Errors in forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of English Languange Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.

vi ABSTRACT

Martaningrum, Francisca Yulia. (2012). Errors in forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Direct-indirect speech is one of the topics learned in Structure Class of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. Students of ELESP often have difficulties in transferring direct speech into indirect speech because they need to make changes in some elements, like in tenses, pronouns, and adverbs of time. Besides, there are some rules and exceptions in transferring direct speech into indirect speech. Those cases make the students make errors in forming indirect speech. On the other hand, indirect speech mastery is important for them as teacher candidates because they need to be a good model for their students.

This research explored the errors made by the fourth semester students of ELESP in forming indirect speech. It focused on two research problems: (1) What kinds of errors do the fourth semester students of ELESP make in forming indirect speech? and (2) What are the possible causes of the students’ errors? In order to answer the first research question, a survey with a test as the instrument was used as the method. While, a library study was used in order to answer the second research question. The participants of this research were the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The research was conducted in two Structure IV Classes of 2011/2012 academic year.

It was found that 40% of the students’ answers in the test was erroneous. It indicated that many students still made errors in forming indirect speech, which were in the tenses, pronouns, adverbs, demonstratives, word order, and conjunctions. The errors were also analyzed using surface structure taxonomy (Dulay et al., 1982) and it was shown that the errors could be categorized into addition errors, omission errors, misformation errors, and misordering errors. The possible causes of errors were analyzed using Brown’s theory about sources of errors (2000). The result showed that only interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer were applicable in this research. Context of learning and communication strategies were not applicable because the students’ process of learning and the way they communicate did not be explored. It was concluded that the errors which were not caused by interlingual transfer or intralingual transfer were mostly caused by students’ unawareness toward the context of the sentences.

vii ABSTRAK

Martaningrum, Francisca Yulia. (2012). Errors in forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Kalimat langsung dan tidak langsung adalah salah satu topik yang dipelajari di kelas Structure Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (PBI) di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Mahasiswa Program Studi PBI seringkali mengalami kesulitan dalam mengubah kalimat langsung menjadi kalimat tidak langsung karena mereka perlu mengubah beberapa elemen, seperti tenses, kata ganti, dan keterangan waktu. Di samping itu, ada beberapa aturan dan pengecualian dalam mengubah kalimat langsung menjadi kalimat tidak langsung. Hal ini menyebabkan mahasiswa masih sering membuat kesalahan dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung. Di sisi lain, penguasaan terhadap pembentukan kalimat tidak langsung sangat penting bagi mereka sebagai calon guru karena mereka perlu menjadi model yang baik bagi para siswa.

Penelitian ini meneliti kesalahan yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung dengan menjawab dua pertanyaan: (1) Kesalahan macam apa yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung? dan (2) Hal-hal apa saja yang mungkin menyebabkan mahasiswa membuat kesalahan? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan pertama, digunakan survey sebagai metode penelitian. Peneliti menyusun tes sebagai instrumen. Sedangkan, untuk menjawab pertanyaan kedua, digunakan studi pustaka. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Penelitian diadakan di dua kelas Structure IV tahun akademik 2011/2012.

viii

Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI Universitas Sanata Dharma masih membuat kesalahan dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung. Mengacu kepada hasil penelitian tersebut, disarankan bahwa para dosen sebaiknya menerapkan metode mengajar yang lebih sesuai, memberikan lebih banyak latihan, dan lebih memperhatikan pemahaman siswa terhadap topik yang diajarkan. Sedangkan, mahasiswa sendiri sebaiknya memperhatikan penjelasan dosen dan mengerjakan lebih banyak latihan. Peneliti lain dapat melakukan penelitian lebih lanjut atau memodifikasi penelitian dengan cara mengubah subjek, metode, atau instrument penelitian.

ERRORS

AMONG

OF ENGLISH LA

OF SA

Presented to O

ENGLISH LA DEPARTMEN FACULTY O

i

RORS IN FORMING INDIRECT SPEEC

ONG THE FOURTH SEMESTER STUDEN

SH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY P

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

ASARJANA PENDIDIKANTHESIS

sented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requiremen to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree

in English Language Education

By

Francisca Yulia Martaningrum

Student Number: 081214069

ISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROG TMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCA TY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCA

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2012

SPEECH

STUDENTS

DY PROGRAM

SITY

ements

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

ERRORS

IN FORMING INDIRECT SPEECII

AMONG THE

FOT]RTTI

SEMESTER STUDENTS

OF ENGLISH

LATTGUAGE

EDUCATION

STUDY

PROGRAM

OF SANATA DIIARMA

T]NTVERSITY

Approved by

18

October2012

ll

ffe

T-#"ro

4f}*"i"u*LJ1u

Manar

$'st"@r:

A

ffryr.84*4\

,&

_'i#,{

!f

-*b

_F

L**a*""*g*

ERRORS

IN FORMING INDIRECT

SPEECH

AMONG THE

FOTJRTH

SEMESTER STUDENTS

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

STUDY

PROGRAM

OF SANATA DHARMA

UNIVERSITY

Chairperson Secretary Member

Member

Member

By

FRANCISCA YULIA MARTANINGRUM Student Number: 08121 4069

Defended before the Board of Examiners on 6 November 2Al2

and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners: C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. Made Frida Yulia S.Pd., M.Pd. Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. G. Punto Aji, S.Pd., M.Hum.

Yogyakarta" 6 November 2Al2

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

STATEMENT

OF WORK'S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis,

which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 6 November 2012

The Writer

l/

/v/

/

Francisca

Yulia

Martaningrum 081214069

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAII

PUBLIKASI KARYA

ILMIAH

UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama

: Francisca Yulia Martaningrum

Nomor

Mahasiswa : 081214069

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

ERRORS IN F'ORMING INDIRECT SPEECH AMONG THE FOURTH SEMESTER STUDf,NTS

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF SANATA DHARMA UNIVfi,RSITY

Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk pengkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya

di Internet atau media

lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu

ijin dari saya maupun

memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenamya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 10 Desember 2012

Yang menyatakan

It

'/

/(M

vi

ABSTRACT

Martaningrum, Francisca Yulia. (2012). Errors in forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Direct-indirect speech is one of the topics learned in Structure Class of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. Students of ELESP often have difficulties in transferring direct speech into indirect speech because they need to make changes in some elements, like in tenses, pronouns, and adverbs of time. Besides, there are some rules and exceptions in transferring direct speech into indirect speech. Those cases make the students make errors in forming indirect speech. On the other hand, indirect speech mastery is important for them as teacher candidates because they need to be a good model for their students.

This research explored the errors made by the fourth semester students of ELESP in forming indirect speech. It focused on two research problems: (1) What kinds of errors do the fourth semester students of ELESP make in forming indirect speech? and (2) What are the possible causes of the students’ errors? In order to answer the first research question, a survey with a test as the instrument was used as the method. While, a library study was used in order to answer the second research question. The participants of this research were the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The research was conducted in two Structure IV Classes of 2011/2012 academic year.

It was found that 40% of the students’ answers in the test was erroneous. It indicated that many students still made errors in forming indirect speech, which were in the tenses, pronouns, adverbs, demonstratives, word order, and conjunctions. The errors were also analyzed using surface structure taxonomy (Dulay et al., 1982) and it was shown that the errors could be categorized into addition errors, omission errors, misformation errors, and misordering errors. The possible causes of errors were analyzed using Brown’s theory about sources of errors (2000). The result showed that only interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer were applicable in this research. Context of learning and communication strategies were not applicable because the students’ process of learning and the way they communicate did not be explored. It was concluded that the errors which were not caused by interlingual transfer or intralingual transfer were mostly caused by students’ unawareness toward the context of the sentences.

vii ABSTRAK

Martaningrum, Francisca Yulia. (2012). Errors in forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Kalimat langsung dan tidak langsung adalah salah satu topik yang dipelajari di kelas Structure Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (PBI) di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Mahasiswa Program Studi PBI seringkali mengalami kesulitan dalam mengubah kalimat langsung menjadi kalimat tidak langsung karena mereka perlu mengubah beberapa elemen, seperti tenses, kata ganti, dan keterangan waktu. Di samping itu, ada beberapa aturan dan pengecualian dalam mengubah kalimat langsung menjadi kalimat tidak langsung. Hal ini menyebabkan mahasiswa masih sering membuat kesalahan dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung. Di sisi lain, penguasaan terhadap pembentukan kalimat tidak langsung sangat penting bagi mereka sebagai calon guru karena mereka perlu menjadi model yang baik bagi para siswa.

Penelitian ini meneliti kesalahan yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung dengan menjawab dua pertanyaan: (1) Kesalahan macam apa yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung? dan (2) Hal-hal apa saja yang mungkin menyebabkan mahasiswa membuat kesalahan? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan pertama, digunakan survey sebagai metode penelitian. Peneliti menyusun tes sebagai instrumen. Sedangkan, untuk menjawab pertanyaan kedua, digunakan studi pustaka. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Penelitian diadakan di dua kelas Structure IV tahun akademik 2011/2012.

viii

Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa mahasiswa semester empat Program Studi PBI Universitas Sanata Dharma masih membuat kesalahan dalam membentuk kalimat tidak langsung. Mengacu kepada hasil penelitian tersebut, disarankan bahwa para dosen sebaiknya menerapkan metode mengajar yang lebih sesuai, memberikan lebih banyak latihan, dan lebih memperhatikan pemahaman siswa terhadap topik yang diajarkan. Sedangkan, mahasiswa sendiri sebaiknya memperhatikan penjelasan dosen dan mengerjakan lebih banyak latihan. Peneliti lain dapat melakukan penelitian lebih lanjut atau memodifikasi penelitian dengan cara mengubah subjek, metode, atau instrument penelitian.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my deepest and greatest gratitude to God for everything He has given to me. His blessings and love always strengthen me to face every difficulty in finishing this thesis.

My biggest and deepest appreciation is dedicated to my advisor, Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd., for her time and willingness to read and check my thesis. Her advices, criticisms, and suggestions are very precious for me to finish this thesis. I also thank her for the patience in listening to me and guiding me during this process.

I also want to present my biggest appreciation to Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D., Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum., and Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. for their permission to conduct the tests in their Structure IV Classes. Besides, I would like to thank the students of Class B, Class C, and Class D of Structure IV classes of 2011/2012 academic year for being great and cooperative participants for this research.

I would like to dedicate my deepest love and appreciation to my beloved parents, Antonius Djarwoko and Sri Sudaryanti, for their love, patience, support, encouragement, understanding, and prayers. My deepest love and appreciations are also presented to my brothers and my sister, Mas Ari, Mbak Tari, Mas Heru, and Wahyu, for their encouragement to finish my study. I thank them for their support, advices, and prayers. They are the reason for me to keep struggling.

x

My sincere gratitude goes to my friends: Paul, Nora, Deby, Vita, Ratna, Ivon, Ika, and Tania, for the support and encouragement. I also thank them for our precious and unforgettable moments during our days in this university. The appreciation also goes to my Service Program Design group members: Deby, Yosi, Nieza, Aji, and Purwo. I thank them for our togetherness during these last two semesters. Additionally, the greatest gratitude is also presented to all my friends in Kost Diva, who always help me whenever I have difficulties.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those whose names I cannot mention here one by one. God bless them all.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ………... i

APPROVAL PAGES ………... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ……… iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI……… v

ABSTRACT ………. vi

ABSTRAK………. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………. xi

LIST OF TABLES ………... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES ……….. xv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………. 1

A. Background of the Study ………... 1

B. Research Problem ………... 4

C. Problem Limitation ………... 4

D. Objectives of the Study ……… 5

E. Benefits of the Study ……….... 5

xii

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……… 8

A. Theoretical Description ……… 8

1. Error Analysis ………... 8

2. Indirect Speech ………... 14

B. Theoretical Framework ……… 21

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….. 25

A. Research Method ………. 25

B. Research Setting ………... 26

C. Research Participants ……… 26

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ………. 27

1. Validity ……….... 28

2. Test Reliability ………. 30

E. Data Analysis Technique ……….. 32

F. Research Procedure ……….. 32

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...……… 35

A. Students’ Errors in Forming Indirect Speech ……... 35

1. Errors in Indirect Statements ………... 36

2. Errors in Indirect WH-Questions ………. 39

3. Errors in Indirect Yes-No Questions ……… 43

xiii

5. Errors in Indirect Exclamations ………... 49 B. The Possible Causes of Errors ………. 51

1. Interlingual Transfer as the Possible Cause of

Errors………. 52

2. Intralingual Transfer as the Possible Cause of

Errors………. 54

3. Other Sources of Errors ……….. 55

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ….. 58

A. Conclusions ……….. 58

B. Recommendations ……… 62

1. Recommendations for the Structure Class

Lecturers of ELESP ……… 62

2. Recommendations for the Students of ELESP … 63 3. Recommendations for Other Researchers ……… 63

REFERENCES ………. 65

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Factors Affecting Sample of Analysis (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 58)……… 2.2 The Examples of Backshift (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 689) ………...

9

15 2.3 Shifts in Adverbial Time (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999:

697) ………. 17

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 The Permission Letters ………... 68

Appendix 2 The Test ……..………..……….. 69

Appendix 3 The Answer Key ………. 72

Appendix 4 The Students’ Answer Sheets ………. 73

Appendix 5 The Errors Found in Students’ Answers ……….... 77

Appendix 6 The Students’ Scores and the Reliability of the Test for Class B ………..…….. 81

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is divided into six parts. They are background of the study,

problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives of the study, benefits of the

study, and definition of terms.

A. Background of the Study

Nunan (2003) states “Sentences are acceptable if they follow the rules set

out by the grammar of the language” (p. 154). Grammar itself, according to

Richards, Platt, and Weber as cited by Nunan (2003), is defined as “A description

of the structure of a language and the way in which units such as words and

phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language” (p. 154). Those

statements indicate that grammar is one aspect that should be mastered by

language learners in order to make acceptable sentences. A sentence is acceptable

when it uses combination of words or phrases that are grammatically correct.

When someone is able to make an acceptable sentence, s/he is able to

communicate or deliver messages to others effectively.

In communicating with others, both in written and oral communication, a

speaker sometimes needs to deliver a different person’s message to other people.

For example, when David tells Kevin that he is going to go to the beach, he will

say, “I’m going to go to the beach tomorrow.” The sentence uttered by Kevin is

to him to another friend in different time and situation by using indirect speech.

Using indirect speech, Kevin will say the sentence as David said that he was

going to go to the beach the next day.

From the illustration, it is shown that when a speaker uses indirect speech

to deliver someone’s message to others, s/he needs to make changes in some

aspects, like in tenses, pronouns, and adverbs of time. There are some rules and

exceptions in transferring direct speech into indirect speech, like when the direct

speech is a general truth, it does not need any changes. It makes students find

difficulties in transferring direct speech into indirect speech.

Mastering indirect speech is important in some ways. First, indirect speech

is often used in daily communication. Communication will be successful when a

speaker is able to deliver a message, including others’ message to the object of

speaking. If a speaker cannot transfer direct speech into indirect speech, there will

be misunderstanding, which means that the communication is not successful.

Second, English learners often find the use of indirect speech in some genre of

text, like narrative text, recount text, and news item. They should be able to read

and write those kinds of genre. If students cannot understand what is meant in an

indirect speech, their understanding of the text they read is not complete because

misunderstanding still exists. In writing, they are also demanded to be able to

write indirect speech from a direct speech in order to avoid the readers’

misunderstanding.

Considering the importance of indirect speech, an error analysis in

English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma

University is conducted. Fourth semester students are chosen because it is

considered that they had learned about indirect speech in the third semester.

Besides, based on the researcher’s experience and observation, the fourth semester

students were still confused and tended to make some errors in changing direct

speech into indirect speech although they had learned about it in the previous

semester.

One example is found when some students tried to change the direct

speech “Can I borrow your book?” The form of the indirect speech of the

sentence should be “My sister said if she could borrow my book” However, some

students changed it into “My sister said can I borrow your book.” This case

shows that in forming indirect speech, some students of ELESP still make errors

in some aspects, like conjunction, tenses, and pronoun, which make the sentences

they formed not grammatically correct.

The purpose of this research is to find what kinds of errors in forming

indirect speech are still made by the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata

Dharma University and what the possible causes of the errors are. The result of

this research is expected to give more data about the kinds of errors and the

possible causes of the errors made by the students. Therefore, it is expected that

this research will come up with the suggestion on which part the lecturers and the

students of ELESP should pay attention more when they are learning about

B. Research Problem

The problems of the research are stated in two questions:

1. What kinds of errors do the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata

Dharma University make in forming indirect speech?

2. What are the possible causes of the students’ errors?

C. Problem Limitation

Indirect speech can be used both in oral form and in written form. This

research only focuses on the errors made by the students in written form of

indirect speech. It means that a survey research by using test as the instrument will

be conducted. The form of the test is written test. It is considered more efficient

than oral test which demands the researcher to conduct the test for each student.

Knowing that there are various types of indirect speech, the students’

errors in some types of sentences will be analyzed. The types are indirect speech

in the form of statements, questions (WH-questions and yes-no questions),

commands, and exclamations. Those fields are chosen based on the reason that the

fourth semester students have learned and they have to master those types of

indirect speech.

The fourth semester students of the English Language Education Study

Program are chosen because it is considered that they had learned indirect speech

in their previous Structure Class, especially in Structure III Class. Thus, it can be

analyzed whether they still make errors in forming indirect speech after they

Class lecturers and the fourth semester students will be able to learn from the

errors they made.

There will be a test to find the students errors. The test takers will be

students of Structure IV classes of 2011/2012 academic year. This limitation is

based on the consideration that students who are taking Structure IV class are the

students who had passed Structure III Class, where they had learned about indirect

speech. Shoppers or the students who retake the course are not included in the test

since they are assumed to have different level of grammar mastery compared to

the fourth semester students.

D. Objectives of the Study

The research is intended to achieve two main objectives. They are:

1. To find out what kinds of errors in forming indirect speech made by the fourth

semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University.

2. To find out the possible causes of the students’ errors.

E. Benefits of the Study

The findings of the research are expected to give benefits to the Structure

Class lecturers and the students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University.

1. Structure Class Lecturers of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University

This research gives information to the Structure Classes lecturers about the

is expected that Structure Class lecturers will be able to improve their teaching in

indirect speech, especially in the part where the students still make errors.

2. Students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University

For the students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University, the expectation

is that this research can improve their learning in indirect speech. By knowing the

common errors in indirect speech, they will find information about the part they

should give more attention when they are learning indirect speech in order to

avoid the errors. Furthermore, it is expected that students can enrich their

knowledge about indirect speech by reading this research since this research

discusses some theories of indirect speech.

F. Definition of Terms

This part discusses some terms that are used in this research. They are

indirect speech, error, and the fourth semester students of ELESP.

1. Indirect Speech

Azar (1993: 275) states indirect speech or reported speech “…refers to

using a noun clause to report what someone has said.” This research focuses on

errors made by the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma

University in forming indirect speech. Since indirect speech can be produced in

oral form and written form, it is specified that indirect speech in this research is

2. Error

Norrish (1983) states error is a “systematic deviation, when a learner has

not learnt something and consistently gets it wrong” (p. 7). He mentions that error

is different from mistake. Error happens consistently, while mistake happens

inconsistently. According to Chomsky, as cited by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen

(1982), errors are categorized into two types. The first type is called performance

error, which is caused by some factors like fatigue or carelessness. The second

type is competence error, which is caused by lack of knowledge. Corder (1967),

as cited by Dulay et al., states performance error is called mistake, while

competence error is called error.

In this research, Chomsky’s definition of error in which all deviations or

wrong forms produced by the students are categorized as errors is adopted. It

means that there is no differentiation between errors and mistakes. It is based on

the reason that the test is only conducted once. Therefore, it is impossible to check

whether the errors happen consistently or not.

3. The Fourth Semester Students of ELESP

This research is conducted to find out errors in forming indirect speech

among the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University.

Fourth semester students are students who are in the fourth semester of university.

In this case, the fourth semester students are those who entered the university in

2010/2011 academic year. It means that they are in the second years of their study

in ELESP. In the fourth semester, most of the students take Structure IV class,

8 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter deals with related literature. It consists of two parts:

theoretical description and theoretical framework. Theoretical description deals

with the theories relevant to this research. Meanwhile, theoretical framework

deals with the relation between the research matters and the theories.

A. Theoretical Description

This research is conducted to find errors in forming indirect speech among

the fourth semester students of ELESP at Sanata Dharma University and the

possible causes of the errors. Thus, in this part, the researcher discusses related

theories about error analysis and indirect speech.

1. Error Analysis

“Error Analysis (EA) consists of a set of procedures for identifying,

describing and explaining learners’ errors.” (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 51).

Norrish (1983) explains that an EA can be used to find students’ difficulty in

mastering a material. By using EA, teachers can objectively assess how their

teaching gives contribution to students. According to Corder (1974), as stated by

Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 57), there are some steps in conducting error analysis.

They are collecting a sample of learner language, identifying errors, describing

a. Collection of a Sample of Learner Language

The function of this step is to provide the data for EA. In this step,

determining the factors that may affect the sample of the analysis is needed. The

factors which need to be determined are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Factors Affecting Sample of Analysis (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 58)

Factors Description

A. Learner

1. Proficiency level 2. Other languages 3. Language learning

background

Elementary, intermediate, or advanced The learners’ L1, other L2s

Instructed, naturalistic, mixed

B. Language 1) Medium 2) Genre 3) Content

Oral or written

Conversation, narrative, essay, etc The topic of the discourse

C. Production 1) Unplanned 2) Planned

The discourse is produced spontaneously The discourse is produced after planning or under condition that allow for careful online planning.

b. Identification of Errors

Identification of errors is a process in which the learners’ production and

what native speakers in the same level will produce are compared in the same

context. The procedures in identifying errors according to Ellis and Barkhuizen

(2005) are:

1) Preparing reconstruction of the sample as the native speaker in the same level

would produce.

2) Assuming that every sentence produced by the learners is erroneous and

3) Identifying the difference between what learners produced with the

reconstructed version.

c. Description of Errors

This step deals with the identification of how the forms produced by the

learners are different from the forms produced by native speakers in the same

level. There are two steps in describing errors according to Ellis and Barkhuizen

(2005), which are describing the categories for coding the errors which have been

identified and documenting the frequency of the errors in each category.

According to James (1998), as cited by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), in

categorizing errors, two kinds of taxonomy can be used. They are linguistic

taxonomy and surface structure taxonomy. In linguistic taxonomy, errors can be

categorized based on the descriptive grammar of the target language. Meanwhile,

according to Dulay, Burt, and Krashen as cited by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005:

61), errors in surface structure taxonomy are divided into four categories. They

are omission, addition, misformation, and misordering.

1) Omission

Dulay et al. (1982: 154) state “Omission errors are characterized by the

absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance.” The example is

shown in the omission of some words in Mary president new company which

should beMary is the president of the new company.

2) Addition

According to Dulay et al. (1982: 156), the character of addition errors is

example is the addition of –ed in the past form of the word eat instead of using

ate, so that the word becomeseated.

3) Misformation

“Misformation errors are characterized by the use of wrong form of the

morpheme or structure” (Dulay et al., 1982: 158). Different from omission, in

which the item does not exist at all, in misformation errors, the item exists but it is

in incorrect form. The example is shown on the use ofmeas both a subject and an

object pronoun and the use of don’t + verb1 and no + verb1 (Ellis and

Barkhuizen, 2005: 61).

4) Misordering

Dulay et al. (1982: 162) state “Misordering errors are characterized by the

incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance.” The

example is the misplacement of the wordison the sentenceI do not know what is

it, whichshould beI do not know what it is.

d. Explanation of Errors

Explaining errors, which is the most important step in EA, means finding

out the sources of errors to find why the errors are made. In this step, it is

necessary to be able to differentiate between errors and mistakes. Norrish (1983)

states error is a “systematic deviation, when a learner has not learnt something and

consistently ‘gets it wrong’” (p. 7). He mentions that error is different from

According to Chomsky, as cited by Dulay et al. (1982), errors are

categorized into two types. The first type is error that is caused by some factors

like fatigue or carelessness. This kind of error is called performance error. The

second type is competence error, which is caused by lack of knowledge. Corder

(1967), as cited by Dulay et al., states performance error is called mistake, while

competence error is called error.

Brown (2000) mentions there are four possible sources of errors. They are

interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, context of learning, and communication

strategies.

1) Interlingual Transfer

“Interlingual transfer is a significant source of error for all learners. The

beginning stages of learning a second language are especially vulnerable to

interlingual transfer from the native language or interference” (Brown, 2000:

224). According to Brown (2000), interlingual transfer, or called interference, is

“the interfering effects of the native language on the target (the second) language

(p. 95).”

2) Intralingual Transfer

According to Jaszczolt (1995) and Taylor (1975) as cited by Brown (2000:

224), interference or interlingual transfer often dominates the early phase of

language learning. On the other hand, when the learners start to purchase parts of

a new system, intralingual transfer or generalization within the target language,

will happen. Generalization means inference or derivation of a law or rule, usually

3) Context of Learning

Brown (2000: 226) states context of learning refers to the factors in

students’ learning, such as teacher and textbook. The teacher or textbook used by

the students may give students incorrect information, which makes the students

have false concept of particular forms of language.

4) Communication Strategies

Communication strategies, according to Brown (2000: 227), “were defined

and related to learning styles. Learners obviously use production strategies in

order to enhance getting their message across, but at times these techniques can

themselves become source of errors.” The example is when a learner says,“Let us

work for the well done of our country.”While it shows a little twist of humor, the

sentence had an incorrect approximation of the wordwelfare.

e. Error Evaluation

Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) explain that error evaluation is conducted to

determine which errors should be given instruction. It includes some steps:

1) Selecting errors which should be evaluated

2) Deciding the criterion where the errors should be judged

3) Preparing the instruments for evaluating errors: a set of instructions, the

erroneous sentence or text, and a method to evaluate errors

2. Indirect Speech

According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999), indirect speech is

used “when one wishes to report the content of the original source without

necessarily repeating sentences exactly as they were originally uttered” (p. 687).

Indirect speech is derived from direct speech. Direct speech “refers to reproducing

words exactly as they were originally spoken” (Azar, 1993: 273). Direct speech

and indirect speech have different form. The main difference is in the way of

writing. According to Azar (1993), direct speech always uses quotation marks.

Meanwhile, in indirect speech, there are no quotation marks.

Yule (2004) states indirect speech is introduced by a Quotative Frame.

Quotative Frame consists of three parts. They are attributed speakers (e.g.,he, she,

the boss, my teacher), reporting verb (e.g., said, asked, tell, report), and

conjunction (e.g., that, if, whether). Quotative Frame is also called reporting

clause. The reporting clause then followed by reported clause, which consists of

the clause that is reported in the speech. For example:

[1] Smith reports (that) budget cuts may occur during this recession. (Yule,

2004: 688)

In example [1], the clause “Smith reports that…” is called reporting

clause. The wordreport is called reporting verb. While the clause “…budget cuts

may occur during this recession” is called reported clause. In the example, the

word that is put in the bracket since it is optional. According to Thomson and

tell. However, when reporting verb likecomplain, explain, object, and point outis

used,thatcannot be omitted.

a. Changes in Transferring Direct Speech into Indirect Speech

In changing direct speech into indirect speech, there should be some

changes in some aspects, like in the tense, demonstrative, personal pronoun,

adverb of time and place, and word order (Yule, 2004).

1) Tense

According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999: 689), “…the tense

in reported clause is in some sense controlled by the tense in the reporting clause,

such as when the reporting verb is in the past tense, the verb in the reported clause

must be back shifted.” For example, when the direct speech is “I’m leaving

[image:33.595.104.515.283.595.2]

tomorrow”,the backshift is presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: The Examples of Backshift (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 689)

Reporting Verb Tense Indirect Speech Simple Presentno backshift She says that she is leaving tomorrow. Present Perfectno backshift She has said that she is leaving tomorrow. Simple Past  to past progressive

tense

She said that she was leaving tomorrow/the next day.

Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999) state there are also some exceptions in

backshift. There will be no backshifts if:

1) The event stated by the speaker remains true.

2) What is conveyed by the speaker is general truth.

3) The statement is reported to third person by a second person immediately after

2) Pronouns

The change of personal pronoun depends on the reporter’s point of view

toward the first speaker. Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999: 698) state

there is commonly a change from first- and second-person forms of pronoun to

third-person forms in transferring direct speech into indirect speech. For example:

[2] Original quote by Mary: “Ihope thatFredgets better soon.”

Report by Fred: Mary says thatshehopes thatIget better soon.

Report by someone speaking to Fred: Mary says thatshehopes that

youget better soon. (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 698)

3) Demonstratives and Adverbials of Time and Place

Yule (2004) states, “The form of the indirect speech version will reflect

the reporter’s sense of closeness or distance between the situation being reported

and the current reporting situation” (p. 273). Yule’s statement is applied in the use

of demonstratives and adverb of time and place, for example:

[3] Smith: “School budgets will not be cut during this recession.”

Smith predicted that no school budget cuts would occur duringthis

recession.

Smith predicted that no school budget cuts would occur duringthat

recession. (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 696)

In example [3], the use of this or thatdepends on the reporter’s assumption. The

reporter uses this when the recession is still in the process at the time when the

reporter is reporting Smith’s statement. Meanwhile, the reporter uses that when

What happened in example [3] also happened in the use of adverb of

place. A reporter can usethereorherebased on the place where s/he is reporting.

[image:35.595.99.517.238.578.2]

Some shifts in adverb of time are presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Shifts in Adverbial Time (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 697)

Direct Speech Indirect Speech this… (day, afternoon, etc.) that… (day, afternoon, etc.)

now then/ at that time

today/tonight that day/that night

yesterday the day before/ the previous day tomorrow the day after/ the next day the next… the following…

…ago …before

4) Word Order

According to Swan (1980), shift in word order happens in indirect

question. It is because the direct question should be changed into statement in

indirect speech.

b. Basic Forms of Indirect Speech

Thomson and Martinet (1986) mention some basic forms of indirect

speech based on the types of sentence being derived. They are indirect statement,

indirect question, indirect command and indirect exclamation.

1) Indirect Statement

Indirect statement is derived from direct statement. Reporting verb in

indirect statement can be in the form of present or past. When the reporting verb is

2) Indirect Question

According to Thomson and Martinet (1986: 260), in transferring direct

question into indirect question, there should be shifts in the tenses, pronouns,

possessives, and adverb of time or place. Swan (1980) mentions that shift in word

order will also happen because the direct question should be changed into

statement in indirect speech. Besides, the question mark should not be used since

the form of interrogative is changed to affirmative.

Reporting verbs that are usually used in indirect speech are ask, inquire,

wonder, and want to know. When ask is used, it can be followed by an indirect

object. Meanwhile, the word inquire, wonder, andwant to knoware not followed

by indirect object.

Question can be divided into two forms. The first is WH-questions, or

questions which use questions word (when, where, who, why, which, how). The

second is yes-no questions or questions with no question words. It will be some

differences in forming those two different forms of question. Thomson and

Martinet (1986: 260) state, in transferring direct question into indirect

WH-question, the question word should be repeated in the indirect form, for example:

[4] She said, “What do you want?”

She asked them what they wanted. (Thomson and Martinet, 1986:

260)

In Yes-No question, conjunctionif orwhethercan be used, but it is more usual to

useif. For example:

The police officer asked if/whether I had seen the accident.

(Thomson and Martinet, 1986: 260)

The word whether underlines that a choice has to be made” (Thomson and

Martinet, 1986: 260). Thus, the word whether can be followed by to infinitive,

especially when the reporting verb iswonderorwant to know. For example:

[6] “Shall/should I wait for them or go on?” he wondered.

He wondered whether to wait for them or go on.

He wondered whether he should wait for them or go on. (Thomson

and Martinet, 1986: 260)

3) Indirect Command

Indirect command is derived from direct command. Reporting verb that

are usually used are comrade, request, and advice, which are followed byobject +

infinitive in positive form. Meanwhile, in negative form,not + infinitive is added

(Thomson and Martinet, 1986: 261). The addressed person is usually not

mentioned in direct form. For example:

[7] He said, “Get your coat, Tom!”

He told Tom to get his coat. (Thomson and Martinet, 1986: 261)

[8] “Don’t swim out too far, boys!” I said.

I warned the boys not to swim out too far. (Thomson and Martinet,

1986: 261)

According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman (1999), besides using to

+ infinitive, commands can also be reported by using ordinary that-clauses, for

[9] “Please go away!”

He said that I should go away. (Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman,

1999: 692)

4) Indirect Exclamation

Indirect exclamation is derived from direct exclamation. The exclamation

form should be changed into statement in indirect form. Thus, the exclamation

mark should be omitted. Exclamations withwhat a…orhow…can be reported by

using reporting verb like say and exclaim or “by give exclamation of

delight/disgust/horror/relief/surprise etc” (Thomson and Martinet, 1986: 264).

Besides changing the word order, according to Celce-Murcia and Larsen Freeman

(1983: 465), exclamation can also be reported without any changes in word order.

For example:

[10] He said, “What a dreadful idea!” or “How dreadful!”

He exclaimed that it was a dreadful idea.

He exclaimed that it was dreadful. (Thomson and Martinet, 1986:

264)

[11] Rachel said, “What a beautiful day!”

Rachel exclaimed what a beautiful day (it was).

[12] “Good!” he exclaimed.

He gave an exclamation of pleasure/satisfaction. (Thomson and

D. Theoretical Framework

This research focuses on errors in forming indirect speech among the

fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The first

objective of the research is to find errors in forming indirect speech among the

fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The second

objective is to find the possible causes of errors. Error analysis is used to achieve

the objectives. In conducting error analysis, Corder’s steps of error analysis are

used. The steps include collecting a sample of learner language, identifying errors,

describing errors, explaining errors, and evaluating errors.

The first step is collecting a sample of learner language. In this step, some

information about the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma

University is collected. In this case, some factors which are presented in Table 2.1

are collected. However, the factors collected are those which are considered to

give more influence to this research.

The first information is the students’ first language, which will influence

the analysis of the possible cause of the errors. The second factor is the students’

proficiency level. In this case, it is not determined whether the students are in

intermediate or advanced level but it is in what level the fourth semester students

of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University have learned direct and indirect speech. It

is to make sure that the types of direct-indirect speech provided in the test have

been learned by the students.

The second step is identifying errors. In this step, what the learners

there are no native speakers as comparative, this step is substituted by comparing

what the students produce in the test to the answer key from the test which has

been prepared before.

In the next step, describing errors, the errors which are found in the test are

categorized. In this research, Chomsky’s definition of error, which states that

there is no differentiation between errors and mistakes, is used. It is defined that

all deviations or wrong forms were categorized as errors. This is based on the

reason that the test is only conducted once. Therefore, it will be impossible to see

the student’s progress, whether the deviations are made consistently or not. In

categorizing the errors, surface structure taxonomy is used. Before applying

surface structure taxonomy to categorize the errors, the errors are categorized

based on the shifts that should be applied in transferring direct speech into indirect

speech.

The next step is explaining errors. In this step, there is an analysis about

the errors made by the students and a categorization of the sources of errors based

Brown’s theory on sources of errors. The sources of the errors are categorized into

four types. They are interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, context of

learning, and communication strategies. In this research, only interlingual transfer

and intralingual transfer which will be used. The other two sources, context of

learning and communication strategies, are considered not applicable because the

students’ process of learning and the way they communicate are not investigated.

The rest of the sources of errors which do not belong to Brown’s theory will be

The last step is evaluating errors. In this step, errors which should be given

instructions are chosen. The errors chosen are the errors which happen in the

students answers in the test. Since the purpose of this research is to find the

students’ errors and the possible causes of the errors, this step is not to design

some instructions or instruments to evaluate the students’ errors. However, this

step is aimed to give recommendation on which errors the lecturers and the

students should pay more attention.

The theory of indirect speech is used as the reference in designing the test

as the instrument of the research. Indirect speech can be used in all types of

sentence or utterance, like statement, question, command, and exclamation. In this

research, the focus is on the students’ errors in forming indirect statement, indirect

question, indirect command, and indirect exclamation.

It has been mentioned in the theoretical description that there should be

shifts in transferring direct speech into indirect speech. The most dominant shift is

the shift of tenses, or called backshift. Generally, backshift happens when the

reporting verb is in the form of past tense. In addition, there is no backshift when

the reported clause in the direct speech is in the form of past tense. In detail, the

[image:42.595.97.518.112.703.2]

Table 2.4: Backshifts in Tenses

Direct Speech Indirect Speech Simple Present Tense Simple Past Tense

Present Continuous Tense Past Continuous Tense Present Perfect Tense Past Perfect Tense Simple Past Tense Ø or Past Perfect Tense

Past Continuous Tense Ø or Past Perfect Continuous Tense Past Perfect Tense Ø

Simple Future Tense Conditional Sentence

Future Continuous Tense Conditional Continuous Tense Future Perfect Tense Conditional Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous Tense Conditional Perfect Continuous Modal Auxiliaries (Present) Modal Auxiliaries (Past)

However, the kinds of shifts, which have been mentioned before, do not

always happen in all types of indirect speech. The shifts which happen in indirect

statements do not always happen in indirect questions, indirect commands, and

indirect exclamations. For sentences using demonstratives or adverbs, the shifts

should be applied. It is because the assumption is that the students, who have a

role as the reporter, are in different time and context when they report the direct

speech. The possible shifts happen in each type of indirect speech are summarized

[image:42.595.105.515.137.353.2]

in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Shifts in Different Types of Indirect Speech

No. Types of IS

Shifts

Tense Pro-noun

Demons-trative Adverb

Word Order

1. Indirect Statement √ √ √ √

-2. Indirect Question √ √ √ √ √

3. Indirect Command √ √ √ √

25 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methodology. It consists of six parts.

They are research method, research setting, research subject, instruments and data

gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure.

A. Research Method

The method used in this research was survey research. According to

Fraenkel and Wallen (2008: 390), survey research is a research in which the

information is gathered from a group of people with a purpose to obtain the

description of some aspects or characteristics of the group. The information can be

obtained through asking questions to a sample, not merely all members of the

population. In this research, a survey, with a test as the instrument, was conducted

to answer the first research question. The survey was aimed to find errors in

forming indirect speech among the fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata

Dharma University.

To acquire the answer to the second research question, which was aimed to

find the possible causes of errors made by the students in forming indirect speech,

a library study is used. It means that the researcher analyzed the errors made by

students and then related the finding to some existing theories about the causes of

B. Research Setting

This research was carried out on May-June 2012. It was the even semester

in 2011/2012 academic year of English Language Education Study Program

(ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. Since the focus of the research was about

forming indirect speech, which was commonly taught in Structure Classes, the

researcher set Structure IV Class in ELESP as the setting of the research. They

were Structure IV class B and Structure IV Class D. The research for class B was

conducted on May 30, 2012. While, on June 6, 2012, the researcher conducted the

research in class D.

C. Research Participants

This research focused on errors in forming indirect speech among the

fourth semester students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. It means that

the target population of this research was the fourth semester students of ELESP.

In this case, the fourth semester students were those who entered the university in

2010/2011 academic year, and they were in the second year of their study in

ELESP.

Fourth semester students were chosen since the researcher considered that

they have learned indirect speech in their previous Structure Class. They learned

indirect speech when they were in the third semester, especially in Structure III

Class. By conducting this research, the researcher would be able to analyze what

errors they still made in forming indirect speech after they learned it in the

semester students as the guideline in mastering indirect speech by learning from

the errors they still made. It is important for them to master indirect speech in case

they need to teach their students about indirect speech in their real teaching.

The researcher assumed that all members of the fourth semester students’

population had equal ability in forming indirect speech because they had taken

Structure III classes, where they learned about indirect speech. Thus, it was

expected that there was no significant difference in their ability in forming

indirect speech. The samples chosen were two Structure IV Classes based on the

reason that indirect speech was taught in Structure Classes.

Specifically, the classes chosen were Structure IV class B and Structure

Class D of 2011/2012 academic year. It was assumed that the students of those

two classes were able to represent the characteristics of the fourth semester

students’ population. From the sample chosen, the researcher eliminated the

students who were not from 2010/2011 academic year since it is considered that

they had different grammar mastery from 2010/2011 academic year students.

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique

The researcher used test as the instrument. Test, according to Brown

(2004), is “a method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance

in a given domain” (p. 3). It helped the researcher to measure students’ knowledge

in forming indirect speech. From the students’ answers to the questions in the test,

the researcher was able to find out the errors in forming indirect speech among the

Due to the importance of test as the instrument in this research, the test

was designed based on test requirements. An effective test should have validity

and reliability.

1. Validity

Gronlund, as cited by Brown (2004), states that validity, which is the most

important standard of effective test, is “the extent to which inferences made from

assessment results are appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose

of the assessment” (p. 22). It is simply said that a test will be valid if it really

measures what should be measured.

In this research, the test was the instrument to measure students’

knowledge about indirect speech. Thus, the test designed in this research should

really measure the students’ knowledge about indirect speech. There are some

types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and face validity.

a. Content Validity

Brown (2004) states that “…if it requires the test taker to perform the

behavior that is being measured, it can claim content-related evidence of validity,

often popularly referred to as content validity” (p. 22). The test was intended to

find errors made by students in forming indirect speech. To be valid in the

content, the test should demand the students to form indirect speech by changing

direct speech into indirect speech. Since indirect speech has some types, the

researcher provided the basic types of indirect speech in the test item. The

[image:47.595.110.511.138.249.2]

Table 3.1: Test Items Distribution based on the Basic Types of Indirect Speech

Types of Indirect Speech Total Number Number

Statement 5 1, 6, 11, 16, 21

WH-Question 5 2, 7, 12, 17, 22

Yes-No Question 5 3, 8, 13, 18, 23

Command 5 4, 9, 14, 19, 24

Exclamation 5 5, 10, 15, 20, 25

Besides distributing the test items based on the types of indirect speech,

the researcher also distributed the types of shifts in each item. The purpose of

distributing all types of shifts in the test items was to know in what kind of shifts

students still made errors.

b. Construct Validity

Brown (2004) explains that to have construct validity, a test should

demonstrate the elements of the test subject. For instance, in a speaking interview

test, all aspects in speaking should be involved, such as fluency, accuracy,

pronunciation, and vocabulary. Hence, in conducting a speaking interview test,

the test takers should be demanded to speak in order to find students’ ability in

fluency, accuracy, pronunciation, and vocabulary.

In this research, the test was aimed to find errors made by students in

forming indirect speech. From that reason, written test in the form of transferring

direct speech into indirect speech was used. The test would be in the form of

filling-in the blank. There would be 25 items of direct speech and the test takers’

task was to change them into indirect speech. The students would not rewrite all

parts of the indirect speech because the researcher had provided the reporting

was that it is more practical than rewriting form because it would not take too

much time for students to write their answers. Besides, the students’ authentic

answers would be clearer compared to multiple-choice test since there was less

opportunity for them to predict or choose the answers randomly.

c. Face Validity

“Face validity means that the students perceive the test to be valid”

(Brown, 2004: 27). It means that face validity is validity that appeared from the

students’ perspective. Brown (2004) states that face validity would be fulfilled if

the students found:

- the test is built well with familiar tasks

- the total number and the time allocation in doing the test are balanced

- the test items are not complicated

- the test provides clear and understandable directions

- the test really measures what should be measured

The face validity would be known through students’ responses to the pilot test.

From the pilot test, the researcher would be able to know what should be

improved from the test items.

2. Test Reliability

“A reliable test is consistent and dependable” (Brown, 2004: 20). The test

reliability can be estimated through reliability coefficient. According to Fraenkel

of the same individual

parts of the same instrum

Related to the t

using the relationship be

same instrument. It wa

conduct one pilot test

approach in calculati

formulas. They are KR

KR21 is used when the

Besides, it is used for

researcher chose KR21

according to Fraenkel a

From the formul

M is the mean of the s

of test scores. Reliabi

[image:49.595.100.522.646.728.2]

(1983), there is a criter

Table 3.2.: Crude Cr

Coefficien .00 to .20 .20 to .40 .40 to .60 .60 to .80 .80 to 1.00

viduals on the same instrument at two different tim

instruments” (p. 155).

the time efficiency, the researcher checked the test

onship between scores on the same individuals on tw

It was considered more efficient since the resear

ot test only. In this case, the researcher used Kude

lculating the reliability coefficient, which has

are KR20 and KR21. According to Fraenkel and W

hen the test items are considered having the same di

used for items that are scored right versus wrong.

KR21 formula in counting the reliability coef

enkel and Wallen (2008: 156) is formulated as:

formula, it is known that K shows the number of

of the set of test scores, and SD is the standard devi

eliability coefficient ranges from 0.00-1.00. Acc

criterion of coefficient, which is shown in Table 3.2.

de Criterion for the Evaluation of a Coefficient (Bes

fficient (r) Relationshi .00 to .20

.20 to .40 .40 to .60 .60 to .80 .80 to 1.00

Negligible Low Moderate Substantial High to very hi

rent times, or on two

the test reliability by

s on two parts of the

researcher needed to

d Kuder-Richardson

has two kinds of

l and Wallen (2008),

same difficulty level.

rong. Therefore, the

y coefficient. KR21,

ber of the test items.

d deviation of the set

According to Best

able 3.2.

t (Best, 1983: 255)

ionship ligible

E. Data Analysis Technique

After obtaining the students’ test result, the researcher checked the

students’ answers in the test. Then, the researcher classified the errors into some

categories. The classifications were based on the type of indirect speech. After

that, the researcher categorized the errors based on the types of changes including

pronoun, adverb of time or place, tense, word order, demonstrative, and

conjunction. When it was possible, the researcher also categorized the errors

based on the Dulay et al.’s surface structure taxonomy (1982), which is divided

into omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. Through those processes,

the first research questions would be answered.

For the second research question, which was aimed to find possible causes

of errors made by students, the researcher used the previous categorization and

then analyzed the data by relating them to the existing theory. The theory used

was Brown’s theory about sources of errors (2000), in which the sources of errors

are divided into four categories. They are intralingual transfer, interlingual

transfer, context of learning, and communication strategies.

F. Research Procedure

The research was conducted in some steps, which are asking permission to

conduct the test, conducting the pilot test, gathering the data, analyzing the data,

1. Asking Permission to Conduct the Test

After finishing the final version of the test design, the researcher asked

permission from the lecturers of the chosen Structure IV Classes which had been

decided to be the sample of the research to conduct the pilot test and the real test.

2. Conducting Pilot Test

The purpose of conducting pilot test was to check the designed test,

whether it still needed some adjustment or not. The pilot test was given to a class

which was considered to have the same characteristics as the real sample.

Therefore, the researcher chose one class from Structure IV Class’ parallel, which

is Class C of Structure IV Class. The pilot test was conducted on May 10, 2012.

3. Checking the Test Reliability

After conducting the pilot test, the researcher checked the students’ errors

and finding the reliability coefficient of the test. The test reliability determined

whether the test was reliable enough or not to be used as an instrument. The

reliability in the pilot test reached 0.74. Thus, the test was categorized as reliable

test.

4. Conducting the Real Test

In this step, the researcher conducted the test to the real sample of the

research. After they finished the test, the researcher separated the results from

non-fourth semester students because they were not included as the sample.

5. Analyzing the Data

The researcher checked the students’ test result and classified the errors

error. After that, the researcher analyzed the possible causes of errors by referring

to some theories about the causes of errors.

6. Writing Up the Report

After analyzing the data, the researcher reported the result based on the

35

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the research results and discussion. It discusses

the answer to the research questions based on the research results. This chapter is

divided into two parts. The first part is to answer the first research question about

what errors made by the fourth semester students of ELESP in forming indirect

speech. The second part is to discuss the answer to the second research question

about the possible causes of errors.

A. Students’ Errors in Forming Indirect Speech

In this research, the students’ errors in forming indirect speech were

analyzed using error analysis. According to Corder (1974), as stated by Ellis and

Barkhuizen (2005: 57), there are some steps in error analysis. They are collecting

sample of learners’ language, identifying errors, describing errors, explaining

errors, and evaluating errors. Students’ errors were found through the step of

identifying errors.

The students’ errors in forming indirect speech, which were found in the

step of identifying errors, were discussed based on the basic types of indirect

speech. They were errors in indirect statements, indirect WH-questions, indirect

yes-no questions, indirect commands, and indirect exclamations. After being

identified, the errors were categorized based on the changes and surface structure

1. Errors in Indirect Statements

There were five items of direct statements in the test which were

distributed in items 1, 6, 11, 16 and 21. The percentage of the students who made

[image:54.595.100.517.258.660.2]

errors in forming indirect statements was presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Percentage of Students’ Errors in Forming Indirect Statements

Item Number Number of Students Who Made Errors Percen