I

ATATRK UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

GKHAN YKSEL

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN THE COMPOSITIONS WRITTEN BY TURKISH LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

MASTER THESIS

SUPERVISOR ASST. PROF. DR. Muzaffer BARIN

ERZURUM2007

II

SOSYAL BLMLER ENSTTS MDRLNE

Bu alma ngiliz Dili ve Edebiyat Anabilim Dalnn ngiliz Dil Bilim Dalnda jrimiz tarafndan Yksek Lisans Tezi olarak kabul edilmitir.

Yrd. Do. Dr. Muzaffer BARIN Danman / Jri yesi

Yrd. Do.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM Jri yesi

Yrd. Do. Dr. .Doan NAL Jri yesi

Yukardaki imzalar, ad geen retim yelerine aittir. 29 / 03 / 2007

Prof. Dr. Vahdettin BAI Enstit Mdr

CONTENTS PAGES ABSTRACT.IV ZET.........V Acknowledgements...VI CHAPTER I 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Presentation...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Errors and Mistakes..........................................................................................1 1.3 General Background to the Study.....................................................................1 1.4 Aim and Scope of the Study ............................................................................2 1.5 Problems.......................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Limitations....................................................................................................... 3 1.7 Assumptions..................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER II 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Presentation...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Behaviourism, Audio-lingual Method and Contrastive Analysis.................... 5 2.3 Contrastive Analysis and Structuralism........................................................... 7 2.4 Contrastive Analysis........................................................................................ 7 2.5 Criticism of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis............................................... 10 2.6 Error Analysis.................................................................................................10 2.7 Criticism of Error Analysis.............................................................................12 2.8 General Background to the Writing................................................................12 2.9 Interlanguage...............................................................................................14 2.9.1 Problems with interlanguage.16 2.10 Related Studies .16 CHAPTER III 3. ERROR ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 27 3.1 Presentation.................................................................................................... 27

II

3.2 Procedure for Error Analysis......................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Collection of samples of learners language....................................... ..27 3.2.2 Identification of errors........................................................................ ..28 3.2.3 Description of errors............................................................................. 30 3.2.4 Explanation of errors............................................................................ 30 3.2.5 Evaluation of errors............................................................................ ..32 3.3 Classification of Errors...................................................................................... 32 3.3.1 Linguistic taxonomy................................................................................33 3.3.2 Surface Strategy taxonomy..................................................................... 37 3.3.2.1 Omission.......................................................................................38 3.3.2.2 Addition........................................................................................38 3.3.2.2.1 Double markings............................................................38 3.3.2.2.2 Regularization................................................................38 3.3.2.2.3 Simple addition..............................................................39 3.3.2.3 Misformation................................................................................39 3.3.2.3.1 Regularization................................................................39 3.3.2.3.2 Archi-forms....................................................................39 3.3.2.3.3 Alternating forms...........................................................40 3.3.2.4 Misordering...................................................................................40 3.3.3 Comparative taxonomy............................................................................40 3.3.4 Communicative effect taxonomy.............................................................41 CHAPTER IV 4. METHODS OF CORRECTING ERRORS..........................................................42 4.1 Presentation....................................................................................................42 4.2 Error Correction.............................................................................................42 4.3 Which Errors Should Be Corrected?..............................................................43 4.4 Who Should Correct the Errors?....................................................................43 4.5 Forms of Correcting Errors............................................................................44 4.5.1 Correcting all errors..............................................................................44 4.5.2 Code correction.....................................................................................45 4.5.3 Writing comments.................................................................................45

III

4.5.4 Using checklists....................................................................................45 4.5.5 Charting errors......................................................................................46 CHAPTER V 5. METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................47 5.1 Presentation.....................................................................................................47 5.1 Design of the Study.......................................................................................47 5.2 Subjects and Data Collection........................................................................48 CHAPTER VI 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................51 6.1 Presentation....................................................................................................51 6.2 Results............................................................................................................51 6.2.1 A detailed classification of errors.........................................................54 6.2.1.1 Tenses.......................................................................................54 6.2.1.2 Prepositions...............................................................................55 6.2.1.3 Articles......................................................................................57 6.2.1.4 Active and passive voice...........................................................58 6.2.1.5 Verbs.........................................................................................59 6.2.1.6 Other syntactic errors................................................................61 6.2.1.7 Morphological errors................................................................63 CHAPTER VII 7. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................65 7.1 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................65 7.2 Suggestions for Teachers, Syllabus and Textbook Designers and Test Developers.....................................................................................................65 7.3 Suggestions for Further Studies.....................................................................66 APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 68 Appendix I: Samples of Learners Productions....................................................... 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 70 CURRICULUM VITAE...76

IV

ABSTRACT MASTER THESIS GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN THE COMPOSITIONS WRITTEN BY TURKISH LEARNERS OF ENGLISH Gkhan YKSEL Supervisor: Asst.Prof.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN 2007 Page : 76 + VI Jury : Asst.Prof.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN Asst.Prof.Dr. .Doan NAL Asst.Prof.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM This study was conducted in order to find and classify the grammatical errors in the writings of the students of the Department of English Language and Literature at Atatrk University. Forty-seven compositions were examined and the grammatical errors in these writings were found. These errors were first classified into seven major categories, and then they were divided into subcategories. It was observed that the category that includes the largest number of errors was the errors of prepositions, which comprised 24,7% of the total errors. The next highest number was seen in the group of other syntactic errors, which involves wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement, and disagreement between determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers, and nouns. The following most problematic areas were consecutively morphological errors, errors of articles, errors of verbs, errors of active-passive voice, and errors of tenses. At the end of the study some suggestions were made for teachers, syllabus and textbook designers and test developers.

ZET YKSEK LSANS TEZ TRK NGLZCE RENCLER TARAFINDAN YAZILAN KOMPOZSYONLARDAK DLBLGS HATALARI Gkhan YKSEL Danman: Y.Do.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN 2007 Sayfa : 76 + VI Jri : Y.Do.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN Y.Do.Dr. .Doan NAL Y.Do.Dr. Selma ELYILDIRIM Bu alma Atatrk niversitesindeki ngiliz Dili ve Edebiyat Blmndeki rencilerin yazlarndaki gramer hatalarn bulmak ve snflandrmak iin yaplmtr. Krk yedi kompozisyon incelenmi ve bu yazlardaki hatalar bulunmutur. Bu hatalar ilk nce yedi ana kategoriyle snflandrlm daha sonra alt kategorilere ayrlmtr. En fazla sayda hata ieren kategorinin toplam hata saysnn % 24,7sini oluturan edat hatalar olduu gzlemlenmitir. Bir sonraki en yksek say yanl sralama, zne ve fiil uyumsuzluu ve belirleyiciler, iaret sfatlar, nicelik sfatlar ve isimler arasndaki uyumsuzluu ieren dier szdizimsel hatalar grubunda grlmtr. Sonraki en problemli alanlar srasyla morfolojik hatalar, tanmlayc hatalar, fiil hatalar, etken ve edilgen at hatalar ve zaman kipleri hatalar olmutur. almann sonunda retmenler, mfredat ve ders kitab dzenleyenler ve test dzenleyenler iin baz tavsiyelerde bulunulmutur.

VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Asst.Prof.Dr. Muzaffer BARIN and my former supervisor Asst.Prof.Dr. Hseyin EFE for their unequalled help and supervision. I am also grateful to the Research Assistants of the Department of English Language and Literature, who helped with data collection. Special thanks go to my family members, who have always encouraged me all through the study.

CHAPTER I 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Presentation This chapter of the study first gives some information related to error and mistake, and then summarizes the general background of the study, and then the problem, limitations and assumptions related to the study are presented. 1.2 Errors and Mistakes Mistakes are expected to appear in a learning process. However, this is not the only case during language learning. Native speakers may also make mistakes while they are speaking their mother tongues. Thus, it will be useful to make a brief distinction of the terms errors, mistakes and lapses. Mistakes are not a result of deficiency in competence and the deviant form can be corrected by the speaker. Besides, a learner uses different deviant forms at different times inconsistently, this inconsistent deviation is also called mistake. As for lapses, they can be characterized by the slips of the pen or slips of the tongue. Lapses may result from some factors such as memory failure, highpitched emotion, physical or mental fatigue. But, errors are somewhat different from the categories above. They can be briefly described as a systematic deviation of the learners linguistic system. Richards (1985, p: 95) describes errors as follows: the use of a linguistic item in a way which a fluent or native speaker of the language regards as showing faulty or incomplete action. 1.3 General Background to the Study Errors that have always been a main concern for teachers of foreign languages and researchers are an inevitable part of learners oral or written productions. Although errors were regarded as the unnatural parts of writings or speech of language learners in the past, today they have been thought to be an inevitable part of learning. Thus, studying the nature of errors enables teachers of foreign languages and researchers to have a better understanding of the linguistic area

where students have the most difficulty while trying to communicate effectively. And, the data provided by the analysis of learners errors will help teachers, syllabus designers, and test developers to determine their way of teaching or materials in the process of language teaching and learning. In other words, to find out learners errors is similar to the medical diagnosis of an illness. Before applying any teaching technique or material, a proper diagnosis of errors is necessary as the diagnosis of an illness is necessary before the remedy of it. As a result of the fact that learners naturally commit quite a good number of errors, the study of error analysis, through which sources of errors are attempted to be determined, came into existence. It has been stated that some errors are caused by the natural characteristics of learners mother tongue while others are a result of the strategies through which the target language is learnt. Besides, it has been suggested that errors which prevent learners from communicating effectively should be analyzed, and their sources and frequencies should be identified clearly for a better oral or written communication of language learners. As a result of the thoughts stated above, studies of error analysis have often been conducted by the teachers of foreign language and researchers in order to diagnose learners errors and their possible sources. In this study of error analysis, written productions of learners of English, who are English major students, and who are required to read and write in their courses during the academic studies at university are analyzed. In other words, without a good skill of writing, it is almost impossible for these learners to be successful in their academic education. Besides, a good knowledge of grammar is one of the most important requisites in a well formed written production. Thus, the grammatical errors of these learners are particularly focused on in the study. 1.4 Aim and Scope of the Study The current study aims to diagnose what the most problematic areas, in terms of grammar, are in the writings of the students, to mention the possible sources of the errors, and finally to come up with some suggestions which will help language teachers, syllabus designers, and test developers in remedial teaching.

1.5 Problems In spite of the hard work of the students who prepare for the university entrance exam and the foreign language exam which is abbreviated as YDS in Turkish- they still commit countless grammatical. Since no writing skill is required in this exam students and teachers ignore the skill of writing while they prepare for this exam. Therefore, as a result of the fact that student do not sufficiently familiarize themselves with English and ignore production aspect in a foreign language, they commit so many grammatical errors in their writings. 1.6 Limitations This study includes the following limitations: 1.) This study is limited to the students performance in written English. 2.) The group of subjects includes only the first year students of the Department of English Language and Literature at Ataturk University. 3.) The first year students at the Department of English Language and Literature of Ataturk University take an exam before the beginning of the education year, and the students who are successful in this exam are exempted from the prep-class. The compositions examined in the current study are the ones written at this exam. 4.) 47 students compositions were analyzed in the study. 5.) Only the grammatical errors in the compositions were taken into consideration in the study. 1.7 Assumptions According to the subjects entrance scores to the Department and to the scores of the test applied by the researcher, it is assumed that students backgrounds concerning their English proficiency are similar to each other, and the compositions reflect the typical errors at this level. Besides, it is assumed that skills of production speaking and writing- are ignored before the academic education, since these skills are not measured in YDS exam and they commit so many errors in their written productions.

We are also of the opinion that such a study on the errors of these students will be helpful both for students and teachers at high schools and instructors at university. Because it is a transitional period between high schools and university for these students, this study may form a bridge between high schools and the university. According to the results of the study, deficiencies, in relation to English teaching, at the level of high school can be found out, and a remedial teaching may be carried out at the level of university.

CHAPTER II 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Presentation This chapter of the study comprises overviews of two major approaches to the study of learners errors: Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Also, the chapter includes general background to the writing, interlanguage and studies related to the current study. 2.2 Behaviourism, Audio-lingual Method and Contrastive Analysis Before 1960s, learners errors were regarded as something to abstained and unfavourable when the behaviouristic approach of language learning was prevailing. According to the behaviouristic point of view, people learn by responding to external stimuli and by receiving reinforcement. A proper habit is produced by reinforcement, and learning occurs. Accordingly, errors were considered to be a wrong response to the stimuli, which should be corrected immediately after they were committed. If they were not corrected suitably, the error would turn into a habit, and it would stick in your mind. Additionally, the viewpoint of language learning and teaching were also deeply affected by this approach and teachers tried to instil correct patterns of the form into learners mind. When learners made any mistake while using the target language, teachers corrected their mistakes immediately. Briefly, errors were regarded as something fatal to the processes of proper language learning. Larsen-Freeman (1986, p: 40) explains this approach as follows: It is important to prevent learners from making errors. Errors lead to the formation of bad habits. When errors do occur, they should be immediately corrected by the teacher. Since language teaching was deeply affected by the behaviourism, researchers tried to find out new methods in the light of this approach, which gave rise to audio-lingual method. Audio-lingual method is a combination of structuralism and behaviourist psychology, which was in its heyday during the 1950s and 1960s.

The significance of errors according to the audio-lingual method is explained by Stern (1983, p: 490) as follows: Extent of control is the degree to which the program designed so as to avoid the possibility of learner errors. Audio-lingualism, following Skinnerian principles of programmed instruction, favoured an organization of language courses which ideally made it impossible to make many errors. According to Selinker (1957), learning is the formation of habits, and language is also behaviour, though not a mental phenomenon. The child imitates the sound and patterns around him and people reinforce in terms of similarity to the adult models, by approval or some other reactions. The child repeats these sounds and patterns in order to get more of these reinforcements, thus these become the habits of the child. In this process, the childs verbal behaviour is formed until the habits coincide with the adult model. In other words, adults are the models for the childs verbal behaviour and the mistakes made by the child are regarded just a faulty version of adult speech. However, such an approach of learning was eventually discarded by Chomskys cognitive theory: It seems to me impossible to accept the view that linguistic behaviour is a matter of habit that is slowly acquired by reinforcement association and generalization. (Chomsky, 1966, p: 262) Despite the fact that Chomskys arguments have been discussed extensively, they convinced most researchers of the drawbacks of the behaviouristic viewpoint. In terms of second or foreign language learning, behaviourism can be briefly characterized by two terms: transfer and interference. The term transfer is explained in two forms: positive transfer and negative transfer. It is claimed that

similarities between the native language and the second or foreign language of a learner will help the learner learn the second language and this is called positive transfer. According to this viewpoint, for instance, a German learning English will not have much difficulty in understanding the article system, because both languages have similar article systems, both language include definite and indefinite articles, so it will be much easier for a German to understand articles in English language. This case can be described as positive transfer. However, an English learner of German will have much difficulty in using articles in German. For, the definite and indefinite articles may change according to the gender of the noun in German, but an English learner of German may use the same indefinite article for both genders as in English (ein Lehrerin, ein Buch), which is erroneous in German language. The learner may commit mistakes because of his mother tongue while using these articles, which is described as negative transfer. Accordingly, to the behaviourist learning theory, interference is one of the most significant causes and sources of errors. 2.3 Contrastive Analysis and Structuralism Linguistic aspect of contrastive analysis is based on structural linguistics. In the 1950s and 1960s, behaviouristic psychology and structural linguistics were of great popularity and contrastive analysis occupied a central place in the field of applied linguistics. The task of contrastive analysis, which was formulated by Charles Fries (1945) and developed by Robert Lado was regarded as the comparison of the structures of two languages and mapping of points of differences; these differences are the main source of difficulty for the language learner, and they form the basis for the preparation of language texts and correction of students learning a language. (Lado, 1957) 2.4 Contrastive Analysis In the middle of the twentieth century, when behaviouristic psychology and structural linguistics were very popular, CA was also very widely accepted in language teaching. Contrastive Analysis was considered as the only remedy for language teaching problems. As a result of favourability of this approach a series

of contrastive studies began to appear, and they were usually pedagogical and aimed at predicting and showing learners errors. Interference, as stated above, is the keyword to explain the contrastive linguistics. Interference of the mother tongue in foreign language learning causes the errors in target language. Brown (1980: 148) indicates that: This hypothesis, deeply rooted in behaviourism and structuralism, claimed that the principal barrier to the second language system is the interference of the first language system with the second language system, and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in question would yield a taxonomy of a linguistic contrast between them which in turn would enable the linguist to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter. Besides, another advocate of CA Lado (1957: 2) claims: The student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those elements that are similar to his language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult As stated earlier in this chapter, another keyword to explain contrastive analysis hypothesis is transfer theory, which will make the learning easier or more difficult. That is, a similar structure in the mother tongue will help the learner understand the target language, which is called positive transfer and different structures will make it more difficult for the learner, which is described as negative transfer or interference. (James, 1980; Littlewood, 1984) Wardhaugh (1970, p: 123) suggests that contrastive analysis has two main versions: strong version and weak version. According to the strong version all L2 errors that will occur can be predicted through the differences between L1 and

L2. And, weak version claims that only some of the errors can be identified through these differences. Lado (1957, p: vii) describes the strong version as follows: We can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student Wardhaugh (1970, cited in Gk, 1996, p: 19) explains the weak version as follows: The weak version requires of the linguist only that he uses the best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for observed difficulties in the second language learning. It does not require the prediction of those difficulties. It starts with the evidence provided by linguistic interference and uses such evidence to explain the similarities and differences between systems On the other hand, Oller and Ziahosseiny (1970, p: 186) challenged these two versions and claimed a third version: moderate version. They defined it as follows: The categorization of abstract and concrete patterns according to their perceived similarities and differences is the basis for learning: therefore, wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems, confusion may result.

10

2.5 Criticism of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Although contrastive analysis was widely accepted by behaviourists and structuralists, they did not have a complete success in predicting all the errors through interference of the first language. Whitman and Jackson (1971) applied four different types of contrastive analysis of English and Japanese, and they tried to predict the errors of the Japanese learners of English. They applied a series of tests and made a comparison of their predictions with the results of the actual tests; however, the conclusion indicated that contrastive analysis was not successful enough in predicting the possible sources of the learners errors. Also, Ellis (1986, p: 27) claims that there are three main criticisms against contrastive analysis: First, there were the doubts concerning the ability of contrastive analysis to predict errors. These doubts arose when researchers began to examine language learners language in depth. Second, there were a number of theoretical criticisms regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis. Third, there were reservations about whether contrastive analysis had anything relevant to offer to language teaching. 2.6 Error Analysis As a result of inadequacies and weaknesses of CA rooted in behaviouristic and structuralist theories, in the late 1960s, a mentalist attitude towards learners errors has begun to become more common among the linguists and methodologists. Researchers and teachers of second languages thought that mistakes of a learner in the process of constructing a new system should be analysed carefully; for, they thought that these mistakes were the key points to the understanding of the process of second language acquisition. This approach has become more common with the Cognitive Code theory which regarded errors as evidence that the learner is in the process of learning the correct forms, but not as a failure. Errors help teachers adjust the level of

11

difficulty of learning according to the students progress. Teachers will be aware what is in students mind and will try to solve the linguistic problems of their students. As Corder stated (1967, p: 167): A learners errors are significant in (that) they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language. In The Goofican: A Repair Manual for English (Burt and Kiparsky, 1972: 1) defined errors as follows: an error for which no blame is implied. The collection, analysis and classification of errors in terms of language have had a pedagogic role since 1950s. However, the reason for the interest in Error Analysis is that majority of grammatical errors do not reflect the learners mother tongue but are much like first language acquisition of a child. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982:138) explain this as follows: The most significant contribution of the error analysis has been that the majority of the grammatical errors second language learners make do not reflect the learners mother tongue but are very much like those young children make as they learn a first language. Researchers have revealed that L2 errors indicate that they are building an L2 system. Additionally, it was believed that error analysis would be helpful in designing pedagogical materials and methods by identifying the problematic areas for the learner. According to Sridhar (1980) through error analysis, the sequence of target items in textbook and classroom could be determined. Also, remedial lessons and

12

exercises could be designed and proper items for testing the learners proficiency could be selected. 2.7 Criticism of Error Analysis Although error analysis has been offered as an alternative to contrastive analysis and it has been supported by researchers and scholars, it also has its own inadequacies and weaknesses. According to Brown (1986, p: 166) error analysis has some major problems, which prevent a precise analysis of learners errors. The first one of these problems is too much attention on errors. While placing too much attention on errors, we may lose the value of positive reinforcement of free communication. Another danger according to Brown (1980) is overstress of production data. Since researchers are only interested in production data, they may ignore the aspect of comprehension in the learners production. Thus, a grammatically correct production may be incorrect in terms of the whole context. And, the final inadequacy of error analysis, According to Schatcher (1974; cited in Brown, 1980, pp: 166:167) is the strategy of avoidance. A learner may not utilize a word, structure or discourse category, in which he does not have a nativelike competence, thus it may seem that there is no difficulty with these structures, words or discourse category. In her research, Schatcher noticed that Japanese learners of English were avoiding using relative clauses and they did not commit as many errors as Persian learners of English did. However, absence of minority of such an error does not correctly reflect that they have no problem with the area of relative clauses. 2.8 General background to the Writing The four basic skills in language teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing- are inseparable parts of whole. These skills complete each other and the ignorance of one of these skills will lower a learners ability to a great extent to communicate effectively. However, the two productive skills, speaking and writing, which require productive ability, have not been given so much importance as a probable result of the system of foreign language examination in

13

our country. Since the foreign language exams in our country, such as YDS and KPDS, do not require any writing ability, writing skill has been ignored during the education at high schools. Language can be described in many ways and one of these descriptions is that language is a means between people, which enables them to communicate with each other by speaking or writing. In these ways, people convey their thoughts or wishes to the other person. But, there are certain differences between speaking and writing. Although a speaker can make use of gestures, body language, tone of voice, or he can convey his message by repeating, hesitating, starting again, and so on. , this is not the case in writing. For many learners of English language, writing appears to pose greater problems than writing. Since letters used in writing are lonely figures separate from the stimulus and correction of listeners, he must predict the reactions of readers while trying to convey his message being unaware of the gesture of the listener. (Rosen, 1969) On the other hand, grammatical and lexical choices in writing are of a great importance. According to Rivers (1981, pp: 291-292) a writer has to learn how to make such things explicit and unambiguous through syntactic arrangement and lexical choice. Additionally, Hedge (1988) emphasizes some conditions for effective writing: organization for the development of ideas; accuracy for unambiguity of meaning; use of complex grammatical devices; an accurate choice of vocabulary, grammatical patterns; and sentence structures. Also, according to Raimes (1983) writing provides aid to the learners in the process of language learning. It improves grammatical structure and vocabulary of the learners, and it is a chance of practice for them and they necessarily get involved in the target language. Mattar (1994, pp: 89-99) suggests that the ability to write properly is not only integral to academic success but it is necessary for the demonstration of such an achievement. Frodesen (2000, cited in Murcia, 2001, p: 246) suggests:

14

the second language writers need attention to form in developing writing proficiency and that attention to form is not just about error but about resources for communicative goals. Ponsot and Deen (1982, p: 133) say: Grammar is not clearly remedial. Like baking powder, it cant be stirred into the cake after the batter has been poured into pans. Consequently, writing can not be treated as an unimportant skill in the process of language teaching and learning. For the development of practice and production and for the ease of communication in the target language, writing should be given necessary importance. However, foreign language teachers should not expect perfect written productions without an error. It should be born in mind that their students are non- native speakers and errors, in the complex process of language learning, are inevitable in their productions. 2.9 Interlanguage As stated at the beginning of the study, errors are an inevitable part of language learning and the early stages of learning a second or foreign language are usually characterized by a large number of interlingual errors. The theory of interlanguage, which was proposed by Selinker in 1972, is based on the theory that there is a psychological structure latent in the brain which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. He also notes that, in a given, situation, there is dissimilarity between the utterances produced by a native speaker and a second or foreign language learner. He states that this difference results from a separate language system called interlanguage. Thus, dealing with the errors in this perspective will make it easier to have a better understanding of the errors committed by the second or foreign language learners.

15

Corder (1974) also schematizes interlanguage as follows: Figure 2.1 Interlanguage Native language Interlanguage Target Language

Selinker mentions five central processes related to interlanguage: 1. Language transfer : According to Selinker, this process is a result of overgeneralization and of fossilizable items, rules and subsystems, which are transferred from native language to interlanguage during the performance of interlanguage. 2. Transfer of training : This process differs from language transfer and overgeneralization. The errors in this process result from misleading and overgeneralized information given by textbooks and language teacher, accordingly students think that some distinctions are not necessary in terms of communication. 3. Strategies of second language learning : According to Selinker, there are various strategies, which affect the surface structure of sentences. However what they might be and how they might work is just an assumption. This process is exemplified by the tendency of learners to simplify the target language. 4. Strategies of second language communication : This strategy, according to Coulter (1968), can be characterized by the avoidance of grammatical formatives like articles, plural forms, past tense forms, etc. In his study Coulter suggests that learners tend to think such grammatical are not necessary for the communication

16

in the target language because thinking about these grammatical processes will make his speech hesitant and disconnected. 5. Overgeneralization of target language linguistic material : This process is the over-generalization of such linguistic items as grammar, lexis, syntax etc. Second language learners tend to over-generalize the rules in the target language in order to reduce it to a simpler level. 2.9.1 Problems with interlanguage Selinker relates the problems with this approach within five items by asking questions. He states that the first problem is that we cannot always identify which of these five processes is the observable data to be attributable to. The second problem is the difficulty in systemization of the notion fossilization; it is also difficult to predict which items in which interlingual situations will be fossilized. The third problem is characterized by the question how does a second language learning novice become able to produce interlanguage utterances, whose norm he is attempting to produce? The fourth problem is related to the hypothesized latent psychological structure. Selinker asks if there is any evidence for the existence of these structures. And the final problem or question is how can we experiment with three linguistic systems, creating the same experimental conditions for each one, with one unit which is identified interlingually across the systems? 2.10 Related Studies In this part of the study some studies related to current study were examined and some information about these studies was given below. In her study Er (1990) has two main concerns. One of the is the applied aspect of Error Analysis because it will provide the teacher with some clues about the effectiveness of his teaching material, the other main concern of the study is related to the students since a remedial study will be helpful for the learners to learn the target points. A well-organized and carefully-administered remedial study will enable the students to notice their incorrect hypotheses.

17

She analyzed the compositions written by the first year students of ELT department, Faculty of Education, Ondokuz Mays University. In this respect, her study is similar to the present study. However, she carried our her study after the first term so that the students should be equipped with the same linguistic knowledge while our study was carried out at the beginning of the first term. She classified the errors in terms of grammar and lexis, and sub-classified them into omission, substitution, addition and ordering. The most frequent errors in her linguistic category are the errors of selection and there is a parallel between the two studies in this respect. However, the main linguistic concern of her study is the use of relative clauses and after the determination of such errors, she applied a remedial test to the subjects and gained satisfactory results. The majority of the students used relative pronouns correctly in the application of the test. Saltk (1997) aims at exploring and explaining the principal problems the Turkish learners of English face in their essays. For this purpose, he conducted a study of error analysis on the sample essays of some freshman students at the Middle East Technical University. He also analyzed the errors according to their frequency in order to see whether they displayed certain characteristics. Additionally, he examined the errors to see if there were any difference between the errors of physical science and social science to reveal the effect of different fields on their usage of English. Based on the results of his study, he revealed that the most problematic areas in three main linguistic areas were orthography, lexico-semantics, and syntactico-morphology. He also suggested that the errors in the first two areas were usually committed by the students of physical sciences while the ones in syntactico-morphology were often committed by the students of social sciences. While this study is a contrastive study between two different groups of students, the subjects in our study are not two different groups. But there is a similarity in the frequency of the errors committed by the subjects; the errors were examined in terms of spelling, lexico-semantics and syntacticomorphology. Additionally, the wrong order and lack of subject and verb agreement constitute a percentage of 56.9 out of 225 errors in the group of other types of errors, which is one of the subgroups of syntactico-morphology. Similarly, the second highest number of errors in our study is the group of other

18

syntactic errors, which involves wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement, and disagreement between determiners, quantifiers and nouns. In his study Grsel (1998) investigated and classified the errors in the writings of the students of the Department of Foreign Languages. He examined seventy-six samples. Having determined the errors, he examined them one by one and classified them according to their sources. Later, the probable sources of these errors were discussed. According to the results, it was found that the most problematic area for Turkish learners of English is morphology. After morphology, syntax was found to be the second most problematic area. The third one was prepositions. Finally, he attempted to classify these errors according to their sources, and he concluded that the intralingual errors were more than interlingual errors. There is a strong resemblance between this study and our study with respect to the results. Firstly, the subjects in both studies are from similar departments and the errors in their writings were examined in both studies. Secondly, the studies yielded similar results. Morphology, syntax and prepositions are the most problematic areas respectively and the case is almost the same in our study, too. But, as summarized in the abstract of the study, the most problematic areas in our study are prepositions, syntax and morphology consecutively. Finally, although Grsel classified the errors as interlingual and intralingual, there is not such a classification in the present study. Gk (1996) suggested that the Turkish EFL students attempted to transfer syntactic or semantic rules from their native language to English. Like many other EFL learners in other parts of the world, Turkish students tend to think in Turkish and translate their thoughts into English both in speaking and writing. As they try to translate every thought they make mistakes because of the differences between the two language systems. Later, he hypothesizes that the rate of interference errors decreases as the proficiency level of the Turkish learners increases. Having applied a T-test on the subjects, he proved his hypothesis. His final hypothesis is the use of conference method so as to reduce the number of errors in the writings of the Turkish learners of English. He formed a control and a test group to prove his final hypothesis. The students in the test group were informed of their errors in

19

their writings through conference method. At the end of the term, it was observed that the students in the control group committed many more errors than the students in the test group. Gk classified the errors into thirty-nine categories, he also categorized them as developmental and interference errors. The most problematic area in our study, prepositions constitute 10% of the total errors, which can be regarded as a high percentage among the thirty-nine different categories. Also, syntactic errors comprise an important part of the total errors. Since the classifications in both studies are, in some respects, different from each other, it is not possible to make a precise comparison between the studies, however it can be said that there is a parallel between the two studies in terms of the numbers and frequency of errors. Akarsu (2004) carried out a study to identify the errors committed in the oral productions, and he attempted to investigate the sources of these errors. At the end of the study, he made some pedagogical implications. Unlike our study, it is a study on oral productions and the errors in these productions. Akarsu classified errors as grammatical and lexical, and the percentages of errors in the same categories in both studies are close to each other, in other words, similar linguistic categories constitute the majority of the errors. Farooq (1998) in his study identified and analyzed two error patterns in written texts of upper-basic Japanese learners, in an EFL context. He suggests that one pattern is originated from Japanese language and the other one is derived from general misuse or overgeneralization of learning strategies. He also attempted to devise teaching procedures to help the students deal with these patterns. His study focuses on transfer and misuse or overgeneralization errors, but this is a different approach from our study. Unlike our study and like Farooq, Abi Samra (2003) made a similar study on the developmental and transfer errors in the writings of Arabic learners of English. Abi Samra found that the majority of errors (64,1 %) in the writings of Arabic students is developmental errors and transfer errors comprise 35,9 % of the total errors. Myles (2002) suggests that errors in writing, fossilized or otherwise, can be glaring, especially to the reader who has little experience interacting with L2

20

speakers and texts. She also emphasizes that we need to understand how students compose in both their native language and in English to understand more about their learning strategies (especially in monitoring errors), the role of translation and transfer of skills. In other words, Myles emphasizes the importance of errors for a better understanding of the learning process of the foreign or second language learners. Kl (1992), in her study, she observed the identification of errors by both students and teachers and she came to the conclusion that both teachers and students were informed of the errors, but they focused on different types of grammatical errors. This study possesses a different point of view from ours, because it made a comparison between the identifications made by the learners and teachers; however, our study lacks such a perspective, in other words were identified by the researcher in the current study. Aycan (1990) deals with grammatical errors; however, it has a narrower scope than the current study. Aycan focuses on only the errors in the tenses in the written English of Turkish students. She did not take notice of other grammatical items in her study, and she suggested that the most problematic area in tenses is the present perfect tense. Since the main concern of our study is not the tenses in English, it is not possible to make a comparison between the results of the two studies. ahin (1993), in his study analyzed, a hundred samples of written production and found that semantic/pragmatic errors constituted the majority (61,39 %) of the errors. Besides, the syntactic errors comprised 38,60 % of the total errors. Since the scope of our study is limited to the grammatical errors, it did not involve semantic and pragmatic errors, in this respect; our study is different from that of ahin. However, syntactic errors comprise a large part of the total errors in the ahins study, as well. zaydnl (1994) deals with the use of prepositions and phrasal verbs in her study. She found that Turkish learners have some problems in the use of prepositions and phrasal verbs. She suggests that Turkish learners of English tend to avoid using prepositions since they do not have a complete mastery over the use of prepositions. She also found that Turkish learners regard phrasal verbs as

21

separate parts rather than a whole unit. In terms of prepositions, there is a parallel between the two studies: for, prepositions were the most problematic area in our study, too. Additionally, nals study (1989) also yielded similar results to that our study. nal, in her study, An Analysis of Errors in the Compositions of the Turkish University Students Learning English as a Foreign Language examined a hundred compositions of the students and she concluded that prepositions are the most problematic area for the Turkish learners; the second most problematic area was syntactic errors. These areas show the relationship between the two studies. Edwards (2002) suggests that two areas of study in the composition field, grammar and style, have fallen below the critical and professional radar, left to the handbook writers, old-school theorists, and secondary educators. Although a few voices remain, their conspicuous absence in the scholarly journals and at professional conferences clearly suggests that the field has moved away from these matters. He also indicates that educators should renew their interest in errors for getting students, then teachers, and scholars, more engaged with grammar and error: error analysis and the concept of grammar as style. As in the current study, this study also underlines the importance of errors and grammar in writing skill. For better results in writing, he emphasizes the concepts grammar and error analysis. Davis and Mahoney (2005) investigated the effects that the testing of grammar and writing mechanics would have on the overall quality and reduction of errors in college students essays for freshman composition. In the experimental group of 42 students, the professor assigned several exercises in grammar and mechanics as a review related to composing skills and then gave two major tests on proofreading essays for grammatical errors. However, the other professor did not give these grammar tests to the 41 students in the control group. The study used T-tests for statistical analysis on pre-test and post-test On overall writing quality, the faculty raters holistically scored the students essays, using a scale from 1 (failing) to 4 (superior). Since the two raters scored each students pre-test and post-test essay, each essay had a combined essays, which each of the 83 students had written.

22

score resulting in a scale from 2 (failing) to 8 (superior). The results showed that the 42 students of the experimental group who tested on grammar had a mean pretest essay score of 2 and a mean post-test essay score of 4.53, showing a gain of 2.53. Statistically, these students made very highly significant gains in overall writing quality. The 41 students of the control group not tested on grammar had a mean pre-test essay score of 2.66 and a post-test score of 4.49, showing a gain of 1.83. These students also made very highly significant gains in overall writing quality, although the experimental groups post-test essay scores were still significantly higher than the control groups. On traditionally serious grammatical errors, the experimental group had a mean number of 1.5 serious errors on the pre-test essay and a mean number of 0.93 error on the post-test, a reduction of 0.57 which was statistically significant. The control groups mean number on the pre-test essay was 1.23 serious errors and a mean post-test number of 0.64 error, a reduction of 0.59 which was also significant; however, there was no significant difference between both groups in the reduction of serious errors. For the less serious minor errors, the experimental group had a mean number of 7.4 minor errors on the pre-test essay and a mean number of 5.12 errors on the post-test essay, a reduction of 2.28 errors which was highly significant. The control group had a mean pre-test essay number of 12.5 minor errors and a mean post-test essay number of 7.42 errors, a reduction of 5.08 errors which was very highly significant. Moreover, statistics showed a significant difference between both groups post-test essays in the reduction of these minor errors, with the control group making more significant reductions in the minor errors than the experimental group. The researchers concluded that the two major grammar tests on proofreading two essays for errors may have had some effect on the experimental groups gains in overall writing quality for correctness. However, these tests appeared to make no difference between both groups, by having very little if any effect on the students in the experimental group to reduce the number of errors significantly in their essays. The researchers of this study concluded that the two major tests for detecting and correcting grammatical errors in essays may have had some effect on the experimental groups significant gains in overall writing quality, at least for

23

correctness. However, the findings strongly suggest that these grammar tests had very little if any effect on the students in this group for reducing the number of errors significantly in their own essays. Therefore, more studies on teaching useful skills in grammar and writing mechanics are needed to help college educators realize how they may benefit their students the most to make greater gains and learning outcomes in overall writing quality for freshman composition. This study, however, strongly suggests that having students take tests by proofreading essays to detect and correct grammatical errors will not necessarily carry over into proofreading their own essays to reduce errors significantly, as demonstrated by the control groups students who reduced errors significantly without being exposed to this type of testing in grammar and writing mechanics. According to this study, teaching students to detect and correct errors through exercises and tests has little effect on their ability to eliminate these errors in their own essays. In fact, teaching errors can be counterproductive in teaching students to write. This study calls for more research on what variables in composing and what teaching methods really affect overall writing quality, especially in improving first-year college students essays. Instead of exercises and tests to help reduce the number of errors, could the significant difference actually lie in each instructors grading policies of grammatical errors? Johnston (1998) in her two year study examined the effectiveness of a grammar-based language program to help four special needs second language (L2) learners develop written competency. Linguistic patterns which students were required to create sentences to fit certain represented a variety of sentence structures beginning with simple sentences and progressing to more complex ones. Two questions were asked: 1) Were the L2 learners in this study capable of developing grammatical awareness through an alternative method of studying grammar? and 2) Would students' heightened grammatical awareness lead to improved written competence? To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, students' assignments from the grammar-writing sessions were examined to see how far students had progressed in writing simple and complex sentences. An error analysis was conducted on three grammar quizzes. Students were administered the Usage and Expression and Reading Comprehension subtests

24

from the Canadian Tests for Basic Skills (CTBS) at the beginning and end of each year. To evaluate students' written competence, earlier writing samples were compared with later samples, written on the same topic. The students' writing was examined for the presence of coordinators and subordinators in as an index of complexity. Students' writing collected during the study was also examined for the presence of certain linguistic forms which were introduced in the linguistic structures to see if any transfer had occurred. The findings of the study are shown in three items: 1. The severity and nature of the students' language leaming disability determined extent to which students were able to create sentences to fit within the linguistic patterns. Their ESL background was also a factor. 2. Students' written performance did improve over the two year period. For some students, the observed improvement tended to vary with the type of writing task. 3. The range and frequency of linguistic features in the students' writing varied. For three students there appeared to be a correspondence between the test scores for the Usage and Expression subtests and the number of linguistic forms present in their writing. One student who showed no gains in his test scores showed a delay in the acquisition of certain linguistic features. From an interlanguage perspective, Yates and Kenkel (2002) argue that many perplexing errors in second language writing are the result of the interaction between developing linguistic competence and basic principles of ordering information in texts that learners already know. The study also shows how this interaction results in errors at the sentence level. These insights are applied to published comments and corrections of sentence-level errors in student writing. Hedayet (1990) investigated patterns in the apparent syntactic errors of native English-speaking, upper-level learners of Arabic as a foreign language. One hundred writing samples, including summaries, criticisms, and free composition, were gathered from a number of university courses. Error types analyzed included articles, subordinate clauses, two-word vocabulary, active participles, tense and agreement, and word order. It is concluded that by teaching an integral grammar course in composition to intermediate and advanced learners of Arabic, many problems of syntax can be overcome. Some kind of contrastive

25

analysis of functional discourse patterns in Arabic and English should also be considered. This is also a study related to the importance of grammar in a writing course. Chan (2004), in his article, presents evidence of syntactic transfer from Chinese to English based on data obtained from 710 Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners at different proficiency levels. Three methodologies were used: selfreporting in individual interviews, translation (with and without prompts), and grammaticality judgment. The focus of the study was on 5 error types: (a) lack of control of the copula, (b) incorrect placement of adverbs, (c) inability to use the there be structure for expressing the existential or presentative function, (d) failure to use the relative clause, and (e) confusion in verb transitivity. The results showed that many Chinese ESL learners in Hong Kong tended to think in Chinese first before they wrote in English, and that the surface structures of many of the interlanguage strings produced by the participants were identical or very similar to the usual or normative sentence structures of the learners' first language (L1), Cantonese. The extent of syntactic transfer was particularly large for complex target structures and among learners of a lower proficiency level, though highproficiency learners may also have relied on the syntax and vocabulary of their previous linguistic repertoire, their L1, when finding it difficult to produce output in the target language. Some of the errors in our study also results from thinking in their native language, in this respect, there is a parallel between the two studies. Stenstrom (1975) described and explained certain categories of grammatical errors made by 42 teacher trainees at Lund University in Sweden are described and explained. Each student was asked to write two summaries in English, on an account of a book that appeared on a list of books for extensive reading and the other an account of a 40-minute tape recording in the language laboratory, "A Bear Called Paddington." The two exercises tested reading comprehension and listening comprehension, respectively. The errors were corrected, and a typology of the grammatical errors was established. Native speakers of English were then asked to evaluate the errors according to a fourpoint scale: (1) "uncertain," (2) "acceptable in colloquial and careless language," (3) "wrong but comprehensible," and (4) "wrong and incomprehensible." The

26

categories of errors were as follows: (1) verb phrase, (2) noun phrase, (3) prepositions, (4) concord, (5) pronouns, (6) word order, (7) clause connection, (8) adjectives and adverbs, (9) complementation, and (10) numerals. The majority of errors were committed in the areas of verb phrase, noun phrase, prepositions, and concord. The major errors in the study mentioned above are, to a great extent, similar to the error categories in our study. Olsen (1999) examines English writings by Norwegian English-as-aforeign-language learners. Language problems on different linguistic levels are analyzed and the theory of compensatory strategies is used to explain the process behind the production. Results show that less proficient learners have a higher number of grammatical, orthographic, and syntactical errors that can be attributed to cross-linguistic influence. Ney (1986) examines some of the theoretical and practical objections to error analysis and proposes it would be more appropriate for teachers to lead students through the use of creative language exercises into the use of many of the possible sentences in a language. Manley and Calk (1997) Examines second language students' perceptions of grammar instruction, with specific reference to writing skill. Discusses issues involved in defining a role for grammar study and presents excerpts from student essays and explanations of classroom lessons. Results indicate that the instruction provided helped to improve students' ability to use correct grammar forms for three of the four points analyzed.

27

CHAPTER III 3. ERROR ANALYSIS 3.1 Presentation This chapter involves the procedure for error analysis and classification of errors. 3.2 Procedure for Error Analysis According to Corder (1967, cited in Ellis 1994: 48), while conducting a study of error analysis, one should follow five main steps: 1. Collection of a sample of learner language 2. Identification of errors 3. Description of errors 4. Explanation of errors 5. Evaluation of errors 3.2.1 Collection of a sample of learner language The first step in a study of error analysis is to gather samples of learners language. In terms of size, samples of learners language are divided into three main groups; a) A massive sample: For a detailed list of errors, quite a good number of samples are collected. b) Specific sample: Unlike massive sample, a limited number of samples are utilized in such a study. c) Incidental sample: Only one single sample is collected from one learner. According to Ellis (1994: 50) there are other criteria than the size of a learner language. It is indicated in the table below as factors and their descriptions:

28

Table 3.1 Factors and descriptions for learner language Factors A Language Medium Genre Content B Learner Level Mother Tongue Language learning experience Elementary, intermediate, or advanced The learner's L1 This may be classroom or naturalistic or a mixture of the two Learner production can be oral or written Learner production may take the form of conversation, a lecture, an essay, a letter, etc. The topic the learner is communicating about Description

Besides, Lococo (1976, cited in Ellis, 1994: 50) points out that the way the data are collected may also affect the number of the learners errors. The final factor, in the collection of samples, depends on cross-sectional or longitudinal collection of samples (Akarsu, 2004, pp: 18-19). As stated by Ellis (1994), learners errors are affected by their proficiency level, thus a crosssectional error analysis may not indicate the different errors at different levels. 3.2.2 Identification of errors Identification or classification of errors, which is the second step of the process of error analysis, is possible through the analysis of idiosyncrasies, according to Corder (1971). Corder emphasizes that errors can be divided into two separate groups: overt errors and covert errors. What he means by covert error is erroneous utterances, which are unquestionably ungrammatical, and covert errors are the ones which are grammatically well-formed but not interpretable within the normal context of communication. For example, in the sentence He is always coming late. seems grammatically well-formed. Such a sentence indicates criticism and complaint about this action since the adverb of always is used with

29

present continuous tense. However, learners may not be aware of such a distinction and they may use it to indicate a habitual action within the context of communication. Thus, such an error can be described as an overt error. As for covert errors, they grammatically erroneous utterances: - He is always come late. In the sentence above, it can be clearly seen that the verb is used without ing , which is an ungrammatical utterance. In order to determine the errors mentioned, Corder (1971) proposed an algorithm as follows:

Figure 3.1 Corders Algorithm for Identification of Errors However, Ellis (1994, p: 52) points out that such a procedure for identification of errors may fail. According to him, it is ambiguous that this procedure will work for covert errors. As stated above, a covert error may appear grammatically well-

30

formed; however there may be some differences between what it means and what the learner means. 3.2.3 Description of errors Errors were variously classified in terms of linguistics. Burt and Kiparsky (1972), in The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English, described errors in relation to skeleton of English classes, the auxiliary systems, passive sentences etc. Also, Politzer and Ramirez (1973) emphasized such taxonomies as morphology, syntax and vocabulary. The taxonomies stated above aimed at pedagogical applications; however, they are inadequate to explain the process of second language learning. Corder (1974) described errors in terms of their systemisation: 1. Pre-systematic errors: They result from the lack of the knowledge of a certain rule in the target language. 2. Systematic errors: Although the learner knows something about a rule, he uses it wrongly. 3. Post-systematic errors: These errors seem to be a mistake rather than an error. The learner is aware of the rule, but he uses it incompatibly. 3.2.4 Explanation of errors This phase of error analysis is associated with the sources of errors. Richards (1971) classified the sources of errors into three types: 1. Interference errors: The beginning stages of learning a second language are characterized by a good deal of interlingual transfer (from the native language). In these early stages, before the system of the second language is familiar, the native language is the only linguistic system in previous experience upon which the learner can draw. (Brown, 1980: 173) As stated above by Brown, native language is the main source for the learner of a second language, so the learner tries to make some comparison between the systems of these two languages, and he will make some transfers from his native language which will result in errors.

31

2. Intralingual errors: One of the main differences between CA and EA is the recognition of errors that go beyond interlingual errors in learning a second language. It is obvious that intralingual errors or intralingual interference is a significant factor in second language learning; shortly it can be defined as the wrong generalization of rules in the target language, eg. He swimed, we could gone, etc. While the early stages of language leaning include abundant interlingual transfers, latter stages comprise more intralingual transfers as the learner has begun to have better understanding of the new system and new rules. However, after the learner progresses in the second language, he will acquire the correct form of the language. It is clear that a systematic observation of this type of errors will help teachers and researchers in language teaching. 3. Context of learning: As a result of some pedagogical factors, such as teachers, teaching materials and the social situation, this kind of errors come about. In a classroom atmosphere, the text book or the teacher can mislead the learner by the way they define a lexical or grammatical item or a faulty presentation of a structure in a textbook may lead to such errors. Richards (1971) called this type as false concepts and Stenson (1976) termed induced errors. Richards (1971:181) also stated that the main sources of errors are overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rules, false concepts hypothesized. An analysis of the major types of intralingual and developmental error, overgeneralization, and ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rules, and the building of false systems or concepts may lead us to examine our teaching materials for evidence of the language learning assumptions that underlie them.

32

3.2.5 Evaluation of errors The final step of error analysis is the evaluation process. The evaluation of errors is conducted variously; Ellis (1994, cited in Akarsu 2004, p: 23) suggests that there are three research questions related to the error evaluation: 1. Are some errors judged to be more problematic than others? 2. Are there differences in the evaluation made by native speakers and nonnative speakers? 3. What criteria do judges use in evaluating learners errors? 3.3 Classification of Errors For an accurate analysis of errors, researchers have carried out various classifications of errors. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) classified errors as follows: 1- Linguistic Taxonomy a) Phonology b) Syntax and Morphology (grammar) c) Semantics and Lexicon (meaning and vocabulary) d) Discourse (style) 2- Surface Strategy Taxonomy a) Omission b) Addition 1) Double Markings 2) Regularization 3) Simple Addition c) Misinformation 1) Regularization 2) Archi-forms 3) Alternating forms d) Misordering 3- Comparative Taxonomy a) Developmental Errors

33

b) Interlingual Errors c) Ambiguous Errors d) Other Errors 4- Communicative Effect Taxonomy a) Global Errors b) Local Errors 3.3.1 Linguistic Taxonomy This category attracts people who have pedagogical aims. For instance, foreign language teachers, syllabus designers, test developers make use of this category while they design their materials and methods. It makes possible for them to focus on certain aspects of the target language, such as grammar, phonology, vocabulary, and so on. In their study, Politzer and Ramirez (1973, cited in Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982, p: 148) described the significance of error classification as an aid in presenting the data rather than to create a basis for extensive speculation concerning the sources for the errors. Their error category is as follows: A Sample Linguistic Category Taxonomy Linguistic Category and Error type A. Morphology 1. Indefinite article incorrect a used for an before vowels an used for a - Omission of s 3. Third person singular verb incorrect - Failure to attach s - Wrong attachment of s 4. Simple Past Tense incorrect The bird help man. The apple fall downs. a ant an little ant the man feet

2. Possessive case incorrect

34

a. Regular past tense - Omission of ed - Adding ed to past already formed b.Irregular past tense - Regularization by adding ed - Substitution of simple non-past - Substitution of past participle 5. Past participle incorrect - Omission of ed 6. Comparative adjective/adverb incorrect - Use of more er He got up more higher. B. Syntax 1. Noun Phrase a. Determiners - Omission of the article - Substitution of definite article for possessive pronoun - Use of possessive with the article - Use of wrong possessive b. Nominalization - Simple verb used instead of ing by to cook it He no go in hole. He fall down on the head. He put it in the his room. The little boy hurt its leg. He was call. He putted the cookie there. He fall in the water. I beer near to him. The bird he save him. He calleded.

35

- Preposition by omitted

The helped

dove him

putting leaf on. c. Number - Substitution of singular for plurals - Substitution of plurals for singulars d. Use of pronouns - Omission of the subject pronoun - Omission of the dummy pronoun it - Omission of the object pronoun English - Subject pronoun used as a redundant element - Alternating use of pronouns by numbers as well as gender - Use of me as subject e. Use of preposition - Omission of preposition - Misuse of preposition He came (to) the water. He fell down from (for into) the water. 2. Verb Phrase a. Omission of verb - Omission of main verb - Omission of to be He (fell) in the water. He in the water. He pinch the man. Is nice to help people. I dont know (it) in. My brother he go Mexico. So he can eat (referring apples). Me forgot it. to He got some leaf. He stab him in the feet.

36

b. Use of progressive tense - Omission of be - Replacement of ing by the simple verb form He going. The bird was shake his head.

- Substitution of progressive for the simple past c. Agreement of subject and verb

Then the man shooting (shot) with a gun.

- Disagreement of subject and verb person You be friends. - Disagreement of subject and number - Disagreement of subject and tense 3. Verb and verb construction - Embedding of a noun-and-verb construction in another noun-and-verb construction - Omission of to in identical subject construction - Omission of to in the verb-and-verb construction - Attachment of the past marker to the the dependent verb 4. Word order - Repetition of the object The bird (object) he was gonna shoot it. I see a bird go to leaf. He was going to fell. I got to play. (I go and play) I go play. The apples was coming down. I didnt know what it is.

37

- Adjectival modifiers placed after noun

He put it inside his house a little round.

5. Some Transformations a. Negative transformation Formation of no or not without the -Multiple negations a. Question transformation - Omission of auxiliary b. There transformation - Use of is instead of are - Omission of there - Use of it was instead of there was c. Subordinate clause transformation - Use of for instead of so (that) - Use of indicative for conditional For So the he ant dont could get out. killed the bird Table 3.2 Linguistic Taxonomy of Errors 3.3.2 Surface strategy taxonomy Omission, addition, misformation and misordering are the keywords to describe surface strategy taxonomy. This taxonomy suggests the way the surface structures are changed by learners. Surface strategy taxonomy enables us to identify cognitive processes that underlie the learners reconstruction of the new language. It aids us in being aware that learners errors are based on some logic There is these hole. Is one bird. There was round things. How the story helps? He not play anymore. They wont have no fun. auxiliary

38

(Gk, 1996, p: 76). In this process, six steps for the analysis of errors mentioned earlier are followed. 3.3.2.1 Omission Omission errors can be described as the absence of an item that is necessary in a well-formed utterance. It is possible to omit any type of morphemes or words in a sentence; however some kinds of them are more often omitted than others (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982). Content morphemes nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs form the majority of the meaning of a sentence. For example, in the sentence; John is the new English teacher in our school. The words John, new, English, teacher, our and school carry the burden of meaning, while is, the, in are grammatical morphemes which carry a minor role in conveying the meaning. 3.3.2.2 Addition Addition errors are characterized by the presence of an item that is unnecessary in a well-formed utterance, which is completely opposite of the omission errors. (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982) For example: We come to home after shopping. The man entered into the room. You should to make up earlier. Addition errors are classified in three groups: double markings, regularization, simple addition. 3.3.2.2.1 Double markings Such errors can be described as double uses of an item in a sentence. For example: He doesnt wants to live here. They didnt helped us. 3.3.2.2.2 Regularization Regularization errors can be characterized by the ignorance of exceptions. For example, the suffixes s, -es, -ies are used to make nouns plural, however the

39

correct plural form of the word foot is feet, which is an exception. Thus, it may be incorrectly used as foots instead of the correct form feet. 3.3.2.2.3 Simple addition Dulay, Burt, Krashen (1982, p; 158) define it as grab bag subcategory of additions. The additions which are neither regularization nor double marking are described as simple additions. For example: There were some the books on the table. They want to went home. 3.3.2.3 Misformation Misformation errors refer to the incorrect use of a morpheme or structure. In other words, learners supply an item that is incorrect. For example: He breaked the glass. In the sentence above, incorrect past tense marker was supplied by the learner although it is an irregular verb. Misformation errors are divided into three groups: regularization, archiforms, and alternating forms. 3.3.2.3.1 Regularization These errors are the use of regular markers instead of the irregular ones. For example: He comed here. Mans are very angry. 3.3.2.3.2 Archi-forms These errors are characterized by the use of an item instead of all the other items in the same group. For example: these countries these city

40

3.3.2.3.3 Alternating forms It is described as the alternation of archi-forms for various members of a group with each other such as masculine for feminine, accusative for nominative, etc. For example: they for it his for he he for she 3.3.2.4 Misordering Elements of the sentence (a morpheme or group of morphemes) are used in incorrect order in some utterances, this type of errors are described as misordering. For example: Do you know why is he sad? She is lovely a girl. 3.3.3 Comparative taxonomy In this taxonomy, the errors of the learners of a second or foreign language are compared to those of a child learning the target language as his first language. In this taxonomy, there are two main error categories: developmental and interlingual errors. There are two more categories derived from the developmental and interlingual errors: ambiguous errors and other errors. Developmental errors are those which indicate that the learner builds up some hypotheses about the target language. Interlingual errors reflect the structure of native language regardless of the internal process or external condition that spawned them (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982:171). Ambiguous errors are both interlingual and developmental, while other errors are described as neither interlingual nor developmental (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982). The figure below indicates the relationship between these four types of errors:

41

LI Errors

Other

L2 Errors

Figure 3.2 Illustration of the Relationship and Relative Proportions of Four Error Types in a Comparative Taxonomy 3.3.4 Communicative Effect Taxonomy In this category, effects of errors on communication are observed. In other words, it emphasizes the distinction between the errors that hinder communication and that do not. This taxonomy includes global and local errors. Global errors are those which include the overall structure of a sentence and local errors affect a particular constituent. (Burt, Kiparsky, 1974) Following samples indicate the difference more clearly: - I like take taxi but my friend said so not that we should be late for school. (Global error) In the example above, the overall structure of the sentence includes some errors, which is called a global error. - If I won the lottery, I will buy a new car. (Local error) However, this example includes only one error related to the misuse of conditionals. In the correct form of the sentence, the modal would should be used instead of will.

42

CHAPTER IV 4. METHODS OF CORRECTING ERRORS 4.1 Presentation In this chapter of the study, the process of error correction and the techniques used for during this process are mentioned. 4.2 Error Correction Although students errors are always corrected by teachers, students continue to commit the same errors over and over again. However, nothing is said in textbooks on how to deal with errors although error correction is a main part of language teaching (Burt, 1975). Chaudron (1989) asks some questions about how to deal with the errors: 1. Is it necessary to correct errors? 2. If so, which and how should they be corrected? 3. Who should correct them? Two other factors during the process of correction are the sensitivity of the learner and the nature of the task. (Broughton et al, 1980) Also, Semke (1982, p: 2) suggests: Suppose you had worked very hard on a composition for your course in German. You tried to convey some authentic information, not just string together some trite phrases. It is a real struggle to do this in a foreign language. It takes a lot of time to look up new words, and it is frustrating, because you are often not sure how to put them together. But you do your best and then copy it over so it will be neat and legible. The next day when you get it back, it is covered with red ink. Try to imagine how you would feel. Would you be eager to rush home and try writing another composition? Would you feel like trying to analyze all of those marks to understand what your mistakes were, so that you dont make the same mistakes again?

43

As stated by Semke above, misuse of error correction techniques may sometimes be discouraging for the students, as well. 4.3 Which Errors Should Be Corrected? Error correction is an important process in language teaching, however it should be emphasized to what extent errors should be taken into consideration. Chastain (1971, cited in Gk, 1996, p: 142) indicates that teachers should abstain from over-correction, as it hinders students from concentrating on message. Additionally, Valette (1973) suggests that too many corrections of errors destroy the motivation of the student. So, which errors should be corrected? According to Klassen (1991) global errors should have a priority, and then local errors should be corrected. Besides, Walz (1982) claims that teachers must be selective while they are correcting errors. In other words, he means that the teachers should not correct every mistake, but only the most problematic ones. 4.4 Who Should Correct the Errors? Although error correction is usually conducted by teachers, it may sometimes be boring for the teacher since all the errors are corrected by the teacher and it may also be discouraging for the students. Thus, errors are also corrected by the students and their peers, as well. Accordingly, error correction can be divided into three groups: self-correction, peer correction, teacher correction. Edge (1989, p: 50) claims that involving learners in judgements about correctness helps them become more accurate in their own use of language That is, students exposure to his errors enables him to understand his own errors, thus self-correction is a useful method in correction. Another useful way of correcting errors is peer correction. Edge (1989, p: 52) suggests:

44

when two students work together on correcting each others work, the discussion helps each one to learn from his or her own errors. Two heads are better than one. However, Walz (1982) claims that a disadvantage of this approach is that the author is usually insulted by his peers. 4.5 Forms of Correcting Errors There are various ways of correcting oral and written errors of learners. Since written productions of learners are focused on in this study only the methods related to the written feedback is emphasized here. Gk (1996) has suggested that there are five main categories of correcting written productions. They are as follows: 1. Correcting all errors 2. Code correction 3. Writing comments 4. Using Checklists 5. Charting errors 4.5.1 Correcting all errors As it was stated earlier in this chapter of the study, correcting all the errors may be a discouraging approach for students, and it is also boring and tiring for teachers. Additionally, Byrne (1988, p: 124) states that: some students learn nothing from it; others are more interested in why something is wrong rather than the correction itself. Therefore, this approach might cause some negative influences on teachers and students, and different approaches should be used while correcting students errors.

45

4.5.2 Code correction Sometimes teachers use some code letters or symbols instead of writing the correct version of errors. An advantage of this method is that it enables students to think about their errors and to try to find a correct version of the errors. The most common code letters used in this method are as follows: T: Tense WF: Word form WO: Word order S: Syntax A: Agreement V: Vocabulary ( ): Something is not necessary P: Punctuation Art: Article R: Repetition St: Style Sp: Spelling ?: I dont understand

46

(cited in Gk, 1996, Norrish, 1983; Monreal, 1981) 4.5.3 Writing comments Another technique in error correction is the teachers written comments at the end of the written production of the learner. In this technique, since it requires too much time to write comments of each error the teacher reads the whole text and writes his comments briefly at the end of the text. The comments are in the form of suggestions, questions and praise. According to Raimes (1983, p: 143) such an approach is better than such comments as only fair, good or needs more work. 4.5.4 Using checklists Checklists can be beneficial both for students and teachers in error correction process. Checklists can involve some questions about writing and these questions can be used as useful tools to correct the learners errors in writing. Teachers and students can make use of these questions for the evaluation of the production.

4.5.5 Charting errors Charts can also be used as a useful tool so that students could see their errors easily. Besides, teachers can also observe the improvement of his students by evaluating the charts related to their errors. To sum up, charts help both students and teachers easily observe their errors and process of improvement.

47

CHAPTER V 5. METHODOLOGY 5.1 Presentation This chapter firstly gives some information about the design of the study, and then subject in the study are mentioned. Eventually, the proficiency levels of the subjects are given in a list. 5.1 Design of the Study Although it is thought that students have a chance to get back and correct their errors, it is seen in the current study that subjects committed quite a good number of errors in their written productions. As stated in the first chapter of the study, compositions of 47 different students were collected and the errors in these writings were analyzed in terms of grammatical errors. For the proficiency level, their scores of YDS the foreign language exam, which students are required to take in order to study in a department of English Language and Literature at university- and the scores of another test applied by the researcher were taken into consideration. Their compositions were firstly analyzed and classified by the researcher, and then the copies of the same compositions were given to another rater, and he was asked to identify their errors in terms of grammar. After the analysis of the rater, the number of errors identified by him was counted. Later, the correlation between the two results (the researchers and the raters) was calculated in order to determine the accuracy of the identification of errors. The correlation calculated according to the Pearson correlation was 0, 90 which suggests a strong correlation between the rater and researcher. As mentioned before in chapter III, Dulay, Burt, Krashen (1982) indicates that there are four major linguistic categories of errors: 1. Orthography (spelling) 2. Lexicon and semantics (vocabulary and meaning) 3. Syntax and morphology (grammar) 4. Discourse (style)

48

In the current study, only the errors in the third category (syntax and morphology) were analyzed and classified into sub-categories so as to give a more accurate and detailed outline of the types of errors. The grammatical errors were analyzed in seven major categories and these categories involve some subcategories. The taxonomy of these errors is as follows: 1. Tenses 2. Prepositions 3. Articles 4. Active and passive voice 5. Verbs 6. Other syntactic errors 7. Morphological errors After the identification and classification of errors, they were analysed in terms of the frequencies and frequency percentages. Frequency and percentage of error types refer to the proportion of error types to the total number of the errors. 5.2 Subjects and Data Collection The subjects of the study are the students from the Department of English Language and Literature of Atatrk University. They are first year students who came to the department at the beginning of 2004-2005 education year. The students who come to the department are required to study a prep class for a year; however, the exemption from the prep class is possible through an exam taken by these students at the beginning of the semester. The students need to be good at reading, writing and speaking skills to pass this exam. The compositions analysed in this study are the ones written in the exam mentioned above. In this study, only 47 compositions are analysed according to their grammatical errors. The compositions were required to be written according to the following criteria: a) It should consist of 250-300 words. b) They should pay attention to the unity, coherence, grammar, vocabulary and organization of their writing.

49

And following topics were given to the student: a) There are a lot of discussions concerning European Union in Turkey and I feel that too much importance is given to Turkeys membership. b) Read the following passage and write a composition considering the idea given in it. No one would underestimate the importance of inventions, but the really great invention is the one which has made others possible. Mans great inventions have not grown out of laboratories or workshops. Their origins are obscure. No one can be sure exactly when the needle, or the plough, came into existence, but one thing is certain: we depend on inventions. They have become an indispensable part of life on earth (Alexander, 1965). The grammatical errors committed in these compositions were analysed in this study according to the linguistic taxonomy above. The proficiency levels of the subjects are predicated on their score of YDS exam in 2004.The mean of their YDS scores is 352,526 and their mean of the scores of the other test applied by the researcher is 62,76 and these scores indicate that they are the students at intermediate level. Their scores are as follows: Table 5.1 Subjects Level of Proficiency Scores of the Test applied by the researcher 64 74 64 44 70 36 60 64 70 54 66 70 48 52 68 YDS 2004 Scores of The Subjects 351,145 351,374 351,393 352,697 351,692 352,657 351,207 352,600 352,764 351,902 353,099 351,828 351,316 351,727 352,766

Subjects Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5 Subject 6 Subject 7 Subject 8 Subject 9 Subject 10 Subject 11 Subject 12 Subject 13 Subject 14 Subject 15

50

Subject 16 Subject 17 Subject 18 Subject 19 Subject 20 Subject 21 Subject 22 Subject 23 Subject 24 Subject 25 Subject 26 Subject 27 Subject 28 Subject 29 Subject 30 Subject 31 Subject 32 Subject 33 Subject 34 Subject 35 Subject 36 Subject 37 Subject 38 Subject 39 Subject 40 Subject 41 Subject 42 Subject 43 Subject 44 Subject 45 Subject 46 Subject 47

76 74 64 72 66 54 62 54 64 64 48 54 50 74 66 72 72 54 74 66 58 76 64 76 64 42 72 62 72 76 64 40

351,276 352,302 351,336 351,430 352 351,746 351,423 351,754 351,235 353,536 353 353,096 352,892 353,488 353 352,921 353,281 353 353 353,396 354 353 353,012 353,007 353,444 353,097 354 353,064 352,941 353,096 353,066 353,745

51

CHAPTER VI 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 Presentation This chapter of the study includes the results and discussion of the results. First, errors are classified into error types, and then percentages of the errors are presented and analyzed in detail. 6.2 Results As it was stated in the previous chapter, compositions of 47 different students of the Department of English Language and Literature of Atatrk University were examined. At the end of the analysis, a total of 488 grammatical errors were identified in the compositions. Identified errors were classified into 7 main linguistic categories. The number and percentages of these errors are indicated in the table and figure below: Table 6.1 Numbers of the Errors The number of errors Tenses Prepositions Articles Active and passive voice Verbs Other syntactic errors Morphological errors Total 10 121 82 19 46 113 97 488 The percentage of errors 2 24,7 16,8 3,8 9,4 23,1 19,8 100

52

30

25

20

15

10

0 Tenses 2 Prepositions 24, 7 Articles 16, 8 Active Passive 3, 8 Verbs 9, 4

Other Syntactic Errors 23, 1

Morphology 19, 8

Figure 6.1 Percentages of Errors The number of errors for each student for each student is presented in the following table: Table 6.2 Number of Subjects Errors SUBJECTS Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5 Subject 6 Subject 7 Subject 8 Subject 9 Subject 10 Subject 11 THE NUMBER OF WORDS IN CORPUS 204 181 123 330 347 281 317 284 299 258 103 GRAMMATICAL ERRORS RESEARCHER 12 12 5 15 5 8 15 9 6 8 6 RATER 11 12 5 12 6 8 14 7 9 9 6

53

Subject 12 Subject 13 Subject 14 Subject 15 Subject 16 Subject 17 Subject 18 Subject 19 Subject 20 Subject 21 Subject 22 Subject 23 Subject 24 Subject 25 Subject 26 Subject 27 Subject 28 Subject 29 Subject 30 Subject 31 Subject 32 Subject 33 Subject 34 Subject 35 Subject 36 Subject 37 Subject 38 Subject 39 Subject 40 Subject 41 Subject 42

326 262 271 220 257 276 259 221 206 389 261 181 219 267 242 413 205 353 354 408 128 213 253 361 183 147 300 211 277 282 228

6 8 5 10 7 7 22 15 17 18 5 12 11 10 11 7 12 15 15 7 10 6 14 15 8 6 10 6 5 13 18

8 7 5 10 7 7 21 14 17 17 5 10 11 14 10 10 11 13 13 12 9 6 13 12 9 7 10 6 3 14 15

54

Subject 43 Subject 44 Subject 45 Subject 46 Subject 47 TOTAL

272 339 179 144 270 12104

15 14 5 7 15 488

14 14 4 6 13 476

6.2.1 A detailed classification of errors The errors, which are generally given above into linguistic categories, were classified in tables into linguistic categories a more detailed way. Giving examples from the errors committed in the compositions of the student, they are presented below. 6.2.1.1 Tenses The number of errors in tenses, which comprises % 2 of the total errors, is 10. These errors were divided into sub-categories as seen in the table below: Table 6.3 Errors of tenses Present continuous instead of present simple Simple present instead of present perfect Simple past instead of present perfect Past perfect instead of simple past Simple past instead of simple present Total 1 3 2 4 1 11

This category constitutes the lowest number of errors among the linguistic categories employed in the study. One of the probable reasons for the minority of the errors in this category is that the students did not use various types of tenses in their writings because of the topics related to their writings. Also, there are some certain rules about the usage of tenses and you do not make so many mistakes once you learn these rules, this might be another reason for fewer errors in this category. Some of these erroneous utterances are below: - We have these problems for years. (Subject 38)

55

In this sentence, the subject used simple present tense instead of present perfect tense. A probable reason for this error may be the lack of equivalent of present perfect tense in Turkish. Incomplete knowledge of this tense may lead learners to incorrect use of it. Another error for present perfect tense is as follows: -with the televisions invention we started listen and see simultaneously... (Subject 32) Although her utterance refers to the present perfect, she used simple past tense. This error may be a result of Turkish translation of these two tenses. In Turkish, the sentences we have started and we started are translated as baladk so, this error can be called as an error of interference. In another sentence the subject used past perfect tense instead of the simple past: - with the invention of the bulb, humanity had got a different life... (Subject 26) Another sample is the use of present continuous instead of simple present: -... we are feeling their absence in every aspect of our lifes. (Subject 9) 6.2.1.2 Prepositions This category constitutes the most problematic area for the subjects. For, almost all the subjects omitted or misused some prepositions in their utterances. This category is the one that includes the largest number of errors, which are 121 in total. Their detailed classification is as given the table below: Table 6.2 Errors of Preposition Omission of prepositions Redundant use of prepositions Misuse of prepositions Total 77 14 30 121

Since most English prepositions have some different functions, it is difficult to learn to use prepositions correctly for Turkish learners. Another factor that makes this area is that some prepositions in English such as in, on, at can be

56

used as suffixes in the same form without any distinction in Turkish. For this reason Turkish learners have difficulty while using prepositions in English. As it is seen in the table above, the most common error in this category is omission of prepositions. Some samples of such errors are as follows: - We are far away (-) our families. (Subject 4) - We cant think (-) life without them. (Subject 6) - A lot of European countries want to be (-) the place of Turkey. (Subject 7) - ... inventions would have taken people (-) an unknown world. ((Subject 8) - (-) My opinion Turkeys membership isnt very important. (Subject 11) - We say (-) European union that ... (Subject 15) - These are good possibilities (-) Turkeys membership. (Subject 20) - And so people wont have to migrate (-) other country. (Subject 21) - (-) The other hand; .... (Subject 22) - ... we must pay attention (-) every invention. (Subject 25) Another most common error in preposition is the misuse. Since Turkish learners have difficulty in distinguishing some prepositions, and they have inadequate knowledge they use them wrongly. Here are some samples of these errors: - ... in this earth ((Subject 1) - ... on our life (Subject 2) - ... look to future safely (Subject 13) - In the other hand.... (Subject 20) - In the same time... (Subject 24) - ... on the world (Subject 29) - ... in university (Subject 34) And, the least common error in this category is the addition of prepositions. - They are in common among farmers. (Subject 5)

57

- ... in everytime (Subject 8) - If we want to a good life... (Subject 13) - They dont want to anybody. (Subject 15) - ... we dont want to this union. (Subject 18) In the last three examples above, the subject used the preposition to after the verb want. When the verb be is followed by a verb the preposition to is used before the following verb. However, this is not the case when want is followed by a noun. Learners did not notice this distinction, and they used to redundantly after the verb want. 6.2.1.3 Articles Another problematic area for the learners is the use of articles. Nearly seventeen percent of the total errors are in this category. The subjects mostly omitted the definite and indefinite articles in their writings. The table below indicates their error in this category in detail: Table 6.3 Errors of Articles Omission of the Redundant use of the Omission of a/an Redundant use of a/an Misuse of articles Total 20 4 43 4 11 82

As the articles are not used similarly in Turkish as in English learners commit quite a good number of errors in this category. For example, when we say I am a doctor in English we use the indefinite article a before the doctor. However, this is not the case in Turkish. In Turkish, the sentence is formed as Ben doktorum. And there is no equivalent of the article a in this sentence. In other words, there is a great difference between the two languages in terms of articles. Thus, they produce so many errors of articles. Some samples of these errors are as follows:

58

- (The) Washing machine is the most important invention for (a) housewife. (Subject1) (Omission)+ (omission) - ... an simple invention (Subject 4) (misuse) - the (+) television (Subject 7) (addition) - ... lives in a (+) comfort (Subject 8) (addition) - ... modal of ( a) car (Subject 9) (omission) - a outstanding community (Subject 14) (misuse) - The car is still used in (the) world. (Subject 17) (Omission) - Turkey is (a) beautiful country.... (Subject 18) (Omission) - Turkey is (a) developed country. (Subject 21) (Omission) - In my opinion, inventions have (an) important place in our life. (Subject 23) (Omission) - Who is (the) inventor of this invention? (Subject 28) (Omission) - And the best example of it is (the) first world war. (Subject29) (Omission) - a invention (Subject 30) (misuse) - an inventions (Subject 32) (misuse) - ... inventions are (an) indispensable part of our life. (Subject 33) (Omission) 6.2.1.4 Active and passive voice This category comprises % 3,8 of the total errors and the total number in this category is 19. It was seen that the subjects used active voice instead of passive, which is a probable result of carelessness and lack of competence. Below are some samples of these errors: - Wherever we are, we connect with each other. (Subject 3) In the sentence above, the subject used the active form of the verb connect, but she should have used the passive voice and the correct form is: - Wherever we are, we are connected with other. Another sample for this category is: -As much as I can remember it hadnt invented on bad purposes (Subject 12)

59

Here, the learner mentioned something that had been invented; however she used the active voice instead of the passive. The correct form of the sentence is: - it hadnt been invented Another sample is as follows: - a life without them doesnt think (Subject 19) This erroneous utterance should be corrected as: - a life without them isnt thought. 6.2.1.5 Verbs This category is related to the misuse, omission and addition of the verb be and other verbs in sentences. The table below indicates a detailed classification of these errors: Table 6.4 Errors of Verbs Omission of the verb be Addition of the verb be Misuse of the verb be Omission of other verbs Misuse of other verbs Total 14 23 4 3 2 46

The most problematic items in this category are the use of verb be. The subjects omitted or added the verb be in their utterances. The samples of this category are as follows: - when a house-wife cleaning the house, her dresses are washed in its own. (Subject 1) In the first sentence, the third person form of the verb be is omitted though it is a sentence of present continuous tense. The correct form should be: - a house-wife is cleaning Another omission error is: - we wouldnt(-) aware of the things (Subject 8) The correct form of the sentence must be as follows:

60

- we wouldnt be aware of the things Some other omission errors are: - The most important thing (-) economic condition. (Subject 11) - others(-)always working on it. (Subject 12) - Situation of the country, important ways of sea (-) examples of the reasons. (Subject 34) - people in Turkey(-) generally poor. (Subject 35) - For example, its climate(-) suitable for farming. (Subject36) The examples above have common characteristics. The possible reason for the errors in the examples is probably the distinction in the use of the verb be in Turkish and English. The translation of a sentence with the verb be in English may seem to have no verb in Turkish. For example, in the sentence before the last sample above when we translate the sentence into Turkish it seems correct to the learner, however this is not the case for the rules in English. Thus, when the learners simply translate the sentence into English without applying the rules of the target language the result may be erroneous as in these examples. Besides, there are quite a good number of errors in terms of the addition of the verb be. - Without television life can be continue (Subject 4) - If it werent come into existence (Subject8) - These are basic inventions and they are deal with other inventions. (Subject 10) - This idea can be happen and I believe this idea isnt a dream for Turkey. (Subject 13) - it can be develop more quickly than now. (Subject 20) - would a lot of people have been died? (Subject 32) - European Union is occurred by some countries which have perfect life standards. (Subject 43) The other errors in the subcategories in this category are not so common and their possible reason is carelessness, anxiety or nervousness.

61

6.2.1.6 Other syntactic errors The sub-categorization of this category is as in the table below: Table 6.5 Other Syntactic Errors Wrong order Lack of subject verb agreement Misuse of modals Omission of modals Misuse of conditionals Disagreement between determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers and nouns Total 26 33 7 1 9 36 113

As it is clearly understood from the table above, the most common and problematic areas are wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement and disagreement between determiners and nouns. One of the most common errors in this category is in the word order in the sentences. Since the word order in English and Turkish are different from each other, the subjects used the items in the sentences in wrong orders. Some samples are as follows: - I wonder, an inventor how invents, where invents and when invents. (Subject 2) - We are unaware of them often. (Subject 3) - inventions would have opened to the technology new windows. (Subject 8) - Today, inventions have become our part of life (Subject 9) - A lot of people take serious Turkeys membership. (Subject 11) - European Union for Turkey is really essential. (Subject 13) - They make easier many things. (Subject 16) - they make everything for make easy peoples life. (Subject 19) - They made easier our life. (Subject 28) - They are our indispensable part of life. (Subject 39)

62

The disagreement between subject and verb is also a problematic area for the learners: - If an invention is big and important and everybody use it the history of it will be known. (Subject 5) - It take part in our life intensely. (Subject 6) - I think in the world nobody want to live without inventions. (Subject 10) - Since Turkey connect Assia to Europe (Subject 15) - Whatever happen at the end must think immediately (Subject 34) - If we answers our problems (Subject 37) - everday we watches same thing. (Subject 38) - Our life always change (Subject 41) - Some inventions was invent . (Subject 42) - Whenever he miss his family (Subject 46) - this ruin our civilisation. (Subject 47) Disagreement between determiners and nouns is the most common errors in this category: - You can do many thing with it. (Subject 4) - We can do a lot of thing in a short time. (Subject 10) - there are a lot of European country. (Subject 14) - They have too many advancement in science, maths etc. (Subject 15) - a lot of factory or other job area will be opened. (Subject 21) - So we dont neglect this inventions for our society. (Subject 26) - In prehistoric ages, people had lots of trouble. (Subject31) - But many country (Subject 34) - For this reasons (Subject 35) - we need to solve this problems. (Subject 38)

63

In Turkish, quantifiers are not usually followed by plural nouns; for example, the phrase birok problem in Turkish is a correct phrase; however when we directly apply this structure to the target language the result will be erroneous (many problem). Also, the case is similar in demonstratives. Singular demonstratives are used before nouns no matter they are singular or plural. For example, in bu lkeler bu is a singular demonstrative and lkeler is a plural noun, and the English equivalent of this phrase is this countries, which is accepted as erroneous in English. 6.2.1.7 Morphological errors Morphological Errors 6.6 Omission of plural ending s Misuse and addition of the plural ending s Misuse of possessive s Incorrect use of comparative adjectives Misuse of other and another Misuse of like and as Wrong word form Total 11 14 6 6 7 6 46 97

This category constitutes % 19,8 of the total errors. The table indicates that the most problematic sub-category in this taxonomy is the wrong word form. The subjects used wrong form of the words, such as adjectives instead of adverbs, nouns instead of verbs or gerund instead of infinitive. The possible reason for so many errors in this category is that the area is very comprehensive. Besides, they may result from inadequate competence of the subjects. As the subjects do not have sufficient knowledge of different forms of these words, they probably produced so many erroneous utterances. Some samples of this sub-category are as follows: - all invents have indispensable part on our life. (Subject 6) In the sentence above, the subject pluralized the verb invent by adding s to the end of this verb. - In real, (Subject 14) In this phrase, an adjective (real) was used instead of noun form (reality).

64

- We couldnt live good (Subject 17) (Adjective instead of adverb) - some people behave wrong (Subject 20) (Adjective instead of adverb) - Europe Union (Subject 21) (Noun instead of adjective) - I am very worry ( Subject 24) (bare infinitive instead of past participle) - an idea about make an inventions. (Subject 32) (Bare infinitive instead of gerund) - It will go on depend on (Subject 40) (bare infinitive instead of gerund) - Inventions must be develop ... (Subject 41) (bare infinitive instead of past participle) Some other errors in this group are as follows: - one of the most important invention (Subject 4) (Lack of plurality) - Turkey is one of the most important country (Subject 34) (Lack of plurality) - One of your friend (Subject 44) (Lack of plurality) - other works (Subject 1) (addition of the plural endings) - Another reasons (Subject 7) (Misuse of other and another) - member of others religion. (Subject 15) (Misuse of other and another) - Another countries (Subject 36) (Misuse of other and another) - Its importance (Subject 31) (its instead of its) - Its meaning (Subject 39) (its instead of its) - for living more different like we want. (Subject 34) (Misuse of like and as)

65

CHAPTER VII 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 Summary of Findings In this study, as a result of the analysis of learners errors, 488 grammatical errors were found. These errors were first classified into seven major categories, and then they were divided into subcategories. It was observed that the largest group in the number of errors was the errors of prepositions, which comprised %24.7 of the total errors. The next largest number was in the group of other syntactic errors, which involves wrong order, lack of subject and verb agreement, and disagreement between determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers, and nouns. The following most problematic areas were consecutively morphological errors, articles, verbs, active-passive voice, and tenses. 7.2 Suggestions for Teachers, Syllabus and Textbook Designers and Test Developers Although there are various teaching techniques, there have always been problems in terms of language teaching and teachers have used various techniques and tried to teach a language in certain ways. In this respect, teachers, syllabus designers and test developers should make use of such studies to acquire new insights. In this way, it is possible for them to see language learners from a different point of view. Thus, error analysis should not be underestimated as it helps us observe their errors and progress. As it is mentioned in earlier chapters of the study, errors are inevitable parts of language learning and teaching. People should regard them as the signals of progress and diagnosis of problems and they should make use of it as much as possible in order to evaluate students progress, to design course syllabus and to prepare language teaching materials such as textbook, tests, etc. The results of the study indicate that the learners are competent in basic rules of the target language; however their knowledge of the target language has some deficiencies. One of the possible reasons of these deficiencies is learners lack of practice during their education at high schools. As a preparation for the YDS exam, they learn some rules and words, but they do not need to put them

66

into practise for success in this exam. Accordingly, they do not practise the target language sufficiently. Writing and speaking are practical skills and they help us practise and improve our knowledge of the target language. Therefore, teachers should make use of these skills. Inadequate exposure to the target language hinders learners improvement. As mentioned in earlier chapters, errors are inevitable in language teaching process and it is quite natural that learners commit errors during their learning process. Teachers should not be strict to errors; on the contrary, they should benefit from errors since they reflect learners level and improvement. Teachers should focus on the most common errors and try to overcome them using various materials and methods. Besides, textbook designers or syllabus designers should design their materials in the light of these errors, and proper tests should be designed to measure students improvement. Teachers can also make use of errors for their future plans in language teaching, they can conduct remedial teaching using exercises related to the problematic areas of the target language. Error correction is also a very important factor in language teaching. Error correction is a real burden for teachers and it is also sometimes discouraging for learners. Thus, teachers should let learners identify and correct their errors themselves or with their peers. In this way, they will probably have a better understanding of their errors. 7.3 Suggestions for Further Studies This study aimed to determine the most frequent grammatical errors that Turkish learners of English commit in their writings. The compositions written by learners were examined and the errors found were classified to certain linguistic categories. Another aim of this study was to reveal EA as a pedagogical tool both for diagnosis and explanation of problematic areas in the target language. As a result of the diagnosis of errors, some suggestions for teachers, syllabus designers and test developers were made in order to have better results and fewer errors in language teaching. Thus, this study can be described as a case study as it focused on a single stage in the learners learning process.

67

A longitudinal study can be conducted to observe learners improvement and the changes in this process can be identified. Also, a longitudinal study helps us see whether their errors are transitory or fossilized. Besides, after a remedial teaching to the learners another study can be conducted to evaluate the results.

68

APPENDICES Appendix I Samples of Learners Productions

69

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, L. G. (1965) Essay and Letter Writing. Longman Publishing Group. Akarsu, O. (2004) Errors Committed by Turkish Learners of English in Oral Production. Unpublished Master Thesis. Erzurum: Ataturk University. Aycan, N. (1990) Errors in Tense in the Written English of Turkish Students with Special Reference to the Semantic Bases. MA Thesis. Bilkent University Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P.& Pincas, A. (1980) Teaching English as a Foreign Language. London: Routhledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Brown, H. D. (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall. Burt, M. and C. Kiparsky. (1972) The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Byrne, D. (1988) Teaching Writing Skills. Essex, England: Longman Group UK Ltd. Chan, A. Y. W. (2004) Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of Hong Kong Chinese ESL Learners Modern Language Journal v88 n1 p: 56 74 Mar 2004 Chastain, K. (1971) The development of modern language skills: Theory and Practice. Philedelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Chomsky, N. (1966) Linguistic Theory. In F. Smolinski, (Ed.) (1985) Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C. U.S Information Agency Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners' errors. Reprinted in J.C.Richards (ed.) (1974,1984) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 19 27 ..., (1971) Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. In Richards (ed), Error Analysis, 1974, Longman. ..., (1974) Error Analysis. In J. Allen and S. Corder (eds.) The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Rpt in Ellis, 1986)

71

Davis, W. ; Mahoney, K. (2005) The Effects of Grammar Testing on the Writing Quality and Reduction of Errors in College Freshmens Essays.Division of Humanities, Dalton State College. Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S.D. (1982) Language Two, Oxford University Press. Edge, J. (1989) Mistakes and correction. London: Longman Group UK Limited. Edwards (2002) Grammar as Style: A Better Approach to the Concept of Error. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (53rd, Chicago, IL, March 2023, 2002) Ellis, R. (1986). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Er, G. (1990) Error Analysis and Remedial Work in a Composition Course. Master Thesis. Ankara: Gazi niversitesi Fries, C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gk, . (1996) Error Analysis vs Contrastive Analysis and Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and The Methodlogy of Writing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Erzurum: Atatrk University. Grsel, E. (1998) Error Analysis of the English Writings of the students from the Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Gaziantep. MA thesis. University of Gaziantep Hamilton, R. P. (2001) The Insignificance of Learners' Errors: A Philosophical Investigation of the Interlanguage Hypothesis. Language & Communication v21 n1 p: 7388 Jan 2001 Hedayet, Nagwa (1990) Some Errors in the Writings of the Intermediate and Advanced Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language. World Congress of Applied Linguistics, sponsored by the International Association of Applied Linguistics (9th, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 1521, 1990). Hedge, T. (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, C. (1980) Contrastive Analysis. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers.

72

Johnston (1998) A Role for Grammar Instruction in the Written Language Development of Four ESL Students Placed in a Special Education Program for the Language Learning Disabled. Simon Fraser University. Kl, S. (1992) An Analysis of the Relationship between Students Perception and Teachers Perception of Major Errors Experienced by the Prepatory Students with regard to Grammar in EFL at the University of Gaziantep. MA Thesis. University of Gaziantep Lado, R. (1957) Lingusitics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. Larsen- Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W. T. (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning. Languageacquisition research and its applications fro the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. Lococo, V. (1976) A comparison of three methods for the collection of L2 data: free composition, translation and picture description. Working Papers on Bilingualism. Manley, J. M.. ; Calk, L. (1997) Grammar Instruction for Writing Skills: Do Students Perceive Grammar as Useful? Foreign Language Annals v30 n1 p7383 Spr 1997 Mattar, O. (1994) Writing to Learn: Learning to Write: Vocabulary and Discourse- Genre. In C. Zaher (ed.), Proceedings of The First EFL Skill Conference. The American University in Cairo. Monreal, M. E. (1981) Correcting Written Work. English Teaching Forum, 19. Murcia, M. C. (2001) Teaching English as a second or Foreign Language. Heinle&Heinle: Thomson Learning Ney, J. W. (1986) Error Analysis, Theories of Language, and the Teaching of Writing. Written Communication v3 n1 pp:1529 Jan 1986 Norrish, J. (1983) Language Learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press. Oller, J. W., and Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1970) The Contrastive analysis hypothesis and spelling errors. Language Learning. 20: 183189.

73

Olsen, S. (1999) Errors and Compensatory Strategies: A Study of Grammar and Vocabulary in Texts Written by Norwegian Learners of English. System v27 n2 pp: 191205 Jun 1999 zaydnl, B. (1994) Error Analysis of Prepatory Class Students in the Use of English Grammatical Prepositions and Non-Literal Phrasal Verbs at the University of Gaziantep. MA Thesis. University of Gaziantep. Politzer, R. , Ramirez, A. (1973) An error analysis of the spoken English of Mexican-American pupils in a bilingual school and monolingual school. Language Learning, 23, 1 ( Rpt. n Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982) Ponsot, M., Dean, R. (1982) Beat not the Poor Desk: Writing : What to teach, how to teach it and why. Montclair, NJ: Boyton/Cook Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. (1971) Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies, in John H. Schomann and Nancy Stenson (ed.), New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. ..., (1974) Error Analysis in the Role of Developmental Errors in Assesing Language Competence by Mohsen Ghadessy ELT Journal 39: 130174. ..., (1974) Error Analysis Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Longman Group Limited ..., et al. (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Essex: Longman Group Limited. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992) Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Longman Group UK Limited. Riddell, P. (1990) Error Analysis: A Useful Procedure for dentifying Post-testing Activities, Language Learning Journal. Rivers, W. M. (1981) Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Rosen, H. (1969) Towards a language policy across curriculum. Language, the Learner, and the School. London: Penguin.

74

Saltk, S. (1997) A Study on Error Analysis in the Essays of Fresman Students at the Middle East Technical University. Master Thesis. Ankara: The Middle East University. Schatcher, J. (1974) An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24: 205214 Semke, H. D. (1982) Correcting students free writing: Help or hindrance? (Report No. FL 013 621). (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 850) Sridhar, S. N. (1980) Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage, In Reading English as a Second Language, Kenneth Croft (ed.), Winthrop Publishers Inc., Cambridge, Mass., USA. Stenson, N. (1976) Induced Errors, In New Frontiers in Second Language Learning by John H. Schumann and Stenson N., Newbury House Publishers, Inc. USA. Stenstrom, A. B. ( 1975) Grammatical Errors in Teacher Trainees' Written Work. Swedish-English Contrastive Studies, Report No. 7 Lund Univ. (Sweden). Dept. of English Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ahin, M. K. (1993) Error Analysis of Tense and Aspect in the Written English of Turkish Students. MA Thesis. Bilkent University. nal, S. (1989) An Analysis of the Errors in the Compositions of the Turkish University Students Learning English as a Foreign Language. MA Thesis. METU. Valette, R. (1973) Developing and evaluating communication skills in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly,7. Wilkins, D. A. (1972) Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold Ltd. Walz, J. C. (1982) Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. Language in education: Theory and practice. Wardhaugh, R. (1970) The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis TESOL Quarterly 4: 123130 Yates, R. ; Kenkel, J. (2002) Responding to Sentence-Level Errors in Writing

75

Journal of Second Language Writing v11 n1. INTERNET SOURCES Abi Sarma, N. (2003) An Analysis of Errors in Arabic Speakers English Writings. http://abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacq-erroranalysishtml. American University of Beirut Farooq, M. U. (1998) Contrastive and Error Analysis Based Teaching Strategies. Aichi Womens college.www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq.pdf Myles, J.(2002) Second Language writing and Research: The writing Process and Error Analysis in Students Texts. Tesl-ej Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Vol. 6 No. 2 A1 September 2002 http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej22/a1html.

76

CURRICULUM VITAE He was born in Erzurum in 1976 and graduated from primary, secondary and high schools in Erzurum. He attended the Department of English Language and Literature of Ataturk University between 19941999. After he graduated from the university, he worked as an English teacher for six years. In 2005, he began to work as an instructor at Ataturk University. He started his master study in 2003 at the Department of English Language and Literature.