Preposition Errors Research Articles

Generation 1.5 written error patterns: A comparative study

In an attempt to contribute to existing research on Generation 1.5 students, the current study uses quantitative and qualitative methods to compare error patterns in a corpus of Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 community college student writing. This error analysis provides one important way to determine if error patterns in Generation 1.5 student writing are distinct from L1 and L2 student writing, thereby supporting or refuting claims made in prior research about writing error frequency and type (e.g., Ferris, 2009; Frodesen, 2009; Frodesen & Starna, 1999; Reid, 1997), as well as addressing the role of errors as a defining criterion of Generation 1.5 writing in post-secondary contexts. Results reported in this study reveal significantly more errors were made by Generation 1.5 writers versus L1 writers within the error types of verb errors, prepositional phrase errors, word form errors, and total identified errors. A qualitative analysis also identified specific patterns of difference between Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 verb error production. Differences found in both the quantitative and the qualitative analyses suggest that the category of Generation 1.5 writing may indeed be characterized in part by an increased likelihood of difficulty in controlling the accuracy of various language forms. Findings are discussed in relation to claims made in prior research about Generation 1.5 writing error frequency and type, as well as the role of errors as a defining characteristic of Generation 1.5 writing in post-secondary contexts.

Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback

A substantial number of studies have examined the effects of grammar correction on second language (L2) written errors. However, most of the existing research has involved unidirectional written feedback. This classroom-based study examined the effects of oral negotiation in addressing L2 written errors. Data were collected in two intermediate adult English as a second language classes. Three types of feedback were compared: nonnegotiated direct reformulation, feedback with limited negotiation (i.e., prompt + reformulation) and feedback with negotiation. The linguistic targets chosen were the two most common grammatical errors in English: articles and prepositions. The effects of feedback were measured by means of learner-specific error identification/correction tasks administered three days, and again ten days, after the treatment. The results showed an overall advantage for feedback that involved negotiation. However, a comparison of data per error types showed that the differential effects of feedback types were mainly apparent for article errors rather than preposition errors. These results suggest that while negotiated feedback may play an important role in addressing L2 written errors, the degree of its effects may differ for different linguistic targets.

The utility of article and preposition error correction systems for English language learners: Feedback and assessment

In this paper, we describe and evaluate two state-of-the-art systems for identifying and correcting writing errors involving English articles and prepositions. Criterion SM, developed by Educational Testing Service, and ESL Assistant , developed by Microsoft Research, both use machine learning techniques to build models of article and preposition usage which enable them to identify errors and suggest corrections to the writer. We evaluated the effects of these systems on users in two studies. In one, Criterion provided feedback about article errors to native and non-native speakers who were writing an essay for a college-level psychology course. The results showed a significant reduction in the number of article errors in the final essays of the non-native speakers. In the second study, ESL Assistant was used by non-native speakers who were composing email messages. The results indicated that users were selective in their choices among the system’s suggested corrections and that, as a result, they were able to increase the proportion of valid corrections by making effective use of feedback.

Frequency and Variability in Errors in the Use of English Prepositions

The purpose of this study is: a) to determine the frequency of preposition errors in a descriptive composition written by Spanish secondary students; b) to prove the systematicity of these errors in students from different state secondary schools; c) to carry out a tentative qualitative analysis of the variability of prepositional errors in terms of their formal classification, and in terms of the linguistic contexts in which they occur. Although percentages differ from one school to another, the results show that preposition errors are the most common of all errors. Results also show considerable difference in the frequency of error types: substitution errors are far more common than omission or addition errors. We have also obtained evidence that preposition errors seldom appear in linguistic contexts such as preceding non-finite -ing clauses and stranded-preposition constructions including wh-questions and zero-relative clauses.

A quantitative analysis of saccades and smooth pursuit during visual pursuit tracking: A comparison of schizophrenics with normals and substance abusing controls

The eye movements of schizophrenic patients are characterized by decreased smooth pursuit gain and an increased frequency of saccades. However, the nature of these saccades and their function during smooth pursuit has not been clearly defined. To address this issue we examined the eye movements of 22 schizophrenic patients, 20 substance abusing patients (primarily alcohol; some with concomitant cocaine and/or cannabis abuse), and 17 normal controls during a visual pursuit task using infra-red oculography. A computerized pattern recognition algorithm divided pursuit eye movements into two basic components: smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements. The algorithm also determined eye position error and velocity error before and after each saccade. Schizophrenic patients had lower smooth pursuit gain ( p<0.02) and made more saccades during smooth pursuit ( p<0.02) than either comparison group. When saccades were assigned to subcategories based on direction and position error, only the frequency of ‘catch-up’ saccades differentiated schizophrenic patients from the comparison groups ( p<0.05). Smooth pursuit gain was negatively correlated with saccadic frequency among all three subject groups. Eye velocity preceding saccades was significantly lower among the schizophrenic patients, but pre or post saccadic position error did not differ among the three groups. Discrete analysis of the fine structure of visual pursuit tracking may lead to a better understanding of eye movement abnormalities in schizophrenia.

Preposition errors and abstract, complex thought

Preposition errors and abstract, complex thought