AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED KFL LEARNERS’

WRITING CORPUS AND

ITS PEDAGOGICAL IMPLI-CATIONS

Yeonhee YoonUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2013 AATK

Why Error analysis?

Error analysis is significant since it reveals how far the learner has progressed and provides useful evidence of the processes by which a language is learnt.

Error Analysis is necessary since it pro-vides the foundation for methodologies and teaching material development to re-duce errors via understanding learners’ in-terlanguage.

Objectives of study

To investigate the types and frequen-cies of errors in advanced KFL learners’ writing corpus

To compare the types and frequencies of errors between HL (heritage learners) and NHL (non-heritage learners).

To suggest what to teach and how to in-corporate the result of this error analy-sis in the curriculum of the advanced level of Korean.

5 Steps of Error Analysis

Corder (1990) 1. Collect data2. Identify errors3. Classify errors4. Analyze errors5. Remediate errors

Data Collection

Advanced KFL learners’ writing corpus prior to feedback Mid-term and final writing assign-

ments in Korean Language and Culture Class (Korean Language Flagship M.A. Program, UHM)

The size of Writing corpus: 37,258 ecel (words)

Table 1. Distribution of students

Type of Learners Number Percentage

Heritage Learners (HL) 18 64%

Non-Heritage Learners (NHL)

10

36%

Total 28 100%

Level Number Total Percent-age

Sublevel HL NHL

Advanced-High 4 2 6 21%

Advanced-Mid 10 4 14 50%

Advanced-Low 4 4 8 29%

Total 18 10 28 100%

Table2. Students’ Level of OPI based on ACTFL scale

Criteria for identifying errors Corder (1971)

Well-formedness Acceptability Appropriateness

Lee, Jung-Hee (2003: 69-70) Grammaticality Acceptability

Kim, Yoo-Jeong (2005): excluded the expres-sions that do not affect and are acceptable in the context as errors

Errors in Collocation

Sino Korean collocation … 한국은 [P] 만일 친환경 기술을 * 발달 [CL] 하는 강대국으로

부상하게 된다면 10, 20 년 후에 선진국들이 [P] 에너지 고갈로 한국의 친환경 기술에 대한 수요가 급증할 것으로 보인다 . (NHL #1)

예를 들어 미국은 이라크 전쟁을 계속 할 수 있도록 중국한테 어마어마한 액수의 장기 채권을 팔았고 , 프랑스가 핵에너지 시설을

장비 [CL] 하는데 드는 비용을 인도는 부담하고 있다 . (NHL #2) Native Korean collocation

예를 들어 , 친할머니가 아니더라도 나이가 많은 여성을 가족처럼 삼고 [CL] “ 할머니”라고 부르는 것은 사회의 집단성을 구체화하며 유지시키는 것이다 . (NHL #3)

만약 한국이 미국 시장에 더 강하게 진출하기 위해서 현지생산 체제의 규모를 확대한다면 한국 대기업들은 이윤을 올리겠지만 국민으로 [P] 흘러내려가는 [CL] 이익은 그다지 많지 않을 것이다 . (NHL #4)

개발

설치

여기고

돌아가는

Errors in Spelling

(1)한미동맹관계는 군사동맹으로부터 시작해서 50 년을 넘 * 께 [ 게 ] 이어 * 저 [ 져 ] 왔다 . (HL #1)

(2)이것 * 으로 [ 을 ] 통해 한국은 수출과 무역 *에 [ 의 ]  돌파구를 마련할 수 있었다 . (HL #1)

typo

er-ror

Errors in Particles

(e.g.1) 가지런히 뻗어 있는 두 선 * 에서 [P] 담겨진 의미에 대해 생각 해볼 필요가 있다 . (NHL #5)

(e.g.2) 또 수십 년의 독재정권 * 으로 [P] 거치면서 이런 이데올로기가 영구화되었다 . (HL #5)

(e.g.4) 한국의 경제는 최근 부진에서 벗어나 새 도약기 * 가 [P] 맞으면 좋을 것이다 . (NHL #6)

에

을

를

Errors in Noun Modifying Form

한국은 최첨단 기술을 [P] 발달 * 하는 [NM]나라로서 굉장히 유리한 위치에 서 있으나 이를 제대로 쓰지 못하고 있는 것 같다 . (NHL #6)

… 인터넷 등 통신기술의 첨단을 달리는 한국보다 미국의 연구와 개발이 부족하고 철도와 도로 건설에 뛰어 * 나는 [NM] 유럽보다 턱없이 부족하다 . (NHL#4)

한

난

Error in Negative Polarity

한일합병으로 인하여 13 년 * 동안 [NP] 역사가 지속되지 못했던 대한제국은 그 짧은 역사에도 불구하고 한반도에 큰 발자국을 남겼다 . (NHL#6)

~ 밖에 (NP) + negative expression (-못하다 etc.)

밖에

NHL •Error Types•Error Frequency

HL •Error Types•Error Frequency

Result

Error Type Group N Frequency(Percentage) Mean

CL (Collocation) NHL 10 26 (23%) 2.60 P (Particle) NHL 10 21 (18%) 2.10

WC (Word Choice) NHL 10 13 (11%) 1.30 NM (Noun

Modifying form) NHL 10 8 (7%) 0.80

IC (Inchoative Verb) NHL 10 8 (7%) 0.80 SP (Spelling) NHL 10 6 (5.2%) 0.60

PL (Plural) NHL 10 6 (5.2%) 0.60

AS (Aspect) NHL 10 6 (5.2%) 0.60 CN (Conditional) NHL 10 4 (3.5%) 0.40

VC (Voice) NHL 10 4 (3.5%) 0.40 TN (Tense) NHL 10 3 (2.6%) 0.30

NP (Negative Polarity) NHL 10 2 (1.7%) 0.20 SV (Serial Verb) NHL 10 2 (1.7%) 0.20

CP (Copula) NHL 10 2 (1.7%) 0.20 CC (Clausal Conjunction) NHL 10 2 (1.7%) 0.20

WO (Word Order) NHL 10 2 (1.7%) 0.20

The result shown in the Table 3 indicates that the most frequently occurring error type in NHLs’ writing corpus is colloca-tion(23%) followed by particles(18%), word choice (11%).

Table 3. Error Types and Frequencies of NHLs

CL P WC NM IC SP PL AS CN VC TN NP SV CP CC WO0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Error Types

Mean

of

Fre

qu

en

cy

Figure 1. Error Types and Mean of Frequency of NHLs

Error Type Group N Frequency(Percentage) Mean

CL (Collocation) HL 18 22 (18.6%) 1.22 SP (Spelling) HL 18 21 (17.8%) 1.17

WC (Word Choice) HL 18 17 (14.4%) 0.94 P (Particle) HL 18 16 (13.6%) 0.89 NM (Noun

Modifying Form ) HL 18 10 (8.5%) 0.56

PL (Plural) HL 18 8 (13.6%) 0.44 AS (Aspect) HL 18 4 (3.4%) 0.22

CN (Conditional) HL 18 4 (3.4%) 0.22 CC (Clausal

Conjunction) HL 18 4 (3.4%) 0.22

VC (Voice) HL 18 4 (3.4%) 0.22 IC (Inchoative Verb) HL 18 3 (2.5%) 0.17

TN (Tense) HL 18 3 (2.5%) 0.17 CP (Copula) HL 18 1 (0.9%) 0.06

WO (Word Order) HL 18 1 (0.9%) 0.06 NP (Negative

Polarity) HL 18 0 (0%) 0.00

SV (Serial Verb) HL 18 0 (0%) 0.00

As shown in the Table 4, the result indi-cates that the most frequently occur-ring error type in HLs’ writing corpus is collocation(18.6%) followed by spelling(17.8%), word choice(14.4%) and particles (13.6%).

Table 4. Error Types and Frequencies of HLs

CL SP WC P NM PL AS CN CC VC IC TN CP WO NP SV0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Error TypesMean

of

Fre

qu

en

cy

Figure 2. Error Types and Mean of Frequency of HLs

Error Type Group N Frequency Mean Difference

SP (Spelling)NHL 10 6 0.60

NHL < HLHL 18 21 1.17

WC (Word Choice)NHL 10 13 1.30

NHL > HLHL 18 17 0.94

CL(Collocation)NHL 10 26 2.60

NHL > HLHL 18 22 1.22

P (Particles)NHL 10 21 2.10

NHL > HLHL 18 16 0.89

PL(Plural)NHL 10 6 0.60

NHL > HLHL 18 8 0.44

NP (Negative polarity)NHL 10 2 0.20

NHL > HLHL 18 0 0.00

Serial verb (SV)NHL 10 2 0.20

NHL > HLHL 18 0 0.00

CP (Copula)NHL 10 2 0.20

NHL > HLHL 18 1 0.06

AS (Aspect)NHL 10 6 0.60

NHL > HLHL 18 4 0.22

NM (Noun Modifying form)NHL 10 8 0.80

NHL > HLHL 18 10 0.56

CN (Conditional)NHL 10 4 0.40

NHL > HLHL 18 4 0.22

CC (Clausal Conjunction)NHL 10 2 0.20

NHL < HLHL 18 4 0.22

IC (Inchoative verb) - 되다 , - 지다 NHL 10 8 0.80 NHL > HL

HL 18 3 0.17

VC (Voice) Passive/ActiveNHL 10 4 0.40

NHL > HLHL 18 4 0.22

TN (Tense)NHL 10 3 0.30

NHL > HLHL 18 3 0.17

WO (Word Order)NHL 10 2 0.20

NHL > HLHL 18 1 0.06

Table 5. Error Types and Frequency of NHLs and HLs

As shown in the Table 5, there are differences between NHLs and HLs in error types such as particles, spelling, and collocation. t-test will be conducted for the statistical analy-sis.

Interestingly, the frequency of spelling error of HLs (17.8%) is higher than that of NHLs (5.2%). HLs tend to spell how they pro-nounce.

1. The most frequently occurred error type in both NHLs’ and HLs’ writing corpus is collocation.

2. NHLs make more errors in collocation and particles than HLs do.

3. HLs have more errors in spelling than NHLs have since HLs tend to spell how they pronounce.

4. There were more lexical errors than syn-tactic errors in the advanced KLF learn-ers writing corpus.

Summary of Results

Pedagogical Implications

Raising teachers’ awareness of com-mon types of errors in advanced KFL learners’ writing for diagnostic pur-poses.

Providing teachers with the necessary information for designing effective and remedial teaching methods and mate-rials in order to promote the KFL learn-ers’ writing ability for prognostic pur-poses.

Suggestion

Lexical errors such as word choice, colloca-tion Have the students to list all errors they made Search for the selected word from Sejong cor-

pus and choose three-five sentences so that the students understand the meaning of words through context. http://www.sejong.or.kr/gopage.php?svc=simplesearch.words

Compose their own sentence.

Shortcomings & Further Stud-ies

Small size of data need to build the larger corpus

Develop teaching materials in depth Investigate the factors causing the

errors

Conclusion

There were more lexical errors than syntactic errors in the advanced KLF learners’ writing corpus.

It is beneficial to make the list of learner errors and to develop teaching materials using cor-

pus. Certain syntactic features and lexical colloca-

tions in Korean should be taught explicitly as a critical part of second language acquisition in writing instruction for advanced KLF learners in order to reach a native-like proficiency level.

References Corder, S.P. (1990) Error analysis and interlanguage. Ellis, N.C. (2001). Memory for language in P. Robinsson (ed.), Cognition and Sec-

ond language instruction. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Lennon, Paul (1991). Error: some problems of definition, identification, and distinc-

tion. Applied Linguistics 12. pp.180-196. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sohn (1986) Patterns of American students’ composition errors in Korean. Linguis-

tic Expeditions. pp. 487-526. Hanshin Press. 고석주 외 (2004). 한국어 학습자 말뭉치와 오류 분석 . 한국문화사 김유정 (2005). 한국어 학습자 말뭉치 오류분석의 기준 연구 . Journal of Korean Lan-

guage Education 16-1:45-75. 김정숙 김유정 (2003). 한국어 학습자 말뭉치 구축을 위한 기초 연구 이중언어학 21 pp. 97-

119 이중언어학회 안경화 , 양명희 (2003) 중간언어 의미 체계 정립을 위한 오류 분석의 실제 . 어문연구 118.

pp. 403-425. 이승연 (2007). 한국어 학습자 오류의 판정 및 수정 기준 연구 . 왕혜숙 (1995). 영어화자의 한국어 작문에 나타난 어휘상 오류분석 장미경 (2009). 한국어 고급 학습자의 연어습득양상 연구 . 이중언어학 39, 293-316.

감사합니다 .

Comment 1 : This is a well developed research de-sign. However, the comparative study between HL and NHL is already well known among Korean instruc-tors. More detailed and applicable pedagogical suggestion might have been more useful.

Comment 2 : Very well organized format. Comment 3 : The corpus study on HL versus NHL er-

rors in the ADVANCED level is especially useful in that it identifies forms that are difficult for L2 learners to acquire, which in turn gives pedagogical implication for curriculum design for lower levels. Furthermore, error analysis for HL learners also reveals which forms are stabilized and thus provide insight to HL learner interlanguage and how language exposure from home has influenced their language acquisition.

Views on Errors

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Interference: Fries (194), Lado (1957):

Interlanguage Hypothesis Interlanguage (Selinker 1972), Transitional

Competence (Corder 1971), Learner Lan-guage (Gass & Selinker 1994:13)

Fossilization Error Analysis Hypothesis

a method used to document the systematic errors that appear in learner language.

Collocation Lexical collocation (related to the word

usage) 박차를 가하다 . 노력을 기울이다 . 정부를 수립하다 . ~ 에게 이익이 돌아가다 .

Grammatical collocation (a phrase con-sisting of a dominant word or grammat-ical structure) - 에 대해서 - 를 통해서 후 주석은 또 미 . 중의 * 강화 협력 [WO] 과

동아시아의 평화에 Ø [CL ] 언급했다

연어 (collocation)특정 맥락에서 하나의 어휘적 요소가 이어지는 어휘를 선택하는 관계 , 두 어휘가 통사적 , 의미적 결합 관계이면서 어휘적 선택 관계를 가지고 있는 구( 이승연 , 최은지 2007:303)