30

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction
This chapter is devoted to the literature related to this study. The first section (2.1) presents a brief introduction about second language acquisition [SLA] and second language learning [SLL] and a comparison between them. The second section (2.1.1) briefly deals with theories and hypotheses of SLA and SLL. The factors that affect SLA and SLL are presented in section (2.1.2). Section (2.2.) is devoted to a survey to errors analysis. Error analysis versus contrastive analysis is explained in section (2.2.1). Section (2.2.2) deals with errors and SLA/SLL. A comparison between mistakes and errors is provided in section (2.2.3). The concept of interlanguage is explained in section (2.2.4). Types of errors and causes and/or sources of errors are explained in section (2.2.5) and (2.2.6) respectively. The last section (2.3) is devoted to error analysis studies conducted on Arab EFL learners.

2.1. Second Language Acquisition/Learning

Second language acquisition (SLA) has become one of the most important fields in applied linguistics. SLA started "in earnest in the 1970s" (Cook, 2003, p. 71). Gass and Selinker (2008) pointed out that "SLA has expanded and developed significantly in the past 40-45 years" (p. 1). They added that there was an interest in the field before, but "since that time the body of knowledge of the field has seen increased sophistication" (p. 1). They maintained that SLA, in the past 30-40 years, "has developed into an independent and autonomous discipline, complete with its own research agenda" (p. xvi). SLA can be defined as the process by which people learn one or more languages after acquiring their native language(s). Gass and Selinker (2008) gave many definitions for SLA. They put it as:

31 it is the study of how second languages are learned. the acquisition of a language beyond the native language. It is the study of how learners create a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language. It is the study of what is learned of a second language and what is not learned; it is the study of why most second language learners do not achieve the same degree of knowledge and proficiency in a second language as they do in their native language; it is also the study of why only some learners appear to achieve native-like proficiency in more than one language. (p. 1)

They stated that SLA is "a complex field whose focus is the attempt to understand the processes underlying the learning of a second language (p. 1). It "generally refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment in what that language is spoken" (p. 7). SLA is significantly related to language teaching and learning. SLA researchers have tended to apply their findings to suggest ways of improving language teaching and learning. Cook (2003) pointed out that "SLA research concerned itself with explaining and describing the process of acquiring a second language it has looked at the route, the rate, and the end state of SLA, and the ways in which it is affected by external factors such as instruction, interaction, and motivation the degree of transfer from the first language/s, the degree of systematicity" (p. 71). Pica (1987) stated that "with few exceptions, studies of second language acquisition have focused solely on how learners acquire the grammar of the second language, rather than how they learn to use this system for communicative purposes" (p. 699). There are many opinions about what SLA is and what it focuses on. SLA involves many different subjects or areas of knowledge. Gass and Selinker (2008, p. xvi) argued that SLA is "one which everyone seems to have an opinion". But one of the major goals, as observed in Gass and Selinker (2008) is "the determination of linguistic constraints on the formation of second language grammars" (p. 2). They concluded that SLA is "a complex field whose focus is the attempt to understand the processes underlying the learning of second language" (p. 5).

32

SLA researchers use both acquisition and learning interchangeably, but Krashen (1981a & 1981b/2002) distinguished between them. The term "language acquisition" became popular after Krashen compared second language with formal learning. He proposed that acquisition is an unconscious process and learning is a conscious one. In the case of acquisition, a learner acquires a language from the ones who possess it. Nowadays, second language acquisition is concerned with the processes of language learning. SLA researchers are concerned with understanding the process of learning a second language without the factors outside learner language. Some linguists claim that language acquisition and language learning can be used interchangeably but most of them argue that language acquisition is different from language learning. Edmondson (1999) stated that language acquisition and language learning describe different ways of developing language skills and that acquisition is a sort of 'natural' learning, and learning is unnatural acquisition. According to him, acquisition occurs through contact with the society, while learning occurs in classrooms. To distinguish between acquisition and learning, Edmondson (1999, pp. 5-7) gave three criteria, which are as follows: 1. Social Context Social context is the first criterion for distinguishing between acquisition and learning. When a person, apart from his/her culture, learns in the environment where the language itself is used in order to develop some skill in a second language, then the process is acquisition. Whereas learning takes place only in classroom and often in a culture that is different from the culture to which the second language belongs. When there is teaching, there is learning. 2. Consciousness or unconsciousness The way in which language development takes place is the second criterion for distinguishing between acquisition and learning. If a person learns a language unconsciously, then the process is acquisition, but if he/she learns it consciously, the process is learning. In other words, language acquisition takes place

33

unconsciously without a considerable effort, while language learning takes place consciously with a considerable effort. As there is consciousness in the process of language acquisition and there is no consciousness in language acquisition, language acquisition is easy and language learning is difficult. 3. Product Language acquisition does not concern about grammar and other things related to the system of a language, but language learning concerns about how language is structured. In language acquisition, the acquirer corrects his/her mistakes him/herself without a conscious awareness of the rules of the language, but in language learning, the learner pays attention to the rules of the language, and on the basis of the rules he/she possesses he/she can correct his/her mistakes or errors. To show the differences between acquisition and learning, Corder (1967) used the term 'learning of the mother-tongue' to refer to acquisition and 'learning of a second language' to refer to learning. He explained:
The differences between [acquisition and learning] are obvious but not for that reason easy to explain: that the learning of the mother-tongue is inevitable, whereas, there is no such inevitability about the learning of a second language; that the learning of the mother-tongue is part of the whole maturational process of the child, whilst learning a second language normally begins only after the maturational process is largely complete; that the infant starts with no overt language behavior, while in the case of the second language learner such behavior, of course, exists; that the motivation for learning a first language is quite different from that for learning a second language. (p. 163)

Corder (1967) pointed out that "the process of learning a second language is of a fundamentally different nature from the process of primary acquisition" (p. 164). He added, "if the acquisition of the first language is a fulfilment of the predisposition to develop language behaviour, then the learning of the second language involves the replacement of the predisposition of the infant by some other force" (p. 164). He proposed that some at least of the strategies adopted by

34

the learner of a second language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the course of sequence of learning is the same in both cases" (pp. 164-165). Gass and Selinker (2008) used 'learning' to refer to the learning of foreign language and 'acquisition' to refer to the learning of second language arguing that:
foreign language learning is generally differentiated from second language acquisition in that the former refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment of one's native language [and SLA] generally refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment in which that language is spoken. This may or may not take place in a classroom setting. The important point is that learning in a second language environment takes place with considerable access to speakers of the language being learned, whereas learning in a foreign language environment usually does not. (p. 7)

2.1.1. Theories and Hypotheses of SLA/SLL: An Overview

There are so many theories and hypotheses of SLA and SLL. As cited in Thornton (2009, p. 15), Mangubhai (2006) said that Long suggested in 1993 that there were 40 to 60 current SLA theories. Thornton (2009, p. 15) stated that no one theory can bring together all variables that go into learning a second language. The theories and hypotheses that have caused the greatest impact in the field are behaviourism, cognitivism, sociocultural theory, acculturation, the universal grammar theory, the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis, Krashens Monitor Model/theory that consists of five central hypotheses the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. Xiangui (2005) observed that "no universal agreement exists on how learning occurs" (p. 120). Xiangui (2005, p. 120) put some observations about the history of some of the SLA/SLL theories as the following:
- In the middle of the 20th century, learning theory was dominated by the principles of behavioural psychology which maintains that learning should be described as changes in the observable behaviour of a learner made as a function of events in the environment.

35 - In the 1970s, the behavioural paradigm began to be expanded by the ideas of cognitive psychology, which maintains that a complete explanation of human learning also requires recourse to non-observable constructs, such as memory and motivation. - Over the last two decades, sociocultural theory has challenged the cognitive approach, which holds that human development cannot be viewed separately from social context.

Xiangui (2005) concluded that:

Behaviourism focuses on the formation of second language (L2) habits; cognitivism focuses on a single hypothetical learner's internal information processing and transmission of L2 input and output; sociocultural theory attempts to capture the context, action, and motives of second language events between individuals who are simultaneously social and cognitive. (p. 120)

Behaviourism
Behaviourism is a theory that assumes that language is a set of structures and acquisition is a matter of habit formation. Behaviourism focuses on observable behaviours discounting the role of mental activities. Behaviourism hypothesizes that learning occurs through the establishment of habits. Behaviourists see learning as an observable behavior which is automatically acquired by means of stimulus and response in the form of mechanical repetition. Johnson (2004) pointed out that learning is "the ability to inductively discover patterns of rulegoverned behavior from the examples provided to the learner by his or her environment" (p. 18). Cook (2001) said that "language to Skinner was learnt through 'verbal operants' that are controlled by the situation, which includes the social context, the individual's past history and the complex stimuli in the actual situation" (p. 188). Behaviourism claims that environment is the source of learning and development. Skinner (1957) claimed that learning is resulted from habit formation through imitation and practice. Behaviourism claims that "language learning comes from outside from input from others and from interaction and correction rather than from inside the mind" (Cook, 1991, p. 122).

36

Cognitivism
In the 1970s, cognitive psychology, which emphasizes the unobservable constructs, such as the mind, memory, attitudes, motivation, and other internal processes, began to overtake behaviourism. Before that, Chomsky (1957) stood against behaviourism interpreting that innate cognitive structures and not behavioural reinforcement guide a learner's grammatical system. Cognitive theory of learning assumes that the learner's behavior is only an indicator to the learner's mental process(es). Cognitivists believe that language cannot be separated from cognition. They argue that the human mind is able to process all kinds of information. They assume that language acquisition/learning is understood through study and analysis not through analogy. As cited in Xiangui (2005, p. 122), Mitchell and Myles (1998) pointed out that "the best way to understand both L1 and L2 learning is through understanding the processes used by the learner to learn new information and skills". McLaughlin (1987) maintained that "Secondlanguage learning is viewed as the acquisition of a complex cognitive skill. Learning is a cognitive process, because it is thought to involve internal representations that regulate and guide performance" (p. 133). There are two prominent models of cognitive learning theory. These models are information processing model and connectionism. McLaughlin, Rossman & Mcleod (1983) stated that the information-processing model is the main model in cognitive learning theory. This model claims that "learning starts from controlled processes, which gradually become automatic over time" (Cook, 2001, p. 188). To quote McLaughlin (1987),
Automatic processing involves the activation of certain nodes in memory every time the appropriate inputs are present. This activation is a learned response that has been built up through the consistent mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials. Since an automatic process utilizes a relatively permanent set of associative connections in long-term storage, most automatic processes require an appreciable amount of training to develop fully. Once learned, an automatic process occurs rapidly and is difficult to suppress or alter.

37 Controlled processing, is not a learned response, but a temporary activation of nodes in a sequence. This activation is under attentional control of the subject and, since attention is required, only one such sequence can normally be controlled at a time without interference. Controlled processes are thus tightly capacity-limited, and require more time for their activation. But controlled processes have the advantage of being relatively easy to set up, alter, and apply to novel situations. (pp. 134-135)

As quoted in Cook (2001, p. 188), McLaughlin (1987) said that "controlled processing can be said to lay down the "stepping stones" for automatic processing as the learner moves to more and more difficult levels". The information processing model of SLL works as:
memory is a network of nodes. New (L2) information temporarily activates nodes in short-term memory. This is controlled process. When nodes are repeatedly activated, they become less a product of controlled processing and more automatic. When they are fully automatized, they are then stored in the long-term memory (LTM), which frees the short-term memory to tackle new, more complex learning. (Xiangui, 2005, p. 122)

According to this view, "SLL is a continual process from controlled to automatic processes by repeated activation of controlled processes" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 122). According to cognitive learning theory, second language learning "involves the gradual integration of sub-skills as controlled processes initially predominate and then become automatic" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 139). The second model is connectionism which was developed by Rumelhart and McClelland and others. This model "sees learning as establishing strengths between the vast numbers of connections in the mind" (Cook, V., 2001, p. 188). It claims that language processing does not take place in a gradual fashion but it takes place when many things are being processed at the same time. This model, as Mitchell and Myles (1998) stated,
likens the brain to a computer which would consist of neural networks, complex clusters of links between information nodes. These links or connections become strengthened or weakened through activation or nonactivation respectively. Learning in this view occurs on the basis of associative processes. the human mind is predisposed to look for associations between elements and create links between them. (p. 79)

38

Connectionism rejects the innate endowment hypothesis but explains SLA in terms of mental representations and information processing. Connectionists do not deny the existence of universal behaviours but they claim that those behaviours are not directly contained in the genes of human being. They believe that language learning is the processing of experience and the repetition of experiences that cause the strengthening of the connections. Ellis (2007) stated that "the initial state of SLA is no longer a plastic system; it is one that is already tuned and committed to the L1" (p. 82). Connectionism presupposes that learning occurs in parallel stages not in sequenced stages. Cognitive learning theory has been criticized. Felix (1981), as cited in
Xiangui, (2005, p. 123) claimed that "the general cognitive skills are useless for

language development. The only area that cognitive development is related to language development is vocabulary and meaning, since lexical items and meaning relations are most readily related to a conceptual base".

Sociocultural Theory
Based on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1986), Sociocultural theory [SCT] holds that language is a socially constructed phenomenon. SCT claims that language is a tool used to mediate social and psychological activities and language learning is a mediation process. Lantolf (2000, p. 1), as cited in Xiangui, (2005, p. 123), pointed out that "internalization, inner speech, active theory, and the zone of proximal development constitute the core concepts of SCT, and, in particular, mediation plays a central role". According to SCT, "it is through the internalization of this mediation that individuals experience cognitive growth and higher-order intellectual abilities" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 123). This theory holds that there is a link between society and mind through mediation. It argues that the individual is fundamentally a social being and cannot be separate from the social world and learners move from one stage to another by means of the collaboration with other social actors. They observe others, imitate them and interact with them.

39

Xiangui (2005) said that, in sociocultural approach, the learner actively participates in the process of teaching and learning; learner and teacher participate in sociocultural activity. Sociocultural linguists see language learning as "a process of group socialization, where language is a tool for teaching group traits, values, and beliefs" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 123). Van Lier (1996) pointed out that learning is not caused by environmental stimuli nor genetically determined. It is rather the result of complex interactions between individual and environment. This theory concludes that language learning is a social activity in which the process is participating in a community of second language learners.

Acculturation
Acculturation is another environmental-oriented theory proposed by Schumann in 1978. Schumann, in his view, pointed out that SLA is the result of acculturation. Schumann (1978) defined acculturation as "the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language (TL) group" (p. 29). This model of second language acquisition is based on the social-psychology of acculturation. Linton (1963), as cited in McLaughlin (1987, p. 110), described the acculturation as the process that involves modification in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. McLaughlin (1987, p. 110) pointed out that "the overall process of acculturation demands both social and psychological adaptation". The acculturation model argues that the successful learners are those who are socially and psychologically less distant from the speakers of the second language. According to Schumann, there is a relationship between acculturation and second-language acquisition. Schumann (1978) characterized this relationship as "second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation, and the degree to which the learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the target language" (p. 34). In his view, as McLaughlin (1987) stated, "acculturation is determined by the degree of social and psychological 'distance' between the learner and the target-language culture"

40

(p. 110). This theory claims that "social and psychological distance influences second-language acquisition by determining the amount of contact learners have with the target language and the degree to which they are open to the input that is available" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 111). According to Schumann, "acculturation is the causal variable in the second-language-learning process" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 111). Schumann (1978) proposed that the causal variable(s) in SLA is/are done within the context of natural SLA. Schumann (1978) argued that social factors and affective factors clustered as one variable to be the major causal variable in SLA, which is called acculturation. Krashen (2009a, p. 45) pointed out that "Acculturation can be viewed as a means of gaining comprehensible input and lowering the filter" (p. 45). Schumann (1978) stated that there are two types of acculturation. They are as follows:
In type one acculturation, the learner is socially integrated with the TL group and, as a result, develops sufficient contacts with TL speakers to enable him to acquire the TL. In addition, he is psychologically open to the TL such that input to which he is exposed becomes intake. Type two acculturation has all the characteristics of type one, but in this case the learner regards the TL speakers as a reference group whose life and values he consciously or unconsciously desires to adopt. Both types of acculturation are sufficient to cause acquisition of the TL, but the distinction is made in order to stress that social and psychological contact with the TL group is the essential component in acculturation (as it relates to SLA) and that adoption of the life style and values of the TL group (characteristics traditionally associated with the notion of acculturation) is not necessary for successful acquisition of the TL. (P. 29)

Brown (1987) stated that acculturation is "the process of becoming adapted to a new culture" (p. 128). In his review of Stauble's study (1978) conducted on how social distance accounted for the degree of acculturation, Schumann (1978) reported that Stauble suggested that "psychological distance may be more important in acculturation than social distance" (p. 37). But he said that Stauble cautioned that her study was based on a

41

questionnaire which was a pilot instrument in which validity and reliability had not been tested.

Universal Grammar Theory

According to Chomsky, language acquisition device [LAD] is "a cover term for a battery mechanisms in the mind that are supposed to be responsible for creating a highly complex grammar from the language experience that a learner undergoes" (Smith, 1994, p. 18). Smith (1994) stated that Chomsky means that LAD on which the young, cognitive immature child relies is designed for creating linguistic knowledge. Chomsky (1976) defined universal grammar [UG] as "the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages (p. 29). Cook (2001) explained that principles of language are the abstract principles that allow or prevent certain structures from occurring in all human languages and parameters of language are the systematic ways in which human languages are different. In the Universal Grammar theory, Chomsky (1965) claimed that there is a set of principles and rules on which knowledge of language develops. These principles and rules are assumed to be common in all languages. This theory claims that learning is based on the principles and parameters of language. Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 43) pointed out that this approach claims that "all human beings inherit a universal set of principles and parameters which control the shape human languages can take, and which are what make human languages similar to one another". As cited in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 43), Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b) argued that "the core of human language must comprise [principles and parameters]". Here, principles are all the things that are common in human languages and parameters are the differences among human languages. The UG theory considers that the input received by a learner from the environment is not sufficient to account for language acquisition. The UG theory

42

claims that the "principles and parameters are built into the human mind. Children do not need to learn structure-dependency because their minds automatically impose it on any language they meet" (Cook (2001, p. 182). Chomsky sees language as a mirror of the mind. He believes that language grows in the brain and it is not learned. Alhosani (2008) put it:
this theory suggests that children are biologically born and equipped with some special built-in ability to acquire and learn a language. Chomsky suggests that children learn their first language in a similar way to how they learn to walk. Their built-in ability enables them to become component language users regardless of their learning environment. (p. 34)

Chomsky believes that children cannot learn their first language without the help of their innate language faculty. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 35), Lightbown and Spada (1999, p. 16) stated out that the child is able to discover the structure of the language to be learned by matching the innate knowledge of basic grammatical relationships to the structures of the particular language in the environment. Cook (2001) added that "It is the parameter settings that have to be learnt All the learner needs in order to set the values for parameters are a few samples of the language" (p. 182). Cook (2001) reported that "Many feel that the UG model is the most powerful of L2 learning" (p. 184). He went on observing that "the UG model tackles the most profound areas of L2 acquisition, which are central to language and to the human mind" (p. 184). UG model argues that UG shapes and restricts the languages that are learned through principles and parameters. Despite some challenges, this model persisted "right up to the end of the late 1980s as the theoretical model on which both L1 and L2 learning was built" (Macaro, 2003, p. 24). UG approach "has been much the strongest linguistic influence on second language acquisition research in recent years, and has inspired a great wealth of studies, articles and books on SLA, both empirical and theoretical" (Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 42). Although UG theory is not

43

primarily a theory of second language learning and it does not make any claims in this respect and it is not a language theory which aims to describe and explain human language, it is indirectly relevant to second language acquisition research and it has been very influential in the field of second language acquisition (Mitchell and Myles, 1998). Mitchell and Myles (1998) observed that this theory has been criticized for the following reasons: It studies language somewhat clinically, in a vacuum, as a mental object rather a social or psychological one. It views the speaker/learner not as an individual with varied characteristics, nor as a social being, but as some kind of idealized receptacle for the UG blueprint. In UG-based approaches to SLA, it has left untouched a number of areas which are central to our understanding of the second language learning process and it has been almost exclusively concerned with syntax. As noted by Mitchell and Myles (1998), this theory is strong for the following reasons: It has been very useful as a sophisticated tool for linguistic analysis, enabling researchers to formulate well-defined and focused hypotheses which could then been tested in empirical work. It attempts to explain and describe at least some L2 phenomena, and finally by engaging increasingly with other theories in the field.

Interaction Hypothesis
Long (1981) extended Krashens Input Hypothsis and this extension came to be called the Interaction Hypothsis. Interaction Hypothesis was defended by Hatch (1983) and Long (1983 & 1990). They did not accept Krashen's Input Hypothesis. Hatch (1983) said that interaction syntactic structures are developed when one learns how to do conversation and how to interact verbally. Long (1983) declared that in interaction there are modifications and he did not deny that there is

44

a positive role of modified input. He said that interactional modifications by the native speaker(s) facilitate acquisition in connecting input and output in productive ways. As quoted in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 128-129), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 144) stated:
Modification of the interactional structure of conversation is a better candidate for a necessary (not sufficient) condition for acquisition. The role it plays in negotiation for meaning helps to make input comprehensible while still containing unknown linguistic elements, and, hence, potential intake for acquisition.

The interaction hypothesis proposes that collaborative efforts between more and less fluent speakers should be very useful for language learning (Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 128). Interactionists argue that interaction is more powerful than other theories because it connects both innate and environmental factors to explain language learning. They see language as a matter of syntactic structures and a matter of discourse.

Output Hypothesis
Output hypothesis goes against the role of input and stands in favour of the output. This hypothesis states that practicing the language helps learners observe their production, which is essential to SLA. Swain supports this hypothesis and states that output leads the learners to recognize what they do not know when they observe their own production. Swain (1995) explained that learners "may output just to see what works and what does not" (p. 132). It is argued that output helps the acquirers/learners by making their knowledge more automatic through practice and by providing a domain for error correction, which helps them arrive at a better version of our rule. As Krashen (2009b) claimed, the skill-building hypothesis maintains that we acquire language when we consciously learn rules of grammar and vocabulary, and we learn to read by first consciously learning the rules of phonics (p. 82).

45

The comprehensible output hypothesis claims that language acquisition occurs when we say something and our conversational partner does not understand, forcing us to notice a gap in our competence. We then try again until we arrive at the correct version of the rule (Krashen, 2009b, p. 82). Krashen stood against output claiming that output fails as a predictor of language competence when compared to reading more speaking or writing does not result in more language or literacy development, but more reading does (Krashen, 2009b, p. 86).

Krashens Monitor Model/Input Theory

Krashen (1982) argued that language acquisition does not require comprehensible use of conscious grammatical rules or tedious drill. Krashen developed a second language acquisition theory that consists of five hypotheses. McLaughlin (1987) maintained that the most ambitious theory of the secondlanguage learning process is Stephen Krashens Monitor Model (p. 19). In the earlier years, Krashens theory was called the Monitor Model and in recent years, it has become to be known as the Input hypothesis. Krashen (1985) argued that the theory is a general theory of second language acquisition with important implications for language teaching. Alhosani (2008) observed since the 1980s, this theory has a large impact in all perspectives of second language research and teaching (p. 27). McLaughlin (1987) explains that [Krashens] theory begins with a number of assumptions, from which [the five] hypothesis are derived (p. 19-20).

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Because the distinction between acquisition and learning has been discussed earlier in this chapter in section (2.1.), this hypothesis will be briefly discussed in this section. Brown (2007, p. 294) pointed out that Krashen claimed that adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. These two means are acquisition and learning. Krashen (2009a) in this

46

hypothesis maintained that language acquisition is a process similar to the way children develop ability in their first language. It is a subconscious process in which acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language. Acquisition includes implicit learning. While language learning is a conscious process that results in knowing about language, knowing the rules, being aware of them and being able to talk about them.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis suggests that the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order. Acquirers of a given language tend to acquire certain grammatical structures early, and others later (Krashen, 2009a, p. 12). Krashen (1985) explained that the order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes (p. 1). In other words, this order is independent of the age of the learners, the L1 background and the degree of exposure to second language. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 30), Krashen (1994) argued that grammatical patterns of second language acquisition do not follow those of first language acquisition.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis suggests that learning has a monitor that functions to help second language learners to alter the output of the second system or the learners language. Lightbown and Spada (1993) stated out that this hypothesis argues that the learner system acts as a monitor, making minor changes and polishing what the acquired system has produced (as cited in Alhosani, 2008, p. 29). McLaughlin (1987) said that the Monitor acts as a sort of editor that is consciously controlled and that makes changes in the form of utterances produced by acquisition (p. 25). Krashen (2009a) claimed that Conscious learning is available only as a "Monitor", which can alter the output of the acquired system before or after the utterance is actually spoken or written. It is the acquired system

47

which initiates normal, fluent speech utterances (p. 16). As Brown (2007) stated that The monitor is involved in learning not in acquisition, it is a device for watchdogging ones output, for editing and making alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived (p. 294). For the use of the monitor, Krashen (2009a) specifies three factors that must be met: (1) time, (2) focus on form, and (3) knowledge of the rules. It was proposed by Krashen (1981b/2002) that the monitor is not used in the same way by all second languages learners.

The Input Hypothesis

Krashen (2009a) stated that the input hypothesis is crucial because it is relatively new and because of its importance, both theoretical and practical. It is also important because it deals with the most important question in the field how do we acquire language?. As cited in Brown (2007, p. 295), Krashen (1984, p. 61) argued that the comprehensible input is the only true cause of second language acquisition. Krashen (2009a, p. 20) argued that the input hypothesis attempts to answer what is perhaps the most important question in our field, and gives an answer that has a potential impact on all areas of language learning. In this hypothesis, Krashen (2009a) gives an answer to the question with which the hypothesis deals. He explained how an acquirer/learner moves from one stage to another stating that acquirers/learners acquire only when [they] understand language that contains structure that is a little beyond where [they] are now (p. 21). This means that acquirers/learners use more than their linguistic competence to help them understand language. He argued that the input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning (p. 21), adding that

acquirers/learners improve when they receive second language input that is beyond their current linguistic competence, and this is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information (p. 21). Therefore, without the help of context or extra-linguistic information, the learner is unable to reach the i+1

48

level. Krashen (2009a) clarifies it saying that if the acquirer is at a stage i, the input he/she understands should contain i+1. The input hypothesis says that if there is enough of the input that the acquirer understands, i+1 will automatically be provided (Krashen, 2009a). This is clearly stated by Krashen (2009a, p. 22) as When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i+1 will be provided automatically. As cited in Alhosani (2008, p. 31-32), Krashen (1994) suggested that the natural communicative input is the keystone to design a syllabus that gives each learner an opportunity to receive some i+1 that is suitable for his/her current stage of linguistic competence. Moreover, this hypothesis suggests that second language acquirer should not be forced to speak, but he/she should build up enough comprehensible input. In this hypothesis, Krashen (2009a) gave recommendation saying that production ability emerges. It is not taught directly (p. 22). In other words, speaking should not be taught directly or very early in the classroom because speech emerges on its own. To conclude the concept of this hypothesis, McLaughlin (1987, p.36) put it in the following two points. 1. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but emerges on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. 2. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teachers need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.

49

Although Krashen regarded this hypothesis as the only most important one of the current hypotheses in second language acquisition, this hypothesis has been criticized because the learners current language level and the level above his/her level cannot be determined. Therefore, the comprehensible input that should be given to the learner cannot be determined. In addition, the comprehensible input cannot be defined and it differs from one learner to another.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The affective filter hypothesis claims that a second language learners emotions such as motivation, anxiety and self-confidence, work as filters to permit or hinder language input. Krashen (2009a) said that second language learners with high motivation, high self-confidence, a good self-image and low anxiety do or attend to do better in second language acquisition. On the other hand, second language learners with low motivation, low self-confidence and high anxiety will have an affective filter that hinder language input and does not provide the learner with as many subconscious language acquisition. McLaughlin (1987, p. 51) clarified the concept of the affective filter hypothesis, citing Krashen (1985), saying that according to this hypothesis
comprehensible input may not be utilized by second-language acquirers if there is a mental block that prevents them from fully profiting from it. The affective filter acts as a barrier to acquisition: if the filter is down, the input reaches the LAD and becomes acquired competence; if the filter is up, the input is blocked and does not reach the LAD.

The following figure shows the operation of affective filter. Filter Input
Language acquisition device

Acquired competence

Figure (2.1) showing operation of the affective filter. Taken from Krashen (2009a, p. 32)

50

Krashen (2009, p. 32) said; input is the primary causative variable in second language acquisition, affective variables acting to impede or facilitate the delivery of input to the language acquisition device. This hypothesis has been criticized. McLaughlin (1987) criticized this hypothesis saying that this hypothesis is:
of questionable validity because Krashen has provided no coherent explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual differences in language learning. The hypothesis is incapable of predicting with any precision the course of linguistic development and its outcome. (p. 56)

2.1.2. Factors That Affect SLA/SLL

SLA has been influenced by other disciplines and it in turn has influenced those disciplines. At present, some conceptualize it as an independent field having its own research agenda and a multidisciplinary focus and there are others who conceptualize it as a subdiscipline of other disciplines. As explained by Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 159-160), "linguistics focuses on the products of acquisition psychology focuses on the process by which those systems are created and sociolinguistics focuses on social factors that influence the acquisition of the linguistic system and the use of that system". Apart from the disciplines that influence SLA, there are many factors that can affect the process of SLA/SLL. They can be divided into learner-external factors, learner-internal factors and individual variation.

(A) Learner-External Factors

The study of learner-external factors primarily focuses on how learners get information about the target language. The following are the main learner-external factors that affect the process of SLA/SLL.

51

- Social Effects The process of second language learning is affected by the attitudes of the learner's surrounding society. The attitudes of the learner's society toward the language being learned can have a strong effect on second language acquisition/learning. If the society has a negative attitude toward the target language and its speakers, learning that language becomes more difficult. On the other hand, the community's positive attitude toward the target language and its speakers may facilitate the learning of that language. Moreover, the learner's parents' attitude towards the language being learned may affect the process of learning the target language. The relationship of gender roles to language achievement has also received particular attention. Some studies have shown that women enjoy an advantage over men. - Input The target language is the basic source of information about the target language. Mackey and Abbuhl (2005) said, "Input refers to the linguistic forms to which learners are exposed" (p. 207). Input is one of the most important factors that affect the learners' learning. Input is defined by Nizegorodcew (2007) as "the language intentionally presented to the learners by the teacher or other learners in order to facilitate the process of L2 learning/acquisition" (p. x). As cited in Hassan (2010, p. 30), VanPatten (1996, p. 13) stated, "input is an essential component of second language acquisition. It is argued that simple exposure to the target language is not sufficient for second language learners to master the target language. Swain (1985) pointed out that input is not sufficient for L2 learning and it cannot alone account for the entire process of acquiring an L2. Learners use input in order to construct a mental representation of the grammar that they are acquiring". There are some models and approaches such as Krashens Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982) and Michael Long's the

52

Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983) that regard the input as the main factor in L2 acquisition. Krashen (1982) claimed that comprehensibility is the first condition for the input to be acquired. Long (1983) claimed that the input should be adjusted in interaction to become comprehensible. Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 126) pointed out that "the Input Hypothesis claims that exposure to comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for second language learning to take place". - Interaction In the last decade, the interaction hypothesis has attracted more interest in SLA research. The interaction hypothesis proposes that the use of the target language in interaction facilitates language acquisition. The interaction hypothesis suggests that interaction with other speakers facilitates second language development. Long (1981) argued that interaction can be modified to make input more comprehensible for second language learners. Long (1981) focused on negotiation for meaning as the only type of interaction that affects L2 comprehension and development. According to Long (1981), negotiation for meaning refers to "the efforts learners and their interlocutors make to modify or restructure interaction to avoid or overcome difficulties in input comprehensibility" (Mackey & Abbuhl, 2005, p. 208). Negotiation for meaning, according to Long, includes comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests. - Pedagogical Effects The study of the pedagogical effects on SLA seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of language teaching practices. Nowadays, it is proved that formal instruction can help in language learning. There are many studies that have shown the effects of teaching on SLA. Some of these studies have shown that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient. Many SLA scholars indicate that formal instruction plays an important role in language learning. As explicit instruction takes place in the learner's L1, it is argued that it prevents the learners from input and opportunities for practice. Some studies

53

indicate that formal instruction helps second-language acquisition, while others seem to argue that informal environments are superior or just as good (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 45). McLaughlin (1987, p. 45) pointed out that Krashen proposed that language classes are effective when they are the primary source of comprehensible input. On the basis of Krashens claim, McLaughlin (1987) said;
language classes are thought [by Krashen] to be less helpful when (1) the students are already advanced enough to understand some input from the outside world, and (2) the input is available to them ( p. 45). McLaughlin (1987) stated out that not all studies show that instruction does not help more advanced learners. (p. 45).

The process of learning a second/foreign language is dynamic; it is also affected by other factors such as the structure of the target language and the differences and similarities between the learner's mother tongue and the target language.

(B) Learner-Internal Factors

The study of learner-internal factors in SLA focuses on how learners gain competence in the target language or the internal resources with which learners process the input to produce a rule-governed interlanguage. The most important factors are language transfer, linguistic universals and intralingual interference. The first two factors will be discussed below, and in order to avoid repetition, the third factor will be discussed later in the causes and sources of errors.

Language Transfer
Language transfer refers to the learners trying to apply rules and forms of his/her mother tongue into the second language. Contrastive analysis hypothesis [CAH] claims that the learners errors are produced because of the transfer from the learners first language to the second language. Brown (1987) defined transfer as the carryover of previous performance or knowledge to subsequent learning (p. 81). The direction of language transfer is understood as it is only from the mother tongue to the second language, but it may

54

be reversed. Al-Fotih (2007) said that [language transfer] may also be used in studies of language loss where a previously learned language for example the first language is changing under the influence of the new language (p. 56). Gass and Selinker (2008) stated that it has always been assumed that, in a second language learning situation, learners rely extensively on their native language (p. 89). Transfer is an important factor in language learning at all levels. The role of transfer starts diminishing when learners progress and gain more experience with the target language. Richards and Sampson (1974) considered language transfer as the major, but not the only, source of difficulty by linguists doing contrastive analysis (p. 5). Lu (2004, p. 1) defined language transfer as the application of native language rules in the attempted performance in a second language, in some cases resulting in deviations from target-language norms and in other cases facilitating second language acquisition (cited in Al-Awaid, 2010, p. 55). Transfer can affect the process of second language learning positively or negatively. If the transfer is positive, it facilitates the process of second language learning but if it is negative, it makes the process of second language learning difficult and causes errors. If the transfer results in something correct, it is positive transfer, but if it results in something incorrect, it is negative transfer. Edwards and Zampini (2008) said that since the 1950s, transfer has been considered to be a dominant influence, both positively and negatively, in the acquisition of an L2 (p. 2). Gass and Selinker (2008) maintained that the actual determination of whether or not a learner has positively or negatively transferred is based on the output, as analyzed by the researcher, teacher, native speaker/learner, when compared and contrasted with target language output (p. 90). Postman (1974, p. 1019) declared that transfer of training from [first language to target language] situations is part and parcel of most, if not all, learning. In this sense the study of transfer is coextensive with the investigation of learning (Quoted in Gass and Slinker, 2008, p. 94). Brown (1987) said;

55 positive transfer occurs when the prior knowledge benefits the learning task that is, when a previous item is correctly applied to present subject matter. Negative transfer occurs when the previous performance disrupts the performance on a second language task [when] a previous item is incorrectly transferred or incorrectly associated with an item to be learned. (p. 81)

Ellis (2008) pointed out that the learners L1 can also facilitate L2 learning. This occurs when there are similarities between the L1 and L2 (p. 355). Language transfer can also have a negative effect on the process of second language learning. Ellis (2008, p. 357) said that the effects of the L1 are evident not in what learners do (errors) but in what they do not do (omission). Language transfer may manifest itself as errors, avoidance, overuse and facilitation. Ellis (2008, p. 29) stated that, according to Odlin (1989), the transfer is significant in the process of second language acquisition and there is a large and growing body of research that indicates that transfer is indeed a very important factor in second language acquisition. It is thought by some researchers that mother tongue transfer is helpful in syllabus design. Pica (1984) said that "L1 transfer and L2 complexity can be used in selecting, sequencing, and grading items for the syllabus" (p. 700). So many scholars and researchers support the concept and effect of transfer in second language learning. Ringbom (1987, p. 134), for example, stated out that similarities, both cross-linguistic and interlinguistic, function as pegs on which the learner can hang new information by making use of already existing knowledge, thereby facilitating learning (as quoted in Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 137). As cited in Richards and Sampson (1974, p. 5), George (1972) found out that one-third of the deviant sentences from second language learners could be attributed to language transfer. Al-Fotih (2007) pointed out that most existing data from transfer research emphasize the negative effects of first language influence (p. 56).

56

Some scholars, on the other hand, deny the influence of transfer on the process of second language learning. Here are some of these statements as quoted in Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 136): - language background did not have a significant effect on the way ESL learners order English morphemes (Larsen-Freeman, 1978, p. 372). - Interference, or native to target language transfer, plays such a small role in language learning performance (Whitman and Jackson, 1972, p. 40). - Direct interference from the mother tongue is not a useful assumption (George, 1972, p. 45).

Linguistic Universal
One of the internal mechanisms that are responsible for L2 acquisition is linguistic universals. As defined by Ellis (2008),
Typological universals are identified externally through the study of the worlds languages in order to identify what features and structures they have in common. Universal Grammar is viewed internally; that is, it consists of the set of general, highly abstract linguistic principles, which exist in the minds of individuals and are reflected in the rules of specific languages. (p. 557)

As shown by studies, universal grammar has had a significant effect on SLA theory. The interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development. However, research studies suggest that UG is inaccessible as learners age. Studies do not deny the fact that all learners processing of language is governed by UG, but it does not affect the process of second language acquisition/learning because older learners have great difficulty in gaining access to the target languages underlying rules from input alone.

(C) Individual Variation

Studies on individual variation investigate why some learners do better than others. SLA researchers have examined many individual learner differences. As

57

cited in Ellis (2008, p. 643), Dornyei (2005) defined the individual differences as enduring personal characteristics that are assumed to apply to everybody and on which people differ by degree (p. 4). Some researchers, such as Altman (1980), presented a long list of individual differences, but others have presented a small list of these differences. The most important factors that affect second language acquisition/learning are discussed below.

Language Aptitude
Language aptitude generally refers to the ability to learn a second language. Studies have shown that language aptitude is quite distinct from general aptitude or intelligence. Tests of language aptitude have proven effective in predicting which learners will be successful in learning. Although Cook (2001) referred to aptitude as the ability to learn a language from teaching in classrooms (p. 123-124) and reported that there are people who have a knack for learning second languages and others who are rather poor at it (p. 123), he added that some immigrants who lived in a country for 20 years are very fluent and others from the same background with the same ages, motivations, and so on living in the same circumstances for the same period are rather poor. Cook (2001, p. 124) pointed out that differences in L2 learning ability are apparently only felt in societies where L2 learning is treated as a problem rather than accepted as an everyday fact of life. As cited in Cook (2001, p. 124), Krashen (1981) suggested that aptitude is important for formal situations such as classrooms. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) maintained what is undeniable is that individuals learn languages at different rates (p. 167). This means that they assert the role of aptitude in learning languages. Ellis (2008) said that language aptitude constitutes a special ability for learning an L2 (p. 652). Ellis (2008) cited Skehan (1989) saying that [aptitude] is typically held to involve a number of distinct abilities including auditory ability, linguistic ability, and memory ability (p. 652).

58

These are the specific abilities that are complicated with language aptitude. Moreover, there are general abilities, such as intelligence and working memory, which are complicated with language aptitude. Ellis (2008) concluded that language aptitude, then, is best viewed as a composite of general and specific abilities (p. 652). Carroll (1981) argued that aptitude is separate from achievement, motivation and general intelligence and that aptitude is a stable factor that is difficult to alter through training, while Pimsleur (1966), as cited in Ellis (2008, p. 653), argued that motivation and intelligence are integral parts of aptitude. Carroll (1981) regarded aptitude as a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning. There are many studies that confirm the effect of aptitude in language learning. As cited in Ellis (2008, p. 657), Skehan (1986a, 1986b, 1990) reported that there are significant correlations between aptitude and measures of all four language skills and Harley and Hart (1997) reported that there are strong correlations between language aptitude and l2 measures of proficiency involving both formal and informal tasks. There is a clear evidence to show that language aptitude predicts successful learning in learners with informal as well as formal learning experiences and correlates with measures of communicative as well as controlled language use (Ellis, 2008, p. 657). Referring to the studies conducted by Skehan (1986b, 1990) and Sparks, Ganschow, and Patton (1995), Ellis (2008, p.658) concluded that it seems that language aptitude is a factor in L1 development as well as L2 learning. To quote Ellis (2008, p. 658) the majority of studies have addressed the relationship between aptitude and L2 proficiency. He came to conclude that language aptitude is an important factor in both formal and informal language learning (Ellis, 2008, p. 659).

Age
In 1967, Eric Lenneberg hypothesized a critical period for L1 acquisition, but nowadays there is an interest in age effects on SLA. There are theories that argue that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and

59

language acquisition can primarily occur during childhood only because plasticity of the brain loses after a certain age. It is commonly believed that children are better than adults in learning a second language. Lennebergs Critical Period Hypothesis claims that full language acquisition is not possible beyond a certain age. Studies have shown that early exposure to a second language increases a child's capacity to learn language, even their first language. The functional reorganization hypothesis claims that "the loss of sensitivity to foreign contrasts is not permanent" (Guasti, 2002, p. 44). Critical Period Hypothesis claims, as Guasti (2002) put it;
early learners of a second language resemble native speakers, while adults learning a foreign language keep a foreign accent. The later a language is learned, the more a foreign accent is discernible. It has been shown that a foreign accent is already detected in children who are exposed to a second language before age 4. The effect of age is evident not only in production, but also in perception, although in the former case it is more pronounced. Late learners are less proficient in discriminating the phonemic contrasts of the second language than early learners. (p. 44-45)

As stated by Pujol (2008, p. 1), there are several studies that have shown the benefits of starting to learn a new language as early as possible. It has proved by studies that although children have a slower rate of development in the target language, they quite often surpass older learners in the long run achieving a superior ultimate attainment (Pujo, 2008, pp. 1-2). Birdsong (1999, 2006), Harley (1986) and Long (1990) assert that age is one of the individual learner variables which has been most thoroughly investigated in the field of second language acquisition. The CPH hypothesizes that there is a specific and limited period of time for language acquisition. Scovel (2000) pointed out that it is a popular belief that the earlier one starts learning a language is better than those who start later. It is clearly stated in Gass and Selinker (2008) that it is commonly believed that children are better language learners than adults in the sense that young children typically can gain mastery of a second language, whereas adults cannot (p. 405).

60

Birdsong (1999) said that the CPH states that there is a limited developmental period during which it is possible to acquire a language be it L1 or L2, to normal, nativelike levels. Once this window of opportunity is passed, how, the ability to learn language declines (p. 1). Lennenberg (1967) proposed that automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to disappear [after puberty], and foreign languages have to be taught and learned through a conscious and labored effort. Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty (p. 176). Gass and Selinker (2008, p. 407) showed that there is abundant evidence that individuals generally do not achieve a native-like accent in a second language unless they are exposed to it at an early age. Long (1990) concluded that the initial rate of acquisition and the ultimate level of attainment depend in part on the age at which learning begins and there are sensitive periods governing language development during which the acquisition of different linguistic ability is successful and after which it is irregular and incomplete. As cited in Krashen and Long (1991), Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979, p. 161) reached the following three conclusions: 1. Adults proceed through the early stages of syntactic and morphological development faster than children. 2. Older children acquire faster than younger children. 3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to a second language during childhood achieve higher second-language proficiency than those beginning as adults. The conclusion Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) drew from the earlier studies they reviewed is that older is faster, but younger is better (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 155). There are some researchers who argue that adults are really better learners because they start off faster (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 154). Cook (2001) stated that Adults start more quickly and then slow down. Though children start more slowly, they finish up at a higher level (p. 135).

61

Richards and Sampson (1974) said that age is one of the factors that may affect the approximative system of the second language learner, explaining that some aspects of the childs learning capacities change as he grows older and these may affect language learning. The childs memory span increases with age. He acquires a greater number of abstract concepts, and he uses these to interpret his experience (p. 11). They argued that 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 are better imitators of speech sounds (p. 11-12).

Learning Strategies Used

Ellis (2008, p. 703) said that learner strategies define the approach learners adopt in learning an L2. There are many terms, such as learning behaviours, cognitive processes, learning tactics and learning techniques and learning strategies, which have been used to refer to the strategies a learner uses to acquire knowledge about a second language. But the term that is most commonly used is learning strategies. As quoted in Ellis (2008, p. 703), Oxford (1989) defined learning strategies as Behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable. Rubin (1975, p. 43) defined learning strategies as the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge (as quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 199). Mitchell and Myles (1998) defined learning strategies as procedures undertaken by the learner, in order to make their own language learning as effective as possible (p. 89). As cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 200), Seliger (1984) distinguished between macro-tactics which result in situations whereby the learner may obtain data and micro-tactics which provide direct input for learning. OMalley et al. (1985a), as cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 200) distinguished between metacognitive strategies, such as directing attention to the

62

learning task or evaluating ones efforts, and cognitive learning strategies such as inferencing or guessing meaning from context. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p 199) mentioned that Chesterfield and Barrows Chesterfield (1985) demonstrated that learners strategies do change over time. OMalley and Chamot (1990, p. 43) said that learning strategies may include:
Focusing on selected aspects of new information, analyzing and monitoring information during acquisition, organizing or elaborating on new information during the encoding process, evaluating the learning when it is completed, or assuring oneself that the learning will be successful as a way to allay anxiety (as quoted in Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 89-90).

There are many classes of learning strategies, but the most commonly cited taxonomies are OMalley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990). Furthermore, Oxfords taxonomy distinguished between direct and indirect strategies. The following table shows these two taxonomies of learning strategies.
Table (2.1): shows the classification of learning strategies according to OMalley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990)

OMalley and Chamot (1990) A. Metacognitive strategies, e.g. selective attention (deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of language input) B. Cognitive strategies, e.g. inferencing (using available information to guess meaning for new items, predict outcomes, or fill in missing information) C. Social/affective strategies, e.g. question for clarification (asking a teacher or another native speaker for repetition, paraphrasing, explanation, and/or examples)

Oxford (1990) A. Direct 1. Memory strategies, e.g. grouping (classifying or reclassifying materials into meaningful units) 2. Cognitive strategies, e.g. practising (repeating, formally practising, recognizing and using formulas, recombining, and practising naturalistically) 3. Compensation strategies, e.g. switching to mother tongue B. Indirect 1. Metacognitive strategies, e.g. setting goals and objectives

63

2. Affective strategies, e.g. taking risks wisely 3. Social strategies, e.g. asking for clarification or verification Ellis (2008, p. 707) There are some strategies that are used by almost all language learners. Naiman et al. (1995), as cited in Cook (2001, p. 127-128), found that the following learning strategies are shared by the good language learners: 1. Finding the learning that suits the learner; 2. Involving in the language learning process; 3. Developing in an awareness of language both as system and as communication; 4. Paying constant attention to expanding the learners language knowledge; 5. Developing the second language as a separate system; and 6. Taking into account the demands that L2 learning imposes. It has been shown that use of strategies is critical to successful language learning. OMalley and Chamot (1990, p. 217), as cited in Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 90), summed up the benefits of using learning strategies in the field of second language acquisition as follows.
Learning is an active and dynamic process in which individuals make use of a variety of information and strategic modes of processing. Language is a complex cognitive skill that has properties in common with other complex skills in terms of how information is stored and learned. Learning a language entails a stagewise progression from initial awareness and active manipulation of information and learning processes to full automaticity in language use; and Learning strategies parallel theoretically derived cognitive processes and have the potential to influence learning outcomes in a positive manner. (as cited in Mitchell and Myles, 1998, p. 90).

64

Affective Factors Anxiety

Gardner (1985) and Gardner, Tremblay and Masgoret (1997) found that there is a high relationship between anxiety and proficiency. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) stated that anxiety is a factor that can predicts success in the second language. They reviewed the anxiety of adult learners and children and they found that adults language proficiency is more influenced by the anxiety than children. Cubukcu (2007, p. 133) mentioned that main sources of anxiety are identified as: (a) Presenting before the class, (b) Making mistakes, (c) Losing face, (d) Inability to express oneself, (e) Fear of failure, (f) Teachers, and (g) Fear of living up to the standards. Anxiety should be considered by the teachers as responsible for the student behaviors before attributing poor student performance to lack of ability, inadequate background or poor motivation. Almost all studies in this field maintain the idea that anxiety affects language learning. Cubukcu (2007) said that anxiety makes learners unreceptive to language input (p. 135). It is said that those who do not experience anxiety will be able to process the information more quickly and more effectively (Cubukcu (2007, p. 136). Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) found that foreign language anxiety is responsible for students negative emotional reactions to language learning, it plays a role in students selections of courses, majors, and careers and it is a factor in students objections to foreign language requirements. There are a lot of studies that found negative correlations between anxiety and language learning achievement. On the other hand, Cubukcu (2007) mentioned that there are studies such as Chastain (1975) and Kleinmann (1977) that found positive relationships between language anxiety and second language achievement. Gass and Selinker (2008) said that anxiety is not always a negative factor in learning (p. 400). They claimed that anxiety has a curvilinear effect on performance and when it is low, it helps and when it is high, it hurts. But there are studies that have almost unanimously shown that anxiety

65

stands against successful learning. Being a complex, multidimensional phenomenon, language anxiety manifests itself in students differently, almost unavoidably, intricately intertwined with other factors, among which motivation might be one. Anxiety can have a deleterious or positive effect on second language learning. Chastain (1975) found that anxiety was a significant predictor in some cases and deleterious in other cases. Alpert and Haber (1960) suggested that anxiety can be facilitating or debilitating and it is not necessarily a negative trait. This distinction was explained and clarified by Scovel (1978) commenting:
Facilitating anxiety motivates the learner to fight the new learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for approval behavior. Debilitating anxiety, in contrast, motivates the learner to flee the new learning task; it stimulates the individual emotionally to adopt avoidance behavior. (p. 139)

Motivation
Motivation as a predictor of second language learning performance was first studied by Gardner and his colleagues (Wei, 2007). Ellis (2008) stated that motivation as an individual difference factor in language learning has received more attention than other factors. Dornyei (2001) stated that strictly speaking, there is no such thing as motivation" (p. 1). Brown (1987) claimed that success in second language leaning is due to the fact that the learner is motivated. A learner will further be successful in second language learning if there is a proper motivation. Gardner believes that motivation has cognitive affective and conative characteristics and the motivated individual demonstrates all facets (Al-Mekhlafi, 2010, p. 57). Studies have proved that motivation is a factor that has a substantial effect in learning an L2. Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified two types of motivation: (1) integrative and (2) instrumental. Integrative motivation refers to the learners desire and willingness to learn the L2 in order to become like the target language

66

speakers and join their community and culture and instrumental motivation refers to the learners desire to learn an L2 for utilitarian purposes with no/little interest in the speakers of that language. Gardner and Lamberts (1972) integrativeinstrumental duality became widely accepted and became a classical model. Regardless the type of motivation, in the field of SLA, studies have shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating that successful learners are motivated and that success improves motivation. Cook (1991) stated that some learners do better than others because they are better motivated (p. 72). Dornyei (2005) defined integrative motivation as involving the following three subcomponents: 1. Integrativeness (including integrative orientation, interest in foreign language, and attitudes toward the L2 community) 2. Attitudes towards the learning situation (i.e. attitudes towards the teacher and the L2 course) 3. Motivation (i.e. the effort, desire, and attitude toward L2 learning). MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) stated out that the student endorsing an integrative orientation or goal and does not show effort or engagement with the language is not a motivated learner. Gardner and his associates first defended integrative motivation as a primary factor accounting for L2 achievement and refused to entertain alternative models of motivation. Thus Masgoret and Gardner (2003) said;
the motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at hand, has goals, desires, and aspiration, enjoys the activity, experiences reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions concerning success and/or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals. (p. 173)

They show that there is a relationship between the three components of integrative motivation (integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, and motivation) and achievement. Thus, they put it:

67 the integratively motivated student is one who is motivated to learn the second language, has an openness to identification with the other language community, and has favorable attitudes toward the learning situation. In the model, integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation are viewed as two different, yet correlated, supports for motivation, but motivation is seen to be the major affective individual-difference variable contributing to achievement in learning another language. This means that the correlation between motivation and language achievement should be higher than the correlations of either integrativeness or attitudes toward the learning situation with language achievement. (Masgoret and Gardner, 2003, p. 174)

Instrumental motivation is the second component of Gardners model. Ellis (2008) pointed out that instrumental motivation refers to the motivation that derives from a perception of the concrete benefits that learning the L2 might bring out (p. 682). Some studies have proved that instrumental motivation is more affective in L2 learning than integrative motivation. Spolsky (1979, p. 282), as quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 173), concluded that learning a second language is a key to possible membership of a secondary society: the desire to join that group is a major factor in learning. As cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p. 174), Lukmani (1972) found that those students with instrumental motivation outperformed those with integrative motivation on a test of English language proficiency. Kachru (1977) observed that Indian English can be acquired successfully for instrumental reasons only. The absence of motivation is the problem. If there is no motivation, there will be difficulty in learning an L2. Cook (1991) argued that students will find it difficult to learn a second language in the classroom if they have neither instrumental nor integrative motivation (p. 73). To Cook, as to some others, integrative motivation is equal in significance to instrumental motivation. So, Cook (1991) concluded that both integrative and instrumental motivations may lead to success, but lack of either causes problems (p. 75). Brown (1987) said that the foreign language learner who is either intrinsically or extrinsically meeting needs in learning the language is positively motivated to learn (p. 115).

68

2.2. Error Analysis

In SLA, Error Analysis is a term used to describe the errors produced by learners of a second/foreign language. Error analysis can be defined as the systematic study of deviations from target-language norms in the course of second-language acquisition. Error analysis aims at identifying the difficulties in learning a second language, the strategies used by the learners during learning that language and the causes and sources of the errors made by the L2 learners. It is a technique of measuring the learners progress in the process of learning a second/foreign language on the basis of which it suggests teaching methods and materials. From the 1940s to 1960s, contrastive analysis was dominant claiming that learners errors are attributed to the learners mother tongue transfer. When Corders influential paper The Significance of Learners Errors was published, Error Analysis [EA] emerged as a theory and method having its importance in language pedagogy and language acquisition/learning. Spolsky (1979) pointed out that "the field of error analysis provided a very useful bridge to studies of first language acquisition, and helped maintain an excitement and seeming respectability that has attracted a good number of bright young researchers into the field" (p. 254). Bartholomae (1980) said that:
Error analysis begins with a theory of writing, a theory of language production and language development, that allows us to see errors as evidence of choice or strategy among a range of possible choices or strategies. They provide evidence of an individual style of using the language and making it work; they are not a simple record of what a writer failed to do because of incompetence or indifference. Errors, then, are stylistic features, information about this writer and this language. (p. 257)

He added that EA
begins with the recognition that errors will be either random or systematic. If they are systematic in the writing of an individual writer, then they are evidence of some idiosyncratic rule system. If the errors are systematic across all basic writers, then they would be evidence of

69 generalized stages in the acquisition of fluent writing for beginning adult writers" (p. 256).

Error analysis has become useful for language teachers, linguists and learners. Bartholomae (1980) said that:
Error analysis provides the basic writing teacher with both a technique for analyzing errors in the production of discourse, a technique developed by linguists to study second language learning, and a theory of error, or, perhaps more properly, a perspective on error, where errors are seen as (1) necessary stages of individual development and (2) data that provide insight into the idiosyncratic strategies of a particular language user at a particular point in his acquisition of a target language. (p. 256)

Accordingly, it can be said that error analysis is a diagnostic method. Kroll and Schafer (1978, p. 244) said that "the error-analyst views errors as necessary stages in all language learning, as the product of intelligent cognitive strategies and therefore as potentially useful indicators of what processes the student is using." They said that:
Error-analysis can be seen as providing insights about the sources of an error but not as dictating any single teaching device. In this view, erroranalysis helps teachers utilize materials and teaching strategies more effectively by indicating the precise nature of the problem. The teacher uses these insights to match teaching strategies to the error (or perhaps to design new materials based on specific sources of error). (p. 247)

Although error analysis has proved significant in the field of language teaching and learning, it has been criticized. Some critics say that error analysis totally relies on errors excluding the other information. It has been also criticized because it ascribes errors to causes and sources and some errors cannot be determined to which cause or source they are ascribed. Detailed explanation of error analysis and contrastive analysis will be provided in the next section (2.2.1).

2.2.1. Error Analysis vs. Contrastive Analysis

Before the development of error analysis, contrastive analysis was dominant. Then error analysis came to existence and became more popular among the researchers of the field. Here a review of contrastive analysis must be given in

70

order to gain a better insight into how error analysis has dominated and become more popular. From the 1940s to the 1960s, there was a belief that a better and more effective pedagogy and materials are those based on the description and comparison of the mother tongue of the learner and the target language. Thus, contrastive analysis studies were conducted. Contrastive analysis can be defined as a description of the native language of the learner and the target language and a comparison of the descriptions to find out the similarities and differences between the two languages. Contrastive analysis was first developed by Charles Fries (1945). Then it was expanded and clarified by Robert Lado (1957). Fries (1945) assumed that The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learnt carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner (p. 9). This assumption was later supported and clarified by Lado (1957) who stressed the importance of contrastive analysis in the field. Lado (1957) stated that:
individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives. (p. 2)

During that time, it was believed that if the similarities and differences between the learners mother tongue and the target language are identified, there will be better teaching and learning. Fries (1945) developed contrastive analysis as an essential component of foreign language teaching methodology. It was noted by Fries that a learner brings with him what he knows about his first language when learning a foreign language. He suggested that undertaking a comparative analysis of the learner's mother tongue and the target language is the best way to achieve an effective method of teaching a second/foreign language. Harris (1954) pointed out

71

that it is possible to learn a language by learning the differences between the native language and the target language only. In the 1950s and 1960s, a contrastive analysis of the learner's native language and the target language was widespread. According to this widespread practice, the language teaching syllabus was organized and "target items were chosen on the basis of their dissimilarity to corresponding native language structures and then graded according to the degree of differences" (Pica, 1984, p. 691). Gass and Selinker (2008) stated that the ultimate goal of contrastive analysis was improving classroom materials. On the basis of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), linguists tended to design teaching materials that help overcome the difficulties faced by the learners and eliminate the learners' errors. In other words, they did contrastive analysis to establish well-organized teaching materials. Weinreich (1953), as cited in AlAwaid (2010, p. 23), argues that "the greater difference between the systems, the greater is the learning problem. The aim of contrastive analysis or comparison of two languages and cultures, as Lado pointed out in the preface to his famous book Linguistics across Cultures (1957, p. iii), is "to discover and describe the problems that the speakers of one of the languages will have in learning the other". He added; "the results of such comparisons have proved of fundamental value for the preparation of teaching materials, tests, and language learning experiments." (p. iii). He suggested that the pedagogical and experimental materials must be based on contrastive analysis. Lado (1957) argued that "the teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real learning problems are and can better provide for teaching them. He gains an insight into the linguistic problems involved that cannot easily be achieved otherwise" (p. 2). Lado said;
the most important new thing in the preparation of teaching materials is the comparison of native and foreign language and culture in order to find the hurdles that really have to be surmounted in the teaching. It will soon be considered quite out of date to begin writing a textbook without having previously compared the two systems involved. (p. 3).

72

He went on saying that "the teacher who has systematically compared the two languages will be able to prepare supplementary exercises on those patterns which are important or difficult and have been overlooked or treated inadequately in the book" (p. 3). It was assumed that the similarities between the learners mother tongue and the target language facilitate the process of learning the target language and the differences between them create difficulty for the learner to learn the target language and lead the learner to commit errors. Lado (1957) pointed out that "those elements that are similar to [the learner's] native language will be simple for [the learner], and those elements that are different will be difficult" (p. 2). Thus, contrastive analysis studies were conducted to predict the areas of difficulties and errors language learners may face/make during the process of learning a second/foreign language. Kroll and Schafer (1978) mentioned that contrastive analysts argue that "students will err in the TL where it differs from their NL" (p. 242). CAH assumes that many of the learner's errors are made because of the differences between the learner's native language and the target language. Gass and Selinker (2008, pp. 96-97) explained that the assumptions on which the pedagogical materials that resulted from contrastive analysis were based are as follows: 1. Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that language is habit and that language learning involves the establishment of a new set of habits. 2. The major source of error in the production and/or reception of a second language is the native language. 3. One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and L2. 4. When there are greater differences between the target language and the native language, there will occur more errors.

73

5. What one has to do in learning a second language is learn the differences. Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other words, what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned. 6. Difficulty and ease in learning is determined respectively by differences and similarities between the two languages in contrast. Wardhaugh (1970), as cited in Al-Awaid (2010, p. 23), said that the CAH may be divided into two versions; a strong version and a weak version. As cited in Al-Awaid (2010, p. 24), Lee (1968, p. 186) outlined the following assumptions of the strong version of the CAH. 1. The prime cause of error and difficulty in learning a second/foreign language is interference from the learner's native language. 2. The difficulties are caused by the differences between the native language and the target language. 3. The greater the differences between the native language and the target language are, the more acute the learning difficulties will be. 4. The results of a comparison between the stem of the target language and that of the native language are needed to predict the difficulties and errors that will occur in learning the target language. 5. What to teach can be found by comparing the target language and the native language and then identifying what is common between them. Consequently, what the student has to learn is the differences recognized by CA. According to CAH, comparison of L1 and L2 would suffice to reveal areas of differences and similarities. These in turn would allow predicting where errors would and where they would not occur" (Xiangui, 2005, p. 121). In the 1970s, researchers started criticizing CAH. In 1968, Briere showed that contrastive analysis as a method to predict hierarchy of difficulty is

74

inadequate but "there has been little evidence put forward in support of the strong form of contrastive analysis or of particular claims for its pedagogical value" (Spolsky, 1979, p. 253). Corder (1967) stated that:
The major contribution of the linguist to language teaching was seen as an intensive contrastive study of the systems of the second language and the mother-tongue of the learner; out of this would come an inventory of the areas of difficulty which the learner would encounter and the value of this inventory would be to direct the teacher's attention to these areas so that he might devote special care and emphasis in his teaching to the overcoming, or even avoiding, of these predicted difficulties. (p. 162)

In the 1970s, researches and studies revealed that elements in the target language that differ only slightly from the elements of the learner's native language frequently are more difficult than those elements that are different considerably. Buteau (1970), for example, as Pica (1984) said, "found that native English speakers had more difficulty learning sentence patterns of French which were structurally similar to those of their native language than those which were structurally different" (p. 692). Pica reported that "in other studies, target structures which appeared to be highly unlike their counterparts in the learner's native language, and which would thus have been predicted to cause difficulty, were in fact acquired quite rapidly" (p. 692). She added that "some items were found to cause similar difficulties for learners of English, regardless of first language background" (p. 692). She stated that:
cross-linguistic research has shown that it is not the most divergent areas between the learner's L1 and the target language which pose the greatest learning difficulties but rather those areas which share considerable similarity. Unless the syllabus takes into account the language background of learners, certain students may be left behind in negation development and may fossilize at a functional but ungrammatical level of production. (p. 695)

She declared that it was found that "contrastive analysis of students' native and target languages were more suitable for explaining language learning errors than for organizing an instructional syllabus" (p. 693).

75

Thus, in the 1970s, the strong role of contrastive analysis started diminishing and error analysis came to existence. The field of error analysis was established by S. P. Corder in the 1970s. Error analysis was used as an alternative to contrastive analysis, and then showed that contrastive analysis was able to predict the errors only produced because of the differences between the mother tongue and the target language but it was not able to predict the errors produced because of faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Contrastive analysis was criticized because "not all actually occurring errors were predicted; not all predicted errors occurred" (Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 101). LarsenFreeman and Long (1991) criticized CAH explaining that not all similarities guarantee error free acquisition. It was also criticized because not all differences between the native language and the target language lead to learning difficulties. However, CAH cannot be completely dismissed because of the fact that the native language influences the second language. Error analysis is the process of observing, analyzing and classifying errors to find out the system a learner uses. Ellis (1986) stated that error analysis is the procedure of collecting sample of a learner language, identifying, describing and evaluating the errors. Error analysis is carried out in the field of SLL in order to identify the causes of the errors made by a language learner and to obtain information on difficulties in language learning. Ellis (1997) said that analyzing errors is useful for the teachers, researchers (linguists) and learners because errors raise the question of "Why do learners make errors?" and they help teachers to know what errors learners make and help learners to learn when they self-correct the errors they make. The purpose of studying errors made by learners of a second/foreign language is finding out something about the learning process and about the strategies employed by human beings learning another language. As errors are inevitable in the process of learning a second/foreign language, error analysis studies have been conducted to

76

identify the causes and sources of errors and obtain information on the difficulties common in language learning. Kroll and Schafer (1978) pointed out that error analysts are cognitivists, no behaviorists, They look upon errors as clues to inner processes, as windows into the mind (pp. 242-243). They showed some of the key issues of the approaches to learners errors, as shown in the following table.
Table (2.2): shows approaches of learners errors Issue Why should one study errors? What is the attitude toward error? What can we hope to discover from learners' errors? How can we account for the fact that a learner makes an error? Product Approach To produce a linguistic taxonomy of what errors learners make. Errors are "bad." (Interesting only to the linguistic theorist.) Those items on which the learner or the program failed. It is primarily a failure to learn the correct form (perhaps a case of language interference). Process Approach To produce a psycholinguistic explanation of why a learner makes an error. Errors are "good." (Interesting to the theorist and teacher, and useful to the learner as active tests of his hypotheses.) The strategies which led the learner into the error. Errors are a natural part of learning a language; they arise from learners' active strategies: overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete rule application, hypothesizing false concepts. A learning perspective: assist the learner in approximating the Target Language; support his active learning strategies and recognize that not all errors will disappear.

What are emphases goals instruction?

the A teaching perspective: and eliminate all errors by of establishing correct, automatic habits; mastery of the Target Language is the goal.

(Kroll & Schafer, 1978, p. 243) The process of error analysis is divided by most linguists into the following three stages: (i) Recognition

77

(ii) Linguistic Classification (iii) Explanation: explanation of the possible causes of errors is a basic procedure in the analysis of errors.

2.2.2. Errors and SLA/SLL

When a learner fails to use the appropriate rule of the language, then he/she makes an error. Errors have significance in the process of second/foreign language learning. Errors help researchers and teachers to see how the process of learning a second language develops. As errors are used as a tool to acquire a second language, errors need not be seen as a sign of failure. In the process of learning any language, all learners make errors. Errors are inevitable especially in learning a foreign language. Errors produced by learners in the process of learning a second/foreign language show the understanding of the process of acquiring that language. According to Ellis (1997), errors reflect the gaps in learners' knowledge. Brown (1994) pointed out that errors reflect the interlanguage competence of the learner. Learners of English as a second/foreign language often make errors when they write essays in English. These errors can be classified into some categories such as morphological, lexical, syntactic and mechanical errors. As Nakano et al. (2001) argue that learners errors are indispensible for language learning. Because the learners language has its own set of rules, it is inevitable to make errors while learning a second/foreign language. Margan (1956) stated that "even under the best teachers, mishearings and misunderstandings will occur" (p. 70). Corder (1967) referred to the schools of thought in respect of learners' errors. The first school "maintains that if we were to achieve a perfect teaching method the errors would never be committed in the first place" (p. 162-163) and the occurrence of the errors is a sign of the inadequacy of teaching methods. The second school maintains that errors are inevitable in spite of the efforts given to teaching. Corder (1967) argued that learner's errors are systematic because "the

78

learner is using a definite system of language at every point in his development" (p. 166). The learner's errors are evidence of the system of language the learner uses. Corder (1967) hypothesizes that errors are significant for researcher, teacher and learner. Corder (1967) pointed out that "A learner's errors are significant in [that] they provide the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures that the learner is employing in the discovery of the language" (p. 167). He explained that the learner's errors are significant in three different ways. i. To the teacher: they provide the teacher with evidence about the progress of his students in language learning. ii. To the researcher: they provide the researcher with evidence of "how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language" (p. 167). iii. To the learner: from his errors, the learner learns how to learn and how to test his hypotheses about the nature of the language he/she is learning. Corder (1967) pointed out that the errors made by second language learners provide evidence of their developing systematization of the language being acquiring and of the nature of transitional competence, i.e. the grammar or set of rules the learners use in producing sentences in the language they are learning.

2.2.3. Errors vs. Mistakes

Corder (1967) differentiated between errors and mistakes. Errors are systematic but mistakes are random/unsystematic or those errors "the systematic nature of which cannot be readily discerned" (p. 166). Mistakes can occur in "normal adult speech in [his/her] native language due to memory lapses, physical state, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion (p. 166). He added that mistakes do not reflect a defect in the knowledge

79

of one's language and they can be corrected "with more or less complete assurance" (p. 166). Mistakes can be also made by the learner of a second language, "since he is subject to similar external and internal conditions" (p. 166). Corder argued that errors reveal the underlying knowledge of the language or what is called 'transitional competence' but mistakes are 'errors of performance'. As cited in Corder (1967, pp. 166-167), Miller (1966) stated that "it is meaningless to state rules for making mistakes". According to Corder, errors of a learner help in reconstructing the learner's knowledge of the language (transitional competence). Corder (1967) states; "mistakes are of no significance to the process of language learning" (p. 167). But "A learner's errors, then, provide evidence of the system of the language that is he using (i.e. has learned) at a particular point in the course" (Corder, 1967, p. 167). Corder argued that the child's occurrences are free from errors. He regarded the deviant occurrences of child as "a normal childlike communication which provides evidence of the state of his linguistic development at that moment" (Corder, 1967, p. 165). 2.2.4. Interlanguage Interlanguage is defined by Crystal (2008) as the linguistic system produced by a learner in the course of learning a second/foreign language, different from either the speakers first language or the target language being acquired. There have been many terms used to refer to this system, such as approximative system by Nemser (1971) and idiosyncratic dialect by Corder (1971) and interlanguage by Selinker (1972). A majority of linguists have widely accepted the term interlanguage in the last four decades to stand for the linguistic system of the second/foreign language learners. In this connection, the term interlanguage which is the most commonly used term refers to the separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from

80

learners attempted production of a target language (TL) norm (Selinker, 1972, p. 213). Selinker (1972) claimed that there is an existence of a latent psychological structure in the brain which the second language learner activates when he/she attempts to learn a second/foreign language. Selinkers basic proposal claims that those adult learners who succeed in gaining a native-speaker competence (perhaps 5%) in learning a second language have somehow reactivated the latent psychological structure which Lenneberg described. The notion of the latent language structure for Lenneberg (1967) is described in the following points: (1) It is a structure that is arranged and formulated in the brain. (2) It is corresponding to universal grammar. (3) It is transformed into the realized structure of particular grammar according to the infants maturational phases. Selinker (1972) argued that those (5%) L2 learners who succeed in gaining a native-like competence adopt different psycho-linguistic processes than those L2 learners who did not succeed in achieving the same competence. According to this, he distinguished between the two notions of learning attempted learning and successful learning. For him, the first notion is independent and comes before the process of the successful learning and the second notion depends on the first notion. Selinker asserted that the linguists and researchers in the field of SLA/SLL concentrate their focus on the analysis of the observable data which result from the learner attempted communicative production of TL that can be related to theoretical predictions. Accordingly, Selinker proposes the existence of the concept of the interlanguage (IL) which is a separate linguistic system (Selinker, 1972, p. 213).

81

Interlanguage can be defined as a transitional state between mother tongue and target language which has its own rules and systematic grammar. Davies (1989, p. 460) defined interlanguage as the language of the learner. Thus, he said that interlanguage is systematic in the same sort of way that the childs first language is systematic (p. 460). He said that the interlaguage hypothesis argues to be systematic and it is not arbitrary but it always makes sense in the learning process. Davies explained the interlanguage as a development process. He went on saying that interlanguage is
the learners systematic approximations toward the target language, is best seen and increasingly is seen as a product or set of products (goals or targets to be achieved) that mark out the learners path as a member of a second language speech community. (p. 448)

According to Selinkers interlanguage hypothesis, the L2 learner improves his language and creates his own rules and assumptions about the TL. Consequently, the learner will make errors. In fact, these errors are evidence that the learner is constructing his/her rules and hypotheses about the nature of the TL. They are not random mistakes, but they are evidence of rule-governed behaviour (Adjemian, 1976; Corder, 1967; Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972). When developing the learners interlanguage, the learners grammar becomes more similar to the grammar of the target language. Spolsky (1989, p. 31) pointed out that one of [interlanguage] principal contributions was its underlying claim that the learners knowledge is to be seen as a unified whole, in which new knowledge is integrated and systematically reorganized with previous knowledge of the native language. Interlanguage is supposed to be consisted of interactions between the mother tongue and the TL, not to be accounted just by transfer or intralingual characteristics. For this reason, Selinker (1972), Corder (1973) and Richards (1974) regarded an interlanguage as a system which is different from the structures of the first and second languages. Spolsky (1989, p. 32) commented the implication of [Selinkers (1969)] earliest

82

formulation is that interlanguage is a performance phenomenon, to be seen in the behaviour of second language learners attempting to emulate the target language speakers norm or competence: the underlying structure is to be derived from the observable output. To Schumann (1974), the speech of a second language learner at any point of time in the acquisition process is regarded by the interlanguage hypothesis as a systematic attempt to deal with the target language data. So, the learners utterances are not regarded as errors or deviant structures. They are rather a part of a separate authentic linguistic system. Sardana (1992) said that the term interlanguage describes the intermediate language that is between the learners native language and the TL having its own set of rules followed by the learner in an attempt to follow the target language norms. This had been earlier stated by Tarone (1972) and others. Tarone (1972) said; as the learner moves from the system of the native language towards the system of the target language, he speaks an intermediate code a system whose structure is determined by native language, target language, and by several other factors (p. 325). Although the concept of interlanguage is static, interlanguage is an unstable, dynamic and ongoing process changing continuously. Interlanguage is in flux as the learner attempts to bring his linguistic system toward the TL system. Spolsky (1979) commented the static concept of interlanguage is of limited value for understanding a dynamic and ongoing process (p. 256). Tarone (1972),

Spolsky (1979) and others had the same idea that interlanguage is an ongoing process constantly changing over time. Tarone (1972) said that interlanguage is constantly changing as it is modified to approximate the target [language] more closely (p. 325). Interlanguage reflects the constant progress of the learner in L2 learning process which includes elements mixed from the learners mother tongue and the TL. This system also includes errors or deviant forms that should not be

83

considered as signs of language learning failure. These errors, in fact, are unavoidable aspects in the language learning process. Bridges (1990), Emery (1997), and Swain (1995) claimed that the interlanguage has some features that indicate the incomplete mastery of the code. It is, in fact, characterized by linguistically incorrect and/or contextually inappropriate forms and utterances that are labeled as errors when resulting from a lack of the TL knowledge. Interlanguage may show certain structures that are linguistically and pragmatically correct but sound strange (Al-Awaid, 2010). Dickerson (1975) agreed with others who say that interlanguage is systematic adding that it reflects the learners internal system. Dickerson (1975) claimed that interlanguage should be viewed as a necessary part of the language learning process as important information about the character of the learners changing language system (p. 406). He argued that interlanguage should be viewed as having variable rules: like native speakers, second language speakers use a language system consisting of variable rules. Their achievement of the target language comes about through gradual change by using, over time, greater proportions of more target-like variants in an ordered set of phonetic environments (p. 407). As cited in Corder (1981), Bickerton (1975) believed that the interlanguage system is the product of a psycholinguistic process of interaction between two linguistic systems, those of the mother tongue and the target language. Ellis (1986) claimed that interlanguage, like all natural languages, has three basic features which are: permeability, dynamism, and systematicity. It is therefore a type of natural language. Sridhar (1976) suggested that the three revolutionary phases in the attempt to understand and explain the nature of a foreign language learners performance are Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage.

84

In the light of the interlanguage hypothesis, second language speech is rarely identical to what is expected from the native speakers to produce, not direct translation of the learners mother tongue. It is also systematically different from the target language but it is not random (Selinker, Swain & Dumas, 1975). Gass and Selinker (2008) describe the concept of interlanguage as in the following statement:
This concept validates learners' speech, not as a deficit system, that is, a language filled with random errors, but as a system of its own with its own structure. This system is composed of numerous elements, not the least of which are elements from the NL and the TL. There are also elements in the IL that do not have their origin in either the NL or the TL. These latter are called new forms and are the empirical essence of interlanguage. What is important is that the learners themselves impose structure on the available linguistic data and formulate an internalized system (IL). (p. 14)

2.2.5. Types of Errors

Errors are erroneous forms generated by SL/FL learners in their attempted production of the TL norms. These errors have a special significance to the linguists, teachers and learners of an SL. Errors are defined by linguists as breaches of the code and deviated structures of norms. Sardana (1992) argued that the breaches of the code presumes that the learner is familiar with the target language code, but is somehow unable to follow it or use it in his own performance (p. 17). According to Corder (1973), the term error is used for the willful or negligent violations of a rule which is (ought to be/thought to be) known to the learner. The term error is defined by Taylor (1976) as a deviation that is not acceptable to most of the native speakers of the given language. While it is defined by Gass and Selinker (2008) as a red flag which gives an evidence of the learners competence in the second language. Edge (1989) used the learning steps to refer to errors, claiming that they are those forms that the users of the language cannot correct even after teaching. Chomsky (1965) posited a distinction between competence and performance where the former refers to the

85

knowledge of the native speaker in his language and the later refers to the speakers actual uses of his language for communication. According to him, in spite of the perfect knowledge of the systems of the native speaker about his mother tongue, he may produce utterances which are considered as ungrammatical by other native speakers. In Corders point of view, the ungrammatical utterances produced by the native speakers do not result in the imperfect knowledge because they can correct their mistakes if their attentions are drawn to their mistakes. Hymes (1971) further emphasized the learners communicative

competence. Thus he put it:

We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others. (p. 277)

Therefore, Hymess communicative competence means that the learners utterances, if they are not appropriately used, are regarded as errors or mistakes. There are many points of view regarding the types of errors in SLA/SLL. As cited in Al-Awaid (2010, p. 69), Noss (1979) gave three types of errors, as follows; 1. Mistakes. These are errors of form or lexical selection which the defendant (learner) has made through carelessness, bad habits, or perhaps simply a desire to communicate rapidly rather than precisely. The defendant (learner) knows the correct rule of the appropriate lexical item, but has failed to apply or produce it in this instance. 2. Mismatches. These are errors which the defendant (learner) has made by selecting a wrong or unnecessary ambiguous syntactic pattern or lexical item through real ignorance of the correct and precise item.

86

3. Gaps. These are of omission, whereby the defendant (learner) has failed to produce any lexical item or syntactic pattern in place where it obviously needed. The result may be an unfinished or abandoned product, or merely a noticeable hiatus in the flow of oral or written production. Burt and Kiparasky (1972) categorized errors into Global mistakes and those of Local mistakes. They stated:
Global mistakes are those that violate rules involving the overall structure of sentence, the relation among constituent clause, or, in a simple sentence, the relations among major constituents. Local mistakes cause trouble in a particular constituent, or in a clause of a complex sentence. These are relative notions; something that is global in one sentence may become local when that sentence is embedded in a bigger sentence (p.73).

According to Hendrickson (1976), global errors are communicative errors that lead a native speaker to misinterpret a written message or to consider it incomprehensible within the whole context. While local errors are linguistic errors that show a sentence ungrammatical but its intended meaning may be understandable to the native speaker. Baruah (1992) divided the errors into two broad types: 1. Errors which result from carelessness (i.e. slips); and 2. Errors which result from a systematic breach of the language rules. Whereas Ferris (2002) differentiated between treatable and untreatable errors where the former are related to a linguistic structure which can be corrected by the learner if he goes back to a grammar book and the later are idiosyncratic which can be corrected if the learner utilizes his knowledge of the TL. Corder (as cited in Ellis, 1994, 56) made a distinction between three types of errors. They are as follows; 1. Presystematic errors: these errors occur when the learner is unaware that a particular rule in the TL is existed. These errors are random.

87

2. Systematic errors: these errors occur when the learner is aware that there is a rule existed but he misused it. 3. Postsystematic errors: these errors result from the inconsistent use of the rule that is known to the learner. To Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974), there are four types of errors: 1. Interference like goofs: these errors reflect the presence of the learners mother tongue features in his performance in the TL. 2. Developmental goofs: these errors are produced because of the learners inadequate data of the target language. Therefore, learners over-generalize the structure of the target language. 3. Ambiguous goofs: these errors are either interference-like or L2 developmental goofs. 4. Unique goofs: these errors cannot be described as developmental goofs or as L1 interference. Gass and Selinker (2008) differentiated between two main types of errors: interlingual and intralingual. Interlingual errors are those which can be attributed to the NL (i.e., they involve cross-linguistic comparisons). Intralingual errors are those that are due to the language being learned, independent of the NL (p. 103).

2.2.6. Causes and Sources of Errors

Error analysis does not predict the sources of errors. Unlike contrastive analysts, error analysts attribute the sources of errors to factors other than the learners mother tongue interference. So, they cannot provide a picture of the communicative competence of the learner. Error analysis does not have a prediction of how a learner will deal with the demands of a situation of language use. In the last forty years, scholars and researches of second language learning came to the fact that there are two sources of errors which are known as

88

interlingual and intralingual. The errors made by the second language learner due to his/her first language interference are termed as interlingual errors and the errors made by the learner due to the target language itself are termed as intralingual errors. According to Lightbound (2005), differentiating between the interlingual and intralingual errors is problematic. In Error Analysis, the interference of the mother tongue is regarded to be one source of errors but there are other sources in addition to this source. So, the identification of the possible sources of errors that are just behind interlingual sources in the L2 learning process was a great contribution of error analysis approach. In short, the sources of learners errors are divided into two types: 1. Interlingual sources 2. Intralingual sources 2.2.6.1. Interlingual Errors In CA, the main source of errors is the interference of the mother tongue. Corder (1992) explained interference as the occurrence of some features of the mother tongue in the learners performance in the TL which are not acceptable in the TL rules. In 1927, Sapir observed that there was presence of reciprocal influence between languages, then Bloomfield, in 1933, coined the term borrowing. In 1938, Sandfield used the term interference for the first time (Lightbound, 2005). In this connection, Weinreich (1953) defined this phenomenon as those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result familiarity with more than one language i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as INTERFERNCE phenomena (p. 1). Tarone (1979) classified transfer into three types: 1. Negative transfer: this type occurs when the learner attempts to use incorrect forms of his/her mother tongue in place of the TL ones.

89

2. Positive transfer: this type occurs when the learner does not encounter any difficulty to utter an item in the target language because the item is common in both native language and TL. 3. Divergent negative transfer: in this type, the learner perceives the L2 aspects as most difficult. It occurs in the non-cognate situations. Lott (1983), as cited in Ellis (1994, p. 59), distinguished three categories of transfer errors: 1. Overextension of analogy which occurs when the learner misuses an item because it shares features with an item in the L1 ( for example , Italian learners use process to mean trial because Italian processo has this meaning). 2. Transfer of structure which arises when the learner utilizes some L1 features (phonological, lexical, grammatical, or pragmatic) rather than that of the target language. This is what is generally understood as transfer. 3. Interlingual/intralingual errors arise when a particular distinction does not exist in the L1 (for example, the use of make instead of do by Italian learners because the make/do distinction is not existed in Italian).

2.2.6.2. Intralingual errors

The intralingual errors are attributed to the structure of the TL itself. In this type of errors, the learner does not resort to his/her mother tongue. In ignorance of the L2 norms at any level, the learner can either start learning the required items or attempt to bridge the gap by using communicative strategies. Richards and Sampson (1974) defined intralingual errors as items produced by the learner which reflect not the structure of mother tongue but generalization based on partial exposure to the target language. 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 nor target language.

90

Richards (1971) categorized the sources of intralingual errors into the following four types:

Overgeneralization
As cited in Richards (1974, p. 174), Jakobovits defined generalization or transfer as the use of previously available strategies in new situations. . . . In second language learning . . . some of these strategies will prove helpful in organizing the facts about the second language, but others, perhaps due to superficial similarities, will be misleading and inapplicable. Overgeneralization errors take place when the TL learner produces deviant structures on the basis of his limited knowledge of other structures in the TL. The utterance he goed to school is an instance of overgeneralization. Corder (1973) considered overgeneralization as unavoidable in the second language learning process.

Ignorance of Rule Restrictions

The errors caused by ignorance of rule restrictions occur due to the learners failure to observe the restrictions of the present rules of the TL. In this type of errors, the learner uses rules of the TL where they are not applicable. In the utterance The man who I told you about him, for example, the learner ignores the restriction on subjects in structures with who.

Incomplete Application of Rules

Richards (1971) said that, in this category, the occurrence of structures whose deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules required to produce acceptable utterances may be noted. He noted that systematic difficulty in the use of questions can be observed (p. 177). To answer the question what does Jack have to do?, a learner may utter Jack have to do write the homework. This is an example of the errors caused by incomplete application of rules. The

91

learner applies the rules incompletely. These errors are attributed to the faulty arrangement of items in the teaching process or improper materials.

False Concepts Hypothesized

Richards (1971) stated out that these errors are developmental errors that are caused by faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL. These errors are due to inappropriate sequence of teaching items. The forms are, for example, is understood to be a marker of the continuous form and went is understood as a marker of the past tense. In order to form a sentence in the past continuous, a learner may produce the utterance they are went to school. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, pp. 58-59) summarized the intralingual errors and identified the following four types: 1. Overgeneralization (Richards, 1974) which is caused by the learners failure to observe the boundaries of a rule as in *I wonder where are you going. The speaker, in this utterance, has perhaps overgeneralized the rule of subject-verb inversion and applied it to an embedded WH- question incorrectly. 2. Simplification (George, 1972) or redundancy reduction where, for example, a learner fails to add the plural marker -s to a noun when preceded by a cardinal number larger than one such as in *I studied English for two year. The omission of the plural marker in the noun year is redundancy reduction because no information is lost. 3. Communicative-based errors (Selinker, 1972) which result when learners invoke communicative strategies to communicate a concept. A learner may use airball for balloon. The learner incorrectly labels an object but successfully communicates a desired concept. 4. Induced errors (Stenson, 1974) which are brought about by the incorrect teaching sequence or presentation of two linguistic items in a way which created confusion in the mind of the language learner. The example given *She

92

cried as if the baby cries instead of she cries like a baby, indicating that the teacher has given the student a definition of as if meaning like without explaining the necessary structural change. Cowan (2008) identified the following four sources of grammatical errors: 1. Performance Errors These errors are caused by the same factors that lead the native speakers to make such errors of performance, i.e. they occur when the learner or native speaker is speaking or writing. Consider the following example where the verb has a plural form even though the subject is singular: *No matter where you live, the great taste of your favorite lays flavor are just around the corner. 2. Imperfect Learning Errors These errors occur when a learner simply has not understood a rule and/or its restrictions that are applied to that rule. The following is an example: *Does she cleans her room every week? 3. Overgeneralization Errors The overgeneralization errors occur when a learner applies grammar rules to contexts that do not apply. For example: *He made Jack to play chess. 4. Influence of the Native Language Errors These errors involve many of errors that L2 language learners generate because of the transfer of the grammar of their mother tongue to the TL. For example, the Spanish verb, which corresponds the English modal verb can, is followed by the infinite form ir (to go) as shown below: Podemos ir en bus.

93

We can to go in bus. We can go by bus *We can to go bybus. Verma and Krishnaswamy (1989, p. 348) gave the following possible sources of errors: 1. The gravitational pull of the first language/mother tongue; 2. Internal analogy and overgeneralization 3. Pronunciation according to spelling 4. Bad teaching 5. Exposure to the non-standard variety used outside the classroom 6. The attitudes of community, those in power , the policy of government and other factors, 7. Failure to understand the nature of the second language 8. Lack of adequate vocabulary; and 9. The cultural gap between the two systems. According to Faerch et al. (1984), learners errors are attributed to internal and external factors. The internal factors are motivation and attitude towards the TL group and culture, etc. The external factors are related to teachers, syllabus, teaching methods and techniques, etc. Jain (1974) noted many factors that may cause errors the most identifiable of which are the following: 1. Learning strategies; 2. Teaching techniques; 3. Folklore about the second language; 4. The age of bilingualism; and 5. The learners sociolinguistic situation. Selinker (1972, p. 215) reported five sources of errors which are as follows:

94

1. Language transfer; 2. Transfer of training; 3. Strategies of second language learning ; 4. Strategies of second language communication; and 5. Overgeneralization of the TL linguistic materials. Corder (1974, p. 130) identified three sources of errors which are: 1. Language transfer; 2. Overgeneralization or analogy; and 3. Methods or materials used in the teaching. Richards and Simpson (1974) noted the following seven factors that may cause errors: 1. Language transfer; 2. Intralingual interference; 3. Sociolinguistic situation; 4. Modality (modality of exposure to the target language and modality of production); 5. Age; 6. Successions of approximative systems; and 7. Universal hierarchy of difficulty. James (1998) identified the following types of errors each of which has its causes and sources as follows: 1. Interlingual errors which are a result of L1 transfer. 2. Intralingual errors, which are further divided into the following types each of which has its causes: a. Learning strategy-based errors: these errors are resulted from the following: i) False analogy;

95

ii)

Misanalysis;

iii) Incomplete rule application; iv) v) vi) Exploiting redundancy; Overlooking cooccurrence restrictions; Hypercorrection (monitor overuse); or

vii) Overgeneralization, or system-simplification b. Communication strategy-based errors: these errors are resulted from holistic strategies which can be approximation, language switch or literal translation and analytic strategies (circumlocation). 3. Induced Errors: these errors usually result from the classroom situations. They can be materials induced errors, teacher-talk induced errors, exercise-based induced errors, errors induced by pedagogical priorities or look-up errors. 4. Compound and ambiguous errors: compound errors are ascribed to more than one cause, which operate either simultaneously or cumulatively (p. 200), ambiguous errors have two competing causes.

2.3. Studies Conducted on Errors of Arab EFL Learners

At the end of 1960s, CAH was criticized. Researchers began look at the errors that learners made. They found that errors went beyond those in the surrounding speech and beyond those in the native language. They found that there are errors that are made not because of influence of L1 but because of other factors. In utterances such as "He buyed a book", learners attempt to impose regularity on an irregular verb. Gass and Selinker (2008) stated that:
There was no way to account for this fact within a theory based primarily on a learner transferring forms from the NL to the TL. Not only did errors occur that had not been predicted by the theory, but also there was evidence that predicted errors did not occur. That is, the theory did not accurately predict what was happening in nonnative speech. (p. 98)
3.

In her study conducted on Czech speakers learning English and Russian, Duskova (1984), found that those speakers learning English "did not transfer

96

bound morphemes, whereas the Czech learners of Russian did" (as cited in Gass and Selinekr, 2008, p. 98). Zobl (1980) conducted a study on French speakers learning English and English speakers learning French and found that there were inconsistencies in actual error production. In French, object pronouns precede the verb but in English, object pronouns follow the verb. It was found that French learners of English do not use a preposition before the object pronoun, although they correctly follow English word order, which is in violation of French word order. While English speakers learning French follow the native language word order. Thus, it was proved that the habits of one's native language are not the driving force as it was assumed earlier. All this does not suggest that there is no role for L1 in SLA, but it suggests that there are other factors that influence second language development. Gass and Selinker (2008) pointed out that There are other factors that may influence the process of acquisition, such as innate principles of language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known, and so forth (p. 100). In this section, a review of the previous studies conducted on errors made by Arab EFL learners is given. Some of these studies attributed difficulties and errors faced/made by Arab learners of EFL to differences between Arabic and English. These studies support CAH. Other studies conducted on Arab EFL learners attributed difficulties and errors faced/made by Arab EFL learners to some other sources. It is not surprising that Arab learners of EFL face difficulty in learning English because English and Arabic belong to two different language families. Because of the differences between English and Arabic in their systems and structures, Arab learners of EFL face difficulties in learning the English structures. As cited in Panso and Ruzic (1983, p. 610), Nevarez, Berk and Hayes (1979) stated that Middle Eastern students have been found to have more difficulty in handwriting in English than students from other language background. Panos and

97

Ruzic (1983) mentioned some of the differences between Arabic and English the most notable of which is that Arabic moves from right to left. This feature of Arabic, in addition to the very different appearance of its letters, can pose problems for Arab learners when they form letters in English writing tasks (p. 610). From the very beginning of their learning EFL, Arab learners transfer structures from Arabic, as their mother tongue, into English. That transfer leads them to make errors. In his study conducted on Arab learners of EFL, El-Shimy (1982) attributed problems that face Arab learners of English when writing essays to purely morphological and syntactic differences between Arabic and English. He concluded that the tenses and the use of copula represent the most problematic areas for Arab learners of English. Salamah (1981) conducted a contrastive analysis study of English and Arabic morphological differences and syntactic differences in word order and tenses and attributed writing problems to morphological and syntactic differences between Arabic and English. Kharma (1985b) conducted a study on the problems of writing composition in EFL and attributed the errors made by Arab learners of English in the use of reference, punctuation, and linking device to negative transfer from Arabic. Al-Sharahs (1988) study on the problems of discourse writing by Arab EFL learners concluded that the major sources of writing difficulties that face Arab learners of English as a foreign language are the cultural and language differences, interference and transfer from mother tongue to the target language. He found that the most problematic element in writing performance is coherence. Halimah (1991) ascribed problems of writing in English by Arab learners to the cultural differences between English and Arabic. El-Sayed (1982) conducted a study on the syntactic errors made by Saudi Freshmen's English compositions. The types of errors he found were omission of the verb 'to be', omission of the full verb in nominal sentences, fronting verbs in statements, use of simple past tense after 'to'

98

and 'for', omission of auxiliary 'be' words with the present progressive, and lack of concord between numerals and nouns in the usage of nouns. El-Sayed ascribed these errors made by Saudi freshmen's in writing English compositions to transfer from Arabic. He believed that such errors might be a result of the low proficiency in English. Kharma (1985a) studied the difficulties encountered by secondary school students in Kuwait in the formation of relative clause in writing and found that almost all the errors made by Arab EFL learners are attributed to negative transfer from Arabic. Obeidat (1986) investigated the syntactic and semantic errors in the written compositions of Arab EFL learners and found that almost all the errors made by the subjects are attributed to mother tongue interference. AlSindy (1994) investigated the syntactic interference errors in the writing of English by Saudi adult students and concluded that there is a major role played by the mother tongue interference in the writing of English as a foreign language. In her study on the spelling errors made by Arab learners of English as a foreign language, Emery (1997) attributed the spelling errors made by Arab students to "the ways in which lexical access in native English speakers may differ from that of Arabs, as a direct result of the orthography of the L1, which subsequently affects their recall of English vocabulary, resulting in many of the spelling errors that we find" (p. 144). Doushag (1983) reported significant transfer from Arabic cultural aspects. Holes (1984) investigated the problems of text cohesion and tone in the essays written by Yemeni postgraduate students in Britain and attributed such problems to cross-language interference. Holes concluded that Arab students of EFL transfer the discourse of Arabic to English. Ostler (1987) compared the English prose written by Arabic-speaking students and the English prose written by English-speaking writers and found out that there were differences between the style of writing English prose by Arabic-speaking students and that written by English-speaking writers. Ostler ascribed the differences to the transfer from Arabic to English done by Arabic-speaking students. Al-Khresheh (2010) conducted a study on interlingual interference in the English word order structure

99

of Jordanian EFL learners and found that interlingual errors committed by the Arab EFL learners were due to differences between the learners L1 and the L2 and due to transfer from the two different varieties of Arabic, Standard Arabic and Non-Standard Arabic. Al-Khresheh (2011) also conducted another study to investigate the carry-over of Arabic (L1) syntactic structures into English (L2) and found that interlingual interference might be the main cause of committing the errors. Khalil (1989) conducted a study on cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL College students' English writing and found that there is negative transfer from Arabic to English writing. Alam (1993) carried out a study on the use of Arabic in the composing processes of Arab university students' writing in English and reported that Arab university students sought to help from Arabic when they write in English. Bou-Zeineddine (1994) carried out a study on the effect of Arabic on English texts written by Arab EFL students and reported that translation and thinking in Arabic before and during writing English texts by Arab EFL students had a negative effect on the Arab EFL students' writing in English. Al-Hazmi (2001) observed that:
the linguistic and rhetorical problems of Arab EFL/ESL learners were usually attributed to negative transfer from Arab, learners' unawareness of linguistic and cultural differences between Arabic and English, learners' lack of familiarity with English writing norms, and lack of exposure to authentic English. Resorting to translation from Arabic into English writing was related to subjects' low proficiency in English. (p. 99)

Al-Hazmi (2001) declared; "poor linguistic competence negatively affected subjects' writing in English" (p. 99). Abu Ghararah (1990) investigated the syntactic errors committed by Arab EFL learners and showed that Arab EFL learners commit "syntactic errors in the use of prepositions, articles and third singular marker" (p. 3). He attributed those errors to L1 interference, overgeneralization, and insufficient mastery of syntax. He claimed that the researchers in error analysis "can predict the types and errors committed by the Arabs learning EFL" (p. 3). He added that

100 errors committed by [Arab] learners give evidence of their relative difficulties in the target language. Moreover, Arab EFL learners seem being unaware of the type and frequency of their errors, are unable to anticipate and avoid errors in their future written work, even after they have been corrected by their instructors. (pp. 3-4)

He found out that errors caused by L1 interference were more than errors caused by overgeneralization and errors caused by insufficient mastery of syntax. He attributed interference to many factors among of which are the domination of the grammatical features in Arabic over than those in English, lack of correspondence between L2 and L1, and the frequent use of the grammatical features of L1 in formal and informal context. He attributed errors committed due to insufficient mastery of syntax to "the lack of appropriate teaching technique and instructional settings" (p.15). He concluded that "Arab EFL learners make transfer errors due to the fact that Arabic language structure, differs substantially from that of English language" (p. 15). He explained that the "major sources of these errors are: (i) nature and characteristics of the source language; (ii) irregularity and inconsistency of the target language; and (iii) instructional strategies and methodology" (pp. 15-16). Tahaineh (2010) conducted a study on Arab EFL university students errors in the use of prepositions and found out that the majority of errors made by [Arab EFL learners] are the result of the learners mother tongue interference as the major source (p. 98). Scott and Tucker (1974) conducted a study on errors and English language strategies used by Arab students and reported that approximately two thirds of the errors in prepositions seemed to be attributable to nativelanguage (Arabic) interference and one third to intra-English interference. On the other hand, Fakhri (1994) conducted a study on text organization and transfer by Arab EFL learners and the results of the study showed no evidence of transfer except for the frequency of coordination. Kamel (1989) conducted an empirical investigative study of contrastive rhetoric in the argumentative writing

101

by Arab EFL learners and concluded that transfer does not affect writing performance. Avoidance is also a problem in ESL/EFL learners' English writing. ESL learners may avoid using a difficult structure in the second language, and instead use a structure that they perceive as simpler. Arab learners of EFL use two simpler sentences instead of using a relative clause that is more appropriate. In her study conducted on Arab and Persian learners learning English as a foreign language, Schachter (1974) concluded that avoidance is a reflection of mother tongue interference. Mattar (2003) declared that avoidance is due to lack of correspondence between the structures of the TL and those of the learner's L1. In his study on Arabic-speaking learners learning English as a foreign language, Mattar (2001) found that English present perfect tense is avoided by Arabicspeaking learners not because of the differences between the way it is structured in English and Arabic, but rather due to their inability to establish proper formmeaning/tense-aspect associations. In another study conducted by Mattar (1997), he concluded that Arab learners' avoidance of reduced relative clauses in written English is due to largely teaching-induced. The findings of Mattar's studies conducted on avoidance of some English structures by Arab learners suggest that the CAH is not the only diagnostic tool for learner difficulty in the TL or for explaining avoidance phenomenon. Most of the studies conducted on Arab learners' acquisition of English as a foreign language provide evidence that Arabic and English sentences are differently organized. These studies show that coordination is more common in Arabic than it is in English, while subordination is more frequently used in English than in Arabic. Mattar (2003) conducted a study that examined adult EFL Arab learners' avoidance of certain subordinating conjunctions and adverbs in English and the findings provided evidence against the hypothesis which links avoidance to interference. The study supports the fact that avoidance as a communication

102

strategy is not ruled out by similarity and contrastive analysis alone cannot explain learners' reliance on avoidance. English relative clause structure is one of the most common obstacles that Arab learners of EFL face while learning English as it differs from Arabic relative clause structure in many aspects. The structural differences between relative clauses in English and Arabic influence the process of learning English relative clause structure by Arab learners of EFL. There are also some intralingual factors that influence the process of learning English relative clause systems by Arab learners of EFL such as difficulties in the choice of the correct relative pronoun, placing the relative clause in a sentence, use of comma, functional and grammatical differences between defining and non-defining relative clauses, etc. To the best of the researchers knowledge, there is no study on errors of English relative clause structure made by Yemeni EFL learners, and that is one of the reasons behind the researcher's choice of the topic of this study.