Grammatical Errors in the Spoken Discourse of ESL Students in a Private Academic Institution

This study examined grammatical errors in the spoken discourse of Grade 11 English as a Second Language (ESL) students in a private academic institution. Spoken production requires learners to apply grammatical knowledge under real-time communicative pressure, often revealing difficulties that remain hidden in written tasks. Anchored in Error Analysis Theory and Dulay, Burt, and Krashen's Surface Strategy Taxonomy, the study classified grammatical errors as omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. It also described students' oral performance using Brown and Abeywickrama's Speaking Assessment Rubric, which evaluated grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation. Employing a qualitative-descriptive design, the study involved 15 purposively selected Humanities and Social Sciences students who responded to a researcher-developed, expert-validated, and pilot-tested speaking prompt about their daily routines. Their responses were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, classified, and reviewed by three language experts to identify recurring grammatical patterns and speaking-performance indicators. Descriptive frequencies and percentages supported the qualitative interpretation, without extending the findings beyond the sampled data. All speaking components were rated at the developing level, with pronunciation obtaining the highest mean and grammar the lowest, indicating that students could convey basic meaning but had not yet achieved consistent grammatical control. Misformation was the most frequent error type, followed by addition, omission, and misordering, suggesting that learners' primary difficulty involved selecting accurate grammatical forms rather than omitting or misarranging them. Within the daily-routine speaking task, the learners experienced difficulty maintaining grammatical accuracy, particularly in selecting verb forms, agreement patterns, prepositions, articles, and sentence structures in real time. The study provides localized evidence from senior high school spoken discourse and underscores the instructional value of communicative, feedback-rich speaking tasks that develop accuracy and fluency concurrently, offering ESL teachers and curriculum planners a practical basis for designing oral grammar instruction that reflects learners' actual speaking performance.

Error Analysis; ESL Speaking; Grammatical Errors; Speaking Performance; Spoken Discourse

1. Aubrey, S. (2022). The relationship between anxiety, enjoyment, and breakdown fluency during second language speaking tasks: An idiodynamic investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 968946. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968946 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). 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. Chania, S., & Amri, Z. (2019). An analysis of students' grammatical errors in speaking at SEA Debate at the English Department of the Faculty of Languages and Arts of Universitas Negeri Padang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(4), 515-521. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 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]

7. Cuyos, A. N., Omana, E., Pena, D., Bula, M., & Nibalvos, M. (2024). Navigating grammatical errors among Filipino tertiary students: Implication for linguistic competence. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13265038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

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

11. Helmanda, C. M., Safura, S., & Suriadi, E. (2018). The grammatical error analysis of students' speaking performance. Jurnal Dedikasi Pendidikan, 2(1), 80-88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Honrado, F., & Biray, E. (2022). Error analysis in spoken English among Grade 12 students. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 3, 52-73. https://doi.org/10.53378/352863 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kao, C.-W., Reynolds, B. L., Zhang, X., & Wong, M. P. (2025). The effectiveness of unfocused corrective feedback on second language student writers' acquisition of English article, prepositional, and verb tense usages. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 1052. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05126-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Li, J. (2023). Analysis of the text-based grammar teaching method on the language proficiency and grammar accuracy of ESL learners in China. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 70, 301-316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Muhamad, A., Shah, M., Ibrahim, E., Sarudin, I., Matik, F., & Ghani, R. (2013). Oral presentation errors of Malaysian students in an English for academic purposes (EAP) course. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.sltl.2133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Nilayon, N., & Brahmakasikara, L. (2018). Using social network sites for language learning and video conferencing technology to improve English speaking skills: A case study of Thai undergraduate students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 11, 47-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency: From research to practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589109 [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