A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF … · Yogyakarta memiliki kesempatan untuk mempelajari teks deskriptif pada semester dua. Kurikulum 2006, menyatakan bahwa murid

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


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


SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITYYOGYAKARTA

2015

A STUDY OF ERRORS IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING OF THE


Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements


PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI



Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the


i



A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsto Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By


101214116


SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITYYOGYAKARTA

2015



Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements





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)




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


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


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


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.



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


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


xiii

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………. 63

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………...66


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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


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


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”.


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


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”.


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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 _____ %


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.


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.


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.


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 _____ %


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


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.


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


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


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


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


*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.



40

a. Article


*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


*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


*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


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”.


42

f. Preposition


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


*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


*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”.


43

i. Infinitive marker


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


*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


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.


a. Article


*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”.


45

b. Preposition


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.


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


*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


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.


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”.


48

b. Preposition


*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


*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


49

have been correct. In other words, the sentence should have been formed as “I

miss laughing and kidding”.

e. Demonstrative


*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


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.


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


*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


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


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


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


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


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)


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.


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.


“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)


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


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.


“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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


66

APPENDICES


67

APPENDIX 1. The confirmation letter of the research from SMA GAMA Yogyakarta.


68

APPENDIX 2.The Examples of Students’ descriptive text


69

APPENDIX 2. The Examples of Students’ descriptive text

Student 16


70

APPENDIX 2. The Examples of Students’ descriptive text


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


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”.


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.
