The mastery of make, have, get causatives among the seventh semester students of English Letters department of Universitas Sanata Dharma.

93 

Teks penuh

(1)

THE MASTERY OF MAKE, HAVE, GET CAUSATIVES

AMONG THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS

OF ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

OF UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

DEVI WIJAYANTI Student Number : 134214057

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

YOGYAKARTA

(2)

ii

THE MASTERY OF MAKE, HAVE, GET CAUSATIVES

AMONG THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS

OF ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

OF UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

DEVI WIJAYANTI Student Number : 134214057

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

YOGYAKARTA

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

vii

The mind is everything

What you think, you become

(8)

viii

Dedicated to

my hard-working parents

Bu Sawitah and Pak Yitno

(9)

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to say that I am grateful for finally finishing my undergraduate thesis. This thesis is a proof of all hard-working processes I have been through for five months. Lucky me, I have wonderful parents who always support me in these four years of studying in university. I could not be more thankful for their tons of love and advice in life.

I am highly indebted to my advisor, Anna Fitriati, S.Pd., M.Hum., who gave me valuable guidance and great suggestion along the process of this final thesis. I would like to deliver my gratitude to Adventina Putranti, S.S, M.Hum. and Harris Hermansyah Setiajid M.Hum. who gave me permission to conduct the test in their classes. This thesis would not be successful without the help of Arina Isti’anah S.Pd., M.Hum. as my co-advisor who had helped me in the process of the writing of Chapter I until Chapter III and also had given detailed revision that improved this thesis to be much better than before.

Furthermore, I should give my greatest thanks to all my friends in the seventh semester whose names may not all be enumerated for participating in the test and questionnaire. Their help was very priceless to me. Most importantly, I’d like to thank Ryan for his support and for his always-listening-time. Last but not least, the completion of this thesis could not have been possible without my supportive friends. All of the unforgettable sharings and experiences we had have completed my lovely journey in these amazing years.

(10)

x

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH.. vi

MOTTO PAGE ... vii

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 6

A. Review of Related Studies ... 6

4. Active and Passive Causative ... 13

5. Causative in Indonesian ... 15

(11)

xi

1. Data Collection ... 24

a. Test ... 26

b. Questionnaire ... 27

2. Data Analysis ... 27

a. Reliability and Validity ... 27

b. Scoring ... 29

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS... 30

A. The Presentation of Students’ Errors Ranged by the Scores... 30

B. Types of Students’ Errors ... 33

Appendix 2: The Proposal of Conducting the Test ... 64

Appendix 3: Reliability of the First Test ... 65

Appendix 4: Reliability of the Second Test ... 66

Appendix 5: The Validity of the First Test ... 67

Appendix 6: The First Test ... 69

Appendix 7: The Second Test ... 72

(12)

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Meanings of Make, Have, and Get Causatives... 10

Table 2.2 The Functions of Make, Have, and Get Causatives... 11

Table 2.3 The Forms of Active Causatives... 13

Table 2.4 Affix {-kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 15

Table 2.5 Affix {-i} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 16

Table 2.6 Prefix {per-} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 16

Table 2.7 Prefix {Per-} and Affix {-kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 17

Table 2.8 The Explanation of Types of Errors... 19

Table 4.1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A... 30

Table 4.2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B... 31

Table 4.3 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part C... 32

Table 4.4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test... 32

Table 4.5 Data of Errors in Part A... 33

Table 4.6 Data of Errors in Part B... 39

Table 4.7 Data of Students’ Answers in Part C... 51

(13)

xiii

LIST OF CHARTS

(14)

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A Addition

KBBI Daring Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia Dalam Jaringan

MF Misformation

MO Misordering

O Omission

OAD Oxford Advanced Dictionary

SA Student’s Answer

TL Target Language

X The Causer

(15)

xv ABSTRACT

WIJAYANTI, DEVI (2017). The Mastery of Make, Have, Get Causatives Among The Seventh Semester Students of English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.

English grammar is one of the important aspects that needs to be learned in learning English, especially as a foreign language. Causative is one of English grammar that refers to the verbs which show a process of an agentive subject causing another agent to do an action. However, according to researcher’s experience as a grammar tutor in the Department, causative was one of the materials in English grammar that was not easy to be understood by the students. Based on the material taught in Structure classes, the researcher decided to take make, have, get as the verbs of causative as the data to analyze.

There are two problems formulated in this research. The first is the type of errors that the seventh semester students have in learning causatives. The second are the factors behind the errors.

This research conducted a quantitative method with syntax and translation as the approaches. The researcher used a test as the instrument which was held twice. The first test was on purpose to search for the validity and reliability. The second test was the actual test that was used as the measurement of students’ comprehension towards the material. The researcher also distributed questionnaire for additional data related with the topic.

The result shows that students’ comprehension about make, have, get

causatives is below average. This is proven by the data of 63 students who get the score under 60 and 20 students get the score of 60-93. Most of the answers have misformation type of error. However, addition, omission, and misordering errors are also found out in the students’ answers. These errors include the errors in differentiating meaning and function between make, have, get causatives; passive form of causative; and transferring the meaning of causative into Indonesian. Interlanguage is one of the factors causing the problem which includes the way that students overgeneralized the meaning of make and get in Indonesian and false concept of passive structure between Indonesian and English. The other is intralanguage which is the failure in understanding passive causative structure and overgeneralization of function between make, have, get causatives. However, it is also shown in the result that many students have understood the active structure of causatives. Overall, the students confessed that they still had the lack of knowledge of

(16)

xvi ABSTRAK

WIJAYANTI, DEVI (2017). The Mastery of Make, Have, Get Causatives Among The Seventh Semester Students of English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris adalah salah satu aspek penting yang perlu untuk didalami dalam mempelajari Bahasa Inggris, terutama sebagai bahasa asing. Kausatif adalah salah satu dalam ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris mengenai kata kerja yang menunjukan sebuah proses oleh subjek agentif yang menyebabkan agen lain untuk melakukan suatu tindakan. Namun, menurut pengalaman peneliti sebagai seorang asisten dosen di Departemen, kausatif adalah salah satu materi dalam ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris yang tidak mudah untuk dipahami oleh para mahasiswa. Berdasarkan materi yang diajarkan dalam kelas Structure, peneliti menentukan untuk mengambil make, have, get sebagai kata kerja kausatif.

Terdapat dua masalah yang dirumuskan di penelitian ini. Pertama, yakni jenis kesalahan yang mahasiswa semester tujuh hadapi dalam mempelajari kausatif. Kedua, yakni faktor-faktor penyebab di balik kesalahan.

Penelitian ini mengadakan metode kuantitatif dengan sintaksis dan penterjemahan sebagai pendekatannya. Peneliti menggunakan tes sebagai instrumen yang diadakan sebanyak dua kali. Tes pertama ditujukan untuk mencari validitas dan reliabilitas. Tes kedua adalah tes sesungguhnya yang digunakan sebagai pengukur pemahaman mahasiswa tentang materi tersebut. Peneliti juga membagikan kuesioner untuk data tambahan yang berhubungan dengan topik kausatif.

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman mahasiswa mengenai kausatif make, have, get adalah di bawah rata-rata. Hal ini dibuktikan dari data 63 mahasiswa yang mendapat skor di bawah 60 dan 20 mahasiswa yang mendapat skor 60-93. Sebagian besar jawaban memiliki jenis kesalahan misformation. Namun, kesalahan addition, omission, dan misordering juga ditemukan dalam jawaban mahasiswa. Kesalahan-kesalahan ini termasuk Kesalahan-kesalahan dalam membedakan arti dan fungsi antara kausatif

make, have, get; bentuk kausatif pasif; dan mentrasfer makna kausatif ke dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Interlanguage adalah salah satu faktor yang menyebabkan masalah di mana hal ini termasuk cara mahasiswa terlalu menyamaratakan makna make dan

(17)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Language holds the most important role in the process of communicating with

other people. In Indonesia, there are two types of language used for daily use,

Indonesian and English. Indonesian is used by people to communicate with other

Indonesian people. However, the use of English is not very significant in the daily

language in Indonesia, except for certain purposes such as for business and academic

communication. Due to the need of learning English as an international language,

English has been included in educational learning process. Therefore, English has

been included in the school curriculum as a non-obligatory subject of KTSP 2013

from Junior High School, Senior High School, and University level in Indonesia.

In order to understand English, there are some significant aspects to be

learned, one of them is grammar. Grammar concerns the principles of constructing

acceptable formation of words, phrases, and sentences as well as the principles of

interpreting the meaning (Radford, 2002: 1). One example of grammar is learning

how to produce a sentence in different sequence of time, whether in the past, present,

or future which is learned in the level of high school curriculum. However, grammar

which is taught in the level of university, especially in such of English Department,

will be more complex such as learning how to make a noun phrase, how to use and

(18)

One subject included in advance level of English Grammar is the construction

of causative. Causatives refer to the verbs that portray a process when an agent causes

another agent to perform an action (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman,

1999: 355). Causative verbs indicating this process include make, have, get. Although

they have a similar purpose, they have differences in the usage. Causative make

includes a sense of ‘forcing’ someone to do something; causative have includes a

sense of ‘request’, and causative get includes a sense of ‘persuade’ in its use (Azar,

1999: 339).

Causatives are chosen as the topic based on the writer’s experience as a

grammar tutor who taught the material to the fourth semester students of English

Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma in 2016. To be more specific,

causatives were included in the syllabus of Structure II in the second semester,

Structure IV in fourth semester and Structure V in the fifth semester. In the teaching

process, the students admitted that they have learned causatives, specifically the get

and have causatives, before the second semester. However, they were still confused

with the topic. Based on causative exercises given, the writer found out that the

biggest difficulty that most of the students had was the use of passive and active

causative as well as how to use make, have, get correctlyin a sentence. For example,

the students were asked to fill the blank with active or passive causative. The question

was,

(19)

The right answer of the question is gets cleaned. However, some students did not pay

attention to the instruction that they answered it with regular passive sentence, has

been cleaned.

As it is shown in the example, make, have, and get causatives deal with the

formulation of active and passive sentence. It is important for students to learn the

construction of active and passive causative due to their different formulation with

the passive voice and their different interpretations in meaning. The students also

need to master causative make, have, get for its benefit of language use in daily life. In order to improve student’s understanding in causatives, this research is

aimed to find out the reasons behind the error. There are several researchers’ hypotheses on how the errors can happen, and one of them is the different process of

second language learning that the students have been through. It is known that most

people, no matter what their first language is, learn English structure in a fairly set

order (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 5). In this case, some internal and external

factors have big impact in the process of English learning. Later, this research will

include some theories which analyze the factors that influence the second language

acquisition.

The reason behind choosing seventh semester students of English Letters

Department as the sample of the study was because of the consideration that they

have learned all the Structure subjects, including causatives. It was also assumed that

the seventh semester students have applied their understanding of causative in all of

(20)

The study will limit the topic causative into three parts. First, the study will

cover the material of different use and different purpose of make, have, get

causatives. Second, the scope of the study will include the construction of active and

passive causative make, have, get. Third, the topic will include the understanding

about make, have, get causatives in Indonesian. Later, these three objects of study

will be tested to the seventh semester students in order to find out the mastery of

causative that they have learned before.

B. Problem Formulation

The research problem of this study is formulated as follows,

1. What types of error that seventh semester students have in causatives?

2. What factors cause the error?

C. Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study is to find out the problem of causatives that the

seventh semester students have and to find out how well the students master the

causatives. The problem that causes the error may include the problems in learning

the meaning of causatives: distinguishing the use of make, have, get as causative

verbs; using the implementation of active and passive causative; and the

interpretation of meaning of English causatives in Indonesian.

The objective of the study is to identify what causes the students’ errors in

learning causatives. The problem could be caused by several factors such as the

(21)

factor which could be the way of delivering topic by the teacher (Richards, 1979: 190). Moreover, this research will focus on the students’ internal factors.

D. Definition of Terms

There are three terms that will be defined in this part. First, the word ‘mastery’ means as an acquisition that requires deep understanding or comprehending certain knowledge. Furthermore, ‘mastery’ requires personal features such as

maturity, tact, sensitivity, and adaptability which enable the individual to observe and imitate what others do, and to search the language’s resources to find expression to

suit his attitude (Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Startvik, J., 1972 :24). In the

process of learning second language, the term ‘mastery’ is often used to estimate how well a person learns the second language.

Second, the term ‘errors’ means flawed side of learner’s speech or writing. In this research, the ‘errors’ are those parts of composition or writing that deviate from

selected norm of mature language performance (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982 : 38). In short, the ‘errors’ are the mistakes done by the learners who are not following

the language rules.

Third, the term ‘causative’ refers to the causal relationship between alternative

versions of a sentence (Crystal, 2008: 70). Crystal examines that the example can be

seen from the pair of sentences of The cat killed the mouse and the mouse died. The

(22)

6 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Review of Related Studies

Kristi (2003) conducted a research of the mastery of causative, specifically get

and have causatives, towards the high school students in Yogyakarta. At the

beginning, Kristi introduced causative verbs in Old English and Modern English.

Later, she explained have and get causatives followed by their meanings, functions,

and tenses.

There were three objectives of the study. First, the study aimed to find out

how many students of SMK Dharma Paramitha Yogyakarta have mastered get and

have causatives. Second was to find out the difficulties that the students had in the

process of understanding causatives. Third, the research was done to investigate the

reason behind the difficulties in mastering get and have causatives.

To answer the problems, Kristi used a test and questionnaire as the instrument

in this study. There were 20 people of third grade students at SMK Dharma

Paramitha who participated in the test and questionnaire. The computation showed

that two students got an A, three students got B, ten students got C, and five students

got D.

The result of the research were the object of errors that the students did. It was

proven that they have difficulties on the structure, such as putting the major

(23)

get and have as causative verbs, and understanding English tenses. Kristi also found

out the causes of the problems in understanding causatives which were: 1) the source

of the material, 2) the choice of the material itself and the style of presentation, and 3)

forgetful learners.

The next related study was from Gilquin (2003) who conducted a research on

the relation and differences between get and have causatives. In practice, Gilquin

examined that these two verbs shared similarities such as: (1) they could govern an

infinitive, past participle, or present participle; (2) both of them did not have the

passivization system of the main-clause; and (3) they could be followed by a

non-finite clause but expressed a different non-causative meaning, notably an experiential

one. In spite of these similarities, get and have causatives have differences in the

construction and semantics.

In short, Gilquin investigated the elements in causative such as the causer,

causee, patient, and effect. These elements of get and have causatives then were

compared to each other. The results were: 1) the frequency of get causatives was

higher than have; 2) get and have causatives had different in purpose; and 3) get and

have causatives had different form of sentence.

The research result by Kristi will be used as the basic hypotheses for this

research. The researcher would like to find out whether the difficulties in causatives proved in Kristi’s research are also felt by seventh semester students of English

Letters Department. In the other hand, the research done by Gilquin will be used as

(24)

B. Review of Related Theories 1. Grammar

Grammar is a set of rules which specify all the possible structures of the

language. Therefore, all of the production of words and sentences of a language are

set systematically by the rules. The structure of language includes the structure of

word and sentence.

In English, understanding a language is started from understanding the word

construction and the word function, for example: the word sing has a function of

verb, which it shows an action or the activity done by the doer. In this case, it is

important to acknowledge part of speech which is divided into ten types, for instance

noun, adjective, verb, preposition, and so on (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1985: 18).

Then, it is continued with the learning of producing a phrase, a clause, and a sentence.

In addition, it is also needed to learn the tenses in English such as present progressive

tense, past tense, future tense, etc.

It is indeed that combining the words to make a sentence needs an acceptable

pattern which is based on the systematic rules. The knowledge of grammar rules is

required in order to build up a good connection throughout language so people can

talk and understand what the speaker is saying and what meanings that the speaker is

(25)

2. Causative

The term ‘causative’ refers to one of word-formations which is a group of

verbs including some of transitive verb, intransitive verb, and auxiliary verbs that indicate the underlying structure of ‘cause’ towards something implicitly or explicitly

(Kastovsky, 1973 : 256). Causative verbs involve an agent who does such an action to

cause another agent to do an action as the agent intended (Celce-Murcia, Marianne

and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 653), or to cause another thing to produce a change from

its preceding position or situation. Therefore, the involvement of two or more people

in causative construction is divided into two: the causer and the causee

(Stefanowitsch, 2001: 35).

The causer is the entity, animate or inanimate, that brings about the caused

event or generally known as a subject or an agent (Gilquin, 2003: 127). The causee is

the opposite which is the entity that is changed or influenced by the causer and carries

out the effect of the caused event which is usually has the function as the object (Gilquin, 2003: 127). The causative construction or the “linguistic organization of

causation construal” will be referred to as causativity (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 11).

There are four types of complementation of causatives explained by

Stefanowitsch (2001: 5) :

a) Causative verbs followed by bare infinitive after the causee, e.g. make, have

b) Causative verbs followed by to-infinitive after the causee, e.g. force, get,

(26)

c) Causative verbs followed by present participle after the causee, e.g. send,

leave.

d) Causative verbs followed by to-present participle after the causee, e.g. set.

a. Meaning and Function

Each causative verb of make, have, get has different interpretation though

their meanings are similar. The function of those causative verbs is to show the

process where X (the causer) causes Y (the causee) to do something (Azar, 1999:

339).

I made my little sister cook the noodle. I had my little sister cook the noodle. I got my little sister to cook the noodle.

The sentences above carry different meaning in interpretation. In the

examples, the three verbs present a process where X causes Y to perform an action

that X intended. Nonetheless, the three sentences have different interpretation of

meaning as what is described by Azar (1999: 339). The following table shows the

different meanings and interpretations based on the examples above,

Table 2.1 The Meanings of Make, Have, and Get Causatives

Make Interpretation occurs because Y habitually does the action.

Meaning

It suggests a routine hiring as between costumer and bussiness person.

Get Interpretation X managed to persuade Y to cook the noodle.

(27)

In short, here are the differences of make, have, get causatives in function.

Table 2.2 The Functions of Make, Have, and Get Causatives

Make Have Get

There is a difference between make and have causatives observed by the focus

of the goal.

We’ll have you a linguist in no time. We’ll make you a linguist in no time.

From the examples above, it is portrayed that the make causative focuses on

the process of the causing event whereas have focuses on the result (Stefanowitsch,

2001: 143). The other example is I had the plumber repair the leak. In this sentence,

the focus lays on the repaired leak instead of how the plumber can repair the leak.

In other circumstances, there is a similarity between get and have which they

have little or no difference in meaning in the form of passive voice (Azar, 1999: 339).

In the following examples, there is no different interpretation in meaning and both

have and get have the same function.

(28)

3. Active and Passive Voice

The general form of active voice has a function to perform the doer or the

agent as the subject of the clause (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman,

1999: 343). For example, the sentence of Darwin studied the fauna of the Galapagos

islands shows that the speaker emphasizes Darwin as the subject who does such an

action. However, it is possible if the sentence emphasizes the object of the sentence.

Therefore, the sentence can be changed into The fauna of the Galapagos islands was

studied by Darwin. In this case, the object of the active sentence is changed to be the

subject of the sentence. This form of sentence is called the passive voice.

Azar explains the function of passive voice into two. First, passive voice is

most frequently used when the subject (agent) is not known or is not important to be

mentioned (Azar, 1999: 211). For examples:

Rice is grown in Indonesia (by the farmer). My house was built in 1996 (by the workers).

Second, passive voice can be used to emphasize the object of the active

sentence although the speaker knows who perform the action (Azar, 1999: 211). For

examples:

The sweater was made by my grandmother. This delicious cake was cooked by Anie.

There are also some considerations to insert the agent in the passive sentence.

First, the agent may be inserted when the agent is a new information (Celce-Murcia,

Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355), for example: Jill’s purse was snatched by

(29)

Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355), for instance: I don’t know whether all my

data will be blocked by the server. Third, the agent can be mentioned if the agent is a

well-known person and when it is used as additional information (Celce-Murcia,

Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355), for example: The Mona Lisa was painted

by Da Vinci.

The form of passive voice is shortly explained as follows,

4. Active and Passive Causative

The form of active causative is the general form of the causative where the

causative sentence uses bare infinitive or to-infinitive after the causative verbs.

I got Derry to repair my car.

I made Sue wake up early before I picked her up. I had my sister clean the bathroom.

The form of make, have, get causatives in active sentences can be formulated

as follows,

Table 2.3 The Form of Active Causatives

Make Subject + make + Object + bare infinitive Have Subject + have + Object + bare infinitive Get Subject + get + Object + to-infinitive

From the examples, there is a similar pattern of active causative: the subject

(causer) is followed by the causative verb which is directly followed by the object

(30)

the existence of the object or the person who is doing the job. However, the person

who is doing the job is not the causer or the subject of the main clause but it is the

causee. Therefore, it is significant in the active causative to mention the object.

In the other side, passive causative is used when the speaker does not know or

does not want to mention who is doing the job. Like the passive voice, passive

causative also uses past participle in the causing event.

I finally had the lawn mowed. I finally got the lawn mowed.

The passive form of make causative will be slightly different from the passive

form of get and have. For example, the sentence John made Mary bake a cake will

have two possible passive forms:

John made a cake (be) baked (by Mary) Mary was made to bake a cake (by John).

It is rare and almost never happens in English the form of passive causative in

the first sentence of examples. In fact, it is also rare to find make causative in the

passive form. The acceptable passive form of make causative is in the second

sentence of examples where John is optional to be mentioned. This makes the passive

causative form of make is similar with the regular passive voice:

Subj(causer) + have/get + complement + past participle + by obj(causee) (optional)

(31)

5. Causative in Indonesian

Causative in Indonesian has different characteristics compared to make, have,

get causatives in English. Indonesian has the suffix and prefix form to create

causative word. It is also possible in some words that the causative meaning is

derived from combination of a prefix and a suffix in a word. The first step to add the

causative meaning is by adding the prefix {mem-} into the word which is an

allomorph for {meN-}. The other allomorphs that can be found are {meny-}, {men-},

{meng-}, {me-}, and {menge} (Moeliono, 1997: 25). Then, the {mem-} (word) can

be added by several affix and prefix. The causative forms in Indonesian are devided

into five forms: 1) prefix {mem/me-}; 2) affix {–kan}; 3) affix {–i}; 4) prefix {per-};

5) combination of prefix {per-} and affix {–kan}.

Affix {–kan} is the common one to be used to imply the meaning of

causative. In Indonesian, this affix can be applied into a noun, a verb, and an adverb

(Moeliono, 1997: 108). Here are the examples.

Table 2.4 Affix {–kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian Part of

Dewakan Mendewakan Cause someone to be praised highly as god Verb Tidur

(sleep)

Tidurkan Menidurkan Cause someone to sleep

Adverb Harus (must)

(32)

Affix {–i} has a different process compared to affix {–kan} because it

changes the object condition, rather than just explaining the result (Moeliono, 1997:

112). The examples are menerangkan and menerangi. Menerangkan means to cause

(a problem) becomes clearer while menerangi means to cause (a room/surface)

becomes lighter. Most of the roots in this affix group are nouns and adjectives.

Table 2.5 Affix {–i} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian

Part of

Kotori Mengotori Cause something to be dirty

Next, affix {per-} implies the meaning of cause the object more to be (root)

than before (Moeliono, 1997: 114). It carries meaning that the result might be or

might be not happen as expected. However, it will be different if prefix {mem-} is

combined with prefix {per-} because the process is no longer cause the object more

to be but it will be cause the object to be. The examples are mostly adjectives.

Table 2.6 Prefix {per-} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian

(33)

Last, Indonesian also has combination of prefix {per-} and affix {–kan}

which implies the meaning cause the object to be. The example of memperlihatkan

implies the meaning of cause the object to be seen. This combination happens with

verb, adjective, and noun. See the examples at the table below.

Table 2.7 {Per-} and {kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian Part of

Persiapkan Mempersiapkan Cause something to be prepared

morpheme or lexical to notify the causative construction (Oktavianti, 2012).

According to Oktavianti (2012), analytical construction of causative in Indonesia can

be examined from the whole sentence construction. There are two elements in

analytical construction of causative in Indonesian which are the reason and the effect.

For example, in the sentence ‘Ali membuatku sedih’ has Ali as the reason and sedih as

the effect (Oktavianti, 2012). The verbs signing for this structure are membuat,

menyuruh, memaksa, membujuk, etc. Nonetheless, this construction of causative is

(34)

6. Errors

Crystal explains the term ‘error’ as the mistakes in spontaneous speaking or

writing (2008: 173). The error may involve difficulties with timing or sequence

commands that will lead to the addition, deletion, or substitution of sounds and

morphemes (Crystal, 2008: 173). Crystal explains this phenomenon as ‘slips of the tongue (2008: 173). Dulay, Burt, and Krashen define ‘error’ as the kind of any

deviation from selected norm or language performance, no matter what the

characteristics or causes might be (1982: 139). Overall, ‘error’ is the deviation,

mostly unintended, which appears on speaking or writing due to several causes.

In language and teaching learning, error analysis is a technique for

identifying, classifying, and interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by second

language learners (Crystal, 2008: 173). Some linguists assume that the error made by

second language learners may have relation to the adaptability of the second language

to the mother language. However, the cause such as the lack of knowledge of the

rules of the language is also one of the reasons of why the cause can happen (Dulay,

Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 139).

Error analysis has been well-spread learned by the linguists, especially

teachers, to analyze the difficulty that the students have in learning the second

language. As the explanation done by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, there are two major purposes of studying learners’ errors: 1) it provides data from which inferences about

the nature of the language learning process can be made; and 2) it indicates to

(35)

which error types detract most from a learner’s ability to communicate effectively

(1982: 138). The identification of errors holds a significant step in this research that it

will involve a comparison between what the learners have produced and what a native

speaker will produce in the same context (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 58). By

identifying and analyzing the factors of errors, it is hoped that the development of

second language teaching will be better in the future.

a. Types of Errors

There are four types of errors that can be observed in learning a language: 1)

omission; 2) addition; 3) misformation; and 4) misordering (Dulay, Burt, Krashen,

1982: 154). The explanation of the types of errors can be seen from the table below,

Table 2.8 The Explanation of Types of Errors

Omission

Meaning The absence of an item that must appear in the correct form of utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 154). Examples She beautiful,

The cake eaten by dad.

Addition

Meaning The presence of an item which must not appear in the correct form of utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 156).

Examples He doesn’t knows my name,

Eated for past tense of eat

Misformation

Meaning The wrong form of the morpheme or structure (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 158).

Examples runned for run or gooses for geese,

it to replace the dogs.

Misordering

Meaning The incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 162).

(36)

b. Causes of Errors

Error analysis consists of the procedures to identify, describe, and explain the learners’ errors (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 51). The four types of errors that have

been explained before have different sources. Some universal sources are omission,

overgeneralization, and trasfer errors (Ellis 2003: 19). Omission is the way that

learners leave out some important elements in the correct form utterance (Ellis 2003:

19). Learners also overgeneralize rules and meaning in a structure of language to

make it easy to be processed (Ellis 2003: 19). Last, trasfer errors are the errors that

cause the learners to shape and create their own rules of a language (Ellis 2003: 19). Transfer errors usually reflect the structure of learners’ first language.

In the error analysis of second language learners, it is common to observe that

the mistakes done by the speaker or the writer are because of their adaptation of their mother tongue language into second language. For instance, ‘She beautiful’ is derived

from the Indonesian language ‘Dia cantik’. The non-existence of be ‘is’ in the

Indonesian language then is adapted into English which results error in the language.

This sort of error is called interlanguage errors that are errors caused by the interference of the learner’s mother tongue (Richards, 1979: 173). Some linguists call

this error as interlingual (Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 108; Brown, 1987: 102). Brown

explains interlingual errors as follows,

(37)

Talking about interlingual errors means talking about second language

acquistion which is the way in which people learn another language besides their

mother tongue language (Ellis, 2003: 3). There are internal and external factors that

cause the way second language learners acquire the second language acquisition. The internal factors are: first, the learners’ cognitive mechanism to extract information

about second language structure and grammar; and second, learners’ language

aptitude (Ellis, 2003: 5). The external factors include the social conditions and the

input that the learners receive (Ellis, 2003: 4).

Another error is called intralingual and developmental errors which are the errors that reflect the learner’s competence at a particular stage, and illustrate some of

the general characteristics of language acquisition (Richards, 1979: 173). Intralingual

errors are the errors that commonly happen in the progress of second language

learning. These errors include the mistakes in syntax and word formation such as the

overgeneralization of past simple form of –ed in go which becomes goed, are for be

following will, etc (Brown, 1987: 178).

C. Theoretical Framework

The theories explained above will be used to support the writer’s analysis in

the research. The comprehension of grammar will be the basic knowledge for the

writer to construct the question for the respondents, which will be explained in the

next chapter, and to analyze the material dealing with the sentence construction in the

answer. The theories about causative in English and causative in Indonesian are

(38)

Later, the theory of active and passive voice as well as active and passive

causative will be used for the considered component to measure the mastery of make,

have, and get causatives. These theories are related to the finding for the first problem

formulation, whether the error can occur in the grammar construction, the

understanding of causative meaning, or the construction of active and passive

causative.

The last, the theory of errors including its types and its causes is going to be

the supportive element to analyze the data and also to answer the second problem. The respondent’s data then will be measured and analyzed by theory of quantitative

(39)

23 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

A. Object of the Study

The objects of this research were the seventh semester students of 2016

academic year, in English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. The

reason was the background knowledge that the seventh semester students had toward

the material. The writer expected that the seventh semester students had mastered the

material because they had learned Structure I until Structure V.

Since causative is related to sentence form, the mastery of causative would be

measured based on the correct form of sentences the seventh semester students

produced in causative. This would include the mastery on the differentiation of

causative function and comprehension of active and passive causative. Therefore, the

linguistic element that would be analyzed was the syntactic form of sentence.

B. Approach of the Study

The first approach of the study applied in this research was the syntactic

approach. Syntax concerns with the way how words can be combined together to

form phrases and sentences (Radford, 2002: 1). Crystal explains that syntax is ‘the

study of the interrelationships between elements of sentence structure’ (2008: 471).

Furthermore, the syntactic approach would be applied to analyze the structure of

active and passive causative in the test given to seventh semester students. The

(40)

Since this research dealt with the second language acquisition, the second

approach used to analyze it was translation method. Hatim and Munday explains

translation method as follows,

Translation is an incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting (2004: 3).

This translation method would be used to analyze how the students could understand

the difference between make, have, get English causatives in Indonesian form. That is

why the approach uses a closed translation as a part of the methodology.

C. Method of the Study 1. Data Collection

To help analyzing data, the writer decided to use quantitative method.

Quantitative research lets the investigator identify a research problem based on the

observation or on the need to explain why something occurs (Creswell, 2015: 13).

Sugiyono illustrates quantitative method as a research method which is used for

analyzing certain population or sample in statistical way (2014: 35). In order to

support the methodology, the researcher used sample for the obejct for the research

taken from the students’ population.

Population is the group or persons, things, or events that share at least one

common trait (Sprinthall, Schmutte, and Sirois, 1990: 27). In this research, the

(41)

Department at Universitas Sanata Dharma in 2016 academic year and had passed the

Structure I until Structure V.

A sample is a smaller number of observations taken from the total number

making up a given population (Sprinthall, Schmutte, and Sirois, 1990: 28).

Furthermore, Creswell explains that sample is the subgroup of the population for

generalizing about the target population (2015: 141). The chosen sample must

represent the population or otherwise the conclusion can not be accepted (Sugiyono,

2013: 149). Therefore, there is a systematic way to decide how many people who can

be taken as the sample of a research. Here is the formula by Isaac and Michael in

Sugiyono (2013, 158):

Chart 3.1 Sample Formula �2. N. P. Q

s = ---

�2 � − + �2. .

s = the amount of sample

λ2

= Chi Quadrate that depends on the degree of mistakes (1%; 5%; and 10%) N = the number of population

P = the opportunity of true (0,5) Q = the opportunity of false (0,5)

d = the difference between sample’s average with population’s average. It could be

0,01; 0,05 and 0,1

The population of seventh semester students who had passed Structure V is

(42)

to 24 seventh semester students. Due to the need of taking sample as the

representation, there would be 83 students of the seventh semester (see appendix 1).

a. Test

A test is a method to measure someone’s ability or knowledge in a given area

which has the purpose of measuring (Brown, 1987: 219). The kind of test given was

called achievement test, a test that was related to classroom lessons, units, or

curriculum and limited to particular material (Brown, 1987: 225).

The test would be divided into three parts. The first part aimed to find out

whether the seventh semester students had acknowledged enough the different

function between make, have, get and the active form of causative. The second

section aimed to find out the comprehension of passive causative form. The third

section would consist of four questions where the students translated the question in

Indonesian into English in causative form.

The test done by the researcher contained of two kinds of test. The first test

was given to measure the validity of the questions that the researcher had writen.

Here, it can be said that the first test was the experimental test in order to get the

result of the number of questions that the researcher can use for the real test (see

appendix 6). The second test was the actual test that is used to measure students’

comprehension about the topic (see appendix 7). To be clear, the first test was the test

given to 24 students, which were taken in Seminar on Language Class A on 7

(43)

Pragmatics Classes on 23-28 November 2016 (see appendix 2). The test result used

for analyzing the mastery of causative that students had is the second test.

b. Questionnaire

Creswell in Sugiyono demonstrates that questionnaires are forms used in a

survey design that participant in a study complete and returns to the researcher (2013:

230). The questionnaire in this research would be a closed questionnaire. The

instruments would be focusing on: 1) the way the students learned and practiced

Structure and 2) the comprehension of causative material especially make, have, and

get. The questions would be multiple choice questions that each option had different

score.

Based on the experiment done in the first test, the researcher gave 10

questions in the questionnaire which question (1), (2), and (4) are proven not valid

(see appendix 8). Later, the researcher will only consider the rest valid questions.

2. Data Analysis

a. Reliability and Validity

The test has to through the process of validity and reliability of instrument in

order to be dependable. Reliability measures the instrument (in this case is the test) to

achieve consistent result (Brown, 1987: 220). Consistency in this context means that

the result will be the same from the day the test taken with the result taken next week

after, or at least fulfil the same expectation. Reliability in this research would be

(44)

√ ∑ 2 2

halves (Sprinthall et al, 1990: 35). Spearman Brown formula would be used for the

reliability test (Sugiyono, 2013: 220):

Chart 3.2 Formula for Reliability ��

r1 = __________ + ��

r1 = internal reliability of all instruments

rb = product correlation moment first half and the second

In order to achieve rb, then the Pearson product moment formula was needed

as follows:

Chart 3.3 Formula for Product Correlation Moment (rb)

rb =_______________________

∑xy = sum of the x times y scores ∑x2

= sum of the x squared scores

∑y2

= sum of the y squared scores rb = Person correlation moment

Validity, however, is the degree which the test measures what should be

measured (Brown, 1987: 221). To get the valid result, the instrument used for

measuring the data has to be valid as well. The high validity of instruments will give

(45)

Validity calculation would include the correlation technique that needed qualification

of validity if rb = 0,3 (Sugiyono, 2013: 218).

After the test had been conducted, the result showed that only 15 from all of

36 questions tested to students were valid. Each question has different correlation

moment which then compared to the acceptable amount of correlation moment (r =

0,3). The details of validity measurement can be seen in appendix 5, while the

questions of the first test can be seen in appendix 6.

The split-half techniques is used by distinguishing the questions into two

halves which were odd-numbered items and even-numbered items. The result of

reliability of the first test was 0,97 and 0,96 for the second test (see appendix 3 and

appendix 4)

b. Scoring

The test score would be divided into two parts: correct answer and incorrect

answer. The correct answer would be given score 1 for each and the incorrect number

would be given score 0. The scores were calculated and the result would be used to

analyze the type of errors and difficulties that the students dealt with in make, have,

(46)

30

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this chapter, it will be explained the detailed analysis of type of errors that

students did in the test and causes of errors. This chapter will be started with the

description of the test result, continued with the explanation of the type of errors as

well as the causes of the errors in the incorrect answers.

A. The Presentation of Students’ Errors Ranged by the Scores

As mentioned in previous chapter, the second test was designed in three parts:

Part A, Part B. and Part C. Part A consists of 5 questions which are taken as the valid

questions. Here is the data showing the number of students ranged by different score

in Part A.

Table 4.1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A Score Number of Students

100 1

80 9

60 20

40 24

20 23

0 6

Total 83

It is shown in the table that only one student who was successful to answer all

(47)

incorrect answer. The rest of students, 63 students in total, have score (20-60). The

other fact is that there are six students who answered all the questions incorrectly.

Part B consists of six essay-questions about changing active-causative

sentences into passive-causative sentences. The table below shows the result of the

number of students ranged by the score.

Table 4.2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B

Score Number of Students

100 11

83 8

67 14

50 8

33 6

17 12

0 24

Total 83

The table shows that there are eleven students answered all questions in Part

B correctly but twenty four students answered it all wrong. Eight students get the

scores of (83) and (50) in the test. There are fourteen students who answered 4

questions correctly. Finally, there are eighteen students who get the score below

average, which are (33) and (17) as the scores. In short conclusion, there are 19

students who get score above 80, and there are 64 students who get score below 70.

Last, the students’ second language acquisition is measured in Part C which

contains of four questions. Here, the students were asked to choose one they thought

(48)

Table 4.3 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part C

Score Number of Students

100 13

75 22

50 21

25 25

0 2

Total 83

Part C has thirteen students who answered four questions correctly. The

highest amount (25) of students answered one question only correctly. There are

twenty two students who answered three questions correctly and twenty one students

answered two questions correctly. However, the number of students who got the

lowest score in Part C was only two people.

The following data shows the number of students ranged by score from all 15

questions of the test.

Table 4.4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test

Score Number of Students

80-93 6

60-73 14

40-53 36

20-33 24

7-13 3

Total 83

The result shows that there is none of students who could answer all the

questions in the test correctly and there is no student who gets score (0). There are six

(49)

(60-73). It is clear that there are twenty students who achieve score above (60).

Meanwhile, as many as thirty-six students achieve score (40-53), and twenty four

students have (20-33) as the score. Finally, the data shows that there are three

students who answered two from fifteen questions correctly.

B. Types of Students’ Errors

The explanation of students’ errors will be divided by each part of the test:

Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A contains of several questions that aim to find out

students’ comprehension of different functions between make, have, get causatives

and the form of active-causatives. Part B is designed to measure students’ ability to

understand the change of active-causatives into passive-causatives. Part C is designed

to measure students’ second language acquisition. The errors in students’ answers

will be categorized into four types: misformation, omission, addition, and

misordering.

1. Students’ Errors in Part A

Part A has five valid questions in the result. The table below shows the data of

errors ranged by error types.

Table 4.5 Data of Errors in Part A

Note: MF Misformation; MO Misordering

Type of Error

The Number of Error in Question: Total Errors

1 2 3 4 5

MF 58 67 36 34 10 205

(50)

The calculation of mistake shows that question number (1) and question

number (2) have the biggest number of misformation errors. Meanwhile question

number (4) has misordering as the other type of error. For the record, misformation is

the most common mistakes which is found in Part A.

a. Misformation

Part A lets the students choose the incorrect words or group of words in each

question (see appendix 7). Here, questions (1), (2), (4), and (5) contain the items to

test whether the students can differentiate the function and meaning of make, have,

get causatives. Questions (2), (3), (4), and (5) contain the options that are used to

measure the comprehension of active causative form that the students had learned.

One common error that most of students did is to misunderstand different

meaning and function of make, have, get causatives. Misformation error happening in

question (2) can be observed from the data of 64 students answered option B (fix) as

the incorrect word in the sentence.

Question (2) : We got our landlord fix the broken windows. A B C

Here, question (2) includes get and have causatives as the item for the test. By

this question, it is hoped that students can decide the right causative verb to complete

the sentence. By answering option B (fix), the students had resulted misformation

error that was choosing the wrong word in the sentence.

The right answer should be ‘We had our landlord fix the broken window’.

(51)

the causer we and the causee landlord. The sentence describes a situation where we

engage the service of the owner of the land to bring about the effect (Stefanowitsch,

2001: 131).

There are some indications why the students answered option B (fix). Get

causative has the form of to-infinitive following the verb. As a result, the students

agreed that fix in the sentence should be changed with to fix and decided that option B

(fix) as the incorrect word to be put in the sentence. It implies that the students

acknowledge the active-causative form of get due to the form of to-infinitive that

comes after get. If it is so, the students had succeeded to understand the active form

of get, but failed to differentiate the meaning of get causative with the other causative

verbs in a sentence.

The other indication is the way students tried to maintain get as the causative

verb due to the meaning of get: to be connected with somebody. If it is combined

with the meaning of get in students’ first language, the sentence can be translated as:

Kami menghubungi pemilik tanah untuk memperbaiki jendela yang rusak’.

However, if get is translated into menghubungi or contact, it will not produce a

causative sentence which has the causer we to influence the causee landlord to do the

intended action. It will be different if get is replaced by contact because it will

produce a new meaning: the one who fixes the broken window is not the landlord but

(52)

There are also some mistakes done by the students about the false structure in

a sentence. An example is taken from question (1) where 36 students answer option B

(seeing) while the incorrect word in the sentence should be B (made).

Question (1): Debbie’s husband hated the opera. But after days of nagging,

A

she finally made him to go seeing the new production of La

B C

Boheme.

The right answer is get as the causative verb to replace option B (made). Get

causative has the appropriate meaning to connect the causer and the causee which is

to persuade. The meaning of causer persuading causee is also supported by the phrase

but after days of nagging’.

Seeing in the sentence is the gerund form that comes after go to express

recreational activity (Azar, 1999: 303). Therefore, option C (seeing) is not the

incorrect word in the sentence.

Linguistically, there are two indications behind the choice C (seeing) that the

students chose. First, students might think seeing is not appropriate verb for

connecting the phrase because La Boheme is an opera. The students probably think

that the verb watching is more suitable verb for the sentence instead of seeing.

Second, the phrase to go seeing the new production of La Boheme can result an

indication that it is a non-finite clause. Non-finite clause as the object has the form of

to-infinitive or ing participle (Quirk, 1972: 361). If it is seen from the non-finite

clause point of view, the phrase ‘to go seeing the new production of La Boheme’ as

(53)

used at the same time. The error that the students choose option C (seeing) as the

answer is categorized as misformation error; the use of wrong word.

Next, question (4) is aimed to test whether the students can differentiate the

function of make and have causatives.

Question (4) : Romantic movies always have her cry. A B C

The result shows that about 42 students answer question (4) correctly. The

students answered option B (have) as the incorrect word in the sentence. This

portrays that students have acknowledged the difference between have and make

causatives in its function and meaning.

The students also have understood well the active form of causative. It can be

observed by the high number of correct answer in question (3) and (5). There are 34

students who correctly answer question (3) and 69 students have correct answers in

question (5).

Question (3): My boss makes me work overtime every day last week. A B C

Question (5): Mr. Levine had his secretary call to Ms. Jackson and reconfirm A B

their meeting on Thursday. C

In question (3), the students recognized the adverb of time last week and

decided that option A (makes) should be changed with past tense form made. It

implies that students have acknowledged the form of past tense sentence as well as

(54)

to-infinitive in a sentence which causes them to choose option B (call to) as the incorrect

item in question (5). In the other side, the choice of option B (call to) for question (5)

is also a sign that the students have known the rule of have causative which have is

followed by infinitive.

b. Misordering

Misordering is the other error type that students did in question (4). Although

most of students had answered the question corretly, there were five students who

answered option A (always) as the incorrect word in the sentence. Here is the

question for number (4) Part A:

Question (4): Romantic movies always have her cry. A B C

The word always in the sentence describes habitual activity. This is the

reason why always is put between the subject and the causative verb. Nonetheless,

some of students might think that always in this sentence is the incorrect word for the

question (4). It is probably because always also can be used in present or past

progressive for special circumstances, such as expression or anger and complaint

(Azar, 1999: 30). In this case, students might consider the presence of be are/were

before the word always in the sentence, thus influencing them to choose option A.

Overall, the result of Part A in the test shows that most of the students have

understood the active-form of causatives. On the contrary, some of the results show

that the students still have some mistakes in differentiating the differences of

(55)

2. Students’ Errors in Part B

Part B contains of six questions; (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), of active

causative sentences. Here, the students are instructed to change the active sentence

into passive causative form. The purpose of the six questions is to find out how far

the students’ comprehension about passive causative form.

In order to sum up the result of test in Part B, some steps were taken by the

researcher to make the analysis better. All of error types that have been explained in

Chapter III are found out in each question. The following table shows the number of

each error.

Table 4.6 Data of Errors in Part B

Note: MF Misformation; A Addition; MO Misordering; O Omission

Type of Error

The Number of Error in Each Question Total Errors

Figur

Table 2.1 The Meanings of Make, Have, and Get Causatives
Table 2 1 The Meanings of Make Have and Get Causatives . View in document p.26
Table 2.2 The Functions of Make, Have, and Get Causatives
Table 2 2 The Functions of Make Have and Get Causatives . View in document p.27
Table 2.3 The Form of Active Causatives
Table 2 3 The Form of Active Causatives . View in document p.29
Table 2.4 Affix {–kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Table 2 4 Affix kan to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian . View in document p.31
Table 2.6 Prefix {per-} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Table 2 6 Prefix per to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian . View in document p.32
Table 2.5 Affix {–i} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Table 2 5 Affix i to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian . View in document p.32
Table 2.7 {Per-} and {–kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Table 2 7 Per and kan to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian . View in document p.33
Table 2.8 The Explanation of Types of Errors
Table 2 8 The Explanation of Types of Errors . View in document p.35
Table 4.1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A
Table 4 1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A . View in document p.46
Table 4.2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B
Table 4 2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B . View in document p.47
Table 4.4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test
Table 4 4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test . View in document p.48
Table 4.5 Data of Errors in Part A
Table 4 5 Data of Errors in Part A . View in document p.49
Table 4.6 Data of Errors in Part B
Table 4 6 Data of Errors in Part B . View in document p.55
Table 4.7 Data of Students’ Answers in Part C
Table 4 7 Data of Students Answers in Part C . View in document p.67

Referensi

Memperbarui...