A study on the development recognition of english derivational suffixes in senior high school.

A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ SYNTACTIC RECOGNITION OF ENGLISH DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES IN

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Yohanes Sapta Nugraha Student Number: 011214065

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

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

A Thesis on

A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ SYNTACTIC RECOGNITION OF ENGLISH DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES IN

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

By

Yohanes Sapta Nugraha Student Number: 011214065

Approved by

Sponsor

Drs. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., Ph.D. Yogyakarta, 10 January 2007

A Thesis on

A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ SYNTACTIC RECOGNITION OF ENGLISH DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES IN

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

By

Yohanes Sapta Nugraha Student Number: 011214065 Defended before the Board of Examiners

on 23 January 2007

Board of Examiners

Chairperson : A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ________ Secretary : Drs. P.G. Purba, M.Pd. ________ Member : Drs. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., Ph.D. ________ Member : Drs. J.B. Gunawan, M.A. ________ Member : A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ________

Yogyakarta, 23 January 2006

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

Dean,

Drs. Tarsisius Sarkim, M.Ed., Ph.D.

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis which I wrote does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and bibliography, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 10 January 2007 The researcher,

Yohanes Sapta Nugraha

God didn’t promise day without

pain

Laughter without sorrow

Sun without rain

But……

He did promise strength

for the day

Comfort for the tears, and

Light for your way

(Anonymous)

I dedicate this thesis to:

My

Jesus

My greatest

father

_{in heaven and}

beloved

_mother

My

brothers

_and

sisters

My inspiration

Andriana

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate my greatest and deepest gratitude to Jesus and Mother Mary for the greatest love and strength during the completion of my thesis, now and forever.

I would like to thank:

1. Mr. Mukarto,my sponsor for his kindness and great patience in guiding me from the very beginning until the completion of my thesis.

2. Ms. Rorik for her precious time and invaluable suggestion during the finishing of my thesis.

3. Mr. Purba and his family, I thank them for the opportunity they have opened to learn more the meaning of life and how to love others.

4. Sr. Maria Stella, PIJ, the head master of Sang Timur Senior High School for the permission in gathering my data, Bu Yovita and all Sang Timur English teachers who helped me in administrating the test and students in class X1-2,

XIIPA-IPS and XIIIPA-IPS for becoming my respondents.

5. Th. Nangsir, my beloved father in heaven who gave me the chance to see the world and C. Djumijati, my lovely mother for her endless love and each drop of her sweat and tears in raising me up.

6. My Brothers and Sisters who encouraged me to finish this thesis. Pak Lik and

Bu Lik Marjuki, who allowed me to live in the peaceful boarding house for 3 years. Mas Mothik and Mas Bowo for the time we share together.

7. Tanti Andriana, my greatest inspiration for the smiles, love, happiness, tears and lovely times so that we could reach our dreams.

8. My Special Friends, Lingga, Son, Broom, Tony, Hening, Asti , Pom-pom, Prima, DC, Inoel, Susan, Dina-solo, and Ya2 for the beautiful moments during our study in PBI.

9. My Colleagues, Widi and Sito, Gelar and Diah, Puput, Rendy’02, Dina’98, Marta’00 and Onggo’99 for the ideas, supports and prayers that they have given to me.

10. My Friends in ‘Kisgont’, Ki-ki, Sodiq, Pak Yoyok-Shita and Mas Rindi who

always remind me to finish my thesis.

11. All PBI Lectures, who gave me precious knowledge during my study, Mbk

Dani and Tari, and all librarian staffs in Sanata Dharma University for the services.

12.All the people whose names could not be mentioned one by one for their help and supports in finishing my thesis. May God bless you all.

Sapta

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... ii

BOARD OF EXAMINERS ... iii

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY ... iv

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ... xii

ABSTRACT ... xiv

ABSTRAK... xv

CHAPTHER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background ... 2

B. Problem Identification ... 3

C. Problem Limitation ... 4

D. Problem Formulations ... 5

E. Objectives ... 5

F. Benefits ... 6

G. Definitions of Terms ... 6

H. Assumptions ... 7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8

A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Morpheme and Its Studies ... 8

2. Knowledge of Word ... 10

3. Lexical Development ... 17

4. Model of Vocabulary Acquisition ... 19

5. Vocabulary Learning ... 22

6. Lexical Mapping ... 24

7. Derivational Knowledge ... 24

B. Theoretical Framework ... 26

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD ... 29

A. Research Design ... 29

B. Instruments ... 30

C. Pilot Testing ... 32

D. Main Study ... 33

1. Subjects ... 34

2. Data collection ... 35

3. Scoring ... 35

4. Tabulation ... 35

5. Data Analysis ... 37

CHAPTER IV:ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 38

A. Data presentation ... 38

1. Scores of the First Year Students ... 38

2. Scores of the Second Year Students ... 38

3. Scores of the Third Year Students ... 39

4. Mean, Median and Mode ... 39

B. Results of Data Analysis ... 39

1. ANOVA ... 40

2. Students’ Syntactic Recognition of English Derivational Suffixes ... 41

C. Discussion ... 42

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ... 46

A. Conclusion ... 46

B. Suggestions ... 47

1. Suggestion for Senior High School Students ... 47

2. Suggestion for the English Teachers of Senior High School 48 3. Suggestion for Other Researchers ... 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 50

APPENDICES ... 53

Appendix A. Surat Ijin Penelitian ... 53

Appendix B. Surat Keterangan ... 54

Appendix C. The First 2000 Words of English ... 55

Appendix D. Daftar Kosa Kata SMU ... 56

Appendix E. Checklist Test ... 65

Appendix F. Scores of the First, Second and Third Year Students ... 67

Appendix G. Interview Transcript ... 70

Appendix H. Output of SPSS Computations ... 87

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Some English Derivational Suffixes ... 25

Table 3.1: Checklist Test ... 31

Table 3.2: Matrix of Test Items ... 33

Table 3.3: Length of Study ... 34

Table 3.4: Scores Tabulation ... 36

Table 4.1: Frequencies Statistic ... 39

Table 4.2: Result of ANOVA ... 40

Table 4.3: Multiple Comparison ... 41

Table 4.4: Means Growth ... 41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Initial Stage of Lexical Development in L2 ... 18

Figure 2.2: L1 Lemma Mediation Stage Lexical Development in L2 ... 18

Figure 2.3: L2 Integration Stage ... 19

Figure 2.4: Model of Vocabulary Acquisition ... 20

Figure 4.1: Mean Score of the First, Second and Third Year Students ... 42

ABSTRACT

Nugraha, Yohanes Sapta. (2007). A Study on the Development of Students’ Syntactic Recognition of English Derivational Suffixes in Senior High School Yogyakarta: English Language Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Since communicative English language teaching becomes the primary concern, vocabulary learning tends to be ignored. Most of the English teachers of senior high school conduct teaching and learning vocabulary incidentally. They believe that through listening, speaking, reading, and writing activity vocabulary can be individually learnt by the learners. This condition causes other aspects of vocabulary knowledge tend to be discounted. Those aspects are word structure or morphology, syntactic category, relation with other words, such as synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy.

This study was intended to investigate the development of students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words in Sang Timur Senior High school. Two research problems would be answered in this study i.e. 1) Are there any significant differences between first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words? 2) What are the developmental patterns of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words?

Cross-sectional design which was also a type of survey study was applied in order to answer the research problems. The main data were gathered using “Checklist” test which analyzed using One-way ANNOVA. The computations were done by SPSS 11.00 for windows release. The subjects of this study were 150 students of Sang Timur Senior High School. In order to have deeper explorations to the phenomena; simple informal interview was carried out.

The results of data analysis showed that there were significant differences between the first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words. The computation of multiple comparison indicated that the difference between the groups was not actually identical. On the other hand, it was found that the means growth of the students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words indicated positive growth. In other words, students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words increased in line with the length of their study in the senior high school.

ABSTRAK

Nugraha, Yohanes Sapta. (2007). A Study on the Development of Students’ Syntactic Recognition of Derivational Suffixes of English Words in Sang Timur Senior High School Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Semenjak pengajaran bahasa Inggris berbasis komunikatif menjadi perhatian utama, pengetahuan vocabulary cenderung terabaikan. Sebagian besar guru-guru bahasa Inggris di sekolah menengah atas menyelenggarakan kegiatan belajar dan mengajar vocabulary sambil lalu. Mereka percaya bahwa melalui kegiatan menyimak, berbicara, membaca dan menulis vocabulary dapat dipelajari oleh siswa secara perseorangan. Konsisi seperti ini menyebabkan aspek-aspek pengetahuan yang lain tentang vocabulary tidak diperitungkan. Aspek-aspek tersebut adalah struktur kata atau morfologi, kategori (kelas) kata, hubungan dengan kata-kata lain seperti misalnya; sinonim, antonim, dan hiponim.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perkembangan siswa dalam pengenalan kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran di SMA Sang Timur Yogyakarta. Dua permasalahan akan dipecahkan dalam penelitan ini, yakni 1) Adakah perbedaan yang berarti pada pengenalan siswa tahun pertama, kedua, dan ketiga terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran? 2) Seperti apakah pola perkembangan pengenalan turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran?

Studi cross-sectional yang juga merupakan salah satu tipe studi survei diterapkan untuk menjawab dua permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Data utama dikumpulkan dengan menggunakan “Checklist Test” yang diteliti dengan ANOVA satu arah. Seluruh penghitungan dikerjakan dengan SPSS 11.0. Subyek penelitian ini adalah 150 siswa di SMA Sang Timur. Dalam rangka mengexplorasi lebih mendalam terhadap fenomena yang terjadi dilakukan wawancara sederhana.

Hasil analisis data menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan yang berarti antara siswa tahun pertama, kedua adan ketiga pada pengenalan kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran. Pada penghitungan multiple comparison menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan antar grup tidak benar-benar identik. Di sisi lain, ditemukan bahwa pertumbuhan pengenalan siswa terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran menujukan pertumbuhan yang positif. Dengan kata lain pengenalan siswa terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran meningkat sejajar dengan lamanya mereka belajar di SMA.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The 2004 Competence Based Curriculum (Diknas, 2003: 14) explains that in the context of education, English functions as medium to communicate in order to access information. In accordance with this condition, it is proposed that there are three scopes of English language learning of Senior High School in Indonesia. They are language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), language competences (Actional Competence, Linguistic Competence, Sociocultural Competence, Strategic Competence and Discourse Competence) and positive development towards English as a means of communication.

Discourse competence is the target competence of this curriculum. It can only be achieved if students possess the supporting competences. Therefore, students are supposed to have Actional Competence, Linguistic Competence, Sociocultural Competence and Strategic Competence first in order to achieve the target competence. Linguistic Competence then, is issued in order to conduct this research. In this case, linguistic competence refers to the ability to understand and apply aspects of syntax, vocabulary, phonology and spelling in a text correctly (Diknas, 2003: 47).

There are also the other aspects of language such as meaning of word or semantic and morphology which are related to vocabulary. Zimmerman (in Coady & Huckin; 1997: 5) remarks that vocabulary is the central of language and words are of

crucial importance to the typical language learner. Hence, vocabulary becomes the central point in language learning. Learners will be deeply concerned in vocabulary mastery of the language which is learned. For them, vocabulary mastery is a compulsory aspect.

On the other hand, there are four skills in English i.e. listening, speaking, reading and writing. Since the vocabulary is the central of language learning, learners have to pay attention more on vocabulary mastery before they learn those four skills. Here, vocabulary is the starting point before they achieve those four skills. Furthermore, possessed sufficient vocabulary mastery is a part of Second Language Acquisition.

Meanwhile, morphology deals with the understanding of word structure. Further, it is related to aspects of vocabulary such as part of speech or syntactic category (whether a word is noun, verb, adjective or adverb), inflection (go-went-gone-going, book-books, child-children, long-longer-longest, etc.), derivation (nation-national-nationality, like-dislike, interpret-misinterpret, etc.).

Knowledge of derivational affixes holds the important role in enriching students’ vocabulary mastery. As stated by Mochizuki and Aizawa (1998: 291) that:

“Affix knowledge is considered to be an important aspect in vocabulary knowledge. It helps the learners read material containing unfamiliar words and expand their vocabulary, especially their knowledge of derivates.”

Therefore, it is important for the learners to attend to that knowledge. Syntactic recognition or recognizing syntactic category of a word becomes part of vocabulary knowledge since there are many aspects or features of a word. In line with such

condition, derivational suffixes contribute large effects on the changes of syntactic category of a word.

On one side, vocabulary mastery for senior high school students holds the important roles in increasing their reading comprehension. Mochizuki and Aizawa (1998: 291) argue that affix knowledge plays an important part in reading and vocabulary development. It can be inferred from here that affix knowledge allow the language learner develop their vocabulary mastery.

Furthermore, this knowledge influences on the development of learners’ vocabulary size. By mastering the derivational knowledge, Second or Foreign Language learners can enlarge their vocabulary size. Then, their reading comprehension will increase due to large number of vocabulary size. Understandably, when students know the word employ they are also supposed to be able to recognize the words family of it such as employment, unemployment, employing.

Since there are many studies work on vocabulary development and focus their subject on several vocabularies use and usage, the development of syntactic recognition of the derivational suffixes of senior high school students is issued in order to enlarge the vocabulary studies concerning affixations, especially derivational suffixes.

B. Problem Identification

According to O’Grady and Dobrovolsky (1996: 144) derivation forms a word with a meaning and/or category distinct from that of its base through the

addition of an affix. They add that derivation is the process by which a new word is built from a base, usually through the addition of an affix. Other words, derivational knowledge deals with the English words formation. This study intends to observe students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words.

On the other hand, derivational knowledge means the ability in deriving words uses derivational affixes. Derivational affixes consist of two major elements. They are prefix and suffix. The proposed study will focus on students’ ability in recognizing part of speech of derived words. Furthermore, this study intends to search on the development of the syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words which can be achieved by Sang Timur Senior High School students during their studies in the different duration.

Since vocabulary knowledge holds the significant role in the second and foreign language acquisition process, it is very important to do this research. Possessed derivational knowledge allows language learners to have maximum effort in enriching their vocabulary size. Finally, mastering a large vocabulary size will guarantee a better reading comprehension.

C. Problem Limitation

This study is closely related to English word formation, especially word formation through the addition of derivational suffixes. The study also compares first year, second year and third year of Senior High School students’ ability in recognizing the syntactic categories of new words after the addition of derivational suffixes. The aim is to see the development of their derivational knowledge of

English words concerning the length of their study during school time.

On the other hand this study is intended to investigate the developmental patterns of students’ syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes. Therefore, this study will investigate whether the patterns of that the patterns are stable, increased or even decreased.

D. Problem Formulations

1. Are there any significant differences between first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes?

2. What are the developmental patterns of syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes?

E. Objectives

This study will answer the questions which are stated in the problem formulation. Conducting survey by means of one checklist-test of derivational suffixes in the same time to the subjects of this study, the researcher will obtain the data to be processed in order to answer the problem formulation above. The study intends to find out whether there are significant differences in syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes between the first, second and third year of Senior High School students or not. Then, the study is attempted to figure out the developmental patterns of their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words.

F. Benefits

Knowing the development of syntactic recognition of the derivational suffixes helps students to read reading material containing unfamiliar words. In this case, while facing the unfamiliar words the students also enrich their vocabulary size. A good reading comprehension must be supported by sufficient vocabulary size.

Under this circumstance, the study gives perspective of the necessities to the teachers that vocabulary learning need to be given considerable portion during teaching-learning activities.

G. Definitions of Terms

There are some terms which are used in this study. They are terms of development, derivation and Sang Timur Senior High School Students.

1. Development

As stated in Colins Cobuild English Dictionary (2001: 418) development means: (1) the gradual growth or formation of something, (2) the growth of something such as business or an industry (3) … The word development in this research is generated from the second meaning of the above definition.

2. Pattern

In Colins Cobuild English Dictionary, (1) a pattern is the repeated or regular way in which something happen or is done, (2) a pattern is an arrangement of lines or shape especially a design in which the same shape is repeated at regular over a surface, and (3) a pattern is a diagram or shape that you can use as a guide when you are making something such as a model or a piece of clothing. Then, developmental pattern in this

study is defined as diagram or shape showing the growth of students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words.

3. Derivation

As defined by O’Grady and Dobrovolsky (1989) that derivation is the process by which a new word is built from a base, usually through the addition of affix.

H. Assumptions

Several aspects are not always able to be verified in this study, but they influence on the precondition of the subject of the study. Therefore, they are assumed that:

1. The subjects of this research have experienced learning English since Junior High School, therefore all of them already have language input which is relatively equal each of others before entering to Senior High School.

2. The subjects of this research sample are willing to answer the ‘checklist’ test interview question honestly.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is aimed to describe related theories in order to fulfill theoretical truth demands of an educational research. Those related theories are the theoretical base upon which the study outlined in Chapter I was laid down. There are two major areas of concerns which are considered in this chapter. They are theoretical description and theoretical framework.

The first part of theoretical description is concerned with discussion on the nature of derivational knowledge. Second part, the discussion is about the development of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes in Sang Timur Senior high School.

The theoretical framework concerns with the frame theory of the development of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes in Sang Timur Senior High School and the hypothesis.

A. Theoretical Description 1. Morpheme and Its Studies a. Morpheme knowledge

Kolln (1990: 258) defines morpheme as a combination of sounds that has meaning, for some people sound is like the definition of word. Many morphemes are, in fact, a complete word; such as develop, act and happy.

These words consist of single morpheme. Kolln also argues that morpheme and syllable are not synonymous; in fact, many two-syllable words in English that are single morpheme: carrot, jolly, merit, able. In contrast, many two-morpheme words are single syllables: acts, walked, dog’s, swims. Fromkin and Rodman (1996: 114) add that morpheme may be defined as the minimal linguistic sign, a grammatical unit in which there is an arbitrary union of a sound and a meaning.

Therefore, morpheme is the smallest component of word which contributes its meaning. Radford, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen and Spancer (1990: 162) state that a morpheme which can also stand alone as a word is called free morpheme. In contrast, a morpheme which cannot stand alone to convey its meaning is called bound morpheme. For example; the word reader consists of a morpheme –er attached to a word read. In this word, the word read is a free and suffix –er is a bound morpheme. In addition, the words are made of morphemes, the minimal meaningful linguistic unit that contains no smaller meaningful linguistics unit (Anglin, 1993 via Long and Rule, 2004: 42). Long and Rule also propose that there are five major types of words: root words, inflected words, derived words literal compounds, and idioms. Those five types of words except idioms use morphological analysis to break words into suffixes, prefixes, and root.

b. Natural order and sequence of L2 morpheme acquisition

Dulay and Burt (1973; 1974c) as cited in Ellis (1994: 91) find that the acquisition order for group English morphemes remained the same irrespective of the learners’ L1. Eight morphemes are investigated in the study. In fact, the acquisition

orders of groups are strikingly similar, 85% errors are developmental. This finding is also confirmed by Bailey, Madden, and Krashen (1974). They investigate 73 adults aged 17-55 years; classified as Spanish and non-Spanish-speaking members that separates in 8 ESL classes.

From the above studies then it can be inferred that natural order of acquisition in ESL learners is irrespective of age (Goldschneider and DeKeyser, 2001). On the other hand Ellis and Laporte (1997: 64) as quoted by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) believe that the order acquisition can be explained by interaction between the characteristic of the elements to be acquired and general cognitive principles of inductive learning. The significance of this findings are intended to show that age of language learners does not refer to the natural order and sequence of their second language morpheme acquisition.

2. Knowledge of Word a. Word

Bloomfield as cited from Poole (1999: 10) considers that a word to be a minimum free form, a word, then, is a free form which does not consist entirely of (two or more) lesser free forms; in brief a word is a minimum free form. Carter (1998: 5) defines that a word is the minimum meaningful unit of language. On the other hand, Poole further argues that linguists devised the terms lexeme or lexical item to denote an item of vocabulary with a single referent. It can be inferred that a word has relation with its reference. Second language learners may be sufficient to show the equivalent meaning in their language.

Word is familiar but eludes precise definition (Taylor and Taylor, 1990) as quoted from Susilo (2001: 10). In some purposes linguists or dictionary treat words differently. Carroll et. all. (1971) as cited from Nation (1990) distinguish words entirely on the basis of form. Word form for some extent may become significant determination; for example: in the grammatical structure, word forms deal with units that are part of grammatical patterns. In that case, a word can be the subject of a sentence, the head of a modification structure, a structural signal in the form of a function word, etc. (Lado 1984). These all are concern with form of word. Clearly, Laufer (1997) as quoted from Mukarto (1999: 31) proposes some aspects or features of word that learners need to attend to:

1. Word structure or morphology, i.e. the basic free morpheme and its derivational and, if any, inflectional morpheme.

2. Syntactic category, e.g. whether a word is a noun, an adjective or a verb; a verb in English may be mapped in to an adjective in Indonesia.

3. Relation with other words such as synonymy, hyponymy, antonymy, and common collocation and registers.

b. The aspects are involved in knowing a word

A language learner needs to understand that knowing a word is not merely able to show the equal meaning in his or her language. Richards (1976) via Read (2000: 25) has outlined eight assumptions which cover various aspects which are involved in knowing a word:

1. The vocabulary knowledge of native speakers continues to expand in adult life, in contrast to the relative stability of their grammatical competence.

2. Knowing a word means knowing the degree of probability of encountering that word in speech or print. For many words, we also know the sort of words most likely to be found associated with the word.

3. Knowing a word implies knowing the limitation on the use of word according to variations of function and situation.

4. Knowing a word means knowing the syntactic behavior associated with word.

5. Knowing a word entails knowledge of the underlying form of a word and the derivation that can be made from it.

6. Knowing a word entails knowledge of network of associations between that word and other words in the language.

7. Knowing a word means knowing the semantic value of a word.

8. Knowing a word means knowing many of the different meanings associated with a word.

(Richards, 1976: 83) The study confirms and modifies the fifth assumption. It deals with investigating Senior High School Students’ ability on the syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words. Furthermore, this study also investigates the developmental patterns of syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes.

Meanwhile, Cronbach (1942) distinguishes five aspects of lexical knowledge: generalization (knowing the definition), application (knowledge about how to use), breadth of meaning (knowing the different senses of word), precisions of meaning (knowing how to use the word in different situations) and availability (knowing how

to use the word productively) (as cited from Bogaards, 2000: 491). On the other hand, Cruse (1986) via Bogaards (2000: 492)prefers to use the concept of lexical unit which is assumed to be the union of one stable meaning and a well-defined meaning. In accordance with this concept Bogaards proposes six aspects that may be learned about lexical unit in L2 as he assumes that L2 learners need to learn lexical units not only “words”:

1. form: Learners have to get acquainted with the written and/or the spoken form of the unit. Knowing that a given form does indeed belonging to a given language seems to be a first stage of knowledge.

2. meaning: Knowledge of the semantic side of a lexical unit may come in different shape. One can have a vague notion, e.g. that haematin has something to do with the blood or that a beech is some kind of tree. 3. morphology: Lexical units have their own conditions on derivation and

compounding. Gracefully and graciously have relationships to two different units which shared the form grace. Even when morphological mechanisms of the L2 are well understood, many of actual relationships have to be learned one by one (see also Bogaards 1994: 53-7). Especially for productive it is difficult for L2 learners to know whether a given form is possible and in what sense it may be used.

4. syntax: A learner who knows the rule of syntax may make many mistakes by not applying the right rules to the lexical units. This applies especially to verbs and, to lesser degrees, to adjectives. Learners have to find out how many and what types of arguments are obligatory or possible with a

verb in a given sense, or which prepositions have to be used with a verb or an adjective in some specific sense, e.g. with a particular lexical unit. 5. collocates: Whereas some lexical units, like very or red seem to be

useable with a great number of other elements of a given category, others have a very restricted realm of use. Most of the collocations that seem so natural to native speakers make for great trouble for L2.

6. discourse: In what types of discourse and to what effect can lexical units like furthermore, moreover and what is more be used? Which lexical units are to be avoided when speaking to someone belonging to another ethnic group or when writing a letter of application? Knowledge of style, register and appropriateness of particular senses of a same grammar is notoriously difficult for L2 learners.

Nation (1990) as quoted in Susilo (2001: 12) has stated that a word is to be learned or even acquired for receptive (listening and reading) and productive use (speaking and writing).

1. Receptive (Passive) Knowledge

Nation (1990) also argues that knowing a word entails being able to recognize it when it is heard (what does it sound like?) or when it is seen (what does it look like?). This includes being able to distinguish it from words with similar form and being able to judge if the word sounds right or wrong. Receptive knowledge of a word reflects on having expectation of what grammatical pattern of the word will occur in. Knowing the verbs suggest involves the expectation that an object sometimes in the form of clause will follow the word. Knowing the noun music

involves that it will not usually occur in the plural form.

Furthermore, according to Nation (1990) knowing a word means knowing its form (spoken and written), its position (grammatical patterns, collocations), its function (frequency, appropriateness), and its meaning (concept and associations) as cited in Laufer and Paribhakt (1998: 367).

2. Productive Knowledge

Productive knowledge is the extension of receptive knowledge (Nation, 1990). In this scope, knowing a word means knowing how to pronounce, how to write and spell it, how to use it in correct grammatical patterns along with the words it usually collocates with. Productive knowledge represents not using the word too often if it is a low-frequency word, and using it in suitable situation. Further, this knowledge also involves using the word to stand for meaning it represents and being able to think of suitable substitutes for the word if there are any. On the other hand, Lado (1984) as quoted in Susilo (2001: 14) mentions that an active vocabulary means that unit can be “recalled” almost instantaneously, put into sound through articulation of its phonemes, placed in its proper stress and intonation frame, into its proper structural positions and functions with its inflectional and derivational affixes in accord with the context.

Most writers have assumed that passive vocabulary is larger than active (Aitchison, 1989; Chanell, 1988; Laufer, 1998) as quoted from Laufer and Paribakht (1998: 369). They add that even tough no one has conclusively demonstrated how much larger it is or whether growth in passive vocabulary automatically growth in active vocabulary.

c. Morphological processes of a word

According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973: 430), the chief processes of English word-formation by which the base may be modified are:

1. Affixation: (a) adding a prefix to the base, with or without a change of word-class (b) adding a suffix to the base, with or without a change of word-class

2. Conversion, i.e. assigning the base to a different word-class without changing its form (zero affixation)

3. Compounding, i.e. adding one base to another.

They add that once a base has undergone a rule of word-formation, the derived word itself may become the base for another derivation. In line with those processes, Fromkin and Rodman (1996: 117) have stated that rules which relate to the formation of word and how morphemes combine to form new words called morphological rules.

The significance of this theory is to show that the study relates to English word formation. It employs one process out of three processes as mentioned previously i.e. affixation.

On the other hand, Radford, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen, Spencer (1999: 166) explain lexeme as the more abstract term than term of ‘word’. They describe that cat and cats are the singular and plurals of one lexeme CAT; two ‘word forms’ of one lexeme. They claim that the singular and plural forms of a lexeme are the examples of inflections; CAT inflects for the plural by taking the suffix –s.

On the other respect, they discuss the existence of the word read and reader in accordance with the lexeme/word form distinction. They notice because of the addition -er to a verb creates a new lexeme and reader and read are distinct lexemes.

Of course, each of them (reader and read) has a number of word forms: reader and readers in the case of READER, and reads, reading and read (/rεd/) in the case of READ. Moreover, the new lexeme is of a different syntactic category from that of original lexeme (a verb become a noun). They claim that the creation of a lexeme is the province of derivational morphology (or ‘derivation’). They also notice while adverbs (ADV) are often derived from adjectives by suffixation of –ly (bad~ bad-ly, noisy ~ noisi-ly, etc.). The other three categories (N, A, and A) can, however, readily be derived from each other. They add that preposition (P) does not participate in derivation in English (or most other languages for that matter).

3. Lexical development

Jiang (2000:50) compares the task of vocabulary acquisition in L1 and L2. Task of vocabulary acquisition in L1 lexical development is to understand and acquire the meanings as well as others properties of words. L1 lexical development semantic properties even become the parameter in understanding the meaning of a word. It can be inferred that lexical development in L2 consists of two aspects, representations and processing.

Jiang (2000: 52) also suggests that there are three stages of the lexical development in Second Language (L2). The first is the initial stage where L2 learners focus their attention on the formal features of word such i.e. spelling and pronunciation. In this sense, lexical item acquired by the learners is considered lexical item without lemma. Each lexical entry or vocabulary contains lexeme and lemma. Here, lemma contains the semantic and syntactic specification, for example

word meanings and part of speech while lexeme contains morphological and formal specification such as phonological and orthographical. Carter (1998: 46) adds that lemmatization problem concerns the information that sometimes two lexical items are different in their meaning but have the same word-formation. Lemma (semantic and syntactic specification) of L2 learners is gained through the First Language (L1) lemma information. Figure 2.1 gives the simple illustration of the initial stage of lexical development adapted from Levelt (1989) as cited in Jiang (2000: 51).

concept

L1 word L2

word

Figure 2.1: Initial Stage of Lexical Development in L2

The second is L1 lemma mediation stage, stage when the all lemma information is copied in to its entries. It means the lemma gap of an L2 word is engaged by the lemma information in its L1 translation. The following figure presents the whole process in this stage.

concept

L2 word

L1 word

The third is L2 integration stage. It is the stage when semantic, syntactic and morphological specifications of L2 word are extracted from exposure and use and integrated into the lexical entry. At this stage, L1 and L2 will be similar each of other in terms of both representations and processing. The next is figure 2.3 which illustrates L2 integration stage.

concept

L1 word

Figure 2.3: L2 integration stage

Practically, when learners overtake the second stage or lemma mediation stage, they may have difficulties of releases the L1 lemma information connection to L2 lexeme. Furthermore, such condition stimulates fossilization; learners’ lexical development stagnates in this stage. According to Ellis (1994) even large extensive exposure of vocabulary acquisition L2 will strengthen connection of L1 lemma information to L2 target word.

4. Model of Vocabulary Acquisition

A model may be defined as a description of a process or an operation (Mukarto, 1999: 30). Mukarto adds a model specifies how the process works and what its important features are. Possessing a good model we can identify or describe

the process that we want to account for. The basic model adopted to account the process of L2 vocabulary acquisition is adopted from Ellis (1997).

INPUT INTAKE LEXICON OUTPUT

Figure 2.4: Model of Vocabulary Acquisition

This model shows that learners are exposed to language input, in the spoken or written forms or both. Commonly, in the foreign language context, learners are more likely exposed to written forms rather than spoken one. Information contained in the lexical items or words are attended and taken-in to short-term memory. The attended properties may be the words forms (spelling, intonation, stress), and the word meaning(s). Other word properties may not be attended. This attended properties or information are called intake. Next some of the intake is stored in the long-term memory as part of lexicon. The process that is responsible for creating intake and the lexicon occurs within the “black box” of the learners’ mind. Finally the lexicon is manipulated or used by the learners in learning language (Ellis, 1997: 35).

In detail, there are three crucial stages in the vocabulary acquisition illustrated by this model. The first stage is from input to intake which is the first stage of vocabulary mapping. As mentioned before, learners need to attend to other aspects or features of word such as syntactic category, i.e. whether a word is a noun or verb, an adjective or adverb. Once again, a verb in English may be mapped into an adjective in Indonesian. Being able to know the class of a word can be included as

one of language input. This stage corresponds to the initial stage of lexical development in L2 (Levelt, 1989) where learners can temporarily consider the other features or aspects of L2 word equivalent to those of the L1 word.

Furthermore Jiang (2000: 51) explains that in receptive use of language, the recognition of a L2 word activates its L1 equivalent translation, whose semantic, syntactic and morphological information then become available and assist comprehension. Syntactic information deals with class of a word, whether second language learners know that it is a noun, a verb, an adjective or an adverb. He continues while in productive L2 use, the pre-verbal message first activates the L1 words whose semantic specifications match the message fragments. The L1 words then activate the corresponding L2 words through the lexical link between L1 and L2.

The second crucial is from intake to lexicon, from the short-term to the long-term memory. It is the stage that delong-termines how much of the intake will be incorporated. Learner will continually construct and adjust the vocabulary mapping or network when entering this stage. According to Ellis (1997), the process takes place in the black box, meaning that little is known of what happens here.

The third stage is the use of lexicon by the L2 learners. Melka (1997) as quoted in Mukarto (1999: 32) states the word use can be of two natures: receptive (for recognition, understanding, or interpretation) and productive (to express oneself). In the case of receptive nature of language use, this study is aimed to investigate the development of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes. It can be inferred from this understanding that the study is placed in the receptive mood.

5. Vocabulary Learning

According to Decarrico (2001: 286); there are two ways in learning vocabulary i.e. explicit and implicit learning. In explicit vocabulary learning students engage in activities that focus attention on vocabulary. Hence, foreign or second language learners are exposed to systematic vocabulary learning process. Nation (1990) adds that in systemic process or direct process, the learners do exercises and activities that focus their attention on vocabulary. The exercises include word-building exercises, guessing words from context when it is done in class exercise, learning words in lists, and vocabulary games.

In accordance with systemic process, Read (2000: 40) states some findings: 1. Words belonging to different word classes vary according to how

difficult they are learnt. Rodgers (1969) finds that nouns are easiest to learn, following by adjectives; on the other hand, verbs and adverbs are the most difficult. Ellis and Beaton (1993b) confirm that nouns are easier than verbs, because learners can for mental images ot them more readily.

2. Mnemonic techniques are very effective methods for gaining Initial knowledge of words meaning in a second language (Cohen, 1987).It involves teaching learners to form vivid mental images which link the meanings of an L2 word and in an L1 word that has similar sound. This technique works best for receptive learning of concrete words.

3. In order to retrieve L2 from memory – rather than just recognizing them when presented – learners need to say the word to them as they learn it (Ellis and Beaton, 1993a).

4. Words which are heard to pronounce are learned more slowly than ones are that to do not have significant pronunciation difficulty (Rodgers, 1969)

5. Learners at a low level of language learning store vocabulary according to the sound of words, whereas at more advanced level words are stored according to meaning (Henning, 1973)

6. Lists of words which are strongly associated with each other – like opposites (rich, poor) or word sets (shirt, jacket, sweater) – are significantly more difficult to learn than list of un related words, because of the cross – association that among the related words (Higa, 1963)

7. More generally, learners commonly confuse L2 words which look and sound alike (Laufer, 1997b)

Regarding to Read’s findings, explicit learning prospects situation where vocabulary is learned separately.

On the other side, implicit vocabulary learning means learning that occurs when the mind is focused elsewhere, such as on understanding a text or using language for communicative purposes (Deccarrio, 2001: 289). In this respect, Decarrio uses the term incidental learning instead of implicit. He adds that just as having multiple exposures to a word is important in explicit learning, so it is

important for incidental learning. Furthermore, Gass (1999: 322) proposes three conditions where words are more likely to be learned incidentally; (a) there are recognized cognates between the native and the target languages, (b) there is significant L2 exposure (cf. Nagy, Herman, and Anderson, 1985), or (c) other L2 related words are known.

6. Lexical Mapping

Mukarto (1999:28) argues that vocabulary (in this study known as lexical entry) mapping refers to a learning strategy used by language learners to identify and specify lexical properties and eventually incorporate them into their existing lexical system or networks of the lexical properties. On the other hand, lexical properties include among others, the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspect of the lexical items. Swan’s (1997) as quoted in Mukarto (1999) claims that foreign language learners in Indonesia mapping second language vocabulary onto mother tongue is a basic and indispensable learning strategy seems to be a general phenomenon.

It can be inferred from the above theory that while identifying and specifying a word, foreign or second language learners have their first effort of recognizing lexical properties of that word i.e. syntactic categories (whether the word is noun, verb, adjective or adverb) of that word may become one of their recognition.

7. Derivational knowledge

and/or category distinct which its base through the addition of an affix. He adds that once formed, derived words become independent lexical items that receive their own entry in speaker’s mental dictionary. On the other hand, these derivational affixes is one of the processes in words formation. Knowing words formation involves the understanding of words as one part of language elements or sometimes called linguistic knowledge.

Derivational knowledge also reflects on affix acquisition. There are two terms relate to affixation. Firstly, term of suffix, known as an affix that comes at the end of word. Secondly, term of prefix, known as an affix that comes in the beginning of word. It is already mentioned that the result of derivative affixes is a new word which has different lexical categories from its base. The table below provides derivates affixes and the changes of its lexical categories (O’Grady, 1996):

Affix Change Example

Suffixes

-able V

→

A fix-able, do-able, understand-able

-(at)ion V

→

N realiz-ation, assert-ion, protect-ion -er V

→

N teach-er, work-er

-ing1 V

→

N the shoot-ing, the danc-ing -ing2 V

→

A the sleep-ing giant, a blaz-ing fire

-ive V

→

A assert-ive, impress-ive, restrict-ive -al V

→

N refusal, disposal

-ment V

→

N adjour-ment, treat-ment, amze-ment -ful N

→

A faith-ful, hope-ful, dread-ful

-(i)al N

→

A president-ial, nation-al, medic-al -(i)an1 N

→

A Arab-ian, Singapore-an, Mali-an -(i)an2 N

→

A Einstein-ian, Newton-ian, Chomsky-an -ic N

→

A cub-ic, optimist-ic, moron-ic

Affix Change Example

-ize N

→

V hospital-ize, crystal-ize -less N

→

A penni-less, brain-less -ous N

→

A poison-ous, lecher-ous -ate A

→

V activ-ate, captiv-ate -en A

→

V dead-en, black-en, hard-en -ity A

→

N stupid-ity, prior-ity -ize2 A

→

V modern-ize, familiar-ize -ly A

→

Adv quiet-ly, slow-ly, careful-ly -ness A

→

N happi-ness, sad-ness Prefixes

anti- N

→

N anti-abortion, anti-pollution de- V

→

V de-active, de-mystify dis- V

→

V dis-continue, dis-obey ex- N

→

N ex-president, ex-wife, ex-friend in- A

→

A in-competent, in-complete mis- V

→

V mis-identify, mis-place un1- A

→

A un-happy, un-fair, un-intelligent un2- V

→

V un-tie, un-lock, un-do

re- V

→

V re-think, re-do, re-state

Table 2.1 Some English Derivational Affixes

Hence, the understanding of derivational knowledge does not only applying the affix to form a new word from its base but also knowing the changes of its syntactic category.

B. Theoretical Framework

Since meaning becomes the primary concern in learning vocabulary (words) causes the other aspects of vocabulary for example syntactic category of a word

tends to be ignored. Wilkins (1972) as quoted in Susilo (2000: 29) states: “ … while without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed”. It cannot be avoided that vocabulary learning is a central knowledge for second or foreign language learners. Here, a word is a means to convey one meaning. While learning meaning of a word, its syntactic category is interrelated each of other. In order to be able to use a word properly, understanding only the meaning is not enough. Therefore, knowing the syntactic category of that word is needed to determine which grammar must be used in a proper sentence both oral and written context. In such affixation is really influential in changing the syntactic category of a word.

On the other hand, reading skill becomes the significant skill for Senior High School Students to absorb much information during their learning. Meanwhile, Susilo (2001:30) underlines that vocabulary size is found to be a good predictor of reading comprehension and to correlate with writing quality. Understandably, vocabulary enrichment may become an entry point for the Senior High School Students to cover vocabulary size needed for their minimal comprehension. Laufer (1992) as quoted from Susilo (2001:16) suggests a threshold of 3,000 word families (5,000 lexical items) must be mastered for ‘minimal comprehension’ and 5,000 word families (8,000 lexical items) for reading for pleasure (Hirsh and Nation, 1992). Once more affixation is valuable in order to achieve that threshold of vocabulary mastery.

In accordance with this condition, affix knowledge is issued to conduct an investigation on the development of students’ syntactic recognition of derivational

suffixes of English words. Here, there are two aspects of affix i.e. prefixes and suffixes. Both can also be classified as inflectional prefixes/suffixes and derivational prefixes/suffixes. Because of the limitation of time, this study is only focused on derivational suffixes. Students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes employs the ability to recognize the changes of syntactic category of a new word after the addition a derivational suffix to its base.

Since the study is aimed to investigate the development of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes, therefore, it is included a study on receptive knowledge of vocabulary. Hence, the study investigates whether there are any significant differences between first, second, and third year of Sang Timur Senior High School students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words. Moreover, this study also tries to find out the developmental patterns of the syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words in Sang Timur Senior High School.

Based on the discussion above, it is hypothesized that there are significant differences between first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes in Sang Timur Senior High School. Pattern of the development of students’ syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes indicates the positive growth. It means that the syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English word increase in accordance with the duration of their study.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter presents discussions about (1) research design, (2) instrument, (3) pilot testing, (4) main study. Subject, data collection, scoring, tabulation and data analysis will be discussed in the main study.

A. Research Design

This study was cross-sectional design. Wiersma (1995: 175) argues that cross-sectional design involves data collection at one point in time from a sample or from more than one sample representing two or more populations. He also states that this design was also a type of survey design. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1990: 67) define survey as a research method which is conducted to collect information about characteristics of a population by examining a sample of that group. On the other hand, they also argued that there was a major disadvantage of cross-sectional design i.e. the possibilities difference between samples seriously bias the result. This designs, however, was usually possible to investigate large number of samples. Hence, this method is extensive and cross-sectional, dealing with a relatively large number of cases at a particular time.

Knowing the feature of the data presentation, however, this study used mix procedures to answer research question. The data from quantitative procedures would be the starting point to answer research questions. Then the qualitative procedures were intended to find out data which were used to analyze the

phenomena occurred.

Since it was not feasible to survey the entire population (all classes in Sang Timur Senior High School), the selection of some samples of different year were taken to represent the whole population.

B. Instruments

In order to answer the research questions the researcher used direct observation by means of “checklist” test. Hopkins (1976: 82) argues that a checklist has two major contributions to observation: (1) it is an efficient (time-wise) method of recording, and (2) the data are objective. This checklist consisted of list of which words came from derivational suffixes that had to be classified by the students based on their lexical category. A simple recorded interview was also conducted in this study. It was aimed to investigate the phenomena occurred after the survey research.

The words of the “checklist” included samples of words from A Vocabulary List adapted from: The Thousand Word Little Language, The Second Thousand Word List, Word Power 3000 ( Purba, 1996), Daftar Kosakata SMU taken from the 2004 CBC and students’ hand book entitled English for a Better Life (Yuliani and Permatay, 2005). The last source was aimed to confirm that some words in the “checklist” were the samples of words from their handbook which were regularly read by the students. The main consideration in compiling the words for the checklist was The First 1000 Words of the General Service List (Nation’s Appendix, 2002:54-55).

on the mentioned sources. Firstly, the word list of the sources provided highly frequency items. Therefore the words in the “checklist” were compiled from the sample of words from the sources mentioned above. Secondly, there was a list of words in the 2004 CBC that was supposed to be taught by Senior High School teachers of first year students. The form of that “checklist” could be seen below.

Mark (√) the following words, whether they are noun, adjective, verb or adverb. One word may have more than one lexical category.

No Words Noun Adjective Verb Adverb 1 Ability 2 Activate

3 Aggressive

4 Agreement 5 Assertive 6 …

Table 3.1: Checklist Test

The complete “Checklist” test will be presented in the appendices.

As defined by Read (2000: 86), second language learners generally know a lot fewer words in target language than native speakers do. It could be inferred that Senior High School students were only accustomed to highly frequency item of words.

Considering this condition the study proposed some criteria in determining which words were included in the checklist. First, the headword was the sample of the above mentioned sources. The 2004 CBC word list was the first guideline. Since

Senior High School in Indonesia has implemented this curriculum as the main guideline of educational system this study included the sample of words from the 2004 CBC word list. Second, the vocabulary item in the “checklist” was the example of words in the 1st 2000 thousand words of English taken from Nation (2002: 54-57).

C. Pilot Testing

Pilot study was done to find out whether this study is feasible and whether it is worthwhile to continue. Previously, the study proposed 53 derived words constructing the test. Six respondents were chosen as the pilot project of this study (2 respondents of each class in Senior High School students). The result of the pilot testing indicated that there were significant differences between the first, second and third year students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words.

Through some steps of corrections, it was found that the checklist contained three words which came from conversion (control, study, work). This study was only focused to the investigation on English derivational suffixes. Therefore, those three words were excluded from the list. Automatically, the maximum score of this checklist test was 50.

On the other hand, Hopkins (1976: 99) argued that the most important property of any measuring instrument is the validity. In order to have content validity the researcher provided the matrix of the checklist test that was used in the study. Table 3.2 presented the complete matrix of the test.

Matrix of Test Items

Suffixes Changes Lexical Categories Number of Items -able -ive -ful -ian -ic -less -ous -ate -en -ize2 -ize -(at)tion -er -ment -ity -ness -ly

Verb → Adjective Verb → Adjective Noun → Adjective Noun → Adjective Noun → Adjective Noun → Adjective Noun → Adjective Adjective → Verb Adjective → Verb Adjective → Verb

Noun → Verb Verb → Noun Verb → Noun Verb → Noun Adjective → Noun Adjective → Noun Adjective → Adverb

3 items 3 items 3 items 4 items 4 items 3 items 3 items 3 items 3 items 2 items 3 items 3 items 2 items 3 items 3 items 2 items 3 items Table 3.2: Matrix of Test Items

Hughes (1989:26) says that a testing technique was said to have construct validity if it could be demonstrated that it measured just the ability which it was supposed to measure. In order to get the construct validity of the instrument, the researcher consulted the checklist test to the supervisor of this study.

The reliability of the checklist test was calculated by means of the Guttmann Split-Half method presented in SPSS 11.0 for windows. The range of reliability coefficient is from o to 1. From the calculation it was found that reliability coefficient (rxx) was 0,7341. This coefficient reliability was approaching +1. Hence, it could be considered that this checklist test was reliable.

D. Main Study

study, data collection, scoring, tabulation and data analysis.

1. Subjects

The subjects of this study were class X1,2 (as the sample of the first year students), XIIPA-IPS (as the sample of the second year students) and XIIIPA-IPS (as the sample of the third year students) of Sang Timur Senior High School. Since it would not be feasible to observe and study the entire population, samples were selected with the assumption that those samples would be really representative enough to study the development of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words in this senior high school.

Ary et all. (1990) said that there are two major types of sampling procedures, they were probability and non probability. They added that when probability sampling was used, inferential statistic enabled researchers to estimate the extent to which the findings based on the sample were likely to differ from they would have found by studying the whole population. In line with the probability procedures, this study used cluster sampling in order to get the representative sample. Three classes of different year were used to represent the whole population in Sang Timur Senior High School: X (1,2), XI (IPA-IPS) and XII (IPA-IPS). They have different length of study in the Senior High School. Table 3.2 below showed the length of the study.

Classes Length of Study X1,2 1 year of study XIIPA-IPS 2 years of study XIIIPA-IPS 3 years of study Table 3.3: Length of Study

2. Data collection

The data collection was conducted in order to answer the research problem. The test was conducted relatively in the same time, it was on the third week of October (October10-15, 2005) the researcher administrated the test in Sang Timur. It is a private senior high school which is located on Jalan Batikan 7, Yogyakarta. The students were asked to do the fifty items in 15-20 minutes. It was administrated during the class hours.

At the first, there were 153 sheets of the “Checklists” (50 sheets of first year students, 51 sheets of second year students and 52 sheets of third year students). Since the sample needed in each class was only 50 students, while there were 51 students of second year and 52 students of third year, the researcher selected the sample from both classes randomly in order to obtain the intended number of respondents, 50 students in each class.

3. Scoring

The scoring was in terms of correct (1 point) or incorrect/ blank (0 point). An item of word classification was considered correct when it was classified correctly. For example, if a student classified the word ability as a noun, he would get 1 point. As had been mentioned before that the maximum score of this test was 50.

4. Tabulation

The gathered data then was presented in a table which was consisted of 4 columns. One table was intended for each year score. First column was for score,

second was for frequency, third for percent and fourth for cumulative percent. The complete gathered data will be presented in the appendices. Table 3.4 showed the intended table.

Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1.00

Total 50 1

Table 3.4: Scores Tabulation

5. Data analysis

The gathered data was analyzed in order to answer the research problem. The intended data were gathered from the students’ performance on classifying words available on the “Checklist”. As stated previously the classification of the words was done based on the lexical category of each word.

In order to answer the first research problem the researcher uses One-Way ANOVA for independent sample. This test was used for comparing two or more interval-ratio distribution (Sprinthall, Schmutte, Sirois 1991: 139). In addition, the

independent variable in this study was set at three different level, first year, second year, and third year student of Sang Timur. Since the study was aimed to test the hypothesis of significant difference, the F ratio became the statistical test.

nce groupvaria Mswithin

nce groupvaria Msbetween

F

− − =

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULTS

This chapter discusses data presentation, results of data analysis and discussion.

A. Data presentation

This study intended to investigate three groups of students in Sang Timur Senior High School. The grouping was determined by the year of student’s admission. Therefore the results of data collections were provided group by group.

1. Scores of the First Year Students

This was the first group in the study named first year students, consisted of two classes X1 and X2. There were 50 students included in this group to represent the

first year population. The highest and the lowest score obtained by the first year student were 28 and 4. The highest score was obtained by two students from the maximum total score 50. (see Appendix E)

2. Scores of the Second Year Students

Class XIIPA and XIIPS were the second group representing the population of

the Second Year Students. There were 50 students involved in this group with the highest and the lowest scores of the second year students were 44 and 5. Both the highest and the lowest scores from the maximum total score 50 in this group were obtained by one student. (see Appendix E)

3. Scores of the third Year Students

There were 50 students involved in this group representing the population of the third year students. It consisted of students from Class XIIIPA and XIIIPS –1. The

highest and the lowest scores of the third year students were 48 and 11. The highest score in this group was obtained by one student while the lowest score obtained by two student from the maximum total score 50. (see Appendix E)

4. Mean, median and mode

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation Mode Median First Year 50 24 4 28 16.42 5.37 14 16 Second Year 50 39 5 44 17.70 7.15 13 17

Third Year 50 37 11 48 22.28 9.14 16 19

Table 4.1 Frequencies Statistic

The means score of the syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes between the first, second and third year students of Sang Timur Senior High School were diverse. Gradually, the mean score were 16.42, 17.7 and 22.28, while its standard deviations were 5.37, 7.15 and 9.14. On the other hand, the mode were varied, they were 14 for the first year students, 13 for the second year students and 16 for the third year students.

B. Results of Data Analysis

To provide the detailed discussion of the data analysis, this sub-chapter is divided into two sections in accordance with the problems formulated. The whole of

data analysis were done by computer program called SPSS 11.0 for windows release.

1. ANOVA

In order to answer the first research question whether there are any significant differences between first, second and third year students in their syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes in Sang Timur Senior High School analysis of variance were applied. It was one-way ANOVA used in the analysis of variance which the result summary could be seen in table 4.4

Table 4.2 Result of ANOVA

First Year Second Year Third Year Differences

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Sign. 16,42 5,368 17,70 7,149 22,28 9,143 8,707 ,000

The whole means comparison between the groups was found to be significant by referring to the F-ratio, 8.707 with .000 significance. This means that there are significant differences between the groups. This finding confirms the first research hypothesis that there are significant differences between first year, second year, and third year students in their syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes.

In detail, Post Hoc Test by means Tukey HSD showed multiple comparisons of mean scores. This was important to know which tests were significant in the differences and which of those tests were not different significantly. Table 4.3 showed mean score between first year and third year students were second year and

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: SCORE Tukey HSD

-1,28 1,477 ,662 -4,78 2,22 -5,86 * 1,477 ,000 -9,36 -2,36

1,28 1,477 ,662 -2,22 4,78

-4,58 * 1,477 ,006 -8,08 -1,08 5,86 * 1,477 ,000 2,36 9,36 4,58 * 1,477 ,006 1,08 8,08 (J) YEAR 2 3 1 3 1 2 (I) YEAR 1 2 3 Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 95% Confidence Interval

Table 4.3 Multiple Comparison

third year students were also different significantly, 4.58* with 0.006 significance. Meanwhile, the mean score between first year and second year students were not significantly different, 1.28 with 0.662 significance.

2. Students’ Syntactic Recognition of English Derivational Suffixes

Mean Score Mean Growth First Year 16.42

Second Year 17.70 _1.28

Third Year 22.28 4.58

Total Growth 5.86

Table 4.4 Mean Growth

Table 4.4 showed growth of the mean score. The growth of mean score from the first year students to the second year students was 1.28. While the mean score from second year students to third year increased 4.58 point. Finally, the means plot which was presented in a bar-graph would show he pattern of development of the overall mean score.

16.42

17.70

22.28

0 5 10 15 20 25

First Year Second Year Third Year

mean

year

Figure 4.1 Mean Score of the First, Second and Third Year Students

In there

was not any significant increasing of mean second

e comments and interpretations will be presented in this section. merly, the overall means score of the syntactic recognition of derivational suffixe

fact, the overall mean score of each group increased. Even though score between first year students and the year students but the mean score of the second year students was still higher than the mean score of the first year students. In other word, students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English showed the positive changes. This finding confirmed that in each year, students in Sang Timur Senior High School performed better syntactic recognition of English derivational suffixes.

C. Discussion

Som For

s of English of words were 16.42 (first year students), 17.70 (second year students) and 22.28 (third year students). Mean difference between first year students

and second year students is not different significantly.

The third year students have the widest opportunity to expose themselves on language learning. This could be the possible explanation why mean difference betwee

in learning vocabulary. The ma

erienced learning English by mean of one ha

n the second and third year student was different significantly. The duration of language exposure between the first and second year is not different significantly. Moreover, data of the informal interview showed that vocabulary teaching and learning in Sang Timur Senior High School were conducted incidentally. There was no particular occasion to conduct teaching and learning vocabulary. The students learned vocabulary while reading, speaking, listening, writing and doing the exercises. As stated by Decarrio (2001) and Gass (1999) incidental vocabulary learning might be supported by multiple language exposure.

Logically, the third year students who already learned English in senior high school for almost three years have wider range of experiences

in source of teaching material in Sang Timur is students’ handbook entitled English for a Better Life. Mathematically, it can be considered that the highest level of the students in this senior high school have the widest range of learning English and have the broadest vocabulary exposure.

The higher level the students have the wider the opportunity on learning vocabulary. The first year students have exp

ndbook (English for a Better Life: grade X). The second year students have experienced learning English by means of two handbooks (English for a Better Life: grade X and XI). Finally, the third year students have experienced learning English by means of three handbooks (English for a Better Life: grade X, XI, and XII).

In contrast, mean difference between the first and second year students was not really different significantly. Most of the students from these years and some students from the third years tell that they try to translate the words in to Indonesian version first before classifying them. Regarding to Lavelt’s (1989) lexical developments stage; such condition shows that most of the students are entering the second stage of lexical development i.e. the initial stage of the lexical development in L2. In this stage, the L2 words recognition activates their L1 translations equivalent, which semantic, syntactic, and morphological information then become available and assists comprehension.

1 translation equivalent. Understandably, students tend to classify the syntactic category of an English word containing derivational suffix based on its L1 translations equivalent. For example, one student from the second year says that the word beautiful is an adjective because Indonesian meaning of it is cantik and then he added that cantik is an adjective.

nt, -ous, and –less. One of them can even explain the syntactic category changes of a word after the addition of thosesuffixes. For example, one student says that the word development is anoun because it comes from the word develop which is added by –ment.

imur Senior High School recognize slightly the syntactic category changes of English derivational

In line with the previous explanation that while recognizing L2 words, students activate their L

Surprisingly, some students from the second and third year are able to mention some derivational suffixes such as –ly, -me

Regarding the above discussion there are some important points to be noticed. It is found in this study that actually students of Sang T

suffixe

second year and 4.58 for the second – third year. Finally, the total mean g

s. As has been mentioned before that students tend to classify syntactic category of an English derivational suffix based on its L1 translation equivalent. In this case, L1 translation equivalent is known as the Indonesian version of the intended word.

In this study however, it found that there was significant growth of the means score of the first, second, and third year students. The mean growth was as follow 1.28 for the first –

rowth was 5.86. It can be seen that even tough there was not a significant mean growth between the first and the second year, mean score of the second year was still higher than the other one.

Interviewer : Mungkin Cuma terbatas ya, pengetahuan kamu tentang ini…hanya yang popular saja kayak –ment…yang jelas-jelas tahu bahwa –ment itu benda, gitu ya?

Interviewee : Sebenarnya kalau soal tahu-tahu bener sih nggak.. Interviewer : Ya ada tahunya, ada berapa % feeling…

Interviewee : Ya…ya…bisa dikatakan seperti itu.. Interviewer : OK..terimakasih…

Interviewee : ya..ya… Respondent XI (XIIPA)

Interviewer : Sabelumnya apakah kamu pernah mengerja test seperti ini? Interviewee : Pernah waktu kelas satu..

Interviewer : Kamu tahu jenis-jenis kata? Kata benda itu yang bagaimana to? Interviewee : Nggak tahu mas…nggak semuanya hafal..

Interviewer : Apakah dalam kosa kata Bahasa inggris juga mengenal jenis-jenis kata seperti itu nggak?

Interviewee : Nggak tahu’e..

Interviewer : Kalau NOUN kata apa? Interviewee : Noun itu kata benda Interviewer : ADJECTIVE? Interviewee : Itu kata sifat.. Interviewer : VERB? Interviewee : Kata kerja Interviewer : ADVERB? Interviewee : Nggak tahu…

Interviewer : Kalau ADVERB nggak tahu? Interviewee : Nggak tahu….

Interviewer : Apakah kamu juga tahu apa to akhiran itu? Interviewee : Akhiran…kayak –ed

Interviewer : Yang tahu Cuma –ed atau yang lainnya?

Interviewee : -ed, sama pakai –y [maksudnya (-ity)], -ing, -er udah itu aja Interviewer : Jika satu kata mendapat akhiran; apa yang terjadi?

Interviewee : berubah maknanya, misalnya ambil jadi mengambil Interviewer : Dalam bahasa Inggris jira-kiara berubah nggak? Interviewee : Iya berubah…

Interviewer : Jenis katanya berubah nggak? Interviewee : Jenis katanya….berubah!

Interviewer : Ini mas…kenapa AGREEMENT kamu kategorikan sebagai kata sifat…ya Adjective?

Interviewee : Eee…ada yang nggak tahu.. Interviewer : Menurutmu agreement itu setuju.. Interviewee : Agreement itu kesetujuan…

Interviewer : Terus CONCEPTION; kenapa kok verb? Interviewee : Concept…karena dari kata CONCEPT… Interviewer : Ini..BEAUTIFUL…ini adjective, kenapa? Interviewee : Karena menggambarkan sifat..

Interviewer : Pertanyaan selanjutnya, bagaimana cara kamu mengklasifikasikan? Apakah melihat, menterjemahkan atau mengamati cirri-cirinya? Interviewee : Mungkin aku mengamati cirri-cirinya…yang belakang-belakang itu;

misalnya ada –y (maksudnya –ity), ada –r (maksudny –er)..

Interviewer : COUNTER kenapa kok noun?

Interviewee : Counter…tahunya karena menggunakan -r ..

Interviewer : Kalau kata-kata yang menggunakan –ous, itu gimana? Interviewee : belum pernah…

Interviewer : Belum pernah melihat kata yang seperti ini ya? Interviewee : Belum..

Interviewer : CONCEPTION yang ini verb kok PLANTATION noun, kenapa ini? Interviewee : Ee..mungkin aku lupa artinya mas..

Interviewer : Yaah..terimakasih .. Interviewee : ya…

APPENDIX H

OUTPUT OF SPSS

Oneway

Descriptives SCORE

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean

Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimu m Maximu m

1 50 16,42 5,368 ,759 14,89 17,95 4 28

2 50 17,70 7,149 1,011 15,67 19,73 5 44

3 50 22,28 9,143 1,293 19,68 24,88 11 48

Total 150 18,80 7,755 ,633 17,55 20,05 4 48

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: SCORE Tukey HSD

-1,28 1,477 ,662 -4,78 2,22 -5,86 * 1,477 ,000 -9,36 -2,36 1,28 1,477 ,662 -2,22 4,78 -4,58 * 1,477 ,006 -8,08 -1,08 5,86 * 1,477 ,000 2,36 9,36 4,58 * 1,477 ,006 1,08 8,08 (J)YEAR 2 3 1 3 1 2 (I)YEAR 1 2 3 Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 95% Confidence Interval

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. *.

Homogeneous Subsets

SCORE Subset for alpha = .05

KELAS N _{1 2}

1 _{50 16,42}

2 50 17,70

3 _{50 22,28}

Tukey HSD(a)

Sig. ,662 1,000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 50,000.

Means Plot

Year

3 2

1 23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16 Means

ABSTRACT

Nugraha, Yohanes Sapta. (2007). A Study on the Development of Students’ Syntactic Recognition of English Derivational Suffixes in Senior High School

Yogyakarta: English Language Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Since communicative English language teaching becomes the primary concern, vocabulary learning tends to be ignored. Most of the English teachers of senior high school conduct teaching and learning vocabulary incidentally. They believe that through listening, speaking, reading, and writing activity vocabulary can be individually learnt by the learners. This condition causes other aspects of vocabulary knowledge tend to be discounted. Those aspects are word structure or morphology, syntactic category, relation with other words, such as synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy.

This study was intended to investigate the development of students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words in Sang Timur Senior High school. Two research problems would be answered in this study i.e. 1) Are there any significant differences between first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words? 2) What are the developmental patterns of syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words?

Cross-sectional design which was also a type of survey study was applied in order to answer the research problems. The main data were gathered using “Checklist” test which analyzed using One-way ANNOVA. The computations were done by SPSS 11.00 for windows release. The subjects of this study were 150 students of Sang Timur Senior High School. In order to have deeper explorations to the phenomena; simple informal interview was carried out.

The results of data analysis showed that there were significant differences between the first year, second year and third year students in their syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words. The computation of multiple comparison indicated that the difference between the groups was not actually identical. On the other hand, it was found that the means growth of the students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words indicated positive growth. In other words, students’ syntactic recognition of derivational suffixes of English words increased in line with the length of their study in the senior high school.

ABSTRAK

Nugraha, Yohanes Sapta. (2007). A Study on the Development of Students’ Syntactic Recognition of Derivational Suffixes of English Words in Sang Timur

Senior High School Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Study Program,

Sanata Dharma University.

Semenjak pengajaran bahasa Inggris berbasis komunikatif menjadi perhatian utama, pengetahuan vocabulary cenderung terabaikan. Sebagian besar guru-guru bahasa Inggris di sekolah menengah atas menyelenggarakan kegiatan belajar dan mengajar vocabulary sambil lalu. Mereka percaya bahwa melalui kegiatan menyimak, berbicara, membaca dan menulis vocabulary dapat dipelajari oleh siswa secara perseorangan. Konsisi seperti ini menyebabkan aspek-aspek pengetahuan yang lain tentang vocabulary tidak diperitungkan. Aspek-aspek tersebut adalah struktur kata atau morfologi, kategori (kelas) kata, hubungan dengan kata-kata lain seperti misalnya; sinonim, antonim, dan hiponim.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perkembangan siswa dalam pengenalan kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran di SMA Sang Timur Yogyakarta. Dua permasalahan akan dipecahkan dalam penelitan ini, yakni 1) Adakah perbedaan yang berarti pada pengenalan siswa tahun pertama, kedua, dan ketiga terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran? 2) Seperti apakah pola perkembangan pengenalan turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran?

Studi cross-sectional yang juga merupakan salah satu tipe studi survei diterapkan untuk menjawab dua permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Data utama dikumpulkan dengan menggunakan “Checklist Test” yang diteliti dengan ANOVA satu arah. Seluruh penghitungan dikerjakan dengan SPSS 11.0. Subyek penelitian ini adalah 150 siswa di SMA Sang Timur. Dalam rangka mengexplorasi lebih mendalam terhadap fenomena yang terjadi dilakukan wawancara sederhana.

Hasil analisis data menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan yang berarti antara siswa tahun pertama, kedua adan ketiga pada pengenalan kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran. Pada penghitungan multiple comparison

menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan antar grup tidak benar-benar identik. Di sisi lain, ditemukan bahwa pertumbuhan pengenalan siswa terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran menujukan pertumbuhan yang positif. Dengan kata lain pengenalan siswa terhadap kategori (kelas) kata-kata turunan berbahasa Inggris yang berakhiran meningkat sejajar dengan lamanya mereka belajar di SMA.