AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN WRITING OF RECOUNT TEXTS AT THE FIRST GRADE OF SMAN 1 PESISIR TENGAH

i ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN WRITING OF RECOUNT TEXTS AT THE FIRST GRADE OF SMAN 1 PESISIR TENGAH

By

Zakia Permata Sari

When learning a language, the students make errors. Therefore, it is important for teachers to analyze the students’ errors. This research was intended to (1) find out the student’s errors in writing recount texts and determining the types of error based on linguistics category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy and (2) investigate the students’ reasons for making the errors. The subjects of this research were 31 students of class X4 at SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah of 2013/2014 academic year.

The method used in this research was descriptive qualitative design. The instruments of this research were a writing task and interview. The writing task was used to collect data on errors made by the students while the interview was used to find out the reasons why the students committed errors.

The result showed that based on the linguistics category taxonomy, there were 60.91% of the students who made morphological errors and there were 39.08% of the students who made syntactic errors. Based on the surface strategy taxonomy, there were 80.20% of the students who made misformation, 15.22% in omission, 2.79% in misordering, 1.77% in addition. Based on communicative effect taxonomy, there were 4.56% of the students who made global errors and 95.43% in local errors. The errors made by the students happened because of the students’ lack of knowledge of English grammar and also the influence of their first language. Therefore, in order to minimize the students’ errors in writing, the teacher should teach how to construct English sentences appropriately to improve the students’ knowledge of English grammar.

iv

CURRICULUM VITAE

The writer’s name is Zakia Permata Sari. She was born on March 18th, 1993 in Krui. She is the last child from the romantic couple Ruskan Zamsir and Elly Yunnara. She has three brothers and a sister.

At the age of five, she studied at SDN Ulu Krui and graduated in 2004. She continued her study to SMPN 2 Pesisir Tengah. After graduating from junior high school, she entered SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah and graduated in 2010. In the same year she joined University of Lampung through SNMPTN and took study program of English Education.

The writer took part in teaching practice program (PPL) at SMAN 1 Way Tenong From July to September 2013. She carried out the research at SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah from 29 April to 5 May 2014.

vi

DEDICATION

This Script is proudly dedicated to:

My lovely mother and father, Elly Yunnara and Ruskan Zamsir

My beloved brothers and sister: Sobhan Maskur Holidi Jaya, Saddam Husen, Arif Rapsanjani, and Ratma Yani Musanna Jaya

My Classmates of English Education Study Program 2010, especially Agustina Dwi Jayanti, Esy Octa Utami, and Titik Oktavia

v MOTTO

“Verily, along with every hardship is relief”

(Al-Insyiraah:5)

“Don’t let the fear of losing be greater than the excitement of

winning”

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praise is only to Allah SWT, who always gives me all the best of this life. This script is presented as one of the requirements in accomplishing the S-1 degree at the Language and Arts Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of University of Lampung.

This script will never come to existence without any support, encouragement, and guidance from several dedicated people. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to many people who have given their suggestions and helps in writing this script. First, I deliver my gratitude and respect to Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A., my advisor and Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd., my co-advisor. Words are not enough to show how much I thank you for your guidance and suggestions in the writing process of this script. Then, I want to deliver my gratitude to my examiner, Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A., thank you for criticisms and suggestions that lead me as a better writer.

My appreciation is also extended to Hendra Effendi, S.Pd., the Headmaster of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah and Yosi Sandewan, S.Pd., the English teacher; thank you for helping in analyzing the errors and also for first grade students of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah who participated in this research.

My thankfulness also goes to my academic advisor, Ujang Suparman, M.A., Ph.D., and all of lecturers in English Study Program, for guidance and knowledge during the accomplishment of S1 degree.

I would like to thank my lovely Emak and Bak; thanks for your love, care, support, patience, understanding and thank you for your praying. Then, my beloved brothers and sister: abang Maskur, abang Usen, abang Arif and ngah

viii

Yani; thank you for your support and thank you for always encouraging and motivating me to finish this script. I am so grateful to have you all in my life. My special thanks are due to my wonderful friends: Agustina Dwi Jayanti, Esy Octa Utami, and Titik Oktavia; thank you for support, love, help and care. What a wonderful moment we have spent together.

My thanks are also adressed to all members of KKN/PPL Fajar Bulan, thank for the supports. Then, my friends in Wongkito; Resti Astria, Tri Naftaliasari, and Wulandari; thank you for your support and jokes.

Last but not least, I would also like to thank my friends in English Education Study Program 2010, Aria Safitri, Fortina Delana, and all English Education that could not be mentioned one by one.

Finally, I also welcome any suggestions to improve my script. I hope this script will be useful for me and the readers.

Bandar Lampung, November 2014 The Writer,

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... i

APPROVAL... ii

ADDMITTED BY... iii

CURRICULUM VITAE ... iv

MOTTO ... v

DEDICATION ... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1Background ... 1

1.2Problems ... 5

1.3Objectives ... 5

1.4Uses ... 5

1.5Scope ... 6

1.6Definition of Terms ... 6

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1Writing ... 8

2.2Error and Error in Language Learning ... 10

2.3 Error Analysis... ... 12

2.3.1. Steps in Error Analysis... . 14

2.4 Types of Error ... 17

2.5Grammar ... 24

2.6Recount Text ... 26

III. METHODS 3.1Design ... 28

3.2Subject of the Research ... 28

x

3.4Data Analysis ... 30

3.5 Crosscheck by Interrater ... 33

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Result ... 34

4.2. Taxonomy of Students’ Error ... 35

4.2.1. Linguistic Category Taxonomy ... 35

4.2.2. Surface Strategy Taxonomy ... 40

4.2.3. Communicative Effect Taxonomy ... 44

4.3. Students’ Reason for Making Errors ... 47

4.4. Discussions ... 48

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions ... 52

5.2. Suggestions ... 53

REFERENCES ... 55

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Students Error Based on Linguistic Category

Taxonomy ... 35 Table 2. The Students’ Error Based on Surface Strategy

Taxonomy ... 41 Table 3. The Students Error Based on Communicative Effect

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page Appendix 1. Writing Task ... 58 Appendix 2. Questions For Interview ... 60 Appendix 3. Table of Classification of Students’ Error in Recount Text

Based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy... 61 Appendix 4. Table of Classification of Students’ Errors in Recount Text

Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy... 62 Appendix 5. Table of Classification of Students’ Errors in Recount Text

Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy... 63 Appendix 6. Table of Percentage of Students’ Errors Based on

Linguistics Category Taxonomy, Surface Strategy Taxonomy

and Communicative Effect Taxonomy in Recount Text... 64 Appendix 7. The Percentage of Students’ Errors in Recount Text

Based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy... 65 Appendix 8. The Students’ Responses Toward Interview Related to Error

Analysis on Students’ Error Based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy, Surface Strategy Taxonomy, and Communicative Effect Taxonomy... 67 Appendix 9. The Analysis of Students’ Error Based on Linguistic Category

Taxonomy... 69 Appendix 10. The Analysis of Students’ Error Based on Surface Strategy

Taxonomy... 78 Appendix 11. The Analysis of Students’ Error Based on Communicative Effect

Taxonomy... 87 Appendix 12. The Students’ Recount Text Based on Writer’s Point of

View... 96 Appendix 13. Transcription After Interviewing The Students’ about The Errors

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses background, problems, objectives, uses, scope and definition of terms.

1.1.Background

English comprises of four skills, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing by which a person is able to communicate in various contexts. Listening and reading are classified as receptive skills while speaking and writing are classified as productive skills. Writing is one of productive skills that must be learned by the students, they must apply the five general components of the writing process, and they are content, form, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanic.

Most of the students in the first grade of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah have difficulties to write. They cannot write well so that they did not pass the standard score of the school (KKM). According to KTSP curriculum, the students at the first grade of senior high school have to master writing skill. The students are expected to be able to write recount text. In fact, many students find difficulty in writing. They are confused to use the correct grammar. They tend to ignore the grammatical rules in writing. For example: the students wrote „eated’ as the past tense of „eat’. This happened because they do not understand regular and irregular verb. Another example, the student write “me go to beach”. The student made an error because they are not able to use subject. The subject in this sentence should

2

be „I’. Sometimes, the students missed the word in a sentence, for example: “we not sure”. This sentence is incorrect because the absence of verb, it needs to be „are’, then the correct sentence is „we are not sure’. In writing, the students should start to write words, arrange them into sentences, and then make them into paragraphs. It is not easy because they should use correct dictions, chronologies, and spelling of words. Students should also share their feelings, thoughts, ideas or opinions in writing. Therefore, the teachers should give more attention to this skill.

Writing is also more difficult and complicated skill than the other skills because it requires the mastery not only grammatical but also theoretical devices. Basically, grammar has an important role in writing because grammar is the backbone of any language and it must be understood in order to communicate effectively. Every time one writes something, he/she is being judged based on the grammar he/she uses. According to Batston (1994) grammar is a structure and regularity that lies in a language. This implies that each language has a certain rule to form a sentence. Therefore if a person wants to master English, he/she must learn the grammar and how to use it properly. Trask (1990) in Komaria (2011) defines grammar as the rules for constructing words and sentence in a particular language. This leads to the term tenses which are related to the verb form. Whereas, tense is a grammatical category that locates a situation in time, that indicates when the situation takes place. For example, word will change if one uses in different event, e.g. verb „speak’ he/she uses in present tense, but in past tense he/she uses „spoke’.

3

Irfani (1997), who conducted “error analysis on students’ sentence structure at SMAN 10 Bandar Lampung”, found that the students made a large number of errors in syntactical and morphological levels. Generally, the students encountered obstacles in learning the grammatical aspect of the target language, such as in terms of subject-verb agreement, the use of preposition and articles, and the exercise of correct tenses. The research showed that the students made 15.13% errors in omission, 8.61% errors in addition, 73.59% errors in misformation and 2.67% in misordering. The most frequent type of errors committed by the students was misformation. Meanwhile, Widiatmoko (2011) in his research “an analysis of students’ grammatical errors in composing narrative paragraph at the second grade of SMA Kartikatama Metro” found that most of second grade students made misformation (50.31%) and they still committed local errors (88.84%) in their narrative writings.

Considering that there are many errors that students made, it is important for the teacher to analyze the students’ errors in students’ writing. Error analysis is an activity to identify, classify and interpret or describe the errors made by a person in speaking or in writing and it is carried out to obtain information on common difficulties faced by him/her in speaking or in writing English sentences. Analyzing students’ errors serves some benefits, that is: for the teacher, error analysis can tell the teachers how far their students have progressed to reach the goal, then for the students, error analysis can facilitate them in improving the English mastery.

In this research, the researcher analyzed the students’ errors in writing recount text. Recount text is a text that tells the reader about one story, action, or

4

activity. Its goal is to entertain or inform the reader about something happened in the past. It mostly tells about past events. The researcher chose recount text because many students do not understand well how to write this text correctly, especially the content of the recount text, that is: orientation, events, and re-orientation.

By considering the explanation above, the researcher observed An Analysis of Students’ Errors in Writing Recount Text at the First Grade of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah”. In this research, the researcher analyzed the errors based on linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. Those types of error have interrelationship each other. The data which have been collected were analyzed to determine the type of error and classified using linguistic category taxonomy following Politzer and Romirez’s classification as a guideline. Then, the researcher described the errors by following surface strategy perspective because it holds much promise for researchers concerned with identifying cognitive processes that underlie the learner’s reconstruction of the new language. The last, the researcher used communicative effect taxonomy because it deals with errors from the perspective of their effect on the reader and listener. This taxonomy focused on distinguishing between errors that seem to cause miscommunication and those that don’t.

5

1.2.Research Problems

The research problems are formulated as follows:

1) What types of errors do the students make in their writing recount text based on linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy?

2) Why do the students make the errors?

1.3. Objectives

The objectives of this research were:

1) To find out the student’s errors in writing recount text and determine the types of errors based on linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy.

2) To find out the reason why the students make the errors.

1.4. Uses

The researcher hopes that this research can be used theoretically and practically as follows:

1) Theoretically, this research can be used as information to confirm the previous theory of error analysis in writing English as a foreign language. Besides, it can be made as reference for those who want to conduct the research in the same field.

2) Practically, this research can be used as a reference for English teacher in developing the materials for teaching English and choosing the way to teach writing so that the goal of writing can be achieved.

6

1.5. Scope

This research focused on students’ errors in writing recount text especially on grammatical errors based on linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. It was descriptive qualitative research which was conducted at SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah in the first grade students of 2013/2014 academic year. According to KTSP curriculum, the first grade students of senior high school have studied about recount text in the first semester. The researcher gave a task to the students, asked them to write recount text. Then, linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy were used to classify and analyze students’ grammatical errors in their recount writings.

1.6.Definition of Terms

In order to give consistent concepts, there were some key terms used in this research which were defined here:

Communicative Effect Taxonomy

Communicative Effect Taxonomy is a type of errors that deals with errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader.

Error

Error is defined as any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter what the characteristic or causes of deviation might be (Dulay et al.1982).

7

Error analysis

Error analysis is an activity to identify, classify and interpret or describe the errors made by a person in speaking or in writing.

Grammatical error

Grammatical error in this research is the deviations of word placement in the sentence no matter the causes and the characteristics are.

Linguistic Category Taxonomy

Linguistic category taxonomy is types of error that classify errors according to either or both the language component and the particular linguistic constituent the error effects.

Recount text

Recount text is a text that recalls and reconstructs events, experiences, and achievement from the past in a logical sequence.

Surface Strategy Taxonomy

Surface Strategy Taxonomy is the types of error that emphasize on the way surface structures are altered. The surface strategy elements of a language are altered in specific and systematic ways.

8

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses about some important concepts related to the key of terms. This will be started with writing, error analysis, type of errors, definition of grammar, and recount text.

2.1. Writing

Writing is a thinking process to share one’s ideas in written form by a r-ranging the words into structural order. It is quite difficult to learn because writing involves grammar. It needs knowledge and hard thinking when the students pro-duce words, sentences, and paragraphs in a good grammatical order. The students get difficulties when they write. First, they feel confused to start their writing. Se-cond, the students have low motivation and they seem to be uninterested in writ-ing. Therefore, students are required to be well-prepared and teacher should guide them in learning process by providing an ample time to write and to express their ideas in written form.

Mary and Water (1995:90) as cited in Setiawan (2009) state that writing is complex process since it is made of a large number of skills, not only one element that is used but also all of language elements need to be considered such as: spelling, grammar, diction, punctuation, etc. Certainly without all of these ele-ments, it is difficult to write in a good performance of this language skill. In

addi-9

tion, Heaton (1975:135) says that writing skills are complex and sometimes diffi-cult to teach, requiring mastery not only of grammatical and rhetorical devices but also conceptual and judgemental. Meanwhile, Berthoff in Emmaryana (2010) has defined writing as an act of the mind by which writers create meaning. It means that writing is creating meaning from one’s own thought or activity.

According to Ramli (2013) writing is a way to express feelings, ideas, ar-guments, willingness and thoughts in the form of words in sentences. In addition, Richard (2002:592) states that writing is viewed as the result of complex process-es of planning, drafting, reviewing, and revising and some approachprocess-es to the teaching of first and second language. Accordingly, Liu and Braine (2005:623-624) say that writing is more complex in that it tests a person’s ability to use a language and the ability to express ideas. As a result, a person needs to write not only coherently but correctly, which requires more time and effort. In other words, when the students do writing, it needs hard working. The students should consider the ideas or opinion, which are relevant to their goal at learning.

From the explanations above, it can be concluded that writing is a process or way to express the result of complex processes of activity that is used for communicating in the written form.

Harris (1974) in Widiatmoko (2011) states that there are five general compo-nents of the writing, they are:

1. Form – the organization of contents or ideas, it is coherence and unity. 2. Grammar – the employment of grammatical pattern.

10

4. Vocabulary – the selection of word that suitable with content. 5. Mechanic – the use of graphic convention of the language.

2.2. Error and Error in Language Learning

Literally, error means something done wrong. Errors are the flawed side of learner’s speech or writing. People cannot learn language without first systemati-cally committing errors (Dulay, et al. 1982:138).

James (1998:129) defines error as being an instance of language that is in-tentionally deviant and it is not self corrigible by its author. Errors cannot be self-corrected until further relevant input. Foster (2005:87) states that an error is an individual language user's deviations from standard language norms in grammar, syntax, pronunciation, and punctuation. Moreover, Dulay, et al. (1982:5) say that error is something incorrectly done through ignorance or carelessness. Errors oc-cur in every situation such as the grammatical errors.

According to Brown (2000:76) error is noticeable deviation from adult grammar or native speaker reflecting the inter language competence of learner, while mistake refers to a performance factor such as: memory, limitation, spelling fatigue, and emotional strain. He also identifies that error is a result from lack of knowledge of the rules of the language.

Language learning and language error cannot be separated each other. Language errors frequently happen in the language learning process. Error is seen as something normal and natural in learning process. All language learners tend to make errors when they learn a language. According to Dulay, et al. (1982), error

11

is an inevitable part of learning and that making errors are common to them who learn a language. Moreover, Hornby (1987) states that errors are considered as something natural and play an important part in learning process. Nevertheless, people cannot learn language without first leaving out errors.

Errors in learning are significant. In addition, Hendrikson (1979) as cited in Widiatmoko (2011) states that students cannot learn in the class without know-ing an error made. Therefore, it is crucial for every language teacher to know their students errors in order to minimize or to avoid those errors.

A research by Yuyun (2010) shows that the students of SMU Muham-madiyah Bandar Lampung made many errors in grammatical aspect especially on addition, omission, misordering, and misformation. In addition, Jamil (2005) who conducted “an analysis of students’ proficiency in descriptive paragraph writing at the third semester of SMA Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung” also uncovered that the students committed numerous errors in grammatical aspects remarkably concern-ing part of speech.

Tarigan (1988) explains that students make errors when they produce sen-tence or arrange sensen-tence ungrammatically due to their incompesen-tence to arrange correctly and also due to their lack of knowledge. They haven’t mastered the sy s-tem of the language yet. This supported by Chomsky (1980:15) who states that the errors are the result from a lack of knowledge of the rule of language. It means that it is unconscious process because they do not know the correct form when they made errors. Ellis (2002:223-236) states that the second language learners may be confused to recognize the use the second language because of their first

12

language’s influences. In addition, Setiadi (2006) says that language learners whose mother tongue has no tenses tend to have more difficulties in learning a target language which has tenses. Since English is a foreign language for them and their L1 (bahasa Indonesia) does not imposes such rules of tenses.

From the explanation above, the term of error in this research refers to er-rors of students’ competence in writing recount text.

2.3. Error Analysis

A number of different descriptions for error analysis have been identified. Firstly, Ristiyani (2011) concludes that error analysis is a type a linguistic analysis that focuses on the process of identifying, and describing the learner’s error in ta r-get language learning. Dulay et al. (1982) “Error analysis is an analytical tool, as are the specification of transitional construction, the computation of acquisition orders, and the delineation of special utterances type.” Meanwhile, McKeating (1981:212-213) states that error analysis involves collecting errors, studying them, classifying them in various ways and suggesting possible causes. Errors are stud-ied in order to find out something about the learning process and about the strate-gies employed by human beings learning another language. By studying samples of language produced by the foreign language learners the researcher can discov-er, or at least make informed guesses about, what he thinks the rules of the foreign language are.

According to Brown (1980:66), the fact that learners do make errors can be observed, analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating within the learner, led to surge of study of learner’s errors, called “error analysis”.

13

While Corder (1987) states that error analysis have two function, 1) to investigate the language learning process and 2) to show whether or not it is necessary for the teachers to have remedial teaching. Corder (1984) says that there is significance of learners’ errors in three different ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learners has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn. Second, they pro-vide to the researcher epro-vidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strat-egies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, they are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn.

By analyzing the errors, the students will get the correct one and can mas-ter English well. Error analysis has advantages for both students and teachers. For students, error analysis is needed to show them in what aspect of grammar is dif-ficult for them, to show the errors made by the students, to know the source or the cause of the error, and how the students can learn from their mistakes so that they will not make same errors repeatedly and what strategies to master the language. And for teachers, errors tell the teacher how far their students have progressed to reach the goal. Sattayatham and Ratanapinyowong (2008) say that errors can be accepted as a kind of learning activity taking place in the learner.

From the description above, it can be inferred that error analysis is the method to identify, classify, describe, and analyze learner’s error in target la n-guage learning. Then, the purpose of error analysis is to find the feedback, used as reference in language learning in order to prevent or minimize the errors made by the students.

14

2.3.1. Steps in Error Analysis

Most writers on error analysis divide the process into 5 stages: 1) recogni-tion, 2) interpretarecogni-tion, 3) reconstrucrecogni-tion, 4) classificarecogni-tion, and 5) explanation. 1. Recognition

a) What is an error? Problems of acceptability. In many cases what is regarded as an error depends on what standard of performance is considered to be accepta-ble. This will obviously vary according to circumstances, and will take into ac-count factors such as the standard being aimed at; the stage in the course; the age; ability, motivation, etc. of the students; the amount of time available; and a realis-tic assessment of the possibilities of improving performance in that time.

b) Other problems of recognition. Apart from questions of acceptability, recog-nizing errors is not particularly difficult, and most teachers have a highly devel-oped sense of error detection. There are, however, cases like the one discussed at the beginning of this section, where the error is only apparent to someone who

knows what the students „really means’ it is in the detection of these „covert’ error

that the teacher of a particular group of students often has a considerable ad-vantage over the research worker working from samples collected from students he does not know.

2. Interpretation

Interpretation is central to the whole process, because ones interpretation of what he/she thinks the students meant may determine whether he/she recognize an error at all, and will certainly determine the reconstruction. Clues to interpreta-tion may be available from a combinainterpreta-tion of any of the following: a) the general

15

context, b) a knowledge of similar errors made by similar students, c) a

knowledge of the students’ mother tongue and the possible result of phonological

interference or of direct translation into English, d) direct questioning, perhaps in the mother tongue, as to what the students meant.

For example: My teacher used to were sot pens.

a) Knowing the general context. The students is describing his teacher,

in particular his appearance and clothing.

b) Knowing that this group of students has difficulties with „used to’,

„usually’, and „always’

c) Knowing that the spelling of „were’ or „where’ is often confused, and

guess that perhaps „wear’ can be added to the list.

d) Knowledge of the phonology of the mother tongue, of its actual

ef-fects on some words and of its likely efef-fects on other tells that there may be problems with the following pairs of sounds.

The sentence can be interpreted and reconstruction as: My teacher usually (or always) wears short pants.

3. Reconstruction

Many of the problems of reconstruction have already been discussed but the two points below will be highlighted:

a) It is sometimes necessary to differentiate between (a) what a native

speaker would have produced in the same context and (b) what the learner was trying to produce, i.e. the English forms he was aiming at but getting wrong.

16

b) The most obvious reconstruction to the teacher, especially the

native-English-speaking teacher, is not necessarily the version at which the student was aiming. We are often tempted to assume that the best re-construction is the one which involves the least alteration.

4. Classification

Classification of an error will depend largely on how the stretch of lan-guage in which it occurs has already been interpreted and reconstructed. Some people seem to omit the stage of linguistic classification altogether and classify errors immediately in terms of their assumed causes, e.g. errors of hypercorrec-tion, cross-association false analogy and so on. Yet in any analysis an explanation of causes of error is the most highly speculative part of whole process and for most practical purposes, e.g. remedial teaching or syllabus planning, certainly it needs a linguistic classification.

5. Explanation

In this stage, the errors will explain in detail using strategies which have

been chosen, in this case surface strategy taxonomy and communicative effect taxonomy. The surface strategy taxonomy covers omission, addition, misordering, and misformation. While communicative effect taxonomy covers global and local errors. The explanation will focus on the rank of the most to the less common

er-rors frequently found in students’ writing. The result also will compare to the

17

2.4. Types of Error

Dulay (1982:146) says that there are four descriptive taxonomies to analyze errors, namely:

1. Linguistic Category Taxonomy

Linguistic category taxonomy classifies errors according to either or both the language component or the particular linguistic constituent the error affects. Language components include phonology (pronunciation), syntax and morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and vocabulary), and discourse (style). Constituents include the elements that comprise each language component. For example within syntax one may ask whether the error is in the main or subordinate clause; and with-in a clause, which constituent is affected, e.g. the noun phrase, the auxil-iary, the verb phrase, the preposition, the adverb, the adjective, and so forth.

2. Surface Strategy Taxonomy

It is emphasized on the way surface structures are altered. The surface strategy elements of a language are altered in specific and systematic ways. Surface strategy taxonomy highlights the way surface are altered: students may omit necessary items or add unnecessary ones: they may misform items or misorder ones.

3. Comparative Taxonomy

Comparative taxonomy classifies errors based on comparison between the structure of language learner errors and certain other types of

con-18

struction. The errors are classified into developmental errors, interlin-gual errors, ambiguous errors, and unique errors.

4. Communicative Effect Taxonomy

It deals with errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader. This taxonomy classifies errors into global errors and local er-rors.

In this research, the researcher did not use comparative taxonomy because it is quite difficult for researcher to compare the structure of language learner and certain other types of construction. The researcher used only three of four types of error that is linguistics category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and com-municative effect taxonomy.

Firstly, the data were analyzed and classified using linguistic category tax-onomy following Politzer and Romirez’s classification as a guideline. In this re-search, language components of linguistic category taxonomy were limited to morphology and syntax. Politzer and Romirez, who studied 120 Mexican-American children learning English in the United States, classified the errors into the following types:

Linguistic Category and Error Type Example of Error A.Morphology

1. Indefinite article incorrect  a used for an before vowels  an used for a

a ant an little ant 2. Possessive case incorrect

19

3. Third person singular verb incorrect  Failure to attach –s

 Wrong attachment of –s

The bird help man. The apple fall downs. 4. Simple past tense incorrect

a. regular past tense  Omission of –ed

 Adding –ed to past already formed b. irregular past tense

 Regularization by adding –ed  Substitution of simple non-past  Substitution of past participle

The bird he save him. He calleded.

He putted the cookie there. He fall in the water.

I been near to him. 5. Past participle incorrect

 Omission of –ed He was call.

6. Comparative incorrect

 Use of more + er He got up more higher.

B. Syntax

1. Noun Phrase a. Determiners

 Omission of the article

 Substitution of definite article for possessive pronoun

 Use of possessive with the article  Use of wrong possessive

b. Nominalization

 Simple verb use instead of –ing  Preposition by omitted

c. Number

 Substitution singulars for plurals  Substitution plurals for singulars d. Use of pronouns

 Omission of the subject pronoun  Omission of the „dummy’ pronoun it  Omission of object pronoun

 Subject pronoun as a redundant ele-ment

 Alternating use pronouns by number as well as gender

 Use me as subject e. Use of prepositions

 Omission of preposition  Misuse of prepositions

He go in hole.

He fall down on the head He put it in the his room The little boy hurt its leg by to cook it

The dove helped him putting leaf on the water.

He got some leaf. He stab him in the feet. (He) pinch the man. Is nice to help people. I don’t know (it) in English My brother he go to Mexico. So he can eat it (referring to apples).

Me forget it.

He came (to) the water.

He fell down from (for on, in-to?) the water.

2. Verb Phrase

a. Omission of verb

20

 Omission of to be b. Use of progressive tense

 Omission of be

 Replacement of –ing by the simple verb form

 Substitution of progressive for the simple past

c. Agreement of subject and verb  Disagreement of subject and verb

person

 Disagreement of subject and number  Disagreement of subject and tenses

He in the water. He going.

The bird was shake his head. Then the man shooting with a gun.

You be friends

The apples was coming down. I didn’t know what it is. 3. Verb and verb construction

 Embedding of a noun-and-verb struction in another noun-and-verb con-struction

 Omission of to in identical subject con-struction

 Omission of to in the verb-and-verb construction

 Attachment of the past marker to de-pendent verb

I go to play.

I go play.

I see a bird got the leaf. He was going to fell. 4. Word order

 Repetition of object

Adjectival modifier place after noun

The bird (object) he was gonna shoot it.

He put it inside his house a little around

5. Some transformations a. Negative transformation

 Formation of no or not without auxil-iary do

 Multiple negation b. Question transformation

 Omission of auxiliary c. There transformation

 Use of is instead of are  Omission of there

 Use of it was instead of there was d. Subordinate clause transformation

 Use of for for so that

 Use of indicative for conditional

He not play anymore. They won’t have no fun. How the story helps? There is these hole. Is one bird.

It was round thing. For the ant could get out. So he don’t kill the bird.

21

Secondly, the data were classified based on surface strategy taxonomy. Sur-face strategy taxonomy highlights the way surSur-face structures are altered whether necessary elements are omitted, unnecessary elements are added; whether ele-ments are misformed or misordered. Analyzing errors from surface strategy per-spective holds much promise for researchers concerned with identifying cognitive processes that underlie the learner’s reconstruction of the new language.

Dulay (1982) states that there are four types of errors based on the surface taxonomy:

a. Omission

Omission errors are characterized by the absence of an item that must ap-pear in a well-formed utterance. For example: Susilo president of new com-pany*. The sentence is grammatically incorrect because it doesn’t have verb, it needs to be is. The correct sentence is Susilo is president of new company.

b. Addition

Addition errors are characterized by the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance. Three types of addition errors are:

1. Double marking: the failure to delete certain items which are required in some linguistic construction. For example: She doesn’t knows his name*. The sentence is grammatically incorrect. When there is auxiliary verb in the negative sentence, the main verb should be at the first form of verb. The verb know should not added with s. If it is using knows, the auxiliary verb omitted. The sentence should be She doesn’t know his name or She knows his name.

22

2. Regularization: applying the rule used to produce the regular ones to those that are irregular. For example: Nina eated three mangos yester-day*. The sentence is grammatically incorrect because there is wrong verb. The error in the sentence may be caused by the students who do not know the verbs change when they pose to irregular verb. The irregular form of eat is ate. The correct sentence is Nina ate three mangos yester-day.

3. Simple addition: the presence of an item which should not appear in a well-formed utterance. For example: The fishes doesn’t live in the wa-ter*. The verb doesn’t should have not been added. The sentence should be The fishes live in the water.

c. Misformation

Misformation errors are characterized by the use of the wrong form of the morphemes or structure. The types of errors are:

1. Regularization errors; a regular marker is used as a place of an irregular one.

For example: my cousin has four gooses. This sentence is incorrect be-cause Engish has different rule for the form of irregular noun. Other ex-ample is word “child”. It will be replaced by “children”, when it is plural. The form of irregular noun of word goose is geese. So, the sentence above should be my cousin has four geese.

2. Archi-forms; the selection of one member of a class of forms to represent other in the class.

23

For example: I see her yesterday. Her dance with my uncle. This sen-tence is incorrect, because wrong selection of a pronoun. It should be I see her yesterday. She dances with my uncle.

3. Alternating forms; this error is caused by the use of archi-form that often given way to the apparently fairly free alternation of various members of class with each other.

For example: I seen her yesterday. This sentence is incorrect. The form of the irregular verb at the sentence is past participle, while the sentence is past tense. It should not seen but saw. The correct sentence is I saw her yesterday.

d. Misordering

Misordering errors are characterized by the incorrect placement of a mor-pheme or group of mormor-phemes in an utterance. For example: He is all the time late*. This sentence is incorrect because the adjective late is misplaced. The sentence should be He is late all the time.

Thirdly, the researcher used communicative effect taxonomy for analyze the errors because it deals with errors from the perspective of their effect on the read-er and listenread-er. This taxonomy focused on distinguishing between read-errors that seem to cause miscommunication and those that don’t.

Dulay et al. (1982: 189) argues, “Errors that affect the overall organization of the sentence hinder successful communication, while errors that affect a single element of the sentence usually do not hinder communication”. They call the fo r-mer a) global errors and the latter b) local errors.

24

a. Global errors: errors that affect overall sentence organization that signifi-cantly hinder communication. Global errors include:

 Wrong order of major constituents e.g. English language use many people.

 Missing, wrong, or misplaced sentence connectors e.g. (If) not take this bus, we late for school.

He will be rich until he marry. (when)

He started to go to school since he studied very hard.

 Missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic rules e.g. The student’s proposal (was) looked into (by) the principal.

 Regularization of pervasive syntactic rules to exceptions e.g. We amused that movie very much

(That movie amused us very much)

b. Local errors: errors that affect single element in a sentence, and usually the errors do not disturb communication significantly. These include errors in noun and verb inflections, articles, auxiliaries, formation of quantifiers.

2.5.Grammar

According to Hornby (1995:517) grammar is rules in a language for changing the form of words and combining them into sentences. In this study, grammar means the rules in a language for changing the form of words and combining them into sentences in English. In addition, Coghill and Magendaz (2003:16) define that the grammar of a language is the set of rules that govern its structure. Gram-mar determines how words are arranged to form meaningful units. While Swan (2005:19) says that grammar are the rules that show how words are combined,

25

arranged or changed to show certain kinds of meaning. Referring to the descrip-tion, it is clear that tenses play an important role in term of constructing correct sentences.

Purpura (2004:6) states “Grammar is defined as a systematic way accounting for a predicting an ideal speaker’s or hearer’s knowledge of the language. This is done by a set of rules or principles that can be used to generate all well-formed or grammatical utterances in the language.” Ur (1996) says that grammar is some-times defined as the way words are put together to make correct sentences. This is, as we shall see presently, an over-simplification, but it is good starting point. Thus in English “I am a student” is grammatical; “I a student” and “I are a st u-dent” are not.

a. Grammatical structures

A specific instance of grammar is usually called a “structure”. Examples of structures would be the past tense, noun plurals, the comparison of adjectives, and so on. Not all languages, of course, have the same structures: the English verb has “aspects” for example in progressive: she isgoing, which many oth-er languages do not.

b. Grammatical Meaning

Grammar does not only affect how units of language are combined in order to look right; it also affects their meaning. The meaning of a grammatical struc-ture may be quite difficult to teach. It is fairly simple to explain that the addi-tion of a plural –s to the noun in English indicates that you are talking about more than one item, and there are parallels in other language.

26

2.6. Recount Text

In this research, researcher used recount text. Recount text is a text that tells the reader about one story, action, or activity. The characteristics of recount text are: 1) using past tense 2) using conjunction and time connectives 3) using ad-verbs and adverbial phrase 4) using action ad-verbs. Recount text also has generic structure. It consists of:

1. Orientation; tells who involved, what happened, where the events took place, and when it happened.

2. Events; tell what happened and in what sequences.

3. Re-orientation; consists of optional-closure of events/ending.

Recount has language features, such as: proper nouns to identify those in-volved in the text, descriptive words to give detail who, what, when, where, and how, the use of the past tense to retell the events, words that show the order of events (for example: first, next, then). Recount also focuses on individual partici-pants, use of past tense; use a temporal sequence of events, use of material (or ac-tion) clauses.

There are five types of recount suggested by Derewianka (1990) in Komaria (2011:17)

 Personal recount – retelling an activity that the writer has been personally involved in and may be used to build the relationship between the writer and the reader e.g. anecdote, diary journal, personal letter.

 Factual recount – reporting the particulars of an incident by reconstructing factual information e.g. police reconstruction of an accident, historical re-count, biographical, and autobiographical recounts.

27

 Imaginative recount – applying factual knowledge to an imaginary role in order to interpret and recount events e.g. A Day in the Life of a Roman Slave, How I Discovered Radium

 Procedural recount – recording the steps in an investigation or experiment and thereby providing the basis for reported results or findings

 Biographical recount – tell the story of person’s life using a third person narrator (he, she, and they). In an autobiography, first person narration (I, we) is used. It is usually factually and records specific names, times, plac-es, and events.

In this research, the researcher used personal recount as the focus of this study, it is based on consideration that personal recount is the simplest, because it was easier for the students to tell their own story.

III. METHODS

This chapter discusses about the following topics: research design, subject of the research, research instrument, data collecting technique, and data analysis.

3.1. Design

This research used descriptive qualitative design. Leedy (1974) states that a descriptive method simply looks with intense accuracy at the phenomenon of the moment and then describes precisely what the researcher has seen. In this re-search, the researcher tries to find the phenomena which occur in writing recount texts. Descriptive research concerned with providing description phenomena that occur naturally without the intervention of an experiment or an artificially con-trived treatment (Selliger and Shohamy, 1989:116). This design was intended to describe phenomena or problems in learning English. Referring to the statement, the researcher described the students’ error in writing recount texts. In this re-search, the researcher analyzed the errors based on linguistics category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative taxonomy.

3.2. Subject of the research

The researcher used one class as the subject at the first grade of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah in the 2013/2014 academic year. There were nine classes in the

29

first grade of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah. The researcher chose class X4 which con-sisted of 32 students. According to KTSP curriculum, the first grade students of senior high school must study about recount text in the first semester and junior high school.

3.3. Instrument and Data Collecting Technique

In order to collect the data, the researcher used a research instrument; the aim was to get the data of students’ errors accurately. The instrument of this re-search was writing task. By using this instrument, the rere-searcher could see the da-ta objectively. The researcher asked the students to write a recount text based on the topics given. The students chose one of three topics. The topics are: a) My un-forgettable moment, b) My last holiday, c) My happiest experience. The students chose the topic freely so that it was expected they were able to express their feel-ing, thinkfeel-ing, ideas, or opinions in their writing. After giving writing a task to the students, the researcher also interviewed the students.

a) Writing Task

1. Choose one of three topics to write your recount text! The topics are:

a. My unforgettable moment b. My last holiday

c. My happiest experience

2. You should write a recount text in three paragraphs. Each paragraph consists of ten sentences or approximately 80 words.

30

b) Interview

Interview is a kind of verbal communication used to gain information. The researcher asked the students some questions in an interview. Its aim was not to differentiate the mistake and error, but to find out 1) the students’ difficulties in their writing, 2) the source of the errors in their writing, 3) the effort that they may do to minimize the errors.

3.4. Data Analysis

The researcher analyzed the data. The steps of the data analysis were:

1. Collecting the data from the students’ works

After the students finished their writing, the researcher collected their works. Then, the researcher checked the students’ task to recognize the e r-rors.

2. Identifying students’ errors

The researcher identified the students’ error by underlining and giving code by using alphabetical number, e.g. (V) stands for verb errors, (D) stands for determiner errors, (Pro) stands for pronoun errors, (Prep) stands for preposition errors,(PC) stands for possessive case errors, (N) stands for number errors, (VC) stands for verb construction errors, (O) stands for omission errors, (A) stands for addition errors, (MF) stands for misfor-mation errors, (MO) stands for misordering errors, (G) stands for global error and (L) for local error.

31

For example:

He afraid

O

That nominal sentence is grammatically incorrect because in that sentence there is an item omitted. There is no to be in that sentence. So to complete the gap between word „he’ and „afraid’, it should be filled with “is”. The correct sentence is He is afraid.

My brother buys fishes A

The sentence above is grammatically incorrect because the word „fish’ b e-longs to irregular noun. Therefore the plural form of „fish’ is fish, since there is no change of the plural form of the word „fish’. The correct se n-tence is My brother buy fish.

Meri has many childs MF

The sentence above is grammatically incorrect because the word „childs’ is not a plural form of „child. But it should be changed into „children’. The word „children’ is an irregular plural noun. The correct sentence is Meri has many children.

I hate friend her MO

In that sentence, the word „friend her’ is misplaced each other. The right grammatical order of those words should be „her friend’. The correct sen-tence is I hate her friend.

I in live Palembang G

The order of „in live’ in the sentence above is incorrect. Wrong order of „in live’ affects overall sentence organization. As aresult it changes the meaning of the sentence. So it can hinder the communication significantly. The correct sentence is I live in Palembang.

It was a awful thing in my life.

L

In that sentence, the word „a’ is not proper, while the meaning is clear. It is grammatically incorrect, although it does not hinder communication mean-ingfully. The article „a’ should be changed into „an’, since it is followed by the word preferred by letter pronounced vocal. The correct sentence is It was an awful thing in my life.

32

3. Classifying errors

After identifying students’ error, the researcher classified the errors. The aim was to find out the frequency of errors. Each error is classified based on linguistics category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and commu-nicative effect taxonomy. Based on linguistics category taxonomy, the er-rors were classified into morphology and syntax. Based on surface strategy taxonomy, the errors were classified into omission, addition, misfor-mation, misordering. While based on communicative effect taxonomy, the errors were classified into global error and local error. (See table 1,2,3 ap-pendix 3,4,5)

4. Calculating the percentage of students’ errors.

a. Calculating the percentage of students’ errors in every types of error based on linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. They are the percentage of syntax (PS), the percentage of morphology (PM), the percentage of omission (PO), the percentage of addition (PA), the percentage of misformation (PMF), the percentage of misordering (PMO), the percentage of global error (PG), the percentage of local error (PL).

33

b. Calculating the percentage of frequency for each type of error based on surface strategy taxonomy and communicative taxonomy with this formula:

Total Errors Total Words

(Nation, 1981:58)

(See table 4, appendix 6)

3.5. Crosscheck by The Rater

In order to avoid the subjectivity in giving correction, the researcher used the rater to check the students’ errors in writing. The researcher compromised to the rater in determining and correcting the errors of the students’ writing. The rater was Yosi Sandewan, S.Pd. the English teacher of SMAN 1 Pesisir Tengah. He graduated from English Department of STKIP PGRI Bandar Lampung. He has been teaching English for eight years.

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions which were drawn based on the result of this research presented in the previous chapter.

5.1. Conclusions

After analyzing the result of the data, the conclusions can be inferred as follows:

1. Most students comitted all error types of linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. The percentage of the errors (ranked from the type of error that is mostly occured) resulted from the students’ recount writings are:

a) Based on linguistic category taxonomy: - Error in morphology is 60.91%

 Simple past tense: 78.33%  Possessive case: 3.75% - Error in syntax is 39.08%

 Verb: 14.28%  Preposition: 12.98%  Number: 10.38%  Pronoun: 9.09%  Determiner: 5.84%  Verb construction: 3.89%  Word order: 4.54%

53

b) Based on surface strategy taxonomy: - Error in misformation is 80.20% - Error in omission is 15.22% - Error in misordering 2.79% - Error in addition 1.77%

c) Based on communicative effect taxonomy: - local error is 95.43%

- global error 4.56%

2. Those errors happened because the students had difficulty in arranging sentences into grammatically correct forms, the influences of their first language, Bahasa Indonesia, and their lack of knowledge of English grammar.

5.2. Suggestions

In line with the conclusions presented previously, some suggestions are provided to improve students’ ability in writing recount:

1. In order to minimize the students’ errors in writing, the teacher should teach how to construct the sentence appropriately to improve the students’ knowledge of English grammar. In addition, the teacher has to set the first priority to the errors that mostly occured (syntax, misformation, local error).

2. When the teacher teaches grammar, the teacher should consider the different rules that English and Bahasa Indonesia have. Since based on the

54

result of interview, most of student said that the rules of Bahasa Indonesia often influenced them in making sentences in English.

55

REFERENCES

Azar, Betty Schrampfer. 1999. Understanding and Using English Grammar: third edition. New York: Longman.

Brown, H. Douglas, 2000. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching fourth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Corder, S. P. 1984. The Significance of Learners’ Errors. In Richards, Jack C. (Ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Longman.

Dulay, H., Burt, Marina, Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis. 2002. Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: University Press.

Emmaryana, Fajariani. 2010. An Analysis on The Grammatical Errors In The Students’ Writing (A Case Study Of The First Year Students Of “Sma Negeri 1 Cigudeg-Bogor”). Unpublished script. Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah.

Foster, J. 2005. Good Reasons for Noting Bad Grammar: Empirical Investigations into the Parsing of Ungrammatical Written English. PhD thesis, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Frank, Marcella. 1972. Modern English: a practical reference guide. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Harmawati, Rina. 2011. An Analysis of Errors in Using of the Simple Past Tense in the Students Short Composition (A Case Study at The Eighth Grade Students of SMPN 3 Rongga Cihampelas). Unpublished script. Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Siliwangi Bandung. Hasyim, Sunardi. 2002. Error Analysis in the Teaching of English. Vol. 4, No. 1,

June 2002. http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/.

Heaton, J. B. 1975. Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman. Hornby, A. S. 1987. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English.

Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. London: Oxford University Press.

Irfani, B. 1997. Error Analysis on Students’ Sentence Structure at SMAN 10 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

56

James, Carl. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use; Exploring Error Analysis. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Jamil, Dewi Asitah. 2005. An Analysis of Students’ Proficiency in Descriptive Paragraph Writing at the third semester of SMA Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

Jamuna, B. 2011. Error Analysis. The Journal of Department of Applied Sciences & Humanities Vol. XI, (2011), pp. 79 – 81 ITM University

http://www.itmindia.edu. Retrieved on January 29, 2014.

Komaria, Juli. 2011. An Analysis of Students’ Grammatical Error in Recount Text Writing at The Ninth Grade of SMPN 14 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Script. Universitas Lampung.

Leedy, Paul D. 1974. Practical Research: Planning and Design. New York: McMilan Publishing Co.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. 2005. Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates.

Mardijono, Josefa J. 2003. Indonesian EFL Advanced Learners’ Grammatical Errors. Vol. 5, No. 1, June 2003. http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/. Retrieved on April 9, 2014.

McKeating, Douglas. 1981. Error Analysis. In Gerry Abbott. John Greenwood. Douglas McKeating. Peter Wingard (Eds.). The Teaching of English as an International Language: A Practical Guide. London: Colins Glasgow. Purpura, James E. 2004. Assesing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Purwati, Tuti. 2011. Error Analysis on Students’ Writing. Leksika Vol.5 No.1. Ramli, Doni. 2013. An Analysis On Students’ Errors In Writing Recount Text.

Unpublished Script. Universitas Tanjungpura Pontianak.

Richards, Jack C. and Richard Schimidt.2002.Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Lingustic.London: Pearson Education.

Ristiyani, Tiwik. 2011. A Grammatical Error Analysis of The Students Writing of Reporting A School of The Eleventh Year Students of SMA Negeri 1 Semin In 2011. Unpublished Script. Universitas Widya Dharma Klaten. Sattayatham, Anchalee and Pongrat Ratanapinyowong. 2008. Analysis of Errors

in Paragraph Writing in English by First Year Medical Students from the Four Medical Schools at Mahidol University. Silpakorn University International Journal Vol.8 : 17-38.

Selinger, Herbert W. & Shohamy, Eliana. 1989. Second Language Research Method. New York : Oxford University Press.

57

Setiawan, Habi. 2009. An Analysis of Students’ Sub-ordinate Conjunction Errors in Written Data at The Second Grade of SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Script. Universitas Lampung.

Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Tarigan, H. G. 1988. Pengajaran Analisis Kesalahan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Waway, Bulqis Jolay. An Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Writing Recount Text Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy at The First Year of SMA YP UNILA

Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas

Lampung.

Widiatmoko, Andy. 2011. An Analysis of Students’ Grammatical Errors in Composing Narrative Paragraph at The Second Grade of SMA Kartikatama Metro. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung. Yuliana, Yuyun. 2010. An Analysis of Students Error in using Tenses in

Paragraph Writing SMU Muhammadiyah Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions which were drawn based on the result of this research presented in the previous chapter.

5.1. Conclusions

After analyzing the result of the data, the conclusions can be inferred as follows:

1. Most students comitted all error types of linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. The percentage of the errors (ranked from the type of error that is mostly occured) resulted from the students’ recount writings are:

a) Based on linguistic category taxonomy: - Error in morphology is 60.91%

 Simple past tense: 78.33%  Possessive case: 3.75% - Error in syntax is 39.08%

 Verb: 14.28%  Preposition: 12.98%  Number: 10.38%  Pronoun: 9.09%  Determiner: 5.84%  Verb construction: 3.89%  Word order: 4.54%

b) Based on surface strategy taxonomy: - Error in misformation is 80.20% - Error in omission is 15.22% - Error in misordering 2.79% - Error in addition 1.77%

c) Based on communicative effect taxonomy: - local error is 95.43%

- global error 4.56%

2. Those errors happened because the students had difficulty in arranging sentences into grammatically correct forms, the influences of their first language, Bahasa Indonesia, and their lack of knowledge of English grammar.

5.2. Suggestions

In line with the conclusions presented previously, some suggestions are provided to improve students’ ability in writing recount:

1. In order to minimize the students’ errors in writing, the teacher should teach how to construct the sentence appropriately to improve the students’ knowledge of English grammar. In addition, the teacher has to set the first priority to the errors that mostly occured (syntax, misformation, local error).

2. When the teacher teaches grammar, the teacher should consider the different rules that English and Bahasa Indonesia have. Since based on the

result of interview, most of student said that the rules of Bahasa Indonesia often influenced them in making sentences in English.

REFERENCES

Azar, Betty Schrampfer. 1999. Understanding and Using English Grammar: third edition. New York: Longman.

Brown, H. Douglas, 2000. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching fourth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Corder, S. P. 1984. The Significance of Learners’ Errors. In Richards, Jack C. (Ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Longman.

Dulay, H., Burt, Marina, Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis. 2002. Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: University Press.

Emmaryana, Fajariani. 2010. An Analysis on The Grammatical Errors In The Students’ Writing (A Case Study Of The First Year Students Of “Sma Negeri 1 Cigudeg-Bogor”). Unpublished script. Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah.

Foster, J. 2005. Good Reasons for Noting Bad Grammar: Empirical Investigations into the Parsing of Ungrammatical Written English. PhD thesis, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Frank, Marcella. 1972. Modern English: a practical reference guide. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Harmawati, Rina. 2011. An Analysis of Errors in Using of the Simple Past Tense in the Students Short Composition (A Case Study at The Eighth Grade Students of SMPN 3 Rongga Cihampelas). Unpublished script. Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Siliwangi Bandung. Hasyim, Sunardi. 2002. Error Analysis in the Teaching of English. Vol. 4, No. 1,

June 2002. http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/.

Heaton, J. B. 1975. Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman. Hornby, A. S. 1987. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English.

Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. London: Oxford University Press.

Irfani, B. 1997. Error Analysis on Students’ Sentence Structure at SMAN 10 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

James, Carl. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use; Exploring Error Analysis. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Jamil, Dewi Asitah. 2005. An Analysis of Students’ Proficiency in Descriptive Paragraph Writing at the third semester of SMA Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

Jamuna, B. 2011. Error Analysis. The Journal of Department of Applied Sciences & Humanities Vol. XI, (2011), pp. 79 – 81 ITM University

http://www.itmindia.edu. Retrieved on January 29, 2014.

Komaria, Juli. 2011. An Analysis of Students’ Grammatical Error in Recount Text Writing at The Ninth Grade of SMPN 14 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Script. Universitas Lampung.

Leedy, Paul D. 1974. Practical Research: Planning and Design. New York: McMilan Publishing Co.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. 2005. Cohesive Features in Argumentative Writing Produced by Chinese Undergraduates.

Mardijono, Josefa J. 2003. Indonesian EFL Advanced Learners’ Grammatical Errors. Vol. 5, No. 1, June 2003. http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/.

Retrieved on April 9, 2014.

McKeating, Douglas. 1981. Error Analysis. In Gerry Abbott. John Greenwood. Douglas McKeating. Peter Wingard (Eds.). The Teaching of English as an International Language: A Practical Guide. London: Colins Glasgow. Purpura, James E. 2004. Assesing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Purwati, Tuti. 2011. Error Analysis on Students’ Writing. Leksika Vol.5 No.1. Ramli, Doni. 2013. An Analysis On Students’ Errors In Writing Recount Text.

Unpublished Script. Universitas Tanjungpura Pontianak.

Richards, Jack C. and Richard Schimidt.2002.Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Lingustic.London: Pearson Education.

Ristiyani, Tiwik. 2011. A Grammatical Error Analysis of The Students Writing of Reporting A School of The Eleventh Year Students of SMA Negeri 1 Semin In 2011. Unpublished Script. Universitas Widya Dharma Klaten. Sattayatham, Anchalee and Pongrat Ratanapinyowong. 2008. Analysis of Errors

in Paragraph Writing in English by First Year Medical Students from the Four Medical Schools at Mahidol University. Silpakorn University International Journal Vol.8 : 17-38.

Selinger, Herbert W. & Shohamy, Eliana. 1989. Second Language Research Method. New York : Oxford University Press.

Setiawan, Habi. 2009. An Analysis of Students’ Sub-ordinate Conjunction Errors in Written Data at The Second Grade of SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished Script. Universitas Lampung.

Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Tarigan, H. G. 1988. Pengajaran Analisis Kesalahan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waway, Bulqis Jolay. An Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Writing Recount Text Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy at The First Year of SMA YP UNILA Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.

Widiatmoko, Andy. 2011. An Analysis of Students’ Grammatical Errors in Composing Narrative Paragraph at The Second Grade of SMA Kartikatama Metro. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung. Yuliana, Yuyun. 2010. An Analysis of Students Error in using Tenses in

Paragraph Writing SMU Muhammadiyah Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Universitas Lampung.