Error Analysis (EA)

Error Analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make. Unlike Contrastive Analysis, L1 is not used to compare. Comparison is made between learners' errors in TL and the TL form itself. It is similar to the weak version of contrastive analysis in that both start from learner production data; however, in contrastive analysis the comparison is made with the native language, whereas in error analysis it is made with the TL.

Corder (The significance of learners’ errors, 1967) observed that learners' errors may be significant in themselves, and they should not be discarded as such. This led to shift emphasis from pedagogical issues to others. Errors can be indicators of learner's knowledge of L2. It has been found that errors are not a reflection of faulty imitation. But errors are indicators of learners' attempts to bring a system into the new language being learned. Probably, focus on errors led to the beginnings of the field of SLA. It is important because of its implications on psychology and linguistics also.

Corder identifies the difference between errors and mistakes. Mistakes are like the slips of the tongue- one time only events. Speaker corrects it after identifying it. An error is systematic. It occurs repeatedly, ad is incorporated in the language system of the learner. Therefore, these are errors according only to the teacher, not according to the learner. For the learner, it is all part of the IL. For example, utterances like 'no speak', 'no understand', etc. are consistent and systematic errors of the learner, and are mistakes according to the teacher! Such interpretations could hold learning/teaching process back.

Error analysis was done inside classrooms with pedagogical remediation as goal, using the following steps:

1. Collect data: written and oral
2. Identify errors
3. Classify errors
4. Quantify errors
5. Analyze source
6. Remediate: Based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out.

Error analysis is more useful to teacher/researcher to explain errors. There are 2 types of errors, interlingual and intralingual in EA. Interlingual errors can be attributed to the NL - cross-linguistic comparisons. Intralingual errors stem out from the TL, independent of the NL. One would expect similar intralingual errors from speakers of varieties of languages. 

Criticism

1. One criticism said that EA is all about errors, and that one should consider errors as well as non-errors to get the entire picture of a learner's linguistic behaviour. 
2. A 1974 article by Schachter showed that the NL is a determining factor in accounting for the facts of restrictive relative clause production, yet these facts would not be apparent through an error analysis alone! She studied the use of Restrictive relative clauses in English by native speakers of Persian, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The error data she collected would say that Chinese and Japanese learners of English had control over formation of restrictive relative clauses, and Persian and Arabic users do not. But further data on errors plus non-errors showed a different analysis. While error were more in Persian and Arabic learners had more errors, they also produced half as many correct restrictive relative clauses as Japanese and Chinese learners! Why does this discrepancy occur?
   Japanese and Chinese form relative clause by placing the modifier before the noun it modifies. Persian and Arabic relative clauses are similar to English in that the relative clause is placed after the noun it modifies. Because the difference between how NL and TL forms relative clauses, learners do not frequently use the structure (Chinese and Japanese). But when they use it, they use it cautiously and with high degree of accuracy. Persian and Arabic learners use them a lot because their NL structure is similar to TL structure of relative clauses, and therefore, make more errors. Thus, EA alone couldn't bring out the explanation just by looking at the errors, while in fact, NL was a major factor.
3. Another difficulty is in judging if something is an error. Learners can use structures of NL to construct sentences in TL. It might be interpreted as an error of some kind, while it might be of another kind. So, there could be a mismatch between what the teacher judges as error and what the learner is actually attempting to do. 
4. Attempt to give reasons to errors is another inadequacy or EA. The assumption is that is the form is correct, underlying rule is also correct. But learner might make correct sentences, yet may not have internalized the necessary background rules.  In sum, error analysis alone cannot provide us with this information, because an assumption of error analysis is that correct usage is equivalent to correct rule formation.
5. Source of errors also pose criticism. EA says that errors can be categorized as belonging to one source or another. Can we attribute single reason for errors? Learner production may be influenced simultaneously by multiple sources (article system and Czech learners of English). Source of error could be TL and NL simultaneously also. Schumann studied the use of negation by Spanish learners of English. Learners pass through 5 stages before figuring out that 'do' is the element that carries tense and person distinction qualities in negation. He observed that certain stages of development are more persistent for learners from certain languages. He found that in case of Spanish learner of English, 2 forces, namely native language and facts of development act as sources of error. In case of learners from other languages, the only factor at play is development. He says that a single source of error will have less influence than a set of converging sources, and will lead the learner to move much more rapidly in the developmental sequence. 

EA acknowledges that learners are more than imitators of language. But it only sees a part of what a second language learner produces. Therefore, it doesn't analyse sufficient data. EA doesn't have comprehensive approach. Therefore, one cannot hope to understand a learning situation with a partial study like EA.

Notes prepared from: Gass, Susan M. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York.