Katarzyna Kocieniewska
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
Assistant Professor Ariadna Strugielska, Ph.D. Katarzyna Piątkowska
DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TO ERRORS IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
The multiplicity of different approaches to second language learning results in the creation of many and very often contrastive ways of understanding errors. Thanks to behaviourists, such as B.F. Skinner, or cognitivists, like Noam Chomsky, it is possible to notice that linguists have negative but also positive view on them.
Keywords: Behaviourism, Mentalist approach, Communicative approach, habit-formation, imitation, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Universal Grammar, technique “trial and error”
Errors always constituted and still do a very substantial object of linguistic studies. They occur in both, the first and second language learning processes and thus so many well-known and respected specialists devoted their publications, books to this particular topic. What is more, a significant number of definitions, sources or classifications of errors, being modified and developed over time, proves how broad and diversified this domain is. In the article, I would like to focus predominantly on how methodologists or teachers’ interpretation and attitudes towards errors have been evolving for centuries together with three consecutively prevailing and practised learning theories, namely, behaviourism, mentalism and communicative approach.
The first approach considering errors is behaviourism. It was developed on the turn of 1950s and 1960s and practised by such specialists as B.F. Skinner, Edward Thorndike or John B. Watson. In their opinion, the process of language learning was a habit formation based on mimicry, repetition and stimulus-response-reward relation. People could learn new languages through observing other individuals’ behaviour and listening to their utterances, which were treated as a model input, reaction patterns, and then imitating the received material repetitively to gain proficiency. (Medwell, Wray, Moore and Griffiths, 2014) Learners practiced certain actions or expressions as long as a new stimulus became embedded permanently in their own behaviour. Additionally, the process of the internalisation of new patterns was hastened thanks to either a positive or negative reinforcement. To be more precise and take the classroom environment into consideration, those learners’ reactions which were highly desirable to a teacher earned verbal or nonverbal rewards so, in consequence, it was likely that such a type of behaviour would occur more often in the future. (Brown, 1987) By contrast, each error was seen as unwanted, negative and detrimental for second language learners. The presence of linguistic deviations meant that the process of teaching and any progress had not taken place. (Ellis, 1994) According to behaviourists, all such incorrect linguistics forms should be eradicated as soon as it was possible at all costs. Otherwise, they could lead to bad habits regardless of learners’ age and stages of learning. B.F. Skinner in his Verbal Behaviour explains that if a learner fails to give an accurate reaction to a particular stimulus, his unwanted behaviour should immediately be confronted with a “negative audience”. Such an audience punishes errors, for instance, by corrections or simply lack of praising so that the erroneous responses will disappear. (1957) In this case, the main role of a teacher, apart from introducing drills, was a perpetual penalising learners for giving wrong answers treated as a didactic tool. The next aspect strictly connected with the behaviouristic understanding of an error was the concept of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. The linguist who was peculiarly interested in that theme was Robert Lado. He states in the preface of his book Linguistics across cultures that there is “ […] the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student” (1957, vii). Thus errors were thought to be the side effect of the faulty transfer of L1 habits. In other words, it was possible to foresee either some potential areas of difficulties (a weak version) within a language learning process or errors of a given group of students (a strong version) on the basis of the juxtaposition of one’s mother tongue and target language. The whole mechanism consisted of four basic stages: (1) focusing on general characteristics, descriptions of both languages, (2) choosing concrete features in a mother tongue and target language which will be compared, (3) making a comparison, finding correspondence or distinction between L1 and L2 and finally (4) predicting sources, types of errors. (Ellis, 1994) The procedure of determining prospective errors itself and the fact that scholars bother themselves so overly to prevent learners’ linguistic failures is the additional proof of specialists’ reluctance to linguistic deviations in that times.
Next approach which opposes behaviourism in terms of an error analysis is the mentalist theory of language learning. The most popular and influential representative of this approach was Noam Chomsky. First of all, mentalists claimed that the process of second language acquisition was similar to the way how people acquire L1. The influence of the surrounding environment was very significant. Secondly, the root of the learning process was not the habit formation but a meaningful learning based on “relating and anchoring new material to relevant established entities in cognitive structure” thus understanding of new input, its meaning is the core. (Brown, 1987) What is more, in their opinion learners had inborn cognitive predispositions, possessed metalinguistic awareness known as Language Acquisition Device which enabled them to understand abstract assumptions, principles. One’s mind and knowledge played the most important role in learning. (Ellis, 1994) (Medwell, Wray, Moore and Griffiths, 2014) Additionally, mentalists believed that there was one and the same framework for all possible languages called the Universal or Core Grammar. (Ellis, 1994) If a learner acquired it, he or she could cope with all possible languages. In this case, firstly, an errors was not a failure but an evidence of learning and secondly, it did not show the lack of competence but the level of advancement. The golden rules of mentalist were “learning through doing” or “try and error”. In other words, each second language learner tested and experimented with linguistic forms to check whether they fitted in a particular context or not. If not, he could modify them accordingly. They did not focus only on the competence but also performance. (Salim, 2007) In their opinion, errors were intralingual, not the result of a negative transfer of one’s mother tongue. In contrast to behaviourism, for mentalists an error was a positive sign of self-development and depiction of current second language learners’ understanding of the rules of target language. Moreover, mentalists were the ones who introduced and spread the distinction between “an error ” and “a mistake”. According to Corder (1967), the former occurred when a learner did not have knowledge, the foundation in a language learning process. One did not know rules ergo he or she had difficulties with producing correct utterances. On the other hand, the latter happened when a learner had a cognisance (competence) and could relate to it. He or she used target language incorrectly because the physical realisation of knowledge needed its entrenchment.
Another crucial difference is the fact that mentalists did not tried to predict errors but explain and evaluate them. At the beginning, scholars collected samples of language, for instance, recordings or pieces of writing, then looked for errors and analysed them. Subsequently they scrutinised findings and at the same time assigned categories to particular non-target language forms. Next step was to give psychological explanation to errors and finally evaluate how grave they were. The essence and main goal of that procedure was not to eradicate linguistic deviations but, thanks to them, to understand how learners process L2.
The third and last perspective I would like to focus on is the communicative approach in second language learning, which was in its heyday on the turn 1970s and 1980s but seems to be still practised in contemporary schools, classrooms. Such scholars as Henry Widdowson, D.A. Wilkins or Christopher Candlin are thought to belong to the group of the most prominent representatives of this approach. In this case, the most important aspect of second language learning is interaction and, in turn, conveying a message instead of one’s accuracy. The context, functions of given utterances but above all their meaning are the essence of a successful communication because language users need to understand the received input and produced output. It is worth mentioning about the significance of the surrounding environment and interlocutors. Second language learners thanks to such classroom activities as role-plays, games, pair works etc., which give them a chance to actively cooperation with peers, can shape their communicative competence and experiment with already known or new linguistic forms in varied contexts. Similarly to mentalism, students have right to make errors because, again, errors are the side effects of the technique “trial and error”. Taking into consideration the communicative approach, non-target language expressions carry social component. What is more, the main role of a teacher is not to punish wrong utterances or impose rules, which student seem not to even understand, as in behaviourism but to create appropriate conditions for interaction, observe and give advice. (Richards and Rodgers, 1986) According to H. Ludolph Botha’s article (1987), teachers’ error treatment is not always beneficial. It is very often a distraction for students or an obstacle to successfully share some information and maintain conversations. Despite good intentions of teachers, such a perpetual correction can lead to learners’ fossilization and decrease in their motivation or willingness to express themselves. That is why errors should be corrected only when they interrupt or destroy the transfer of information and preclude one of the interlocutors from understanding message.
To sum up, all three previously described approaches, which are: behaviourism, mentalism, and communicative approach, constitute an evidence that errors are a very complex issue. Their role in second language learning and especially teachers’ understanding of them have changed significantly from 1950s up till 1980s or even today. Thanks to so many and so different theories it is possible to notice that non-target expressions, linguistic forms which native speakers of a given language would not normally produce, can be interpreted both, as something negative and positive. To be more precise, in 1950s as a failure in the process of learning and teaching but, by contrast, in 1960s or 70s as a sign of progress or the effective way to mould own perception of “correctness”.
References
Botha H. L., “The role of error correction in communicative second language teaching”, 1987. http://perlinguam.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/472/509, DOA: May 8, 2016.
Brown, H. D., Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Second Edition, 1987. Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 65-66.
Corder, S. P., The significance of learners’ errors, 1967. International Review of Applied Linguistics, p. 162-165.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 1994. Oxford University Press, p. 60, 81-82, 299-300, 714.
Lado, R., Linguistics across cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers, 1957. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, p. vii.
Medwell, J., Wray, D., Moore, G., and Griffiths, V. Primary English: Knowledge and Understanding, 2014. Henry Ling Limited at The Dorset Press, p.23-24.
Richards J. C. and Rodgers T. C., Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 1986. Cambridge University Press, p. 64-82.
Salim B., A Companion to Teaching of English, 2007. Atlantic Publishers and Distributors (P) Ltd., p.37-39.
Skinner, B. F., Verbal Behaviour, 1957. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group, p.176.