Beyond Linguistic Errors: Communicative Variation in Malaysian ESL Undergraduate Writing

This study qualitatively analyses recurrent patterns of linguistic errors and communicative writing tendencies of Malaysian ESL (English for Second Language) undergraduates by examining two functional composition tasks: an informal email and an opinion essay. While previous studies on ESL writing have often focused on grammatical mistakes, surface language deficiencies, or overall competence issues, the present study adopts an in-depth exploration of recurring errors in ESL writing by examining not only the errors but also the differing communicative approaches reflected in learners’ written responses. Ten sets of handwritten scripts containing twenty written responses were purposively selected from a larger pool of assessment scripts. The assessment was classroom-administered without allowance for digital access or AI-based writing aids, providing a more authentic reflection of learners’ freer and independent writing. This study drew on the theories of Error Analysis (Corder, 1967), the Surface Strategy Taxonomy (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982), and communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hyland, 2007). The major error patterns identified at the surface level of the students’ written responses included sentence construction, verbs, lexis, organisation, and overall communicative effectiveness. Some persistent errors were identified but, more importantly, there was considerable variation as to how the students sought to write communicatively for different audiences using varying strategies for organising and elaborating their ideas and being socially aware in their writing. Students, even at the same level of proficiency, were found to write in different ways. An evaluation of ESL writing solely in terms of grammatical accuracy is, therefore, incomplete, as students of similar levels of proficiency may employ different strategies in their attempt to communicate meaningfully in writing. The study provides insights into how ESL writing cannot be comprehensively assessed based on linguistic fluency and grammatical precision alone. Hence, the study emphasises the multidimensional nature of ESL students’ writing development, highlighting the rationale for pedagogical approaches recognising both their linguistic competence and communicative potential.

Linguistic errors, communicative variation, error analysis, writing tendencies, ESL writing

1. Afdal, H. W. (2023). Academic reading as a social practice in higher education. Higher Education, 86(3), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00893-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2023). Generative AI and second language writing: Opportunities and challenges for learner autonomy and authentic writing development. System, 117, 103092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103092 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1–4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kaur, H., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2023). Academic writing challenges among Malaysian tertiary ESL learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(7), 1102–1115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 11–50). John Benjamins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lea, M. R. (2017). Academic literacies in theory and practice. In B. Street & S. May (Eds.), Literacies and language education (3rd ed., pp. 147–158). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Musa, N. C., Lie, K. Y., & Azman, H. (2012). Exploring English language learning and teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 35–51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rahmat, N. H. (2024). Exploring tertiary ESL learners’ writing difficulties in academic contexts. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 9(49), 112–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Richards, J. C. (2023). Exploring emotions in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & John, D. S. A. (2021). Malaysian ESL learners’ writing difficulties and strategies in academic writing. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 123–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Zulkefli, N. A. (2025). AI-assisted writing tools and ESL learner autonomy in higher education contexts. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(2), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study