Post on 06-Mar-2019
transcript
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Jati Landhung History
101214116
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITYYOGYAKARTA
2015
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF THE
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF THE
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
i
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF THE
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Jati Landhung History
101214116
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITYYOGYAKARTA
2015
A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF THE
TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA TIGA MARET YOGYAKARTA
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATIONFACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iv
Dedicated to
1. My God
2. My Parents, Drs. Djoko Mudjiono S., and, Dra.
Budiati
3. My girlfriend, Helena Isti Yuliani
4. All Newcastle United Football Club players
5. All the fans of Newcastle United Football Club
around the world.
Howay The Lads !!!
( Newcastle United Motto)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vii
ABSTRACT
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing of
The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English
Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
The tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, based on curriculum2006, had a chance to learn about descriptive text in semester two. As curriculum2006 outlined that the tenth grade students of senior high school were supposed tonot only read the descriptive text, but also write the descriptive text. Consideringthe compulsory of writing descriptive text, the researcher conducted this researchto analyze the students’ errors in their descriptive text writings, and figure out thecauses of errors.
There are two research questions in this study: (1)Whaterrors do the tenthgrade students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta make in writing descriptivetexts?(2) What causes the students’ errors?In order to solve the first researchquestions, the researcher employed the surface strategy taxonomy of Dulayet al.(1982). While to answer research question number two, the researcher employedthe causes of errors theory of Norrish (1983). Based on surface strategy taxonomyof Dulayet al.(1982), errors were classified into four major parts. Those wereomission, addition, misformation, and,misordering. Meanwhile, Norrish (1983)categorized the causes of errors into five parts. Those were carelessness,translation, first language interference, overgeneralization, and error as a part oflanguage creativity.
This study belonged to qualitative research. The research methods weredocument analysis and qualitative survey. The instruments of this research werethe descriptive text writings of the students and the students’ interviews. Theinterviewees were selected using purposive sampling.
The results of this study showed that the most frequent errorin thestudents’ descriptive texts was omission with 135 errors. Misformation errorsoccurred were 37 times. Misordering and addition errors held the same number oferrors, 13. Dealing with the factors of errors, carelessness had been the mostfrequent reason of making errors 83%, followed by first language interference andtranslation 66% for each, and overgeneralization 33%. In addition, error as a partof language creativity was 0% in the bottom of the chart.
Keywords: errors, writing, descriptive text, causes of errors
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
viii
ABSTRAK
History, Jati Landhung. 2015. A Study of Errors in Descriptive Text Writing ofThe Tenth Grade Students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: ProgramPendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Berdasarkan Kurikulum 2006, murid kelas sepuluh SMA GAMAYogyakarta memiliki kesempatan untuk mempelajari teks deskriptif pada semesterdua. Kurikulum 2006, menyatakan bahwa murid kelas sepuluh sekolah menegahatas tidak hanya membaca deskriptif teks, namun juga menulis. Denganmempertimbangkan bahwa materi ini bersifat wajib, peneliti melakukanpenelitian ini untuk menganalisa kesalahan siswa dalam menulis deskriptif teks,dan mengetahui faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, terdapat dua rumusan masalah: (1) kesalahan apayang dibuat oleh siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA dalam menulis deskriptif teks?(2) apa yang menyebabkan siswa kelas sepuluh SMA GAMA melakukankesalahan dalam menulis deskriptif teks? Untuk menjawab rumusan masalahyang pertama, peneliti menggunakan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomy yangdigagas oleh Duley cs. (1982). Sedangkan untuk menjawab rumusan masalahyang kedua, peneliti menggunakan teori mengenai faktor-faktor penyebabkesalahan oleh Norrish (1983). Berdasarkan teori Surface Strategy Taxonomydari Dulay cs. (1982), kesalahan terbagi menjadi empat, yaitu pengurangan,penambahan, kesalahan pembentukan, dan kesalahan penempatan. Sedangkanmenurut Norrish (1983), ada lima faktor penyebab terjadinya kesalahan, yaituketeledoran, translasi, pengaruh bahasa Indonesia, generalisasi, dan, kesalahansebagai kreativitas bahasa.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif yang menggunakan metodeanalisis dokumen dan kualitatif survey. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalahtulisan desktiptif teks siswa dan hasil wawancara dengan siswa. Pesertawawancara dipilih menggunakan purposive sampling.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kesalahan yang paling seringmuncul pada deskritpif teks siswa adalah 135 kesalahan pengurangan. Padaposisi kedua, kesalahan pembentukan 37 kali terjadi. Sedangkan kesalahanpenempatan dan penambahan, masing-masing terjadi 13 kali. Mengenaipenyebab terjadinya kesalahan, keteledoran menjadi penyebab paling utamadengan 83%, diikuti pengaruh bahasa Indonesia dengan 66% dan translasidengan 66%. Generalisasi disebutkan oleh peserta wawancara dengan 33%, dankesalahan sebagai kreatifitas bahasa dengan 0%.
Kata kunci: errors, writing, descriptive text, causes of errors
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to thank to God. The blessing of the almighty God
had led me to this path and helped me a lot to get inspired to accomplish this
thesis. Through the hands of God, I was very well guided by my great supervisor
Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. She gave me suggestions during the guidance
period. If I were a bird, she taught me to spread my wings wider, thus I can learn
to fly higher and higher.
My deepest appreciation goes to the Headmaster of SMA TigaMaret
Yogyakarta (SMA GAMA Yogyakarta), Dra. Sun Lestari, M.Pd., for giving me
permission to conduct a research in SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. I would like to thank
to Candra Dewi Setya Aji, S.Pd., as the English teacher of the grade ten of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta, for providing me the descriptive texts of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. I personally applaud the contribution of the
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. They have been very cooperative
during the interview period.
I would thank my parents, Drs. Djoko Mudjiono Siswadi and Dra.
Budiati, for their patience, prayers, and, supports to my lifeline in this study
program. In this case, I could not imagine if I became one of my parents, they
never rushed me to quickly get my thesis through, but in the same boat they keep
giving a hundred support to me, both financially and emotionally.
All of my friends in the English Language Education Study Program have
been so brilliant in supporting my thesis, especially B class of 2010, such as
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
x
Marino, Gevi, Ega, Ais, Thomas, Edo, Dery, Abi, Yudhi, Gun, Valerino,
Adrianus, and Eko.
I’d like to say a big thank you to my beloved girlfriend, Helena Isti
Yuliani. Her precious time given to me is absolutely incomparable to anything.
Moreover, her patience and cares are the things that bolster my motivation to end
up my thesis successfully.
Finally, I would dedicate my gratitude to those that I cannot mention their
names one by one. I really thank for their prayers and encouragement given to me
to finish this thesis.
Jati Landhung History
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………………….. i
APPROVAL PAGES …………………………………………………….. ii
DEDICATION PAGE ……………………………………………………. iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ………………………… ... v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI…………………………… vi
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………… vii
ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………. viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………..ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………….... xi
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………. xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………… xv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………… 1
A. Research Background ……………………………………………. 2
B. Research Problem ………………………………………………... 4
C. Problem Limitation ………………………………………………. 4
D. Research Objectives ……………………………………………... 5
E. Research Benefits ………………………………………………... 5
F. Definitions of Terms …………………………………………….. 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ………………. 10
A. Theoretical Description ………………………………………….. 10
1. Theory of Errors …………………………………………. 10
2. Types of Errors …………………………………………... 11
3. Factor Causes of Errors …………………………………..14
4. Errors Analysis …………………………………………... 17
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xii
5. Theory of Writing ……………………………………….. 18
6. Descriptive Texts ………………………………………... 19
7. Curriculum ……………………………………………… 20
B. Theoretical Framework………………………………………….. 21
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY …………………………………….. 23
A. Research Method ……………………………………………….. 23
B. Research Setting ………………………………………………... 24
C. Research Subjects ………………………………………………. 25
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique …………...26
E. Data Analysis Technique ……………………………………….. 28
F. Research Procedure …………………………………………….. 35
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION ………….. 36
A. Errors in Writing Descriptive Text Made by Tenth Grade Students of
SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta …………………………………... 36
1. Omission Type …………………………………………... 37
2. Addition Type …………………………………………… 43
3. Misformation Type ……………………………………… 45
4. Misordering Type ………………………………………... 49
B. The Causes of Errors in Writing Descriptive Text Made by the Tenth
Grade Students of SMA TigaMaret Yogyakarta ……………….52
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS………. ……… 60
A. Conclusions ……………………………………………………....60
B. Suggestions ……………………………………………………… 61
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiii
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………. 63
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………...66
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
2.1.1 Curriculum 2006 Containing DescriptiveText ………………...…… 21
3.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme …………...... 30
3.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme ……….. 31
3.1.3 The Classification of Addition of Double Marking ………………… 32
3.1.4 The Classification of Addition of Simple Addition ……………….... 32.
3.1.5 The Classification of Overregularization ………………………….... 33
3.1.6 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Form ……………………… 33
3.1.7 The Classification of Misordering ………………………………….. 34
3.1.8 The Percentage of Errors Made by the Students in Writing Descriptive
Text………………………………………………………………….. 34
4.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme …………….. 40
4.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme ……….. 41
4.1.3 The Classification of Simple Addition ……………………………... 46
4.1.4 The Classification of Misformation Errors …………………………. 48
4.1.5 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Forms …………………….. 49
4.1.6 The Classification of Misordering ………………………………….. 52
4.1.7 Total Errors Discovered …………………………………………….. 53
4.2.1 The Percentage of the Causes of Errors …………………… ………..55
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. The confirmation letter of the research from SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta. ………………………………………………………………….. 67
APPENDIX 2.The Examples of Students’ descriptive text…….…………….68
APPENDIX 3.Interview Guideline ……………………..................................71
APPENDIX 4.The transcripts of the interview ………………………........... 72
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this Chapter, the researcher will introduce the field and the background
of this research. There are six parts in which the researcher presents the basic
information of the research. Those are the research background, research
problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and
definition of terms.
A. Research Background
English is taught in Senior High School as a compulsory lesson. From the
tenth to twelfth grade, students of Senior High School must learn english,
moreover it includes in the national examination. In other words, for Senior high
School students, English belongs to one of the most important subjects to master,
besides Mathematics and Indonesian.
Students of senior high school learn many types of texts. One of them is
descriptive text. McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the
reader to visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses
included (p. 239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the statement of McMurrey related
to the descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text,
students can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste,
and texture to create vivid images in the reader’s mind (p. 70). In the same boat,
Indonesian experts, Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social
function of descriptive text is to describe a particular person, place or thing (p.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2
26). Thus, from those expert statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text
aims to describe a particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid
images in the reader’s mind.
Observing at the curriculum 2006, descriptive text belongs to the
compulsory syllabus of the tenth grade students of Senior High School. This
material is scheduled to be taught in the second semester. It means that mastering
descriptive text for the tenth graders is non-negotiable. Due to the importance of
mastering descriptive text for the tenth graders, the researcher chose this text to be
analyzed in this research.
Writing is a term which cannot be separated when we are dealing with any
kinds of texts, in this research is descriptive text. According to Zimmerman and
Rodrigues (1992), “Good writing is a writing that is appropriate to the specific
writing situation for which it was produced” (p. 8). Students, as the descriptive
text writers, should write appropriate writings to what they are asked to write
about. Moreover, Norrish (1983) says “It was vital that people should be educated
to construct grammatically acceptable sentences and be able to spell correctly” (p.
65). Through both expert supports, the acceptable grammar must be constructed in
the writing. Thus the readers will understand the writing well and know the aim of
the text.
Errors are to be discussed and analyzed in this research. Brooks (1960) as
cited by Hendrickson (1981) says, “Like sin, error is to be avoided but its
presence is to be expected” (p. 1). Beside that, Coder (1973) states “Error
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3
provides feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his
teaching materials and his teaching techniques” (As cited in Hendrickson, 1981, p.
3). It means errors are hard to be avoided, but the presence of it is expected to
know how effective the teaching materials are. Hendrickson (1981) says that
making error is like an analogy as the children produce numerous errors while
acquiring their first language (p. 3). It is similar to students of Senior High
School. They produce many errors in acquiring English as the second language.
Through errors, the effectiveness of the teaching strategy and techniques and the
progress of the writing can be identified.
The reasearcher decided to conduct the research in SMA GAMA (Tiga
Maret) Yogyakarta due to the personal involvement with SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta. In 2014 the researcher did the teaching practice there. Therefore a
clear accomodation to the school has been well depicted. Dealing the context of
the study, the researcher discovered that the major weakness of the students there
is in writing. Thus, that has been taken as one of the major reason for the
researcher to conduct a study related to writing.
The researcher is interested in researching this topic because there has
been at least two research dealing with errors and error analysis. As the
references, the researcher used the research of Anggraheni (2008) and Yuanita,
Elfrida Putri‘s research (2014). The first study, conducted by Anggraheni (2008),
focused on errors made by students in writing recount text. Meanwhile the latter
one focused only on the error of simple past tense and past progressive tense in
writing narrative text. This research is different from those two previous
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
researchers. In this study, the researcher focuses more on errors made by tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text based on
surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982). The
researcher decides to use the theory of Dulay et al. (1982) because they claimed
that identifying errors from surface strategy taxonomy gives great promises for
the researcher to know the students cognitive processes in constructing new
language (p. 150). Thus the researcher employs surface strategy taxonomy to
know the cognitive ability of the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
constructing English through writing descriptive text.
B. Research Problems
There are two research problems in this research. Those are written as
follows.
1. What errors do the tenth grade students of SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta
make in writing descriptive texts?
2. What causes the students’ errors?
C. Problem Limitation
This research limits only to errors of descriptive text writing of the tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta academic year 2014/2015. The
researcher chose this kind of research because the errors happened in students’
writing of descriptive text can be very harmful for them in the future. In addition,
this case must be taken care about. Students definitely need to know the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
weaknesses of their writings, thereby being able to improve their writing and
grammar understanding, especially in writing descriptive text.
D. Research Objectives
The objective of the research is to figure out the answers written in
problem formulation as follows.
1. This research aims to figure out the errors of the tenth grade students of
SMA Tiga Maret Yogyakarta in writing descriptive texts.
2. This research aims to figure out the causes of the students’ errors.
E. Research Benefits
This research is expected to be beneficial for the teachers, the researcher,
and the students. The elaborations for each research benefits are written as
follows.
1. For the Teacher
Through this research, the teacher will directly figure out the errors mostly
made by the students in writing descriptive text. Moreover the teacher can
emphasize more on grammar in writing descriptive text which the students face
the difficulties. According to Coder (1973), errors analysis could provide useful
information about the effectiveness of teacher’s technique (As cited in
Hendrickson, 1981, p. 3). Therefore, teacher could improve their technique of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6
teaching, especially in teaching writing. Through the result of this reasearch,
teacher can locate the weaknesses of the students in writing descriptive text.
2. For the Researcher
This research was conducted by the researcher as a thesis to obtain
Sarjana Pendidikan degree in English Education Study Program of Sanata
Dharma. This reasearch is beneficial for the researcher because it allows the
researcher to elaborate the errors in descriptive text writing of the tenth graders of
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Corder (1973) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) says
that analyzing the error could provide the evidence of how language is acquired or
learnt (p. 3). Furthermore, it also gives evidence on what strategies or procedures
the learners are attempting to master the new language.
3. For the Students
This research could make the students elaborate what kind of errors they
made in writing descriptive text. Allwright (1975) says that “a student cannot
really learn without knowing when an error is made, either by him or someone
else” (As cited in Makino, 1993, p. 337). As the result of this, students gain the
benefit of the research. They can recognize their errors with the assistance of the
teacher. Therefore, in the future they will be able to make progress in writing
descriptive text and produce a good writing.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
F. Definition of Terms
The definition of terms consists of the definition of writing, descriptive
text, error, and the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Each
definition is going to be elaborated as follows.
1. Writing
Nunan (2003) defines writing as both a process and a product (p. 98). The
processes are stated chronologically: imagining- organizing- drafting- editing-
reading- proofreading. To get the best result, the processes must be followed in
order. The researcher tends to assume that writing is a product because in this
research the data are in the form of descriptive text product produced by the tenth
graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
According to Zimmerman and Rodrigues (1992), “Good writing is a
writing that is appropriate to the specific writing situation for which it was
produced” (p. 8). The students, as the descriptive text writers, should write
appropriate writings to what they are asked to write about. Moreover, Norrish
(1983) says “It was vital that people should be educated to construct
grammatically acceptable sentences and be able to spell correctly” (p. 65).
Through both expert supports, the acceptable grammar must be constructed in the
writing. Thus the readers will be understanding the writing well and knowing the
aim of the text.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
8
2. Descriptive text
McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the reader to
visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses included (p.
239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the the statement of McMurrey related to
descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text, the students
can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste, and texture
to create vivid images in reader’s mind. In the same boat, Indonesian experts,
Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social function of descriptive
text is to describe a particular person, place, or thing (p. 26). From those expert
statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text aims to describe a particular
person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in reader’s mind. In this
study, the researcher focuses only on the descriptive text writing made by tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
3. Errors
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) note “Errors are the flawed side of
learner speech or writing” (p. 138). Even though Dulay et al. (1982) say that
errors occur in spoken and written form, this research will only focus on the
writing of the students, particularly the descriptive text made by tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher defines that every
misproduced word in students’ writing is regarded as errors. Furthermore the
errors are only qualified by the errors theory of Dulay et al. (1982). In other
words, if the researcher discovered errors which are not qualified in errors theory
of Dulay et al. (1982), those errors will not be analyzed and discussed.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9
4. Tenth Grade Students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta
The tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta are the subject of
this study. The tenth grade of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta is divided into two
majors. Those are XA and XB. There are 44 students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta
tenth grade, 21 students of XA and 23 students of XB.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides some supporting theories of this study. It comprises
two parts, theoretical description and theoretical framework.
A. Theoretical Description
This part describes the theories of errors, writing, descriptive texts,
curriculum, and the theories of causing errors.
1. Theory of Errors
English is a language that has to be learnt by Senior High School students
since it has become one of the compulsory subjects in national examination.
Hendrickson (1981) notes that making error is like an analogy as the children
produce numerous errors while acquiring their first language (p. 3). The similar
thing happened to the students of Senior High School in Indonesia, especially in
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. They are still learning to master the target language,
English. As the result of this, students of Senior High School produce a plenty of
errors during the time of learning. It is also strengthtened by Dulay, Burt, and
Krashen (1982). Dulay et al. (1982) agree that people certainly make errors in
studying language (p. 138).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
2. Types of Errors
There are four major types of errors explained by Dulay et al (1982).
Those are linguistic category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, comparative
taxonomy, and communicative effect taxonomy. According to Dulay et al. (1982),
linguistic category taxonomy deals with classifying errors according to either or
both language components or the particular linguistic constituent (p. 146). Surface
strategy taxonomy deals with the ways surface structures are changed.
Comparative taxonomy deals with the classification of errors based on the
comparison between the structure of second language errors and certain other
types of construction. The last one, communicative effect taxonomy deals with
errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader.
In this study the researcher will focus on errors based on surface strategy
taxonomy. As Dulay et al. (1982) declare that identifying errors from surface
strategy taxonomy gives great promises for the researcher to know the students
cognitive processes in constructing new language (p. 150).
Ellis (1997) provides types of errors such as omission, misformation, and
misordering (p. 18). In the same page, errors types theory of Dulay et al. (1982) is
similar to Ellis’ (1997). Dulay et al. (1982) put their types of errors into surface
strategy taxonomy. Those types of errors are presented as follows.
a. Omission
Dulay et al. (1982) state that omission happens because of the absence of
an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance. Some morphemes are
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
potential to be omitted in writing. There are two kinds of morphemes, content
morpheme and grammatical morpheme. Mostly the captured case is the omission
of the grammatical morphemes. The grammatical morphemes are noun and verb
inflections ( the s- in birds), articles (a, an, the), verb auxilliaries ( is, am, are,was,
were, will, can), and preposition (in, on, under, at etc.) For example, Tory kill__
__ dog. The sentence is not correct yet because the morphemes “s” in the word
“kill” and “a” before the word “dog” are absent. It should be “Tory kills a dog”.
b. Addition
Dulay et al. (1982) state that addition is the opposite of omission. In this
type of errors, the errors are determined by the presence of an item which should
not be appearing in a well-formed utterance. Addition is divided into 3 three
types. Those are as follows.
1) Double Markings
It occurs when the students use two items in the same feature. Dulay et al.
(1982) state that “Many addition errors are described as the failure to delete
certain items which are required in some linguistic constractions, but not in
others” (p. 56). The examples are “She doesn’t knows the answer” or ” He didn’t
drank a cup of coffee”. The italic words in each sentences show the errors
because those two words are marked for the same feature. It is called double
markings.
2) Regularizations
Dulay et al (1982) say that a rule typically applies to all linguistic items,
however some members are exceptional to the rule. Regularization refers to a
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
marker put in items which do not need the marker. The examples of
regularizations errors are hit-hitted instead of hit, read-readed instead of read,
sheep-sheeps instead of sheep, put-putted instead of put, etc.
3) Simple Additions
This type of error is based on adding the unnecessary morphemes to
sentences and words. The examples of this simple addition are “ She is gonna
went home.” (past tense), a this (article a), and etc.
c. Misformation
Dulay et al. (1982) state that misformation errors are determined by the
wrong form use of the morpheme or structure. Misformation errors are divided
into three parts. Those are as follows.
1) Regularizations
It occurs when the learners use the regular marker to mark the irregular
one. It can be described in the wrong form of a regular past tense verb, a third
person singular form, and a reflexive pronoun. The example of this kind of errors
is “I singed a song”. Sing is an irregular verb which does not need a suffix to
make it into a past tense verb. The word “ singed” should be “sang”.
2) Archi Forms
Dulay et al. (1982) say that “for the learner, that is the archi-
demonstrative adjective representing the entire class of the demonstrative
adjectives”. It means when the learners use a determiner for a thing to refer to the
entire things, it is called an archi forms. The example is “that cats” which should
be “those cats”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
3) Alternating forms
This type of errors occurs because of the growing of the student’s
grammar-vocabulary. In this error, the students may alternate between the forms.
The examples of alternating forms are I seen her yesterday, I could have drank it,
those dog.
d. Misordering
Dulay et al. (1982) state that misordering error is characterized by the
incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of morphemes in an utterance. It
can be indicated by the wrong place of an auxiliary in simple questions and an
adverb. The examples are “You will go tonight ?”, and “He yesterday came here.”
It should be “Will you go tonight?”, and ”He came here yesterday” or “Yesterday
he came here”.
3. Factors Causes of Errors
Errors are caused by many kinds of factors. In this research, the researcher
will employ the factor causing errors proposed by Norrish (1983). According to
Norrish (1983), there are five factors causing errors. Those are carelessness, first
language interference, translation, overgeneralization, and error as a part of
language creativity. The following paragraphs are the elaboration of each cause of
errors.
a. Carelessness
According to Norrish (1983), “Carelessness is often closely related to
motivation” (p. 21). In this case, related to this study, the students are not going to
check their writings whether or not it has been appropriate or correct. The
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
examples of carelessness causing errors in students’ writings are they forget to
write down fullstop in the end of the sentence, and they mistype the word.
b. First Language Interference
The first language, or generally considered as mother tongue, is one of the
cause of errors proposed by Norrish (1983). Norrish (1983) says that language is a
matter of habit formation. The learner’s utterances were thought to be gradually
shaped towards those of the language he was learning (p. 22). In other words, it
can be drawn that first language interference appears when the target language is
not used in the daily communication, both spoken and written. Related to this
study, mother tongue interference comes when students want to learn a new
language or a target language.
c. Translation
Another popular cause why students make errors is translation word by
word. Norrish (1983) says, “Translation word by word of idiomatic expression in
the learner’s first language can produce classic howlers” (p. 26). Norrish (1983)
says that this cause of errors is the most common one. In this cause of errors, the
learners try to translate a familiar expression in their first language into the target
language they are learning. This happens when students or learners do not know
the exact translation of such expression they want to write. As Norrish (1983)
says, “the most typical situation is when a learner has been asked to communicate
something (writing) but is aware that he does not know the appropriate expression
or structure” (p. 27). For example, the students try to translate the word “Rumah
Tangga” into “Ladder House”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16
d. Overgeneralization
Norrish (1983) argues that in this cause of error, “the error might be made
as a result of blending structures learnt early in the learning sequence” (p. 31). In
other words, this kind of errors happens when students or learners use two kinds
of structures in one sentence. As Ellis (1994) states, “overgeneralization error
generally involves the creation of one deviant structure in place of two target
language structures” (p. 59). The example is the sentence “We are go to school”.
It shows a blending simple present and continuous tense.
e. Error As a Part of Language Creativity
Norrish (1983) says that the learners who have limited capability in
English would form a hypothetical rules related to English on insufficient
evidence. It means that when learners do not have enough capability but they need
to create new utterances, they may produce errors. According to Norrish (1983),
language creativity is divided into two major factors. The first factor is the
incapability of the students to follow the rules of the target language. The second
one is the creative arts. It deals with literature, such as song lyrics, poems, novels
or prose.
3. Error analysis
Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) state that “error analysis is the study of errors
that learners make in their speech and writing” (p. 51). It means that through error
analysis, the identification, description and explanation of learners’ errors are
stated. Asher (1994) adds that error analysis is the procedure of describing and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
explaining errors systematically (p. 740). According to Asher (1994), there are
two aims of error analysis. Those are the pedagogical and psycholinguistic aim.
The pedagogical aims to provide feedback about teaching methods and materials,
while the psycholinguistic aim is to elucidate on how languages are learnt and
produced (p. 740).
Errors analysis has its own benefits. As it is stated by Norrish (1983) that
Errors analysis can give a picture of the type of difficulty learners are
experiencing. It is clearly stated that errors analysis could draw a depiction about
what kind of difficulty the students are mostly facing. Another benefit of error
analysis, as it is claimed by Norrish (1983) is it can indicate common problems to
all, and common problems to particular group. For teachers, they can assess how
far they have progressed to the target language.
Dulay et al. (1982) say that studying learners’ errors gives data to teachers
and curriculum developers about the students’ difficulties in some parts and to
show what type of errors the students make (p. 138). The purpose of errors
analysis by Dulay et al. (1982) is related to the objective of this study which is to
show the errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
writing descriptive text.
4. Theory of writing
Zimmeerman and Rodrigues (1992) say that writing is a way of sharing
ideas with others (p. 4). Writing can be used as device to reveal the ideas to other
people. Zamel (1983) says, “Writing is a process which the students can explore
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18
and discover their thoughts, constructing meaning, and assess them at the same
time”. It stays in the same page as Zimmeerman and Rodrigues (1992). In this
study, writing means delivering thoughts or ideas to the others through the
descriptive text.
Every writing has its own purpose. Walvoord (1985) notes that writing can
be claimed as such effective writing if the contents of the writing show the
purpose of the writing to the readers (p. 2). This statement vividly goes in line
with Zimmerman and Rodrigues (1992). According to Zimmerman and Rodrigues
(1992), “Good writing is writing that is appropriate to the specific writing
situation for which it was produced” (p. 8). Meaning that students, as the
descriptive text writers should write an appropriate writing to what they are asked
to write about. In other words, if the purpose of the writing is to describe a
particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in reader’s
mind, the contents of the writing should make the readers see images in their
minds. In short, being consequent with the purpose of the writing is necessary to
write something.
5. Descriptive text
McMurrey (1983) notes that description is a way to enable the reader to
visualize a person, place, or things with some appropriate senses included (p.
239). Henry (2008) strengthtens the the statement of McMurrey (1983) related to
descriptive text. Henry (2008) points out that through descriptive text, the students
can use and explore their sensory details like smell, sound, sight, taste, and texture
to create vivid images in the reader’s mind. In the same boat, Indonesian experts,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19
Wardiman, Jahur, and Djusma (2008) note that the social function of descriptive
text is to describe a particular person, place or thing (p. 26). Thus, from those
expert statements, it can be sorted out that descriptive text aims to describe a
particular person, place, or thing using senses to create vivid images in the
reader’s mind.
Since the descriptive text deals with describing thing, place, or person,
present tense is inevitable to use. Wardiman et al. (2008) say that the language
features used in descriptive text is the simple present tense (p. 26). Azar (1992)
say, “The simple present expresses general statement of facts and timeless truths”
(p. 13). It means that the simple present is used when something was true in the
present, past, and will be true in the future. Beside that, Azar (1992) states, “The
simple present is used to express habitual or everyday activities” (p. 13).
According to Azar (1992), simple present tense basic patterns are “Subject + V1
or V1s/es” and “Subject + am/is/are”. The examples of those are “My dog has
four legs” and “My dog is a pet animal”. Meanwhile the negative forms of simple
present tense are “Subject + don’t/doesn’t” and “Subject + am/is/are + not”. The
examples of the negative forms of simple present tense are “My dog doesn’t eat
chocolate” and “My dog is a wild animal”.
Hammond (1992), and Wardiman et al. (2008) state the same theory
related to generic structure of descriptive text. Both Hammond (1992) and
Wardiman et al. (2008) claim that there are two main parts in descriptive text.
Those are the identification and the description. In identification, the phenomenon
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
to be described is identified, while in description, the phenomenon is described by
parts, qualities, and characteristics.
6. Curriculum 2006
Based on curriculum 2006, descriptive text belongs to one of the
compulsory English materials for the tenth grade students of Senior High School.
It is evidently noted in the twelfth Standar Kompetensi, and Kompetensi Dasar
number 12.2. The more detailed depiction of the curriculum related to descriptive
text is presented in table 2.1.1.
Through the table 2.1.1, it is shown that Kompetensi Dasar number 12 is
dealing with writing descriptive text, news item, and narrative text. However, in
this study the researcher will solely deal with the students’ descriptive text
writings.
Table 2.1.1 Curriculum 2006 Containing Descriptive Text.
Kompetensi Inti Kompetensi Dasar
12. Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks
tulis fungsional pendek dan esei
sederhana berbentuk narrative,
descriptive dan news item dalam
konteks kehidupan sehari hari.
12.2. Mengungkapkan makna dan
langkah retorika dalam esei
sederhana secara akurat,
lancar, dan berterima dalam
konteks kehidupan sehari-hari,
dalam teks berbentuk narrative,
descriptive, dan news item.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21
B. Theoretical Framework
In order to answer the research problem number one, the errors made by
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text, the
researcher conducts a document analysis. Students’ descriptive text writings are
utilized as the document or the instrument of this study.
The data, the students’ descriptive text writings are collected in two
different occasions since each class ten of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta has different
schedule in learning English. The data are collected after the English teacher of
class ten of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta finishes teaching the class. Since there are
44 students of the tenth grade of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, there will be 44
descriptive texts to analyze.
To conduct the research and analyze the data, the researcher employs the
theory of errors proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). After gaining the data in the
form of the document of the students’ descriptive text writings, the researcher
classifies the errors using the categorization of errors stated by Dulay et al.
(1982). They are omission, addition, misordering, and misformation. Ellis (1997)
claims that types of errors can help the researcher diagnose what errors the
learners produce (p. 18). Thus, those types of errors from Dulay et al. help the
researcher know what type of errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta. Having known the types of errors made by tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text, the researcher is
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
able to figure out the types of errors mostly made by tenth grade students in
writing descriptive text.
In order to answer the problem formulation number two, the causes of
errors in tenth grade students’ descriptive text writings, the researcher employs
interview as the instrument. The participants are selected based on the result of
their descriptive text writings. Two students will be those who gain the high score
and minimum errors, two other students will be those who produce the average
errors, and the rest is those who produce more errors than the other participants.
Through the interview questions delivered by the researcher, participants are
expected to answer appropriately. Thus the researcher is able to know the causes
of errors in participants’ descriptive text writings.
The researcher employs Norrish’s theory (1983) to categorize the causes
of errors based on the interview. The causes of errors proposed by Norrish (1983)
are carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization, and
error as a part of language creativity. Interviews conducted by researcher is
expected to tell the researcher the cause of errors mostly made by the tenth
graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive texts.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology employed in this study. It is
composed of six parts. Those are research method, research setting, research
subject, research instrument and data gathering technique, data analysis technique,
and research procedure.
A. Research Methods
In order to answer the first research question, the errors made by the tenth
graders of SMA GAMA in writing descriptive text, the researcher conducts a
document analysis. The researcher decides to employ document analysis because
the data, descriptive texts written by tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, are
in the form of writings or written forms. According to Ary, Jacob, and Sorensen
(2010), “Document analysis is a research method applied to written or visual
materials for the purpose of identifying specified characteristics of materials”
(p.457). Furthermore, Ary et al. (2010) point out that one of the purpose of
document analysis is to analyze the types of errors in students’ writings (p. 457).
Thus, as it is written in the previous chapters, in this study the descriptive texts
made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta are used as the
written materials, and it is going to be analyzed.
In addition, the researcher conducts a qualitative survey to answer the
research question number two, the factors causing errors in writing descriptive
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
text made by the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Fink (2003) says,
“Qualitative surveys collect information on the meanings that people attach to
their experiences and on the ways they express themselves” (p. 61). Thus, to
collect information and discover the factors which cause the errors of tenth grade
students in writing descriptive text, the researcher conducts interviews with six
students of the tenth grade of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Along with it, Fink (2003)
says that students have their own experiences. Through descriptive text writing,
they can show how they express themselves. In other words, descriptive text can
be considered as a kind of attaching to their experiences and knowledge in writing
descriptive text. Furthermore, due to the small number of participants of the
research, qualitative survey is appropriate to be conducted to reveal the factors
which are causing errors of the tenth graders of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
writing descriptive text. As Fink (2003) states that a qualitative survey is used
when the researcher does not have a large number of participants (p. 67).
B. Research Setting
The Researcher conducts the study in SMA GAMA Yogyakarta from
January to April 2015. It is located in Jalan Affandi 5 Mrican Yogyakarta. The
reasearcher decided to do the research in SMA GAMA Yogyakarta due to the
personal involvement with SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. In 2014 the researcher did
the teaching practice there. Therefore, a clear accomodation to the school has been
well depicted. Since descriptive text is taught in semester two of the tenth grade
students, the researcher conducted the study from February to April 2015.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
C. Research Subjects
The subjects involved in this study are the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher chose the tenth graders as the subject because
they have a chance to learn descriptive text in semester two, as it is written in
kurikulum 2006.
In this study, the researcher focuses on two classes of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. Those are tenth grade students of XA and
XB. The tenth grade students of XA consists of 21 students and the tenth grade
students of XB consists of 23 students. Thus, the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta could provide 44 descriptive texts writings.
In addition, to answer the research question number two, the researcher
selected 6 students from both class ten as the subjects. In selecting the students
from both two classes to be interviewed, the researcher carried out a purposive
sampling. Dattalo (2008) says “Purposive sampling can be used to select
participants based on their knowledge of a particular topic” (p. 6). The topic here
is descriptive text. In short, the participants will be selected based on their
descriptive text writing results. Staying in the same page, Barreiro and Albandoz
(2001) say that purposive sampling tries to make the sample representative,
depending on the researcher’s purpose or opinion (p. 5). Ary et al. (2010) say
“Qualitative studies more typically use purposive selection techniques based on
particular criteria” (p. 421). Since the researcher employs purposive sampling to
conduct the interview, the criteria are: two students will be those who gain the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26
high score with minimum errors, two other students will be those who produce the
average errors, and the rest is those who produce more errors than the other
participants.
D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering Technique
The research instruments employed by the researcher are document and
interview. Documents, in the form of descriptive text writings, are used as the
instrument of the first research question. Bowen (2008) notes “Document analysis
is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents, both printed and
electronic materials” (p. 27). In the same line, Ary et al. (2010) say “materials
analyzed can be textbooks, newspapers, web pages, speeches, television
programs, advertisements, musical compositions, or any of a host of other types of
documents” (p. 457).
The authenticity of the document in document analysis is guaranteed by
Ary et al. (2010). They say “An advantage of document analysis is its
unobtrusiveness” (p. 459). Thus the researcher is not allowed to make an
intervention during the writing time. As Bowen (2008) says that document
contains words and images that have been recorded without a researcher’s
intervention (p. 27). Furthermore, based on Kurikulum 2006, the particular topic
of descriptive text learnt for tenth grade students is not particularly exposed.
Therefore, the researcher conducts a document analysis on students’ descriptive
text writings with person, thing, animal, and place as the particular topic.
Since there are 44 tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, it is
going to provide 44 students’ descriptive writing to be analyzed. The tenth grade
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta is divided into two classes. Thus the data will be taken
twice because each class has different schedule to learn English. In addition the
data will be collected after the English teacher of tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta finishes teaching each class.
Meanwhile to answer the research question number two, the researcher
employs an interview guideline as the instrument, while interview as technique is
made and applied by the researcher. Best and Krahn (1986) state that interview is
in a sense of oral questionnaire, which helps the researchers obtain the answer
from the subjects orally and face to face (p. 186). It means that the interview is
conducted face to face between the researcher and the participant. There are six
students who are interviewed by the researcher. Moreover Boyce and Neale
(2006) say that a in-depth interview is a qualitative research technique that
involves conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of
respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or
situation (p. 3). Thus, in this study the researcher employs an in-depth interview to
obtain factors of errors from the selected six students by using a purposive
sampling as it is elaborated previously.
The researcher collects data from this interview twice as each class has
different occasion in learning English. The researcher conducts the interview
during the rest periods. The answers of the participants in this interview are
recorded and later it will be written as the script of the interview. This script of the
interview is going to be analyzed by the researcher to figure out the factors
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28
causing errors in students’ descriptive text writings by using the factors causing
errors theory proposed by Norrish (1983).
E. Data Analysis Technique
In this study, the researcher employs the data analysis theory of
Hubberman and Miles to answer the first research question of this study, the
errors made by tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing
descriptive text. Hubberman and Miles (1994) provide 3 components in analyzing
the data. Those are reduction, data display, and drawing conclusion in analyzing
data (As cited in Punch, 2009, p. 174). The following paragraphs are the
explanations of data analysis technique conducted by the researcher.
Firstly, the researcher conducts the reduction. It means the researcher only
selects the students’ sentences consisting of errors to be analyzed. After that, the
researcher analyzes the descriptive texts by underlying the intended error based on
its type to anticipate a sentence consisting of more than one error.
Afterwards, the errors are displayed in form of tables based on the
categorization proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). Thus, in the display of data, the
researcher identifies the errors based on omission, addition, misformation, and
misordering errors. Moreover the categorized errors are counted and displayed in
the tables. The categorizing tables of errors are going to be discussed in the next
paragraph. By the end of each table, the researcher writes down the analysis and
the correction of each error sentences. To make sure that the correction is correct,
the researcher uses his related literature. It means the researcher corrects the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
sentences containing errors by using his capability in English. In addition, the
devil advocate does check the corrections made by the researcher. In short, those
two factors, both the background knowledge of the researcher and the check of the
devil advocate have been taking the pivotal role in ensuring that the corrections
made are acceptable.
The first type of errors based on surface strategy taxonomy proposed by
Dulay et al. (1982) is omission errors. It is divided into two parts. The first one is
the omission of content morpheme, and the second one is the omission of
grammatical morpheme. The omission of content morpheme, put in table 3.1.1,
describes the omission of a head noun, a subject, a main verb, and the omission of
a direct object. In the other hand, the omission of grammatical morpheme, put in
table 3.1.2, describes the omission of an article, a preposition, a short and long
plural, an auxilliary, a copula, a regular and irregular past tense verb, and an
omission of an infinitive to. Thus, the errors based on the omission error types
would be classified as follows.
Table 3.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme
No The Omission of Content
Morpheme
Percentage
A Head noun _____ %
B Subject _____ %
C Main verb _____ %
D Direct Object _____ %
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30
Table 3.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme
No Omission of Grammatical
Morpheme
Percentage
A Preposition _____ %
B Article _____ %
C Short plural _____ %
D Long plural _____ %
E Auxilliary _____ %
F Copula _____ %
G Progressive _____ %
H Regular past tense _____ %
I Irregular past tense _____ %
J Infinitive marker _____ %
The second type of errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy
proposed by Dulay et al. (1982) is addition. This type of errors consists of double
marking and simple addition. Double marking is specified into the addition of
present tense, past tense, and a direct object. While simple addition is specified
into the excess of a third person singular form, a past tense verb, an article and a
preposition. Thus, the errors based on the addition type would be displayed as
follows.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31
Table 3.1.3 The Classification of Addition of Double Marking
No Addition of Double Marking Percentage
A Present tense _____ %
B Past tense _____ %
C Direct object _____ %
Table 3.1.4 The Classification of Addition of Simple Addition
No Addition of Simple Addition Percentage
A Third Person Singular _____ %
B Past tense _____ %
C Article _____ %
D Preposition _____ %
The second type of errors based on the surface strategy taxonomy
proposed by Dulay et al. (1982) is misformation. It consists of overregularization
and archi/alternating form. In this study overregularization is specified into the
use of reflexive pronoun, a regular past verb, and a third person singular form.
While archi/alternating form is specified into a preposition, an auxilliary, a subject
pronoun, a possesive pronoun and a demonstrative. The display tables of the
misformation errors are as follows.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32
Table 3.1.5 The Classification of Overregularization
No Overregularization Percentage
A Reflexive pronoun _____ %
B Regular past _____ %
C Third person singular _____ %
Table 3.1.6 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Form
No Archi/Alternating Form Percentage
A Auxilliary _____ %
B Preposition _____ %
C Possessive pronoun _____ %
D Subject pronoun _____ %
E Demonstrative _____ %
Misordering is the other type of error proposed by Dulay et al. (1982). It
refers to misplacing of an element, wrong place of an auxiliary in embedded
question, and misordering of an adverb. Table 3.1.7 describes errors classified in
misordering type.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
Table 3.1.7 The Classification of Misordering
No Misordering Percentage
A Auxiliary in simple (direct) question _____ %
B Auxiliary in embedded (indirect)
question
_____ %
C Adverb _____ %
Even though the researcher deals with qualitative research, it allows the
researcher to deal with numbers. As Ary et al. (2006) say that in qualitative
research, some numeric data are allowed to be colleted (p. 245). Therefore, after
knowing and categorizing errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text, the researcher makes Table 3.1.8 to find
out what kind of errors the students mostly produce by categorizing the errors
using the surface strategy taxonomy of Dulay et al. (1982).
Table 3.1.8 The Percentage of Errors Made by Students in Writing
Descriptive Text
Types of Errors Numbers of Errors Percentage (%)
Omission _____ %
Addition _____ %
Misformation _____ %
Misordering _____ %
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
To figure out the causes of errors of the students in writing descriptive
text, the researcher conducts the interview with 6 students which have been
selected. The interview guideline questions are referred to the theory of factors
causing errors of Norrish (1983). There will be seven guideline questions.
Question number one refers to carelessness, question number two, three, and four
refer to translation, question number five refers to first language interference,
question number six refers to overgeneralization, and question number seven
refers to error as part of creativity. To make it clearer, the interview guideline
questions are presented in the appendix.
The interviews are all recorded visually and later on the entire
conversation during the interview is written down as a script. Through this script
the researcher categorizes the answers based on the source of errors theory of
Norrish (1983). According to Norrish (1983), there are five causes of errors.
Those are carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization,
and error as a part of language creativity. Eventually, the researcher employs
interviews and analyzing the script interview, to find out the most cause causing
errors in students’ descriptive text writings of the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta.
To ensure that this research is reliable, the researcher employs
triangulation. As we know that triangulation involves more than one theory or
methods, in this study the researcher carries out the theories of Dulay et al. (1982)
and Norrish (1983) to gather the data and analyze the data. Moreover, to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35
strengthen the reliability of this study, the researcher takes into account the
guidance of the supervisor in analyzing the data.
F. Research Procedure
There are some steps conducted by the researcher in conducting this study.
Before conducting this study, the researcher asked for permission from the
headmaster of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta to conduct the research. In addition, the
researcher asked for permission from the English teacher of the tenth grade of
SMA GAMA Yogyakarta to conduct this study with her students as the
participants.
Having had permitted by the headmaster and the tenth grade English
teacher of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, the researcher began to conduct this study.
Firstly the researcher specified the phenomenon, namely grammatical errors to be
investigated. Afterwards the researcher selected descriptive text made by the tenth
grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta as the data for this study. To categorize
the errors made by the students in writing descriptive text, the researcher provided
the tables of error types based on the categorization of Dulay et al. (1982). After
having the data, the descriptive texts made by the tenth grade students of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta and the tables of error types, the researcher started to analyze
the errors found in descriptive texts. Afterwards the researcher categorized the
errors based on surface strategy taxonomy theory of dulay et al. (1982). Finally
the researcher found the factors causing errors by conducting interviews with the
six selected tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study are going to be discussed in this chapter. This
chapter consists of two parts. Those are the description of errors discovered in
students’ descriptive text writings, and the factors of making errors. Part one
contains the answer of research question number one, while part two is dealing
with the answer of research question number two.
A. Errors Made by The Tenth Grade Students of SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta in Writing Descriptive Texts
The researcher employed the theory of Dulay et al. (1982) to analyze the
errors made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing
descriptive text. According to the surface strategy taxonomy theory of Dulay et al.
(1982), errors are classified into four major parts, namely omission, addition,
misformation, and misordering (p. 150). Furthermore, each major part of errors
was classified into some parts. The more detail classifications of each major type
of errors had been discussed previously in chapter three.
The results of this research showed that those major types of errors
proposed by Dulay et al. (1982) were discovered in the descriptive texts made by
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. The researcher identified that
mostly there were more than one error discovered in a single sentence. Thus the
researcher underlined an error based on the types of errors to indicate the intended
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
error. The explanations of each major types of errors and the examples of errors
discovered were elaborated as follows.
1. Omission
Dulay et al. (1982) say that omission errors are characterized by the
absence of an item that must appear in a well-form utterance (p. 154). This type of
errors is divided into two parts. Those are omission of major constituent or
omission of content morpheme and omission of grammatical morpheme.
Omission of content morpheme is the absence of the morpheme which carries the
burden of the meaning, meanwhile omission of grammatical morpheme is the
absence of the morpheme which plays a minor role in conveying the meaning of a
sentence.
Both omission of content morpheme and omission of grammatical
morpheme errors were discovered in the descriptive text writing of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta. As a matter of fact, the omission of
grammatical morpheme appeared more often than the omission of content
morpheme. The evidence were there were three errors of content morpheme
omission, and there were one hundred and thirty two errors of grammatical
morpheme omission. The data discovered are in line with Dulay et al. (1982).
They say, “Language learners omit grammatical morpheme more frequently than
content words” (p. 155).
The researcher identified two specific errors in omission of content
morpheme. They were omission of main verb and subject. The researcher
discovered two main verb omissions and one subject omission. Whilst in
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38
identifying the omission of grammatical morpheme, the researcher found out that
there were ten specific aspects of grammatical morpheme omission. Those are
article, third person singular, irregular past tense, long plural, progressive,
auxiliary, preposition, short plural, copula, and infinitive marker. There were
thirty omissions of article in students’ descriptive text. Meanwhile the researcher
discovered two irregular past tense omissions. In addition, the researcher found
out thirty five omissions of the third person singular and two omissions of the
infinitive marker. The auxiliary, another specific part of grammatical morpheme
omission, was counted to thirteen. Progressive type was found twelve times, and
there were ten prepositions, three short plurals, two long plurals and twenty four
copulas identified by the researcher. In table 4.1.1, the researcher displayed the
examples of the students’ the content morphemes omission errors. Meanwhile in
table 4.1.2, the researcher listed the examples of grammatical morpheme omission
errors. The analysis of each omission errors parts came after the table as follows.
Table 4.1.1 The Classification of Omission of Content Morpheme
No. Omission of contentmorpheme
Errors
1 Main verb *My elementary school at 12morning.
2 Subject *born in Blora
The analysis of table 4.1.1 goes as follows.
a. Main Verb
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 31 was
*My elementary school at 12 morning. From the sentence above, the main verb of
the sentence was anywhere near to appear. The main verb should have been
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
appearing between the words “school” and “at”. Thus, the sentence could have
been “My Elementary School finishes at 12 morning” or “My Elementary begins
at 12 morning”.
b. Subject
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 2 was
*born in Blora. From the sentence above, the subject did not seem to appear. The
subject of the sentece should have been placed in the beginning of the sentece.
Thus, the sentence could have been “I was born in Blora”.
Table 4.1.2 The Classification of Omission of Grammatical Morpheme
No. Omission of GrammaticalMorpheme
Errors
1. Article *Erling Kirana Edita Dewi isstudent SMA GAMA.
2. Copula *He simple man.3. Auxiliary *Fayed living in Casa Grande
Residential.4. Progressive *I am describe my friend.5. Third person singular *He like fishing.6. Preposition *He is lazy to go school.7. Short plural *He win many the war.8. Long plural *My hobby are watching football
and volleyball.9. Infinitive marker *He like jeer friend.10. Irregular past tense *He became the first winner in
speech contest when he sit insenior high school.
The analysis of table 4.1.2 goes as follows.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40
a. Article
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 23 was
*Erling Kirana Edita Dewi is student SMA GAMA. The example sentence
containing grammatical morpheme omission error was *Erling Kirana Edita Dewi
is student SMA GAMA. In this sentence, the article was not available. It was
evident since there was an empty space between “is” and “student”. This empty
place was used to point out the location where the omission of article occured.
The sentence above should have been completed by adding an article “a”. Thus,
the sentence should have been “Erling Kirana Dewi is a student of SMA GAMA.”
b. Copula
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 15 was
*He simple man. This sentence omitted a copula between “he” and “simple man”.
Even though there were two required words which must be added to complete the
sentence, the copula would be the main focus in this analysis. The words that
should have been included are is and a. The role of “is” is the copula. Thus, the
sentence should have been “He is a simple man”.
c. Auxiliary
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 28 was
*Fayed living in casa grande residential. The chosen example showing the
omission of grammatical error about auxiliary was *Fayed living in Casa Grande
Residential. Based on this sentence, the auxiliary should have been placed
between “Fayed” and “living” because a subject could not be followed by an –ing
verb. As the result of this, there were two possibilities. First, the sentence could
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41
have been written as “Fayed was living in Casa Grande Residential”. Second, it
could have been “Fayed is living in Casa Grande Residential”. Since the
description text is mostly written in present tense and the context of the writing
did not indicate any past situation, therefore the best choice is “Fayed is living in
Casa Grande Residential”.
d. Progressive
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 6 was *I
am describe my friend. To show the omission of grammatical error about
progressive, the researcher picked up this sentence as the example. This sentece
was *I am describe my friend. This sentence omitted the –ing form of the main
verb “describe”. If it was not added, the sentence would not have been allowed to
stand. Thus, the sentence should have been completed as “I am describing my
friend”.
e. Third Person Singular
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 6 was *He
like fishing. Third person singular type of omission of grammatical morpheme
error deals with the verb form. It depends on the subject. Here, the subject is the
third person. From the sentence *He like fishing, it could be concluded that “he”
stood as the subject. The existence of the word “he” as the third person forced the
verb to alter. The verb should have been added by -s or -es, depending on the
basic form of the verb. Thus, this sentence should have been “He likes fishing”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
f. Preposition
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 5 was *He
is lazy to go school. The empty space between “go” and “school” showed that the
preposition did not appear in that sentence. By placing a preposition “to” between
“go” and “school”, the sentence would be more acceptable. Thus, the correct
sentence is “He is lazy to go to school”.
g. Short plural
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 15 was
*He win many the war. The indicator of a short plural error is the noun should be
added by -s. From the sentence *He win many the war, the word “war” was
emphasized in this discussion. It should have been formed in plural since the word
“many” had come previously in that sentence. The word “many” showed that the
war was more than a single war. Moreover, the word “war” was qualified as a
countable noun. Thus, the sentence should have been formed as “He wins many
wars”.
h. Long plural
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 29 was
*My hobby are watching football and volleyball. The indicator of a long plural
error is the noun should be added by -es. The sentence *My hobby are watching
football and volleyball was taken as the example. Based on the sentence, there
were two hobbies written. Thus, the word “hobby” should have been added by –es
to form a long plural “hobbies”. The final complete sentence should have been
“My hobbies are watching football and volleyball”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
43
i. Infinitive marker
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 5 was *He
like jeer friend. Although there are more than one errors discovered in this
sentence, the analysis would solely focus on the infinitive marker error. The
example sentence was *He like jeer friend. It omitted the infinitive marker
between “like” and “jeer”. This sentence should have been written completely as
“He likes to jeer his friend”. In other words, the infinitive marker “to” should have
been filled between “like” and “jeer”.
j. Irregular past tense
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 30 was
*He became the first winner in speech contest when he sit in senior high school.
The sentence *He became the first winner in speech contest when he sit in senior
high school contained grammatical morpheme error, particularly the irregular past
tense. The intended error was the word “sit”. This word should have been formed
in past tense since the previous verb in the sentence appeared in past tense. Thus,
the sentence should have been “He became the first winner in a speech contest
when he sat in senior high school”.
2. Addition
Addition errors are the opposite of omissions. Dulay et al. (1982) say,
“Addition errors are characterized by the presence of an item which must not
appear in a well-formed utterance” (p. 156). Based on the theory of surface
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44
strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay et al. (1982), there are three types of
addition errors. Those are double marking, regularization, and simple addition.
In this research, from the descriptive text writings of the tenth grade
students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta, the researcher found neither regularization
addition error nor single double marking addition error, but three simple addition
errors were well captured. The thirteen simple addition errors are categorized as
twelve articles errors and a single preposition error. The researcher used table
4.1.3 to display examples of simple addition errors.
Table 4.1.3 the Classification of Simple Addition
No. Simple Addition Errors1 Article *Rafif have a black hair.2 Preposition *He is from outside of Java.
The analysis of table 4.1.3 goes as follows.
a. Article
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 22 was
*Rafif have a black hair. Through the sentence picked up by the researcher as the
example, the article appeared to show the singular form of the hair. Since the
word hair could be considered as both countable and uncountable, the researcher
had to notice more on the content of the text. The researcher discovered that the
writer did not aim to talk over a few hairs. Thus, the article “a” before “black
hair” was considered as the addition of article error. Thus the sentence should
have been “Rafif has black hair”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
b. Preposition
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 5 was *He
is from outside of Java. The example sentence of preposition error of simple
addition was the only example discovered by the researcher. This sentence
showed that there was a preposition “of” appearing between “outside” and “Java”.
This sentence had the wrong addition of “of”. The sentence should have been “He
is from outside Java”.
3. Misformation
Misformation errors are different from the two previous errors types,
omission and addition. In misformation errors, the students produce or write
something, although it is incorrect. Dulay et al. (1982) indicate the
characterization of misformation errors. They say, “Misformation errors are
characterized by the use of wrong form of the morpheme or structure” (p. 169).
Dulay et al. (1982) classify misformation errors into two major parts (p. 169).
Those are overregularization and archi/alternating form. Theoretically,
overregularization is divided into four classes. Those are reflexive pronoun,
regular past, third person singular, and plural. Meanwhile achi/alternating form is
divided into seven parts, namely auxiliary, preposition, subject pronoun,
possessive pronoun, demonstrative adjective, negative, gerund, and quantifiers.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46
The researcher used table 4.1.4 to depict the detail numbers of each errors
of misformation.
Table 4.1.4, The Classification of Misformation Errors
Misformation ErrorsTypes
Number of Errors Total Number of Errors
Overregularization
1. Possessive pronoun 13
13
Archi/alternating form
1. Subject pronouns
2. Prepositions
3. Quantifiers
4. Gerumd
5. Demonstrative
6
9
6
2
1
24
. The examples of overregularization was going to be discussed in the next
paragraph, whilst table 4.1.5 dealt with archi/alternating forms errors.
a. Possessive pronoun
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 32 was
*It’s name is Chika. In the sentence taken as the example of possessive pronoun
error, it was well seen that “it’s” was used as the possessive pronoun. Mostly the
form of “‘s” was used to indicate the possessive pronoun, such as “my father’s
name”, or “my friend’s name”. Based on the context of the text, the writer looked
to use the possessive pronoun of “it” to complete her sentence. The writer
possibly thought that the usage of ‘s was considered as the regular form to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47
indicate the possessive form. As a matter of fact, the possessive pronoun of “it”
should have been “its”. Thus, the sentence should have been “Its name is chika”.
Table 4.1.5 The Classification of Archi/Alternating Forms
No. Archi/Alternating Forms Errors1 Subject Pronoun *She is very cheerfull. Ganis 16
years old. He lives with his familyin Kaliurang.
2 Preposition *Her hobbies are listening of themusic and singing.
3 Quantifiers *Ganis is a pretty young women.4 Gerund *I miss laugh and kidding.5 Demonstrative *Her nickname is Dila. Dila was
born on 3 may 1999. Her becomefrom Ternate.
The analysis of table 4.1.5 goes as follows.
a. Subject Pronoun
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 2 was *She
is very cheerfull. Ganis 16 years old. He lives with his family in Kaliurang.
The researcher took two sentences from a descriptive text writing of a
student to analyze the subject pronoun error. Two sentences were required to see
subject pronoun error. From those three sentences, each sentence had one subject.
In the first sentence, the writer used “she” as the subject, in the following sentence
the writer used “Ganis” as the subject while in the last one the writer wrote “he”
as the subject. The second and third sentences would not be claimed as correct,
otherwise the subject of the second and the third sentence was resembled to the
first one. In short, the sentences should have been “She is very cheerfull. She is 16
years old. She lives with his family in Kaliurang”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48
b. Preposition
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 34 was
*Her hobbies are listening of the music and singing. From the sentence *Her
hobbies are listening of the music and singing, a preposition error was discovered.
The researcher noticed that the word “of” was regarded as the incorrect
preposition in the sentence. To make the sentence more acceptable, the
preposition should have been replaced by “to”. It resulted “Her hobbies are
listening to the music and singing”.
c. Quantifiers
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 2 was
*Ganis is a pretty young women. In quantifiers error, the student failed to deal
with neither plural nor singular form. The example showed that the student wrote
down *a pretty young women. This kind of error could not be regarded as
addition because if the article “a” before “pretty young women” was omitted, the
sentence was still unacceptable. Thus, the sentence should have been “Ganis is a
pretty young woman”.
d. Gerund
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 7 was *I
miss laugh and kidding. That example sentence showed that the student failed to
form a gerund after the verb “miss”. The writer had successfully dealt with gerund
in forming “kidding”, instead of “kid”. Unfortunately, the writer’s inability to
alter “laugh” to be a gerund form became the main concern. If the writer was able
to alter “laugh” to “laughing” as the writer did towards “kid”, the sentence could
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
have been correct. In other words, the sentence should have been formed as “I
miss laughing and kidding”.
e. Demonstrative
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 32 was
*Her nickname is Dila. Dila was born on 3 may 1999. Her become from Ternate.
According to Dulay et al. (1982), the learner may select one member of
the personal pronouns class to function for others (p.160). Through the example, it
was showed that the word “her” has previously appeared. Afterwards, the student
was determined to function the same personal pronoun to be the subject of the
next sentence. The personal pronoun in the latter sentence should have been
changed into “she”. Thus, the sentence should have been “Her nickname is Dila.
Dila was born on 3 May 1999. She comes from Ternate”.
4. Misordering
Misordering happens when a morpheme or a group of morphemes are
misordered in a sentence. Dulay et al. (1982) state, “Misordering errors are
characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or a group of morphemes
in an utterance” (p.162). Based on the surface strategy taxonomy theory of Dulay
et al. (1982), misordering errors are divided into three major parts. Those are
auxiliary in simple question, auxiliary in embedded question, and adverb.
In this research, there were thirteen misordering errors. Auxiliary in simple
question was not discovered in this research. Meanwhile the researcher discovered
two errors of auxiliary in embedded question. Moreover, adverb errors were
discovered eleven times. The researcher used table 4.1.6 to display the examples
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50
of the misordering errors discovered. The analysis of each examples listed in table
4.1.6 would be written below the table 4.1.6.
Table 4.1.6 The Classification of Misordering
No. Misordering Errors1 Auxiliary in embedded question *Her song is “Bang Bang”
feat Nicki Minarj and Jessie Jvery nice.
2 Adverb *He is handsome a boy.
The analysis of table 4.1.6 goes as follows.
a. Auxiliary in embedded question
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 3 was *Her
song is “Bang Bang” feat Nicki Minarj and Jessie J very nice. The sentence
belonged to misordering error of auxiliary in embedded question because of the
incorrect placement of is. The word “is” should have been placed before “very
nice”. Thus, the sentence should have been formed as “Her song “Bang Bang”
feat Nicki Minarj and Jessie J is very nice”.
b. Adverb
The example taken from the descriptive text of student number 16 was
*He is handsome a boy. The sentence *he is handsome a boy contained a
misordering error of adverb. The placement of handsome was incorrect. By
shifting the article “a” forward, the correct position would be found. Thus, the
sentence should have been “He is a handsome boy”.
After knowing the particular numbers of each types of errors proposed by
Dulay et al. (1982), the researcher was keen to know the most frequent errors in
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51
the descriptive text writings made by the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta. In order to know the most frequent errors occured, the researcher was
to count the errors which had been analyzed using the surface strategy taxonomy
of Dulay et al. (1982). Firstly the researcher counted the total number of each
classification of types of errors. Moreover, the researcher summed up the the
number of each errors classifications to know the number of each major types of
errors. To make a better depiction, the researcher provides table 4.1.7 to present
the total numbers of errors.
Table 4.1.7 Total Errors Discovered
No. Types of Errors Numbers of Errors Total Errors1. Omissions
a. Omission of ContentMorpheme
b. Omission of grammaticalmorpheme
3
132
135
2. Additionsa. Simple Additions 13
13
3. Misformationa. Overregularizationb. Archi/Alternating forms
1324
37
4. Misorderinga. Auxiliary in embedded
questionb. Adverb
2
11
13
Table 4.1.7 described that omission errors had been the most frequent
errors occured in the descriptive texts made by the tenth grade sutddents of SMA
GAMA Yogyakarta. Omissions of grammatical morphemes gave the highest
contribution to omissions type of errors. In this case, omissions of grammtical
morphemes came up with one hundred and thirty two errors, whilst omissions of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
52
content morpheme were discovered three times. In the second place of the most
frequent errors dicovered, misformations stood with thirty seven errors occured.
The detail classifications of misformation errors were thirteen errors belonged to
overregularizations and twenty four errors belonged to archi/alternating forms.
Addition type of errors had been discovered thirteen times. All of the addition
errors belonged to errors of simple addition. As the fewest errors discovered,
addition type of errors was accompanied by misordering. Misordering held firmly
with thirteen errors. Those thirteen errors were classified into two errors of
auxiliary in embedded question, and eleven errors of adverb. In conclusion, the
frequent error type occured was omission, whilst the two fewest error types
occured were misordering and addition.
B. The Causes of Errors in the Descriptive Text Writings of the Tenth
Grade Students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta
The researcher employed the theory of Norrish (1983) to classify the
reasons of making errors of the tenth grade students of SMA GMA Yogyakarta.
According to Norrish (1983), there are five factors causing errors. Those are
carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization, and, error
as a part of language creativity. From those reasons of errors, there was no
students’ statements pointing to error as a part of language creativity. Before
dealing with the classification, the researcher used interview as the instrument to
find out the reasons of making errors of the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta in descriptive text writing. This interview was conducted one-by-one.
The selected students were student 1, 2, 3, 18, 20, and, 21. Those students were
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
53
selected by way of purposive sampling. Student 1 and 21 were the students who
produced errors below the average or less than other students. Student 2 and 20
were the students who made average errors or more or less the same number of
errors as the other students. While student 3 and 18 were students who produced
lots of errors or above the average errors discovered. From those selected
students, the researcher uses Table 4.2.1 to depict the percentage of the causes of
errors based on the students’ words during the interview.
Table 4.2.1 The Percentage of The Causes of Errors
No. The Causes of Errors Percentage
1 Carelessness 83%2. First Language Interference 66%3. Translation 66%4. Overgeneralization 33%5. Error as a part of language creativity 0%
As the result of the interviews, the most popular cause of the selected
students related to producing errors was carelessness. Norrish (1983) notes that,
“Carelessness is often closely related to motivation” (p. 21). In this case, related to
this study, the students were not going to check their writings whether or not it has
been appropriate or correct. Since the term of carelessness is too strong to apply,
the researcher refers to call this kind of error cause as ignorance. It happened to
most of the students interviewed. Student 21 said that after writing the descriptive
text, she did not have any intention to recheck the work, including grammar,
vocabulary, mistyping, and, punctuation. Moreover she added that she was
lacking concentration in writing the descriptive text due to being in a hurry to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54
accomplish the writing. The similar expressions were told by five out of six
students interviewed.
One of the students said,
“Kurang teliti pak, sebenernya saya tau seperti pada kalimat yangpertama di teks itu. Terburu-buru juga Pak. Maksudnya terburu-buruingin cepat selesai pak, kalo sudah selesai kan bisa main atau ngobrol-ngobrol sama teman-teman. Terburu-buru ingin cepat selesai jadi tidak diteliti lagi. (Student 20, Interview data, March 12, 2015)
Student 20 told the researcher that during writing the descriptive text she
was eager to finish it as soon as possible. She added that the time given by the
teacher to write the description text was not enough. As the result of this, she said
that she could not recheck her writing by the time she finished writing. In the
same boat, student 21 explained that despite being not careful enough, she was
lack of concentration and did not check her writing afterwards. Student 1 firmly
claimed that she produced some errors because she was in a bad mood at that
time. As the result of this she did not intend to check her descriptive text writing
afterward. In line with this, student 18 expressed that she actually understood the
related grammar to write descriptive text. Moreover she said that she had ever
been taught both in junior high school and senior high school. She stood firmly
that she was not careful in writing the descriptive text. She claimed the similar
excuse to students 1, 10, and, 21 that she did not check the work by the end of the
assessment submission time. Another student who agreed with the same excuse
was student 3. She told the researcher that although she had been taught about
descriptive text in junior and senior high school, she remained incapable of
avoiding errors. She said that she forgot the lesson she had learnt, she was lacking
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
concentration, and she was in a hurry. She underlined that the latter excuse forced
her not to have any chance to recheck her descriptive text writing. From the
statements of students 1, 3, 18, 20, and 21, it can be drawn that ignorance had
been the most popular reason of making errors among the students interviewed.
In one side, ignorance had been mostly mentioned by the six selected
students, in the other side first language interference was coming afterward as the
second most reason of the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in
producing errors in writing descriptive text. Norrish (1983) said that language is a
matter of habit formation. The learner’s utterances were thought to be gradually
shaped towards those of the language he was learning (p. 22). In other words, it
could be drawn that first language interference appears when the target language
is not used in the daily communication, especially in written. Related to this study,
mother tongue interference comes when students want to learn a new language or
a target language, in this study the target language is English. As the result of this,
the students found difficulties in dealing with the adaptation of English structure,
such as the use of to be, past tense, and, countable/uncountable noun.
There were four out of six selected students emphasizing in first language
interference as the reason of producing errors in their descriptive text writings.
Those were students 2, 3, 18 and, 20.
One of those students said,
“Seperti is, am, are itu pak, saya bingung kapan memakainya dan makaiyang mana, takutnya nanti artinya beda atau gimana gitu pak. ya bingungaja pak memakainya, soalnya di bahasa Indonesia kan gak ada pak.”(Student 3, Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
Student 3 mentioned that the existence of to be, such as am, is, are, was,
and were was the main focus. Since in Indonesian there was not any to be, she felt
hard to adapt using to be in constructing English sentence. Moreover she added
that English was not spoken in her daily life, thus the interference of her mother
tongue, in this case is Indonesian, remained affecting her English sentence. The
statement of student 3 was supported by student 2.
Student 2 said,
“Hehehe soalnya di bahasa Indonesia kan enggak ada pak “sebuahhidung”, atau “sebuah wajah”, jadi saya gak kepikiran untukmenambahkan “a” nya itu pak”. ( Student D, Interview Data, March 12,2015)
Student 2 told the researcher that the existence of article as pre-modifier
was hard to be applied in her writing, such as “a nose, and, a face”. She
mentioned more about the difference of plural form of English and Indonesian.
She said that since in Indonesian the plural noun form was no different to the
singular one, she found it difficult to construct the English plural form of a noun
correctly and instantly. In short, it can be sorted out from student 2 that the errors
appeared in her writing because she never spoke or wrote in English in her daily
life context. Student 18 claimed that the third person singular form affecting the
verb was the main case. The reason was similar to the previous one. In
Indonesian, the verb form will not change although the subject was he, she, or, it.
This situation was hard to be adapted by the students since English was not used
by her in the context of daily life. The detail case she proposed was the difference
between “I want” and “she wants”. Another supportive statement referring to the
first language interference came from student 20.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
She said,
“Kalo di tv itu seringnya bilang “dance” pak, dan kalo ngobrol samateman-teman juga gitu pak sering nya pada bilang “nge-dance” gitu, jadisaya gak kepikiran ditambahi –ing seperti “playing” yang sebelumnya.(Student 20, Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
She said concisely that she was heavily affected by some expression in
Indonesian. In particular, Indonesian media such as television gave impact to her
understanding of constructing English sentence or choosing English vocabulary.
Moreover she continued to use the wrong English form in her daily
communication. It resulted she used the word improperly in her descriptive text
writing. From those four students’ statements, it could be concluded that the first
language interference became the second popular factor of making errors of the
tenth grade students of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive text.
Another reason coming up from the six interviewed students was word by
word translation. Norrish (1983) say, “Translation word by word of idiomatic
expression in the learner’s first language can produce classic howlers” (p. 26).
Norrish (1983) say that this cause of error is the most common one. In this cause
of errors, the learners tried to translate a familiar expression in their first language
into the target language they were learning. This happened when students or
learners did not know the exact translation of such expression they wanted to
write.
One of the students said,
“kalo di bahasa Indonesianya kan “saya sekolah di…” gitu pak, jadi sayatulis aja saya itu “I”, sekolah itu “school”, gitu pak”. (Student 20,Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
Students 1, 2, 3 and 20 referred to translation word by word as another
reason for making errors. Student 20 said that by the time she did not know the
English expression of the phrase, she preferred to turn to translation word by word
as the problem solution. Along with student 2, students 3 and 20 admitted that
facing the woodwork when writing the descriptive text forced her to employ
translation as the solving strategy. She spoke that this kind of strategy was the
most logical way through translating from one word to another. Student 3 spoke
similarly to the previous one.
As she said,
“Aku itu translet per kata gitu pak, jadi bingung juga gimana nulisnya,dan gak tau susunan kata yang udah ditranslet itu bener apa enggakdalam bahasa inggris pak”. (Student 3, Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
“Soalnya kalo udah enggak bisa mikir lagi ya alternative nya saya transletper kata pak, jadi enggak tau itu betul apa enggak pak”. (Student 3,Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
She agreed to use translation strategy when she got no idea the English
expression of the words or phrases. Ironically she noticed that employing word by
word translation cost her error in disposing one English word to another. In short,
it could be drawn that some students were relying to translation strategy to
construct English expression even though there was no guarantee that the words
formed were the correct one.
There are two reasons left on the causes of errors proposed by Norrish
(1983), overgeneralization and error as a part of language creativity. Since there
was no students’ statement pointing to error as a part of language creativity,
overgeneralization is the last reason proposed by the interviewed students. Related
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59
to this factor of errors, Norrish (1983) argues that “The error might be made as a
result of blending structures learnt early in the learning sequence” (p. 31). In other
words, this kind of error happened when students or learners used two kinds of
structures in one sentence.
One of the students said,
“hehehe aku itu pak, mmm, melihat catatan sebelumnya pak, kan pernahmencatat materi seperti ini, jadi saya lihat dari situ pak. Tapi emangberbeda, tidak seperti ini bentuk utuhnya, tapi saya tulis saja pak hehehe.”(Student 2, Interview Data, March 12, 2015)
Students 1 and 2 threw overgeneralization as their reasons of making
errors in her descriptive text writings. Student 2 said that, whether or not it was
correct, she preferred to use her previous knowledge in her notes. Meanwhile
student 1 told the researcher that she just looked at her notes to help her writing
descriptive text. She argued that some different sentence forms were used as her
references in writing descriptive text. In fact she said that she was trying to form a
different sentence, thus she agreed that it resulted a blending structures and cost
her errors.
From those explanations of the causes of errors stated by the selected
interviewed students, there were four out of five major reasons proposed by
Norrish (1983). Carelessness or ignorance was mentioned by students 1, 3, 18, 20,
and, 21 as the reasons of making errors. Whilst first language interference was
claimed by students 2, 3, 18, and, 20 as the reasons of making errors, translation
was admitted by students 1, 2, 3, and 20 as the strategy used that could end with
errors. As the last reason remained, overgeneralization was noted by students 1
and 2 as the reasons of making errors.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two parts. Part one contains the conclusion of the
research, while part two provides the suggestions related to the study.
A. Conclusions
This study aimed to discover the errors made by the tenth grade students
of SMA GAMA Yogyakarta in writing descriptive texts. The researcher employed
the Surface Strategy Taxonomy proposed by Dulay et al. (1982) to classify the
errors discovered in students’ descriptive text writings. Based on the Surface
Strategy Taxonomy of Dulay et al. (1982), errors are classified into four major
types of errors. Those are omission, addition, miformation, and misordering. From
those types of errors, the researcher discovered that omission was the most errors
discovered. Misformation sat comfortably in the second place of the most errors
discovered. The two fewest error types occured were misordering and addition.
In addition to figure out the causes of errors, the researcher employed the
theory of Norrish (1983). Based on the theory of Norrish (1983), the factors of
making errors are classified into five types. Those are carelessness, first language
interference, translation, overgeneralization, and, error as a part of language
creativity.
After conducting the interview with the selected students, and classifying
the reasons of making errors of the tenth grade students of SMA GAMA
Yogyakarta in a descriptive texts writing, it was showed that, there were four out
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61
of five major reasons proposed by Norrish (1983). Carelessness or ignorance was
mentioned by students 1, 3, 18, 20, and, 21 as the reasons of making errors, whilst
first language interference was claimed by student 2, 3, 18, and, 20 as the reasons
of making errors. Translation was admitted by student 1, 2, 3, and 20 as the
strategy used that could end with errors. As the last factor of making errors
remained, overgeneralization was noted by student 1 and 2 as the factor of making
errors.
In conclusion, carelessness or ignorance had been the most frequent cause
of errors 83%, followed by first language interference and translation 66% for
each, and overgeneralization 33%. In the bottom of the chart, error as a part of
language creativity stands 0%.
B. Suggestions
1. For Other Researchers
This study deals with analyzing errors produced by the students in
descriptive text writings. This study encourages other researchers to conduct the
similar research, analyzing errors, but in another schools. It will be more
challenging for other researchers to employ the similar error analysis with the
different kinds of texts. Moreover, applying error analysis with the other error
theories proposed by Dulay et al. (1982) can be another option for other
researchers.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
2. For Students
This study gives illustration and information to the students about the most
concerning part of their writings. Through this research, the students are able to
figure out what they have to improve in their writings. Moreover, this study
encourages and motivates the students to produce and practice writing in English.
3. For Teachers
The researcher suggests the English teacher explain more about minor part
of grammar, such as copulas, long plurals, short plurals, and, articles. In addition,
to make the students remember the lesson given by the teachers, using English in
and out of class is a recommended option.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
REFERENCES
Anggraheni, A. A. (2008). Analyzing students’ errors in recount text.
Undergraduate Thesis. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
http://library.usd.ac.id.
Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in
education. Orlando: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc.
Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in
education. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Asher, R. E. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics ( Vol. 2). ( 3rded.). (J.M.Y Simpson, E.D). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Azar, B. S. ( 1992). Understanding and Using English Grammar ( 2nd ed.). NewYork. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Barreiro, P. L., & Albandoz, J. P. (2001). Population and sample. Retrieved
November 9, 2014 from
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=sample+research+&t=0.
Best, W. J., & Krahn, V. J. (1986). Research in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Regents.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Qualitative research journal. Retrieved November 9, 2014
from http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=qualitative+research+journal+&t=0.
Boyce, C. & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews. A guide for
designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input.
Retrieved November 1, 2014 from
http//:www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/training/materials/data-
alityportuguese/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf.
Coder, S. P. (1967). Significance of learner’s errors. Middlesex: PenguinEducation.
Coder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: PenguinEducation.
Coder, S. P. (1974). Error analysis and remedial teaching. Washington D.C.:ERIC Clearinghouse.
Coder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64
Dattalo, P. (2008). Determining sample size. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. New York:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook ( 2nd Ed.). Retrieved November 1, 2014
from http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=the+survey+handbook+&t=0.
Hendrickson, J. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching.
Singapore: SEAMEO regional language centre.
Henry, D., J. (2008). Writing for life: paragraph to essay. New York: Pearson
Longman.
McMurrey, D., A,. (1983). Writing fundamental. New York: Macmillian. CO. Inc.
Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors (R.H. Flavell ed.). London:The MacMillan Press Limited.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical english language teaching. New York: McGrawhillContemporary.
Punch, F. K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London:Sage
Richard, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. ELT Journal 25:204-19.
Widiati, U., Sulistyo, G., Suryati, N., Setiawan, S., & Ratnaningsih, P. (2008).Contextual teaching and learning. Jakarta: Departemen PendidikanNasional.
Walvoord, L.B. (1985). Writing strategies for all disciplines. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wardiman, A., Jahur, B.M., & Djumas, S.M. (2008). English in focus. Jakarta:Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
65
Yuanita, E.P. (2014).The erroneous verbs used in past tense in narrative text ofgrade X students. Undergraduate Thesis. Retrieved October 15, 2014,from http://library.usd.ac.id.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing of advanced ESL students. TESOL Quarterly.
Zimmeerman, D. & Rodrigues, D. (1992). Research and writing in the disciplines.Fort Worth FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
APPENDICES
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
APPENDIX 1. The confirmation letter of the research from SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
APPENDIX 2.The Examples of Students’ descriptive text
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69
APPENDIX 2. The Examples of Students’ descriptive text
Student 16
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70
APPENDIX 2. The Examples of Students’ descriptive text
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
APPENDIX 3. Interview Guideline
1. What do you think of your errors?
2. How did you check your writing after finishing it ?
3. How did you start your writing ?
4. If you don’t know the English of some words, what will you do to write it
down in your writing?
5. If you find difficulties in structuring a sentence or expression in your
writing, what will you possibly do ?
6. How does Bahasa Indonesia influence you in your writing?
7. What do you think about your grammatical accuracy in your writing?
8. What do you think about creativity influence in your writing?
The Interview Guideline Questions
No. Interview Guidelines The Number of the Questions
1. Carelessness 1
2. First Language Interference 5
3. Translation 2, 3, and 4
4. Overgeneralization 6
5. Language as Part of Creativity 7
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
APPENDIX 4.The transcripts of the interview
Student 3
R: kenapa kamu salah sebanyak ini?
S: kurang konsentrasi pak waktu ngerjainnya, keburu-buru juga pak
R: keburu-buru pengen cepet selesai?
S: iya pak,
R:tapi setelah selesai di cek lagi enggak kerjaannya?
S: enggak pak , hehehe
R: hmmm selain itu, menurutmu kesulitanmu apa dalam mengerjakan deskriptifteks ini?
S:seperti is, am are itu pak, saya bingung kapan memakainya dan makai yangmana, takutnya nanti artinya beda atau gimana gitu pak.
R: apa yang membingungkan dari to be (is , am are) itu menurutmu?
S: ya bingung aja pak memakainya, soalnya di bahasa Indonesia kan gak adapak.
R: trus ini kan kebanyakan kamu kurang menambahkan article seperti a atau an,kenapa bisa begitu ?
S: saya tidak mikir kesitu pak, tidak mikir apakah harus pakai a/ an, jadilangsung saya tulis saja gitu.
R: tapi kamu pernah diajarkan tentang penambahan article sperti a/an gitu?
S: pernah pak, kalo gak salah SMP sudah pernah diajarkan. Jadi sebenernyasaya udah pernah dapat materi itu lama tapi lupa ngluarinnya.
R:kok bisa lupa? Gak pernah belajar ya
S: ya belajar tapi lupa pak.gak pernah nulis pakai b.inggris pak, ya jadi lupa pak.
R: seandainya kamu menemukan kesulitan dalam menuliskan kata-kata, apa yangkamu lakukan?
S: cari di google translet pak, paling itu pak mentok-mentok nya.
R: lha ini “she has a got brown skin”? tahu salahnya dimana?
S: menempatkan kata pak, haruse “she has got a brown skin”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
R: nah itu tau, kenapa kok kamu malah keliru menmpatkan “a” nya sebelum“got”?
S: aaaah gak tau…
R: kamu pernah diajarkan menulis dengan struktur seperti ini?di SMP atau diSMA gitu?
S: iya pernah pak, tapi menyusunnya itu kadang bener kadang salah
R: o gitu, tapi gurunya kalo nerangin jelas enggak? Missal materi deskripsiseperti ini,
S: jelas pak, kalo diperhatikan, kalo enggak diperhatikan ya enggak jelas pak
R: berarti kamu enggak pernah memperhatikan ya? Hehehehehe
S: hehehhe kadang-kadang pak
R:lah ini, error berikutnya, kenapa kamu enggak menuliskan “dancing”, malah“dance”
S:itu kan karena yang ada di kepala langsung tak tuliskan saja pak
R: lah ini tau kesalahnmu? Kenapa malah nulis “dance her” ?
S: itu maksudnya “tariannya sangat bagus pak”
R: o gitu, kenapa tidak “her dance”?
S: aku itu translet per kata gitu pak, jadi bingung juga gimana nulisnya, dan gaktau susunan kata yang udah ditranslet itu bener apa enggak dalam bahasa inggrispak.
R: kenapa kok kamu sering terbalik-balik dalam menyusun kata di kalimatmu
S: soalnya kalo udah enggak bisa mikir lagi ya alternative nya saya translet perkata pak, jadi enggak tau itu betul apa enggak pak,
R: lha ini “her song make me” itu kan haruse “her song makes me”, tau kamukenapa pake “makes”?
S: itu karena subjectnya pak, lupa pak.
R: setelah mengerjakan ini kamu tidak mengecek ulang pekerjaanmu?
S: enggak pak langusng dikumpulkan, soalnya waktu itu waktu nya udah hampirhabis
R: o gitu, ok kalo gitu, trimakasih ya atas waktunya.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI