DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF ABDLHAMID IBN BADIS MOSTAGANEM
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

MASTER
Applied Linguistics

The Effect of the Mother Tongue Interference on EFL

Learners’ Written Production
The case of 1st year LMD Students of English at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis
University of Mostaganem

Presented by:
Kheddadi Nesrine Chaimaa

Board of Examiners:
Chairperson: M.s Kharoubi M. University of Mostaganem
Examiner: Ms. Sarnou H. University of Mostaganem
Supervisor: Ms. Benaouda S. University of Mostaganem

Academic Year: 2016-2017

 Dedications
At the end of this work, i would like to thank Allah for giving me the courage to carry through
this project. I dedicate this humble work to;

My beloved parents; Mohamed and Karima for their incomparable love, encouragement,
moral and financial support.

My dear brother; Abdeldjalil.

My lovely sisters; Rihab, Faiza and Anfal.

My dearest aunt; Asma.

My kindest uncle; Benaouda.

To all the members of my family ″ kheddadi &bendjebbar″.

My best friends; Khadija, Amina and Houda.

I
 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Allah who helped me finish this simple work. My sincere gratitude goes
to;

Ms. Benaouda.S; my teacher and supervisor for her, comprehension, helpful suggestion,
invaluable guidance and advices.

The members of the jury D.r Sarnou .H and Ms. Kharoubi. M for being so kind to read and
examine my study.

First year students and teachers; for their contribution in this work.

My beloved parents.

My dearest Amina for her moral support.

II
 Abstract

The issue of language interference has become more and more popular, especially in
foreign language classroom. English as a foreign language learners used their first language as
a tool to learn the target one. Thus, achieving a satisfactory level in English writing is the
primary objective of both teachers and students. However, the majority of first year students
are unable to reach this objective, because they commit different errors when writing. The
current study aims at identifying the impact of first language among first year university
students’ writing at the Department of English; Abdelhamid Ibn Badis, university of
Mostaganem, in order to answer the research question; how does the mother tongue affect
first year students’ writing?, and confirm or reject the hypothesis; the mother tongue
interference affect students’ writing negatively. For that purpose, the mixed methods were
adopted; data were gathered via two questionnaires administered to 25 students and 15
teachers of written expression module at The English Department, in order to survey their
opinions about the influence of the mother tongue on English writing, in addition to fourteen
(14) short paragraphs that have been collected for an errors analysis. The tools have been used
to confirm the results obtained in this study. The results have shown that first year EFL
students commit different types of errors, due to two reasons which are interlingual and
intralingual. However, most of the errors occur in the learners’ productions are mainly due to
their mother tongue (Arabic) interference. On the light of this result, the earlier stated
hypothesis is successfully confirmed.

Key words: Foreign language, mother tongue, native language, target language, language
transfer, language Interference.

III
 Table of Contents
Dedications ………………………………………………………………………………….…I

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………II

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….…III

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………..…IV

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………... VI

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………….. VII

General Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…1

Chapter One: Approaches to Teaching Writing

1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...…5

1.2 The Status of English in the Algerian Educational System……………………………..…5

1.3 Background of Teaching Writing…………………………………………………….……8

1.4 Characteristics of the Main Approaches to Teaching Writing……………………………10

1.4.1 The Controlled to Free Approach………………………………………………….…10

1.5.1 The Free Writing Approach……………………………………………………..……12

1.6.1 The Product Oriented Approach…………………………………………………...…13

1.7.1 The Process Oriented Approach…………………………………………………...…14

1.8.1 The Genre Approach…………………………………………………………….……17

1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..…19

Chapter Two: The Impact of L1 Interference

2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….……21

2.1.1 Language Transfer and the Impact of L1 Interference…………………………….……21

2.1.2 Language Transfer Theories and Views……………………………………………..…22

a. Behaviorist View of Transfer…………………………………………………………22

b. Mentalist View of Transfer………………………………………………………...…23
c. Cognitive View of Transfer………………………………………………………..…23

2.1.3 Types of Transfer…………………………………………………………………….…24

a) Positive Transfer……………………………………………………………………...24

IV
 b) Negative Transfer…………………………………………………………………..…25
c) Cross -Linguistic Influence………………………………………………………...…26

2.2 Theories on Errors of EFL Learners……………………………………………………...26

2.2.1 Contrastive Analysis……………………………………………………………………26

2.2.2 Errors Analysis……………………………………………………………………….…28

2.3 Sources of Students’ Errors in Writing……………………………………………..…….29

a. Interlingual……………………………………………………………………………29
b. Intralingual……………………………………………………………………………30

2.4 The Influence of the Mother Tongue on English Writing…………………………...……31

2.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……33

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….…35

3.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………...…35

3.2.1 Research Instrument……………………………………………………………….…36

3.2.1.1 Population……………………………………………………………………….…36

3.2.1.2 Students’ Questionnaire……………………………………………………………36

3.2.1.3 Results of Students’ Questionnaire……………………………………………...…41

3.2.1.4 Teachers’ Questionnaire………………………………………………………...…42

3.2.1.5 Results of Teachers’ questionnaire……………………………………………...…48

3.2.1.6 The Carpus Manual Analysis………………………………………………………48

3.2.1.7 Results of Students’ Short Paragraphs…………………………………………..…51

3.3 Findings and Results………………………………………………………………...……52

3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……53

General Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...54

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..56

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………58

V
 List of Tables
Table 3.1 Learners’ Level……………………………………………………………………38

Table 3.2 Motivation…………………………………………………………………………38

Table 3.3 Reading Frequency………………………………………………………………...38

Table 3.4 Students’ Opinions about their English Production…………………………….…39

Table 3.5 Writing Frequency…………………………………………………………………39

Table 3.6 Writing Difficulties……………………………………………………………..…39

Table 3.7 Students’ Feeling while Writing…………………………………………………..39

Table 3.8 Teachers’ permission about The Use of L1…………………………………….…40

Table 3.9 Thinking in Arabic to Write English Production……………………………….…40

Table 3.10 Ideas Translation…………………………………………………………………41

Table 3.11 Students’ Opinion about Writing Obstacles…………………………………...…41

Table 3.12 Students’ Opinion about the Influence of L1………………………………….…41

Table 3.13 Written Expression Program……………………………………………………..43

Table 3.14 Teachers’ Permission about the Use of Arabic in the Classroom……………..…44

Table 3.15 Approaches to Teaching Writing………………………………………………...44

Table 3.16 Students’ Writing Problem…………………………………………………….…45

Table 3.17 Reasons behind Students’ Writing Difficulties……………………………….….46

Table 3.18 Teachers’ Opinion about Students’ Errors……………………………………….46

Table 3.19 Teachers’ Opinion about the Reasons behind Learners’ Errors………………….46

Table 3.20 Errors Frequency………………………………………………………………....47

Table 3.21 Students’ Errors……………………………………………………………….….49

Table 3.22 Errors Frequency…………………………………………………………………51

VI
 List of Abbreviations
EFL: English as a Foreign Language.

ESL: English as a Second language.

FL: Foreign Language.

L1: First Language.

MT: Mother Tongue.

NT: Native Language.

TL: Target Language.

ELT: English Language Teaching.

LMD: Licence/Masters/Doctorate.

CA: Contrastive Analysis.

EA: Error Analysis.

CLI: Cross-Linguistic Influence.

VII
 General Introduction

Learning a foreign language is considered as a complex process, because it is different

from a learner’s native language. The difference between the two languages (a foreign
language and a native one) makes the learner face a great difficulty in learning and applying
foreign language rules. Thus, it is believed that the learner uses his/her mother tongue in
learning a foreign language to reduce this difficulty. Unfortunately, EFL learners apply their
first language rules to learn foreign language ones, which makes them commit different errors
in their foreign language speaking or writing activities. The mother tongue interference is one
of the main factors that affect the foreign language. Especially, when it comes to writing
which is considered as extremely complex cognitive activity to be mastered by EFL learners.
There have been several studies in the literature reporting that EFL learners rely on their
native language in the process of writing in English. Many scholars were interested in the
study of this field such as (Lado, 1957; Corder, 1983; Benson, 2002; Cedar, 2004).

The issue of language interference was observed among first year students. Thus, the
main aim of this study is to analyze, and identify the impact of the mother tongue on writing
in English as a foreign language. Furthermore, to explore the common errors made by EFL
learners at Mostaganem University in their written production. In order to check whether or
not they are influenced by their mother tongue (Arabic), when they write in English. More
specifically, to try to help students become skillful English writers by identifying the causes
and sources of errors.
During the learning process of foreign language, the EFL students use their first
language as a facilitating tool and medium to learn it. The mother tongue interference is one
of the fundamental difficulties committed by learners of foreign languages. Most of the
students rely on the use of their native language, while they try to improve their skills in a
foreign language including; listening, speaking, reading and writing. This study focuses on
the writing skill, to discover the level of the impact of students’ native language on their
English writing. It is believed that the suitable way to test to what extent do EFL students
depend on their native language, is to ask them to speak or write in the target language. The
latter has always represented a unique challenge for EFL students. Through the analysis of
students’ written production, it can be discovered if the errors made by them are due to
language transfer or not. Thus, the present study seeks to find convincing answers to the
following research questions
 How does the mother tongue affect first year students’ writing?
1
  Is the mother tongue interference major cause for errors in the English writings of first
year EFL students?
 How can first year students improve their writing with less mother tongue
interference?

On the basis of the above research questions, this study assumes three hypotheses; the
answer to the first questions is that mother tongue interference affect students’ writing
negatively, which leads them to make poor writing production. Moreover, the second
hypothesis is that the low achievement of the EFL learners’ writing performance is due to the
interference of their mother tongue, which leads them to make serious errors in their written
productions. The answer to the last questions is that first year students should taught how to
think in English, and avoid doing mental translation, if they do not make L1 interference;
therefore, their writing will be greatly improved.
The current study employs a mixed method design which includes both quantitative
and qualitative research methods, to provide a much more detailed and comprehensive results.
This study tries to describe the influence of the mother tongue on first year students’ English
writing. Concerning data collection, this research is based on two main research tools which
are a questionnaire devoted to both learners and teachers, and the analysis of the written
products (short paragraphs), that are produced by first year LMD students of English at
Mostaganem University, during the academic year 2016/2017. Using these two tools in order
to facilitate gathering information about teachers, and students’ point of view about the
impact of L1 on foreign language writing. Indeed, the analysis of written paragraphs is so
helpful to discover the errors with its causes and sources. This study is carried out with a
group of 25 students consisting of 8 males and 17 females, aged between 17 to 21 years old,
all of them were native Arabic speakers. The teachers who contribute the sample equals 15
teachers, all of them teach written expression.
The present research will be basically divided into three main chapters. Chapters one
and two will be devoted to the theoretical parts of this study. The third chapter concerns the
the practical part, which includes the data analysis of both teachers and students’
questionnaire and students’ short paragraphs. The first chapter is devoted to the description of
the writing skill in general; it intends to explain the status of English in the Algerian
educational system, then it aims to highlight the background of teaching writing. Moreover, it
tries to present the different approaches to teaching writing.

2
 The second chapter focuses on essential theories of foreign language learners’ errors;
it deals with the linguistic errors that may affect students’ writing productions. Including;
language interference, error analysis and constructive analysis. It will be divided into two
main parts; the first part provides some information about language transfer, language transfer
theories and views, and types of transfer. The second part highlights the notion of error
analysis, in addition to contrastive analysis, and the main reasons for learners’ errors, which
are interlingual and intralingual. Lastly, the chapter will close with brief explanation of the
interference of Arabic on English writing.

Finally the last chapter is purely concerned with analyzing and interpreting data
gathered from both the analysis of the short paragraphs, and questionnaire. It is divided into
two main parts; the first part is concerned with the description of the research methodology,
research instruments, and population. The second part introduces data analysis which is
gathered from the tools used, and it concludes with the findings and results.

3
 Chapter One
Approaches to Teaching Writing
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

1.1 Introduction

Learning any foreign language requires learners to master the four skills of the target
language. English language teachers frequently follow a certain order in teaching the skills of
language; starting with listening, speaking, reading and writing. The latter is considered as the
most challenging aspect of language learning. Bacon (1605) emphasizes the importance of
writing when he states ″writing makes an exact men ″. Thus, writing is a basic skill in
language learning, it is a form of expression and communication which enables learners to
Communicate ideas, feelings, and different attitudes in a written mode. Unlike the other skills,
writing cannot be left to itself or just naturally acquired, it should consciously taught and
learnt by doing, practising, improving. Every learner has different writing needs depending on
the level and the purpose of his or her writing. Indeed, he has to make a considerable effort to
reach an acceptable level in writing.

Teaching writing has been a central element in education, this interest leads to the
emergence of different approaches to enhance learners’ level in writing and help teachers in
choosing the most effective one for their writing lessons, to suit the learners’ needs. This
chapter is devoted to the description of the writing skill in general; it intends to explain the
status of English in the Algerian educational system, then it aims to highlight the background
of teaching writing. Moreover, it attempts to present the different approaches to teaching
writing.

1.2 The Status of English in the Algerian Educational System

Algeria is an African diglossic country with one official language that of the Modern
Standard Arabic (MSA) and more than two foreign languages: French, English, and Spanish.
It is a country whose educational contributions, and all interests are in how to improve these
foreign languages particularly English, so as to prove its position as a powerful and important
country cross the world.

Nowadays, the necessity to know languages is increasingly recognized, as the world

joins together in a ‘global village’ , taking into account that the role of English in this ever –
shrinking global community is becoming increasingly important. Graddol (2000) states that
″some 1.5 billion people worldwide have English as a first or second language or are
currently studying English as a foreign language″. English is the most common medium used
in the world and a sort of universal language. Broughton (1978, p 1) defines it as ″ the major
world language ″. Thus, it is the national language of many countries in the world, even in the

5
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

ones where it is not, it is considered as the first or second foreign language taught at schools
as well as in universities as Egypt and Algeria.

English has become a lingua franca (ELF) henceforth), it is defined functionally by its
users in intercultural communication, 'English as a global language' (Crystal, 2003;
Gnutvzmann, 1999)) and 'English as an international language'( Bruut-Griffler, 2002), EIL
becomes influencing force everywhere across the world, and a useful language among many
European languages, many governments have adopted various policies that promote ELT
and Algeria is no exception. The use of English touches nearly all domains of life in all
countries of the world. The study of English is becoming a must for all learners without
exception. Great importance is given to the study of this language in the Algerian educational
system; its integration in the curriculum has helped to increase the number of its users who
have become aware of the importance of this language so as to comply with the changes
taking place in all fields of life. In this context Hamdi (1990, p 13) says that:

″the Algerian authorities are aware of that fundamental need for English, at a time
when Algeria may be called upon to play a leading role in international affairs; we
have only to examine the shift from French to English as a subject in the educational
curriculum, or the ever-increasing number of students registering in the English
departments of universities.″

English Language Teaching (ELT) in Algeria was denied and considered insignificant
before the independence in comparison with French. Because the French language was taught
in schools as the second language due to the consequences of the French occupation in
Algeria, which took a long time from 1830 till 1962, French became an official language in
the Algerian institutions. Andrew Freeman (1961, p 1) confirms what has been said about
French as SL in the following quotation « The French, in Algeria, between 1830 and 1962;
tried actively to suppress Arabic". He means that The French influence resulted in many
different levels and mainly the linguistic level.

Prior to independence and after the 1990s, a new revolution came to the surface and
the Algerian authorities started new relations with the United States of America (USA), to
give some importance to English as an essential medium, to be integrated in the Algerian
schools (Arab World English Journal). The Algerian educational leaders started to enhance
and hold tightly English as a foreign language ( EFL), and shifting from traditional methods
to modern ones to say to the world that we are able, as a multilingual developing country, to

6
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

learn EFL as major and significant as French in our schools and universities and then be
present everywhere across the globe.

Presently, English is considered as a foreign language that is offered as a required

subject at all levels of university education. In order to understand and recognize that the
efficiency of English language development, in the Algerian educational and university
systems, paves the way for learners to take part in the globalization . The government has
made a huge effort to change the ELT policy and some changes were made in the 1990s.

Due to these facts of the current situation of English, the Algerian government decides
to go through changes in various fields to hold and improve this global language in higher
studies. Among these changes are implementation of policies made in education related to
new approaches, and systems that were brought to the Algerian institutions such as LMD
System in universities and competency based approach (CBA henceforth) in primary, middle
and secondary schools.

The Competency Based Approach (CBA) is one of the current methodologies that can
be described as an extension of communicative language teaching movement (Richard, 2003).
The application of the principles of this approach to language teaching is called Competency
Based Language Teaching (CBLT). CBLT approach has been brought to the Algerian schools
in 2002, as a new approach and a part of reform in the primary, middle and secondary school
levels. Its principle is to develop language, which is considered as a means for acquiring
information, solving linguistic and non-linguistic problems such as real life problems, and
help the learners within these parameters, acquire and use the language in social and realistic
situations. Richards and Schmidt (2002,p 94) define Competency Based Approach as,

“An approach to teaching that focuses on teaching the skills and behaviors needed
To perform COMPETENCES. Competences refer to the student’s ability to apply
Different kinds of basic skills in situations that are commonly encountered in every
Day life.”
The authors show that Competency Based Education is based on a set of outcomes that
are derived from an analysis of tasks, in which learners are typically required to perform real -
life situations. This approach focuses on the language as a function of communication about
concrete tasks (context) instead of the structures (grammatical or phonological structure). The
competency-based approach has been chosen by the Algerian educators to help the learners

7
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

become communicatively competent and they consider the learner as an important factor to
reach this objective.
In addition to the CBA, The ministry of higher education and scientific research has
introduced a new system called the LMD (Licence/Masters/Doctorate) that had among other
aims to meet the global needs. The LMD system was brought to the Algerian universities in
2003 to continue the correctness of teaching English. It aims to examines, evaluates and
improves the way the teachers and learners are following now to better and develop the
English language. In fact, it plays a key role in defining the ways and means to teach study
and evaluate differently in higher education. This system has been introduced to make a
transition in syllabuses and curriculum development, in order to reduce and overcome the
EFL learners’ difficulties and obstacles, and make English teaching and learning successful.
It is acknowledged that English is being treated as a world language because of its vast
presence all over the world, and it occupies a high rank as a global language. No one from the
Algerian schools and universities is free from English language, because it is seen as a
window to the other cultures and civilizations. The Algerian educational system has put great
emphasis on the importance of teaching English and in particular on writing skill, so as to
prepare competent learners to interact accurately and fluently with the external world and to
cope with the new realities of globalization. The majority of the Algerian EFL learners still
show serious deficiencies in learning English language skills, in general and in written
performance in particular. Learning to write correctly seems to be a complex and challenging
activity to achieve and manage by most of the Algerian students. This difficulty complicates
the role of instructors in teaching this skill. Writing instruction involves different challenges
resulted from different perspectives. These challenges are related to various factors, the most
common one is the influence of the mother tongue. Unfortunately, the majority of Algerian
EFL learners have negative attitudes toward writing in English; thus, they could not reach the
level of proficiency.

1.3 Background of Teaching Writing

Writing traditionally received less attention in foreign language education. A review of

the history of second and foreign language teaching reveals that language teaching is an old
profession, teaching second / foreign language writing is comparatively a new venture. It was
not very interesting until the last 20 or 30 years, that serious efforts were made to study
second / foreign language writing. For a long time, the emphasis of foreign language class
was given primarily to the study of its lexicon and grammar. This practice might be justified

8
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

since the goal of language teaching at that time was to learn language in order to read its
literature or to benefit from the mental discipline and intellectual development (Richard and
Rodgers, 2001, p.5). Student was not expected to communicate either orally or in its written
form in the target language. Written exercises were designed to integrate vocabulary and
grammar or to test students’ reading comprehension.

During the 1950s, the pedagogy of ESL classes was dominated by the audio lingual
method (ALM) which focuses on oral proficiency. Writing on the other hand, was recognized
as the most poorly understood skill (Terry, 1989, p. 43).Writing was a neglected skill; it was
argued that language is most important in its spoken form and less important in the written
one. For this reason, writing was not given much attention and was only seen as a means of
reinforcing and consolidating language patterns (Fujieda, 2006). Therefore, when writing was
first included in teaching curricula, it was viewed as a simple reinforcement of what students
learned to say, the emphasis was not on the understanding of words, but rather on the
acquisition of structures and language patterns.

By the 1960s, a number of non-native speaking students began to appear in institutions

of higher education. The need to provide these students with a solid writing skill to succeed in
their education became obvious. At this stage L1 (first language) composition instructors
recognize major differences in writing between L1 and L2 learners. As a result the emphasis
of teaching English language beyond the writing skill began to develop, and writing courses
were introduced in English programs that provide language training to non-native speaking
students. Writing obtained much importance and was considered central in the language
learning context, its understanding and use became largely valued in every discipline.
The late 1970s and early 1980s, saw an increasing awareness of the need for learners
of English as a second language to write extensive discourse in the target language. In
response to this situation, writing activities that aimed at providing students with some free
writing experience began to appear in English as second language class. The ESL writing
observed real changes with the appearance of the process revolution. The focus was no longer
on the written product. For Zamel (1982, p 565) ″ writing was reconceptualized as the
process of discovering meaning ″. Cognitive factors influenced the stages of this process
where the writer engage on recursive mental stages identified in three broad stages: planning,
formulating and revising. These features are found in most contemporary ESL studies as well
as first language teaching. The central interest of the process approach clearly lies on the
cognitive steps that writers go through when they write.

9
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

For many years, teaching writing was neglected because the primary focus was given
to the spoken form, but from the 1950s until the 1990s, there was a new awareness of social
aspects of writing. In other words; writers became more conscious of the social goals. Several
approaches were suggested by scholars at that time. That is why teaching writing can take
different directions, to help teachers evaluate the curriculum in written sessions, and make
them aware to decide which approach is suitable to apply inside and outside classroom for
writing activities. In the light of this explanation the followed production will describe the
different approaches to teaching writing. Scholars insisted that teaching writing to non-native
speakers’ learners ESL/EFL should take into consideration global needs as well as their
linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

1.4 Characteristics of the Main Approaches to Teaching Writing

Teaching writing is considered as one of the most difficult tasks in teaching foreign
language, requiring many years of experience. It has been a central element in education, and
this interest in writing as a skill, leads to the emergence of different conflicting views,
concerning the most effective approach of teaching FL writing. Therefore, many EFL
teachers, researchers and specialists have been searching to come up with the successful and
effective approaches which positively impact the learning process. Moreover, Zamel (1985, p
32) insists that ″good writers are those who are ready to compose and express their ideas
using strategies similar to those of natives speakers of English ″. So, teachers should apply
different approaches that suit the learners’ needs whether to make them produce, process,
create or work cooperatively. Some approaches are seen to be the prevailing ones in teaching
writing as: the controlled-to-free approach, the free-writing approach, the product oriented
approach, the process oriented approach, and the genre approach. The next title will describe
all these approaches.

1.4.1 The Controlled-To-Free Approach

The dominance of the audio-lingual method on second language writing in the 1950’s
and early 1960’s led to the emergence of this approach. Controlled writing is also known as
guided writing; it has been looked as a tradition for a long time in English as second/foreign
language classrooms, and still considered as an effective tool which focuses on imitations and
repetitions. Writing was taught just to reinforce speech; it was believed that the mastery of
grammatical rules could lead to the improvement of the foreign language, especially in its

10
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

spoken form. For this reason the teaching of grammar in the time allocated to writing
encouraged, and the method known as controlled-to-free emerged.

Indeed, in this approach students are provided with pieces of writing such as sentences
or paragraphs, and are asked to make some grammatical changes such as; using the present
tense instead of the past or the plural instead of the singular, to transform questions to
statements or vice versa. This kind of exercise helps the learners write frequently and gives
them the opportunity to produce their own writings without mistakes, because their
productions are completely controlled (Hyland, 2003). Only after having achieved this first
type of highly controlled-writing, the students can move to free compositions in which they
express their own ideas.

There are exercises where the students are provided with all or some of the language
they need. The learners are asked to produce a paragraph on the basis of the topic given by the
teacher, for instance describing a best friend encouraged the use of the adverbs, adjectives,
and transitions. The change from controlled-to free writing developed gradually as the
teacher’s guidance declines from the first exercise to the last.

When commenting on the development of students’ writing (Abbot and P. wingard

,1992 p. 228) pointed out that: ″the important things are to adjust the exercise to the class so
as to strike the right balance between predictability and unpredictability″. Particularly, when
leading the students in the course of an exercise. It is obligatory to provide them with
meaningful amount of information, because without clarification of an anticipation in free
work; the risk of confusion will be occurred.

Possibly, one of the most dominant features of the controlled – to free approach is that
focuses on accuracy rather than fluency or originality. It emphasizes the structural side of the
language and neglects its communicative one. As Raimes (1983, p 76) mentions that ″ this
approach stresses three features: grammar syntax and mechanics ″. Using controlled to free
writing for teaching composition to EFL learners is considered as an efficient instrument.
Since it is a useful tool for teaching composition at different levels of English proficiency,
especially beginners learners of English who are completely new to the language. In addition,
it allows learners to watch their progress within certain limits. Moreover, using controlled
writing can be prepared and corrected immediately which decreases the load on the teacher.

11
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

1.4.2 The Free-Writing Approach

The free-writing approach is depends basically on the concept that when the students
write freely and frequently, their ability in that language skill will be improved. According to
Elbow and Belanoff (2000) ″free writing is defined as writing any ideas and thoughts that
come to the mind in a given time period without stopping″. What characterized this approach
is that it is emphasized on the content and fluency rather than the form and accuracy.
Moreover Raimes (1983) states that once ideas are down on the paper, grammatical accuracy,
organization and the rest will gradually follow. Free writing is of two types: either the student
answers a question or he proposes a topic.

This approach promotes the students to write as much as possible without caring about
grammar and spelling mistakes, they write freely without teacher’s interference. The teachers
see their role as simply to provide students with the space to make their meaning. Hence, they
try to avoid their views, offering models, suggestions to topics beforehand (Weigle, 2002). In
contrast to the controlled to free approach, teacher’s role limited to reading the student’s
productions and sometimes commenting on the ideas expressed on the paper without making
formal correction because he gives his instructions at the beginning of the exercise and allows
the students to write freely.

Appropriately, the students are also encouraged to practice their writing according to
the need of the audience. The students are free to choose their own topics and write about
them. On the other hand, some students may be volunteer to read their own writings aloud to
the class, so, they improve a sense of the audience. Furthermore, they become aware of the
reader to whom the piece of writing is addressed, and consequently they can produce effective
writing. Concisely, the content and the audience are seen as a key element in this approach.

Byrme states that the students feel that they are actually writing not only performing
exercise of some kind, they write what they want to write and consequently writing is an
enjoyable experience (1988, p 22). It is viewed that the defenders of this approach are
interested in the quantity rather than the quality. The freedom that the students have in the
choice of their topics can be an essential stimulus for motivation. It is much easier for
students to produce successful composition when they know about the subject they are
developing.

12
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

1.4.3 The Product Oriented Approach

The product oriented approach also called text focused approach and prose model
approach, which is based on the final product of the learners. It gives priority to classroom
activities in which students are asked to imitate, copy, and transform model, texts indicated by
the teacher. Particularly, the product approach improves the students’ awareness of the texts
features because its origins from the traditions of rhetoric, and its study focused on the model
texts. The product approach consists of an analysis of students’ writing for evaluating their
efforts including strengths and weaknesses. Meaning that, accuracy is the essential interest of
this approach. Indeed, it attempts to make the student familiarized with the conventions of
writing through a model, before he gets his final draft. (Nemouchi, 2008).

It is viewed that the primary focus of this approach is on mastering the linguistic
aspects of texts without paying attention to implicit meanings. Hyland (2003) insists that the
product approach based on the form of texts, and gives too much attention to the correct
structures of the language and the meaning of the texts. The product approach consists of four
main stages as mentioned by Hyland (2003, p 3-4) as follows:

i. Familiarization: learners are taught certain grammar and vocabulary, usually through a
text.
ii. Controlled writing: learners manipulate fixed patterns, often from substitution tables.
iii. Guided writing: learners imitate model texts.
iv. Free writing: learners use the patterns they have developed to write an essay letter, and
so forth.

In fact, the four main stages of the product approach are very important; indeed it
needs to be followed by the students. It is viewed that in the first stage, students will learn
some grammatical rules and specific vocabulary from a text that are supplied by the teacher.
Furthermore, in the second stage, the teacher should engage the students with the task by
giving them an incomplete text, and ask them to add the missing sentences in which they
apply the previous learned patterns. Regarding the third stage, the teacher may lead his
students by asking them to write a piece of writing based on imitating the teachers’ model.
Finally, the students can write free paragraphs or essays in order to use grammatical structures
and patterns that have been previously learned.

13
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

The pattern-product writing approach is generally approved by English writing

teachers, because they have found many advantages in it for the writing classroom. It is
observed, that the students learn how to write in English composition regularly by using the
pattern- product strategies, they also learn how to use vocabulary and sentence structures for
each type of rhetorical pattern appropriately. The finally product based writing helps teachers
raise EFL students’ writing awareness, especially in grammatical structures.

Nevertheless, the model based approach was criticized by many scholars, and
specialists of the field such as Escholz (1980) who mentions that “models tend to be too long
and too remote from the students’ own writing problems”. He argued that such detailed
logical work encourages students to see the form in which the content is somehow poor .The
product approach gives no chance for the students to create. Moreover, it does not give
importance to writing steps which concern as the most important elements in writing. In this
approach writing gives little attention to audience and the writing purpose, since learners and
teachers tend to focus on the importance of grammar, syntax and mechanics. The lack of
motivation will raised in learning, and have high pressure in creating their writing tasks as
their teachers, most of the time emphasize on the accuracy of language structure.

The product approach focuses on the end rather than the content, as is reported by
Nunan (1989, p 36)) ″ the teacher who adopts product-approach makes sure that the end
product is grammatically correct″; i.e. it focuses on the form and structure of writing rather
than how writers create writing which has form and structure. Meaning that, effective writer
are ignored, that is why new approach to teaching writing has emerged. This approach deals
with those processes rather than the product itself. Before the emergence of the
communicative approach language teaching was concerned with pre-specified objectives for
the learners. Their needs were accurately identified, and the syllabus designers had to supply
the means that would enable these needs to be realized. Therefore, from the past the teaching
of writing was language focused, and Writing was viewed as secondary and priority was
given to speaking, the emphasis was on correctness and coping models.

1.4.4 The Process Oriented Approach

Learning to write is a process which entails a series of steps writers go through to

arrive at the final product .The process writing arose in the late 1960s and the early 1970s as a
reaction against the dominance of the product approach. On the contrary to the product
approach, the process approach central concern is no longer on the finished product, rather

14
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

than, it is on the stages that compose the act of writing. The primary goal of the writing
process, therefore, is to meet students’ needs for writing make students aware of, and gain
control over the cognitive strategies involved in writing.

The teachers’ role is to help students develop viable strategies for getting started.
These common strategies are setting goals, generating ideas, organizing, drafting, revising
and writing. On its face, it seems to be complex activities, yet it is necessary for students to go
through them in order to produce a good piece of writing. Silva (1993) mentions the strategies
that the students should follow are ″finding the topics, generating ideas and information,
focusing and planning the structure and procedure ″. Meaning that, generate ideas for
writing, plan these ideas take into account the type of audience, draft and redraft in order to
produce a final written paper that is capable enough to communicate their own ideas.
Moreover, teachers should play the role of facilitators rather than evaluators, guiding and
helping students to develop those strategies with easiness.

Hence, the process approach is usually considered as a positive change which helps
both teachers and students to interact more meaningfully with a purpose in mind when
writing, i.e. Why do we write? And to whom do we write? Furthermore, it is necessary to
make students aware of how to get started by encouraging them to start think, and produce
ideas. Indeed, allowing time for the process is important as well as feedback, so that students
can discover new ideas, sentences and words. As they plan and work through the initial drafts,
this shows that the process writing is a way of creating, discovering and extending meaning
Tsui (1996).

Clearly, it is essential for any student to use the process approach to realize that what
he considers as a final product is just a beginning in the process of writing. Particularly he
must always keep in mind that it is important to go via different steps like finding new ideas
or new sentences and revising before writing. Additionally, the learner in this approach is not
expected to write on a given topic in a limited time, waiting for the teacher to correct his
paper. He rather writes a first draft, shows it to the teacher or to another student, reads it
again, develops it and reconsiders on it before writing the final draft. In short, they follow
what is called ″ the writing process ″. In other words, for this approaches no text can be ideal,
but that one get closer to perfection by producing, reflecting on discussing and reworking
successive drafts of text. (Nemouchi, 2008).

15
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

A number of specialists and scholars were interested in the study of this approach such
as Harmer (2001). He observes that in using this approach teachers are ″spending time with
learners on pre-writing phases, editing, redrafting and finally publishing their work″. The
process approach aims’ is to get to the heart of the various skills that should be employed
when writing. As for Harmer the process approach is distinguished by four main phases that
any learner emphasizes on, to write an efficient piece of writing, those stages can explained as
following ; prewriting is the stage in which the learner brain storm his ideas about a certain
topic, in the drafting stage the learner order those ideas, and begin to write his first draft then,
the students can make connection among each other or with the teacher to discuss, and change
his piece of drafting in order to correct grammatical and lexical errors until they reach a
coherent and correctly piece of writing. For thus, Brown and Hood (1989, p 6) supposed the
following figure ,which is like a circle and star since the writer can travel forwards and back
words, at whatever stage in composing a text in order to reach an effective final product. They
suggested different stages of the process approach:

Preparing

Drafting Drafting

Revising Revising

Preparing

Figure 01: Stages of the Writing Process. Adapted from [Brown and Hood, 1989]

Despite the fact that the process approach has many features while it has also some
critics. It is observed that the process approach is recursive i.e. not a direct process but an
ambiguous task which goes through different steps. The writer goes backwards and forwards
any stage in composing a text in order to make changes either about style, content or how to

16
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

appropriately address the audience. But these process models which are linear and do not
match what successful writers usually do, at this point, the teachers must encourage learners
to revisit the stages of this approach before the final product.

1.4.5 The Genre Approach

The genre approach to teaching writing is mainly concerned as the name indicates
with teaching particular genres that students need to control, in order to succeed in particular
situations. It is considered as an expansion to the product approach. Patridege (2004) indicates
that the ultimate aim of this approach is to engage a learner with a particular genre in order to
success in exacting. The oxford dictionary (1991) defines the word genre as ″ a style or kind″,
meaning that, each text conveys a purpose. For instance as Harmers and Hedge views,
newspapers have their genre, telephone, dialogue and informal conversations hold other
genres too (2001).

Furthermore, students are supplied with texts of particular genres. They analyze the
lexical and grammatical features of these texts. In fact, after controlling these features, they
construct their own texts that comply with the conversations of each genre. For instance, the
teacher might ask the students to write a letter of complaint. Before they work on it, they
study typical models of such letter to find out the grammar structures and vocabulary related
to this genre. They might then use these details to produce their own equivalent texts. Harmer
(2001) states that;

″writing is conceived as a form of reproduction rather than as a creative act. At an

early stage, students imitate certain genre to get control over its rules. Later at an
advances level, students are free to decide what to do with the data they have
collected″.

The genre direction to writing is basically aims to increase students’ awareness of the
style and the conversations of particular genre. Obviously, the supporters of this approach
confirm its role in increasing students understanding of different structures and texts. The
teaching of writing in this approach differs according to the social context in which it is
produced. Therefore, the students should acquire discourse knowledge about different
purposes, forms of writing, and general knowledge about their selective topic. Learning
specific genre can help learners to come up with appropriate actual writing in their real life
outside the classroom. Genre writing reflects a specific purpose of a social situation and

17
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

allows students to acquire writing skills consciously by imitation and analysis of each writing
genre (Badger; White, 2001).

Teacher may use different genre in their class as recipes, reports, and letters, of
apology and research articles to make variation in learners’ written production. The teacher
plays the role of the motivator in this approach, as encouraging the students to see writing as
″reproduction″ since they imitate a sample of text form. Additionally, swales (1990 p 58 cited
in Badger and White 200 p 155) describes a genre as ″a class of communication events the
members who share some set of communicative purposes″. Obviously, the genre approach
includes different kinds of writing each kind has a purpose which may affect the writer and
the way he express his ideas.

It is important to note that Swales (Ibid) claims that the genre approach is considered
as a concept of discourse community, and identifies a range of academic contexts. He
describes six characteristics for identifying a group of writers and readers as discourse
community ″common goals, partipatory mechanisms, information exchange, community
specific genres, a highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise″. It has
many characteristics that influence the language use. Indeed, it focuses on the language and
discourse features of the texts as well as the context in which the text is produced. According
to Hyland (2003) ″the fundamental principle that underlines the genre –based approach is
that language is functional; that is through language we achieve certain goals″. Thus, just
because language is functional, it serves functional purposes.

The genre approach has been criticized by many scholars and specialists of the field,
such as Badger and white, they point out that the genre underestimates the writing skills, they
observes that learners are largely passive , because their abilities as writers are ignored, and
their knowledge about certain topic may be is not sufficient to express their intended
meaning. This approach has also another negative side; the learners may not have enough
knowledge of appropriate language or vocabulary to express what they expect to
communicate to a specific audience. Furthermore Harmer (2001) found another weakness; he
states that ″ a genre approach is especially appropriate for students of English for specific
purposes. Meaning that this approach is no concerning with general English students’ needs,
it is very restricted approach″. Whatever the characteristics that draw this approach, the
students should make certain effort to produce and create well cohesive and coherent
paragraphs that shows their capacities in writing.

18
Chapter One Approaches to Teaching Writing

1.5 Conclusion

From what has been said before, it is viewed that learning how to write is considered
as a difficult task. It demands both learners and teachers to have some necessary knowledge
and information; that would reinforce and make the teaching or learning the writing skill
easier and essential. Being competent writer and mastering the writing skill does not only
require some knowledge about it, but the writer should be aware about the fundamental and
theoretical principles of writing. Which enable him or her to progress in the practical phase
that shows the writer abilities and efforts. Writing cannot be acquired but learn through
formal instruction. Thus, The EFL learners need to be aware of the writing‘s components in
order to achieve success in their writing. Indeed, teachers’ role is very important in increasing
the student’s level, but this purpose cannot be achieved without applying some strategies. It is
acknowledged that Many EFL teachers, researchers and specialists have been investigating to
come up with the efficient approaches, which positively affect the learning process.
Furthermore, EFL teachers have to give serious attention on the way they introduce this skill
to their learners. One way to realize this is to look at writing as a process that contains
different stages rather than a product of accurate, use of grammar and syntax and good range
of vocabulary.
As it seen, this chapter has been divided into two main parts. The first part shades the
light on the situation of English in the Algerian educational system. Besides, it deals with the
background of teaching writing. Furthermore, it describes the main approaches to teaching
writing that are emerged to enhance learner’s level in the writing skills. Each approach has its
own benefits, in serving the needs of both teachers and learners in a certain situation. EFL
students face many problems when writing in English, language transfer is one of the main
factors. Thus, the next chapter will deal with the language transfer and the impact of L1
interference.

19
 Chapter Two
The Impact of L1 Interference
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

2.1 Introduction
In language teaching and learning, writing is considered as the most complex productive
skill. It is often presents the greatest challenge to EFL students at all stages. FL writers
generally commit a lot of problems when writing in English, most of them are unable to use the
foreign language forms and structures appropriately. This is may be due to such reasons
including interlingual and intralingual errors. Meaning that, they refer to their first language,
bring its own rules and apply them when they write. Language transfer has been an important
issue in foreign language teaching research. Linguists propose contrastive and errors analysis as
an approaches to find out the causes of the problems face EFL students, to minimize them.
Thus, the awareness of the mother tongue interference in teaching and learning process is an
important aspect that can contribute to an effective communication in a foreign language.

This chapter intends to talk about essential theories of foreign language learners’
errors; language interference, error analysis and contrastive analysis. It will be divided into two
main parts; the first part provides some information about language transfer, language transfer
theories and views, and types of transfer. The second part highlights the notion of error
analysis, in addition to contrastive analysis, and the main reasons for learners’ errors which are
interlingual and intralingual. Lastly, the chapter will close with brief explanation of the
interference of Arabic on English writing.
2.1.1 Language Transfer and the Impact of L1 Interference
Language transfer has been a central element in Applied Linguistics, Second Language
Acquisition, and Language Teaching for more than a century. It also known as L1 interference
and linguistic interference, it refers to speakers or writers applying knowledge from their
mother tongue to the foreign language. It occurs when speakers who do not share the same
language need to communicate; it also occurs naturally in language learning programs when
learners transfer elements from their mother tongue to the L2 or FL. Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1988) defines language transfer as “the effect of
one language on the learning of another.” It is viewed that the Transfer is taking something
from X situation and put it in Y situation where the context is different.

Obviously, language transfer has been a continuous issue in foreign language for a long
time. Its significance in foreign language (FL) learning has also been revised time and again.
Along with the advance of research on language transfer, linguists have realized that the first
language (L1) acts as “a major factor in FL” (Ellis, 1990, p.297). There are evidences of L1

21
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

influences at every aspect of FL learners’ interlanguage; discourse, lexicon, semantics, syntax,

morphology (including bound morphemes), phonetics, and phonology.

In order to get a comprehensive understanding and fully recognize the significance of

language transfer, it is important to have a close look at its research developments at different
stages and proportional definitions. Over a hundred years ago, Whitney (1881) used the term
transfer to refer to cross-linguistic influences, which had been used by many linguists.
However, the language is not without problems and leads to different conceptions. Corder
(1983) and Kellerman & Smith (1986) advocate abandoning the term or using it with high
restriction, yet many linguists continued to use it without any limitation. Up until now, linguists
still do not have an exact definition of language transfer, which differ along with the
developments of research on it.

2.1.2 Language Transfer Theories and Views

In the twentieth century, the developments of language transfer research fell into mainly
three periods and categories, namely, behaviorist, mentalist and cognitive view (Ellis, 1994,
p.297-300). Behaviorists regarded language learning as habit formation, it was assumed that the
‘habits’ of the L1 from the L1 would be carried over into the FL. In cases where the target
language differs from the L1 this would result in interference or negative transfer. The notion
of transfer is redefined within a mentalist perspective. They consider language acquisition as a
creative construction of linguistic rules. Cognitive linguists focused on factors that influence
language acquisition.

a. Behaviorist View of Transfer

Behaviorist view of language transfer was minimized to habit formation, which was
actually a process of stimuli-responses. The theory controlled language learning and teaching.
Research in 1940s and 1950s when behaviourism and structuralism defended that the
difficulties in language learning depended on how much the target language was similar, or
different from the native language. If two languages were similar or identical, positive transfer
from the native language would occur; if they were different, negative transfer from the native
language would hinder the acquisition of the target language. Under this belief, Lado (1957,
p.23) put forward the theory of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), he believed that
language errors and learning difficulties were mainly or completely due to the interference of
the native language. Via comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences of two

22
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

languages, as well as setting up the hierarchy of difficulty. It was possible to predict and
explain learners’ errors and learning difficulties.

Behaviorists’ view of transfer was limited to overt correspondences between L1 and FL

syntactic structures. The degree of transfer was greatly based on the similarities or differences
between the native and target languages. Although behaviourists confirm that the native
language played an important role in FL, they exaggerated L1 influences and ignored other
factors that prevented FL, such as learners’ individual differences. Therefore, it was not
surprising that behaviorist view was faced with great challenges from mentalist view.

b. Mentalists View of Transfer

In the early 1950s, Chomsky put forward the theory of mentalism, which was also
called conceptualism or psychologism. The theory confirmed that human’s language ability
was born by nature and everyone would eventually master language because there was
Universal Grammar (UG) in language learning, and it was universal grammar rules that
determined the mastery of every language.

Besides, Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) completely denied native language transfer
and believed that language learning ability only depended on UG. Ellis (2000) criticized that
their conclusion was without experimental support. Hence, mentalists realized their limitation
and started to explore the relationship between the native language transfer and UG in 1980s.
Although the mentalists are no longer in a position totally rejecting native language transfer,
they are still under criticism for their theory not having much empirical support.

c. Cognitive View of Transfer

In the late 1970s, the drawbacks of the mentalist view encouraged the development of
cognitive view, which believed that language learning involved the same cognitive systems as
learning other types of knowledge: perception, memory, problem-solving, information
processing. (Kellerman, 1977, p. 58-145). In the cognitive view, “It is generally acknowledged
that typological similarity or difference cannot on its own serve as a predictor for transfer, but
interacts with other (linguistic) factors” (Faerch & Kasper, 1987, p.121).

During that period, linguists tended to concentrate on how and when language learners
would use their native language. The research then confirmed the factors that caused language
transfer. Ellis (2000) listed six kinds of factors that would cause language transfer:

23
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

 Transfer happens at different linguistic levels, namely, phonology, syntax, discourse,

pragmatics, etc.
 Social factors have impact on language transfer, for example, the influence of learning
environment.
 Markedness of certain language (It is one of the main factors leading to language
transfer, which have a close relationship with the periphery grammar of certain
language).
 Prototypically, the core meaning and the periphery meaning of a certain word.
 Language distance and psychotypology, namely, learners’ perception of language
distance between L1 and FL.
 Some developmental factors that limits interlanguage development.

2.1.3 Types of Transfer

Skehan (2008) defines language transfer as″ the influence of the mother tongue or other
languages which have been learned″. In other words, EFL learners transfer some features from
their mother tongue into English, because they face conflicts in language system between the
old linguistic knowledge of native language (Arabic) and the new one of the target language
(English). Language transfer can appear as positive, negative and cross-linguistic influence, a
clear distinction will be discussed.

a) Positive Transfer

Positive transfer, also known as facilitation, it occurs when knowledge of the mother
tongue does not lead to linguistic errors. Transfer from learners’ native language that not lead
to misunderstandings or errors are called positive transfer. Many scholars were interested in the
study of language transfer, Troike (2006, p 35) states that positive transfer is also called
facilitating, and it happens when two languages (the mother tongue and the target language)
contain the same structure for example, the plural morpheme S in both Spanish and English.
Furthermore, another scholar as Oldin (1989, p 27) confirm that positive transfer results from
similarities and differences between any language that has been previously acquired the target
language.

The mother tongue transfer has been a major concern among second/foreign language
researchers for the past two decades as Chomesky. Foreign language learners often apply
patterns of speech production characteristics of their mother tongue. Thus, the positive transfer

24
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

is difficult to be observed since the transferred forms are also correct in the target language.
The similarities between first and foreign language can help EFL learners develop their skills,
for instance the similarities between writing system can reduce the time needed to develop the
reading comprehension, and similarities in syntactic structures can facilitate the acquisition of
grammar. It can be said that positive transfer accelerates the learning process; hence, prior
language knowledge can be very helpful in learning a new language. When Researchers
compare the structure of Arabic and English, they found that there are cases where Arabic and
English use similar prepositions to express the same meaning. E.g. the use of ″from″ to indicate
starting point as in ″ I came from Algeria ″. Direct transfer from Arabic, in this case leads to
positive transfer.

b) Negative Transfer
Negative transfer is also known as language interference, it is viewed that when
something learned in one situation hinders one’s ability to learn or perform in a second
situation then negative transfer has occurred. Savilles-Troike (2006, p 200) defines language
interference as inappropriate influence of an L1 structure or rule on FL use. However, the term
language interference and negative transfer often used interchangeably. It can be said that the
influence of the mother tongue is the main aspect that lead to the negative transfer. Indeed, the
latter is considered as a major source of the learning difficulties, and errors that the EFL
learners face when writing English production.

Cortes (2006, p 4) defines negative transfer as ″ the negative influence that the
knowledge of the first language has in the learning of the target languages due to the
differences existing between both languages″ . The transfer of the mother tongue can be either
conscious or unconscious. Consciously, learners may sometimes allow influences from their
mother tongue when writing in FL. Unconsciously, non-native speakers may not achieve the
difference between structures and internal rules of languages. In both cases the negative
transfer achieved.

In contrast to the positive transfer, negative transfer is often easy to recognize, because
it includes differences from norms in the target language. This type is usually compared with
production errors; it is based on the transfer of elements and structures from native to the target
language. That is to say, that most EFL learners use their L1 in the English context that lead to
poor writing production. Negative transfer can be resulted in any area of language,
pronunciation, grammar or vocabulary.

25
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

c) Cross-linguistic Influence

Cross- linguistic influence refers to the different ways in which one language can affect
another within an individual speaker. According to Cook (2000, as cited in Skekhan p 208)
″cross linguistic influence is another word of language transfer″. It is viewed that cross-
linguistic influence is more accurate and suitable term refers to language transfer. Kellerman
and Sharwood Smith (1986) claim that L1 transfer is inappropriate, hence they proposed cross-
linguistic influence to refer to transfer and interference. EFL learners seek to facilitate the
language learning by making use of previously acquired linguistic knowledge. Trauth and
Kazzik (2006) state that the phenomenon of CLI occurs in situations when EFL learner uses his
first language in the target language context. That is to say that, CLI appears because the EFL
learner is skillful in his/her native language.

2.2 Theories on Errors of EFL learners

The analysis of students’ errors is very important in applied linguistics as well as FL

learning, EFL learners commit different errors, when learning a foreign language. These errors
are like an obstacle for improving the learning process. Indeed, it is important to clarify the
types of errors and its places in a FL. Thus, researchers suggest two main approaches to
identify or analyze EFL learners’ errors, ″contrastive analysis″ and ″errors analysis″.

2.2.1 Contrastive Analysis

The Contrastive Analysis was first improved by Charles Fries (1945) as an integral part
of the modern methodology of foreign language teaching. It is the study of pain of languages
with identifying their differences and similarities; it was used in the 1960s and 1970s as a
method of explaining the difficulties of acquiring the target languages. Constructive analysis
claims that similarities and differences between various languages was enough to deal with the
problem of teaching these languages. Particularly, it puts much importance on investigating
the learners' errors, in which first and foreign language are systematically compared.
According to behaviorist theory, learning the language was a question of habit
formation. They claimed that language learning was to change the old habits and construct new
ones. In this case, errors occur when learners could not reply correctly to particular situation in
a foreign language. Hence, learners should place more emphasis on mechanical pattern and try
to correct any errors whenever there are. Thus, the difficulty in mastering certain forms and
structure in target language, based on the differences between learners native language and

26
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

foreign one. Indeed, as it is mentioned before the similarities and differences between
languages are the central of CA.
It is viewed, that Contrastive analysis involves prediction and explanation of EFL
learners’ problems, based on comparing the similarities and the differences between the mother
tongue and the target language (Troike, 2006, p. 34). Constructive analysis studies state that
errors occur when learners transfer first language habit into foreign one, they also maintain that
the interference takes place whenever there is a difference between native and the target
language. Proponents of CA believe that the interference of the mother tongue is one of the
most reasons for learners’ errors; they state that the learning problem and area of interference
would occur at the point where two languages differ. The researchers suggest that it will be
easier to learn similarities features, but those differences between the elements of the native and
target language will be harder to acquire.
EFl teachers use contrastive analysis to understand the transfer and shift from one
language to another, and to compare the foreign with native language. In order to adopt
methods and techniques to meet EFL learners’ needs (Byram, 2000). Constructing both
languages is considerable in teaching the target language, since it helps teachers in
understanding the differences basic structure of two languages. Based on this analysis EFL
teachers will be able to predict errors or difficulties in order to take care of them. This approach
aims to make foreign language teaching more effective, and find out the differences between
the first and the target language based on the assumption that :

 Foreign language learning is based on the mother tongue.

 Similarities facilitate learning (positive transfer) and differences cause problems
(negative transfer/ interference).
 Via constructive analysis, problems can be predicted and considered in EFL curriculum.
However not all problem predicted by constructive analysis always appear to be
difficult for EFL students.

Contrastive Analysis was criticized by the supporters of Error Analysis, who thought
that CA focuses more on the differences between L1 and FL, and ignore the factors which may
affect the second language learners’ performance such as, their learning and communication
strategies. That is why CA could not be continued by practical evidence, because many errors
predicted by CA were not observed in learners’ language. In addition, some errors made by
students irrespective of their NL, and then could not predict learning difficulties.

27
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

2.2.2 Errors Analysis

Error Analysis (EA) is one of the major and the most important topics in the field of
foreign language research; it is also a branch of applied linguistics. EA was established in the
1960s by Stephen Pit Corder, who was the first to support the importance of studying errors in
students writing and it was also an alternative to the Contrastive Analysis (CA). Brown (1980)
defines EA as ″a process of observing, analyzing, and classifying the deviations of the rules of
Second Language and then to reveal the systems operated by a learner″. It is a type of
linguistic analysis that focuses on EFL learners’ errors. Crystal (as cited in Hasyim, 2002, p.43)
suggests that EA is a technique for identifying such errors, classifying them, and systematically
interpreting the inappropriate forms and structures, which produced by learners whom learning
a Second or Foreign language. That is to say, (EA) investigates the EFL learners’ errors.
EA is an activity to identify, classify and interpret or describe the errors made by
learners in speaking or writing, and it carried out to obtain information on common difficulties
faced by EFL speaker or writer. Since the writing skill is regarded as one of the complex skill
to master by EFL learners, a lot of researches have intended to identify the common errors EFL
students make in their production, of course better understanding of the errors, and the origins
of such errors in the process of EFL writing, will help teachers know their students’ difficulties
in learning that language. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the common difficulties a
learner faces in learning a language, the strategies used by him and the causes of errors that
occur.

EFL students’ errors have always been a major interest and significance to EFL teachers
and syllabus designers; this may lead educators to devise appropriate materials, and effective
teaching techniques, constructing tests suitable to different levels and needs of learners. Hence,
the implication of error analysis to language teaching can be viewed from the aspect of
language teachers and syllabus designers. Errors analysis indicates to teachers the points that
need further attention. Additionally, errors show the way to be treated when their sources are
identified correctly. Students should recognize the significance of errors which occur in their
writing, to fully grasp, understand the nature of the errors made, and be consciously aware of
their problems to overcome them. This requires English language teachers to be better
equipped, more sensitive, and aware of the difficulties students face when writing.

28
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

2.3 Sources of Students’ Errors in Writing

Specialists compare learners’ sentences with the correct ones in the target language, and
find the errors. Then they come to the next step which is the stage of finding the source of
errors. In error analysis study, it is necessary to determine the reasons behind learners’ errors.
According to a number of studies that have been done on this issue, there are two main reasons
behind EFL learners’ errors which are interlingual and intralingual.
a. Interlingual
Errors found to be capable of being traced to first language interference are termed
"interlingual" or" transfer errors", this kind of errors is the main concern of this study. The term
″interlingual″ was firstly initiated by the linguist Selinker (1972). He used this term to refer to
the systematic knowledge of an FL which is independent of both the learner's L1 and the target
language (Abi Samra, 2003, p.5). Learners build up a system for themselves which is totally
different in some ways from their mother tongue and also their FL system, this later is called
the interlanguage. According Kavaliauskiene (2009, p 4) transfer of errors may occur because
the learners lack of necessary information in a FL, or the intentional capacity to activate the
appropriate FL routine
Those errors are termed “interlingual” because they are a result of language interference.
Interlingual means between languages, it is considered as the main reason for foreign language
learners’ errors. Thus Richard and Samson (1974 p 5) assumed that language transfer is the first
factor influences foreign language learners’ system. It is considered as a major reason for
learners’ errors in foreign language learning. Interlilingual errors based on transferring rules
from the mother tongue in addition, they are concerned with negative influences of L1 that is
why these errors are also called interference errors.
Learning is a progressive process from L1 towards FL. At every stage of learning
learners have rules of grammar which are not perfect yet, but they are not L1 rules (they are
something between, that is, interlanguage). In other words the learner produces a structured
system of language at any stage in his development (i.e. interlanguage). Each system is
gradually revised, it develops, and the rules become more and more complex. It means the
learner travels along the interlanguage continuum towards FL (L1 being the starting point of
the development). Interlingual errors may appear at different levels such as transfer of
phonology, morphological, grammatical, and lexical-semantic elements of the native language
into the target one.

29
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

Interference, language transfer and cross linguistic influence are also known as
interlingual errors. Corder (1981) states that these kinds of errors occur when the learners’ habit
(patterns, systems or rules) intervene, or prevent him or her to some extent from acquiring the
patterns, and rules of foreign language. The mother tongue transfer is the main factor of this
errors , it is viewed that interlingual errors is found where foreign language learners’ express
the knowledge that they have acquired in the new language, that they are trying to learn. Bhela
(1999) says that it is obvious that EFL errors result from the word translation strategy, or
thinking in the mother tongue. Although many scholars support this type of transfer but (Jie
2008) criticizes interlanguage theory in which he thinks that this transfer concentrates more
only on morpho-syntax and that interlingual theory fails in defining the concept clearly.

b. Intralingual
Intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) is the main factor in foreign
language learning, intralingual means within language. They are errors which are due to the
language being learned, independent of the native language. Keshavarz (2003, p 62) defines
interlingual as ″are the errors which cause from faulty or partial learning of the target
language rather than language transfer″. These errors are caused by the target language itself
apart from resorting to L1 transfer, the learner make such mistakes due to the ignorance of
items in the target language. Erdogan (2005, p 266) inserts that ″intralingual errors occur as a
result of learners’ attempt to construct concepts and hypotheses about the target language from
their limited experience with it". Intralingual errors include; overgeneralization, simplification,
communication- based and induced errors.

According to Richards (1974, p 6) ″Intra-lingual errors are items produced by the

learner which reflect not the structure of mother tongue but generalization based on partial
exposure to the target language″. Thus one of the main sources of this category is the influence
of one target language item upon another. Intralingual theory refers to the instances where EFL
learner creates a deviant structure of his knowledge of other structures in the target language, it
may occur when the learner try to reduce the difficulties he faces in applying the rules of the
foreign language.

It is acknowledged that those kinds of errors are due to the language being learned,
independent of the native language. That is to say, the learner attempts to derive the rules
behind the data to which he/she has been exposed, and may develop hypothesis that correspond
neither to the mother tongue nor to the target language (Richards, 1971, p. 6). It can be noted

30
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

that errors in writing produced by EFL learners are the results of learners’ incomplete
knowledge of the target language.

Furthermore, in 1974, Selinker (cited in Richards, 1964, p.37) proposed five sources of
students’ errors which are:
 Language Transfer: refers to the speakers or writers applying knowledge of their native
language to the target one.
 Transfer of Training: it is an error which is caused by the way language item has been
practiced or presented.
 Strategies of Second Language Learning: it can be called simplification when the
learner uses only one form of verb in all cases.
 Strategies of Second Language Communication: it rules may be the outcome of
strategies employed by the learner to communicate with native speakers when speaking
the target language.
 Overgeneralization of TL Linguistic Materials: it covers instances where the learner
creates a deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other structures in the target
language.
Corder (1974) insists that there are three major sources of errors, “language transfer”,
“overgeneralization or analogy errors” and “teaching-induced errors” which is a method
used in the teaching foreign languages. Interference from students’ own language is not only
for committing errors, FL learners may make errors in the target language since they don’t
know the target language very well; they have difficulties in use it. According to Richards
(1971) ″ intralingual interference reflects the general characteristics of rule learning such as a
faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under
which rules apply". Despite the fact that many research studies were conducted the possible
errors accrued in EFL students compositions teacher face challenges when teaching English
writing, the analysis of errors need to carry out.
2.4 The Influence of Mother Tongue on English Writing
It is commonly believed that the first language (L1) has an effect on foreign language
whether on speaking or writing. Furthermore, different cultures think in different ways,
Western ways of thinking and writing are very different from Eastern or Middle Eastern ways
of thinking. EFL teachers are the ones who suffer from the problem, which the most important
part of their task is to teach their students how to think and to use a foreign language a native

31
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

speaker. The influence of the mother tongue is clearly shown in the written form which is the
basic technique, a foreign language teacher uses in testing the proficiency of his students.

Furthermore, with the complete difference between both Arabic and English language
in many aspects, EFL learners find many serious difficulties in acquiring the skills, particularly
the writing skill. Writing is a complex process, it is even more complicated to write in a foreign
language, and it takes considerable time and effort to become a skillful EFL writer. In recent
years, there has been increasing interest in studies related to writing, because such skill is very
important in language teaching and learning. Bazerman and Paradis (1991, p 3) claim that
″EFL learners commit errors because they think in their native language and that they
translate their thoughts into L2 or foreign language″. It has been observed, since at least 1983
that native speakers of Arabic who write in English as a foreign language experience influences
of their native language (L1) on their target language (FL).

EFL learners cannot write in English without referring to their first language,
Friedlander (1997) argues that “writers do any of their work in their first language.” These
Learners transfer a lot of things from their mother tongue; they feel that they are unable to write
without it. Thus, Friedlander (1997) says that “writers will transfer writing abilities and
strategies, whether good or deficient, from their first language to their second or third
language.” writing rules differs from one language to another because each language has its
own principles; this difference leads to interference which makes learners write poor English
production. Blanchard (2004) describes writing in a foreign language as driving a car; he says
″it is like driving a car, if you have ever driven in another country, you know that some of the
rules of the road may be different. Just as the rules of driving differ from country to another,
the conventions of writing may change from language to another″.

In order to provide the most effective EFL writing instruction, it is necessary to

understand these influences, and to differentiate between purely linguistic errors ,and cultural
differences between native speakers of Arabic and native speakers of English. With such an
understanding, EFL teachers will be better able to teach their students students how to correct
linguistic errors in writing. If the students are taught how to think in English and avoid doing
mental translation, their learning will be greatly enhanced. Teachers certainly have a great role
to play in the process of familrazing their students with the language areas, that are likely to
hinder their language acquisition.

32
Chapter Two The Impact of L1 Interference

2.5 Conclusion
It is viewed that most of EFL learners are unable to use the foreign language forms, and
structures appropriately. In the process of mastering the writing skill, many errors are made by
these students which make them fail to achieve this productive skill. The researchers interested
in the field confirm that these errors are due to the mother tongue interference. Language
transfer has been a central issue in many Fields of study, especially in a foreign language
teaching and learning. This chapter shows that the transfer is a process of applying what has
been learned in one situation to one’s learning or performance in another situation, in other
words the transfer could be positive or negative. In addition, it presents several theories of
transfer that have been proposed by different views, and related to foreign language learning
namely; Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis. This chapter identifies two main reasons as a
source of EFL learners’ errors which are interlingual and intralingual. Moreover, it concludes
with brief explanation regarding the influence of the mother tongue on English writing. Since
this study interests in the impact of L1 interference, the next practical chapter will be devoted
to analyze Algerian learners’ errors when writing, in order to fulfill the objective of this
research.

33
 Chapter Three
Research Methodology
Chapter Three Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction
The current study deals with the phenomenon of native language interference, as a cause
of the common errors made by first year students of English at Mostaganem University. The two
last chapters presented the most common approaches to teaching writing, and the impact of L1
interference. The next step of any research design is to move to something more practical in order
to give this research more credibility. Indeed, it is concerned with discussing the results acquired
in the previous chapters. Therefore, the organization of this work based on the mixed method.
This chapter is divided into two main parts; the first part is concerned with a detailed
description of the research methodology, research instruments, and population. The second part
introduces the data analyses submitted by the questionnaire addressed to both teachers and
students, and the analysis of students’ written paragraphs. Thus, the present study aims to
identify, and explain the interference of the mother tongue on writing, based on the fact of the
number of errors which appeared in the students’ written productions, this chapter serves as an
empirical evidence to prove that the problem exists, and to confirm the hypothesis that these
difficulties are due to the native language interference (Arabic). Through the analysis of the data,
it will be possible to identify the problems behind interference of mother tongue.
3.2 Methodology
The present research work is a case study involving 25 first year students, and 15 teachers
of written expression module in the English department at university Abdelhamid Ibn Badis of
Mostaganem. The aim behind this choice is to provide an in-depth understanding the impact of
L1 on EFL students’ writing. In order to fulfill the objective of the research, and answer the
research questions, the mixed method was adopted. The quantitative method was introduced
through questionnaire administered to a sample selected randomly, that represents 15 teachers of
written expression, and 25 first year students. The qualitative method was used in analyzing the
students’ paragraphs. This choice of the methodology is justified by the nature of the topic which
implies a need for a description, and analysis of the writing process in EFL learning and teaching
context.

35
Chapter Three Research Methodology

3.2.1 Research Instrument

It is necessary to gather teachers’ and students’ opinions about the interference of the
mother tongue on English writing. Their views are very important to develop teaching, and
learning of writing to EFL classes. For this purpose, two research instruments were used;
questionnaire addressed to both teachers and students. It is the appropriate tool to know their
point of view and prove a set of hypothesis. Moreover, documents focus (corpus) students were
requested to write short paragraphs which may reflect their L1 effect on their writing. So, the
analysis of students’ paragraphs is another tool was intended to gather more information about
the topic and collect accurate data.

3.2.1.1 Population

In order to obtain the necessary information regarding the problem of first year students in
the writing skill at the English department university Abdelhamid Ibn Badis of Mostaganem, a
group of 25 students were chosen during the academic year 2016/2017. The sample including 8
male and 17 female, aged between 17 to 21 years old, all of them were native Arabic speakers.
The sample was based on the consideration that; the majority of first year students face the same
difficulties of mother tongue interference in writing English compositions; most of them are
weak in writing. Thus, the result can be as significant as possible. Furthermore, the teachers who
contribute the sample equals 15 teachers, all of them teach written expression first, second and
third year. They are experienced teachers in tutoring written expression course; consequently,
consulting their views and perspectives concerning the subject matter (the influence of the mother
tongue on writing) is of great value to the present work.

3.2.1.2 Students’ questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed in accordance with the literature review in the first and
second chapter of the present dissertation. It consists of 15 questions most of them are close-
ended; learners are invited to tick the correct answer. There are some open-ended questions
where the informants are asked to provide explanations or further alternatives. The students were
very cooperative in this operation, they answered the questionnaire inside the classrooms, and
they did not find any difficulties to understand the questions. (See appendix one). The
questionnaire divided into three main sections, they are as follow;

36
Chapter Three Research Methodology

Background Information

This section includes group of questions concerning the background information, the first
and second questions are about students’ age and gender. Concerning the three last questions are
about the purpose behind students’ choice of English as a branch of study at the University, their
opinions on their level in mastering English language, and their point of view about the written
expression module.

Linguistic Level

This section seeks information about learning the writing skill. It includes four questions
to investigate some aspect of writing. The aim is to elicit students’ view about the writing skill.
Students are asked; whether they read books, their opinion about their English production, and
times of practicing writing. The last two questions aim at investigating the difficulties they face
when writing, and their feeling when they composing.

The use of the Mother Tongue

The last section consists of five questions; it deals with the influence of the mother tongue
on English writing. The first question is about the use of Arabic in the classroom. Moreover,
students were asked whether they think in Arabic when they write in English, or translate their
ideas from Arabic to English. In addition to that, the last two questions aim at examining
students’ point of view toward the main topic of the subject.

a) Learners’ Profile

It is observed that the majority of the informants are females. They are 17 that represent
68 ℅ from the whole population, whereas only 8 males participated in this study. These rates
indicate that the population is mostly composed of females especially in foreign language
learning. It is indicated that, first year students’ age is between 17 and 21 years. Moreover, 80
of the learners’ choice of English were personal; this is because of their desire to study this
language according to the majority of them. Another reason is that English for them is the
language of the world, and its study is very interesting. In contrast, just 5 from 25 students had
been obliged to study it.

37
Chapter Three Research Methodology

b) Learners’ Level

Based on the results shown in the table below, it can be deduce that the students are
motivated. It is noticed that 44 of the informants believe that they have good level in English.
While 32 of them think that they have an average level, against just 24 who indicate that their
level is low.

Responses Good Average Low

Percentage  44 32 24
Table 3.1 Learners’ Level

c) Motivation

The table shows that 68 of the students find the module written expression interesting. Meaning
that, the students are aware of the importance of the writing skill. Whereas 32  pointed out that
the written expression is not interesting, a result that is not expected at all.

options Yes No
Percentage  68 32
Table 3.2 Motivation

d) Reading Frequency

This investigation is about the reading frequency among participants. From the results shown in
the table; 20 of participants always read books, and 80 of them do read but from time to time.

Options Always rarely never

Percentage  20 80 0

Table 3.3 Reading Frequency

e) Students’ Opinions about their English Production

It is observed that most of the students 56 think that their English production is average.
Whereas 20 indicate that their English production is good. Moreover 6 students’ mentioned that
their level in writing is less than average.
38
Chapter Three Research Methodology

Option Good Average Less than average

percentage 20 56 24
Table 3.4 Students’ Opinion about their English Production

f) Writing Frequency

The table below reveals that 76 of the informants indicate that they sometimes practice writing.
These findings show that practicing writing is a little bit ignored. The other respondents opted for
the other choices with the same percentages. 12 of them practicing writing every day and 12
their writing is just for tests or exams.

Option Every day Sometimes Never

Percentage  12 76 12
Table 3.5 Writing Frequency

g) Writing Difficulties

The result in the table shows that the majority of the informants 68 find difficulties when they
write. Whereas only 8 students 32 claimed that they are good in writing. So it is noticed that
most students have obstacles in their writing skill due to this difficulties.

Option Yes No
Percentage  62 32

Table 3.6 Writing Difficulties

h) Students’ Feelings while Writing

Most of the students 72  feel relaxed when they express their ideas and feelings in writing. The
rest 28 disagree with this point. Absolutely the causes of this feelings are varied, in which
teacher should be aware about them and try to put end to them as much as possible.

Options Yes No
Percentage  72 28

Table 3.7 Students’ Feeling while Writing

39
Chapter Three Research Methodology

i) Teachers’ Permission about the Use of L1

The finding reveals that the majority of the informants (76) are not encouraged by their
teachers to use Arabic in the classroom. Meaning that, these teachers are aware about the
negative impact of the mother tongue on learning English as a foreign language. Whereas
(24) of them indicate the opposite, maybe because their teachers believe that the use of the
mother tongue create a calm and positive classroom environment.

Option Yes No
Percentage  24 76

Table 3.8 Teachers' Permission about the Use of L1

j) Thinking in Arabic to Write English Production

The finding shows that (60) of students think in Arabic when writing in English, because they
expect that the use of this method is so beneficial to write a good composition. While (40)
reported that they think in English, it means that the students are capable to express themselves in
English without referring to their mother tongue.

Option Arabic English

Percentage 60 40

Table 3.9 Thinking in Arabic to Write English Production

k) Ideas Translation

The table shows that (68) of students based their writing on translation of ideas from Arabic to
English, maybe they are unable to express their ideas accurately, so they think that the translation
is the best, and suitable way to deal with when writing. Whereas, the other informants (32)
indicate that they think in English when they write.

40
Chapter Three Research Methodology

Option Yes No
Percentage  68 32

Table 3.10 Ideas Translation

l) Students’ Opinions about Writing Obstacles

The results reveal that the majority of the informants refer to an English Arabic dictionary
when they do not understand a word or expression, maybe because they are not familiar with
these words. With regard to asking for vocabulary, (24 ℅) are capable to deal with L2.
Whereas (20) of them rely on the teachers’ translation.

Option Percentage ℅
Asking the teacher for translation in L1 20
Asking for vocabulary explanation in L2 24
Referring to an English Arabic dictionary 56

Table 3.11 Students’ opinion about Writing Obstacles

m) Students’ Opinions about the Influence of the L1

The majority of the students believe that their L1 influence the way they write, they know that
most of the errors come from the L1 impact. In contrast, (32) of them think that L1 do not
influence their writing because it facilitate and simplifies the way they write.

Option Yes No
Percentage  68 32

Table 1.12 Students’ Opinion about the Influence of the L1

3.2.1.3 Results of students questionnaire

Through the analysis of students’ questionnaire, the results obtained show that the
population is mostly composed of females, especially in foreign language learning. It is noticed
that most of them are satisfied by their level at English. First year students are aware of the

41
Chapter Three Research Methodology

importance of the writing skill, in which they found the written expression module interesting.
Moreover, the practice of reading and writing among first year students is little bit ignored, that is
why the majority of them find difficulties when writing in English. From the analysis of the
questionnaire it is observed that, 60 ℅ of students think in Arabic when they write English essay
or production, and they refer to their mother tongue to reduce the difficulty of the writing skill.
Hence, the majority of first year students believe that their native language influence the way
they write and that most of their errors are due to the impact of L1.

3.2.1.4 Teachers’ questionnaire

In order to administer teachers’ questionnaire, 19 copies were given to teachers of written

expression module who have adequate experience, in order to supplement the results. Three
copies were eliminated because were not brought back by teachers. The informants were very
cooperative in a way that they handed back the answered copies in less than one week. The main
objective of the questionnaire is to survey teachers’ point of view about the influence of the
mother tongue on English writing. The questionnaire was designed in accordance with the
literature review, in first and second chapters of this dissertation. It consists of 15 questions
divided into three sections. The questions are close-ended, teachers are invited to tick the correct
answer and in some cases, the informants are asked to provide explanations and alternatives. (See
appendix two) The three sections are as follow;

General Information

The first section made up of three items based on general questions about teachers’
experience in teaching in general, and the teaching of written expression module. This section
aims to obtain the background information of the participants; their degrees, their experience in
teaching English and their experience in teaching the written expression.

The writing Skill

The second section consists of seven questions devoted to the writing skill. These
questions related to the theoretical part of this research, it aim to highlighting teachers’ opinion
about the written expression program, asking instructors whether they encourage their students to
read and allow them to use L1 in the classroom. Furthermore, the questions from seven to ten are

42
Chapter Three Research Methodology

designed to tick a certain approach or technique they follow in teaching writing, and determining
the difficulties their students encounter when writing in English.

The Mother Tongue Interference

The last section includes five questions, the four first questions designed to ask instructors
about L1 interference and the different errors that occur through the influence of the L1. Indeed,
the last question is about adding solutions and strategies to avoid this issue when writing.

a) Teachers’ Profile

It is noticed that most of the teachers have the MA (magister/master) degree in teaching
English. Thus, it helps to get a common perceptions and views concerning the subject under
investigation. Whereas, four teachers have BA (license) and three have a PHD (doctorate) degree.
Particularly, among the 15 teachers questioned, some have been exerting teaching for one to five
years, followed by (46.66) who have been teaching from six to ten years. The rest have taught
English from ten to twenty years. In fact, while asking instructors about their year of experience
in teaching written expression, it is observed that some have been exerting teaching for less than
ten years, whereas others are novice teachers. The obtained results imply that teachers’
experience is important in the analysis of this questionnaire.

b) Written Expression Program

The results in the table below show that (20) of teachers believe that; the written expression
program they are dealing with is enough to improve the writing level. While most of them think
that the program is not sufficient to enhance students’ level in writing. This leads to think that the
programs should be reviewed in terms of contents and approaches as well; time allocated to
written expression should be satisfactory.

Option Yes No
Percentage  20 80
Table 3.13 Written Expression Program

Some teachers said that the program is sufficient but needs to be applied well. Others claim that
the program largely convers the expectations, the objectives, and the requirement of effective

43
Chapter Three Research Methodology

writing. Among those who answered no, a number of teachers admitted that; students are in short
of sessions, and the program is not yet reached the level of higher education. Additionally, one
teacher states that the instructors who organize their time well, it will be beneficial for them to
complete their syllabus in written expression module. As well as, another teacher’s point of view;
who said that written expression needs a lot of time, because it is more practical than theoretical.
Clearly, the program should be satisfactory, and should enable the student to cover what they are
rushing toward finishing it by any means.

c) Reading Stimulation

The results show that all of the informants encourage their students to read, they are aware
about the importance of reading in enhancing the writing skill, and developing the critical
thinking. It is viewed that good writer is a good reader.

d) Teachers’ Permission about Using Arabic in the Classroom

The result in the table below reveals that; all the teachers forbid their students to use L1 in the
classroom.
Option Yes No
Percentage 0 100

Table 3.14 Teachers’ permission about using Arabic in the classroom

e) Approaches to Teaching Writing

It is noticed that to teach the writing skill, various approaches are used, including the process, the
product and the genre approaches, in addition to the controlled to free approach and free writing
approach. Regarding the process and the product approaches, their use either separately or
combined depends on the teaching conditions, situations and needs. Accordingly, the analysis of
the results reveals that the majority of the respondents (46.67) favor the use of both approaches.

Option Product Process Both Others

Percentage  13.33 20 46.67 20
Table 3.15 Approaches to Teaching Writing

44
Chapter Three Research Methodology

f) Teachers’ Attitude toward Students’ Difficulties when Writing

Indeed, the results show that all of the respondents agree on the fact that their students find
difficulties when writing. This declaration serves the objective of the research.

g) Students’ Writing Problems

The obtained results imply that 73.33 of teachers agree that the factors mentioned below,
interference of L1, poor vocabulary and poor content are most common writing problems they
have noticed in their students’ writing. In addition to that, 26.67 claimed that the problems
occur in students writing are the grammar mistakes. In other words, these aspects have great
impact on students’ improvement of writing. For that reason, the mentioned aspects should be
taken into account from students’ part when writing and teachers’ part when teaching.

A. Grammar mistakes, B. Interference of the mother tongue,

C. poor vocabulary, D. poor content

Option A B C D B+C+D
Percentage 26.67 0 0 0 73.33
Table 3.16 Students’ Writing Problems

h) Reasons behind Students’ Writing Difficulties

The results of the table indicate that the majority of the informants 46.67  agree that all factors
are sources of writing difficulties. Whereas 33.33  believe that the writing difficulties are
related to lack of background knowledge and the influence of L1. Followed by 20 who think
that the main reason behind this issue is the influence of the mother tongue.

A. Lack of background knowledge in the subject

B. Lack of motivation to write

C. Influence of L1 on writing in English

45
Chapter Three Research Methodology

Option A+C A+B+C C

Percentage 33.33 46.67 20

Table 3.17 Reasons behind Students’ Writing Difficulties

i) Teachers’ opinion about students’ errors

Most of the respondents (86.67) confirm that the student make a lot of errors when writing.
These errors are varied between students because each one has his/her own weaknesses in certain
aspect, which can be different to others; whereas (13.33) mentioned that the students do not
make a lot of errors maybe because they are brilliant.

Option Yes No
Percentage  86.67 13.33

Table 3.18 Teachers’ Opinion about Students’ Errors

j) Teachers’ Opinions Reasons behind Learners’ Errors

It can be observed that (73.33) of instructors agree on the same answer that the main cause of
such a large number of errors made by students is due to L1 interference. While (26.67) of them
disagree on this point, they think that there are other factors behind these errors.

Option Yes No
Percentage 73.33 26.67

Table 3.19 Teachers’ Opinions Reasons behind Learners’ Errors

k) Errors’ Frequency

The table shows that (46.67) of instructors agree on the idea that most frequent errors students
make are grammatical, lexical, and semantic. Whereas (40) believe that the most common
errors are at the level of grammar, semantic and punctuation. Followed by (13.33) who think
that these errors are just grammatical and syntactic. Consequently, all teachers believe that

46
Chapter Three Research Methodology

knowing the types of students’ errors makes the teaching process easier and helps them providing
the appropriate remedy.

A. Grammatical, B. Lexical, C. Semantic. D. syntactic, E. Punctuation

Option A+B+C D+A E+A+C Total

Number 7 2 6 15
Percentage 46.67 13.33 40 100

Table 3.20 Errors’ Frequency

l)Teachers’ Opinions about L1 interference

All the professors admit that the interference of the mother tongue affect their students’
writing development. Definitively, the teachers under consideration that students face typical
interference errors in the learning process, and they are exemplified the students, when they try to
express their ideas in pieces of writing. They justify their opinions with some arguments, in
which they mention that the structures of English are different from that of the mother tongue,
and the native language has a demerit on foreign language writing. Moreover, the interference of
the mother tongue occurs consciously or unconsciously. Other teachers mention that the Students
think in Arabic and write in English, due to the lack of practicing reading and motivation.
Furthermore, the students influenced badly by the mother tongue, thus it makes them incapable to
express themselves in English.

m) Solutions and Strategies

In order to avoid the interference of the mother tongue teachers suggest that students
should be aware of academic writing. Furthermore, read more academic writing, since good
reader is a good writer and the more students read the more they acquire the language. Moreover,
instructors propose Practicing writing every day, searching, reading books, articles, and
newspapers as strategies to avoid L1 transfer. Thus, first year students should write as much as
possible, not only when they are asked to write but also as a habit of writing. Finally, more
training (homework, exercises) with more guidance and feedback help students develop their
knowledge of the language.

47
Chapter Three Research Methodology

3.2.1.5 Results of Teachers’ Questionnaire

From the analysis and interpretation of teacher questionnaire, the results reveal that the
majority of teachers believe that; the written expression program is not enough to improve the
writing proficiency. Some said that the written expression module need a lot of time because it is
more practical than theoretical, others claim that the program should be satisfactory, and should
enable the student to cover what they are rushing toward finishing the program by any means.
Indeed, while teaching the written expression two approaches are used by most of the teachers
including; the product and the process approaches. Their use depends on the teaching conditions
and situations. The obtained results imply that instructors state that their students find many
difficulties that hinder their improvement of writing. These difficulties are in terms of
interference of L1, poor vocabulary and poor content. The instructors declare that the errors made
by first year student are due to language transfer. Finally, all professors admit that the
interference of the mother tongue affect their students’ development in writing. Since the first
year students apply first language rules to learn the target language, they suggest practicing
reading and writing as a solution to avoid the mother tongue interference and develop their
knowledge of the language.

3.2.1.6 The corpus Manual Analysis

Since the main objective of this research is to identify, describe, and investigate the effect of
the mother tongue (Arabic) on first year EFL learners’ writing at Mostaganem University, the
results are confirmed through the analysis of questionnaire addressed to both teachers and,
students and by collecting 14 samples (short paragraphs) of 14 students among the same group of
first year students of English. The corpus of this study is drawn during the academic year
2016/2017; the test has been administrated during the first semester. The sample used in this
study consists of 8 females and 6 males. Indeed, the students have been given different topics to
write about as a writing task or homework outside the classroom. (See appendix three) These
topics are about: Dreams, English language, wishes, poor people, Kinds of students, Basic ethical
principles to be a teacher, prisoners and their place in society.

48
Chapter Three Research Methodology

a) Analysis of Student’s Errors

The analysis of first year students’ short paragraphs reveals that; they make a significant
number of errors when they write. Since the purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the
impact of the mother tongue that occur in first year students’ short paragraphs , and understand at
which level Algerian learners have difficulties in using English. This section intends to show the
results which aim to give an answer to the research question. To explore the errors occurred in
the data collected from the participants chosen. The written paragraphs were carefully analyzed
to find the errors and their sources. The obtained results are presented, summarized, classified
and tabulated.

Types of Incorrect form Correct form Origins

errors
Anethical,totaly,binifitial,purpus Unethical,totally,
Spelling ,appertunitie,du beneficial,purpose,opportunity Intralingual
to,prisonirs,focuse on. Due to,prisoners,focus on.
He /she ask,it ………and,it He/she asks .it……and makes Intralingual
Grammatical make you feel well you feel well.
Child’s health is very valuable in Child’s health is very valuable
Articles the life in life. interlingual
The football is my favorite sport Football is my favourite sport.
Friends are a diamonds Friends are diamonds
They hav’t any place to live. They have no place to live
Prepositions Parents should advise their obese …….advise their obese interlingual
children by practice sport. children to practice sport.
far away the home far from the home
He won’t come back ever. He won’t ever come back
I’m very happy in this year. This year, I feel that I’m very
happy.
Word order Many principles there are to be a There are many principles to interlingual
teacher. be a teacher.
English is the best language English is the first

49
Chapter Three Research Methodology

international. international language.

Frendsheep, she halps me, Friendship, she helps me,
Lexical mybe , defecult, maybe, difficult, intralingual
for me. in my point of view.
She is different to me,all of us I think that she is different, all
Semantic dream of different things.every of us have different dreams
one must fight for his dream, and everyone should do his interlingual
/her best in order to achieve
his dream.
I met a girl who I had never seen …….whom I never met intralingual
Syntactic before. before
i watched movies on Facebook I watched movies on
Coordination and YouTube and television and Facebook , YouTube, interlingual
cinema television and cinema
Can help you for that the friends Can help you. For that, friends
Punctuation are very important. are very important. intralingual
-first of all, my mother is my life First of all, my mother ….

Table 3.21 Students’ Errors

b)Frequency of Errors

When correcting the students' short paragraphs, 98 errors were found in different types.
Data presented in the table shows that first year students committed many grammatical errors in
English writing with a percentage of 18.37%. These grammatical errors include different types
which are errors of articles 9.19, prepositions 7.14, word order 9.19, and coordination 13.27. It is
noticed that spelling errors are 12 with 12.24 %. Errors counted in semantic are 7 followed by
8.16 of syntactic. Moreover, at the level of using punctuation 7.14% of errors were observed.
Accordingly, the findings show that first year students of English make a lot of errors in different
categories mainly because of the negative transfer of the native language.

50
Chapter Three Research Methodology

Types of errors percentage

Spelling 12.24 ℅
Grammatical 18.37 ℅
Articles 9.19 ℅
Prepositions 7.14 ℅
Word order 9.19 ℅
Lexical 8.16 ℅
Semantic 7.14 ℅
Syntactic 8.16 ℅
Coordination 13.27 ℅
Punctuation 7.14 ℅
Table 3.22 Errors Frequency

3.2.1.7 Results of students’ short paragraphs

When correcting students written paragraphs, it is that the majority of students seemed to
have serious grammatical problems which affect the clarity of their sentences. Regarding the
prepositions, it poses a great difficulty for EFL learners since there are various prepositions in
English that have the same function in the native language. When students are not sure which
preposition to use in certain sentence, they often compare that sentence with its Arabic
equivalence. In this study the total number of errors counted in articles is nine, they constitute
9.19℅ of the total rate of errors. First year students may have forgotten sometimes to uses articles
due to the interference of the mother tongue, because students are confused with the use of the
definite and indefinite articles. They added the definite articles where it is not appropriate;
however they omitted the indefinite ones where they are appropriate for instance; the football is
my favourite sport instead of football is my favorite sport. The grammar was found as the most
difficult linguistic level presented the most frequency of errors. Thus, students found to be
lacking the appropriate application of grammar.
The analysis reveals that, among the frequent syntactic errors are those of word order.
Moreover, it is noticed that there is evidence of transfer in the study related to word order. This is
because the order of the sentence in the native language and the target one is different, for
instance in English adjective usually precede the nouns they modify, however in Arabic they

51
Chapter Three Research Methodology

generally follow them. As a results first year students produce sentences such as; I’m very happy
in this year, ( ‫بزاف هدا الع‬ ‫ )راني ف ح‬instead of; this year, I feel that I’m very happy. They tend to
make the adjective follow the noun according to Arabic word order system; however, the
adjective should precede the noun in English. The analysis shows that first year students have
problem in word order because they are influenced by Arabic word order system.

In fact, the spelling errors occur in students short paragraphs, this may prove that first
students do not have the knowledge of the relationship between sounds, written symbols and
faulty pronunciation. On the other hand, students tend to use their native language as a solution
for their difficulties in English spelling. Regarding the semantic, it occurs when students use
literal translation to convey in English Arabic expression for instance everyone must fight for his
dream (‫يح ر ع ى ح و‬ ‫ )كل واحد ال‬instead of, all of us have different dreams, and everyone should
do his /her best in order to achieve his dream. In addition to that, in terms of lexical errors, first
year student often translate words from Arabic to express an idea in English.

3.3 Findings and Results

Since the current study aimed at investigating the influence of the mother tongue on
English writing of first year students’ university of Mostaganem. The results show that most of
the learners make a significant number of errors, including different types of them. These errors
occur due to the mother tongue interference (interlingual), whereas some errors appear because of
the overgeneralization and complexity of rules ( intralingual). From what has been explained and
analyzed above, it’s clear that students’ mother tongue interference is the main cause of their
errors, as well as their low achievement in writing. According to the analysis of different items in
the students’ analysis and the teachers’ questionnaire. The analysis of students’ written
production shows that they are facing a great problem to write correctly. Learners are week in
English writing due to the negative effects of L1, and the lack of practicing writing during their
studies. On the other hand, teachers’ questionnaire analysis showed that instructors of written
expression module have agreed in the same opinion, that their students have difficulties in
English writing. These difficulties are mainly due to the negative interference of the native
language and, the lack of practice in English.

52
Chapter Three Research Methodology

3.4 Conclusion

The current chapter aims to test the hypotheses and reaches the comprehensive answers
for the question raised at the beginning of the present research. The Questionnaire addressed to
both teacher and students, and analyses of the students’ paragraphs were used as suitable tools for
this research. The results revealed based on the error analysis of students’ productions. It is
observed that the errors that have been made by first year learners in different areas are due to L1
interference; to support this statistical finding, the analysis of the productions shows that the
writing in a foreign language is not an easy task since most of learners have difficulties in
grammar, syntax, semantic, and organization of written production. In order to reduce these
mistakes/errors, teacher suggested reading and writing more in foreign language (practice); this
way of avoiding mistakes/errors (L1 interference) allows students to be competent in their FL;
directly, EFL learners’ writing will be more improved.
This chapter divided into two main parts; the first part devoted to the description of the
research methodology, research instruments and population. The second part is concerned with
the data collection and analysis including analysis of both students and teachers’ questionnaire, in
addition to the students’ short paragraphs. Finally, it concludes with findings and results that
proved the problem of this study.

53
 General Conclusion
Foreign language learning is strongly influenced by the learners’ mother tongue, EFL
students seek to use their first language rules and structures as a facilitating tool to learn
foreign language. This transfer would be reflected via speaking and writing. The latter is
considered as the most complex and difficult skill to be mastered by EFL students. First year
students at Mostaganem University commit a lot of errors while practicing the writing skill,
these errors may be due to such reasons including the interlingual and the intralingual. The
aims of this research were to analyze and identify the impact of the mother tongue on writing
in English as a foreign language, and to explore the common errors made by first year
students. Moreover, to test the hypothesis and reach convincing answers to the following
research questions;

 How does the mother tongue affect first year students’ writing?
 Is the mother tongue interference major cause for errors in the English writings of first
year EFL students?
 How can first year students improve their writing with less mother tongue
interference?

According to what has been searched, all the research questions in this study were
answered and the three hypotheses which state that ″mother tongue interference affect
students’ writing negatively″, ″the low achievement of the EFL learners’ writing performance
is due to the interference of their mother tongue″, and ″ if first year students do not make L1
interference, their writing will be greatly improved″ were accepted, since the analysis of
students’ short paragraphs revealed that the main reason behind students’ errors is the mother
tongue interference .
The mixed methods were adopted in this study, to provide a much more detailed and
convincing results. According to the data collection, first year students at University of
Mostaganem commit a number of errors of different types, which occur in different area of
language. It is noticed that there are two main reasons behind students’ errors which are;
interlingual and intralingual. However the results obtained show that most of previous errors
were caused by the negative interference of L1 (Arabic), because students usually go back to
Arabic rules and structures, to reduce their difficulties in writing. Furthermore, from the
analysis of students’ questionnaire and teachers’ questionnaire results, it is observed that the
influence of the native language, and the errors produced by first year students affect their

54
writing achievement negatively. The findings of this study prove that EFL learners depend
much more on their native language when they want to express their ideas, and thought in
writing.
Enhancing the writing skill of foreign language students is a difficult task, which
requires too much efforts and experience. EFL teachers should vary their teaching methods in
order to facilitate and enable their students to write accurately. Because the errors appeared in
students’ writing can be minimized in modern technique of teaching writing. Indeed, the full
knowledge of the causes behind learners’ errors enables teachers to work out more effective
teaching techniques to deal with them.
The present research is divided into three main chapters. The first and second chapter
is devoted to the theoretical parts of this research. The third chapter is allocated to the
practical part. The first chapter is described o the writing skill in general. Moreover, it
explained the status of English in the Algerian educational system, then it t highlighted the
background of teaching writing and the different approaches to teaching writing.

The second chapter is based on essential theories of foreign language learners’ errors;
including; language interference, error analysis and constructive analysis. It is divided into
two main parts; the first part pointed out some information about language transfer, language
transfer theories and views, and types of transfer. The second part focused on the description
of the notion of error analysis, in addition to constructive analysis, and the main reasons for
learners’ errors, which are interlingual and intralingual. Lastly, the chapter is closed with brief
explanation of the interference of Arabic on English writing.

Finally the last chapter is concerned with analyzing and interpreting the collected data
from both the analysis of learners’ short productions, and questionnaire devoted to both
teachers and students. It is divided into two main parts; the first part is concerned with the
description of the research methodology, research instruments, and population. The second
part introduced data analysis which is gathered from the tools used, in addition to the findings
and results.

55
Bibliography

 Abisamra, N. (2003). Analysis of Errors in Arabic Speakers' English Writings.

American University of Beirut. Retrieved in September 1, 2014 from:
http://abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacerroranalysis.html.
 Badger, R; White, G. (2000). A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. ELT
Journal.

 Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills. Longman Group UK Limited.

 Carl, J. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
 Cook V. J. (1999). Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching, TESOL
Quarterly.
 Cook, V.J. (2008). Second Language Learning And Language Teaching.4th
Edition.Uk : Hodder.
 Corder, S.P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Penguin Books. (1981). Error
Analysis and interlanguage. Oxford University Press. pdf.
 Corder S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage.
 Corder,S. P. (1983). A Role for the Mother Tongue. In S.M. Gass ; L. Selinker (Eds.),
Language Transfer in Language Learning .Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
 Cortes, N. (2006). Negative Language Transfer when Learning Spanish. Universidad
de Madrid: Interlinguistica.
 Harmer, J. (2000). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
 Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3rd ed). Pearson Education:
Longman.
 Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. Pearson Education Limited. England. (1998). How
to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson
Education Limited. England.
 Idiata, D.F. (2006). L’Afrique dans le système LMD (Licence-Master-Doctorat).
L’Harmattan.
 Jain, M.P. (n.d.). Error Analysis: Source, Cause, and Significance. In Richard, J. C.
(Ed.), (1974). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London:
Longman.
 Leki, I. (1998).Academic Writing: Exploring Processes and Strategies. (2nd ed).

56
 Nemouchi, A. 2009. Writing Connection with Grammar and Literature in the Study
Organization of the LMD System.
 Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language
Learning. Cambridge University Press.
 Okuma S. (1999). “Indices of L1 Transfer in EFL Writing: A study of Japanese
learners of English”, in: Richards J. C. (Ed.) (1974).
 Paltridge; Brian.(2004). Approaches to Teaching Second Language Writing. 17th
Educational Conference Adelaide.
 Richards, J.C. (1971). A Non- Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of
ELT.
 Richards, J.C; G.P. Sampson (1974). The Study of Learner English. In J.C.
 Richards (ed.) Error Analysis. Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition.
 Ridha, N.S.(2012). The Effects of EFL Learners’ Mother Tongue on Their Writing in
English: an Error Analysis Study. Journal of the College of Arts.
 Selinker, L. (1974). Interlanguage. In Richards, J. C (Eds.). Error Analysis:
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Essex: Longman.

 Sultan, S. (2013, June). L1 Arabic Interference in Learning L2 English:An Analysis of

English Spelling Used by Arabic Speakers at Undergraduate Level- a Case Study.
European Scientific Journal.
 White, R; Arndt, V. (1991).Process Writing. London & New York: Longman.
 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/7033.pdf.
 http://www.academicstar.us/upload File/Picture/2014-3/201431922490488.pdf.
 https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2175.
 http//www.academia.edu/5149075/05-Decline-of–Contrastive-Anlysis-2.pdf.
 http://www.academia.edu/5277824/contrastive-analysis-between-Englishand-Arabic-
prepositions.
 http://teslej.org/ej22/a1.html.pdf.
 http://www.iasj.net/iasj? Func=Fullte xt & ald= 58267.pdf.
 http:lael.pucsp.br/especialist/181diab.ps.pdf.
 http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/sakaeo.pdf.

57
Appendices
Appendix 01: Students’ Questionnaire

I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions by ticking ()
the appropriate box, or by making a full statement wherever needed.

Thank you

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age:

3. Is the study of English your personal choice?

Yes

No

4. How would you evaluate your present level at English?

Good Average Low

5. Do you find the module of written expression interesting?

Yes No

6. How often do you read books?

Always Rarely Never

7. What do you think about your English production?

Good Average less than average

8. How often do you practice writing?

Everyday Sometimes Never

9. Do you find difficulties when writing in English?

Yes No

10. Do you feel relaxed when expressing your ideas and thoughts in writing?

Yes No

11. Does your teacher allow you to use Arabic in the classroom?

Yes no

12. When you write English essays, composition, paragraph, do you think in:

English Arabic

13. When you write in English do you try to translate your ideas from Arabic to
English?

Yes No

14. What do you do when you do not understand a word or an expression?

A. I ask the teacher for translation in L1 ( Arabic)

B. I ask for vocabulary explanation in L2 ( English)
C. I refer to an English Arabic dictionary for unknown words

15. In your opinion does the use of the mother tongue (Arabic) influence the
way you write

Yes No
Appendix 02: Teachers’ Questionnaire
This survey is part of my master’s thesis study. I would appreciate it if you take your precious
time to tick the appropriate answer .Thank you for your cooperation.

1. Degree (s) held:

BA (license)

MA (master/ magister)

PhD (doctorate)

2. How long have you been teaching English (work experience)…………………………..

3. How long have you been teaching written expression…………………………………..

4. Do you think the written expression programme you are dealing with is enough to improve
the writing proficiency?

Yes No

If no, please explain why

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Do you encourage your students to read?

Yes No

6. Do you allow your students to use Arabic in the classroom?

Yes No

7. What type of approach do you follow in teaching the writing skill?

Product approach

Process approach

Both

Other, please specify

8. Do your students find difficulties when writing in English?

Yes No
9. What are the most common writing problems you noticed in your students’ writing?

Grammar mistakes

Interference of the mother tongue

Poor vocabulary

Poor content/ideas

10 .If the learners is the source of the writing difficulties, is it related to

Lack of background knowledge in the subject

Lack of motivation to write

Influence of L1 (mother tongue) in writing in English

11. Do first year students make a lot of errors when writing?

Yes No

12. Do you think that these errors caused by negative L1 transfer/ interference

Yes No

13. If yes, the most frequent errors they make are:

Grammatical

Lexical

Semantic

Syntactic

Punctuation

14. According to your experience does the interference of students ‘mother tongue affects
their development of writing skills? Justify your answer
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………. …………………………………………………………………..

15. What are the solutions and strategies you can suggest to avoid the interference of the
mother tongue when writing?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Appendix 03: Samples of Students’ Short Paragraphs