scholarly journals Understanding Syntactic and Semantic Errors in the Composition Writing of Jordanian EFL Learners

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Yazan Shaker Almahameed ◽  
May Al-Shaikhli
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Semantic Errors ◽  
Verb Tense

The current study aimed at investigating the salient syntactic and semantic errors made by Jordanian English foreign language learners as writing in English. Writing poses a great challenge for both native and non-native speakers of English, since writing involves employing most language sub-systems such as grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation. A total of 30 Jordanian English foreign language learners participated in the study. The participants were instructed to write a composition of no more than one hundred and fifty words on a selected topic. Essays were collected and analyzed statistically to obtain the needed results. The results of the study displayed that syntactic errors produced by the participants were varied, in that eleven types of syntactic errors were committed as follows; verb-tense, agreement, auxiliary, conjunctions, word order, resumptive pronouns, null-subject, double-subject, superlative, comparative and possessive pronouns. Amongst syntactic errors, verb tense errors were the most frequent with 33%. The results additionally revealed that two types of semantic errors were made; errors at sentence level and errors at word level. Errors at word level outstripped by far errors at sentence level, scoring respectively 82% and 18%. It can be concluded that the syntactic and semantic knowledge of Jordanian learners of English is still insufficient.

scholarly journals An investigation of Semantic Interlingual Errors in the Writing of Libyan English as Foreign Language Learners

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arab World English Journal ◽  
Abdalmonem S. Rajab ◽  
Saadiyah Darus ◽  
Ashinida Aladdin
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
First Language ◽  
English As Foreign Language ◽  
Lexical Choice ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
Semantic Errors ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

The aim of this paper is to investigate some semantic interlingual errors in the writing performance of Libyan English as Foreign Language Learners (LEFLLS). The study seeks to analyze these errorsthat appear in the learners’ written production. The data was gathered from 25 essays written by 25 Libyan postgraduates majoring in different fields. It was collected and organized according to the errors committed. Errors taxonomy adapted from James’ (1998) and Al-Shormani and Al-Sohbani’s (2012) was used in identifying and analyzing these errors. Semantic errors were classified into five categories namely formal mis-selection, formal mis-formation, lexical choice, collocation and lexico-grammatical choice. The semantic errors identified were 346. These errors were classified into four categories namely, formal misformation (46.7%), distortion due to spelling (32.4%), lexical choice (40.6%) and lexicogrammatical choice (2.4%). The results show that direct translation from the first language (L1), assumed synonym and misselection of letters sub-categories score the highest number of the errors, i.e.14.2%, 13.08% and 12.08% respectively. While the sub-category, both collocations incorrect error was the lowest (0.52%). The other errors take the form of paraphrase (11.5%) and Idiomacity (8.5%). Two main sources have been found to be the cause behind these errors namely, L1 influence and insufficient knowledge about the second language (L2). Moreover, cultural differences between L1 and L2 had its impact in the written products of Libyan students.

Taalspecifieke Tekstkenmerken.

1989 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Atie Blok-Boas
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Target Group ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Source Language ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
Micro Level

This article deals with problems of writing in a foreign language that are caused by language specific characteristics of the target language, in this case Italian. In writing texts in a foreign language, learners of that language have to cope with difficulties that are caused by certain categorial differences between source language and target language. In this article the authors do not deal with differences at a micro-level, like spelling and morphology, but rather with more structural differences at the sentence level. First the target group, its starting position and the teaching aims are described.Then an attempt is made at defining the language specific characteristics the target group has to learn. The teaching materials are based on an analysis of example texts in the target texts and similar texts in the source language. Finally some suggestions for the didactics of writing are given.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPTION COURSE. M. Luisa Garcia Lecumberri and John A. Maidment. London: Arnold, 2000. Pp. 156. £10.99 paper.

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-441
Author(s):  
Grover Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Nonnative Speakers ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Casual Speech ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Received Pronunciation

This book, said to be written for native speakers of English as well as second and foreign language learners, is about the differences between the pronunciation of words in careful and casual speech, despite identity of spelling. It presents as models written-language texts and their phonetically written equivalents in the prestige British Received Pronunciation (RP) variety, and then provides more texts as exercise to be transcribed both ways. Almost all of the exercises are anonymously authored texts of 40 or more lines, on a variety of topics. Answers are given in an appendix. The idea is that learning to write English phonetically will improve nonnative speakers' pronunciation and, one supposes, promote the more accepting attitude of native speakers toward casual speech reductions.

Do foreign language learners also have constructions?

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 182-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Th. Gries ◽  
Stefanie Wulff
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Alternative Account ◽  
Priming Effects ◽  
German Translation ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Rule Out

In Construction Grammar, the ultimate grammatical unit is the construction, a conventionalized form-meaning pairing. We present interrelated evidence from three different methods, all of which speak in favor of attributing an ontological status to constructions for non-native speakers of English. Firstly, in a sentence-fragment completion study with German learners of English, we obtained a significant priming effect between constructions. Secondly, these priming effects correlate strongly with the verb-construction preferences in native speaker corpora: verbs which are strongly associated with one construction resist priming to another semantically compatible construction; more importantly, the priming effects do not correlate with verb-construction preferences from German translation equivalents, ruling out a translational explanation. Thirdly, in order to rule out an alternative account in terms of syntactic rather than constructional priming, we present semantic evidence obtained by a sorting study, showing that subjects exhibited a strong tendency towards a construction-based sorting, which even reflects recent explanations of how constructions are related.

Refusal Semantic Formulas Used by Foreign Language Learners

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 115-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Euen Hyuk Sarah Jung ◽  
Kim, Young Jae
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Foreign Language Learners

Grammatical Competence within L2 Communication: Language Production, Monitor Hypothesis, and Focus on Forms Instruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moh. Rofid Fikroni
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Grammatical Competence ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Speaking Skill ◽  
Focus On Forms ◽  
Learning Language

Bearing in mind that the learners’ speaking skill had become the main goal in learning language, grammatical competence is believed to have a big role within foreign language learners’ language production, especially in spoken form. Moreover, the learners’ grammatical competence is also closely related to the Monitor Hypothesis proposed by Krashen (1982) in which it says that the acquired system will function as monitor or editor to the language production. The students’ monitor performance will vary based on how they make use of their acquired system. They may use it optimally (monitor optimal user), overly (monitor over-user), or they may not use it at all (monitor under-user). Therefore, learners’ grammatical competence has its own role, which is very crucial, within learners’ language production, which is not only to produce the language, but also to monitor the language production itself. Because of this reason, focus on form instruction will give a great impact for students’ grammatical competence within their communicative competence. This paper aims to present ideas about the how crucial the role grammatical competence within learners’ L2 communication.

Conceptual metaphors as a tool for the efficient teaching of Dutch and German posture verbs

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine De Knop ◽  
Julien Perrez
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Semantic Networks ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Conceptual Metaphors ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
Awareness Raising ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Germanic Languages

The article deals with the typological differences between the Romance language French and the Germanic languages German and Dutch for the linguistic expressions of posture and location. It describes how these typological differences can be problematic for French-speaking learners of German and Dutch. The main difference between both types of languages is that posture and location tend to be encoded by posture verbs in Germanic languages and by very general verbs in Romance languages (Talmy 2000). After a detailed description of the semantic networks of the German and Dutch posture verbs, the paper takes a critical look at how these expressions are dealt with in teaching manuals. It further presents strategies for the efficient teaching of posture verbs to foreign language learners. These strategies are among others awareness-raising exercises about the compulsory use of posture verbs in Germanic languages and the description of conceptual metaphors in different languages. These pedagogical avenues for the efficient teaching of the Dutch and German posture verbs constitute a first step towards the elaboration of an experimental set-up aiming at verifying them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document