A.Introduction:

1.Importance of communication
2.Communicative competence
3.Oral & Written communication
4.Emphasis on written communication, the more difficult component
5.Native Speakers of English vs. Non-Native Speakers (Arabic speakers)
6.Mistake vs. Error => self-correctability factor
7.Rationale of study: Problems relating to the teaching of English as a
      First language to Arabic speakers are understudied.
8.Aim of paper: Attempt to identify, describe, categorize, and diagnose Arabic
      speakers’ errors in English essay writing + suggest some solutions.
9.Research Question:  Is negative L1 transfer/interference the major cause for
      errors in the English writings of Brevet students?

1.Error Analysis
2.Models for Error Analysis
3.Sources of Errors

1.Error/Data Collection
2.Error Identification and Categorization & Taxonomy Adopted

F.Limitations & Suggestions for future research

G.Conclusion

H.References

I.Appendixes:
 
 

1.General List of Abbreviations

2.School mission statement (soon)

3.Student Survey

4.Arabic: General Language Characteristics

5.ESL Tip Sheet 1: Arabic (Sofer & Raimes, 2002)

6.Table 1: Error Categories & Sources + Abbreviations

7.Table 2: Categorizing & Diagnosing Errors

8.Table 3: Categorizing & Diagnosing Errors- Interlingual / Transfer Errors

9.Table 4: Categorizing & Diagnosing Errors- Intralingual / Dev. errors

10.Table 5: Error Sources & Numbers Compared

11.Oral & Written Presentations: Guidelines & Expectations

12.Error Analysis Exercises & Objective Tests for Remediation
 
 

“My purpose in being Part in the goverment is Change. I want to change the world. Change in the means of War, Freedom, and equalness. Also as being part of the government, One should have self-confidence, can stand-up for self, and others, and at the same time have a degree in a great proffession.Then How am I working now, I’am participation in every activity Possible, that has to do with improving our community today. On top of that, I always keep in mind that to work hard, and keep my self on the right track.”

No one can live alone. By the word "live" I do not just mean "survive" or "subsist", but "have a life rich in experience" (Merriam-Webster Online, 2003). "Communicative competence involves communicating in accordance with that fundamental system of rules that adult subjects master to the extent that they can fulfill the conditions for a happy employment of sentences in utterances" (Habermas, 1979). As we all know, we communicate orally and/or in writing. Our focus in this paper is on the written part. "In spoken conversations with others, we make sense of the dialogue in a complex back-and-forth process of negotiation of meaning between speakers. In written texts, this back-and-forth negotiation is not possible; there is only 'one passÃ.' The sentence is written and it is read. Because there is no possibility of negotiating meaning of written documents, the inevitable problems of misunderstandings are exacerbated" (Penman, 1998).

Hence, we can say that writing is an “intricate” and complex task; it is the “most difficult of the language abilities to acquire” (Allen & Corder, 1974, p. 177). Its level of difficulty varies between native speakers (NS) who think in the language used (in our case it will be English) and non-native speakers (NNS) who think in their own native language (in this case it will be Arabic). While writing, non-native speakers have, in general, to think about all those rules they need to apply, rules that native speakers are supposed to have automatized. Therefore, non-native speakers are more prone to making mistakes and/or committing errors.
 
 

It is essential here to make a distinction between mistake and error; both Corder (1967, 1971) and James (1998) reveal a criterion that helps us to do so: it is the self-correctability criterion. A mistake can be self-corrected, but an error cannot. Errors are “systematic,” i.e. likely to occur repeatedly and not recognized by the learner. Hence, only the teacher or researcher would locate them, the learner wouldn’t (Gass & Selinker, 1994). And it is in this light that I choose to focus on students’ errors not mistakes.
 
 

As an English teacher, I am well aware of the fact that my Arabic speaking students in grade 9, brevet section, commit a lot of errors in essay writing. You can tell from the quotation with which I begin this paper. These students have been studying English their whole lives and still, their errors are numerous. Hence, I have decided to conduct an error analysis--the best tool for describing and explaining errors made by speakers of other languages (Johanson, 1975) -- in order to know the sources of these errors and the reasons behind their continued occurrence year after year with different groups of learners. I need to familiarize myself with the types of errors that my students make in order to determine the sequence and emphasis of instruction.

“Very surprisingly there are few published descriptions of how or what children learn. (There... is) little about what mistakes the children made and how these can be explained, or what generalizations and learning strategies the children seem to be developing” (Richards, 1974, p. 181).

After having reviewed the literature, I noticed that no study had been done (that I knew of, at least!) which involves Arabic speaking students who have been studying English since nursery; students who are studying English integratively, as a FIRST language. However, it is essential here to mention the fact that the language these students speak at home is mainly Arabic, not English (see appendix 3); hence, we can venture to say that they are ESL students, however immersed in English they might be at school.

“To use two languages familiarly and without contaminating one by the other, is very difficult,” said Samuel Johnson in 1761.

 Can this fact account for our problems? Is my students’ native language (L1) “contaminating” their English (L2)? If this were to be true, then we could say that the reason behind all those errors is Negative L1 transfer/Mother Tongue interference. And the best way to discover such a transfer is through error analysis (Sridhar, 1980). However, can transfer alone justify all the errors made?

Our research question is then:

“Is negative L1 transfer/interference the major cause for errors in the English writings of Brevet students?”

This paper will attempt to do the following:

1. Provide a theoretical background for: a) Error Analysis, b) Models for Error Analysis, & c) Sources of Errors. (It will also examine related terms such as interlingual errors, negative L1 transfer/interference, interlanguage, and intralingual errors);
2. Identify, describe, categorize, and diagnose Arabic speakers’ errors in English essay writing in order to find the sources of those errors and a way for remediation;
3. Cover the implications of the findings for teaching ESL/English to Arabic speaking students; and, finally,
4. Discuss the limitations of this study and propose future areas of research.

Theoretical Background

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).
 
 

Corder (1967 & 1974) identified a model for error analysis which included three stages:

1. Data collection: Recognition of idiosyncracy
2. Description: Accounting for idiosyncratic dialect
3. Explanation (the ultimate object of error analysis).

In 1972, Selinker (in Richards, 1974, p. 37) reported five sources of errors:

1.Language transfer

2.Transfer of training

3.Strategies of second language learning

4.Strategies of second language communication, and 

5.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:

1. Language transfer, to which one third of the deviant sentences from second language learners could be attributed (George, 1971).
2. Intralingual interference: In 1970, Richards exposed four types and causes for intralingual errors:
1. 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.
2. ignorance of rule restrictions: i.e. applying rules to contexts to which they do not apply.
3. incomplete application of rules
4. semantic errors such as building false concepts/systems: i.e. faulty comprehension of distinctions in the TL.
3. Sociolinguistic situation: motivation (instrumental or integrative) and settings for language learning (compound or co-ordinate bilingualism) may affect second language learning.
4. Modality: modality of exposure to the TL and modality of production.
5. Age: learning capacities vary with age.
6. 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.
7. Universal hierarchy of difficulty:  this factor has received little attention in the literature of 2^nd 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.

1. 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).
2. Intralingual:
1. Learning strategy-based errors:

iii.incomplete rule application

iv.exploiting redundancy

v.overlooking cooccurrence restrictions

vi.hypercorrection (monitor overuse)

vii.overgeneralization or system simplification

2. Communication strategy-based errors:

3. Induced errors: they “result more from the classroom situation than from either the student’s incomplete competence in English grammar (intralingual errors) or first language interference (interlingual errors) (Stenson, 1983, p. 256):
1. Material induced errors
2. Teacher-talk induced errors
3. Exercise-based induced errors
4. Errors induced by pedagogical priorities
5. Look-up errors

1. Interference-like goofs
2. L1 Developmental goofs
3. Ambiguous goofs (either interference-like or L1 developmental goofs)
4. Unique goofs (neither interference-like nor L1 developmental goofs)

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.
 
 

1- Error/Data Collection:

For the selection of a corpus of language, following the guidelines offered by Ellis

(1995, pp. 51-52), a sample of written work was collected from 10 students. Those students are in grade 9, Brevet section (cf. appendix 2). They have been studying English since nursery (cf. appendix 3), and have been taught English mainly by American & Canadian teachers. However, there is a point that needs to be mentioned here, and it is the fact that most of them speak Arabic at home with their parents and at school with their friends. (cf. appendix 3).

These students were provided with the topic ‘What are your plans for the future?’ and were asked to write on it in 200 to 250 words. They were given sufficient time to write (Ellis 1997, p. 114). They had to start with an outline, then a first draft and a final draft. This was their mid-term examination at school, in December 2003.
 
 

2- Error Identification & Categorization:

As a first step, we developed, based on the literature (Corder, 1974; Richards, 1974; James, 1998; Selinker, 1972 in Richards, 1974; Richards & Sampson, 1974), a Taxonomy for Error Analysis including the following categories and sub-categories: grammatical (prepositions, articles, reported speech, singular/plural, adjectives, relative clauses, irregular verbs, tenses, and possessive case), syntactic (coordination, sentence structure, nouns and pronouns, and word order), lexical (word choice), semantic, & substance (mechanics: punctuation & capitalization, and spelling). As for the organizational/discourse errors, we shall mention them but will not quantify them since, first, it is difficult to do so, and, second, we had trained our students, prior to the exam, to write a well-organized essay (thesis statement, restatement of the thesis, and the use of transition words).

After setting the categories, we chose, also based on the literature, the error sources that we wanted to study, and they are mainly Interlingual (negative L1 Transfer) & Intralingual (Developmental).

Please refer to table # 1 in the appendix for further details.

So, the errors were explained in grammatical terms, and thoroughly examined to find their sources, paying particular attention to negative L1 transfer, since we needed to address our research question: “Is negative L1 transfer/interference the major cause for errors in the English writings of Brevet students?” Being myself a native Arabic speaker holding a master’s degree in translation (from/to Arabic, French, & English) and based on the literature (refer to appendix 5), I was able to perceive and pinpoint the errors due to L1 (Arabic) Transfer. (However, we should not forget that some errors are caused by interference from standard Arabic and others by interference from colloquial Arabic.)

In addition, since I have been teaching English as a second language for over 12 years, and since I have finished the coursework for my second master’s in Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language, I was able to detect the developmental errors in my students’ essays, and these are listed in detail in table # 2 in the appendix.
 
 

The total number of errors that we found in the 10 essays we studied was 214.  Here they are, in the graph below, divided according to the different categories:
 
 

29 grammatical, 35 syntactic, 26 lexical, 3 semantic, and 120 substance (mechanics & spelling) errors.
 
 

Graph number 2 shows the percentage of Transfer vs. Developmental errors for each category. The total percentage of Transfer/Interlingual errors was 35.9%, whereas the total percentage of Developmental/Intralingual errors was 64.1%. Based on this graph we can tell that the highest percentage of Transfer errors was in Semantics & Lexis, respectively 100% & 73% (refer to table 3 in the appendix). As for the highest percentage of Developmental errors, it was, by far, in Substance (mainly spelling; refer to table 4 in the appendix).
 
 

Graph number 3 shows the number of Transfer vs. Developmental errors for each category. The total number of Transfer/Interlingual errors was 77, whereas the total number of Developmental/Intralingual errors was 137.

Based on these findings we can tell that Brevet students do commit errors because of Negative L1 transfer, however, their biggest number of errors is due to Developmental/Intralingual reasons.
 
 

Examples of Negative L1 transfer Errors:(table # 3 in the appendix)

1. Grammatical errors:
1. I would like to follow in my father’s footsteps. (??? ??? ???)

2. Evil is? force that can enter a person’s soul and conquer it. (????? ????) => omission of the article in Arabic (refer to appendix 5)
3. When the evil comes (?????  ???? ????? => use of article in Arabic)

4. I wonder what god has written for me, what’s my destiny?

(?????? ?? ?? ?????)
5. Calling others kids to come (?????? ??????? ???????)

2. Syntactic errors:
1. For, them not to hate me they need to respect me and realize how much I love them and how hard I work for them. (repetition of “wa”)

2. I have learned a lesson in my life, that you should never ever give up (?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ? ??? ...)
3. What I want to be?  (?? ???? ?? ???? ?)
4. I have a lot of people in my family that are computer engineers. (colloquial Arabic)
5. That, I have been doing since a long time ago. (??? ???? ?????)
6. ...most people when they grow up (???? ????? ??? ?????? ...) (also colloquial)

3. Lexical Errors:
1. If I hit an animal it would loose trust in me and stay on irritating me while curing it. (colloquial)
2. Some animals are nice pets to have, when they have the right health and medications. (?????? ??????? )
3. They should have veterinarians around them in case they get sick or any strong disease stricked them. (?????)
4. They should have veterinarians around them in case they get sick or any strong disease stricked them. (???? ????? ) 
5. Animals are usually very afraid of high sounds. (?????? ????? ) 
6. For me acheiving these goals makes me happy. (??????? ?? ...)
7. How ever each person must succeed to his ability. (??? ?????)
8. You never know what god has installed for you.  (??? ?? )
9. For me to be counted as a one of a kind mother I need to take (??????? ...) 
10. In my free time I will practice on improving my basketball fundamentals.(?????? ???  )

4. Semantic Errors: (Literal translation)

5. Substance (Mechanics + Spelling):
1. Punctuation

iii.Obtaining a good job will be a crucial part of my life for various reasons. One of which, is that it enables me to have a stable income.

iv.It is known to be, that a person would be more appreaciated, and treated better? if he were an educated individual than a failure. (?? ??????? ???...)

v.Personally? I beleive that you can never be sure. (????? ????...)

vi.When I get to university? I will try my best to get high honors in architecture. (??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ? ...)

2. Capitalization (No capital letters in Arabic)

iii.Next I move to wall street.

iv.arabs

Lack of capitalization in the Arabic alphabet and very different punctuation conventions. No distinction is made between upper and lower case (Sofer & Raimes, 2002).
 
 
 
 
 
 

Examples of Interlingual / Transfer Errors:

(Please refer to table # 4 in the appendix where all the errors are transcribed)
 
 

I would just like to mention here the problem of spelling. It has nothing to do with L1 transfer since Arabic is extremely different from English.

“The general question of how bad or good English children are at spelling was investigated by the National Foundation for Educational Research (Brooks et al, 1993), who looked at essays written by 1492 secondary school children in England at the two ages of 11 and 15. One measure was how many mistakes children made in the first ten lines of an essay. At the age of 11, only two children out of ten had no mistakes; two out of ten had five or more. By 15, four children out of ten had no mistakes; one out of ten had five or more. To quote the report, 'A good deal of improvement occurs between the ages of 11 and 15. However, even by age 15 there is still a minority of pupils who have relatively severe problems with spelling, to the extent that their ability to communicate in writing is seriously handicapped.'
The NFER research classified spelling mistakes into five major categories:- - 

- insertion of extra letters, such as the <l> added to 'untill';
- omission of letters, such as the <r> missing from 'occuring';
- substitution of different letters, such as <a> instead of <i> in 'definate';
- transposition of two letters, such as <ei> for <ie> in 'freind';
- grapheme substitution involving more than two letters but only a single cause, for example when an equivalent according to sound correspondence rules is substituted for the usual form, as in 'thort' for 'thought'” (Cook, 2002).

Hence, we can say that our students are not the only ones to make so many spelling mistakes. However, this does not mean that we should not train them to write properly.
 
 

Brevet students are, according to this study, facing two kinds of problems in essay writing: Translation from Arabic, their mother tongue & Incomplete learning of essay writing rules and conventions. What should we, teachers, do then?

First, it would be very useful to increase the number of assignments for the sake of which the students would have to do a lot of research during their free time, hence they would be reading a lot of English material and thinking in English, especially if they have to make oral presentations for their work. (cf. appendix 11 for “Oral & Written Presentations: Guidelines & Expectations”). In addition, if we implement Team Work in class (https://nadabs.tripod.com/team.html --there are some useful guidelines on this site) and we get the students to work in groups on their projects, they would have to practice together for their oral presentations, and speak English with each other instead of Arabic. Besides, they would, hopefully, correct each other’s mistakes.

As for the writing rules and conventions, these need to be “enforced” much earlier. All teachers (from grade 1 and on) would need to get together in order to try to solve this problem. In the meantime, I can suggest a few error analysis exercises and objective tests (Appendix 12) that would help the students be more accurate, but still, nothing can replace Essay Writing itself in order to improve writing. The aforementioned project/presentation assignments are good, but they are not enough. The students need to write in class, at home, in their journals... They need to be given some well defined Essay Writing Rules (for the thesis statement, introduction, conclusion, transition words, etc...), and some samples of their writings need to be transcribed and distributed to them for correction and analysis: they would be learning from their mistakes!

In brief, we definitely have to adapt ourselves and our curriculum to their needs.
 
 

“We should be aware that different types of written material may produce a different distribution of error or a different set of error types” (Corder, 1974, p. 126).

“The recognition of error ... depends crucially upon the analyst making a correct interpretation of the learner’s intended meaning of the context” (Corder, 1974, p. 127).

“It has already been noted that learners often appear inconsistent in their production of errors” (Corder, 1974, p. 131).

We need to keep all these facts in mind when conducting an error analysis and reaching conclusions on which we would base all our teaching. Besides, this study was conducted on a small number of students, and also on a very limited number of essays. Therefore, the conclusions reached are far from being decisive.

We consider this study a preliminary one that just “gives an idea” of those brevet students’ sources of errors. It should set the pace for other studies which would be much more comprehensive, covering a bigger number of students and a wider range of materials; we hope to be able to conduct one ourselves in the near future.
 
 

This study attempted to identify, describe, categorize, and diagnose the errors in English essay writing of the Arabic speaking Brevet students. Just as George (1972), Lance (1969), Richards (1971), and Brudhiprabha (1972) found that only one-third of the second language learner’s errors can be attributed to NL language transfer, this is what this study came up with.  Most of the errors are caused by an overapplication of L2. We do need to incite our students to speak English at home and with their friends in order to reduce the number of mistakes due to Negative L1 transfer, but we also need to try to teach more effectively the rules and conventions of writing.

However, when trying to solve these problems, we need to bear in mind that

“L2 users’ knowledge of a second language is not the same as that of native speakers even at advanced levels. L2 users’ knowledge of their first language (L1) is not the same as that of monolingual native speakers. L2 users think in different ways to monolinguals. ... Trying to get students to be like native speakers is ineffective; their minds and their knowledge of language will inevitably be different. The benefits of learning a second language are becoming a different kind of person, not just adding another language. The main obstacle to setting the successful L2 user as the goal is the belief that the native speaker speaks the true form of English. This implies the comparison of one group with another: the language of non-natives has always to be compared with that of natives; anything that deviates is wrong. For other areas of language study, William Labov established that it is discrimination to treat one group in terms of another group that they can never belong to, whether women as men, black Americans as white Americans, or working-class as middle-class. People must be allowed to be what they are when this is an unchangeable effect of birth or of early up-bringing. 

An appropriate goal for many students is then using the L2 competently for their own purposes and in their own ways, which may very well not be the same as those of a monolingual native speaker and indeed may not involve native speakers at all. Students can become successful L2 users rather than forever ‘failing’ the native speaker target” (Cook, 1999).

References

1. Abdulmoneim, M.M. (1997). Learner-Centered Grammar Instruction- Forum Oman, 35, 1, January - March 1997 Page 50. Retrieved January 14, 2002 from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no1/p50.htm
2. Brooks, G., Gorman, T. & Kendall, L. (1993). Spelling It Out: the spelling abilities of 11- and 15-year-olds, NFER, Slough
3. Brown, G. & George, Y. (1993). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
4. Brown, D.B. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

5.       Brudhiprabha, P. (1972). Error analysis: a psycholinguistic study of Thai English compositions. Thesis (M.A.)--McGill University

6. Clyne, S. (2002). Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Why Your International Students are Sudando La Gota Gorda (Sweating Buckets).Retrieved January 5, 2003 from http://www.bhcc.mass.edu/newsite/GI/DiversityandInclusion/TFOT_PsychFactors2ndLang.doc
7. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 201.
8. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. Retrieved on January 10, 2003 from http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~silvat/symposium/2002/cr/connor_tq.pdf
9. Cook, V.J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42, 4, 557-591

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/multi-competence%20evidence.htm
10. Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Language Learning. Modern Linguistics. New York: St. Martin's Press.
11. Cook, V.J. (1997). L2 users and English spelling. Journal of  Multilingual and Multicultural Development,18, 6, 474-488
12. Cook, V.J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 2, 185-209,  http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/OBS19.htm
13. Cook, V. (2002). English Writing System. Retrieved January 2, 2003 from

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/EWSChap5.htmhttp://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/EWSChap1.htm
14. 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)).
15. Corder, S.P. (1971). Idiosyncratic errors and Error Analysis. IRAL, 9, 2, 147-159. Reprinted in Richards (1974) 
16. 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. 
17. Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. O.U.P. 
18. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.
19. 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
20. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). You can't learn without goofing. In Error analysis. ed. J. C. Richards. London: Longman. 
21. Ellis. R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 
22. Ellis, R. (1995). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. 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
25. Ferris, Dana, & Hedgcock, John. (1998). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. 
26. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 
27. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
28. Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
29. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, chapter 3.2. 
30. George, H.V. (1971). English for Asian learners: Are we on the right road? English Language Teaching, XXV, 270-277
31. George, H.V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts.
32. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. 
33. 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
34. Habermas J. (1979). What Is Universal Pragmatics? trans.Thomas McCarthy, Communication and the Evolution of Society, Boston: Beacon, 1-68.
35. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge University Press. 
36. Hendrickson, J.M. (1980). The Treatment of Error in Written Work. Modern Language Journal 64 (2)
37. Hubbard, P., Jones, H., Thornton, B. and Wheeler, R. (1996). A Training Course for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
38. Hull, G. (1987). Constructing taxonomies for error (or can stray dogs be mermaids?). In T. Enos (Ed.), A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers. (pp. 231-244). New York: Random House.
39. 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.
40. Jain, M. (1974). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. In Richards, J. (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 189-215. Essex: Longman.
41. Johanson, S. (1975). The Uses of Error Analysis and Contrastive Analysis I.English Language Teaching, 29, 3: 246- 253.
42. Kachru, V. (1988). Writers in Hindi and English. In A.C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp.109-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
43. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 10-16.
44. Kinneavy, J. & Warriner, J. (1993). Elements of writing. Orlando: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
45. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1994). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. In A. H. Cumming (Ed.), Bilingual performance in reading and writing (pp. 223-255). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Language Learning/John Benjamins.
46. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
47. Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
48. Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 41, 460-480.
49. Kubota, R. (in press). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students. Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing.
50. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 
51. Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. McGraw-Hill 
52. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
53. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
54. Lengo, N. (1995, September). What is An Error? Forum, (33), 3, July - Page 20-

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no3/p20.htm
55. Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207 - 228.
56. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 319-351). New York: Longman.
58. Mohan, B., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515-534.
59. Murray, D. (1970). The interior view: One writer's philosophy of composition. College Composition and Communication, 21, 21-26.
60. Nemser, W. (1974). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. In Richards, J. (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 55-63. Essex: Longman.
61. Nemser, W. (1991). Language contact and foreign language acquisition. In: V. Ivir & D. Kalogjera (Eds.) Languages in contact and contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
62. Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.
63. 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
64. Oldin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge University Press
65. Oldin, T. (1992). Transferability and linguistic substrates. Second Language Research, 8, 3: 171-202.
66. Penman, R. (1998). Communication and the Law, Communication Research Institute of Australia, CRIA  http://www.communication.org.au/html/paper_23.html
67. Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79-107.
68. Reid, Joy M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall. (ISBN: 0-13-888215-0)
69. Reid, J.M., & Byrd, P. (1998). Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students. New York: Heinle & Heinle. (ISBN: 0-8384-7210-9)
70. Richards, J.C. (ed.) (1974). Error Analysis. Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman. 
71. Richards, J. (1974). A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. In Richards, J. (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 172-188. Essex: Longman.
72. Richards, J.C. and G.P. Sampson (1974). The study of learner English. In J.C. Richards (ed.) Error Analysis. Perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 3-18.
73. Richards, J.C. (ed.). (1992). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Longman Group Limited.
74. Richards, J.C. et al. (1992). Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Second Edition. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited. 
75. Sa'adeddin, M.A.M. (1989). Text development and Arabic-English negative interference. Applied Linguistics, 10, 36-51.
76. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students' expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
77. Scott, M. & Tucker R. (1974). Error analysis and English language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning, 24: 69-97.
78. Selinker, L. (1974). Interlanguage. In Richards, J. (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. 31-54. Essex: Longman.
79. Selinker, L (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York. Longman.
80. Silva, T, & Matsuda, P.K. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark Essays on ESL Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (ISBN: 1-880393-18-2)
81. Silva, T, & Matsuda, P.K. (Eds.). (2001). On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (ISBN: 0-8058-3516-4)
82. Smith, Larry. (1987). Discourse Across Cultures. Prentice Hall
83. Sofer N.Z. & Raimes, A. (2002). Keys for writers, A brief handbook- Third ed.- Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved January 2, 2003 from http://college.hmco.com/english/raimes/3e/fmraimes.pdfhttp://college.hmco.com/english/raimes/3e/12raimesi.pdf
84. Sridhar, S. N. (1980). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage. IN: J. Fisiak (ed.) Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
85. Swan, M, & Smith, B. (Eds). (1995). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86. Tayli, M. & Al-Salamah, A.I. (1990). Building bilingual microcomputer systems. Communications of the ACM (33), 5, (May), pp.495-504.
87. 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.
88. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. The Hague, Mouton
89. Zamel, V. & Spack, R. (Eds.) (1998). Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Athabasca University- Canada- Distance learning education

http://www.athabascau.ca/

Athabasca University-Canada
Distance learning education- English language support- If English is not Your First Language
http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/155/support/if_english_is_not_your_first_language.htm

Cairo Demographic Center
http://www.cdc.eun.eg/en.htm

Egyptian Demographic Center, 2000

http://www.frcu.eun.eg/www/homepage/cdc/cdc.htm

English-Arabic Translation Guidelines for Nominal Compounds
by Zouhair Maalej- University of Tunis I- Tunisia
http://simsim.rug.ac.be/Zmaalej/syncom.html

Learning the English writing system 15-Oct-02

Vivian Cook

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/EWSChap5.htm

Modern and Classical Languages- 1997

State of Maine Learning Results
http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/mcl.pdf

On Arabic-English Cross-Language Information Retrieval: A Machine Translation Approach

Mohammed Aljlayl, Ophir Frieder, & David Grossman

Information Retrieval Laboratory- Illinois Institute of Technology
http://www.ir.iit.edu/publications/downloads/073_aljlayl_m.pdf

Problems in Learning English
http://www.culturalorientation.net/iraqi/ienglish.html

Research on secondary schools and literacy
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Research/secondaryindex.html

The Punctuation Project Home Page
Directors: Nigel Hall and Anne Robinson
http://www.partnership.mmu.ac.uk/punctuation/punctuation.html

Transfer/Cross-linguistic influence

Cathy Benson- ELT Journal Volume 56/1 January 2002 © Oxford University Press

http://www3.oup.co.uk/eltj/hdb/Volume_56/ Issue_01/freepdf/560068.pdf

What is the Role of Transfer in Interlanguage? Powell, G.

Centre for Research in Language Education (CRILE)

Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language

LAMEL- Lancaster university- UK

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/crile33Powell.pdf

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/workingpapers.htm

1. Amb : Ambiguous
2. Av : Avoidance
3. BL : Blend
4. CAss : Cross-association
5. Cl : Clarity
6. Cohr : Coherence
7. Cohs : Cohesion
8. Conf : Confusable
9. DC : Deceptive cognate
10. Dev: Developmental
11. Devt : Development
12. Dist : Distortion
13. Dys : Dyslexic error
14. EFL: English as a Foreign Language.
15. EL: English Language.
16. ELT: English Language Teaching.
17. ESL: English as a Second Language.
18. FA: False Analogy
19. FC: False concepts/systems
20. FF : False friend
21. IE: Induced errors
22. Ign: Ignorance
23. IncompR/: Incomplete application of rule
24. InterL: Interlingual
25. IntraL: Intralingual
26. Inv : Inversion
27. L1: First Language (i.e. Arabic).
28. L1T : Native language transfer
29. L2: Second Language (i.e. English).
30. LS : Letter shape
31. Mat : Material induced error
32. Misord : Misordering
33. Missel : Misselection
34. Mor: Morphology
35. MT: Mother Tongue.
36. MTI: Mother Tongue Interference (i.e. native language which Includes both colloquial and standard Arabic).
37. NL : Native language
38. OG: Over-generalization
39. OLP: Other Language Learning Problems.
40. Om : Omission
41. Orig : Originality
42. PhNM : Phonetic near-misses
43. Phono: Phonological
44. Rel : Relevance
45. SdSp : Sound spelling
46. SpConv : Spelling conventions
47. TE : Teacher explanation
48. TL : Target language
49. Typo : Typographic
50. UG: Under-generalization
51. UL : Unnecessary letter
52. Un : Unique

When asked the question “How long have you been at this school?” 9 of the 10 students whose essays were studied answered “Since nursery.” The remaining student answered “since grade 2.”

When asked the question “Which language do you speak the most at home?” most of the students answered “Arabic.” They do speak some English, but very little.

When asked the question “Which language do you speak the most with your friends?” 3 students answered “English.”
 
 
 
 

Student #	Language spoken at home	Language spoken with friends
1	English & Arabic	Arabic
2	English & Arabic	English & Arabic
3	Arabic	Arabic/English
4	English & Arabic	Bulgarian
5	Arabic	Arabic
6	Arabic	English
7	Arabic	Arabic
8	Arabic	Arabic
9	Arabic	English
10	Arabic	English

The Arabic language is one of the world's most widely used languages. According to Egyptian Demographic Center (2000), it is the mother tongue of about 300 million people. Arabic is the official language of many Arab nations in the Middle East and northern Africa, including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen (Sofer & Raimes, 2002 & World Book Encyclopedia, 1997). It is one of the six official languages of the United Nations.
 
 

There are two types of Arabic, spoken and written. Spoken Arabic consists of dialects. Arabic is the descendant of the language of the Koran, the sacred book of the Islamic religion. The orientation of writing is from right-to left, and the Arabic alphabet consists of 28 letters. The Arabic alphabet can be extended to ninety elements by writing additional shapes, marks, and vowels (Tayli & Al-Salamah, 1990). Most Arabic words are morphologically derived from a list of roots; it can be tri, quad, or pent-literal. Most of these roots are three constants. Arabic words are classified into three main parts of speech: nouns (adjectives, and adverbs), verbs, and particles. In formal writing, Arabic sentences are delimited by commas and periods as in English, for instance. Many English words come from Arabic: alcohol, algebra, check, magazine, and tariff.
 
 

Standard Arabic: is the formal language of literature and written expression.

Colloquial Arabic: is the ordinary familiar language used in everyday conversation among Arabic speakers.
 
 

When discussing MTI from Arabic it should not be forgotten that some errors are caused by interference from standard and others by interference from colloquial Arabic.
 
 

Spoken in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
 
 

The written language

_ Arabic is written from right to left.

_ Spelling is phonetic.

_ No distinction is made between upper and lower case.
 
 

Sentence structure and word order

_ Under the influence of the Qur’an (Koran), writers aim at rhythmical balance and

coordination, with the split between subject and predicate occurring midway in a sentence.

_ Arabic favors coordination over subordination; sentences often begin with And or So.

_ Basic word order in Classical Arabic is V-S-O: the verb precedes the subject: *Hoped the committee to solve the problem. Colloquial Arabic is S - V - O .

_ Arabic uses a that clause where English uses infinitive: *I want that you stay.
 
 

Nouns and pronouns

_ Personal pronouns are often added to verbs: *My father he lives in California.

_ Relative pronoun makes no human/nonhuman distinction, and pronoun object is retained in a restrictive relative clause: *Here is the student which you met her last week.

_ Singular noun is used after a numeral above ten: *He has eleven cousin.
 
 

Verbs and verbals

_ No equivalent of auxiliary do: *You have a brother?

_ No verb be in present tense: *They going to the movies. *Where the post office?

_ No modal verbs.

_ No gerund or infinitive forms.

_ Perspective of tense and time is very different from English.

_ Past perfect is formed with be: *They were eat.

_ Reported speech retains tense of original: *She said she is leaving.

_ Simple present tense covers meaning of simple and progressive in English: *She working now. *She working every day.
 
 

Adjectives and adverbs

_ Adjectives follow noun: *a book interesting long.
 
 

Articles

_ No indefinite article: *He is student.

_ Definite article is used for days of the week, some months, some place names, and in many idiomatic expressions: *He went to the Peru. *He is still in the bed.
 
 

• E = Error
• T = L1 Transfer
• The number that comes after the “+” accounts for the errors found but not transcribed.

· Semantic                                        100%

·Syntactic                                       45.7 %

·Substance/Mechanics                  20.8%