vii ABSTRACT
Sari, Catherina Nilam Permata. (2016). Error Analysis of Second Grade Senior High School Students’ Short Stories in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Second grade senior high school students are assumed to have long experience in using English as a foreign language. However, a well-formed sentence is still difficult to produce. Therefore, in this research, their writings (i.e. short stories) were analysed as sample data to discover their common errors and their difficulties. Then, the implications for teaching were figured out.
In this regard, there were two questions to lead the research. First, what are the surface structure errors in writing story which are made by the students of XI IPS 3 in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan? And second, what are the implications of errors found for teaching?
To answer the research questions, Error Analysis was conducted as quantitative research. The chosen sample data were seven short stories made by the students. And then, the sample data were analysed and the errors were identified based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy by Dulay et al. (1982) as superficial level and based on ‘Let the Errors Determine the Categories’ approach by Norrish (1983) as linguistic level in order to describe the errors. After that, the errors identified were classified into interlingual and intralingual errors in order to reach explanation the errors. At last, the errors were analysed to reach the implication for teaching.
The result of the research from seven short stories presented that there were 457 errors found. It was revealed that at superficial level, omission made up 34% of the error numbers, addition made up 22%, misformation made up 39% and misordering was 5%. In addition, at linguistic level the categories were discussed only in top ten. Article stood at 21%, verb inflection at 11%, diction at 9%, tense at 7%, copula at 6%, conjunction at 5%, phrasal verb at 5%, pronoun at 5%, adverbial at 4%, preposition at 4%, so the total percentage of these top 10 categories brought to 77%. Besides, interlingual errors were found at 19% and intralingual at 81%. In an attempt to find out the implication of the errors for teaching, three categories at linguistic level were chosen based on irritability which contained article, verb inflection which contained past-tense verb errors and preposition which contained to errors. From those categories, it is implied that there were difficulties which needed a remedy.
viii
ABSTRAK
Sari, Catherina Nilam Permata. (2016). Error Analysis of Second Grade Senior High School Students’ Short Stories in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni. Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma
Siswa kelas II SMA dianggap sudah lama mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing. Akan tetapi, kalimat bahasa Inggris yang baik dan benar masih sulit untuk dirangkai oleh siswa. Maka di penelitian ini, tulisan mereka (cerita pendek) akan dirangkai sebagai data sampel untuk menemukan kesalahan yang biasa mereka hasilkan serta kesulitan mereka, kemudian mencari tahu implikasi untuk mengajar.
Berhubungan hal tersebut, ada dua rumusan masalah yang menuntun penelitian ini: 1) Apa saja kesalahan surface structure dalam menulis cerita yang dibuat oleh siswa XI IPS3 SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan? Dan 2) apa saja implikasi dari kesalahan yang ditemukan untuk mengajar?
Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah, Error Analysis dilakukan sebagai penelitian kuantitatif. Sampel data yang dipilih adalah tujuh cerita pendek yang dibuat oleh siswa. Kemudian, sampel data dianalisis dan kesalahan ditemukan dan diidentifikasi berdasarkan Surface Strategy Taxonomy oleh Dulay dkk. (1982) sebagai tingkatan atas dan berdasarkan pendekatan ‘Biarlah Kesalahan Memutuskan Kategorinya’oleh Norrish (1983) sebagai tingkatan linguistik untuk mendeskripsikan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut. Setelah itu, kesalahan tersebut pula diklasifikasikan ke interlingual dan intralingual untuk mendapat penjelasan tentang kesalahan tersebut. Terakhir, kesalahan tersebut dianalisis untuk mendapat implikasi untuk mengajar.
Hasil dari penelitian dari tujuh cerita pendek adalah ditemukannya 457 kesalahan. Pada tingkatan atas, omission mencapai 34% dari seluruh kesalahan, addition mencapai 22%, misformation mencapai 39%, sedangkan misordering 5%. Selain itu pada tingkatan linguistik, hanya 10 kategori tertinggi kategori yang dibahas. Article mendapat 21%, verb inflection pada 11%, diksi pada 9%, tense pada 7%, copula pada 6%, konjungsi pada 5%, phrasal verb pada 5%, pronoun pada 5%, frase keterangan at 4%, preposisi at 4%, jadi total persentase dari 10 kategori tertinggi adalah 77%. Di samping itu, kesalahan interlingual ditemukan sejumlah 19% dan intralingual pada 81%. Untuk menemukan implikasi kesalahan untuk mengajar, terpilih 3 kategori dari tingkatan linguistik berdasarkan irritability, yaitu article, verb inflection yang terdiri dari kesalahan kata kerja past-tense, dan preposisi yang terdiri dari kesalahan to. Dari kategori tersebut, diimplikasikan bahwa terdapat kesulitan yang membutuhkan pengananan pada siswa.
ERROR ANALYSIS OF SECOND GRADE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL S
TUDENTS’
SHORT STORIES
IN SMA NEGERI 1 BANGUNTAPAN
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Catherina Nilam Permata Sari Student Number: 121214138
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
i
ERROR ANALYSIS OF SECOND GRADE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL S
TUDENTS’
SHORT STORIES
IN SMA NEGERI 1 BANGUNTAPAN
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Catherina Nilam Permata Sari Student Number: 121214138
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTYOF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
A Sarrj ana Pardidiktu Thesis
sr
ERROR
AT.{ALYSIS OF SECONDd*Nr
SEMOR.
HIGH
SCHOOL STT]I}ENTS' SHORT
ST(MIES
IN
SMA
I\TEGERII
BA}TGTINTAPAhIBy
Catherina Nilam Psnnata Sari
Studeilt Number: l?1214138
Approv.ed by
ERROR
AI{ALYSIS
OT' SECONDGRAEE
SENIOR
HIGH
SCHOOL
STUDENTS'SIIORT
STORIES
IN
SMANEGERI
1BANG{INTAPAN
By
CATHERINA NILAM PERI\,{ATA SARI
Shrdent Number:
l2l2l4l38
Def,ended before the Board of Examiners
on 9 November 2016
. and
Dec'lared Accepta ble
Ciidrpr:rson
$ex"retary
L'fenrhm
M.*riii:er
Merntrer
Boartl of Examiners
Ycrluna Veniranda, h(.Ituur.. Ph.D.
Christina Lhaksmiia Anandari, S.Pd., Ed"fui.
Veronica I ripriha,anini, I,i.Hum., M.A.
Barli Bram, Ph.D.
F. X. Ouda Tcda Ena, S.Pd., h{.Pd., Ed.D.
Yogyakarta, 9 November 201 6
Faculty of Teachers Training anrl Education Dharma University
Ph.D.
iv
To my supervisor, English teacher Bu Yuni and XIS3 students, batch 2015
SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan
Whose short stories inspired me.
I was scared of being alone,
I was scared of being abandoned,
but now I am not,
because it is a state of being free.
STATEMENT OF WORK'S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts
of
the workof
other people, except those citedin
the quotations and thereferences, as a scie,ntific paper should.
Yogyakarta, 9 November 2016
The Writer
NM
U
Catherina Nilam Permata Sari
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETAJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA
ILMAH
ANTAK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMISYang bertand atangandi bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama
Nomor Mahasiswa
: Catherina Nilam Permata Sari
:
l2l2l4l38
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
ERROR ANALYSIS OF SECOND GRADE
SENIOR IIIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' SHORT STORIES
IN
SMANEGERI1
N,INCUNTAPAN
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan universitas Sanata Dharma
hak
untuk menyimpan,mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan
data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikarmya di Internet atau
media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta
ijin
dari sayamaupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya
sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenamya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal: 9 November 2016
vl
Yang menyatakan
vii ABSTRACT
Sari, Catherina Nilam Permata. (2016). Error Analysis of Second Grade Senior High School Students’ Short Stories in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Second grade senior high school students are assumed to have long experience in using English as a foreign language. However, a well-formed sentence is still difficult to produce. Therefore, in this research, their writings (i.e. short stories) were analysed as sample data to discover their common errors and their difficulties. Then, the implications for teaching were figured out.
In this regard, there were two questions to lead the research. First, what are the surface structure errors in writing story which are made by the students of XI IPS 3 in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan? And second, what are the implications of errors found for teaching?
To answer the research questions, Error Analysis was conducted as quantitative research. The chosen sample data were seven short stories made by the students. And then, the sample data were analysed and the errors were identified based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy by Dulay et al. (1982) as superficial level and based on ‘Let the Errors Determine the Categories’ approach by Norrish (1983) as linguistic level in order to describe the errors. After that, the errors identified were classified into interlingual and intralingual errors in order to reach explanation the errors. At last, the errors were analysed to reach the implication for teaching.
The result of the research from seven short stories presented that there were 457 errors found. It was revealed that at superficial level, omission made up 34% of the error numbers, addition made up 22%, misformation made up 39% and misordering was 5%. In addition, at linguistic level the categories were discussed only in top ten. Article stood at 21%, verb inflection at 11%, diction at 9%, tense at 7%, copula at 6%, conjunction at 5%, phrasal verb at 5%, pronoun at 5%, adverbial at 4%, preposition at 4%, so the total percentage of these top 10 categories brought to 77%. Besides, interlingual errors were found at 19% and intralingual at 81%. In an attempt to find out the implication of the errors for teaching, three categories at linguistic level were chosen based on irritability which contained article, verb inflection which contained past-tense verb errors and preposition which contained to errors. From those categories, it is implied that there were difficulties which needed a remedy.
viii
ABSTRAK
Sari, Catherina Nilam Permata. (2016). Error Analysis of Second Grade Senior High School Students’ Short Stories in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni. Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma
Siswa kelas II SMA dianggap sudah lama mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing. Akan tetapi, kalimat bahasa Inggris yang baik dan benar masih sulit untuk dirangkai oleh siswa. Maka di penelitian ini, tulisan mereka (cerita pendek) akan dirangkai sebagai data sampel untuk menemukan kesalahan yang biasa mereka hasilkan serta kesulitan mereka, kemudian mencari tahu implikasi untuk mengajar.
Berhubungan hal tersebut, ada dua rumusan masalah yang menuntun penelitian ini: 1) Apa saja kesalahan surface structure dalam menulis cerita yang dibuat oleh siswa XI IPS3 SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan? Dan 2) apa saja implikasi dari kesalahan yang ditemukan untuk mengajar?
Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah, Error Analysis dilakukan sebagai penelitian kuantitatif. Sampel data yang dipilih adalah tujuh cerita pendek yang dibuat oleh siswa. Kemudian, sampel data dianalisis dan kesalahan ditemukan dan diidentifikasi berdasarkan Surface Strategy Taxonomy oleh Dulay dkk. (1982) sebagai tingkatan atas dan berdasarkan pendekatan ‘Biarlah Kesalahan Memutuskan Kategorinya’oleh Norrish (1983) sebagai tingkatan linguistik untuk mendeskripsikan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut. Setelah itu, kesalahan tersebut pula diklasifikasikan ke interlingual dan intralingual untuk mendapat penjelasan tentang kesalahan tersebut. Terakhir, kesalahan tersebut dianalisis untuk mendapat implikasi untuk mengajar.
Hasil dari penelitian dari tujuh cerita pendek adalah ditemukannya 457 kesalahan. Pada tingkatan atas, omission mencapai 34% dari seluruh kesalahan, addition mencapai 22%, misformation mencapai 39%, sedangkan misordering 5%. Selain itu pada tingkatan linguistik, hanya 10 kategori tertinggi kategori yang dibahas. Article mendapat 21%, verb inflection pada 11%, diksi pada 9%, tense pada 7%, copula pada 6%, konjungsi pada 5%, phrasal verb pada 5%, pronoun pada 5%, frase keterangan at 4%, preposisi at 4%, jadi total persentase dari 10 kategori tertinggi adalah 77%. Di samping itu, kesalahan interlingual ditemukan sejumlah 19% dan intralingual pada 81%. Untuk menemukan implikasi kesalahan untuk mengajar, terpilih 3 kategori dari tingkatan linguistik berdasarkan irritability, yaitu article, verb inflection yang terdiri dari kesalahan kata kerja past-tense, dan preposisi yang terdiri dari kesalahan to. Dari kategori tersebut, diimplikasikan bahwa terdapat kesulitan yang membutuhkan pengananan pada siswa.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I praise the Almighty God, Jesus Christ, and Mary Mother of God for strengthening my faith to finish this undertaking. I almost gave up,
but He always accompanied me through good people around me. I was protected by Him as my true saviour, now and forever. Without Him, I am just a speck of dust.
I wish to thank my beloved parents and my only handsome and affluent brother, who are always cool as cucumber to support me in building my
character and gaining experiences before concentrating on my thesis. They always fulfil my every need and selfish plea.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor, Veronica Triprihatmini, M. Hum., M.A., for being generous and helpful as to provide a
foremost reference book for me and listen to my difficulties in her busy schedule. In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks and great gratitude to Erik Christopher Hookom, B.A., M.Ed., who has kindly helped me to proofread the
reconstruction of sample data. Moreover, I did not forget to express my gratitude to Laurentia Sumarni, M.Trans.St as my academic advisor who always encourages her students, Barli Bram, Ph.D. and Priyatno Ardi, S.Pd., M.Hum., who have suggested online corpora for analysing data.
x
I would like to express my great gratitude to Dra. Wahyuni as my advisor on internship program, who had given me a lot of teaching experiences throughout my internship. Last but not least, my biggest thanks I give to all the students of XI IPS3 who always inspire me to give my best to them. They are gifted students
for me.
I am grateful to all my friends who always encouraged me to finish this thesis, especially PBI E 2012, some of whom I found in library doing thesis together. I am also indebted to Tya, Kasih, Rere for all “academic” hanging-out at some cafés, Jo for one-hour helping me find appropriate research method, Erlin for all of her suggestions and Yosephine Prajna Putri (Mbak Pupup) for
being my fast proofreader.
Last but not least, I am highly indebted and thoroughly grateful to my only best partner, Artantya Krispradipta, who always asked me going out and having dinner when I was neglecting my thesis for a while. I might just as well chill out and enjoy my life. He also encouraged me to always do my thesis, even though I got disappointed with myself. He never fails to cheer me up.
Again, many thanks are for those who have helped me and supported me for so many months.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
DEDICATION PAGE ... iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... vi
ABSTRACT ... vii
ABSTRAK ... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi
LIST OF TABLE ... xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background... 1
B. Research Questions ... 3
C. Research Significance ... 3
D. Definition of Terms ... 4
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ... 7
1. Student Learning Competence ... 7
2. Assessing Writing ... 9
a. The Nature of Writing ... 9
b. Assessment in Writing ... 11
xii
4. Error Analysis ... 14
a. The Steps of Conducting Error Analysis ... 15
1) Collection of a Sample of Learner Language ... 15
2) Identification of Errors ... 16
3) Description of Errors ... 16
4) Explanation of Errors ... 17
5) Error Evaluation ... 18
b. Surface Strategy Taxonomy ... 18
1) Omission ... 18
2) Addition ... 18
3) Misformation ... 19
4) Misordering ... 19
c.Language Features Presented in Narrative Composition ... 19
B. Theoretical Framework ... 21
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ... 23
B. Research Setting ... 24
C. Research Participant and Document ... 24
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ... 25
E. Data Analysis Technique ... 28
xiii
1. Data Presentation ... 30
2. Discussion ... 32
a. Description of Errors ... 33
b. Explanation of Errors ... 38
B. The Implication of the Errors for Teaching ... 40
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions ... 43
B. Recommendations ... 45
REFERENCES ... 47
xiv
[image:17.595.84.511.199.628.2]LIST OF TABLE
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Surat Permohonan Ijin Penelitian ... 50
Appendix B. Surat Ijin dari BAPPEDA ... 52
Appendix C. Samples of the Students’ Short Stories ... 54
Appendix D. Reconstruction Text of the Students’ Short Stories ... 62
Appendix E. Form of the Error Description... 70
Appendix F. Error Description ... 72
Appendix G. Frequency of Error Types ... 108
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This research reveals errors made by second grade of senior high school students. In this chapter the background of the research will be presented. It also provides the research questions and its significances. The definition of terms will be discussed in this chapter as well.
A. Research Background
In this case, students should have known the basic understanding of English grammar. According to National Standard of Education in Indonesia or Standar Nasional Pendidikan (SNP), a student has learnt English since elementary school (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006; Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 54 Tahun 2013; Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2016). So, it is implied that students have long experience in dealing with English for nine years, more or less, when reaching senior high school. Generally, it is also a proof that students tend to produce simple English sentences at least.
However, sometimes students miss one aspect of a good sentence and are unaware enough to correct it. It also happens especially in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. When the classroom activity demands writing skills, some incorrect sentences are produced. They usually missed one aspect of a well-formed sentence, such as a subject, a copula, an object, a noun inflection, a preposition, a verb auxiliary, and so on. From the feedback, it is noted that incorrect form of sentences is often found in their writing. Consequently, the readers get difficulties to deduce from their writing products. This evidence shows the fact that there are some gaps to produce the correct form of English sentences.
Regarding the students’ difficulties in dealing with English, the researcher wants to identify the common errors which were made by the second grade senior high school students in writing a story. The certain participants are the second grade students of SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan. The researcher assumes that those students have learned and acknowledged English as a foreign language before. They used to have long experience in using English as a foreign language. The following stage is the researcher discovers the possible suggestions for teaching English in second grade of SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan.
B. Research Questions
There are two problems that lead the researcher to conduct research. The problems are:
1. What are the surface structure errors in writing short stories which are made by the students of XI IPS 3 in SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan?
2. What are the implications of the errors for teaching?
C. Research Significance
1. For the students
By discovering their own weaknesses, they can have clear understanding of using English. So in the future, hopefully the students can reduce their common errors in producing English sentences.
2. For English teachers
By understanding their students’ weaknesses and difficulties in learning English, this research will have a contribution to the learning and teaching process. It is hoped that the English teacher can evaluate more their teaching approaches, methods, or techniques, and then modify into the better one. So, the students can study English language effortlessly.
3. For the developers of teaching material
Concerning the teaching materials, this research may be helpful to inform the effectiveness of current syllabus for the syllabus designers. So, hopefully it can help them to create better and more appropriate materials for the senior high school students.
4. For future researchers
This research can be used as a reference to analysing other students’ product. It may be explored in more detail in future research as well as acknowledged that some errors need more attention.
D. Definition of Terms
1. Errors
Chomsky (1965) notes that errors are differentiated by the causes of errors, whether it is performance factor, called mistakes and errors from lack of knowledge (as cited in Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 139). However, in surface strategy taxonomy Dulay, Burt, and Krashen have pointed out that errors are not distinguished (1982, p. 150). In this research, errors in surface structures can help the researcher identify learners’ cognitive processes of reconstructing a
new language. Therefore, the learner’s errors are important to discover their use of interim principles to produce a new language.
2. Surface Structure
In syntactic phenomena, there are two levels of its structure. The former is
deep structure. The latter is surface structure, which O’Grady, Dobrovolsky, and Katamba have described as a result from applying transformation for the sentence in question (1996, p. 204). Furthermore according to Crystal (2008), the surface structure of a sentence is the final stage of the way words are combined to form in a sentence. He also adds that “the term surface strategy is sometimes used as an
3. Surface Structure Taxonomy
Taxonomy is a system of categories (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 60). According Crystal (2008), taxonomy is exclusively concerned with classification (p. 478). Therefore as Dulay, et al. (1982) cite as well, Surface Structure Taxonomy involved in this research is a system of categories which classifies errors based on “the ways surface structure are altered” in sentences (p.150). Surface Structure Taxonomy provides some categories: omission, addition,
7 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter discusses the theories which are beneficial and used as a set of beliefs or ideas to issue a framework of this research. In order to conduct the research, the review of theoretical writings and researches is provided in this section. The summary and synthesis of those theories will be presented as well.
A. Theoretical Description
This section the researcher collects some theories about student learning competence namely, how to assessing writing, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a study to conduct Error Analysis and Error Analysis as the method of this research.
1. Student Learning Competence
English language, at least nine years when entering senior high school because of the curriculum transformation (from curriculum 2006 to 2013).
Moreover, there are a curriculum and syllabus which are used as standards for teaching English in a classroom. Most of all senior high schools still implement Curriculum 2006 as a national curriculum in academic year 2015/2016 as being ordered by the Minister of Education and Culture (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia No 160 Tahun 2014), and then create into a developed syllabus. Curriculum 2006 itself is an operational curriculum, called Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). An operational curriculum means that the curriculum is organized by each educational institution. A syllabus is included in such curriculum. Thus “a syllabus should be developed by teachers to adjust time allocation and student characteristics” (BSNP, 2006).
Regarding the curriculum 2006 implemented in academic year 2015/2016, in senior high school, teachers educate on English as a foreign language four times in a week. Each time allocation is worth 45 (forty five) minutes. Thus, each student will learn English in a classroom for 180 (one hundred and eighty) minutes per week (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006).
Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006). Each learning material is comprised of its purpose, structure text, and language features. Besides, when the following curriculum K-13 is implemented, there is no difference in learning materials between curriculum 2006 (KTSP) and curriculum 2013 (K-13) (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 64 Tahun 2013). Next, those materials should lead to standard competences which consist of language performances: listening, speaking, reading and writing (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan, 2006).
2. Assessing Writing
Regarding writing skills as one of language performances which students should acquire and also the object of this research, the researcher wants to discuss writing skills. This section will be divided into two sub-topics: the nature of writing skills and its assessment.
a. The Nature of Writing
linked to the purpose and function of texts becomes meaningful learning in pedagogic (p. 32).
The writers should understand those features of language clearly while mastering writing skills because it deals with how the writers organise the language within sentences (Knapp & Watkins, 2005, p. 33). They are also supposed to understand the principles of writing to accomplish their writing. As writing in a second language, the writers may be more frustrated on language rather than its content (Weigle, 2002, p. 35). It is because the writers‟ language proficiency is limited.
Therefore, the learners should have been given writing exposure before creating grammatically acceptable sentences and able to spell words correctly. Unfortunately, there are many features of language which make writing harder and cause errors. Norrish (1983) also admits that writing is a skill which has been found with many problems to master (p. 63). Besides that, the main purpose of language is communication. Writing is not only one of language skills which leads to performance. It also has its own linguistic features and conventions which should be taken notice of in order to accomplish it.
Weigle (2002) also notes that the type of writing is to entertain the readers and show imagination and deep feeling (p. 8)
b. Assessment in Writing
General assessment is a process of gathering data or information. Test is one of the instruments in gathering data. Also, a score or a verbal description is the outcome of the assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 2010, p. 20). The main objective of assessment is to make a conclusion about learner language from assessment scores analysed (Purpura, 2004).
In order to assess learner language clearly, writing as a performance assessment is needed (Weigle, 2002, p. 46). The focus of this assessment is divided into two senses, strong and weak one. The strong sense is focused on how the message of language is delivered. Besides that, the weak sense is considered on the language features which are the use of vocabulary, organization, and so on. Those language features are also responsible for the success in the writing test. In other words, the test is also to discover the learner language proficiency. As the result, the administrators, who give and score the test, are focused more on the linguistic aspects (Weigle, 2002). It is visible that grammar is one of considerations to assess writing.
consideration for error correction which is shown up (p. 184). Moreover, in writing test the handwriting ability, correct spelling, writing sentences, paragraph construction, and logical idea are assessed (Brown, 2004).
3. Second Language Acquisition
Assessing English as a foreign language is needed by teacher to analyse learner language and to know how learners acquire another language. For that reason assessing English as a foreign language refers to second language acquisition (SLA); it involves an examination of those learning aspects and of those contextual and personal factors that define the speed variation and ultimate level of attainment (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).
SLA itself has the goals; one of them is the description and explanation of L2 (Second Language) learners‟ competence. Since learners are learning a second language, they probably do not notice the actual learning processes they have engaged in. In short, there is a need to find out learners‟ competence by collecting
samples of learner language and analysing them carefully (Ellis, 2003). It means SLA get involved in requiring learner language as the primary data.
Data which are collected from learners involve describing learner‟s
interlanguages. One of types of the data is samples of learner language, which is expected as primary data in doing SLA research (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 21). In order to accomplish SLA goals, the researcher maintains the competence by analysing learner‟s performance. Speaking and writing are considered as
natural language activities. Furthermore, there are also three ways of collecting samples of learner language. Clinical elicited sample is one of them (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 22). It involves a carefully task which is message conveyance as learners‟ concern but language features as their utility are not neglected.
In clinical elicited samples conducted, there are few types which differ from the researcher‟s goal. They are general samples and focused samples. Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) note that focused samples provide the data which relates to specific language feature (p. 34). Moreover, it is nearly similar to experimentally elicited focused samples. Otherwise, clinical elicited samples take up an essential part of SLA because it demonstrates low learners to construct message by using L2.
whether there is access to open reference tools. Furthermore, the examination can produce natural written samples.
4. Error Analysis
Error is a natural phenomenon in learning language (Hendrickson, 1981, p. 3). On the other hand, students used to feel that error is a failure and should be avoided (Norrish, 1983, p. 1). Norrish also concludes that a fear of making mistakes is one of the suppressing factors in formal learning situation.
However, Error Analysis is a study of learners‟ errors which is helpful for the teacher, as a monitoring tool. It consists of some steps in identifying, describing, and explaining learner language (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 51). Learners are analysed as native speakers, and then the researcher treats the learner‟s interlanguage as a linguistic competence which describes the detail of interlanguage development. It can be analysed in the form of learners‟ speech and writing.
feedback about the effectiveness of teacher‟s teaching materials and techniques, and also show the parts of the syllabus which is lack of attention.
Therefore, Error Analysis is relevant to teaching and learning language issue. It can be a device to give teacher feedback in order to develop teaching technique and material in a classroom. Furthermore, if errors are generally exposed, Truscott (1996) also points out that error correction, especially in grammar causes dilemma (as cited in Weigle, 2002, p. 184). Grammar correction rather than heads to improvement in grammar, it leads to discourage students. Otherwise, not all teachers are capable of explaining the errors. Moreover, error correction will create a diversion from assessing more important aspect in writing. As a result, error correction needs to prioritize error types, so it will be more effective (Hendrickson, 1981).
a. The Steps of Conducting Error Analysis
By conducting Error Analysis, defining errors is becoming an essential part. According to Corder (1974) there are the steps to follow (as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 57):
1) Collection of a Sample of Learner Language
2) Identification of Errors
After gathering the data, the researcher tries to identify the errors of the sample data. It becomes easier to identify if the researcher prepares the well-formed reconstruction of the sample data, which is produced by native speakers. 3) Description of Errors
Description of errors is proceeded to specify the errors found. This stage has following steps: first, the researcher codes the errors to a set of descriptive categories; second, he/she records the frequency of the errors in each category. Errors are described by the system of categories in order to present description of errors (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 146). Also, it calculates the learner‟s error frequency. As setting out to define the errors, there are several kinds of taxonomies to classify the errors. One of them is Surface Strategy Taxonomy. It points out four principles to define learner‟s errors: omission, addition,
approach is adopted by recording the errors and then, grouping it into several categories.
4) Explanation of Errors
Explanation of errors is a stage to find the sources of the reason why the errors are established. It is the most essential stage in this method. However SLA researchers argue the error produced itself whether is an error or a mistake. Corder (1974) suggests distinguishing it as an error or a mistake (as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 62). Errors occur when students have gaps in processing forms of target language. However if the errors happen consistently, those errors refer to the sense of ignorance. Otherwise, mistakes occur when students find a difficulty of processing forms because they have not fully mastered but they are capable of correcting it (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 62). However from pedagogic view, whether they are errors or mistakes, it is useful for teachers to know learners language and their second language acquisition. Based on surface strategy taxonomy (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 150), identifying errors is also identifying learners‟ cognitive process on how they reconstruct the new language. Errors produced do not remain as the result of laziness or carelessness, but those show the learners‟ interim principles on their new language production.
errors are the result of mother tongue influences.” Besides, “intralingual errors
reflect the operation of learning strategies that are universal” (p. 65). 5) Error Evaluation
This is an additional and last stage in Error Analysis, but presents the results of conducting the research. According to Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), this stage results some evaluation of errors and recommendations for following strategy of learning (p. 67).
b. Surface Strategy Taxonomy
Surface Strategy Taxonomy concerns the way of surface structures differing from the well-form utterances. Dulay et al. (1982) claim that there are four categories to differ learners‟ errors (as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Moreover it is yielded that learners may produce errors by omitting the inevitable items, adding unnecessary items, misforming well-formed items, and misordering joint items (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 154).
1) Omission
2) Addition
Addition usually appears in the form of adding wrong item in a well-formed sentence. This class occurs in the later stages of L2 acquisition. Addition has its sub-class, which are double markings, regularization and simple addition. Double markings occur when two items appear in one sentence to mark the same feature. Besides, regularization occurs when the learner use regular form for irregular class. Simple addition is for all addition errors where no particular feature can identify.
3) Misformation
Misformation is the evidence when a wrong form of the morpheme or structure exists in sentence. It is divided into three types of misformation. They are regularization errors, archi-forms and alternating forms. Regularization error is separated into two parts: 1) overregularization errors occur because of using regular rule rather than irregular form in all items, and 2) regularization errors in the comprehension of grammar occur because of using wrong diction and part of phrase (i.e. preposition in phrasal verbs). It might produce a different meaning on its sentence. Besides, archi-forms and alternating forms almost appear as the same sub-classes because archi-forms often show up the learner language‟s alternating forms.
4) Misordering
c. Language Features Presented in Narrative Composition
Regarding Corder‟s suggestion about the categorization of linguistic operation (1981), the researcher wants to depict the language features presented in narrative composition. Each learning material has its own characteristic of language features (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 64 Tahun 2013). The usage of narrative language features are also emphasised in standard competence and basic competence, where it should be used accurately, fluently, and in the context of daily lives when performed narrative text ("Silabus SMA XI", 2006). Furthermore, what language features should be included in each text are identified by teachers as syllabus. In narrative text, some language features are indicated, they are the use of past tense, direct-indirect speech, pronouns, noun phrases, action verbs, time connectives and conjunctions, adverbs and adverbial phrases (Sudarwati & Grace, 2006).
In the context of Error Analysis, a number of books have been published to help the researcher identify the errors and reconstruct the samples. There are grammar handbooks which are suggested to run the analysis, as for example Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik‟s well-known A Grammar of Contemporary English (1972), Azar‟s Understanding and Using English Grammar, third edition (2002), Lindstromberg‟s English Prepositions Explained, revised edition (1947), Murphy‟s English Grammar in Use: a Self-Study Reference and Practice Book for Intermediate Students (2001), and Triprihatmini and Anandari‟s Common Mistakes in Speaking and Writing (2015). Besides,
Those books will benefit the researcher to be references to analysis language features in learner language samples.
B. Theoretical Framework
Each senior high school student in batch 2015 has learned English as a foreign language since they were in the elementary school. It is proven that curriculum 2006 (KTSP) in which English is a compulsory subject for elementary obtained when they entered elementary school. However, today‟s curriculum (K -13) does not give much revision on English learning material, especially for second grade of senior high school (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006; Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 64 Tahun 2013). Narrative is still one of the learning materials and relevant to conducting this research.
Following the learning material, it leads to four performances, especially writing. A teacher also does assessments in order to get an access to their language achievement (Purpura, 2004). In assessing writing, one of its focuses is language features which obviously discover students‟ proficiency (Weigle, 2002).
Further, Error Analysis provides some steps to discover the students‟ accuracy. It will show the students‟ gaps and process of producing the target language as well. Throughout Error Analysis, there are some systems offered. One of them is Surface Strategy Taxonomy. It classifies the students‟ errors into surface-structure categorization: omission, addition, misformation, and misordering (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). Since the researcher conducted Error Analysis based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy, the research refers to assessing writing skill with weak sense. Weak sense is considered on language features used (Weigle, 2002, p. 47). Moreover, Corder (1981) states that it is superficial level to explain their errors to the teacher. Therefore, linguistic level is also provided by using „Let the Errors Determine the Categories‟ (Norrish, 1983). By using such approach, the list of errors can be sorted into smaller groups. To attempt the linguistic level, the researcher also consulted the reference books and some sources about the errors. In addition, linguistic level helps the researcher to explain the students‟ weaknesses of producing the target language. Afterwards the
23 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Previous studies whose purpose was finding errors in learner language used content analysis as methodology. The researches did not only use by qualitative, but also quantitative analysis based on how the former researchers interpreted the findings of their data.
Moreover, the researcher of this study runs an analysis by using Error Analysis as its methodology. Furthermore, this research was conducted as quantitative research in order that a whole image of the participants‟ language can be discovered as answering the two research questions mentioned in the first chapter. There are some aspects that will be explained, such as the methods of the research, research setting, and participants of the research. Technique and procedure for conducting this research will also be explained in this chapter. The researcher wants to explore how the research was conducted.
A. Research Method
The researcher conducted Error Analysis as quantitative research. Error Analysis itself is “a set of procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining
sentence. The following step, the errors found can give enough explanation about learner language.
Error Analysis is proposed in several following steps which have been explained in the previous chapter. Some requirements are also provided such as the samples as clinical elicited samples which are needed to research in SLA.
B. Research Setting
Before examining the sample data, the researcher had to ask permission to Badan Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA) Bantul, Yogyakarta as one of the departments of Bantul region government. The permission was given for three months (May-August 2016), and then expanded to November 2016. By such permission, the researcher was allowed to analyse the documents as the subject of research. The documents were 7 chosen short stories as learner language samples. All participants were 26 (twenty six) students of XI IPS 3, SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan, Bantul. Those samples were analysed during May-September 2016.
C. Research Participant and Document
From 16 writing products, only 7 (seven) were done successfully and called as finished short stories. The researcher decided to choose 7 short stories and then, it became the sample data of this research. Thus, the 7 short stories
represented the class‟ language achievement. The rest (i.e. 9 (nine) short stories)
failed because the stories had not been finished yet or written in Indonesia (draft).
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
An instrument is a device the researcher uses to collect data (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2015, p. 112). There are some types of instruments which are used in this research. They are performance tests, reconstruction of sample data, a tally sheet and tools.
1. Performance tests
A performance test is an individual‟s performance on a particular task (Fraenkel et al, 2015. P. 131). In this research, performance tests were involved as
a main instrument. The performance tests were students‟ short stories to discover
students‟ difficulties in writing skills. There were 7 short stories which the researcher analysed.
2. Reconstructions of sample data
According to Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), a reconstruction of sample data serves to identify the error (p. 59). In this research, reconstructions of sample data were one of instruments. Through the reconstructed version, the researcher
Then, the researcher consulted an English native speaker in order get a validity of the reconstruction texts.
3. A tally sheet
A tally sheet is a device used by the researcher to record the frequency of student remarks (Fraenkel et al., 2015, p. 120). It was helpful for the researcher to record the frequency of surface structure errors in documents efficiently. In this research, the researcher formulated the table form as a tally sheet. A tally sheet
involved in this research was adapted from Ellis and Barkhuizen‟s Analysing
Learner Language (2005). It was suggested by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005, p. 63) to ease description of the errors. The researcher designed the table form by concerning the description of errors as well as explanation of errors. Such table form contained 3 (three) main headings. Those headings were significant that (1) Surface structure description was divided into 4 (four) categories: omission, addition, misformation, and misordering, which stands for superficial level based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy by Dulay et al. (1982); (2) linguistic description was on purpose to identify what linguistic units defined the errors, which is used
to describe linguistic level based on „Let the Errors Determine the Categories‟
appropriate category instead of a tally. So, it might ease the researcher to acknowledge which errors is which in each sentence.
4. Tools
In an attempt to reconstruct the samples and gather the data (i.e. errors), the researcher was also supported by some tools. Those tools were reference books and other sources (i.e. online corpura). Those references were helpful to provide the researcher some suggestion on the reconstructed version.
The data could be analysed, provided that the researcher gathered the sample data. The sample data was gathered when the researcher was in the middle of the Internship Program as a teacher in that class. The researcher asked students in XI IPS 3, SMA Negeri 1 Banguntapan to create a short story in pairs. The activity, writing a short story was assumed as a final assessment of narrative text. Moreover, the students were supposed to be fully ready for the assessment because they had accepted 8 (eight) meetings for narrative text, and for each meeting was 2 (two) times 45 (forty five) minutes. They were supposed to acknowledge narrative text. The activity was conducted on September 10th, 2015 in the classroom.
contain one character on each card. Each group was asked to pick two cards as their main characters in short stories. The time allocation to do the assessment was 90 (ninety) minutes when the English subject took place on Thursday. According to the circumstance made, the researcher claimed that the sample data were focused samples in clinical elicitation because it involved learners to influence some specific linguistic usage such as language feature of narrative text, without abandoning the message construction.
E. Data Analysis Technique
There were several steps which had been done in analysing the data, the
learners‟ short stories. Firstly, 16 samples were collected and selected. Only 7 samples were chosen to analyse in this research because it depended on how the students finished the short stories. Those sample data were analysed and reconstructed. The reconstructed version was made by the researcher. After that, in an attempt at data triangulation, the researcher consulted an English native speaker about the reconstructed version. The errors were identified by then.
In identifying errors in samples, the researcher limited the focus. The researcher focused only on Surface Strategy Taxonomy to analyse the data. However, how the students were dealing with punctuation, paragraph and indentation was ignored in this research.
p. 154), and linguistic operation based on „Let the Errors Determine the
Categories‟ approach by Norrish (1983, p. 83) as Corder has suggested (1981, p. 36). In the step of description of errors, the researcher coded each error into superficial and linguistic level as the table form provided (Appendix E). Then, the researcher described the errors separately based on Surface Structure Taxonomy as superficial level. Furthermore, description of linguistic level was integrated into those categories of superficial level in order to get an adequate description of errors.
Errors were also calculated and analysed based on source of errors in an attempt to reach the explanation of errors. The researcher distinguished whether it was error or mistake and analysed how the errors occurred. After that, the researcher explained the number of occurrence of interlingual and intralingual with integrating linguistic level.
30 CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter explores the data in order to answer two research problems: (1) the surface structure errors in students‟ short stories and (2) the implications the errors for teaching, so it is divided into two sections for each research problem. The first section is presented in the form of data presentation and discussion of the results. In the first discussion it is also divided into two parts, description of errors and explanation of errors as the following steps in Error Analysis. Next, the result and discussion of the second research question are integrated.
A. The Surface Structure Errors in Students’ Short Stories
This section presents the data and the discussion on the types of errors in
students‟ short stories as a whole. The data presentation is described in frequency and percentage of each errors category at superficial level based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy, linguistic level based on „let the errors determine the
categories‟ approach and source level. Those two levels are on purpose to
describe the errors. Otherwise, source level is on purpose to explain the errors.
1. Data Presentation
analyse. In the selected writing products, the researcher found 457 errors. Each sample data also had its reconstruction which had been produced. Then the researcher consulted an English native speaker on the reconstructions.
The English native speaker involved in this research is an American who has been working as a lecturer in Indonesia about 3 years. He has expertise in proofreading and editing. He studied at Ohio University for an M.Ed. Concerning his language, his first language is American English but his second language is Bahasa Indonesia. He can speak Indonesia a bit.
The occurrence of the errors is divided into four categories of superficial level based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy, 25 categories of linguistic level based
on „Let the Errors Determine the Categories‟ approach and two categories of source level. Moreover, the superficial, linguistic and source level were presented on table 4.1. In order to ease describing the errors in the discussion section, only top 10 categories of linguistic level for the highest number of occurrence were presented and discussed. Those top categories of linguistic level showed the urgency what teacher should ponder on. The rest were provided in Appendix G.
[image:49.595.87.516.222.747.2]The table 4.1 shows the frequency and the percentage of each category at each level.
Table 4.1 The Types of Errors in Students‟ Short Stories
No. Categories of Error Frequency Percentage (%) I. Error at Superficial Level Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy
1. Omission 154 34
2. Addition 103 22
3. Misformation 178 39
4. Misordering 22 5
2. Discussion
In an attempt to answer the first research question: the surface structure
errors in students‟ short stories, the researcher presented the data in frequency and
percentage of their occurrence. The data presentation shown explained that there were four categories at superficial level based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy which were also divided into several subcategories. Omission was subdivided into two classes; content morpheme and grammatical morpheme. Addition was subdivided into three classes; double marking, regularization, simple addition. Misformation was subdivided into four classes; overregularization error, regularization error in the comprehension of grammar, archi-form, and alternating form. Misordering stands alone. In addition, top ten categories of linguistic level
Table 4.1 (continued) II. Error at Linguistic Level
No. Categories of Error Frequency Percentage (%)
1. Article 95 21
2. Verb inflection 51 11
3. Diction 40 9
4. Tense 31 7
5. Copula 29 6
6. Conjunction 25 5
7. Phrasal verb 23 5
8. Pronoun 21 5
9. Adverbial 19 4
10. Preposition 16 4
Total 350 77
III. Error at Source Level
1. Interlingual errors 88 19
2. Intralingual errors 368 81
[image:50.595.86.511.134.618.2]were also discussed and integrated into superficial level to ease description of
students‟ errors. Besides, source level which is used to explain the errors was classified into two: interlingual and intralingual errors.
In this section, the data presented was discussed and divided into several parts based on each step, (1) description of errors and (2) explanation of errors. a. Description of Errors
Errors based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy which were made the students on their short stories are discussed in this part to acknowledge the learner target language. This part explores more what errors made by the students, which depicts the learners‟ gap in processing target language. Since only top 10 categories of linguistic level were discussed, it could show what the teacher should manage the urgency throughout this each sub discussion.
1. Omission
Omission errors are found by identifying the absence of an item in a well-formed sentence (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 154); for example (Appendix F):
A.37: A giant _ not answered the monkey and he still eat the bananas. (Omission of did and eat)
E.37: _ heared it an old man said loudly from in_ the house‟s “I don‟t _ your
help!” (Omission of after, hearing, inside, need)
sentence. However if those words were ignored in every sentence, it would be an unfavourable habit for the students in producing a sentence.
In this research, there were 154 omission errors found in the students‟ writing products. It resulted 34% of occurrence. Most of the omission went up in grammatical morpheme, 141 errors or 31%. It is found that almost all the students of this research failed to add –ed for past tense as the language feature of narrative text. The highest occurrence of omission errors was rising up because of verb inflections (32 errors) and tenses (17 errors), whose omission errors were nearly similar. The students tended to put a base infinitive or to infinitive in predicate of one sentence. They sometimes omitted or neglected other grammatical morphemes such as articles (27 errors), copulas (18 errors), conjunctions (12 errors), phrasal verbs (6 errors), pronouns (5 errors) and adverbial (4 errors) as seen in Appendix H. Omission errors on content morphemes also got involved but it did not come up as a major error.
2. Addition
Addition is identified by a wrong item in one sentence (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982, p. 156). In the sample data, there were 103 addition errors or 22%. It was found that 27 errors were double markings, 30 errors were regularization errors, and 47 errors were simple additions as seen in Appendix G.
Double markings were identified when an item was added twice, as in (Appendix F)
There was double very, a, and boy in those examples of utterance which was not effective. Moreover, double markings could occur but the item was different words but in the same part of speech, as in (Appendix F)
G.35: He felt loneliness and he stopped at under of almond tree to slept.
In the sample data, it was found that from top ten categories of linguistic level; adverbial, article, diction and conjunction were included in identification of double markings.
Moreover, regularization errors were found in the samples. It occurred because the students added an item (.i.e. they are tense, article, copula, verb inflection, adverbial, phrasal verb and preposition) which made the sentence incorrect. In short, the students failed to use the grammatically correct rhetoric, for example (Appendix F):
E.51: He tried to looking for helped but no one can‟t heared his voice. (Addition for -ing and -ed as verb inflection)
F.17: In the afternoon, Snow White was played with a sheep. (Addition for was as copula)
In E.51, the students tended to add wrong or unused verb inflection in the utterance. In the case of heared, the subject applied the same rules for irregular verb, hear. In F.17 the researcher decided to put was in copula category because most of the students tended to put copulas randomly in their previous writing works and it was not on purpose producing passive sentence.
which were not useful for a well-formed sentence and the researcher could not classify into double markings and regularization errors. In this case, preposition was the main cause of rising up the frequency of simple addition. It might happen because the students tended to attach the verb found directly from dictionary. Some such errors were categorized into top ten categories: preposition, phrasal verb, conjunctions, adverbial, diction, verb inflection, article and copula. The examples of simple addition are (Appendix F):
D.34: After that, step mother to instruct Rapunzel to looked for some fruit. (Additon for to as preposition)
G.54: Giant was surprised by it. (addition for by it as adverbial) 3. Misformation
Misformation also took place in students‟ writing products. It came up as the highest frequency of other 4 categories, 178 errors or 39%. So, most of linguistic categories obtained in misformation. From 4 misformation subclasses, it was found that there were 14 overregularization errors, 71 regularization errors in the comprehension of grammar, 40 archi-forms, and 53 alternating forms (Appendix G). Regarding the previous fact, regularization errors in the comprehension of grammar was the highest because of diction (38 errors). The students often used the unsuitable words in one utterance. The example sentence (Appendix F) is “But finally she came into an old man home‟s and she tried to looking for him.” It showed that the students tended to use „home‟ rather than
Regarding alternating forms and archi-forms, those categories can be mixed up because according to Dulay et al. (1982), it occurs as the development of learner language (p. 161). Besides, article (60 errors) as one of linguistic categories rose up between archi-forms and alternating forms because the students
did not know how to differentiate indefinite article (i.e. „a‟ and „an‟) and definite
article (i.e. the) and use the same patterns in their writing products. Additional case is the students usually used specific nouns such as Rapunzel for subject and object without considering using any pronoun (15 errors in pronoun category) (i.e.
„she‟ or „her‟), for example (Appendix F):
D.24-36: A long time ago, step mother to instruct Rapunzel to cleaned a kingdom. After that, step mother to instruct Rapunzel to looked for some fruit. Step mother to instruct the dragon to kidnap Rapunzel.
From the sentence, there are 3 „step mother‟ and 3 Rapunzel mentioned without any pronoun.
4. Misordering
and direct speech (1 error) were included in misordering. There are the examples of misordering (Appendix F):
A.21: The monkey while ate the banana.
B.40: The mouse deer very hungry because he not yet ate.
b. Explanation of Errors
Explanation of errors is the essential step in an Error Analysis because it involves on how the subjects assess their language (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 62). In this part, errors are discussed and distinguished into two categories: interlingual and intralingual errors.
As requiring distinguishing errors and mistakes, based on pedagogic standpoint both of them are useful for teachers to find out what their students‟ second language acquisition (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 62). Sometimes errors which can be corrected by the students can occur and note as mistakes, but if those errors are produced consistently, it refers to the students‟ sense of ignorance and interim principles on their new language and states to be errors.
Moreover, sample data involved in this discussion were the students‟ writings as their products. It was used to evaluate their language acquisition. The students had been informed about the research setting, so they could prepare the test previously and gave their efforts through the task. Therefore, all errors found were indicated as errors because their writing products were stated as a final examination of narrative text as the learning material.
effects of „transfer‟ and „borrowing‟, those facts also appeared in the students‟ works. The students usually looked up their target-language form from a bilingual dictionary, and then by producing a sentence they only transfer the form without any intention to the target-language rule or semantics, as in (Appendix F)
B.14: In the middle of street, he to imagine how many foods which he got after until the old house.
It should be note that in the middle of street the students wanted to manifest the meaning of di tengah perjalanan or di tengah jalan (informal), but one of the dictionary Indonesia-English would provide avenue, way, road, street, access for jalan, otherwise road, drive, walk, trip, journey for perjalanan (Podo & Sullivan, 1999). Another error also came up, until; it stood for sampai but it was supposed to arriving instead of until because the preceding word was after. To imagine was one of interlingual errors; it was shown in the Indonesia-English dictionary that every English verb often presented in to-infinitive. So, the students did not drop out of to which was the evidence of „transferring‟. Whether the students changed the verb into past tense depended on their awareness and ignorance.
Intralingual errors appeared when the students operated the target-language form in universal rules. There were found 368 errors. Intralingual errors might show the students‟ interim principle on their new language, for example (Appendix F):
A witch and an old man were an evidence of existing intralingual errors in the last
sentence of fifth short stories, “A Witch and an Old Man”. The students kept mentioning the main character as the new subject of the story. It was noted that the students did not understand the use of article „a‟ and „the‟. Another example is (Appendix F)
C.16: She was confused were will she go, because no one people was still alive.
C.22: She was frightened and didn‟t know what can she did.
C.26: “What are doing in here, a young girl?” the wolf asked.
C.27: “I don‟t know. Who you are? I don‟t believe that you are can talk to me!” a young girl said.
Those sentence examples showed that there were gaps in producin
