31 whereas competence error is caused by learners’ lack of knowledge of the rules of
the language as cited in Dulay et al., 1982, p. 139. Corder 1967 further states that in some language literature, performance
error have been called mistake and the term error was admitted as systematic deviations because learners still develop their knowledge of the second language
rule system as cited in Dulay et al., 1982, p. 139. However, Dulay et al. 1982,
p. 139, further mention that the disctinction between performance and competence error is essential, but to determine the nature of a deviation without
doing careful analysis is still not easy to do. Therefore, the term error is not specified only to competence based
deviations in order to facilitate reference to deviations that have not been classified as performance errors, which have been called as mistake in some
language literature Corder, 1967, as cited in Dulay et al., 1982, p. 139, or competence errors. Thus, the term error can be used to present any deviation from
a selected norm of language performance without considering the characteristics or causes of the deviation Dulay et al., 1982, p. 139.
b. The Sources of Errors
Researchers and linguists have thought about possible causes of errors made by language learners. According to Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005, what
processes learners invoke when they do not understand the target-language form is essential to ask in order to be able to explain errors p. 65. Then, Ellis and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32 Barkhuizen 2005 mention that traditionally, there are two major processes are
identified: distingushing interlingual errors and intralingual errors p. 65.
1 Interlingual Errors
Interlingual errors are the result of mother tongue influences Ellis Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 65. There is an example:
[47] We went at Johannesburg last week Ellis, 2003, p. 18.
The error in sentence [47] was made by speakers of Bantu languages in Southern Africa who frequently use the preposition at in order to refer to direction as well
as location Ellis, 2003, p. 18. Ellis 2003 further explains that the error in sentence [47] might happen because Bantu languages only use a single
preposition to express location and direction where English has two prepositions: at and to p.18.
2 Intralingual Errors
Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005 state that intralingual errors reflect the operation of learning strategies that are universal, e.g., evident in all learners
irrespective of their L1. Then, according to Richards 1974, intralingual errors reflect the general characteristics of the rule in learning, such as faulty
generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply p. 174. In addition, Richards 1971 b further states that
intralingual errors are also often further subdivided into over-generalization, ignorance of rules restrictions, incomplete application of rules, false concepts
hypothesized as cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 59.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
a Over-Generalization
According to Richards 1974, over-generalization covers instances where the learner makes a deviant structure which is caused by his experience of other
structures in the target language p. 174. In addition, over-generalization generally also deals with the creation of one deviant structure in place of two
regular structures. Over-generalization can also be defined as a blend of two structures in the standard version of the language Norrish, 1983, p. 31. In
addition, Norrish 1983 further states that based on learners’ experience of the language, learners may possibly construct a deviant structure p. 31. The example
is: the use of eated in place of ate, where in this case, the learner over- generalized form that they found easy to learn and to process Ellis, 2003, p. 19.
Other examples are: [48]
The form was is generalized for all persons and both numbers in the past tense Richards, 1974, p. 174, p. 175.
[49] We are visit the zoo Norrish, 1983, p. 31.
Sentence [49] shows a blending of the continuous and the simple present Norrish, 1983, p. 31. Richards 1974 adds that over-generalization is also because the
learner reduces his linguistic burden p. 174. For example: [50]
He come from Solo. In sentence [50], the writer removes the necessity for concord by omitting the
third person –s. This condition relieves the writer from the considerable effort to decide whether to add –s or not Richards, 1974, p. 174.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
b Ignorance of Rule Restrictions
According to Richards 1974, ignorance of rule restrictions may happen because of the application of rules to contexts where they do not apply p. 175.
Richards 1974 adds that analogy, the learner rationalizing a deviant usage from his previous experience of English, may also cause learners to make some rule
restriction errors p. 175. For example: due to the analogy of the learner’s previous experience of subject + verb + object constructions, the learner felt that
there was something incomplete to the sentence of that’s the man who I saw. Therefore, the learner decided to add an object after the verb, as the learner had
been taught to do elsewhere. The sentence, thus, became that’s the man who I saw him Richards, 1974, p. 176. Another example is a learner used a particular
preposition to one type of verb. However, he also used the same preposition to another similar verb because of his analogy in using the preposition, e.g., He
showed me the pen leads to he explained me the book Richards, 1974, p. 175.
c Incomplete Application of Rules
According to Richards 1971b, incomplete application of rules deals with a failure to fully develop a structure as cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 59. In addition,
according to Richards 1974, incomplete application of rules involves a failure to learn more complex types of structure because the learner thinks that he is able to
achieve effective communication by using relatively simple rules as cited in Ellis, 1985, p. 53.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35
d False Concepts Hypothesized
Richards 1974 states that false concepts hypothesized is caused by faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target language p. 178. For examples:
[51] Desta was went to Jakarta yesterday.
[52] Vincent is reads the book everyday.
In sentence [51], the form was may be interpreted as a marker of the past tense Richards, 1974, p. 178. Then, in sentence [52], the form is may also be
understood by learners to be the corresponding marker of the Present Tense Richards, 1974, p. 178.
c. Other Possible Sources of Errors
