This survey presents a research reappraisal about the troubles which Arabic talking scholars of English as a foreign linguistic communication because of the intervention of the native linguistic communication – Arabic linguistic communication – into their production of mark linguistic communication. Many theories have contributed to explicate profoundly the claim which states the native linguistic communication intervention including incompatible theory, mistake analysis and intervention theory. This survey will research the research in order to look into what have been mentioned about the theories which support the intervention of the native linguistic communication. With the fact that Arabic is a morphologically richer linguistic communication than English, its intervention with larning English as a foreign linguistic communication is more obvious and noticeable. The survey will use a qualitative research paradigm to turn to the research inquiry.

Table of contents

Abstraction: I

Table of contents II

Background: 1

Statement of the research inquiry: 1

The significance of the proposed research 2

Literature reappraisal: 2

Research Methodology: 9

Qualitative research method: 9

Sampling: 10

Qualitative informations aggregation: 12

Qualitative informations analysis: 13

The moralss and political relations of the research 14

List of mentions 16

Background:

Serious debatable issues travel back to the intervention of native linguistic communication, peculiarly when the native linguistic communication is wholly different from the mark linguistic communication. With the complete difference between both Arabic and English linguistic communication in many facets, Arabic talking scholars of English as a foreign linguistic communication find many serious troubles in geting the accomplishments required to get the hang English. The grounds behind those troubles vary among intervention of native linguistic communication, unequal instruction methods or personal troubles. However, one of the most debatable issues that make it more hard for Arabic talking scholars of English linguistic communication is the intervention of the native linguistic communication. Given the fact that Arabic linguistic communication is morphologically richer than English linguistic communication, Arabic sentence structure is wholly different in many facets, phonological regulations in Arabic linguistic communication has different maps than in English and are different from English linguistic communication, larning English by Arabic talking scholars would encounter serious troubles. Intervention of the native linguistic communication occur when a foreign linguistic communication scholar use his/her native linguistic communication as a mention for utilizing the mark linguistic communication. In order to heighten their acquisition and production in English linguistic communication, linguists should give more attending to the difference that arises because of the intervention of Arabic linguistic communication.

Statement of the research inquiry:

The chief research inquiry for this survey is “ What are the deductions of understanding the intervention of Arabic linguistic communication in Arabic talking English linguistic communication scholars in heightening instruction of English to Arabic Learners? ”

The significance of the proposed research

The demand for this research stems from the important findings which could hold deductions non merely for learning English as a foreign linguistic communication but for Arabic linguistic communication scholars every bit good. This research will lend for heightening linguistic communication instruction every bit good around the universe. Native linguistic communication intervention would happen in all linguistic communication accomplishments including speech production, composing, reading and hearing and in all lingual facets including sentence structure, phonetics, pragmatics or cultural. Therefore, analysing the intervention point of the native linguistic communication would help to happen out more teaching methods that assist linguistic communication instructors and English linguistic communication scholars to get the better of this job. Besides this survey will research the research in order to look into what have been mentioned about the theories which support the intervention of the native linguistic communication. Furthermore, look intoing the debatable issues that arise because of linguistic communication intervention would do it easier for scholars to avoid in the hereafter.

Literature reappraisal:

Intervention of native linguistic communication:

Native linguistic communication intervention is a phenomenon that makes it more hard for 2nd linguistic communication scholar to get the hang the mark linguistic communication. The hypothesis of linguistic communication intervention stems from the “ overpowering grounds that Language transportation is so a existent and cardinal phenomenon that must be considered in any history of the 2nd linguistic communication acquisition procedure ” ( Ellis, 1997, pp. 34 ) . Language intervention, harmonizing to Dulay et Al ( 1982 ) , is defined as the automatic transportation, due to habit, of the surface construction of the first linguistic communication onto the surface of the mark linguistic communication. In other words, intervention is defined, harmonizing to James, ( 2005 ) , as mistakes in the scholar ‘s production of the mark linguistic communication which consequence from the influence of the female parent lingua ‘ . That is, 2nd linguistic communication scholars tend to trust on their native linguistic communication ( L1 ) structures to bring forth a response whenever authorship or talking the mark linguistic communication ( L2 ) . Ellis, ( 1997 ) suggests that the farther apart the two linguistic communications are structurally, the higher the cases of mistakes made in L2 which bear hints of L1 constructions. Therefore, it is expected that there should be high influence of Arabic linguistic communication on Arabic talking scholars of English linguistic communication. The intervention may ensue from a scheme on the portion of the scholar which assumes or predicts equality, both officially and functionally, of two points or regulations sharing either map or signifier ( Kupferberg, & A ; Olshtain, 1996 ) . More advanced acquisition of L2 may affect a greater figure of regulations or taging characteristics for separating between the two linguistic communications ( Kupferberg, & A ; Olshtain, 1996 ) .

The most important intervention job is that when Arabic talking scholars start their English linguistic communication larning at novice degree, their linguistic communication module already deals with the native linguistic communication. Therefore, they do non comprehend English linguistic communication from zero position or impersonal position ; they interpret the new phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic forms through those of the already stored native linguistic communication. Therefore, when two different linguistic communications such as Arabic and English collide in their module linguistic communication, the native linguistic communication which is Arabic will largely rule on the usage and application of new regulations. The two illustrations given below are sentences written by an Arabic speech production scholar of English linguistic communication. Those illustrations illustrate that Arabic talking scholar made a actual interlingual rendition from Arabic into English which indicates that there has been interference from Arabic in the pick of the preposition.

We were interested with it ( in )

I like to pick roses with many colourss ( Of )

The abuse of the preposition “ with ” alternatively of “ to ” in the first illustration occurred because it is tantamount to the Arabic preposition Bi – which indicates the significance of “ to ” . Therefore, Arabic intervention caused there mistakes which occurred in those old sentences. However, Arabic talking scholars do non fall back to actual interlingual rendition before they form English forms which are considered the key to this job. That is, they translate the English into Arabic and so the Arabic back into English, word for word. Even without carry oning the interlingual rendition procedure, Arabic talking scholars of English still take advantage of their native linguistic communication in building the new linguistic communication forms ( ) . Furthermore, harmonizing to ( ) , mistakes made by them due to Arabic intervention occur more often than those made by them due to other larning jobs and therefore we are able to accept the first hypothesis. Separating the native linguistic communication impact on the choice, building and usage of English linguistic communication linguistics is a hard procedure which can non be achieved easy and necessitate much preparation.

Another theory that would back up native linguistic communication intervention is incompatible analysis. That is, the hypothesis of native linguistic communication intervention attracted a turning involvement in transportation surveies and cross lingual influence. Contrastive Analysis, harmonizing to Bhela, ( 1999 ) and Ghawi ( 1993 ) , “ seeks to catalogue, through the comparative analysis of the native and foreign linguistic communication systems, the points of difference, so that more effectual language-learning stuffs, based exactly on these larning jobs, can be developed ” . That is, analysing the committed mistakes would reflect what gaps in the scholar ‘s cognition or the grounds why they occur. For illustration, prepositions have seldom a one to one correspondence between English and Arabic ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) . Prepositions in Arabic may be translated to several English prepositions while an English use may hold several equivalents in Arabic. In a survey conducted on mistakes of Arabic talking scholars of English, two tierces of mistakes are attributable to native linguistic communication intervention and one 3rd to intra-English intervention ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) .

Many lingual facets that differ between both Arabic and English create hinderances for Arabic talking scholars to get the hang English linguistic communication. For illustration, Arabic adjectives agree in gender and figure with nouns and follow them which may do Arabic talking novice scholars to do errors: e.g. He is adult male tall. for ( He is a tall adult male ) ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) . On the other manus, adverbs are used less normally in Arabic than in English and, except for adverbs of clip ; make non hold a fixed form. Arabic adverbs of mode, which are different from English, are frequently expressed in a phrase: for illustration, rapidly is expressed “ with velocity ” , and perilously as “ in a unsafe manner ” ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) . Therefore, Arabic talking scholars of English find a batch of confusion between adverbs and adjectival usage in Arabic and English. Furthermore, there is frequent confusion between the adjectival and adverb signifiers in English, and the adjectival signifier is normally overused by Arabic talking scholars: e.g. He drives really unsafe ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) .

Furthermore, while there are no similarities between the Arabic and English composing systems, Arabic spelling within its ain system is simple and virtually phonic. In Arabic every missive stands straight for its sound which affects the manner Arabic talkers attempt to articulate English words ( Bhela, 1999 ; Ghawi, 1993 ) . Therefore, Arabic talking scholars of English linguistic communication produce many errors when talking in English. Arabic has merely one missive for each sound ; for illustration, the sound /th/ in English which is represented by two letters is represented in Arabic by one missive merely, so spelling is a batch easier than in English ( Ghawi, 1993 ; Noor, 1993 ) .. Furthermore, Arabic spelling is more hard because many letters in English words are non pronounced ( Ghawi, 1993 ; Noor, 1993 ) . Even in Arab states schools, they do n’t give spelling trials, because spelling is non a job with the Arabic linguistic communication ( Ghawi, 1993 ; Noor, 1993 ) . That is, when an Arabic talker hears a sound, he/she can cognize which missive to utilize. In Arabic linguistic communication if scholars can articulate a word in Arabic, they can spell it. Therefore, Arabic talking scholars find many troubles in command in English linguistic communication and in memorising spelling of English vocabularies.

There have been many surveies which were conducted on the importance of integrating analysing the mistakes produced by Arabic talking scholars of English linguistic communication into course of study. Harmonizing to ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) , after carry oning a survey to look into whether integrating incompatible analysis and interlingual rendition activities into a text-based communicative lesson would do easiness geting new vocabulary for Arabic talking scholars ( Kupferberg & A ; Olshtain, 1996 ) . Integrating incompatible analysis into text-based communicative lesson was conducted in comparing with a reading comprehension undertaking entirely, and by comparing with other signifier focused activities following the reading undertaking ( Kupferberg, & A ; Olshtain, 1996 ) . The appraisal method included four immediate tests-passive callback of individual words and of collocations, active callback of individual words and of collocations, and four indistinguishable delayed trials ( Kupferberg, . & A ; Olshtain, 1996 ) . The group of Arabic talking scholars who was introduced with text based communicative lesson incorporated with incompatible analysis and interlingual rendition activities scored significantly higher than the two other groups on all eight trials ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) . The group that did non have any form-focused direction learnt about no vocabulary. Another survey was conducted in order to look into whether integrating intervention theory into learning methods will cut down the mistakes of Arabic talking scholars. The group who were shown where the intervention between Arabic and English would look and who were instructed how to avoid wrongly blending between Arabic and English utilizations of conjunctions did much better on their concluding composings than the topics who were non so instructed ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) . This was due to the elaborate incompatible analysis and mistake anticipation presented to the pupils in the schoolroom. Furthermore, when instructors of English linguistic communication to Arabic talkers become familiar with the types of mistakes that are made by their by their pupils is a valuable usher to find the sequence and accent of direction, since scholars ‘ mistakes will inevitable occur ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) .

Therefore, there are many deductions of integrating intervention theory and incompatible analysis into learning English linguistic communication to Arabic talking scholars. Error analysis of 2nd linguistic communication scholar ‘s production would be good in order to heighten TESL methods. For illustration, by analysing mistakes in a written paragraph, theoretical theoretical accounts of communicative competency would be formulated and make mark aims for linguistic communication instruction and larning which in bend would assist to find what L2 direction demands to make to accomplish them. Using the incompatible analysis theory along with intervention theory to analyse Arabic English differences will enrich instructors and help them to acquire an overall cognition about the pupils ‘ mistakes. That is, mistakes can state the instructor how far towards the end the scholar has progressed and accordingly, what remains for him or her to larn ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) . So pupils ‘ mistakes are valuable feedbacks. It is inevitable that foreign linguistic communication acquisition is a procedure full of hypothesizes, tests and mistake happenings ( Paribakht & A ; Wesche, 1997 ) . Therefore, instructors should, alternatively of disregarding those mistakes, learn to digest some mistakes, particularly some local mistakes so do some remedial learning based on their mistakes ( Bhela, 1999, Ghawi, 1993 ; Lee, 1990, Noor, 1993 ) .

With a remedial mistakes based instruction, Arabic talking scholars would come on towards get the hanging English without fossilised mistakes. That is, scholars who really begin the undertaking of larning a 2nd linguistic communication from point zero ( or near to it ) demand to be warned of those natural errors and intervention of their native linguistic communication. Otherwise, through the steady accretion of the down entities of the mark linguistic communication, those uncorrected natural mistakes will fossilise ( Lee, 1990 ; Noor, 1993 ) .Briefly, “ mistake analysis theory together with other theories have enriched the 2nd linguistic communication larning theory in that larning involves in a procedure in which success comes by gaining from errors and by utilizing errors to obtain feedback from the environment ” ( Lee, 1990 ; Noor, 1993 ) . With the feedback they make new efforts to accomplish the more closely approximative desired ends. Analyzing mistakes would develop learning methods which assist Arabic talking 2nd linguistic communication scholars to accomplish a successful command of steadily roll uping structural entities to bring forth a extremely accurate paragraph ( Canale, 1993 ; Corder, 1992 ) . Therefore, with roll uping the structural entities, 2nd linguistic communication instructors would table the enlargement of SLL repertoire up to the point where all of the grammatical constructions of the mark linguistic communication had been accounted for ( Lee, 1990 ; Noor, 1993 ) . Furthermore, harmonizing to Lee, ( 1990 ) ; Noor, ( 1993 ) , the permeant influence that L1 has on the scholar lexis and the continuity of L1-based mistakes at advanced degrees of larning suggest that incompatible form-focused direction, which raises the scholars ‘ consciousness of the L1-L2 differences and provides pattern in the countries of these differences, may turn out more effectual than learning methods that ignore the cross lingual influence on lexical acquisition.

Research Methodology:

Qualitative research method:

The survey will use a qualitative research paradigm to turn to the research inquiry.

Bryman ( 2001 ) viewed qualitative research as a research scheme that uses words instead than quantification in the procedure of informations aggregation and analysis. Leedy and Ormrod ( 2005, p. 133 ) province that:

“ To reply some research inquiries, we can non plane across the surface. We most dig deep to acquire a complete apprehension of the phenomenon we are analyzing. In qualitative research we do so delve deep ” .

Taylor and Bogdan ( 1997 ) province that a qualitative research helps research workers to understand how people see things and analyze how things look from different vantage points. Use of qualitative research paradigm in this survey provides the chance to utilize reproduction logic which contributes to the external cogency of the research ( Flick 2002 ) .

Qualitative methods are used to analyze human phenomena in the societal scientific disciplines. They have emerged, because human societal behavior could non be to the full explored by quantitative research tools. For case, civilization, values, and human dealingss and experiences are all human phenomena which are non easy to mensurate. On the other manus, qualitative research links people ‘s societal interactions and their environment. The universe has dynamic phenomena, and world is non fixed, non agreed upon or even mensurable. Qualitative methods assume there are many buildings and significances of world, which are altering over clip. Furthermore, research workers are eager to explicate those alterations at a specific clip in a peculiar scene ( Gall, et Al, 2005 ) .

Conducting a qualitative survey is more likely to happen in a natural scene, to see the phenomenon and the scene where it occurs. Therefore, there is no experimental control upon the studied phenomenon. This enables the research workers to explicate the job and all originating variables as a whole ( Gay, et Al, 2006 ) . Furthermore, “ qualitative research workers direct their attending to human worlds instead than to the concrete worlds of objects ” ( Matsuda & A ; Silva, 2005 ) . People ‘s experiences and interactions with their societal lives, and what life means to them, is an interpretative qualitative attack ( Merriam, 2002 ) . It seems clear that this attack arguably enables the research worker to reply the research inquiry.

Sampling:

Taylor and Bogdan ( 1997 ) province that qualitative research normally want to cognize precisely how many people they need to interview to finish a survey but it is hard if non impossible inquiry to reply prior to carry oning research. . The size of the sample in an interviewing survey is something that should be determined toward the terminal of the research and non at the beginning. As Kvale ( 1996, p.101 ) pointed out:

“ To the common inquiry, “ How many interview topics do I necessitate? “ the reply is merely, “ Interview as many topics as necessary to happen out what you need to cognize ” .

Taylor and Bogdan ( 1997 ) indicate that there is an reverse relationship between the figure of participants and the deepness to which the research worker can interview each one. The greater the figure of interviews with each participant, the fewer participants the research worker will necessitate in order to hold plenty informations to compose a research article, thesis or monograph.

Stipulating a survey sample is a important stage in any research undertaking since it is seldom practical, efficient, or ethical to analyze whole populations ( Somekh, et Al, 2005 ) . The of import undertaking of the qualitative research worker includes supplying adequate description about the context of the sample in order to bring forth the chance for others to adequately judge whether the findings apply to their ain state of affairss ( Green, et Al, 2005 ) . Furthermore, a comprehensive perceptual experience of the research intent will direct the research worker to take and keep appropriate factors when choosing a qualitative sample ( Green, et Al, 2005 ) . A research worker has many trying picks available that may bring forth from theory, method, or simple practicalities, such as clip and money. Furthermore, a sample is hence chosen purposefully and many trying schemes can be used ( Green, et Al, 2005 ) . It should be noted that most trying in qualitative research is neither chance trying nor convenience sampling but falls into a 3rd class: purposeful sampling ( Patton 1990, cited in Maxwell, 1996 ) . Qualitative research methods are typically used when concentrating on a limited figure of sources, who are selected strategically so that their in-depth accounts will give optimum penetration into an issue about which small is known. Through purposeful sampling, which will be applied in this survey, an appropriate sample size will run into the standards.

Qualitative informations aggregation:

Qualitative informations describe, explain, and qualify the topic of probe utilizing words instead than Numberss ( Somekh & A ; lewin, 2005 ) . Furthermore, qualitative informations aggregation techniques are particularly appropriate for usage in state of affairss where the research job and the research puting are non good understood ( Garrat & A ; Li, 2005 ) . Therefore, Gay, et Al, ( 2006 ) informed that qualitative roll uping informations techniques will be particularly utile in developing an apprehension of the users of webs every bit good as the benefits and jobs associated with web usage ( Gay, et Al, 2006 ) .

One method of informations aggregation is the interview which will be usage for current survey. Interviews are one of the most effectual informations aggregation methods, because an interviewer can pass on straight with the respondents ( Yin, 2003 ) . Kumar ( 1996 ) has stated that the advantages of the interview are that information can be supplemented, and inquiries can be explained, and it is hence utile for roll uping in-depth information and more appropriate for complex state of affairss. Harmonizing to Nachmias and Nachmias ( 1992 ) There are three advantages of utilizing interviews in research. First, they can run from being extremely structured to unstructured, depending on the research job under scrutiny. Second, a mass of inside informations and comprehensive information can be derived from them. Third, they are flexible ; leting research workers to develop and clear up thoughts which emerge during them and non merely those bing when the original research design was conceive. Bell ( 2005 ) has province that the major advantage of the interview is “ adaptability ” , as a skilled interviewer can follow up an thought, investigation responses and look into motivations and feelings which the questionnaire can ne’er make.

Interviews can be done with persons or with groups ( Gall, et Al, 2005 ) . The inquiries to be posed in the interviews can run from unstructured ( small pre-determination of subjects to be covered ) to extremely structured ( complete finding of the subjects to be covered ) ( Greene, et Al, 2005 ) . However, Greene, et Al, ( 2005 ) stated that the success of this technique is mostly dependent on the interviewer ‘s accomplishments. However, cardinal informant interviews can supply rich and self-generated answers to open-ended inquiries, every bit good as personal interaction ( Gay, et Al, 2006 ) . Simply put, such interviews can supply a better position of the societal world of a individual, his or her topographic point, and interactions ( Greene, et Al, 2005 ) . Therefore, the interview inquiries direct the research and concentrate on the job to be investigated. In add-on, cardinal sources are interpreters who, because of their engagement in and cognition of an country, are asked to depict events, actions, and beliefs, every bit good as their attitudes about them ( Gay, et Al, 2006 ) .

Qualitative informations analysis:

Data analysis is the most hard facet of qualitative research to pass on to others. As a consequence, all research workers develop their ain method of analyzing qualitative informations ( Taylor & A ; Bogdan 1997 ) . Qualitative information analysis is concerned with the analysis of codifications, subjects, and forms in the information ( Somekh, et Al, 2005 ) . Gradually, qualitative research workers use computing machine package plans to help with cryptography and analyzing informations. The merchandise of the qualitative research varies with the attack used. For the phenomenological attack, three types of informations analysis are used, which are Colaizzi, Giorgi, and Van Kaam ( Matsuda & A ; Silva, 2005 ) . However, informations will be analysed in this survey utilizing Colaizzi ‘s methods, because this method will ease and formalize the consequences of the research by returning to the survey participants ( Matsuda & A ; Silva, 2005 ) .

The moralss and political relations of the research

Hazards:

The research undertaking will seek Human Research Ethics blessing from USC ‘s Human Research Ethics Committee. To bring forth effectual consequences from this research, hazards on the participants should be taken consideration. Harmonizing Matsuda & A ; Silva ( 2005 ) , the research worker should set certain protections into topographic point in order to protect participants. The processs that will be taken in order to cut down or forestall these possible hazards will include constructing a friendly environment to allow them experience comfy. They should be assured that the information they provide will be used for research intents merely and the exact nature of research should be described to them.

The procedure of informed consent:

There is no uncertainty that participants have the right to be informed of all inside informations related to their functions in the research. Greene, et Al, ( 2005 ) , ethical considerations such as depicting the research nature, within the research procedure are cardinal to guaranting the liberty for those who are take parting. In this research participants will be provided with short Sessionss about the research nature and an information sheet which will include all information about the research.

Informed Consent:

In order to lawfully protect the research worker and participants, an informed consent from the participants should be gained. Harmonizing to Gay et Al, ( 2006 ) , informed consent is a written understanding of the participants to take portion in the research undertaking. However, participants should be informed of the nature of the research to be able to hold. The informed consent will incorporate that they can retreat from the survey any clip they want.

Confidentiality:

One of the chief ethical considerations in any research is the confidentiality of participant ‘s information. Confidentiality means that any information such as participants ‘ designations, description of their experiences or any other related information will non be available to anyone except the research worker ( Greene, et Al, 2005 ) . Participants ‘ information will be non be accessible by anyone and will be stored with a watchword to protect it.