Ellipsis in english an analysis of errors made by secondary school students = phân tích lỗi thường gặp của học sinh thpt trong việc sử dụng phép tỉnh lược trong tiếng anh

i


ii

vinh university
foreign language department
----------------------

ellipsis in english: an analysis of errors
made by secondary school students
(phân tích lỗi th-ờng gặp của học sinh thpt trong viƯc
sư dơng phÐp tØnh l-ỵc trong tiÕng anh)

graduation thesis

field: linguistics

Supervisor: Vũ Thị Việt H-ơng, M.A.
Student

: Võ Thị Thuú Linh, 43A2

Vinh, 2006


iii

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor,

Vũ Thị Việt H-ơng, M.A, who has helped me to shape the idea of the study and
given me valuable guidance, corrections and encouragement for accomplishment
of the thesis.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all of my teachers at the
Foreign language department of Vinh University for their lectures on the area
which enables me to gain a lot of theoretical as well as practical knowledge.
Finally, I am particularly grateful to my parents and my friends for their
encouragements and spiritual support to my process of writing of the thesis.
Vinh, summer, 2006
Vâ ThÞ Thuú Linh


iv

list of abbreviations

Ell. :

Ellipsis

Etc. :

Et cetara

*

Unacceptable expressions

:

v

list of tables

Table 2.1. Results of exercise 1
Table 2.2. Result of erxercise 2
Table 2.3. Result of exercise 3
Table 2.4. Results of exercise 4
Table 2.5. Number of errors and their causes in exercise 1
Table 2.6. Number of errors and their causes in exercise 1
Table 2.7. Number of errors and their causes in exercise 1
Table 2.8. Number of errors and their causes in exercise 1
Table 2.9. The overall results


vi

tables of contents
Acknowledgements
Lists of abbreviations
Lists of tables
Tables of contents

i
ii
iii
iv

Part I. Introduction

1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3

1.1. Rationale of the study
1.2. Aims of the study
1.3. Research questions of the study
1.4. Subjects of the study
1.5. Procedure of the study
1.6. Scope of the study
1.7. Method of the study
1.8. Design of the study
Part II. Content
Chapter I. Theoretical background

1.1. Ellipsis as a cohesive device
1.1.1. The concept of ellipsis
1.1.2. Nominal ellipsis
1.1.2.1. The structure of the english nominal group
1.1.2.2. Ellipsis within the nominal group
1.1.3. Verbal ellipsis
1.1.3.1. The structure of the english verbal group
1.1.3.2. Ellipsis within the verbal group

1.1.3.3. Lexical ellipsis
1.1.3.4. Operator ellipsis
1.1.4. Clausal ellipsis
1.1.4.1. The structure of the english clause
1.1.4.2. Modal ellipsis and propositional ellipsis
1.1.4.3. Direct respones
1.1.4.4. Indirect responses
1.2. Summary
1.3. Errors in language learning process
1.3.1. The notion of errors
1.3.2. Errors and mistakes
1.3.3. Error analysis
1.3.4. Causes of errors in second language learning
1.3.4.1. Interlingual errors
1.3.4.2. Intralingual errors

5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
11
11

13
14
14
15
15
15
18
18
19
20


vii
Chapter II. the study

2.1. Research setting
2.2. Data collection
2.3. Preliminary results and data collection
2.3.1. Results of exercise 1
2.3.2. Results of exercise 2
2.3.3. Results of exercise 3
2.3.4. Results of exercise 4
2.4. Errors and theirs causes
2.4.1. Errors and theirs causes in exercise 1
2.4.2. Errors and theirs causes in exercise 2
2.4.3. Errors and theirs causes in exercise 3
2.4.4. Errors and theirs causes in exercise 4
2.4.5. General tendency

23

23
23
24
24
24
25
26
26
26
29
32
35
38

3.1. Major findings
3.2. Implications for teaching and learning English ellipsis
3.2.1. Implications for teaching English ellipsis
3.2.1.1.Suggestions for presentation
3.2.1.2.Suggestions for practice
3.2.1.3.Suggestions for production
3.2.2. Implications for learning English ellipsis
3.3. Suggestions for further research

39
39
40
40
40
43
44

45
45

Part III. conclusion

46

Chapter III. Findings and discussion

References
Appendix


1
part I: introduction
1.1. Rationale of the study

In recent years, together with the increasing need for English learners,
great efforts have been made in order to improve the quality of English teaching
and learning. Searching for an implementation of new and more effective
teaching methods is one part of these great efforts. Special attention has also
been paid to research in different areas of the teaching and learning English.
Given the fact that descriptions and analyses of students' errors play a crucial
role in the improvement of the teaching and learning, error analysis has been an
interesting area which has attracted the attention of an increasing number of
researchers.
Since the Vietnamese and English languages have very district grammar
systems, Vietnamese learners of English tend to encounter a lot of difficulties in
their acquisition of the target language. Among these difficulties is the use of
ellipsis in English. As a cohesive device, ellipsis plays an important role in the

making of discourse. Perhaps, for this reason, concerning English discourse,
ellipsis seems to have been given a great deal of attention. This is revealed in the
works of Halliday and Hasan (1976), Brown and Yule (1983), Halliday and
Hasan (1985), Cook (1989), Mc Carthy (1993) and so on. In Vietnam, there have
been a number of studies and B.A graduation theses by ELT methodologists and
students focusing on cohesive devices and error analysis, such as Huynh Huu
Hien (1997), Nguyen Thi Thuy Hong (2002).
However, to my best knowledge, very little research has been done on error
analysis in the area of ellipsis. Therefore, based on the outcomes of the previous
contrastive analysis studies concerning cohesive devices, an analysis of errors in
using ellipsis is intended to be an effort contributing to filling the gap.
The second reason for conducting the present research originated from the
fact that many secondary-school students make mistakes in different aspects of
ellipsis in English. It is obvious that failure to use ellipsis usually results in


2
students producing long, clumsy or unnatural sentences in English. For example,
Vietnamese learners of English may produce utterances as:
A: Have you done what I told you?
B: Yes, I have done what you told me.
Instead, the native speakers use a short and natural answer: Yes, I have.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a neglect of ellipsis in teaching materials,
especially at low levels. Therefore, another aim of this research is to identify the
possible causes of errors and to suggest some ways of overcoming them so as to
help students produce better discourse in English.
1.2. Aims of the study

The study reported in this thesis aims to:
_ Identify common errors in using English ellipsis as a cohesive device in

writing made by secondary school students.
_ Find out the major causes and sources of these errors based on the
analysis of the frequent errors made by these students.
_ Make some suggestions for teaching and learning English ellipsis.
1.3. Research questions of the study

The study in this thesis is carried out in order to answer the following
research questions:
1. What errors do secondary school students commit in using ellipsis in
English?
2. What might be the causes and sources of the errors in using ellipsis in
English?
3. What suggestions can be made in the learning and teaching processes in
order to help students acquire the use of ellipsis in English?
1.4. The subjects of the study

The subjects for the study include 100 students from two twelfth classes
(12C and 12D) at Sam Son secondary school. They learn English as a compulsory


3
subject at school. Most of them have learnt English for 6 years and their
knowledge of English is a full grammatical aspect. All of the students have
enough condition to take part in the test.
1.5. procedure of the study

For the characteristics of this particular study, the procedure for error
analysis can be described in detail as follows:
Firstly, all the 100 student participants were asked to do the test under the
same conditions. The time allowance for doing the test was 90 minutes. Students

were not allowed to use any reference books or dictionaries, and they did the test
under the researcher's supervision. The data collected were then analyzed using
descriptive method. Descriptive statistics were used to obtain information on how
the subjects performed the task, and how often ellipsis errors occurred. The
exploration was based on the theoretical discussion of learner's errors presented
in chapter I.
1.6. Scope of the study

_ Analyze errors through the tests.
_ Classify errors into typical types.
_ Find out related reasons.
1.7. Method of the study

We would apply the quantitative methodology in this research using a test
to collect students' errors which are to be analyzed. It is expected that 4 exercises
will be used. The test will be designed in the written form involving different
language contexts to provoke receptive and expressive errors in ellipsis. The test
will be done by a sample of approximately 100 students from two twelfth classes
randomly chosen in Sam Son high school, without using any reference books or
dictionaries and under my supervision.
1.8. Design of the study

The thesis consists of three parts.


4
*Part I: Introduction. This part deals with the rational, aims, scope and
method of the study. The design of the study is also provided.
* Part II: Content
This part consists of three chapters:

Chapter I: Theoretical background
This chapter is presented with two sections. The first section focuses on
the theoretical preliminaries on necessary notions of cohesion and ellipsis as well
as their relationships with one another. The second section is an overview of
theories related to the sources of errors which help us explore what factors caused
students' commitment of errors and the notion of error analysis which is useful
for analyzing the data.
Chapter II: The study
This chapter consists of two sections. The first section describes such
elements related to the methodology of this particular study as research
questions, setting, subjects, data collection and procedures of error analysis. The
second section presents some preliminary results of the study, the analysis of
errors committed and some major findings derived from the analysis.
Chapter III: Conclusion and Implications
This chapter is the application of the study with some implications for
teaching and learning English ellipsis. Some suggestions for further research are
also presented in this chapter.
*Part III: Conclusion
This part will summarize what has been presented in the thesis.
The References and Appendix are provided at the end of the thesis.


5
Part II:

content

chapter I: theoretical background

1.1. ellipsis as A cohesive device

1.1.1. The concept of ellipsis
The notion of ellipsis has traditionally been studied as aformal feature
within the sentence. But then, because the linguists' attention has been held to
discourse, and the notion of textuality has been seriously considered, ellipsis has
gradually been looked into across sentences as a cohesive device. Ellipsis is
actually defined in very much the same way by different authors.
Below are some definitions of ellipsis.
Quirk et al (1972) states that ellipsis is purely a surface phenomenon. In
a strict sense of ellipsis, words are ellipted only if they are uniquely recoverable
and what is uniquely recoverable depends on the contexts.
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 142) define ellipsis as "something left
unsaid". There is no implication here what is unsaid is not understood; on the
contrary, "unsaid" implies "but understood nevertheless".
McCarthy (1991: 43) defines ellipsis as the omission of elements
normally required by the grammar which the speaker or writer assumes are
obvious from the context and therefore need not to be raised.
These definitions, though not exactly the same in details, have much in
common. That is, ellipsis is recognized as a grammatical device and
distinguished by the structure having some "missing" elements.
1.1.2. Nominal ellipsis
1.1.2.1. The structure of the English nominal group
Different authors studying English syntax have the same ideas in term of
nominal group.


6
Quirk et al (1972) views the nominal group as consisting of three
different components: the head, the premodification and the postmodification in
the following order:

Premodifier

The Head

Postmodifier

According to Leech and Svartvik (1975), the structure of "noun phrase"
is that of a Head Noun with Determiner and Premodifier preceding it and
Postmodifier following it. This structure is shown as:
Determiner

Premodifier Head Noun

Postmodifier

Halliday and Hasan' s view of the structure of the nominal group is
nearly the same:
Premodifier

The Head

Postmodifier

All of these structures are labeled with class items which are often used
in structural analysis.
1.1.2.2. Ellipsis within the nominal group
Nominal ellipsis occurs when there is an omission of the Head Noun.
Let us consider this example:
Slice the onion finely, brown in the butter and then place in a small dish.
In this example, there is an ellipsis of the onion. The full sentence may

be written as: "Slice the onion finely, brown in the butter the onion in the butter
and then place the onion in a small dish ". However, it is unusual to write in this
way. The omission of the head noun "onion" makes the sentence shorter, but
still clear without changing the meaning of the sentence.
In order to make it more concrete, ellipsis within the nominal group will
be considered under the Halliday and Hasan' s point of view.
As mentioned above, the Head in the structure of nominal group is
preceded by Premodifier and followed by Postmodifier. Thus, in "those two fast
electric trains with pantographs", the Head is "train "; the Premodifier is
formed by "those two electric" and the Postmodifier by "with pantograph".


7
The Modifier, in general, can consist of the elements Deitic,
Numerative, Epithet, Classifier and Qualifier. In the above example, these
elements are represented by "those", "two", "fast ", electric " and "with
pantographs" respectively. The Deitic is normally a determiner, the Numerative
a numeral, the Epithet an adjective, the Classifier a noun, and the Qualifier a
relative clause or prepositional phrase. The function of the Head is normally
served by the common noun, proper noun or pronoun expressing the Thing. In
certain circumstances the common noun may be omitted and the function of the
Head taken on by one of those elements of the Modifier. In other words, it is
what is called nominal ellipsis.
An elliptical nominal group is a nominal group whose function of the
Head is served by a word that normally functions within the Modifier. That
means nominal ellipsis involves highlighting a word functioning as Deitic,
Numerative, Epithet or Classifier from the function of Modifier to the Head.
For example:
She wore the red dress, but the red didn't suit her.
(Quirk, 1976: 265)

In the second clause, "the red" is an epithet, functioning as a head
although it is modifier to the Head " dress " in the first clause.
It is clear that an elliptical nominal group requires that there should be
available from some source of the information necessary for filling it out. This
source of the information is often a preceding nominal group. We can conclude
that a nominal group that is elliptical presupposes a previous one that is not, and
it is therefore cohesive.
1.1.3. Verbal ellipsis
1.1.3.1. The structure of the English verbal group
Like the nominal group, the verbal group plays an important part in
English sentences. In the traditional, structural and transformational grammars,
the term "verb phrase" is used for "verbal group". Borsley (1991), Thomas
(1969) and Cook (1988) consider that a "verb phrase" consists of modal verbs, a


8
main verb and other elements of the predication. From the functional and
systemic point of view, the verbal group is defined as consisting of either of a
lexical verb (main verb) or one or more operators together with a lexical verb.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), in the verbal group, there is
only one lexical element (the verb itself). The rest of the Verbal group expresses
systemic selections. The main systems include finiteness, polarity, voice and
tenses. These selections are obligatory for all verbal groups.
For example: John should clean the shed.
Here, "clean" is the only lexical element, or the verb itself in the verbal
group.
An elliptical verbal group presupposes one or more words from a
previous verbal group.
1.2.3.2. Ellipsis within the verbal group
Verbal ellipsis means ellipsis within the verbal group.

For example:
a. Have you spoken to him? _ Yes, I have.
b. What have you been doing? _ Studying.
The two verbal groups in the answers "have" in "yes, I have" in (a) and
''studying'' in (b), are both instances of verbal ellipsis. "Have" in (a) stands for
"have spoken to him", and there is no possibility of "filling out" with any other
items. In (b), "studying" can be interpreted as "I have been studying" or "we
have been studying". It cannot be replaced by "I will be studying" or "we will be
studying". Therefore, in general, an elliptical verbal group presupposes one or
more words from a previous verbal group.
As mentioned above, the verbal group, in Halliday and Hasan's point of
view, has only one lexical element and the rest is operators and expresses
systemic selections which are obligatory for all verbal groups.
principal systems are:
(1) Finiteness: finite or non- finite
If finite: indicative or imperative

The


9
If indicative: modal or non- modal
(2) Polarity: positive or negative, and marked or unmarked
(3) Voice: active or passive
(4) Tense: past or present or future
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 167)
In elliptical form, they have to be recovered by presupposition.
However, a verbal group whose structure fully represents all its systemic
features is not elliptical. For example, in (b) above, the words that make up a
non- elliptical verbal group are "have been studying"; express all the features

that have been selected.
It seems not to be easy to recognize whether a verbal group is ellipted
or not although we know the theoretical definition. Any verbal group consists
of auxiliary as operator and therefore there are two types of verbal ellipsis:
lexical ellipsis in which the lexical verb is missing from the verbal group and
operator ellipsis which involves the omission of operators.
1.1.3.3. Lexical ellipsis
Verbal ellipsis can simply be recognized by an investigation into the
form of the verbal group. Hence, any verbal group consisting of modal
operator only can be described as elliptical. For example:
Well, Gwen, there are some things a girl can't say.
No, but a woman can.
In this example, the elliptical modal verb "can" is used without the
accompany of the lexical verb and could be filled out by "say".
Lexical ellipsis is divided into two main types: partial lexical ellipsis
and total lexical ellipsis.
_ Partial lexical ellipsis is the ellipsis of only lexical verb among
verbal group 's elements.
For example:
George will take the course and Bob might too.
(Quirk and Greenbaum, 1976: 262)


10
Here, the lexical verb "take" is omitted.
_Total lexical ellipsis means that all items in the verbal group are
omitted except the first operator. It always involves in the omission of the last
word, which is the lexical verb and it may leave only the first word.
For example:
They could have been delayed by the snow.

Yes, they could have been.
could have.
could.
(Advanced grammar in use: 160)
In conclusion, lexical ellipsis is the omission of the lexical verb in the
verbal group. However, there are some cases that cause ambiguity such as " be,
have, and do " because they are both lexical verbs and operators. Although it is
rather complicated, we can recognize whether they are elliptical or not by
considering the presupposed clause.
1.1.3.4. Operator ellipsis
Operator ellipsis means only the omission of operators, the rest of the
verbal group remains. In operator ellipsis, the subject also is always omitted
from the clause; it must therefore be presupposed. For example:
"Dad and mum have gone", he said.
"Gone?" she cried, pulling him into the scullery. "What do you mean?"
Here, "gone" does make a sentence in the presence of a single lexical
verb. From the previous sentence, it is to make out that the full sentence must
be "Have they gone?". Thus, the modal verb "have" and the subject "they"
have been omitted.
Within the sentence, operator ellipsis usually occurs in those with
coordination to refer to the two halves of the sentence. However, this type of
operator ellipsis does not contribute to cohesion.
Operator ellipsis, when it occurs across sentences, is found mainly in
very closely bounded sequences such as question and answer in which the


11
predication either supplies the answer or repudiates the verb in the question, as
in:
Has she been crying? _ No, laughing.

In summary, lexical ellipsis and operator ellipsis are two components of
verbal ellipsis. When there is the omission of lexical verb in the verbal group,
it is called lexical ellipsis, and when the operator of the verbal group is
omitted, it is operator ellipsis.
1.1.4. Clausal ellipsis
1.1.4.1. The structure of the English clause
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the clause in English has a
two _ part structure consisting of modal element plus propositional element,
for example:
The Prime minister is going to have speech tomorrow.
(Modal element)

(Propositional element)

The modal element consists of the subject and the finite element in the
verbal group. The propositional element consists of the remainder of the verbal
group plus any complements or adjuncts that may be present.
From the definition of the clause, it is easily recognized that the clausal
ellipsis includes modal ellipsis and propositional ellipsis.
1.1.4.2. Modal ellipsis and propositional ellipsis
As we have mentioned, in verbal ellipsis there are two types: lexical
and operator ellipsis. The clause structurally consists of two parts: modal and
propositional corresponding to operator and the lexical verb in the verbal
group. Usually, modal ellipsis is closely associated with operator ellipsis and
propositional ellipsis with lexical ellipsis.
For example:
a. Are they crying? _ No, laughing.
(Modal ellipsis; operator ellipsis).
The missing elements in this example are "they are" (the modal
element which entails the operator "are").

12
b . You look good , Pop . _ Do I really ?
( Propositional ellipsis; lexical ellipsis )
Here, the missing elements are "look good" (the propositional element
which entails the lexical verb "look").
However, sometimes, modal ellipsis does not involve operator ellipsis.
Let us consider the following example:
"Who 's Cavilleri?" asked one of the footballers.
"Jenny Cavilleri. Studies music. Plays the piano with the music group".
(Segal, 1993: 23)
Here, only the subject "she" is omitted before the verbs "studies" and
"plays".
Likewise, propositional ellipsis may not be accompanied by lexical
ellipsis. It is when the speaker uses " do " as the substitute rather than as the
elliptical form of the verbal group. However, there is not always a clear
distinction between ellipsis and substitution. Referring to the full form is one
way that can help to distinguish them.
For example:
a. Does Mary sing? _ Yes, she does. (Yes, she does sing).
b. Does Mary sing? _ No, but Susan does. (No, but Susan sings).
In (a), "does" is the elliptical form because it stands for "does sing". In
(b), "does" is a substitute for "sing".
Ellipsis in the clause is related to mood. Specially, it is related to
question and answer process which is usually cohesive by itself. In this part,
we will consider ellipsis in this type of conversation under two aspects: direct
responses which includes yes _ no questions and wh _ questions, and indirect
responses.

13
1.1.4.3. Direct responses
a. Yes_ no questions
In yes _ no question and answer sequence, we can often respond by
using ellipsis of the whole clause. For example:
A: Are you hungry?
B: Yes .
Obviously, "yes" in the above example is alternative to the whole clause
"I'm hungry". However, sometimes yes _ no ellipsis is an alternative to just one
part of the clause as in:
A: Have you spoken to him?
B: Yes, I have.
Here, the answer means, "Yes, I have spoken to him".
Sometimes, the direct response is not only clausal ellipsis but also
ellipsis within the group. This takes place under the condition of expansion. Let
us consider these examples:
a. "Is it going to have onions in it?" asked the child.
"Very few", he said.
b. "And how are you? Is everything all right with you?"
"No, not very. It used to be much better".
This type of ellipsis usually occurs in nominal and adjectival groups with
"head noun or "head adjective" missing.
b. Wh _ questions
The direct response to a wh _ question must give the specific
information required by the question. In a wh _ question and answer sequence,
the entire clause of the respond usually omitted except for the wh _ element.
This is common in statement _ question combination. For example:
A: Peter has bought a new car.
B: When?

14
Besides, wh _ ellipsis is sometimes alternative to a part of the clause,
not the whole clause, as in:
A: He will pass the exam.
B: How do you know he will?
In this example, the propositional element "pass the exam" is omitted.
1.1.4.4. Indirect responses
An indirect response gives an answer to a question in an "indirect"
way; it may be a commentary, a disclaimer, or a supplementary. A
commentary is used to show the speaker 's attitude to the answer, a disclaimer
disputes the relevance of the question and a supplementary provides
information other than required by implication.
For example:
a. Why are the lights turned off?
I ' m not supposed to say.

(Commentary; refusal)

b. "What time is it?"
"What does it matter?"

(Disclaimer; interrogative)

c. "It is so kind of you. Can you come now?"
"With pleasure".

(Supplementary; coordinative)

To sum up, elliptical clause requires the listeners to supply the missing
words and since they are to be supplied from what has just mentioned before,
that creates the cohesion between the preceding and the following. The ellipted
clause may be in the forms of statements, commands or questions .Its
presupposition may cover the whole clause, the modal element, the
propositional element or a particular element in the clues (complement, adjunct,
etc.).
1.2. Summary

In one word, ellipsis is the omission of some elements, which are not
necessary to be raised, but are still understood by the hearer in particular
contexts. It is considered as a grammatical device that creates cohesion between
sentences or different parts in a sentence. There are three types of ellipsis:


15
nominal ellipsis in which the head noun is omitted, verbal ellipsis with the
omission of the lexical verb and operator, and clausal ellipsis which is mainly
related to question and answer sequence. Any type of ellipsis is a kind of
cohesion within and beyond sentences. And where there is ellipsis, there is a
presupposition in the structure. If we find what that seems to be an elliptical
construction, we are usually forced to look back to what was said previously in
order to interpret the sentence. That is to say, ellipsis which functions as a
cohesive device normally shows an anaphoric relation.
1.3. Errors in language learning process

1.3.1. The notion of errors
Error is a common phenomenon in language learning process and it is
defined by many different authors.
Jack C . Richards, John Platt and Heidi Platt in " Dictionary of

language teaching and Applied linguistic " (1992) define: "In the speech or
writing of a second or foreign language learners, error is the use of linguistic
item (e.g. a word, a grammatical item, a speech act, etc.) in a way which a
fluent or native speaker of language regards as showing faulty or incomplete
learning".
According to Corder, errors are "the result of some failure or
performance" (1971: 152).
James. M. Hendrickson in "Methodology in TESOL" (1987) defines
an error as an utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher
seems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in real life
discourse.
In "Errors in language learning and use", Carl James gives the
definition of error "as being instance of language that is unintentionally
deviant and is not- corrigible by its author" .
1.3.2. Errors and mistakes
Errors are paid much attention in language learning process, however,
it is necessary to distinguish two terms "error" and "mistake" . In fact, the


16
distinction was drawn between these two terms although it was impossible to
point out any clear differentiation.
Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American linguist, points out that
errors fall into two different types: one originating from verbal performance
factor and the other from inadequate language competence.
Making use of Chomsky 's distinction, Hubbard, John and Thornton
Wheeler (1987) reaches the conclusion that all incorrect forms produced by the
student are called "errors". In their point of view, errors are caused by lack of
knowledge about the target language, or by incorrect hypotheses about it; and
mistakes are caused by temporary lapses of memory, confusion, slips of tongue

and so on.
The error _ mistake distinction was introduced into modern debate by
Corder (1967, 1971) although there was a shift in his ideas. In his first paper,
Corder insists that mistakes are of no significance to the process of language
learning since they do not reflect a defect in our knowledge but are traceable to
performance failure. The learner is normally aware of their mistakes and can
correct them with more or less complete assurance. Both native speakers and
learners can make mistakes. On the contrary, errors are of significance to the
process of language learning. The learner cannot correct errors themselves
because they do not reflect the knowledge. And only the learners of second
language learning make errors. However, Corder (1971) states that errors are "
the result of some failure of performance " (1971: 152).
According to Carl James in " Errors in language learning and use ", the
intentionality plays an important part in distinguishing errors and mistakes. If
the learner is indeclined and able to correct a fault in his or her output with the
assumption that the form he or she selected was not the one intended, the fault
is a mistake. If, on the contrary, the learner is unable to give the correction, it
is assumed that the form the learner used was the one intended, that is an error.


17
In one word, the distinction between the two terms "error" and
"mistake" is not very clear, however, we could sum up the definitions of errors
and mistakes as follow:
Errors are wrong forms that the learner cannot correct even if their
wrongness is to be pointed out. Mistakes are wrong forms that the learner can
correct when their wrongness is to be pointed out.
Errors are caused by incomplete knowledge,thus, in order to help
learners to be able to correct their errors, it is required to spend more time
adding knowledge. On the other hand, lack of attention, carelessness or some

other aspects of performance cause mistakes, hence so as to help learners to be
able to correct their mistakes, it is necessary to remind them of their mistakes.
Let us consider these examples:
a. I must to go. (In a situation that the learner has learnt to say something
like "I have to go").
b. Monica: Trains are safer planes.
Teacher: Safer planes? (With surprised questioning intonation)
Monica: Oh...Trains are safer than planes.
Teacher: Good, Monica. Now, "comfortable" ... Simon?
Simon: Trains more comfortable than planes are.
Teacher: Hmm. Can you help Simon, Bruno?
Bruno: Err ... Trains are more comfortable than planes.
Teacher: Thank you. Simon?
Simon: Trains are more comfortable than planes.
Teacher: That ' s right, Simon. Great.
In the first example, it is obvious that the error is caused by the
learner's incomplete knowledge; he does not realize that the use of "to" is not
permitted with "must".
In the second example, the learners can correct their faults when they
are pointed out by the teacher and their friends. This is a feature of mistake.


18
To sum up, errors are caused by the incomplete understanding of
language competence, and mistakes are caused by the inappropriate use of
language in performance.
1.3.3. Error analysis
According to Carl James in "Errors in language learning and use", error
analysis is defined as "the process of determining the incidence, nature, cause
and consequences of unsuccessful language".

Error analysis is the study and analysis of errors made by second
language learners. Error analysis examines errors in the system in order to
determine the underlying rule governed by behaviors of learners.
The field of error analysis shows that although errors are caused by
different reasons, they reflect the learner' s creative capability of using
language. Therefore, finding and analyzing errors made by learners are very
necessary to improve the learning and teaching quality.
The procedure for error analysis following the steps set by Corder
(1974) is shown as:
Identification of errors
Classification of errors
Explainations of errors
Evaluation of errors
Correction of errors
1.3.4. Causes of errors in second language learning
Second language learners commit a number of errors at various stages of
their learning. It is a part of the natural process they are going through and
occurs for a number of reasons. In the first place, learners' own language may
get in the way, that is the interference of their mother tongue. Other errors are
committed by second language learners regardless of their mother tongue and
are called intralingual errors and developmental errors. (Richards, 1971).
Jeremy Harmer states that all learners commit errors as a natural and
useful way of learning. Corder (1967) indicates that learners' errors are