A Contrastive Analysis of Lexical Errors in English Essays: A Case
Study of Indonesian EFL Learners”
Annisa filry Chaniago¹, Nusaindah Nurul Amin², Mhd. Rifa’i Nasution³, Sally Dyah Kusuma
Dewi⁴
State Islamic University of North Sumatera
*Corresponding Author
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study delves into the challenges of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning in
Indonesia, specifically examining lexical issues in essays by Indonesian EFL learners. English’s
significant role in the country’s education system is hindered by insufficient writing practice,
leading to brevity, reduced cohesion, and frequent errors. Departing from viewing errors as
obstacles, this research positions them as valuable guides for learners and educators. Drawing on
Error Analysis (EA) in second language acquisition, the study explores linguistic ignorance and
common language learning difficulties, emphasizing the inevitability of errors as crucial learning
components. Using a qualitative approach, the study analyzes 10 essays from 5 Indonesian
undergraduate students, focusing on categorizing lexical errors, including subject-verb
agreement, verb tense, word order, prepositions, articles, auxiliaries, spelling, pronouns, passive
voice, and run-on sentences. The findings reveal that subject-verb agreement is the most
prevalent grammatical error (28.25%), followed by verb tense and form errors (24.66%), and
spelling errors (17.94%), highlighting ongoing challenges for intermediate and higher-level EFL
learners in mastering basic grammar rules. Comparisons with previous studies affirm persistent
challenges, particularly in morpho-syntactic aspects of Indonesian EFL compositions. The study
underscores the need for targeted language instruction and curriculum development to enhance
language proficiency, especially in essay writing. By understanding and addressing specific
challenges, educators can tailor strategies to improve language proficiency. This research
contributes to the discourse on EFL writing proficiency within the Indonesian context, offering
valuable insights for educators and suggesting avenues for further research to develop effective
approaches for error reduction and skill enhancement.
Keywords: Grammatical errors, English essays, EFL Learners, Subject-verb agreement, Error
analysis, Spelling, Writing Skills, Verb Tense
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini menyelami tantangan pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris sebagai Bahasa Asing (BIPA) di
Indonesia, dengan fokus khusus pada isu-isu leksikal dalam esai yang ditulis oleh pembelajar
BIPA Indonesia. Peran signifikan Bahasa Inggris dalam sistem pendidikan negara ini terhambat
oleh kurangnya latihan menulis, yang mengakibatkan singkatnya tulisan, kurangnya koherensi,
dan seringnya terdapat kesalahan. Melangkah jauh dari pandangan bahwa kesalahan adalah
rintangan, penelitian ini menempatkannya sebagai panduan berharga bagi pembelajar dan
pendidik. Mengambil dasar dari Analisis Kesalahan (EA) dalam pemerolehan bahasa kedua,
penelitian ini menjelajahi ketidaktahuan linguistik dan kesulitan umum dalam pembelajaran
bahasa, dengan menekankan ketidakdapatan menghindari kesalahan sebagai komponen
pembelajaran yang krusial. Dengan pendekatan kualitatif, penelitian ini menganalisis 10 esai dari
5 mahasiswa S1 Indonesia, berfokus pada kategorisasi kesalahan leksikal, termasuk kesalahan
kesepakatan subyek-predikat, bentuk dan waktu kata kerja, urutan kata, preposisi, artikel, kata
kerja bantu, ejaan, kata ganti, suara pasif, dan kalimat berjalan. Temuan penelitian
mengungkapkan bahwa kesalahan kesepakatan subyek-predikat adalah kesalahan tata bahasa
yang paling umum (28,25%), diikuti oleh kesalahan bentuk dan waktu kata kerja (24,66%), dan
kesalahan ejaan (17,94%), menyoroti tantangan berkelanjutan bagi pembelajar BIPA tingkat
menengah dan tinggi dalam menguasai aturan dasar tata bahasa. Perbandingan dengan penelitian
sebelumnya mengkonfirmasi tantangan yang persisten, terutama dalam aspek morfo-sintaktik
dari komposisi BIPA Indonesia. Penelitian ini menekankan perlunya pengajaran bahasa yang
ditargetkan dan pengembangan kurikulum untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbahasa, terutama
dalam menulis esai. Dengan memahami dan mengatasi tantangan spesifik ini, pendidik dapat
menyusun strategi untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbahasa. Penelitian ini memberikan
kontribusi pada diskursus tentang kemampuan menulis BIPA, menawarkan wawasan berharga
bagi pendidik, dan menunjukkan arah bagi penelitian lebih lanjut untuk mengembangkan
pendekatan efektif dalam mengurangi kesalahan dan meningkatkan kemampuan berbahasa.
Kata Kunci: Kesalahan Tata Bahasa, Esai Bahasa Inggris, Pembelajar BIPA, Kesepakatan
Subyek-Predikat, Analisis Kesalahan, Ejaan, Keterampilan Menulis, Waktu Kata Kerja
INTRODUCTION
Navigating the terrain of English as a foreign Language (EFL) learning unveils a complex
journey marked by linguistic intricacies and multifaceted challenges. In this exploration, our
study delves into the lexical domain of English essays authored by Indonesian EFL learners,
aiming to unravel the nuances of lexical errors and shed light on the distinctive challenges these
learners face in conveying their ideas effectively in written English.
To contextualize our investigation, we must first understand the educational landscape in
Indonesia. English holds a significant place in the country’s education system, yet learners
grapple with challenges. The lack of dedicated writing practice exacerbates these challenges, as
noted by scholars like Hyland (2003) and Ferris (2002), who observe brevity, reduced cohesion,
and a propensity for errors in EFL writing contexts worldwide.
Sawalheh (2013) introduces a paradigm shift by considering errors not merely as obstacles
but as guiding beacons. Errors, in this perspective, serve as diagnostic tools for both learners and
educators. They provide insights for teachers to correct errors, enhance teaching methodologies,
and reinforce areas needing attention (Al-haysoni, 2012). Langan (2010) emphasizes the
necessity for clear and systematic academic writing, a sentiment echoed by Hogue (2008). Both
stress the skills demanded by academic writing extend beyond arranging words; they require a
refined set of competencies.
Writing proves to be a challenging skill (Hayes, 1996; Kellog, 1996; Alsamadani, 2010),
transcending the mere arrangement of words. Grammar, highlighted by Ridha and al-Riyahi
(2011), plays a pivotal role, and McCarthy (1990) posits that without lexical acumen, meaningful
communication may falter. Cameron (1994) underscores the foundational role of words in
language acquisition. Within Indonesia’s linguistic landscape, marked by diverse languages and
cultural influences, EFL learners face a myriad of challenges. Llach (2005) and Ander & Yildirim
(2010) observe a notable trend: the prevalence of errors in lexical formation. The scarcity of
English dictionaries compounds these challenges, positioning lexical errors at the forefront of
linguistic hurdles faced by Indonesian EFL learners.
In light of this intricate backdrop, our research embarks on a contrastive analysis of lexical
errors in English essays written by Indonesian EFL learners. Through a detailed case study, we
aim to unravel the intricate nuances of lexical challenges confronted by these learners. Cultural
influences promise to shape our inquiry, offering a nuanced understanding of the lexical hurdles
encountered by Indonesian EFL learners in written expression.
Subsequent sections of this research will delve into the methodological underpinnings,
findings, and implications. We seek to contribute substantively to the discourse on EFL writing
proficiency and the intricate landscape of lexical challenges within the Indonesian context. As we
navigate this academic terrain, our aim is to enrich the broader understanding of the linguistic
intricacies and challenges faced by Indonesian EFL learners in the realm of written expression.
LITERATURE RIVIEW
Error analysis is one of the most influential theories in second language acquisition. This
involves analyzing the errors made by L2 learners by comparing the learners' acquired norms
with the norms of the target language and explaining the errors identified (James, 1988).For
Crystal (1999, p.108), the analysis of errors in teaching and language is the study of the
unacceptable forms produced by a learner of a language, especially foreign languages.
According to James (2001, p.62), EA refers to "the study of linguistic ignorance,
investigating what people don't know and how they try to cope with their ignorance." Brown
(2000, p.224) believes that there are two main causes of errors, which are inter-linguistic errors
and intra-linguistic errors. Interlingual errors (interference) are errors that can be attributed to
interference in the native language.These errors are due to negative interlanguage carryover. The
term “interlingualism” was first introduced by Selinker (1972).He uses this term to refer to
systematic knowledge of the L2 independent of both the learner's L1 and the target language
(AbiSamra, 2003, p.5) According to Kavaliauskiene (2009, p.4), transfer errors can occur
because the learner does not have the necessary information in the second language or the
attentional capacity necessary to activate appropriate habits in the second language.
Olasehinde (2002) also believes that it is inevitable that learners make mistakes. He also
believes that mistakes are inevitable and a necessary part of the learning process.Sercombe
(2000) explains that EA serves three purposes. First, know the level of language proficiency the
learner has achieved.Second, to obtain information about common difficulties in language
learning and third to learn how people learn languages.
AbiSamra (2003), in his article entitled "An analysis of errors in Arabic speakers’ English
writing", collected samples of written work from 10 students in grade 9. He classified the writing
errors into five categories, namely, grammatical (prepositions, articles, adjectives, etc.); syntactic
(coordination, sentence structure, word order, etc.); lexical (word choice); semantic and
substance (punctuation, capitalization, and spelling); and discourse errors. The results revealed
that one third of the students’ errors were transfer errors from the native language, and the
highest numbers of errors were in the categories of semantics and vocabulary. The rest of the
errors (64.1%) were errors of over-application of the target language, the highest numbers of
errors being found in substance (mainly spelling), syntax and grammar.
In addition, Ridha (2012) examined English writing samples of 80 EFL college students and
then categorized the errors according to the following taxonomy: grammatical, lexical/ semantic,
mechanics, and word order types of errors. The results showed that most of the students' errors
can be due to L1 transfer. Furthermore, she found that most of the learners rely on their mother
tongue in expressing their ideas. She added that although the rating processes showed that the
participants' essays included different types of errors, the grammatical errors and the mechanical
errors were the most serious and frequent ones.
METHODOLOGY
This research used qualitative research, because data collection, processing, and result
interpretation can all be significantly impacted by qualitative research (Pathak, V., Jena, B., &
Kalra, S. 2013). Qualitative research must to be well planned, with the objectives and methods of
the study being carefully considered. Research bias should be eliminated through predetermined
approaches in studies. This method will related to this research to knowing how to analysis of
lexical errors in English essays.
A total of 10 essays were collected from 5 Indonesian undergraduate students for analysis.
The essays were analyzed to identify various types of lexical errors, such as incorrect selection of
lexical items, influence of the learners' native language, limited exposure to authentic English
language contexts, morpho-syntactic errors, incomplete sentences, intralingual errors, and
interference from other languages. The identified errors were classified according to linguistic
categories, such as grammatical, lexical, phonological, and semantic errors. The causes of the
errors were examined, including intralingual sources, interference from other languages, and
developmental errors. The errors made by the learners were compared with the errors made by
native English speakers to identify the unique errors made by the Indonesian learners. Based on
the analysis, strategies were developed to reduce the frequency of lexical errors in English
essays, such as targeted instructional strategies, increased exposure to authentic English language
contexts, and ongoing research to develop effective approaches for reducing lexical errors and
enhancing the overall English language proficiency of Indonesian EFL learners.
The process of analysis commenced with the identification of errors through the highlight of
words that were classified as lexical errors by James (1998). Following that, lexical errors
discovered in the students' descriptive compositions were categorized using James (1998)'s
lexical errors classification scheme and added to a lexical errors sheet. The frequency and
occurrence of lexical errors are calculated to determine which lexical error appeared most
frequently in the students' descriptive essays. Subsequently, the writer presents a debate
regarding the most common lexical faults that the students made in their descriptive writings in
an effort to determine the potential cause of the problems.
The technique of data analysis that used by researcher is the analysis by Bogdan and Biklen
(1982). According to Bogdan and Biklen said that data analysis is a process of searching and
organizing systematically the data obtained from interviews, field notes, and other materials, so
that it can be understood and the findings can be informed to others.
FINDING
The data description for this research study presents the findings of an analysis of
grammatical errors found in student essays written in English. Ten grammatical errors were
identified, and they are as follows:
1. Form and Tense of Verbs
Of the 223 errors on this phrase, 56 were found to be incorrect. This quantity is thought to be
a highly noteworthy outcome. There are several examples of respondents’ errors they are as
follows:
Table 1. finding in error of verb tense and form
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
I hope my first day in the university was good I hoped my first day in university was good
....i don’t care because there was not.... ....i don’t care because there is....
..i was a bit annoyed if my parents always ask.. ..i was a bit annoyed if my parents always
asked..
Based on the aforementioned erroneous instances, it can be concluded that the mistake is in
the formation of the verb tense; the simple present tense and simple past tense are not equivalent.
2. Subject-Verb Agreement
62 mistakes are present in the subject-verb agreement. This finding indicates that the most
common errors made by the respondents were related to the subject-verb agreement. For further
description it can be seen by the examples in the following table:
Table 2. finding in Error of Subject-Verb Agreement
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
She know.... She knows....
Everyone have favorite food Everyone has favorite food
My husband always love me My husband always loves me
The aforementioned mistake examples highlight the imbalance in subject and verb placement.
When singular subjects are placed after singular verbs, proper verbs are not used correctly toward
the subjects. If not, plural verbs must come after plural subjects.
3. Word Order
There are eighteen mistakes on the word order items. Put otherwise, the mid-level word order
errors. The following table provides several instances of word order errors: Table 3. finding in
Error of Word Order
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
If you like meal whatever it If you like meal whatever it is
You must know how to you reserve... You must know how to reserve...
My mother is the most stronger... My mother is the most strongest...
The table describes lacking of using word order properly can be the reason why the errors
occur.
4. Prepositions
There were just four mistakes on prepositions. It indicates that there are less substantial
prepositional errors. The following table displays those errors:
Table 4. finding in Error of Prepositions
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
Many people sales in street... Many people sales on street....
My husband learn me for like sweet food. My husband teaches me to like sweet food.
I don’t have and idol in television.... I don’t have an idol on television....
The table that describes that the prepositions are placed on incorrect position towards object
of prepositions.
5. Articles
There are eight mistakes in the articles that were detected. That number indicates that the
errors were not as serious as they may have been. A number of instances of inaccuracies on
articles are displayed in the following table:
Table 5. finding in Error of Articles
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
Add a egg.... Add an egg.....
....i can be good girl .... ....I can be a good girl....
....as a employee.... ....as an employee....
Unsuitable articles are positioned on the nouns that come after the articles, as seen in the table
above. For example, the article "an" should come after nouns with a vowel sound, whereas the
article "a" should come after a consonant sound.
6. Auxiliries
There were 22 mistakes related to auxiliary. This quantity indicates that there are reasonable
errors when utilizing auxiliaries. The following table shows instances of incorrect use of
auxiliaries:
Table 6. finding in Error of Auxiliaries
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
We can takes.... Add an egg.....
....you can’t handled .... ....you can’t handle....
....you must choice.... ....you must choose....
There is inconsistency in the table description regarding the order of auxiliaries following
modal and negative modal. Verb one or the bare verb, whether in positive or negative form,
should come after modals.
7. Spelling
The total number of spelling mistakes is forty. This quantity demonstrates how important
spelling mistakes are. The table below shows several instances of spelling mistakes: Table 7.
finding in Error of Spelling
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
.... konsumsion noodle.... .... consumption noodle
....a new atmosfer .... ....a new atmosphere....
....pure love, loyality, sucrifice, and many more ....pure love, loyality, sacrifice, and many more
The table presents taht the errors of spelling are on the incorrect written form.
8. Pronoun
One inaccuracy occurs in the amount of Pronoun. There are fewer or less noteworthy errors
in this quantity. Here are some instances of pronoun mistakes:
Table 8. finding in Error of Pronoun
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
....she always....of his children ....she always....of her children
According to the table, pronoun errors happen when the main subject is inconsistent.
Approaching a related pronoun that alludes to the primary topic.
9. Passive Voice
There are eleven mistakes in the passive voice. This amount indicates a less consequential
inaccuracy. The following table contains the examples:
Table 9. finding in Error of Passive Voice
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
Indian Paneer Kare can be eat.... Indian Paneer Kari can be eaten ....
The fermenteated paneer also must be cook.. The fermenteated paneer also must be cooked..
It s clearly mention in the qur’an.... It s clearly mentioned in the qur’an....
The table of error on passive voice describe that the incorrect form of verb that should be
followed after “To be” that it is supposed to be on past participle verb form. In fact, the errors
occur on using verb one.
10. Run-On Sentence
On run-on sentence the error is one error. It means that the amount of the error is less or not
significant error. The example of error can be seen on the following table: Table 10. finding in
Error of Run-One entence
Error Construsction Suggested Correction
....i feel....,her teach...., sometimes..., he ....i feel....; he teaches....; sometimes..., he
always.... always....
According to the table, the reason why run-on sentences are incorrect is because they contain
multiple independent clauses that cannot be joined into a single phrase without the use of
conjunctions or semicolons. Following the description of the quantity of each type of
grammatical error, the researchers used the following formula to determine the amount of data in
percentage value:
Table 11. percentages of Errors
NO THE TYPES OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS PERCENTAGE
1 Verb Tense and Form 24,66%
2 Subject-Verb Agreement 28,25%
3 Word Order 8,07%
4 Prepositions 1,79%
5 Article 3,59%
6 Auxiliaries 9,87%
7 Spellings 17,94%
8 Pronoun 0,45%
9 Passive Voice 4,93%
10 Run-on Sentence 0,45%
The above table shows the percentage number that results from grammatical errors. Based on
the data presented in the table and graphic, it can be concluded that the subject-verb agreement
error is the most common grammar problem, with a score of 25, which indicates how frequently
it occurs. Verb tense and form errors rank second in terms of frequency, with a score of 24, 66%.
The figure for spelling errors in the third category is 17, 94%. The fourth, with a score of 9, 87%,
is an error made when using auxiliaries. With a score of 8, 07%, the fifth fault is a word order
error. The sixth fault, which has a score of 4, 93%, is the application of passive voice. Articles
rank third in frequency of grammatical errors with a score of 3, 59%. Prepositional use ranks as
the eighth most common grammatical error, accounting for 1, 79% of cases. Finally, pronouns
and run-on sentences have the lowest frequency of grammatical errors, scoring a combined 0
45%. In summary, pronouns and run-on sentences have the lowest frequency of grammatical
errors, scoring 0 45%, and subject verb agreement has the highest frequency, scoring 25, 25%.
Based on the research findings, it was identified that the most common grammatical errors in
English essays written by intermediate and higher EFL learners were related to subject-verb
agreement, verb tense and form, and spelling. The analysis revealed that subject-verb agreement
errors scored the highest at 28.25%, followed by verb tense and form errors at 24.66%, adn
spelling errors at 17.94%. this indicates that students at these levels still struggle with basic
grammar rules in their writing, highlighting the ongoing challenge of mastering English grammar
for EFL learners. These findings are consistent with previous research on grammatical errors in
Enlish writing. Further reserach is recommended to address these issues and improve the writing
skills of EFL learners.
DISCUSSION
Based on the search results, there are several studies that have explored lexical errors in the
English compositions of Indonesian EFL learners. One study analyzed the morpho-syntactic
errors in the English compositions of Indonesian EFL learners (Andre, R 2014). This research is
a descriptive qualitative study that scrutinizes the morpho-syntactic errors in the writings of
Indonesian EFL learners and aims to identify the sources of these errors (Arrum, R. S., &
Djatmika, F. X. 2022). The study found that the most frequent lexical error was the 'suffix type,'
accounting for 81 errors (26.73% of the total number of errors. (Andre, R 2014). Other common
lexical errors included 'calque' (58 errors, or 19.14% of the total number of errors) and 'wrong
near synonym' (37 errors, or 12.21% of the total number of errors). These findings highlight the
importance of understanding and addressing morpho-syntactic errors in the English compositions
of Indonesian EFL learners to improve their overall language proficiency.
The search results provide insights into the lexical errors in the English compositions of
Indonesian EFL learners. One study, titled "An Analysis of Lexical Errors in the English
Compositions of Indonesian EFL Learners," identified the most frequent lexical errors, with the
'suffix type' being the most common, followed by 'calque' and 'wrong near synonym'. Another
study, "Exploring Lexical Errors of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Recount Texts," focused
on examining the lexical errors in writing recount texts by EFL students. Additionally, a study
titled "Lexical and grammatical errors analysis on Indonesian-English translation of EFL students
in Indonesia" aimed to identify lexical and grammatical errors in Indonesian to English
translation texts made by Indonesian EFL students. These studies collectively indicate that lexical
errors are a prevalent issue among Indonesian EFL learners, highlighting the need for further
research to develop effective strategies for error reduction.
Another study explored the lexical errors made by EFL students in writing recount texts. The
analysis of lexical errors in recount texts by Indonesian EFL learners has been the focus of
several studies. For instance, a study titled "An Analysis of Lexical Error in Writing Recount
Text at Eighth Grade of MTs Aisyiyah Medan" identified various types of lexical errors,
including borrowing, coinage, calque, misspelling, misselection, and semantic confusion (Selvia,
D 2020). Another study aimed to examine the lexical errors in writing recount texts by EFL
students, using a descriptive qualitative method involving 31 students (Fakhruddin, Zulfikri &
Mustofa 2023). The findings of these studies shed light on the specific lexical challenges faced
by Indonesian EFL learners in recount text writing, providing valuable insights for language
instruction and curriculum development and also these studies suggest that lexical errors are a
common issue among Indonesian EFL learners, and more research is needed to identify effective
strategies for reducing these errors.
The importance of this research is to identify specific challenges faced by these learners,
thereby informing targeted language instruction and curriculum development. The studies shed
light on the types and sources of lexical errors, such as morpho-syntactic errors, incomplete
sentences, and misselection, providing valuable insights for educators and curriculum designers.
By understanding the nature of these errors, educators can tailor their teaching approaches to
effectively address the identified challenges, ultimately enhancing the language proficiency of
Indonesian EFL learners in the context of English essay writing.
Conclusion
This study enriches the discussion on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing
proficiency, shedding light on the intricate terrain of lexical challenges within the Indonesian
educational context. Delving into the nuances of these challenges, the research aims to facilitate a
deeper understanding for both learners and educators. Recognizing and addressing these specific
challenges enables educators to customize strategies that enhance language proficiency,
especially in the domain of essay writing. The findings highlight the need for further research to
craft effective approaches for minimizing errors and elevating overall language skills. This
continuous exploration is crucial for refining language instruction methods, contributing to the
ongoing improvement of EFL learning experiences in Indonesia.
REFERENCE
Langan, John. 2010. Exploring Writing Sentences and Paragraphs Second Edition. New York:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Hogue, Ann. 2008. First Steps in Academic Writing Second Edition. New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
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 Phuket, P. R. N, Othman, NB. O. (2015). Understanding EFL Students’
Errors in Writing. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.6, No.32.
Alhaisoni, M. (2012). An Analysis of Article Errors among Saudi Female EFL Students: A Case
Study, Asian Social Science- Canadian Center of Science and Education, 8(12), 55- 66.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M.
Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual
differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Alsamadani, H. A. (2010). The Relationship between Saudi EFL
Students’ Writing Competence, L1 Writing Proficiency, and Self-regulation. European Journal of
Social Sciences, 16, 53-63.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. New York: Oxford.
Llach, A. P. (2005). The Relationship of Lexical Error and Their Types to The Quality of ESL
Compositions: An Empirical Study. Porta Linguarum, 3(1), 45-57.
Cameron, L. (1994). Organizing The Word: Children’s Concept and Categories, and Implications
for The Teaching of English. English Language Teaching Journal, 48(1), 28-
39.
Crystal, D. (1999). The penguin dictionary of language (2nd ed.). Penguin.
Brown, H.(2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
James, C. (1988). Errors in language learning use: Exploring error analysis. Harlow, Essex:
Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
James, C. (2001).Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 10(3), 209-231.
Kavaliauskiene, Galina (2009). Role of the Mother Tongue in Learning English for Specific
Purposes. ESP World, Issue 1(22),Vol.8.
[Online]Available:http://www.espworld.info/Articles.
Olasehinde, M. O. (2002).Error analysis and remedial pedagogy. In Babatunde S. T. and D.
AbiSamra, N. (2003).An analysis of errors in Arabic speakers’ English writing. In Mourtaga, K.
(Ed.),Investigating writing problems among Palestinian students studying English as a
foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Sercombe, P. (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
International Conference on Teaching and Learning. Faculty of Education:
UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
Ridha, N. (2012). The Effect of EFL Learners' Mother Tongue on their Writings in English: An
Error Analysis Study.Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah,60,22-45.
Andre, R. (2014). An Analysis of Lexical Errors in the English Compositions of Indonesian EFL
Learners. In The Second Undergraduate Conference on ELT, Linguistics, and Literature
2014 (p. 81).
Arrum, R. S., & Djatmika, F. X. (2022). Optimizing A Cooperative Teaching-Learning Of
Students Team Achievement Division On English Mastery Of Javanese Native Children.
Journal of Positive School Psychology, 668-677.
Selvia, D. (2020). An Analysis Of Lexical Error In Writing Recount Text At Eighth Grade Of MTs
Aisyiyah Medan (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara).
Fakhrudin, M. H., Dzulfikri, D., & Mustofa, M. (2023). Exploring Lexical Errors of Indonesian
EFL Students in Writing Recount Texts. Journal of English Language Teaching and
Linguistics, 8(1), 13-22.
