the errors that they made as the topic of the questions asked. There were sixteen Subjects of interview which were selected based on the errors that they made and
also the total number of the errors and the Subjects could represent the whole class. The results of the interview in identifying the interlanguage processes
happened to the Subject are below.
Table 4.7 Interlanguage Matrix
Students’ Number
Initial’s Students
Interlanguage Characteristics Ss
Pm Fz
F1 F2
F3 F4
F5
1 AB
√ √
√ √
√ √
2 AN
√ √
√ √
3 AF
√ √
√ √
√
9 BR
√ √
√ √
14 DG
√ √
√ √
√ √
15 HD
√ √
√ √
16 IS
√ √
√ √
√
17 KK
√ √
√ √ √
√ √
19 LN
√ √
√
20 MI
√ √
√ √
√
21 MA
√ √
√ √
√ √
27 RD
√ √
√ √
√
29 SR
√ √
√ √
√ √
32 US
√ √
√ √
√
33 UV
√ √
√ √
√
35 WC
√ √ √
√ √
√
Note: -
Ss : Systematicity
- Pm
: Permeability -
Fz : Fossilization
- F1
: Language Transfer -
F2 : Transfer of Training
- F3
: Strategies of Second Language Learning -
F4 : Strategies of Second Language Communication
- F5
: Overgeneralization of the Target Language Linguistics Material
4.9 Analysis on Interview Data
There were sixteen Subjects of the interview that had been selected. As mentioned in the research objectives, the interlanguage processes is revealed from
the interview. The data gained in the interview processes were analyzed first used interlanguage matrix like shown in the table 4.7. Besides, the analysis done was
not based on each error that was made by the Subject but the errors as a whole. In the interview transcript, the writer, as the researcher used ‘R’ initial. There are
three interlanguage process characteristics, named systematicity, permeability, and fossilization that are divided into five processes; language transfer, transfer of
training, strategic of second language learning, strategic of second language communication, and overgeneralization Selinker, 1972. Below are the analyses
of interview data that has been done based on seven categorizes of interlanguage processes mentioned above.
4.9.1 Systematicity
Systematicity is the grammar of the learners that comes from coherent rules which learners construct and select in predictable ways Selinker, 1972.
Some Subjects made errors that were relevant to this interlanguage process which hint in their explanations during interview. One of the subjects was Subject UV.
1 Analysis on Subject UV
Subject US made an error in using sign of plurality that was letter ‘s’. Below was the transcript of a little part of interview on Subject UV.
R : Okay .. Next, I want to ask this.. my friend’s .. why is
there apostrophe sign ..? S
: It is because ‘teman-temannya’ is a lot..
R : Oo .. OK.. If you want to say so, it doesn’t need
apostrophe,but you can directly write s ... Then, it also still used present tense yes .. What ‘can’ in past tense ..?
From the interview, it showed that Subject UV added a letter ‘s’ because she wanted to show that her friend was more than one. However,
she used an ‘apostrophe’ before letter ‘s’ which caused the meaning of that word cannot be understood. Subject UV knew about the rule of plurality,
but she did not know how the correct rule in using it, and she just made her own rule. Other Subject who also made error and reasoned that could be
categorized in this systematicity process was Subject BR. 2
Analysis on Subject BR Subject BR wrote a sentence ‘it’s joyful’, but she did not know
what ‘’s’ was. Below was the transcript of a little part in interview process with Subject BR.
R : yes, very good ... How about this one ..? ‘It’s joyful time’
S : liburan yang menyenangkan ...
R : You wrote it’s, Why did you write like that?
S : I often see the word like that in story ..
R : Do you know what it is ..?
S : no, I don’t ...
She knew about that word from the story that she often read. Then, she thought that it was correct and used it for her sentence. In fact, the
structure was correct, but because it was a recount text, so it should be changed in a past form. The same thing also happened to Subject SR.
