Interlingual and Intralingual Interference in Omani EFL Students’

Writing

Glyn B. Gabano-Magbanua, PhD

Dulce Imelda Mercado

Carol Abule

Vanessa Joy Dayag

Al Musanna College of Technology

Oman

Abstract

The proposed research will look into paragraphs and essays written by

Omani college students at the Al Musanna College of Technology to identify

errors committed at the discourse level. Additionally, it will attempt to

classify the errors into either interlingual or intralingual in nature. A total of

300 paragraphs and essays written by students from across three levels

(level 2, Level 3 and Level 4) will be examined. Implications for classroom

teaching and research will be discussed.

Introduction

Did you want visit Salalah. Did you went see a good Place

in Oman. Lend me afew menet of your time I tell You more

Information about the best Place in the Summer. Spiclily wather

Scareny and festival. this is three reason to make Salalah a good

place. (sic)

- sample student writing

As students move from one level to the next in education, they are

expected to manifest a general improvement of their skills. In the EFL

context, as students move from school to college, they are also increasingly

expected to be able to express themselves and what they know about

different subjects through the four macro skills, namely: listening, speaking,

reading and writing. Of the four, writing seems the most complex as students

will have to struggle to learn the language and write simultaneously. Thus, it

is not that surprising to hear teachers discussing their students’ writing

problems and comparing the students’ writing errors.

At this point it is essential to define error and to differentiate it with

mistake. Corder (1981) gave a clear illustration of the distinction between

these two terms. According to him, mistakes are unsystematic ‘performance’

errors like slips of the tongue or the shift from formal to informal

grammatical patterns in informal contexts. These are usually committed by

native English speakers who think in their own language. Thus, these

unsystematic ‘performance’ errors can be self-corrected and are therefore

more appropriately referred to as mistakes. On the other hand, errors are

systematic violations of the linguistic patterns of the language to which non-

native speakers (in this case, the Omani students) have been exposed to (in

this case, English). These errors are likely to occur repeatedly and not

recognized by the learner. Hence, only the teacher can locate them, the

learner can’t (Gass and Selinker, 1994). It is in this context that the word

error is used in this study.

In the Omani EFL context, students are exposed to the language as

early as when they begin school. Belonging to the umbrella term ‘Arab

learners’ on the basis of their first language, these students share many of

the weaknesses and language problems with other Arab students from other

Arab states. Although these problems are not concentrated on just a single

macro skill, research into Arab EFL learners reveal that many of these

problems occur in students’ writing outputs. Jdetawy (2011) found out that

Arab EFL learners specifically commit errors in syntax, semantics,

morphology, pronunciation and spelling. With the exclusion of pronunciation,

all the problems mentioned exist primarily in writing. Earlier in 2010, Al-

Khasawneh indicated that even Arab EFL postgraduate students face

problems in carrying out their writing tasks. These problems include

vocabulary, grammar, organization of ideas, spelling and referencing.

Over the last three decades, with the increasingly rapid advances in

the field of error analysis, colleges and universities in the Gulf region have

undertaken their own research on errors in their students’ writings. As such

analysis is needed to attain an adequate understanding of how to reduce

errors in writing, and to hopefully improve students’ writing outputs in terms

of both fluency and accuracy, the researchers decided to undertake this

study.

Considering the problems mentioned, this study attempts to:

1. Identify, classify and explain Omani students’ writing errors at the

discourse level;

2. Identify fossilized errors (those errors that persist across levels);

3. Examine the interlingual and intralingual interference as possible sources

of errors;

4. Provide implications of the findings in the teaching of writing to EFL

students;

5. Propose future areas of research.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Error Analysis

It is inevitable that learners make errors. Stark (2001) views errors as

normal and inevitable features of language and as such, are essential

conditions of learning. Olasihende (2002) likewise believes that errors are

unavoidable and a necessary part of the learning curve. As students make

errors, Corder (1975) suggests that teachers do a periodic and detailed error

analysis to identify systematic errors that should be targeted for corrective

feedback.

Error Analysis has been defined in many ways. As it is concerned with

the analysis of errors committed by L2 learners, it is carried out by

comparing the learners’ acquired norms with the target language norms and

explaining the errors (James, 1988). It was also James, in 2001 (p.62) who

referred to error analysis as the “study of linguistic ignorance, the

investigation of what people do not know and how they attempt to cope with

their ignorance”. For Crystal (1999), EA in language teaching is the study of

unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a language, especially a

foreign language. These unacceptable forms are what Brown (2012) called

the “deviations of the rules of the second language”. These deviations are

observed, analyzed and classified to reveal the systems operated by the

learner.

For Corder (1974) error analysis simply focuses on the errors learners

make. It consists of a comparison between the errors made in the Target

Language (TL) and the TL itself. It has two objects: theoretical and applied.

The theoretical object “elucidates what and how a learner learns when he

studies a second language” while the applied object serves to “enable the

learner to learn more efficiently by exploiting our knowledge of his dialect for

pedagogical purposes.” Sercombe (2000) identified three purposes of error

analysis: (1) to find out the level of language proficiency the learner has

reached; (2) to obtain information about common difficulties in language

learning; and (3) to find out how people learn a language. Additionally,

Vahdatinejad (2008) considers error analysis as an important component of

language teaching because it can be used to determine what a learner still

needs to be taught as it provides the necessary information about what is

lacking in the learner’s competence and thus needs remediation.

Consequently, error analysis provides valuable information to three

beneficiaries: teachers, researchers and students themselves. For teachers,

errors identified clues them on the progress of the students; for researchers,

it provided evidence as to how language is acquired or learned; and, for

learners, it gives them resources in order to learn (Corder, 1967).

Sources of Writing Errors

Errors, according to Brown (2000) mainly come from two sources,

namely, interlingual and intralingual errors. He states that interlingual errors,

also referred to as transfer errors, are those that are traceable to first

language interference and are attributable to negative interlingual transfer.

Wilkins (1972), identifies a transfer as negative when the transfer is

unjustified because both the first language and the target language are very

different in structures. When this case happens, the first language then

“interferes” with the performance of the target language learner (Lado,

1964). These “interference” which include L1 habits (patterns, systems or

rules) then prevent the learner, to some extent, from acquiring the patterns

and rules of the second language (Corder, 1971).

Selinker (1972) who first coined the term “interlanguage” to refer to

the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both the

learner’s L1 and the target language, reported five sources of errors (in

Richards, 1974). These include: (1) language transfer, (2) transfer of training,

(3) strategies of second language learning, (4) strategies of second language

communication, and, (5) overgeneralization of target language linguistic

material. In 1998, James identified four sources of errors: (1) native language

transfer or the use of a rule or pattern from the native language; (2)

developmental error which is an ‘intralingual’ error that’s made by all

learners of a given language regardless of their native language; (3) induced

errors, caused by the way a teacher or textbook presented or explained a

given form; and, (5) communication strategies which is used by the learner

to get meaning across even though he/she knows the form used is not

correct.

Richards (1971) on the other hand, differentiates three sources of

error: (1) interference error which results from mother tongue interference,

(2) intralingual error which reflects the incorrect generalization of the rules

within the target language; and, (3) developmental error which occurs when

the learners hypothesize about the target language based on their limited

knowledge. However, Schacheter and Celce-Murcia (1977) found intralingual

and developmental errors to be closely related and thus proposed that both

errors be considered to be in the same category – intralingual and

developmental errors – which then refer to the errors that occur when a

learner has not really acquired a significant knowledge of the target

language.

In a paper entitled “The Study of Learner English”, Richards and

Simpson (1974) identified seven sources of errors:

(1) Language transfer to which can be attributed one-third of sentence

error from learners.

(2) Intralingual interference which is further categorized into: (a)

overgeneralization which happens when the learner creates a deviant

structure on the basis of his experience of other structures in the target

language; (b) ignorance of rule restrictions or applying rules to context to

which they do not apply; (c) incomplete application of rules; and, (d)

semantic errors such faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target

language.

(3) Sociolinguistic situation like motivation and the setting for learning

which may affect second or foreign language learning.

(4) Modality which may include modality of exposure and modality of

production.

(5) Age: learning capacities vary with age.

(6) Successions of approximate systems which recognize the

circumstance variations of language learning which happens from person to

person and which may also happen with the acquisition of new lexical,

phonological and syntactic items.

(7) Universal hierarchy of difficulty which refers to the inherent

difficulty for a learner, no matter what his background is, to learn certain

language items or structures as some forms may be inherently difficult to

learn than others.

Error Analysis of Arabic EFL Learners’ Writing Outputs

Error analysis has received considerable attention in the field of

research. In the Gulf region, errors in learners’ writing outputs have been

analyzed in various ways. Recent studies of a wider scope include that of

Zawahreh’s (2012) analysis of tenth-grade student essays in Jordan, and

Hourani’s (2008) analysis of common grammatical errors in essays of male

students in the eastern coast of UAE. Ridha (2012) also explored the effect of

mother tongue to Iraqi EFL learners’ writings in English and Fahreh (2013)

dealt with macrolinguistic errors in Arab EFL learners’ essays. Moreover, Al

Buainain (2006) conducted a case study of students’ writing errors in Qatar.

On a narrower, more specific scope, Saigh and Schmitt (2012) explored

Arabic ESL learners’ difficulties with vocabulary word form at the King

Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Al-Mekhlafi (2013) studied the question

formation in English writing of Omani EFL learners. Alshayban (2012) likewise

conducted a research on copula omission by EFL Arab learners and way back

in 1986, Aadeljawad conducted a linguistic analysis of spelling errors made

by Jordanian university students.

Characteristics of the Arabic Language

Arabic is the language of the Koran, the sacred book of Islam. Arabic is

of two types, standard and colloquial. Standard Arabic is the formal language

of literature and written expression while the colloquial version is the

ordinary familiar language used in everyday conversation among Arabic

speakers. The Arabic alphabet consists of 28 letters although it can be

extended to ninety elements by writing additional shapes, marks, and vowels

(Tayli and Al-Salamah, 1990).

Spoken in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,

Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab

Emirates and Yemen, Arabic is one of the world’s most widely used

languages in the world (Hourani, 2008). Sofer and Raimes (2002) provides a

comprehensive list of the characteristics of the Arabic language:

1. The written language

Arabic is written from right to left. The spelling is phonetic and there is

no distinction made between the upper and lower case.

2. Sentence structure and word order

Under the influence of the Qur’an, writers aim at rhythmical balance

and coordination, with the split between subject and predicate occurring

midway in a sentence. Arabic favors coordination over subordination and

sentences often begin with And and So. The basic word order in Classical

Arabic is V-S-O i.e. the verb precedes the subject. For example Arab speakers

would often write in English: Hoped the committee to solve the problem.

However, Colloquial Arabic follows the S-V-O pattern but uses a that clause

where English uses infinitive as in the sentence: I want that you say.

3. Nouns and pronouns

Personal pronouns are often added to verbs and students would often

write My mother she bakes delicious cakes. Moreover, relative pronoun

makes no human/nonhuman distinction, and pronoun object is retained in a

restrictive relative clause as This is the teacher which you met her last

month. Lastly, a singular noun is used after a numeral above ten like They

have thirty-five teacher in the department.

4. Verbs and Verbals

Many of the characteristic English verbs and verbals are absent in the

Arabic language. For instance , there is no equivalent of the auxiliary do in

Arabic (You have a brother?). Also, there is no verb be in the present tense

(They going to the movie or Where the post office?). Likewise there are no

modal verbs, no gerunds and no infinitive forms. Moreover, the perspective

of tense and time is very different from English. For example, in the past

perfect tense, the be verb is added. Thus, a sentence is written as They were

eat instead of They had eaten. Reported speech retains the tense of the

original utterance (He said he is going) and the simple present tense covers

the meaning of simple and progressive in English (She driving now/She

driving every day).

5. Adjectives and adverbs

In Arabic, the adjective follows the noun. For example, instead of a

blue car, Arabic writers often write car blue or halwa delicious instead of

delicious halwa.

6. Articles

Another characteristic of the Arabic language is the absence of the

indefinite article. Thus students write I saw woman beautiful instead of

writing I saw a beautiful woman. Interestingly, the definite article is used for

days of the week, some months, some place names and in many idiomatic

expressions so it is not surprising to find sentences like I visit the Salalah in

the Kharif, The fastival (sic.) starts in the January and In the Monday I absent.

METHODOLOGY

1. Data Collection

Researchers have worked out a procedure for gathering the needed

data for EA. Following Corder (1975) and Ellis (1995) the present study will

start with selection of a corpus of language, identification of errors,

classification and explanation.

To gather the corpus of the language, the researchers will analyze

randomly selected LEE (Level Exit Exam) writing papers of 10 students each

from three different levels at the Al-Musanna College of Technology, Oman:

Level 2 (Elementary), Level 3 (Pre-Intermediate) and Level 4 (Advanced). The

researchers will then proceed to the identification and classification of errors

using a modified model from AbiSamra (2003) and Kaweera (2013).

2. Error Identification and Classification

Errors will be classified as:

a. morphological errors (errors in singular/plural morphemes, tenses,

prepositions, articles, adjectives, irregular verbs, possessives)

b. lexical errors (errors in word choice)

c. syntactic errors (sentence structure, word order)

d. mechanics errors (spelling, punctuation, capitalization)

e. organizational/discourse errors (topic sentence, thesis statement,

support sentences, restatement of the thesis)

3. Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed and explained through existing literature on

Error Analysis.

References:

Corder, S.P. (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Corder, S.P. (1973) Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin

Selinker, L. (974) Interlanguage. In Richards, J. (ed) Error Analysis.

London: Longman, p. 31-54.

Corder, S.P. (1993) Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin.

Brown, R. (1973) A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Corder, S.P (1967) The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International

Review of Applied Linguistics 5:161- 70 [reprinted along with other key

papers by Corder, in Corder (1981)]

Lado, R. (1964) Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Corder, S.P. (1971) Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis.

International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:149-59.

Corder, S.P. (1974) Error Analysis. In Corder, S.P. and Allen, P. (eds)

The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics Vol. 3:122-54.

Gass, S., and Selinker, L. (1994) Second Language Acquisition: An

Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error

Analysis. :Longman.

Crystal, D. (1999). English as a Global Language. Edinburgh:

Cambridge.