Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

Introduction

English has become the most useful and important language in the world. People around
the world have become aware of the importance of learning English as a means of obtaining an
education or securing employment. With the growing interest of English learning as a matter of
concern in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), another dimension in focusing on
language learning rather than language teaching has been taken forwards by applied linguists and
FL teachers. They were interested to solve problems faced by FL learners (Grape, 2002).
However, this doesn‟t mean that teaching of English was totally ignored. From this point, a series
of empirical researches into language teaching for instance (Klein, 1995) cited in (Sanz, Bowden,
& Strafford, 2005); (Ellis, 1997b) were done taking language learner as a corner stone in those
investigations.

Key Concepts

FL learning, as a part of second language acquisition (SLA) has known a great deal of
improvement and growing at the level of technical terms. These terms are usually used to label
the FL learning knowledge. (Ellis, 1997) stated that words constitute the goods that are carefully
guarded by the practitioners of the field. There are some concepts that are considered as essential
elements in describing and analyzing the process of FL learning

1.1. Language Transfer

The study of language transfer has been a long standing matter in applied linguistics for
its great importance in language pedagogy and the widespread impact it has on learning a foreign
language. According to (Selinker L. , 1972), language transfer is one of the central processes
which produce what he calls fossilised competences and which are central to L2 learning
processes.

(Richards, 1974, p. 6) states that interference “tends to be from the deviant sentence back to the
mother tongue”. He adds that linguists found that one –third of the wrong sentences from L2
learners are due to language transfer. Lance (1969) and Burudhipiabha (1972) cited from
(Richards, 1974, p. 5) . said that it would be impossible to evaluate the effect of “systematic

2
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

language interference” nowadays. Hence, this issue must be taken into account by foreign
language teachers and curriculum designers. (Skehan, 2008) defines language transfer as the
influence of the MT or any other language which have been learned. So, the FL learners tend to
transfer their knowledge of their MT to the other languages they learn because they face conflicts
between the old language system and the new one of the target language. Language transfer
appears in many situations. It can appear as positive transfer, negative transfer, and cross-
linguistic influence.

1.1.1. Positive Transfer

When learning a foreign language, an individual already have a prior linguistic knowledge
of the mother tongue. He attempts to transfer it to the target language. The transfer may prove to
be justified when the structures of the two languages are similar; in this case we get „positive
transfer‟ or „facilitation‟
Positive transfer indicates that there are more similarities than differences between MT
and FL, which make learning a FL easy. So, the learner will transfer rules from the previously
acquired language without causing any problem of misperformance and with facilitation. (Odlin,
1989) assumes that the less differences between the L1 and L2 they are; the more positive and
helpful the influence of the MT will be. For instance, English and French have a large amount of
common vocabulary, and this latter leads the learner of the two languages to transfer positively
from their MT. However, the case is not the same for Arab learners who have a different
language which is totally different from English and has a different origin.
(Yule, 2006, p. 167) states that “if the L1 and L2 have similar features (e.g. marking
plural at the ends of nouns), then, the learner may be able to benefit from the positive transfer of
the L1 knowledge to the L2”. Yule in his quotation suggests when the L1 is similar to the L2, this
may facilitate the progress of learning the L2 rules and application.

1.1.2. Negative Transfer

It indicates those errors due to the differences between the MT and the FL. (Yule, 2006)
describes negative transfer that “transferring a L1 feature which is really different from the L2 (e.
g. putting the adjective after the noun) results in negative transfer and it may make the L2

3
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

expression difficult to understand” (168). Yule in his quotation states that negative transfer can be
described as the transfer of a behaviour „X‟ which impedes the learning or has a negative
influence on the commands of a behaviour „Y‟ because of differences between both behaviours.
Furthermore, (Richard, 1992) states that making an error and use wrongly the rules of L2 is due
to the application of L1 rules on the L2. So, negative transfer or, in the most common
terminology, interference is the faulty application of one‟s language structures in an FL (Trauth
& Kazzazik, 2006). It is the major cause of learning difficulties and errors which in turn hinder s
or modifies the learning of TL. Hence, FL learners can use their MT in a non-native language
context that leads to a non-target –like form (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 94) suggest two types of
interference. The type of retroactive inhibition where learning acts return to previously learned
material causing someone to forget. The second one, is proactive inhibition where a set of
responses that already have been learned are likely to appear in situations where a new set is
entailed. Negative transfer or interference, in fact, can be resulted in any area of language;
Grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

1.1.3. Cross-Linguistic Influence

Cross-linguistic influence claims that prior language experiences have an impact on the
way a language is learned, but these experiences do not consistently have predictive value
(Brown H. , 2000). Cross linguistic influence is another term of language transfer. (Cook &
Seidhofer, 2001) However, cross-linguistic influence is more appropriate because it is neutral
than the active sounding transfer. In addition, Kellerman and Sharwood Smith cited in (Cenoz,
Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001, p. 1) have argued that L1 Transfer is inadequate. Thus, they have
suggested cross-linguistic influence to refer to transfer, interference avoidance, borrowing, and
L2-related aspects of language loss because transfer is closely associated with behaviorist
learning theory. Others, like (Trauth & Kazzazik, 2006) assign that the phenomenon of cross-
linguistic influence appeared in situations when more than two different languages are used
together. It is noticed then, in the mutual of those exchanges of those languages used by an
individual. That is to say, cross-linguistic influence is the influence of other languages learned for
their linguistic closeness or because the individual in proficient in others. Furthermore, there are
many factors that might affect this phenomenon. In her discussion about those factors, (Cenoz J. ,

4
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

2001) states that age, context of use, proficiency ad linguistic distance have n impact on cross-
linguistic influence. She provided empirical evidences that cross-linguistic influence is highlt
supposed to occur from languages that are learned just before the target one rather than from
those that have been learned many years before and that older learners show more linguistic
influence than younger ones.

1.2. Interlanguage
The term „Interlanguage‟ (IL) was pioneered by Selinker in 1969 in reference to “the
interim grammars constructed by second-language learners in their way to the target language”
(McLaughlin, 1987). Interlanguage is another concept that must be highlighted for its importance
in the field of foreign language learning. The term refers to the separation of second or foreign
language learners system; a system created by learners that has structurally intermediate status
between the native and TL. The developing learner language has been postulated for the study as
a system in its own right rather than studying errors in isolation (Stern, 2001). This system,
further, contains components of both languages and other new forms that have origins neither
from the MT nor from FL. In other words, the learners themselves impose structures on the
available linguistic data and formulate an internalized system. According to (McDonough, 2002),
the concept of Interlanguage is
“A way of conceptualizing the need to describe the learners’ language as an
incomplete language in its own right, but it is also expressed the perception that
learners do not learn only what they are taught, but that they sometimes seem to
know things that they have not been taught, creating successive versions of the
target language grammar underlying the learner dialect they use, which move
between that of their native language and that of the new language.” (p.58)

Thus, the process of IL is said to be another language different from the native and
TL with its own rules of grammar, its own set of vocabulary and its own type of
pronunciation. Furthermore, learners tend to go through series of ILs in a systematic and
predictable ways. That is, learners construct series of mental grammar or ILs as they
gradually increase the complexity of their FL knowledge. They change their grammar

5
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

from time to another by adding or deleting rules or even restructuring the whole system.
This dynamic system is pictured as a continuum on which the learner builds up the
knowledge of the TL in a systematic way.
In fact there are other terms that explain the learners‟ underlying knowledge of the
TL from different aspects. (Littlewood, 1998) views some of these terms, for instance,
such given by (Corder,1967) as cited in (Littlewood, 1998, p. 33) as “Transitional
Competence” to describe a temporary competence that has developed by learners at a
particular stage. (Corder, 1971) as cited in (Littlewood, 1998, p. 33), “Approximative
System” to refer to the structural aspects of the learners‟ developing language which are
nearly similar to the TL system.
IL has, interestingly, gained much of concern in the field of SLA for its main importance.
It provides information about how language learners develop their learning. As well as
analyzing IL gives an explanation of how learners are influenced by their MT which in
turn is predicted through the analysis of the similarities and the dissimilarities of the
native and TL or otherwise through Contrastive Analysis (CA).

1.3. Contrastive Analysis

When learning a foreign language (FL), students face many kinds of problems.
These problems can occur in sound system, vocabulary, structure, etc. This is
understandable, since the student learning the FL has spoken his MT, which has been
deeply fixed in him as a part of his habit. The student often transfers his habits into the
TL he learns, errors may occur in this case.
The Contrastive Analysis (CA) theory, founded by Fries, is the systematic study of a pair
of languages. It identifies the structure differences and similarities between L1 and TL
based on the assumption that similarities facilitate learning while differences cause
problems. Fries wrote:
“The most effective materials are those that are based upon a scientific
description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel
description of the native language of the learner.” (1945: 9)

6
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

The basic concept behind CA was that a structural „picture‟ of any one language could be
constructed, which might then be used in direct comparison with the structural „picture‟
of another language. Through a process of „mapping‟ one system onto another,
similarities and differences could be identified. Identifying the differences would lead to
a better understanding of the potential problems that a learner of the particular TL would
face.
CA assumed that errors are caused by the different elements between NL and TL (Fisiak,
1981, p. 7). Thus, CA followers suggest that teachers do CA between NL and TL so as to
anticipate the learning problems that might be faced by their students.

1.3.1. Definition
Fisiak defines contrastive linguistics as
“A sub-discipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more
languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the
differences and similarities between them” Fisiak et al. 1978 cited in (Fisiak,
1981, p. 1).

As Krzeszovski explains (1990, p. 11), there is, unfortunately, not much consistency in
the terminology related to contrastive linguistics. However, the terms „contrastive
linguistics‟ and „contrastive studies‟ are most often used.
The term, „contrastive linguistics‟ is usually used to refer to the whole field of cross-
language comparison, focusing on the cases related to the theory or methodology of
comparisons. Another term, „contrastive analysis‟, can be used interchangeably with the
above mentioned terms, but linguists tend to use it to refer to the comparison accurately.
And finally, „contrastive grammar‟ refers to “the product of contrastive studies, as a
bilingual grammar highlighting the differences across languages” (Krzeszowski, 1990,
p. 11)

7
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

1.3.2. Contrastive Studies

(Fisiak, 1981, pp. 2-3) divides contrastive studies into two, theoretical and
applied:

“Theoretical contrastive studies give an exhaustive account of the differences

and similarities between two or more languages, provide an adequate model
for the comparison, and determine how and which elements are comparable
…”
They are language independent; this means that they do not investigate how a
particular category or item present in language A is presented in language B, but “they
look for the realization of an universal category X in both A and B” (Fisiak, 1981, p. 2)
Applied contrastive studies belong to applied linguistics. (Fisiak, 1981, pp. 2-3) explains
that
“Drawing on the findings of theoretical contrastive studies they provide a
framework for the comparison of languages, selecting whatever information
is necessary for a specific purpose …”

The main focus of applied contrastive studies is “the problem of how a universal
category X, realized in language A as Y, is rendered in language B, and what may be the
possible consequence on this for a field of application” (Fisiak, 1981, pp. 2-3) They are
also concerned with “the identification of probable areas of difficulty in another
language where, for example, a given category is not represented in the surface and
interference is likely to occur” (Fisiak, 1981, p. 3) So they are rather interested in the
surface representation of language. Being a part of applied linguistics; applied
contrastive studies depend on several other disciplines, including theoretical, descriptive
and comparative linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, didactics and psychology
of learning and teaching (Krzeszowski, 1990)

8
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

1.3.3. Contrastive Analysis Criticism

The early promoters and their inspirers soon came under severe criticism by many
researchers who attempted to prove that Contrastive Analysis was theoretically
inconclusive and pedagogically fruitless. Not least of those researchers who refused to
share Skinner's anti-mentalist view of learning was Chomsky who managed to destroy
not only Skinner's radical stand but also the entire behaviouristic position in
contemporary psychology and psycholinguistics. In his review of Skinner's 'Verbal
Behaviour' as well as in subsequent works, (Chomsky N. , 1959, p. 158) was able to find
"no support whatsoever for the doctrine of Skinner and others that slow and careful
shaping of verbal behaviour through differential reinforcement is an absolute necessity".

Chomsky's criticism of the behaviourist conception of language and language

learning can be summarised using his own statements:
 Language is not a habit structure. (1966, p. 44)Repetition of fixed phrases is a rarity.
(1966, p. 46)
 The notion that linguistic behaviour consists of 'responses' to 'stimuli' is as much a
myth as the idea that it is a matter of habit and generalization. (1966, p. 46)
 Ordinary linguistic behaviour characteristically involves innovation, formulation of
new sentences and new patterns in accordance with rules of great abstractness and
intricacy. . (1966, p. 44)
 There are no known principles of association or reinforcement and no known sense
of "generalization" that can begin to account for this characteristic "creative" aspect
of language use. (1966, p. 44)
So, instead of the behaviourist reinforcement factor in language learning, Chomsky
stressed other factors such as the learner's innate mental and cognitive abilities in
constructing and generating the grammar of a given language. His ideas gave rise to a
new orientation in linguistic and psycholinguistic research, which resulted in much more
emphasis on cognitive processes. Linguists set themselves to account for the phenomenon
of language learning on the basis of such notions as innateness and creativity.

9
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

Contrastive Analysis, which flourished in the fifties and early sixties, found great
antipathy from researchers of the late sixties and early seventies. Strongly associated with
the 'old fashioned' behaviourist theory in language learning, it was severely condemned
by a very 'up to date' cognitive trend in linguistic research. The heart of the debate
between contrastive analysts and cognitivists was the notion of transfer and its
importance in learning a second language. Researchers such as (Dulay & Burt, 1974b)
and (Corder S. , 1971) did their best to prove that very few errors in learning a second
language were due to interference of the native language. Dulay and Burt, for instance,
found that out of 513 errors made by 179 children, less than 5% could be classified as
interference errors, while 86% were of the same type as first language learners make. So,
instead of investigating the role of the mother tongue, these researchers emphasised the
similarity between first and second language 'acquisition' (Corder, 1967), something that
was referred to as the L1=L2 Hypothesis.
They shifted from the study of transfer to the study of how a given learner creates
hypotheses about the second language rules in the process of learning and how s/he
creates his/her own grammar, which is neither that of the native language nor that of the
second one. This newly conceived process of learning was called the Creative
Construction Hypothesis (Dulay & Burt, 1974b). The outcome of the process was
referred to by different names. It was referred to as an 'approximative system' by
(Nemser, 1971a), as an 'idiosyncratic dialect' by Corder (1971), as 'an interlanguage' by
Selinker (1972), and, finally, as a 'transitional competence' by Corder (1975). The term
that has been extensively used is that suggested by Selinker.

1.4. Error Analysis

Errors or mistakes committed by students in the foreign language classroom had had a hard
time until current views on them became widely accepted. Even in modern time, errors in the
foreign language classroom were once harshly banned. The structuralist (descriptive) linguist tool
the philosophy that language was a set of mechanistic habits from the behaviourist psychologist
and put it into practice in his audio-lingual classroom, where errors were carefully avoided right
from the very beginning and banned from every learning stage. With the emergence of the

10
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

generative-transformational theory in linguistics and the cognitive movement in psychology, the

attitude towards errors has changed almost overnight. Students‟ errors are thus treated as a
surface phenomenon and are sometimes the learner‟s own system to approximate the real system
of the target language. (Chiang, 1981, p. 10)
As a matter of fact, “correct” production yields little information about the actual
linguistic system of learners. Thus the comprehensive and considerate feedback to them and
eventually help them achieve successful learning.

1.4.1. Error’s Definition

As stated by (Ellis, 1994), an error is a deviation in learner language that is resulted from the lack
of knowledge of the correct rules. He adds, further, that an error can be overt or covert. By overt
errors, Ellis means that the deviation is clearly seen in the surface form of the learner
performance. However, in the covert error, the deviation is obvious unless the intended meaning
is taken into account. An error is defined by (Piske & Young-Scholten, 2009, p. 261) as “a non-
target from which represents a systematic stage of development.” In addition, (Lennon, 1991)
cited in (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 182) has defined an error as:
“A linguistics form or combination of forms which, in the same context and
under similar conditions of production, would not in all likelihood be produced
by the speakers’ native speaker counterparts.”

In contrast to early concepts in the field of SLA, errors became a legitimate

object of enquiry in 1967 inspired by Corder‟s positive stance towards errors. As cited
in (Piske & Young-Scholten, 2009, p. 4). (Sanz, Bowden, & Strafford, 2005) point out
that, errors are now seen as a natural and necessary stage in the learners‟ IL because
they provided a window onto this IL. N addition, learner‟s errors that have been
observed are taken as a source of information about how learners are improving their
learning and what are the entailed skills and rules that should received much importance
than others. In other words, learners‟ errors are not all bad, since they can show the
teacher that the learners are progressing naturally towards the mastery of the TL system.
Thus, the definition of errors is regarded as having a bit of ambiguity because of the

11
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

notion of error is often confused with mistake. So, it is essential to provide a brief
distinction between mistakes and errors.

1.4.2. Errors vs. Mistakes

People may produce or make incorrect things that are distinct from the ordinary
forms. Any spoken or written text may contain some items that mat break the rules of
standard language. This rule-breaking is divided into two types by many scholars and
linguists, (Corder, 1967) cited in (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 102), (Ellis, 1994),
(Coulthard, 2001), (Littlewood, 1998), and others: performance mistakes and
competence errors. On the one hand, performance mistakes include all the rule-breaking
that have been consciously done by any speaker under some circumstances. That is to
say, speakers know the correct form and they know that they have broken the rule as
well. However, mistakes are only related to learners‟ performance and which are similar
to slips of the tongue resulted from loss of rules, lack of attention, tiredness, or
carelessness. The learner who makes a mistake is able to recognize the mistake and
correct it. According to (Ellis, 1994) mistakes may happen when learners are not able to
use their knowledge of TL rules; consequently they apply other rules which are easier
for them to access. Competence errors, on the other hand, are those deviations that are
resulted from a lack of knowledge of their right rules of a FL. Learners in this case
follow non-standard rules constructed by themselves because they have not mastered
the standard rules of TL. Besides, learner errors are systematic. That is to say, learners
repeatedly commit the same deviations and the learners cannot realize that those
deviations are errors. Errors, in turn, are categorized according to EA into two groups.

1.4.3. Types of Errors

Unlike CA, EA provides a broader range of possible explanations for errors. Since it
seeks to contribute many sources of errors, not only to those related to MT transfer. Within the
framework of EA, errors are considered to occur in two different types: Interlingual and
Intralingual Errors.

12
Department of English – University of Djelfa Applied Linguistics For language Teaching

1.4.3.1. Interlingual Errors

Interlingual Errors are one type of errors that error analysts have tried to reveal. This kind
of errors is typically categorized to contain those errors that can be attributed to native language.
In other words, they refer to transferring rules from MT. In addition, they are concerned only
with negative influences of MT, That‟s why these errors are also called “Interference Errors”.

1.4.3.2. Intralingual Errors

As stated by other error analysts for instance Dulay and Burt (1974, as cited in Gass &
Selinker, 2008), the vast majority of errors learners used to fall in are intralingual. (Littlewood,
1998) claims that errors of this type show that learners are processing the FL in its own terms.
i.e., they are independent of the native language. He adds, further, that those errors can be
produced by the native speakers of TL. Moreover, intralingual errors can be committed by
learners of different first languages (Gass & Selinker, 2008). Transfer from MT, in this type, is
only of minor importance.

1.4.4. Error in First and Second Language Acquisition

Language learning is a process in which learners profit from mistakes by obtaining
feedback to make new attempts that successively approximate the desired goals. Learners‟ errors
can also “provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what
strategies and procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language” (Corder,
1967, p. 167) However, sometimes the feedback from an error can be strongly negative that the
learner would give up making new attempts and the learning would end up in failure. This
process is shown in the following diagram

Give up -> Failure

Try -> error -> feedback -> new attempt -> desired Goal

Therefore, Holley and King 1974 discuss the role of correction in the second-language
classroom. Their claim is that students will be greatly discouraged if correction of errors in the

13