In the thesis at hand, a special emphasis will be on Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ errors and their difficulties when learning English as a second language. Further, it will provide interpretative approaches regarding the reasons for this. The errors that will be analyzed are subject-verb-agreement errors in different subcategories in Turkish EFL students’ writings in the form of argumentative essays.
Furthermore, the essays are analyzed for incorrect verb phrases because of missing verbs, which could be due to the different sentence structures in English and Turkish. The aim is to conduct a corpus-based error analysis in order to investigate and answer two main questions. The first question is, if Turkish EFL students are having difficulties in applying the rules in their essays. The second question deals with the analysis of the error sources to be able to interpret them in order to provide pedagogical implications towards them.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Definition of Errors
2.2 Types and Sources of Errors
2.3 Error Analysis and its importance
2.4 Comparison of English and Turkish inflectional systems
2.5 Hypothesis
3. Methodology
3.1 Data
3.2 Method
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Classification and Interpretation of Errors in Verb Phrases
4.2 Discussion
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This bachelor thesis aims to investigate the occurrence and frequency of specific verb phrase errors made by Turkish learners of English as a foreign language, specifically focusing on subject-verb-agreement and missing verbs within a corpus-based framework to identify potential interference from the native language.
- Analysis of subject-verb-agreement errors in third-person singular and plural constructions.
- Examination of missing verb errors in argumentative student essays.
- Evaluation of interlingual interference as a potential source of learner errors due to contrasting inflectional systems.
- Implementation of a corpus-based methodological approach using the TICLE subcorpus.
- Provision of pedagogical implications and strategies for effective error correction in the classroom.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2 Types and Sources of Errors
After having clarified what errors are and what differentiates them from mistakes, the next step is to have a look at the types and sources of errors. Corder (1975) believes that errors can be subdivided into four categories; these categories also represent the types of errors. The categories named by Corder are omission of some required element, addition of some unnecessary or incorrect element, selection of an incorrect element and misordering of elements (Corder 1975 [1973]: 277). In the chapter about recognition of errors Corder (1974) also distinguishes between overt and covert errors. Overt errors are easy to recognize and stand out immediately because they are obviously grammatically incorrect sentences or words. Whereas covert errors occur when the sentence itself is in the right form but the learner could not exactly express what he or she meant. It is very complex to recognize errors because there are a lot of factors that have to be taken into consideration, especially when it comes to interpreting the meaning of the sentences in the same way as the learners (cf. Corder 1974: 127).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the theoretical context of error analysis and outlines the specific research focus on Turkish learners of English.
2. Theoretical Framework: This section provides foundational definitions regarding errors and mistakes, discusses existing literature, and explores the linguistic differences between English and Turkish.
3. Methodology: This chapter details the data collection from the TICLE corpus and explains the qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures used for tagging and evaluating errors.
4. Results and Discussion: This section presents the empirical findings from the error analysis and discusses them in relation to the initial hypothesis concerning linguistic interference.
5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the research findings, addresses the hypothesis, and suggests potential directions for future linguistic studies.
Keywords
Error Analysis, Turkish EFL Learners, Subject-Verb-Agreement, TICLE Corpus, Interference Errors, Interlingual Transfer, Intralingual Transfer, Verb Phrases, Corpus Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, Pedagogical Implications, Omission, Inflectional Systems, Language Transfer, Learner Errors.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
The thesis focuses on analyzing specific verb phrase errors—namely subject-verb-agreement and missing verbs—made by Turkish university students learning English as a foreign language.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The work integrates corpus linguistics, contrastive analysis of English and Turkish inflectional systems, and pedagogical strategies for error correction in classroom settings.
What is the primary research question?
The central question asks how the structural and inflectional differences between Turkish and English affect the realization of subject-verb-agreement in the writing of Turkish EFL learners.
Which methodology is employed in the study?
The researcher employs a corpus-based approach using a subcorpus of the International Corpus of Learner English (TICLE), involving the manual tagging of errors and analysis via concordance software.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical definition of errors, a comparison of linguistic structures, the analysis of empirical data from student essays, and a discussion of results regarding language interference.
What are the key terms that define this work?
The work is defined by key terms such as Error Analysis, Interlingual Interference, Subject-Verb-Agreement, and Corpus-Based Research.
Why are subject-verb-agreement errors specifically categorized?
These errors are analyzed because they are frequent, easily identifiable, and provide clear evidence of how learners struggle with applying target language rules, potentially due to interference from their native Turkish grammar.
How does the author propose dealing with learner errors in the classroom?
The author suggests that teachers should draw attention to differences between the L1 and L2, raise awareness of interference patterns, and use structured remediation strategies rather than simply correcting every mistake.
- Quote paper
- Seda Evirgen (Author), 2018, A Corpus-based Error Analysis of Turkish Learners and the English Verb Phrase, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/451648
