ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  By Monica Ella Harendita

  Student Number: 051214048

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2009

  ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  By Monica Ella Harendita

  Student Number: 051214048

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2009

  A Thesis on

  

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS

MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

  By Monica Ella Harendita

  Student Number: 051214048 Approved by

  Date Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd.

  24 August 2009 Sponsor

  

ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH QUESTION FORMATIONS

MADE BY MICROTEACHING CLASS STUDENTS

  By MONICA ELLA HARENDITA

  Student Number: 051214048 Defended before the Board of Examiners on 12 September 2009 and Declared Acceptable

  

Board of Examiners

  Chairperson : Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. _____________ Secretary : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________ Member : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________ Member : Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________ Member : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. _____________

  Yogyakarta, 12 September 2009 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University Dean

  This thesis is dedicated to

myself, my dreams, and the future

before me.

  

“My thoughts are not your thoughts,

nor are your ways My ways.”

  • –Isaiah 55:8

  

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

  I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

  Yogyakarta, 24 August 2009 The Writer

  Monica Ella Harendita 051214048

  

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

  

ABSTRAK

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

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

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

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

  Hasil analisa data menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan kesalahan yang ditemukan termasuk dalam omission category (30.8%), kemudian diikuti dengan

  

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

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

  berbicara, grogi, dan kurangnya pemahaman akan tata Bahasa Inggris menjadi faktor yang menyebabkan siswa membuat kesalahan. Setelah mengetahui kesalahan dan penyebabnya, penulis memberikan dua rekomendasi supaya produksi kalimat tanya yang benar meningkat, yaitu latihan dan koreksi. Selain itu, penulis juga memberikan saran kepada murid, guru, maupun peneliti lainnya yang juga tertarik pada bidang ini.

  Kata kunci: kesalahan, susunan kalimat tanya, kelas Pengajaran Mikro

  

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

  Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Monica Ella Harendita Nomor Mahasiswa : 05 1214 048

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

  

Errors in the English Question Formations

Made by Microteaching Class Students

  Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

  Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta, Pada tanggal: 25 September 2009 Yang menyatakan

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Monica Ella Harendita

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Page TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………... i APPROVAL PAGES…………………………………………………... ii DEDICATION PAGE………………………………………………….. iv STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY………………………… v ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………. vi

  

ABSTRAK ………………………………………………………………. vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH

UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS ....................................................... viii

  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………. xi LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………... xiv LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………….. xv LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………….. xvi CHAPTER I.

  INTRODUCTION A. Research Background……………………………..

  1 B. Problem Formulation……………………………...

  4 C. Problem Limitation………………………………..

  4 D. Research Objectives...……………………………..

  5 E. Research Benefits………………………………….

  5 F. Definition of Terms………………………………..

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

  8 1. Error.………………………………………….

  8

  a. The Definition of Error……………………..…

  8 b. Error Analysis………………………….……...

  10

  c. Types of Errors……………………………..…

  11

e. Ways to Minimize Errors……………………..

  15

2. Parts of the English Sentence…………………

  16

  a. Subject and Predicate…………………………

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

  17 3. Types of Question……………………………..

  18

  a. The Types and Functions of Yes-no Question…………………………….

  18

  b. The Types and Functions of Wh- Question……………………………… 19 4. The Formation of Questions…………………..

  20 a. Yes-no Questions…………..…………………..

  20

  b. Wh- Questions…………………………………

  21 5. Uninverted Questions………………………….

  23 B. Theoretical Framework……………………………

  23 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

A. Research Methods…………………………………

  25 B. Research Participants……………………………..

  25 C. Research Instruments……………………………..

  26 1. Documents…………………………………….

  26

2. Interview………………………………………

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

  28 D. Data Gathering Technique………………………..

  28 E. Data Analysis Technique…………………………

  28 F. Research Procedure ………………………………

  29 CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. The Errors in the English Questions………………

  32 1. Data Presentation……………………………..

  32 2. Discussion…………………………………….

  36

  1. Data Presentation……………………………..

  40 2. Discussion…………………………………….

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

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

  49 B. Suggestions……………………………………….

  50 1. For Students…………………………………...

  50 2. For Teachers…………………………………..

  51

  3. For Other Researchers…………………………

  52 REFERENCES………………………………………………………….

  53

  LIST OF TABLES

  Table Page

4.1 The Classifications of Errors and Their Examples…………………

  34 4.2 Interview Questions and the Information Obtained………………...

  41

  LIST OF FIGURES

  Figure Page

  2.1 A Sentence Analysis to Differentiate Auxiliary as Operator from predication……………………………………..

  17 2.2 The Deep Structure for the Question When will the boy leave?.....

  20 2.3 The Surface Structure for the Question When will the boy leave?..

  21 2.4 The Deep Structure of a Wh- Question…………………………...

  22

  2.5 Wh- Movement and Inversion Transformations..…………………

  22

  3.1 Research Procedure………………………………………………

  31

LIST OF APPENDICES

  Appendix Page A Video Transcripts………………………………………………..

  55 B List of Errors and the Classifications……………………………

  73 C Interview Transcripts……………………………………………..

  91

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter consists of research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms. A. Research Background In this country, English teacher candidates generally are also EFL learners. They first learn English as a foreign language before they are ready to teach it. Thus, they may find difficulties in the learning process due to the fact that each

  language is unique and has its own system. According to Setiyadi (2006: 23), a language is always different from any other languages although it is similar to some languages. Moreover, Setiyadi adds that language learners whose mother tongue has no tenses tend to have more difficulties in learning a target language which has tenses. It can be inferred that Bahasa Indonesia, which does not have any tenses, seems to be dissimilar from English language, which is affected by tenses in the sentence formations. Hence, Indonesian EFL learners may find it problematic to learn English language, particularly English grammar.

  Considering those cases, the writer thinks that the research aiming to analyze learners’ errors in English grammar is still crucial. Furthermore, according to Corder (1967) as cited in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 51), learner errors are significant in three ways: (1) They serve a pedagogic purpose by showing teachers what learners have learned and what they have not yet mastered, (2) They serve a research purpose by providing evidence about how languages are learned, (3) They serve a learning purpose by acting as devices by which learners can discover the rules of the target language. Besides, in EFL learning, particularly in Indonesia, error analysis and correction become significant to build up accuracy since English language is not used to communicate in the society (Setiyadi, 2003: 21-22).

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

  In addition, one of the studies showing that forming questions is still problematic is a study conducted by a senior among SLTPK Santa Maria

  

Sawangan Magelang students. From the findings, it can be seen that the students’

competence in constructing interrogative word questions was still average.

  Febrianti (2004: 57) concluded that although the students had already mastered the interrogative word questions, they still made errors.

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

  

wh- questions. Furthermore, the participants are not students of a high school but

  the students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University, particularly those taking Microteaching class.

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

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

B. Problem Formulation

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

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

  English questions?

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

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

C. Problem Limitation

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

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

D. Research Objectives

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

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

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

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

E. Research Benefits

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

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

F. Definition of Terms

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

  1. Errors

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

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

  2. Question

  Another key word of this research is ‘question’. A question, as defined by

  

Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999) , is an interrogative

  expression or query. Quirk and Greenbaum (1973:191) also define questions as sentences marked by one or more of the following criteria: a. The placing of the operator immediately in front of the subject:

  Will John speak to the boss today?

  b. The initial positioning of an interrogative or wh-element:

  Who will you speak to?

  c. Rising intonation:

  You will speak to the BóSS?

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

  3 . Microteaching Class

  In this study, Microteaching class refers to a class or subject offered to sixth semester students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. This class prepares the students to teach, especially before they carry out the teaching practice in junior or senior high schools through

  

Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL). There are two kinds of teaching practice

  done in this class. The first one is peer teaching in the Microteaching laboratory and the second one is teaching the lower semester students.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In this chapter, the writer discusses the related literature which serves as the

  basis to answer the research questions. There are two major parts in this chapter, namely theoretical description and theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Description

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

1. Error

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

a. The Definition of Error

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

  Besides, the term attempt is used when someone wants to say something but does not yet know how to say it.

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

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

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

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

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

  Although the differences of error and mistake have been obviously defined, Brown (1987: 171) adds that it is not always simple to distinguish between an error and a mistake. The differences between those two terms may not be clearly observed since the underlying grounds of their production are not easy to determine. It is also supported by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982: 139) who state that although it is very important to make a distinction between performance and competence error, it is often not easy to find out the nature of a deviation since it should involve precise analysis.

b. Error Analysis

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

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

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

  Error analysis, according to Asher’s definition (1994: 740), is “the procedure of describing and explaining errors systematically.” Similar to Asher’s, the definition of error analysis by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 51) is “a set of procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learner errors.” In brief, error analysis is the study of learners’ errors in both speaking and writing.

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

c. Types of Error

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

  1). Linguistic Category Taxonomy

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

  2). Surface Strategy Taxonomy

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

  a). Omission

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

  company instead of Mary is the president of the new company.

  b). Additions

  Contrary to omission, addition is characterized by “the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance.” Three types of addition are double-marking, regularization, and simple addition. Double marking refers to an error in an utterance containing two or more items which are marked for the same feature. For example, *He doesn’t knows my name instead of He doesn’t know my

  

name. According to Dulay et al. (1982: 157), regularization errors that fall under

  the addition category are “those in which a marker that is typically added to a linguistic item is erroneously added to exceptional items of the given class that do not take a marker,” e.g.: *sheeps and *putted. The third category of addition is called simple addition. An addition error is a simple addition if it is neither a double marking nor regularization.

  c). Misformation

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

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

  d). Misordering

  Like what the term infers, misordering is characterized by “the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance,” e.g.: *What

  daddy is doing? and *I don’t know what is that.

  3). Comparative Taxonomy

  According to Dulay et al. (1982: 163), “the classification of errors in comparative taxonomy is based on comparisons between the structure of L2 errors and certain other types of constructions.” In other words, as stated by Johnson and Johnson (1999: 111), in comparative taxonomy, “the second language learners’ errors are classified by similarity with children’s first language learner deviations from target-language norms and/or by similarity with the errors made by L2 speakers from different L1 background.”

  4). Communicative Effect Taxonomy This taxonomy classifies errors based on the effect on the listener or reader.

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

d. Sources of Errors

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

  Brown (1987: 82) argues that first language interference has apparently become the most noticeable error made by second language learners. Moreover, he adds that in order to facilitate the second language learning process, a person will make use of any experiences s/he has had with language. As the opposite of interlanguage, intralanguage deals with the second language itself. Richards (1973: 173) points out that the genesis of intralingual errors is found inside the structure of the second language itself, “and through reference to the strategy by which a second language is acquired and taught.” According to Norrish (1983: 21-36), carelessness and first language interference are the major causes of errors. Carelessness may occur as the learner lacks motivation. The interference of the learner’s mother tongue can also become the main contributor to error in the learner’s use of foreign language. Another cause closely related to the learner’s first language interference is translation. When the learner tries to translate word by word of idiomatic expressions in his first language, what he does may result in fatal errors.

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

e. Ways to Minimize Errors

  Cohen (1990: 60) states that correction of errors in oral production can lead to positive effects. Correction may work better when the learners have already had sufficient knowledge about the material involved. Yet, when the learners tend to focus on the content or message that they want to convey through oral production, correction turns out to be less beneficial. In addition, Norrish (1983: 49) points out that learners should be encouraged to enhance their confidence. Thus, as long as the meaning is clear, correction may not be applied.

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

2. Parts of the English Sentence

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

a. Subject and Predicate

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

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

  Downing and Locke (2002) write that while the subject is the part of which something is predicated in a clause, the predicate is the verbal part of a clause. and the predicate of a sentence are interrelated because one part determines the other part.

b. Operator, Auxiliary, and Predication

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

  2.1. sentence subject predicate auxiliary predication as operator

  He had given the girl an apple Had he given the girl an apple?

Figure 2.1 A Sentence Analysis to Differentiate Auxiliary as Operator from Predication

  (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1973: 11)

  3. Types of Question

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

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

Dokumen yang terkait

A Thesis Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Degree in the English Letters Study Program

0 0 8

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 1 97

A Thesis Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 0 131

A THESIS Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements To Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree In English Language Education

0 1 73

A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 0 97

THE ENGLISH INTERROGATIVE SENTENCE MASTERY OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP TRISULA NGLUWAR A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree In English Language Education

0 0 73

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE USE OF OBSERVATION SHEETS AS PEER FEEDBACK IN DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ TEACHING SKILLS IN MICROTEACHING CLASS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language

0 0 100

COLLOCATION CONVENTIONALITY IN THE TRANSLATED THESIS ABSTRACTS OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF THE ECONOMICS FACULTY A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 0 92

A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 1 88

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF AUTONOMOUS LEARNING IN EXTENSIVE READING II CLASS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

0 0 107