RANILO G.

HONA
MAEd - English

Author: Peter John Loyola Mendoza

Title: Analysis of in-class Writing Errors of College Freshman Students

Philippine ESL Journal, Volume 17, July 2016

The study is all about the common errors of college freshman students

classified as interlingual and intralingual errors with 40 participants. In this is particular

paper, codes and types of errors were applied to categorized the errors. As findings, the

common errors are: Morphology (13), Verb Tense (27), Erroneous Complementation of

Preposition (13), Single Lexical Items (20), Missing Word (53), Register (9) and

incomplete (14). This paper appears to be theoretically sound since it used different

information and citations from different linguist and authors of language researches. The

quoted information/statements presented support the reliability of the findings this

research has. The author made use of the comparison between Error Analysis (EA) and

Contrastive Analysis (CA) to solidify the effectiveness of using the Error Analysis as

means of interpreting the presented data from the respondents. The author emphasized

the use of Error Analysis which explores the contrast between interlanguage and the

target language. The use of an analysis of the most frequent patterns in the use of L2

will identify a systematic/orderly list of problems that needs to be addressed. As we aim

to have the students learn the second language in a holistic approach, error analysis

can be of a great help to identify the common errors made by the students and create

possible learning opportunities to address these errors. It’s actually a great approach to
use this method since the focus of this paper is in the writing skill which much mental

process is required to perform or complete a task. In addition, Classifying errors

specifically in writing will aid instruction and learning of an L2 in order to pinpoint not

only the gravity of frequency of the errors made, but also the ways to deal with and

repair them to come up with efficient language focus lessons, develop effective

interventions and possibly syllabi updating or revision.

The paper’s focus is on written compositions of L2 learners to identify their

common errors committed, and the source of these errors as tool for instructional

materials (syllabi, module, etc. ) improvement, development, or arrive with a common

identification/classification of the current schema of incoming first year college students

for remediation.

As for the hypotheses, the author cited statements of Corder 1967 that a

learner’s errors are significant in that they provide an evidence of how language is

learned or acquired, what strategies the learner employs in the discovery of the

language. True enough since writing is the manifestation/ application of what the learner

have learned and errors are definitely the reflection of the glitches that happened in the

teaching – learning stage/process.

The researcher also made a right choice for not including the demographic profile

specifically the social status and gender since it was revealed that there is no existing

significant relationship between the persistent written language errors of the

respondents and their profile variables. Though some may question the authenticity of

the data interpreted since the source is not available, still it is good to hide the identity of
the respondents for their privacy since their errors are the subject for scrutiny.The study

also used the paradigm of Input-Process-Output. This method is somewhat like effective

in presenting the problems/errors as it is based from the collection of data up to the

recommendation.

As per the method, the researcher used the explanatory mixed method. Since

this research focuses on the language, there is really a need for the combination of a

qualitative and quantitative approach in research. The combination of the two puts the

data in full scrutiny, as a result, it will arrive at the comprehensive answers to the

questions raised in this study. The qualitative approach was used to quantify and

classify errors according to source and the quantitative one was used to identify and

stress the validity of multiple meaning structures and holistic content analysis. There is

a need for a reconciliation of the results between the two approach to come with a

unified interpretation and that was actually done by the researcher. It is also necessary

to use the “codes and types of errors” by Dagneaux et. Al. (1996) as it covers both the

global and specific errors. The reference material for this research is also appropriate as

it also covers the concrete linguistic areas where errors can occur so the manner of

identification as to what type of linguistic error it can be is easily identified. The

utilization of the this instrument is very essential since this is widely accepted and

utilized for Error Analysis researches. The steps done were also great since L2 learners

were asked to revise and self-correct their writings through teachers cues thus

delimiting the probable shallow errors that might appear and at the same time, noting

the genuine errors that they might manifest in their writings. Alongside with detecting
errors, these steps will also give them the error-feedback and error correction that will

give an avenue for improvement when it comes to their writing skill.

The treatment of data is very crucial in every study as it is the heart of every

research and this is evident in this paper. It used the explanatory research method, a

combination of both qualitative and quantitative approach in research. As for the results,

the researcher presented it in a manner which it can be easily understood. In a figure

format, readers can easily identify the general errors with most frequency of occurrence.

Even if the teacher’s cues for self-correcting or revisions have been instructed, it is

noticeable that there were still general errors appeared. These errors fall under form-

morphology, grammar-verb tense, lexico grammar-erroneous complementation of

prepositions, lexis-lexical single, word missing, register, and style-incomplete. The

paper also presented the frequency of intralingual and interlingual interference/ errors

from the analysed data.

Based on the analysed data of the study, 6 out 7 error types are highly

intralingual in nature meaning, it’s the nature of Filipino learners of English Language to

commit mistakes in grammar or usage. The intralingual interference has a frequency

percentage of 95 or 29.87% rule as major cause of errors in the college freshman.

However, interlanguage interferences surface from time to time and it is imperative that

the pedagogues should still recognize the influence brought by it in the teaching of

English. That is why, we should always take into account the L1 as it is completely

different from the L2. In addition, 41.67 of the errors caused by missing word is

attributed to interlingual interference.

native language having very few and sometimes are polysemic word equivalents to

represent English Prepositions. Prepositions post to be trivial to the Filipino learners and

this can be attributed to their mother tongue’s limited if not collective set of morpheme to

associate location, direction, purpose and intention. Furthermore, these errors stem

from lack of vocabulary, overgeneralization/application, ignorance of the rules and even

over application of rules. Also, the research emphasized that even if it may have not

dominated yet it could be never be taken for granted that one’s intralingual interference

affect the production, understanding and performance of the English language learner.

Thus placing the importance on recognizing the L1 all the more such that a sentence’s

complete thought is dependent on how it is constructed in the mental view of the learner

and therefore an integral part of learning English Language.

Even if the paper only represents a particular school in the country, still the study

gives us an overview of what are the common writing errors of a typical Filipino learner

of the second language and how L1 affects the acquisition of the L2. As stated, English

language is indeed a very complex language to master but the results of the study tells

us that it is still the mastery of the rules of the language to be learned that requires

enhancement that should therefore be the focus in teaching English as a second

language. This research is very useful especially to English teachers as it views the

linguistic areas that need focus and emphasis.