Second Language Learner Errors

Background

Early analysis of second language learner errors hinged on the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). Researchers relying on the CAH carried out studies with one straight forward assumption in mind, “…those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult” (Lado, 1957).

As early as Corder’s work in (1967), researcher began to challenge the ideas that are fundamental to CAH. Corder listed three categories that indicate significance: 1) to provide information about how much was learned; 2) to provide a researcher with evidence of how language was learned; and, 3) to serve as a device by which a learner discovers target language rules (Ellis, 1994).

Corder

The bulk of these errors, which likely would be committed by many speakers of various L1s, are mechanical. Conjunctions, punctuation, and capitalization are features of English that are specific to the circumstances of composition. Since these tools of the language can only be mastered through study and practice, they are less affected by a learner’s native language. Rather, they are influenced by the learner’s educational situation, motivation, and capacity.

Before moving onto findings, it is important once more to note the similarity of these samples. The fact that the teacher gave her learners a great deal of support during this exercise in some ways limits this analysis. We cannot know what the learners might have written without a topic and supporting materials so perfectly matched. However, there is some benefit in knowing that the length and structures used are similar. This similarity helps bring the frequency of errors into focus. All other things being so nearly equal, the errors that did occur provide that much more

Considering all the composition contained in these three samples, there were 24 sentences formed from 301 words. Most of these sentences are effortlessly comprehendible for an advanced or native English speaker. Only three of those 24 sentences were well formed enough to escape without any correction or reconstruction. These three sentences were perfectly distributed across the three students. One well-formed sentence was produced by each student.

In the three composition samples collected, each of the students committed a similar number of errors. The average production was 88 words, with an average error count of 15. The total number of errors was 46. Errors could be based on linguistic categories of phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantic shortcomings. Of the 46 errors in three samples, 42 of them can be classified as syntax.

The students’ errors came from either interference of L1 transfer or from L2 intralingual interference. Each student’s transfer errors made up a similar proportion of errors, 31%, 20%, and 17% in respect to students one, two, and