CONTRANSITIVE
AND ERROR ANALYSIS
‘’The
Study Of Learner English’’
By
Name
nim
L.Moh.Masdar
11.411.104
Miftahul
Yuda
11.411.108
Ahmad
Rizal 11.411.113
Mawardi 11.411.118
Suparjan 11.411.136
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND ART
INSTITUT OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
2014
PREFACE
Praise
belongs to Allah for all the blessings, grace, and
His guidance that
no measurable amount,
so that we can
complete a paper with the title "The
Study Of Learner English”
In
preparation, we gained
a lot of support from other parties,
so we would like to thank everyone who has helped
us so the creation
of this paper. Hopefully all of this could give
a little happiness and lead to a better pace.
Many shortcomings inherent in this paper. Therefore, we expect criticism and constructive suggestions that this paper can be better. Finally, we hope that this paper is useful for all readers.
Many shortcomings inherent in this paper. Therefore, we expect criticism and constructive suggestions that this paper can be better. Finally, we hope that this paper is useful for all readers.
Mataram, December 18,2013
Writers
TABLE OF CONTAIN
PREFACE
.........................................................................................................................i
TABLE
OF CONTAIN......................................................................................................ii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1
CHAPTER II DISCUSSION ............................................................................................1
A. THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE SYSTEMS
..................1
1.
Language
transfer...................................................................................3
2.
Intralingual
Interferences .......................................................................3
3.
Sociolinguistics
Situation. ......................................................................4
4.
Modality.
...............................................................................................5
5.
Age.
.......................................................................................................5
6.
Successions
of Approximative Systems. ................................................5
7.
Universal
Hierarchy of Difficulty. .........................................................6
B.
THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER SYSTEMS.........................................7
CHAPTER III CLOSE................................................................................................8
A.
Conclusion.................................................................................................8
B.
Reference
......................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, second language acquisition can refer to
the scientific study of the second-language learning process. It means that second language acquisition refers to what the
learner does, it does not refer to what teachers do. As
stated by Menyuk (1971) that study of the child-learner’s errors does indeed throw light on the types
of the cognitive and linguistic processes that appear to be part of language
learning process. In
addition, Corner (1971) stated that in second language learning, the learner’s
errors are indicative both of the state of the learner’s knowledge, and of the
ways in which a second language is learned.
According to Richard and
Sampson that while current linguistic theories are more insightful than
previous ones, there has not been a corresponding increase in the desriptive or
explanatory powers of theories of second language acquisition. Furthermore,
they also added that the data gathered could perhaps provide corrective
feedback to general linguistic theory
and to language teaching practice.
CHAPTER
II
DISCUSSION
A.
THE STUDY OF LEARNERS’ APPROXIMATIVE
SYSTEMS
The concept of second language
acquisition and how
it is to be described and understood is widely debated. Boaz (1889) suggested that learners perceived
sounds in new languages in terms of their native language or other languages to
which they had earlier been exposed. With the emergence of the notion of language
as a system however, the question of second language acquisition could be
viewed as the juxtaposition of two systems.
Lado
(1957) tended to emphasize points of contrast between two language systems.
Contrastive analysis subsequently arose as a field of research. To be sure,
contrast between systems was understood not to be only factor involved in
second language learning.
According
to Corder (1967) linguists study the process of language acquisition and the
various strategies learners may use. In line with this statement, Strevens
(1969) hypotesized that errors should not be viewed as problems to be overcome,
but rather as normal and inevitable features indiating the strategies that
learners use.
On
the contrary, Nemser (1971) in his early work aimed at the collection and
evaluation of relevant interference data. In line with Nemser, Briere (1968)
attempted to test empirically the amount of interference that would ensue from
competing phonological categories. Errors which did not fit systematically into
the native language or target language systems were, for the most part,
ignored.
Current
research tends to focus on the learner himself as generator of the grammar of
his sentences in the new language. It is reflected in a growing terminology for
a field of research which deals with the learner’s attempts to internalize the
grammar of the language he is learning. This terminology includes error
analysis, idiosyncratic dialects, interlanguage, approximative systems,
transitional competence, l’etat de dialecte.
The small amount of research
and speculation about learners’ approximative systems mention seven factors that may influence and
characterize the second language learner systems:
1.
Language transfer.
Sentences
in the target language my exhibit interferences from the mother tongue. Interference analysis tends to be from
the deviant sentence back to the mother tongue, while contrastive analysis
predicts errors by comparing the linguistic systems of the mother tongue and
the target langauge. As stated by George (1971) that one-third of the deviant
sentences from second language learners could be attribute to language
transfer. However, until the role of other factors is more understood, it is
not possible to evaluate the amount of systematic interference due to language
transfer alone.
2.
Intralingual Interferences.
Richards
(1970) proposed intralingual interferences refer to items produced by the learner which
reflect not the structure of the mother tongue, but generalizations based on
partial exposure to the target language. Furthermore, he found systematic intralingual errors to involve
overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incompete application of
rules, and semantic errors.
Like first
language learners, the second language learner tries to derive the rules behind
the data to which he has been exposed, and may develop hypotheses that
correspond neither to the mother tongue nor target language. As stated by
Torrey (1966) in his experiment on learning Russian word order, subjects sometimes
adopted a consistent word order diffferent from either Russian or English. In
line with this experiment, Brudhiprabha (1972) on his studies of Thai Learner
of English, many intralingual errors represent the learning difficulty of what
are often low level rules in the target language.
3.
Sociolinguistics Situation.
Different
settings language use result in different degrees and types of language
learning. Terms of the effects of the socio-cultural setting on the learner’s
language are different from terms of the relationship holding between the
learner and the target language community and the respective linguistic markers
of these relations and identities such as the effects of the learner’s
particular motivations for learning the second language as well as the effects
of the socio-cultural setting.
Sociolinguistics
situation leads to inclusion of the general motivational variables which influence
language learning. Psychologists have related the types of language learning
achieved to the role of the language in relation to the learner’s needs and
perceptions. In focusing on the type of relationship holding between the
learner and the target language community it would be appropriate to consider
non-standard dialects, pidgins, creoles, and immigrant language learning.
According to Ferguson (1971) the phenomenon of simplification in some language
contact situations, represented by the absence of the copula, reduction of
morphological and inflectional system, and grammatical simplification, may
likewise be socially motivated.
In
addition, Mackey (1962 noted that in describing interference one must account
for variation according to medium, style, or register in which the speaker is
operating. Sampson (1971) suggested that varying situations evoke different
kinds of errors in varying quantities when children are trying to use the
target language.
4.
Modality.
The
learner’s language may vary according to the modality of exposure to the target
language and the modality of production. Vildomec (1963) observed that interferences between the bilingual’s
languages is generally in the productive rather than in receptive side. Some of
the modalities affecting the
learner’s approximative system are auditory cues, spelling
pronunciations, and confusions of written and spoken styles.
5.
Age.
Some
aspects of the child’s learning capacities change as he grows older and these
may affect language learning. Lenneberg (1967) noted a period of primary language acquisition,
postulated to be biologically determined, beginning when the child starts to
walk and continuing until puberty.
In some
ways adults are better prepared for language learning than children. Adults
have better memories, a larger store of abstract concepts that can be used in
learning, and a greater ability to form new concepts. Children however are
better imitators of speech sounds. Ervin-Tripp (1970) suggested tht adult
mother tongue development is primarily in terms of vocabulary. The adult’s
strategies of language learning may be more vocabulary oriented than syntactic.
6.
Successions of Approximative Systems.
It
concerns the lack stability of the learner’s approximative system. Because the
circumtances for individual language learning are never identical, the
acquisition of new lexical, phonological and syntactic items varies from one
individual to another.
Since most
studies of second language learners systems have dealt with the learner’s
production rather than his comprehension of language, the question also arises
as to whether the grammar by which the learner understands speech is the same
as that by which he produces speech. According to Troike (1969) assuming the
learner hears and understands standard English but produses a significant
number of deviant sentences, the distinction between his receptive competence
(the rules he understands) and his productive competence (the rules he uses)
may be useful.
Evidence
from earlier studies indicates that many phonological replacements found in the
speech of second language learners are unique to the approximative system.
7.
Universal Hierarchy of Difficulty.
It
concerns with the inherent difficulty for man of certain phonological,
syntactic or semantic items and structures.
•
A
hierarchy of difficulty
–
is
concerned with the inherent difficulty for man of certain phonological,
syntactic or semantic items and structures
–
Some forms
may be inherently difficult to learn: e.g. /v/-/ð/ & /f/-/θ/ in English
–
may affect
the learner’s organization of what he perceives and the organization of what he
produces
•
The cues
which the learner uses to identify elements in the new language
–
cognates,
derivatives, loan words
–
where the
target language follows a structure in the mother tongue: is it feasible to
compare categories across language? No – what is syntax in one language e.g.
may be vocabulary in another
•
What the
learner finds difficult will also depend on the degree and nature of what he
has acquired of the SL
•
SL
knowledge = part of the data by which the learner infers the meaning of new
elements (plural markers, tense markers, word order constraints etc.)
•
Difficulty
in language learning defined by psycholinguists
–
sentence
length
–
processing
time required
–
derivational
complexity
–
types of
embedding
–
number of
transformations
–
semantic
complexity
•
Comprehension
vs. production
–
Learners
may avoid a word or structure they find difficult (in production): I’m going
to telephone you tonight
instead I’ll telephone you
tonight – not the case in comprehension
–
Why first
learned words/structures tend to be overused and may resist replacement by
latter taught one: Facility and economy of effort
B.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER SYSTEMS
The difference between first
language acquisition and second language learning:
|
First
language acquisition
|
Second
language learning
|
|
learning of the mother
tongue is the part of the whole maturational process of the child
|
Learning a second
language normally begins only after the maturational process
|
The learner’s errors provide
evidence of the system of the language that is using at the particular point at
the course. For the teacher, it can give information about how far the goal has
been reached, and what remains for him/her to be learned.
CHAPTER III
CLOSED
- CONCLUTION
Target language is a very
important part of second language learning. The ability to communicate in a
second language clearly and efficiently contributes to the success of the
learner in school and success later in every phase of life. Therefore, it is
essential that language teachers pay great attention to teaching target
language.
- REFRERENCE
Richards, J.C. & Sampson, G.P. (1974). The study of learner English.
Reprinted in J.C. Richards. (Ed.) (1994). Error Analysis. Perspectives on
second language acquisition. (13th ed.) London: Longman, pp. 3-18.
