ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN USING CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION AT THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP KARYA BAKTI GADINGREJO

(1)

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN USING CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION AT THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP KARYA BAKTI GADINGREJO

HARITS SETYAWAN

This research is conducted to achieve three main objectives: (1) to find out whether or not the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo make errors in using correlative conjunction, (2) to find out types of errors that the students make in using correlative conjunction based on surface strategy and communicative effect taxonomies, and (3) to find out the percentage of the students’ errors in using correlative conjunction.

In this research, descriptive analysis is used. It is a method that simply looks at phenomena with intense accuracy and precisely describes what the writer finds. The subject of the research is the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo class IX. C. The data of the research are collected by using grammar elicitation task. The data are then analyzed by using surface strategy and communicative effect taxonomies and put on percentage.

Based on data analysis, it was found that based on surface strategy taxonomy, errors that the students make in using correlative conjunction vary from omission, addition, misformation, to misordering and based on communicative effect taxonomy, errors that the students make in using correlative conjunction are in global errors and local errors. On students’ errors based on surface strategy taxonomy, omission error places higher position than the others, whereas students’ errors based on communicative effect taxonomy, global error places higher position than local error.

After analyzing data, it can be concluded that: (1) The third year students made errors in using correlative conjunction, (2) The students’ errors in using correlative conjunction based on surface strategy taxonomy vary from omission, addition, misformation, to misordering and based on communicative effect taxonomy vary from global to local errors, (3) The percentage of the students’ errors in using correlative conjunction based surface strategy taxonomy is 42, 83% omission error, 6, 33% addition error, 2, 16% misformation error, and 22, 33% misordering error and based on communicative effect taxonomy is 17, 50% global error and 56, 16% local error. The percentage of overall error is 73, 66% and the percentage of correct answer is 26, 33%.

The percentage of the students’ errors shows that their mastery of correlative conjunction is 26, 34%. Therefore, the writer suggests: (1) When teaching correlative conjunction, the English teachers should make sure that their students understand it. It can be done through routinely giving task, home work, and test, (2) After teaching correlative conjunction, the English teachers should encourage the students to practice correlative conjunction not only inside school but also outside school. Therefore, correlative conjunction that has been taught sticks steadily on the students’ minds, (3) The students should be confident in using correlative conjunction because making errors in using correlative conjunction normally happen in the process of studying, 4) The students should practice using correlative

(2)

conjunction not only at school but also outside school in order what they have got sticks steadily in their minds.

(3)

ADMITTED BY

1. Examination Committee

Chairperson : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. …………..

Examiner : Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A. ..…………

Secrtary : Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd. ..…………

2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M. Si. NIP 19600315 198503 1 003

(4)

Research title : ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN USING

CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION AT THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP KARYA BAKTI GADINGREJO BASED ON SURFACE STRATEGY AND

COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT TAXONOMIES Student’s name : HARITS SETYAWAN

SN : 0743042012 Department : Language and Arts Study program : English

Faculty : Teacher Training and Education

Approved by:

Advisor I, Advisor II,

Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd. NIP 19550712198603 1 001 NIP 19580704198503 1 006

The Head of Language and Arts Department

Drs. Imam Rejana, M.Si. NIP 19480421197803 1 004

(5)

ADMITTED BY

1. Examination Committee

Chairperson : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ………….. Examiner : Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A. ..………… Secrtary : Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd. ..…………

2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M. Si. NIP 19600315 198503 1 003

(6)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter is divided into six sub-topics, i.e. background of the problem, formulation of the problem, objective of the problem, use of the research, limitation of the research, and definition of terms.

1.1 Background of the Problem

Conjunctions are words function to relate words, phrases, or sentences that can be classified into coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions. Parulis (2000) defines coordinating conjunctions as (1) conjunctions that relate two or more words which have the same syntactic form, (2) correlative conjunctions are conjunctions in pair which harmonize two items, and (3) subordinating conjunctions are conjunctions that introduce a sentence.

In KTSP syllabus, conjunctions are taught to students of junior high school. It means that the students are expected to master conjunctions after being taught which include coordinating conjunctions such as: and, nor, but, or, yet, so., correlative conjunctions such as: both …. and, either …. or, neither …. nor., and subordinating conjunctions such as: after, before, when, while, as soon as, until, since, because, now that, even though, although, if, unless, only if, whether or not, even if, etc.

Based on the experience when teaching in private course in Gadingrejo, it was found that many junior high school students had problems in using correlative conjunctions. The problems appeared in errors they made such as:

(7)

1. I have met his father and mother.

2. I not only cooked rice but cleaned windows. 3. His cat is black or gray.

4. She wants to go to mountain nor to beach.

On sentence 1, the students omitted conjunction both. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction both must be paired with conjunction and. On sentence 2, the students omitted adverb also. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction not only must be paired with conjunction but also. On sentence 3, the students omitted conjunction either. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction either and conjunction or must be paired. On sentence 4, the students omitted conjunction neither. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction neither must be paired with conjunction nor. Therefore, the sentences above should be corrected as: (1) I have met both his father and his mother, (2) I not only cooked rice but also cleaned windows, (3) His cat is neither black or gray, (4) She wants to go neither to mountain and to beach.

b. Adding unnecessary item

1. She is both and smart and beautiful.

2. They have neither nor a car nor a motorcycle. 3. We bought both sugar and also tea.

4. I am not only tall but also I am fat.

On sentence 1, the students added conjunction and after conjunction both. The existence of conjunction and after conjunction both is not needed. On sentence 2, the students added conjunction nor after conjunction neither. The existence of conjunction nor after conjunction neither is not needed. On sentence 3, the students added adverb also after conjunction and. The existence of adverb also after conjunction and is not needed. On

(8)

sentence 4, the students added pronoun I and copula am. The existence of pronoun I and copula am after conjunction but also are not needed. Therefore the sentences above should be corrected as: (1) She is both smart and beautiful, (2) They have neither a car nor a motorcycle, (3) We bought both sugar and tea, (4) I am not only tall but also fat.

c. Misplacing item

1. I cooked rice not only but also swept floor. 2. She is both and smart beautiful.

3. They either will buy tea or coffee.

4. We cut this paper neither by using a knife nor a scissor.

On sentence 1, the students made incorrect placement of correlative conjunction not only … but also. On sentence 2, the students made incorrect placement of correlative conjunction both … and. On sentence 3, the students made incorrect placement of correlative conjunction either … or. On sentence 4, the students made incorrect placement of correlative conjunction neither … nor. Correlative conjunctions should relate two words, phrases, or sentences which have the same syntactic form. Therefore, the sentences above should be corrected as: (1) I not only cooked rice but also swept floor, (2) She is both smart and beautiful, (3) They will buy either coffee or tea, (4) We cut this paper by using neither a knife nor a scissor.

d. Using incorrect item

1. They have neither a car or a motorcycle. 2. I can either stay at home nor go out.

3. This animal is not only wild and also dangerous. 4. She has both beautiful eyes but also cute smiles.

(9)

On sentence 1, the students paired conjunction neither with conjunction or. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction neither must be paired with conjunction nor. On sentence 2, the students paired conjunction either with conjunction nor. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction either must be paired with conjunction or. On sentence 3, the students paired conjunction not only with conjunction and also. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction not only must be paired with conjunction but also. On sentence 4, the students paired conjunction and with conjunction but also. In using correlative conjunction, conjunction both must be paired with conjunction and. Therefore, the sentences above should be corrected as: (1) They have neither a car nor a motorcycle, (2) I can either stay at home or go out, (3) This animal is not only wild but also dangerous, (4) She has both beautiful eyes and cute smiles.

These evidences show that correlative conjunction may be the most difficult conjunction to master among the others since errors in coordinating conjunction and subordinating conjunction were rarely found by the writer. It might be the case that correlative conjunction is not only about putting conjunction in pair but also harmonizing form which means the same grammatical form should follow each of word of the pair, for example:

1. Both this house is painted red and this house is painted blue are good. 2. I not only swept the floor but also cleaned the windows.

3. You may choose either you apologize to me for the fault or I will never talk with you again. 4. Neither staying at home nor going out are good.

In order to be able to apply correlative conjunction in such examples, the students of course need comprehension towards grammar.

Since some of the students who had problem in using correlative conjunction were from SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo, it might also be the case for students there. These facts motivate the

(10)

writer to analyze the students’ errors. It is said that through analyzing students’ errors, teachers and prospective teachers can find out which parts of learning materials the students are weak in. Teachers and prospective teachers can also evaluate the way they teach and determine which way that is the best for their students.

Referring to background above, it is then, important to analyze students’ errors in the process of learning English. The research which is entitled Analysis of Students’ Errors in Using Correlative Conjunctions at the Third Year Students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo Based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect Taxonomies is then accordingly conducted. By Conducting this research, hopefully it can be a contribution for the future of error analysis and an information source of type of error that the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo made in using correlative conjunction based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect taxonomies.

1.2 Formulation of the Problem

Referring to the background above, the formulation of the problems of this research are:

1. Do the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo make errors in using correlative conjunctions in their sentences?

2. What types of errors do the students make in using correlative conjunctions based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect taxonomies?

3. What is the percentage of errors made by the students in using correlative conjunctions?

(11)

On the basis of the formulation of the problem above, the objectives of this research are:

1. To find out whether or not the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo make errors in using correlative conjunctions in their sentences.

2. To find out the types of errors in using correlative conjunctions made by the students based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect taxonomies.

3. To find out the percentage of errors in using correlative conjunctions made by the students.

1.4 Use of the Research

This research is expected to bring the following benefits:

1. Theoretically, the finding of the research confirms the previous theory deals with students’ errors based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect Taxonomies.

2. Practically, as an information resource about types of errors in using correlative conjunctions made by the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect Taxonomies.

1.5 Scope of the Research

This research was conducted at SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo. It involved 30 third year students as the subjects of this research. Class IX.C was chosen through lottery because there is no classification of ranking among classes in that school. The students of class IX.C were

(12)

given a grammar elicitation task that required them to use correlative conjunctions in their sentences. The task consisted of 20 items. From the students’ answers, existing errors were selected. Since the focus of this research was students’ errors in using correlative conjunction, errors in using correlative conjunctions were the only errors that were taken and analyzed. The errors were analyzed by using Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect taxonomy by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982:151) and put in percentage.

1.6 Definition of Terms

In this study some terms need to be defined in order to avoid misunderstanding, they are:

Error

Error is a systematic deviation of learners’ linguistic system at a given stage of learning.

Error analysis

Error analysis is the process of analyzing learners’ errors in writing which is based on selected norm of mature language performance that consists of recognition of error, description of error, and explanation of error.

Surface strategy taxonomy

Surface strategy taxonomy is a classification of error types into omission, addition, misordering, and misformation which highlights the ways surface structures are altered: learners may omit necessary items or add unnecessary ones; they may misform items or misorder them.

(13)

Communicative effect

Communicative effect is a classification of error types into local and global errors which deals with errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader. It focuses on distinguishing between errors that seem to cause miscommunication and those that do not.

Conjunctions

Conjunctions are words that join words, phrases, or sentences which types into coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions.

Correlative conjunctions

Correlative conjunctions are conjunctions in pair that harmonize two items (word, sentence, phrase, clause). It types into both … and, either … or, neither … nor.

(14)

CHAPTER II FRAME OF THEORIES

In order to a have strong base in conducting the research, this chapter reviews the following points, i.e. concept of error, concept of error analysis, types of error, types of error based on surface strategy taxonomy, types of error based on communicative effect taxonomy, and concept of conjunction, concept of correlative conjunction, and steps in error analysis.

2.1 Concept of Error

Error is different from mistake. Error is a systematic deviation of learners’ linguistic system at a given stage of learning. In contrast, mistake is not systematic and readily corrected by learners. Brown (1980: 165) states that error and mistake are technically two different phenomena. Mistake refers to a performance error that is a random guess or slip, in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly. While error is not a noticeable deviation of adult grammar of native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learners.

In line with the statement above, Corder (1967) states mistake is a deviation due to performance factor such as memory limitation (for example, mistake in making in sequence of tenses and agreement in long sentences}, spelling, pronunciation, fatigue, emotional strain, etc. It is typically random and readily corrected by the learners when their attentions are drawn to them. Error, by contrast, is a systematic, consistent deviance of the learners’ linguistic system at given stage of learning.

Furthermore, error can occur on both speech and writing which is a condition of being wrong in opinion or belief but it is a common thing to do since it is a part of language learning.

(15)

Dulay et al., (1982:138) state that error is a flawed side of learner speech or writing. It is a part of conversation or composition that deviates from some selected norms of a mature language performance. People cannot learn any language without making errors first.

Essentially, error can be classified into three categories. The three categories are systematic error, post-systematic error, and systematic error. Corder (1973) defines pre-systematic error as an error that is committed by the learners when they are trying to come to grips with a new point, post-systematic error as an error that occurs when the learners forget points that have been previously understood, and systematic error as an error which occurs when the learners have formed inaccurate hypothesis about the target language.

It is normal if learners commit errors in learning English. Then, it is expected that English teachers can enhance the learners’ knowledge in order to avoid committing errors. Richard (1980: 15) states mistakes are of no significance to the process of learning. Meanwhile errors are the result of being lack of knowledge about the rules of the language that the learners learn which represent the indication of a traditional competence. In accordance with the statement above, Bell (1981) states that errors are sure signs that the learners have not mastered the target language.

From the concepts above, it can be concluded that the deference between error and mistake is that error is an ungrammatical utterance which refers to language competence (refers to the implicit knowledge of the language) that is made when learners are lack of knowledge of the rules of a language that is used. While mistake is an imperfectness of utterance which refers to the actual use of a language in certain situation (refers to the language performance) that is readily corrected by the learners when their attentions are drawn to them.

In this research, error and mistake were not differentiated. To follow the definition proposed, any forms of deviation or immature language use of correlative conjunction made by the

(16)

students in their sentences were analyzed through surface strategy taxonomy and communicative effect taxonomy by Dulay et.al (1982). The errors made by the students were also put in percentage.

2.2 Concept of Error Analysis

Error analysis is a technique to analyze and classify errors that are committed by learners. Brown (1980) states that error analysis is the fact that the learners do commit errors and that these errors can be observed, analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating within the errors led to a surge of the learners’ errors, called error analysis.

Furthermore, it is important to discover whether or not certain learning materials have been mastered by learners. If the learning materials have not been mastered yet, it is then necessary to give the learners a remedial teaching. Corder (1981: 89) states analyzing learners’ errors functions to investigate the language learning process and to show whether or not it is necessary for the teacher to have a remedial teaching.

In line with statement above, Dulay (1982: 138) states by studying learners’ errors, data from which interferences about the nature of the language learning process, which part of the target language learners have most difficulty producing correctly, and which error types detract most from a learner’s ability to communicate effectively can be provided, so that it is really helpful for teachers and curriculum developers.

In addition, there are some of benefits of analyzing students’ errors. Corder (1981) states that there are three benefits of analyzing students’ errors: (1) errors tell the teachers how far their students have progressed to reach the goal, (2) errors provides evidences of how language is learned and what strategies that learners are employing, (3) errors can be used for students to learn.

(17)

Sridhar (1978: 221) states that it is believed that identifying the area of difficulty the students face could help determining the sequence of presentation of target items in text book and classroom, the difficult items followed by the easier, the relative degree of emphasis explanation and practice required in putting across various items in the target language, devising remedial lessons and exercises, selecting items for testing the students’ proficiency. Besides giving benefits, analyzing students’ errors also has certain purposes. Dullay (1982: 138) states there are two major purposes of analyzing students’ errors: (1) it provides data from which inferences about the nature of the language learning process can be made; and (2) it indicates to teachers and curriculum developers which part of the target language students have most difficulty producing correctly and which errors types detract most from a student’s ability to communicate effectively.

From the concept of error analysis above, it can be concluded that error analysis is really important for the success of language learning because through the error analysis, the learners’ weaknesses in the target language can be seen, thus the teacher can strengthen parts in which the learners are still weak.

2.3 Types of Error

Errors can be classified into certain categories. Dulay et. al. (1982:146) classifies errors into four categories on descriptive classification of errors which are as follows:

a. Linguistic Category

This category deals with errors on the language components, such as phonology (pronunciation), syntax and morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and vocabulary), discourse (style), and the particular linguistic constituents of each language components that the error affects.

(18)

b. Surface Strategy

This category highlights the ways surface structures are altered in systematic and specific ways. Learners’ errors in this type are based on some logic as the result of the learners’ uses of interim principles to produce a new language. It includes some types of error, such as omission, additions (double marking, regularization, and simple addition), misformation (regularization errors, archi forms, and alternating forms), and misordering.

c. Comparative Taxonomy

The classification of errors in a comparative taxonomy is based on comparison between the structure of L2 errors and certain other types of constructions. This is used as a major predictor of learners’ errors and knowledge of developmental processes in L2 acquisition. Three major categories used in comparative analysis taxonomies include developmental errors or errors similar to those made by children learning the target language as their first language, interlingual errors or errors similar to errors in a semantically equivalent phrase or sentence in the learner native language, and ambiguous errors or errors that could be classified equally as well as developmental or interlingual.

d. Communicative Effect

This category deals with errors from the perspective of their effects on the listener or reader. It focuses on distinguishing between errors that seem to cause miscommunication and those that do not. The errors here are categorized into two: local and global errors. Local errors are the errors that do not hinder communication significantly while global errors are errors that hinder communication significantly.

(19)

Dulay (1982:146) states that surface strategy taxonomy highlights the ways surface structures are altered: learners may omit necessary items or add unnecessary ones; they may misform items or misorder them. Errors based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy are classified into four types of error. They are:

a) Omission

Omission errors are characterized by the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance, for example: “Marry is English teacher”. In this case, students omitted “an”. The sentence should be “Marry is an English teacher”. Here are further examples: 1. I want do it.

2. She go to school every morning. 3. Was a riot last night.

4. They too big for the pony. 5. I bought in London.

6. Sara goes to school every morning. Always comes at school earlier than me.

Example 1 is wrong because of omission of infinitive marker to. It should be written as I want to do it. Example 2 is wrong because of final missing -es. It should be written as she goes to school every morning. Example 3 is wrong because of subject missing there. It should be written as there was a riot last night. Example 4 is wrong because of predicate missing be. It should be written as they are too big for the pony. Example 5 is wrong because of object pronoun missing. It should be written as I bought it in London. Example 6 is wrong because of subject pronoun missing. It should be written as Sara goes to school every morning. She always comes to school earlier than me.

(20)

Addition errors are the opposite of omissions. They are characterized by the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance. It is classified into Double marking, Regularization, and Simple Addition.

1. Double Marking

Double marking errors are two items rather than one are marked for the same feature. for examples:

1. He doesn’t knows my name. 2. We didn’t went there. 3. I’m is a doctor. 4. Are you are ok?

In example 1, final –s should be removed. The sentence should be written as he doesn’t know my name. In example 2, verb 1: go should be used instead of using went. The sentence should be written as we didn’t go there. In example 3, to be: is should be removed. Pronoun I is followed by to be: am. It has been already there. The sentence should be written as I’m a doctor. In example 4, predicate: are after pronoun: you should be removed because in interrogative form the predicate: are stands before pronoun. The sentence should be written as are you ok?.

2. Regularization

Regularization errors occur when learners apply the rules used to produce the regular ones to those that are irregular. Here are some examples of regularization in plural forms and in the form of verb 2:

1. sheeps 2. datums

(21)

3. eated 4. buyed 5. thinked

Example 1 and 2 are the examples of regularization in plural form. In example 1, the plural form of sheep should be written as sheep and in example 2, the plural of datum should be written as data.

Example 3, 4, and 5 are the examples of regularization in form of verb 2. In example 3, the verb 2 of eat should be written as ate. Whereas in example 4, the verb 2 of buy should be written as bought, and in example 5, the verb 2 of think should be written as thought because they are irregular verbs.

3. Simple Addition

Simple addition errors are the “grab bag” subcategory of additions. If an addition error is not a double marking nor a regularization, it is called a simple addition, for examples: 1. a this

2. in over here

3. by through this way 4. turn to right

5. more faster

In example 1, article a should be removed in order to create a well-form sentence, for example: this day I’ll meet him. In example 2, preposition in is not needed. It should be removed. Here is the example of a sentence after the preposition is removed: the plane fell over here. In example 3, either by or through should be removed. The two words have similar meaning, for example: by this way, we will get there soon or through this way, we will get there soon. in example 4, it should be corrected as turn right. The word to is not

(22)

needed here. In example 5, it should be corrected as faster because word with one syllable in degree comparison must be followed by final –er.

c) Misformation

Misformation errors are characterized by the use of the wrong form of the morpheme or structure. While in Omission errors the item is not supplied at all, in Misformation errors the learner supplies something, although it is incorrect, for examples:

1. hisself 2. theirself 3. childs 4. chicks

5. understandness 6. thinkness

In example 1, the reflexive pronoun hisself should be written as himself, for example: he looked at himself in the mirror. In example 2, the reflexive pronoun theirself should be written themselves, for example: they blamed themselves for the failure. In example 3 and 4, the plural form of chick and child should be written as chicken and children, for examples: I keep some chicken at home, children are playing in the garden. In example 5 and 6, the noun form of understand and think should be written as understanding and thought, for instances: We must study hard to enhance our understanding in English., Their thoughts are so brilliant.

d) Misordering

Misordering errors are characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of morphemes in an utterance, for examples:

1. He is all the time late. 2. I don’t know what is that.

(23)

3. Its is mean that we have to go there. 4. I can help you?

5. I only ate a plate of rice. 6. What is time it?

The order of example 1 should be made as he is late all the time in order for its meaning to be well-formed statement that the subject always comes late. In example 2, the order of its should be made as I don’t know what that is. The order of example 3 above is used to make an interrogative form. In example 3, the correct order is its mean is that we have to go there. In example 4, to form interrogative one, the auxiliary: can should stand before subject, for example: can I help you?, what can I do for you?. In example 5, to state that the plate of rice is the only thing eaten, the order of the sentence should be made as I ate only a plate of rice. In example 6, the order of the interrogative form should be made as what time is it?

2.5 Types of Errors Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy

Based on its effect to the listener or reader, errors can be classified into two: those which cause miscommunication and those which do not. Dulay (1982: 198) states that research has shown that certain types of errors make a critical difference as to whether or not the listener or the reader comprehends the speaker’s intended message. Errors that affect overall organization of sentence hinder successful communication, while errors that affect a single element of the sentence usually do not hinder communication.

Errors which affect overall organization and significantly hinder communication are called global errors. Burt and Kiparsky (1982: 191) state the most systematic global errors include wrong order of major constituents, missing or wrong or misplaced sentence connectors, missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic rules to exceptions.

(24)

Here are the examples of the most systematic global errors above:

1. Wrong order of major constituents, for example: English language use many people. In order not to cause miscommunication, the sentence should be written as English is used by a lot of people.

2. Missing or wrong or misplaced sentence connectors, for example: (1) not take this bus we late for school., (2) he will be rich until he marry. In order not to cause miscommunication, those ones should be written as: (1) if we don’t take this bus, we will be late for school., (2) he will be rich when he gets married.

3. Missing cues to signal obligatory exceptions to pervasive syntactic, for example: the student’s proposal looked into the principal. In order not to cause miscommunication, the sentence should be written as: the student’s proposal was looked into by the principal.

4. Regularization of pervasive syntactic rules to exceptions, for example: we amused that movie very much. In order not to cause miscommunication, the sentence should be written as : we were amused by that movie very much.

In contrast to global errors, local errors are errors that affect single elements (constituents) in a sentence which do not usually hinder communication significantly. These include errors in noun and verb inflections, articles, auxiliaries and the formation of quantifiers, for example:

1. He is policeman. 2. We are fell sleepy.

3. There are many childs in the garden. 4. Please give many sugar.

5. I have not car. 6. I really sad.

(25)

Those are examples of errors which do not hinder communication significantly. What the speaker or the writer wants to say can still be understood by the listener or the reader. Those examples should have been written as: (1) He is a policeman., (2) We feel sleepy., (3) There are many children in the garden., (4) please give much sugar., (5) I don’t have any car., (6) I am really sad.

2.6 Concept of Conjunction

Conjunction is word that joins words, phrases, or sentence. Parulis (2000: 103) states conjunctions can be classified into several types. Those are:

a. Coordinating Conjunction

Coordinating conjunctions, also called coordinators, are conjunctions which relate two or more words, clauses, or sentences that have the same syntactic form (rules in case of constructing sentence). Coordinating conjunctions are for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so. Here are the examples of coordinating conjunctions:

1. Sarah always keeps the light on, for she is afraid of sleeping in the dark. 2. My sister lives in Chicago, and my brother lives in Boston.

3. Anna doesn’t enjoy learning English, nor does she enjoy football. 4. John enjoys learning English, but he doesn’t enjoy playing football. 5. Jack enjoys learning English, yet he doesn’t enjoy playing football. 6. Next month I will go to my hometown, or I may just stay in Madrid. 7. I have a dream to go abroad, so I have to study English.

b. Correlative Conjunctions

Correlative conjunctions, usually called paired conjunctions, are conjunctions in pair that harmonize two items (word, sentence, phrase, or clause). Correlative conjunctions are

(26)

both …. and, not only …. but also, either …. or, neither …. nor. Here are the examples of paired conjunctions:

1. Both Leon and Krauser are the members of new generation club. 2. Not only my sister but also my brother are in London.

3. Either my sister or my brother is in London. 4. Neither my sister nor my brother are in London.

c. Subordinating Conjunction

Subordinating conjunctions, also called subordinators, are conjunctions that introduce a sentence. It is used in adverb clause which cannot stand alone without the existence of another sentence. The kind of subordinating conjunctions are as follows:

1. Related to time : after, before, when, while, as, as soon as, since, until, by the time, once, whenever, every time, etc.

2. Related to cause and effect : because, because of, due to, now that, since, etc.

3. Related to contrast : even though, although, though, in contrast, on the other hand, etc. 4. Related to condition : if, unless, only if, whether or not, even if, in case, in the event

that, etc.

Here are the examples of subordinating conjunctions:

1. I went to school after I had breakfast. 2. He went to bed because he was sleepy.

3. Even though it was raining, he went to school. 4. You will pass the examination only if you study hard.

(27)

Correlative conjunctions are conjunctions that must be placed in pair. Azar (1989: 291) states paired conjunctions are also called correlative conjunctions. It means the same grammatical form should follow each word of the pair, for examples:

1. Both + noun + and + noun. 2. Not only + verb + but also + verb. 3. Either + noun + or + noun.

4. Neither + adjective + nor + adjective.

Furthermore, Murphy (1985: 176) states paired conjunctions are used in the following rules:

a) Both/ neither/ either are used for two things, for examples: 1. Both my father and I went to London.

2. Neither Marry nor Anna came to the party. 3. Either a car or a motorcycle must be bought.

b) Both / neither/ either are used with a noun, for examples: 1. Both restaurants are very good.

2. Neither restaurant is expensive.

3. We can go to either restaurant. I don’t mind.

c) When both/ neither/ either + of are used, the/ these/ my/ your/ his/her/ its/ Tom’s are needed, for examples:

1. Both of these restaurants are very good.

2. Neither of the restaurants we went were expensive. 3. I haven’t been to either of those restaurants.

(28)

1. Both my parents were from Lampung. 2. Both these books are mine.

3. Both his cars were stolen.

e) Both of/ neither of/ either of can be used with us/ you/ them, for examples: 1. Both of us are football players.

2. Neither of them are at home. 3. Either of you will go to market.

f) Both of must be used before us/ you/ them, for examples: 1. Both of us were very tired.

2. Both of you must leave now. 3. Both of them have been at school.

g)After neither of a singular or plural verb is possible, for examples: 1. Neither of the children wants (or want) to go bed.

2. Neither of the football teams plays (or play) well. 3. Neither of the boys runs (or run) fast.

h)Both/ neither/ either can be used alone, for examples:

1. I couldn’t decide which of the two shirts to buy. I like both. 2. “Is your friend British or American?” Neither. She is Australian. 3. “Do you want tea or coffee?” Either. I don’t mind.

i) Both/ neither/ either can also be used in these following examples: 1. I was both tired and hungry when I arrived home.

2. She said she would contact me but she neither wrote nor phoned me. 3. Either you apologize or I’ll never speak to you again.

(29)

2.8 Steps in Error Analysis

Steps in error analysis are steps used in analyzing students’ errors. Corder (1973) states there are three successive steps in error analysis. The steps are:

a. Recognition of errors

To recognize an error one should first of all knows what is meant by the term error. According to Corder, errors can be divided into three. They are:

a. Pre systematic errors are those committed by the learner while he or she is trying to come to grips with a new point.

b. Post systematic errors occur when one temporarily forgets as point that has been previously understood.

c. Systematic errors are those which occur when the learner has formed inaccurate hypothesis about the target language (i.e. the language that he is learning).

b. Description of errors

In this step one tries to show how the learner has failed to realize the intended message. The researcher needs an extremely good insight into the learner’s mind. Here the object of error analysis is to explain errors linguistically and psychologically in order to help the learner to learn.

Errors that occur should be looked for repeatedly so that researcher can observe the rule that the learner may be using and try to describe it. In this way, only systematic errors are taken into consideration.

c. Explanation of error

Explanation is still largely speculative because of our limited knowledge of the psychological and neurological process involved in language learning. The same error could be looked at from various points of view. For example. a learner’s mother

(30)

tongue has only one way of referring to future time while the target language has three ways of referring to the same. Here the learner has problems and commits errors. In this case it is difficult to decide whether the error was caused by mother tongue interference. or because of the confusion of the rules of the target language.

(31)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents the following points: conclusion and suggestion.

5.1 Conclusion

After analyzing the data, the writer concludes that:

1. The third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo class IX. C made errors in using correlative conjunction.

2. The students’ errors in using correlative conjunction based on surface strategy taxonomy vary from omission, addition, misformation, to misordering and based on communicative effect taxonomy fall into global and local errors.

3. The percentage of the students’ errors in using correlative conjunction based surface strategy taxonomy is 42, 83% omission error, 6, 33% addition error, 2, 16% misformation error, and 22, 33% misordering error and based on communicative effect taxonomy is 17, 50% global error and 56, 16% local error. The percentage of overall error is 73, 66% and the percentage of correct answer is 26, 33%.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the result of data analysis, the writer would like to give the following suggestions:

1. When teaching correlative conjunction, the English teachers should make sure that their students understand it. It can be done through routinely giving task, home work, and test.

(32)

2. After teaching correlative conjunction, the English teachers should encourage the students to practice correlative conjunction not only inside school but also outside school. Therefore, correlative conjunction that has been taught sticks steadily on the students’ minds.

3. The teacher should consider remedial teaching of correlative conjunction for the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo class IX.C.

4. The students should be confident in using correlative conjunction because making errors in using correlative conjunction normally happen in the process of studying.

5. The students should practice using correlative conjunction not only at school but also outside school in order what they have got sticks steadily in their minds.

(33)

ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN USING CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION AT THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP KARYA BAKTI GADINGREJO BASED

ON SURFACE STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT TAXONOMIES

(A Script)

HARITS SETYAWAN

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

(34)

ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN USING CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION AT THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP KARYA BAKTI GADINGREJO BASED

ON SURFACE STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT TAXONOMIES

By Harits Setyawan

A Script

Submitted in a partial fulfillment of The requirements for S-1 Degree

Language and Art Education of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

(35)

CURRICULUM VITAE

Harits Setyawan was born in Kaliwungu, Central Lampung on February 16th_{, 1989. He is the} oldest son from five brothers of a happy couple, Ujang Kurniawan, S.Pd. and Kristina Dewi. The writer started his education at Kindergarten in 1994. In 1995, he graduated from Kindergarten, Bustanul Atfal. In 2001, he graduated from Elementary School, SD N 2 Sribasuki. In 2004, he graduated from Junior High School, SMP N 1 Kalirejo. In 2007, he graduated from Senior High School, SMA N 1 Gadingrejo.

After graduating from Senior High School, in the same year he was accepted at English Education Study Program of Language and Art Education, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Lampung.

(36)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………..………. ……... … i

CURRICULUM VITAE……… ……... iii

MOTTO………. ……... … iv

ACKNOLEDGEMENT………. ……... … v

DEDICATION………... ……... … vi

I. BACKROUND OF PROBLEM 1.1 Background of the Problem……….……… …... 1

1.2 Formulation of the Problem.……….…………... ……... 6

1.3 Objective of the Research....……… …...… 6

1.4 Use of the Research………...……….. ……... 7

1.5 Scope of the Research……….………. ……... 7

1.6 Definition of Term……….……….. ……... 8

II. FRAME OF THEORIES 2.1 Concept of Error……….. ……... 10

2.2 Concept of Error Analysis……….……….. ……... 12

2.3 Types of Error.………. …...… 14

2.4 Types of Error Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy………… …...… 15

2.5 Types of Error Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy…... …...… 20

2.6 Concept of Conjunction………... ……... 22

2.7 Concept of Correlative Conjunction………..………….. ……... 24

2.8 Steps in Error Analysis……...………. ……... 26

III. RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Research Design………...……... 28

3.2 Subject of the Research………..……….. ……... 29

3.3 Data Collecting Technique...……….. ……... 29

3.4 Data Analysis………….……….. ……... 29

IV RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Result of Grammar Elicitation Task……… ……... 32

4.2 Students’ Errors in Using Correlative Conjunction Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy... ……... 33

4.3 Students’ Errors in Using Correlative Conjunction Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy….……..……… ……... 76

4.4 Percentage of Students’ errors………. ….….. 105

(37)

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion……...….………... ……... 110

5.2 Suggestion………….………...……… ……... 110

REFECENCES...………..……… ... 112

(38)

LIST OF APPENDICES

GRAMMAR ELICITATION TASK……… ……. 115 ANSWER KEY………. ……. 120 THE STUDENTS’ OVERALL ERRORS BASED ON SURFACE

STRATEGY TAXONOMY……….. ……. 121 THE STUDENTS’ OVERALL ERRORS BASED ON

COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT TAXONOMY………. ……. 127 TABLE OF THE STUDENTS’ ERRORS BASED ON SURFACE

STRATEGY TAXONOMY……….. ……. 132 THE STUDENTS’ OVERALL ERRORS BASED ON

COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT TAXONOMY………. ... 133 SAMPLES OF THE STUDENTS’ ANSWERS……… ……. 134

(39)

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. 1986. Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bina Aksara.

Azar, B. S. 1989. Understanding and Using English Grammar. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bailey, M. 1964. English Handbook. New York: American Book Company.

Biber, et al. 1999. Grammar of Spoken and Writing English. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, H. D. 1980. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Corder, S. P. 1967. The Significance of Learners’ errors’ International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(4). Reprinted in Richard J. C. (ed). 1992. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Limited.

Dulay, et al. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Composing Team. 2011. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung Press.

Good. 1986. Essential of Educational Research. New York: Meredith Publishing Company. Hadi, S. 1984. Metodology Research. Jogjakarta: Yayasan Penerbitan Fakultas Psikologi

UGM.

Hendricson. 1981. Errort Analysis, Interlanguage, and Second Language Acquisition in Language Teaching and Linguistic. England: Cambridge University Press. Hewings, M. 1999. Advanced Grammar in Use. England: Cambridge University Press. Hornby, A.S. 1975. Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. England: Oxford

University Press.

House and Harman. 1950. Descriptive English Grammar. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall. Huberman & Miles. 1992. Analisis Data Kualitatif. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia Press. Kiparsky. 1973. Idiosyncratic Dialect and Error Analysis. London: Oxford University Press. Leech, G. N. 1987. Meaning and the English Verb. England: Pearson Education.

(40)

Lewis, G. 1980. Planning for Development, Data Analysis for Education Planning, Volume IV. England: Cambridge Massachussets.

Lewis, M. 1986. The English Verb, an Exploration of Structure and Meaning. London: Commercial Color Press.

Murphy, R. 2001. English Grammar in Use. Jakarta: Erlangga. Nasir, M. 1985. Metode Penelitian. Jakarta: Graha Indonesia.

Jum C. N. 1964. Education Measurement and Evaluation. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book Company.

Rifai, M. A. 2001. Gaya Penulisan, Penyuntingan dan Penerbitan. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second Language Teacher. Israel: Tel-Aviv.

(41)

MOTTO

“You can’t return to the past for a new start but you can start making a new end.”

(42)

DEDICATION

This script is dedicated to:

● His beloved father and mother: Ujang Kurniawan, S.Pd., and Kristina Dewi.

● His beloved sister and brothers: Marlina Anggraeni, Irwan Setiadi, Nabil Farhan Nayaka, and Sunny Safiq Rajendra.

● His beloved grandmother, uncles, and aunts: Sakirah, Imam Setioso, S.Pd., Wahyudi Eka Saputra, S.H., Susi Nila Sari, S.H., and Ratna Kartika Sari, S.E.

● His best friends: Doni Alfaruqy, S.Pd., and Iwan Hari Purnomo, S.Pd. ● His beloved almamater University of Lampung.

(43)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise is merely in The Mightiest Allah SWT for mercy so that the writer can finish this script entitled “Analysis of Students’ Errors in Using Correlative Conjunction at the Third Year Students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo Based on Surface Strategy and Communicative Effect Taxonomies”. This script is presented as a partial fulfillment for obtaining S-1 degree in English Education Study Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Lampung.

First of all, the writer would like to express his deep gratitude to his advisors, Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. and Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd. who have given their knowledge, time, guidance, suggestion, and advice which are very beneficial for the writer in writing this script. The writer also would like to express his deep gratitude to his examiner, Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A. who has given input and help which are very beneficial for the writer to revise this script.

The writer’s appreciation is also given to Sumarno, S.Pd., the head master of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo, and Sudarno, S.Pd., the English teacher of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo for their cooperation so that the writer can conduct the research in that school. The writer also thanks the third year students of SMP Karya Bakti Gadingrejo class IX. C for their participation as the subjects of the reaseach.

The writer’s thank is also given to his best friends in the campus, Doni Alfaruqy, S.Pd., and Iwan Hari Purnomo, S.Pd., his best friends outside campus, Surya Dwi Saputra, S.Pd., Chandra Retna Setiawan, S.Pd., Ferdi Rivai, Soiman, Dani Pramana, Riyadi, Dani Agustinus, S.Pd., Rengga Frantitus, Rizal Lisyandi, Desi Meliasari, S.Pd., and Widowati, S.Pd., his closed friends which cannot be mentioned one by one, students of English non regular 2007, all Prasabhara at Police Office of Kalirejo Central Lampung, Zolda and Kikyou for their inspiring, encouraging and motivating words and acts.

Last but not least, the writer dedicates his great gratitude to his parents Ujang Kurniawan S.Pd. and Kristina Dewi, his grandmother Sakirah, his uncles Iman Setioso, S.Pd., and Wahyudi Eka Saputra, S.H., his aunts Susi Nila Sari, S.H., and Ratna Kartika Sari, S.E., his sister Marlina Anggraeni, his brothers Irwan Setiadi, Nabil Farhan Nayaka, and Sunny Safiq Rajendra for their supports and endless loves.

Bandar Lampung, November 2012 The Writer