PAŃSTWOWA WYŻSZA SZKOŁA ZAWODOWA

IM. ANGELUSA SILESIUSA W WAŁBRZYCHU

Instytut Społeczno-Prawny
kierunek: FILOLOGIA
specjalność: filologia angielska

Paulina Dębińska
nr albumu: 15890

PRACA DYPLOMOWA
LICENCJACKA

Technika podążania (uwagą) jako narzędzie do

identyfikowania i analizowania błędów uczących się j.
ang. jako języka obcego.

Praca napisana pod kierunkiem:

dr hab. Janusza Badio

Akceptacja opiekuna pracy

...............................................
podpis
Wałbrzych 2018
 PAŃSTWOWA WYŻSZA SZKOŁA ZAWODOWA
IM. ANGELUSA SILESIUSA W WAŁBRZYCHU

Instytut Społeczno-Prawny
kierunek: FILOLOGIA
specjalność: filologia angielska

Paulina Dębińska
nr albumu: 15890

PRACA DYPLOMOWA
LICENCJACKA

Attentional shadowing technique as a tool for

identifying and analysing errors and mistakes in second
language learners

Praca napisana pod kierunkiem:

dr hab. Janusza Badio
Akceptacja opiekuna pracy

...............................................
podpis

Wałbrzych 2018

2
Contents

Contents 3

List of tables 5

List of figures 5

Introduction 6

CHAPTER 1: Errors and mistakes, their types and sources in second language
acquisition 7

1.1 Errors vs. mistakes 7

1.2 Types of errors and their sources 8

1.3 Interlingual Transfer 10

1.4 Intralingual interference 10

1.5 Conclusions 15

CHAPTER TWO: Errors analysing, treatment and correction 16

2.1 Error analysis 16

2.2 The contrastive analysis hypothesis 17

2.3 Procedures of CAH 17

2.4 Versions of CAH 18

2.5 Errors treatment and correction 19

2.6 Shadowing technique 23

2.7 Conclusions 24

CHAPTER 3 : Shadowing technique as a tool for error identifying and analysing

25

3.1 The goal of the research 25

3.1.1. Research questions and hypothesis 25

3
 3.2 Research methods and tools 26

3.3 Participants 26

3.4 The procedure 26

3.5 The dialogue 27

3.6 Results of the test 27

3.7 Analysis of the results 32

3.8 Conclusions 33

Final Remarks 34

References: 35

Streszczenie 37

Summary 38

4
List of figures

Figure 1. Error treatment sequence. 19

Figure 2. The number of omitted words in without-context group, shown in percentages.
28
Figure 3. The number of omitted words in the group knowing the context, shown in
percentages. 28
Figure 4. Comparison of the number of omitted words in both groups. 29
Figure 5. The results of the group, which knew the context, out of 138 30
Figure 6. The results of the group, which knew the context, shown in percentages
30
Figure 7. The results of the group which did not know the context, out of 138 31
Figure 8. The results of the group which did not know the context, shown in
percentages 31
Figure 9. Comparison of the main averages of correct and wrong repeated words in the
both groups. 32

List of tables

Table 1. The results of the first group, who knew the context 29
Table 2. The results of the second group, who did not know the context 29

5
Introduction

This diploma paper focuses on errors and mistakes that occur in process of second
language acquisition. The goal of the paper is to provide, discuss and analyze the errors
that students make while repeating (shadowing). The author wants to see if shadowing
is an adequate tool for analysing and identifying errors, using qualitative research
methods i.e. recordings.
Moreover, the crucial is for the author to answer the research questions, i.e. Is it
possible to make complete shadowing? Which type of shadowing (complete, selective,
interactive) is the most frequent? Do students who know the context make less errors
than students who does not? Is shadowing an illustration of actual state of knowledge of
the students? Which types of errors are the most common in students’ utterances?
The first chapter will contain comparison between errors and mistakes and their
most-know definitions, according to Brown (1994), Corder (1967), and Ellis (1994).
Moreover, theoretical knowledge of division of types of errors, as local and global,
performance and competence or morphological, syntactic, lexical and phonological.
Afterwards, the sources of errors, i.e. interlingual transfer and intralingual interference
will be provided.
The second chapter will be also theoretical. It will discuss the types of error
analysis, particularly, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, its procedures, and its three
versions: strong, weak and moderate. Then it will provide ways of errors’ correction
and treatment, according to Lyster and Ranta (1997).
The third and last, empirical chapter will focus on authors’ research. The author
will provide research questions, hypothesis, methods and conduct of the research.
Furthermore, results of the test will be provided and analyzed.

6
 CHAPTER 1: Errors and mistakes, their types and sources in
second language acquisition

It is a well-known fact that errors are frequent in second language acquisition. Errors in
the language learning demonstrate progress in learning. Noticing and describing errors
is crucial in successful learning and teaching of a foreign language.
The goal of this chapter is to provide and discuss division of errors, their types
and sources. This research explores the causes of errors’ occurrence. First, definitions of
errors and mistakes will be discussed, followed by differences between them, and next
types of errors and their sources will be discussed.

1.1 Errors vs. mistakes

There are many definitions of error. The two main and best-known ideas of how the
error can be defined are by Brown (1994) and Ellis (1994). According to Ellis (1994:
51), an error can be defined as a kind of deviation from approved rules of a language
made by the second language learner. Errors result from the learner’s lack of knowledge
and rules of language of the target language.
Another definition of error is by Brown (1994: 257-259), who claims that error
is a deviation from the grammar of a native speaker, which is noticeable, and reflects
interlanguage competence of the learner.
The term mistake, according to Corder (1967 in Ellis 1994:51,) can be defined
as a performance error i.e., a deviation from an established norm that takes place when

7
learner fails to perform. It is a deviation that reflects processing problems. Despite the
fact that a speaker knows the rules and system well, however, he or she fails when use.
Mistakes happen in both first and second languages and they are likely to be random
and accidental. Besides, they can be self-corrected very easily.
According to James (1998: 76), if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker or
learner, and learners can correct themselves because they know the system, rules, and
correct forms.
Errors cannot be self-corrected because they are the result of lack of knowledge,
and they need to be corrected by someone else, for example, a native speaker, teacher or
someone who knows the target language.
According to Brown (1994: 257-259), mistakes are made by both: native
speakers and second language learners and include slips of the tongue. An error can be
not recognizable by a learner. They will be called errors by native speakers, teachers
and everyone who knows the correct form and knows the rules and system.

1.2 Types of errors and their sources

However, in applied linguistics errors are usually classed into two types: performance
errors and competence errors. Performance errors are those errors which can be called
accidental, and they result from a student being tired or rush, performance errors are not
very difficult and serious.
(1) “Dancing and riding a bike.”
As in example (1), the lack of “I’m” usually is a result of rush. By contrast, competence
errors are more serious because they involve lack of knowledge and competence.
(2a) “Seven cats cute water drank”
The example (2a), is containing result of lack of grammar knowledge, the right version
of this utterance is (2b).
(2b) “Seven cute cats drank water”.
The speaker does not know the system. Another division of errors proposed by Burt and
Kiparsky (1978), who list two types of errors: local and global. Local errors do not
make communication harder. They also do not affect the understanding of a statement

8
more difficult. Local errors involve verb and noun inflections, the wrong use of articles,
auxiliaries or prepositions.
(3)“I happy”
The example (3) is a good illustration of this type of error, since the meaning is
apparent. On the other hand, global errors are more important for language learning.
They interfere with communication and disturb the meaning of statements. Global
errors involve a wrong order of words in a sentence. As in example,
(4a) “I doed the homework yesterday”,
(4b) “I did the homework yesterday.”
The first sentence involves the wrong use of the past form of verb “do”, the right
version is (4b).
The last division of errors involve all english components, so there are
morphological, lexical, syntactic and phonological errors.
(5a) “I have 4 childrens”
The sentence (5a) is example of utterance with morphological error, because the word
“children” is plural form, and adding the plural suffix “{-s}” is needles. Another
example is a question (5b) “When did you came?”, where the use of form ‘came’
instead of ‘come’ which is correct is a morphological error. The lexical error is when a
learner affects inventory of words, an example is
(6a) “I took a drink of a strawberry”,
(6b) “I took a bite of a strawberry”.
The correct version is the second (6b). The word “drink” instead of “bite” is an error in
the choice of words. When the learner makes the wrong arrangement of the phrases and
words in a sentence, is a syntactic error. The lack of comma in sentence (7a) is an
example of this error,
(7a) “She is young tall beautiful girl”
(7b)“She is young, tall, beautiful girl”
Adding comma is necessary, when a learner lists adjectives (7b). Another example of
what is meant by syntactic error is using incorrect verb as in
(8a) “Have you ever went to the USA?”,
(8b)“Have you ever been to USA?”.

9
Phonological errors are connected with articulation, for example when the speaker
omisses the phonemes, as e.g.
(9) saying “ool” instead of “pool”.
Brown (1994: 263), lists four main sources of errors: 1) interlingual transfer, 2)
intralingual transfer, 3) context of learning and 4) various communication strategies the
learners use. The main sources of errors will be discussed below.

1.3 Interlingual Transfer

Brown (1994: 263), claims that interlingual transfer is a significant source of errors for
all foreign language learners. It appears before the L2 system is familiar, because the
system of the mother tongue is the only one that is well-known. Brown (1994), gives as
an example learners of English language who say (9) “sheep” for “ship”. Most
interlingual errors are connected with the negative interlingual transfer. Another
example of interlingual transfer is as in above (10a), in English learner says “the red
carpet”, if the learners’ first language is Hmong, learner can make a mistake and say
(10b) “The carpet that is red”. In English language, the adjective is followed by noun,
by contrast, in Hmong the noun is followed by adjective. According to Corder (1981),
interlingual errors appear when the learner’s habits such as: patterns, system, and rules,
interfere or prevent learner from system, patterns and rules of the second language.

1.4 Intralingual interference

According to Richards (1974), intralingual interference contains statements, utterances,

words, sentences, and phrases produced by the learner of the second language which do
not reflect the structure of a native language. Intralingual errors are errors which result
from the second language itself, According to Brown (1994: 264), intralingual transfer
is a major factor in second language acquisition. Moreover, James (1998: 184-187),
refers that these errors are based on learning-strategy and listed seven categories of
intralingual errors: 1) false analogy, 2) misanalysis, 3) incomplete rule application, 4)

10
exploiting redundancy, 5) over-laboration, 6) hypercorrection, and 7)
overgeneralization.
All seven categories of intralingual errors with their examples will be discussed below.
False analogy appears when a beginner in language learning thinks that new
language item will behave like language that he already knows, or if learner makes a
comparison of two objects which seems similar to each other but actually they are
completely different in the area they were compared. According to James (1998: 189),
false analogy indicates errors which are caused by not fully understanding feature in the
target language. For example, learners of the second language know the rule that adding
‘<-s>’ to the end of a noun to make a plural form. The examples illustrating this errors
can be: (11a) ‘shops’ is a plural form of the noun ‘shop’, the learner can think that (11b)
‘childs’ is a plural form of the noun ‘child’, and the correct form is ‘children’. Another
example of what is meant by false analogy is according to ("False Analogy Examples",
2018),
(12)“The private school down the street has better teachers and children get a
better education because 100% of their seniors get into a college.”
The reality is that the college have limitations for students and the can not accept all
seniors from private schools.
James (1998: 185), defined misanalysis as an error caused by the wrong
depiction of a particular rule. Moreover, misanalysis means that learner figured out new
hypothesis in the second language, and uses it in practice.
(13) The example can be that the learner thinks that ‘its’ can be used as a plural
form of the pronoun ‘it’.
Learners who know the rules, are able to know that the plural form of “it” is “them”
when it is an object of the sentence and “they” if it is a subject of the sentence.
According to Richards (1971: 7), incomplete rule application errors appears
when the aberrance structure “represents the degree of the development of the rules
required to produce acceptable utterances”. James (1998: 187) states that incomplete
rule application is an opposition to overgeneralization, and as an example, he provides
the deviancy of the subject and the verb ‘be’ in the sentence. The example illustrating
this error is:

11
(14a) “Nobody knew where was the girl.”
(14b) “Nobody knew where the girl was.”
The correct version (14b), result from syntax rules. The learner used the incomplete rule
of interrogative information.
In applied linguistics, the term redundancy refers to information that is
mentioned more than once. Exploiting redundancy is caused by a lot of redundancy in
language, for example, unnecessary morphology, learners want and try to ignore some
of them to make second language acquisition and communication easier. This term also
can refer to leave out phrases or words which do not add anything to a meaning of a
statement or a sentence. There is a lot of sorts of redundancies, for example, there are
provided two sorts: qualifier and synonyms.
Example of qualifier is provided in the example:
(15a) “Klaudia is a very perfect girl, she is intelligent and kind.”
(15b) “Klaudia is a perfect girl, she is intelligent and kind”
The learner added qualifier ‘very’ (15a), which in this case is really unnecessary
according to meaning and sense of word ‘perfect’. According to the definition of
adjective ‘perfect’, which can describe someone who is excellent and farovable, without
any fault, ‘perfect’ is enough to express being excellent. There is no need to use the
qualifier ‘very’.
Definition of synonym according to (Dictionary, 2018), is “a word or phrase that
has the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same
language”. This kind of redundancy appears when the sentence contains two, or more
expressions or words which have the identical meaning and are synonyms. In the
sentence (16).
(16) ‘I repeated it again’
The words ‘repeated’ and ‘again’ are synonyms and there is no need to repeat it. In fact,
this repetition and use of synonyms have a semantic goal, to emphasize the important
item in the sentence.
Over-laboration is also called overlooking cooccurrence restrictions and is
caused mainly by fail of observing the existing structure of second language
restrictions. This kind of error is a result of learner’s lack of knowledge. It appears for

12
example when the learner does not know that some words are connected with certain
prepositions or complements. An example given by James (1998: 184),
(17)“I would enjoy to learn”,
The word “enjoy” cooccurs a gerundial complement. He also provides with this
example that the learner ignores the rule, that the verb ‘to enjoy’ has to be followed by a
gerund, not a bare infinitive.
James (1998: 184), states that hypercorrection is “results from the learners
over-monitoring their L2 output”. It appears when the learner uses a real or imagined
rule but in an inappropriate context. Learners believe that the rule they use is correct
and because of that, they do not notice their mistakes. According to Stenson (1978),
hypercorrection can be called “induced errors”, because they are a result of
“faulty-teaching”, which contains lack of teachers knowledge, or their omission.
Sometimes the way in which teacher corrects learners mistakes induces them to make
errors in correct forms. The example of hypercorrection is,
(18a) I would lay for you!
(18b) I would lie for you!
The wrong use of verbs “lie” and “lay” which are similar in the pronunciation is a
common examples of hypercorrectness.
Overgeneralization is also called system-simplification. The most simple
explanation of overgeneralization is that it appears when the learner is using or creating
one wrong structure instead of two regular structures. This error is likely to be found in
a pair of words like: (19) much/many, other/another, some/any, a few/few. For the
learners is hard to find out which word should they use in particular situation. Another
example of overgeneralization can be using (19a)“doed”,(19b) “breaked” or (19c)
“eated” as past forms of verbs: “do”, “break” and “eat”.
According to Brown (1994: 266), in the context of learning, the word ‘context’
refers to a place where the second language acquisition takes place, e.g. classroom. It
also refers to a material e.g. presentations which are used to teaching, to the teacher as a
person and their methods, and even to a social situation. The context of learning can be
shortly explained as factors connected with school, classroom, and methods and
materials as a presentations, textbooks and factors connected with teachers and their
incompetence or lack of knowledge.

13
 Brown (1994: 266), states, that teachers or textbooks can guide the learners to
make wrong hypotheses, Richards (1971: 6), called this phenomenon “false concepts”,
and Stenson (1974) claims that this are “induced errors”.
Definition of communication strategies, according to Brown (1994: 266), that
they contain both non-verbal and verbal communication. Communication strategies are
used to get a message across to the hearer and are related to the learning styles.
Dornyei (1995: 58), lists two avoidance strategies, message abandonment which
appears when the learner leaves a message without finished because he or she has
language difficulties, and the second which is a topic avoidance, it appears when a
learner avoids topics or concepts that make language difficulties. According to Dornyei
(1995), it is distinguished many types of compensatory strategies: circumlocution,
approximation, use of all-purpose words, word cOinage, prefabricated patterns,
nonlinguistic signals, literal translation, foreignizing, code-switching, appeal for help
and stalling and time-gaining strategies.
All compensatory strategies listed by Dornyei (1995: 58) will be discussed below. The
first compensatory strategy is circumlocution which appears when the learner describes
or exemplifies the goal object of the action,
e.g. (20) the thing you open bottles with for corkscrew.
Next is approximation which means using an alternative word, mainly synonyms to
express lexical item. Use of all-purpose words appears when the learners extend empty
lexical item to the context where words are lacking.
e.g. (21) the overuse of thing, stuff, what-do-you-call-it, thingie.
Words cOinage means creating new words basing on rules, which exist. Prefabricated
patterns are memorized patterns (like sentences or phrases), which actually rather are
not understandable by the learner who has memorized them. Next strategy is
nonlinguistic signals which contain gesture, mimics, body language, making sounds all
the verbal and non-verbal communication. Strategy called literal translation means
literally translating words, sentences, phrases, compounds from one language to
another. Foreignizing means mixing two languages into one, for example, pronunciation
from the first language with the word from the second language. Code-switching
affects a lot of bilingual learners, it means that the learners is using one language while
speaking another. The last one of communication compensatory strategies are talliing or

14
time-gaining strategies: Using words like (22) “well”, “now”, “let’s see” to fill the
time while thinking.

1.5 Conclusions

In this chapter were demonstrated the best-known definitions of errors, also the
differences between them. This chapter begins with definitions, then listed types of
errors like: performance and competence errors, local and global errors, morphological,
lexical, syntactic and phonological errors. The last subject matter that was discussed
were sources of errors, main sources of errors were provided: interlingual transfer,
intralingual interference, context of learning and various communication strategies that
learners use. It was impossible to provide all aspects of appearing and examples of
errors in second language acquisition because diploma paper has limit of pages. This
chapter provided only most important informations about definitions, types and sources
of errors. Material in this work can be encouraging to future researches, for example to
carry out researches about other types and sources of errors.

15
CHAPTER TWO: Errors analysing, treatment and correction

Making errors and mistakes is an intrinsic part of second language acquisition. Error
analysis is one of parts of applied linguistics and it is the study of analyzing errors that
are made by learners in target language It contains describing and explaining how errors
and deviations are made. This term was first used by Corner (1967). The best-known
type of analysis is Contrastive analysis hypothesis. This chapter begins with the
description of CAH and its procedures, then the hierarchy of difficulty is provided and
three versions of CAH, weak, strong and moderate. Then an errors treatment sequence
is discussed, also the six types of corrective feedback are provided. Afterwards, the five
fundamental questions are elaborated. Then, there are three types of errors correction
are provided. The last topic which will be discussed is shadowing technique.

2.1 Error analysis

There is a plenty definitions of error analysis, one of the theories in second language
acquisition. It can be treated as a tool to identify and correct errors that learners make.
According to Crystal (1999: 165), errors analysis is the study of forms which are not
acceptable and they occur while learning the second language. Furthermore, Brown
(1994: 257), defines error analysis as a process, which consists of observing, analyzing
and classifying the deviations of the correct forms in comparison to forms that learner
use. There are two types of transfer in the error analysis - positive and negative, which
are also called - facilitation and interference. Facilitation, which simply means the

16
positive transfer is when two items in both, L1 and L2 are similar, and interference
occurs when two items in L1 and L2 are different (Wilkins, 1972: 111).

2.2 The contrastive analysis hypothesis

Contrastive analysis contains a comparison of at least two languages, for example, their
linguistic systems. The term contrastive analysis hypothesis contains both: methodology
and theory. It claims that difficulties in second language learning result from
interference of the mother language.
The hypothesis states that the most errors that learners make can be predicted by
comparing L1 and L2. According to Lado (1957), the learners who will study the
second language finds some patterns of language clear and some difficult. Those
features which are similar to their first language are easier to learn and those dissimilar
elements can be difficult.
According to Wardhaugh (1970: 124), contrastive analysis had one, strong
version. In the response to critics, he offered the second, weak version. Oller and
Ziahosseiny (1970), proposed moderate version of CAH, which is a compromise
between weak and strong version.

2.3 Procedures of CAH

According to Ellis (1994: 307), the procedure of contrastive analysis hypothesis

contains four steps: description, selection, contrast and, prediction. The first step
involves a formal description of both learners languages: L1 and L2. This procedure of
CAH contains a selection of the patterns, linguistic items, and structures for comparing.
It is not possible to contrast every single linguistic item in both languages. In the next
step, contrast, it is significant to expose similarities and differences between L1 and L2.
The last stage, prediction, contains a prediction of difficulties and issues which can
occurs during the process of the second language acquisition.
According to Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin (1965), who invented hierarchy of
difficulty. It consists of 16 levels of difficulty, associated with the step of prediction,
which are based on positive, negative and zero transfer. Positive transfer occurs when

17
two elements are related. When the two elements are different, the negative transfer
makes difficulties in language learning. If there is no relation between the two items
there is zero transfer.
According to Prator (1967), who based on Stockwell, Bowen and Martin (1965),
and took out the essence of grammatical hierarchy and proposed 6 levels of difficulty:
level 0 - no difference or contrast, level 1 - coalescence, level 2 - under differentiation,
level 3 - reinterpretation, level 4 - over differentiation, and level 5 - split. The 0 level
occurs when there is no differences and contrasts between L1 and L2. The learner is
able to transfer the lexical item from native language to the second language with no
difficulty, for example, when both languages have the same sounds or vowels. The level
1 i.e. two elements in L1 coalesce into one in the second language. Under
differentiation occurs when an item, which is present in L1, does not exist in the L2. For
example (23), adjectives in Spanish require gender and in English do not.
Reinterpretation i.e. an existing item in the L1 has new distribution or new shape in L2.
Over differentiation occurs when a completely new item has to be learn in the L2 cause
of no similarity at all to the item in L1. For example (24), in Spanish there are
determiners which do not exist in English and English learners must learn and use them.
The last one level of difficulty, split, is when one item in L1 become two or more items
in L2 and it requires the learner to make a new distinction. For example (25), words:
desk and table in the English language are two independent nouns, in Persian they
become one word.

2.4 Versions of CAH

There are three versions of CAH: strong and weak (Wardhaugh 1970: 123-124), and the
moderate version, according to Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970). Strong version of CAH
which is also called predictive, predicts difficulties and their areas using contrastive
analysis of the L1 and L2 learners. Strong version of CAH is quite not realistic and not
practicable. Moreover, Wardhaugh (1970:124), proposed weak version of CAH which
is also called explanatory, i.e. linguistic difficulties can be explained only by linguistics,
who have adequate knowledge. When errors happen, it helps teachers to understand
sources of errors their foreign students. The weak version does not denote prediction of

18
difficulty. It admits that difficulties can be explained as a result from existing language
interference. Today’s equivalent of weak version is Cross-linguistic Influence (CLI).
In the response, Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970), proposed compromise between
strong and weak version, which is called moderate version, and it is incongruence to
Lado’s idea (1956). They claimed that the basis for learning and second language
acquisition is categorization of concrete and abstract patterns in accordance with their
differences and similarities. When an linguistic item is recognizable in meaning or in a
form in one or more system, it may result a disorientation.

2.5 Errors treatment and correction

Lyster and Ranta (1997), who studied the relationship between types of corrective
feedbacks and learners uptakes, recognized an error treatment sequence, which is
attached as figure 1. below.

Figure 1. Error treatment sequence. (From Lyster, Roy & Ranta, Leila. (1997). “Corrective feedback and
learner uptake”.)

19
The sequence begins with a “learner error” who has at least one error in their utterance.
Then the teacher gives them corrective feedback or does not. If not, there is
continuation of the topic by the student and the teacher. If there is teacher feedback, it
can make learner uptake or not. If there is a learner uptake, the error is corrected, or it is
not and repair needs to be continued. If the student’s statement still needs correction, the
teacher may give another feedback, if no, there is a topic continuation.
Moreover, they listed six types of corrective feedback: 1) explicit correction, 2) recast,
3) clarification request, 4) metalinguistic clues, 5) elicitation, and 6) repetition.
Explicit correction is briefly indicating that student’s statement was wrong, the
teacher corrects the student with proper form. In phonological errors, the educator
repeats correct pronunciation and emphasizes the students that they should remember
that. The second one type, recast i.e. not directly correcting. The teacher does not
implicate that student was wrong, instead repeats what student said, adding correct
forms. An illustration of explicit correction is (26), the teacher repeats the students’
statement with correct form of verb “be”. In the example (27), the teacher ask question
with adding proper version of verb “want to”.
(26a) S: “She were in the cinema”
(26b) T: “Oh, she was in the cinema? Good.”
or
(27a) S: “I want eat”
(27b) T: “What do you want to eat?”
The third type of corrective feedback is clarification request. It contains using the
phrases like “I don’t understand” to emphasize the student’s that their statement can be
not understandable. The explanation, confirmation or repetition is needed. As in
example (28), the teacher asks the student for repetition.
(28) T:“I’m not sure if I understood what did you say, can you repeat?”
In metalinguistic clues teacher does not provide correct form, it contains questions,
comments and informations about the student’s utterance. For example (29),
(29a)“Do we say …?”
(29b)“Are you sure that’s the right pronunciation?”
(29c)“Is it masculine?”

20
 Elicitation is a technique, in which the speaker allows the students to get
information by themselves rather than giving it to them, for example using questions.
Elicitation questions are different from questions in metalinguistic clues, because they
demand to be answered in more than yes/no answer. For example (30),
(30)“How do we say that in English?”
It also involves interviews and questionnaires. The last type of corrective feedback is
the repetition, it refers to the repetition of student’s errors by the teachers in the purpose
of drawing students’ attention to errors. In the most cases the speaker adjusts intonation
to make the error more noticeable.
Hendrickson (1978), listed five fundamental questions about errors treatment.
1) Should errors be corrected?
2) If so, when should errors be corrected?
3) Which learner errors should be corrected?
4) How should learner errors be corrected?
5) Who should correct learner errors?
As a response to first question, the teacher should consider if it is necessary to correct
students’ errors. If learners are not able to notice their errors, they need help of someone
who has sufficient knowledge. The second question, is more difficult. The teachers need
to make decision if correction is necessary or if errors should be ignored. A plenty of
educators, as Corder (1967), Hendrickson (1977), and Burt (1975), figure that deviation
is inherent element of language learning. They recommend teachers to have a wide
margin for their students’ errors. Some speakers agree that some written and oral errors
make communication easier. Teachers should emphasize grammar errors and exercises,
however not in communication practice. With reference to third question, Hendrickson
(1978), suggests that in the first place, errors which have influence for clearness of the
utterance, should be corrected. As is written above, Burt (1975), distincted errors into
global and local. According to Hendrickson (1978), global errors do not have to be
corrected, but systematic (local) errors do. If the students have sufficient knowledge,
they can correct systematic errors by themselves, when they pay enough attention to
them. As the fourth reply, according to James (1998: 249-256), the errors should be
corrected respecting the three major principles. The first principle, the technique of
errors’ correcting should increases students’ exactness in expression. Second, the

21
teacher should consider affective factors. The third principle contains statement that the
indirect correction is better. Wingfield (1975), listed five techniques of written errors’
correction. First i.e. the educator gives students’ adequate clues to help them correct
themselves. The second, the teacher corrects the students’ writing, and deals with errors
using footnotes and comments. Also explains errors to students individually. The
teacher uses an error, as an illustration for explanation. In the response to last
Hendricks’ question, the teacher is usually expected to correct and react to students’
errors, because he or she has sufficient knowledge. By contrast, Cohen (1975), has
different approach, the learners should correct each other.
Error correction can be defined as a form of feedback giving to the students
while they are learning second language. According to Corder (1967: 166), who listed
three ways to correct the learners’ errors. Students tell the speaker about their progress,
what remains to be learnt. Second, refers to the process of how second language
acquisition goes and which learning’ strategies are most efficient. The last one form of
feedback is indisputed with learning process, because making errors is inherent part of
the target language.
There are a lot of ways to correct errors, one of division is: self-correction, peer
correction, and teacher correction. Self-correction assumes that a student is able to
correct themselves. This technique is an effective because students remember better
things that they noticed by themselves. Peer correction occurs when the learner is not
able to correct himself/herself, and needs help. The teacher can ask other students to
provide correction, for example using a question “Who can help?”. As a benefit of peer
correction, Edge (1990), states that it inspires students to cooperate, and learn from each
other. All students are involved in thinking and listening about the target language. If no
one in the class is able to help with the correction, then there is a teacher correction. In
these circumstances, the speaker can go through the problem again and explain it one
more time. Sometimes more than one explanation and repetition is needed. After the
correction is it important to ask students that originally made mistake about the right
answer, to check if the correction helped.

22
2.6 Shadowing technique

Shadowing is an advanced technique in language learning, invented by Alexander

Arguelles, an American Professor. The main idea of this technique is to listen audio in
the target language and repeating (shadowing), as quickly as possible aloud at the same
time as native speaker is saying. In effect, the student who repeats, listen to everything
twice, first, he or she listen to native speaker, and then they listen to themselves. This
makes more effort. Shadowing is an inherent part of L1 and L2 acquisition. It can be
done in many ways. According to Murphey (2001: 129), there are three types of
shadowing: complete, selective, interactive.
Complete shadowing emerges when listener repeats everything that speaker said, such
as in an example (31),
(31a) S: “We have Tony’s birthday party on Thursday”
(31b) L: “We have Tony’s birthday party on Thursday”
Selective shadowing occurs when a listener is able to shadow only certain words and
phrases, as in above (32),
(32a) S: “We have Tony’s birthday party on Thursday”
(32b) L: “We have party on Thursday.”
Interactive shadowing involves selective shadowing and refers to adding, or changing
words, comments, and questions by the listener while shadowing, and making the
conversation more natural. For example (33):
(33a) S: “We have Tony’s birthday party on Thursday”
(33b) L: “Oh, yes, party! It’s Tony’s birthday”
Shadowing is an adequate technique to improve pronunciation, accent intonation and
rhythm. It is similar to L1 acquisition because learner repeats everything what he or she
hears, as in L1. The theory of shadowing states that if a learner had already possessed
some linguistic competence, he or she will be able to repeat it fluently and without
problems.

23
2.7 Conclusions

As can be shown in this chapter, the error analysis, treatment and correction are very
complex topics. This part of diploma paper provided only part of knowledge about
analyses of errors and its procedures. In conclusion, the error analysis is significant in
language learning process, because it supports predicting students’ errors. Moreover,
correction and errors’ treatment is crucial element in SLA. The using appropriate
techniques of correction, allow the teachers correct their students’ mistakes/
This chapter focuses on the most crucial informations, because of limitations.
The material in this work can be encouraging for carrying out future researchers, for
example about other types of error analysis or errors treatment.

24
CHAPTER 3 : Shadowing technique as a tool for error identifying and
analysing

This chapter looks at a dialogue that 8 people has listened and repeated. Shadowing is
not an easy technique, so even good english learners had problems.
The goal of this work is to provide and describe, and compare errors that
students are making while they shadow (repeat). There were two groups: the first group
were four people who, had known the context of the dialogue before the listened, and
the second, who did not know context before listen.
This chapter begins with an explanation of the goal of the research, followed by
research questions and hypothesis. Then, methodology, tools, and participants are
provided. Afterwards, the procedure is described. Moreover, the dialogue which was
used in the research, is provided, followed by results of the test and its analysis.

3.1 The goal of the research

The goal of the research and this chapter is to compare errors in shadowing, called also
listen-and-repeat-without-stopping-the-recording, between groups who known the
context and who did not. Moreover, the goal of the chapter is also to provide, analyse
and describe errors which students’ are making while repeating, as well as to answer the
research questions which are provided below.

3.1.1. Research questions and hypothesis

Conducting the research, the author aimed to answer the following questions:

25
 1. Is it possible to make complete shadowing?
2. Which type of shadowing (complete, selective, interactive) is the most frequent?
3. Do students who know the context make less errors than students who does not?
4. Is shadowing an illustration of actual state of knowledge of the students?
5. Which types of errors are the most common in students’ utterances?

The author hypothesizes, that the people who did not know the context before listen,
will make more errors and mistakes, than students who knew the context. Furthermore,
the author also hypothesizes that shadowing technique is reflection of their state of
knowledge, because if students have gaps in their competence, these gaps prevent them
from repeating what they heard.

3.2 Research methods and tools

For the most accurate exploring the results of the research, the qualitative research
method was used. The author as a tool of the research used the recording of the
dialogue, and then recorded the students while shadowing.

3.3 Participants

The participants of the study were 8 students, divided into two groups of four people,
markes as, “S1, S2, S3, S4” in both groups. Students are in the age between 20 and 23,
and who had passed matura exam in english. They have been learning english at least
twelve years. All the students have agreed to participate in the study.

3.4 The procedure

The procedure involved: explanation of the context of the dialogue in the first group,
they had been instructed before they started to repeat, e.g. where the dialogue will take
place and what the people will talk about. By contrast, the only instruction to the second
group was that they will listen to the dialogue and that they should repeat verbatim. All

26
of students listen to the dialogue once. In accordance with the principles of shadowing,
they repeated everything that they heard without stopping the recording.

3.5 The dialogue

The dialogue that author used in the research came from Audio bank - Dialogues © that
BBC and British Council released to help teachers develop their students’
pronunciation. Below the original dialogue with division into segments is provided.
Barry:
1)I'm going to the shops in a minute. What do we need?
Valerie:
2)We're okay for vegetables but we should stock up on meat. Can you go to the
butcher's and get some veal and some beef?
Barry:
3)No problem. We also need bread, so I'll go to the baker's.I'll get some vol au vents*
for Victor's birthday bash* on Friday. We'll need balloons for that too.
Valerie:
4)Better visit the supermarket then. We'll need some other things for the party. Get
some vanilla ice cream, some butter and some vinegar and twelve bottles of beer.
Barry:
5)Okay. The library's beside the baker's. I'd better take back the videos we borrowed last
week. They're overdue.
Valerie:
6)I'll see you later then.
Barry:
7) Bye! I'll be back before seven.

3.6 Results of the test

In this section the results of the test will be demonstrated. First, the number of omitted
words in both group will be supplied, afterwards, the total number of errors that

27
students made while shadowing. Then the comparison of both group will be provided,
followed by division of errors that students made.

Figure 2. The number of omitted words in without-context group, shown in percentages.

Figure 3. The number of omitted words in the group knowing the context, shown in percentages.

28
Figure 4. Comparison of the number of omitted words in both groups, shown in percentages.

The figure 1., 2., and 3. present the number of omitted words in students’ utterances
while shadowing. The min. number of omitted words is 30, out of 138, in the first
group, and max. is 87 out of 138. The mean average of omitted words is 47 in the first
group and 77 in the second. The results of correct and wrong repeated words are
provided below.

29
At the beginning, figures 5. and 6. present comparison of correct and wrong answers in
the first group.

Figure 5. The results of the group, which knew the context, out of 138

Figure 6. The results of the group, which knew the context, shown in percentages

30
Then, the results and comparison of correct and wrong answers of the second group
will be provided.

Figure 7. The results of the group which did not know the context, out of 138

Figure 8. The results of the group which did not know the context, shown in percentages

31
The last, figure 9. present the comparison between the results of both group.

Figure 9. Comparison of the main averages of correct and wrong repeated words in the both groups.

3.7 Analysis of the results

The analysis of the descriptive statistics confirms that shadowing is an very demanding
technique. The hypothesis which claimed that context matters is actually true. The
group which knew the context before the experiment achieved more effective results.
Moreover, the average of correct repeated words in the first group is 74, by comparison
in the second it amounts 49. The knowing-context group also omitted less words, the
average number of omitted words is 47, for comparison, in the did not know context-
group, an average number of omitted words is 76. It is almost 30 more omitted words in
the experiment.
The research proved that is it impossible to make complete shadowing, because
the shadowing technique is challenging. In the most parts of experiment, the selective
and interactive type of shadowing was the most common. For example (34), instead of
“We’ll need balloons for that too.”, they said “We need balloons also”, or “We also
need balloons”. The utterance have the same meaning, nevertheless, the other words
were used. Another illustration of interactive shadowing is using synonyms and

32
associations (35): using the word “meat” instead of “veal” and “beef”, or (36), “shops
center” instead of “shops”.
In the response to the fourth research question, shadowing can be an illustration
of students’ state of knowledge. The author hypothesized that if students have lacks in
their knowledge, those lacks will indispose them repeating verbatim. As in example,
one of students, who took part in this research - Weronika, admitted that she always
found the tenses difficult. While she was repeating, she was changing tenses. She could
not repeat correctly any of sentences which contained tenses. She shadowed only
adjectives and nouns.
The most common errors, that students made while the research, were: absence
of auxiliary “do” in question “What do we need?”, only one person repeated this
question correctly. Moreover, the author hypothesizes that it can be result from
colloquial speech. The second common error was changing sentences’ tenses.
Nevertheless, the changing the subject of the sentence was frequent.

3.8 Conclusions

In this chapter the research was conducted. This part of the diploma paper provided the
procedure, results and analysis of the research’ results. In conclusion, the shadowing is
an adequate technique for analysing the students’ state of knowledge. It can be used as a
tool in error analysis. The context in the experiment matters, and that the most frequent
type of shadowing is interactive.
Material provided in this chapter can be encouraging for future researches, for
example, for further using shadowing technique in second language acquisition, e.g. to
improve students’ pronunciation, or to analyse errors which learners make while
repeating.

33
Final Remarks

This diploma paper provided the main informations about differences between errors
and mistakes, presented the best-known types of errors and their sources i.e. interlingual
transfer and intralingual interference. Moreover error analysis, its procedures, treatment
and correction were discussed. The CAH, and its versions (strong, weak, moderate) and
procedures were provided.
This paper answered to the research questions. In conclusion, it is impossible to
make complete shadowing, the repeating verbatim is too demanding technique, and it is
too hard to shadow everything. In the author’s research, the selective and interactive
shadowing were the most frequent. It is result from the fastness of recording and from
students’ tendency to speaking synonyms instead of utterances which they actually hear.
The author hypothesized that people who knew the context before listen will make less
mistakes than the students who did not know the context. The research confirmed the
thesis. In descriptive statistics apparently the ascendancy of the first group, they did less
errors and omit less words than the second group.
Moreover, the shadowing is an illustration of the actual state of students’
knowledge. The survey confirmed that if students had gaps in their knowledge they
were not able to repeat correctly. However, the most frequent error was the absence of
the auxiliary “do”.
Caused of limitations of this diploma paper, it was impossible to provide all
informations about errors and mistakes, their sources, analysis, types and treatment.
This paper provided only crucial facts and can be encouraging for further researches
about for example, errors which students make while repeating.

34
References:
Audio bank - Dialogues © BBC. (2018).
ttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/dialogue5.pdf
Amara, Naimi. (2015). Errors Correction in Foreign Language Teaching.
Brown, H. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (pp. 248-285). New
Jersey : Prentice- Hall Inc
Burt, M., & Kiparsky, C. (1978). Global and local mistakes, in J. Schumann & N.
Stenson (Eds.). New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House Publishing, Inc
Bußmann, H., & Trauth, G. (2006). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics.
London. Routledge.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/towards-the-classification-of-contra
stive-studies-english-language-essay.php?vref=1
Corder, P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corder, P. (1967). The Significance of Learners' Errors. IRAL.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).
Error Correction. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/error-correction
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring Error Analysis.
London: Longman.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
False Analogy Examples. (2018). Softschools.com. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from
http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/false_analogy_examples/178/
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent
Theory, Research, and Practice. Singapore: SEAMEO. Regional Language Centre.
Lado R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. University of Michigan.
Lyster, Roy & Ranta, Leila. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition - STUD SECOND LANG ACQUIS. 19.

35
10.1017/S0272263197001034.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recast, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching
Research, 5(2), 128-155. doi: 10.1191/136216801678766886
Prator, C. (1967). Manual of American English pronunciation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English language
teaching journal.
Richards, J. C. (1974). Error Analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition.
London: Longman
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect
on EFL Writing Quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83. doi: 10.2307/3586390
Schumann, J., & Stenson, N. (1978). New frontiers in second language learning.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Scovel, T. (2001). Learning New Languages: A guide to second language acquisition.
Massachsetts: Heinle & Heinle.
Stockwell, R., Bowen, J., & Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English
and Spanish. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). ‘The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis’. TESOL Quaterly.

36
Streszczenie

Praca dyplomowa zawiera najważniejsze informacje związane z błędami

towarzyszącymi nauce drugiego języka. W pierwszym rozdziale przytoczone są
najbardziej znane definicje, oraz różnice między błędami a pomyłkami, nawiązując do
Browna, Cordera i Ellisa. Następnie, typy błędów są ukazane: najpierw - błędy
kompetencyjne, które zawierają luki w wiedzy, oraz błędy, które towarzyszą występom
i są przypadkowe, ponieważ wynikają z pośpiechu. Globalne błędy zawierają np. błędy
gramatyczne, lokalne błędy nie utrudniają komunikacji. Ostatni typ błędów zawiera
wszystkie elementy gramatyki opisowej: morfologię, fonologię, składnie i leksykę. Na
końcu pierwszego rozdziału, źródła błędów są ukazane: transfer międzyjęzykowy oraz
ingerencja wewnątrzjęzykowa, a także wyjaśnione jest siedem kategorii ingerencji
wewnątrzjęzykowej.
W drugim rozdziale, wyjaśnione są najbardziej znane definicje analizy błędów, w
nawiązaniu do Crystal i Browna. Następnie hipoteza o kontrastywnej analizie oraz jej
procedury są wyjaśnione. Potem trzy wersje hipotezy o kontrastywnej analizie są
wyjaśnione: mocna, słaba skonstruowana przez Wardhaugh’a oraz umiarkowana,
stworzona przez Ollera i Ziahosseina. Co więcej, hierarcha trudności i jej 6 stopni są
wyjaśnione. Na końcu drugiego rozdziału omówione zostały metody korekcji błędów
oraz ich traktowania.
Trzeci i ostatni rozdział zawiera badanie. Najpierw ukazany jest cel badania,
następnie pytania badawcze oraz hipotezy. Następnie, autor omawia metody i narzędzia
których użył, a także omawia uczestników którzy wzięli w nim udział. Co więcej,
procedura oraz oryginalny dialog są ukazane. Na końcu trzeciego rozdziału zostały
omówione wyniki badania oraz ich analiza. Autor potwierdza postawioną hipotezę oraz
odpowiedział na pytania badawcze. Praca dyplomowa kończy się wnioskami na temat
wyników.

37
Summary

The diploma paper contains the most crucial informations about errors and mistakes in
second language acquisition. In the first chapter, the best-known definitions of errors
and mistakes, and differences between them are provided according to Brown, Corder
and Ellis. Then, types of errors are provided: first - competence, which contains lack of
knowledge and performance, which are accidental because result from rush. Global,
involves for example grammar errors and local, which do not make communication
harder. The last types of errors, which are provided, are errors which involve all english
components: morphological, phonological, syntactic and lexical. At the end of the first
chapter, the main sources of errors: interlingual transfer and intralingual interference are
provided. Seven categories of intralingual interference are explained.
In the second chapter, the main definitions of errors analysis are discussed,
according to Crystal and Brown. Afterwards, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, and its
procedures are explained. Then, three versions of CAH are provided: strong and weak,
according to Wardhaugh and moderate, according to Oller and Ziahosseiny. Moreover,
the hierarchy of difficulty and its six levels are explained. At the end of the second
chapter, types of errors treatment and correction are discussed.
The third and last chapter contains the research. First, the goal of the research is
provided, then the research questions and hypotheses are explained. Next, the author
discuss the research methods and tools, also the participants who took part in the
experiment. Moreover, the procedure is provided and the original dialogue is attached.
At the end of the third chapter, results and its analysis are discussed. The author
confirmed the hypotheses and answered the research questions. The diploma paper ends
with conclusions about results.

38
.............................................................
(imię i nazwisko)

.............................................................
(Instytut)

.............................................................
(Kierunek)

.............................................................
(numer albumu)

OŚWIADCZENIE AUTORA PRACY

Świadomy odpowiedzialności prawnej oświadczam, że niniejsza praca

dyplomowa:

● została napisana przeze mnie samodzielnie i nie zawiera treści uzyskanych

w sposób niezgodny z obowiązującymi przepisami Ustawy z dnia 4 lutego
1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych;
● nie była wcześniej przedmiotem procedur związanych z ubieganiem się o
tytuł naukowy lub zawodowy wyższej uczelni;
● załączona w wersji elektronicznej jest identyczna z wersją wydrukowaną.

.....................................
.......................................................
Wałbrzych, dnia czytelny podpis autora
pracy

39
 OŚWIADCZENIE
(STUDENTA)

Oświadczam, że poinformowano mnie o prawach i obowiązkach studenta Uczelni, a także o

zasadach dotyczących kontroli samodzielności prac dyplomowych i zaliczeniowych. W
związku z powyższym oświadczam, że wyrażam zgodę na przetwarzanie** moich prac
pisemnych (w tym prac zaliczeniowych i pracy dyplomowej) powstałych w toku studiów i
związanych z realizacją procesu kształcenia w Uczelni, a także na przechowywanie ich w
celach realizowanej procedury antyplagiatowej w bazie cyfrowej Systemu Antyplagiatowego.
Informacja: zgodnie z art. 214, ust. 4, Ustawy z dnia 25 lipca 2005 r. – Prawo o
szkolnictwie wyższym (Dz. U. 2012, poz. 572, z późn. zm.): „w razie popełnienia przez
studenta czynu polegającego na przepisaniu sobie autorstwa istotnego fragmentu lub
innych elementów cudzego utworu, rektor niezwłocznie poleca przeprowadzenie
postępowania wyjaśniającego”.

…………………, dn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............

..........
Czytelny podpis
kandydata na studia

* Dotyczy tych osób które nie złożyły przedmiotowych oświadczeń przed podjęciem studiów.
** Przez przetwarzanie pracy rozumie się porównywanie przez System Antyplagiatowy jej treści z innymi dokumentami (w celu
ustalenia istnienia nieuprawnionych zapożyczeń), generowanie Raportu Podobieństwa oraz przechowywanie pracy w bazie
danych Systemu.

40