A Corpus-based Error Analysis of Turkish Learners and the English Verb Phrase

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Definition of Errors

2.2 Types and Sources of Errors

2.3 Error Analysis and its importance

2.4 Comparison of English and Turkish inflectional systems

2.5 Hypothesis

3. Methodology

3.1 Data

3.2 Method

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Classification and Interpretation of Errors in Verb Phrases

4.2 Discussion

5. Conclusion

Research Objectives and Core Themes

This bachelor thesis aims to investigate the occurrence and frequency of specific verb phrase errors made by Turkish learners of English as a foreign language, specifically focusing on subject-verb-agreement and missing verbs within a corpus-based framework to identify potential interference from the native language.

• Analysis of subject-verb-agreement errors in third-person singular and plural constructions.
• Examination of missing verb errors in argumentative student essays.
• Evaluation of interlingual interference as a potential source of learner errors due to contrasting inflectional systems.
• Implementation of a corpus-based methodological approach using the TICLE subcorpus.
• Provision of pedagogical implications and strategies for effective error correction in the classroom.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the theoretical context of error analysis and outlines the specific research focus on Turkish learners of English.

2. Theoretical Framework: This section provides foundational definitions regarding errors and mistakes, discusses existing literature, and explores the linguistic differences between English and Turkish.

3. Methodology: This chapter details the data collection from the TICLE corpus and explains the qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures used for tagging and evaluating errors.

4. Results and Discussion: This section presents the empirical findings from the error analysis and discusses them in relation to the initial hypothesis concerning linguistic interference.

5. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the research findings, addresses the hypothesis, and suggests potential directions for future linguistic studies.

Keywords

Error Analysis, Turkish EFL Learners, Subject-Verb-Agreement, TICLE Corpus, Interference Errors, Interlingual Transfer, Intralingual Transfer, Verb Phrases, Corpus Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, Pedagogical Implications, Omission, Inflectional Systems, Language Transfer, Learner Errors.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this thesis?

The thesis focuses on analyzing specific verb phrase errors—namely subject-verb-agreement and missing verbs—made by Turkish university students learning English as a foreign language.

What are the central thematic fields covered?

The work integrates corpus linguistics, contrastive analysis of English and Turkish inflectional systems, and pedagogical strategies for error correction in classroom settings.

What is the primary research question?

The central question asks how the structural and inflectional differences between Turkish and English affect the realization of subject-verb-agreement in the writing of Turkish EFL learners.

Which methodology is employed in the study?

The researcher employs a corpus-based approach using a subcorpus of the International Corpus of Learner English (TICLE), involving the manual tagging of errors and analysis via concordance software.

What topics are discussed in the main body?

The main body covers the theoretical definition of errors, a comparison of linguistic structures, the analysis of empirical data from student essays, and a discussion of results regarding language interference.

What are the key terms that define this work?

The work is defined by key terms such as Error Analysis, Interlingual Interference, Subject-Verb-Agreement, and Corpus-Based Research.

Why are subject-verb-agreement errors specifically categorized?

These errors are analyzed because they are frequent, easily identifiable, and provide clear evidence of how learners struggle with applying target language rules, potentially due to interference from their native Turkish grammar.

How does the author propose dealing with learner errors in the classroom?

The author suggests that teachers should draw attention to differences between the L1 and L2, raise awareness of interference patterns, and use structured remediation strategies rather than simply correcting every mistake.