ERROR ANALYSIS AND TEACHING ENGLISH
AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Shoko TANAKA
lntroduction
It is said that ttto err is human， to forgive divine． Since weregard a language as a code， then it is natural for us to makeerrors in the process of learning English as a foreign language．
In other words， it is inevitable for us to make a breach of thecode like the use of wrong rules or the misuse of right rules in

the process of acquiring control of a language．

Some errors the learner makes in second‑language learning
can be described as mere fai1ure to memorize a segment oflanguage， or simply as 'performance errors' due tomemorylimitations， lapses， fatigue or confusion'．i） Some errors may

result from teaching materials or procedures． Some errors may
reflect the learner's imperfect competence at a particular stage
and other errors may reflect the learner's inability to separate
two languages． ln any case， it is not too much to say that thelearner's errors provide evidence of his knowledge of thelanguage at a given stage．

Now we can say that an EFL （English as a foreign language）

teacher can understand not only his students' linguistic compe‑

tence but also the students themselves by recognizing anddescribing the types of errors they actually make． Therefore，

it is natural that an EFL teacher examines errors and seeks
1） Corder， S． P．， The Significance of Learners' Errors， in Richards，
J．C．， 6d．， Error Analysis， London： Longman， 1974a， pp．19‑27．

一211一

徳山大学論叢第18号

the reasons for errors in order to make the best use of themin his teaching．

In this paper I would like to look at the different stages oferror analysis； detection， description and explanation of errors，

and application． The main purpose of this paper is， however，

to discuss the implications that error ・analysis provides forlanguege teaching．

1． General Discussion
All learners make mistakes． This is not confined to language

learners． we all make mistakes when we are speaking ourmother tongue， writes Corder．2） Native speakers， though， do notnormal！y commit breaches of the code， or errors， which produce
unacceptable utterances as a result． The characteristic of native

speakers' errors is， as Corder mentions，3） that when noticed

by speaker or listener they are usually readily correctable by
the speaker．
eg） 1'm not going to enter into er a philosophical discourse on
that； all 1'm saying is that er‑1'm not saying that this is abad law，．．．．．
false starts'
Ah well， your 一 they 一 the 一 the 一 the Clay Cross ． ． ． ． ．

slips or false starts'（source from the handQut at UWIST）

These ill‑formed utterances mentioned above cannot be theresult of an imperfect knowledge of the language or imperfect
cpmpetence．

〈Such errors can be classified as transpositions or

substitutions or additions of a speech sound or morpheme， word

2） Dittd， lntroducing ApPlied

五勿g露3而03，Harmondsworth：Penguin，

1973， P．256．
3） lbid．， p，256．

一212一

or complete phrase， or some sort of blend of these，4） and

Corder calls these all t1apses' ， which are often caused by stress，

indecision or fatigue．5）

Native speakers also produce inappropriate utterances． tlnap‑

propriate utterances' here are well‑formed utterances， butcontextually and situationally inappropriate ones； that is， they
are failures to match the language to the situation．

The most

obvious exarnples of these failures are esocial gaffes'； but they

may be more subtle， the selection of the wrong term in sometechnical discussion．

6）

Meanwhile， it is said that the majority of learner'serrors are
linguistica11y quite different from those made by a native speaker．
eg） We work here in Savonlinna in vNe！yLsltll！｛1allStg｛1Feam一． We have

only four， five men who are making all the． most important
decisions．

Kokkonen has been thinking about me while he was writing
this opera； my voice， maybe also my personality．
（source from the handout at UWIST）

These errors are regarded as

breaches of the code'， which canbe the result of an imperfect knowledge of the language．
Since learners are certainly liable to make slips or false starts

or confusion of structure， it may not always be easy to dis‑tinguish such lapses and mistakes Qf performance from errors．
The important point is， however， that native speakers know how

to correct errors which they commit in performance， whereas〈

撃?≠窒獅?窒?do not always recognize their own errors， and further‑more， they often cannot correct their errors； he may evencommit another error in trying to do so．

7）4） Ditto， Error Analysis， in Allen， J． P． B． and Corder， S． P．， eds．，

The Edinburgh Course in APPIied Linguistics Vol．3， London：
O．'U．P．， 1974c， p．123．
s） lbid．， p．123．
6） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p．259．
7） lbid．， p，256．

一213一

第18号

徳山大学．論叢
Corder writes，8） ecThe code is neutral as between expressive

and receptive behaviour． Both require a knowledge of the for‑mation rules． lnadequate knowledge of these rules will therefore
show itself in both sorts of behaviour． But it is much easier todetect imperfect knowledge in the case of expressive behaviour．

What is in question here is the teacher's ability to recognize thatan error has been made． Some error are more difficult to recognize

than others； receptive errors， for example， are more difficult

to detect than productive， errors． Productive errors may be
spoken or written， but， as Corder mentions，9） practically it iseasier to make a systematic study of written materials． An EFL
teacher， however， should notice that there is a different distri‑bution of error or a different set of error types involved in
written materials； written work in contro11ed production involves

the problem of the learner's comprehension of the messages ofthe orjginal texts， or of the learner's ability to memorize theoriginal texts， whereas written work in spontaneous production
tends to lead the learner to avoid some linguistic areas in which

he feels uncertain． Meanwhile， errors of receptiQn can bedetected only indirectly， by inference from the learner's 1i'n‑guiststic and non‑linguistic reaction． Besides， even if the teacher

detects that errors in comprehension occur， it is very difficult

to pinpoint the linguistic causes of such errors． In otherwords， even if the teacher suspects a failure of comprehension，

he cannot easily determine which particular linguistic features
have been misinterpreted． Cortsider the following example：eg） Wha．t is her name？一一一）Yes， she is a teacher．

The learner had understood no more than that he was being
asked a question， but still we can hardly assign the cause ofs） lbid．， p．261．

9） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1974c， p．126．

一一一@214 一一一his misunderstanding to an inadequate knowledge of nonpolarinterrogative sentences in English． Receptive errors， therefore，

are likely to be passed unobserved， and consequently， error
analysis is， perforce， largely confined to the study of productive
or expressive errors． lt is n possible， however， to devise tests

and to design comprehension questions in order to examine thelearner's receptive behaviour， whi． ch require little or no pro‑ductive performance in doing so， but， as Corder says，iO） ccmanyof these techniques can do little more than establish in generalterms that comprehension of a passage or parts of a passage isincomplete．

2． Theoretical consideration of eror analysis

ttMeaningful speech is systematic， or it is the systematic
nature of language which makes communication possible． Learn‑
ers use spontaneous language with the intention of communi‑

cating； whether they succeed or not is another matter． One
must assume， therefore， that their language is systematic． The
assumption underlying the description of errors is that they areevidence of a system， not the system of the target language，

but a system of some 聖other' 1anguage．

ユ1）The learner's

language， then， is assumed to be a code which is not neces‑sarily the code of any social group， but has some intermediatestatus between the codes of the mother tongue and the target
language； Corder calls it an eidiosyncratic' dialect，i2） and Selinker
refers to it as aninterlanguage'．i3）

ttIt has long been accepted that the application of a scientific

10） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p．262．
11） lbid．， p．268．

12） lbid．， ppi268‑269．

13） Selinker， L．， lnterlanguage， in Richards， J．C．， ed．， Error Analysis，London： Longman， 1974， pp．31‑54．
一一 @215 一一

徳山大学論叢第ユ8号

discipline to the solution of practical problems provides feedback，to theory． The applications provide confirmation or disproof oftheory． ln this respect they are like experiments which test theprediction of the theory． The study of learners' errors is suchan application．

i4） To describe the' learner's languqge， con‑sidered as an 'idiosyncratic' dialect or an'interlanguage'，

therefore， is precisely the theoretical objective of error
analysis．

Corder considers errors apart from mistakes or lapseS likeslips of the tongue or occasional ungrammatical utterances suchas native speakers also produce， and classifies errors into threedifferent types in connection with the ptocess of learning：i5）
tpre‑systematic error' ， where the learner， being unawa re of theexistence of a particular system in the target language， isproducing random errors； 'systematic errors'， where he isfollowing a rule of some sort， but not the correct one in thetarget language'；post‑systematic error'， where．he is producing

correct forms but inconsistently．
Meanwhile， errors are categorized into tsystematic' ， tasystem‑
atic' and 'tunsystematic' ones by Jain：i6） 'systematic errors' are

the ones which seem to fall into definable patterns‑they aresupposed to have been generated by the learner's internalized

hypothetical system of language or grammar； 'tunsystematic
errors' are the slips of the tongue or pen caused by psycholo‑

gical conditions， such as nervousness， and／or physiologicalare systematic‑
factors， such as fatigue； tasystematic errors
unsystematic errors， which are produced inconsistently by thelearner who has seemingly arrived at the system．
14） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， pp．265‑266．
ls） lbid．， pp． 268‑272．

16） Jain， M． P．， Error Analysis： Source， Cause and Significance， in
Richards， J．C．， ed．， Error Analysisl London： Longrnan， 1974， pp．
189一一215．

一一

Q16一

Bearing in mind the theoretical interest in studies of error， we
can classify the process of analysis into three stages， which are

logically dependent up'on eachother； recognition， description

and explanation．

2．1 Recognition ot errors

Fairly ungrammatical utterances are easy to detect when
they occur， and are plausibly interpretable． For example：eg） eeI gave up to go to the pictures this evening in order toa）
help my brother with his homework．
eeWe had many toasts for breakfast．

In the first sentence， the learner doesn't know the rules forgenerating the structure； verbal group give uP is not followed by

to‑form but ing‑form in phase structure． And in the second
sentence， the learner doesn't know the rules for forming pluralforms of the uncountable noun， or he doesn't even know the factthat there is a distinction between countable and uncountablenouns in English． These are what Corder calls 'tovertly errone‑ous' utterances．i7）

Meanwhile， apparently well‑formed utterances may neverthelessbe erroneous． For example：eg） The task is detestable．

Mr．Brown has three families．

These utterances seem to be perfectly acceptab1e， but it・ ispossible to interpret since the learner has not meant to say
what he seems to say； in the first sentence， he may say，The

task is detestable' with the intention of saying what is meant bysaying tThe task is desirable' ， only because he has been confusing

tdetestable' with tdesirable'， whereas in the second sentence，
17） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p，272．

a） Conventionally， an asterisk before an item signifies that it isunacceptable．
一217一一

第18号

徳山大学論叢he may intend to describe three members in Mr． Brown'sfamily， that is，

Mr． Brown has three members in his family'，and h e may not intend to say Mr． Brown has three wives．

The sentences which are erroneous， but not overtly so，Corder calls tcovertly erroneous'．i8） ln other words， the covertly

erroneous sentences are correct superficially， but they are notappropriate in the context in which they occur． That is why
they are'

曹浮奄狽?difficult to identify． t

The recognition of error，

then， depends crucially upon the analyst making a correctinterpretation of the learner's interided meaning in thecontext．

19）

2．2 Description of errops
The stage of descrjption can only begin when the stage ofrecognition has taken place． ecThe description of etror is es‑

sentially a comparative process， the data being the originalerroneous utterance and the reconstructed utterance，20） and in

this respect it is a special case of contrastive analysis． Super‑
ficial description， however， is of little use to teacher or learner，

because it is only part of a total descriptive process， that is，since systems and rules・are an abstraction from the linguistic
data， superficial description is part of the data for making such

abstraction． For example：eg） eel am going to abroad next month．
eeFrom now 1 will study harder．

Describing these errors just as 'tan add．ition or an ommissionof a preposition' is of no practical use to teacher or learner，although it is a necessary condition for linguistic explanation．
The description of errors， as Corder mentions，2i） can be madels） lbid．， p．272．

19） Corder， S． P．，

op． cit．， 1974c， p．127．

20） lbid．， p．128．

21） Corder， S． P．，

op． cit．， 1973， pp．275‑280．

一218一一at various degrees of depth， generality or abstraction by
assigning the items involved to the different linguistic levels：

orthographic／phonological， syntactic and lexico‑semantic． Con‑sider the following examples：eg） eeThere is no kemist near my house．

The learner has chosen the Cright word' grammatically or
semantically， but spelled it incorrectly， then the error is at
the orthographical level． But he might not realize the rule atthe phonological level either； English phoneme ／k／ is fortis spelt
k； c； cc十a， o， u； qu； ch．

eg） eeShe had pride a little．

The

right word' has been chosen semantically， but hasn't

been put in order grammatically． However， the learner who
wrote

She had pride a little' did not just select the wrong

word order， but showed that he had not correctly learned thefunction of each item related to the entire construction ofEnglish sentence；
1 1 can speak 1 English l a little． b）

O

h d

S e

l

aP

i

hS

S l P

A
a little prideoeg） eeThis is the first time for me to come here．

This shows that the learner has not learned a part of thelex3co‑semantic system of English； tinee includes 'tan occasion'as well as ta point of time'；

This is the first time 1 have come here． （an occasion）
It is timg for you to go to bed． （a point of time）

b） Here， the letters S， P， O and A stand for the elements ofstructuresubject'，

predicator'， Cobject' and一219一

adjunct' respectively．

第18号

徳山大学論叢An incorrect lexica'

P concept， therefore， leads the learner tochoose the wrong sentence from a grammatical point of view．

2．3 Explanation of errors
The basic idea here is to ask why the learner makes errors
or why he did what he did． lt is actually not clear where a line

could be drawn between 'description' and Cexplanation'． Corderwrites，22） ecWhereas description of error is largely a linguistic

activity， explanation is the field of psycholinguistics． lt isconcerned with accounting for why and how errors come about．

While focusing on several types ot errors observed in theacquisition of English as a second language， Richards dis‑tinguishes the errors caused by the interference of the learn‑

er's mother tongue， tinterference errors'， from the errors
which reflect the learners inability to separate two languages
or reflect the learner's competence at a particular stage andillustrate some of the general characteristics of language acqui‑sition，

intralingual and developmenta1 errors'．23）

As for tinterference errors'， contrastive analysis or a know‑

ledge of the learner's mother tongue will help us to identify

where the characteristics of one language are being carriedover into another． Here are some interference errors by
Japanese learners of English：eg）ユ） errors at phonological level
dictation

pronunclation
they ／ Oei一／ 一．ee／ zei ／／ kleu6 ／一．eeclosethink！OIηk ／ →ce／sIηk ／／ maue ／oeemousepath／ Pα：θ ／ 一→・ee／ Pα：s／／ eAm ／一一一．一acsum2） errors at grammatical level
I'm watching TV．

一一一一

r eel'm seeing TV．

22） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1974c， p．128．

23） Richards， J．C．， A Noncontrastive Approach to Error Analysis，in Oller J，．W．， Jr． and Richards， J．C．， eds．， Focus on the Learner，

Massachusetts： Newbury House， 1973a， pp．96‑113．
一一 @220一

1 am bored． 一一一一一一一〉 al am boring．

3） errors at lexical level
I had a dream last night． 一一一〉 eel saw a dream last night．

1 took the medicine． 一一〉 eel drank the medicine．

These errors cannot be described as those which are common

to learners who have quite different mother tongues． Takephonological errors mentioned above， for example； it is pos‑sible to explain these errors as being caused by the absence ofany ／6／ or ／0／ phonemes in Japanese．

Meanwhile， 'intr・alingual and developmental errors'， asRichards points out， are representative of the sort of errors

we might expect from anyone learning English as a second
language， but still cannot be described as mere failures tomemorize a segment of language， or occasional lapses in per‑formance due to memory limitations， fatigue， and the like．
Richards subdivides this kind of error into four classes； （1） over‑generalization， （2） ignorance of rule restriction， （3） incomplete
application of rules， and （4） false concepts hypothesized．24） His

account of Cintralingual and developmental errors' could besummarized as follows：（1） Overgeneralization covers instances where the learnercreated a deviant structure on the basis of his experienceof other structures in the target language．
eg） She sings beautifully． 一一一一〉 oeShe can sings beautifully．

They worked hard． 一一一〉 eeThey breaked the window．

（2） Ignorance of Rule Restrictions is failure to observe therestrictions of' existing structures．
eg） He weighs six pounds． 一一〉 eeHe is a six pounds baby．

1 asked the doctor to come．．eel made the child to go home．

These are a type of generalization or transfer， since the24） lbid．， pp．98‑108．

一221一

徳山大学論叢

第18号

learner is making use of a previously acqui．red rule in a

new situation． Failure to observe restrictions may also
derive from analogy， the learner rationalizing a deviant
usage from his previous experience of English．
（3） Redundancy may be an explanatory factor for 一1．n‑c‑omp‑lete

Application of Rules；

The foreign speaker very often canwell risk reducing that without rqnning into serious
failures of communication．

25） A statement form may be

used as a question， or a question word may simply be
added to the statement form．
eg）Teacher's Question ＄．t．mpdept／！s．RFsgg1ggggesponSe
Ask her how long it takes．．eeHow long it takes？
what was she saying？一一一一一一＞eeShe saying she would ask him．

（4） ttln addition to the wide range of intralingual errors whichhave to do with faulty rule learning at various levels，
there is a class of developmental errors which derive fromfaulty comprehension of distinctions in the target language．

These are sometimes due to poor gradation of teachingitems．

26）eg） He is driving a lorry this week．

eeeeeeThe learner translated it into a sentence indicating apresent action with non‑habitual meaning； the progressive
form might have been interpreted as a form indicating apresent action， so that the learner's faulty comprehension of
the distinction led him to the wrong conclusion．

3． Application of error analysis
So far， 1 have been focusing on tlanguage learning'， that is，what first and second language learners actua！ly do in theprocess of acquiring control of a language，一but now 1 must treat25） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p．269．
26） Richards， J． C．， op． cit．， 1973a， p．103．

一一 @222一elanguage teaching'， that is， what the teacher can do to help
the learning process： so in this section， 1 will focus on several

types of errors caused by the interference of the learner's
mother tongue， analyse the source of the errors， and consider
how an EFL teacher should react to the errors．

Wherever the systems of the first language differ from thoseof the second language， we can expect both difficulty inlearning and error in performance． Moreover， if the learners
are adult， they tend to transfer some habits of their mothertongue into their performances in the target language without
any second thoughts． For this reason， when it comes to learn‑ing English as a foreign language for the first time after growing

up， the matter of learning the rules of Engljsh must be serious

for every learner． Although mother‑tongue interference is now
generally recognized to be not by any means the only sourceof errors， an EFL teacher is required， in this situation， toanalyse the errors his students actually make in relation to acontrastive analysis of the target language and the mothertongue．

1） lnterference at a phonological／graphological level

In pronunciation， as 1 have mentioned before， the Japaneselearner will have difficulty with the consonant phonemes ／0／
in tkin and ／6／ in tke， and he will tend to use the phonemes／s／ for ／0／ and ／z／ for ／6／ instead； this is because Japanese

does not have the phonemes ／0／ and ／6／， and the learner isinfluenced by the sounds that exist in Japanese． The Japaneselearner will also have difficulty distinguishing between ／r／ and／1／； this is because there is no ／1／ phoneme in Japanese．
Besides， the various （r） allophones in Japanese27） make it dif一27） lnter'national Phonetic Associathon， The Principles of the lnler‑
national Phonetic Association， London， 1949， p．44．
一 223 一一

第18号

徳山大学論叢ficult for the learner to discriminate between the two phonemes／r／ and ／1／ in English． And the learner wi11 tend to make bothproductive and receptive errors with these Phonemes．

thick／erk ／一一i． ee／sik ／clothe ／klou6／一ee／klouz／booth ／bu：O／．ce／bu：z／b） lace／leisノ→ee／re・S／

right ／rait ／一一一．．ee／Iart ／play／plei／．ce／prer／

wrong ／rpg ／一．ee／lpD ／eg） a） bathc） milkglass／ba：θ／→x／ba：sノ／mllk／→ee／mrruku／／gla ： s／ 一一i． ee ／gurasu／

Exarn‑ple c）mentioned above reveals the fact that he is not

only influenced by the sounds whieh exist in Japanese， butalso influenced by the distribution and phonological status in
Japanese．
In Japanese， consonants generally occur before vowels， thatis， consonants occur in CV pattern，28） and consonants neveroccur finally as well as separately． For this reason， theJapanese learner generally feels it difficult to pronounce someEnglish phoneme sequences like strana， sqvirrel （CCCVCC） andsict tk， lensth （CVCCC）． lt is nQt easy for the learner to write

down the correct spelling for the special sequences like eigthts
or clotkes as well as to pronounce them．
As for vowels， Japanese has only five vowel phonemes； ／ a，e， j， o， u ／， therefore， it is very difficult for the students todistinguish between English vowels； epsecially／ae，A，a：，3：／ andJapanese vowels． They also treat English disphthongs as combi‑
nations of two different vovVels． For this reason， they often
confuse ／a）／ with ／A／， and ／a：／ with ／3：／， and ／o：／ with ／eu／

all the time． And again'they make both productive and re‑
ceptive errors will these vowels．
Re‑ferring to a correct interpretation， Corder writes，29） ttThe28） Umegaki， M．， Nichi‑Ei Hikaka Gogaku ZVyumon， Tokyo： Taishukan，
1951， p．160．
29） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p．293．

一一一@224 一一technique or correction is not one of simply presenting thedata again and going through the same set of drills and exer‑
cises to produce the state of Coverlearning'． lt requires， on

the contrary， that the teacher understand the source of theerrors so that he can provide the appropriate data and otherinformation， sometimes comparative， which will resolve thelearner's problems and allow him to discover the relevant
rules．

A 1ot of practical work in minimal pairs or contrastive

units， therefore， may be suitable and helpful for the learner
who failed to distinguish between phonemes like those in theexamples mentioned above． Through new data of the language
presented by the teacher the learner will be able to discover
the right system in pronunciation before long．
Examples： minimal pairsa） ／e／ and ／s／： thin／sin， thigh／sigh， mouth／mouse， path／passb） ／6／ and ／z／： breathe／breeze， bathe／bays， clothe／closec） ！1／ and ／r／： law／raw， load／road， fly／fry， glass／grassd） ／3：／ and ／a：／： hurt／heart， dirt／dart， further／fathere） ／A／ and ／ee／： lucl〈／1ack， hut／hat， cut／cat， suck／sackf） ／o：／and ／ou／： born／bone， caught／coat， raw／row， ball／bowl

Here we should bear in mind， as Heaton points out，30） thattt

盾モモ≠唐奄盾獅≠?confusion over selected pairs of phonemes does

not matter too greatly because in real‑life situations thelistener is able to use contextual clues to interpret what hehears．

And it is true that carefully prepared material is often

more difficult to understand the normal and impromptu speech．
2） lnterference at a semantic／syntactical level

If we compare the number systems of Japanese with English，

we find no similarity between them． ln short， we can say
there are no number systems in Japanese．
30） Heaton， J．B．， MZr iting English Language Tests， London： Longman．
1975， pp．57‑58．

一225一

第18号

徳山大学論叢Japanese

Englishbooks

pluralsome／no bookshon （＝＝book）

singulara bookno bookIf we want to distinguish the number， we put the numeral
before the noun to indicate the number， but we have no mor‑
phological system of plural marking with the noun． Only a few
nouns can take the suffix 一lacki to make plurality， but thisdoes't occur very often and regularly in the sentence so as tobe a rule．3i） Apart from the number systems， Japanese has
no article system either． That is why these systems， which exist

in English， constantly confuse the learners and they commit
errors in the process of learning English sometimes by over‑generalization and sometimes by analogy．
eg） eeThere is book on the chair．

ouThere are some book on the table．

beThere are books under table．
a loaf of bread一＞eea pair of scissor
some stamps一一一一一一一一＞acHe gave her some good advices．

the peoples of Europe ． acThere were a lot of peoples on
the beach．

There are still many differences between English and Japa‑
nese in grammatical points and jn the way of thinking；order'， Rcase' and the way of thinking ofword

tense'， and so on．

Richards refers an aspect of interference，32） ttwhich has to dowith contrasts between styles across languages．

This is not31） Umegaki， M．， op． cit．， 1951， p．188．

32） Richards， J．C．， CError Analysis and Second Language Strategies'，in Oller， J．W．， Jr． and Richards， J．C．， eds．， Focus on lhe Learner，

Massachusetts： Newbury House， 1973b， p．124‑127．

一一

Q26一

manifest in the particular samples we have looked at so far，

but it is nevertheless quite common in language learning： The
Japanese learner， for example， can accept sentences likeI saw a book on the table．
1 didn't see a book on the table．

syntactically and semantically with ease rather than sentencesli ke

I saw no books on the table．

This hospital allows no visitors．

Thi＄ is perhaps because he is used to the Japanese way ofnegation； that is， he is used to indicating negative quality
with verbs‑in Japanese， a negative is attached to verbs andnot to nouns．

While analysing errors caused by the differences between thesystems of Japanese and those of English， an EFL teacher isaware of the fact that his students often have difficulty

grasping the meaning in connection with the new sentence
structures as well as new vocabulary． A lot of different kindsof tests such as true／false tests， multiple‑choice tests andmatching tests will be useful and helpful for the learner to getused to some English usage and to discover the underlying
rules， categories and systems of choice in English．
Examples： tests of grammar and usagea） multiple‑choice items
Ihave a lot of 一一一． to do in the afternoon．
（A． work B． the work C． works D． the works）

This bridge is一．
（A． made of stone B． Made with the stone
C． made with the stomes）

b） constructing completion items
Put a， the， some or any in each blank． lf you think noword

should be placed in the blank， put x mark there．

He is paid ． fifty pounds一一 week．
Is thered tea in the pot？

It was 一 good film from． beginning to

一227一

end．

徳山大学論叢第18号

But we often hesitate between correcting the error so as togive a correct model， and refraining from correcting lest weshould destroy the learner's fluency and confidence． The
technique of correction， therefore， probably boils down tosomething like this： Where the learner is groping for a rule，

clear presentation of the correct form， followed up by appro‑

priate examples， is indispensable． Meanwhile， occasional slips
need not be corrected．

There is one more point we should take into considerationin language teaching； that is， our students tend to avoid theexpressions in which they lack confidence． The output， there‑

fore， is not necessarily identifiable with what the learnerknows． The teacher should then encourage the learner not tobe afraid of making errors and even try to provoke errors
from him． Otherwise we cannot know how far towards the goal
the learner has progressed and what it is that the learner still
has to learn in the first place．

Conclusion
Corder quotes Von Humboldt's statement in the article tThe，Signiticance of Learners' Errors' and says that

we cannot

really teach language， we can only create conditions in which
it will develop spontaneously in the mind in its own way． We
shall never improve our ability to create such favourable con‑ditions until we learn more about the way a learner learns andwhat his built‑in syllabus is．

33） Since the study of learners'

errors makes it possible for us to recognize at what stage oflearning our students are， and to describe what sort of inter‑language they possess， and to explain what it is． that they
still have to learn， then we should make the best use of the33） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1974a， p．27．

一228一

study in order to promote and extend the language skills of
our students． Mere correction of errors， however， has little
value to learners． Corder writes，34）

Knowledge of being wrong

is only a starting point． Little better is the simple provisionof a correct reconstructed form of the learner's erroneousutterance． It is improbable that he will be able to draw any

useful conclusions from a comparison of the two forms． Moreuseful might be a comparison of the reconstructed form with
its translation equivalent in the mother tongue of the learner．
What is required of a teacher is to provide the learner with theevidence he needs to discover the correct concept or rule byhimself； so that to provide the learner with mere correctionof errors means to supply him with the sort of negative evi‑

dence which is necessary to discover the correct system． lnorder to lead the learner to invent the relevant rules of thelanguage by himself the teacher should， of course， determine

in any particular instance what the approprjate data are to
give the learner， and ．what statements， descriptive or com‑parative， to make about it．

Meanwhile， a close examination of the learner's errors maylead us to reconsider our teaching materials and our teaching
techniques to which the learner has been exposed． Since there

is a type of error， namely， errors arising from the method
or materials used in the teaching， then we should realize thenecessity of more careful attention and preparation in our
teaching to avoid such teaching‑induced errors． The study ofthe learner's errors also enable us to decide whether we canmove on to the next stage or devote more time to the present
stage or go back to the previous stage as well as to what partsof the learner's interlanguage， that is to what linguistic level，

we should pay more attention．
34） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1973， p．293．

一一 @229一徳山大学論叢第18号

Bearing in mind the genera1 idea of error analysis andmaking regular use of the information from the errors， an EFL

teachef will be able to improve his ability to create more
effjcient learning conditions for his students； ttwe may be able
to allow the learner's innate strategies to ，dictate our practiceand determine our syllabus； we may learn to adapt ourselves
to his needs'窒≠狽???than impose upon him our preconceptionsof how he ought to learn， what he ought to learn and when heought to learn it．

35）

Bl BL 1 OG RAPHY

Corder， S． P．（1973）， Introducing ApPlied Linguistics，耳armondsworth：Penguin．
Corder， S． P． （1974a）， CThe Significance of Learners' Errors' in Richards，

J．C． （ed．）， Error Analysis， （Reprinted from IRAL， Vol． V／4， 1967，

published by Julius Groos Veriag， Heidelberg）， London： Longman．
Corder， S．P． （1974b）， tldiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis' inRichards， J．C． （ed．）， Error Analysis， （Reprinted from IRAL， Vol．
IX／2， May 1971， published by Julius Groos Verlag， Heidelberg）， London：

Longman．
Corder， S． P． （1974c），

Error Analysis' in Allen， J．P． B． and Corder， S． P．

（eds．）， The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics， Vol． 3， London：

Oxford University Press．
Doughty， P． and Thornton， G． （1973）， Language Study， the Teacher andthe Learner， London： Edward Arnold．
Gimson， A． C． （1970）， An lntroduction to the Pronunciation of English，

second edition， London： Edward Arnold．
Halliday， M． A． K．， Mclntosh， A． and Streveus， P．D． （1964）， The

Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching， London： Longman．
Heaton， J．B． （1975）， Writing English Language Tests， London： Long‑

man．
International Phonetic Association （1949）， The Principles of the lnter‑national Phonetic Association， London．
Jain， M． P． （1973），

Error Analysis： Source， Cause and Significance' inRichards， J．C． （ed．）， Error Analysis， London： Longman．

James， C． （1980）， Contrastive Analysis， London： Longman．
Jones， D． and Gimson， A． C． （1977）， English Pronouncing Dictionary 14th
Edition， London： J．M． Dent and Sons．

35） Corder， S． P．， op． cit．， 1974a， p．27．

一230一

O'Connor， J，D． （1973）， Phonetics， Harmondsworth： Penguin．

太田 朗（1965）・「日本語の音体係の比較」r現代英語教育講座』研究社．
Richards， J．C． （1973a）， CA Noncontrastive Approach to Error Analysis'in Oller， J．W．， Jr． and Richards， J．C． （eds．）， Focus on the Learner，

Massachusetts： Newbury House．
Richards， J．C． （1973b），

Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies'

in Oller， J．W．， Jr． and Richards， J． C． （eds．）， Focus on the Learner，

Massachusetts： Newbury House．
Richards， J． C． and Sampson， G． P． （1973c）， tThe Study of Learner
English' in Richards， J．C． （ed．）， Error Analysis， London： Longman．
Rivers， W． M． and Temperley， M． S． （1978）， A practical guide to theteaching of English as a second or foreign language， New York：
Oxford University Press．
Selinker， L． （1973）， t lnterlanguage' in Richards， J．C． （ed．）， Error

Analysis， （Reprinted from IRAL， Vol． X／3， 1972， published by Julius
Groos Verlag， Heidelberg）， London： Longman．
楳垣 実（1961），『日本比較語学入門』大修館
楳垣 実（1975），『日英比較表現論』大修館
Wilkins， D．A． （1672）， Linguistics in Language Teaching， London： Edward

Arnold．
Wilkins， D．A． （1974）， Second‑language learning and teaching， London：
Edward Arnold．
Young， D． J． （1980）， The Structure of English Clauses， London：
Hutchinson．

一231一