See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235772401

Error analysis of the written english essays of secondary school students in

Malaysia: A case study

Article in European Journal of Social Sciences · May 2009

CITATIONS
READS
104
27,332

2 authors, including:

Saadiyah Darus
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
61 PUBLICATIONS 377 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Writing Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Assisting ESL / EFL Novice Scholars View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saadiyah Darus on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 3
(2009)
Error Analysis of the Written English Essays of Secondary
School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study

Saadiyah Darus
E-mail: adi@ukm.my
Tel: +603-89216570; Fax: +603-89254577

Kaladevi Subramaniam
School of Language Studies and
Linguistics Faculty of Social Sciences and
Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM
Bangi Selangor Malaysia

Abstract
This study examines errors in a corpus of 72 essays written by 72 participants. The
participants are Form Four Malay students who are studying at a secondary school in
Malaysia; 37 male and 35 female. They have experienced approximately the same number
of years of education through primary and secondary education in Malaysia. All of the
participants come from non-English speaking background and hardly communicate in
English outside the school. The instrument used for this study was participants’ written
essays and Markin software. All of the errors in the essays were identified and classified
into various categorizations. The results of the study show that six most common errors
committed by the participants were singular/plural form, verb tense, word choice,
preposition, subject-verb agreement and word order. These aspects of writing in English
pose the most difficult problems to participants. This study has shed light on the manner in
which students internalize the rules of the target language, which is English. Such an
insight into language learning problems is useful to teachers because it provides
information on common trouble-spots in language learning which can be used in the
preparation of effective teaching materials.

Keywords: Error analysis, essays in English, grammatical errors.

1. Introduction
Learning a Second Language (L2) is a lifelong process and it is often a challenging experience for L2
learners. English has become the L2 after it was introduced to Malaysia during colonization. Presently,
it is an international language and is used as the language in international relations, and in exchanging
knowledge and technology. It was only since a few decades ago that it was taught to almost all school
children. In general, local Malaysian students have been exposed to eleven years of learning English in
primary and secondary schools.

A Brief Historical Account of English in Malaysia

According to Solomon (1988), English has had a comparatively long history in Malaysia. Since
attaining independence in 1957, Malaysia has gone through vast changes in various fields. Not the least
of this is development of educational facilities from primary school up to tertiary level. Together with
the physical facilities major changes were also implemented in policies related to educational syllabus,

483
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 3
and the medium of instruction; that is, the languages used in imparting the knowledge. Education in
(2009)

484
Malaysia has been multilingual and Malaysia has continued to practice linguistic segregation as far as
individual schools are concerned, a divide-and-rule system inherited from the colonial era (Solomon,
1988). In other words, although education through different languages is widely accepted in Malaysia,
each individual school is mainly seen as operating through one medium. It is obvious that Malaysian
education system practices monolingual school where other languages may be taught as subjects.
Therefore, particular schools are labeled as Malay- or Chinese- or Tamil-medium schools and since
1976, there have been no mixed-medium schools. According to Santhiram (1999) schools in the past
were set up along ethnic lines and conducted in different languages. He states that:
“The British superimposed a vernacular primary terminal education in Malay for the
indigenous Malay masses within the Islamic traditions as a form of social control over the
Malays, English education based on the principle of user fees for the immigrants and the
Malay masses, but free for a select nobility and royalty exemplify the classic ingredients
of a divide and rule policy. For the immigrant populations, the colonial power tolerated
an ethnically inspired and financed vernacular education for the Chinese; and an
employer-initiated Tamil vernacular primary education for the Indians.” (Santhiram
1999:35)

Education in Malaysia During Pre-Independence

Immediately prior to independence in 1957, primary schools were available in four mediums. ‘National
schools’ used Malay language as the medium, whereas ‘National-type schools’ employed English,
Mandarin Chinese or Tamil as their mediums. These Malay-, Mandarin- and Tamil-medium schools
catered almost exclusively to ethnic Malay, ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indian pupils respectively. As
the ethnic groups are geographically distinct, the schools were also geographically distinct. English
medium schools were mainly found in urban areas, and the pupils were mainly ethnic Chinese.
However there are Indians and Eurasians too. There were not many ethnic Malays in English schools
because of the schools’ urban location and also because many of them were Christian missionary
schools, which the Malays, being Muslims, were suspicious of. Nonetheless, it is the English-medium
schools which had more of an inter-racial character. Secondary education was mainly through English
or Malay, and tertiary education was through English.

Education in Malaysia During Post-Independence

As English was the established language of administration in 1957 and the language of education for
urban children, it was necessary for the changeover to Malay to be implemented in an orderly fashion
so as to avoid disruption and a drop in standards. The government did not rush the change. According
to Asmah (1982:89) it took 26 years (1957-1983) to implement the National Language and National
Educational Policies for the primary and secondary level of education.
Therefore, the situation immediately after independence remained largely the same. In 1967
Malay was declared the sole national language compared to English that had been another official
language prior to this. Initially, those subjects taught at schools that could adopt the Malay language as
a medium of instruction without difficulty were the first affected by the conversion process (Asmah
1982:15).
From January 1968, all English medium primary schools were required to teach physical
education, art and craft, local studies and music in Malay in Standards 1, 2 and 3. More of the Arts
subjects were taught in Malay before the shift to Malay occurred for the Science subjects. In fact, for a
short period of time during this transitional phase some schools ran the same course in science subjects
in two streams, namely, Malay and English. Pupils in the transitional period might have a mixed
medium education: English for science and mathematics; Malay for history and geography. Tertiary
institutions also became Malay-medium.
 The severe race riots in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969 had caused a drastic change in this
education system. The Minister of Education at that time, Dato Haji Abdul Rahman Ya’akub, declared
in July 1969 that beginning from January 1970, English-medium schools would be phased out in
Malaysia and by 1985 all former English-medium (‘national-type’) schools would become Malay-
medium (‘national’) schools. The Third Malaysia Plan (1976-80) states that "Bahasa Malaysia (Malay)
is the basis for national integration" but the plan also states quite emphatically that "measures will be
taken to ensure that English is taught as a strong second language (Government of Malaysia 1976:386).
The reasons given for the maintenance of English was "to keep abreast of scientific and technological
developments in the world and to participate meaningfully in international trade and commerce."
(Government of Malaysia 1976: 391)
By 1976, all English medium primary schools were completely converted into schools where
Malay was used as the medium of instruction and by 1982 all the former English medium secondary
schools were converted to National Schools in Peninsular Malaysia. The Education Act was extended
to Sarawak in 1977 and the change of the medium of instruction to Malay throughout the entire school
system was completed in Sabah and Sarawak three years later that was by 1985. In all such schools,
Malay was made the medium of instruction but English was not ignored.
English continues to be taught as an important L2 in all schools where Malay is the medium of
instruction. In fact as of 2002/3 academic session a policy decision was made to use English and not
Malay as a medium of instruction in Mathematics and Science classes in Standard One, i.e. the first
year of schooling. Mandarin Chinese-medium and Tamil-medium (‘national-type’) primary schools
use their respective language as the medium-of-instruction.

Changes in the Malaysian Education System

There was a major change in the education system when on 6 th May 2002, the Prime Minister then, Tun
Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohamad announced that the government was willing to re-introduce English-
medium education ‘if the people [wanted] it.’
The survey carried out by the New Straits Times Press in May 2002 revealed that most of the
people want him to re-introduce the English medium education again. However, it was noted that
educationists, politicians and a prominent unionist agreed that the move was feasible but would require
much work.
Debate on the New Straits Times Online Surfers’ Survey in May 2002 still favors the return of
English-medium schools although the proposal has since been ruled out by the government. This is due
to the concerns about the falling standard of English among ethnic Malays who are largely
monolingual. The earlier system has resulted in lack of competitiveness among the ethnic Malays and
the unemployment rate.
On 11th May 2002, the then Education Minister Musa Mohamad confirmed that a bilingual
system would be set up with English used for teaching science and mathematics. On 21 July 2002, he
announced details of the implementation of the new system in national schools: a phase in bilingual
system. Beginning from January 2003, Musa Mohamad declared that a Malay-English mixed-medium
education would be implemented in national schools. Currently more than two million Malaysians
attend 9,364 national primary schools, slightly more than half a million attend 3,324 Chinese primary
schools and more than 130,000 attend 945 Tamil primary schools (Educational Statistics, 2007). The
majority of Malaysian children attend national schools that use the national language which is Malay
as the medium of instruction.
As for English, it is a compulsory L2 in such schools. English lessons, which are conducted
daily, begin at Standard one at the age of seven. Malaysian students from different background in life
have different levels of knowledge and proficiency in the English Language. Many urban children who
use English as their First Language (L1) or dominant language at home were able to master the
language well compared to the majority of children, especially those from the rural areas, who were
predominantly ethnic Malay. These rural students come from English as Foreign Language (FL)
485
settings and start school with hardly any knowledge of English (David and Naji, 2000; David and
Nambiar, 2001).
This difference has caused a great divide among the majority ethnic group between the
Malays from those who can use English fluently and those who are not able to do so.
Such a divergence in language proficiency has disenfranchised those who come from
rural settings (David and Naji, 2000).
To minimize such divergences within this community, the former Malaysian Prime Minister,
Tun Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohammad constantly stresses the importance of English to the nation.
This has in turn caused a reemphasis on the learning of English especially for the rural students, mainly
Malays, and currently there has been a great deal of debate about measures to improve their proficiency
in English.

2. Statement of the Problem

English occupies the status of a L2 in the Malaysian education system in both primary and secondary
schools. However, learning English as a L2 is not an easy task. According to Brown (2000), in order to
master the English language, learners have to be adequately exposed to all of the four basic skills,
namely listening, speaking, reading and writing. Language teaching in this country is currently
focusing on the teaching and learning of the four language skills. However, the standard of English
among Malaysian children is on the decline despite learning English for several years. Malaysian
students are still weak in English, especially in their writing skills. They still seem to commit errors in
all aspects of language.
Studies on written works of Malaysian ESL learners have shown that their writings are full of
mistakes. Khan (2005) in a research carried out among 30 Form Five students found that most of the
students are weak in grammar. Lim Ho Peng (1976) stated that there are several general types of
recurrent errors in learners such as spelling mistakes, wrong use of prepositions, confusing use of
structural verbs, concord and tenses. Similar to Lim Ho Peng (1976), Azimah (1998) who carried out
an error analyses on 30 Form One students found that they committed a lot of errors in tenses and
prepositions other than subject-verb agreement. Vahdatinejad (2008) found that students committed
errors in tenses, word choices and prepositions.
According to James (1988) errors in writing such as tenses, prepositions and weak vocabulary
are the most common and frequent type of errors that are committed by learners. Since grammar is
seen only as a means to an end, some learners tend to re-emphasize its importance and in the process,
they make many more errors. The learners usually face difficulties in learning the grammatical aspects
of the Target Language (TL), such as in subject-verb agreement, the use of preposition, articles and the
use of correct tense.
Such errors can be seen clearly in the learners’ written performance (Nik Safiah 1978). The
problems that the students are bound to encounter would be weak vocabulary, inappropriate use of
grammar in sentences etc. Thus, rekindling interest in the area of learner errors can be considered a
timely move. Teachers who can analyze and treat errors effectively are better equipped to help their
students become more aware of their errors.
The use of Error Analysis (EA) and appropriate corrective techniques can aid effective learning
and teaching of English. It is understood that learning a FL is a gradual process, during which mistakes
are to be expected in all stages of learning. Mistakes will not disappear simply because they have been
pointed out to the learner, contrary to what some language learners and teachers believe (Ferris, 2002).
In fact making mistakes is a natural process of learning and must be considered as part of cognition. As
a result, errors must be viewed positively.
Teachers have to recognize that “learning ability varies from person to person”. In addition, “all
language learning is based on continual exposure, hypothesizing and, even with the correct hypothesis,
testing and reinforcing the ideas behind them” (Bartholomae, 1980: 97). Therefore, EA is the best tool
for describing and explaining errors made by speakers of other languages. By investigating students’
written work, it will provide a means to help Malaysian teachers to recognize the importance of errors
as one of the challenging areas in teaching English.

3. Objective of the Study

This lends to the objective of the study, which is to investigate the types of errors made by Form Four
students in their written work. The study sought to answer the following research question: What are
the six most common errors that students make in their essays?

4. Error Analysis
The field of EA in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) was established in the 1970s by Corder and
colleagues. A widely-available survey can be found in chapter eight of Brown (2000). A key finding of
EA has been that many learner errors were produced by learners misunderstanding the rules of the new
language. EA is a type of linguistic study that focuses on the errors learners make. It consists of a
comparison between the errors made in TL and within that TL itself. Corder is the “father” of EA (the
EA with the “new look”). It was in his article entitled “The significance of learner errors” (1967) that
EA took a new turn. Errors used to be “flaws” that needed to be eradicated. Corder (1967) presented a
completely different point of view. He contended that those errors are “important in and of
themselves”. In his opinion, systematically analyzing errors made by language learners makes it
possible to determine areas that need reinforcement in teaching.
EA emphasizes “the significance of errors in learners’ interlanguages system” (Brown 1994:
204). The term interlanguages introduced by Selinker (1972), refers to the systematic knowledge of an
L2 which is independent on both the learner’s L1 and the TL. Nemser (1974: 55) referred to it as the
Approximate System, and Corder (1967) as the Idiosyncratic Dialect or Transitional Competence.
According to Corder (1967), EA has two objects: one theoretical and another applied. The
theoretical object is to understand what and how a learner learns when he studies an L2. The applied
object is to enable the learner to learn more efficiently by using the knowledge of his dialect for
pedagogical purposes. At the same time, the investigation of errors can serve two purposes, diagnostic
(to in-point the problem) and prognostic (to make plans to solve a problem). Corder (1967) said that it
is diagnostic because it can tell us the learner's grasp of a language at any given point during the
learning process. It is also prognostic because it can tell the teacher to modify learning materials to
meet the learners' problems.
EA research has limitations of providing only a partial picture of learner language; and having a
substantive nature in that it does not take into account avoidance strategy in SLA, since EA only
investigates what learners do. Learners who avoided the sentence structures which they found difficult
due to the differences between their native language and TL may be viewed to have no difficulty. This
was pointed out by Brown (1994) and Ellis (1996).

Relevance of Error Analysis in Language Teaching

Learning a FL is a step-by-step process, during which errors or mistakes are to be expected during this
process of learning. Corder (1967) states that errors are visible proof that learning is taking place. He
has emphasized that errors, if studied systematically, can provide significant insights into how a
language is actually learned by a foreigner. He also agrees that studying students’ errors of usage has
immediate practical application for language teachers.
In his view, errors provide feedback; they tell the teachers something about the effectiveness of
his teaching. According to Ancker (2000), making mistakes or errors is a natural process of learning
and must be considered as part of cognition.
 A prominent researcher of EA is J. C. Richards. In his 1971 book on Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition, he argues that many of the learners' errors happen due to the strategies that they
use in language acquisition, especially their L2. The problem includes the reciprocal interference of the
target language items; i.e., negative effect of their prior knowledge of their L1 on their absorption of
L2. In this situation, EA would allow teachers to figure out on what areas to be focused and what kind
of attention is needed in an L2 classroom.
Weireesh (1991) also considers learners’ errors to be of particular importance because the
making of errors is a device the learners’ use in order to learn. According to him, EA is a valuable aid
to identify and explain difficulties faced by learners. He goes on to say that EA serves as a reliable
feedback to design a remedial teaching method.
Sercombe (2000) explains that EA serves three purposes. Firstly, to find out the level of
language proficiency the learner has reached. Secondly, to obtain information about common
difficulties in language learning, and thirdly, to find out how people learn a language.
Candling (2001) considers EA as “the monitoring and analysis of learner’s language”. He refers
to an error as a deviation. Candling (2001:69) adds that the L2 learner’s errors are potentially important
for the understanding of the processes of SLA.
Olasehinde (2002) also argues that it is inevitable that learners make errors. He also cited that
errors are unavoidable and a necessary part of the learning curve.
Mitchell and Myles (2004) claims that errors if studied could reveal a developing system of the
students L2 language and this system is dynamic and open to changes and resetting of parameters. This
view is supported by Stark (2001: 19) in his study, who also explained that the teachers need to view
students’ errors positively and should not regard them as the learners’ failure to grasp the rules and
structures but view the errors as process of learning. He subscribes to the view that errors are normal
and inevitable features of learning. He added that errors are essential condition of learning.
Vahdatinejad (2008) maintains that error analyses can be used to determine what a learner still
needs to be taught. It provides the necessary information about what is lacking in his or her
competence. He also makes distinction between errors and lapses (simple mistakes). According to him,
lapses are produced even by native speakers, and can be corrected by themselves. They call for on the
spot correction rather than remedial, which is needed for errors.

5. Methodology
Location
The location of the study was a secondary school in a housing area in Semenyih town which is
approximately 30 kilometers away from Seremban and 40 kilometers away from Kuala Lumpur. The
school runs in two teaching sessions, namely the morning and afternoon session. The distribution of
students of the school by Form and ethnic background are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of Students by Forms and Ethnic Background (Source: Registration Record for 2008)

Form Malays Chinese Indians Others Total

(Gender) M F M F M F M F M F
Remove class 0 0 76 43 26 13 0 0 102 56
Form 1 176 197 71 106 49 47 8 0 306 351
Form 2 189 189 105 99 47 43 5 10 349 344
Form 3 157 186 76 81 45 38 5 8 284 314
Form 4 131 146 71 82 35 18 4 2 242 280
Form 5 185 199 109 3 59 44 8 6 535 372
Total 798 867 488 490 244 183 302 26 1583 1740
Participants
72 Form Four students participated in this study. All of them had their primary education in National
schools, in which Malay was the medium of instruction. English was taught as an additional subject
within the school curriculum. The respondents are from Form 4 Gigih and Form 4 Harmoni classes
comprising of 30 boys and 42 girls. In class 4 Gigih, there are a total of 37 participants, consisting of
17 boys and 20 girls. In class Form 4 Harmoni, there are a total of 35 participants, consisting of 20
boys and 15 girls. All of the participants have experienced approximately the same number of 10 years
of the education through the primary and secondary education system. All of the respondents speak
Malay at home except for one student who speaks English at home.

Background of Teachers and Students

There are altogether 134 teachers in the school where 54 of them are teaching in the afternoon and 80
of them are teaching in the morning. Out of this, there are 15 teachers who teach English. Three of
them hold a Masters degree and 12 of them a degree in TESL (Teaching English as Second Language).
There are about 3,000 students from Remove classes until Form Five.

Procedure
All of the 72 participants were administered a writing assignment that involved essay writing. They
were required to write a report entitled “Cleanliness of the school canteen” within a period of 60
minutes and a minimum of 200-250 words. This essay follows the English format of SPM (Sijil
Pelajaran Malaysia) Examination in which every student will have to take when they are in Form Five.
It is a guided writing. In the report they were asked to include specific details in their responses.
All 72 essays were typed using Microsoft Word 2003 so that they were computer readable.
After that, the three steps of EA specified by Corder (1974) were followed:
Collection of sample errors
Identification of errors
Description of errors

Instruments
The main source of data used to find answers to the research question is the written essays of 72
participants of the selected school. Markin software was utilized to analyze the errors in the essays.
Markin is a Windows 95/98/ME/NT4/2000/XP program developed by Martin Holmes in 1996. It was
used as a tool that allows teachers to mark written material done by students electronically. It is a
program for marking and annotating text documents using a Windows computer. After the participant’s
text was typed in electronic form, they are loaded into the program and marked using a system of
buttons and annotations. Error statistics are also automatically compiled and included at the end of the
text.
6. Results
Table 2 shows the analysis of errors based on type of error, number of errors, percentage and mean
values of errors committed by the participants.

Table 2: Analysis of Errors

Item Type of Error No.of errors Percentage (%) Mean

1 Singular/Plural Form 412 13.3 5.72
2 Verb Tense 346 11.2 4.80
3 Word Choice 325 10.5 4.51
4 Preposition 288 9.3 4.00
5 Subject/Verb Agreement 217 7.0 3.01
6 Word Order 215 7.0 2.99
7 Article 211 6.8 2.93
8 Missing Space 178 5.8 2.47
9 Word Form 170 5.5 2.36
10 Spelling 150 4.9 2.08
11 Verb Form 145 4.7 2.01
12 Capitalization 129 4.2 1.79
13 Wrong/Misused Word 124 4.0 1.72
14 Missing word 102 3.3 1.42
15 Redundancy 78 2.5 1.08
Total 3090 100.0

Taking the mean values of errors, the results show that six most common errors that the
participants made were in Singular/Plural Form (5.72), Verb Tense (4.80), followed by Word Choice
(4.51), Preposition (4.00), Subject-Verb Agreement (3.01) and Word Order (2.99). The six most
common errors and examples of errors from the corpus are shown in Table 3.
The next noticeable error was Article errors (2.93) while Missing Space and Word Form were
2.47 and 2.36 respectively. Next were Spelling (2.08) and Verb Form (2.01). Other errors that
amounted to less than 2.00 were Capitalization (1.79), Wrong/Misused Word (1.72), Missing Word
(1.42) and Redundancy (1.08).
Table 3: Most Common Errors and Examples of Errors

Definition and
Identification of errors Correct sentences and explanation of rule
Error classification
1. Another problem is insufficient number of
1. Another problem is insufficient number of
1. Singular/Plural rubbish binSing/Plu around the canteen
rubbish bins around the canteen compound.
compound.
2. This is because the students always throw 2. This is because the students always throw
A mistake with
tissues, plastic bagSing/Plu, tissue tissues, plastic bags, tissue wrappers and bottles
number (singular and
wrapperSing/Plu and bottleSing/Plu in the drain. in the drain
plural)
3. it leads to many other problemSing/Plu 3. it leads to many other problems
1. We, the members of the cleanliness club
1. We, the members of the cleanliness club of
2. Verb Tense of SMK Engku Husain conductVTense a
SMK Engku Husain conducted a meeting.
meeting.
a) A mistake 2. The plates and glasses are very oily and 2. The plates and glasses are very oily and dirty
dirty because not washesVTense properly. because not washed properly.
with the verb 3. The members of the cleanliness club of 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK
tense SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting Engku Husain had a meeting.
'Owe' is a sativa verb and does not require the -
Verb Tense
ing participle:
1. They are owing VTense us a good service. 1. They owe us a good service
b) Inappropriate 2. So many dirty plates and glasses are
2. So many dirty plates and glasses are given.
verb serves tVTense
construction 3. The members of the cleanliness club of 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK
SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting Engku Husain had a meeting
3. Word Choice 1. Not washing and sweeping the flour Wchoice 1. Not washing and sweeping the floor everyday
everyday makes the floor dirty makes the floor dirty.
2. The workers should keep the canteen 2. The workers should keep the canteen clean
clean and healthy.WChoice and safe.
3. This is due to the irresponsible attitude of 3.This is due to the irresponsible attitude of the
the canteen staff.WChoice canteen workers
4. Preposition 1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be 1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be
seeneverywhere atPreposition the school seeneverywhere aroundPreposition the school
canteen canteen
2. The food to cater toPreposition the students
2. The food to cater for recess are not enough
during recess are not enough
3. As the secretary atPreposition the club I have 3. As the secretary ofPreposition the club I have
been assigned to write report been assigned to write report
5. Subject-Verb A large number' refers to more than one person,
Agreement i.e. plural subject and requires plural verb 'are':
Wrong combination 1. A large number of students is
1. 'A large number of students are sick'.
of subject and verb S/VAgreement
sick.
2. We need to be careful because it 2. We need to be careful because it deals with
dealingS/Vagreement with health. health
3. The dirts always stick in the food that the 3. The dirts always stick in the food that the
students S/Vagreement are Eating. students eat
4. It causes fights because there are no chairs 4. It causes fights because there are no chairs to
sit.
to sitsS/VAgreement
Subject-verb inversion (why are we facing) in
6. Word Order the interrogative but inversion ruled out in the
form of statement (why we are):
Disordering/Inversion 1. We don't know why are we WOrderfacing 1. I don't know why we are facing these
of subject and verb these problems. problems
2. Dirty kitchen area is another
2. Another problem is dirty kitchen area
problemWOrder
3. Although in the canteen, number of 3. Although the number of rubbish bins in the
rubbish binsWOrder are not enough canteen, WOrder are not enough
Most Common Errors
Singular and Plural Form
Some of the participants did not know that the plural form using the suffix ‘s’ must be applied to the
countable plural noun. A possible reason for the failure to construct plural noun forms probably
because in Malay, there is no plural marker for a noun. However, for some participants, they have
already hypothesized that English nouns have plural and singular forms. However, they were not sure
when they should apply the plural form. When the subject was in the singular form they applied the
plural form to the noun as shown in the examples below:
1. One of the main problemsSing/Plu is the dirty plates and plastic glasses used
2. They eats and drinksSing/Plu and just leave on the table
3. The benches and chairs for the students to sit isSing/Plu not enough

Verb Tense
Wrong application of verb tense can be seen when the participants did not apply the correct tense to the
verb in the sentences. It can be assumed that some of the participants are not aware of the different
rules for tenses application. The use of some suffixes like ‘ing’ and past tense forms showed that these
participants are aware of the rules on different tenses application and they have already hypothesized
that these verbs needed to be used with different tense forms and should not be used in the basic form.
This is because some verbs written using different tenses forms are not written in the basic form of the
verb. For example, the sentence ‘I waiting for my food’ could be written in the basic form ‘I am
waiting for my food’. This shows that they acknowledged the ‘ing’ form but they were not sure of the
complete past continuous tense forms and application in the English sentence.
The suffix ‘ing’ applied is not relevant to the context given because the context required verb to
be written in the past tense form instead. This information revealed that the different tenses rules
application was not formed but they have already hypothesized that these tenses forms exists in
English grammar. Examples of wrong application of verb tense are shown below.
1. We, the members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain conductVTense a meeting.
2. The plates and glasses are very oily and dirty because not washesVTense properly.
3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting

Word Choice
Participants lack appropriate vocabulary. One participant used the word ‘flour’ instead of ‘floor’ in
sentence no. 1. Another participant uses the word ‘healthy’ instead of ‘safe’ in sentence no. 2. While
the third participant used the word ‘staff’ instead of ‘workers’ in sentence no. 3.
1. 1. Not washing and sweeping the flour WChoice everyday makes the floor dirty
2. 2. The workers should keep the canteen clean and healthy.WChoice
3. 3. This is due to the irresponsible attitude of the canteen staff.WChoic

Preposition
The participants demonstrated confusion for correct usage of preposition. In sentence no. 1 the correct
preposition is ‘around’ rather than ‘at’. In sentence no. 2, the preposition ‘for’ should have been used.
While the preposition ‘of’ should have been used in sentence no. 3.
1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be seen everywhere atPreposition the school canteen
2. The food to cater toPreposition the students during recess are not enough
3. As the secretary atPreposition the club I have been assigned to write report
Subject-Verb Agreement
‘A large number’ refers to more than one person, i.e. plural subject and requires plural verb ‘are’.
However, one participant uses ‘is’ instead as shown in sentence no. 1. In sentence no. 2, the correct
word should be ‘deals’. In sentence no. 3, ‘eat’ should be used rather than ‘are eating’. The word ‘sit’
should be used rather than ‘sits’ in sentence no. 4.
1. A large number of students is S/VAgreementsick.
2. We need to be careful because it dealingS/Vagreement with health.
3. The dirts always stick in the food that the students S/Vagreement are eating.
4. It causes fights because there are no chairs to sitsS/VAgreement

Sentence Construction
Besides the above errors, participants also have problems in forming simple or complex sentences. A
complete sentence should start with a subject and should be followed by a verb and an object or
complete sentences. However, the participants demonstrate missing/wrong object, missing subject, and
missing verb in their essays.
1. Secondly, the dirties on the kitchen area. The school workers doesn't care weather the flies on
the food that is going to affect the students Vague
Correct sentence: Secondly, the kitchen area is very dirty and can affect the students’ health but
the workers don’t care about the cleanliness.
2. The dirty plates are and we have no appetite to eat consequently. Many feel themselves the
students always feel sick. Vague
Correct sentence: The plates are dirty and consequently, we do not have the appetite to eat. As a
result, many students fall sick.
3. Since the workers are not washing and sweeping properly the floor everyday the workers the
dust and dirts will fly around and stick in the food that the student will eat. Vague
Correct sentence: Since the workers are not washing and sweeping the floor properly everyday,
the dust and dirt fly around everywhere and stick onto the food that the student eats.

7. Conclusion
The results of the study show that errors that participants committed were basically grammatical. The
participants also had a relatively weak vocabulary and their sentences were sometimes
incomprehensible. They committed errors in applying sentence structure rules in the English language.
Hence, we can conclude that these participants have problems in acquiring normal grammatical rules in
English.
This study has shed light on the manner in which students internalize the rules of the TL. It
further shows that EA can help the teachers to identify in a systematic manner the specific and
common language problems students have, so that they can focus more attention on these types of
errors. Such an insight into language learning problems is useful to teachers because it provides
information on common trouble-spots in language learning which can be used in the preparation of
effective teaching materials. Also, by being able to predict errors to a certain extent, teachers can be
well-equipped to help students minimize or overcome their learning problems.
References
[1] Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice.
English Teaching Forum. 38(4), 20-24.
[2] Asmah Haji Omar. (1982). Language and society in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.
[3] Azimah, H. 2005. Analysis of errors in in compositon of form one secondary school in Kuala
Lumpur. Unpublished Masters thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
[4] Bartholomae, D. (1980). Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-
269.
[5] Brown, D. B. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Third edition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
[6] Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition
from infant to adult. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers Limited.
[7] Candling, R. B. (2001). Vocabulary and language teaching. New York: Longman Inc.
[8] Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5(4), 161-169.
[9] David, M. K. and Naji, I. (2000). Do minorities have to abandon their languages? A case study
of the Malaysian Tamils. The International Scope Review, 2(3), 1-15.
[10] David, M. K. and Nambiar, M. (2001). Exogamous marriages and out-migration: language shift
of the Malyalees in Malaysia. In M. K. David (ed.). Methodological issues in language
maintenance and language shift studies. pp: 136-145. Berlin: Peter Lang.
[11] Educational Statistics (2007). Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
[12] Ellis, R. (1996). Second language acquisition research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[13] Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
[14] Government of Malaysia (1976). Third Malaysia Plan 1976-1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government
Press.
[15] James, C. (1988). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow,
Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
[16] Khan, P. 2005. Analysis of errors in a secondary school in Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
[17] Lim Ho Peng. (1976). An error analysis of English composition written by Malaysian speaking
high school students. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of California Los Angeles.
[18] Mitchell, R. and Myles, M. (2004). Second language learning theories. New York: Hodder
Arnold.
[19] Nemser, W. (1974). Approximate systems of foreign language learners. In Richards, J. (Ed.).
Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. pp: 55-63. Essex: Longman.
[20] Nik Safiah Karim. (1978). BM syntax: some aspects of its standardization. Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
[21] Olasehinde, M. O. (2002). Error analysis and remedial pedagogy. In Babatunde S. T. and D. S.
Adeyanju (eds.). Language, meaning and society. Ilorin: Itaytee Press and Publishing Co.,
Nigeria.
[22] Santhiram, R. (1999). Education of minorities: The case of Indians child in Malaysia. Petaling
Jaya: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
[23] Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.
[24] Sercombe, P. G. (2000). Learner language and the consideration of idiosyncracies by students
of English as a second or foreign language in the context of Brunei Darulsalam. In A.M. Noor
et al. (eds.) Strategising teaching and learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the
 International Conference on Teaching and Learning. Faculty of Education: Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
[25] Solomon, J. (1988). Bilingual education. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk.
[26] Stark, L. (2001). Analyzing the interlanguage of ASL natives. Newark: University of Delaware.
[27] Vahdatinejad, S. (2008). Students’ error analysis and attitude towards teacher feedback using a
selected software: a case study. Unpublished Masters thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Bangi.
[28] Weireesh, S. (1991). How to analyze interlanguage. Journal of Psychology & Education. 9:
113-22.

495
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 3
(2009)
View publication stats