Errors in the english question formations made by microteaching class students.

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree

in English Language Education

By

Monica Ella Harendita Student Number: 051214048

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theSarjana PendidikanDegree

in English Language Education

By

Monica Ella Harendita Student Number: 051214048

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2009

ii A Thesis on

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

By

Monica Ella Harendita Student Number: 051214048

Approved by

Date

Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. 24 August 2009

iii

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

By

MONICA ELLA HARENDITA Student Number: 051214048

Defended before the Board of Examiners on 12 September 2009

and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners

Chairperson : Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. _____________ Secretary : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________

Member : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________

Member : Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________ Member : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________

Yogyakarta, 12 September 2009

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

Dean

iv

“My thoughts are not your thoughts,

nor are your ways My ways.”

–Isaiah 55:8

This thesis is dedicated to

myself, my dreams, and the future

before me.

v

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, 24 August 2009

The Writer

Monica Ella Harendita 051214048

vi ABSTRACT

Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

English questions are often applied by English language teachers to check the students’ understanding. Nonetheless, as most of English language teachers in Indonesia are also EFL learners, they may produce ungrammatical questions. It becomes contrary to the fact that teachers should be models who are to give correct examples to the students. Therefore, it turns out to be favourable to figure out errors in English question formations as well as to find out the causes for the errors.

There were three research questions presented in this study: (1) What kinds of error do the participants make in forming grammatical English questions? (2) Why do the participants make errors in forming grammatical English questions? (3) What are possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English question forms?

In order to answer those three research questions, the writer conducted a document analysis and an interview. The document analysis aimed at finding out the errors in English questions formations made by the participants, who were Microteaching Class students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in 2008/2009 academic year. The documents were the video transcriptions of the participants’ teaching performances. The errors found were then classified into several categories based on surface strategy taxonomy. Afterward, the interview was carried out to discover the reasons why the participants made the errors and to help the writer propose possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English questions.

From the data gathered, the findings showed that most of the errors belonged to omission category (30.8%), and were subsequently followed by misordering (26.2%), uninverted forms (21.3%), misformation (12.1%), and addition (9.5%). The interview revealed three major causes which made the participants make errors, namely focus on fluency, nervousness, and lack of knowledge of English grammar. After figuring out the errors and their causes, there were two possible recommendations that the writer would like to propose in order to improve the production of grammatical English questions, namely practices and classroom error correction. Furthermore, the writer also offered suggestions addressed to students, teachers, and other researchers who also have an interest in this topic.

vii ABSTRAK

Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Kalimat tanya sering digunakan oleh para guru untuk mengetahui sejauh mana siswa memahami materi. Namun, karena kebanyakan guru Bahasa Inggris di Indonesia juga mempelajari Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, ada kemungkinan mereka memproduksi kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris yang salah. Karena guru diharapkan menjadi contoh bagi siswa, kesalahan dalam penyusunan kalimat tanya berikut penyebabnya menjadi berguna untuk dipelajari.

Ada tiga pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini: (1) Kesalahan apa yang dibuat partisipan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris? (2) Mengapa partisipan membuat kesalahan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris? (3) Apa rekomendasi yang mungkin diberikan untuk meningkatkan produksi kalimat tanya yang benar?

Untuk menjawab ketiga pertanyaan tersebut, penulis melakukan analisa dokumen dan wawancara terhadap siswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro (Microteaching) tahun ajaran 2008/2009 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma. Dokumen yang dianalisa merupakan transkrip dari video rekaman siswa pada saat berlatih mengajar. Kesalahan-kesalahan yang ditemukan kemudian dikategorikan berdasarkan surface strategy taxonomy. Kemudian, wawancara dilakukan untuk mengetahui mengapa siswa membuat kesalahan. Selain itu, data yang didapat melalui wawancara dapat berguna bagi penulis dalam memberikan rekomendasi untuk meningkatkan produksi kalimat tanya yang benar.

Hasil analisa data menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan kesalahan yang ditemukan termasuk dalam omission category (30.8%), kemudian diikuti dengan misordering (26.2%), uninverted forms (21.3%), misformation (12.1%), dan addition (9.5%). Hasil wawancara menunjukkan bahwa fokus dalam kelancaran berbicara, grogi, dan kurangnya pemahaman akan tata Bahasa Inggris menjadi faktor yang menyebabkan siswa membuat kesalahan. Setelah mengetahui kesalahan dan penyebabnya, penulis memberikan dua rekomendasi supaya produksi kalimat tanya yang benar meningkat, yaitu latihan dan koreksi. Selain itu, penulis juga memberikan saran kepada murid, guru, maupun peneliti lainnya yang juga tertarik pada bidang ini.

viii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Monica Ella Harendita

Nomor Mahasiswa : 05 1214 048

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

Errors in the English Question Formations Made by Microteaching Class Students

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: 25 September 2009 Yang menyatakan

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My biggest gratefulness and never-ending gratitude go to my faithful companions, Lord Jesus Christ and Mother Mary, for endowing me with splendid blessings and love.

I would like to express my deepest and sincere appreciation to my sponsor, Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. Her enduring guidance and valuable suggestions have given influential contributions to this thesis.

I am greatly indebted to the lecturers of Microteaching class, Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd., Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A., and Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., who have opened chances for me to access the data I needed, and to all lecturers who have shared their knowledge and advice which were beneficial for me in finishing this thesis.

Sincere thanks are also expressed to Microteaching class students of 2008/2009 academic year, who have given me permission to copy the videos of their teaching performances, and to all assistants of Microteaching laboratory for helping me copy the videos.

Profound thankfulness is addressed to my beloved parents, Bapak Dionysius Hartoyo and Ibu Yohanna Avilla Endang Dwi Rahayu, for always supporting me with magnificent love and care; to my elder sister, Melania Shinta Harendika, whose hard work always seems admirable to me; to my little sister, Hillary Kirana Harendira, for always painting my days with laughter and joy; and to all families for their kindness, support, and prayers.

x

My special indebtedness goes to all of my best friends, especially Hanna, Nina, Ncit, Mega, Dee, and Tunjung, and to all of my friends in PPL II, KKN 18, MC, MMS St. Antonius, PSM Cantus Firmus, as well as students of ELESP who have considerably supported me.

I would like to express my thankfulness to all Realians, who have become professional partners as well as a big blissful family for me, making me more than happy to have them all.

I would also like to thank Ignatius ‘ie-be’ Indra Kristianto for being my number-one supporter. His love, patience, support and prayers have poured inspirations upon my days.

My gratitude is also expressed to my landlady,BuNur, for her kindness in every single way she does.

At last, I would like to thank all friends and people whose names cannot be mentioned one by one. I thank them all for lending me a hand in finishing this thesis.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE………... i

APPROVAL PAGES………... ii

DEDICATION PAGE……….. iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY……… v

ABSTRACT………. vi

ABSTRAK………. vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS………. xi

LIST OF TABLES………... xiv

LIST OF FIGURES……….. xv

LIST OF APPENDICES……….. xvi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background……….. 1

B. Problem Formulation………... 4

C. Problem Limitation……….. 4

D. Research Objectives...……….. 5

E. Research Benefits………. 5

F. Definition of Terms……….. 6

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description………... 8

1. Error.………. 8

a. The Definition of Error………..… 8

b. Error Analysis……….……... 10

c. Types of Errors………..… 11

xii

e. Ways to Minimize Errors……….. 15

2. Parts of the English Sentence……… 16

a. Subject and Predicate……… 16

b. Operator, Auxiliary and Predication…………. 17

3. Types of Question……….. 18

a. The Types and Functions ofYes-noQuestion………. 18

b. The Types and Functions ofWh- Question……… 19

4. The Formation of Questions……….. 20

a. Yes-noQuestions…………..……….. 20

b. Wh-Questions……… 21

5. Uninverted Questions………. 23

B. Theoretical Framework……… 23

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY A. Research Methods……… 25

B. Research Participants……….. 25

C. Research Instruments……….. 26

1. Documents………. 26

2. Interview……… 27

3. The Researcher as Research Instrument……... 28

D. Data Gathering Technique……….. 28

E. Data Analysis Technique……… 28

F. Research Procedure ……… 29

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. The Errors in the English Questions……… 32

1. Data Presentation……….. 32

2. Discussion………. 36

xiii

1. Data Presentation……….. 40

2. Discussion………. 41

C. Possible Recommendations to Improve the Production of Grammatical English Questions.. 46

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions………. 49

B. Suggestions………. 50

1. For Students………... 50

2. For Teachers……….. 51

3. For Other Researchers……… 52

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 The Classifications of Errors and Their Examples……… 34 4.2 Interview Questions and the Information Obtained………... 41

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 A Sentence Analysis to Differentiate Auxiliary

as Operator from predication……….. 17 2.2 The Deep Structure for the QuestionWhen will the boy leave?... 20 2.3 The Surface Structure for the QuestionWhen will the boy leave?.. 21 2.4 The Deep Structure of aWh-Question………... 22 2.5 Wh-Movement and Inversion Transformations..……… 22

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A Video Transcripts……….. 55

B List of Errors and the Classifications……… 73

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

In this country, English teacher candidates generally are also EFL learners. They first learn English as a foreign language before they are ready to teach it. Thus, they may find difficulties in the learning process due to the fact that each language is unique and has its own system. According to Setiyadi (2006: 23), a language is always different from any other languages although it is similar to some languages. Moreover, Setiyadi adds that language learners whose mother tongue has no tenses tend to have more difficulties in learning a target language which has tenses. It can be inferred that Bahasa Indonesia, which does not have any tenses, seems to be dissimilar from English language, which is affected by tenses in the sentence formations. Hence, Indonesian EFL learners may find it problematic to learn English language, particularly English grammar.

Considering those cases, the writer thinks that the research aiming to analyze learners’ errors in English grammar is still crucial. Furthermore, according to Corder (1967) as cited in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 51), learner errors are significant in three ways: (1) They serve a pedagogic purpose by showing teachers what learners have learned and what they have not yet mastered, (2) They serve a

research purpose by providing evidence about how languages are learned, (3) They serve a learning purpose by acting as devices by which learners can discover the rules of the target language. Besides, in EFL learning, particularly in Indonesia, error analysis and correction become significant to build up accuracy since English language is not used to communicate in the society (Setiyadi, 2003: 21-22).

One of the parts of English grammar with which the writer is concerned is the formation of English questions. The formation of English questions is considered as basic knowledge which needs to be applied when teaching. Teacher candidates will often deal with the formation of English questions when they have become a real teacher in the class since asking questions seems to be one of the stimuli used during the teaching process. Questions may become a means to elicit the answers from the students as well as to prompt the students to put into words what they have understood.

In addition, one of the studies showing that forming questions is still problematic is a study conducted by a senior among SLTPK Santa Maria Sawangan Magelangstudents. From the findings, it can be seen that the students’ competence in constructing interrogative word questions was still average. Febrianti (2004: 57) concluded that although the students had already mastered the interrogative word questions, they still made errors.

Unlike the study mentioned previously, which focused on the error analysis of the construction of interrogative word questions, this study focuses on the formation of English questions, both yes-no questions and interrogative word or

wh- questions. Furthermore, the participants are not students of a high school but the students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University, particularly those taking Microteaching class.

The study program aims at preparing the students to be English teachers in the future. The students do not only learn English language but also learn how to teach it. Usually, in the first three semesters, the students are equipped with the theory of English language and deal with skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. When they have come to the fourth semester, they start learning how to design and teach English language courses. Hence, besides knowing how to teach, the students should also master English well to make them qualified in teaching English. Nevertheless, errors may be encountered in the students’ sentence production, either in spoken or in written forms.

The basis why the writer chooses Microteaching class as the sample is because the students are supposed to have already passed the last level of Structure class, namely Structure V. Moreover, Microteaching class is a threshold for them to be a teacher and to apply what they have learned in their prior semesters. In this stage, they are to prove how well they have acquired English grammar. Since they become role models for the students, every single utterance they produce in teaching should be grammatically correct. Thus, an error analysis on the formation of English questions is an aid which is expected to enhance the students’ grammar.

B. Problem Formulation

Through this study, the writer formulates the problems which are presented into three questions.

1. What kinds of error do the participants make in forming grammatical English questions?

2. Why do the participants make errors in the formation of grammatically correct English questions?

3. What are possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English question forms?

C. Problem Limitation

The writer limits the problems by focusing on the errors in forming English questions faced by the students of Microteaching class of Sanata Dharma University. The grounds for the limitation are that the students have passed Structure V class and they are prepared to be English teachers whose sentence production is expected to be grammatically correct.

The writer limits the types of question as well. Questions, in this study, refer to yes-no questions and interrogative word or wh- questions. Furthermore, the errors are those found in their speech production when the students perform their teaching practice. As it is related to spoken production in which corrections may hardly be applied, the errors seem to occur more naturally.

D. Research Objectives

Dealing with the three questions mentioned previously, the research is conducted to achieve three objectives:

1. Figuring out the errors made by the participants in forming grammatical English questions.

2. Finding out the causes why the participants make errors in forming grammatically correct English questions.

3. Recommending possible solutions to improve the production of grammatical English question forms.

E. Research Benefits

This research is beneficial for both lecturers and students, particularly who are involved in ELESP. For the students, the research helps them analyze the common errors occurring in the formation of grammatical English questions. Noticing the errors, they are expected not to make the same errors anymore. The analysis on the errors would also help them have a deeper understanding on the formation of grammatical English questions.

For the lecturers, this research serves as a means to obtain the depiction of the students’ mastery in forming English questions. Therefore, by knowing the causes for the errors faced by the students, it is expected that there will be possible recommendations or solutions for the lecturers to overcome the problem.

F. Definition of Terms

There are some terms mentioned in this study that need to be defined in order to avoid misunderstanding and to lead readers to a better understanding on the topic being discussed.

1. Errors

Since ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ are often used synonymously, in this study, it is needed to define the meaning of errors. Brown (1987: 170) points out that a mistake can be a random guess or a slip reflecting a performance error. Besides, he adds that as a direct manifestation of learners’ operated system, error is an obvious deviation from the grammar of an adult native speaker. According to Harmer (2007: 96), while slips can be corrected by the ones making mistakes, errors cannot be corrected by themselves.

Although errors and mistakes have been clearly defined, differentiating between errors and mistakes has not always been simple and, therefore, needs careful analysis. Hence, in this study, errors refer to all deviant forms in English question formations produced by Microteaching class students when they practiced teaching.

2. Question

Another key word of this research is ‘question’. A question, as defined by Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999), is an interrogative expression or query. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973:191) also define questions as sentences marked by one or more of the following criteria:

a. The placing of the operator immediately in front of the subject: Will John speak to the boss today?

b. The initial positioning of an interrogative orwh-element: Who will you speak to?

c. Rising intonation:

You will speak to the BóSS?

In this study, questions refer to interrogative sentences which bear the (a), (b), and (c) criteria as written previously. Since questions can be either in spoken form or in written form, it is important to specify that questions in this research are those which are spoken.

3. Microteaching Class

In this study, Microteaching class refers to a class or subject offered to sixth semester students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. This class prepares the students to teach, especially before they carry out the teaching practice in junior or senior high schools through Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL).There are two kinds of teaching practice done in this class. The first one is peer teaching in the Microteaching laboratory and the second one is teaching the lower semester students.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the writer discusses the related literature which serves as the basis to answer the research questions. There are two major parts in this chapter, namely theoretical description and theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Description

This part provides theories on error, parts of the English sentence, types of question, the formation of questions and uninverted questions.

1. Error

Since this study deals with error analysis, it becomes significant to provide the theories supporting the analysis. The discussion involves the definition of error, error analysis, types of error, sources of error and ways to minimize errors. a. The Definition of Error

Defining the word error has long become an interesting discussion by some scholars. The characterization of error remains vague, yet it is significant to discern error among any other terms which seem to be synonymous with error. One term that is often used synonymously with error is mistake. Harmer (2007: 96) classifies error, slip and attempt as sorts of mistake. While slips can be corrected by the ones making mistakes, errors cannot be corrected by themselves. Besides, the term attempt is used when someone wants to say something but does not yet know how to say it.

Slips are mistake which students can correct themselves, once the mistake has been pointed out to them. Errors are mistakes which they can’t correct themselves-and which, therefore, need explanation. Attempts are mistakes that students make when they try to say something but do not know yet how to say it.

Brown (1987: 170) defines error and mistake in another way. He points out that a mistake can be a random guess or a slip reflecting a performance error. It means that someone who makes mistakes does not succeed in utilizing a known system correctly. Besides, he adds that as a direct manifestation of learners’ operated system, error is an obvious deviation from the grammar of an adult native speaker.

Rather than differentiating between error and mistake, Corder (1974: 24-25) prefers to distinguish between errors of performance, which are unsystematic, and errors of competence, which are systematic.

We must therefore make a distinction between those errors which are the product of such chance circumstances and those which reveal his underlying knowledge of the language to date, or, as we may call it his transitional competence. The errors of performance will characteristically be unsystematic and the errors of competence, systematic.

In other words, what Corder means by errors of performance is the same as what Brown calls mistakes, and the term errors of competence is the same as errors in Brown’s definition.

Although the differences of error and mistake have been obviously defined, Brown (1987: 171) adds that it is not always simple to distinguish between an error and a mistake. The differences between those two terms may not be clearly

observed since the underlying grounds of their production are not easy to determine. It is also supported by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982: 139) who state that although it is very important to make a distinction between performance and competence error, it is often not easy to find out the nature of a deviation since it should involve precise analysis.

b. Error Analysis

Error analysis is closely related to contrastive analysis. Dulay et al. (1982: 140) state that based on contrastive analysis, the differences between the first and the second language account for the majority of errors made by a second language learner. Conversely, many cases show that the grounds for errors that a second language learner produces can not always be traced to their first language.

Error analysis has yielded insights into the L2 acquisition process that have stimulated major changes in teaching practices. Perhaps its most controversial contribution has been the discovery that the majority of the grammatical errors second language learners make do not reflect the learner’s mother tongue but very much like those young children make as they learn a first language. (Dulay et al., 1982: 138)

Hence, the favour to error analysis started rising since contrastive analysis, which was popular up through the 1960’s, seemed to fail in predicting the errors that would be produced by second language learners.

Error analysis, according to Asher’s definition (1994: 740), is “the procedure of describing and explaining errors systematically.” Similar to Asher’s, the definition of error analysis by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 51) is “a set of

procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learner errors.” In brief, error analysis is the study of learners’ errors in both speaking and writing.

Besides, Asher (1994: 740) states that error analysis has both pedagogical and psycholinguistic aims. It has pedagogical aim because it provides feedback related to the teaching methods as well as the materials employed by the teachers. In addition, it has a psycholinguistic aim since it can depict the way learners learn and produce languages.

c. Types of Error

Since errors can be numerously found in the language production of second language learners, it becomes essential to classify the errors based on the type so that it will be easier to analyze. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 146), there are four taxonomies used to classify errors.

1). Linguistic Category Taxonomy

According to Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111), this taxonomy, which is one of the earliest error taxonomies, classifies errors by their linguistic type. Dulay et al. (1982: 146) shape the definition, stating that this taxonomy classifies errors “according to either or both the language component or the particular linguistic constituent the error affects.” Language components consist of phonology (pronunciation), syntax and morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and vocabulary), and discourse (style). Constituents include the elements that comprise each language component.

2). Surface Strategy Taxonomy

Dulay et al. (1982: 150) state that this taxonomy “highlights the way surface structures are altered.” Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111) add that this taxonomy classifies errors by “the structural deformations the utterance undergoes.” This taxonomy is then divided into four sub-classifications, namely omission, addition, misformation and misordering.

a). Omission

An error is classified into this category when there is an absence of an item that must be present in a well-formed sentence, e.g.: *Mary president new companyinstead ofMary is the president of the new company.

b). Additions

Contrary to omission, addition is characterized by “the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance.” Three types of addition are double-marking, regularization, and simple addition. Double marking refers to an error in an utterance containing two or more items which are marked for the same feature. For example, *He doesn’t knows my nameinstead ofHe doesn’t know my name. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 157), regularization errors that fall under the addition category are “those in which a marker that is typically added to a linguistic item is erroneously added to exceptional items of the given class that do not take a marker,” e.g.: *sheeps and *putted. The third category of addition is called simple addition. An addition error is a simple addition if it is neither a double marking nor regularization.

c). Misformation

Dulay et al. (1982: 158) state that misformation errors are characterized by “the use of the wrong form of the morpheme or structure,” e.g.: the word ‘eated’ shown in *The dog eated the chicken. There are three sub-classifications of misformation, which are regularization, archi-forms and alternating forms.

Regularization that fall under the misformation category are “those in which a regular marker is used in place of an irregular one,” as seen in *runned forran and *gooses forgeese. Archi-forms refer to forms selected by the learner. Dulay et al. (1982: 160) state that “a learner may temporarily select only one of the English demonstrative adjectives this, that, these and those, to do the work for several of them,” as seen in that dogand *that dogs. Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111) name this kind of error overgeneralizing. The third category, alternating form, refers to fairly free alternation that the learner makes, as seen in *those dog and*this cats.

d). Misordering

Like what the term infers, misordering is characterized by “the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance,” e.g.: *What daddy is doing?and *I don’t know what is that.

3). Comparative Taxonomy

According to Dulay et al. (1982: 163), “the classification of errors in comparative taxonomy is based on comparisons between the structure of L2 errors and certain other types of constructions.” In other words, as stated by Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111), in comparative taxonomy, “the second language learners’

errors are classified by similarity with children’s first language learner deviations from target-language norms and/or by similarity with the errors made by L2 speakers from different L1 background.”

4). Communicative Effect Taxonomy

This taxonomy classifies errors based on the effect on the listener or reader. Johnson and Johnson (1999: 112) state that in this taxonomy errors are classified by “the effect they have on native speakers, whether in terms of comprehension or in terms of the way that non-native speakers are perceived by native speakers.”

d. Sources of Errors

Researchers and linguists have thought of various possible sources or causes of errors made by second language learners. Harmer (2007: 96) states that someone will make errors if s/he has not quite comprehended the new information. Another possibility causing errors in the learner’s sentence production is due to the different way in expressing an idea or using a grammatical construction between English and their first language.

Brown (1987: 82) argues that first language interference has apparently become the most noticeable error made by second language learners. Moreover, he adds that in order to facilitate the second language learning process, a person will make use of any experiences s/he has had with language. As the opposite of interlanguage, intralanguage deals with the second language itself. Richards (1973: 173) points out that the genesis of intralingual errors is found inside the

structure of the second language itself, “and through reference to the strategy by which a second language is acquired and taught.”

According to Norrish (1983: 21-36), carelessness and first language interference are the major causes of errors. Carelessness may occur as the learner lacks motivation. The interference of the learner’s mother tongue can also become the main contributor to error in the learner’s use of foreign language. Another cause closely related to the learner’s first language interference is translation. When the learner tries to translate word by word of idiomatic expressions in his first language, what he does may result in fatal errors.

Richards (1974), as cited in Norrish (1983: 30), points out the general order of difficulty as one of error causes. One example of the general error of difficulty is the fact found by researchers stating that it is difficult for both native speakers and EFL learners to distinguish between the English sounds /v/ and /D/ and /f/ and //. Errors can also be produced because of language creativity. For instance, when a learner who merely has limited experience of the target language needs to create a new utterance, he may make errors.

e. Ways to Minimize Errors

Cohen (1990: 60) states that correction of errors in oral production can lead to positive effects. Correction may work better when the learners have already had sufficient knowledge about the material involved. Yet, when the learners tend to focus on the content or message that they want to convey through oral production, correction turns out to be less beneficial. In addition, Norrish (1983: 49) points

out that learners should be encouraged to enhance their confidence. Thus, as long as the meaning is clear, correction may not be applied.

Furthermore, according to Dulay et al. (1983: 19), exposure to formal language environment, which consists of rule explanation and mechanical practice, can be helpful to increase accuracy. Through formal language environment, conscious rule application may happen when learners have successfully learned the rules correctly.

2. Parts of the English Sentence

Before forming a sentence, it is essential to discuss parts of the English sentence, particularly subject, predicate, operator, auxiliary, and predication. a. Subject and Predicate

As Warriner (1982: 24) writes, an English sentence consists of two parts, which are the subject and the predicate. The subject is the part about which something is being said and the predicate is the part which says something about the subject. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 11) give the description of the subject and the predicate as follows.

The subject of the sentence has a close general relation to ‘what is being discussed’, the ‘theme’ of the sentence, with the normal implication that something new (the predicate) is being said about a ‘subject’ that has already been introduced in an earlier sentence.

Downing and Locke (2002) write that while the subject is the part of which something is predicated in a clause, the predicate is the verbal part of a clause. From the preceding definitions, therefore, it must be recognized that the subject

and the predicate of a sentence are interrelated because one part determines the other part.

b. Operator, Auxiliary, and Predication

As predicate tends to be more complex compared to subject, Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 11) subdivide it into its elements. This particular division distinguishes auxiliary as operator from predication, which is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

sentence

subject

auxiliary as operator

predicate

predication

given the girl an apple

He had

he

Had given the girl an apple?

Figure 2.1

A Sentence Analysis to Differentiate Auxiliary as Operator from Predication (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1973: 11)

3. Types of Question

Since questions can be various in forms, according to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 191-192), there is a need to classify them according to the type of answer which is expected.

1. Questions expecting only affirmation or rejection, or called yes-no questions.

2. Questions expecting information, calledwh-questions.

3. Questions that expect as the reply one of two or more options presented in the questions. This form of questions is called alternative question.

In this study, the writer focuses on the formation of yes-no questions and wh- questions. Thus, it is also needed to know more about the types and the functions of bothyes-noquestions andwh-questions in order to be able to analyze the errors that the participants make.

a. The Types and Functions ofYes-noQuestion

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 206-209) write the types of yes-noquestion: (1) with an auxiliary verb (Will they be in Reno on Friday?), (2) with the be copula (Was Pamela a graduate student at the time?), and (3) with other verbs (Does Arlene play the organ on Sunday?).

The function ofyes-noquestions can be various. According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 218-219), its primary function is to ask for new information or to clarify or confirm shared information. Moreover, yes-no questions, particularly those using modals, can also be used in requests for assistance (Can I get a ride home with you?), in making offers or invitations

(Would you like to sit for a while?), as commands (Would you please stand up straight?), as reprimands (Aren’t you a little old to be doing that?), and as complaints (Have you ever stayed home all day with a two-year-old?). Yes-no questions also have many other functions depending on the context and the speaker’s intention.

b. The Types and Functions ofWh-Question

In general, the function of wh- questions is to expect a reply supplying an item of information (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1973: 192). They can also be used to ask for the identification of the subject, object, complement or an adverbial of a sentence. Azar (1989: A10-A11) gives more detailed functions and types of wh-questions.

1. Whenis used to ask a question about time (e.g.When will you come?). 2. Whereis used to ask a question about place (e.g.Where do you live?). 3. Whyis used to ask a question about reason (e.g.Why are you crying?). 4. Howis used to ask a question about manner (e.g.How does he drive?). 5. Whois used as the subject (e.g. Who came to visit you?) or the object

of a verb or preposition (e.g. Who did you see?) in a question which refers to people.

6. Whomis used as the object of a verb or preposition (e.g.Whom should I talk to?).

7. Whose is used to ask a question about possession (e.g. Whose car is it?).

8. Whatis used as the subject (e.g. What made you angry?) or the object (e.g.What do you need?) in a question which refers to things.

9. Which is used when a question concerns choosing from a definite, known quantity or group (e.g.Which pen do you want?).

4. The Formation of Questions

The formation of question structures requires a transformation, a special type of rule that can move an element from one position to another. The transformation applied inyes-noquestions differs from that ofwh-questions. a. Yes-noQuestions

To form a yes-no question, e.g. Will the boy leave?, auxiliary inversion is involved. Auxiliaries can precede subjects in inversion structures. According to O’Grady, Dobrovolsky, and Katamba (1997: 203), there are two steps involved in this operation. In the first step, the usual XP rule is used to form a structure in which the auxiliary occupies its normal position in Infl, between the subject and the VP as seen in Figure 2.2.

S

NP VP

Det N Infl V

the boy will leave

Figure 2.2

The Deep Structure for the QuestionWill the boy leave?

The second step is called inversion which moves the auxiliary from the Infl position to a position to the left of the subject. Hence, the result of this step is seen in Figure 2.3.

Will the boy _____ leave?

Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 192) state that to form yes-no questions, the operator should be placed before the subject. When the sentence has no verb phrase which can function as an operator, ‘do’ is introduced, e.g.: He likes Mary becomesDoes he like Mary?

b. Wh-Questions

According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 196), wh-questions are formed with the aid of one of interrogative words, which are who/whom/whose, what, which, when, where, howandwhy. In formingwh-questions, there is a movement operation called operator movement. It applies to expressions which contain an (negative or interrogative) operator of some kind (Radford, 1997: 267). According to O’Grady et al. (1997: 203), the transformation that moves the wh-phrase from its position in a deep structure to a position at the beginning of the sentence is called wh- movement. As the example, O’Grady et al. (1997: 206-207) provide the following question:

What can the child sit on? Figure 2.3

The Surface Structure for the QuestionWill the boy leave?

The previous question has a deep structure as depicted in Figure 2.4.

S

NP VP

PP

NP

Det N Infl V P N

the child can sit on what

By applying wh- movement and inversion to the deep structure, the question becomes like what is shown in Figure 2.5.

What can the child ________ sit on ________?

Downing and Locke (2003: 32) write that inwh-interrogative clauses where the wh- element is subject, the subject is placed before the predicate. Similarly, Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 197) state that awh-question is formed not only by the initial placing of the wh- interrogative word but also by the inversion of subject and operator in all cases except that in which thewh-interrogative word is subject.

Wh movement inversion

Figure 2.4

The Deep Structure for aWh-question (O’Grady et al., 1997: 206)

Figure 2.5

Wh- Movement and Inversion Transformations (O’Grady et al., 1997: 207)

5. Uninverted Questions

Spoken questions may also be formed without applying any transformation but by putting final rising intonation in statements. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 214-216) name those questions uninverted questions, while Gunlogson (2001) names them rising declarative questions. Frequently, rising declarative questions are used to askyes-noquestions.

There are some restrictions to the use of uninverted questions. Gunlogson (2001) states that uninverted questions differ from interrogatives because uninverted questions can only be used when there is preceding context. Conversely, “interrogatives are uninformative by nature and thus can meet the condition in any context.” In addition, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) write that uninverted questions are marked “in the sense that the speaker who poses the question is anticipating confirmation of either a positive or a negative presupposition.”

B. Theoretical Framework

In this part, the writer would like to synthesize the relevant theories which become the grounds to analyze the data. In defining error, the writer agrees with Brown (1987: 171) and Dulay et al. (1982: 139), who state that the differences of error and mistake cannot always be clearly observed. Thus, the writer regards all deviant forms in forming English questions as errors. In addition, in order to classify the errors that the participants make, the writer applies the error classification based on surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay et al. (1982:

150). Dealing with the structural deformations that a sentence undergoes (Johnson and Johnson, 1999: 111), this taxonomy is relevant to the focus of this study, which is the formation of English questions. Nevertheless, the writer does not differentiate between archi-forms and alternating forms as they both refer to errors as the result of alternation in sentence production. Uninverted questions, which can only be applied in restricted contexts, are also considered as deviant forms in question formations. It will require careful analysis to determine whether the participants produce them in appropriate circumstances.

Furthermore, besides the interview results, supporting references and theories are beneficial for the writer to both discover the causes for the errors and propose possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English questions. The writer, then, may have interference in elaborating the interview results in order to explain more about what has been found through the interview.

25 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology as a means to answer the research questions, which covers research method, research participants, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure.

A. Research Method

The basic principle underlying this study was qualitative method, which does not deal with numerical data (Brown and Rodgers, 2002: 12). According to Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002: 25), qualitative research aims to get a holistic depiction and in-depth understanding, rather than to obtain numerical analysis of data. In particular, this research was a document analysis. Ary et al. (2002: 27) state that the focuses of document analysis are the analysis and the interpretation of recorded materials. The documents which were analyzed in this study were the transcripts of the video recordings of the participants’ teaching performances. As a qualitative one, this research spotted the types of error and the reasons causing the errors, rather than the number of errors that the participants made.

B. Research Participants

The participants of this research were 40 students from four different Microteaching classes of ELESP Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta. Most of

them were, at least, in the sixth semester in 2008/2009 academic year. Assumedly, all of them had taken Structure V class, the last Structure class offered in the study program. As they had taken all Structure classes, they were expected to have sufficient knowledge of English sentence structure. Hence, as teacher candidates, they were required to apply what they had already learned in prior classes and were expected to be as good as possible at English sentence production, both in speaking and in writing. The sentence production emphasized in this study was those of speaking.

C. Research Instruments

In order to obtain dependable data to answer the research questions, the writer made use of two different types of research instruments.

1. Documents

In a qualitative study, written documents may also be useful to gain an understanding of the phenomenon which is being investigated (Ary et al., 2002: 435). In this research, the type of documents used was the transcriptions of video recording of the students’ performance while carrying out their teaching practice in the Microteaching laboratory. Those documents became the data to answer the first research question. In Microteaching class, every student is required to teach their friends who pretend to be high school students. In each meeting, there are five up to six students conducting the teaching practice. Every performance is recorded so both the lecturer and the students are able to review the performance.

Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 29) points out that recorded data should be transcribed before they are analyzed. Thus, after obtaining the video recordings, the writer transcribed the performance of each participant, of which duration is more or less 30 minutes, into written forms. From those transcriptions, the writer found the errors in forming English questions that the participants made while they were carrying out the teaching practice.

2. Interview

The instrument which was applied to answer the second research question and to help the writer propose possible recommendations was interview. Interviews are used to gather data on subjects’ opinions, beliefs, and feelings about the situation in their own words (Ary et al., 2002: 434). Thus, the use of interview in this study was to discover the causes why the participants made errors in forming grammatically correct English questions, and to ask them about possible solutions they may offer. Besides accommodating the causes for errors based on the participants’ personal feeling or attitude, such as dislike and carelessness, the writer also put emphasis on the causes for errors which are related to the teaching and learning process that the students have experienced. The type of interview used in this study was semi-structured interview. In a semi structured interview, although the framework has been clearly prepared, it permits the interviewer to change the order of the questions (McDonough and McDonough, 1997: 183).

3. The Researcher as Research Instrument

According to Poggenpoel and Myburgh (2003), researcher as research instrument means that the researcher is the key in obtaining data from the respondents. Furthermore, the researcher facilitates interaction with the respondents so that they can share data regarding to their experiences. In this study, the writer as the researcher became the one who obtained the data, which were subsequently interpreted into meaningful information.

D. Data Gathering Technique

To answer the first research question, the writer gathered the data from the students of Microteaching class, a subject offered in the even semester of the 2008/2009 academic year. The writer collected the data by transcribing their recorded performance while doing their teaching practice.

As an attempt to answer the second research question, the writer conducted an interview to discover the causes for the errors that the participants encountered in forming English questions. To answer the third question, which is to give possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English question forms, the writer made use of the data from the interview as well as supporting references and theories.

E. Data Analysis Technique

The writer analyzed the errors in English question formations found on the data that had been collected. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 150), learners may

omit necessary items or add unnecessary ones; they may misform items or misorder them. Thus, surface strategy taxonomy, which highlights the ways surface structures are altered, was seen to be relevant in categorizing the errors. The surface strategy taxonomy can further be divided into four categories of error, namely (1) omission, (2) addition, which consists of double marking, regularization, and simple addition, (3) misformation, which consists of regularization error, archi-form, and alternating form, and (4) misordering. In addition, the writer also considered uninverted form of questions as deviant forms in question formations.

After analyzing the errors, the writer interviewed five students who were considered to make errors most frequently and variously. The writer then found out why the students made errors in English question formations. The data from the interview were also useful for the writer to propose possible recommendations that would help the participants to improve the production of grammatical English questions.

F. Research Procedure

The research was conducted in the even semester of 2008/2009 academic year. The first step in conducting the research was obtaining the video recordings of the participants’ performance. Considering the time constraint, the writer obtained the data recorded on March 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16, 2009 from four different Microteaching classes. The video recordings were then transcribed into written form. By means of the transcriptions, the writer analyzed the errors that

the participants made in forming English questions. The questions which were analyzed were merely those made by the participants performing their teaching practice, not by all class members. Afterward, the writer classified the errors into the types based on surface strategy taxonomy. For each type of error, the writer described and explained it.

Having done with the previous steps, the writer interviewed five participants who were regarded as those making errors most frequently with diverse types of error. The interview aimed to gain the participants’ opinions on the causes for their errors in forming English questions. At last, the writer drew conclusion including possible recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English question forms.

Figure 3.1. Research Procedure recordings of participants’

performance

Identifying the errors in the English question

formations

Describing and explaining the errors

Classifying the errors

Finding out the causes for the errors through

interview

Proposing possible recommendations to improve the production of

grammatical English questions

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of both the presentation and the discussion of the research findings. There are three sections presented in this chapter. The first section (A), which is the answer to the first research question, concerns itself with the errors found in the English question formations that the participants made. The second section (B) discusses the causes why the participants made the errors, which also answers the second research question. As the answer to the third research question, the last section (C) deals with possible recommendations in order to improve the production of grammatical English questions.

A. The Errors in the English Questions 1. Data Presentation

As an attempt to obtain errors in forming English questions, the writer analyzed the transcripts of the video recordings of 40 participants while they practiced teaching in Microteaching class. The questions analyzed were only the questions asked by the participants who were performing as teachers. Hence, although some other participants made errors when they were pretending as students, the writer did not analyze them since there was a possibility that the participants intentionally made errors to test their teachers whether they were aware or not of the errors.

In addition, the writer excluded questions in phrase forms, e.g. Another answers?, Amplaz what kind of?, into the analysis. The writer merely focused the analysis on the questions containing subject and verb to make it clearer to see the rules violated in forming the questions. They were then classified into four categories based on surface strategy taxonomy, which are (1) omission, (2) addition, which covers double marking, regularization and simple addition, (3) misformation, which consists of regularization, archi-form, and alternating form, and (4) misordering. Yet, the writer did not find errors which fell into regularization subcategory of both addition and misformation category. Moreover, as stated in Theoretical Framework, the writer did not differentiate between archi-form and alternating archi-form. The writer also classified questions which were the results of uninverted form of questions into other errors.

There were 305 errors found in the formations of English questions. It should be recognized that the number of errors is not the same as the number of the erroneous questions since one question may contain more than one error. For example, an erroneous question *When the expressions of sympathy you use?, whose correction should be When do you use the expressions of sympathy?, contains two errors falling under two different categories, which are omission of ‘do’ and misordering. The errors and the examples as well as the number and the percentage of each category are presented in Table 4.1 overleaf.

Table 4.1 The Classifications of Errors and Their Examples No Category

of Errors

Subcategory

of Errors Example of Errors

Number of Errors

Percentage (%)

Auxiliary ‘do’ What word you say to express happiness?

Singular marker Who get the answer?

‘Be’ What repetitive procedures usually called?

Perfect tense marker ‘-ed’

Have you complete with the answer?

Gerund marker ‘-ing’

Have you finished tell your friends about the story?

Plural marker What are the expression of giving compliments?

Infinitive marker ‘to’

Who wants answer this question?

Genitive marker ‘-’s’

Is Lia answer correct?

1. Omission

Article ‘a’ Who wants to be volunteer?

94 30.8

Double marking

Past tense marker

Did you ever heard this story before?

Present tense marker

Do you know what does family stands for?

Object How do you spell it it?

Subject Anyone volunteer to say something about the purpose of this procedure text?

Simple addition

Plural marker Where is the imperatives?

2 Addition

‘-s’ in non-finite verb

Who can helps Pita?

29 9.5

Continued from page 34

No Category of Errors Subcategory of Errors Example of Errors Number of Errors Percentage (%) Archi/alternat-ing form Overgeneraliza-tion of auxiliary ‘do’ in perfect tense

Do you have read a narrative, right?

Use of infinitive marker ‘to’ instead of gerund

Would you mind to read it using skimming technique the main ideas?

Overgeneraliza-tion of auxiliary ‘does’ in a sentence with modal

Does anyone can tell the summary?

Inconsistent application of tense marker

Do you ever ask your mother or your father when you were child before you sleep to tell you a story?

Overgeneraliza-tion of ‘be’

Are you agree, guys?

Incorrect use of verb form

Do you ever heard the story about Cinderella? Incorrect application of perfect tense Who still remember what we have learned last week?

Incorrect application of word class

You know the write of describe?

Misformation

Incorrect form of ‘be’

What are important information that you get there?

3.

Incorrect form of non-finite verb

What is the moral value you can got from the story?

37 12.1

Continued from page 35

No Category of Errors Subcategory of Errors Example of Errors Number of Errors Percentage (%) Auxiliary ‘have’ as operator

What we have learned today? Do you know what is that?

Verb in an embedded

question Can you explain

what is identification?

Modal auxiliary as operator

What kind of expression you should use?

4. Misordering

‘Be’ as operator Why we are not allowed to use them too often?

80 26.2

You like to read a magazine? After orientation we have what? It is sad ending or happy ending? Being a mother is difficult?

Everybody got one?

5. Other Errors Uninverted forms

Usually it uses what kind or types of tense?

65 21.3

Total number of errors 305

2. Discussion

Based on the data presented, it can be shown that the participants made errors which were quite various in types. This is not to mention the fact that based on the transcriptions there was a tendency that a number of participants preferred to switch the language into Bahasa Indonesia when they asked questions to the students. The reason for this case became unquestionable because it was definitely easier for the participants to say something or form questions in their first

language. Consequently, it became harder for the writer to find errors as they did not speak in English. However, the findings are still interesting to discuss in this part due to their diversity. The writer will discuss the findings by highlighting some important points.

There were 94 errors or 30.8 % of the total errors regarded as omission errors. ‘Do’, which is an auxiliary performing as operator, became one of the most omitted items in the participants’ question production. Another example for this kind of error is (1a)*What we call it?In the previous erroneous item, ‘do’, which should be put after ‘what’ is omitted. When it happens, the item becomes a noun clause, not an interrogative sentence. Thus, the correction of item (1a) should be (1b) What do we call it? Other cases like (2a) *You just buy it? and (3a) *You know? were classified into two categories, which are omission and uninverted form. When forming items either (2a) or (3a), the participants did not apply any inversion and only put rising intonation at the end of the sentence and, consequently, omitted ‘do’ before the subject. The grammatical forms of items (2a) and (3a) therefore are (2b)Do you just buy it?and (3b)Do you know?

Under addition category, there were 29 errors or 9.5 % of the total errors. One of the most influential errors found in double marking subcategory was that of tense marker, such as (4a) *What did we got from this lesson? which is the deviant form of a grammatical question (4b) What did we get from this lesson? This kind of error is characterized by the existence of two items which are marked for the same feature. In the latter example of erroneous item (4a), ‘did’ and ‘got’ are marked for the same feature, which is past tense. Other errors in this

subcategory are those related to double objects and subjects. Another subcategory in addition category is simple addition. In simple addition, the participants simply added features which should not be put in a grammatical sentence, e.g. (5a)*What is the main ideas of paragraph 26? Since the verb ‘is’ implies singular marker, plural marker ‘-s’ should not be added after the word ‘idea’. Hence, the question will be (5b)What is the main idea of paragraph 26?

Although errors in the misformation category were only as many as 37 errors or 12.1% of the total errors, there were quite various forms of errors. Errors are classified into this category when there is wrong form of the morpheme or structure. As the writer did not find any error falling under regularization category, there is only one subcategory, namely archi/alternating form. Most of the errors classified into archi/alternating form category were those related to overgeneralization of the use of certain auxiliaries, such as ‘do’, and ‘be’. Other examples of this kind of error besides those presented in Table 4.1 are (6a) *Do you have finished? and (7a) *Maybe when you hear, you are say what? In (6a), the participant overgeneralized the use of ‘do’ as auxiliary while the sentence already contained ‘have’ performing as the auxiliary. The correct question then should be (6b) Have you finished? In (7a), the participant used ‘are’ instead of ‘do’ which already performed as the operator. Hence, the correction will be done by changing ‘are’ into ‘do’ and put the word in the correct order so that it becomes (7b) Maybe when you hear, what do you say? Other common errors in archi/alternating form were those related to incorrect application of certain verb forms as presented in Table 4.1.

The fourth category, misordering, covered as many as 26.2% of the total errors or 80 errors. In most cases, participants made errors when producing embedded questions as seen in (8a) *Do you know what is it?This is actually the product of overgeneralization in the learner’s mind. Generally, second language learners learn how to produce simple or direct questions first, e.g. What is it? When they have already acquired the knowledge, however, they may become failed in producing indirect or embedded questions. Learners make errors for they possibly invert the auxiliary as they usually do in forming simple questions, while in embedded questions, auxiliary inversions are not applied. Thus, the correct form of the example should be (8b) Do you know what it is? The inversion and do-insertion are only applied toDo you know, which should be followed bywhat it is since the auxiliary of the embedded question should remain in the same position as it is in a statement.

It was interesting to figure out that 21.3% of the total errors or 65 errors were the results of the absence of an inversion in the question formation. In other words, the participants tended to put rising intonation at the end of their affirmative sentences to ask questions as seen in (9a) *You know?for (9b)Do you know?and (10a) *It is bored?for (10b) Is it bored?Being declarative statements with final rising intonation, uninverted forms of questions are actually acceptable and familiar in spoken communication. However, they can only be used in restricted contexts and determining whether they are produced contextually correct needs thorough analysis. Therefore, the writer regarded them as deviations in forming questions.

Commonly, errors in uninverted forms also belonged to other categories. It can be seen in the question (10a) *It is bored?, which could be categorized as both uninverted forms and misordering. It bears the characteristic of an uninverted question for it is produced in a declarative form with final rising intonation. Besides, it belonged to misordering category due to the wrong order of the words. If an inversion is applied, the process will move the operator ‘is’ before the subject. In another case, the question (9a) *You know? belonged to uninverted question as well as omission. It was also categorized as omission because there is not any do-insertion in item (9a).

B. The Causes Underlying the Errors 1. Data Presentation

After figuring out and classifying the errors that the participants made, it will be significant to know the grounds for the errors. Hence, dealing with the second research question, the writer conducted semi-structured interview as the instrument to discover the causes or sources why the participants made errors in forming English questions. The writer chose five participants who made errors most variously to be interviewed. For further information, the interview was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia in order to make it more convenient for the interviewees to express their viewpoint. The interviews were recorded and transcribed in order to make it easier to analyze the findings. The questions and the information obtained are briefly presented in Table 4.2 overleaf.

Table 4.2 Interview Questions and the Information Obtained

2. Discussion

According to Dulay et al. (1982: 64), conscious knowledge of a rule does not guarantee the learner will use it. Learners have been observed to make many self described careless errors, which they were able to correct themselves and for which they could state the rule violated. From the interview, it can be inferred that all interviewees did not notice when they made errors and even some showed their

No Question Information

1. Did you realize that you made these errors in forming questions?

 They were not aware and did not realize that they made the errors.

2. Can you please correct some errors?

 Some were able to directly correct their own errors.

 Some hesitated and made some attempts to correct the errors.

3. In your opinion, why did you make these errors?

 They tended to focus on the fluency rather than accuracy.

 Most of them stated that they were nervous.

 Some claimed that they already formed grammatical questions in their minds. However, when they spoke, the products were erroneous.  Almost all stated that their mastery

of Structure was not good. Hence, it influenced their sentence production when speaking.

 One admitted that he was quite good at writing, including correct ungrammatical items in his composition but he was not good at speaking.

4. What recommendations will you suggest to overcome the problem?

 All claimed that practices, especially the spoken ones, would help a lot to better the production of grammatical English questions.

abilities to correct their own errors. Thus, the causes of this phenomenon should be discovered to make it possible to find possible solutions.

Based on the interviewees’ answers to the questions, the causes for the errors were found quite diverse among the interviewees. However, in general, there were some causes stated. The writer thus highlights three major causes coming into play, namely focus on fluency, nervousness, and lack of knowledge of English grammar.

a. Focus on Fluency

Spoken English language has two main aspects which can be apparently observed, which are accuracy and fluency. Accuracy primarily deals with the features used in the language, such as grammar and vocabulary. Fluency concerns the speed in producing utterances. Facing those two aspects when speaking, most of the interviewees admitted that when they practiced teaching, they tended to focus on their speaking fluency. They did so in order to facilitate two way communication to sound like natural conversation. It is admitted by an interviewee who said that because he had an intention to speak like what he did in daily conversation, he therefore tended to ignore the grammaticality itself.

“Karena keinginan untuk --- apa ya---.berbicara seperti daily conversation gitu. Jadi mengabaikan esensi grammatical itu sendiri.” (R3)

(Because of the intention to---what is it?--- Speak like what we do in daily conversation, it, therefore, tends to ignore the grammaticality itself).

The interviewees also argued that actually they had already arranged the questions in a grammatical form. Surprisingly, when they spoke them, they produced flawed items which differed from what they had already had in their

mind. There was an interviewee saying that sometimes the sentence structures that she had already thought in her mind were not the same as what she spoke.

“…..Kadang grammarnya pada saat dipikir dan diomongin tu beda.”(R1) (….Sometimes the sentence structures which are thought are different from the spoken ones).

As speaking tends to be more spontaneous than writing, it gives little chance to the interviewees to be more careful in producing utterances. In writing, it is still feasible to erase or change some words or sentences when they need correction. However, in speaking, correction may be hardly applied as it is not easy to refer to or exactly remember what has been said. Thus, it resulted in the circumstances where the participants left their questions erroneous without any correction.

b. Nervousness

Besides focusing on fluency, the participants also conveyed that nervousness or anxiety became another cause underlying the errors. Most of them said that they were nervous since it was their first teaching practice, as an interviewee said:

“Yang pertama karena saya ngajar pertama kali ya Mbak ya di kelas. Jadi mungkin yang pertama grogi.” (R1)

(The first is because it was my first class teaching. So, firstly it is probably a result of nervousness).

When they practiced teaching, they were very nervous since it was their first teaching practice. Some claimed that their nervousness led to hastiness in producing sentences. It consequently made them concentrate less on their grammatical accuracy when speaking. Thus, nervousness escorted them to carelessness which made them produce ungrammatical sentences, particularly

Respondent 4

I : Selamat siang, Mas. R4 : Siang.

I : Mau minta waktunya sebentar untuk wawancara. Maaf mengganggu ya. Sudah melihat kesalahan-kesalahan yang saya tunjukkan?

R4 : Pendapatnya bagaimana atau kesannya bagaimana waktu pertama kali membaca itu?

R4 : Dulu benar-benar nggak sadar kalau saya ngomong kaya gini. I : Berarti memang tidak sadar?

R4 : Iya. Mungkin karena grogi.

I : Karena grogi. Oke. Dari beberapa item ini, berarti tahu harusnya benarnya kaya gimana tu tahu?

R4 : Garis besar tahu. I : Maksudnya garis besar?

R4 : Iya. Mungkin nggak sedetail banget tapi saya tahu kesalahannya gimana. I : Terus menurut Mas yang menjadi penyebab kesalahan itu selain grogi yang

tadi sudah di katakan?

R4 : Jujur, dalam hal berbicara atauspeaking, saya tidak sekoreksi waktu---I : Seteliti gitu ya.

R4 : Heh, seteliti waktu nulis.

I : Berarti kalauspokenitu masalahnya kadang tidak teliti dalam hal ngomong. R4 : Jadi terkesan spontan jadi hasilnya pun terkesan agak ngawur.

I : Tapi kalau itu ditulis ulang sebenarnya tahu? R4 : Kelihatan banget kesalahannya dimana gitu.

I : Jadi permasalahan yang kedua adalah karena saat berbicara tu kayanya grammarnya ilang gitu ya.

R4 : He’eh. Tidak terlalu—jadi terkesan spontan jadi tidak terlalu teliti dalam ngomong.

I : Selain itu apa ada penyebab lain? Misalkan pengaruhmother toungeataufirst language- Bahasa Indonesia?

R4 : Kalau saya pribadi, saya tipe orang yang tidak terlalu lancar untuk spekaing dalam Bahasa Inggris.

I : Kan ini masalahnya bukan lancar atau nggak lancar. Bukan fluency, tapi accuracygitu kan?

R4 : Ya. Dan mungkin kelancaran itu mempengaruhi focus dalam grammar. Dalam pengucapannya itu.

I : Bisa dijelaskan lebih lanjut maksudnya? R4 : Gimana ya?

I : Kasih contoh siuasi aja.

R4 : Situasi? Nggak tahu kenapa ya kalau saya sendiri sejak awal, saya suka Bahasa Inggris. Tapi ternyata talent saya itu lebih ke hal-hal yang tertulis. Untuk masalah grammar tu lebih ke tertulis. Jadi untuk ngomong, saya termasuk yang sulit untuk ngomong dalam Bahasa Inggris.

I ; Jadi masalahnya memangnervous, dan pada dasarnya lebih teliti kalau nulis. Nah sejauh ini, sejauh jadi mahasiswa PBI selama ini, menurut Mas sudah ---materi tentang penyusunan kalimat tanya Bahasa Inggris tu sudah cukup terakomodasi dalamsubject-subject yang diberikan atau belum? Atau masih ada kekurangan?

R4 : Pemahaman saya sudah sangat cukup. Cuma mungkin dalam hal berbicara itu tadi saya kurang memperhatikan. Bagi diri saya sendiri. Mungkin karena

emang dalam berbicara itu saya tidak terlalu lancar jadi tdak begitu fokus ke grammar. Sering kebawa spontanitas yang ternyata itu salah.

I : Jadi, menurut Mas (Edited) sudah cukup terakomodasi sebenarnya. Cuma memang karena speakingnya itu lebih susah bagi Mas untuk berbicara begitu ya?

R4 : Iya.

I : Oke. Dan kemudian solusi apa yang bisa ditawarkan? Baik untuk --- secara pribadi maupun prodi kita, Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris?

R4 : Kalau dari pribadi, memang dari sisi pribadi memang harus ada persiapan, seperti latihan dan sebelum kita berbicara memang ada teksnya transkripnya. Kita tahu nanti yang kita omongin itu jangan sampai salahgrammarnya. Jadi tiu dipelajari lebih dulu atau lebih sering frekuensi berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris. Itu mungkin akan secara natural semakin memperbaiki grammar dalam berbahasa Inggris.

I : Itu untuk masalah---masukan untuk ke prodi, penekanan materi ini di subject tertentu misalkanStructuregitu atau cukup?

R4 : Kalau memnurut saya, dalam Structure sudah sangat kompleks ya, tinggal bagaimana mahasiswa itu mau memahami itu---berusaha memahami itu dan mengaplikasikannya.

I : Ya, begitu. Terima kasih banyak atas waktunya, Mas (Edited). Semoga sukses.

Respondent 5

I : Selamat siang, Mbak. R5 : Siang.

I : Makasih sudah menyempatkan waktunya sebentar untuk wawancara ya. Setelah --- sudah melihat tadi kesalahan yang dibuat saatMicroteaching? R5 : Iya.

I : Kok ketawa kenapa? R5 : Jadi malu.

I : Perasaannya gimana? Atau apa yang muncul di pikiran saat membaca itu? R5 : Semester delapan, begitu buruk. Kemana ya ilmunya?

I : Ini kenapa? Apakah waktu itu Mbak menyadari kalau Mbak membuat kesalahan?

R5 : Enggak. Sayangnya.

I : Sayangnya enggak. Jadi emang dibuat saat tidak sadar? R5 : He’eh.

I : kalau boleh tahu kenapa ya? Kenapa bisa membuat kesalahan seperti ini? Padahal bisa mengoreksi kan tadi ya? Kenapa ini kira-kira?

R5 : Mungkin ini ya,nervous. Terus kurang persiapan kelasnya mungkin ya. I : Persiapan dalam hal gimana maksudnya?

R5 : Itu kelas Microteaching itu. Jadi kalau aku maju tu nervous banget trus persiapannya mungkin kurang juga. Jadi kesadaran akan bikin kalimat tanya yang bener itu kurang.

I : Selain itu? Ada lagi nggak? Apa kesulitan dalam memilih kata atau memang dalam halgrammar, atau gimana?

R5 : Mungkin kalau (Edited) gini ya, karena kalau nervous biasanya tu yang mau diomongin nggak dipikir dulu. Kaya keburu-buru.

I : Jadi fokusnya kadang kefluencyya?

R5 : He’eh. Takut yang nonton tahu terus takut ada yang--- someone di sana tu mengawasiku. Yaunderpressureaja, kurangenjoy.

I : Selain itu? Tidak ada yang lain?

R5 : Harus belajar.Grammarmungkin pengaruh juga ya. I : Tapi kalauvocabenggak ya?

R5 : Enggak.

I : Kalau selama ini, selama menjadi mahasiswa PBI ini apa menurut Mbak materi membuat kalimat tanya yang benar itu sudah cukup tersampaikan di subject-subject, mata kuliah-mata kuliah yang ada?

R5 : Sebenarnya udah. Cuman mungkin penangkapan masing-masing atau kesadaran akan ini sebenarnya itu tu--- nah kaya gini ini, jadi lupa. Cara nangkap per individunya itu lho kan beda. Jadi kesadaran dirinya sendiri aja masing-masing. Sebenarnya sanggup nggak sih, apa udah nguasain belum. Mungkin aku pribadi mungkin belum bisa ini gitu, belajar lagi. Tapi kadang ada yang ’Ah, udahlah dibiarin aja.’

I : Sebenarnya materinya sudah cukup tersampaikan ya? Berarti solusi apa yang bisa disampaikan untuk membuat kalimat tanya yang benar?

R5 : Latihan.

I : Dalam halspeakinggitu ya?

R5 : Iya. Ya itu. Baca buku. Enggak ya, nggak baca buku? Film itu cukup membantu.

I : Kalau dalam hal kuliah? Penyampaian materi di kuliah?

--I : Jadi kalau masukkan bagi PBI sendiri, dalam hal penyampaian materi tu sudah bagus ya.

R5 : (Unclear spech)

I : Terima kasih banyak, Mbak (Edited) atas waktunya R5 : Sama-sama.

vi

ABSTRACT

Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).

Errors in the English Question Formations Made

by Microteaching Class Students

. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

English questions are often applied by English language teachers to check

the students’ understanding. Nonetheless, as most of English language teachers in

Indonesia are also EFL learners, they may produce ungrammatical questions. It

becomes contrary to the fact that teachers should be models who are to give

correct examples to the students. Therefore, it turns out to be favourable to figure

out errors in English question formations as well as to find out the causes for the

errors.

There were three research questions presented in this study: (1) What

kinds of error do the participants make in forming grammatical English questions?

(2) Why do the participants make errors in forming grammatical English

questions? (3) What are possible recommendations to improve the production of

grammatical English question forms?

In order to answer those three research questions, the writer conducted a

document analysis and an interview. The document analysis aimed at finding out

the errors in English questions formations made by the participants, who were

Microteaching Class students of English Language Education Study Program of

Sanata Dharma University in 2008/2009 academic year. The documents were the

video transcriptions of the participants’ teaching performances. The errors found

were then classified into several categories based on surface strategy taxonomy.

Afterward, the interview was carried out to discover the reasons why the

participants made the errors and to help the writer propose possible

recommendations to improve the production of grammatical English questions.

From the data gathered, the findings showed that most of the errors

belonged to omission category (30.8%), and were subsequently followed by

misordering (26.2%), uninverted forms (21.3%), misformation (12.1%), and

addition (9.5%). The interview revealed three major causes which made the

participants make errors, namely focus on fluency, nervousness, and lack of

knowledge of English grammar. After figuring out the errors and their causes,

there were two possible recommendations that the writer would like to propose in

order to improve the production of grammatical English questions, namely

practices and classroom error correction. Furthermore, the writer also offered

suggestions addressed to students, teachers, and other researchers who also have

an interest in this topic.

vii

ABSTRAK

Harendita, Monica Ella. (2009).

Errors in the English Question Formations Made

by Microteaching Class Students

. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Kalimat tanya sering digunakan oleh para guru untuk mengetahui sejauh

mana siswa memahami materi. Namun, karena kebanyakan guru Bahasa Inggris

di Indonesia juga mempelajari Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, ada

kemungkinan mereka memproduksi kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris yang

salah. Karena guru diharapkan menjadi contoh bagi siswa, kesalahan dalam

penyusunan kalimat tanya berikut penyebabnya menjadi berguna untuk dipelajari.

Ada tiga pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini: (1) Kesalahan apa yang dibuat

partisipan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris? (2) Mengapa

partisipan membuat kesalahan dalam menyusun kalimat tanya dalam Bahasa

Inggris? (3) Apa rekomendasi yang mungkin diberikan untuk meningkatkan

produksi kalimat tanya yang benar?

Untuk menjawab ketiga pertanyaan tersebut, penulis melakukan analisa

dokumen dan wawancara terhadap siswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro (

Microteaching

)

tahun ajaran 2008/2009 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas

Sanata Dharma. Dokumen yang dianalisa merupakan transkrip dari video rekaman

siswa pada saat berlatih mengajar. Kesalahan-kesalahan yang ditemukan

kemudian dikategorikan berdasarkan

surface strategy taxonomy

. Kemudian,

wawancara dilakukan untuk mengetahui mengapa siswa membuat kesalahan.

Selain itu, data yang didapat melalui wawancara dapat berguna bagi penulis dalam

memberikan rekomendasi untuk meningkatkan produksi kalimat tanya yang

benar.

Hasil analisa data menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan kesalahan yang

ditemukan termasuk dalam

omission category

(30.8%), kemudian diikuti dengan

misordering

(26.2%),

uninverted forms

(21.3%),

misformation

(12.1%), dan

addition

(9.5%). Hasil wawancara menunjukkan bahwa fokus dalam kelancaran

berbicara,

grogi

, dan kurangnya pemahaman akan tata Bahasa Inggris menjadi

faktor yang menyebabkan siswa membuat kesalahan. Setelah mengetahui

kesalahan dan penyebabnya, penulis memberikan dua rekomendasi supaya

produksi kalimat tanya yang benar meningkat, yaitu latihan dan koreksi. Selain

itu, penulis juga memberikan saran kepada murid, guru, maupun peneliti lainnya

yang juga tertarik pada bidang ini.