Lost in Translation: Unraveling Grammatical Interference in Students’ Writing

Fadilla Taslim; Hendrisman; Refnawati; Desfi  Yenti; Afdaleni; Paramitha  Suryadi

doi:10.31539/7ep4b439

Authors

Fadilla Taslim STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan
Hendrisman STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan
Refnawati STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan
Desfi Yenti STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan
Afdaleni ITB Haji Agus Salim Bukittinggi
Paramitha Suryadi STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31539/7ep4b439

Abstract

This study addressed the grammatical interference of Indonesian (L1) in the English (L2) writing of English as Foreign Language (EFL) students. The purpose of this study was to identify the types of Indonesian grammatical interference that occur in the writing of EFL students and to examine the factors that contribute to its occurrence. A descriptive qualitative design was employed. The participants were fourth-semester students of the English Study Program at STKIP Yayasan Abdi Pendidikan who were enrolled in the Scientific Writing course during the 2024/2025 academic year. Data were collected through a writing test, a semi-structured interview, and classroom observation, and were analyzed using the interactive model of Miles and Huberman, comprising data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. The findings reveal that the students’ L1 grammar continued to influence their L2 writing and that grammatical interference occurred in two categories: syntactical interference and morphological interference. Within syntactical interference, prepositions produced the greatest number of errors, followed by word order, while within morphological interference, the omission of determiners was the most frequent error, followed by singular–plural forms and the be-form. The observation and interviews indicated that the interference stemmed primarily from the structural differences between English and Indonesian grammar, compounded by the students’ habit of composing their ideas in Indonesian first and then translating them into English, together with their limited mastery of English vocabulary and grammar. The study concludes that reducing grammatical interference requires contrastive, form-focused instruction that explicitly addresses the structural gaps between the two languages.

Keywords: EFL Writing, Grammatical Interference; Higher Education; L1–L2 Differences; Language Transfer

References

Andersson, A., Sayehli, S., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Language background affects online word order processing in a second language but not offline. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 802–825. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000573

Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.

Chaer, A. (2009). Tata bahasa praktis bahasa Indonesia. Rineka Cipta.

Chatterjee, A., & Halder, S. (2022). Teaching grammar in the context of writing: A critical review. Journal of Education, 203(4), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221074308

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.

Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Erdocia, K., & Laka, I. (2018). Negative transfer effects on L2 word order processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00337

Flores, T. J. N. (2023). The effect of language interference in learning English syntax for Spanish native speakers: A case study in a Mexican context. Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 6(2), 45–50.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.

Hashemi, A., & Daneshfar, S. (2018). The impact of different teaching strategies on teaching grammar to college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(3), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0803.10

Hopp, H., Bail, J., & Jackson, C. N. (2020). Frequency at the syntax–discourse interface: A bidirectional study on fronting options in L1/L2 German and L1/L2 English. Second Language Research, 36(1), 65–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658318802985

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Irmalia, M. (2016). Indonesian interference in students’ writing. English Education Journal, 7(4), 498–508.

Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.

Lennon, P. (2008). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage. In S. Gramley & V. Gramley (Eds.), Bielefeld introduction to applied linguistics: A course book (pp. 51–60). Aisthesis.

Mahmud, & Arifin, W. (2017). Interference: Its role in the second or foreign language mastery to Indonesian learners. ELT Perspective, 5(1), 1–10.

Martanti, P. (2011). An analysis of grammatical interference in articles of Berani newspaper [Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta].

Mickan, A., & Lemhöfer, K. (2020). Tracking syntactic conflict between languages over the course of L2 acquisition: A cross-sectional event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(5), 822–846. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01528

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

Misbah, N. H., Mohamad, M., Yunus, M. M., & Ya’acob, A. (2017). Identifying the factors contributing to students’ difficulties in the English language learning. Creative Education, 8(13), 1999–2008. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.813136

Nangle, B. M. (2024). An analysis of the most common L1 interference grammar, vocabulary, and syntax errors of Lithuanian learners in written English. Sciendo, 24, 79–105.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.

Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x

Sarfraz, S., Mansoor, Z., & Tariq, R. (2016). Analysis of grammatical interference and its social acceptability in the Pakistani context. In Proceedings of GlobELT 2016: An International Conference on Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language. Antalya, Turkey.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209

Shaari, N., Shaari, A., & Abdullah, M. (2021). Investigating the impact of flipped classroom on dual language learners’ perceptions and grammatical performance. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(2), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.18872

Shahin, N. (2011). Error treatment in TESOL classroom. Jordan Journal of Applied Science: Humanities Series, 13(1), 207–226.

Suwito. (1983). Pengantar awal sosiolinguistik: Teori dan praktik. Henary Offset.

Weinreich, U. (2011). Languages in contact: Findings and problems (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins.