58 mastering a material. In examining mastery of defining and non-defining relative
clauses by students of the English Language Education Study Program, the researcher classified the students’ errors in the three categories into some
classifications based on surface structure taxonomy. Based on surface structure taxonomy, the researcher classified the
students’ errors in each category into four classifications; omission, addition, misinformation, and misordering. In the first category, relative pronoun, the
students made errors in two classifications; misinformation and omission. The second category, grammarstructure of relative clause, the students ‘errors consist
of four classifications; misordering, addition, misinformation and omission. In the last category, the use of punctuation commas, the students made errors in three
classifications; omission, addition and misinformation.
a. Relative Pronouns
As the researcher explained in Table 9, there were 90 errors in relative pronoun. It was about 12.52 of the total errors. In this research, the researcher
classified those errors. The researcher divided those relative pronoun errors into some groups See Appendix 13. Table 8 describes classifications of students’
relative pronoun errors. There are five columns in Table 8 to describe classifications of students’
relative pronoun errors. The first column is type of relative pronoun errors the students made. The second column is the classification of type of the students’
relative pronoun errors based on surface structure taxonomy. The third column is
59 the number of relative pronoun errors. The fourth column is the percentage of
relative pronoun errors. It is obtained by dividing the number of relative pronoun errors in each type by the total number of relative pronoun errors, then
multiplying the result by 100. The last column is the example of relative pronoun errors.
Table 8. Classifications of Students’ Relative Pronoun Errors Type of Errors
Classification Example
1. Using wrong relative
pronouns Misinformation 86 95.56
9. The matter was reported the Chief of
Police, whom ordered us to all to be arrested.
2. Omitting relative
pronouns as subject
Omission 4
4.44 6. Tom, who saw what
was the matter and wasn’t sympathetic,
was a boss. Total
90 100
Notes: symbol means number and symbol means percentage Table 8 describes that the students made 90 relative pronoun errors. Those
errors were separated into 2 types, using wrong relative pronouns and omitting relative pronouns as subject. In the first type, using wrong relative pronouns, the
students made 86 errors. Those errors took
95.56 out of the total errors of relative pronouns.
Then, the students made 4 errors in the second type of errors, omitting relative pronouns as subject. This amount took 4.44 of the total errors of relative
pronouns. The examples perform the students’ errors in both types. The first example
exposes the students’ errors in using wrong relative pronouns. A relative clause uses relative pronoun whom to modify the antecedents only as an objectobject of
prepositions, not as a subject. In item number 9, the students used relative pronoun whom to modify a personal antecedent as a subject. They correctly
60 identified the position of the antecedents, but they incorrectly chose the relative
pronoun used to modify those antecedents. The correct relative pronoun is who
within the construction the matter was reported to the Chief of Police, who
ordered us to all to be arrested. Errors presented in this item were classified as misinformation errors because of the students’ misunderstanding of relative
pronouns. Therefore, the students still misunderstood in learning relative pronouns. They should learn relative pronoun more so that they are able to avoid
making errors in relative pronouns. Another example gives evidence that few students omitted relative
pronouns as subject. In relative clauses, omission of relative pronouns is allowed if the relative pronouns functioned as objectobject of preposition, not as subject.
Item number 6 displays that the students made an omission of a relative pronoun functioned as subject. It should use a relative pronoun who after the antecedent,
Tom. The sentence should be Tom, who saw what the matter was and wasn’t
sympathetic, was a boss. This error was classified as omission errors because the students omitted relative pronouns functioning as subject. For that reason, the
students should learn more defining and non-defining relative clauses especially to comprehend the rules of relative pronoun omission.
b. GrammarStructure of Relative Clause
