Common Errors of Academic Writing in English:

A Survey of the Undergraduate Students in

Bangladesh

A Project
Submitted to the Center for Higher Studies
Bangladesh University of Professionals
Under
University Grants Commission of Bangladesh

By:
Dr. Fahmida Haque
Associate Professor
Department of English

September 2019
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the background of the study along with the objectives and
research questions and explains the rationale of the research. Lastly, the overview of the
project has been outlined.

1.1 Background of the Study

Writing is a productive skill which is required to commune with other people,

understand them, talk to them, read what others have written and to write to them. The
resultants of writing are planning, forming letters, punctuating correctly, linking, using the
appropriate layout, paragraphing and so on. Essay writing is considered as academic writing
and thus academic writing has always been prioritized at the undergraduate level. While
learning English as a language, many students consider writing a very difficult skill to
achieve among the four skills, namely, listening, speaking, reading and writing. In higher
education, it is a serious concern to improve the level of English proficiency. It is observed
that at undergraduate level, students often fail to attain their expected competency in English.
Students predominantly face problems in academic writing. Students learning English often
make mistakes and commit errors, especially while writing. Therefore, errors in academic
writing are always taken critically. The medium of instruction in Bangladesh University of
Professionals (BUP) is English and like other tertiary level students of Bangladesh, the
students of BUP are also facing problems with writing correct English in their various
academic endevour. To investigate students’ common errors in academic writing, error
analysis is an effective method. “Error analysis is a method used to document the errors that
appear in learner language, determine whether those errors are systematic, and (if possible)
explain what caused them” (CARLA, 2019). Teachers can use error analysis to find out the
sources of errors of their students and take pedagogical precautions towards them.
 Since the 1960’s to 1970’s an error study or analysis is a method used to find the
answers to the problems. As stated by Corder and edited by Richards, errors are significant in
three ways:

“A learner’s errors…are significant in three different ways. First to the

teacher, in that they tell him if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far
towards the goals the learner has progressed ….Second, they provide to the
researchers evidence of how language is learned and acquired, what strategies
or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Third,
they are indispensable to the learner himself because we regard to the making
of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn.”

Because of the significance of the errors themselves, foreign language teachers, in

this case English teachers, have to realize that errors made by their students need to be
analysed correctly in order to be able to arrange an effective learning strategy. As stated by
Corder, Error Analysis (EA) is a procedure used by both researchers and teachers, which
involves collecting samples of the learner’s language, identifying the errors in the sample,
describing these errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating
their seriousness.

Many kinds of errors arise for students learning English because they do not master
English well. They commit errors by not using the rules of the components and elements of
the second language (Ramelan, 1992). Brown said, “Second language learning is a process
that is clearly not unlike first language learning in its trial and errors nature.” It means that
the students learning English cannot avoid errors in learning a second language (Gass and
Slinker, 1994).

Common errors and mistakes of the English language learners in Bangladesh have
long been analyzed by many experts. There is no denying the fact that error analysis can play
a significant part in assessing and evaluating a particular group of learners who frequently
commit mistakes in different areas. The analyses of the common errors and mistakes of a
group of learners in the language classrooms also provide a language instructor with some
practice knowledge as to how he/she should approach their teaching, what would be their
strategy in the class and also what methodology should be followed in the classroom in
course of their teaching.

The present study wants to have a keen look at the error analysis with an intention to
find out the common errors made by the undergraduate students in their different academic
essay writing. Therefore, the present research has tried to apply error analysis method to
identify the common errors in the academic writing of undergraduate students and suggested
some remedial measures to overcome those problems.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Problems with writing correct English is one of the most significant problems that the
students are facing at their undergraduate level. Initially in the first semester, it is often
difficult for the teachers to identify their students’ errors of writing correct English until the
students are being evaluated through written exams. It has been observed; the errors that the
students made are common in nature and frequent in number. Since the medium of
instruction at undergraduate level in many academic institutions is English, the Freshers
often struggle to write correct English in their academic writing demands. Therefore, it was
necessary to carry out an investigation, showing what kinds of errors the students have for
their academic writing.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The aim of the present research is to identify the common errors in the academic
writing of undergraduate students and to suggest some remedial measures to overcome those
errors.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. The study would ascertain the extent to which the errors are occurring in the
academic writing of the students of undergraduate level.
2. The research would try to determine the pragmatic aspects of the common errors in
the academic writing of undergraduate students.
3. The study would suggest some remedial measures to overcome the problem of errors
in the academic writing of the students.

1.4 Research Questions

The primary focus of the present study is to apply error analysis method to identify
the common errors in the academic writing of undergraduate students and will suggest some
remedial measures to overcome those problems. Thus, this study specifically addresses the
following research questions:

1. Which are the most frequent grammatical errors made by the undergraduate students
in their academic written productions?
2. What factors contribute to cause the students errors in the respective written modes?
3. What remedial measures can be taken to reduce the problem of errors in the academic
writing of undergraduate students?

1.5 Rationale of the Study

Different research findings (Akther & Khan , 2011; Muhsin, 2016; Ashraf, 2018;
Heydari & Begheri, 2012; Hossain & Uddin, 2015) have identified that the undergraduate
level students of Bangladesh are facing different problems while writing correct English in
their various academic endeavors. They have identified various problems regarding writing
correct English. These are like – lack of knowledge in the target language, interaction gap,
lack of inner motivation, syntactic errors, mother tongue interference, lack of vocabulary,
overgeneralization, the language patterns of mother tongue etc. But very few of them have
extensively worked to identify the common errors of the academic writing of the students.
Therefore, the present research is important to identify the common errors in writing correct
English at the undergraduate level not only in general but BUP students in particular.
Moreover, the importance of this research lies on the following facts:

a. To improve teaching techniques and strategies.

b. To improve student´s writing quality.
c. To help both teachers and students for a better performance when writing.
d. To design a new study plan for the students of BUP.

1.6 Significance of the Study

Most of the BUP students admitted are from Bengali medium. In BUP, the medium of
instruction is absolutely English. So the students, who are from Bengali medium, face many
difficulties in their academic writing. While doing different academic writing, students
commit different types of errors. Some students believe that they know the grammar rules but
cannot apply those properly while they need to express in English in written form for their
academic purpose. At the primary level most of the students are taught English in GTM
(grammar translation method). It makes them memorize the grammar rules only. There is no
practice of detailed understanding in this way of learning. Though CLT (Communicative
Language Teaching) approach has introduced in the 90s both at secondary and higher
secondary level, still we can see the reflection of GTM in their use of language. This is
because, they have already experienced GTM method at their early stage of learning, so it is
quite difficult for them to acquire something new at their advance stage of learning. We have
seen that these students can easily come up with the rules if they asked any but they cannot
apply those in academic writing. As these students become totally dependent on those rules
they just memorize those rules without understand properly. We can say that the deductive
way of teaching makes them dependent on the rules learning first rather observing the use of
those grammatical rules. As the way of teaching English was not that much effective for the
students, they face problem while they need to produce any sentence orally and in written
form. It becomes difficult for them to comprehend anything while they are asked to read or
listen anything in English. As they cannot comprehend properly they face difficulties to
express it in their writing. So, these students need proper guidance to develop their writing
ability. In BUP, we are offering fundamental or functional English course to improve the
skills for all mixed ability students. This research will help us to find out the effectiveness of
those fundamental courses through identifying students’ common errors in essay writing.

1.7 Outline of the Project

The present study has tried to apply error analysis method to identify the common
errors in the academic writing of BUP students and suggested some remedial measures to
overcome those problems. This project comprises six chapters along with references and
some appendixes at the end.

The first chapter briefly introduces the present study and discusses background of the
study, the statement of the problem, the significance of the study, the objectives of the study,
research questions, the limitations of the study, the outline of the project etc.

The second chapter briefly identifies a theoretical framework for the research;
develop an analytical model, showing the differences between contrastive analysis and error
analysis, defining error, discuss the variables of error analysis, implication and process of
error analysis.

The third chapter deals with literature review which includes; error; difference
between error and mistake; learners’ error; academic writing at tertiary level, common errors
in the tertiary level students’ academic writing; and feedback.

The fourth chapter brings out the research design and methodology of the present
study which describes a conceptual framework of the study; sampling plan of the study; data
collection techniques; data measurement and scaling, and data analysis methods.
 The fifth chapter provides the major part of the thesis, which deals with major
findings and interpretation of data. Data for this study were collected using the written
questionnaires described in the previous chapter. The analysis of data proceeded in several
stages. First, all the questionnaires were tabulated to record the responses for each participant
for each item.

The sixth chapter begins with an attempt to laying out recommendations.

At the end of the project, references and some appendixes are placed.

1.8 Conclusion

The present chapter has included a general introduction of the study, which elaborates
the objectives and rationale behind conducting the research, provides the research questions.
A brief overview of the research has been outlined. The next chapter presents the theoretical
framework of the research with an analytical model.
 CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ERROR ANALYSIS

In this chapter the researcher is investigating the historical perspective to language

development and analysis to both Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis (EA). In the
light of some of these above mentioned theoretical aspects studied, the error analysis is
carried out by the researcher.

2.1 Preamble

In general, research should be based on objective evidence and supported by theory

(Malhotra & Dash, 2013). A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts
like a theory. The theoretical framework guides the research; determine what things will be
measured, and what statistical relationships to be looked for. Thus, the theoretical framework
involves a discussion of (1) the research problem and (2) the rationale for conducting an
investigation of the problem. These two factors form the basis of a theoretical framework.
The theoretical framework also serves as a foundation for developing an appropriate
analytical model (Malhotra & Dash, 2013).

2.2 Analytical Model

This section is devoted to define the theoretical framework under which the
relationship among the variables (dependent and independent) is intended to measure. Since,
it is an exploratory design of research and not tended to test hypothesis or experiment any
theory, researcher endeavor to conduct the study under the constructed flexible framework to
explore the common errors of writing correct English at BUP through the following graphical
model.
 Here the variables under the study are operationally defined, a theoretical model is
framed and then it is explained how this model guides the study and analyze the findings of
the study.

Feedback

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

We know human learning is basically a process which involves the making of errors.
The process of language learning is like any other process of acquiring a skill, involves the
making of a lot of errors. Therefore, most of the learners of a second language make a
number of errors whatever the learning environment and conditions is. Dulay and Burt
(1974) express this notion in the phrase “You can’t learn without goofing”. They see an error
or a “goof” as a natural product of the process of L2 learning “for which no blame is
implied.”

However, the notion of error itself is controversial: its nature, description, and
explanation depend mainly on the outlook on the process of human learning in general and
language learning in particular. Generally, the analysis of L2 learners’ errors has two main
approaches:
a. A contrastive-based error analysis, and
b. A non- contrastive-based error analysis

2.3 Behaviourist Learning Theory

Bahaviourism is a learning theory which can be traced back to Aristotle and his essay
“Memory”. Later, Pavlov,Watson, Thorndike and Skinner further develop this theory. Even
though, the term ‘behaviourism’ is credited to Watson, it is the work of Skinner that
represents culmination of the behaviourist theory of learning. According to Skinner (1957),
learning is a straight forward process where a response (R) is the behavior which is produced
as a reaction to a stimulus (S). S-R theory is a learning theory, which describes learning as
the formation of associations between responses. A stimulus is produced as a reaction to an
individual organism.

The behaviourist learning theory illustrates the L1 learning as a mechanical process of

habit formation. In the 1950s and early 1960s, in the heydays of Behaviourist Psychology, it
was thought that children learned their correct L1 habits by copying, even more exactly, the
sentences that they heard adults use. Ellis (2005) reviewed, “behaviour becomes a habit when
a specific stimulus elicits an automatic response from the learner. It can be formed either
through classical conditioning or through instrumental learning. Habits entail ‘over-learning’,
which ensures that learning of new habits as a result of proactive inhibition.

Thus, the challenge facing the L2 learner is to overcome the interference of L1 habits.
Basing on the habit formation, Contrastive Analysis (CA) sought to identify the features of
the L2 that differed from those of the L1, so that learners could be helped to form the new
habits of the L2 by practicing them intensively. It has been suggested that the greater the
difference between L1 and L2, the more difficult it would be the L1 to learn L2: the more the
L1 would interfere with the learning of the L2. Most errors that L2 learners commit were the
result of differences between L1 and L2 structure (Martin, 1996). The focus in behaviourist
theories of learning is on the external environment. Learning is considered a process of habit
formation – a process of making a link between stimuli and response. Therefore, the link is to
be ‘reinforced’, ‘observed’, ‘corrected’ and ‘practiced’. The principle–practice makes man
perfect – is followed very closely.

The theory of language learning as a habit formation relies on the principles of

associationism i.e. frequency, contiguity, intensity etc. of stimulus and response in the
occurrence of the event that develops into habit. The interference theory rests on the
association of stimulus/context with a set response. The two become interlinked so that a
certain stimulus invariably produces the response associated with it. As a result, learning a
new response to the same stimulus would require ‘extinction’ of the old association.
Otherwise the old response would assert itself. Thus, the reappearance of the old response
when a new one was intended is negative transfer. Since habit formation is aromatization of a
response, it becomes necessary to unlearn an old response to acquire a new one. Thus, the
notion of unlearning is central to the interference theory. (Such an approach treats errors as
‘incorrect response’ or a bad habit to be eradicated through vigorous drilling of the correct
response or the desired habit).

2.4The Contrastive-Based Error Analysis

According to the behaviorist theory of language learning, which is prevailing before

the 1960s, linguists and researchers in second language learning (henceforth SLL) believe
that L2 learners’ errors are mainly due to L1 interference. Errors are considered undesirable
and fatal to proper language learning. From behaviorist perspective, people learn by
responding to external stimuli and receiving proper reinforcement. Therefore, an error is
considered as a wrong response to a stimulus and it should be corrected when it occurs.
Brooks (1964), quoted in Tarone and Yule (1989), maintains that “like sin, error is to be
avoided and its influence overcome.” Unless corrected properly and immediately, the error
becomes a habit and a wrong behavioral pattern would stick in the learner’s mind. The
behaviorist view of SLL is that the learner carries over the old habits of his L1 into the L2
and hence, fails to acquire the proper habits of the L2 system. Clearly this explanation of
SLL is related to a view of language learning as some sort of habit-formation which follows a
mechanical route.

Linguists and SLL researchers who are working within this framework put a great
deal of emphasis on contrastive analysis [CA]. The assumption is that: if linguists could
analyze carefully and completely the systems o f both L1 and L2, they would be able to
predict and explain errors that would occur during SLL. The contrastive analysis hypothesis,
(henceforth CAH) is that errors would occur at the point at which the two language systems
are dissimilar. Weinreich (1953), cited in Van Els et al. (1984), claims that “the greater the
difference between the two systems . . .the greater is the learning problem and the potential
area of interference.” The solution, as Lado (1957) suggests, is a systematic analysis of both
languages in order to overcome this L1 interference: “. . . the comparison of any two
languages and cultures [is] to discover and describe the problems that the speakers of one of
the languages will have in learning the other . . . .” Lado (1957: 2) further explains this notion
as follows:

Individuals tend to transfer forms and meaning and the distribution of forms
and meaning of their native language and culture to the foreign language and
culture, both productively when attempting to speak the language … and
receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language … as
practiced by its natives.

Brown (1987) states that the proponents of the CAH, which is “deeply rooted in
behaviorism and structuralism,” claim that the “principal barrier” to second language
learning is the L1 interference with the L2 system. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) observe
that L2 learners’ errors occur due to the “automatic” transfer of the rules of the L1. Within
the assumptions of CA, negative transfer or interference occurs when the systems of Target
Language (TL) and Second Language (SL) are different. Positive transfer occurs when the
two systems are similar. Thus, the CAH proposes the theory that L2 learners’ errors are
primarily caused by the interference of the old habits of the L1.
 However, all this remains a theoretical issue. Lado (1957) warns that this “list of
problems resulting from the comparison of foreign language with native language must . . .
be considered a list of hypothetical problems until final validation is achieved by checking it
against the actual speech of students.” This reservation made by Lado, one of the initiators of
CA analysis, is a source of much controversy on the empirical validity of the CAH. Hassan,
Baghdady, and Buslama (1993) argue that:

… it is difficult to fully assess contrastive error analysis because the discipline

is very cautious in stating its assumption such as “the most important factor
determining ease and difficulty” or “the chief source of the difficulty” (Lado,
1964) … But we cannot take these reserved expressions into consideration too
seriously as long as we have no statistical data to support them.

With regard to the last statement about the statistical data that verify the CAH, Ellis
(1997) observes that the main obstacle in the empirical validation of the CAH is “the lack of
well defined and broadly-accepted criteria for establishing which grammatical utterance are
the result of language transfer.” However, even allowing for this obstacle, most statistical
evidences are against the CAH. Ellis (1997) maintains that non-interference errors among L2
learners are “recognized” always except by few of the proponents of CAH. Dulay et al.
(1982) report that the frequency of errors due to L1 interference is “relatively low” among
both children and adults. They further add that most of these errors are syntactic rather than
morphological.

Experiments and observations made by researchers in the discipline reveal serious

limitations in the approach of CA. Chastain (1976) maintains that “recent investigations of
errors made by second language learners have revealed surprising statistics.” He observes
that although some errors could be attributed to L1 interference, their percentage is not so
large as predicted by CA. Whitman and Jackson (1972), quoted in Brown (1987), find no
empirical support for most of the CAH predictions. They, after have empirically tested the
predictions of the CAH, conclude that CA “. . . is inadequate, theoretically and practically to
predict the interference problems of a language learner.” Hanzeli (1975), cited in Chastian
(1976), maintains that researchers in CA “… like Corder, Selinker, Burt and George, have
proved conclusively that traditional contrastive analysis of two grammars cannot predict the
frequency and hierarchy of learners' errors.” In one of their studies of L2 learners’ errors,
Dulay and Burt (1973) empirically show that only 3% of these errors are due to L1
interference. Ellis’ (1997) comment on this finding is that:

Dulay and Burt’s research constituted a powerful attack on the contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis. Clearly, if only 3 per cent of all learners’ errors are the
result of interference, then a comparison of the learners’ native and target
language could not help to predict or explain very much about the process of
SLA.

Thus, as Lightbown and Spada (1993) argue, there is one obvious fact, that SLL is
“not simply a process of putting second language words into first language sentences.” This
is what CA claims to be but fails to show it empirically. As Burn (1978) argues, the rationale
for CA is its “explanatory power.” If CA “fails” to accomplish this task, it “scarcely seems
worth the time and labour that has been expended on it.”

2.5 Criticism of Contrastive Analysis

As Corder (1967) suggests, teachers have not always been impressed by the
contrastive linguist’s contribution. Hence, has been criticized in recent literature for the
following reasons.

i. Contrastive studies focus mainly on differences between L1 and L2 and ignore many
other factors which affect the second language learners performance; for example,
his learning strategies, training procedures, overgeneralization of target language
rules.

ii. Not all difficulties and errors can be traced back to the influence of the mother tongue
and consequently other explanations must be sought.
iii. Some of the difficulties predicted by the contrastivist did not in fact, pose any
problems to the learner.

iv. The basis of contrastive analysis—the theory of interference – has been questioned.

v. The objectivity of contrastive analysis methodology is questionable. The linguist’s

preference of a model of description often leads to different outputs presenting
different predictions.

vi. Most contrastive studies deal with theoretical problems like validation of the notion
of linguistic universals and not with pedagogical problems. So much so that a
distinction has begun to be made between theoretical and applied contrastive
linguistics in recent literature (Jackson, 1976).

vii. Recent contrastive studies are too technical to be of any use to most teachers of
English as a second language.

viii. “Most of the available differential descriptions are so superficial and incomplete
as to be misleading (Mackey, 1968: 201).”

ix. Learning is viewed as an instantaneous printing process; the role of storage from a
prior stage is ignored. CA cannot e.g. predict errors caused by interference from
TL materials previously learned.

x. CA does not take note of some ‘universal learning strategies’ noticed both in the child
and the adult learner; e.g. the phenomenon described by Slama-Cazacu (1971) as
‘contamination’ commonly referred to by other authors as overgeneralization, and
‘regularization’ of language which leads to analogy errors such as go-ed, spend-
ed.
 Thus, “CA has been subjected to both great expectations and severe criticism” says
Kari Sajavaara (1977). After a boon in the early 1960’s, CA fell in the grip of a serious crisis.
But the crisis, if at all there was such a crisis, existed at the level of theoretical discussion
only. In the meantime, CA progressed rapidly at various centers of active research.

2.6 The Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis

Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics has a substantial influence on language learning

theory. The belief that learning language is a process of habit formation is totally discarded
by the radically cognitive perspective proposed by Noam Chomsky. James (1980) comments
that Chomsky’s cognitive approach to language constitutes “something of a revolution” and
his Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is a “turning point” in SLL theory.

In his Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, Chomsky (1959) argues that human
learning, particularly language acquisition, could not be explained by simply starting off with
a “tabula rasa” state of mind. Chomsky claims that human beings must have a certain kind of
innate capacity, which guides the acquisition of language (Tono, 2000). Influenced by this
viewpoint, many researchers in SLL discredit the behaviorist language learning theory and
the psychological foundations of CA are thus seriously shaken. Slama-Cazaw (1971), cited in
James (1980), argues that within the framework of cognitive psychology “transfer” is
considered a “controversial” and “hypothetical concept.” Newmeyer and Weiberger (1988)
state that:

Just as Chomsky’s 1959 review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957)

knocked out the underpinnings from the behaviorist psychology to which
early contrastive analysis owed its theoretical rationalization, the first chapter
of his 1965 book Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, by outlining a theory of
language acquisition in terms of an innate “language acquisition device” that
facilitated the learning of abstract grammar rules, made any sort of contrastive
analysis seem theoretically suspect.
 If the contrastive-based error analysis fails to account for the explanation of learners’
errors in SLL, the non-contrastive approach offers the alternative. One of the major
contributions of the non-contrastive based error analysis is its recognition of non-interference
errors in the process of SLL. This is the core of what is called ERROR ANALYSIS [EA].
Brown (1987) observes that one of the major distinctions between contrastive analysis and
error analysis is that the latter examines errors whatever their source. Consequently, EA
overshadows CA as a better tool in understanding L2 learners’ errors and hence the process
of SLL.

2.7 Implications of Error Analysis

In theory and practice of SLL, EA has some significant implications. Most literature
of EA supports the following implications with regard to the process of SLL:

1. L2 learners’ errors are the result of multi-factors; errors may occur both as a result
of L1 interference [interlingual errors] or the incomplete interim grammar of the L2 learner
[intralingual errors]. One basic assumption that stems from the concept of intralingual errors
is that several L2 learners’ errors are universal and common to both first and second
language learning. Studies made by error analysts’ support the assumption that all L2
learners would commit similar errors irrespective of the learner’s L1background. In one of
their empirical studies in SLL, Dulay and Burt (1973), for instance, report that child learners
of English with Chinese and Spanish L1 backgrounds have acquired eleven English
structures in the same sequence. Richards (1974) provides tables of errors made by learners
from several L1 backgrounds. These errors are quite similar, a fact that empirically supports
the claims of EA.

2. Errors on the part of the L2 learners should not be viewed as unpardonable sins.
Errors, in the process of SLL, are not only natural and inevitable, but they are also
significant. On the significance of learners’ errors Corder (1981) states that:
 A learner’s errors, then provide evidence of the system of the language that he
is using (i.e. has learned) at a particular point in the course ….They are
significant in three different ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell him, if
he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has
progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. Second, they
provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learnt or acquired, what
strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the
language. Thirdly (and in a sense this is their most important aspect) they are
indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of
errors as a device the learner can use in order to learn. It is a way the learner
has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of language he is learning.

Chastain (1976) hopes that future investigations in EA may provide much more
information about the nature of learners’ errors. This will give useful insights into the process
of SLL and thus “provide clues to more efficient teaching-learning procedures.” However,
not all researchers in SLL would agree on this proposed significance of L2 learners’ errors.
On the insignificance of L2 learners’ errors Hamilton (2001) argues that the congnitivist
hypothesis of interlanguage neither explains nor provides a principled basis for classroom
practice. He suggests that this approach adopted by the proponents of EA may divert
attention from the contexts and practical situation in which errors occur.

3. In EA, CA is assigned an explanatory role, which is to be called the weak version

of the CAH. In this weak version of the CAH, CA is used a posteriori to explain a subset of
L2 learners’ errors; it is no longer used as a priori procedure involving the prediction of
almost all L2 learners’ errors on the basis, of L1 interference. Thus, CA is seen as a useful
approach within a broader framework of explaining L2 learners’ errors.

4. The cognitive approach of EA, which views SLL as a process of hypothesis-

testing, leads to the coinage of the concept of “INTERLANGUAGE” which is introduced
by Selinker (1972). Other similar terms coined by error analysts are “approximative
systems” (Nemser, 1971), “idiosyncratic dialects” and “transitional competence”
(Corder, 1971), the learner’s “built-in-syllabus” (Corder, 1967), and “creative
constructions” (Dulay and Burt, 1973). As Mizuno (1988) states, interlanguage analysis
[IA] regards the transitional linguistic system for the Learner’s L1 to the TL as
interlanguage [IL]. The goals of IA, as Mizuno (1991) states them, include the
establishment of a well-knit theory of SLA, the elucidation of teaching and learning methods
and materials, and the establishment of a “data-bank of universal grammar.” Thus, SLA
research, according to Mizuno (1988), needs to examine the common and differing elements
of L1, TL, and IL as they relate to the learning strategies employed by L2 learners.

5. SLL, as opposed to L1 learning, is generally characterized by a lack of success

with few learners achieving complete mastery of the TL system. Thus, the learner’s IL is in a
state of constant change. It is always revised as the learner encounters new language items,
and absorbs them. As Benson (2002) argues, “Interlanguage (the learner’s interim grammar
of the L2) is not fixed and rigid like the L1, but ‘permeable’”. Thus, the learner’s IL becomes
more complex and sophisticated. However, as Daniels (2000) argues:

… the general lack of success of second and foreign language learners would
lead us to anticipate that there is likely to be a point when this progress comes
to a halt and learning stops. It this point which is characterised as fossilisation.

Selinker (1974) claims that one of the main issues in the L2 learners’ IL is the
phenomenon of fossilization. He states that:

Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems

which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a
particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation
and instruction he receives in the TL.

Mallows (2002) argues that a learner’s IL develops “organically” and is “constantly

changing and reacting to the feedback it receives.” In some way it could be seen as an “open
system” moving towards the “strange attractor which gives it both impetus and order.”
Fossilisation, thus, may occur due to the learner’s “interlanguage becoming closed, and
settling to a fixed- point.”

Fossilization in the process of SLL is identified by comparing the different states of

the learner’s IL. The theory of fossilisation is associated with Selinker (1972) and his work
on IL. Ellis (1994) examines possible reasons for fossilisation and finds no single cause.
Selinker (1974) identifies five central processes associated with fossilisation: language
transfer, strategies of SLL, strategies of SLC, and ovrergeneralization of TL material. The
combination of these processes produces what might be seen as entirely fossilised IL
competence, for language development has stopped.

6. The making of errors, within the perspective of EA, is viewed as the natural route
followed by both children acquiring their L1 and L2, teachers “should be more tolerant of
students’ errors in initial and immediate stages of language learning.” (Chastain, 1976).

2.8 The Concept of “Error” in Error Analysis

EA nurtures a more tolerant view towards L2 learners’ errors in comparison with that
of CA. This is because language learning is no longer seen as a process of habit-formation
but rather a process of hypothesis-formation and testing. Within the perspectives of EA, L2
learner’s errors are regarded as inevitable, natural, and essential part of language learning
process. Ellis (1999) claims that one of the “most significant” roles of EA is its “success in
evaluating the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to the inner workings of
the language learning process.” Newmeyer and Weiberger (1988: 37) state that within the
cognitive approach of EA:

… errors made by the learner took on a particularly central status. They are no
longer habits to be eradicated, nor an inevitable byproduct of the conflict
resulting from the distinct structures, levels, and rules of two grammars; they
are now evidence support the constructive hypothesis of the learner.
Harste, Woodword, and Burke (2000) eloquently express the view that errors are inherent in
the process of language learning itself:

The openness of language leads to both creativity and error. That the process
which leads to creativity is also the process which leads to error is something
we must accept; but clearly, since we cannot have one without the other, then
we cannot ignore, confine or fail to appreciate or to encourage this process.

Ultimately, however, the question of error comes down to the defining question: what
exactly do we mean by an error? Lennon (1991) maintains that “errors do not constitute as
easily recognizable a feature as might be imagined. There are, in fact, great problems in
unambiguously defining error, and considerable variation is to be found even among native
speakers in error identification.” However, researchers in SLL usually distinguish between
errors of competence and errors of performance or mistakes. Brown (1987) suggests that it is
important to make a distinction of errors and mistakes in order to achieve a proper analysis of
L2 learners’ errors. Corder (1981) makes a distinction between errors “which are the
products of such chance circumstances” for which he reserves the term mistakes and those
errors which reveal imperfection in the learner’s “underlying knowledge of language” or his
“transitional competence.” According to Corder, errors of competence are the application of
rules, which do not correspond to the L2 norm, while mistakes or errors of performance are
slips of the tongue, which are the results of the learner’s failure to use the L2 rules due to
some sort of imperfection in the production of linguistic items. In accordance with Corder’s
approach, Hubbard et al. (2000) state that an error is an “imperfect production caused by
genuine lack of knowledge about the language,” while a mistake is a “slip of the tongue etc.
which the student can self-correct when challenged . . . .” However, Ellis (1999), who
recognizes the “practical difficulties” about this approach, maintains that Corder’s proposed
distinction of ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ is probably unworkable in practice. Corder himself
(1981) acknowledges that the question of “determining what is a learner’s mistake and what
is a learner’s error is one of some difficulty and involves a much more sophisticated study
and analysis of errors than is usually accorded them.”
 This is clear from the fact that Corder’s distinction between errors of competence and
performance suffers from serious practical limitations. This distinction is based on the
discrepancy between the learner’s knowledge of language rules and his actual use of
language. The root of this notion is Chomsky’s famous distinction between ‘competence’
and ‘performance.’ However, this distinction is too abstract to capture the concrete
problems of SLL. After all, what is the learner’s competence if it is not reflected in his
performance? Van Els et al. (1984) argue that “a large number of [L2 learners’] errors of
performance may indicate lack of automaticity in using language skills, and therefore a lack
of L2 competence on the part of the L2 learner.” Lengo (1995) offers a similar view. He
states that the distinction between the deviations made by native speakers and L2 learners
“derive” from competence. L2 learners’ deviations are made as a result of their “paucity of
knowledge” of the TL system, while deviations made by native speakers are “dismissed” as
slips or mistakes.

Though Ellis and Lengo’s views may lead to consider all second language learners’
deviations as proper errors and thus serve for the practical purpose of this study, many
theoretical issues still remain unresolved with regard to the distinction of errors and mistakes.
Also, Corder’s operational procedure to distinguish errors and mistakes by checking the
learner for the explicit knowledge of L2 rules when he produces a deviant form is not always
reliable. As Van Els et al. (1984) argues, it is “possible that an L2 learner can recognize and
repair his error on the basis of explicit L2 knowledge, but at the same time retains them in
actual L2 use.”

Another question in the specification of L2 learners’ errors is the question of norm.

Corder (1973) refers to errors as “breaches of the code.” Errors are seen as deviations from
what is regarded as the TL norms. But the question is: what this norm is. Klassen (1991)
chooses the native speaker’s judgment as the norm for L2 learners’ errors. She defines an
error as “a form or structure that a native speaker deems unacceptable because of its
inappropriate use.” Richards et al. (1989) express a similar view when they define a second
language learners’ error in speech or writing as the “use of a linguistic item in a way which,
according to fluent users of the language, indicates faulty or incomplete learning.” However,
these definitions pose other new questions: What is the criterion of this “native speaker” who
serves as a norm for L2 learners’ errors? And what is the criterion of “appropriate use”? As
Lengo (1995) observes “languages have different varieties or dialects with rules that differ
from the standard. Additionally, native speakers have different rules . . . there is not always a
clear-cut boundary between errors and non-errors.” It seems to be a hopeless case, but Lengo
(1995) offers the solution. He rightly argues that the “native speaker by whom Chomsky and
other linguists swear is probably not an illiterate person.” Lengo further adds that the
“appropriate use” against which L2 learners’ errors are checked is the “standard variety of
the target language.” He explains that while deviant forms produced by illiterate native
speakers are considered as “non-standard”, L2 learners’ deviant forms are mostly errors that
show their stage of development and could be “tested against the norm of the standard
variety of the target language.”

2.9 The Process of Error Analysis

According to Corder (1974), error analysis (EA) research consists of several steps. He
suggests the following steps:

1. Collection of a sample of learner language

2. Identification of errors
3. Description of errors
4. Explanation of errors
5. Evaluation of errors
 Figure 2. Analysis of error (Ellis, 2002)

EA is a many-fold process; it has a series of five steps: recognition, description,

explanation, evaluation and prevention or correction of errors. These five steps are
systematically ordered. Each one logically depends on the former steps. Corder (1978), for
instance, observes that “Recognition of errors is crucially dependent upon correct
interpretation of the learner’s intention. Description can only begin when recognition has
taken place.” This statement of Corder shows how immense and intricate the process of EA
is.

Researchers in EA identify two aspects of the discipline. Ellis (1999) identifies a

linguistic as well as a psychological aspect in the process of EA. Corder (1978) maintains
that L2 learners’ errors could linguistically be explained when we explore the way in which
the learner “has deviated from the realization” of the TL rules. Also L2 learners’ errors could
be explained from a “psycho-linguistic” point of view, when we explore the causes of this
deviation from the TL system.
 For a linguistic explanation of errors, Richards (1974), for example, provides a list of
tables of EFL learners’ errors from different native language backgrounds. He shows the way
these learners break the “realization” of TL rules. According to Corder (1973), errors could
linguistically be classified into four main categories: omission, addition, selection, and
misordereing. However, Ellis (1999) argues that information deduced from this type of
classification is not very significant when it comes to understand the “learners’
developmental sequence.” Ellis argues that SLL is an ever-changing “process about which
this type of linguistic classification reveals very few information.” On the other hand, Ellis
(1999) argues that the psycholinguistic explanation of L2 learners’ errors is more informative
about the strategies used in L2 learners’ interlanguage.

In terms of this psycholinguistic explanation of L2 learners’ errors researchers in EA

introduce the concept of intralingual errors, an explanation of the source of errors, which
extends beyond just the concept of interlingual errors which, is recognized by the proponents
of CA as the main or only source of errors. Chastain (1976: 67) explains what an intralingual
error is as follows:

An interlanguage error is not the result of conflict with native language but the
result of some problem in the acquisition of second language itself.
Intralanguage errors arise from the lack of congruity between the second-
language learners set of rules and those of native speaker. These errors are
termed developmental or restructuring errors are the direct result of the
learner's attempt to create language based on their language hypotheses about
the systems they are learning.

It is obvious that Chastain makes no distinction between intralingual and

developmental errors. However, Richards (1974) treats developmental errors as a distinct
category of errors. Intralingual errors according to Richards are “those which affect the
general characteristics of rule learning, such as faulty generalization, incomplete application
of rule learning, and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply,” while
developmental errors “illustrate the learn attempting to build up hypotheses about the
language from his limited knowledge of it in the class room or textbook.” However, the
distinction between intralingual and developmental errors is not clearly revealed from these
two definitions. As Dulay et al. (1982) observes, Richard’s taxonomy of learners’ errors
makes it crystal-clear that most developmental errors are intralingual errors. Lo Coco (1976),
cited in Dulay et al. (1982), offers a more loose view of what an intralingual error is. He
states that “Intralingual errors occur when an L1 does not have a rule which L2 has; the
learner applies an L2 rule, producing an error.” This implies that whenever an error could not
be attributed to L1 interference, it is treated as an intralingual error.

However, Dulay et al. (1982) present a radically different view with regard to the
description and explanation of L2 learners’ errors. They argue that in the literature of EA
there is a gross confusion between the description of L2 learners’ errors and the explanation
of their sources. Delay et al. (1982) maintain “the description of an error refers to the product
of language acquisition whereas the explanation of an error -the determination of its origins-
refers to the language acquisition process.” These two processes, as Dulay et al. argue, are
quite dissimilar in every aspect. That while the description of errors entails the study of
learners’ verbal performance, the explanation of errors involves determining the processes
responsible for these errors, which is a matter of inference and could not easily be attained.
Dulay et al. (1982) further add that the classification of errors according to their hypothesized
sources takes up “a good portion” of EA, but it is all without avail. Such type of
classification has two prerequisites:

“1. An error has one source, and

2. The specification of this source is relatively straightforward.”

As Delay et al. (1982: 144) argue, “neither of these assumptions seems to hold up.”
Van Els et al. (1984) argue that “it is . . . often far from easy to make a distinction between
inter-and intralingual deviations from the L2 norm, because it often remains unclear which
operating principle the L2 learner in fact uses.” Van Els et al. bring instances of deviations
made by learners of English with a German background. Two of these deviations would
suffice here to show the alternative possibilities for explaining the source of errors, and hence
the difficulty of the specification of the source of a particular error:

*(1) The futural design of the metro.

*(2) It is an unordinary event.

In the case of the first underlined deviation the “operating principle” might be L2
interference and the error is interpreted as a result of an “innovation analogous to zukunftig.”
[the adjective from the German noun Zukunft which means future]” Or it might be the
overgeneralization of L2 rules, and the error is explained as an "innovation analogous to
structural.” In the case of the second underlined deviation the “operating principle” might
also be L1 interference and the error is interpreted as a result of an “innovation analogous to
ungewohnlich [extraordinary].” Or, on the other hand, the error might be seen as an “over
application” of L2 rules and explained as a result of an "innovation analogous to uncertain
etc.”

Olsson (1974) reports a similar case from L2 learners of English with a Swedish background:

…The regularization of the irregular pattern verb inflection is due to

intralingual interference, but it is also a learner characteristic. The sending
added to the verb is here considered to be conditioned both by the s-passive in
Swedish and by over-generalization of the –s in the third person singular in
English. Consequently, it has been subsumed under the two headings
intralingual interference and interlingual interference. (Dulay et al, (1982:
143) et l, (1982:143).

All this shows the practical difficulty or impossibility of assigning a particular L2

learner’s error to a specific source. It shows that the concept of intralingual errors adopted by
error analysts is as vague and impractical as that of interlingual errors proposed by
contrastive analysts. They both fail to account for the L2 learners' errors. The problem with
them is that they are based on a pseudo-explanation of the complex and intricate process of
SLL.

However, even if we accept the simple classification of L2 learners’ errors into inter-
and interlingual errors and set absolute criteria for this classification, the interpretation of L2
learners’ errors would not be easy as it seems to be. As Dulay et al. (1982) put it; an error,
which seems to be analogous to a form or structure in the learner's L1 could not be
“automatically” referred to L1 interference. Similarly, an error, which seems to be
developmental, could not unequivocally be attributed to L2 system. There are, in fact,
complex mental processes that underlie such errors.

2.9.1 Error Analysis: why do we need that?

While doing analysis of errors in writing, we basically focus on grammar, vocabulary

and spelling error patterns. Error analysis helps a learner to work with their errors. Students
can discuss with any language instructor or teacher to find cause and solution to their
common error patterns. It can help the learner to reduce their error if they can successfully
follow advice of the teacher. For the teachers, error analysis can help a lot to identify
students’ problems in writing and their errors. Teacher can then work on their syllabus which
can work as need analysis in respect of students’ difficulties. Teacher can develop their
material according to the students’ need. If a teacher can identify students’ common trouble
spots in second language learning then it becomes easier for him/her to develop material
according to their need.
We can say that error analysis involves analysis of errors in writing, making the necessary
changes to work, and judging the accuracy/appropriateness of writing. So it is inevitable that
error analysis facilitates learning and teaching both as its helps learners and teachers’ in all
respects.
 2.10 What is feedback?

Feedback is information that is given to the learner about his or her performance of a
learning task, usually with the objective of improving this performance (Ur, 1996). Ur (1996)
indicates that feedback is given to improve learners’ performance. Feedback on errors is
perhaps one of the oldest and most widely reported forms of feedback (Chaudron,1977,
1988; Celce Murcia, 1993). In written work, typical ways used by the teacher are either to
underline, indicate and correct the errors in the text or simply to indicate them by means of
code in the margin about the kind of error. Sometimes they underline errors and do not
correct them; sometimes they tell the students the kind of error they have made but they do
not correct it and sometimes they do all three (Allwright, 1975; Norrish; 1983; Hendrickson,
1984; Chaudron, 1988; cited in Khan, 2002). According to Khan (2002), “Feedback is an
indispensable tool for improving the teaching and learning of writing, by providing
information to students on the performance of their written work.” (Khan, 2002, p.2) A
teacher can give different types of feedback; he or she can give comments or a grade.
Generally teachers prefer to give written comments in the margin of an essay.

Feedback has two main distinguishable components: assessment and correction.

Assessment: Assessment indicates how good or bad the learner has performed. A
percentage or grade on an exam would be one example; or a comment such as ‘Fair’ at the
end of a written assignment.

Correction: Some specific information is provided on aspects of the learner’s

performance: through explanation, or provision of better or other alternatives. Ur (1996)
states that “principle correction can and should include information on what the learner did
right, as well as wrong, and why”. She comments: “If a correction is supplied, the learner is
very aware that this means the teacher thinks something was wrong; if comment is given on
why something was appropriate, there is necessarily an underlying message of
commendation”. (Ur, 1996:242) In most cases, learners feel confident when they find good
comments on their correct answer with the correction of their wrong answer. It works as a
positive reinforcement for better performance.

Evaluation: Ur (1996) termed evaluation as ‘summative’, where the teacher evaluates

the overall aspect of the learner’s knowledge in order to summarize the situation: how
proficient he or she is at a certain point in time, for example, or how much he or she has
progressed during a particular course. According to Ur (1996) most of the feedback we give
our learners is ongoing correction and assessment, which directed at specific bits of learner-
produced language with the aim of bringing about improvement.

2.10.1 Error Correction in Feedback

There are different opinions in different language teaching approaches regarding error
correction.

Audio-lingualism: There is little need for correction at first sight.

Cognitive-code learning: Mistakes should be corrected whenever they occur to prevent them
occurring again.

Interlanguage: Mistakes are important part of learning. Correcting them is a way of bringing
the learner’s interlanguage closer to the target language.

Communicative approach: Not all mistakes need to be corrected. Focus should be on

message rather than mistakes.

Monitor theory: Correction does not contribute to language learning. (Ur, 1996)

Corder (1973) points out that, language learning is not parrot learning; we do not
‘learn’ or ‘practice’ examples. They are the data from which we induce the system of the
language. Skill in correction of errors lies in the direction of exploiting the incorrect forms
produced by the learner in a controlled fashion.

2.10.2 Error Correction Major Form of Feedback

Hedge (1988) prefers to think of ‘correction’ under the more general heading of
‘improving’, a cover term that stresses the interacting of marking procedures with processing
categories. If a teacher returns a paper full of red marks and notes all over, then it becomes
quite discouraging for the student or learner. The most important aspect while giving
feedback is adopting a positive attitude to student writing. While marking mechanically we
may not realize that we are showing the student only his mistakes - negative points. If the
student receives only negative feedback, he may easily be discouraged from trying to form
complex structures and using new vocabulary. However, feedback sessions can be a
beneficial experience for the student if the teacher shows the strong points as well. Another
important point to consider while giving feedback is the amount of correction on the end
product. In academic writing, the end product is expected to have:

• A wide range of vocabulary

• Correct grammar
• Meaningful punctuation
• Accurate spelling
• Varied sentence structures
• Unity and coherence in ideas
• Well-supported and explained major points

Another strategy for decreasing teacher writing on a student paper is to use some kind
of “code”. A teacher can help the students through providing different types of feedback so
that they can write successfully in future. There are different techniques of giving feedback.
Harmer (2001) mentions coding as a technique of giving feedback:
 Coding: Different coding systems have been developed as teachers’ feedback tool. Some
teachers use codes and put codes either in the body of the writing itself, or in a
corresponding margin. This makes correction much neater, less threatening, and
considerably more helpful than random marks and comments.

2.11 Conclusion

This chapter described the theoretical framework under which the relationship among
the variables (dependent and independent) has been measured. Here the researcher has tried
to construct a flexible framework to explore the common errors in the academic writing of
BUP students through a graphical model. Here the variables under the study are operationally
defined.

In the next chapter, the literature will be critically reviewed learners’ error,
relationship between writing and error, academic essay writing, and other terms which are
interrelated to error analysis.
 CHAPTER THREE

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the field of academic writing, error analysis and error correction have been widely
discussed by many researchers and linguists. This chapter begins by defining error, learners’
error, relationship between writing and error, academic essay writing, and other terms which
are interrelated to error analysis.

3.1 Preamble

Common errors and mistakes of the English language learners in Bangladesh have
long been analyzed by many experts. There is no denying the fact that error analysis can play
a significant part in assessing and evaluating a particular group of learners who frequently
commit mistakes in different areas. The analyses of the common errors and mistakes of a
group of learners in the language classrooms also provide a language instructor with some
practice knowledge as to how he/she should approach their teaching, what would be their
strategy in the class and also what methodology should be followed in the classroom in
course of their teaching.

3.2 Error

In English Language Teaching, ‘error’ can be defined as deviation form of language,

which is apart from accuracy or correctness. Concerning identification of errors, Ellis (1994)
defines error as a deviation from the norms of the target language. On the other hand, Corder
(1967) considers error as a way of investigating learning process. According to behaviourist
learning theory, Ellis (1985) believes that “old habits get in the way of learning new habits.”
It indicates that where the LI and L2 share a meaning but express it in different ways, an
error is likely to arise in the L2 because the learner will transfer the realization device from
his first language into the second (Ellis, 1985).
 3.3 Difference between Error and Mistake

Corder (1967) makes the useful distinction between errors and mistakes. He reveals
that ‘an error takes place when the deviation arises as result of lack of knowledge’. It
represents a lack of competence. On the other hand, he explains that ‘a mistake occurs when
learners fail to perform their competence. Corder (1967) thinks that errors of performance are
the result of mistakes in language use. It indicates we are immediately aware of them when
they occur and can correct them. He treats them as unsystematic errors and thinks that they
should not be taken seriously. Errors of competence, on the other hand, are regarded as
systematic and persistent. According to Corder, “errors of competence are the result of the
application of rules by the L2 learner which do not correspond to L2 norms”. According to
Corder (1967), these types of errors represent “transitional competence” and these need
careful attention. Edge (1989) divided mistakes into three broad categories: ‘Slips’, ‘Errors’
and ‘Attempts’. He defined ‘slips’ as mistakes that students can correct themselves once the
mistake has been pointed out to them. ‘Errors’ are one kind of mistakes which students
cannot correct themselves and which therefore need explanation and ‘attempts’ is that when a
student tries to say something but does not yet know the correct way of saying it (Edge,
1989). According to Brown (1993), “A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a
random guess or a “slip,” in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly. Dulay and
Burt (1972) referred to errors as “goof,” according to them an error is a noticeable deviation
from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the
learner.

3.3.1 How do we decide whether the student has made an error or a mistake?

From the above discussion, we have come to know that mistake can be a slip of the
tongue or the pen. The student is able to correct it himself, when they make a mistake.
Sometimes they do it either completely unprompted or with the guidance of the teacher and
other students. Gower and Walter (1983) believe that an error is much more deeply
ingrained. When a student makes an error he might: believe what he is saying or writing is
correct. This indicates the student is unaware of his making error not knowing what the
correct form should be. Until the teacher gives feedback the student is unaware of the correct
form.

Gower and Walter (1983) consider that errors are usually produced regularly and
systematically. They also think that, very little time is needed to be spent on mistakes but
errors will need proper attention at certain stages of the lesson. To distinguish between an
error and mistake, Ellis (1997) suggests if the learner sometimes uses the correct form and
sometimes the wrong one, it is a mistake. However, if he always uses it incorrectly, it is then
an error. Ellis (1997) added that if a learner can correct his own deviations, then they are
mistakes but if he is unable to correct it then the deviations are errors.

3.4 Learners’ Error

Concerning learners’ error, Corder (1967) reveals that in the field of methodology
there have been two schools of thought. Firstly the school which maintains that if we were to
achieve a perfect teaching method the errors would never be committed in the first place, and
therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of our teaching
techniques. The philosophy of the second school is that we live in an imperfect world and
consequently errors will always occur in spite of our best efforts. Our ingenuity should be
concentrated on techniques for dealing with errors after they have occurred.

Concerning identification of errors, Ellis (1994) defines error as an error as a

deviation from the norms of the target language. On the other hand, Corder (1967) considers
error as a way of investigating learning process. According to Corder (1967), the study of
learners’ errors showed that though many errors were caused by transferring LI ‘habits’,
many more were not; learners often contributed creatively to the process of learning. They
also indicated that learners appeared to go through stages of acquisition, as the nature of the
errors they made varied according to their level of development.

Sinha (1997) believes that making errors is inevitable in FL/SL language learning.
But she also believes that analyzing a student’s errors can be a very useful way of showing
what students have learnt, and have not learnt. So instead of interpreting errors negatively as
a sign of failure we can view them positively as an indication of what still needs to be
learned. In Sinha’ s (1997) article, she also mentioned that in many developed countries,
errors are no longer considered ‘crimes’ but are analyzed carefully and sympathetically since
they can play a major role in the success of a language teaching program.

3.4.1 Relationship between Learner and Error

In second language learning, learners’ error is one of the most common discussions
among all other aspects of ESL environment. If we want to define the relation between
learner and error then we will see that it has very close relation. There are different levels of
learners who make different types of errors in their language learning process. Many
researchers have worked on learners’ error. According to the learners’ level, they make
different types of errors.

Commonly we can see that learners make error while they are developing their
language skills. As we are dealing with ESL learner, it is a vital issue to find out the relation
between learner and error. At tertiary level, errors in academic writing are intolerable. In this
level, it is expected that in academic writing students’ writing will be error free. But in reality
we can see that though students are in tertiary level, they still face difficulties in writing. We
can find the evidence through their production of comprehensive essay writing where we can
discover some common existence of errors.

3.5 Types of Error

Errors can be classified into different categories. Corder’s (1974) framework for
describing errors is a useful tool instrument. He distinguished three types of error according
to their systematiciy: pre-systematic errors, systematic errors, post-systematic errors.

1. Pre-systematic errors occur when the learner is unaware of the existence of a

particular rule in the target language. These are random.
 2. Systematic errors occur when the learner has discovered a rule but it is the wrong one.
3. Post-systematic errors occur when the learner knows the correct target language rule
but uses it inconsistently ( i.e. makes mistake) (Corder, 1974)

A number of different sources or causes of competence errors have been identified.

Richards (1971) distinguishes three: interference errors, intralingual errors and
developmental errors.

1. Interference errors: It occurs as a result of ‘the use of elements from one language
while speaking another.’ An example might be when a German learner of L2 English says ‘I
got not’ because the equivalent sentence in German is ‘Ich gehe nicht’. Similar kind of
example in Bangla ‘amader desh valo na’ in English the learner directly translate it as; ‘our
country is good not when using English.’

2. Interlingual/Transfer errors: There are interlingual errors when the learner’s LI

habits (patterns, systems or rules) interfere or prevent him/her, to some extent, from
acquiring the patterns and rules of the second language (Corder, 1971). Interlingual errors
reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete
application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply’. For example, I
am agree with this statement’, in this sentence, the learner has used to indicate present tense
or we can say that the learner failed to learn the proper condition under which rules apply.

3. Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses

about the target language on the basis of limited experience. For example, to indicate past
tense the learner has written, ‘I was not read the international language’. This error indicates
that the learner interpreted “was” as a marker of the past tense and because of this false
hypothesis he made the error.

According to Richards (1970), “items produced by the learner which reflect not the
structure of the mother tongue, but generalizations based on partial exposure to the target
language. The learner, in this case, tries to “derive the rules behind the data to which he/she
has been exposed, and may develop hypotheses that correspond neither to the mother tongue
nor to the target language” (Richards, 1970:6). Richards (1985) discusses major types of
intralingual and developmental error in terms of (1) overgeneralization, (2) ignorance of rule
restrictions, (3) incomplete application of rules, and (4) false concepts hypothesized.

• Overgeneralization errors: overgeneralization covers instances where learners

create a deviant structure on the basis of their experience of other structures in the
target language. For example:

We are live in this hut

We are hope....
He is speaks...
He did not found
He did not asks me
They would became
I can saw it
He come from India
She speak German as well

• Rule restrictions error: It is closely related to generalization of deviant structures

where students’ fail to observe the restrictions of existing structures, which indicate
the application of rules to contexts where they do not apply. For example: I made him
to do it. Here it ignores restrictions on the distribution of make. For this kind of error,
learners basically use the previously acquired rule in a new situation.
• Incomplete application of rules: According to Richards (1985), this kind of errors
may signal the occurrence of structures whose deviancy represents the degree of
development of rules required to produce acceptable utterance. For example,
systematic difficulty in the use of questions, a statement form may be used as a
question, one of the transformations in a series may be omitted, or a question word
may simply be added to the statement form (1985).
 • False concepts hypothesized: This type of errors indicate faulty rule-learning at
various levels, there is a class of developmental errors that derive from faulty
comprehension of distinctions in the target language. For example, the form was, may
be interpreted as a marker of the past tense: it was happened; is may be understood to
be the corresponding marker of the present tense: she is speaks German. (Richards,
1985:51)

3.6 Age of Undergraduate Students

Learner’s age plays a vital role in the rate of the success of SLA. Most research
suggests that older learners are better. On the other hand, some empirical research also
suggests that, children are better language learner than adults. In the field of SLA, we can see
the reflection of the complexity of the age issue. We can consider the undergraduate level
learners as adult learners as their age group is 20-21. Ellis (1985) believes that rate and
success of SLA are strongly influenced by the age of the learner. He explains the effects of
age in the light of the summary of the empirical results. The number of years of exposure and
starting age affect the level of success while learning a language. When the question is about
second language learning, exposure of target language is a big issue. If the learner gets
proper exposure of the target language for a long time then it becomes easier for the learner
to learn the target language.

Considering the age issue, there is a famous hypothesis known as the critical period
hypothesis (CPH). CPH states that, there is a period when language acquisition takes place
naturally. Penfield and Roberts (1959) argued that language acquisition falls within first ten
years of life. During this period brain retrains plasticity, but after puberty this plasticity
begins to disappear (1985, p. 107). If we focus on this hypothesis, then the target learners of
the present study who are adults have passed their puberty many years before. Most
alarmingly, before their puberty they did not have enough exposure of the target language
which may have become a major hindrance to achieve accuracy in target language.
 3.7 Academic Writing at the Undergraduate Level

Academic writing is an important aspect at undergraduate level. In this level, students

needs to write numerous academic papers, reports and essays to obtain their academic
degree. The ability to write academic essays is widely considered as one of the common
phases of higher education. It is essential that university students be able to write clearly
about topics related to their research fields. (Cohen and Miller, 2003)

In Bangladesh, professional educational system has been divided into four levels;
namely, primary, secondary, higher secondary and tertiary level. Tertiary level is the utmost
level among all the other three levels. In general, the university students are considered as
tertiary level students in Bangladesh. In this level, students can pursue their educational
career for obtaining a Bachelor’s degree. After completion of their Bachelor degree, they can
enroll into post-graduate studies. In this tertiary level, it is expected that students will have
efficiency in writing and their writing will be error free as they are going to get their highest
degree in this level on the basis of their performance.

Academic writing refers to different writing approaches that students’ need to

accomplish in an academic setting. It is difficult for the ESL/EFL students to write academic
essays or any kind of academic writing in a second language. Writing in one’s own language
is difficult enough and if it is second language then it becomes more difficult for the students.
Often students are unfamiliar with the conventions of writing English academic reports or
essays. To develop academic essay writing skill, at first students need to have clear concept
of this kind of formal writing. About academic writing Tribble (1996) believes that, “learners
who wish to write in new academic settings have to gain a mastery of the concepts and
content of their subject area as well as developing an ability to express themselves effectively
and appropriately in foreign language”, (p. 83) Academic writing attempts to be precise,
semi-formal, impersonal and objective: in academic writing the focus is on presenting
information as clearly and accurately as possible. In this way such writing differs from
normal speech and writing, which is more personal and uses more lively idioms and phrases.
For example, a sentence like, “A lot of people think that the weather is getting worse”, is
acceptable in Standard English, but it does not conform to the conventions of academic
writing. So, the standard style can be “It is widely believed that the climate is deteriorating”
(Tribble, 1996)

An academic essay is based on the clear sense of argument which is essential to all
forms of academic writing. The characteristic of academic writing includes a formal tone. In
academic writing, the writer writes from the perspective of third person point of view rather
than first-person. In academic essay usually, clear focus is always given to the issue or topic
rather than the author’s opinion. In academic essay, writers employ the formal academic
style. Academic essay-writing is one of the vital skills which ESL/EFL students need to
acquire for their prospective studies in English-mediated university courses. Though
academic essay writing is a vital aspect for the students in Bangladesh, it has been seen that
students mostly commit errors in writing paragraph, essay or any type of comprehensive
question-answer. Sinha (1997) illustrates that, “Error frequently occurred when the students
were asked to write paragraph and dialogues or when they attempt to answer comprehension
questions”.

3.8 Common Errors in Students’ Academic Writing

In different kinds of studies in writing, frequency of errors has been commonly

discussed. John C. Mellon’s (1975) National assessment and the teaching of English is a
source that contains a section describing the frequency of error found in the writing of
students at various levels. He develops statistical information in a table and lists the common
writing problems such as, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, fragments and run-ons,
awkward constructions, agreement, and word choice. Other studies on students’ common
error also support the statistical information developed by Mellon. The most common errors
that students make are in areas of grammar, punctuation and spelling.

(1) Frequency of occurrence: grammatical errors

(2) Punctuation:
 Punctuation is important because it tells readers where they need to stop, to pause, or
to notice emphasis. Greenberg (1994) says that punctuation illustrates the relations among
ideas and between the parts of the sentences. According to Greenberg (1994), punctuation
serves six basic functions of writing:

i. ends sentences
ii. combines sentences
iii. separates items in a series within a sentence
iv. separates words or phrases from that modify a sentence
v. separates quoted words or phrases from the rest of a sentence
vi. indicates the possessive case of nouns

Peck and Coyle (1999) states, “Punctuation is an essential part of the signaling system
of language and is central to effective communication.....a lot of people make an awful mess
of punctuation, which means that their performance in essays suffers and they fail to do
themselves justice.” (p. 19)

Punctuation errors are often considered important in the context of first-year

composition courses. Three aspects of punctuation are confusing for many ESL/EFL
learners. Those are comma splices, run-on sentences and fragment. Understanding comma
splices, run-on sentences, and fragments is important for teachers and ESL/EFL students.

(3) Spelling:
Spelling error is a common error that ESL/EFL students commit while writing an
essay or paragraph. Though incorrect spelling does not usually prevent the understanding of a
written massage, it can adversely affect the reader’s judgment, specially when reading or
examining. Brown (2001) believes that bad spelling is perceived as a lack of education or
care. He states that the cause of students’ frequent spelling error is the lack of
correspondence between the sound of a word and the way it is spelt is not always obvious.
Brown added “an issue that makes spelling difficult for some students is the fact that not all
varieties of English spell the same words in the same way”. For example, it is difficult to
decide which one is correct: color or colour, and theater or theatre.

Brown (2001) suggests that, to solve this kind of problem students should focus on a
particular variety of English (British or American English, for example) as a spelling model
which will be their desired one. To help students improve their spelling Port (1995) thinks
that, teachers can draw attention to spelling problems and explain why they occur. Copying
from written models is one way to do this; when students see and reflect on their mistakes,
their spelling ‘consciousness’ will be raised. Greenberg (1994) discussed five causes of
spelling errors.

a) Addition - adding a letter because of wrong pronunciation.

b) Deletion - deleting a letter because of wrong pronunciation.
c) Transposition - transposing a letter with the letter next to it.
d) Substitution - substituting a letter that has a similar sound.
e) Homonym - confusing a word with another word that sounds alike.

(4) Word choice:

Peck and Coyle (2005) state that, “ ..when producing an academic essay, language is
merely a kind of wheelbarrow for trundling their ideas around” (p. 120). When developing an
academic essay, learners need to be concerned about choice of words while they are
constructing a sentence. It is a most frustrating experience for the learners when they are not
able to find the words they need to express their idea. Harmer (2001) states that when
speakers or writers of their own or of a foreign language do not know a word or just cannot
remember it, they may employ some or all of the following strategies to resolve the difficulty
they are encountering (2001):

• Improvising: speakers sometimes try any word or phrase that they can come up with
in the hope that it is about right. Such improvisations sometimes work, but they can
also obscure meaning.
 • Discarding: when speakers simply cannot find words for what they want to say, they
may discard the thought that they cannot put into words.
• Foreignising: when operating in a foreign language, speakers (and writers)
sometimes choose a word in language they know well (such as their first language)
and ‘foreignise’ it in the hope that it will be equivalent to the meaning they wish to
express in the foreign language.
• Paraphrasing: speakers sometimes paraphrase, talking about something for cleaning
the teeth if they do not know the word toothbrush, or saying that they are not happy
somebody when they want to say that they are really fed up. Such lexical substitution
or circumlocution gets many speakers out of trouble, though it can make
communication longer and more convoluted.

Harmer (2001) believes that teachers should encourage paraphrasing and improvising
as more useful techniques than discarding thoughts or foreignising words blindly.

3.9 Errors at Undergraduate Level

Students’ error is a huge discussion all over the world. Students commit different
types of errors in their writing. At certain levels, making error can be taken positively as a
sign of students’ development, but at the undergraduate level students’ errors are intolerable.
After 12 years of studying English, teachers and other stakeholders expect learners to be
competent in language. The identification of common errors in students’ writing can
facilitate teachers to work more on the target areas that students face difficulties. Students’
error in writing at the undergraduate level is now a crucial issue in Bangladesh. Teachers
always deal with students’ error in writing, so at first they need to adopt different techniques
to make students error free in academic writing. Giving feedback and using different
techniques of error correction have already been developed to make students error free. In
addition teacher feedback is an essential factor in developing students’ writing.
 3.10 Studies on Error Analysis

Corder (1967) opines that error analysis is significant for several reasons. Firstly, the
teachers get the idea regarding the progress of the learners. Secondly, error analysis indicates
that how a language is acquired. Thirdly, the researchers can utilize errors properly for the
betterment of the learners’ language skill. Richards opined (1974) that the teacher can assess
learning and teaching through error analysis at the level of pragmatic classroom experience.
That is how; the teacher can fix up future efforts to be done for the improvement of the
learners.

Rod Ellis (2008) opines that error analysis is the best way of learning target language.
Errors in writing can be minimized only if they are identified, categorized and analyzed by
the teachers for the students in a befitting manner. Through error analysis research the
teacher can find out why the learners fail to achieve appropriate competence in the target
language and then plan appropriate remedial lessons. Roos, (1990) made a study on syntactic
error analysis of the written work of the learners. He postulated that the use of remedial
activities focusing on the most serious or frequent errors can be followed in the classroom for
error free writing. Khansir et al (2013) investigated different types of errors of paragraph
writing of 90 first year medical Iranian learners of English at under-graduate level in Bushehr
University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. The outcome of the study indicated a
significant difference between pre-test and post-test in paragraph writing of Iranian EFL
learners. The results of the study indicated that the total number of errors regarding verb,
tense, article, mechanics, informal words committed by the Iranian students was 3045 and
that of their Indian peers’ was 3274. He added that faulty learning strategies are the main
cause of errors in their universities. Ahmadian et al (2013) examined the effects of peer-
feedback and teacher-feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. They collected data
from 52 homogenous undergraduate university students. The outcome of this research
indicated that teacher feedback is a great procedure in the way of improving writing ability of
the students. Salehzade (2017) examined the consequence of peer recast on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners' writing ability through pretest-posttest activities. The subjects of
the study were divided into two groups: experimental and control. The control group received
writing instruction through recast strategy. Peer-recast strategy was exposed to the
experimental group. The results showed that peer-recast had a large effect on the writing
skills of the learners. Pimsarn (2009) conducted pretest- posttest, control - experimental
group research design, containing 30 members in each using quantitative plus qualitative
methods. His statistical analysis reveals that brainstorming strategies play a vital role in
developing the interest and motivation level of the students.

Malmir et al (2010) made a comparative study regarding reading comprehension on

the effect of task based language teaching (TBLT) and content based language teaching
(CBLT). Two groups, one experimental and one controlled group were chosen by the
researcher. TBLT was exposed to group A and CBLT was exposed to group B. The
researcher administered reading comprehension post test. The result of pretest and posttest
was exposed through SPSS and T test exposed that TBLT group performed better than CBLT
group.

Mungungu (2010) investigated common English language errors made by

Oshiwambo, Afrikaans and Silozi First Language speakers. The four most common errors
committed by the participants were tenses, prepositions, articles and spelling. However, the
results of the study reveal that there was no big difference in the type of errors recorded from
each group.

Hourani (2008) explored that the most common and salient grammatical errors which
were found in the students’ essays that included passivization, verb tense and form, subject-
verb agreement, word order, prepositions, articles, plurality and auxiliaries. After analyzing
the errors, it has been found that the students make grammatical errors due to two main
reasons, i.e. Inter-lingual and intra-lingual.

Ahmad (1986), Simbwa (1987), Al-Hassan (1989), Al- Kahtybeh (1992), Hazaymeh
(1996), (all are as cited in Zawahreh (2012)), Yahya, Azizi, et al. (2012), Sun and Shang
(2009), Zawahreh (2012) and Stapa and Izahar (2010) analyzed different aspects of
grammatical errors in the writings of different levels of students from different countries.
Syntactic errors were looked into specifically. WH questions, passive construction and verb
usage were examined to a little extent. Stapa and Izahar (2010) examined the subject and
verb disagreement errors in ESL context. Wang and Huang (1999) analyzed the errors of
verb usages in the writings of Chinese EFL tertiary level learners.

Ahmad (1986) examined secondary students’ errors in formulating WH questions.

Al-Hassan (1989) made a study about the errors in passive sentence construction committed
by Jordanian secondary male students. Al Kahtybeh (1992) investigated the syntactic errors
in the essays of tenth grade students. Hazaymeh (1996) did a study to find out the secondary
students’ errors in learning English verb tenses. Yahya, Azizi, et al. (2012) identified that
junior secondary students have two types of errors in their essay writings (descriptive and
narrative). Sun and Shang (2009) conducted a study among the first semester students into
English majors’ writings of argumentative essays of Ludong University in China. The study
was carried out to find out the errors of the first semester students and their causes. Zawahreh
(2012) examined the written English errors of 10th grade students in their writing of a
narrative essay. Stapa and Izahar (2010) analyze errors of subject-verb agreement found in
written compositions among post graduate teacher trainees in a teachers’ training college in
Malaysia. Wang and Huang (1999) analyzed the errors of verb usage.

3.11 Research on Error Analysis in Bangladesh

There are a number of studies (Afrin 2016, Rass 2015, Keong & Mussa 2015,
Mustaque 2014, Elraggas 2014, Al Seyabi & Tuzlukova 2014, Khansir & Ahrami 2014,
Hammad 2014, Al-Khairy 2013, Javid, Farooq, & Umer 2013, Al Fadda 2012, Nazim &
Ahmad 2012) which have explained the problems of paragraph and essay writing in different
contexts using different instruments. These studies have pointed out the writing problems
focusing on different aspects of writing in English. Yuen and Mussa (2015), Mustaque
(2014) found the problems of grammar, vocabulary and organization among the
undergraduate learners studying at two different universities at Chittagong region in
Bangladesh. Hammad (2014) found the problems of grammar, vocabulary, content and
cohesion in the learners of Palestine. In the same way, Al Khairy’s (2013) study found the
problems of vocabulary, grammar, use of irregular verbs, use of preposition, spelling, use of
article, punctuation, use of question words as the problems of the learners of Saudi Arabia.
Javid, Farooq, and Umer (2013) have also reported the problems of vocabulary, grammar and
the problem of organization. The study of Al Fadda (2012) found problems of plague words
and phrases, reviewing grammar, use of pronoun, problem of agreement between pronoun
and antecedents, subject verb agreement, sentence fragments and difficulty of combining
sentences among the learners of Saudi Arabia. Like Al Khairy’s (2013) findings, Farooq,
Hassan, and Wahid (2012) found the problems of vocabulary, grammar and spelling as the
problems of Pakistani learners.

Fahmida (2010) investigated Bangladeshi tertiary level students’ common errors in

academic writing. She found that students at tertiary level make a lot of errors in their
academic writing. Ali (2011) found that the study of errors and feedback is one of the major
issues in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. Kayum (2011) explored some of the
problem areas specially in writing relating them to various pedagogical, contextual and
cultural issues that serve in the learner’s learning English.

Khan and Akter (2011) findings revealed a bleak picture of student writing showing
serious weaknesses in several areas from spelling mistakes as the highest number to pronoun.
In addition, sentence level mistakes also indicate a poor command of syntactic accuracy.
Therefore, from this study, word and sentence level mistakes appear to be quite alarming
underpinning innovative means of teaching to improve current state of student writing in
English at their primary and secondary level. This issue equally deserves to be incorporated
in various ELT training and pedagogic discourse so that teacher and learner awareness can be
raised for effective classroom teaching and learning.

Rahnuma (2015) said errors are ubiquitous when it comes to language learning. This
article showed that a detailed EA carried out on two written texts present much crucial
information about the learner’s language development - from lexical deficiency to shortfalls
in grammatical knowledge and even on the sociolinguistic or discourse level.
 Karim, Fathema and Hakim (2015) examined the errors on the usage of verbs in
English essay at tertiary level EFL learners. The study found that the errors are: agreement
with verb, missing of verbs, misusing verb tense, misusing past tense after infinitive and
misusing “to have” verb. Harun and Sufian (2015) analysed the common errors regarding the
agreement between the subject and verb in the writings of the EFL learners at the tertiary
level. Through an error analysis process, the researchers found three most common errors
regarding Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA).

Muhsin (2016) did a case study on the eighth grade students. He identified the
grammatical errors, classified the errors of using simple present tense in the students’
descriptive text. The results demonstrate that the students’ errors can be categorized into four
kinds of errors, which include errors of omission, errors in addition, errors in missed
formation, and errors in improper ordering. He concluded that missed formation was the
dominant kind of error made by the eighth grade students.

Sayeed (2016) attempted to find out Bangla and English medium students’ and
teacher perception on errors in English writing class and the reasons behind committing those
errors in writing. The result suggests that L1 interference, carelessness, ignorance of rules,
lack of motivation all are sources of errors in writing. It is also suggested that Bangla
medium students have more errors rather than English medium students. From the findings, it
was observed that many students had errors in sentence construction, subject verb agreement,
article, verb, preposition, tense, spelling error and they use of capital letters instead of small
letters.

Khan (2018) found out that the error analyses and correction came be the best starting
to develop the learners writing skill. His research found various categories of grammatical
errors. The students committed 15 errors: i) Capitalization ii) Article iii) Subject Verb
agreement iv) Discontinuous constituents v) Noun vi) Pronoun vii) Word of order viii)
Modals ix) Degree or Adjective x) Verb xi) Tag question xii) Conditional xiii) Nouns in
Apposition xiv) Preposition xv) Punctuation.
 Ahmed (2018) found that writing in English for the tertiary students is a major
challenge since they find it as a hard task to make up sentences, consider it as a possible
obstacle to assimilate structures between sentences and think of it as an unwanted task to
compose a composition maintaining relevant lexicon.

The study of Ahmed and Khan (2018) found that the errors that the students made
are: Subject Verb Agreement, Collocation, Discontinuous Constituent, Mechanics,
Complementary Clause, Gerund, Mix of American and British English Words, Mix of formal
and Informal/semiformal form of words, Copula “be”, Modal Verb, Modal Verb, Run-Ons,
Word Order, Quantifier, Pronoun, Redundancy, Capitalization, Conditionals, Determiner,
Punctuation Marks and Double Negatives. Based on the outcomes of this study, these errors
were the main focus in the remedial English Teaching.

Ashraf’s (2018) study focused on the impact of error analysis in the writing courses at
tertiary level among non-English majors. In Bangladesh, the students of the non-English
majors learn to write English through various writing courses. However, their proficiency in
writing English is far from being satisfactory. Even after the completion of different language
courses similar to English Fundamentals, Composition or other academic writing courses,
they end up making numerous errors. In this research, the researcher endeavored to analyze
the errors made by different non-department majors to discover the roots of errors and also to
understand the difficulties students face while avoiding errors.

3.12 Research Gap

From the above discussion, the researcher presumes that exploration of the
sources/causes of errors is not an easy task, because errors do not seem to submit to any
precise systematic analysis. Sources/causes of errors are tentative, because several factors
could play an active role in the making of errors. Factors like the psychology and motivation
of the learners, their attitude towards the material and teaching, their teaching - learning
situation, the language input they receive, learning and communication strategies they apply,
and the extent of their exposure to EFL could contribute to the making of errors.
 Though there are several researches on the writing problems of the tertiary level
students, none of the research has extensively identified the common errors of writing correct
English in academic writing. Therefore, the present study has an implication to identify the
common errors of academic writing of tertiary level students and thus tried to explore the
common errors of the academic writing of BUP students.

3.13 Conclusion

Common errors and mistakes of the English language learners in Bangladesh have
long been analyzed by many experts. There is no denying the fact that error analysis can play
a significant part in assessing and evaluating a particular group of learners who frequently
commit mistakes in different areas. The analyses of the common errors and mistakes of a
group of learners in the language classrooms also provide a language instructor with some
practice knowledge as to how he/she should approach their teaching, what would be their
strategy in the class and also what methodology should be followed in the classroom in
course of their teaching.

The next chapter outlines the methodology for conducting this research study.
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter explains the methodology of the study to examine tertiary level students’
difficulties and errors in writing essay. In the following section, research methods and
techniques used for data collection is mentioned. The other parts of this chapter focus on the
nature of the research, research question, participants and setting, data collection procedures,
instruments of data collection, sources of data as questionnaire and document analysis, and
finally methods of analysis.

4.1 Research Design

4.1.1Type of Research

This research is a primary research by nature. According to Brown (1988), primary

research obtains original or first-hand data to explore the original information. This research
is based on original data as first hand information regarding students’ common errors in
academic essay writing has been obtained by using document analysis and questionnaire
responses. The participants of this study are studying at Bangladesh University of
Professionals. This research is considered as a primary empirical research as it qualifies the
characteristics of empirical research as well. Empirical research is based on experimentation
with evidence. Such research is often conducted to answer a specific question. This research
is designed based on a specific question and the result has been discovered through empirical
data analysis. As empirical research, this study will enhance better understanding of students’
difficulties in academic essay writing through analyzing their common errors in writing.

4.1.2 Mixed Methods Research

Since the present study aims to respond to the research questions of qualitative and
quantitative nature, data collection and analysis techniques from both methodologies are
implemented, thus Mixed Method Research (MMR) approach has been chosen as the
methodology of this research. Mixed methods research may be defined as “the collection or
analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in which the data are
collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the
data at one or more stages in the process of research” (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, &
Hanson, 2003, p. 212).

Mixed-method approach enables the researchers to draw on all possibilities

(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) and provides a broader perspective to the study as the
qualitative data helps describe aspects the quantitative data cannot address (Creswell, 2003).
Using both forms of data allows researchers to simultaneously generalize results from a
sample to a population and to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

A core aspect of mixed-method research methodology is the use of triangulation to

validate data. This serves to guarantee credibility in reporting findings. Amores (1997)
defines triangulation as “the collection and comparison of data from two or more separate
observations or illustrations of the behaviors being studied” (p. 521). This is a major tool
used in this study to gather data. Data are collected through written survey questionnaires and
exam scripts with the participants. The use of these two data collection instruments helps
validate both the answers in the questionnaires and interviews.

The research has been done based on mixed methods as it combines both qualitative
and quantitative research. The results and answers have been presented with numerical data.
To identify students’ error in their essay, I have used coding system which is a common
method of error identification. It has a qualitative touch in it too, as I have used coding
method to analyze the documents. So both the research methods have work together to
contract the resolution.

For this research, I have collected data by analyzing the students’ exam papers. This
analysis part has been considered as document analysis. After completion of the document
analysis the results have been shown with the numerical presentation. To make the analysis
more comprehensive both qualitative and quantitative data has been collected for this
research.

4.1.3Research Questions

The primary focus of the present study is to apply error analysis method to identify
the common errors in the academic writing of undergraduate students and will suggest some
remedial measures to overcome those problems. Thus, this study specifically addresses the
following research questions:

4. Which are the most frequent grammatical errors made by the undergraduate students
in their academic written productions?
5. What factors contribute to cause the students errors in the respective written modes?
6. What remedial measures can be taken to reduce the problem of errors in the academic
writing of undergraduate students?

4.2 Participants and Setting

The participants of this study were first year students ranging in the same age group
of 19-21 years. The students had completed twelve years of schooling of primary, secondary
and higher secondary. The total number of students was 80. The study was conducted at
Bangladesh University of Professionals where the medium of instruction is English. For this
study, I investigated 80 learners’ exam copies to identify their errors in writing essay. The
students were from 5 (five) departments attended the Functional English course. The exams
were conducted by the Course teachers. The course teacher had been taking this course for
five months. It was a fundamental English course and mandatory for all department students.
Students had to take this course in their first semester. This course was aimed at developing
students’ basic language skill while they were Freshers. The final exam was conducted after
completion of their five months semester. I have collected the exam copies and checked
those. With the permission of the concerning authority, I collected the copies for my research
investigation.
 This course is divided into four parts - reading, writing, speaking and listening. From
the course content, it is visible that the course has been designed to develop students’ all four
basic language skills. I have chosen the writing part for in-depth analysis of the students’
written essay, so it will be an in-depth document analysis of the students’ errors in their exam
on academic writing.

4.3 Sampling Plan for the Research

4.3.1 Target Population

For this research, the target population that has been chosen is:
Students of different departments of BUP
Teachers of BUP who taught those students

4.3.2 Sample Frame

The sampling frame is the representation of the list of students and teachers.
However, students from 5 (five) departments and 5 (five) teachers who have taught those
students have been selected. It was expected that the students had already received English
instruction for 12 years from class I - class XII.

4.3.3 Sampling Technique

The present study has employed both probability and non-probability sampling in
order to select the respondents. Sample units have been selected through stratified and
probability sampling techniques to ensure representation of all related groups under the study
objective.

4.3.4 Sample Size

Students: 80 students from 5 departments

Teachers: All English teachers who taught those students
4.3.5 Sample Unit

At first to ensure representation of all related groups under the target population, the
researcher determines the groups through stratified sampling. Through stratified sampling,
students and teachers have been detected. To determine sample units, probability sampling
technique has been used.

4.4 Data Collection and Procedures

In this research, the participants had classes on paragraph and essay writing. The
course teacher took several classes on essay and paragraph writing. The duration of each
class was 90 minutes. For this study, I investigated 80 learners’ exam copies to identify their
common errors. Though the departments were different, the same course had been taught.
After the completion of the students’ writing exam, I collected the copies from the teachers.
In the writing part, the question was given, “Make comparison and contrast between two
persons around you based on their moral qualities. Give reasons for your answer and include
any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.”

Students were asked to write this essay within 500 words in 45 minutes. Total marks
for this question was 10. The essay was an argumentative essay, which was reasonably
familiar to all the participants as they had previously discussed in classroom. So, it was
expected that the students would be able to write on this topic. After collecting all the 80
scripts, I checked the copies to identify common errors. All the errors were categorized into
different groups.

4.5 Instruments for Data Collection

In this research, I have adopted integrated strategy to produce better result of the
research question. Qualitative research indicates, analyzing, and interpreting data by
observing what people do and say. Quantitative research refers counts and measures of
numerical data analysis, which has been used in this research as a key method for this study.
As research instrument, I have incorporated document analysis and questionnaire.

4.5.1 Source of Data

The main data source of this study was the students’ exam scripts, specially focused
on essay writing part. These scripts have been taken as samples of students’ writing, which
falls under the category of document. Each sample will be analyzed for error. Questionnaire
is used as a research instrument to collect quantitative data. The questionnaires were
organized in such a way that after collecting and analyzing the finding of the quantitative
data, it would reflect teachers’ general attitude and perception on error and error analysis.

4.5.1.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaires are one of the most popular data collection devices. “Questionnaires
are printed forms for data collection, which include questions or statements to which the
subject is expected to respond to a stimulus provided by the researchers.” (Seliger and
Shohamy (2003:172). Questionnaires facilitate the researcher to collect data in field settings
(Nunan, 2002). Questionnaire items can be relatively closed or open ended, or a mixture of
closed and open questions. In this research both open and closed questions were used. Nunan
(2002) refers that “open item is one in which the subject can decide what to say and how to
say it.”(p.l43). It is likely that “responses to open questions will more accurately reflect what
the respondent wants to say” (2002: 143). Brown and Rodgers (2002:142) state that
“questionnaires are predominantly made up of more closed-response items such as Likert
scales, multiple-choice, yes-no, and ranking”. Responses to closed questions are easier to
collect and analyze data.

It took almost 1 (one) month to collect all the questionnaires. The questionnaire
contained a mixture of closed and open questions respectively. Questionnaire for the teachers
contained closed questions including ranking, multiple choice, yes-no items. In some
questions, teachers were given option for their comments or suggestions. There were given
two fully open ended questions for the teachers.

4.5.1.2 Document Analysis

In order to answer the research question and meet the goal of the research aim, data
analysis has been done using both qualitative and quantitative data. Each student’s written
scripts were examined to find out common errors they made while writing essay in academic
setting. According to the students’ common errors, the data were categorized into different
groups; such as; grammatical error, syntactic error, lexical error, spelling error, punctuation
error, organizational/structural error etc. The classifying was qualitative and the counting was
quantitative. Errors were identified and categorized into different groups. Some pertained to
grammar, some to vocabulary and some to mechanics. In order to do so, I have used Sinha’s
(1997) classification of errors, as she dealt with similar students, Bangla speaking
Bangladeshi students of tertiary level. I felt this was the most appropriate model for my
analysis. Initially errors were categorized into these different groups according to the types
discussed in the literature review. In this survey, syntactic errors are the common errors that
the students commit frequently. Most of the students cannot even write a sentence properly.
In this survey, while analyzing the errors, I tried to be selective. I have collected the errors in
order of seriousness and frequency of occurrence, they are as follows:

In use of Language:

1. Syntactic error:
Fragment
Run-on sentence
Wrong sentence structure

2. Lexical error:
Wrong use of vocabulary
Wrong word form
3. Grammatical error:
Misuse of prepositions
Misuse of articles
Misuse of helping verb and auxiliary verb
Lack of subject verb agreement
Tense error

4. Spelling errors

5. Punctuation errors

4.6 Methods of Analysis

Different research instruments were used to accomplish this research. The main
sources of data were students’ exam scripts and questionnaire so both qualitative and
quantitative data were used for this research. Though the research is mainly quantitative, the
use of coding introduces a qualitative aspect. After getting the results from the analysis of the
students’ essays and from the questionnaires they were statistically analyzed to obtaining
more absolute consequence. According to Seliger and Shohamy (2003), “To analyze
quantitative data frequencies are used to indicate how often a phenomenon occurs and they
are based on counting the number of occurrences.” (p. 211). In this study, I computed the
frequencies for the errors by each student and then tabulated. For the questionnaire, answers
given by students and teachers were tabulated and then converted into percentages. Tables,
pie charts and bar diagrams were employed for the presentation of the data.

4.7 Conclusion

This chapter has included the design of the research, which incorporated the rationale
for selecting the participants, description of participants and setting, a detailed account of
data collection procedure, and the description of the questionnaire. In the next chapter,
detailed data results collected through the research methods will be presented.
 CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the raw data, both qualitative and quantitative, obtained from samples;
questionnaire will be shown and discussed. In this chapter, the results will be shown through
graphical presentation and chart of the samples. Graphs and charts will be discussed in this
chapter.

5.1 Analysis of Question Responses

Research is a scholarly investigation or experimentation aiming at discovering new

facts and their correct interpretation. The science of statistics assists the researcher in
planning, analyzing, and interpreting the results of investigation. It provides almost accurate
information about the problem that arouses one’s interest. The present researcher collects and
analyses the data following appropriate statistical procedures.

The data is first counted manually, and then the raw data is entered into the computer
for statistical analysis. Aldridge and Levine (2001) describe three types of analysis:
descriptive, analytical and contextual. All three types are applied for the data analysis of the
present study. Survey results have been presented in different ways: by text, in figures, in
charts, in tables, graphs, and diagrams. In the present study, the results are presented in the
pie charts and tables. The University of Reading (2000) provides guidelines for the
presentation of the statistical information, which are summarised below:

• Tables and figures are useful methods to convey data when the reader or viewer is
required to take in information while reading or listening.
• Well presented tables and graphs/charts can describe larger sets of
information.
• Tables and graphs should be given a descriptive title, and columns and rows in
tables and axes and lines in graphs should be clearly labelled, so that the reader
 can understand the information without referring back to the text, although
important points in a table or graph should be highlighted in the text.
• Graphs and tables should be presented as economically as possible.

The present researcher narrows down the context by interpreting the data for
subgroups. Except some ‘Yes/No’ questions, the respondents are in the most cases requested
to tick (√) one out of 4/5 options. In a few cases they are asked to choose more than one
options if they think fit and appropriate to the question.

The analysis of data proceeded in several stages. First, all the questionnaires were
tabulated to record the responses for each participant for each item. The tabulations were
then read and re-read carefully to identify patterns and commonalities. Tables were made to
summarize the frequency of responses to each question. Following the tabulation of
individual question items, further analyses were conducted with sets of questions, which
were grouped together because they relate to a common issue or theme. The validity,
reliability and practicality of the questionnaires are checked and tested internally and
externally.

5.2 Types of Errors Identified from Document Analysis

From the samples, different types of errors have been identified and categorized
according to their types. We know that in error analysis, collection of samples of learners’
language and then identification of errors are very important steps. In this study, the aim was
to find out BUP students’ common errors in academic writing. The process was through
identification, description, explanation and evaluation of the errors which are the essential
part of error analysis. The samples have been classified into different categories such as,
syntactic error, lexical error, grammatical error, spelling error, error in punctuation etc. Here
Sinha’s (1997) classification of errors has been adapted. In addition, students’ essays have
been analyzed for the identification of organizational errors in writing essay.
 The following error chart illustrates the different kinds of errors that the students have
committed:
SL. Category of Errors Frequency
1. Wrong Word 73.75%
2. Wrong form of word/unnecessary word 16.25%
3. Missing Comma after an Introductory Element 60%
4. Unnecessary Comma 6.25%
5. Missing Comma with a Nonrestrictive Element 2.5%
6. Superfluous Commas 1.25%
7. Comma Splice 10%
8. Unnecessary or Missing Apostrophe (including its/it's) 10.97%
9. Punctuation 1.25%
10. Mistakes in the Part of Speech 20%
11. Mistakes in the Third Person Singular 55%
12. Errors in number 58.75%
13. Missing verbs 16.25%
14. Mistakes in Verb Forms 31.25%
15. Mistakes in Modal Verbs 1.25%
16. Mistakes in the Passive Form 1.25%
17. Mistakes in Tenses 46.25%
18. Unnecessary Shift in Verb Tense 2.5%
19. Split Infinitives 3.75%
20. Mistakes in Nouns 3.75%
21. Vague Pronoun Reference 37.5%
22. Mistakes in Adjectives 8.75%
23. Mistakes in Adverbs 11.25%
24. Mistakes in Prepositions 65%
25. Mistakes in Conjunctions 20%
26. Mistakes in Articles 17.50%
27. Mistakes in Lack of Articles 2.5%
28. Multi-purpose Articles 2.5%
29. Spelling 43.75%
30. Unnecessary or Missing Capitalization 16.25%
31. Faulty parallelism 3.75%
32. Colon Mistakes 1.25%
33. Sentence Fragments 18.75%
34. Faulty Sentence Structure 61.25%
35. Fused (run-on) Sentence 8.75%
36. Subject-Predicate Disagreement 21.25%
37. Sentence sprawl 25.60%
38. Mechanical Error with a Quotation 1.25%
39. Missing words 18.75%
40. Missing or Unnecessary Hyphen 1.25%
41. No Comma in a Compound Sentence 1.25%
42. Words easily confused 1.25%
43. Mistakes in phrase 11.25%
44. Double determiners 7.5%
45. Use of slang 1.25%
46. Mistakes in participle 2.5%
47. Double negative 2.5%
Table 1: Error chart

These are few examples of errors that have been shown through this error chart. Let us have a
detail discussion.
5.2.1 Lexical Errors

Chart 1: Lexical errors

From the Chart 1, we can see that, 73.75% of lexical error occurred for choosing
wrong word which is the highest for this kind of errors. Moreover, 16.25% students used
wrong form of words because of their lack of knowledge in the target language. It indicates
that students frequently use wrong word in their essay. This kind of error occurs because of
their less stock of words in the target language. This type of error stem from students’
ignorance and poor knowledge of L2 which leads to the production of wrong words. Some
examples of the lexical errors are listed below:

- I am going to mention two of my friends and give a verdict based on their moral qualities.
-X is very timely person.
-Karim wants to work in the governing body of their country.
5.2.2 Areas of Difficulty in Grammatical Errors

Grammatical errors are the second most frequent errors that students made in their
essays. There are different kinds of grammatical errors made by undergraduate students.
From the 80 scripts, the following categories of grammatical errors had been identified. The
following are the analysis of errors in various grammar items.

a. Parts of speech
b. Number
c. Verb
d. Articles & Determiners

5.2.2.1 Parts of speech

Chart 2: Errors of parts of speech

Chart 2 shows that students had problems in the above mentioned areas of Parts of Speech.
(i) Mistakes in Prepositions

The most problematic word class for L2 learners must be prepositions. There is no
good way or rule on how to use prepositions; you just have to learn when and how to use
them. The most common prepositional errors that L2 learners make are transfer errors, i.e.
when L2 learners translate sentences directly from their mother tongue into the second
language. Sometimes the learners L1 can be very helpful when translating a sentence into
their L2 but usually they fail and use an incorrect preposition instead. How to use the
prepositions in a right way is difficult for English learners, so mistakes in prepositions is a
common phenomenon. Table-1 shows that students were very tentative with preposition. It
was clear that they were not taught the use of prepositions properly at the secondary or higher
secondary levels. Some of the errors on preposition are listed below:

-Y is attentive to class.
-They don’t do any harm for other people.
-Susmita came of a Hindu family.

From the Chart 2, we can see that, 65% students made mistakes in prepositions. From
80 essays, prepositional error has been identified from 52 essays and it is identified as the
second highest grammatical error. It indicates that most of the students have lack of
knowledge in the use of preposition. Prepositional error occurred because most of the
students get confused with the proper use of preposition. Reasons for the mistakes in
prepositions mainly result from the interference of the native language. In Bengali, we do not
have so many prepositions as in English. So, English learners are usually confused by the
usage of prepositions. To remember some fixed collocation is a better way to help students
make out the usage of prepositions.

(ii) Incorrect pronoun case

A pronoun (e.g., he, this, it) should refer clearly to the noun it replaces (called
the antecedent). If more than one word could be the antecedent, or if no specific antecedent
is present, edit to make the meaning clear. We have found that second most difficult area for
the students is incorrect pronoun use. 37.50% students had problems in pronoun usage where
the reference was implied but not stated. Sometimes, it was difficult to determine whether the
students used the pronouns as a subject, an object, or a possessive in the sentence, and select
the pronoun form to match. A vague pronoun reference can leave the reader confused
about what or to whom the pronoun refers.

Example:
-She believes that if respects herself the most, she’ll able to deliver the same thing to other
and in return she’ll be respected.
-And they love me very much and I am also love they very much.

(iii) Mistakes in conjunctions

From the Chart 2, we have found that the phenomenon of mistakes in conjunctions is
relatively common. Generally speaking, one of the causes for mistakes is that the students do
not understand the sentence structure. When the subject, the predicate and other ingredients
such as the adverbial and the complement are included in the sentence, the sentence should
be ended with a period, or by conjunction connecting two small clauses before and after. We
have found that 20% students did not know that. In their opinion, what they wanted to
express had not been finished, so they just separated sentences by a comma, and then the
sentence structure was wrong.

Example:
- We could do everything we like at will and didn’t have to worry about grades, scold from
teachers.

(iv) Mistakes in parts of speech

In the students’ scripts, we have found that 20% students made mistakes in the part of
speech. They confused with the usage of noun, verb and adjective. For example:
Example:
- You must choice one.
- Their is not other religion over human.

(v) Other kind of errors

The other major problem areas that students had with parts of speech were: mistakes
in adverbs (11.25%), mistakes in phrases (11.25%), mistakes in adjectives (8.75%) and
mistakes in noun (3.75%).

Example:
-Mahmudul is quite good enough.
-He actually earned only a specific amount of money that was comparatively low to that of
Mr. Tarek.
-In some cases they are quite different enough.

5.2.2.2 Errors in Number

We have found that students have severe problems with errors in number. We know,
in secondary and higher secondary level, students usually learn the verb conjugation on the
third person singular. But there are always common mistakes in college English writing.

The students did not add ‘s/es’ to the verb when the subject is 3rd person singular
number. On the other hand, the students added ‘s/es’ when the subject is 1st person.
 Chart 3: Errors in number

Examples:
-‘A’ often help me.
- It really do harm to the further development of the society.

5.2.2.3 Errors in verb forms

Chart 4: Errors in verb forms

 It is evident from the students’ writings that most of them (46.25%) were quite
confused with the tenses. How to use tenses in certain circumstances is difficult for English
learners. For example, differences between the present perfect and simple past always
confuse English learners. Due to differences on tenses between the Bangla and English, the
concept of tense is not in the mind of Bengali students, so when using tenses in the writing, it
is easy to cause confusion and make mistakes in tenses.

Examples:
-We have to made friendship.
-After a few minutes he reach our location.

Many of the students (31.25%) had mistakes in using verb form. This type of mistake
is quite obvious in students’ essays. Moreover, a quite good number of students (16.25%)
had the problems with missing verbs. Some students did not use auxiliary verb in their
writing when it was required. Some students also misused the verb. Some students did not
add verb ‘to be’ in the sentences. Few students mixed up the present tense with past tenses.
They got confused to write in the proper tense.

Examples:
-He is read in Dhaka University.
-Mrs. Monzu Rashid my favourite teacher in college.
-His home district in Natore.
- Run steady relationship became one of the things in my campus life.

Moreover, there were other forms of errors in verb. Like, students had problems with
a split infinitive (3.75%); unnecessary shift in verb tense (2.50%); mistakes in participles
(2.50%); mistakes in passive form (1.25%); and they could not use modal verbs in a right
way (1.25%). Students always use the past participles in a wrong way. When we first learn
the past participles; we have to remember some irregular verbs. Some students are still
confused by whether a word has a regular form or not. Let’s see the examples.
Examples:
- He is a grumphy person but sometimes all of a sudden he will start behaving very
nicely to a person.
- He advised me to always maintain a good character.
- I am sure that I will got only 40% than her and she got around 95%.

This kind of error occurred because of students’ ignorance and sometimes lack of
their knowledge. As they are the students of undergraduate level, they had to pass the
secondary and higher secondary level before they get admission in the university. From their
primary to higher secondary education, they have learned the use of verbs. So after passing
these levels if they make this kind of error, then we can say that it happens because of their
ignorance or some of them get fossilized learner.

5.2.2.4 Articles & Determiners

Articles are the unique part of speech in English, consisting of indefinite articles, “a”,
“an”, and definite article “the”, and zero article. Although articles always emerge in the
passages, articles are difficult for the language learners, especially those whose language
systems do not have some words like articles. Mistakes in articles can be classified by three
kinds:

i) Mistakes in lack of articles

ii) Multi-purpose articles
iii) Misuse in articles
 Chart 5: Errors in articles & determiners

From the above pie chart, we can see that students had a grave problem with the use
of articles. 17.5% students had errors in articles; 2.5% of them had errors in lack of articles
and rest 2.5% had errors in multi-purpose articles. Moreover, a similar kind of problems i.e.
errors in double determiners (7.5%) that the students had.

Examples:
-He is the very funny person.
-Moral is a important strong side of anyone.
-The two person are A and B.
- My university is graceful and quiet place.

5.2.3 Syntactic Errors

For undergraduate level students, syntactic errors are less expected in academic
writing. From the samples of the essays, syntactic errors have been classified into six groups
such as, fragment, faulty, fused or run-on, subject-predicate disagreement, meaningless
wrong sentence, and faulty parallelism structure. At a glance if we count the number of
syntactic errors made by the students then we can see the following types with the numbers
of errors they made:

Chart 6: Different types of syntactic errors

If we look at the above chart, we can see that, among the syntactic errors, faulty
sentence structure is the highest. 61.25% students had this problem. If a sentence starts out
with one kind of structure and then changes to another kind, it will confuse readers. To
maintain the grammatical pattern within a sentence, each sentence must have a subject and a
verb, and the subjects and predicates must make sense together.

Examples:
-He is not as much as well mannered.
-I am going to describe about Naim and Zahed who are stays around me about their moral
qualities.

From this kind of errors, it has been found that students cannot even write a sentence
which can make sense. This kind of syntactic error shows that students are so weak that they
cannot express their thinking while writing, so to express it they just put words together and
create a deviant structure which is meaningless.

The second highest error (25.60%) is sentence sprawl. Too many equally weighted
phrases and clauses produce tiresome sentences. From this kind of error, it has been found
that students are suffering from L1 interference. They want to express so many things which
actually they are thinking in L1. While translating those thinking, they take a short-cut
method. Thus, the sentences become brief but those loose the clarity.

Examples:
-She always gives salam to everyone and always do her classwork in time and help others to
complete that without showing any kind of arrogance.
- Jason was planning to attend his friend’s wedding on June 30, but at the last minute he
found out he had jury duty, so he couldn’t attend the wedding, and he felt really guilty about
it.

The third highest (21.25%) category of error is subject-predicate disagreement.

Subject-predicate disagreement mainly manifests as that subject do not suits the predicate’s
form in number.

Examples:
-May be sometimes ‘good’ or sometimes ‘bad’ but it is changeable I think.
-We thanks for him.

It shows that students lack knowledge in sentence formation and most of the time
when they try to write this kind of sentence they incorrectly place the predicate form. This is
also another problem caused by interference of L1.

Another most important category is fragments. (18.75%) students had this problem.
From the sample essays it shows that, most of the students write fragments which indicate
incomplete sentence. It is the most common errors that students make while writing.
Examples:
-When anyone groth of our society. At first give the teach about moral quality.
-But on a different note.

Run-on sentence is another syntactic error that students made. Among total
percentage of syntactic errors, 8.75% run-on sentence was identified. It shows that students
lack knowledge in writing compound sentences and most of the time when they try to write
this kind of sentence they incorrectly punctuate. There were two types of run-on sentences
identified from the samples. One type involves writing sentence after sentence without end
punctuation. It indicates sentence that just run together. Another type of run-on sentence also
identified from the students’ essays which were like using coordinating conjunction but
leaving out the comma. The second type of run-on sentence was very

Examples:
-I have my two friends Sabik and Saad they always stay around me.
-Unlike him the honest person always respect others even the bad persons get respect from
him.

The syntactic errors that had been identified reveal that, though the students were at
undergraduate level but they were not prepared for this level. The kind of syntactic errors
students made cannot be expected at undergraduate level. In addition, it is noticeable that
most of the students wrote wrong sentences. Students had a trend to fill up the pages to write
more. They wrote pages after pages by using wrong structure.

5.2.4 Spelling Errors

Errors in spelling were found as one of the most widely spread problems in the scripts
of the learners. 43.75% scripts had spelling errors. Words like unbised, self depended,
continussly were written. One of the reasons behind committing this kind of error could be
the confusion of students with the words of nearly the same sounds (homophony). A lot of
such errors were detected. Examples were: Studing for studying; stoped for stopped, belive
for believe; usually for usually, bron for born, hiard for hired, socity for society, successful
for successful and many more.

After the grammatical errors, spelling errors are the most frequent ones that the
students committed. They were unaware of the phonetic structure of words. Most of the
spelling errors occurred as they did not know the exact spelling of the word. Sometimes this
kind of spelling errors occurred because of L1interference or it indicates that the students
might get confused with a word with another word that sounds alike.

Spelling error is one of the most common errors that students make. According to the
students’ error, spelling mistakes has been categorized into six (6) different types. The
categories are addition, deletion, substitution, transposition and homonym. These categories
have been already discussed in literature review.

Another group included here which is grouped as ‘not exits’ which indicates the
words that are not exits, make by the students. This kind of spelling error occurred while
student does not know the exact spelling of the word. Sometimes this kind of spelling error
occurred because of LI interference. Some examples identified from the essays are like,
Akjakli, prafir, adelt, scile, tung, sinama. If we analyse these spellings carefully, we may find
out what they meant, but a native speaker of English may not understand what the writer
means.
 Chart 7: Different types of spelling errors

If we analyze the graph, we can see that students made substitution error most. Total
number of substitution error is 48%. Substitution spelling error indicate substitute a letter
with the letter nest to it. The second highest is homonyms (35%) which indicates that the
students may got confused with a word with another word that sounds alike. Most common
homonyms that identified from the essays were, ‘then’ instead of ‘than’ and another ‘there’
instead o f ‘their’.

5.2.5 Punctuation Errors

Punctuation is an essential part of language. Peck and Coyle (1999) referred

punctuation as the signaling system of language. Many students make awful mess of
punctuation, which denotes that their performance in essays suffers. The following types of
errors have been identified in the essays of the students:
 Chart 8: Different types of punctuation errors

From the above chart, it has been found that ‘Missing Comma after an Introductory
Element’ is the highest (60%) kind of punctuation error. Another frequent (10.97%) type of
punctuation error is ‘Unnecessary or Missing Apostrophe’. The third highest (8.75%)
category is the ‘Comma Splice’. We know that to make a compound sentence, we need to
combine two simple sentences by using a comma and one of the coordinating conjunctions. It
has been found that students prefer to write long sentence by using a particular conjunction.
They frequently used ‘and’ but left out the comma where it was needed. They did not use
comma while they write long sentences. Those long sentences became over-loaded sentence
without proper punctuation. In the literature review we have seen that run-on sentences
basically indicate incorrectly punctuated used coordinating conjunction but left out comma.
Fragmental error can fall under punctuation error, where students write incomplete sentence
and use full stop. These kinds of punctuation errors are very common in the essays. Another
most frequent punctuation error (6.25%) that has been identified from the essays is
‘Unnecessary Comma’. It indicates that students are unaware of the proper use of comma in
sentence which suffers their performance of the essays.
Examples:
-I would talk about two people around me those who have…
-After serving people, for these fundamental needs, Rahim aims to make educated.
-And, he is sometimes lazy and doesn’t work.
-My father moral qualities is much more stronger than my mother.
-My friend name is Sabbir.
-Another, Bristy, she wants to be a doctor from the very childhood.

5.2.6 Interference Errors

Examples:
-Do not same character, morality man to man.
-When we are live in hostel in college, which follow that when going to the street look like a
poor man, he was help.

The interference errors in syntax and vocabulary show that the students already have
learned the sentence structure and use of words in their first language but now the new
structure of L2 (second language) are being hindered by the LI (first language). These errors
show that the students’ knowledge of Bangla acted as a resource which they used when they
display the TL (target language) in their writing. I realized that because of their lack of L2
input they were using strategies like direct translation or code switching to solve their
problems.

In the example, we could see that the student was making direct translation from L1
to TL. In the second example, the sentence structure was wrong and LI was interfering in the
formation of L2.
5.2.7 Overgeneralization Error

Examples:
-When we are live in hostel in college
-When we are born

Here the students used unnecessarily “are” to indicate present form. They use (am, is,
are) auxiliary verb to form sentence in present tense, here they generalize this concept and
used to indicate present form.

Examples:
-Without communicate with country people goodly...

Here error analysis reveals another kind of strategy the learner used in TL. Here the
learner has lack of knowledge in TL, to indicate the word “properly” he used a deviant form
of word “goodly”. The learner knew the word “good”, to make it adverb, he added ‘ly’ to
form it as adverb. Here the learner generalized the concept of using ‘ly’ at the end of the
word to make it an adverb. He tried to use that knowledge in a situation where it did not
apply. As he does not know the appropriate word for this sentence, to make the word “well”
as adverb, he used “ly” at the end of the word. So, we can say that here the student
overgeneralized the concept and made a deviant form word.

5.2.8 Rule Restriction Errors

Examples:
-It is not possible for his/her
-So, I am agree about the opinion

In the first example, we can see that the student has used wrong pronoun. This
example show that the student created deviant structure on the basis of his knowledge of
using pronoun. Instead of using “him/her”, the student used “his/her”. In the second example,
we can see that the sentence structure is wrong and the student which indicate the application
of rules to contexts where they do not apply. For this kind of error, the students basically use
previously acquired rule in a new situation.

5.2.9 Error because of False Concept Hypothesized

Examples:
-We are must use international language.
-If we are want prosper in life then we must know English.

These errors indicate that some of the students interpreted “are” as a marker of
auxiliary verb which is always needed after the subject and because of this false hypothesis
they frequently made errors.

5.3 Teacher’s Perceptions

The first question was asked to the teachers’ to discover teachers’ perception on the
importance of error analysis. In this question “yes-no” options were given and teachers were
allowed to give comments if the answer is “yes”. Out of five (5) participants, all of them
answered “yes”. Among five teachers, 3 of them explained why they think error analysis is
important for the teachers.

The teachers suggested that this kind of analysis would help them to know about the
weakness of their students and be focused on those problem areas. One of the teachers
commented that it would be helpful for the teachers to design effective language course
according to the students’ need. From the overall response to this question, it is clear that the
majority of the teachers believe that error analysis is important for the teachers. From their
comments it is evident that error analysis will help them to find out students’ weakness and
help them to teach accordingly. Moreover, this kind of analysis will help the teachers to
redesign the syllabus.
 From question 2, it has been identified that all teachers found five (5) types of errors
in students’ writing. Options were given to list down the types of errors. Syntactic error was
the most common type of error that the teachers have identified. Most of the teachers believe
that faulty sentence construction is a common error that students frequently commit in their
writing. Other types of errors that the teachers mentioned were grammatical errors, lexical
errors, spelling errors and punctuation error.

In response to question 3, teachers mentioned that the students had both kinds of
problems, i.e. mistakes and errors. And in response to question 4, most of the teachers
commented that students’ errors should not be accepted in academic writing.

In question 5 and 6, teachers were asked about their opinion on existing error
identification methods. These questions were asked to identify an effective technique of error
identification method as suggested by the teachers. In question 5, teachers were asked to rank
the existing methods of error identification according to importance. Choices were given and
they were asked to put numbers according to importance.

It has been found that, 80% teachers prefer “remarks” as the most effective exiting
error identification method. 40% teachers believe “coding” is effective error identification
technique. 100% teachers believe “explanation of errors” is effective error identification
method. 20% of them prefer “underline” as error identification technique. According to the
percentages of teachers’ preference, it has been found that the most effective existing error
identification method is ‘explanation of errors’. The 2nd effective error identification
technique is ‘giving remarks’. 3rd effective error identification method is using codes or
symbols and the least effective technique is underlining the errors.

In question 6, teachers were asked to whether the existing methods of error

identification are adequate in showing or highlighting the error to the students or not. Among
5 participants, 3 of them responded “no” which indicates that they do not think it is adequate
in highlighting the errors to the students. Rest 2 participants respond to “yes”. All teachers
gave suggestion that student counseling is an alternative effective method.
 In question 7, teachers were asked to give their opinion about their motivation in
dealing with errors at the undergraduate level. In response to this question, most (80%) of the
teachers commented that teachers’ motivation in dealing with students’ error at
undergraduate level is average. Only 20% teacher had a minimum motivation level to deal
with students’ error at the undergraduate level. So, it is clear that majority of the teachers
motivated their students to deal with errors. Teacher can play a vital role in helping students
to avoid errors. Teachers believe that they should be more concern about students’ error.

In question 8, teachers were asked, whose determination is helpful for avoiding the
errors. Three options were given for this question, such as, “student’s determination”,
“teacher’s determination” and the last option was “both”. All participants responded on
“both”. All participant teachers believed that, in helping students to avoid errors, both sides
determination is important.

Question 9 and 10 were asked to reveal the teachers’ perception on fossilization and
response on fossilized learner. These two questions were asked to get the information about
teachers’ thought on this issue and how much importance they are giving on this to overcome
students’ error.

In question 9, teachers were asked whether they consider fossilization as one of the
main reasons for the students to make errors at the undergraduate level. “Yes-No” option was
given for the getting the teachers’ response. Majority of the teachers believe that fossilization
is one of the main reasons for the students to make errors at the undergraduate level.

Question 10 was open-ended question for the teachers. This question was designed to
get teachers’ opinion on positive feedback to overcome the errors of fossilized learners.
Among 5 participants, all of them respond as writing “Yes”. Though it was an open-ended
question but none of the teachers’ gave any detail comment on this question. From these
questions it is revealed that majority of the teachers believe that fossilization is one of the
main reasons for the students to make errors at the undergraduate level.
 Question 11 was open-ended question to the teachers to reveal their thoughts on
effective feedback. Among 5 participants, 4 of them attempt this question. All of them
suggested individual student counseling as a means of giving effective feedback. One teacher
suggested, reflective teaching according to the students’ level. Another teacher
recommended, interpersonal relationship and teacher’s inborn ability to teach and to make
understand, capability of winning students’ attention can be work as effective feedback.

5.4 Conclusion
This chapter has included the data analysis of the study. The analysis is divided into
two sections: (a) analysis of question responses, which focused on analyzing the frequency of
the responses, and (b) analysis of response patterns, which focused on the analysis of the
correspondence of the responses in different questions. These analyses demonstrated that
students have some common errors in their academic writing. The following chapter will
give a detailed findings and recommendations.
 CHAPTER SIX

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter is composed of three major sections. The first section presents a
discussion vis-à-vis the responses of the questionnaire and interview respondents. Then,
recommend some steps for overcoming the errors that the students are facing. Finally, the
chapter is concluded with recommendations for further research.

6.1 Major Findings

This present study was aimed at investigating the common errors of academic writing
of undergraduate students in Bangladesh. From the data collected in this study and analyzed
in chapter five, it has been identified that though the students were in undergraduate level
they had major difficulties in writing sentences. Students faced serious problems in
developing sentences while expressing thoughts. Sometimes, syntactic errors were so unique
that it became difficult to comprehend. In some sentences the meaning is unclear but if we
translate in Bangla; it become lucid. Thereby we can say that students are making literal
translations from Bangla. It is a kind of mother tongue interference.

It has been also identified that the students’ knowledge of vocabulary is very weak.
Students think in Bangla and while producing the desired sentences in English, their inability
automatically exposed. Lightbown and Spada stated that, “the transfer of patterns from the
native language is undoubtedly one of the major sources of errors in learner language” (1999:
p, 165). From the analysis of students’ error, it has been also found that transfer of patterns is
sometimes causing errors. While writing in English, students overgeneralize the language
patterns with their mother tongue. Richards (1974) refers to overgeneralization as one of the
contributory factors for learners committing errors. According to him, “Overgeneralization
covers instances where the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of his experience
of other structures in the target language.”
 It was also noticed that students face problem while using vocabulary. As they have a
limited stock of words, they could not find the proper word while writing. Use of wrong
words and wrong forms of word were common errors that the students made. Sometimes
they used words which are out of context, which indicates their lack of knowledge in the
target language. Use of wrong form of words indicates that students do not know the proper
use of the words. Spelling error is another common error that the students made. Majority of
the students made substitution spelling error, where they substitute the letter. These types of
spelling error occurred as the students were confused about the spelling. Some students made
spelling error because of LI interference. For LI interference, students mostly do
pronunciation error which sometimes reflected in their writing as well.

Regarding grammatical error, we have found that the most occurred error that the
students made was prepositional errors. They get confused with the use of preposition and it
has been revealed that L1 interference is causing prepositional error. Misuse of all forms of
parts of speech denoted that students were so weak in the target language. Though students
have been learned these grammatical items from their primary level; still they commit errors
while writing in advance level.

Regarding the sources of errors, the study has revealed that there are different sources
of error for students’ frequent errors in writing. The main sources are:

a) interference of Bangla which is their LI

b) transfer of LI knowledge
c) incomplete application of rules
d) ignorance of rule restrictions
e) overgeneralizations
f) lack of enough exposure and
g) overall lack of knowledge in L2.

The investigation of student writings has revealed that students make mistakes in
gender of pronouns and plurals. These are areas that they have already studied. However, the
students are not yet fossilized learner because they are still in the age where learning can take
place. Krashen, and Scarcella (1979) believe that adults learn grammatical aspects faster than
children. They think that in the case of formal learning situations adults seem to do better
even in the area of learning. So, their view supports that the learners of twenty plus can still
learn and they can even learn better in the formal learning situations.

The students are from Bangladesh University of Professionals and one fundamental
course has been introduced to develop students’ language skills. This course has been made
compulsory for all department students in their first semester to develop their standard of
English. It has been identified from their exam scripts that there are a lot of common errors in
their scripts. So, the course is not adequate for the learners’ development. After getting
lectures and having practice on the essay writing, students still committed number of errors.
Students’ frequent errors indicate that they are not prepared for advanced level courses.

The teachers are much concern about language errors. Global errors are given
specialty than language errors. Brown (2000) says that global errors are a kind of error that
prevents the reader to comprehend the message. The teachers’ overall response to the
questionnaire indicates that the majority of the teachers believe that error analysis is
important for the teachers. From their comments it has been found that error analysis will
help them to find out students’ weakness.

In case of giving feedback, it has been revealed that ‘explanation of errors’ and
‘giving remarks’ are the most effective existing error identification methods. Majority of the
teachers do not believe that these techniques are adequate enough to highlight the errors to
the students. All teachers gave suggestion that student counseling is an effective method.

Majority of the teachers believe that fossilization is one of the main reasons for the
students to make errors at the undergraduate level. Teachers also believe that through
positive feedback it is possible to overcome errors of fossilized learners.
 Teachers can play a vital role in helping students to avoid errors and they should be
more concerned about students’ error. On the other hand, students should need determination
to avoid errors in writing. Most of the teachers believe that existing methods of teaching
essay writing is not effective. Some teachers believe new practices should be introduced. It
has been revealed that individual student counseling is most effective feedback for the
students to understand their errors.

Teachers’ questionnaire discloses that teachers are more tolerant of language error
than structural flaws. Majority of the teachers respond that they cut “40%-60%” marks for
structural and global errors. This is corroborated by the document analysis which reveals that
students who were able to write a complete essay received good marks after having their
language error. From the document analysis it is revealed that teachers’ gave more marks to
those essays which were completely developed in spite of having more language error on the
essays.

From the document analysis, it is revealed that the students got less mark as the essay
was not well organized and unfinished. So, here we can say that teacher give more
importance on the fluency rather than accuracy. Teachers expect students to be able to write a
coherent well developed essay which the students are unable to do. At undergraduate level, it
is important that a student can express himself and develop their thoughts in writing. This is
essential for all courses not just English language course. Students are making numerous
errors as lexical, syntactic, grammatical, spelling, punctuation etc. at their undergraduate
level. Teachers regard these errors as less problematic or significant than structural errors. At
undergraduate level, teachers believe that students should be more concerned about
organization of writing. Teachers are giving less importance to the language errors than
organizational or structural error as they have taken classes on structure of different types of
essay writing specially for this level of students. So, they expect students will give
importance on this and perform accordingly.
 6.2 The Reasons for Grammatical Errors in Academic English Writings

6.2.1 Mother Tongue Interference

English is the second language for most Bengali students, so the native language will
inevitably have some unconscious influence on using English. It is quite common for
students to carry the Bangla grammar to English writing. When the Bangla-English word
order is consistent, this is a positive transfer. But when the Bangla-English word order phase
asynchrony, the mother tongue will interfere with the using of English, the negative transfer
emerges.

6.2.2 Differences in Cultural Backgrounds

It is generalized that the thinking way of the Bangla is circular, while in English, it is
linear. Reflected in writing, the English speakers often come straight to their points, then
demonstrate their points step by step. The differences on cultures result in the different ways
of thinking between Bangla and English-speaking speakers, so it is easy to paraphrase the
native culture into English. As a result, mistakes on grammar emerge. Therefore, different
cultures have big influence on using the different languages.

6.2.3 Incomplete and Unsystematic English Knowledge

There are lots of spelling errors in students’ English writing, which shows that
students have an inadequate amount of vocabulary. Students should spend more time in
enlarging words. At the same time, it is also necessary to learn how to use these words. And
the so-called overgeneralization is to apply the knowledge which we have learned and
summarized to the situations beyond rules, leading to wrong usage. For example, due to not
well-grasping the predicate verb, after learning “want to do, go to do, come to do, hope to do,
etc”, then put “enjoy doing, finish doing, mind doing” summarized as “enjoy to do, finish to
do, mind to do”, which are totally wrong.

6.2. 4 Grammatical Problems in Academic English Writing

Through the analysis of the mistakes in students’ academic English learning, the
author thinks that we can help students to minimize mistakes through the following two
aspects. First of all, a lot of English grammatical mistakes are interlingual transfer mistakes.
Second language learners’ language should be regarded as an internal language system, and it
is the interlanguage between the first language and the second language. Selinker (1969)
thought that learners built their own intermediary language structure through language
transfer, intralingual transfer, transfer of training, foreign language learning strategies,
foreign language communication strategy and other means.

6.3 Recommendations

1. As errors occur because of interference of native language; teachers need to pay

attention to this issue. By showing the difference between the native language and
target language we can make our learners aware of the interference errors.
2. The elementary level students usually struggle with both linguistic structure and
writing techniques. For this reason, a teacher has to focus on different problems at
different times. At this level it may be pointless to correct all the errors. And it is also
unmanageable for the students. Again, excessive correction may discourage students
for writing. That is why; teachers need to prioritize the errors according to their
importance. Teachers need to decide which errors need immediate correction and
which can be ignored. In the case of grammatical errors, if any grammatical rule is
new to the students, providing the correct form can be a better option for reducing the
number of errors.
3. Again, development sequence can play an important role for correcting grammatical
error. When students are corrected on a point for which they are not ready, then it
may be futile to correct them. In this study, teachers mentioned that giving feedback
takes a lot of teachers’ time in the class; so while correcting grammar teachers need to
be selective in grammar topics.
4. Grammatical errors and syntactic errors should be given priority.
5. Words are easy to learn, but putting them all together in a composed manner is
difficult. A student should have proper ideas about how to process his/her words and
provide something meaningful. Students make syntactic errors when they are
confused about their grammatical basics. As they do not know the grammar methods
 properly despite knowing many words they end up writing something meaningless or
fragmented. We face students who lack enough knowledge about root level grammar.
Later on they cannot keep pace with the fast teaching practices they meet at their
undergraduate level. As a result, they end up performing poorly when writing essays,
providing speeches and producing thoughts into their second language. To cancel this
confusion, teachers should take upper hand. Either at the primary level, teachers can
experiment with efficient and beneficial language teaching methods or after meeting
the slow or weak students at the undergraduate level, they can design a method which
will help them in learning old things in a new effective manner. Second language is
never too friendly, that is why teachers should take care of the hindrances students
face while learning it.
6. To improve students’ grammatical error, they should have enough practice of the
grammatical items that they frequently get confused about.
7. Lower level learners not only have difficulties in grammar area but they also have
trouble with finding the appropriate word. The study reveals that lack of vocabulary is
one of the reasons for interfering written communication. To solve this problem,
teachers can give them a glossary of words from which they can choose.
8. To deal with organizational errors, students should be given opportunities to learn
producing proper sentences, organizing key thoughts, make it articulate and providing
a proper conclusion. All these can be done if the teacher pays her extreme attention in
making them learn. Another way out is teachers can divide them into groups, make
them choose a topic, discuss about it and produce a complete work. If they work in
group or pair, they will feel more confident and different ideas will also come.
9. While correcting essay writings of the students, teachers need to focus on the
organization and content. The study reveals that elementary level students’ often have
problems in organizing their thoughts. That is why teachers instead of giving them the
product may focus on the process of writing because process writing gives learners
the opportunity for self correction. If teachers employ process writing then they may
get the chance to ask the students to edit and revise their work before submitting.
10. The longing of this research was to identify students’ common language errors and
how the teachers treat this error. Interestingly teachers suggest that fluency is as
 important as accuracy. The research was focused on language errors as well as
structure based errors but now the teachers’ views suggest that we need to develop
fluency not just correct the students’ language error in writing.
11. According to Wallace (1982), to develop students’ knowledge of vocabulary in L2,
students should have these abilities:

a. recognize it in is spoken or written form;

b. use it in the appropriate grammatical form;
c. in speech, pronounce it in a recognizable way;
d. in writing, spell it correctly;
e. use it at the appropriate level of formality;
f. be aware of its connotation and association.

To build up vocabulary in L2, at first students should felt the need of learning
vocabulary. They can think about acquiring of LI vocabulary. Everyone in his
lifetime acquires a fairly large vocabulary in his mother tongue; it becomes possible
as they felt the need of learning. Knowing the words become the matter of survival or
at least of social competence. So, at first students should feel the need of learning
vocabulary to survive in the present situation.

12. Students should spend more time in the environment where they can get enough
exposure of target language. If the student gets enough exposure of the language then
he will come across new vocabulary and the same time they will see the use of those
words.
13. For improving spelling ability students can adopt certain things:

a. Listing every word that the student misspells. If the student writes down every
misspelled word and its correct spelling then he will see the correct spelling of a
word that usually confuses the student. From this the learners also come to know
his typical patterns of spelling errors.
 b. Developing a set of hints for remembering words that give the learner problems.
For example, if the learner confused about the spelling of there, remember s
“They’re home in their house over there.” (Greenberg , 1994)

14. When we write, we use punctuation marks to represent the pauses and stresses.
Commas are most commonly used punctuation mark in writing. It becomes difficult
for the reader to grasp the meaning of a piece of writing that is missing commas. This
is a very common punctuation error that students made. Students should have proper
idea about the use of punctuation marks. In order to reduce the number of errors
committed by students in their written English, it is suggested that teachers should
frequently remind their students that they must think in English rather than in Bangla.
It could have reduced their tendency of brining any feature of the mother tongue in
the target language.
15. In giving feedback teacher should explain why certain constructions are
ungrammatical. It would be ideal if the teacher has a very good command of the
target language. Teachers should encourage their students to write by providing
helpful criticisms. They should make constructive criticisms of their students' work.
16. For the regular errors, teachers can use self correction too. Self correction can be used
for common errors like- obvious spelling, punctuation, capitalization. Researches
show that self correction with teacher’s help is an excellent way to address errors
because it allows the students to come up with his or her own responses. This study
also shows that most of the teachers have positive attitude towards self correction.
17. Usually teachers use red pen to mark or underline the errors committed by the
learners. Too much use of red pen sometimes may have negative effect on young
learners. Again, for elementary level learners underlining may not be enough. At this
stage, young learners most of the times fail to identify the errors. For this reason
teachers need to be more specific and should give detail feedback for the learners.
While giving feedback on written work teachers can also use symbols to indicate
errors. Symbols such as Gr for grammatical error, Sp for spelling, Ar for articles, T
for tense, ? for whatever was not clear, etc can be used and teachers should introduce
the symbols to the students before so that they can understand what those symbols
 stand for. Many researchers suggested that coding is a fruitful technique (see
Appendix-B) for elementary level students as it is a kind of direct feedback.
18. Students should be advised to listen to good English from whatever available source
they have like the radio, television, native speakers and good local speakers of the in
the target language.
19. The teacher should provide an explanation to the possible source or cause of error to
bring about an awareness of what could be the potential contributory factor of making
errors.
20. From the results of students’ common error in writing, it is evident that the course is
not adequate for developing students’ academic writing. More intensive English
courses should be there before they take their major courses in respected area.
21. Teacher can introduce courses where students can get more structured writing
activities. To improve the students’ capacity, teacher should reorganize the syllabus
according to the students’ difficulties. After two or three introductory classes a
teacher will certainly get to know about the levels of his/her students. Therefore, it
will be easier for the course teacher to prepare such a syllabus which will be highly
balanced, appropriate and comfortable for each level of student. Certainly after that
there will be no question of perplexity any more, as the syllabus will match their level
of acquiring and learning.
22. Extremely fossilized learners should be offered individual counseling and private
sitting by the expert language teachers.
23. Proper teacher-student relationship is the key to success when it is about error
analysis and erasing the errors for long. Amongst the possible way outs individual
counseling has been appreciated. Teachers and students both highly appreciate the
fact that personal sitting and privately delivered motivational speeches help a lot more
than a general error analysis discussion in a classroom. This is how the confidence
level of students will grow more and they will feel highly motivated and interested
about doing something proper.
24. Conferencing with the students about their errors can also be another useful technique
to give feedback. Through this teachers can check students’ understanding and at the
same time students can inquire about their problems. It also helps to build good
 relation between teacher and student. While conferencing, teachers can also mention
about the strength of the students writings as commenting only on negative points can
demotivate them. Again, it will be beneficial for the students if they get comments on
the strategies required to improve their writings.
25. For elementary level students, both oral and written feedback can be good choices for
the teachers. In case of written feedback, comments need to be clear, direct and
precise; so that the students easily understand the meaning. The teachers in my study
mentioned that written feedback is more beneficial for the students than oral feedback
because lower level students may not take oral feedback seriously and there is a
chance that they may forget about the error later on. As elementary level students are
not mature enough, there is a possibility that they may overlook the written
comments. That is why both oral and written feedback is necessary for young
learners. Again, the analysis reveals that sometimes students make the same mistake
repeatedly. In this situation a teacher needs to find out if there is any problem with the
teaching technique and he/she must act accordingly.
26. After getting feedback, it is important to know whether students rectify themselves or
not. If a student self corrects the errors and rewrites then there will be a chance to
improve. It also helps students to develop their linguistic competence.

6.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, it is expected that this investigation will help the teachers, syllabus
designers, and material designers to develop their teaching aid and material according to the
students’ need. We know that English is a global language. So, it is compulsory for the
second or foreign language learner to learn it correctly. Consequently, certain features of the
language are inherently difficult for the learners even at the advance level of their academic
stage. Thus, Error Analysis is useful in second language learning because this will help the
teachers, syllabus designers, material designers, and textbook writers to find the problem
areas. It will be beneficial for them to design remedial exercises for the students paying more
attention on the trouble spots.
 By using error analysis, the author finds that the students’ mistakes have certain
regularities, and the English teachers should adopt some effective teaching strategies in
teaching to help students reduce or even avoid mistakes and call on students’ attention to
cultivating grammar skills.

The first thing is to strengthen the guidance of students’ learning strategies. One of
the important tasks of English courses is to make sure students develop some good writing
habits. Teachers should consciously strengthen the guidance of students’ learning strategies,
let them learn and use English grammar step by step through the learning process.

The second is to strengthen the comparison and analysis of the native language and
target language, pay attention to guiding students to think in English, make practice for the
key sentence patterns, tenses, voices and other major language phenomenon as many times as
possible, and this will stimulate students’ brain constantly. It is an effective way to overcome
Bengali sentence pattern interference.

Using modern education technology is an important channel for students to learn and
use English. Using the modern education technology can help students input a large amount
of information in a natural way. In grammar teaching, we used to adopt deduction, induction,
comparison and other methods. To some extent we should change the teaching methods now,
putting grammar knowledge in the context of teaching appropriately, to make students
participate in the analysis of grammatical phenomena, to raise students’ ability of
summarizing and using English. This kind of teaching mode can improve the students’
interest in learning, and it also can better teaching effect for students.