FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES

Department of Humanities

English Word Formation Processes: The use

of Affixations and the Implications on Second
Language Learning:
A Case Study of Swedish Secondary Schools Grades 7-9

Jeannette Håkansson

2021

Student thesis, Professional degree (advanced), 30 HE

English
Upper Secondary Teacher Education Programme

Supervisor: Henrik Kaatari

Examiner: Kavita Thomas
 Abstract

This work explains the types of affixation errors second language learners make when learning
English word formation processes, especially derivational and inflectional affixations. The data
for the study were collected as primary sources from two secondary schools in Sweden. The
data were analyzed with the use of Error Analysis noted by Corder (1967) and the error analysis
framework adapted by Ellis et al. (2005, p. 57). The method chosen was to identify, classify,
describe, and evaluate derivational and inflectional affixation errors. In total 2,812 answers
were retrieved. The results consist of some findings, for example, some of the derivational and
inflectional affixations errors were noticed to be intralingual and interlingual. Also, the nature
of the errors is such that they are either transferred, omissive, additive or substitutive errors.
Moreover, the errors were also due to overgeneralization, including substitution errors, or
additive errors. Previous research findings showed students make grammatical errors with letter
insertions, letter omission, or substitution errors. This study made the same findings as students
made errors of letter insertion, letter omission, substitution errors, and errors due to
overgeneralization. Some of the most difficult derivational and inflectional affixation errors
were also noticed across all the grades.

Key words: derivational and inflectional affixations, Error Analysis (EA).

2
Table of contents
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Aim and Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 5
2. Literature Review. ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. The History of Error Analysis . ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Types of Errors. ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Sources of Errors ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Definition of Affixation. ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.5. Derivational and Inflectional Affixations ............................................................................................ 12
3. Method .............................................................................................................................................. 14
3.I. Material .......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Participants ................................................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Data.............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.4. Data analysis. ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.5. Method Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................... 20
4. Results ................................................................................................................................................ 21
4.1. Error Analysis - Fill-In-The-Blanks Language Test. ............................................................................ 21
4.2. Error classification and categorization. ............................................................................................. 24
4.3. Substitution Errors - prefix ‘mis’, ...................................................................................................... 24
4.4. Substitution Errors suffix ‘ist’, ‘able’, ‘ant’ .......................................................................................... 24
4.5. Letter Insert, suffix ‘ism’, ................................................................................................................. 25
4.6. Errors in Students' Essays .............................................................................................................. 25
4.7. Omission errors, suffix ‘ment’ .................................................................................................... 27
4.8. Substitution Errors - (Past Tense) ‘ed’ and ‘s’ (3rd Person Singular) .................................................... 27
4.9. Frequency of the different error categories ....................................................................................... 28
5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 28
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 31
References .............................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix II............................................................................................................................................... 36

3
1. Introduction.

Learning a second language can be a challenge to many. Learners have to understand the
importance of building vocabulary and one of the methods used in building vocabulary is
through word formation processes. The researcher did a ten-week pre-study as a student teacher.
This was between the periods of March to June 2020, in which the researcher observed grade
7–9 students in their English language classes. At the time of the observation, the researcher
noticed students using deviant affixations when writing. This triggered the researcher’s interest
in the study of derivational and inflectional affixations. In addition to these direct observations
on students' affixation errors, other extraneous factors were noticed during the period of the
pre-study. For example, a student had to explain the affixations found in the word ‘misfortune’.
The student divided the word in three sections, ‘- mis - fortun - e’ Explaining that, ‘miss ‘is a
prefix, fortun is the root word and ‘e’ is the suffix. Another example experienced during the
pre- study was how students use L1 to explain L2. A student, when asked to explain how
affixations are formed, mentioned that the first meaning could be explained by using the
example from the Swedish letter ‘o’. For example, the Swedish words ‘oönskad and obehaglig’.
The student explained that English affixations play the same function as the letter ‘o’ in the
Swedish language, for example in words like ‘oönskad’ - unwanted and ‘obehaglig’, ‘-
unpleasant’. It is observed that teachers, and second language researchers still find many errors
made by students in using English affixations. These errors affect students use of grammar in
both written and oral production as previous research has shown. This appears not to be a
surprise to applied linguists who have knowledge of the facts of interlanguage processes which
learners must go through before attaining native - language like competence (Selinker, 1992, p.
225).

In line with this present study, these errors stemming from the teaching and
learning of derivational/inflectional affixation can provide feedback to the English language
learners and teachers in Sweden. Corder, (1967, p. 24) rightly points out that “errors provide
feedback”. Therefore, the study is also important for students learning English as a second
language in Swedish secondary schools. This is because one of the requirements for English is
that the students before completing grade 9 should have the knowledge of connecting words to
linguistically coherent entities, according to the English Course plan designed by the Swedish
National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2011). Likewise, English language teachers in
Sweden may lay more emphasis on teaching the word formation processes by giving different
English affixation tasks for students' reinforcement. This may be done by allocating more

4
 contextualized drills and exercises on word formation processes. Lennon (1991:180) remarks
that error analysis serves as a “monitoring device” to the learner. In line with the present study,
an analysis of learners' errors on affixations may help learners work harder to correct the errors
by putting more effort on the difficult affixation processes. It is further in line with this that
Corder (1967, pp. 19–27) emphasizes the importance of addressing errors in the language
learning process.

1.1. Aim and Research Questions5

The aim of the study is to analyze derivational and inflectional affixation errors second language
learners make in a grammar text or when writing essays. The aim is also to identify, classify,
describe, explain, and correct the errors within the framework of error analysis. In view of these
objectives, the following questions have to be answered.

· What are the types of derivational and inflectional errors made by second language learners
of English in Swedish secondary schools, grades 7 - 9?

· What factors contribute to the derivational and inflectional errors in some of the grade 7,8 and
9 written production?

2. Literature Review.

In line with the above research topics, some prominent linguists have contributed to the
understanding of the English word formation process. Bauer (1993, p.20–27) mentioned that
suffixes and affixes can change words' meanings or the words' grammatical meaning. Adding
that suffixes and affixes are the most used word formation processes for language learning and
acquisition. In line with the above argument, Laufer (1997, p.139–42) suggests one of the most
essential language acquisition processes is learning vocabulary. However, this could be a
difficulty for students because the morphemes that are not frequently used may create problems
for second language learners in the process of language acquisition. The second language
learner needs to be familiar with the root word to use the correct morpheme. For example, the
root word ‘believe’ could become ‘unbelievable’ having the prefix ‘un’ and a suffix ‘able’,
Bauer, (1993, p.22).

Moreover, to carry out this research project, it is important to review various kinds
of literature related to the present study. For example, Taher (2011) research focusing on error
analysis and the grammar knowledge of Swedish high school students. The study examines

5
transfer errors, omission errors, and insertion errors in students' written essays. The study also
explains the students’ difficulties with English grammar. The study identifies some of the
problematic aspects underlying grammar usage and grammar errors in Swedish students' written
text. The researcher used the error analysis method to examine how students use grammar in
subject - verb- agreement. For example, in identifying the grammatical error ‘We sleeped in the
bus’ (Taher, 2011, p. 12). The essay method identifies and categorizes grammar errors. The
recommendation from the research indicates teachers need to have tools that could help students
work with more complex grammar to improve the student's proficiency (Taher, 2011, p. 20).
Svartvik et al. (1996 p. 85) did research on the acquisition of grammatical knowledge by second
language learners. The study suggested that students produce verb related errors because the
second language learner could not distinguish the endings of past tense regular verbs as in ‘play
- played’ and irregular verbs as in ‘eat -eaten’. The problems also arise with the use of
progressive ‘ing’, in for example ’walking’. It is therefore more important to discuss second
language acquisition.

However, Pienemann (1999) affirms there is a natural order occurring in second

language learning. The above viewpoint is in accordance with different language acquisition
research done in Sweden, Japan, Germany, on the process of second language acquisition. The
research reveals there is a natural order in the acquisition of syntax and morphology in the
process of second language acquisition irrespective of the learner's first language (Pienemann
et al. 1999). As a result, the argument that grammatical morpheme acquisition by second
language learners, could also occur in different stages in the process of second language
acquisition. For example, there are some similarities among second language learners in the
acquisition of progressive ‘ing’, the regular past tense ‘ed’ and the possessive singular ‘s’
(Tornberg, 2001, p 124). However, the language order, acquisition order or acquisition
sequence could be difficult if both languages have very different grammar rules and quicker if
the language rules of the first language were almost identical to the language rules of the second
language (Tornberg, 2004, pp.111–113)

Furthermore, another study examines the form of the natural order hypothesis.
Kreshen (1982, p .45) examined second language acquisition using a natural order hypothesis.
Kreshen explains that there is a certain natural order in language learning both for L1 and L2
learners, especially in the acquisition of grammatical rules when using morphemes. For
example, the morpheme ‘ing’ in ‘drawing’ and the plural morpheme ‘s’ in for example ‘books’
are the earliest morphemes acquired by both L1 and L2 learners (Krashen, 1982, p. 112). Khor

6
(2012) also investigates Swedish students' second language learning difficulties in the
acquisition of English morphemes. Khor, (2012, p. 30) concludes that one of the difficulties is
the use of inappropriate affixations. This could be due to the complexity of English words and
morphemes. For example, Khor mentioned that in the written text, the students use the word
‘ghost’ both in the singular form and the plural form ‘ghosts’, indicating that the students
haven’t developed an understanding on how to distinguish the singular form from the plural
form. Khors findings showed that the acquisition of grammatical morphemes is also influenced
by L1 (Khor, 2012, p. 26). The research method used to examine students' written text in the
study is also error analysis.

Aryati (2014) examined students' use of affixation in Indonesien schools. Aryati

suggests some of the problems faced by students in English grammar is the use of affixations
in written text. Aryatis research focuses on use of affixations in written text. The research
concludes that the reason students have difficulties in using affixation is because students are
unaware of English affixation varieties. For example, the students overuse of the ‘s’ plural’ in
‘make my parents smiles’. This type of grammatical procedure is complex to many second
language learners. Thus, the students' failure to master these affixations has a great impact on
students' writing skills. However, Aryati concludes that the advantages of knowing how to use
affixations are many. The mastery of affixations could generate knowledge in vocabulary. The
students could be more creative in their writing. Another impact is that students could be able
to use fewer grammatically correct words in writing if they know how to use affixations (Aryati,
2014, p. 30). The following research analyzes the framework of the English word formation
process.

Quirk et al. (1985, p. 133) defines word formation as a process which deals with
“the creation of new lexemes from a given bases.” Adding that, the base or root of a word is
any form to which affixes of any kind can be added. In other words, such processes deal with
the creation of new words from roots to build up a rich vocabulary system in any given language
or the manipulation of existing linguistic resources in a language to form new words. Word
formation processes in English include affixations, among others. Crystal (2004, p. 19) defines
word formation as a process in which the base is combined with other lexemes to form a new
word, adding that sometimes the word changes its class. Affixations consist of adjoining a
bound morpheme to a stem to form a new word. However, it is certain that even though learning
a second language may be difficult, students with the direction of teachers should be able to
master different aspects of English word formation (Crystal, 2004 pp. 24–25).

7
 Furthermore, Lightbown, et al. (1990, p. 58) noted that the teachers could
eliminate word formation errors by identifying the students' areas of difficulty. It is also
important that the teachers include a wide variety of word formation rules, spelling,
pronunciation of words, and lexical semantics. However, in the context of second language
learning, no one method of teaching is sufficient to ensure reasonable learning outcomes
(Harmer, 1998, p. 25). Learning affixations involves forming new words, changing word
meanings, learning various spellings, and pronunciations through students' exposure in different
contexts. Through different stages, the students will then develop a fuller understanding of the
functions of word formation processes (Harmer, 1998, p. 130).

2.1. The History of Error Analysis.

Corder (1967, p. 161) estimates that the knowledge of error analysis (EA) came from the earlier
method of contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). Therefore, it is important to have a short
description of contrastive analysis (CA) as a starting point for a possible understanding of error
analysis (EA). Contrastive analysis interprets students' language learning with the view that the
student's first language largely affects the student's second language. Moreover, CA argues that
these errors from the first language L1 structure are reflected in the second language L2
structures. The term or word for this is called negative transfer or interference. In the case where
the structures in both languages are the same, there will be positive transfer. It is important to
indicate here that the idea of contrastive analysis CA was introduced by Lado (1957). CA claims
are closed to the behaviorist standpoint.

Littlewood (1984 p.5) recommends the behaviorist methodology use to explain

language acquisition. Language learning depends on behavior, that is language is learned
through habit formation. The habit formation occurs during the process of language learning.
Habit formation in language learning is the reason why second language learners make errors
due to interference from the first language. This is because of habit formation that has become
automatic, and language is used without learners' perception. Consequently, interference from
the first language is an important concept in the behaviorist theory of second language learning.
The first language L1 prevents the correct learning of the second language L2 (Ellis, 1996, p.
22). Therefore, the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) has to be incorporated with the error
analysis hypothesis EA to identify which errors are due to interference (Ellis, 1996, p. 24).
However, although error analysis EA has a lot in common with contrastive analysis CA, EA

8
moves beyond to explain that errors may not only occur because of interference or transfer from
first language (Selinker, 1972, pp. 85–86).

Selinker (1972, p. 35) mentioned that CA could not prove that all students' errors were
due to the first language L1. There are some second language L2 structures that could not be
explained by the L1 influence. As a result, the new term intralingual errors or error analysis
EA. Selinker (1972, p. 213) suggests intralingual errors occur when L2 learners make
syntactical, lexical, and morphological errors. This distinction was also made in (Ellis et al.,
2005, p. 58). Therefore, an overview is needed to better understand how EA works. The
following sections include a brief discussion of concepts involved in second language learning
and error analysis EA.

2.2. Types of Errors.

There are different types of learning and acquisition theories that explain why errors occur in
second language learning. However, Corder (1967, p. 120) suggests errors analysis could be
regarded as something positive, because error analysis could be evidence of learners' second
language learning development. As a result, the errors could be used to test learners' progress
in second language learning. Richards (1974, p. 204) also assumes that error analysis could
prove that errors are due to first language L1 and second language L2 differences. The errors
occur because of the failure to master the second language grammar rules, for example verbs,
prepositions, and articles. From the above arguments, Corder, (1967, p 30) suggests three types
of grammatical errors, notably omission errors, additive errors and substitutive errors. Omission
errors occur when the students lack grammatical knowledge. The student could omit word
elements due to the lack of L2 grammatical rules. According to Crystal (1997, p. 56) word
elements are words that constitute two or more constituents or words that contain smaller
morphological components for example, the different components in ‘un-read-able’ gives the
word ‘unreadable’, ‘re -fresh’ – ‘refresh’, ‘book-ish-ness’ – ‘bookishness’ (‘ish’ and ‘ness’, are
derivatives), ‘forget-ful-ness (‘ful’ and ‘ness’ are derivatives). However, omitting some of the
word elements can make the word ungrammatical. Likewise, substitutive errors occur when the
student misuse the correct grammatical element for example affixes that have many grammar
functions such as number functions for example ‘book’,’ books’ (-s plural) tense function for
example ‘admire’ – ‘admires’, (‘s’ third person singular). The suffixes can also indicate the
degree of comparison. For example, ‘finest’ (‘est’ indicates the superlative degree). If these
morphemes are substituted with other words, the words and sentences may become

9
ungrammatical. Meanwhile, additive errors occur when the student adds unnecessary
grammatical elements that make the word or language ungrammatical, for example adding the
prefix ‘under’ in the word ‘conduct’ instead of the prefix ‘mis’.

Carter (1997, p. 22) also states that if one was to understand how grammar works, the
best thing to do is to start by understanding how grammar is used in a good way and how it is
used in an inappropriate way for students to have a full understanding of the reasons for their
errors to develop their language skills. Thus, students could easily recognize the errors they
make in their speech and writing. Corder, (1967, p. 28) suggests teachers need to be better
equipped, and be aware of the origins of the errors, to be able to help guide the students with
difficulties that students encounter when learning. Errors are unavoidable especially for second
language learners, because all errors cannot be explained using only one or two examples, it is
therefore important for teachers to know the origin of error (Crystal, 2004 p. 32). However, it
is also important to understand the sources of the errors.

2.3. Sources of Errors

Richards (1974, p. 219) posits that there are many factors contributing to students' errors. These
factors include the complexity of the target language, lack of appropriate instructional materials,
and insufficient exposure to the target language L2. However, some research has been done to
distinguish the sources of errors. For example, Corder (1967, p. 272) suggests that an error
occurs when there is a clear indication of deviation due to the learners’ lack of knowledge or
the learners’ lack of competence in the language they are learning. Thus, the target language
may be problematic when the L1 learner lacks total understanding or partly understands the use
of the L2 (Corder (1974, p. 34). In addition, Lightbown et al. (1990, p. 48) emphasize second-
language learners often have the problem of insufficient exposure to the target language. This
results in limited opportunities to use the language productively and receptively. Weinreich
(1953, p. 62) argues that knowing the differences in languages could help understand students’
language learning difficulties. Moreover, it is important to note that teaching and learning
grammar can be complex, leading to morpheme errors (Weinreich 1953, p. 62). The next
paragraph will explain second language learners' learning strategies in second language
acquisition.

Kellerman, (1985. pp. 340–355) discusses the concepts of U-shaped learning in second
language acquisition. The U- shaped learning approach emphasizes there are different stages of

10
L2 acquisition. In the first stage, the learners have an attitude of transferring figurative,
prototypical items directly to L2. For example, Gluckberg (2001, p.26) noted that the use of
figurative language could be for example idioms and metaphors that exist in many languages.
Idioms and metaphor could be termed figurative language where the meaning of the words does
not correspond directly to the literary language meaning. Figurative language is language such
as, personifications, allusions and all that could be related to metaphor categories. Prototypical
language transfers involve a sequence of language acquisitions which describe habitual stages
of language acquisition. For example, in the acquisition of the present progressive, the learner
acquires ‘easy language’ first then increases the language proficiency to learn non-prototypical
language which is more complex (Gabriele et al. 2015 pp. 37–57). The broad term 'transfer of
learning’. The second language learner uses previously acquired skills to apply in new learning
situations (Haskell 2001 p. 175). Kelleman (1986, p. 36) confirms the transferability of
figurative and prototypical language. This is because it is easier to use every day common
language to refer to objects, than complex language for a second language learner at the early
stage of learning. Thus, revealing that it is easier for second language learners to use language
similarities to understand situations in a second language context. The prototypical and
figurative transfer occurs especially when the L1 is almost identical to the L2. In the second
stage of learning the learner has noticed the differences between the L1 and L2, and in the third
and last stage the learner has acquired enough knowledge of the target language lexical
representations (Kelleman, 1986, p. 72). However, EA has its limitations, error analysis always
points at errors, forgetting what the learners know (Ellis et al 2005, p.70). The next section
would explain the concepts of affixations.

2.4 Definition of Affixation.

Researchers have different definitions and explanations of what affixations are. Quirk et al.
(1985, p. 153) noted that affixations could be defined in many ways, firstly, affixations take
place in the process of adding an affix to the base of a word. Secondly, sometimes it can lead
to a change of the word class, sometimes without a change of the word class. This word
formation process is called word - class suffixes. Thirdly, these affixations could have two
forms; they could either be prefixes, that is, a bound morpheme attached to the beginning of the
base, or they could be suffixes, which are bound morphemes attached to the end of the base
word. However, Muller et al. (2015, p. 42) suggest, affixations account for specific sections in
second language learning, which are syntax and grammar. Affixations are used mostly as

11
inflections to root words in syntax, the concept is called inflectional morphology. However, it
will be necessary to look at the different types of affixations.

2.5. Derivational and Inflectional Affixations

Crystal (2004, p. 123) describe derivational affixes as words that can formed new words to give
new meanings or categories from the original meaning of the base word. Derivational affixation
is an affixation process which brings about a change in word class and eventually a change in
meaning. For instance, adjectives can be derived from nouns. Verbs can be derived from nouns
as stated by (Thomson, et al. 2012, p. 59). Some examples include three types of derivational
prefixes, namely: negative prefixes as ‘in’, ‘anti,’, ‘un’, ‘mis’, ‘dis’, number prefixes, ‘uni
(indicating one) ‘bi (two) ‘tri’ (three). Relation prefixes such as ‘pre’, ‘post’, ‘trans’. Some
examples of suffixes include the person suffixes such as ‘ant, ‘ist’ (accountant, biologist),
adverb suffixes as ‘ly’, noun suffixes ‘ism’, ‘ment’, adjective suffixes as ‘able’, ‘ful’ verb
suffixes ‘ing’.

Meanwhile, the inflectional suffix only leads to changes in form. For example,
inflections within nouns could lead to a change in form, from singular to plural. For examples
mango - mangoes, flower - flowers, berry - berries, book - books and boy - boys, (Baurer, 2004,
p. 161). The two tables below show the different types of affixations and what occurs when
prefixes and suffixes are added to root words. Table 1 below shows some of the suffixes that
cause changes in word class, when the attached suffix changes the noun to a verb, it becomes a
verb and when the attached suffix to a verb changes it to an adjective it becomes an adjective
suffix. Sometimes the attached suffix on a verb changes to a noun it becomes a noun suffix.
The table below is an example of how derivational affixes are formed.

12
Table 1. Derivational Suffixes

The Formation of derivational suffixes

Verb suffixes

Beauty (N) ________ Beautify(V)

Deaf (N) ______Deafen (V)

Hospital (N) ______ Hospitalize (V)

adjective suffixes

Help (V) ______Helpful / helpless (adj.)

Use (N/V) _____Useful /useless (adj.)

Philosophy (N) ______ Philosophical (adj.)

Noun suffixes

Waste (V)______Wastage (N)

Found (V) _____Founder / Foundation (N)

Auction (N/V) _____auctioneer (N)

Table 2 below shows inflectional suffixes attached at the end of the root word. The number
suffixes show the numerical changes of the root word. The verb suffixes change the verb
functions to progressive, perfect past tense, or present tense, and noun suffixes indicate the
genitive case or possession, and adjective suffixes identify comparisons.

13
Table 2. Inflectional suffixes

Grammatical
Parts of speech Inflection

Noun s, es (boys, houses) Plural/number

Noun Pronoun ' s' (dog’s, dogs’) Genitive (Case) possession

Verb suffixes ing, ed, s Progressive, Perfect Past tense,

Present tense
(Playing, played, plays)

adjective suffixes ‘est’, ’er’ (big, bigger, Superlative / comparative

biggest)

3. Method

The present research examines derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary School
students make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. This section is about
the methodology of the work, it reports on material collected and how the data collected will
be analyzed. It also examines issues such as the population of the study, the sources or
instruments of data collection, the method of data analysis, the reliability and validity.

3.I. Material

The present research examines derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary School students
make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. The data for this work consist of
primary sources. Primary sources include raw materials from the field obtained through a fill-in-the-
blanks language test and six classroom essays written by each student in each grade that did the
language test. The test was divided into four sections with each section having one or more
14
derivational and inflectional affixations. Section A demanded students to add a prefix to
complete each sentence. Section B demanded the students to complete the sentences by
choosing between different prefixes and suffixes (‘dis’, ‘un’, ‘mis’) section C demanded the
students to choose between suffixes (‘ful’, ‘ism’) and finally section D mainly required students
to choose between suffixes (‘ing’ and ‘ed’) to complete the sentences.

The choice of the test implemented was taken from the model created by Nations
(2001, p.399–416). The test model requires the researcher to choose target words for the test.
The chosen words were familiar classroom words taken from different reading materials that
the students use during classroom learning activities. There were nineteen target words in the
test and most of the words had the same affixes. For example, section A and section D had the
same suffixes. The other words, for example section B and section C (see appendix 1), did not
have the same affixes. It was intentional to make the test a little difficult, to test the students’
knowledge in using word formation suffixes and prefixes when writing.

The present research also involves analyzing derivational and inflectional

affixation from students’ essays submitted as written assignments for grading. The essays were
all written inside the classroom using word document format without access to the internet or
grammar and spell checkers. The reason and need for this data are to vary students' use of
affixations in different written materials. There were equal numbers of essays per grade and per
student. The written assignments were at least one hundred to one hundred and fifty words
taken from teachers’ data with teacher's permission. The researcher selected two essays from
each student for each grade. Some of the essays involved students describing a dream house or
home. Another essay required students to write about their favorite artist or write about their
favorite online game. One of the essays was about house listing, another about family cooking
and one about house swapping. However, all the essays were analyzed focusing only on
derivational and inflectional affixation and the error analysis framework (Ellis et al. 2005 p.
60).

3.2. Participants.

The research is to examine derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary School
students make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. The researcher
distributed the test to two schools. The study used a non-random sampling method that enables
the researcher to have a population with characteristics that are required for the research. The
data collection for this study is predetermined. The data therefore involves a non-random

15
sampling, for the purpose of investigating the acquisition of derivational and inflectional
affixation or word formation processes. The two schools will be called school A and school B
for the purpose of anonymity of the population of the study. Another important criterion was
the information ethics criterion. The participants were informed about the purpose of the test.
The study consists of 50 grade 7 students, 45 grade 8 students and 53 grade 9 students. A total
of 148 students participated in the test from both schools (see Table 4). The researcher worked
with the teachers teaching English in both schools. Shohamy (1988, p. 165) suggests that the
participants for the study should be chosen intentionally to fulfill the aims and objectives of the
research. It is based on this that the population of the present study is chosen. Table 4 below
presents the total number of students who participated the language test grades 7, 8 and 9.

Table 4. Number of students per grade.

Grade Number of Students

7 50

8 45

9 53

Total 148

As mentioned earlier two schools were selected as the population of the research.
The reason why the schools were selected was because both schools were Swedish secondary
schools and had grade 7, 8 and 9. Beside this criterion, most of the participants had Swedish as
their L1. In selecting the criteria for the test some of the students were immigrants reading
English for Beginners (Engelska Grund). These students were not included to take the test to
respect the voluntary participation criterion and to eliminate imbalance in knowledge level
during testing (Osterlind, 2002, p.35). The method also intended to eliminate multiple L1s in
the system of testing to attain high validity and reliability. Again, among those who took the
test five students from both schools were bilingual from other European countries and had
Swedish as their L2. However, this number was very small to affect the results. The teachers
16
and the researcher informed the students the purpose of the test, and four students had language
diagnoses. The four students decided they will not take the test. The participation was voluntary,
not obligatory. The students were not to take the test to respect the voluntary participation
criterion. Furthermore, a letter of consent was distributed to students’ parents for the reasons of
research confidentiality (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017, s. 28). The entire process took a long time
because of the heavy presence of Covid-19 in February 2021.

3.3. Data

The present research examines derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary School
students make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. This section explains
the instruments for the data that was collected. The questions for the test were taken from an
existing test called Super Teacher Worksheets,
(https://www.superteacherworksheets.com/prefixes-suffixes/prefixes-dis-un_DISUN.pdf).
The questions were chosen because at this level the researcher had conducted a pre-study during
an internship to get a better understanding of which terms to use during the test, and to make
sure that most students understood the terms used in the language test. The gender of students
was not part of the research because it was not considered to affect the results. Students in grade
seven answered most of the questions showing the students understood the test with the help of
their teachers. The test was conducted in a classroom setting during English lessons in both
schools. Those who had difficulties understanding the terms had access to their English
teachers to explain the terms. The test included derivational and inflectional affixes.

The nine affixes included are prefixes ‘un’, ‘mis’ ‘dis’ and suffixes ‘-ism’, ‘ant’, ‘ist’ ‘ful and
‘ing’ ‘ed’ (see Table 3). The students were familiar with the words since they are used to having
the words in their reading comprehension and word list training.

17
Table 3. The table presents the selected affixations for the fill-in-the-blanks Language
Test.

Derivational Inflectional

Prefixes Suffix:

: un, mis, dis Progressive ’ing’ present participle ed, past

tense
Suffix: ant, ing, ful, ism,

3.4. Data analysis.

The present research examines derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary School
students make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. The researcher has
to find a strategy to carry out the investigation. There are mostly two research methods used in
any research. The qualitative and the quantitative method. The quantitative methods refer to
data collection from questionnaires, interview or tests that results to statistic data while the
qualitative method is the interpretation of the data collected from various studies (Bryman et
al. 2007, p. 21) The data could be primary data, that is data collected primarily by the researcher
while secondary data is data collected from documents, articles, and literature (Bryman et
al. 2007). The present study uses both quantitative and qualitative methods and the data is
entirely primary data. The advantage of using both a quantitative and a qualitative method is to
achieve a full understanding of the case being studied.

This section describes how the primary data collected is treated and how the material is selected.
Firstly, the fill-in-the-blanks language test, that involves the selection of specific derivational
and inflectional affixations. The data is to facilitate the transcription of students' answers, this
is called the constructed responses method for testing (Downing, 2009, p 30). The reason why
the researcher used the constructed responses method for testing, is because this is an English
language testing method used to assess student’s ability of vocabulary and grammar in the form

18
of a fill-in-the-blanks (Osterlind, 2002, p.33). This method requires the researcher to provide
specific material for the students to complete the missing information (Douglas, 2010, pp. 169–
204). The researcher collects the responses and uses a counting method for the correct answers
(Downing, 2009). The researchers are recommended not to have any personal bias or to make
personal judgment because this can affect the results (Osterlind, 2002, p.31). The rationale of
this test method is that this type of test may help to analyze students' mean scores and the results
obtained may indicate how the testing administered affects the validity and reliability
(Osterlind, 2002, p.35).

Apart from the constructed responses method for testing, the method used for identifying and
counting derivational and inflectional errors is the Error Analysis method to provide the
knowledge of the students' learning process in L2 acquisition. Corder (1973, 1977,1981),
likewise Elis (1994) and Gass et al. (2008), recommend the following three steps for error
analysis.

According to Ellis (1994) and Gass et al. (2008), the first step is the identification stage which
lists the different errors. For example, in this research an error identification in section B, where
the students are required to complete the sentence choosing between the provided prefixes
‘mis’, ‘dis’- or ‘un’. In question (6) I do my best, not to mismanage my time, but I did not pass
the math test. The root word provided to be completed is ‘manage’. Students complete the
sentence with; I do my best, not to unmanage my time, but I did not pass the math test. The
example above shows a derivational prefix error due to the substitution of the correct prefix ‘-
mis’ with other derivational negations ‘un’. This is identified by the researcher as incorrect
prefix, the correct prefix response is ‘mismanage’. The correct response is ‘I do my best, not to
mismanage my time, but I did not pass the math test’.

The second step is the categorization stage which involves arranging the errors based on their
types. For example, additive errors; where the learners add an unnecessary item, which make
the sentence or word grammatically incorrect. Another example of error categorization is
substitution errors, where the wrong morpheme is used or selected in the place of the right one.
For example, section B question (4) the student completes the sentence choosing between the
provided prefixes ‘-mis’, ‘- dis’- or ‘-un’ in the root word ‘conduct’. Alis misconduct was
painful for his parents. (Does not have good conduct). The correct prefix which is 'mis’ is left
out and the student selects 'un' that is using an incorrect prefix 'un' instead of the correct prefix
'misconduct'

19
The third step is the explanation and description stage which includes the explanation and
description of the errors based on their sources or contributory factors such as,
overgeneralization errors, error of addition or omission errors. The explanation and description
involve different categories according to (Corder (1967), as cited in Jabeen et al.,
2015). Richards (2015, p.34) suggests the researcher has to use certain features to facilitate the
explanation of the types of errors. For example, overgeneralization errors, where the learners
are overusing certain grammatical rules to apply them in areas where they cannot be applied,
like using the past tense 'ed', in for example 'sleeped' instead of 'slept'. This will be explained
in detail in the discussion section.

3.5. Method Validity and Reliability

This section aims to interpret the validity and reliability of the work. Harrison, et al. (1998, p.
121) defines reliability as the consistency or applicability of a test across different groups of
learners anywhere and at any time. It is therefore important to discuss the internal and external
validity of the study. Creswell, (2009, pp 116–118) suggests internal validity has to do with the
accuracy of the research method that is the qualitative and the quantitative methods accuracy.
Internal validity is mostly concerned with whether the results could rightly support the cases,
population, or topic that is being studied. Internal validity also affirms that the results of the
research method could be replicated by other researchers and if the same phenomena could be
replicated in similar cases. The concern for external validity is whether the results could be
generalized to a larger population. The research method of the present study to some extent
could be generalized to a larger population and the research methods could be replicated by
other researchers (Campbell et al. 1966) p. 38).
However, there could be certain problems that may affect the external and internal
validity of a research. For example, the difficulty faced with the population, or group being
studied through randomization because the random test method can affect scores and affects
internal validity, and a random population can affect external validity. The present research has
a non-random method, that is the population was intentionally selected. Thus, the external
conditions will not be the same if the study was to be applied to the same schools and the same
group of students at another period. Other factors could affect the results, such as the time or
period of the tests. However, the two schools that were selected could cause bias factors that
could result to external invalidity because of the limited number of students. The results could
not be applied to all secondary school students studying English in Sweden. Furthermore, the
threat to internal validity is the group, the groups proficiency, the duration of the tests, reliability

20
in calculation (Campbell et al. 1966). However, even though the present study has a non-
random population sample selection. Internal reliability could be difficult to obtain due to other
extraneous factors such as the limited population, students maybe nervous, the time maybe
another factor, which may suggest that the results cannot be generalized (Shadish, et al., 2002).

4. Results

The research is to examine the derivational and inflectional errors Swedish second language
learners of English make in grade 7, 8 and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. This
section presents the results of the data obtained from the fill-in-the-blanks language test and the
selected essays. The derivational and inflectional errors result of the fill-in-the-blanks language
test and the written essays are also presented in the tables below.

4.1. Error Analysis - Fill-In-The-Blanks Language Test.

This section presents the derivational and inflectional affixation errors found in students' fill-
in-the-blanks test. The method used for Error analysis also explains how the errors are
identified, classified, described, and evaluated according to the error analysis framework. The
identification stage lists the different errors. The classification stage involves arranging the
errors based on their types. The evaluation of the errors involves making a judgement on the
implication of the errors to accompany the EA in the discussion section. The description is
based on the error’s sources or contributory factors such as overgeneralization, transfer errors
as already presented above.

To begin with, these tables below present results of derivational and inflectional
affixation errors in the fill-in-the-blanks language test for grades 7, 8 and 9. Table 5 below
presents the number of questions students answered on derivational and inflectional affixations
in the fill-in-the-blanks test. It presents the maximum points or scores in each section of the test
for each student. The derivational and inflectional affixations were divided into four sections
(see the appendix for the different sections of the test). Section A ‘-un’ Section B ‘un’, ‘mis’,
‘dis’, Section C, ‘ism’, ‘ant’, ‘ist’ ‘ful’ Section D ‘ing’, ‘ed’ (See Table 3). The test was divided
into four sections with each section having one or more derivational and inflectional affixations.
In the test, section A demanded students to add a prefix to complete each sentence. The second
section B demanded the students to complete the sentences by choosing between different
prefixes and suffixes (dis, un, mis) section C demanded the students to choose between suffixes

21
(ful, ism) and finally section D requires students to choose between suffixes (‘ing’ and ‘ed’) to
complete the sentences, each section had a maximum point or score as shown in the table below.

Table 5. Number of questions – maximum points – per section and per student

Section A Section B Section C Section D Total

4 6 6 3 19

The method used as mentioned above to calculate students’ results was a systematic counting
method. The researcher collects the response samples and uses a counting method for the
correct answers (Downing, 2009).

Table 6 below presents the mean scores across the three grades for those students who
took the fill-in-the-blanks test on derivation and inflectional affixations in all the grades, grade
7, 8 and 9. The test is in the appendix, and one point was given for the correct derivational and
inflectional affixation. A total of 2,812 answers were retrieved from all the grades and the
results showed that the number of correct answers or points was 47 %. The correct answers or
points for all the grades were highest in section D, with a total of 68 % while the correct answers
or points were lowest in section C, with only 32 %. The percentage of correct answers or points
was lowest in section C for all grades, which may suggest that because all the grades performed
poorly in section C students had the most difficulties in using this derivational and inflectional
affixations. On the contrary the percentage of correct answers or points was highest in section
D for all grades. The interpretation of the findings is that the 7, 8 and 9 graders had highest
performance in section D with the suffix ‘ing’, according to the results showing the easiest, and
straightforward affixations for students to understand. The 9 graders rank highest in all the
sections (see Appendix I). The results for section A showed the highest with 67% for grade 9,
followed by 52% for grade 8 and 52 % for grade 7. The results for section B are also highest
with 53% for grade 9, followed by 44 % for grade 7 and 35% for grade 8 (see the discussion
section for more details). The results for sections C showed highest with 37% for grade 9,
followed by 35 % for grade 7 and 22% for grade 8. However, there is no straightforward reason

22
why the grade 7 did better in section C (see discussion section). The results for section D, are
highest with 77% for grade 9, followed by 73% for grade 8 and 54 % for grade 7. Significantly,
the total scores, and maximum points of correct derivational and inflectional affixation errors
shows only a slight difference for grade 8 compared to grade 7. The table presents the mean
scores for each section and mean scores for each grade. Each section contains a given number
of derivation and inflectional affixations (see Appendix I).

Table 6. The mean scores and the percentage of correct answers/points and mean scores
in each grade and each section

Grade Section A Section B Section C Section D Total

mean % mean % mean % mean % mean %

score score score score score

7 2.1 52 2.7 44 2.1 35 1.6 54 8.4 44

8 2.1 52 2.1 35 1.3 22 2.2 73 7.7 40

9 2.7 67 3.2 53 2.2 37 2.3 77 10.4 55

Total 2.3 57 2.7 45 1.9 32 2 68 8.9 47

As shown above in table 6 the total mean score for correct derivational and inflectional
affixations in all the grades and all the sections is 8.9 points. The percentage of correct
derivational and inflectional affixations for total mean scores was again highest for grade 9,
ranking first with 55%. Grade 9 mean score is also highest with 10.4 points, grade 8 mean
score is 7.7 points, and grade 7 mean score is 8.4 points (ser discussion section). It is however
important to mention here that the above table shows differences in mean scores for derivational
and inflectional affixations for all grades. The mean scores in the sections also vary. This may
indicate the differences in the learning process. This may also be an indication that the learning
process of derivational and inflectional affixations has many different stages. The explanation

23
to the phenomena is in the discussion section. However, as mentioned earlier, this is a small
research enquiry with insufficient data. The above results need to be tested with a larger amount
of population. The following section presents how the errors in the fill-in-the-the-blanks were
identified, categorized, explained, and described.

4.2. Error classification and categorization.

As earlier mentioned, the errors were identified through the fill in the blank’s language test
using a counting method. Below are some classifications of the derivational and inflectional
error types.

4.3. Substitution Errors - prefix ‘mis’,

Most derivational prefix errors occur due to substitution errors. For example, the students insert
another morpheme instead of the derivational prefix ‘mis’. The derivational prefix errors also
occurred because students substituted the prefix ‘mis’ with other derivational negation prefixes
such as ‘dis’, ‘un’ and ‘under’. For example, instead of the word ‘mismanage’ the students turn
to use other prefixes such as ‘dis’, ‘un’ ‘under’ as prefixes to the word ‘manage.’ Additionally,
the error occurred when students had to complete the word ‘misunderstand.’ The students used
the prefix ‘dis’, as a prefix to the word ‘understand’. Also, 'instead of ‘misconduct’ students
used ‘dis’ as a prefix. See the discussion section for further explanations.

4.4. Substitution Errors suffix ‘ist’, ‘able’, ‘ant’

The results also showed substitution and overgeneralization errors in derivational suffixes as
students tend to substitute and overgeneralize the use of certain suffixes, for example the suffix
‘able.’ The suffix ‘able’ was used instead of the suffix ‘ant’ in the word ‘’account’-
‘accountant.’ Thus, turning the word into an adjective instead of a noun. As a result, making
the sentence grammatically incorrect by using the suffix in contexts which need other suffixes
such as ‘ant.’

Another example of derivational suffix overgeneralization error is when derivational person

suffix errors occur as in the word ‘chemistry.’ Students had to add the suffix ‘ist’ that derives
the word ‘chemist’. The students' responses showed students use other suffixes for example
‘tryist’, to form the derivational person suffix. Thus, the students' words are formed without
following the grammar rule, with the deletion of the root words' last syllables. In this case, the
right derivational suffix is obtained when the last syllables of ‘chemistry’ are deleted to derive

24
‘chemist’. Students also substituted the person suffixes using other suffixes as, ‘trist’, ‘tyist’
‘triant.’ There has been no further suggestion why these types of errors occur, it may be wise
to suggest further studies. The only suggestion the researcher could use was that students may
extend the rule of derivational suffix ‘ist’ on similar words such as “biology” = “biologist”. As
noted, this is a suggestion that needs further investigation.

4.5. Letter Insert, suffix ‘ism’,

Other derivational errors were letter insertion errors. For example, the use of the derivational
suffix ‘ism’ in ‘criticism’. Students complete the word with the suffix ‘ist’. Thus, substituting
the suffix ‘ism’ with another suffix ‘ist’. The suggestion that students have written these forms
because they think there is a one-to-one correlation between a word's ending or the words last
syllable in word formation processes. As indicated, this is a suggestion that requires further
investigation. The error could also be regarded as a letter insertion error as indicated in previous
sections. The students by omitting the letter ‘m’ and inserting or replacing it with another letter
‘t’ was mostly noticed among 7th and 8th graders, showing an area of difficulty in suffixes in
the fill-in-the-blanks language test. Further investigation is needed to explain the reasons for
such errors.

4.6. Errors in Students' Essays

This research focuses on derivational and inflectional affixation errors secondary school
students make in grade 7, 8 and 9 when writing. Therefore, it will be necessary to look at a few
written essays to find out the derivational and inflectional errors in essays from the same grades
7–9. The essays are written by the students who wrote the grammar test in the schools selected
for the survey. The table below presents the derivational and inflectional affixation errors found
in the essays students submitted as written assignments for grading. All the essays were
analyzed focusing on the EA framework. The results of the derivational and inflectional
affixations errors found in students' essays are presented using a table for better analysis.
Furthermore, the presentation in the table is linked to the EA framework mentioned earlier in
section two. The researcher uses the response items to measure specific features selecting only
derivational and inflectional affixations used by students in the essays (Downing, 2009).

25
Table 7: Presents derivational/inflectional affixation errors in students’ essays.

No Identification of Derivational/inflectional Derivational/inflectional

Derivational/inflectional affixations affixations
affixations errors
Error correction Error description and Error
Evaluation

1 1. A handy buyer was a 1. A handy buyer was a Overgeneralization error

person who buyed things in person who bought things in
Inflectional suffix (past tense)
a store. a store.
‘ed’ using past tense suffix
2. When rich people buyed 2. When rich people bought ‘ed’ instead of the grammatical
houses they had like two or houses, they had two or past tense of buy (bought) or
three rooms in one house. three rooms in one house. confusing when to use the past
tense suffix ‘ed’.

2 In modern houses they also In modern houses they also omission of suffix ‘s’ to
use exact measure. use exact measurement / indicate the plural. The suffix
measurement(s) ‘ment’ is also left out. Errors in
both derivational (ment) and
inflectional ’s’(plural)

3 And instead of a pillow they And instead of a pillow they Overgeneralization of

sleeped on wooden slept on wooden headrests. inflectional suffix - past tense
headrests ‘ed’

4 I'm writing to you again I am writing to you again Progressive form, inflectional
because i was wanting to because I wanted to ask you error due to the wrong use of
ask you to stop mowing to stop mowing your lawn tense and suffixes ‘ing’. The
your lawn at 03:00. at 03:00.

26
 use of (‘ing’, instead of
inflectional –past tense ‘ed’)

5 Some of the children thinks Some of the children think overgeneralization with
it is okay "it looks okey, it is okay "it looks okey, inflection of suffix ‘s’
(overgeneralization of 3rd
person singular in plural
context

The section identifies the errors in students' essays. The errors are analyzed using subheadings
considering the EA framework already discussed in previous sections.

4.7. Omission errors, suffix ‘ment’

The derivational suffix errors were also due to morpheme omission. Students omitted the use of the
derivational suffix ‘ment’. The students are unaware of which language form to use when the form to
be chosen has an affixation. Students forget the grammar rule to add the derivational noun suffix
‘ment’ for example in the word ‘measure’- ‘measurement’. Thus, also omitting to add the suffix ‘s’ to
indicate the plural as in ‘measurements.’ This could be a complex word formation process. The
students have not mastered how the words are formed using suffixes. The discussion section
explains other researchers’ ideas on complexity of grammar and word formation to second
language learners.

4.8. Substitution Errors - (Past Tense) ‘ed’ and ‘s’ (3rd Person Singular)

The inflectional past tense suffixation errors that occurred in students' essays was because
students struggle with tenses, for example the suffix ‘ed’. Students overgeneralize the use of
the past tense ‘ed’. Students use ’ed’ in ‘buy’ instead of ‘bought’. In the essays, students
overgeneralize the use of the past tense suffix ‘ed’ in words like ‘sleep’ instead of ‘slept’. Also,
overgeneralization occurred with the use of inflectional suffix ‘-s’ in words like ‘think’ which

27
 changes the forms of the verb. The research reveals students are having problems understanding
grammatical rules as a result student in the survey made overgeneralization errors, by
substituting ‘ing’ with ‘ed’. For example, adding ‘ing’ in words like ‘want’ when the intended
sentence was to be written in the past tense using ‘ed’. The frequencies of students' errors are
shown in the table below. This section's general conclusion, subsequently, shows similarities
between the errors in the fill-in-the-blanks test, and errors that occur in students' essays.

4.9. Frequency of the different error categories

The following table is a presentation of the frequencies of the different error categories.
Frequency of the different error categories

No Error Types Frequency of errors

1 Omissive errors 11

2 Substitutive errors 13

3 Additive errors 10

4 Overgeneralization errors 9

5 5 Transfer errors 0

The table shows the highest errors were substitution errors, errors of addition and omission then
overgeneralization errors. There were no transfer errors that could directly be connected to the
students' responses. The next section therefore is a discussion section. It also includes
suggestion for future research that could be done in relation to the present study.

5. Discussion

The present research aimed to examine derivational and inflectional errors Swedish Secondary
School students make in grade 7, 8, and 9 and what factors contribute to the errors. This section
compares the results of the present study to results of previous studies. Thus, the contribution
of the present study to the already existing knowledge. It also examines how different this work
is from the other related literature. However, in analyzing the data some discoveries about the
types of errors and their possible causes were made. The main errors generated were errors
related to past tense suffix ‘ed’ and the plural suffix ‘s’.

28
 Ellis et al. (2005), Taher (2011), Ayati (2019), Tornber (2001), Khor (2012), Svartvik
et al. (1996) and Krashen 1982) mentioned, some of the difficulties students have are related to
the use of morphemes and grammar. This stems from the fact that second language learners
have difficulty with grammar rules that apply in the second language (Richards,1974). For
example, the use of plural endings ‘s’ and the use of regular past verbs endings ‘ed’. The present
study shows the students had the same difficulties with the use of the suffix past tense ‘ed’. The
suffix ‘s’ indicating the plural of a noun. This could suggest that derivational and inflectional
affixation is still a difficult area for many L2 learners in secondary schools in Sweden. This
difficulty may continue if teachers ignore the origins of the error (Corder, 1997). However, it
may not be easy to find a solution for these errors. Further research is required to address the
difficulties of grammar.

Likewise, Kellman (1986), Harmer (1998), Piennmann (1999) and Ellis, et al. (2005),
explain it is frequent with developmental errors during the process of second language
learning. This may justify why students have difficulty in understanding grammar rules, and
why they have problems understanding English tenses (Tornberg, 2004). The outcome of the
present study is in accordance with previous research findings, since the present study has
revealed students have difficulties in understanding the use of derivational and inflectional
affixations that have to do with the use of ‘ed’ and plural ‘s’ and the progressive ’ing’. The
errors in tenses make the student’s written production ungrammatical (Crystal, 1997). However,
these errors may be related to the language learning stages as noted above.

Furthermore, when looking at problems related to affixation errors, the present study’s
observations are in accordance with the idea that errors may be due to the differences in L1 and
L2 (Svartvik et al., 1996, p. 145). The students have not yet mastered the grammar rules of the
second language. Also, Richards (1974, p. 30), and Corder (1967) describe that error analysis
is proof that there are differences in L1 and L2. The errors identified in EA is evidence that the
learners are in the process of learning. The present study explains the difficulties in the use of
derivational and inflectional affixation may occur because of the complexity of the second
language. For example, ’chemist’ and ’chemistry’ ’accountant’ and accountable’ are words that
change the part of speech or words that change the tenses may be complex language situations
for second language learners to understand. It was obvious that students are still in the stage of
a learning process. The acquisition of word elements in English for L2 learners is complex
(Thomson et al. 2012). They did not know which affixation to use in different language
situations (Khor, 2012).
29
 Lado (1957), Selinka (1972), and Littlewood (1984) maintain that errors are due to
transfer from L1 to L2. The present study could not find any error directly connected to transfer.
For example, the students' substitution of ‘ed’ in ‘wanted’ with a progressive ‘ing’ ‘wanting’
could not be described as transfer. The students have not been affected by L1in this case of
substitution. The students are rather mixing the verbs and the tenses. It is also the case when
students prefer to use ‘able’ to complete the word ‘account’. The word becomes an adjective
‘accountable’ instead of the required noun ‘accountant’. This error could not be regarded as a
transfer error. Students have not mastered the grammar knowledge of the second language.
However, some language errors could not be explained using L1 justifications (Selinka, 1972).
Consequently, no transfer errors were found in the present research. This could be an interesting
area for further research.

However, even without cases of transfer, the research is significant because with EA
teachers could understand second language learners needs for more exposure to L2 grammar
rules to avoid certain errors in their written production (Richards, 1974). Teachers need to equip
themselves with error analysis to be able to help second language learners improve their
language proficiencies (Corder, 1967). Moreover, teachers need to help second language
learners understand the differences in L2 structures (Weinreich (1953). And lastly, this EA
reveals teachers have a duty to teach second language learners how grammar works (Carter
(1997). It is worth mentioning that EA only advocates on the errors of second language learners
and dismiss what the second language learners do accurately (Elis et al.2005, p.69–70).

Based on the above discussion, the work is however limited because it examines only a
few derivational and inflectional affixations. There are many other derivational and inflectional
affixation or word formation processes like conversion, duplications, and compounding that
have not been treated in the study. Future researchers may have to continue to study how
students find difficulties deriving these word formation processes mentioned here. Also, this
work is limited because of the population of the study. The data has limited itself to only two
schools. Other researchers could carry out the same study with other school populations for a
comparative study. A different kind of comparative study could be to find out how derivational
and inflectional affixation is formed in the Swedish language and compared them with the
formation of affixations in English. This may lead to the discovery of positive or negative
transfer depending on how similar the Swedish language is to the English language.

30
6. Conclusion

The paper aimed to investigate derivational and inflectional errors in a grammar test and written
essays of Swedish second language learners in grade 7, 8 and 9. The major findings of the
research reveal that student errors are mostly errors of omission, overgeneralization errors and
substitutive errors that result in ungrammatical structures. However, while the 9th graders have
improved their acquisitions of derivational and inflectional affixations, the 7th and 8th graders
appear to make similar derivational and inflectional affixations errors. Also, the results reveal
that the use of derivational and inflectional affixation is still a problem for Swedish secondary
school students learning English as a second language. The study therefore suggests the
importance of further research on derivational and inflectional affixations errors for second
language learners in Swedish secondary school.

31
References

Publish Books

Aryati, M. S. (2014). An Analysis of Derivational Affixes in the Land of Five Towers Novel
by A. Fuadi Translated by Angie Kilbane. Muria Kudus: Muria Kudus University.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods, 2 nd ed., Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Burt, Marina K. & Dulay, Heidi. (1975). New Directions in Second Language Learning,
Teaching, and Bilingual Education. On TESOL ‘75. Washington, DC: Teachers of English
to Speakers of other Languages.

Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English Discourse. London: Routledge. 3(2). London:

Routledge.

Crystal, David and Crystal, David (2004) Rediscover Grammar. 3rd ed. Harlow: Longman.
_______ (2006) Making Sense of Grammar. Pearsons: Longman.

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Gabriele, A., Alemán Bañón, J., López Prego, B., & Canales, A. (2015). Examining
the influence of transfer and prototypes on the acquisition of the present progressive
in L2 Spanish. In D. Ayoun. The Acquisition of the Present (pp. 113–151). John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to Teach English. Pearson. England: Education Limited.

Leech, G. (1989) An A-Z of English grammar and usage. London: Edward Arnold.

Kellerman, Eric, and Sharwood Smith, Eds (1986). Crosslinguistic Influence in Second
Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon P.

Kellerman, Eric (1986). “An Eye for Eye: Crosslinguistic Constraints on the Development
of the L2 Lexicon.” In Kellerman and Smith, Eds.

Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon

Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors
that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lado, Robert. (1957) Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Muller, P.O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., & Rainer F. (2015). Word-formation: an International
Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Selinker, L. (1992) (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Philadelphia

Amsterdam.

32
Skolverket. Kommentarmaterial till Kursplanen i Engelska. 2011. Stockholm: Fritzes. 5
November 2014. Syllabus for the English subject. Retrieved 2021-02-16

Svartvik, J., and Sager, O. (1996) Engelsk Universitet Grammatik. Stockholm: Liber.

Taher, A. (2011). Error Analysis: A Study of Swedish Junior High School Students’ Texts
and Grammar Knowledge. Unpublished. The Uppsala Learner English Corpus (ULEC). The
Department of English, Uppsala University.

Thomson, A. and Martinet, A.V. (2012). A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. Vetenskapsrådet

Weinreich, Uriel. (1953). Language in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York:
Publication Number 1 of the Linguistic circle of New York.

Publish Articles

Bauer, L. (2004). The Function of Word-Formation and inflection-derivation distinction.

In:Aessen, H., Hannay, M. R.Lyall(eds), Words in their Places. A Festschrift of Applied
Linguistics, 5(4):161–170

Bailey, N., C. Madden, and S. Krashen (1974) "Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult second
language learning?" Language Learning 24, 235–243.

Corder, P. (1967). The Significance of Learner's Errors. International Review of Applied

Linguistics. 5(4):161–181

Douglas, D. (2010). Understanding language testing. NY: Routledge. Downing, S. (2009).

Written Tests: Constructed-response and Selected-response Formats. In Assessment in
Health Professions Education.

Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 4b. 58–72

Glucksberg, Sam. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language : From Metaphor to

Idioms. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press
Harrison, S., & Bakker, P. (1998). Two New Readability Predictors for the Professional
Writer: Pilot Trials. Journal of Research in Reading 21. 121–138

Lenon, P. (1991) Error: Some Problems Of Definition, Identification, and Distinction.

Applied Linguistics 12:180–196

Littlewood, W.T. (1981). Language Variation and Second Language Acquisition Theory.
Applied linguistics 2: 150–158.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form. And Corrective Feedback in

Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning. Studies in
second language acquisition 12:429–448

33
Osterlind, S. (2002).Constructing Test Items: Multiple-Choice, Constructed-Response,
Performance and Other Formats. NY: Kluwer Academic publishers.

Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M. and Sayehli, S. 2002. “Transfer and typological proximity in
the context of second language processing”. Second Language Research 18: 250–273.

Quirk, R. Sidney, G. Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of English

Language. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press

Richards, J.C. (1974). A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. English Language

Teaching Journal, 25(3), 204–219

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 201–231.

Shohamy, E. (1988) A Proposed Framework for Testing the Oral Language of

Second/Foreign Language Learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10:165–180
Online
Test questions from: https://www.superteacherworksheets.com/prefixes-suffixes/prefixes-dis-
un_DISUN.pdf
https://www.superteacherworksheets.com/prefixes-suffixes/prefixes-sentences.pdf
https://www.superteacherworksheets.com/prefixes-suffixes/suffixes-ful-less_FULLE.pdf
Retrieved 2021-02-16

Appendices

Appendix I

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEST:

Date: ____ 2021
FILL - IN - THE - BLANKS.
AFFIXATION - SUFFIX AND PREFIX
GRADE 7, 8 AND 9

34
Section A).
Add a prefix to each word in parenthesis ( ) to complete each sentence.
1. Tricia was ________ to visit her friend because she had a lot of homework to do. (able)
2. Mrs. Sieracki was ___________________with the low Social Studies test scores. (happy)
3. Christian ____________________ his jacket when he came inside the house. (buttoned)
4. Please help your mother ________ the groceries from the car to the kitchen. (load)
Section B).
Write a single word with mis, - dis- or un- to complete each sentence.
1. My shoe is ____________________. (not tied)
2. Carl feels he is being__________________. (people do not understand him)
3. Abby is ____________________ to beat me in the video game. (not able)
4. Alis ________________is painful for his parents. (does not have good conduct)
5. Mrs. Wu said she does not want _______ homework handed in. (not finished)
6. I do my best, not to ________my time, but I did not pass the math test. (manage)
Section C).
Write a single word with -ant, - ist, -ful, - ism to complete each sentence.
1. I am ______________ to have such a loving family. (full of thanks)
2. Willy saw a man who was working as a___________ wandering around the pharmacy. (chemistry)
3. Carla, you look _____________________ in that dress. (full of beauty)
4. The squirrels in the backyard are ________________. ( harm)
5. Did you see your _____________ to manage your bills? (account)
6. This broken political system is a _________ to the government. ( critic)
Section D).
Add ed or ing to the verbs in parenthesis () to complete each sentence.
1. Bart is ____________ on his little sister. (spy)
2. The baby is always__________ when he is hungry. (cry)
3. My friends are _________ tickets to the baseball game. (buy)
Answer Key
A). Add a prefix to each word in parenthesis ( ) to complete each sentence.
1. Tricia was unable to visit her friend because she had a lot of homework to do. (able)
2. Mrs. Sieracki was unhappy with the low Social Studies test scores. (happy)
3. Christian unbuttoned his jacket when he came inside the house. (buttoned)
4. Please help your mother unload the groceries from the car to the kitchen. (load)
Answer Key

35
B). Write a single word with mis, dis, un- to complete each sentence.
1. My shoe is untied. (not tied)
2. Carl feels he is being misunderstood. (people do not understand him)
3. Abby is unable to beat me in the video game. (not able)
4. Alis misconduct is painful for his parents. (does not have good conduct)
5. Mrs. Wu said she doesn't want unfinished homework handed in. (not finished)
Answer key
C). Write a single word -ant, - ist, -ful, - ism, to complete each sentence.
1. I am thankful to have such a loving family. (full of thanks)
2. Willy saw a man who was working as a chemist wandering around the pharmacy. (chemistry)
3. Carla, you look beautiful in that dress. (full of beauty)
4. The squirrels in the backyard are harmful ( harm)
5. Did you see your accountant to manage your bills? (account)
6. This broken political system is a criticism to the government. ( critic)
Answer key
D). Add ed or ing to the verbs in parenthesis () to complete each sentence.
1. Bart is spying on his little sister. (spy + ing)
2. The baby is always crying when he is hungry. (cry + ed)
3. My friends are buying tickets to the baseball game. (buy + ing)

Appendix II

Consent Letter - Parental consent letter

Date 2021 03 08

Dear parents, I am a student in Gävle University. As part of my training, I am carrying out a

study looking at how students can learn English words formation processes. I hope that this
information will help suggest ways that schools and teachers can support their education in
English word formation processes. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to give
permission for me to ask your son/daughter if he/she would like to take part in my research.

36
This will involve your son/daughter filling in a task in order for me to find out what he/she
finds difficult in word formation processes in English.

This project will be supervised by professors in Gävle University. The English test is to take
place during normal school hours and will take between twenty to thirty minutes of your son’s
/ daughter’s time. Your son’s/ daughter’s participation in this research will be treated
confidentially and all information will be kept confidential, meaning that no one will be able
to work out what it is your son/daughter has written. If you have any comments or questions
about this research please contact my supervisor, Jessika Nillson, using the contact details
provided. The research has been approved by the Gävle University Ethics Committee. If you
wish you can contact the Gävle ethics committee by telephone __________ or by email
_____________ if you have any complaints about this research.

Many thanks in advance, please let me know if you need more information. I would
appreciate it if you could complete the attached permission slip and return it to the English
teacher at your son / daughter’s school.

Regards,

Jeannette Håkansson.

37