Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors among Undergraduate English Majors

Linguistic Forum Published by MARS Publishers Published by Licensee MARS Publishers. Copyright: © the author(s). This article is an distributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject Agreement Errors among Undergraduate English Majors Correspondence: Phindile A. Dlamini < [email protected] Received: October 30, 2024 Abstract This qualitative study investigated subject 4 English major students at the University of Eswatini (UNESWA). Guided by the Contrastive Error Analysis (CEA) framework, the study examined how first language (L1) siSwati and second language (L2) English interactions shaped grammatical performan purposively collected from student essays and reflective writings, from which 55 sentences containing SVA errors were extracted and analysed for patterns and causes. The findings revealed a hierarchy of error types: omission (most fr frequent). These patterns were primarily attributed to interlingual and intralingual influences (overgeneralization, incomplete grammatical knowledge) and processing difficulties. Omission errors domina ted due to the low salience of English inflectional morphemes, while addition and misinformation errors resulted from L1 transfer, overgeneralization, and syntactic complexity. Contributing factors included incomplete understanding of grammatical rules, te constraints, and inadequate editing. The study recommended supportive pedagogical interventions such as lowstakes writing tasks, time management guidance, and constructive feedback to reduce learner anxiety and improve grammatical accurac Keywords: subject– verb agreement, academic writing, error analysis, Eswatini, interlingual influence, intralingual influence, language transfer, ISSN (Online) 2707 Volume http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo. Published by Licensee MARS Publishers. Copyright: © the author(s). This article is an distributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject Agreement Errors among Undergraduate English Majors Research Article Phindile A. Dlamini [email protected] > Lecturer, Department of English, Eswatini, Kwaluseni Campus. Publication Details Accepted: November 28, 2024 Published: This qualitative study investigated subject - verb agreement (SVA) errors in the writings of S 4 English major students at the University of Eswatini (UNESWA). Guided by the Contrastive Error Analysis (CEA) framework, the study examined how first language (L1) siSwati and second language (L2) English interactions shaped grammatical performan ce accuracy. Data were purposively collected from student essays and reflective writings, from which 55 sentences containing SVA errors were extracted and analysed for patterns and causes. The findings revealed a hierarchy of error types: omission (most fr equent) → addition (moderate) → misinformation (least frequent). These patterns were primarily attributed to interlingual and intralingual influences (overgeneralization, incomplete grammatical knowledge) and processing difficulties. Omission ted due to the low salience of English inflectional morphemes, while addition and misinformation errors resulted from L1 transfer, overgeneralization, and syntactic complexity. Contributing factors included incomplete understanding of grammatical rules, te constraints, and inadequate editing. The study recommended supportive pedagogical interventions stakes writing tasks, time management guidance, and constructive feedback to reduce learner anxiety and improve grammatical accurac y. verb agreement, academic writing, error analysis, Eswatini, interlingual influence, intralingual influence, language transfer, ISSN (Online) 2707 -5273 Volume 6, Issue 4, 2024 10.5281/zenodo. 17764109 Pages 38-59 Published by Licensee MARS Publishers. Copyright: © the author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject –Verb Undergraduate English Majors Lecturer, Department of English, University of Eswatini, Kwaluseni Campus. Published: December 30, 2024 verb agreement (SVA) errors in the writings of S emester 4 English major students at the University of Eswatini (UNESWA). Guided by the Contrastive Error Analysis (CEA) framework, the study examined how first language (L1) siSwati and second ce accuracy. Data were purposively collected from student essays and reflective writings, from which 55 sentences containing SVA errors were extracted and analysed for patterns and causes. The findings revealed a misinformation (least frequent). These patterns were primarily attributed to interlingual and intralingual influences (overgeneralization, incomplete grammatical knowledge) and processing difficulties. Omission ted due to the low salience of English inflectional morphemes, while addition and misinformation errors resulted from L1 transfer, overgeneralization, and syntactic complexity. Contributing factors included incomplete understanding of grammatical rules, te st anxiety, time constraints, and inadequate editing. The study recommended supportive pedagogical interventions stakes writing tasks, time management guidance, and constructive feedback to reduce verb agreement, academic writing, error analysis, Eswatini, interlingual Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 39 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 1. Introduction English is the global lingua franca. As such it is spoken by people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and serves as the dominant means of international communication. In Eswatini, English is the second official language alongside siSwati and is officially used as the medium of instruction from Grade 5 through to higher education (Ministry of Education and Training, 2011, & 2018). Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories suggest that acquiring a second language (L2) depends, in part, on the proficiency level a learner has in their first language (L1). This suggests that the higher the proficiency in the learner’s L1, the more effectively an individual can acquire L2, and vice versa. Although many tertiary students who speak siSwati as their L1 demonstrate proficiency in it across all the language skills, their academic English writing often falls short. A key challenge for these students is the gap between their linguistic competence (their grammatical knowledge) and their linguistic performance (their ability to apply that knowledge in written discourse). Despite twelve years of exposure to English at the school level, many students embark on tertiary education having not reached advanced proficiency levels in English (Dlamini, 2014, Mlangeni, 2022). One of the most persistent difficulties identified among the students in Eswatini is the proper use of subject-verb agreement (SVA) in academic discourse (Dlamini, 2014; Mthethwa, 2014, 2019). Such errors undermine learners’ linguistic competence and diminish the clarity and effectiveness of their discourses. This paper analyses subject-verb agreement (SVA) errors and their potential underlying causes in written English among Semester 4 undergraduate students majoring in English at the University of Eswatini. The study attempts to answer the question: ‘How do siSwati L1 speakers process and produce the English SVA as a second language, and what are the primary challenges they face in acquiring and applying the SVA rules in English?’ It is guided by the hypothesis that the acquisition of English SVA by siSwati speakers is not a developmental process but is influenced by low proficiency levels in English and an incorrect understanding of L2 rules rather than L1 interference (Dlamini, 2014). Examining SVA is significant, not only in terms of linguistic theory but also in terms of practical outcomes. Addressing these errors can improve academic performance and professional communication skills later in the students’ lives. By identifying patterns in the errors, this study aims to inform targeted grammar instruction and provide support strategies for improving Eswatini students’ written accuracy. 1. Contemporary Debates on language pedagogy in higher education Current debates on language teaching in tertiary institutions in Eswatini centre on several interlinked issues. First, there is ongoing discussion about the adequacy of English proficiency among incoming university students and the extent to which tertiary institutions should filter admission on the basis of English language grades. For example, some argue that even programmes outside English should require higher English grades because most courses are taught in English and students must therefore be proficient (Mthethwa, 2014). Others counter that such requirements may unfairly disadvantage siSwati-speaking students whose English exposure has been insufficient (Faculty of Science discussion paper on University entry requirements). Second, there is critique of the dominant English-medium instruction (EMI) model in higher education — despite policy Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 40 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 statements promoting siSwati and bilingualism in schooling, actual practice shows English predominance and siSwati marginalisation (Dlamini & Ferreira-Meyers, 2023; Phiri, 2022). Many academics question whether the exclusive use of English as medium of instruction without adequate scaffolding for students whose home language is siSwati undermines equitable access and effective learning. Third, there is a growing call for a national language policy specific to higher education in Eswatini that acknowledges multilingual realities, supports translanguaging, and provides instructional and pedagogical frameworks appropriate for L1 siSwati speakers entering tertiary study (Phiri & Weber, 2025). Finally, debates also take in curriculum and pedagogy: how to integrate mother-tongue support, how to develop academic literacy in English while leveraging the students’ L1, and how to design support programmes (such as bridging courses) for students whose English proficiency is weak (Mlangeni, 2022). In sum, the debates focus on balancing international/English medium demands with local linguistic realities, and on how best to support students’ transition into the English-medium tertiary environment. It is envisaged that this study will inform those current debates on language teaching in tertiary institutions in Eswatini. 2. Background – The Linguistic Context in Eswatini Eswatini is a bilingual nation where siSwati, spoken by approximately 90% of the population, serves as the primary language, while English is acquired as a second language. Policy documents from the Ministry of Education and Training—specifically Circular 21/73 and the Education Sector Policies (2011, 2018)—mandate first-language (L1) instruction during the early years of schooling, particularly from Grades 1 to 4. This directive is grounded in the principle of additive bilingualism, which promotes the development of proficiency in both the first and second languages (Dlamini, 2025, forthcoming). Often described as bridging bilingualism, this approach aims to enhance second language (L2) acquisition while preserving learners’ linguistic and cultural heritage (Kamwangamalu, 2013; Tiwari, 2024; Ferreira-Meyers & Horne, 2017). According to the policy documents, English is to become the medium of instruction from Grade 5 onwards, in line with global educational trends. However, in practice, English is introduced as early as preschool, creating a divergence between policy and classroom reality. This early exposure to L2 instruction, while potentially beneficial for language familiarity, may also undermine the intended additive bilingualism framework, limiting opportunities for strong L1 development and contributing to the persistent challenges learners face in achieving full proficiency in English. Research in second language acquisition (SLA) in Eswatini consistently indicates that although English serves as the primary medium of instruction from Grade 5 onwards, learners continue to produce a high frequency of linguistic errors even at advanced stages of learning (Mthethwa, 2014; Dlamini, 2014; Mthethwa, 2019). Given that English proficiency is a fundamental educational objective, admission to the University of Eswatini (UNESWA) requires applicants to obtain at least a C symbol in English (University of Eswatini Calendar, 2024). This requirement implies that students admitted into university programmes, particularly those enrolled in English Language courses, have demonstrated a baseline level of competence in English at the school-exit level. Nevertheless, despite satisfying this entry criterion, many students continue to experience substantial challenges in achieving proficiency in academic writing. Tables 1 through 4 present the performance profiles of students enrolled in introductory English modules at the University of Eswatini (UNESWA). Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 41 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Table 1: Marks range in ENG 111 (A Survey of English Grammar) AUGUST 2024 Examination Symbols Obtained BEd Secondary BA JMC BA HUMS A 0 0 1 B 0 0 0 C 1 2 2 D 3 6 3 E 8 0 2 F 1 4 3 Total 13 12 11 Table 1 (ENG 111: A Survey of English Grammar, August 2024) shows that across the three programmes (BEd Secondary, BA JMC, and BA Humanities) only one student achieved an “A” – while ten students obtained an “E” and eight “F”s were also recorded. Table 2: Marks range in ENG 111(Remedial Grammar) 2021 Examination Symbols Obtained B.Ed Sec. FT BEd Sec IDE BEdPri. FT BEdPri IDE BA JMC BA HUMS FT BA Hums IDE A 0 0 0 0 0 B 1 0 0 0 0 C 4 2 2 4 0 D 10 16 12 19 9 E 10 28 33 32 15 F 13 59 30 29 36 Total 38 105 77 84 60 Table 2 (ENG 111 Remedial Grammar, 2021) displays a high concentration of students in the “E” and “F” grade bands (for example 10, 28, 33, 32 and 15 in “E”; 13, 59,30, 29 and 36 in “F”). The high concentrations in these grades suggest a heavy remedial load. Table 3: Marks Range in ENG 111(A Survey of English Grammar), 2022 Examinations Symbols Obtained B.Ed Sec. FT BEd Sec IDE BEdPri. FT BEdPri IDE BA JMC BA HUMS FT BA Hums IDE A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 3 1 1 1 0 7 0 C 8 6 0 1 0 10 0 D 10 6 0 0 11 19 4 E 9 11 1 2 8 23 9 F 14 35 0 3 42 51 38 Total 45 60 2 7 61 113 51 Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 42 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Table 3 (ENG 111, 2022) again shows that the majority of the cohorts fall in “D”, “E” or “F” categories rather than “A”, “B” or “C”. Table 4: Marks Range in ENG 113 (Remedial Grammar) August 2024 Examination Symbols Obtained BEd Secondary BA HUMS A 0 0 B 1 0 C 1 2 D 8 5 E 3 0 F 0 0 Total 13 7 Table 4 (ENG 113 Remedial Grammar, August 2024) also reflects that very few students attain higher symbols. The performance statistics presented in Tables 1-4 demonstrate persistent clustering in lower gradebands across years and modules.As shown, the bulk of students in remedial or introductory English modules continue to obtain “D”, “E” or “F” over the years. This suggests that poor performance is not an isolated cohort effect, but an entrenched pattern. Further, as evident in Table 2, very high numbers of students are in “E” and “F” grade bands upon entry. These numbers suggest that significant proportions of entrants to these modules are already struggling at the outset and may require remedial inputs just to reach minimum pass levels. That many still fail indicates that the remedial mechanism may be insufficient. Notably, the data align with national school-level trends for the Examinations Council of Eswatini (ECESWA) – as shown in Table 5, only around one quarter of learners (~25 %) achieve credit (symbols A–C) in English in the EGCSE exams over recent years. Table 5: Pass/Failure rate in the EGSCE examinations Year of Examination Symbol A-C (Credit) Symbol D-G 2021 25.51% 66.90% 2022 26.66% 65.10% 2023 25.17% 67.49% Source:https://www.examscouncil.org.sz/upload-centre/subject_performance/EGCSE2023 subject_performance.txt Table 5 demonstrates that many students arriving at tertiary institutions, UNESWA in particular, have already faced difficulties in achieving strong English credentials at school level. Because students are expected to have “credited” English (symbol C or better) yet still under-perform, this suggests that the “credit” threshold may not reliably indicate readiness for academic English discourse at tertiary level (Mlangeni, 2022).The weak transition from school exit to tertiary proficiency has implications for university-level academic writing and discourse. When large cohorts of students within English modules record low grades, this likely carries over into weaker Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 43 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 performance in their discipline-specific courses (which are taught in English) and may hinder progression, confidence and overall success. In other words, the module performance is symptomatic of broader academic-literacy issues. Therefore, the dataset in Tables 1-5 suggests not just poor performance but the presence of a systemic language-and-literacy bottleneck: students enter UNESWA with limited English academic proficiency despite meeting surface threshold requirements; many require remedial support; yet even with remediation their English module performance remains weak; this under-performance likely links to broader issues of language policy implementation, first-language literacy development, and the transition from school to higher education. Based on the data that point to entrenched challenges in the pathway from school-level English proficiency to tertiary Academic English performance, this study has identified subjectverb-agreement errors that dominate students’ writing and investigated the underlying causal factors. This will in turn facilitate the design of targeted instructional interventions and help improve student throughput, academic success and writing accuracy. 2. Literature Review SVA is a fundamental aspect of English grammar and an essential component of grammatical competence. However, research in SLA consistently indicate a high frequency of errors among non-native English speakers (Dlamini & Meyers,2023 Mthethwa,2014, 2019, Nxumalo, 2016, Magagula, 2021, Rahim & Raj, 2020; Jones & Zhang, 2021; Adekunle & Ajibola, 2016; Zimba & Nyirenda, 2018; Kasule & Tusiime, 2019). Several studies in Eswatini point to systemic factors contributing to weak English performance. For example, although policy positions both siSwati and English as official languages and envisages the use of siSwati in the early years, classroom practice often privileges English—thus marginalising the mother-tongue (Dlamini & FerreiraMeyers, 2023; Phiri & Weber, 2022). Furthermore, teachers’ use of English as the predominant medium of instruction appears to reduce the possibility of effective first-language literacy support, which in turn limits the foundation for stronger English acquisition (Mkhonta, Mkoko, & Mohammed, 2025). Ellis (2015) defines subject-verb mismatches as errors that occur when the subject and verb in a sentence do not agree in number, person, or tense. Number Agreement Errors occur when a singular subject is paired with a plural verb or vice versa (e.g., "*Domestic workers is not adequately paid” instead of "Domestic workers are not adequately paid").Person Agreement Errors occur when the verb form does not match the subject's person (e.g., "*She fund needy students" instead of "She funds needy students"), and tense Agreement Errors occurwhen the verb tense does not align with the intended meaning or the subject's temporal context (e.g., "*She is went to the market" instead of "She went to the market").Ellis (2015) attributes these mismatches to L1 transfer, and are particularly prevalent among learners whose L1 lacked equivalent grammatical structures (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007).Learners tend to apply the grammatical rules of their first language to the second language; a practice that leads to errors. For siSwati speakers, the rules governing subject-verb agreement in English present unique challenges due to structural differences between the two languages (Mthethwa, 2014). Understanding L1 transfer is relevant to the current study as it highlights how siSwati L1 speakers might transfer siSwati grammatical rules to English, resulting in errors in SVA construction. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 44 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Several classroom-based and corpus-style studies conducted in Eswatini point to recurring problems with subject–verb agreement (SVA) in learners of English. The problems are frequently attributed to cross-linguistic influence from siSwati, limited sustained input in English prior to full medium-of-instruction and instructional/practice factors (Dlamini, 2014; Mthethwa, 2014, Nxumalo, 2016). In her investigation of the impact of siSwati L1 on the acquisition of academic English by tertiary students in Eswatini Dlamini (2014) found that siSwati L1 speakers often struggled with English syntax due to interlingual transfer and limited exposure to English. Further, research on English learning difficulties in Eswatini (Mthethwa, 2014; Nxumalo, 2016) similarly documented how siSwati-English bilinguals often overgeneralized siSwati concord rules, and thus produced systematic SVA errors that fossilized without targeted grammatical instruction. Mthethwa (2019) who analysed university students’ writing to identify patterns of morphosyntactic interference from siSwati, reported frequent verb-form errors and mismatches in subject–verb concord, which he attributed to structural transfer from siSwati ‘a language that marks agreement through prefixes’ to English, where agreement is marked through suffixes. More recent investigations focus on related grammatical domains such as noun-phrase agreement and clause structure. Magagula (2021) found that students’ challenges with SVA frequently co-occurred with errors in determiner–noun agreement and tense–aspect forms. This suggests that subject-verb agreement difficulties in Eswatini learners do not occur in isolation but reflect broader interlanguage development patterns. The literature reviewed in the Eswatini context parallel that of other regions that describe how L1 morphosyntactic structures influence learners’ acquisition of English grammar. Kasule and Tusiime (2019) who investigated SVA errors in the written English of Ugandan ESL learners at secondary school level identified common mistakes, such as incorrect agreement with collective nouns, confusion between singular and plural subjects, and errors in complex or embedded sentences. These were attributed to interference from learners' native languages (Luganda and Runyankore) and the challenges of learning English in a non-dominant language environment. Their study proposed practical teaching strategies, including grammar drills and interactive grammar instruction, to address these issues. Likewise, Adekunle and Ajibola (2016) identified common SVA errors among Nigerian ESL learners, such as confusion between singular and plural subjects, difficulties with third-person singular verb forms, and challenges with agreement in complex sentences. They attributed these errors to the influence of learners’ first languages (Yoruba and Hausa) and inadequate grammar instruction. Their study recommended enhanced grammar teaching strategies tailored to address these issues in Nigerian schools and universities. Equally, Zimba and Nyirenda (2018) who examined SVA errors in the written English of Zambian secondary school students found that limited exposure to English outside the classroom and insufficient focus on grammar instruction in schools were major contributors to frequent SVA errors. The researchers suggested targeted interventions such as grammar workshops and peer correction activities to improve learners’ grammatical accuracy. At university level, Wahyudi (2012) who examined SVA errors in the writing of first-semester English students at Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University in Indonesia found that the most frequent errors included omissions, additions, and misinformation. These errors stemmed from both interlingual influences (from the learners' L1) and intralingual factors (within the L2 itself). Also Rahim and Raj (2020) who used a corpus of written essays identified recurring SVA Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 45 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 errors among tertiary-level ESL learners. These included confusion between singular and plural subjects, agreement with collective nouns, and misuse of auxiliary verbs. They recommended targeted grammar exercises and explicit instruction to mitigate these challenges. Further, a longitudinal study by Jones and Zhang (2021) that tracked the development of SVA skills among ESL learners over one year uncovered that despite improvements in overall proficiency, learners continued to struggle with third-person singular forms, irregular verbs, and agreement in embedded clauses, indicating that these issues persist even with increased exposure and instruction. The literature consistently demonstrated that SVA errors were pervasive among ESL learners, from secondary to tertiary levels. Studies in Nigeria, Zambia, and Uganda identified key contributing factors such as L1 interference, limited exposure to English, and insufficient grammar instruction. Bamgbose (2000) highlighted that sociolinguistic and educational factors, including instructional methods and limited exposure to Standard English exacerbated grammatical challenges in African contexts. The same sentiments were shared by Dlamini (2014) who writing on the impact of siSwati L1 on Academic English, Dlamini (2014) provided a local context for understanding how siSwati L1 influences English acquisition. Dlamini argued that while L1 transfer explained some challenges, it did not fully account for learners' difficulties in achieving grammatical competence. Other factors, such as early educational environments that failed to foster bilingualism, inadequate resources, and peripheral pedagogical practices, also played a significant role. This review underscored the widespread nature of SVA errors among non-native English speakers and their multifaceted causes. By building on this research, the current study adds depth to the discussion of L1 influence in Eswatini and highlights the need for context-specific teaching strategies. 3. Methodology This study adopts a qualitative research approach and employs Contrastive Error Analysis (CEA) as its theoretical framework. CEA is used to systematically identify and explain the differences between the siSwati and English concordial agreement systems that may hinder siSwati L1 tertiary students’ acquisition of English subject–verb agreement (SVA). The approach follows the principle that errors can reveal underlying interlanguage processes and L1 transfer (Corder, 1967; James, 1998). The data were collected from the University of Eswatini (UNESWA), where siSwati is the students’ first language and English is the primary medium of instruction. The institution was chosen through purposive sampling, a strategy suitable for qualitative research because it allows the researcher to select information-rich cases relevant to the study’s objectives (Patton, 2015). The choice of this institution was also informed by accessibility and established professional networks that facilitated data collection. I administered a short written test and collected student essays, ensuring an efficient and ethical process. From the collected essays and reflective writings, 55 sentences containing subject–verb agreement errors were extracted and analyzed. This sample size was deemed sufficient because qualitative analysis seeks depth rather than breadth (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The 55 sentences represented all the instances of identifiable SVA errors within the collected scripts, thus providing a complete dataset for this focused inquiry. Since these sentences were deliberately selected for containing Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 46 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 errors, they offered a purpose-built corpus for examining recurrent error patterns and the influence of siSwati syntactic structures on English subject–verb agreement. Each of the 55 sentences was analyzed to identify the specific type of subject–verb agreement error, such as mismatches in number, person, or tense. Errors were then grouped based on recurring linguistic patterns. To ensure reliability, a second rater—a linguist trained in English grammar and error analysis—independently reviewed the error categorizations. Inter-rater reliability was enhanced through discussion and consensus on any discrepancies (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014). This collaborative process strengthened the consistency and credibility of the analysis. Ethical standards were observed throughout the research process. Institutional permission was sought and granted prior to data collection. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, and their participation was voluntary. All student writings were anonymised to safeguard confidentiality, and no identifying information appears in the report. 4. Findings The ENG 214 students were asked either to narrate their views of and experiences regarding the courses that are offered in the English Department or reflect on the academic year 2023/2024. The majority of the reflections expressed frustrations with both the English courses and the academic year. Out of 174 students who sat the test, fifty-five (55) (32%) instances of subject-verb agreement error were identified in the students’ writings. The errors revealed three types: errors of addition, omission and misinformation. 6.1 Frequency of errors Errors of omission were the most frequent as they accounted for 21errors (38%). They were followed by 18 errors of addition (33%) and 16 (29%) misformation errors. These frequencies suggested that while some errors may stem from carelessness or time pressure, others reflect systematic linguistic transfer from siSwati to English (Selinker, 1972). Figure 1 illustrates these proportions. Figure 1: Statistical representation of Subject-Verb Agreement Errors in an ENG 214 Assessment Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 53 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 factors collectively explain the persistence of omission, addition, and misinformation errors in students’ writing. 7.1 Interlingual Transfer Students’ writing exhibited interlingual errors - the influence of a learner’s first language (L1) on their production of the target language (L2).This study found strong evidence of interference from siSwati in the students’ English writing. In siSwati, subject–verb agreement is governed by a prefixal concord system that marks agreement through noun-class prefixes attached to verbs (Doke, 1954; Taljaard et al., 1991). For example, in the siSwati sentence: Ba-ntfwanaba-tsandz-a ema-swidi CL2-child SC2-like-fv CL6sweet Children like sweets the subject and verb are linked through identical class prefixes (ba-), rather than inflectional suffixes as in English. Therefore, students appeared to transfer this structural pattern to English, overgeneralizing the use of inflectional markers like /–s/ or omitting them altogether, depending on whether they perceived the concord as prefixal or suffixal. Consequently, they produce errors such as: /*The essays in English requires a certain structure and style of writing./ Wang (2010) made a similar finding among Mandarin L1 learners of English. He found that Mandarin L1 learners of English transferred forms from Mandarin to English. Wang and findings of this study highlight how L1 transfer can lead to errors in SVA construction and align with the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Lado, 1957) and the Transfer Hypothesis (Selinker, 1972), which posit that differences between L1 and L2 structures predict areas of difficulty. The influence of siSwati’s concordial morphology thus explains many of the systematic addition and omission errors observed. 7.2 Intralingual Influences Students’ writing exhibited intralingual errors. While interlingual transfer accounted for many errors, others originated within the target language itself, reflecting intralingual rather than crosslinguistic factors. Intralingual errors arise when learners overgeneralize rules, apply them incompletely, or form false hypotheses about L2 grammar (Richards, 1971; Ellis, 2008). For instance, the sentence: *Geography have a course that deals with information systems reveals overgeneralization of plural verb forms and incomplete mastery of irregular verbs. Students internalize that plural subjects require plural verbs but fail to differentiate between lexical regularity and agreement morphology. This misunderstanding stems from partial exposure to English grammar rules without deep metalinguistic awareness. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 54 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Moreover, false hypotheses emerge when students assume that structural features of one rule extend to others (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982). For example, after learning that nouns add /–s/ for plurality, students falsely conclude that verbs should also consistently take /–s/ to mark plural subjects. Such intralingual misapplications are evidence of a developing interlanguage system—a dynamic linguistic stage where learners formulate evolving grammatical rules that diverge from both L1 and L2 norms (Selinker, 1972). 7.3 Incomplete Understanding of Grammatical Rules The findings further revealed that students demonstrated limited grammatical awareness of SVA rules. They often memorize patterns mechanically without understanding their underlying logic. This results in inconsistent application such as using correct forms in simple contexts but committing errors in complex or compound constructions. As Krashen (1982) observes, conscious knowledge of grammar (learned competence) must be accompanied by subconscious acquisition (acquired competence) for learners to apply rules accurately in spontaneous production. Similarly, Razman et al. (2023) emphasize that a solid grasp of grammar enhances both communicative efficiency and syntactic precision. Students who merely “learn” grammatical forms without internalizing them fail to generalize them appropriately in discourse, resulting in addition or misinformation errors. According to the Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998), the acquisition of syntactic structures in L2 is developmental. However, the results have challenged this theory by showing that siSwati L1 speakers struggle with the English subject-verb agreement across all educational levels, and suggest that external factors like teaching quality and proficiency levels play a more significant role. This connection underscores the need for targeted interventions in English grammar instruction. 7.4 Test Anxiety and Time Constraints Another key factor identified was test anxiety and the pressure of timed writing conditions. During assessments, students frequently wrote under stress and limited time, which compromised their ability to proofread and monitor grammatical accuracy. Omission errors such as: viii) a) *I ^ doing level 2 this year (missing ‘am’) b) *It ^ very challenging to be an English major at UNESWA (missing ‘is’) are likely performance errors rather than competence gaps (Corder, 1967). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) show that foreign language anxiety correlates strongly with reduced accuracy and fluency. Similarly, MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) found that anxiety impairs working memory and inhibits linguistic retrieval, leading to omission of grammatical markers during production. Further, evidence by Tóth (2010) and Rashidi and Hosseini (2011) confirm that test-induced stress causes “monitor failure,” where learners skip morphological inflections even if they know the rules. Similarly, student feedback in this study also suggested that some respondents felt “rushed” during the test and “did not have time to check grammar.” These claims support the interpretation that many SVA errors were unintentional and situational induced. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 55 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 7.5 Carelessness and Editing Negligence A smaller proportion of errors resulted from carelessness and failure to revise written work. Students often left their drafts unedited, leading to avoidable errors of omission or misformation. As Richards (1971) notes, not all errors are linguistic - some reflect attitudinal factors such as motivation and attention to detail. Since the students felt rushed, they did not find time to edit their work. Thus, encouraging reflective writing and revision habits could therefore reduce such incidental errors. 8. Strategies to Address SVA Errors in Students’ Writing Given the identified error sources, a multi-dimensional pedagogical approach is required to strengthen students’ SVA competence and reduce fossilized error patterns. 8.1 Targeted Grammar Instruction Lecturers should design focused grammar lessonsthat explicitly teach subject–verb agreement patterns, including irregular verbs and exceptions. Interactive activities—such as sentence editing, error-spotting, and mini-quizzes can promote engagement and reinforce learning (Ellis, 2008). Lecturers could structure feedback sessions that address specific student errors are crucial for noticing, a key process in L2 development (Schmidt, 1990). 8.2 Contextual Writing Practice Students could be encouraged to write regularly within authentic academic tasks. This could help them apply SVA rules meaningfully. Integrating process writing approaches such as planning, drafting, revising, and peer review fosters metalinguistic reflection and sustained accuracy. Collaborative peer editing allows students to identify and correct SVA errors collectively, promoting output-based learning (Swain, 1985). 8.3 Incorporating L1 Awareness Lecturers can leverage students’ L1 linguistic knowledge by comparing siSwati and English SVA systems explicitly. Contrastive analysis activities—such as translating siSwati sentences into English—can help students recognize where interference occurs and how to avoid it. Raising L1 awareness supports cross-linguistic metalinguistic consciousness, which aids rule internalization (Odlin, 1989). 8.4 Error Analysis and Self-Monitoring Exercises Using error analysis tasksin class enables students to identify and understand their recurring mistakes. Encouraging learners to classify their own errors (addition, omission, and misinformation) promotes self-regulation and long-term accuracy (James, 1998). Such reflective activities align with constructivist pedagogy, where learners become active participants in their language development. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 56 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 8.5 Exposure to Standard English Input Given that the University of Eswatini currently lacks native English-speaking lecturers, students’ exposure to authentic grammatical models is limited. According to Blommaert (2010), this results in reliance on peripheral English norms, which may not align with standard SVA usage. To mitigate this, students should be encouraged to read authentic English materials (academic texts, novels, reputable news outlets) and listen to native English content (podcasts, lectures, documentaries). This exposure reinforces natural syntactic patterns and enhances intuitive grasp of agreement structures. 8.6 Addressing Test Anxiety Finally, to reduce performance-induced errors, educators should help students manage test anxiety through supportive classroom practices such as low-stakes writing tasks, time management training, and constructive feedback rather than punitive grading. Research shows that a lowanxiety environment enhances linguistic performance and accuracy (Krashen, 1982; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). 9. Conclusion and Implications This study examined subject-verb agreement (SVA) errors in the writings of Semester 4 English majors at the University of Eswatini. It revealed that errors of addition, omission, and misinformation were prevalent, with errors of addition being the most systematic, reflecting significant L1 interference from siSwati. While factors such as limited exposure to Standard English, incomplete grammatical knowledge, and test-related pressures contributed to errors, the primary source of difficulty was learners’ overgeneralization of siSwati concordial rules to English, particularly in pluralisation and complex sentence structures. These findings contribute to ESL research by illustrating how L1 transfer shapes persistent error patterns in African tertiary contexts and by reinforcing the need for context-sensitive teaching strategies. Practically, the results suggest that improving grammatical accuracy requires a multi-faceted approach, combining targeted grammar instruction, writing exercises that incorporate L1 awareness, structured error analysis, and consistent exposure to authentic English texts, thereby enhancing both SVA competence and overall academic writing proficiency. Funding: This study was not funded in any shape or form by any party. Conflict of Interest: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest. Bio-note: Phindile A. Dlamini is a Lecturer and the Head of the Department of English at the University of Eswatini. Her research interests span language acquisition, language variation, language policy, youth languages, syntax, and sociolinguistics. She has published on issues related to language-ineducation and public discourse, including recent works such as First Language Instruction? Eswatini Teachers’ Insights into the National Language-in-Education Policy and The Dynamics of Language: A Linguistic Analysis of the Framing of COVID-19 in Eswatini. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 57 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 References Bamgboṣe, A. (2000). Language and exclusion: the consequences of language policies in Africa. Germany: Lit Verlag. Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, Cambridge university press. Constitution of Swaziland, (2005).The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland in English and SiSwati, Mbabane: Swaziland. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–169. Dlamini, P. A., Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2023). First Language Instruction? Eswatini teachers’ insight of the Eswatini language-in-education policy. Southern Africa Journal of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.(https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2106256) Dlamini, P. A. (2014). The impact of siSwati L1 on the acquisition of academic English by tertiary students in Swaziland (Doctoral thesis, University of Cape Town). University of Cape Town. Dlamini, P. A., & Sheik, A. (2019). Exploring teachers’ instructional practices for literacy in English in Grade 1: A case study of two urban primary schools in the Shiselweni region of Eswatini (Swaziland). Reading & Writing, 10(1), Article a229.https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v10i1.229 Doke, C. M. (1954). The Southern Bantu languages. Oxford University Press. Doke, Clement Martyn. (1954). Textbook of Zulu Grammar. Cape Town: Longmans, Green & Co. (5th edition (1st edition 1927)). Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language Two. Newbury House, Rowley. ECESWA – (https://africatu.com/examinations-council-of-eswatini) 2023/24 report Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.013). Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman: China. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman. Jayanti, A. D. (2019). Students’ writing ability on English descriptive text at Grade viii in SMPN 33. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 58 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice is second language acquisition. London: Pergamon. Kunene, M. W., & Mthethwa, P. (2020).The deductive and inductive instructional approach controversy in Eswatini context. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjflt.v10i2.4852 (Un-Pub) Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305. Magagula, P. (2021). Common grammatical errors in English essays written by university students in Eswatini. University of Eswatini Press. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages (Vol. 62). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mkhonta, P., Mkoko, C., & Mohammed, C. (2025). Theory and practice: The case of the mother tongue, siSwati language in education policy. Science Journal of Education, 13(4), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20251304.14 (Science Publishing Group) Mlangeni, P. H. (2022, October). Learners’ perceptions of the Eswatini General Certificate of Secondary Education (EGCSE) with particular reference to English literacy in the Hlathikhulu cluster schools (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of South Africa. https://hdl.handle.net/10500/29963 (Unisa IR) Mngometulu, T. C., & Makgabo, C. (2023, January 20). Pedagogical practices in teaching SiSwati as a first language in diverse linguistic settings. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i1.6567 (E-Journal 3) MoET (2011). Education Sector Policy 2011. The Government of Swaziland. Mbabane. Swaziland. MoET (2018). Eswatini National Education and Training Sector Policy 2018. The Government of Eswatini, Ministry of Education and Training. Hospital Hill, Mbabane. Mthethwa, P. (2014). L1 Interference in the written English of Swazi secondary school learners. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Eswatini. Mthethwa, P. (2019). Cross-linguistic influence and subject–verb agreement in Swazi learners of English. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(3), 219–234. Nxumalo, T. (2016). A morphosyntactic analysis of English verb errors in Swazi learners’ writing. University of Eswatini. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Concord Feud: An Analysis of Subject–Verb Agreement Errors. . . LinFo www.linguisticforum.com 59 Linguistic Forum 6(4), 2024 Padang. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 3(1), 72-94. Phiri, S. N., & Weber, E. (2025). Teacher training and language in Eswatini: Student teachers’ views and practices using English and siSwati. South African Journal of Education, 45(3), Article #2494, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v45n3a2494 (UPSpace Repository) Ramzan, M., Azmat, Z., Afsheen Khan, M., & Nisa, Z. (2023). Subject-Verb Agreement Errors in ESL Students’ Academic Writing: A Surface Taxonomy Approach. Linguistic Forum - A Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2023.5.2.3 Razman, M. A., et al. (2023). The role of grammar mastery in improving English writing proficiency. International Journal of Language Education, 7(1), 45–58. Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal, 25(3), 204–219. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and output. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House. Taljaard, P. C., Khumalo, J. N., & Bosch, S. E. (1991). Handbook of siSwati. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Tóth, Z. (2010). Foreign language anxiety and advanced EFL learners: An interview study. WoPaLP, 4, 39–58. University of Eswatini (2023/2024) University of Eswatini Calendar 2023/24. Kwaluseni, Eswatini. Wahyudi, R. (2012). Error analysis on subject-verb agreement: the case of a university student. Indonesia Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(4), pp. 20-25.