|
|
Directorate
of Postgraduate Studies
Education
Programme
Errors
of English Language Committed by Sudanese Students
at Secondary Schools
in Khartoum Locality (2011-2012)
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Postgraduate Diploma in Education
Presented
by: Muhammad El-Bashir Muhammad Ahmed
Supervised
by: Dr. Omar Elsheikh Hago
2013
Table of
Contents
|
No.
|
Subject
|
Page
|
|
1
|
Dedication
|
i
|
|
2
|
Acknowledgements
|
ii
|
|
3
|
Abstract: English version
|
iii
|
|
4
|
Abstract: Arabic version
|
iv
|
|
5
|
Chapter
One: Introduction
|
|
|
6
|
1.0 Background
|
1
|
|
7
|
1.1 Statement of the Study
|
2
|
|
8
|
1.2Objectives
of the Study
|
2
|
|
9
|
1. 3 Significance of the Study
|
2
|
|
10
|
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study
|
3
|
|
11
|
1.5 Limits of the Study
|
3
|
|
12
|
1.6 The Study Outlines
|
3
|
|
13
|
1.7 Terms Definition
|
4
|
|
14
|
Chapter Two: Theoretical Background and
Literature Review
|
|
|
15
|
2.0 Introduction
|
5
|
|
16
|
2.1 Historical Background of English Language
Teaching in the Sudan
|
6
|
|
17
|
2.2 Reasons for Learning English as a Foreign
Language
|
7
|
|
18
|
2.3 The Development of Writing
|
9
|
|
19
|
2.4 Teaching Second-Language Writing
|
9
|
|
20
|
2.5 A Comparison between Speech and Writing
|
12
|
|
21
|
2.6 Types of Errors
|
13
|
|
22
|
2.7 Errors Analysis
|
19
|
|
23
|
2.8 Error Correction
|
21
|
|
24
|
Chapter
Three: Methodology of the Study
|
|
|
25
|
3.1 The Study Population
|
26
|
|
26
|
3.2 The Sample of the Study
|
26
|
|
27
|
3.3 Method of
Data Collection
|
27
|
|
28
|
3.4 The Statistical Treatment
|
28
|
|
29
|
Chapter
Four: Data Analysis
|
|
|
30
|
4.0 Introduction
|
29
|
|
31
|
4.1 Spelling Errors
|
29
|
|
32
|
4.2 Morphological Errors
|
33
|
|
33
|
4.3 Syntactic Errors
|
34
|
|
34
|
4.4 Semantic Errors
|
38
|
|
35
|
Chapter
Five: Conclusions and Recommendations
|
|
|
36
|
5.1 Summary of the Study
|
41
|
|
37
|
5.2 Recommendations
|
42
|
|
38
|
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies
|
43
|
|
39
|
References
|
45
|
|
40
|
Appendix
|
48
|
List of Tables
|
Table
|
Page
|
|
Table
No.1: A Comparison between speech and writing
|
12
|
|
Table
No.2: Spelling Errors
|
29
|
|
Table No. 3: Morphological Errors
|
33
|
|
Table No. 4: Syntactic Errors
|
34
|
|
Table
No. 5: Semantic Errors
|
38
|
|
Table No.6: Total Errors of Students
|
42
|
List of Figures
|
Figures
|
Page
|
|
Figure No.1: Spelling Errors
|
30
|
|
Figure No. 2: Morphological Errors
|
34
|
|
Figure No. 3: Syntactic Errors
|
35
|
|
Figure No. 4: Semantic Errors
|
39
|
|
Figure No.5: Total Errors of Students
|
42
|
Chapter One
1.0 Background
Traditionally, when students write in a
second\foreign language, the purpose of the writing activity is to catch errors
in grammar, spelling, punctuation…etc. Students get good marks if they write
texts with as few errors as possible. The term “error” is used in this study to
refer to the systematic deviation from a selected norm or a set of norms. The
selected norms in this study are the standard British English. Errors analysis
is the examination of those errors committed by the Sudanese secondary schools
students in Khartoum Locality in the written medium. It provides a picture of
the level of those students and it may give indication to the learning process
as well.
Error analysis is useful in second\foreign
language learning because it reveals to the linguists – teachers, syllabus
designers and text book writers – the problematic areas and focus attention on
the trouble points.
The researcher, from experience, noticed that
there are common errors among students since they have a different mother
tongue. The researcher investigated the errors committed by the subjects who
were studying English as a compulsory subject at secondary schools.
1.1
Statement of the Study
As a teacher of English language at the
Sudanese secondary schools where English language is taught as a compulsory
subject, the researcher noticed that many of the errors in the writing
performance are common among them. This phenomenon draws attention to the
importance and need to describe and analyze such errors so as to infer their
sources. These errors can be dealt with in the light of the following
questions:
1. What are the common errors committed by the
subjects?
2. What are the linguistic categories to which
these errors belong?
3. What are the possible explanations that can be
given to the occurrence of these errors?
4. How can these errors be treated?
1.2
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to identify
and analyze the common errors of the subjects. It also aims at giving an
account of the areas of these common errors in order to help teachers and
learners overcome the difficulties that might face them while they are learning
English language.
1.3
Significance of the Study
The study is intended to find out how far
“SPINE” students of English benefit from the present series of English language
at secondary schools. It is an attempt to state out how far this syllabus
fulfils its goals for having students highly mastered English language while
they are on the last stage before joining a university study where English
language is badly required for a good field of study.
Thus, the present study might be beneficial to
teachers and learners of English in the Sudanese secondary schools and in other
Sudanese institutions concerned with the teaching of English language.
1.4
Hypotheses of the Study
1. The common errors committed by the Sudanese
secondary schools students of English language are due to difficulties in the
target language itself rather than to any other cause.
2. Many linguistic errors can easily be noticed in
students writing production.
1.5
Limits of the Study
The study is confined mainly to the first and
second year secondary schools students in Khartoum Locality in the school year
(2011-2012) . It will be exploring the question of errors committed by these
students in the regard to “Sudan Practical Integrated National English”
(SPINE); the difficulties encountered by the students in their English writing
production.
1.6 The
Study Outlines
This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter
one introduces the general idea of the research. It shows the statement of the
study, its objectives, significance, hypotheses and limits.
Chapter two handles the theoretical background
and previous studies related to this research. It sheds light on the historical
background of English language teaching in the Sudan from early periods up to
the independence of the country showing how this language had been dealt with.
It also gives reasons for learning English as a foreign language and how
writing skill is being taught nowadays. The chapter finally gives a contrast
between speech and writing.
Chapter three will be about the research
methodology and procedures. It describes the study population, the sample of
the study, method of data collection and the researcher’s statistical
treatment.
Chapter four will look into the students’
errors. It classifies these errors into four linguistic types: spelling errors,
syntactic errors, morphological errors and semantic errors trying to analyze
these errors giving examples for each type.
Chapter five concludes the research. It also
gives some recommendations and suggestions for further studies.
1.7 Terms Definition
1. An act, assertion, or belief that
unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.
2. The condition of having incorrect or false
knowledge.
3. The act or an instance of deviating from an
accepted code of behavior.
Chapter Two
Theoretical Background and Literature Review
2.0
Introduction
People are always in seeking of acquiring new
languages rather than their own mother-tongue to communicate and express their
ideas and needs. (Chomsky 1968-28) has said “what a person does depends in a
large extent on what he knows, believes and anticipates.”
Therefore, mastering languages play an
important role in people’s thinking, interactions and activities. Leonard
Bloomfield said “One may say that today the nation which contains no large
class of people who understand foreign languages dwells in pitiable seclusion”.
English as a foreign language is deeply needed
in the Sudan. The focus of the investigation is the deficiency or errors being
committed by secondary schools students in Khartoum. These students are paving
a way to university studies where English language might play a great role.
Moreover, English has become widely spread as a
language of international communication. People learn English to have contact
with modern sciences and technologies. Learning English helps a person to have
a closer look at the native speaker’s culture and penetrate the rich areas and
experiences laying beyond that mother-tongue communication.
2.1
Historical Background of English Language Teaching in the Sudan
Since 1889 and during the Anglo-Egyptian
rule in Sudan, there was no proper education except those schools which were
established by the Christian missionaries in some parts of the country. The
only type of education was religious education in (Khalwas) (M.O. Bashir
1968-p.11).
Although English language was the instrument of
the government, the latter intended to provide the people with only vocational
and technical education and discouraged proper education for fear of having
educated people who could destroy its rule. For the same purpose, English
learning was unpreferable.
Then the government found that it was necessary
to have some people who knew English in order to help in the administration of
the country, so British teachers were appointed to teach in some established
intermediate schools, and in 1902 Gordon Memorial College was established.
In 1905, some schools in which English was used
were established in Khartoum by American missionaries.
In southern Sudan, the Catholic Roman and
British missionaries participated a lot in the spread of education and the use
of English. Although most of the people there depended on their local dialects,
it was necessary for those who wanted better jobs to learn English. So English
began to be taught in special classes and then it became the instrument of
teaching in most schools.
In 1918, educated people started to hold
meetings and they founded a club (M.O. Bashir 1968-p.91). They also founded a
Sudanese unity. This progress within Sudanese people created a great misunderstanding
with the government and made it stand against education.
In 1924, the educated people, led by Ali
Abdullatif, revoluted against the British rule. Since then Sudanese citizens
started to struggle in order to get their independence and develop their
country and as a result, new schools were opened for boys as well as for girls.
In 1944, Gordon Universal College came to
existence and in 1947 its candidates were allowed to sit for Oxford
Certificate. In 1956, the Sudan became an independent country and education
spread everywhere and English language was taught for teaching in the schools.
Since then a new world for English teaching
existed. Teachers of English used traditional ways of teaching and instead, new
and modern techniques based on educational theories were applied for teaching
English which became most widely spread as “language of international
communication and modern technology (Harden 1978 p.25)”.
2.2
Reasons for Learning English as a Foreign Language
The purpose of the study, being to improve the
students’ written English at Sudanese secondary schools, makes it necessary for
learners to know the reasons for learning English as a foreign language in the
country.
In this respect we can say that people who wish
to learn English may have anyone to a great number of reasons for doing so. It
will not of course be complete, but will at least show the great variety of
both the needs and desires of students of English (Jeremy Harmer 1983 p.111).
2.2.1 Target language community
Students may find themselves living either
temporarily or permanently in the target language community. The target
language community would of course be in English using country. These students
will have to use the target language to survive in that community.
2.2,2 School curriculum
Many students study English only because they
have to learn English as a part of the school curriculum, a decision which has
been taken by someone in
authority that it should be so.
2.2.3 Advancement
Some people want to study English
because they think it gives, in some general way, a chance for advancement in
their daily life. It is possible that a good knowledge of a foreign language
will help a person to get a better job than if he or she knows their native
language only. This is particularly so because English is rapidly becoming the
language of international communication.
Businessmen
need English and a young person wanting to get into business might well get a
better starting position simply because he or she has a sound working knowledge
of the language (ibid).
2.2.4 English for specific purposes
The term has been applied to situations where a
student has some specific reasons for wanting to learn the language. For
example, an air traffic controller to guide aircraft through the skies, this
may be the only time in his\her life where English is used.
The Businessmen may need English for trade. The
waiter may need English to serve his customers. The students who are going to
study in an English country may need English so that they can write reports or
essays and discuss in a seminar situation. The students of medicine or physics
who are studying in their own country may need to be able to read textbooks and
articles about that subject in English.
2.2.5 Culture
Some students study English as a foreign
language because they are attracted by the culture of one of the target
communities. They learn English because they want to learn and know about
people who use it.
2.2.6 Other reasons
There are other reasons for language learning
less important than those
mentioned above. Some students go to foreign
language classes just for fun.
2.3 The
Development of Writing
For those languages which do have writing
systems, the development of writing, as we know it, is a relatively recent
phenomenon. We may trace human attempts to represent information visually back
to cave drawings which were made at least 20,000 years ago, or to clay tokens
from about 10,000 years ago, which appear to have been an early attempt at
bookkeeping, but these artifacts are best described as ancient precursors of
writing. Writing which is based on some types of alphabetic script can only be
traced back to inscriptions dated around 3,000 years ago (Yule 1985).
2.4
Teaching Second-Language Writing: Where we seem to be
Ilona Lekei (1991) has said that in the recent
past, writing was the most ignored of the language skills. But many changes in
attitude have occurred about teaching writing in a second language.
Traditionally, when students write in a second
language, the purpose of writing activity is to catch grammar, spelling and
punctuation errors. Students get good marks if they write texts with as few
errors as possible. In order to avoid errors, then, students naturally write
very cautiously and conservatively in their second language.
2.4.1 New emphases
But attitudes have changed about the role of
writing in the teaching of a second language. Instead of being the last skill
taught and instead of being only a servant to grammar, writing has now become
much more important in the second language curriculum. Writing is the natural
outlet for the students’ reflections on their speaking, listening and reading
experiences in their second language. So what are the new emphases in
teaching writing in a second language that allow students to develop this sense
of success with the second language? The first and more important new emphasis
is on the rhetorical context in which these students are writing. There are
many different kinds of writing and many different reasons for writing. It is important
for us as second-language teachers to figure out exactly what we are training
our students for.
Next, there is a new emphasis on the
content of student writing. Now students are writing about what they are
interested in and know about, but most especially, what they really want to
communicate to someone else, what they really want the reader to know.
2.4.1.1 Audience and purpose
Part of the rhetorical context and part of the
content of student writing is determined by who the audience of the writing is
and what the purpose of the writing is. Assignments that direct students to
write for general public or for anyone who might be interested tend to be much
more difficult to write than assignments in which students have an idea why
they are writing and who will be reading their writing. Are they writing to
entertain someone? to inform someone? to persuade someone? simply to explore
their own thoughts? Depending on the answer, the content of the writing will be
quite different. And who is the audience of this writing? If the students are
always and only writing for their teacher, there is the risk that they will
simply try to guess what the teacher wants and deliver that without committing
themselves intellectually to what they are writing. In other words, they will
complete assignments without caring about what they have written. If students
know that what they write will actually be read by real people other than the
teacher; people who care about the message not the medium, then writing becomes
much easier, because knowing who the audience is and what the audience already
knows helps writers to decide what to say and how to say it. Audience should be
as real as possible, not imaginary readers but real ones.
Another development in teaching writing in a second
language has been the emphasis on writing as a means of inventing, of exploring
ideas, and of gathering information. As a result, students are now taught
invention techniques to enable them to explore their own knowledge of a subject
before attempting to write about it. They are also being taught specific
techniques to enable them to use writing as a tool to help them think.
2.4.1.2 Publishing students’ writing
Students are much more likely to be willing to
exert energy in their work if they think someone else will read it or even
simply if their work is treated as important in itself, worthy of publication
and the attention that publication brings.
Anything might be included in the possibilities
for publication, but a good idea seems to be again to get the students as
involved as possible by, for example, allowing the class to select a group of
students to be the editorial board. The students in the class then decide which
of their papers they would like to submit for review by the editorial board. This
board then reviews the papers and decides which ones they feel should be
published and which ones still need more work. The teacher helps the class to
prepare work to please the editorial board.
2.4.1.3 Writing can be fun
Writing classes have changed. They have become
more humanistic, more friendly and more fun. Students have a greater variety of
writing tasks and more interesting opportunities to write. Students and
teachers are more relaxed; they work together, they collaborate. Because of
this, writing classes can be a great deal of fun while at the same time giving
language students confidence in their ability to manipulate English.
2.5 A
Comparison between speech and writing
Briefly, here are the main differences between
speech and writing as (Todd 1987 p.8) has mentioned. Table No.1 shows this
matter:
Table No.1: A Comparison between speech
and writing
|
Speech
|
Writing
|
|
Composed on sounds
|
Composed on letters\signs
|
|
Make use of intonation, pitch, rhythm, tempo
|
Make use of punctuation and other graphical
devices like italics
|
|
Produced effortlessly – no tools required
|
Produced with effort - tools required
|
|
Transitory
|
Relatively permanent
|
|
Perceived by the ear
|
Perceived by the eye
|
|
Addressee present
|
Addressee absent
|
|
Immediate feedback
|
Feedback delayed
|
|
Meaning helped by context, body movement,
gestures
|
Meaning must be clear within the context
|
|
Spontaneous
|
Not spontaneous
|
|
Associative
|
Logical
|
Such a list is sufficient to indicate that
speech and writing are very different mediums. Yet there are links between
these mediums. Most writing systems are based on speech. As far as English is
concerned, there is a rough equivalence between sounds and letters. This
equivalence is not, however, very close in English. We find, for example, only
three sounds in the following words of five letters:
knead
rough
The sounds of these words can be represented in
more than one way, so that “need” is pronounced exactly the same way as “knead”
and “ruff” sounds exactly as “rough”. Nor are these the only mismatches that
occur between English sounds and letters. The “ee” sound can be represented in
at least six ways:
beef
chief
deceive
even
machine
meat
and the sound “s” can be represented by both
“s” and “c”:
ceiling
sealing
2.6 Types of Errors
In this study the researcher is going to
concentrate on certain types of errors. These errors are: spelling errors, morphological
errors, syntactic errors, semantic errors, and some miscellaneous errors.
2.6. 1. Spelling Errors
These
error patterns are addressed through a focus on segmenting sounds in words, and
linking the sounds explicitly to their representations – the letters used to
spell them in particular words. This explicit knowledge is directly targeted in
the Code section discussed under each of the previous error patterns. Extend
knowledge of spelling conventions by collecting lists of words that use the
same letter combinations to represent the same sounds. It caused by poor
knowledge of relationship between sounds and letters such as: cll for
kill, peg for pig, sad for said, pesos for pieces, plad for
played, rafest for roughest. The following
types of spelling errors may be present:
-
use of a short vowel in place of a
long vowel: Note that what sometimes appears to be the use of a short vowel in
place of a long vowel (eg ‘plad’ for ‘played’) may, in fact, indicate poor
knowledge of spelling conventions. In this case, the spelling error may be due
to the child using the letter name to represent the sound.
- Omission of vowels
- Inaccurate vowel representation
2. 6. 2. Morphological Errors
It has
not been the goal of the preceding discussion to place into doubt the role of
morphological decomposition in normal language processing. Evidence that the
surface forms of words are parsed into morphological components during lexical
access, and that morphologically complex words are generated from more basic
stems and inflections during production has been derived from psycholinguistic
experimentation with normal subjects (e.g., Taft, 1979, 1981, 1984; Stanners,
Neiser, Hernon, and Hall, 1979; Burani et al., 1984), from research with
brain-damaged subjects (e.g., Caramazza, Miceli, Silveri, & Laudanna,
1985), and from studies of normal speech errors (e.g., Garrett, 1980a, 198Ob,
1982; MacKay, 1979). What has been at issue, beyond the characterization of a
particular instance of reading impairment, is whether the type of error
operationally defined as morphological in acquired dyslexia can be attributed
to impairments to these hypothesized morphological processing components. For
example, the likelihood of producing a visual error that can be operationally
defined as morphological can depend on some factors which organize the
lexical-semantic system. (Concreteness vs. abstractness is one such factor.)
Whether or not the activation of visually similar words at the visual stage of
processing results in the activation of a set of words that are related in the
lexical semantic system could also affect the probability of whether a visual
deficit will result in a morphological error. To use an English example, we are
suggesting that, while a pseudo prefixed stimulus like religion may have a
potential cohort of visually related items (such as legion, Zion, etc.), these
representations will not be related in the lexical-semantic system. An affixed
word like repayment, on the other hand, will have a cohort of visually related
words that are also semantically related (payment, repay, pay, repaying,
paying, etc.); and this may contribute to the probability of producing a
morphologically related form even if the deficit which induces such errors is
visual in nature.
2.6. 3.
Syntactic Errors
Syntax is the combination of words into
sentences. Syntax, of course, depends on lexical categories (parts of speech.).
There are eight main parts of speech in grammar school. Linguistics takes a
different approach to these categories and separates words into morphological
and syntactic groups. Linguistics analyzes words according to their affixes and
the words that follow or precede them. Hopefully, the following definitions of
the parts of speech will make more sense and be of
more use than the old definitions of grammar school books.
Open
Class Words
|
Nouns
|
_____ + plural endings
"dogs" |
Det. Adj. _____ (this is called a Noun
Phrase)
"the big dog" |
||
|
Verbs
|
____ + tense endings
"speaks" |
Aux. ____ (this is called a Verb Phrase)
"have spoken" |
||
|
Adjectives
|
__ +
er / est
"small" |
Det. _
Noun
"the smaller child" |
||
|
Adverbs
|
Adj. + ly
"quickly" |
_ Adj.
or Verb or Adv.
"quickly ran" |
||
Closed Class Words
|
Determiners
|
a, an,
the, this, that,
these,
those, pronouns, quantities |
Adj. Noun
"this blue book" |
|
Auxiliary
Verbs
|
forms
of be, have, may,
can, shall |
NP-VP
"the girl is swimming" |
|
Prepositions
|
at,
in, on, under,
over,
of
|
_ NP
(this is called a Prepositional Phrase)
"in the room" |
|
Conjunctions
|
and,
but, or
|
N or V
or Adj. __ N or V or Adj.
"apples and oranges" |
2. 6. 4. Semantic Errors
Richard D. Moores (2011) wrote: "Semantics" relates to the *meaning* of words, sentences or programs. In common English, we might say this sentence has a few grammatical errors, but the semantics are clear:
"I getted the milk out off the fridge and putted them into me coffee."
On the other hand, these sentences are grammatically fine but semantically ambiguous:
"Children make nutritious snacks."
"The thief was sentenced to six months in the violin case."
"Cocaine users are turning to ice."
"Police shoot man with crossbow."
"The building workers are refusing to work after fatal accidents." and of course the classic example of a grammatically valid sentence with no semantic meaning:
"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
Often we can guess the meaning of such ambiguous sentences from domain specific knowledge. We know that eating children is generally frowned upon, and so we reject the interpretation of the snacks being made *from* the children rather than *by* the children. Other times it is much harder to resolve the ambiguity:
"The English history teacher marked the test paper."
Did she or he, teach English history, or was she English and a history teacher?
2.6. 5. Miscellaneous Errors
They are the errors other the ones previously
mentioned. These errors can be paralleling, clearness, neatness…etc. Writers need to check particular
words, and to understand their meaning. Some that I see too often as errors on
student papers (from wikipedia):
- affect | effect. The verb (affect) means "to influence something", and the noun effect means "the result of". Effect can also be a verb that means "to cause [something] to be", while affect as a noun has technical meanings in psychology, music, and aesthetic theory: an emotion or subjectively experienced feeling.
- comprise. According to the OED, comprise is a transitive verb meaning 'to include' or 'to consist of', as in "the book comprises thirteen chapters". Commonly (and incorrectly), the word is used in a 'backwards formulation', as in "thirteen chapters comprise the book", or even "the book is comprised of thirteen chapters", a usage not sanctioned by any dictionary.
- disinterested | uninterested. To be disinterested in something means to not be biased about something (i.e. to have no personal stake in a particular side of an issue). To be uninterested means to not be interested in or intrigued by something. I was recently criticized for being disrespectful when I referred to a "disinterested Board of Governors." Was I?
- # e.g. and i.e. The abbreviation e.g. stands for the Latin exempli gratia "for example", and should be used when the example(s) given are just one or a few of many. The abbreviation i.e. stands for the Latin id est "that is", and is used to give the only example(s) or to otherwise qualify the statement just made.
- imply | infer. Something is implied if it is a suggestion intended by the person speaking, whereas a conclusion is inferred if it is reached by the person listening.
- lose | loose. Lose can mean "fail to win", "misplace", or "cease to be in possession". Loose can mean the opposite of tight, or the opposite of tighten. Lose is often misspelled loose, likely because lose has an irregular rhyme for the way it is spelled: it is more common for words ending -ose to rhyme, like nose, or rose, but lose rhymes, like news or confuse. This may cause poor spellers to guess the correct spelling should match another rhyming word like choose, although choose is itself also an exception to the regular rhyme for words ending -oose (typically such words, including loose, rhymes, like goose or caboose).
- sight | site | cite. A site is a place; a sight is something seen. To cite is to quote or list as a source.
2.7 Errors Analysis
Systematically analyzing errors made by
language learners makes it possible to determine areas that need reinforcement
in teaching (Corder, 1974).
Error analysis is a type of linguistic analysis
that focuses on the errors learners make. It consists of a comparison between
the errors made in the Target Language (TL) and that TL itself. Pit Corder is
the “Father” of Error Analysis (the EA with the “new look”). It was with his
article entitled “The significance of Learner Errors” (1967) that EA took a new
turn. Errors used to be “flaws” that needed to be eradicated. Corder presented
a completely different point of view. He contended that those errors are
“important in and of themselves.” For learners themselves, errors are
'indispensable,' since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the
learner uses in order to learn. In 1994, Gass & Selinker defined errors as
“red flags” that provide evidence of the learner’s knowledge of the second
language. Researchers are interested in errors because they are believed to
contain valuable information on the strategies that people use to acquire a
language (Richards, 1974; Taylor, 1975; Dulay and Burt, 1974). Moreover,
according to Richards and Sampson (1974, p. 15), “At the level of pragmatic
classroom experience, error analysis will continue to provide one means by
which the teacher assesses learning and teaching and determines priorities for
future effort.” According to Corder (1974), error analysis has two objects: one
theoretical and another applied. The theoretical object serves to “elucidate
what and how a learner learns when he studies a second language.” And the
applied object serves to enable the learner “to learn more efficiently by
exploiting our knowledge of his dialect for pedagogical purposes.”
The investigation of errors can be at the same
time diagnostic and prognostic. It is diagnostic because it can tell us the
learner's state of the language (Corder, 1967) at a given point during the
learning process, and prognostic because it can tell course organizers to
reorient language learning materials on the basis of the learners' current
problems.
Before we proceed, it is essential here to
define a few terms that we shall use in this paper:
-
Interlingual/Transfer
errors: those attributed to the native language (NL). There are interlingual
errors when the learner’s L1 habits (patterns, systems or rules) interfere or
prevent him/her, to some extent, from acquiring the patterns and rules of the
second language (Corder, 1971). Interference (negative transfer) is the
negative influence of the mother language (L1) on the performance of the target
language learner (L2) (Lado, 1964). It is 'those instances of deviation from
the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a
result of their familiarity with more than one language' (Weinreich, 1953,
p.1).
Error
analysis emphasizes “the significance of errors in learners’ interlanguage
system” (Brown 1994, p. 204). The term interlanguage, introduced by Selinker
(1972), refers to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent of
both the learner’s L1 and the target language. Nemser (1974, p. 55) referred to
it as the Approximate System, and Corder (1967) as the Idiosyncratic Dialect or
Transitional Competence.
-
Intralingual/Developmental
errors: those due to the language being learned (TL), independent of the native
language. According to Richards (1970) they are “items produced by the learner
which reflect not the structure of the mother tongue, but generalizations based
on partial exposure to the target language. The learner, in this case, tries to
“derive the rules behind the data to which he/she has been exposed, and may
develop hypotheses that correspond neither to the mother tongue nor to the
target language” (Richards, 1970, p. 6).
2.8 Error Correction
According to TE Editor (2003) , when it comes
to error correction we are dealing with one individual's reaction to a
student's piece of writing or utterance. This inevitably means that there will
be some disagreement among teachers about what, when, and how to correct.
Therefore the aim of this article is not to be prescriptive, but to highlight
some key areas. It is in 2 parts. In the first part we look at:
2.8.1
Attitudes to error correction
-
The
fact that English is their second language and great emphasis was placed on
correctness at their teacher training college.
-
The
fact that as a native speaker they have never had to worry about their English.
-
A
particular methodology / approach. In the 1960s a teacher using Audiolingualism
would have adopted a behaviourist approach to error. More recently a teacher
following the Natural Approach (influenced by second language acquisition
theory) would have adopted a wholly different approach. Other methodologies/
approaches, such as Suggestopaedia and Total Physical Response, highlight the
psychological effects of error correction on students.
As for students, we not only have to
consider their age but also their approach to learning. Some students are
risk-takers, while others will only say something if they are sure it is
correct. While being a risk-taker is generally positive as it leads to greater
fluency, some students only seem to be concerned with fluency at the expense of
accuracy. The same can be true when it comes to writing. Some students take an
eternity to produce a piece of writing as they are constantly rubbing out what
they have written while at the opposite extreme the writing is done as fast as
possible without any planning or editing.
2.8.2
Categorizing errors
-
We
can categorize an error by the reason for its production or by its linguistic
type.
-
What's
the reason for the error?
-
It
is the result of a random guess (pre-systematic).
-
It
was produced while testing out hypotheses (systematic).
-
It
is a slip of the tongue, a lapse, a mistake (caused by carelessness, fatigue
etc.) (post-systematic).
To be sure about the type of error produced by
a student we need to know where the student's interlanguage is (the language
used by a student in the process of learning a second language).
-
What
type is it?
We
can classify errors simply as productive (spoken or written) or receptive
(faulty understanding). Alternatively we can use the following:
- A lexical error - vocabulary
- A phonological error - pronunciation
- A syntactic error- grammar
- An interpretive error - misunderstanding of a speaker's intention or meaning
- A pragmatic error - failure to apply the rules of conversation
2.8.3
Sources of Errors
In 1972, Selinker (in Richards, 1974, p. 37) reported five sources
of errors:
- Language transfer
- Transfer of training
- Strategies of second language learning
- Strategies of second language communication, and
- Overgeneralization of TL linguistic material.
In 1974 Corder (in Allen & Corder, p. 130) identified three
sources of errors: Language Transfer, Overgeneralization or analogy, &
Methods or Materials used in the Teaching (teaching-induced error).
In the paper titled “The Study of Learner English” that Richards
and Simpson wrote in 1974, they exposed seven sources of errors:
- Language transfer, to which one third of the deviant sentences
from second language learners could be attributed (George, 1971).
- Intralingual
interference: In 1970, Richards exposed four types and causes for intralingual
errors:
a. overgeneralization (p. 174): it is associated
with redundancy reduction. It covers instances where the learner creates a
deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other structures in the
target language. It may be the result of the learner reducing his linguistic
burden.
b.
ignorance
of rule restrictions: i.e. applying rules to contexts to which they do not
apply.
c.
incomplete
application of rules
d. semantic errors such as building false
concepts/systems: i.e. faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL.
- Sociolinguistic
situation: motivation (instrumental or integrative) and settings for language
learning (compound or co-ordinate bilingualism) may affect second language
learning.
- Modality: modality of exposure to the TL and modality of
production.
- Age: learning capacities vary with age.
- Successions of approximative systems: since the
circumstances of language learning vary from a person to another, so does the
acquisition of new lexical, phonological, and syntactic items.
- Universal hierarchy of difficulty: this factor has received
little attention in the literature of second language acquisition. It is
concerned with the inherent difficulty for man of certain phonological,
syntactic, or semantic items or structures. Some forms may be inherently
difficult to learn no matter what the background of the learner.
- Interlingual:
interference happens when “an item or structure in the second language
manifests some degree of difference from, and some degree of similarity with
the equivalent item or structure in the learner’s first language” (Jackson,
1987: 101).
The studies relating to the process of language
transfer and overgeneralization received considerable attention in the
literature. Swan and Smith (1995, p. ix) gave a detailed account of errors made
by speakers of nineteen different L1 backgrounds in relation to their native
languages. Diab (1996) also conducted a study in order to show through
error analysis the interference of the mother-tongue, Arabic, in the English
writings of EFL students at the American University of Beirut. Okuma (1999)
studied the L1 transfer in the EFL writings of Japanese students.
Work on over-generalization errors, on the
other hand, is reported by Richards (1974, pp. 174-188), Jain (in Richards,
1974, pp. 208-214) and Taylor (1975). Furthermore, Farooq (1998) identified and
analyzed two error patterns in written texts of upper-basic Japanese learners,
in an EFL context. He focused on both transfer and overgeneralization errors.
Habash (1982) studied common errors in the use of English prepositions in the
written work of UNRWA students at the end of the preparatory cycle in the
Jerusalem area and found out that more errors were attributable to interference
from Arabic than to other learning problems.
All these studies focused on Transfer &/or
Overgeneralization errors, however, none of them dealt with “ESL” students who
have been studying English as a First Language. The reason why I called them
ESL students is that, at home, they speak mainly Arabic.
Chapter Three
The Research Methodology and Procedures
3.1 The
Study Population
The study population of this research is the
students of first and second year, Al-Furqan Private Secondary Schools (boys
and girls), Khartoum (2012). The students were studying English language as one
of the required subjects. The English curriculum was SPINE series made by
Sudanese teachers and experts. The number of the students was (50). They were
all Sudanese, speaking Arabic as a mother tongue.
3.2 The Sample of the Study
To see whether there are some errors committed
by the Sudanese secondary schools students in Khartoum Locality when they are
given a writing task or not, the researcher prepared a composition mock
examination for students whom he had been teaching for four months. The researcher
previously told them that he wanted to test their English information and asked
them to get ready for a certain topic. The researcher told them that they’re
going to write about their friends giving them no other details.
The
school where this research was conducted is one of the private schools
spreading everywhere. The students whom the researcher took as a sample for
this research only represent their peers at the other secondary schools here
and there. They were 50 students (boys & girls). Their academic levels
differed from one another. But they were supposed to be of a high social and
financial position because they paid to learn.
The
mock examination was only one question. The students were asked to write about
their friends they liked much. They were asked to write not less than 80 words.
The following points were given to them to use as optional guides:
-
Your
friend’s name
-
Where
does he\she live?
-
Age
-
School
-
Descriptions
-
Why do
you like him\her?
-
How
often do you meet together? Where?
-
His\Her
family
Then a day came and the researcher seated with
them giving everyone a paper to write the composition on. He kept an eye on
them all; boys and girls separately. Some students cunningly tried to get
information from him and from their classmates but he blocked the way telling
them that he just wanted their own minds’ store.
3.3 Method of Data Collection
The subjects were given sufficient time to do
the task and were asked to carefully review and self-correct their work. The
purpose of this was to make sure that the participants’ production contained
mainly errors, neither mistakes nor lapses.
The participants’ papers were marked and the
resulting errors were classified, described and analyzed looking for four
linguistic branches (spelling, syntax, morphology and semantics). Certainly,
there were other types of errors a teacher could look for. But only these four
types were focused in this research. The required data has been collected after
a very hard work hoping that a fruitful thing can be enjoyed.
The researcher told the students what they have
done and how they had to do it. The following pages are the result of what he
has come across. Not all errors are going to be copied. Instead, some examples
are going to be shown and how many times they appeared in the students’ papers.
So you are kindly requested to have a look. The subjects’ papers were looked
over four times using four different colour pens and each type of errors was
put aside separately.
3.4 The Statistical
Treatment
In order to answer the research questions
raised in chapter one, the researcher used a simple statistical method. The
participants’ errors were numbered and counted in terms of the frequency of
their occurrences. In the light of the frequencies of errors, the research
shows the common errors committed by the participants, their categories and the
most commonly used strategies employed by the participants who committed such
errors.
Chapter Four
4.0 Introduction
When the researcher had the papers in his hands,
he used four different colour pens looking for four types of errors while he
was marking the papers. These four types of errors were: spelling errors, morphological
errors, syntactic errors, and semantic errors. The following is a detail for
this thing.
4.1
Spelling Errors
The researcher has collected about 217 errors
in this concern. Repeating the same error by the same student was not counted.
The researcher has classified this number of errors as in table No. 2:
Table No.2: Spelling Errors
|
Types of errors
|
Number of errors
|
Percentage
|
|
1. Vowel errors
|
93
|
%42.9
|
|
2. Complex errors
|
31
|
%14.3
|
|
3. Lexical confusion
|
26
|
%12
|
|
4. Silent letters
|
20
|
%9.2
|
|
5. Capitalization
|
15
|
%6.9
|
|
6. Inversion
|
8
|
%3.7
|
|
7. Doubling
|
7
|
%3.2
|
|
8. Consonant letters
|
6
|
%2.8
|
|
9. Spoken language
|
5
|
%2.3
|
|
10.Wrong position
|
4
|
%1.8
|
|
11.
Semi-vowel
|
2
|
%0.9
|
|
Total
|
217
|
%100
|
Figure No.1: Spelling Errors
1. Vowel Errors
With this type of errors, the researcher means
the words that have missed, exceeded or changed their vowels (one or more) such
as:
* “becuse” instead of “because”
* “sester” instead of “sister”
* “mather” instead of “mother”
2. Complex Errors
These are the words that have more than one
type of error such as:
* “scoole”
instead of “school”
* “sectar”
instead of “sister”
* “peauitful
instead of “beautiful”
3. Lexical Confusion
This
is the most enjoyable type of error. A student intends to use a certain word
but he\she writes another one that gives a quite different meaning and may be
exposed to a critical position such as:
* Some students wanted to say that they “feel”
happy with their friends but unfortunately they “fell”.
* Others wanted to describe their friends’
“hair” with the black colour but they described their “hare” instead.
* Other poor students liked their friends
because they “laugh” but they sadly found themselves in a “lough” and might
need a lifebuoy.
4. Silent Letters
This is one of the most problematic areas in
English. Many students wonder a lot why they find a letter or a group of
letters in a word since they are not sounded. So they feel troublesome when
writing such words. The researcher sometimes tries to defend these poor letters
by saying that some silent letters may change the pronunciation of a word. For
example, a child’s “kit” may fly in the air if it finds a poor “e” to become a
“kite” or that some passengers always “plan” to catch a “plane” on time.
However, we still find some students insist on their own viewpoints. They
write:
* “hav”
instead of “have”
* “no” instead
of “know”
* “wen” instead
of “when”
5. Capitalization
Students should elementarily be taught where
they must use capital letters and small letters.
* We normally write “Allah” not “allah”
* For countries like “Sudan” not “sudan”
* In the middle of a sentence we write “and” not “And”
6. Inversion
Some students write the required letters of a
word. But they invert some ones such as:
* “hiar” for
“hair”
* “tow” for “two”
* “tinnes” for “tennis”
7. Doubling
Some students are very generous. They add
letters from their own or they may refer to other rules. For example, they
write:
* “beautifull” instead
of “beautiful”
* “deepth”
instead of “depth”
* “crazzy” instead
of “crazy”
8. Consonant Letters
I think it is a matter of stupidity not to
write a sounded letter. Some students miss letters like:
* “n” in “friend”
* Or substitute “t” for “d” as in “foodball”
* Or “resbect” instead
of “respect”
9. Spoken Language
Students may sometimes do not depend on a
certain rule when they want to write some words. They just write the sounds
they hear such as:
* “skndare” instead
of “secondary”
* “noize” instead
of “noisy”
* “happynies” instead
of “happiness”
10. Wrong Position:
All the necessary letters may be seen in a
word. However, one of them may get astray as in:
* “eyars” for “years”
* “beuatiful” for
“beautiful”
* “lievs” for “lives”
11. Semi-vowel
The letter “y” does want to be neither with the
vowels nor the consonants. Therefore, some strong students throw it away and
write:
* “studie” instead
of “study”
* “studic” instead
of “studies”
4.2 Morphological
Errors
The
researcher has collected about 23 errors. Table No. 3 shows this.
Table No. 3: Morphological Errors
|
Types of errors
|
Number of errors
|
Percentage
|
|
1. Plural
|
16
|
%69.6
|
|
2. Possessive case
|
4
|
%17.4
|
|
3. Derivational
|
3
|
%13
|
|
Total
|
23
|
%100
|
Figure No. 2: Morphological Errors
1. Plural
Many students do not write an “s” for plural
nouns. They say:
* I have many “friend” instead
of “friends”
* two “sister” instead
of “sisters”
2. Possessive Case
Others do not know how to form a possessive
case as in:
* My friend her name is … instead of
+ My friend’s name is …
* Rawan family is very … instead of
+ Rawan’s family is very …
3. Derivational
Some students need to know how to deal with the
adjectives, adverbs, prefixes and suffixes very well in order not to write:
* She is
“beautifully” instead of “beautiful”
4.3
Syntactic Errors
The
researcher has collected about 149 errors. Table No. 4 shows these details.
Table No. 4: Syntactic Errors
|
Types of errors
|
Number of errors
|
Percentage
|
|
1. Wrong tense
|
55
|
%36.9
|
|
2. Verbs to be
|
30
|
%20.1
|
|
3. Pronouns
|
25
|
%16.8
|
|
4. Articles
|
18
|
%12.1
|
|
5. Prepositions
|
7
|
%4.7
|
|
6. Verb to have
|
5
|
%3.4
|
|
7. Adverbs
|
3
|
%2
|
|
8. Wrong order
|
3
|
%2
|
|
9. Infinitive
|
2
|
%1.3
|
|
10. Gerund
|
1
|
%0.7
|
|
Total
|
149
|
%100
|
Figure
No. 3: Syntactic Errors
1. Wrong Tense
The most common errors can clearly be noticed
in this type of errors. Some students write:
* She\He “live” in Kalakla. instead of “lives”
* his father “die” in 2007 instead of “died”
* We “play” together “since” 10 years. instead of:
+ We have been playing together for 10 years.
* I am never ever ever can live without him. instead of:
+ I can never ever live without him.
2. Verbs to be omission
The main problem to be said here is that the
students’ mother tongue (i.e. Arabic) has a great effect in their way of
expressing English. They have not come across a “verb to be” used in the
present tense. So they simply say:
* When he in Khartoum. instead of:
+ When he is in Khartoum.
* She tall. instead
of:
+ She is tall.
* My composition about my friend. instead of:
+ My composition is about my friend.
3. Pronouns
Students badly need to differentiate between
the various forms of pronouns. They must know how to use these pronouns when
they are subjects, objects, possessive …etc. They are not expected to say:
* My friend helps my. instead of saying:
+ My friend helps me.
* He hair is very long. instead of saying:
+ His hair is very long.
* His live in … instead of saying:
+ He lives in …
4. Articles
The critical problem here is that esteemed
students are not accustomed to see a noun preceded by “a” or “an”. Therefore,
they say:
* Muhammad is good man. instead of:
+ Muhammad is a good man.
Or they may even use a singular article with a
plural noun such as:
* She has a brown eyes. instead
of She
has brown eyes.
They also say:
* (She) lives in U.S.A. instead of
(She) lives in the U.S.A.
5. Prepositions
I think this is one of the most problematic
areas that students face. They need to use the correct preposition in the
appropriate position. That is because absence or misuse of a preposition may
give another meaning and may cause problems. How can we imagine a student
saying:
* I am going to write my friend.
! instead of:
+ I am going to write about my friend.
* He lives Toti. instead of He lives in
Toti.
* I talk to him in (internet). instead
of:
+ I talk to him through the internet.
6. Verb to have
Students of today usually mishandle such a
verb. They need to know when do we use “have” and when “has” is a must. They
are also asked to know the use of have\has as a main verb and have\has as a
helping verb. The following examples show the matter very clearly. They say:
* (He have) whereas
(He has) is correct.
* We growing up instead of:
+ We have grown up
7. Adverbs
All types of adverbs are necessarily required
to be known. Students are surely not correct to say:
* We go (for) anywhere together. instead of:
+ We go everywhere together.
* She visits me always. instead of: She always visits
me.
8. Wrong Order
An English sentence has a certain order that
must be followed. Otherwise, there will be a group of words going somewhere
else. We cannot say:
* She is best my friend. instead of: She is my best
friend.
* School Furqan instead of: Furqan
School
9. Infinitive
Verbs normally take no “s”, “_ing”, nor “-ed”
when they are followed by “to”. It is silly to say:
* I am going to “writing” … instead of: I am going to “write”…
10. Gerund
Other verbs eagerly need to have “-ing”.
Instead of saying:
* She loves sing. We say: She loves singing.
4.4
Semantic Errors
The
researcher has collected about 25 errors. Table No. 5 shows these details.
Table
No. 5: Semantic Errors
|
Types of errors
|
Number of errors
|
Percentage
|
|
1. Implication of sexual relation
|
9
|
%36
|
|
2. Sarcasm
|
6
|
%24
|
|
3. Synonym
|
4
|
%16
|
|
4. Entertainment
|
3
|
%12
|
|
5. Dignity
|
2
|
%8
|
|
6. Mother tongue
|
1
|
%4
|
|
Total
|
25
|
%100
|
Figure No. 4: Semantic Errors
1. Implication of Sexual Relation
The word
“love” may sometimes be misunderstood. What can people say when they see a lad
writing:
* I
“love” him instead of I “like” him?!
* Or a
lady misled her way while she was talking about her female friend and said:
* I love
“him” instead
of I love “her”!
2.
Sarcasm:
Other
boys may write:
* My
friend is very “beautiful”. instead of
+ My
friend is very “handsome”.
3.
Synonym:
Some
students write:
* He\She
has “tall” hair. instead of
+ He\She
has “long” hair.
4.
Entertainment:
Some
students may be affected by the means of communication and entertainment in
their daily lives especially the internet and the television. They write:
* My
friend’s name is “Leo Missi” instead of any other local name because Missi
is a famous footballer and I do not think he is free enough to come to our
schools and make a friendly relationship with our poor students.
* She is
very “like”. instead of: She is very
“nice” or “beautiful” or any other similar word.
5.
Dignity:
A
student may loose his\her way and say:
* My
friend is very clever because I like him. to
mean:
* I like
my friend because he is very clever.
6.
Mother Tongue:
Other
students may convey their mother tongue culture to express a foreign one.
Therefore, they say:
* He is
“green”. instead of
+ He is
“black”. or
+ He is
of a dark skin.
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate
the errors in the subjects’ written performance in the terms of their
categories, their possible explanations and the learning strategies responsible
for their occurrence.
In
order to achieve these objectives, the researcher conducted the study on
students of secondary schools where he worked. The study population only
represented other peers of the same circumstances.
The
needed data were collected from the subjects’ answers intending to cover
specific linguistic areas. The researcher used the descriptive method with
simple statistics in presenting the collected data. The total number of the
students was (50).
The
results obtained from the data analysis confirmed the research hypotheses
mentioned in chapter one. The results also agree with the assumptions that the
subjects’ errors were due to difficulties inherent in the English language
itself.
The hypotheses of the study were that
1. The common errors committed by the Sudanese
secondary schools students of English language are due to difficulties in the
target language itself rather than to any other cause.
2. Many linguistic errors can easily be noticed in
students writing production.
The previous pages have shown clear answers for
these hypotheses. Table No.6 sums up the four types of errors committed by the
subjects:
Table No.6: Total Errors of Students
|
Types of Errors
|
Frequency of Errors
|
Percentage
|
|
1. Spelling Errors
|
217
|
%52,4
|
|
2. Morphological Errors
|
23
|
%5.6
|
|
3. Syntactic Errors
|
149
|
%36
|
|
4. Semantic Errors
|
25
|
%6
|
|
Total
|
414
|
%100
|
Figure No. 5: Total Errors of Students
5.2 Recommendations
The results of the present study showed that
the English of the subjects is ill-formed in the sense that they have not yet
identified the various linguistic rules required for the transformations asked
by the given tasks. So the researcher offered the following recommendations to
help improve the subjects’ writing production.
1.
The
subjects should be given adequate exposure to the target language (English)
through the various language skills to minimize the possibility of making such
errors.
2.
The
subjects should also be given opportunities to practise their English, in both
receptive and productive forms. Their present chances are not enough for
adequate mastery of the target language.
3.
The
subjects’ errors seemed to spring from the generalization of false concepts.
Teachers should inform their students of the exceptions to the rules.
4.
Those
who are concerned with the teaching of these subjects ought to provide
explanations with regard to the possible sources and causes of errors so as to
bring about an awareness of the possible areas.
5.
Learning
some dictionary skills is highly needed in the curriculum of the secondary
schools.
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies
1.
The
results of the present study cannot be generalized to the whole population of
Sudan secondary schools students. Therefore, longitudinal studies are called
for in order to bring about more reliable results to be generalized.
2.
The
present research depended upon data which was collected from controlled written
tasks. This led to the concentration on certain linguistic rules. A research
built on data from free spontaneous tasks might be useful in giving a chance
for errors from other areas.
3.
Since
some of the linguistic errors might stem from the teaching methods, there is a
need for research in the way(s) of how teaching linguistic skills is given.
4.
In
general, due to their various academic levels, Sudanese secondary schools can
be an ideal field for conducting researches in the field of linguistic errors,
to obtain the most reliable results in this respect.
5.
A
big size of research is to constitute the foundation for an essential project.
The expected investigations are to evaluate the SPINE materials which provide
the learner with the language he utilizes in writing exercises. It is advisable
to bring the writing research very close to the classroom where so many
unexpected occurrences crop up. Such an effort fills the gap between
theoretical linguistics and the applied; a complaint that professionals always
raise. The instructor’s view is to be considered.
The class wall papers, group work, discussion,
societies and libraries are research facets that contribute to the development
of the writing project.
References
1. Al-Haj, Mahasin Dafalla M. (2001). Sudanese
Secondary Schools Students’ Deficiency in the Use of the Spoken English (an M.
Ed. Thesis), University of Khartoum.
2. Al-Haj, Mahasin Dafalla M. (2005). The Problem
of Fluency in Spoken English among Students Majority in Sudanese Universities
(a Ph.D. Thesis), University of Khartoum.
3. Brown, D.B. (1994). Principles of Language
Learning and Teaching. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
4. Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis. In J. P.
B. Allen and S. Pit Corder (eds.) Techniques in Applied Linguistics (The
Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics:3), London: Oxford University Press
(Language and Language Learning), pp. 122-154.
5. 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
(Originally in International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4)).
6. Diab, N. (1996). The transfer of Arabic in the
English writings of Lebanese students. Retrieved January 5, (2003) from http://lael.pucsp.br/especialist/181diab.ps.pdf
7. Farooq, M.U. (1998). Contrastive and error
analysis based teaching strategies. Aichi Women’s Junior College- Retrieved
December 30, 2003 from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq2.pdf
8. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2001). Second
language acquisition: an introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, chapter 3.2.
9. George, H.V. (1971). English for Asian
learners: Are we on the right road? English Language Teaching, XXV, 270-277
10.
Habash,
Z. (1982). Common Errors In The Use of English Prepositions In The Written Work
Of UNRWA Students At The End Of The Preparatory Cycle In The Jerusalem Area.
Retrieved January 2, 2003 from
http://www.zeinab-habash.ws/education/books/master.pdf
http://www.zeinab-habash.ws/education/books/master.pdf
11.
Jackson,
H. (1981). Contrastive analysis as a predictor of errors, with reference to
Punjabi learners of English. In Contrastive linguistics and the language
teacher, J Fisiak (ed). Oxford: Pergamon
12.
Jain, M.
(1974). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. In Richards, J. (Ed.).
Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 189-215. Essex:
Longman
13.
Karadawi,
El-Taj Abdel-Wadoud. (1994). Deficiency of English Composition Writing in the
Sudanese Final (Third) Year of the Higher Secondary School (a Ph.D. thesis)
University of Khartoum
14.
Kral,
Thomas, 1999. Teacher Development (Selected Articles from FORUM), Office of
English Language Program, Washington, D.C.
15.
Lado, R.
(1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. McGraw-Hill
16.
Nemser,
W. (1974). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. In Richards, J.
(Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 55-63.
Essex: Longman.
17.
Okuma S.
(1999). Indices of L1 transfer in EFL writing: A study of Japanese learners of
English. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/sakaeo.pdf
18.
Richards,
J.C. (ed.) (1974). Error Analysis. Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman
19.
Selinker,
L (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York. Longman.
20.
Smolinski,
Frank. 1993. Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics (Vol.1), U.S.
Information Agency, Washington, D.C.
21.
Taylor, B. P.
(1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by
elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning, 25, pp. 73-107.
22.
Todd,
Loreto. 1987. An Introduction to Linguistics, Longman York Press. UK.
23.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact.
The Hague, Mouton
24.
Yule,
George. 1996. The Study of Language (second edition), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Appendix
Some samples of the subjects’ papers after
having been marked
it so good to read these !
ردحذف