论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： The change of attitude towards the errors by second language learners witnessed the development of the theory of second language acquisition. Being a successor of Contrastive Analysis， Error Analysis became a heated subject and a recognized part of applied linguistics since the late 1960s.
Keywords： errors by second language learners， Contrastive Analysis， Error Analysis
In the process of learning English， the learner inevitably makes various errors. Before 1960s， when the behaviouristic viewpoint of language learning was prevailing， learner errors were considered something undesirable and to be avoided， as errors were considered to be a wrong response to the stimulus， which should be corrected immediately after they were made. Unless corrected properly， the error became a habit and a wrong behavioural pattern would stick in learner’s mind.
It was not until the late 1960s that people came to realize the importance of the errors made by a foreign language（FL） learner. Actually， an FL learner’s errors tell us more than when he/she produces correct， error-free utterances. As soon as an error is made， we can look at its nature and try to work out why it was made. It is rather like the pain that may tell the doctor more than all the parts that do not hurt.
1. From the perspective of Contrastive Analysis
In the history of SLA research， Error Analysis （EA） was a successor which supplanted Contrastive Analysis （CA） in the 1970s. CA was based on Behaviourism psychologically and Structurism in terms of linguistics. Contrastive Analysis had been interested in comparing two linguistic systems-the learner’s L1 （mother tongue） and the target L2 in order to find out the similarities as well as differences between them. The underlying assumption of CA was that L2 learners transfer the habits of their L1 into the L2. The transfer could be divided into two types. One was positive transfer which occurred when the habits of the L1 were the same as those of the L2. At that time， the learner would transfer appropriate properties and be successful. That is to say， the learner would find that part easy to learn and use it correctly. The other kind of transfer was called negative transfer. It occurred whenever the habit of the native language differed from those of the target language. In this process， the learner would transfer inappropriate properties and learner errors would result. On this account， CA sought to predict the errors that learners make by identifying the linguistic differences between their L1 and the target language. 2. The challenges that Contrastive Analysis was faced with
However， during the 1960s the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis （CAH） was challenged by Mentalism. Besides， people found that many errors committed by the learners could not be accounted for in terms of CA. There appeared a growing skepticism about the plausibility of a behaviourist （i.e. habit formation） account of Second Language Acquisition which was the basement of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Meanwhile many empirical studies of SLA failed to prove the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. On the contrary， many of these kinds of studies turned out to indicate that the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis made the wrong predictions. For example， people found that sometimes the second language learners were successful and made little errors where the linguistic structure of their mother tongue differed from those in the target language. That was beyond the explanation of CAH.
As a result， the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was in a wane and lost favor with many researchers. The awareness that many errors made by the second language learners were not due to the negative transfer led to researchers focusing on errors themselves， rather than on comparing the similarities and divergences between L1 and L2. With the shift of interest， researchers began to study and analyze the errors themselves. The study of errors was carried out by means of Error Analysis （EA）.
3. From the perspective of Error Analysis
The era of Error Analysis came with the publication of a well-known article-The Significance of Learner’s Errors which was written by Corder （1967）. The shift from comparing two linguistic systems-the learner’s L1 and the target L2 with a view to determining structural similarities and differences to focusing on the errors themselves was captured in Corder’s article. Corder maintained that learners’ errors were invaluable to the study of the language-learning process. According to him， if a teacher untakes a systematic analysis， he will find how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and， consequently， what remains for him to learn. Errors came to be viewed as a reflection of L2 learners’ mental knowledge of the second language： their interlanguage grammar （Selinker： 1972）. Researchers therefore began to analyze corpora of second language errors in order to understand better the nature of interlanguage grammar.
Serving as an important instrument of research， Error Analysis was first prominent in the late 1960s. As being mentioned above， the wave of interest in learner errors started as a challenge to the Contrastive Analysis notion that errors were solely evidence of the first language interference. CA gave way to EA as this notion came to be challenged. In fact， Error Analysis was not a new development. As Sridhar pointed out that Error Analysis had a long tradition. However， before the early 1970s， Error Analysis consisted of little more than impressionistic collections of “common” errors and their linguistic classification. The goals of traditional Error Analysis were pedagogic， for errors provided information for teaching and for designing remedial lessons. But because of the absence of any theoretical framework for explaining the role played by errors in the process of Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， there were no serious attempts to define “error” or to account for it in terms of psychology. Also as the enthusiasm for Contrastive Analysis grew， the interest in Error Analysis declined. In accordance with Behaviouristive learning theory， the prevention of errors （the goal of Contrastive Analysis） was more important than the identification of errors. It was not until the late 1960s that there was a resurgence of interest in Error Analysis. A series of articles by Corder （e.g. 1967；1971；1974；1981） traced this resurgence and helped to give it direction. According to Corder （1974：25）， EA was instructive because it can be used in three ways ： （1） to tell the teachers how much the learners have learnt， （2） to assist SLA researchers in piecing together a picture of language development， and （3） to enable learners to learn the rules of language through error correction. Besides， Corder （1981） also stated that there were two justifications for studying learners’ errors： its relevance to language teaching and the study of the language acquisition process. Since the late 1960s， Error Analysis had been a heated subject， becoming a recognized part of applied linguistics as well as a development owing much to the work of Corder’s works， many works had focused on it concerning the classifications， the causes of the errors of the errors committed by the second language learners. In China， most researches into Error Analysis focused on the review or survey of it （Tang 1995； Wu 1998； Hong 1998）.
Bibliography
[1]. Corder， S.P. The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5， 1967：161-70.
[2]. Corder， S.P. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9， 1971： 149-159.
[3]. Corder， S.P. Error analysis. In Allen and Corder （eds）， 1974.
[4]. Corder， S.P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford： Oxford University Press， 1981.
[5]. Selinker， L. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10， 1972： 209-231.
[6]. 洪流. 中介语错误探源，《山东外语教学》第4期，1998：34-37.
[7]. 唐承贤. 差错分析综述，《山东外语教学》第6期，1995：46-50.
[8]. 武波. 误差分析述评，《外语与翻译》第2期，1998：23-28.
作者简介：李祖君（1976-），男，广西灵山人。钦州学院外国语学院讲师，硕士，研究方向为英语语言学与应用语言学。
Keywords： errors by second language learners， Contrastive Analysis， Error Analysis
In the process of learning English， the learner inevitably makes various errors. Before 1960s， when the behaviouristic viewpoint of language learning was prevailing， learner errors were considered something undesirable and to be avoided， as errors were considered to be a wrong response to the stimulus， which should be corrected immediately after they were made. Unless corrected properly， the error became a habit and a wrong behavioural pattern would stick in learner’s mind.
It was not until the late 1960s that people came to realize the importance of the errors made by a foreign language（FL） learner. Actually， an FL learner’s errors tell us more than when he/she produces correct， error-free utterances. As soon as an error is made， we can look at its nature and try to work out why it was made. It is rather like the pain that may tell the doctor more than all the parts that do not hurt.
1. From the perspective of Contrastive Analysis
In the history of SLA research， Error Analysis （EA） was a successor which supplanted Contrastive Analysis （CA） in the 1970s. CA was based on Behaviourism psychologically and Structurism in terms of linguistics. Contrastive Analysis had been interested in comparing two linguistic systems-the learner’s L1 （mother tongue） and the target L2 in order to find out the similarities as well as differences between them. The underlying assumption of CA was that L2 learners transfer the habits of their L1 into the L2. The transfer could be divided into two types. One was positive transfer which occurred when the habits of the L1 were the same as those of the L2. At that time， the learner would transfer appropriate properties and be successful. That is to say， the learner would find that part easy to learn and use it correctly. The other kind of transfer was called negative transfer. It occurred whenever the habit of the native language differed from those of the target language. In this process， the learner would transfer inappropriate properties and learner errors would result. On this account， CA sought to predict the errors that learners make by identifying the linguistic differences between their L1 and the target language. 2. The challenges that Contrastive Analysis was faced with
However， during the 1960s the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis （CAH） was challenged by Mentalism. Besides， people found that many errors committed by the learners could not be accounted for in terms of CA. There appeared a growing skepticism about the plausibility of a behaviourist （i.e. habit formation） account of Second Language Acquisition which was the basement of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Meanwhile many empirical studies of SLA failed to prove the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. On the contrary， many of these kinds of studies turned out to indicate that the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis made the wrong predictions. For example， people found that sometimes the second language learners were successful and made little errors where the linguistic structure of their mother tongue differed from those in the target language. That was beyond the explanation of CAH.
As a result， the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was in a wane and lost favor with many researchers. The awareness that many errors made by the second language learners were not due to the negative transfer led to researchers focusing on errors themselves， rather than on comparing the similarities and divergences between L1 and L2. With the shift of interest， researchers began to study and analyze the errors themselves. The study of errors was carried out by means of Error Analysis （EA）.
3. From the perspective of Error Analysis
The era of Error Analysis came with the publication of a well-known article-The Significance of Learner’s Errors which was written by Corder （1967）. The shift from comparing two linguistic systems-the learner’s L1 and the target L2 with a view to determining structural similarities and differences to focusing on the errors themselves was captured in Corder’s article. Corder maintained that learners’ errors were invaluable to the study of the language-learning process. According to him， if a teacher untakes a systematic analysis， he will find how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and， consequently， what remains for him to learn. Errors came to be viewed as a reflection of L2 learners’ mental knowledge of the second language： their interlanguage grammar （Selinker： 1972）. Researchers therefore began to analyze corpora of second language errors in order to understand better the nature of interlanguage grammar.
Serving as an important instrument of research， Error Analysis was first prominent in the late 1960s. As being mentioned above， the wave of interest in learner errors started as a challenge to the Contrastive Analysis notion that errors were solely evidence of the first language interference. CA gave way to EA as this notion came to be challenged. In fact， Error Analysis was not a new development. As Sridhar pointed out that Error Analysis had a long tradition. However， before the early 1970s， Error Analysis consisted of little more than impressionistic collections of “common” errors and their linguistic classification. The goals of traditional Error Analysis were pedagogic， for errors provided information for teaching and for designing remedial lessons. But because of the absence of any theoretical framework for explaining the role played by errors in the process of Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， there were no serious attempts to define “error” or to account for it in terms of psychology. Also as the enthusiasm for Contrastive Analysis grew， the interest in Error Analysis declined. In accordance with Behaviouristive learning theory， the prevention of errors （the goal of Contrastive Analysis） was more important than the identification of errors. It was not until the late 1960s that there was a resurgence of interest in Error Analysis. A series of articles by Corder （e.g. 1967；1971；1974；1981） traced this resurgence and helped to give it direction. According to Corder （1974：25）， EA was instructive because it can be used in three ways ： （1） to tell the teachers how much the learners have learnt， （2） to assist SLA researchers in piecing together a picture of language development， and （3） to enable learners to learn the rules of language through error correction. Besides， Corder （1981） also stated that there were two justifications for studying learners’ errors： its relevance to language teaching and the study of the language acquisition process. Since the late 1960s， Error Analysis had been a heated subject， becoming a recognized part of applied linguistics as well as a development owing much to the work of Corder’s works， many works had focused on it concerning the classifications， the causes of the errors of the errors committed by the second language learners. In China， most researches into Error Analysis focused on the review or survey of it （Tang 1995； Wu 1998； Hong 1998）.
Bibliography
[1]. Corder， S.P. The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5， 1967：161-70.
[2]. Corder， S.P. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9， 1971： 149-159.
[3]. Corder， S.P. Error analysis. In Allen and Corder （eds）， 1974.
[4]. Corder， S.P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford： Oxford University Press， 1981.
[5]. Selinker， L. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10， 1972： 209-231.
[6]. 洪流. 中介语错误探源，《山东外语教学》第4期，1998：34-37.
[7]. 唐承贤. 差错分析综述，《山东外语教学》第6期，1995：46-50.
[8]. 武波. 误差分析述评，《外语与翻译》第2期，1998：23-28.
作者简介：李祖君（1976-），男，广西灵山人。钦州学院外国语学院讲师，硕士，研究方向为英语语言学与应用语言学。