An error analysis on the use ofcohesive devices in writing by freshmen majoring in English at thang long university - Trần Thị Hải Bình

Vietnam national university, Hanoi College of foreign languages ====***=== trÇn thÞ h¶i b×nh An error analysis on the use ofcohesive devices in writing by freshmen majoring in English at thang long university ph©n tÝch lçi trong c¸ch sö dông ph­¬ng tiÖn liªn kÕt v¨n b¶n trong bµi viÕt cña sinh viªn chuyªn anh n¨m thø nhÊt t¹i tr­êng ®¹i häc th¨ng long Course work Field: Methodology Supervisor: vò thóy quúnh, m.a hanoi, December 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest thanks firstly to my supervisor, Mrs. Vũ Thuý Quỳnh, M.A. who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me to finish the research project. Without her experienced guidance and valuable comments, my research would still be far from finished. I am also indebted to her for her substantial contributions in proofreading and help me make necessary changes. My gratitude is also sent to all of my instructors in my M.A. courses at Post-Graduate Studies, College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Their precious and professional lectures and tutoring have helped me a great deal in understanding profound concepts of the field in English teaching methodology while I attended the courses. Last but not least, I appreciate constant supports from my colleagues at Thang Long University, my beloved family and my friends. Table of contents Acknowledgement Table of contents List of tables, charts and figures Chapter One: Introduction 1.1. Reasons for choosing the topic 1.2. Objectives of the study 1.3. Scope of the study 1.4. Significance of the study 1.5. Methods of the study 1.6. Organization of the study Chapter Two: Literature review Factors affecting language learning 2.2. Errors analysis 2.3. The notion of errors in language learning 2.4. Errors vs. mistakes 2.5. Causes of errors in language learning 2.5.1. First language interference 2.5.2. Causes independent from first language 2.6. The concept of cohesion 2.7. Cohesive devices in writing 2.8. Types of cohesion 2.8.1. Grammatical cohesion 2.8.2. Lexical cohesion 2.9. Summary Chapter Three: Research Methodology 3.1. Subjects 3.2. Instruments of data collection 3.3. Method of data analysis 3.4. Summary Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data 4.1. Errors in the use of reference 4.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference 4.1.2. Errors in the use of personal reference 4.1.3. Errors in thes use of comparative reference 4.2. Errors in the use of conjunction 4.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction 4.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction 4.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction 4.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion 4.4. Summary Chapter Five: Implications Chapter Six: Conclusion BibliographyAppendices i ii iv 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 29 30 32 33 34 36 36 38 39 44 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES Table 2.1 Types of cohesion at linguistic level. Table 2.2. Types of grammatical and lexical cohesion Table 2.3. Personal reference Table 2.4. Demonstrative reference. Table 2.5. Comparative reference Table 4.1. The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices Table 4.2. Errors and their causes Table 4.3. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference Table 4.4. Errors in the use of the definite article. Table 4.5. Errors in the omission of ‘the’ Chart 4.1. Sources of errors Figure 2.1. Types of reference Figure 2.2. The process of recognizing and identifying errors CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE TOPIC Since Vietnam has opened its door to the rest of the world, more and more people with their wish to join world trends have rushed to learn foreign languages, especially English. This demand in language learning has brought about a great amount of positive changes in language teaching in Vietnam. Language teachers have looked for and tried different methods and techniques in teaching and learning in order to find the effective ones. The effectiveness of a teaching method or technique is reflected in the learners’ language competence that is their abilities to perform the four language skills: Reading, Listening, Writing and Speaking. Amongst these skills the two productive skills, writing and speaking, are considered more difficult than the others as the learners need to use the language to convey their messages comprehensibly and accurately in real life communication. When a message is unsuccessfully conveyed, the factor, which is most likely to be blamed for is errors in the use of the language. It is natural in language teaching that learners make mistakes and errors when writing in English. How to cope with and when to give feedback to these errors are vital in teaching language as it may either result in motivation or discouragement in language learning. Some teachers’ concern is directed to contrastive analyses of Vietnamese and English with the hope to predict and prevent errors before they appear. This theory has been supported by Lado (1957). However, Richards (1971) in his research found out that apart from the first language interference, there were other causes which are products of intra-lingual analogies such as overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules or ignorance of rule restrictions as well as false concepts hypothesized. So far, there has been scarily any research on the causes of errors in students’ writing in English in Vietnamese universities. Therefore, I am attempted to carry out a research study applying error analysis in clarifying learners’ errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing at Thang Long University as “cohesive devices are crucial in writing” ( Zamel,1983:1). 1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to obtain quantitative data for the investigation the types and causes of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing by first year undergraduate students majoring in English at Thang Long University. Thus, it aims to seek answers to the following questions: 1. What are common errors in the use of cohesive devices in the students’ writing? and 2. What are the major causes of these errors? The answers to these questions will serve as help in giving recommendations to reducing and preventing the problems of coherence in students’ writing. 1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY It is believed that different types of learners committed different types of errors. Also, the type of errors are various according to different stages in learning process. Errors are made in both of the productive skills: writing and speaking. Due to the limitation of time, the study is confined itself to errors in the use of cohesive devices in the writing by Vietnamese pre-intermediate students. 1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Many studies on errors have been carried out in the field of teaching English in the world. Researchers like Zamel (1983), Richard (1971) and Corder (1967) among others emphasized the importance of errors in theory as well as in practice of foreign language learning and teaching. According to Corder (1967), errors are traced to their sources are beneficial in different ways. Firstly, they help language teachers know how much progress a learner has made in the target language, in which language area he needs help and what sort of help he needs. Secondly, they provide researchers with evidence in language learning process; therefore, researchers through errors discover strategies applied in acquiring a language. Apart from that, errors can serve as good feedback to learners for self-adjustment. Despite these benefits, few studies on errors derived from Vietnamese learners have been made. For these reasons, this study should be conducted to find out types of errors, specifically errors in the use of cohesive devices in Vietnamese learners’ writing and what their causes are. It is hoped that the findings of the research would be useful to teachers as well as learners of English. Once the type and the causes of a particular error are properly found, teachers will have a better understanding of students’ problem in using cohesive devices in writing and can develop proper solutions. 1.5. METHODS OF THE STUDY The subjects of the study are two classes of first year undergraduate students at Thang Long University. They are at the age ranged from 18 to 19. Their major at the university is English. Though they come from different areas in the country, they are considered at the same level of English as they all learned English at high school and have passed the university entrance examination on three subjects including English. This is intended to be a quantitative research study using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis, statistical counting as measurement of results. Students’ papers were collected every week. Any errors in the use of cohesive devices were found and classified according to the cohesion-category by Haliday and Hasan (1976). Then the occurrence frequency of each error type was counted. The data and the list of the errors was the source for the analysis. 1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The study is composed of six chapters. Chapter one gives reasons for choosing the topic, objectives and methods of the study. It also narrows the scope of the study and briefly presents an overall out-line of the research study. Chapter two reviews the literature related to the study. Firstly, it presents the factors affecting language learning which is divided into two types: external and internal. Secondly, error analysis and errors in language learning are discussed. The literature related to errors is given; it includes the notion of errors in language leaning, the distinction between errors and mistakes, main causes of errors. Lastly, cohesion in writing is mentioned, it consists of the concept of cohesion, cohesive devices and types of cohesion. Chapter three describes in detail the research methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis. Chapter four presents the statistical results and the analysis of the data. The statistical results are shown in the tables which are the basement to determine the causes of each type of errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing. Chapter five named Implication with the recommendations for correcting errors in the use of cohesive devices in writing, suggestions for teaching in order to prevent and eliminate these errors. Chapter six closes the study with a conclusion which gives a summary of the whole study and provides suggestions for further studies. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the literature related to errors and cohesive devices in writing is discussed in order to provide the study with the sufficient theory background. 2.1. FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE LEARNING On the basis of language learning process theories, it is clear that language learning bear a lot of influences and the factors affecting language learning are categorized into two types: external factors and internal factors. External factors include: the first language, language environment and the formal teaching. First of all, the mother tongue may be more or less helpful for the learners of a new language as they have already learned how to do with that language. Universal features in languages can assist learners to learn a new language. On the basis of behavior psychology, Lado (1957) and Fries (1965) suggested two types of transfers: transfers are positive when the first language and the target language share similar features, negative when there are different features in the two languages. Language environment is also of great significance to success in learning a foreign language. Lastly, the role of formal teaching was asserted in the research by Littlewood (1980) when he proposed that certain techniques or methods proved to be relevant in particular groups of learners. Dulay et al. (1982) named two internal factors: the filter and the monitor. According to Dulay, language learners do not acquire what is exposed to them, but select what they find suitable, relevant and interesting. Motivation, as he defined, is understood as “incentive, the need or the desire to learn the second language” (Dulay et al., 1982:47), if motivation is low, failure is likely reported. “The monitor is the part of the learners’ internal system that appears to be responsible for conscious linguistic processing” (Dulay et al., 1982:58). It appears when learners try to learn or to apply a linguistic rule or structure or when he is given tasks requiring grammatical judgments. Foreign language learning are influenced both outside from teaching and learning environment, and inside from what and how learners process the language. 2.2. ERROR ANALYSIS In 1970s and 80s, a large number of papers on error analysis were published. Subsequently, a more positive attitude towards errors has emerged. In the past, errors were deemed and errors now are viewed as natural and important part of learning process because they can yield information about learning language. This positive attitude towards errors is especially important in the wake of the Communicative Language Learning and Teaching. Many researches on errors in second language learning have been done by several scholars like Corder (1967), Richard (1992) and Selinker (1992). Error Analysis is the identification, description and explanation of errors either in its spoken or written form. Following Corder (1967), Choon (1993) gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research. According to her, one has to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories such as: semantic errors (wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors (tense, preposition, etc.), global errors and local errors. She suggested that “the system of classifying errors should be flexible” (Choon, 1993: 2). The last step is determining how much they deviate from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication. Error Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common language problems students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more in a syllabus. Choon (1993) advised teachers to conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when the items have not been fully learnt and remedy these first. By classifying errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the second language acquisition process by inferring the strategies that the learners were adopting. For learners themselves, errors are ‘indispensable’ since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn (Selinker, 1992:150). 2.3. THE NOTION OF ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING On the basis of theory, Behaviorists view errors as symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure. They also view it as being due to largely to the first language interference. When errors occur they are remedied by a bombardment of correct forms which can be achieved by the intensive drilling or over teaching. On the other hand, Mentalists , who following cognitive principles, suggested that learners process the new data in his mind and come up with a set of rules that produce new patterns in the target language. Consequently, errors are inevitable; in fact, they even become a part in learning process and developing competence. Errors are not regarded as a sign of failure, but evidence that the learner is working toward the correct rules. The attitude of Mentalists is positive toward errors in language learning, it removes the anxiety caused by the behaviorist in classroom. Richards et al. (1974) believed that both children learning the first language, and children and adults learning foreign languages likely to produce errors of following types: The omission of grammatical morphemes The double marking of a given semantic feature The over generalized application of irregular rules The use of one form for several required The wrong word ordering 2.4. ERRORS VS. MISTAKES The distinction between “errors” and “mistakes” has been given by many linguists though it is impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. According to Klassen (1991), the term “error” is used to refer to a form of structure that a native speaker deems unacceptable because of the lack of language competence. Chomsky (1965) initiated the distinction when he suggested that there were two types of errors: one resulting from verbal performance factors, the other from inadequate language competence. Later, Corder (1967) named the former mistakes and the later error. Mistakes are said to be unsystematic in nature and correctable when attention is drawn to its producers. Errors, on the other hand, refer to any systematic deviations from the rules of the target language system. In short, errors are caused by lack of knowledge about the target language or by incorrect hypothesis about it; mistakes are caused by temporary lapses of memory, confusion, and carelessness and so on. If we are uncertain whether one of the learners has made an error or a mistake, the crucial test must be: can he correct himself when challenged? if he can, probably it is a mistake; if not, it is an error. 2.5. Causes of errors in foreign language learning There are a number of reasons for how learners make errors; they take root from both social factors and cognitive factors (Myles, 2002). Basically, two types of causes are classified: (1) first language interference and (2) causes independent of the first language interference. 2.5.1. First language interference The notion of first language interference is understood as negative transfer from the first language to the target language, it is the way of learning new habits is hindered by previously learnt ones. Lado (1957) claims that “errors are originated in the learners’ disposition to transfer forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture” (1957:1). Myles (2002) considers transfer an important cognitive factor related to writing errors .The study of transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer), avoidance of the target language forms, and their over-use (Ellis, 1994). Corder (1967) observed language learners make hypotheses about the language they are learning, tried to compare it with their native language, then came to the conclusion that errors in foreign language reflected the first language’s features. Later in 1978 he recasts interference as learners’ reliance on the first language as their strategy of communication, which means learners use literal translation as a learning strategy to overcome their ignorance. Why do language learners apply their native language in second language acquisition? The answer lies in four major factors. Firstly, it is the performance pressure. In class room setting, the learners may be forced to perform tasks they do not want or their linguistic competence fail to meet; therefore, they fall back on the language most familiar to them that is their mother tongue. Windowson (1990) realized that when learners write under pressure, they may rely on systematic resources from their native language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning. Secondly, the limited foreign language environment also contributes to errors in language learning. The lack of natural linguistic inputs with native speakers results in learners’ recourse on their language. Moreover, language tasks assigned for the learners have a significance affect on their verbal production. Among these tasks, translation is said to “increase the foreign language learners’ reliance on first language structures” (