40
Table 4.2 Frequency of Errors in Identifying Gerund
No Part
Item Number Frequency of Errors
Percentage 1
1 9
15 2
2 12
21 3
3 8
14 4
4 22
38 5
5 18
31 6
6 11
19 7
7 16
28 8
A 8
14 24
9
9 12
21 10
10 9
15 11
21 13
22 12
23 11
19 13
24 10
17 14
25 13
22 15
26 21
36 16
28 14
24 17
31 11
19 18
32 22
38 19
33 18
31 20
34 11
19 21
B 35
16 28
22
41 11
19 23
42 14
24 24
46 12
21 25
47 18
31 26
49 18
31 Total
26 364
41
The table 4.3 above showed that the items related to gerund were 26 questions. In Part A, the column the frequency of errors showed there
were 9 students or 15 error in item number 1, there were 12 students or 21 error in item number 2, there were 8 students or 14 error in item
number 3, there were 22 students or 38 error in item number 4,there were 18 students or 31 error in item number 5, there were 11 students or
19 error in item number 6, there were 16 students or 28 error in item number 7, there were 14 students or 24 error in item number 8, there
were 12 students or 21 error in item number 9, there were 9 students or 15 error in item number 10,there were 13 students or 22 error in item
number 21,there were 11 students or 19 error in item number 23 , there were 10 students or 17 error in item number 24, there were 13 students
or 22 error in item number 25, there were 21 students or 36 error in item number 26 and there were 14 students or 24 error in item number
28. Meanwhile in Part B, there were 11 students or 19 error in item
number 31, there were 22 students or 38 error in item number 32, there were 18 students or 31 error in item number 33, there were 11 students
or 19 error in item number 34, there were 16 students or 28 error in item number 35, there were 11 students or 19 error in item numbe 41,
there were 14 students or 24 error in item number 42, there were 12 students or 21 error in item numbe 46, there were 18 students or 31
error in item number 47 and there were 18 students or 31 error in item number 49.
To find out the average of students’ error on the used of gerund, the writer was using the formula :
P = Fx26 x 100 N
= 364 x 26 x 100 40
42
= 36.400 1040
= 35 The average above expressed that generally there were 35
students who made errors in gerund materials. Types of Error
: 364 errors Omission
: 14 errors Misformation
: 311 errors Addition
: 39 errors
Table 4.3 Frequency of Errors in Identifying To Infinitive
No Part
Item Number Frequency of Errors
Percentage 1
11 7
12 2
12 5
8 3
13 5
8 4
14 8
14 5
15 2
3 6
A 17
5 8
7
18 1
1.7 8
20 2
3 9
22 10
17 10
29 17
29 11
30 4
7 12
36 8
14 13
37 9
15 14
38 4
7 15
39 11
19 16
B
40 9
15
43
No Part
Item Number Frequency of Errors
Percentage 17
43 17
29 18
44 12
21 19
45 5
8 20
48 1
1.7 21
50 5
8 Total
21 147
The table 4.4 above showed that the items related to to infinitive were 21 questions. In Part A, the column the frequency of errors showed
there were 7 students or 12 error in item numbe 11, there were 5 students or 8 error in item number 12, there were 5 students or 8
error in item number 13, there were 8 students or 14 error in item number 14, there were 2 students or 3 error in item number 15, there
were 5 students or 8 error in item number 17, there were 1 students or 1.7 error in item number 18, there were 2 students or 3 error in item
number 20, there were 10 students or 17 error in item number 22, there were 17 students or 29 error in item number 29 and there were 4
students or 7 error in item number 30. Meanwhile in Part B, there were 8 students or 14 error in item
number 36, there were 9 students or 15 error in item number 37, there were 4 students or 7 error in item number 38, there were 11 students or
19 error in item number 39, there were 9 students or 15 error in item number 40, there were 17 students or 29 error in item number 43 , there
were 12 students or 21 error in item number 44, there were 5 students or 8 error in item number 45, there were 1 students or 1.7 error in item
number 48 and there were 5 students or 8 error in item number 50. To find out the average of students’ error on the used of to
infinitive, the writer was using the formula :
44
P = F x 21 x 100 N
= 147 x 21 x 100 40
= 14.700 840
= 17.50 The average above expressed that generally there were 17.50
students who made errors in to infinitive materials. Types of Error
: 147 errors Misformation
: 147 errors
Table 4.4 Frequency of Errors in Identifying Infinitive without To
No Part
Item Number Frequency of
Errors Percentage
1 16
20 35
2 A
19 11
19 3
27 26
45 Total
3 57
The table 4.5 above showed that the items related to infinitive without to were 3 questions. In Part A, the column the frequency of errors
showed there were 20 students or 35 error in item number 16, there were 11 students or 19 error in item number 19 and there were 26
students or 45 error in item number 27. To find out the average of students’ error on the used of infinitive
without to, the writer was using the formula : P = F x 10 x 100
N = 57 x 3 x 100
40
45
= 5700 120
= 47.50 The average above expressed that generally there were 47.50
students who made errors in infinitive without to materials. Types of Error
: 57 errors Misformation
: 57 errors After calculating the frequency of students’ error, the writer
classified them into the types of error. The table below is the recapitulation the types of error on the use of gerund, to infinitive and infinitive without
to :
Table 4.5 Recapitulation of
Students’ Types of Error No
Item Number
Types of Error Total Frequency Error of
Each Number Percentage
1 1
Misformation 9
15 2
2 Misformation
12 21
3 3
Misformation 8
14 4
4 Misformation
22
38 5
5 Addition
18
31 6
6 Misformation
11 19
7 7
Misformation 16
28 8
8 Misformation
14 24
9
9 Addition
12
21 10
10 Addition
9
15 11
11 Misformation
7 12
12 12
Misformation 5
8 13
13 Misformation
5 8
14
14 Misformation
8
14 15
15 Misformation
2
3
46
No Item
Number Types of Error
Total Frequency Error of Each Number
Percentage
16
16 Misformation
20
35 17
17 Misformation
5 8
18 18
Misformation 1
1.7 19
19 Misformation
11 19
20
20 Misformation
2
3 21
21 Misformation
13 22
22 22
Misformation 10
17 23
23 Misformation
11 19
24 24
Misformation 10
17 25
25 Misformation
13
22 26
26 Misformation
21 36
27 27
Misformation 26
45 28
28 Omission
14 24
29 29
Misformation 17
29 30
30 Misformation
4
7 31
31 Misformation
11
19 32
32 Misformation
22 38
33 33
Misformation 18
31 34
34 Misformation
11 19
35
35 Misformation
16
28 36
36 Misformation
8
14 37
37 Misformation
9 15
38 38
Misformation 4
7 39
39 Misformation
11 19
40
40 Misformation
9
15 41
41 Misformation
11 19
42 42
Misformation 14
20 43
43 Misformation
17 29
47
No Item
Number Types of Error
Total Frequency Error of Each Number
Percentage
44
44 Misformation
12
21 45
45 Misformation
5 8
46 46
Misformation 12
21 47
47 Misformation
18 31
48
48 Misformation
1
1.7 49
49 Misformation
18 31
50 50
Misformation 5
8
Total 568
Table 4.6 Recapitulation of Types of Errors
No Tested Area
Frequency Omission Misformation Addition
1 Gerund
364 14
311 39
2 To Infinitive
147 147
3 Infinitive without
To 57
57
Total 568
14 515
39
From the recapitulation result, the writer also classified the causes of students’ error that might be the factor in their written test, the causes of
error were described as follow :
48
Table 4.7 Recapitulation of Causes
of Students’Error No
Item Number
Over Generalization
Ignorance of Rule Restrictions
Incomplete Application of Rules
1 1
9
2
2 12
3 3
8
4 4
22
5 5
18
6 6
11
7
7 16
8 8
14
9 9
12
10 10
9
11 11
7
12
12 5
13
13 5
14 14
8
15 15
2
16 16
20
17
17 5
18
18 1
19 19
11
20 20
2
21 21
13
22
22 10
23 23
11
24 24
10
25 25
13
26
26 21
27
27 26
49
No Item
Number Over
Generalization Ignorance of
Rule Restrictions Incomplete
Application of Rules 28
28 14
29 29
17
30 30
4
31
31 11
32
32 22
33 33
18
34 34
11
35 35
16
36
36 8
37
37 9
38 38
4
39 39
11
40 40
9
41
41 11
42
42 14
43 43
17
44 44
12
45 45
5
46
46 12
47 47
18
48 48
1
49 49
18
50
50 5
Total 39
262 267
50
Table 4.8 Recapitulation of Causes of Errors
No Tested Area
Frequency Overgenera-
lization Ignorance
of Rule Restrictions
Incomplete Application
of Rules 1
Gerund 364
39 160
165 2
To Infinitive 147
45 102
3 Infinitive without
To 57
57 568
39 262
267
Table 4.9 Total Errors of on the Use of Gerund, To Infinitive and Infinitive without To
No Area of Errors
Total of Errors Percentage
1 Gerund
364 35
2 To Infinitive
147 17.50
3 Infinitive without To
57 47.50
Total 568
100
Chart 4.1 Total Frequency of Error of on the Use of Gerund, To Infinitive and
Infinitive without To
364
147 57
50 100
150 200
250 300
350 400
Gerund To Infinitive
Infinitive without To
51
Chart 4.2 Total Percentage of Errors on the Use of Gerund, To Infinitive and Infinitive
without To
B. Discussion
The research findings showed that total of students errors is 568 errors that consist of 364 or 35 in the part of gerund, 147 or 17.50 in the part of
to infinitive and 57 or 47.50 in the part of infinitive without to. The errors on gerund consist of three types : omission, misformation
and addition. There are 14 errors or 1.30 of omission, 311 errors or 30 of misformation, and 39 errors or 3.70 of addition. Altogether, there were 364
errors or 35 of gerund errors.However, the errors on to infinitive consist of one type : misformation. There are 147 errors or 17.50 of misformation. The
errors on infinitive without to consist of one type : misformation. There are 57 errors or 47.50 of misformation.
Moreover, the research findings also revealed that errors on gerund were caused by overgeneralization 39 errors or 3.70 , ignorance of rule
restrictions 160 errors or 15.30 , and incomplete of application of rules 165 errors or 16. Next, errors on to infinitive were caused by ignorance of
rule restrictions 45 errors or 5.36 , and incomplete of application of rules 102 errors or 12.14 . Finally, errors on infinitive without to were caused by
ignorance of rule restrictions 57 errors or 47.50 .
35.00 17.50
47.50
Total Percentage of Errors on the Use of Gerund, To Infinitive and Infinitive
without To
Gerund To Infinitive
Infinitive without To
52
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings of the research, the writer draw the conclusion that there are three committed by the students of SMK Muhammadiyah 1
Ciputat, Tangsel. They areomission, misformationand addition. Furthermore, there are also three sources of errors; they areovergeneralization, ignorance of
rule restrictions and incomplete of application rules. The research findings showed that total of students errors is 568 errors
that consist of 364 or 35 in the part of gerund, 147 or 17.50 in the part of to infinitive and 57 or 47.50 in the part of infinitive without to.
The errors on gerund consist of three types :omission, misformation and addition. There are 14 errors or 1.30 of omission, 311 errors or 30 of
misformation, and 39 errors or 3.70 of addition. Altogether, there were 364 errors or 35 of gerund errors.However, the errors on to infinitive consist of
one type :misformation. There are 147 errors or 17.50 of misformation. The errors on infinitive without to consist of one type :misformation. There are 57
errors or 47.50 of misformation. Moreover, the research findings also revealed that errors on gerund
were caused by overgeneralization 39 errors or 3.70 , ignorance of rule restrictions 160 errors or 15.30 , and incomplete of application of rules
165 errors or 16 . Next, errors on to infinitive were caused by ignorance of rule restrictions 45 errors or 5.36 , and incomplete of application of
rules 102 errors or 12.14 . Finally, errors on infinitive without to were caused by ignorance of rule restrictions 57 errors or 47.50 .
B. Suggestion
As mentioned in Chapter I, the result of this study are meant indirect significantly to both the teachers and students. For the teachers, the students’
errors show how far they have understood the lesson and what remains for
53
them to learn. By studying the students’ errors and knowing the areas of difficulty, the teacher will get the clear picture of the student’s knowledge of
language, particularly in using English gerund, to infinitive and infinitive without to. Furthermore, the teacher will be able to select the most appropriate
technique and the teaching materials as well. Those can be done if the teachers of English pay more attention to the problems on English gerund, to infinitive
and infinitive without to and give more emphasis in their teaching process. For the students, their errors show how far they have understood the lesson
and what remains for them to learn. By knowing their difficulty, the students will get the clear picture of their knowledge of language, particularly in using
English gerund, to infinitive and infinitive without to. Furthermore, the students will study better. Those can be done if the students of English pay
more attention to study on English gerund, to infinitive and infinitive without to and give more emphasis in their learning process.
Finally, the researcher does not claim this study to be perfect one due to the limited time the writer had. It is suggested for other researcher to do
further study about errors in the use of English gerund, to infinitive and infinitive without to. In the present study the researcher only dealt with small
population in the second grade students of senior high school level.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Azar, Betty S. Understanding and Using English Grammar.Third Edition.New York: Longman, 1999.
Barkhuizen, Garry. and Ellis, Rod.Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.
Bluman, Allan G. Elementary Statistics A Step by Step Approach, 6th Edition. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, .....
Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching; Fourth Edition. New York: Addision Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000.
Corder, S.P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage.Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1981.
Crystal, David. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages.Sydney: PenguinBooks, 1992.
D , Stephen Krashen., K Marina., Burt., and Heidi, Dulay. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Fisiak, Jacek. Contrastive Lingusitics and the Language Teacher.England: Pergamon Press Ltd, 1981.
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching; Fourth Edition. England: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
Hopper, Vincent F. et all.. Essentials of English. New York: Barrons Educational Series, 2000.
Hubbard, Petter. A Training Course for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Hupp, Alice Hyde. The Mechanics of the Sentence. United State of America: American Book Company, 1995.
James, Carl. Error in Language Learning and Use. Englan: Addision Wesley Longman Limited, 1998.
