Error Analysis and Mother Tongue Transfer.doc

题目 Error Analysis and Mother Tongue Transfer专 业 英 语 语 言 学研究方向 语 言 学申请人 汪 春 娣届 别 二 零 零 三导 师 朱 跃 教 授年 月 日AcknowledgementFor the two years of my study in The School of Foreign Studies, I would like to express my appreciative thanks to Professor Hua Quankun, Professor Hong Zengliu, Professor Zhou Fangzhu, Professor Zhang Ming, Professor He Gongjie, Professor Xiao Shuhui, Professor Zhang Zuwu, Professor Li Yongfang and many others for their delicate instructions. I am especially grateful to Professor Zhu Yue whose critical comments and sound advice in the writing of this paper have been invaluable and much appreciated. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that this paper would not have been possible without the help of many of my colleagues.Contents1.Introduction-12.The literature review-22.1 Error analysis and its psychological basis 22.2 The procedures of EA 32.3 Related research of EA from abroad and the limitations of EA 5 2.4 Related research in China 93. Research design-103.1 Quantitative design 113.1.1 Subject 113.1.2 Instrument Error sample Questionnaire 113.2 Qualitative design 123.2.1 Descriptive analysis 123.2.2 Interview 124. Data collection and analysis-124.1 Collection of errors 124.2 Descriptive statistics of error analysis 144.3 Descriptive statistics of the sources of errors 155. Discussion-185.1 Interlingual errors or interferences 185.2 Intralingual errors or developmental errors 275.3 The other errors 315.4 The result of 21 percent interference 345.5 Insight into English teaching 366. Conclusion-39Reference 41AbstractMother tongue transfer has been a controversial issue in foreign language learning. Much empirical work on EA has been focused on determining what proportions of errors in a corpus are due to inter-lingual transfer as opposed to intra-lingual transfer since 1970s. One of the studies of this kind worth mentioning is carried out by Dulay and Burt (1974). They have selected 179 Spanish children and studied the errors made in their English learning. After the analysis of the errors, they claim that the proportion of mother tongue interference is only 3 per cent. Other researches show that the mean percentage is about 30 percent (Ellis, 2001). In China, however, the researches in this aspect are not often seen. Based on the collection of the errors from 355 compositions of the second year college students, the paper identifies 15 types of common errors and their frequency distributions. The quantitative analysis of the errors and the study of their frequency distributions show that the error frequency distributions are not distinctive. Through the quantitative analysis of the data from the questionnaires, the paper finds that, in China, the errors due to mother tongue interference amount to 21 per cent. Through the qualitative error analysis, the paper discovers that the students uses of verb tenses, plural forms of nouns, sentence structures, articles, prepositions and cognate words are liable to be affected by their mother tongue. After a careful analysis of the students errors, the paper puts forward suggestions that feasible measures be taken to deal with the problems in English teaching so as to improve students proficiency in English. Key words：error analysis mother tongue transfer inter-lingual error intra-lingual error Chinese interference developmental error论文摘要母语迁移一直是二语习得领域引起争议的问题。自二十世纪七十年代初以来，国外错误分析的焦点一直是母语迁移在错误语料库中所占的比例；其中最引人瞩目的人是Dulay and Burt (1974)，他们通过对179名母语为西班牙语的一组儿童学习英语所犯错误分析发现只有3%的错误可归为母语干扰；另一些错误分析统计也发现由母语干扰导致的错误一般只占30%左右（Ellis, 2001）；而国内错误分析的相关研究少有涉及母语干扰的具体比例。本文通过对355名大学二年级学生书面作文错误的收集，归纳出大学生写作中常见的15种错误及其分布比例。通过对错误的定量分析，得出各种错误在各变量之间的比例没有显著差异；通过对问卷的定量分析，得出在汉语环境下有21%的错误来自母语干扰；对具体的错误定性分析，还显示动词时态、名词复数、句子结构、冠词和介词等错误易受母语干扰。最后，本文对上述调查结果进行分析，指出在教学中应注意来自母语干扰的错误；提出应加强语法、词汇、阅读和写作等方面的教学，并强调教学应以读写为本。关键词：错误分析 母语迁移 汉语干扰 语际错误 语内错误 学习过程中错误1.IntroductionThe study of second language acquisition (SLA) as a new discipline has developed quickly at the turning of the new century. There have been extensive researches done in this field. Among them, error analysis (EA) and language transfer are common and controversial issues which many linguists and foreign teachers have concerned themselves about for years. The study of error analysis rose at the end of 1960s and developed in 1970s, providing us an important method for SLA research. Together with the study of language transfer, the focus, which previously was on the learners external environment, now has been switched to the internal onethe learners themselves. The underlying assumption of contrastive analysis (CA) was that error occurred primarily as a result of interference when the learners transferred native language habits to the use of second language (L2). Interference was believed to take place whenever the habits of the native language differed from those of the target language. CA gave way to EA as this assumption came to be challenged. Dulay and Burt (1974) claimed that the proportion of interference was only 3 percent. Wilkins (1972) even suggested abandoning the idea of “transfer”, since it could not account for all the difficulties and errors that learners had in their learning process. However, some recent findings show that the greater the difference between the two language systems, the larger the transfer will be (Koda, 1999). Chinese interference in English learning has been recognized (Tran-Chi-Chau, 1974, Wang Zongyan, 1980, Sun Mianzhi, 2001). James (2001) points out that no responsible Contrastive Analyst ever claims that all foreign language errors are due to first language (L1) interference, or go to the opposite extreme of claiming that virtually no errors are caused by L1 transfer. Under the circumstances of the above contradictory and confusing findings, the research attempts to explore the possible proportion of Chinese interference in Chinese context. The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:(1) What are the most common errors that students commit in their writing?(2) What proportion of the total errors in a corpus is due to transfer as apposed to intra-lingual errors in Chinese context?1. The literature review2.1 Error Analysis and its psychological basis“Error” refers generally to the learners misuse or misunderstanding of the target language, may it be grammatical or pragmatic. An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the limit of the learners competence in using the target language. It reveals the learners knowledge of the target language. Error Analysis is a type of bilingual comparison, a comparison between learners interlanguage and the target language. It is a methodology of describing second language learners language system. There are two justifications for the study of learners errors: The first is pedagogical, which claims that a good understanding of the nature of errors is necessary before a systematic means of eradicating them can be found. The second is theoretical, which claims that a study of learners errors is part of the systematic study of the learners language. By studying error analysis, it will be possible to identify the learning process that the learners are going through, thus finding out how learners second language proficiency develops (Hu Zhuangling, 2001).With the development of the applied linguistics, two kinds of attitudes towards learners errors have turned up. According to the behaviourists accounts, errors are viewed as the result of the negative transfer of L1 habits. In other words, the learners fail to change their old habits so as to acquire new habits of the second language. According to the mentalists accounts, errors are predicted to be similar to those found in L1 acquisition because learners actively construct the grammar of a L2 as they progress. The errors they make are actually their incorrect hypotheses about the new language. Another linguistic system, interlanguage (IL), is based on the observable output which results from a learners attempted production of a target language form. Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) is formed when the learners attempt to learn a new language, and it has features of both the first language and the second language. Other terms that refer to the same basic ideas are approximative system (Nemser, 1971) and transitional competence (Corder, 1967).According to Selinker, a theory of second language learning should be concerned with the surface of interlanguage so as to predict the learners behavioural events and make clear the psychological structure of adult language learners. They regard errors as evidence of learning process. By making hypotheses about the target language, the learners arrive at a particular interlanguage. Then they modify their hypotheses and go toward the target language. Selinker (1972) also notes that most L2 learners fail to reach target language competence, that is, they stop learning while the contained rules in their internalized rule system are different from those of the target system. This is referred to as fossilization, a special phenomenon in interlanguage.Corder (1967) points out that errors are evidence of the learners in-built syllabus. Error analysis aims at exposing the relations between Universal Grammar and SLA, so as to find what strategies the language learners use in the process of language learning and what the causes of errors are. It is closely related with Chomskys points of Inner theory, Language Acquisition Device and Universal Grammar. Its psychological basis is cognitive theory.1.2 Procedures of EACorder (1974) suggests that the procedures of EA are sample collection, identification, description, explanation and evaluation of errors.The first step is the sample collection of errors. This starting point in EA is deciding what samples of learner language to use for the analysis and how to collect these samples. Two issues need to be made clear here: one is whether the learner language reflects natural, spontaneous language use, or is elicited in some way; the other issue is whether the samples of learner language are collected cross-sectionally (at a single point in time) or longitudinally (successive points over a period of time).The second step is the identification of errors. Once a corpus of learner language has been collected, the errors in the corpus have to be identified. It is necessary to decide, therefore, what constitutes an error and to establish a procedure for recognizing one.An error can be defined as a deviation from the norms of the target language. A second question concerns the distinction between errors and mistakes (Corder, 1967). An error takes place when the deviation arises as a result of lack of knowledge. It also represents lack of competence. A mistake occurs when learners fail to perform their competence. Corder argues that EA should be restricted to the study of errors and that mistakes should be eliminated from the analysis. A third question concerns whether the error is overt or covert (Corder, 1971). A fourth question concerns whether the analysis should examine only deviations in correctness or also deviations in appropriateness. The third step is the description of errors. There are a number of classificatory systems that have been used in EA. Dulay and Burt (1973,1974) identify four types of error according to their psychological origins:(a) interference-like errors (b) first language developmental errors (c) ambiguous errors (d) unique errorsSo far a comparatively complete classification has been provided by Dulay, Burt and Krashen (quoted in Liushaolong, 1998). They suggest that there are four kinds of error taxonomies:(a) linguistic category classification: phonology, graphology, grammar, lexis, text or discourse;(b) the surface structure taxonomy: omission, addition, misformation, misordering; (c) comparative taxonomy: developmental, interlingual, ambiguous and unique;(d) communicative effect taxonomy: global and local.The fourth step is the explanation of errors. Explanation is concerned with establishing the source of the errors. This stage is the most important for SLA research as it involves an attempt to establish the processes responsible for L2 acquisition.Abbott (1980) suggests that the aim of any EA is to provide a psychological explanation. Taylor (1986) points out that the error source may be psychological, sociolinguistic, epistemic, or may reside in the discourse structure. Different error classifications result in different research findings and different explanations of errors. Flick (1979) notes that error classification is an arbitrary matter subject to the individual biases and point of view of the researchers.However, there is general agreement over the main diagnosis-based categories of error (James, 2001). There are four major categories: (a) interlingual errors(b) intralingual errors(c) communication strategy-based errors(d) induced errors Interlingual errors refer to the errors which are caused by mother tongue interference; intralingual errors are errors in learner language that reflect learners transitional competence and which are the results of such learning processes as overgeneralization; communication strategy-based errors refer to errors resulting from the lack of communication strategy; and induced errors arise in learner language when learners are led to make errors that otherwise they would not make by the nature of the formal instruction they receive. The final step is the error evaluation. Error evaluation studies proliferated in the late 1970s and in the 1980s, motivated quite explicitly by a desire to improve language pedagogy. Where the purpose of the error analysis is to help learners learn a L2, there is a need to evaluate errors. Some errors can be considered more serious than others because they are more likely to interfere with the intelligibility of what learners say or write. Teachers will want to focus their attention on these. For example, some errors, known as global errors, violate the overall structure of a sentence and for this reason may make it difficult to process. Other errors, known as local errors, affect only a single constituent in the sentence and are, perhaps, less likely to create any processing problems.1.3 Related researches of EA from abroad and the limitations of EACorders “The Significance of Learners Errors” marked the beginning of error analysis. EA constituted the first serious attempt to investigate learner language in order to discover how learners acquire a L2. Its heyday was in the 1960s and 1970s. Since Corder, a lot of studies of learner errors have been carried out. Among them, there are case studies on childrens mother tongue acquisition (Bowerman, 1974, 1982, 1983, quoted in Bowerman, 1998), and researches on both children and adults SLA (Ravem, 1968; Milon, 1974; Dulay and Burt, 1971, 1974; Corder, 1967; Jain, 1974; Richards, 2001). Case studies on childrens language acquisition are longitudinal. They reflect childrens learning processes at different stages of development. Bowerman followed her two English-speaking daughters development, recorded their everyday spontaneous utterances, and found that the errors they had committed in the process of their mother tongue acquisition were systematic. At the same time, she also made comparison with the errors she had collected from other children. The errors include:(a) overgeneralization of dative alternation, i.e. I said herno; Dont say me that.(b) causative formation, i.e. Do you want to see us disappear our heads?(c) passivization, i.e. Why is the laundry stayed open all night?(d) local alternation, i.e. spray paint on the wall.(e) un-prefixation, I.e. Im never going to unhate you. Bowerman claimed that her utterance data had been proved by experimental data. Milon (1974) examined a seven-year old Japanese boys learning process of English negation and its erroneous forms indicated that it was similar to the process of his mother tongue acquisition.However, the majority of EA researches have been cross-sectional. The bulk of the empirical work in EA has focused on determining what proportion of the total errors in a corpus is due to transfer as opposed to intralingual errors. A good example of the proportion study that investigated this behaviourist/mentalist question is Dulay and Burt (1974). They made a survey on 179 Spanish children ranging in age from 5 to 8, about their English learning. After analysis of their 513 syntactic errors, they examined morphological features like past tense inflection. Based on this EA they claimed that 85 percent were developmental, 12 percent were unique, and only 3 percent interference. Dulay and Burts research constituted a powerful attack on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and was proved by some other scholars (Wilkins, 1972, Felix, 1980). However, other researches do not bear out their finding and there has been little agreement as to exactly what proporti