Feb. 2007, Volume 4, No.2 (Serial No.38)
Sino-US Sin o-US English Teaching, Teaching, ISS N15 39-8 072, 07 2, USA US A
Errors in Language Learning *
ZHA Ye-juan, HONG Yi-ming
(Foreign Language Department Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310015, China) ，
Abstract: Researchers have realized the importance of focusing on learners’ errors. Then, as teachers, how should we treat students’ errors in their second language acquisition? This essay attempts to overview the background theories about learners’ errors, especially those committed in the process of second language acquisition, and more importantly, to give some suggestions on how to deal with students’ errors in the process of second language acquisition. acquisition. Key words: second language language acquisition; acquisition; learners’ errors
1. Introduction As a famous saying goes, “To err is human.” In the process of language development, this is also the case. When the utterances produced by learners are examined and compared with target language norms, they are often found to be full of errors. The first part of this essay attempts to overview the background theories about learners’ error s, especially those committed in the process of second language acquisition. acquisition. There is also another saying sayi ng that “ A fall into the fit, fit, a gain gain in one’s one’s wit.” wi t.” Since it is inevitable that t hat learners learne rs commit errors in the process of acquisition, as teachers, we should try to enable students to benefit from various forms of feedback on those errors so that they do not commit them repeatedly and continuously. But it doesn’t mean that every error ought to be pointed out and corrected. Therefore the latter part of this article is to deal with classroom application: how to deal with students’ errors in the process of second language acquisition.
2. Background Theories There has long been an agreement among language researchers and teachers that learners unavoidably make errors during the process of both first and second language learning. And many researchers have attached great importance to learners’ errors. Ellis, R. (1997: 15) once listed several good reasons for focusing on errors: “First, they are a conspicuous feature of learner language, raising the important question of ‘Why do learners make errors?’ Second, it is useful for teachers to know what errors learners make. Third paradoxically, it is possible that making errors may actually help learners to learn when they self-correct the errors they make.” After reviewing reviewing the history of studies of first language acquisition, acquisition, it turns out to me that attitudes about learners’ errors have changed a great deal. Littlewood, W. (1998) (1998) points out that after the 1950s, 1950s, a child’s child’s speech is no longer seen as just a faulty version of the adult’s. Instead, it is recognized as having its own underlying system which can be described in its own terms, and later the system develops towards that of adults. Attitudes towards second language learners’ speech speech have evolved in a very similar way. ZHA ZHA Ye-juan (1979- ), female, Master of Education, teaching assistant of Foreign Language Department, Zhejiang Unive rsity City Colleg Collegee ; research fie ld: ELT. ELT. HONG Yi-ming (1979- ), male, M.A., teaching assistant of Foreign Language Department, Zhejiang University City College; research field: ELT. 34
Errors in Language Learning
Researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted contrastive analyses (CA), systematically comparing two languages. According to Nunan, D. (2001: 89), Proponents of CA assumed that “where L1 and L2 rules are in conflict, errors are likely to occur which are the result of interference between the two languages.” However, a major shift in perspective occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Nunan (2001: 88) believed that “linguists and language educators began studying the specific language learners used as they attempted to communicate in the target language” and that “errors were seen not as evidence of pathology on the part of learners, but as a normal and healthy part of the learning process.” Also Nunan told us that t he subsequent study of learners’ errors revealed that learners made errors that were not predicted by the CA hypothesis and that the errors made by learners were systematic, rather than random. And also Ellis, R. (1994) stated that, at that time EA (Error Analysis) supplanted CA, for EA provided a methodology for investigating learner language rather than look at only the learner’s native language and the target language. As a result, as is proved by Littlewood, W. , many researchers began to realize that “learners’ errors need not be seen as signs of failure. On the contrary they are the clearest evidence for the learner’s developing systems”(1998: 22). And although Corder (1967) had long before maintained that by classifying the learners errors, researchers could learn a great deal about the SLA process (cited in Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H., 1991), still we have to admit that the sources of errors are too complicated and diverse to be classified easily. According to Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991), certain errors are caused by the learners’ failure to observe the boundaries of a rule, which are classified as overgeneralization. Other errors are attributed to simplification or redundancy. Still others are labeled communication-based errors, and induced errors. Flick (1979) reported to identify clusters of errors in the speech elicited from 20 adult Spanish learners of L2 English by means of an oral translation task. He listed many factors, saying that transfer accounted for 34 percent of the variance in the scores, performance for 23 percent, simplifications of function words for 17 percent, overgeneralization for 16 per cent, and pronominal reference for 11 percent (cited in Ellis, R., 1994). When mentioning transfer and overgeneralization, Littlewood, W. (1998) stated that overgeneralization is learners’ pervious knowledge of the second language that the learner use; while in the case of transfer, the learner uses his previous mother tongue experience as a means of organizing the second language data. Yet in Brown, H. D.’s opinion, transfer is “a general term describing the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to subsequent learning”, while overgeneralization is “the incorrect application—negative transfer —of previously learned second language material to a present second language context” (2000: 94-97). Despite all these differences, by and large, one thing is clear: SL learners unavoidably make errors during the process of language acquisition, some of which are due to transferring rules from the mother tongue, and others only show that they are processing the second language in their own ways.
3. Application to Classroom Practice Researchers have realized the importance of focusing on learners’ errors. Then, as teachers, how should we treat students’ errors in their second language acquisition? (1) Avoid continuously blaming students for their errors In the mid-twentieth century, under the influence of behaviorists’ learning theory, errors were often viewed as the result of bad habits. If this were the truth, it would be wise for teachers to give as much rote learning and pattern drilling as possible, and it would also be reasonable to blame students for their errors, since their laziness
35
Errors in Language Learning
or carelessness had to be responsible for those errors. Yet now that we have known committing errors is a natural part in second language acquisition, and even the most careful and diligent students can not escape from making mistakes, how can we teachers have the reasons to blame and criticize students for their errors? It is true that some of these errors and mistakes are the result of carelessness or lack of concentration on the part of learners, but many other errors are not, and even if all of them were, it does not follow that if learners try harder to avoid teachers’ blame, their productions would be exactly in agreement with what teachers have taught, free from all kinds of errors. If students are always blamed for making mistakes, their success would often be impeded because they will have to spend their energy avoiding mistakes rather tan focusing on learning. And what’s more, too much blame does harm to the relationship between teachers and students, too much blame hurts students’ proper pride, too much blame makes learning unpleasant, and from the psychological perspective, too much blame may lead to students’ inferiority complex or even antagonistic psychology, which would all be disastrous for the process of language learning. (2) Necessary amount of correction Brown, H. D. (2000) pointed out that just like first language learning, second language learning is a process of trial and error. By carefully processing feedback from others, learners slowly but surely learn to produce what is acceptable speech. Some teachers, in order to avoid discouraging students, always let errors go uncorrected, and to indicate understanding when understanding may not have occurred. But unfortunately, their goodwill may result in the reinforcement of the learners’ errors and even the persistence, and perhaps the eventual fossilization, of such errors. Then, correcting would be far harder, if not impossible. And the influence may even reach other students, for if they regard an un-corrected mistake to be true, they will employ it themselves. And in the way of students’ reaction, when they see their errors uncorrected, they may regard their teachers as careless or even irresponsible. And since the teachers seem to pay no attention to t heir performance, why should they work so hard and perform so cautiously? In conclusion, necessary amount of correction is indispensable for teachers to improve students ’ language performance. (3) Differentiate students’ errors and treat them accordingly Although it is teachers’ responsibility to correct students’ errors and mistakes to help learners do their best in the process of language learning, over -correction should be avoided. Just as is said by Lightbrown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999), excessive feedback on errors can have a negative effect on motivation. And Jeremy Harmer (1998/2000: 84), when talking about correcting students’ writing, stated that even when we find the pieces of written work completely full of mistakes, “over-correction can have a very demotivating effect”, for a piece of returned written work covered in red ink, underlines and crossings-out is “a powerful visual statement of the fact that their written English is terrible.” Since this is the case, teachers have to treat students sensitively and sympathetically in the meanwhile of being accurate and truthful. Thus it is necessary to differentiate students’ errors and correct only some kinds of them. It turns out that some errors are more likely to lead to failure of being understood, and some others do not interfere with the process of communication. Obviously, the former ones can be considered more serious than others and teachers will want to focus their attention on these. 36
Errors in Language Learning
And Lightbrown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999) told us that when errors are persistent, especially when they are shared by almost all students in a class, it is useful for teache rs to bring the problem to the students’ attention. While on the other hand, if the error is based on a developmental pattern, the correction may only be useful when the learner is ready for it. Therefore, for different kinds of errors, we should treat differently. (4) Give students more confidence by telling them the nature of errors Lots of language learners are afraid of committing errors, which may ultimately lead to their shutting off their attempts to communicate voluntarily, or even their attempts to learn the language. One of the important factors for this phenomenon is that their errors discourage, frustrate them and even frighten them: since so much is wrong and it is so hard to avoid error s, where is the hope of mastering the language? And since we are not clever enough or not young enough to learn a language well, why bother continuing learning? Theories about second language acquisition have shown us the nature of errors, but many students are unaware of it. It is highly advisable that they should be informed of the fact that committing errors is a natural part of language learning process, and everyone, man or woman, young or old, smart or ordinary, has to commit errors while learning a language. Those successful learners, without exception, go through the process of committing errors frequently, making improvements through considerable efforts, and after a long period of time, only committing errors occasionally. Thus, by giving students hope and confidence, teachers can help students to continue their study, and work even harder than ever before. (5) Generalize or summarize common errors and remind students to avoid them Since researches have reflected that learners’ errors were systematic, rather than random, and many learners tend to commit the same kinds of errors during a certain stage of language learning, we teachers might as well generalize and summarize these frequently appearing errors, and remind students of these errors as often as possible, so that they would make greater efforts to avoid them. Hopefully, repeated warnings of certain mistakes beforehand will even eliminate the chances of committing some of these errors. For instance, through the author ’s teaching experience, it is found that many students use the word “unfortune” instead of “misfortune”, after being taught that the antonym of “fortunate” is “unfortunate”. Here, the error occurs as a result of overgeneralization. After noticing this error, when the next groups of students come, they were told the different use of prefix in this context immediately after they come across “fortunate” and “unfortunate”, and what is more, more similar examples are given (such as “comfortable” versus “uncomfortable”, while “comfort” versus “discomfort”) so that this kind of mistakes are largely decreased due to students’ extra attention. (6) Avoid contributing to students’ errors Everyone makes errors or mistakes, neither consciously or unconsciously, in using a language, including teachers. Unfortunately, when students commit errors, teachers’ help and correction are, more often than not, available, but when teachers commit errors, there is often no one in the classroom to turn to. And what is worse, the provided incorrect information may also become students’ input, and lead to students’ making the same mistakes. Here I mean much more than teachers’ making grammatical mistakes. Misleading definitions, words or grammatical generalization are not uncommon errors of teachers. Take my own experiences as an example. When I was learning grammar points about past tense, I was told 37
Errors in Language Learning
by my teacher that past tense is used only on occasions happened in the past. Then, when I later came across a sentence in a reference book that “it is high time you went to school”, I judged it as a totally ungrammatical sentences without hesitation. And even after I consulted the key and was informed that the sentence was right, I still persisted in my own judgment and regarded the key to be wrong. If only the teacher had told me that exceptions do exist! It turned out to take me quite a long time to realize the truth, and I came to a conclusion that what the teacher says is not always true. So we should be aware of the fact that if we don’t pay enough attention to our own performance, we teachers would also contribute to students’ errors and mistakes.
4. Conclusion Various studies have showed that errors are a natural part of language learning. This is true of the development of a child’s first language as well as of second language learning by both children and adults. To help students to learn a language more smoothly, teachers should not only be clear about this truth, but also apply it to their teaching practice. The author ’s suggestion is that we avoid always blaming and criticizing students for their errors, and rather, we should make full use of these errors and treat students’ errors in an appropriate way.
References: Brown, H.D.. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching[M]. 4th ed. White Plains, New York: Longman. Ellis, R.. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M ]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R.. 1997. Second Language Acquisition[M ]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harmer J.. 2000. How to Teach English[M ]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (Original work published in 1998). Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H.. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language A cquisition Research[M ]. London: Longman. Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N.. 1999. How Languages Are Learned [M]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W.. 1998. Foreign and Second Language Learning[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D.. 2001. Second Language Acquisition//Carter, R. & Nunan, D., eds. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87-92.
(Edited by Doris, Wendy and Jessica)
38
