An analysis of common syntactic errors committed in written tasks by vietnamese students of english at dong thap university

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE AN ANALYSIS OF COMMON SYNTACTIC ERRORS COMMITTED IN WRITTEN TASKS BY VIETNAMESE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT DONG THAP UNIVERSITY Submitted to the Department of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By NGUYEN NGUYEN XUAN TAM Supervised by DO MINH HUNG, Ph.D HO CHI MINH CITY, JULY 2013 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled AN ANALYSIS OF COMMON SYNTACTIC ERRORS COMMITTED IN WRITTEN TASKS BY VIETNAMESE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT DONG THAP UNIVERSITY In terms of the statement of requirements for theses in Masters’ programs issued by the Higher Degree Committee of the Department of English Linguistics and Literature, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, July 2013 Nguyen Nguyen Xuan Tam ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to all the professors at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, who devotedly instructed and guided me during the postgraduate program Especially, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Do Minh Hung, for his valuable advice and as well his patience and encouragement Also, I am sincerely grateful to my graduate classmates, my colleagues, and my students who were very helpful and responsive to my data collection and other requirements during my work Finally, I would like to express my profound appreciation to my newly-wed wife and especially my only sister for their financial, spiritual and practical support, without whom I would have hardly fulfilled my thesis iii ABSTRACT Error analysis in second language acquisition (SLA) is a type of linguistic study that focuses on the errors learners make In the field of pedagogy, it provides information on students' errors which in turn helps teachers to correct students' errors and also improves the effectiveness of their teaching According to Corder (1967), systematically analyzing errors made by language learners makes it possible to determine areas that need reinforcement in teaching As a matter of fact, this study conducted a survey into errors which students commonly make in their English writing Upon doing so, the researcher analyzed students’ EFL (English as a Foreign Language) written tasks, i.e English academic essays, by majors of English and simultaneously investigated the relationship between the sources of error and the overall common syntactic errors in EFL student writing Particularly, 70 essay samples by third-year majors of English at Dong Thap University were collected to analyze and classify the most common syntactic errors in EFL writing The result revealed that errors in the singular/plural noun form were the highest in number, accounting for 25% of the total number of errors The second, third, fourth, and fifth in rank were error categories in word form, article, verb tense, and subject-verb agreement, respectively In the next part, in order to investigate the relationship between the sources of error and the common syntactic errors in EFL writing, a quantitative approach was applied to analyze the data collected from the questionnaires Through SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) analytical procedures, the data was measured of the reliability and correlation between variables The findings indicated that intralingual factors were a major source of syntactic errors in second language (L2) writing, that is to say, syntactic errors in L2 writing were interfered by incomplete application of grammatical rules, particularly in building grammatically correct sentences Besides, cognitive factors were the second major iv source of syntactic errors in L2 writing These factors had an effect on L2 writing errors in that students had few chances to practice their writing skills out of class Also, some of them did not apply properly the technical procedures in writing production Conclusion drawn from the results of this study is that consideration needs to be taken into the teaching and learning of common syntactic structures in the writing classroom so as to focus on students’ ability in sentence building, thus improving students’ English academic writing The results of this study can also provide a fundamental for future research in EFL writing pedagogy and in SLA in general Keywords: error, error analysis, source of error, syntactic error in writing v TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study 1.2 Aims of the Study 1.3 Research Questions 1.4 Significance of the Study 1.5 Scopes of the Research 1.6 An Overview of the Methodology 1.7 Limitations of the Study 1.8 Structure of the Study Chapter LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 Errors 2.1.1 Errors Analysis 2.1.2 Errors and Mistakes 11 2.1.3 Sources of Error 12 2.2 Syntactic Errors 19 2.2.1 Syntax and Common Syntactic Features 19 2.2.2 Common Syntactic Errors in Writing 21 2.3 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses 23 2.3.1 Theoretical Framework 23 2.3.2 Research Hypotheses 24 vi Chapter RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 25 3.1 Research Design 25 3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Procedures 26 3.3 Instruments 27 3.4 Questionnaire development 28 3.5 Data Collection Procedures 32 3.6 Data Analysis Procedures 33 3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics 33 3.6.2 Reliability Analysis 33 3.6.3 Correlation Statistics 34 3.7 Summary 35 Chapter DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 36 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 36 4.1.1 Respondents’ Demographics 36 4.1.2 Respondents’ Responses to Proposed Items 37 4.1.2.1 Respondents’ Responses to Interlingual Factor 37 4.1.2.2 Respondents’ Responses to Intralingual Factor 39 4.1.2.3 Respondents’ Responses to Social Factor 41 4.1.2.4 Respondents’ Responses to Cognitive Factor 42 4.1.2.5 Respondents’ Responses of Overall Common Syntactic Errors in Writing 43 4.2 Reliability Analysis 44 4.3 Correlation Analysis 45 4.3.1 Assumption Testing 45 4.3.2 Correlation Matrix 48 4.4 Hypothesis Testing and Discussions 50 4.5 Summary 61 Chapter SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 63 5.1 Summary of Findings 63 5.2 Instructional Implications 66 5.2.1 Implications for Teachers 66 vii 5.2.2 Implications for Students 68 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 68 5.4 Conclusion 69 REFERENCES 71 APPENDIX 76 APPENDIX 79 APPENDIX 82 APPENDIX 90 APPENDIX 92 APPENDIX 93 APPENDIX 93 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Summary of Research Hypotheses 24 Table 3.1 Survey Items Used in the Study 30 Table 3.2 Rules of Thumb for Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Size 34 Table 4.1 Variables Included in the Analyses 36 Table 4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Study 37 Table 4.3 Interlingual Factor 38 Table 4.4 Interlingual Items 38 Table 4.5 Intralingual Factor 39 Table 4.6 Intralingual Items 40 Table 4.7 Social Factor 41 Table 4.8 Social Items 42 Table 4.9 Cognitive Factor 42 Table 4.10 Cognitive Items 43 Table 4.11 Statistics of overall Common Syntactic Errors 44 Table 4.12 Cronbach’s Alpha Measures of Variables in the Study 45 Table 4.13 Correlation of Variables 48 Table 4.14 Overall Common Syntactic Errors in Writing 49 Table 4.15 Analysis of Errors 54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Psycholinguistic Sources of Error 11 Figure 2.2 Theoretical Framework 24 Figure 4.1 Histogram 46 Figure 4.2 Normal P-P Plot 47 Figure 4.3 Scatterplot 47 Figure 4.4 Pie Chart of Analysis of Syntactic Errors 54 ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DThU Dong Thap University EA Error Analysis EFL English as a Foreign Language L1 First Language L2 Second Language SLA Second Language Acquisition 79 APPENDIX BẢNG KHẢO SÁT Các em sinh viên thân mến, Bảng khảo sát nhằm mục đích thu thập liệu cho đề tài luận văn có tiêu đề: Phân tích lỗi cú pháp thường gặp văn viết tiếng Anh sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh trường Đại học Đồng Tháp Sự phản hồi bạn góp phần vào thành cơng đề tài Chúng đảm bảo thông tin thu thập dùng cho mục đích nghiên cứu Xin vui lịng dành thời gian trả lời câu hỏi cách rõ ràng chân thật Trong câu hỏi, đánh dấu () vào lựa chọn trả lời thích hợp Cảm ơn đóng góp bạn Nguyễn Nguyện Xuân Tâm Chương trình đào tạo Sau đại học Trường Đại học Khoa học xã hội Nhân văn Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh 80 PHẦN A: THƠNG TIN CÁ NHÂN – Vui lịng đánh dấu () vào thích hợp Giới tính:  Nam  Nữ Là sinh viên năm:  Thứ  Thứ hai  Thứ ba PHẦN B: Đánh giá câu sau cách sử dụng thang điểm từ đến Các câu sau nhận định việc học thực hành kỹ viết tiếng Anh bạn Vui lịng đánh dấu () vào thích hợp Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý Khơng đồng ý Trung hịa Đồng ý Stt Nhận định Tơi suy nghĩ, tìm ý tiếng Việt trước bắt đầu viết tiếng Anh Tôi dịch câu từ tiếng Việt sang tiếng Anh, sau kết hợp chúng lại viết tiếng Anh Tôi thường sử dụng từ điển Viêt-Anh làm viết tiếng Anh Cách viết viết tiếng Anh tương tự cách viết viết tiếng Việt Vấn đề khó khăn tơi viết tiếng Anh việc viết cấu trúc câu tiếng Anh Vấn đề khó khăn tơi việc viết tiếng Anh lựa chọn từ ngữ thích hợp Vấn đề khó khăn tơi việc viết tiếng Anh tìm phát triển ý cho viết Phân biệt sử dụng hầu hết thì, thể tiếng Anh khó khăn, đặc biêt viết tiếng Anh Tôi sử dụng nhiều cấu trúc ngữ pháp tiếng Anh đơn giản cấu trúc phức tạp viết tiếng Anh 10 Đối với tôi, môn Viết tiếng Anh khơng có thú vị 11 Tơi khơng cần sử dụng tiếng Anh giao tiếp với người xung quanh bạn bè Hoàn toàn đồng ý 5 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 81 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tôi viết tiếng Anh theo yêu cầu giáo viên lớp/của môn học khơng viết cho mục đích khác Kỹ viết tiếng Anh không cần thiết cho nghề nghiệp sau tơi Tơi có hội thực hành kỹ viết tiếng Anh bên ngồi lớp học Tơi không lập dàn ý viết luận tiếng Anh Tôi cách thực bước kỹ thuật tiến trình viết đoạn văn/bài luận tiếng Anh Khi làm xong viết tiếng Anh lớp, tơi nộp cho giáo viên mà xem lại viết Nói chung, tơi mắc nhiều lỗi viết tiếng Anh, đặc biệt cấu trúc câu tiếng Anh 5 5 5 82 APPENDIX DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Appendix 3.1: Respondents’ Demographics Gender Valid Male Frequency 39 Percent 39.0 Valid Percent 39.0 Cumulative Percent 39.0 61 100 61.0 100.0 61.0 100.0 100.0 Female Total Appendix 3.2: Respondents’ Responses to Interlingual Factors  Mean Value: Statistics INTERLINGUAL N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation 100 3.2750 87725 Statistics Interlingual1 Interlingual2 Interlingual3 Interlingual4 100 100 100 100 0 0 3.8100 2.9300 3.4100 2.9500 1.15203 1.19979 1.12002 1.29782  Frequency: Interlingual1 Valid 1.00 Frequency Percent 6.0 Valid Percent 6.0 Cumulative Percent 6.0 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 17 37 32 100 8.0 17.0 37.0 32.0 100.0 8.0 17.0 37.0 32.0 100.0 14.0 31.0 68.0 100.0 83 Interlingual2 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 14 25 23 30 100 Percent 14.0 25.0 23.0 30.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 14.0 25.0 23.0 30.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 14.0 39.0 62.0 92.0 100.0 Interlingual3 Frequency Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 12 31 33 17 100 Percent 7.0 12.0 31.0 33.0 17.0 100.0 Valid Percent 7.0 12.0 31.0 33.0 17.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.0 19.0 50.0 83.0 100.0 Interlingual4 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 20 19 14 40 100 Percent 20.0 19.0 14.0 40.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.0 19.0 14.0 40.0 7.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20.0 39.0 53.0 93.0 100.0 84 Appendix 3.3: Respondents’ Responses to Intralingual Factors  Mean Value: Statistics INTRALINGUAL N Valid 100 Missing Mean 4.0520 Std Deviation 62708 Statistics N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation Intralingual1 Intralingual2 100 100 0 4.0400 4.2500 1.10937 82112 Intralingual Intralingual Intralingual 100 100 100 0 4.2000 3.8000 3.9700 86457 97442 77140  Frequency: Intralingual1 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 11 34 43 100 Percent Valid Percent 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 11.0 34.0 34.0 43.0 43.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.0 12.0 23.0 57.0 100.0 Intralingual2 Valid 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 12 39 45 100 Percent Valid Percent 4.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 39.0 39.0 45.0 45.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.0 16.0 55.0 100.0 85 Intralingual3 Valid 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 17 34 45 100 Percent Valid Percent 4.0 4.0 17.0 34.0 45.0 100.0 17.0 34.0 45.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.0 21.0 55.0 100.0 Intralingual4 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 20 47 23 100 Percent Valid Percent 3.0 3.0 7.0 20.0 47.0 23.0 100.0 7.0 20.0 47.0 23.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.0 10.0 30.0 77.0 100.0 Intralingual5 Valid 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 19 53 24 100 Percent Valid Percent 4.0 4.0 19.0 53.0 24.0 100.0 19.0 53.0 24.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.0 23.0 76.0 100.0 86 Appendix 3.4: Respondents’ Responses to Social Factors  Mean Value: Statistics SOCIAL N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation 100 1.8875 76076 Statistics Social1 Social2 Social3 Social4 100 100 100 100 0 0 1.9700 1.9300 2.3200 1.3300 1.12326 1.00760 1.09986 72551  Frequency: Social1 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 48 20 22 100 Percent Valid Percent 48.0 48.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 3.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 48.0 68.0 90.0 97.0 100.0 Social2 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 43 30 20 100 Percent Valid Percent 43.0 43.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 43.0 73.0 93.0 98.0 100.0 87 Social3 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency Percent Valid Percent 29 29.0 29.0 28 28.0 28.0 27 27.0 27.0 14 14.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 100 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 29.0 57.0 84.0 98.0 100.0 Social4 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 Total Frequency 76 19 100 Percent Valid Percent 76.0 76.0 19.0 3.0 2.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 76.0 19.0 3.0 2.0 100.0 95.0 98.0 100.0 Appendix 3.5: Respondents’ Responses to Cognitive Factors  Mean Value: Statistics COGNITIVE N Valid 100 Missing Mean 2.6600 Std Deviation 74325 Statistics N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation Cognitive1 Cognitive2 Cognitive3 Cognitive4 100 100 100 100 0 0 3.4100 2.3900 2.6100 2.2300 1.00599 1.00398 1.06263 1.00358 88  Frequency: Cognitive1 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 21 22 44 11 100 Percent Valid Percent 2.0 2.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 44.0 44.0 11.0 11.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.0 23.0 45.0 89.0 100.0 Cognitive2 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 19 39 29 10 100 Percent Valid Percent 19.0 19.0 39.0 29.0 10.0 3.0 100.0 39.0 29.0 10.0 3.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 19.0 58.0 87.0 97.0 100.0 Cognitive3 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 16 34 24 25 100 Percent Valid Percent 16.0 16.0 34.0 24.0 25.0 1.0 100.0 34.0 24.0 25.0 1.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 16.0 50.0 74.0 99.0 100.0 89 Cognitive4 Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 22 48 19 100 Percent Valid Percent 22.0 22.0 48.0 48.0 19.0 19.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 22.0 70.0 89.0 96.0 100.0 Appendix 3.6: Respondents’ Responses to Overall Common Syntactic Errors Statistics Syntactic Error N Valid Missing Mean Std Deviation 100 3.4000 1.13707 Syntactic Error Valid 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total Frequency 13 31 31 18 100 Percent Valid Percent 7.0 7.0 13.0 13.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 18.0 18.0 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.0 20.0 51.0 82.0 100.0 90 APPENDIX CRONBACH’S ALPHA ANALYSIS Appendix 4.1: Cronbach’s alpha Analysis of Interlingual Factors Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 716 Interlingual1 Interlingual2 Interlingual3 Interlingual4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Cronbach's Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Alpha if if Item Item Item-Total Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted 9.2900 6.693 720 519 10.1700 7.173 576 608 9.6900 7.388 603 596 10.1500 9.078 198 836 Appendix 4.2: Cronbach’s alpha Analysis of Intralingual Factors Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 716 Intralingual1 Intralingual2 Intralingual3 Intralingual4 Intralingual5 Item-Total Statistics Scale Cronbach's Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Alpha if if Item Item Item-Total Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted 16.2200 5.628 565 631 16.0100 6.980 502 660 16.0600 7.330 375 706 16.4600 6.271 535 643 16.2900 7.481 416 691 91 Appendix 4.3: Cronbach’s alpha Analysis of Social Factors Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 756 Social1 Social2 Social3 Social4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Cronbach's Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Alpha if if Item Item Item-Total Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted 5.5800 5.196 547 706 5.6200 5.571 562 693 5.2300 4.765 684 617 6.2200 7.002 451 753 Appendix 4.4: Cronbach’s alpha analysis of Cognitive Factors Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 706 Cognitive1 Cognitive2 Cognitive3 Cognitive4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Cronbach's Scale Mean Variance if Corrected Alpha if if Item Item Item-Total Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted 7.2300 5.573 475 654 8.2500 5.058 614 566 8.0300 5.363 477 653 8.4100 5.840 411 691 92 APPENDIX CORRELATION ANALYSIS Correlations INTERLIN GUAL INTRALI NGUAL SOCIAL COGNITIVE 346** -.153 007 043 000 129 942 671 100 100 076 100 252* 100 583** 453 012 000 100 100 308** 100 158 002 117 100 100 270** INTERLINGUAL Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N INTRALINGUAL Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) 100 346** N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) 100 -.153 100 076 129 453 N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) 100 007 100 252* 100 308** 942 012 002 N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) 100 043 100 583** 100 158 100 270** 671 000 117 007 N 100 100 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) 100 100 SOCIAL COGNITIVE Syntactic Error Syntactic Error 000 007 100 100 93 APPENDIX ERROR ANALYSIS Statistics Plural/ Word Verb Verb S-V Relative Comma Singular Form Form Tense Agreement Article Pronoun Fragment Splices Preposition N Valid 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 5.8308 3.5846 1.4769 2.138 2.1231 2.8462 5846 1.7077 1.1231 1.7846 Mean APPENDIX All of the students’ essay samples are included in the enclosed CD ... common errors made by language learners in SLA, and in L2 writing particularly As a matter of fact, a better understanding of types of errors and the influence of sources of error in L2 writing... source of syntactic errors in second language (L2) writing, that is to say, syntactic errors in L2 writing were interfered by incomplete application of grammatical rules, particularly in building... STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled AN ANALYSIS OF COMMON SYNTACTIC ERRORS COMMITTED IN WRITTEN TASKS BY VIETNAMESE STUDENTS OF