European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009)

Error Analysis of the Written English Essays of Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study
Saadiyah Darus E-mail: adi@ukm.my Tel: +603-89216570; Fax: +603-89254577 Kaladevi Subramaniam School of Language Studies and Linguistics Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi Selangor Malaysia Abstract This study examines errors in a corpus of 72 essays written by 72 participants. The participants are Form Four Malay students who are studying at a secondary school in Malaysia; 37 male and 35 female. They have experienced approximately the same number of years of education through primary and secondary education in Malaysia. All of the participants come from non-English speaking background and hardly communicate in English outside the school. The instrument used for this study was participants written essays and Markin software. All of the errors in the essays were identified and classified into various categorizations. The results of the study show that six most common errors committed by the participants were singular/plural form, verb tense, word choice, preposition, subject-verb agreement and word order. These aspects of writing in English pose the most difficult problems to participants. This study has shed light on the manner in which students internalize the rules of the target language, which is English. Such an insight into language learning problems is useful to teachers because it provides information on common trouble-spots in language learning which can be used in the preparation of effective teaching materials.

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

1. Introduction
Learning a Second Language (L2) is a lifelong process and it is often a challenging experience for L2 learners. English has become the L2 after it was introduced to Malaysia during colonization. Presently, it is an international language and is used as the language in international relations, and in exchanging knowledge and technology. It was only since a few decades ago that it was taught to almost all school children. In general, local Malaysian students have been exposed to eleven years of learning English in primary and secondary schools. A Brief Historical Account of English in Malaysia According to Solomon (1988), English has had a comparatively long history in Malaysia. Since attaining independence in 1957, Malaysia has gone through vast changes in various fields. Not the least of this is development of educational facilities from primary school up to tertiary level. Together with the physical facilities major changes were also implemented in policies related to educational syllabus, and the medium of instruction; that is, the languages used in imparting the knowledge. Education in 483

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) Malaysia has been multilingual and Malaysia has continued to practice linguistic segregation as far as individual schools are concerned, a divide-and-rule system inherited from the colonial era (Solomon, 1988). In other words, although education through different languages is widely accepted in Malaysia, each individual school is mainly seen as operating through one medium. It is obvious that Malaysian education system practices monolingual school where other languages may be taught as subjects. Therefore, particular schools are labeled as Malay- or Chinese- or Tamil-medium schools and since 1976, there have been no mixed-medium schools. According to Santhiram (1999) schools in the past were set up along ethnic lines and conducted in different languages. He states that: The British superimposed a vernacular primary terminal education in Malay for the indigenous Malay masses within the Islamic traditions as a form of social control over the Malays, English education based on the principle of user fees for the immigrants and the Malay masses, but free for a select nobility and royalty exemplify the classic ingredients of a divide and rule policy. For the immigrant populations, the colonial power tolerated an ethnically inspired and financed vernacular education for the Chinese; and an employer-initiated Tamil vernacular primary education for the Indians. (Santhiram 1999:35) Education in Malaysia During Pre-Independence Immediately prior to independence in 1957, primary schools were available in four mediums. National schools used Malay language as the medium, whereas National-type schools employed English, Mandarin Chinese or Tamil as their mediums. These Malay-, Mandarin- and Tamil-medium schools catered almost exclusively to ethnic Malay, ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indian pupils respectively. As the ethnic groups are geographically distinct, the schools were also geographically distinct. English medium schools were mainly found in urban areas, and the pupils were mainly ethnic Chinese. However there are Indians and Eurasians too. There were not many ethnic Malays in English schools because of the schools urban location and also because many of them were Christian missionary schools, which the Malays, being Muslims, were suspicious of. Nonetheless, it is the English-medium schools which had more of an inter-racial character. Secondary education was mainly through English or Malay, and tertiary education was through English. Education in Malaysia During Post-Independence As English was the established language of administration in 1957 and the language of education for urban children, it was necessary for the changeover to Malay to be implemented in an orderly fashion so as to avoid disruption and a drop in standards. The government did not rush the change. According to Asmah (1982:89) it took 26 years (1957-1983) to implement the National Language and National Educational Policies for the primary and secondary level of education. Therefore, the situation immediately after independence remained largely the same. In 1967 Malay was declared the sole national language compared to English that had been another official language prior to this. Initially, those subjects taught at schools that could adopt the Malay language as a medium of instruction without difficulty were the first affected by the conversion process (Asmah 1982:15). From January 1968, all English medium primary schools were required to teach physical education, art and craft, local studies and music in Malay in Standards 1, 2 and 3. More of the Arts subjects were taught in Malay before the shift to Malay occurred for the Science subjects. In fact, for a short period of time during this transitional phase some schools ran the same course in science subjects in two streams, namely, Malay and English. Pupils in the transitional period might have a mixed medium education: English for science and mathematics; Malay for history and geography. Tertiary institutions also became Malay-medium.

484

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) The severe race riots in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969 had caused a drastic change in this education system. The Minister of Education at that time, Dato Haji Abdul Rahman Yaakub, declared in July 1969 that beginning from January 1970, English-medium schools would be phased out in Malaysia and by 1985 all former English-medium (national-type) schools would become Malaymedium (national) schools. The Third Malaysia Plan (1976-80) states that "Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) is the basis for national integration" but the plan also states quite emphatically that "measures will be taken to ensure that English is taught as a strong second language (Government of Malaysia 1976:386). The reasons given for the maintenance of English was "to keep abreast of scientific and technological developments in the world and to participate meaningfully in international trade and commerce." (Government of Malaysia 1976: 391) By 1976, all English medium primary schools were completely converted into schools where Malay was used as the medium of instruction and by 1982 all the former English medium secondary schools were converted to National Schools in Peninsular Malaysia. The Education Act was extended to Sarawak in 1977 and the change of the medium of instruction to Malay throughout the entire school system was completed in Sabah and Sarawak three years later that was by 1985. In all such schools, Malay was made the medium of instruction but English was not ignored. English continues to be taught as an important L2 in all schools where Malay is the medium of instruction. In fact as of 2002/3 academic session a policy decision was made to use English and not Malay as a medium of instruction in Mathematics and Science classes in Standard One, i.e. the first year of schooling. Mandarin Chinese-medium and Tamil-medium (national-type) primary schools use their respective language as the medium-of-instruction. Changes in the Malaysian Education System There was a major change in the education system when on 6th May 2002, the Prime Minister then, Tun Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohamad announced that the government was willing to re-introduce English-medium education if the people [wanted] it. The survey carried out by the New Straits Times Press in May 2002 revealed that most of the people want him to re-introduce the English medium education again. However, it was noted that educationists, politicians and a prominent unionist agreed that the move was feasible but would require much work. Debate on the New Straits Times Online Surfers Survey in May 2002 still favors the return of English-medium schools although the proposal has since been ruled out by the government. This is due to the concerns about the falling standard of English among ethnic Malays who are largely monolingual. The earlier system has resulted in lack of competitiveness among the ethnic Malays and the unemployment rate. On 11th May 2002, the then Education Minister Musa Mohamad confirmed that a bilingual system would be set up with English used for teaching science and mathematics. On 21 July 2002, he announced details of the implementation of the new system in national schools: a phase in bilingual system. Beginning from January 2003, Musa Mohamad declared that a Malay-English mixed-medium education would be implemented in national schools. Currently more than two million Malaysians attend 9,364 national primary schools, slightly more than half a million attend 3,324 Chinese primary schools and more than 130,000 attend 945 Tamil primary schools (Educational Statistics, 2007). The majority of Malaysian children attend national schools that use the national language which is Malay as the medium of instruction. As for English, it is a compulsory L2 in such schools. English lessons, which are conducted daily, begin at Standard one at the age of seven. Malaysian students from different background in life have different levels of knowledge and proficiency in the English Language. Many urban children who use English as their First Language (L1) or dominant language at home were able to master the language well compared to the majority of children, especially those from the rural areas, who were predominantly ethnic Malay. These rural students come from English as Foreign Language (FL) 485

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) settings and start school with hardly any knowledge of English (David and Naji, 2000; David and Nambiar, 2001). This difference has caused a great divide among the majority ethnic group between the Malays from those who can use English fluently and those who are not able to do so. Such a divergence in language proficiency has disenfranchised those who come from rural settings (David and Naji, 2000). To minimize such divergences within this community, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohammad constantly stresses the importance of English to the nation. This has in turn caused a reemphasis on the learning of English especially for the rural students, mainly Malays, and currently there has been a great deal of debate about measures to improve their proficiency in English.

2. Statement of the Problem

English occupies the status of a L2 in the Malaysian education system in both primary and secondary schools. However, learning English as a L2 is not an easy task. According to Brown (2000), in order to master the English language, learners have to be adequately exposed to all of the four basic skills, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing. Language teaching in this country is currently focusing on the teaching and learning of the four language skills. However, the standard of English among Malaysian children is on the decline despite learning English for several years. Malaysian students are still weak in English, especially in their writing skills. They still seem to commit errors in all aspects of language. Studies on written works of Malaysian ESL learners have shown that their writings are full of mistakes. Khan (2005) in a research carried out among 30 Form Five students found that most of the students are weak in grammar. Lim Ho Peng (1976) stated that there are several general types of recurrent errors in learners such as spelling mistakes, wrong use of prepositions, confusing use of structural verbs, concord and tenses. Similar to Lim Ho Peng (1976), Azimah (1998) who carried out an error analyses on 30 Form One students found that they committed a lot of errors in tenses and prepositions other than subject-verb agreement. Vahdatinejad (2008) found that students committed errors in tenses, word choices and prepositions. According to James (1988) errors in writing such as tenses, prepositions and weak vocabulary are the most common and frequent type of errors that are committed by learners. Since grammar is seen only as a means to an end, some learners tend to re-emphasize its importance and in the process, they make many more errors. The learners usually face difficulties in learning the grammatical aspects of the Target Language (TL), such as in subject-verb agreement, the use of preposition, articles and the use of correct tense. Such errors can be seen clearly in the learners written performance (Nik Safiah 1978). The problems that the students are bound to encounter would be weak vocabulary, inappropriate use of grammar in sentences etc. Thus, rekindling interest in the area of learner errors can be considered a timely move. Teachers who can analyze and treat errors effectively are better equipped to help their students become more aware of their errors. The use of Error Analysis (EA) and appropriate corrective techniques can aid effective learning and teaching of English. It is understood that learning a FL is a gradual process, during which mistakes are to be expected in all stages of learning. Mistakes will not disappear simply because they have been pointed out to the learner, contrary to what some language learners and teachers believe (Ferris, 2002). In fact making mistakes is a natural process of learning and must be considered as part of cognition. As a result, errors must be viewed positively. Teachers have to recognize that learning ability varies from person to person. In addition, all language learning is based on continual exposure, hypothesizing and, even with the correct hypothesis, testing and reinforcing the ideas behind them (Bartholomae, 1980: 97). Therefore, EA is the best tool 486

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) for describing and explaining errors made by speakers of other languages. By investigating students written work, it will provide a means to help Malaysian teachers to recognize the importance of errors as one of the challenging areas in teaching English.

3. Objective of the Study

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

4. Error Analysis
The field of EA in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) was established in the 1970s by Corder and colleagues. A widely-available survey can be found in chapter eight of Brown (2000). A key finding of EA has been that many learner errors were produced by learners misunderstanding the rules of the new language. EA is a type of linguistic study that focuses on the errors learners make. It consists of a comparison between the errors made in TL and within that TL itself. Corder is the father of EA (the EA with the new look). It was in his article entitled The significance of learner errors (1967) that EA took a new turn. Errors used to be flaws that needed to be eradicated. Corder (1967) presented a completely different point of view. He contended that those errors are important in and of themselves. In his opinion, systematically analyzing errors made by language learners makes it possible to determine areas that need reinforcement in teaching. EA emphasizes the significance of errors in learners interlanguages system (Brown 1994: 204). The term interlanguages introduced by Selinker (1972), refers to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent on both the learners L1 and the TL. Nemser (1974: 55) referred to it as the Approximate System, and Corder (1967) as the Idiosyncratic Dialect or Transitional Competence. According to Corder (1967), EA has two objects: one theoretical and another applied. The theoretical object is to understand what and how a learner learns when he studies an L2. The applied object is to enable the learner to learn more efficiently by using the knowledge of his dialect for pedagogical purposes. At the same time, the investigation of errors can serve two purposes, diagnostic (to in-point the problem) and prognostic (to make plans to solve a problem). Corder (1967) said that it is diagnostic because it can tell us the learner's grasp of a language at any given point during the learning process. It is also prognostic because it can tell the teacher to modify learning materials to meet the learners' problems. EA research has limitations of providing only a partial picture of learner language; and having a substantive nature in that it does not take into account avoidance strategy in SLA, since EA only investigates what learners do. Learners who avoided the sentence structures which they found difficult due to the differences between their native language and TL may be viewed to have no difficulty. This was pointed out by Brown (1994) and Ellis (1996). Relevance of Error Analysis in Language Teaching Learning a FL is a step-by-step process, during which errors or mistakes are to be expected during this process of learning. Corder (1967) states that errors are visible proof that learning is taking place. He has emphasized that errors, if studied systematically, can provide significant insights into how a language is actually learned by a foreigner. He also agrees that studying students errors of usage has immediate practical application for language teachers. In his view, errors provide feedback; they tell the teachers something about the effectiveness of his teaching. According to Ancker (2000), making mistakes or errors is a natural process of learning and must be considered as part of cognition. 487

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) A prominent researcher of EA is J. C. Richards. In his 1971 book on Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, he argues that many of the learners' errors happen due to the strategies that they use in language acquisition, especially their L2. The problem includes the reciprocal interference of the target language items; i.e., negative effect of their prior knowledge of their L1 on their absorption of L2. In this situation, EA would allow teachers to figure out on what areas to be focused and what kind of attention is needed in an L2 classroom. Weireesh (1991) also considers learners errors to be of particular importance because the making of errors is a device the learners use in order to learn. According to him, EA is a valuable aid to identify and explain difficulties faced by learners. He goes on to say that EA serves as a reliable feedback to design a remedial teaching method. Sercombe (2000) explains that EA serves three purposes. Firstly, to find out the level of language proficiency the learner has reached. Secondly, to obtain information about common difficulties in language learning, and thirdly, to find out how people learn a language. Candling (2001) considers EA as the monitoring and analysis of learners language. He refers to an error as a deviation. Candling (2001:69) adds that the L2 learners errors are potentially important for the understanding of the processes of SLA. Olasehinde (2002) also argues that it is inevitable that learners make errors. He also cited that errors are unavoidable and a necessary part of the learning curve. Mitchell and Myles (2004) claims that errors if studied could reveal a developing system of the students L2 language and this system is dynamic and open to changes and resetting of parameters. This view is supported by Stark (2001: 19) in his study, who also explained that the teachers need to view students errors positively and should not regard them as the learners failure to grasp the rules and structures but view the errors as process of learning. He subscribes to the view that errors are normal and inevitable features of learning. He added that errors are essential condition of learning. Vahdatinejad (2008) maintains that error analyses can be used to determine what a learner still needs to be taught. It provides the necessary information about what is lacking in his or her competence. He also makes distinction between errors and lapses (simple mistakes). According to him, lapses are produced even by native speakers, and can be corrected by themselves. They call for on the spot correction rather than remedial, which is needed for errors.

5. Methodology
Location The location of the study was a secondary school in a housing area in Semenyih town which is approximately 30 kilometers away from Seremban and 40 kilometers away from Kuala Lumpur. The school runs in two teaching sessions, namely the morning and afternoon session. The distribution of students of the school by Form and ethnic background are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Distribution of Students by Forms and Ethnic Background (Source: Registration Record for 2008)
Malays M F 0 0 176 197 189 189 157 186 131 146 185 199 798 867 Chinese M F 76 43 71 106 105 99 76 81 71 82 109 3 488 490 Indians M F 26 13 49 47 47 43 45 38 35 18 59 44 244 183 Others M F 0 0 8 0 5 10 5 8 4 2 8 6 302 26 Total M 102 306 349 284 242 535 1583 F 56 351 344 314 280 372 1740

Form (Gender) Remove class Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Total

488

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) Participants 72 Form Four students participated in this study. All of them had their primary education in National schools, in which Malay was the medium of instruction. English was taught as an additional subject within the school curriculum. The respondents are from Form 4 Gigih and Form 4 Harmoni classes comprising of 30 boys and 42 girls. In class 4 Gigih, there are a total of 37 participants, consisting of 17 boys and 20 girls. In class Form 4 Harmoni, there are a total of 35 participants, consisting of 20 boys and 15 girls. All of the participants have experienced approximately the same number of 10 years of the education through the primary and secondary education system. All of the respondents speak Malay at home except for one student who speaks English at home. Background of Teachers and Students There are altogether 134 teachers in the school where 54 of them are teaching in the afternoon and 80 of them are teaching in the morning. Out of this, there are 15 teachers who teach English. Three of them hold a Masters degree and 12 of them a degree in TESL (Teaching English as Second Language). There are about 3,000 students from Remove classes until Form Five. Procedure All of the 72 participants were administered a writing assignment that involved essay writing. They were required to write a report entitled Cleanliness of the school canteen within a period of 60 minutes and a minimum of 200-250 words. This essay follows the English format of SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia) Examination in which every student will have to take when they are in Form Five. It is a guided writing. In the report they were asked to include specific details in their responses. All 72 essays were typed using Microsoft Word 2003 so that they were computer readable. After that, the three steps of EA specified by Corder (1974) were followed: Collection of sample errors Identification of errors Description of errors Instruments The main source of data used to find answers to the research question is the written essays of 72 participants of the selected school. Markin software was utilized to analyze the errors in the essays. Markin is a Windows 95/98/ME/NT4/2000/XP program developed by Martin Holmes in 1996. It was used as a tool that allows teachers to mark written material done by students electronically. It is a program for marking and annotating text documents using a Windows computer. After the participants text was typed in electronic form, they are loaded into the program and marked using a system of buttons and annotations. Error statistics are also automatically compiled and included at the end of the text.

489

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009)

6. Results
Table 2 shows the analysis of errors based on type of error, number of errors, percentage and mean values of errors committed by the participants.
Table 2:
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Analysis of Errors
Type of Error Singular/Plural Form Verb Tense Word Choice Preposition Subject/Verb Agreement Word Order Article Missing Space Word Form Spelling Verb Form Capitalization Wrong/Misused Word Missing word Redundancy Total No.of errors 412 346 325 288 217 215 211 178 170 150 145 129 124 102 78 3090 Percentage (%) 13.3 11.2 10.5 9.3 7.0 7.0 6.8 5.8 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.3 2.5 100.0 Mean 5.72 4.80 4.51 4.00 3.01 2.99 2.93 2.47 2.36 2.08 2.01 1.79 1.72 1.42 1.08

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

490

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009)

Table 3: Most Common Errors and Examples of Errors
Identification of errors 1. Another problem is insufficient number of rubbish binSing/Plu around the canteen compound. 2. This is because the students always throw tissues, plastic bagSing/Plu, tissue wrapperSing/Plu and bottleSing/Plu in the drain. 3. it leads to many other problemSing/Plu 1. We, the members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain conductVTense a meeting. 2. The plates and glasses are very oily and dirty because not washesVTense properly. 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting 1. They are owing VTense us a good service. 2. So many dirty plates and glasses are serves tVTense 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting 1. Not washing and sweeping the flour Wchoice everyday makes the floor dirty 2. The workers should keep the canteen clean and healthy.WChoice 3. This is due to the irresponsible attitude of the canteen staff.WChoice 1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be seeneverywhere atPreposition the school canteen 2. The food to cater toPreposition the students during recess are not enough 3. As the secretary atPreposition the club I have been assigned to write report Correct sentences and explanation of rule 1. Another problem is insufficient number of rubbish bins around the canteen compound. 2. This is because the students always throw tissues, plastic bags, tissue wrappers and bottles in the drain 3. it leads to many other problems 1. We, the members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain conducted a meeting. 2. The plates and glasses are very oily and dirty because not washed properly. 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain had a meeting. 'Owe' is a sativa verb and does not require the ing participle: 1. They owe us a good service 2. So many dirty plates and glasses are given. 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain had a meeting 1. Not washing and sweeping the floor everyday makes the floor dirty. 2. The workers should keep the canteen clean and safe. 3.This is due to the irresponsible attitude of the canteen workers 1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be seeneverywhere aroundPreposition the school canteen 2. The food to cater for recess are not enough 3. As the secretary ofPreposition the club I have been assigned to write report A large number' refers to more than one person, i.e. plural subject and requires plural verb 'are': 1. 'A large number of students are sick'. 2. We need to be careful because it deals with health 3. The dirts always stick in the food that the students eat 4. It causes fights because there are no chairs to sit. Subject-verb inversion (why are we facing) in the interrogative but inversion ruled out in the form of statement (why we are): 1. I don't know why we are facing these problems 2. Another problem is dirty kitchen area 3. Although the number of rubbish bins in the canteen, WOrder are not enough

Definition and Error classification 1. Singular/Plural A mistake with number (singular and plural) 2. Verb Tense

a) A mistake with the verb tense

Verb Tense

b) Inappropriate verb construction

3. Word Choice

4. Preposition

5. Subject-Verb Agreement Wrong combination of subject and verb

1. A large number of students is S/VAgreement sick. 2. We need to be careful because it dealingS/Vagreement with health. 3. The dirts always stick in the food that the students S/Vagreement are Eating. 4. It causes fights because there are no chairs to sitsS/VAgreement

6. Word Order Disordering/Inversion of subject and verb 1. We don't know why are we WOrderfacing these problems. 2. Dirty kitchen area is another problemWOrder 3. Although in the canteen, number of rubbish binsWOrder are not enough

491

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009)

Most Common Errors

Singular and Plural Form Some of the participants did not know that the plural form using the suffix s must be applied to the countable plural noun. A possible reason for the failure to construct plural noun forms probably because in Malay, there is no plural marker for a noun. However, for some participants, they have already hypothesized that English nouns have plural and singular forms. However, they were not sure when they should apply the plural form. When the subject was in the singular form they applied the plural form to the noun as shown in the examples below: 1. One of the main problemsSing/Plu is the dirty plates and plastic glasses used 2. They eats and drinksSing/Plu and just leave on the table 3. The benches and chairs for the students to sit isSing/Plu not enough Verb Tense Wrong application of verb tense can be seen when the participants did not apply the correct tense to the verb in the sentences. It can be assumed that some of the participants are not aware of the different rules for tenses application. The use of some suffixes like ing and past tense forms showed that these participants are aware of the rules on different tenses application and they have already hypothesized that these verbs needed to be used with different tense forms and should not be used in the basic form. This is because some verbs written using different tenses forms are not written in the basic form of the verb. For example, the sentence I waiting for my food could be written in the basic form I am waiting for my food. This shows that they acknowledged the ing form but they were not sure of the complete past continuous tense forms and application in the English sentence. The suffix ing applied is not relevant to the context given because the context required verb to be written in the past tense form instead. This information revealed that the different tenses rules application was not formed but they have already hypothesized that these tenses forms exists in English grammar. Examples of wrong application of verb tense are shown below. 1. We, the members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain conductVTense a meeting. 2. The plates and glasses are very oily and dirty because not washesVTense properly. 3. The members of the cleanliness club of SMK Engku Husain havingVTense a meeting Word Choice Participants lack appropriate vocabulary. One participant used the word flour instead of floor in sentence no. 1. Another participant uses the word healthy instead of safe in sentence no. 2. While the third participant used the word staff instead of workers in sentence no. 3. 1. 1. Not washing and sweeping the flour WChoice everyday makes the floor dirty 2. 2. The workers should keep the canteen clean and healthy.WChoice 3. 3. This is due to the irresponsible attitude of the canteen staff.WChoic Preposition The participants demonstrated confusion for correct usage of preposition. In sentence no. 1 the correct preposition is around rather than at. In sentence no. 2, the preposition for should have been used. While the preposition of should have been used in sentence no. 3. 1. So many dirty plates and glasses can be seen everywhere atPreposition the school canteen 2. The food to cater toPreposition the students during recess are not enough 3. As the secretary atPreposition the club I have been assigned to write report

492

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) Subject-Verb Agreement A large number refers to more than one person, i.e. plural subject and requires plural verb are. However, one participant uses is instead as shown in sentence no. 1. In sentence no. 2, the correct word should be deals. In sentence no. 3, eat should be used rather than are eating. The word sit should be used rather than sits in sentence no. 4. 1. A large number of students is S/VAgreementsick. 2. We need to be careful because it dealingS/Vagreement with health. 3. The dirts always stick in the food that the students S/Vagreement are eating. 4. It causes fights because there are no chairs to sitsS/VAgreement Sentence Construction Besides the above errors, participants also have problems in forming simple or complex sentences. A complete sentence should start with a subject and should be followed by a verb and an object or complete sentences. However, the participants demonstrate missing/wrong object, missing subject, and missing verb in their essays. 1. Secondly, the dirties on the kitchen area. The school workers doesn't care weather the flies on the food that is going to affect the students Vague Correct sentence: Secondly, the kitchen area is very dirty and can affect the students health but the workers dont care about the cleanliness. 2. The dirty plates are and we have no appetite to eat consequently. Many feel themselves the students always feel sick. Vague Correct sentence: The plates are dirty and consequently, we do not have the appetite to eat. As a result, many students fall sick. 3. Since the workers are not washing and sweeping properly the floor everyday the workers the dust and dirts will fly around and stick in the food that the student will eat. Vague Correct sentence: Since the workers are not washing and sweeping the floor properly everyday, the dust and dirt fly around everywhere and stick onto the food that the student eats.

7. Conclusion
The results of the study show that errors that participants committed were basically grammatical. The participants also had a relatively weak vocabulary and their sentences were sometimes incomprehensible. They committed errors in applying sentence structure rules in the English language. Hence, we can conclude that these participants have problems in acquiring normal grammatical rules in English. This study has shed light on the manner in which students internalize the rules of the TL. It further shows that EA can help the teachers to identify in a systematic manner the specific and common language problems students have, so that they can focus more attention on these types of errors. Such an insight into language learning problems is useful to teachers because it provides information on common trouble-spots in language learning which can be used in the preparation of effective teaching materials. Also, by being able to predict errors to a certain extent, teachers can be well-equipped to help students minimize or overcome their learning problems.

493

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009)

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum. 38(4), 20-24. Asmah Haji Omar. (1982). Language and society in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Azimah, H. 2005. Analysis of errors in in compositon of form one secondary school in Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished Masters thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Bartholomae, D. (1980). Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253269. Brown, D. B. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Third edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers Limited. Candling, R. B. (2001). Vocabulary and language teaching. New York: Longman Inc. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161-169. David, M. K. and Naji, I. (2000). Do minorities have to abandon their languages? A case study of the Malaysian Tamils. The International Scope Review, 2(3), 1-15. David, M. K. and Nambiar, M. (2001). Exogamous marriages and out-migration: language shift of the Malyalees in Malaysia. In M. K. David (ed.). Methodological issues in language maintenance and language shift studies. pp: 136-145. Berlin: Peter Lang. Educational Statistics (2007). Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Ellis, R. (1996). Second language acquisition research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Government of Malaysia (1976). Third Malaysia Plan 1976-1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. James, C. (1988). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Khan, P. 2005. Analysis of errors in a secondary school in Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Lim Ho Peng. (1976). An error analysis of English composition written by Malaysian speaking high school students. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of California Los Angeles. Mitchell, R. and Myles, M. (2004). Second language learning theories. New York: Hodder Arnold. Nemser, W. (1974). Approximate systems of foreign language learners. In Richards, J. (Ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. pp: 55-63. Essex: Longman. Nik Safiah Karim. (1978). BM syntax: some aspects of its standardization. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Olasehinde, M. O. (2002). Error analysis and remedial pedagogy. In Babatunde S. T. and D. S. Adeyanju (eds.). Language, meaning and society. Ilorin: Itaytee Press and Publishing Co., Nigeria. Santhiram, R. (1999). Education of minorities: The case of Indians child in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231. Sercombe, P. G. (2000). Learner language and the consideration of idiosyncracies by students of English as a second or foreign language in the context of Brunei Darulsalam. In A.M. Noor et al. (eds.) Strategising teaching and learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 494

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

[22] [23] [24]

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 8, Number 3 (2009) International Conference on Teaching and Learning. Faculty of Education: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Solomon, J. (1988). Bilingual education. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk. Stark, L. (2001). Analyzing the interlanguage of ASL natives. Newark: University of Delaware. Vahdatinejad, S. (2008). Students error analysis and attitude towards teacher feedback using a selected software: a case study. Unpublished Masters thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Weireesh, S. (1991). How to analyze interlanguage. Journal of Psychology & Education. 9: 113-22.

[25] [26] [27]

[28]

495