adjectives. The central idea is to skew the annotation corpus so that it contains a
greater proportion of errors. They then took the following steps in the
procedure by processing, dividing, combining the samples into an annotation
set, judging, calculating and using the values to calculate precision.
The system performs at 84 precision andclose to 19 recall on a large set of
studentessays. In addition, they address theproblem of annotation and
evaluation inthis domain by showing how current approachesof using only one
rater can skewsystem evaluation. They present a samplingapproach to
circumvent some of the issuesthat complicate evaluation of error
detectionsystems. This
paper has two contributions to the field of error detection in non‐ native writing.
First, it discussed a system that detects preposition errors with high precision
up to 84 and is competitive with other leading methods. It used an ME
approach augmented with combination featuresand a series of thresholds. This
system is currently incorporated in the Criterion writing evaluation service. Second,
it showed that the standard approach to evaluating NLP error detection systems
can greatly skew system results when the annotation is done by only one
rater. However, one reason why a single rater is commonly used is that building
a corpus of learner errors can be extremely costly and time consuming. This
makes using multiple raters possible since less time is required to assess the system’s
performance.
5. Dominika Uhrikova’s study 2011
31
In her research entitled: On Some Common Errors in Slovak ESLEFL Writing
Uhrikova tried tofocus the paper on some errors recurring throughout second‐
language L2 written texts produced by proficient Slovak writers. The work
presents the results of a case study dealing with the most common difficulties
facing Slovak learners of English on the syntactic level.
In doing her research she conducted a case‐study approach that combined
qualitative and quantitative research techniques. She focused more on the
written product based on a large corpus of ESL writings utilizing some of the
methods typical for error analysis and transfer analysis. She investigated the
work of 127 journalistic articles on various subjects written by five female native
Slovak journalists and two male native English‐speaking‐copy‐editors.
The analysis revealed that Slovak learners have the greatest problems with the
placement of adverbs and with word order in general, and that more than two
‐thirds of their errors are caused by L1 interference. The paper ends by examining
the methodological implications of the findings and by suggesting some
areas for future research. The
findings corroborate her conviction that elimination of errors is impossible
without proper‐and explicit knowledge of the difference between the learner’s
L1 and L2.
6. The Position of the Current Study.
32
After studying the previous studies done by those researchers, here the
researcherwill give review to see the position of this current study in its
relationship with the those previous studies.
This study is different from the first previous study conducted by Lea Gustillo
and Carlo Magno investigated the learners’ writing error at the sentence level
written by 3 different proficiency levels. They came to the conclusion that the
higher levels of writing proficiency do not exactly commit the same errors that
made by lower proficiency. However there is no significant difference in the
errors committed by those 3 proficiency levels. While the current study only
investigated the students who are supposed to be in the same proficiency level
in the word and the sentence level. The second study by Summaira Sarfraz is
also different from the current study because Sarfraz investigated the occurence
of interlanguage error which is higher than interference of mother tongue. In this
current study, the researcher investigatederrors on morphology, and syntax in
narrative text.
This study is also different from the third study by Rohan Abeywickrama who
focused on errors caused by the Negative L1 transfer or Mother tongue
interference. In this study the researcher did not only focus on Mother tongue
interference but also on other aspects. The fourth study By Tetreault and
Chodorow and the fifth by Ukhrikova are also different from the current study.
Tetreault and Chodorow focused on detecting preposition errors written by non‐
native English speakers while Ukhrikova focused on errors on placement of
33
adverbs and word order in general. This study is built on the previous researches
by making them the framework. The current study tries to extend them to make
error analysis more clear by seeing it from the aspects of morphology and syntax.
B. Theoretical Review
