English Inflectional Morpheme Accuracy in Indonesian EFL Students

Authors

  • Sipri Hanus Tewarat Universitas Putera Batam
  • Zia Hisni Mubarak Universitas Putera Batam
  • Afriana Afriana Universitas Putera Batam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37296/esci.v6i1.335

Keywords:

Academic Writing, Interlingual and Intralingual Factors, Inflectional Morphemes, Morphological Accuracy

Abstract

The study focused on how accurately fourth-semester English Literature students at Putera Batam University used eight types of English inflectional morphemes in their academic writing. Employing a descriptive qualitative approach complemented with simple statistical descriptions, the study reviewed students’ written assignments along with questionnaire data to determine their level of accuracy, the most frequent error patterns, and the factors contributing to incorrect forms. To assess accuracy, the researchers adopted Brown’s (1973) calculation and applied an 80% benchmark to classify whether a morpheme had been sufficiently acquired. The analysis revealed that only three morphemes—the present participle (-ing), the superlative (-est), and the simple past (-ed)—met or exceeded the expected mastery level. In contrast, several others, including the comparative (-er), the past participle (-ed/-en), the possessive (’s), and the third-person singular (-s), fell well below the threshold, suggesting that students had not yet mastered them. Further examination showed that omission was the error type that occurred most frequently, while misformation and addition followed as secondary patterns. The inaccuracies were largely attributed to the influence of Bahasa Indonesia as the learners’ first language and to internal developmental factors such as overgeneralization and partial understanding of grammatical rules. Overall, the findings point to persistent difficulties Indonesian EFL learners encounter when dealing with English inflectional morphology and emphasize the importance of more focused grammar instruction within academic writing courses

References

Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2011). What is morphology? Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press.

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023- 8333.2005.00294.x

Delahunty, G., & Garvey, J. (2010). The English language: From sound to sense. WAC Clearinghouse.

Derakhshan, A., & Karimi, E. (2015). The interference of first language and second language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2112– 2117. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.19

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gayo, H., & Widodo, P. (2018). An analysis of morphological and syntactical errors on the English writing of junior high school Indonesian students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(4), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.4.4

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order” of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge.

Johan, M. (2024). Pelesapan morfem pada tuturan minang kabau: Suatu kajian morfologi. eScience Humanity Journal. 5 (1) 145-152. https://doi.org/10.37296/esci.v5i1.183

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Routledge.

Lieber, R. (2010). Introducing morphology. Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Margana. (2012). Learners’ errors in English: Insights from Indonesian EFL classrooms. Journal of Linguistics and Literature Studies, 8(2), 130–145.

Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3),365–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000352

Richards, J. C. (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836003

Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Sneddon, J. N. (2010). Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London, UK: Routledge.

Taringan, H. (2011). The teaching of English. Pustaka Pelajar.

Tewarat, S.H, & Afriana (2025). Enhancing vocabulary and reading comprehension through morphological awareness in EFL learners. eScience Humanity Journal. 5 (2), 511-520. https://doi.org/10.37296/esci.v5i2.268

Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. London, UK: Routledge.

Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. (2020). The study of language (7th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-28

How to Cite

Tewarat, S. H. ., Mubarak, Z. H. ., & Afriana, A. (2025). English Inflectional Morpheme Accuracy in Indonesian EFL Students . EScience Humanity Journal, 6(1), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.37296/esci.v6i1.335

Issue

Section

eSience Humanity Vol.6 No.1 November 2025