PROBLEM

Philippines is one of the top English-proficient countries in the world where English as a

second language is the primary medium of instruction in most of its higher-education programs.

Despite being recognized as an ideal transnational education hub by the British Council and

receiving a band of high English proficiency level in the 2020 Education First English

Proficiency Index administered to 2.2 million individuals from 100 countries, it is an insufficient

ground to generalize that most Filipinos are highly competent in L2 usage and would rarely

commit problems in expressing proper language, especially, in the aspect of writing. 

In language education, writing may be considered as a difficult language skill where

students can express their thoughts, knowledge, and feelings in a text that can be understood and

read by many people (Talosa & Maguddayao, 2018). In addition, according to White and Arndt

(1991) in Hammad (2013: 1), it is a thinking process that demands intellectual effort and

language for expressing exact meanings. 

As writing is known to be a complex process of expressions, it is actually a more

complicated process for students when they write using English as a second language especially

in an academic context. At this juncture, their writing competence in using the language is

predetermined and judged – whether they produce good English sentences syntactically or not.

For instance, it generally talks about syntax that makes up a valid statement in the language

through proper arrangement or structure of words and phrases in a sentence. In contrary, it

becomes a syntax error if there is any disagreement in using the language which involves

organizing words and phrases that don’t make sense. 

 When the writing competence is at stake, it is inevitable to be measured by means of the

number of errors committed. Perhaps, it can be assumed that the lesser errors committed, the

higher the level of competence is. Nevertheless, such type of error should be clarified according

to where it is categorized and how it will be analyzed. 

With the growing interest in ESL writing and L2 pedagogy, some studies try to identify

types of errors in learners’ various types of writing, such as in sentences, narrative paragraphs,

narrative essays, questionnaires, interviews, and blog posts, and categorize those errors for them

to be accurately corrected (Gedion et.al, 2016; Sermsook, et.al, 2017; Ngangbam, 2016; Hamza;

2012; Putri & Dewanti, 2014; Khansir, 2013; Mabuan, 2015). 

Quoted in the study of Sermsook et.al (2017), James (1998), Nonkokhetkong (2013),

Hinnon (2014), and Rattanadilok Na Phuket and Othman (2015) assert that the analysis of errors

found in learners’ pieces of writing can be very helpful. In fact, some scholars employed Error

Analysis (EA), one of the famous methods in their writing classes to improve students’ writing

performance. 

Error Analysis is described as “a set of procedures for identifying, describing and

explaining learners’ errors” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005: 51) which is conducted by following the

process of collection of a sample of learner language as well as the identification, description,

explanation and evaluation of errors. 

Meanwhile, aside from the types of errors made, other studies attempt to examine the

sources of errors which are found to be effective in reducing the errors and help improve

students’ writing performance (Budiarta et.al, 2018; Ngangbam, 2016; Taher, 2011; Rana et.al,

2019). 
 The ability to write effectively and to be well-competent in the proper and accurate usage

of English as a second language takes time and effort. Perhaps, recognizing and deriving at the

errors and how frequent those errors are made are good attempts to improve students’ ESL

writing which the previous studies mentioned above had undergone. However, most of these

studies focused on various students who were less exposed with L2 usage and writing activities,

while some extracted data from pieces of writing that follows no strict compliance in the

academic requirements. With this in mind, the researchers attempted to examine whether errors

are still dominant in the pieces of writing if the respondents are found to be more exposed in

writing activities with the use of English as a second language and as a medium of instruction. 

Therefore, this study attempts to evaluate the syntactic errors in the literary criticism

essays of third-year English majors at Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology

which will serve as an input for the Language Enhancement Program in the College.

Specifically, it aims to identify the most frequent syntactical errors in the literary criticism essays

of third-year English-majored students; analyze what causes these errors; and evaluate the

writing ability of the students. 

Upon conducting the present study, it shall help promote a deeper understanding of

English-major students as to the importance of grammar knowledge and awareness on their

writing ability, weaknesses, and problems. Moreover, the result of this study will hopefully

provide a general idea among future professors of English majors which grammatical points to

focus on with their teaching of English as a second language. This will also serve as a basis for

language enhancement of students, specifically in the aspect of grammar. Lastly, it may help

encourage language teachers to produce alternative pedagogical plans for writing courses which

can contribute to the writing improvement of English-major students.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to examine the types and causes of syntactic errors found in the literary

criticism essays of Third-year English-major students at Bicol State College of Applied Sciences

and Technology (BISCAST) for the academic year 2020-2021 as the basis for the Language

Enhancement Program. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What types of syntactic errors appeared most frequently in the literary criticism

essays of Third-year English-major students?

2. What are the causes for these syntactic errors?

3. What is the general writing ability of Third-year English-major student?

METHODOLOGY

The QUANTI-QUALI of mixed methods design was used in this study. The quantitative

data dealt with the type of syntactic errors as well as their writing ability and were treated using

descriptive statistics that described the frequency and the percentage of the errors committed by

the students, while the qualitative data were related to the causes of these errors. Before the data

were submitted for further interpretation and analysis, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was

utilized to ensure the data’s inter-rater reliability.

Since the study focused on investigating the problematic areas on syntax committed in

the compositions of the students, the researchers postulated a set of syntactic error categories

divided into sentential and word levels. The errors at the Sentential Level are Verb Tense,

Subject-Verb Agreement, Punctuation and Capitalization. The errors at the Word Level are

Spelling, Conjunction, Preposition and Article.

 To identify and analyze the syntactic errors in the literary criticism essays of the

respondents, the study used three gathering data instruments: (1) the students’ output in writing a

formalist criticism of the poem “The Mother” by Gwendolyn Brooks served as the source of data;

(2) to ensure validity and consistency, error analysis by Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) was utilized

in extracting data from the participants’ output and, (3) the scoring system presented by Jacobs et

al. (1981) to evaluate the total performance of the essays written by the students.

The quantitative data that were gathered in this study through descriptive and error

analysis were tabulated, treated and analyzed by descriptive statistics and mean formula, while

the qualitative data collected with the same data gathering procedures were subjected to thorough

investigation and study.

RUBRIC FOR WRITING ABILITY

(Adapted from Testing ESL Composition by Jacobs et.al, 1981)

Score Level Criteria

Content 30- EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Essay shows evidence of strong skills of analysis,
27 synthesis, and evaluation. Logic is virtually flawless

26- GOOD TO AVERAGE: Essay shows evidence of application of skills of analysis,

22 synthesis, and evaluation. Logic is nearly flawless. 

FAIR TO POOR: Essay shows inconsistent application of skills of analysis,

synthesis, and evaluation. Logic may be flawed. 

21- VERY POOR: Essay shows inconsistent application of skills of analysis, synthesis
17 and evaluation. Logic may be flawed.

16-
13

Organization 20- EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression – ideas clearly stated/ supported
18 – succinct – well-organized – logical sequencing - cohesive

GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy – loosely organized but main ideas

stand out – limited support – logical but incomplete sequencing 
 17- FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent – ideas confused or disconnected – lacks logical
14 sequencing and development

VERY POOR: does not communicate – no organization – OR not enough to

evaluate

13-
10

9-7

Vocabulary 20- EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range - effective word/idiom choice
18 and usage -word form mastery - appropriate register

GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range - occasional errors of word/idiom form,

choice, usage but meaning not obscured

FAIR TO POOR: limited range – frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice

17- usage – meaning confused or obscured 
14
VERY POOR: essentially translation – little knowledge of English vocabulary,
13- idioms, word form – OR not enough to evaluate
10

9-7

Language 25- EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions – few errors of
Use 22 agreement, tense, number, word order/ function, articles, pronouns,
prepositions

GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions – minor problems in

complex constructions – several errors of agreement, tense, number, word
order/ function, articles, pronouns, prepositions, but meaning seldom
21- obscured
18
FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/ complex constructions – frequent
errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/ function, articles,
pronouns, prepositions, and/ or fragments, run-ons, deletions – meaning
confused or obscured

17- VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules – dominated

11 by errors – does not communicate – OR not enough to evaluate
 10-5

Mechanics 5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions – few errors

of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,

paragraphing but meaning obscured
4
FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
3 paragraphing,  meaning confused or obscured

2 VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions – dominated by errors of spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing - OR not enough to evaluate

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Types of Syntactic Errors Most Frequent in the Literary Criticism Essays of Third-Year

English-Major Students

Error Error Error Rank

Categories Frequency Rates
Tenses 122 0.98% 2

SV 32 0.26% 4

Punctuation 223 1.80% 1

Capitalization 15 0.12% 5

Conjunction 14 0.11% 6

Preposition 44 0.36% 3

Table 1. Error Rates

 The above table illustrates the error rates of each error category showing that punctuation

is the most frequent error found in the literary criticism essays of Third-year English-major

students with 1.80% error rate and conjunction as the least with 0.11%.

This can be analyzed that the students are mostly having difficulty in remembering each

English component function and rules of using. The top three most frequent error rates are

Punctuation (1.80%), Tenses (0.98%) and Preposition (0.36%) and this is most commonly about

its correct placement, function and rules. Then, the least three: Subject-Verb agreement (0.26%),

Capitalization (0.12%) and Conjunction (0.11%) which are common errors done by confusion

with the proper identification of proper nouns, collective nouns and lack of skill in editing

coherence. 

Causes of Syntactic Errors

The second problem formulation of the research was about causes of syntactic errors

made by Third year English-major students of Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and

Technology in writing literary criticism essays. From the consolidated outputs, errors were made

due to the students’ failure in separating meaningful sentences, limited knowledge of English

grammar and vocabulary, as well as the interference of their interlingual and intralingual errors.

The following are some examples taken from the data.

1. Failure in Separating Meaningful Sentence 

One of the common causes of errors found in the written outputs of the Third-year English

majors was due to failure in dividing or connecting meaningful portions of sentences. Missing or
misused punctuation marks were often noticed in the students’ outputs which led to

unnecessarily long and complex sentences that are quite hard to understand. The table below

connects with this point:

Wrong Correct Explanation of Error

These lines illustrate parenthood. These lines illustrate In this example, the student
How sometimes parents neglect parenthood like how parents missed to use a comma. The
and beat their children and how sometimes neglect and beat double use of “and” as a
would these children cry and be their children, how these connector of ideas would be
silenced with sweet bribes. children would cry and just be problematic if adding a comma
(Output 2) silenced with sweet bribes. will not be considered. 

2. Limited Knowledge of English Grammar and Vocabulary

Limited grammar and vocabulary knowledge is another cause of error identified by the

researchers. From the consolidated outputs, the students tend to commit errors because they have

not yet mastered the different tenses. They were also likely confused with proper usage of

prepositions and conjunctions. They even had trouble with word choices that sometimes led to

unnecessarily verbose phrases that had eventually affected construction of meaningful and

correct sentences. 

Wrong Correct Explanation of Error

She expresses her grief of She expresses her grief The verb phrase grief of must be grief over, the verb
hearing small voices in her over hearing small voices “withstood” after the modal verb “can” did not
head calling for help, that in her head calling for appear to be in the correct form. The student should
she cannot withstood it for help, that she cannot have changed the verb form into “withstand”. Lastly,
even up to her dreams withstand it that even up replace for with that in the phrase for even to that
those cryings were there. to her dreams those even because it introduces a restrictive clause
(Output 8) cryings were there.

Therefore, we can also Therefore, one of the From this example, the word therefore already
conclude that the one of ideas present in the poem implies a conclusion so there was no need to stay we
the ideas present in the is the horror of emptiness can also conclude. Additionally, the word
poem is the horror of in the soul of a woman “abortions" is incorrect as the speaker in the poem
 emptiness in the soul of a after having an abortion. presumably only had one abortion and not multiple
woman after making abortions. Lastly, making must be replaced with
abortions. (Output 23) having because abortion is something that is
performed by someone else and not by one’s self.

3. Interlingual Interference

The third cause of error was interlingual interference which occurred when the student’s

knowledge, habit and system interfered with his/ her learning and application of the second

language. In another sense, there was a native influence of their mother tongue that caused the

error. In this study, the following are examples of interlingual errors found on the students’

outputs:

Wrong Correct Explanation of Error

It is clear that the decision The decision was not In this case, the sentence is considered wordy
was not hers to made. hers to make. that the wording should have been changed or
(Output 10) shortened. Another is that the student used an
incorrect form of the verb “made”. It should
be “make” because the infinitive “to” should
be added with the base form of the verb. 
Someone can also Someone can also be From this example, the verb “considered”
considered as mother considered as a mother after the modal verb “can” did not appear to
without the physical aspect without the physical be in the correct form. The word “be” was
of her children but were aspect of her children omitted which should have been used instead.
present in her heart.  but were present in her Another is that the noun phrase “mother”
(Output 21) heart.   seemed to be missing a determiner before it.
The article “a” should have been added. 

4. Intralingual Interference
 Intralingual interference was the last cause of error found in the study where the students

were not fully aware of the rule restrictions and lack complete application of the rules in the

target language. The following examples support this point:   

Wrong Correct Explanation of Error

The line “if I poisoned the The line “if I poisoned In this case, the phrase “why does”, there
beginning of your breaths” the beginning of your was no need for the auxiliary verb does
is boldly saying that it's her breaths” is boldly saying because there is no question being asked in
own doing why does her that it's her own doing the first place. It should have been a simple
child died. (Output 1) why her child died. independent clause why her child died. 

Writing Ability of Third-Year English-Major Students

Aside from checking the grammatical errors derived from the output of the students, the

researchers have also regarded the impact of the errors to the totality of the essays. The appeal

and message of the essays are directly affected by how they were delivered in terms of word

choices, sentence fragments, coherence, punctuations and other writing components. In that way,

the researchers have also been prompted to check the writing ability of the Third-year English

majors. 

The researchers have focused on evaluating the Literary Criticism essays of the 3 year rd

BSED-ENGLISH with a uniform focused literature “The Mother” based on five criteria namely:

Content, Organization,

Vocabulary, Language Use and

Mechanics. Since, the essays

were written formally, the essays were strictly graded on the technicality on whether its purpose

was clearly expanded in the written composition. Creative writing on the other hand, which may

excuse some grammatical errors for artistic features, is delimited in this study. 

Figure 1. Percentage of the Students’ Writing Ability Evaluation

Based on Table 4 and Figure 1, the EFL students’ ability in writing the Literary Criticism

showed that 7 (28%) were categorized as excellent, 18 (72%) categorized as good, and there was

no student who scored fair and poor. In addition, the mean score of the EFL students’ ability

based on each writing aspect are as follows:

Components Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Weighted Mean Categorization

Content (30) 25.68 26.88 24.96 25.84 Good to Average

Organization (20) 17.24 17.48 16.96 17.23 Good to Average

Vocabulary (20) 16.76 17 17.24 17 Good to Average

Language Use 21.48 21.8 21.08 21.45 Good to Average

(25)

Table 3. Qualifications of Each Component

 The above table shows that the students performed good to average writing skills in all

considered components such as content, organization, vocabulary and language use. In its further

analysis, the students' writing ability in composing content indicates that they have shown the

evidence applying the skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation including nearly flawless logic.

The literary criticism essay is expected to be presented using the new criticism, an influential

movement in literary criticism in the mid-20th century, which stressed the importance of

focusing on the text itself rather than being concerned with external biographical or social

considerations. However, the students have provided little evidence to prove their claimed theory

in the essay using the said approach. 

When it comes to organization, the students demonstrated a good to average performance

by eliciting somewhat choppy and loosely organized essays. Specifically, main ideas stood out

but there were limited supporting evidences and the ideas may have been logical but structures

showed faulty sequencing. In writing a literary criticism or a good essay, organization is a must

to let the readers conceptualize the intended meaning. The essays though appeared to be long and

informative, the students, however, wrote in seemingly complex sentences yet there was notable

absence of some punctuations and conjunctions that resulted in unclear thoughts. 

In terms of vocabulary, the students qualified under good to average performance with

adequate range of vocabulary bank, but with occasional errors with word choices and or idioms.

On the brighter side however, meanings were not obscured. There were several words that were

transformed to plural bases not officially found in the dictionary and vocabulary used illustrated

simpler word equivalents. As a first batch of both K-12 and new tertiary curriculum, at least,

intermediate vocabulary level was expected.

 Lastly, considering language use, the students had effective yet simple construction of

sentences. There were also minor problems with complex constructions and several errors with

agreement, tense, number, word order or function, articles, pronouns, and prepositions although

the meaning, in general, was clearly conveyed. This also indicates that the students demonstrated

good to average writing skill to the said component, however, it was evident in the written

composition that the essays were wordy that have resulted in inconsistencies in punctuations,

tenses and agreement.