Error Analysis

Error Analysis

Errors in the speech and writing of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners are caused by a gamut of factors. It was once believed that language transfer was the primary cause of errors in second language writing. The assumption that had gained currency in the sixties was that: 

1. The prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign-language learning is interference coming from the learners' native language;

2. The difficulties are chiefly, or wholly, due to the differences between the two languages;

3. The greater these differences are, the more acute the learning difficulties will be;

4. The results of a comparison between the two languages are needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur in learning the foreign language;

5. What there is to teach can best be found by comparing the two languages and then subtracting what is common to them, so that what the student has to learn equals the sum of the differences established by the contrastive analysis. 

However, research in the eighties began to indicate that transfer was one of several processes influencing the learner to commit errors in writing in her second language. It became clear that the relative importance of all the processes involved in influencing the learner to make errors in speech and errors must be taken into account to understand the variable, unstable, and often unpredictable nature of errors. The following issues need to be considered to conduct a thorough analysis of errors:

1. Negative transfer from the learner's native language (all studies);

2. First language acquisition processes (Wode 1976, Tarone 1976);

3. Expanded understanding of the developmental sources of phonological problem areas (Johansson 1973);

4. Overgeneralization (Johansson 1973);

5. Approximation (Johansson 1973, Nemser 1971);

6. Universal properties of second language acquisition;

7. Markedness differential hypothesis (MDH) (Eckman 1977);  

8. Variation in phonological development resulting from the interaction of social and psychological distance factors (Tarone 1976); and

9. Avoidance (Celce-Murcia 1978)

When responding to ESL students' writing, English language teachers need to consider the following questions to understand the cause of errors:

1. What might the students have been thinking to make this error? What are our hypotheses?

2. How can we find out which of these hypotheses is true? 

3. What different teaching strategies could we use to “fix” or undo whatever led to this error and help students solidify their skills and concepts? 

4. How are each of us going to plan and manage time and tasks in class so that we’ll get fifteen minutes (or whatever it takes) to re-teach the skills and concepts. [Target: at least 2 times a week for groups of students who don’t have it.] 

5. How can the team help? Determine whether there is a way to share/exchange knowledge, skill, or students to benefit both students and colleagues. 

An effective way to consider, address and rationalize what is causing the errors is to formulate hypotheses with the colleagues. For example, one teacher may present an example of student work that showcases a skill that students are struggling with. After presenting the example, the teacher opens up the discussion to her/his teammates and the group goes through the 5 key questions:

• Formulate hypotheses 

• Select the best or most likely hypothesis collectively

• Design a re-teach based on that hypothesis

• Select a strategy to implement immediately (including any logistical issues involving switching students, etc.)

• Set up a follow-up or check in time

While formulating hypotheses to pinpoint the source of the errors, we may learn that target language structures - both syntactic and syllabic - seem to exert some influence on both the perception and production of second language strings. The postulation of such rules, according to Broselow (1988:276), will make possible an explanation of actually occurring errors. Also, many language learning errors can be shown to be resulting from language transfer, approximation, syllable modification strategy, overgeneralization, and universal properties of second language acquisition.