4
researcher. For the learners, is the result of this study will give an improvement and development their knowledge of grammar. For English
teacher at SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Ciputat, Tangsel, is to inform the teachers a new information about some kinds of students’ difficulties in learning
gerund, to infinitive, and infinitive without to and also to improve their quality of teaching English at SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Ciputat, Tangsel. Finally, these
findings of this study can be used by other researcher to deliver useful information for other researchers who are interested in English lesson.
5
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter presents and discusses about the theoretical framework which consists of : aspects of theory of error, gerund, to infinitive, infinitive without to,
relevant studies and conceptual framework
A. Errors
1. Definition of Error
The understanding of error based on statement of Edge in Jeremy Harmer’s Book, “Errors are mistakes which they can not correct
themselves which therefore need explanation.”
1
The clue of error in this understanding is mistake, it means that error is mistake of inter language
of the students and the faulty can not be corrected by themselves and need to explain more about an English lesson from the teacher in detail.
In temporary, based on statement of Corder, “Error is part of the systematic study of the learners’ language which is itself necessary to an
understanding of the process of second language acquisition”.
2
The clue of error is the learners of English language. It can be seen that error is part
of the learners’ language which need to understand in process of second language acquisition.
Furthermore, statement of Crystal, “Error are considered to be systematic, governed by rules and appears because a learners’ knowledge
of the rule of the target language is in c omplete”.
3
It means that error refers to the competence a learners’ language in target language. Error can occur
because of a lack of knowledge of the students and it can be fixed by themselves except their knowledge increase.
Brown states furthermore that on a rather global level, errors can be
1
Jeremy Harmer. The Practice of English Language Teaching; Fourth Edition England: Pearson Education Limited 2007, p.137.
2
S.P. Corder. Error Analysis and Interlanguage Oxford: Oxford University Press 1981, p.1.
3
David Crystal. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages Sydney: Penguin Books 1992, p. 125.
6
described as errors of addition, omission, substitution, and ordering, following standard mathematical categories.
In English : a “do” auxiliary might be added.
For example : Does can he hinge? Addition. A definite article omitted.
For example : I went to movie Omission. An item substituted.
For example : I lost my road Substitution Misformation. Or word order confused .
For example : I to the store went - Misordering. But such categories are clearly very generalized. Within each category,
levels of language can be considered: phonology or orthography, lexicon, grammar, and discourse.
Finally, based on the statement above, the writer could summarized that errors are part of the systematic study of the learners’ language which
they can not correct themselves which therefore need explanation.
2. Differences Between Error and Mistake
In English learning process, the students often made errors and mistakes. Both of them discussed among the linguist and the teacher for a
long time. There are some definitions from linguist about errors and mistakes.
Based on Fisiaks’ statement, “Mistakes are deviations due to performance factor such as memory limitations mistakes in the sequence
of tenses and agreement in long sentences, spelling pronunciations, fatigue, emotional strain, etc. Errors are systematic, consistent deviances
characteristic of the learner’s linguistics system at a given stage of
learning.”
4
It means that the factors of mistake are memory limitation, spelling pronunciation, fatigue, emotional strain, etc. whereas, error is caused by
characteristic of the learner’s linguistic system at a given stage of learning.
4
Jacek Fisiak. Contrastive Lingusitics and the Language Teacher England: Pergamon Press Ltd 1981, p.224.
