No. Stu
dent‟s Number
Omission Substance
Text Discourse
Grammatical Lexis 20
Student 20 -
1 -
- 21
Student 21 -
1 -
- 22
Student 22 -
2 1
- 23
Student 23 -
1 -
- 24
Student 24 -
1 1
- 25
Student 25 -
2 -
- 26
Student 26 -
- -
- 27
Student 27 -
- -
- 28
Student 28 -
1 -
- 29
Student 29 -
- -
- 30
Student 30 -
2 -
- 31
Student 31 -
1 -
- TOTAL = 67
- 63
4 -
Table 4.2 The Recapitulation of Student’s Error of Selection
No. Students‟
Number Selection
Substance Text
Discourse Grammatical Lexis
1 Student 1
2 1
1 -
2 Student 2
- 2
- -
3 Student 3
- 2
1 -
4 Student 4
- 4
2 -
5 Student 5
1 3
1 -
6 Student 6
1 3
1 -
No. Students‟
Number Selection
Substance Text
Discourse Grammatical Lexis
7 Student 7
1 1
- 8
Student 8 -
1 1
- 9
Student 9 -
1 -
- 10
Student 10 -
1 -
- 11
Student 11 -
- -
- 12
Student 12 -
- -
1 13
Student 13 -
1 -
- 14
Student 14 -
2 -
- 15
Student 15 -
4 2
- 16
Student 16 -
2 1
- 17
Student 17 -
1 -
- 18
Student 18 -
- 1
- 19
Student 19 -
4 -
- 20
Student 20 -
6 -
- 21
Student 21 -
4 -
- 22
Student 22 -
4 -
- 23
Student 23 -
5 -
- 24
Student 24 -
1 -
- 25
Student 25 -
1 -
- 26
Student 26 -
3 -
- 27
Student 27 -
3 2
- 28
Student 28 -
1 -
- 29
Student 29 -
2 1
- 30
Student 30 -
1 -
- 31
Student 31 -
3 -
- TOTAL = 87
5 67
14 1
Error of addition and misordering are only found in the text grammatical, 8 errors for error or addition, and an error in misordering. Student number 5, 6, 7,
16, 19, and 20 did the error of addition, and student number 29 did error in misordering.
Here are the data of students‟ error in using the simple past tense in writing recount text
Table 4.3 The Recapitula
tion of Student’s Error
No. STUDENTS‟
NUMBER Types of Error
Error of Omission
Error of Addition
Error of Selection
Error of Misordering
1 Student 1
5 -
4 -
2 Student 2
2 -
2 -
3 Student 3
2 -
3 -
4 Student 4
4 -
6 -
5 Student 5
2 1
5 -
6 Student 6
6 1
5 -
7 Student 7
6 1
2 -
8 Student 8
- -
2 -
9 Student 9
1 -
1 -
10 Student 10
2 -
1 -
11 Student 11
1 -
- -
1 Student 12
1 -
1 -
13 Student 13
4 -
1 -
14 Student 14
2 -
2 -
15 Student 15
2 -
6 -
16 Student 16
5 2
3 -
17 Student 17
3 -
1 -
18 Student 18
3 -
1 -
No. Students‟ Number
Types of Error Error of
Omission Error of
Addition Error of
Selection Error of
Misordering 19
Student 19 2
1 4
- 20
Student 20 1
2 6
- 21
Student 21 1
- 4
- 22
Student 22 3
- 4
- 23
Student 23 1
- 5
- 24
Student 24 2
- 1
- 25
Student 25 2
- 1
- 26
Student 26 -
- 3
- 27
Student 27 -
- 5
- 28
Student 28 1
- 1
- 29
Student 29 -
- 3
1 30
Student 30 2
- 1
- 31
Student 31 1
- 3
- TOTAL = 163
67 8
87 1
As the calculation above, the writer describes the examples and the causes why the errors occur as follow:
1. The Error of Omission =
41, 1
2. The Error of Addition = 3. The Error of Selection =
4. The Error of Misordering =
Table 4.4 The Recapitulation of Error Types, Frequency and its Percentage
No. LEVEL
MODIFICATION SUBSTANCE
TEXT DISCOURSE
TOTAL OF ERROR
GRAMMAR LEXIS
1. OMISSION
63 = 38. 65
4 = 2. 45
67 = 41. 1
2. ADDITION
8 = 4. 9
8 = 4. 9
3. SELECTION
5 = 3. 1
67 = 41. 1
14 = 8. 6
1 = 0. 6
87 = 53. 4
4. ORDERING
1 = 0.6
1 = 0.6
TOTAL 163 = 100
Based on the calculation above, it can be concluded that the total errors of omission are 67 errors or 41.1 error of omission in grammar text level are 63
errors or 38.65 and in lexis text level are 4 errors or 2.45, addition are 8 errors or 4.9 in grammar text level, selection are 87 errors or 53.4 error of selection
in substance level are 5 errors or 3.1, in grammar text level are 67 errors or 41.1, in lexis text level are 14 errors or 8.6, and in discourse level is 1 error or
0.6, and in ordering is 1 error or 0.6 in grammar text level. From the
calculation of the data, error of selection is the most frequent errors that done by the first grade students of MA Al-Khairiyah Jakarta Selatan with the percentage
53.4. Moreover, it is followed by error of omission with percentage 41.1, and error in addition and ordering fewer than 5.
Table 4.5 The Recapitulation of Source
of Student’s Errors
No. The
Students ‟
Number Source of Error
Interlingual Transfer
Intralingual Transfer
Context of Learning
Communication Strategies
1 Student 1
6 3
- -
2 Student 2
2 2
- -
3 Student 3
2 3
- -
4 Student 4
6 4
- -
5 Student 5
2 6
- -
6 Student 6
10 2
- -
7 Student 7
6 3
- -
8 Student 8
- 2
- -
9 Student 9
1 1
- -
10 Student 10 -
3 -
- 11
Student 11 1 -
- -
12 Student 12 1
1 -
- 13
Student 13 4 1
- -
14 Student 14 3
1 -
- 15
Student 15 4 4
- -
16 Student 16 7
3 -
- 17
Student 17 4 -
- -
18 Student 18 3
1 -
- 19
Student 19 4 3
- -
20 Student 20 3
6 -
- 21
Student 21 2 3
- -
22 Student 22 3
4 -
- 23
Student 23 3 3
- -
24 Student 24 2
1 -
-
No. The
Students‟ Number
Source of Error Interingual
Tranfer Intralingual
Transfer Context of
Learning Communication
Strategies 25
Student 25 2 1
- -
26 Student 26 1
2 -
- 27
Student 27 3 2
- -
28 Student 28 1
1 -
- 29
Student 29 1 3
- -
30 Student 30 2
1 -
- 31
Student 31 3 1
- -
TOTAL SOURCE OF
ERROR = 163
92 71
- -
1.
Interlingual Transfer
: 2.
Intralingual Transfer
: 3.
Context of Learning
: 0 4.
Communication Strategies : 0 Table 4.6
The Recapitulation of Source of Error, Frequency, and its Percentage No.
Source of Error Frequency of
Error Percentage
1. Interlingual transfer
92 56. 4
2. Intralingual transfer
71 43.6
3. Context of learning
4. Communication strategies
From the calculation of the data, source of errors of interlingual error is the major source of errors that done by the first grade students of MA Al-
Khairiyah Jakarta Selatan with 92 errors or 53.4. It is caused by the students
might be influenced by their mother tongue in terms of pattern, systems or rules. It is followed by intralingual transfer with 71 errors or 43.6 it happen because the
students might attempt to derive the rules before the data to which has been concerned by the students gradually and it may lead to the false hypotheses related
to neither their native language nor the target language. For source of error of context of learning and communication strategies, the frequencies are 0.
B. The Analysis of the Data
The writer analyzed the errors that are taken from the Data Description and calculate them according to the formula as written below:
1 The Description of Errors
After identifying the data, the writer analyzed the errors and classified them based on the Surface Taxonomy Categories to know
whether these errors involve in omission, addition, selection, or ordering.
a. The Error of Omission
There are 67 errors that made by the students with 63 errors are made in grammatical level, and 4 errors in lexis level. Many students
made errors in forming the right utterance. It is caused by the grammatical morphemes are more complex, for example in using tenses, the learner
should be aware of the addition of the ending of the verb -ed,- ing, -s correctly. For example,
We walk until 12.30 am. While he supposed to write, We walked
until 12.30 a.m.
I arrive to the place at 09.00 a.m. While she supposed to write, I arrived
to the place at 09.00 a.m.
b. The Error of Addition
There are 8 errors in addition, and all of them are errors in grammatical level. In this type, the students add some items that shouldn‟t
appear. The student knew about the using of verb 2 but they add to be which is not needed in the sentence. The examp
le is, “we are prayed” instead of “we prayed”. The students add to be before the verb, and it isn‟t
needed. The students know that they should use simple past tense form in their writing, but they don‟t know when they should add to be in the
sentence.
c. The Error of Selection
In the error of selection, the writer found 87 errors with 67 errors happen in grammatical level, 14 errors in lexis level, 5 errors in substance
level, and 1 error in the discourse level. It is the most frequent error that made by
the students. For example, the students use “go”, “take”, and “isam” in their writing, instead of “went”, “took”, and “was”.
Before we go, we had breakfast. While he supposed to write, before we went, we had breakfast.
I take a bath, while he supposed to write, I took a bath
.
I broke in the home, while she supposed to write, I took a break in
the house.
d. The Error of Ordering
There is only an error in ordering. It means only 0.6 who did error in ordering. The student wrote “we late to arrived home” instead of
“we arrived home late”.
2 The Explanation of Errors
In this step, the errors are classified based on the source of their errors
. In this analysis, the writer would not consider that learner‟s errors are caused by the context of learning and communications strategies;
she wanted to analyze these errors based on the differences between Indonesian
language system and English, and the target language system itself intralingual.
1 Interlingual Transfer
This error is caused by the influence of their native language which is Bahasa. The student translated the Bahasa into English directly. For
example, Students wrote “I back to home” while they supposed to write “I
was back home ”.
Students wrote “after lunch, I prayed Dzuhur” while they supposed to writ
e “after having lunch, I prayed Dzuhur” Students wrote ”before I went, I breakfast” while they supposed to
write “before I went, I had breakfast”
They omit the items that should appear. This happened because the pattern of Both Bahasa
– which is their mother tongue- and English are totally different. The students omitted
“was”, “having”, and “had” because Bahasa doesn‟t have those rules. The teacher‟s interview also said
that the students didn‟t know about the usage of to be and verb. These
errors occurred because the students had not clearly understood of the structure of the sentence. The source of this error is from the interlingual
transfer. It happens because are still influenced by their mother tongue.
2 Intralingual Transfer
Negative intralingual transfer or overgeneralization is done by the learner because the learner overgenerates the rules in wrong concept. The
example is the students overgeneralized in using –ed in their writing. For
example, they wrote, After arrived, I played together, instead of after arriving
, I played together. It happened because the students think that every verb in recount text writing always use the simple past form. The
source of this error is intralingual transfer because they overgenerates the rules in wrong concept.
3 The Evaluation of Errors
If the purpose of the error analysis is to help students to study second language, it is important to evaluate the errors. Some errors can be
considered more serious than others because they could hinder the message of the communication. In this research, the writer considered that
the errors which are caused by mother tongue interference are the most serious errors because English and Bahasa
’s structure are totally different. For example:
I went there by busway, before it I breakfast and prepared. If the sentence above is translated to be Bahasa, it will become
“Saya pergi kesana naik busway, sebelumnya saya sarapan dan bersiap- siap.” In Bahasa it will be accepted, but in English it cannot be accepted.
Therefore, this error should be treated intensively because this error will hinder the message to be understood.
C. The Interpretation of the Data
In this Part, the writer will interpret some errors that students made as follow:
Table 4.7 The Recapitulation of Error Types, Frequency and its Percentage
NO TYPES OF ERROR
FREQUENCY OF ERROR
PERCENTAGE OF ERRORS
1 Error of Omission
67 41. 1
2 Error of Addition
8 4. 9
3 Miselection
87 53. 4
4 Error of Ordering
1 0.6
