AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education

By
Yustian Pristantyo
Student Number: 081214068

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2013

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education

By
Yustian Pristantyo
Student Number: 081214068

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2013

i

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS

By
Yustian Pristantyo
Student Number: 081214068

Approved by

Advisor

Date July 30th, 2013

Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A.

ii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on
AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING

By
Yustian Pristantyo
Student Number: 081214068

Defended before the Board of Examiners
on August 15th, 2013
and Declared Acceptable
Board of Examiners

Chairperson

: Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd.

____________

Secretary

: Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D.

____________

Member

: Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A.

____________

Member

: Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed., Ed.D.____________

Member

: Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd.

____________

Yogyakarta, August 15th, 2013
Faculty of Teachers Training and Education
Sanata Dharma University
Dean,

Rohandi, Ph.D.

iii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN

TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work
or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the
references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, August 15th, 2013
The Writer

Yustian Pristantyo
081214068

iv

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN

TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama

: Yustian Pristantyo

Nomor Mahasiswa : 081214068
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade
Students’ Descriptive Texts
beserta alat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,
mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan
data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau

media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya
maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya
sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal: 15 Agustus 2013
Yang menyatakan

Yustian Pristantyo

v

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ABSTRACT

Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta
Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: English Language
Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
Student’s writing ability is very important to sustain student’s achievement
in English subject. Meanwhile, the students certainly make errors in their texts.
The research utilized descriptive text to investigate students’ errors. This research
also focused on the students’ errors in descriptive texts.
This study discussed two problem formulations. The first one is SMP
Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students’ errors in descriptive texts. The second one
is possible causes of errors of SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students. The
researcher employed worksheets to gather the necessary data. The research
instruments were 55 students’ worksheets.
This research was an error analysis. To answer the first question, all
students’ worksheets were examined in order to find sentences and words that
contained errors. Afterward, the researcher classified the errors found in the
students’ sentences to three main categories: syntax errors, morphological errors,
and other findings. Each main category was also divided into some subcategories.
The error categorization was based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer
and Ramirez as cited by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982). To answer the second
question, the researcher finished examining and categorizing students’ errors and

afterward, the researcher concluded the possible causes of errors from the result of
students’ worksheets examination. There were five possible causes of errors based
on Norrish’s (1983).
Based on the result of this research, some conclusions were drawn. From
the discussion on the first question, the researcher concluded that syntax errors are
the students’ area of difficulty. Syntax errors (63.18%) had the highest percentage
compared to morphological errors (19.81%) and other findings (17 %). Most of
the found errors dealt with omission and addition. The possible causes of
students’ errors were basic grammar understanding of the students,
overgeneralization, students’ carelessness, incomplete application of rules, and
first language interference. The suggestions for the teacher are to employ various
techniques of teaching and to provide more exposure to grammar and English
texts. The suggestions for the students are to grow students’ motivation and
interest of English subject, to be aware of their English errors and to increases
exposure of English texts.

Keywords: errors, descriptive texts, error analysis, Linguistic Category
Taxonomy.

vi

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ABSTRAK
Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta
Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa
Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Keahlian menulis siswa sangatlah penting dalam mempertahankan
prestasi siswa dalam mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris. Sementara itu, para siswa
pastilah membuat kekeliruan dalam karangan mereka. Penelitian ini terpusat
pada kekeliruan-kekeliruan siswa dalam karangan deskriptif.
Penelitian ini membahas dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah yang
pertama adalah kekeliruan siswa kelas tujuh SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta
dalam teks deskriptif. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah penyebab-penyebab
dari kekeliruan siswa yang mungkin. Peneliti menggunakan kertas kerja siswa.
Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan berjumlah 55 kertas kerja siswa.
Penelitian ini adalah analisa kekeliruan. Untuk menjawab rumusan
masalah pertama, kertas kerja siswa yang terkumpul diperiksa untuk mencari
kalimat-kalimat dan kata-kata yang keliru. Setelah itu, peneliti mengelompokkan
kekeliruan yang ditemukan dalam tiga kategori utama: kekeliruan sintaks,
kekeliruan morfologis, dan temuan lain. Pengelompokan kekeliruan ini berdasar
dari Linguistic Category Taxonomy oleh Dulay, Burt dan Krashen (1982). Untuk
menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, peneliti menyelesaikan pemeriksaan dan
pengelompokan kekeliruan siswa dan setelah itu, peneliti menyimpulkan
penyebab-penyebab kekeliruan dari pemeriksaan pekerjaan siswa. Terdapat lima
penyebab kekeliruan siswa yang didasarkan pada pernyataan John Norrish
(1983).
Berdasarkan hasil dari penelitian ini, peneliti membuat beberapa
kesimpulan. Dari pembahasan rumusan masalah pertama, peneliti menyimpulkan
bahwa kekeliruan sintaks merupakan kesulitan utama siswa. Kekeliruan sintaks
(61,6%) mempunyai persentase tertinggi dibandingkan dengan kekeliruan
morfologis (20,7%) dan temuan lain (16,3%). Mayoritas kekeliruan yang ada
berhubungan dengan penambahan dan pengurangan. Penyebab kekeliruan siswa
yang mungkin adalah pemahaman dasar siswa akan tata bahasa, generalisasi
berlebihan, kelalaian siswa, penerapan tidak lengkap dari aturan yang ada, dan
pengaruh bahasa ibu. Saran untuk guru yaitu untuk menggunakan beragam teknik
pengajaran dan memberikan paparan yang lebih banyak akan tata bahasa dan
teks-teks bahasa Inggris. Saran untuk siswa yaitu untuk menumbuhkan minat
terhadap pelajaran bahasa Inggris, sadar akan kekeliruan yang dilakukan dan
meningkatkan pemaparan akan teks-teks bahasa Inggris.
Kata Kunci: kekeliruan , teks deskriptif, analisa kekeliruan, Linguistic Category
Taxonomy.

vii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the enormous help given in finishing this
research. I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His unconditional love and mercy
that brought me into this big step of mine. I would not be able to finish this thesis
without His blessings surrounding me every single day. The completion of this
thesis was definitely because of the support and encouragement from advisor,
lecturers, family and friends.
I would like to deliver my sincere and deepest gratitude to my research
advisor, Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for his great patience in my
‘come back’, guidance, constructive feedbacks, suggestions, encouragement,
motivation and support for me in finishing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to
all PBI lecturers of Sanata Dharma University who have given me great
knowledge to support me in future life.
I also would like to thank the headmaster SMP Pangudi Luhur
Yogyakarta, Bruder Valentinus Naryo FIC, M.Pd., for his warm welcome,
approval and support to me in conducting this research and the English teacher of
SMP Pangudi Luhur, Bondan Rachmat Subagya, S.Pd., who has given me
chances and great help in conducting this research. I also would like to thank Bu
Priscillia Linawati, S.Pd., M.Pd., Maria Ivona Purwa Susanti, S.Pd.,
Margareta Okta Paulina, S.Pd., and Realino Oscar Artana, S.Pd., for
providing me helpful information of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta and
supporting me to conduct this research.

viii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

My special gratitude goes to My Father (Late) Toesmono who has guided
and inspired me from heaven since I entered college and my Mother Endang
Setyowati for the great compassion and everlasting love given to me during my
college life. I would like to thank my sister, Adisti Herliningtyas, S.S., for
supporting and encouraging me in finishing this thesis. I also dedicate this thesis
to my budhe, (Late) Toesnindarti, who could not see my graduation and had
great patience supporting me from heaven.
My special thanks go to Caroline Niken Hapsari, who has accompanied
me through difficult times in finishing this thesis with her great love and patience.
I thank her for supporting and reminding me to finish this thesis. I also would like
to thank ‘Wuluh Squad’ (Ahsan, Brian, Dimas, Novianto and Dodi) and
‘Tutul Squad’ (Ahsan, Dendot, Didin, Monjali, Galih, Deni) for giving me
great help and support to finish this thesis. My gratitude also goes to Christian,
Sebastian, Mari, Bruder Makus, Sekar and Leo as my ‘Brothers and Sister in
Arms’ of thesis struggle for sharing togetherness and help.
The last is I would like to give thanks to all my friends of English
Language Education Study Program (especially Class A,B and C of PBI Batch
2008), Rendezvous team, Bright Company ( Ratna, Ika, Tania, Yosua), Micro
Teaching Lab Assistants (Seto, Boni, Nico, Paskalis, Adit, Andri), FKIP Dean
officers (Mas Antok, mas Agus, Mbak Agnes, Endarto and Dhea), and ‘Power
Rangers’ (Beni, Adhi Vrater, Yosua, Adam and Sherly) for the friendship,
laughter and care.
Yustian Pristantyo

ix

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................i
PAGE OF APPROVAL ......................................................................................... ii
PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ......................................................iv
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ......................................................... v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................vi
ABSTRAK .............................................................................................................. vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ..xii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................xiv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
A. Research Background .................................................................. 1
B. Research Problems ...................................................................... 4
C. Problem Limitation ...................................................................... 4
D. Research Objectives .................................................................... 5
E. Research Benefits ........................................................................ 5
F. Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................... 12
A. Theoretical Description .................................................................. 12
1. Error Analysis ...................................................................... 12
2. Error and Mistakes............................................................... 16
3. Sources of Error ................................................................... 18
4. Causes of Errors................................................................... 19
5. Types of Errors .................................................................... 24

x

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

6. Error Taxonomy (Linguistic Category Taxonomy) ............. 28
7. Descriptive Texts ...................................................................... 29

B. Theoretical Framework ................................................................. 30
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 33
A. Research Method ............................................................................. 33
B. Research Setting .............................................................................. 34
C. Research Participant ........................................................................ 34
D. Research Instrument ........................................................................ 37
E. Data Gathering Technique ............................................................. 38
F. Data Analysis Technique................................................................ 38
G. Research Procedure ......................................................................... 40
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................... 43
A. Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by Seventh Grade Students of
SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta ................................................. 43
B. Possible Causes of Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by
Seventh Grade Students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta .. 72
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................................ 75
A. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 75
B. Suggestions ...................................................................................... 77
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 79
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 82

xi

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LIST OF TABLES
Figures

Page

3.1 A Weighted Descriptive Texts Rubric adapted from Brown (2007) ............... 35
3.2. The Error Classification Table ........................................................................ 39
4.1. Syntax Errors and Frequency .......................................................................... 45
4.2. Morphological Errors and Frequency ............................................................. 46
4.3. Other Findings and Frequency ........................................................................ 46
4.4. Number of Errors in Use of Determiners ....................................................... 48
4.5. Number of Errors in Use of Prepositions ....................................................... 53
4.6. Number of Errors in Use of Pronouns ........................................................... 54
4.7. Number of Errors in Use of Verbs ................................................................. 57
4.8. Number of Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement .............................................. 60
4.9. Number of Errors in Use of Lexical Categories ............................................ 62
4.10. Number of Errors in Possessive Case .......................................................... 67
4.11. Number of Errors in Noun (Singular and Plural) .......................................... 68
4.12. Number of Errors in Use of Suffix .............................................................. 70
4.13. The Examples of Ortographic Errors ............................................................ 71
4.14. The Examples of Lexico-Semantic Errors .................................................... 71

xii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Examples of Students’ Errors ................................................................................ 82
APPENDIX B
Students’ Exercise of Descriptive Text and a Brief Summary of
Descriptive text ..................................................................................................... .91
APPENDIX C
Examples of Students’ Descriptive Text ................................................................ 97
APPENDIX D
Letter of Permission ............................................................................................. 109

xiii

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher will introduce the field and the background
of his research. There are six parts in which the researcher presents the basic
information of the research. Those are the research background, problem
formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits and
definition of terms used in the research.

A. Research Background
Students‟ writing ability is very important toward the students‟ progress.
Students‟ writing ability is also very important for the students themselves in their
upcoming years. As the students learn writing, there must be an outcome of that
process. The outcome could be students‟ improved writing skill, students‟ writing
scores and also students‟ writing errors. Brooks (1960) as cited by Hendrickson
(1981: 1) stated that errors have relationship with learning: “Like sin, error is to be
avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected”. Based on
Brooks‟ statement (1960), it is known errors are things that normally happen in
every part of learning. Errors are also beneficial in learning process as supported
by Corder (1973: 265) as cited by Hendrickson (1981: 3) as follows.
“Errors provide feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of
his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show what parts of the
syllabus he has been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need
further attention. They enable him to decide whether he must devote more time to
the item he has been working on.”

1

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

2
This research was an Error Analysis and conducted based on one purpose.
It was to identify the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade
students‟ descriptive texts. This research was conducted because the researcher
proposed to investigate the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh
grade students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher decided to conduct this research
because students‟ errors in writing are important to be investigated. Students‟
errors are disastrous for the students if they are not immediately taken care of.
This research also helped the teacher to pinpoint parts of his teaching
which still needs more emphasis in order to overcome the students‟ errors. This
research also provided feedback in form of list of errors for the teacher as stated
previously by Corder (1973). Zydatiss (1974), Lange (1977), and Lantolf (1977)
as cited by Hendrickson (1981) stated that errors are signals that actual learning is
taking place and errors can serve as indicators of progress and success. Therefore,
this research also presented indicators of students‟ writing achievement in
descriptive texts.
In this research, the researcher had three regular seventh grade classes
consisting of 43-44 students each class for this research. The reason why the
researcher chose regular classes was that because the teacher wanted to seek out
the students‟ progress in writing, especially descriptive texts. It was because
descriptive text was taught in both semesters. In the odd semester, the students
were taught about describing person‟s appearances and characteristics. Then, in
the even semester, the students were taught about describing places. Moreover,
the teacher also wanted the students to recall what they had learned about

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

3
descriptive text in the odd semester by using material enrichment before they
learned about describing places.
In this research, the researcher utilized descriptive text for identifying
the occurred errors. The reason why the researcher chose descriptive text was
because the students of seventh grade junior high school were required to be able
to make a good composition of descriptive text. That statement is stated in
Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) syllabus. Descriptive text is also
one important kind of texts because through this kind of text, the students can use
and explore their sensory details like smells, sound, sights, feeling, tastes, and
textures to create vivid images in reader‟s mind as stated by Henry, D. J. (2008).
Descriptive texts enable the students to explore their vocabulary and senses,
especially in describing a person. The researcher provided four famous characters
and the students were required to describe one of them.
In this research, there were errors found on the students‟ descriptive texts.
One of the errors which mostly occurred in these three regular classes was that the
omission of articles. That problem was quite serious, because the students‟
understanding of using article would affect the students‟ writing result in their
upcoming time. Besides the use of article, there were found many other errors that
also were important to identify such as the use of preposition, the omission of
suffix and any other else. Those errors are important and valuable; because
identifying those errors could locate in which part the students were facing
difficulties and the teacher could take some follow-up actions toward the students‟

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

4
difficulties. The teacher could also make preventive actions towards those errors
for his future students.
The benefit of this research toward the teacher was that it could help the
teacher locate the students‟ weaknesses and the teacher could revise and
emphasize on which the students were facing difficulties. This research also
assisted the students with lists of students‟ errors. Therefore, the students could
know which part to be fixed in their writing. The students were expected to be
aware of their errors occurred in their descriptive texts and prevent their errors in
their upcoming time.

B. Research Problem
This research comes up with two problems. They are formulated as follows.
1. What are the errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of
SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta?
2. What are the possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh
grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta?

C. Problem Limitation
This research is limited only in an Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur
Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts academic year 2012/2013.
The researcher chose this type of research because errors in writing would give a
disastrous impact if these problems were not immediately taken care of. The
students needed to know their weaknesses in all part of English subject, in this

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

5
case, descriptive texts. They needed to know the errors they made because the
errors would show their weaknesses on a particular section. Therefore, they can
improve their writing based on the Error Analysis‟ result.
Furthermore, the researcher would examine the results of the material
enrichment (materi pengayaan) which has been given in order to elaborate what
kinds or errors and how many errors which appeared in students‟ descriptive texts.
This research would be beneficial for the teacher in order to improve students‟
skills in writing. It also could make the students be aware of their grammar ability
and through this research; they were expected to improve their writing skill and
grammar acquisition afterwards.

D. Research Objective
This research objective is to find out the answers of the questions stated in
problem formulation as follows.
1. The errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP
Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta.
2. The possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade
students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta

E. Research Benefit
This research was expected to be beneficial for the teacher, the researcher,
and the students.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

6
1. The teacher
This research was conducted based on students‟ errors. The problem was
about writing errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The teacher will get the benefit
of this research through the research result. The teacher can emphasize more on
some parts of descriptive texts, grammar, or writing which the students were
facing difficulties in. According to Corder (1973), errors analysis could provide
useful information about the teacher‟s technique effectiveness. Therefore, the
teachers could improve their technique in teaching, especially for writing. Using
this research‟ result, the teacher could locate the students‟ weaknesses in
descriptive texts, writing and also grammar. Corder (1981: 10) also stated the
benefit of Error Analysis as follows. “First to the teacher, in that they tell him,
if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner
has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn”.
Afterwards, the teacher could take some preventive actions toward the students‟
errors.
2. The Researcher
This research was conducted by the researcher as a thesis to obtain
Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program of Sanata
Dharma University. This research was also beneficial for the researcher, because
this research enabled the researcher to elaborate more SMP Pangudi Luhur
Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors through Error Analysis. The problem of
this research was errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher attempted to
identify and analyze the errors found on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

7
grade students‟ descriptive text. Corder (1981: 11) also stated the Error Analysis
benefit for the researcher as follows. “They provide to the researcher evidence
of how language is learnt or acquired, what strategies or procedures the
learner is employing in his discovery of the language”.
3. The Students
The seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta were
expected to be able to improve their writing skill, in this case, descriptive text.
Corder (1981: 11) stated the Error Analysis benefit for the students as follows.
“They are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the
making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the
learner has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is
learning. The making of errors then is a strategy employed both by
children acquiring their mother tongue and by those learning a second
language.”

This research also helped the students recognize their errors in their
descriptive texts. The students also can elaborate on their errors with the teacher‟s
assistance: why the errors happened in their writing, how to overcome those errors
and etc. The students could conduct peer-assessment in their classes assisted by
the teacher. Therefore, the students could correct their errors and improve their
writing skill in future time. Through this research, the students were expected to
overcome their errors and produce improved descriptive texts in the upcoming
time.

F. Definitions of Terms
In order to avoid misconception and misunderstanding, the researcher gives
the specific terms.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

8

1.

Writing
In this study, writing is a method of expressing ideas about any subject

content; it appears in classrooms everywhere and, therefore, must be the concern
of every teacher (Tiedt, 1989). Writing is one kind of productive skill in English
language acquisition. Maggie (2003) defined writing as both a process and a
product. In writing, there is a process to make a writing composition. The
processes are stated chronologically: imagining- organizing- drafting- editingreading and proofreading.
Writing has a process to follow in order to obtain the best result. Besides a
process, writing is also a product. This is called similar to that fact because
writing skill is a productive skill and as a result, writing has a result in form of a
writing composition. The researcher tended to assume that writing is a product,
because in this research, the research samples were the SMP Pangudi Luhur
Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. In this research, the
researcher only examined 55 students‟ descriptive texts in order to identify the
errors and provide feedback for the teacher.
2.

Descriptive Text
In this study, the term descriptive text is understood as a kind of text that

enables SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade to visualize a person with
all appropriate senses and describe the person‟s personality. McMurrey (1983:
239) points out that description is a way to enable the reader to visualize a person,
place or things with some appropriate senses included. In this study, descriptive

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

9
texts enabled the students to visualize famous characters they were interested in.
Therefore, the students were expected to be able to explore more their writing
compositions through their descriptive texts. Other definition of descriptive text
by Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.) is that descriptive
text is a kind of text which has a purpose to give information. The context of this
text is the description of particular thing, animal, person or others. The social
function of descriptive text is to describe particular person, place or thing.
Descriptive text also has its generic structure as stated by Hammond
(1992) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.). There are two main parts of the generic
structure: Identification and Description. In identification, the phenomenon to be
described is identified and in description, the phenomenon is described by parts,
qualities, characteristics and etc. In this research, the researcher descriptive text
about people‟s appearance and character. According to Berg (2011), descriptive
texts can indicate who is in the picture. Descriptive texts actually can provide
better face labeling in describing person. Berg (2011) also stated that descriptive
texts can indicate appearance characteristics. Descriptive texts can discover visual
attributes. Through descriptive, SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students were
expected to be able describe a person in details. This describing person‟s
appearance and character material had been taught in the odd semester of
academic year 2012-2013. In the even semester, the researcher still attempted to
conduct a research related to descriptive texts and Error Analysis as the teacher
intended to check students‟ progress before going on describing places topic.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

10
3.

Error Analysis
In this study, Error Analysis was proposed by the researcher as a way to

investigate the errors occurred in students‟ descriptive texts of seventh grade of
SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012)
defined Error Analysis as “technique for identifying, classifying and
systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning
a foreign language, using any of the principles and provided by linguistics”. In
addition, Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by Abed (2012) defined Error Analysis
as “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting
samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their
nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness”.
This research is an Error Analysis. The researcher took students‟
worksheets as the object of his research. The researcher intended to search for the
errors that occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts. Corder (1967) as cited by
Ellis (1994: 78) stated the differences between mistakes and errors. He stated
mistakes as “mistakes are akin to slips of the tongue”. He also stated errors are
systematic and likely to happen repeatedly. Norrish (1983) definederrors. An error
is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it wrong‟. Error
Analysis also has its own benefits. Norrish (1983) stated that Error Analysis can
give a picture of the type of difficulty learners are experiencing. The other
benefits of errors analysis stated by Norrish (1983) are an Error Analysis can give
useful information about a new class, an Error Analysis can indicate problems
common to all and problems common to particular groups, and the teacher can

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

11
assess objectively how his teaching helps the students. The researcher
implemented the steps of Error Analysis by Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994)
in this research. Those steps helped the researcher conduct this research. The
researcher also added additional steps of Error Analysis by Gass and Selinker
(2001) in order to obtain a reliable research result.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

In this chapter, the researcher presents the related theories and literatures
that underline the research field. The related literatures are discussed here as the
basis of answering the research question. There are two parts presented in this
chapter. They are the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. In the
theoretical description, the researcher presents theories related to error analysis,
error and mistakes, sources of errors, causes of errors, error taxonomy, types of
errors, and descriptive text. In the theoretical framework, the researcher presents
the steps of conducting an error analysis on students‟ descriptive texts.

A. Theoretical Description
In this part the researcher discusses some fundamental theories of this
research.
1. Error Analysis
Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012) defined error analysis as
“technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the
unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign language, using any
of the principles and provided by linguistics”. Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by
Abed (2012) defined error analysis as “a procedure used by both researchers and
teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors,
classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their

12

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

13
seriousness”. In error analysis, there are steps to follow. Corder(1974) as cited by
Ellis (1994) stated the steps of errors analysis. They are presented as follows.
a. Collection of a sample of learner language
Ellis (1994: 49) stated that “the starting point in EA is deciding what
samples of learner language to use for the analysis and how to collect these
samples”. Ellis (1994) also stated that there are three kinds of samples‟ size. They
are massive sample, specific sample, and incidental sample. Ellis (1994: 49) stated
the differences of three kinds of samples‟ size as follows.
“A massive sample involves collecting several samples of language use from a
large number of learners in order to compile a comprehensive list of errors,
representative of the entire population. A specific sample consists of one sample of
language use collected from a limited number of learners, while an incidental
sample involves only one sample of language use produced by a single learner.”

Besides the matter of samples‟ size, Ellis (1994) stated that the researcher
also needs to pay attention on a variety of factors that the learners make errors.The
researcher also has to decide regarding the manner in which the samples are taken.
Ellis (1994: 50) stated that “an important distinction is whether the learner
language reflects natural, spontaneous language use, or is elicited in some way.
The researcher also has to decide whether to collect the samples cross-sectionally
(one point at a time) or longitudinally (successive points over a period of time)
(Ellis, 1994). Svartvik (1973b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that most error
analyses use regular examination papers (composition, translations, etc.)
b. Identification of Errors
Identification of errors is carried out after all samples are taken. The first
phase in identification is to decide which variety of target language should be the
norm (Ellis, 1994). In this phase, the researcher also should consider the mother

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

14
tongue and the target language of the learners. In phase two, the researcher is
required to differentiate between errors and mistakes. Then, in phase three, Corder
(1971a) as cited by Ellis (1994) suggested that the researcher also has to concern
whether the errors are overt (clear deviation form) or covert (superficially wellformed but not reflecting the learners‟ intention). In phase four, the researcher
also has to decide to investigate deviations in correctness or also deviations in
appropriateness. Those phases are the steps in identification of errors.
c. Description of errors
Ellis (1994: 54) stated that “the description of learner errors involves a
comparison of the learner‟s idiosyncratic utterances with a reconstruction of those
utterances in the target language”. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) as cited by
Ellis (1994) argue the need for descriptive taxonomies that focus only on
observable, surface features of errors, as a basis for subsequent explanation. In
description of errors, the researcher needs to use error taxonomy to describe the
learners‟ errors in detail.
One of error taxonomies is linguistic category taxonomy by Politzer and
Ramirez (1973). Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Ellis (1994) set their
taxonomy with more general categories: morphology, syntax and vocabulary. This
taxonomy allows for both a detailed description of specific errors and also for a
quantification of a corpus of errors. In description of errors, the researcher also
needs to quantify the errors that occurred. Schachter and Celce-Murcia (1977) as
cited by Ellis (1994: 57) point out “to say anything worthwhile about error

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

15
frequency we need to know the number of times it would be possible for learners
to have committed different errors”.
d. Explanation of Errors
Ellis (1994) stated that explanation of errors is concerned with establishing
the sources of the error. In explanation of errors, the researcher is required to seek
out the sources of students‟ errors based on the collected errors. Taylor (1986) as
cited by Ellis (1994) discovers three sources of errors. They are psycholinguistic,
sociolinguistic, epistemic and discourse. Psycholinguistic sources deal with the
nature of the L2 knowledge system and the learners‟ difficulties in using the L2
knowledge system. Sociolinguistic sources deal with learners‟ ability in adjusting
their language in accordance with the social context. Epistemic sources deal with
learners‟ of world knowledge. Discourse sources deal with problems in
organization of information into a coherent „text‟.
Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) also provides the sources of errors.
The first one is interference errors. Interference errors occur as a result of the use
of elements from one language while speaking another. The second is intralingual
errors. Intralingual errors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such
as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn
conditions under which rules apply. The third is developmental errors.
Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses
about the target language on the basis of limited experience. Those sources of
errors are for the consideration in explaining the students‟ errors.

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

16
e. Evaluating Errors
Evaluating errors is the last step in error analysis. Ellis (1994: 63) stated that
“error evaluation involves a consideration of the effect that errors have on the
person(s) addressed”. Ellis (1994) also stated the design of error evaluation. Error
evaluation involves addressees, judges, errors to be judged and how to judge. The
error judgment covers semantic or lexical aspects of English, grammatical features
and spelling. In this research, the error evaluation was carried out by the teacher
based on the result of description and explanation of students‟ errors. The
researcher only assisted the teacher to identify the students‟ errors, therefore, the
teacher could take evaluate his teaching and take some precaution actions towards
the result of students‟ errors.
Other steps of error analysis were also proposed by Gass and Selinker
(2001). The steps are: (1) data need to be collected, (2) identify errors, (3) classify
errors, (4) quantify errors, (5) analysis of the source, and (6) remediation. The
steps of error analysis both by Richards (1971b) and by Gass and Selinker (2001)
share the same characteristics. In this research, the researcher primarily used
Richards‟ (1971b) steps and also considered Gass and Selinker‟s (2001) steps.

2. Error and Mistakes
The researcher considered that his research is an error analysis. Therefore,
he provided the theories related to error. Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis
(1994)stated that the researcher has to differentiate between errors and mistakes in
identification of errors. Therefore, the researcher presents the theories related to

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

17
error and mistakes. Norrish (1983) distinguishes between error, mistake, lapse and
careless slip as they are known as “types of error”. They are explained as follows.
a. Error
Error is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it
wrong‟. Norrish (1983) also mentions that in the same way, an ESL student makes
an error systemically, that is because the student has not learnt the correct form.
Norrish (1983) calls errors as “systematic deviations”.Corder (1967) as cited by
Ellis (1994: 51) stated that “an error takes place when the deviation arises as a
result of lack knowledge. It represents a lack of competence”. Errors occur as the
result of students‟ lack of competence. Gass and Selinker (2001: 78) state that “an
error, on the other hand, is systematic. That is, it is likely to occur repeatedly and
is not recognized by the learner as an error”. In order to differentiate between
errors and mistakes accurately, Ellis (1994)stated that frequency of occurrence is
regarded the distinctive point. Error has high frequency of occurrence. Corder
(1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) stated that errors are obviously systematic
deviations.
b. Mistake
Norrish (1983) stated that a mistake occurs when a learner has been taught
an English sentence pattern, and he uses the correct pattern and sometimes he uses
the incorrect pattern. If that situation happens quite inconsistently and later that
situation is called “inconsistent deviation” or “mistake”.Gass and Selinker (2001)
also define mistakes as akin to slips of the tongue. Mistakes are generally onetime-only events. The learner who makes mistakes is able to recognize it as a

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

18
mistake and correct it if necessary. Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982)
stated that performance errors are apparently mistakes.
c. Lapse
Norrish (1983) also presents lapse. Lapse happens because of the lack of
concentration, shortness of memory, fatigue and other factors. Lapse happens
when the students do not obtain a good atmosphere and situation of learning for
example due to the weather, or other particular situations. Lapse is neither an error
nor a mistake and lapse can happen to anyone at any time.
d. Careless Slip
Norrish (1983) also stated careless slip. Careless slip is caused by learner‟s
inattentiveness in class. Learner‟s inattentiveness could be triggered by many
factors. The factors are class‟ situation, learners‟ concerns and any other else.
Careless slip is considered as a minor type of „errors‟.

3. Sources of Error
In this research, the researcher also presents the theories about sources of
error. The theories are presented in order to give clear explanation for the
students‟ error in descriptive texts. Sources of errors are needed in the step of
error analysis. The step is explanation of errors by Ellis (1994).
Brown (1980) as cited by Hasyim(2002) presents the sources or errors.
Brown (1980) classifies the sources of errors into four. They are: (1) Interlingual
Transfer. This is negative influence of students‟ mother tongue. (2) Intralingual
Transfer. This is negative transfer of items in the target language. In other word,

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI

19
this is the incorrect use of rules in the target language. (3) Context of Learning.
This is the overlapping of the interlanguage transfer and intralingual transfer. The
role of teacher and textbook is very important, because teachers and textbooks
might make wrong generalization about the language.(4) Communication
Strategies. Communication strategies are used as a conscious verbal mechanism
for communicating when linguistics forms are not available to the students for
some reasons.
Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 58) also presents three sources of
errors. They are (1)interference errors. „Interference errors occur as a result of
the use of elements from one language while speaking another‟. (2) Intralingual
errors. „intralingualerrors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such
as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn
conditions under which rules apply‟. (3) Developmental errors.„Developmental
errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypot