Overgeneralisation

Overgeneralisation (also spelled overgeneralization) is the process by which a language learner extends a linguistic rule beyond its proper domain of application. It is one of the most common sources of intralingual error — errors that arise from the structure of the target language itself, rather than from L1 interference.

The term appears in both first language acquisition research (where it has been studied since at least Brown 1973) and in SLA, where Richards (1974) identified it as one of four types of intralingual error.

How It Works

When learners discover a productive rule, they apply it universally — including to exceptions. This is a sign of rule learning, not ignorance:

Rule learned	Overgeneralised form	Target form
Add -ed for past tense	goed, breaked, runned	went, broke, ran
Add -s for plural	childs, mouses, mans	children, mice, men
Add -er for comparative	more better, gooder	better
Copula be for all tenses	He was go yesterday	He went yesterday
Subject required in English	It is raining → It is exist	There exists / It exists
Do-support in questions	Did he went?	Did he go?

A Developmental Phenomenon

Overgeneralisation is not random — it follows a predictable U-shaped development pattern:

1. Stage 1: Correct form used as an unanalysed chunk (went, children) — the learner has memorized the form but does not know the rule.
2. Stage 2: Rule discovered and overapplied (goed, childs) — the learner has internalized the regular pattern and extends it everywhere. Performance appears to decline.
3. Stage 3: Exceptions re-learned and rule properly constrained (went alongside walked) — the learner has restructured their Interlanguage.

This U-shaped curve is well documented in both L1 (Marcus et al. 1992) and L2 acquisition. The Stage 2 "regression" is actually a sign of cognitive progress — the learner has moved from memorization to rule-based production.

Richards' Four Intralingual Errors (1974)

Richards placed overgeneralisation alongside three other intralingual error types:

Type	Mechanism	Example
Overgeneralisation	Extending a rule to exceptions	He goed
Ignorance of rule restrictions	Applying a rule where it does not belong	He made me to go (infinitive after causative make)
Incomplete application of rules	Partially applying a rule	You like coffee? (no inversion/do-support)
False concepts hypothesized	Misunderstanding a grammatical distinction	Using was as a general past tense marker

All four are developmental — they occur in learners regardless of L1 background, distinguishing them from transfer errors.

Overgeneralisation Beyond Morphology

While the classic examples involve inflectional morphology, overgeneralisation operates at every level:

• Phonological: Applying an English stress rule (stress on first syllable) to words that take second-syllable stress: a-DULT → AD-ult (or vice versa)
• Syntactic: Generalising the SVO pattern to all contexts, producing errors in questions, inversions, or dependent clauses
• Lexical: Extending the meaning of a word to cover related concepts: using make for all causative/creation meanings (make a photo instead of take a photo)
• Pragmatic: Applying an L2 politeness rule too broadly: adding please to every request, including contexts where it sounds sarcastic or over-formal

Why It Matters for Teaching

• Do not punish overgeneralisation. It is evidence that the learner is actively constructing the grammar, not passively memorizing. Correcting goed harshly at Stage 2 is counterproductive — the learner is progressing.
• Expect the U-shaped curve. When a student who previously said went starts saying goed, this is not regression. Explain to learners (and parents) that apparent backsliding often signals deeper learning.
• Teach exceptions explicitly. Irregular forms need explicit attention because the learner's productive rule will override them. High-frequency irregulars (went, children, better) should be taught as vocabulary items, reinforced through repeated exposure.
• Use Error Analysis to identify patterns. Systematic overgeneralisation errors in a class reveal which rules have been acquired and which exceptions need targeted practice.
• Distinguish from transfer errors. A Vietnamese learner who drops the past tense marker entirely (He go yesterday) is probably not overgeneralising — they may be transferring from Vietnamese, which has no inflectional morphology. The teaching response is different: rule teaching for overgeneralisation, concept teaching for transfer.

Key References

• Richards, J.C. (1974). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. In J.C. Richards (Ed.), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Longman.
• Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Harvard University Press.
• Marcus, G.F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T.J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4).
• Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
• James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Longman.