THE MASTERY OF MAKE, HAVE, GET CAUSATIVES
AMONG THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS
OF ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
OF UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
DEVI WIJAYANTI Student Number : 134214057
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA
YOGYAKARTA
ii
THE MASTERY OF MAKE, HAVE, GET CAUSATIVES
AMONG THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS
OF ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
OF UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
DEVI WIJAYANTI Student Number : 134214057
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA
YOGYAKARTA
vii
The mind is everything
What you think, you become
viii
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to say that I am grateful for finally finishing my undergraduate thesis. This thesis is a proof of all hard-working processes I have been through for five months. Lucky me, I have wonderful parents who always support me in these four years of studying in university. I could not be more thankful for their tons of love and advice in life.
I am highly indebted to my advisor, Anna Fitriati, S.Pd., M.Hum., who gave me valuable guidance and great suggestion along the process of this final thesis. I would like to deliver my gratitude to Adventina Putranti, S.S, M.Hum. and Harris Hermansyah Setiajid M.Hum. who gave me permission to conduct the test in their classes. This thesis would not be successful without the help of Arina Isti’anah S.Pd., M.Hum. as my co-advisor who had helped me in the process of the writing of Chapter I until Chapter III and also had given detailed revision that improved this thesis to be much better than before.
Furthermore, I should give my greatest thanks to all my friends in the seventh semester whose names may not all be enumerated for participating in the test and questionnaire. Their help was very priceless to me. Most importantly, I’d like to thank Ryan for his support and for his always-listening-time. Last but not least, the completion of this thesis could not have been possible without my supportive friends. All of the unforgettable sharings and experiences we had have completed my lovely journey in these amazing years.
x
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH.. vi
MOTTO PAGE ... vii
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 6
A. Review of Related Studies ... 6
4. Active and Passive Causative ... 13
5. Causative in Indonesian ... 15
xi
1. Data Collection ... 24
a. Test ... 26
b. Questionnaire ... 27
2. Data Analysis ... 27
a. Reliability and Validity ... 27
b. Scoring ... 29
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS... 30
A. The Presentation of Students’ Errors Ranged by the Scores... 30
B. Types of Students’ Errors ... 33
Appendix 2: The Proposal of Conducting the Test ... 64
Appendix 3: Reliability of the First Test ... 65
Appendix 4: Reliability of the Second Test ... 66
Appendix 5: The Validity of the First Test ... 67
Appendix 6: The First Test ... 69
Appendix 7: The Second Test ... 72
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Meanings of Make, Have, and Get Causatives... 10
Table 2.2 The Functions of Make, Have, and Get Causatives... 11
Table 2.3 The Forms of Active Causatives... 13
Table 2.4 Affix {-kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 15
Table 2.5 Affix {-i} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 16
Table 2.6 Prefix {per-} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 16
Table 2.7 Prefix {Per-} and Affix {-kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian... 17
Table 2.8 The Explanation of Types of Errors... 19
Table 4.1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A... 30
Table 4.2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B... 31
Table 4.3 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part C... 32
Table 4.4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test... 32
Table 4.5 Data of Errors in Part A... 33
Table 4.6 Data of Errors in Part B... 39
Table 4.7 Data of Students’ Answers in Part C... 51
xiii
LIST OF CHARTS
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A Addition
KBBI Daring Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia Dalam Jaringan
MF Misformation
MO Misordering
O Omission
OAD Oxford Advanced Dictionary SA Student’s Answer
TL Target Language
X The Causer
xv ABSTRACT
WIJAYANTI, DEVI (2017). The Mastery of Make, Have, Get Causatives Among The Seventh Semester Students of English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
English grammar is one of the important aspects that needs to be learned in learning English, especially as a foreign language. Causative is one of English grammar that refers to the verbs which show a process of an agentive subject causing another agent to do an action. However, according to researcher’s experience as a grammar tutor in the Department, causative was one of the materials in English grammar that was not easy to be understood by the students. Based on the material taught in Structure classes, the researcher decided to take make, have, get as the verbs of causative as the data to analyze.
There are two problems formulated in this research. The first is the type of errors that the seventh semester students have in learning causatives. The second are the factors behind the errors.
This research conducted a quantitative method with syntax and translation as the approaches. The researcher used a test as the instrument which was held twice. The first test was on purpose to search for the validity and reliability. The second test was the actual test that was used as the measurement of students’ comprehension towards the material. The researcher also distributed questionnaire for additional data related with the topic.
xvi ABSTRAK
WIJAYANTI, DEVI (2017). The Mastery of Make, Have, Get Causatives Among The Seventh Semester Students of English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris adalah salah satu aspek penting yang perlu untuk didalami dalam mempelajari Bahasa Inggris, terutama sebagai bahasa asing. Kausatif adalah salah satu dalam ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris mengenai kata kerja yang menunjukan sebuah proses oleh subjek agentif yang menyebabkan agen lain untuk melakukan suatu tindakan. Namun, menurut pengalaman peneliti sebagai seorang asisten dosen di Departemen, kausatif adalah salah satu materi dalam ketatabahasaan Bahasa Inggris yang tidak mudah untuk dipahami oleh para mahasiswa. Berdasarkan materi yang diajarkan dalam kelas Structure, peneliti menentukan untuk mengambil make, have, get sebagai kata kerja kausatif.
Terdapat dua masalah yang dirumuskan di penelitian ini. Pertama, yakni jenis kesalahan yang mahasiswa semester tujuh hadapi dalam mempelajari kausatif. Kedua, yakni faktor-faktor penyebab di balik kesalahan.
Penelitian ini mengadakan metode kuantitatif dengan sintaksis dan penterjemahan sebagai pendekatannya. Peneliti menggunakan tes sebagai instrumen yang diadakan sebanyak dua kali. Tes pertama ditujukan untuk mencari validitas dan reliabilitas. Tes kedua adalah tes sesungguhnya yang digunakan sebagai pengukur pemahaman mahasiswa tentang materi tersebut. Peneliti juga membagikan kuesioner untuk data tambahan yang berhubungan dengan topik kausatif.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Language holds the most important role in the process of communicating with other people. In Indonesia, there are two types of language used for daily use, Indonesian and English. Indonesian is used by people to communicate with other Indonesian people. However, the use of English is not very significant in the daily language in Indonesia, except for certain purposes such as for business and academic communication. Due to the need of learning English as an international language, English has been included in educational learning process. Therefore, English has been included in the school curriculum as a non-obligatory subject of KTSP 2013 from Junior High School, Senior High School, and University level in Indonesia.
2
One subject included in advance level of English Grammar is the construction of causative. Causatives refer to the verbs that portray a process when an agent causes another agent to perform an action (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355). Causative verbs indicating this process include make, have, get. Although they have a similar purpose, they have differences in the usage. Causative make includes a sense of ‘forcing’ someone to do something; causative have includes a sense of ‘request’, and causative get includes a sense of ‘persuade’ in its use (Azar,
1999: 339).
Causatives are chosen as the topic based on the writer’s experience as a
grammar tutor who taught the material to the fourth semester students of English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma in 2016. To be more specific, causatives were included in the syllabus of Structure II in the second semester, Structure IV in fourth semester and Structure V in the fifth semester. In the teaching process, the students admitted that they have learned causatives, specifically the get and have causatives, before the second semester. However, they were still confused with the topic. Based on causative exercises given, the writer found out that the biggest difficulty that most of the students had was the use of passive and active causative as well as how to use make, have, get correctlyin a sentence. For example, the students were asked to fill the blank with active or passive causative. The question was,
The right answer of the question is gets cleaned. However, some students did not pay attention to the instruction that they answered it with regular passive sentence, has been cleaned.
As it is shown in the example, make, have, and get causatives deal with the formulation of active and passive sentence. It is important for students to learn the construction of active and passive causative due to their different formulation with the passive voice and their different interpretations in meaning. The students also need to master causative make, have, get for its benefit of language use in daily life.
In order to improve student’s understanding in causatives, this research is
aimed to find out the reasons behind the error. There are several researchers’ hypotheses on how the errors can happen, and one of them is the different process of second language learning that the students have been through. It is known that most people, no matter what their first language is, learn English structure in a fairly set order (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 5). In this case, some internal and external factors have big impact in the process of English learning. Later, this research will include some theories which analyze the factors that influence the second language acquisition.
4
The study will limit the topic causative into three parts. First, the study will cover the material of different use and different purpose of make, have, get causatives. Second, the scope of the study will include the construction of active and passive causative make, have, get. Third, the topic will include the understanding about make, have, get causatives in Indonesian. Later, these three objects of study will be tested to the seventh semester students in order to find out the mastery of causative that they have learned before.
B. Problem Formulation
The research problem of this study is formulated as follows, 1. What types of error that seventh semester students have in causatives? 2. What factors cause the error?
C. Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study is to find out the problem of causatives that the seventh semester students have and to find out how well the students master the causatives. The problem that causes the error may include the problems in learning the meaning of causatives: distinguishing the use of make, have, get as causative verbs; using the implementation of active and passive causative; and the interpretation of meaning of English causatives in Indonesian.
factor which could be the way of delivering topic by the teacher (Richards, 1979: 190). Moreover, this research will focus on the students’ internal factors.
D. Definition of Terms
There are three terms that will be defined in this part. First, the word ‘mastery’ means as an acquisition that requires deep understanding or comprehending
certain knowledge. Furthermore, ‘mastery’ requires personal features such as
maturity, tact, sensitivity, and adaptability which enable the individual to observe and imitate what others do, and to search the language’s resources to find expression to
suit his attitude (Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Startvik, J., 1972 :24). In the process of learning second language, the term ‘mastery’ is often used to estimate how well a person learns the second language.
Second, the term ‘errors’ means flawed side of learner’s speech or writing. In
this research, the ‘errors’ are those parts of composition or writing that deviate from
selected norm of mature language performance (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982 : 38). In short, the ‘errors’ are the mistakes done by the learners who are not following
the language rules.
Third, the term ‘causative’ refers to the causal relationship between alternative
6 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Review of Related Studies
Kristi (2003) conducted a research of the mastery of causative, specifically get and have causatives, towards the high school students in Yogyakarta. At the beginning, Kristi introduced causative verbs in Old English and Modern English. Later, she explained have and get causatives followed by their meanings, functions, and tenses.
There were three objectives of the study. First, the study aimed to find out how many students of SMK Dharma Paramitha Yogyakarta have mastered get and have causatives. Second was to find out the difficulties that the students had in the process of understanding causatives. Third, the research was done to investigate the reason behind the difficulties in mastering get and have causatives.
To answer the problems, Kristi used a test and questionnaire as the instrument in this study. There were 20 people of third grade students at SMK Dharma Paramitha who participated in the test and questionnaire. The computation showed that two students got an A, three students got B, ten students got C, and five students got D.
get and have as causative verbs, and understanding English tenses. Kristi also found out the causes of the problems in understanding causatives which were: 1) the source of the material, 2) the choice of the material itself and the style of presentation, and 3) forgetful learners.
The next related study was from Gilquin (2003) who conducted a research on the relation and differences between get and have causatives. In practice, Gilquin examined that these two verbs shared similarities such as: (1) they could govern an infinitive, past participle, or present participle; (2) both of them did not have the passivization system of the main-clause; and (3) they could be followed by a non-finite clause but expressed a different non-causative meaning, notably an experiential one. In spite of these similarities, get and have causatives have differences in the construction and semantics.
In short, Gilquin investigated the elements in causative such as the causer, causee, patient, and effect. These elements of get and have causatives then were compared to each other. The results were: 1) the frequency of get causatives was higher than have; 2) get and have causatives had different in purpose; and 3) get and have causatives had different form of sentence.
The research result by Kristi will be used as the basic hypotheses for this research. The researcher would like to find out whether the difficulties in causatives proved in Kristi’s research are also felt by seventh semester students of English
8
B. Review of Related Theories 1. Grammar
Grammar is a set of rules which specify all the possible structures of the language. Therefore, all of the production of words and sentences of a language are set systematically by the rules. The structure of language includes the structure of word and sentence.
In English, understanding a language is started from understanding the word construction and the word function, for example: the word sing has a function of verb, which it shows an action or the activity done by the doer. In this case, it is important to acknowledge part of speech which is divided into ten types, for instance noun, adjective, verb, preposition, and so on (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1985: 18). Then, it is continued with the learning of producing a phrase, a clause, and a sentence. In addition, it is also needed to learn the tenses in English such as present progressive tense, past tense, future tense, etc.
2. Causative
The term ‘causative’ refers to one of word-formations which is a group of
verbs including some of transitive verb, intransitive verb, and auxiliary verbs that indicate the underlying structure of ‘cause’ towards something implicitly or explicitly
(Kastovsky, 1973 : 256). Causative verbs involve an agent who does such an action to cause another agent to do an action as the agent intended (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 653), or to cause another thing to produce a change from its preceding position or situation. Therefore, the involvement of two or more people in causative construction is divided into two: the causer and the causee (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 35).
The causer is the entity, animate or inanimate, that brings about the caused event or generally known as a subject or an agent (Gilquin, 2003: 127). The causee is the opposite which is the entity that is changed or influenced by the causer and carries out the effect of the caused event which is usually has the function as the object (Gilquin, 2003: 127). The causative construction or the “linguistic organization of
causation construal” will be referred to as causativity (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 11).
There are four types of complementation of causatives explained by Stefanowitsch (2001: 5) :
a) Causative verbs followed by bare infinitive after the causee, e.g. make, have b) Causative verbs followed by to-infinitive after the causee, e.g. force, get,
10
c) Causative verbs followed by present participle after the causee, e.g. send, leave.
d) Causative verbs followed by to-present participle after the causee, e.g. set. a. Meaning and Function
Each causative verb of make, have, get has different interpretation though their meanings are similar. The function of those causative verbs is to show the process where X (the causer) causes Y (the causee) to do something (Azar, 1999: 339).
I made my little sister cook the noodle. I had my little sister cook the noodle. I got my little sister to cook the noodle.
The sentences above carry different meaning in interpretation. In the examples, the three verbs present a process where X causes Y to perform an action that X intended. Nonetheless, the three sentences have different interpretation of meaning as what is described by Azar (1999: 339). The following table shows the different meanings and interpretations based on the examples above,
Table 2.1 The Meanings of Make, Have, and Get Causatives
Make Interpretation occurs because Y habitually does the action.
Meaning
It suggests a routine hiring as between costumer and bussiness person.
Get Interpretation X managed to persuade Y to cook the noodle.
In short, here are the differences of make, have, get causatives in function. Table 2.2 The Functions of Make, Have, and Get Causatives
Make Have Get
There is a difference between make and have causatives observed by the focus of the goal.
We’ll have you a linguist in no time. We’ll make you a linguist in no time.
From the examples above, it is portrayed that the make causative focuses on the process of the causing event whereas have focuses on the result (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 143). The other example is I had the plumber repair the leak. In this sentence, the focus lays on the repaired leak instead of how the plumber can repair the leak.
In other circumstances, there is a similarity between get and have which they have little or no difference in meaning in the form of passive voice (Azar, 1999: 339). In the following examples, there is no different interpretation in meaning and both have and get have the same function.
12
3. Active and Passive Voice
The general form of active voice has a function to perform the doer or the agent as the subject of the clause (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 343). For example, the sentence of Darwin studied the fauna of the Galapagos islands shows that the speaker emphasizes Darwin as the subject who does such an action. However, it is possible if the sentence emphasizes the object of the sentence. Therefore, the sentence can be changed into The fauna of the Galapagos islands was studied by Darwin. In this case, the object of the active sentence is changed to be the subject of the sentence. This form of sentence is called the passive voice.
Azar explains the function of passive voice into two. First, passive voice is most frequently used when the subject (agent) is not known or is not important to be mentioned (Azar, 1999: 211). For examples:
Rice is grown in Indonesia (by the farmer). My house was built in 1996 (by the workers).
Second, passive voice can be used to emphasize the object of the active sentence although the speaker knows who perform the action (Azar, 1999: 211). For examples:
The sweater was made by my grandmother. This delicious cake was cooked by Anie.
Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355), for instance: I don’t know whether all my data will be blocked by the server. Third, the agent can be mentioned if the agent is a well-known person and when it is used as additional information (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 355), for example: The Mona Lisa was painted by Da Vinci.
The form of passive voice is shortly explained as follows,
4. Active and Passive Causative
The form of active causative is the general form of the causative where the causative sentence uses bare infinitive or to-infinitive after the causative verbs.
I got Derry to repair my car.
I made Sue wake up early before I picked her up. I had my sister clean the bathroom.
The form of make, have, get causatives in active sentences can be formulated as follows,
Table 2.3 The Form of Active Causatives
Make Subject + make + Object + bare infinitive Have Subject + have + Object + bare infinitive Get Subject + get + Object + to-infinitive
From the examples, there is a similar pattern of active causative: the subject (causer) is followed by the causative verb which is directly followed by the object (causee). In this case, like the common active voice, the active causative emphasizes
14
the existence of the object or the person who is doing the job. However, the person who is doing the job is not the causer or the subject of the main clause but it is the causee. Therefore, it is significant in the active causative to mention the object.
In the other side, passive causative is used when the speaker does not know or does not want to mention who is doing the job. Like the passive voice, passive causative also uses past participle in the causing event.
I finally had the lawn mowed. I finally got the lawn mowed.
The passive form of make causative will be slightly different from the passive form of get and have. For example, the sentence John made Mary bake a cake will have two possible passive forms:
John made a cake (be) baked (by Mary) Mary was made to bake a cake (by John).
It is rare and almost never happens in English the form of passive causative in the first sentence of examples. In fact, it is also rare to find make causative in the passive form. The acceptable passive form of make causative is in the second sentence of examples where John is optional to be mentioned. This makes the passive causative form of make is similar with the regular passive voice:
Subj(causer) + have/get + complement + past participle + by obj(causee) (optional)
5. Causative in Indonesian
Causative in Indonesian has different characteristics compared to make, have, get causatives in English. Indonesian has the suffix and prefix form to create causative word. It is also possible in some words that the causative meaning is derived from combination of a prefix and a suffix in a word. The first step to add the causative meaning is by adding the prefix {mem-} into the word which is an allomorph for {meN-}. The other allomorphs that can be found are {meny-}, {men-}, {meng-}, {me-}, and {menge} (Moeliono, 1997: 25). Then, the {mem-} (word) can be added by several affix and prefix. The causative forms in Indonesian are devided into five forms: 1) prefix {mem/me-}; 2) affix {–kan}; 3) affix {–i}; 4) prefix {per-}; 5) combination of prefix {per-} and affix {–kan}.
Affix {–kan} is the common one to be used to imply the meaning of causative. In Indonesian, this affix can be applied into a noun, a verb, and an adverb (Moeliono, 1997: 108). Here are the examples.
Table 2.4 Affix {–kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian Part of
Dewakan Mendewakan Cause someone to be praised highly as god Verb Tidur
(sleep)
Tidurkan Menidurkan Cause someone to sleep
Adverb Harus (must)
16
Affix {–i} has a different process compared to affix {–kan} because it changes the object condition, rather than just explaining the result (Moeliono, 1997: 112). The examples are menerangkan and menerangi. Menerangkan means to cause (a problem) becomes clearer while menerangi means to cause (a room/surface) becomes lighter. Most of the roots in this affix group are nouns and adjectives.
Table 2.5 Affix {–i} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Part of
Kotori Mengotori Cause something to be dirty
Next, affix {per-} implies the meaning of cause the object more to be (root) than before (Moeliono, 1997: 114). It carries meaning that the result might be or might be not happen as expected. However, it will be different if prefix {mem-} is combined with prefix {per-} because the process is no longer cause the object more to be but it will be cause the object to be. The examples are mostly adjectives.
Table 2.6 Prefix {per-} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
Last, Indonesian also has combination of prefix {per-} and affix {–kan} which implies the meaning cause the object to be. The example of memperlihatkan implies the meaning of cause the object to be seen. This combination happens with verb, adjective, and noun. See the examples at the table below.
Table 2.7 {Per-} and {–kan} to Form Causative Meaning in Indonesian
18
6. Errors
Crystal explains the term ‘error’ as the mistakes in spontaneous speaking or
writing (2008: 173). The error may involve difficulties with timing or sequence commands that will lead to the addition, deletion, or substitution of sounds and morphemes (Crystal, 2008: 173). Crystal explains this phenomenon as ‘slips of the tongue (2008: 173). Dulay, Burt, and Krashen define ‘error’ as the kind of any
deviation from selected norm or language performance, no matter what the characteristics or causes might be (1982: 139). Overall, ‘error’ is the deviation, mostly unintended, which appears on speaking or writing due to several causes.
In language and teaching learning, error analysis is a technique for identifying, classifying, and interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by second language learners (Crystal, 2008: 173). Some linguists assume that the error made by second language learners may have relation to the adaptability of the second language to the mother language. However, the cause such as the lack of knowledge of the rules of the language is also one of the reasons of why the cause can happen (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 139).
Error analysis has been well-spread learned by the linguists, especially teachers, to analyze the difficulty that the students have in learning the second language. As the explanation done by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, there are two major purposes of studying learners’ errors: 1) it provides data from which inferences about
which error types detract most from a learner’s ability to communicate effectively
(1982: 138). The identification of errors holds a significant step in this research that it will involve a comparison between what the learners have produced and what a native speaker will produce in the same context (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 58). By identifying and analyzing the factors of errors, it is hoped that the development of second language teaching will be better in the future.
a. Types of Errors
There are four types of errors that can be observed in learning a language: 1) omission; 2) addition; 3) misformation; and 4) misordering (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 154). The explanation of the types of errors can be seen from the table below,
Table 2.8 The Explanation of Types of Errors
Omission
Meaning The absence of an item that must appear in the correct form of utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 154). Examples She beautiful,
The cake eaten by dad.
Addition
Meaning The presence of an item which must not appear in the correct form of utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 156).
Examples He doesn’t knows my name, Eated for past tense of eat
Misformation
Meaning The wrong form of the morpheme or structure (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 158).
Examples runned for run or gooses for geese, it to replace the dogs.
Misordering
Meaning The incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 162).
20
b. Causes of Errors
Error analysis consists of the procedures to identify, describe, and explain the learners’ errors (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005: 51). The four types of errors that have
been explained before have different sources. Some universal sources are omission, overgeneralization, and trasfer errors (Ellis 2003: 19). Omission is the way that learners leave out some important elements in the correct form utterance (Ellis 2003: 19). Learners also overgeneralize rules and meaning in a structure of language to make it easy to be processed (Ellis 2003: 19). Last, trasfer errors are the errors that cause the learners to shape and create their own rules of a language (Ellis 2003: 19). Transfer errors usually reflect the structure of learners’ first language.
In the error analysis of second language learners, it is common to observe that the mistakes done by the speaker or the writer are because of their adaptation of their mother tongue language into second language. For instance, ‘She beautiful’ is derived
from the Indonesian language ‘Dia cantik’. The non-existence of be ‘is’ in the
Indonesian language then is adapted into English which results error in the language. This sort of error is called interlanguage errors that are errors caused by the interference of the learner’s mother tongue (Richards, 1979: 173). Some linguists call
this error as interlingual (Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 108; Brown, 1987: 102). Brown explains interlingual errors as follows,
Talking about interlingual errors means talking about second language acquistion which is the way in which people learn another language besides their mother tongue language (Ellis, 2003: 3). There are internal and external factors that cause the way second language learners acquire the second language acquisition. The internal factors are: first, the learners’ cognitive mechanism to extract information
about second language structure and grammar; and second, learners’ language
aptitude (Ellis, 2003: 5). The external factors include the social conditions and the input that the learners receive (Ellis, 2003: 4).
Another error is called intralingual and developmental errors which are the errors that reflect the learner’s competence at a particular stage, and illustrate some of
the general characteristics of language acquisition (Richards, 1979: 173). Intralingual errors are the errors that commonly happen in the progress of second language learning. These errors include the mistakes in syntax and word formation such as the overgeneralization of past simple form of –ed in go which becomes goed, are for be following will, etc (Brown, 1987: 178).
C. Theoretical Framework
The theories explained above will be used to support the writer’s analysis in
22
Later, the theory of active and passive voice as well as active and passive causative will be used for the considered component to measure the mastery of make, have, and get causatives. These theories are related to the finding for the first problem formulation, whether the error can occur in the grammar construction, the understanding of causative meaning, or the construction of active and passive causative.
The last, the theory of errors including its types and its causes is going to be the supportive element to analyze the data and also to answer the second problem. The respondent’s data then will be measured and analyzed by theory of quantitative
23 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The objects of this research were the seventh semester students of 2016 academic year, in English Letters Department of Universitas Sanata Dharma. The reason was the background knowledge that the seventh semester students had toward the material. The writer expected that the seventh semester students had mastered the material because they had learned Structure I until Structure V.
Since causative is related to sentence form, the mastery of causative would be measured based on the correct form of sentences the seventh semester students produced in causative. This would include the mastery on the differentiation of causative function and comprehension of active and passive causative. Therefore, the linguistic element that would be analyzed was the syntactic form of sentence.
B. Approach of the Study
24
Since this research dealt with the second language acquisition, the second approach used to analyze it was translation method. Hatim and Munday explains translation method as follows,
Translation is an incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting (2004: 3).
This translation method would be used to analyze how the students could understand the difference between make, have, get English causatives in Indonesian form. That is why the approach uses a closed translation as a part of the methodology.
C. Method of the Study 1. Data Collection
To help analyzing data, the writer decided to use quantitative method. Quantitative research lets the investigator identify a research problem based on the observation or on the need to explain why something occurs (Creswell, 2015: 13). Sugiyono illustrates quantitative method as a research method which is used for analyzing certain population or sample in statistical way (2014: 35). In order to support the methodology, the researcher used sample for the obejct for the research taken from the students’ population.
Department at Universitas Sanata Dharma in 2016 academic year and had passed the Structure I until Structure V.
A sample is a smaller number of observations taken from the total number making up a given population (Sprinthall, Schmutte, and Sirois, 1990: 28). Furthermore, Creswell explains that sample is the subgroup of the population for generalizing about the target population (2015: 141). The chosen sample must represent the population or otherwise the conclusion can not be accepted (Sugiyono, 2013: 149). Therefore, there is a systematic way to decide how many people who can be taken as the sample of a research. Here is the formula by Isaac and Michael in Sugiyono (2013, 158):
Chart 3.1 Sample Formula �2. N. P. Q
s = ---
�2 � − + �2. .
s = the amount of sample λ2
= Chi Quadrate that depends on the degree of mistakes (1%; 5%; and 10%) N = the number of population
P = the opportunity of true (0,5) Q = the opportunity of false (0,5)
d = the difference between sample’s average with population’s average. It could be 0,01; 0,05 and 0,1
26
to 24 seventh semester students. Due to the need of taking sample as the representation, there would be 83 students of the seventh semester (see appendix 1). a. Test
A test is a method to measure someone’s ability or knowledge in a given area
which has the purpose of measuring (Brown, 1987: 219). The kind of test given was called achievement test, a test that was related to classroom lessons, units, or curriculum and limited to particular material (Brown, 1987: 225).
The test would be divided into three parts. The first part aimed to find out whether the seventh semester students had acknowledged enough the different function between make, have, get and the active form of causative. The second section aimed to find out the comprehension of passive causative form. The third section would consist of four questions where the students translated the question in Indonesian into English in causative form.
Pragmatics Classes on 23-28 November 2016 (see appendix 2). The test result used for analyzing the mastery of causative that students had is the second test.
b. Questionnaire
Creswell in Sugiyono demonstrates that questionnaires are forms used in a survey design that participant in a study complete and returns to the researcher (2013: 230). The questionnaire in this research would be a closed questionnaire. The instruments would be focusing on: 1) the way the students learned and practiced Structure and 2) the comprehension of causative material especially make, have, and get. The questions would be multiple choice questions that each option had different score.
Based on the experiment done in the first test, the researcher gave 10 questions in the questionnaire which question (1), (2), and (4) are proven not valid (see appendix 8). Later, the researcher will only consider the rest valid questions. 2. Data Analysis
a. Reliability and Validity
28
√ ∑ 2 ∑ 2
halves (Sprinthall et al, 1990: 35). Spearman Brown formula would be used for the reliability test (Sugiyono, 2013: 220):
Chart 3.2 Formula for Reliability ��
r1 = __________ + ��
r1 = internal reliability of all instruments
rb = product correlation moment first half and the second
In order to achieve rb, then the Pearson product moment formula was needed
as follows:
Chart 3.3 Formula for Product Correlation Moment (rb)
∑
rb =_______________________
∑xy = sum of the x times y scores ∑x2
= sum of the x squared scores ∑y2
= sum of the y squared scores rb = Person correlation moment
Validity calculation would include the correlation technique that needed qualification of validity if rb = 0,3 (Sugiyono, 2013: 218).
After the test had been conducted, the result showed that only 15 from all of 36 questions tested to students were valid. Each question has different correlation moment which then compared to the acceptable amount of correlation moment (r = 0,3). The details of validity measurement can be seen in appendix 5, while the questions of the first test can be seen in appendix 6.
The split-half techniques is used by distinguishing the questions into two halves which were odd-numbered items and even-numbered items. The result of reliability of the first test was 0,97 and 0,96 for the second test (see appendix 3 and appendix 4)
b. Scoring
30
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, it will be explained the detailed analysis of type of errors that students did in the test and causes of errors. This chapter will be started with the description of the test result, continued with the explanation of the type of errors as well as the causes of the errors in the incorrect answers.
A. The Presentation of Students’ Errors Ranged by the Scores
As mentioned in previous chapter, the second test was designed in three parts: Part A, Part B. and Part C. Part A consists of 5 questions which are taken as the valid questions. Here is the data showing the number of students ranged by different score in Part A.
Table 4.1 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part A
Score Number of Students
100 1
80 9
60 20
40 24
20 23
0 6
Total 83
incorrect answer. The rest of students, 63 students in total, have score (20-60). The other fact is that there are six students who answered all the questions incorrectly.
Part B consists of six essay-questions about changing active-causative sentences into passive-causative sentences. The table below shows the result of the number of students ranged by the score.
Table 4.2 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part B
Score Number of Students
100 11
83 8
67 14
50 8
33 6
17 12
0 24
Total 83
The table shows that there are eleven students answered all questions in Part B correctly but twenty four students answered it all wrong. Eight students get the scores of (83) and (50) in the test. There are fourteen students who answered 4 questions correctly. Finally, there are eighteen students who get the score below average, which are (33) and (17) as the scores. In short conclusion, there are 19 students who get score above 80, and there are 64 students who get score below 70.
Last, the students’ second language acquisition is measured in Part C which
32
Table 4.3 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Part C
Score Number of Students
100 13
75 22
50 21
25 25
0 2
Total 83
Part C has thirteen students who answered four questions correctly. The highest amount (25) of students answered one question only correctly. There are twenty two students who answered three questions correctly and twenty one students answered two questions correctly. However, the number of students who got the lowest score in Part C was only two people.
The following data shows the number of students ranged by score from all 15 questions of the test.
Table 4.4 The Number of Students Ranged by Score in Whole Test
Score Number of Students
80-93 6
60-73 14
40-53 36
20-33 24
7-13 3
Total 83
(60-73). It is clear that there are twenty students who achieve score above (60). Meanwhile, as many as thirty-six students achieve score (40-53), and twenty four students have (20-33) as the score. Finally, the data shows that there are three students who answered two from fifteen questions correctly.
B. Types of Students’ Errors
The explanation of students’ errors will be divided by each part of the test:
Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A contains of several questions that aim to find out students’ comprehension of different functions between make, have, get causatives
and the form of active-causatives. Part B is designed to measure students’ ability to understand the change of active-causatives into passive-causatives. Part C is designed to measure students’ second language acquisition. The errors in students’ answers
will be categorized into four types: misformation, omission, addition, and misordering.
1. Students’ Errors in Part A
Part A has five valid questions in the result. The table below shows the data of errors ranged by error types.
Table 4.5 Data of Errors in Part A Note: MF Misformation; MO Misordering
Type of Error
The Number of Error in Question: Total Errors
1 2 3 4 5
MF 58 67 36 34 10 205
34
The calculation of mistake shows that question number (1) and question number (2) have the biggest number of misformation errors. Meanwhile question number (4) has misordering as the other type of error. For the record, misformation is the most common mistakes which is found in Part A.
a. Misformation
Part A lets the students choose the incorrect words or group of words in each question (see appendix 7). Here, questions (1), (2), (4), and (5) contain the items to test whether the students can differentiate the function and meaning of make, have, get causatives. Questions (2), (3), (4), and (5) contain the options that are used to measure the comprehension of active causative form that the students had learned.
One common error that most of students did is to misunderstand different meaning and function of make, have, get causatives. Misformation error happening in question (2) can be observed from the data of 64 students answered option B (fix) as the incorrect word in the sentence.
Question (2) : We got our landlord fix the broken windows. A B C
Here, question (2) includes get and have causatives as the item for the test. By this question, it is hoped that students can decide the right causative verb to complete the sentence. By answering option B (fix), the students had resulted misformation error that was choosing the wrong word in the sentence.
The right answer should be ‘We had our landlord fix the broken window’.
the causer we and the causee landlord. The sentence describes a situation where we engage the service of the owner of the land to bring about the effect (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 131).
There are some indications why the students answered option B (fix). Get causative has the form of to-infinitive following the verb. As a result, the students agreed that fix in the sentence should be changed with to fix and decided that option B (fix) as the incorrect word to be put in the sentence. It implies that the students acknowledge the active-causative form of get due to the form of to-infinitive that comes after get. If it is so, the students had succeeded to understand the active form of get, but failed to differentiate the meaning of get causative with the other causative verbs in a sentence.
The other indication is the way students tried to maintain get as the causative verb due to the meaning of get: to be connected with somebody. If it is combined with the meaning of get in students’ first language, the sentence can be translated as: ‘Kami menghubungi pemilik tanah untuk memperbaiki jendela yang rusak’.
36
There are also some mistakes done by the students about the false structure in a sentence. An example is taken from question (1) where 36 students answer option B (seeing) while the incorrect word in the sentence should be B (made).
Question (1): Debbie’s husband hated the opera. But after days of nagging,
A
she finally made him to go seeing the new production of La
B C
Boheme.
The right answer is get as the causative verb to replace option B (made). Get causative has the appropriate meaning to connect the causer and the causee which is to persuade. The meaning of causer persuading causee is also supported by the phrase ‘but after days of nagging’.
Seeing in the sentence is the gerund form that comes after go to express recreational activity (Azar, 1999: 303). Therefore, option C (seeing) is not the incorrect word in the sentence.
Linguistically, there are two indications behind the choice C (seeing) that the students chose. First, students might think seeing is not appropriate verb for connecting the phrase because La Boheme is an opera. The students probably think that the verb watching is more suitable verb for the sentence instead of seeing. Second, the phrase to go seeing the new production of La Boheme can result an indication that it is a non-finite clause. Non-finite clause as the object has the form of to-infinitive or –ing participle (Quirk, 1972: 361). If it is seen from the non-finite clause point of view, the phrase ‘to go seeing the new production of La Boheme’ as
used at the same time. The error that the students choose option C (seeing) as the answer is categorized as misformation error; the use of wrong word.
Next, question (4) is aimed to test whether the students can differentiate the function of make and have causatives.
Question (4) : Romantic movies always have her cry. A B C
The result shows that about 42 students answer question (4) correctly. The students answered option B (have) as the incorrect word in the sentence. This portrays that students have acknowledged the difference between have and make causatives in its function and meaning.
The students also have understood well the active form of causative. It can be observed by the high number of correct answer in question (3) and (5). There are 34 students who correctly answer question (3) and 69 students have correct answers in question (5).
Question (3): My boss makes me work overtime every day last week. A B C
Question (5): Mr. Levine had his secretary call to Ms. Jackson and reconfirm A B
their meeting on Thursday. C
to-38
infinitive in a sentence which causes them to choose option B (call to) as the incorrect item in question (5). In the other side, the choice of option B (call to) for question (5) is also a sign that the students have known the rule of have causative which have is followed by infinitive.
b. Misordering
Misordering is the other error type that students did in question (4). Although most of students had answered the question corretly, there were five students who answered option A (always) as the incorrect word in the sentence. Here is the question for number (4) Part A:
Question (4): Romantic movies always have her cry. A B C
The word always in the sentence describes habitual activity. This is the reason why always is put between the subject and the causative verb. Nonetheless, some of students might think that always in this sentence is the incorrect word for the question (4). It is probably because always also can be used in present or past progressive for special circumstances, such as expression or anger and complaint (Azar, 1999: 30). In this case, students might consider the presence of be are/were before the word always in the sentence, thus influencing them to choose option A.
2. Students’ Errors in Part B
Part B contains of six questions; (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), of active causative sentences. Here, the students are instructed to change the active sentence into passive causative form. The purpose of the six questions is to find out how far the students’ comprehension about passive causative form.
In order to sum up the result of test in Part B, some steps were taken by the researcher to make the analysis better. All of error types that have been explained in Chapter III are found out in each question. The following table shows the number of each error.
Table 4.6 Data of Errors in Part B
Note: MF Misformation; A Addition; MO Misordering; O Omission Type of
Error
40
has the lowest number compared to others. In addition to those four types of error, the researcher also found out that some students did some combination of errors in several questions. This combination of errors will be explained further later. The number of unanswered questions is not counted.
a. Misformation
There are several mistakes that can be categorized as misformation, the wrong use of morpheme or structure. First is the change of have into get of causative verbs or otherwise in the answer. For example:
Question (9) : We need to have someone check out our computer for viruses.
SA : We need to get our computer checked out for viruses.
Question (7) : Though Bruno refused at first, we got him to paint our house last year.
SA : Though Bruno refused at first, we had our house painted last year.
Semantically, when it comes to a known causer in Question (9), get and have causatives will cause different meaning. Although the causee will bring about the same effect, the process that the causee will come through is different. Stefanowitsch explains that the causee in have causative sentence shows no resistance at all in the causing event (2001: 204). It is because the service frame connecting the causee and causer causes the causer to have less effort for affecting the causee. In the other hand, get causative gives a sense that some difficulties are involved (Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 653). The causee needs to be convinced into doing the causer’s intended action (Stefanowitsch, 2001: 205). As a result in question
(9), it will lose the sense of persuading Bruno if the students changed the sentence with had causative.
The next misformation error is the change from active causative sentence into regular passive sentence. Take a look at these examples:
Question (7) : Though Bruno refused at first, we got him to paint our house last year.
SA : Bruno was got to paint our house last year.
Question (9) : We need to have someone check out our computer for viruses.
SA : Someone is needed to check out our computer for viruses. Students’ answers in both examples above seem to maintain the grammar of
42
In question (7), the student seemed to be influenced by the rules of regular passive voice. This might be the cause why the students added was as the be before got. This error is also similar with the student’s answer in question (9).
In the other side, the students decided to put Bruno as the subject for the passive sentence because him in the question is put after the verb that can be a sign as the object of the active sentence. The students seemed to notice the rule of regular passive voice where: one, the form of be is added before past participle of a transitive verb (Zandvoort, 1969: 54); and two, the subject of a passive sentence may correspond to the direct object of active sentence (Zandvoort, 1969: 56). This problem is similar with question (9) where the students contemplated need as the main verb, someone as the object, and to check out our computer for viruses as the to-infinitive clause. The omission of have in the sentence is probably because the student thought need as the main verb for the sentence.
Next, the students also did some errors in changing active causative of have into passive form in modal tense. The example is in question (9).
Question (9) : We need to have someone check out our computer for viruses.
SA : The computer have to be checked by someone.
reason, it is logical if students thought that the sentence can be changed into passive form of modal because both of need and have as modal have the same sense. Nonetheless, the answer is incorrect because the sentence should be changed into passive causative form which is: ‘We need to have our computer checked out for
viruses’. The omission in the example can be seen from the absence of out and for
viruses. Student’s answer above also shows misformation error of have which it should be has due to the singular subject: the computer.
The last common mistake of misformation in Part B is the use of wrong subject and wrong lexical item when the students changed the sentence into passive form.
Question (10) : I had to have the seller fix my camera after I dropped it in the water.
SA : My seller had to fix my camera after I dropped it in the water.
Question (11) : He got his sister to help his homework. SA : I get my homework done by my sister.
44
Question (11) has two kinds of misformation: the change of subject he into I and verb help into do. Because the student changed he into subject I, he also changed his into my as the possessive form. This kind of mistake can be categorized as misformation. Next, the change of helped into done causes different interpretation in meaning although both of the words are verbs. Do might be used based on a same semantic meaning with help that is: to find or solve the answer. The error has the interpretation as if my sister was the one who did the homework, whether the right interpretation is that the subject Icould do the homework because of the sister’s help. b. Addition
Addition is the presence of an item which should not appear in the correct form of a sentence (Dulay, Burt, Krashen, 1982: 156). The examples of addition errors are:
Question (6) : Instead of buying a new bicycle, why don’t you have someone fix your old one?
SA : Instead of buying a new bicycle, why don’t you have your old one is fixed?
Question (8) : Where did you get someone to repair your car? We’re looking for a good mechanic.
SA : Where did you get your car to be repaired?
passive form is marked by the use of {di-} in the verb (Moeliono, 1987: 280). In this case, students acknowledge that be is should be added in passive form to mark the passive voice, similar with the form {di-} should be added to mark the passive sentence in Indonesian. Due to the transfer of language diperbaiki in Indonesian, therefore students decided to put is before fixed.
Next, question (8) has the additional to be before the verb repaired. The form of active causative where get is followed by to-infinitive may cause this error. That is why student kept writing to after the object and added be to form the passive voice. The student seemed not to acknowledge that the passive form of have and get causatives are the same.
c. Omission
The first common error of omission that the student did is the omission of the doer or the causer in the passive form. Here, the causer is marked after by- phrase.
Question (11) : He got his sister to help his homework. SA : He got his homework helped.
46
The omission of a subject is also common to be found in Part B. Take a look at this example:
Question (6) : Instead of buying a new bicycle, why don’t you have someone fix your old one?
SA : Instead of buying a new bicycle, why don’t have your old one fixed?
Although the meaning in the passive form is conveyed, the student had been mistaken to omit the causer in passive causative form. It can be observed that the student might think to put the verb right after don’t because the the student failed to recognize that don’t is a be for the phrase. The form of an interrogative sentence in simple present tense has the form: do/does + subject + verb + noun phrase. Instead, the student may look at the sentence as the negative form in simple present which has rule: subject+ do/does + not + verb + noun phrase.
The other possibility of the error is the influence of Indonesian. Here, the student just tried to translate the causative phrase as ‘kenapa tidak sepeda lamamu
yang diperbaiki?’. Due to the translation, the student finally omitted you as the causer.
d. Misordering
Different from misformation, misordering is the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance (Dulay. Burt, Krashen, 1982: 162). The general error of misordering is the error of get causative.
SA : Where did you get repaired your car? We’re looking for a good mechanic.
Question (11) : He got his sister to help his homework. SA : He got helped his homework by his sister.
To be looked closely, there is inseparability of get and the verbs in both cases. It is general knowledge that get passive is used in informal conversation. In the example such as: ‘Barry got invited to the party’ has get as an alternative to be
(Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen Freeman, 1999: 345). According to this fact, the student decided to put together be get and the verbs and cause misordering of the sentence. The objects of your car and his homework should be put between get and the verbs.
Similar thing also happens with have causative. The example is on question (9) as follows:
Question (9) : We need to have someone check out our computer for viruses.
SA : We need to have checked out our computer.
There are two possibilities behind the answer. First, the student noticed ‘to have someone check out our computer for viruses’ as the non-finite clause of
48
omission of for viruses in the sentence. Hence, the answer is incorrect because the sentence of causative should have our computer after have causative.
e. The Combinations of Some Errors
The researcher also found some combination of errors in several answers in Part B. The combinations of errors in Table 4.6 are the combination of misformation and misordering, misformation and omission, omission and misordering, omission and misformation, addition and misformation, addition and omission, and addition and misordering. One example is student’s answer in question (8).
Question (8) : Where did you get someone to repair your car? We’re looking for a good mechanic.
SA : Where did your car is repaired?
In this example, there are two errors in the student’s answer. First is the omission of the phrase ‘We’re looking for a good mechanic’. This omission may be
caused by the instruction that the students are asked to change the active causative sentence only. Therefore, he/she only changed the active causative sentence into passive structure. The other missing things in the answer are you and get. You is omitted because the student transfered the sentence into Indonesian as “Dimana mobilmu diperbaiki?”. In the other hand, it seemed that the student acknowledged
that the verb for the passive sentence should only be one verb, so he/she omitted get and decided repaired as the verb for the passive sentence.
in Indonesian. The passive form in Indonesian is marked by the presence of {di-} before the verb (Moeliono, 1987: 280). Due to the transfer of language diperbaiki in Indonesian, the student finally decided to put is before repaired.
Moreover, Table 4.6 shows that the mixing of addition and misformation has the highest number compared to other combinations in total errors. This can be observed from student’s answer in question (9).
Question (9) : We need to have someone check out our computer for viruses.
SA : Someone is had to be needed to check out our computer.
Student’s answer above has four types of mistakes. First, the student changed
the sentence into regular passive voice. It can be observed from be is in the sentence. The researcher tried to observe all the answers done by the student who wrote the sentence above. The result was the student changed the entire question into regular passive voice. It shows that the student did not acknowledge the passive form of causative. In the other hand, the student only changed the sentence into what he/she only knew about that was the form of regular passive voice.
Second, the student misunderstood have causative in the sentence and considered it as modal form of have to. It is probably because the word to have in the question that had tricked the student to think it as modal of have to. As the result, the student changed it into the passive form of have to as modal: had to be needed.
