Appearance
🎉 your ETH🥳
"Count Albert Gyulay de Marosnémethi et Nádaska or Albert Gyulai von Máros- Németh und Nádaska, born 12 September 1766 – died 27 April 1835, a Hungarian, joined the army of Habsburg Austria and fought against Ottoman Turkey. He served against the First French Republic in the Flanders Campaign and on the Rhine. Severely wounded in 1799, he survived a trepanning operation and briefly retired from military service. He returned to active service and commanded an army corps during the War of the Fifth Coalition, part of the Napoleonic Wars. He led his troops in several important battles during the Austrian invasion of Italy in 1809, including one where he was in independent command. Though appointed to command troops in 1813 and 1815, he missed combat in both campaigns. He was Proprietor (Inhaber) of an Austrian infantry regiment from 1810 until his death. The more famous Ignác Gyulay, Ban of Croatia was his older brother. Early career Born into a noble Hungarian family on 12 September 1766, Albert Gyulay became a junior Leutnant in the Kaiser Hussar Regiment # 1 on 1 May 1784.Smith, Digby & Kudrna, Leopold (compiler). napoleon-series.org Austrian Generals during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars: Albert Gyulay Previous to his appointment, he received military training as a cadet at the Theresienstatt Academy.Schneid, Frederick C. Napoleon's Italian Campaigns: 1805-1815. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2002. . 64 His father, Sámuel Gyulay was a general officer and Inhaber of Infantry Regiment # 32 from 1773 until his death in 1802. His mother was Anna Bornemisza de Kászon. In October 1787 he briefly transferred into the Alvinczi Infantry Regiment # 19 before entering the Szekler Hussar Regiment # 44 in December. The Austro-Turkish War broke out that year and he fought in Transylvania in 1788. On 26 August 1788 he won distinction in a skirmish at the Törzburger Pass at the head of a hussar squadron. Gyulay transferred into his father's regiment as a Hauptmann (captain) of grenadiers in February 1789 and fought at the Siege of Belgrade in autumn that year. He led his company in the Kempf grenadier battalion in Franz von Werneck's column during the successful assault on the city, which capitulated on 8 October. He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa on 21 December 1789. French Revolution In 1793 during the War of the First Coalition, Gyulay fought in several actions and was promoted to Major in the O'Donell Freikorps on 1 May. The following year found him serving in Heinrich, Count of Bellegarde's brigade in a number of minor actions. He defeated the French troops opposed to him in the Battle of Tournay on 22 May 1794. That year he married Justine Wynants (d. 1824). On 19 April 1797, he fought in a successful action in the aftermath of Werneck's defeat at the Battle of Neuwied on the Rhine. The same month he received promotion to Oberstleutnant in his father's regiment. On 26 April 1798, Gyulay became Oberst of the newly formed Infantry Regiment # 48. In the War of the Second Coalition, his troops drove off French attacks in the Battle of Verona on 26 April 1799. At the Battle of Magnano on 6 April, his regiment formed part of Ferdinand Minckwitz's brigade in Konrad Valentin von Kaim's division.Smith, 151 While leading an attacking column against Antoine Delmas' French division, he was struck in the head by a musket ball. The bullet was removed by trepanning at Verona, but the dangerous injury forced Gyulay to retire from the army the next year. He was appointed General-Major on 24 July 1800. 1809 campaign Battle of Sacile, 16 April 1809, showing morning positions Gyulay returned to active service in 1803 and was elevated in rank to Feldmarschall-Leutnant on 14 August 1808. The outbreak of the War of the Fifth Coalition found him in command of a division in the VIII Armeekorps of Johann Gabriel Chasteler de Courcelles. When the Tyrolean Rebellion erupted in April 1809, Archduke John of Austria sent Chasteler into the Tyrol with about 10,000 troops and appointed Gyulay commander of the VIII Armeekorps. By coincidence, his older brother Ignác Gyulay led the IX Armeekorps, which was the other major maneuver unit in John's army.Bowden, Scotty & Tarbox, Charlie. Armies on the Danube 1809. Arlington, Texas: Empire Games Press, 1980. 107 Ignác Gyulay, Ban of Croatia, was Albert's older brother. On 10 April, Albert Gyulay's VIII Armeekorps advanced from Tarvisio (Tarvis) and two days later it occupied Udine. Near the latter city, he was joined by his brother's corps which had marched from Ljubljana (Laibach).Schneid, 69 French reconnaissance was poor and the opposing army commander, Eugène de Beauharnais remained unaware that the VIII and IX Armeekorps had joined forces. Meanwhile, Archduke John formed a third maneuver unit, an army Advance Guard and placed it under the command of Johann Maria Philipp Frimont.Schneid, p 70 The Advance Guard was created from Frimont's 2nd Division of the VIII Armeekorps. John ordered a night march on the evening of the 14th, Frimont's Advance Guard leading, followed by the VIII Armeekorps, while the IX brought up the rear. Frimont caught Eugène's own advance guard at Pordenone on the morning of 15 April and defeated it.Schneid, 71 The French lost 500 killed and wounded, plus 2,000 prisoners, while Austrian losses were only 253.Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998. . 286 Expecting the imminent arrival of two divisions, an overconfident Eugène engaged John's army on 16 April in the Battle of Sacile. Eugène planned a two-division attack on the village of Porcia where Frimont and Albert Gyulay posted their troops. Delayed by the rainy weather, Ignác Gyulay's corps camped behind the VIII Armeekorps. John anticipated Eugène's attack and planned to have Albert Gyulay and Frimont absorb the blow, while swinging Ignác Gyulay against his enemies' left flank.Schneid, 72-73 The morning attack pressed hard against Frimont's troops in Porcia, so Albert Gyulai launched a counterattack which badly shook the Franco-Italians. Eugène committed a third division to the combat and it captured Porcia. Even so, Albert Gyulai and his troops resisted so fiercely that Eugène sent in a fourth division, leaving himself with only one remaining infantry division, plus cavalry. Delayed by rain, his reinforcements never made it to the battlefield. At this moment, Ignaz Gyulai's corps advanced upon the badly weakened Franco-Italian left flank.Schneid, 73 Archduke John When Eugène recalled his fourth division to save his left flank, Albert Gyulay's troops recaptured Porcia. After an all-day fight, at 5:00 PM the French commander accepted defeat and ordered a withdrawal. Ignác Gyulay pursued the two divisions and cavalry of Eugène's left flank, while Albert Gyulay and Frimont pushed back the three divisions of the right. The VIII Armeekorps suffered the brunt of the Austrian losses,Schneid, 74 which were 2,617 killed and wounded, 532 captured and 697 missing, for a total of 3,846. The Franco- Italians lost 3,000 killed and wounded, while 19 guns and 3,500 prisoners fell into Austrian hands.Smith, 286-287 Battle of Piave River, 8 May 1809, showing afternoon positions By the end of April, Eugène withdrew to Verona, gathered reinforcements, and reorganized his army. Archduke John took a position with his left flank behind the Adige River at Legnago and his right flank under Albert Gyulay behind the Alpone River at Soave, near the Arcole battlefield of 1796. On 29 April, Paul Grenier thrust at Soave, but Albert Gyulay repulsed his attack. However, an Italian attack in the hills to the north seized Castelcerino village and threatened to turn the Austrian flank.Schneid, 78-79 The French suffered an estimated 1,000 casualties against 400 Austrians killed and wounded, plus 300 more captured. Albert Gyulay counterattacked the next day with 6,000 infantry and recovered Castelcerino from its 5,000 Italian defenders. Austrian losses numbered 300 killed and wounded and 572 missing, while the French admitted 409 casualties.Smith, 295 On 1 May, John withdrew to the east, pausing behind the Brenta River before crossing the Piave River and camping near Conegliano.Schneid, 79 Hieronymus Colloredo It became evident that Eugène was bent on a close pursuit, so John ordered his army to take up positions to defend the Piave. When Joseph Marie, Count Dessaix's light infantry division crossed the river early on 8 May to bring on the Battle of Piave River, John's troops were drawn up much closer to the river than Eugène suspected, with VIII Armeekorps on the right flank and Ignaz Gyulay's IX Armeekorps on the left.Schneid, 80. None of the sources mention where Frimont's Advance Guard deployed, though his horsemen joined Wolfskeel's ad hoc cavalry division. At this time, Albert Gyulay's corps consisted only of the brigades of Hieronymus Karl Graf von Colloredo-Mansfeld and Anton Gajoli.Bowden & Tarbox, 113 Dessaix was met with a massed cavalry charge led by Christian Wolfskeel von Reichenberg, which he repelled by forming his voltiguers in square. But the French soon came under fire from a 24-gun battery.Schneid, 80 Eugène reinforced Dessaix's 5,000 troops and four cannons with two cavalry divisions and 20 additional guns. With the two grand batteries pounding away at each other, the French horsemen launched a charge that enveloped the ends of the Austrian gun line and crashed into the opposing cavalry. A French dragoon slew Wolfskeel, his second-in-command became a prisoner, and the Austrian cavalry was put to rout. The artillery crews managed to bring away ten guns, but the rest became prizes of their enemies.Epstein, Robert M. Napoleon's Last Victory and the Emergence of Modern War. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1994. 91 The victorious French troopers chased the fugitives until they encountered Colloredo and Gajoli, deployed behind the Piavisella canal. Unable to make headway, the French cavalry withdrew. There was a lull in the battle as Eugène got as much infantry as possible to ford the river before the rising waters drowned the fords. John was unable to take advantage of the situation because his cavalry was beaten and demoralized.Schneid, 81 Late in the afternoon, the French commander launched his final attack, sending Grenier's corps against the Austrian left and Jacques MacDonald's corps against Albert Gyulay's Piavisella line. When Grenier dislodged his left flank brigade, John ordered a general retreat back to Conegliano.Schneid, 82 The French lost about 2,000 casualties, while the Austrian losses numbered 398 killed, 697 wounded, 1,681 captured, and 1,120 missing, for a total of 3,896 men and 15 guns lost.Smith, 300 Battle of Tarvis showing the Malborghetto and Predil Forts As John retreated, he split up his army, sending the rump of the IX Armeekorps east to defend Carniola (modern Slovenia) under Ignaz Gyulay. As Ban of Croatia, Ignaz had the authority to muster the Croatian insurrectio or militia. With the remainder of his army, John marched northeast toward the Austrian base at Villach and recalled Chasteler from the Tyrol to help defend the frontier.Schneid, 82-83 After smashing Frimont's rear guard at San Daniele del Friuli on 11 May, Eugène pursued John northeast. Despite his setback, Frimont clashed with his enemies at Venzone and successfully burned the bridges behind him.Epstein, 94 Archduke John reorganized his Italian army into three major bodies in mid-May. Ignác Gyulay assembled 14,880 soldiers and 26 guns into four brigades at Kranj (Krain). Albert Gyulay defended Tarvisio with 8,340 troops and 20 guns in the brigades of Gajoli, Franz Marziani, and Peter Lutz. Frimont's Mobile Corps lay at Villach with 13,060 men and 22 guns in four brigades. In addition, John controlled Franz Jellacic's 10,200-strong Northern Division and Andreas Stoichevich's 8,100-man force in Dalmatia.Bowden & Tarbox, 115-117 Friedrich Hensel In trying to break through the Alpine barrier, Eugène sent MacDonald east with 14,000 troops in three divisions, Jean-Baptiste Dominique Rusca's division north into the upper Piave valley, and Jean Mathieu Seras' division north up the Soča (Isonzo) River. He took 25,000 troops in the corps of Grenier and Louis Baraguey d'Hilliers in John's wake along the Fella River valley. With so many bridges down, the French commander was compelled to send his cavalry, most of his artillery, and his wagon train on Seras' route.Epstein, 122-123 Holding Tarvisio with only 6,000 troops, Albert Gyulay relied on two outlying forts to stall the Franco-Italian advance. At Malborghetto Valbruna, a fort frowned down upon the Fella valley from a mountain spur. The Predil Pass blockhouse stood athwart Seras' road from the south. Malborghetto was defended by Captain Friedrich Hensel with 650 Grenz infantry and 10 cannons, while Captain Johann Hermann, 250 Grenzers, and eight artillery pieces held Predil. Eugène and Seras arrived before the two forts on 15 May and initiated the Battle of Tarvis. Baraguey d'Hilliers bypassed Malborghetto with two divisions and skirmished with Albert Gyulay's main force at Tarvisio on 16 May, while Grenier moved his two divisions into assault positions below the Malborghetto fort. Beginning at 9:30 AM on 17 May, 15,000 troops stormed the position in thirty minutes.Epstein, 123 Hensel and 350 Austrians were killed and between 50 and 300 were captured. Grenier reported 80 casualties but losses were probably much heavier.Smith, 305. Smith says 50 captured.Epstein, 123. Epstein reported 300 captured. Johann Hermann The Malborghetto fort looms over the Fella valley. This view looks west. Meanwhile, Albert Gyulay abandoned Tarvisio and pulled back behind a stream on the east side of the town. The position was buttressed with a line of fortified redoubts. But the batteries were armed with only 10 of the 24 cannons that were planned. He deployed elements of the brigades of Gajoli, Marziani, and Lutz, plus the Strassoldo Infantry Regiment # 27.Smith, 304 After securing Malborghetto, Grenier rapidly moved his two divisions to join those of Baraguey d'Hilliers at Tarvisio in a noon attack. An Italian division overran a key redoubt on Gyulay's left and began to flank the Austrian infantry out of position. As the line began to crack, Grenier's troops advanced, forcing Gyulay to order a retreat. Under pressure of superior numbers, the Austrian troops panicked and fled, losing as many as 3,000 killed, wounded, and captured. Gyulay reported losing 217 men killed, 271 wounded, 1,301 captured, and 170 missing, a total of 1,959 and six guns. To the south, Seras was unable to make an impression on the Predil blockhouse with his artillery. Needing to use the Predil Pass to bring up his cavalry, artillery, and trains, Eugène sent three battalions from Tarvisio to help.Epstein, 124 On the 18th, Seras attacked the Grenzers with 8,500 troops and 12 guns. After a heroic last stand, Hermann and his garrison were killed to a man. The Franco-Italians lost 450 killed and wounded.Smith, 306 After the defeat, Gyulay was unable to follow John's retreat to Graz. Instead, he followed the Drava River east and joined the archduke at Szentgotthárd in Hungary on 2 June. Gyulay missed the Battle of Raab on 14 June. Later career Emperor Francis I of Austria appointed him Inhaber of the Albert Gyulay Infantry Regiment # 21 on 7 February 1810, a position he held for the remainder of his life. He was named to command the Reserve Armeekorps on the Danube in 1813 and a division in the Hundred Days campaign of 1815. Neither appointment resulted in combat. He died on 27 April 1835 in Pest. Albert and Justine had four children, Sámuel Belá Crescencius (1803–1886), Albert (b. 1805), Lajos (d. 1845), and Anna Jozefa (d. 1837). Notes References * Bowden, Scotty & Tarbox, Charlie. Armies on the Danube 1809. Arlington, Texas: Empire Games Press, 1980. * Epstein, Robert M. Napoleon's Last Victory and the Emergence of Modern War. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1994. * Schneid, Frederick C. Napoleon's Italian Campaigns: 1805-1815. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 2002. * Smith, Digby. The Napoleonic Wars Data Book. London: Greenhill, 1998. * Smith, Digby & Kudrna, Leopold (compiler). napoleon-series.org Austrian Generals during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars: Albert Gyulay * Austrian soldiers Austrian generals Hungarian soldiers Hungarian nobility Austrian Empire military leaders of the French Revolutionary Wars Austrian Empire commanders of the Napoleonic Wars 1766 births 1835 deaths Albert Generals of the Holy Roman Empire Knights Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa "
"Cherkasy Forest (; transliterated: Čerkas'kyj bir) is a natural pine forest located on north and north-west ends of the city Cherkasy in central Ukraine. At , it is famous as the biggest natural pine forest on the south edge of the scots pine area. Along with Irdyn Swamp and Moshnogirya Log, it creates of unique natural area. Flora of this forest counts more than 800 species, 18 of which are listed in The Red List of Ukraine (list of species that are in danger of vanishing). The forest was nominated as one of the 7 wonders of Cherkasy Oblast. File:Cherksay forest 1.JPGPhoto of Cherkaskiy Bir File:Cherksay forest 2.JPGSummer in Cherkasy Forest References Geography of Cherkasy Oblast Tourist attractions in Cherkasy Oblast Forests of Ukraine "
"In linguistics, according to J. Richard et al., (2002), an error is the use of a word, speech act or grammatical items in such a way it seems imperfect and significant of an incomplete learning (184). It is considered by Norrish (1983, p. 7) as a systematic deviation that happens when a learner has not learnt something, and consistently gets it wrong. However, the attempts made to put the error into context have always gone hand in hand with either language learning and second-language acquisition processes, Hendrickson (1987:357) mentioned that errors are ‘signals’ that indicate an actual learning process taking place and that the learner has not yet mastered or shown a well-structured competence in the target language. All the definitions seemed to stress either on the systematic deviations triggered in the language learning process, or its indications of the actual situation of the language learner themselves which will later help the monitor be it an applied linguist or particularly the language teacher to solve the problem respecting one of the approaches argued in the Error Analysis (Anefnaf 2017), the occurrence of errors doesn't only indicate that the learner has not learned something yet, but also it gives the linguist the idea of whether the teaching method applied was effective or it needs to be changed. According to Corder (1976) errors are significant of three things, first to the teacher, in that they tell him, if he or she undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards that goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. Second, they provide the researcher with evidence of how language is learned or acquired, and what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Third (and in a sense this is their most important aspect) they are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn (p. 167). The occurrence of errors is merely signs of ‘’the present inadequacy of our teaching methods’’ (Corder 1976, p. 163). There have been two schools of thought when it comes to errors analysis and philosophy, the first one, according to Corder (1967) linked the errors commitment with the teaching method arguing that if the teaching method was adequate, the errors would not be committed, the second school believed that we live in an imperfect world and that errors correction is something real and the applied linguist cannot do without it no matter what teaching approach they may use. Errors vs. mistakes Chomsky (1965) made a distinguishing explanation of competence and performance on which, later on, the identification of mistakes and errors will be possible, Chomsky stated that ‘’We thus make a fundamental distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations)’’ ( 1956, p. 4). In other words, errors are thought of as indications of an incomplete learning, and that the speaker or hearer has not yet accumulated a satisfied language knowledge which can enable them to avoid linguistics misuse. Relating knowledge with competence was significant enough to represent that the competence of the speaker is judged by means of errors that concern the amount of linguistic data he or she has been exposed to, however, performance which is the actual use of language does not represent the language knowledge that the speaker has. According to J. Richard et al (2002), people may have the competence to produce an infinitely long sentence but when they actually attempt to use this knowledge (to “perform”) there are many reasons why they restrict the number of adjectives, adverbs, and clauses in any one sentence (2002, 392). The actual state of the speaker somehow involves and influences the speaker's performance by either causing a good performance or mistakes. Thus, it is quite obvious that there is some kind of interrelationship between competence and performance; somehow, a speaker can perform well if he or she has had already satisfied linguistic knowledge. As a support to this, Corder (1967) mentioned that mistakes are of no significance to “the process of language learning’’ (P. 167). Error analysis approach Before the rise of error analysis approach, contrastive analysis had been the dominant approach used in dealing and conceptualizing the learners’ errors in the 1950s, this approach had often gone hand in hand with concept of L1 Interference and precisely the interlingual effect (Anefnaf Z. 2017), it claimed that the main cause of committing errors in the process of second language learning is the L1, in other words, the linguistic background of the language learners badly affects the production in the target language. X. Fang and J. Xue-mei (2007) pointed out that contrastive analysis hypothesis claimed that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second language system and that a scientific, structural comparison of the two languages in question would enable people to predict and describe which are problems and which are not. Error analysis approach overwhelmed and announced the decline of the Contrastive Analysis which was only effective in phonology; and, according to J. Richard et al. (2002), EA developed as a branch of Linguistics in the 1960s and it came to light to argue that the mother tongue was not the main and the only source of the errors committed by the learners. In addition, Hashim, A. (1999) mentioned that the language effect is more complex and these errors can be caused even by the target language itself and by the applied communicative strategies as well as the type and quality of the second language instructions. The aim of EA according to J. Richard et al. (2002) is, first, to identify strategies which learners use in language learning, in terms of the approaches and strategies used in both of teaching and learning. Second, to try to identify the causes of learners’ errors, that is, investigating the motives behind committing such errors as the first attempt to eradicate them. Third, to obtain information on common difficulties in Language Learning, as an aid to teaching or in the preparation of the teaching materials, The two major causes of error, coined by the error analysis approach, are the Interlingual error which is an error made by the Learner's Linguistic background and Native language interference, and the Intralingual error which is the error committed by the learners when they misuse some Target Language rules, considering that the error cause lies within and between the target language itself and the Learners false application of certain target language rules. Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Corder and colleagues. Error analysis (EA) was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I angry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent. From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage. Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology. In second language acquisition, error analysis studies the types and causes of language errors. Errors are classifiedCf. Bussmann, Hadumod (1996), Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, London: Routledge, s.v. error analysis. A comprehensive bibliography was published by Bernd Spillner (1991), Error Analysis, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. according to: * modality (i.e., level of proficiency in speaking, writing, reading, listening) * linguistic levels (i.e., pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, style) * form (e.g., omission, insertion, substitution) * type (systematic errors/errors in competence vs. occasional errors/errors in performance) * cause (e.g., interference, interlanguage) * norm vs. system Types of errors Linguists have always been attempting to describe the types of errors committed by the language learners, and that is exactly the best way to start with, as it helps out the applied linguist to identify where the problem lies. According to Dulay et al. (1982) errors take place when the learner change the surface structure in a particularly systematic manner (p. 150), thus, the error, no matter what form and type it is, represent a damage at the level of the target language production. Errors have been classified by J. Richard et al. (2002) into two categories. The Interlingual Error and the Intralingual Error, those two elements refer respectively to the negative influence of both the speaker's native language, and the target language itself. Interlingual error is caused by the interference of the native language L1 (also known as interference, linguistic interference, and crosslinguistic influence), whereby the learner tends to use their linguistic knowledge of L1 on some Linguistic features in the target language, however, it often leads to making errors. The example, provided by J. Richard et al. (2002) ‘’ the incorrect French sentence Elle regarde les (“She sees them”), produced according to the word order of English, instead of the correct French sentence Elle les regarde (Literally, “She them sees”). (P. 267) shows the type of errors aroused by the negative effect of the native language interference. 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 Arabic-speaking second year University students: # Spelling: omission of silent letters: #* no (= know) * dout (= doubt) * weit (weight) # Grammar: ## 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. 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 avoidance: these errors occur when the learner fail to apply certain target language rules just because they are thought of to be too difficult. 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. Steps According to linguist Corder, the following are the steps in any typical EA research: # collecting samples of learner language # identifying the errors # describing the errors # explaining the errors # evaluating/correcting the errors collection of errors: the nature and quantity of errors is likely to vary depending on whether the data consist of natural, spontaneous language use or careful, elicited language use. Corder (1973) distinguished two kinds of elicitation:clinical and experimental elicitation. clinical elicitation involves getting the informant to produce data of any sort, for example by means of general interview or writing a composition. experimental elicitation involves the use of special instrument to elicit data containing the linguistic features such as a series of pictures which had been designed to elicit specific features. Bibliography * Anefnaf. Z ( 2017) English Learning: Linguistic flaws, Sais Faculty of Arts and Humanities, USMBA, Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/33999467/English_Learning_in_Morocco_Linguistic_Flaws * Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P. 4 * Corder, Pit. (1967). the significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 161-170 * Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S.D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 150 * Edje, J (1989). Mistakes and Correction. London: Longman. P. 26 * Fang, X. & Xue-mei, J. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching: US-China education review, 4(9), pp. 10–14. * Hashim, A. (1999). Crosslinguistic influence in the written English of Malay undergraduates: Journal of Modern Languages, 12, (1), pp. 59–76. * Hendrickson, J.M. (1987). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. In M.H. Long & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. p. 357 * Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press. P. 7 * Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd Ed.). London: Longman. * Richards J. C., & Rodgers T. S.(2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (2nd edition), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. P. 153 See also *Error (linguistics) *Error treatment (linguistics) *Second language acquisition References Applied linguistics Second-language acquisition Speech error "