AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF THE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OF EGYPTIAN EFL LEARNERS AND A SUGGESTED PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING THEIR GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE

Introduction

      Second language acquisition research has pointed to the importance of learning grammar for being central to L2 learning and fundamental for successful communication.  SLA learners could not express their ideas well without using correct grammatical structures.  Grammatical competence contributes in significant ways to developing productive language skills, particularly writing.  Thus, mastering grammar is essential for producing well-structured sentences and coherent ideas.

           One of the factors that render L2 grammar challenging to EFL learners is the effect of L1 on L2 learning. Mastering L2 grammar entails the acquisition of   grammatical rules and sentences structures. It also requires putting such rules into practice so as to know their correct usage and function which are fundamentally different from their native language.  Some EFL learners find difficulty in acquiring the grammar of the target language as while learning certain target language structures, they tend to use L1 language patterns and rules causing L2 erroneous forms and structures.The first language (L1) of a learner is likely to have an impact on L2 acquisition by acting as a source of interference when areas of discrepancy between the two languages are encountered (Ortega & Celaya, 2019).  In other words, they tend to transfer  L1 processing mechanisms to L2 seeking to process  target  language forms, whether those mechanisms are compatible with the L2 form system or not (Saigh and Schmitt, 2012, p.1).  Therefore, EFL learners do not only need to learn target grammatical rules and structures, but they also need to adopt a new processing strategy for acquiring them.

       Many EFL learners encounter numerous grammatical difficulties especially when it comes to applying grammatical rules in writing.  Many of them do not manifest sufficient levels of grammatical competence and others are not interested in learning writing because of the grammatical mistakes they make (Widiati and Cahyono, 2016).   Grammar teaching methodologies employed in many EFL educational settings focus on explaining decontextualized grammatical rules that should be memorized through mechanical drills and exercises (Nunan and Carter, 2001).  Thus, grammatical rules are taught in many EFL classes on the sentence rather than the discourse level. This teaching approach does not allow learners to know their real usage and are thus unable to use them for communicative purposes. The present study sought to suggest a proposed discourse-based grammar program that aims at helping learners perceive the communicative functions of grammar structures and use them in real life situations.

2. Literature Review

This section discusses the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, three major error theories and empirical studies investigating the factors that affect L2 learning.

  2.1 Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

     The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) formulated by Bley-Vroman (1990) sheds light on the main features of foreign language learning.  It was originally postulated in the context of the theory of Universal Grammar, which provides valuable insight into the field of foreign language acquisition. Bley-Vroman’s (1990) FDH   posited that the principles of UG immensely affect child language acquisition.  However, it does not have an impact on adult language acquisition as adults have no longer access to UG.Alternatively, they utilize domain-general problem-solving mechanisms. Adults have also an indirect access to UG through L1 grammar.  Therefore, they tend to transfer L1 inappropriate forms to L2. These instantiations of language transfer formulate one of the basic assumptions underlying the study.

2.2 Major Approaches to the Study of Learners’ Errors

   2.2.1 Contrastive Analysis

     The phenomenon of language interference that reflects how two languages affect each other when they come in contact has dominated the field of second language acquisition for decades.  This sheds light on the underlying premise of the contrastive analysis hypothesis formulated by (Lado ,1957). It claims that it is likely to predict the areas of language difficulty encountered by L1 learners by systematically comparing between the two languages and cultures. Learning problems are not likely to occur in the areas where the two languages and cultures are similar. Conversely, the areas where there are differences, learning difficulties are to be anticipated.  This results in making interlingual errors that are made due to the effect of L1 on L2 learning (Richard, 1974).  Thus, the greater the similarity between the two languages, the lesser the degree of the expected learning challenges.  

      Contrastive analysis gained much importance in examining learners’ errors during the “40”s and “50”s.  Later on, some shortcomings of contrastive analysis have been identified. Contrastive analysis was primarily used to predict language errors and difficulties based on the degree of similarities and differences between the two languages. Contrastive analysis was later criticized relying on the fact that it focused mainly on the discrepancies between L1 and L2 and ignored other factors that may influence EFL learners’ production such communicative strategies and L2 rules overgeneralization.   It  also  predicted  some learning  difficulties which did not  appear  in learners’ production and conversely it  did not predict several language problems which were  evident in  their output.   Later SLA research highlighted that other errors could also be found in EFL learners’ production irrespective of their L1. They could be affected by other linguistic, psychological and pedagogical factors (Fisiak, 1981).   

2.2.2 Interlanguage Theory

       The concept of interlanguage was proposed by Selinker (1972) who posited that learners’ language could be considered as a distinct dynamic linguistic system that is based on learners’ attempts to produce target language forms.  Interlanguage refers to EFL learners’ grammatically independent system that has a structurally immediate status between their native and target languages (Fang, 2007).  The underlying premise of interlanguage is that learners are no longer considered as producers of erroneous structures, but as active participants going through the systematic stages of acquisition (Fang & Xue-mei, 2007).  

2.2.3 Error Analysis

      Current SLA research points to other factors that cause L2 erroneous structures other than L1 transfer. This allows for predicting language difficulties encountered by EFL learners and paying much attention to them.  This has given rise to error analysis which involves a systematic description and classification of learners’ errors manifested in spoken or written output.  According to this theory, L1 transfer is not the only reason for making errors.  Such errors are caused due to intralingual interference.  Richards (1971) classified intralingual errors as follows:        

 Overgeneralization refers to the usage of a syntactic rule beyond its common usages.  Ignorance of rule restrictions occurs due to learners’ ignorance of the exceptions of some of TL rules.  

Incomplete rules application occurs   due to learners’ failure of applying the target rules completely.

False concept hypothesized errors are made when learners do not totally understand the differences between certain target language items leading to faulty conceptualization (Ellis, 1996).

       Corder (1967) sheds light on learners’ positive cognitive contribution to learning. He argued that learners are involved in a language discovery process in which they form hypotheses relying on language input and test them in their speech production. From this perspective, errors are a significant aspect of learners’ language, without which language development cannot be attained.   Corder  (1967) used the term  “transitional competence” to  refer to   learners’ language developing mechanisms. Thus, learner’s errors manifest the difference between their transitional competence and their target language proficiency.

      Relying on Chomsky’s (1965) perspective of L1 acquisition, Corder (1967) argued that as for the child acquiring the first language, language develops in a more or less fixed patterns. Thus, learners may possess an “inbuilt syllabus” which determines the sequence of the target language acquisition system.  Accordingly, examining learners’ errors could significantly provide a valuable insight into learners’ inbuilt acquisition system.

   2.3 Experimental Studies Investigating the Factors that Affect L2 Learning  

      One of the main factors that render L2 grammar challenging to EFL learners is that there is substantial evidence that L1 grammar is likely to influence the development of EFL grammatical abilities. In this context, Pasaribu (2021) examined EFL learners’ grammatical errors evident in 26 narrative stories through conducting an error analysis. The results point to first language interference as the main underlying reason of the identified errors.  Saidani and Djelloul (2020) examined the impact of L1 transfer on Algerian EFL learners’ writing accuracy and reached different results.  They found that students made interlingual as well as intralingual errors. The erroneous usage of different L2 syntactic structures and word formation reflected the overgeneralization errors resulted from students’ ignorance of L2 grammatical rules. In a similar study, Ibrahim, Nehal, Raheem (2021) conducted a study in which they sought to identify and categorize misformation errors in ESL postgraduate learners' writings.  The errors were attributed to an erroneous choice of tenses and a violation of subject-verb agreement rule. The results also pointed to L2 rules overgeneralizations and students’ insufficient knowledge of the rules governing the use of L2 grammar including tenses, prepositions and pronouns. The findings also revealed that L1 transfer was one of the reasons behind students’ errors. 

            Khatter (2019) conducted a study that sought to investigate and analyze the most frequent and common written errors.  The findings reflected that mastering L2 writing is quite challenging for the students. The results also indicated that Interlingual and intralingual transfer was the main source behind most of the written errors.  In a similar context, Jodai (2012) examined the impact of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to identify the kinds of blogs written errors of Persian adult EFL learners.  The results of the study revealed that intralingual transfer was the main source of the errors.

     In view of the above studies, It could be concluded that interlingual as well as   intralingual transfer are likely to affect L2 acquisition.  Thus, in the present study, transfer errors and developmental ones are expected to be found in Egyptian EFL learners’ writing.

3. Research Question

The present study sought to identify and categorize the errors found in Egyptian EFL writing and propose an integrative instructional program for avoiding EFL learners’ grammatical errors and enhancing their grammatical competence.  To that end, the following research question was formulated:  

     What categories of grammatical errors appeared in English writing by university   students who are L1 speakers of Arabic? This question is divided into two sub-questions: 

    1-Which error categories are frequently dominant in Egyptian EFL writing?

    2-What is the suggested instructional approach for overcoming Egyptian EFL     learners’ grammatical errors and developing their grammatical abilities?

4. Study and Analysis

This section focuses on the research methodology, the participants, data collection procedures, steps for data analysis and categorization and the activities designed for the proposed discourse-based grammar program.

4.1 Participants

   Two hundred and fifty students participated in the present study. They were freshmen college students learning English as a foreign language studying at the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of languages, AlMadeena Academy.  Their age ranged from 17-20.

4.2 Data Analysis

   Surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) was adopted for data analysis. They classified language errors as those of addition, omission, misformation, and misordering. Addition is indicated by the presence of an unwanted item in a sentence. Omission is signified by the absence of a required element in a sentence. Misformation is manifested in using erroneous forms of certain morphemes or structures. Misordering is reflected in a misplacement of certain words in a sentence.

4.3 Data Collection Procedures

    The grammatical errors were freely produced. The students were asked to write three essays about 250 words on three different topics. They were importing goods through air transportation, techniques for stress management and the effect of technology on the different fields of peoples’ lives.  Students’ essays were marked individually. The researcher went through each student’s paper and recorded the incorrect grammatical errors made by each student.  All the grammatical forms were analyzed according to the above mentioned categories.  Exact erroneous   grammatical structures more than once by the same student was counted as one mistake. A total of 1000 grammatical errors were examined. 

4.4 Reliability

   A second analyst categorized samples of the collected errors using the same categorization criteria. The percentage of agreement in categorizing the same samples of errors between the two analysts was computed and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

5. Results

In this section the results of the data analysis are presented as per typology of grammatical mistakes.

5.1 Typology of Grammatical Mistakes

    Based on the findings of the study, the total number of the grammatical errors made by   the students was 1000 errors.  The  numbers of the identified errors were  412 (Misformation :  41.2%) , 330 (omission :33%  ),  168 (addition : 16.8% ), and 90 (misordering  : 9 % ). 

Table 1

Typology of grammatical mistakes

Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 show the types of grammatical errors the participants made in their essays and some examples taken from their productions.

Table 2

Misformation errors

Table 3

Omission errors

Table 4

Addition errors

Table 5

Misordering errors

6. Discussion and Conclusion

  This section discusses the results of the data analysis with reference to the two research sub-questions addressed in the study.

 6.1 The First Research Sub-question

   In relation to the first research sub-question inquiring about the errors categories that were frequently dominant in Egyptian EFL writing, the findings revealed that the highest proportion of errors pertained to verb formation and tenses and the most dominant error categories were misformation and omission.  The following section presents an analysis of the identified errors according to the adopted taxonomy.

6.1.1 Misformation

      The most dominant type of errors fell in the category of misformation. This was evident in using singular verbs with plural subjects and using plural verbs with singular nouns. This could be referred to a developmental error that could be attributed to overgeneralization manifested in extending the use of the inflectional morpheme -s beyond its common usages. Other grammatical errors that fell in the category of misformation was evident  in using incorrect pronouns,  the  past simple tense  instead of the present perfect and the past tense after if conditional type 1. These errors could be attributed to an incomplete application of English grammatical rules which indicated learners’ insufficient levels of linguistic competence.

         Interlingual transfer from Arabic to English was evident in adding the plural morpheme –s to collective nouns that are grammatically singular in English, but plural in Arabic.  Another interlingual error that fell in the category of misformation was the incorrect usage of the present progressive instead of the present simple tense.  This could be attributed to the fact that the present simple tense in Arabic is equivalent to both present simple and present continuous tenses.  Thus, some Egyptian EFL learners tended to overuse the present progressive when using the English language.

       Other errors that fell in the category of misformation could be attributed to faulty categorization which is an intralingual error in which learners incorrectly classify target language items and do not fully understand the difference between certain L2 structures. Using present simple tense instead of an infinitive verb after modal verbs was another intralingual error that could be due to learners’ ignorance of rule restrictions regarding modal verbs usage. Another intralingual error was evident in the inability of students to differentiate between different parts of speech manifested in using nouns instead of verbs and vice versa.

6.1.2 Omission

      The deletion of the inflectional morpheme –s to indicate the present simple tense was one of the grammatical errors that fell in the category of omission.  This could be attributed to an intralingual transfer manifested in an incomplete application of the subject verb agreement rule. Errors pertaining to the deletion of verb to be was one of the most common omission errors that could be attributed to transferring Arabic rules to English causing erroneous grammatical errors.   Arabic also does not employ present “to be”. The nominal sentence in Arabic is equivalent to the English simple sentence that includes verb “to be”. It is omitted in Arabic, but must be used as a main verb in English. Thus, transferring this Arabic rule to English could be one of the reasons of omitting verb to be in English sentences.

      The omission of the inflectional morpheme –s to show the plurality of a noun and the deletion of verb to be in the passive voice could be regarded as developmental errors attributed to an incomplete rules application.

    One of the manifestations of L1 interference was the omission of the indefinite article (a/an) when referring to singular nouns. Arabic does not have an equivalent article for the English indefinite articles a and an. Thus, the nonexistence of the indefinite articles in Arabic might have led students to omit the indefinite articles in their writing.

6.1.3 Addition  

      Adding the inflectional morpheme -s to singular nouns was one of the errors that   fell in the category of addition which entails the presence of an unwanted item in a sentence.  This could be considered a developmental error represented in overusing specific grammatical rules of the target language which is considered an incorrect application of them.  Another manifestation of L1 interference was the addition of the definite article (the) when referring to abstract nouns.  This reflects learners’ particular way of processing English grammatical rules that is affected by their own native language.  In Arabic, abstract nouns are preceded with a definite article. Thus, some students unnecessarily added the definite article (the) when referring to abstract nouns in English. 

6.1.4 Misordering

    Another error category identified in the study was misordering manifested in the erroneous placement of certain adverbs. This could attributed to an incomplete application of the rules of the target language.

  6.2 The Second Research Sub-question 

  With regard to the second research sub-question on the suggested instructional technique for overcoming Egyptian EFL learners’ grammatical errors and enhancing their linguistic competence, the following program was proposed.

6.2.1 A Proposed Integrative Program for Overcoming Students’ Grammatical Errors through Employing Discourse-based Grammar Approach

     One of the techniques that could help enhance EFL learners’ grammatical competence and help them overcome their grammatical errors could be through employing discourse-based grammar approach that was first proposed by Celce- Murcia and Olshtain (2005) who posited that language learners should be exposed to authentic L2 material and should be provided with ample opportunities for using TL structures in real life situations.  Discourse includes spoken and written language in which form and meaning are closely related to external communicative purposes (Celce-Murcia and Olshtain , 2005).   The underlying premise of this model is concentrating on the meanings of syntactic structures within discourse, rather than on language as structure governed by strict rules.

      Through employing this pedagogical  approach ,  language input is analyzed for identifying its communicative function and  main grammatical features and other syntactic structures that cluster around them for performing other  minor language functions were focused on  ( Mohamed, 2014).   Learners should be exposed to oral and written discourse that reflects real manifestations of language use. Learners should get to know how L2   native writers and   speakers use language to convey meanings, express feelings and present points of view through grammar. Thus, this approach focuses on the grammatical function of language as well as its sociocultural and pragmatic ones (Farrokhi et al., 2018).

6.2.2 Implementation Procedures of the Discourse-based Grammar Program

     The proposed discourse-based grammar program should last for 12 sessions and each session should last for 120 minutes.  Reading tasks combined with instructional communicative activities should be introduced in place of grammar classes. The implementation of the program should be done though two phases, i.e., input-based and output-based techniques. Each phase should last for 6 sessions. The input-based technique should be conducted through asking students to read and analyse 3 short stories in 3 consecutive sessions and watch 3 short movies in other 3 sessions. The output- based technique is based on engaging students in spoken activities that should be done in 3 sessions and other writing activities that should be done in 3 other sessions.  

6.2.2.1 Implementing the Discourse-based Grammar Program through a Written Input-based Technique (3 sessions)

   Reading authentic L2 material could help them understand the form and functions of the grammatical structures.  This helps raise their grammatical awareness and activate their mental grammar (Krashen, 1988).   This could also create optimum conditions for helping them overcome their grammatical errors.

   The first step for employing the input-based technique is providing students with multiple short stories to choose from. They should be highly engaging and relevant to their lives and interests.  They need to understand 80-90 percent of the story without dictionaries.  The second step is to create quality reading time in class for sustained silent reading. This could be done through allocating 60 minutes for students to read quietly on their own.  Teachers could use a stop watch so as to make the reading sessions competitive by challenging students to finish the story before the time is up.  Through reading the given stories, students will be able to learn how grammatical structures are used in authentic contexts.

Eliciting Target Grammatical Structures from the Students   

      The teacher should elicit the usages of target grammatical structures like the present simple and the present continuous tenses through the following input-based activity:

     The teacher should divide the students into groups and give each group 3 flash cards written on them 3 of the functions of the present simple tense.  They will be asked to extract from the story the exact tense that reflects the given functions and provide some examples.  Examples of these functions could be habitual actions or occurrences, permanent situations and things that are generally true. The other group will be given 3 other flash cards written on them 3 functions of the present continuous   exemplified in immediate events taking place in the current moment, temporary events and future plans. The students who will be able to match the given functions with the appropriate tense will be the winner group and will receive a prize. The teacher should monitor the students while doing this activity, listen to the answers of each group, correct any mistakes and reward the students who will win. The teacher then should ask the two groups to work together to compare between the forms and functions of the two tenses. The above steps should be repeated in the other two sessions for the purpose of teaching other grammatical structures.

6.2.2.2 Implementing the Discourse-based Grammar Program through an Oral Input-based Technique (3 sessions)

      A scene-based teaching strategy should be implemented through providing learners with the real life usages of  problematic grammatical structures like the present perfect tense and if conditionals as identified in the error analysis. Exposing learners to real life situations is likely to help them internalize the target structures and know their actual usages.  This could also create optimum conditions for their retention and production.  

      Students should be asked to watch a short movie that should last for 60 minutes.  The teacher should write some of the target tenses on the board (like the present perfect) and ask students while watching the movie to infer their functions and mention some retrieved examples that reflect their communicative purposes.  They could be exemplified in describing something that happened at some unknown time in the past and actions which happened in the past, but have an effect on the present. After watching the movie, the teacher should discuss with the students the elicited functions and retrieved examples. Thus, the movie should be used as a guide to help students match the target tense with its authentic usages and functions. The above steps should be respectively repeated in the subsequent two sessions for the purpose of teaching other problematic grammatical structures.

6.2.2.3 Implementing the Discourse-based Grammar Program through a Spoken Output-based Technique (3 sessions)  

       Students should be involved in output-based tasks, i.e., role play activities.  They should be asked to choose selected parts of the short story or scenes of the movie and act them out in front of the class.  These role-plays should be recorded and listened to later. All video tapes will be watched and students should vote on the best acted out scene in terms of grammatical accuracy. Students should receive feedback from the teacher and their peers on their language focusing primarily on the grammatical structures used. Students should be asked to correct the grammatical errors based on the given feedback.

6.2.2.4 Implementing the Discourse-based Grammar Program through Written Output-based activities

       Students should be engaged in output-based activities. They should be asked to write a short film review including the theme, plot, characters and dialogue. Students should be asked to choose a film they watched in the classroom. As a first phrase, teachers should provide them with a sample of a film review. Students should be divided into groups and each group should read it in detail and answer some questions about the theme, characters and plot. Each group will then be asked to write a short paragraph about one aspect of the film such as characters or theme. All the written paragraphs should be stuck on the wall so as each group of the students should give feedback on the others’ work in terms of grammar and sentences’ structures.

7. Recommendations for EFL Teaching

     The study suggests employing discourse-based grammar technique in L2 pedagogical settings for overcoming EFL learners’ grammatical errors. This technique is likely to help them know the use of the target language in real life situations and this in return creates optimum conditions for enhancing their native-like competence.

       The findings of the study lend significant perspectives to the field of L2 pedagogy in that they could  help EFL  teachers identify learners’ common grammatical difficulties so that they could adopt better instructional practices.  For instance, some Arabic EFL learnes face considerable difficulty with the subject verb agreement rule. Hence, EFL teachers of Arabs and material designers for Arab countries should pay more attention to the kind of the teaching instruction and the content of the material given to this particular group of students.

      The study recommends that material designers and instructors should draw learners’ attention to the main discrepancies between English and Arabic grammar including the structure of the sentences, tenses, verbs, articles, pronouns, adverbs and adjectives. This could be implemented through providing them with authentic examples that highlight the differences between English and Arabic grammatical systems.  This could be done through providing students with written and oral discourse material that present naturally occurring data and real life manifestations of these differences.  Finally, teachers should raise students’ awareness of the causes of their errors and the interference of the Arabic language in EFL learning.  This in return could reduce the grammatical errors that result from L1 negative transfer.  This could also contribute in significant ways to the provision of linguistic development and grammatical accuracy.