




































Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

                      American International Journal of Social Science Research; Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
                                       ISSN 2576-103X   E-ISSN 2576-1048 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 
 

     94 
 

Comparative Analysis of English Language Learners' Errors across Different 
Linguistic Backgrounds 

 
 

Kehinde Olufemi Ogunyemi PhD 
Department of Arts Education 

Adekunle Ajasin University 
Akungba Akoko, Ondo State, Nigeria 
E-mail: luckykenny4u@yahoo.com 

Tel: +2349031661167 
 
 
Abstract 
The focus of the study is the comparative analysis of English as a second language learners’ errors across different linguist ic 
backgrounds in Nigeria. The study adopted the descriptive research design. The population for the study consisted of senior 
secondary school students in Ondo State. A simple random sampling technique was employed to select four secondary schools 
and 26 students from four schools in Akoko Ondo State(12 male, 14 female). The sample consisted students from three 
linguistic backgrounds (Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa). The instrument used to gather data was a verbal ability test. The reliability of 
the instrument was determined through the test- retest method (r = 0.83). Four research questions were answered. The findings 
revealed that there was a significant difference in the scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds in their use of 
tenses, pronouns, spellings and pronunciation. On the basis of these findings it was recommended that students are to be given 
time to pay attention to their use of English tenses, pronoun, spelling and pronunciation so as to maximize their academic 
potentials and possibilities. There is need to give teachers chance to experience in-service training and seminars. This will make 
them conversant with current development in pedagogy and language itself. 
 
Keywords: Comparative Analysis, English as a Second Language, Errors, Linguistic Backgrounds.  
 
1. Background to the Study 
Language is essential to human existence, that is, the easy flow of human interaction will not be possible without language. It 
becomes necessary to see language as not only the instrument of communication among the members of the speech community 
who are members of the same culture but also a system of rules that the learners have to acquire. Lado (1977) sees language as "a 
complex system of communication with various levels of complexity involving intricate selection and ordering of meaning, 
sounds and largest units and arrangement." Precisely, language holds the key to knowledge acquisition. This makes its teaching-
learning process central to any educational system. 

As English language is concerned, it has its speech community which could be traced down to England, Greek, United 
States of America, etc. It was firstly introduced to Africa through colonization while the European invasion led to the spread of 
English language in Nigeria. For most Nigerians, English serves as a second language: a language selected by a bilingual or 
multilingual country. It also serves as a common medium of communication among Nigerians from different ethnic backgrounds 
speaking different languages. It is also the country's official language in which case it is used by government functionaries. The 
importance of English language in Nigeria cannot be overstressed.  

The nature of Nigeria being a multilingual society with complex linguistic situation led to the introduction of English 
language to ameliorate the language diversity. According to Kachru (1981), English as a second language refers to the outer 
world circle which involves the spread of English and its institutionalization as a second language (L2) in non-native 
environment. Historically, the regions where institutionalized varieties are used have at one time or the other gone through 
extended periods of colonization by the users of the inner circle. Pariola (1988) suggests that English will be the only one of two 
or more codes in linguistic repertoire of such bilinguals or multilinguals. Bamgbose (1982) postulates that English has acquired 
an important status in the language policies of most of such multilingual nations: 
We in English education need to find redundant ways to point out that English belongs to the world and every nation which 
uses its does so with different tone, color, and quality. English is an international auxiliary language. It is yours as much as it is 
mine… It is a language of the world (Larry Smith, 1976a).     

The importance of learners' errors in the process of learning English as a second language has been widely discussed in 
the field of language acquisition. According to Robert and Graffiths (2008), it is problematic to find a definition of errors since 
they can be seen from different views. Lenon (1991) relates errors to native-speaker-utterances, although there are various 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

95 
                       

variations among people who consider themselves to be a native speaker which make it difficult to find standard English (Robert 
& Graffiths, 2008). 

Corder (1981) views the errors learners make as the major element in the feedback system of the process of language 
teaching and learning. Through the information derives by the teacher from the errors, he varies his teaching procedures and 
materials, the pace of the progress and the amount of practice which he plans at any moment. The errors committed by the 
learners also reveal to the teacher the level of progress the learner has attained and what remains to learn. A proper analysis of 
learners' errors enables teacher to find out and take series of pedagogical precautions toward them. Corder (1981) also points 
out that the study of errors is also a fundamental part of applied linguistics because it provides a validation of finding of 
contrastive linguistic studies. Edrogan (2003) points out that errors are means of feedback for the teacher reflecting how 
effective he is in his teaching style and what changes he has to make to get higher performance from his students. Errors 
according to Brown (1994), is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker reflecting the inter-language 
competence of the learners. However, James (1995) categorizes errors in terms of grammatical correctness and acceptance. He 
relates errors to ignorance, inferring that error correction is the study of linguistic ignorance, the investigation of what people do 
not know and how they attempt to cope with their ignorance. James continues his suggestion that the learners' ignorance of the 
target language (TL) can be expressed in terms of grammaticality, acceptability, correctness, and strangeness and infelicity. 
Jibowo, Iteogu & Abayomi (2005) in their contribution point out that a proper analysis of learners' errors will lead to a radical 
change in teacher's attitude towards learners' performance. They stress the need for teachers to expect variability in measuring the 
learners' attempts in terms of L2 and L1 variation in given situation. 

The behaviourist view on second language learners' errors according to the proponent of the theory B.F Skinner 
(1957) is that language learning should be seen as a process of habit formation: the acquisition of a series of responses to 
external stimuli developed through a process referred to as operant conditioning. This behaviourist theory could be traced to his 
verbal behaviour. The theory applied functional analysis approach to analyze language behaviour of a target language in terms of 
natural process as related environmental consequences and the effect they have on human interaction. Skinner's theory (1957) 
relies on the component of classical conditioning of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli and operant conditioning. 

The behaviourist views language learning as the process of habit formation. Language learning as a process of habit 
formation refers to learning a language as a result of behaving in language which involves the period of trials and errors where a 
child tries and fails until he is able to produce the pattern spontaneously. To behaviourists, imitation, association, reinforcement, 
punishment and repetition are the key words on learning a particular language. It also related with audio-lingual method of 
teaching which is based on the behaviourists belief that language learning is the acquisition of correct language habits. As this 
theory focuses on the trials and errors of learners until success, errors were considered to be counterproductive since they led to 
the formation of bad habits which if left uncorrected resulted in fossilisation. People could learn new languages through 
observing other individuals' behaviour and listening to their utterances which were treated as a model input reaction patterns and 
then imitating the received material repetitively to gain proficiency (Medwell, Wroy, Moure & Graffiths 2014). 

According to Brown (1987), each error was seen as unwanted negative and detrimental for second language learners. 
The next aspect strictly connected with the behaviouristic understanding of errors which was the concept of Contrastive Analysis 
Hypothesis (CAH). Lado states in the preface that errors were thought to be the side of the faulty transfer of L1 habits... As a 
reaction against the behaviourist view of learning as a process of habit formation, the major proponent of mentalist theory, 
Noam Chomsky in his work of 1959 opposed Skinner's approach of operant conditioning. Chomsky states that language 
learning was a product of rule formation, that is, it is a cognitive process (Robert & Graffiths, 2008). 

Mentalists believe that when the child learns the rule governing the way a language functions, he will be able to use the 
rules to form further sentences in the language through hypothesis formation. Consequently, it became clear that language 
learners form hypothesis which are not completely random but underlie certain rules. Chomsky introduced a species-specific 
(human), domain-specific (language), biological endowment: a genetically encoded predisposition to learn languages which is 
called Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Chomsky believes that human acquire or learn language because they possess the 
mental capacity through a mental process generalizing the rules through a process of mental reality which analyses actual 
behaviour. He related that the first language of a child is not learned but acquired because a child at birth possesses an innate 
capacity to acquire language naturally. While receiving language input, a learner is able to glean enough evidence to trigger the 
correct setting of the parameter for that particular language. 

The behaviourist and the mentalist theories focus on second language learners' errors. They view errors through 
different perspectives. While the behaviourists view the second language learners' errors as a result of first language interference 
that is the old habit of first language may be helpful in learning second language, as something negative, the mentalists view 
errors as something positive which serves as the evidence of the occurrence of learning in second language learning situation. 
In language studies, there have been two schools of thought in respect of learners' errors (Maicusi & Lopis, 2000).  In 
contrastive analysis, the theoretical base of which was behaviourism, errors are seen as "bad habit" that has been formed. The 
response was based on the stimulus. It was assumed that interference of the mother tongue (L1) was responsible for errors made 
during the transition period of learning the target language. Errors were considered to be a sign of inadequacy of the teaching 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

96 
                       

techniques and on the other hand it was seen as a natural result of the fact that since the nature we cannot avoid making errors. 
The idea of the error as an effect to be avoided has been especially supported by behaviourism being considered as an obstacle to 
language learning. According to Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH), errors occur as a result of interference when the 
learners transfer native language habits into the second language (L2). It was also believed that interference takes place whenever 
there is a difference between native mother tongue and the target language. The contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) can be 
briefly defined as the assumption (based on behaviourism) that all language learning depends on the mother tongue or L1 and 
where there are similarities between both, no mistakes will occur in the L2, whereas on the other hand where there are differences 
between L1 and L2, errors are likely to occur (Richards & Rodgers, 2001,). This hypothesis is based on Lado's suggestion in 
linguistic across culture where he states “in the comparison between native language and foreign language lies the key to ease all 
difficulties in foreign language learning” (Lado, 1957). 

Lado underlined the tight relation between Contrastive Analysis and language learning. Contrastive Analysis is just one 
more among a number of analyses. The most important contribution of this kind of analysis is the delimitation of second 
language structures which obstructs learning. Base on this information, it is possible to make decisions concerning teaching. In 
fact, it is the knowledge of the difficulties which result from the difference between first language structures and target language 
ones that permits the development of efficient strategies to face errors. 

Error Analysis supplanted Contrastive Analysis owing to the work of Corder (1967) who saw it from a different point 
of view: a learner's errors then provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using. Error analysis is a  branch of 
applied linguistics concerned with the compilation, study and analysis of errors made by second language learners and aims at 
investigating aspects of second language acquisition. Corder (1985) describes error analysis as a means of using utterance of 
learners to assess whether they have or not learnt the particular linguistic points that the teacher has been trying to teach. The 
concept was developed based on the belief that errors indicate the learners’ stage of second language learning/acquisition 
(Jibowo, Iteogu and Abayomi, (2005).  

Error Analysis is concerned with the same problem as Contrastive Analysis but from an opposing point of view. In 
Error Analysis, the error has been defined as a deviation from the norm of the target language and a distinction has been made 
between errors and mistakes. Brown (1980) insists that "it is crucial to make a distinction between mistakes and errors" because 
they are technically two very different phenomena. If the learner is able to self-correct after using an incorrect expression or 
utterances, we are talking about a mistake. On the other hand, when the learner produces an unintentionally deviant utterance 
and is not able to self-correct it, he/she committed an error (James, 1998). The errors take place when the deviation arises as a 
result of lack of knowledge. Crystal (1987) comments that "error analysis is a technique for identifying, classifying and 
systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign, using any of the principles and 
procedures provided by linguistics.  

Edrogan (2005) insists that error analysis emerged in sixties to demonstrate that the learners' errors were not only 
because of the learners' native language but also they reflected some universal learning strategies. It deals with learners' 
performance in terms of cognitive processes they make use of in recognizing or coding the input they receive from the target 
language. In language learning, there are errors which learners committed with varying degrees of consistency and error analysis 
contains that learners' errors are inherent within the language system and not necessarily native language induced.  
Empirically, errors could be traced to the learners who as a result of their innate ability to learn language form hypotheses which 
are tested and manifest themselves in the formation of wrong analysis by overgeneralization after observing some paradigms. The 
mentalist theory supports claims that errors are inevitable because they reflect various stages in the language development of the 
learners. Thus the learner process new language data in his mind and produces rules for its production, based on the evidence. 
There are instances of errors where the data are inadequate.  

Contrastive analysis is of the opinion that second language learners with the same linguistic background encounter the 
same linguistic difficulties while those from different linguistic backgrounds encounter different linguistic difficulties. It focuses 
on L1 interference as the major source of learners' errors while there are different bases of errors that are not occurred as a result 
of L1 interference. There are some uniform or intra-lingual errors made by learners irrespective of their first languages.  
Contrastive studies are undertaken in order to discover and describe the differences between L1 and L2 while error analysis 
confirms or disproves the predictions of the theory underlying bilingual comparison. Error analysis as a result of that is an 
experimental technique for validating the theory of transfer and also the most wide-spread practice because it has proven to be 
the most effective approach to L2 learners' errors and its focus on the importance of errors in second language learning process.  
From the ongoing arguments between contrastive analysts and error analysts, contrastive analysts see mother tongue interference 
as the cause of second language learners' errors while error analysts support the fact that there are uniform errors committed by 
learners' regardless of their first languages. The focus of contrastive analysts is that, learners from the same linguistic background 
tend to commit the same linguistic errors while learners from different linguistic tend to commit different linguistic errors as a 
result of their first language interference (L1). 

The work under study ascertains the position of Error Analysis (EA) that L2 learners' errors are not only committed 
due to L1 interference but also there are other uniform errors committed by learners irrespective of their first languages. The 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

97 
                       

study focuses on comparative analysis of ESL learners' errors across different linguistic backgrounds in order to ascertain that 
second language learners from different linguistic backgrounds tend to commit the same errors in their learning of English 
language regardless of their first languages. 
2. Statement of the Problem 
The purpose of second language learning is to generate or acquire the effectiveness and competence in using the target language. 
The effective use of this language is based on the theoretical acquisition of the accurate and appropriate rules and the structures 
of the target language as well as the literature of the target language to be useful in all ramification of life. Errors are seen as a 
negative response or interference due to the stimuli-response approach and as a positive-response through the mental capacity 
that takes place during learning. Errors as seen from different perspectives could be categorized according to the linguistic 
background of the learners.  

Therefore, one could suggest that if there are errors from English as a second language learners of different linguistic 
backgrounds, there must be a proper comparison between the errors so as to provide the adequate solution to the errors and also 
to classify the errors if as a result of Mother Tongue interference or as a result of some other factors.  
This is in line with the view of contrastive analysis (CA). However, EA believes that learners' errors are not only products of L1 
interference. According to them L2 errors are also traceable to other sources other than L1 interference. It is against this 
background that this study seeks to carry out a comparative analysis of English as a second language learner's errors across 
different linguistic backgrounds. 
3. Research Questions 
The following questions have been generated to guide this study thus: 

 Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds encounter the same difficulty with English pronouns? 
 Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds encounter the same difficulty with English spelling? 
 Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds encounter the same problem with English pronunciation?  

4. Hypotheses 

 There is no significant difference in English tense scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
 There is no significant difference in English pronoun scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
 There is no significant difference in English spelling scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
 There is no significant difference in English pronunciation scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 

5. Significance of the Research 
The result of this study would help teachers to categorize the second language learners' errors from different linguistic 
background and formulate an appropriate educational curriculum towards the learning goals of the learners irrespective of their 
linguistic backgrounds. It would help the teacher to pinpoint those areas of English language where his/her students go wrong 
for various reasons and to devise remedial measures to make his/her teaching and learning more rapid and effective. The study 
would also help the syllabus designers to identify those items that are important to be included or recycled in the syllabus.  It 
would also help ESL learners to have insight into the errors committed irrespective of their linguistic backgrounds and how to 
overcome them. 
6. Methodology 
The researcher made use of descriptive design. The population of the study consisted of all students of government owned 
secondary schools in Ondo State.  A sample of twenty-six (26) students in senior secondary school three (SS III) were selected 
from four (4) co-educational government owned secondary schools (A.U.D Grammar School, Oroke High School, Community 
Comprehensive High School and Agboronkin Comprehensive High School) in Akoko region of the state. For each school, there 
are three (3) Yoruba respondents to make of twelve (12), one Hausa respondent to make a total of four (4), while the Igbo 
respondents vary from one (1) in A.U.D grammar school, two (2) in Oroke High School and Community High School 
respectively and five (5) in Agboronkin Comprehensive High School, altogether making a total of ten (10). The instrument used 
for data collection is verbal ability test. The data collected was analyzed using Descriptive Statistics Counts and Percentage based 
on their ethnic groups. 
7. Results 
Question 1: Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds commit the same errors in the use of pronouns? 
Table VI: Showing difficulty in the use of pronoun across different linguistic backgrounds. 
Linguistic Backgrounds and Frequency of Errors 
 

Difficult Pronoun Types HAUSA FREQ.        
%        

IGBO 
FREQ.            % 

 YORUBA 
FREQ.           % 

HONORIFIC PRONOUN 3 75% 4 40% 8 67% 

1ST PERSON PLURAL SUBJECT  3 75% 3 30% 6 50% 

1ST PERSON PLURAL OBJECT 3 75% 4 40% 8 67% 

3RD PERSON PLURAL SUBJECT 4 100% 2 20% 5 42% 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

98 
                       

3RD PERSON SINGULAR SUBJECT 1 25% 7 70% 7 58% 

3RD PERSON SINGULAR OBJECT 2 50% - % 5 42% 

Source: Field, 2017 
The table above shows that 75% of Hausa respondents, 40% of Igbo respondents and 66.7% of Yoruba respondents 

encounter difficulty with the use of honorific pronoun, while 75% of Hausa respondents, 30% of Igbo respondents and 50% of 
Yoruba respondents encounter difficulty with the use of 1st person plural pronoun in the subject position. 75% of Hausa 
respondents, 40% of Igbo respondents and 66.7% of Yoruba respondents encounter difficulty with the use of 1st person plural 
pronoun in the object position. 100% of Hausa respondents, 20% of Igbo respondents and 41.7% of Yoruba respondents 
encounter difficulty with the use of 3rd person plural pronoun in the subject position. 25% of Hausa respondents of Hausa 
respondents, 70% of Igbo respondents and 58.3% of Yoruba respondents encounter difficulty with the use of 3rd person 
singular pronoun in the subject position. 50% of Hausa respondents, 0% of Igbo respondents and 41.7% of Yoruba 
respondents encounter difficulty with the use of 3rd person singular pronoun in the object position. 
Question II: Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds encounter the same difficulty with English spelling? 
Table VII: Showing difficulty in English spelling across different linguistic backgrounds. 
Linguistic Backgrounds and Frequency of Errors 

Words Mis-Spelt HAUSA 
FREQ.             % 

            IGBO 
FREQ.             % 

YORUBA 
FREQ.           % 

PSYCHOLOGY 3 70% 7 70% 11 92% 

PNEUMONIA 4 100% 10 100% 12 100% 

COMMITTEE 4 100% 7 70% 10 83% 

RECEIPT 2 50% 9 90% 8 67% 

PHYSICS 2 50% 4 40% 5 42% 

ACCOMMODATION 3 75% 8 80% 11 92% 

NECESSARY 2 50% 8 80% 8 67% 

RAPPORT 4 100% 10 100% 12 100% 

PRONUNCIATION 4 100% 10 100% 12 100% 

SUCCESS 1 25% 3 30% 6 50% 

Source: Field, 2017 
The table above shows that 75% of Hausa respondents, 70% of Igbo respondents and 92% of Yoruba respondents 

encountered difficulty with spelling of "psychology." 100% of Hausa respondents, 100% of Igbo respondents and 100% of 
Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of "pneumonia." 100% of Hausa respondents 70% of Igbo 
respondents and 83% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of “committee”. 50% of Hausa 
respondents, 90% of Igbo respondents and 67% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of "receipt." 
50% of Hausa respondents, 40% of Igbo respondents and 42% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling 
of "physics." 75% of Hausa respondents, 80% of Igbo respondents and 92% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty 
with the spelling of "accommodation." 50% of Hausa respondent, 80% of Igbo respondents and 67% of Yoruba respondents 
encountered difficulty with the spelling of "necessary". 100% of Hausa respondents, 100% of Igbo respondents and 100% of 
Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of "rapport". 100% of Hausa respondents, 100% of Igbo 
respondents and 100% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of "pronunciation". 25% of Hausa 
respondents, 30% of Igbo respondents and 50% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the spelling of "success." 
Question III: Do ESL learners from different linguistic backgrounds encounter the same problem with English pronunciation. 
Table IX: A table showing difficulty in English pronunciation across different linguistic backgrounds 
Linguistic backgrounds and frequency errors 

Wordsmis-Pronounced      HAUSA 
FREQ.     % 

      IGBO 
FREQ.     % 

     YORUBA 
FREQ.   % 

VILLAGE 1 (25%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  

POTTAGE 0 (0%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  

LOBSTERS 2 (50%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  

OIL 0 (0%)  2 (50%)  0 (0%)  

CRABS 0 (0%)  3 (30%)  0 (0%)  

 Source: Field, 2017 
The above table shows that 25% of Hausa respondents, 0% of Igbo respondents and 0% of Yoruba respondents 

encountered difficulty with pronunciation of "village". 0% of Hausa respondents, 0% of Igbo respondents and 0% of Yoruba 
respondents encountered difficulty with the pronunciation of "pottage". 50% of Hausa respondents, 0% of Igbo respondents 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

99 
                       

and 0% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the pronunciation of "lobsters". 0% of Hausa respondents, 50% of 
Igbo respondents and 0% of Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the pronunciation of "oil". 0% of Hausa 
respondents, 30% of respondents and 0% Yoruba respondents encountered difficulty with the pronunciation of "crabs". 
7.1 Test of Hypotheses 
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in English tense scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Table X: Linguistic Backgrounds 

Linguistic 
Backgrounds 

Sum  of  Squares Df Mean Square F (cal) F (cri) 

Between Groups 1.799 6 0.300 0.464 2.66 

Within Groups 11.641 18 0.647   

Total 13.440 24    

Source: Field, 2017 
From the above table X, it could be seen at 0.5 that F-critical value (2.66) is greater than F-calculated vale (0.464) 

which implies that the null hypothesis was rejected. Hence, there was a significant difference in English tense scores of students 
from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Hypothesis II: There is no significant difference in English pronoun scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Table XIV: Linguistic Backgrounds 

Linguistic 
Backgrounds 

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F (cal) F (cri) 

Between Groups 6.155 8 0.769 1.772 2.55 

Within Groups 7.383 17 0.434   

Total 13.538 25    

Source: Field, 2017 
From the above table, it could be seen at 0.05 that f-critical value (2.55) is greater than f-calculated value (1.772) 

which implies that the null hypothesis was rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference in English pronoun scores of students 
from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Hypothesis III: There is no significant difference in English spelling scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Table XI: Linguistic Backgrounds 

Linguistic 
Backgrounds 

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F (cal) F (cri) 

Between Groups 2.574 7 0.368 0.607 2.58 

Within Groups 10.964 18 0.609   

Total 13.538 25    

 Source: Field, 2017 
From the above table XII, it could be seen at 0.05 that F-critical value (2.58) is greater than F-calculated value (0.604) 

which implies that the null hypothesis was rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference in English spelling scores of s tudents 
from different linguistic backgrounds. 
Hypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in English pronunciation scores of students from different linguistic 
backgrounds. 
Table XIII: Linguistic Backgrounds 

Linguistic 
Backgrounds 

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F (cal) F (cri) 

Between Groups 3.794 3 1.265 2.855 3.05 

Within Groups 9.744 22 0.443   

Total 13.538 25    

 Source: Field, 2017 
From the above table XIII, it could be seen at 0.05 that F-critical value (3.05) is greater than F-critical value (2.855) 

which implies that the null hypothesis was rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference in English pronunciation scores of 
students from different linguistic backgrounds. 
8. Discussion of Findings 
The focus of the study is the comparative analysis of English as a second language learners' errors across different linguistic 
backgrounds. 

 Hypothesis one attempts to find out if there is no significant difference in English tense scores of students from 
different linguistic backgrounds. Findings from this study reveal that there is a significant difference in English tense 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

100 
                       

scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds as a result of L1 interference in their use of English tense. 
This agrees with Rahman & Maskud. A (2015) that EFL learners' native language (L1) influence can be claimed to be 
one of the reasons behind their failure. 

 Hypothesis two and research question one attempt to find out if there is no significant difference in English pronoun 
scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. Findings from this study reveal that there is a significant 
difference in English pronoun scores of student from different linguistic backgrounds due to the fact that linguistic 
background of ESL learners interferes with their use of English pronoun. This relates with Ojetunde C. F (2012) that 
English pronoun errors are traceable to the cultural background of their linguistic background. 

 Hypothesis three and research question two attempt to find out if there is no significant difference in English spelling 
scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. Findings from this study reveal that there is a significant 
difference in English spelling scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. This supports Ringbom &  
Harvis (2009) findings that spelling problems are often influenced by cross-lingual transfer because learners apply 
pattern from their native language. 

 Hypothesis four and research question three attempt to find out if there is no significant difference in English 
pronunciation scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. Findings from this study reveal that there is a 
significant difference in English pronunciation scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds. This relates  
with Avery & Ehrlich (1992) that learners transfer their L1 sound patterns into the second language and this transfer 
is likely to cause foreign accent. It is reflected by the mispronunciation of words by non-native speakers. Sound system 
of the native language can influence the learners’ pronunciation of a target language. 

10. Conclusion 
The aim of the researcher has been to do the comparative analysis of English as a second language learners' errors across different 
linguistic backgrounds among SSII students of Akoko, Ondo State and also to find out: if students from different linguistic 
backgrounds such as Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo encounter similar difficulty in their use of English tenses, pronouns, spellings and 
pronunciation. Since the finding reveals that there was a significant difference in English tense scores of students from different 
linguistic backgrounds, there was a significant difference in English pronoun scores of students from different linguistic 
backgrounds, there was a significant difference in English spelling scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds, there 
was a significant difference in the English pronunciation scores of students from different linguistic backgrounds, research 
efforts should be focused on the influence of linguistic background on students’ use and achievement in English language. 
11. Recommendation 
In line with the findings, conclusion and educational implication of this study, the following recommendations are made. 

 Students are to be given time to pay attention to their use of English tenses, pronouns, spellings and pronunciation of 
English words so as to maximize their academic potentials and possibilities. 

 There is need to give the teachers chance to experience in-service training and seminars. This will make them 
conversant with current developments in pedagogy and language itself. 

 Conversant use of correct tenses, pronouns, spelling and pronunciation of English language should be encouraged 
among secondary school students. 

 Textbooks for English language teaching should be those, among other things, that throw light on some of the 
discovered English language problems and the solution to the problems. 

 School administrators need to provide appropriate learning materials that take care of the problems identified. 
References 
Adeniyi F. O & Tunde-Awe B.M (2015) A Study of Spelling Errors in the Written English of Remedial Students of University 

of Ilorin, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Issues (2015). 
Akindele, F and Adegbite, W (1999). The sociology and politics of English in Nigeria: An introduction. Nigeria: Obafemi 

Awolowo University Press. 
Alexander. L. g. (1994). Right Words, Wrong word: Words and Structure Confused and misused by Learners. Longman ELT. 
Avery. P & Ehrlich. S (1992). Problems of Selected Language Groups in Avery. P. and Ehrlich. S. In  Teaching American 

English Pronunciation. Oxford Univerty Press.  
Bamgbose. A (1982) Standard Nigerian English: Issues of Identification. In the other tongue: English Across Cultures Ed. Braj. 

B. Kachru. Urbana: University of Ilorin Press.   
Brown, H.D. (1987) Principle of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Brown. H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. (Ed.),Investigating writing 

problems among Palestinian students studying English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 
Corder.  S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learners' Errors. IRAL, 5, 161-170. 
 Corder S. P. (1974).  Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman. 
Corder S.P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Chomsky. N.(1959).  Review of Skinner Verbal Behaviour. Language. 1959, 35: 26-58. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

101 
                       

Crystal. D (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge university Press. Cambridge. 
Edrogan.  V.  (2005) Contribution of Error Analysis to Foreign Language Teaching. Meisin University Journal of Faculty of 

Education. 
Jibowo. et al (2005). Errors and Second Language Teaching and Learning. In Jibowo. A.V. (Ed). Longman, Language Teaching 

and Learning. Ibadan: Bounty Press Ltd. 
Kachru (1981) The pragmatics of Non-Native Varieties of English. Urbana: University of Ilorin Press.   
Lado.R (1977) Language Testing: The Construction and Use of Foreign Language Test. London: Longman. 
Lenno. P. (1991) Error: Some Problems of Definition, Identification, and Distintion. Applied Linguistics. Vol 12 issue 2. 

Oxford University Press. 
Maicusi. P. & M. J. Lopez (2000). The Error in the Second Language Acquistion; Encuentron Revista de investigacion e 

innovacion en la clase de idiomas. 11-168. 
Ojetunde. C.F (2012) Nigeria Lexico-Grammatical Errors in Nigerian English: Implication for Nigerian Teachers and Learners 

of English. 
Rahman.  M.S and MD .M Ali: Problem in Mastering English Tense and Aspect and the Role of the Practitioners. Journal of 

Humanities and Social Science. Vol 20. 
Richards. J. C. & Rodgers. T. S.(2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge. University 

Press. 
Ringbom. H & Harvis. S (2009). The Importance of Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language. Applied Linguistics in 

Language Teaching. In Long M.H. & Doughly. C (ed). The handbook of Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley- 
Blackwell. 
Roberts. M. & Griffiths. C. (2008). Error Correction and Good Language Learners. In Griffiths (Ed). Lessons from 
Good language Learner (pp. 282-293). Cambridge University Press. 

Smith. L (1976) English as an International Auxiliary Language. RELC Journal. Vol 2. 
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 

 
 
 

Copyrights  
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access 
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


