SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3

The impact of L1 ınterference on foreign language writing: A contrastive error analysis

Semin KAZAZOĞLU
Pages
1168–1188
Publication Date
2020-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When the results of the Mann-Whitney U test are analyzed, it is understood that Turkish and Arabic students' grammatical interference exam scores differ statistically (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz In today’s world, educational contexts are getting increasingly multicultural.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In Turkish EFL contexts, students coming from Middle Eastern countries make up a huge part of classes (Özer, 2016).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the results of the Mann-Whitney U test are analyzed, it is understood that Turkish and Arabic students' grammatical interference exam scores differ statistically (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler L1 interference · Contrastive error analysis · Turkish EFL Learners

Özet

Öz In today’s world, educational contexts are getting increasingly multicultural. Although EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classes in Turkey were mostly composed of Turkish students a decade ago, today students from any part of the world are brought together within the frame of various student exchange programs. In Turkish EFL contexts, students coming from Middle Eastern countries make up a huge part of classes (Özer, 2016). The objective of the current study is to examine L1 negative interference errors of Turkish and Arabic EFL learners. Accordingly, 30 B1 (Intermediate) EFL students’ written assignments were examined and divided into categories. Besides, this study makes a comparative analysis of Turkish and Arabic EFL learners' grammatical and lexical errors within the frame of L1 negative transfer. When the results of the Mann-Whitney U test are analyzed, it is understood that Turkish and Arabic students' grammatical interference exam scores differ statistically (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KAZAZOĞLU, S. (2020). The impact of L1 ınterference on foreign language writing: A contrastive error analysis. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3, 1168–1188. https://ajindex.com/articles/92416

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Ali, N. (2007). Some linguistic problems facing Arab learners of English, Adab al-Rafidayn, 48. http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=33586.
  2. Altamimi, D. A. H. F., Ab Rashid, R., & Elhassan, Y. M. M. (2018). A Review of Spelling Errors in Arabic and Non-Arabic Contexts. English Language Teaching, 11(10), 88-94.
  3. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Longman. Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63.
  4. Can, C. (2018). Agreement errors in learner corpora across CEFR: A computer-aided error analysis of Greek and Turkish EFL learners written production, Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6, 77-84.
  5. Diab, N. (1996). The transfer of Arabic in the English writings of Lebanese students, The ESP, São Paulo, 18(1), 71-83.
  6. Ehri, L. C., & Rosenthal, J. (2010). Spellings of words: A neglected facilitator of vocabulary learning. In Literacy Development and Enhancement Across Orthographies and Cultures (pp. 137-152).
  7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0834-6_10
  8. Elkılıç, G. (2012). Mother tongue traces of Turkish university students on composition papers written in English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 656–664.
  9. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press,
  10. Oxford. Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2),164-194,
  11. Oxford University Press.
  12. Erkaya, O. R. (2012). Vocabulary and L1 interference-error analysis of Turkish students’ English essays. MEXTESOL Journal, 36(2), 1–11.
  13. Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge. Hamdallah, R. W., &Tushyehh, H.Y. (1993). A contrastive analysis of selected English and Arabic prepositions with pedagogical implications, 181-190.
  14. Nablus, West Bank: An-Najah National University. http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/28/11Hamdallah &Tusyehh.pdf Jayousi, A., & Thaher, M. (2011). Spelling errors of Arab students: Types, causes, and teachers' responses (Doctoral dissertation). Jie, X. (2008). Error theories and second language acquisition. US-China foreign language, 6(1), 35-42.
  15. Johansson, S. (2008). Contrastive analysis and learner language: A corpus-based approach. Oslo: University of Oslo. Kesmez, A. (2014). An analysis of the L1 interference errors