Description
Please see the attachment and i need to make proofreading of master thesis. You can edit in same papers to be more understandable. If u have any question, please let me know. Note; file is almost 100 papers.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
An Analysis of L1-Induced Grammatical Errors Affecting Saudi Female EFL Students’
Academic Writing: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Arabic Language Interference
By
Yara Abdullah Aljurayfani
A Thesis Submitted to Majmaah University to Fulfil the Requirements for Obtaining the
Master’s Degree in the English Department, Applied Linguistics
Supervised by
Dr. Zaha Alonazi
Assistant Professor in the English Department
Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia
2024
i
Abstract
The influence of native language transfer on second language learning has long been a
hot topic in the fields of psychology and linguistics. Grammatical errors in EFL students’
academic writing, specifically influenced by their mother tongue, are not a new phenomenon
but rather an enduring one, continually evolving. This research examined the grammatical
errors in Saudi EFL students’ writing and inspected whether these errors are daunting for
learners due to L1 transfer. Furthermore, this study aimed to identify the underlying reasons
behind learners’ production of grammatical errors and propose strategies for addressing this
pinpointed issue.
A mixed-methods research approach was utilised in this study. An error analysis was
conducted on 32 student essays, supplemented by a contrastive analysis to examine the
distinctions between Arabic and English and identify potential sources of interlanguage
errors. A set of semi-structured interviews was conducted with six advanced female students
to explore the extent to which L1 transfer influenced the errors predicted by CA in their
writing.
The results demonstrated that interlingual errors accounted for a higher percentage
(58.09%) compared to intralingual errors (41.91%), highlighting the significant influence of
the students’ mother tongue on L2 writing. The analysis of the interviews unveiled a
noteworthy finding: the learners’ mother tongue continues to have a pivotal impact on the
occurrence of grammatical errors; L1-influenced grammatical errors could be attributed, at
least in part, to a deficiency in CA-informed instruction.
Keywords: grammar, grammatical errors, academic writing, English, Arabic, L1 transfer,
error analysis, contrastive analysis, interlanguage, intralanguage
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Zaha Alonazi,
for her invaluable guidance, insightful feedback, and unwavering support throughout my
thesis. Her kindness, generosity of spirit, patience, and constant availability have been
indispensable to the successful completion of this research.
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the members of my thesis
committee, Dr. Sheeba Sardar Ali and Dr. Bothaina Abdelshahid, for their invaluable
contributions and constructive feedback. Their collective perspectives have been valuable in
shaping the outcome of this thesis.
I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the professors at Qassim and
Majmaah Universities who have supported me and facilitated my work throughout this
academic journey.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family members for their
continuous support, patience, and invaluable assistance throughout this endeavour. Their
understanding and unwavering willingness to lend a helping hand have greatly impacted this
journey.
iii
Dedication
With deepest appreciation, this thesis is dedicated to my beloved parents, whose
unwavering love, support, and guidance have been the driving force behind my academic
journey.
To my dearest father, my source of strength, my biggest cheerleader, your wisdom and
constant encouragement have given me the strength and inspiration to overcome any
obstacles encountered along the way.
To my dearest mother, you have been my guiding light throughout my academic
journey. Your Du’a, unwavering belief in my abilities, and tireless encouragement have given
me the confidence to pursue this journey.
I am profoundly grateful for the sacrifices you have made to provide me with
opportunities and support my educational endeavours.
iv
Table of Contents
v
vi
List of Tables
vii
List of Examples
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
In contemporary times, the world has evolved into a widely recognised global
community, characterised by vibrant multiculturalism, dynamic evolution, and the pervasive
influence of globalisation. As a result, language blending has been a prominent trend in the
development of today’s Saudi Arabia, where several languages are integrated into the
education system, including English, French, Chinese, and Spanish (KSU, 2023). Among
these languages, English holds significant importance in Saudi education (Alqahtani, 2018).
The English department at Qassim University endeavours to provide advanced
education in Applied Linguistics and Translation, equipping students with comprehensive
English language skills, including writing, speaking, listening, and reading (QU, 2018).
However, academic writing poses the most salient and demanding productive skill among
these skills (Al Towity, 2021; Hussain & Abdullah, 2019) and is believed to demonstrate
students’ mastery of a language and other related skills (Samara, 2022; Yusuf et al., 2019).
Academic writing is one of the most arduous skills for EFL learners in the learning
English process (Qasem, 2020; Sulaiman & Syahri, 2022; Widya & Wahyuni, 2018) since it
contains several essential elements, such as sentence formation, organising ideas, and
grammatical aspects (Enita, 2019; Ismael et al., 2022; Khatter, 2019). Therefore, grammar
assumes a crucial role that must not be neglected in this process, as it is an indispensable
factor in producing exceptional academic writing and the comprehension of written texts
(Atashian & Al-Bahri, 2018; Farrokhi et al., 2018).
Despite the significance of grammar in academic writing, some learners lack
awareness of its importance and struggle when writing academically. In the EFL context,
academic writing, including grammar, spelling, and vocabulary, is emphasised as a crucial
aspect of achieving academic and professional success (Bhowmik, 2021). Notwithstanding,
2
many students express an aversion to learning grammar, considering it one of the most
intricate and challenging aspects (Omar, 2019).
Various reasons contribute to grammatical errors, particularly those resulting from the
influence of learners’ L1. This could be due to the limited focus on discourse-based grammar
instruction, where grammar is often taught in isolation from writing contexts (Omar, 2019).
Additionally, the ease of technology and grammar correction apps may lead to a lack of effort
in producing accurate texts, as learners rely on automatic correction rather than developing
their grammar skills (Ismael et al., 2022). Another potential contributor to EFL writing errors
is learners’ reliance on L1 transfer or literal translation without having any grammatical
awareness of the difference between their native language (Arabic) and English.
Numerous studies have pointed out the influence of L1 on target language (TL)
learning, with students frequently engaging in thinking processes in their mother tongue
(MT) and experiencing L1 interference (Alasfour, 2018; Albondoq, 2023; Bai & Qin, 2018;
Sari, 2021; Xiashi & Lin, 2020; Yuan, 2021). However, the researcher posits that thinking in
L1 is not inherently flawed but rather a tool that could be harnessed to enhance
comprehension in L2. Native language transfer can have a positive aspect that leaves a
unique imprint on other languages, positively affecting writing, pronunciation, and various
linguistic aspects. The utilisation of L1 has been claimed to be an effective tool during the
prewriting stages, where learners leverage their L1 to generate and develop ideas and regulate
their L2 written output (Tanış et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, it has been deduced that some learners are incognisant of the negative
transfer’s impact on language learning. According to VanPatten & Williams (2015), the
transfer could yield both beneficial and adverse consequences, and the negative transfer
manifests as errors arising from structural differences between two languages (p. 20). Hence,
the greater the divergence between Arabic and English, the more pronounced the errors and
3
challenges. Such errors have been attributed to the automatic and unconscious utilisation of
prior knowledge in novel contexts (Dulay et al., 1982, p. 101).
Motivated by a deep intrigue to investigate the phenomenon of L1 interference, this
research aims to examine the phenomenon of L1 transfer and its potential negative impact in
the EFL context and identify viable solutions that could effectively mitigate the occurrence of
grammatical errors in students’ academic writing through a combination of quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
To achieve this objective, a comprehensive quantitative analysis of Saudi EFL
students’ academic writing is being undertaken, focusing on identifying grammatical errors
caused by L1 interference utilising Error Analysis (EA) and Contrastive Analysis (CA).
Recognising the inherent limitations of EA and CA in elucidating the mental processes
underlying transfer, complementary qualitative interviews are being conducted with female
students to substantiate and gain further insights into their perceptions and experiences
regarding L1 transfer.
It is pertinent to mention that in many studies related to grammatical errors stemming
from MT committed by EFL learners, there remains a fundamental lack of examination of
some causes contributing to this issue. In order to address this identified gap, this study
endeavours to uncover the potential reasons behind learners’ production of grammatical
errors and propose viable solutions and strategies to address this pinpointed matter. The
findings hope to draw teachers’ and learners’ attention to the role that Arabic (L1) plays in
acquiring English grammatical rules and, consequently, cognise them of the grammatical
errors resulting from negative L1 transfer.
With the overarching objective in mind, this introduction is followed by a
comprehensive literature review that delves into the primary aspects germane to the research.
This includes the importance of grammar in academic writing, definitions of ‘error,’ common
4
error types, and a comparison between Arabic and English grammar, with a particular focus
on studies germane to L1 transfer. Furthermore, the theoretical framework that guides this
study is discussed in detail.
Following the literature review, the contextual setting of the research, along with the
methods utilised for data collection and analysis, is described, providing the study’s validity
and reliability. The study concludes by summarising its goals and findings. It then proceeds to
discuss the pedagogical implications and provide recommendations based on the study’s
findings. Additionally, suggestions for future research are provided to further explore this
phenomenon.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This section aims to highlight the importance of grammar for learners and its close
correlation with academic writing by examining relevant literature. The review encompasses
discussions on the various definitions of ‘error’ and an exploration of common error types,
such as intralanguage and interlanguage errors. Additionally, the section sheds light on two
primary analyses adopted by linguists in error analysis: Contrastive analysis (CA) and Error
Analysis (EA). Furthermore, it provides an overview of the literature pertaining to the
distinctions between Arabic and English grammar, as well as studies germane to L1 transfer.
Finally, the literature review elucidates the purpose of the present study and outlines the
research questions that guide its investigation.
2.1 The Importance of Grammar
Nowadays, English is recognised as an international language and a tool for
communication between individuals in diverse contexts and purposes (Al Towity, 2021).
Because language requires learning its grammar (Alasfour, 2018), scholars such as Ur (2006)
“emphasise that the implicit and explicit knowledge of grammatical rules is crucial for
mastering a language” (p. 4). Therefore, grammar is a crucial component of any languagelearning process (Enita, 2019). Grammar has been widely and variously debated and defined
in the EFL context. Grammar can be defined as a set of formal patterns in which the language
words have been organised to assist the learners (Hartwell, 1985) in communicating a greater
meaning distinctly and accurately (Fuller & Gundel, 1987). According to Heryanti et al.
(2017), grammar is defined as a set of rules that determine how words are transformed into
various forms and combined to produce a meaningful unit. In the same vein, grammar is also
the way that the language manipulates and combines words or fragments of words to form a
larger unit of meaning (Ur, 1996: 75). Therefore, grammar aids in drawing a general
framework that facilitates understanding the senses of words in a sentence (Omar, 2019). In
6
the absence of grammar, words are interconnected without any real meaning (Abduh &
Algouzi, 2020). In addition, learners will be unable to utilise the language or the words unless
they understand how to combine them correctly and accurately. Therefore, students who have
competence in grammar can be more confident than those who do not understand grammar
because they are well-versed in producing accurate and correct sentences (Widya & Wahyuni,
2018). Ergo, grammars are rules that play a crucial, necessary, and organisational role in any
language, and a language system cannot be separated from the restriction of grammar rules
(Xiashi & Lin, 2020). The following section covers the relationship between grammar and
academic writing.
2.2 The Relationship between Grammar and Academic Writing
Grammar forms the language’s heart and provides logic to discourse, particularly in
written discourse. It is recognised that grammatical rules have a significant and real influence
on the four skills, although the effect on all language skills is not equal (Farrokhi et al.,
2018). Notwithstanding, the significance of grammar in academic writing teaching has been
accepted, as it is a salient skill the learners must master since it demands a more in-depth
knowledge of the grammar system. Writing skill could be defined as the ability of the writers
to produce a piece of discourse and express and communicate their ideas and meaning
through words and grammar (Abduh & Algouzi, 2020; Heryanti et al., 2017; Samara, 2022).
Mastery of the writing system of any language demands the ability to master grammar,
spelling, punctuation, etc. (Ahamed, 2016). Therefore, it is believed that grammar has always
been an essential component since it provides the learner with the needed structures to
organise words and ideas in a comprehensible form (Al-ghanmi, 2016). In this regard,
grammar is considered one of the most urgent issues concerning students’ academic writing
performance (Atashian & Al-Bahri, 2018; Ibrahim & Ibrahim, 2020; Omar, 2019) as the
ability to write requires knowledge not only in mastering vocabulary but also in mastering
7
grammar, especially in academic writing (Sulaiman & Syahri, 2022). Ergo, without
knowledge of grammar, students cannot construct meaningful sentences, and the language
will not have an oral or written form (Omar, 2019). One of the students’ arduous struggles in
academic writing is grammar, which has made them hesitant and fail to produce a good piece
of writing (Budjalemba & Listyani, 2020). Thus, students who can comprehend the
knowledge of grammar will be at an advantage because the EFL context emphasises
academic writing compared to other skills (Singh et al., 2017). Therefore, grammatical rules
are closely related to and inseparable from academic writing. The following section delves
into errors, differentiates between mistakes and errors, and provides a summary of their
various types.
2.3 Errors in Language Learning
In learning a foreign language, learners often inevitably make errors, and errors are
viewed as deviations from linguistic standards. The significance of errors in language
learning was first advocated by Corder (1967). He demonstrated how data about errors could
be beneficial for teachers, researchers, and students and how errors provide them with
strategies to avoid or at least minimise the number of those errors while practising foreign
languages (Amara, 2018). Therefore, errors are unavoidable in language learning; thus, it is
crucial to understand what is indicated by these errors (Li, 2021). Corder (1975) defined
errors as the characteristics of a learner’s utterances that differ from those of any native
speaker (p. 260). Similarly, Gass & Selinker (2008) referred to errors as red flags, which
means errors are warning signals that provide evidence of the learners’ lack of knowledge of
the target language. Ellis (1997) argued that errors reflect gaps in learners’ competence, and
they occur due to the learners’ incognisant of what is correct. Moreover, Corder (1999)
supports the idea that errors are caused by ignorance of the appropriate rule or structure in the
foreign or target language (cited in Sabbah, 2015). Furthermore, errors are a systematic and
8
frequent feature of language learning (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 102). Therefore, errors must
not be considered negative as they reveal the process of learners picking up a foreign
language (Jobeen et al., 2015).
Notwithstanding, a distinction should be made between error and mistake since that is
crucial for properly analysing learners’ errors (Anson, 2020; Omari, 2021). Both errors and
mistakes express that something has been done wrongly; however, it is difficult to make the
exact distinction between them (Omari, 2021). Corder (1967) clarified that errors occur when
there is a lack of knowledge and competence, while mistakes refer to slips caused by several
factors and are subject to self-correction (Richards, 2015). In other words, errors are
unamenable to self-correction because the second language learner is unaware of the correct
form, while the mistakes can consciously self-correct when paying attention and occur as a
result of lack of negligence, memory limitation, etc. (Almahammed, 2016; Sabbah, 2015). In
a nutshell, a mistake is caused by a random guess or slip, and an error refers to a lack of
underlying competence in the language that manifests the learner’s process in language
learning.
2.4 Types of Errors: Interlanguage and Intralanguage Errors
Applied linguists and researchers have reached an agreement about the primary types
of errors that an EFL learner commits during language learning. In general, the prevailing
literature agrees that the most common types of errors are inter-language and intra-language
errors (Corder, 1975; Chelli, 2013; Gass & Selinker, 2008; Richards, 1974). According to
Gass & Selinker (2008) and Richards (1974), interlingual errors are defined as those caused
by negative transfer from the mother tongue of the L2 learner, whereas intralingual errors
stem from defective usage or incomplete acquisition of L2 rather than L1 influence.
Therefore, interlanguage errors are examples of L2 learners’ errors (Selinker, 1972), where
learners tend to resort to prior knowledge (L1 structure) when they do not know how to
9
express themselves in L2 (James, 1998; as cited in Alhajailan, 2020). On the other hand,
intralingual errors occur within L2 as a result of improper generalisation from one structure to
another, also known as developmental errors, which are incomplete and insufficient
knowledge of L2 and its grammar (Richards, 2014). Interlanguage errors are due to the
influence of the learner’s mother tongue, and intralanguage errors are due to a lack of
understanding of the linguistic rules of the target language (Gass & Selinker, 1983). To put it
in a nutshell, interlanguage errors are due to the influence of the mother tongue of the
learners, and intralanguage errors are due to a lack of understanding of the linguistic rules of
the target language (Gass & Selinker, 1983). The term interlanguage was first introduced by
the American linguist Selinker (1972), which is related to L1 transfer and can be divided into
positive transfer and negative transfer. Therefore, the transfer was said to occur when the
learners relied on their L1 in attempting to produce the L2, and it could be negative or
positive (VanPatten & Williams, 2015). When some features of the MT and the TL are similar
or consistent, positive transfer will occur, thus promoting second language acquisition (Lado,
1957). While the differences between the MT and the TL will cause a negative transfer, errors
will occur and hinder language learning (Dechert, 1989). In order to examine these errors that
language learners make, this study utilises two analytical approaches, namely, Error Analysis
and Contrastive Analysis. Therefore, this study covers the theoretical framework that
incorporates two of the central analyses commonly used to investigate language learners’
grammatical errors.
2.5 Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis
Many schools arose in the field of linguistics and psycholinguistics to analyse
learners’ errors and interpret their sources, among which the structural behavioristic school
and the transformational generative grammarians were identified (Amara, 2018).
Consequently, linguists have designed two main approaches that are inseparable and
10
complement each other when examining the L1 transfer that affects learners: they analyse
students’ foreign language skills and identify the reasons behind the errors they make when
learning a second language, namely Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis (EA)
(Alasfour, 2018; Alhajailan, 2020). They are crucial areas of applied linguistics as well as
second and foreign language acquisition. Therefore, these two approaches will be the
theoretical framework of this particular study.
The early thinking about language transfer began with the work of two linguists,
Charles Fries & Robert Lado, during the 1940s and 1950s of the last century within the
framework of behaviourism theory (Almahammed, 2016). From these roots, Contrastive
Analysis (CA) was established amid waves of support and opposition (Alasfour, 2018).
Following that, CA was extensively utilised in the 1960s and early 1970s to explain why
some features of a TL were more strenuous to obtain than others (Baghdadi, 2021).
According to James (1980), the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is based on the
transfer theory in which standard features transfer from L1 to L2. Individuals tend to transfer
and distribute the structures and meanings of their mother tongue and culture to a foreign
language and culture (Lado, 1957). Ergo, CA is a method that distinguishes between what
learners need and what they do not need to know in learning another language by comparing
the native language with the target one (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 96). Likewise, Lado (1957)
claimed that the similarities between the two languages support and facilitate learning, which
is the positive transfer, while the differences between the two languages result in learning
difficulties, which is the negative transfer. According to Brown (2000), the CAH, deeply
rooted in behavioural and structuralism approaches, claimed that the main barrier to second
language acquisition is the overlap of the L1 system with the L2 system. It is clear that CA’s
assumptions are fundamentally consistent with behavioural theory, which claims that habit
formation and L1 transfer are the main causes of errors made by second language learners.
11
According to Wardhaugh (1970), the CAH can be stated in two versions: The Strong Version
SV, which is predictive CA, and the Weak Version WV, which is more explanatory. Besides,
he also explained that the SV is a step-by-step analysis of similarities and differences and
then predicts the errors, while the WV can be used not only for prediction but also for
explaining the observed difficulties in the target language made by learners. However, after
Chomsky’s (1959) criticism, which claimed that children are born with an innate ability that
enables them to learn a language, he prompted doubts about CA’s association with Skinner’s
behaviourist theory (cited in Alasfour, 2018). Although CA has received much criticism for
its inability to predict various errors (Gluth, 2003), it can help to pre-identify potential areas
of difficulty for L2 learners (James, 2013; as cited by Alhajailan, 2020). As an overall
assessment, although the WV cannot account for all of the errors, it is still more functional
for learners than the SV to improve their actual errors caused by L1 interference (Anson,
2020). Ergo, the WV was developed by ER and coupling CA with ER. Therefore, the
learner’s data is analysed for the first time through the ER. To put it in a nutshell, knowledge
of the similarities and differences can be helpful and useful in understanding L2 errors.
Therefore, CA can be subdivided into five steps for conducting a systematic comparison of
any two languages: selection, description, comparison, prediction, and verification
(Baghdadi, 2021). According to Albondoq (2023), the first step is a description: a linguist
tries to describe the languages in question formally; selection: a linguist selects certain forms
or structures for contrast; contrast: the collected examples from the languages can be
presented for contrast (i.e., identifying similarities and differences); prediction: a prediction
of possible facilitations and difficulties (i.e., possible errors) could be provided.
In the 1970s, after the inability of CAH to interpret all learners’ errors, the EA
approach was adopted by many researchers (Zaki, 2015). Chomsky’s criticisms can be
considered the turning point for language study learning from a cognitive perspective
12
(Albondoq, 2023). Many criticisms led to the emergence of EA, which was first established
by Corder and his colleagues in the late 1970s and became a prevalent approach for
describing L2 errors (Baghdadi, 2021). Hereinafter, his theory came as a response to the
severe criticism that CA received. Corder (1967) defines error analysis as an approach that
examines the errors of learners to determine the progress of individual learners. He defined
the EA as an analytical tool that focuses on samples of the learners’ language to identify the
linguistic errors they commit, describe them, and evaluate their seriousness. Likewise, David
Crystal (2003) defines EA as a strategy for identifying, classifying, and systematically
interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by a learner. Based on what Richards (2000)
stated, error analysis is employed to check the extent to which learners know about a
language, how they utilise the language processes, and the learners’ common difficulties in
language learning. Thus, the objective of the Error Analysis Hypothesis (EA) has been to
explore learners’ knowledge of L2 through the analysis and description of learners’ errors
(Zaki, 2015). Therefore, it appears that CA tried to predict the learners’ errors by comparing
L1 and L2 systems (hypothesising about errors), whereas EA observed the learners’ errors in
an attempt to explore how a second language learner acquires the L2 structures (explaining
sources of errors).
Conducting EA on students’ writing is a systematic process, and the researchers must
follow specific procedures sequentially. There are five procedures to follow when conducting
EA research: locating errors, identification of errors, description of errors, explanation of
errors, and evaluation of errors. (Corder, 1974; as cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 48). However, not all
studies include all five steps. Researchers have to choose a model and modify this basic
pattern according to the specific focus of their studies. For example, Corder’s (1967, 1975)
pioneering work ignored the first stage (locating the students’ errors in their contexts or
categories) but employed the following three steps (identification, description, and
13
explanation of errors). Ellis (1995, 1997) and Hubbard et al. (1996) expanded on Corder’s
model, emphasising the importance of choosing a good corpus for the first step and providing
practical advice and clear examples for identifying and analysing learners’ errors. In addition,
Gass and Selinker (2008) identified the two additional steps of quantifying and remediating
errors, and James (2013) added the contextualisation of errors as an additional stage (as cited
in Alhajailan, 2020). An additional step (data collection) is included in the models proposed
by Corder (1967) as well as Gass and Selinker (2008); however, the collecting data step does
not need to be documented as a separate stage or as a necessary step for analysis because EA
cannot operate without the collected data. Therefore, several studies have not declared this
step overtly. Therefore, as most researchers have chosen the stages in line with the study’s
objective, this research outlines the principal stages to be implemented in this study according
to its purpose. Since this study will adopt the EA approach, the research steps will be as
identified by Corder (1974) and Ellis (2008) and further explained by James (1998):
•
Data collection: collecting students’ writing samples.
•
Error identification: detect and identify all the grammatical errors.
•
Error classification: classify and locate the grammatical errors into their categories.
•
Error explanation: analysis of the error sources, interlingual or intralingual.
•
Error evaluation and quantification: evaluate and review the error categories and
examine their frequency.
This EA model, which includes the five stages, will be utilised and supplemented by a
comparative analysis between Arabic and English to identify the sources of interlanguage
errors. It will be chosen for this study because it is more suitable for the research purpose and
slightly more detailed than Corder’s (1967), as it includes the three abovementioned steps.
After selecting the appropriate EA model for the study, it is crucial to determine a
suitable taxonomy for categorising grammatical errors on which my analysis will be based.
14
Several taxonomies have been proposed to classify and categorise errors in all their linguistic
categories, e.g., grammar, orthographic, lexical, etc. According to Alhajailan (2020),
categorising errors into taxonomies assists the researcher in recognising error patterns.
Therefore, the researchers have selected descriptive taxonomies to analyse the errors in
accordance with the nature of the study. Dulay et al. (1982) reviewed the error analysis
literature to provide more useful and appropriately used descriptive taxonomies. They
proposed four taxonomies: linguistic category, surface strategy, comparative, and
communicative effect. Dulay et al. (1982) explained the purpose of different taxonomies.
Surface structure taxonomy emphasises how surface structures are changed and analyses
errors in which learners may omit, add, misselect, or even misorder sentence elements.
Furthermore, the error classification in comparative taxonomy is based on the comparison
between the L2 error structures and some other types of constructions. In addition, in the
linguistic category taxonomy, errors are classified according to their location in the TL
system: phonology, orthography, grammar, and morphology. The communicative effect
taxonomy mainly deals with the errors that might lead to miscommunication. It focuses on
distinguishing the errors that affect the ability to convey intended meaning, coherence, and
clarity, as opposed to those that do not. Dulay et al. (1982) introduced the surface structure
taxonomy (SST), which describes how learner sentences diverge from what seems to be
correct in the target language. They employed four types of errors: addition (involving items
that must not be utilised), omission (deleting essential elements), misordering (placing items
in the wrong position), and misselection (utilising/ selecting an incorrect structure).
According to James (1998), learners’ erroneous versions deviate from the target version, and
these deviations primarily involve alterations in surface structures (cited in Suhono, 2016).
Corder (1981) argued that such a categorisation is superficial and insufficient. He suggested
that, to categorise errors more systematically and abstractly, they should be further classified
15
in terms of linguistic level (e.g., phonology, grammar, lexical) and grammatical system (e.g.,
tense, articles, prepositions). In other words, the linguistic ca
