Back to the Drawing Board: A Longitudinal Study of Fossilized Errors
Robert Long, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan
Hiroaki Watanabe, Kyushu Institute of Technology, JapanThe IAFOR International Conference on Education – Hawaii 2021
Official Conference Proceedings
Abstract
The problem of fossilized errors has been a problematic issue with EFL researchers
because it shows that traditional methods of instruction are not effective. Fossilized
errors were thus examined with university-level first-year Japanese EFL students tobetter understand the context in which they are occurring and their frequency over thecourse of an academic year. Data was collected from two corpora, the Monologic andDialogic Corpus (MDC) 2019, which has 20,368 words, and 42 subjects, and thesecond corpus MDC2020, which has 16,997 words and 29 participants. Errors in the
2019/2020 corpora were identified and then coded for frequency; results showed thefollowing fossilized errors: articles deletions (92/94), prepositions (39/43) plurals(54/55), subject-verb agreement (85/46), and general wording (60/69). However, in
looking at clauses with errors/100 words, there were 5.29 errors in the 2019 corpus,
whereas, in the 2020 corpus, there was a slight improvement of 3.35 errors/100 words,
indicating that marginal progress was made. These results show many of these errors
are interlingual and that students are unaware of their errors that they are making intheir spontaneous speech. Alternative methods of instruction are thus needed in EFL
education to highlight awareness and self-editing skills.
Keywords: Fossilized Errors, Error Correction, Corpora

iafor
The International Academic Forumwww.iafor.org

Introduction
Nothing gets more attention than an error that keeps on being repeated, again andagain, particularly in monologic or dialogic speech. Fossilization is a term coined
by Selinker (1972) who described it as a cessation of development in a language
system or subsystem, which can affect most second language (L2) learners/users,
particularly in areas of a language that can be phonological, grammatical, or lexical(Han & Odlin, 2006). ICALTEFL1 noted that a fossilized error is a mistake a student
has made so many times that it has become part of their natural speech, pointing outthat even native speakers or near-native-like speakers can often say grammaticallyincorrect expressions such as:* The spaghetti are ready.
* Are the money on the table?
It could be argued that educators should be more aware of the problem if they wereless focused on grading reading comprehension quizzes, assessing listening skills, or
responding to a rigid set of grammatical forms that had to be addressed. However, tofocus and adequately respond to students’ output, particularly over time, takes
enormous effort and commitment. Thus, it should come as no surprise that most
university-level students are not improving as fast as they should be. Based on theirresearch on students’ progress over an academic year, (Long & Watanabe, 2020)
found that progress was mixed: global errors showed a decline from 22 to 15
incidents, local errors increased from 76 to 112 errors with a t-test confirming there
was no significant difference between the two speech corpora regarding to global andlocal errors. The five most frequent errors were: (a) lexical phrasing (71), (b) article
omissions (41), (c) plural errors (19), (d) preposition omissions (19), and verb usage(9). This data pointed to the difficulty of having students self-edit themselves as little
to no instruction is given about this skill.
Review of Literature
As a topic for research and practice, fossilized errors should be more extensively
researched than they have been; however, due to a lack of training or time, language
researchers have found the issue to be problematic and that, due to situational
constraints and environmental settings, too many teachers are willing ignoring such
errors or unable to correct them. Language learners might also be unaware of theirspontaneous oral errors or apathetic about improving them. One issue is that many
EFL educators have not had any or very much training in how to respond to such
errors. In their study on fossilization, Qian and Xiao (2010) underscore howchallenging it might be for both students and teachers to take the needed action toaddress these emerging mistakes. Therefore, the researchers focused on threestrategies prevent fossilization: (a) taking the right attitude towards students’ mistakes,(b) paying attention to verbal output by grasping the relationship between accuracy
and fluency, and (c) providing students with strategic feedback. One issue with thesethree strategies is that they are open to interpretation and tend to be difficult toreplicate, especially in considering the one issue of students’ motivation and goals. A
second issue that such researchers fail to address reviewing and recycling information
to better highlight error correction. In another study, Wei (2008), research focused on
1

ICATEFL. Retrieved from: http://www.icaltefl.com/fossilized-errors-in-tefl.

the implications of interlanguage (IL) fossilization in L2, for which he described five
types of fossilization: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, andpragmatic.
However, fossilized errors do not need to be permanent, and second language learners
always have the opportunity to continue developing grammar usage.2 Wei’s researchis critical as all too often teachers tend to miss recognizing syntactic, semanticpragmatic, or morphological errors, putting their time and energy solely on
grammatical forms whereas the other kinds of errors might have more importance or
impact on the message. Another way of understanding error formation came fromHan (2005), who identified 50 variables used to explain the causes of fossilization;these can be categorized into four factors (a) environmental, (b) cognitive, (c)neurobiological, and (d) socio-affective. Han then offers a systematic way of further
analysis, relying on macroscopic and microscopic perspectives.
Hasbún (2007), having examined college students in Costa Rica, found that not only
the verb form usage but also the prepositions and articles usage seem to be persistenterrors over time, indicating the tendency of these errors becoming fossilized (p.126).
Taher (2011) identified that Swedish junior high school students made frequent errorsof verb tense, verb inflection, and subject-verb agreement. The causes of errors are
considered to be incorrect transfer from Swedish into English as well as lack ofgrammatical knowledge. To correct errors in spoken English, Kayum (2015) proposedusing feedback sheets, media technology such as recording, and self-correction by
students. In the study of English-speaking learners of Japanese, Hirotani, Matsumoto,and Fukada (2012) targeted the students who enrolled in the first-year Japanese
courses at a university in the U.S. to investigate how the fluency-related measureschanged over time. They discovered that several measures of fluency deteriorated inboth oral reading and Q&A tasks. Such complexity factors as new words wereidentified to have hindered fluency development.
Treatment of fossilized errors
In responding to fossilized errors, self-monitoring has been the first strategy for most
EFL educators, with O’Malley and Chamot (1990) defining self-monitoring as“checking one’s comprehension during listening or reading or checking the accuracy
and/or appropriateness of one’s oral or written production when it’s taking place” (p.
46). Birdsong (1989) discusses how metacognitive awareness is really “a reflection of
the growth of two skill components involved in language processing: the analysis oflinguistic knowledge into structured categories and the control of attentional
procedures to select and process specific linguistic information” (p. 498). Teachers,
thus, are called upon to develop both linguistic knowledge as well as editing/proofing
skills.
To better understand the role of attention, Kormos (2000) studied 40 EFL speakers in
Hungary to analyze the frequency for self-repairs and correction rates. The results
showed that in 12 speech samples, those lexical errors were repaired more thangrammatical errors; moreover, students who had higher proficiency levels in their L22Carnegie Mellon University Intercultural Communication Center: Retrieved from:https://www.cmu.edu/icc/language-training/handouts/assets/fossilized-grammar.pdf

had corrected fewer mistakes than learners who had been at pre-intermediatelevels. Pillai (2006) explored repairs in spontaneous production and found thatspeakers did not stop immediately upon being aware of the error; additionally,
speakers tended to continue speaking longer before they interrupted themselves. The
issue of self-monitoring and self-reflection has gained global attention, with Sánchez
Luján (2012) using a blended environment at a Columbian university with distanceclasses; in the study, participants were asked to observe and record their own behavior.
Results indicated that students could identify areas of improvement independently,
but far more analysis is needed on the types of awareness that his participants gained
from the self-assessment tools provided.
Kormos (2000) also investigated the role of attention in monitoring second language
speech production, analyzing the frequency for self-repairs and the correction rate oferrors in the speech of 40 native speakers of Hungarian. Results showed that in L2
speech, error repairs had been more frequent than repairs in L1; furthermore, it wasalso learned that students who had higher levels of proficiency in their L2 hadcorrected fewer mistakes than learners who had been at pre-intermediate levels. This
research established that L2 learners pay particular attention to lexical choice.
A similar strategy in responding to error formation is that of self-evaluation;
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) also defined self-evaluation as “checking the outcomesof one’s own language learning against a standard after it has been completed” (p.
46); later, this definition was refined with Brown (2007) who stated that it was aprocess of “checking the outcomes of one’s own language learning against an internalmeasure of completeness and accuracy” (p. 134). Thus, students are now prompted toassess their own performance in a variety of tasks, which can raise self-confidence
and self-esteem if done correctly with self-assessing rubrics and checklists (Schraeder,
1996; Min, 2005; Tamjid and Birjandi, 2011), as well as improving skills, language
acquisition, and meta-cognitive strategy use.
Fauziati (2011) looked at eight error types and tried a pedagogical intervention over a
period of one semester; the rewrites of the first composition showed revealed thatgrammar instruction was capable of reducing 66% of the learners’ errors, from 422
error cases in C1 to 142 error cases in C2. However, despite teachers’ best attempts inaddressing self-monitoring and self-repairs, little progressive improvement has been
noted. One issue in students failing to catch errors is that L2 learners seem to pay
more attention to lexical appropriacy and in, some cases, phonological appropriacy
rather than to grammatical elements such as verb forms (Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994).
A final analysis of how to understand and categorize grammatical errors comes fromEllis & Barkhuizen (2005:61):
1.
Errors of omission: when the learner has left out a word e.g., “My sister
happy.”
2.
Errors of addition: when the learner has added a word or an ending to anotherword which is grammatically incorrect e.g., “I have eated”.
3.
Misinformation/Substitution: when the learner uses the wrong form of amorpheme or structure e.g. when they use the wrong preposition in a sentence such as“It was the hardest time in my life”.
4.
Misordering: e.g. when the learner places a morpheme incorrectly in agrammatical construction such as “She fights all the time her brother”.

5.
Blends: when the learner is uncertain of which word to use and blends two
different phrases e.g., “The only one thing I want”.
The evidence in the above studies point to the importance of the use of selfmonitoring and self-evaluation to help students to improve their grammaticalaccuracy; however, a common problem with these studies lies in the difficulty of
replication, with many of the procedures, materials, context (class size, time, level ofstudents), and participants’ background (age, level), being too vague or generalized.
Fossilized Errors by Japanese EFL Learners
Research by Long and Hatcho (2018) had focused on the grammatical accuracy ofJapanese EFL learners, with one aim being to see if English teachers can identify
errors as being intralingual or interlingual, and which type of error was more common.
From the Japanese University Student Corpus (JUSC) comprising of 61 transcripts
containing 51,061 words, an inventory of errors was formed based on this corpus,
which contained 400 errors in context.
The primary errors were incorrect use of articles (381), incorrect verb tense (162),
incorrect use of prepositions (158), the omission of verbs (152), modifier errors (111),
and incorrect subject-verb agreement (76), which indicated the commonality ofparticular errors and issue related to fossilization. In taking the analysis further,regarding intralingual and interlingual errors (the impact of L1 on error formation), it
was found that 35% of the 400 errors that had been identified were deemed as being
intralingual [859 responses], 51% were seen as interlingual [1233 responses], and12.5% were undetermined [301 responses]. Likewise, Bryant (1984) stated that as forthe types of errors that Japanese EFL learners, that research shows that articles, verb
tense, prepositions, modifiers, and subject-verb agreement to be the most frequenterrors made by Japanese EFL learners, indicating possible L1 interference.
The Study
Rationale
Questions remain about the kinds of fossilized errors. By examining the fossilized
errors in two new corpora, (Monologic and Dialogic Corpus [MDC] 2019 and 2020)
it would be possible to validate these preliminary findings and establish moreconsistent and reliable parameters of grammatical accuracy.
Research Questions
1.
2.
3.

In comparing the two years of data, are there significant differences
between the frequency of interlingual and intralingual fossilized errors?
In comparing the two years of data, are there significant differences
between the two TOEIC groups regarding the frequency of fossilized
errors?
Based on the two sets of data, do fossilized errors decrease significantly
over an academic year? If so, which errors show the most improvement?

Participants and interviewing
There were 42 students who were interviewed for the first corpus MDC2019, and 29
for the second, MDC2020. For this study, 12 students were selected, six from thelower to intermediate proficiency range (210-450) and six from a higher TOEIC range(645-920). All of the participants were Japanese, aged 18 to 19, except for two foreign
students who were Korean. The one outlier was a Japanese student who had lived in
New Zealand for a number of years and had the highest TOEIC score of 985.
University procedures and approval for the study was requested, granted, andfollowed, and all of the students agreed to be interviewed, to have their conversationstranscribed and studied. Student consent was obtained, with the aims of the study
being reviewed by a university committee beforehand. These participants were all
engineering majors as the university is focused on this area of study. The sample sizeof the study is 12 students divided into two groups: high-proficiency group and lowproficiency group.
Students were called in one-by-one and in the interview and were given the
background of the research study and permission forms in both Japanese and English.
Students were made aware that their monologues and dialogues were to bevideotaped, transcribed, and used for research purposes. Participants knew they had
the right to withdraw from the research once it started and that learning about theirfluency and grammatical accuracy, it would benefit them in future interactions. Theirnames of the students were abbreviated in the final corpora that were uploaded to theresearch website.3 Students were able to read the interview script out beforehand to
avoid any lapses in comprehension that might impact the fluency data. The interview
process began with them being asked to give a self-introduction monologue, which
was then followed by a three-question dialogue with information about friends,
family, and classes.
Corpora42 Japanese students were asked to give a self-introduction monologue, which wasthen followed by a three-question dialogue in the MDC2019, whereas in MDC2020,
there were 29 participants. The Monologic and Dialogic Corpus (MDC) 2019 has
20,368 words, and the MDC2020 has 16,997 words.
Data analysis
Data analysis involved an independent T-test was used for estimating the meandifference between the two groups of students in 2019 and 2020; the Mann-Whitney
test was used for non-normally distributed independent variables. A paired T-test wasused for estimating the mean difference between the two groups of students over theacademic year 2019/2020 for normally distributed variables, whereas the Wilcoxon
Signed-rank test was used for non-normally distributed variables. The continuous
variables in the study were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. All
statistical analyses were performed in SPSS (version 25). Based on previous research(Long and Watanabe, 2020), fossilized errors were based on the following forms:
3

Researcher’s website: genderfluency.com

verb tense, verb agreement, verb usage, articles misuse, article omissions,
prepositions, adjective/modifiers, phrasing and noun plurals.
Results
As for the first research question, interlingual errors were identified as including
articles, plurals and prepositions since the Japanese do not have articles, plurals, anddo rely on particles to connote placement and direction. Thus, errors relating to article
usage and prepositions can be considered interlingual. Regarding significant
differences between the frequency of interlingual and intralingual fossilized errors, at-test showed no significant different t(5) = .21, p <0.844 between these two kinds oferrors.
As for the second and third research questions, results showed marginal improvement,
if not an increase in error rates on most of the variables. In looking at the MDC2019
corpus, for the lower proficiency group, verb tense errors, verb agreement errors, verb
usage errors, article deletions, preposition errors, adjective errors, adverb errors,
general phrasing/wording, and nouns plurals tended to be fossilized, while for thehigher proficiency group, preposition errors, adjective errors, generalphrasing/wording, and nouns plurals were the most redundant errors.
In particular, descriptive statistics indicated that for the 15 participants for both
corpora, that error-free clauses / 100 words decreased slightly while clauses witherrors / 100 words increased by one additional clause. Global errors showed asignificant decline, while local errors increased from 97 to 158 errors. For errors
related to parts of speech, a t-test confirmed there was a significant difference (t (23)
= 2.19366, p < 0.0386) between the two speech corpora with more error frequency
occurring in the 2019 corpus. This data indicates that error formation remains highand that little awareness on the part of the student was taking place.

GroupLower

Table 1: Difference in grammar accuracy variables over the academic year
2019/2020 in the low-proficiency group
Over the year
Variable

Total Errors
Clauses with Errors/100
Clauses with Errors
Error Free Clauses/100
Error Free Clauses
Verb Tense Errors
Verb Agreement Errors
Verb Usage Errors
Articles Misuse
Article Deletions
Article Incorrect Insertion
Preposition Errors
Adjective Errors
Adverb Errors
General Phrasing/wording
Nouns Plurals

Mean

2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019

14.8
21.0
3.9
3.7
12.2
16.2
15.0
8.4
42.2
22.7
.8

2020

2.2
3.7
3.5
1.0
2.0
.2
.0
4.2
3.7

2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019

.0
.0
2.7
2.0
.0
.8
.0
.3
1.0
5.2
1.3

2020

1.7

Mean difference

Pvalue

-6.2

.048

.3

0.643

-4.0

0.125

6.6

0.048

19.5

0.012

-1.3

.082

.2

0.833

-1.0

0.296

.2

0.363

.5

0.831

0

0.0

.7

0.675

-.8

0.093

-.3

0.175

-4.2

0.005

-.3

0.611

GroupHigherTable 2: Difference in grammar accuracy variables over the academic year
2019/2020 in the high-proficiency group.
Over the year
Mean
Variable

Total Errors
Clauses with Errors/100
Clauses with Errors
Error Free Clauses/100
Error Free Clauses
Verb Tense Errors
Verb Agreement Errors
Verb Usage Errors
Articles Misuse
Article Deletions
Article Incorrect Insertion
Preposition Errors
Adjective Errors
Adverb Errors
General Phrasing/wording
Nouns Plurals

Mean

2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020
2019
2020

17.7
16.7
3.1
2.5
16.0
15.3
10.2
10.6
86.2
108.7
1.5
.8
1.7
.8
1.7
.8
.7
.0
4.8
1.8
1.0
.0
1.5
1.3
.0
.8
.0
.0
3.0
7.8
1.5
2.3

difference

P-value

1.0

0.882

.6

0.486

.7

0.912

.7

0.915

-22.5

0.363

.7

0.484

.8

0.185

.8

0.341

.7

0.102

3.0

0.091

1.0

0.111

.2

0.872

-.8

0.259

0
-4.8

0.157

-.8

0.341

Table 3. Phase 3 Analysis: Global / Local Errors and Fossilized Errors____________________________________________________________________
MDC2019
MDC2020
20,368 words
16,997 words
Total
%
Total
%
Fossilized Errors
266
1.31
120
0.71
Verb tense errors

14

0.07

5

0.03

Verb agreement errors

31

0.15

14

0.08

Verb usage errors

10

0.05

1

0.005

Article omissions (the)

51

0.25

23

0.14

Article omissions (a)

86

0.42

38

0.22

Preposition errors (to)

17

0.06

6

0.04

Preposition errors (at)

8

0.04

0

0

Preposition errors (in)

5

0.02

0

0

Prepositions errors (around/under)

0

0

0

0

Preposition errors (for)

3

0.014

1

0.005

Preposition errors (about)

1

0.004

2

0.011

Prepositions errors (with)

5

0.02

1

0.005

Prepositions errors (on)

1

0.004

1

0.005

Prepositions errors (from)

0

0

3

0.02

Adjective / modifier errors

7

0.03

3

0.02

Possessive Pronoun errors

3

0.01

4

0.02

Phrasing errors(insertions/word order)

7

0.03

8

0.05

Possession not marked

8

0.04

2

0.011

Noun (Plural) errors
7
0.03
3
0.011
_____________________________________________________________________
Note: A fossilized error is defined as an error that has been repeated three times indifferent transcripts.

Further investigation examined specific cases and examples of fossilized errors. Data
revealed that for verb tense, students had specific problems with choose/chose, andbelong/belonged, and for verb agreement students had problems with like, dislikes,
lives, works, and is/are. As for verb usage, students had problems with infinitives andgerunds, I want built, I was belong, my mother working. For the MDC2019 corpus,
for article deletions involving the article the, there were 52 cases whereas in the
MDC2020 corpus, there were 23; likewise, for the omission of a, for the 2019 corpus,
there were 86 cases and 38 cases in 2020.
Preposition errors focused on the use of to (2019, 17 cases; 2020, 6 cases), of (2019, 1
case, 2020, no cases), at, (2019, 8 cases; 2020 0 cases), in (2019, 5 cases; 2020 0
cases), for (2019, 3 cases; 2020 1 cases) (2019, 5 cases; 2020 1 case) on (2019, 1case;2020 1 case), and from (2019, 0 cases, 2020 3 cases). In regard to adjectives, students
had issues with comparatives and superlatives (more old) and usage (little women)along with the use of many (many difficult). Phrasing errors involved missing or
inserted words / word order (MDC2019, 7 cases; MDC2020, 8 cases) along withproblems with possession, marked by apostrophes (MDC2019, 8 cases; MDC2020, 2
cases). For these participants, errors with noun plurals were based on words machine,
and the word subject. Thus, the most improvement that was shown related to verb
tenses, verb agreement, verb usage, prepositions, and, to some degree noun plurals.
Discussion
The data confirms that fossilized errors tend to be based on verb agreement, articles(omissions based on the and a), prepositions, (to, for, with) adjectives, possessive
pronouns, and phrasing. Concerning the types of errors that Japanese EFL learners
often make, the data confirms previous research and the experience of manyeducators, e.g. (Bryant, 1984) that articles, verb tense, prepositions, modifiers, andsubject-verb agreement are the most frequent fossilized errors made by Japanese EFL
learners. This data also shows that not all fossilized errors are alike in regard to
frequency, and semantic impact; teachers should take into account the level ofdifficulty of each kind of error, with phrasing being the most problematic. Demir(2019) noted “the effectiveness of any error correction method changes on the numberof factors, instruction content, students’ proficiency, motivation and, of course, thestudents linguistic background, so results can vary dramatically.
Thus, educators need to bypass the traditional way of grammar instruction of
randomly addressing various forms in one chapter, and providing tasks, to one inwhich errors are systematically and continuously taught throughout the year, looking
at ever-increasingly complex forms and usage. By relying on specific grammar
strands and clusters (Byrd, 1997), fossilized errors could be substantially reduced.
Teachers could then examine how grammatical forms cluster and impact meaning in avariety of communication, emails, speeches, dialogues, monologues, and in technicalEnglish. Specifically, clusters such as verb-phrase + prepositions combinations
should be examined along with how nouns (plurals) affect verb agreement.
Furthermore, teachers could provide various kinds of clusters of articles + adjectives+ nouns function in dialogues and then in emails, as well as have students take on
increasingly complex phrasing.

A series of developmental grammar correction tasks in a second-person roleplay is
one innovative step that can help teachers to spot errors in the classroom. Such tasks
would allow for students’ answers to various questions, opinions, and ideas, so
teachers can provide more relevant feedback that pertains to the students’ own needs
as they write and then rehearse their roleplays. Teachers will have to rely on various
kinds of explicit and implicit learning mechanisms that require both copious input andoutput.
Nonetheless, it was clear from this study that many errors were being repeated several
times. Educators should instead focus on the most common errors throughout thecourse, paying attention to a variety of contexts, again with increasing levels ofcomplexity. It is also important for English teachers to realize the impact of L1 on
EFL: teachers should be aware that prepositions in English, like particles in Japanese,take some time to understand and to use insofar that many are related to idiomaticusage. Further research could diversify data collection tools (incorporating online
grammar checkers and dictation tools) and include different instructional contexts
such as meaning-focused versus form-focused to test the effectiveness of various
types of error correction across different contexts. More innovative tasks can include(a) sentence completions with increasingly longer and more complex syntax andpunctuation marks, (b) having students select particular meanings based on a prompt
in a second-person roleplay in which they are placed, and (c) identifying andcorrecting grammatical errors in dialogues and speeches.
Conclusion
This research examined university-level first-year Japanese EFL students to better
understand the context in which they are making errors and the frequency over thecourse of an academic year. Data was collected from two corpora, the Monologic andDialogic Corpus (MDC) 2019 has 20,368 words, and 42 subjects, and the second
corpus MDC2020, which has 16,997 words and 29 participants. Errors in the
2019/2020 corpora were identified and then coded for frequency; results showed thefollowing fossilized errors: articles deletions (92/94), prepositions (39/43) plurals(54/55), subject-verb agreement (85/46), and general wording (60/69). However, in
looking at clauses with errors/100 words, there were 5.29 errors in the 2019 corpus,
whereas, in the 2020 corpus, there was a slight improvement of 3.35 errors/100 words,
indicating that marginal progress was made.
The data in this paper indicates that currently, students are seemingly unaware of thekinds of errors they are making in their spontaneous speech. Due to constraints thatcome with class sizes, educators are often ill-equipped to identify them and to provide
real-time feedback to these students, thereby allowing many errors to become
fossilized. In short, more innovative research needs to be made into error analysis,
especially as to how errors become fossilized in the first place, the frequency of theiroccurrence, possible differences in the production of their oral and written expression,
and which techniques are the most effective in addressing them. The results will
make a significant contribution to the theoretical consciousness-raising applied
linguistics and all language practitioners.

References
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence.
Berlin, de: Springer-Verlag. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74124-1.
Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. San Francisco, USA:
Pearson education.
Bryant, W. H. (1984). Typical errors in English made by Japanese ESL students.
JALT q journal 6(1): 1-18.URL: https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf/jalt_journal/jj-61.pdf#page=11 (Accessed: December 18, 2020).
Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1978). Global and local mistakes, in J. Schumann &N.Stenson (Eds.). New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley,
Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishing, Inc.
Byrd, P. (1997) Grammar from context: rethink the teaching of grammar at various
proficiency levels. The Language Teacher Online (The Japan Association for
Language Teaching Journal), 21(12):169-189.
URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/dec/byrd.html (Accessed:
December 18, 2020).
Corder, S.P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, (9): 147-159.
Crosby, R. (2013). Effectiveness of error correction in a university EFL discussion
Class. Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University. Retrieved from:https://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/contentscinii_20180426093104.pdf?id=ART001002555
DeKeyser, Robert. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In Catherine J. Doughty andMichael H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition, 311-348.
Demir, A. (2019) Error Correction in Three EFL Classrooms in Turkey. ELT
Research Journal 8(3):158-169. URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adnan_Demir/publication/304216338_Error_cor
rection_in_three_EFL_classrooms/links/5e0b231892851c8364a6f94f/Errorcorrection-in-three-EFL-classrooms.pdf (Accessed: December 18, 2020).
Ellis, R and Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fauziati, E. (2011). Interlanguage and error fossilazation: A stuidy of Indonesianstudents learning English as a foreign language. Conaplin Journal: Indonesian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, I(I1): 25-40. URL:
http://jurnal.upi.edu/file/03_Endang_Fauziati_Interlang_Fossil1.pdf (Accessed:
December 18, 2020).
Gefen, R. (1979). The analysis of pupil’s errors. English Teachers’ Journal, 22, 16-24.

Han, Z. (2005). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
(Han, Z & Odlin, T. (Ed.) (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language
acquisition. Language and Education 20, 543-547.
Hasbún, L. H. (2007). Fossilization and Acquisition: A Study of Learner Language.
Filología y Lingüística XXXIII (1): 113-129.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent
theory, research, and practice // K. Croft. Readings on English as a second language(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. New
York: Longman.
Kayum, M. A. (2015). Error analysis and correction in oral communication in the efl
context of Bangladesh. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research andDevelopment; 2(3): 125-129.
Long (2016) The Japanese University Student Corpus (JUSC) Retrieved atwww.genderfluency.com.
Long and Hatcho (2018). Gender as a Variable in Grammatical Accuracy. Asia TEFL
Journal, 15, 3, (Fall 2018 issue), 890-898.
Long, R. and Watanabe, H. (2020). The Mirage of Progress? A Study of JapaneseStudents’ L2 Oral Grammar Over an Academic Year. The Language Teacher. In
press.
Hirotani, M., Matsumoto, K. and Fukada, A. (2012). Longitudinal Study on Fluency
Novice Among Learners of Japanese. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL:
Using, Learning, Knowing.
Kormos,J. (2000). The Role of Attention in Monitoring Second Language Speech
Production. Language Learning 50(2):343–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/00238333.00120 EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012,
Proceedings (pp. 129-133).
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System
33(2):293-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of l2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490.

Pillai, S. (2006). Self-Monitoring and Self-Repair In Spontaneous Speech. k@ta
8(2):114126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.8.2.114-126
Pishghadam, R., Hashemi, M., & Kermanshahi, P. (2011). Self-correction among
Iranian EFL learners: An investigation into their preferences for corrective feedback.
Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(5), 957-962.
Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First Language Use in Second Language
Production. Applied Linguistics 15(1):36–57.DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.36
Qian, M., & Xiao, Z. (2010). Strategies for preventing and resolving temporary
fossilization in second language acquisition. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 180183. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p180.
Richards, J. (1971). Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Sciences,17, 12-22.
Richards, J. (1974). Error Analysis: Perspective on second language acquisition.
London: Longman Group Ltd
Sánchez, L. (2012). The effects of self-monitoring and self-reflection in A1 adultlearners in an English blended learning environment. Master's Thesis at Universidad
de La Sabana. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10818/3161 (Accessed: December 18, 2020).
Schraeder, L. L. (1996). Empowering ESL Students in the Mainstream through Self –Assessment and Contracted Learning. A Report at U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information
Center (ERIC Number: ED407850), URL:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED407850.pdf (Accessed: December 18, 2020).
Selinker, L. (1972), Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
209–231. Retrieved: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
Shumann, J.H. & Stenson, N. (1974). (eds.) New frontiers in second language
learning. Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Rowley, Mass.
Taher, A. (2011). Error analysis: a study of Swedish junior high school students' texts
and grammar knowledge. Unpublished Master's Thesis.
Retrieve from:http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:496190/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
(Accessed: December 16, 2020). (Report nr: 2011ht5009).
Tamjid, N. H. and Birjandi, P. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy through self andpeer-assessment. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5):245-251.
Touchie, H. (1986). Second language learning errors their types, causes, andtreatment. Proceedings of the JALT Journal-Volume 8, Number 1, 75-80.

Ubol, C. 1988. An Error Analysis of English Compositions by Singapore Students.
Singapore: Seamen Regional Language Center.
Wei, X. (2008). Implication of IL fossilization in second language acquisition.
English language teaching 1 (1), 127-131.
Xie, F. & Jiang, X. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. US-China
Education Review, 4(9), (Serial No. 34), ISSN158-6613, USA