Theories on Second

Language Acquisition Focusing on: Krashen and Bialystok

Stephen Krashen a. Acquisition is an automatic process that develops at a subconscious level, due to the need for communication there is no conscious effort on the part of the individual or an emphasis on the formal aspect of the language, but rather on the communicative act. b. Learning is a conscious process, due to the formal knowledge of the language to be acquired. Through this learning the individual can explain the grammatical rules in the target language.

Krashen distinguishes between the "acquisition" and the "learning" of a second language.

A language is "acquired" naturally and unconsciously through its use in real communication. Thus, children are not aware that they are "acquiring" their mother tongue, they only realize that they are communicating with it.

For Krashen (1982:83) the “acquisition” process is independent of “learning”. Despite being a very widespread idea among teachers, Krashen denies that the practice of what is “learned” produces “acquisition”. That is, the "learning" of some grammar rules does not imply that they know how to use them in real communication. The "acquisition" of these grammatical rules follows a natural order that their "learning" fails to modify.

Error correction can affect the conscious “learning” of a language, but not its unconscious “acquisition”. The influence of the mother tongue does not modify the natural order with which a second language is “acquired”. Even though teaching favors the development of "learning" and not the "acquisition" of a language, Krashen and Terrell (1983:27) believe that a language can also be "acquired" in the classroom. If "acquisition" can also be developed in the classroom, the role of the teacher will consist, according to Krashen, in facilitating this process as an objective of teaching.

This position is justified, among other reasons, by the fact that students may know some grammatical rules (“learning”) that they do not use correctly in communicative situations (“acquisition”). The student can "learn" the grammatical rules of a language because of the teacher's formal teaching, but he only "acquires" them according to an internally pre-established natural order.

Krashen's theory of second language “acquisition” is based on five hypotheses. The Distinction Between Acquisition and Learning: The greatest contribution of this hypothesis is that “it posits a distinction between acquisition and learning”. However, Cook has pointed out that there is little evidence to support this distinction.

The Monitor Hypothesis: According to Monitor Hypothesis, the acquisition system and learning system have different roles. Krashen points out that only “acquisition system” can directly promote the development of second language competence and can be used as the production mechanism for language use, while “learning system”, as the result of conscious knowing of the language structure, can only be used as monitor roles in a language use but bot as part of language competence. There are three necessaries, but not sufficient, conditions for the activation of the monitor roles:

• The time the learner needs to select and apply a learned rule.

• The emphasis on correct linguistic production or focus on form.

• The knowledge of the rules, which is determined by the degree of complexity of the same, by the student.

The Natural Order Hypothesis. It is directly related to acquisition and not to learning. Krashen and Terrell said that certain structures will be learned earlier than others. For instance, it has proved that in learning English as a second language, some children or adults would learn the present tense earlier than past tense, learn nouns earlier that the possessives of nouns, etc.

The Input Hypothesis: this hypothesis is the axis of Krashen's theory, for him the acquisition only occurs if the individual is exposed to samples of the target language above their level of linguistic competence. Krashen has pointed that “humans acquire language in only one way---by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input”. Then, the learners can focus more on the comprehension of the meaning or information than in the form. This is where appears the famous formula of “i+1”, where “I” stands for the current level of the learner and “1” refers to the language materials that are slightly higher than the current level of the learners.

According to Krashen (1941) the ideal input is composed by: a. Comprehensibility b. Interesting in relevant c. Not grammatical sequenced: the key point of language acquisition is comprehensible input. d. Sufficient input: To acquire language structure, a few exercises or passages are far from enough.

The Affective Filters in Second Language Acquisition: This captures the relationship between affective variables and the process of second language acquisition, and thus it plays a significant role in the second language acquisition, and the affective factors such as self-confidence, motivation as well as anxiety, which are crucial in second language acquisition process, may accelerate or block the learners´ progress in second language acquisition.

The implication of these five hypotheses for language teaching includes providing the learner with as much comprehensible adduct as possible by carrying out listening and writing comprehension activities in the classroom with the help of charts, drawings and authentic materials, focusing the learners' attention on meaning rather than form, in order to reduce the affective filter. Based on studies such as those of Brown (1973), on the learning of the mother tongue, and that of Dulay and Burt (1974), on the learning of a second language, Krashen (1981) proposes an order in the "acquisition" of grammatical morphemes. The student can "learn" the grammatical rules of a language as a consequence of the teacher's formal teaching, but he only "acquires" them according to an internally pre-established natural order.

Although there are some shortcomings of the Krashen model:

1. Krashen advocates a systematic and phased development in second language learning. However, it does not offer any explanation of why and how these students go through these stages.

2. It is not possible to distinguish which elements are acquired and which are learned. Few researchers have felt the need for a separation between "acquisition" and "learning." Furthermore, and despite Krashen's opinion, for some students in certain situations, learned knowledge can become acquired knowledge after a period of time and use (cf. Sharwood-Smith, 1981).

3. It must be taken into account that the vast majority of second language students only have two or three hours a week, which implies that the amount of "input" they receive is far removed from what children receive when they learn a first language.

4. Krashen do not consider the age factor, which, according to experts, constitutes the most important barrier when it comes to acquiring a second language. Furthermore, the resulting acquisition processes are different and are also influenced by the age factor. Thus, while second language students (before exceeding the age barrier) process the language as something natural, adults also "acquire" the language, but prefer to internalize the rules, that is, in these cases learning takes precedence over buy.

5. For Krashen, the goal of second language acquisition is to gain the ability to communicate with native speakers of the target language. This leaves aside the uses of L2, such as language as a means of communication with other cultures -"international communication"or simply as a purely instrumental means such as, for example, reading books or articles in another language for research purposes., etc.

S. Krashen, who maintains that learning does not lead to purchase, articulates his theory around the formulation of five hypotheses: The acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the comprehensible input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis.

2. The Bialystok Theory

It is the most elaborate cognitive theory of ASL, and it has been formulated based on two different models. The first model (Bialystok, 1978) tries to systematize the approaches that underlie the first proposals of Krashen and McLaughlin (1978), and tries to describe, explain and predict individual differences in the mastery of an L2 in general, and of the different aspects of language in particular based on the distinction of three elements: input, knowledge (understood as information storage) and output.

The operation of this model is explained in terms of universal "processes" (the obligatory relations existing between the different aspects of the model) and in terms of "learning strategies" ("optional means to exploit the available information in order to acquire competence in L2"). Individual learner characteristics would affect the effectiveness with which processes operate and the extent to which learning strategies are used. Leaving aside the teaching method, the motivation or the circumstances of the situation, it is evident that some learners achieve greater success than others (even though their linguistic experiences have been almost the same) and that each learner masters some aspects of the language more easily than others.

This model tries to explain these discrepancies and, specifically, why the stages of learning and the development of skills are different in different students. Information about a language could be represented in three modules or types of information that the individual would put into action when performing a linguistic task: Explicit Linguistic Knowledge, Implicit Linguistic Knowledge, and the Other Knowledge module. The difference between "explicit" and "implicit" knowledge is defined operationally, with respect to its function, rather than its content. The first contains all the conscious factors that the individual has about the language. The second contains the automatic, intuitive and spontaneously used information on which the learner operates to produce an output (either in understanding or in production). Any information can be represented at either level, and different individuals can vary greatly depending on the nature and extent of the information stored at each level. A broad implicit knowledge is associated with a great ability to handle the language; a large explicit knowledge has to do with a broad knowledge of the formal aspects of the language, but it does not necessarily imply the ability to use this information effectively. The hypothesis is that language use operates as a function of implicit knowledge, and that only under special circumstances (for example, when using the "monitor") is explicit knowledge used. The Other Knowledge module does not contain information about the linguistic code, and includes the other types of information that the individual brings to the task (knowledge of other languages, knowledge about the world, etc.).

In Krashen's model there is no way to convert learned information into acquired information, but there is in McLaughlin's and the first Bialystok model (where information stored in Explicit Knowledge is passed to Implicit Knowledge through practice). . However, these terms could suggest that consciousness was a relevant factor. Thus, in the second stage of this theory (Bialystok & Ryan, 1985; Bialystok & Sharwood-Smith, 1985) linguistic ability is described in relation to two dimensions: 1st) An analytical factor: to what extent the language learner he is aware of the structure of his linguistic knowledge. However, the degree of analyticity is not explicitly represented in the mind of the individual: "it is wrong to equate analyzed knowledge with articulated knowledge or knowledge of rules" (Bialystok, 1988: 40).

An automatic factor, characteristic of the early stages of ASL, and which refers to the relative access that the learner has to knowledge; automaticity would come with practice. The individual is unaware of the structure and organization of knowledge, but as learning increases awareness of the L2 system increases, enabling the individual to identify the formal structure of it. According to this theory, formal instruction can help to increase analyzed knowledge: focusing on concrete linguistic forms and encouraging the learner to manipulate them with different degrees of awareness would facilitate restructuring and build propositional representations of L2 knowledge. This would enable him to engage in the kinds of decontextualized use of language that the analyzed knowledge requires. The goal would be awareness, rather than automation through proceduralization, and the process by which knowledge becomes analyzed during the course of ASL is cognitive restructuring.

These two factors are postulated to be independent of each other. Learners would start with non-automatic and non-analyzed knowledge, and the learning context would influence what type of acquisition occurs, with informal learners being more likely to emphasize automaticity, and formal learners analyticity.

Theories on second language acquisition focusing on the following:

Cummins and McLaughlin

The distinction between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) was first introduced by Cummins (1979a). According to Cummins (2013, p. 65), “BICS refers to conversational fluency in a language while CALP refers to students’ ability to understand and express, in both oral and written modes, concepts and ideas that are relevant to success in school”. Later, Cummins (2000c) used the terms conversational/academic language proficiency interchangeably with BICS/CALP. This distinction was largely made to draw attention to the reasons behind the low academic achievement of migrant children in comparison with their native peers. The BICS/CALP dichotomy, proposed by Cummins, has attracted the attention of many educators, syllabus designers, and various educational systems involved in the education of minority migrant children. Though not immune to criticism, this distinction has solved some of the enigmas concerning the education of such children. The BICS/CALP dichotomy, proposed by Cummins, Four Quadrants Model Cummins (1981b) elaborated the BICS/CALP distinction into two intersecting continua that accentuated the range of contextual support and cognitive demands involved in specific language tasks or activities, i.e., contextembedded/context-reduced, and cognitively undemanding/cognitively demanding.

From this, Cummins (2000b) proposed the four quadrants model In this framework the horizontal continuum ranged from context-embedded to context-reduced, and the vertical continuum ranged from cognitively undemanding to cognitively demanding (Cummins, 2013). He has ascribed such scarcity of information to overlooking the interrelationship between language and thought, believing that in determining such a relationship the level of L1 and L2 competence (among other factors) plays a substantial role. Therefore, to provide a theoretical framework for research on the interrelationship between language and though in bilingual children and to give Cummins’ Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis.

This hypothesis has been inspired by studies which consistently indicated significant correlations between L1 and L2 reading abilities (Cummins, 2005, September). In short, the Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis “addresses the functional interdependence between the development of L1 and L2 skills”. (Cummins, 1979b, p. 227). This hypothesis “proposes that the development of competence in a second language (L2) is partially a function of the type of competence already developed in L1 at the time when intensive exposure to L2 begins” (p. 222). That is, for those whose L1 is at a lower stage of growth achieving proficiency in L2 will be more difficult.reasons for different outcomes of immersion and submersion programs, he has postulated two hypotheses: ‘Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis’ and ‘Threshold Hypothesis’. He used the Dual Iceberg metaphor to elucidate the relationship between proficiencies in two languages. According to him, common cross-lingual proficiencies underlie the different surface manifestations of each language. Of course, this figure only provides a general sense of what aspects of languages are interdependent and empirical research is needed to provide much more specific information (Cummins, 2005, September). Based on this notion, Cummins has managed to delineate the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacyrelated proficiency from one language to another. In the same vein, Cummins, found correlations even across quite dissimilar languages (e.g. Japanese and English). This suggests that the CUP should be conceived not just as linguistic proficiency but also in conceptual terms (Cummins, 2005, September). Cummins’.

Threshold Hypothesis: The Threshold Hypothesis deals with the cognitive and academic outcomes of different patterns of bilingual skills (Cummins, 1979b). This hypothesis, according to Cummins and Swain (1986, as cited in Lazaruk, 2007), proposes that the positive cognitive effects of bilingualism are dependent on the linguistic competence in both languages. Such a conclusion was based on Cummins’s (1979b) survey of the results of several studies on bilingualism, which revealed rather contradictory (both negative and positive) cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION. Although the BICS/CALP distinction was developed partially in response to Oller’s simplistic view of unitary language proficiency (Cummins, 2008), Anderson (2011) believes that CALP itself is also suffering from the same flaw. Also, the distinction between BICS and CALP has been criticized by many scholars.

Barry McLaughlin

Biography

His research interests include second-language acquisition in adults and children. He has published Second-language acquisition in childhood. Volume 1: Preschool children, Second-language acquisition in childhood. Volume 2: Schoolage children, and Theories of second-language learning. McLaughlin has served as consultant on bilingual matters for the California State Department of Education and has published numerous articles on second-language learning and bilingualism. He was Director of the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning and Director of the Bilingual Research Group at the University of California, Santa Cruz. McLaughlin received his bachelor's and master's degrees from St. Louis University and did his graduate work at Harvard, where he earned a Ph.D. in social psychology. (Short Biography. s,f. p.1)

Restructuring of the language

Mclaughlin argues about “cognitive psychological approach to second language phenomena, that emphasizes the importance of the development of automaticity and the process of restructuring…practice can lead to improvement in performance as sub-skills become automated… Cognitive approach is not seen as competitive but as complementary approaches to second language development.”

(Restructuring, paragraph 1. p,1).

Cognitive approach is the contemporary of behaviorism. Mclaughlin explain that: “the cognitive approach, in contrast to behaviorism, stresses the notion that the individual is active, constructive, and planful, rather than a passive recipient of environmental stimulation.”

(Restructuring. paragraph 4. p,1).

Furthermore, Mclaughlin said that: “The cognitive approach emphasizes mental structure or organization. The argument is that human knowledge is organized, and that new input is interpreted in the light of this organization.” (Restructuring, paragraph 3. p,1)

Controlled Processing andAutomatic processing

Mclaughlin explain in his work that controlled processing “requires a great deal of attention…. After one has practice the task, components of these skills become automatic, and controlled processing is require only in unusual cases.” (Restructuring, paragraph 6. p,2)

Controlled processing requires attention and takes time, but through practice, sub-skills become automatic and controlled processes are free to be allocated to higher levels of processing. (Mclaughlin, Restructuring, paragraph 2. p,3)

As skill must be practice again and again and again, until no attention is required for its performance. “Repetitio est mater stadium.” (Mclaughlin. Restructuring. paragraph,5. p,3)

Examples:

• A schizophrenic patient that can move without think of it first. He had to move thinking step by step, nothing automatic.

• Like driving in an icy road.

• Daily lives activities.

We performed numerous complex tasks in our daily lives automatically, without thinking about them.

“Tasks are characterized by a hierarchical structure. That is, such tasks consist of sub-tasks and their components…tasks require the completion of various smaller components.” (McLaughlin, Restructuring, paragraph 3. p,3)

Three stages of learning a second language:

1. The learner masters the rules governing symbol-sound correspondences in the target language.

2. The learner uses those rules in learning words and must progressively refine the automate word-decoding operations.

p,1)

Examples: The memory of a computer, where every field or program is used to communicate.

3. Building on automated decoding skills, the learner must acquire, and perfect complex set of processing skills that allows for a rapid processing of incoming material and the extraction meaning. (McLaughlin, Restructuring, paragraph 1. P,5)

Mclaughlin marks that: “Beginner’s readers…. process the text word by word, not using contextual semantic…” (Restructuring, paragraph 2. P,5)

They have not used the shift or restructuring process yet.

The Restructuring Concept

In his work Mclaughlin wanted to make clear that restructuring makes changes in the cognitive system, clarify that: “Restructuring is characterized by discontinuous, or qualitative, change as the child moves from stage to stage in development. Each new stage constitutes a new internal organization and not merely the addition of new structural elements”. (Restructuring. paragraph 5. p,5).

To simplify McLaughlin said that: “Restructuring can be seen as a process in which the components of a task are coordinated, integrated, or reorganize into new units.” (Restructuring, paragraph 2, p 6).

Snapshot problem

“That is developmental psychologists became concerned that their knowledge of cognitive growth consisted of a series of snapshots of the child´s abilities at various points in development, but that they knew little about how the child progressed from snapshot to snapshot”. (Mclaughlin, Restructuring. paragraph 1. p,6)

Examples of restructuring: Linguistic Developments:

Moreover, Mclaughlin demonstrate that “Withing the lexical domain development in a second language consist of mapping two lexical and conceptual systems onto each other… Two languages may differ in the number and nature of distinctions made within a common, shared concept or in the linguistic distinctions made between semantic categories”. (Restructuring, paragraph 3. p,10)

Example. Dutch and English and the uses of break

Mechanism of transitional shifts: Off-line (occur without the child´s awareness) and On-line (require attention)

Strategy shifts

It is explained by Mclaughlin that: “A common Strategy adopted by young second language learners…is to memorize formulas… Some children are capable of amazing feats of imitation, producing multi-word utterances, which, it turns out, they understand only vaguely. Such unanalyzed chunks appear to show evidence of a sophisticated knowledge of the lexicon and syntax, but it has become clear that such holistic learning is a communicative strategy that second language learners use to generate input from native speakers.” (Restructuring, paragraph 1. p,11).

The learner has at this point adopted a new strategy, one of rule analysis and consolidation. (Mclaughlin, paragraph 2. P,11).

Example: Chess.

Other example was comparing multilingual, bilingual and monolingual to learn a new linguistic system.

In addition of the last example, Mclaughlin said that: “In a longer run, multilingual subjects would be expected to perform better on vocabulary and rule learning, precisely because of their superior ability to shift strategies and restructure their internal representations of the linguistics system”. (Restructuring. paragraph 2. P,13)

To conclude Mclaughlin remarks that: “operations become automatic through practice… There are qualitative changes that occur as learners shift strategies and restructure their internal representations of the target language”. (Restructuring. paragraph 3. P,13)

Practice can have two very different effects. It can lead to improvement in performance as sub skills become automated, but it is also possible for increased practice to lead to restructuring and attendant decrements in performance as learners reorganize their internal representational framework…Practice do not accrue directly or automatically to a skilled action, but rather cumulate as learners develop more efficient procedures”. (Mclaughlin, Restructuring, paragraph 4-5. P,13-14).

According to the theories and recently approaches one remarkable area of research into second language acquisition is the nature and properties of the second language learner’s knowledge and use of the target language grammar commonly known as interlanguage. The term “interlanguage” (IL) was first coined by Selinker, L. Which refers to the language system created by the foreign language learner based on the linguistic input accessible to him. Selinker proposed that a linguistic system (interlanguage, IL) underlies L2 learner’s language which he produces in his attempt to communicate meaningfully in the target language. This system has a structure different from the learner’s native and the target languages and ought to be investigated to associate the psychological processes influencing interlanguage over time.

Today, idiosyncratic dialect, approximation system, and interlanguage refer to the same phenomenon used interlanguage to refer to the systematic knowledge of language which is independent of both the learner’s native language and the target language. Recently, (2007, p. 256) defines interlanguage as “the separateness of a second language learner’s system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native language and the target language”. L2 learners’ native and target languages have independent linguistic systems, the learner, at this level of second language development, forms what Brown calls the learner’s self-contained linguistic system which is neither the system of the native language nor the target language. These interim systems are regularly revised by L2 learners to adapt new hypotheses to the target language.

Characteristics:

1-Interlanguage is dynamic and permeable. It serves as a bridge between L1 and L2 when learners lack knowledge and fine mastery of rules, but over time, learners progress. They refine certain rules and obtain new ones. Their competence changes and their interlanguage start to reflect those changes. First, they may say: ''I no swimming,'' which later becomes: ''I don't swim,'' until it reaches perfection: ''I don't swim.'' The process of constant extension and revision of rules reflects IL's tendency to change. IL's rules are not fixed: they're altered, deleted, or added.

2-Interlanguage is systematic. Although different learners have different interlanguage, they all have their own rules within their variations. They may not align with the actual rules but they are systematic: ''I received money, I buyed a new car, and I selled it.'' Rules are set in predictable ways.

3-Interlanguage is variable. Learner's performance is variable. They may apply the same rule differently in separate contexts or domains. Accuracy and fluency vary across occasions as learners have alternative rules for the same function. In a classroom setting, where the learner is focused on producing grammatically correct sentences, they may say: ''I don't drink coffee.'' In a spontaneous conversation, the same meaning can be expressed as: ''I no drink coffee.'

Interlanguage formation:

There are five agreed -upon factors that are believed to shape how learners ‘create interlanguage: overgeneralization, learning strategies, language transfer of training and communication strategies.

In other hand intralingual error is an error that takes place due to a particular misuse of a particular rule of the target language, it is, in fact, quite the opposite of Interlingual error, it puts the target language into focus, the target language in this perspective is thought of as an error cause. Furthermore, J. Richard, et al. (2002) consider it as one which results from ‘’faulty or partial’’ learning of the target language. (p.267) thus the intralingual error is classified as follow:

Overgeneralizations: in linguistics, overgeneralizations error occur when the speaker applies a grammatical rule in cases where it doesn’t apply. Richard et al, (2002) mentioned that they are caused ‘’by extension of target language rules to inappropriate context.’’ (P.185). this kind of errors have been committed while dealing with regular and irregular verbs, as well as the application of plural forms. E.g. (Tooth == Tooths rather than teeth) and (he goes == he goed rather than went).

Simplifications: they result from learners producing simpler linguistic forms than those found in the target language, in other words, learners attempt to be linguistically creative and produce their own poetic sentences/utterances, they may actually be successful in doing it, but it is not necessary the case, Corder (as cited in Mahmoud 2014:276) mentioned that learners do not have the complex system which they could simplify. This kind of errors is committed through both of Omission and addition of some linguistic elements at the level of either the Spelling or grammar.

A. Mahmoud (2014) provided examples based on a research conducted on written English of Arabicspeaking second year University students: Spelling: omission of silent letters: no (= know) * dout (= doubt) * weit (weight)

Grammar and Omission: We wait ^ the bus all the time. He was ^ clever and has ^ understanding father.

Addition: Students are do their researches every semester. Both the boys and the girls they can study together.

Developmental errors: this kind of errors is somehow part of the overgeneralizations, (this later is subtitled into Natural and developmental learning stage errors), D.E are results of normal pattern of development, such as (come = comed) and (break = breaked), D.E indicates that the learner has started developing their linguistic knowledge and fail to reproduce the rules they have lately been exposed to in target language learning.

Errors of avoidance: these errors occur when the learner fail to apply certain target language rules just because they are thought of to be too difficult.

Induced errors: as known as transfer of training, errors caused by misleading teaching examples, teachers, sometimes, unconditionally, explain a rule without highlighting the exceptions or the intended message they would want to convey. J. Richard et al. (2002) provided an example that occurs at the level of teaching prepositions and particularly ‘’ at ‘’ where the teacher may hold up a box and say ‘’ I am looking at the box ‘’, the students may understand that ‘’ at ‘’ means ‘’ under ‘’, they may later utter ‘’ the cat is at the table ‘’ instead of the cat is under the table. Errors of overproduction: in the early stages of language learning, learners are supposed to have not yet acquired and accumulated a satisfied linguistic knowledge which can enable them to use the finite rules of the target language in order to produce infinite structures, most of the time, beginners overproduce, in such a way, they frequently repeat a particular structure.

Intralingual Error Interference from the student’s own language is not the only reason for committing errors. Students may make mistake in the target language, since they do not know the target language very well, they have difficulties in using it. Richard (1974: 6) states, intralingual interference refers to items produced by learner, which reflect not the structure of mother tongue, but generalization based on partial exposure of the target language. Brown (1980: 162) said that it has been found that the early stages of language learning are characterized by a predominance of interlingual transfer, but once that learner has begun to acquire parts of the new system, more and more transfer generalization within the target language is manifested. Richard (1974: 120) classifies the intralingual errors into four categories including over generalization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of the rules, and false concept hypothesized or semantic errors.

1:) Overgeneralization it happens when a learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other structure in the target language. Littlewood (1984) cites the example of forming plural by adding “s” to even irregular plurals, also generalizing the “-ed” past form.

2) Ignorance of Rule Restrictions: James (1998: 63) that ignorance is specific in the sense that one is normally said to be ignorant of structure; the learner of the second language does not obey the structure of the target language. In this type of error, the learner fails to observe the restrictions of existing structures. Some rule restriction errors may be accounted for in terms of analogy and may result from the role learning of rules.

3) Incomplete Application of the Rules: this error may occur when learner fails to apply the rules completely due to the stimulus sentence.

4) False Concept Hypothesized: learners’ faulty understanding of distinctions of target language items leads to false conceptualization.