







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262  254 

 

        10.12928/eltej.v3i3.2277                           http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index             eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Utilizing learner language to craft well–targeted endorsements 

in English language teaching practices  

Nasrullah a,1,*, Elsa Rosalina b,2, Eka Puteri Elyani c,3  

a, b, c Lambung Mangkurat University, Jl. Brigjen H. Hasan Basri, Kayu Tangi, Banjarmasin, Kalimantan Selatan, Indonesia 70123 
1 nasrullah01@ulm.ac.id *; 2 elsa.rosalina@ulm.ac.id ; 3 eka.elyani@ulm.ac.id   

* corresponding author 

 

1. Introduction  

The phenomena of learning English as a foreign language have been spread over the world. Slow 
and fast, success and failure in learning the language become ‘pieces of stuff’ that depict teaching 
and learning achievement in an academic setting. In Indonesia, the learning of English has been 
started since students in the secondary level, yet the attainable mastery of the language performance 
in the level of either written or, in particular, spoken does not reflect the duration of learning the 
language. Hence, there is a belief the system of immediate education is not as successful as expected 
in teaching English (Tosun, 2012). A number of academic papers have supported this notion (Aktas, 
2005; Bayraktaroglu, 2012; Enginarlar, 2003; Darancık, 2008; Gunes, 2011; Hamamcı, 2013).  
Therefore, in learning English, there is a space to reflect on whatever ways in which how learners 
learned the language to ensure the learning quality process in terms of aspects in language that have 
been completely learned and acquired from every developmental stage. In order words, by paying 
the attention to the pace of learners’ learning, the opportunities to witness and nurture their language 
development can be addressed appropriately.  

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received 11 June 2020 

Revised 14 December 2020 

Accepted 22 December 2020 

 Learning a foreign language for those who have their first and second 
language often puts learners in imperfection mastery such as irrelevant 
lexical choice, and source cultural bounds language utterances. 
Knowing the concepts merely cannot guarantee the process of avoiding 
mistakes or errors that learners have. There has been an amount of 
research on learner language which focuses on language corpus but little 
on highlighting the research specific language components 
grammatically contributing to language learners’ competence. 
Therefore, to fill the void, this study aimed at scrutinizing and yielding 
information on the practical way of phenomena in Indonesians’ 
interference by knowing the students’ feature descriptions of language 
competence. In this research, a guided interview was used to sub-ethnic 
of Banjarese which covered several Banjar Kuala and Banjar Hulu pre-
service English teachers in getting the data of this study.  The findings 
reveal language problems in lexical aspect, semantic confusion, 
incorrect use of word-formation pattern, prepositional misuse, and 
problems in language syntax and discourse.  The implication of this 
study calls for recommendations to adopt techniques in mitigating 
suggested learner language in the area of subject-verb concord, tenses, 
and lexical problems in a process of language development  

 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

Banjar Kuala 

Banjar Hulu  

pre-service English teachers  

English language practices  

learner language 

 

 

http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:nasrullah01@ulm.ac.id
mailto:elsa.rosalina@ulm.ac.id
mailto:eka.elyani@ulm.ac.id
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 255 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

The discussion on how learners learned will be closely related to historical based knowledge on 
the concept of contrastive analysis (CA), error analysis (EA), and Interlanguage (IL) since they had 
been major areas of inquiry in second language acquisition (SLA) research studies (He, 2019). He 
highlighted that contrastive analysis became a paradigm in foreign language learning during 1950s 
and 1960s. The concept of contrastive analysis (CA) was first developed by Charles Fries in 1945 as 
an integral component of the methodology of FL teaching. It CA, it was noted that in learning an 
FL, the learner tended to bring with him the knowledge of the L1, and suggested that this should be 
taken into consideration in teaching the L2 (Al-khresheh, 2016). Such descriptive comparison serves 
to show how languages differ in their sound system, grammatical structure, and vocabulary.  

However, contrastive linguists had made over claims or high expectations from the teacher. In 
fact, a few parts of the learning problems can be predicted. Many problems are of the native 
language. The main problem is that language learning cannot be comprehended by a purely 
linguistic study; those who were concerned with language learning shift their attention to the new 
disciplines of error analysis, performance analysis, or interlanguage studies. Likewise, the 
contrastive analysis was denied by many as an applied discipline. 

Since its inception in 1970s, Agbay& Reyes (2019) uttered that error analysis had been a subject 
of interest of many scholars in the past in identifying, classifying, and systematically interpreting 
flaw forms done by learners based on linguistics perspective. Moreover, it pictures out what 
problems occurred, through a systematic study or learners’ error not just to identify learning problem 
but also to open the mind of language learner (Johanssen, 2008). It is not merely a matter of 
revealing the surface position of where the spots of language deficiency are, but also heed the focus 
to correct version and something that underwrites to learner’s progress in target language mastery. In 
order words, the heart of instruction has been a shift from the teaching of second language 
acquisition whose main concern is language teacher to analyzing the learner language in the 
classroom (Tarone & Swierzbin, 2009). 

In the following phase, problems were also found EA. The study of errors is not sufficient to 
recognize learners’ difficulties rather the entire learners’ performance was very crucial to be the 
object of study, whether as it talks about errors and non-errors, through performance analysis. Then, 
the next phase of development was interlanguage studies (ILS). It was the study of learner language 
as a system to show the gradual development towards the target language. The central attention is on 
the learning process as a comparison with first language acquisition.  Özkayran & Yılmaz, (2020) 
explained that there are two types of error categories, namely, intralingual and interlingual. While 
the former is perceived by learners who feel that second language patterns are similar to first 
language forms, the latter is an incomplete application of rules of second language learned.  

As the part of interlanguage study, Rustipa (2011) added that interlanguage is resulted from L1 
transfer, strategies of second language training (e.g simplification), and overgeneralization of second 
language forms. Morover, Lasaten (2014) categorized errors in taxonomy comprising of (a) 
grammatical (prepositions, articles, reported speech, singular/plural, adjectives, relative clauses, 
infinitives, verbs and tenses, and possessive case); (b) syntactic (coordination and conjunctions, 
sentence structure, nouns and pronouns, and word order, fragment and run on); (c) lexical (word 
choice); (d) semantic (literal translation); and (e) substance/mechanics (punctuation, capitalization, 
and spelling). 

Previous studies have been conducted on EA and interlanguage.  Several of them such as Turkish 
EFL learners’ linguistics and lexical errors by Ozkan Kirmizi and Birten Karci in (2017), and the 
Nitty-gritty of Language Learners’ Errors conducted by Bandar Mohammad Saeed Al-Sobhi in 
2019, and contrastive analysis study of interlanguage errors by Gibriel in 2020.  The first study 
reported that the most causes errors made is L1 interference while the second study examines the 
errors caused by negative language transfer and why such errors occur. The third study elaborated 
theoretical review on CA, EA, and IL. Even a bulk of previously mentioned studies have been 
elaborated, however, a little research is conducted in the Indonesian context particularly in 
interlanguage perspective. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to find out a linguistic analysis on 
interlingual process done by Indonesian pre-service English teachers and formulate 
recommendations as its contribution for language teaching practices. 



256 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

2. Research Method 

This study employed a qualitative method. The research subjects were the pre-service English 
teachers recruited from students of English department academic year 2017- 2018. The total number 
of subjects was 108 students in which there were 83 students categorized as Banjar people speaking 
Banjarese in their daily lives. From the total number of Banjar people, 70 was specified as Banjar 
Kuala while 13 students were classified as Banjar Hulu. 

The techniques in collecting data used by researchers were elicitation and documentation. The 
former technique was to get the information about learner language through interview which then to 
be transcribed into written form to see erroneous sentences of spoken way. The latter one was to 
scrutinize grammatical error which might occur obtained from written one. Both ways were applied 
to get a better picture in error analysis framework toward the students’ performance to apply 
comparative taxonomy to search for whether the source of errors came from interlingual or 
intralingual. Furthermore, having those series of activities, the researchers could reveal several 
learner language characteristics e.g., lexical characteristics, syntax, and discourse. 

3. Findings and Discussion 

This part discusses research aims which address a linguistics analysis on interlingual process 
followed by discussion based related theories and recommendations to English language teaching.  

3.1. A Linguistics Analysis on Interlingual Process  

Learner language not only covers the discussion of phonological areal in language transfer, but it 
also talks about another aspect of interlanguage errors. There are two models of analyses. Learner 
language areas are stated by Lightbown et.al. (2013) who explained them into developmental 
sequences, grammatical morphemes, negation, questions, relative clauses, and reference to past. 
Furthermore, the other study was conducted by Johanssen (2008) encompassing the lexical, syntax, 
and discourse characteristics of learner language. Here is the table which elaborates the findings: 

Table 1.  Banjar Kuala Learner Language Error Identification 

No 
Banjar Kuala 

(Place of Origin) 

The Number 

of Subjects 
Learner Language Error Identification 

1 Banjarmasin 32 

article and plural, lexical error, equivalence error, concord, nominal 

sentence construction, simple sentence muddle, tenses confusion, relative 
clause problem, the use  of negative, spelling problem, verbal sentence 

construction, pronoun problem, conjunction problem, active sentence, 

to infinitive problem 

2 Banjarbaru 10 
verbal sentence construction, tenses confusion, concord, prepositional 
phrase, plural noun problem, conjunction problem, reference, complex 

sentence problem, combining sentence problem, to infinitive problem 

3 Martapura 4 combining sentence problem, lexical error, concord, determiner problem 

4 Barito Kuala 2 
sentence construction, noun phrase/word order, preposition misplace, 
concord, lexical error 

5 Pelaihari 9 

concord, mechanics problem, prepositional gerund, lexical error / 

confusion, singular/plural noun, comp  adjective problem, tenses and 

verbal problem, verbal concept problem, conjunction  problem, 
quantifier problem, complex sentence problem, passive voice, article 

problem 

6 
Tanah Bumbu 
(Batulicin, Pagatan) 

9 

apostrophe, modal, relative clause, mechanics problem, miscellaneous 

problems in sentence construction [ no clear nominal sentence ], verb 
form confusion, concord, determiner confusion, tenses, complex 

sentence problem, comp adjective problem, verb phrase problem 

7 Kotabaru 4 

conjunction problem, subject determining problem, nominal sentence, 

verb missing, lexical confusion, relative clause, spelling problem, 
negation problem 

 Total 70 subjects  

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 257 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

With regard to language learner errors done by pre-service teachers of Banjar Kuala, it was found 
that concord, lexical confusion, tenses become the most frequent errors possessed by them from 
several regencies besides other problems such as spelling problem, sentence types, the use of modal. 
This finding has been pinned by Ferris (2011) who said that ‘morphological, syntactic, and in 
particular lexical forms deviate patterns of learned language, expected from learners who learn the 
target language. In this respect, the errors are caused by limited resources patterns of mother-tongue 
language which lead learners to decide what has been possessed previously in the first language in 
actuating language performance in the target language (James:2013). 

Table 2.  Banjar Hulu Learner Language Error Identification 

No Banjar Hulu 

(Place of Origin) 

The Number  

of Subjects 

Learner Language Error 

Identification 

1 Hulu Sungai Utara (Amuntai) 3 tenses confusion 

2 Hulu Sungai Tengah (Barabai) 2 part of speech confusion, negation 

(developmental sequence ), verbal 

confusion, concord problem 

3 Hulu Sungai Selatan (Kandangan) 3 lexical choice, the absence of verb, 

concord, clause construction problem,  

spelling, verbal sentence problem, clause 
construction problem, lexical confusion, 

tenses confusion 

4 Rantau 2 mechanics problem, nominal sentence 

problem, plural noun problem, 
demonstrative pronoun, tenses problem 

concord, lexical problem, verbal confusion 

5 Balangan - - 

6 Tanjung 3 tenses problem, preposition, plural noun 

 Total 13  subjects  

  

From Table 2, it is noticeable that tenses problems, verbal confusion, case of singular and plural 
also become considerable hurdles reflected in speech produced by pre-service English teachers. In 
line with Ferris (2011), James (2013), and Gibriel (2020) also emphasized that errors in tenses and 
verb forms are frequently found for those who learn English in the process of their foreign language 
learning. Geographically, South Kalimantan consists of 13 regencies, they are: Kotabaru, Tanah 
Bumbu, Tanah Laut [Pelaihari], Banjarmasin, Barito Kuala, Banjarbaru, Banjar [Martapura], Tapin, 
Hulu Sungai Selatan [Kandangan], Hulu Sungai Tengah [Barabai], Hulu Sungai Utara [Amuntai], 
Balangan and Tabalong. All regencies’ inhabitants are mainly inhibited by the ethnic of Banjar who 
speak Banjarese in their daily lives even though several ethnics reside in that region like Dayak, 
Java, Bugis and Arab.   

Although this province has many regencies at which Banjarese is the primary language used, 
there are two main dialects of Banjarese: Bahasa Banjar Kuala and Bahasa Banjar Hulu (Hapip, 
2008). Banjar Kuala is spoken by people who live in Kotabaru, Tanah Bumbu, Tanah Laut 
[Pelaihari], Banjarmasin, Barito Kuala, Banjarbaru, Banjar [Martapura], while Banjar Hulu Dialect 
is used in Tapin, Hulu Sungai Selatan [Kandangan], Hulu Sungai Tengah [Barabai], Hulu Sungai 
Utara [Amuntai], Balangan and Tabalong.  

Several researches in phonological area in terms of vowel as well as problems in spelling for 
foreign language learners had been conducted regarding to one of sub-dialect, Banjar Hulu. 
McMahon  (2012: 103) who explained that BBH, in terms of vowel, has only 3 vowels: /ʌ/, /i/, and 
/u/, compared to English which entails 12 vowels: /ɪ/, /ɛ/, /æ/, /ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ʊ/, /i:/,/ɑ:/, /ɔ:/, /u:/, /ɜ/, and 
/ə/.  The investigation of Banjar dialect had been strengthened by two previous studies. Firstly, 
Suryadikara, et. al. (1981) stated that Bahasa Banjar Hulu has three vowels /i/, /u/, and /a/, and 



258 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

Bahasa Banjar Kuala has six vowels /i/, /u/, /a/, /o/, /`e/ and /e/. Secondly, Kawi (2002) mentioned 
that Banjarese has six vowels recognize six vowels, namely: low vowels /a/, high vowels /i/ and /u/ 
and middle vowels /e/, /ə/, and /o/.  As the second language that learners learn English, the 
phenomenon of language transfer in which the first language is believed by many researchers is to 
be one of the main factors that influence second language production (Dewaele, 1998; Cenoz, 2001; 
Liu, 2001; Ortega, 2008; Tremblay, 2006; Torrijos, 2009). Different sound systems between English 
language and the native language of the learners can lead to phonological errors as the learners tend 
to substitute the English features with what is familiar in their native language during oral 
communication (Rahmah & Sari, 2016). From the findings, it can be highlighted 2 classifications: an 
overview of learner language in the area of lexical characteristics and area of syntax and discourse.  

 

Learner Language in the Area of Lexical Characteristics    

Errors which include overuse of common words and lack of variation become lexical 
characteristics of learner language. There are 12 times lexical problems that are done by English 
learners of Banjar Kuala Learners (BKL) and 4 times done by Banjar Hulu learners (BHL) as they 
are challenged to make a written text regarding their perception of what they want to be in the 
future. They are the following identified selected problems that Banjarmasin pre-service English 
teachers have. 

One of the problems identified here is improper choice of diction. As BKL are asked under topic 
future profession, one of them stated that “…because they parent did not have money” instead of 
saying ‘their’ word, he mentioned ‘they’. It is done by the learner unconsciously. The other example 
includes the statement of “I also want to be the Indonesian embassy”. The word embassy here is not 
appropriate. In this context it is better to be replaced by the word ambassador. The other error 
produced by learner is reflected in the statement of “I aspire to be a translator”. In this case, the word 
‘aspire’ is better taken over by ‘am inspired.’  

In the meantime, the similar errors had been shown by BHL. One of them corresponds the 
question by stating “I choice this dream because I want to be useful person. The diction of ‘choice’ 
here is not properly stated. In this ‘verb’ position, the noun ‘choice’ is better replaced by the word 
choose. Moreover, there was also a learner who stated “every day I do reproduce friends. Instead of 
saying ‘make’, the learner mistakenly said improper word utterance. The second area is mistakenly 
done by BHL and BKL is word confusion. Conceptual confusion is the learning of target language’s 
words, but still semantically confused, for example, “After I graduate from degree, I hope I can get 
scholarship”. The word ‘degree’ is better substituted by this undergraduate level because the word 
‘degree’ is still too general and interpretable.   

The next area that is difficult for learners from Banjar Kuala is the use of proper 
preposition/prepositional phrases. The discussion over preposition is not only talking about the use 
of which to state about the place or position but also become complementary in completing the other 
lexical verb. As the statement spoken by one of them said that “I want to be a good teacher because 
when I was on Junior High School”. Even he has learned it overtime when he was in secondary 
school, and now he is in the university level, the use of that proper preposition is still a problem as is 
shown in the oral production performance. Likewise, Banjar Hulu learner also showed a similar 
mistake reflected in his statement such as “I took my first step to reach my dream by learn English of 
this time”. In this respect, the preposition ‘by’ is supposed to be followed by verb with gerund, and 
the preposition ‘of’ is better changed with the use of ‘at’.    

The last area which sometimes confuses learners both for Banjar Kuala and Banjar Hulu is the 
use of apostrophe. As one of the selected sample of learners who said the statement of “I want to 
make my father happy and achieve my father dream”. In this case, ‘my father dream should be 
completed with the existence of apostrophe to become my father’s dream. Thus, even this seems 
simple, the use of such punctuation will bring a good meaning of a possession. 

 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 259 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

Learner Language Characteristics in the Area of Syntax and Discourse 

 As it deals with the area of syntax and discourse, there are four main errors that were observed 
here despite its high frequent level of errors produced by Banjar Kuala and Banjar Hulu pre-service 
English teachers. The first is the use of inappropriate pronoun (Gilquin, G., & Granger, S.,2015). To 
be more specific, the use of reflexive pronouns is fairly common to be the spot of errors. The 
example of the asked learners who corresponds the answer said “Future work I want is bank 
employee because of his big salary”. The pronoun ‘his’ here might be changed into ‘its’ to express 
the possession of a thing.  

The second is the use of verb and verb phrases. Of the analysis, there are several errors that 
Banjar Kuala [around 11 errors and Banjar Hulu [4 errors] leaners do in this study. Several learners 
form Banjar Kuala said “it is can make me always remember”. In this case, there is a possibility that 
learners are still confused to distinguish use of nominal sentence and verbal sentence. So as the 
modal comes, it is usually not preceded by the existence of ‘to be’. The other error also done by 
learners is reflected by the statements “I still thinking to try another job” and “when I know the 
doctor is costs a lot. In this matter, there is an appearance of ‘to be’ in the former sentence, while at 
the latter sentence the existence of ‘to be’ is not necessary. 

Similarly, Banjar Hulu learners also did errors as some of them produced sentences such as “It 
because our prophet said good for everybody” and “My attempt to do that is always study and 
learn”. In the first sentence, the absence of ‘to be’ is not seen there while in fact it is important to 
show the good sentence construction. While in the second sentence, confusion over sentence types 
of nominal and verbal sentence has occurred here. A solution offered, there might be two ways; one 
way is by deleting ‘is’ in maintaining the other parts, and the other way is keeping the ‘to be’ and 
making the verbs become a progressive sentence. The third focus in the area of syntax and discourse 
is the use of proper concord (Johanssen, 2008). Interestingly, the most common error done by the 
learners either Banjar Kuala or Banjar Hulu is concord (around 20 errors). Concord is the connection 
between the subject and verb. They are inseparable one another. Here are several descriptions of 
concord errors of Banjar learners.  

 For Banjar Kuala, several learners produced sentences as follow “One of the advantages are…”, 
“I want to be a person who have a permanent job.”, and “I want to become a person who learn 
better”. The earlier example statement needs to change to ‘are’ to become ‘is’ because subject from 
‘one of’ is customarily classified as singular. For the second sentence and third sentence, even in the 
adjective clause structure, the concord is still applied, and in this case, the learner failed to identify 
its rule; therefore, in this case, the italic word ‘have’ is better replaced by ‘has’ while the last 
sentence the word ‘learn’ is added the ending -s to be ‘learns’. Similarly, the Banjar Hulu learners 
still did errors in their utterances as two of them stated “He always work hard for my family” and 
“Why I really want this dream come true”. The word ‘work’ in the first sentence is supposed to be 
added -s there while the word ‘come’ is also added -s to be ‘comes’.  

The last main errors problem discussed in this study is tenses problem (Simbolon, 2015). Like 
any other Indonesian learners as they learn English as a foreign language, BKL and BHL also got 
tenses problem. For both of these learners, it is hard to differentiate between past tense and present 
tense as they tell a past story. For example, one from Banjar Kuala said “I always change what I 
want to become since I am kid”, and the other from Banjar Hulu stated, “My family always 
supported me recently as I want to plan my future action in my life”. The first sentence from BKL 
uses present by the existence of ‘am’. However, it should be expressed in the past tense by the use of  
‘was’, while for the second sentence, the word ‘supported’ which is stated in past form should be 
expressed in present form to be ‘supports’ because its time period as it is spoken and meant for is in 
the present occasion. 

 

3.2. Recommendations to English Language Teaching Practices.  

Regarding the problem in SV concord as the agreement between subject and verb in a sentence, 
it is a very essential part of sentence formation. If the existence of a subject or verb is absent, the 
sentence cannot be formed and the meaning is corrupted in that structure. In light of the problem of 
concord that the students have, the teacher can use a variety of techniques; one of them is by using 



260 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

direct exposure. In this discussion, it is better for English teachers to bring about the theme of 
concord within its detail like interrupting phrases or preposition with usually follow the subject in 
order that students will be able to identify the availability of either subject or verb as predicate.  

Another technique to handle the issue of subject and verb issue might be the use of the Hand-
shape coding technique. It is a combination of hand technique and shape coding technique. Shape 
coding is a variant of the technique using types of shapes such as circle, rectangle, oval, triangle, and 
others or arrows to code the structures of a sentence such as detecting subjects, verbs and predicates. 
Besides, shapes are used to cipher the phrases and objects such as “line up” in the sentences (Ebbels, 
2013). With regard to tenses, since the different use of tenses of English as the target language and 
only single fewer tenses for the Indonesian language, the difficulties of Indonesian learners are 
dominantly found here. For example, deductive and inductive techniques can be used to learn tenses. 
While deductive one can be used to easily remember rules of English grammar, the inductive one 
can be used for making them easier to use in the communication area.  

The other technique that can be used is by using tenses simplification. In this talk, the 16 tenses 
of English can be reduced become 3 main tenses: present, past, and future. The other subdivisions 
can become the detail for those three main tenses that are used rarely in daily conversation. By this 
strategy, Indonesian learners can be familiar to understand tenses of English because of its 
similarity. With respect to lexical problems, there are several ways that can be taken to get out of it; 
one of them is by utilizing Word net; lexical database for both English and Indonesian language. 
The learners are introduced to the dictionaries or glossary which provides detailed information on 
the word use. It is done to select words appropriately based on the context of utterance. Another way 
to make learners aware of lexical choice as they speak to the target language, English in particular, is 
by introducing material of collocation, phrase, clinch, idiom, and so forth; it is supposedly done to 
make them realize that English does not only consist of a row of single word complied one after the 
other but also have words that stick together which carry a new meaning rather than in the separate 
position. 

4. Conclusion 

The findings of this study as a corresponding to research aims show that there are several 
phenomena of interlingua process carried on by pre-service English teachers as foreign language 
learners to a certain degree. The most three frequent problems that happen to both Banjar Kuala and 
Banjar Hulu people in South Kalimantan, one of the ethnic variants in Indonesian are concord, 
tenses, and lexical. While the others are: verbal and nominal sentence, conjunction, and singular 
plural noun determination. The rests comprise other sentences’ construction determiner, reference 
prepositions, comparative adjectives, and active and passive sentences. These findings can inform 
both the teachers and learners not only for the sake of improving target language competence 
knowledge but they also prompt the awareness to avoid such those problems by having more 
exercises in those more frequent areas since goals of learning are constituted from the learners’ 
needs as a form of built-in syllabus not solely from planned and imaginary teaching plan. In 
addition, since learner language has been coined with research in linguistics, this study can be an 
impetus for other researchers toward the involvement of the other linguistics aspects in English 
language teaching so the real contribution to the language instruction area can be more apparent. 

 

REFERENCES  

Agbay, N. G., & Reyes, Y. D. (2019). Scrutinizing interlingual and intralingual error: Basis for English 

writing program. The Educational Review,  3(10), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2019.10.003  

Aktas, T. (2005). Communicative competence in foreign language teaching. Journal of Language and 

Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 89. 

Al-khresheh, M. H. (2016). A review study of contrastive analysis theory. Journal of Advances in Humanities 

and Social Sciences, 2 (6). https://doi.org/10.20474/jahss-2.6.5 

https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2019.10.003
https://doi.org/10.20474/jahss-2.6.5


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 261 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

Bayraktaroglu, S. (2012). Why don’t we become successful in foreign language education what should be the 

trend in foreign language education in Turkey? Yabancı Dil Egitimi Calıstayı Bildirileri, 12-13 

November 2012. Hacettepe Universitesi, Anakara. 

Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, l2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third 

language acquisition. In Jasone Cenoz,Britta Hufeisen and Ulrike Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic 

influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp: 8-20). Clevedon, UK: 

Multilingual Matters. From Google Books, (Online), (http://books.google. com), accessed on october 

15, 2020. 

Darancık, Y. (2008). Implementation of alternative methods with literary texts in second language teaching. 

Doctorate Thesis. Adana: Cukurova University. 

Dewaele, J-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 

(Online), 19: 471- 490. 

Ebbels, S. (2013). Effectiveness of intervention for grammar in school-aged children with primary language 

impairments: A review of the evidence. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 7- 40.  

Enginarlar, H. (2003). Teaching foreign language in primary schools. foreign language education and quality 

search in Turkish education system. İstanbul: Ozel Okullar Dernegi. 

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of 

Michigan Press. 

Gunes, F. (2011). Language teaching approaches and practices in Turkish language teaching. Mustafa Kemal 

Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 8(15), 123-148. 

Gibriel, M. (2020). Crosslinguistic influence on EFL students’ writing: A contrastive analysis study of 

interlanguage errors. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(3), 1077–1084. 

https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.3.24.1077   

Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2015). Learner language. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus 

Linguistics, January, 418–436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139764377.024 

Hamamcı, Z. (2013). Examination of methodology in foreign language teaching history. Egitimve Ogretim 

Arastırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 66-70. 

Hapip, A. D. (2008). Kamus Banjar-Indonesia. Banjarmasin: Rahmat Hafiz Al-Mubaraq. 

He, L. (2019). Learner language analysis: A case study of a Chinese EFL student. Journal of Asia TEFL, 

16(3), 1013–1019. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.18.1013   

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Routledge. 

Johanssen, S (2008). Contrastive Analysis and Learner Language: A Corpus-Bases Approach. University of 

Oslo. 112.   

Kawi, Djantera. (2002). Bahasa Banjar: Dialek dan subdialeknya. Banjarmasin: PT. Grafika Wangi 

Kalimantan. 

Kirmizi, O., & Karci, B. (2017). An investigation of Turkish higher education EFL learners’ linguistic and 

lexical errors. Educational process, International Journal, 6(4), 35–54. 

https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2017.64.3  

Lasaten, R.C.S., 2014. Analysis of errors in the English writings of teacher education students. Journal of 

Arts, Science & Commerce, 5(4): 92. 

Lightbown, P, Spada, Margaret, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Liu, S. (2001). Studies on transfer in second language acquisition. Guangxi Normal University Journal, 

(Online), 3:1-29, (http://www.gxnu. edu.cn) 

McMahon, A., & McMahon, R. (2012). The vocal tract. evolutionary linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in 

Linguistics, pp. 102-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.3.24.1077
https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139764377.024
https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.18.1013
https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2017.64.3


262 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 254-262 

 

 Nasrullah et.al (Utilizing learner language to craft well –targeted endorsements) 

 

Ortega, M. (2008). Cross-linguistic influence in multilingual language acquisition: The role of L1 and non-

native languages in English and Catalan oral production. Íkala, revista de lenguajey cultura,13(19), 

121-142. 

Özkayran, A., & Yılmaz, E. (2020). Analysis of higher education students’ errors in English writing tasks. 

Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.2p.48  

Rahmah, N. A. & Sari A. L. (2016) “Phonological transfer: Banjarese language into English language. 

Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/reader/79443038 

Rustipa, K. (2011). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and the implication to language teach- 

ing. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora, 11(1), 16-22. 

Simbolon, M. (2015). An analysis of grammatical errors on speaking activities. Journal on English as a 

Foreign Language, 5(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v5i2.368  

Suryandikara, F., et.al. (1981). Geografi dialek bahasa Banjar Hulu. Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan 

Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan: Jakarta. 

Tarone, E., & Swierzbin, B,. (2009). Exploring learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Torrijos, M. M.R. (2009). Effects of cross-linguistic influences on second language acquisition: a corpus-

based study of semantic transfer in written production. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas. 

(Online), 4: 147-159, (http://ojs.upv.es) 

Tosun, C. (2012). “Is it the Reason for failure in teaching and learning foreign languages in our country 

methodology? What should be the trend in foreign language education in Turkey.” Yabancı Dil 

Egitimi Calıstayı Bildirileri, 12-13 Kasım 2012 

Tremblay, M-C. (2006). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: The role of L2 proficiency 

and L2 exposure. Cahiers Linguistiquesd’Ottawa. (Online), 34: 109-119. 

 

 

 

 

  

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.2p.48
https://core.ac.uk/reader/79443038
https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v5i2.368
http://ojs.upv.es/

