2 Archi-forms
The selection of one member of a class of forms to represent others in the clas is a common characteristic of all stages of second language acquisition.
We have called the form selected by the learner an archi-form. For example, a learner may temporarily select just one of the English demonstrative adjectives
this, that, these, and those, to do the work for several of them: That dog
That dogs For this learner, that is the archi-demonstrative adjective representing the
entire class of demonstrative adjectives. Learner may also select one member of the class of personal pronouns to
function for several others in the class. For example: Give me that
Me hungry 3
Alternating Forms As the learner’s vocabulary and grammar grow, the use of archi-forms
often gives way to the apparently fairly free alternation of various members of a class with each other; Thus, we see for demonstratives:
Those dog This cats
g. Misordering
Misordering errors are characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance. For example, in the
utterance. He is all the time late. all the time is misordered
James stated there are five types of errors based on target modification taxonomy, they are:
a. Omission O
Here James makes distinction about Elipsis E and from Zero Z elements which are allowed by grammar, whereas omission is ungramatical.
Compare two sentences below:
He’ll pass this exam but I won’t [pass my exam]. Elipsis He’ll pas his exam and I’ll [ O ] too. Omission
The learners tends to affect function words rather than content words in early stages. Moreover, advanced learners tend to be aware of their ignorance of
content words, rather than omit one. b.
Addition First, regularization which involves overlooking exceptions and spreading
rules to domain where they do not apply. For example producing regular buyed for bought.
Se cond, double marking, defined as ‗failure to delete certain items which
are required in some linguistic constuctions but not in other. Example: He doesn’t
knows me contains a redundant third person –s on the main verb know, redundant
because the auxiliary do already carries that maker. Third, simple addition, which caters for all additions not describable as
double markings or regularizations. Example: The young woman whom sits in the corner is my sister. The learners use relative pronoun whom rather than who
The young woman whom sits in the corner is my sister. The student add morpheme
–m in that sentence. The correct one is relative pronoun who which has function as subject. The young woman who sits in the corner is my sister.
c. Misformation Misselection
This is Dulay, Burt and Krashen’s third category, they define misformation as use of the wrong form of a structure or morpheme, and give example:
I seen her yesterday. It is indeed that seen for saw is use of the wrong form, but they are call it
misformation. It is not misformation, what the learner who produced this error has
done is not misform but misselect, and these should be called misselection.
d. Misordering
This category is relatively uncontroversial. Some languages have stricter word-order regulation than others. Russian is freer than English. Modern English
is less free in itd word order than old English. In English certain word classes seem to be especially sensitive to misordering, for instance adverbials,
interrogatives, and adjectives, example: He every time comes late home. James
called misordering with misplacement.
e. Blends
This is one category that complements the target modification taxonomy. It is typical of situations where there is not just one well-defined target, but two. The
learner is undecided about which of these two targets he has ‗in mind’. In such
situations the type of error that materializes is the blend error, sometimes called the contamination or cross-association or hybridization error. Example:
according to Erica’s oppinion, which arises when two alternative grammatical forms are combined to produce an ungrammatical blend. In this example
according to Erica’s and in Erica’s oppinion seem to have been blended.
21
5. The Procedure of Error
The methodology of error analysis, consisted of the following steps: a.
Collection of data either from a ‗free’composition by students on a given theme of from examination answers;
b. Identification of errors labelling with varying degrees of precision depending
on the linguistic sophistication brought to bear on the task, with respect to the exact nature of the deviation, eg dangling preposition, anomalous sequence of
tenses, etc; c.
Classification into error types eg errors of agreement, articles, verb forms, etc d.
Statement of relative frequency of error types; e.
Identification of the areas of difficulty in the target language; f.
Therapy remedial drills, lessons, etc.
22
Moreover, Gass and Selinker identified four steps followed in conducting an error analysis: identifying errors, describing errors, explaining errors, and error
evaluation.
23
a. Identifying errors
21
James, op.cit., p. 106-111
22
Jacek Fisiak, Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981, p.222
23
Susan M. Gass Larry Selinker, Second Language Aquisition: An Introductory Course, New York: Taylor Francis, 2008, Third Edition, p. 15
The first step in analysing learners error is to identify them. Look at the example below:
Go to the Zoo My family and I go to the zoo yesterday. We saw many animals there, like tiger,
giraffe, camel, elephant, birds, etc. I rode the horse. We are very happy to visit the zoo.
In the first sentence the student do error, My family and I go to the zoo yesterday.
It is no difficult to see that the correct sentence should be: My family and I went to the zoo yesterday.
The student write the infinitive ‗go’, but the correct one is past
tense ‗went’.
The last sentence is also incorrect, We are very happy to visit the zoo.
By comparing the two sentences we can see that the student has used are instead of were
– an error in subject-verb agreement. b.
Describing errors After all the errors have been identified, they can described and calssified
into types. One way is to classify errors into gramatical catagories. James stated there are four types of errors one of all is error based surface structure taxonomy,
which are omission, addition, misformation, misordering, and blends. c.
Expalining errors After identified and described the errors, next step is to explain why the
errors occur. By trying to identify source errors. Pit corder in Hubbard, 1983 calims that there are three major causes of error, which he labels ‗transfer errors’,
‗analogical errors’, and ‗teaching-induced errors’. While Hubbard propposed a
different names; mother-tongue interference, overgeneralization, and errors encouraged by teaching material method.
24
24
Hubbard, op.cit., p. 140-142
d. Error evaluation
In this step, the researcher must decide the criteria of errors which will be corrected because some errors can be considered more serious than other.
In short, the aim of evaluating errors is to distinct which errors will be corrected so the learner, which made an error, will not be stress of getting correction.
D. The Previous Related Study
This research is relevant to three previous researchers. They are Ahmad Syarif, Hanifah Lestyawati and Rina Wahyu Andriyani.
First study, Ahmad Syarif in his research An Analysis of Students’ Errors
in Using Adjective Clause 2011 which conducted at the second year students of MAN 4 Cijeruk Bogor. The objective of
his study are to know the students’ errors in using adjective clauses and to know why do the students face such difficulies in
using adjective clauses. He used the analysis by using descriptive method. He foud that most of students made error on ‗whom’ with the average of error is
82.80. On the other hand, the lowest one is ‗who’ with the average 30.11 and the causes of students’ difficulities in using adjective clause came from internal
and external factor.
25
Afterwards, Hanifah lestyawati conducted a case study about An Analysis on Students’ Error in Using Adjective clause Who, Whose, Whom. The objective
of her study is to identify wheather the students make error in using adjective clause with relative pronoun who, whose, whom and to find the source of errors
which affects the students to make errors in using adjective clauses with relative pronoun who, whose whom in second grade of Madrasah Aliyah Pembangunan
UIN. He used qualitative research which research design was a case study. The finding shows that the totals of errors produced by the learner was 175 times and
misformation which recurred 107 times or 60 and misorder was commited by
25
Ahmad Syarif, An Analysis of Students’ Errors in Using Adjective Clause. 2011
the learner 70 times or 40. Furthermore, the source of error that influenced in her research were interlingual, intralingual, and contex of learning.
26
Furthermore, the other study was by Rina Wahyu Andriyani in An Anlysis on Students’ Error in Using Adjective Clause by second year of SMA Nusantra
Plus Ciputat-Tangerang 2012. Her study categorized as a decriptive qualitative research. The objectives of her research are to know the types of errors made by
the Second Year Students of SMA Nusantara Plus in using relative pronouns of adjective clause and to know the causes of errors made by the Second Year
Students of SMA Nusantara Plus in using relative pronouns of adjective clause. The result of her study, the reseacher found four types of errors that students made
in using relative pronoun of adjctive clause, they are; misselection 270 or 64, misordering 88 or 21, addition 37 or 9, and omission 25 or 6.
Moreover, the students’ error were caused by ignorance of rule restriction 210 or 49, false concept hypotesized 89 or 21, over generalization 70 or 16,
and incomplete application of rules 58 or 14.
27
Based on the related research above, it was almost same as Rina Wahyu Andriyani research that found the type of error and the method of study is
descriptive qualitative. In her research, she also found the causes of error in using relative pronouns that occur in adjective clauses. Different from her research, this
research only find out the type of error.
E.
Thinking Framework
Grammar is one of language components which is taught intensively in learning English process. It is because grammar shows some rules that describe
how words and groups of words can be arranged to sentences in a particular language.
28
Grammar involves a lot of language elements, relative pronouns is one of students should be master. The students used relative pronouns to join two
26
Hanifah Lestyawati, An Analysis on Students’ Error in Using Adjective clause Who, Whose,
Whom. 2012
27
Rina Wahyu Andriyani. An Anlysis on Students’ Error in Using Adjective Clause by second
year of SMA Nusantra Plus Ciputat-Tangerang.2012
28
Ron Cowan, The Teacher’s Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 3
