The present study aims to categorize common word choice errors in Korean EFL writing and help teachers understand students’ word choice patterns. This study reassures that both L1 and its background cultures affect language learners’ choice of vocabulary in English learning. Korean first-year undergraduate students with low levels of English proficiency participated in this study. The students were required to carry out a writing log, a collection of nine pieces of weekly assignments of paragraph writing during the semester. They were allowed to use any type of automatic translation such as Google Translate or Papago for revision and editing. The errors that the students produced were classified into three categories, and significant findings were obtained regarding lexical errors caused by literal translation, cultural differences, and L1 word order. The findings are interpreted in terms of cultural and linguistic differences between the first and target languages. They can give ideas for teachers to instruct EFL writing strategies on students’ word choice errors.

Este trabajo analiza los errores debidos a la interferencia coreana al escribir/traducir al español. Sostenemos que, cuando los alumnos ingresan una vez en la memoria una forma española α que corresponde preferentemente a una forma coreana A, tienden a equiparar esta correspondencia como ‘A = α’ y la aplican a los casos en los que dicha correspondencia no debería usarse. Para averiguar cuántos alumnos cometen este tipo de error, realizamos un experimento con 42 alumnos. En el experimento, dividimos las oraciones en dos grupos. Las oraciones que pueden producir un resultado apropiado se colocaron en el grupo A si usamos la correspondencia ‘A → α’, mientras que las que pueden producir un resultado inapropiado se ubicaron en el grupo B si lo hacemos. Nuestro análisis mostró que el error más común del grupo B es reutilizar la correspondencia utilizada en el grupo A. Por lo tanto, los estudiantes necesitan evitar una “ecuación excesiva” para reducir errores. Finalmente, para cada oración, sugerimos formas de reducir o evitar errores.

Automated error detection and feedback systems are becoming an important component of online writing practice services for ESL/EFL (English as a second/foreign language) learners. The main purposes of the study are to: (a) collect samples of essays written by ESL learners with different native language (or L1) backgrounds that are error-coded by an early version of an automated error-detection system (CritiqueTM) and trained human coders; and (b) identify some unique patterns of writing errors for different first language (L1) groups. Data analyzed in this study included 18, 439 TOEFL◯R CBT essays error-coded by CritiqueTM and a much smaller, combined sample of 480 TOEFL◯R CBT/TOEFL iBT◯R essays error-coded by trained human coders. A comparison of error rates across five different language groups showed some unique patterns: (a) the Arabic and Spanish groups were the highest on both spelling and punctuation errors; (b) the Korean and Japanese groups had the highest article error frequency; and (c) the Chinese group had the highest number of errors related to verb conjugations or adjective and noun inflections. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of understanding the nature of L1-related writing errors and enhancing the automated error detection and feedback systems.

This case study investigates the impact of cognitive style (field in/dependence) on errors in English writing through extensive reading (ER). It explores different possibilities between two field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) learners through ER, and it considers the types of errors (interlanguage or intralingual) that they are more likely to commit. The participants were two Korean female high school students with different cognitive styles. To ascertain their respective cognitive styles, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was conducted. The participants were asked to write a reading log once a week for six months. Data analyses were performed by two raters, and for further qualitative analysis, Nvivo 10 was used. The results showed that ER was more beneficial to the FI learner with regard to writing proficiency, and both the FI and FD learners committed considerable interlanguage errors. Furthermore, there were similarities and discrepancies between the FI and FD learners as a result of the ER treatment in interlanguage error change.

This paper investigated Korean heritage learners" acquisition of Korean as a second language. In particular, written narratives of 16 Korean heritage learners were analyzed in order to identify errors and strategies observed in Korean heritage learners" second language writing. The findings of the study indicated that learners" errors were not significantly related to their proficiency levels in the target language. Likewise, no significant differences were observed in errors due to their proficiency levels. However, some differences were noted in several grammatical categories. In case- or tense-related areas, learners with higher proficiency levels were not much more accurate than those with lower proficiency levels. However, in terms of the use of inflectional markers, learners with higher proficiency levels exhibited higher accuracy than lower level learners. With regard to their use of strategies, literal translation, code-switching, and approximation were most frequently observed in their writings. The paper concludes with some implications for teaching Korean as a foreign language.

A traditional assumption has been that written work in foreign language classes must be corrected carefully. If they were not corrected, errors would be deeply ingrained, and it would be difficult for learners to use the language correctly. Feedback has been viewed as a facilitator of learning and provides various kinds of information to the learner. In foreign language learning, this information consists primarily of modifications and upgrade their inter language grammar. Teachers" written feedback is a topic of continuing interest in foreign language teaching. But most experienced writing teachers know that responding to the students" writing can be the most frustrating, difficult and time consuming part of the job. Providing written feedback on student papers is the teachers‘ most crucial task. And it plays an important role in motivating and encouraging students. But in spite of corrections, teachers have found that students continue to repeat the same mistakes. Moreover the return of papers covered with red marks causes disappointment and discouragement on student"s faces. The teacher wonder if lerner"s errors should be corrected. If so, when should learner"s errors be corrected and which error should be corrected? How should learner"s errors be corrected? Who should correct learner"s errors? To this end, this paper will review the researches about these questions. And this paper will discuss and try to find the conclusion on these questions.