INSTITUTO SUPERIOR

“JOSEFINA CONTTE”

PROFESORADO DE INGLÉS
UNIDADES CURRICULARES: Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas
y Ciencias del Lenguaje
PROFESORAS: Prof. Mariana Sottile y Prof. Valeria Roldán
CICLO LECTIVO 2016
TERCER AÑO
FECHA:
TRABAJO DE INVESTIGACIÓN FINAL
ALUMNA: María Sol Torres
DNI: 39190126

1
INTRODUCTION

According to Ellis (1994), SLA (Second Language Acquisition) is the systematic

study of how people learn a language other than their mother tongue, inside or
outside the context of a classroom. The main goal of SLA is to describe what
learners do when learning an L2 (second language). Along with such an aim, SLA
seeks to explain why learners acquire the L2 the way they do in terms of internal
and external factors.
In order to achieve these aims, researchers collect samples of learner language,
that is to say, the learner’s oral and written productions in the L2, and analyze
them thoroughly. Such samples provide information about what learners know
about the target language.
In general, SLA research has focused on formal features of language. Most often,
the emphasis is placed on exploring how the learner’s ability to produce grammar
structures of the L2 develops over time.
The purpose of this report is, in a broad sense, to describe and explain the process
of acquisition of the question form of the past simple tense in English. Precisely,
this research examines the errors made by a group of learners of English as an L2
with Spanish as their L1 when producing questions in the past simple tense.
Upon reflecting on the processes carried out in the acquisition of this grammatical
structure, some questions were posed: is the acquisition process of the question
form of the past simple tense the same in the L1 and in the L2? What factors might
have influenced the subjects’ acquisition of this grammatical structure?
In order to carry out this analysis of errors, first, a theoretical framework will be
presented, then the description of the methodology used for explaining the errors
identified will be described. Finally, the analysis itself will be carried out.

2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Creative Construction Hypothesis

The developing language of children has its own underlying system. The process
of learning a second language refers then, to the creative construction of a system
in which learners are consciously testing hypotheses about the target language
from a number of possible sources of knowledge. In such way, learners construct
their own legitimate system of language that gradually approximates to the
system used by native speakers of the language by a process of trial and error and
hypothesis testing (Brown, 2007).

Interlanguage
Selinker (1972) defines interlanguage as the separateness of a second language
learner’s system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native
and target languages. It is a system based upon the best attempt of learners to
bring order and structure to the linguistic data surrounding them.
Moreover, Selinker (1972) states that interlanguage may be seen as ‘an adaptive
strategy which uses simplification, reduction, overgeneralization, transfer,
formulaic language, omissions, and the like’.
Learners of a second language go through developmental stages on their way to
each target language competence. In fact, Corder (1975) describes interlanguage
as a permeable, dynamic and changing system. Additionally, he believes that it can
be used quite effectively for communicative purposes.
Interlanguage is permeable because it is open to the influence from internal and
external factors. What is more, it is dynamic as learners constantly receive new
input that makes them revise their hypotheses about the target language.
Not to mention that interlanguage is transitional because learners change the
grammatical structures they use at different developmental stages. That is to say
that they use interim grammatical structures on the way of reaching competence
in the target language. However, interlanguage may undergo fossilization: the
production of errors belonging to a previous stage of development (Ellis, 1994).

Development of interlanguage
Corder (1975) suggests that interlanguage takes place as a gradual process, and
that there are some distinct stages along this continuum:
1. Random errors: the learner is vaguely aware there are some systems.
2. Emergent stage: at this stage, the learner has begun to identify a system
and internalize its rules. These rules may not be right but they are the best
for the learner. Furthermore, backsliding constantly happens at this stage,
that is to say that learners seem to have learned the rule but then they fail
at applying it.

3
3. Systematic Stage: the learner has built a stronger system of rules closer to
the target language.
4. Stabilization stage: the learner makes very few errors. Nonetheless,
already at this stage, the learners’ language problems may be fossilized,
that is, they may be automatized in learner’s production and it may be
difficult to correct them.
Interlanguage theory is relevant in that it helps to realize that learners’ errors are
both an important part of learning and a valuable resource for teachers of a
second language. These errors display the learners’ interlanguage development,
what they are capable of producing and what not.

Errors
Corder (1975) manifests that ‘errors are breaches of the code’, that is, deviations
from what is considered to be the norm. Yet, errors contain valuable information
on the strategies that people use to acquire a language and to communicate in
that language (Richards, 1974). The common sources of error are:
1. Interlingual Transfer (Interference errors) from the native language called
negative interlingual transfer. They are caused by the learner’s attempt to
use patterns of their L1 in the L2.
2. Intralingual Transfer: generalization and/or simplification within the target
language when the learner is more advanced in the acquisition of the second
language.
3. Context of Learning: it refers to the context in which the learning of the
second language takes place. For instance, in a classroom, the teacher or the
textbook can lead the learner to make wrong hypotheses about the
language.
4. Communication Strategies: learners use strategies to get their messages
across, but sometimes these techniques can be sources of errors themselves.
Richards (1971) adds another source of error:
5. Developmental Errors: occur when the learner attempts to work up
hypotheses about the target language on the basis of limited experience.
According to Lennon (1991), there exist four categories for the description of
errors:
a. Identification of errors of addition, omission, substitution, and ordering,
following standard mathematical categories.
b. Within each category, levels of language are found: phonology or
orthography, lexicon, grammar, and discourse.
c. Errors may be global or local. Global errors impede communication; they
prevent the hearer from understanding some part of the message. Local
errors do not stop the message from being heard/read, allowing the
hearer/reader to make an approximate guess about the intended meaning.

4
Errors are classified into one of both categories according to some error
gravity criteria. The criteria are:
a. Intelligibility
b. Acceptability
c. Irritation
d. There are two related dimensions of error, domain and extent. Domain is the
rank of linguistic unit that must be taken as context in order for the error to
become apparent, and extent is the rank of linguistic unit that would have to
be deleted, replaced, supplied, or reorder in order to repair the sentence
(Lennon, 1991).

Types of error
1. Corder (1975) distinguishes between overt and covert errors:
a. Overt errors (‘sentence level’): utterances that are ungrammatical at the
sentence level.
b. Covert errors (‘discourse level’): They are grammatically well-formed at the
sentence level but not appropriate for the context of communication. An
instance of this is answering *‘I’m fine, thank you’ to ‘Who are you?’

2. Intralingual errors
As for intralingual errors, Ellis (1997) claims that they are produced by intralingual
transfer. Therefore, they are the result of (over) generalization within the target
language, usually when the learner is more advanced in the acquisition of the
second language. Moreover, these kinds of errors may be due to the creative
construction of a system in which learners are consciously testing hypotheses
about the target language from a number of possible sources of knowledge.
Hence, intralingual errors result from the attempts of the learners to discover the
structure of the language being learned.
Richards (1971) points out different kinds of intralingual errors:
a. Overgeneralization errors: the learner creates a deviant structure based on
some other structure in the target language. For example: *She can plays.
b. (Over) simplification: when the learner takes confusing or complex
linguistic data and reduces them by fitting them into a structure of
categories, and rules that he or she already knows. For example: the
omission of inflections and other morphemes and redundancy reductions.
c. Ignorance of rule restrictions: it involves the application of rules to contexts
where they do not apply. For example: *She made me to rest.
d. Incomplete application of rules: involves failure to wholly develop a
structure. For example: *You like to cook?
e. False concepts hypothesized: the learner fails to fully understand a
distinction in the target language. For example: *One day it was happened.

5
Interlingual errors
Ellis (1997) expresses that these errors occur due to interlingual or L1 transfer from
the learner’s native language. In other words, L1 transfer refers to the influence
that the learner’s L1 exerts over the acquisition of an L2. There are two types of L1
transfer to the learner’s acquisition process of an L2: negative transfer and positive
transfer. The former is one of the sources of error in learner language whereas the
latter can facilitate the acquisition of the L2.
Lott (1983) classifies interlingual errors into:
a. Overextension of analysis errors: the learner missuses an item because it
shares characteristics with an item in the L1. For example: Italian learners use
*process to mean ‘trial’.
b. Transfer of structure: the learner employs some L1 feature (phonological,
lexical, grammatical, or pragmatic) rather than that of the target language.
c. Interlingual/intralingual errors: a particular difference does not exist in the L1.
For example: the use of *make instead of ‘do’ by Spanish learners because
the ‘make/do’ distinction is non-existent in Spanish.
Similarly, Corder (1975) classifies errors into four categories:
1. Omission: the learner omits certain linguistic forms because they are
complex to produce. Moreover, this singularity is not restricted to foreign
language learners but is perceived even with native speakers. Even so, native
speakers’ tendency is to follow existing conventions whereas foreign
language learners do not. Omission occurs in many areas of the language:
a. Pronunciation: consonant clusters often create problems for foreign
learners and some of its constituents may be omitted.
b. Morphology: learners often leave out the third person singular
morpheme –s, the plural marker –s and the past tense inflection –ed.
c. Syntax: learners may omit certain elements which are obligatory, e.g.
*You go? instead of ‘Did you go?’
2. Addition: learners may add redundant elements to what they say or write.
Addition occurs in:
a. Phonology: through what is termed epenthesis, the insertion of an
additional sound.
b. Morphology: learners often overuse the third person singular morpheme
–s and the plural marker –s. For example: *You plays instead of ‘You play’.
c. Syntax: learners may produce the wrong combination. For example: using
‘the’ with a place name: *The Paris instead of ‘Paris’.
d. Lexis: learners may add an unnecessary word. For example: *I stayed
there during five years ago instead of ‘I stayed there for five years’

6
3. Selection: learners make errors in pronunciation, morphology, syntax, and
vocabulary because of the selection of the wrong phoneme, morpheme,
structure or vocabulary item.
a. Phonology: it may be characterized by interlingual transfer. The learner
substitutes a familiar phoneme from the mother tongue for a target
phoneme that is difficult to pronounce.
b. Morphology: selection of the wrong morpheme. For example: the learner
can use –est instead of –er for the comparative, producing a sentence like
*My friend is oldest than me.
c. Syntax: the learner may select the wrong structure. For example: * ‘I want
that he comes here instead’ of ‘I want him to come here’. This error may
be induced by interlingual transfer or generalization.
d. Lexis: learners sometimes select words which do not fully convey their
intended meaning. For example: a tulip may simply be referred to as a
flower. This type of error is prompted by the strategy of approximation
or semantic contiguity.
4. Misordering of certain elements occurs in:
a. Pronunciation: by altering the position of certain phonemes. For example:
a speaker may say *fignisicant instead of ‘significant’.
b. Morphological: misordering of bound morphemes (not frequent). For
example: *He’s get upping now, the learner attaches the inflection –ing
to the particle of the two-word verb get up.
c. Syntax: misordering of words in a sentence. For example: *He’s a dear to
me friend, where constituents of a single noun phrase are split.
d. Lexis: the learner may swap elements of a compound word. For example:
Car key may become key car, which carries a different lexical meaning.
In addition, errors can be classified as productive and receptive:
e. Productive errors: occur in the language learner’s utterances.
f. Receptive errors: result in the listener /reader’s misinterpretation of the
speaker/writer’s intentions.

7
Error Analysis (EA)
The fact that learners do make errors, and these errors can be analyzed, led to a
boost of study of learners’ errors termed Error Analysis by Corder in the 1960’s.
The main aim was to analyze the different kinds of errors in order to understand
second language learning and acquisition. Particularly, this field has two aims, one
theoretical and another applied. The theoretical aim studies what and how a
learner learns a second language, and the applied target helps the learner to learn
more efficiently by taking advantage of the knowledge of his dialect for
pedagogical purposes.
In the 1970s, Error Analysis supplanted Contrastive Analysis, which sought to
foresee and describe the errors that learners make by identifying the linguistic
similarities and differences between the L1 and the target language (Ellis, 1997).

Sequence of Acquisition
According to Ellis (1994), learners acquire grammatical structures progressively
through a series of stages in order to attain the native-speaker norms. Therefore,
this process of acquisition involves transitional constructions, that is, interim
grammatical structures learners manifest at different stages of their
development.
Such sequences are instructive because they manifest that the use of a correct
structural form does not inevitably mean that this form has been ‘acquired’.
In fact, acquisition follows a U-shaped course of development, that is, initially
learners may show a high level of accuracy only to then suddenly backsliding
before finally once again performing according to native-speaker norms.
This phenomenon occurs because learners reconstruct their existing knowledge
to accommodate new information. In fact, learners are not regressing but
advancing.

Developmental sequences
As reported by Lightbown and Spada (1993) in both first and second language
acquisition, there are a series of stages for the development of grammatical

8
structures. These developmental sequences are similar throughout learners from
different contexts.

Grammatical morphemes
The list below shows the approximate order of acquisition of grammatical
morphemes of children learning English as their mother tongue. Research has
found that natural second language learners acquire grammatical morphemes in
much the same way that first language learners do (Brown, 1987).
1. Present progressive –ing
2. Plural –s
3. Irregular past forms
4. Possessive ‘s
5. Copula
6. Articles ‘the’ and ‘a’
7. Regular past –ed
8. Third person singular simple present
9. Auxiliary ‘be’

Question formation stages

Second language learners learn to form questions in a sequence of development
that is close in most aspects to first language question development (Lightbown
and Spada, 1993).
 Stage 1: single words or simple two-or three-word sentences with rising
intonation. For example: *Cookie? *Mommy book?
 Stage 2: questions without changing the internal structure of the sentence. For
example: *You like this? *Why you catch it?
 Stage 3: they notice that the structure of forming a question is different but
they may generalize this rule. For example: *Is the teddy is tired?
 Stage 4: children begin to master the use of inversion with Wh- questions and
Yes/no questions. For example: Do you like ice cream?
 Stage 5: children combine both operations. For example: *Why can he go out?

9
 Stage 6: when wh-words appear in subordinate clauses or embedded
questions, children overgeneralize the inverted form. For example: *I don’t
know why can’t he go out.

10
INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
According to Rodman (2012) many languages, including English and Spanish, have
bound morphemes that strictly mark a grammatical function. They mark aspects
such as tense, number, person, and so on. Such bound morphemes are termed
inflectional morphemes. Inflectional morphemes never change the grammatical
category of the stems to which they are matched. Therefore, they do not add
lexical meaning. Additionally, inflectional morphology is narrowly connected to
the syntax and semantics of the sentence.
Since the emphasis of this work is placed on the simple past regular tense, the
examples of inflectional morphology below are shown in such tense:
 John sailed the ocean blue.
 She waited at home.
In these examples, the inflectional morpheme added to the stems is –ed in order
to mark tense; -ed expresses the relationship between the time the utterances are
spoken or written (For example: now) and the time of the event (past).
Consequently, the –ed affix places the activity before the utterance time.
It follows that, compared to many languages of the world, English has rather little
inflectional morphology. For instance, in Spanish-and other languages descended
from Latin- the verb has different inflectional endings depending on the subject of
the sentence. As a result, the verb is inflected to agree in person and number with
the subject whereas in English, in the past simple regular tense, it does not need
to. An instance of this is illustrated by the Spanish verb cocinar meaning ‘to cook’
in the simple past regular tense:
Yo cociné ‘I cooked’
Tu cocinaste ‘You (singular) cooked’
El/Ella cocinó ‘He/She cooked’
Nosotros cocinamos ‘We cooked’
Ustedes cocinaron ‘You (plural) cooked’
Ellos cocinaron ‘They cooked’
Nonetheless, since it is questions in the simple past tense the topic being
discussed in this work, the addition of the –ed inflection to the verb in the question
is not used. On the contrary, the bare infinitive is required.

SYNTAX: TRANSFORMATIONS

Yes/No Questions
O’Grady (2009) explains that yes/no questions are called like that because their
expected answer is often ‘yes’ or ‘no’. These kind of questions are different from
declarative sentences because instead of asserting information, they request it.
For instance:
1. Declarative: The boy danced.

11
2. Yes/No question: Did the boy dance?
This difference is indicated according to Rodman (2013) by the different word
order, which shows that the two sentences may have a structural dissimilarity that
corresponds in a systematic way to a meaning difference. Accordingly, the
grammar of the language must explain this fact. Nevertheless, the relationship
between both sentences can be described from the fact that they derive from a
common underlying structure.
1) Yes/No questions begin as declarative sentences:
 Byron danced on Saturday.
Such sentence contains an Inflectional Phrase that has only an abstract tense
marker, there is nothing for the Inversion transformation to move to form the
question. English evades this problem by adding the special auxiliary verb did.
(O’Grady, 2009)

2) Then, through the XP rule or transformational rule, to form the question:

1. Did is inserted into the sentence that does not already have an auxiliary verb,
therefore making inversion possible. Here, it is the insertion rule (an
operation that adds an element to a tree structure) what is being used.
2. Since it is a simple past question, the –ed inflection is removed from the verb
because the auxiliary ‘did’ already carries the tense.
3. Result: ‘Did Byron dance last Saturday?’

3) However, a question appears: what structural position does the tensed

auxiliary move to?
 C stands for ‘Complementiser’ and CP for ‘Complementiser Position’.
 The Complementiser position is: sister of S (sentence) and daughter of IP (Inflectional
Phrase).
 Therefore, the structural position that the fronted auxiliary did moves to is the
complementiser position.
 A trace or gap is left where did was inserted before. (Rodman, 2013)

12
4) Wh-question
Radford (1996) defines wh-questions as questions that normally involve the use of an
interrogative words beginning with wh- (For example: why, what, when, which and
how).

Once the first movement for the generation of the Yes/No question has been done,
to create a wh-question:

13
1. A second movement (WH movement) moves the wh-phrase (wh-PP in this case) to a
position within the CP (Complementiser Position) in front of the auxiliary verb did, as the
left-most constituent of the IP.
2. Following the XP rule, the wh-phrase (wh-PP) takes the place of the specifier within the
CP.
3. Result: ‘When did Byron dance?’

14
METHODOLOGY

The procedure for EA

Ellis (1997) divides the Error Analysis methodology into five steps:
1) Identifying errors
The first step in analyzing learner errors is to identify them. To do so, the
sentences that learners produce have to be compared with the grammatical
sentences in the target that match them. Nevertheless, learners sometimes build
sentences that are possible target-language sentences but not ideal ones.
2) Describing errors
Once errors have been identified, they can be described and categorized into
types. This can be done in many ways:
 Classify errors into grammatical categories.
 Identify general ways in which the learners’ expressions vary from the
rebuilt target-language utterances. Such ways include ‘omission’,
‘misinformation’ and ‘misordering’.
Classifying errors in such ways helps to, in the first place, diagnose learners’
learning problems at any stage of their development. These ways can help us to
diagnose learners’ learning problems at any one stage of their development and,
in second place, to calculate how changes in error patterns occur over time.
3) Explaining errors
Errors are, largely, systematic and, most of the time, predictable. Errors are not
only systematic; many of them are also common. Yet, some errors are common
only to learners who share the same L1 or whose mother tongues display the same
linguistic features. Therefore, errors can have different causes1.
4) Error evaluation
Errors need to be evaluated because some of them -global errors- may interfere
with the intelligibility of what someone says or writes. Teachers will want to put
emphasis on these. Conversely, local errors are less likely to cause comprehension

The stages of analysis included in this work are identification, description and
explanation of errors.
issues.

The subjects
The subjects of the present study are a group of 18 people belonging to the regular
course of English “2°1era” at Instituto Superior ‘Josefina Contte’ whose L1 is
Spanish. The data were collected over a period of six classes of 80 minutes each
from oral production activities. The learners were in between 13 and 14 years of
age. Of the 18 learners, seven were boys and 11 were girls. Their level of proficiency

1 Such sources of error have already been described in the Errors section (p. 5)

15
was elementary. Additionally, the learning context was that of formal instruction
at a language school classroom.

16
ANALYSIS

The focus of this analysis is the productive errors made by the subjects. These errors
concern the simple past question form in oral production tasks.

Step 1: Identifying errors

The samples identified for error analysis are:
1. *When you started to sing?
2. *When you decided you start your career?
3. *You won the award in 2010?

Step 2: Describing errors

Based upon the theoretical framework previously presented, these errors may be
classified according to Corder’s taxonomy as follows:

1. *When [did] you started to sing?

Addition (Morphology): the learner adds a

redundant inflectional morpheme ‘-ed’ to the bare verb.

Omission (Syntax): the learner omits the auxiliary verb ‘did’

after the wh-word in the sentence probably because of its
complexity in production.

2. *When [did] you decided to start your career?

This sample contains the same type of errors as the previous sample.

3. * [Did] You won the award in 2010?

Selection (Morphology): the learner selects the wrong
morpheme for the verb. He uses ‘won’ instead of ‘win’.

Omission (Syntax): the learner omits the auxiliary verb ‘did’ before the
subject of the question probably because of its complexity in
production.

 From the point of view of grammar syntax, that is the level of language involved
in the error, the errors identified are:
a. Local errors: they do not impede the hearer from understanding the
meaning of the sentences. The hearer can effortlessly make a precise guess
about the intended meanings.

17
b. Overt errors: the utterances are ungrammatical at the sentence level.

Step 3: Explaining errors

The errors identified and described above are intralingual errors, that is to say, they
are the result of intralingual transfer from the target language. Therefore, these
errors result from the attempts of the learners to discover the structure of the
language being learned.

Moreover, these errors might be caused by overgeneralization because the learner

seems to create a deviant structure based on another structure in the target
language. In other words, learners use the past simple form of the verb for
declarative statements in questions.

Additionally, the errors might happen due to an incomplete application of rules. This
is to say that the learner fails to fully develop a structure, the structure of a yes-no
question in the past simple form. This type of error is likely to corresponds also to a
the learners’ transitional competence by which learners they seem to change the
grammatical structures they use at different developmental stages on the way of
reaching competence in the target language.

Since acquisition follows a U-shaped course of development, these learners are might
be reconstructing their existing knowledge to accommodate new information and in
this process, they may backslide. However, this does not mean they are regressing
but advancing. The learners may be just working up hypotheses about the past
simple tense question form based on their limited L2 experience. Also, the last
sample presents errors that may have been induced by the linguistic context which is
the classroom. Why so? You need to justify this.

From the point of view of syntax, the subjects seem to have properly acquireD the
rules for the affirmative form of the past simple regular tense (adding –ed to the bare
verb), and then, when building a question, they overgeneralize the rule and do not
eradicate the inflection ‘-ed’ from the verb.

Besides, learners do not apply the inversion transformation to build the yes-no
question. Did is not inserted so inversion is not possible and the –ed inflection is not
removed because the auxiliary did is not present to mark the tense of the sentence.
Therefore, the sentences remain declarative and rising intonation is used to convey
the interrogative function. As a result, learners fail to apply the ‘do insertion’ and,
consequently, ‘do inversion’ transformational processes to create a yes-no question
in the simple past tense. Very good!

18
CONCLUSION
Considering everything the analysis carried out, the two questions posed at the
beginning could be answered. First, the acquisition process of the question form of
the simple past tense is similar but not identical in the L1 and the L2 and so learners
may make errors when developing this particular structure. Second, the factors that
might have influenced the subjects’ acquisition of this grammatical structure are
intralingual sources such as overgeneralization and an incomplete application of rules
due to transitional competence, that is to say, the developmental nature of
acquisition. Additionally, the acquisition of the past simple question form might have
been influenced by the linguistic context in which the oral production of the
questions has been carried out, that is to say, in a classroom. Finally, even though
they have as the subjects’ output contains minor grammatical violations, the errors
do not stop prevent the listener/reader from comprehending the meaning of the
message.

19
LIST OF REFERENCES
 Brown, H.D. (2007). “Cross-Linguistic influence and learner language” in
Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th ed. New York: Longman
Pearson.
 Burton-Roberts, N. (1997). Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English
Syntax: Chapter 9. Longman Publishing Group.
 Corder, S.P. (1975). “Error analysis, interlanguage, and second language
acquisition” in Language Teaching and Linguistic.
 Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. OUP.
 Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N. (2012). An Introduction to Language, 10th
ed. Chapter 2 & 3. New York: Wadsworth Inc Fulfillment.
 Lightbown, P.M., Spada, N (1993). How Languages are Learned. Chapter 4.
Oxford: OUP.
 Lott, D. (1983). “Analysing and counteracting interference errors,” ELT
Journal.
 O’Grady, W. (2009). Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. Chapters 4 &
5. Bedford/St. Martin's: Pearson.
 Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A first course. Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press.
 Richards, J.C. (1971). A Non- Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of
ELT.
 Richards, J.C. (ed.) (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language
acquisition. Essex, England: Longman.
 Selinker, L. (1972). “Interlanguage” in International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching.

Great job, María Sol! You’re done for SLA. Congrats!!

Cheers,
Mariana
10/02/2017

20