A. Research Design
This research was designed by using qualitative approach with content analysis method. This method was choosen to identify the frequency and the most dominant factor of Indonesian interference found in the learners’ communicative competence in written communication via whatsapp learning group. David and Peter (2003) state that this method is used to analyze text and solve disputed authorship issue in academic papers. It enables researcher to study human behaviour indirectly through the analysis of their communication.
In addition, Ary et al. (2010) declare that in identifying specific material characteristics such as newspapers, television program, textbooks, and text, researcher can use this method. Zhang and Wildemuth (2009) state that there is specific process in conducting content analysis. They suggest the 8 steps which will be used in this research: 1) collect data, 2) identify the unit of analysis, 3) develop categories and a coding scheme, 4) test the coding system on a sample of text, 5) code all texts, 6) assess coding consistency, 7) draw conclusions from the coded data, and 8) describe methods and findings.
B. Research Subjects
The subjects of this research were the fourth-semester students of TBI class A-E IAIN Bengkulu who enrolled semantics-pragmatics class through whatsapp learning group in academic year 2020/2021. The subjects were chosen randomly from each class.
C. Research Instruments
In this research, camera screenshoot and data sheet were used as the research instruments. Camera screenshoot was used to capture all of the students’
written communication in the WA learning group. It enabled the researcher to collect the data in the form of documentation.
However, the data sheet was used to display the frequency and the most dominant factor of Indonesian grammatical and lexical interference found in the learners’ communicative competence in their written communication via
whatsapp learning group. It was used to present correct structure of L2 grammatical and lexical rules. It was presented based on the categories of L1 interference stated on the literature review, as follows:
Data Sheet 3.1 Subject-verb Agreement
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.2 Number and Quantifier
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.3 Modal
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.4 Word for Word Translation
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.5 Passive Voice
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.6 Tense
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.7 Disordering Words
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.8 Misusing Prepositions
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.9 Word Choice
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.10 Omitting Articles
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.11 Misusing Articles
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
Data Sheet 3.12 To Infinitive
No. SS Number L1 Interference Expected L2 Line
D. Data Collection Technique
The data of this research were the students’ written communication in their whatsapp learning groups. The researcher collected the data through camera screenshot or computer print-screen. The next step was note-taking to write the data captured by the screenshot. Moreover, the data were analyzed based on two research questions using the theory of Error Analysis (EA). The first was to analyze the frequency of interference made by the learners. The second was to analyze the most dominant factor that causes the learners’ interference in their written communication.
E. Data Analysis Technique
Data of this research were analyzed by using error analysis technique proposed by Corder. It consisted of several procedures, as follows:
2. Identifying the errors by comparing the learners’ sentences with the corresponding native senteces. Moreover, the researcher identified which parts of the learners’ sentences are different from the natives’ sentences.
3. Describing aspects of errors made by the learners
4. Explaining the factors that caused learners made errors in their written communication
5. Evaluating the language errors. In this step, the frequency of errors was identified and the number of errors were presented in the forms of tables.
The formula for determining the percentage is as follows:
F. Trustworthiness
In quantitative studies, credibility and dependendability of the research refers to how valid and reliable the results are, while in qualitative research, the research outcomes are measured to guarantee that they are credible, transferable, confirmable, and dependable. In this case, the researcher will use interrater and intercoder in ensuring that the data of the research is credible and dependable.
Percentage of error types = ∑ student’s errors on each category X 100%
∑ student’s errors
CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the result and the discussion of the research based on the data that were collected from the learners’ written communication of fourth- semester students of TBI IAIN Bengkulu in whatsapp learning group. After completing the research and data collection based on the data analysis in the chapter III, the result of the research revealed the frequency of L1 language interference found in the learners’ written communication in whatsapp learning group and the most dominant factor causing the interference.
A. Result
The data were collected from the fourth-semester students of English Education Study Program at IAIN Bengkulu. The data of the research were collected from Semantics-Pragmatic classes from class A to E by using screenshoot. From the screenshoot, it was found that there were many LI interference-Indonesian in the learners’ communicative competence in their written communication via whatsapp learning group in the form of grammatical and lexical interference. After collecting the data, they were analyzed and counted to frequencies and percentage of each types of LI interference and factor causing the interference dominantly found in the learners’ written communication.
1. Frequency of First Language Interference found in the Learners’ Written Communication in Whatsapp Learning Group
After collecting the data using the screenshoot in the Semantics- Pragmatics classes of the fourth-semester students of TBI IAIN Bengkulu, two types of LI interference were found in this research, namely lexical and grammatical interference. Each type of L1 interference had been classified into several categories. Interference at the lexical interference level consisted of four categories: missusing preposition, word choice, omitting articles, and misusing article. Meanwhile, interference at grammatical level consisted of eight categories: subject-verb agreement, number and quantifier,
Therefore, after the data were classified, they were counted to identify the frequency of each category of L1 interference, so the researcher was able to find out the number of L1 intreference made by the learners. The following table shows the categories of lexical and grammatical interference, the frequency of each category, and the percentage of each category:
Table 4. 1
Frequencies and Percentage of Lexical Interference
The Categories of Lexical Interference Frequencies Percentage (%)
Misusing Preposition 24 18, 04 %
Word Choice 23 17, 29 %
Omitting Article 82 61, 65 %
Misusing Article 4 3, 00 %
Total 133 100 %
As seen in the table above, 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 of lexical interference was misusing article with 4 frequencies or 3, 00 %.
Table 4. 2
Frequencies and Percentage of Grammatical Interference The Categories of Grammatical
Interference
Frequencies Percentage (%)
Subject-verb Agreement 28 14, 50 %
Number and Quantifier 13 6, 73 %
To Infinitive 8 4, 14 %
Word for Word Translation 12 6, 21 %
Pasive Voice 27 13, 98 %
Tenses 82 42, 48 %
Disordering Word 11 5, 69 %
Modal 12 6, 21 %
Total 193 100 %
As seen in the table above, 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 frequencies or 5, 69 %, and the lowest number of grammatical interference was to invinitive with 8 frequencies or 4, 14 %.
From the overall obtained data and the analysis conducted in this research, there were 326 data of L1 interference classified into lexical interference and grammatical interference. Each category of lexical interference and grammatical interference will be explained in detail by explaining the data of L1 interference found in the students’ written communication in the whatsapp learning group.
a. Lexical Interference
their written communication. From 194 data of the students written communication screenshoots, 24 L1 interference errors in using prepositions were found. It is widely known that preposition is a word which precedes a noun, a noun phrase, or a pronoun, and connect it to another word in the sentence, such as in, on, at, about, with, of, to, by, beside, before, down, and after, in spite of, because of, etc. Prepositions do not really have a function within the phrase or clause that they introduce. They introduce a dependent noun phrase and purely link and show a meaning of relationship in a sentence, while English has more variety of prepositions than Indonesia. EFL learners tend to misuse them by changing, adding, or omitting the prepositions.
The case where the learners changed the preposition because they were interfered by the lexical item of the first language can be exemplifed by the datum 12 in appendix 1:
L1 Interference Expected L2
Figurative language is contary with literal language
Figurative language is contary to literal language
Based on the datum above, the adjective contary should be followed by the preposition to because in English the adjective has been collocated with its own preposition. Therefore, the preposition to is more appropriate one to use in the sentence. This is in line with Oxford Learner’s Dictionary’s explanation that contary to is used most often to talk about something different from something. For instance, “Contary to popular belief, many cats dislike milk.” In contrast, contary with was as the cause of Indonesian Interference since the EFL learner used the preposition with as the literal translation of dengan in Indonesian language. It is reasonable as most of Indonesian people use with to tell about the contariness in such situation, while in English there are several words that have been collocated with their own preposition and cannot be
changed with another just like the word contary. Accordingly, the preposition to is the correct preposition to use in English in that case.
Meanwhile, the case where the EFL learners added unnecessary preposition because they were interfered by the lexical item of Indonesian language can be exemplified by the datum 59 in appendix 1:
L1 Interference Expected L2
Because I don’t catch about it Because I don’t catch it
Based on the datum above, the EFL learner added the preposition about after the verb catch. It was considered incorrect because the verb catch should not be followed by the preposition about when the writer means the verb catch for getting something. It should be followed directly by an object. Meanwhile, when the learner used the preposition about, it was purely caused by the Indonesian interference. It was reasonable as Indonesian people usually use the word about which means tentang toward something. For instance, when they say, “aku ingin menjelaskan tentang hal itu.” instead of “aku ingin menjelaskan hal itu.”
While it is contary to the English people. From this explanation, it is clear that the learner was interfered by Indonesian language in using the preposition in English.
Furthermore, the EFL learners also omitted some necesarry prepositions that should be used in the sentences. This case was exemplified by the datum 168 in appendix 1:
L1 Interference Expected L2
give me example sentences of modal verb past
give me example of sentences of modal verb past
Based on the datum 168, the EFL learner omitted the preposition of in the sentence. It was considered as an error in English since of is used
was interfered by the Indonesian language as the preposition does not exist in the Indonesian sentence to collocate two nouns in such situation.
The second category of lexical interference found in the students’
written communication in whatsapp learning group was word choice.
There were 23 L1 interference errors in word choice where the students were mistaken in choosing the appropriate vocabularies to be used in the sentences. This case can be exemplified by the datum 148 in appendix 2:
L1 Interference Expected L2
We are from group 1 sorry if do the mistake
We are from group 1 sorry if make the mistake
Based on the datum above, the vocabulary should be used in the sentence was make because it fits with the context of the sentence. While do leads to a different meaning and it does not fit the sentence.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, when we use do and make with noun phrases, do focuses on the process of acting or performing something, make emphasises more the product or outcome of an action.
Based on the case, it is seen clearly that both do and make have different meaning in English, while in Indonesian language both verb are often used interchangeably in that case. In that case, the learner was interfered by Indonesian language by using do which means melakukan instead of make which means membuat. Thus, the case was likely to occur because the learner was confused to choose the appropriate word for the word mistake without considering the different semantic meaning of both do and make in English.
The third category of lexical interference found in the students’
written communication in whasapp learning group was omitting articles.
There were 82 L1 interference errors found in the students’ written communication in whatsapp learning group. This case can be exemplified by the datum 173 in appendix 3:
L1 Interference Expected L2 you can click the yt link to watch
video
you can click the yt link to watch the video
Based on the datum, the EFL learner omitted the definite article the, while it was needed to be placed in front of the noun video. It is used to indicate a particular specific noun that the readers have already known what video it is because it has been send to the whatsapp learning group previously. Therefore, omitting the article in the sentence would indicate a general idea. This case was likely to occur because the interference of Indonesian language. It was reasonable as in Indonesian language using articles is not always necessary and it does not distinguish general and specific ideas.
The fourth category of lexical interference found in the students’
written communication in whatsapp learning group was misusing articles.
There were 3 L1 interference errors found in the students’ written communication in whatsapp learning group. This case can be exemplified by the datum 30 in appendix 4:
L1 Interference Expected L2
my name is [...] as a moderator my name is [...] as the moderator Based on the datum, the EFL learner misused the article in the sentence. In this case, the article should be the as the noun moderator it has been referred to a specific noun. It was reasonable as in Indonesian language there is no special article to be collocated with a specific noun.
Therefore, the learner misused the article by replacing the definite article to the indefinite article.
b. Grammatical Interference
The first category of grammatical interference found in the
grammatical interference at subject-verb agreement. This case can be exemplified by the datum 157 in appendix 5:
L1 Interference Expected L2
Modal verbs always accompanies the infinitive of other verbs that have semantic content
Modal verbs always accompany the infinitive of other verbs that have semantic content
Based on the datum above, the sentence indicated simple present tense. In English, the inflection s/es of verb is needed in simple present tense which agrees with the subject of the sentence. Inflection “s/es” is used for third person singular she, he, and it. Therefore, the subject and the verb in the datum 4 should be agreed with this grammatical rule. The verb accompanies should be written accompany to indicate agreement of the subject modal verbs and the verb. In contrast, Indonesian does not have inflection for the verbs in any tenses, in which the verbs remain the same form even though their subjects were changed. In brief, it is obvious that the EFL learners were interfered by the structure of Indonesian as such distinctive rule does not exist in Indonesian language.
The second category of grammatical interference was number and quantifier. There were 13 data of grammatical interference in this category were found. Number and quantifier are used to give someone information about number of something such as many, some, several, each, number of, etc. Each quantifier should agree with the noun whether it is singual or plural. In this case, plural noun should be added by inflection s/es except for irregular nouns such as teeth, sheep, and oxen.
However, Indonesian learners are commonly mistaken in writing plural nouns because they transferred the Indonesian structure. It is reasonable as this rule differs from Indonesain language. This case can be exemplified by datum 187 in appendix 6:
L1 Interference Expected L2 Some language also have a
morphological set (such as an inflection)
Some languages also have a morphological set (such as an inflection)
Based on the datum, the quantifier some was used as the determiner of the noun reason. While reason is identified as a countable noun in English. It means that the inflection s is needed to indicated that the noun is plural. Therefore, it should be reasons. Thus, the learner used this structure as in Indonesian singular and plural remain the same even though they were preceded by plural quantifiers such as bermacam, beragam, beberapa, and berbagai.
The third category of grammatical interference was to infinitive. In English to infinitive is used to connect two or more verbs in a sentence.
this grammatical rule is often confusing for Indonesian learners due to different rule of both languages. In Indonesian language, the people usually use two verbs in a sentence without using to infinitive. For instance, aku ingin makan. When it is written in English, it should be I want to eat. The difference of both language is seen clearly. Therefore, the EFL learners often make errors in using to infinitive. This case can be seen in datum in appendix 7:
L1 Interference Expected L2
today I want explain about hyponymy
today I want to explain about hyponymy
Based on the datum above, the word want should be followed by to infinitive as there was the verb explain joining in the sentence. In this case, the learner was interfered by Indonesian grammatical rule. It seemed to be normal in Indonesian language, but in English it is deemed
The fourth category of grammatical interference was word for word translation. As cited in Cambridge dictionary, word for word translation refers to translating one word at a time in the same order or literally rather than in phrases or other larger units of meaning. Word for word translation is often occured in translating first language into the secon language. this case can be exemplified by datum 72 in appendix 8:
L1 Interference Expected L2
So, in your paper you have describe the modal verbs with compare it to modal (discourse) particles
So, in your paper you have describe the modal verbs by comparing it to modal (discourse) particles
Based on the datum above, the EFL learner translated the preposition and the object directly from Indonesian language dengan membandingkan without considering the appropriate form in English.
Therefore, it is considered as an error. It is reasonable as in English with compare should be written by comparing. It is commonly called gerund after preposition. It does not exist in Indonesian language. In this case, the people usually use the word dengan with the base form of a verb.
Indonesian language has no gerund like the word comparing in English where it is as the object of preposition by.
The fifth category of grammatical interference was passive voice.
In English passive voice is formulated by be + past participle or modal + be + past participle. This structure is often confusing for EFL learners as Indonesian language has different structure in making passive sentence.
therefore, they often make error in making passive sentences in English.
This case can be exemplified by the datum 109 in appendix 9: