OVERVIEW OF ENGLISH LEARNERS' MISTAKES WITH A FOCUS ON WRITING. IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING ADULT LEARNERS' LANGUAGE MISTAKES IN WRITING TASKS

Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 57 OVERVIEW OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ MISTAKES WITH A FOCUS ON WRITING. IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING ADULT LEARNERS’ LANGUAGE MISTAKES IN WRITING TASKS Dimov K. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17740990 Abstract The article aims at exploring and analyzing the types of mistakes English learners make with a pronounced focus on writing tasks. A general overview of erroneous behaviour in foreign language learning is presented, the two terms “error” and “mistake” are differentiated and viewed separately. The article includes a short experiment, where we explore the written tasks of adult learners, identifying and analyzing the mistakes as well as drawing conclusions and providing suggestions for improving the state of their written capabilities. Novice researchers might find this article useful as it outlines the errors and mistakes in foreign language learning as well as provides key studies on the topic as reference. Keywords: ELT, EFL, error, mistake, writing, morphology, syntax, lexicon, adult learners, error correction 1. Introduction For years, there have been many studies on the process of first language acquisition and second language learning. Findings about first language acquisition have been adapted to foreign language acquisition and it has been concluded that the process works in a similar way (Ellis, 1994; Ipek, 2009). Children making plenty of mistakes while learning their native tongue is a natural part of language acquisition process. However, with the help of feedback from adults they learn how to produce grammatically and semantically correct sentences. When a foreign language learner takes the steps necessary to understand the target language, they are in the same position as that of a child acquiring their first language. It is inevitable that all learners make mistakes and commit errors. However, that process can be facilitated through the realization of the errors made and operating on them according to the feedback given. By following the steps that language learners take, researchers and language teachers realize that if the mistakes and errors are analyzed carefully, the process of language acquisition can be understood (Burt et. al., 1973; Jobeen et. al., 2015). As a result, the field of language teaching benefits from the findings of linguistics in many cases including error analysis. Error analysis, a branch of applied linguistics, emerged in the sixties to demonstrate that learner errors were not only because of the learner’s native language but they also reflected some universal learning strategies. Wardhaugh (1970), after conducting a research on error analysis with regards to first and second language acquisition, concluded that identifying the errors that learners make point to the similarities and differences of the two languages. Consequently, the main focus of error analysis became the observation of a learner’s errors as they provide insights into the underlying process of language acquisition. 2. Error and mistake – conceptual differences. Linguistic concepts are notorious for the difficulty with which they can be defined and delineated clearly. This is especially true in the field of Applied Linguistics, where the two terms “error” and “mistake” are commonly used, but are extremely difficult to define and distinguish from one another. Generally speaking, errors are viewed as systematic deviations from the rules of a target language, as they are believed to occur because a learner does not know a given rule or feature, such as Subject-Verb Agreement or Noun Plurality in English. Errors might arise from little or no input on a given language feature during language lessons. The first definition of error emerged in the 1967, introduced by Corder. He defined the term “error” as an unrecognized mistake committed by the language learners, and caused by the lack of knowledge. He also added that errors, by definition, cannot be corrected by the language learners that made them. Corder also added that the majority of learner’s errors are linguistically quite different from those made by a native speaker (Corder, 1973: 256). Later, James (1998) underlined the term ‘error’ as an instance of language use that is unintentionally deviant and is not selfcorrigible by its author (James, 1998:78). Similarly, Brown defined the term ‘error’ as a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, and reflects the competence of the learners (Brown, 2001: 217). Finally, Ellis (1994) stated that error is generally viewed as an unwanted form, and defined it as a deviation from the norms of the target language (Ellis, 1994:48-51). Taking all those definitions into account, we can summarize that the term “error” constitutes the use of a linguistic item in a way that a fluent or native speaker of the language regards it as showing faulty or incomplete learning, and due to the user’s lack of understanding it cannot be self-corrected. Mistakes, on the other hand, are usually seen as unintentional, accidental slips resulting from simple laziness or forgetting, or insufficiently internalised rules (Botley, 2015). Corder claimed that all learners make mistakes, including the native speakers (Corder, 1973:256). James (1998: 78) stated that a mistake is either intentionally or unintentionally deviant and selfcorrigible, while Brown (2001: 217) defined the term “mistake” as the result of some sort of temporary breakdown or imperfection in the process of producing speech. Mistakes can occur in writing or speaking due to the learner experiencing various factors that can hinder their performance, such as lack of attention, fatigue, carelessness, anxiety, memory problems, etc. As opposed to errors, mistakes can be corrected by the language learner since they are aware of the rules or norms 58 Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 that have been broken. In fact, Ellis (1997) suggests two ways to distinguish between an error and a mistake. The first one is to check the consistency of a learner’s performance. If he sometimes uses the correct form and sometimes the wrong one, it is a mistake. However, if he always uses it incorrectly, it is then an error. The second way is to ask a learner to try and correct his own incorrect utterance. Where he is unable to, the deviations are errors; where he is successful, they are mistakes. However, there are some linguists who disagree with the dichotomy of “error” and “mistake”. Simon Botley, for example, argues that distinguishing between the two terms has always been problematic, such as when using a corpus-based empirical perspective on language learning. Botley claims that the two terms are commonly conflated into the term “error”, as in “Error analysis”, as well as that “an empirical analysis of learner language cannot practically access the knowledge of a learner to determine if an error or a mistake has been produced” (Botley, 2015:81). 3. Error classification and categorization. Dulay, et al. (1982) categorized the errors into a kind of taxonomy which consisted of four categories: omissions, which refer to the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance (Can ask who’s calling?), additions, which refer to the presence of an item that must not appear in well-formed utterances (We will gonna see), misformation, which refers to the use of wrong morpheme or structure (The dog ated the chicken), and misordering, which refers to the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance (What daddy is doing?) Corder (1973), on the other hand, classified the errors based on their system into three types: pre-systematic errors, which occur when the learner is unaware of the existence of a particular rule in target language, systematic errors, which occur when the learner has discovered a rule but it is the wrong one, and post-systematic errors, that occur when the learner knows the correct target language rule but uses it inconsistently. Richards (in Ellis 1994) also distinguished the errors into three different categories, those being interlingual, intralingual, and developmental errors. Firstly, interlingual errors, are caused by the interference of the mother tongue. It occurs as a result of the use of elements from one language while speaking in another (i.e. adding the auxiliary “be” in phrases like “I am agree” because they think it’s the same as in Bulgarian). Secondly, intralingual, occurs within the target language itself. Intralingual reflects the general characteristics of learning rules. This type of error involves overgeneralization, ignorance of rules restrictions, incomplete application of rules, and false concepts (such as adding –ed to irregular verbs to build the past form). Lastly, developmental error occurs when the learner attempts to build up the hypothesis about the target language on the basis of limited experience (i.e. using “no” to form negative connotations for present simple constructions: “She no like ice cream.”) Ellis (1997) uses a similar classification to the one suggested by Dulay et al. but with the inclusion of the linguistic sub-areas of morphology, syntax and lexicon. He maintains that “classifying errors in these ways can help us to diagnose learners’ learning problems at any stage of their development and to plot how changes in error patterns occur over time” (Ellis, 1997:136). This categorization can be exemplified as follows: Omission: Morphological omission: A strange thing happen to me yesterday. Syntactical omission: Must say also the names? Addition: In morphology: The books is here. In syntax: The London. In lexicon: I stayed there during five years ago. Selection: In morphology: My friend is oldest than me. In syntax: I want that he comes here. Ordering: In pronunciation: ‘fignisicant’ for ‘significant’; ‘prulal’ for ‘plural’ In morphology: ‘get upping’ for ‘getting up’ In syntax: He is a dear to me friend. In lexicon: ‘key car’ for ‘car key’ And finally, according to Brown (2000) an error may vary in magnitude. It can include a phoneme, a morpheme, a word, a sentence or even a paragraph. Due to this fact, errors may also be viewed as being either global or local (Brown, 2000). Global errors hinder communication because they prevent the message from being comprehended as in the example: I like bus but my mother said so not that we must be late for school. On the other hand, local errors do not prevent the message from being understood because there is usually a minor violation of one segment of a sentence that allows the recipient to guess the intended meaning as follows: If I hear from her, I would let you know. 4. Errors in writing Writing is perhaps the most researched area among the four basic language skills mainly because writing is usually considered to be more researchable than other skills as it provides concrete and permanent data to the researcher to turn to as well as to show as evidence. Additionally, this tendency may be credited to writing’s increasing importance in the student’s academic and professional life. Moreover, compared to other skills, writing is more demanding in terms of factors such as grammatical accuracy, mechanics, diction, coherence, etc. (Khan & Akter, 2011). Perhaps these are the main reasons why the role of grammar instruction and error correction in the L2 classroom has been an issue of continuous debate in second language acquisition research and theory. In general, this debate can be categorized in terms of meaning-focused instruction versus form-focused instruction. Where meaning focused instruction emphasizes the availability of comprehensible input and a low affective filter in the learner (e.g. Krashen 1981, Schwartz 1993), formfocused instruction suggests that even after many years of exposure to the target language, L2 learners’ production is still grammatically inaccurate (Swain 1985). These unsatisfactory levels of accuracy are usually attributed to the absence of opportunity for learners to observe and practice linguistic forms, which indicates that Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 59 some types of form-focused instructions are beneficial for successful L2 learning. In their research Students’ mistakes and errors in English writing: implications for pedagogy, Khan & Akter (2011) studied the mistakes which students in Bangladesh make in their writing in English. The study included 300 students from ten different tertiary-level institutions across the country. The focus of the study was to identify the frequency of mistakes and errors that students made and categorize them in terms of the types of mistakes. Their efforts yielded interesting results: the most common type of mistakes which exceeded the rest by a large margin were spelling mistakes, followed by mistakes made when writing numbers, wrong use of words, capitalization and prepositions, which were similar in number, followed by mistakes in tenses, articles, redundancy and subject-verb agreement, and last in the list were mistakes made when using the correct pronouns. Alternatively, IELTS tests and Cambridge exams apply different criteria (the so-called assessment bands) in evaluating the performance of a learner on a writing task. For example, in the 2023 teacher manual “B2 First”, issued by Cambridge, they use an assessment scale, which slightly differs from the ones mentioned. The assessment scale was developed with reference to the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR) and consists of four subclasses: content, which focuses on how well the candidate has fulfilled the task; communicative achievement, which focuses on how appropriate the writing is for the task and whether the writer has used the appropriate register; organization, which looks at whether the writer has structured his writing in a logical and ordered sequence; and language, which focuses on the range and accuracy of the language (vocabulary and grammar). The writing task is evaluated with a score from 0 to 5, with all four categories being taken into account (see Appendix A). In addition to these criteria, the assessment scale also takes into account other factors such as the length of responses and the variety of the language used. For example, texts which are too short may not have an adequate range of language and may not provide all the information that is required, while texts which are too long may contain irrelevant content and have a negative effect on the reader. The variety of English is also expected to be consistent in areas such as spelling and not switch from a British spelling of a word to an American spelling of the same word, for example. It is important that the writer shows the full range of their language ability and to be ambitious in their use of language, by demonstrating a range of tenses, expression and vocabulary. Spelling, grammar and punctuation errors will not necessarily be penalized, as long as they don’t interfere with communication. Similarly, the IELTS English proficiency test uses writing band descriptors, although with a different focus and criteria than Cambridge. The IELTS Academic Test covers the basic language skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking) with the academic writing test consisting of two writing tasks of 150 and 250 words respectively. In the first writing task, the students are asked to describe some visual information – a graph, a table, a chart or a diagram – in twenty minutes, while in the second writing task they are presented with a point of view, a problem, or an argument which they have to respond to in about 40 minutes. For more information on IELTS’ band descriptors see Appendix B. As shown, both assessment tools adopt a mostly similar approach to assessing and grading writing tasks: evaluation of content, cohesion and coherence, use of vocabulary, and grammar. The criteria are scaled, based on the performance of the student. Significant attention is paid to the relevancy of the answer, the clear and logical sequence of thoughts and ideas, the richness and complexity of lexical resources and the flexible and accurate usage of grammatical forms. However, there are some obvious differences between the two. Firstly, the Cambridge assessment scale seems to be more „sparing“, because it gives the student more liberty and the guidelines are less demanding, whereas IELTS employs a more rigorous and exacting assessment scale with more explicit criteria definitions. Secondly, Cambridge views both lexical range and grammar usage under a single criteria in contrast with IELTS’ division into two criteria, which provide a more in-depth analysis of lexicality and grammar. Additionally, Cambridge splits the relevance of the response and the communicative achievement into two categories, while IELTS unifies those under the category “task response”, paying more attention to the cohesion/coherence, vocabulary and grammar. Overall, both assessment tools employ a similar assessment scale, dividing it into categories and scaling it depending on the level of performance, but IELTS shows a more explicit and complete view of the criteria, with a more thorough analysis of the various error areas. 5. Evaluating adult learners’ mistakes in essay writing. In this paper we shall look at opinion essays written by adult learners and identify, analyze, and evaluate the mistakes as well as provide a possible explanation and conclusion as to why such mistakes were made in the process of writing, if there are any tendencies, and other factors which may be involved. The learners, as mentioned, are adults, some are undergraduates, others are postgraduates and all have some English-learning background. They are a part of an additional professional qualification course for obtaining the right to teach English in primary and secondary schools. The level of English which has to be achieved by the learners is B2-C1, according to the CEFR. As such, the students follow a syllabus with a focus on English and its practical aspects, as well as a thorough training of the primary skills. The essay is an integral part of developing the learners’ writing skills and is often given as homework or as a part of a test. The topics of the essay are usually opinion-based, requiring the learners to provide their viewpoint on a given issue, thus eliminating, to some extent, the possibility of cheating and using ready-made essays from the internet. The volume of the essays is limited to 350 words for a faster completion and evaluation. In completing this task, I’ve employed Ellis’ classification of mistakes in order to get more specific instances of the learner’s mistakes. I haven’t used the 60 Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 IELTS or Cambridge assessment scale, as we are trying to look at language mistakes, rather than essay-specific mistakes. Fifty essays, which were given as homework and allowed to be written at home, have been read extensively and checked for mistakes. The findings show the following results: the highest amount of mistakes has been done in selection of words (79), followed by syntax omissions (37), punctuation omissions (31), morphological omissions (16), syntax additions (11), word order (7), spelling mistakes (5), morphological and lexical additions with 3 mistakes each, and only 1 mistake for selection in morphology. Selection of words/morphology is a category which focuses on the chosen words, morphemes and grammatical units that the learners used to express their thoughts. The total number of mistakes is 80, which I divided into three sections: selection in syntax – which concerns mistakes related to the construction of the sentence; selection in lexicality – which relates to wrong or incorrect vocabulary that hinders the meaning in some way; selection in morphology – related to the incorrect usage of morphemes in words. The mistakes in selection in syntax (42) mostly correspond to insufficient understanding of grammar and sentence structuring, resulting in phrases like: “pets need to be respected as human”, “Regardless the pet is high maintenance or costs the highest price”, “pets are always making humans life”, “fishes at home need the easiest care of all pets”, “when dogs sense a burglar, their temperament start aggressive and the aim is to preserve the home safety”, “dogs teach people to responsible, care and love”; “either in person or in distance” “there are other people who consider that leisure time is just for leisure” “Do leisure activities become too expensive?” “In those fast-growing and developing world” “you can’t be sure is it real” “but in the same time” “in a while they may jump” What we can take out from this is that adult learners know how to formulate complex thoughts in their mother tongue but when they try to render them in English they lack the necessary knowledge to do so correctly. In most examples students literally translate their thoughts from Bulgarian into English (“в същото време – in the same time”; “не можеш да бъдеш сигурен дали е истина – you can’t be sure is it real”; “въпреки, че домашният любимец – regardless the pet”). In other words, this is a prime example of Richards’ interlingual errors, where learners render the phrase in English. Lexical selection also yielded a high number of errors (37) but in contrast with selection in syntax, the errors here reveal poor or insufficient vocabulary that hinders the meaning or doesn’t quite fit in the sentence. Examples include: “they might be part of their owner’s good health”; “help us feel less loneliness” “scrolling the internet is not giving the whole picture” “they can do various kinds of noises” “contemplate these interesting creators” “when you are not on condition” “For example, all around me like my dog and always accompanies me” “because they can make you companions” “how its ears curl up” “depending on their race and size, dogs” “they can be good guards of your life and your home” “the most usually chosen pets” “Some of us feel more comfortable when we are not in in person communication” “leisure activities are a good way to develop our physical and mental health, neverminded if we pay for them or not” “If I feel like I need to isolate myself from the world from a very loaded week” “in a play we enlarge as humans” “We can play alone and we can play among.” Some of those mistakes may not make the sentence incomprehensible, especially to a native speaker, but they do show some level of basic knowledge or a lack of more suitable vocabulary. Such errors result from negative transfer from Bulgarian, which interferes with the learners’ acquisition of the target language: “защото могат да ти правят компания – because they can make you companion”; “най-често избираните любимци – the most usually chosen pets”. In terms of omissions, the total number is 74 from which the highest portion goes to syntax omissions (37), then omissions in punctuation (31) and, finally, morphological omissions (16). Most commonly, adult learners omit the articles (the omitted elements are given in bold) - “dogs have the natural ability to”; ”in my opinion, cats are a/the perfect choice”; “walking with a dog keeps you healthy”; “leisure activities are a good way to develop”; the auxiliary “be” - “dogs teach people to be responsible”; “a dog will be the friend you have and will always be by your side”; “the reason is that it helps us alleviate”; “strangers are hard to believe”; and prepositions - “often forget about the pet’s wellbeing”; “can provide you with physical and mental”; “and listen to everything you say”; “spend much time on homework and in front of screens”. In addition, adult learners have omitted a lot of commas and apostrophes, especially before and after some phrasal verbs and when listing items (the omitted elements are colored in red): “And, naturally, your pet”, “Overall, fish tanks”, “In conclusion, pets”, “Cats, on the other hand, are perfect”, “Make people’s lives”, “it’s very individual”, “Whether it’s a dog, cat, fish or”, “dogs are loyal, affectionate”, etc. Lastly, in terms of morphological omissions, students mostly emit the letter “s” both in plural forms and when speaking of an action which a third person is doing, as in “Even more, pets and owners”, “the rewards of having a dog far outweigh the efforts”, “walking with a dog keeps you healthy”, “I fully agree that visiting a fitness gym, club for national dance, yoga classes or swimming pools requires a lot of funds”, “Forums, social media platforms, online games, etc. are the reasons why”. Additionally, sometimes morphemes such as –ly, -ing and –out are often omitted Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 61 where they should be present: “and most importantly”, “shared memories, happy moments, or overwhelming problems”, “we keep on learning throughout all our lives”. With regards to unnecessary additions, the students were more careful and only occasional slipups have occurred: on a syntactical level – “and the most importantly”, “most of the people”, “The strangers are hard to believe”, “some of the people think”; on a morphological level – “there are some pragmatic owners who understands”, “It is a pleasures to spend time”, “dogs are so special and loyality”; on a lexical level – “as a dog owner, every day you have to take your dog on a daily walk”, “having a dog as a pet it is not only good company”. In the essay excerpts there were only 7 instances of word-order mistakes and 5 instances of spelling mistakes. Some examples of mistakes related to the ordering of words are: “we can always understand what are their feelings are”, “It doesn’t matter how big, tiny or huge is your home is”, “I have always have been drawn to”, “hiring a ski teacher didn’t cost you a leg and an arm an arm and a leg”; and the five examples of misspelled words are “more over”, “indapendent”, “enviromental”, “well being”, “witch”. It must be noted that all students wrote their essays on a computer or another electrical device which often have a spell-checking feature preinstalled. Perhaps that is the reason why there are so few spelling mistakes, even though they were expected to be among the most common. 6. Conclusion Looking at the results, we can see a clear pattern when it comes to the mistakes of adult learners. At the top of the list are mistakes related to the selection of words, which was surprising, considering that the samples were taken from written tasks, thus hinting at the presence of more spelling mistakes. The mistakes themselves are derived from the false understanding that phrases and utterances in Bulgarian translate literally into English. What we can derive from this is that students need to be more exposed to set phrases and expressions into Bulgarian and their correct rendering into English. Perhaps a short course, covering the most common phrases and expressions in both languages and how they differ from the learner’s perception, would be useful. In addition, a more thorough understanding of grammatical and semantic structures needs to be implemented in class so that learners can render their thoughts from their mother tongue to the target language correctly, with the right knowledge and strategies in mind. Similarly, with regards to the large number of omissions, resulting in mistakes, we need to adopt a more technical approach when teaching grammar and punctuation. Apparently, the learners know what the rules for articles are, when and how they’re used, and they can correctly complete grammar exercises, but when it comes to applying that knowledge in free writing they seem to “forget” to use them. The same thing is observed with punctuation and commas in particular: during class, learners confirm that they can recognize the different linking words and expressions as well as point to the peculiarity of commas that need to separate those items in a sentence, however they do the exact opposite when completing their writing tasks. It has to be noted, though, that the rule of separating linking words with commas whenever they’re used in a sentence is not explicitly mentioned in the coursebook they’re using, rather I had to introduce it to them as an extra bit of knowledge. So maybe if more specificallyoriented exercises were included, where, for example, learners need to look at sentences and point the mistakes of not using commas before and after linking words, they would utilize this knowledge in their writing as well. In conclusion, we can deduce that the mother tongue does influence adult learner’s perception of English, so appropriate measures and approaches need to be applied. Moreover, when it comes to technical mistakes, which require a very thorough understanding of the matter, additional explanation, exercises and feedback need to be incorporated in the lesson so that the learners will acquire a fuller understanding and bring their mistakes to a minimum. References: 1. Botley, S.P.(2015). Errors vs mistakes: a false dichotomy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 11(1), pp. 81-94 2. Brown, H. D. (2001). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. San fransisco: Longman. 3. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd. ed.). San Fransisco: Longman. 4. Burt, M. K., Dulay, H. C., and Hernandez, CH. E. (1973) Bilingual syntax measure (restricted edition). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 5. Corder, S. P. (1974). Error analysis. In J. Allen &S. Corder (eds.): The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics Volume 3: Techniques in Applied Linguistics(pp. 122-154). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 6. Corder, S. P.(1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,5,161-70. 7. Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Middlesex, Penguin. 8. Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen. 1982. Language Two. Oxford: University Press. 9. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 11. Erdogan, V. (2005) Contribution of error analysis in foreign-language teaching. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, Vol. 1, Issue 2, December 2005, pp. 261-270. http://www.ewubd.edu/ewu/downloadfile/crt/Research %20Report%20No.1%202011.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011931 12. Ipek, Hulya. (2009). Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers. English Language Teaching. 2. 10.5539/elt.v2n2p155. 62 Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 13. James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Harlow, Essex: Addison-Wesley Longman. 14. Jobeen, Agsa and Kazemian, Bahram and Shahbaz, Muhammad, The Role of Error Analysis in Teaching and Learning of Second and Foreign Language (September 13, 2015). Education and Linguistics Research, 1(2), 52-62. DOI:10.5296/elr.v1i1.8189 , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2659714 15. Khan, H.R. and Akter, M.Z. (2011) Students’ Mistakes and Errors in English Writing: Implications for Pedagogy. 8, 11, 23. 16. Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford. 17. Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On Explicit and Negative Data Effecting and Affecting Competence and Linguistic Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163. 18. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House 19. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586182 Appendix A Table of Cambridge assessment bands Score Content Communicative achievement Organization Language 5 All content is relevant to the task. Target reader is fully informed. Uses the conventions of the communicative task effectively to hold the target reader’s attention and communicate straightforward and complex ideas, as appropriate. Text is well-organised and coherent, using a variety of cohesive devices and organisational patterns to generally good effect. Uses a range of vocabulary, including less common lexis, appropriately. Uses a range of simple and complex grammatical forms with control and flexibility. Occasional errors may be present but do not impede communication. 4 Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5. 3 Minor irrelevances and/or omissions may be present. Target reader is on the whole informed. Uses the conventions of the communicative task to hold the target reader’s attention and communicate straightforward ideas. Text is generally well organised and coherent, using a variety of linking words and cohesive devices. Uses a range of everyday vocabulary appropriately, with occasional inappropriate use of less common lexis. Uses a range of simple and some complex grammatical forms with a good degree of control. Errors do not impede communication. 2 Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3. 1 Irrelevances and misinterpretation of task may be present. Target reader is minimally informed. Uses the conventions of the communicative task in generally appropriate ways to communicate straightforward ideas. Text is connected and coherent, using basic linking words and a limited number of cohesive devices. Uses everyday vocabulary generally appropriately, while occasionally overusing certain lexis. Uses simple grammatical forms with a good degree of control. While errors are noticeable, meaning can still be determined. 0 Content is totally irrelevant. Target reader is not informed. Performance is below Band 1. Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 63 Appendix B Table of IELTS assessment bands Band score Task response Coherence and cohesion Lexical resource Grammatical range and accuracy 9 The prompt is appropriately addressed and explored in depth. A clear and fully developed position is presented which directly answers the question/s. Ideas are relevant, fully extended and well supported. Any lapses in content or support are extremely rare. The message can be followed effortlessly. Cohesion is used in such a way that it very rarely attracts attention. Any lapses in coherence or cohesion are minimal. Paragraphing is skillfully managed Full flexibility and precise use are widely evident. A wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features. Minor errors in spelling and word formation are extremely rare and have minimal impact on communication. A wide range of structures is used with full flexibility and control. Punctuation and grammar are used appropriately throughout. Minor errors are extremely rare and have minimal impact on communication. 8 The prompt is appropriately and sufficiently addressed. A clear and well-developed position is presented in response to the question/s. Ideas are relevant, well extended and supported. There may be occasional omissions or lapses in content. The message can be followed with ease. Information and ideas are logically sequenced, and cohesion is well managed. Occasional lapses in coherence and cohesion may occur. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately. A wide resource is fluently and flexibly used to convey precise meanings. There is skillful use of uncommon and/or idiomatic items when appropriate, despite occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation. Occasional errors in spelling and/or word formation may occur, but have minimal impact on communication. A wide range of structures is flexibly and accurately used. The majority of sentences are error-free, and punctuation is well managed. Occasional, non-systematic errors and inappropriacies occur, but have minimal impact on communication. 7 The main parts of the prompt are appropriately addressed. A clear and developed position is presented. Main ideas are extended and supported but there may be a tendency to overgeneralise or there may be a lack of focus and precision in supporting ideas/material. Information and ideas are logically organised, and there is a clear progression throughout the response. (A few lapses may occur, but these are minor.) A range of cohesive devices including reference and substitution is used flexibly but with some inaccuracies or some over/under use. Paragraphing is generally used effectively to support overall coherence, and the sequencing of ideas within a paragraph is generally logical. The resource is sufficient to allow some flexibility and precision. There is some ability to use less common and/or idiomatic items. An awareness of style and collocation is evident, though inappropriacies occur. There are only a few errors in spelling and/or word formation and they do not detract from overall clarity. A variety of complex structures is used with some flexibility and accuracy. Grammar and punctuation are generally well controlled, and error-free sentences are frequent. A few errors in grammar may persist, but these do not impede communication. 6 The main parts of the prompt are addressed (though some may be more fully covered than others). An appropriate format is used. A position is presented that is directly relevant to the prompt, although the Information and ideas are generally arranged coherently and there is a clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are used to some good effect but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or mechanical The resource is generally adequate and appropriate for the task. The meaning is generally clear in spite of a rather restricted range or a lack of precision in word choice. If the writer is a risk-taker, there will be A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used but flexibility is limited. Examples of more complex structures are not marked by the same level of accuracy as in simple structures. Errors in grammar and 64 Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 conclusions drawn may be unclear, unjustified or repetitive. Main ideas are relevant, but some may be insufficiently developed or may lack clarity, while some supporting arguments and evidence may be less relevant or inadequate. due to misuse, overuse or omission. The use of reference and substitution may lack flexibility or clarity and result in some repetition or error. Paragraphing may not always be logical and/or the central topic may not always be clear a wider range of vocabulary used but higher degrees of inaccuracy or inappropriacy. There are some errors in spelling and/or word formation, but these do not impede communication. punctuation occur, but rarely impede communication. 5 The main parts of the prompt are incompletely addressed. The format may be inappropriate in places. The writer expresses a position, but the development is not always clear. Some main ideas are put forward, but they are limited and are not sufficiently developed and/or there may be irrelevant detail. There may be some repetition. Organisation is evident but is not wholly logical and there may be a lack of overall progression. Nevertheless, there is a sense of underlying coherence to the response. The relationship of ideas can be followed but the sentences are not fluently linked to each other. There may be limited/overuse of cohesive devices with some inaccuracy. The writing may be repetitive due to inadequate and/or inaccurate use of reference and substitution. Paragraphing may be inadequate or missing. The resource is limited but minimally adequate for the task. Simple vocabulary may be used accurately but the range does not permit much variation in expression. There may be frequent lapses in the appropriacy of word choice and a lack of flexibility is apparent in frequent simplifications and/or repetitions. Errors in spelling and/or word formation may be noticeable and may cause some difficulty for the reader. The range of structures is limited and rather repetitive. Although complex sentences are attempted, they tend to be faulty, and the greatest accuracy is achieved on simple sentences. Grammatical errors may be frequent and cause some difficulty for the reader. Punctuation may be faulty. 4 The prompt is tackled in a minimal way, or the answer is tangential, possibly due to some misunderstanding of the prompt. The format may be inappropriate. A position is discernible, but the reader has to read carefully to find it. Main ideas are difficult to identify and such ideas that are identifiable may lack relevance, clarity and/or support. Large parts of the response may be repetitive. Information and ideas are evident but not arranged coherently and there is no clear progression within the response. Relationships between ideas can be unclear and/or inadequately marked. There is some use of basic cohesive devices, which may be inaccurate or repetitive. There is inaccurate use or a lack of substitution or referencing. There may be no paragraphing and/or no clear main topic within paragraphs. The resource is limited and inadequate for or unrelated to the task. Vocabulary is basic and may be used repetitively. There may be inappropriate use of lexical chunks (e.g. memorised phrases, formulaic language and/or language from the input material). Inappropriate word choice and/or errors in word formation and/or in spelling may impede meaning. A very limited range of structures is used. Subordinate clauses are rare and simple sentences predominate. Some structures are produced accurately but grammatical errors are frequent and may impede meaning. Punctuation is often faulty or inadequate. 3 No part of the prompt is adequately addressed, or the prompt has been misunderstood. No relevant position can be identified, and/or there is little direct There is no apparent logical organisation. Ideas are discernible but difficult to relate to each other. There is minimal use of sequencers or cohesive devices. Those used do not necessarily indicate The resource is inadequate (which may be due to the response being significantly underlength). Possible overdependence on input material or memorised language. Control of word choice and/or Sentence forms are attempted, but errors in grammar and punctuation predominate (except in memorised phrases or those taken from the input material). This prevents most meaning from Danish Scientific Journal No102, 2025 65 response to the question/s. There are few ideas, and these may be irrelevant or insufficiently developed. a logical relationship between ideas. There is difficulty in identifying referencing. Any attempts at paragraphing are unhelpful. spelling is very limited, and errors predominate. These errors may severely impede meaning. coming through. Length may be insufficient to provide evidence of control of sentence forms. 2 The content is barely related to the prompt. No position can be identified. There may be glimpses of one or two ideas without development. There is little relevant message, or the entire response may be offtopic. There is little evidence of control of organisational features. The resource is extremely limited with few recognisable strings, apart from memorised phrases. There is no apparent control of word formation and/or spelling. There is little or no evidence of sentence forms (except in memorised phrases). 1 Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. The content is wholly unrelated to the prompt. Any copied rubric must be discounted. Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. The writing fails to communicate any message and appears to be by a virtual non-writer. Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. No resource is apparent, except for a few isolated words. Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. No rateable language is evident. 0 Should only be used where a candidate did not attend or attempt the question in any way, used a language other than English throughout, or where there is proof that a candidate’s answer has been totally memorised.