Discussion and Conclusions

• Topics: Thesis
• Pages: 2
• Words: 332
• Date added: May 4, 2020

The main aim of the study conducted for this thesis was to answer the research question of what the distribution of learner errors was among the selected linguistic areas, the selected linguistic areas being the formal, grammatical, lexico-grammatical, lexical and sentence structure domain, and also to discover whether there were any errors that could be described as common to all students irrespective of their error rate, and whether there was any relationship between the error rate of the students and the frequency of errors they committed in a particular area.

The results of the analysis showed that the most errors were committed in the grammatical linguistic domain (42%). The second most frequent were errors in linguistic domain (22%), formal errors were third (16%), sentence structure errors fourth (11%), lexico-grammatical fifth (8%) and the “other” errors last with 1% or the errors.

The most frequent error types in the sample were omitted articles, errors in spelling, lexical errors in single words and in lexical phrases, word omissions, the use ofredundant articles, errors in dependent and independent prepositions, and errors in complementation – especially the verb complementation.

The first four mentioned error types – the errors in article omission, errors in spelling and lexical single and lexical phrase errors, proved to be among the most problematic for all students – i.e. the most erring, the moderately erring and the least erring students.

The least erring students were found to commit considerably less errors in verb morphology and in word omissions than the rest of the students, and there was also discovered a positive relationship between the students’ error rate and errors in word order, lexical single errors, dependent prepositions and the formal errors that included, for instance word misselections or errors in word boundary.

The subsequent parts of the chapter look at the results in more detail. The first section compares the findings of this study to the results of other error analyses. And in the other three sections the results are discussed in terms of limitations and pedagogical and research implications.