Discussion - RESULT AND DISCUSSION - investigating first language interference

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION

B. Discussion

After presenting the types of L1 interference and the factor causing the interference, the researcher intends to discuss the result and how it answers the research questions proposed in the first chapter. There are two research questions that are concerned respectively with the frequency of the first language- indonesian interference and factors causing the interference found in the learners’

written communication in whatsapp learning group.

The first question is about the frequency of Indonesian grammatical and lexical interference found in the learners’ communicative competence in written communication via whatsapp learning group. Wenriech, the first linguist who promoted the theory of first language interference classified it into there types, namely phonological interference, lexical interference, and grammatical interference. Since this analysis examined first language interference in the learners’ written communication in whatsapp learning group, lexical interference and grammatical interference were noticed. Finally, lexical interference and grammatical interference were found 326 times in the learners’ written communication. The lexical inteference consists of four categories: misusing prepositions, word choice, omitting article, and misusing articles. The grammatical interference consists of eight categories: subject-verb agreement, number and qantifier, to infinitive, word for word translation, passive voice, tenses, disordering word, modal.

From the overall data obtained, 133 frequencies of lexical interference were found. The first category of lexical interference was misusing a preposition which was found 24 frequencies or 18, 04 %. In this case, the learners made the errors by adding, omitting, or changing the prepositions in the sentences. The second category was word choice which was found 23 frequencies or 17, 29 %. In this case, the learners misued certain words because they had simmilar meaning in

article which was needed in the sentence. The last category of lexical interference was misusing article which was found 4 frequencies or 3, 00 %. In this case, the learner was confused to choose between definite and indefinite article for the nouns in the sentence.

Meanwhile, the grammatical interference was found 193 frequencies in the learners’ written communication in whatsapp learning group. The highest number of grammatical interference was tenses with 82 frequencies or 42, 48 %, the second was subject-verb agreement with 28 frequencies or 14, 50 %, the third was passive voice with 27 frequencies or 13, 98 %, the fourth was number and quantifier with 13 frequencies or 6, 73 %, the fifth was word for word translation with 12 frequencies or 6, 21 %, the sixth was modal with the same frequencies as those of the word for word translation, the seventh was disordering word which was founded 11 frequencies or 5, 69 %, and the lowest number of grammatical interference was to ifinitive which was founded 8 frequencies or 4, 14 %.

Moreover, the second question is about the dominant factor causing the language interference in the learners’ written communication in whatsapp learning group. From the result of the analysis, the three factors causing L1 interference proposed by Lott (1983) were found. The highest frequency of factor causing the lexical interference was interlingual factor with 112 frequencies or 84, 21 %. The second factor was overextension of analogy with 14 frequencies or 10, 52 %, and the lowest frequency of factor causing the lexical interference was transfer of structure with 7 frequencies or 5, 26 %. Meanwhile, the highest frequency of factor causing the grammatical interference was transfer of structure with 98 frequencies or 50, 77 %, the second was interlingual factor with 83 frequencies or 43, 00 %, and the lowest frequency of factor causing the grammatical interference was overextension of analogy with 12 frequency or 6, 21 %. Each factor causing L1 interference at lexical and grammatical interference is explained, as follows:

Interlingual factor occurs when the learners misuse a vocabulary item because a lexical distinction does not exist in their first language or the learners make an error of grammatical rule because a grammatical distinction does not exist in the first language. The second factor is transfer of structure which occurs

when the learners make an error of grammatical rule because they follow the rules of their first language and not the target language. The third factor causing L1 interference was overextension of analogy which occurs when the students misuse a vocabulary item because the item shares feature, whether phonological, orthographic, semantic, or syntactic to the first language.

In addition, most of the researchers examined LI interfrence only identify types of interference and factors causing it without providing recommendation on how those interference can be encountered by the learners. Therefore, this research provides recommendation for teachers and lecturers of writing course to encounter L1 interference made by the learners. Thet lecturer is suggested to use a

‘guided discovery’ technique. McDonough stated that the teacher asks the students to complete a series of sentences incorporating a particular problem, the exercises being organized so that potential mistakes are provoked and guidance is given by the teacher. In this way the teacher helps the learners to make valid hypotheses. Guided discovery, also known as an inductive approach, refers to a technique where a teacher provides examples of a language item and helps the learners to find the rules themselves. For instance, the learners are shown a problem page containing various examples of the second conditional ‘If I were you, ...’ They identify the structure and the rules for making it. In the classroom, guided discovery is regarded by many teachers as an important tool. It encourages independence, makes learning more memorable, and if analysis is done in group is a meaningful communicative task.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion

This research has analyzed and highlighted the learners first language- Indonesian interference which consists of lexical interference and grammatical interference in the studens’ written communication in whatsapp learning group.

The analysis was carried out by referring to Weinreich in terms of the types of first language interference and Lott in terms of factors causing the interference.

The result of the research revealed that there were 326 frequencies which consisted of lexical interference and grammatical interference in the learners’

written communication in whatsapp learning group.

From the obtained data, 133 frequencies of lexical interference were found.

The highest number of lexical interference that the students made was omitting article with 82 frequencies or 18, 04 %, the second was misusing preposition with 24 frequencies or 18, 04 %, the third was word choice with 23 frequencies, and the lowest number was misusing article with 4 frequencies or 3, 00 %.

Meanwhile, 193 frequencies of grammatical interference were found. The highest number of grammatical interference was tense with 82 frequencies or 42, 48 %, the second was subject-verb agreement with 28, frequencies or 14, 50 %, the fourth was passive voice or 13, 98 %, the fifth was number and quantifier with 13 frequencies or 6, 73 %, the sixth was modal with 12 frequencies or 6, 21 %, the seventh was disordering word with 11 freqiencies or 5, 69 %, and the lowest number was to invinitive with 8 frequencies or 4, 14 %.

Moreover, the three factors causing L1 interference proposed by Lott were found in the learners’ written communication in whatsapp learning group. The highest frequency of factors causing lexical interference was interlingual factor with 112 frequencies or 84, 21 %, the second frequency was overextension of analogy with 14 frequencies or 10, 52 %, and the lowest frequency was transfer of structure with 7 frequencies or 5, 26 %. While, the highest frequency of factors

causing the grammatical interference was transfer of structure with 98 frequencies or 50, 77 %, the second frequency was interlingual factor with 83 frequencies or 43, 00 %, the lowest frequency was overextension of analogy with 12 frequencies or 6, 21 %.

B. Suggestion

According to the result of the research, the researcher suggests that the lecturer should apply appropriate techniques and strategies in teaching writing especially the grammatical and lexical accuracy. In this case, the lecturer can use a guided discovery technique in teaching to encounter LI interference where the lecturer asks the students to complete a series of sentences incorporating a particular problem and the exercises being organized so that potential mistakes are provoked, and guidance is given to the students. For the students, they need to be self-aware of the L1 interference in their written communication. It can reduce the possible interference they make. Moreover, since this research has many limitations, and may not generalize to other contexts, the researcher suggests the further researchers to research the other aspects that focus on L1 interference in written communication. It is crucial for them to do research in the area of L1 interference, but in different or larger scope to give new insights for readers.

Finally, the researcher hopes that this thesis can be used as reference for those who are interested in studying L1 interference.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, Alia N. et al. (2019). Interference of First Language in Secondary School Students. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(103), 675-681. Doi: 10.35940/ijeat.F1125.0986S319

Adwani P. and Shrivastava S. (2017). Analysis of Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 4(3), 158-164. Doi: 10.3126/ijssm.v4i3.17247

Anh, Dang Thi Ngoc. (2019). EFL Student’s Writing Skills: Challenges and Remedies. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 9(6), 74-84.

Doi: 10.9790/7388-0906017484

Ary, D., et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Thompson Wadsworth.

Ariyanti, A. (2016). Shaping Students’ Writing Skills: The Study of Fundamental Aspects in Mastering Academic Writing. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 16(2), 263-277. Doi: 10.21462/ijefll.v1i1.5

Bereiter, C. and Scardimalia, M. (2009). The Psychology of Written Composition.

New York: Rouledge.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Education Company.

Budiharto, R. Agus. (2019). Native Language Interference on Target Language Writings of Indonesian EFL Students: An Exploratory Case Study.

Indonesian EFL Journal, 5(1), 107-116. Doi: 10.25134/ieflj.v5i1.1630 Carrol et al. (2001). Writing and Grammar: Communication in Action. New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Chaira, S. (2015). Interference of First Language in Pronunciation of English Segmental Sounds. English Education Journal, 6(4), 469-483.

David, W. and B. Peter. (2003). Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers. London: Routledge Falmer.

Denizer, Elif Nur. (2017). Does Mother Tongue Interfere in Second Language Learning? Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 39-54.

Derakhshan, A., and Elham K. (2015). The Interference of First Language and Second Language Acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2112-2117. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.19

Dulay, Burt, and Krashen. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dweik, B and Othman, Zainab A. (2017). Lexical and Grammatical Interference in the Translation of Written Texts from Arabic into English. Academic Research International, 8(3), 65-70.

Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erarslan and Hol. (2014). Language Interference on English: Transfer on the Vocabulary, Tense and Preposition Use of Freshmen Turkish EFL Learners.

ELTA Journal, 2(2).

Galkina and Radyuk. (2019). Grammatical Interference in Written Papers Translated by Russian and American Students. Training, Language and Culture, 3(3). Doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.3.6

Gerot, L., and P. Wignell. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Passage. Australia:

An Introductory Workbook.

Iskandar and Saputra, A. (2020). Native Language Interference in Learning English Written Text as a Foreign Language. JIR: Journal Ilmiah Rinjani, 8(2), 7-15.

Jafarova, K. (2017). The Problem of Interference and Its Influence of Learners Native Language. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 15(4), 292-296. Doi:

0.15547/tjs.2017.04.003

Jones, S., and J. Tetroe. (1987). Composing in a Second Language. In A.

Matsuhashi (ed.), Writing in Real Time: Modelling Production Processes.

Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Lado. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. Mcgraw-Hill.

Lott. (1983). Analyzing and Counteracting Interference Errors. ELT Journal, 37(3), 256. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/37.3.256

Mahmud. (2017). Interference: Its Role in the Second or Foreign Language Mastery to Indonesian Learners. ELT Perspective, 5(1), 52-58.

Phuket P. R. N and Biden, S. J. (2016) Native Language Interference in Writing:

A case study of Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 4(16).

Putra, Pebri Prandika. (2020). First Language Interference on English Use. Jurnal Al-Lughah, 19(1), 40-52.

Rao, Parupalli Srinivas. (2019). Teaching of Writing Skills to Foreign or Second Language Learners of English. International E-Journal for Research in ELT, 5(2), 136-152.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Subandowo, Dedy. (2017). The Language Interference in English Speaking Skill for EFL Learner. Adavances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 110, 205-210. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/iselt-17.2017.36 Thyab, R. A. (2016). Mother-Tongue Interference in the Acquisition of English

Articles by L1 Arabic Students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3).

Utami, D. H., Wello, B., and Haryanto, A. (2017). The Phonological Interference of Students’ First Language in Pronouncing English Sounds. ELT Worldwide, 4(2), 206-212.

Weinreich. (1968). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:

Mouton Publishers.

A

P

E

N

D

I

C

E

APPENDIX 1

LEXICAL INTERFERENCE Data Sheet 1 : Misusing Preposition

No SS

Number

L1 Interference

Type Expected L2 Factor

Causing L1 Interference

Line

1. 2 I will ask for group 3th

Adding I will ask group 3th Transfer of Structure

2. 2 According to

Mansouri, there are disadvantages to using hyponymy

Changing According to Mansouri, there are disadvantages of using hyponymy.

Interlingual Factor

3. 12 Figurative language is contary with literal language

Changing Figurative

language is contary to literal language

Interlingual Factor

4. 14 Thanks for Cece Adding Thanks Cece Transfer of

Structure

5. 16 In the point tenses section

Omitting In the point of tenses section

Transfer of Structure

6. 19 I have a question to 2nd group

Changing I have a question for 2nd group

Interlingual Factor

7. 20 I have a question to 2nd group

Changing I have a question for 2nd group

Interlingual Factor

8. 20 Because I still have not got understand about that

Adding because I still have not understandood that

Interlingual Factor

9. 50 So, what is the function about verbal mood?

Changing So, what is the function of verbal mood?

Interlingual Factor

10. 51 Is it clear enough to you andini?

Changing Is it clear enough for you andini?

Transfer of Structure

11. 59 so, can you give me explanation about the different about synonymy and incompatibilt?

Changing so, can you give me explanation about the different between synonymy and incompatibilt?

Interlingual Factor

12. 59 Because I don’t catch about it

Adding Because I don’t catch it

Interlingual Factor

13.

89 The students able use this technique just for learning about noun

Adding The students able use this technique just for learning noun

Interlingual Factor

14. 89 It is unable when the students learn about other part of speech

Adding It is unable when the students learn other part of speech

Interlingual Factor

15. 90 Irony is segments in which intendeed meanings are contradictory with stated meaning

Changing Irony is segments in which intendeed meanings are contradictory to stated meaning

Interlingual Factor

16. 136 Have you understand from our explain serti?

Adding Have you understand our explaination serti?

Interlingual Factor

17. 148 Thanks a lot of your attention

Changing Thanks a lot for your attention

Transfer of Structure

18. 154 we will explain about the material

Adding we will explain the material

Interlingual Factor

19. 154 Alima would explain Adding Alima would Interlingual 3

material 20. 168 give me example

sentences of modal verb past

Omitting give me example of sentences of modal verb past

Transfer of Structure

21. 176 What is relationship of figurative

language with semantics?

Changing What is relationship

between figurative language with semantics?

Interlingual Factor

22. 177 Today we will presentation about our material

Adding Today we will presentation our material

Interlingual Factor

23. 180 now we will explain about our paper

Adding now we will explain our paper

Interlingual Factor

24. 194 There is no

difference from the tense discussed with normal tenses that we know

Changing There is no

difference between the tense discussed with normal tenses that we know

Interlingual Factor

APPENDIX 2

LEXICAL INTERFERENCE Data Sheet 2 : Word Choice

No SS

Number

L1 Interference

Expected L2 Factor Causing L1 Interference

Line

1. 20 Can you explain again about spartial part?

Can you explain more about spartial part?

Overextension of Analogy

2. 25 Please wait a second the materi from 2nd speaker

Please wait a second the material from 2nd speaker

Overextension of Analogy

3. 32 What the different of

‘em ?

What the difference of

‘em ?

Overextension of Analogy

4. 56 please clear according to your understanding!

please explain according to your understanding!

Overextension of Analogy

5. 59 so, can you give me explanation about the different about synonymy and incompatibilt?

so, can you give me explanation about the difference about synonymy and incompatibilt?

Overextension of Analogy

6. 62 are you satisfying with the answer?

are you satisfied with the answer?

Interlingual Factor

7. 73 please give we time to answer

please give us time to answer

Interlingual Factor

8. 84 but it is difference with semantics

but it is different with semantics

Overextension of Analogy

9. 96 I want to ask “how to I want to ask “how to Overextension 3

10. 113 Thank you so much for your participant

Thank you so much for your participantion

Overextension of Analogy

11. 119 we Will give you 8-10 menit to understand it

we Will give you 8-10 minutes to understand it

Overextension of Analogy

12. 136 Have you understand from our explain serti?

Have you understand from our explanation serti?

Overextension of Analogy

13. 148 We are from group 1 sorry if do the mistake

We are from group 1 sorry if make the mistake

Interlingual Factor

14. 149 so we can to remember tenses last future present in spoke with someone

so we can to remember tenses last future present in speaking with someone

Overextension of Analogy

15. 152 I want to ask, what is the different between tenses in semantics

I want to ask, what is the difference between tenses in semantics

Overextension of Analogy

16. 154 ‘cause all of you have done watch the video

‘cause all of you have done watching the video

Interlingual Factor

17. 169 This means that the word you don’t know is

surrounded by other words that make its meaning clear

This means that the word you don’t know is surrounded by other words that make its meaning clearly

Interlingual Factor

18. 176 What is relationship of figurative language with semantics?

What is relationship of figurative language and semantics?

Interlingual Factor

19. 177 Today we will Today we will present Overextension 4

presentation about our material

about our material of Analogy

20. 178 Good morning all Good morning everyone

Interlingual Factor

21. 181 Basically, the first part containing a request or offer is usually made with the expectation

Basically, the first part containing a request or offer is usually made of the expectation

Transfer of Structure

22. 189 Ok thank you for the read paper and watching our video

Ok thank you for reading paper and watching our video

Overextension of Analogy

23. 194 There is no difference from the tense discussed with normal tenses that we know

There is no difference from the tense

discussed and normal tenses that we know

Interlingual Factor

APPENDIX 3

LEXICAL INTERFERENCE Data Sheet 3 : Omitting Article

No SS

Number

L1 Interference

Expected L2 Factor Causing L1 Interference

Line

1. 1 Semantics and

pragmatics both examine meaning

Semantics and pragmatics both examine a meaning

Interlingual Factor

2. 1 while pragmatics studies meaning externally

while pragmatics studies the meaning externally

Interlingual Factor

3. 2 I’m Eka purnamasari , from 8th group

I’m Eka purnamasari , from the 8th group

Interlingual Factor

4. 4 8th group will glad to anwer it

the 8th group will glad to anwer it

Interlingual Factor

5. 5 How about 3th group? How about the 3th group?

Interlingual Factor

6. 5 Do you don’t have question?

Do you don’t have a question?

Interlingual Factor

7. 6 Pragmatics is study of meaning in speech context

Pragmatics is the study of meaning in speech context

Interlingual Factor

8. 7 Alright, thanks for all your questions give time to 7th group to answer it

Alright, thanks for all your questions give time to the 7th group to answer it

Interlingual Factor

9. 8 I’m Ema from 1st group I’m Ema from the 1st group

Interlingual Factor

10. 15 I’m Annisa Rachma I’m Annisa Rachma Interlingual 2

(1911230038) from 2nd Group

(1911230038) from the 2nd Group

Factor

11. 16 I’m eka purnamasari (1911230037)/from 8th our group

I’m eka purnamasari (1911230037)/from the 8th group

Interlingual Factor

12. 17 Please give reasons, and explain what is meant by imperfective aspect?

Please give the reasons, and explain what is meant by imperfective aspect?

Interlingual Factor

13. 18 I’m Sitti Rahayu Armita Lestari (1911230027) from 5th group

I’m Sitti Rahayu Armita Lestari

(1911230027) from the 5th group

Interlingual Factor

14. 18 I have a question for fourth group

I have a question for the fourth group

Interlingual Factor

15. 19 My name is Nur Cholida (1911230036) from 7th group

My name is Nur Cholida (1911230036) from the 7th group

Interlingual Factor

16. 19 I have a question to 2nd group

I have a question to the 2nd group

Interlingual Factor

17. 20 My name is ema

(1911230035k) from 1st group

My name is Ema (1911230035k) from the 1st group

Interlingual Factor

18. 23 If you have a question or suggestion

If you have a question or a suggestion

Interlingual Factor

19. 24 Hello 8th group I’m Sitti Rahayu Armita Lestari (1911230027)

Hello the 8th group I’m Sitti Rahayu Armita Lestari (1911230027)

Interlingual Factor

Dalam dokumen investigating first language interference (Halaman 68-72)