1

An Investigation of Writing Errors Made by High Proficiency

and Low Proficiency First Year Students at Sultan Qaboos

University of Oman

By

Hashil Al-Saadi

MA Thesis

The University of Bristol

2000

© Hashil Al-Saadi, 2000

2

Chapter one

Introduction

The study of learners‟ errors has been a primary focus of second language acquisition

research during the last few decades. The increasing interest in the analysis of learners‟

errors stems from the assumption that such analysis would provide teachers, as well as

second language acquisition researchers, with valuable information on the areas of difficulty

for second/foreign language learners when learning another language and on the major

sources of learners‟ errors. However, by the late 1960s, such an assumption became more

evident and the interest in studying learners‟ errors has attracted the attention of more

researchers especially after Corder‟s (1967) seminal article on the “significance of learners‟

errors”. In this article, Corder shifted the status of errors from undesirability to that of a

guide to the areas of difficulty that language learners have. He also proposed other possible

sources for errors besides the mother tongue interference such as over generalisation of the

Target Language (TL) rules and strategies of second language learning. This climate gave

rise to the Error Analysis (EA) movement which appeared in the late 1960s as a refreshing

alternative to the prevailing but more restrictive Contrastive Analysis (CA). Since then,

teachers and researchers have much of their time extracting errors from student compositions

and conversations, submitting them to close analysis, and using them for theory construction

and classroom practice.

To date, in Oman there have been no studies of second language learners that have yet been

completed in the field of EA; no studies have been devoted to the analysis and description of

the frequency and types of errors made by students neither at the pre-university nor the

3

university level. Therefore, this dissertation attempts to address this lack of research in the

area of EA in Oman by reporting on the findings of a small-scale study into the types and

frequency of errors made by high proficiency and low proficiency first year students at Sultan

Qaboos University (SQU) of Oman. I hope that the findings of the present EA study will

prove useful for practising teachers and contribute to the increasing research in the field of

second language acquisition with regard to second language learners‟ errors in general and

Arab learners‟ errors in particular. Also, it is hoped that the present research will pave the

way to more studies into the field of EA which address the areas of difficulty for Omani

students by a thorough investigation of the types, frequency and sources of students‟ errors at

various stages of proficiency.

1.1. Aims of the Study

The underlying objective of the present EA study is twofold. On the one hand, the study

aims to investigate the most prevalent error types that occur in the writing of first year

students at Sultan Qaboos University of Oman at two different levels of proficiency. On the

other, it aims to survey the methods used by writing teachers in responding to their students‟

errors in writing.

One of the fundamental hypotheses that the present research is designed to examine is the

one based on the conception that the types and frequency of errors will vary with the

students‟ level of proficiency (see hypothesis 1 below). In other words, the more proficient

the students are, the lesser errors they are likely to make and vice versa. Therefore, the

present study aims to test the above hypothesis via the qualitative and quantitative treatment

of error types extracted from the actual writing of 60 Arabic-speaking students at two

different levels of proficiency who represent the subjects of the present EA study

4

Also examined within this study is the assumption that all teachers will react similarly to the

same error types. Basically, this research is aimed at testing the hypothesis which claims that

the same error types will be noticed and marked as deviant by all teachers (see hypothesis 2

below). This aim is achieved by means of presenting the eight teachers who represent the

teacher sample with a text produced by one of the students from the low level of proficiency

and inviting them to mark it.

1.2. Study Questions

Generally speaking, the present study addresses the three following questions:

I. What are the most common errors made by high and low proficiency first year students

in writing?

II. What is the relationship between students‟ level of proficiency and the types and

frequency of errors they make?

III. How do teachers respond to their students‟ writing errors?

Basically, this research is aimed at investigating three major areas. These are: the nature,

types and frequency of errors made by students at low level of proficiency (pre-intermediate

band 2 students); the nature, types and frequency of errors made by students at a higher level

of proficiency (upper-intermediate band 4 students) and the approach available to teachers for

responding to their students‟ errors in writing.

Basically, the two underlying hypotheses that stimulated the present research are:

I. The type and frequency of errors will vary with the student level of proficiency.

II. All teachers will react similarly to the same error types.

5

The assumption is that the careful analysis of students‟ errors in each type will provide ample

information on the areas of difficulty that students at each level have. Such information

would have direct implications for teachers who would be in a better position in dealing with

their students‟ difficulties in various areas of the target language (TL). In the light of the

findings of such analysis, teachers will be able to design materials and adopt techniques that

account for the students‟ areas of difficulty and, hopefully, help them overcome these

problems.

It is also the assumption that the comparison of students‟ errors at both levels of proficiency

would shed light on the process of fossilisation (Selinker, 1972). This is basically a process

in second or foreign language learning which refers to certain erroneous features lexis and

grammar which tend to become fixed or fossilised in second language learning.

1.3. Nature of Investigation

It is worth noting at this point however that no attempt is made in the present EA study to

explain the students‟ errors, i.e., tracing back every error type to its potential source. The

discussion and the classification of the errors will be limited to the descriptive aspects of

errors on the assumption that “the accurate description of errors is a separate activity from

the task of inferring the sources of those errors” (Dulay, et al, 1982:145). In the light of the

above assumption, errors will be labelled and classified according to some observable surface

feature of the error itself (e.g., the linguistic level that the error affects), without reference to

its underlying cause or source.

1.4. Organisation

6

The five chapters that make up this dissertation are divided as follows. The present chapter

constitutes the initial chapter of the thesis in which the theoretical position of the researcher

is set out together with the study aims and objectives. The second chapter addresses the

recent discussion and arguments in the literature of EA regarding various aspects of

ESL/EFL learners‟ errors. In this chapter, the literature is carefully reviewed for the recent

definitions, classifications and implications of learners‟ errors and error types. The third

chapter sets out the overall design of the study. It specifies in absolute terms the research

method, study population and sample, research instruments and data analysis methods. The

major findings of the present EA study are detailed and discussed in the fourth chapter, while

the main conclusions, implications and recommendations reached in the light of the present

findings constitute the last chapter.

7

Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.0. Introduction:

One of the most important and significant shifts in the field of Applied Linguistics in recent

years has been from the view of teacher as controller of language learning towards a more

learner-centred view which stresses the learner‟s active role in managing his or her own way

towards the linguistic competence sufficient for their communicative needs. One major

result of such shift of attention has been the increasing concerns in the monitoring and

analysis of the learner‟s language. This interest in the learners‟ errors stems from the

significant and useful information and data that such error-based studies provide for a better

understanding and explanation of the process of second/foreign language acquisition, which,

in turn, have stimulated the major changes in teaching practices (Dulay et al 1982:138).

Therefore, there has been an ever-increasing research interest in the analysis of learner‟s

language in general and learner‟s errors in particular. This increasing recognition in the

importance of the learner‟s language has taken two phases: the first phase represents the

systematic analysis of and comparison between the learner‟s mother tongue and the target

language while the second concerns the analysis of and comparison between the learner‟s

second/foreign language and the target language. The former phase has been the focus of the

Contrastive Analysis (CA) movement which attracted great interest among linguists who

were involved in language teaching and production of language teaching materials in the

fifties and sixties (James 1998:4). The latter, however, has been the focus of the Error

Analysis (EA) movement, the new paradigm for the study of second/foreign language

learning and the movement which has been preferred over the traditional CA since it has

8

succeeded in providing valid explanations to some of the learners‟ difficulties in learning

second/foreign language and has proposed a more psychological approach to dealing with

these difficulties.

Unsurprisingly, the field of error analysis has attracted many researchers who have made

important contributions to our knowledge and have furthered our thinking about learners‟

errors and the strategies they employ in learning a second/foreign language (e.g. Corder,

1981; Richards, 1974; Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982; Selinker, 1972; Nemser, 1971; Ellis,

1986; James, 1998;).

As with regard to errors, the many studies that have been devoted to the description and

explanation of learners‟ errors have resulted in a wide range of discussions and so have given

rise to many controversial issues concerning different approaches to labelling and classifying

errors as well as other issues regarding how and when teachers should correct their students‟

errors.

The thrust of the present chapter, however, highlights the recent discussions and arguments in

the literature concerning the area of error analysis and error correction. I shall begin by

defining errors and highlighting the difference between errors and mistakes and briefly

review the historical development of the concept of „error‟. A discussion of the climate that

EA movement emerged in will follow. An attempt is made to cover all the different error

types and error classifications and taxonomies that have been proposed by researchers in the

domain. Insights gained from different studies in the area of error analysis into the process of

second/foreign language acquisition process will also be presented. Then, the different

studies that are aimed at studying a particular feature of language errors such as error

frequency and error gravity will also be reviewed. Special attention will be paid to those

9

studies that were aimed at studying the interlanguage system and the commonest type and

frequency of errors made by Arab EFL/ESL learners. I will conclude the chapter by

highlighting the recent arguments in the literature on how to detect and correct learners‟

errors and presenting the recent studies that have investigated issues like error correction and

teacher responses to student writing.

2.1. Defining Error:

It is fruitful to admit, in the first place, the fact that errors are inevitable part of any learning

process. That is, people often make errors when they are engaged in a learning process of

any type and in any discipline. In language learning situations, though, language teachers,

during their long careers, have come to realise that errors are a natural phenomenon in the

process of language learning and so they cannot be eradicated completely neither in the

students‟ speech nor in their writing. The writing errors are therefore the focus of the present

chapter which serves as a background to the whole study.

It seems of great importance at this stage, though, to define „language errors‟ before we

proceed on discussing various aspects of the term. In this regard, I shall present four

definitions of language errors followed by a discussion of different aspects of these

definitions. The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

(1992:127) defines errors as follows:

“In the speech or writing of a second or foreign language learner, the use of a

linguistic item (e.g. a word, a grammatical item, a speech act, etc.) in a way which a

fluent or native speaker of the language regards as showing faulty or incomplete

learning.”

Another definition has been offered by Dulay et al (1982:138):

10

“Errors are the flawed side of learner speech or writing. They are those parts of

conversation or composition that deviate from some selected norm of mature

language performance.”

James (1998:64) endorses Lennon‟s (cited in ibid: 64) definition of errors who views errors

as

“linguistic form which, in the same context … would in all likelihood not be

produced by the learner‟s native speakers counterparts”.

Later on, based on the learner‟s „intentionality‟, James (ibid:78) proposes another definition

of error in which he defines error as:

“an instance of language that is unintentionally deviant and is not self-corrigible by

its author”.

By devoting a close look at the definitions presented so far, it is plainly obvious that all,

except the last one, contain some kind of reference points or criteria for deciding whether or

not a particular bit of language is an error. In the first and third definitions, the correctness of

learner‟s language is being measured against that of a fluent or native speaker of the target

language, while in the second, the criterion for correctness is some selected norms of mature

language performance. It is clear then that errors are being defined with reference to native

speakers of the target language based on the Chomskian line on this issue who claims that

native speakers do not and can not commit errors since they know their language perfectly

and comprehensively (James,1998:83). But James (ibid) suggests in this regard that we

should not compare the language of a real learner and an ideal native speaker with uniform

experience in an ideal speech community with no dialect diversity and no variations among

speakers. He insists that “the comparison should rather be between two real individuals or at

least two categories of persons” (64). It is because of such observation that James endorses

the third definition presented above.

11

Further more, the issue of what is to be accepted as a correct form of language and what is to

be regarded as a deviant or erroneous stimulates the following question: on what grounds can

we place our judgement about students‟ language correctness? In other words, what are the

measures of incorrectness and/or deviance? James (1998:64) suggests that learners‟

ignorance of the target language can be expressed in terms of four measures which serves as

reference points to our judgement: grammaticality, acceptability, correctness and

strangeness and infelicity. I am going to briefly highlight the first three measures only as

they most concern us here.

Grammaticality is synonymous with „well-formedness‟. It is the grammar that decides

whether something said or written by learners is grammatical. Grammaticality is viewed as

an objective measure of learners‟ correctness because the decision made is out of the orbit of

human whim (ibid:65). However, grammaticality can be questioned in terms of its reliability

as a reference point. That is, grammaticality works well in the clear-cut cases where there is

only one form which can be accepted. In some other contexts, however, two forms can be

accepted depending, in the first place, on that very context and secondly on the speaker‟s or

writer‟s intention.

The second measure of whether a piece learners‟ language is deviant is acceptability. An

acceptable piece of language is one that has been, or might be, produced by a native speaker

in some appropriate context and is accepted by other native speakers as belonging to the

language in question (James,1998:67). It can be deduced then that acceptability has to do

with context rather than rules but, however, we cannot think of a case where an utterance or

written discourse is ungrammatical but acceptable. In other words, as James puts it:

grammaticality is a prerequisite to acceptability.

12

The third measure of learners‟ language is correctness. A piece of learners‟ language can be

grammatical and acceptable but, in the prescriptive grammarians‟ point of view, is incorrect.

A closer to hand example of this case is when a learner says: “they went with Tom and me”.

This is a case where an „accepted‟ piece of language is edited by “they went with Tom and I”

by members of Prescriptive Grammar School.

Again, the first definition implies some sources of errors: faulty or incomplete learning. It is

implied here that learners make errors because they lack the knowledge necessary for a well-

formed language. As a matter of fact, many EA studies have related errors to different

sources (e.g., interlingual, intralingual, developmental, induced, avoidance, learning

strategies, communication strategies, etc.), but in some cases the boundaries between these

sources are not clear cut. In broader terms, as Johnson (1988:90) suggests, there are at least

two reasons why learners get things wrong. One is that learners either do not have the

appropriate knowledge of the TL, or has some false knowledge. The result is what Corder

(1967) terms as an “error”. The second reason why learners get things wrong is because they

may lack the ability to process the knowledge they already have in certain conditions and the

result would be what Corder (ibid.) refers to as a “mistake”. (A distinction between errors

and mistakes is made in section (2.2) below).

A close look at the last definition yields in two characteristics of errors: intentionality and

self-corrigibility. According to James (1998:77), an error arises only when there was no

intention to commit one and so we cannot talk about so-called “deliberate errors”. In fact, we

can reasonably determine, based on the learner‟s intention, whether a deviance in his or her

language is a mistake, slip or rather a genuine error. The other feature that the last

definition contains is that errors cannot be corrected by learners themselves although their

intention has been drawn to them because they lack the knowledge that would enable them

13

do so. This is, in fact, another difference between errors and mistakes which will be the

focus of the next section.

2.2. Errors Verses Mistakes:

A distinction is always made in the literature between errors and mistakes as the two

concepts imply different characteristics of language learner‟s underlying knowledge. The

error:mistake distinction was first introduced into the modern debate by Corder (1967) who

associates errors with failures in „competence‟ and mistakes with failures in „performance‟.

For Corder, errors are systematic and represent learners‟ knowledge of the target language up

to date and so they prove useful for both teachers and researchers. Mistakes, in contrast, are

not systematic and do not reveal so much of learners‟ competence in the target language

since they are a result of some performance failures when performing the target language.

Corder (1974:24-5) wrote:

“We must therefore make a distinction between those errors which are the product of

chance circumstances and those which reveal his [learner] underlying knowledge of

the language to date … It will be useful to therefore hereafter to refer to errors of

performance as mistakes, reserving the term error to the systematic errors of the

learner from which we are able to reconstruct his knowledge of the language up to

date.”

James (1998:77) adds another dimension to the error:mistake distinction. He stresses that

learner‟s intentionality is another important factor to determine whether learner‟s erroneous

output is an error or a mistake. He suggests that if the learner has the intention to produce the

very structure and cannot correct it, then the faulty output is considered as an error. If, by

contrast, the learner has no intention to produce what he/she has produced and have the

ability to correct it when his/her attention is drawn to it, then it is a mistake.

14

As with regards to intentionality and errors, Taylor (1986:154) also seems to fall in

agreement with James (ibid) but he distinguishes two sorts of intentions. He points out that

“the only way we can reasonably determine whether a mistake is a slip or a genuine error is

by reference to the writer‟s semantic and structural intentions.” Here Taylor clearly

distinguishes between what the learner wants to say (semantic intention) and how he

expresses it (structural intention).

Duskova (1983:219) seems to disagree with the claim that all mistakes are a product of

failures of performance and are self-corrigible by their authors as James (1998:78) and

Corder (1967) view them. He insists that these features do not apply to all „nonce‟ mistakes.

He also makes another observation regarding the established correspondence between errors,

as earlier defined as a result of failures of competence, and defect in knowledge. He states

that:

“Many of the recurrent errors of systemic character, which we might be inclined to

describe as errors in competence, reflect no real defect in knowledge, since most

learners know the pertinent rule and can readily apply it, but the mechanism of

application does not yet work automatically”(P.219).

We can conclude then that errors, as James (1998:79) puts it, are everything that mistakes are

not: they do reflect knowledge; they are not self-correctable; only learners of L2 make them;

and they are of great significance. The significance of errors will be our next section.

2.3. Significance of Errors:

The study of learners‟ errors has been a primary focus of L2 researchers during the last three

decades. Since the emergence of Corder‟s article on the significance of learners‟ errors and

his arguments for what errors can provide for both research and pedagogy, researchers and

teachers in various part of the world have spent countless hours extracting, counting, and

15

classifying errors from students‟ compositions and conversations using them as a base for

theory construction and classroom practice. If such extraordinary interest in learners‟ errors

reflects something, it would certainly reflect the importance of errors as an indicator of how

languages are learnt and at what rate.

According to Dulay at al (1982:138), the study of learners‟ errors serves two major purposes:

(a) they provide data from which inferences about the nature of the language learning process

can be made; and (b) they indicate to teachers and curriculum developers which part of the

target language students have most difficulty producing correctly. As a matter of fact, the

Error Analysis movement, as we shall see in (2.4) below, has yielded insights into the L2

acquisition process that have stimulated major changes in the teaching practices, (ibid).

As it has been clearly and evidently established in the previous section (see 2.2) that errors,

not mistakes, reveal much about the ongoing process of second/foreign language learning, it

is vital to emphasise the fact that teachers, researchers and error analysts who are interested

in the pedagogical implications of EA should concentrate more on learners‟ competence

errors than on errors of performance (mistakes according to Corder 1967). This is due to the

fact that it is the former type of errors which reveal the actual learners‟ difficulties. It is

fruitful to quote Corder (1974) who, with respects to the significant of learners‟ competence

errors argues that

“They are significant in three different ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell

him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has

progressed, and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. Secondly, they provide

to the researcher evidence of how language is learnt or acquired …Thirdly, (and in a

sense this is their most important aspect) they are indispensable for the learner

himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in

order to learn” (P.25).

16

What this entails, then, that a careful analysis of errors is an indicator for both teachers and

learners of what has been learned and what still needs to be worked on and what not yet

being acquired. Additionally, they are a way learners have of testing their hypotheses about

the nature of the target language by comparing their output to the teacher‟s or other

competent users.

After the introduction of the concept „interlanguage‟ into the literature by Selinker (1972),

much interest has been devoted to the study of learners‟ errors as they permit the formulation

of rules for learners‟ interlingual systems and provide data on the nature and significance of

the of the obstacles that lie in the path towards discovery of the target language rules

(Richards 1974:IX).

It therefore follows that a careful analysis or learners‟ errors enriches our knowledge on the

nature, the process and the steps of second/foreign language acquisition and consequently on

the planning of courses incorporating the psychology of second/foreign language learning.

The experience and observation have shown that teachers do rely on their learners‟ errors to

evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching as well as to discover what types of obstacles their

learners seem to encounter and use this knowledge, that error analysis provides, to design

remedial work for their students.

However, if full advantage of error analysis is sought, our learners not only need to be

encouraged to observe their own errors, but to reflect on these errors and try to correct them.

In other words, our learners need to be encouraged to develop a „reflective approach‟ in

dealing with errors.

17

In the next section, I will explore the Error Analysis movement highlighting the climate that

helped it arise and its contributions to the understanding of the nature of learners‟ error and

their sources.

2.4. The emergence of Error Analysis movement and Interlanguage

studies

At least two major approaches to the study of second language learners‟ errors and error

explanation can be distinguished: Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. It is fruitful to

draw the attention at this point, however, that the thrust of the discussion here will be devoted

to the EA movement as it is the scope of the present section and frames the methodology of

the present study as a whole. The CA movement will be referred to as the background and

climate that the EA movement emerged in.

During the fifties and early sixties, the predominant approach to the study of learners‟ errors

was the CA paradigm. Researchers, linguists and teachers were attracted at that time by the

Behaviourists‟ as well as the structuralists‟ attitudes to errors who viewed errors as a

symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure. Errors were also viewed as mainly

due to the mother-tongue interference, which teachers, researchers and course designers have

failed to predict and account for. Errors could be eradicated completely by providing

learners with the correct forms only. The prevailing idea was that these errors were thought

of as a result of mainly the mother-tongue interference and a careful comparison between

learners‟ native language and the target language in question, would reveal the area of

differences between the two languages. All errors were believed to result from such

differences between the two languages. The absence of any theoretical framework for

explaining the role played by errors in the process of SLA led to no serious attempt at that

time to analyse learners‟ error and to account for other potential sources of errors besides

18

mother-tongue interference (Ellis, 1986:51). In such climate, the interest in CA had grown

and become the working approach to second/foreign language teaching.

By late 1960s, the need has emerged for more research on learners‟ errors. Such need was

stimulated by the fact that some errors were found unexplainable by CA. For example, some

errors were found to represent the TL rule complexity than interference from learners‟ MT.

Matter (1989:77) cites the following two examples of errors made by Arabic-speaking ESL

learners that are neither explainable by CA nor traceable to the learners‟ MT: “if we wanted

to visited the fort…” and “my father is work in a bank…”. Interestingly, such errors were

also found to be made by children as they are acquiring their first language, of course no

interference from other languages is possible in this case. It has become evident that mother-

tongue interference is not the only source of errors in SLA process and so there should be an

alternative approach which accounts for all types of learners‟ errors and explains their

potential sources. By the early 1970s, however, some misgivings about the reliability of CA

began to voice mainly because of its association with an outdated model of language

description (Structuralism) and a discredited learning theory (Behaviourism) (James, 1998:4).

In such climate the enthusiasm for CA has declined and more interest in analysing learners‟

errors has increased.

According to Ellis (1986:51), it was not until the late 1960s that there was a resurgence of

interest in EA. It was Corder (1967, 1971, 1978, etc.) who marked such resurgence by a

series of articles which helped to give EA its direction. According to Corder (1975:64), “EA

can be seen to serves two related but distinct functions: pedagogical, „applied‟, and the other

theoretical, leading to a better understanding of second language learning processes and

strategies”. Put differently, the former function is classroom-oriented, while the latter is

research-bound. More specifically, three principal goals can be identified for carrying out an

19

EA. Firstly, EA is carried out to identify strategies which learners use when learning a

second/foreign language. Secondly, it also carried out in an attempt to identify the causes of

learners‟ errors. Finally, errors are analysed to obtain information on common difficulties in

language learning, as an aid to teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials.

The procedure for EA is spelled out in Corder (1975). They are summarised by Ellis

(1986:51-2) as follows. (1) A corpus of learners‟ language is selected taken into account the

size of the sample, the medium to be sampled and the homogeneity of learners (their age, sex,

L1 background, etc.). (2) The errors in the corpus are identified. In this very step, errors,

which, by definition, are the result of lack of competence, are to be distinguished from lapses

and mistakes which are the result of some neurophysiological breakdown or processing

limitations (Corder, 1975:63). (3) The errors are classified. Then, (4) the errors are

explained. In this last stage, the errors are related to their possible psycholinguistic causes as

proposed by Selinker 1972 (see below). Finally, (5) the errors are evaluated. This stage

involves assessing the seriousness of each error in order to make decisions about teaching

priories.

As with regards to error causes, Selinker (1972:37) proposes five processes that could

account for learners‟ errors. These are: language transfer, if the errors are due to the L1

interference; transfer of training, if the erroneous items are a result of identifiable items in

training procedures; strategies of second language learning, if the identified errors are a

result of some kind of strategy applied by the learners when presented with learning materials

of any kind; strategies of second language communication, if the identified erroneous

items are due to learners‟ endeavour to communicate with native speakers of the target

language; and finally overgeneralisation of TL linguistic material, if they are traceable

back to a clear overgeneralisation of TL rules and semantic features.

20

Thus, it is the result of the significant shift that took place in the late1960s and early 1970s

that such different sources of errors have become evident. Another result of such shift has

been the change in researchers‟ and practising teachers‟ attitudes towards errors and their

sources which has resulted in intensive research projects and studies devoted to the study of

learners‟ interlanguage in an attempt to discover its features and test hypotheses about

second/foreign language acquisition. Early on, Corder (1967) introduced the concept

“transitional competence” into the EA literature followed by “idiosyncratic dialect” (ID) in

1971 marking the beginning of a new paradigm in studying learners‟ language. He argues

that all language learners, during their learning careers, develop a special sort of dialect

which is shared by the same learners having similar L1 and is different from dialects of

learners from different L1 background (Corder, 1971: 158). In the same year, however,

Nemser (1971:55) suggested that learners employ an approximative deviant linguistic system

in their attempt to utilise the target language. Such approximative systems vary in character

in accordance with proficiency level. They are also transient and represent the current stage

of the learners‟ stage of proficiency in the TL. Nemser‟s (1971) approximative system seems

a resemblance of Corder‟s (1971) idiosyncratic dialect. A year later, Selinker (1972:35)

introduced the term interlanguage to describe the learners‟ developing linguistic system

which results from learners‟ attempted production of the TL norm. Among the above three

terms, the term „interlanguage‟, needless to say, is most frequent and recurrent in the

literature to refer to the learners‟ “version” of the TL. It is clear, thus, that the emergence of

the EA movement has paved the way to research and invited researchers to better understand

learners‟ interlanguage and to account for potential learning difficulties.

21

By the late 1970s, researchers began to view learners‟ interlanguage as a continuum

stretching from MT to TL, but the case for such a continuum has been largely theoretical

(Ellis, 1986:54).

Generally speaking, there are two types of studies that have been devised to investigate

learners‟ interlanguage: longitudinal and cross-sectional. These studies are aimed at to

investigate learners‟ interlanguage, which is the major aim for EA. Much insight has been

gained from these studies into the nature and process of SLA as well as the potential error

causes (as oppose to the single or prime cause of error claimed by the CA). According to

Ellis (1986:52-3), EA studies provide two kinds of information about learners‟ interlanguage.

The first concerns the linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners (a discussion and

classification of error types are detailed in section 2.5 below). The second type of

information, however, concerns the psycholinguistic types of errors. This second type of

errors refers to the strategies that learners employ not only to learning a SL but also to

overcome obstacles in the course of their learning such as avoidance strategies and

overgeneralisation.

To sum up, the EA movement has succeeded in shifting the ground of SLA research. It has

succeeded in providing convincing and evident explanation of the SL learners‟ errors. It is

fruitful to quote Ellis (1986:53) as with regards to EA contributions. He states that:

“The most significant contribution of Error Analysis, apart from the role it played in

the reassessment of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, lies in its success in

evaluating the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner

workings of the language learning process. As a result of interlanguage theory and

the evidence accumulated from Error Analysis, errors were no longer seen as

„unwanted forms‟”.

22

The next section will be on the different error types and subtypes as well as different

classifications of these errors that have been examined and pointed out by different

researchers in EA field.

2.5. Types and classifications of errors:

In trying to make sense of the literature on EA, I have found it of great value, at this stage, to

shed the light on different types of errors and various attempts to classify them. It is

interesting to note in this regard, though, that no real attempts had been made to categorise

nor to classify learners‟ errors during the 1950s and the early 1960s when the CA movement

was the predominant practice in the field of EFL/ESL since it was the belief that there was

only one type of error: those resulting from mother tongue interference. With the emergence

of the EA movement in the late 1960s, however, and with the increasing number of

interlanguage studies, the need to classify learners‟ errors according to their various sources

has brought itself to the surface. As I have noted earlier (see section 2.4 above), the

classification of errors has been a prime goal for EA after the identification of their sources.

Errors have been labelled and classified in various ways depending on (a) the type of study

conducted, (b) the aim and focus of study, (c) the approach followed by researcher, and (d)

according to the level of analysis.

The early attempts to classify errors tend to categorise errors based solely on their sources as

interlingual, intralingual or induced errors, as oppose to the more recent ones which account

for the linguistic analysis of the error itself. Early on, Schumann and Stenson (1974:4)

divided students‟ errors into three types: errors due to incomplete acquisition of the target

language grammar (which may in turn be due to either inter- or intra-lingual difficulties),

errors due to the exigencies of the teaching/learning situation, and errors due to normal

23

problems of language performance. As simple and inadequate this classification may appear,

it forms the bases for the forthcoming categorisations by other researchers who seems to

draw their classification on this early one, as we shall see.

Generally speaking, four types of error classifications can be identified in the literature of

EA. They are, as Dulay et al, (1982: 146) present them: (1) linguistic categories; (2) surface

strategy; (3) comparative analysis; and (4) communicative effect. In the following lines, I

shall consider each of them.

2.5.1. Linguistic Category Taxonomy:

Taxonomies based on the linguistic categories of errors concern with a description of the

language constituents that are affected by errors. Put differently, this taxonomy classifies

errors “according to the particular linguistic constituent that the error affect” (Dulay et al,

1982:146). It first indicates on what level (or constituent) the error is located: in phonology,

syntax, morphology, semantics, lexicon, or discourse. Then, within the level specified, it

indicates the category in which the error occurs. For instance, if an error is located in the

grammar level, the next step is to specify the category of grammar. That might include the

auxiliary system, passives, etc. As a refinement of Dulay‟s et al system, James (1998:105)

suggests that after having established the level in which the error occurs, the class, rank and

system that the error affect then need to be specified. For instance, an error may occur at the

grammar level, involving the class noun, the rank morpheme, and the system of countability.

According to James (ibid.), this framework, after the refinement, is useful and can handle the

errors of relatively advanced learners (P.105). I have to agree with James on his sub-

categories as they prove useful in accounting for various types of error which can be included

here. It is also of value to note here that curriculum developers have long used linguistic

24

category taxonomies to organise their language lessons in student textbooks. “Such materials

permit teachers and students to feel that they have covered certain aspects of the language in

their classes” (Dulay, et al, 1982:147).

2.5.2. Surface Strategy Taxonomy:

This is the second type of taxonomies proposed by Dulay et al (1982). It highlights the ways

the surface structures of the TL are altered. The types of error under this taxonomy include:

errors of omission, addition, misformation and misordering. Two convincing arguments

made by James (1998) as with regards to this taxonomy. In the first place, the label „surface

structure‟ seems unsatisfactory since the surface:deep distinction is immaterial and there

being no „deep‟ structure taxonomy. He suggests “Target Modification” as an alternative

label. Secondly, it is quite misleading to say that learners „alter‟ the correct form of TL so as

to produce an error. I am quite in agreement with James as it is clear that „alter‟ implies as if

the learners knew the correct form all along. This taxonomy is based on the ways surface

structures are alerted or „modified‟ from the TL structure. This modification takes one or

more of the following four processes:

2.5.2.1. Omission

These types of error are characterised by “the absence of an item that must appear in a well-

formed utterance [and/or written form]” (Dulay, et al, 1982:154). Observation shows that

some types of words and morphemes are omitted more than others. For example, studies

have found that learners in their early L2 acquisition stages tend to omit function words

25

(grammatical morphemes such as articles, auxiliaries, -s, etc.) more than content ones. More

advanced learners tend to be aware of their ignorance of the content words and so they resort

to „compensation strategies‟ to get their message across rather than omit one (James,

1998:107).

2.5.2.2. Addition

An addition error type occurs when learners include an item which must not appear in a well-

formed utterance and or written form. Dulay, et al (1982:156) suggest that addition errors

occur in the later stages of L2 acquisition and are the result of “the all-too-faithful use of

certain rules”. They also suggest subtypes of addition errors. First, regularisation, which

involves overlooking exceptions and spreading rules to domains where they do not apply, for

instance producing the regular (in the learner‟s perspective) buyed for the irregular bought.

James (1998:107) suggests that some learners also „irregularise‟ some rules when learners

wrongly assume that certain forms might be exceptions to regular ones and he gives dove (as

the past tense of dive) as an example, although dove is used as past tense of dive in American

English. The second subtype of addition is double marking defined as “failure to delete

certain items which are required in some linguistic constructions but not in others” (Dulay, et

al, 1982:156). Examples of this subtype would be, „He doesn‟t knows me‟ and „I didn‟t went

with them‟. The last subtype of addition is simple addition and it caters for all additions not

described as double marking or regularisation.

2.5.2.3. Misformation

26

This is the third category of Dulay‟s et al (1982) surface strategy taxonomy. They define it

as “the use of the wrong form of the morpheme or structure” (P.158). They also identify

three subtypes of misformation. The first subtype is regularisation errors, they occur when

a regular marker is used in place of an irregular one as in „runned‟ for ran and „gooses‟ for

geese. The second is archi-forms, they occur when learners select one member of a class of

forms to represent others in the class such as the use of „that‟ out of the set

this/that/those/these. James (1998:108) suggest the term misselection when refer to this type

of errors, which is a reasonable suggestion. The third subtype is alterating forms, this

occurs when learners freely alternate various members of a class with each other. For

example, a learner may use „I seen her yesterday‟ for „I saw…‟ or „I have already saw him‟

for „I have already seen him‟.

2.5.2.4. Misordering

Part of the linguistic competence, in addition to selecting the right forms to use in the right

context, is to arrange them in the right order (James, 1998:110). Misordering errors occur

when learners misarrange or misplace words in sentences. Examples of this type are: „He

always comes late home‟ and „What Daddy is doing?‟ According to Dulay‟s, et al

(1982:163) observation, learners often produce this type of errors when carrying out a word-

for-word translation of their native language surface structure.

2.5.2.5. Blends

This category has been added by James (1998) as a complementary category to Dulay‟s et al

(1982) surface strategy taxonomy. This category is “typical of situations where there is not

just one well-formed target, but two … and the learner is undecided about which of these two

targets he has in mind” (James, 1998:111). An error of this type occurs when there are two

27

possible semantically related structures and either of which could serve the speaker or

writer‟s purpose but he/she fails to make a clear choice. Instead, they combine a part of each

to produce a structure which characterises both (ibid.) as in „a typical Indian meal comprises

of‟‟. This error is a result of combing the following well-formed structures: „a typical Indian

meal comprises rice, …‟ and „a typical Indian meal is comprised of rice, ..‟

To summarise so far, Dulay, et al (1982) offer a useful descriptive taxonomy based on a

comparison of the forms learners use with forms used by native speakers in the same

situation. As with regards to the value of such taxonomy it is fruitful to quote Dulay, et al

(1982:150) as they defend their taxonomy. They wrote:

Analysing errors from a surface strategy perspective holds much promise for

researchers concerned with identifying cognitive processes that underlie the learner‟s

reconstruction of the new language. It also makes us aware that learners‟ errors are

based on some logic”.

Having presented Dulay‟s, et al (1982) linguistic and surface strategy taxonomies, I have

found it also of value at this stage to shed the light on another linguistic taxonomy proposed

by James (1998:129). In the following few lines, I shall briefly present the types and

subtypes of this taxonomy.

2.5.3 Linguistic Taxonomy Based on Levels of Error

James (1998) based his taxonomy on three principal levels of language: the levels of

substance, text and discourse. The first two are of interest here and I shall discuss them

presently. It seems of great importance, though, to draw the attention to the fact that only

writing errors will be considered in this taxonomy, speaking errors are out of the scope of the

present study.

28

2.5.3.1. Substance Errors

This category caters for errors of misspelling and punctuation errors. These errors are the

result of either wrong transfer of L1 spelling and punctuation rules into L2 or the arbitrary

nature of L2 spelling and punctuation rules. Interestingly enough, errors resulting out of the

second source, are found similar to those made by NS of a given TL.

2.5.3.2. Text Errors

Text errors are divided into lexical errors and grammar errors. According to James

(1998:142), “text errors arise from ignorance and misapplication of the „lexico-grammatical‟

rules of the language”.

2.5.3.3. Lexical Errors

Lexical errors are of great interest for both error analysts and teachers. In the recent years,

however, lexis has enjoyed a special status in the ESL/EFL research because of the central

role that lexis (vocabulary) plays in L2 acquisition. By analysing learners‟ lexical errors, it

has become possible to discover how vocabulary is acquired and what strategy learners apply

in learning them. According to James (1998:143), lexical errors are found to be the most

frequent category of errors. Thus, there are therefore good reasons to undertake lexical EA.

Such EA studies have revealed the following categories of lexical errors. First, misselection,

these errors result when learners misselect the right form of a word because there are many

words which are similar. For instance, learners usually confuse prize with price and

stationery with stationary. James (ibid.) gives the following erroneous sentences to

exemplify the point in question: „He wanted to cancel his guilt‟ (conceal), „It was a genius

29

diamond‟ (genuine). The second category is misformation. These types of errors emerge

when learners either borrow and/or literally translate from their L1 or coin new words when

they do not have the right word to use. The third type is distortion. While the misformation

errors are mainly „interlingual‟, distortion errors are „intralingual‟. Learners may omit a

morpheme (e.g. int(e)resting), overinclude one (e.g. din(n)ing room), misselect (e.g.

delitouse/delicious), misorder (e.g. littel/little), or even blend (e.g. the deepth of the ocean

[depth+deep]). The fourth type of lexical errors is semantic errors, they occur when learners

confuse the meanings and uses of lexical terms (words). For instance, learners may use a

more general term when a more specific one is demand by the context (e.g., Capitalism made

America big [powerful]), or the reverse (e.g. all villagers vote for their candidate [citizens]).

They may also use a word in a wrong collocation (e.g. tall hair (long), make a try (have)).

2.5.3.4. Grammar Errors

According to James (1998:154), Grammar errors can occur in two levels of language:

morphology and syntax. Morphology errors are of different types and occur in almost all the

five lexical word types: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions. Learners are

found to make noun morphology errors such as omitting the plural –s as in „four book‟

(books) and overincluding the plural –s as in „every teachers‟ (teacher) and confusing the

form:sound relationship of some morphemes as in „menshen‟ (mention). Verb morphology

errors include: (1) omission or overinclusion of third personal singular –s as in „he teach

English‟ (teaches) and „students in my class organises trips‟ (organise); (2) confusion with

verb endings as in „I was write‟ (writing); (3) misselection of the correct verb form that is

demanded by context as in „we go shopping last weekend‟ (went); and (4) confusion with

the regular and irregular verbs as in „I bringed all my papers‟ (brought) and „he dove into

the water‟ (dived). The following erroneous sentences exemplify the two types of adverb

30

morphology errors: „I will visit you soonly‟ (soon); „I am particular interested in..‟

(particularly). Finally, error like „a colourfuller scene‟ (colourful), exemplifies the adjective

morphology errors.

Let us now move to the second type of grammar error, namely, syntax errors. These are

errors that affect texts larger than the word level, namely, phrase, clause, sentence and

ultimately paragraphs, James (1998:156). Errors at the phrase level turn out to be quite

problematic since an error can occur in a prepositional phrase (PP), adjective phrase (AP),

noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP) and these are found in a „larger‟ noun phrase (NP). In

this case an (AP) error can also be an (NP) one at the same time. Some possible errors at this

level are: wrong article use, article omission, article overinclusion, misordering of modifiers

within the (NP) and a combination of these. Clause errors involve the ways in which phrase

- themselves well-formed – operate in clauses (James, ibid.). Five possible errors are

identified here: (1) the phrase in question may be overused in the cause, (2) it is omitted, (3)

it is misordered, (4) it is misselected, and (5) it is a blend of two or more of the four. Errors

at the sentence level involve the selection, order and combination of clauses into larger units

and so possible errors would result from either misselection, misorder and/or wrong

combination of phrases in the sentence in question. Finally, errors at the paragraph level

involve the misuse and/or omission of cohesive devices that connect sentences and ideas

within the paragraph to produce a cohesive text.

So for I have presented three linguistic taxonomies. The first two were proposed by Dulay, et

al (1982) while the third is proposed by James (1998). It is useful to note here that James

(1998) seems to draw upon Dulay‟s, et al (1982) taxonomy which is obvious in the use of

nearly the same labels for error types and subtypes. I shall now proceed to present the two

remaining taxonomies of Dulay, et al (1982).

31

2.5.4. Comparative Analysis Taxonomy

This is the third type of taxonomies presented by Dulay, et al (1982). The classification of

errors in a comparative taxonomy is based on “comparisons between the structure of L2

errors and certain other types of constructions” (ibid.:163). In EA literature, L2 learners‟

errors have most been compared to errors made by children as they acquire their L1, and to

equivalent phrases or sentences in learners‟ mother tongue. The former comparison yields in

„developmental errors‟ while the latter yields in „interlingual errors‟. Yet, there still remain

errors that could be classified equally well under both of the previously mentioned categories

(these are labelled „ambiguous errors‟) and others that are not of either type (these are

labelled „other errors‟). For the sake of brevity, the reader is referred to Dulay, et al

(1982:163-188) for more details on this taxonomy.

2.5.5. Communicative Effect Taxonomy

The type of errors classified under this taxonomy are those perceived as having effect on the

listener or reader. It therefore distinguishes those errors which cause miscommunication and

those do not (Dulay, et al 1982:189). Research has shown that certain types of errors make a

critical difference as to whether or not the listener or reader comprehends the speaker or

writer‟s intended message. A distinction was then made by Burt and Kiparsky (1975)

between two types of errors according to their domain of effect: global errors, which affect

the overall sentence organisation; and local errors which affect single element or constituent

in the sentence (ibid.:73). It has been found that global errors, as in „English language use

many people‟, significantly hinder successful communication while local errors, as in „He

very busy now‟ usually do not hinder communication.

32

In summary, so far, I have attempted to present different taxonomies that account for various

types of errors that ESL/EFL learners make due to different reasons. However, I believe that

these taxonomy, while useful, are still inadequately sufficient enough to account for other

types of errors such as induced errors and errors caused by avoidance behaviour of some

learners. Induced errors are those caused by either wrong introduction, misleading

presentation order, wrong definition, wrong elicitation techniques, etc. of language items in

classrooms (Stenson, 1974). Latter on, Kleinmann (1983) conducted a study to examine the

avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition. He found that some learners do

avoid using particular structures as to not make errors since these constitute great difficulty

for them.

At last, it is worth mentioning that the practice of error classification, while useful, is never

all easy; a considerable number of errors could not be classified at all. Duskova (1983), in a

study conducted to examine the errors of fifty Czech adult learners, reported that “of the 48

errors made in word order, it was possible to divide 31 into four subgroups; the remaining 17,

however, defied all attempts at classification, being unique in character, nonrecurrent, and not

readily traceable to their sources”, (P.218).

2.6. Error Frequency, Error Density and Error Gravity

Having examined different error types, levels and classifications, it would prove fruitful to

examine some error features such as frequency, density and gravity, which will be presented

respectively in the present section.

2.6.1. Error Frequency

33

When conducting EA, one of the important stages is to count the number of errors and error

types in a given corpus in order to arrive at some statistical differences between groups of

learners in terms of the number and types of errors each group has made. Such information

gained from token-count of errors serves two related purposes: theoretical and pedagogical.

Theoretically, knowing what error type constitutes the most frequent among other types and

their relative proportion of a given group(s) of learners allows researchers account for areas

of difficulties for these learners and what items of the TL happen to be acquired before others

(late versus early acquisition). Practically, on the other hand, it would be useful for teachers

to know what area of the language turns out to be problematic for their learners and so take

decisions about their teaching priority and what needs to be focused on.

Saying that, however, the question of whether we should count error types or error tokens

(the number of occurrence of the same error) arises as with regards to the issue of counting

errors. Let us consider the following examples cited in James (1998:117): „He play tennis

very well but football he play badly‟, „She play tennis very well and also she swim very

well‟. In the first example, the second „play‟ is obviously a lexical replica of the first and so,

according to James (ibid.) we consider them as one error. In the second, by contrast, there

are two errors since „play‟ and „swim‟ are not lexical replicas. This criteria, I believe, is not

very satisfactory since the cognitive process underlying the two errors is plainly the same and

this very learner failed to apply the same rule namely, the verb takes an -s when the subject is

singular in the present time.

2.6.2. Error Density

While frequency concerns with how many times the same error is repeated in a given text

produced by a learner, density is calculated by counting how many different errors occur per

34

unit of text (James, 1998:211). Having set the difference between frequency and density, it

is fruitful to note that texts with a high error density present the reader with a greater problem

than with error frequency (ibid.). That is, because in a high frequency error text, when the

same error type has been encountered once or twice, the reader would learn to accommodate

it and adjust his/her reading accordingly, but in texts with a high error density, on the other

hand, readers are encountered with a new error type every time which makes it really difficult

to fully comprehend the intended meaning.

2.6.3. Error Gravity (EG)

Intuitively, not all errors have the same effect on communication and thus errors vary in

terms of “seriousness”. Error gravity then is a measure of the effect that learners‟ errors have

on communication. There are different factors affecting error gravity. James (1998:206)

presents the following criteria for EG: error frequency and density (mentioned above),

grammaticality, comprehensibility, communicativity and noticeability.

Experience and observation show that teachers differ in their judgement of learners‟ errors.

It is hypothesised that teachers‟ error gravity judgement would tend to reflect the frequency

with which a given error occurs (Mattar, 1989:383). This, however, turns out to be

ungereralisable since for other teachers, particular error types are more gravy than others

regardless to frequency (see for instance Roberta, et al 1984).

2.7. Common errors made by Arab EFL/ESL learners

Coincidentally with the aims of the present EA study, which investigates the common errors

made by Omani ESL learners, I found it fruitful to shed some light on the common errors

35

made by EFL/ESL Arab learners as to contrast them with those made by their Omani

counterparts.

One of the EA studies that the present research is drawn upon is a cross-sectional study

conducted by Mattar (1989) which is aimed at investigating writing errors made by adult EFL

learners in Bahrain. Among the many findings of his study, and what concerns us most in

this section, is the following list of the most common areas of difficulty that Bahraini learners

are found to face when learning Englsh:

1. The passive voice construction;

2. Question formation;

3. The English relative clauses;

4. Articles;

5. Auxiliary verbs (mainly auxiliary /be/;

6. The copula;

7. Prepositions;

8. Verb usage (mainly wrong tense sequence across clauses)

(Mattar, 1989:385)

Similar findings were also reported by Mukattash (1984:354) who examined the avoidance

strategies of (4835) Jordanian students. He stated that “Arabs have a tendency to use active

sentences even in contexts that require the use of the passive” (P.345).

In his 1986‟s study, Mukattash reported three major error types of adult Jordanian students.

They are as follows: (1) errors in the verbal system, these include: tense, phase, aspect, voice,

and be-deletion; (2) errors in relative clause formation, these include: relative pronoun

deletion, pronominal reflexes, relative pronoun replacement, and non-restrictive clauses; (3)

36

new error types which include: use of „that‟ in sentence initial position, placement of the

„subordinate clause‟ after the subject (NP), subject repetition, and „whichz‟-deletion.

In short, the above mentioned studies along with many others (e.g. Mukattash, 1981; Scott

and Tucker, 1974; Schachter, 1983) have shown different error types with various

frequencies of occurrence. It would be of great interest, however, to see how the findings of

the present EA study would vary (and/or support) the findings of these studies.

2.8. Error Correction (EC) and Teacher response to students’ writing

errors

As with reference to the third study question (set out in chapter 1), it would be of value to

make sense of the literature on the different approaches to error correction and the

effectiveness of different ways teachers employ in responding to their students‟ writing

errors.

A number of recent studies have brought attention to the central role that error correction

plays in the process of second language learning (e.g., Long, 1983; Chaudron, 1983;

Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1994; Johnson 1988; etc.). The principal assumption underlying

these studies has been twofold: to identify how and when teachers should correct their

learners‟ errors and mistakes and how effective error correction is. According to James

(1998:235), “one of the purposes of doing EA is to identify the principles which should guide

effective error correction. Principled EC is applied EA”.

Three levels of corrections can be identified in the literature: feedback, correction and

remediation (James, ibid.). Feedback involves teachers to simply inform the learners that

there is an error and leaving them to discover it and correct it themselves. Correction, by

37

contrast, involves providing the learner with the necessary information or treatment that

would lead them to correct their errors. Here, the teacher may specify how and where,

suggest alternative and give hints that lead to the correct form. In the remedation level, the

teacher does not simply identify the error and suggest ways of correcting it, but provides

comprehensible information that allow learners to revise or reject the wrong rule they are

operating with when produced the error. In other words, encourage them to reconstruct their

mental representation of the TL rule so that the error type or token does not recur.

Hammerly (1991: Ch.9) refers to these levels by suggesting a distinction between deep and

surface correction. For him, surface correction involves mare editing or putting right but

does not address the source of the problem. The deep correction, by contrast, addresses the

source of the error, gives students clear picture of why a bit of language is the way it is and

helps learners to “reorganise their cognitive structures” (ibid.:93).

The many studies that have been conducted to date have shown that EC is necessary and has

proved useful in improving the quality of students‟ writing (see for example Fathman and

Whalley, 1990). However, there are a number of principles that need to be considered for an

effective EC. I shall highlight the most relevant three presently. Firstly, EC should be

effective. For EC to be effective, teachers, according to James (1998:249), need to use

correction techniques that bring about improvements in accuracy and at the same time

efficient, i.e., require less time and effort in the teacher‟s part and have the desired effect on

students. Secondly, EC should be sensitive. This is an important principle since not all

learners react similarly positive to their teachers‟ correction. Many authors have suggested

an individualised EC or a whole-class correction. This would definitely personalise EC and

makes it a non-threatening experience. Both Hammerly (1991) and Edge (1989) emphasise

the notion of a „humanised‟ EC. „Conferencing‟ is another technique to avoid threatening EC

38

and to encourage student-teacher active interaction and cooperation. This last notion of

cooperation between teachers and learners has also been pointed out by Dheram (1995:160).

Thirdly, EC should match students’ preferences. Studies on EC have indicated that

students‟ preferences for certain type of correction cannot be ignored. Hedgcock and

Lefkowtz (1994), for instance, found that EFL learners prefer a form-focused feedback on

their writing while EEL learners prefer a content-oriented correction. Cohen and Cavalcanti

(1990:175) in another study noted that a clear agreement between teacher and student as to

what will be commented on and how is a missing ingredient of a typical approach to EC.

In short, EC has gained a special interest among researchers who have investigated different

ways of providing feedback to students‟ writing. Studies on EC suggest that EC is required

by learners themselves and essential especially in those cases where the language processing

task is difficult and so self-correction, although encouraged, is not possible. Hence, EC

needs to be handled effectively and sensitively.

2.9. Summary

This chapter sets the scene to the present EA study and provides readers with the basic

information on what errors mean, how they are significant and to whom, what their types and

categories are and how they can be best corrected. The chapter has also attempted to make

sense of the literature on the basic terms and metalanguage that are recurrent in the literature

of EA and are essential for the basic understanding of the subject matter.

Errors have been defined in terms of two distinct criteria: (1) in terms of who makes them

and (2) in terms of their deviance from the standard acceptable forms of TL. Errors made by

EFL/ESL learners are apparently different from those produced by their NS counterparts.

The former error type may be referred to as either competence errors or performance errors

39

while the latter group would only produce performance errors (Corder, 1974). Learners‟

interlanguage deviance is also judged according to some measures such as grammaticality,

acceptability and correctness (James, 1998).

As the traditional CA has started to lose its credibility in the late 1960s, researchers have

started to devote more interest to the EA movement which has succeeded in providing valid

explanations to different types of learners‟ errors and have paved the way to the study of

learners‟ interlanguage. These studies have significantly shifted people‟s attitudes towards

errors and have made it possible to classify learners‟ errors in categories and subcategories

according to different criteria such as their sources, the underlying cognitive process and their

effects on communication. Other types of studies have been devoted to study the teachers‟

noticeability of their learners‟ errors and the levels of error gravity some of these errors have

(e.g., Roberta, et al, 1984; Mattar, 1989).

One of the deficiencies in the literature of EA, which has also stimulated the present EA

study, is the lack of studies that exclusively deal with errors made by Arab ESL learners in

general and Omani learners in particular. The available studies (e.g., Mattar, 1989;

Mukattash, 1981, 1984, 1986; Scott and Tucker, 1974; Schachter, 1983) have made good

account of the error types and difficulty areas encountered by Arab learners, but more studies

that deal with variety of learners from different countries and with different dialects would

certainly prove useful.

Lastly, One of the purposes of doing EA is to identify the principles that provide guidelines

for effective error correction. It is widely accepted among authors that arbitrary and

unsystematic correction should be avoided, instead, teachers‟ feedback, as James (1998:249)

40

asserts, should be focused, sensitive, and relatively effective taking into account learners‟

individual differences and some group factors such as level of attainment in the SL/FL.

Chapter Three

Study Design

3.0. Introduction

The present chapter sets out the overall design of the study. It specifies the research method

used, study population, research instruments and procedures for data analysis.

In the literature of EA, three types of studies can be identified: proportion studies, quasi-

proportion studies, and occurrence studies. In proportion studies, errors in an entire body of

speech or writing are classified and counted, enabling the researcher to state in quantitative

terms the relative proportion of each error type. In the quasi-proportion study type, by

contrast, errors are analysed and classified but not counted, permitting qualitative estimates,

but not quantitative statements about the proportion of each error type. The occurrence

studies, the researcher reports only the occurrence of particular error type, but no attempt is

made to address proportion (Dulay, et al 1982:174).

For the present EA study, an approach based on the first type of studies, namely the

proportion studies, have been chosen and designed because these types of studies speak most

directly and precisely to the issues of error proportion and error types and enable a valid and

reliable comparison between groups of learners. They also prove useful and relevant to the

aims and objectives of the present study aims set out in chapter one. The briefly summarised

occurrence of errors, which is offered by the other types of studies, does not serve the aims of

the present EA study.

41

3.1. Research Method

In keeping with the nature and aims of the present study, a proportion case study was found

to best fulfil these aims compared to other research methods such as surveys and

experiments. Bell, 1984 (cited in Dheram 1995:62) asserts that in view of the explanatory

nature of investigation, case study was decided to be the most appropriate research strategy.

It is also the researcher‟s view that a case study approach contributes fresh insights into the

ESL/EFL pedagogy and allows collaborative effort between researchers, teachers and

learners. Case study has been defined in the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and

Applied Linguistics (1992:47) as:

“The intensive study of an aspect of behaviour, either at one period in time or over a

long period of time … The case study method provides an opportunity to collect

detailed information which may not be observed using other research techniques …

and is usually based on the assumption that the information gathered on a particular

individual, group, community etc., will also be true of the other individuals, groups or

communities.”

In specific terms, a proportion case study approach was used to investigate the frequencies

and types of writing errors made by first year students from two different levels of

proficiency at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) of Oman. The detailed description of the

study population will be the focus of the next section.

3. 2. Study Population and Sample

All first year students who were enrolled in the foundation intensive programme in English

(see below) in the Language Centre at SQU together with their eight writing teachers

42

constituted the study population. From these students, a total number of 60 students and 8

teachers was chosen to represent the study sample.

3.2.1. The Student sample

A total of 60 first year students doing their foundation course in English at the university

were chosen by the researcher from the study population as a sample for the present study.

These students were in four different levels or bands, ranging from 1 to 4, according to their

performance in the Placement Test that they sat at the beginning of the academic year. For

the purpose of this study, a sample of 30 students from band 2 and another 30 students from

band 4 (a total of 60 students) were selected as respondents. Students in band 2 were in a low

level of proficiency as opposed to those students in band 4 who were in a relatively higher

proficiency level. The students‟ level of proficiency (the band they belong to) in this context

was decided by their performance in the placement test. The rationale behind choosing

students in these levels was twofold. In the first place, there was a clear difference in the

level of proficiency between students in band 2 and students in band 4 which would

definitely serve the aim of the study – comparing and contrasting the type and frequency of

writing errors made by students in the two different levels of proficiency. Secondly, students

in band 2 and 4 were chosen in particular by the researcher because of the significant

difference in proficiency level between band 2 and 4 as opposed to students in bands 1 and 2,

on one hand, and 3 and 4, on the other. In other words, students in band 1 were very similar,

in terms of level of proficiency, to those in band 2 and likewise there was no significant

difference between students in band 3 and 4 in terms of proficiency level. Therefore, both

bands 1 and 3 students had been excluded when the study was designed for the sake of

significant, reliable and valid results. To be more accurate in the description of the study

43

sample, band 2 students, according to the international standards, were in a pre-intermediate

level while band 4 students were in an upper-intermediate level.

The 60 students representing the study sample were male and female Omani students aged

between 19 and 21 years and coming from different regions of the country. No attempt was

made to divide the students into groups according to their gender since the gender factor was

not a variable in the present study, though, it would be interesting to see how the gender

factor would influence the type and frequency of errors. These students had had twelve years

of formal education and nine years of ELT instruction before the university level.

3.2.2. The Teacher Sample

As stated above, eight teachers were also selected to represent the teacher sample of the

study. These were from various nationalities native and non-native speakers of English and

all of them (except for one) had had more than six-year experience as ESL teachers. These

teachers had been chosen in particular to represent the teacher sample for the sake of valid

and reliable responses to the questionnaire (see below), since they were involved in teaching

writing to students in bands 2 and 4.

3.3. Research Instruments

Two methods were used in the present study for the purpose of data collection from the

selected sample: a writing task and a questionnaire. With reference to the first and second

questions of study stated in chapter one, the purpose of the writing task was to gather

information about the type and frequency of errors made by the students from both groups in

writing. The questionnaire was directed to the writing teachers to elicit further quantitative

data on the commonest error types and qualitative data on the way they respond to the

44

students‟ writing errors, which provided answers to the third question of the study (see

chapter one).

3.3.1. The Writing Task

The writing task was an expository essay. The students were instructed to express their

attitudes as to whether they prefer to continue their study in Oman or abroad after they had

finished their secondary school (see the writing task in appendix 1). The chosen topic for the

writing task had been decided on based on its familiarity to the students in both levels of

proficiency. Additionally, the researcher had the belief that the more students are involved in

the topic and the more use of their personal experience could be made, the more creative their

writing would be. Thus, with the chosen topic, students will find themselves involved in, and

use their personal experience to defend their own opinion towards, the topic.

In order to reduce the students‟ anxiety and write at their best capacity, the writing teachers

who carried out the writing task with their students were instructed, in an explanatory letter

from the researcher, to make it clear to them that the task was not intended to function as a

writing test (see appendix 2 for the teachers‟ letter). In addition, students had been given

time (about 15 minutes) to discuss the topic of the writing task in groups and after that as a

class before they started writing their composition individually. They were given 30 minutes

to write their essays, but extra time were given when required. The rationale for such

procedures was to ensure that students would share ideas with each other and thus enrich

their essays and minimise the possibility that some students might not have much to write

about. This will definitely serve the overall aim of the study – gathering as much of the

students‟ errors in writing as possible. Noticeably, these procedures were followed with

students in both band 2 and 4.

45

The researcher had found the above detailed technique to elicit the actual students‟ errors in

writing the most logical, reliable and valid technique compared to others such as interviews,

questionnaires and document collection. The difficulty with interviews and questionnaire as

techniques for data collection of this kind was that some students were not actually aware of

their errors and thus could not talk about, and/or discuss in writing, their errors if they were

to be interviewed or asked to respond to a questionnaire. In addition, the validity and

reliability of the study design and its methodology would have been questioned had the data

on the students‟ errors collected been based on what the students had produced in the

Placement Test at the beginning of the academic year. In fact, the errors made by the

students in the writing component of the placement test would not precisely represent the

actual errors of the students at the time when the study was conducted bearing in mind that

their linguistic competence, including their writing skills, would have improved since then.

The method was also reliable in a sense that if the students were to write another essay on a

similar topic, the same patterns of errors would be expected. It is worth noting in this regard

that students were not allowed to use dictionaries as they might be devised as a resource for

spelling and word use. This way ensured the „authenticity‟ of the errors collected since the

errors found in the students‟ scripts represented the actual status of the students‟ competence

in English and also enhanced the validity and reliability of the writing task as a data

collection tool to this type of data. In addition, Students in both groups were also given the

same writing task for the sake of valid and reliable comparison of the two groups. In short,

the writing task was valid, by definition, since it elicited what it had been designed for and

reliable since it would elicit nearly the same error types and of the same frequency of

occurrence had it been administered to the same students later in the time.

46

Oppenheim (1992) has stressed the importance of confidentiality, anonymity, and ethicality

in all aspects of any research. In the present study, the students were informed that the

writing task would not be corrected and used by their teachers so as not to worry about its

impact on their course grades. They were also informed that whatever they write would be

treated confidentially and would be only used by the researcher for research purposes.

Names were not required on the scripts so as to ensure the anonymity of writers.

3.3.2. The Teacher Questionnaire

As with regards to the third question of the study (see chapter one), a questionnaire was

designed to be completed by the writing teachers who were involved in teaching writing to

bands 2 and 4 (see a sample of the questionnaire in appendix 3). The purpose of the

questionnaire was threefold. Firstly, to gather additional quantitative data on the most

common errors made by the students in both levels of proficiency from the teachers‟

perspectives. For this purpose, the teachers were asked to list all the error types and

categories made by their students when writing in English. This question yielded extra

quantitative data to that provided by the analysis of the students‟ scripts. The second purpose

of the questionnaire was to measure the teachers‟ reaction towards the same error types (see

hypothesis two in chapter one). In other words, the interest was to find out what error types

constituted the highest gravity rate and so noticed by all teachers (for error gravity, see

chapter two section 2.6.3, page 34). To achieve such purpose, a text produced by one of band

2 students was attached to the questionnaire for teachers to mark. Thirdly, the questionnaire

also gathered information on the method used by teachers when responding to their students‟

errors in writing, which, in turn, answered the third study question. To achieve this purpose,

the teachers were provided by an open-ended question which required them to fully describe

their techniques in responding to their students‟ errors as they mark the students‟ drafts. In

47

addition, by looking at the text marked by the teachers, it was possible to gain some

knowledge on the approach followed by every individual teacher when responding to his/her

students‟ errors. The rationale for using a questionnaire, as opposed to other techniques of

gathering data such as interview, was to give teachers more time to think of their students‟

errors in writing and perhaps consult some of their documents and students‟ drafts, which

would be apparently impossible to do had the teachers being interviewed. In addition to that,

the open-ended questions used in the questionnaire were found to most suit the nature of data

required by the researcher as opposed to the closed questions. It is worth quoting Oppenheim

(1992:112) in his argument in favour of this type of questions. He asserts that:

“Open or free questions are not followed by any kind of choice, and the answers have

to be recorded in full … The chief advantage of the open question is the freedom it

gives to the respondents. Once they have understood the intent of the question, they

can let their thoughts roam freely, unencumbered by a prepared set of replies. We

obtain their ideas in their own language, expressed spontaneously, and this

spontaneity is often extremely worthwhile as a basis for new hypothesis”.

The questionnaire itself was not piloted. However, its validity and reliability was ensured via

various procedures. Every single part was carefully designed to elicit the exact data type

required by the researcher, and teachers would have no difficulty in understanding and

responding to the questions. Furthermore, the researcher made himself available to the

teachers should they have any inquiries regarding the questionnaire. No inquiries were raised

by the teachers which, in turn, enhanced the validity and reliability of the instrument.

As with regards to anonymity and confidentiality, the teachers‟ were not required to put their

names or any other signs which might lead to their identity. Additionally, the confidentiality

of the information they provided was also ensured. It was made clear to the teachers that the

information they write would be treated confidentially and would not be used beyond the

research purposes.

48

In short, the procedures and data collection techniques used in the present study have been

designed in a way that was consistent with, and enabled the fulfilment of, the study aims.

3.4. Data Analysis

After the writing task had been administered to the student sample, all the scripts were

handed to the researcher together with the teacher questionnaires and were brought back to

Bristol to be analysed. The students‟ scripts were first analysed followed by the

questionnaires.

3.4.1. Corpus Analysis

A corpus of 60 scripts written by students from bands 2 and 4 was carefully marked in order

to elicit the number and frequency of errors and error types made by the students from each

group. The scripts of both groups were marked separately to allow for a systematic and valid

comparison of the two groups in terms of error number of occurrence and error type in a way

which best answer the study questions.

The literature contains a number of studies which compare two or more groups of learners in

terms of error frequency and error types. (See for example Mattar 1989, who investigated the

number and nature of errors made by adult EFL learners in Bahrain; Mukattash 1984, who

investigated grammar errors of 4835 Arab learners in Jordan; Scott and Tucker 1974, who

examined the written and spoken language of 22 Arabic-speaking students at the American

University of Beirut). Researchers in these studies and others used different methods to both

elicit and classify students‟ errors. The present EA study, as stated in the introduction in

chapter one, does not attempt to explain learners‟ errors, i.e., trace back each single error type

49

to its source, rather, it describes the nature and type of learners‟ errors, since the two tasks are

not of the same nature and so have to be dealt with separately (Dulay, et al, 1982:145). To be

consistent with the descriptive nature of the present EA study, and for the sake of valid

answers to the study questions, I found it useful to adopt a descriptive taxonomy which

allows for a clear description of errors that affect different linguistic levels such as word,

sentence, paragraph, etc. James‟ (1998) descriptive taxonomy of errors, which was

highlighted in chapter two section (2.5.3), was found to best serve the aims and the analysis

approach of the present study.

Drawing upon James‟ taxonomy, I have developed a similar approach to describe and

classify the errors made by students in both bands 2 and 4. In this approach, errors are

classified based on the level of language that they affect. Two levels are identified:

substance level and text level. Within the substance level, errors are classified as either

misspelling errors or punctuation errors. The text level errors are of two sorts: lexical errors

and grammar errors. The lexical errors may be either semantic, when the used word does not

match the context; misselection, when students misselect a word from a set of words that

differ slightly from each other in terms of form; or distortion, when students fail to form the

word correctly. The grammar errors are of two types: morphology and syntax. The

morphology errors occur in the noun, verb, adjective or adjective, while the syntax affect the

levels of phrase, clause, sentence and paragraph. The third level of analysis in James‟

taxonomy, which is the discourse level, was excluded from the adapted version of the

taxonomy since it deals with errors that are beyond the paragraph level. It is fruitful to note

in this regard that the students who represented the study sample, and especially band two

students, were not yet introduced, at the time when the writing task was administered, to

essay writing which requires the knowledge of connecting paragraphs together and arranging

50

them in a logical order to produce a coherent essay. For this reason I found it of no value to

consider errors that occurred at beyond-paragraph level. The adopted model of analysis can

be best understood visually as a chart like the following one which summarised the error

levels, types and sub-types.

Substance level Text level Blend

misspelling

punctuation

Lexical errors Grammar errors

semantic misselection distortion Morphology syntax

n

o

u

n

v

e

r

b

a

d

j

e

c

t

i

v

e

a

d

v

e

r

b

p

h

r

a

s

e

c

l

a

u

s

e

s

e

n

t

e

n

c

e

p

a

r

a

g

r

a

p

h

Figure1: model of analysis

Using the above detailed model of analysis, band 2 and 4 students‟ scripts were marked

separately and the elicited errors were entered into a grid (see appendix 6) which was

prepared by the researcher based on the categories and sub-categories of the model used to

classify the errors. The use of the grid had facilitated the marking process and made it easier

to draw conclusions about student errors from each band based on the number and types of

error made by each individual student. It is worth noting here that every script was assigned

a number from 1 to 30. The purpose of this numbering system was to enter the script

numbers into the grid matrix under the category or subcategory that the extracted error

belonged to. By using such technique, access to a particular script that contained examples of

a specific error type became easier since the grid provided information on both the error type

51

and its location within the whole corpus. In addition, symbols such as (sp), (pun), (sem),

(miss), (dis), (ph) were also used when marking the scripts. These symbols served two major

purposes: they identified the error location and specified the category and subcategory of the

identified error.

Two major considerations were taken into account when marking the corpus. Firstly, when

marking the students‟ scripts, the focus was on form not on content and organisation. That is,

students were neither penalised for how strong and convincing their arguments were, nor for

how well they had organised and written their papers. Secondly, for each student‟s paper,

error types were counted not error token. In other words, if the same error type made by a

student more than once, then it was counted as one error (for argument on this very issue, see

chapter two section 2.6.1).

3.4.2. Questionnaire Analysis

For the same reason stated above regarding the use of the grid when marking the student

scripts, a different grid was also devised when the teacher questionnaires were analysed (see

appendix 3). The questionnaire grid was developed based on the sections and questions of

the questionnaire. Data extracted from the questionnaires was entered into the grid matrix

horizontally according to the question they belonged to and vertically according to the

questionnaire number. Again this technique made it possible to look at, compare and draw

conclusions on data from eight questionnaires using the grid.

3.5. Summary

52

To sum up so far, the present chapter highlighted the design of the study. It specified the

research method used, study population, research instruments and finally detailed the analysis

approach and procedure.

A case study approach was used to investigate the writing errors made by high proficiency

and low proficiency first year students at Sultan Qaboos University of Oman. To answer the

study questions and fulfil its aims, 60 first year students doing their intensive foundation

course in English at the Language Centre were chosen as a sample to the present EA study.

By means of a questionnaire and writing task, data were gathered on the type and frequency

of errors made by students in band 2 and 4. In addition, information on how teachers respond

to their students‟ writing errors was also gathered by the questionnaire. A model based on

James‟ (1998) taxonomy of errors was developed to classify and describe the errors extracted

from the students‟ scripts. The number and types of these errors will be presented in the next

chapter, which will be devoted to the presentation and discussion of the findings.

53

Chapter Four

Findings and Discussion

4.0. Introduction

In chapter two, I have presented the recent discussion and arguments in the field of EA

together with the findings of various studies in the field which both informed the design and

the analysis procedures of the present study, which was the focus of chapter three. The

present chapter, however, is devoted to report on the findings revealed by the analysis of the

data collected from the field via the means of a writing task and questionnaire.

The two parts that make up the present chapter present and discuss the findings from the two

study instruments, the writing task and the questionnaire. These findings will be presented

separately and respectively in the chapter. In the first part, which occupies two thirds of the

chapter, I shall present and discuss the findings revealed by the analysis of the writing task

administered to the students in both groups, while in the second part, which occupies the last

third of the chapter, I shall deal with the findings revealed by the analysis of the

questionnaire which was filled out by the writing teachers. It is worth noting at this point that

errors are classified and labelled according to the framework developed and explained in the

previous chapter.

54

Before proceeding to the presentation and discussion of the findings, it would be of value, at

this point, to revisit the three study questions and the two underlying hypotheses which

stimulated the present study since reference will be made to these from time to time in the

course our discussion of the findings. The three questions that initiated the study are:

1. What are the most common errors made by high proficiency and low proficiency first

year students in writing?

2. What is the relationship between the students‟ level of proficiency and the type and

frequency of errors they make?

3. How do teachers respond to their students‟ writing errors?

The underlying hypotheses that the findings seek to test are:

The type and frequency of errors will vary with the level of proficiency.

All teachers will respond similarly to the same error types.

4.1. Findings of the Writing Task

To help the reader easily follow up with and digest the dense information presented in this

part, I found it useful to divide the present part into three sections. In the first section, I shall

present and discuss the number, types and subtypes of errors made by band 2 students. I

shall secondly present the number, types and subtypes of errors made by band 4 students. In

the last section, I shall attempt to compare the number of errors and error types of both

groups.

4.1.1. General Observations

55

After the systematic marking of the corpus of 60 texts written by both bands 2 and 4 students,

it was possible to make the following six general observation regarding the test length,

organisation and the nature of errors.

1. Text length

Since there was no limitation imposed on the students regarding the length of the text they

were asked to produce, variation in the text length of bands 2 and 4 was expected. It was

easy to notice, even before beginning to mark the texts, that band 4 students produced longer

texts than did band 2 students. Statistically speaking, an individual band 2 student produced

an average of 180-word long texts, while an individual band 4 student produced an average

of 285-word long texts. In other words, band 4 students produced texts that were 22.6%

longer in words than texts produced by band 2 students. It is clear then that the text length

correlates positively with the students‟ level of proficiency.

2. Text Organisation

Although errors at the organisational level, such as paragraphing, are out of the scope of the

present study, it is worth noting however that band 4 students produced multi-paragraph texts

whereas the majority of band 2 students, on the other hand, produced single-paragraph texts.

3. Classification Difficulty

While classifying errors according to the analysis model explained in chapter three section

(3.4.1), some errors were found to belong to more than one category at the same time. For

instance an error may be classified as a lexical error such as semantic, misselection or

distortion errors, but it can also belong to grammar errors such as morphology or syntax, as in

the following example: “Students who study abroad have to wash clothes and clean desh”.

56

Here, the word „desh‟ could be classified as a distortion error since the vowel „e‟ has been

used instead of „i‟, which is a lexical error. In addition, the structure of the sentence requires

the plural form of the word, which is a noun error belongs to the morphology level. For this

reason, I found it useful to add a third category to the analysis model which have been

developed and explained in chapter three and call it blend. This category contains errors that

can belong to more than one category simultaneously. More examples of this type are given

below. It is worth noting in this regard however that error classification is never an easy task

especially in studies, like the one at hand, which do not examine particular error types.

4. Error Types

No major difference was found regarding the types of errors made by one group compared to

those of the other. In other words, the same error types were found to occur in both groups‟

scripts. The significant difference however was in the number of errors rather than in error

types. I shall reserve the term “error density” to our discussion of the number of errors since

the term often overlaps with another very commonly used one, namely “error frequency”.

The difference between the two terms was highlighted previously in chapter two, (see section

2.6). I stated elsewhere (see page,53) that error types are counted not error tokens. Put

differently, the interest was in the number of times different error type occurs rather than the

number of times the same error is repeated in the text.

5. Reoccurrence of error types in the tests

I also found that each error type is a candidate for reoccurrence in the scripts of both groups

and with the same present frequency rate if the students are to extend the length of their texts.

57

6. The Nature of Errors

The majority of errors made by both groups can be classified as local errors, as opposed to

global ones. This distinction between local and global errors was first introduced into the EA

literature by Burt and Kiparsky (1975) to judge errors according to their effect on

comprehensibility and communicativity, as mentioned earlier in chapter two section (2.5.5).

What that entails is that students are able to express themselves and communicate their

meanings without any hindrance in communication. However, two sentences were found in

two of band 2 students‟ scripts which are incomprehensible and ambiguous. These are: “One

the other hand, I have a look multi-cultral foigen” and “Considiring, if I have alook multi-

cultral forign”. In these two examples, the overall meaning of the two sentences remain

ambiguous even if the misspelled words hade been correctly spelled. One effective way of

dealing with such erroneous sentences is to talk to the students and ask them to explain their

intended meaning. Such strategy will not only give teachers access to what hypotheses the

students have about the target language, but will also provide information about the

developmental stages of the students‟ interlanguage. As with regard to error correction, such

errors require a deep correction rather than a surface treatment and mere identification of the

error to the students (Hammerly 1991). Nevertheless, in most cases the reader find no

difficulty in understanding the meaning intended by the students bearing in mind the context

of task and the students‟ level of proficiency.

These are the most salience observations regarding the texts produced by the students in both

groups. I shall now present the number and types of errors made by band 2 and band 4

students respectively with more specificity.

4.1.2. Errors Made by Band 2 Students

58

In this section I shall present and discuss all the errors and error types found in the corpus of

30 scripts written by band 2 students per an average of 180-word long texts, the average text

length of band 2 students. The total number of errors found in band 2 corpus was 449 errors

classified according to the level of their occurrence into two main levels: substance level (6.7

%) and text level (91.8 %). The remaining errors (1.5 %) are classified as blend errors as

they belong to more than one category at the same time. The following table summarises the

number of errors at each level and their percentages.

Level of Error Number of Errors Percentage of Error

Substance Level 30 6.7%

Text Level 412 91.8%

Blend 7 1.5%

Total 449 100%

Figure 2: number and percentages of errors at the two main levels of analysis, band 2.

The fact that nearly 92% of the students‟ errors occurred at the text level and only 6.7% at the

substance level, lends further support to the above observation regarding the nature of the

students‟ errors (see section 6 page,59). It therefore follows that the low frequency of errors

at the substance level suggests that the students are able to communicate meaningfully with

their readers, their writing teachers in this case, without any serious communication

deficiencies. This very observation will also be made when presenting band 4 errors.

However, one should be careful when passing such generalisation because observation and

59

experience show that in some cases students do write unintelligible sentences which teachers

find difficult to understand especially if they contain many blend errors.

Having presented the number of errors and their percentages at the two major levels of

analysis, namely levels of substance and text, I shall now present the number of errors

together with illustrative examples that occurred at the sublevels. It is fruitful to note at this

stage that all of the examples cited below are taken from the actual data produced by the

students.

I. Substance Level Errors

According to the model of analysis proposed in chapter three section 3.4.1, two error types

are identified at this level, namely, misspelling and punctuation. I will be dealing with these

error types individually.

1. Misspelling

Th types of error under this category are similar to those labelled in other publications as

„spelling mistakes‟, which will be dealt with under „distortion‟ (see section 1 page, 64) but

with a slight difference, as we shall see. To illustrate this difference between the two types,

let us consider “out side”, “alot” and “contry”. In the first example, students have „split‟ the

compound word and in the second „fused‟ the constituent word, whereas in the third, they

failed to comply for the missing vowel “u” in their attempt to produced „country. (The terms

split and fuse are used after James, 1998:131). The first two examples are misspelling errors

whereas the third is a distortion.

The total number of misspelling errors in band 2 corpus was 9 representing 2% of the 449

errors extracted from the corpus. There are two types of misspelling errors which both

60

occurred in band 2 data: overuse and underuse of the space between compound words.

Drawing on James‟s (1998) labels, I shall call the former type “split” which includes

examples like out side, a bout, a broad; and the later “fusion” and includes examples like

alot. Finally, it is worth noting before leaving this point that non of the EA studies that have

been reviewed for this research have counted for errors of this nature.

2. Punctuation

This was the second type of the substance level errors. It involves violation of the

punctuation rules of the language. The total number of punctuation errors found in band 2

corpus was 21 accounting for 4.7% of the total errors found in the corpus. The most frequent

punctuation errors found in band 2 scripts were as follows. (X indicates the position of the

omitted element).

Comma omission, as in: First of all X studying in Oman …”

Comma overinclusion, as in: “I think, to study abroad.”

Full stop omission at the end of the sentence.

Uncapitalise country names, as in “uk” and “the usa”.

Using full stop where a comma is required, as in: “If I go to study in a foreign university.

I will live …”.

Viewing the misspelling and punctuation errors from the error:mistake perspective, one could

confidently suggest that students are would be able to self-correct these error types if their

attention has been drawn to them. They are errors of performance rather than of competence

and so, to be more precise in labelling errors, they are mistakes not errors. The error:mistake

distinction was first introduced into the modern debate by Corder (1967) who associates

errors with failures in „competence‟ and mistakes with failures in „performance‟.

61

Interestingly enough, no difference was found in the types of punctuation errors made by

band 2 and band 4 students. However, as we shall see, band 4 students made more

punctuation errors than band 2 students did when errors of both groups per 70 words were

compared.

It is useful to summarise the number and percentages of errors at the substance level in a

table as follows.

Substance error type Number Percentage

Misspelling 9 2%

Punctuation 21 4.7%

Total 30 6.7%

Figure 3: number and percentages of the errors at the substance level, band 2.

II. Text Level Errors

This level is divided into two other sublevels in which 91.8% of the errors found in band 2

corpus occurred. These are lexical level error and grammar level errors. As it is the case

with band 4 students, as we shall see, band 2 students make more grammar errors than ones.

The number of errors found at the lexical level is 148 while 264 errors are found at the

grammar level, as shown in the table below.

Text error type Number Percentage

Lexical errors 148 33%

Grammar errors 264 58.8%

62

Total 412 91.8%

Figure 4: number and percentages of errors at the text level, band 2.

A. Lexical errors

Lexical errors are those who affect an individual lexis (word). A word become erroneous for

three reasons: distortion, formal or semantic misselection. These three reasons form the

bases for the three types of errors at the lexical level, which I shall highlight presently.

1. Distortion

Distortion involves various processes that result in a wrongly spelled word. Students may

omit, substitute, and /or overuse consonants and vowels while writing. The total number of

distortion errors in band 2 scripts was 70 errors representing 15.6% of the total errors in the

corpus. In general, Band 2 students were found to make distortion errors such as the

following:

Vowel omission, as in: religin, smok, explan, therefor

Vowel misplacement, as in: foriegn.

Vowel/consonant substitution, as in: deffirent, thier.

Approximate “y” omission, as in: studing.

It is fruitful to note that the last kind of distortion errors, namely, omission of the

approximate „y‟, occurred at a relatively high frequency level in band 2 scripts especially

when the word „study‟ was used in the –ing form or as a gerund. The result of such omission

was „studing‟.

2. Formal Misselection

63

This type of errors emerges when there are two or more forms of a word and learners fail to

select the correct form which is demanded by the context such as price and prize (see chapter

two section 2.5.3.3). Band 2 students made a total of 37 errors of this type (8.2%). The

following are illustrative examples of this error type.

Her religion may be effected (affected).

I want to continue my study in British (Britain).

To see how people life (live) in other countries.

…and people will suspect (respect) him.

…to know their culture and traditional (traditions).

I will speak it very will (well).

I don‟t thing (think) of my family.

3. Semantic Errors

This error type occur when learners confuse the meanings and/or uses of certain words which

results in words being used in a wrong collocation or context, as stated in chapter two section

(2.5.3.3). The total number of semantic errors was 41 accounting for 9.1% of the total errors

extracted from band 2 corpus. Examples of this error type include:

I will have to travel single (alone).

Teachers in universities teach hard (very well).

I can get more marks (high/higher).

…because they find some reasons (have).

People will handle me as foreigner (treat).

You will obtain difficult days alone (face/live).

...but it will learn the students…(teach).

64

According to James (1998:143), lexical errors are found to be the most frequent category of

errors, thus, there are therefore good reasons to undertake lexical EA. Yet, most of the EA

studies seem to focus on grammar errors and ignore the lexical ones (see for example Scott

and Tucker, 1974; Mukattash,1986; Duskova, 1983).

Before moving to discuss grammar errors, it is useful to summarise the number and

percentage of the lexical errors in a table such as the following.

Type of lexical error Number Percentage

Distortion 70 15.6%

Misselection 37 8.2%

Semantic 41 9.1%

Total 148 33%

Figure 5: number and percentages of lexical errors, band 2.

B. Grammar Errors

Grammar errors are of special interest not to error analysts only, but to language teachers and

learners in general. Teachers often complain about their students‟ repetition of the same

grammar errors even in higher proficiency levels, as it is evident from the findings of the

present study. Consequently, many EA studies have been devoted to analyse students‟ errors

in grammar in an attempt to find out what areas of grammar turn out to be the most

problematic for students so teachers can focus on them, prepare teaching materials that

provide students with enough practise on these structures and plan any necessary remedial

work. However, some of the grammar errors „fossilise‟ in the students‟ interlanguage and so

are made by students in relatively higher proficiency levels (Selinker, 1972). The literature

of EA contains many studies that are devised to examine students‟ grammar errors, to

65

mention some: Matter, 1989; Scott and Tucker, 1974; Mukattash, 1986, 1981, 1984;

Duskova, 1983; Kharma, 1981. As a matter of fact, the interest in these very studies stems

from the fact that they are of relevance to the present EA study not only because they

examine grammar errors, but also because the student population was Arab ESL/EFL

learners. Yet, the findings of individual studies remain limited to the student population

involved and any attempts of generalisation should be carefully approached.

Grammar errors in the present study are perceived as affecting two levels of language,

namely, morphology and syntax, as suggested by the analysis model developed and explained

in chapter three section (3.4.1.). As for the quantitative aspect of the grammar errors in the

present study, a total of 264 errors were counted in band 2 students‟ corpus representing

58.8% of the total errors in the corpus. The morphology errors accounted for 21.6% and the

syntax errors for 37.2%, as shown in the table below.

Grammar error type Number Percentage

Morphology errors 97 21.6%

Syntax errors 167 37.2%

Total 264 58.8%

Figure 6: number and percentages of grammar errors, band 2.

1. Morphology Errors

66

The difference between morphology and syntax errors is that errors of the former type affect

individual words while errors of the latter affect more than a single word. Noticeably, the

figures in the table above suggest that band 2 students have more problems with syntax errors

than with morphology. I shall deal with the morphology errors first leaving the discussion of

the syntax errors to section 2 (see page 72 below). The morphology errors are of four types:

verb, noun, adjective and adverb. I shall deal with these next.

a. Noun Morphology Errors

Band 2 students were found to make more noun errors than other types of errors within the

morphology level. Their total number was 55 with a percentage of 12.2% of the 449 errors

extracted from band 2 corpus. Basically, three noun errors are observed in band 2 scripts,

they were:

Plural –s deletion, as in: for two reason (reasons); the custom (customs) don‟t allow me

to…; I need them for many thing (things).

Plural –s overinclusion, as in: … better than to learn one languages (language).

Misformation of the plural of irregular nouns, as in: many students go to study in many

countrys (countries).

An observation is also made regarding the proportion of the three types of noun errors. Band

2 students tend to delete the plural marker from nouns more than to overuse it. This

observation lends further support to the findings of Scott and Tucker (1974) who examined

the grammar errors of 22 Arabic-speaking students at the American University of Beirut.

Their findings fall in consistency with the present study‟s regarding the error under

discussion except for error type which does not occur in neither band 2 nor band 4 scripts,

namely, the use of non-count nouns with the plural marker (ibid.:90). Drawing on Corder‟s

67

(1967) distinction between „performance errors‟ and „competence errors‟, Scott and Tucker

(1974:90) labelled errors in this category as “performance mistakes”.

b. Verb Morphology Errors

This error type was less frequent than the previous one. A number of 38 verb errors was

counted in band 2 scripts (8.4%). The types of errors under this category are:

Third person singular –s omission, as in: the study in Oman take (takes) long time; it

improve (improves) information.

Third person singular –s overinclusion, as in: I prefers (prefer) to continue my study…

Model misselection, as in: …and must (have to) do things yourself; my family don‟t

(doesn‟t) allow me to travel alone.

Model overinclusion, as in: I will be can learning another language (I will be learning).

Auxiliary misselection, as in: I am (I don‟t) feel homesick.

Auxiliary overinclusion, as in: I will have improve my language by…(I will improve).

Auxiliary omission, as in: students prefer to study abroad when they graduated from high

school (have graduated).

Verb misformation after models, as in: they will died (die).

“to” omission from infinitive forms, as in: I prefer study abroad (to study); I have many

reasons support my opinion (to support).

“to” overinclusion in infinitive forms, as in: …but they couldn‟t to continue their study

(couldn‟t continue).

Other researchers, who investigated errors made by Arab learners, have also reported similar

findings regarding verbal errors. Mukattash (1986), who investigated the interlanguage of 80

fourth-year Arab students at the university of Jordan, for instance, concluded that verbal

errors, like the ones discussed above, and relative clauses “have a high frequency of

occurrence in the students interlanguage and a high tendency to fossilise” (P.189). Similar

findings were also reported by Mukattash in his 1984‟s study. The term „fossilisation‟ was

first introduced in the literature by Selinker (1972). The only problem with Mukattash‟s

68

study is that no statistical representation of the errors was attempted and so no comparison

seems to be possible between his findings and those of the present study.

Another findings on students‟ difficulty with verbal errors were reported by Duskova (1983)

who examined the errors made by fifty Czech adult learners of English. Model verbs, third

person singular –s, and verb tense are only examples of the errors found in the Czech

students‟ written language.

In their investigation of the writing errors collected from 22 Arabic-speaking students, Scott

and Tucker (1874) found that verb errors were among those errors which students most often

deviate from the standard (P.75). It would be exceedingly interesting to compare the verbal

error types of the present study and those of by Scott and Tucker (ibid.) since the level of the

students in both studies is the almost the same, first year students in their lower intermediate

to intermediate level. They found that about 19% of all finite verbs used were erroneous.

These errors involved omission, substitution and redundant use of auxiliary and copula; third

person singular –s omission; wrong verb tense; incorrect form use of finite verb and subject-

verb agreement.

c. Adjective Morphology Errors

Two incidences were found in band 2 corpus in where the students made an adjective error.

The two cases involved adjective/adverb confusion as in “A comfortable and easily (easy)

life” and adjective misformation as in “comfortablly” (comfortable). The adjective errors

represented only 0.4% of the total errors.

d. Adverb Morphology Errors

69

Again only two incidences were found in band 2 corpus in which the student substituted an

adjective with an adverb. It seems that the students at this level of proficiency find it difficult

to distinguish the usage of both adjectives and adverbs and so they end up using an adjective

where an adverb is required and vice versa. As it is the case with the adjective errors, the

adverb errors represented 0.4% of the total errors.

A very important observation in relation with lower frequency of an error type in the

students‟ writing has been made by Duscova (1983). He stresses that “lower frequency of

error need not necessarily mean that the point in question is less difficult” (P.218).

Regarding the error types under discussion, adjective and adverb errors, their low frequent of

occurrence in the students‟ scripts does not necessarily mean that the students have no

problems using them effectively, on the contrary, they may consciously „avoid‟ using

structures containing adjectives and/or adverbs because they are not yet confident enough to

use them correctly. This notion of avoidance strategy which is employed by learners as one

of the strategies of learning a second/foreign language has been widely dealt with in the

literature. James (1998:173), for instance, associates avoidance with learners‟ ignorance of

the TL structure(s). Many studies have concluded that there is a correlation between

avoidance behaviour and item difficulty in the TL such as Mattar, 1989; Kleinmann 1983 and

Mukattash 1984.

As we have covered the four types of morphology errors, it is fruitful to summarise the

number and percentages of each type in a table as follows.

Morphology error type Number Percentage

Noun morphology errors 55 12.2%

Verb morphology errors 38 8.4%

70

Adjective morphology errors 2 0.4%

Adverb morphology errors 2 0.4%

Total 97 21.4%

Figure 7: number and percentages of morphology errors, band 2.

2. Syntax Errors

As stated earlier in section 1 (see page, 68) errors in the syntax level does not affect only a

single word, but units larger than the word, namely, phrases, clauses, sentences and

ultimately paragraphs. All errors of the four subtypes are counted and classified as errors of

phrase, clause, sentence and paragraph. The total number of syntax errors was 167 (see

figure 6 above) accounting for 37.2% of the total errors found in band 2 corpus.

a. Phrase Errors

This category includes errors that occurred at the phrase level. Errors at this level were found

to occur at a relatively higher level of frequency when compared with other error types

within the same level, i.e., syntax. A number of 98 phrase errors were found in band 2 scripts

accounting for 22% of the whole errors in the corpus. Errors in this category includes:

Article omission, as in: there is economical (an economical) reason why I want to

continue my study in Oman; to see things from past (the past); we can use internet (the

internet).

Article overinclusion, as in: The studying abroad…(studying); meet a new (new) people.

Overinclusion of “for”, as in: my parents don‟t allow for me to…(allow me).

Pronoun misselection, as in: I want to continue their (my) study abroad; a certificate

from him (his) country.

Pronoun omission, as in: I prefer to continue study (my study) in Oman.

71

Preposition omission, as in: to go England (to England); I want to know features foreign

(of foreign) cultures; to know a lot of information people (about people); Oman has

abilities to provide us (provide us with) whatever we need.

Preposition overinclusion, as in: I will miss to my (miss my) family; I want to continue my

study in abroad (abroad).

Preposition misselection, as in: I will learn languages very well for (in) these countries;

in the other hand (on); I don‟t think to (of) my family.

Lack of agreement between adjectives and their nouns, as in: in this countries (these);

this advantages (these); some of this reasons (this).

Word order in phrase, as in: in the East Middle (Middle East).

It is worth noting, however, that no significant difference was found in the „type‟ of phrase

errors made by students in bands 2 and 4. The noticeable difference was in the number of

times the phrase errors occurred in the data.

The high frequency of occurrence of these error types in particular leads us to conclude that

the students are either in ignorance of the TL rules or have half-learned these rules, as

suggested by James (1998), and so they are not errors of performance, rather, they are errors

of competence, as suggested by Corder (1967). Teachers have to pay serious attention to

these types of errors since they require a „deep‟, as opposed to surface‟ correction

(Hammerly, 1991).

These error types are by no means peculiar or unexpected features of students‟ interlanguage

regardless to their background. Findings of other studies regarding these error types will be

presented later in this section after the presentation of the three other types of syntax errors,

which I shall deal with below.

b. Clause Errors

72

These errors involve violation of clause construction rules in English. They were less

frequent than phrase errors. The total number of clause errors was 52 representing 11.6% of

the total errors found in band 2 corpus. As it is the case with phrase errors, clause errors are

also of different types. These are:

Subject omission, as in (the letter X will be used to indicate the position of the deleted

element): …such as how X cook their food (how they cook); also X might (I might) learn

many useful things.

Subject overinclusion, as in (the underlined subjects are overincluded): I believe that

anyone when he wants (anyone wants) to study outside he should; if she travels she will

be (it will be) difficult for her; they want to be near their homes and they to avoid (and to

avoid) facing problems.

Be omission as a full verb, as in: Another reason X that I can learn English; because it X

very important; The second reason X I will ….

Be overinclusion, as in: I want to be study (want to study) near my family.

Main verb omission, as in: …so you will X new places.

Word order, as in: if all we go abroad (if we all); I can visit also many places (I can also

visit); …and meet some people famous (some famous people).

„and‟ overinclusion when listing, as in: …have new friends and their career and their

customs.

„who‟ omission in relative clauses, as in: There are a lot of people X want (who want) to

study abroad.

Apostrophe omission in possession structure, as in: you will know some of other X culture

and tradition (other‟s).

c. Sentential Errors

Errors at the sentential level involve either fragment constructions or misarrangement of

clauses in the sentence by omitting connectives. 16 errors of this type were found in band 2

73

scripts. They accounted for only 3.5% of the total errors in the corpus. The main error types

that appeared in the data were:

Misarrangement of clauses in the sentence or connective omission, as in: I prefer that

because I want to be near my family because I need them for many things;

then we can get more information because Oman opened SQU in 1986 so it does not have

good information but we can say that SQU is a very good university because it…;

In my opinion, there are many reasons study in the UK is better than study in Oman;

I have accustomed myself with some customs in my country I can not change.

Fragment constructions, as in: And there are a lot of disadvantages. Because you find

hard life without your family.

d. Paragraph errors

Generally speaking, no serious errors were found in band 2 scripts at the paragraph level.

Sentences within paragraphs were well ordered and various conjunctions were used, except

in a single incident.

To sum up, the statistics of the syntax errors are represented in the table below.

Syntax error type Number Percentage

Phrase errors 98 22%

Clause errors 52 11.6%

Sentence errors 16 3.5%

Paragraph errors 1 0.2%

Total 167 37.2%

Figure 8: number and percentages of syntax errors, band 2.

74

It would be profitable to compare the present findings on syntax errors with the similar error

types found in other studies. As stated earlier in section “a” (see page 73), these error types

are found to be made by students from different backgrounds and surprisingly at relatively

higher levels of proficiency. Schachter (1983:358), who examined the production of relative

clauses in five language groups, reported that relative clauses are a common problem for

Persian, Arab, Chinese and Japanese students. (The fifth group was native speakers of

English used as a control group). Interestingly enough, the Arab and Persians learners in this

study were found to produce the highest percentage of erroneous relative clauses compared to

the other two groups.

Another study that reports on errors at the phrase and clause levels is the one by Duscova

(1983) who examined the errors made by adult Czech students. Errors like article omission,

lack of agreement between adjective and its noun, be omission, the use of which instead of

who and word order are bound to appear in all students‟ scripts.

The findings reported by Mattar, 1989; Mukattash, 1986 and Scott and Tucker, 1974 are of

special interest to the present study since they all deal with errors made by Arab learners of

English. What concerns us most in this section is the findings of these studies on the

syntactic errors. In Mattar‟s (1989) study, students were found to have problems with the

relative clause structure involving the repetition of objects and subject within the same

clause. These two error types accounted for 43% of the relative clauses in the students‟

composition (P.381). This very error type has been discussed in the present study in section

“b” above (see page 74). Another error type reported by Mattar in relation with relative

clauses is the replacement of relative pronouns such as /whose/ and /where/ with

inappropriate pronoun such as /which or /who/. Similar observation is also made regarding

band 2 students in the present study and the findings by Mukattash (1986) who, too,

75

investigated Arab students‟ errors. As Mattar puts it “such findings seem to indicate that

Arab learners find the relative pronouns /whose/ and /where/ more difficult to use than

pronouns such as /which/ and /who/”. As with regard to other error types at the syntax level,

Scott and Tucker (1974) also reported that Arab students having difficulties with preposition

use (22.9%), articles (8%) and sentence combining (no percentage given). It is worth noting

that other error types, such as question formation errors, which are reported in the above

mentioned studies, were not observed in the data of the present study due to the nature of the

elicitation techniques, i.e., expository writing on a given topic. However, the very rare

occurrence of such errors in the data does not indicate, as suggested by Kleinmann

(1983:364), that the structure in question is less difficult.

III. Blend Errors

So far I have presented and discussed the error types that occurred in two major levels of

analysis, namely the levels of substance and text. Among the error types that were found in

band 2 scripts (and band 4 as well) are those which can belong to more than one level at the

same time. I labelled these errors as Blend. Their occurrence in the data accounted for 1.5%

of the total errors. Examples of this type include:

Distortion + plural –s omission, as in: …have to wash desh (dishes).

Word order + „to‟ omission + article omission, as in: In my opinion, prefer people

continue their study (some people prefer to continue).

4.1.3. Errors Made by Band 4 students

The most striking finding of the present study, as mentioned earlier in section 4 (see page

58), is that no significant difference has been noticed between band 2 and 4 students in terms

76

of error types, i.e., all the error types and subtypes that occurred in band 2 data and have been

discussed earlier have also been observed in band 4 scripts, but with variation in the

frequency of occurrence of each error type. For this reason, I have found it of no value to re-

present the error types made by band 4 students. In our treatment of band 4 students, only the

number of error types and subtypes at each level will be presented. For example and

discussion of these error types, the reader is referred to section (4.1.2). The following table

shows the number and frequency of band 4 errors in the three major levels of analysis.

Level of Error Number of Errors Percentage of Error

Substance Level 95 15.3%

Text Level 511 82.4%

Blend 14 2.3%

Total 620 100%

Figure 9: number and percentages of errors at the two main levels of analysis, band 4.

From an inspection of the number of errors of both groups shown by tables 2 and 9, one

would be led to suspect that band 4 students made more errors than band 2 did. However,

such conclusion turns out to be wrong when text length, discussed in section 1 (page, 57), is

taken into consideration. I shall revisit this point after the presentation of band 4‟s error

types and subtypes together with their percentages.

77

Error level/type

Number Percentage Total

Misspelling 41 6.6% 95 (15.3%)

Punctuation 54 8.7%

Lexical errors 225 36.3% 511 (82.4%)

Grammar errors 286 46.1%

Semantic errors 46 7.4% 225 (36.3%)

Misselection errors 57 9.2%

Distortion 122 19.7%

Morphology errors 105 17% 286 (46%)

Syntax errors 181 29%

Noun errors 28 4.5%

105 (17%)

Verb errors 72 11.6%

Adjective errors 4 0.6%

Adverb errors 1 0.2%

Phrase errors 102 16.5% 181 (29%)

Clause errors 62 10%

Sentence errors 16 2.6%

Paragraph errors 1 0.2%

Figure 10: number and percentages of error types and subtypes, band 4.

Let us now turn our attention to the fact that band 4 students made more errors than band 2.

These errors however were counted per text length in each group. In section 1 (see page 57

above), I have stated that an individual band 2 student produced a text that was 180-words

long in the average while the average text length in words produced by an individual band 4

student was 285. We can argue here that since band 4 students produced longer texts than

band 2 did they would be expected to make more errors also. The findings in its present

shape make it impossible to draw any valid comparison between the two groups as to answer

the second question of the study (see introduction to this chapter). For a valid comparison of

this type to take effect, the compared texts have to be of the same size. Consequently, I

78

found it profitable, as to answer the second study question, to consider the number of error

types and the density of each type in each band per 70 words, the shortest text produced by

band 2 students. The following table and chart show the results of such calculation.

Error type Error density per 70 words (band 2)

Error density per 70 words (band 4)

Misspelling 8 8

Punctuation 13 15

Semantic 18 12

Misselection 23 17

Distortion 39 35

Noun 25 11

Verb 27 23

Adjective 2 1

Adverb 0 0

Phrase 64 35

Clause 38 16

Sentence 6 6

Paragraph 0 0

Blend 4 7

Total 267 186

Figure 11: error types and their density per 70 words, bands 2 and 4.

79

Figure 12: A chart shows the error types and their density per 70 words, bands 2 and 4.

The above visual presenting of the data makes it possible to draw the following conclusions:

1. Students in both bands made a total of 453 errors (59% by band 2 and 41% by band 4).

2. The average number of errors made by an individual band 2 student per 70 words was

(9). For an individual band 4 student, the average number of errors is (6.2).

3. Band 2 students made 18% as more errors as band 4 students did.

4. Again no difference was observed in terms of error types in both groups.

5. Within a 70–word long text, both bands 2 and 4 made no adjective or adverb errors.

6. The striking finding is that band 4 students made less errors than band 2 students did in

all error types except in punctuation (13 by band 2, but 15 by band 4) and blend (4 by

band 2, but 7 by band 4). Experience and observation show that students are able to self-

correct such minor errors once their attention has been drawn to them and so they are not

errors of competence, rather, as Corder (1967) views them, they are errors of

performance.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

density o

f error typ

e sper 7

Error types per 70 words

Band 2 Band 4

80

7. By turning the attention to the second study question (see introduction to this chapter),

we can conclude, based on the above findings, that there is a high correlation between

students‟ level of proficiency and the number and frequency of errors they make.

8. As with regard to the first hypothesis, the findings of the present study suggest that the

error types do not vary with the proficiency level, however the error density does vary

with the level of proficiency.

4.2. The Questionnaire Findings

In this part of the chapter, I will be presenting and discussing the findings of the analysis of

the eight questionnaires that were completed by the writing teachers. The three sections that

make up this part will cover the following areas: the error types as reported by the writing

teachers, teachers‟ reaction to certain error types in a given text and the teachers‟ approaches

in responding to their students‟ errors in writing.

4.2.1. Teaching Experience

The analysis of the questionnaire revealed that six of the teachers have spent more than six

years as EFL/ESL teachers. Only one of band two teachers have spent between 1 to 3 years

in the field and the eighth teacher provided no response to the question.

4.2.2. Error types reported by the writing teachers

81

This part of the questionnaire (see appendix 3) aims at eliciting what the writing teachers

view as the most common error types made by students in bands 2 and 4. The teachers gave

the following error categories as the most recurrent ones in their students‟ writing:

Error types reported by band 2 teachers Error types reported by band 4 teachers

Wrong form / tense Tense

Fragments / incomplete sentences Fragments

Wrong word use Word choice

Wrong article use / lack of article Articles

Spelling Spelling

Quantifiers / articles * Language control

Connectives / conjunctions Missing words

Word order Word order

Singular / plural Number

* punctuation Auxiliary use

* Pronoun use * Clauses: relative / comparative /adverbial

* Repetition Part of speech

* Reference * Infinitives

Preposition use Preposition use

* Active / passive Transition words

Figure 13: error types as reported by bands 2 and 4 teachers. The * marked types are

reported to be made by one group but not by the other.

The majority of the error types that were reported by the eight writing teachers have been

observed in the students‟ scripts of both bands. (Note that some of these categories have been

labelled differently in the analysis model used in this study). However, some of the error

types that occurred in the data have not been reported by the teachers. For example, the most

obvious missing category in the above error list of band 4 is punctuation, which occurred 15

82

times per 70 words in band 4 scripts compared to 13 times in band 2 scripts. Additionally,

errors at the clause level have not been mentioned by band 2 teachers although band 4

teachers have. Nevertheless, they did mention other categories such as word order, repetition

and reference, which are examples of the error types that affect the phrase and clause level. It

is also of value to note in this regard that some error types, like passive sentences, for

instance, have occurred very infrequently in the data but have been mentioned by the

teachers. This phenomenon can be explained with relation to the elicitation technique

adopted for the present study, namely, expository writing on a given topic. Additionally, this

very phenomenon observed in the present study lends further support to what other EA

studies have found in relation with the Arab learners‟ avoidance of the passive constructions,

see for instance, Mattar, 1989; Kleinmann, 1983; Mukattash, 1984. Although the

organisational errors are out of the scope of the present study, it is fruitful to note, however,

that one band 4 teacher mentioned the lack of textual organisation such as paragraphing as

one of the problems in band 4 writing.

4.2.3. Teachers’ response to their students’ errors in writing

It was my intuition that the eight teachers will respond similarly to the same error types (see

hypothesis 2 page 4). However, in their response to the errors contained in the text given in

part two of the questionnaire (see appendix 3), teachers of both bands showed different

methods when responding to the same error types. To exemplify the point under discussion,

let us consider particular error types from the text which was attached to the questionnaire for

the teachers to mark and see how many teachers, out of the eight, will mark these errors as

deviations.

Error type Example

Line No. Number of teachers marked as deviant

83

Spelling Continu 1 7/8

Forgin 4 7/8

Country 4 8/8

Fragment Because I have… 1-2 7/8

Verb omission important reason, X if you 3 8/8

Another reason X that 6 6/8

Article omission in forgin contury 3-4 7/8

Will be important 10 8/8

Word misselection Another 6 8/8

Esteem 11 8/8

Collocation High university 4 7/8

Figure 14: teacher responses to certain error types. The „X‟ shows the position of the omitted

verb.

The fact that not all teachers responded to the same error type similarly can be explained on

the basis of two concepts that have been widely discussed in the literature of EA, namely,

Error Noticeability (James, 1998:218) and Error Gravity (James, 1998; Mattar, 1989:383;

Roberta, et al 1984), see chapter two section 2.6. According to James (1998:218), some

errors are by their nature unnoticeable and so go unnoticed while others occur very frequently

in the text and rarely go unnoticed. He called the former type “covert errors” and reserved

the term “overt errors” to the latter. As for the second possible explanation to the

phenomenon that not all teachers responded similarly to the same error types, it can be

hypothesised that some teachers view certain error types as less serious than others and so it

is worthwhile focussing the students‟ attention on such errors that hinder communication and

of a relatively high frequency of occurrence in the text. In a similar study, Roberta et al,

(1984) examined the faculty response to the written errors of students at the sentence level.

Their findings fall in agreement with those of the present study regarding the fact that

84

teachers judge the seriousness of certain errors differently. In conclusion, the present

findings tend to falsify hypothesis 2 set out in the introduction (see page 4).

As with regard to the general approach available for teachers in responding to their students‟

errors in writing, the analysis of eight responses given by the writing teachers in the third part

of the questionnaire revealed systematic variations in the method followed by band 2 and 4

teachers.

The intensive examination of the feedback methods used by the eight teachers in responding

to the text in the questionnaire revealed that band 2 teachers did not only locate the error

position on their students‟ drafts by using marking symbols above each error, but tended to

provide corrections as well. On the other hand, band 4 teachers appeared to provide lesser

help depending on the nature of the error and whether the students are able to self-correct

their errors once their attention has been drawn to them, as commented by one of the band 4

teachers. Finally, it is worth presenting the techniques that the writing teachers revealed

using to follow-up with their students‟ writing. Three out of the eight teachers (two band 2

teacher and one band 4) reported using peer marking or correction. Harmer (1991:147)

argues that student-student correction proves useful in helping students reflect on their own

errors as well as on the other‟s and self-correct them. He proceeds that such approach can in

itself be classed as a communicative activity. Another technique that has been reported by

the teachers is conferencing. Three band 4 teachers and, surprisingly enough, only one of

band 2 teacher reported that they often sit with their students after class or invite them to their

offices to discuss the students‟ errors and provide feedback on how to improve their writing

skills.

85

As I have pointed out in chapter two, the literature on error correction to date suggests that

there is no taken-for-granted way that best helps students overcome their errors and mistakes

and consequently improve their writing. Feedback types and modality such as when, in terms

of time and students‟ level, to provide feedback, form/content focussed feedback,

negative/positive feedback, marginal/terminal feedback, intensive extensive feedback,

process/product focussed feedback and finally implicit/explicit feedback, have no apparent

contributions to differences in overall writing quality (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz 1994:144).

Paradoxically, other studies, see for example Fathman and Whalley (1990), proved evident

that form and content-focussed feedback help students improve their grammatical accuracy

and the content of their compositions respectively.

4.3. Summary

The present chapter reports on the findings of the two research instruments, the writing task

and questionnaire. The systematic marking of a corpus of 60 scripts written by 60 first year

students at two different levels of proficiency revealed the most common error types and their

frequency of occurrence as made by the students in writing, which answered the first study

question set out in chapter one. When compared in terms of the error types and their density

per 70 words, students in bands 2 and 4 were found to make the same error types but differ in

the density of each error. In quantitative terms, band 2 students were found to make more

errors than band 4 students do. It has been hypothesised that the number and types of errors

will vary with the level of proficiency (see hypothesis 1 introduced in chapter 1). The

findings of this study indeed provided sufficient evidence in support of only the first part of

the hypothesis: the error frequency. There was not significant statistical difference between

band 2 and 4 students in terms of error types. The findings from the questionnaires suggested

86

that the students‟ level of proficiency determined the approach used by teachers in their

response to the students‟ errors.

Chapter Five

Conclusions, implications and recommendations

5.0. Introduction

The underlying objective of the present EA research, which deals with Arab ESL learners‟

errors in writing, is to find out what patterns of error types will emerge from the analysis of

87

students‟ writing. The basic assumption is that familiarity with the error types that are

actually made by the students in their attempt to learn a second language is a very useful

guide for determining the difficulties that these students have in learning that language and,

consequently form the basis for the sequence and emphasis of teaching and error correction

in ESL/EFL classrooms. Generally speaking, the present EA study focuses on the linguistic

classification of errors made by 60 students at two different levels of proficiency based on the

level that each error occurs at. The results of the present empirical research are detailed and

discussed in the previous chapter, however, the main conclusions and implications regarding

the present study are introduced in this chapter. Several recommendations for further

research on Arab learners‟ errors will also be made in a later stage of the chapter.

5.1. Major Conclusions and implications

As explained in chapter one (see section 1.3), no attempt was made in the present EA study

to explain the errors found in the students‟ writing. Relating every error type to its source

was not attempted here based on the fact that “the accurate description of errors is a separate

activity from the task of inferring the sources of those errors” (Dulay et al, 1982:145).

Consequently, all the conclusions drawn in this chapter will be based on the directly

observable characteristics of the errors collected from the data.

5.1.1. Text length and organisation

The findings of the present study suggest that there is a correlation between the students‟

level of proficiency and the text length. As a matter of fact, the writing task that was

administered to the students in both bands 2 and 4 did not impose any text length on the part

of students as explained in chapter 4 (see page57). However, the analysis of the students

writing revealed that band 4 students produced texts that were 22.6% longer than those

88

produced by band 2 students. What this entails is that the more proficient the students are the

richer and longer texts they produce. Additionally, almost all band 2 students produced

single-paragraph texts, except for a few. These very observations lead us to conclude that no

adequate and sufficient focus has been paid to the organisational aspect of the students‟

writing at this level. From my experience as a teacher at the Language Centre, where the

present empirical research took place, students are introduced to essay writing as early as

they pass their first level of proficiency (band 1) and so by the time when the writing task

was administered students should have acquired the basic principles of essay writing. These

conclusions have direct implications for classroom practice. In the absence of students‟

adequate knowledge of academic writing skills, I would suggest that teachers should focus on

these skills in class and raise the students‟ awareness of the importance of such aspects of the

academic writing. What this entails is that teachers should design tasks that help students

develop more sophisticated writing skills such as, outlining, summarising, reporting and

arguing, topic-oriented paragraphing and synthesising. On the material writers‟ part, these

skills have to be incorporated into the curriculum and tested as basic components of the

course as a whole, especially with band 2 students in regard to this study. In the light of the

present findings regarding the organisation and content of the students‟ writing at SQU, I

would suggest a content-based approach to the academic writing (Shih, 1986). In such

approach, the emphasis is on writing from sources (reading, lectures, discussions) and on

synthesis and interpretation of information to be studied in depth. As Shih (1986:620) puts it,

“The use of writing tasks which follow from, and are integrated with, the listening and

reading of academic material is a defining characteristics of content-based approaches to

academic writing”. The assumption is that extended study of a topic precedes writing helps

students maintain active control of ideas and extensive processing of new information. In a

word, the two approaches to academic writing instruction that have been mentioned above,

89

namely, skill-focused and content-based approaches, are believed to have important

contributions to the development of students‟ academic writing, especially in a context like

the one at hand.

5.1.2. Student Level and Error Types

The assumption is that error types and frequency will vary with the students‟ level of

proficiency (see hypothesis one chapter one). However, the findings of the present EA study

suggest that only error frequency, or error density when taken text length into account, seems

to vary with proficiency. The examination of error types of students from both levels (bands)

reveals no difference regarding the error types. In the light of these findings, we can

conclude that error types do not vary with proficiency as it is suggested in chapter one. This

finding lends further support to those of Mukattash (1986) who examined the errors of 80

four-year Arabic-speaking students. He found that a great number of the error types, such as

errors in the verbal system and in relative clauses, reoccurred in test II after being recorded in

test I, although these errors types had been deeply discussed with the students in class before

the administration of the second test (P.189). The fact that students in band 4 do not differ in

terms of error types from students in band 2 has its own implications for writing teachers as

well as material writers and test developers. On the part of the writing teachers, students

have to be consciously encouraged to recognise their own errors and correct them. In other

words, students have to be involved in the process of error detection and correction. This

could be done by dividing students in groups of three or four and present each group with a

text written by one of the students in the class and ask them to identify and correct all the

error types in that text. Teachers could also modify the error types so as to focus the

students‟ attention on particular error types that are prevalent among the students. Such

consciousness raising tasks would help the students reflect on heir own errors and

90

consequently improve their writing. Such observation has also made by Mattar (1989) who

examined the EFL writing materials of students in Bahrain. On the part of material writers

and developers, the writing materials should benefit from the findings of the many EA

studies like the present one and incorporate the findings of these studies when designing

writing materials and tests. For instance, the same error detection and correction task

suggested above could also be incorporated in exams to test students‟ ability to recognise and

self-correct errors.

5.1.3. The Nature of Errors

As explained in section 6 (see page 58), the majority of errors that have been found in the

students‟ scripts could be classified, drawing on Burt and Kiparsky (1972), as local errors, as

opposed to global ones. This leads us to conclude that students do not have serious problem

in writing meaningful sentences, however, more attention to the local errors also needs to be

paid. Again, a reflective approach to dealing with students‟ errors which involves the

students taking part in the detection and correction of their own errors is also suggested in

relation with the point under discussion.

5.1.4. Errors at the Substance Level

The substance level contains misspelling and punctuation errors, as detailed in section I (see

page 61). Although errors at this level accounted for only 4.6% of the errors in band 2 data

per 70 words, they constitute real problems for students even at higher levels of proficiency.

This fact becomes more evident when compared to band 4 errors at this level which

accounted for 5.7% in the same text length. These findings, thus, suggest that teachers have

high expectation of students at band 4 which lacks deep examination of the actual students‟

competencies in writing. This expectation has led teachers to „marginise‟ such error types

91

assuming that students are able to self-correct such errors and will learn how to minimise

them as they become more proficient. The findings of the present empirical EA research

seem not to fall in agreement with such assumption.

5.1.5. Errors at the Text Level

As figures 4 and 9 show, most of the students‟ errors are in lexis and grammar. The lexical

errors account for 33% of the total errors made by band 2 students while the grammar errors

account for 58.8%. As with regards to band 4 students, their lexical errors represent 36% of

the total errors while the grammar errors represent 46%. What these percentages suggest is

that students at both levels of proficiency have real problems in these two areas. To highlight

these areas of difficulties, it is worth listing all the error types in their categories that have

been extracted from the data and found to account for most of the students‟ difficulties in

learning English at least in the present context. These areas include:

Semantic: selection of words that mismatch the context such as using “learn” where

“study” is required.

Formal misselection: using words that morphologically look similar but have different

function such as “price” and “prize”; “thing” and “think”; “effect” and “affect”, etc.

Distortion: vowel/consonant misplacement such as “forigeon”;

- vowel omission such as “explan”;

- approximate “y” omission such as “studing”.

Noun errors: plural –s deletion;

- plural–s overinclusion;

- ignorance of the plural form of irregular nouns, e.g., “countrys” as the plural form of

„country‟.

92

Verb errors: third person– s deletion;

- third person –s overinclusion;

- model misselection;

- model overinclusion;

- wrong tense;

- wrong verb form after auxiliary;

- auxiliary omission;

- auxiliary overinclusion;

- auxiliary misselection;

- „to‟ omission;

- „to‟ overinclusion.

Adjective/adverb errors: use of adjective and adverb interchangeably.

Phrase errors: Article omission;

- Article overinclusion;

- Overinclusion of “for”;

- Pronoun misselection;

- Pronoun omission;

- Preposition omission;

- Preposition overinclusion;

- Preposition misselection;

- Lack of agreement between adjectives and their nouns;

- Word order in phrase.

Clause errors: subject omission;

- Subject overinclusion;

- Be omission as a full verb;

- Be overinclusion;

- Main verb omission;

- Word order;

- „and‟ overinclusion when listing;

- „who‟ omission in relative clauses;

93

- Apostrophe omission in possession structure.

Sentence errors: misarrangement of clauses in the sentence;

- connective omission.

Similar error types have also been reported in other EA studies which investigated writing

errors of adult ESL/EFL learners from different backgrounds, e.g., Richards, 1974;

Mukattash, 1986; Kharma, 1981; Mattar, 1989; Scott and Tucker, 1974. The findings of the

above mentioned studies as well as of the present one provide ample evidence that there is a

lot which needs to be done in order to minimise such errors from our students‟ writing.

These findings call upon a collaborative effort of the material writers, test developers,

teachers and even the students themselves to closely investigate and analysis these errors

bearing in mind the useful and practical information that EA provides. Such investigation can

informally be carried out by teachers in their own classrooms using the action research

technique (Nunan, 1989) to fulfil such goal. These findings have also several implications

for language teaching methodology. Many researchers have recommended involving the

learners in the process of detecting and correcting their own errors such as Mattar (1989:

354) and Harmer (1991:147). Additionally, in the light of such findings, writing teachers

have to focus their teaching as well as their students‟ attention to these errors and adapt

materials and techniques that help students overcome such errors.

5.1.6. Teacher Response to Student Errors

The underlying objective of the present piece of research is to find out how the writing

teachers respond to their students‟ errors in writing. The assumption is that such data would

provide useful information on how the writing teachers respond to their students‟ errors in

writing which will ultimately make it possible to evaluate such methods of EC in the light of

94

the recent research in the field and the findings of the present study. It has been hypothesised

that teachers will react similarly to the same error type (see hypothesis one in chapter one).

The findings suggest however that teachers differ in their „noticeability‟ of the same error

type and their responses vary with the students‟ level of proficiency. As figure 14 suggests,

errors do not have the same gravity in attracting the teachers‟ attention. We can conclude

then that the „overt errors‟ are more likely to be „noticed‟ by teachers and thus corrected than

„covert errors‟ that often pass unnoticed (James, 1998:218). In terms of the teachers‟

response to the error after it has been noticed, the data suggest that band 2 teachers use more

correction symbols and in most cases provide the students with the correct form of the

erroneous words more than band 4 teachers do. As pointed out in chapters two and five, no

particular feedback type and mode seem to have an effect on the students‟ overall writing

quality. We can thus recommend that teachers should adopt an approach with is compatible

with the students‟ level and best help them become more conscious of their own errors. In

addition, the correction method should stem from a deep understanding of the students‟ level

so the adopted approach for EC will neither be demotivating by over-correcting every single

error nor deal with errors so superficially that students do not get enough feedback on their

errors.

5.2. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research into EA

5.2.1. Investigation of Error Sources

The descriptive nature of the present EA study makes it impossible to make any valid

suggestion regarding error sources of Arabic-speaking learners in Oman. Nevertheless, the

findings of the present study can form the basis for future research in the field of EA

specially researches which involve Arab learners. Taking such limitation into account, it

95

would be extremely useful to carry out more EA studies which not only describe and classify

the errors of Arab learners, but seek after the potential sources of these errors. Such studies

should thus account for all the possible error causes that are widely discussed in the literature

such as mother tongue interference (interlingual errors), ignorance or incomplete learning of

the TL rule (intralingual error), teaching methodology and/or learning materials (induced

errors), etc. Such studies would provide evidence in favour of or against the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis (see chapter two). Put differently, the careful analysis of the findings of

such studies would make it possible to test the validity of the CA hypothesis which attributes

learners‟ errors to MT interference in the TL.

5.2.2. The current writing skill syllabus

One of the limitations of the present EA study is that no attempts have been made to evaluate

the existing writing skill syllabus. The assumption is that some of the error types that have

been found in the students‟ data can be related to the insufficient treatment of such errors by

the materials as well as by the evaluation methods adopted by teachers. These error types are

referred to as „induced errors‟ and have been introduced into the literature by Stenson (1974).

In the light of such assumption, it would be fruitful to conduct further studies that focus on

induced errors and involve a thorough evaluation of learning materials, evaluation methods

and teaching methodologies.

5.2.3. Investigating more English language structures

Any small-scale research has potential limitations. No single investigation can cover all

aspect of language. The present EA study is no exception. Although several important

language items and structures were investigated in this study, several more still await

empirical investigation. I would suggest that further studies involving Arab learners should

96

be devised to investigate structures like passive voice (present, past, progressive and perfect),

past tense (simple, continuous, perfect), reported speech, and the like. To do so, these studies

have to adopt different study design methods such as observation and experiment along with

case study as it is the in the present study. Data collected techniques should also vary with

the study aim. I would recommend that future EA studies should device different data

collection tools in order to elicit as much data from students as possible. These may include

verbal report, note taking, introspection and translation.

References

97

Burt, M. and Kiparsky, C. (1975) „Global and local mistakes‟. In Schumann, J. and Stenson,

N. (Eds.)(1975) New frontiers in second language learning, Newbury House Publishers,

Massachusetts.

Chaudron, C. (1983) „A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners‟ errors‟. In Robinett, B. and Schachter, J. (Eds)(1983) Second language learning:

Contrastive analysis, error analysis and related aspects, The University of Michigan Press,

USA.

Cohen, A. and Cavalcanti, M. (1990) „Feedback on conpositions: teacher and student verbal

reports‟. In Kroll, B. (Ed)(1990) Second language writing, Campridge University Press.

Corder, S.P. (1967) „Significance of learners‟ errors‟. IRAL. No.5. Reprinted in Richards, J.

(Ed.)(1974) Error analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Corder, S.P. (1971) „diosyncratic dielect and error analysis‟, IRAL, Vol.IX/2. Reprinted in

Richards, J. (Ed.)(1974) Error analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Corder, S.P. (1974) „The significance of learners‟ errors‟. In Richards, J. (Ed.)(1974) Error

analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Corder, S.P. (1975) „Error analysis, interlanguage and second language acquisition‟ (Survey

article), Language teaching and linguistics abstracts, Vol. 8. Reprinted in Kinsella, V.

(Ed.)(1978) Language teaching and linguistics: Surveys, Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press.

Corder, S.P. (1981) Error analysis and interlanguage,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dheram, P. (1995) „Feedback as a two-bullock cart: a case study of teaching writing‟, ELT

Journal, Vol. 49/2, Oxford University Press.

Dulay, H., Burt, M and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two, Oxford University Press, New

York.

Duscova, L. (1983) „On sources of errors in foreign language learning‟. In Robinett, B. and

Schachter, J. (Eds)(1983) Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis and

related aspects, The University of Michigan Press, USA.

Edge, J. (1989) Mistakes and correction, Longman, London.

Ellis, R. (1986) Understanding second language acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University

press.

Fathman, A. and Whalley, E. (1990) „Teacher response to student writing: focus on form

versus content‟. In Kroll, B. (Ed)(1990) Second language writing, Campridge University

Press.

Hammerly, H. (1991) Fluency and accuracy, Multilingual Matters LTd., Clevedon.

98

Harmer, J. (1991) The practice of English language teaching, Longman, London.

Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (1994) „Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity

to teacher response in L2 composing‟, Journal of Second Language Writing, No.3/2, 141-

163.

James, C. (1998) Errors in language learning and use, Longman, London.

Johnson, K. (1988) „Mistake correction‟, ELT Journal, Vol. 42/2, Oxford University Press.

Kharma, N. (1981) „Analysis of the errors committed by Arab university students in the use

of the English definite/indefinite articles‟, IRAL, Vol. XIX/4.

Kleinmann, H. (1983) „Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition‟. In

Robinett, B. and Schachter, J. (Eds)(1983) Second language learning: Contrastive analysis,

error analysis and related aspects, The University of Michigan Press, USA.

Long, M. (1983) „Teacher feedback and learner error: mapping cognitions‟. In Robinett, B.

and Schachter, J. (Eds)(1983) Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis

and related aspects, The University of Michigan Press, USA.

Mattar, H. (1989) „A cross-sectional error analysis study of the common writing errors made

by adult Arabic-speaking EFL learners in Bahrain‟, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

University of East Anglia.

Mukattash, L. (1981) „WH-Questions in English: A problem for Arab Students‟, IRAL, Vol.

XIX/4, 317-332.

Mukattash, L. (1984) „Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and learning difficulties‟. In

Fisiak, J. (1984) Contrastive Linguistics, Mouton Publishers: Berlin.

Mukattash, L. (1986) „Persistence and Fossilisation‟, IRAL, Vol. XXIV/3, 187-203.

Nemser, W. (1971) „Approximative systems of foreign language learners‟, IRAL, Vol. 9/2.

Reprinted in Richards, J. (Ed.)(1974) Error analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding language classrooms: a guide for teacher initiated action,

New York, Prentice-Hall.

Oppenheim, A. (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurment, Pinter

Publishers, London.

Richards, J. (Ed.)(1974) Error analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Richards, J., Platt, J. and Platt,H. (Eds)(1992) Dictionary of language teaching and applied

linguistics, Longman, London.

Roberta, V., Daisy, M. and Fredrick, L. (1984) „Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of

ESL errors‟, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 18/3, 427-439.

99

Schachter, J. (1982) „An error in error analysis‟. In Robinett, B. and Schachter, J.

(Eds)(1983) Second language learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis and related

aspects, The University of Michigan Press, USA.

Schumann, J. and Stenson, N. (Eds.)(1975) New frontiers in second language learning,

Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts.

Scott, M. and Tucker, R. (1974) „Error analysis and English-language strategies of Arab

students‟, Language Learning, Vol. 24/1, 69-97.

Selinker, L. (1972) „Interlanguage‟, IRAL, Vol. 10/3. Reprinted in Richards, J. (Ed.)(1974)

Error analysis, Longman, Great Britain.

Shih, M. (1986) Content based to teaching academic writing, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.20/ 4,

P.617-648.

Stenson, N. (1974) „Induced errors‟. In Burt, M. and Kiparsky, C. (1975) „Global and local

mistakes‟. In Schumann, J. and Stenson, N. (Eds.)(1975) New frontiers in second language

learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts.

Taylor, G. (1986) „Errors and Explanation‟, Applied Linguistics, Vol.7/2, Oxford University

Press.

Zamel, V. (1985) „Responding to student writing‟, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19/1, 79-101.

100