西藏地区藏族高中学生英语写作错误分析

硕士学位论文论文题目论文题目研究生姓名指导教师姓名唐鑫陆明副教授专业名称外国语言学及应用语言学研究方向论文提交日期英语教学2015年5月AofErrorsinEnglishWritingsbyTibetanHighSchoolinTibetAutonomousRegionbyXinrenrudnltfeFortheDegreeofMasterofArtslfnuMay2015iiiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIwouldliketoexpressmysinceregratitudetoallthosewhohavehelpedmeinthepastthreeyearsinSoochowUniversitywhenIworkedformyM.A.degree.Mydeepestgratitudefirstgoestomysupervisor,ProfessorLuMing,forherconstanthelp,professionalguidanceandscholarlyenlightenment,fromwhichIhavebenefitedagreatdeal.SpecialthanksgotoProf.SuXiaojun,Prof.GuPaiyaandProf.JiaGuanjie.ItwasthecoursestheyofferedthatfirstprovokedmyinterestintheareaofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Theirincisiveandbrilliantlecturesprovedmostbeneficialtomyunderstandingofmanyoftheissuesdiscussedinthepresentthesis.IwouldalsoliketoextendmythankstomycolleaguesinLhasaNormalSchool,DanzengBaizhenandDengqingZhuoma,butfortheirkindconsistenthelpandassistance,Iwouldnothaveaccomplishedthisthesis.Xin.ABSTRACTInrecentyears,withthesocialprogressandeconomicdevelopment,thereareincreasingtrilingualsorsocalledthreelanguagelearners.Thecross-linguisticinfluenceinThirdLanguageLearning,asaresult,drawsmoreandmoreconcernfromlinguistsandlanguageresearchers.However,fewstudieshavebeenconductedonlanguagetransferamongChinese,Tibetan,andEnglish.ThissituationisevenworseinTibetAutonomousRegionduetovariousreasonslikegeographicalposition,economicconditionandunderdevelopededucationalstatus.Therefore,veryfewresearcheshasbeendoneintheaspectofEnglishteachingandlearninginthisRegion,andresearchesconcerningerrorsinTibetanhighschoolstudents’Englishwritingaremuchmakeachangetothepresentsituation,theauthorlaunchesastudyabouterrorsinTibetanhighschoolstudents’EnglishwritinginLhasa,thebiggesthabitantofTibetanminoritiesaswellasthecapitalcityofTibet.Theauthorconductsthisstudyunderantypicalauthenticlinguisticenvironmentofthreelanguages,ofwhichTibetan,ChineseandEnglisharecoexisted,itaimstodigoutthefeaturesandunderlyinginterlingualcausesoferrorinTibetanstudents’Englishwriting,soastoprovideadeepviewonerrorsmadebyTibetanstudentsintheirEnglishwritingandoffersomepedagogicalimplicationsforHighschoolEnglishteachinginTibetAutonomousRegion.ContrastiveAnalysis,ErrorAnalysisandLanguageTransferasthetheoreticalframework,andunderaparticulartrilingualenvironment(Tibetan,ChineseandEnglish)inTibet,thepresentstudyproposestogiveanswerstothefollowingtwoquestions:(1)WhaterrorsdoTibetanstudentsmakeintheirEnglishwriting?(2)DotheTibetanstudents’L1andL2influencetheirEnglishwriting?164GradeThreehighschoolTibetanstudentsfromLhasaMiddleSchoolareselectedassubjects.Bydescription,collection,classificationandevaluationoferrorsdetectedintheEnglishwritingsamplesfromthesubjects,theauthordiscussesandanalyzestypesoferrorsandpercentageofeachtype.Basedontheresultsofthisprocedure,undertheguidanceofqualitativeanalysisandquantitativeanalysis,andiiinformationgainedfromindividualinterview,eachtypeoferrorsisfurtherassessedandexplained,soastoprobetheissuethatwhetherTibetanstudents’L1andL2influencetheirEnglishwritingandwhichlanguageexertsgreaterinfluence.Somefindingsareobtainedthroughthedataanalysis.First,thereareingeneral14typesoferrorscommittedbyTibetanstudentsintheirEnglishwriting,whichcanbegroupedintotwomajorcategories:morphologicalerrorsandsyntacticerrors;second,TibetanlanguageandChineselanguagedoinfluenceTibetanhighschoolstudentsduringtheirEnglishwritingprocessandtheirL2(Chinese)exertsgreaterinfluenceascomparedwiththeirL1(Tibetan).KeyErrorAnalysis,EnglishWriting,TibetanHighSchoolStudents摘 要点原因和语际原因，此研究有助于加深对西藏地区藏族高中学生英语写作错误的认识，并为西藏自治区的高中英语教学提供启示。语写作中存在着那些错误？（2）这些错误是否受到他们的第一语言（藏语）和第二164名来自西藏拉萨中学的高中三年级藏族学生为研究和第二语言（汉语）影响以及那种语言影响更大的问题。14种类型的错误，这14种类型可归为两大类，即形态错误和句法错误。而在他们的英语写作过程中，的影响比第一语言（藏语）的影响更大。关键词：错误分析，英语写作,藏族高中生TableofContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iABSTRACT ii摘 要 ivofContents vListofAbbreviations. viiChapterOneIntroduction 1Researchbackgroundandneedforthestudy 1Purposeandsignificanceofthestudy 1Structureofthepaper 3ChapterLiteratureReview 4Theoreticalframework 4ContrastiveAnalysis 4ErrorAnalysis 6LanguageTransfer RelatedStudiesHomeandAbroad 13StudiesrelatedtoerroranalysisinEFLteaching. 13StudiesrelatedtoerroranalysisonEFLstudents’writings 14StudiesrelatedtoerroranalysisonTibetanEFLstudents’writings 15ChapterThree ResearchMethodology 17Researchquestions 17Participants 17Methods 17analysis 17Interview 18Researchprocedure 18Datacollectionandanalysis 18ChapterFour ResultsandDiscussions 19ErrorscommittedinTibetanstudents’Englishwriting 19Morphologicalerrors 20Syntacticerrors 32ofL1andL2ontibetanwritings 44Intralingualerrors. 45Interlingualerrors. 46ChapterFive Conclusion. 53Majorfindings 53PedagogicalImplications 5455REFERENCE 57AppendixI:WritingSamples 60AppendixII:InterviewQuestions 62ListofAbbreviationsCA——ContrastiveAnalysisCAH——ContrastiveAnalysisHypothesisEA——ErrorAnalysisEFL——EnglishasaForeignLanguageIL——InterlanguageL1——FirstLanguageL2——SecondLanguageTransferSLA——SecondLanguageAcquisitionLanguageChapterOneIntroductionResearchbackgroundandneedforthestudyInpresentChina,agoodEnglishspeakermayearnhighersalaryandhavemoreopportunities.AsinLhasa,aremotecityinthefarwestofChina,amanwithacommandofEnglishcanprovokeenvyinhisneighborhoodandwinpraisefromtourists.Then,itisanurgenttaskforpeopletheretohaveagoodcommandofEnglish.TeachersinTibetAutonomousRegionare,tosomedegree,responsibleforthecurrentpoorteachingqualityandstudents’lowefficiencyinEnglishlearning.Untilthepast37yearshavewitnessedremarkableimprovementandachievementintheareaofEnglishteachingandlearning.However,TibetanAutonomousRegion,duetovariousreasons,lagsfarbehindinthisrespect,ascomparedwithotherregionsinChina,especiallythecoastalcities.littleattentionhasbeenpaidtoresearchesonEnglishteachingandlearninginTibetAutonomousRegion.Englishwriting,asoneoftheimportantpartsoflanguagelearning,hasbeenattractingChineseresearchers’attentionandfruitfulresearchconsequenceshavebeenmadeinthisacademicfield.However,writing,asanintegratedpartinEnglishlearningprocess,hasbeenextremelyoverlookedintheregion;itisbothurgentandsignificanttocarryoutthepresentPurposeandsignificanceofthestudyOfall56nationalitiesinChina,Tibetannationality,withalargepopulation,standsoutwithitsowncultureandhistory,speaksitsownlanguage,andlivesbyitsownlifestyleinthefarwestpartofthecountry.AccordingtoH.D.Brown(2001),languageandculturewereinextricablycorrelated.Tibetanstudents,therefore,fosteredbytheiruniqueculture,naturallydevelopedtheirownlearningstyle.Becauseoftheparticularbilingualortri-lingualenvironmentinTibet,languagetransferisdefinitelyunavoidableand,moreoftenthannot,overwhelminglycommoninTibetanstudents’Englishlearningprogress,itcancomefromeitherTibetanorChineseorboth.Asaresult,TibetanstudentsareconfrontedwithmoredifficultiesintheirEnglishlearningascomparedwithHansininlandcities.Besides,otherfactorsaslowereconomicstatus,poorerteachingandlearningcondition,littleconsiderationoftheiruniquelearningstyle,allcontributetoTibetanstudents’poorEnglishInrecentyears,amultitudeofresearcheshavebeenconductedbymeansofEAinChina.However,thoseconcernedwithminoritystudents’Englishlearningarefarfromenough,andTibetanstudents,asoneoftheethnicgroups,areextremelyoverlooked.veryfewstudieshaveaddressedonTibetanstudents’Englishlearning,andthestudiesonTibetanstudents’EnglishwritingwithCAandEAtheoriesaremuchAccordingtotheauthor’ssurveyinCNKIonNov8th,2013,therearealtogether5dissertationsand7articlesdealingwitherrorsinTibetanstudents’Englishwritings;however,noneofthemwasconductedinTibetAutonomousRegion.ThesituationisevenworsesincealltheirsubjectschosenareeithercollegeTibetanEnglishmajorsoradvancedTibetanEnglishlearnersstudyingininlandcities.Ineithercase,thesubjectsaremostlytopstudents,thegeneralityorcoverageoftheresearchisinquestionandnaturallyinneedoffurtherresearch.Inthis164GradeThreeTibetanhighschoolstudentsfromLhasaMiddleSchool,anordinaryhighschoolinLhasa,arechosenassubjects.Byanalyzingtheresultsoftheresearch,theauthorwilldiscussandthenanalyzetheerrorsfromTibetanstudents’Englishwritings.ThisstudyissupposedtoprovideaparticularviewonerrorsmadebyTibetanstudentsintheirEnglishwritingandoffersomeimplicationsforEnglishteachinginTibetAutonomousRegion.StructureofthepaperThisthesisisstructuredintofivechapters.ChapterOnedescribesthebackgroundandthepurposeofthisandthestructureofthethesis.ChapterbrieflyreviewstheliteratureonCA,EAandsomerelatedresearchesathomeandabroadarealsopresented.InChapterThree,theproceduresofresearchdesignarepresented.ChapterFourgivesdetaileddiscussionandanalysisoftheresults.ChapterFiveinformsreadersofthemajorfindings,implicationsonteachingaswellaslimitationsoftheresearchandfinallysuggestionsforfurtherstudies.ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewTheoreticalframeworkInhisbookinLanguageLearningandUse:ExploringAnalysis,James(2001:3)putsforthseveralcommonconceptsinSLA,anddescribessomewidelyusedtoolsconcerningattitudesandtreatmenttowardserrorslanguagelearnersmake.Figure1PointsofcomparisonforsuccessiveFLlearningparadigms1/MT 1/MT/L()InteIntelanuage(I)M:Lparsnratvenalysi)I:Loparisons(rrornlsis)M:ILcoparisons(ransernalysi)caneasilyfindoutinthisfigurethatthreetheoriesenjoypriorityindealingwitherrorsinSLA,i.e.ContrastiveAnalysis(CA),ErrorAnalysis(EA),andTransferAnalysiswhichservesasthefoundationaltheoriesofthisInthischapter,theauthorwillgiveadetaileddescriptionofthesetheoriesonebyone.ContrastiveAnalysisAbriefIntroductionofCAInthe1950sand1960s,anageofbehaviorism,ContrastiveAnalysiswasthemostfavoredparadigmforresearchesinSecondLanguageLearning.ThepopularityofCAownsmuchtoRobertLadoandhisreputedbookLinguisticsCulturespublishedin1957,inwhichheintroducedacomparisonbetweentheMotherofapersonandhissecondlanguage,namelyCA.ContrastiveAnalysis(CA)isbasedonthehypothesisthat“languagelearnersliketransferringtheformsandmeaningsoftheirMothertotheforeignlanguagetheyaregoingtolearn”.AccordingtoLado,itisthedifferencebetweenthetwolanguagesystemswherethelargestprobleminanylanguagelearninghides.Asaresult,thefocusofanylanguageteachingshouldbeonlyonthedifferencebetweentwolanguagesinsteadofthesimilarity.Basedon(1970)proclaimedtwoversionsofCAHypothesis:thestrongversionandtheweakversion.Thestrongversionofthishypothesisclaimstobeabletopredicttheerrors;however,theweakversionissupposedtobeusedtoidentifyerrorsaftertheyaremadebythelanguagelearner.Bothversionsreceivedchallengesandcriticisms.Politzer(1978)stated,CAcanhighlightandpredictthedifficultiesanderrorsoflearnersduringtheirL2learning.Atthattime,theAmericanstructuralistssuchasNoamChomskystickstotheideathatthebasicproblemsinL2learningarenotcausedbyanyfundamentaldifficultyinthenewfromlearners’L1habits.(1953)claimedthatinsecondlanguagelearning,differencesleadtodifficulties,anddifficultiesleadtoproblems.Thatistothegreaterthedifferencebetweentwosystems,thegreaterlearningdifficultyis.ThisopiniondirectlypavedthewayforContrastiveAnalysisHypothesis(CAH):“wheretwolanguagesweresimilar,positivetransferwouldoccur;wheretheyweredifferent,negativetransfer,orinterference,wouldhappen”(Larsen&Long2000).Theunderlyingimplicationofthisstatementis:differencesbetweenthelearners’NLandTLwillbringaboutdifficultieswhichresultinerrors;yet,ontheotherhand,similaritiesbetweenthesetwolanguageswillfacilitatetheirsecondlanguagelearning.Consequently,errorsareregardedundesirableandincreasingattentionispaidtothepredicationofdifficulties.Ellis(1999)commentedinhisbook,bycomparingthelinguisticdifferencebetweenMotherandthetargetlanguage,ContrastiveAnalysis(CA)couldpredictexactlywhaterrorsthelanguagelearnersaregoingtomake.Heclaimedthatthroughsystematiccomparisonoflinguisticfeaturesoftwolanguages,similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesetwolanguagescanbedetermined,soastoprovidepredictionsofdifficultiesandexplanationsinlearner’sL2learning.yearslater,AccordingtoCarlJames(2001),theprocedureofCAinvolvesthreesteps:(1)theseparatedescriptionoftherelevantfeaturesofeachlanguage;(2)theestablishmentofcomparability;(3)thecomparisonandcontrast.AlthoughContrastiveAnalysisHypothesis(CAH)isnotfavoredasitwasbefore,itstillownscertainexplanatorypowerinSLAfield,tosomeextent.DespitethefactthatCAcouldn’tprovidealltheexplanationstotheerrorslanguagelearnersmade,itstillcanbeusedasapowerfultooltoexplainproblemsanderrors.InthisCAHwillbeadoptedtoanalyzethedifferencesandsimilaritiesofsyntacticstructuresamongL1(Tibetan),L2(Chinese)andlanguage(English)soastohelptheauthorexplaintheerrorsmadebyTibetanstudentsduringtheirEnglishlearning.ChallengesandcriticismsAsnotheoryinSLAisperfect,CAissoonfoundproblematicandbecomesdoubtfulinpeople’seyes.ThepredictingpowerofCAisnotaslargeasitisclaimedtobe.ManyerrorsoccurredunpredictedandsomeothererrorspredicteddonotThisconcretezkq 20151125factraisedgreatchallengetoCAadvocates.Asaresult,thestrongversionofCAwasabandonedandtheweakversionwasrevised,thelattermakesmorecautiousclaim:CAcouldmerelyexplainasubsetofactuallyattestederrorswhichresultfromMTinterference(James2001).Theexplanatorypoweroftheweakversionisusefulinidentifyingthesourceandcausesoferrors.Asaresult,thesocalleddiagnosticCAissoonincorporatedintoandreplacedbythelaterErrorAnalysis(EA),whichprovestoowngreaterexplanatorypowerascomparedwithCAwhiledealingwitherrorsmadebysecondlanguagelearners.Inaddition,since1980s,scholarsbegantoreconsiderandreevaluatethecontributionofCAinSLA.Therefore,CAtheoryinnewcategoriesremainsattractiveandparallelstoEAresearch(DaiandShu,1994).ErrorAnalysisAnintroductionoferroranalysisIn1970s,researchresultsproducedbymanyempiricalstudiesraisedincreasingchallengesandcriticismsagainstCA,andTGgrammar,anewconceptionpromotedbyAmericanpsycholinguistNoamdeliveredafatalblowtowardsCA.Peopleconsequentlybegantorealizethat“languageacquisitionwasnotaproductofhabitformationbutratheroneofruleformation”(LarsenFreeman&Long2000).H.D.Brown(1994)alsostatedthathumanlearningwasessentiallyaprocessduringwhicherror-makingcannotbestoppedorskipped.PeopleslowlycametoknowthatcommittingerrorsisinevitableinL2learning.Furthermore,moreandmorepeoplerealizethattheinterferenceofnativelanguage,orsocalledinterlingualinterferenceonlyaccountforasmallnumberoferrorsmadebyL2learnersandmanyothererrorscannotbetracedtothelearner’snativelanguage.Languagelearningoracquisitionisinfacttheproductofruleformationinsteadofhabitformation.Gradually,peopleaccepttheideathaterrorscanbeobserved,analyzedandevenclassified.ErrorAnalysis,asexpected,enjoystremendouspopularityin1970safterCA.FiveuniversallyacceptedproceduresofEAtheoryrelatedtothisresearcharepresentedasfollows.Definitionoferrors

zkq 20151125Differentlinguistspresentdifferentdefinitionstowardserrorbasedontheirownunderstanding.AccordingtoCorder(1967),“errorsoccurwhenthedeviationarisesasaresultoflackofknowledgeofalanguage(lackofcompetence);whilemistakesrefertoanyinaccuraciesinlinguisticproductionineithertheL1orL2thatarecausedbyfatigue,inattention,etc.,andthatareimmediatelycorrectablebythespeaker(orwriter).”HuZhuanglin(1988)claimedthaterrorsgenerallyrefertothoseerrorscausedbythelearner’smisuseormisunderstandingofthetargetlanguage,beitgrammaticalorpragmatic.DaiandShu(1994)definederroras“errorsrefertodeviationsraisedasaresultoflackofknowledgeofacertainlanguage”,whichissimilartoCorder’sdefinition.However,anotherdefinitionoferroris“anoticeabledeviationfromtheadultgrammarofanativespeaker,reflectingtheinterlanguagecompetenceofthelearner.”(Shu,2005)Somedefinitionsfromotherlinguistsaswellareshownasbellow:“Errorsaretheflawedsideoflearnerspeechorwriting.Theyarethosepartsofconversationorcompositionthatdeviatefromsomeselectednormofmaturelanguageperformance”(Dulayetal,1982).“Errorisalinguisticformorcombinationofforms,which,inthesamecontextandundersimilarconditionsofproductionwould,inalllikelihood,notbeproducedbythenativespeaker”(LennonPaul,1991)“Errorrefersgenerallytothelearners'misuseormisunderstandingofthetargetlanguage,mayitbegrammaticalorpragmatic”(Hu,1988)ClassificationoferrorsJames(2001)introducesthreelevelsoferrorswhendealingwiththeissueofclassificationoferrors,althoughdisputationsandcriticismsarouse,hisclassificationisstillconsideredasthemostacceptablewaytocategorizeerrors.AccordingtoJames(2001),therearethreecategoriesoferrorszkq20151125learner:substanceerrors,textcommittedbylanguageerrorsanddiscourseerrors,eachofwhichcanbefurtherputintosub-categories.Onsubstancelevel,therearethreesub-categoriesoferrors,namelywrongpunctuationinasentence,misspellingsofawordaswellasunderusedoroverusedcapitalization.Thesecondkindoferrors,errorsontextlevelalsohastwogeneraltwosub-categories:lexicalerrorsandgrammaticalerrors.Lexicalerrorsincludethoseerrorslikedistortions,malformations,misselections,collocationalerrorsandconfusionofsenserelations.Grammaticalerrorscontainmorphologicalerrorsandsyntacticerrors.Therearefivewordtypesconcerningmorphologicalerrors:noun,verb,pronoun,adjective,adverb,articleandpreposition;whilesyntacticerrorsreferstothoseerrorclauseerrors,sentenceerrorsandstructureerrorsrespectively.Asforthelastcategoryoferrorsondiscourselevel,threesub-categoriesareincluded:conjunctionerrors,referenceerrorsandcoherenceerrors.Notallpeopleagreewiththeparadigmabove,apartfromJames,otherlinguistslikeDulayandKrashen(1982)alsogivetheirownmethodconcerningtheclassificationoferrors.TheyintroducesfourgeneralcategoriesoferrorscorrespondingtoJames’classificationofthreecategories,thosefourcategoriesincludeomission,addition,malformation,disordering.Thiscategorizationisbasedonthedetaileddescriptionofsurfacepropertiesoferrorsmadebylanguagelearner.Fromapragmaticperspective,Khalil(1985)categorieserrorsbytakingtheirrolesincommunicationintoconsideration,accordingtohisclassification,morphologicalorsyntacticerrorsarenotbelabeledaserrorsaslongastheydonothinderorhamperthecommunicationbetweenlearnersandreaders.Manyotherlinguistsandlanguageresearchersalsoputforththeircriteriatoclassifyerrorsinsecondlanguagelearning;thereforetheauthorhastochooseamostreliableonewhichcanbeappliedtothepresentSinceJames’categorizationoferrorsishighlypraisedandacceptedbymostresearchersduetoitsclearnessandreliability,itisadoptedbytheauthorwhendealingwiththeclassificationoferrors.Explanationoferrorszkq20151125alsovaryfrompersontopersonastheissueofexplanationoferrorsisconcerned.(1986)stated,theoriginandrootoferrormaylieinthediscoursestructureormaybecausedbypsycholinguisticfactorsaswellassociolinguisticfactors.WhileAbbott(1980)considersittobeapsychologicalissue,whichinhiseyesamorereliableaccountforthecausesoftheerrorsinEADifferentscholarshaveidentifieddifferentpsycholinguisticsourcesoferrors.Richards(1971),proposedthreesourcesofintralingualerrors:i.e.1)overgeneralization(errorswhichderivefromtargetlanguagestructures),2)ignoranceofrulerestrictions(rulesbeingextendedtocontextswhereinTLusagetheydonotapply),and3)incompleteapplicationofrules(failuretofullydevelopastructure).Healsomentionedthatdevelopmentalerrorsderivefromfalseconceptshypothesized(i.e.errorswhichderivedfromfaultyunderstandingofTLdistinction).Hisclassificationhassignificantandlong-lastingimpactonlinguisticsaswellaslanguagelearningandteaching.WhileJames(2001)putforthfourgeneralcategoriesoflearner’s errors:1)Interlingualerrorsderivingfrommother-tongueinfluence;2)Intralingualerrorsderivingfromtargetlanguage;3)Communicationstrategy-basederrors;4)Inducederrors.Actually,thereisstillnoconsensusofopinionsamongresearchersaboutthetypesoferrorsources.However,twosourcesoflearnererrorsarewidelyacceptedbyresearchersinSLA:interlingualerrorsandintralingualerrors.Therefore,errorsinthepresentstudywillbediscussedaccordingtothisparadigm.Generally,InterlingualerrorsareerrorscausedbyNegativeTransferfromlearner’snativelanguage.Asismentionedinpreviouschapter,fortheContrastiveAnalysisalllearnererrorswerethoughttobecausedbyNegativeAlthoughthisstatementwaslatercriticizedandchallenged,theinterferenceofNativelanguagetoLanguagecannotbetotallydeniedandrejected.Intralingualerrors,ontheotherhand,arethoughttobecausedbylearners’ignoranceofTLrules.AccordingtoTurton(1989),intralingualerrorsincludethefollowingfourcategories:overgeneralization,ignoranceofrulerestrictions,incompleteapplicationofrulesandfalseconceptshypothesized.EvaluationoferrorsErrorevaluationis,tosomedegreedependentonwhothejudgesare,whattypesorkindsoferrorstheyjudgeandhowtheyjudgethem.Theresultsoferrorevaluationvarywithdifferentjudges,whocanbenativespeakers(NSs)ornon-nativespeakers(NNSs),aswellas‘expert’(i.e.languageteachers)or‘non-expert’.TheerrorsevaluatedcovervariousaspectsofEnglish,fromsemanticproblemstolexicalproblems,differentgrammaticalfeatures,aswellasspelling.AccordingtoEllis(2008),errorevaluationstudiesfocusonthreemainresearchquestions:1)aresomeerrorsjudgedtobemoreproblematicthanotherones?2)doesthereexisttremendousdifferenceintheevaluationsmadebyNSsandNNSs?and3)whatcriteriadojudgesadoptinevaluatinglearners’errors?Inordertoprovideascientificmethodtoevaluateandassesserrors,differentcriteriainaccessingerrorgravityhavebeendevisedandproposed.Khalil(1985)putforththreegeneralcriteria:1)intelligibility,whichmainlyconcernstheextenttowhichsentencescontainingdifferenttypesoferrorscanbecomprehended;2)acceptability,whichinvolvesjudgmentsofthedegreeofseriousnessofanerror;3)seriousness,whichconcernsnotonlytheemotionalresponseofanaddresseebutalsothefrequencyoferrors.However,Ellis(2008)cameupwiththeproblemthatitisnotatallclearwhatspecificcriteriathejudgesmayadoptwhenaskedtoassessthe‘seriousness’,‘intelligibility’and‘acceptability’ofanInspiteofthefactthattherearestilllotsofargumentandcriticismsabouttheabovefiveprocedures,theyarewidelyacceptedandadoptedinempiricalstudiesoferrors.Thepresentpaperwillalsofollowthesefiveprocedures.LanguageSince1950s,languagetransferorsocalledcross-linguisticinfluenceinerroranalysishasbeenoneofthehottestargumentsinthestudyofsecondlanguagelearning.Manyfamouslinguistsandresearchersmakecontributionsinresolvingthisissue.Consequently,manyvaluablefindingsconcerninglanguagetransferanditsroleinunderstandinglearners’errorsareobtainedduetovariousresearcheswhichhavebeendonebothathomeandabroad.ThedefinitionoflanguagetransferAccordingtoOdlin(2001),transferistheinfluenceresultingfromsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweennativelanguageandanotherlanguageorlanguageshelearns.TherearetwotypesofLanguageTransfer:positivetransferandnegativetransfer.Inopinion,positivetransfertakesplacewhenthecharacteristicsofMotheraresimilaroralmostthesametothoseofTL;however,negativetransferoccurswhenthecharacteristicsofMotheraredifferentfromthoseofTL.Positiv