Interlanguage Error Made by Students in Writing Recount Text (A Study at MAN 2 Boyolali)
THESIS
Submitted to Postgraduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Magister Degree of Language Study of English
By SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH NIM : S 200 11 0057
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA 2014
i
ii
iii
iv
MOTTO
Say what you say, Do what you do, Just listen to your heart! We are here just for one reason, heaven! Try to keep your heart in pureness! Don’t be afraid to start, don’t be afraid to finish, believe in God! Just follow Al-Qur’an and Al-Hadist!
v
DEDICATION
This thesis is wholly dedicated to:
My beloved mother and father
My beloved family
All of my relatives and friends.
vi
vii
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, praise to Allah SWT, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful. Praise to Allah for the blessings endowed to me so that I can accomplish this piece of work entitled “Interlanguage Error Made by Students in Writing Recount Text (A Study at MAN 2 Boyolali)” as the requirement for getting post graduate degree of English Education of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to: 1. Prof.
Dr.
Khudzaifah Dimyati, SH, M.Hum, as a director of
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. 2. Prof. Dr. Markhamah, M, Hum, the head of post graduate program of Language Study. 3. Prof. Dr. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum my thesis supervisor, for her patient guidance during the process of writing this thesis.
Her invaluable
comments and suggestions have led to numerous improvements of my thesis. 4. Dr. Anam Sutopo, M. Hum my second thesis supervisor who has patiently given me his valuable comments, corrections, as well as suggestions for the improvement of my thesis.
viii
6. All of the lecturers of Master program of English education thank for precious knowledge given to me. 7. All of my classmates for togetherness, kindness, and motivation. To all of them I dedicate this piece of work. Deep down in my heart, this thesis is far from being perfect. I invite comments and suggestions from the readers for the betterment of this thesis. Hopefully this thesis will be useful for those who are interested in analyzing interlanguage error.
Surakarta, August 2014
Syarif Hidayatullah
ix
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE ………………………………………………………………………………………........ i CONSULTANT NOTE .……..………………………..…………………………………... ii ACCEPTANCE …………………………………………………………………………….... iv MOTTO ……………………………………………………………………………………….. v DEDICATION ………………….…………………………………………………………….. vi PRONOUNCEMENT …..….……………………………………………………………… vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………………….................. viii TABLE OF CONTENT …………………...……...……...…………………..………….. x ABSTRACT ..................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ………………………………...……………............................ 1 B. Problems statements .…….……………………………..…………………….…………………. 11 C. Objective of the Study ……………………………………..…………...………………………. 12 D. Benefit of the Study ……………………………………………………………….……………… 13 E.
Limitation of the Study ………………………………….…..…………………………………… 14
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Study ……………………………………………………………………………………..... 15
x
1.
Kaladevi’s Work ……………………………………………………………………………..
16
2. Endang’s work………..……………………………………………………………………….
19
3.
Azizi’s work …………………………………………………………………………………….
21
4.
Reza and Laleh’s work…………………………………………………………………….. 24
5.
Su-Hie, Mahanita and Siew-Lee’sWork……………………………………………. 26
6.
Position of the Current Study …………………………………………………………
30
B. Theory Description ………………………………………………………………………………… 32 1.
Interlanguage ………………………………………………………………………………..
33
a.
33
The Notion of Interlanguage ……………………………………………………
b. Interlanguage Concept…………………………………………………………….. 35
2.
1) Selinker………………………………………………………………………………..
35
2) Adjemian …………………………………………………………………………….
37
3) Tarone ………………………………………………………………………………..
41
Error anlysis…………………………………………………………………………………..
43
a.
43
Notion of Error Analysis …………………………………………………………..
b. Error Classification…………………………………………………………………… 47
3.
c.
Sources of Errors……………………………………………………………………..
d.
Algorithm for Conducting Error Analysis ………………………………… 54
Types of English Text …………………………………………………………………….. a.
51
58
Narrative …………………………………………………………………………………. 59
xi
b. Descriptive ………………………………………………………………………………. 59 c. Report……………………....................................................................... 60 d. Explanation ……………………………………………………………………………… 60 e. Analytical Exposition…………………………………………………………………. 61 f. Hortatory Exposition…………………………………………………………………. 61 g. Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………. 61 h. Review ……………………………………………………………………………………... 62 i.
Anecdote …………………………………………………………………………………... 62
j.
News Item…………………………………………………………………………………. 63
k. Spoof ………………………………………………………………………………………... 63 l.
Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 63
m. Recount ……………………………………………………………………………………. 64
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Type of the Research ……………………………………………………………………………… 69 B. Object of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………. 70 C. Subject of the Study ………………………………………………………………………………. 70 D. Data and Data Source …………………………………………………………………………….. 71 E.
Technique of Data Collection ………………………………………………………………….. 71
F. Technique of Analyzing the Data……………………………………………………………….. 72
xii
CHAPTER IV : RESEARCH FINDING AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE FINDING A. Research Finding ……………………………………………………………………………………. 74 1.
2.
The types of Morphological Errors …………………………………………………
75
a.
Bound Morpheme …………………………………………………………………. 76
b.
Noun …....................................................................................... 83
c.
Verb ……………………………………………………………………………………..
85
d.
Adjective ………………………………………………………………………………
86
e.
False friend ……………………………………………………………………………
88
f.
Code switch…………………………………………………………………………… 90
g.
Spelling………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
h.
Pronouns………………………………………………………………………………… 92
The type of Syntactical Error ………………………..…………………………………. 98 a. Tenses……………………………………………………………………………………….. 97
3.
b.
Phrase………………………………………………………………………………………. 111
c.
Sentence ……………………………………………………………………………….. 114
d.
Article…………………………………………………………………………………….. 115
The types of Discourse Errors ………………………………………………………… 118 a.
Reference …………………………………………………………………………….. 119
b.
Generic Structure …………………………………………………………………… 120
c.
Wrong Selection of Conjunction……………………………………………
121
4.
The Frequency of Each Type…………………………………………………………… 122
5.
The Dominant Error……………………………………………………………………….. 136
6.
The Source of Error………………………………………………………………………… 137
B. Discussion of the Findings …………………………………………………………………….. 143
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………............................... 150 B. Suggestion ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 153
xiii
C. Pedagogical Implication ………………………………………………………………………. 155
BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX
xiv
ABSTRACT
This study analyzes interlanguage errors of 60 written text by 60 students. The participants are eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Boyolali. All of the participants are from non-English speaking background and scarcely communicate in English in outside of the school. The object of this study was students’ recount text. The researcher bounds the study of error based on the linguistic category taxonomy and surface strategy taxonomy to investigate the data made by the subjects. All of the errors in the texts were identified and classified into various categorizations. The results of the study show that three categories errors executed by the participants were morphological error (bound morpheme, noun, verb, adjective, false friend, code switch, spelling and pronoun), syntactical error (tenses, phrase, sentence and article) and discourse error (reference, generic structure and conjunctive). In order to find out the total number of errors as well as the frequency of the occurrence of each type of errors, all types of errors are then calculated. The writer finds 337 erroneous. The highest percentage of errors recorded is in morphological area 160 errors (47.47%), the second is in syntactical field 153 errors (45.40%) and the lowest percentage of errors is in discourse subject 24 errors (7.12%). The writer reaches the conclusion from this study that the dominant error made by students is in morphological. The teachers should make the students realize about the differences between Indonesian and English structures, because it may make the process of acquiring the native language more difficult and complicated for the students. By doing error analysis, teachers will acquire knowledge about the students’ errors in writing process. After doing this, the teacher can predict the errors which will be made by the students. Since the students’ errors are valuable feedbacks for teacher, it makes the teacher can get the learner s’ progress in their skill. Key words: Interlanguage, Error Analysis, Recount Text, Linguistic Category Taxonomy, Surface Strategy Taxonomy
xv
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini menganalisis kesalahan interlanguage dari 60 teks yang ditulis oleh 60 siswa. Para peserta adalah siswa kelas XI MAN 2 Boyolali. Semua peserta berasal dari latar belakang berbicara non-bahasa Inggris dan hampir berkomunikasi tidak dalam bahasa Inggris di luar sekolah. Objek penelitian ini adalah teks recount siswa. Peneliti membatasi studi kesalahan berdasarkan linguistic category taxonomy dan surface strategy taxonomy untuk menyelidiki data yang dibuat oleh subyek. Semua kesalahan dalam teks diidentifikasi dan diklasifikasikan ke dalam berbagai kategori. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tiga kategori kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh para peserta adalah kesalahan morfologi (bound morpheme, noun, verb, adjective, false friend, code switch, spelling and pronoun), kesalahan sintaksis (tenses, phrase, sentence dan article) dan kesalahan wacana (reference, generic structure dan conjunctive). Untuk mengetahui jumlah kesalahan serta frekuensi terjadinya setiap jenis kesalahan, semua jenis kesalahan kemudian dihitung. Penulis menemukan 337 kekeliruan. Persentase tertinggi kesalahan tercatat di daerah morfologi 160 kesalahan (47,47%), yang kedua adalah dalam bidang sintaksis 153 kesalahan (45,40%) dan persentase terendah kesalahan dalam wacana 24 subjek kesalahan (7.12%). Penulis membuat kesimpulan dari penelitian ini bahwa kesalahan yang paling dominan dilakukan oleh siswa adalah dalam bidang morfologi. Para guru harus membuat siswa menyadari tentang perbedaan antara struktur bahasa Indonesia dan Inggris, karena dapat membuat proses perolehan bahasa asli lebih sulit dan rumit bagi siswa. Dengan melakukan analisis kesalahan, guru akan memperoleh pengetahuan tentang kesalahan siswa dalam proses penulisan. Setelah melakukan hal ini, guru dapat memprediksi kesalahan yang akan dibuat oleh siswa. Karena kesalahan siswa adalah masukan berharga bagi guru, membuat guru bisa mendapatkan pelajaran untuk kemajuan dalam keterampilan mereka. KATA KUNCI: Interlanguage, Analysis Kesalahan, Recount Text, Linguistic Category Taxonomy, Surface Strategy Taxonomy
xvi
