Linguistic errors made by Islamic university EFL students

In a writing activity students are required to transfer their knowledge to express their ideas on both what to say and how to say it. The difficulties in applying this knowledge have become obstacles for learners in constructing good writing. Consequently, these obstacles may cause the students to make errors. By adopting the notions of Error Analysis (EA) and the Surface Strategy Taxonomy as the theoretical frameworks, this study investigates the types of linguistic errors produced by the students. Along the way the sources behind the errors were also analyzed. This study employed the qualitative method design in which the case study approach was utilized. Ellis’ five-step procedure of EA was adopted to analyze the data of essays comprising of 150-300 words written by 23 EFL students of the fourth-semester at English Department at a state university. They were purposively selected as the participants of this study. It was found that omission was the most frequent errors identified in the students’ writings. Overall, 122 (63%) cases out of 195 cases were categorized under this type of errors. The number marker, verb-tense, article, preposition, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun were the categories of frequent errors made by the students, respectively. These were followed by addition (18%), misformation (15%), and misordering (5%). Significance to the source of errors, intralingual transfer turned out to be the main reason that provoked the blunder in the students’ writings. It was apparent that some of the interlinguistic contrast was the reason behind the errors. It appeared that the diverse systematical concept between the Indonesian language and English in terms of verb conjugation factor, inflectional morpheme, and auxiliary-verb abandonment were the strong contenders of the error sources. Additionally, interlingual transfer and context of learning also took part for the reason behind the errors.


INTRODUCTION
Due to its contrastive nature, both the English and the Indonesian language have a series of distinct grammatical systems that may hinder English as a foreign language (EFL) students the absolute mastery of its systematic structures. Consequently, this linguistic obstacle may trigger students from committing errors during the writing activity. Alfiyani (2013) reasons that the language features such as how a sentence is constructed and diverse grammatical rules of learners' native language in contrast to those of the target language affect the production of well-formed sentences. As a result, students find it difficult to express their idea of constructing a clear and comprehensible pattern of writing. Consequently, they find it easier to write a sentence that reflects the system of their native language rather than one that employs distinct language features (Polat, 2018).
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that an error is not entirely detrimental in a foreign language teaching context. Brown (2006, p. 226) states that error is "a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker". Avoidance of error is almost impossible to evade during the learning period for students. When students make mistakes, it means that they happen to be, among other things, lacking the knowledge of the target language rules. Imaniar (2018) defends that neither the teacher nor the material, and not even the students can behold accounted for the errors made during language learning since it is naturally part of the learning itself. Most importantly, people cannot master a language without committing errors.
Many have tried to construct the foundation on which error type classifications can be associated with. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) come with their surface strategy taxonomy of error classification to distinguish the linguistic errors committed by the EFL learners. Moreover, there are many factors that can be accounted for the sources and the reasons behind the errors such as overgeneralization, first language interference, and language transfer (intralingual transfer and interlingual transfer) (Carrió-Pastor & Mestre-Mestre, 2014; Moqimipour & Shahrokhi, 2015;Jeptarus & Ngene, 2016). Ellis (1985, pp. 52-53) points out two contributions of error analysis on the process of acquisition: first, it shows the linguistic types of errors produced by Second Language (L2) learners during their sequence of development, though it is unable to tell much about the stage of the sequence. As it is, while the dynamic of the learner's language is recognized by error analysis, it is unable to point out the learner's recognizable development during the sequence (Jeptarus & Ngene, 2016). Second, it provides a strong ground on psycholinguistic types of errors produced by L2 learners. Although the cause of an error can be classified from what type of grammatical error a learner produces, no single cause of errors is held accountable for the entire duration and stage of one language learning process and progress. In other words, today's cause of errors might not be the source of yesterday or tomorrow's errors. In addition, the error provides clues about what kind of strategies learners employ to simplify the task of learning an L2. Ellis (1994, p. 50) also suggests a comparison between the learner's language production and an 'accurate' target language by way of recognizing it. From this comparison, a grammatical description will be assigned to each error which was found in the corpus, thus concluded the process of error classification.
An attempt to label the cause of the error could be established form one of Richards' (1971) three identifications; interlingual errors, intralingual errors, and developmental errors (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2011, p. 23). The error evaluation process may involve assessing the seriousness of error from which the appropriate principle teaching decision is derived to help learners overcome this difficulty. Dulay et al. (1982, p. 146) also classify four types of grammatical errors that are commonly used to describe the descriptive classification of errors; they are linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, comparative taxonomy, and communicative taxonomy.
The linguistic category taxonomy deals with the defiant of the structure produced by a language learner based on linguistic components or a certain element of the linguistic component (phonology, syntax, grammar, semantics, lexicon, and discourse) (Tizazu, 2014;Anggraeni, 2016). Meanwhile, the surface structure taxonomy focuses solely on the way in which the mechanisms of one's language structures are altered, hence the grammatically observable surface of errors in an utterance (Maniam & Rajagopal, 2016). Relevant to the comparative taxonomy of error classification, surface structure taxonomy discusses the analysis of errors based on the comparison between the altered structures of the target language utterances produced by an L2 learner and other types of language constructions (Kalipour & Khojasteh, 2012). For example, the errors made by the native English children who are in the process of acquiring the language are used as comparative data to those of the Italian EFL learner defiant productions in order to classify the errors. The last classification is the communicative taxonomy. It is related to the overall effect on the listener/reader's perspective after receiving information. Errors are distinguished based on whether or not it causes miscommunication or hinder the communication (Irawansyah, 2017).
Because the scope of this study is to investigate students' grammatical errors within the span of the surface strategy taxonomy, it is narrowed down the detailed explanation particularly for this type of error. Given that the nature of the surface strategy taxonomy emphasizes on the alterations within a language's surface structure (Dulay et al., 1982, p. 150), analyzing errors by way of surface strategy might offer us a glimpse into the students' cognitive process that underlies their constructions of a target language system. Accordingly, it is categorized into omission, addition, misformation, and misordering error types (Alhaisoni, Gaudel, & Al-Zuoud, 2017).
Additionally, in view of the fact that the Indonesian language comprises of some diverse (i.e. tenses) and specific use of its linguistic category which encompasses the grammatical structures within its linguistics' surface system that defiant from English, it is as good of a chance to see the reason behind the errors that Indonesian EFL learners might produce during their English learning. By way of comparing the structures of both languages and the errors, hopefully, it might give an insight into how Indonesian students perceive the linguistic system of English and whether or not these differences might hinder their English language learning process.
Several researchers have attempted to thematize the categories of errors in various types of learners' writings (Liu, 2013;Phuket & Othman, 2015;Tasci & Aksu-Atac, 2018) while others concentrate on exploring the causes of errors in learners' writing (Heydari & Bagheri, 2012;Watcharapunyawong & Usaha, 2013;Zheng & Park, 2013). Hamzah (2012) has focused on the taxonomy types of errors as a whole, and he found that out of fifteen categories of taxonomy errors, the students were inclined to commit errors in six categories, they are word choice, verb group, article, preposition, plurality, and spelling. The rest are subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, relative clause, possessive, copula omission and mechanic. Zawahreh (2012) has also investigated the errors made by 350 tenth grade students in 63 schools in Jordan and found that within the morphology category of errors, lack of agreement between the subject and the main verb predominantly appears in the students' written texts. Zawahreh (2012) in more detail concluded that the errors were caused by first language and intralanguage interference.
Furthermore, Pandarangga's (2015) found that an EFL student tended to omit verb-agreement when he used the simple present tense in the third singular pronouns. Errors occurred because the participant was trying to invent a new language system that correlates with his native language. Pandarangga reasoned that this process was influenced by the participant's reluctance to process the target language's correct rules.
Significance to the sources of errors, Fauziati (2017) sheds light on the influence of the interlingual transfer and the intralingual transfer on the Indonesian EFL interlanguage written production. It was stated that the verb-tenses were the type of error that was dominantly found in the students' writing. The interlingual transfer occurred due to the limited knowledge of the target language linguistic system while the intraligual transfer happened as a result of double activation of both the native and the target language systems within the learner's cognitive domain despite his/her intention to produce the target language structure.
Most of the earlier studies have been devoted to merely finding out the types of errors. While few of them discussed the basic reasons for the sources of errors, a significantly small number of studies attempted to further elaborate the reason behind these errors. This is one of the reasons why the current study was worth conducting. Furthermore, even fewer studies have yet delved further into what was the actual reasons behind the errors in terms of the interlinguistic contrast between the English and the Indonesian linguistic systems. Hence, it would be another reason why the finding of this study was worth sharing. The aim of the present study is , therefore, to identify the type of linguistic errors made by the university EFL learners, to explain the source of the errors, and to elaborate the nature of the error sources on the level of the interlanguage contrast between the English systematic structures and those of the Indonesian language.

METHOD
On the consideration of merely explaining the information, this research employed the qualitative method design (Golden, 2017) by means of the case study approach to strengthen and lengthen the information that is already known (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2010, p. 454). Furthermore, the framework of error analysis, the surface strategy taxonomy, and the language transfer were also used in the study.
Twenty-three students from the fourthsemester were purposively selected as the participants of this study. The reason corresponds with the characteristic of homogeneous purposive sampling (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016) of the similarity attribution traits shared between the selected candidates in terms of their age, culture, and their occupation as student. Additionally, it is also based on the consideration that they have studied several topics of English grammatical rules in the previous semesters .
The data for the research were collected from the document, which is acquired from a test given by the researcher during the Writing Course. The test was administered to acquire relevant data about the errors committed by the students. The test participated by the students was a writing test that comprised of 150-300 words or more. The topic outlining a list of questions/statements by way of a framework for students to write down their ideas under the topic of 'Phone should not be banned from school' was prepared. This was done to minimize the variation on the focused topic, with the intention of simplifying and ease the process of discovering the error pattern and its sources. Such simplification was applied in the hope to determine students' minds on how they decode and format their words from the native language into the target language. As a result, the causes of errors can be terminated.
In analyzing learners' errors, five-step procedures from Ellis (1994) were adopted. The first three of the Error Analysis procedure narrates the examination intended for types of error classification (Tizazu, 2014). The phase of procedure starts, firstly, with collecting learners' language samples obtained from students who were responding to the same task provided. The second procedure was finding an element in the students' samples (students' essays) which were in some way deviant to the target language in order to identify the errors. To do this, the samples were compared to the 'correct' sentence in the L2. Thirdly, describing errors carried out by classifying the errors according to all four main classifications of the surface strategy taxonomy categorized by Dulay et al. (1982).
The consequence of the error classification, the patterns found in the participants' error description were used as a benchmark in order to explain the reasons behind their occurrence. These causes of errors were analyzed based on the two basic rules or criteria; language transfer and context of learning (Brown, 2006;Littlewood, 2004;Mestre-Mestre & Carrió-Pastor, 2012). The coding process of identifying the causes of errors was designed following a grid model adaptation proposed by Carrió-Pastor and Mestre-Mestre (2012).
In calculating the number of errors and the frequency of errors, Walizer and Wiener's (1990, p. 96) statistical calculation to display the error percentage was employed: Where: P is the percentage of error F is the frequency of error N is the total number of sample

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The omission comes out as the errors students frequently produced and had difficulty dealing with. As can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 1, taken as a whole, there are 195 cases of errors made by the EFL students in their writing. The average blunder is found in omission, representing 62.56 % from 122 cases. The content morphemes category of error dominates by 95 cases with grammatical morphemes only found in 27 cases. It is followed by addition type of error; cementing 36 cases, which is 18.46 % among the percentages. Three categories under this error, which are double marking, regularization, and simple addition, share almost the same scores of errors in 10, 15, and 11 cases, respectively. The error of misformation directly shadows with 14.87 % out of 100 % in 29 cases, with 28 cases of them fall under the alternating form category and the remaining one classifies into the archi-forms. Meanwhile, misordering stands last with the least cases of error at 4.10 %, scoring 8 out of 195 cases of errors found in the students' writings. subject-verb agreement, preposition, article, number marker, and pronoun (Tizazu, 2014). Overall, 122 cases, out of 195 cases, are categorized under the omission types of errors, which constitute 63 % out of the total number of errors. The majority of them come in the form of verb-tense errors (27 cases), either because the students overlook the concordance factor, fail to notice the auxiliary verb, or simply disregard the main verb's existence, the most noticeable of which were found in the number marker (39 cases). It occurred when students failed, for example, to synchronize the quantifier with the noun that follows. The second most obvious error manifests in the incorrect choice of article, scoring at 20 cases alone. Meanwhile, both preposition and subject-verb agreement share a close count with 14 and 13 cases respectively. The smallest number of errors in this classification is caused by the pronoun, with only 7 cases. Table 2 presents some examples of omission errors. In regard to this, each of these errors will be explained further, separately. The first part of omission error clas sification talks about the formulation and the use of verbs, in which an incomplete one might deduce a meaningful sentence or worst produce an incomprehensible one. There are multiple cases found when students forget or simply disregard the significant role of helping verb in a sentence. This little defect leads to a huge mistake of systematically grammatical conception in the English language. Take a look at the sentence (a). The complete sentence in the students' writing is 'Like Google, which in smartphone. ' The participant was trying to formulate a relative close, which is a non-restrictive clause. It is a clause that can be left out without changing the initial meaning of a sentence. It is merely additional information about the subject. The majority of people know that Google is one of the applications in the smartphone, so leaving out the words does not change the meaning of the sentence. However, the incomplete application of the system in (a), which is the helping verb, generates an ungrammatical utterance.
Not only do they forget to include the helping verb in a subordinate close, there are cases in which students also overlook the implication of its vacancy in a dependent close. Sentence (b) omits the linking verb (is). Its abstention misconnects the subject and the words that offer additional information about the subject itself. Unlike the auxiliary verb and main verb, they do not express any ongoing action/condition or occurring in relation to another event.
Meanwhile, the next classification of omission errors deals with little details in a word that if omitted might change the meaning and class of the word. The majority of cases found in the students' writing within this classification fall under either the absence of -s marker verb agreement at the end of a verb marking the 3rd person singular or -s morpheme for the number marker.
Remember, the grammatical rule for 3rd person singular is a concordance of subject-verb agreement. In other words, there must be a 3rdperson singular -s marker attached to the end of the verb. If this rule is violated, the utterance is wrong, as shown in (c). The subject in the sentence is 'it'. However, the morpheme -s for the verb 'make' was left out. As a result, the sentence is incorrect. In terms of the number marker agreement, in lieu of the factor of concordance, almost all of the students struggle when it involves quantifiers. In sentence (d), the absence of a plural marker on the noun, 'game', affects the grammatical rule of number. The use of 'many' represents a large number of entities involved, thus making it a marker of the plural in contraction. The correct utterance is 'many games'. The same cases of number marker also happen in the sentence (e). Quantifiers are used to talk about quantities, amounts, and degrees of the specific noun. Much is used with a singular uncountable noun, e.g. 'much concern', while many is used with a plural countable noun, such as many stories.

The addition errors
As opposed to omission, addition is characterized by "the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance (Dulay et al., 1982, p. 156). It could happen for several reasons, they are: by adding an unnecessary lexicon within the sentence that hinders the intended meaning, pluralization where it doesn't call for, double pronouns, and tense. The last part is mainly caused by the disagreement factor between the subject and the verb or between the helping verbs. Overall, 36 cases, out of 195 cases, are categorized under the addition types of errors, constituting 18% out of the total numbers of errors.
The most common errors come from the wrong operation of tenses (26 cases). It might be caused by the use of two levels of tense markers in a sentence, such as modal and past-participle; disagreement of an auxiliary verb and the subject, or incomplete rule of application which affects the concordance feature within the basic tense. Insignificant words were added by a count of 8 cases in the students' writing. Meanwhile, pluralization and pronoun follow by 4 cases and 3 cases respectively. Table 3 presents some examples of addition errors. More than half of the cases in the addition type errors are found in the students' writings accounted for tenses. The causes, as has been mentioned above, might be for various reasons. They particularly have difficulties in subject verbagreement. It is proved by inserting two tense markers, either of the same level or two levels of tenses, within a sentence.
Take a look at sentence (a) for the use of two levels of tense markers in a sentence. It consists of modal, 'can'. Unlike other verbs, it does not change its form; neither into an infinitive nor participle (past/present) and the verb proceeded by a modal must be in the basic form (infinitive). Since 'searched' came after the modal (can), no additional tense conjugation is needed (search).
As opposite to tense, students face only a very small amount of difficulty in terms of addition in the aspect of pronoun. Sentence (b) is an example of how students double marked a sentence by inserting two pronouns or subjects at the same time. It is incorrect simply because of the use of two subjects in one sentence without the use of a comma (,) or conjunction, such as 'and' and 'or'.
Like omission, students also tend to add an additional marker of tense that usually ends in a disagreement of an auxiliary verb and the subject. 'Have' is the first and second person conjugation, the act of verb alteration into a different form to provide the right context, of the verb 'to have'. It means to have something or to be in possession of something. In utterance (c), the subject is thirdperson singular (it), making 'has', the third person singular conjugation, the appropriate auxiliary verb.
Even though it only occurs in one moment or two. This exception on how quantifier rule and number agreements are regularly applied did create its own kind of problem for students. Sentence (d) is the example of an exception in the rule of the quantifier. In sentence (d), 'information' is both used to indicate singular and plural, so morpheme -s should not be added to the end of the word , albeit preceded by a quantifier (some).
The majority of students' blunders in the additional types of errors are related to simple addition, in which they add a simple unnecessary element or word that have no relation to the utterance. Contextually, in the utterance (e) the writer was trying to tell the reader the many additional applications rather than the second of two things. So between other and the other, the most appropriate one to use to suit the context correctly is the first of the two.
An interesting case occurred in (f), where the student accidentally adds the word 'up' before use. When these two words are combined, it offers another meaning altogether from what she originally intended as 'the action of using something. Use up means run out; nothing is left. This word combination feature is also known as collocation in English.

The misformation errors
Misformation errors deal with the wrong use of the structure of morpheme. Archi-forms and alternating forms are two of two types of misformation error. The former deals with the dependability use of one member of a class form to represent others in the same class as the result of the inability to differentiate it (Tizazu, 2014). Meanwhile, the latter focuses on the inaccurate use of vocabulary in an utterance.
Overall, 29 cases, out of 195 cases, are categorized under the misformation types of errors, constituting 15% of the total number of errors (see Table 4). Excluding one case that appears in the archi-forms category, all 28 cases are categorized in the classification of the alternating forms. The table below presents some examples of misformation errors. In regard to this, each of these errors will be explained further, separately. Alternating form type of error focuses on the inaccurate use of vocabulary in an utterance hence it is called misformation. In view of the fact that students are the EFL learners, errors conducted over an appropriate choice of the lexicon cannot be avoided considering English is not their first language. For this reason, errors are bound to happen. One for an exception, the rest of the cases fall under the criteria of what constitutes to be a fitting word to use in a sentence. Students felt the pressure of this aspect given that they did make several blunders over it.
In terms of grammatical errors, there are some difficulties faced by students materialized under the inaccurate placement of preposition of place dynamic among 'at' 'on' and 'in'. In sentence (c), 'at' is normally used for a point, e.g. 'at the corner', while 'in' is for an enclosed space, e.g. in the Aceh, in a box. In English, 'in' is used for the most general places that are seen as a physical location. The students also absorb for an inaccurate preposition of 'on' in the utterance (d). 'On' is commonly used to express a surface of something whereas 'in' is to indicate a place/location.
In addition to preposition, students' attempt to sentence production based on the unsuitable choice of the word also transpires within the range of modal. Both can and could can be used to express possibility (sentence e), but the certainty and connotation are slightly different. It could show that something is possible but not certain whereas it can is used to make general statements about what is possible to execute. Whereas sentence (b) is correct, the error also occurred mainly as the result of word choice. Can is only talking about the possibility of the action coming to realization with the actual potential of not happening. Will is both assume the potential and express a commitment.
One interesting result of misformation regarding the archi-forms comes to light in the fact that only one student appears to be having a problem with it. Note that this criterion talks about student's dependability in the use of one member of a class form to represent others in the same class as a result of his inability to differentiate it. In this cas e, the student always uses the same demonstrative 'those' either when he is dealing with a plural noun or singular noun.

The misordering errors
The last type of error in the surface strategy taxonomy is called misordering. This type of error relates to the "incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morpheme in utterance" (Dulay et al., 1982, p. 162). It can be in the form of adverb misplacement, subject misplacement, etc. There are only 8 cases in this classification, which constitutes 4 % out of the total numbers of cases. Both categories are sharing the same amount of errors, which are 4 cases for each. The table below presents some examples of misordering errors.
The number of errors found is only four cases, it can be interpreted that students rarely have difficulty regarding this type of error. Take a look at the first example in Table 5. The use of the verb 'to be' before the adverbs of frequency is very common. Sentence (b) violated this rule by placing the adverbs before the verb 'to be'. Meanwhile, sentence (a) is inflicted with the wrong order of words; the result is a confusing and incorrect sentence. The basic word order is S-V-O. This means the subject comes before the verb (influence), which comes before the object (student).
After analyzing all four types of errors, it is important to note that one student only produced one error. This error is categorized in the regularization category under the addition classification. '*Bill Gates have forbidden his child' instead of 'Bill Gates has forbidden his child'. The slip-up occurred do to her failure in acknowledging the appropriate form of the auxiliary verb in the context of the subject-verb agreement aspect for the 3rd person singular (has), and the writer inclines to believe it just that, a slip-up. A mistake if you might. Seeing as no other errors appeared in her productions and considering that she was able to write correctly in the similar situation that obliges her to write in the 3rd person singular tenses or other types of sentences, her so-called error is treated as a mistake rather than an error.

Types of grammatical errors
As explained in the Introduction, the errors found in the data were classified according to their underlying taxonomy of the surface strategy, following Dulay et al.'s (1982) four main classifications of grammatical errors namely omission, addition, misformation, and misordering errors, with a further seven sub-divided categories also being distinguished. Kim (2001) and Heydari and Bagheri (2012) offer the same finding as they reported that omission was among the most frequent types of errors that can be found in students' written productions. Quite many participants in this study demonstrate the faulty of deviancy when dealing with singular/plural nouns/verbs number of agreement. An indication that Napitupulu (2017) dubs as an unconscious familiarity in which students have been accustomed to writing it that way. Partially, one of the reasons why omission comes out as the most salient errors in the students' writings is due to the reason of verb abandonment (Agustia, 2018). The Indonesian language does not need any kind of verb marker (-s or -ed) and auxiliary verb to express the change in tenses. The tense is denoted in time adverbs such as 'yesterday.' The second type of error frequently identified in learners' writings is the addition. The huge gap of cases between omission and addition implies that the students have already grasped the basic concept of certain structures. However, it slips out of their attention or is simply not aware that some items should have not existed in a certain part. Nonetheless, addition error signifies that the students indeed have acquired some basic rule of the target language (Imaniar, 2017).
Misformation error follows closely as the third type of error found in the students' written production. The most significant datum in the alternating form category is greatly influenced by the choice of the lexicon used in the texts. In most cases, the word choices are partially influenced by the Indonesian context. As a consequence, the accuracy of the word meaning leads to errors production.
The last type of error is misordering which accounts only for 4%. This error classification relates to the wrong placement of an item in a sentence. The result proves that while errors did exist in this classification, word order is not big of an obstacle for students.

The sources of errors
The main reason pertaining to the source of error is intralingual transfer, as can be seen in Table 6 and Figure 2, which proved with 210 occurrences, more than half of the cases (74 %). The next highest frequency behind the reasons for errors made by the students is interlingual transfer. The total number of interlingual transfer cases found in the essays was 51, which constitute about 18 % of the total number of errors.
The data used in this paper for the detection behind the sources of errors are displayed in the features shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. The observable fact that intralingual transfer to be the major source behind the errors is considered normal since the second language learners try to derive the rules from the data of the target language to which they have been exposed. In other words, they are in the process of learning. During this stage, they begin to develop hypotheses that in turn might correspond to their mother tongue or to neither of their native nor the L2 (Carrió-Pastor & Mestre-Mestre, 2014). In short, it is the period of trial and error, where learners do make a mistake as a result of their progression. Once learners have begun to acquire parts of a new system, a more and more intralingual transfer is manifested (Brown, 2006, p. 225). As this phase proceeds, learners start to formulate new utterances based on the information they experience (Brown, 2006, p. 225) before they finally capable of producing the 'correct' sentences. This explanation is based on the consideration that students face a large amount of difficulty in dealing with the complexity of English grammar rules compared to spelling or vocabulary, for example (Ciesielkiewicz, 2015).
The next highest frequency behind the reasons for errors made by the students is interlingual transfer. This indicates that student's native language, at this point, merely plays a minimal role regarding writing in the target language, though it cannot be overlooked (Bataineh, 2005). Consider the fact that, one, these Indonesian EFL students have been studying the language since their junior high, and, two, the interlingual transfer comes second after the intralingual transfer. The former tries to explain that the students have been exposed to the new language system for some years, that that they are familiar with it and have been studying it for some time.
Subsequently, this leads to the second point, which is trying to tell us that currently, the students are in the process of constructing and manipulating the data of the target language they had already possessed. In short, students' errors are mainly the outcome of how students manipulate this data into a 'correct construction' of L2, not the interference. Can (2018) deduced this frequency and consistency rate of intralingual transfer as the foundation that views interlingual transfer occurred infrequently during the advanced stage of learning. This view is supported by Abusaeedi and Boroomand (2015) as saying that students' errors are mostly to be resulting from partial learning of the target language (intralingual transfer). Supporting with the reality that EFL learners have a penchant to always thought and formulate an utterance in their L1 first before finally producing in the L2 (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017).

Interlingual transfer Literal translation
Considering the errors lead by Indonesian language interference, the most frequent errors occurring in interlingual transfer are the literal translation of Indonesian words into English words. The first notable trend in literal translation criteria relates to lexical interference is regarding an exact syntactic equivalence. Hopkinson (2007) explains this phenomenon as the learners' unconscious attempt to seek and match the exact lexical equivalence between word items in the Indonesian language utterance and the English target text. Volynec and Dailidėnaitė (2013) suggest that lexical interference is a common tendency, albeit its difficulty, in written production and gives more damage than bestow an exact translation when interpreting one's native language into the target language.

Substitution in preposition
The analysis of the collected data in terms of types of errors discovered that the errors in the use of prepositions accounted for omission and addition classification. However, there are some cases where the use of preposition is utilized outside of these two classifications should we analyzed it from the literal translation's point of view (Phuket & Othman, 2015). Remember that distinctively, the prepositions are used in a variety of languages, regardless of all the linguistic features differences. Nonetheless, the same preposition can convey a totally different meaning from one language to another. These differentiations of perception in both languages open ways for students to interpret the translation as to how they drew it from their L1, hence the substitution in its usage. Alshammari (2017) assumes that the difficulties to perceive the correct way of application come from the different nature of one's language and English. Dawoud (2017) associates students' failure in selecting an equivalent preposition correctly with a lack of competence and the unfamiliarity factor. Meanwhile, Hermet and Desilets (2009) Table 6 above shows that the most frequent error in the intralingual transfer originated from omission. It usually occupies around the abandonment of auxiliary verb (Agustia, 2018) as well as the alteration of how to use a verb in the present and past. Subsequently, students also incline to omit the third-person marker at the end of the verb, both in the past (-ed) and present (-s). The endless form is generalized for all persons. It can be associated with overgeneralization seeing that the Indonesian language carries an obvious contrast to English in terms of its grammatical component in the inflectional morpheme aspect.

Intralingual transfer Auxilary verb, verb conjugation factor, and inflectional morpheme
He kicks the chair=> I kick the chair => They kick the chair The fact is, the Indonesian language does not have a conjugation verb, at least not in the way the English language conjugates its verb to suit the tenses. For example, the verb minum 'to drink' will never change its form no matter what the noun and pronoun, no matter what tenses it used with. It denotes by time adverb such as kemarin 'yesterday' or by other indicators such us sudah 'already'. Besides, verbs are also not inflected for person or number. It is a way to say that unlike Slavic language, the Indonesian language is not included in the category of an inflected language (Larasati, Kubon & Zeman, 2011 Under this category, any occurrences of structures deviancy represent some degrees of development. For example, in the use of passive voice in English. Many EFL learners are having difficulty in this grammatical aspect of English. Sometimes in term of the transformation from active to passive whose systems involves two completely different features. The other times, merely in nuisance over some little elements that students accidentally omitted or added in the sentence. This flawed pattern of the application might have resulted from the incomplete and/or limited knowledge of the target language and carelessness (Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, 2017). This additional item, or lack thereof, symbolizes a state where a grammatical system is unsuccessfully applied. Simply put, learners fail to use a fully developed structure in their sentences (Heydari & Baghri, 2012). As a consequence of this complexity, learners are more likely preferred to avoid using the passive voice in their productions.

Context of learning
A pattern that simultaneously appears in the context of the learning category is a generalization. Learners tend to practice one-rule conception in which they applied one linguistic system for all other systems included under the same class category. Take subject-verb agreement and number marker for example. Students have a tendency to disregard the tense marker -s at the end of the verb for the 3rd person singular. This faulty comprehension of distinction and the ability to 'go beyond the information' (Littlewood, 2004) reflect overgeneralization rule students applied in their learning process. In addition, the fact that some of the participants can escape this experience proves that the instructor cannot be blamed for any conduct of misleading information during the teachingleaning process. Note how the students draw their mother tongue's linguistic system to help them formulate an L2 sentence based on his L1's rule. The influence of the mother tongue's linguistic system as the fundamental aspect of interlingual transfer is indisputably unavoidable, particularly because the learners' exposure to the target language is limited only in the formal context of classroom instruction (Mahmoud, 2000). Not to mention the limited occasion of learning process confines only for a few hours per week.

CONCLUSION
EFL learners are prone to omit items or elements that should have been included in the norm of the English linguistic system. Frequently, in relation to dealing with singular/plural nouns/verbs number of the agreement follows by the number marker inconsistency dynamic. Partially, it can be associated with overgeneralization seeing that the Indonesian language carries an obvious contrast to English in terms of its grammatical component in the inflectional morpheme aspect and the fact that the Indonesian language does not have conjugation verb.
In connection to the source of errors, intralingual transfer turns out to be the main reason that provokes the blunder in the students' writing. The verdict of normality upon this view is observed and judged based on the fact that students try to formulate the sentences based on the data of the target language they have been exposed to and in the process error ensued. Most of the intralingual transfer is originated from omission. In general, students have difficulties in the use of English tenses due to the abstention of verb conjugation in Indonesian and the fact that it is not an inflected language. In addition, there are cases where the grammatical system is unsuccessfully applied, and it frequently happens when the students were dealing with a passive voice in which the complexity of the rule bond to the inaccuracy of production. As a consequence, they try to avoid writing in this form of structure.
Literal translation and substituted use of preposition are largely justified as the reasons behind the interlingual transfer. Sometimes students perform literal translation of Indonesian words into English, word-by-word. The realization of this act commends the structure of the transfer of their mother tongue's linguistic system into English utterances. In addition to that, literal translation typically is the result of substitution in a preposition. It occurs when a preposition is used on behalf of literal translation and/or transfer of structure instead of how it is correctly used in English. Meanwhile, in the context of learning, learners try to generalize and applied one linguistic system for all other systems that included under the same class category, for example, the absence of the tense marker -s at the end of the verb for the 3rd person singular.