Research Paper

A research study about how the applicants sitting for the 2019 entrance exams for the Teacher

Training College of English Paulo Freire in La Matanza had difficulties with the use of

coordinating conjunctions while developing a requested written composition.

Flores, Ayelén

Saavedra, Jesica

Language and Written Expression IV

English Teacher Training College N°88 “Paulo Freire”

 Introduction

In this research study, we developed an analysis on the most frequent errors regarding

coordinating conjunctions that were found throughout 101 written pieces belonging to

applicants from 2019, who had finished their compulsory secondary education and had sat for

the entrance exam for the Teacher Training College Paulo Freire, located in San Justo, La

Matanza. The entrance exam for this institution is designed for B1 level students according to

the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching,

assessment (CEFRL, 2001). Taking this framework into consideration, the institution expects

the applicants to be able to “produce simple connected texts on topics which are familiar or of

personal interest [as well as] describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes, and ambitions

and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.” (p.24). In 2019, the

applicants were asked to write a short composition about a personal anecdote related to an

exam they had failed or passed. Additionally, they were required to be attentive to the

organization of the information they were about to provide and to give connectors and verb

tenses an appropriate use.

While reading the written compositions, we could notice that some of the applicants

included coordinating conjunctions to their compositions, but the context required a different

one, for instance: *I couldn’t do my exam and I didn’t pass for my second year [sic].

Likewise, some of the students omitted them, for example, *I finished the exam in less than

an hour, I checked all the points before I give my exam to the teacher. I went out, I waited for

my friend, when she finished we waited outside for our notes.[sic]. Finally, some of them

tended to overuse coordinating conjunctions, such as: *I went to my house and I was very sad

1
and later I recived a call...from the school, they said “the exam it was reprogramed and

tomorrow at 7 pm is the same”[sic].

These types of inaccuracies could affect communication as they may confuse the

reader and alter the meaning of the sentence. Indeed, in order to understand some of the ideas

they wanted to express we had to translate them into Spanish. For this reason, this study

focuses on describing the difficulties the applicants had while using coordinating

conjunctions in their writing compositions, as well as trying to provide a possible answer for

the following question:

* What were the most common coordinating conjunctions mistakes presented in the

applicant’s compositions and how may their first language have interfered in their writing

process?

To give a presumptive answer to this question, we will begin by presenting previous

studies, defining terms and explaining theories that are indispensable to have a better

understanding of the analysis of the applicants’ errors.

Review of literature

Previous research studies

It is worth mentioning that there has been previous research studies conducted on the matter

of coordinating conjunction mistakes. For example, Yenni Arif Rahman investigated the

most-frequent errors of conjunctions usage in the EFL learners’ composition and whether

they had occured in intra-sentential level (between clauses in a sentence) or inter-sentential

level (between sentences or paragraphs). The results showed that errors of conjunction mostly

2
occurred on the use of adversative conjunction and mostly in intra-sentential level. Similarly,

another researcher called Yi-hui Chiu explored the acquisition of the most commonly used

coordinating conjunction “and'' in essays written by students in high-, mid-, and

low-proficiency levels in Taiwan. Ignorance or misuse of the coordinating conjunction “and”

were discussed in relation to L1 transfer and the EFL reading taking into account the

grammar materials those learners had been exposed to in the EFL setting. Consequently,

Darweesh & Kadhim investigated the errors committed by Iraqi university EFL students in

using conjunctions in their written essays. They related the misuse of English conjunctions

with learner's first language interference. In their research study, they concluded that learners

seem to have a limited repertoire of conjunctions and therefore tend to often rely on a small

set of conjunctions such as 'and' and 'but' to link their writing.

After mentioning those previous studies, it is important to state that in this research study we

have decided to focus on coordinating conjunctions. Our intention is to analyse the mistakes

related to them, as well as, to try to give a possible explanation for the inaccuracies found in

their written compositions.

Coordinating conjunctions

We have based this research study on the analysis of the applicants' mistakes related

to coordinating conjunctions. As a consequence, it is important to explain what coordinating

conjunctions are and what their function is. The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching

& Applied Linguistics (2010) defines conjunction as “a word which joins words, phrases, or

clauses which are equivalent or of the same rank” (p.116). Similarly, Bloor and Bloor (1995)

define conjunction as “a cohesive tie between clauses or sections of the text in such a way as

to demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them.” In this sense, we can say that

3
coordinating conjunctions play a major role within a written composition since their function

is to connect ideas in a coherent way. Therefore, making a mistake in their use may affect the

cohesive relation of words, phrases, or clauses.

Competence and performance

Since the intention of this research study is to analyse the applicants’ mistakes on

concrete written compositions, we need to make a distinction between two concepts:

competence and performance. Chomsky (1965) defines language competence as “the

speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his (or her) language” and language performance as “the

actual use of language in concrete situations” (p.3). In this sense, competence involves having

knowledge of the grammatical rules of the language, while performance refers to the way in

which we use that knowledge within a context.

It is worth mentioning that as we are not able to affirm the applicant’s exact level of

language competence, in this investigation we will analyse only their performance in writing

a coherent paragraph and the mistakes regarding coordinating conjunctions that the written

pieces presented.

Language transfer

Since previous researchers have claimed that first language may interfere with the

accuracy of learners’ writing process, it is essential to explain what language transfer is and

how it may have caused difficulties in the applicant's performance. Whereas Richards and

Schmidt (2010) define language transfer as “the effect of one language on the learning of

another”, Brown (2000) defines it as “the carryover of previous performance knowledge to

subsequent learning.” They also make a distinction between positive transfer and negative

4
transfer. In Richards and Schmidt words, positive transfer is what “makes learning easier, and

may occur when both the native language and the target language have the same form.”

Conversely, they define negative transfer as “the use of a native-language pattern or rule

which leads to an error or inappropriate form of the target language.” Similarly, Brown

(2000) explains that negative transfer “occurs when a previous performance disrupts the

performance of a second task.” In this sense, first language transfer might help learners or it

might negatively interfere at the moment of developing their ideas in their target language

due to the differences that both languages may have.

Errors and mistakes

In order to investigate the nature of the incorrect use of coordinating conjunctions, it

is important to state whether these inaccuracies are errors or mistakes. Both terms may be

seen as synonyms; however, the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied

Linguistics (2010) makes a distinction between them. It states that an error "results from

incomplete knowledge", while a mistake "is caused by lack of attention, fatigue, carelessness,

or some other aspect of performance." In a similar way, Brown (2000) defines a mistake as a

“performance error that is either a random guess or a [...] failure to utilize a known system

correctly” (p.217). In contrast, Brown claims that an error “reflects the competence of a

learner” (2000, p.218). Similarly, Corder (1967) distinguished errors from mistakes by saying

that mistakes, which he called “errors of performance”, are “the product of such chance

circumstances such as physical states, memory lapses or strong emotions”, while errors

“reveal the learner's underlying knowledge of the language to date”. Corder (1967) also

stated that mistakes are unsystematic, while errors are indeed systematic.

5
 From these definitions it can be synthesized that mistakes are unsystematic failures in

using a known system caused by internal factors of the learner; thus, they can be

self-corrected. Conversely, errors reveal the boundaries of the learner’s competence as they

occur because the learner does not know what is correct; thus, they cannot be self-corrected.

It is important to mention that the problems detected in the written compositions might be

mistakes or errors since we cannot be sure if they represent a failure in attempting to use a

known system or if they result from incomplete knowledge. However, since the applicants

were expected not to have these kinds of inaccuracies due to their assumed level of

proficiency, in this analysis, we will refer to them as mistakes.

On the whole, this investigation will try to help us to understand the possible reasons

why the applicants for the Teacher Training College of English “Paulo Freire” of 2019 made

mistakes related to coordinating conjunctions while developing a writing composition. We

will discuss, particularly, how the negative interference of Spanish seemed to have affected

their performance at writing in English.

Method

Context and participants

The exams analysed for this research study belonged to one hundred and one

applicants who sat for the entrance exam at the Teacher Training College of English “Paulo

Freire” at the beginning of the year 2019. With the intention of evaluating the applicants’

6
language competence, the institution required them to solve different tasks to assess their

performance on the four macro abilities. It is important to mention that we did not observe

the participants directly. In addition, background and personal information of the applicants

such as names, ages, and origins are unknown to us as they remained anonymous. For that

reason, such data has not been included in this analysis. However, we can say that the

applicants were over 18 years old and had completed their secondary education. In addition,

some of them had possibly studied English in private institutes of English and some of them

may have attended the preparation course for the entrance exam provided by the English

Training College “Paulo Freire”.

Paradigm

In this research study, we have employed a qualitative research methodology to gain

insight into the nature of the applicants’ mistakes in their written exams. Strauss and Corbin

(1998, in J. Creswell, 2012, p.45) explained that “qualitative methods can be used to obtain

the intricate details about phenomena such as feelings,thought processes, and emotions that

are difficult to extract or learn about through more conventional methods” (p. 11). Similarly,

according to Johnson & Christensen (2014):

Qualitative research is used to describe what is seen locally and sometimes to come
up with or generate new hypotheses and theories. Qualitative research is used when
little is known about a topic or phenomenon and when one wants to discover or learn
more about it. It is commonly used to understand people’s experiences and to express
their perspectives.(p.82)

Taking these definitions into account, we have decided to apply this method to our research

study since the data analysed was collected in the form of words. Moreover, as previously

7
stated, the intention of this research paper is to explain how the applicants’ first language may

have interfered in their process of writing. As a consequence, we chose this method as it

could be used to obtain insights on the thought processes of people in a determined situation.

Materials

The materials used in this analysis were facilitated to us by the Teacher Training

College “Paulo Freire” in 2019 and they consisted of one hundred and one written

compositions that the applicants of that year were required to write as part of their entrance

exam. As we stated before, the applicants’ performance was assessed on the four macro

abilities. However, in this research paper, we will only develop an analysis on the writing part

of the exam, in which the applicants were required to write a paragraph of 15-20 lines telling

an anecdote or story about an exam they had failed or passed, with a total of 25 marks out of

100.

Instruments

With the intention of classifying the different types of errors regarding coordinating

conjunctions, we are going to use the Surface Strategy Taxonomy proposed by Dulay, Burt,

and Krashen (1982). These authors explain that learner’s errors can be divided into the

following four categories: omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. Dulay, Burt,

and Krashen (1982) define omission as “the absence of an item that must appear in a

well-formed utterance” (p.154), addition as “the presence of an item that must not appear in a

well-formed utterance” (p.156), misformation as “the wrong form of a morpheme or

structure” (p.158) and misordering as “the incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of

morphemes in an utterance” (p.162). Since the previous categorisations seem to be a clear

8
way of dividing the different coordinating conjunction mistakes found, we have chosen this

classification in order to analyse and understand them.

Procedure

Firstly, the one hundred and one writing compositions were analyzed in depth.

Secondly, different mistakes were highlighted to be later classified into different categories

such as lexical mistakes, tense mistakes, and cohesion mistakes. This allowed us to have a

clear picture of which mistakes were the most frequent ones among the applicants’ pieces of

writing.

After having analysed those 101 exams, we came to the conclusion that 46 of the

applicants’ written compositions presented at least one to three cohesion mistakes related to

the use of coordinating conjunctions. As a result, we will centre our analysis on those

compositions. With the intention of distinguishing the different types of errors the applicants

had regarding coordinating conjunctions, our last step was to create a chart separating the

mistakes into the following categories:

9
 Examples of coordinating conjunctions mistakes taken from the applicants’ Addition of Omission of Misformation of Misordering of
written compositions coordinating coordinating coordinating coordinating
conjunction conjunction conjunction conjunction
(wrong (wrong placement
connector) within a sentence)

He was good looking and good person and he danced very good. X

I decided to drive a car. My husband learnt me some tricks of driving test. We X

went to Ezeiza to practice drive.

My parents weren’t in my house because they had traveled to Brazil and I was X
alone

In Montreal even speak french. And the girls were half canadians half X
portuguese.”

10
 Results

As stated before, this research aims to illustrate which the most common coordinating

conjunctions mistakes were and how first language could have interfered in the applicants’

writing process. We found that from a total of 101 exams, 46 exams presented mistakes

regarding coordinating conjunctions.

In order to have a clear picture of what mistakes were the most frequent ones, we

decided to classify the mistakes found in the following chart:

N° Type of error Total of mistakes Percentage

1 Misformation 17 33,33%

2 Addition 15 29,41%

3 Misordering 11 21,57%

4 Omission 8 15,69%

TOTAL 51 100%
With the intention of illustrating the results of our investigation clearly, we will add a
pie graph:

11
 We will also add a bar graph to illustrate which were the most common coordinating
conjunctions involved in the sentences that presented mistakes throughout the exams
analysed.

Coordinating conjunctions that caused more difficulties

Taking this data into consideration, we can see that the most frequent mistakes that

the applicants had during the development of a required writing piece were the ones related to

misformation and addition of coordinating conjunctions. As regards coordinating

conjunctions, we can observe that the most used were and, but, so, and or while coordinating

conjunctions like for, nor, and yet were not used.

Discussion

The purpose of this research study is to gain insights into the difficulties that the

applicants for the Teacher Training College Paulo Freire faced regarding the use of

coordinating conjunctions when dealing with the requested writing composition for the

12
entrance exam of 2019. In order to do that, we will focus on how negative transfer seemed to

be the main reason behind the incorrect use of coordinating conjunctions.

As it was previously observed in the results section, misformation and addition were

the most frequent mistakes in the use of coordinating conjunctions. According to the

language transfer theory, it is assumed that the learners’ mother tongue may negatively affect

their performance while communicating in a foreign language, as it can be seen in the

following examples,*And when we finished the exam I and my partners went to a restaurant

near to the institution and we have lunch and we spend a great time together [sic]; *At 5.30

pm the teacher arrive and I felt so nervous, and the teacher say "you have 30 minutes for

read a math book right now", and, all my friend were happy. [Sic]; *When I sat in the chair

she saw that I was nervous, and she tried to calm me, she spoke to me, and I felt a bit good, I

did the exam, and my calification was ten, I passed and my teacher was very happy for me

and her. [Sic.] The repetitive use of the additive coordinating conjunction "and'' within the

same sentence appears to be related to the learner's interference of his or her first language.

This may occur because, as Chiu claims, “generally speaking, AND occurs much more

frequently in speech production than in written production”(p.5). So, the use of AND occurs

with highest frequency in spoken language rather than in written one. Bear in mind that when

we tell an anecdote in spoken Spanish we tend to repeat the word "y" to connect each

sequence of the story. That is to say, in terms of meaning and use, "and'' serves as a marker

of speakers' continuations in oral language. However, in written compositions in English it is

neither correct nor necessary to repeat the word "and" in the same sentence many times. In

this study we did not focus on the spoken production, however, it is relevant to mention this

since some applicants may have unconsciously transmitted aspects from their oral discourse

to their writing productions. Likewise, Richards and Schmidt (2010) explain that one

13
language can affect the learning of another. In this case, the usage of the connector “y”

coming from their spoken mother tongue may have affected the applicants’ performance in

written English.

As the graphics in the previous section demonstrate, learners seem to have a limited

set of conjunctions in mind such as 'and' and 'but', and tend to rely on them to connect their

ideas. This may contribute to the making of mistakes related to misformation or unnecessary

addition of coordinating conjunction. For example, *When I was went to my home, haven’t

remembered anything of the movies and the book, but I studied for the rest two days without

sleep.[Sic] In this case, this applicant chose the wrong coordinating conjunction to express

the logical relationship between the independent clauses. That is to say, “but” is not the most

suitable choice for that context. The learner should have used the coordinating conjunction

“so” to join both clauses, as “I studied for the rest two days without sleep”[sic] is the result of

not remembering “anything of the movies and the book.”[sic]. These types of mistakes may

occur because of negative interference as we tend not to pay much attention to cohesion rules

when speaking in Spanish. As a consequence, it seems that the applicants directly transferred

what they were thinking into writing, without reflecting on it. This means that in unplanned

discourse there are more chances for the students to be predisposed to make these types of

mistakes.

One final point to consider is that, according to the CEFRL, the applicants were

expected to know how to use coordinating conjunctions adequately due to the approximate

level of competence; however, we have proved that there were failures in the use of them.

Although the Diseño Curricular de Educación de Buenos Aires for secondary level (2011)

proposes the teaching of grammar structures, taking into account the function of connectors

14
like “but=opposition, and=addition” (p.288), in the list of teaching contents, coordinating

conjunctions are not included as part of what should be taught and practised. In fact, even

though coordinating conjunctions are proposed to be presented within a context, we have

proved that the most common type of mistake is misformation, which indicates that the

applicants had troubles with choosing the one that suits the context in which they were

developing their ideas. This could mean that the applicants might have not assimilated the use

of coordinating conjunctions but their Spanish equivalent. As a consequence, they might not

be able to detect and self-correct those mistakes as the CEFRL suggests.

Conclusion

To sum up, our research study has shown that the most frequent mistakes presented in

the applicants’ written compositions were the ones related to misformation and addition of

coordinating conjunctions. Besides, as illustrated previously, the coordinating conjunctions

most used were and, but, so, and or while coordinating conjunctions like for, nor, and yet

were not used at all. This may imply that the applicants lack competence about that type of

conjunctions. Taking into account the examples and the theory discussed, we can infer that

the observed mistakes could have been caused by language transfer from the applicants’ first

language since there is a possibility that the applicants might have assimilated the meaning of

the coordinating conjunctions in Spanish, rather than their correct use.

15
 References

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan
Approach. London: Arnold.

Brown, D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New

York: Pearson Education.

Chiu. Y. (n.d) The L2 Acquisition of the Coordinating Conjunction "and"in Taiwanese

Learners' Interlanguage at College Level. Asian EFL Journal, 1, 1-20

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

MIT Press.

Council of Europe, (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Corder, S.P. (1967). The Significance of Learner’s Errors. International Review of

Applied Linguistics 5.

Creswell, J. (2012) Educational Research: planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. (4th Ed.). Pearson: University of

Nebraska-Lincoln.

Darweesh, A. & Kadhim, S. (2016). Iraqi EFL Learners' Problems in Using

Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices. Journal of Education and Practice, 7,

169-180

16
Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two, Oxford University Press,

New York.

Dirección General de Cultura y Educación de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (2011).

Diseño curricular para la Educación Secundaria 6to año: Inglés. Retrieved

October 29, 2019, from

http://abc.gob.ar/secundaria/sites/default/files/documentos/ingles_6.pdf

Johnson R. & Christensen L. (2014) Educational Research Quantitative, Qualitative

and Mixed Approaches (5th Ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rahman, Y. (2017). Error of conjunctions in Indonesian EFL learners’ composition .

Progressive, 12, 47-56.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2010) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &

Applied Linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education

17