A New Outlook to L2 Learner''s Writing Errors

A New Outlook to L2 Learner''s Writing Errors

Related to writing a sentence accepted by L2 standards, this study reveals that there are three distinctive areas responsible for the transfer of L1 elements for the Iranian students. Awareness of these three areas on behalf of the learner is responsible for conscious learning of that language. These three areas are the areas that ignorance of which paves the ground for the L1 elements to penetrate L2 performance and students'''' conscious language processing will control their overall use of language (Dullay and others, 1982:110-111).

If one reflects on the process of reading an English sentence and producing equivalent for that sentence by an Iranian student, the importance of conscious familiarity of the learner with these three distinctive aspects of the language become evident. As soon as one reads a sentence, the ideal condition for the reader is to assimilate a sentence in Persian which sounds quite natural, a sentence without disordered words. This cannot be achieved unless the sentence, which is formed in the mind of the reader, is created in such a way that words or group of words are arranged naturally on the basis of the right position they occupy in Persian. In other words, the reader should be attentive to the normal position of the words and phrases to produce a sound sentence which is acceptable by the Persian speakers. An example will clarify this.

On the basis of the degree of English knowledge, the reader can produce different Persian equivalence as final production for the following sentence. It is pre supposed that the reader has no lexical problem in understanding the sentence. The tall boy threw the green ball into the pool when he saw his friend.

1- پسر قد بلند انداخت توپ سبز رنگ را داخل حوض وقتی که دوستش را دید.

2- پسر قد بلند توپ سبز رنگ را انداخت داخل حوض وقتی که دوستش را دید.

3-پسر قد بلند توپ سبز را داخل حوض انداخت وقتی که دوستش را دید.

4- پسر قد بلند وقتی که دوستش را دید توپ سبز رنگ را داخل حوض انداخت.

All the productions in Persian are formed with Persian words but the degree of acceptability depends on whether the arrangement and the position of words or group of words are natural in Persian. In the process of achieving proficiency in the production of the language learner, the above-mentioned steps are followed so that the ideal sentence is felt for the language learner on the basis of natural word order in his language, Persian.

The same is true when the Persian language learner attempts to write in English. Language learner''''s production for any Persian notion which the student thinks of is acceptable for the L2 native speakers provided that the production match up natural English sentence pattern. This cannot be achieved without conscious choice of words or group of words from Persian sentence and, then, providence of their equivalents according to the sentence pattern of English language. In other words, core and modifiers should occupy their natural position in English production.

The three distinctive areas of knowledge which will hold back the occurrence of fore-mentioned errors are as follow.

First, students should have knowledge about the core of the sentence (subject, verb, and object). This is important because of the differences in the general sentence pattern in Persian and English. This means that the student should distinguish the core of sentence, especially when he is working with a compound or complex sentences. Just providing word for word equivalence of the English

pattern will not result in a well-ordered and natural sentence in other languag. Thus, for the students, the process of producing a meaningful sentence in L1, when reading an English sentence, should include a conscious involvement of selecting the words and producing equivalence in order to have a sentence which is compatible with natural word order in Persian. Identifying the core of sentence would be his first step.

The second area of knowledge, without which L1 transfer is about to occur, is related to the manner of placing words in a noun group in English and Persian.. In Persian, the position of adjectives in a noun group is after the head noun, linked to the noun through ''''ezafeh''''. At the same time, the phrasal modifiers are linked to the head noun in the same way, after the noun. In English, the position of adjective to the head noun is directly before the noun and the position of phrasal modifiers are after the head noun. Such a difference is the cause for many L1 transfer in the production of L2.

The following errors are produced as a result of this fact:

television interesting program/ television social program/ countries social problems/ information news/ people thought/ our ancestors thought.

Students'''' conscious knowledge about this linguistic difference will result in the production of structures which are acceptable in both languages. In order to achieve this end, students should have enough skill to know which word is used with what function in any specified sentence.

Finally, Students should have a conscious knowledge about the kind of modifiers used in any sentence for any noun and verb. They should be informed of the shape, the position and the function –used as an adjective or an adverb- of modifiers both in Persian and English to overcome the problem of L1 interference. Students will find this third area of knowledge very helpful in gaining the two former skills automatically without spending too much time and effort. So it is quite right to say that the process of producing a sound sentence is conscious arrangement of the meaning of words on the basis of the word order of the language in question. Such a conscious knowledge is helpful not only in writing activities, but, it will help develop other skills such as reading speaking and listening. Teachers should provide such knowledge in preliminary level of teaching the language. It would also be the responsibility of course designers to provide materials to encourage conscious learning among students from early years of learning English.

As related to producing an acceptable paragraph on the basis of English language standards, this study has relied exclusively on general trend on writing. To this end, general approach to logic in Persian has also been considered. One of the limitations of this study is its failure to identify individual writer''''s state of mind in writing. Errors of every student should show the state of mind of each student. The researchers should have access to the thought pattern of each student and should know about his or her approach to logic. Students'''' approach to logic, which base his social relationship, should also be clarified.

It would be upon further studies to discover the influence of individual characteristics side by side the general trend of writing of Iranian students.

The only suggestion which would be useful for pedagogic purpose is to practice writing in L2 through practice in reading. The purpose of such reading would be to discover what the writer of the text has tried to do and how successful s/he has been in achieving his goal. It is through this approach that the students will gradually get familiar with the method of writing in L2 through reading courses. As a result, such terms as topic sentence, controlling ideas, developing of ideas, refining the ideas, providing support, organization of ideas,

unified thought, diversion of subject, and outlining, will be acquired indirectly. In general, reading should help develop writing skill of L2 learners by informing students about the approaches native L2 writers have followed.

Notes:

1- These three areas are discussed in Conclusion.

2- All the examples are copied from students'''' writing exam without any change.

3- Elements responsible for the errors are marked.

References:

Allen, J.P.B. and Corder, (1974). Techniques in applied linguistics. The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, Vol.3.London: Oxford University Press.

Brown, D B. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Christensen, F. (1963). A generative rhetoric of the sentence. College Composition and Communication, 14, 155-161.

Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis. In J. P. B. Allen andS. Pit Corder. (Eds). Techniques in Applied Linguistics (The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics:3), London: Oxford University Press (Language and Language Learning), pp. 122-154.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.