THE INSUFFICIENCY OF ERROR ANALYSIS

Error analysis (EA), unlike the related discipline contrastive analysisy is limited by definition to the study of errors, whereas the non-errors are not taken into account. The author takes the position that this is inadequate, particularly from the language-teaching point of view. Specifying the learner's current command of the language, its limits, and his learning tasks means accounting for a pattern of language structure in which the errors cannot be viewed äs isolated, self-contained items. An example is given for the fact that in practice even the decision whether an item is an "error" or not, may be dependent on analysis. Useful clues for the teacher, provided by significant non-errors, are systematically discarded in EA. The problem of securing the evidence of both errors and non-errors calls for planned elicitation. A cyclic procedure of elicitation and analysis is outlined, in which EA plays a limited but useful part at an initial stage. Error analysis (EA) has a great deal in common with that type of contrastive analysis (CA) which is based on the examination of language data obtained from foreign-language users. But whereas CA by definition takes into account only the cases of interlingual transfer (influence usually from the native language on the target language), EA is not restricted in this way. EA allows the joint * Paper presented at the Symposium on Error Analysis, Lund, 26-27 September, 1972. 186 IRAL, VOL. XII/3, AUGUST 1974 description of all types of linguistic errors (esp. in f oreign language use), whether arising f rom interlingual influence pr not. In particular, EA can compare various interand intralingual ways of explaining an error, and thus avoid a somewhat artificial limitation inherent in pure CA. On the other band, EA, äs the name teils us, is concerned only with the errors. The successful treatment of the target language is not taken into account. This, again, is not necessarily the case with CA. In my opinion this restriction analysing only the errors and neglecting the careful description of the non-errors is arbitrary and inadequate for the purposes that EA is commonly said to have. This is what I intend to comment on in this paper. There are several Statements in linguistic literature of the contents and aims of EA. Thus, e.g., Nickel, in a survey of the issues (1972,11 ff.) names three main aspects of the study of errors, viz., a) description (Fehlerbeschreibung); b) grading (Fehlerbewertung); c) therapy (Fehlertherapie). A similar, although somewhat more detailed account of matters to be investigated is found in a working paper from the "TUP" Project by Rossipal (1972, 109ff.): a) types of errors (classification with respect to the target System); b) frequency of errors; c) points of difficulty in the target language; d) cause of errors; e) degree of disturbance caused by errors (from the point of view of communication and norm, respectively); f) therapy (how teaching should be arranged so äs to eliminate the errors). The purposes of EA ränge from the more practically oriented to the more theoretical side. Rossipal, in the paper I mentioned, hopes that EAmay provide relevant data within the following areas: contrastive language description, prediction of potential interference; improving the description of the target language; describing general traits of linguistic errors; describing linguistic universals; improving language teaching. l "Tyskans Universitets-Pedagogik", a project at the German Institute of the University of Stockholm. "TUP" includes an extensive investigation, led by H. Rossipal, of errors made by Swedish students of German. INSUFFICIENCY OF KRROR ANALYSIS 187 Seen from the viewpoint of languagc learning, errors havc come to bc rcgardcd by modern linguists äs cvidcncc of the learncr's strategy and the route he follows when building up his compctcncc in the targct language. This is the standpoint taken by Corder (1967) and by Strcvens (1969). To quote Cordcr (1967, 167), "A learncr's errors ... arc significant in thrce diffcrent ways. First to the teacher, in that thcy teil him, if he undertakcs a systcmatic analysis, how far towards the goal the learncr has progrcsscd and, consequcntly, what remains for him to learn. Sccond, they provide to the rcsearchcr evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what stratcgies or proccdures the learncr is employing in his discovery of the languagc. Thirdly (and in a scnsc this is their most important aspcct) thcy arc indispensable to the learncr himself, because wc can regard the making of errors äs a devicc the learncr uscs in order to learn. It is a way the learner has of tcsting his hypothcscs about the nature of the languagc hc is learning. The making of errors thcn is a strategy cmployed both by children acquiring thcir mothcr-tonguc and by thosc learning a second languagc." It scems to me that if forcign-language data is uscd in ordcr to shcd light on the formal dcscription of languages, on mattcrs of language contact, languagc acquisition, and languagc univcrsals, then those cases whcre it can be shown that errors charactcristically do not occur, should bc taken advantage of äs well. For the sake of the present discussion, howevcr, let me concentratc on the rclevance of such data for what was callcd „therapy", and for the dcscription of languages with a view to tcaching them. This is largcly a matter of specifying the learner's currcnt command of the languagc, its limits, and his learning tasks. In principlc thcrc is no difference betwecn this and othcr cases of linguistic description, in that we have to do with interrclatcd facts of language structure. In this complcx pattcrn, errors, or the facts thcy point to, cannot be viewed äs isolated, self-contained items. First, therc is the problem of deciding whethcr an item should be taken äs an error or not. This is particularly crucial in the area of pronunciation, and it is not always just a matter of deciding what the norm is. Considcr the following example. In Standard Central Swedish, the vowel [ :] in bok 'book' is pronounccd with a particular type of lip-rounding sometimes called "in-rounding", the lips moving towards narrow bilabial constriction. A German learner of Swedish 2 See Fant (1971, 259ff.) for a careful dcscription of the relevant aspccts of Swedish vowel articulations. I choosc the symbol [ :] hcre to avoid confusion with German [u:] in the following discussion. 188 IRAL, VOL. XII/3, AUGUST 1974 . , pronouncing bok with the [u:] of his nativeBuch will sound slightly foreign, but his [u:] will hardly stand out äs a conspicupus error of pronunciation. A teacher may feelinclined toconsider itanon-error.Butinthecaseof the front voweis the corresponding phenomenon leads to a serious problem. There are two rounded high front vowels, [u:] äs in buk 'belly', and [y:] äs in byk Vash'. The former is pronounced with "in-rounding", the latter with protrusion and less narrow constriction of the lips, so called "out-rounding". German learners commonly substitute their native ü (äs in Bühne 'stage') for both. This goes for perception äs well. The distinction is essential in Swedish, and the Student has to learn how to master the feature "in-" vs. "out-rounding". But then, the back in-rounded vowel [ :] should of course be included and practised äs well, since the task is to master a phonetic feature, and not a phonetic segment. Thus, the innocent-sounding [u:] will have to be taken into account along with the clear and indisputable errors. In other words, it may be necessary to do some of the descriptive analysis on the material before even knowing which items you should call errors. Second, errors are supposed to reveal to the teacher what the points of dif f iculty are in the target language, and thus teil the teacher what he has to teach. This assumption is only half true. For in order to define the task properly, the careful description of those cases where errors tend not to occur, is essential. And this, in turn, requires the evidence of the non-errors. A well-known point in Swedish grammar may illustrate this. Let us assume that Swedish is taught to native Speakers of English. The problem in question is the distinction between reflexive and non-reflexive possessives, the "sin-hans" problem. The English sentence (1) corresponds to the Swedish sentence (2): (1) John and his wife kissed. (2) Jan och hans fru kysste varandra. For the sentence (3), however, there are two Swedish equivalents, (4) and (5): (3) John kissed his wife. (4) Jan kysste sin (= his /own/) fru. (5) Jan kysste hans (= his, i.e. somebody eise's) fru. 3 I have tested Germans on the word bok (among others) in taped Interviews, and then presented the tapes to three phonetically trained native Swedes to listen to. Judgments on the vowel vary from "good" (12 judgments) to "too short" (11 judgments), "too low" (4), "too weakly rounded" (3) and "faulty lip position" (9). It is clear that the deviations from the Swedish norm are not drastic. Cf. fn. 5. INSUFFICIENCY OF ERROR ANALYSIS 189 In Swedish, in the object position, a distinction must be made between the reflexive 5/n, referring to the subject of the same clause (4), and the non-reflexive hanSy having some other ref erent (5). In the subject position (2) äs well äs in both the English sentences (1), (3), this distinction is not expressed. What you can observe in learners* speech, is uncertainty, or even total confusion, about the choice of sin or hans in sentences like (2), (4) and (5). That means that error analysis will account for learners' sentences like (6) ""Jan och sin fru ... (7) *Jan kysste hans (= his own) fru. (8) ""Jan kysste sin (somebody eise's) fru. and for the fact that they alternate with their correct counterparts. The teacher (or the one who devises the teaching material) is faced with the problem of def ining exactly what the learning task is, particularly delimiting the task and picking out the relevant points