AN ERROR ANALYSIS IN PAPER PRESENTATIONS:

A CASE STUDY OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS

Henny Merizawati
State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu), Bengkulu

Abstract: This paper examines errors in paper presentations of Indonesian EFL learners. It
aims to identify the types of errors and the most often errors committed by 124
sophomores of the class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu). The
researcher used qualitative approach with descriptive analysis. The data were collected
from recorded paper presentations from the Semantics-Pragmatic course and a
questionnaire sheet. The researcher found 17 types of errors from paper presentations
which were omission(20.27%) followed by Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA) (12.10%),
plural form (11.09%), tense (8.82%), addition (7.81%), wrong Parts of Speech (PoS)
(7.63%), fragment (7.15%), redundancy (5.30%), possessive noun (5.24%), wrong choice
of word (3.87%), preposition (2.56%), articles(2.56%), disordering (2.20%), singular form
(1.72%), misinformation (0.71%), parallel structure (0.53%), and negative form (0.35%).
Meanwhile, from the questionnaire sheet, it shows that the incorrect use of tenses was the
most often errors that learners thought they committed and it was the most difficult one
learners assumed. As a result, the five biggest errors occurred went to omission, SVA,
plural form, tense and addition. It seems that interlingual or transfer errors as well as
intralingual and developmental errors influence learners to commit the errors.

Keywords: error, paper presentation

INTRODUCTION

Language is very crucial in communication. People cannot communicate with others well if
they do not master the language. Nowadays, English becomes a global language or lingua
franca. It means that English has been used and learned all over the world. Many countries
use English as the second language (ESL); while, others use English as a foreign language
(EFL). Indonesia is a country using English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Although English
is taught as the main foreign language in schools in Indonesia, most students in Indonesia
have difficulty in learning English skills (e.g., speaking, reading, listening and writing)
because their environments (e.g., communities and schools) do not use English in daily
activities. In addition, speaking is an English skill that is a common problem Indonesian
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 72

students encounter. Mastering spoken English needs communicative competence as well

as other abilities such as grammar and vocabulary. They relate each other. Finally, spoken
English becomes more challenging. As a result, EFL learners commit errors.
Currently, error analysis has become an outstanding issue in the field of second
language acquisition. A lot of studies have been conducted by researchers with respect to
the error analysis. The findings of some research are consistent with these study’s results.
Sermsook, Liamnimitr, and Pochakorn (2017) investigated the English errors in the form
of written sentences of Thai EFL students. Their findings showed the most often errors
occurred in the data were punctuation, articles, subject-verb agreement, spelling,
capitalization, and fragment, and the sources of errors were “interlingual interference,”
“intralingual interference,” “limited knowledge of English grammar,” and “carelessness”
(Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017, p. 108). Moreover, Ting, Mahadhir, and Chang
(2010) divided the data from an oral communication course into two: based on surface
structure description and linguistic description. The common errors found were
preposition, question, article, plural form of nouns, SVA, and tense. Just like the research
conducted by Ting, Mahadhir, and Chang (2010), Saad and Sawalmeh (2014) also classified
the types of error into two parts: based on surface structure taxonomy and linguistic
description. Unlike the results from Ting’s, Mahadhir’s, and Chang’s (2010), Saad and
Sawalmeh (2014) obtained the result that omission was the most often error occurred in
the data. Furthermore, Lukáčová and Pavelová (2017) separated categorizations of errors
into three parts: vocabulary, grammar, and speech fluency, in which the grammatical
categories had the most frequency of types of errors. In addition, Watcharapunyawong and
Usaha (2012) compared the results of errors in narrative, descriptive, and
comparison/contrast writing. The interesting finding of their research was with respect to
the comparison structure. The comparison structure was the least error occurred in the
narrative and descriptive writing. Meanwhile, it was the 10th rank in comparison/contrast
writing. Like Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2012), Nuruzzaman, Islam, and Shuchi
(2018) also did the comparison to analyse the data. They compared the kinds, the
numbers, and the classifications of errors committed by participants from College of
Medicine, College of Engineering, and College of Computer Science in the field of grammar,
lexical, semantics, and mechanics. The finding was that participants from College of
Engineering made the highest error followed by participants from College of Computer
Science and College of Medicine. Khanom (2014) took the writing tasks of higher
secondary level students of Bangladesh as the data. He noticed that “interlingual transfer,”
“intralingual transfer” and “developmental errors as well as “overgeneralization” were the
sources of errors (p.40-41). Tenses were the most frequent error found in the data. On the
other hand, Hossain and Uddin (2015) focused the study on the errors in prepositions,
articles, and auxiliary verbs.

Errors
As the father of error analysis, Corder (1967) defined an error as “the systematic
deviance made by learners who are lack of knowledge of the correct rule of the target
language” (as cited in Jing, Xiaodong, & Yu, 2016, p. 98). It means that learners may not
73 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

have sufficient understanding of the target language, so they committed errors in the
target language. Dulay (1982, as cited in Sari, 2008) stated that errors are the deficiency of
language learners in the verbal and non-verbal communication in terms of forms.
Errors are different from mistakes. Corder (1981, as cited in Khanom, 2014, p. 40)
differentiated between errors and mistakes. Errors are structurally organized and they are
difficult to repair. Sometimes learners do not realize that they commit the errors. Errors
associate with the mother tongue of the learners as well as partial knowledge of the
learners in the target language. Learners usually commit the same error many times.
Meanwhile, mistakes can be fixed. Learners used a correct language form in one time,
however, they make a mistake in using the form in another time. Mistakes relate to
performance of the learners including “memory limitation, emotional strain, lack of
attention, fatigue, and carelessness” (Khanom, 2014, p. 40)

Levels of Errors (Yang, 2010)

1. Misspellings
According to Yang (2010), four types of misspellings are
a. Punctuation errors
The most often punctuation errors that learners commit are “exclamation (!),
closing inverted comas, capitals, commas between an antecedent and a restrictive
relative clause, and colons” (Yang, 2010, p. 267).
b. Typographic errors
Typographic errors occur when some writers did typos when writing.
c. Dyslexic errors
Dyslexic errors occur when learners get confused when choosing two or more
words with the same sound or similar spellings.
d. Confusibles
Learners sometimes are confused about similar sounding morphemes and words.

2. Lexical Errors
Two types of lexical errors are formal errors such as formal misselection,
misformations and distortions and semantic errors such as confusion of sense relations
and collocational errors.

3. Pragmatic Errors (Pragmalinguistic deviations)

Pragmatic errors occur when “speakers misencode a message” (Yang, 2010, p.
267). In addition, some infelicity sources are “taboos, size of the imposition, values and
power and social distance” (Yang, 2010, p. 267).

Reasons for Errors (Cohen, 1975)

 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 74

The impact of the mother tongue. Some terms related to this reason are
“interference” (Weinreich, 1968); “interlingual” (Richards, 1973b); “language
transfer”(Selinker, 1972) (as cited in Cohen, 1975, p. 108).

1. Learners get confused with the second language rules. Some aspects of the issues in
English are “intrinsic difficulties in English” (Whitman & Jackson, 1972); “anomalies in
the new language” (Brooks, 1964); “intralingual” (Richards, 1973b); “defects” (George,
1972); “redundancies” (George, 1972); and “overgeneralization” and “reorganization
of the linguistic material” (Selinker, 1972; Richards, 1973b; Taylor, 1974) (as cited in
Cohen, 1975, p. 108).
2. Errors can be caused by teachers and course materials. Several terms associated with
it are “ interference or false generalizations and analogies”(Lee, 1957); “intrastructural
generalizations” (Nickel, 1971); “cross associational” (George, 1972); “transfer of
training” (Selinker, 1972) (as cited in Cohen, 1975, p. 108)
3. “Errors are nonstandard forms” (Cohen, 1975, p. 109)
4. Errors lie in learners themselves through the incomplete approach of second language
acquisition associated with “language aptitude, intelligence, and motivation”
(Jakobovits, 1970) and “attitude” (Gardner and Lambert (1972) (as cited in Cohen,
1975, p. 109). Some terms of this approach are “strategies of second language
learning” (Selinker, 1972); “strategies of assimilation (Richard, 1973a); “rule
simplification” (Selinker, 1972; Robinson, 1973; Taylor, 1974); and “incomplete
application of rules” (Richards, 1973a) (as cited in Cohen, 1975, p. 108) .
5. The carelessness which is linked with the “expressivity hypothesis” (Jakobovits, 1970)
to the incorrect language pattern.
6. The reasons of errors are “ambiguous” (Dulay & Burt, 1974).

Sources of Errors

According to Richards (1970), two major sources of errors are:

1. Interlingual/ transfer errors
Richards (1970) used the term “interlanguage” referring to “the interference
of the learners’ mother tongue” (p.2). Selinker (1972) also stated about
“interlanguage” or “fossilization.” Corder (1971) added interlingual or transfer
error occurs when the learners transfer the language rules, patterns or systems of
the first language into the target language (as cited in Abisamra, 2003). Lado
(1964) stated that interference or negative refers to the negative impact of the
first language when the learners perform the target language (as cited in
Abisamra, 2003). It can be in the field of grammar, pronunciation, syntax, and
lexical. For example, two *house, she *eat, *a bread, etc.
2. Intralingual transfer and developmental errors
Intralingual transfer dealing with learner’s competence occurs during the
learners’ learning in which the learners incompletely learn the target language.
For example, she *eated instead of she ate; two *tooths instead of two teeth.
75 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

According to Richards (1970), types and causes of intralingual and developmental

errors are:

a. Over-generalization
Over-generalization occurs when learners produce deviation of a language form
based on their proficiency of other language forms in the target language. For
example, the writer *suggest, It *is show, I *am conclude.
b. Ignorance of rule restrictions
Ignorance of rule restrictions means learners are unsuccessful in noticing the
limitation of existing language formation. It can occur in the form of the error of
prepositions and articles. For example, He asked *to me; ^ analysis of seven types of
meaning.
c. Incomplete application of rules
Incomplete application of rules occurs when learners evolve the essential
language regulation to deliver the compatible message. For example, “What’s he
doing?” “He ^ opening the door.”
d. False concept hypothesized
False concept hypothesized occurs when learners incorrectly grasp the concept
of features in the target language. The concept is that the word “is” is a present
state, and “is + ing” is a present action. Meanwhile, the word “was” is a past state,
and “was + ing” is a past action as well as the word “will” may be a future state,
and “will + be + ing” may be used as a future action. For example, “I will be
discussing,” instead of “I will discuss.” “do a mistake” instead of “make a mistake.”
delivering the concept of oral and written methods. Some applied linguists such
as Penny (2001), Heydari and Bagheri (2012), Kaweera (2013), Runkati (2013)
and Rattanadilok Na Puket and Othman (2015) supported the Richards’ theory
with respect to sources of errors which are interlingual and intralingual transfer
or interference (as cited in Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).
Regarding sources of errors, Selinker (1972) in Richards (1974, p. 37)stated
that five sources of errors are “language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of
second language learning, strategies of second language communication, and
overgeneralization of target language linguistic material” (as cited in Abisamra,
2003). Whereas according to Brown (1987, as cited in Sari, 2008, p. 185), four
sources of errors are “interlingual transfer or interference, intralingual transfer
generalization, context of learning, and communication strategy.” Interlingual
transfer is usually committed by beginners. On the other hand, intralingual
transfer generalization occurs when learners partially acquired the language rules
in the target language. Context of learning deals with the teacher, the classroom,
and the teaching material, and communication strategy refers to

Classifications of Errors
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 76

Corder (1973) differentiated errors into two parts: competence errors referring to
“lack of knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and misunderstanding of the appropriate
structure of the target language” and performance errors referring to “tiredness,
nervousness, or laziness” (as cited in El-Farahaty, 2017, p. 5). In addition, Burt (1975)
divided errors into global and local errors. Global errors occur when the learners
misunderstand the whole part of the information, for examples, incorrect word order,
overgeneralization, omission, and incorrect connector. Whereas, local errors occur when
the learners misinterpret “single constituent.” Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) also
emphasized the classifications of errors which are global and local errors (as cited in El-
Farahaty, 2017).
Whereas, based on James (1998), four categories of errors are interlingual,
intralingual errors, communication-strategy based errors, and induced (Abisamra, 2003;
Yang, 2010; Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).
1. Interlingual errors
Interlingual errors occur when learners transfer language rules in the
first language into the target language. For example, in Bahasa, adjectives
come after nouns. Indonesian learners believe that “hair long” is the correct
one instead of “long hair.”
2. Intralingual errors
Intralingual errors occur when learners understand the rules in the
target language imperfectly, for example, he *goed.
3. Learning strategy-based errors
a. False analogy occurs when learners incorrectly accept the rule which is
like another rule, for example, the plural form of “cat” is “cats,” so the
plural form of “mouse” must be “mouses” instead of “mice.”
b. Misanalysis occurs when learners analyse and practice the target
language rules incorrectly.
c. Hypercorrection occurs when learners simplify the target language rules
due to over-correction, such as “He is a lecturer now;” “he is a student last
year.” The learner learned that the copula of “he” is “is.” So, the learner
simplified that the copula of “he” for past tense is also “is.”
4. Communication-strategy based errors
Two types of communication-strategy based errors are holistic
strategies and analytic strategies. The holistic strategies mean “the learners
assume that if you can say X in the target language, then you must be able to
say Y” (Yang, 2010, p. 268). They use “approximation,” “superordinate term,”
“antonym or opposite,” and “to coin a word.” (Yang, 2010, p. 268). Meanwhile,
analytic strategies mean “the learners identify one or more criterial attributes
of the referent and mention these in an attempt to refer to the entity in
question” (Yang, 2010, p. 268).
5. Induced errors
Induced errors are related to the teaching strategy in the classroom in
which learners misinterpret the concept due to misinterpretation of the
teacher’s mediation in the classroom. Induced errors include “material
induced errors, teacher-talk induced errors, exercise-based induced errors,
77 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

errors induced by pedagogical priorities, and look-up errors” (as cited in

Abisamra, 2003).
According to Ellis (1985, as cited in Hossain & Uddin, 2015), four types
of errors:

1. Omission for example, “^ analysis of connotative meaning.”

2. Addition for example, “They did not *watched the television.”
3. Misinformation for example, “I *were watching the television.”
4. Misordering for example, “He bought a television *new.”

In addition, Dulay (1982, as cited in Sari, 2008) categorized the errors

into four sections: communicative effect, comparative analysis, surface strategy,
and linguistic category. Regarding communicative effect, errors are divided into
global and local errors. Global errors occur when the whole arrangement of
words, phrases, or sentences is influenced, so incomprehensible
communication happens which means that the listener or the reader
misinterprets the information from the speaker or the writer. For example, the
bedroom feels better. The listener or the reader may misunderstand what the
speaker or the writer tries to convey. Meanwhile, local errors only refer to one
component in a sentence. For example, “I don’t know what is your name,” which
should be “I don’t know what your name is.” Disordering occurs in this
sentence; however, it does not affect the meaning of the sentence. The listener
or the reader can still get the message of it. With respect to comparative
taxonomy, the errors in the target language are compared to the errors
committed by the learners. It means that words or phrases or sentences in the
target language are contrasted to those in the first language. Regarding surface
taxonomy, it refers to the change of surface structure. Several types of errors
are omission, addition, misinformation, and misordering. On the other hand,
linguistic category includes the errors in the form of phonology dealing with
pronunciation, syntax and morphology dealing with grammar, semantic and
lexical dealing with meaning and vocabulary, and discourse dealing with style.

Error Analysis (EA)

Error analysis has been a popular study for decades. It is used in the
field of second language acquisition, especially in the field of second or foreign
language learning and teaching. It is an efficient tool to examine errors learners
commit through empirical research. The purpose of this technique is to mark
the errors and to provide the solutions in order to minimize the errors as well
as to create the effective and efficient teaching strategy. This theory was first
conveyed by Corder who later becomes known as the Father of Error Analysis
with his article “The Significance of Learner’s Errors” (1967). It is the reaction
of the Contrastive Analysis theory in the 1960s due to inability of the
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 78

Contrastive Analysis theory to estimate the majority of errors committed by the

learners.
Errors can be analysed by comparing the incorrect learners’ sentences
to the correct one followed by explaining the data and finding out the error
sources (Fang & Xue-mei 2007). Crystal (2003) said that error analysis refers to
“technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the
unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a second/foreign language,
using any of the principles and procedures provided by Linguistics” (as cited in
Khanom, 2014, p. 40). James (1998) offered the definition of error analysis
which is analysing errors by comparing the learners’ absence of language
knowledge to their understanding of the target language (as cited in Sermsook,
Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017). Crystal (1999) added that error analysis
refers to the study of the deviation of the language patterns of the target
language (as cited in Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017). In addition,
two major concerns of error analysis are theoretical and practical concern.
Theoretical concern deals with the language itself, and practical concern relates
to the teaching practice (Corder, as cited in Sermsook, Liamnimitr, &
Pochakorn, 2017).
In terms of the language teaching, error analysis is more worthwhile in
the field of teaching language than the language acquisition research (Cook, as
cited in El-Farahaty, 2017). Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) also stated that
error analysis can be beneficial not only for learners but also for teachers (as
cited in Sermsook, Liamnimitr & Pochakorn, 2017). Hinnon (as cited in
Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017) added that error analysis can be
used to provide appropriate techniques in language teaching.
Although error analysis is useful in the language learning and teaching,
some experts contradicted to it. Ellis (1985) argued that error analysis has
inflexible techniques and limitation of areas (as cited in Kayum, 2015).
MacDonald Lightbound (2005) claimed that error analysis has the “negative
attitude” of the systematic deviation made by learners (as cited in Kayum, 2015,
p. 126). MacDonald Lightbound (2005) added that undergoing the process of
transition from Contrastive Analysis to Error Analysis (as cited in Kayum,
2015) also gave an opposed opinion. Meanwhile, according to Kayum (2015),
analysing errors are not as easy as imagined in terms of identifying the error
types.

Models of Error Analysis

Five steps of analysing the errors are “the collection of errors, the
identification of errors, the description of errors, the explanation of errors, and
the evaluation of errors (Corder, as cited in Wu & Garzar, 2014). Ellis (1985)
also divided the error analysis procedure into five procedures: “collecting
samples, identifying errors, describing errors, classifying errors, and
evaluating” (as cited in Khanom, 2014, p. 40). Moreover, Gass and Selinker
79 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

(1994) pointed out 6 steps of error analysis: “collecting data, identifying errors,
classifying errors, quantifying errors, analysing source of errors, and
remediating for errors” (as cited in Abisamra, 2003). In addition, based on
Brown (1987, as cited in Sari, 2008), the errors can be classified into
identification acknowledging the learners’ error and description explaining the
errors. Whereas, Shastri (2010) stated that three steps of analysing the errors
are “identification, reconstruction, and description of error” (as cited in Kayum,
2015).

Spoken Language

Spoken language means everything related to authentic verbal speech

including the recorded pattern (Thomson, 2004). Thomson (2004) added that
spoken language is hard to be processed due to several reasons. First, it should
be transcribed before being analysed. Second, data collection also challenges.
Recordings sometimes cannot interpret the whole part. Videos may be needed.
Several steps in analysing spoken language are “data collection, transcription,
marking up and annotation, and access” (Thomson, 2004)

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The purposes of the study are to identify the types of error analysis in paper
presentations that sophomores of the class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of
Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu) commit and to find out the errors that are most often
committed by sophomores of the class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu
(IAIN Bengkulu).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The researcher tries to find out the answers of research questions below:
1. What types of error analysis in paper presentations do sophomores of the
class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu)
commit?
2. What errors are most often committed by sophomores of the class of 2016
in State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu)?

THE HYPOTHESIS

Before conducting the research, the researcher assumed that tenses, especially
the verb form to identify the time action, are the most difficult grammar in which
students often commit errors because there is no difference of the verb form among
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 80

the past, present and future time in Bahasa Indonesia. The researcher hypothesized
that students would challenge the changes of the verb form in the past, present and
future form.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The researcher got an idea to conduct the research with respect to

grammatical error analysis after reading articles from Corder (1967), Richards
(1970), Richards (1971) and Sari (2008) due to its role in the field of teaching
and learning language. The study of language learners’ errors is beneficial for
teachers, learners, and researchers (Corder, 1967). According to Corder (1967),
errors can be used to find out the improvement of the students’ skills in
language learning, and teachers can upgrade students’ abilities by using the
errors. In addition, errors are as materials for learners, and errors are the proof
for researchers who conduct the research in the field of second language
acquisition (Corder, 1967).
The researcher noticed that there were a number of studies addressing
the issue of error analysis; and most of them took students’ writing as the data.
However, the researcher only found little research of error analysis in oral
communication. Unfortunately, the researcher had not found previous studies
that conducted the deeper research of the errors. In this study, the researcher
divided the errors into smaller units of errors.

Overview of the Study

Although this study is empirical research and it has a large sample size of
the data of the external validity, the data cannot be generalized. Because of that,
the external validity can be enhanced. In addition, this research would be
beneficial in the field of teaching and learning EFL. It is also worthwhile for EFL
teachers, EFL learners, and future researchers. The error analysis can be
guidance to improve the English skills of the learners.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Participants and Setting
The participants were 124 Indonesian university students; 28 males
(22.58%) and 96 females (77.42%). Bahasa Indonesia is the participants’
mother tongue; meanwhile, English is a foreign language. The average age of
the participants was around 18 to 23 in which most participants were 23 years
old (54.83%). In addition, the participants were sophomores who were the
fourth semester students of the class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of
Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu) taking the Semantics-Pragmatics course, and the
researcher was the lecturer teaching the course. Moreover, most participants
81 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

got B for their grammar and speaking courses which means that they already
had enough background for grammar and speaking skills. In addition, the years
they learned English were mostly between 6 and 10 years. The study was
conducted in Bengkulu, Indonesia, and the data were collected and were
analysed from the fourth week of June 2018 to the second week of August 2018.

Instruments
The instruments used in this study were below:
1. Recorded paper presentations
The main instrument of this study was 124 recorded paper presentations
which were collected on June 30th 2018.
2. Transcriptions of the recorded paper presentations from the voice
recorder of the researcher’s android
The researcher analysed the data from the transcriptions. Transcribing
the data was conducted from the second week of July to the second week
of August 2018.
3. Questionnaire sheet
The researcher distributed a questionnaire sheet to be answered by
participants on June 30th, 2018. The questionnaire sheet was used to
identify information of the participants and to identify the types of
grammatical errors and the problems faced by participants when learning
grammar and speaking English.

Procedures of Collecting the Data

Gathering the data followed the procedures below. First, participants
wrote a final paper for the Semantics-Pragmatics course. Second, participants
had to present the summary of their papers in no more than two minutes.
Third, the researcher recorded the presentation by using her android and
distributed a questionnaire sheet regarding the topic. Then, the researcher
transcribed the recorded presentations and identified the errors. After that, the
researcher classified the errors based on the types of the errors. Next, the
researcher described and explained as well as evaluated the errors. Finally, the
researcher checked the answers of the questionnaire sheet and took a note
based on the answers.

Data Analysis
The researcher used the qualitative method with numbers to analyse the
data. Numbers of errors, but not statistics, were used to calculate the frequency
and the percentage of the data. Although all participants had two minutes to
present their papers, not all of them took a chance of it. Consequently, the
length of the transcription was not similar among participants. The procedures
of analysing the data followed Corder (1974), Ellis (1985), Brown (1987) and
Gass and Selinker (1994) that have been discussed above.
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 82

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The researcher used 124 recorded paper presentations and a questionnaire

sheet to provide the answers of research questions. As being explained before, this
study tried to classify the types of errors and to look for the errors that are most often
committed by participants. This research used the qualitative method with numbers;
however, it is not statistical research due to homogenous participants. The researcher
used * to identify the errors and ^ to mark the missing part (Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang,
2010). To answer the two research questions, the table below indicates types,
frequency, and percentage of errors found in paper presentations of the participants
obtained from recorded data as a whole (as shown in Table 1), and the deeper analysis
of the errors can be seen in Table 2-8. Meanwhile, the types, frequency, and percentage
of errors found in paper presentations from the questionnaire sheet (as can be seen in
Table 9-11).
Table 1. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors found in paper
presentations of Indonesian EFL learners

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Omission 340 20.27%

2. Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA) 203 12.10%

3. Plural Form 186 11.09%

4. Tense 148 8.82%

5. Addition 131 7.81%

6. Wrong Parts of Speech (PoS) 128 7.63%

7. Fragment 120 7.15%

8. Redundancy 89 5.30%

9. Possessive Noun 88 5.24%

10. Wrong Choice of Word 65 3.87%

11 Preposition 43 2.56%

12. Article 43 2.56%

13. Disordering 37 2.20%

83 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

14. Singular Form 29 1.72%

16. Misinformation 12 0.71%

16. Parallel Structure 9 0.53%

17. Negative Form 6 0.35%

Total 1677 100%

As shown in Table 1, the researcher found 17 types of errors in paper

presentations committed by sophomores of the class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute
of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu). It shows that omission is the most frequent error of all
errors (20.27%) followed by Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA) (12.10%), plural form
(11.09%), tense form (8.82%), addition (7.81%), wrong Parts of Speech (PoS)
(7.63%), fragment (7.15%), redundancy (5.30%), possessive noun (5.24%), , wrong
choice of word (3.87%), preposition (2.56%), article (2.56%), disordering (2.20%),
singular form (1.72%), misinformation (0.71%), parallel structure (0.53%), and
negative form (0.35%). The following explanation is a brief description of each type.
a) Omission (20.27%)
Omission means that a word or several words have been left out. It means
that participants missed one or more words when speaking. From the data, the
speaker said, the title ^ my research is …” In this data, the speaker omitted the
preposition “of.” In Bahasa, prepositions are not used to separate two or more
nouns. The researcher assumes that over-generalization and ignorance of rule
restrictions occurred in this type of errors (Richards, 1970). Regarding previous
studies, omission was the second type of errors found in their data (Saad &
Sawalmeh, 2014; Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010). Meanwhile, the percentage
rate of omission from the study conducted by Khanom (2014) was more than
60%. Besides, Nuruzzaman, Islam and Shuchi (2018) got the results that only
0.34% of participants from College of Medicine, 1.02% of participants from
College of Engineering, and 1.02% of participants from College of Computer
Science omitted several words when speaking.
b) Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA)
The error of Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA) means that the subject and
verb form does not match English grammatical rules. In English, the third person
singular in the form of present tense should be followed by a verb by adding the
letter “s or es.” or the copula of “is/was.” Meanwhile, there is no addition of the
letter “s or es,” and the copula used is “are or were” for the first person
singular/plural, the second person singular as well as the third person plural.
From the data, the speaker said, “It *mean …,” which should be “it means … ”
Another example is that the speaker said, “All people *is …,” which should be “All
people are …” It seems that participants over-generalized the SVA rule (Richards,
1970). The prior research conducted by Sermsook, Liamnimitr, and Pochakorn
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 84

(2017) and Saad and Sawalmeh (2014) positioned the error of SVA as the third
rank. In addition, based on the study done by Ting, Mahadhir, and Chang (2010)
in the linguistic description type, SVA was in the sixth position.
Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2012) had a different result of the error of SVA.
In their paper, they found only 0.97% of participants committed the error of SVA
in their narrative writing which was in the 14th position. However, they indicated
that 8.17 % of participants did the SVA error in their descriptive writing which
was in the 5th rank, and 12.09% of participants committed the error of SVA in
their comparison/contrast writing. The last finding from Watcharapunyawong’s
and Usaha’s study (2012) was almost the same as the researcher’s results.
However, participants from the research conducted by Khanom (2014) made
46% of the error of SVA.
c) Plural Form
Participants commit errors in the plural form when they do not add the
letter “s”or “es” for countable nouns. Some examples of the error of the plural
form taken from the data are “all *teacher, some popular *song, some *aspect.”
The error of pluralisation in the linguistic categorization was also found in many
previous studies. The previous studies were Ting, Mahadhir, and Chang (2010) in
which pluralisation error was in the 7th rank, Saad and Sawalmeh (2014) in
which the error of the plural form was in the 5th rank, and Khanom (2014) that
had the frequency rate of the plural error which was 71%. In addition, based on
the research conducted by Saad and Sawalmeh (2014), the plural error was only
committed by 4.1% of participants. Meanwhile, Watcharapunyawong and Usaha
(2012) and Nuruzzaman, Islam and Shuchi (2018) combined the results of the
error of plural and singular form. 6.00% of participants made the error of the
plural/singular form in their narrative writing; 115 out of 1407 participants
committed the plural/singular error in their descriptive writing; and 16.95% of
the error of plural/singular form was found in the comparison/contrast writing
(Watcharapunyawong & Usaha, 2012). Whereas, only 0.85% of Medicine
students; 1.86% of Engineering students, and 1.53% of Computer Science
students who participated in Nuruzzaman’s, Islam’s and Shuchi’s research
(2018) made the error in the plural/singular form.
d) Tense
Errors in tenses are made when participants use the wrong form of
tenses, such as the use of Present Tense, Past Tense, and Future Tense. From the
data, the researcher found some examples which should use Past Tense instead
of Present Tense because the research happened in the past time, such as “I
*take,” which should be “I took;” “I *collect,” which should be “I collected;” and “I
*find,” which should be “I found.” Over-generalized structure and false concept
hypothesized may influence the incorrect use of tenses (Richards, 1970). In
terms of previous studies, the researcher found many prior research’s results
that had tenses as one type of errors. Below are some percentages of participants
committing the tense error: 85% (Khanom, 2014), 3.38% (Sermsook,
Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017), and 6.55% (Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010).
85 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

e) Addition
Addition means that participants add one or more than one unnecessary
word. Participants add something unnecessary may be due to the incomplete
comprehension rules of language (Richards, 1970). For instance, the speaker
said, “According to *the Leech, …” Leech is the name of someone which should
not use the word “the.” It should be “According to Leech.” Another example is
“We can *to conclude …” Research conducted by Saad and Sawalmeh (2014) put
the addition categorization in the first rank and in the third rank (Ting,
Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010).
f) Parts of Speech (PoS)
Parts of Speech (PoS) refer to the classes of words. Words can be
classified into two parts: the open class and the closed class. The open class of
words consists of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Whereas, several
examples of the closed class of words are determiners, prepositions, pronouns,
and conjunctions. From the data, the speaker said, “We can *expression,” which
should be ”We can express.” Another example is “The human *conversation and
*interaction,” which should be “The human converses and interacts.” Regarding
the previous research, only 1.01% of participants made the error in parts of
speech (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).
g) Fragment
According to Sermsook, Liamnimitr, and Pochakorn (2017), the error of
the fragment occurs when there is no subject and no verb in sentences. For
example, the speaker said, “I ^ some lyrics.” In this example, there is no verb
used. It may be “I analysed some lyrics.” With respect to the preceding studies,
the error of fragment was in the 8th rank in narrative writing, in the 13th rank in
descriptive writing, and in the 15th rank in comparison/contrast writing
(Watcharapunyawong & Usaha, 2012). Whereas, the percentage rate of the error
of fragment was 34% (Khanom, 2014). 23 out of 296 participants did the wrong
fragment (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).
h) Redundancy
The error of redundancy or redundant words occurs when participants
add one or more words which have the same meaning. An example from the data
is “Types of illocutionary act they are…” Over-generalization may cause this error
(Richards, 1970). Unfortunately, the researchers did not find any result of the
error of redundancy in previous studies.
i) Possessive Noun
The error in possessive noun occurs when participants do not pronounce
‘s to show the ownership of something. For instance, “Adelle song” or “Helly
father.” It should be “Adelle’s song”or “Helly’s father.” Nevertheless, the
researcher did not notice any errors of possessive nouns in preceding research.
j) Choice of Word
Some participants chose incorrect words. For example, the speaker said,
“Conceptual meaning *refresh to…” The speaker may say “Conceptual meaning
refers to…” This type or errors may be caused by false concept hypothesized
(Richards, 1970). With respect to previous research, Khanom (2014) got the data
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 86

that the frequency rate of participants choosing wrong choice of words was 54%.
Meanwhile, 11 out of 296 participants made the error of word choices
(Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).
k) Preposition
The error of prepositions means participants use wrong prepositions.
From the data, the speaker said, “I focus *in…” This utterance should be “I focus
on…” It occurred because participants might neglect the boundary of language
forms (Richards, 1970). The finding in this research is similar to the research
done by Hossain and Uddin (2015) that the error of prepositions “on” and “in”
ranked the top three in the data, and overall, it positioned in the third rank.
Meanwhile, the error of preposition was in the 5th rank in narrative writing, in
the 7th rank in descriptive writing, and in the 6th rank in comparison/contrast
writing (Watcharapunyawong & Usaha, 2012). On the other hand, 20.67% of
participants made the error of prepositions on linguistic description (Ting,
Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010). Whereas, only 6.3% of participants (Saad &
Sawalmeh, 2014) and 5.07% of participants (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, &
Pochakorn, 2017) committed errors in prepositions.
l) Article
The error of articles occurs when participants apply incorrect articles.
They may not understand the use of definite and indefinite articles as well as the
different use of articles “a” and “an.” An example from the data is “Illocutionary
act is *an *perform in saying something.” It should be “Illocutionary act is a
performance in saying something.” Another example is ” I *choose *the poem to
analyse…” It should be “I chose a poem to analyse …” It appears that participants
committed this error due to the ignorance of rule restrictions (Richards, 1970).
From previous studies, articles were one of errors that participants most often
committed. A study from Hossain and Uddin (2015) provided a different result.
Hossain and Uddin (2015) also found that almost half of participants made the
error in the article “an,” and the error of articles got the high rank. On the other
hand, 82 out of 776 participants (Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010) and 39 out of
296 participants (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017) made errors in
articles.
m) Disordering
The error in disordering is closely related to the sentence structure which
is the syntactical level. It refers to the error in word order. For instances, “human
another” should be “another human;” “the song Katy Perry,” should be “the Katy
Perry’s song;” and “feeling someone” should be “someone’s feeling.” Disordering
of statements including a question form occurs because participants might
hypothesize the idea wrongly. On the other hand, only 3.47% of participants
(Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010) and 5.2% of participants (Saad & Sawalmeh,
2014) disordered the sentences. In addition, Nuruzzaman, Islam and Shuchi
(2018) found that only 1.02% of participants from College of Medicine, 1.53% of
participants from College of Engineering, and 1.36% of participants from College
of Computer science did the wrong word order.
87 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

n) Singular Form
The error in the singular form occurs when participants add “s or es” in
the singular word or add “a or an” for uncountable nouns. For example, “each
others.” With regards to the previous studies, the categorization of the plural and
singular form was analysed by Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2012) and
Nuruzzaman, Islam and Shuchi (2018).
o) Misinformation
Some participants gave wrong information to the listeners. For example,
the speaker said, “a verb that ^ countable.” Here, the speaker provided incorrect
information. Nouns, not verbs, can be counted. Ting, Mahadhir, and Chang (2010)
put misinformation in the first rank on surface structure descriptions, and Saad
and Sawalmeh (2014) had misinformation in the second rank on surface
structure taxonomy.
p) Parallel Structure
If we use parallel structure, parts of speech of words or the grammatical
form of sentences should match. The researcher got the data of the error of
parallel structure, such as “listening, understanding, and *give should be
listening, understanding and giving.” Regarding prior research,
Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2012) found that only 0.42% of participants in
narrative writing, 2.49% of participants in descriptive writing, and 1.65% of
participants in comparison/contrast committed the error in parallel structure.
q) Negative Form
The error in the negative form means participants commit errors in the
negative sentences. For instance, “It not mean to be…,” which should be “It does
not mean to be.” Another example is “A word not suitable,” which should be “A
word is not suitable.” On the linguistics description, only 0.77% of participants
made errors in the negation (Ting, Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010).
In general, the researcher did not find really similar results which matched with
previous studies. However, some prior research is consistent with this study in terms
of the top five of errors found in the data. The top five ranks which is similar to the
results in this study are Subject-Verb Agreement in the third position (Sermsook,
Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017), pluralisation in the third place and omission of
preposition in the fourth ranking (Khanom, 2014), addition in the first rank of surface
structure taxonomy and omission in the third position on surface structure taxonomy
as well as Subject-Verb Agreement in the third place of the linguistic categorization
(Saad & Sawalmeh, 2014), omission in the second position of surface structure
description and addition in the third ranking of surface structure description (Ting,
Mahadhir, & Chang, 2010), Subject-Verb Agreement in the third seat in errors
committed by participants from College of Engineering and Subject-Verb Agreement in
the second position in errors made by participants from College of Computer Science
(Nuruzzaman, Islam & Shuchi, 2018), and singular/plural form in the fourth position
followed by Subject-Verb Agreement in the fifth rank in descriptive writing together
with plural/singular form in the first place and Subject-Verb Agreement in the fourth
seat in comparison/contrast writing (Watcharapunyawong & Usaha, 2012). Overall,
the type of Subject-Verb Agreement is one of errors that was most often committed by
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 88

participants in this study which was supported by many previous studies. The
following explanation and tables (Table 2-8) are the deeper analysis of the errors
based on the recorded presentations.

Table 2. Types, frequency, and percentage of omission

No. Types of Errors Frequen Percen

cy tage
1 Articles 186 54.70
%
Frequency Percentag
e
a. The 100 53.76%
b. A/An 86 46.23%
2. Prepositions 95 27.94
%
Frequency Percentag
e
a. of 66 69.47%
b. to 14 14.73%
c. on 8 8.42%
d. in 5 5.26%
e. with 1 1.05%
f. from 1 1.05%
3. Connectors 43 12.64
%
Frequency Percentag
e
a. Connector 40 93.02%
that/which
b. Connector and 3 6.97%
4. Omissions of Particular Words 8 2.35%
5. Possessive Pronouns 7 2.05%
6. Auxiliary Verb 1 0.29%
Total 340 100%

As can be seen in Table 2, participants transferred the rules in their mother

tongue into English, and they developed the rules by themselves. Speakers in Bahasa
do not use articles before nouns, and there is no preposition in the midst of two nouns.
For example, the speaker said, “^analysis ^ seven types of meaning. It should be “An
analysis of seven types of meaning.” Then, Table 3 identifies types, frequency, and
percentage of errors of Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA).
89 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

Table 3. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA)

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Third Person Singular + Verb (without s/es) 168 82.75%

2. Plural Subject + to be (is) or verb (with s/es) 23 11.33%

3. Singular subject + to be (are) 12 5.9%

Total 203 100%

As shown in Table 3, it seems that participants still over-generalized the rules

in Bahasa to English. Speakers should add “s” or “es” in the verb form of Present Tense
in English. Meanwhile, the rules in Bahasa do not have it. Furthermore, Table 4
indicates types, frequency, and percentage of errors of tenses.

Table 4. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of Tenses

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Present Tense => Past Tense 108 72.97%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Past Tense
Form
2. Present Continuous Tense => Present Tense 22 14.86%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Continuous Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Tense
Form
3 Past Tense => Present Perfect Tense 7 4.72%

a. Incorrect Tense Past Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Perfect Tense
Form
4. Present Continuous Tense => Past Tense 2 1.35%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Continuous Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Past Tense
Form
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 90

5. Present Tense => Present Perfect Tense 2 1.35%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Perfect Tense
Form
6. Future Continuous Tense => Future Tense 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Future Continuous Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Future Tense
Form
7. Present Continuous Tense => Present Perfect Tense 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Continuous Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Perfect Tense
Form
8. Future tense with will => Future tense with be going to 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Future tense with will

Form
b. Correct Tense Future tense with be
Form going to
9. Present Perfect Tense => Past Tense 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Perfect Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Past Tense
Form
10. Future Tense => Present Tense 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Future Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Tense
Form
11. Present Perfect Tense => Present Tense 1 0.67%

a. Incorrect Tense Present Perfect Tense

Form
b. Correct Tense Present Tense
Form
Total 148 100%
91 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

From the data as shown in Table 4, participants might overgeneralize the rules
of tenses in English. Because participants conducted their research before they did
presentations, they should use Past Tense instead of Present Tense. As a result,
participants most often committed errors in the use of Past Tense in the data. Next, the
researcher found types, frequency, and percentage of errors of the addition of
particular words (As can be seen in Table 5).

Table 5. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of addition

No Types of Error Frequency Percentage
1. Prepositions 54 41.22%

Frequency Percentage
a. In 19 35.18%
b. To 14 25.92%
c. Of 8 14.81%
d. with 4 7.4%
e. for 3 5.55%
f. about 2 3.70%
g. from 2 3.70%
h. on 1 1.85%
i. by 1 1.85%
2. Articles 27 20.61%

Frequency Percentage

a. The 23 85.18%
b. A/An 4 14.81%
3. Additions of Particular Words 17 12.97%

4. To Be (Copula) 15 11.45%

5. Connectors 12 9.16%

Frequency Percentage
a. That/Which 10 83.33%
b. But 2 16.66%
6. Possessive Pronouns 5 3.81%

7. Demonstrative Pronoun 1 0.76%

Total 131 100%

 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 92

From Table 5, the readers can see that participants were still confused where to
put prepositions. Consequently, they added more prepositions in places where they
should not use them. In addition, Parts of Speech (PoS) also a type of errors found in
the data (see Table 6).

Table 6. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of Parts of Speech (PoS)

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage
1. Verbs => Nouns 49 38.28%

a. Incorrect PoS Verbs

b. Correct PoS Nouns
2. Nouns => Verbs 24 18.75%

a. Incorrect PoS Nouns

b. Correct PoS Verbs
3 Gerunds that have a function as Nouns => Nouns 24 18.75%

a. Incorrect PoS Gerunds that have a

function as Nouns
b. Correct PoS Nouns
4. Adjectives => Nouns 10 7.81%

a. Incorrect PoS Adjectives

b. Correct PoS Nouns
5. Nouns => Adjectives 4 3.12%

a. Incorrect PoS Nouns

b. Correct PoS Adjectives
6. Verbs => Gerunds that have a function as Nouns 4 3.12%

a. Incorrect PoS Verbs

b. Correct PoS Gerunds that have a
function as Nouns
7. Adverbs => Adjectives 3 2.34%

a. Incorrect PoS Adverbs

b. Correct PoS Adjectives
8. Adjectives => Adverbs 2 1.56%

a. Incorrect PoS Adjectives

b. Correct PoS Adverbs
9. Adjectives => Gerunds that have a function as Nouns 2 1.56%

a. Incorrect PoS Adjectives

93 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

b. Correct PoS Gerunds that have a

function as Nouns
10. Countable Nouns => Uncountable Nouns 2 1.56%

a. Incorrect PoS Countable Nouns

b. Correct PoS Uncountable Nouns

11. Pronoun => Possessive Pronoun 1 0.78%

a. Incorrect PoS Pronoun

b. Correct PoS Possessive Pronoun

Total 128 100%

As can be seen in Table 6, it is clear that most participants still could not identify
Parts of Speech (PoS) well especially for words that have same roots, and it seems that
participants had not understood the functions of PoS in the sentences yet. They still
committed errors when inserting PoS in the phrases and sentences. For instances of words
that have same roots, analyse (as a verb), analysis (as a noun), analyst (as a noun), and
analysing (as a gerund); associate (as a verb) and association (as a noun); different (as an
adjective) and difference (as a noun); discuss (as a verb) and discussion (as a noun);
summary (as a noun) and summarize (as a verb); conclude (as a verb) and conclusion (as a
noun); perform (as a verb) and performance (as a noun); emotion (as a noun) and
emotional (as an adjective); explain (as a verb) and explanation (as a noun); separate (as a
verb) and separation (as a noun); express (as a verb) and expression (as a noun); as well
as symbol (as a noun) and symbolic (as an adjective). Some examples from the data are “I
can *conclusion;” “in this *perform;” “an *analyse of connotative meaning;” and “I
*analysis.” In addition, prepositions are also a type of errors the researcher identified (as
can be seen in Table 7).

Table 7. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of Prepositions

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage
1. On => In 14 32.55%

a. Incorrect on
Prepositions
b. Correct in
Prepositions
2. In => On 13 30.23%

a. Incorrect in
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 94

Prepositions
b. Correct on
Prepositions
3 To => On 3 6.97%

a. Incorrect To
Prepositions
b. Correct On
Prepositions
4. About => On 3 6.97%

a. Incorrect about
Prepositions
b. Correct on
Prepositions
5. By => To 2 4.65%

a. Incorrect by
Prepositions
b. Correct to
Prepositions
6. With => Of 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect with
Prepositions
b. Correct of
Prepositions
7. To => About 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect to
Prepositions
b. Correct about
Prepositions
8. From => Of 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect from
Prepositions
b. Correct of
Prepositions
9. Of => About 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect of
Prepositions
b. Correct about
95 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

Prepositions
10. In => To 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect in
Prepositions
b. Correct to
Prepositions
11. From => For 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect from
Prepositions
b. Correct for
Prepositions
12. Of => On 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect of
Prepositions
b. Correct on
Prepositions
13. Of => In 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect of
Prepositions
b. Correct in
Prepositions
14. With => On 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect with
Prepositions
b. Correct on
Prepositions
15. At => In 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect at
Prepositions
b. Correct in
Prepositions
16. With => In 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect Prepositions with

b. Correct Prepositions in
17 To => With 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect Prepositions to
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 96

b. Correct Prepositions with

18. To => Of 1 2.32%

a. Incorrect Prepositions to
b. Correct Prepositions of
Total 43 100%

As shown in Table 7, it seems that participants still got confused when to use
prepositions “on” and “in.” It appears that they were wrong when putting the correct
prepositions between “on” and “in.” Furthermore, types, frequency, and percentage of
errors of articles can be shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors of Articles

No. Types of Errors Frequency Percentage
1. The 33 76.74%

2. A/An 10 23.25%

Total 43 100%

As is seen in Table 8, participants challenged in the use of articles in English.

Apparently, they might not understand when to use articles “the” and “a/an.” In addition,
Tables 9-11 illustrate participants’ answers from a questionnaire sheet.

Table 9. Types, frequency, and percentage of errors that students thought they
most often commit from the answers of the questionnaire sheet

No Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Tenses 96 77.42%

2. Prepositions 11 8.87%

3. Articles 9 7.25%

4. Modal Auxiliaries 4 3.22%

5. To Be (Copula) 2 1.61%

6. Verb Forms 2 1.61%

97 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

7. Sentence Structure/Sentential Level 1 0.80%

Total 124 100%

From Table 9, participants thought that they most often made errors in the use of
tenses. This finding is similar to the researcher’s hypothesis. It appears that participants
transferred the rules in their first language into their foreign language. Moreover, types,
frequency, and percentage of the most difficult errors that students thought they most
often commit from the answers of the questionnaire sheet (Table 10).

Table 10. Types, frequency, and percentage of the most difficult errors that
students thought they most often commit from the answers of the questionnaire sheet

No Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Tense 56 45.16%

2. Disordering 24 19.35%

3. Preposition 15 12.1%

4. Misinformation 6 4.83%

5. Verb Form 6 4.83%

6. Omission 5 4.03%

7. Pronoun 3 2.41%

8. Plural Form 2 1.61%

9. Word Form 2 1.61%

10. Addition 2 1.61%

11. Article 1 0.80%

12. Subject-Verb Agreement 1 0.80%

13. Negation 1 0.80%

Total 124 100%

 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 98

Looking like the data from Table 9, participants assumed that tenses were the
most difficult errors. The result of this question is consistent with the researcher’s
hypothesis, as well. It seems that participants faced problems when learning tenses in
English. Last, Table 11 shows the most difficult English skills between the grammar
and speaking skill.

Table 11. Types, frequency, and percentage of the most difficult English skills
(Grammar or Speaking) from the answers of the questionnaire sheet

No Types of Errors Frequency Percentage

1. Grammar 91 73.38%

2. Speaking 33 26.61%

Total 124 100%

As shown in Table 11, participants believed that grammar is more difficult than
speaking. Some participants thought that they did not know exactly the rules of
grammar. Others admitted that they did not practice a lot in terms of the use of
grammar in English.
Generally, several prior studies were consistent with the findings in this study
from the questionnaire sheet in which tenses were the type of errors that was most
often committed by participants. The preceding research that was consistent with
these results is Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2012), Nuruzzaman, Islam, and
Shuchi (2018), and Khanom (2014).

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

It cannot be argued that error analysis is worthwhile in the field of teaching and
learning language. Richards et al. (1992) agreed that language teaching techniques, the
reasons why students commit errors, and knowledge of general issues in language
learning can be determined to progress the teaching courses (as cited in Nuruzzaman,
Islam, & Shuchi, 2018). Also, Keshavarz (1997) stated valid and reliable findings can be
used to renew teaching materials (as cited in Nuruzzaman, Islam, & Shuchi, 2018).
Learners can improve their ability in English by being aware of their own problems.
Teachers and researchers can have great comprehension of what problems that learners
exactly encounter and how far students progress their competence in the target language.
In addition, teachers should provide a suitable teaching methodology and proper course
materials in order to reduce learners’ errors. Moreover, language teachers may assess
students’ abilities with appropriate tests by pointing out the errors. Also, language experts
and language researchers may offer training courses to teachers referring to errors that
learners most often commit.
99 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FURTHER RESEARCH

According to Riddell (1990, as cited in El-Farahaty, 2017), sampling, subjectivity,

error categorization and others are several limitations in conducting the research in error
analysis. The researcher realized that this study has several limitations. Although this
study has 124 participants, the samples are only sophomores who cannot represent whole
Indonesian EFL learners. So, the samples cannot be generalized. Furthermore, the
researcher only focuses on learners in collecting the data without involving teachers as
participants. Therefore, there is subjectivity of the results of this study because the
researcher only obtains the data from one side, the learners or the students, without taking
into account of the teachers’ side. Another limitation in this research is with respect to the
types of errors. There are no definite rules of the error categorizations. As a result, there
are several error categorizations which are not put in the results or findings. The other
issue is in terms of the limitation of the time in collecting and analysing the data.
Regarding the limitations of the study, future researchers can conduct further
research. With respect to the sampling, future studies with larger and heterogeneous
samples are needed in order to generalize the findings. Moreover, further studies can
involve teachers as participants to acquire better data and add the numbers of types of
errors. The lexical, phonological, and morphological error analysis can also be an
interesting topic to be analysed. Also, future researchers can identify the least errors of the
data. Other types of oral communication besides presentations can be the object of the
study, as well. Furthermore, if future researchers want to take a note of different treatment
regarding this topic, they can apply experimental and control groups. Also, further
research can interview the participants in order to get more valid and reliable data.
Moreover, future researchers can conduct the research in the field of error correction for
the continuous study.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The researcher found out several interesting results that may be taken a note
regarding the error analysis. First, the top five of errors committed by sophomores of the
class of 2016 in State Islamic Institute of Bengkulu (IAIN Bengkulu) are omission, Subject-
Verb Agreement, plural form, tense, and addition. Second, there is no doubt that
”interlingual or transfer errors” and “intralingual and developmental errors” play an
important role in the study of error analysis. Third, the category of the error of Parts of
Speech (PoS) shows that most participants could not identify kinds of PoS well, especially
for those that have the same root words. Another notable finding is that it appears that
some participants did not understand when to use prepositions “on” and “in.”
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 100

Recommendations

Some recommendations will be suggested in order to reduce the errors.

For Language Teachers

By recognizing the errors that EFL learners most often commit, language teachers
may get better understanding of what the learners’ need. They may find creative teaching
strategies and effective teaching techniques to reduce the errors. In addition, feedback or
error correction may be needed in order to make EFL learners recognize their errors.
Furthermore, language teachers can follow trainings and/or workshops in the field of
teaching English in order to strengthen their English abilities.

For EFL Learners

EFL learners should do more practice to increase their English skills. Moreover,
they have to recognize the differences between language rules in Bahasa and in English in
order to reduce interference and over-generalization. Also, they can try the autonomous
learning which means that they get used to self-study.
101 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

REFERENCES

Abisamra, N. (2003). An analysis of errors in Arabic speakers’ English Writings. Retrieved

from http:// abisamra03.tripod.com/nada/languageacq-erroranalysis.html

Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian
Journal of ELT Research, 4. 72-102. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318156569_Error_Analysis_in_EFL_Class
room_of_Lower_Secondary_Students

Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63.
Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3586012?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error analysis and error correction with respect to the training of
language teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED121104.pdf

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied

Linguistics in Language Teaching, V(4), 161-170. Retrieved from
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iral.1967.5.issue-1-4/iral.1967.5.1-
4.161/iral.1967.5.1-4.161.xml

El-Farahaty, H. (2017). A Grammatical error analysis of final year students Arabic writing.
The Language Scholar Journal, 1, 1-29. Retrieved from
https://languagescholar.leeds.ac.uk/a-grammatical-error-analysis-of-final-year-
students-arabic-writing/

Fang, X., & Xue-mei, J. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. US-China
Education Review, 4(9), 10-14. Retrieved from
http://www.cje.ids.czest.pl/biblioteka/9195542-Error-analysis-and-the-EFL-
classroom-teaching.pdf

Hossain, M. D., & Uddin, M. T. (2015). An investigation into the errors committed by first
year under graduates in the Department of English at Jahangirnagar University.
Global Journal of Human-Social Science: G Linguistics and Education, 15(2), 1-17.
Retrieved from
https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/download/1444/1385

Kayum, M. A. (2015). Error analysis and error correction in oral communication in the EFL
context of Bangladesh. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and
Development, 2(3), 125-129. Retrieved from
http://www.allsubjectjournal.com/vol2/issue3/PartC/17.html
 Merizawati, An Error Analysis In Paper Presentations 102

Khanom, H. (2014). Error analysis in the writing tasks of higher secondary level students
of Bangladesh. GSTF International Journal on Education (JEd), 2(1), 39-44. Retrieved
from https://www.globalsciencejournals.com/content/pdf/10.7603%2Fs40742-
014-0002-x.pdf

Khansir, A. A. (2012). Error analysis and second language acquisition. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 2(5), 1027-1032. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.5.1027-1032

Lukáčová, Z., & Pavelová, B. (2017). Error analysis in EFL classroom on lower secondary
students. LLCE, 4(1), 54-74. doi: 10.1515/llce-2017-0004
MacDonald, P. (2005). An analysis of interlanguage errors in synchronous/asynchronous
intercultural communication exhanges (thesis). Retrieved from
roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/15306

Meehan, S. (2013). An investigation into the structural errors of Arabic learners’ written
persuasive discourse in English (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/samanth
a_meehan_an_investigation_into_the_structural_errors_of_arabic_learners_0_2.pdf

Mohamed, A. R., Lian, G. L., & Eliza, W. R. (2004). English errors and Chinese learners.
Sunway College Journal, 1, 83-97. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bda3/7ebf4c459c9eb6645c02ef22d4f9b74e7bc8.
pdf

Mungungu, S. S. (2010). Error analysis: Investigating the writing of ESL Namibian Learners
(thesis). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.833.5369&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf

Nemser, W. (1969). Approximative systems of foreign learners. International Review of

Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9(2).
doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.115

Nuruzzaman, M., Islam, A. B. M. S., & Shuchi, I. J. (2018). An analysis of errors committed by
Saudi Non-English major students in the English paragraph writing: A study of
comparisons. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(1), 31-39. doi:
10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.1p. 31

Phuket, P. R. N., & Bidin, S. J. (2016). Native language interference in writing: A case study
of Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research,
4(16), 25-36. Retrieved from http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_40436.html
103 LINGUIST Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol 4, Number 2, October 2018

Richards, J. C. (1970, March). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. Paper

presented at the TESOL Convention, San Francisco.

Richards, J. C. (1971, February). Error analysis and second language strategies. Lecture
given at Indiana University. Bloomington.