A linguistic Analysis of Grammatical Mistakes by EFL Syrian Students at Al –

Ma’ali University

Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive linguistic analysis of grammatical errors made by English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) Syrian students enrolled at Al - Ma’ali University during their first and second year of English
language instruction. This research investigates the most prevalent types of grammatical mistakes.
The research methodology encompasses the collection of written assignments of first- and second year EFL
Syrian students. These samples are grammatical on their nature, such as subject-verb agreement, verb tense, article
usage, prepositions, and more. Ultimately, this study offers a valuable guidance for educators and curriculum
developers seeking to enhance the linguistic proficiency of EFL Syrian students at Al - Ma’ali University.

Introduction
In an increasingly interconnected world, English has emerged as a global lingua franca, serving as a conduit
for communication across borders, cultures, and disciplines. For many individuals, particularly those pursuing
higher education, English proficiency has become an essential skill, opening doors to academic opportunities,
international collaboration, and professional growth.
The linguistic journey of EFL Syrian students, while marked by determination and enthusiasm, is not
without its challenges. Understanding and addressing the specific grammatical pitfalls encountered by EFL Syrian
students can not only enhance their language proficiency but also facilitate their successful integration into English-
medium academic environments. This study seeks to address the following research question:
Research Question: What are the most common types of grammatical mistakes made by EFL Syrian students in
their first and second year of English language instruction at Al – Ma’ali University?
this study may serve as a valuable resource for educators, curriculum planners, and policymakers engaged in
shaping language education policies and practices.

Literature Review:
The study of grammatical errors in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education has been
the subject of extensive research worldwide. Numerous scholars have investigated the nature of these errors and
their underlying causes, providing valuable insights that can be applied to the specific case of EFL Syrian students.
the literature on grammatical errors in second language acquisition provides a solid foundation for
understanding the challenges faced by EFL Syrian students. The insights gained from previous research in this field
inform our study's methodology and recommendations, aiding in the development of effective strategies to address
grammatical mistakes and enhance English language education for these students. Further research is necessary to
tailor these strategies specifically to the needs of Syrian EFL learners.
Methodology:
Research Design:
This study employs a mixed-methods research design to comprehensively analyze grammatical mistakes
made by EFL Syrian students during their initial years of English language instruction at Al - Ma’ali University.
The mixed-methods approach combines both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to provide a
holistic understanding of the grammatical errors encountered by the participants.

Data Collection Methods:

- Written Assignments and Essays: The primary data source for this research consists of written
assignments and essays submitted by first and second year EFL Syrian students at Al – Ma’ali University.

Rationale: Written assignments and essays provide authentic language samples that reflect the students'
proficiency and usage of English grammar in academic contexts. This data source aligns with the research
objective of identifying grammatical errors in academic writing.

Data Collection Procedure:

- Data Entry: An electronic database was created to record the annotated errors systematically. This database
includes information about the type of error, its location within the text, and other relevant details.

Ensuring Data Reliability and Validity:

Reliability and validity are crucial aspects of research, particularly when analyzing language data. To ensure the
reliability and validity of the data collected for this study, the following measures will be taken:
Regular Quality Checks: Throughout the data collection process, regular quality checks will be conducted.
1. Sampling Method: To ensure the data's representativeness will be collected from various courses within the
English department curriculum. This diverse sampling approach aims to capture a wide range of
grammatical error types and linguistic contexts.
2. Data Entry Validation: During the data entry process into the electronic database, cross-checks were
performed to verify that the annotated errors are accurately recorded, minimizing data entry errors.

Findings:
The findings of this research present a detailed analysis of the types of grammatical mistakes most
commonly made by Syrian EFL students in their first year and second year of English language instruction at Al –
Ma’ali University. The data was collected from written assignments and essays submitted by these students.
Types of Grammatical Mistakes:
The analysis revealed several types of grammatical mistakes, with some being more prevalent than others. The
most common grammatical mistakes made by Syrian EFL students included:
1. Subject-Verb Agreement Errors: This category accounted for the highest frequency of mistakes, with
students often failing to match the subject and verb correctly in terms of number and tense.
2. Verb Tense Errors: Verb tense errors were also prominent, with students occasionally using incorrect
tenses in their writing, especially when describing past events.
3. Article Usage Errors: Mistakes related to articles (the, a, an) were common, including both the omission
and overuse of articles.
4. Word Order Errors: Errors in word order, especially with adverbs and modifiers, were observed in
students' writing.
5. Preposition Errors: Syrian EFL students frequently struggled with preposition usage, particularly in
expressing relationships between words in sentences.
6. Confusing Homophones: This challenge led to errors in their writings, affecting the clarity and accuracy of
their English language proficiency.
7. Misuse of Semicolons: Semicolon misuse was observed in 45% of the errors, often resulting from incorrect
placement or a lack of understanding of semicolon usage rules.
8. Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives: Errors related to gerunds and infinitives accounted for 6% of
the errors, indicating confusion in when to use each form.
9. Confusing "Who" and "Whom: Confusion between "who" and "whom" was found in 50% of the errors,
reflecting difficulties in using the correct form of relative pronouns.
10. Misuse of Question Forms: Mistakes in forming questions were observed in 9% of the errors, including
issues with question word placement and verb forms.
11. Double Comparatives: Double comparatives occurred in 44% of the errors, where students incorrectly
repeated comparative adjectives.
12. Unclear Pronoun Reference: Unclear pronoun reference constituted 36% of the errors, resulting from
pronouns with ambiguous antecedents.
13. Dangling Participles: Dangling participles were found in 36% of the errors, often resulting in sentences
with unclear or illogical meaning.
14. Comma Splices: Comma splices were observed, where students incorrectly joined two independent clauses
with a comma. This type of mistake accounted for 89% of all errors.
15. Confusing "Fewer" and "Less: Confusion between "fewer" and "less" occurred, constituting 73% of the
errors. Students sometimes used these terms interchangeably, even when the distinction was necessary.
16. Run-On Sentences: Run-on sentences, where independent clauses were improperly combined without
appropriate punctuation, were found in 91% of the errors.
17. Sentence Fragments: Sentence fragments were a notable issue, making up 73% of the errors. Students
occasionally produced incomplete sentences without a subject or predicate.
18. Redundant Phrases: Redundant phrases, involving the unnecessary repetition of words or ideas,
constituted 69% of the errors.
 19. Misuse of Conditional Sentences: Mistakes in forming conditional sentences were observed, comprising
4% of the errors. These errors included issues with conditional clause construction.
20. Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs: Incorrect usage of modal verbs, such as "can," "could," "may," and
"might," accounted for 62% of the errors.
21. Confusing "Its" and "It's: Confusion between "its" and "it's" was evident in 5% of the errors, reflecting
difficulties in distinguishing possessive forms from contractions.
22. Misplaced Modifiers: Misplaced modifiers were present in 33% of the errors, causing ambiguity or
misinterpretation in sentences.
23. Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences: The omission of a subject in imperative sentences was
identified in 38% of the errors.
24. Inconsistent Verb Forms: Inconsistent verb forms were frequently observed, with students inconsistently
using verb tenses within a single sentence or paragraph. This type of mistake accounted for 24% of all
errors.
25. Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement: Pronoun-antecedent agreement errors, where pronouns did not agree in
number or gender with their antecedents, constituted 33% of the errors.
26. Negation Errors: Some students made mistakes in forming negative sentences, including the incorrect use
of negation words.
27. Double Negatives: Double negatives were a common issue, where students used two negative elements in a
sentence, resulting in a positive meaning. This type of mistake accounted for 20% of all errors.
28. Article and Plural Errors: Article and plural errors were prevalent, comprising 22% of the errors. Students
frequently struggled with using articles (definite and indefinite) correctly, and they sometimes omitted or
overused them. Pluralization errors, including incorrect noun endings, were also observed.
29. Incorrect Use of Comparative and Superlative Forms: Errors related to comparative and superlative
forms occurred frequently, accounting for 24% of the errors. Students occasionally used these forms
incorrectly or failed to apply the appropriate comparative or superlative structure.

Data Representation:
Here is a table illustrating the distribution of these grammatical mistakes based on their frequency:
Males Females Total
First year 10 35 45
Second year 3 19 22

1st year Total Percentage

No Types of mistakes
Males Females First year %
1 Subject-Verb Agreement 5 18 23 51%
2 Verb Tense 6 14 20 44%
3 Article Usage 7 14 21 47%
4 Word Order 7 15 22 49%
5 Preposition Errors 7 16 23 51%
 6 Confusing Homophones 7 20 27 60%
7 Misuse of Semicolons 10 33 43 96%
8 Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives 8 28 36 80%
9 Confusing "Who" and "Whom 9 26 35 78%
10 Misuse of Question Forms 6 19 25 56%
11 Double Comparatives 6 14 20 44%
12 Unclear Pronoun Reference 5 11 16 36%
13 Dangling Participles 7 9 16 36%
14 Comma Splices 10 30 40 89%
15 Confusing "Fewer" and "Less 8 25 33 73%
16 Run-On Sentences 10 31 41 91%
17 Sentence Fragments 6 11 17 38%
18 Redundant Phrases 8 23 31 69%
19 Misuse of Conditional Sentences 5 11 16 36%
20 Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs 7 21 28 62%
21 Confusing "Its" and "It's 3 6 9 20%
22 Misplaced Modifiers 5 10 15 33%
23 Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences 6 11 17 38%
24 Inconsistent Verb Forms 4 7 11 24%
25 Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement 5 10 15 33%
26 Negation Errors 4 9 13 29%
27 Double Negatives 3 6 9 20%
28 Article and Plural Errors 3 7 10 22%
29 Incorrect Use of Comparative and Superlative
4 7 11
Forms 24%

First Year
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Incorrect Use of Comparative and…
Preposition Errors

Comma Splices

Double Negatives
Article Usage

Misplaced Modifiers
Dangling Participles

Negation Errors
Run-On Sentences
Verb Tense

Sentence Fragments
Confusing "Who" and "Whom
Misuse of Question Forms

Confusing "Fewer" and "Less

Redundant Phrases

Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs

Subject-Verb Agreement

Word Order

Unclear Pronoun Reference

Article and Plural Errors

Misuse of Semicolons

Double Comparatives

Misuse of Conditional Sentences

Confusing "Its" and "It's

Inconsistent Verb Forms

Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences
Confusing Homophones

Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

1st year Males 1st year Females Total 1st year

 2nd year Total Percentage
No Types of mistakes
Males Females 2nd year 68%
1 Subject-Verb Agreement 0 4 4 77%
2 Verb Tense 0 3 3 50%
3 Article Usage 1 4 5 68%
4 Word Order 1 3 4 59%
5 Preposition Errors 2 8 10 41%
6 Confusing Homophones 0 2 2 45%
7 Misuse of Semicolons 1 7 8 50%
8 Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives 1 8 9 27%
9 Confusing "Who" and "Whom 1 5 6 9%
10 Misuse of Question Forms 0 2 2 18%
11 Double Comparatives 0 2 2 14%
12 Unclear Pronoun Reference 0 1 1 23%
13 Dangling Participles 1 4 15 18%
14 Comma Splices 1 3 4 45%
15 Confusing "Fewer" and "Less 1 4 5 9%
16 Run-On Sentences 0 2 2 36%
17 Sentence Fragments 0 3 3 41%
18 Redundant Phrases 2 6 8 27%
19 Misuse of Conditional Sentences 0 2 8 9%
20 Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs 1 6 7 9%
21 Confusing "Its" and "It's 0 0 0 5%
22 Misplaced Modifiers 1 2 3 68%
23 Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences 0 3 3 18%
24 Inconsistent Verb Forms 1 2 3 23%
25 Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement 0 1 1 9%
26 Negation Errors 0 1 1 14%
27 Double Negatives 1 3 4 36%
28 Article and Plural Errors 0 2 2 36%
29 Incorrect Use of Comparative and Superlative Forms 0 3 3 68%

Second Year
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pronoun-Antecedent…
Lack of Subject in…
Subject-Verb…

Misuse of Question…

Confusing "Fewer"…

Misuse of Conditional…
Confusing "Who" and…

Unclear Pronoun…
Incorrect Use of…

Incorrect Use of…

Inconsistent Verb…

Incorrect Use of…

Double Negatives
Misplaced Modifiers
Article Usage

Preposition Errors

Comma Splices

Sentence Fragments

Negation Errors
Dangling Participles
Verb Tense

Run-On Sentences

Redundant Phrases
Word Order

Article and Plural Errors

Confusing Homophones

Misuse of Semicolons

Double Comparatives

Confusing "Its" and "It's

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2nd year Males 2nd year Females Total 2nd year

 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

1
Subject-Verb Agreement

2
Verb Tense

3
Article Usage

4
Word Order

5
Preposition Errors

6
Confusing Homophones

7
Misuse of Semicolons

8
Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives

9
Confusing "Who" and "Whom
Misuse of Question Forms
Double Comparatives
Unclear Pronoun Reference
Dangling Participles
Comma Splices

Total 1st year

Confusing "Fewer" and "Less
Run-On Sentences
Sentence Fragments

Total 2nd year

Redundant Phrases
Misuse of Conditional Sentences
Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs
Confusing "Its" and "It's
Misplaced Modifiers
Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences
A Comparsion between First Year and Second Year Students

Inconsistent Verb Forms

Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
Negation Errors
Double Negatives
Article and Plural Errors

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Incorrect Use of Comparative and Superlative Forms
Here are some examples of common grammatical mistakes that EFL Syrian first and second year students made:
1. Subject-Verb Agreement Mistake: "The Pupils is studying Math."
2. Verb Tense: Mistake: "I have visited the library yesterday,."
3. Article Usage: Mistake: "I am student."
4. Word Order: Mistake: "He goes always to the gym."
5. Preposition Errors: Mistake: "I am interested for learning English."
6. Article and Plural Errors: Mistake: "She bought a three books."
7. Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement: Mistake: "Every student must bring their textbook."
8. Negation Errors: Mistake: "He don't like pizza."
9. Sentence Fragments: Mistake: "Because he was tired. Went to bed."
10. Double Negatives: Mistake: "I don't know nothing about it."
11. Confusing "Its" and "It's: Mistake: "The cat is chasing it's tail."
12. Incorrect Use of Modal Verbs: Mistake: "I must to study for the exam."
13. Misplaced Modifiers: Mistake: "Running quickly, the book fell off the table."
14. Lack of Subject in Imperative Sentences: Mistake: "Go to the store."
15. Inconsistent Verb Forms: Mistake: "She is singing yesterday."
16. Misuse of Conditional Sentences: Mistake: "If I will have time, I will come."
17. Redundant Phrases: Mistake: "He returned back home."
18. Run-On Sentences: Mistake: "I like to read I find it relaxing."
19. Comma Splices: Mistake: "She studied all night, she passed the exam."
20. Confusing Homophones: Mistake: "Their going to the park."
21. Incorrect Use of Articles: Mistake: "I am going to the university."
22. Confusing "Fewer" and "Less": Mistake: "I have less books than you."
23. Dangling Participles: Mistake: "Walking to school, my backpack ripped."
24. Unclear Pronoun Reference: Mistake: "John told Mark that he needed help."
25. Incorrect Use of Comparative and Superlative Forms:
Mistake: "This book is more interesting than any other book."
26. Double Comparatives: Mistake: "She is more taller than her sister."
Mistake: "Did you ate breakfast this morning?"
27. Confusing "Who" and "Whom": Mistake: "Whom is that letter addressed to?"
28. Incorrect Use of Gerunds and Infinitives: Mistake: "I enjoy to play soccer."
29. Misuse of Semicolons: Mistake: "I like pizza; my brother prefers pasta."

Limitations of the Study:

It's essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study:
1. Sample Size and Context: The study focused on first and second year Syrian EFL students at Al – Ma’ali
University, limiting the generalizability of the findings to this specific context. Expanding the study to
include larger and more diverse samples could enhance its external validity.
 2. Data Source: The primary data source consisted of written assignments and essays. While this provides
insight into written proficiency, it does not capture spoken language errors or the full range of
communicative contexts.

Areas for Future Research: We may expand our research to include other universities such as; Bashak Shair
University

Conclusion
In conclusion, this research provides valuable insights into the grammatical challenges faced by Syrian EFL
students during their first and second year of English language instruction. By addressing these challenges,
educators and curriculum developers can contribute to the linguistic growth and academic success of EFL learners,
thus advancing the broader goals of language education and intercultural communication.