VERB PHRASE ACQUISITION AS INDICATED THROUGH STUDENTS’ WRITING : A Cross Sectional Study on Undergraduate Students of a Private Higher Education Institution in Bandung.

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through

Students’ Writing:

A Cross Sectional Study on Undergraduate Students of a Private

Higher Education Institution in Bandung

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for Master’s Degree

in English Education

Mohammad Qushoy

1004987

ENGLISH EDUCATION

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

2013

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through

Students’ Writing:

A Cross Sectional Study on Undergraduate Students of a Private

Higher Education Institution in Bandung

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for Master’s Degree

in English Education

Mohammad Qushoy

1004987

ENGLISH EDUCATION

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

2013

APPROVAL SHEET

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through Students’Writing:

A Cross Sectional Study on Undergraduate Students of a Private

Higher Education Institution in Bandung

By:

Mohammad Qushoy

1004987

Approved by

Supervisor

Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D. NIP. 196611271993031002

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated

Through Students’ Writing: A Cross Sectional Study on Undergraduate Students of a Private Higher Education Institution in Bandung” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources. All quotations are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, February 2013

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate the interlanguage that undergraduate students of English Education make when they produce written English. This study is conducted on the basis of the fact that undergraduate students still make errors although they have learned English for a long time. Also, the errors themselves are as a system and can be used to determine interlanguage.

This study employed cross sectional design since the data were collected in a single point of time but covering different levels of proficiency. The participants of the study were 12 undergraduate students of a private higher education institution in Bandung and their writings were used as the main data of the study. The nature of the analysis merely focuses on interlanguage, namely verb phrase

acquistion grouped according to students’ levels and frequency. The data analysis of this study employed the theories of Error Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL).The findings show that students’ production of English is still interlanguage since their writings contain a wide range of errors in relation to the use of verb phrases.The errors cover third person singular verbs (28.5%), omission of to

be (17.9%), double marking (13%), the use of have and has (7.3%), problem with gerunds (4.9%),

problem in negative transformations (5.6%), verb-and-verb constructions (5.6%), disagreement of subject and number (4.9%), problem in passive transformations (4.9%), problem with modals (4.1%) and problem in question transformations (3.3%). Moreover, the results of the study reveal that there

are basically four processes contribute students’ interlanguage, i.e. language transfer (67.5%),

strategies of second language learning (16.7%), overgeneralization (2.6%), and false concepts

hypothesized (13.2%). The study concludes that students’ competence in each level is incomplete and

considered to be in the continuum of interlanguage—its system has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target language. Their target language productions tend to be partly influenced by their native language.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers the background of the study which motivated the researcher to conduct this study. This chapter also presents the problems of the study, the purposes of the study, the significance of the study, research method, operational defintion and organization of the paper.

1.1. Background of the Study

For students of higher level slike undergraduate students, especially English education students, being proficient in producing English skills is one of main goals of learning English as foreign language. However, learning English as a foreign language is not as easy as imagined. It requires great efforts for the students to learn the elements of the language, such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling. There are also four skills that students have to master; speaking, reading, listening, and writing. One of important but most difficult skill to master is writing skills. For higher students, there are some kinds of writing subject, such as writing for academic purposes. In producing this kind of writing, students often face problems such as problem in finding ideas, organizations, the structures and even grammatical aspects. In the case of grammatical aspects, since it is the basic in mastering writing skills, students continuously fail to apply the target language rules completely. Thus, when they produce the target language, spoken or written, their productions contain errors although they have learned it for a long time.

Students‟ grammatical errors are considered as sign of „human fallibility‟ (Fauziati, 2011: 23), so that they potentially occur in their language. According to second language acquisition, there are some sources of errors that students make when they produce spoken or written target language. One of them is interlanguage (IL). Ellis (1996:44) defines the term interlanguage as “the special mental grammars that learners constructed during the course of their development”. It also refers to “the separateness of a second language learners‟

2 system, a system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target languages” (Ellis, 1999: 201). IL is also used to refer to both the internal system which a learner has constructed at a single point in time and to the series of interconnected systems that characterize the learners‟ progress over time (Ellis, 1996). Further, IL is a unique and dynamic linguistic system, which is different from the native language and from the target language (Sheng, 2007). Therefore, Ellis affirms that IL theory is an appropriate starting point to investigate learners‟ competence because it was the first major attempt to provide an explanation of L2 acquisition (Ellis, 1996).

There are many studies that investigate interlanguage as the main point of the research. Some have investigated interlanguage development, both spoken and written production, through a longitudinal study in regard to morphological features e.g. morpheme (Hobson, 1999), article (Stehle, 2009), irregular past tense formation (Plag & Schneider, 2000), and determiner (Goad & White, 2009). Moreover, some have focused on syntactical features e.g. marked word order (Callies, 2002), and descrpitive adjectives (Santoro, 2012). Also, interlanguage subjectivity e.g semantic verb types (Azad & Azad, 2005) has been investigated. In addition, some researchers have investigated the learners‟ interlanguage development by analysing their errors e.g. word order, co-occuring articles, and

overgeneralization (Kill, 2003), grammatical errors (Luna, 2010; Fauziati, 2011; Abbasi & Karimnia, 2011; and Ning, 2012).

Based on aforementioned explanation, this study wants to conduct a research on interlanguage (IL) although it has become research subjects several years ago. The study would like to investigate grammatical behaviour which is shared by students when they acquire English. It is worth studying because Indonesian learners, especially undergraduate students of English education are still confronted with a lot of grammatical problems in their attempt to express the intended meaning in target language system correctly. The students make a big amount of errors, both in terms of linguistic items and grammatical elements (e.g. Mardijono, 2003; Pardede, 2006: Fauziati, 2011).

Structurally, there are two basis of grammatical behavior; their shape i.e. morphological behaviour and their position in the clause or sentence i.e. syntactic behaviour (Borjars and Burridge, 2001). However, by the reason of time limitation, the study focuses only on the use of verb phrases that occurs in students‟ writings. Another consideration also arises due to some arguments that verbs are considered as the central part of the clause or the head of the sentence (Borjars & Burridge, 2001). Unfortunately, the use of verb still becomes

a big problem for the students. Practically, they produce big amount of errors in regard to the use of verbs as reported by, for example, Mardijono (2003), Pardede (2006), and Kanshir (2008). Therefore, based on this issue, the study is driven to investigate students‟ interlanguage due to the use of verb by using Error Analysis. The study uses Politzer and Romirez‟s (1973) and Burt and Kiparsky‟s (1972) Linguistic Category Taxonomy (see Dulay et. al, 1982, p. 146) in analysing the students‟ writings. In addition, this study also investigates what factors or processes that contribute to their interlanguage according to Selinker‟s (1972) five central processes of interlanguage and Richards‟ (1971 & 1971b) causes of errors. To some extent, this study wants to reveal how far students‟ learn English by indicating their target language regarding the use of verbs.

1.2. Problem of the Study

The problem in this study says “what interlanguage realization grouped according to the students‟ level and proficiency occur in their English writings”. To answer this question, two subsidiary research questions are raised and formularized as follows:

1) What verb phrases do undergraduate students produce in their writings?

2) What processes contribute to the students‟ use of verb phrases in their writings?

1.3. Purpose of the Study

Fluency and correctness of learners‟ language expression can be fully detected in a written production, which represents one‟s English ability. In order to detect and describe partial knowledge of English that students of English education have, this study seeks to investigate their language output by analysing their interlanguage through errors analysis.

In this regard, the purpose of the study can be formulated as follows:

1) To gain the data about the use of verb phrases that occurs in writing assignment made

by the students.

2) To investigate some processes contribute to the use of verb phrases that learners have

produce as part of interlanguage process.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study is very significant as it can give teachers vivid pictures of the common phenomenon usually occur in L2 learning. By investigating the learners‟ interlanguage, namely verb phrase acquisition this study could be significant in some ways:

4 and provide the reasercher with evidence of how language was learnt, spesifically verb phrase acquisition.

2) It will serve as devices by which the learners discover the rules of the target

language in regard to the grammatical rules, namely verb phrase.

3) The insights derived from this study can contribute to the development of the theory

of applied linguistics, especially to the existing theorization of interlanguage in SLA.

4) In general, it can give insights into several aspects of adult L2 learning regarding the

case of interlanguage development (i.e. the resources on adult L2 learning).

1.5. Research Method

This study was cross sectional since the data were collected in a single point of time but covering different levels of proficiency. The study used students‟ writings as the main data. The nature of the analysis merely focused on verb phrases grouped according to students‟ levels and frequency. The participants of this study were 12 students from the second year of undergraduate students who were majoring in English Education at a Private Higher Education Institution in Bandung. An error analysis was carried out on their writings to identify linguistic behaviour shared by the students. Both accurate and inaccurate versions related to the use of verb phrases were analysed and presented.

The study used instrument of students‟ final test conducted in the previous semester. Since the study employed cross sectional, students were divided into three groups representing lower, middle, and higher achievers according to their score from subjects related to writing skills such as Writing for Academic Purposes, Writing for General Communication and Writing in Professional Context. In the case of errors and interlanguage analysis, students‟ writings were analysed through identification, description or categorization, and explanation using „Linguistic Category Taxonomy‟ (Dulay, et al.,1982: 148-154). Afterwards, the causes errors that contibute to students‟ interlanguage were also

investigated according to Selinker‟s (1972) five central processes of interlanguage and Richards‟ (1971 & 1971b) cause of errors.

1.6. Operational Definition

1. Second Language Acquisition is the process in which people learn a language other

than their native language either inside or outside the classroom (Ellis, 2008).

2. An error is noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting

3. Error analysis is a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves

collecting samples of learner language, identifying the errors in the sample, describing these errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness (Corder, 1967).

4. Linguistic Category Taxonomy is taxonomy that classifies errors according to the

language component or linguistic constituent (or both of them) which is affected by the error. It comprises phonology, syntax and morphology, semantics and lexicon, and discourse (Dulay et al. 1982: 146).

5. Interlanguage is the separateness of a second language learners‟ system, a system that

has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target languages (Ellis, 1999: 201).

6. Process of interlanguage development means five principal cognitive processes that

are responsible for L2 acquisition (Selinker, 1972 in Ellis, 1996) and causes of errors proposed by Richards (1971 & 1971b in Ellis, 1996).

1.7. Thesis Organization

This paper consists of five chapters. The first chapter presents the background of the study, the reasons motivated the researcher to conduct the study. This chapter also discusses about problems of the study, purposes of the study, significances, research method, operational definition and thesis organization. The second chapter presents the theoretical foundation of the study. It discusses about theories supporting the study. The third chapter explores the methodology used in the study: the design, participants, data collection and data analysis. The fourth chapter presents the study findings and its discussion. Finally, the fifth chapter talks about conclusions and recommendations. The conclusions section concludes the study findings. The recommendations section provides some recommendations for the readers and other researchers, and also for English teacher in higher education.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the design of the study, instrument, data collection procedures and data analysis. Research design section elaborates the design used in the study. The research design chosen enables the researcher to achieve the purpose of the study to describe the interlanguage in regard to verb phrase acquisition that occurs in students‟ writings. The instrument used in the study is also presented in this chapter. Data collection procedures provide the procedures of collecting the data: its techniques and types. Data analysis describes the tools used to analyse errors and presents the steps of analysing the data.

3.1. Research Design

This study was cross sectional since the data were collected in a single point of time and covered different students‟ levels of proficiency.Connole, et al. (1993:61) confirm that “cross-sectional takes a „snapshot‟ of a situation at a paritcular point in time”. Whereas, Cohen et al. define a cross-sectional study as “one that produces a „snapshot‟ of a population at a particular point in time” (Cohen et al.,2005 :175). A cross-sectional design, according Dulay et al. (1974),is a design in which the data are collected from a large sample of learners at one point in their language development and stimulates actual development over time by including many learners who are at different stages of L2 development. Hobson (1999) states that cross sectional approach is economical and efficient since a large number of subjects can be studied at one time and development of a particular form or function can be measured fairly and easily. He adds if the subjects have different levels of competence, inferences can be drawn about developmental sequences by taking samples of writing from learners of different levels and sequencing the different developmental patterns which are found. In this case, the nature of this analysis merely focuses on interlanguage, namely verb phrase acquisition. The participants were grouped into three levels according to students‟ proficiency or competence.

The reason for this arises due to the limitation of time in conducting the study and also due to some arguments that verbs are considered as the central part of the clause or the head of the sentence (Borjars & Burridge, 2001). Unfortunately, the use of verbs still becomes a big problem for the students. Practically, they produce big amount of errors in regard to the use of verbs. i.e. Mardijono (2003), Pardede (2006), and Kanshir (2008). Hence, the use of verbs still potentially appears to be problematic and important to be investigated.

3.2. Participants

The population of this study was the second year of undergraduate students who are majoring English Education in a Private Higher Education Institution in Bandung. The participants for this study were 12 undergraduate students from the second year. They were chosen to be participants of the study sinceit was assumedthat they have learnt English for years and they also have experienced some subjects related to writing subjects. Hence, they were familiar with several kinds of texts and had experiences to produce a written target language. In addition, as undergraduate students, it was assumed that they have good understanding of English as foreign language. However, when they produce target language, their outcome seemed not achieve the complete target language. They still often made errors and produced variations of utterances and sentences with inappropriate structures and forms.

The study employed purposive sampling. Ritchie and Lewis state the sample units were chosen because they have particular features or characteristics which will enable detailed exploration and understanding of the central themes and puzzles which the researcher wishes to study (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).For instance,they are learners of English as a foreign language, their language productions contain errors although they have learnt it for a long time.In dividing the students into three groups representing students‟ level of proficiency;lower, middle, and higher achievers, the study used their score from subjects related to writing skills; Writing for Academic Purposes, Writing for General Communication and Writing in Professional Context. This can be considered as

36

reliable because writing is a complex and consists of some knowledge. This is in line with Jacob et al. (1981, cited in Fatemi, 2008) who assign that writing is not an isolated performance from the rest of human experience. Rather, writing skills have been shown to be fundamentally integrated with other skills like reading, speaking, and listening.

Jacobs et al. (1981: 74, cited in Fatemi, 2008: 26), further, note that since composing involves many of the same factors as general language proficiency; “a test of composition should correlate substantially with measures of overall English proficiency even though a composition requires a writing performance specifically”. Cumming et al. (2005, in Fatemi, 2008) report important differences in the discourse characteristics of written text that are related to proficiency levels. They conclude that greater writing proficiency is associated with longer responses, greater lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, and grammatical accuracy.

3.3. Instrument

The instrument used in this study was a test of Writing for Academic Purposes subject. The test was conducted as the final test which was held at the end of the previous semester. The test consisted of some parts including making a free writing based on topic given by the teacher, summarizing paragraph, writing paraphrase and determining topic sentence. Based on this explanation, they finished the testandsimultaneously produceda written texts under test conditions. Luna (2010), who analysed real academic exams, argued that basic grammatical errors appeared where the students did not come up in a normal classroom exercise. She confirmed that during students‟ writing process, different cognitive strategies were taking place in their minds. Thus, these conditions were relevant because they stand for the examples of students‟ interlanguage that showed a certain degree of L1 transfer.

3.4. Data Collection Procedures

The data of the study were students' free writings regarding the experience in learning writing for academic purposes. In this study, 12writings were chosen as the data of the study. They were chosen because they met the criteria of Corder‟s (1971, in Richards, 1974) idiosyncratic dialect and error analysis that language of L2 learner is a special sort of dialect, any spontaneous speech or written text intended by the learners is meaningful, in the sense that it is systematic, describable in set of rules. Further, the spontaneous speech or written production of the L2 learner is language and has a grammar. Corders (1971, in Richards, 1974:158) affirms that since a number of sentences of that language are is omoprhous with some of the sentences of his target language and have same interpretation, then some, at least, of the rules needed to account for the learners‟ language.

In collecting the data, several steps were taken. Firstly, the undergraduate students of English Education were chosen as the participants of the study because they had learnt English grammar and several writing subjects. Secondly, the study chose students‟ final test at the end of semester. In the test, the students were given sheet of paper test, they were asked to complete the questions about paraphrasing, summarizing, determining topic sentence and also task to write an writing based on the given topic by the lecturer, namely „experience in learning writing for academic purposes‟. The students‟ paper sheets of the final test were collected, however, the data used for the study was only the students‟ freewriting.

3.5.Data Analysis

As mentioned previously, the data of the study are the writings written by students in final test. The collected data were reread carefully and critically. As the focus of the study was to investigate interlanguage that appears in students‟ writing, so that the students‟ grammatical forms became the focus of the analysis, both the correct and incorrect form were identified and categorized. According to the limitations, the study focused the analysis on verb phrases only. An Error Analysis was carried out on their writings to identify linguistic behaviour shared

38

by the students. The study analysed every students‟ writing comprehensively. It means that the study did not analyse only the errors but also the accurate or correct ones since the objective of the study is to investigate students‟ linguistic behavior shared by the students in terms of interlanguage. These writings constituted the primary data of this study.

The analysis of the students‟ errors in their writings was carried out by using the steps suggested by Corder (1982) and Ellis (2008). The steps were as follows; The first step was to identify errors; in this step, the study acquired data and tried to find out the grammatical errors by underlying the errors. The second step was to describe errors; in this step, the study described or classified the errors into grammatical categories. Categorization of errors based on their specific nature wasbased on Politzer and Ramirez‟s and Burt and Kiparsky‟s Linguistic Category Taxonomy (Dulay et. al, 1982). The last step was to explain errors; in this step, the study explained the problem of students‟ errors and evaluated them according to the grammatical rule. The study also compared the expressions or sentences that students produced to the accurate expressions in the target language.

After analysing the students‟ error and non-error productions, the study wanted to conclude whether the students have acquired the target language or not using the acquisition criteria. As stated in Chapter II, a structure is acquired when it is used correctly in 60 per cent (Vainikka and Young-Sholten 1994 in Palotti, 2007), 75 per cent (Ellis, 1988 in Palotti, 2007), 80 per cent (Andersen 1978 in Palotti, 2007), or 90 per cent (Dulay and Burt 1974; Bahns 1983 in Palotti, 2007) of cases. Based on these percentages, the study employed the 80 per cent, following Anderson (1978 in Palotti, 2007), and Barrot‟s (2010) study which based on Brown‟s (1973 in Barrot, 2010) definition that is used in L1 language acquisition research.Furthermore, in analysing the causes or processes that contirbute to students‟ interlanguage, the study used the five central processes of interlanguage proposed by Selinker (1972, in Richards, 1974 & Ellis, 1996) and other causes of errors proposed by Richards (1971 & 1972, in Ellis, 1996).

77

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations of the study. The conclusion section wraps up the study. The recommendation section presents the recommendation in relation to the teaching of writing and also to other researchers who are interested in interlanguage theory and realizations.

5.1. Conclusions

The primary goal of the study is to investigate the interlanguage in regard to verb phrase acquisition that undergraduate students of English Education produce when they write English. There are two research questions as stated in the first chapter. The first research question is about what verb phrasesthat undergraduate students produce in their English writing. The second question is aboutwhat processesthat contribute the students’use of verb phrases.

Regarding the first research question, the study finds that the students are able to produce the accurate productions of verb phrases. However, their productions evidence interlanguage. The total occurences of verb phrases in their

writings are 323 expressions, 200 of which (61.5%) are accurate or non-error

expressions and the rest 123 (38.5%) are erroneous. The higher achiever students

produced 127 expressions, 70 of which (55.1%) are non-errors and 57 (44.9%)%)

are erroneous. Middleachiever students produced 114 expressions, 84 of which

(73.7%) are non-errors and 30 (26.3%) are erroneous. Then, lower achiever

students produced 82 expressions, 46 of which (56.1%) are non-errors and 36

(43.9%) are erroneous.

Based on analysis using Politzer and Ramirez’ and Burt and Kiparsky’s Linguistic Category Taxonomy focusing onverb phrase, the study finds that the use of third person singular verbs is the most frequent errors (28.5%), followed by

omission of to be(17.9%), errors due to double marking (13%), the use of have

and has (7.3%), problem with negative transformations (5.6%), verb-and-verb

number (4.9%), problem in passive transformations (4.9%), problem with modals (4.1%) and problem with question transformations (3.3%).

While, based on the results of the analysis usingacquisition criteria,it can be assumed that in general the use of verb phrases has not been acquired by all students since the correct use attains only 61.5% and the total errors reach 38.5%. Eventhough, the results of the analysis vary in terms of students’ levels of proficiency. The higher achiever students have

already acquired thethe rule of the use of verbal after modals and subject-number agreement.

The middle achiever students have already acquired the rule of subject-number agreement

and the use of to be (not to add to be in the structure where it is unnecesary). Then, the lower

achiever students have already acquired the rule of verbal after modals and the use of

gerunds (both after preposition and in front of the clause).

In addition, the results above lead the study to the limitation that students’ proficiency levels do not influence the acquisition. It might be because the students’ writing score can be considered as not sufficient to cover students’ levels of proficiency. Hence, they seem to be in the similar stage of acquisition development since there is no big differences among the three groups in terms of the acquired rules or structures of verb phrases usage.

As stated in the second research question, the study also investigate the processes or causes of students’ interlanguage. Based on Selinker’s (1972) five central processes and Richards’ (1971 & 1971b) sources of errors, the results of the analysis reveal that there are basically four processes that contribute to students’ interlanguage, i.e. language transfer (67.5%), strategies of second language learning (16.7%), overgeneralization (2.6%), and false concpets hypothesized (13.2%). Based on this percentage, their target language seems to be partly influenced by their native language. A further contirbution seems to be the students’ internal processes in the form of their strategy in language learning, overgeneralization, and some errors caused by false concepts hypothesized.

What can be concluded from the findings of the study is that students’ target language appear to contain errors because their language proficiency is not good enough for them to use this language. In order to fill the gap between inadequate proficiency and tough requirements of a task, the students use different strategies, such as native language transference, second language learning strategies, overgeneralization of target meterials, and false concepts hypothesized, which cause different types of errors i.e third person singular

verbs, omission of to be and so on. Therefore, the students in each group have not acquired

the principles of the target language completely. Their competence of Englsih is considered to be interlanguage because their language production is neither target language nor their native

79

language. This is in line with Kil (2003) who claims that the errors they make show that they go through developmental process and their acquisition of the target language must be on the interlanguage continuum. To some extent, the present study supports that of Luna’s (2010) study in that interlanguage provides a more comprehensive way of dealing with students’ errors. They are not perceived as something negative but as a construction of their own process of learning.

5.2. Recommendations

There are several recommendations proposed concerning the research in the field of second language acquisition, namely interlanguage, and the teaching of writing, especially Writing for Academic Purposes in undergraduate studies.

Since the present study is not able to cover all syntactic elements due to its limitation, it is recommended that further studiesanalyse other syntactic elements, such as noun phrase, adjective phrase or adverbial phrase. Analysing the whole features of syntax also will give more comprehensive understanding of students’ interlanguage. Moreover, morphological elements (i.e. the use of article, preposition, regular and irregular verb, etc) may also be worth investigating since students still potentially face difficulties in this area. Besides, as the

present study is cross sectional, the more in-depth analysis through longitudinal study on

students’ second language development may also give anotherinsight and understanding in regard to interlanguage development. Also, it isrecommended to next researchers use more reliable test instrument when they have to group participants in a cross sectional study,such as TOEFL test and othervalid and reliable insturmentsto measure students’level of proficiency.

For the teaching of writing, it appears that grammatical elements become important aspects to master by undergraduate students, notably those who are majoring in English Education. As evidenced in the study, most of students lack grammatical competence in that heir writings contain a wide range of verb phrase errors. Thus, to some extent, the findings are considerably important for the lecturer to review her/his classroom instructions in order to overcome students’ problem in producing English writings. As the processes or causes of students’ interlanguage are mainly caused by students’ native language, the lecturer may use some kinds of contrastive samples of writing and/or models in relevant contexts so that students can see what may differ between their own native language and the target language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbasi, Mehdi and Amin Karimnia. 2011. “An Analysis of Grammatical Errors among Iranian Translation Students: Insights from Interlanguage Theory”. European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.25 No.4 pp. 525-536.

2011. Retrieved November 23, 2012.

[http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com]

Adnan, Zifirdaus. 2009. “Some Potential Problems for Research Articles Written by Indonesian Academics when Submitted to International English Language Journals”. ASIAN EFL Journal. March 2009.Volume 11, Issue 1, 2009.

Azad, Ahmad R. Lotfi and Mohsen Shahrokhi Azad. 2005. “Interlanguage Subjectivity”. Journal of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4 No. 2 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2012.

[http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/4_2/lotfi_shahrokhi.pdf]

Barrot, Jessie S. 2010.Accuracy Order of Selected Grammatical Morphemes in the Monitored Written Compositions of Filipino Adult Language Learners. Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 4, February 2010.

Bliss, Heather. 2006. “L2 Acquisition of Inflectional Morphology: Phonological and Morphological Transfer Effects”. Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006),

ed. Mary Grantham O’Brien, Christine Shea,& John Archibald, 1-8.

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Borjars, Kresti, and Kate Burridge. 2001. Introducing English Grammar. Great Britain. Hodder Education.

Borjars, Kresti, and Kate Burridge. 2010. Introducing English Grammar. Second Edition. Great Britain. Hodder Education.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Principles of Language : Learning and Teaching. Third edition. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching. Fifth edition. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: an Integrative approach to Language Pedagogy. (Second Ed.). San Francisco: Longman.

Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skill. New edition. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.

82 Cobb, Tom. 2003. “Analyzing Late Interlanguage with Learner Corpora: Québec Replications of Three European Studies”. The Canadian ModerLanguage Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59, 3 March/Mars. June 22, 2012.

Cohen, Louis., Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. 2005. Research Methods in Education. Fifth edition. London: Routledge Falmer.

Connole, Helen, Bob Smith & Roger Wiseman. 1993. Research Methodology 1: Issues and Methods in Research. Deakin University: Geelong.

Corder, S.P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors”. In J.C Richards. 1974. Editor.

Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Corder, S.P. 1971. “Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis”. In J.C Richards. 1974. Editor.

Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Corder, S.P. 1982. Erros Analysis and Interlanguage. London: Oxfor University Press.

De Bot, Kees, W. Lowie, and M. Verspoor. 2005. Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book. London : Routledge.

Derewianka, Beverly. 1998. A Grammar Companion for Primary Teachers. Australia: PETA. Dulay, Heidi, M. Burt, & Krashen Stephen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1987. Understandig Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1996. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1999. Learning a Second Language Through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, Rod. 2008. Oxford Introductions to Language Study: Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Fauziati, Endang. 2011. “Interlanguage and Error Fossilization: A Study of Indonesian Students Learning English as a Foreign Language”. CONAPLIN JOURNAL, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. I No. 1, July 2011.

Fatemi, Mohammad Ali. 2008 Relationship Between Writing Competence, Language Proficiency and Grammatical Errors in The Writing of Iranian TEFL Sophomores. A Thesis. Malaysia: Univeristy of Malaysia.

Flyman, Anna. 1997. “Communication Strategies in French as a Foreign Language”. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics, Working Papers 46, 57–73. 1997.

Gass, Susan M. And Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition, an Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York and London: Routledge.

Garcia, Paula, and Yuly Asencion. 2001. “Interlanguage Development Of Spanish Learners: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction”. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes,57,3. (March/mars). Retrieved June 7, 2012.

[http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~yya2/garcia&asencion.pdf]

Gass,Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition; an Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.

Goad,Heather and Lydia White. 2009. “Prosodic Transfer And The Representation Of Determiners In Turkish-English Interlanguage”. In N. Snape, Y.-k. I. Leung & M.

Sharwood-Smith (eds). 2009. Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of Roger Hawkins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-26.

Heydari, Pooneh & Mohammad S. Bagheri. 2012.” Error Analysis: Sources of L2 Learners’ Errors”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 1583-1589,

August 2012.

Hobson, Carol Bonnin. 1999. Morphological Development in the Interlanguage of English Learners of Xhosa. A thesis. Rhodes University.

Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Huddlestone, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A students’ introduction to English Grammar. UK: Cambridge University Press.

James, Carl. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman.

Jun, Zhang. 2008. “A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language Writing”.

HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, Vol. 12, 2008. September 20, 2012. [lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v12_05.pdf]

Khansir, Ali Akbar. 2008. “Syntactic Errors in English Committed by Indian Undergraduate Students”. Language in India, Volume 8: 7 July 2008. ISSN 1930-2940.

Kato, A. 2006. “Error Analysis of High School Student Writings”. Accents Asia, 1 (2), 1-13.

Retrievved September 20, 2012 [http://www.accentsasia.org/1-2/kato.pdf]

Kil, Insook. 2003. “The Interlanguage Development of Five Koreans English Learners”. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal. 11 (4), 247-264. September 20, 2012.

Lennon, Paul. 2008. “Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage”. From S. Gramley and V. Gramley (eds). 2008. Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Bielefeld Aisthesis, pp. 51-60. Retrieved September 21, 2012. : [http://wwwhomes.uni

84 Luna, Rosa Muñoz. 2010. “Interlanguage in Undergraduates’ Academic English: Preliminary Results from Written Script Analysis”. Encuentro, 19. 2010. pp. 60-73. Retrieved

June 8, 2012.

[http://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Mu_oz_Luna.pdf]

Marcus Callies, Philipps. 2002. “Marked Word Order in the Interlanguage of Advanced German Learners of English”. EUROSLA 12, Basel/Switzerland, September 18-21

2002. Retrieved October 4, 2012. [www-user.uni

-bremen.de/~callies/talks/eurosla12_handout.pdf]

Mardijono, Josefa J. 2003. “Indonesian EFL Advanced Learners’ Grammatical Errors”.

Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Kristen Petra. Volume 5, Number 1, June 2003: 67 – 90.

[http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/]

MI, Ning. 2012. “Implications of Interlanguage Error Analysis and Research on English Language Testing and Teaching”. Higher Education of Social Science Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp. 4-7

Mucria, M. Celce. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third Edition. USA: Heinle & Heinle.

Namser, William. 1971. “Approximate systems of Foreign Language Learners”, in J.C Richard. 1974. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Pallotti, Gabriele. 2007. An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion. Applied Linguistics 28/3: 361–382. Advance Access Published on 20 July 2007.

Pardede, Parlindungan. 2006. “Grammatical Errors in The Compositions of The Second Year Students of The English Department of FKIP-UKI Jakarta”. This paper was presented

in the FKIP-UKI English Department Bimonthly Collegiate Forum Held on August 11,

2006.

Plag, Ingo & Klaus P. Schneider (Eds.). 2000. Irregular Past Tense Formation in English Interlanguage. Language use, Language Acquisition and Language History. (Mostly) Empirical Studies in Honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 134-149.

Pyle, Michael A. and Mary Ellen Munoz. 1991. Cliffs Test of English as Foreign Language Preparation Guide. Fourth edition. Singapore: John Wiley & sons (SEA) Pte. Ltd. Richards, J. C. 1972. “Social Factors, Interlanguage, and Language Learning. in J.C

Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Ritchie, Jane and Jane Lewis. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice. California: Sage Publication Inc.

Tarone, Elaine. E. 1985. “Variability in Interlanguage Use: A Study of Style-Shifting in

Morphology and Syntax”. Language Learning, Vol, 35. No. 3. 1985.

Santoro, Maurizio. 2012. “Morphological Variability in Interlanguage Grammars: New Evidence from The Acquisition of Gender and Number in Italian Determiner Phrases and Direct Object Pronouns”. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 15, 1. p

167-189. 2012.

Schütz, Ricardo. 2007. Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.Retrieved March 4, 2012. [http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html.]

Selinker, Larry. 1972. “Interlanguage”, in J.C Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited. Shekhzadeh,Ebrahim & Majid Gheichi. 2011. “An Account of Sources of Errors in Language

Learners’ Interlanguage”. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR vol.26. IACSIT Press, Singapore.

Sims, W. R. 1989. “Fossilization and Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition”.

Minne TESOL Journal, 7. 1989.

Smith, M. Sharwood. 1995. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundation.& New York: Longman.

Spada, Nina and Lightbown. 1999. How Language are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Stehle, megan E. 2009. The Interlanguage Development Of Articles In English As A Second Language: A Longitudinal Study. Thesis. University of Pittsburgh.

Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Touchie, Hanna Y. 1986. “Second Language Learning Errors Their Types, Causes, And Treatment”. JALT Journal, Volume 8, No. I 1986.

Višnja, P. Takac. 2008. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Wei, Xueping. 2008. “Implication of IL Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition”.

English Language Teaching, Vol.1 No. 1. 2008.

Williams, Jessica. 2002. “Undergraduate Second Language Writers in The Writing Center”.

Journal of Basic Writing, Vol. 21, No.2, 2002.

Xue-mei, Sheng. 2007. “Interlanguage in College English Teaching”. US-China Foreign

Language, ISSN1539-8080, USA, Volume 5, No.5 (Serial No.44) May 2007.

Yang, Wenfen. 2010. “A Tentative Analysis of Errors in Language Learning and Use”.

Mohammad Qushoy, 2013

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through Students’ Writing

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

language. This is in line with Kil (2003) who claims that the errors they make show that they go through developmental process and their acquisition of the target language must be on the interlanguage continuum. To some extent, the present study supports that of Luna’s (2010) study in that interlanguage provides a more comprehensive way of dealing with students’ errors. They are not perceived as something negative but as a construction of their own process of learning.

5.2. Recommendations

There are several recommendations proposed concerning the research in the field of second language acquisition, namely interlanguage, and the teaching of writing, especially Writing for Academic Purposes in undergraduate studies.

Since the present study is not able to cover all syntactic elements due to its limitation, it is recommended that further studiesanalyse other syntactic elements, such as noun phrase, adjective phrase or adverbial phrase. Analysing the whole features of syntax also will give more comprehensive understanding of students’ interlanguage. Moreover, morphological elements (i.e. the use of article, preposition, regular and irregular verb, etc) may also be worth investigating since students still potentially face difficulties in this area. Besides, as the present study is cross sectional, the more in-depth analysis through longitudinal study on

students’ second language development may also give anotherinsight and understanding in regard to interlanguage development. Also, it isrecommended to next researchers use more reliable test instrument when they have to group participants in a cross sectional study,such as TOEFL test and othervalid and reliable insturmentsto measure students’level of proficiency.

For the teaching of writing, it appears that grammatical elements become important aspects to master by undergraduate students, notably those who are majoring in English Education. As evidenced in the study, most of students lack grammatical competence in that heir writings contain a wide range of verb phrase errors. Thus, to some extent, the findings are considerably important for the lecturer to review her/his classroom instructions in order to overcome students’ problem in producing English writings. As the processes or causes of students’ interlanguage are mainly caused by students’ native language, the lecturer may use some kinds of contrastive samples of writing and/or models in relevant contexts so that students can see what may differ between their own native language and the target language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbasi, Mehdi and Amin Karimnia. 2011. “An Analysis of Grammatical Errors among Iranian Translation Students: Insights from Interlanguage Theory”. European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.25 No.4 pp. 525-536.

2011. Retrieved November 23, 2012.

[http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com]

Adnan, Zifirdaus. 2009. “Some Potential Problems for Research Articles Written by Indonesian Academics when Submitted to International English Language Journals”. ASIAN EFL Journal. March 2009.Volume 11, Issue 1, 2009.

Azad, Ahmad R. Lotfi and Mohsen Shahrokhi Azad. 2005. “Interlanguage Subjectivity”. Journal of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4 No. 2 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2012.

[http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/4_2/lotfi_shahrokhi.pdf]

Barrot, Jessie S. 2010.Accuracy Order of Selected Grammatical Morphemes in the Monitored Written Compositions of Filipino Adult Language Learners. Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 4, February 2010.

Bliss, Heather. 2006. “L2 Acquisition of Inflectional Morphology: Phonological and Morphological Transfer Effects”. Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006),

ed. Mary Grantham O’Brien, Christine Shea,& John Archibald, 1-8.

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Borjars, Kresti, and Kate Burridge. 2001. Introducing English Grammar. Great Britain. Hodder Education.

Borjars, Kresti, and Kate Burridge. 2010. Introducing English Grammar. Second Edition. Great Britain. Hodder Education.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Principles of Language : Learning and Teaching. Third edition. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching. Fifth edition. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: an Integrative approach to Language Pedagogy. (Second Ed.). San Francisco: Longman.

Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skill. New edition. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.

Mohammad Qushoy, 2013

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through Students’ Writing

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Cobb, Tom. 2003. “Analyzing Late Interlanguage with Learner Corpora: Québec Replications of Three European Studies”. The Canadian ModerLanguage Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59, 3 March/Mars. June 22, 2012.

Cohen, Louis., Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. 2005. Research Methods in Education. Fifth edition. London: Routledge Falmer.

Connole, Helen, Bob Smith & Roger Wiseman. 1993. Research Methodology 1: Issues and Methods in Research. Deakin University: Geelong.

Corder, S.P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors”. In J.C Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Corder, S.P. 1971. “Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis”. In J.C Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Corder, S.P. 1982. Erros Analysis and Interlanguage. London: Oxfor University Press.

De Bot, Kees, W. Lowie, and M. Verspoor. 2005. Second Language Acquisition: An Advanced Resource Book. London : Routledge.

Derewianka, Beverly. 1998. A Grammar Companion for Primary Teachers. Australia: PETA. Dulay, Heidi, M. Burt, & Krashen Stephen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1987. Understandig Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1996. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1999. Learning a Second Language Through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, Rod. 2008. Oxford Introductions to Language Study: Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Fauziati, Endang. 2011. “Interlanguage and Error Fossilization: A Study of Indonesian Students Learning English as a Foreign Language”. CONAPLIN JOURNAL, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. I No. 1, July 2011.

Fatemi, Mohammad Ali. 2008 Relationship Between Writing Competence, Language Proficiency and Grammatical Errors in The Writing of Iranian TEFL Sophomores. A Thesis. Malaysia: Univeristy of Malaysia.

Flyman, Anna. 1997. “Communication Strategies in French as a Foreign Language”. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics, Working Papers 46, 57–73. 1997.

Gass, Susan M. And Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition, an Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York and London: Routledge.

Garcia, Paula, and Yuly Asencion. 2001. “Interlanguage Development Of Spanish Learners: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction”. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes,57,3. (March/mars). Retrieved June 7, 2012.

[http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~yya2/garcia&asencion.pdf]

Gass,Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition; an Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.

Goad,Heather and Lydia White. 2009. “Prosodic Transfer And The Representation Of Determiners In Turkish-English Interlanguage”. In N. Snape, Y.-k. I. Leung & M.

Sharwood-Smith (eds). 2009. Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in Honor of

Roger Hawkins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-26.

Heydari, Pooneh & Mohammad S. Bagheri. 2012.” Error Analysis: Sources of L2 Learners’ Errors”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 1583-1589,

August 2012.

Hobson, Carol Bonnin. 1999. Morphological Development in the Interlanguage of English Learners of Xhosa. A thesis. Rhodes University.

Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Huddlestone, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A students’ introduction to English Grammar. UK: Cambridge University Press.

James, Carl. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman.

Jun, Zhang. 2008. “A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language Writing”. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, Vol. 12, 2008. September 20, 2012. [lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v12_05.pdf]

Khansir, Ali Akbar. 2008. “Syntactic Errors in English Committed by Indian Undergraduate Students”. Language in India, Volume 8: 7 July 2008. ISSN 1930-2940.

Kato, A. 2006. “Error Analysis of High School Student Writings”. Accents Asia, 1 (2), 1-13.

Retrievved September 20, 2012 [http://www.accentsasia.org/1-2/kato.pdf]

Kil, Insook. 2003. “The Interlanguage Development of Five Koreans English Learners”. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal. 11 (4), 247-264. September 20, 2012.

Lennon, Paul. 2008. “Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage”. From S. Gramley and V. Gramley (eds). 2008. Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Bielefeld Aisthesis, pp. 51-60. Retrieved September 21, 2012. : [http://wwwhomes.uni

Mohammad Qushoy, 2013

Verb Phrase Acquisition as Indicated Through Students’ Writing

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

Luna, Rosa Muñoz. 2010. “Interlanguage in Undergraduates’ Academic English: Preliminary Results from Written Script Analysis”. Encuentro, 19. 2010. pp. 60-73. Retrieved

June 8, 2012.

[http://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Mu_oz_Luna.pdf]

Marcus Callies, Philipps. 2002. “Marked Word Order in the Interlanguage of Advanced German Learners of English”. EUROSLA 12, Basel/Switzerland, September 18-21

2002. Retrieved October 4, 2012. [www-user.uni

-bremen.de/~callies/talks/eurosla12_handout.pdf]

Mardijono, Josefa J. 2003. “Indonesian EFL Advanced Learners’ Grammatical Errors”. Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Kristen Petra. Volume 5, Number 1, June 2003: 67 – 90.

[http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letters/]

MI, Ning. 2012. “Implications of Interlanguage Error Analysis and Research on English Language Testing and Teaching”. Higher Education of Social Science Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012, pp. 4-7

Mucria, M. Celce. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third Edition. USA: Heinle & Heinle.

Namser, William. 1971. “Approximate systems of Foreign Language Learners”, in J.C Richard. 1974. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Pallotti, Gabriele. 2007. An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion. Applied Linguistics 28/3: 361–382. Advance Access Published on 20 July 2007.

Pardede, Parlindungan. 2006. “Grammatical Errors in The Compositions of The Second Year Students of The English Department of FKIP-UKI Jakarta”. This paper was presented in the FKIP-UKI English Department Bimonthly Collegiate Forum Held on August 11, 2006.

Plag, Ingo & Klaus P. Schneider (Eds.). 2000. Irregular Past Tense Formation in English Interlanguage. Language use, Language Acquisition and Language History. (Mostly) Empirical Studies in Honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. 134-149.

Pyle, Michael A. and Mary Ellen Munoz. 1991. Cliffs Test of English as Foreign Language Preparation Guide. Fourth edition. Singapore: John Wiley & sons (SEA) Pte. Ltd. Richards, J. C. 1972. “Social Factors, Interlanguage, and Language Learning. in J.C

Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Ritchie, Jane and Jane Lewis. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice. California: Sage Publication Inc.

Tarone, Elaine. E. 1985. “Variability in Interlanguage Use: A Study of Style-Shifting in

Morphology and Syntax”. Language Learning, Vol, 35. No. 3. 1985.

Santoro, Maurizio. 2012. “Morphological Variability in Interlanguage Grammars: New Evidence from The Acquisition of Gender and Number in Italian Determiner Phrases and Direct Object Pronouns”. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 15, 1. p 167-189. 2012.

Schütz, Ricardo. 2007. Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.Retrieved March 4, 2012. [http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html.]

Selinker, Larry. 1972. “Interlanguage”, in J.C Richards. 1974. Editor. Error Analysis: Perscpective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited. Shekhzadeh,Ebrahim & Majid Gheichi. 2011. “An Account of Sources of Errors in Language

Learners’ Interlanguage”. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR vol.26. IACSIT Press, Singapore.

Sims, W. R. 1989. “Fossilization and Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition”. Minne TESOL Journal, 7. 1989.

Smith, M. Sharwood. 1995. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundation.& New York: Longman.

Spada, Nina and Lightbown. 1999. How Language are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Stehle, megan E. 2009. The Interlanguage Development Of Articles In English As A Second Language: A Longitudinal Study. Thesis. University of Pittsburgh.

Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Touchie, Hanna Y. 1986. “Second Language Learning Errors Their Types, Causes, And Treatment”. JALT Journal, Volume 8, No. I 1986.

Višnja, P. Takac. 2008. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Wei, Xueping. 2008. “Implication of IL Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition”. English Language Teaching, Vol.1 No. 1. 2008.

Williams, Jessica. 2002. “Undergraduate Second Language Writers in The Writing Center”. Journal of Basic Writing, Vol. 21, No.2, 2002.

Xue-mei, Sheng. 2007. “Interlanguage in College English Teaching”. US-China Foreign

Language, ISSN1539-8080, USA, Volume 5, No.5 (Serial No.44) May 2007.

Yang, Wenfen. 2010. “A Tentative Analysis of Errors in Language Learning and Use”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 266-268, May 2010.