INTERLANGUAGE ERRORS IN RECOUNT TEXT MADE BY SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 JAPAH Interlanguage Errors In Recount Text Made By Second Year Students Of SMP Negeri 1 Japah In 2013/2014 Academic Year.

INTERLANGUAGE ERRORS IN RECOUNT TEXT MADE BY SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 JAPAH

IN 2013/2014 ACADEMIC YEAR

PUBLICATION ARTICLE

Submitted as a Partial Fullfilment of Requirements for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education

in English Department

by:

WIWIN WAHYUNINGSIH A320100124

SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

INTERLANGUAGE ERRORS IN RECOUNT TEXT MADE BY SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 JAPAH

IN 2013/2014 ACADEMIC YEAR Wiwin Wahyuningsih

Endang Fauziati Siti Fatimah

Department of English Education, FKIP-UMS

Jl. A. Yani-Pabelan Kartasura, Tromol pos 1 Surakarta 57102 Telepon (0271) 717417. Pesawat 197. Fax. (0271) 715448

ABSTRACT

This article represent the result of interlanguage errors in recount text made by second year students of smp negeri 1 japah in 2013/2014 academic year. The object of this research is focused on analyzing the erroneous writing of recount text made by second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah in 2013/2014 academic year. The objective of this research is to describe the errors made in the recount text written by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah., especially (1) To identify the types of lexical errors, (2) To identify the types of syntactical errors, (3) To identify the types of discourse errors, (4) To know the frequency of each type of errors, (5) To explain the dominant type of error, (6) To identify the source of error.

This research belongs to descriptive qualitative research. In collecting the data, the writer applies giving writing test to the students then documentation of

students‟ essays. The writer analyzes twenty five students‟ worksheet. Their errors

are then classified into groups after are indentified. Next, errors are analyzed by means of the theory of linguistic category taxonomy and surface strategy taxonomy.

The result of this research shows that (1) there are three levels of errors. The writer finds lexical level consist of the of wrong spelling with 73 errors or 14,45%, False friend with 49 errors or 9,70%, misselection of word form with 2 errors or 0,39%, the use of article with 59 errors or 11,68%, and Code switching with 15 errors or 2,97%. Syntactical level consists of The use of tense with 97 errors or 19,21%, The use of preposition with 73 errors or 14,46%, Word order with 30 errors or 5,94%, The use of to be with 45 errors or 8,91%, The use of pronoun with 11 errors or 2,18%, The use of noun with 5 errors or 0,99%, The use of subject with 13 errors or 2,57%, The use of modal with 7 errors or 1,38%, and The use of conjunction with 14 errors or 2,77%. Discourse level consists of 1 errors or 0,19% generic structure, and 1 errors or 0,19% inappropriate pronoun. (2) the dominant of errors is the use of tense errors. There is 97 or 19,21%, it means that the students still have difficulties in this area, (3) there are two sources of errors, namely interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer

A. Introduction

Language is media to communicate for people in the world. Many languages exist in the world with its‟ own features and characteristics. Almost every country has language as first language (L1) that different from another country. The difference makes some difficulties in communication between countries in the world. It can appear an error. Errors can be described using different kinds of taxonomy, namely, linguistic category, surface strategy, comparative strategy, and communicative effect. The writer is interested to investigate how the system of native language influence the error made by students in the target language result using linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy. Under this category, errors can be classified into four types: Omission, addition, miss formation, and miss ordering (James, 1998: 94-112). The writer is interested to use this term to analyze the errors made by student in the target language. While learning a second language, learner commonly build up a system for themselves which is different in some ways from the system of their first language (mother tongue) and second language (L2) or the target language (TL). The different system of them cause the error of the student composition in the target language. The errors made by students can be divided into some types depend on the term used to analyze.

The teaching of English for junior school in Indonesia is intended to

develop students‟ communicative competence. To get communicative

competence, students must master and understand four skills in language learning, namely: reading, listening, speaking, and writing. In junior high school, writing is more emphasized. In this level students learn how to make a handwritten. Writing is the last level that should be learned because writing constitutes a difficult skill. So, in teaching writing, teacher needs process, teaching method and extra attention. The form of writing is text or essay. The purpose of teaching writing is producing a text. Pardiyono (2007: 1) stated that text is a context language in use. The kinds of productive texts learned in junior schools are descriptive, recount, narrative, and report. The teacher must be able and have a competence to find the errors, identify the errors, find the sources of errors, and make a distinction between mistake and errors.

The problem statement is what errors are made by the students in writing recount text, what are the dominant of errors, and what are the sources of errors. The objectives of this research is to describe the errors made in the recount text written by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah, especially to identify the types of lexical errors, to identify the types of syntactical errors, to identify the types of discourse errors, to know the frequency of each type of errors, to explain the dominant type of error, and to identify the source of error.

In this research, the writer attempts to summarize the relevant previous researcher to prove the originality of this research. The previous studies were conducted by Mourssi (2012), Grumpel (2009), Asri (2012), Hobson (1999), Grauberg (1971), and Burt (1977). First research done by Mourssi (2012) entitled Analyzing Interlanguage Stages ALEs Pass through in the Acquisition of the Simple Past Tense. In types of errors Mourssi (2012) find that negative transfer does occur from Arabic to English due to the differences between the

languages. The analysis of the learners‟ non target-like forms reveals that 11.2% of the non-target-like forms were as a result of the differences in pronunciation between L1 and L2. The analysis also reveals that 5.1% of the non-target-like forms were produces due to L1 interference, and also 2.2 % of the non-target-like forms were due the L1 negative transfer and also due to the L2 negative transfer. As result of the analysis conclude that the interlanguage stages cannot be separated, they do not appear in isolation, and they are connected with each other. The second research done by Grumpel (2009) entitled Interlanguage Studies in a Cross Cultural Context: The Interlanguage of Spanish Speakers (L1) in an Approach English (l2), German (L3). She divided the subject into three groups in the result of this study. The first group, showed that subject initial main clauses (SVO) were used preferentially at the beginning and were quite close to native level. On the other hand, the data showed that the German embedded structure SOV was growing more robust in groups II and III, as non-native forms in SOV dropped in Group from 16, 09% to 12, 61 % and in Group III to 8,6%. The third research done by Asri (2012) entitled Susceptibility Of Inter Language System: A Case Study Of Students Learning English as A Foreign Language In SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Surakarta. In this research the writer uses descriptive analysis by Celce Murcia

and frame work of Error Analysis by Shridar. The result of this study is influence of target language in SMP Muhammdiyah 4 Surakarta greater

(61.75%) that first language (38.25%) in the students‟ interlanguage system.

From this, we know that students‟ interlanguage system is caused by the interference of the target language.. The next research was conducted by Carol

Bonnin Hobson (1999) entitled “Morphological Development in The Interlanguage of English Learners of Xhosa”. This study investigates the development of morphology in the interlanguage of English students of xhosa. He used a quasi longitudinal research design that used to trace development in the oral interlanguage of six students in Xhosa for a period of eight months. Since agreement and inflectional morphology play a central role in conveying meaning in Xhosa, it is found that students use morphology from the beginning of the learning process. This study concludes, therefore, that the precense of morphology in the interlanguage of students of Xhosa of cannot be an indicator of advanced language development. The next researcher is Grauberg (1971) has conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. The result of his investigation shows that interlanguage errors resulted from first language interference are only one of the types of errors

found in syntax, morphology and lexicon of the students‟ writing in the target

language. He has found that mother tongue interference can account for 25% of the errors, 10% of the syntactic errors, and none of the morphological errors

in his students‟ essays. The last previous study is Burt (1977) conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. The findings of her investigation shows that errors which significantly hinder communication, in the sense that they cause the listener or reader to misunderstand the message or to consider the sentence incomprehensible, are of certain type, while those that do not hinder communication are of another

type. Both types of error are easily distinguishable. Burt‟s work does not give a comprehensive description of the adult learners‟ interlanguage errors. He

classifies errors into two categories: global and local errors. Thus, limiting the number of correction to those that affect communication allows enough confidence to continue learning the language.

Based on the three previous studies above there are different of this research with them, the writer analyze the errors on recount text written by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah. This research is done to extend the previous research in errors analysis research. Here, the writer gives attention the error on the text especially in recount text written by second year student of SMP Negeri 1 Japah by using combination of linguistics category and surface strategy taxonomy.

B. Research Method

In this research, the writer applies descriptive qualitative research. It is called the descriptive method because the obtained data are analyze and presented descriptively without any statistical data. In this case, the writer only collects the data, analyzes the data, and then draws conclusion from the data analysis. By using a descriptive method, the writer aims to describe the types of errors based on linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy, the dominant type of error, and the sources of errors.

The data are the recount texts produced by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah especially VII. And the data source is the students writing product. In the study, the writer gives writing test to collect the data. There are four steps in collecting data: (1) Collecting of data in the form erroneous sentences and paragraph from the writing recount text made by the students of SMP NEGERI 1 JAPAH. (2) Identifying the writing production of the student, and then she reads and marks the types of error in the student‟s works, (3) Identification of error, and (4) Documenting the erroneous sentences and classifies all types of error based on surface strategy taxonomy

After the data collected, the writer analyzes them using following steps: (1) Classifying the error, (2) Describing the frequency of errors, (3) Describing the dominant type of error, (4) Describing the sources of error, and (5) Conclusion is the last step concluded from the research results to answer the problem statements in this research

C. Finding and Discussion

After collecting the data, the researcher identifies all errors from the

that the students tend to make errors. The researcher classifies this chapter into three parts: (1) type of errors, (2) dominant of errors, and (3) source of errors.

In this research, the writer describes the errors based on linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy. Obviously, the type of errors appears in the data divided into three levels, there are lexical level, syntactical level, and discourse level (Dulay, Burt, and Krasen, 1982:146). Lexical level includes misspelled word, false friend, misselection of word form, the use of article, and code switching. Second, syntactical level includes the use of tense, the use of preposition, word order, the use of to be, the use of pronoun, the use of noun, the use of subject, the use of object, the use of modal and the use of conjuction. And the last, discourse level includes generic structure and cohesion of recount text. 1. Lexical Error

A lexical is one of a group of traditional classifications of words according to their function in context, including misspelled word, false friend, misselection of word form, the use of article, and code switching. a. Misspelled word

Misspelled word is a wrong spelling of a word that usually found in writen document. Generally, these kinds of errors are caused by the lacking of the students in learning English vocabularies and how to write it. In Indonesian, what we write is the same as what we spell, it is unlike in English, what we write is not the same of what we spell because English pattern is more complex than Indonesian one. The students should memorize on how to write English words correctly. If the writing is wrong, the meaning of the sentence will be quite different. Such as in sentences (1) ES: Schol holiday extremely delightful, (2) ES: last mont i had a school holiday, and (3) ES: and a half hour from the parking lot basicle.

From the first sentence‟s error, the student omits „o‟ in the word of “school”, the influence of the meaning. And the second sentence, the student omits „h‟ in the word “month”. The last sentence, they misspelled the word “bicycle” ,the spell “basicle” (i=a, c=s, y=i), it also influence the

extremely delightful, (2) CS: last month I had a school holiday, and (3) CS: and a half hour from the parking lot bicycle

2. Syntactical Error

A syntactic is a set of words and/or phrase in a language which share a significant number of common characteristics. In this case, a syntactic level includes the use of tense, the use of preposition, word order, the use of to be, the use of pronoun, the use of noun, the use of subject, the use of object, the use of modal and the use of conjuction.

a. The Use of Tense

In this case the students make errors on omission of verb and misuse of verb in past tense

1) Omission of Verb

Verb is one of important part of speech in a sentence. It usually occurs after a subject. In this case, students omit to use verb in his/her sentence. Such as in sentence (1) ES: we also ....market , and (2) ES: After in home we... rest. In first sentence, student wants to make a sentence “aku juga pergi ke pasar”, but he/she omits to use verb “pergi” or in English

“went”. Meanwhile, in second sentence, student wants to make

a sentence “setelah sampai dirumah, kami beristirahat”, but

he/she omits to use verb “took”. So the correct sentences are (1) CS: We also went to market, and (2) CS: After in home we took a rest.

3. Dicourse Error

The discourse errors relate to the way sentences are organized and linked in order to make whole text. The students often made error in their generic structure of their written production, it is called discourse error. The students still made discourse error which caused by the lack knowledge of the generic structure and grammatical in English. From the recount text made by students, the writer finds some discourse level errors that done by the students

a. Cohesion

Cohesion is the gramatical and lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. It is related to the broader concept of coherence. Cohesion is the connection which results when the intrepetation of a textual element is dependent on another element in the text. There are many types of cohesion, however, the researcher writes what are she found in this research only. Research found types of cohesion in reference.

The use of pronoun, demonstratives, comparatives and definite article indicate the semantic identify of an item with another. Possessive pronoun in English refers to the processor and not to the thing possessed, such as my, your, his/her/its, our, and their. Possessive pronoun usually followed by noun, such as in example (1) ES: Upon waking I immediately smoothed the bed and then I sweep and then wash clothes. On new year‟s eve, I saw the fireworks outside the house with his brother while bersendau joke. In this case, student

use subject pronoun namely “I” in first sentence but he/she uses

possessive pronoun “his”. It should use possessive pronoun “my”. The error occurs because the student confuses to use possessive pronoun correctly. So, the correct sentence is (1) CS: Upon waking I immediately smoothed the bed and then I sweep and then wash clothes. On new year’s eve, I saw the fireworks outside the house with my brother while bersendau joke

After classifiying the data based on erroneous sentences made by the secong year student of SMP Negeri 1 Japah in academic year 2013/2014, the writer will count the frequencies of error in each type in order to know the percentage of errors, dominant of errors and the sources of error appeared in the student‟s writing product.

Types of Errors

No Linguistic

level Type of Errors

Number of Errors

Frequency of Error (%)

2 False friend 49 9,70%

3 Misselection of word form

a. Misuse adjective instead adverb

2 0,39%

4 The use of article

a. Addition of article b. Omission of article

51 8

10,09% 1,58% Total the use of article 59 11,68%

5 Code switching 15 2,97%

6 Syntactical Level

The use of tense a. Omission of verb b. Misuse of verb

11 86

2,18% 17,03%

Total the use of tense 97 19,21%

7 The use of preposition

a. Addition of preposition b. Omission of preposition c. Misuse of preposition

17 42 14 3,37% 8,32% 2,77% Total the use of preposition 73 14,46%

8 Word order 30 5,94%

9 The use of to be

a. Omission of to be b. Misuse of to be

36 9

7,13% 1,78%

10 The use of pronoun

a.Subject pronoun instead of possessive pronoun

b.Possessive pronoun instead of subject

c.Subject pronoun instead of object 2 5 4 0,39% 0,99% 0,79%

Total the use of pronoun 11 2,18%

11 The use of noun

a. Addition of –s/-es b. Omission of –s/-es

2 3

0,39% 0,59%

Total the use of noun 5 0,99%

12 The use of subject

a. Addition of subject b. Omission of subject

2 11

0,39% 2,18%

Total the use of subject 13 2,57%

13 The use of object

a. Omission of object 10 1,98%

14 The use of modal

a. Misuse of modal 7 1,38%

15 The use of conjunction

a. Omission of conjunction 14 2,77% 16 Discourse

Level

Generic structure 1 1,19%

17 Cohesion 1 1,19%

The total number of error 505 100%

The writer finds two dominants sources of error: interlingual transferr and intralingual transfer. In this case, the writer finds out that the students transfer Indonesian grammar into English grammar and the result is they produce interlingual error. From the data the writer finds this kind of error, such as in the example ES: I and friends got many fish enough big

Indonesian has HM (head modifier) to form noun phrase unlike English that ham MH (modifier and head). The students are confused to compare English structure and Indonesian one.

The error sentence above, the student applies the Indonesian rule, they

translated into their mother tongue that is “many fish enough big” whereas in correct sentence is “many big enough fish” or incomplete sentence is CS: “I and friend got many big enough fish”

Intralingual transfer is the errors which are caused by interference with the target language itself. If the learners have acquired new system, more and more intralingual transfer is manifested. Intralingual transfer divided into ignorance of rules restriction and over generalization.

1) Ignorance of Rules Restriction

In this types of intralingual transfer, the students are still confused about the grammatical structure. They assumed that the grammatical in Indonesian and English are the same. In this part, researcher tries to present the ignorance of rules restriction on the term of wrong spelling. They assumed that the word that they write is true in the English form. Such examples as follow ES: in house we direct ready wood for burd corn

In the sentence above, students want to write “burn” but the student

replace “n” for “d”. so, it becomes errors and the correct sentence is CS: in house we direct ready wood for burn corn

2) Over Generalization

Actually, they have learned perfectly in general concept. However, they do not understand for each conception. The word are categorized into

adjective, verb, adverb, noun, de, etc. For example “be” together with “verb”. It is over, because they generalize 2 categories in a sentence. It should only one category, they can choose to use verb or use to be. It can be illustrated in these utterances. ES: I am assisted mother

The sentence above is errors in the use of grammar. It caused by the lacking of the students knowledge in using “to be”. In English sentence

pattern, subject does not require “to be” if the predicate of sentence is full

The finding of the recent research have differences from Mourssi (2012), Grumpel (2009), Asri (2012), Hobson (1999), Grauberg (1971), and Burt (1977)

In types of errors Mourssi (2012) find that negative transfer does occur from Arabic to English due to the differences between the languages. The

analysis of the learners‟ non target-like forms reveals that 11.2% of the non-target-like forms were as a result of the differences in pronunciation between L1 and L2. The analysis also reveals that 5.1% of the non-target-like forms were produces due to L1 interference (using verb to be + simple past tense form), and also 2.2 % of the non-target-like forms were due the L1 negative transfer and also due to the L2 negative transfer. As result of the analysis and the discussion presented above, it is conclude that the interlanguage stages cannot be separated, they do not appear in isolation, and they are connected with each other.

The second research done by Grumpel . She divided the subject into three groups in the result of this study. The first group, showed that subject initial main clauses (SVO) were used preferentially at the beginning and were quite close to native level. On the other hand, the data showed that the German embedded structure SOV was growing more robust in groups II and III, as non-native forms in SOV dropped in Group from 16, 09% to 12, 61 % and in Group III to 8,6%.

The third research done by Asri. In this research the writer uses descriptive analysis by Celce Murcia and frame work of Error Analysis by Shridar. The result of this study is influence of target language in SMP Muhammdiyah 4 Surakarta greater (61.75%) that first language (38.25%) in

the students‟ interlanguage system. From this, we know that students‟

interlanguage system is caused by the interference of the target language. Interlanguage towards infiltration of elements linguistic of the second

language, it means that student‟s interlanguage influenced by second language

The next research was conducted by Carol Bonnin Hobson. This study investigates the development of morphology in the interlanguage of English students of xhosa. He used a quasi longitudinal research design that used to trace development in the oral interlanguage of six students in Xhosa for a period of eight months. Since agreement and inflectional morphology play a central role in conveying meaning in Xhosa, it is found that students use morphology from the beginning of the learning process. This study concludes, therefore, that the precense of morphology in the interlanguage of students of Xhosa of cannot be an indicator of advanced language development.

Grauberg (1971) has conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. He used 193 interlanguage errors as his sources of investigation. The result of his investigation shows that interlanguage errors resulted from first language interference are only one of

the types of errors found in syntax, morphology and lexicon of the students‟

writing in the target language. He has found that mother tongue interference can account for 25% of the errors, 10% of the syntactic errors, and none of the

morphological errors in his students‟ essays.

Burt (1977) conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. The findings of her investigation shows that errors which significantly hinder communication, in the sense that they cause the listener or reader to misunderstand the message or to consider the sentence incomprehensible, are of certain type, while those that do not hinder communication are of another type. Both types of error are easily distinguishable. He classifies errors into two categories: global and local errors. Thus, limiting the number of correction to those that affect communication allows enough confidence to continue learning the language

After analyzing the data, the writer regards the theory that is used appropriate to analyze the data of errors in writing recount text by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah. After analyzing the data, the writer classifies and chooses the data based on types, frequencies, dominant error, pedagogical implication of errors analysis, and sources of errors first. After analyzing types of errors, then the writer finds the dominant of errors, and then

the writer identifies the sources of errors. Here, the writer identifies the sources of errors based on the theory from Dulay, Burt and Krashen which divided into three types. They are interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, and context of learning. The writer finds two types of the sources of errors. They are interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer.

D. Conclusion

After discussing the content of each chapter, the writer consider that the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah still make errors in their writing of recount text. In this research the writer finds 505 errors originated from 25 students writing product of 25 stundents. The writer uses combination of linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy in analyzing the data.

The result of the analysis is that the 25 students writing product produce 505 errors which are grouped into three level namely lexical level, syntactical level and discourse level. Lexical level consist of the of wrong spelling with 73 errors or 14,45%, False friend with 49 errors or 9,70%, misselection of word form with 2 errors or 0,39%, the use of article with 59 errors or 11,68% divided into two types of errors that cover addition of article and omission of article, and Code switching with 15 errors or 2,97%. Syntactical level consists of The use of tense with 97 errors or 19,21% divided into two types of errors that cover, omission of verb and misuse of verb, The use of preposition with 73 errors or 14,46% divided into three types of errors that cover addition of preposition, omission of preposition, and misuse of preposition, Word order with 30 errors or 5,94%, The use of to be with 45 errors or 8,91% divided into two types of errors that cover omission of to be and misuse of to be, The use of pronoun with 11 errors or 2,18% divided into three types of errors, that cover subject pronoun instead of possessive pronoun, possessive pronoun instead of subject, and subject pronoun instead of object, The use of noun with 5 errors or 0,99%, The use of subject with 13 errors or 2,57% divided into two types of errors that cover addition of subject and omission of subject, The use of modal with 7 errors or 1,38%, and The use of conjunction with 14 errors or 2,77%. Discourse level consists of 1 errors or 0,19% generic structure, and 1 errors or 0,19% inappropriate pronoun.

There are several types that are done in the students writing product made by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah. Based on the result of data analysis above the writer also find the dominant types of errors is the use of tense with 97 errors or 19,21%. It means that the students still have difficulties in this area. The types of errors in the order of occurrence frequency of errors mean that this area is more difficult than other. In this case, the students do not know that they have made the errors. The possible cause of errors in the use of tense is the students do not understand to apply tense. So, they are still make errors

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asri, Retno. 2012. Susceptibility of Interlanguage System: A Case Study of Students Learning English as A Foreign Language in SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Surakarta. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Unpublished Research Paper.

Dulay, Burt, and Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fauziati, Endang. 2002. Reading on Applied Linguistic. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.

Grumpel, Claudia. 2009. Interlanguage Studies in a Cross Cultural Context: The Interlanguage of Spanish Speakers (L1) in an Approach English (L2), German (L3). University of Alicante. Unpublished Research Paper.

Hobson, Carol B. 1999. Morphological Development in the Interlanguage of English Learners of Xhosa. Tesis. Afrika Selatan: Linguistik, Rhodes University. http://pdf.aandamar.com/inter-language.html Accessed at March 18 2011 9:11:26 PM

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

Mourssi, Anwar, 2012. Analysisng Interlanguage Stages ALEs Pass through in the Acquisition of the Simple Past Tense. University of the West of England. Unpublished Research Paper.

Indonesian has HM (head modifier) to form noun phrase unlike English that ham MH (modifier and head). The students are confused to compare English structure and Indonesian one.

The error sentence above, the student applies the Indonesian rule, they translated into their mother tongue that is “many fish enough big” whereas in correct sentence is “many big enough fish” or incomplete sentence is CS: “I and friend got many big enough fish”

Intralingual transfer is the errors which are caused by interference with the target language itself. If the learners have acquired new system, more and more intralingual transfer is manifested. Intralingual transfer divided into ignorance of rules restriction and over generalization.

1) Ignorance of Rules Restriction

In this types of intralingual transfer, the students are still confused about the grammatical structure. They assumed that the grammatical in Indonesian and English are the same. In this part, researcher tries to present the ignorance of rules restriction on the term of wrong spelling. They assumed that the word that they write is true in the English form. Such examples as follow ES: in house we direct ready wood for burd corn

In the sentence above, students want to write “burn” but the student replace “n” for “d”. so, it becomes errors and the correct sentence is CS: in house we direct ready wood for burn corn

2) Over Generalization

Actually, they have learned perfectly in general concept. However, they do not understand for each conception. The word are categorized into adjective, verb, adverb, noun, de, etc. For example “be” together with “verb”. It is over, because they generalize 2 categories in a sentence. It should only one category, they can choose to use verb or use to be. It can be illustrated in these utterances. ES: I am assisted mother

The sentence above is errors in the use of grammar. It caused by the lacking of the students knowledge in using “to be”. In English sentence pattern, subject does not require “to be” if the predicate of sentence is full verb. So, the sentence should be CS: I assisted mother

The finding of the recent research have differences from Mourssi (2012), Grumpel (2009), Asri (2012), Hobson (1999), Grauberg (1971), and Burt (1977)

In types of errors Mourssi (2012) find that negative transfer does occur from Arabic to English due to the differences between the languages. The analysis of the learners‟ non target-like forms reveals that 11.2% of the non-target-like forms were as a result of the differences in pronunciation between L1 and L2. The analysis also reveals that 5.1% of the non-target-like forms were produces due to L1 interference (using verb to be + simple past tense form), and also 2.2 % of the non-target-like forms were due the L1 negative transfer and also due to the L2 negative transfer. As result of the analysis and the discussion presented above, it is conclude that the interlanguage stages cannot be separated, they do not appear in isolation, and they are connected with each other.

The second research done by Grumpel . She divided the subject into three groups in the result of this study. The first group, showed that subject initial main clauses (SVO) were used preferentially at the beginning and were quite close to native level. On the other hand, the data showed that the German embedded structure SOV was growing more robust in groups II and III, as non-native forms in SOV dropped in Group from 16, 09% to 12, 61 % and in Group III to 8,6%.

The third research done by Asri. In this research the writer uses descriptive analysis by Celce Murcia and frame work of Error Analysis by Shridar. The result of this study is influence of target language in SMP Muhammdiyah 4 Surakarta greater (61.75%) that first language (38.25%) in the students‟ interlanguage system. From this, we know that students‟ interlanguage system is caused by the interference of the target language. Interlanguage towards infiltration of elements linguistic of the second language, it means that student‟s interlanguage influenced by second language (English).

The next research was conducted by Carol Bonnin Hobson. This study investigates the development of morphology in the interlanguage of English students of xhosa. He used a quasi longitudinal research design that used to trace development in the oral interlanguage of six students in Xhosa for a period of eight months. Since agreement and inflectional morphology play a central role in conveying meaning in Xhosa, it is found that students use morphology from the beginning of the learning process. This study concludes, therefore, that the precense of morphology in the interlanguage of students of Xhosa of cannot be an indicator of advanced language development.

Grauberg (1971) has conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. He used 193 interlanguage errors as his sources of investigation. The result of his investigation shows that interlanguage errors resulted from first language interference are only one of the types of errors found in syntax, morphology and lexicon of the students‟ writing in the target language. He has found that mother tongue interference can account for 25% of the errors, 10% of the syntactic errors, and none of the morphological errors in his students‟ essays.

Burt (1977) conducted a study on interlanguage errors made by adult foreign language learners. The findings of her investigation shows that errors which significantly hinder communication, in the sense that they cause the listener or reader to misunderstand the message or to consider the sentence incomprehensible, are of certain type, while those that do not hinder communication are of another type. Both types of error are easily distinguishable. He classifies errors into two categories: global and local errors. Thus, limiting the number of correction to those that affect communication allows enough confidence to continue learning the language

After analyzing the data, the writer regards the theory that is used appropriate to analyze the data of errors in writing recount text by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah. After analyzing the data, the writer classifies and chooses the data based on types, frequencies, dominant error, pedagogical implication of errors analysis, and sources of errors first. After analyzing types of errors, then the writer finds the dominant of errors, and then

the writer identifies the sources of errors. Here, the writer identifies the sources of errors based on the theory from Dulay, Burt and Krashen which divided into three types. They are interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, and context of learning. The writer finds two types of the sources of errors. They are interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer.

D. Conclusion

After discussing the content of each chapter, the writer consider that the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah still make errors in their writing of recount text. In this research the writer finds 505 errors originated from 25 students writing product of 25 stundents. The writer uses combination of linguistic category and surface strategy taxonomy in analyzing the data.

The result of the analysis is that the 25 students writing product produce 505 errors which are grouped into three level namely lexical level, syntactical level and discourse level. Lexical level consist of the of wrong spelling with 73 errors or 14,45%, False friend with 49 errors or 9,70%, misselection of word form with 2 errors or 0,39%, the use of article with 59 errors or 11,68% divided into two types of errors that cover addition of article and omission of article, and Code switching with 15 errors or 2,97%. Syntactical level consists of The use of tense with 97 errors or 19,21% divided into two types of errors that cover, omission of verb and misuse of verb, The use of preposition with 73 errors or 14,46% divided into three types of errors that cover addition of preposition, omission of preposition, and misuse of preposition, Word order with 30 errors or 5,94%, The use of to be with 45 errors or 8,91% divided into two types of errors that cover omission of to be and misuse of to be, The use of pronoun with 11 errors or 2,18% divided into three types of errors, that cover subject pronoun instead of possessive pronoun, possessive pronoun instead of subject, and subject pronoun instead of object, The use of noun with 5 errors or 0,99%, The use of subject with 13 errors or 2,57% divided into two types of errors that cover addition of subject and omission of subject, The use of modal with 7 errors or 1,38%, and The use of conjunction with 14 errors or 2,77%. Discourse level consists of 1 errors or 0,19% generic structure, and 1 errors or 0,19% inappropriate pronoun.

There are several types that are done in the students writing product made by the second year students of SMP Negeri 1 Japah. Based on the result of data analysis above the writer also find the dominant types of errors is the use of tense with 97 errors or 19,21%. It means that the students still have difficulties in this area. The types of errors in the order of occurrence frequency of errors mean that this area is more difficult than other. In this case, the students do not know that they have made the errors. The possible cause of errors in the use of tense is the students do not understand to apply tense. So, they are still make errors

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asri, Retno. 2012. Susceptibility of Interlanguage System: A Case Study of Students Learning English as A Foreign Language in SMP Muhammadiyah 4 Surakarta. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Unpublished Research Paper.

Dulay, Burt, and Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fauziati, Endang. 2002. Reading on Applied Linguistic. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.

Grumpel, Claudia. 2009. Interlanguage Studies in a Cross Cultural Context: The Interlanguage of Spanish Speakers (L1) in an Approach English (L2), German (L3). University of Alicante. Unpublished Research Paper.

Hobson, Carol B. 1999. Morphological Development in the Interlanguage of English Learners of Xhosa. Tesis. Afrika Selatan: Linguistik, Rhodes University. http://pdf.aandamar.com/inter-language.html Accessed at March 18 2011 9:11:26 PM

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

Mourssi, Anwar, 2012. Analysisng Interlanguage Stages ALEs Pass through in the Acquisition of the Simple Past Tense. University of the West of England. Unpublished Research Paper.