English first additional language writing errors of isiZulu-speaking learners in FET writing classes in KwaZulu-Natal
List of Authors
  • Ngubane, Nomalungelo , Ntombela, Berrington

Keyword
  • Error analysis, interference, morphology, semantics, grammatical errors

Abstract
  • Error analysis presupposes a distinction between two languages. This distinction was primarily concerned with how the two languages facilitated or hindered learning of the target language. In its original premise, the juxtaposed languages were considered facilitative if they were similar but restrictive if they were different. This gave rise to the notion of transference where it was viewed either negatively when it hindered acquisition of certain structures or positively if it facilitated acquisition. This approach developed into a new focus of studying errors and analysing them. At first such an analysis focused on mother tongue interference but later developed into interlanguage where errors were viewed as a natural phenomenon that demonstrates the progress of learning. This paper is therefore grounded on error analysis where errors in writing of high school learners are analysed in order to interrogate where second language learners are in internalisation of English structures. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to identify common errors committed by isiZulu-speaking learners in their English First Additional Language writing in order to come up with pedagogical interventions. The study employs a qualitative approach where a sample of 7 randomly selected learners’ writing texts from 40 student writing texts across 15 writing classrooms in 5 schools in Pinetown District is analysed. The sampled texts are subjected to error analysis. The analysis covers grammatical aspects such as morphology, syntax and semantics. The findings indicate that learners’ errors range from word and phrase level to sentence level. At word level errors of morphological constructions and spelling were committed and at phrase level, errors were caused by the complexity of the noun and verb phrases. At sentence level, there were errors in sentence construction. The study has implications for the teaching of writing especially since some teaching approaches do not incorporate the teaching of grammar whilst the common errors are grammatical errors.

Reference
  • 1. Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). ‘A process genre approach to teaching writing’, English Language Teaching Journal, 54(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
    2. Blease, B., & Condy, J. (2015). ‘Teaching of writing in two rural multigrade classes in the Western Cape’, Reading & Writing, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v6i1.58
    3. Bloomfield, L. (2010). Language. Oxon: Routledge
    4. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. In J.C. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 19-27). London: Longman.
    5. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
    7. Dada, E. (2015). Spelling Errors: Causes, Influence on Students’ Performance in English Essay Writing and Strategies for correcting them. Case Studies Journal, 4(8), 66–70.
    8. Demirezen, M. (2013). The recognition of extended simple sentences as a teaching writing problem. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 70(2013), 560–566.
    9. Dornbrack, J., & Atwood, M. (2019). Teaching writing in the FET phase, Literacy Association of South Africa. Retrieved 21 November 2019, from https://litasa.org.za/ assets/Download/Dornbrack.pdf.
    10. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    11. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    12. Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
    13. Greenbaum, S. (1991). An Introduction to English Grammar. Longman: Essex
    14. Glynn, D. (2010). Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H.J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage – Patterns (pp. 89–118). Berlin: Mouton der Gruyter.
    15. Hurford, J.R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M.B. (2011). Semantics: A course book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    16. James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge.
    17. Julius, L.H. (2013). Teaching Writing to Grade 5 English Language Learners in Two Grahamstown East Schools, South Africa: A Case Study. Unpublished dissertation. Rhodes University. Grahamstown, South Africa.
    18. Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing error: A review of interlingual and intralingual interference in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 6, 9-18.
    19. Katamba, F. (2015). English Words. London: Routledge.
    20. Latheef, V.A. (2012). Spelling mastery through internet and e-learning. Language in India 12(5), 200–210.
    21. Lee, J., Yeung, C.Y., & Chadorow, M. (2014). Automatic detection of comma splices. Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 551–560).
    22. Lyons, C. (1986). The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 123–143.
    23. Makalela, L. (2004). Differential error types in Second Language students written and spoken texts: Implications for instruction in writing. Written Communication, 21, 368 – 385.
    24. Maruma, M.W. (2017). Error Identification and Improvement in English First Additional Language (EFAL): A case Study of Grade 10 Essay Writing. Gender & Behaviour, 15(2), 8799–8806.
    25. Ngubane, N.I. (2018). The nature and pedagogical implications of English First Additional Language writing among FET phase learners in the Pinetown District. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa, South Africa
    26. Ngubane, N.I., Ntombela, B., & Govender, S. (2020). Writing approaches and strategies used by teachers in selected South African English First Additional Language classrooms’, Reading & Writing 11(1), a261. https:// doi.org/10.4102/rw.v11i1.261
    27. Ntombela, B.X.S., & Riyaz, R. (2015). Assessing EFL proficiency through error analysis among tertiary students in a university college in Oman. Educational Research International 4(1), 42–53.
    28. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
    29. Nzama, M.V. (2011). Error Analysis: A study of errors committed by isiZulu speaking learners of English in selected schools. Unpublished dissertation. University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa, South Africa.
    30. Palmer, F.R. (2014). The English Verb. London: Routledge
    31. Parrot, M. (2009). Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    32. Phuket, P.R.N., & Othman, N.B. (2015). Understanding EFL Students’ Errors in Writing. Journal of Education and Practice 6(32), 99–106.
    33. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). University Grammar of English. Longman: Essex.
    34. Sattari, A. (2012). An analysis of grammatical errors in Iranian students’ English writings. Iranian EFL Journal 8(2), 143–157.
    35. Sethole, S.P. (2014). The nature and extent of mother tongue interference by Sepedi on the effectiveness of learning English among Information Technology foundation programme students at Tshwane University of Technology. Unpublished master’s dissertation. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
    36. Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics t learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205.
    37. Ward-Cox, M.W. (2012). A critical review of language errors in the writing of distance education students. Unpublished master’s dissertation. University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.