nhocnamsieuway78
New Member
Download Luận văn Phân tích lỗi trong cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của sinh viên chuyên anh năm thứ nhất tại trường đại học Thăng Long
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement
Table of contents
List of tables, charts and figures
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Reasons for choosing the topic
1.2. Objectives of the study
1.3. Scope of the study
1.4. Significance of the study
1.5. Methods of the study
1.6. Organization of the study
Chapter Two: Literature review
2.1. Factors affecting language learning
2.2. Errors analysis
2.3. The notion of errors in language learning
2.4. Errors vs. mistakes
2.5. Causes of errors in language learning
2.5.1. First language interference
2.5.2. Causes independent from first language
2.6. The concept of cohesion
2.7. Cohesive devices in writing
2.8. Types of cohesion
2.8.1. Grammatical cohesion
2.8.2. Lexical cohesion
2.9. Summary
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1. Subjects
3.2. Instruments of data collection
3.3. Method of data analysis
3.4. Summary
Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data
4.1. Errors in the use of reference
4.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
4.1.2. Errors in the use of personal reference
4.1.3. Errors in thes use of comparative reference
4.2. Errors in the use of conjunction
4.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction
4.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction
4.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction
4.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion
4.4. Summary
Chapter Five: Implications
Chapter Six: Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendices
i
ii
iv
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
23
29
30
32
33
34
36
36
38
39
44
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Is sentence superficially well-formed in terms of the grammar of the target language?
Yes
Does a normal interpretation according to the rules of the target language make sense in the context?
Yes
Sentence not apparently erroneous but may be right by chance
Hold in store for possible further investigation
Sentence is overly erroneous
Is learner available for consultation?
No
Sentence is covertly erroneous
No
Can a plausible interpretation be put on sentence in context?
Obtain from him authoritative interpretation and make authoritative reconstruction of sentence in target language
No
yes
Make plausible reconstruction of sentence in target language
No
Is mother tongue of learner known
No
Hold sentence in store
yes
Translate sentence literally info first language. Is plausible interpretation in context plausible?
yes
No
Compare reconstructed sentence with original erroneous sentence to locate error
Translate first language back into target language to provide plausible reconstruction
yes
IN
Figure 2 : The process of recognizing and identifying errors
(Extracted from ‘Error Analysis’. Papers in Applied Linguistics
Vol.2, edited by Allen, J.P.B and Corder, S.Pit. London: OUP. 1975: 129)
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Applying the methods and instruments presented in the previous chapter, the necessary data has been collected. The tables in this chapter show the number of errors in the use of each type of cohesive devices, its percentage in the total number of errors and the source from which it stems. The sources are categorized in three groups: intra-lingual source (errors that are caused by interference between English items), inter-lingual (errors that are caused by the interference of Vietnamese into English), and mixed (errors that are not attributed precisely to any single source).
Table 4.1: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices
Cohesive devices
Number of errors
Percentage
(%)
GRAMMATICAL
Reference
Demonstrative
101
34.00
Comparative
50
10.77
Personal
32
16.83
Conjunction
Adversative
28
9.42
Causal
25
8.41
Additive
09
3.03
Ellipsis
0
0.00
Substitution
0
0.00
LEXICAL
Collocation
52
17.50
Reiteration
0
0.00
The total number of errors
297
100
Table 4.2: Errors and their Causes
Cohesive devices
Inter-lingual
Intra-lingual
Mixed
GRAMMATICAL
Reference
Demonstrative
76
25
0
Comparative
35
15
0
Personal
21
11
0
Conjunction
Adversative
21
07
0
Causal
0
25
0
Additive
0
09
0
LEXICAL
Collocation
0
0
52
TOTAL
153
92
52
297
4.1. ERRORS IN THE USE OF REFERENCE
As shown in Table 4.1, reference errors contribute the biggest percentage of 61.6% in all errors, in which 34% belongs to the demonstrative, 16.83% to the personal and 10.77% to the comparative; they will be discussed in detail, one by one from the most to the least popular.
4.1.2. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
The number of errors in the use of demonstrative references accounts for 34% of all the errors in the use of cohesive devices (Table 4.1). These errors are in the use of the, there, this. The table below shows these errors in detail.
Table 4.3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
Reference
Number of errors
Inter-lingual
Intra-lingual
Total
Demonstrative
The
59
22
81
There
17
0
17
This
0
03
03
Total
76
25
101
Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the”
Table 4.4: Errors in the use of the definite article
Type of errors with ‘the’
Number
Omitting (inter-lingual source)
59
Wrong application (intra-lingual source)
22
Total
81
Refer to Table 4.3, the number of errors in the use of definite article unfolds the fact that this type of errors is the most problematic. Making errors with definite article, the students either omit it when it is required or apply it but in wrong ways, the numbers of these errors are 59 and 22 respectively as shown in Table 4.4
This type of errors is a typical one as it is found in the works of most students in the study. The main reason for these errors is the influence of the mother tongue (or first language interference). As mentioned in the previous chapters, errors in second language learning can arise when a linguistic feature in the target language is unknown in the source language. In this case, definite article in English (the target language) is a linguistic feature unknown in Vietnamese (the source language). Having a look at the structures of noun phrases in English and Vietnamese, the problem seems obvious. In the structure of English noun phrases, the elements preceding Head are: Deictic (including articles), Numerative, Epithet and Classifier; while in Vietnamese, the preceding Head elements do not include Deictic, Epithet and Classifier. This is the reason why Vietnamese students tend to forget articles, especially definite article, when producing noun phrases in English.
Definite article does not contain any information in itself, its meaning is that the noun it modifies has a specific referent, and that the information required for identifying the referent is available in the environment including the structure, the text, the situation and the culture. For this reason, definite article can be considered as one of “small words” which one may forget to use it when it is necessary or fail to spot errors in its use when revising his\her work.
Table 4.5: Errors in the omission of ‘the’
Type of errors in the omission of ‘the’
Number
Anaphoric
55
Cataphoric and Homophoric
04
Total
59
As shown in Table 4.5 in this part, the omission of ‘the’ as the anaphoric reference is the most popular with 55 errors, only 4 errors of omitting ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference are found. Most of the students some time in their works did not add ‘the’ before the noun phrase which was a synonym or near-synonym of the items they had mentioned earlier in the text. They seem to forget to use definite article once they are caught in the flow of events or information they want to provide. The followings are examples of this type of errors in students’ papers:
Example:
- …. Mr. X stood outside her garden to follow her cat. …. Now he was sure that the reason for her sadness was mainly cat….
- ….. After a few minutes, Little Red Riding Hood came, knocked at the door and said “Granny, Granny! Open the door for me, please!” The wolf tried to answer by copying her grandmother’s voice. While asking grandmother some questions, little girl found something strange. ….
- ….. Suddenly the vampire laughed and I knew that was Jane. She took vampire mask to trick me….
The errors with the use of omitting homophoric and cataphoric are:
- …. First thing I will do is that…. (cataphoric is ommited)
- He came from United States. (homophoric is omitted)
- I tried last time to unlock the door. (cataphoric is omitted)
- She was best in the class. (cataphoric is omitted)
Students hardly omit ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference as in these uses ‘the’ is mostly attached to the noun phrase it refers to as a structure. For example, the headmaster of my school, the King, the longest lesson, etc.
Table 4.4 also presents the fact that students made 22 errors of inappropriate use of the in their writing. With this type of errors, students tend to use definite article ‘the’ instead of indefinite one (‘a/an’ or zero article). Consider the following extracts from their writing.
Example:
- In a nice morning, I with three other girls decided to play truant as usual. Suddenly, while climbing over the fence of our school, we heard the whistle with a strong shouting: ‘Stop, girls!’ ‘Oh, the school guard!’ I said.
- In a bar one night, Mr. X was talking to a workman who told him that Mrs. Ramsay had a very dear cat. The workman added that Mrs. Ramsay was very interested in it; she even regarded it as the kid. ….
The nouns or noun phrases following the underlined ‘the’ in the above extracts are not previously referred to any items either in the situation or text, therefore it must be replaced by 'a' or no article depending on the ...
Download miễn phí Luận văn Phân tích lỗi trong cách sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn bản trong bài viết của sinh viên chuyên anh năm thứ nhất tại trường đại học Thăng Long
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement
Table of contents
List of tables, charts and figures
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Reasons for choosing the topic
1.2. Objectives of the study
1.3. Scope of the study
1.4. Significance of the study
1.5. Methods of the study
1.6. Organization of the study
Chapter Two: Literature review
2.1. Factors affecting language learning
2.2. Errors analysis
2.3. The notion of errors in language learning
2.4. Errors vs. mistakes
2.5. Causes of errors in language learning
2.5.1. First language interference
2.5.2. Causes independent from first language
2.6. The concept of cohesion
2.7. Cohesive devices in writing
2.8. Types of cohesion
2.8.1. Grammatical cohesion
2.8.2. Lexical cohesion
2.9. Summary
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1. Subjects
3.2. Instruments of data collection
3.3. Method of data analysis
3.4. Summary
Chapter Four: Presentation and Analysis of Data
4.1. Errors in the use of reference
4.1.1. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
4.1.2. Errors in the use of personal reference
4.1.3. Errors in thes use of comparative reference
4.2. Errors in the use of conjunction
4.2.1. Errors in the use of adversative conjunction
4.2.2. Errors in the use of causal conjunction
4.2.3. Errors in the use of additive conjunction
4.3. Errors in the use of lexical cohesion
4.4. Summary
Chapter Five: Implications
Chapter Six: Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendices
i
ii
iv
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
23
29
30
32
33
34
36
36
38
39
44
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Tóm tắt nội dung:
s applied in this step. (Please Figure 3. 1 for the process of recognizing and identifying errors). Then, an interpretation was made to reconstruct what the subjects intended to express in their writing in order to decide if the form or structure was really erroneous. Having been labeled as wrong use of definite article, conjunction, etc. in accordance with the classification of cohesive devices by Haliday and Hasan (1976), the errors were transferred to separate indexes according to their class of cohesive devices. Finally, occurrence frequency counting was made for each type of errors. The outcomes were put forward for comparison.Is sentence superficially well-formed in terms of the grammar of the target language?
Yes
Does a normal interpretation according to the rules of the target language make sense in the context?
Yes
Sentence not apparently erroneous but may be right by chance
Hold in store for possible further investigation
Sentence is overly erroneous
Is learner available for consultation?
No
Sentence is covertly erroneous
No
Can a plausible interpretation be put on sentence in context?
Obtain from him authoritative interpretation and make authoritative reconstruction of sentence in target language
No
yes
Make plausible reconstruction of sentence in target language
No
Is mother tongue of learner known
No
Hold sentence in store
yes
Translate sentence literally info first language. Is plausible interpretation in context plausible?
yes
No
Compare reconstructed sentence with original erroneous sentence to locate error
Translate first language back into target language to provide plausible reconstruction
yes
IN
Figure 2 : The process of recognizing and identifying errors
(Extracted from ‘Error Analysis’. Papers in Applied Linguistics
Vol.2, edited by Allen, J.P.B and Corder, S.Pit. London: OUP. 1975: 129)
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Applying the methods and instruments presented in the previous chapter, the necessary data has been collected. The tables in this chapter show the number of errors in the use of each type of cohesive devices, its percentage in the total number of errors and the source from which it stems. The sources are categorized in three groups: intra-lingual source (errors that are caused by interference between English items), inter-lingual (errors that are caused by the interference of Vietnamese into English), and mixed (errors that are not attributed precisely to any single source).
Table 4.1: The number of errors in the use of cohesive devices
Cohesive devices
Number of errors
Percentage
(%)
GRAMMATICAL
Reference
Demonstrative
101
34.00
Comparative
50
10.77
Personal
32
16.83
Conjunction
Adversative
28
9.42
Causal
25
8.41
Additive
09
3.03
Ellipsis
0
0.00
Substitution
0
0.00
LEXICAL
Collocation
52
17.50
Reiteration
0
0.00
The total number of errors
297
100
Table 4.2: Errors and their Causes
Cohesive devices
Inter-lingual
Intra-lingual
Mixed
GRAMMATICAL
Reference
Demonstrative
76
25
0
Comparative
35
15
0
Personal
21
11
0
Conjunction
Adversative
21
07
0
Causal
0
25
0
Additive
0
09
0
LEXICAL
Collocation
0
0
52
TOTAL
153
92
52
297
4.1. ERRORS IN THE USE OF REFERENCE
As shown in Table 4.1, reference errors contribute the biggest percentage of 61.6% in all errors, in which 34% belongs to the demonstrative, 16.83% to the personal and 10.77% to the comparative; they will be discussed in detail, one by one from the most to the least popular.
4.1.2. Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
The number of errors in the use of demonstrative references accounts for 34% of all the errors in the use of cohesive devices (Table 4.1). These errors are in the use of the, there, this. The table below shows these errors in detail.
Table 4.3: Errors in the use of demonstrative reference
Reference
Number of errors
Inter-lingual
Intra-lingual
Total
Demonstrative
The
59
22
81
There
17
0
17
This
0
03
03
Total
76
25
101
Errors in the use of demonstrative reference “the”
Table 4.4: Errors in the use of the definite article
Type of errors with ‘the’
Number
Omitting (inter-lingual source)
59
Wrong application (intra-lingual source)
22
Total
81
Refer to Table 4.3, the number of errors in the use of definite article unfolds the fact that this type of errors is the most problematic. Making errors with definite article, the students either omit it when it is required or apply it but in wrong ways, the numbers of these errors are 59 and 22 respectively as shown in Table 4.4
This type of errors is a typical one as it is found in the works of most students in the study. The main reason for these errors is the influence of the mother tongue (or first language interference). As mentioned in the previous chapters, errors in second language learning can arise when a linguistic feature in the target language is unknown in the source language. In this case, definite article in English (the target language) is a linguistic feature unknown in Vietnamese (the source language). Having a look at the structures of noun phrases in English and Vietnamese, the problem seems obvious. In the structure of English noun phrases, the elements preceding Head are: Deictic (including articles), Numerative, Epithet and Classifier; while in Vietnamese, the preceding Head elements do not include Deictic, Epithet and Classifier. This is the reason why Vietnamese students tend to forget articles, especially definite article, when producing noun phrases in English.
Definite article does not contain any information in itself, its meaning is that the noun it modifies has a specific referent, and that the information required for identifying the referent is available in the environment including the structure, the text, the situation and the culture. For this reason, definite article can be considered as one of “small words” which one may forget to use it when it is necessary or fail to spot errors in its use when revising his\her work.
Table 4.5: Errors in the omission of ‘the’
Type of errors in the omission of ‘the’
Number
Anaphoric
55
Cataphoric and Homophoric
04
Total
59
As shown in Table 4.5 in this part, the omission of ‘the’ as the anaphoric reference is the most popular with 55 errors, only 4 errors of omitting ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference are found. Most of the students some time in their works did not add ‘the’ before the noun phrase which was a synonym or near-synonym of the items they had mentioned earlier in the text. They seem to forget to use definite article once they are caught in the flow of events or information they want to provide. The followings are examples of this type of errors in students’ papers:
Example:
- …. Mr. X stood outside her garden to follow her cat. …. Now he was sure that the reason for her sadness was mainly cat….
- ….. After a few minutes, Little Red Riding Hood came, knocked at the door and said “Granny, Granny! Open the door for me, please!” The wolf tried to answer by copying her grandmother’s voice. While asking grandmother some questions, little girl found something strange. ….
- ….. Suddenly the vampire laughed and I knew that was Jane. She took vampire mask to trick me….
The errors with the use of omitting homophoric and cataphoric are:
- …. First thing I will do is that…. (cataphoric is ommited)
- He came from United States. (homophoric is omitted)
- I tried last time to unlock the door. (cataphoric is omitted)
- She was best in the class. (cataphoric is omitted)
Students hardly omit ‘the’ as homophoric and cataphoric reference as in these uses ‘the’ is mostly attached to the noun phrase it refers to as a structure. For example, the headmaster of my school, the King, the longest lesson, etc.
Table 4.4 also presents the fact that students made 22 errors of inappropriate use of the in their writing. With this type of errors, students tend to use definite article ‘the’ instead of indefinite one (‘a/an’ or zero article). Consider the following extracts from their writing.
Example:
- In a nice morning, I with three other girls decided to play truant as usual. Suddenly, while climbing over the fence of our school, we heard the whistle with a strong shouting: ‘Stop, girls!’ ‘Oh, the school guard!’ I said.
- In a bar one night, Mr. X was talking to a workman who told him that Mrs. Ramsay had a very dear cat. The workman added that Mrs. Ramsay was very interested in it; she even regarded it as the kid. ….
The nouns or noun phrases following the underlined ‘the’ in the above extracts are not previously referred to any items either in the situation or text, therefore it must be replaced by 'a' or no article depending on the ...