Interlanguage Error M ade by Students in W riting Recount Text
(A Study at M AN 2 Boyolali)
PUBLICATION M ANUSCRIPT
Submitted to Fulfill of the Requirements for Completion of Graduate
Degree in Language Study
By
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
NIM : S 200 11 0057
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY
M UHAM M ADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
Interlanguage Error M ade by Students in W riting Recount Text
(A Study at M AN 2 BOYOLALI).
Syarif Hidayatullah
Post graduat e Program of Language St udy, M uhammadiyah Universit y of Surakart a, 2014
prapt odihardjo@gmail.com
Abstract
This st udy analyzes int erlanguage errors of 60 writ t en t ext by 60 st udent s. The part icipant s are elevent h grade st udent s of M AN 2 Boyolali. All of the part icipant s are from non-English speaking background and scarcely comm unicat e in English out side t he school. The object of t his st udy w as st udent s’ recount t ext . The researcher bounds t he st udy of error based on t he linguist ic cat egory t axonomy and surface st rat egy t axonomy t o invest igat e t he dat a m ade by the subject s. All of the errors in t he t ext s w ere ident ified and classified int o various cat egorizat ions. The result s of t he st udy show that three cat egories errors execut ed by t he part icipant s were morphological error (bound morphem e, noun, verb, adject ive, false friend, code sw it ch, spelling and pronoun), synt act ical error (t enses, phrase, sent ence and article) and discourse error (reference, generic st ruct ure and conjunct ive). The t eachers should m ake t he st udent s realize about t he differences bet ween Indonesian and English st ruct ures, because it m ay m ake t he process of acquiring t he nat ive language more difficult and com plicat ed for t he st udent s. By doing error analysis, t eacher s w ill acquire knowledge about the st udent s’ errors in w rit ing process. Aft er doing t his, the t eacher can predict the errors w hich will be m ade by t he st udents. Since t he st udent s’ errors are valuable feedbacks for t eacher, it m akes t he t eacher can get t he learner s’ progress in their skill.
1. Introduction
In int eract ing w ith ot hers, people have t o com municat e. In order t o do t hat, t hey need a met hod. It is com monly confessed t hat language is a means of comm unicat ion. “ A language is a syst em of arbit rary vocal sym bol by m eans of w hich a social group cooperat es” (Bloch and Trager, 1942: 5; Ait chinson, 2000: 25 in Fauziat i: 2011). It is through language t hat we are able t o int eract w it h others in our w orld (Derew ianka, 1990:3). Through language, people are able t o express t heir ideas, hopes, t hought s and desires. It im plies language plays a significant funct ion in our life.
Language is a w ay t o com municat e ideas com prehensibly from one person t o another in such a w ay t hat t he ot her w ill be able t o act exact ly accordingly. The t ransport at ion of such ideas could be acquired by eit her verbal expression, signing in alphabet (writ t en w ord) and perhaps if w e can im agine t w o part ies with different tongue, signing with gest ures and images.
In Indonesia, English has a very significant role in t echnological and scient ific advances; inst rument s such as comput er and int ernet use English. English is used as t he first foreign language. Underst anding t he grow ing dem and of English as an int ernational m eans of communicat ion, it is reasonable t hat our governm ent places English as a fundam ent al subject in our education syst em .
Error could even be an im port ant feedback for t he learners t hem selves. By know ing their errors, t hey w ill know the problem s t hat t hey face and t ry t o analyze t heir w eaknesses. On the ot her hand, by analyzing st udent’ s errors, t he t eachers cannot only det ect t he st udent s’ difficult y in learning the t arget language, but can also det erm ine t he effect iveness of cert ain m et hod in t eaching t he language. It implies t hat learner’s errors could give cont ribut ion in creat ing appropriat e mat erials for t eaching.
St udies of errors can be applied only in speaking and w rit ing (Dulay, 1982: 144). It cannot be applied in reading and list ening. Errors in recount w riting are chosen in this study. Recount is one of t he genre t ext s, w hich is t aught at the t ent h year st udent s of senior high school.
This research principally deals wit h the int erlanguage made by st udent s, part icularly in w riting. Hence, the core reasons for choosing this topic are t he dist inctions bet w een Indonesian and English, and the st udent ’s difficulties in w rit ing a good English arrangem ent .
Nevert heless, w rit ing in another language is not alw ays as easy as w rit ing in our own language since t here are som e dist inctive rules in w rit ing syst em s and t hese differences som et imes make som e errors. Therefore, som e st udent s st ill use t heir mother language; it is called int erlanguage in w rit ing process. This happening also occurs in M AN 2 Boyolali. Som e student s st ill do the same t hing in their w rit ing works. In teaching learning of English, the t eachers t each all four skills; speaking, list ening, reading and w riting. They are usually faced by the sam e sit uation, which t he st udent s however som et imes st ill use t heir native language in their work.
1. M y mother and I w ent shopping t o Pasar Johar M arket in Sunday.
It should be my mother and I w ent shopping to Pasar Johar M arket on Sunday, st udent uses preposit ion “ in” for day.
2. W e t ook a bus in 8 a.m. and got t here in 10 a.m.
The right sent ence should be w e t ook a bus at 8 a.m. and got t here on 10 a.m . Student uses in for tim e.
Based on t he phenom enon above, t he w rit er tries t o find the com m on Int erlanguage error in w rit ing of elevent h year st udent s of M AN 2 Boyolali. Thus, st udent s could know what the errors are w hich they creat e and t eacher could overcom e it . The research is ent itled, “ Int erlanguage Error M ade by St udent s in Writ ing Recount Text ” (A Study at M AN 2 Boyolali).
2. Research M ethod
The t ype of t his st udy belongs t o descript ive qualit at ive research. Descript ive research is designed t o obt ain inform ation concerning the current st at us of phenom ena. In this st udy, the w rit er t ried t o illust rat e t he int erlanguage errors m ade by student s in w riting recount t ext .
The aim of the research is t o find what int erlanguage errors are m ade by st udent s of M AN 2 Boyolali. The result of this st udy hopefully w ill give great input in t eaching and learning English. The subject s of t he research are elevent h grade st udent s of M AN 2 Boyolali in the academ ic year of 2013/ 2013. The tot al numbers of student s who are involved in this st udy are 60 st udent s.
The w rit er collect ed t he erroneous sent ences from t he composit ions of w rit t en t ext by t he st udent s, especially in recount t ext . The erroneous are list ed and used for the dat a. The researcher gives inst ruct ions t o the st udent s to compose t he t ext before verify t he dat a.
Dat a collect ion is an import ant aspect of any t ype of research st udy. In t his research, t he w rit er uses elicit ation and document at ion t echnique to collect t he dat a. Elicit at ion is a t echnique by w hich the t eacher get s t he learners t o give informat ion rat her than giving it t o them. It helps develop a learner-cent red dynamic, it m akes learning m em orable as learners can link new and old informat ion, and it can help produce a dynam ic and st imulat ing environment. In collect ing the dat a through document t echnique, t he w rit er allocat ed 90 m inut es for st udent s t o w rit e recount t ext based on their experience. The procedures of collect ing the dat a is begun when the w rit er asked the st udent s to w rit e recount t ext . The t hem e of t he t ext is based on t heir experience. While t hey w ere w rit ing t heir w ork, t he w rit er t ried t o give t hem flash back about the purpose, generic st ruct ure and language feat ure of recount t ext . Then, t he w rit er collect ed t he dat a from t he st udent ’s t ext . Aft er doing t hat , the w riter analyzed t he t ext s t o recognize t he erroneous sent ences and paragraphs. Next , t he w rit er marked t he erroneous sent ences and paragraphs from st udent s’ t ext s. Lat er t han, the w rit er w rot e all the erroneous sent ences and paragraphs which collect ed from the t ext s and used it for dat a. Finally, t he w rit er validat ed t he dat a with the professional t o make t he dat a which collect ed more valid.
3. Results
The researcher ident ifies all errors from t he st udent ’ s recount t ext . From t he t ext s, the researcher finds errors included errors in m orphological level, synt act ical level, and discourse level. In research finding, the w rit er illust rat es t he finding based on the dat a which are t aken from t he compositions m ade by the st udent s of M AN 2 Boyolali.
The w rit er calculat es all t ypes of errors and percent age in one t able. The first , t he st udent s made error based on the t ype of t he morphological errors (47.47% or 160 errors). It is classified into eight errors. The first is bound morphem e error, includes omission of ‘S’ in plural form (7 errors or 2.07%), for example “ t here are many animal …………” it should be “ t here are many animals…………” , om ission of ‘s/ es’ aft er singular subject (11 errors or 3.26%), for example “ He run every morning” it should be “ He runs every morning” , addit ion of ‘s/ es’ aft er plural subject (5 errors or 1.48%), for example “ m y parent s feel s proud of m e” , it should be “ m y parent s feel proud of me” and affixat ion errors. Affixat ion error cont ains addition of suffix –ful (5 errors or 1.48%), example “ I helpful m y friend to bring his bag” , the accept able sent ence is “ I help m y friend t o bring his bag” , omm ision of suffix-ly (5 errors or 1.48%), for exam ple “ t he driver drove t he bus slow ” it should be “ the driver drove t he bus slowly” , misselect ion of prefix “ -dis inst ead of un-” (5 errors or 1.48%), for exam ple “ The result of the t est m akes m e dishappy” it should be “ The result of t he t est m akes me unhappy” and misselect ion of suffix –ful instead of suffix –ness (5 errors o r 1.48%) for exam ple “ We all cry w hen w e hear rina’s sadful” , it should be “ W e all cry w hen w e hear rina’s sadness”.
The t hird is in verb area, it is t he use of noun instead of verb (5 errors o r 1.48%) for exam ple “ W e select ion Jogja as our dest iny” it should be “ We select ion Jogja as our dest iny” . The fourt h error is in adject ive subject , it includes misform at ion of superlat ive (6 errors or 1.78%) for example “ He is m ore t all t han me” it should be “ He is t aller t han m e” . The fift h error is false friend (54 errors or 16.02%), for exam ple “ …… apparent ly, checked the fuel runs out ” it should be “ …… apparent ly, checked t he fuel empt y” . Next is code sw it ch (23 errors or 6.82%) for example “ W hen I st ill SD” it should be elem ent ary school.. Then t he error is in spelling (7 errors or 2.07%) for exam ple “ I w ent t o grand mother house” it should be “ I w ent t o grandmother house” . The last of error in morphological level is in pronouns area; t he use of subject ive pronoun as object ive pronoun (5 errors or 1.48%) for example “ I w alk wit h she” it should be “ I w alk w it h her” , t he use of subject ive pronoun as possessive pronoun (5 errors or 1.48%) for exam ple “ He bag is black” it should be “ Her bag is black” and the use of possessive pronoun as object ive pronoun (4 errors or 1.18%) for example “ I don’t underst and the changes from t heir” it should be “ I don’t underst and t he changes from them ” .
The second, the st udents m ade error based on t he t ype of synt act ical error (45.44% or 153 errors) including four fields of errors. The first is t enses errors. In t enses subject , t here are four subject s of errors, t hey are simple present t ense; addition of ‘t o’ before verb (11 errors or 3.26%) for exam ple “ Rian t o fall down to a river” it should be “ Rian falls down t o a river” .
auxiliary verb (6 errors or 1.78%) for example “ W e can sw im ming” it should be “ W e can sw im ” and addit ion of ‘t o’ before Ving (7 errors or 2.07%) for example “ W e t o singing…..” it should be “ We sing…..” . The last is in to be t opic; addit ion of t o be before the auxiliary verb (5 errors or 1.48%) for exam ple “ I am can meet my friends” it should be “ I can meet m y friends” , omission of t o be before adject ive (15 errors 4.45%) for example “ w e can (…) t oget her” it should be “ w e can be toget her” , addit ion of t o be (present ) in the present t ense (12 errors or 3.56%) for exam ple “ I am see………..” it should be “ I see………..” , addit ion of to be (past ) in the present t ense (10 errors or 2.96%) for exam ple “ W e w ere also saw ………….” it should be “ We also saw ……….” and addition of t o be (past ) in the past t ense (6 errors 1.78%) for example “ I w as arrived hom e” it should be “ I arrived hom e” .
The second error of synt act ical error is in phrase t opic, the errors ar e misordering (21 errors or 6.23%) for exam ple “ W e saw st at ue sm all” it should be “ W e saw sm all st atue” and omission of “ s” as possessive marker (14 errors or 4.15%) foe example “ This is my fat her car” it should be “ This is m y fat her’s car” . Then the field error of synt act ical error is in sentence zone, it is error in passive voice sent ence (7 errors or 2.07%) for exam ple “ I (…) very annoyed” it should be “ I am very annoyed” . And t he last is in art icle m at t er; addit ion of art icle ‘a’ in plural noun (5errors or 1.48%) for exam ple “ W e saw a pict ures” it should be “ We saw pictures” , om ission of art icle ‘a’ before singular noun (7 errors or 2.07%) for example “ M y fat her is (…) good man” it should be “ M y fat her is a good m an” , and addit ion of art icle “ t he” before adverb of t im e (4 errors or 1.18%) for example “ the last night I……..” it should be “ last night I……..” .
M eet ing A Friend
On Thursday afternoon 16.00, I w as w alking dow n in st reet looking a friend. a friend st opped me and I very surprised. Suddenly m y friends t o ret ile t han I w alked w ith m y friend. he w as ow very friendly she rem em bered m om ent in junior high school. Then w e t ell about at the t im e. W e very happy, and day finished dark. Finally w e enough t ell and w e went t o the home.
Generally, t he generic st ruct ure of recount t ext includes (1) Orient at ion t ells w ho w as involved, what happened, where t he event s t ook place, and when it happened, (2) Event s t ell what happened and in what sequence and (3)Reorient ation consist s of optional-closure of event s/ ending. They usually divided into paragraphs. But , several st udent s com pose it only in one paragraph. And t he last is w rong select ion of conjunction (5 errors or 1.48%), it is like in “ I felt it w as a special event () makes m e so exit ed…….” . in that sentence, he/ she does not put the connect ing word “ t hat ” t o connect the words. The sent ence should be “ I felt it w as a special event that m akes me so exit ed………….” ..
4. Conclusion
Writ ing skill can be defined as a skill of com municating ideas t hrough w rit t en sym bol by organizing the idea based on the rules of language syst em t o convey m eanings so t hat other can underst and the m essage of t he writ ers. This skill includes abilit y t o w rit e w ord, abilit y t o arrange w ords int o phrases, abilit y t o w rit e paragraph and abilit y to compose long t ext .
Those cat egories are explained into several elem ent s. First ly, t he st udent s made error based on t he t ype of t he m orphological errors (47.47% or 160 errors). It is classified int o eight errors. The first is bound morpheme error, includes om ission of ‘S’ in plural form, omission of ‘s/ es’ aft er singular subject , addition of ‘s/ es’ aft er plural subject and affixat ion errors. Affixat ion error contains addit ion of suffix –ful, om mision of suffix-ly, m isselect ion of prefix “ -dis inst ead of un-” and m isselect ion of suffix –ful instead of suffix –ness. The second error is in noun field, consist s of archi-form . They are m isuse of det erm iner “ t his” inst ead of “ these” in plural noun and m isuse of det erm iner “ t hat ” inst ead of “ t hose” in plural noun. The t hird is in verb area, it is the use of noun inst ead of verb. The fourth error is in adject ive subject , it includes m isform at ion of superlat ive. The fift h error is false friend. Next is code sw it ch, then t he error is in spelling. And t he last of error in morphological level is in pronouns area; t he use of subject ive pronoun as object ive pronoun, the use of subject ive pronoun as possessive pronoun and the use of possessive pronoun as object ive pronoun.
art icle ‘ a’ in plural noun and omission of art icle ‘ a’ before singular noun, addition of art icle “ the” before adverb of tim e.
Thirdly, the st udent s made error based on t he type of discourse errors; reference, generic st ruct ure and wrong select ion of conjunct ion.
The m ost dominant error m ade by the st udent s is in morphological level w ith 47.47% or 160 errors, part icularly in the field of false friend w hich cont ains 54 errors or 16.02% from 337 errors t hat t aken from t he object . Synt act ical error cont ribut es 45.54% or 153 errors, w hich tenses area supply the m ost dom inant errors in synt act ical field w ith 111 errors or 32.93%. And discourse set s 24 errors or 7.12%. It implies t hat both morphological and synt act ical play significant role in cont ributing error t hat made by t he st udent s. For t his reason, they have problem in comprehending the gram mar and t he st ruct ure.
Finally, the w rit er st at es t hat w riting is an import ant skill for st udent t o develop t heir knowledge. It is also the most com plicat ed skill in English. The w rit er discovers t hat t he st udent s st ill make several errors in doing or composing w rit ing assignm ent. In t his st udy, the w rit er finds t hat the st udent s m ake error in morphological level (47.47% or 160 errors), synt actical level 45.54% or (153 errors) and discourse level (24 errors or 7.12%). The errors are mainly in t he field of false friend and t enses.
Based and the dat a above, the w rit er t hinks if doing error analysis is
im port ant for t eacher, st udent . Thus, the w rit er m akes some suggest ions for t he
next researcher, t eacher and st udent. For the next researcher, as t he w rit er
limit s t he st udy of error based on t he linguist ic cat egory t axonomy and surface
st rat egy t axonom y to invest igat e t he dat a m ade by the subject s in this research,
suggest s t he next researchers can ext end t his st udy deeper t han this research,
explore t he t ypes of errors by using ot hers classificat ion of error, different
subject or object and dat a source and use different underlying t heory, m et hod
and distinct w ay t o explore. The w rit er recom mends t he t eachers im prove t he
st udent s’ abilit y about how to compose a good writ ing, part icularly in choosing
w ords and gram m ar and encourage t he learners t o exercise and pract ice in order
t o develop their knowledge. Then for the st udent s, t he researcher proposes
t hem to increase t heir aw areness t o English aspect s in order t o improve t heir
comprehension in English, especially in vocabulary and st ruct ure, pract ice m ore
about t heir w eakness, so t hey can elim inat e t heir problems and concern about
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baerman, M at thew , Dunst awn Brown and Greville G Corbet t . 2005.
The Synt
ax-M orphology Int erference, A St udy of Syncret ism.
New York: Cambridge
Universit y Press
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessm ent :
Principle And Classroom Pract ices
.
San Fransisco: San Fransisco St at e Universit y Press.
Camps, David, Julio Villalobos and John Shea. 2012. “ Underst anding EFL St udent s’
Errors: An Insight t ow ards Their Int erlanguage” .
M ext esol Journal,
Tecnológico de M ont errey, St at e of M exico,
Volume 36, Number 1, 2012
Chu Wai Ling. 1987.
A linguist ic description and analysis of int erlanguage errors, w it h
reference t o t he w rit t en w ork of some secondary school st udent s in Hong
Kong
. Facult y of Art s Universit y of HongKong.
Fauziat i, Endang. 2005. “ Int erlanguage and Error Fossilizat ion: A St udy of Indonesian
St udent s Learning English as a Foreign Language” .
Conaplin Journal:
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguist ics
, 2011 Vol. I No. 1.
______________. 2009. Reading on Applied Linguist ics: A Handbook For Language Teacher And Teacher Researcher. Surakart a: PT. Era Pust aka Ut am a.
___________________.
Int roduct ion To M et hods And Approaches In Second Or
Foreign Language Teaching.
Surakart a: PT. Era Pust aka Ut ama.
______________. 2010.
Teaching English As A Foreign Language (TEFL).
Surakart a:
PT. Era Pust aka Ut ama.
______________. 2011.
Psycholinguist ics: An Int roduction.
Surakart a: PT. Era
Pust aka Ut ama.
Hart ono, Rudi. 2005.
Genre of Text
. Semarang: English Depart ment Semarang
Universit y Press.
Hasyim, Sunardi. 2002
.
“ Error Analysis in the Teaching of English”
.
Jurusan Sast ra
Inggris, Fakult as Sast ra, Universit as Krist en Pet ra,
Volume 4, Number 1, June
2002: 42 – 50.
Huang , Juanna. 2010
. Error Analysis In English Teaching: A Review of St udies.
J M M agno. 1999
. The Oral Int erlanguages in t he L2 (English and Filipino) of
Educat ion Communicat ion Art s M ajors Joseleanor M elliza M agno Facult y,
Universit y of San Carlos Oldog Poblacion Talisay Cit y, Cebu
Kafipour, Reza and Laleh Khojast eh. 2012. “ A Comparat ive Taxonomy of Errors M ade
by Iranian Undergraduat e Learners of English”
Canadian Social Science 2012,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 18-24
Kaladevi Subramaniam. 2009. “ Error Analysis of t he Writ t en English Essays of
Secondary School Student s in M alaysia: A Case St udy” .
European Journal of
Social Sciences
, 2009 Volume 8, Number 3.
Larsen, Diane -Freeman and M ichael H Long. 1999.
An Int roduct ion t o Second
Language Acquisition Research.
New York: Longman
Londono Vasquez. 2008.” Error Analysis in a Writ t en Composit ion Profile Issues in
Teachers` Professional Development ” . Num. 10, 2008, pp. 135-146
Universidad Nacional de Colombia Colombia
M ichael M . T. Henderson. 1985. “ The Int erlanguage Not ion” .
Journal of M odern
Language Learning 21 Universit y of Kansas
Pusat Kurikulum. 2004. Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris 2004. Jakart a: Depdiknas.
Rohan Abeyw ickrama. 2010. “ An Analysis of Errors in English Writing of Sinhala
Speaking Undergraduat es”
. Sabaramuw a Universit y Journal
Volume 9
Number 1; December 2010 pp 97-114
Rosa M unoz Luna. 2010.
Int erlanguage In Undergraduat es' Academic English:
Preliminary Result s From W ritt en Script Analysis
. Universit y of M alaga, Spain
Shokouhi, Hossein and Sara Zadeh-Dabbagh. 2009. “ Punctuat ion and Spelling in
Learners' Writ ing” .
The Asian EFL Journal Quart erly
November 2009 Volume
40.
S S M ungungu. 2010.
Error Analysis: Invest igating t he W riting of ESL Namibian
Learners. Universit y Of South Africa
Selinker, Larry. 1992.
Rediscovering Int erlanguage
. London: Longman
Ting, Su-Hie, M ahanit a M ahadhir and Siew -Lee Chang. 2010. “ Grammatical Errors in
Spoken English of Universit y St udent s in Oral Communication Course” .
GEM A
OnlineTM Journal of Language Studies
2010 Volume 10 (1)
Yahya, Azizi at al. 2012. “ Error Analysis of L2 Learners’ Writ ings; A Case St udy”
.
Int ernat ional Conference on Language, M edias and Culture IPEDR, IACSIT
Press
, Singapore 2012 vol.33.
(
ht tp:/ / w ww .belajarbahasainggris.us/ 2012/ 01/ contoh-t eks-recount
