The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
AN ERROR IN ERROR ANALYSIS1
Abstract
Presently, a number of proponents of an error analysis approach to the investigation of 2nd language learning argue that contrastive analysis (CA) apriori is inadequate as an account of target language learning problems. They claim that the only tenable version of CA is an aposteriori approach, i.e. CA in just those areas that have been proven by error analysis to be difficulties in production. This claim is disputed in a study involving the acquisition of English relative clauses by speakers of Persian, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The aposteriori approach obscured the fact that the Chinese and Japanese learners have more difficulty with relative clauses and therefore avoid them, a fact predicted by the apriori approach.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Differences in syntax between Standard Arabic and English may explain why participants did not exhibit a change in error trends in English sentence formation, through avoidance of grammatical features perceived as burdensome.
“First, differences in syntax between Standard Arabic and English.Participants may not have exhibited a change in error trends in English sentence formation due to avoidance of grammatical features perceived as burdensome, as Schachter (1974) suggested.”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Schachter (1974)
Language learners avoid certain grammatical features of the language that they consider onerous.
“This can be related to what Schachter (1974) affirmed: language learners avoid certain grammatical features of the language that they consider onerous.”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Schachter (1974)
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 9 · Cited by 526
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 · DOI
- Gradman Harry., 1971, The limitations of contrastive analysis predictions, PCCLLU Papers, 34
- Gradman Harry., 1971, What methodologists ignore in “contrastive teaching.”, PCCLLU Papers, 34
- Keenan Edward, 1972, NP accessibility and university grammar
- 10.1093/elt/XI.3.77 · DOI
- 10.1093/elt/XXV.3.204 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1967.tb00918.x · DOI
- Selinker Larry., 1971, A brief reappraisal of contrastive linguistics, PCCLLU Papers, 34
- 10.2307/3586182 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00071.x · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Schachter, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schachter, Jacquelyn
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1974-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-214
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W1967472429
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 90.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- error analysis, contrastive analysis, second language acquisition, relative clauses, English as a second language, Chinese learners of English, Japanese learners of English, Persian learners of English, Arabic learners of English, student learning difficulties, manufacturing errors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
