PROS Christianti Tri Hapsari An Analysis of Errors in the Use Full text
AN ANALYSIS OF ERRORS IN THE USE OF ARTICLE
IN THE NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE WRITING
STUDENTS
Christianti Tri Hapsari
Satya Wacana Christian University
Introduction
Article system includes the indefinite article a (n), the definite article the, and the zero
(Ø) or null article (Maslo, 2011). Basically, it denotes a general picture of both spoken and
written English (ibid.). Besides, English articles are also one of the crucial marks of native
speaker competence because they indicate language mastery and accuracy in both thought
and expression (Miller, 2005). Though the articles a(n), the and the zero article (Ø) are
function words, they convey vital information about the noun phrases they modify (Stehle,
2009).
Articles are placed among the five most common words in English Master (2002) in
Miller (2005) but it is an indefinable aspect of English grammar (Hasbun, 2009). Master
(2002) as cited in Venuti (2011) points out that errors in the use of article still exist even
when other elements of the language seem to have been acquired. According to Ekiert
(2004), “Article system is one of the most difficult structural elements for ESL learners,
causing even the most advanced non-native speakers of English (NNS) to make errors” (p.1).
Moreover, Maslo (2011); Kaku (2006) as cited in Venuti (2011) also states that most of
English learners are having difficulties in acquiring article system, even after many years of
natural exposure; articles continue to contribute difficulties. It happens in both English
learners whose first language has an article system and the one whose first language does not
have that element (Maslo, 2011).
In general, Crompton (2011) stated “SLA research on English article acquisition has
divided L1s into a simple binary typology, languages which have an article system [+article]
and those which do not [–article]” (p. 7). The unique fact about those two kinds of article
system is L2 learners whose L1 has articles [+article] acquire the English article system more
rapidly than those who do not have [-article] (Master 1997; Thomas 1989; Zobl 1982) as
cited in Matoba (2007). Master (1997) as cited in Ekiert (2004) agrees that actually L2
learners whose L1 does not have articles [-article] are about one stage behind [+article]
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
40
learners in interlanguage. However, Master (1997) as cited in Ekiert (2004) was the first to
point out that “Articles appear to be acquired differently, depending on whether or not they
occur in the learner‟s L1” (p.3).
A study conducted for L1 Syrian Arabic speakers of English whose language had
article system showed that they had a high accuracy rate in supplying the article the and a but
tends not to produce them in every case where they are compulsory for native speakers
(Sarko, 2008). A similar study conducted by Maslo (2011) for Arabic speakers found that the
participants were more accurate in the use of the and Ø. He also discovered that L1 learners
whose had article system in his study tend to overuse the in the early stage of acquisition.
Since Arabic has only a definite article and no indefinite article, Arabic students tend to
broaden their L1 concept of not spotting the indefinite article in English and thus tend not to
use a in obligatory contexts (Kharma, 1981; Thompson-Panos & Thomas-Ružić, 1983) in
Bataineh (2005). Another study conducted for Spanish English learners‟ proved that the
Spanish speakers optionally applied articles (Snape, 2006) in Stehle (2009). Alike study
conducted for Arabic speakers, the results of the study showed that the speakers of the
[+article] language (Spanish in the study) were able to transfer the article system from their
L1 to their L2 (Dağdeviren, 2010). In summary, L1 learners whose [+article] seem to be able
to master article system which is similar to their L1 but still having difficulties in acquiring
article system which does not exist in their L1. It is in a line with what Master (1997) in
Ekiert (2004) has suggested that the existence of article system in the L1 learners affects how
articles system acquire differently.
Unlike L1 learners whose have article system, L1 [-article] cannot find supports in
their mother tongue (Maslo, 2010). This is the reason why they are one stage behind L1
learners whose [+article]. Master (1997) in Ekiert (2004) who analyzed spoken data from
twenty English learners found that the learners from [-article] initially oversupplied Ø in
obligatory contexts and then after realizing that Ø was not always accurate, switch to using
the with all nouns. Whereas a study by White (2003) in Sarko (2008) on the use of articles in
L2 English by a high proficiency native speaker of Turkish (Turkish being a [–article]
language) showed that the participants were highly accurate in the use of the and a, but
tended not to produce them in every case where they were obligatory for native speakers.
Another study on the use of the English articles the, a and Ø by 18 advanced Chinese
speakers of English conducted by Robertson (2000) as cited in Sarko (2008) also discovered
the same pattern. They omitted articles in contexts which were obligatory for native speakers.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
41
Quite different from what Robertson (2000) found, Ionin et al. (2003) as cited in Dağdeviren
(2010) who conducted a research that included 50 L1-Russian and 38 L1-Korean learners of
English found pretty dissimilar results. The results of the study showed that the intermediate
and advanced L2-English learners used the with definites and a/some/zero article with nonspecific indefinites. However, they used the and a interchangeably in specific indefinites.
In spite of its difficulties in learning, the article system is also too complicated to
teach in a way that is completely comprehensible and appropriate for all uses. A claim states
that exposure to instances of article over time should enable students to learn them (Venuti,
2011). However, some linguists such as Dulay, Burt, & Krashen (1982) in Ekiert (2004) have
argued that the English articles are unteachable. Doughty and Williams (1998) in Ekiert
(2004) added that “There are some forms, such as the English article system, that seem
strangely impermeable to instruction and so, for that reason alone, perhaps should not take up
valuable class time” (p.8).
Due to those difficulties, the frequency of errors in the use of article is high. Article
system is placed as one of the three most frequent types of grammar errors learners across
levels (Hasbun, 2009). Therefore, a good way to find a better system of teaching articles is
required to deal with such errors. That is why a closer look at why students make errors
(sources of errors) is really significant. Essentially, there are two major sources of errors,
interlingual and intralingual errors. Interlingual error is believed to be the interference of the
learner‟s mother tongue (Richards, 1971). Whereas intralingual error reflects the learner‟s
competence at a particular stage and illustrates some of the general characteristics of
language acquisition (ibid.).
A study by Dulay and Burt (1974) as cited in Crompton (2011) diagnosed only one of
the 74 article system errors in their data as “interlingual”, whereas White (1977) as cited in
Crompton (2011) did not find any interlingual errors in his study of the 31 article system
errors. The proper focus of such study were errors conceived of as “intralingual” or
developmental errors, evidence of a process of creative construction in a learner‟s
interlanguage. Similar with what Dulay and Burt (as cited in Crompton, 2011) found,
Bataineh (2005) also discovered that the majority of errors made by the four groups were the
result of common learning processes (intralingual), such as overgeneralization and
simplification of the English article system. The impact of the participants' native language
(interlingual) was found minimal. All those studies above were conducted for L1 learners
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
42
who have article system [+article]. The study that focus on the sources of errors in the use of
articles for L1 learners whose [-article] is still lack.
Realizing the fact that article system is difficult to acquire and the studies
investigating the sources of errors for L1 learners who do not have an article system is lack,
this study aims to find out the sources of errors in the use of article in Indonesian English
learners whose L1 do not have an article system. By recognizing the sources, I believe it can
help the teachers to identify the specific common language problems of their students and it
will be useful to prepare effective teaching materials. In addition, the knowledge in knowing
the sources of errors will equip teachers to help students minimize or overcome their
language learning problems (Darus and Subramaniam, 2009 in Wee, 2009). By realizing the
importance of finding the sources of errors, I intend to address the following research
question: “What caused English Department Satya Wacana Christian University narrative and
descriptive writing students to make errors in the use of articles?”
The Study
This study surveyed 15 college students in Satya Wacana Christian University,
Salatiga, Indonesia who took English as their major. All of the participants were the ED
freshmen who attended Narrative and Descriptive Writing class, in the odd semester, year
2011-2012. Their age ranged from 18-22 years old. The sampling was chosen randomly and
the participants were all female.
The reason why the study conducted in Narrative and Descriptive Writing class was
because learners seemed to be more accurate when they were telling a narrative (Tarone,
1985; Tarone & Parish, 1988) as cited in Stehle (2009). They (Tarone and Parrish, 1988)
added that, “Narration – a communicative language production task – requires a speaker to
rely heavily on the accurate textual use of the definite article to communicate clearly and
coherently“ (p.13). Moreover a study on Narrative and descriptive writing could be used to
assess the textual use of article system. Hopefully, it could reveal the real problem that
learners faced. A research conducted by Liu and Gleason (2002) as cited in Stehle (2009)
showed that textual use of articles contributed the most difficulty. Based on those reasons, I
believed that conducting the study in Narrative and Descriptive writing class could reflect the
real knowledge of the learners and the difficulties they deal with.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
43
In attempting to answer the research question, the methodology used 2 data
collections: collecting narrative and descriptive writing draft and interview. The first step was
the collection of a sample of learner language. I collected the participants‟ first draft of
narrative and descriptive writing because it could reflect the real knowledge of the
participants. The length of the draft was minimum one page. After doing collection of a
sample of learner language, I continued to the next step, identification of errors. In
identification of errors I should involve a comparison between what the learner had produced
and what a native speaker counterpart would produce in the same context (Ellis &
Barkhuizen , 2005). Thus, I asked a help from a native speaker teacher to give grammar
feedback in the participants‟ drafts. The native speaker teacher has been teaching English in
Indonesia for about 8 years and spoke Indonesian fluently. The feedback would be my
guidance for identifying the participants‟ errors in the use of articles.
After identifying the errors, the second data collection was done through individual
interviews. The interviews were recorded and done in the participants‟ native language
(Indonesian) so that the problems of communication could be avoided (Husada, 2007). Here
the participants were unconsciously showed some words or phrases in their writing that
reflected their errors in the use of article and asked for their reasons for producing such erros.
From this, the source of learners‟ errors could be identified. In spite of interviewing, I had to
distinguish between learners‟ errors and mistakes. If they could do self-correct so it was a
mistake. However, when they were not able to do it, then it was an error (ibid.).
The analysis of participants‟ errors would use the steps suggested by by Corder
(1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005). The steps included: (1) collection of a sample of
learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, and (4) explanation of
errors. While the analysis of this study was done through classifying the errors based on two
different sources: interlingual (the participants mother tongue) and intralingual (their learning
strategies) (Husada, 2007). According to James (1998), the strategies involved (1) false
analogy (a kind of over-generalization), (2) misanalysis, (3) incomplete rule application (a
kind of under-generalization), (4) exploiting redundancy, (5) overlooking co-occurrence
restrictions, (6) hypercorrection, and (7) system simplification.
Discussion
In this section, I presented and discussed the findings of the study in light of its
objectives. To answer the research question, What caused Narrative and Descriptive Writing
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
44
students to make errors in the use of articles? the finding suggested that both interlingual
errors (the result of mother tongue influences (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005)) and intralingual
errors (reflect the operation of learning strategies that are universal (Ellis and Barkhuizen,
2005)) contributed to the production of errors in the use of articles. Yet most errors made by
the participants attributed to intralingual errors. Out of 136 deviances, 28 or 20.59% belonged
to mistakes, 17 or 12.5% were interlingual errors, and 86 or 63.23% were found to be
intralingual errors. The result supported some previous findings that intralingual errors were
more obvious than interlingual errors (Alsulmi, 2010; Husada, 2007; Bataineh, 2005).
Besides, the study also found compound errors where errors were caused by more than one
source (James, 1998). The study found 5 or 3.68% were compound errors.
compound
errors
4%
intralingual
errors
63%
mistakes
21%
interlingual
errors
13%
Figure 1: Distribution of mistakes and errors
Interlingual errors
Interlingual errors were believed to be the result of mother tongue influences (Corder
(1983), in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005)). The first cause of interlingual errors was because
some participants translated their thought from Indonesian into English without considering
any significant changes. The participants ignored the fact that a good translator did not let L1
to spoil the output of her translation, but edited unwanted transfers and made necessary
adjustments to make the final text natural (James, 1998). Consequently, negative interference
from participants‟ native language (Indonesian) occurred. It was apparent from these
examples below.
The deletion of indefinite article
1. …I just had *20% chance of life [√a 20% chance of life]. (Participant H)
The substitution of possessive pronoun for indefinite article
2.
“Sego Jagung” has *its historical story [√a historical story]. (Participant D)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
45
From the first example above, it seemed that the participant H was not really careful
with her Indonesian English translation. Unlike English, Indonesian did not have article
system.
The absence of the article system in Indonesia influenced the output of her
translation. As the result, when she translated the phrase 20% kesempatan untuk hidup into
English *20% chance of life, she omitted the use of the indefinite article a which in English
was obligatory for percentage (Thren, 2012).
Different from the first example, in the second example, the participant D tried to use
a pattern that was close to the second language structure when she translated her thought
from Indonesian to English. Odlin (1989) used the term calques to refer to such pattern
(“Calques are errors that reflects very closely to a native structure”). The participant D above
wanted to say that Sego Jagung punya sejarahnya sendiri and she translated it into “Sego
Jagung” has its historical story. She tried to find the closest pattern for Indonesian
possessive pronoun –nya in the target language, English. Consequently, she used the
possessive pronoun its as the substitution for the Indonesian possessive pronoun -nya
(Dardjowidjojo, 1978). Unfortunately, in this case the use of its was not really suitable.
According to Thren (2012) the use of its was more appropriate for noun like city, not for food
like “sego jagung” in general. It was more suitable to use the article a because there was a
possibility that the story for “sego jagung” was more than one (Thren, 2012).
The second interlingual error was caused by the inappropriate transfer from
Indonesian singular form into English singular form. For example:
The substitution of indefinite article for definite article
3. My dad became *a student [√the student]and I became *a teacher [√the teacher].
(Participant J)
In English, singular was expressed by the article a or an. Similar to English, Indonesian also
had singular form. The application was marked by the word satu, suatu or esa and the prefix
se-(Alwi et al., 1998). Unfortunately, this similarity made the learners overuse article a/an. It
could be seen in the participant J's sentence in which she directly translated her Indonesian
singular concept, seorang guru and seorang murid, into a teacher and a student without
making necessary adjustments. Actually, participant J needed to consider the textual use of
the English article system. In her composition, the references for the words student and
teacher were clear so she did not need to put the article a (Thren, 2012). She should put the
article the if the reference was clear (definite).
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
46
Intralingual errors
Intralingual errors reflected the learner‟s competence at a particular stage, and
illustrated some of the general characteristics of language acquisition (Richards (1974), in
Bahar (2007)). Based on James (1998), intralingual errors were divided into six categories:
false analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy, overlooking
co-occurance restrictions, and system-simplification. The finding of the study showed that
exploiting redundancy and misanalysis were found dominant. Out of 86 intralingual errors,
30 or 34.88% were due to misanalysis (MA), 34 or 39.53% were exploiting redundancy (ER).
While, 7 or 8.14% were false analogy (FA), 2 or 2.33% were caused by incomplete rule
application (ICA), 2 or 2.33% were overlooking co-occurance (OCR), 6 or 6.98% were due
to hypercorrection (HC), and the rest of 5 or 5.81% were overgeneralization (OV).
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FA MA IRA OCR ER HC OV
Figure 2: Different sources of intralingual errors
The first source of intralingual error was false analogy. As James (1998) stated,
“False analogy happens when learners wrongly assume that the new item B behaves like A”
(p.185). For example:
The use of indefinite article with uncountable noun
4. She wrote the big one in *a paper [√a piece of paper]. (Participant L)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
47
Here, participant L wrongly assumed that paper was a singular countable noun so she
put a in front of paper. She did not realize that paper was actually uncountable. It collocated
with a piece of (Thren, 2012). The correct pattern should be √a piece of paper.
The second source of intralingual errors discussed in this study was misanalysis.
Different from false analogy, misanalysis occurred when the learners formed a hypothesis of
L2 item, but the hypothesis was unfounded (James, 1998). For example, a learner wrongly
assumed that the singular possessive pronoun its was plural because of the s. The example
found in this study was:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
5. …I graduated from * the kindergarten [√a kindergarten]…(Participant L)
From the fifth example above, it was shown that the participant L had a false concept
about the use of the article the. In her opinion, the article the could be used to emphasize
something, in this case to emphasize the word kindergarten. Actually, the use of the article
the, in *the kindergarten, should be omitted because kindergarten had no particular name.
Moreover the word kindergarten showed a general thing, not referred to a specific
kindergarten. The correct pattern should be √ kindergarten. The following table shows some
other errors caused by misanalysis:
Figure 3: Errors due to misanalysis
Types of errors
Errors
Substitution
*the letters
Reconstruction
√
letters
Description of misanalysis
The words letters was taught to be
definite article for
specific
zero article
reference.
*a nature
Substitution
indefinite
√
nature
article
(definite)
and
had
a
The words nature was wrongly
assumed as an abstract thing.
for zero article
*a word
Substitution
indefinite
√
words
article
Use wrong grammar feedback from a
friend.
for plural noun
Substitution
*the white
definite article for teeth
√
his white teeth
Use the to emphasize to the words
white teeth.
possessive
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
48
pronoun
*a name of
Substitution
the name of a The word name was misinterpreted
mall
article a mall
indefinite
√
as singular. In fact, there was a clear
reference (Medan mall) for the word
for definite article
name (definite).
√
*the
Substitution
an original one
definite article for original
indefinite article
Deletion
emphasizing.
one
of *little
indefinite article
bit
√
a little bit longer
longer
of in *2000s
Deletion
The article the was wrongly used for
Incompletely took an example from
songs.
in√ the 2000s
Wrongly remembered the pattern of
preposition in with decade.
definite article
The third source of intralingual errors was incomplete rule application. According to
Alsulmi (2010), “Not all the intralingual sources were applicable when breaking down errors
as it depended on the linguistic area being investigated. For example, incomplete application
of the rules did not correspond with article errors” (p.32). This statement was strengthened by
Brown (1987) in Alsulmi (2010):
This source can often be observed in the deviant order of subject and the verb „to be‟, as in: Nobody
knew where was Sami. A learner here has applied only two components of the interrogative formation
rule, but he/she has not inverted subject and verb. (p.32)
Different from what Brown (1987) stated, in this study the researcher found an error that was
caused by incomplete rule application. James (1998) mentioned:
Incomplete rule application is opposite to overgeneralization and can be found in the learner‟s failure
to utilize inductive word order: Nobody knew *where was Barbie. Here the learner knows the general
rule of wh-questions, but he or she does not know how to use it in an indirect sentence. (p.185)
The example found in this study was:
Wrong Placement
6. There was a time when we were fighting for *a quite long time [quite √a long
time]. (Participant G)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
49
From the example above, it showed that the participant G had applied the rule of the article
system but she failed to put the article a in the right order. An article was not placed before an
adverb like quite. The correct placing for the article a should be after the adverb quite, quite
√
a long time (Thren, 2012).
The fourth intralingual error was exploiting redundancy. Exploiting redundancy often
appeared when the learner omitted grammatical features that did not contribute to the
meaning of an utterance (James, 1998 in Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005). These following
examples would show it.
The deletion of indefinite article
7.
“Hmm, you need to go on *diet [√a diet], buddy”. (Participant B)
The deletion of definite article
8. … He can play *guitar, bass, and also drum [√the guitar, bass, and also drum].
(Participant A)
All examples above indicated that the participant A and B omitted the use of article
because they were just focus on conveying their thought. The participants unconsciously cut
the use of article because it did not carry any significant and obvious contrasts for their
sentences (Richard, 1974). In the seventh example, the participant B should put the indefinite
article a together with diet in the phrase go on *diet (go on √a diet) (Thren, 2012). Whereas in
the eighth example, the definite article the was required because musical instruments should
collocate with article the ( …play √the guitar, bass, and also drum) (Thren, 2012).
The fifth intralingul error was overlooking co-occurrence restrictions. According to
Richards (1983) as cited in (Husada, 2007), “A learner occasionally overlooks or fails to
observe the restrictions of existing structures.” James (1998) also points out that:
Overlooking co-occurrence restriction appears in the use of the words fast and quick. People often
mistakenly assume that the two words can be used interchangeably, though in fact they are not,
because we may say fast food but not *quick food. (p.186)
The example of overlooking co-occurrence restrictions found in this study was:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
9. Beside that, he is categorized in “*the good looking guy” [“√a good looking
guy”]. (Participant A)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
50
Here, the participant A thought that the use of the article the in the words “*the good
looking guy.” behaved like the use of the in the words the most handsome guy and the cute
one. She believed those two words reflected the function of the that was used for
emphasizing. It was correct that the use of the in the word the most handsome guy was to
emphasize. However, the in the cute one was not for emphasizing but it was used to refer to a
particular person who was cute. Moreover, the word one pointed out that there was only one
person who was cute. That was different from the use of the in the words “*the good looking
guy.” At that phrase, the use of the showed that there was only one good looking guy in this
world (Thren, 2012). It was absolutely impossible. If the participant A wanted to emphasize
good looking guy she should use superlative form. From those explanation, it was clear that
the participant A could not distinguish the use of the in the words the cute one, the most
handsome guy and “*the good looking guy.” The correct pattern should be “√a good looking
guy”.
The sixth source of intralingual errors was hypercorrection. In hypercorrection
learners made errors because they over-monitored their L2 output (James, 1998). Here, the
examples found in this study:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
10. I mean *the photo [√a photo]when he was younger,…(Participant A)
The substitution of indefinite article for zero article
11. …but I knew it by *an accident [√accident]. (Participant H)
As seen above, the participant A and H misused the article system due to fear of
making errors. They used the article system that they thought was better than not using it. The
participant A employed the definite article the for the word photo because she thought that
the words became better with the article the. Thren (2012) argued that the implementation of
article the in the words *the photo was not appropriate. The participant needed to replace it
with a ( √a photo) because there was only one photo. In a line with the participant A, the
participant H misused the indefinite article an to substitute zero article because it sounded
good. According to Thren (2012), it was not necessary to put an. The phrase should be √by
accident. Article was not needed when phrases was put after by.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
51
In spite of showing erroneous due to fear of making errors, hypercorrection also
revealed learners’ consistency with their previous knowledge (James, 1998). These
examples below could illustrate it.
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
12. It was *the real home [√a real home] for me. (Participant C)
The substitution of indefinite article for plural noun
13. Since that time, we became *a friend [√friends]. (Participant G)
The participant C and G tried to be consistent with their previous knowledge about the
concept of definiteness and indefiniteness in the article system but failed to recognize other
rules. The participant C argued that the words real home was definite because it referred to
the word my house in her previous sentence, I love my house. She did not realize that the use
of the in *the real home created different meaning. Thren (2012) stated that the meaning
would be the only one real home in this word belonging to participant C (the real home for
me). The appropriate sentence should be It was √a real home for me. Whereas the participant
G believed that the word friend was singular so that she put a in front of it. She did not aware
that the use of pronoun we made the word friend become plural (Thren, 2012) so it supposed
to be Since that time, we became √friends.
The seventh intralingual error was overgeneralization. James (1998) pointed out,
“Overgeneralization or system- simplification occurs when the learner overuses one member
of a set of forms and underuses others in the set” (p.187). In addition, Richard (1974)
explained that overgeneralization covered instances where a learner created a deviant
structure on the basis of his experience of other structures in the target language. For example
he can *sings, we *are hope, it *is occurs, he *come from. These following examples could
illustrate it:
The substitution of definite article for zero article
14. …by *the time [√time]. (Participant B)
The substitution of indefinite article for zero article
15. When my parents *was a child [√were children]. (Participant J)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
52
It was clearly seen above that the participant B overused the article the. The
participant assumed that the could be used with a noun like time so every time the word time
occurred she automatically use the to collocate with it. She did not notice that time was
uncountable. It needed no article (Thren, 2012). The appropriate phrase should be √time.
Whereas the participant H over generalized her previous knowledge that was used to
illustrate past childhood when I was a child. She thought it could also be used when the
pronoun was different. As the result, she made a sentence When my parents was *a child. In
this case, she did not change the to be (was) and the noun phrase (a child). Actually, subject
should agree with the verb or the to be. Besides, subject also needed to agree with the object.
In this case, the subject was my parents so the to be should be were because they were plural.
The object, a child, should also agree with the plural form of subject, my parents, so the
object should be changed into children (the plural form of child). So that the correct pattern
should be when my parents √were children.
Compound errors
Compound errors were errors that were caused by more than one source (James,
1998). It was also strengthen by Alsumi (2010) that errors could be attributed to multiple
sources. For instance:
The substitution of indefinite article for definite article
16. I thank God for *a comfortableness [√the comfort]…(Participant C)
For this error, there would be two sources of error. The first source was
overgeneralization. As shown in the example above, the participant C employed the article a
because she argued that comfortableness was a noun and it required an article. It was pretty
clear that the participant C seemed to over generalize that all nouns should have articles.
Besides, she also overgeneralized the use of suffix –ness that was used to change adjectives
to nouns so she produced the word comfortableness. In fact, there was no such a word like
comfortableness. The noun form for the adjective comfortable was √comfort (Thren, 2012).
She also thought that the word comfortableness was indefinite so she decided to use a.
The second source of errors was misanalysis. Here, the participant wrongly assumed
that the word comfort was never explained before or indefinite (no reference). Unfortunately,
the word comfort in that sentence had a clear reference. It had been explained by the word a
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
53
warm feeling in the previous sentence (It provides a warm feeling …), so the correct pattern
should be √the comfort (Thren, 2012).
Conclusion
The results obtained above suggest that both interlingual and intralingual errors
contributed to the acquisition of the article system. Intralingual errors appeared more
dominant than interlingual errors in the acquisition of article system. Out of 136 deviances,
28 or 20.59% belonged to mistakes, 17 or 12.5% were interlingual errors, and 86 or 63.23%
were found to be intralingual errors. These findings agree with earlier claims that errors are
not only merely viewed from L1 influence but also from learners‟ competence and general
characteristics of language acquisition (Shekhzadeh 2011; Alsumi 2010; Richard, 1971).
Furthermore intrangual errors found in this study were dominantly caused by misanalysis and
exploiting redundancy. Six other intralingual errors (false analogy, incomplete rule
application, overlooking co-occurrence restriction, hypercorrection, and overgeneralization)
were found minimal.
Apart from those sources of errors, this study also found a non-linguistic factor. The
factor was participants‟ carelessness. Some of the participants were not careful enough when
they were doing their narrative and descriptive drafts. They just focused on conveying the
meaning of their composition without carefully considering English grammar. They also
admitted that sometimes they only wrote what they thought and ignored the grammar.
Since the article system is difficult and need a slow and gradual process, teachers
often wonder how to best guide their learners. Here, Cowan (2008) suggests that teachers
need to focus on aspects of article usage as their students move through different level of
proficiency. Moreover, he adds that teachers should give their students more correct
examples of article usage and opportunities to use article in real communication. In summary,
by studying the sources of errors in the use of articles, teachers can understand the difficulties
that their students face and it can be used as guidance to find the right solution for students in
acquiring article system.
Regarding to the limitation of this study, the number of the participants (n=15) and
the data collection (narrative and descriptive writing drafts), further study needs to involve a
larger number of participants and another spontaneous production.
I do believe that
replicating this study with a larger group of participants may have its benefits for more
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
54
reliable conclusions. In spite of it, collecting spontaneous oral data such as speaking would
enrich the scope of the study.
From this study, I hope that English teacher will be more aware of reasons behind
students‟ errors in the use of articles. Moreover, I also hope that teachers will make use of
this study as their guidance in helping learners deal with errors and difficulties in the use of
articles. Furthermore, hopefully this study will inspire teachers to find better methods or
solutions to cope with problems in acquiring article system so that learning article will be
more effective and efficient.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
55
IN THE NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE WRITING
STUDENTS
Christianti Tri Hapsari
Satya Wacana Christian University
Introduction
Article system includes the indefinite article a (n), the definite article the, and the zero
(Ø) or null article (Maslo, 2011). Basically, it denotes a general picture of both spoken and
written English (ibid.). Besides, English articles are also one of the crucial marks of native
speaker competence because they indicate language mastery and accuracy in both thought
and expression (Miller, 2005). Though the articles a(n), the and the zero article (Ø) are
function words, they convey vital information about the noun phrases they modify (Stehle,
2009).
Articles are placed among the five most common words in English Master (2002) in
Miller (2005) but it is an indefinable aspect of English grammar (Hasbun, 2009). Master
(2002) as cited in Venuti (2011) points out that errors in the use of article still exist even
when other elements of the language seem to have been acquired. According to Ekiert
(2004), “Article system is one of the most difficult structural elements for ESL learners,
causing even the most advanced non-native speakers of English (NNS) to make errors” (p.1).
Moreover, Maslo (2011); Kaku (2006) as cited in Venuti (2011) also states that most of
English learners are having difficulties in acquiring article system, even after many years of
natural exposure; articles continue to contribute difficulties. It happens in both English
learners whose first language has an article system and the one whose first language does not
have that element (Maslo, 2011).
In general, Crompton (2011) stated “SLA research on English article acquisition has
divided L1s into a simple binary typology, languages which have an article system [+article]
and those which do not [–article]” (p. 7). The unique fact about those two kinds of article
system is L2 learners whose L1 has articles [+article] acquire the English article system more
rapidly than those who do not have [-article] (Master 1997; Thomas 1989; Zobl 1982) as
cited in Matoba (2007). Master (1997) as cited in Ekiert (2004) agrees that actually L2
learners whose L1 does not have articles [-article] are about one stage behind [+article]
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
40
learners in interlanguage. However, Master (1997) as cited in Ekiert (2004) was the first to
point out that “Articles appear to be acquired differently, depending on whether or not they
occur in the learner‟s L1” (p.3).
A study conducted for L1 Syrian Arabic speakers of English whose language had
article system showed that they had a high accuracy rate in supplying the article the and a but
tends not to produce them in every case where they are compulsory for native speakers
(Sarko, 2008). A similar study conducted by Maslo (2011) for Arabic speakers found that the
participants were more accurate in the use of the and Ø. He also discovered that L1 learners
whose had article system in his study tend to overuse the in the early stage of acquisition.
Since Arabic has only a definite article and no indefinite article, Arabic students tend to
broaden their L1 concept of not spotting the indefinite article in English and thus tend not to
use a in obligatory contexts (Kharma, 1981; Thompson-Panos & Thomas-Ružić, 1983) in
Bataineh (2005). Another study conducted for Spanish English learners‟ proved that the
Spanish speakers optionally applied articles (Snape, 2006) in Stehle (2009). Alike study
conducted for Arabic speakers, the results of the study showed that the speakers of the
[+article] language (Spanish in the study) were able to transfer the article system from their
L1 to their L2 (Dağdeviren, 2010). In summary, L1 learners whose [+article] seem to be able
to master article system which is similar to their L1 but still having difficulties in acquiring
article system which does not exist in their L1. It is in a line with what Master (1997) in
Ekiert (2004) has suggested that the existence of article system in the L1 learners affects how
articles system acquire differently.
Unlike L1 learners whose have article system, L1 [-article] cannot find supports in
their mother tongue (Maslo, 2010). This is the reason why they are one stage behind L1
learners whose [+article]. Master (1997) in Ekiert (2004) who analyzed spoken data from
twenty English learners found that the learners from [-article] initially oversupplied Ø in
obligatory contexts and then after realizing that Ø was not always accurate, switch to using
the with all nouns. Whereas a study by White (2003) in Sarko (2008) on the use of articles in
L2 English by a high proficiency native speaker of Turkish (Turkish being a [–article]
language) showed that the participants were highly accurate in the use of the and a, but
tended not to produce them in every case where they were obligatory for native speakers.
Another study on the use of the English articles the, a and Ø by 18 advanced Chinese
speakers of English conducted by Robertson (2000) as cited in Sarko (2008) also discovered
the same pattern. They omitted articles in contexts which were obligatory for native speakers.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
41
Quite different from what Robertson (2000) found, Ionin et al. (2003) as cited in Dağdeviren
(2010) who conducted a research that included 50 L1-Russian and 38 L1-Korean learners of
English found pretty dissimilar results. The results of the study showed that the intermediate
and advanced L2-English learners used the with definites and a/some/zero article with nonspecific indefinites. However, they used the and a interchangeably in specific indefinites.
In spite of its difficulties in learning, the article system is also too complicated to
teach in a way that is completely comprehensible and appropriate for all uses. A claim states
that exposure to instances of article over time should enable students to learn them (Venuti,
2011). However, some linguists such as Dulay, Burt, & Krashen (1982) in Ekiert (2004) have
argued that the English articles are unteachable. Doughty and Williams (1998) in Ekiert
(2004) added that “There are some forms, such as the English article system, that seem
strangely impermeable to instruction and so, for that reason alone, perhaps should not take up
valuable class time” (p.8).
Due to those difficulties, the frequency of errors in the use of article is high. Article
system is placed as one of the three most frequent types of grammar errors learners across
levels (Hasbun, 2009). Therefore, a good way to find a better system of teaching articles is
required to deal with such errors. That is why a closer look at why students make errors
(sources of errors) is really significant. Essentially, there are two major sources of errors,
interlingual and intralingual errors. Interlingual error is believed to be the interference of the
learner‟s mother tongue (Richards, 1971). Whereas intralingual error reflects the learner‟s
competence at a particular stage and illustrates some of the general characteristics of
language acquisition (ibid.).
A study by Dulay and Burt (1974) as cited in Crompton (2011) diagnosed only one of
the 74 article system errors in their data as “interlingual”, whereas White (1977) as cited in
Crompton (2011) did not find any interlingual errors in his study of the 31 article system
errors. The proper focus of such study were errors conceived of as “intralingual” or
developmental errors, evidence of a process of creative construction in a learner‟s
interlanguage. Similar with what Dulay and Burt (as cited in Crompton, 2011) found,
Bataineh (2005) also discovered that the majority of errors made by the four groups were the
result of common learning processes (intralingual), such as overgeneralization and
simplification of the English article system. The impact of the participants' native language
(interlingual) was found minimal. All those studies above were conducted for L1 learners
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
42
who have article system [+article]. The study that focus on the sources of errors in the use of
articles for L1 learners whose [-article] is still lack.
Realizing the fact that article system is difficult to acquire and the studies
investigating the sources of errors for L1 learners who do not have an article system is lack,
this study aims to find out the sources of errors in the use of article in Indonesian English
learners whose L1 do not have an article system. By recognizing the sources, I believe it can
help the teachers to identify the specific common language problems of their students and it
will be useful to prepare effective teaching materials. In addition, the knowledge in knowing
the sources of errors will equip teachers to help students minimize or overcome their
language learning problems (Darus and Subramaniam, 2009 in Wee, 2009). By realizing the
importance of finding the sources of errors, I intend to address the following research
question: “What caused English Department Satya Wacana Christian University narrative and
descriptive writing students to make errors in the use of articles?”
The Study
This study surveyed 15 college students in Satya Wacana Christian University,
Salatiga, Indonesia who took English as their major. All of the participants were the ED
freshmen who attended Narrative and Descriptive Writing class, in the odd semester, year
2011-2012. Their age ranged from 18-22 years old. The sampling was chosen randomly and
the participants were all female.
The reason why the study conducted in Narrative and Descriptive Writing class was
because learners seemed to be more accurate when they were telling a narrative (Tarone,
1985; Tarone & Parish, 1988) as cited in Stehle (2009). They (Tarone and Parrish, 1988)
added that, “Narration – a communicative language production task – requires a speaker to
rely heavily on the accurate textual use of the definite article to communicate clearly and
coherently“ (p.13). Moreover a study on Narrative and descriptive writing could be used to
assess the textual use of article system. Hopefully, it could reveal the real problem that
learners faced. A research conducted by Liu and Gleason (2002) as cited in Stehle (2009)
showed that textual use of articles contributed the most difficulty. Based on those reasons, I
believed that conducting the study in Narrative and Descriptive writing class could reflect the
real knowledge of the learners and the difficulties they deal with.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
43
In attempting to answer the research question, the methodology used 2 data
collections: collecting narrative and descriptive writing draft and interview. The first step was
the collection of a sample of learner language. I collected the participants‟ first draft of
narrative and descriptive writing because it could reflect the real knowledge of the
participants. The length of the draft was minimum one page. After doing collection of a
sample of learner language, I continued to the next step, identification of errors. In
identification of errors I should involve a comparison between what the learner had produced
and what a native speaker counterpart would produce in the same context (Ellis &
Barkhuizen , 2005). Thus, I asked a help from a native speaker teacher to give grammar
feedback in the participants‟ drafts. The native speaker teacher has been teaching English in
Indonesia for about 8 years and spoke Indonesian fluently. The feedback would be my
guidance for identifying the participants‟ errors in the use of articles.
After identifying the errors, the second data collection was done through individual
interviews. The interviews were recorded and done in the participants‟ native language
(Indonesian) so that the problems of communication could be avoided (Husada, 2007). Here
the participants were unconsciously showed some words or phrases in their writing that
reflected their errors in the use of article and asked for their reasons for producing such erros.
From this, the source of learners‟ errors could be identified. In spite of interviewing, I had to
distinguish between learners‟ errors and mistakes. If they could do self-correct so it was a
mistake. However, when they were not able to do it, then it was an error (ibid.).
The analysis of participants‟ errors would use the steps suggested by by Corder
(1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005). The steps included: (1) collection of a sample of
learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, and (4) explanation of
errors. While the analysis of this study was done through classifying the errors based on two
different sources: interlingual (the participants mother tongue) and intralingual (their learning
strategies) (Husada, 2007). According to James (1998), the strategies involved (1) false
analogy (a kind of over-generalization), (2) misanalysis, (3) incomplete rule application (a
kind of under-generalization), (4) exploiting redundancy, (5) overlooking co-occurrence
restrictions, (6) hypercorrection, and (7) system simplification.
Discussion
In this section, I presented and discussed the findings of the study in light of its
objectives. To answer the research question, What caused Narrative and Descriptive Writing
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
44
students to make errors in the use of articles? the finding suggested that both interlingual
errors (the result of mother tongue influences (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005)) and intralingual
errors (reflect the operation of learning strategies that are universal (Ellis and Barkhuizen,
2005)) contributed to the production of errors in the use of articles. Yet most errors made by
the participants attributed to intralingual errors. Out of 136 deviances, 28 or 20.59% belonged
to mistakes, 17 or 12.5% were interlingual errors, and 86 or 63.23% were found to be
intralingual errors. The result supported some previous findings that intralingual errors were
more obvious than interlingual errors (Alsulmi, 2010; Husada, 2007; Bataineh, 2005).
Besides, the study also found compound errors where errors were caused by more than one
source (James, 1998). The study found 5 or 3.68% were compound errors.
compound
errors
4%
intralingual
errors
63%
mistakes
21%
interlingual
errors
13%
Figure 1: Distribution of mistakes and errors
Interlingual errors
Interlingual errors were believed to be the result of mother tongue influences (Corder
(1983), in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005)). The first cause of interlingual errors was because
some participants translated their thought from Indonesian into English without considering
any significant changes. The participants ignored the fact that a good translator did not let L1
to spoil the output of her translation, but edited unwanted transfers and made necessary
adjustments to make the final text natural (James, 1998). Consequently, negative interference
from participants‟ native language (Indonesian) occurred. It was apparent from these
examples below.
The deletion of indefinite article
1. …I just had *20% chance of life [√a 20% chance of life]. (Participant H)
The substitution of possessive pronoun for indefinite article
2.
“Sego Jagung” has *its historical story [√a historical story]. (Participant D)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
45
From the first example above, it seemed that the participant H was not really careful
with her Indonesian English translation. Unlike English, Indonesian did not have article
system.
The absence of the article system in Indonesia influenced the output of her
translation. As the result, when she translated the phrase 20% kesempatan untuk hidup into
English *20% chance of life, she omitted the use of the indefinite article a which in English
was obligatory for percentage (Thren, 2012).
Different from the first example, in the second example, the participant D tried to use
a pattern that was close to the second language structure when she translated her thought
from Indonesian to English. Odlin (1989) used the term calques to refer to such pattern
(“Calques are errors that reflects very closely to a native structure”). The participant D above
wanted to say that Sego Jagung punya sejarahnya sendiri and she translated it into “Sego
Jagung” has its historical story. She tried to find the closest pattern for Indonesian
possessive pronoun –nya in the target language, English. Consequently, she used the
possessive pronoun its as the substitution for the Indonesian possessive pronoun -nya
(Dardjowidjojo, 1978). Unfortunately, in this case the use of its was not really suitable.
According to Thren (2012) the use of its was more appropriate for noun like city, not for food
like “sego jagung” in general. It was more suitable to use the article a because there was a
possibility that the story for “sego jagung” was more than one (Thren, 2012).
The second interlingual error was caused by the inappropriate transfer from
Indonesian singular form into English singular form. For example:
The substitution of indefinite article for definite article
3. My dad became *a student [√the student]and I became *a teacher [√the teacher].
(Participant J)
In English, singular was expressed by the article a or an. Similar to English, Indonesian also
had singular form. The application was marked by the word satu, suatu or esa and the prefix
se-(Alwi et al., 1998). Unfortunately, this similarity made the learners overuse article a/an. It
could be seen in the participant J's sentence in which she directly translated her Indonesian
singular concept, seorang guru and seorang murid, into a teacher and a student without
making necessary adjustments. Actually, participant J needed to consider the textual use of
the English article system. In her composition, the references for the words student and
teacher were clear so she did not need to put the article a (Thren, 2012). She should put the
article the if the reference was clear (definite).
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
46
Intralingual errors
Intralingual errors reflected the learner‟s competence at a particular stage, and
illustrated some of the general characteristics of language acquisition (Richards (1974), in
Bahar (2007)). Based on James (1998), intralingual errors were divided into six categories:
false analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy, overlooking
co-occurance restrictions, and system-simplification. The finding of the study showed that
exploiting redundancy and misanalysis were found dominant. Out of 86 intralingual errors,
30 or 34.88% were due to misanalysis (MA), 34 or 39.53% were exploiting redundancy (ER).
While, 7 or 8.14% were false analogy (FA), 2 or 2.33% were caused by incomplete rule
application (ICA), 2 or 2.33% were overlooking co-occurance (OCR), 6 or 6.98% were due
to hypercorrection (HC), and the rest of 5 or 5.81% were overgeneralization (OV).
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FA MA IRA OCR ER HC OV
Figure 2: Different sources of intralingual errors
The first source of intralingual error was false analogy. As James (1998) stated,
“False analogy happens when learners wrongly assume that the new item B behaves like A”
(p.185). For example:
The use of indefinite article with uncountable noun
4. She wrote the big one in *a paper [√a piece of paper]. (Participant L)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
47
Here, participant L wrongly assumed that paper was a singular countable noun so she
put a in front of paper. She did not realize that paper was actually uncountable. It collocated
with a piece of (Thren, 2012). The correct pattern should be √a piece of paper.
The second source of intralingual errors discussed in this study was misanalysis.
Different from false analogy, misanalysis occurred when the learners formed a hypothesis of
L2 item, but the hypothesis was unfounded (James, 1998). For example, a learner wrongly
assumed that the singular possessive pronoun its was plural because of the s. The example
found in this study was:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
5. …I graduated from * the kindergarten [√a kindergarten]…(Participant L)
From the fifth example above, it was shown that the participant L had a false concept
about the use of the article the. In her opinion, the article the could be used to emphasize
something, in this case to emphasize the word kindergarten. Actually, the use of the article
the, in *the kindergarten, should be omitted because kindergarten had no particular name.
Moreover the word kindergarten showed a general thing, not referred to a specific
kindergarten. The correct pattern should be √ kindergarten. The following table shows some
other errors caused by misanalysis:
Figure 3: Errors due to misanalysis
Types of errors
Errors
Substitution
*the letters
Reconstruction
√
letters
Description of misanalysis
The words letters was taught to be
definite article for
specific
zero article
reference.
*a nature
Substitution
indefinite
√
nature
article
(definite)
and
had
a
The words nature was wrongly
assumed as an abstract thing.
for zero article
*a word
Substitution
indefinite
√
words
article
Use wrong grammar feedback from a
friend.
for plural noun
Substitution
*the white
definite article for teeth
√
his white teeth
Use the to emphasize to the words
white teeth.
possessive
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
48
pronoun
*a name of
Substitution
the name of a The word name was misinterpreted
mall
article a mall
indefinite
√
as singular. In fact, there was a clear
reference (Medan mall) for the word
for definite article
name (definite).
√
*the
Substitution
an original one
definite article for original
indefinite article
Deletion
emphasizing.
one
of *little
indefinite article
bit
√
a little bit longer
longer
of in *2000s
Deletion
The article the was wrongly used for
Incompletely took an example from
songs.
in√ the 2000s
Wrongly remembered the pattern of
preposition in with decade.
definite article
The third source of intralingual errors was incomplete rule application. According to
Alsulmi (2010), “Not all the intralingual sources were applicable when breaking down errors
as it depended on the linguistic area being investigated. For example, incomplete application
of the rules did not correspond with article errors” (p.32). This statement was strengthened by
Brown (1987) in Alsulmi (2010):
This source can often be observed in the deviant order of subject and the verb „to be‟, as in: Nobody
knew where was Sami. A learner here has applied only two components of the interrogative formation
rule, but he/she has not inverted subject and verb. (p.32)
Different from what Brown (1987) stated, in this study the researcher found an error that was
caused by incomplete rule application. James (1998) mentioned:
Incomplete rule application is opposite to overgeneralization and can be found in the learner‟s failure
to utilize inductive word order: Nobody knew *where was Barbie. Here the learner knows the general
rule of wh-questions, but he or she does not know how to use it in an indirect sentence. (p.185)
The example found in this study was:
Wrong Placement
6. There was a time when we were fighting for *a quite long time [quite √a long
time]. (Participant G)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
49
From the example above, it showed that the participant G had applied the rule of the article
system but she failed to put the article a in the right order. An article was not placed before an
adverb like quite. The correct placing for the article a should be after the adverb quite, quite
√
a long time (Thren, 2012).
The fourth intralingual error was exploiting redundancy. Exploiting redundancy often
appeared when the learner omitted grammatical features that did not contribute to the
meaning of an utterance (James, 1998 in Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005). These following
examples would show it.
The deletion of indefinite article
7.
“Hmm, you need to go on *diet [√a diet], buddy”. (Participant B)
The deletion of definite article
8. … He can play *guitar, bass, and also drum [√the guitar, bass, and also drum].
(Participant A)
All examples above indicated that the participant A and B omitted the use of article
because they were just focus on conveying their thought. The participants unconsciously cut
the use of article because it did not carry any significant and obvious contrasts for their
sentences (Richard, 1974). In the seventh example, the participant B should put the indefinite
article a together with diet in the phrase go on *diet (go on √a diet) (Thren, 2012). Whereas in
the eighth example, the definite article the was required because musical instruments should
collocate with article the ( …play √the guitar, bass, and also drum) (Thren, 2012).
The fifth intralingul error was overlooking co-occurrence restrictions. According to
Richards (1983) as cited in (Husada, 2007), “A learner occasionally overlooks or fails to
observe the restrictions of existing structures.” James (1998) also points out that:
Overlooking co-occurrence restriction appears in the use of the words fast and quick. People often
mistakenly assume that the two words can be used interchangeably, though in fact they are not,
because we may say fast food but not *quick food. (p.186)
The example of overlooking co-occurrence restrictions found in this study was:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
9. Beside that, he is categorized in “*the good looking guy” [“√a good looking
guy”]. (Participant A)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
50
Here, the participant A thought that the use of the article the in the words “*the good
looking guy.” behaved like the use of the in the words the most handsome guy and the cute
one. She believed those two words reflected the function of the that was used for
emphasizing. It was correct that the use of the in the word the most handsome guy was to
emphasize. However, the in the cute one was not for emphasizing but it was used to refer to a
particular person who was cute. Moreover, the word one pointed out that there was only one
person who was cute. That was different from the use of the in the words “*the good looking
guy.” At that phrase, the use of the showed that there was only one good looking guy in this
world (Thren, 2012). It was absolutely impossible. If the participant A wanted to emphasize
good looking guy she should use superlative form. From those explanation, it was clear that
the participant A could not distinguish the use of the in the words the cute one, the most
handsome guy and “*the good looking guy.” The correct pattern should be “√a good looking
guy”.
The sixth source of intralingual errors was hypercorrection. In hypercorrection
learners made errors because they over-monitored their L2 output (James, 1998). Here, the
examples found in this study:
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
10. I mean *the photo [√a photo]when he was younger,…(Participant A)
The substitution of indefinite article for zero article
11. …but I knew it by *an accident [√accident]. (Participant H)
As seen above, the participant A and H misused the article system due to fear of
making errors. They used the article system that they thought was better than not using it. The
participant A employed the definite article the for the word photo because she thought that
the words became better with the article the. Thren (2012) argued that the implementation of
article the in the words *the photo was not appropriate. The participant needed to replace it
with a ( √a photo) because there was only one photo. In a line with the participant A, the
participant H misused the indefinite article an to substitute zero article because it sounded
good. According to Thren (2012), it was not necessary to put an. The phrase should be √by
accident. Article was not needed when phrases was put after by.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
51
In spite of showing erroneous due to fear of making errors, hypercorrection also
revealed learners’ consistency with their previous knowledge (James, 1998). These
examples below could illustrate it.
The substitution of definite article for indefinite article
12. It was *the real home [√a real home] for me. (Participant C)
The substitution of indefinite article for plural noun
13. Since that time, we became *a friend [√friends]. (Participant G)
The participant C and G tried to be consistent with their previous knowledge about the
concept of definiteness and indefiniteness in the article system but failed to recognize other
rules. The participant C argued that the words real home was definite because it referred to
the word my house in her previous sentence, I love my house. She did not realize that the use
of the in *the real home created different meaning. Thren (2012) stated that the meaning
would be the only one real home in this word belonging to participant C (the real home for
me). The appropriate sentence should be It was √a real home for me. Whereas the participant
G believed that the word friend was singular so that she put a in front of it. She did not aware
that the use of pronoun we made the word friend become plural (Thren, 2012) so it supposed
to be Since that time, we became √friends.
The seventh intralingual error was overgeneralization. James (1998) pointed out,
“Overgeneralization or system- simplification occurs when the learner overuses one member
of a set of forms and underuses others in the set” (p.187). In addition, Richard (1974)
explained that overgeneralization covered instances where a learner created a deviant
structure on the basis of his experience of other structures in the target language. For example
he can *sings, we *are hope, it *is occurs, he *come from. These following examples could
illustrate it:
The substitution of definite article for zero article
14. …by *the time [√time]. (Participant B)
The substitution of indefinite article for zero article
15. When my parents *was a child [√were children]. (Participant J)
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
52
It was clearly seen above that the participant B overused the article the. The
participant assumed that the could be used with a noun like time so every time the word time
occurred she automatically use the to collocate with it. She did not notice that time was
uncountable. It needed no article (Thren, 2012). The appropriate phrase should be √time.
Whereas the participant H over generalized her previous knowledge that was used to
illustrate past childhood when I was a child. She thought it could also be used when the
pronoun was different. As the result, she made a sentence When my parents was *a child. In
this case, she did not change the to be (was) and the noun phrase (a child). Actually, subject
should agree with the verb or the to be. Besides, subject also needed to agree with the object.
In this case, the subject was my parents so the to be should be were because they were plural.
The object, a child, should also agree with the plural form of subject, my parents, so the
object should be changed into children (the plural form of child). So that the correct pattern
should be when my parents √were children.
Compound errors
Compound errors were errors that were caused by more than one source (James,
1998). It was also strengthen by Alsumi (2010) that errors could be attributed to multiple
sources. For instance:
The substitution of indefinite article for definite article
16. I thank God for *a comfortableness [√the comfort]…(Participant C)
For this error, there would be two sources of error. The first source was
overgeneralization. As shown in the example above, the participant C employed the article a
because she argued that comfortableness was a noun and it required an article. It was pretty
clear that the participant C seemed to over generalize that all nouns should have articles.
Besides, she also overgeneralized the use of suffix –ness that was used to change adjectives
to nouns so she produced the word comfortableness. In fact, there was no such a word like
comfortableness. The noun form for the adjective comfortable was √comfort (Thren, 2012).
She also thought that the word comfortableness was indefinite so she decided to use a.
The second source of errors was misanalysis. Here, the participant wrongly assumed
that the word comfort was never explained before or indefinite (no reference). Unfortunately,
the word comfort in that sentence had a clear reference. It had been explained by the word a
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
53
warm feeling in the previous sentence (It provides a warm feeling …), so the correct pattern
should be √the comfort (Thren, 2012).
Conclusion
The results obtained above suggest that both interlingual and intralingual errors
contributed to the acquisition of the article system. Intralingual errors appeared more
dominant than interlingual errors in the acquisition of article system. Out of 136 deviances,
28 or 20.59% belonged to mistakes, 17 or 12.5% were interlingual errors, and 86 or 63.23%
were found to be intralingual errors. These findings agree with earlier claims that errors are
not only merely viewed from L1 influence but also from learners‟ competence and general
characteristics of language acquisition (Shekhzadeh 2011; Alsumi 2010; Richard, 1971).
Furthermore intrangual errors found in this study were dominantly caused by misanalysis and
exploiting redundancy. Six other intralingual errors (false analogy, incomplete rule
application, overlooking co-occurrence restriction, hypercorrection, and overgeneralization)
were found minimal.
Apart from those sources of errors, this study also found a non-linguistic factor. The
factor was participants‟ carelessness. Some of the participants were not careful enough when
they were doing their narrative and descriptive drafts. They just focused on conveying the
meaning of their composition without carefully considering English grammar. They also
admitted that sometimes they only wrote what they thought and ignored the grammar.
Since the article system is difficult and need a slow and gradual process, teachers
often wonder how to best guide their learners. Here, Cowan (2008) suggests that teachers
need to focus on aspects of article usage as their students move through different level of
proficiency. Moreover, he adds that teachers should give their students more correct
examples of article usage and opportunities to use article in real communication. In summary,
by studying the sources of errors in the use of articles, teachers can understand the difficulties
that their students face and it can be used as guidance to find the right solution for students in
acquiring article system.
Regarding to the limitation of this study, the number of the participants (n=15) and
the data collection (narrative and descriptive writing drafts), further study needs to involve a
larger number of participants and another spontaneous production.
I do believe that
replicating this study with a larger group of participants may have its benefits for more
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
54
reliable conclusions. In spite of it, collecting spontaneous oral data such as speaking would
enrich the scope of the study.
From this study, I hope that English teacher will be more aware of reasons behind
students‟ errors in the use of articles. Moreover, I also hope that teachers will make use of
this study as their guidance in helping learners deal with errors and difficulties in the use of
articles. Furthermore, hopefully this study will inspire teachers to find better methods or
solutions to cope with problems in acquiring article system so that learning article will be
more effective and efficient.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
55