AN ANALYSIS OF GRAM
PAST
Su Of the
FACULTY SATYA W
MMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ E
PAST NARRATION COMIC
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Evlin Yunanda Salim 112007158
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
Y OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA 2013
AN ANALYSIS OF GRAM
PAST
Su Of the
FACULTY SATYA W
MMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ E
PAST NARRATION COMIC
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Evlin Yunanda Salim 112007158
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
Y OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA 2013
AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY OF
PAST NARRATION COMIC
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Evlin Yunanda Salim 112007158
Approved by:
Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A Maria Christina Eko S, M. Hum
PUBLICAT With this non-exclusive royalty print, publish, post, display, inco transmit, broadcast, barter or sel express written permission, as lon rty and the contents therein entitled:
MATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY O NARRATION COMIC
ment.
lty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy corporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part long as my name is still included as the writer.
ding to the best of my knowledge.
This thesis contains no such mate accepted for the fulfillment of a knowledge and my belief, this c other person except where due re
Copyright@ 2013 Evlin Yunanda
All rights reserved. No part of permission of at least one of th Language and Literature, Satya W
Evlin Yunanda Salim:
material as has been submitted for examination in a any degree or diploma in any university. To th s contains no material previously published or w reference is made in the text.
nda Salim and Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A
of this thesis may be reproduced by any means the copyright owners or the English Departmen a Wacana University, Salatiga.
n any course or the best of my written by any
AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY OF
PAST NARRATION COMIC
Evlin Yunanda Salim
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the types of grammatical errors found in the Guided Writing students’ essay of past narration comic. The data were collected from 17 essays. In analyzing the data, I used steps proposed by Corder (1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005). A native speaker lecture helped identify the grammatical errors in the students’ essay. Based on the identification of errors, each category of errors was counted to find the types of grammatical errors using formula P
Σ
100%P=percentage, n1=total of the errors, ΣN=total of the whole errors. Each categories of error was explained and discussed. The result of the study show that English tenses (181 errors or 24.89%) were found to be the most common grammatical errors followed by errors in word choice (125 errors or 17.19%), punctuations (118 errors or 16.23%), subject-verb agreements (73 errors or 10.04%), prepositions (66 errors or 9.07%), articles (54 errors or 7.42%), singular/plurals (48 errors or 6.60%), pronoun (35 errors or 4.81%), and spellings (27 errors or 3.71%). This research concluded by discussing the pedagogical implication.
Key words: grammatical errors, students’ essay, past narration comic
Introduction
Grammar is the central of the teaching and the basic knowledge to learning language effectively. Grammar plays an important role (Goh, 2007) and becomes one of the more difficult aspects of language to teach as well as to learn (Byrd, 2003). According to Mickan (2001), grammar analyzes the way the sentences work in the writing because writing is one of the skills which is used by people to communicate their ideas, thought, feeling, and emotions into words and paper.
errors may occur because the learners often over-generalize them. An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlangual competence of the learner (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Brown, 1994; Ancker, 2000) and grammatical error is an error of or pertaining to grammar (Kiser, 2009). Finding L2 learners’ errors is an evidence of a process of learning because error has played an important role in the study of language acquisition. Lengo (1995) also emphasized that people will learn to be better from errors that they have made.
An analysis of errors in learning a foreign language has attracted scholars to examine the problematic error the learners made. However, grammatical error is one of the controversial issues in the field. One of the studies was done by Abushihab, El-Omari and Tobat in 2011. They investigated the grammatical errors in the students’ writing in Department of English Literature and Translation at Alzaytoonah Private University of Jordan. They found prepositions and morphological errors were the most problematic Arab learners made.
However, most of the studies including the one belongs to Abushihab, El-Omari and Tobat focused on the problematic error the Arab learners made. Therefore, I will aim to answer the following research question, “What types of grammatical errors did the English Department students produce in their writing?”
Theoretical Framework
The learner cannot avoid errors because errors mostly occur in a learning process. By making errors, learners can improve their writing ability in their second language (Littlewood, 1992) because error is the effect of interference the habits of first language in the learning of second language (Corder, 1981). In other word, errors will only happen to the learners who are not native speakers (Brown, 1994). According to Ellis (1997), errors reflect gaps in a learner’s knowledge; they occur because the learner does not know what is correct and an error is what a learner cannot self-correct (Edge 1989; Ancker, 2000). According to Ellis (ibid.), there is an example of error of the learner. For example is when the learner says “The big of them contained a snake.” the correct sentence should “The bigger of them
contained a snake.” Or another possible way is “The big one of them contained a snake.”
Because using ‘big of them’ instead of ‘big one’ is an error in the use of the pronoun ‘one’.
According to Richards (1974), error made by second language learners can be classified into categories, as below:
Interlingual Errors
An interlingual error sometimes occurs because of the interaction between the students’ mother tongue and the language that the students learn. The students tend to translate their sentences word by word from their mother tongue to the target language and this causes them in making interlingual errors (James, 1998) and it is occurred as the result of learners’ L1 features, such as lexical and grammar, for example, an Indonesian learner of English may say *You beautiful instead You are beautiful. It is because in the Indonesian
language there is no to-be after a subject and before an adjective. In the Indonesian language
we simply say kamu (subject) cantik (adjective). Another example which can be said as an
yesterday. According to Selinker (1972); Ellis (2005), interlingual refers to the mental
grammar that a learner constructs at a specific stage in the learning process.
Intralingual Errors
An intralingual error is a kind of errors that usually occur within the language that is being learned. These errors are not influenced by the mother tongue (Bolitho & Tomlinson, 2007) but reflect the general characteristics of rule learning, such as generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions which rules were applied (Brown, 2002; Dan, 2007). Intralingual errors can exist in the form of overgeneralization. For example, a learner may produce *She is dances based on the blend of English She is dancing
and She dances. In the other word, the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of other
structures in the target language. Another example is the learner applies rules to context where they are not applicable, He made me to stay.
Developmental errors
“Developmental errors are errors which do not derive from transfer from another language, they reflect the learner's competence at a particular stage and illustrate some of the general characteristics of language acquisition” (Richards, 1974). In other words, developmental errors are similar to the errors made by children learning the language as their first language. The examples of developmental errors are the misuse of third person -s (she
work hard), the-ed morpheme (she teached us last year), of negation (I not like it) and of
interrogatives (I wonder what is she doing). Richard (1974) classified developmental errors
In this study, I focused on analyzing the types of grammatical errors in students’ writing, which can/may belong to Interlingual errors, Intralingual or Developmental errors. Chin (2000) said that grammar is the sound, structure, and meaning system of language. Therefore, grammatical errors in writing are related to accuracy and fluency in students’ performance.
Fitikides (1990); Lado (2008) found errors found in prepositions, verb tenses, infinitive, adjective, nouns, adverb, articles, singular/plural and word order. According to Utoronto (2008), grammatical errors could identify into agreement, comma splices, misplaced/dangling modifiers, passive voice, possessive case, pronoun, punctuations (comma, semicolon/colon), sentence fragments, word choice, wordiness.
Errors in agreement occurred because pronouns did not agree with their antecedents in number and person. Subjects and verbs must also agree in number (singular/plural) and person (1st, 2nd, 3rd person). A comma splice that cannot join in two independent clauses with only a comma would be said errors. Errors in misplaced occurred in the wrong position in the sentence, therefore, describes the wrong word and changes the writer’s meaning. Errors in passive voice would not happen if the form of ‘To Be’ followed by the past participial and accompanied by a phrase beginning with word ‘by’. Possessive case errors occurred when subjective and objective in the sentence and possessive/possession was correct. Sentence fragments errors occurred when a sentence fragment miss a verb/a subject or begin with subordinating word. Utoronto (2008) said, “You should never use words you don’t understand.” Word choice is one of the grammatical errors occurred therefore, the learners should always use dictionary if they are unsure of the meaning of a word. Errors in wordiness occurred when a writer uses empty words and phrases in a sentence.
the errors into grammatical (prepositions, articles, singular/plural, tenses), syntactic (subject/verb agreement, pronouns), lexical (word choice), and semantic (punctuation spelling). Therefore, the learner should master the systems of grammar unless they would make the errors in their writing.
Recent studies of grammatical errors
There are some researchers who have conducted the study on common grammatical errors, for example, Darus and Khor (2009) investigated errors in essays written in English by Form One Chinese students in a Malaysian public school. They found that the four most common errors in their written English essays were the mechanics, tenses, preposition, and subject-verb agreement. The students were very much influenced by their L1. Intralingual transfer of Malay and developmental errors were also observed in the students’ writing.
A similar study was also conducted by Maros, Tan, and Salehuddin (2007). They analyzed the interference effect, a factor that played an important role in inhibiting acquisition of English among young Malay learners in Malaysian schools. They found that despite having gone through six years of learning English in school environment, the learners were still having difficulty in using correct English grammar in their writings. The most frequent errors that student made were the use of articles, subject-verb agreement and copula
be.
Based on the studies of grammatical errors that have done before, it clearly showed that grammatical errors are not universal but it depends on the subjects and places where the learning takes place. For this study, I will aim to find out the types of grammatical errors made by participants.
The Study
Context of the study
This study analyzes grammatical errors in students’ essay at the faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The source of data of this study was taken from guided writing class aimed to provide the basic knowledge of English to the students. This study uses quantitative and qualitative method as it counts the error, describes and examines data that is available.
Participants
The participants of this research were 17 students of Guided Writing class who studied at the Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University in the second semester of the academic year 2012/2013. The participants ranged in age from 19 to 21 years old and included 9 males and 8 females. The participants regard to language background, educational level and age. However, not all the participants have the same background of language, level of educational that they taken before and also age because the class can be entered by the learners who want to take this class.
Data collection instrument
Data Collection procedures
I took the data from the students’ essay of guided writing class. The participants would be asked to write a past narrative story based on past narration comic. The participants had to write their story in the paper. The result of the participants’ writing was submitted to the lecture and copied for the analysis.
Data Analysis procedure
This study focused on grammatical error analysis. The processing of this analysis, I took the steps proposed by Corder (1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005): (1) collection of a sample of learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, (4) explanation of errors. After collecting the data, a native speaker lecture helped identify the grammatical error in the participants’ essay. When the error had been identified, each category was counted using this formula P
Σ 100% to find the types of grammatical error in
Guided Writing students’ essays. P= percentage, n1= total of the errors, Σn= total of the whole errors. Finally, each type of errors was explained and discussed.
Findings and Discussion
pronouns, and the participants produced 27 or 3.71% errors in spelling. Table 1 showed the grammatical errors produced by the participants.
Table 1. Grammatical Errors Produced by the Participants. No. Type of error Number of time (I am a teacher), simple past tense is to express the past activity (I was a student) and the future tense is to show the future events (I will be a lecture). Table 2 showed the participants’ errors in past tense usage.
Table 2. Participants’ errors in using Tenses
catch any rabbits. catch any rabbits. Future Tense
Because of the topic of the past narrative essays was based on the past narration comic, the most frequently used tenses followed by simple past tense, past continuous tense, past perfect tense and past future tense. However, based on the analysis of the errors, it was found that almost none of the participants knew how to use those tenses correctly.
Errors in tenses occurred because participants used wrong verb tense or the use of pattern of each tenses. It occurred in simple past tense and past continuous, for example, Fred sleep* under the table. Other examples occurred in the sentences like, Jack’s mom turned on
the computer and look* at the picture and the postman came and ask* him in his mind.
Errors which participants produced in word form occurred because they did not master the rule of tenses or the pattern. In order to use simple past tense, the participants should use past form of the verb, such as asked rather than ask, slept rather than sleep and looked rather than look. It also occurred in past continuous tense, for example, Fred still
slept*. It should Fred was still sleeping. The participants did not notice the correct usage be
for past future tense. They also did not master the use of was for singular subjects (he, she, it)
and were for more than plural subjects (I, you, we, they.)
Word choice (125 or 17.19%) also became problematic for the participants in this study. The participants made the word choice almost in their writing, for example, maybe your habit would *infect to me and He’ll *have steak for today. The participants should
reconstruction the appropriate words, such as pass on rather than infect and make rather than have. Table 3 showed the participants’ errors in wrong choice.
Table 3. Participants’ errors in using word choice
No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description
Punctuations (118 or 16.23%) are the common errors that the participants produced in their writing. Almost the participant made error and mistake in their writing, for example,
“Hey, Jack. Where are you going?” I’m looking for you a long time!” in this sentence, the
participant almost made errors in one sentence. The participant should write “Hey Jack, where are you going? I’m looking for you a long time.” Table 4 showed the participants’
errors in wrong choice.
Table 4. Participants’ errors in using punctuation
3. “…….” Fred asked participants made errors in the subject-verb number, for example in the sentences there *was some rabbits. In this sentence, participants faced difficulty to distinguish be for singular and
plural subjects or objects.
Similar errors also occurred in subject-verb tense, for example in the sentence, Fred
and his wife *was the couple dogs of Mr. Ben. They should write. Fred and his wife were the
couple dogs of Mr. Ben. Another example occurred in sentence Chiko *don’t think it
happens now. Here the participant should state Chiko doesn’t think it happens now. Table 5
showed the subject-verb agreement errors made by the participants.
Table 5. Participants’ errors in using Subject-Verb agreement
example the sentence “saya minum susu” (I drink milk) used the same verb to “Yohanes minum susu” (Yohanes drinks milk) and “saya dan Yohanes minum susu” (Yohanes and I
drink milk). There were no differences in verb used, even though the subjects and the time
allocation used were different.
The next common errors were prepositions (66 errors or 9.07%). The participants made errors in using prepositions of, in, on, and at. Some participants faced confusion
because they did not master the application of prepositions. For example, he wanted to build it *on his backyard. Here, the participant substituted preposition in into on. The other
examples occurred when the participants substituted at into in; Chiko looked in Fred and his wife.
Errors in prepositions appeared because there was uncertainty in participants to select the correct preposition (Darus & Ching, 2009; Dyarenggasti, 2012). It also happened because Bahasa Indonesia did not use preposition in its sentence. It made participants could not find the relevant preposition to be used in English sentence. Learners tended to omit the prepositions when they could not find which preposition to be used. Table 6 showed participants’ errors in prepositions.
Table 6. Participants’ errors in using prepositions
No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description
1. Chiko just smiled and sat *in his chair.
Chiko just smiled and sat on his chair.
Subtitution in into on
2. Fred came out *at
the bus.
Fred came out of the
bus.
English articles (54 errors or 7.42%) also became problematic for participants. The participants made errors in the use of indefinite article (a/an) and definite article (the), because they did not know how to use indefinite articles in generic reference and definite article in specific reference, for example in the sentence Chiko was *a ignorant dog,
participants misused the article a. Misused errors in article also occurred in the sentences,
Fred was *a honest friend, and she entered in *an university which famous of the beautiful
view. The participants misused an and a because they could not distinguish the use of article
an before vowels and a before consonants.
Not only misusing the articles, the errors in the and a also appeared because the
participants omitted them, for example, ….* shining Sun was enjoyable instead of the shining sun was enjoyable. That sentence showed that the participants omitted article the in their
writing. Omission in article was found as one of big sources of errors in participants’ writing. Some participants also omitted article a in some sentences, for examples, Fred and his wife went to Chiko’ house for * holiday because we have * plan to go to the park together. The
participants omitted articles the and a in their writing works, because they did not notice their
usage in a sentence. Master (2002) stated that article had function of word which were normally unstressed and it as difficult for a non-native speaker to pay attention to. It caused omission of article for non-native speakers.
Incorrect application in article also appeared when the participants added article which were not needed, for example in the sentences *the Jack’s mom turned on TV and It was *the my best friend forever. Here, article the should not be used, because things which
Table 7. Participants’ errors in using articles
No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description
sentence. Moreover, Bahasa Indonesia did not have article the. According to Celce-Muria and
Larsen-Freeman (1999) in Bataineh (2005), articles were one of difficulties in learning English, especially for learners whose language did not have articles.
Beside article, the participants made 6.60% or 48 errors in using singular/plurals. It occurred because in Bahasa Indonesia, there was no addition forms for plural things. The participants made errors in applying the plural form. They omitted suffix –s for plural things, for example John have two rabbit*. Here, the participants omitted suffix –s in plural form of rabbits.
Errors in concord also occurred when participants substituted of singular form for plural form, for example in the sentence, John stole some *bone. The participant failed to use
the plural form of bone, which should be bones. Table 8 showed the participants’ errors in
Table 8. Participants’ errors in using singulars and plurals
No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description
1. ....*a heroes of family
....a hero of family Incorrect suffix –s for
singular form
2. …for *five minute …for five minutes Omission suffix –s for
plural form
3. …*nine mangos …nine mangoes Failure to use suffix –
es
4. …his *foots …his feet Failure to apply plural
form
As the result of L1 interfere, the participants’ errors in singulars and plurals occurred because of singular and plural form in Bahasa Indonesia have the same way without any addition, for example, satu kucing (one cat) and dua kucing (two cats) had the same noun kucing (cat). It was different with English which stated a cat and two cats.
Some participants realized the rule of singulars and plurals, but they misused this rule. Therefore, errors occurred because of substitution in singulars for plurals and plurals for singulars, for example the word that participant used above, the participant knew that both of his *foots was a plural form, but he misused plural form of foot. It means that error in
singulars and plurals occurred because in the participants’ L1 there were no plural makers for a noun (Darus and Subramaniam, 2009).
Table 9. Participants’ errors in using pronouns
No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description Jack walked to Yorky’s house and *he would eat together. In this case, participant substituted
subject pronoun they to he. Another example was Fred gave me two big bones, *she made me happy. In this sentence, the participant used incorrect subject pronoun. It should be Fred gave
me two big bones, he made me happy. The participant substituted Fred to she instead of he. It
happened because the difficulty in using correct pronoun for some subjects.
The participants also confused using object pronoun. For example in a sentence Chiko
told *I that she met Mr. Ben. The participant used pronoun I instead of me. Another example
was John gave *she a cup of milk. The participant should write John gave her a cup of milk.
Both of the examples showed that the participants were confused in using object pronouns. Moreover, the participants also made errors in possessive pronouns. For example,
sentence *It scenery was colorful. The participant should use possessive pronoun its rather
than it. It should be, its scenery was colorful. Possessive pronouns were considered as one
step more difficult application for learners rather than personal pronoun, like subject and object pronouns (Tay, 2004) as cited in Chang, Mahadhir, & Ting (2010).
The last common errors made by the participants were spelling (27 or 3.71% errors). Spelling error was often happened in the writing error. Spelling error was divided into some types. In this study, spelling errors did not find as much as other errors. The participants only produced two types of spelling errors. For example, Jack was *forgiveble that bone’s thief. It
should Jack was forgivable that bone’s thief. The participant did not notice that he/she
produced spelling error of adding to final e, they did not realize the word forgive that have
final e would change if added suffix –able become forgivable. Another example was error in
silent letters spelling. The participant wrote, I’ll *com my hair before meet my darling. The
correct sentence was I’ll comb my hair before meet my darling. The participant did not realize
that he/she did not write the correct word, he/she was like write according to what he/she spoke. Table 10 showed errors occured in spelling.
Table 10. Participants’ errors in using spelling
error of adding to final e and silent letters occurred because the participants did not realize when they were writing, they would write what they said in their mind unconsciously.
The errors in the findings may or maybe happen because of mother tongue’s factor (Interlingual), learning strategies (Intralingual) or habit (Developmental) that students made. But if I looked from the high types of grammatical errors, it probably occurred because of the learning strategies of the students. It could be the students did not master the pattern or the rule of tenses or they did not write in complete sentences because lack of the acknowledgment of tenses’ rule. Moreover, Indonesian students did not use time to show
event in their language.
By knowing the types of these grammatical errors by the students, I hope the teachers or the lectures can help and guide the students to write English using better grammar and reduce the errors that the students made. I also expect that this study will help the English Department students recognize the failure in using English grammar. By recognizing their grammatical errors, the process of learning can be more fluent, specifically to Indonesian students who learning English; they will require it in the use of English grammar.
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication
The study directs to a pedagogical implication on Second Language Acquisition. Since tenses became the most common grammatical errors occurred in the participants’ writing, it was essential for the English lectures to focus on tenses as students’ weakness and needed to strengthen students’ understanding in English tenses. The learning strategies of the participant should be enhanced. The lectures could create teaching-learning activities which carry important effects for students in learning L2. For example by giving the students opportunities for personalization, which meant allowing students to create their own ideas, feelings, attitudes, and content from their daily activities (Nunan, 2005; Dyarenggasti, 2012), like writing what they like, for example, their favorite artist or food. The activity should be given more than once, to accustom student’s understanding in English grammar.
I do not deny that this study has limitations. First, it concerns with the number of participants (17 students). I believe if more participants could have involved in this study, the results and conclusion would be more representative. Besides that, this study only based on the past narration comic story which clearly showed that English tenses were the main foundation. If topic used in writing as the data were various, there might be possibility that the result of grammatical errors were more objective.
References Practice. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum.html. Bataineh, D. R. (2005). Jordanian Undergraduate EFL students’ errors in the Use of the
Indefinite Article. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, 56-76.
Bolitho, R. & B. Tomlinson (2007). Discover English. Oxford: Macmillan.
Brown, D.B. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 3rd, New Jersey: Precentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning And Teaching. New York:Longman.
Byrd, P. (2003). Teaching Grammar: The Essentials of Language Teaching. NCLRC: The National Capital Language Resource Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/grammar/grindex.htm.
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. New York: Oxford University Press. Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of form one
Chinese students : A case study. Europian Journal of Social Science , 10, 242-245. Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of the Written English Essay of
Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study. Europian Journal of Social Science, 162-170.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). You can't learn without goofing an analysis of children's second language errors. Language Learning , 95-99.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Langusge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
James, C. (1998). Error in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis, New York: Longman.
Kiser, E. (2009). In Error? Grammatical is a Legimate Adjectives. Winston-Salem Journal (March 8, 2009). Retrieved December 27, 2012, from http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/article_adf6dffd-0584-5713-a9b6-f16e97659d09.html.
Lado, M. J. (2008). Common errors in English. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc.
Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Maros, M., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K. (2007). Interference in learning English: Grammatical errors in English essay writing among rural Malay secondary school students in Malaysia. Journal e-Bangi, 2(2), 1-15. Retrieved April 19, 2011, from http://www.ukm.my/ebangi/index.php?option=com_jresearch&view=publication&tas k=show&id=33&lang=en.
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System 30, 331-348. Mickan, P. (2001) Beyond Grammar: Text as Unit of Analysis. In James, J.E. (2003).
Grammar in the Language Classroom. (pp. 220-227). Singapore: SEAMEO. Regional Language Centre.
Richards, I.A. (1974). Techniques in Language Control. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Acknowledgement
