The role of two L1s in L3 English writing

This research aims to describe linguistics error on “Fokus” rubric of Pendapa Tamansiswa magazine. The errors identified are 1) spelling errors, 2) morphologic errors 3) syntactic errors 4) and lexicon errors. This is a qualitative descriptive research which focuses on sentences containing linguistics errors. The data are gathered from sixteen packs of rubric “Fokus” in Pendapa Tamansiswa magazine in eight bundle of publishing by using free intensive reading and note taking techniques. The data were analyzed by using evenly distributed methods with direct-substance-distribution techniques, substituting techniques, disappearing techniques, extension techniques, and reversing techniques. The result showed that (1) there are 133 error sentences or 11,24% contain of error in letter using, dictions, punctuation, and spelling. (2) There are 8 sentences with morphologic errors or 0,68% which contain affixes and reduplications errors. (3) There are 70 syntactic errors in 70 sentences or 5,91% which contain sentence patterns errors and word choise of tugas. (4) There are 50 sentences with lexicon errors or 4,23% which contain unappropriate choice of dictions, unsuitable choice of dictions, and redundan formating. (5) There are 161 sentences with mixed errors or 13,60% which consist (a) spelling and morphologic errors, (b) spelling and syntactic errors, (c) spelling and lexicon errors (d) morphologic and syntactic errors, (e) morphologic and lexicon errors, (f) syntactic and lexicon errors, (g) spelling, morphologic and syntactic errors, (h) spelling, syntactic, and lexicon errors, (i) morphologic, syntactic and lexicon errors, and (j) spelling, morphologic, syntactic, and lexicon errors.

This study is an attempt at investigating morphological and syntactic errors in compositions committed by twenty first-year EFL learners at the Department of English in Al-Imam Al-Kadhum University College/ Thi-Qar. The procedure followed is observing these errors in composition writing. The findings reveal that the compositions are abound with morphological and syntactic errors and such errors are classified under eleven categories: omission of '-s'3rd person singular, misuse of ‘-s’ plural, misuse of derivational suffixes, wrong word form, inappropriate plural ending, subject-verb disagreement, auxiliary Be omission, irregular verbs, faulty sentence structure, omission of articles and misuse of prepositions. Analyzing the morphological and syntactic errors, the study explores a growing body of evidence that the learners‘ errors are due to English rule misapplication, Lack of basic understanding, overgeneralization, online chat or short message service language (SMS) influence and L1 language interference (literal translation). The findings, which show that the morphological errors are committed more than the syntactic ones, support the claim that the students lack enough exposure to written English. Thereupon, the study suggests remedial implications against the stumbling-stone of improper rule application in contributing to provide a remedy for such a critical period of college study and to draw the teachers' attention to the most pervasive errors ( the morphological ones) which aggravate difficulties in their written production.

This research was primarily conducted to find out the total amount of grammatical errors and to analyze kinds of morphological and syntactical errors made by the fifth semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Catholic University of Saint Thomas in the Academic Year of 2018/2019 in their English compositions. There are 22 students as the research subject of the study. The writers collected the data by asking the students to write down an English composition entitled My Unforgettable Experience. The grammatical errors made by the students were analyzed based on linguistic category taxonomy (morphological and syntactical errors) proposed by Dulay et al (1982). Based on the data analysis, it was found that there are 400 grammatical errors altogether (277 morphological errors and 123 syntactical errors) made by the research subject in their English compositions. In morphological errors, the students dominantly made errors in past tense, namely 247 errors (89.2%). Next, the students made 14 errors in definite article (5.0%), 10 errors in third singular verb (3.6%), 2 errors in comparative adjective/adverb (0.7%), 2 errors in regular/irregular verbs (0.7%), 1 error in possessive case (0.4%), and 1 error in past participle (0.4%). In syntactical errors, the students dominantly made errors in transformation, namely 42 errors (34.15%). Next, the students made 30 errors in verb construction (24.39%), 25 errors in word order (20.33%), 24 errors in verb phrase (19.51%), and 2 errors in noun phrase (1.62%). It is advisable that the students had better master English grammar very well and need to equip themselves with at least a number of fundamental abilities such as how to use punctuations and construct simple sentences in the English language correctly, and the English teachers/lecturers had better explain English grammar and teach how to construct simple sentences in the English language correctly.
 
 Keywords: Error analysis, grammatical errors, morphological errors, syntactical errors, English compositions

This study is an attempt at investigating morphological and syntactic errors in compositions committed by twenty first-year EFL learners at the Department of English in Al-Imam Al-Kadhum University College/ Thi-Qar. The procedure followed is observing these errors in composition writing. The findings reveal that the compositions are abound with morphological and syntactic errors and such errors are classified under eleven categories: omission of '-s'3rd person singular, misuse of ‘-s’ plural, misuse of derivational suffixes, wrong word form, inappropriate plural ending, subject-verb disagreement, auxiliary Be omission, irregular verbs, faulty sentence structure, omission of articles and misuse of prepositions. Analyzing the morphological and syntactic errors, the study explores a growing body of evidence that the learners‘ errors are due to English rule misapplication, Lack of basic understanding, overgeneralization, online chat or short message service language (SMS) influence and L1 language interference (literal translation). The findings, which show that the morphological errors are committed more than the syntactic ones, support the claim that the students lack enough exposure to written English. Thereupon, the study suggests remedial implications against the stumbling-stone of improper rule application in contributing to provide a remedy for such a critical period of college study and to draw the teachers' attention to the most pervasive errors ( the morphological ones) which aggravate difficulties in their written production.

The purpose of this study was to compare the types of morphological and syntactic errors in written simple and complex sentences produced by children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and children with typical language (TL). We analyzed the writing products of 30 children with DLD and 33 children with TL for morphological (e.g., past tense -ed and BE verbs) and syntactic (e.g., word omission and word order) errors in simple and complex sentences. We found that children with DLD produced more regular and irregular past tense errors and syntactic errors than children with TL. We also found that the number of total errors produced by children with DLD was not different in simple versus complex sentences. The findings reported can be used as a starting point for adding writing assessment to speech–language pathologists' tool kit for serving children with DLD. We recommend that clinicians begin with analysis of past tense and syntactic errors when evaluating narrative writing skills of children with DLD.

ABSTRACTThis study aims to describe (1) phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic errors found in the Indonesian discourse on the Humanitarian Crisis and the Death of the Democratic Space under President Joko Widodo's leadership which was published by the Papuan Student Alliance-AMP on March 14, 2022 through the media. Facebook online, (2) phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic errors contained in the discourse "Equity and structuring the Mardika market" published by Aldis Loilatu on June 3, 2021 through Facebook online media, (3) phonological, morphological, syntax, and semantics contained in the discourse "Makassar has the potential for PSBB to return, the decision will be determined in the next two days" which was published by Makassar Info on January 29, 2021 through the online media Instagram, and (4) provided corrections and follow-up to language errors from in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics contained in the Facebook post ok and instagram. The results of the analysis of language errors on Facebook and Instagram online media can be concluded that there are types of language errors in the fields of phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The results of this study are first, the types of phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic errors found in the Indonesian discourse on the Humanitarian Crisis and the Death of the Democratic Space under President Joko Widodo's leadership published by the Papuan Student Alliance-AMP on March 14, 2022. , (2) the types of phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic errors contained in the discourse of "even distribution and arrangement of the Mardika market" published by Aldis Loilatu on June 3, 2021, and (3) types of phonological, morphological errors , syntax, and semantics on the discourse "Makassar has the potential for PSBB to return, the decision will be determined in the next two days" published by Makassar Info on January 29, 2021. Keywords: language errors, online media, facebook, instagram

Exploring Some Morpho-Syntactic, Lexical and Semotactic Errors in three Western and Eastern Translations of the Meanings of Surat Al-Baqara into the English Language: A Comparative Study

This research aims to examine the challenges faced by Indonesian EFL students in academic writing, specifically the errors they made while writing scholarship application essays. The study focused on identifying syntactical and morphological errors and understanding their sources and reasons. The data consisted of 20 essays from third-semester students in an academic writing course at a private Indonesian university. Two English language lecturers reviewed the essays twice to identify the errors. The findings revealed that syntactic errors were the most common, with 132 instances (61.69%), followed by punctuation and capitalization errors with 50 instances (23.37%), and morphological errors were the least frequent with 32 instances (14.94%). Interlingual, or native language interference, was found to be the primary source of these errors. The main factor of making errors is the lack of previous experience and knowledge about the conventions of academic writing and the expectations of the institution they are studying at. This study offers teaching recommendations for EFL teachers, emphasizing the importance of considering the impact of learners' native language besides providing appropriate grammar instruction as the key to effective teaching for ESL teachers.

This research was purposed to find out the syntactic translation errors from source language (Bahasa Indonesia) to target language (English) in communication students’ abstract of Universitas Bengkulu. The method that used by the researcher in this research was qualitative method along with content analysis approach. The error sources of translation were classified as morphological, lexical and syntactic error based on Sager’s theory. However, this research focused on the abstracts in thesis which made and translated by the communication students who’s graduated on 2019. The researcher found out that there were 52 syntactic errors occurred in 7 abstracts which became the object of this research

This study investigated the teachers’ talk errors from phonological, morphological and syntactical aspects committed by EFL teachers during classroom instruction. It employed descriptive qualitative research. Through recording and transcription of teachers’ classroom meetings, the researcher found that the errors of teachers' talk occurred 96 times and the phonological errors dominated the teachers’ talk errors. It reached 55.2 % or occurred 53 times. The phonological errors covered the mispronouncing of pure vowels, diphthongs, triphthongs and some consonants. Furthermore, the second type of error was syntactical errors. They were committed 34 times or reached 35.4%. the errors comprised the incorrect word order and sentence structure or the misuse of tense. Meanwhile, the morphological errors were done 9 times or only reached 9.4 %. The errors included the misuse of verb, noun and pronoun.
 The result of the study revealed that the EFL teachers who are supposed to be role models in using proper English, frequently make errors during classroom interaction. so that the result of the study is significant and expected to be able to raise the awareness of the EFL teachers about the importance of teacher talk in classroom interaction.

Although error analysis has been widely explored in ESL writing, limited studies have simultaneously examined both the types of writing errors and their underlying causes among English major university students in the Philippine context. Understanding these dimensions is essential for developing context-responsive pedagogical interventions in higher education. Hence, this study aimed to analyze the types and frequency of errors in the English essays of first-year English major students and to identify the factors contributing to these errors. Employing a descriptive research design, 99 student essays from a Philippine state university were analyzed using Sridhar’s (1980) framework for error analysis. Errors were identified, described, and categorized based on Ferris’s (2005) classification of morphological, lexical, syntactic, and mechanical errors. Contributing factors were also explored through a researcher -made causal factor checklist. Findings revealed that syntactic errors (37.25%) were the most prevalent, followed by morphological (29.75%), lexical (21.75%), and mechanical errors (11.25%). The most frequent specific errors included word choice (18.58%), sentence pattern (16.82%), run-ons (11.93%), subject–verb agreement (9.17%), and fragments (8.50%). Additional errors involved verb form, noun endings, articles and determiners, capitalization, spelling, pronoun usage, informal expressions, and tense consistency. The primary contributing factors identified were limited knowledge of English structures, insufficient reading exposure, lack of motivation, inadequate instructional supervision, delayed feedback, and limited time for writing tasks. The findings highlight persistent structural and grammatical challenges among English major students and underscore the need for targeted instructional strategies and structured writing support. Based on the results, a second language writing guide can be proposed to address recurrent error patterns. Future research may further examine the distinction between learner errors and features of Philippine English to refine pedagogical and analytical approaches.

The article is devoted to the development of an algorithm for analyzing the lexical features of bilingual speech. Its relevance is due to the significance of the differs from the mentality of Russian monolingual speakers. It has been determined that in the scientific literature, scientists do not consider the development of an algorithm for vocabulary analysis as a special methodological problem, which determines the novelty of this research. The material of the study was about 30 classifications of lexical errors presented in Russian works on the theory of speech culture and methods of teaching the Russian language (native) at school and Russian as a foreign language at the university. Research methods were comparative analysis of these classifications, modeling of the vocabulary analysis algorithm. Methodological provisions that are significant for the development of an algorithm for analyzing the lexical features of bilingual speech were highlighted: reliance on a systematic approach in the study of classifications of lexical errors, adherence to the classical rules of formal logic, differentiation of the processes of qualifying errors and establishing their causes and consequences. Two main approaches to identifying a group of lexical errors have been identified, which can be conditionally called stylistic approach and level approach. The stylistic approach, which developed in Russia in the mid-twentieth century, is characteristic of school practice. When analyzing students' written work, teachers and methodologists have identified spelling, punctuation and stylistic errors, and stylistic errors include lexical, morphological and syntactic errors. The level approach developed by Yu.V. Fomenko, involves distinguishing pronunciation, lexical, phraseological, morphological, syntactic, spelling, punctuation, and stylistic errors. It has been determined that in order to analyze lexical errors, it is more convenient to single out the types of errors by the levels of the language system. An analysis of various classifications of lexical errors has shown that almost all of them are constructed in violation of the rules of formal logic and, therefore, are redundant. They include, firstly, phonetic, lexical, grammatical, phraseological, logical errors (for example, in the classification of M.A. Shakhmatova and T.V. Postnova), and secondly, the causes and consequences of errors (for example, in the classification of S.V. Kosheleva and V.A. Salyaev). When they are excluded, a logically consistent classification of lexical errors includes three groups: word replacement, word omission, insertion of an extra word. In the first group, three subgroups are distinguished: a) replacement of the required word with a word similar in meaning, but different in sound : a synonym that is not compatible with the context, hyponym, hypernym, anachronism, dialectism, vulgarism, jargon, professionalism, occasionalism, barbarism, and a word of another functional style; b) replacement of the required word with a word similar in sound, but different in meaning, for example, paronym; c) replacement of the required word with a word, different from it in meaning and in sound. On its basis, an algorithm for analyzing the lexical features of bilingual speech is modeled. It includes five steps: error identification, error type determination, error kind determination, error cause determination, error consequence determination. During identification, a distinction between lexical and non-lexical errors is made, which is sometimes difficult for the researcher. The second step involves establishing the structural characteristics of the error; selecting the type of error: replacement or omission of the word, or insertion of an extra word. At the third stage of the algorithm, a kind of the error are determined, for example, the option of replacing one word with another is selected. The fourth step involves determining the cause of the lexical error, for example, interlingual or intralingual interference, contact or structural attrition. At the fifth stage of the algorithm, the effect produced by an error in the communication process is determined. A choice between disruption or difficulty of communication is made. The article provides a detailed description of each step in the form of recommendations for the researcher, points out the factors that should be paid attention to when going through each step. Examples of the use of this algorithm in the analysis of the lexical features of bilingual speech in the course of the implementation of the international research project “Russian language in Germany: intergenerational changes” are given. The results of this study are of a universal nature: they can be in demand not only in studies of bilingualism, but also in the analysis of the lexical features of the speech of monolinguals, as well as in the analysis of the speech of people who acquire a second language.

Error analysis is a technique that identifies and classifies the inappropriate forms that foreign language learners produce (Crystal, 1987), and it is considered a useful tool for helping them improve their writing skills. The study investigated the secondary students' common errors in writing English paragraphs. During the first term of the school year 2023-2024, 43 grade 7 students from a secondary school in Hanoi participated in a descriptive quantitative research project. The participants were asked to complete three writing tests at three different times to generate their written errors based on Ferris’ (2014) model of error analysis. The findings indicate that the types of errors that grade 7 students made are lexical errors, syntactic errors, morphological errors, orthographical errors, and paragraph errors. Lexical, syntactic, and orthographical errors are greatly committed by the students. Accordingly, it comes to the conclusion that secondary students in general and 7th graders in particular struggle with writing English paragraphs. The results of the research would also give the secondary teachers of English some implications, such as focusing on grammatical patterns, emphasizing irregular instances, offering adequate practice opportunities, implementing explicit instructions, and engaging students in interactive exercises, visual aids, collaborative activities, authentic materials, etc. to mitigate the students' written errors.

This research is a study of the language disorder of the character Dodo Rozak in the Indonesian version of the film Miracle in Cell No.7. The research aims to describe explanations regarding how people with intellectual disabilities speak with their speech partners. The research uses qualitative descriptive methods. This language disorder analysis focuses on three branches of linguistics, namely phonology, morphology and syntax. In this study, the phonological aspect error data taken were words that experienced changes, deletions and replacements of phonemes in the film Miracle in Cell No. 7. Then the error data in the morphological aspect is a word that has an error in adding affixes. After that, syntactic aspect errors are data in the form of sentences whose structure does not match language rules. Data collection techniques use listening and note-taking techniques. The data analysis technique uses the matching technique where the basic technique uses the PUP technique (segregate the elements of panentu) and the advanced technique uses the HBB technique (connection of different comparisons). The results of this research show that in the film Miracle in Cell No. 7 there are language errors in the form of phonological, morphological and syntactic errors.

<p>This research aims to: 1) show types of morpholigical errors in descriptive writing, 2) to show types of syntactic erros in descriptive writing, 3) to show types of errors, in terms of morphology or syntact in descriptive writing. It uses qualitative method (case study). It was conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Bangkinang Kota, Riau. It has started in September to completion. The 62 sample were gained through random sampling. The error classification sheets, which are derived from 62 students’ writing from SMA Negeri 1 Bangkinang, are used for the research instrument. The results of this research are: 1) there are some morphological errors in students’ descriptive writing, such as inflection, derivation, noun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, article, copula (be), auxiliary, conjunction, and pronouns. The errors mostly occur in auxiliary with a percentage of 14.67%. 2) there are some syntactical errors in students’ descriptive writing, such as passive voice, tense, noun phrase, prepositional phrase, subject/predicate, subject-verb agreement, demonstrative determiner, and paired adjective. The errors highly occur in Subject-verb agreement with a percentage of 23.04%. 3) The morphological and syntactical errors occur in the ommision, addition, misformation, and misordering.</p>