A Case Study Of Grammatical Errors Made By Malaysian Students

International Journal of Science Commerce and Humanities Volume No 2 No 5 July 2014
154
A Case Study of Grammatical Errors Made by Malaysian Students
Andrew Yau Hau Tse
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Faculty of Arts & Social Science
Perak Campus
31900 Kampar
Malaysia
ABSTRACT
In Malaysia, the capability to write error-free essays is not attained among university students. The goal of
this study is twofold: a) to detect the grammatical errors made by university students and b) to propose ways
to help them avoid making errors. Sixty samples of paragraphs written by first year university students from
the Department of Languages and Linguistics from a private university in Malaysia were collected and
analysed. A total of 797 errors were discovered in the findings. Six significant errors appeared in the sample
were a) singular/plural; b) articles; c) prepositions; d) adjective/noun; e) subject-verb agreement; and f)
tenses. Various ways to cope with errors, for instance, ‘process writing’ and ‘peer correction;, are
recommended to help the learners avoid making errors. To conclude, errors are significant and
unavoidable but there are measures to aid the learners to ameliorate their writing skills and acquire
grammar accuracy.
Keywords: Error Analysis, Contrastive Analysis, Second Language Acquisition
INTRODUCTION
This research scrutinizes the errors made by Malaysian university students in English writing
according to Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis (EA) with the assumption that these errors are
neither coincidental nor randomly made. CA, which is a part of second language pedagogy [1], conceives
that the similarities of two languages can enhance language learning whereas the differences will aggravate
the learners‟ difficulty to learn [2].
Therefore, CA is a good starting point to survey why second language learners make systematic
grammatical errors according to their linguistic backgrounds. EA is closely related to the study of error
treatment in language learning and teaching. Today, the study of errors is crucial in teaching methodology
[3]. Weireesh [4] argued that EA is a significant element in the learning process. From errors, we can
recognize and explicate the learning difficulties encountered by the learners.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corder [3] highlighted the difference between systematic and non-systematic errors. Systematic
„errors‟ are found in second language learners which is significant in language learning whereas non-
systematic errors (the „mistakes‟) appear in one‟s native language. Basically, if we continuously making the
same mistakes, then they are errors. Opposingly, mistakes are slips of the mind and most of the time we can
correct it on the spot.

155
He argued that the study of errors would be significant to teachers, to researchers and to learners.
Research on error catagorization and analysis within these three areas have been conducted. The ultimate
aim is not only to understand errors per se, but also to use what is learned from error analysis and apply it to
enhance language competence. Moreover, he initiated the difference between errors (in competence) and
mistakes (in performance). This distinction had mobilized the attention of second language acquisition
(SLA) researchers to competence errors and provided for a more concentrated framework.
Thus, in the 1970s researchers started scrutinizing learners‟ competence errors and tried to explicate
their differences. Richard [5], Dulay and Burt [6], and Stenson [7] have categorized these errors, as shown in
the following table:
Research on grammar accuracy in written texts was conducted by researchers, with a focus on L1
interference. Bennui‟s [8] study of paragraph writing of 28 third-year English-minor Thai students at
Thaksin University found L1 interference at the level of words, sentences and discourse. He depicted that
the lexical interference takes the form of literal translation of Thai words into English whereas the
interference at the sentence level involves syntax borrow from Thai language such as word order, subject-
verb agreement, and noun determiners. At the discourse level, “the wordiness or redundancy style of Thai
writing appeared in the students‟ written English” [8].
By situating paragraphs in the context of texts produced for a specific purpose, Henry and Roseberry
[9] stated that there is a correlation between the various types of errors and the move-strategy or the way in
which a genre move is realised in content. They conducted a study with 40 Malay-speaking students at the
University of Brunei Darussalam. Students were asked to write a short tourist information text in English
and discovered that within grammar and usage errors “…when an English learner is ready to enter
university, grammar is no longer the key linguistic problem” [9].
In their article, grammar error is perceived as “…one in which there is intrusion of a productive rule
of language”, for instance, omission of an article or demonstrative preceding a singular countable noun in
English [9]. Based on their findings, they advocate that university students require one-to-one attention to
help them with usage error which is a usurpation of an discretionary but globally accepted convention.
Researcher(s) Classification of errors
Richard [5] Competence , interference (L1 transfer), intralingual (incorrect
application of language rules), developmental (construction of faulty
hypotheses in L2)
Dulay and Burt [6] Developmental, interference, unique
Stenson [7] Developmental, interference, unique, induced (incorrect instruction
of the language)

156
Brunei university students in Henry and Roseberry‟s [9] research did not expose major grammar
errors in their tourism brochure, yet, the Form Four Malaysian students in Rosli Talif and Malachi Edwin‟s
[10] study displayed a lot of grammatical errors.
Error analysis on 80 scripts revealed that students from rural schools with lower proficiency in
English felt that verb forms are more difficult than other grammar items encircling articles, plurality,
prepositions, subject-verb agreement, and pronouns. Out of 64 errors recorded in their compositions, it was
discovered that 56.25% were verb form errors. Opposingly, urban students made 46 errors (36.96%) in verb
form, showing that while they can correctly use the tenses, they still encounter problems with other grammar
items, specifically with subject-verb agreement.
For rural students, article errors ranked second, after tenses. The studies reviewed so far are error
analysis of texts,written by students and reveal some common types of grammatical errors but there is no
pattern across groups of learners with different characteristics (Abdul Rashid Mohamed et al., [11]; Haja
Mohideen bin Mohamed Ali, [12]).
METHODOLOGY
Students‟ essays is used as the primary source for data collection. The writings are in the form of paragraphs
and produced by students for the Teaching of Writing (UALN 1003) course, in particular the paragraph
writing assignment. These texts will be transferred to digital form, and the data will be derived from the
machine-readable texts to search for the corpus of errors made by first year students. The sample of
paragraph was in the form of narrative writing entitled „Write an argumentative essay on one of the
following topics”.
RESULT & DISCUSSION
4.1 Result: Sixty samples of paragraphs written by first year university students were collected and
analysed. The findings revealed a total of 797 errors. Six significant errors occurred in the sample were a)
singular/plural noun; b) articles; c) prepositions; d) adjective/noun/adverb; e) subject-verb agreement; and f)
tenses.
The highest errors made is on „singular/plural noun‟, with 201 errors or 25.2% out of the total
sample. The next highest type of error is „articles‟ where a total of 168 errors were registered, making up
21.1% of the occurrence of errors. The third highest tagged error is „missing or wrong use of propositions‟,
with 136 errors or 17.1%. This is followed by „adjective/noun/adverb‟, with 117 errors, or 14.7%. The fifth
one is „subject-verb agreement‟, with 97 errors or 12.2 %; and finally „tenses‟, with 78 errors, or 9.8%.
4.2 Discussion: Apparently the main reason in making such errors is negative first language (L1)
transfer or mother tongue interference. This is explained below:
4.2.1 Errors on „singular/plural noun‟: There is no plurality in Bahasa Melayu (BM) (=national
language of Malaysia), for instance, „satu orang, dua orang=one person, two person‟; in English, we have
„one person, two persons/people‟;
4.2.2 Errors on „articles‟: Articles are absent in BM, for example, „telor‟ (=egg); in English , the
indefinite article „an‟ is added before the word „egg‟;
4.2.3 Errors on „missing or wrong use of prepositions‟: A lot students frequently a) miss or b)
misuse prepositions, for instance, a) „ ketibaan tetamu‟=Guest Arrival‟; in English, this should be written as

157
„Arrival of Guest‟; b) „Saya setuju kepada awak‟=I agree to you‟; in English we say „agree with a person‟
but „agree to something‟;
4.2.4 Errors on „adjective/noun‟: Malaysian students are confused with „adjective‟ and „noun‟
because in BM, the „adjective‟ is preceded by a „noun‟, eg, „ rumah besar=house big‟, not a „big house‟ in
English.
4.2.5 Errors on „subject-verb agreement‟: There is absence of „subject-verb agreement‟ as in
„Mereka sudah balik=They has returned‟; in English, if the subject is plural, then the verb must be plural;
4.2.6 Errors on „tenses‟: „Tenses‟ have caused a problem to Malaysian learners of English, for
instance, „Saya sudah lengkap berja karsus=I have complete my assignment‟ should be written as „I have
completed my assignment‟ which means present perfect tense has to be used to indicate an action which has
recently been finished.
Marzuki & Zainal [13] analysed the errors of report writing in an examination situation and
discovered that „subject-verb agreement‟ was the most occurring errors (95%), followed by
„articles‟(89.8%), and „singular/plural in nouns‟ occurrence (74.6%). The findings of their work is different
from the present study in that „singular/plural in nouns‟ ranked first, followed by „articles‟ and
„prepositions‟. Hence, more research is needed to survey the errors in writing made by university students in
Malaysia to see if the findings are identical.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion: First year students are still producing grammatical errors in their writing. When a
learner has made an error, the most efficient way to teach him the correct form is not by simply giving it to
him, but by letting him discover it and test different hypotheses. This is derived from Carroll's proposal [3],
who suggested that the learner should find the correct linguistic form by searching for it.
Many of the errors of transfer or misuse or overgeneralization appearing in the writing samples
discussed above represent different students‟ working hypotheses of how the English language works.
Successive hypotheses allow students the opportunity to notice and incorporate more about the target
language (English). Successful restructuring can occur under such circumstances. Retrospective application
activities, with their requirement that the target language be applied in a structured assignment and then
rehearsed in public, may be one of the best ways of integrating grammar into a writing skills-based lesson.
This can provoke the learners to create a desire for accuracy.
5.2 Recommendation: In order to help the learners avoid making errors, the follow-ing
recommendations are made:
5.2.1 Process writing: The study conducted by Kroll and Schafer [14] demonstrated how error
analysis can be used to improve writing skills. They analyze possible sources of error in non-native-English
writers, and attempt to provide a process approach to writing where the error analysis can help achieve better
writing skills.
Stone ([15], p.232) claimed that "…the objective of process writing is to learn how to write by
writing". It has a focus on the process of writing, not the end product [16]. The basic belief is that all
children can write, disregard of age. This type of writing concentrates on constructing quality content and
learning.

158
Fundamentally students undergo five stages of writing, that is, prewriting, drafting, revising, editing,
and publishing. Prewriting is the planning and notion-gathering stage. Drafting is the time spend on writing
the draft. Revising is the process to polish the draft. Editing is to proofread the draft. Finally, publishing is
the draft in its final form. Writing is recursive as these stages are not sequential, that is, they overlap each
other [16][17]. Examples of process writing in the classroom are workshop, journals or logs, and model
writing.
5.2.2. Pair work/Peer Correction: In order to aid students with error formats in their writing, pair
work and peer correction can be adopted to later rewrites and redrafts. Chaudron‟s [18] argument is that
„the feedback permits the students to confirm, disconfirm, and probably revise the theoretical „transtional‟
formats of their developing grammars‟. One strategy proposed by Keh [19], allows students for peer
feedback activities by giving them very structured check-lists, which progress to being less-structured, and
are then finally abandoned. Students write queries about their own drafts to a reader in the margins. After
receiving comments from their peers, they modify and write another draft. This peer correction process was
executed by students in their minute business proposals and in the subsequent re-drafts.
Errors were recognized and were subsequently corrected. Spada and Lightbown [20], stated that
when learners are given the chance to engage themselves in meaningful activities, they are “forced to
„negotiate for meaning,‟ that is, to voice and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions etc in a way that
allows them to arrive at a mutual understanding.” They further claim that this is “especially true when the
learners are working together to achieve a particular objective, for example, in task-based instruction.” This
negotiation will eventually leads learners to acquire the language forms, words and grammatical structures,
which carry the meaning they are attending to.
5.2.3 Rewrites/Redrafts/Restructuring: Allowing students to rewrite or redraft their written work is a
challenge to evaluate what they have done [21]. This can also advance their perspectives in the learning
process. Skehan [22] has a similar view in that the rewriting task will move to form, accuracy, and
restructuring of the perplexed language. Bygate [23] claims the employment of unscripted tasks can
stimulate the students to make generalizations on the use of language. Further, the feedback to students will
aid them concentrate on form and meaning.
The repetition of lexical items will result in reaching cohesion in the learner‟s interlanguage [24].
Repetition is a “ready-made strategy for fixing textual matter where grammatically related anaphora,
ellipsis, and substitution are still beyond the learner‟s present ability.” The act of proofreading his written
work emits „comprehensible output‟ which governs his concentration on grammatical accuracy in writing.
For reformatting of this sort, the standards of the target language become more obvious [25]. Within this
process, more assumptions and language forms are employed, which leads to successful restructuring.
5.2.4 Integrated Skills Approach: Another school of thought is that the retrospective nature should
be used to examine errors made by L1 transfer and misuse of the target language in student‟s written work,
as such, the presentation rudiment will benefit the learners by increasing their awareness. Besides, more
competent skill-building and language acquisition will show up if an integrated skill approach is employed.
However, an issue with accuracy and correctness will be encountered because of general rendition.
Skehan [22] pointed out that this retrospective strategy for task-based learning allows the learners to
acquire synthesis, intergration, and fluency which in the end help them achieve accuracy. The „rehearsal‟
element of this sort will definitely enhance accuracy in the target language.

159
6. Conclusion: The researcher of this article argues that „process writing‟ may be the best solution to
reduce the number of mistakes made by students. This is because the process approach has been accepted
and applied to EFL and ESL writing classes because of its effectiveness. This viewpoint stresses the process
that writers go through in composing texts [21]. Brown [26] states that a lot of focus was on „model‟ essays
and how well the students write their essays in terms of content, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and
punctuation.
The benefit of the process approach is to allow students handle their own writing by giving them an
opportunity to contemplate as they write [26], that is, students transmit their messages to the readers in
written form through the complex writing process; pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing.
Within the process, they keep revising their writing and instinctively centre more on errors made in syntax,
grammar, vocabulary, meaning, punctuation, and spelling.
Second, while producing different types of academic prose-writing, they are permitted to acquire
grammatical accuracy in the revising stage or in the circumstances of peer evaluations and cooperative
learning, for instance, narrating a story to each other in the writing process.
To conclude, by adopting the above-mentioned strategies, the learners‟ writing skills will be
improved and subsequently reduce the chance of making errors. It is hoped that this paper can enlighten the
English teachers in teaching writing to their students and help learners make less mistakes in their writing
tasks.
REFERENCES
[1] Chang, Y. N. (1996). Chinese Learners’ Perception and Production of the Vowels: /e/, /ei/,/o/, & /ou/
in English by Contrastive Analysis. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Cheng Kung University,
Taiwan.
[2] Tseng, Y. (2008). Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Interlanguage Variation of English /ʤ,ʧ,ʃ/. M.A.
Thesis. Providence University, Taiwan.
[3] Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
5: 160–170.
[4] Weireesh, S. (1991). How to analyse interlanguage. Journal of Psychology and Education, 9 : 113-22.
[5] Richards, J. (1971). “A non-contrastive approach to error analysis”, English Language
Teaching, 25: 204-219.
[6] Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). “Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition”. TESOL
Quarterly, 8: 129-136.
[7] Stenson, N. (1974). Error Analaysis: Sources of L2 Learner Errors. Academy
Publisher.
[8] Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal
of ELT Research, 4: 72-102.
[9] Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (2007). Language errors in the genre-based writing of advanced academic
ESL students. RELC Journal, 38: 171-197.
[10] Rosli, T. & Malachi, E. (1989). Error analysis of Form Four English compositions. The English
Teacher, XVIII. (Online) Retrieved August 6, 2009, from
http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1989/main9.html
[11] Abdul, R.M., Goh, L.L., & Wan, R.E. (2004). English errors and Chinese learners. Sunway College
Journal, 1: 83–97.
[12] Haja, M. (1996). Error analysis - contributory factors to students' errors, with special reference to errors
in written English. The English Teacher, 25. (Online) Retrieved March 24, 2007, from
http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1996/main4.html

160
[13] Marzuki, S. & Zainal. Z. (2004). Common Errors Produced by UTM Students in Report Writing.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Unpublished project report. Universiti Teknology Malaysia Repository.
[14] Kroll, B. & Schafer, J.C. (1978). "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of Composition", College
Composition and Communication, 29: 242-248.
[15] Stone, S. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for children. Unpublished
manuscript.
[16] Tompkins, G. (1990). Teaching and writing: Balancing process and product. Columbus, OH:
Merrill Publishing Co.
[17] Gardner, A., & Johnson, D. (1997). Teaching personal experience narrative in the elementary and
beyond. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona Writing Project Press.
[18] Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.134.
[19] Keh, C. (1996). „Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation.‟ In T.
Hedge and N. Whitney (eds.). Power Pedagogy & Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.297.
[20] Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p.122.
[21] Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers.
London: Prentice Hall International,p.152.
[22] Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 120, 197.
[23] Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., and Williams, E.. (1994). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice
Hall, p.242.
[24] Rutherford, W. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. Longman, p.174.
[25] Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.41.
[26] Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd
ed.).
New York: Addison Wesley Longman, pp.335-336.
APPENDIX
Table 1. No. of samples analysed=60
Grammatical error No. of errors %
singular/plural 201 25.2
articles 168 21.1
prepositions 136 17.1
adjective/noun/adverb 117 14.7
subject-verb agreement 97 12.2
tenses 78 9.8
TOTAL 797 100

A Case Study Of Grammatical Errors Made By Malaysian Students

More Related Content

Similar to A Case Study Of Grammatical Errors Made By Malaysian Students

More from Audrey Britton

Recently uploaded

A Case Study Of Grammatical Errors Made By Malaysian Students