comparative error analysis in english writing by first, second, and third year studnets of english department of faculty of education at champasack university
Clicks: 167
ID: 172510
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
167 views
31 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #20 of 28 articles by views in ACS infectious diseases
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
levels. To investigate the error types, the frequency of error types, the similarities and difference of errors and the last to find the error sources that occur in first, second and third year learners. Error analysis is one type of linguistic study and it focuses on learners’ error making. The linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy are used to find out the types of error. The analysis the phenomenon based on Brown (1980) namely, error identification, error classification, Error description and error explanation. The data from students’ writing products, 54 pieces in three levels and
the total errors are 571 erroneous sentences. There are two types of errors, namely lexical errors and syntactical errors; eight error categories and twenty-seven error cases. The second year learners made the most error 263 errors or 46, 05% while
first year learners produced 229 errors or 40, 10% and third year learners made 79 errors or 13, 83%. There are similarity in errors types, five similar categories and five error cases, but there are three different error categories and eighteen error cases. The main error sources, learners had lack knowledge of English grammatical rule. The overgeneralization (265 errors or 46, 40%) influences learners’ error, language transfer (199 errors or 34, 85%) still interfere learners’ acquisition and simplification (107 errors or 18, 73%) is one factor that effect learners’ errors.
| Reference Key |
sychandone2016jurnalcomparative
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Nokthavivanh Sychandone |
| Journal | ACS infectious diseases |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.