An Analysis of Errors in English Writing Made by Chinese and Korean University Students

Cui Zheng · Park Tae-Ja

58 citations0/0 files storedTheory and Practice in Language Studies

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Second Language Acquisition and Learning Linguistics and Language Analysis

Abstract

This study adopted Kim (2009)’s error classification system, based on from Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982)’s linguistic classification of errors. Errors in 168 English essays written by Chinese and Korean university students were identified and coded by three coders using NVivo. The analysis shows that some errors such as run-on sentences, the omission of articles and plural suffix-s, and sentence misordering can be caused by the negative transfer from learners’ first language. This phenomenon is highlighted by the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). In Chinese, for example, commas are used in a multifunctional way. They can be used as either periods or conjunctions, which results in run-on sentences and the omission of conjunctions in English. No articles exist in the Chinese and Korean languages, which is also the reason for the omission of English articles. Different use of plural forms in Chinese and Korean makes it difficult for EFL learners to master in English. The Korean SOV structure also confuses many Korean university students when they construct their English SVO sentences. Meanwhile, some errors can be caused just because of learners’ own creative construction regardless of their first language background, such as the misformation of verbs and nouns. This error cluster is illustrated by the creative construction hypothesis (CCH). The results indicate that both the occurrence of CAH and CCH are reasonable to some extent. The comparative analysis of errors in English writing made by Chinese and Korean university students shows a general picture of common errors made by these English learners as comprised of both CAH and CCH type errors. The reasons these errors were made are also explored, especially reasons related to their first language.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

References

1995The Study of Second Language Acquisition 1985Understanding second language acquisition 1960Linguistics across Cultures 1983Error Analysis and Interlanguage 2005Analysing Learner Language 1974NATURAL SEQUENCES IN CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION1 2019Second Language Learning Theories 1973SHOULD WE TEACH CHILDREN SYNTAX?

Cited by

2017The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement 2015Corpora and Language Learning with the Sketch Engine and SKELL 2020The Grammatical Error Analysis Found in Students’ Composition 2020An Analysis of Grammatical Errors Made by Thai EFL University Students in an EAP writing Class: Issues and Recommendations 2020Error Analysis in the Written Compositions of EFL Students: A Classroom Study 2023First Steps to Research: Typical Mistakes That Undergraduate Students Make When They Approach Academic Writing

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.