UNDERSTANDING STRATEGY-BASED INTRALINGUAL ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING
Keywords:
Intralingual errors, foreign language writing, learning strategies, error analysis, English as a foreign language (EFL), overgeneralization, redundancy, misanalysis.Abstract
Writing in a foreign language, particularly English, poses significant challenges due to the complex cognitive processes it entails and the necessity of mastering intricate language structures. Among the common obstacles are learning strategy-based errors—systematic deviations in language use caused not by first-language interference, but by misapplications within the target language itself. This article investigates seven categories of intralingual errors: false analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy, overlooking co-occurrence restrictions, hypercorrection, and overgeneralization. Each category is examined through examples to highlight how learners’ incorrect assumptions and partial rule acquisition lead to persistent writing issues. The analysis underscores the importance of understanding these error types to develop more effective teaching strategies in foreign language instruction.
Downloads
References
Alzahrani, M. A. (2020). EFL Saudi Undergraduates' Tenses Errors in Written Discourse Due to Interlingual and Intralingual Interference. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(5), 1–15.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford Oxford University Press.
Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing Error: A Review of Interlingual and Intralingual Interference in EFL Context. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 9–18.
Schachter, J. & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly, I1, 441-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3585740
Scovel, T. 2001). Learning New Languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Massachsetts: Heinle & Heinle.
Shiva, N., & Navidinia, H. (2021). Exploring the Types and Sources of Iranian EFL University Students’ Writing Errors. Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 9(1), 34–45.