sampson (1974) said that age is one of the factors that may

affect the approximative system of the second language learner, explaining that

“some aspects of the child’s learning capacities change as he grows older and

these may affect language learning. The child’s memory span increases with age.

He acquires a greater number of abstract concepts, and he uses these to interpret

his experience” (p. 11). They argued that “in some ways adults are better prepared

for language learning than children. Adults have better memories, a larger store of

abstract concepts that can be used in learning, and a greater ability to form new

concepts. Children are better imitators of speech sounds” (p. 11-12).

Learning Strategies Used

Ellis (2008, p. 703) said that “learner strategies define the approach learners

adopt in learning an L2”. There are many terms, such as learning behaviours,

cognitive processes, learning tactics and learning techniques and learning

strategies, which have been used to refer to the strategies a learner uses to acquire

knowledge about a second language. But the term that is most commonly used is

‘learning strategies’. As quoted in Ellis (2008, p. 703), Oxford (1989) defined

learning strategies as “Behaviors or actions which learners use to make language

learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable”. Rubin (1975, p. 43)

defined learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use

to acquire knowledge” (as quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 199).

Mitchell and Myles (1998) defined learning strategies as “procedures undertaken

by the learner, in order to make their own language learning as effective as

possible” (p. 89). As cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 200), Seliger

(1984) distinguished between macro-tactics which result in situations whereby the

learner may obtain data and micro-tactics which provide direct input for learning.

O’Malley et al. (1985a), as cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 200)

distinguished between metacognitive strategies, such as directing attention to the

62

learning task or evaluating one’s efforts, and cognitive learning strategies such as

inferencing or guessing meaning from context.

Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p 199) mentioned that Chesterfield and

Barrows Chesterfield (1985) “demonstrated that learners’ strategies do change

over time”. O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 43) said that learning strategies may

include:

Focusing on selected aspects of new information, analyzing and

monitoring information during acquisition, organizing or elaborating on

new information during the encoding process, evaluating the learning

when it is completed, or assuring oneself that the learning will be

successful as a way to allay anxiety (as quoted in Mitchell and Myles,

1998: 89-90).

There are many classes of learning strategies, but the most commonly cited

taxonomies are O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990). Furthermore,

Oxford’s taxonomy distinguished between direct and indirect strategies. The

following table shows these two taxonomies of learning strategies.

Table (2.1): shows the classification of learning strategies according to O’Malley and

Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990)

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) Oxford (1990)

A. Metacognitive strategies, e.g.

‘selective attention’ (deciding in

advance to attend to specific aspects

of language input)

B. Cognitive strategies, e.g.

‘inferencing’ (using available

information to guess meaning for

new items, predict outcomes, or fill

in missing information)

C. Social/affective strategies, e.g.

‘question for clarification’ (asking a

teacher or another native speaker for

repetition, paraphrasing, explanation,

and/or examples)

A. Direct

1. Memory strategies, e.g. ‘grouping’

(classifying or reclassifying materials

into meaningful units)

2. Cognitive strategies, e.g. ‘practising’

(repeating, formally practising,

recognizing and using formulas,

recombining, and practising

naturalistically)

3. Compensation strategies, e.g.

‘switching to mother tongue’

B. Indirect

1. Metacognitive strategies, e.g. ‘setting

goals and objectives’

63

2. Affective strategies, e.g. ‘taking risks

wisely’

3. Social strategies, e.g. ‘asking for

clarification or verification’

Ellis (2008, p. 707)

There are some strategies that are used by almost all language learners.

Naiman et al. (1995), as cited in Cook (2001, p. 127-128), found that the

following learning strategies are shared by the good language learners:

1. Finding the learning that suits the learner;

2. Involving in the language learning process;

3. Developing in an awareness of language both as system and as

communication;

4. Paying constant attention to expanding the learner’s language knowledge;

5. Developing the second language as a separate system; and

6. Taking into account the demands that L2 learning imposes.

It has been shown that use of strategies is critical to successful language learning.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 217), as cited in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 90),

summed up the benefits of using learning strategies in the field of second language

acquisition as follows.

• Learning is an active and dynamic process in which individuals make use of

a variety of information and strategic modes of processing.

• Language is a complex cognitive skill that has properties in common with

other complex skills in terms of how information is stored and learned.

• Learning a language entails a stagewise progression from initial awareness

and active manipulation of information and learning processes to full

automaticity in language use; and

• Learning strategies parallel theoretically derived cognitive processes and

have the potential to influence learning outcomes in a positive manner. (as

cited in Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 90).

64

Affective Factors

Anxiety

Gardner (1985) and Gardner, Tremblay and Masgoret (1997) found that

there is a high relationship between anxiety and proficiency. MacIntyre and

Gardner (1991) stated that anxiety is a factor that can predicts success in the

second language. They reviewed the anxiety of adult learners and children and

they found that adults’ language proficiency is more influenced by the anxiety

than children. Cubukcu (2007, p. 133) mentioned that main sources of anxiety are

identified as: “(a) Presenting before the class, (b) Making mistakes, (c) Losing

face, (d) Inability to express oneself, (e) Fear of failure, (f) Teachers, and (g) Fear

of living up to the standards”. Anxiety should be considered by the teachers as

responsible for the student behaviors before attributing poor student performance

to lack of ability, inadequate background or poor motivation. Almost all studies in

this field maintain the idea that anxiety affects language learning. Cubukcu (2007)

said that “anxiety makes learners unreceptive to language input” (p. 135). It is said

that “those who do not experience anxiety will be able to process the information

more quickly and more effectively” (Cubukcu (2007, p. 136). Horwitz, Horwitz

and Cope (1986) found that foreign language anxiety is responsible for students’

negative emotional reactions to language learning, it plays a role in students’

selections of courses, majors, and careers and it is a factor in students’ objections

to foreign language requirements. There are a lot of studies that found negative

correlations between anxiety and language learning achievement. On the other

hand, Cubukcu (2007) mentioned that there are studies such as Chastain (1975)

and Kleinmann (1977) that found positive relationships between language anxiety

and second language achievement. Gass and Selinker (2008) said that “anxiety is

not always a negative factor in learning” (p. 400). They claimed that anxiety has a

curvilinear effect on performance and when it is low, it helps and when it is high,

it hurts. But there are studies that have almost unanimously shown that anxiety

65

stands against successful learning. Being a complex, multidimensional

phenomenon, language anxiety manifests itself in students differently, almost

unavoidably, intricately intertwined with other factors, among which motivation

might be one.

Anxiety can have a deleterious or positive effect on second language

learning. Chastain (1975) found that anxiety was a significant predictor in some

cases and deleterious in other cases. Alpert and Haber (1960) suggested that

anxiety can be facilitating or debilitating and it is not necessarily a negative trait.

This distinction was explained and clarified by Scovel (1978) commenting:

Facilitating anxiety motivates the learner to ‘fight’ the new learning task;

it gears the learner emotionally for approval behavior. Debilitating

anxiety, in contrast, motivates the learner to ‘flee’ the new learning task; it

stimulates the individual emotionally to adopt avoidance behavior. (p.

139)

Motivation

Motivation as a predictor of second language learning performance was

first studied by Gardner and his colleagues (Wei, 2007). Ellis (2008) stated that

motivation as an individual difference factor in language learning has received

more attention than other factors. Dornyei (2001) stated that “strictly speaking,

there is no such thing as motivation" (p. 1). Brown (1987) claimed that success in

second language leaning is due to the fact that the learner is motivated. A learner

will further be successful in second language learning if there is a proper

motivation. Gardner believes that “motivation has cognitive affective and conative

characteristics and the motivated individual demonstrates all facets” (Al-Mekhlafi,

2010, p. 57). Studies have proved that motivation is a factor that has a substantial

effect in learning an L2.

Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified two types of motivation: (1)

integrative and (2) instrumental. Integrative motivation refers to the learner’s

desire and willingness to learn the L2 in order to become like the target language

66

speakers and join their community and culture and instrumental motivation refers

to the learner’s desire to learn an L2 for utilitarian purposes with no/little interest

in the speakers of that language. Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) integrative-

instrumental duality became widely accepted and became a classical model.

Regardless the type of motivation, in the field of SLA, studies have shown that

motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating that successful learners

are motivated and that success improves motivation. Cook (1991) stated that

“some learners do better than others because they are better motivated” (p. 72).

Dornyei (2005) defined integrative motivation as involving the following three

subcomponents:

1. Integrativeness (including integrative orientation, interest in foreign

language, and attitudes toward the L2 community)

2. Attitudes towards the learning situation (i.e. attitudes towards the teacher

and the L2 course)

3. Motivation (i.e. the effort, desire, and attitude toward L2 learning).

MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) stated out that the student endorsing an

integrative orientation or goal and does not show effort or engagement with the

language is not a motivated learner. Gardner and his associates first defended

integrative motivation as a primary factor accounting for L2 achievement and

refused to entertain alternative models of motivation. Thus Masgoret and Gardner

(2003) said;

the motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the

task at hand, has goals, desires, and aspiration, enjoys the activity,

experiences reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure,

makes attributions concerning success and/or failure, is aroused, and

makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals. (p. 173)

They show that there is a relationship between the three components of integrative

motivation (integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, and

motivation) and achievement. Thus, they put it:

67

the integratively motivated student is one who is motivated to learn the

second language, has an openness to identification with the other language

community, and has favorable attitudes toward the learning situation. In

the model, integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation are

viewed as two different, yet correlated, supports for motivation, but

motivation is seen to be the major affective individual-difference variable

contributing to achievement in learning another language. This means that

the correlation between motivation and language achievement should be

higher than the correlations of either integrativeness or attitudes toward

the learning situation with language achievement. (Masgoret and Gardner,

2003, p. 174)

Instrumental motivation is the second component of Gardner’s model. Ellis

(2008) pointed out that instrumental motivation “refers to the motivation that

derives from a perception of the concrete benefits that learning the L2 might bring

out” (p. 682). Some studies have proved that instrumental motivation is more

affective in L2 learning than integrative motivation. Spolsky (1979, p. 282), as

quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 173), concluded that “learning a

second language is a key to possible membership of a secondary society: the desire

to join that group is a major factor in learning”. As cited in Larsen-Freeman and

Long (1991, p. 174), Lukmani (1972) found that “those students with instrumental

motivation outperformed those with integrative motivation on a test of English

language proficiency”. Kachru (1977) observed that Indian English can be acquired

successfully for instrumental reasons only.

The absence of motivation is the problem. If there is no motivation, there

will be difficulty in learning an L2. Cook (1991) argued that “students will find it

difficult to learn a second language in the classroom if they have neither

instrumental nor integrative motivation” (p. 73). To Cook, as to some others,

integrative motivation is equal in significance to instrumental motivation. So,

Cook (1991) concluded that “both integrative and instrumental motivations may

lead to success, but lack of either causes problems” (p. 75). Brown (1987) said

that “the foreign language learner who is either intrinsically or extrinsically

meeting needs in learning the language is positively motivated to learn” (p. 115).

68

2.2. Error Analysis

In SLA, ‘Error Analysis’ is a term used to describe the errors produced by

learners of a second/foreign language. Error analysis can be defined as the

systematic study of deviations from target-language norms in the course of

second-language acquisition. Error analysis aims at identifying the difficulties in

learning a second language, the strategies used by the learners during learning that

language and the causes and sources of the errors made by the L2 learners. It is a

technique of measuring the learner’s progress in the process of learning a

second/foreign language on the basis of which it suggests teaching methods and

materials.

From the 1940s to 1960s, contrastive analysis was dominant claiming that

learners’ errors are attributed to the learners’ mother tongue transfer. When

Corder’s influential paper “The Significance of Learner’s Errors” was published,

Error Analysis [EA] emerged as a theory and method having its importance in

language pedagogy and language acquisition/learning. Spolsky (1979) pointed out

that "the field of error analysis provided a very useful bridge to studies of first

language acquisition, and helped maintain an excitement and seeming

respectability that has attracted a good number of bright young researchers into the

field" (p. 254). Bartholomae (1980) said that:

Error analysis begins with a theory of writing, a theory of language

production and language development, that allows us to see errors as

evidence of choice or strategy among a range of possible choices or

strategies. They provide evidence of an individual style of using the

language and making it work; they are not a simple record of what a

writer failed to do because of incompetence or indifference. Errors, then,

are stylistic features, information about this writer and this language. (p.

257)

He added that EA

begins with the recognition that errors … will be either random or

systematic. If they are systematic in the writing of an individual writer,

then they are evidence of some idiosyncratic rule system. … If the errors

are systematic across all basic writers, then they would be evidence of

69

generalized stages in the acquisition of fluent writing for beginning adult

writers" (p. 256).

Error analysis has become useful for language teachers, linguists and

learners. Bartholomae (1980) said that:

Error analysis provides the basic writing teacher with both a technique for

analyzing errors in the production of discourse, a technique developed by

linguists to study second language learning, and a theory of error, or,

perhaps more properly, a perspective on error, where errors are seen as (1)

necessary stages of individual development and (2) data that provide

insight into the idiosyncratic strategies of a particular language user at a

particular point in his acquisition of a target language. (p. 256)

Accordingly, it can be said that error analysis is a diagnostic method. Kroll and

Schafer (1978, p. 244) said that "the error-analyst views errors as necessary stages

in all language learning, as the product of intelligent cognitive strategies and

therefore as potentially useful indicators of what processes the student is using."

They said that:

Error-analysis can be seen as providing insights about the sources of an

error but not as dictating any single teaching device. In this view, error-

analysis helps teachers utilize materials and teaching strategies more

effectively by indicating the precise nature of the problem. The teacher

uses these insights to match teaching strategies to the error (or perhaps to

design new materials based on specific sources of error). (p. 247)

Although error analysis has proved significant in the field of language

teaching and learning, it has been criticized. Some critics say that error analysis

totally relies on errors excluding the other information. It has been also criticized

because it ascribes errors to causes and sources and some errors cannot be

determined to which cause or source they are ascribed. Detailed explanation of

error analysis and contrastive analysis will be provided in the next section (2.2.1).

2.2.1. Error Analysis vs. Contrastive Analysis

Before the development of error analysis, contrastive analysis was

dominant. Then error analysis came to existence and became more popular among

the researchers of the field. Here a review of contrastive analysis must be given in

70

order to gain a better insight into how error analysis has dominated and become

more popular.

From the 1940s to the 1960s, there was a belief that a better and more

effective pedagogy and materials are those based on the description and

comparison of the mother tongue of the learner and the target language. Thus,

contrastive analysis studies were conducted. Contrastive analysis can be defined as

a description of the native language of the learner and the target language and a

comparison of the descriptions to find out the similarities and differences between

the two languages.

Contrastive analysis was first developed by Charles Fries (1945). Then it

was expanded and clarified by Robert Lado (1957). Fries (1945) assumed that

“The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description

of the language to be learnt carefully compared with a parallel description of the

native language of the learner” (p. 9). This assumption was later supported and

clarified by Lado (1957) who stressed the importance of contrastive analysis in the

field. Lado (1957) stated that:

individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of

forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign

language and culture – both productively when attempting to speak the

language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to

grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives.

(p. 2)

During that time, it was believed that if the similarities and differences between

the learner’s mother tongue and the target language are identified, there will be

better teaching and learning. Fries (1945) developed contrastive analysis as an

essential component of foreign language teaching methodology. It was noted by

Fries that a learner brings with him what he knows about his first language when

learning a foreign language. He suggested that undertaking a comparative analysis

of the learner's mother tongue and the target language is the best way to achieve an

effective method of teaching a second/foreign language. Harris (1954) pointed out

71

that it is possible to learn a language by learning the differences between the

native language and the target language only. In the 1950s and 1960s, a

contrastive analysis of the learner's native language and the target language was

widespread. According to this widespread practice, the language teaching syllabus

was organized and "target items were chosen on the basis of their dissimilarity to

corresponding native language structures and then graded according to the degree

of differences" (Pica, 1984, p. 691). Gass and Selinker (2008) stated that the

ultimate goal of contrastive analysis was improving classroom materials.

On the basis of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), linguists tended to

design teaching materials that help overcome the difficulties faced by the learners

and eliminate the learners' errors. In other words, they did contrastive analysis to

establish well-organized teaching materials. Weinreich (1953), as cited in Al-

Awaid (2010, p. 23), argues that "the greater difference between the systems, …

the greater is the learning problem”. The aim of contrastive analysis or comparison

of two languages and cultures, as Lado pointed out in the preface to his famous

book Linguistics across Cultures (1957, p. iii), is "to discover and describe the

problems that the speakers of one of the languages will have in learning the other".

He added; "the results of such comparisons have proved of fundamental value for

the preparation of teaching materials, tests, and language learning experiments."

(p. iii). He suggested that the pedagogical and experimental materials must be

based on contrastive analysis. Lado (1957) argued that "the teacher who has made

a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will

know better what the real learning problems are and can better provide for

teaching them. He gains an insight into the linguistic problems involved that

cannot easily be achieved otherwise" (p. 2). Lado said;

the most important new thing in the preparation of teaching materials is

the comparison of native and foreign language and culture in order to find

the hurdles that really have to be surmounted in the teaching. It will soon

be considered quite out of date to begin writing a textbook without having

previously compared the two systems involved. (p. 3).

72

He went on saying that "the teacher who has systematically compared the two

languages will be able to prepare supplementary exercises on those patterns which

are important or difficult and have been overlooked or treated inadequately in the

book" (p. 3).

It was assumed that the similarities between the learner’s mother tongue

and the target language facilitate the process of learning the target language and

the differences between them create difficulty for the learner to learn the target

language and lead the learner to commit errors. Lado (1957) pointed out that

"those elements that are similar to [the learner's] native language will be simple for

[the learner], and those elements that are different will be difficult" (p. 2). Thus,

contrastive analysis studies were conducted to predict the areas of difficulties and

errors language learners may face/make during the process of learning a

second/foreign language. Kroll and Schafer (1978) mentioned that contrastive

analysts argue that "students will err in the TL where it differs from their NL" (p.

242). CAH assumes that many of the learner's errors are made because of the

differences between the learner's native language and the target language.

Gass and Selinker (2008, pp. 96-97) explained that the assumptions on

which the pedagogical materials that resulted from contrastive analysis were based

are as follows:

1. Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that

language is habit and that language learning involves the establishment of

a new set of habits.

2. The major source of error in the production and/or reception of a second

language is the native language.

3. One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and

L2.

4. When there are greater differences between the target language and the

native language, there will occur more errors.

73

5. What one has to do in learning a second language is learn the differences.

Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other

words, what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.

6. Difficulty and ease in learning is determined respectively by differences

and similarities between the two languages in contrast.

Wardhaugh (1970), as cited in Al-Awaid (2010, p. 23), said that the CAH

may be divided into two versions; a strong version and a weak version. As cited in

Al-Awaid (2010, p. 24), Lee (1968, p. 186) outlined the following assumptions of

the strong version of the CAH.

1. The prime cause of error and difficulty in learning a second/foreign

language is interference from the learner's native language.

2. The difficulties are caused by the differences between the native language

and the target language.

3. The greater the differences between the native language and the target

language are, the more acute the learning difficulties will be.

4. The results of a comparison between the stem of the target language and

that of the native language are needed to predict the difficulties and errors

that will occur in learning the target language.

5. What to teach can be found by comparing the target language and the native

language and then identifying what is common between them.

Consequently, what the student has to learn is the differences recognized by

CA.

According to CAH, comparison of L1 and L2 “would suffice to reveal areas of

differences and similarities. These in turn would allow predicting where errors

would and where they would not occur" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 121).

In the 1970s, researchers started criticizing CAH. In 1968, Briere showed

that contrastive analysis as a method to predict hierarchy of difficulty is

74

inadequate but "there has been little evidence put forward in support of the strong

form of contrastive analysis or of particular claims for its pedagogical value"

(Spolsky, 1979, p. 253). Corder (1967) stated that:

The major contribution of the linguist to language teaching was seen as an

intensive contrastive study of the systems of the second language and the

mother-tongue of the learner; out of this would come an inventory of the

areas of difficulty which the learner would encounter and the value of this

inventory would be to direct the teacher's attention to these areas so that

he might devote special care and emphasis in his teaching to the

overcoming, or even avoiding, of these predicted difficulties. (p. 162)

In the 1970s, researches and studies revealed that elements in the target

language that differ only slightly from the elements of the learner's native

language frequently are more difficult than those elements that are different

considerably. Buteau (1970), for example, as Pica (1984) said, "found that native

English speakers had more difficulty learning sentence patterns of French which

were structurally similar to those of their native language than those which were

structurally different" (p. 692). Pica reported that "in other studies, target

structures which appeared to be highly unlike their counterparts in the learner's

native language, and which would thus have been predicted to cause difficulty,

were in fact acquired quite rapidly" (p. 692). She added that "some items were

found to cause similar difficulties for learners of English, regardless of first

language background" (p. 692). She stated that:

cross-linguistic research has shown that it is not the most divergent areas

between the learner's L1 and the target language which pose the greatest

learning difficulties but rather those areas which share considerable

similarity. Unless the syllabus takes into account the language background

of learners, certain students may be left behind in negation development

and may fossilize at a functional but ungrammatical level of production.

(p. 695)

She declared that it was found that "contrastive analysis of students' native and

target languages were more suitable for explaining language learning errors than

for organizing an instructional syllabus" (p. 693).

75

Thus, in the 1970s, the strong role of contrastive analysis started

diminishing and error analysis came to existence. The field of error analysis was

established by S. P. Corder in the 1970s. Error analysis was used as an alternative

to contrastive analysis, and then showed that contrastive analysis was able to

predict the errors only produced because of the differences between the mother

tongue and the target language but it was not able to predict the errors produced

because of faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Contrastive

analysis was criticized because "not all actually occurring errors were predicted;

not all predicted errors occurred" (Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 101). Larsen-

Freeman and Long (1991) criticized CAH explaining that not all similarities

guarantee error free acquisition. It was also criticized because not all differences

between the native language and the target language lead to learning difficulties.

However, CAH cannot be completely dismissed because of the fact that the native

language influences the second language.

Error analysis is the process of observing, analyzing and classifying errors

to find out the system a learner uses. Ellis (1986) stated that error analysis is the

procedure of collecting sample of a learner language, identifying, describing and

evaluating the errors. Error analysis is carried out in the field of SLL in order to

identify the causes of the errors made by a language learner and to obtain

information on difficulties in language learning.

Ellis (1997) said that analyzing errors is useful for the teachers, researchers

(linguists) and learners because errors raise the question of "Why do learners make

errors?" and they help teachers to know what errors learners make and help

learners to learn when they self-correct the errors they make. The purpose of

studying errors made by learners of a second/foreign language is finding out

something about the learning process and about the strategies employed by human

beings learning another language. As errors are inevitable in the process of

learning a second/foreign language, error analysis studies have been conducted to

76

identify the causes and sources of errors and obtain information on the difficulties

common in language learning. Kroll and Schafer (1978) pointed out that “error

analysts are cognitivists, no behaviorists, … They look upon errors … as clues to

inner processes, as windows into the mind” (pp. 242-243). They showed some of

the key issues of the approaches to learners’ errors, as shown in the following

table.

Table (2.2): shows approaches of learners’ errors

Issue Product Approach Process Approach

Why should one

study errors?

To produce a linguistic

taxonomy of what

errors learners make.

To produce a psycholinguistic

explanation of why a learner makes

an error.

What is the

attitude toward

error?

Errors are "bad."

(Interesting only to the

linguistic theorist.)

Errors are "good." (Interesting to

the theorist and teacher, and useful

to the learner as active tests of his

hypotheses.)

What can we hope

to discover from

learners' errors?

Those items on which

the learner or the

program failed.

The strategies which led the learner

into the error.

How can we

account for the

fact that a learner

makes an error?

It is primarily a failure

to learn the correct

form (perhaps a case of

language interference).

Errors are a natural part of learning

a language; they arise from

learners' active strategies: over-

generalization, ignorance of rule

restrictions, incomplete rule

application, hypothesizing false

concepts.

What are the

emphases and

goals of

instruction?

A teaching perspective:

eliminate all errors by

establishing correct,

automatic habits;

mastery of the Target

Language is the goal.

A learning perspective: assist the

learner in approximating the Target

Language; support his active

learning strategies and recognize

that not all errors will disappear.

(Kroll & Schafer, 1978, p. 243)

The process of error analysis is divided by most linguists into the following three

stages:

(i) Recognition

77

(ii) Linguistic Classification

(iii) Explanation: explanation of the possible causes of errors is a basic

procedure in the analysis of errors.

2.2.2. Errors and SLA/SLL

When a learner fails to use the appropriate rule of the language, then he/she

makes an error. Errors have significance in the process of second/foreign language

learning. Errors help researchers and teachers to see how the process of learning a

second language develops. As errors are used as a tool to acquire a second

language, errors need not be seen as a sign of failure.

In the process of learning any language, all learners make errors. Errors are

inevitable especially in learning a foreign language. Errors produced by learners in

the process of learning a second/foreign language show the understanding of the

process of acquiring that language. According to Ellis (1997), errors reflect the

gaps in learners' knowledge. Brown (1994) pointed out that errors reflect the

interlanguage competence of the learner.

Learners of English as a second/foreign language often make errors when

they write essays in English. These errors can be classified into some categories

such as morphological, lexical, syntactic and mechanical errors. As Nakano et al.

(2001) argue that learner’s errors are indispensible for language learning. Because

the learner’s language has its own set of rules, it is inevitable to make errors while

learning a second/foreign language. Margan (1956) stated that "even under the

best teachers, mishearings and misunderstandings will occur" (p. 70).

Corder (1967) referred to the schools of thought in respect of learners'

errors. The first school "maintains that if we were to achieve a perfect teaching

method the errors would never be committed in the first place" (p. 162-163) and

the occurrence of the errors is a sign of the inadequacy of teaching methods. The

second school maintains that errors are inevitable in spite of the efforts given to

teaching. Corder (1967) argued that learner's errors are systematic because "the

78

learner is using a definite system of language at every point in his development"

(p. 166). The learner's errors are evidence of the system of language the learner

uses. Corder (1967) hypothesizes that errors are significant for researcher, teacher

and learner. Corder (1967) pointed out that "A learner's errors … are significant in

[that] they provide the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired,

what strategies or procedures that the learner is employing in the discovery of the

language" (p. 167). He explained that the learner's errors are significant in three

different ways.

i. To the teacher: they provide the teacher with evidence about the

progress of his students in language learning.

ii. To the researcher: they provide the researcher with evidence of "how

language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the

learner is employing in his discovery of the language" (p. 167).

iii. To the learner: from his errors, the learner learns how to learn and how

to test his hypotheses about the nature of the language he/she is

learning.

Corder (1967) pointed out that the errors made by second language learners

provide evidence of their developing systematization of the language being

acquiring and of the nature of transitional competence, i.e. the grammar or set of

rules the learners use in producing sentences in the language they are learning.

2.2.3. Errors vs. Mistakes

Corder (1967) differentiated between errors and mistakes. Errors are

systematic but mistakes are random/unsystematic or those errors "the systematic

nature of which cannot be readily discerned" (p. 166). Mistakes can occur in

"normal adult speech in [his/her] native language… due to memory lapses,

physical state, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong

emotion” (p. 166). He added that mistakes do not reflect a defect in the knowledge

79

of one's language and they can be corrected "with more or less complete

assurance" (p. 166). Mistakes can be also made by the learner of a second

language, "since he is subject to similar external and internal conditions" (p. 166).

Corder argued that errors reveal the underlying knowledge of the language or what

is called 'transitional competence' but mistakes are 'errors of performance'. As

cited in Corder (1967, pp. 166-167), Miller (1966) stated that "it is meaningless to

state rules for making mistakes". According to Corder, errors of a learner help in

reconstructing the learner's knowledge of the language (transitional competence).

Corder (1967) states; "mistakes are of no significance to the process of language

learning" (p. 167). But "A learner's errors, then, provide evidence of the system of

the language that is he using (i.e. has learned) at a particular point in the course"

(Corder, 1967, p. 167).

Corder argued that the child's occurrences are free from errors. He regarded

the deviant occurrences of child as "a normal childlike communication which

provides evidence of the state of his linguistic development at that moment"

(Corder, 1967, p. 165).

2.2.4. Interlanguage

Interlanguage is defined by Crystal (2008) as the linguistic system

produced by a learner in the course of learning a second/foreign language,

different from either the speaker’s first language or the target language being

acquired. There have been many terms used to refer to this system, such as

“approximative system” by Nemser (1971) and “idiosyncratic dialect” by Corder

(1971) and “interlanguage” by Selinker (1972). A majority of linguists have

widely accepted the term ‘interlanguage’ in the last four decades to stand for the

linguistic system of the second/foreign language learners. In this connection, the

term “interlanguage” which is the most commonly used term refers to “the

separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from

80

learner’s attempted production of a target language (TL) norm” (Selinker, 1972, p.

213).

Selinker (1972) claimed that there is an existence of a “latent psychological

structure” in the brain which the second language learner activates when he/she

attempts to learn a second/foreign language. Selinker’s basic proposal claims that

those adult learners who succeed in gaining a native-speaker ‘competence’

(perhaps 5%) in learning a second language have somehow reactivated the latent

psychological structure which Lenneberg described. The notion of “the latent

language structure’ for Lenneberg (1967) is described in the following points:

(1) It is a structure that is arranged and formulated in the brain.

(2) It is corresponding to universal grammar.

(3) It is transformed into the realized structure of particular grammar

according to the infant’s maturational phases.

Selinker (1972) argued that those (5%) L2 learners who succeed in gaining a

native-like ‘competence’ adopt different psycho-linguistic processes than those L2

learners who did not succeed in achieving the same competence. According to

this, he distinguished between the two notions of learning “attempted learning”

and “successful learning”. For him, the first notion is independent and comes

before the process of the successful learning and the second notion depends on the

first notion.

Selinker asserted that the linguists and researchers in the field of SLA/SLL

concentrate their focus on the analysis of the observable data which result from the

learner attempted communicative production of TL that can be related to

theoretical predictions. Accordingly, Selinker proposes the existence of the

concept of the interlanguage (IL) which is a separate linguistic system (Selinker,

1972, p. 213).

81

Interlanguage can be defined as a transitional state between mother tongue

and target language which has its own rules and systematic grammar. Davies

(1989, p. 460) defined interlanguage as “the language of the learner”. Thus, he

said that “interlanguage is systematic in the same sort of way that the child’s first

language is systematic” (p. 460). He said that the interlaguage hypothesis argues to

be systematic and it is not arbitrary but it always makes sense in the learning

process. Davies explained the interlanguage as a development process. He went on

saying that interlanguage is

the learner’s systematic approximations toward the target language, is best

seen and increasingly is seen as a product or set of products (goals or targets

to be achieved) that mark out the learner’s path as a member of a second

language speech community. (p. 448)

According to Selinker’s interlanguage hypothesis, the L2 learner improves his

language and creates his own rules and assumptions about the TL. Consequently,

the learner will make errors. In fact, these errors are evidence that the learner is

constructing his/her rules and hypotheses about the nature of the TL. They are not

random mistakes, but they are evidence of rule-governed behaviour (Adjemian,

1976; Corder, 1967; Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972). When developing the

learner’s interlanguage, the learner’s grammar becomes more similar to the

grammar of the target language.

Spolsky (1989, p. 31) pointed out that “one of [interlanguage] principal

contributions was its underlying claim that the learner’s knowledge is to be seen as

a unified whole, in which new knowledge is integrated and systematically

reorganized with previous knowledge of the native language”. Interlanguage is

supposed to be consisted of interactions between the mother tongue and the TL,

not to be accounted just by transfer or intralingual characteristics. For this reason,

Selinker (1972), Corder (1973) and Richards (1974) regarded an interlanguage as

a system which is different from the structures of the first and second languages.

Spolsky (1989, p. 32) commented “the implication of [Selinker’s (1969)] earliest

82

formulation is that ‘interlanguage’ is a performance phenomenon, to be seen in the

behaviour of second language learners attempting to emulate the target language

speaker’s norm or competence: the underlying structure is to be derived from the

‘observable output’”.

To Schumann (1974), the speech of a second language learner at any point

of time in the acquisition process is regarded by the interlanguage hypothesis as a

systematic attempt to deal with the target language data. So, the learner’s

utterances are not regarded as errors or deviant structures. They are rather a part of

a separate authentic linguistic system.

Sardana (1992) said that the term ‘interlanguage’ describes the intermediate

language that is between the learner’s native language and the TL having its own

set of rules followed by the learner in an attempt to follow the target language

norms. This had been earlier stated by Tarone (1972) and others. Tarone (1972)

said; “as the learner moves from the system of the native language towards the

system of the target language, he speaks an intermediate code – a system whose

structure is determined by native language, target language, and by several other

factors” (p. 325). Although the concept of interlanguage is static, interlanguage is

an unstable, dynamic and ongoing process changing continuously. Interlanguage is

in flux as the learner attempts to bring his linguistic system toward the TL system.

Spolsky (1979) commented “the static concept of interlanguage is of limited value

for understanding a dynamic and ongoing process” (p. 256). Tarone (1972),

Spolsky (1979) and others had the same idea that interlanguage is an ongoing

process constantly changing over time. Tarone (1972) said that “interlanguage is

constantly changing as it is modified to approximate the target [language] more

closely” (p. 325). Interlanguage reflects the constant progress of the learner in L2

learning process which includes elements mixed from the learner’s mother tongue

and the TL. This system also includes errors or deviant forms that should not be

83

considered as signs of language learning failure. These errors, in fact, are

unavoidable aspects in the language learning process.

Bridges (1990), Emery (1997), and Swain (1995) claimed that the

interlanguage has some features that indicate the incomplete mastery of the code.

It is, in fact, characterized by linguistically incorrect and/or contextually

inappropriate forms and utterances that are labeled as ‘errors’ when resulting from

a lack of the TL knowledge. Interlanguage may show certain structures that are

linguistically and pragmatically correct but sound ‘strange’ (Al-Awaid, 2010).

Dickerson (1975) agreed with others who say that interlanguage is

systematic adding that it reflects the learner’s internal system. Dickerson (1975)

claimed that interlanguage should be viewed as “a necessary part of the language

learning process … as important information about the character of the learner’s

changing language system” (p. 406). He argued that interlanguage should be

viewed as having variable rules: “like native speakers, second language speakers

use a language system consisting of variable rules. Their achievement of the target

language comes about through gradual change by using, over time, greater

proportions of more target-like variants in an ordered set of phonetic

environments” (p. 407).

As cited in Corder (1981), Bickerton (1975) believed that the

‘interlanguage system’ is the product of a psycholinguistic process of interaction

between two linguistic systems, those of the mother tongue and the target

language.

Ellis (1986) claimed that interlanguage, like all natural languages, has three

basic features which are: permeability, dynamism, and systematicity. It is

therefore a type of natural language. Sridhar (1976) suggested that the three

revolutionary phases in the attempt to understand and explain the nature of a

foreign language learner’s performance are Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis

and Interlanguage.

84

In the light of the interlanguage hypothesis, second language speech is

rarely identical to what is expected from the native speakers to produce, not direct

translation of the learner’s mother tongue. It is also systematically different from

the target language but it is not random (Selinker, Swain & Dumas, 1975). Gass

and Selinker (2008) describe the concept of interlanguage as in the following

statement:

This concept validates learners' speech, not as a deficit system, that is, a

language filled with random errors, but as a system of its own with its

own structure. This system is composed of numerous elements, not the

least of which are elements from the NL and the TL. There are also

elements in the IL that do not have their origin in either the NL or the TL.

These latter are called new forms and are the empirical essence of

interlanguage. What is important is that the learners themselves impose

structure on the available linguistic data and formulate an internalized

system (IL). (p. 14)

2.2.5. Types of Errors

Errors are erroneous forms generated by SL/FL learners in their attempted

production of the TL norms. These errors have a special significance to the

linguists, teachers and learners of an SL. Errors are defined by linguists as

breaches of the code and deviated structures of norms. Sardana (1992) argued that

the breaches of the code “presumes that the learner is familiar with the target

language code, but is somehow unable to follow it or use it in his own

performance” (p. 17). According to Corder (1973), the term ‘error’ is used for the

willful or negligent violations of a rule which is (ought to be/thought to be) known

to the learner. The term ‘error’ is defined by Taylor (1976) as a deviation that is

not acceptable to most of the native speakers of the given language. While it is

defined by Gass and Selinker (2008) as “a red flag” which gives an evidence of

the learner’s competence in the second language. Edge (1989) used the “learning

steps” to refer to errors, claiming that they are those forms that the users of the

language cannot correct even after teaching. Chomsky (1965) posited a distinction

between ‘competence’ and ‘performance’ where the former refers to the

85

knowledge of the native speaker in his language and the later refers to the

speaker’s actual uses of his language for communication. According to him, in

spite of the perfect knowledge of the systems of the native speaker about his

mother tongue, he may produce utterances which are considered as

‘ungrammatical’ by other native speakers. In Corder’s point of view, the

‘ungrammatical utterances’ produced by the native speakers do not result in the

imperfect knowledge because they can correct their mistakes if their attentions are

drawn to their mistakes.

Hymes (1971) further emphasized the learner’s communicative

competence. Thus he put it:

We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires

knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical but also as appropriate.

He or she acquires competence as to when speak, when not, and as to

what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a

child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part

in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others. (p. 277)

Therefore, Hymes’s “communicative competence” means that the learners’

utterances, if they are not appropriately used, are regarded as errors or mistakes.

There are many points of view regarding the types of errors in SLA/SLL. As cited

in Al-Awaid (2010, p. 69), Noss (1979) gave three types of errors, as follows;

1. Mistakes. These are errors of form or lexical selection which the

defendant (learner) has made through carelessness, bad habits, or perhaps

simply a desire to communicate rapidly rather than precisely. The

defendant (learner) knows the correct rule of the appropriate lexical item,

but has failed to apply or produce it in this instance.

2. Mismatches. These are errors which the defendant (learner) has made by

selecting a wrong or unnecessary ambiguous syntactic pattern or lexical

item through real ignorance of the correct and precise item.

86

3. Gaps. These are of omission, whereby the defendant (learner) has failed

to produce any lexical item or syntactic pattern in place where it

obviously needed. The result may be an unfinished or abandoned

product, or merely a noticeable hiatus in the flow of oral or written

production.

Burt and Kiparasky (1972) categorized errors into “Global mistakes” and those of

“Local mistakes”. They stated:

Global mistakes are those that violate rules involving the overall structure

of sentence, the relation among constituent clause, or, in a simple

sentence, the relations among major constituents.

Local mistakes cause trouble in a particular constituent, or in a clause

of a complex sentence. These are relative notions; something that is global

in one sentence may become local when that sentence is embedded in a

bigger sentence (p.73).

According to Hendrickson (1976), global errors are communicative errors

that lead a native speaker to misinterpret a written message or to consider it

incomprehensible within the whole context. While local errors are linguistic errors

that show a sentence ungrammatical but its intended meaning may be

understandable to the native speaker.

Baruah (1992) divided the errors into two broad types:

1. Errors which result from carelessness (i.e. ‘slips’); and

2. Errors which result from a systematic breach of the language rules.

Whereas Ferris (2002) differentiated between treatable and untreatable errors

where the former are related to a linguistic structure which can be corrected by the

learner if he goes back to a grammar book and the later are idiosyncratic which

can be corrected if the learner utilizes his knowledge of the TL. Corder (as cited in

Ellis, 1994, 56) made a distinction between three types of errors. They are as

follows;

1. Presystematic errors: these errors occur when the learner is unaware that

a particular rule in the TL is existed. These errors are random.

87

2. Systematic errors: these errors occur when the learner is aware that there

is a rule existed but he misused it.

3. Postsystematic errors: these errors result from the inconsistent use of the

rule that is known to the learner.

To Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974), there are four types of errors:

1. Interference like goofs: these errors reflect the presence of the learner’s

mother tongue features in his performance in the TL.

2. Developmental goofs: these errors are produced because of the learner’s

inadequate data of the target language. Therefore, learners over-generalize

the structure of the target language.

3. Ambiguous goofs: these errors are either interference-like or L2

developmental goofs.

4. Unique goofs: these errors cannot be described as developmental goofs or

as L1 interference.

Gass and Selinker (2008) differentiated between two main types of errors:

interlingual and intralingual. “Interlingual errors are those which can be attributed

to the NL (i.e., they involve cross-linguistic comparisons). Intralingual errors are

those that are due to the language being learned, independent of the NL” (p. 103).

2.2.6. Causes and Sources of Errors

Error analysis does not predict the sources of errors. Unlike contrastive

analysts, error analysts attribute the sources of errors to factors other than the

learner’s mother tongue interference. So, they cannot provide a picture of the

communicative competence of the learner. Error analysis does not have a

prediction of how a learner will deal with the demands of a situation of language

use.

In the last forty years, scholars and researches of second language learning

came to the fact that there are two sources of errors which are known as

88

“interlingual’ and “intralingual”. The errors made by the second language learner

due to his/her first language interference are termed as “interlingual errors” and

the errors made by the learner due to the target language itself are termed as

“intralingual errors”. According to Lightbound (2005), differentiating between the

interlingual and intralingual errors is problematic. In Error Analysis, the

interference of the mother tongue is regarded to be one source of errors but there

are other sources in addition to this source. So, the identification of the possible

sources of errors that are just behind interlingual sources in the L2 learning

process was a great contribution of error analysis approach. In short, the sources of

learners’ errors are divided into two types:

1. Interlingual sources

2. Intralingual sources

2.2.6.1. Interlingual Errors

In CA, the main source of errors is the interference of the mother tongue.

Corder (1992) explained “interference” as the occurrence of some features of the

mother tongue in the learner’s performance in the TL which are not acceptable in

the TL rules. In 1927, Sapir observed that there was presence of reciprocal

influence between languages, then Bloomfield, in 1933, coined the term

“borrowing”. In 1938, Sandfield used the term “interference” for the first time

(Lightbound, 2005). In this connection, Weinreich (1953) defined this

phenomenon as “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language

which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result familiarity with more than one

language i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERNCE

phenomena” (p. 1).

Tarone (1979) classified “transfer” into three types:

1. Negative transfer: this type occurs when the learner attempts to use incorrect

forms of his/her mother tongue in place of the TL ones.

89

2. Positive transfer: this type occurs when the learner does not encounter any

difficulty to utter an item in the target language because the item is common in

both native language and TL.

3. Divergent negative transfer: in this type, the learner perceives the L2 aspects as

most difficult. It occurs in the non-cognate situations.

Lott (1983), as cited in Ellis (1994, p. 59), distinguished three categories of

transfer errors:

1. ‘Overextension of analogy’ which occurs when the learner misuses an item

because it shares features with an item in the L1 ( for example , Italian

learners use ‘process’ to mean ‘trial’ because Italian ‘processo’ has this

meaning).

2. ‘Transfer of structure’ which arises when the learner utilizes some L1 features

(phonological, lexical, grammatical, or pragmatic) rather than that of the target

language. This is what is generally understood as ‘transfer’.

3. ‘Interlingual/intralingual errors’ arise when a particular distinction does not

exist in the L1 (for example, the use of ‘make’ instead of ‘do’ by Italian

learners because the ‘make/do’ distinction is not existed in Italian).

2.2.6.2. Intralingual errors

The intralingual errors are attributed to the structure of the TL itself. In this

type of errors, the learner does not resort to his/her mother tongue. In ignorance of

the L2 norms at any level, the learner can either start learning the required items or

attempt to bridge the gap by using communicative strategies. Richards and

Sampson (1974) defined ‘intralingual errors’ as “items produced by the learner

which reflect not the structure of mother tongue but generalization based on partial

exposure to the target language. … The second language learner tries to derive the

rules behind the data to which he has been exposed, and may develop hypotheses

that correspond neither to the mother nor target language”.

90

Richards (1971) categorized the sources of intralingual errors into the

following four types:

Overgeneralization

As cited in Richards (1974, p. 174), Jakobovits defined ‘generalization’ or

‘transfer’ as “the use of previously available strategies in new situations. . . . In

second language learning . . . some of these strategies will prove helpful in

organizing the facts about the second language, but others, perhaps due to

superficial similarities, will be misleading and inapplicable”. Overgeneralization

errors take place when the TL learner produces deviant structures on the basis of

his limited knowledge of other structures in the TL. The utterance he goed to

school is an instance of overgeneralization. Corder (1973) considered

overgeneralization as unavoidable in the second language learning process.

Ignorance of Rule Restrictions

The errors caused by ignorance of rule restrictions occur due to the

learner’s failure to observe the restrictions of the present rules of the TL. In this

type of errors, the learner uses rules of the TL where they are not applicable. In the

utterance The man who I told you about him, for example, the learner ignores the

restriction on subjects in structures with who.

Incomplete Application of Rules

Richards (1971) said that, in this category, “the occurrence of structures

whose deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules required to

produce acceptable utterances” may be noted. He noted that “systematic difficulty

in the use of questions can be observed” (p. 177). To answer the question what

does Jack have to do?, a learner may utter Jack have to do write the homework.

This is an example of the errors caused by incomplete application of rules. The

91

learner applies the rules incompletely. These errors are attributed to the faulty

arrangement of items in the teaching process or improper materials.

False Concepts Hypothesized

Richards (1971) stated out that these errors are developmental errors that

are caused by faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL. These errors are due

to inappropriate sequence of teaching items. The forms are, for example, is

understood to be a marker of the continuous form and went is understood as a

marker of the past tense. In order to form a sentence in the past continuous, a

learner may produce the utterance they are went to school.

Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, pp. 58-59) summarized the intralingual errors

and identified the following four types:

1. Overgeneralization (Richards, 1974) which is caused by the learners’ failure to

observe the boundaries of a rule as in *I wonder where are you going. The

speaker, in this utterance, has perhaps overgeneralized the rule of subject-verb

inversion and applied it to an embedded WH- question incorrectly.

2. Simplification (George, 1972) or redundancy reduction where, for example, a

learner fails to add the plural marker ‘-s’ to a noun when preceded by a

cardinal number larger than one such as in *I studied English for two year. The

omission of the plural marker in the noun year is redundancy reduction

because no information is lost.

3. Communicative-based errors (Selinker, 1972) which result when learners

invoke communicative strategies to communicate a concept. A learner may use

airball for balloon. The learner incorrectly labels an object but successfully

communicates a desired concept.

4. Induced errors (Stenson, 1974) which are brought about by the incorrect

teaching sequence or presentation of two linguistic items in a way which

created confusion in the mind of the language learner. The example given *She

92

cried as if the baby cries instead of she cries like a baby, indicating that the

teacher has given the student a definition of ‘as if’ meaning ‘like’ without

explaining the necessary structural change.

Cowan (2008) identified the following four sources of grammatical errors:

1. Performance Errors

These errors are caused by the same factors that lead the native speakers to

make such errors of performance, i.e. they occur when the learner or native

speaker is speaking or writing. Consider the following example where the verb has

a plural form even though the subject is singular:

*No matter where you live, the great taste of your favorite lays flavor are just

around the corner.

2. Imperfect Learning Errors

These errors occur when a learner simply has not understood a rule and/or

its restrictions that are applied to that rule. The following is an example:

*Does she cleans her room every week?

3. Overgeneralization Errors

The overgeneralization errors occur when a learner applies grammar rules

to contexts that do not apply. For example:

*He made Jack to play chess.

4. Influence of the Native Language Errors

These errors involve many of errors that L2 language learners generate

because of the transfer of the grammar of their mother tongue to the TL. For

example, the Spanish verb, which corresponds the English modal verb “can”, is

followed by the infinite form “ir” (to go) as shown below:

Podemos ir en bus.

93

We can to go in bus.

“We can go by bus”

*We can to go bybus.

Verma and Krishnaswamy (1989, p. 348) gave the following possible sources of

errors:

1. The gravitational pull of the first language/mother tongue;

2. Internal analogy and overgeneralization

3. Pronunciation according to spelling

4. Bad teaching

5. Exposure to the non-standard variety used outside the classroom

6. The attitudes of community, those in power , the policy of government and

other factors,

7. Failure to understand the nature of the second language

8. Lack of adequate vocabulary; and

9. The cultural gap between the two systems.

According to Faerch et al. (1984), learners’ errors are attributed to internal

and external factors. The internal factors are motivation and attitude towards the

TL group and culture, etc. The external factors are related to teachers, syllabus,

teaching methods and techniques, etc. Jain (1974) noted many factors that may

cause errors the most identifiable of which are the following:

1. Learning strategies;

2. Teaching techniques;

3. Folklore about the second language;

4. The age of bilingualism; and

5. The learners’ sociolinguistic situation.

Selinker (1972, p. 215) reported five sources of errors which are as follows:

94

1. Language transfer;

2. Transfer of training;

3. Strategies of second language learning ;

4. Strategies of second language communication; and

5. Overgeneralization of the TL linguistic materials.

Corder (1974, p. 130) identified three sources of errors which are:

1. Language transfer;

2. Overgeneralization or analogy; and

3. Methods or materials used in the teaching.

Richards and Simpson (1974) noted the following seven factors that may cause

errors:

1. Language transfer;

2. Intralingual interference;

3. Sociolinguistic situation;

4. Modality (modality of exposure to the target language and modality of

production);

5. Age;

6. Successions of approximative systems; and

7. Universal hierarchy of difficulty.

James (1998) identified the following types of errors each of which has its

causes and sources as follows:

1. Interlingual errors which are a result of L1 transfer.

2. Intralingual errors, which are further divided into the following types each of

which has its causes:

a. Learning strategy-based errors: these errors are resulted from the

following:

i) False analogy;

95

ii) Misanalysis;

iii) Incomplete rule application;

iv) Exploiting redundancy;

v) Overlooking cooccurrence restrictions;

vi) Hypercorrection (monitor overuse); or

vii) Overgeneralization, or system-simplification

b. Communication strategy-based errors: these errors are resulted from

holistic strategies which can be approximation, language switch or

literal translation and analytic strategies (circumlocation).

3. Induced Errors: these errors usually result from the classroom situations. They

can be materials induced errors, teacher-talk induced errors, exercise-based

induced errors, errors induced by pedagogical priorities or look-up errors.

4. Compound and ambiguous errors: compound errors are “ascribed to more than

one cause, which operate either simultaneously or cumulatively” (p. 200),

ambiguous errors have two competing causes.

2.3. Studies Conducted on Errors of Arab EFL Learners

At the end of 1960s, CAH was criticized. Researchers began look at the

errors that learners made. They found that errors went beyond those in the

surrounding speech and beyond those in the native language. They found that

there are errors that are made not because of influence of L1 but because of other

factors. In utterances such as "He buyed a book", learners attempt to impose

regularity on an irregular verb. Gass and Selinker (2008) stated that:

There was no way to account for this fact within a theory based

primarily on a learner transferring forms from the NL to the TL. Not

only did errors occur that had not been predicted by the theory, but also

there was evidence that predicted errors did not occur. That is, the

theory did not accurately predict what was happening in nonnative

speech. (p. 98) 3.

In her study conducted on Czech speakers learning English and Russian,

Duskova (1984), found that those speakers learning English "did not transfer

96

bound morphemes, whereas the Czech learners of Russian did" (as cited in Gass

and Selinekr, 2008, p. 98). Zobl (1980) conducted a study on French speakers

learning English and English speakers learning French and found that there were

inconsistencies in actual error production. In French, object pronouns precede the

verb but in English, object pronouns follow the verb. It was found that French

learners of English do not use a preposition before the object pronoun, although

they correctly follow English word order, which is in violation of French word

order. While English speakers learning French follow the native language word

order. Thus, it was proved that the habits of one's native language are not the

driving force as it was assumed earlier. All this does not suggest that there is no

role for L1 in SLA, but it suggests that there are other factors that influence second

language development. Gass and Selinker (2008) pointed out that “There are other

factors that may influence the process of acquisition, such as innate principles of

language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known, and so forth”

(p. 100).

In this section, a review of the previous studies conducted on errors made

by Arab EFL learners is given. Some of these studies attributed difficulties and

errors faced/made by Arab learners of EFL to differences between Arabic and

English. These studies support CAH. Other studies conducted on Arab EFL

learners attributed difficulties and errors faced/made by Arab EFL learners to

some other sources.

It is not surprising that Arab learners of EFL face difficulty in learning

English because English and Arabic belong to two different language families.

Because of the differences between English and Arabic in their systems and

structures, Arab learners of EFL face difficulties in learning the English structures.

As cited in Panso and Ruzic (1983, p. 610), Nevarez, Berk and Hayes (1979)

stated that “Middle Eastern students … have been found to have more difficulty in

handwriting in English than students from other language background”. Panos and

97

Ruzic (1983) mentioned some of the differences between Arabic and English the

most notable of which is “that Arabic moves from right to left. This feature of

Arabic, in addition to the very different appearance of its letters, … can pose

problems for Arab learners when they form letters in English writing tasks” (p.

610). From the very beginning of their learning EFL, Arab learners transfer

structures from Arabic, as their mother tongue, into English. That transfer leads

them to make errors.

In his study conducted on Arab learners of EFL, El-Shimy (1982) attributed

problems that face Arab learners of English when writing essays to purely

morphological and syntactic differences between Arabic and English. He

concluded that the tenses and the use of copula represent the most problematic

areas for Arab learners of English. Salamah (1981) conducted a contrastive

analysis study of English and Arabic morphological differences and syntactic

differences in word order and tenses and attributed writing problems to

morphological and syntactic differences between Arabic and English. Kharma

(1985b) conducted a study on the problems of writing composition in EFL and

attributed the errors made by Arab learners of English in the use of reference,

punctuation, and linking device to negative transfer from Arabic. Al-Sharah’s

(1988) study on the problems of discourse writing by Arab EFL learners

concluded that the major sources of writing difficulties that face Arab learners of

English as a foreign language are the cultural and language differences,

interference and transfer from mother tongue to the target language. He found that

the most problematic element in writing performance is coherence. Halimah

(1991) ascribed problems of writing in English by Arab learners to the cultural

differences between English and Arabic. El-Sayed (1982) conducted a study on

the syntactic errors made by Saudi Freshmen's English compositions. The types of

errors he found were omission of the verb 'to be', omission of the full verb in

nominal sentences, fronting verbs in statements, use of simple past tense after 'to'

98

and 'for', omission of auxiliary 'be' words with the present progressive, and lack of

concord between numerals and nouns in the usage of nouns. El-Sayed ascribed

these errors made by Saudi freshmen's in writing English compositions to transfer

from Arabic. He believed that such errors might be a result of the low proficiency

in English. Kharma (1985a) studied the difficulties encountered by secondary

school students in Kuwait in the formation of relative clause in writing and found

that almost all the errors made by Arab EFL learners are attributed to negative

transfer from Arabic. Obeidat (1986) investigated the syntactic and semantic

errors in the written compositions of Arab EFL learners and found that almost all

the errors made by the subjects are attributed to mother tongue interference. Al-

Sindy (1994) investigated the syntactic interference errors in the writing of

English by Saudi adult students and concluded that there is a major role played by

the mother tongue interference in the writing of English as a foreign language. In

her study on the spelling errors made by Arab learners of English as a foreign

language, Emery (1997) attributed the spelling errors made by Arab students to

"the ways in which lexical access in native English speakers may differ from that

of Arabs, as a direct result of the orthography of the L1, which subsequently

affects their recall of English vocabulary, resulting in many of the spelling errors

that we find" (p. 144). Doushag (1983) reported significant transfer from Arabic

cultural aspects. Holes (1984) investigated the problems of text cohesion and tone

in the essays written by Yemeni postgraduate students in Britain and attributed

such problems to cross-language interference. Holes concluded that Arab students

of EFL transfer the discourse of Arabic to English. Ostler (1987) compared the

English prose written by Arabic-speaking students and the English prose written

by English-speaking writers and found out that there were differences between the

style of writing English prose by Arabic-speaking students and that written by

English-speaking writers. Ostler ascribed the differences to the transfer from

Arabic to English done by Arabic-speaking students. Al-Khresheh (2010)

conducted a study on interlingual interference in the English word order structure

99

of Jordanian EFL learners and found that interlingual errors committed by the

Arab EFL learners were due to differences between the learners’ L1 and the L2

and due to transfer from the two different varieties of Arabic, Standard Arabic and

Non-Standard Arabic. Al-Khresheh (2011) also conducted another study to

investigate the carry-over of Arabic (L1) syntactic structures into English (L2) and

found that interlingual interference might be the main cause of committing the

errors. Khalil (1989) conducted a study on cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL

College students' English writing and found that there is negative transfer from

Arabic to English writing. Alam (1993) carried out a study on the use of Arabic in

the composing processes of Arab university students' writing in English and

reported that Arab university students sought to help from Arabic when they write

in English. Bou-Zeineddine (1994) carried out a study on the effect of Arabic on

English texts written by Arab EFL students and reported that translation and

thinking in Arabic before and during writing English texts by Arab EFL students

had a negative effect on the Arab EFL students' writing in English. Al-Hazmi

(2001) observed that:

the linguistic and rhetorical problems of Arab EFL/ESL learners were

usually attributed to negative transfer from Arab, learners' unawareness of

linguistic and cultural differences between Arabic and English, learners'

lack of familiarity with English writing norms, and lack of exposure to

authentic English. … Resorting to translation from Arabic into English

writing was related to subjects' low proficiency in English. (p. 99)

Al-Hazmi (2001) declared; "poor linguistic competence negatively affected

subjects' writing in English" (p. 99). Abu Ghararah (1990) investigated the

syntactic errors committed by Arab EFL learners and showed that Arab EFL

learners commit "syntactic errors in the use of prepositions, articles and third

singular marker" (p. 3). He attributed those errors to L1 interference,

overgeneralization, and insufficient mastery of syntax. He claimed that the

researchers in error analysis "can predict the types and errors committed by the

Arabs learning EFL" (p. 3). He added that

100

errors committed by [Arab] learners give evidence of their relative

difficulties in the target language. Moreover, Arab EFL learners seem

being unaware of the type and frequency of their errors, are unable to

anticipate and avoid errors in their future written work, even after they

have been corrected by their instructors. (pp. 3-4)

He found out that errors caused by L1 interference were more than errors caused

by overgeneralization and errors caused by insufficient mastery of syntax. He

attributed interference to many factors among of which are the domination of the

grammatical features in Arabic over than those in English, lack of correspondence

between L2 and L1, and the frequent use of the grammatical features of L1 in

formal and informal context. He attributed errors committed due to insufficient

mastery of syntax to "the lack of appropriate teaching technique and instructional

settings" (p.15). He concluded that "Arab EFL learners make transfer errors due to

the fact that Arabic language structure, … differs substantially from that of

English language" (p. 15). He explained that the "major sources of these errors are:

(i) nature and characteristics of the source language; (ii) irregularity and

inconsistency of the target language; and (iii) instructional strategies and

methodology" (pp. 15-16).

Tahaineh (2010) conducted a study on Arab EFL university students’ errors

in the use of prepositions and found out that “the majority of errors made by [Arab

EFL learners] are the result of the learners’ mother tongue interference as the

major source” (p. 98). Scott and Tucker (1974) conducted a study on errors and

English language strategies used by Arab students and reported that approximately

two thirds of the errors in prepositions seemed to be attributable to native-

language (Arabic) interference and one third to intra-English interference.

On the other hand, Fakhri (1994) conducted a study on text organization

and transfer by Arab EFL learners and the results of the study showed no evidence

of transfer except for the frequency of coordination. Kamel (1989) conducted an

empirical investigative study of contrastive rhetoric in the argumentative writing

101

by Arab EFL learners and concluded that transfer does not affect writing

performance.

Avoidance is also a problem in ESL/EFL learners' English writing. ESL

learners may avoid using a difficult structure in the second language, and instead

use a structure that they perceive as simpler. Arab learners of EFL use two simpler

sentences instead of using a relative clause that is more appropriate. In her study

conducted on Arab and Persian learners learning English as a foreign language,

Schachter (1974) concluded that avoidance is a reflection of mother tongue

interference. Mattar (2003) declared that avoidance is due to lack of

correspondence between the structures of the TL and those of the learner's L1. In

his study on Arabic-speaking learners learning English as a foreign language,

Mattar (2001) found that English present perfect tense is avoided by Arabic-

speaking learners not because of the differences between the way it is structured in

English and Arabic, but rather due to their inability to establish proper form-

meaning/tense-aspect associations. In another study conducted by Mattar (1997),

he concluded that Arab learners' avoidance of reduced relative clauses in written

English is due to largely teaching-induced. The findings of Mattar's studies

conducted on avoidance of some English structures by Arab learners suggest that

the CAH is not the only diagnostic tool for learner difficulty in the TL or for

explaining avoidance phenomenon.

Most of the studies conducted on Arab learners' acquisition of English as a

foreign language provide evidence that Arabic and English sentences are

differently organized. These studies show that coordination is more common in

Arabic than it is in English, while subordination is more frequently used in English

than in Arabic. Mattar (2003) conducted a study that examined adult EFL Arab

learners' avoidance of certain subordinating conjunctions and adverbs in English

and the findings provided evidence against the hypothesis which links avoidance

to interference. The study supports the fact that avoidance as a communication

102

strategy is not ruled out by similarity and contrastive analysis alone cannot explain

learners' reliance on avoidance.

English relative clause structure is one of the most common obstacles that

Arab learners of EFL face while learning English as it differs from Arabic relative

clause structure in many aspects. The structural differences between relative

clauses in English and Arabic influence the process of learning English relative

clause structure by Arab learners of EFL. There are also some intralingual factors

that influence the process of learning English relative clause systems by Arab

learners of EFL such as difficulties in the choice of the correct relative pronoun,

placing the relative clause in a sentence, use of comma, functional and

grammatical differences between defining and non-defining relative clauses, etc.

To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there is no study on errors of English

relative clause structure made by Yemeni EFL learners, and that is one of the

reasons behind the researcher's choice of the topic of this study.