SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: ERROR ANALYSIS

Jack C. Richards

The collection, classification, and analysis of errors in the

written and spoken performance of second or foreign language learners has
had a role in language pedagogy since at least the 1950s. However, in the
late 60s, and particularly in the 70s, the study of errors in non-native
language performance, or Error Analysis (EA), assumed a new role in
applied linguistics. A more rigorous methodology for EA developed, and it
was applied to new issues and questions within second language acquisition
research. Yet, by 1980, EA was largely considered a transitional
development in applied linguistics. This review considers the nature,
development, and achievements of Error Analysis in the period from 1970 to
1980. We will consider EA from three perspectives, reviewing the use of
Error Analysis: (1) to account for linguistic competence; (2) to
identify learning processes and strategies, and (3) to provide input to
language pedagogy.

1. ERRORS AS EVIDENCE OF COMPETENCE

The applied-linguistic concept of Error Analysis was a direct

outcome and application of Chomskyan linguistics and its accompanying
psycholinguistic developments in language acquistion research (Corder 1967)
One of the goals of EA was to help construct an account of the second
language learner's linguistic competence. But in trying to account for
second language performance with a Chomsky-derived model, it was necessary
to recognize that the original concept of competence was formulated to
account for a static set of categorical rules. Second language competence,
however, is characterized by a dynamic and changing set of variable rules
(Corder 1979; Faerch 1979), leading some to question the feasibility of
EA (Bell 1974). Terms such as transitional competence (Corder 1967),
approximative system (Nemser 1971), linguistic repertoire (Chesterman 1977)
and interlanguage (Selinker 1971) reflect attempts to accommodate the
Chomskyan concept of competence to a developmental framework. The basic
problem is that, on the one hand, EA works from unstable performance data,
and attempts to reconstruct a static model of linguistic competence, while
on the other hand, working without a theory of linguistic performance or
a theory of "rules of speaking," EA has also tried to account for the
second language learner's communicative competence. Various solutions to
the dilemma have been proposed.

91
92 JACK C. RICHARDS

METHODOLOGY

In attempting to deduce the learner's transitional competence or

"rule system" from language errors, it soon became obvious that systematic
and structured data elicitation would be required. Both the use of
controlled elicitation techniques and the use of learner intuitions about
self-made errors have been used. The former approach includes translation
(e.g., Noss 1979), free composition (Corder 1973), elicited imitation
(Ervin-Tripp 1974), picture description (Dulay and Burt 1974), sentence
completion tasks, structured interviews, story telling (Selinker, Swain,
and Dumas 1975); the latter makes use of introspection techniques to tap
the learner's access to his or her own competence (Kellerman 1978). At
the same time, it has been recognized that the "system" so elicited may
be an artifact of the method of data collection, since it often reflects:
(a) the amount of time devoted to data collection; (b) the type of
communication task used to elicit the data, and (c) the setting where the
data was collected (Dittmar ms.; Faerch 1978).

DIFFERENT MODELS OF COMPETENCE

Early accounts of learner competence were adaptations of a

transformational-generative model with a psycholinguistic cognitive-code
overlay (Richards 1971; Corder 1967; Burt and Kiparsky 1972). Other
theoretical models have also been employed in error analysis, such as
case grammar (Jordens 1979) and discourse grammar (Rutherford 1980). The
nature of error data has also necessitated employing models incorporating
variability(basic feature of TG grammars) and seeing accounts of L£ compe-
tence as not necessarily error or syntax based. Among solutions adopted are:

Probabilistic grammars: These are formal grammars which assign

indices to rules indicating their probability of application, and
which have been made use of in descriptions of the German acquired by
Spanish and Italian migrant workers (Sankoff 1978).

Implicational analysis: This is a method of data analysis which

enables systematic relationships between variable features to be
determined and which allows for the reconstruction of developmental
stages from variable data. Data from phonological errors (Dickerson
1975; Gatbonton 1977) and grammatical errors (Hyltenstam 1977;
Andersen 1978; Platt 1975) has been analyzed using this technique,
allowing for the notion of competence to accommodate unstable and
changing rules.

Monitor model: Krashen's "monitor model" (Krashen 1977) offers

another approach to the analysis of variability. He proposed that
the learner's performance results from two systems, one "acquired"
and the other "learned," and this may explain why error frequency
varies according to task or setting.

Performance analysis: By enlarging the scope of analysis from

learners' errors to the learners' total linguistic system, performance
analysis (Svartik 1973; Faerch 1978) focuses on second language
learning in a similar way to that in which first language research
has been conducted. The resulting longitudinal studies of the
development of different aspects of the L2 system (Milon 1974; Cancino
 ERROR ANALYSIS 93

et al. 1974; Hatch 1978) are now referred to as Second Language

acquisition research (see the section by Brown elsewhere in this
volume).

Communicative competence analysis: Changing views of the centrality

of syntax within language competence have been reflected in studies
which focus on the pragmatic, social, and functional uses of second
language and the effects of non-native realizations of these aspects
of 1,2 communication. The following issues have been examined:
Disfluency Phenomena: Hesitations, corrections, repairs,
repetitions, pausing, and other aspects of speech execution in
L2 performance and their contribution to Lo discourse (Flick
1978).

Speech acts: Study of non-native interpretation and realization

of such illocutionary acts as requests, promises, apologies,
complaints, disagreements (Schmidt and Richards 1980; Kasper
1979; Wolfson 1979).

Conversational routines: The use of techniques derived from

discourse analysis (Hatch 1978) to focus on non-native
conversational routines with respect to such dimensions as
presentation of self, topic selection, distribution of talk,
openings and closings, gambits, and discourse-based features
(Edmondson 1977). Research by Scollon and Scollon (1979),
and Gumperz and Roberts (1978), suggests that differences
between Li and L2 discourse conventions and errors at the level
of conversational routines create greater difficulties for L2
learning and use at the advanced level than problems of
grammar and phonology of a purely linguistic nature, and can
lead to serious problems in cross cultural communication
(Scollon and Scollon, ms.; Gumperz and Roberts 1978).

Research devoted to the above issues has contributed a great deal to

our understanding of the nature of second language competence. A second
major issue addressed by EA studies was the nature of second language
learning strategies, and in the period under review this has been a rich
field for empirical study and hypothesis construction.

2. ERRORS AS EVIDENCE OF LEARNING PROCESSES

ERROR CLASSIFICATIONS

Initially, attention focused on error types, and classifications

were set up which attempted to account for different types of errors on
the basis of different processes that were assumed to account for them
(Selinker 1971). A basic distinction was between intralingual and
interlingual errors. Interlingual errors were accounted for by language
transfer. Intralingual errors were categorized as overgeneralizations
(errors caused by extensions of target language rules to inappropriate
contexts (Richards 1971)); simplifications (errors resulting from
redundancy reduction (George 1972; Richards 1975)); developmental errors
(those reflecting built-in stages of linguistic development (Corder 1967)).;
communication-based errors (errors resulting from strategies of
communication (Selinker 1971)); induced errors (those derived from the
94 JACK C. RICHARDS

sequencing and presentation of target language items (Stenson 1974));

errors of avoidance (failure to use certain types of target language
features because of perceived difficulty (Schachter 1974)); errors of
overproduction (target language features produced correctly but used too
frequently (Schachter and Rutherford 1979)). These classifications have
been used to account for errors at the levels of phonology, syntax, lexis,
and speech acts (Schmidt and Richards 1980).

But attempts to apply such categories to the classification of errors

encountered problems in assigning errors to categories due to a lack of
precise criteria for classification, overlapping of some of the categories,
and the possibility of multiple explanations. The limited explanatory
power of such taxonomies has also been cited. Attempts have been made to
improve the reliability of error classifications. Flick (1978), for
example, uses factor analysis techniques to assign errors to categories,
but the basic problems noted above have not been resolved. Rather, there
has been a shift of interest away from descriptions of the products of
L.2 learning in terms of error types towards explanation of L.2 learning
in terms of theories of second language learning processes.

THEORIES OF LEARNING PROCESSES

Error analysis has been used to support a variety of hypotheses about

second language learning processes. Whereas, at the beginning of the
decade, transfer theory and cognitive learning theory were contrasted—
the former being identified with Contrastive Analysis and the latter
with Error Analysis—by the 80s the validity of such a dichotomy had been
questioned. However, research had not led to convergence of views on
the nature of L2 learning processes and a unified theory of underlying
processes encompassing all available evidence had not yet been produced.

Language transfer: EA emerged as a reaction away from the view of

second language learning proposed by Contrastive Analysis, which
focused exclusively on interference. A decade of studies devoted
directly or indirectly to the role of language transfer, however,
has not resolved the controversy over this issue. Rather, such
studies have served to recast explanations of the nature of
interference and the significance of interlingual errors. The
following hypotheses have been proposed:

Specificity hypothesis: Kellerman (1978) found that learners

perceive some aspects of their native language as language
specific and others as universal, and resist transferring items
such as idioms, which are felt to be h\ specific and non-
transferable, even where the native and target languages
share the same idioms.

Cognitive strategy hypothesis: McLaughlin (1978) suggests

that interference can be considered not as evidence of transfer
in the behaviorist sense, but as the result of a cognitive
strategy whereby the learner makes use of L^ rules as a source
of information to work out the rules of the target language.

Structured interference hypothesis: Wode (1979) argues that

learners draw on their first language only at specific points
 ERROR ANALYSIS 95

in their second language development, under specific structural

conditions, and has conducted a variety of empirical studies
of phonological and grammatical development to support this
hypothesis.

Proficiency hypothesis: Taylor (1975) proposes that learners

rely on language transfer at the elementary stages of second
language learning but make use of overgeneralization as they
become more proficient in the target language. "Reliance on
overgeneralization is directly proportionate to proficiency in
the target language, and reliance on transfer is inversely
proportional. That is, as a learner's proficiency increases,
he will rely less frequently on what he already knows about the
target language and on the overgeneralization strategy"
(Taylor 1975: 84).

Context hypothesis: Ervin-Tripp suggests that language transfer

is greater where the target language is learned in situations
such as foreign language classrooms, where the second language
"...is not the language of the learner's social milieu so that
the learning contexts [are.] aberrant both in function and
frequency of structure" (Ervin-Tripp 1974: 121).

Non-transfer hypotheses: A variety of alternative theories of second

language learning processes have emerged from the study of learner-
error data, but the elaboration of process models of second language
learning is not necessarily linked to Error Analysis as an applied-
linguistic activity. Rather, it is now viewed as consistent with a
broader theoretical rationale for language acquisition studies and
the explanation and description of learner language systems in
general, including first languages, second languages, pidgins, Creoles,
and non-standard dialects (Valdman 1975). The following hypotheses,
however, have been supported in part by the findings of EA:

Recreation hypothesis: In learning a second or foreign language

it is proposed that the learner recreates the target language,
drawing on a built-in syllabus for that language (Corder 1978).
Evidence cited by Corder for the recreation hypothesis is the
formal similarity between L^ and L2 acquisition of English,
English based pidgins, and simplified registers such as
mother-talk, and foreigner-talk. Traugott (1973) proposes a
similar hypothesis, arguing that learners revert to natural
strategies for the perception and expression of universal
linguistic categories that determined the way the first language
was acquired.

Developmental hypothesis: This is a strong version of the

recreation hypothesis, and proposes that a common developmental
sequence exists for acquiring the target language which is not
influenced by the mother tongue of the learner (Dulay and Burt
1974). This hypothesis has generated numerous studies which
have sought to identify developmental stages for particular
target language features, through longitudinal studies (Milon
1974, tests; Fatham 1975), and other procedures.
96 JACK C. RICHARDS

Regression hypothesis: This proposes that the learner regresses

in learning a second language to the language skills acquired in
the first language but at a primitive and rudimentary level
(McLaughlin 1975).

Complexification hypothesis: According to this hypothesis,

learners first construct a simplified version of the target
language, characterized by reduced lexicon, invariance of form,
elimination of redundancy, and simplification of the
transformational system of the target language. Language
learning then develops along a continuum characterized by
increasing complexity of these dimensions (Faerch 1978a; Corder
1979).

Recapitulation hypothesis: The learner recapitulates the

learning processes used by a native speaker acquiring that
language as a first language, as seen in the similarity of
first language and second language errors in acquiring a
particular language (McLaughlin 1978: 116-117).

Decomposition hypothesis: Wode (1979) suggests that the learner

breaks down the structures of the target language and then
reintegrates the decomposed elements into target-like structures
via developmental sequences. The degree of decomposition varies
according to the type of acquisition and is higher for first
language acquisition than for naturalistic second language
learning.

Pidginization hypothesis: Acquisition of a second language

begins with pidginization of it, followed by expansion and
complexification of the interlanguage system according to the
degree of social and psychological proximity of the learner to
speakers of the target language (Schumann 1978).

The above hypotheses or variants of them have been elaborated and

defended with vigor in the last ten years and show that learner-error
data can support a wide variety of interpretations. Particular hypotheses
differ as to the emphasis they give to linguistic, cognitive, developmental,
and pragmatic factors. At the same time, major questions remain unsolved.
None of the processes involved are necessarily mutually exclusive. Some
hypotheses have been elaborated with respect to minute samplings of
language data, such as the 12 or so functors which have been studied to
support the developmental hypothesis. Some hypotheses, while intuitively
appealing, are not readily falsifiable, and hence lack the potential for
rigorous investigation.

3. ERROR ANALYSIS AND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Error Analysis developed with both theoretical and applied concerns.

Its theoretical motivations have led to the field of "second language
acquisition," from which perspective the concept of error is not considered
an appropriate descriptive category. In the period under review, however,
Error Analysis also developed in other directions, contributing in various
ways to language teaching, where recurring errors may be defined as unwanted
or stigmatized forms. Indeed, if the term Error Analysis continues to be
 ERROR ANALYSIS 97

used in the 80s, it is likely that it will be with reference to these

latter and more restricted goals.

PEDAGOGIC SEQUENCING

The application of EA to syllabus design and gradation is seen in

studies by Valdman (1975), Richards (1979), and others. A major attempt
to incorporate Error Analysis into a pedagogic model for syllabus
development was made by George (1972), who combined error analysis with
communication theory, cognitive learning theory, and a theory of
selection, storage, and memory. This reconciles the concepts of selection
and gradation with an EA-based account of how the target language code
is internalized. That George's work has not had wider influence is due
to the fact that syllabus design developed in a different direction,
focusing more on how the linguistic code can be organized to maximize
communicative effect through notional and communicative syllabuses.

REMEDIAL MATERIALS

While the collection of lists of recurrent errors may contribute

little to issues in second language acquisition theory, such data continues
to provide input useful to the design of tests, remedial syllabuses, and
materials, reflecting Wilkin's view that "difficulty of learning is
indicated by a greater frequency of errors in performance" (Wilkins 1972:
199). Contributions of EA to remedial materials and syllabi are seen
in remedial grammars such as The Gooficon (Burt and Kiparsky 1972),
remedial writing courses such as Angelis (1975) and Shaughnessy (1977),
and in projects such as an ongoing national project in Singapore where
English language workbooks for the state school system are being
developed based on grammatical forms selected from an error analysis of
6000 writing samples.

ERROR GRAVITY

Studies of the effects of errors on communication are another level

of the application of EA to language teaching. Error gravity can be
approached from two directions (Albrechtsen, et al. 1979). The direct
effect of errors can be studied through focusing on the degree to which
non-fluent target language performance influences comprehensibility, on
the attitudes of native speakers to such discourse, and on the indirect
effect of errors (by examining the way teachers and others react to errors
in classrooms).
Effects of errors: Early efforts to investigate the effects of errors
attempted linguistic measures of error gravity, focusing mainly on
syntax and, to a lesser extent, on lexis and semantics (James 1974).
Burt and Kiparsky (1974) distinguished between global and local
errors, the former being "...those that violate rules involving the
overall structure of a sentence, the relations among constituent
clauses, or, in a simple sentence the relations among major
constituents. Local mistakes cause trouble in a particular
constituent, or in a clause of a complex sentence." They discuss
the differential effect of such errors on comprehension. [However,
as Morrissey (1979; cf. Kaplan forthcoming) points out, any attempt
to define extent of interference in communication must include more
98 JACK C. RICHARDS

than linguistic criteria. The presumption that global errors (as

defined by Burt and Kiparsky 1974) will hinder communication more than
local errors implies that interference at the level of a single
constituent necessarily will not "significantly hinder communication,"
and tends largely to ignore semantic interference. Ed. note.]

From the point of view of degree of comprehensibility, Johansson

(1975) introduced a distinction between errors which cause irritation
but which do not impede comprehension and those which do effect
comprehension. Errors of pronunciation, morphology, tone, etc., fall
into the former category. Phillipson (1978), for example, suggests
that Danish speakers of English create an impression of being
hesistant, apathetic, and somber, because of intonation features.
The most thorough exploration of these issues is found in a study by
Albrechtsen, et al. (1979) which examined native speakers' reactions
to the speech of non-fluent Danish speakers of English, and
concluded that "interlanguage which is deviant from the target
language norm is not necessarily difficult to understand: the
intelligibility of interlanguage is not a function of relative
proximity to the target language but a function of different types
of errors in specific textual and situational context...." Most
difficult to understand were errors at the discourse level, but they
found that all errors were judged to be equally irritating, and that
"irritation is directly predictable from the number of errors...
regardless of error type."

Treatment of errors in the classroom: Discussions of error treatment

focus either on whether teachers should correct errors, and if so
when, and how, or on empirical studies of what teachers actually do
when students produce errors. Hendrickson (1978) has reviewed the
available wisdom on the former issues, but finds little empirical
support for any of the various proposals favored by different
writers. From the later perspective Fanselow (1977) studied teachers'
reactions to errors and found that teachers reacted more to errors
of meaning than to grammatical errors. A model for observing
teacher behavior vis-a-vis errors is discussed by Chaudron (1977).
The emphasis on such approaches is on differential reaction to various
error types (Allwright 1975b). Burton and Samuda (1980) focus on
student treatment of each other's errors, where the focus is on
communicative intent rather than on formal correctness. This leads
into the study of conversational repairs in non-native discourse
(Schwartz 1977).

Accommodations to error-marked speech: The focus here is on how native

speakers accommodate their discourse to non-fluent speakers. Examples
of speech registers thus produced are foreigner-talk (Freed 1978;
Ferguson 1971), teacher-talk, and similar examples of discourse
modification by peers (Katz 1977). Such registers have been studied
both in terms of simplification (removal of redundant items, tense
shifts, lexical simplification, change in rate of speaking),
clarification of target language features (adding redundancy through
topic repetition, topic fronting, full rather than reduced clauses),
and in terms of attempts to signal "attitude or affect appropriate
to the situation" (Katz 1977:70).
 ERROR ANALYSIS 99

CONCLUSIONS

Having begun in the 70s with a specific set of interests in error

types and learning processes, in the 80s Error Analysis no longer
describes a unified domain within applied linguistics, with an accepted
set of theoretical goals and assumptions and an associated set of
methodological procedures. The study of learner performance, including
learners' errors, continues, however, but from a broader theoretical
perspective. Some of the goals of Error Analysis have been realized in
that the multiplicity of causes contributing to errors in second language
performance is now widely acknowledged. Error Analysis thus retains its
value as a useful accessory to language teaching pedagogy and second
language acquisition research.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrechtsen, Dorte, Birgit Henrikson, and Claus Faerch. 1979. Native
speaker attitudes towards learners' spoken interlanguage, ms.
University of Copenhagen.

An empirical study of a wide range of native speaker reactions to

the discourse of Danish learners of English in interview situations.
A factor analysis yielded 4 factors which were interpreted as a
personality factor, a content factor, a language factor, and a
comprehension factor. Results were then compared with an
objective performance analysis of the data.

Andersen, Roger W. 1978. An implicational model for second language

research. Language learning. 28.2.221-282.

Offers a model for dealing with individual as well as group studies

which accounts for variability as well as for systematic.ity in L2
research, and which is based on an implicational analysis technique
used in sociolinguistics.

Burt, Marina K. and Carol Kiparsky. 1972. The gooficon: A repair manual
for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

A pedagogic error-based remedial grammar, based on a sampling of

commonly made errors in English. An analysis of each error is
given, and suggestions are given for correction.

Corder, S. Pit. 1973. The elicitation of interlanguage. In J. Svartik

(ed.) Errata: Papers in error analysis. Lund: C. W. Gleerup. 36-47.

Discusses techniques which can be used to elicit information about

the learner's interlanguage and which complement data obtained from
longitudinal observation or free production.

Corder, S. Pit. 1978. Error analysis, interlanguage, and second language

acquistion. In Language teaching and linguistics: Surveys.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 60-78.
100 JACK C. RICHARDS

A comprehensive survey of the history, goals, and methods of EA,

relating it to a broad range of theoretical and pedagogic issues,
including psycholinguistics, error gravity, explanation of errors,
L2 acquisition, and performance analysis.

Corder, S. Pit. 1979. Language distance and the magnitude of the learner
task. Studies in second language acquisition. 2.1.27-36.

Proposes a model of the learning process in which the learner begins

from basic possibly universal grammar which is elaborated in response
to the target language and to communicative needs.

Dulay, Heidi and Marina K. Burt. 1974a. A new perspective on the creative
construction process in child second language acquisition. Language
learning. 24.2.253-278.

Hypothesizes that learners build up their competence in a language

through forming hypotheses about the language and by drawing on
natural and possibly innate language learning principles in a way
similar to first language learning.

Faerch, Claus. 1979. Describing interlanguage through interaction:

Problems of systemacity and permeability. Paper presented at the
17th international conference on Polish-English contrastive
linguistics. Boszkowo, Poland. May 10-12.

Considers the sort of research needed in EA and related studies,

according to assumptions about the nature of the interlanguage
system, particularly with respect to variability of the rules used,
time devoted to data collection, elicitation tasks, and type of
communication required in the interlanguage.

Faerch, Claus. In press. Performance analysis of learner's language. To

appear in Hans Basball and Jacob Mey (eds.) Papers from the fourth
Scandinavian conference of linguistics. Odense University.

Discusses the goals of performance analysis in terms of linguistic

performance analysis—which focuses on the linguistic system itself—
and communicative performance analysis, which aims to establish the
communicative potential of the learner's language.

Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. 1980. Processes and strategies in

foreign language learning and communication. Copenhagen: University
of Copenhagen.

Establishes a theoretical framework by means of which processes and

strategies can be defined and identified and from which a taxonomy
of learning and communication strategies is established as a basis
for theoretical and empirical research.

George, H. V. 1972. Common errors in language learning. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

A detailed analysis of learners' errors in English seen according

to a model that incorporates communicative efficiency, redundancy
 ERROR ANALYSIS 101

reduction, and aspects of short and long term retention.

Henrickson, James M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching:

Recent theories, research, and practice. Modern language journal.
62.387-398.

Reviews attitudes towards correction of errors in language

classrooms, and concludes that correcting errors helps learners
improve their proficiency, though it finds little consensus in
practice as to when or how to correct errors or which errors to
correct.

Johansson, Stig. 1975. Problems in studying the communicative effect of

learner's errors. Paper presented at the colloquium Theoretical
models in applied linguistics. University of Neuchatel. May 20-31.

Discusses a system of determining the seriousness of errors according

to their effect on communication, and makes a distinction between
errors which interfere with communication and those which merely
cause irritation.

Richards, Jack C. 1971b. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis.

English language teaching. 25.3.204-219.

Distinguishes between interlingual (originating from the target

language) and intralingual (originating from within the target
language) errors, and classifies intralingual errors according to
overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete
application of rules, and hypothesizing of false concepts.

Schachter, Jacquelyn. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language learning.

24.2.73-107.

Presents evidence for the phenomenon of avoidance, whereby learners

may avoid producing certain target language structures due to
perception of difficulty.

Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL. 10.3.209-232.

A paper which together with Richards (1971) is often cited with

reference to theory and research in EA and L2 acquisition. Discusses
five processes as central to second language learning: language
transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second language
learning, strategies of second language communication, and
overgeneralization.

Sridhar, S. N. 1976. Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and

interlanguage: Three phases of one goal? Indian linguistics.
37.258-281.

Examines three traditions and evaluates their contribution to a

theory of L2 learner's performance. Discusses each with reference
to goals, theoretical assumptions, methodology, and pedagogical
application. Argues that CA remains both theoretically and
methodologically the most principled component of a theory or errors.
102 JACK C. RICHARDS

Tarone, Elaine E. 1977. Conscious communication strategies: A progress

report. In H. Douglas Brown, C. Yorio, R. Crymes (eds.) On TESOL 1977.
Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

A classification of repairs and requests for assistance which occur

in L.2 communication when learners lack appropriate target language
items; includes approximation, word coinage, circumlocution,
borrowing, and miming.

Valdman, Albert. 1975. Learner systems and error analysis. In Gilbert

Jarvis (ed.) Perspective: A new freedom. Stokie, IL: National
Textbook Company. 219-258.

The best general introduction to the EA/interlanguage tradition.

Provides a detailed discussion of learner systems, L2 processes,
data collection and classification, and pedagogic application of
findings of EA.

Wode, Henning. 1979. Operating principles and "universals" in L^, L2, and
FLT. IRAL. 17.3.217-231.

Treats differences and parallels between 3 types of language

acquisition, utilizing Slobin's notions of operating principles
and acquisition universals.

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allwright, Richard, (ed.) 1975. Working papers: Language teaching
classroom research. Department of Language and Linguistics: University
of Essex.
. 1975. Problems in the study of the language teacher's
treatment of error. Paper presented at the TESOL convention. Los
Angeles.
Angelis, Paul J. 1975. Sentence combining, error analysis, and the
teaching of writing. In Burt and Dulay, 1975. 292-299.
Bailey, Charles-J. N. and Roger W. Shuy. (eds.) 1973. New ways of
analysing variation in English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Basball, Hans and Jacob Mey. In press. Papers from the fourth Scandinavian
conference of linguistics. Odense University.
Bell, Roger. 1974. Error analysis: A recent pseudo procedure in applied
linguistics. ITL. 23.35-49.
Brown, H. Douglas, Carlos Yorio, and Ruth Crymes. (eds.) 1977. On TESOL
1977. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Bruton, Anthony and Virginia Samuda. In press. Learner and teacher
roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC journal.
Burt, Mariana K. and Heidi Dulay. (eds.) 1975. On TESOL 1975. Washington:
D.C.: TESOL.
, and Mary Finocchiaro. (eds.) 1977.
Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents.
, and Eduardo Ch. Hernandez. 1975.
Bilingual syntax measure. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
 ERROR ANALYSIS 103

Burt, Marina and Carol Kiparsky. 1974. Global and local mistakes. In J.
Schumann and N. Stenson. (eds.) New frontiers in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Cancino, Herlinda, Ellen J. Rosansky, and John H. Schumann. 1974. Testing
hypotheses about second language acquisition: The copula and the
negative in three subjects. Working papers in bilingualism. 3.80-96.
Cathcart, Ruth L. and Judy E. W. B. Olsen. 1976. Teachers' and students'
preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. Paper
presented at the TESOL conference. New York.
Chaudron, Craig. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective
treatment of learner's errors. Language learning. 27.1.29-46.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1977. Error analysis and the learner's linguistic
repertoire. In Reports from the department of English. University
of Jyvaskyla, Finland. 4.45-58.
Christ, H. and H. E. Piepho. (eds.) 1977. KongreBdokumentation der 7:
Arbeitstagung der Fremdsprachendidaktiker. Limburg: Frankonius.
Cohen, Andrew. 1975. Error correction and the training of language
teachers. Modern language journal. 59.414-422.
and Margaret Robbins. 1976. Towards assessing interlanguage
performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners'
characteristics and learners' expectations. Language learning.
26.1.45-66.
Corder, S. Pit. 1967. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL. 5.4.
161-170.
. 1975. Error analysis, interlanguage, and second language
acquisition. Language teaching and linguistics. 8.201-217.
1977. Simple codes and the source of the second language
learner's initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in second language
acquisition. 1.1.1-11.
. 1978. Language-learner language. In Jack C. Richards, (ed.)
Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and
approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
. 1979. Language distance and the magnitude of the learning
task. Studies in second language acquisition. 2.1.27-36.
and Eddy Roulet. (eds.) 1975. Linguistic insights in
applied linguistics. Brussels: AIMAV.
De Camp, David. 1971. Implicational scales and sociolinguistic linearity.
Linguistics. 73.30-43.
Dickerson, Lonna J. 1975. The learner's interlanguage as a system of
variable rules. TESOL quarterly. 9.4.401-408.
Dittmar, Norbert. n.d. Ordering adult learners according to language
abilities, n.p.
Dulay, Heidi and Marina K. Burt. 1974b. Errors and strategies in child
second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly. 8.2.129-138.
. 1974c. Natural sequences in child second
v language acquisition. Language learning. 24.1.37-53.
Duskova, Libuse. 1969. On sources of errors in foreign languages. IRAL.
7.1.11-36.
Edmondson, Willis. 1977. Gambits in foreign language teaching. In H.
Christ and H. E. Piepho. (eds.) KongreBdokumentation der 7:
Arbeitstagung der Fremdsprachendidaktiker. Limburg: Frankonius.
45-48.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL
quarterly. 8.2.111-127.
Faerch, Claus. 1978a. Verbal complementation in Danish, English, and
104 JACK C. RICHARDS

the interlanguage of Danish learners in English. Paper presented

at the 5th International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Montreal.
Faerch, Claus. 1978b. Language learning studies: A survey of some recent
research studies. Occasional papers: 1976-1977. Department of English,
University of Copenhagen.
Fanselow, John F. 1977. The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign
language annals. 10.583-593.
Fathman, Anne K. 1975. Age, language background, and the order of
acquisition of English structures. Paper presented at the TESOL
conference, Los Angeles.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1971. Towards a characterization of English foreigner
talk. Anthropological linguistics. 17.1-14.
Flick, William C. 1978a. Disfluency phenomena in L2 speech behavior.
Paper presented at the M.L.A. meeting, Minneapolis.
. 1978b. A multiple component approach to research in
second language acquisition. Paper presented at the TESOL convention,
Mexico City.
^ ^ _ and Patricia L. Carrel. 1978. Acquisition of indirect
requests in ESL. Paper presented at the TESOL convention, Mexico City.
Freed, Barbara. 1978. Talking to foreigners versus talking to children:
similarities and differences. Paper presented at the Los Angeles
Second Language Research Forum.
Gatbonton, Elizabeth. 1975. Systematic variations in second language
speech: A sociolinguistic study. McGill University, Ph.D. diss.
Gumperz, John and Celia Roberts. 1978. Developing awareness skills for
interethnic communication. Middlesex: National Centre for Industrial
Training.
Hakuta, Kenji and Herlinda Cancinco. 1977. Trends in second-language
acquisition research. Harvard educational review. 48.3.294-315.
Hatch, Evelyn, (ed.) 1978. Second language acquisition: A book of
readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt: Pidgin-deutsch. 1978. Acquisition of
German by foreign workers. In D. Sankoff (ed.) Linguistic variation:
Models and methods. New York: Academic Press.
Henning, Carol Alice (ed.) 1977. Proceedings of the Los Angeles second
language research forum. Los Angeles: UCLA.
Hornby, Peter, (ed.) 1977. Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and
educational implications. New York: Academic Press.
Hyltenstam, Kenneth. 1977. Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax
variation. Language learning. 27.2.383-411.
James, Carl. 1974. Linguistic measures for error gravity. Audio-visual
language journal. 12.1.2-9.
Jarvis, Gilbert, (ed.) 1975. Perspective: A new freedom. Stokie, IL:
National Textbook Company.
Johansson, Stig. 1973. The identification and evaluation of errors in
foreign languages: A functional approach. In Jan Svartik. Errata:
Papers in error analysis. Lund: C. K. W. Gleerup. 102-114.
. (ed.) 1975. Papers in contrastive linguistics and language
testing. Lund: C. K. W. Gleerup.
Jordens, Peter. 1979. Case errors in German as a foreign language.
Working papers in TESL. Los Angeles: UCLA. 12.69-102.
Kaplan, Robert B. Forthcoming. Contrastive rhetoric: Some implications
for the writing process. Proceedings of the Canadian Council of
Teachers of English Convention, 1979. London: Longman.
 ERROR ANALYSIS 105

Kasper, Gabriele. 1979. Errors in s^ ech act realization and use of gambits.
The Canadian modern language review. 35.395-406.
Katz, Joel T. 1977. Foreigner talk input in child second language
acquisition: Its form and function over time. In C. A. Henning (ed.)
Proceedings of the Los Angeles 1inguage research forum. UCLA.
Kellerman, Eric. 1974. Elicitation, 1^.teralization, and error analysis.
York papers in linguistics: 4. Ur. versity of York. 165-189.
. 1977. Towards the characterization of the strategy of
transfer in second language learning. ,terlanguage studies bulletin.
2.1.58-146.
. 1978. Giving the learners a break: Natural language
intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working
papers in bilingualism. 15.59-93.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1977. The monitor model for adult second language
performance. In M. Burt, et al. (eds.) Viewpoint.-: on English as a
second language. New York: Regents. 152-161.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1975. The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by
adult second language students. TESOL quarterly. 9.4.409-419.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. Second language acquisition in childhood.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Milon, John. 1974. The development of negation in English by a second
language learner. TESOL quarterly. 8.2.137-143.
Morrissey, M. D. 1979. A typology of errors in non-finite verb
complementation. Linguistische Berichte.
Naiman, Neil. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language
acquisition research. Working papers in bilingualism. 3.1-37.
Nemser, William. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners.
IRAL. 9.2.115-123.
Noss, Richard B. 1979. Mistakes, mismatches, and gaps. RELC journal.
10.1.1-15.
Palmer, Leslie. 1973. A preliminary report on a study of the linguistic
correlates of raters' subjective judgements of non-native English
speech. In R. Shuy and R. W. Fasold. (eds.) Language attitudes:
Current trends and prospects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Phillipson, Robert. 1978. The intonation of Danes speaking English.
Working papers: 17. Lund: Phonetics Laboratory, Lund University.
Platt, John T. 1977. English past tense acquisition by Singaporeans—
implicational scaling versus group averages of marked forms.
ITL. 38.63-83.
Richards, Jack C. 1971a. Error analysis and second language strategies.
Language sciences. 17.1.12-22.
. (ed.) 1974. Error analysis: Perspectives on second
language acquisition. London: Longman.
. 1975. Simplification: A strategy in the adult
acquisition of a foreign language. Language learning. 25.1.115-126.
. (ed.) 1978. Understanding second and foreign language
learning: Issues and approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
. 1979. Introducing the perfect: An exercise in
pedagogic grammar. TESOL quarterly. 13.4.495-500.
Rutherford, William E. 1980. Functions of grammar in a language teaching
syllabus. To appear in Studies in language learning. University of
Illinois.
Sajavaara, Kari. 1977. Contrastive linguistics past and present and a
communicative approach. In Reports from the Department of English: 4.
106 JACK C. RICHARDS.

University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Sankoff, David, (ed.) 1978. Linguistic variation: Models and methods.
New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, Jacquelyn and William Rutherford. 1979. Discourse function and
language transfer. Working papers in bilingualism. 19.1-12.
Schmidt, Richard and Jack C. Richards. 1980. Speech acts and second language
learning. Applied linguistics. In press.
Schumann, John H. 1978. The pidginization process: A model for second
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
and Nancy Stenson. (eds.) 1974. New frontiers in second
language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schwartz, Joan. 1977. Extralinguistic features in conversational repairs
of adult second language learners. In C. A. Henning (ed.). Proceedings
of the Los Angeles second language acquisition forum. Los Angeles:
UCLA.
Scollon, Ron and Suzanne B. K. Scollon. 1979. Athabaskan-English
interethnic communication, ms.
Segalowitz, Norman and Elizabeth Gatbonton. 1977. Studies of the non-
fluent bilingual. In P. Hornby (ed.) Bilingualism: Psychological,
social, and educational implications. New York: Academic Press.
Selinker, Larry, Merrill Swain, and Guy Dumas. 1975. The interlanguage
hypothesis extended to children. Language learning. 25.1.139-152.
Shaughnessy, Mina. 1977. Errors and expectations: A guide for the
teaching of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, Roger W. and Ralph W. Fasold. (eds.) 1973. Language attitudes:
Current trends and prospects. Washington, D.C;: Georgetown University
Press.
Stenson, Nancy. 1974. Induced errors. In J. Schumann and N. Stenson (eds.)
New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Suppes, P. 1970. Probabilistic grammars for natural languages. Synthese.
22.95-116.
Svartik, Jan. 1973. Errata: Papers in error analysis. Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup.
Swain, Merrill, Guy Dumas, and Neil Naiman. 1974. Alternatives to
spontaneous speech: Elicited imitation and imitation as indicators
of second language competence. Working papers in bilingualism.
3.68-79.
Tarone, Elaine, Andrew Cohen, and Guy Dumas. 1976. A closer look at some
interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies.
Working papers in bilingualism. 9.76-91.
Taylor, Barry. 1975. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning
strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL. Language
learning. 25.1.73-107.
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1973. Some thoughts on natural syntactic processes.
In C-J. N. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (eds.) New ways of analysing
variation in English. Washington, D . C : Georgetown University Press.
Valdman, Albert. 1975. Error analysis and pedagogical ordering. In S. P.
Corder and E. Roulet (eds.) Linguistic insights in applied linguistics.
Brussels: AIMAV. 105-126.
Wilkins, David A. 1972. Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold,
Wode, Henning. 1976. Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2
acquisition. Working papers in bilingualism. 11.1-31.
Wolfson, Nessa. 1979. Let's have lunch sometime: Perceptions of
insincerity. Paper presented at the TESOL convention, Boston.
 ERROR ANALYSIS 107

Yasuda, Masami. 1978. Recent trends in error analysis and its pedagogical
implications. Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies. 27.41-55.
Zydatiss, Wolfgang. 1974. A "kiss of life" for the notion of error. IRAL.
12.3.234-237.