36 On the other hand, after the researcher explained that they were prepared
to be teachers even though they were willing to be teachers or not, most of them changed the percentages. They used their second chance to give the
“A” higher percentage. Examining these answers, the researcher concludes that the students
are not fully aware that they are prepared to be teachers who should be a good role model on speaking, writing, listening and reading. Their unawareness led them to
ignore grammar rules when they were speaking. Furthermore, since they were not aware that they were prepared to be teachers, it might trigger their
communication-only goal. According to Richards 1971, when the language is seen as a tool of communication, the learners’ motivation to deliver the
communication to others will exceed the motivation to produce grammatically correct sentences.
C. The discussion on the common grammatical errors
In order to answer what are the possible reasons of the occurrence of the common grammatical errors found on
the students’ of the CLS, class B, in this section the researcher discusses the results of the questionnaire and the interview.
The discussions are divided into two discussions. The first discussion is on the missing
–s or –es suffix and follows by the second discussion on the incorrect verb sequence on past tense.
1. Discussion on the missing –s or –es suffix
Before the researcher discusses this section, there is a little explanation about the missing
–s or –es suffix classification. This classification focuses on the missing
–s or –es on verbs after “he, she, and it” subjects and on the nouns as the
37 plural marker. However, this classification was originally under the subject-verb
agreement, but the researcher decided to separate the classification. The researcher separated the classification because on this classification the
missing –s or –es suffix on nouns as the plural marker was not an error of subject-
verb agreement. The errors on the subject-verb agreement could be in form of the
incorrect paired subjects or verbs, such as “…..we does not know…”or “….Dab Supri’s meatballs is…..” Another reason is because the researcher found that this
classification had specific triggers of errors that were different with the triggers on the subject-verb agreement error.
The first grammatical errors discussed is the missing –s or –es suffix. Based
on the interview, there were two participants answered that they did not know the use or function of
–s or -es. However, there were seven others that were able to explain briefly about the function or the use of that suffix. Based on their answers,
most of them understood the function of –s or –es suffix that was as the plural
marker six answers, but only four answers that were able to explain that the suffix was also used for the 3
rd
person singular. Examining those answers; the researcher concludes that the first possibility of the occurrences of the missing
–s or
–es suffix error is their understanding of the function of that suffix. The second possibility is the significance of the
–es or -es suffix in Indonesia sentences. Most of the participants were accustomed to think the Indonesian
thought pattern first and then they converted that into the English thought pattern when they were speaking. It could be assumed that they thought of the Indonesian,
translated the sentences into English, and then delivered them verbally. Based on
38 the interview, the participants also said that Indonesian did not have any suffix on
the verb after certain subjects. It is wise to say that this understanding has supported them to think that
–s or –es suffix is insignificant. When the
–es or -s suffix has no significance for the students, it is reasonable that they drop the suffix. This finding also supports the over generalization theory.
The theory states that redundancy reduction on the English second language learners occur with items which are contrasted in the grammar of the language but
which do not carry significant and obvious contrast for the learners Richards. 1971
The third possibility is the students’ high tolerance of errors when speaking. It
is because even though the errors occur, the audiences will still understand them. This error might also occur because of their unclear pronunciation. One of the
answers said that they might pronounce the verbs or nouns unclearly that made the others could not hear the suffix clearly. The unclear pronunciation may also be
heard as the omission of that suffix. The fourth possibility is their habit of thinking the Indonesian thought pattern
first and then converting that into the English thought pattern during speaking. The students of the CLS, class B were used to translate Indonesian sentences to
English before they spoke, and that habit triggered these errors occurred. In Indonesian, in order to show plural noun, they put the plural marker in front of the
noun or by repeating the noun. The plural markers can be quantifiers or numbers, for example is
“Our group consist six member…”. This sentence shows the plural maker in a
form of number “six”. In Indonesian, the noun after this plural marker
39 obviously has plural meaning without changing the noun or adding any suffix.
Based on this Indonesian grammar and their habit of translating Indonesian to English, it is obvious why many of them drop that suffix.
The missing –s or -es after quantifiers for countable noun may because the
students’ understanding that quantifiers were the plural marker for noun. In their opinion, added the
–s or -es suffix after quantifiers, it would make the noun have double plural markers. Based on the interview, the researcher concludes that the
missing –s or –es suffix after quantifiers is triggered by their translating
Indonesian to English when they speak. Moreover, it is supported by the Indonesian grammar that has no suffixes as the plural markers. Indonesian only
has quantifiers and repetition to show plural meaning. In
this discussion, the researcher concludes that the students’ understanding of quantifiers creates a false concept of plural marker by not adding additional plural
marker on the nouns after quantifiers. Based on the interview, they also argued that if they added the additional plural marker after the quantifier, the noun would
have double plural markers. That false concept creates developmental errors on the omission of the plural marker for nouns after quantifiers. This finding proves
the false concept hypothesis by Richards 1971 who states that “a false concept is
a class of developmental errors which derive from faulty comprehension of distinctions in the target language.
” 2.
Discussion on the incorrect verb sequence on past tense The second common grammatical errors discussed is the incorrect past verb
sequence including the missing –ed on the past event. The first discussion is on
40 the missing
–ed on the past event. In the students’ speech, mostly they used regular verbs. This missing
–ed occurred might not be because the students’ understanding of the tenses, referring on the students’ answers on the interview.
Most of them knew the usage and function of –ed which was for the past tense,
past participle and passive voice. Despite their understanding of the usages and functions of this suffix, in the transcriptions this error occurred repeatedly.
The first possibility of the omission of –ed was because of their habit of
thinking the Indonesian thought pattern first and then converting that into the English thought pattern. Dulay and Burt 1972 as stated by Richards and
Sampson say that “the deviant sentences from second language learner could be
attributed to language transfer. ” In this discussion, the language transfer did by the
students is translating the language trigger the errors to occur. Examining the structure of the Indonesian language, Indonesian does not have
past tense and only has time marker to show past event, for examples are , “Saya
naik mobil kemarin .” and “Saya naik mobil.” Based on the first example, the past
event is determined by the time marker “kemarin” and shows that the action has
already stopped in the past. On the other hand, the second sentence, “Saya naik mobil
” has no time marker. This sentence shows that on the moment the speaker says the sentence, the action happens. The different context of those sentences is
on the time marker. This different grammar between Indonesian and English triggers the students who have Indonesian as their mother tongue to produce this
error.
41 Besides the different grammar of the Indonesian and English, the students also
had difficulty when they should talk in past tense. Most of them said that it was hard to remember all the verbs change irregular and regular verbs. They were
also used to speak English using present tense, rather than past tense. Some of them were also confused with the using of present and past tense in a sentence, for
example is “I am an actor, but I was a driver.” Based on the example, there are
two contexts. The first is the present contex t, “I am an actor” that has a meaning
that the speaker is an actor at the moment the speaker says. However, it is followed by the past contex
t, “I was a driver” that shows at the moment the speaker says this sentence, the action of being a driver has already stopped and
does not exist in the present time. These different tenses in a sentence confused the students. This finding leads to the second discussion, the incorrect verb
sequence on past tense. Shortly the second possibility of this error is the students’
confusion of the verbs changes and the usage of present and past tense in a sentence.
The incorrect verb sequence on past tense continuously occurred when the students were informing past events. On their final presentation, they should
inform the lecturers and the audiences about what they had found in order to fulfill their final presentation. In this chance, the researcher found that most of the
students, spoke English mostly in complex sentences with incorrect verbs sequence, for example is
“He studied for about 3 and a half years and then he move to Jombang to continue his studied at Pondok Gontor for about 3 years and
then he continue
his study…”. This sentence is in the past context, but the verb
42 sequence is incorrect. The third possibility is probably because the students try to
deliver their speech in past context but fail to finish the sentence in English grammar. What the researcher means is that the students understand the usage of
past participle, but they mix their Indonesian knowledge that has been explained in the previous paragraph about the Indonesian past context and English
knowledge. On the first verb, most likely they were trying to deliver a correct sentence, but because of the nervousness, time limitation, or th
e audiences’ high tolerance of errors, the students chose only to deliver the information and left the
rest of the verbs incorrect. The audiences’ high tolerance can be understood because the audiences are
also the second language learners of English who have Indonesian as their mother tongue. Shortly, the speakers and the audiences share the same Indonesian
knowledge and share the same problems in learning spoken English. These conditions support the students to eliminate the grammar rules while speaking,
and create communication-only as their goal. The high tolerance
of errors in the students’ environment is not always good. If this condition happens
continuously, the students’ awareness of the language will decrease. It will also support the thought that errors are acceptable.
The researcher does not state that errors are not acceptable, but when it keeps repeating, it will certainly be a problem. In conclusion, if the high tolerance of
errors and their habit of translating the language when they speak are continuing, the students of the CLS, class B may not think that having correct sentences when
speaking is necessary.
43
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two parts. The first part is the conclusion of the study. The conclusion of the study is drawn based on the problem formulation that is
formulated in chapter one as well as the analysis in chapter four. The second part of this chapter is suggestions.
A. Conclusion
After the researcher analyzed the errors, the researcher concludes that the common grammatical errors found on the CLS students on the fourth semester of
Pendidikan Bahasa Ingrris are:
1. The missing –s or –es suffix
The missing –s or –es suffix was found on the verbs after certain subjects he,
she, and it and on the nouns as the plural marker.
2. The incorrect verbs sequence on past tense
The incorrect verbs sequence in the past tense includes the missing –ed suffix
on the past participle form. The possible reasons of the occurrences of errors are divided into two parts. The
first part is the general reasons of the occurrences of error. The second is the reasons of the occurrence of the common grammatical errors.
The general reasons of the occurrences of error are nervousness and confusion of the tenses usage. The nervousness occurred because of their fear of
producing errors while they spoke. It made them anxious which increased their
