An Analysis of Recognition of Compound Complex Sentences for Fossilised Errors in Teaching Writing


  • Arzu Kocak Hacettepe University


This empirical study investigated to what extend instruction (six-hour remedial teaching) aids recognition of compound complex sentences in teaching writing. The study also compared and contrasted students’ recognition level of four types of sentences (simple, compound, complex and compound complex sentences) in teaching writing to find out the order of confusion for types of sentences. The data were collected through two tests (a pre-test and a post-test) administrated by 22 first year students in the Department of English Language Teaching (ELT) at Hacettepe University. The data gathered from the tests were analyzed quantitatively. Findings revealed that participants did better on sentence structure knowledge at the end of the course than at the beginning of the course. In addition, the results of the study indicated that there are significant differences among students’ level of recognition for each type of sentence and the most confusing sentence type for the students is complex sentences. Key words: simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences and compound complex sentences

Author Biography

Arzu Kocak, Hacettepe University

a lecturer at the School of Foreign Languages at Hacettepe University.


Al Musalli,A., & Alharthi, I.(2011).Sentence Types: Students’perceptions and productions.Retrieved from

Bhatia, V.K., 1990. Integrating products, processes, purposes, and participants in professional writing. In C.N.Candlin and K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes, and practices (pp. 21-30). London: Longman.

Bosher, S., 1998. The composing processes of Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 205-240

Celce-Murcia, M.(2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger: New York

Demirezen, M. (1993a). From sentence to paragraph structure (2nd ed). Ankara: Adım

Demirezen, M. (2012a). An Analysis of the Problem-Causing Structures of Simple Sentences for Turkish University Students, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) Vol. 2 No. 3; February 2012, pp. 135-146. 2012/19.pdf (ISSN 2220-8488 (print) 2221-0989 (5151 State University Drive Los Angeles, CA 90032 USA

Han, ZhaoHong. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English (new ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited

Johns, A.M., 1990. L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed). Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 24-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S., & Seliger, H. (1975). The essential contributions of formal instruction in adult second language learning. TESOL Quarterly 9, 173-83

Leki, I., and J.G. Carson, 1994. Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly+99 28, 81-101

Long, M.(1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the the research. TESOL QUARTERLY 17, 357-82.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporaray English (1996).(3rd ed.).Harlow: Pearson PTR.

Raford, A. (1997). Syntax: A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Öztürk, C. (2006). Building skills for proficiency (2nd. Ed.). Ankara: Pelikan.

Verspoor, M., & Sauter,K. (2000). English Sentence Analysis: An Introductory Course. John Benjamins Publishing Company

White, R.V.,& V. Arndt (1991). Process writing. London: Longman