Struggling with English at University level: error patterns and problematic areas of first-year students’ interlanguage
Download 226.88 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mason, O. and Uzar, R.
- Mulligan, M. (2000 and 2001) Error analysis of written and spoken English: practical suggestions. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos
3.4. Evolution at one stage Apart from the third pattern in section one, negative evolution stops at B, which could also be considered under this section, there is only one pattern in the corpus, evolution only at the third stage: C 
Figure 8. Evolution only at the third stage: C (43) ‘I suppose that everyone (GVV) is wondered it.’ (1-J-IIn-B-18) It would be noted that, despite the possibility of four more patterns showing a positive or negative change in the percentage of tags at one stage, only the pattern in figure 8 is found. Therefore, instances following patterns such as evolution only at the third stage: C > A, changes only at B: B > A = C, changes only at B: B < A = C, and positive evolution stops at B are not to be found in the data of this learner corpus. 4. Problematic areas in first-year students If the overall written production by these first-year students is analysed along the three stages considered (figure 9), the peaks that some tags show indicate aspects of the English language which pose more problems than others. Regardless of the pattern that these specific areas of the foreign language follow, the problematic areas that first-year students show along the academic year are, in decreasing order of percentages, missing punctuation (PM), selection of lexical items (LS), spelling conventions (FS), verb tenses (GVT), style (S) and articles (GA). 
Figure 9. Problematic areas by first-year students. In this figure we can also see the different scales that could be noticed in the figures 1 to 8, showing the various patterns. As clearly represented in the figure above, the percentage of errors students made when using the different aspects of the English language vary, forming peaks and valleys which describe the overall written competence of first-year students. It is also worth highlighting that the percentages of errors that some students made when dealing with some aspects of the English language at the three stages (A, B and C) fluctuate more in some tags than in others. Therefore, we can see that learners’ language is more unstable in some aspects of the foreign language, because they experiment more with these aspects than with those they feel less confident with, as seen in the percentages of the errors concerning verb tenses (GVT), verbal complementation (XVCO), phrasal complementation of verbs (XVPR), selection of vocabulary (LS), redundant words (WR), unclear style (US) and punctuation (PM, PR, PX). The last three tags may be set as a good example of the instability of students’ production (Abbott, Greenwood, McKeating and Wingard, 1981: 216). As seen in the figure above, the percentages related to punctuation widely fluctuate from one stage to another, perhaps because students need to experiment with punctuation in order to master its basic rules. In fact, the percentages show that students manage to make fewer mistakes when dealing with punctuation at the end of the academic year. It is interesting to notice as well that some of the tags which fluctuate most correspond with the tags that also present higher percentages of errors, that is, verb tenses (GVT), selection of vocabulary (LS), and missing punctuation (PM), which may indicate that students make more mistakes in these aspects because they need to experiment more with them to grasp their use. 5. Conclusions From the data of this error-tagged learner corpus, we can conclude that Spanish first-year students of English Studies face serious difficulties along the academic year when dealing with punctuation, vocabulary, spelling, verb tenses, style and articles. Therefore, if we want to meet our students’ needs to improve their written command of the English language during this first year, we need to focus on these areas. Apart from these problematic areas, attention should also be drawn to the aspects of the foreign language which improve in general terms throughout the year. Thus, it would be possible to foster this positive evolution and motivate students to achieve an advanced level of English regarding voice in the verb phrase, use of single logical connectors, wrong punctuation, order of adjectives, comparative and superlative forms of adjectives, order of adverbs, phrasal complementation of adjectives, false friends, subordinating conjunctions, redundancy, missing words, register, incomplete style of sentences, and redundant punctuation. Similarly, the aspects of the language showing higher percentages of errors at the end of the academic year (appropriate word class, phrasal complementation of verbs, auxiliary verbs, morphology of verbs, subject-verb agreement, number in adjectives, clausal complementation of nouns, complementation of prepositions, morphology, phrasal complementation of nouns, lexical phrases and unclear style) need to be pinpointed so that remedial teaching is implemented from the very beginning of the academic year. Finally, the aspects that remain stable throughout the academic year (clausal complementation of adjectives, complementation of conjunctions, clausal complementation of verbs, use of countable and uncountable nouns, complex logical connectors, pronouns, number in nouns, case in nouns, non-finite forms of verbs and word order) are also important. Their low percentage of errors at the three stages may suggest that a specific focus on form may solve the problems students have with these aspects and that students avoid using them not to make many errors in areas which they do not feel competent with. The patterns described in section 4 also show that students’ interlanguage does not evolve similarly, that is, there are some aspects of the foreign language which are more likely to cause errors than others at certain stages of their interlanguage development. These differences may stem from the intensive real input students receive through the first year (which they had not received before), the difficulty that it poses to them and their slight experimentation with certain aspects of the language which they do not master. The patterns allow the teacher to be aware of the difficulties English causes at different stages of the year. Therefore, the curriculum (in general) or lecturers (in particular terms) can now anticipate problematic areas along the year and provide students with appropriate exercises at different stages (explicit focus on form by means of DDL activities or comparison of the learner corpus and a comparable native corpus, etc.) to make students conscious of these problematic areas. However, we must also be aware that the low percentages of errors involving some tags do not mean that students do not have problems when using a specific aspect of the language. A further qualitative study may cast light on the aspects that students avoid (Hasselgren, 1994: 237) when writing in the foreign language, above all if the essays are part of an exam. The fact that some sets of tags, that is, the ones dealing with phrasal complementation (XADJPR, XNPR and XVPR), single logical connectors (LCLS) and coordinating conjunctions (LCC) present higher percentages than the ones relating to clausal complementation (XADJCO, XCONJCO, XNCO XPRCO and XVCO), complex logical connectors (LCLC) and subordinating conjunctions (LCS), as seen in figure 9, may reveal that students use more and, therefore, make more mistakes when using the aspects of the language related to the tags they feel more comfortable with, rather than experimenting with more complex aspects in the other tags, which they avoid. Similarly, avoidance may also be detected by means of a ninth pattern, no evolution, where the tag which does not present any errors along the year – as is the case with the complementation of conjunctions (XCONJCO) – is represented, suggesting that students do not make any mistake because they do not use this type of complementation at all. The lack of usage of these aspects would lower the level that students present by not using complex noun or adjective phrases, subordination, or clausal complementation with which they also need to experiment to foster their positive evolution. The qualitative study would also bring to light whether students take risks when using the English language and try to improve their level of English to the detriment of their overall written production. For this reason, the high percentages of errors do not only provide the researcher with the less optimistic side of the coin. Thus, the specific problems they have within each tag considered may be specially dealt with (remedial teaching) and, once solved, lecturers may continue on improving the students’ command of the foreign language by providing them with aspects of the language which build on their proficiency. 6. Bibliographical references Abbott, G., Greenwood, J., McKeating, D. and Wingard, P. (1981) The Teaching of English as an International Language (Glasgow and London: Collins). Aijmer, K. (2002) Advanced Swedish learners' use of causative make. A contrastive background study, in S. Granger, J. Hung and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 55-76. Altenberg, B. (2002) Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research, in S. Granger, J. Hung and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 37-54. Altenberg, B. and Tapper, M. (1998) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners' written English, in S. Granger (ed.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 80-93. Barrio Luis M. and Martín Úriz, A. M. (2001) Metadiscurso en textos en inglés de estudiantes de secundaria españoles, in A. Moreno and V. Colwell (eds.) Perspectivas recientes sobre el discurso (León: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de León), without page number. Blagoeva, R. (2001) Comparing cohesive devices: a corpus-based analysis of conjunctions in written and spoken learner discourse, in P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie and S. Khoja (eds.) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference (29 March-2 April) (Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language), 59-63. Bueno González, A. (1992) Errores en la elección de palabras en inglés por alumnos de Bachillerato y C.O.U., in A. Bueno González, J. A. Carini and A. Linde López (eds.) Análisis de errores en inglés: tres casos prácticos (Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada), 39-105. Carini Martínez, J. A. (1995) Análisis de errores en el uso de los verbos intransitivos derivados en la producción escrita en inglés de estudiantes universitarios, in J. M. Ruiz Ruiz, P. Sheerin Nolan and E. González-Cascos (eds.) XI Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada: Libro de Actas (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid), 173-179. Celaya Villanueva, M. L. (1995) La transferencia y la adquisición del sistema verbal inglés como lengua extranjera: un estudio empírico, in J. M. Ruiz Ruiz, P. Sheerin Nolan and E. González-Cascos (eds.) XI Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada: Libro de Actas (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid), 203-209. Dagneaux, E., Dennes, S. and Granger, S. (1998) Computer-aided error analysis. System 26, 163-174. de Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., and McEnery, T. (1998) An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 67-79. Díez Prados, M. (2003) Coherencia y cohesión en textos escritos en inglés por alumnos de filología inglesa (estudio empírico) (Alcalá: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá). García Gómez, E. and Bou P. (1992) Estudio experimental sobre interferencias lingüísticas, in J. R. Losada Durán and M. Mansilla (eds.) Actas VIII Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada, 2-4 mayo 1990 (Universidad de Vigo: Servicio de Publicaciones), 279-291. Gillard, P., and Gadsby, A. (1998) Using a learners' corpus in compiling ELT dictionaries, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 159-171. Granger, S. (1993) International corpus of learner English, in J. Aarts, P. de Haan and N. Oostdijk (eds.) English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis and Exploitation. Papers from the Thirteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Nijmegen, 1992, (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi), 57-96. Granger, S. (1998) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and formulae, in A. P. Cowie (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 145-160. Granger, S. (1999) Use of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus, in H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds.) Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi), 191-202. Granger, S. (2002) A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research, in S. Granger, J. Hung and S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 3-36. Granger, S. (2004) Computer learner corpus research: current status and future prospects, in U. Connor and T. A. Upton (eds.) Applied Corpus Linguistics. A Multidimensional Perspective (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi), 123-145. Granger, S. and Wynne, M. (1999) Optimising measures of lexical variation in EFL learner corpora, in J. Kirk (ed.) Corpora Galore. Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi), 249-257. Granger, S., and Tribble, C. (1998) Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Longman), 199-208. Granger, S. and Rayson, P. (1998) Automatic profiling of learner texts, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 119-131. Granger, S. and Tyson, S. (1996) Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15, 17-27. Hasselgren, A. (1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 237-260. Howarth, P. (1998) The phraseology of learners’ academic writing, in A. P. Cowie (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 161-186. Hutchinson, J. (1996) UCL Error Editor (Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, Université Catholique de Louvain). Kaszubski, P. (2001) Tracing idiomaticity in learner language –the case of BE, in P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie and S. Khoja (eds.) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference (29 March-2 April) (Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language), 312-322. Leech, G. (1998) Learner corpora: what they are and what can be done with them, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), xiv-xx. Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2004) Demonstratives as anaphora markers in advanced learners’ English, in S. Bernardini and D. Stewart (eds.) Corpora and Language Learner (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 89-107. Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2002) How to trace the growth in learner's active vocabulary, in B. Ketterman and G. Marko (eds.) Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July, 2000 (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi), 217-230. Linde López, A. (1992) Errores en el uso de las formas verbales inglesas en la expresión escrita por alumnos universitarios, in A. Bueno González, J. A. Carini Martínez and Á. Linde López, Análisis de errores en inglés: tres casos prácticos (Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada), 107-165. Lorenz, G. (1998) Overstatement in advanced learners' writing: stylistic aspects of adjective intensification, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 53-66. Magariño González, C. (1997) The skill of writing at University: a personal experience, in J. L. Otal, I. Fortanet and V. Codina (eds.) Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada (Castelló de la Plana: Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I, D. L.), 187-193. Mason, O. and Uzar, R. (2000) NLP meets TEFL: tracing the zero article, in B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and J. P. Melia (eds.) PALC’99: Practical Applications in Language Corpora. Papers from the Second International Conference at the University of Lodz, 15-18 April 1999 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang), 105-116. Mulligan, M. (2000 and 2001) Error analysis of written and spoken English: practical suggestions. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 7 and 8, 403-410. Nation, P. and Laufer, B. (1995) Lexical richness in L2 written production: can it be measured? Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307-322. Neff, J., Ballesteros, F., Dafouz, E., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Díez, M. and Prieto, R. (2004) Formulating writer stance: a contrastive study of EFL learner corpora, in U. Connor and T. A. Upton (eds.) Applied Corpus Linguistics. A Multidimensional Perspective (Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi), 73-89. Nesselhauf, N. (2004) How learner corpus analysis can contribute to language teaching: A study of support verb constructions, in S. Bernardini and D. Stewart (eds.) Corpora and Language Learner (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 109-124. Petch-Tyson, S. (1998) Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 107-118. Ringbom, H. (1998) Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: a cross-linguistic approach, in S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer (London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman), 41-52. Salvador-Rabaza Ramos, A. and Martí Viaño, M. del M. (1995) The expression of perfective aspect by learners of English as a foreign language in written discourse, in J. M. Ruiz Ruiz, P. Sheerin Nolan and E. González-Cascos (eds.) XI Congreso Nacional de Lingüística Aplicada: Libro de Actas (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid), 729-735. Scott, M. (1999) Wordsmith Tools Version 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209-231. Tono, Y. (2004) Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: the case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English, in S. Bernardini and D. Stewart (eds.) Corpora and Language Learner (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 45-66. Valero Garcés, C. (1997) The interlanguage of Spanish students beginning English Philology. GRETA 5(2), 74-78. Valero Garcés, C., Mancho Barés, G., Flys Junquera, C. and Cerdá Redondo, E. (2000) Evolución de la interlengua y análisis de textos: ENWIL y el análisis de errores en la expresión escrita en EFL, in F. Alcántara Iglesias, A. Barreras Gómez, R. Jiménez Catalán and M. A. Moreno Lara (eds.) Panorama actual de la Lingüística Aplicada. Conocimiento, procesamiento y uso del lenguaje, vol. 3 (Logroño: Mogar Linotype), 1849-1860. Directory: Documents -> college-artslaw -> corpus -> conference-archives -> 2005-journal Documents -> Concept stage Documents -> The great global switch-off Documents -> Nonprofit grant application Documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide Documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan Documents -> Chaos equipment included 2005-journal -> Named Entities: Structure and Translation college-artslaw -> ‘Shakespeare’s County’: Warwickshire c1550-1750 Download 226.88 Kb. Share with your friends:
|