Language Transfer: Types of Linguistic Errors Committed by Francophones Learning English as a Second Foreign Language

Kornelia Choroleeva, Bulgaria Kornelia Choroleeva is a senior lecturer at the University of Food Technologies, Bulgaria. She is interested in ELT methods, English for Specific urposes, translation theory and practice, and sociolinguistics. E!mail" #$choroleeva%yahoo.com enu &'stract (ntroduction &c)uisition of multiple languages Categori*ation of learner errors honological interference +rthographic interference Le,ical interference -rammatical interference Conclusions .eferences !bstract The present paper dra/s the attention of English language teachers to a list of some recurrent learner errors /ithout insisting on its 'eing e,haustive. The analysis is 'ased on the linguistic errors committed 'y francophones studying English as an L0 at an institution of higher education. The focus is on L1 transfer manifested in phonological, orthographic, le,ical and grammatical interference. 2iscourse errors as /ell as grammatical errors such as choice of tense and mood are disregarded 'ecause they need a more thorough analysis. The paper /as motivated 'y the learners3 communicative performance in class, the oral presentations delivered 'y them as /ell as 'y their /ritten assignments and /ritten e,aminations. "ntroduction (n the period 4567s 8 4597s language ac)uisition /as studied on the 'asis of the systematic comparison of languages that /as to delineate points of similarity and difference 'et/een native languages and target ones in order to improve pedagogy. The contrastive analysis hypothesis postulated the e,istence of positive transfer, resulting from similarity 'et/een languages, and negative transfer :or language interference;, stemming from difference 'et/een languages. The serious limitations of the contrastive analysis hypothesis, /hich failed to predict some learner errors and predicted errors that did not materiali*e, /ere nevertheless useful in that they focused researchers3 attention on the e,planation of learner errors rather than on their prediction. recisely at that time Choms#y 'rought to the fore the notion of universal grammar claiming that human learning in general and language ac)uisition in particular are e,plaina'le in terms of an innate human capacity aiding the generation of an infinite num'er of sentence patterns. <ence, it turned out that language ac)uisition is a product of rule formation 'ecause learners form hypotheses a'out target language rules and test them in practice.

Choms#y3s nativist theory paved the /ay for Error &nalysis and it then 'ecame possi'le for Corder to point out =>that some at least of the strategies adopted 'y the learner of a second language are su'stantially the same as those 'y /hich a first language is ac)uired? :S. . Corder, in @. C. .ichards, 4551" 11;. Corder also made a distinction 'et/een learner mista#es, =the selection of the /rong style, dialect or variety?, and learner errors, /hich =result in unaccepta'le utterances and appear as 'reaches of the code? :S. . Corder, 45A0" 1B5;. Learner mista#es and errors came to 'e vie/ed from a more positive perspective, as 'eing an indispensa'le device for learning /ith the help of /hich learners test hypotheses and correct them in order to ac)uire a language. The psychology of second language ac)uisition :SL&; /as also studied from the vantage point of learner interlanguage, a notion referred to 'y Corder and Cemser as idiosyncratic dialect and approximative system, respectively. (nterlanguage, more easily visuali*ed as a continuum 'et/een the native :L4; and the target :L1; language, /as defined 'y Selin#er as a =psychological structure? /hich is =latent in the 'rain, activated /hen one attempts to learn a second language? :L. Selin#er, in @. C. .ichards, 4551" 00;. Selin#er also maintained the e,istence of five central processes 'elonging to this latent psychological structure /hich 'ear upon second language learning" language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second language learning, strategies of second language communication, and overgenerali*ation of target language linguistic material. <e claimed that the mastery of a second language largely depends on the degree of fossilization of linguistic items, rules, and su'systems in learner interlanguage. !c#uisition of multiple languages For the purpose of the present paper, it is necessary to ma#e a distinction 'et/een native language :L4; transfer and first foreign language :L1; transfer 'ecause the learners analy*ed are francophones studying English as a second foreign language :L0; at a Bulgarian institution of higher education, i.e. the learners have some competence in more than one foreign language. This is 'est descri'ed as multilingual acquisition, i.e. =the ac)uisition of languages other than the first or second? :Ceno*, 455A;. Ceno* :455A; points out that, although multilingual ac)uisition is often considered as a variation of 'ilingualism and SL&, it is in fact more comple, than the latter 'ecause it depends not only on the factors and processes involved in SL& 'ut also on the interactions 'et/een the multiple languages 'eing learned. Doreover, =EtFhere is also more diversity and comple,ity in multilingual ac)uisition E>F if /e consider other factors such as the age /hen the different languages are ac)uired, the environment in /hich each of the languages is ac)uired, or the typological distance among the languages involved? :Ceno*, 455A" 1AG;. To 'e more specific, a variant of multilingual ac)uisition is third language ac)uisition /hich might 'e envisaged as a triad in /hich the interactions 'et/een L1 and L0 are reciprocal, /hereas those 'et/een L4 and L1, L4 and L0 are pro'a'ly 'est visuali*ed as unidirectional if L4 is the learner3s native language 'ecause /hatever influence L1 and L0 might e,ert on the mother tongue it might 'e less significant /hen compared to the influence of L4 on L1 and L0.

L4

L1

L0 Diagram. Multilingual acquisition of languages Third language ac)uisition is influenced not only 'y the factors mentioned a'ove 'ut also 'y the order in /hich the three languages are studied. Hith SL&, there are only t/o possi'ilities" L4 and L1 are studied either in succession or simultaneously. Hith L0 ac)uisition, there are at least four possi'le ac)uisition orders" i; the three languages are ac)uired one after the other :L4IL1IL0;J ii; L1 and L0 are ac)uired simultaneously after L4 :L4IL,KLy;J iii; L4 and L1 are ac)uired simultaneously 'efore L0 :L,KLyIL0;, and iv; the learner is in simultaneous contact /ith the three languages :L,KLyKL*; :Ceno*, 1777;. (t is /orth esta'lishing in su'se)uent research ho/ the four ac)uisition orders affect the francophones3 learning process of English as an L0 as /ell as /hat relevance they have on L1 transfer. Categori$ation of learner errors Learner errors can 'e categori*ed in terms of various criteria. Interlingual errors are said to occur due to L4 interference, /hereas intralingual errors are committed regardless of L4 :2. Larsen!Freeman and D. Long, 4554;. Corder ma#es a distinction 'et/een expressive and receptive errors /hich are manifestations of e,pressive and receptive 'ehaviour and depend upon #no/ledge of the =formation rules? of a language" =(nade)uate #no/ledge of these rules /ill therefore sho/ itself in 'oth sorts of 'ehaviour. But it is much easier to detect imperfect #no/ledge in the case of e,pressive 'ehaviour. E,pression leaves traces transient, 'ut recorda'le, in the case of speech, permanent in the case of /riting.? :Corder, 45A0" 194;. Doreover, Corder spells out the /idespread ='elief? among teachers that learners3 receptive a'ilities usually e,ceed their productive ones, /hich is pro'a'ly due to the fact that failures in comprehension are easier to detect in e,pression rather than reception. &s a result of this, it is difficult to esta'lish the relations 'et/een e,pressive and receptive errors, so it might 'e that learners3 receptive a'ilities are actually overestimated. (t is also possi'le to categori*e learner errors on the 'asis of the linguistic levels testifying to their manifestation. Lee :4557;, for instance, ela'orates on the follo/ing classification of learner errors" L Grammatical (morphosyntactic) errors, /hich stress the need for grammatical accuracy in 'oth speech and /riting, may hinder communication 'ut errors at the sentence level =often reflect performance =mista#es? for /hich immediate teacher correction is not necessarily appropriate? :Lee, 4557" B5;. L Discourse errors are dependa'le upon the o'servance of the rules of spea#ing and /riting and reflect learners3 cultural and pragmatic #no/ledge of language use.

L Phonologically induced errors are manifested in /rong pronunciation andKor intonationJ in the case of English studied as a foreign language such errors necessitate timely correction on the part of the teacher 'ecause vo/el length, voiced and voiceless last consonants, /ord stress, etc. may have a meaning!differentiating function, as in live!leave, leave!leaf" exit (n.)!exit (v.), and so on. L #exical errors, in com'ination /ith errors 'elonging to the other linguistic levels, may also hamper communication and intelligi'ility. %honological interference (t is manifested in spea#ing and reading and is usually indicated 'y recourse to /ord stress, intonation and speech sounds typical of French /hich influence the ac)uisition of English. : yun :in Dehlhorn, 177A; claims that language learners3 interlanguage o/es phonological #no/ledge to L4 rules, L1 :first foreign language; rules, L0 :foreign language 'eing studied; rules, and =interrules?, the latter descri'ed as ='ridges? 'et/een the already ac)uired languages and L0.; 4. The initial =h? is not pronounced, e.g." hemisphere EMemisfiNF instead of EMhemisfiNF, hotel EoMtelF instead of EhNuMtelF, etc. +ccasionally, the non!initial EhF sound is also omitted, as in alcohol EMal#oolF. (n French, the letter =h? is al/ays silent. (n English, initial =h? is almost al/ays pronounced although omitting the initial =h? sound the learner may occasionally =hit the target? unintentionally, as /ill 'e the case /ith the /ord hour EMauNF, for instance, as /ell as /ith loan/ords from French, e.g." hors d$oeuvre. (t must also 'e pointed out, ho/ever, that at times learners employ an overcompensation strategy pronouncing the initial =h? sound in English /ords featuring a silent EhF, e.g." hour EMhauNF instead of EMauNF. 1. The prefi,es :or sylla'les; =in!=, =en!= and =im!= are sometimes pronounced as Ea"nFKEa"mF or /ith a vo/el intermediate 'et/een Ea"F and Eo"F /hich is usually nasali*ed. The mar#edly French pronunciation may 'e accompanied 'y a last sylla'le stress /hich is in accordance /ith the French fi,ed /ord stress pattern. &s far as French is concerned, the maOor positions of nasali*ed vo/els are t/o" at the end of /ords, preceding the consonants =n? and =m?, and 'efore the consonants =n? and =m? /hen they are follo/ed 'y another consonant :Di#hov, 4551;. 0. The =g? sound in the =gn? consonant cluster is omitted /hen its pronunciation is e,pected, e.g." significant EsiMPifi#NntF instead of EsiMgPifi#NntF. (n French, the letter =g? at the end of /ords is usually silent, /ith the e,ception of 'orro/ings such as %oomerang. The =gn? group of letters usually represents a palatali*ed EnF phone :Di#hov, 4551;, as in montagne :=mountain?;, so it is possi'le to speculate that learners su'consciously transfer this pronunciation pattern into English. 6. The =!ure? ending in polysylla'ic /ords is pronounced as EOuNF, e.g." literature EliterNMtOuNF instead of EMlitritQNF, again /ith a change of /ord stress. Compare, for e,ample, /ith the pronunciation of the French voiture :=automo'ile, car?;. B. The =u? sound is omitted in the =ui? vo/el cluster as /ell as in the EuNF diphthong, as represented 'y the =)ui?K=)ue?K=)ua? group of letters, e.g." equipment EiM#ipmNntF instead of EiM#uipmNntF, frequently EMfri#NntliF instead of EMfri#uNntliF, equal EMi#NlF instead of EMi#uNlF.

This is pro'a'ly due to the fact that in French orthography the letter com'inations =)u? and =c)u? stand for a phoneme variant of E#F :Di#hov, 4551;. 9. The final EsF or E*F, represented 'y the letter =s?, are often not pronounced in reading e,ercises although students certainly see the graphic manifestation of these sounds. This happens no matter /hether at the end of the /ord there is an accumulation of fricatives or not and the tendency applies to all parts of speech. (n French, final =s? is usually not pronounced, as in trois, despite the many e,ceptions to the rule. Hhile spea#ing, students tend to omit it as /ell 'ut this is usually indicative of their lac# of practice in communication or the lac# of #no/ledge a'out the grammatical function of the English final =s? morpheme. A. The =ch? grouping of letters is sometimes pronounced as EQF instead of EtQF, e.g." achieve ENMQi"vF instead of ENMtQi"vF. The influence of French is pro'a'ly to 'lame in such cases ta#ing into account the pronunciation of French /ords such as &ha%lis EQa'MliF, chose EMQo*F :=thing?;, etc. (n French, EQF is typically denoted 'y =ch? and less often 'y =sh? :Di#hov, 4551;, the latter pro'a'ly concerning loans from English or other languages. Hith chemistry pronounced as EMtQemistriF instead of EM#emistriF, ho/ever, the fault might 'e traced 'ac# to the influence of Bulgarian, considering the long!esta'lished practice in transliterating the Bulgarian letter =R? :pronounced as EtQF; in proper names as =ch?, as in the family name &hernev :STUVTW;. G. English /ords demonstrating an o'vious resem'lance to French counterparts tend to 'e pronounced =the French /ay?, e.g." different EdifeMro"nF, /here the stress falls on the last sylla'le featuring a nasali*ed vo/el. :Compare /ith the French diff'rent.; (n this particular e,ample the English /ord originates from the Latin differre :=to set apart, differ?; having influenced the +ld French diferer. 5. Ed], /hen denoted 'y the letter =O?, is pronounced as EF, as in the French (our, e.g." su%(ect EMsX'e#tF instead of EMsX'de#tF, major [`mejN"F instead of EMmeOdN"F,

etc.

47. The =!us? ending is pronounced as E!OusF instead of E!NsF, e.g." sylla%us EsilNM'OusF instead of EMsilN'NsF, /ith a transfer of the stress on the last sylla'le. 44. The incorrect pronunciation of /ords featuring diphthongs may give rise to pro'lems in intelligi'ility and communication, e.g." EM'reinF instead of EM'rainF :compare %rain!%rine;, etc. <o/ever, it is hard to generali*e /hether these phonologically!induced errors are due to native language interference, to first foreign language interference or simply to the lac# of #no/ledge a'out the phonological rules of English. (t seems plausi'le to mention that the =ail? com'ination of vo/els in French tends to 'e pronounced as EaiF, /hereas =ais? at the end of /ords represents a short variant of the vo/el EeF, e.g." vrais :=true?;, travailler :=to /or#?;. (n English =ai? is usually pronounced as EeiF, as in Mc&ain, train, pertain, rail)ay, etc. 41. The replacement of short vo/els /ith long ones and vice versa may also alter the meaning of the /ord or e,pression, as in EM'ri"dF instead of EM'redF :compare %reed!%read;, EMQipF instead of EMQi"pF :compare ship!sheep;, etc. 40. (t also seems that francophone learners of English tend to have pro'lems /ith the pronunciation of EYF and EZF, graphically represented 'y =th? in /ords such as thin*" thought"

there" then, etc. Since in French the tip of the tongue is not used, learners opt for the consonants EtF and EdF pronouncing then as EMdenF, thin* as EMtiP#F, etc. 2ou'tlessly, there are much more repetitive pronunciation patterns 'ut it seems that the a'ove!mentioned ones are most fre)uently manifested. &part from them, ho/ever, one must also note the students3 tendency to 'e occasionally over!careful /hile reading English te,ts. This tendency is t/ofold. Students3 mechanical reproduction of the te,t at times ironically results in /hat might 'e termed an English pronunciation of French /ords. (t is illustrated, firstly, in the pronunciation of French proper names mentioned in English te,ts, e.g." +ules is pronounced as EMdu"lsF instead of [`julF, Charles (as in Charles Perot) as

[`ta:ls] instead of [`a:l], etc. Secondly, students might be misled by the obvious esemblance bet!een "nglish and # ench !o ds, !hich ha$$ens !hen an "nglish !o d is a bo o!ing f om # ench. %n such cases "nglish may o may not have $ ese ved the # ench $ onunciation but students occasionally o$t fo an "nglish o a # ench $ onunciation de$ending on !hethe they have enough e&$e ience !ith the !o d in 'uestion. %f they tend to $ onounce different the (# ench) !ay, then they sometimes $ efe the ("nglish) $ onunciation !hen this is the ! ong choice. Such an e&am$le is chef !hich should be $ onounced as [`ef], not as [`tef]. *his $ onunciation e o is $ obably due to the fact that students do not distinguish chef f om chief, the latte being $ onounced as [`ti:f]. +oth !o ds o iginate f om # ench, the fo me being sho t fo chef de cuisine ((head of the ,itchen)) to be t aced bac, to the -ld # ench chief ((leade , ule )), !he eas the latte has $ ese ved the s$elling of -ld # ench chief albeit !ith a meaning diffe ent f om that of chef in .ode n "nglish.
&rthographic interference (t is manifested in ! iting and involves alte ation of the s$elling of

!o ds unde the influence of # ench:

L *he addition of an e&t a (/e) at the end of !o ds, e.g.: closenesse

instead of closeness, groupe instead of group, seniore instead of senior, Greeke instead of Greek, etc. in !hich case the "nglish !o d ac'ui es a silent (e), as in make, wake, cake, and so on. %t is !o th $ointing out that the silent (e) might also occu in a $ost/mo $hemic $osition, as in postegraduate.
L *he ado$tion of a # ench suffi& such as ique, /eur, and oire, e.g.:

refrigeratoire and refrigerateur instead of refrigeration.

Le'ical interference (t is manifested in s$ea,ing and ! iting and is

e$ esented by the bo o!ing of # ench !o ds !hich may o may not be conve ted to

sound mo e natu al in "nglish. # anco$hone lea ne s of "nglish tend to use # ench !o ds in o de to fill in the e&isting ga$s in thei ,no!ledge of "nglish vocabula y, e.g.: Belgique instead of Belgium, chimie instead of chemistry, Refrigerateur Engineering instead of Refrigeration Engineering, physique instead of physics (=the 'ranch of
science concerned /ith the study of properties and interactions of space, time, matter and energy?;, etc. &s regards the latte e&am$le, the e e&ists the $ossibility that !hat is

ado$ted is not the # ench !o d but the mo $heme ique although this seems a less $lausible e&$lanation. *he "nglish physics stems f om the # ench !o d !hich, in tu n, o iginates f om the 0atin physicus (($hysical, $hysicist)). *he $ oblem !ith this e&am$le is t!ofold because the "nglish language also ,ee$s the !o d physique !hich means (the natu al constitution, o $hysical st uctu e, of a $e son) and in face/to/face inte action the e$lacement of one !o d !ith the othe may lead to misunde standing. (#i th and 1agne (in Seidlhofe , 2334) $ ovide an e&am$le of le&ically/induced misunde standing bet!een a 5anish lea ne of "nglish and a native s$ea,e of "nglish, illust ating the influence of the native language !hich is eso ted to by the 5anish lea ne as a communication st ategy: he o she uses the 5anish !o d historie instead of the "nglish story and the native s$ea,e ! ongly assumes that !hat is meant is the subject history, !he eas the 5anish s$ea,e sim$ly !ants to say that he o she li,es eading sto ies.) *he efo e, the "nglish physique and the # ench physique a e actually false f iends (fau& amis) because they diffe in meaning although they loo, and sound the same. 0anguage t ansfe in le&is is negative usually !hen a !o d fo m in one language is ve y simila o identical to a !o d fo m in anothe language but the simila ity of fo m is actually su$e ficial: such $ai s of !o ds a e ,no!n as false friends fau! amis o false cognates (!o ds in t!o diffe ent languages !hich a e ! ongly assumed to o iginate f om a common oot).
&nother instance of le,ical inte fe ence is the t ansfe

of function !o ds such as $ e$ositions, conjunctions, dete mine s, and $ onouns, !hich most often ha$$ens unintentionally. *he f anco$hones unde study tend to $ oduce et instead of and and par instead of per o for.
&nother tendency demonstrated 'y francophone learners of English as a second foreign language, /hich has to do /ith the mastery of English le,is, deserves to 'e mentioned in passing simply as a point of curiosity. &t the University of Food Technologies in Bulgaria the education in foreign languages aims at e,posing students to speciali*ed voca'ulary depending on /hether they are maOoring in Food Technology, Food Engineering, or Tourism and Catering. Therefore, francophone students are e,pected to master 'asic food and coo#ing terms in 'oth French and English classes. Deat!related terms are part of this speciali*ed voca'ulary and francophone learners of English most often than not fail to remem'er at least

t/o English =meat!/ords?, namely mutton and %eef. This is a stri#ing fact considering the o'vious resem'lance 'et/een the English mutton and the French mouton, the English %eef and the French %oeuf, especially 'ecause francophone learners of English usually associate unfamiliar English /ords /ith =similar? French ones in order to find out /hat the former mean. The English language 'orro/ed 'oth terms 8 from the +ld French moton and %oef, respectively. The English teacher is left to /onder if the students3 failure to learn 'oth terms is to 'e attri'uted to the fact that students are not ac)uainted /ith their French counterparts, /hich is pro'a'ly not the case, 'ecause students usually manage to produce the term veal, also of French origin :cf. +ld French veel, Dodern French veau;. &nother e,planation is pro'a'ly the fact that the French =meat!/ords? in general, and mouton and %oeuf in particular, also denote the animals providing the respective type of meat, /hereas this is not the case /ith their English counterparts. (rammatical interference L1 influences L0 in terms of /ord order, use of pronouns and determiners, tense and mood" L There are modifications to /ord order attri'uta'le to the influence of French, most often illustrated in the placement of adOectives after nouns in noun phrases. (n French, most adOectives go after the /ord they modify. Such /ord order is not typical of English /here fe/ clich[d phrases denoting diplomatic ran#s feature nouns in the primary position, e.g." am%assador extraordinary and plenipotentiary :=a representative of the head of state?;, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary :=a diplomatic representative /ith plenipotentiary po/ers ran#ing 'elo/ an am'assador?;, and minister resident :=the lo/est ran# of full diplomatic mission chief?;. &nother instance is court martial :=a military court for trials of armed forces personnel?;. E,amples of unnatural noun!phrase /ord order in English are chemistry inorganique and chemistry inorganic, produced instead of inorganic chemistry, in the first case the final result 'eing an odd interlanguage variant com'ining an English noun /ith a French adOective. L Concerning /ord order at the sentence level, francophone students tend to place the ver' 'efore the su'Oect in English 'ut this is pro'a'ly due to native language interference 'ecause /ord order in Bulgarian is more fle,i'le than that in 'oth English and French /here /ord order is relatively fi,ed and follo/s the su%(ect!ver%!o%(ect pattern. This leads to the generation of sentences of the type ,-ostel. is a place )here live students. Conclusions 2espite the limitations of the three language ac)uisition research vie/points outlined a'ove, namely the contrastive analysis hypothesis, nativist theories, and the interlanguage hypothesis, the focus on learner errors is nevertheless useful to language teachers as a means of enhancing teaching methodology, provided that 'oth teachers and linguists refrain from overgenerali*ation and the search for a unitary source of an error. &n a/areness of the types of errors learners tend to commit is necessary for language teachers so that they are a'le to properly and timely correct inappropriate and unaccepta'le utterances. Unfortunately, as regards language transfer, it is simply not possi'le for language teachers to 'e ac)uainted, even partially, /ith all /orld languages in order to identify une)uivocally the source of errors. Therefore, regarding L4 and L1 transfer, teachers should pro'a'ly try to at least prevent the so!called fossili*ation of interlanguage linguistic material /hile #eeping in mind that the fossili*ation of one linguistic item or rule may 'ring a'out the fossili*ation of other linguistic

items or rules, especially if learners feel that the errors they commit are no o'stacle to communication. Concerning francophone learners of English as a second foreign language, it must 'e noted that even if orthographic interference is successfully dealt /ith, 'y means of dictations or plenty of /ritten assignments, phonologically!induced interference and le,ical interference posit graver pro'lems to the teacher. +n the /hole, this is e,plaina'le in terms of the historical development of French and English. The former is part of the .omance su'group of (ndo!European languages, /hereas the latter 'elongs to the -ermanic 'ranch. Since the t/o languages have 'een in contact at different stages of their development and for )uite long periods of time, the origin of over A7\ of the English voca'ulary can 'e traced 'ac# to French and Latin, the ancestor of all (talic languages. &t first glance, this simple historical fact suggests that francophones are not li#ely to encounter such difficulties in studying English as Bulgarians, for e,ample. This is, ho/ever, a superficial idea 'ecause it turns out that similarities 'et/een languages may actually constitute differences in disguise. (n other /ords, similarity of form does not al/ays presuppose similarity of function, /hich seems to hold true for L1 transfer in phonology and le,is. &s for grammatical interference, it has not 'een analy*ed in depth and it is precarious to generali*e although the author3s teaching e,perience suggests that pro'lems in this respect are minor. )eferences Ceno*, @., :455A; The (nfluence of Bilingualism on Dultilingual &c)uisition" Some 2ata from the Bas)ue Country, ( Simposio (nternacional so're o Biling]ismo" Comunidades e individuos 'iling]es, Universidade de ^igo, pp. 1AG!1GA, at _http"KK/e's.uvigo.esKsslKactas455AK70KCeno*.pdf` Ceno*, @., U. @essner :eds.;, :1777; English in Europe" The &c)uisition of a Third Language, Dultilingual Datters Corder, S. ., :45A0; (ntroducing &pplied Linguistics, elican Boo#s Larsen!Freeman, 2., D. Long, :4554; &n (ntroduction to Second Language &c)uisition .esearch, Longman Lee, C., :4557; Cotions of =Error? and &ppropriate Corrective Treatment, <ong Kong apers in Linguistics and Language Teaching 40 Dehlhorn, -., :177A; From .ussian to olish" ositive Transfer in Third Language &c)uisition, 49th (nternational Congress of honetic Sciences, Saar'ruc#en, pp. 4A6B!4A6G, at _http"KK///.icphs177A.deKconferenceK apersK4A75K4A75.pdf` Di#hov, C., :4551; & Short French -rammar, Caou#a i (*#ustvo .ichards, @. C. :ed.;, :4551; Error &nalysis. erspectives on Second Language &c)uisition, Longman Seidlhofer, B. :ed.;, :1770; Controversies in &pplied Linguistics, +,ford University ress

The *umanising Testing course can be vie+ed here, The Teaching English for -niversity Lecturers course can be vie+ed here,