vii
ABSTRACT
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing of The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
The tenth grade students ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta, based on curriculum 2006, had a chance to learn about descriptive text in semester two. As curriculum 2006 outlined that the tenth grade students of senior high school were supposed to not only read the descriptive text, but also write the descriptive text. Considering the compulsory of writing descriptive text, the researcher conducted this research to analyze the students’ errors in their descriptive text writings, and figure out the causes of errors.
There are two research questions in this study: (1)Whaterrors do the tenth grade students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta make in writing descriptive texts?(2) What causes the students’ errors?In order to solve the first research questions, the researcher employed the surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al. (1982). While to answer research question number two, the researcher employed the causes of errors theory of Norrish (1983). Based on surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al.(1982), errors were classified into four major parts. Those were omission, addition, misformation, and,misordering. Meanwhile, Norrish (1983) categorized the causes of errors into five parts. Those were carelessness, translation, first language interference, overgeneralization, and error as a part of language creativity.
This study belonged to qualitative research. The research methods were document analysis and qualitative survey. The instruments of this research were the descriptive text writings of the students and the students’ interviews. The interviewees were selected using purposive sampling.
The results of this study showed that the most frequent errorin the students’ descriptive texts was omission with 135 errors. Misformation errors occurred were 37 times. Misordering and addition errors held the same number of errors, 13. Dealing with the factors of errors, carelessness had been the most frequent reason of making errors 83%, followed by first language interference and translation 66% for each, and overgeneralization 33%. In addition, error as a part of language creativity was 0% in the bottom of the chart.
viii
ABSTRAK
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing of The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta.Yogyakarta: Program Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Berdasarkan Kurikulum 2006, murid kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA Yogyakarta memiliki kesempatan untuk mempelajari teks deskriptif pada semester dua. Kurikulum 2006, menyatakan bahwa murid kelas sepuluh sekolah menegah atas tidak hanya membaca deskriptif teks, namun juga menulis. Dengan mempertimbangkan bahwa materi ini bersifat wajib, peneliti melakukan penelitian ini untuk menganalisa kesalahan siswa dalam menulis deskriptif teks, dan mengetahui faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, terdapat dua rumusan masalah: (1) kesalahan apa yang dibuat oleh siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA dalam menulis deskriptif teks? (2) apa yang menyebabkan siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA melakukan kesalahan dalam menulis deskriptif teks? Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang pertama, peneliti menggunakan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomy yang digagas oleh Duley cs. (1982). Sedangkan untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang kedua, peneliti menggunakan teori mengenai faktor-faktor penyebab kesalahan oleh Norrish (1983). Berdasarkan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomy dari Dulay cs. (1982), kesalahan terbagi menjadi empat, yaitu pengurangan, penambahan, kesalahan pembentukan, dan kesalahan penempatan. Sedangkan menurut Norrish (1983), ada lima faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan, yaitu keteledoran, translasi, pengaruh bahasa Indonesia, generalisasi, dan, kesalahan sebagai kreativitas bahasa.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif yang menggunakan metode analisis dokumen dan kualitatif survey. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalah tulisan desktiptif teks siswa dan hasil wawancara dengan siswa. Peserta wawancara dipilih menggunakanpurposive sampling.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kesalahan yang paling sering muncul pada deskritpif teks siswa adalah 135 kesalahan pengurangan. Pada posisi kedua, kesalahan pembentukan 37 kali terjadi. Sedangkan kesalahan penempatan dan penambahan, masing-masing terjadi 13 kali. Mengenai penyebab terjadinya kesalahan, keteledoran menjadi penyebab paling utama dengan 83%, diikuti pengaruh bahasa Indonesia dengan 66% dan translasi dengan 66%. Generalisasi disebutkan oleh peserta wawancara dengan 33%, dan kesalahan sebagai kreatifitas bahasa dengan 0%.
A STUDY OF ER
RRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITIN E STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOG
ASARJANA PENDIDIKANTHESIS
sented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree
in English Language Education
By
Jati Landhung History
101214116
H LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROG MENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCA Y OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCA
A STUDY OF ER
RRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITIN E STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOG
ASARJANA PENDIDIKANTHESIS
sented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree
in English Language Education
By
Jati Landhung History
101214116
H LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROG MENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCA Y OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCA
iv
Dedicated to
1. My God
2. My Parents, Drs. Djoko Mudjiono S., and, Dra.
Budiati
3. My girlfriend, Helena Isti Yuliani
4. All Newcastle United Football Club players
5. All the fans of Newcastle United Football Club
around the world.
vii
ABSTRACT
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing of The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
The tenth grade students ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta, based on curriculum 2006, had a chance to learn about descriptive text in semester two. As curriculum 2006 outlined that the tenth grade students of senior high school were supposed to not only read the descriptive text, but also write the descriptive text. Considering the compulsory of writing descriptive text, the researcher conducted this research to analyze the students’ errors in their descriptive text writings, and figure out the causes of errors.
There are two research questions in this study: (1)Whaterrors do the tenth grade students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta make in writing descriptive texts?(2) What causes the students’ errors?In order to solve the first research questions, the researcher employed the surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al. (1982). While to answer research question number two, the researcher employed the causes of errors theory of Norrish (1983). Based on surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al.(1982), errors were classified into four major parts. Those were omission, addition, misformation, and,misordering. Meanwhile, Norrish (1983) categorized the causes of errors into five parts. Those were carelessness, translation, first language interference, overgeneralization, and error as a part of language creativity.
This study belonged to qualitative research. The research methods were document analysis and qualitative survey. The instruments of this research were the descriptive text writings of the students and the students’ interviews. The interviewees were selected using purposive sampling.
The results of this study showed that the most frequent errorin the students’ descriptive texts was omission with 135 errors. Misformation errors occurred were 37 times. Misordering and addition errors held the same number of errors, 13. Dealing with the factors of errors, carelessness had been the most frequent reason of making errors 83%, followed by first language interference and translation 66% for each, and overgeneralization 33%. In addition, error as a part of language creativity was 0% in the bottom of the chart.
viii
ABSTRAK
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing of The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta.Yogyakarta: Program Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Berdasarkan Kurikulum 2006, murid kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA Yogyakarta memiliki kesempatan untuk mempelajari teks deskriptif pada semester dua. Kurikulum 2006, menyatakan bahwa murid kelas sepuluh sekolah menegah atas tidak hanya membaca deskriptif teks, namun juga menulis. Dengan mempertimbangkan bahwa materi ini bersifat wajib, peneliti melakukan penelitian ini untuk menganalisa kesalahan siswa dalam menulis deskriptif teks, dan mengetahui faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, terdapat dua rumusan masalah: (1) kesalahan apa yang dibuat oleh siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA dalam menulis deskriptif teks? (2) apa yang menyebabkan siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA melakukan kesalahan dalam menulis deskriptif teks? Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang pertama, peneliti menggunakan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomy yang digagas oleh Duley cs. (1982). Sedangkan untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang kedua, peneliti menggunakan teori mengenai faktor-faktor penyebab kesalahan oleh Norrish (1983). Berdasarkan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomy dari Dulay cs. (1982), kesalahan terbagi menjadi empat, yaitu pengurangan, penambahan, kesalahan pembentukan, dan kesalahan penempatan. Sedangkan menurut Norrish (1983), ada lima faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan, yaitu keteledoran, translasi, pengaruh bahasa Indonesia, generalisasi, dan, kesalahan sebagai kreativitas bahasa.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif yang menggunakan metode analisis dokumen dan kualitatif survey. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalah tulisan desktiptif teks siswa dan hasil wawancara dengan siswa. Peserta wawancara dipilih menggunakanpurposive sampling.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kesalahan yang paling sering muncul pada deskritpif teks siswa adalah 135 kesalahan pengurangan. Pada posisi kedua, kesalahan pembentukan 37 kali terjadi. Sedangkan kesalahan penempatan dan penambahan, masing-masing terjadi 13 kali. Mengenai penyebab terjadinya kesalahan, keteledoran menjadi penyebab paling utama dengan 83%, diikuti pengaruh bahasa Indonesia dengan 66% dan translasi dengan 66%. Generalisasi disebutkan oleh peserta wawancara dengan 33%, dan kesalahan sebagai kreatifitas bahasa dengan 0%.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to thank to God. The blessing of the almighty God
had led me to this path and helped me a lot to get inspired to accomplish this
thesis. Through the hands of God, I was very well guided by my great supervisor
Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. She gave me suggestions during the guidance period. If I were a bird, she taught me to spread my wings wider, thus I can learn
to fly higher and higher.
My deepest appreciation goes to the Headmaster of SMA TigaMaret
Yogyakarta (SMA GAMA Yogyakarta), Dra. Sun Lestari, M.Pd., for giving me permission to conduct a research inSMA GAMA Yogyakarta. I would like to thank
toCandra Dewi Setya Aji, S.Pd., as the English teacher of the grade ten ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta, for providing me the descriptive texts of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. I personally applaud the contribution of the
tenth grade students ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta. They have been very cooperative
during the interview period.
I would thank my parents, Drs. Djoko Mudjiono Siswadi and Dra. Budiati, for their patience, prayers, and, supports to my lifeline in this study program. In this case, I could not imagine if I became one of my parents, they
never rushed me to quickly get my thesis through, but in the same boat they keep
giving a hundred support to me, both financially and emotionally.
All of my friends in the English Language Education Study Program have
x
Marino, Gevi, Ega, Ais, Thomas, Edo, Dery, Abi, Yudhi, Gun, Valerino,
Adrianus,and Eko.
I’d like to say a big thank you to my beloved girlfriend, Helena Isti Yuliani. Her precious time given to me is absolutely incomparable to anything. Moreover, her patience and cares are the things that bolster my motivation to end
up my thesis successfully.
Finally, I would dedicate my gratitude to those that I cannot mention their
names one by one. I really thank for their prayers and encouragement given to me
to finish this thesis.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ……….. i
APPROVAL PAGES ……….. ii
DEDICATION PAGE ………. iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ……… ... v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI……… vi
ABSTRACT ……… vii
ABSTRAK………. viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………..ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….... xi
LIST OF TABLES ………. xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES ……… xv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ……… 1
A. Research Background ………. 2
B. Research Problem ………... 4
C. Problem Limitation ………. 4
D. Research Objectives ………... 5
E. Research Benefits ………... 5
F. Definitions of Terms ……….. 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ………. 10
A. Theoretical Description ……….. 10
1. Theory of Errors ………. 10
2. Types of Errors ………... 11
3. Factor Causes of Errors ………..14
xii
5. Theory of Writing ……….. 18
6. Descriptive Texts ………... 19
7. Curriculum ……… 20
B. Theoretical Framework……….. 21
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ……….. 23
A. Research Method ……….. 23
B. Research Setting ………... 24
C. Research Subjects ………. 25
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique …………...26
E. Data Analysis Technique ……….. 28
F. Research Procedure ……….. 35
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION ………….. 36
A. Errors in Writing Descriptive Text Made by Tenth Grade Students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta ………... 36
1. Omission Type ………... 37
2. Addition Type ……… 43
3. Misformation Type ……… 45
4. Misordering Type ………... 49
B. The Causes of Errors in Writing Descriptive Text Made by the Tenth Grade Students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta ……….52
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS………. ……… 60
A. Conclusions ………....60
xiii
REFERENCES ………. 63
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
2.1.1 Curriculum 2006 Containing DescriptiveText ………...…… 21
3.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme …………... 30
3.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme ……….. 31
3.1.3 The Classification of Addition of Double Marking ……… 32
3.1.4 The Classification of Addition of Simple Addition ……….... 32.
3.1.5 The Classification of Overregularization ……….... 33
3.1.6 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Form ……… 33
3.1.7 The Classification of Misordering ……….. 34
3.1.8 The Percentage of Errors Made by the Students in Writing Descriptive Text……….. 34
4.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme ……….. 40
4.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme ……….. 41
4.1.3 The Classification of Simple Addition ………... 46
4.1.4 The Classification of Misformation Errors ………. 48
4.1.5 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Forms ……….. 49
4.1.6 The Classification of Misordering ……….. 52
4.1.7 Total Errors Discovered ……….. 53
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. The confirmation letter of the research fromSMA GAMA
Yogyakarta.……….. 67
APPENDIX 2
.
The Examples of Students’ descriptive text…….……….68APPENDIX 3.Interview Guideline ………...71
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this Chapter, the researcher will introduce the field and the background
of this research. There are six parts in which the researcher presents the basic
information of the research. Those are the research background, research
problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and
definition of terms.
A. Research Background
English is taught in Senior High School as a compulsory lesson. From the
tenth to twelfth grade, students of Senior High School must learn english,
moreover it includes in the national examination. In other words, for Senior high
School students, English belongs to one of the most important subjects to master,
besides Mathematics and Indonesian.
Students of senior high school learn many types of texts. One of them is
descriptive text. McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the
reader to visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses
included (p. 239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the statement of McMurrey related
to the descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text,
students can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste,
and texture to create vivid images in the reader’s mind (p. 70). In the same boat,
Indonesian experts, Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social
26). Thus, from those expert statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text
aims to describe a particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid
images in the reader’s mind.
Observing at the curriculum 2006, descriptive text belongs to the
compulsory syllabus of the tenth grade students of Senior High School. This
material is scheduled to be taught in the second semester. It means that mastering
descriptive text for the tenth graders is non-negotiable. Due to the importance of
mastering descriptive text for the tenth graders, the researcher chose this text to be
analyzed in this research.
Writing is a term which cannot be separated when we are dealing with any
kinds of texts, in this research is descriptive text. According to Zimmerman and
Rodrigues (1992), “Good writing is a writing that is appropriate to the specific
writing situation for which it was produced” (p. 8). Students, as the descriptive
text writers, should write appropriate writings to what they are asked to write
about. Moreover, Norrish (1983) says “It was vital that people should be educated
to construct grammatically acceptable sentences and be able to spell correctly” (p.
65). Through both expert supports, the acceptable grammar must be constructed in
the writing. Thus the readers will understand the writing well and know the aim of
the text.
Errors are to be discussed and analyzed in this research. Brooks (1960) as
cited by Hendrickson (1981) says, “Like sin, error is to be avoided but its
provides feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his
teaching materials and his teaching techniques” (As cited in Hendrickson, 1981, p.
3). It means errors are hard to be avoided, but the presence of it is expected to
know how effective the teaching materials are. Hendrickson (1981) says that
making error is like an analogy as the children produce numerous errors while
acquiring their first language (p. 3). It is similar to students of Senior High
School. They produce many errors in acquiring English as the second language.
Through errors, the effectiveness of the teaching strategy and techniques and the
progress of the writing can be identified.
The reasearcher decided to conduct the research in SMA GAMA (Tiga
Maret) Yogyakarta due to the personal involvement with SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta. In 2014 the researcher did the teaching practice there. Therefore a
clear accomodation to the school has been well depicted. Dealing the context of
the study, the researcher discovered that the major weakness of the students there
is in writing. Thus, that has been taken as one of the major reason for the
researcher to conduct a study related to writing.
The researcher is interested in researching this topic because there has
been at least two research dealing with errors and error analysis. As the
references, the researcher used the research of Anggraheni (2008) and Yuanita,
Elfrida Putri‘s research (2014). The first study, conducted by Anggraheni (2008),
focused on errors made by students in writing recount text. Meanwhile the latter
one focused only on the error of simple past tense and past progressive tense in
researchers. In this study, the researcher focuses more on errors made by tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text based on
surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982). The
researcher decides to use the theory of Dulay et al. (1982) because they claimed
that identifying errors from surface strategy taxonomy gives great promises for
the researcher to know the students cognitive processes in constructing new
language (p. 150). Thus the researcher employs surface strategy taxonomy to
know the cognitive ability of the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
constructing English through writing descriptive text.
B. Research Problems
There are two research problems in this research. Those are written as
follows.
1. What errors do the tenth grade students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta
make in writing descriptive texts?
2. What causes the students’ errors?
C. Problem Limitation
This research limits only to errors of descriptive text writing of the tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta academic year 2014/2015. The
researcher chose this kind of research because the errors happened in students’
writing of descriptive text can be very harmful for them in the future. In addition,
weaknesses of their writings, thereby being able to improve their writing and
grammar understanding, especially in writing descriptive text.
D. Research Objectives
The objective of the research is to figure out the answers written in
problem formulation as follows.
1. This research aims to figure out the errors of the tenth grade students of
SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta in writing descriptive texts.
2. This research aims to figure out the causes of the students’ errors.
E. Research Benefits
This research is expected to be beneficial for the teachers, the researcher,
and the students. The elaborations for each research benefits are written as
follows.
1. For the Teacher
Through this research, the teacher will directly figure out the errors mostly
made by the students in writing descriptive text. Moreover the teacher can
emphasize more on grammar in writing descriptive text which the students face
the difficulties. According to Coder (1973), errors analysis could provide useful
information about the effectiveness of teacher’s technique (As cited in
teaching, especially in teaching writing. Through the result of this reasearch,
teacher can locate the weaknesses of the students in writing descriptive text.
2. For the Researcher
This research was conducted by the researcher as a thesis to obtain
Sarjana Pendidikan degree in English Education Study Program of Sanata
Dharma. This reasearch is beneficial for the researcher because it allows the
researcher to elaborate the errors in descriptive text writing of the tenth graders of
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Corder (1973) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) says
that analyzing the error could provide the evidence of how language is acquired or
learnt (p. 3). Furthermore, it also gives evidence on what strategies or procedures
the learners are attempting to master the new language.
3. For the Students
This research could make the students elaborate what kind of errors they
made in writing descriptive text. Allwright (1975) says that “a student cannot
really learn without knowing when an error is made, either by him or someone
else” (As cited in Makino, 1993, p. 337). As the result of this, students gain the
benefit of the research. They can recognize their errors with the assistance of the
teacher. Therefore, in the future they will be able to make progress in writing
F. Definition of Terms
The definition of terms consists of the definition of writing, descriptive
text, error, and the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Each
definition is going to be elaborated as follows.
1. Writing
Nunan (2003) defines writing as both a process and a product (p. 98). The
processes are stated chronologically: imagining- organizing- drafting-
editing-reading- proofreading. To get the best result, the processes must be followed in
order. The researcher tends to assume that writing is a product because in this
research the data are in the form of descriptive text product produced by the tenth
graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
According to Zimmerman and Rodrigues (1992), “Good writing is a
writing that is appropriate to the specific writing situation for which it was
produced” (p. 8). The students, as the descriptive text writers, should write
appropriate writings to what they are asked to write about. Moreover, Norrish
(1983) says “It was vital that people should be educated to construct
grammatically acceptable sentences and be able to spell correctly” (p. 65).
Through both expert supports, the acceptable grammar must be constructed in the
writing. Thus the readers will be understanding the writing well and knowing the
2. Descriptive text
McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the reader to
visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses included (p.
239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the the statement of McMurrey related to
descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text, the students
can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste, and texture
to create vivid images in reader’s mind. In the same boat, Indonesian experts,
Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social function of descriptive
text is to describe a particular person, place, or thing (p. 26). From those expert
statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text aims to describe a particular
person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in reader’s mind. In this
study, the researcher focuses only on the descriptive text writing made by tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
3. Errors
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) note “Errors are the flawed side of
learner speech or writing” (p. 138). Even though Dulay et al. (1982) say that
errors occur in spoken and written form, this research will only focus on the
writing of the students, particularly the descriptive text made by tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher defines that every
misproduced word in students’ writing is regarded as errors. Furthermore the
errors are only qualified by the errors theory of Dulay et al. (1982). In other
words, if the researcher discovered errors which are not qualified in errors theory
4. Tenth Grade Students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta
The tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta are the subject of
this study. The tenth grade of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta is divided into two
majors. Those are XA and XB. There are 44 students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta
10 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides some supporting theories of this study. It comprises
two parts, theoretical description and theoretical framework.
A. Theoretical Description
This part describes the theories of errors, writing, descriptive texts,
curriculum, and the theories of causing errors.
1. Theory of Errors
English is a language that has to be learnt by Senior High School students
since it has become one of the compulsory subjects in national examination.
Hendrickson (1981) notes that making error is like an analogy as the children
produce numerous errors while acquiring their first language (p. 3). The similar
thing happened to the students of Senior High School in Indonesia, especially in
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. They are still learning to master the target language,
English. As the result of this, students of Senior High School produce a plenty of
errors during the time of learning. It is also strengthtened by Dulay, Burt, and
Krashen (1982). Dulay et al. (1982) agree that people certainly make errors in
2. Types of Errors
There are four major types of errors explained by Dulay et al (1982).
Those are linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, comparative
taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. According to Dulayet al. (1982),
linguistic category taxonomy deals with classifying errors according to either or
both language components or the particular linguistic constituent (p. 146). Surface
strategy taxonomy deals with the ways surface structures are changed.
Comparative taxonomy deals with the classification of errors based on the
comparison between the structure of second language errors and certain other
types of construction. The last one, communicative effect taxonomy deals with
errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader.
In this study the researcher will focus on errors based on surface strategy
taxonomy. As Dulay et al. (1982) declare that identifying errors from surface
strategy taxonomy gives great promises for the researcher to know the students
cognitive processes in constructing new language (p. 150).
Ellis (1997) provides types of errors such as omission, misformation, and
misordering (p. 18). In the same page, errors types theory of Dulayet al.(1982) is
similar to Ellis’ (1997). Dulay et al. (1982) put their types of errors into surface
strategy taxonomy. Those types of errors are presented as follows.
a. Omission
Dulayet al. (1982) state that omission happens because of the absence of
potential to be omitted in writing. There are two kinds of morphemes, content
morpheme and grammatical morpheme. Mostly the captured case is the omission
of the grammatical morphemes. The grammatical morphemes are noun and verb
inflections ( the s- in birds), articles (a, an, the), verb auxilliaries ( is, am, are,was,
were, will, can), and preposition (in, on, under, at etc.) For example, Tory kill__
__ dog. The sentence is not correct yet because the morphemes “s” in the word
“kill” and “a” before the word “dog” are absent. It should be “Tory kills a dog”.
b. Addition
Dulay et al. (1982) state that addition is the opposite of omission. In this
type of errors, the errors are determined by the presence of an item which should
not be appearing in a well-formed utterance. Addition is divided into 3 three
types. Those are as follows.
1) Double Markings
It occurs when the students use two items in the same feature. Dulayet al.
(1982) state that “Many addition errors are described as the failure to delete
certain items which are required in some linguistic constractions, but not in
others” (p. 56). The examples are “Shedoesn’t knowsthe answer” or ” Hedidn’t
drank a cup of coffee”. The italic words in each sentences show the errors
because those two words are marked for the same feature. It is called double
markings.
2) Regularizations
Dulay et al (1982) say that a rule typically applies to all linguistic items,
marker put in items which do not need the marker. The examples of
regularizations errors are hit-hitted instead of hit, read-readed instead of read,
sheep-sheepsinstead ofsheep,put-puttedinstead ofput, etc.
3) Simple Additions
This type of error is based on adding the unnecessary morphemes to
sentences and words. The examples of this simple addition are “ She is gonna
wenthome.” (past tense),athis (article a), and etc.
c. Misformation
Dulay et al. (1982) state that misformation errors are determined by the
wrong form use of the morpheme or structure. Misformation errors are divided
into three parts. Those are as follows.
1) Regularizations
It occurs when the learners use the regular marker to mark the irregular
one. It can be described in the wrong form of a regular past tense verb, a third
person singular form, and a reflexive pronoun. The example of this kind of errors
is “I singed a song”. Sing is an irregular verb which does not need a suffix to
make it into a past tense verb. The word “ singed” should be “sang”.
2) Archi Forms
Dulay et al. (1982) say that “for the learner, that is the
archi-demonstrative adjective representing the entire class of the archi-demonstrative
adjectives”. It means when the learners use a determiner for a thing to refer to the
entire things, it is called an archi forms. The example is “thatcats” which should
3) Alternating forms
This type of errors occurs because of the growing of the student’s
grammar-vocabulary. In this error, the students may alternate between the forms.
The examples of alternating forms are I seen her yesterday, I could have drank it,
those dog.
d. Misordering
Dulay et al. (1982) state that misordering error is characterized by the
incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of morphemes in an utterance. It
can be indicated by the wrong place of an auxiliary in simple questions and an
adverb. The examples are “You will go tonight ?”, and “He yesterday came here.”
It should be “Will you go tonight?”, and ”He came here yesterday” or “Yesterday
he came here”.
3. Factors Causes of Errors
Errors are caused by many kinds of factors. In this research, the researcher
will employ the factor causing errors proposed by Norrish (1983). According to
Norrish (1983), there are five factors causing errors. Those are carelessness, first
language interference, translation, overgeneralization, and error as a part of
language creativity. The following paragraphs are the elaboration of each cause of
errors.
a. Carelessness
According to Norrish (1983), “Carelessness is often closely related to
motivation” (p. 21). In this case, related to this study, the students are not going to
examples of carelessness causing errors in students’ writings are they forget to
write down fullstop in the end of the sentence, and they mistype the word.
b. First Language Interference
The first language, or generally considered as mother tongue, is one of the
cause of errors proposed by Norrish (1983). Norrish (1983) says that language is a
matter of habit formation. The learner’s utterances were thought to be gradually
shaped towards those of the language he was learning (p. 22). In other words, it
can be drawn that first language interference appears when the target language is
not used in the daily communication, both spoken and written. Related to this
study, mother tongue interference comes when students want to learn a new
language or a target language.
c. Translation
Another popular cause why students make errors is translation word by
word. Norrish (1983) says, “Translation word by word of idiomatic expression in
the learner’s first language can produce classic howlers” (p. 26). Norrish (1983)
says that this cause of errors is the most common one. In this cause of errors, the
learners try to translate a familiar expression in their first language into the target
language they are learning. This happens when students or learners do not know
the exact translation of such expression they want to write. As Norrish (1983)
says, “the most typical situation is when a learner has been asked to communicate
something (writing) but is aware that he does not know the appropriate expression
or structure” (p. 27). For example, the students try to translate the word “Rumah
d. Overgeneralization
Norrish (1983) argues that in this cause of error, “the error might be made
as a result of blending structures learnt early in the learning sequence” (p. 31). In
other words, this kind of errors happens when students or learners use two kinds
of structures in one sentence. As Ellis (1994) states, “overgeneralization error
generally involves the creation of one deviant structure in place of two target
language structures” (p. 59). The example is the sentence “We are go to school”.
It shows a blending simple present and continuous tense.
e. Error As a Part of Language Creativity
Norrish (1983) says that the learners who have limited capability in
English would form a hypothetical rules related to English on insufficient
evidence. It means that when learners do not have enough capability but they need
to create new utterances, they may produce errors. According to Norrish (1983),
language creativity is divided into two major factors. The first factor is the
incapability of the students to follow the rules of the target language. The second
one is the creative arts. It deals with literature, such as song lyrics, poems, novels
or prose.
3. Error analysis
Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) state that “error analysis is the study of errors
that learners make in their speech and writing” (p. 51). It means that through error
analysis, the identification, description and explanation of learners’ errors are
explaining errors systematically (p. 740). According to Asher (1994), there are
two aims of error analysis. Those are the pedagogical and psycholinguistic aim.
The pedagogical aims to provide feedback about teaching methods and materials,
while the psycholinguistic aim is to elucidate on how languages are learnt and
produced (p. 740).
Errors analysis has its own benefits. As it is stated by Norrish (1983) that
Errors analysis can give a picture of the type of difficulty learners are
experiencing. It is clearly stated that errors analysis could draw a depiction about
what kind of difficulty the students are mostly facing. Another benefit of error
analysis, as it is claimed by Norrish (1983) is it can indicate common problems to
all, and common problems to particular group. For teachers, they can assess how
far they have progressed to the target language.
Dulayet al. (1982) say that studying learners’ errors gives data to teachers
and curriculum developers about the students’ difficulties in some parts and to
show what type of errors the students make (p. 138). The purpose of errors
analysis by Dulayet al. (1982) is related to the objective of this study which is to
show the errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
writing descriptive text.
4. Theory of writing
Zimmeerman and Rodrigues (1992) say that writing is a way of sharing
ideas with others (p. 4). Writing can be used as device to reveal the ideas to other
and discover their thoughts, constructing meaning, and assess them at the same
time”. It stays in the same page as Zimmeerman and Rodrigues (1992). In this
study, writing means delivering thoughts or ideas to the others through the
descriptive text.
Every writing has its own purpose. Walvoord (1985) notes that writing can
be claimed as such effective writing if the contents of the writing show the
purpose of the writing to the readers (p. 2). This statement vividly goes in line
with Zimmerman and Rodrigues (1992). According to Zimmerman and Rodrigues
(1992), “Good writing is writing that is appropriate to the specific writing
situation for which it was produced” (p. 8). Meaning that students, as the
descriptive text writers should write an appropriate writing to what they are asked
to write about. In other words, if the purpose of the writing is to describe a
particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in reader’s
mind, the contents of the writing should make the readers see images in their
minds. In short, being consequent with the purpose of the writing is necessary to
write something.
5. Descriptive text
McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the reader to
visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses included (p.
239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the the statement of McMurrey (1983) related to
descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text, the students
can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste, and texture
Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social function of descriptive
text is to describe a particular person, place or thing (p. 26). Thus, from those
expert statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text aims to describe a
particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in the
reader’s mind.
Since the descriptive text deals with describing thing, place, or person,
present tense is inevitable to use. Wardiman et al. (2008) say that the language
features used in descriptive text is the simple present tense (p. 26). Azar (1992)
say, “The simple present expresses general statement of facts and timeless truths”
(p. 13). It means that the simple present is used when something was true in the
present, past, and will be true in the future. Beside that, Azar (1992) states, “The
simple present is used to express habitual or everyday activities” (p. 13).
According to Azar (1992), simple present tense basic patterns are “Subject + V1
or V1s/es” and “Subject + am/is/are”. The examples of those are “My dog has
four legs” and “My dog is a pet animal”. Meanwhile the negative forms of simple
present tense are “Subject + don’t/doesn’t” and “Subject + am/is/are + not”. The
examples of the negative forms of simple present tense are “My dog doesn’t eat
chocolate” and “My dog is a wild animal”.
Hammond (1992), and Wardiman et al. (2008) state the same theory
related to generic structure of descriptive text. Both Hammond (1992) and
Wardiman et al. (2008) claim that there are two main parts in descriptive text.
to be described is identified, while in description, the phenomenon is described by
parts, qualities, and characteristics.
6. Curriculum 2006
Based on curriculum 2006, descriptive text belongs to one of the
compulsory English materials for the tenth grade students of Senior High School.
It is evidently noted in the twelfth Standar Kompetensi, and Kompetensi Dasar
number 12.2. The more detailed depiction of the curriculum related to descriptive
text is presented in table 2.1.1.
Through the table 2.1.1, it is shown that Kompetensi Dasar number 12 is
dealing with writing descriptive text, news item, and narrative text. However, in
this study the researcher will solely deal with the students’ descriptive text
writings.
Table 2.1.1 Curriculum 2006 Containing Descriptive Text.
Kompetensi Inti Kompetensi Dasar
12. Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks
tulis fungsional pendek dan esei
sederhana berbentuk narrative,
descriptive dan news item dalam
B. Theoretical Framework
In order to answer the research problem number one, the errors made by
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text, the
researcher conducts a document analysis. Students’ descriptive text writings are
utilized as the document or the instrument of this study.
The data, the students’ descriptive text writings are collected in two
different occasions since each class ten of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta has different
schedule in learning English. The data are collected after the English teacher of
class ten of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta finishes teaching the class. Since there are
44 students of the tenth grade of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, there will be 44
descriptive texts to analyze.
To conduct the research and analyze the data, the researcher employs the
theory of errors proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). After gaining the data in the
form of the document of the students’ descriptive text writings, the researcher
classifies the errors using the categorization of errors stated by Dulay et al.
(1982). They are omission, addition, misordering, and misformation. Ellis (1997)
claims that types of errors can help the researcher diagnose what errors the
learners produce (p. 18). Thus, those types of errors from Dulay et al. help the
researcher know what type of errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta. Having known the types of errors made by tenth grade
able to figure out the types of errors mostly made by tenth grade students in
writing descriptive text.
In order to answer the problem formulation number two, the causes of
errors in tenth grade students’ descriptive text writings, the researcher employs
interview as the instrument. The participants are selected based on the result of
their descriptive text writings. Two students will be those who gain the high score
and minimum errors, two other students will be those who produce the average
errors, and the rest is those who produce more errors than the other participants.
Through the interview questions delivered by the researcher, participants are
expected to answer appropriately. Thus the researcher is able to know the causes
of errors in participants’ descriptive text writings.
The researcher employs Norrish’s theory (1983) to categorize the causes
of errors based on the interview. The causes of errors proposed by Norrish (1983)
are carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization, and
error as a part of language creativity. Interviews conducted by researcher is
expected to tell the researcher the cause of errors mostly made by the tenth
23 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology employed in this study. It is
composed of six parts. Those are research method, research setting, research
subject, research instrument and data gathering technique, data analysis technique,
and research procedure.
A. Research Methods
In order to answer the first research question, the errors made by the tenth
graders of SMA GAMA in writing descriptive text, the researcher conducts a
document analysis. The researcher decides to employ document analysis because
the data, descriptive texts written by tenth graders ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta, are
in the form of writings or written forms. According to Ary, Jacob, and Sorensen
(2010), “Document analysis is a research method applied to written or visual
materials for the purpose of identifying specified characteristics of materials”
(p.457). Furthermore, Ary et al. (2010) point out that one of the purpose of
document analysis is to analyze the types of errors in students’ writings (p. 457).
Thus, as it is written in the previous chapters, in this study the descriptive texts
made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta are used as the
written materials, and it is going to be analyzed.
In addition, the researcher conducts a qualitative survey to answer the
text made by the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Fink (2003) says,
“Qualitative surveys collect information on the meanings that people attach to
their experiences and on the ways they express themselves” (p. 61). Thus, to
collect information and discover the factors which cause the errors of tenth grade
students in writing descriptive text, the researcher conducts interviews with six
students of the tenth grade ofSMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Along with it, Fink (2003)
says that students have their own experiences. Through descriptive text writing,
they can show how they express themselves. In other words, descriptive text can
be considered as a kind of attaching to their experiences and knowledge in writing
descriptive text. Furthermore, due to the small number of participants of the
research, qualitative survey is appropriate to be conducted to reveal the factors
which are causing errors of the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
writing descriptive text. As Fink (2003) states that a qualitative survey is used
when the researcher does not have a large number of participants (p. 67).
B. Research Setting
The Researcher conducts the study in SMA GAMA Yogyakarta from
January to April 2015. It is located in Jalan Affandi 5 Mrican Yogyakarta. The
reasearcher decided to do the research in SMA GAMA Yogyakarta due to the
personal involvement with SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. In 2014 the researcher did
the teaching practice there. Therefore, a clear accomodation to the school has been
well depicted. Since descriptive text is taught in semester two of the tenth grade
C. Research Subjects
The subjects involved in this study are the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher chose the tenth graders as the subject because
they have a chance to learn descriptive text in semester two, as it is written in
kurikulum 2006.
In this study, the researcher focuses on two classes of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Those are tenth grade students of XA and
XB. The tenth grade students of XA consists of 21 students and the tenth grade
students of XB consists of 23 students. Thus, the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakartacould provide 44 descriptive texts writings.
In addition, to answer the research question number two, the researcher
selected 6 students from both class ten as the subjects. In selecting the students
from both two classes to be interviewed, the researcher carried out a purposive
sampling. Dattalo (2008) says “Purposive sampling can be used to select
participants based on their knowledge of a particular topic” (p. 6). The topic here
is descriptive text. In short, the participants will be selected based on their
descriptive text writing results. Staying in the same page, Barreiro and Albandoz
(2001) say that purposive sampling tries to make the sample representative,
depending on the researcher’s purpose or opinion (p. 5). Ary et al. (2010) say
“Qualitative studies more typically use purposive selection techniques based on
particular criteria” (p. 421). Since the researcher employs purposive sampling to
high score with minimum errors, two other students will be those who produce the
average errors, and the rest is those who produce more errors than the other
participants.
D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering Technique
The research instruments employed by the researcher are document and
interview. Documents, in the form of descriptive text writings, are used as the
instrument of the first research question. Bowen (2008) notes “Document analysis
is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents, both printed and
electronic materials” (p. 27). In the same line, Ary et al. (2010) say “materials
analyzed can be textbooks, newspapers, web pages, speeches, television
programs, advertisements, musical compositions, or any of a host of other types of
documents” (p. 457).
The authenticity of the document in document analysis is guaranteed by
Ary et al. (2010). They say “An advantage of document analysis is its
unobtrusiveness” (p. 459). Thus the researcher is not allowed to make an
intervention during the writing time. As Bowen (2008) says that document
contains words and images that have been recorded without a researcher’s
intervention (p. 27). Furthermore, based on Kurikulum 2006, the particular topic
of descriptive text learnt for tenth grade students is not particularly exposed.
Therefore, the researcher conducts a document analysis on students’ descriptive
text writings with person, thing, animal, and place as the particular topic.
Since there are 44 tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, it is
ofSMA GAMA Yogyakartais divided into two classes. Thus the data will be taken
twice because each class has different schedule to learn English. In addition the
data will be collected after the English teacher of tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakartafinishes teaching each class.
Meanwhile to answer the research question number two, the researcher
employs an interview guideline as the instrument, while interview as technique is
made and applied by the researcher. Best and Krahn (1986) state that interview is
in a sense of oral questionnaire, which helps the researchers obtain the answer
from the subjects orally and face to face (p. 186). It means that the interview is
conducted face to face between the researcher and the participant. There are six
students who are interviewed by the researcher. Moreover Boyce and Neale
(2006) say that a in-depth interview is a qualitative research technique that
involves conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of
respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or
situation (p. 3). Thus, in this study the researcher employs an in-depth interview to
obtain factors of errors from the selected six students by using a purposive
sampling as it is elaborated previously.
The researcher collects data from this interview twice as each class has
different occasion in learning English. The researcher conducts the interview
during the rest periods. The answers of the participants in this interview are
recorded and later it will be written as the script of the interview. This script of the
causing errors in students’ descriptive text writings by using the factors causing
errors theory proposed by Norrish (1983).
E. Data Analysis Technique
In this study, the researcher employs the data analysis theory of
Hubberman and Miles to answer the first research question of this study, the
errors made by tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing
descriptive text. Hubberman and Miles (1994) provide 3 components in analyzing
the data. Those are reduction, data display, and drawing conclusion in analyzing
data (As cited in Punch, 2009, p. 174). The following paragraphs are the
explanations of data analysis technique conducted by the researcher.
Firstly, the researcher conducts the reduction. It means the researcher only
selects the students’ sentences consisting of errors to be analyzed. After that, the
researcher analyzes the descriptive texts by underlying the intended error based on
its type to anticipate a sentence consisting of more than one error.
Afterwards, the errors are displayed in form of tables based on the
categorization proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). Thus, in the display of data, the
researcher identifies the errors based on omission, addition, misformation, and
misordering errors. Moreover the categorized errors are counted and displayed in
the tables. The categorizing tables of errors are going to be discussed in the next
paragraph. By the end of each table, the researcher writes down the analysis and
the correction of each error sentences. To make sure that the correction is correct,
sentences containing errors by using his capability in English. In addition, the
devil advocate does check the corrections made by the researcher. In short, those
two factors, both the background knowledge of the researcher and the check of the
devil advocate have been taking the pivotal role in ensuring that the corrections
made are acceptable.
The first type of errors based on surface strategy taxonomy proposed by
Dulayet al. (1982) is omission errors. It is divided into two parts. The first one is
the omission of content morpheme, and the second one is the omission of
grammatical morpheme. The omission of content morpheme, put in table 3.1.1,
describes the omission of a head noun, a subject, a main verb, and the omission of
a direct object. In the other hand, the omission of grammatical morpheme, put in
table 3.1.2, describes the omission of an article, a preposition, a short and long
plural, an auxilliary, a copula, a regular and irregular past tense verb, and an
omission of an infinitive to. Thus, the errors based on the omission error types
would be classified as follows.
Table 3.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme
No The Omission of Content Morpheme
Percentage
A Head noun _____ %
B Subject _____ %
C Main verb _____ %
Table 3.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme
No Omission of Grammatical Morpheme
Percentage
A Preposition _____ %
B Article _____ %
C Short plural _____ %
D Long plural _____ %
E Auxilliary _____ %
F Copula _____ %
G Progressive _____ %
H Regular past tense _____ %
I Irregular past tense _____ %
J Infinitive marker _____ %
The second type of errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy
proposed by Dulayet al. (1982) is addition. This type of errors consists of double
marking and simple addition. Double marking is specified into the addition of
present tense, past tense, and a direct object. While simple addition is specified
into the excess of a third person singular form, a past tense verb, an article and a
preposition. Thus, the errors based on the addition type would be displayed as
Table 3.1.3 The Classification of Addition of Double Marking
No Addition of Double Marking Percentage
A Present tense _____ %
B Past tense _____ %
C Direct object _____ %
Table 3.1.4 The Classification of Addition of Simple Addition
No Addition of Simple Addition Percentage
A Third Person Singular _____ %
B Past tense _____ %
C Article _____ %
D Preposition _____ %
The second type of errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy
proposed by Dulayet al. (1982) is misformation. It consists of overregularization
and archi/alternating form. In this study overregularization is specified into the
use of reflexive pronoun, a regular past verb, and a third person singular form.
While archi/alternating form is specified into a preposition, an auxilliary, a subject
pronoun, a possesive pronoun and a demonstrative. The display tables of the
Table 3.1.5 The Classification of Overregularization
No Overregularization Percentage
A Reflexive pronoun _____ %
B Regular past _____ %
C Third person singular _____ %
Table 3.1.6 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Form
No Archi/Alternating Form Percentage
A Auxilliary _____ %
B Preposition _____ %
C Possessive pronoun _____ %
D Subject pronoun _____ %
E Demonstrative _____ %
Misordering is the other type of error proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). It
refers to misplacing of an element, wrong place of an auxiliary in embedded
question, and misordering of an adverb. Table 3.1.7 describes errors classified in
Table 3.1.7 The Classification of Misordering
No Misordering Percentage
A Auxiliary in simple (direct) question _____ %
B Auxiliary in embedded (indirect)
question
_____ %
C Adverb _____ %
Even though the researcher deals with qualitative research, it allows the
researcher to deal with numbers. As Ary et al. (2006) say that in qualitative
research, some numeric data are allowed to be colleted (p. 245). Therefore, after
knowing and categorizing errors made by the tenth grade students ofSMA GAMA
Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text, the researcher makes Table 3.1.8 to find
out what kind of errors the students mostly produce by categorizing the errors
using the surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al. (1982).
Table 3.1.8 The Percentage of Errors Made by Students in Writing Descriptive Text
Types of Errors Numbers of Errors Percentage (%)
Omission _____ %
Addition _____ %
Misformation _____ %
To figure out the causes of errors of the students in writing descriptive
text, the researcher conducts the interview with 6 students which have been
selected. The interview guideline questions are referred to the theory of factors
causing errors of Norrish (1983). There will be seven guideline questions.
Question number one refers to carelessness, question number two, three, and four
refer to translation, question number five refers to first language interference,
question number six refers to overgeneralization, and question number seven
refers to error as part of creativity. To make it clearer, the interview guideline
questions are presented in the appendix.
The interviews are all recorded visually and later on the entire
conversation during the interview is written down as a script. Through this script
the researcher categorizes the answers based on the source of errors theory of
Norrish (1983). According to Norrish (1983), there are five causes of errors.
Those are carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization,
and error as a part of language creativity. Eventually, the researcher employs
interviews and analyzing the script interview, to find out the most cause causing
errors in students’ descriptive text writings of the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta.
To ensure that this research is reliable, the researcher employs
triangulation. As we know that triangulation involves more than one theory or
methods, in this study the researcher carries out the theories of Dulayet al.(1982)
strengthen the reliability of this study, the researcher takes into account the
guidance of the supervisor in analyzing the data.
F. Research Procedure
There are some steps conducted by the researcher in conducting this study.
Before conducting this study, the researcher asked for permission from the
headmaster of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta to conduct the research. In addition, the
researcher asked for permission from the English teacher of the tenth grade of
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta to conduct this study with her students as the
participants.
Having had permitted by the headmaster and the tenth grade English
teacher of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, the researcher began to conduct this study.
Firstly the researcher specified the phenomenon, namely grammatical errors to be
investigated. Afterwards the researcher selected descriptive text made by the tenth
grade students ofSMA GAMA Yogyakartaas the data for this study. To categorize
the errors made by the students in writing descriptive text, the researcher provided
the tables of error types based on the categorization of Dulayet al. (1982). After
having the data, the descriptive texts made by the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakartaand the tables of error types, the researcher started to analyze
the errors found in descriptive texts. Afterwards the researcher categorized the
errors based on surface strategy taxonomy theory of dulayet al. (1982). Finally
the researcher found the factors causing errors by conducting interviews with the
36 CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study are going to be discussed in this chapter. This
chapter consists of two parts. Those are the description of errors discovered in
students’ descriptive text writings, and the factors of making errors. Part one
contains the answer of research question number one, while part two is dealing
with the answer of research question number two.
A. Errors Made by The Tenth Grade Students of SMA GAMA Yogyakartain Writing Descriptive Texts
The researcher employed the theory of Dulay et al. (1982) to analyze the
errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing
descriptive text. According to the surface strategy taxonomy theory of Dulayet al.
(1982), errors are classified into four major parts, namely omission, addition,
misformation, and misordering (p. 150). Furthermore, each major part of errors
was classified into some parts. The more detail classifications of each major type
of errors had been discussed previously in chapter three.
The results of this research showed that those major types of errors
proposed by Dulayet al.(1982) were discovered in the descriptive texts made by
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher identified that
mostly there were more than one error discovered in a single sentence. Thus the
error. The explanations of each major types of errors and the examples of errors
discovered were elaborated as follows.
1. Omission
Dulay et al. (1982) say that omission errors are characterized by the
absence of an item that must appear in a well-form utterance (p. 154). This type of
errors is divided into two parts. Those are omission of major constituent or
omission of content morpheme and omission of grammatical morpheme.
Omission of content morpheme is the absence of the morpheme which carries the
burden of the meaning, meanwhile omission of grammatical morpheme is the
absence of the morpheme which plays a minor role in conveying the meaning of a
sentence.
Both omission of content morpheme and omission of grammatical
morpheme errors were discovered in the descriptive text writing of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. As a matter of fact, the omission of
grammatical morpheme appeared more often than the omission of content
morpheme. The evidence were there were three errors of content morpheme
omission, and there were one hundred and thirty two errors of grammatical
morpheme omission. The data discovered are in line with Dulay et al. (1982).
They say, “Language learners omit grammatical morpheme more frequently than
content words” (p. 155).
The researcher identified two specific errors in omission of content
morpheme. They were omission of main verb and subject. The researcher
