C. Discussion
Having presented the result of the research, then this section proceeds to discuss the answers for each problem of the research. The discussions on the problems of the
research are based on the research results and any related theories.
1. The Students’ Mastery on Reported Speech
It has been shown previously that according to the academic regulation of Sanata Dharma University, the students’ mastery on reported speech was sufficient. The
students’ average score was 19.60 and it entered the sufficient category. Though sufficient, the students’ achievement was still considered low and unsatisfactory
especially in the second part of the test part B-Filling in the Blanks. The data in table 4.3 of the Students’ Achievement in the Second Part of the Test show that most
of students 14 students achieved 40-49 of correct answers. There was no student achieving the highest percentage 90-100, and there were six students achieved 10-
19 of correct answers. In part B, the students only achieved 42.12 of correct answers and it was far below the minimum standard of mastery 56. Another
reason that the students’ achievement was considered low and unsatisfactory was that there were so many errors the students made in their test. The errors found are
discussed further in the sub-chapter 2 The Types of Errors Found in Reported Speech.
2. The Types of Errors Found in Reported Speech
This section deals with the discussion on answering the second problem formulation, ‘What types of errors do the students make in reported speech?’
According to Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982, errors are defined as flawed side of 47
learner’s speech or writing. Since this research used a written test of reported speech as the instrument, this study paid more attention to the errors as flawed side of
students’ writing. This study used the data of the second part of the test part B to analyse the types of errors the students made. The analysis of error types was based
on 1 the types of errors proposed by Dulay et al., 2 the grammatical changes of reported speech, and 3 the types of reported speech.
a. The Types of Errors Based on the Error Classifications Proposed by Dulay et al. 1982
It was explained in Chapter II that there are four error classifications proposed by Dulay et al. 1982. They are linguistic category, surface strategy, comparative
analysis and communicative effect. This study referred to the surface strategy classification to analyse the errors the students made because this classification was
considered as the most relevant with the discussion of reported speech errors. It was relevant since almost all reported speech errors found belonged to this classification.
Surface strategy taxonomy deals with the ways the surface structures of the sentences are altered Dulay et al., 1982. This classification has four types. They are
omission, addition, misformation and misordering. Omission has two types; omission of major content and omission of grammatical morpheme. There are three types of
addition errors. They are double marking, regularization and simple addition. Misformation has three types. Those three types are overregularization, arhi form and
alternating form. Based on the surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay et al. 1982, the
number of errors found in the test is presented in table 4.6. 48
Table 4.6 Reported Speech Errors Found in the Test Based on the Surface Strategy Taxonomy
Types of Errors Number of Errors
Percentage of Errors
Omission Omission of Major Content
Omission of Grammatical Morpheme 10
4 19.61
7.84 Addition
Double Marking Regularization
Simple Addition 2
- 17
3.92 -
33.33 Misformation
Overreguralization Archi Form
Alternating Form -
- 5
- -
9.80 Misordering
13 25.49
From table 4.6, it can be seen that the total numbers of errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy which were found in the test were 51. Those 51 errors
consisted of 14 errors of omission 27.45, 19 errors of addition 37.25, 5 errors of misformation 9.80, and 13 errors of misordering 25.49. Those error types
are discussed further below.
1. Omission
Omission, as it was explained in Chapter II, is the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance Dulay et al., 1982. There were 14 errors of
omission found in the test 27.45, 10 errors belonged to omission of major content 19.61 and 4 errors belonged to omission of grammatical morpheme 7.84. The
examples of errors and their discussions are presented as follows: Omission of Major Content
This type of error is characterised by the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance Dulay et al., 1982.
49 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Examples: Direct speech: Jack asked Jane, ‘Don’t go now I still need you.’
Reported speech: Jack asked not to go now because he still needed Jane. Direct speech: Mr. Tim said to Robin, ‘Go away now’
Reported speech: Mr. Tim asked to go away then. Direct speech: He said to her, ‘Will you be here tomorrow?’
Reported speech: He asked her that would be there the next day. In the first and the second example, there should be an object after reporting verb
asked in each reported speech since they belong to reported command. It is clear that
the first speaker asks the second speaker to do something. Therefore, the first reported speech should be Jack asked Jane not to go then because he still needed
Jane , and the second reported speech should be Mr. Tim asked Robin to go away
then . While in the third reported speech, there should be conjunction since it is
yesno-question of reported speech. The appropriate conjunction is ifwhether. The third reported speech is incorrect because there is no subject in reported clause of
reported speech after conjunction. The correct reported speech is He asked her ifwhether she would be there the next day.
From the examples of errors above, it seems that students had not understood yet the use of reporting verb ask in reported command and in reported question whether
or not it should be followed by object. Omission of Grammatical Morpheme
This type is characterised by the absence of an item that does not contribute much to the meaning of the sentence Dulay et al., 1982.
50 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Kategori