English Article System Errors among Saudi Arab EFL Learners: A Case of the Preparatory Year English Program Learners of King Saud University
The present study aimed to identify and categorize the errors made by Arabic speaking EFL learners in their use of the English Article System. In addition, it sought to attribute these article errors to their possible sources in an attempt to postulate whether L1 Arabic or L2 English played a key ro...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Lasting Impressions Press
2017-03-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.eltsjournal.org/archive/value5%20issue1/10-5-1-17.pdf |
| Summary: | The present study aimed to identify and categorize the errors made by Arabic speaking EFL learners in their use of the English Article System. In addition, it sought to attribute these article errors to their possible sources in an attempt to postulate whether L1 Arabic or L2 English played a key role in learners’ article misuse. To this end, 50 Saudi male EFL learners were subject to an MCQ test, and 5 teachers were interviewed. Surface Structure Taxonomy (SST) of errors was used to classify errors in three major categories, namely omission, addition, and substitution. These major categories were further classified, according to error sources, into two error types, namely interlingual errors and intralingual errors. The study revealed that while Saudi learners made errors in all categories, addition errors were the most frequent. Further, substitution was the second frequent while omission errors showed to be the least frequent type of errors. Analysis of test results and interviewed teachers’ responses showed that most of article errors could be attributed to L1 interference. In many areas, the Arabic Article System was negatively transferred into English where learners seemed to resort to their mother tongue to decide on the appropriateness of using the article in question. However, L2 English, in other cases, was the source of errors. Ignorance or incomplete application of the rule brought learners to commit intralingual errors as well. The results were discussed, and the implications were made. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2308-5460 2308-5460 |