Page 1 of 14
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.119.17592.
Këpuska, A., & Toçi, A. (2024). Tense Errors in Albanian Speakers Learning English (L2). Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
11(9). 135-148.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Tense Errors in Albanian Speakers Learning English (L2)
Arta Këpuska
ORCID: 0009-0006-7612-2153
South East European University, The Faculty of Languages,
Cultures, and Communication, North Macedonia
Arta Toçi
ORCID: 0000-0001-9172-6613
South East European University, The Faculty of Languages,
Cultures, and Communication, North Macedonia
ABSTRACT
Albanian students learning English as a Second Language (ESL) face considerable
challenges with the English tense system due to significant grammatical differences
between the two languages. This study examines the specific difficulties that
Albanian ESL learners in Kosovo experience with tense usage, drawing on
responses from both questionnaires and written compositions. The results reveal a
high frequency of errors, particularly in the Past Simple, Present Simple, Present
Perfect, Past Perfect, and Future Simple tenses. The most common errors were
related to incorrect tense construction. The frequent mistakes in the Past and
Present Simple tenses suggest that native language interference and the
overgeneralization of English rules contribute significantly to the learners'
struggles. The study calls for further research, especially longitudinal and oral- based studies, to better understand these issues and to develop more effective
teaching strategies to help Albanian learners improve their command of English
tenses.
Keywords: tense errors, learners’ language, error analysis, linguistic and surface- structure errors, English (L2), Albanian (L1)
INTRODUCTION
The English tense system is widely regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of the
learning process for Albanian learners of English as a Second Language (ESL). The complexity
and broad scope of the tense system often lead to confusion and frustration among students,
who find it difficult to grasp and apply the rules consistently. This challenge is not confined to
students alone; many instructors and teachers also struggle to effectively teach and address the
nuances of English tenses in the classroom. This research is designed to identify the specific
areas within the English tense system that are particularly prone to errors when acquired by
Albanian learners of ESL. By analyzing the language produced by these learners, this study aims
to uncover patterns of mistakes that can help explain why certain tenses are more difficult to
master. The findings from this analysis are expected to provide valuable insights that can
inform better instructional strategies and support more effective learning outcomes for
Albanian ESL students.
Page 3 of 14
137
Këpuska, A., & Toçi, A. (2024). Tense Errors in Albanian Speakers Learning English (L2). Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(9). 135-
148.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.119.17592
production. Although the primary focus of error analysis has been on identifying systematic
and unsystematic errors, asystematic errors are also significant, though they are more difficult
to identify and predict. The key difference between errors and mistakes lies in “their frequency
and whether they are repeated” (Brown, 2000, p.17) with errors being consistent and typically
not self-correctable.
Error Analysis
Error Analysis (EA) is a branch of applied linguistics that gained prominence in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. It is concerned with identifying, describing, and explaining the errors
produced by L2 or FL learners within the context of their language use. EA plays a crucial role
in understanding how learners acquire a second language and what common pitfalls they
encounter.
Phases of Error Analysis
The process of conducting EA generally involves three phases:
1. Identifying Errors: This phase involves pinpointing instances where the learner’s
language deviates from the target language norms. The learner’s interlanguage is
compared to reconstructed native-like sentences. Corder (1973) introduced a
distinction between overt errors, which are grammatically incorrect, and covert errors,
which are grammatically correct but inappropriate within the context.
2. Describing and Classifying Errors: Once identified, errors are described and classified
using specific taxonomies. Two primary taxonomies are used: The Linguistic Taxonomy
and the Surface Structure Taxonomy, which have initally been used in error analysis
studies by Coder (1981), Dulay, Burt & Dulay (1982), James (2013), and Ellis &
Barkueizen (2005). These taxonomies help in categorizing errors based on their nature
and the linguistic categories they affect.
3. Explaining the Sources and Causes of Errors: The final phase involves determining
the sources and causes of the errors. Errors are analyzed to understand whether they
result from the learner’s attempts to learn and acquire the language or from other
influences, such as their native language.
Taxonomies of Error Classification
Error classification in EA is typically done using two main taxonomies:
1. Linguistic Taxonomy: This taxonomy categorizes errors based on the linguistic
categories affected by the deviation. The categories are drawn from a descriptive
grammar of the target language and focus on the linguistic elements that are incorrect.
2. Surface Structure Taxonomy: Initially developed by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982),
the Surface Structure Taxonomy categorizes errors based on how the learner’s language
differs from the target language’s surface structure. The principal categories in this
taxonomy include:
• Omissions: a form, morpheme, or particle is missing.
• Additions: unnecessary elements are added.
• Misformations: incorrect forms, morphemes, or structures are used.
• Misorderings: elements are placed in the wrong order.
• Blends: two or more semantically related forms are combined, resulting in an
incorrect form.