error analysis: a study of errors committed by isizulu speaking ...

absence of error. In support of this view, Douglas and Selinker, (1994:121) say
that ‘primary interlanguage data are always ambiguous; at the minimum, one
needs to gain access to interlanguage intention’ and that the learner’s
perspective needs to remain at the forefront of any analysis. Perdue, (1993a:
13) cautions that:
the nearer a learner’s production appears to be to the TL, the more
tempting it becomes to imagine a ‘corresponding’ TL version and
use the analytic categories relevant to the latter version to analyse
the former. The ‘closeness fallacy’ … is insidious and ubiquitous,
and leads inevitably to false dichotomies such as ‘error/non error’.
Hobson (ibid) goes on to say that, taking the above caution into account,
it is evident that a consideration of the context is a vitally important
aspect of the analysis.
2.4 Analysis of IL as a system
According to Hobson, (1999: 78) the systematicity of IL has been widely
documented, but a quasi-longitudinal study, systematicity may be difficult to
determine. Adjemian, (1976), Selinker and Douglas, (1985) argue against the
notion of a single system, and they prefer to posit a variety of different distinct
and coexistent systems which change over time and according to context.
Transition is also systematic, so there is both horizontal (and synchronic) and
vertical (or diachronic) systematicity. Klein, (1986); Pedue (1993a). A
different view is that there are degrees of systematicity (Labov, in Young
1988) which need to be discovered for different areas of data. In addition, it
should not be forgotten that it is the system apparent in performance, rather
than competence, which is actually analysed Young, 1988, in Hobson).
23