Abstract

 This study aimed to identify syntactical errors, find out the frequency of these errors and identify the causes of these syntactical errors in the writing of intermediate science students. Data was collected in the form of 12 written samples from intermediate students from two public sector colleges. The findings revealed that the most frequently committed error was punctuation error. On the other hand, the lowest committed errors were run-on sentences, object missing, and fragments errors. It was also found that the students committed a total of 232 errors. The syntactical errors identified in the corpus were: subject-verb agreement errors, word form errors, word order errors, object missing, run-on sentences, orthographic errors, fragments, punctuation errors, article errors, preposition errors and conjunction errors. Although both interlanguage and intralanguage influences were found to be causing syntactical errors, intralanguage errors were more prevalent compared to interlanguage errors in participants’ writings.

Key Words

English Language, Syntactical Errors, Pakistan, Science, Students, Education

Introduction

Writing is both a productive skill and a highly complex skill. Good command of English grammar is required for developing effective writing skills. Poor command of English grammar has been observed to reflect in students’ poor proficiency in written English. Errors are unavoidable in the process of language learning. Corder was the first to introduce the notion of error analysis (EA) in the second language in 1970. EA is a field of applied linguistic. Since then, EA has become a preferred tool for analyzing errors made by second language learners. The common grammatical errors committed by learners include punctuation errors, verb form errors and word order error. A host of researches on error analysis have been conducted for finding out the syntactical errors, which concluded that the learners’ writings are full of syntactical errors. The syntactical errors found to be prevalent in the writing of English as a second language (ESL) learners are errors of sentence structures, punctuation, spellings and verb forms. ESL learners have been found to commit both local and global errors in their writings. 

According to Selinker (1969), errors are significant in three respects. Firstly, errors hold importance for language teachers because they indicate the learners’ progress in language learning. Secondly, errors are important for language researchers as well because they provide insights into how language is learnt. Lastly, errors hold significance for the language learners, too, as they use their language output as a means to try out new language forms to see if they are understood and accepted by other people. The feedback and responses of teachers and other people help the second language learners find out whether the language forms used by them are correct or not.

This study aims at identifying different types of syntactical errors such as subject-verb agreement, word form, word order, object missing, redundancy, run-on sentences, orthography, fragments, comma splice, punctuation, article, preposition and conjunction. A further aim of this study is to examine whether interlingual and intralingual influences such as mother tongue influence, overgeneralization of the target language rule, fossilization, avoidance, faulty teaching, and inadequate learning cause these syntactical errors. This study will also group these errors into local and global errors and present remedial measures for overcoming these errors. This paper is based on the first author’s Master’s degree program research project.

Literature Review

Errors are considered an important part of the language learning process as they show that learning is taking place. In this way, errors become a source for teachers to know about the learners’ language proficiency level. Moreover, errors help both teachers and students in making decisions to take further necessary measures for making writing error-free. A number of approaches to errors exist in language learning, where each presents its own view on errors. For example, Lado (1957) presented the theory of contrastive analysis (CA), which compares the structures of the native languages (mother tongue) and target language for predicting errors. Learning is viewed as a “habit formation”, according to this school of thought. Lado (1957) and his followers propose that teachers should immediately correct learners’ errors so that they are not formed as bad habits. According to the theory of contrastive analysis, errors occur due to the mother tongue’s influence and that it is easier to learn systems of languages having similar structures such as French speakers learning English.

Errors are considered to be ‘flaws’ by Corder (1967), who believes that these need to be extinguished. He opines that teachers can gain motivation and encouragement through a step by step analysis of errors for pinpointing those aspects of writing wherein students make the highest number of errors. Such an analysis will also help teachers in understanding the language learners’ lacks and needs of language learning. While keeping the errors in minds, teachers can decide and take remedial measures for not only improving their own teaching but also making learners understand their language learning stage.

 In a similar manner, Corder (1967) and James (1988) postulate that it is not possible to self-correct errors as can be done with mistakes. This criterion helps in drawing a line between an error and a mistake and to understand the difference between the two notions. Errors are referred to as a ‘systematic,’ where a learner is not able to identify and recognize them. Subsequently, errors are recurrent and tend to appear over and over again. Errors are committed by a learner unconsciously and involuntarily without realizing these being committed. Gass and Selinker (1994) argue that a teacher or a researcher can find or spot the error, whereas a learner cannot. 

Error analysis of defined by Richards and Schmidt (2002) as “the study and analysis of the errors made by second language learners”. Brown (2000) posits that there are two main sources of errors: interlingual and intralingual. “Interlingual errors are the outcome of mother tongue influence, and intralingual errors are the outcome of partial or inadequate learning of second language” Brown (, 2000). Richards (1984) has categorized intralingual errors into four main types: “overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rules and false concept hypothesized”. Corder (1967) proposed a three-stage model for error analysis: “1) Data collection: Recognition of idiosyncrasy; 2) Description: Accounting for idiosyncratic dialect, and 3) Explanation (the ultimate object of error analysis)”. Corder (1967) model was expanded by Ellis (1994), who categorized it into five steps: “1) Collection of learners’ language sample; 2) Identify of errors; 3) Errors description; 4) Explanation of errors, and 5) Evaluation of errors. Selinker (1992) proposed a six-step error analysis: 1) Collection of data; 2) Identification of errors; 3) Classification of error; 4) Quantifying errors; 5) Sources of errors; and 6) Remedial measures for errors”.

Research Methodology

This study used Selinker (1992) error analysis model. Data comprising English language learners’ writing tasks were collected from two public colleges of Lahore, Pakistan. For this purpose, a test was administered to 12 Intermediate (Higher Secondary) Science students in the two selected colleges who voluntarily participated in this study. The participants were asked to write two paragraphs of 150 words each on the topics given by the researchers. The researchers identified different types of syntactical errors, causes of these errors and presented remedial measures for the errors committed by the study participants. 

Results

The researcher scrutinized the corpus to find out thirteen types of syntactical errors in the corpus of 12

 Participants. The syntactical errors were subject-verb agreement, word form, word order, object missing, redundancy, run-on sentences, orthography, fragments, comma splice, punctuation, article, preposition and conjunction. Data on types and frequency of errors is presented in table 1.

 

Table 1. Types and Frequency of Errors

S.No	Type of Error	Frequency of errors
1	Subject-Verb Agreement	10
2	Word Form	46
3	Word Order	28
4	Object Missing	4
5	Redundancy	0
6	Run-on Sentences	4
7	Orthography	48
8	Fragments	4
9	Comma Splice	0
10	Punctuation	50
11	Article	6
12	Preposition	27
13	Conjunction	5
	Total	232

 

 

The data in table 1 shows that the participants committed 232 errors in the corpus. The syntactical errors are: subject-verb agreement errors, word form errors, word order errors, object missing, run-on sentences, orthographic errors, fragments, punctuation errors, article errors, preposition errors and conjunction errors. The frequency of the errors was 10, 46, 28, 4, 4, 48, 4, 50, 6, 27 and 5, respectively.

Table 2 presents data on the types of errors with their frequency.

 

Student no.	Types of Errors with Frequency
	Fragments	Comma Splice Error	Punctuation Error	Article Error	Preposition Error	Conjunction Error
1	1	0	1	0	1	0
2	0	0	5	1	1	1
3	0	0	6	0	7	1
4	2	0	5	0	2	1
5	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	0	0	1	1	2	0
7	0	0	5	1	1	1
8	0	0	3	1	1	0
9	0	0	4	0	3	1
10	0	0	0	1	1	0
11	0	0	2	0	3	0
12	1	0	18	1	5	0
Total	4	0	50	6	27	5

Table 2. Types of Errors with Frequency

The data shows no error of redundancy and comma splice in the collected corpus. The most frequent committed error was punctuation error, and its frequency was 50. The lowest committed errors were objected missing, run-on sentences and fragments errors. These errors occurred in the corpus 4 times each.

Table 3 presents data on errors committed by each participant.

 

Table 3. Errors Committed by each Participant

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	5
2	18
3	30
4	21
5	7
6	18
7	25
8	11
9	19
10	10
11	16
12	52
Total	232

 

The data shows that Participant no. 1 committed fewer errors as compared to other participants. The total errors made by participant no. 1 was 5. The highest frequency of errors was found in the writings of participant no. 12, having 52 errors in total. 

Discussion

The errors found in the corpus of 12 participants are presented and discussed under sections based on the types of errors committed by them.

 

Subject-verb agreement

 

Subject-verb agreement means the subject and verb must agree in number: singular vs plural and in-person: first, second or third.  The singular subject is followed by a singular verb, and the plural verb is followed by a plural verb. This type of error takes place when learners make use of plural verb with the singular subject or vice versa. In English, in the present tense, a verb changes its form only when its subject is third-person singular (he/she/it). Learners get confused due to this rule, and this factor leads to over-generalization of the rule of TL.

The data on subject-verb agreement errors are presented in table 4.

 

Table 4. Subject Verb Agreement Error

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	0
3	1
4	2
5	1
6	0
7	1
8	1
9	1
10	2
11	0
12	1
Total	10

 

The data shows that the total frequency of word order error is 10. The highest frequency is 2 in the case of two participants (P4 and P10) and lowest is 0 in case of four participants (P1, P2, P6 and P11).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “Girls reads beauty tips on the computer” (P4).

Correct: “Girls read beauty tips on the computer”.

Incorrect: “Now it has nearly every quality or application which are used in our daily routine” (P10).

Correct: “Now it has nearly every quality or application which is used in our daily routine”.

 

Cause of Subject Verb Agreement Errors

The analysis of corpus showed that subject-verb agreement errors are the outcome of over-generalization of the rule of TL as well as inadequate learning on the part of intermediate science students in this study. Although the students have been studying the English language for several years, it appears that they have been unable to overcome this error. One of the reasons could be that they are allocating less time to English subject. A second reason could be that they are not paying proper attention to the correction of errors.  However, the subject-verb agreement errors that the intermediate science students in this study made do not hinder the meaning. Errors that do not affect intelligibility fall in the category of local errors. The findings reveal that this error occurred in the corpus a total of 10 times.

 

Word Form

 

Word form is a particular form of a word that helps distinguish words on the basis of their grammatical inflexions. A number of words in English need to change their form when they are used as verbs, adjectives, adverbs or nouns. A word form error indicates that the learner has chosen the correct basic word, but the form of the word does not suit its position in the sentence. This type of error occurs when learners choose the wrong part of speech. The data on word form errors are presented in table 5.

 

Table 5. Word Form Error

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	2
3	4
4	4
5	0
6	3
7	8
8	1
9	4
10	3
11	5
12	11
Total	46

The total frequency of word order error is 46. The highest frequency is 11 in the case of one participant (P12), and the lowest is 0 in the case of two participants (P1 and P5).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “Computer use in every field of life like industries, business, agriculture, education and hospitals” (P12).

Correct: “Computer is used in every field of life like industries, business, agriculture, education and hospitals”.

Incorrect: “People who tease others on Mobile phones are not happily themselves” (P7).

Correct: “People who tease others on mobile phones are not happy themselves”.

 

Cause of Word form Errors

Word form errors take place due to faulty teaching, fossilization, and inadequate learning. This error falls under the category of local errors as it does not hinder the meaning and intelligibility of the message which intermediate science students in this study intended to convey. This error is one of the most frequently occurring errors in the corpus and occurred a total of 46 times.

 

Word Order

 

The word order is referred to the arrangement of words in a phrase, clause or sentence. This error takes place when learners do not follow the word arrangement rules of the target language (i.e. English in this case) and are unaware of appropriate sentence structures of the TL. Table 6 presents the data on word order errors.

 

Table 6. Word Order Error

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	3
3	6
4	2
5	2
6	4
7	3
8	4
9	0
10	1
11	1
12	2
Total	28

 

The total frequency of word order error was 28, with the highest frequency being 6 in the case of one participant (P3), and the lowest was 0 in the case of two participants (P1 and P9).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect:  “Every person is attached, by using it, with each other” (P6).

Correct: “Every person is attached with each other by using it”.

Incorrect: “They can take data of any person without the permission of him” (P8).

Correct: “They can take data of any person without his permission”.

 

 

Cause of Word Order Errors

Word order errors identified in the corpus reflect avoidance and inadequate learning. The analysis reveals that

word order errors hamper the comprehension of the participants’ writing. Word order errors fall in the category of

global errors because they hamper and complicate comprehension. This error occurred in the corpus of intermediate science students in this study a total of 28 times.

 

Object Missing

 

This type of error takes place when in Subject+ Verb+ Object sentence structure object is missing in writing. The data on object missing error frequency is presented in table 7.

 

Table 7. Object Missing Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	0
3	1
4	1
5	0
6	0
7	0
8	0
9	0
10	0
11	0
12	2
Total	4

 

The total frequency of word order error in the corpus is 4, with the highest frequency being 2 in the case of one participant (P12), and the lowest is 0 in the case of nine participants (P1, P2, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, and P11).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “There are some advantage but many disadvantages, we should use mobile    Phone when we need them” (P12).

Correct: “There are some advantages but many disadvantages of mobile phones. We should use a mobile phone when we need them”.

Incorrect: “If we use mobile phone only for useful purposes then we can learn a lot from mobile” (P3).

Correct: “If we use mobile phone only for useful purposes then we can learn a lot from mobile”.

 

Cause of Object Missing Errors

The main cause of this type of error is a faulty teaching and inadequate learning. This type of error falls in the category of global errors because they hinder meaning and intelligibility. This error occurred in the corpus a total of 4 times.

 

Redundancy

 

Redundancy is referred to using words unnecessarily or superfluity or using words for a second time. There was no Error of redundancy found in the corpus in this study.

 

Run-on Sentences

 

A run-on sentence happens when two or more independent clauses (also known as complete sentences) are

connected in an improper manner. The data on run-on sentences error frequency is presented in table 8.

 

Table 8. Run-on Sentences Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	1
2	0
3	1
4	0
5	0
6	0
7	0
8	0
9	0
10	0
11	0
12	2
Total	4

 

The total frequency of word order error in the corpus was 4, with the highest frequency to be 2 in the case of one participant (P12) and lowest was 0 in the case of nine participants (P2, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, and P11).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “So, it is very easy to carry it is used to inform others in case of emergency” (P12).

Correct: “So, it is very easy to carry. It is used to inform others in case of emergency”.

Incorrect: “According to my point of view computer skills is very necessary for every student we know every department is using it” (P12).

Correct: “According to my point of view, computer skills are very necessary for every student. We know every department is using them”.

 

Cause of Run-On Sentences

 

The cause of run-on sentences is a faulty teaching and inadequate learning.  Run-on sentences fall in the category of global errors because they hamper meaning and complicate comprehension. This error occurred in the corpus in this study a total of 4 times.

 

Orthography

 

Orthography is the practice of the study of spelling or proper spelling. The data on orthographic errors are presented in table 9.

                                          

Table 9. Orthographic Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	1
2	5
3	3
4	2
5	4
6	7
7	5
8	0
9	6
10	2
11	4
12	9
Total	48

 

The total frequency of word order error was 48, with the highest frequency being 9 in the case of one participant (P12) and the lowest to be 0 in the case of one participant (P8).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “This wonderful invention has made this world a global villege” (P12).

Correct: “This wonderful invention has made this world a global village”.

Incorrect: “They are falling prey to moral corruption” (P6).

Correct: “They are falling prey to moral corruption”.

 

Cause of Orthographic Errors

Orthographic errors result due to faulty teaching, fossilization, and inadequate learning. These fall under the category of both local and global errors because they sometimes hinder intelligibility, and at other times they don’t. The analysis of the corpus also showed that sometimes orthographic error does hinder comprehension, and sometimes it does not deter intelligibility. An orthographic error was found to be one of the most frequently occurring errors in the corpus in this study, where it occurred a total of 48 times.

 

Fragments

 

The fragment is referred to as an incomplete sentence, and it is merely a piece of a sentence that cannot stand on its own. The data on fragments errors frequency is presented in table 10.

 

Table 10. Fragments Errors Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	1
2	0
3	2
4	0
5	0
6	0
7	0
8	0
9	0
10	0
11	0
12	1
Total	4

 

The total frequency of word order error was 4, with the highest frequency being 2 in the case of one participant (P3) and lowest to be 0 in case of nine participants (P2, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, and P11).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “is a fourth-generation” (P3).

Incorrect:  “in the computer”.

 

Cause of Fragments Errors

Fragments occur due to inadequate learning. This error falls under the category of global errors because it

hampers meaning and intelligibility. The analysis of the corpus showed that fragments deter the comprehension of the participants’ writing because they do not convey full meaning and sense. Fragments occurred a total of 4 times in the corpus in this study.

 

Comma splice

 

A comma splice takes place when two sentences are mistakenly joined only by a comma without placing conjunction between them. In this study, no error of comma splice was found in the corpus.

 

Punctuation

 

Punctuation is referred to the setoff marks that are used for regulating texts and clarifying their meanings, principally by linking or separating words, phrases and clauses. The data on punctuation errors frequency is presented in table 11.

 

Table 11. Punctuation Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	1
2	5
3	6
4	5
5	0
6	1
7	5
8	3
9	4
10	0
11	2
12	18
Total	50

 

The total frequency of word order error in the corpus was found to be 50 with the highest frequency being 18 in case of one participant (P12) and lowest being 0 in case of two participants (P5 and P10).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “In this perspective it is the best electronic device which is being invented in the 20^th century” (P12).

Correct: “In this perspective, it is the best electronic device which is being invented in the 20^th century”.

Incorrect: “On the other hand we can use it for every perpose” (P3)

Correct: “On the other hand, we can use it for every purpose”.

 

Cause of Punctuation Errors

Punctuation errors result because of fossilization, inadequate learning, and faulty teaching. Punctuation error falls under the category of local errors because these do not hamper meaning and intelligibility. The analysis of the corpus showed that study participants were unaware of punctuation rules, although a little effort is needed for overcoming this error. It was the most frequently occurring error in the corpus in this study and occurred a total of 50 times.

 

 

Article

An article is a word that is used for modifying a noun (defined as a person, place, object or idea). An error of

article occurs when students either use wrong articles or insert an article unnecessarily. The data on article error

frequency is presented in table 12.

 

Table 12. Article Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	1
3	0
4	0
5	0
6	1
7	1
8	1
9	0
10	1
11	0
12	1
Total	6

 

The total frequency of article error in this study was 6, with the highest frequency being 1 in the case of six participants (P2, P6, P7, P8, P10, and P12) and the lowest being 0 in the case of six participants (P1, P3, P4, P5, P9, and P11).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “When it was invented it was only in the form of an calculater” (P2).

Correct: “When it was invented it was only in the form of a calculato”r.

Incorrect: “It is almost using in the every home” (P6).

Correct: “It is almost used in every home”.

 

Cause of Article Errors

Errors of articles occur because of interlanguage interference and inadequate learning. Interlanguage influence in the current study can that Urdu language (participants’ L1) has no articles in its construction. This could be the reason that intermediate science students in this study omit articles in their writing. Article errors fall under the category of local errors because they do not hamper meaning and intelligibility. In this study article error occurred for a total of 6 times.

 

Preposition

 

A preposition is referred to as a word that shows relationships among other words in the sentence. These relationships include place, direction, time, manner, cause, and amount. The data on preposition errors frequency is presented in table 13.

 

Table 13. Preposition Errors Frequency

 

Student No	The total frequency of errors
1	1
2	1
3	7
4	2
5	0
6	2
7	1
8	1
9	3
10	1
11	3
12	5
Total	27

 

The total frequency of preposition errors in this study was 27 with the highest frequency being 7 in case of one participant (P3) and lowest being 0 in case of one participant (P5).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “Infact computer has revolutionize in modern world” (P3).

Correct: “Infact, computer has revolutionized the modern civilization”.

Incorrect: “we can sent email with our friends and relatives and can chat with them” (P9).

Correct: “We can send email to our friends and relatives and can chat with them”.

 

Cause of Preposition Errors

The main reason for preposition errors is fossilization, inadequate learning, and faulty teaching. Preposition errors fall under the category of local errors because these do not hinder meaning and intelligibility. The analysis revealed that participants committed this error due to the influence of interlanguage when they translated direct from their first language (mother tongue). Preposition errors occurred for a total of 27 times in this study.

 

Conjunction

 

Conjunction is referred to as a part of speech used for connecting words, phrases, clauses or sentences. The data on conjunction errors frequency is presented in table 14.

 

Table 14. Conjunction Error Frequency

 

Student No	Total Frequency of Errors
1	0
2	1
3	1
4	1
5	0
6	0
7	1
8	0
9	1
10	0
11	0
12	0
Total	46

 

The total frequency of conjunction errors in this study was found to be 5 with the highest frequency being 1 in case of five participants (P2, P3, P4, P7, and P9) and lowest to be 0 in case of seven participants (P1, P5, P6, P8, P10, P11, and P12).

 

Examples from Corpus

Incorrect: “We can contact with our relatives friends” (P2).

Correct: “We can contact with our relatives and friends”.

Incorrect: “It can process the required input in very short time give outputs” (P9).

Correct: “It can process the required input in very short time and give outputs”.

 

Cause of Conjunction Errors

Conjunction errors occur because of fossilization, inadequate learning, and faulty teaching and fall under the category of local errors as these do not hamper intelligibility. In this study this error occurred in the corpus for a total of 5 times.

 

Causes of Conjunction Errors

The analysis revealed that the causes of conjunction errors in the corpus of the current study participants was both interlanguage and intralanguage influence. Interlanguage influence happens due to the interference of first language or mother tongue whereas intralingual errors occur because of faulty or partial learning of the target language (English is this case). The main causes of syntactical errors in the writings of the intermediate science students in the current study can be attributed to mother tongue of first language influence, inadequate learning, faulty teaching, fossilization, and avoidance. The analysis of the corpus revealed that Pakistani students commit errors due to mother tongue influence when because they directly translate from first language or mother tongue to the target language (i.e. English).

 

Remedial Measures Recommended for Treating Syntactical Errors

In the light of the current findings, it is recommended that both teachers and students should pay special attention to error identification and correction. Additionally they should spend extra time teaching and learning of grammar with students practicing grammar on daily basis. Another measure is that the teachers should provide students with proper feedback on their writing tasks. Teachers should focus on the frequent errors and correct them before they get fossilized and if fossilization of errors occurs teachers should immediately pay attention to them. In the present study, the errors found in the corpus were both local and global errors. Although local errors are not incurable but both teachers and students should pay attention to correcting these because the frequency of their occurrence was found to be very high. Therefore, the high frequency errors need to be addressed first. Although local errors do not hamper intelligibility yet they are a source of marks deduction in the examination scripts. On the other hand, global errors are fatal and as such both teacher and students need to pay attention to them and practice grammar exercises on daily basis for avoiding these errors. These errors can be avoided if students shun the habit of rote learning or cramming.

Another remedial measure is that teachers should promote creativity in their students’ writing. They should introduce such activities in the classrooms that promote creativity and discourage cramming culture. The government should pay special attention to getting English curriculum revised from primary to higher secondary (intermediate) level. Various activities targeting the four essential language skill of listening, speaking, reading and writing should be made part of the intermediate English curriculum so that the process of language learning along with acquisition can take place in a proper way. Trained teachers who are proficient in English language should be hired. 

Conclusion

This study aimed to identify syntactical errors, find out frequency of these errors and identify the causes of these syntactical errors. Data was collected in the form of 12 written samples from intermediate students from two public sector colleges. The findings revealed that the most frequently committed error was punctuation error with a frequency of 50. On the other hand, the lowest committed errors were run-on sentences, object missing, and fragments errors which occurred 4 times each in the corpus. The analysis of the corpus revealed that the students committed a total of 232 errors. The syntactical errors identified in the corpus were: subject verb agreement errors, word form errors, word order errors, object missing, run-on sentences, orthographic errors, fragments, punctuation errors, article errors, preposition errors and conjunction errors. Although both interlanguage and intralanguage influences were found to be causing syntactical errors, intralanguage errors were more prevalent compared to interlanguage errors in the corpus.

References

• Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentince-Hall Inc
• Corder, S. P. (1967).The significance of learners errors. New York: Oxford University
• Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. (1994) .The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (Eds.). 1994. Language transfer in languagelearning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• James, C. (1988). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring ErrorAnalysis. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited
• Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Applied linguistics for language teachers. Michigan Press.
• Richards, J. C. (1984). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis, English Language Teaching, 25, 204-219
• Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited. London: Longman.
• Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67-92
• Selinker, L. & Lakshnaman, V. (1992). Language Transfer and fossilization: The Multiple Effect Principle. In Grass, S.M. and Selinker (eds) 1992.197-216