1

Introduction
Until the 1960s, L2 learners had been viewed for perhaps centuries as “incomplete” users
of their foreign language—where L2 learning was seen to be primarily a process of
“overcoming” the interfering effects of the L1. In the last few decades of the twentieth
century, this view of the L2 learner’s journey markedly changed. L2 learners were looked
on not as producers of malformed language full of mistakes, but as intelligent beings
proceeding through logical, systematic stages of acquisition, creatively acting upon
their linguistic environment. In a hypothesis-testing process of multiple trials and errors,
with many ups and downs, learners slowly internalized a constructed linguistic system
as they perceived the L2. A number of terms were coined to stresses the legitimacy of
learners’ second language systems [viewed positively]:
Approximative system (Nemser, 1971): to stress the successive approximation to the
target language
Idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971): the learner’s language is unique to a particular
individual, that the rules of the learner’s language are peculiar to that individual alone.
Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972): refers to the separateness of an L2 learner’s system, a
system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target
languages.
The most obvious approach to analyzing interlanguage is to study the speech and writing of
learners, or what is also called learner language; Production: reflective of a learner’s
underlying production competence, reveal the learner’s developmental changes of
linguistic forms over time. Comprehension (listening and reading) must not be ignored in a
description of learner language. However, because of the difficulty of objectively measuring
comprehension, and because of the observability of production, learner language research
has relied heavily on production.

[What are] the Stages of Learner’s Language Development? With examples

A synthesis of models proposed by Corder (1973), Gass and Selinker (2001), and Long
(2003) suggests that L2 learners progress through four stages, based on observations of
learners’ production and on the errors they make in the process:
1. Presystematic stage. Corder (1973) observed that in the early stages L2 learners make
a number of random errors, since they are only marginally aware of a given subset of the
L2 system. Consider these actual written utterances by ESL students, in which the intended
meaning is quite a mystery:
The different city is another one in the another two. I want to become a physicotrafic. I
will studied for six years. Society has it’s hard-living’s bitterness way into the decaded-
dragging and full troubled life.

2. Emergent stage. Now, the learner’s linguistic production becomes more consistent as
certain rules, words, and phrases (possibly correct in the learner’s mind) are induced and
2

applied. A hearer or reader should at this stage be able to discern what the intended
meaning is. Here are more written ESL examples:
He was just a peony in the hands of big powders. All work without a play makes Jack a
doornail. American food made me interesting to taste.
 U-shaped learning the phenomenon of moving from a correct form to an
incorrect form and then back to correctness
 backsliding (in learner language) a phenomenon in which the learner seems
to have grasped a rule or principle and then regress to a previous stage
 Learner’s linguistic production becomes more consistent.  Hearer should be able to
discern what the intended meaning is.  Avoidance of some topics and structures is typical
at this stage.  Learner is still unable to correct errors when they are pointed out. 
Learner seems to have grasped a rule and then regress to a previous stage:
L: I go New York.
NS: You’re going to New York?
L: [ doesn’t understand] What?
NS: You will go to New York?
L: Yes.
NS: When?
L: Uh, 1992.
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1992.
L: Yes, uh, . . . I go 1992.

3. Systematic stage. The learner is now able to manifest more consistency in producing
the second language. The most salient difference between the second and third stages is the
ability of learners to repair their errors when they are pointed out—even very subtly—to
them. Consider these examples:
L: Many fish are in the lake. The fish are serving in the restaurants near the lake.
NS: [ smiling] The fish are serving?
L: Oh, no, [ laughing] uh, fish are being served in restaurants!

4. Postsystematic stage. In the final stage, which some researchers call stabilization, the
learner has relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that fluency
and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized by the
learner’s ability to self-correct.
He passed out with very high score—sorry, I mean, he passed test— with high score.
In the fourth stage, learners can stabilize too fast, allowing minor errors to slip by
undetected, and thus manifest fossilization of their language.

Important Notes: In concluding, 1. It should be made clear that these four stages do not
globally describe a learner’s status in the development of the L2. For example, some
learners would rarely be in an emergent stage for all L2 subsystems. 2. Production errors
alone are inadequate measures of overall competence. They are salient features of L2
learners’ interlanguage, but correct utterances warrant our attention and, especially in the
teaching-learning process, deserve positive reinforcement. [5 pages]
Variation in Learner Language?
3

A great deal of attention has been given to the variation that learners manifest in their
interlanguage development. Some variation in learner language can be described as the
“gradual diffusion” of incorrect forms of language in emergent and systematic stages of
development (Gatbonton, 1983). First, incorrect forms coexist with correct forms; then the
incorrect forms are expunged. Context and style have also been identified as a source of
variation, along with gender-based variation. In classrooms, the type of task can affect
variation.

Models of variability are Elaine Tarone’s (1988) capability continuum paradigm and
Rod Ellis’s (1986, 1994a) variable competence model.

Tarone (1988) focused her research on contextual variability, that is, the extent to which
both linguistic and situational contexts may help to systematically describe the unexplained
variation. Tarone suggested four domains of variation: (1) linguistic context; (2)
psychological processing factors; (3) social context; and (4) language function. Example: An
English learner at two different points in the same conversation, a few minutes apart, said:

He must paid for the insurance.

He must pay the parking fee.

An examination of the linguistic context appears to explain the variation. Sentence 1 was
uttered in the context of describing an event in the past, and sentence 2 referred to the
present moment.

Learner’s Error: Window of Opportunity: Mistake versus Error

Mistake Error
Definition: refers to a performance error Definition: an idiosyncrasy in the
that is a random guess or a failure to utilize language of the learner; a direct
a known system correctly: manifestation of a system within which a
It was so dark you couldn’t see your face in learner is operating at the time; a
front of you. noticeable deviation from the adult
grammar of a native speaker.
due to lack of concentration, fatigue, or due to lack of knowledge
hesitation
reflects the competence of the learner:
performance lapses “Does John can sing?” is an error that
reveals a portion of the learner’s
competence in the target language that all
verbs require a preposed do auxiliary for
question formation.
can be self-corrected cannot be self-corrected
occurs both in L1 and L2 occurs only in L2

Error Analysis
4

 error analysis: the study of learners’ ill-formed production (spoken or written) in an

effort to discover systematicity
 performance analysis: analysis of a learner’s performance, with emphasis on
investigating errors within the larger perspective of the learner’s total language
performance, including the “positive” or well-formed aspects of a learner’s performance

 Problems with EA:

1) There is a danger in too much attention to learners’ error.
2) It overemphasize on production data.
3) It fails to account for the strategy of avoidance.
4) It can keep us too closely focused on specific languages rather than viewing universal
aspects of language.

Identifying and Describing Errors

1- Overt and covert errors
 overt error an error that is unquestionably ungrammatical at the sentence level (refer to
form)
 covert error an error that is grammatically well formed at the sentence level but not
interpretable within the context of communication; a discourse error (refer to context)
(beyond-sentence, suprasentential, inter-sentential)

2- Global and local errors.

 global error an error that hinders communication or prevents a hearer from
comprehending some aspect of a message
 local error an error that does not prevent a message from being understood, usually due
to a minor violation of one segment of a sentence, allowing the hearer to make an accurate
guess about the intended meaning
 extent: (in error analysis) the rank of linguistic unit that would have to be deleted,
replaced, supplied, or reordered in order to repair the sentence

In the following sentence, the extent would be either to change the whole second clause to
a positive connotation or simply change the connector to something like also:
I was so depressed. However, I felt the word as coming to end.

Sources of Difficulty
 L1 Transfer
 inter-lingual transfer: the effect of one language (usually the first) on another (usually
the second)

- The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): the claim that the principal barrier to second
language acquisition is first language interference, and that a scientific analysis of the two
languages in question enables the prediction of difficulties a learner will encounter

 Hierarchy of difficulty: a scale by which a teacher or linguist could make a prediction of

the relative difficulty of a given aspect of a target language.
5

 According to the strong version of CAH and the emphasis on priori prediction, Clifford
Prator proposed a taxonomy for hierarchy of difficulty:

Level 0: Transfer: An item in L1 is similar to that of L2.

Level 1: Coalescence: Two items in L1 are coalesced in one item in L2.
Level 2: Under-differentiation: An item in L1 is not found in L2.
Level 3: Re-interpretation: An existing item in L1 is given a new shape in L2.
Level 4: Over-differentiation: An item in L2 is not existing in L1.
Level 5: Split: One item in L1 becomes two in L2.

- Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI):

 weak version (of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, and other models) the belief in the
possibility, a posteriori, that a model might apply to a specified context, once contextual
variables are taken into account, as opposed to a claim for predictive validity (strong
version) across broad contexts.
 strong version (of the critical period hypothesis; of the contrastive analysis hypothesis)
hypotheses or models that make broad generalization with few (if any) exceptions, and
that make claims, a prior, of the application of a model to multiple contexts.
 cross-linguistic influence (CLI) a concept that replaced the contrastive analysis
hypothesis, recognizing the significance of the role of the first language in learning a
second, but with an emphasis on the facilitating and interfering effects both languages have
on each other.

 Universal and Markedness

 Markedness Differential Hypothesis an accounting of relative degrees of difficulty of
learning a language by means of principles of universal grammar, also known as
markedness theory
 A marked member of a pair of related forms contains at least one more feature than an
unmarked one.
 The unmarked (or neutral) member of the pair is the one with a wider range of
distribution than the marked one.
 The marked forms are predicted to cause difficulty.
 Ex. English indefinite articles (a and an) an = marked  more complex; a = unmarked 
wider distribution

 Competition Model: the claim that when strictly formal (e.g., phonological, syntactic)
options for interpreting meaning through appeal to the first language have been exhausted,
second language learners naturally look for alternative “competing” possibilities to create
meaning

 Intra-lingual Transfer
6

 inter-lingual: the effect of language forms on each other across two or more languages
 intra-lingual transfer: the effect of forms of one language (usually the target language)
on other forms within the same language
 Sources of error in error analysis:
1) Inter-lingual: L1 → L2 (negative transfer, Interference) (CAH considered only this source
of error)
2) Intra-lingual: L2 → L2 (overgeneralization, Developmental error)
3) Context of learning: teacher, peers, or textbook (also known as Induced Error, an error
that is subconsciously picked up)
4) Communication strategies: some of them like literal translation, foreignizing, etc.

 Context of Learning
 induced errors: errors caused by something in the learner’s environment, such as the
teacher, a textbook, or the classroom methodology

NEW MATERIAL
 Strategies of Communication
 A related contextual variable that can cause difficulty is a host of possible strategic
techniques being employed by a learner.
 Communication strategies can be sources of error.
 Input and Frequency
 Input is only part of the whole (input, intake, interaction) picture.
 Closely allied with input is the all-important factor of frequency.

 frequency: (of input) number of occurrences of a form, in either input or output,

in a given amount of time
 According to some research, frequency effects are compelling evidence for usage-
based models of language acquisition.
 In determining difficulty of acquisition of a given form, research shows a critical
distinction between type and token.
 type: a general class of linguistic features, within which a number of specific
words or structures may be used (pragmatic-type “greetings”)
 token: specific words or structures that are classified within a type, or class of
features (hello, what’s happening, how is it going are tokens of the pragmatic-type
“greetings”)

 Fossilization
 fossilization: the relatively permanent incorporation of nonstandard linguistic
forms into a person’s L2 competence
7

 Long (2003) concluded that stabilization is a more appropriate construct to apply

to learners whose language development has reached an apparent “plateau.”
 Vigil and Oller (1976) provided a formal account of fossilization as a factor of
positive and negative affective and cognitive feedback among speakers, both of
which can be either positive or negative:

Affective feedback (establishes a relationship between interlocutors)

Positive (maintains the conversation) “Keep talking,” “I’m listening.” Negative
(seeks to terminate the conversation) “Well, I gotta go now.”

Cognitive feedback (indicates comprehension of an utterance) Positive

(indicates understanding) “Uh huh,” I see,” “Right.” Negative (indicates lack of
understanding) “What?” “Say that again.”

 Vigil and Oller’s model hold that fossilization is the result of a learner’s utterances
that gain positive affective feedback (“Keep taking”) as well as positive cognitive
feedback (“I understand”), the latter serving to reinforce an incorrect form of
language.

 Vigil and Oller’s model criticism: relied on the notion of extrinsic feedback, other
factors internal to the learner affect fossilization.

 Error Treatment: Focus on Form

 Historical Notes
8

 By the 1970s, a number of new methods took a laissez-faire approach2 to error,

under the assumption that natural processes within the learner would eventually
lead to acquisition.
 Form-Focused Instruction (FFI)
 form-focused instruction (FFI): any pedagogical effort used to draw a learner’s
attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly (Spada 1997)
 Psychological processes and constructs that are invoked in virtually every
discussion of FFI: consciousness, awareness, attention, and the implicit explicit
dichotomy.
 How should error be treated? On one side of the continuum:
1) overt, immediate correction of errors
2) explicit, discrete-point metalinguistic explanations of rules
3) curricula constructed and sequenced by grammatical or phonological categories.
[laissez-faire /ˌleɪseɪ ˈfer,/ attitude/approach etc when you do not become involved in other
people’s personal affairs]

On the other side of the continuum:

1) implicit, incidental references to forms
2) noticing, that is, the learner’s paying attention to specific linguistic features
3) the incorporation of forms into communicative tasks (grammar consciousness
raising).

 awareness: cognizance3 of linguistic, mental, or emotional factors through

attention and focus; conscious attention
 attention: the psychological process of focusing on certain stimuli to the exclusion
of others
 noticing: the learner’s paying attention to specific linguistic features in input
 metalinguistic explanation: in the classroom, linguistic explanations of rules or
patterns in a language
 grammar consciousness raising: the incorporation of forms into communicative
tasks (Rod Ellis 1997)

- Categories of Feedback
 The following terms are divided into feedback types and learner responses to
feedback:

Types: recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit

correction, repetition
9

 recast: an implicit type of corrective feedback that reformulates or expands an ill-

formed or incomplete utterance in an unobtrusive way
L: I lost my road. T: Oh, yeah, I see, you lost your way. And then what happened?
 corrective feedback: responses to a learner’s output that attempt to repair or call
attention to an error or mistake
 clarification request: an elicitation of a reformulation or repetition from a
student L: We go to July 4 fireworks and crackers were very loud. T: Did you really
mean “crackers” – little biscuits that you eat?
 metalinguistic feedback: responses to a learner’s output that provide comments,
information, or questions related to the linguistics form(s) of the learner’s utterance
L: I’m here since January. T: Well, okay, but remember we talked about the present
perfect tense?

[3 cog‧ni‧zance, cognisance /ˈkɑːɡnəzəns/ noun [uncountable] (formal) knowledge or

understanding of something]

 elicitation: a corrective technique that prompts the learner to self-correct L: [to

another student] What means this word?
T: Uh, Luis, how do we say that in English? What does….? L: Ah, what does this word
mean?
 explicit correction: an indication to a student that a form is incorrect and
providing a corrected form
L: When I have 12 years old … T: No, not have. You mean, “when I was 12 years old …”
 repetition: (in error treatment) the sequential reiteration of an ill-formed part of
a student’s utterance by a teacher
L: When I have 12 years old … T: When I was 12 years old …

Responses to Feedback: uptake, repair, repetition

 uptake: a student utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and
that constitutes a reaction in some way to he teacher’s intention to draw attention
to some aspect of the student’s initial utterance
 repair: correction by the learner of an ill-formed utterance, either through self-
initiated repair, or in response to feedback
LA: I was in the airport waiting for someone to pick up.
LB: You mean someone to pick you up?
LA: Oh, yes, I wait for someone to pick me up.
 repetition: (in error treatment) reiteration by a student of the correct form as a
result of teacher’s feedback, sometimes including incorporation of the correct form
in a longer utterance
L: I will be studied in school for two years to get degree.
10

T: Really? Someone will study you?

L: Oh! No, I must study for two years, at UCLA, for degree in MBA.

 Effectiveness of FFI

1) Is FFI beneficial?
2) When should FonF take place?
3) Are certain types of FonF more effective than others?
4) Is FFI also effective in improving writing?
5) Does frequency make a difference?
6) Do some students benefit more than others from FFI?