grammatical errors in the compositions written by turkish learners of english trk ngilizce rencileri...
DESCRIPTION
Thank you so much.TRANSCRIPT
I
ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
GÖKHAN YÜKSEL
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN THE COMPOSITIONS WRITTEN BY
TURKISH LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
MASTER THESIS
SUPERVISOR ASST. PROF. DR. Muzaffer BARIN
ERZURUM–2007
II
SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ MÜDÜRLÜĞÜNE
Bu çalışma İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı’nın İngiliz Dil Bilim
Dalı’nda jürimiz tarafından Yüksek Lisans Tezi olarak kabul edilmiştir.
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Muzaffer BARIN
Danışman / Jüri Üyesi
Yrd. Doç.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM Yrd. Doç. Dr. İ.Doğan ÜNAL
Jüri Üyesi Jüri Üyesi
Yukarıdaki imzalar, adı geçen öğretim üyelerine aittir. 29 / 03 / 2007
Prof. Dr. Vahdettin BAŞÇI
Enstitü Müdürü
I
CONTENTS
PAGES
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….IV
ÖZET…………………………………………..…………………...…………...….V
Acknowledgements……………………………………...…………………………VI
CHAPTER I
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Presentation...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Errors and Mistakes..........................................................................................1
1.3 General Background to the Study.....................................................................1
1.4 Aim and Scope of the Study ............................................................................2
1.5 Problems.......................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Limitations....................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Assumptions..................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Presentation...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Behaviourism, Audio-lingual Method and Contrastive Analysis.................... 5 2.3 Contrastive Analysis and Structuralism........................................................... 7
2.4 Contrastive Analysis........................................................................................ 7
2.5 Criticism of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis............................................... 10
2.6 Error Analysis.................................................................................................10
2.7 Criticism of Error Analysis.............................................................................12
2.8 General Background to the Writing................................................................12
2.9 Interlanguage…...............................................................................................14
2.9.1 Problems with interlanguage…………………………………………….16
2.10 Related Studies …………………………………………………………….16
CHAPTER III
3. ERROR ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 27
3.1 Presentation.................................................................................................... 27
II
3.2 Procedure for Error Analysis......................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Collection of samples of learners’ language....................................... ..27
3.2.2 Identification of errors........................................................................ ..28
3.2.3 Description of errors............................................................................. 30
3.2.4 Explanation of errors............................................................................ 30
3.2.5 Evaluation of errors............................................................................ ..32
3.3 Classification of Errors...................................................................................... 32
3.3.1 Linguistic taxonomy................................................................................33
3.3.2 Surface Strategy taxonomy..................................................................... 37
3.3.2.1 Omission.......................................................................................38
3.3.2.2 Addition........................................................................................38
3.3.2.2.1 Double markings............................................................38
3.3.2.2.2 Regularization................................................................38
3.3.2.2.3 Simple addition..............................................................39
3.3.2.3 Misformation................................................................................39
3.3.2.3.1 Regularization................................................................39
3.3.2.3.2 Archi-forms....................................................................39
3.3.2.3.3 Alternating forms...........................................................40
3.3.2.4 Misordering...................................................................................40
3.3.3 Comparative taxonomy............................................................................40
3.3.4 Communicative effect taxonomy.............................................................41
CHAPTER IV
4. METHODS OF CORRECTING ERRORS..........................................................42
4.1 Presentation....................................................................................................42
4.2 Error Correction.............................................................................................42
4.3 Which Errors Should Be Corrected?..............................................................43
4.4 Who Should Correct the Errors?....................................................................43
4.5 Forms of Correcting Errors............................................................................44
4.5.1 Correcting all errors..............................................................................44
4.5.2 Code correction.....................................................................................45
4.5.3 Writing comments.................................................................................45
III
4.5.4 Using checklists....................................................................................45
4.5.5 Charting errors......................................................................................46
CHAPTER V
5. METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................47
5.1 Presentation.....................................................................................................47
5.1 Design of the Study.......................................................................................47
5.2 Subjects and Data Collection........................................................................48
CHAPTER VI
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................51
6.1 Presentation....................................................................................................51
6.2 Results............................................................................................................51
6.2.1 A detailed classification of errors.........................................................54
6.2.1.1 Tenses.......................................................................................54
6.2.1.2 Prepositions...............................................................................55
6.2.1.3 Articles......................................................................................57
6.2.1.4 Active and passive voice...........................................................58
6.2.1.5 Verbs.........................................................................................59
6.2.1.6 Other syntactic errors................................................................61
6.2.1.7 Morphological errors................................................................63
CHAPTER VII
7. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................65
7.1 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................65
7.2 Suggestions for Teachers, Syllabus and Textbook Designers and Test
Developers.....................................................................................................65
7.3 Suggestions for Further Studies.....................................................................66
APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 68
Appendix I: Samples of Learners’ Productions....................................................... 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 70
CURRICULUM VITAE…………………………………………………...………76
IV
ABSTRACT
MASTER THESIS
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN THE COMPOSITIONS WRITTEN BY
TURKISH LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
Gökhan YÜKSEL
Supervisor: Asst.Prof.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN
2007 – Page : 76 + VI
Jury : Asst.Prof.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN
Asst.Prof.Dr. İ.Doğan ÜNAL
Asst.Prof.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM
This study was conducted in order to find and classify the grammatical
errors in the writings of the students of the Department of English Language and
Literature at Atatürk University. Forty-seven compositions were examined and the
grammatical errors in these writings were found. These errors were first classified
into seven major categories, and then they were divided into subcategories. It was
observed that the category that includes the largest number of errors was the
errors of prepositions, which comprised 24,7% of the total errors. The next
highest number was seen in the group of other syntactic errors, which involves
wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement, and disagreement between
determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers, and nouns. The following most
problematic areas were consecutively morphological errors, errors of articles,
errors of verbs, errors of active-passive voice, and errors of tenses. At the end of
the study some suggestions were made for teachers, syllabus and textbook
designers and test developers.
V
ÖZET
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ
TÜRK İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRENCİLERİ TARAFINDAN YAZILAN
KOMPOZİSYONLARDAKİ DİLBİLGİSİ HATALARI
Gökhan YÜKSEL
Danışman: Y.Doç.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN
2007 – Sayfa : 76 + VI
Jüri : Y.Doç.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN
Y.Doç.Dr. İ.Doğan ÜNAL
Y.Doç.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM
Bu çalışma Atatürk Üniversitesindeki İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı
Bölümündeki öğrencilerin yazılarındaki gramer hatalarını bulmak ve
sınıflandırmak için yapılmıştır. Kırk yedi kompozisyon incelenmiş ve bu
yazılardaki hataları bulunmuştur. Bu hatalar ilk önce yedi ana kategoriyle
sınıflandırılmış daha sonra alt kategorilere ayrılmıştır. En fazla sayıda hata içeren
kategorinin toplam hata sayısının % 24,7’sini oluşturan edat hataları olduğu
gözlemlenmiştir. Bir sonraki en yüksek sayı yanlış sıralama, özne ve fiil
uyumsuzluğu ve belirleyiciler, işaret sıfatları, nicelik sıfatları ve isimler arasındaki
uyumsuzluğu içeren diğer sözdizimsel hatalar grubunda görülmüştür. Sonraki en
problemli alanlar sırasıyla morfolojik hatalar, tanımlayıcı hatalar, fiil hataları,
etken ve edilgen çatı hataları ve zaman kipleri hataları olmuştur. Çalışmanın
sonunda öğretmenler, müfredat ve ders kitabı düzenleyenler ve test düzenleyenler
için bazı tavsiyelerde bulunulmuştur.
VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Asst.Prof.Dr.
Muzaffer BARIN and my former supervisor Asst.Prof.Dr. Hüseyin EFE for their
unequalled help and supervision.
I am also grateful to the Research Assistants of the Department of English
Language and Literature, who helped with data collection.
Special thanks go to my family members, who have always encouraged me
all through the study.
1
CHAPTER I
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Presentation
This chapter of the study first gives some information related to error and
mistake, and then summarizes the general background of the study, and then the
problem, limitations and assumptions related to the study are presented.
1.2 Errors and Mistakes
Mistakes are expected to appear in a learning process. However, this is not the
only case during language learning. Native speakers may also make mistakes
while they are speaking their mother tongues. Thus, it will be useful to make a
brief distinction of the terms errors, mistakes and lapses.
Mistakes are not a result of deficiency in competence and the deviant form can
be corrected by the speaker. Besides, a learner uses different deviant forms at
different times inconsistently, this inconsistent deviation is also called mistake.
As for lapses, they can be characterized by the slips of the pen or slips of the
tongue. Lapses may result from some factors such as memory failure, high-
pitched emotion, physical or mental fatigue.
But, errors are somewhat different from the categories above. They can be
briefly described as a systematic deviation of the learner’s linguistic system.
Richards (1985, p: 95) describes errors as follows:
“the use of a linguistic item in a way which a fluent or native speaker
of the language regards as showing faulty or incomplete action.”
1.3 General Background to the Study
Errors that have always been a main concern for teachers of foreign languages
and researchers are an inevitable part of learners’ oral or written productions.
Although errors were regarded as the unnatural parts of writings or speech of
language learners in the past, today they have been thought to be an inevitable
part of learning. Thus, studying the nature of errors enables teachers of foreign
languages and researchers to have a better understanding of the linguistic area
2
where students have the most difficulty while trying to communicate effectively.
And, the data provided by the analysis of learners’ errors will help teachers,
syllabus designers, and test developers to determine their way of teaching or
materials in the process of language teaching and learning. In other words, to find
out learners’ errors is similar to the medical diagnosis of an illness. Before
applying any teaching technique or material, a proper diagnosis of errors is
necessary as the diagnosis of an illness is necessary before the remedy of it.
As a result of the fact that learners naturally commit quite a good number of
errors, the study of error analysis, through which sources of errors are attempted
to be determined, came into existence. It has been stated that some errors are
caused by the natural characteristics of learners’ mother tongue while others are a
result of the strategies through which the target language is learnt. Besides, it has
been suggested that errors which prevent learners from communicating effectively
should be analyzed, and their sources and frequencies should be identified clearly
for a better oral or written communication of language learners. As a result of the
thoughts stated above, studies of error analysis have often been conducted by the
teachers of foreign language and researchers in order to diagnose learners’ errors
and their possible sources.
In this study of error analysis, written productions of learners of English, who
are English major students, and who are required to read and write in their courses
during the academic studies at university are analyzed. In other words, without a
good skill of writing, it is almost impossible for these learners to be successful in
their academic education. Besides, a good knowledge of grammar is one of the
most important requisites in a well formed written production. Thus, the
grammatical errors of these learners are particularly focused on in the study.
1.4 Aim and Scope of the Study
The current study aims to diagnose what the most problematic areas, in terms
of grammar, are in the writings of the students, to mention the possible sources of
the errors, and finally to come up with some suggestions which will help language
teachers, syllabus designers, and test developers in remedial teaching.
3
1.5 Problems
In spite of the hard work of the students who prepare for the university
entrance exam and the foreign language exam – which is abbreviated as YDS in
Turkish- they still commit countless grammatical. Since no writing skill is
required in this exam students and teachers ignore the skill of writing while they
prepare for this exam. Therefore, as a result of the fact that student do not
sufficiently familiarize themselves with English and ignore production aspect in a
foreign language, they commit so many grammatical errors in their writings.
1.6 Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1.) This study is limited to the students’ performance in written English.
2.) The group of subjects includes only the first year students of the
Department of English Language and Literature at Ataturk University.
3.) The first year students at the Department of English Language and
Literature of Ataturk University take an exam before the beginning of the
education year, and the students who are successful in this exam are exempted
from the prep-class. The compositions examined in the current study are the ones
written at this exam.
4.) 47 students’ compositions were analyzed in the study.
5.) Only the grammatical errors in the compositions were taken into
consideration in the study.
1.7 Assumptions
According to the subjects’ entrance scores to the Department and to the scores
of the test applied by the researcher, it is assumed that students’ backgrounds
concerning their English proficiency are similar to each other, and the
compositions reflect the typical errors at this level. Besides, it is assumed that
skills of production –speaking and writing- are ignored before the academic
education, since these skills are not measured in YDS exam and they commit so
many errors in their written productions.
4
We are also of the opinion that such a study on the errors of these students will
be helpful both for students and teachers at high schools and instructors at
university. Because it is a transitional period between high schools and university
for these students, this study may form a bridge between high schools and the
university. According to the results of the study, deficiencies, in relation to
English teaching, at the level of high school can be found out, and a remedial
teaching may be carried out at the level of university.
5
CHAPTER II
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Presentation
This chapter of the study comprises overviews of two major approaches to
the study of learners’ errors: Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Also, the
chapter includes general background to the writing, interlanguage and studies
related to the current study.
2.2 Behaviourism, Audio-lingual Method and Contrastive Analysis
Before 1960s, learners’ errors were regarded as something to abstained and
unfavourable when the behaviouristic approach of language learning was
prevailing. According to the behaviouristic point of view, people learn by
responding to external stimuli and by receiving reinforcement. A proper habit is
produced by reinforcement, and learning occurs. Accordingly, errors were
considered to be a wrong response to the stimuli, which should be corrected
immediately after they were committed. If they were not corrected suitably, the
error would turn into a habit, and it would stick in your mind. Additionally, the
viewpoint of language learning and teaching were also deeply affected by this
approach and teachers tried to instil correct patterns of the form into learners’
mind. When learners made any mistake while using the target language, teachers
corrected their mistakes immediately. Briefly, errors were regarded as something
fatal to the processes of proper language learning. Larsen-Freeman (1986, p: 40)
explains this approach as follows:
“It is important to prevent learners from making errors. Errors
lead to the formation of bad habits. When errors do occur, they
should be immediately corrected by the teacher.”
Since language teaching was deeply affected by the behaviourism, researchers
tried to find out new methods in the light of this approach, which gave rise to
audio-lingual method. Audio-lingual method is a combination of structuralism and
behaviourist psychology, which was in its heyday during the 1950s and 1960s.
6
The significance of errors according to the audio-lingual method is explained by
Stern (1983, p: 490) as follows:
“Extent of control is the degree to which the program designed
so as to avoid the possibility of learner errors. Audio-lingualism,
following Skinnerian principles of programmed instruction,
favoured an organization of language courses which ideally made
it impossible to make many errors.”
According to Selinker (1957), learning is the formation of habits, and
language is also behaviour, though not a mental phenomenon. The child imitates
the sound and patterns around him and people reinforce in terms of similarity to
the adult models, by approval or some other reactions. The child repeats these
sounds and patterns in order to get more of these reinforcements, thus these
become the habits of the child. In this process, the child’s verbal behaviour is
formed until the habits coincide with the adult model. In other words, adults are
the models for the child’s verbal behaviour and the mistakes made by the child are
regarded just a faulty version of adult speech.
However, such an approach of learning was eventually discarded by
Chomsky’s cognitive theory:
“It seems to me impossible to accept the view that linguistic
behaviour is a matter of habit that is slowly acquired by
reinforcement association and generalization. (Chomsky, 1966, p:
262)
Despite the fact that Chomsky’s arguments have been discussed extensively,
they convinced most researchers of the drawbacks of the behaviouristic
viewpoint.
In terms of second or foreign language learning, behaviourism can be briefly
characterized by two terms: transfer and interference. The term transfer is
explained in two forms: positive transfer and negative transfer. It is claimed that
7
similarities between the native language and the second or foreign language of a
learner will help the learner learn the second language and this is called positive
transfer. According to this viewpoint, for instance, a German learning English will
not have much difficulty in understanding the article system, because both
languages have similar article systems, both language include definite and
indefinite articles, so it will be much easier for a German to understand articles in
English language. This case can be described as positive transfer. However, an
English learner of German will have much difficulty in using articles in German.
For, the definite and indefinite articles may change according to the gender of the
noun in German, but an English learner of German may use the same indefinite
article for both genders as in English (ein Lehrerin, ein Buch), which is erroneous
in German language. The learner may commit mistakes because of his mother
tongue while using these articles, which is described as negative transfer.
Accordingly, to the behaviourist learning theory, interference is one of the
most significant causes and sources of errors.
2.3 Contrastive Analysis and Structuralism
Linguistic aspect of contrastive analysis is based on structural linguistics.
In the 1950s and 1960s, behaviouristic psychology and structural linguistics were
of great popularity and contrastive analysis occupied a central place in the field of
applied linguistics. The task of contrastive analysis, which was formulated by
Charles Fries (1945) and developed by Robert Lado was regarded as the
comparison of the structures of two languages and mapping of points of
differences; these differences are the main source of difficulty for the language
learner, and they form the basis for the preparation of language texts and
correction of students learning a language. (Lado, 1957)
2.4 Contrastive Analysis
In the middle of the twentieth century, when behaviouristic psychology and
structural linguistics were very popular, CA was also very widely accepted in
language teaching. Contrastive Analysis was considered as the only remedy for
language teaching problems. As a result of favourability of this approach a series
8
of contrastive studies began to appear, and they were usually pedagogical and
aimed at predicting and showing learners’ errors.
Interference, as stated above, is the keyword to explain the contrastive
linguistics. Interference of the mother tongue in foreign language learning causes
the errors in target language. Brown (1980: 148) indicates that:
“This hypothesis, deeply rooted in behaviourism and
structuralism, claimed that the principal barrier to the second
language system is the interference of the first language system
with the second language system, and that a scientific, structural
analysis of the two languages in question would yield a taxonomy
of a linguistic contrast between them which in turn would enable
the linguist to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter.”
Besides, another advocate of CA Lado (1957: 2) claims:
“The student who comes in contact with a foreign language
will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely
difficult. Those elements that are similar to his language will be
simple for him, and those elements that are different will be
difficult…”
As stated earlier in this chapter, another keyword to explain contrastive
analysis hypothesis is transfer theory, which will make the learning easier or more
difficult. That is, a similar structure in the mother tongue will help the learner
understand the target language, which is called positive transfer and different
structures will make it more difficult for the learner, which is described as
negative transfer or interference. (James, 1980; Littlewood, 1984)
Wardhaugh (1970, p: 123) suggests that contrastive analysis has two main
versions: strong version and weak version. According to the strong version “all L2
errors that will occur can be predicted through the differences between L1 and
9
L2.” And, weak version claims that only some of the errors can be identified
through these differences.
Lado (1957, p: vii) describes the strong version as follows:
“We can predict and describe the patterns that will cause
difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by
comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned
with the native language and culture of the student”
Wardhaugh (1970, cited in Gök, 1996, p: 19) explains the weak version as
follows:
“The weak version requires of the linguist only that he uses the
best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for
observed difficulties in the second language learning. It does not
require the prediction of those difficulties. It starts with the
evidence provided by linguistic interference and uses such
evidence to explain the similarities and differences between
systems”
On the other hand, Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970, p: 186) challenged these two
versions and claimed a third version: moderate version. They defined it as
follows:
“The categorization of abstract and concrete patterns
according to their perceived similarities and differences is the
basis for learning: therefore, wherever patterns are minimally
distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems, confusion may
result.”
10
2.5 Criticism of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Although contrastive analysis was widely accepted by behaviourists and
structuralists, they did not have a complete success in predicting all the errors
through interference of the first language. Whitman and Jackson (1971) applied
four different types of contrastive analysis of English and Japanese, and they tried
to predict the errors of the Japanese learners of English. They applied a series of
tests and made a comparison of their predictions with the results of the actual
tests; however, the conclusion indicated that contrastive analysis was not
successful enough in predicting the possible sources of the learners’ errors.
Also, Ellis (1986, p: 27) claims that there are three main criticisms against
contrastive analysis:
”First, there were the doubts concerning the ability of
contrastive analysis to predict errors. These doubts arose when
researchers began to examine language learners’ language in
depth. Second, there were a number of theoretical criticisms
regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the
methodology of contrastive analysis. Third, there were
reservations about whether contrastive analysis had anything
relevant to offer to language teaching.”
2.6 Error Analysis
As a result of inadequacies and weaknesses of CA rooted in behaviouristic and
structuralist theories, in the late 1960s’, a mentalist attitude towards learners’
errors has begun to become more common among the linguists and
methodologists. Researchers and teachers of second languages thought that
mistakes of a learner in the process of constructing a new system should be
analysed carefully; for, they thought that these mistakes were the key points to the
understanding of the process of second language acquisition.
This approach has become more common with the Cognitive Code theory
which regarded errors as evidence that the learner is in the process of learning the
correct forms, but not as a failure. Errors help teachers adjust the level of
11
difficulty of learning according to the students’ progress. Teachers will be aware
what is in students’ mind and will try to solve the linguistic problems of their
students.
As Corder stated (1967, p: 167):
“A learner’s errors… are significant in (that) they provide to the
researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired what
strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of
the language.”
In The Goofican: A Repair Manual for English (Burt and Kiparsky, 1972: 1)
defined errors as follows:
“an error …for which no blame is implied.”
The collection, analysis and classification of errors in terms of language have
had a pedagogic role since 1950s. However, the reason for the interest in Error
Analysis is that majority of grammatical errors do not reflect the learner’s mother
tongue but are much like first language acquisition of a child. Dulay, Burt and
Krashen (1982:138) explain this as follows:
“The most significant contribution of the error analysis has been
that the majority of the grammatical errors second language
learners make do not reflect the learner’s mother tongue but are
very much like those young children make as they learn a first
language. Researchers have revealed that L2 errors indicate that
they are building an L2 system.”
Additionally, it was believed that error analysis would be helpful in designing
pedagogical materials and methods by identifying the problematic areas for the
learner. According to Sridhar (1980) through error analysis, the sequence of target
items in textbook and classroom could be determined. Also, remedial lessons and
12
exercises could be designed and proper items for testing the learner’s proficiency
could be selected.
2.7 Criticism of Error Analysis
Although error analysis has been offered as an alternative to contrastive
analysis and it has been supported by researchers and scholars, it also has its own
inadequacies and weaknesses.
According to Brown (1986, p: 166) error analysis has some major problems,
which prevent a precise analysis of learners’ errors. The first one of these
problems is too much attention on errors. While placing too much attention on
errors, we may lose the value of positive reinforcement of free communication.
Another danger according to Brown (1980) is overstress of production
data. Since researchers are only interested in production data, they may ignore the
aspect of comprehension in the learner’s production. Thus, a grammatically
correct production may be incorrect in terms of the whole context.
And, the final inadequacy of error analysis, According to Schatcher (1974;
cited in Brown, 1980, pp: 166:167) is the strategy of avoidance. A learner may not
utilize a word, structure or discourse category, in which he does not have a native-
like competence, thus it may seem that there is no difficulty with these structures,
words or discourse category. In her research, Schatcher noticed that Japanese
learners of English were avoiding using relative clauses and they did not commit
as many errors as Persian learners of English did. However, absence of minority
of such an error does not correctly reflect that they have no problem with the area
of relative clauses.
2.8 General background to the Writing
The four basic skills in language teaching –listening, speaking, reading and
writing- are inseparable parts of whole. These skills complete each other and the
ignorance of one of these skills will lower a learner’s ability to a great extent to
communicate effectively. However, the two productive skills, speaking and
writing, which require productive ability, have not been given so much
importance as a probable result of the system of foreign language examination in
13
our country. Since the foreign language exams in our country, such as YDS and
KPDS, do not require any writing ability, writing skill has been ignored during the
education at high schools.
Language can be described in many ways and one of these descriptions is that
language is a means between people, which enables them to communicate with
each other by speaking or writing. In these ways, people convey their thoughts or
wishes to the other person. But, there are certain differences between speaking
and writing. Although a speaker can make use of gestures, body language, tone of
voice, or he can convey his message by repeating, hesitating, starting again, and
so on. , this is not the case in writing.
For many learners of English language, writing appears to pose greater
problems than writing. Since letters used in writing are lonely figures separate
from the stimulus and correction of listeners, he must predict the reactions of
readers while trying to convey his message being unaware of the gesture of the
listener. (Rosen, 1969)
On the other hand, grammatical and lexical choices in writing are of a great
importance. According to Rivers (1981, pp: 291-292) a writer “has to learn how to
make such things explicit and unambiguous through syntactic arrangement and
lexical choice.” Additionally, Hedge (1988) emphasizes some conditions for
effective writing: organization for the development of ideas; accuracy for
unambiguity of meaning; use of complex grammatical devices; an accurate choice
of vocabulary, grammatical patterns; and sentence structures. Also, according to
Raimes (1983) writing provides aid to the learners in the process of language
learning. It improves grammatical structure and vocabulary of the learners, and it
is a chance of practice for them and they necessarily get involved in the target
language.
Mattar (1994, pp: 89-99) suggests that the ability to write properly is not only
integral to academic success but it is necessary for the demonstration of such an
achievement.
Frodesen (2000, cited in Murcia, 2001, p: 246) suggests:
14
“the second language writers need attention to form in
developing writing proficiency and that attention to form is not just
about error but about resources for communicative goals.”
Ponsot and Deen (1982, p: 133) say:
“Grammar is not clearly remedial. Like baking powder, it
can’t be stirred into the cake after the batter has been poured into
pans.”
Consequently, writing can not be treated as an unimportant skill in the process
of language teaching and learning. For the development of practice and
production and for the ease of communication in the target language, writing
should be given necessary importance. However, foreign language teachers
should not expect perfect written productions without an error. It should be born
in mind that their students are non- native speakers and errors, in the complex
process of language learning, are inevitable in their productions.
2.9 Interlanguage
As stated at the beginning of the study, errors are an inevitable part of
language learning and the early stages of learning a second or foreign language
are usually characterized by a large number of interlingual errors.
The theory of interlanguage, which was proposed by Selinker in 1972, is
based on the theory that there is a “psychological structure latent in the brain”
which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. He also notes
that, in a given, situation, there is dissimilarity between the utterances produced
by a native speaker and a second or foreign language learner. He states that this
difference results from a separate language system called interlanguage. Thus,
dealing with the errors in this perspective will make it easier to have a better
understanding of the errors committed by the second or foreign language learners.
15
Corder (1974) also schematizes interlanguage as follows:
Figure 2.1 Interlanguage
Native language Interlanguage Target Language
Selinker mentions five central processes related to interlanguage:
1. Language transfer : According to Selinker, this process is a result of
overgeneralization and of fossilizable items, rules and subsystems, which are
transferred from native language to interlanguage during the performance of
interlanguage.
2. Transfer of training : This process differs from language transfer and
overgeneralization. The errors in this process result from misleading and over-
generalized information given by textbooks and language teacher, accordingly
students think that some distinctions are not necessary in terms of communication.
3. Strategies of second language learning : According to Selinker, there are
various strategies, which affect the surface structure of sentences. However what
they might be and how they might work is just an assumption. This process is
exemplified by the tendency of learners to simplify the target language.
4. Strategies of second language communication : This strategy, according to
Coulter (1968), can be characterized by the avoidance of grammatical formatives
like articles, plural forms, past tense forms, etc. In his study Coulter suggests that
learners tend to think such grammatical are not necessary for the communication
16
in the target language because thinking about these grammatical processes will
make his speech hesitant and disconnected.
5. Overgeneralization of target language linguistic material : This process is the
over-generalization of such linguistic items as grammar, lexis, syntax etc. Second
language learners tend to over-generalize the rules in the target language in order
to reduce it to a simpler level.
2.9.1 Problems with interlanguage
Selinker relates the problems with this approach within five items by
asking questions. He states that the first problem is that we cannot always identify
which of these five processes is the observable data to be attributable to. The
second problem is the difficulty in systemization of the notion fossilization; it is
also difficult to predict which items in which interlingual situations will be
fossilized. The third problem is characterized by the question “how does a second
language learning novice become able to produce interlanguage utterances, whose
norm he is attempting to produce?” The fourth problem is related to the
hypothesized latent psychological structure. Selinker asks if there is any evidence
for the existence of these structures. And the final problem or question is “how
can we experiment with three linguistic systems, creating the same experimental
conditions for each one, with one unit which is identified interlingually across the
systems?”
2.10 Related Studies
In this part of the study some studies related to current study were
examined and some information about these studies was given below.
In her study Er (1990) has two main concerns. One of the is the applied
aspect of Error Analysis because it will provide the teacher with some clues about
the effectiveness of his teaching material, the other main concern of the study is
related to the students since a remedial study will be helpful for the learners to
learn the target points. A well-organized and carefully-administered remedial
study will enable the students to notice their incorrect hypotheses.
17
She analyzed the compositions written by the first year students of ELT
department, Faculty of Education, Ondokuz Mayıs University. In this respect, her
study is similar to the present study. However, she carried our her study after the
first term so that the students should be equipped with the same linguistic
knowledge while our study was carried out at the beginning of the first term. She
classified the errors in terms of grammar and lexis, and sub-classified them into
omission, substitution, addition and ordering. The most frequent errors in her
linguistic category are the errors of selection and there is a parallel between the
two studies in this respect. However, the main linguistic concern of her study is
the use of relative clauses and after the determination of such errors, she applied a
remedial test to the subjects and gained satisfactory results. The majority of the
students used relative pronouns correctly in the application of the test.
Saltık (1997) aims at exploring and explaining the principal problems the
Turkish learners of English face in their essays. For this purpose, he conducted a
study of error analysis on the sample essays of some freshman students at the
Middle East Technical University. He also analyzed the errors according to their
frequency in order to see whether they displayed certain characteristics.
Additionally, he examined the errors to see if there were any difference between
the errors of physical science and social science to reveal the effect of different
fields on their usage of English. Based on the results of his study, he revealed that
the most problematic areas in three main linguistic areas were orthography,
lexico-semantics, and syntactico-morphology. He also suggested that the errors in
the first two areas were usually committed by the students of physical sciences
while the ones in syntactico-morphology were often committed by the students of
social sciences. While this study is a contrastive study between two different
groups of students, the subjects in our study are not two different groups. But
there is a similarity in the frequency of the errors committed by the subjects; the
errors were examined in terms of spelling, lexico-semantics and syntactico-
morphology. Additionally, the wrong order and lack of subject and verb
agreement constitute a percentage of 56.9 out of 225 errors in the group of other
types of errors, which is one of the subgroups of syntactico-morphology.
Similarly, the second highest number of errors in our study is the group of other
18
syntactic errors, which involves wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement,
and disagreement between determiners, quantifiers and nouns.
In his study Gürsel (1998) investigated and classified the errors in the
writings of the students of the Department of Foreign Languages. He examined
seventy-six samples. Having determined the errors, he examined them one by one
and classified them according to their sources. Later, the probable sources of these
errors were discussed. According to the results, it was found that the most
problematic area for Turkish learners of English is morphology. After
morphology, syntax was found to be the second most problematic area. The third
one was prepositions. Finally, he attempted to classify these errors according to
their sources, and he concluded that the intralingual errors were more than
interlingual errors.
There is a strong resemblance between this study and our study with
respect to the results. Firstly, the subjects in both studies are from similar
departments and the errors in their writings were examined in both studies.
Secondly, the studies yielded similar results. Morphology, syntax and prepositions
are the most problematic areas respectively and the case is almost the same in our
study, too. But, as summarized in the abstract of the study, the most problematic
areas in our study are prepositions, syntax and morphology consecutively. Finally,
although Gürsel classified the errors as interlingual and intralingual, there is not
such a classification in the present study.
Gök (1996) suggested that the Turkish EFL students attempted to transfer
syntactic or semantic rules from their native language to English. Like many other
EFL learners in other parts of the world, Turkish students tend to think in Turkish
and translate their thoughts into English both in speaking and writing. As they try
to translate every thought they make mistakes because of the differences between
the two language systems. Later, he hypothesizes that the rate of interference
errors decreases as the proficiency level of the Turkish learners increases. Having
applied a T-test on the subjects, he proved his hypothesis. His final hypothesis is
the use of conference method so as to reduce the number of errors in the writings
of the Turkish learners of English. He formed a control and a test group to prove
his final hypothesis. The students in the test group were informed of their errors in
19
their writings through conference method. At the end of the term, it was observed
that the students in the control group committed many more errors than the
students in the test group.
Gök classified the errors into thirty-nine categories, he also categorized
them as developmental and interference errors. The most problematic area in our
study, prepositions constitute 10% of the total errors, which can be regarded as a
high percentage among the thirty-nine different categories. Also, syntactic errors
comprise an important part of the total errors. Since the classifications in both
studies are, in some respects, different from each other, it is not possible to make a
precise comparison between the studies, however it can be said that there is a
parallel between the two studies in terms of the numbers and frequency of errors.
Akarsu (2004) carried out a study to identify the errors committed in the
oral productions, and he attempted to investigate the sources of these errors. At
the end of the study, he made some pedagogical implications. Unlike our study, it
is a study on oral productions and the errors in these productions. Akarsu
classified errors as grammatical and lexical, and the percentages of errors in the
same categories in both studies are close to each other, in other words, similar
linguistic categories constitute the majority of the errors.
Farooq (1998) in his study identified and analyzed two error patterns in
written texts of upper-basic Japanese learners, in an EFL context. He suggests that
one pattern is originated from Japanese language and the other one is derived
from general misuse or overgeneralization of learning strategies. He also
attempted to devise teaching procedures to help the students deal with these
patterns. His study focuses on transfer and misuse or overgeneralization errors,
but this is a different approach from our study.
Unlike our study and like Farooq, Abi Samra (2003) made a similar study
on the developmental and transfer errors in the writings of Arabic learners of
English. Abi Samra found that the majority of errors (64,1 %) in the writings of
Arabic students is developmental errors and transfer errors comprise 35,9 % of the
total errors.
Myles (2002) suggests that errors in writing, fossilized or otherwise, can
be glaring, especially to the reader who has little experience interacting with L2
20
speakers and texts. She also emphasizes that we need to understand how students
compose in both their native language and in English to understand more about
their learning strategies (especially in monitoring errors), the role of translation
and transfer of skills. In other words, Myles emphasizes the importance of errors
for a better understanding of the learning process of the foreign or second
language learners.
Kılıç (1992), in her study, she observed the identification of errors by both
students and teachers and she came to the conclusion that both teachers and
students were informed of the errors, but they focused on different types of
grammatical errors. This study possesses a different point of view from ours,
because it made a comparison between the identifications made by the learners
and teachers; however, our study lacks such a perspective, in other words were
identified by the researcher in the current study.
Aycan (1990) deals with grammatical errors; however, it has a narrower
scope than the current study. Aycan focuses on only the errors in the tenses in the
written English of Turkish students. She did not take notice of other grammatical
items in her study, and she suggested that the most problematic area in tenses is
the present perfect tense. Since the main concern of our study is not the tenses in
English, it is not possible to make a comparison between the results of the two
studies.
Şahin (1993), in his study analyzed, a hundred samples of written
production and found that semantic/pragmatic errors constituted the majority
(61,39 %) of the errors. Besides, the syntactic errors comprised 38,60 % of the
total errors. Since the scope of our study is limited to the grammatical errors, it
did not involve semantic and pragmatic errors, in this respect; our study is
different from that of Şahin. However, syntactic errors comprise a large part of the
total errors in the Şahin’s study, as well.
Özaydınlı (1994) deals with the use of prepositions and phrasal verbs in
her study. She found that Turkish learners have some problems in the use of
prepositions and phrasal verbs. She suggests that Turkish learners of English tend
to avoid using prepositions since they do not have a complete mastery over the
use of prepositions. She also found that Turkish learners regard phrasal verbs as
21
separate parts rather than a whole unit. In terms of prepositions, there is a parallel
between the two studies: for, prepositions were the most problematic area in our
study, too.
Additionally, Ünal’s study (1989) also yielded similar results to that our
study. Ünal, in her study, “An Analysis of Errors in the Compositions of the
Turkish University Students Learning English as a Foreign Language” examined a
hundred compositions of the students and she concluded that prepositions are the
most problematic area for the Turkish learners; the second most problematic area
was syntactic errors. These areas show the relationship between the two studies.
Edwards (2002) suggests that two areas of study in the composition field,
grammar and style, have fallen below the critical and professional radar, left to the
handbook writers, old-school theorists, and secondary educators. Although a few
voices remain, their conspicuous absence in the scholarly journals and at
professional conferences clearly suggests that the field has moved away from
these matters. He also indicates that educators should renew their interest in errors
for getting students, then teachers, and scholars, more engaged with grammar and
error: error analysis and the concept of grammar as style. As in the current study,
this study also underlines the importance of errors and grammar in writing skill.
For better results in writing, he emphasizes the concepts grammar and error
analysis.
Davis and Mahoney (2005) investigated the effects that the testing of
grammar and writing mechanics would have on the overall quality and reduction
of errors in college students’ essays for freshman composition. In the
experimental group of 42 students, the professor assigned several exercises in
grammar and mechanics as a review related to composing skills and then gave
two major tests on proofreading essays for grammatical errors. However, the
other professor did not give these grammar tests to the 41 students in the control
group. The study used “T-tests” for statistical analysis on pre-test and post-test
essays, which each of the 83 students had written.
On overall writing quality, the faculty raters holistically scored the
students’ essays, using a scale from 1 (failing) to 4 (superior). Since the two raters
scored each student’s pre-test and post-test essay, each essay had a combined
22
score resulting in a scale from 2 (failing) to 8 (superior). The results showed that
the 42 students of the experimental group who tested on grammar had a mean pre-
test essay score of 2 and a mean post-test essay score of 4.53, showing a gain of
2.53. Statistically, these students made very highly significant gains in overall
writing quality. The 41 students of the control group not tested on grammar had a
mean pre-test essay score of 2.66 and a post-test score of 4.49, showing a gain of
1.83. These students’ also made very highly significant gains in overall writing
quality, although the experimental group’s post-test essay scores were still
significantly higher than the control groups.
On traditionally serious grammatical errors, the experimental group had a
mean number of 1.5 serious errors on the pre-test essay and a mean number of
0.93 error on the post-test, a reduction of 0.57 which was statistically significant.
The control group’s mean number on the pre-test essay was 1.23 serious errors
and a mean post-test number of 0.64 error, a reduction of 0.59 which was also
significant; however, there was no significant difference between both groups in
the reduction of serious errors. For the less serious “minor” errors, the
experimental group had a mean number of 7.4 minor errors on the pre-test essay
and a mean number of 5.12 errors on the post-test essay, a reduction of 2.28 errors
which was highly significant. The control group had a mean pre-test essay number
of 12.5 minor errors and a mean post-test essay number of 7.42 errors, a reduction
of 5.08 errors which was very highly significant. Moreover, statistics showed a
significant difference between both groups’ post-test essays in the reduction of
these minor errors, with the control group making more significant reductions in
the minor errors than the experimental group. The researchers concluded that the
two major grammar tests on proofreading two essays for errors may have had
some effect on the experimental group’s gains in overall writing quality for
correctness. However, these tests appeared to make no difference between both
groups, by having very little if any effect on the students in the experimental
group to reduce the number of errors significantly in their essays.
The researchers of this study concluded that the two major tests for
detecting and correcting grammatical errors in essays may have had some effect
on the experimental group’s significant gains in overall writing quality, at least for
23
correctness. However, the findings strongly suggest that these grammar tests had
very little if any effect on the students in this group for reducing the number of
errors significantly in their own essays. Therefore, more studies on teaching
useful skills in grammar and writing mechanics are needed to help college
educators realize how they may benefit their students the most to make greater
gains and learning outcomes in overall writing quality for freshman composition.
This study, however, strongly suggests that having students take tests by
proofreading essays to detect and correct grammatical errors will not necessarily
carry over into proofreading their own essays to reduce errors significantly, as
demonstrated by the control group’s students who reduced errors significantly
without being exposed to this type of testing in grammar and writing mechanics.
According to this study, teaching students to detect and correct errors through
exercises and tests has little effect on their ability to eliminate these errors in their
own essays. In fact, teaching errors can be counterproductive in teaching students
to write. This study calls for more research on what variables in composing and
what teaching methods really affect overall writing quality, especially in
improving first-year college students’ essays. Instead of exercises and tests to help
reduce the number of errors, could the significant difference actually lie in each
instructor’s grading policies of grammatical errors?
Johnston (1998) in her two year study examined the effectiveness of a
grammar-based language program to help four special needs second language
(L2) learners develop written competency. Linguistic patterns which students
were required to create sentences to fit certain represented a variety of sentence
structures beginning with simple sentences and progressing to more complex
ones. Two questions were asked: 1) Were the L2 learners in this study capable of
developing grammatical awareness through an alternative method of studying
grammar? and 2) Would students' heightened grammatical awareness lead to
improved written competence? To evaluate the effectiveness of the program,
students' assignments from the grammar-writing sessions were examined to see
how far students had progressed in writing simple and complex sentences. An
error analysis was conducted on three grammar quizzes. Students were
administered the Usage and Expression and Reading Comprehension subtests
24
from the Canadian Tests for Basic Skills (CTBS) at the beginning and end of each
year. To evaluate students' written competence, earlier writing samples were
compared with later samples, written on the same topic. The students' writing was
examined for the presence of coordinators and subordinators in as an index of
complexity. Students' writing collected during the study was also examined for the
presence of certain linguistic forms which were introduced in the linguistic
structures to see if any transfer had occurred.
The findings of the study are shown in three items:
1. The severity and nature of the students' language leaming disability determined
extent to which students were able to create sentences to fit within the linguistic
patterns. Their ESL background was also a factor.
2. Students' written performance did improve over the two year period. For some
students, the observed improvement tended to vary with the type of writing task.
3. The range and frequency of linguistic features in the students' writing varied.
For three students there appeared to be a correspondence between the test scores
for the Usage and Expression subtests and the number of linguistic forms present
in their writing. One student who showed no gains in his test scores showed a
delay in the acquisition of certain linguistic features.
From an interlanguage perspective, Yates and Kenkel (2002) argue that
many perplexing errors in second language writing are the result of the interaction
between developing linguistic competence and basic principles of ordering
information in texts that learners already know. The study also shows how this
interaction results in errors at the sentence level. These insights are applied to
published comments and corrections of sentence-level errors in student writing.
Hedayet (1990) investigated patterns in the apparent syntactic errors of
native English-speaking, upper-level learners of Arabic as a foreign language.
One hundred writing samples, including summaries, criticisms, and free
composition, were gathered from a number of university courses. Error types
analyzed included articles, subordinate clauses, two-word vocabulary, active
participles, tense and agreement, and word order. It is concluded that by teaching
an integral grammar course in composition to intermediate and advanced learners
of Arabic, many problems of syntax can be overcome. Some kind of contrastive
25
analysis of functional discourse patterns in Arabic and English should also be
considered. This is also a study related to the importance of grammar in a writing
course.
Chan (2004), in his article, presents evidence of syntactic transfer from
Chinese to English based on data obtained from 710 Hong Kong Chinese ESL
learners at different proficiency levels. Three methodologies were used: self-
reporting in individual interviews, translation (with and without prompts), and
grammaticality judgment. The focus of the study was on 5 error types: (a) lack of
control of the copula, (b) incorrect placement of adverbs, (c) inability to use the
there be structure for expressing the existential or presentative function, (d) failure
to use the relative clause, and (e) confusion in verb transitivity. The results
showed that many Chinese ESL learners in Hong Kong tended to think in Chinese
first before they wrote in English, and that the surface structures of many of the
interlanguage strings produced by the participants were identical or very similar to
the usual or normative sentence structures of the learners' first language (L1),
Cantonese. The extent of syntactic transfer was particularly large for complex
target structures and among learners of a lower proficiency level, though high-
proficiency learners may also have relied on the syntax and vocabulary of their
previous linguistic repertoire, their L1, when finding it difficult to produce output
in the target language. Some of the errors in our study also results from thinking
in their native language, in this respect, there is a parallel between the two studies.
Stenstrom (1975) described and explained certain categories of
grammatical errors made by 42 teacher trainees at Lund University in Sweden are
described and explained. Each student was asked to write two summaries in
English, on an account of a book that appeared on a list of books for extensive
reading and the other an account of a 40-minute tape recording in the language
laboratory, "A Bear Called Paddington." The two exercises tested reading
comprehension and listening comprehension, respectively. The errors were
corrected, and a typology of the grammatical errors was established. Native
speakers of English were then asked to evaluate the errors according to a four-
point scale: (1) "uncertain," (2) "acceptable in colloquial and careless language,"
(3) "wrong but comprehensible," and (4) "wrong and incomprehensible." The
26
categories of errors were as follows: (1) verb phrase, (2) noun phrase, (3)
prepositions, (4) concord, (5) pronouns, (6) word order, (7) clause connection, (8)
adjectives and adverbs, (9) complementation, and (10) numerals. The majority of
errors were committed in the areas of verb phrase, noun phrase, prepositions, and
concord. The major errors in the study mentioned above are, to a great extent,
similar to the error categories in our study.
Olsen (1999) examines English writings by Norwegian English-as-a-
foreign-language learners. Language problems on different linguistic levels are
analyzed and the theory of compensatory strategies is used to explain the process
behind the production. Results show that less proficient learners have a higher
number of grammatical, orthographic, and syntactical errors that can be attributed
to cross-linguistic influence.
Ney (1986) examines some of the theoretical and practical objections to
error analysis and proposes it would be more appropriate for teachers to lead
students through the use of creative language exercises into the use of many of the
possible sentences in a language.
Manley and Calk (1997) Examines second language students' perceptions
of grammar instruction, with specific reference to writing skill. Discusses issues
involved in defining a role for grammar study and presents excerpts from student
essays and explanations of classroom lessons. Results indicate that the instruction
provided helped to improve students' ability to use correct grammar forms for
three of the four points analyzed.
27
CHAPTER III
3. ERROR ANALYSIS
3.1 Presentation
This chapter involves the procedure for error analysis and classification of
errors.
3.2 Procedure for Error Analysis
According to Corder (1967, cited in Ellis 1994: 48), while conducting a
study of error analysis, one should follow five main steps:
1. Collection of a sample of learner language
2. Identification of errors
3. Description of errors
4. Explanation of errors
5. Evaluation of errors
3.2.1 Collection of a sample of learner language
The first step in a study of error analysis is to gather samples of learners’
language. In terms of size, samples of learners’ language are divided into three
main groups;
a) A massive sample: For a detailed list of errors, quite a good number of
samples are collected.
b) Specific sample: Unlike massive sample, a limited number of samples are
utilized in such a study.
c) Incidental sample: Only one single sample is collected from one learner.
According to Ellis (1994: 50) there are other criteria than the size of a learner
language. It is indicated in the table below as factors and their descriptions:
28
Table 3.1 Factors and descriptions for learner language
Factors Description
A Language
Medium Learner production can be oral or written
Genre
Learner production may take the form of
conversation, a lecture, an essay, a letter, etc.
Content The topic the learner is communicating about
B Learner
Level Elementary, intermediate, or advanced
Mother Tongue The learner's L1
Language
learning experience
This may be classroom or naturalistic or a mixture of
the two
Besides, Lococo (1976, cited in Ellis, 1994: 50) points out that the way the
data are collected may also affect the number of the learners’ errors.
The final factor, in the collection of samples, depends on cross-sectional or
longitudinal collection of samples (Akarsu, 2004, pp: 18-19). As stated by Ellis
(1994), learners’ errors are affected by their proficiency level, thus a cross-
sectional error analysis may not indicate the different errors at different levels.
3.2.2 Identification of errors
Identification or classification of errors, which is the second step of the
process of error analysis, is possible through the analysis of idiosyncrasies,
according to Corder (1971). Corder emphasizes that errors can be divided into two
separate groups: overt errors and covert errors. What he means by covert error is
erroneous utterances, which are unquestionably ungrammatical, and covert errors
are the ones which are grammatically well-formed but not interpretable within the
normal context of communication. For example, in the sentence “He is always
coming late.” seems grammatically well-formed. Such a sentence indicates
criticism and complaint about this action since the adverb of always is used with
29
present continuous tense. However, learners may not be aware of such a
distinction and they may use it to indicate a habitual action within the context of
communication. Thus, such an error can be described as an overt error. As for
covert errors, they grammatically erroneous utterances:
- He is always come late.
In the sentence above, it can be clearly seen that the verb is used without –ing ,
which is an ungrammatical utterance.
In order to determine the errors mentioned, Corder (1971) proposed an
algorithm as follows:
Figure 3.1 Corder’s Algorithm for Identification of Errors
However, Ellis (1994, p: 52) points out that such a procedure for identification
of errors may fail. According to him, it is ambiguous that this procedure will work
for covert errors. As stated above, a covert error may appear grammatically well-
30
formed; however there may be some differences between what it means and what
the learner means.
3.2.3 Description of errors
Errors were variously classified in terms of linguistics. Burt and Kiparsky
(1972), in The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English, described errors in
relation to skeleton of English classes, the auxiliary systems, passive sentences
etc. Also, Politzer and Ramirez (1973) emphasized such taxonomies as
morphology, syntax and vocabulary.
The taxonomies stated above aimed at pedagogical applications; however,
they are inadequate to explain the process of second language learning. Corder
(1974) described errors in terms of their systemisation:
1. Pre-systematic errors: They result from the lack of the knowledge of a
certain rule in the target language.
2. Systematic errors: Although the learner knows something about a rule, he
uses it wrongly.
3. Post-systematic errors: These errors seem to be a mistake rather than an
error. The learner is aware of the rule, but he uses it incompatibly.
3.2.4 Explanation of errors
This phase of error analysis is associated with the sources of errors.
Richards (1971) classified the sources of errors into three types:
1. Interference errors: The beginning stages of learning a second language are
characterized by a good deal of interlingual transfer (from the native language). In
these early stages, before the system of the second language is familiar, the native
language is the only linguistic system in previous experience upon which the
learner can draw. (Brown, 1980: 173)
As stated above by Brown, native language is the main source for the
learner of a second language, so the learner tries to make some comparison
between the systems of these two languages, and he will make some transfers
from his native language which will result in errors.
31
2. Intralingual errors: One of the main differences between CA and EA is the
recognition of errors that go beyond interlingual errors in learning a second
language. It is obvious that intralingual errors or intralingual interference is a
significant factor in second language learning; shortly it can be defined as the
wrong generalization of rules in the target language, eg. He swimed, we could
gone, etc.
While the early stages of language leaning include abundant interlingual
transfers, latter stages comprise more intralingual transfers as the learner has
begun to have better understanding of the new system and new rules. However,
after the learner progresses in the second language, he will acquire the correct
form of the language. It is clear that a systematic observation of this type of errors
will help teachers and researchers in language teaching.
3. Context of learning: As a result of some pedagogical factors, such as teachers,
teaching materials and the social situation, this kind of errors come about. In a
classroom atmosphere, the text book or the teacher can mislead the learner by the
way they define a lexical or grammatical item or a faulty presentation of a
structure in a textbook may lead to such errors. Richards (1971) called this type as
‘false concepts’ and Stenson (1976) termed ‘induced errors’.
Richards (1971:181) also stated that the main sources of errors are
overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rules,
false concepts hypothesized.
An analysis of the major types of intralingual and developmental
error, overgeneralization, and ignorance of rule restrictions,
incomplete application of rules, and the building of false systems or
concepts may lead us to examine our teaching materials for evidence
of the language learning assumptions that underlie them.
32
3.2.5 Evaluation of errors
The final step of error analysis is the evaluation process. The evaluation of
errors is conducted variously; Ellis (1994, cited in Akarsu 2004, p: 23) suggests
that there are three research questions related to the error evaluation:
1. Are some errors judged to be more problematic than others?
2. Are there differences in the evaluation made by native speakers and non-
native speakers?
3. What criteria do judges use in evaluating learners’ errors?
3.3 Classification of Errors
For an accurate analysis of errors, researchers have carried out various
classifications of errors. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) classified errors as
follows:
1- Linguistic Taxonomy
a) Phonology
b) Syntax and Morphology (grammar)
c) Semantics and Lexicon (meaning and vocabulary)
d) Discourse (style)
2- Surface Strategy Taxonomy
a) Omission
b) Addition
1) Double Markings
2) Regularization
3) Simple Addition
c) Misinformation
1) Regularization
2) Archi-forms
3) Alternating forms
d) Misordering
3- Comparative Taxonomy
a) Developmental Errors
33
b) Interlingual Errors
c) Ambiguous Errors
d) Other Errors
4- Communicative Effect Taxonomy
a) Global Errors
b) Local Errors
3.3.1 Linguistic Taxonomy
This category attracts people who have pedagogical aims. For instance,
foreign language teachers, syllabus designers, test developers make use of this
category while they design their materials and methods. It makes possible for
them to focus on certain aspects of the target language, such as grammar,
phonology, vocabulary, and so on.
In their study, Politzer and Ramirez (1973, cited in Dulay, Burt and
Krashen, 1982, p: 148) described the significance of error classification as “an aid
in presenting the data rather than to create a basis for extensive speculation
concerning the sources for the errors.” Their error category is as follows:
A Sample Linguistic Category Taxonomy
Linguistic Category and Error type
A. Morphology
1. Indefinite article incorrect
- a used for an before vowels a ant
- an used for a an little ant
2. Possessive case incorrect
- Omission of ‘s the man feet
3. Third person singular verb incorrect
- Failure to attach –s The bird help
man.
- Wrong attachment of –s The apple fall
downs.
4. Simple Past Tense incorrect
34
a. Regular past tense
- Omission of –ed The bird he
save him.
- Adding –ed to past already formed He calleded.
b.Irregular past tense
- Regularization by adding –ed He putted the
cookie there.
- Substitution of simple non-past He fall in the
water.
- Substitution of past participle I beer near to
him.
5. Past participle incorrect
- Omission of –ed He was call.
6. Comparative adjective/adverb incorrect
- Use of more –er He got up more
higher.
B. Syntax
1. Noun Phrase
a. Determiners
- Omission of the article He no go in
hole.
- Substitution of definite article for He fall down on
possessive pronoun the head.
- Use of possessive with the article He put it in the
his room.
- Use of wrong possessive The little boy
hurt its leg.
b. Nominalization
- Simple verb used instead of –ing by to cook it
35
- Preposition “by” omitted The dove
helped him
putting leaf on.
c. Number
- Substitution of singular for plurals He got some
leaf.
- Substitution of plurals for singulars He stab him in
the feet.
d. Use of pronouns
- Omission of the subject pronoun He pinch the
man.
- Omission of the “dummy” pronoun it Is nice to help
people.
- Omission of the object pronoun English I don’t know
(it) in.
- Subject pronoun used as a redundant My brother he
element go Mexico.
- Alternating use of pronouns by So he can eat
numbers as well as gender (referring to
apples).
- Use of me as subject Me forgot it.
e. Use of preposition
- Omission of preposition He came (to)
the water.
- Misuse of preposition He fell down
from (for into)
the water.
2. Verb Phrase
a. Omission of verb
- Omission of main verb He (fell) in the
water.
- Omission of to be He in the water.
36
b. Use of progressive tense
- Omission of be He going.
- Replacement of –ing by the simple The bird was
verb form shake his head.
- Substitution of progressive for the Then the man
simple past shooting (shot)
with a gun.
c. Agreement of subject and verb
- Disagreement of subject and verb person You be friends.
- Disagreement of subject and number The apples was
coming down.
- Disagreement of subject and tense I didn’t know
what it is.
3. Verb and verb construction
- Embedding of a noun-and-verb
construction in another noun-and-verb I got to play.
construction (I go and play)
- Omission of to in identical subject I go play.
construction
- Omission of to in the verb-and-verb I see a bird go
construction to leaf.
- Attachment of the past marker to the He was going
the dependent verb to fell.
4. Word order
- Repetition of the object The bird
(object) he was
gonna shoot it.
37
- Adjectival modifiers placed after noun He put it inside
his house a
little round.
5. Some Transformations
a. Negative transformation
- Formation of no or not without the He not play
auxiliary anymore.
-Multiple negations They won’t have
no fun.
a. Question transformation
- Omission of auxiliary How the story
helps?
b. There transformation
- Use of is instead of are There is these
hole.
- Omission of there Is one bird.
- Use of it was instead of there was There was
round things.
c. Subordinate clause transformation
- Use of for instead of so (that) For the ant
could get out.
- Use of indicative for conditional So he don’t
killed the bird
Table 3.2 Linguistic Taxonomy of Errors
3.3.2 Surface strategy taxonomy
Omission, addition, misformation and misordering are the keywords to
describe surface strategy taxonomy. This taxonomy suggests the way the surface
structures are changed by learners. Surface strategy taxonomy enables us to
identify cognitive processes that underlie the learner’s reconstruction of the new
language. It aids us in being aware that learners’ errors are based on some logic
38
(Gök, 1996, p: 76). In this process, six steps for the analysis of errors mentioned
earlier are followed.
3.3.2.1 Omission
Omission errors can be described as the absence of an item that is
necessary in a well-formed utterance. It is possible to omit any type of morphemes
or words in a sentence; however some kinds of them are more often omitted than
others (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982).
Content morphemes nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs form the majority of
the meaning of a sentence. For example, in the sentence; ‘John is the new English
teacher in our school.’ The words John, new, English, teacher, our and school
carry the burden of meaning, while is, the, in are grammatical morphemes which
carry a minor role in conveying the meaning.
3.3.2.2 Addition
Addition errors are characterized by the presence of an item that is
unnecessary in a well-formed utterance, which is completely opposite of the
omission errors. (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982)
For example: We come to home after shopping.
The man entered into the room.
You should to make up earlier.
Addition errors are classified in three groups: double markings,
regularization, simple addition.
3.3.2.2.1 Double markings
Such errors can be described as double uses of an item in a sentence.
For example: He doesn’t wants to live here.
They didn’t helped us.
3.3.2.2.2 Regularization
Regularization errors can be characterized by the ignorance of exceptions.
For example, the suffixes –s, -es, -ies are used to make nouns plural, however the
39
correct plural form of the word “foot” is “feet”, which is an exception. Thus, it
may be incorrectly used as foots instead of the correct form “feet”.
3.3.2.2.3 Simple addition
Dulay, Burt, Krashen (1982, p; 158) define it as “grab bag” subcategory of
additions. The additions which are neither regularization nor double marking are
described as simple additions.
For example: There were some the books on the table.
They want to went home.
3.3.2.3 Misformation
Misformation errors refer to the incorrect use of a morpheme or structure.
In other words, learners supply an item that is incorrect.
For example: He breaked the glass.
In the sentence above, incorrect past tense marker was supplied by the
learner although it is an irregular verb.
Misformation errors are divided into three groups: regularization, archi-
forms, and alternating forms.
3.3.2.3.1 Regularization
These errors are the use of regular markers instead of the irregular ones.
For example: He comed here.
Mans are very angry.
3.3.2.3.2 Archi-forms
These errors are characterized by the use of an item instead of all the other
items in the same group.
For example: these countries
these city
40
3.3.2.3.3 Alternating forms
It is described as the alternation of archi-forms for various members of a
group with each other such as masculine for feminine, accusative for nominative,
etc.
For example: they for it
his for he
he for she
3.3.2.4 Misordering
Elements of the sentence (a morpheme or group of morphemes) are used in
incorrect order in some utterances, this type of errors are described as
misordering.
For example: Do you know why is he sad?
She is lovely a girl.
3.3.3 Comparative taxonomy
In this taxonomy, the errors of the learners of a second or foreign language
are compared to those of a child learning the target language as his first language.
In this taxonomy, there are two main error categories: developmental and
interlingual errors. There are two more categories derived from the developmental
and interlingual errors: ambiguous errors and other errors.
Developmental errors are those which indicate that the learner builds up
some hypotheses about the target language. Interlingual errors reflect the structure
of native language regardless of the internal process or external condition that
spawned them (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982:171).
Ambiguous errors are both interlingual and developmental, while other
errors are described as neither interlingual nor developmental (Dulay, Burt and
Krashen, 1982). The figure below indicates the relationship between these four
types of errors:
41
LI Errors
Other L2 Errors
Figure 3.2 Illustration of the Relationship and Relative Proportions of Four
Error Types in a Comparative Taxonomy
3.3.4 Communicative Effect Taxonomy
In this category, effects of errors on communication are observed. In other
words, it emphasizes the distinction between the errors that hinder communication
and that do not. This taxonomy includes global and local errors.
Global errors are those which include “the overall structure of a sentence”
and local errors affect “a particular constituent”. (Burt, Kiparsky, 1974) Following
samples indicate the difference more clearly:
- I like take taxi but my friend said so not that we should be late for school.
(Global error)
In the example above, the overall structure of the sentence includes some
errors, which is called a global error.
- If I won the lottery, I will buy a new car. (Local error)
However, this example includes only one error related to the misuse of
conditionals. In the correct form of the sentence, the modal “would” should be
used instead of “will”.
42
CHAPTER IV
4. METHODS OF CORRECTING ERRORS
4.1 Presentation
In this chapter of the study, the process of error correction and the
techniques used for during this process are mentioned.
4.2 Error Correction
Although students’ errors are always corrected by teachers, students
continue to commit the same errors over and over again. However, nothing is said
in textbooks on how to deal with errors although error correction is a main part of
language teaching (Burt, 1975).
Chaudron (1989) asks some questions about how to deal with the errors:
1. Is it necessary to correct errors?
2. If so, which and how should they be corrected?
3. Who should correct them?
Two other factors during the process of correction are the sensitivity of the
learner and the nature of the task. (Broughton et al, 1980) Also, Semke (1982, p:
2) suggests:
“Suppose you had worked very hard on a composition for your
course in German. You tried to convey some authentic information,
not just string together some trite phrases. It is a real struggle to
do this in a foreign language. It takes a lot of time to look up new
words, and it is frustrating, because you are often not sure how to
put them together. But you do your best and then copy it over so it
will be neat and legible. The next day when you get it back, it is
covered with red ink.
Try to imagine how you would feel. Would you be eager to rush
home and try writing another composition? Would you feel like
trying to analyze all of those marks to understand what your
mistakes were, so that you don’t make the same mistakes again?”
43
As stated by Semke above, misuse of error correction techniques may sometimes
be discouraging for the students, as well.
4.3 Which Errors Should Be Corrected?
Error correction is an important process in language teaching, however it
should be emphasized to what extent errors should be taken into consideration.
Chastain (1971, cited in Gök, 1996, p: 142) indicates that teachers should abstain
from over-correction, as it hinders students from concentrating on message.
Additionally, Valette (1973) suggests that too many corrections of errors destroy
the motivation of the student.
So, which errors should be corrected? According to Klassen (1991) global
errors should have a priority, and then local errors should be corrected. Besides,
Walz (1982) claims that teachers must be selective while they are correcting
errors. In other words, he means that the teachers should not correct every
mistake, but only the most problematic ones.
4.4 Who Should Correct the Errors?
Although error correction is usually conducted by teachers, it may
sometimes be boring for the teacher since all the errors are corrected by the
teacher and it may also be discouraging for the students. Thus, errors are also
corrected by the students and their peers, as well. Accordingly, error correction
can be divided into three groups: self-correction, peer correction, teacher
correction.
Edge (1989, p: 50) claims that “involving learners in judgements about
correctness helps them become more accurate in their own use of language” That
is, student’s exposure to his errors enables him to understand his own errors, thus
self-correction is a useful method in correction.
Another useful way of correcting errors is peer correction. Edge (1989, p:
52) suggests:
44
“when two students work together on correcting each other’s
work, the discussion helps each one to learn from his or her own
errors. Two heads are better than one.”
However, Walz (1982) claims that a disadvantage of this approach is that the
author is usually insulted by his peers.
4.5 Forms of Correcting Errors
There are various ways of correcting oral and written errors of learners.
Since written productions of learners are focused on in this study only the
methods related to the written feedback is emphasized here.
Gök (1996) has suggested that there are five main categories of correcting
written productions. They are as follows:
1. Correcting all errors
2. Code correction
3. Writing comments
4. Using Checklists
5. Charting errors
4.5.1 Correcting all errors
As it was stated earlier in this chapter of the study, correcting all the errors
may be a discouraging approach for students, and it is also boring and tiring for
teachers. Additionally, Byrne (1988, p: 124) states that:
“some students learn nothing from it; others are more interested
in why something is wrong rather than the correction itself.”
Therefore, this approach might cause some negative influences on teachers and
students, and different approaches should be used while correcting students’
errors.
45
4.5.2 Code correction
Sometimes teachers use some code letters or symbols instead of writing
the correct version of errors. An advantage of this method is that it enables
students to think about their errors and to try to find a correct version of the errors.
The most common code letters used in this method are as follows:
T: Tense
WF: Word form
WO: Word order
S: Syntax
A: Agreement
V: Vocabulary
( ): Something is not necessary
P: Punctuation
Art: Article
R: Repetition
St: Style
Sp: Spelling
?: I don’t understand
46
(cited in Gök, 1996, Norrish, 1983; Monreal, 1981)
4.5.3 Writing comments
Another technique in error correction is the teacher’s written comments at
the end of the written production of the learner. In this technique, since it requires
too much time to write comments of each error the teacher reads the whole text
and writes his comments briefly at the end of the text. The comments are in the
form of suggestions, questions and praise. According to Raimes (1983, p: 143)
such an approach is better than such comments as “only fair, good or needs more
work”.
4.5.4 Using checklists
Checklists can be beneficial both for students and teachers in error
correction process. Checklists can involve some questions about writing and these
questions can be used as useful tools to correct the learners’ errors in writing.
Teachers and students can make use of these questions for the evaluation of the
production.
4.5.5 Charting errors
Charts can also be used as a useful tool so that students could see their
errors easily. Besides, teachers can also observe the improvement of his students
by evaluating the charts related to their errors. To sum up, charts help both
students and teachers easily observe their errors and process of improvement.
47
CHAPTER V
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1 Presentation
This chapter firstly gives some information about the design of the study,
and then subject in the study are mentioned. Eventually, the proficiency levels of
the subjects are given in a list.
5.1 Design of the Study
Although it is thought that students have a chance to get back and correct
their errors, it is seen in the current study that subjects committed quite a good
number of errors in their written productions.
As stated in the first chapter of the study, compositions of 47 different
students were collected and the errors in these writings were analyzed in terms of
grammatical errors. For the proficiency level, their scores of YDS –the foreign
language exam, which students are required to take in order to study in a
department of English Language and Literature at university- and the scores of
another test applied by the researcher were taken into consideration. Their
compositions were firstly analyzed and classified by the researcher, and then the
copies of the same compositions were given to another rater, and he was asked to
identify their errors in terms of grammar. After the analysis of the rater, the
number of errors identified by him was counted. Later, the correlation between the
two results (the researcher’s and the rater’s) was calculated in order to determine
the accuracy of the identification of errors. The correlation calculated according to
the Pearson correlation was 0, 90 which suggests a strong correlation between the
rater and researcher.
As mentioned before in chapter III, Dulay, Burt, Krashen (1982) indicates
that there are four major linguistic categories of errors:
1. Orthography (spelling)
2. Lexicon and semantics (vocabulary and meaning)
3. Syntax and morphology (grammar)
4. Discourse (style)
48
In the current study, only the errors in the third category (syntax and
morphology) were analyzed and classified into sub-categories so as to give a more
accurate and detailed outline of the types of errors. The grammatical errors were
analyzed in seven major categories and these categories involve some sub-
categories. The taxonomy of these errors is as follows:
1. Tenses
2. Prepositions
3. Articles
4. Active and passive voice
5. Verbs
6. Other syntactic errors
7. Morphological errors
After the identification and classification of errors, they were analysed in
terms of the frequencies and frequency percentages. Frequency and percentage of
error types refer to the proportion of error types to the total number of the errors.
5.2 Subjects and Data Collection
The subjects of the study are the students from the Department of English
Language and Literature of Atatürk University. They are first year students who
came to the department at the beginning of 2004-2005 education year. The
students who come to the department are required to study a prep class for a year;
however, the exemption from the prep class is possible through an exam taken by
these students at the beginning of the semester. The students need to be good at
reading, writing and speaking skills to pass this exam.
The compositions analysed in this study are the ones written in the exam
mentioned above. In this study, only 47 compositions are analysed according to
their grammatical errors.
The compositions were required to be written according to the following
criteria:
a) It should consist of 250-300 words.
b) They should pay attention to the unity, coherence, grammar, vocabulary
and organization of their writing.
49
And following topics were given to the student:
a) ‘There are a lot of discussions concerning European Union in Turkey
and I feel that too much importance is given to Turkey’s membership.’
b) Read the following passage and write a composition considering the
idea given in it.
No one would underestimate the importance of inventions, but the really
great invention is the one which has made others possible. Man’s great inventions
have not grown out of laboratories or workshops. Their origins are obscure. No
one can be sure exactly when the needle, or the plough, came into existence, but
one thing is certain: we depend on inventions. They have become an
indispensable part of life on earth (Alexander, 1965).
The grammatical errors committed in these compositions were analysed in
this study according to the linguistic taxonomy above.
The proficiency levels of the subjects are predicated on their score of YDS
exam in 2004.The mean of their YDS scores is 352,526 and their mean of the
scores of the other test applied by the researcher is 62,76 and these scores
indicate that they are the students at intermediate level. Their scores are as
follows:
Table 5.1 Subjects’ Level of Proficiency
Subjects
Scores of the Test applied by the
researcher YDS 2004 Scores of The
Subjects Subject 1 64 351,145 Subject 2 74 351,374 Subject 3 64 351,393 Subject 4 44 352,697 Subject 5 70 351,692 Subject 6 36 352,657 Subject 7 60 351,207 Subject 8 64 352,600 Subject 9 70 352,764 Subject 10 54 351,902 Subject 11 66 353,099 Subject 12 70 351,828 Subject 13 48 351,316 Subject 14 52 351,727 Subject 15 68 352,766
50
Subject 16 76 351,276 Subject 17 74 352,302 Subject 18 64 351,336 Subject 19 72 351,430 Subject 20 66 352 Subject 21 54 351,746 Subject 22 62 351,423 Subject 23 54 351,754 Subject 24 64 351,235 Subject 25 64 353,536 Subject 26 48 353 Subject 27 54 353,096 Subject 28 50 352,892 Subject 29 74 353,488 Subject 30 66 353 Subject 31 72 352,921 Subject 32 72 353,281 Subject 33 54 353 Subject 34 74 353 Subject 35 66 353,396 Subject 36 58 354 Subject 37 76 353 Subject 38 64 353,012 Subject 39 76 353,007 Subject 40 64 353,444 Subject 41 42 353,097 Subject 42 72 354 Subject 43 62 353,064 Subject 44 72 352,941 Subject 45 76 353,096 Subject 46 64 353,066 Subject 47 40 353,745
51
CHAPTER VI
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Presentation
This chapter of the study includes the results and discussion of the results.
First, errors are classified into error types, and then percentages of the errors are
presented and analyzed in detail.
6.2 Results
As it was stated in the previous chapter, compositions of 47 different
students of the Department of English Language and Literature of Atatürk
University were examined. At the end of the analysis, a total of 488 grammatical
errors were identified in the compositions. Identified errors were classified into 7
main linguistic categories.
The number and percentages of these errors are indicated in the table and
figure below:
Table 6.1 Numbers of the Errors
The number of
errors
The percentage of
errors
Tenses 10 2
Prepositions 121 24,7
Articles 82 16,8
Active and passive voice 19 3,8
Verbs 46 9,4
Other syntactic errors 113 23,1
Morphological errors 97 19,8
Total 488 100
52
30
25
20
15
10
5
0Other Active
VerbsTenses Prepositions Articles Syntactic Passive
Figure 6.1 Percentages of Errors
The number of errors for each student for each student is presented in the
following table:
Table 6.2 Number of Subjects’ Errors
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS SUBJECTS
THE NUMBER OF
WORDS IN CORPUS RESEARCHER RATER
Subject 1 204 12 11
Subject 2 181 12 12
Subject 3 123 5 5
Subject 4 330 15 12
Subject 5 347 5 6
Subject 6 281 8 8
Subject 7 317 15 14
Subject 8 284 9 7
Subject 9 299 6 9
Subject 10 258 8 9
Subject 11 103 6 6
2 24, 7 23, 1 Errors
19, 8 16, 8 3, 8 9, 4
Morphology
53
Subject 12 326 6 8
Subject 13 262 8 7
Subject 14 271 5 5
Subject 15 220 10 10
Subject 16 257 7 7
Subject 17 276 7 7
Subject 18 259 22 21
Subject 19 221 15 14
Subject 20 206 17 17
Subject 21 389 18 17
Subject 22 261 5 5
Subject 23 181 12 10
Subject 24 219 11 11
Subject 25 267 10 14
Subject 26 242 11 10
Subject 27 413 7 10
Subject 28 205 12 11
Subject 29 353 15 13
Subject 30 354 15 13
Subject 31 408 7 12
Subject 32 128 10 9
Subject 33 213 6 6
Subject 34 253 14 13
Subject 35 361 15 12
Subject 36 183 8 9
Subject 37 147 6 7
Subject 38 300 10 10
Subject 39 211 6 6
Subject 40 277 5 3
Subject 41 282 13 14
Subject 42 228 18 15
54
Subject 43 272 15 14
Subject 44 339 14 14
Subject 45 179 5 4
Subject 46 144 7 6
Subject 47 270 15 13
TOTAL 12104 488 476
6.2.1 A detailed classification of errors
The errors, which are generally given above into linguistic categories,
were classified in tables into linguistic categories a more detailed way. Giving
examples from the errors committed in the compositions of the student, they are
presented below.
6.2.1.1 Tenses
The number of errors in tenses, which comprises % 2 of the total errors, is
10. These errors were divided into sub-categories as seen in the table below:
Table 6.3 Errors of tenses
Present continuous instead of present simple 1 Simple present instead of present perfect 3 Simple past instead of present perfect 2 Past perfect instead of simple past 4 Simple past instead of simple present 1 Total 11
This category constitutes the lowest number of errors among the linguistic
categories employed in the study. One of the probable reasons for the minority of
the errors in this category is that the students did not use various types of tenses in
their writings because of the topics related to their writings. Also, there are some
certain rules about the usage of tenses and you do not make so many mistakes
once you learn these rules, this might be another reason for fewer errors in this
category. Some of these erroneous utterances are below:
- We have these problems for years. (Subject 38)
55
In this sentence, the subject used simple present tense instead of present
perfect tense. A probable reason for this error may be the lack of equivalent of
present perfect tense in Turkish. Incomplete knowledge of this tense may lead
learners to incorrect use of it.
Another error for present perfect tense is as follows:
-…with the television’s invention we started listen and see
simultaneously... (Subject 32)
Although her utterance refers to the present perfect, she used simple past
tense. This error may be a result of Turkish translation of these two tenses. In
Turkish, the sentences “we have started and we started” are translated as
“başladık” so, this error can be called as an error of interference.
In another sentence the subject used past perfect tense instead of the
simple past:
- …with the invention of the bulb, humanity had got a different life...
(Subject 26)
Another sample is the use of present continuous instead of simple present:
-... we are feeling their absence in every aspect of our lifes. (Subject 9)
6.2.1.2 Prepositions
This category constitutes the most problematic area for the subjects. For,
almost all the subjects omitted or misused some prepositions in their utterances.
This category is the one that includes the largest number of errors, which are 121
in total. Their detailed classification is as given the table below:
Table 6.2 Errors of Preposition
Omission of prepositions 77 Redundant use of prepositions 14 Misuse of prepositions 30 Total 121
Since most English prepositions have some different functions, it is
difficult to learn to use prepositions correctly for Turkish learners. Another factor
that makes this area is that some prepositions in English such as in, on, at can be
56
used as suffixes in the same form without any distinction in Turkish. For this
reason Turkish learners have difficulty while using prepositions in English. As it
is seen in the table above, the most common error in this category is omission of
prepositions. Some samples of such errors are as follows:
- We are far away (-) our families. (Subject 4)
- We can’t think (-) life without them. (Subject 6)
- A lot of European countries want to be (-) the place of
Turkey. (Subject 7)
- ... inventions would have taken people (-) an unknown world.
((Subject 8)
- (-) My opinion Turkey’s membership isn’t very important.
(Subject 11)
- We say (-) European union that ... (Subject 15)
- These are good possibilities (-) Turkey’s membership.
(Subject 20)
- And so people won’t have to migrate (-) other country.
(Subject 21)
- (-) The other hand; .... (Subject 22)
- ... we must pay attention (-) every invention. (Subject 25)
Another most common error in preposition is the misuse. Since Turkish
learners have difficulty in distinguishing some prepositions, and they have
inadequate knowledge they use them wrongly. Here are some samples of these
errors:
- ... in this earth ((Subject 1)
- ... on our life (Subject 2)
- ... look to future safely (Subject 13)
- In the other hand.... (Subject 20)
- In the same time... (Subject 24)
- ... on the world (Subject 29)
- ... in university (Subject 34)
And, the least common error in this category is the addition of prepositions.
- They are in common among farmers. (Subject 5)
57
- ... in everytime (Subject 8)
- If we want to a good life... (Subject 13)
- They don’t want to anybody. (Subject 15)
- ... we don’t want to this union. (Subject 18)
In the last three examples above, the subject used the preposition “to” after
the verb “want”. When the verb be is followed by a verb the preposition “to” is
used before the following verb. However, this is not the case when “want” is
followed by a noun. Learners did not notice this distinction, and they used “to”
redundantly after the verb “want”.
6.2.1.3 Articles
Another problematic area for the learners is the use of articles. Nearly
seventeen percent of the total errors are in this category. The subjects mostly
omitted the definite and indefinite articles in their writings. The table below
indicates their error in this category in detail:
Table 6.3 Errors of Articles
Omission of ‘the’ 20 Redundant use of ‘the’ 4 Omission of ‘a/an’ 43 Redundant use of ‘a/an’ 4 Misuse of articles 11 Total 82
As the articles are not used similarly in Turkish as in English learners
commit quite a good number of errors in this category. For example, when we say
“I am a doctor” in English we use the indefinite article “a” before the “doctor”.
However, this is not the case in Turkish. In Turkish, the sentence is formed as
“Ben doktorum.” And there is no equivalent of the article “a “in this sentence. In
other words, there is a great difference between the two languages in terms of
articles. Thus, they produce so many errors of articles. Some samples of these
errors are as follows:
58
- (The) Washing machine is the most important invention for (a)
housewife. (Subject1) (Omission)+ (omission)
- ... an simple invention (Subject 4) (misuse)
- the (+) television (Subject 7) (addition)
- ... lives in a (+) comfort (Subject 8) (addition)
- ... modal of ( a) car (Subject 9) (omission)
- a outstanding community (Subject 14) (misuse)
- The car is still used in (the) world. (Subject 17) (Omission)
- Turkey is (a) beautiful country.... (Subject 18) (Omission)
- Turkey is (a) developed country. (Subject 21) (Omission)
- In my opinion, inventions have (an) important place in our life.
(Subject 23) (Omission)
- Who is (the) inventor of this invention? (Subject 28) (Omission)
- And the best example of it is (the) first world war. (Subject29)
(Omission)
- a invention (Subject 30) (misuse)
- an inventions (Subject 32) (misuse)
- ... inventions are (an) indispensable part of our life. (Subject
33) (Omission)
6.2.1.4 Active and passive voice
This category comprises % 3,8 of the total errors and the total number in
this category is 19. It was seen that the subjects used active voice instead of
passive, which is a probable result of carelessness and lack of competence. Below
are some samples of these errors:
- Wherever we are, we connect with each other. (Subject 3)
In the sentence above, the subject used the active form of the verb
“connect”, but she should have used the passive voice and the correct form is:
- Wherever we are, we are connected with other.
Another sample for this category is:
-As much as I can remember it hadn’t invented on bad purposes…
(Subject 12)
59
Here, the learner mentioned something that had been invented; however
she used the active voice instead of the passive. The correct form of the sentence
is:
-… it hadn’t been invented …
Another sample is as follows:
- … a life without them doesn’t think … (Subject 19)
This erroneous utterance should be corrected as:
- … a life without them isn’t thought.
6.2.1.5 Verbs
This category is related to the misuse, omission and addition of the verb
“be” and other verbs in sentences. The table below indicates a detailed
classification of these errors:
Table 6.4 Errors of Verbs
Omission of the verb ‘be’ 14 Addition of the verb ‘be’ 23 Misuse of the verb ‘be’ 4 Omission of other verbs 3 Misuse of other verbs 2 Total 46
The most problematic items in this category are the use of verb “be”. The
subjects omitted or added the verb “be” in their utterances. The samples of this
category are as follows:
- … when a house-wife cleaning the house, her dresses are washed in its
own. (Subject 1)
In the first sentence, the third person form of the verb “be” is omitted
though it is a sentence of present continuous tense. The correct form should be:
- … a house-wife is cleaning…
Another omission error is:
- … we wouldn’t(-) aware of the things… (Subject 8)
The correct form of the sentence must be as follows:
60
-… we wouldn’t be aware of the things…
Some other omission errors are:
- The most important thing (-) economic condition. (Subject 11)
- … others(-)always working on it. (Subject 12)
- Situation of the country, important ways of sea (-) examples of
the reasons. (Subject 34)
-… people in Turkey(-) generally poor. (Subject 35)
- For example, its climate(-) suitable for farming. (Subject36)
The examples above have common characteristics. The possible reason for
the errors in the examples is probably the distinction in the use of the verb “be” in
Turkish and English. The translation of a sentence with the verb “be” in English
may seem to have no verb in Turkish. For example, in the sentence before the last
sample above when we translate the sentence into Turkish it seems correct to the
learner, however this is not the case for the rules in English. Thus, when the
learners simply translate the sentence into English without applying the rules of
the target language the result may be erroneous as in these examples.
Besides, there are quite a good number of errors in terms of the
addition of the verb “be”.
- Without television life can be continue … (Subject 4)
- If it weren’t come into existence… (Subject8)
- These are basic inventions and they are deal with other
inventions. (Subject 10)
- This idea can be happen and I believe this idea isn’t a dream
for Turkey. (Subject 13)
- … it can be develop more quickly than now. (Subject 20)
- … would a lot of people have been died? (Subject 32)
- European Union is occurred by some countries which have
perfect life standards. (Subject 43)
The other errors in the subcategories in this category are not so common
and their possible reason is carelessness, anxiety or nervousness.
61
6.2.1.6 Other syntactic errors
The sub-categorization of this category is as in the table below:
Table 6.5 Other Syntactic Errors
Wrong order 26 Lack of subject verb agreement 33 Misuse of modals 7 Omission of modals 1 Misuse of conditionals 9 Disagreement between determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers and nouns 36
Total 113
As it is clearly understood from the table above, the most common and
problematic areas are wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement and
disagreement between determiners and nouns.
One of the most common errors in this category is in the word order in the
sentences. Since the word order in English and Turkish are different from each
other, the subjects used the items in the sentences in wrong orders. Some samples
are as follows:
- I wonder, an inventor how invents, where invents and when
invents. (Subject 2)
- We are unaware of them often. (Subject 3)
- … inventions would have opened to the technology new
windows. (Subject 8)
- Today, inventions have become our part of life … (Subject 9)
- A lot of people take serious Turkey’s membership. (Subject
11)
- European Union for Turkey is really essential. (Subject 13)
- They make easier many things. (Subject 16)
- … they make everything for make easy peoples life. (Subject
19)
- They made easier our life. (Subject 28)
- They are our indispensable part of life. (Subject 39)
62
The disagreement between subject and verb is also a problematic area for
the learners:
- If an invention is big and important and everybody use it the
history of it will be known. (Subject 5)
- It take part in our life intensely. (Subject 6)
- I think in the world nobody want to live without inventions.
(Subject 10)
- Since Turkey connect Assia to Europe… (Subject 15)
- Whatever happen at the end must think immediately…
(Subject 34)
- If we answers our problems… (Subject 37)
- … everday we watches same thing. (Subject 38)
- Our life always change… (Subject 41)
- Some inventions was invent …. (Subject 42)
- Whenever he miss his family… (Subject 46)
- … this ruin our civilisation. (Subject 47)
Disagreement between determiners and nouns is the most common errors
in this category:
- You can do many thing with it. (Subject 4)
- We can do a lot of thing in a short time. (Subject 10)
- … there are a lot of European country. (Subject 14)
- They have too many advancement in science, maths … etc.
(Subject 15)
- … a lot of factory or other job area will be opened. (Subject
21)
- So we don’t neglect this inventions for our society. (Subject
26)
- In prehistoric ages, people had lots of trouble. (Subject31)
- But many country… (Subject 34)
- For this reasons … (Subject 35)
- … we need to solve this problems. (Subject 38)
63
In Turkish, quantifiers are not usually followed by plural nouns; for
example, the phrase “birçok problem” in Turkish is a correct phrase; however
when we directly apply this structure to the target language the result will be
erroneous (many problem). Also, the case is similar in demonstratives. Singular
demonstratives are used before nouns no matter they are singular or plural. For
example, in “bu ülkeler” bu is a singular demonstrative and ülkeler is a plural
noun, and the English equivalent of this phrase is “this countries”, which is
accepted as erroneous in English.
6.2.1.7 Morphological errors
Morphological Errors 6.6
Omission of plural ending ‘s’ 11 Misuse and addition of the plural ending ‘s’ 14 Misuse of possessive ‘s’ 6 Incorrect use of comparative adjectives 6 Misuse of other and another 7 Misuse of ‘like and as’ 6 Wrong word form 46 Total 97
This category constitutes % 19,8 of the total errors. The table indicates that
the most problematic sub-category in this taxonomy is the wrong word form. The
subjects used wrong form of the words, such as adjectives instead of adverbs,
nouns instead of verbs or gerund instead of infinitive. The possible reason for so
many errors in this category is that the area is very comprehensive. Besides, they
may result from inadequate competence of the subjects. As the subjects do not
have sufficient knowledge of different forms of these words, they probably
produced so many erroneous utterances. Some samples of this sub-category are as
follows:
- … all invents have indispensable part on our life. (Subject 6)
In the sentence above, the subject pluralized the verb invent by adding –s
to the end of this verb.
- In real, … (Subject 14)
In this phrase, an adjective (real) was used instead of noun form (reality).
64
- We couldn’t live good… (Subject 17) (Adjective instead
of adverb)
- … some people behave wrong … (Subject 20)
(Adjective instead of adverb)
- Europe Union… (Subject 21) (Noun instead of
adjective)
- I am very worry ( Subject 24) (bare infinitive instead of
past participle)
- …an idea about make an inventions. (Subject 32) (Bare
infinitive instead of gerund)
- It will go on depend on … (Subject 40) (bare infinitive
instead of gerund)
- Inventions must be develop ... (Subject 41) (bare
infinitive instead of past participle)
Some other errors in this group are as follows:
- … one of the most important invention… (Subject 4)
(Lack of plurality)
- Turkey is one of the most important country (Subject
34) (Lack of plurality)
- One of your friend… (Subject 44) (Lack of plurality)
- … other works (Subject 1) (addition of the plural
ending‘s’)
- Another reasons… (Subject 7) (Misuse of other and
another)
- … member of others religion. (Subject 15) (Misuse of
other and another)
- Another countries… (Subject 36) (Misuse of other and
another)
- It’s importance… (Subject 31) (it’s instead of its)
- It’s meaning… (Subject 39) (it’s instead of its)
- … for living more different like we want. (Subject 34)
(Misuse of ‘like and as’)
65
CHAPTER VII
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Summary of Findings
In this study, as a result of the analysis of learners’ errors, 488
grammatical errors were found. These errors were first classified into seven major
categories, and then they were divided into subcategories. It was observed that the
largest group in the number of errors was the errors of prepositions, which
comprised %24.7 of the total errors. The next largest number was in the group of
other syntactic errors, which involves wrong order, lack of subject and verb
agreement, and disagreement between determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers,
and nouns. The following most problematic areas were consecutively
morphological errors, articles, verbs, active-passive voice, and tenses.
7.2 Suggestions for Teachers, Syllabus and Textbook Designers and Test
Developers
Although there are various teaching techniques, there have always been
problems in terms of language teaching and teachers have used various techniques
and tried to teach a language in certain ways.
In this respect, teachers, syllabus designers and test developers should
make use of such studies to acquire new insights. In this way, it is possible for
them to see language learners from a different point of view. Thus, error analysis
should not be underestimated as it helps us observe their errors and progress.
As it is mentioned in earlier chapters of the study, errors are inevitable
parts of language learning and teaching. People should regard them as the signals
of progress and diagnosis of problems and they should make use of it as much as
possible in order to evaluate students’ progress, to design course syllabus and to
prepare language teaching materials such as textbook, tests, etc.
The results of the study indicate that the learners are competent in basic
rules of the target language; however their knowledge of the target language has
some deficiencies. One of the possible reasons of these deficiencies is learners’
lack of practice during their education at high schools. As a preparation for the
YDS exam, they learn some rules and words, but they do not need to put them
66
into practise for success in this exam. Accordingly, they do not practise the target
language sufficiently.
Writing and speaking are practical skills and they help us practise and
improve our knowledge of the target language. Therefore, teachers should make
use of these skills. Inadequate exposure to the target language hinders learners’
improvement.
As mentioned in earlier chapters, errors are inevitable in language teaching
process and it is quite natural that learners commit errors during their learning
process. Teachers should not be strict to errors; on the contrary, they should
benefit from errors since they reflect learners’ level and improvement. Teachers
should focus on the most common errors and try to overcome them using various
materials and methods. Besides, textbook designers or syllabus designers should
design their materials in the light of these errors, and proper tests should be
designed to measure students’ improvement. Teachers can also make use of errors
for their future plans in language teaching, they can conduct remedial teaching
using exercises related to the problematic areas of the target language.
Error correction is also a very important factor in language teaching. Error
correction is a real burden for teachers and it is also sometimes discouraging for
learners. Thus, teachers should let learners identify and correct their errors
themselves or with their peers. In this way, they will probably have a better
understanding of their errors.
7.3 Suggestions for Further Studies
This study aimed to determine the most frequent grammatical errors that
Turkish learners of English commit in their writings. The compositions written by
learners were examined and the errors found were classified to certain linguistic
categories. Another aim of this study was to reveal EA as a pedagogical tool both
for diagnosis and explanation of problematic areas in the target language. As a
result of the diagnosis of errors, some suggestions for teachers, syllabus designers
and test developers were made in order to have better results and fewer errors in
language teaching. Thus, this study can be described as a case study as it focused
on a single stage in the learners’ learning process.
67
A longitudinal study can be conducted to observe learners’ improvement
and the changes in this process can be identified. Also, a longitudinal study helps
us see whether their errors are transitory or fossilized. Besides, after a remedial
teaching to the learners another study can be conducted to evaluate the results.
68
APPENDICES
Appendix I Samples of Learners’ Productions
69
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, L. G. (1965) Essay and Letter Writing. Longman Publishing Group.
Akarsu, O. (2004) Errors Committed by Turkish Learners of English in Oral
Production. Unpublished Master Thesis. Erzurum: Ataturk University.
Aycan, N. (1990) Errors in Tense in the Written English of Turkish Students with
Special Reference to the Semantic Bases. MA Thesis. Bilkent University
Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P.& Pincas, A. (1980) Teaching
English as a Foreign Language. London: Routhledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Brown, H. D. (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice
Hall.
Burt, M. and C. Kiparsky. (1972) The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Byrne, D. (1988) Teaching Writing Skills. Essex, England: Longman Group UK
Ltd.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004) Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of
Hong Kong Chinese ESL Learners Modern Language Journal v88 n1 p: 56–
74 Mar 2004
Chastain, K. (1971) The development of modern language skills: Theory and
Practice. Philedelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Chomsky, N. (1966) Linguistic Theory. In F. Smolinski, (Ed.) (1985) Landmarks
of American Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C. U.S Information
Agency
Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners' errors. Reprinted in J.C.Richards
(ed.) (1974,1984) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 19 – 27
…………..., (1971) Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. In Richards (ed),
Error Analysis, 1974, Longman.
…………..., (1974) Error Analysis. In J. Allen and S. Corder (eds.) The
Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics. 3. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. (Rpt in Ellis, 1986)
71
Davis, W. ; Mahoney, K. (2005) The Effects of Grammar Testing on the Writing
Quality and Reduction of Errors in College Freshmen’s Essays.Division of
Humanities, Dalton State College.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S.D. (1982) Language Two, Oxford University
Press.
Edge, J. (1989) Mistakes and correction. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
Edwards (2002) Grammar as Style: A Better Approach to the Concept of Error.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication (53rd, Chicago, IL, March 20–23, 2002)
Ellis, R. (1986). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University
Press.
Er, G. (1990) Error Analysis and Remedial Work in a Composition Course.
Master Thesis. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi
Fries, C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gök, Ş. (1996) Error Analysis vs Contrastive Analysis and Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis and The Methodlogy of Writing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Erzurum:
Atatürk University.
Gürsel, E. (1998) Error Analysis of the English Writings of the students from the
Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Gaziantep. MA
thesis. University of Gaziantep
Hamilton, R. P. (2001) The Insignificance of Learners' Errors: A Philosophical
Investigation of the Interlanguage Hypothesis. Language &
Communication v21 n1 p: 73–88 Jan 2001
Hedayet, Nagwa (1990) Some Errors in the Writings of the Intermediate and
Advanced Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language. World Congress of
Applied Linguistics, sponsored by the International Association of Applied
Linguistics (9th, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 15–21, 1990).
Hedge, T. (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
James, C. (1980) Contrastive Analysis. Singapore: Longman Singapore
Publishers.
72
Johnston (1998) A Role for Grammar Instruction in the Written Language
Development of Four ESL Students Placed in a Special Education
Program for the Language Learning Disabled. Simon Fraser University.
Kılıç, S. (1992) An Analysis of the Relationship between Students’ Perception
and Teachers’ Perception of Major Errors Experienced by the Prepatory
Students with regard to Grammar in EFL at the University of Gaziantep.
MA Thesis. University of Gaziantep
Lado, R. (1957) Lingusitics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language
Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.
Larsen- Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. T. (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning. Language-
acquisition research and its applications fro the classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Pres.
Lococo, V. (1976) A comparison of three methods for the collection of L2 data:
free composition, translation and picture description. Working Papers on
Bilingualism.
Manley, J. M.. ; Calk, L. (1997) Grammar Instruction for Writing Skills: Do
Students Perceive Grammar as Useful? Foreign Language Annals v30 n1
p73–83 Spr 1997
Mattar, O. (1994) Writing to Learn: Learning to Write: Vocabulary and
Discourse- Genre. In C. Zaher (ed.), Proceedings of The First EFL Skill
Conference. The American University in Cairo.
Monreal, M. E. (1981) Correcting Written Work. English Teaching Forum, 19.
Murcia, M. C. (2001) Teaching English as a second or Foreign Language.
Heinle&Heinle: Thomson Learning
Ney, J. W. (1986) Error Analysis, Theories of Language, and the Teaching of
Writing. Written Communication v3 n1 pp:15–29 Jan 1986
Norrish, J. (1983) Language Learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press.
Oller, J. W., and Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1970) The Contrastive analysis hypothesis
and spelling errors. Language Learning. 20: 183–189.
73
Olsen, S. (1999) Errors and Compensatory Strategies: A Study of Grammar and
Vocabulary in Texts Written by Norwegian Learners of English. System v27
n2 pp: 191–205 Jun 1999
Özaydınlı, B. (1994) Error Analysis of Prepatory Class Students in the Use of
English Grammatical Prepositions and Non-Literal Phrasal Verbs at the
University of Gaziantep. MA Thesis. University of Gaziantep.
Politzer, R. , Ramirez, A. (1973) An error analysis of the spoken English of
Mexican-American pupils in a bilingual school and monolingual school.
Language Learning, 23, 1 ( Rpt. İn Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982)
Ponsot, M., Dean, R. (1982) Beat not the Poor Desk: Writing : What to teach,
how to teach it and why. Montclair, NJ: Boyton/Cook
Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1971) Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies, in John H.
Schomann and Nancy Stenson (ed.), New Frontiers in Second Language
Learning.
…………..., (1974) Error Analysis in the Role of Developmental Errors in
Assesing Language Competence by Mohsen Ghadessy ELT Journal 39:
130–174.
…………..., (1974) Error Analysis Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition. Longman Group Limited
…………..., et al. (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Essex:
Longman Group Limited.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992) Dictionary of Language Teaching
and Applied Linguistics, Longman Group UK Limited.
Riddell, P. (1990) Error Analysis: A Useful Procedure for İdentifying Post-testing
Activities, Language Learning Journal.
Rivers, W. M. (1981) Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: The
University of Chicago.
Rosen, H. (1969) Towards a language policy across curriculum. Language, the
Learner, and the School. London: Penguin.
74
Saltık, S. (1997) A Study on Error Analysis in the Essays of Fresman Students at
the Middle East Technical University. Master Thesis. Ankara: The Middle
East University.
Schatcher, J. (1974) An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24: 205–214
Semke, H. D. (1982) Correcting students’ free writing: Help or hindrance?
(Report No. FL 013 621). (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED
228 850)
Sridhar, S. N. (1980) Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage, In
Reading English as a Second Language, Kenneth Croft (ed.), Winthrop
Publishers Inc., Cambridge, Mass., USA.
Stenson, N. (1976) Induced Errors, In New Frontiers in Second Language
Learning by John H. Schumann and Stenson N., Newbury House Publishers,
Inc. USA.
Stenstrom, A. B. ( 1975) Grammatical Errors in Teacher Trainees' Written Work.
Swedish-English Contrastive Studies, Report No. 7 Lund Univ. (Sweden).
Dept. of English
Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Şahin, M. K. (1993) Error Analysis of Tense and Aspect in the Written English of
Turkish Students. MA Thesis. Bilkent University.
Ünal, S. (1989) An Analysis of the Errors in the Compositions of the Turkish
University Students Learning English as a Foreign Language. MA Thesis.
METU.
Valette, R. (1973) Developing and evaluating communication skills in the
classroom. TESOL Quarterly,7.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972) Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold
Ltd.
Walz, J. C. (1982) Error correction techniques for the foreign language
classroom. Language in education: Theory and practice.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970) The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis TESOL Quarterly 4:
123–130
Yates, R. ; Kenkel, J. (2002) Responding to Sentence-Level Errors in Writing
75
Journal of Second Language Writing v11 n1.
INTERNET SOURCES
Abi Sarma, N. (2003) An Analysis of Errors in Arabic Speakers’ English
Writings. http://abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacq-erroranalysis-
html. American University of Beirut
Farooq, M. U. (1998) Contrastive and Error Analysis Based Teaching Strategies.
Aichi Women’s college.www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq.pdf
Myles, J.(2002) Second Language writing and Research: The writing Process and
Error Analysis in Students’ Texts. Tesl-ej Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language Vol. 6 No. 2 A1 September 2002
http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej22/a1html.
76
CURRICULUM VITAE
He was born in Erzurum in 1976 and graduated from primary, secondary
and high schools in Erzurum. He attended the Department of English Language
and Literature of Ataturk University between 1994–1999. After he graduated from
the university, he worked as an English teacher for six years. In 2005, he began to
work as an instructor at Ataturk University. He started his master study in 2003 at
the Department of English Language and Literature.