An Analysis of Writers’ Errors in Producing Descriptive Texts; Intercultural Studies

Authors

  • Ebidel Erickson University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i3.5389

Keywords:

Errors Analysis, Writing Skills, Descriptive Texts, Intercultural Comptence

Abstract

In EFL context, errors analysis is done to illuminate the comprehension to improve learners’ writing processes and products. In grammatical construction, language grammars or structures must reflect the flexibility and conventionality of language usage and language users’ knowledge. This study aimed at identifying errors made by international learners at English studies programs in producing descriptive texts. This study was working in qualitative ways. 13 international learners who took master study of English studies are involved in this study. The sample was taken using purposive random sampling. The gender consisted of 7 females and 6 males. The level of English proficiencies is considered as the same level because the sample was bestowed Indonesian, Brazilian, Malaysian, and South Africa scholarship, in which the international English language testing system was achieved the passing grade. To gain the data, the researcher employed writing tests with asking the sample to describe their home town and families. The data are analyzed using qualitative works, i.e., data condensation, data display, and conclusion. Based on the data analysis, international learners still do some errors in producing descriptive texts. The errors covered omission, addition, selection or mis-formation, and mis-ordering. The errors are caused by misconception and misinterpretation of English. They try to transfer their language knowledge from their native language to their national language, then into target language (English). They have three transferring processes in mind. It is a strong possibility that makes them do some language errors in producing their writing products. Therefore, this study can be concluded that international learners who learn English in foreign countries still do such kinds of errors in producing their writing products.

Author Biography

Ebidel Erickson, University of Southern Denmark

English Studies, Master Program,University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

References

Asni, S. L., Susanti, S., & Sulistiyo, U. (2018). An Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Writing Recount Text at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 20 Kota Jambi. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 2(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.22437/ijolte.v2i2.5205

Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869

Bice, K., & Kroll, J. F. (2021). Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 58, 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963

Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671

Castilla-Earls, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Auza, A. (2021). Elicited vs. spontaneous language as methods for the assessment of grammatical development: The DEME assessment tool. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 41(4), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2021.02.002

Choi, S., Goller, F., Ansorge, U., Hong, U., & Yun, H. (2022). Lexical expressions and grammatical markers for source of information: A contrast between German and Korean. Language Sciences, 92, 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101475

de Kleine, C., & Lawton, R. (2018). An analysis of grammatical patterns in generation 1.5, L1 and L2 students’ writings: A replication study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.003

di Gennaro, K. (2016). Searching for differences and discovering similarities: Why international and resident second-language learners’ grammatical errors cannot serve as a proxy for placement into writing courses. Assessing Writing, 29, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.05.001

di Gennaro, K. (2013). How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1. 5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 18, 154–171

Doolan, S. M. (2013). Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 30(2), 135–163.

Doolan, S. M. (2014). Comparing language use in the writing of developmental Generation 1.5, L1: and L2 tertiary students. Written Communication, 31, 215–247.

Doolan, S. M., & Miller, D. (2012). Generation 1.5 written error patterns: a comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 1–22

Geluso, J. (2022). Grammatical and functional characteristics of preposition-based phrase frames in English argumentative essays by L1 English and Spanish speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 55, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101072

Grisot, C. (2021). Experimentally assessing the roles of grammatical aspect, lexical aspect and coreference patterns for the inference of temporal relations in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 184, 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.007

Haerazi, H., & Kazemian, M. (2021). Self-Regulated Writing Strategy as a Moderator of Metacognitive Control in Improving Prospective Teachers’ Writing Skills. 1(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.36312/ejolls.v1i1.498

Kazemian, M., Irawan, L. A., & Haerazi, H. (2021). Developing Metacognitive Writing Strategy to Enhance Writing Skills Viewed from Prospective Teachers’ Critical Thinking Skills. Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 1(1), 14.

Lee, S., Lee, J., Noh, H., Lee, K., & Lee, G. G. (2011). Grammatical error simulation for computer-assisted language learning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(6), 868–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2011.03.008

Li, Z., Parnow, K., & Zhao, H. (2022). Incorporating rich syntax information in Grammatical Error Correction. Information Processing & Management, 59(3), 102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102891

Lohmann, A., & Conwell, E. (2020). Phonetic effects of grammatical category: How category-specific prosodic phrasing and lexical frequency impact the duration of nouns and verbs. Journal of Phonetics, 78, 100939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100939

Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004

Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.012

McGrath, D., & Liardét, C. (2022). A corpus-assisted analysis of grammatical metaphors in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 56, 101090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101090

Nagata, R., Iguchi, T., Wakidera, K., Masui, F., & Kawai, A. (2005). Recognizing article errors in the writing of Japanese learners of English. Systems and Computers in Japan, 36(7), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/scj.20153

PajÄ…k, K., & PajÄ…k, D. (2022). Multilingual fine-tuning for Grammatical Error Correction. Expert Systems with Applications, 200, 116948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116948

Rodríguez-Fuentes, R. A., & Swatek, A. M. (2022). Exploring the effect of corpus-informed and conventional homework materials on fostering EFL students’ grammatical construction learning. System, 104, 102676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102676

Sukasame, N., Kantho, S., & Narrot, P. (2014). A Study of Errors in Learning English Grammatical Structures on Tenses of MatthayomSuksa 4 Students of the Demonstration School, KhonKaen University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1934–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.498

Tagarelli, K. M., Shattuck, K. F., Turkeltaub, P. E., & Ullman, M. T. (2019). Language learning in the adult brain: A neuroanatomical meta-analysis of lexical and grammatical learning. NeuroImage, 193, 178–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.061

Thwaite, A., Budgen, F., Hunter, J., & Singh, K. (2021). What is complexity? Grammatical issues in assignment prompts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100998

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171

Xu, J., & Li, C. (2021). The effects of the timing of form-focused instruction on EFL learners’ learning of difficult and easy grammatical features: A comparative study. System, 101, 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102612

Wang, E., Matsumura, L. C., & Correnti, R. (2017). Written Feedback to Support Students’ Higher Level Thinking About Texts in Writing. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1584

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2022-07-25

How to Cite

Erickson, E. (2022). An Analysis of Writers’ Errors in Producing Descriptive Texts; Intercultural Studies. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i3.5389

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 3 (2022)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.