Lia Nurmalia/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER SubmiSSion Track A B S T R A C T Recieved: March 09, 2020 Final Revision: October 28, 2020 Available Online: April 20 2021 The objectives of this research are to know the errors in the third semester students’ writing of Bina Sarana Informatika University and the most frequent error. It is concerned to the grammatical and semantic and substance errors. The data is analyzed by using James’ theory in (Mungungu, 2010). The findings show that errors done by the students are spelling 50.9%, fragment 15.7%, punctuation 9.8%, adjective 3%, subject- verb agreement 3.9%, preposition 3.9%, capitalization 3.9%, tenses 2%, verb 2%, literal translation 2%. It can be concluded that the most frequent error is spelling. It because the students missed a letter, added more letter in a word, and exchange the letter. While In grammatical category, the most frequent error is fragment. It is because the most students do not put a subject in a sentence. keyword Linguistics, Error Analysis, Writing correSpondence E-mail: lia.lnm@bsi.ac.id Articles An Analysis of Errors in English Writing: A Case Study the Third Semester Students of UBSI Lia Nurmalia1, Cicih Nuraeni2 1,2Bina Sarana Informatika University,Jakarta,Indonesia Under Liscense of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.8.1.46-50.2021 I. INTRODUCTION The varieties of students’ ability in writing English make the class condition are more colorful. Even though this condition makes students cannot get the same material at the same time. So that the lecturer must find the problem making the low- motivated students are hard to finish their writing. According to (Al-Khresheh, 2016) that errors were not explained will definitely be underestimated. Therefore, there was a need for another approach to describing foreign language learners’ errors clearly. The researches on grammatical erros has been conducted by many reseaercher (Hourani, 2008), (Habibullah, 2010), (Limengka, P.E., Kuntjara, 2000), (Mohammed, 2016), (Darus & Subramaniam, 2009), and (El-farahaty, 2017). Grammar is one of the common error in EFL students (Novita, 2014). Some common grammatical error in EFL students inculde, tenses, prepositions, articles, and spelling (Lennon, 2008), (Tizazu, 2014) and, (Mungungu, 2010). Nunan (2001) mentioned every learners does an error, even though they are master it. But, when they continually learn, improve, and be conscious to their errors, they can handle it by time. Hence, it is important for teachers to provide suitable materials for their students based on the most common errors the students make. James (1998) he stated that the errors of writing in EFL learners happened in the following things as a grammatical error, syntactic, and semantic, and substance. The grammatical errors involves articles, prepositions, singular or plural, adjectives, irregular verbs, tenses, reported speech, concord, and possessive case). Syntactic includes nouns, pronouns, and word order). Semantic and substance includes capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Te current research focuses on grammatical and semantic and substance errors. Research on error in writing has been done by many researched (Al-Khasawneh, 2014; Mul, 2014; Sermsook, Liamnimitr, and Pochakorn, 2017; Yin Mei and Ung T’Chiang, 2001; Emmaryana, 2010). Al-Khasawneh (2014) analyzed the errors in writing paragraphs of students at Ajloun National University in Jordan. The findings of the study reveal several errors such as spelling, word 46 Lia Nurmalia/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) order, and subject-verb agreement. The results also showed that the most frequent error is improper use of English articles. Mul (2014) has done a reserach toward students’ writing ability in SMK Bakti Purwokerto at grade XI could be reflected in this result: none of the student (0% it is about error analysis of students’ English writing. The results show that the mother tongue influences the most common grammatical and lexical errors. It can be concluded that mother tongue impacts students’ EFL writing ability. Sermsook, Liamnimitr, and Pochakorn (2017). investigated the written English sentences of Thai EFL learners. The errors are divided into two types: errors at the sentential level and word level. The errors at the sentential level are tenses, subject-verb agreement, fragment, word order, punctuation, and capitalization. In contrast, errors at the word level are articles, nouns, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, adjectives, literal translation from Thai, part of speech, word choice, spelling, transition words. Therefore there are six types of errors to be the most difficult of the participants were punctuation marks, articles, subject-verb agreement, spelling, capitalization, and fragments. Yin Mei and Ung T’Chiang (2001) reported about errors made by ESL students in their written books. The analysis investigates the incorrect item caused by the L1 and low proficiency of the second language. The errors found in this analysis are an approximation, slang words, language switch, transfer, wrong tenses used, omission, etc. The current research highlights the low-motivated students in the third semester of Bina Sarana Informatika University. Low-motivated means the students who are hard to do the task on time get a low score in essay writing. (Student Motivation — An Overlooked Piece of, n.d.). Hence, the current research focuses on grammatical and semantic and errors of English writing by Bina Sarana Informatika University. II. METHODS The data were taken from essays written by the English third-semester students with low writing subjects at Bina Sarana Informatika University. There are 10 essays taken as the sample, the topic essay is “what can you do to make Indonesia proud of you”. The data were collected by sorting errors in students writing, such as sentence, word, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Then the data were grouped in to grammatical and semantic and substence errors. The data were analyzing using James’s theory (1998). The number of errrors will be counted and measure using percentage. III. RESULT The result of the error analysis can be seen in table 1 Table 1. Error Analysis Types of Errors Frequency Percentage Grammatical Tenses 1 2% Subject-verb agreement 2 3.9% Fragment 8 15.7% Verb 1 2% Preposition 2 3.9% Adjective 3 5.9% Semantic and substance Punctuation 5 9.8% Spelling 26 50.9% Capitalization 2 3.9% Literal translation from Indonesian 1 2% Total 51 100% It can be seen from the table above that the most common errors done by the students are spelling 50.9%, followed by Fragment 14%, punctuation 8.7%, adjective 15.7%, subject-verb agreement 3.9%, capitalization 3.9%, preposition 3.59%, tenses 2%, verb 2%, and literal translation form Indonesian 2%. IV. DISCUSSION 4.1. Grammatical Errors The students’ grammatical errors are fragments, subject-verb agreement, the wrong use of adjectives, verbs, tenses, and prepositions. 4.1.1 Fragment A fragment means no verb or no subject in the sentence (Sermsook et al., 2017) . The case is in the following examples. Example (1) parents always say that must be pursued for a sharp future.47 Lia Nurmalia/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) The underlined part shows there is no subject in the sentence. The complete sentence must be Example (1a) parents always say that we must be pursued for a sharp future. A subject is needed in that sentence. ‘we’ can be added as a subject. Example (2) The first support the advancement of Indonesia’s education. The underlined part shows there is no verb in the sentence. The complete sentence must be Example (2a) The first is support the advancement of Indonesia’s education. To be is needed in the sentence. 4.1.2 Subject-verb agreement Subject-verb agreement means the subject and the verb must agree with each other. Deeper explanation as to the following examples; Example (5) teaching staff who are less professional… The subject ‘staff’ is singular while the verb is plural ‘are’. It means the subject and the verb are not agree with each other. It might be; Example (5a) teaching staff who is less professional… Or teaching staffs who are less professional… Example (6) He is a people… Subject ‘he’ is singular, and to be ‘is’ is also singular, but ‘people’ is plural. The correct sentence might be as the following example; Example (6a) He is a person... 4.1.3 Adjective There are found three data of adjective error. Here is the example; Example (9) …speaking soft, polite, ethical,… The underlined part is all adjectives, however, the phrase above needs adverb Example (9a) …speaking softly, politely, ethically,… 4.1.4 Verb The error of using verb reach 1.7%, here is the data; Example (14) to studying the culture of the Republic of Indonesia…. The underline part above must be ‘verb infinitive’ not ‘present participle’ Example (14a) to study the culture of the Republic of Indonesia 4.1.5 Preposition The error of using preposition reach 3.5%, the case is in the following example; Example (12) …for all us. The case above need the preposition ‘of’ Example (12a) …for all of us. 4.1.6 Tenses There is only one data of tenses error found in the analysis. Here is the explanation; Example (8) Indonesia education system has not show good success. The example above is present perfect tense. It should use the participle verb. The correct sentence might as follow; Example (8a) Indonesia education system has not shown good success. 4.2. Semantic and substance Errors 4.2.1 Spelling Spelling is the most errors found in the analysis. One of the causes is because of the omitting a letter and adding a letter. Here is the deep explanation; Table 2. Example of spelling errors No Spelling error Corrected 1 succeded Succeeded 2 adquatly Adequately 3 qulity Quality 4 canges Changes 5 internasional International 6 admistrator Administrator 7 the govement’s The government’s 8 meansured Measured 9 huma Human48 Lia Nurmalia/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) The Table 2 shows some examples of words from 26 words spelling error. 4.2.2 Punctuation Punctuation is the second most error in the analysis. The punctuation error can be addition or omission. The deeper explanation can be seen in the following examples; Example (3) Therefore the substance of education, and management... The error is the addition punctuation category. In this sentence, punctuation is not needed. The correct writing can be; Example (3a) Therefore the substance of education and management… Example (4) other fields such economic, social, cultural and security. In the above example, the error is in the omission punctuation category. It can be seen in the underlined part, it needs a ‘coma’. It might be in the following sentence. Example (4a) other fields such economic, social, cultural, and security. 4.2.1 Capitalization The capitalization errors found in the analysis are two data. All the errors happen in writing the word ‘I’, deep explanation as to the following example; Example (7) I will try to contribute in any aspect i could do. ‘I’ is always capital, so that the sentence above must be as the following sentence; Example (7a) I will try to contribute in any aspect I could do. Based on the analysis, the Capitalization error can be minimized when the students write the essay using Microsoft Word or other tools with an automatic capitalization system. The errors that happen at the words’ level are spelling, adjective, pronoun, conjunction, preposition, noun, verb, literal translation from Indonesian, and word choice. 4.2.4 Literal translation from Indonesian The case is as the following example; Example (15) my bias is Siwon The word ‘bias’ comes from Indonesian, which means refraction. The figure of Siwon inspires the writer. V. CONCLUSION The conclusion can be taken as the following explanations. Firstly, the most error made by the students is spelling, 50.9%. The wrong spelling was that the students missed a letter, added more letters, and exchanged the letter in a word. In the Grammatical category, the most error made by students is fragment, 14%. The most cause of fragment because the students missed a subject. It might be influenced by Indonesian language, Indonesian sometimes do not use any subject while making a conversation. In conclusion, the researchers can give a suggestion that in teaching writing for low motivated students, lecturers must intend to the basic understanding, such as vocabulary and arranging a good sentence because they still need used to it. The last, this research is very limited, so it needs a deeper analysis to have a big contribution in teaching writing and error analysis. REFERENCES Al-Khresheh, M. H. (2016). A Review Study of Error Analysis Theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 2(2). Azar, B.S. 1992. Fundamental of English Grammar. United States of America: Prentice Hall. Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written english essays of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483–495. El-farahaty, H. (2017). A Grammatical Error Analysis of Final Year Students Arabic Writing. The Language Scholar Journal of Leeds University, (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/2398-8509 Emmaryana, F. (2010). an Analysis on the Grammatical Errors in the Students ’ Writing Faculty of 49 Lia Nurmalia/ Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 8 No. 1 (2021) Tarbiyah and Teachers ’ Training ‘ Syarif Hidayatullah ’ State Islamic University Jakarta an Analysis on the Grammatical Errors in the Students ’ Writing Faculty of Tarbiyah and Te. Fadi Maher Saleh Al-Khasawneh. (2014). Error Analysis of Written English Paragraphs by Jordanian Undergraduate Students: A Case Study. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, II(VIII), 85–100. Habibullah, M. M. K. (2010). An error analysis on grammatical structures of the students’ theses.pdf. Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An Analysis of the Common Grammatical Errors in the English writing made by 3 rd Secondary Male Students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE. Institute of Education British University in Dubai., 1–80. Retrieved from https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/bitstream/1234/225/1/20050055.pdf James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. Exploring error analysis. Longman, London - New York. Lennon, P. (2008). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage 1. Limengka, P.E., Kuntjara, E. (2000). Types of grammatical errors in the essays written By Fourth- Semester Students of English Department , Petra Christian University. 230–238. Mohammed, M. Q. (2016). Error Analysis: A Study on Grammatical Errors in the Writings of Iraqi EFL Learners. European Academic Research Vol. III, ISSN 2286-4822. III(11), 11648–11668. Mul, I. R. (2014). An Error Analysis of Students’ English Writing. Muhammadiyah University of Purwokerto. Mungungu, S. S. (2010). Error Analysis: Investigating The Writing of ESL Namibian Learners. University Of South Africa. Novita, R. (2014). An Analysis of Grammatical Errors in the 1st Year Students’ Writings at English Department, Andalas University. Vivid Journal, 3(2), 1–15. Nordquist, Richard. “What Is a Grammatical Error?” ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, thoughtco.com/ grammatical-error-usage-1690911. Nunan, D. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. Carter, R. & Nunan, D., (eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages [C], pp 87-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). An Analysis of Errors in Written English Sentences: A Case Study of Thai EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 101. https://doi. org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p101 Student Motivation — An Overlooked Piece of. (n.d.). 1–12. Tizazu, Y. (2014). A Linguistic Analysis of Errors In Learners’ Compositions: The Case of Arba Minch University Students. 2(C), 2005–2008. Retrieved from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/ uploads/A-Linguistic-Analysis-of-Errors-in-Learners’-Compositions-The-Case-of-Arba-Minch- University-Students.pdf Yin Mei, C. C., & Ung T’Chiang, D. C. (University M. (2001). Sub-stratum transfer among low proficiency students in written English. (University Malaya). Retrieved from http://www.melta.org. my/modules/sections/9.doc 50