AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY …repository.uksw.edu/bitstream/123456789/3398/2/T1... · · 2014-01-28AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY OF PAST NARRATION COMIC

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY


THESIS



Sarjana Pendidikan

Evlin Yunanda Salim

112007158

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE


SALATIGA

2013

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY OF

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTSPAST NARRATION COMIC



FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND


i


THESIS



Sarjana Pendidikan

Evlin Yunanda Salim

112007158

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE


SALATIGA

2013

ESSAY OF

ii


THESIS



Sarjana Pendidikan

Evlin Yunanda Salim

112007158

Approved by:

Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A Maria Christina Eko S, M. Hum

Supervisor Examiner

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION

As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic I verify that:

Name : Evlin Yunanda Salim

Student ID Number : 11200

Study Program : English Language Teaching Department

Faculty : Language and Literature

Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis

In developing my knowledge, I right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS

along with any pertinent equipment.

With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part withexpress written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.

This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.

Thesis Supervisor

Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

iii

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION

As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic

Evlin Yunanda Salim

: 112007158

: English Language Teaching Department

: Language and Literature

: Undergraduate Thesis

In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:


along with any pertinent equipment.

lusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part withexpress written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.

This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.

Made in : Salatiga

Date : 25 Juni 201

Verified by signee,

Evlin Yunanda Salim

Approved by

Thesis Examiner

Maria Christina Eko S, M. Hum

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community,

exclusive royalty free

ESSAY OF PAST

lusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my

13

Maria Christina Eko S, M. Hum

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2013 Evlin Yunanda Salim

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Sal

Evlin Yunanda Salim:

iv

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my

knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.

Evlin Yunanda Salim and Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Salatiga.

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my

knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of

1


Evlin Yunanda Salim

Abstract This study aimed to analyze the types of grammatical errors found in the Guided Writing students’ essay of past narration comic. The data were collected from 17 essays. In analyzing the data, I used steps proposed by Corder (1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005). A native speaker lecture helped identify the grammatical errors in the students’ essay. Based on the identification of errors, each category of errors was counted to find the types of grammatical errors using formula P � ��

Σ��100% P=percentage, n1=total of the errors, ΣN=total of the

whole errors. Each categories of error was explained and discussed. The result of the study show that English tenses (181 errors or 24.89%) were found to be the most common grammatical errors followed by errors in word choice (125 errors or 17.19%), punctuations (118 errors or 16.23%), subject-verb agreements (73 errors or 10.04%), prepositions (66 errors or 9.07%), articles (54 errors or 7.42%), singular/plurals (48 errors or 6.60%), pronoun (35 errors or 4.81%), and spellings (27 errors or 3.71%). This research concluded by discussing the pedagogical implication.

Key words: grammatical errors, students’ essay, past narration comic

Introduction

Grammar is the central of the teaching and the basic knowledge to learning language

effectively. Grammar plays an important role (Goh, 2007) and becomes one of the more

difficult aspects of language to teach as well as to learn (Byrd, 2003). According to Mickan

(2001), grammar analyzes the way the sentences work in the writing because writing is one of

the skills which is used by people to communicate their ideas, thought, feeling, and emotions

into words and paper.

In the process of learning a foreign language, making errors is a common thing that the

Indonesian learners face when they write an essay. They necessarily need knowledge of the

grammatical rules. As a learner, producing second language (L2) is not easy. There will be

2

errors may occur because the learners often over-generalize them. An error is a noticeable

deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlangual competence

of the learner (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Brown, 1994; Ancker, 2000) and grammatical error is an

error of or pertaining to grammar (Kiser, 2009). Finding L2 learners’ errors is an evidence of

a process of learning because error has played an important role in the study of language

acquisition. Lengo (1995) also emphasized that people will learn to be better from errors that

they have made.

An analysis of errors in learning a foreign language has attracted scholars to examine

the problematic error the learners made. However, grammatical error is one of the

controversial issues in the field. One of the studies was done by Abushihab, El-Omari and

Tobat in 2011. They investigated the grammatical errors in the students’ writing in

Department of English Literature and Translation at Alzaytoonah Private University of

Jordan. They found prepositions and morphological errors were the most problematic Arab

learners made.

However, most of the studies including the one belongs to Abushihab, El-Omari and

Tobat focused on the problematic error the Arab learners made. Therefore, I will aim to

answer the following research question, “What types of grammatical errors did the English

Department students produce in their writing?”

Theoretical Framework

Error and mistake are different. A mistake reflects occasional lapses in performance;

it occurs because in a particular instance, the learner is unable to perform what he or she

knows (Ellis, 1997) and a mistake is a performance error, which is either a random guess or a

‘slip’, i.e. a failure to utilize a known system correctly (Brown, 2007). In other words the

learners know the rules, but they make a slip when producing it.

3

The learner cannot avoid errors because errors mostly occur in a learning process. By

making errors, learners can improve their writing ability in their second language

(Littlewood, 1992) because error is the effect of interference the habits of first language in the

learning of second language (Corder, 1981). In other word, errors will only happen to the

learners who are not native speakers (Brown, 1994). According to Ellis (1997), errors reflect

gaps in a learner’s knowledge; they occur because the learner does not know what is correct

and an error is what a learner cannot self-correct (Edge 1989; Ancker, 2000). According to

Ellis (ibid.), there is an example of error of the learner. For example is when the learner says

“The big of them contained a snake.” the correct sentence should “The bigger of them

contained a snake.” Or another possible way is “The big one of them contained a snake.”

Because using ‘big of them’ instead of ‘big one’ is an error in the use of the pronoun ‘one’.

According to Richards (1974), error made by second language learners can be

classified into categories, as below:

Interlingual Errors

An interlingual error sometimes occurs because of the interaction between the

students’ mother tongue and the language that the students learn. The students tend to

translate their sentences word by word from their mother tongue to the target language and

this causes them in making interlingual errors (James, 1998) and it is occurred as the result of

learners’ L1 features, such as lexical and grammar, for example, an Indonesian learner of

English may say *You beautiful instead You are beautiful. It is because in the Indonesian

language there is no to-be after a subject and before an adjective. In the Indonesian language

we simply say kamu (subject) cantik (adjective). Another example which can be said as an

interlingual error is *I watch Green Hornet yesterday instead of I watched Green Hornet

4

yesterday. According to Selinker (1972); Ellis (2005), interlingual refers to the mental

grammar that a learner constructs at a specific stage in the learning process.

Intralingual Errors

An intralingual error is a kind of errors that usually occur within the language that is

being learned. These errors are not influenced by the mother tongue (Bolitho & Tomlinson,

2007) but reflect the general characteristics of rule learning, such as generalization,

incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions which rules were applied

(Brown, 2002; Dan, 2007). Intralingual errors can exist in the form of overgeneralization. For

example, a learner may produce *She is dances based on the blend of English She is dancing

and She dances. In the other word, the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of other

structures in the target language. Another example is the learner applies rules to context

where they are not applicable, He made me to stay.

Developmental errors

“Developmental errors are errors which do not derive from transfer from another

language, they reflect the learner's competence at a particular stage and illustrate some of the

general characteristics of language acquisition” (Richards, 1974). In other words,

developmental errors are similar to the errors made by children learning the language as their

first language. The examples of developmental errors are the misuse of third person -s (she

work hard), the-ed morpheme (she teached us last year), of negation (I not like it) and of

interrogatives (I wonder what is she doing). Richard (1974) classified developmental errors

as similar with intralingual errors. He explained that this error occur during the learning

process of the second language learning at a stage when the learners have not really acquired

the knowledge.

5

In this study, I focused on analyzing the types of grammatical errors in students’

writing, which can/may belong to Interlingual errors, Intralingual or Developmental errors.

Chin (2000) said that grammar is the sound, structure, and meaning system of language.

Therefore, grammatical errors in writing are related to accuracy and fluency in students’

performance.

Fitikides (1990); Lado (2008) found errors found in prepositions, verb tenses,

infinitive, adjective, nouns, adverb, articles, singular/plural and word order. According to

Utoronto (2008), grammatical errors could identify into agreement, comma splices,

misplaced/dangling modifiers, passive voice, possessive case, pronoun, punctuations

(comma, semicolon/colon), sentence fragments, word choice, wordiness.

Errors in agreement occurred because pronouns did not agree with their antecedents in

number and person. Subjects and verbs must also agree in number (singular/plural) and

person (1st, 2nd, 3rd person). A comma splice that cannot join in two independent clauses with

only a comma would be said errors. Errors in misplaced occurred in the wrong position in the

sentence, therefore, describes the wrong word and changes the writer’s meaning. Errors in

passive voice would not happen if the form of ‘To Be’ followed by the past participial and

accompanied by a phrase beginning with word ‘by’. Possessive case errors occurred when

subjective and objective in the sentence and possessive/possession was correct. Sentence

fragments errors occurred when a sentence fragment miss a verb/a subject or begin with

subordinating word. Utoronto (2008) said, “You should never use words you don’t

understand.” Word choice is one of the grammatical errors occurred therefore, the learners

should always use dictionary if they are unsure of the meaning of a word. Errors in wordiness

occurred when a writer uses empty words and phrases in a sentence.

Because of the limitation of time in this study, I would identify errors proposed by

Politzer and Ramirez (1973) in Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), they analyzed and identify

6

the errors into grammatical (prepositions, articles, singular/plural, tenses), syntactic

(subject/verb agreement, pronouns), lexical (word choice), and semantic (punctuation

spelling). Therefore, the learner should master the systems of grammar unless they would

make the errors in their writing.

Recent studies of grammatical errors

There are some researchers who have conducted the study on common grammatical

errors, for example, Darus and Khor (2009) investigated errors in essays written in English by

Form One Chinese students in a Malaysian public school. They found that the four most

common errors in their written English essays were the mechanics, tenses, preposition, and

subject-verb agreement. The students were very much influenced by their L1. Intralingual

transfer of Malay and developmental errors were also observed in the students’ writing.

A similar study was also conducted by Maros, Tan, and Salehuddin (2007). They

analyzed the interference effect, a factor that played an important role in inhibiting

acquisition of English among young Malay learners in Malaysian schools. They found that

despite having gone through six years of learning English in school environment, the learners

were still having difficulty in using correct English grammar in their writings. The most

frequent errors that student made were the use of articles, subject-verb agreement and copula

be.

In recent year, Watcharapunyawong (2013) also has done a similar study. He analyzed

writing errors caused by the interference of the Thai EFL students, regarded as the first

language (L1) in three writing genres; narration, description and comparison/contrast. He

found the similarities of errors that the EFL students made in the three writing genres: those

were sentence structure, word choice, and comparison structure.

7

Based on the studies of grammatical errors that have done before, it clearly showed

that grammatical errors are not universal but it depends on the subjects and places where the

learning takes place. For this study, I will aim to find out the types of grammatical errors

made by participants.

The Study

Context of the study

This study analyzes grammatical errors in students’ essay at the faculty of Language

and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The

source of data of this study was taken from guided writing class aimed to provide the basic

knowledge of English to the students. This study uses quantitative and qualitative method as

it counts the error, describes and examines data that is available.

Participants

The participants of this research were 17 students of Guided Writing class who

studied at the Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University in the

second semester of the academic year 2012/2013. The participants ranged in age from 19 to

21 years old and included 9 males and 8 females. The participants regard to language

background, educational level and age. However, not all the participants have the same

background of language, level of educational that they taken before and also age because the

class can be entered by the learners who want to take this class.

Data collection instrument

The data were collected through the students’ essay of past narration comic in guided

writing class. I collect the students’ essay to find the types of grammatical error that

participants produce.

8

Data Collection procedures

I took the data from the students’ essay of guided writing class. The participants

would be asked to write a past narrative story based on past narration comic. The participants

had to write their story in the paper. The result of the participants’ writing was submitted to

the lecture and copied for the analysis.

Data Analysis procedure

This study focused on grammatical error analysis. The processing of this analysis, I

took the steps proposed by Corder (1974) in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005): (1) collection of a

sample of learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, (4)

explanation of errors. After collecting the data, a native speaker lecture helped identify the

grammatical error in the participants’ essay. When the error had been identified, each

category was counted using this formula P ��

Σ��100% to find the types of grammatical error in

Guided Writing students’ essays. P= percentage, n1= total of the errors, Σn= total of the

whole errors. Finally, each type of errors was explained and discussed.

Findings and Discussion

After all the writing had been checked and relevant data had been categorized based

on the purpose of the study, it was found that there were 727 errors. In regard to the research

question what types of grammatical error did the English Department students produce in

their writing? The findings showed that the most common errors which the participants

produced were tenses (181 or 24.89% errors), followed by 125 errors or 17.19% in word

choice. There were 118 or 16.23% errors belonged to punctuations, 73 errors or 10.04% in

subject-verb agreement, 66 or 9.07% errors related to prepositions and 54 or 7.42% dealt with

articles. 48 or 6.60% errors in singular/plurals, 35 errors or 4.81% was concerned with

9

pronouns, and the participants produced 27 or 3.71% errors in spelling. Table 1 showed the

grammatical errors produced by the participants.

Table 1. Grammatical Errors Produced by the Participants. No. Type of error Number of

error Percentage

1. Tenses 181 24.89% 2. Word Choice 125 17.19% 3. Punctuations 118 16.23% 4. Subject/Verb

agreement 73 10.04%

5. Prepositions 66 9.07% 6. Articles 54 7.42% 7. Singular/plurals 48 6.60% 8. Pronouns 35 4.81% 9. Spelling 27 3.71% Total 727 100%

As presented in table 1, the most common grammatical errors were in tenses (181

errors or 24.89%). Tenses are a temporal linguistic quality that indicates a meaning and a

function (Aitken, 1992), for example, the simple present tense is usually show the present

time (I am a teacher), simple past tense is to express the past activity (I was a student) and the

future tense is to show the future events (I will be a lecture). Table 2 showed the participants’

errors in past tense usage.

Table 2. Participants’ errors in using Tenses

No. Errors Reconstruction Linguistic Description

1. Fred *bark and said…..

Fred barked and said…..

Incorrect verb form in Simple Past Tense

2. Chiko *were drink……

Chiko was drinking……

Incorrect be in Past Continuous Tense

3. I *have to clean up my beautiful tail.

I had to clean up my beautiful tail.

Incorrect verb form in Past Perfect Tense

4. They *are going to They were going to Incorrect be in Past

10

catch any rabbits. catch any rabbits. Future Tense

Because of the topic of the past narrative essays was based on the past narration

comic, the most frequently used tenses followed by simple past tense, past continuous tense,

past perfect tense and past future tense. However, based on the analysis of the errors, it was

found that almost none of the participants knew how to use those tenses correctly.

Errors in tenses occurred because participants used wrong verb tense or the use of

pattern of each tenses. It occurred in simple past tense and past continuous, for example, Fred

sleep* under the table. Other examples occurred in the sentences like, Jack’s mom turned on

the computer and look* at the picture and the postman came and ask* him in his mind.

Errors which participants produced in word form occurred because they did not

master the rule of tenses or the pattern. In order to use simple past tense, the participants

should use past form of the verb, such as asked rather than ask, slept rather than sleep and

looked rather than look. It also occurred in past continuous tense, for example, Fred still

slept*. It should Fred was still sleeping. The participants did not notice the correct usage be

for past future tense. They also did not master the use of was for singular subjects (he, she, it)

and were for more than plural subjects (I, you, we, they.)

The occurrence of errors in past tense was not surprising, because as an Indonesian

learner, English tense forms were quite different from Bahasa Indonesia. English indicates

the use of time with past, present, and future tense. On the other hand, Bahasa Indonesia does

not have tenses. These errors possibly occurred because of the lack of knowledge in using

past tense. The participants might directly translate the word from Bahasa Indonesia into

English. In line with this, Darus and Ching (2009) as cited in Dyarenggasti (2012) stated that

the differences between verb system of L1 and English tenses make difficult for students to

achieve English tenses.

11

Word choice (125 or 17.19%) also became problematic for the participants in this

study. The participants made the word choice almost in their writing, for example, maybe

your habit would *infect to me and He’ll *have steak for today. The participants should

reconstruction the appropriate words, such as pass on rather than infect and make rather than

have. Table 3 showed the participants’ errors in wrong choice.

Table 3. Participants’ errors in using word choice


1. I did not *inadvertent hit you….

I did not mean to hit you….

Incorrect form in word choice.

2. You are *a poor player……

You are the worst player……

Incorrect form in word choice.

Punctuations (118 or 16.23%) are the common errors that the participants produced in

their writing. Almost the participant made error and mistake in their writing, for example,

“Hey, Jack. Where are you going?” I’m looking for you a long time!” in this sentence, the

participant almost made errors in one sentence. The participant should write “Hey Jack,

where are you going? I’m looking for you a long time.” Table 4 showed the participants’

errors in wrong choice.

Table 4. Participants’ errors in using punctuation


1. In the park*. Yorky was busy…

In the park, Yorky was busy…

Punctuation in comma

2. Did you take my bones*, give it back!

Did you take my bones? give it back!

Punctuation in question

12

3. “…….” Fred asked his two friends. *Maybe we can have…., added Fred.

“…….” Fred asked his two friends. “Maybe we can have….”, added Fred.

Punctuation in quotation

4. *he felt sorry for himself.

He felt sorry for himself.

Punctuation in Capital

The next common errors were Subject-Verb agreements (73 errors or 10.04%). The

participants made errors in the subject-verb number, for example in the sentences there *was

some rabbits. In this sentence, participants faced difficulty to distinguish be for singular and

plural subjects or objects.

Similar errors also occurred in subject-verb tense, for example in the sentence, Fred

and his wife *was the couple dogs of Mr. Ben. They should write. Fred and his wife were the

couple dogs of Mr. Ben. Another example occurred in sentence Chiko *don’t think it

happens now. Here the participant should state Chiko doesn’t think it happens now. Table 5

showed the subject-verb agreement errors made by the participants.

Table 5. Participants’ errors in using Subject-Verb agreement


1. John gave me three *bone

John gave me three bones

Misused subject-verb number agreement

2. Jack, Yorky, and Fred *was leaving their home to….

Jack, Yorky, and Fred were leaving their home to….

Misused subject-verb tense agreement

Errors in subject-verb agreements occurred due to the L1 interfere. In Bahasa

Indonesia, participants do not distinguish the usage of verb for different subjects. For

13

example the sentence “saya minum susu” (I drink milk) used the same verb to “Yohanes

minum susu” (Yohanes drinks milk) and “saya dan Yohanes minum susu” (Yohanes and I

drink milk). There were no differences in verb used, even though the subjects and the time

allocation used were different.

The next common errors were prepositions (66 errors or 9.07%). The participants

made errors in using prepositions of, in, on, and at. Some participants faced confusion

because they did not master the application of prepositions. For example, he wanted to build

it *on his backyard. Here, the participant substituted preposition in into on. The other

examples occurred when the participants substituted at into in; Chiko looked in Fred and his

wife.

Errors in prepositions appeared because there was uncertainty in participants to select

the correct preposition (Darus & Ching, 2009; Dyarenggasti, 2012). It also happened because

Bahasa Indonesia did not use preposition in its sentence. It made participants could not find

the relevant preposition to be used in English sentence. Learners tended to omit the

prepositions when they could not find which preposition to be used. Table 6 showed

participants’ errors in prepositions.

Table 6. Participants’ errors in using prepositions


1. Chiko just smiled and sat *in his chair.

Chiko just smiled and sat on his chair.

Subtitution in into on

2. Fred came out *at the bus.

Fred came out of the bus.

Subtitution at into of

14

English articles (54 errors or 7.42%) also became problematic for participants. The

participants made errors in the use of indefinite article (a/an) and definite article (the),

because they did not know how to use indefinite articles in generic reference and definite

article in specific reference, for example in the sentence Chiko was *a ignorant dog,

participants misused the article a. Misused errors in article also occurred in the sentences,

Fred was *a honest friend, and she entered in *an university which famous of the beautiful

view. The participants misused an and a because they could not distinguish the use of article

an before vowels and a before consonants.

Not only misusing the articles, the errors in the and a also appeared because the

participants omitted them, for example, ….* shining Sun was enjoyable instead of the shining

sun was enjoyable. That sentence showed that the participants omitted article the in their

writing. Omission in article was found as one of big sources of errors in participants’ writing.

Some participants also omitted article a in some sentences, for examples, Fred and his wife

went to Chiko’ house for * holiday because we have * plan to go to the park together. The

participants omitted articles the and a in their writing works, because they did not notice their

usage in a sentence. Master (2002) stated that article had function of word which were

normally unstressed and it as difficult for a non-native speaker to pay attention to. It caused

omission of article for non-native speakers.

Incorrect application in article also appeared when the participants added article

which were not needed, for example in the sentences *the Jack’s mom turned on TV and It

was *the my best friend forever. Here, article the should not be used, because things which

were referred to, were clear and both the speaker and interlocutor knew it. Table 7 showed

participants’ errors in the use of English article.

15

Table 7. Participants’ errors in using articles


1. ….*an unique glasses.

….a unique glasses. Misused an for consonant

2. ….were *five friends…

….were the five friends…

Omission article the

3. Fred was *hero. Fred was a hero. Omission article a

4. …went out at *the afternoon.

…went out at afternoon.

Incorrect addition article the

The participants got confused in using article, because they referred to Bahasa

Indonesia as the L1. The use of a and an in Bahasa Indonesia was commonly omitted in a

sentence. Moreover, Bahasa Indonesia did not have article the. According to Celce-Muria and

Larsen-Freeman (1999) in Bataineh (2005), articles were one of difficulties in learning

English, especially for learners whose language did not have articles.

Beside article, the participants made 6.60% or 48 errors in using singular/plurals. It

occurred because in Bahasa Indonesia, there was no addition forms for plural things. The

participants made errors in applying the plural form. They omitted suffix –s for plural things,

for example John have two rabbit*. Here, the participants omitted suffix –s in plural form of

rabbits.

Errors in concord also occurred when participants substituted of singular form for

plural form, for example in the sentence, John stole some *bone. The participant failed to use

the plural form of bone, which should be bones. Table 8 showed the participants’ errors in

applying singulars and plurals.

16

Table 8. Participants’ errors in using singulars and plurals


1. ....*a heroes of family

....a hero of family Incorrect suffix –s for singular form

2. …for *five minute …for five minutes Omission suffix –s for plural form

3. …*nine mangos …nine mangoes Failure to use suffix –es

4. …his *foots …his feet Failure to apply plural form

As the result of L1 interfere, the participants’ errors in singulars and plurals occurred

because of singular and plural form in Bahasa Indonesia have the same way without any

addition, for example, satu kucing (one cat) and dua kucing (two cats) had the same noun

kucing (cat). It was different with English which stated a cat and two cats.

Some participants realized the rule of singulars and plurals, but they misused this rule.

Therefore, errors occurred because of substitution in singulars for plurals and plurals for

singulars, for example the word that participant used above, the participant knew that both of

his *foots was a plural form, but he misused plural form of foot. It means that error in

singulars and plurals occurred because in the participants’ L1 there were no plural makers for

a noun (Darus and Subramaniam, 2009).

The next error that the participants made was pronoun (35 or 4.81%). The pronoun

errors were classified into subject pronoun, object pronoun and possessive pronoun. Table 9

showed errors occured in prounouns.

17

Table 9. Participants’ errors in using pronouns


1. Fred said to*she that…..

Fred said to her that….. Misused object pronoun

2. …. *him bone …. *his bone Misused posessive pronoun

3. ….Mrs. Ben said that *he wanted to buy some dog food.

….Mrs. Ben said that she wanted to buy some dog food.

Subtitution subject pronoun

4. John lent me *her rabbits to make my little sister happy.

John lent me his rabbits to make my little sister happy.

Subtitution possessive pronoun

The participants still got confused to write the correct pronoun. Some of the

participants substituted subject pronouns. As an example of the sentence Fred, Chiko and

Jack walked to Yorky’s house and *he would eat together. In this case, participant substituted

subject pronoun they to he. Another example was Fred gave me two big bones, *she made me

happy. In this sentence, the participant used incorrect subject pronoun. It should be Fred gave

me two big bones, he made me happy. The participant substituted Fred to she instead of he. It

happened because the difficulty in using correct pronoun for some subjects.

The participants also confused using object pronoun. For example in a sentence Chiko

told *I that she met Mr. Ben. The participant used pronoun I instead of me. Another example

was John gave *she a cup of milk. The participant should write John gave her a cup of milk.

Both of the examples showed that the participants were confused in using object pronouns.

Moreover, the participants also made errors in possessive pronouns. For example,

Yorky asked *me opinion, instead of Yorky asked my opinion. The errors also appeared in the

18

sentence *It scenery was colorful. The participant should use possessive pronoun its rather

than it. It should be, its scenery was colorful. Possessive pronouns were considered as one

step more difficult application for learners rather than personal pronoun, like subject and

object pronouns (Tay, 2004) as cited in Chang, Mahadhir, & Ting (2010).

The last common errors made by the participants were spelling (27 or 3.71% errors).

Spelling error was often happened in the writing error. Spelling error was divided into some

types. In this study, spelling errors did not find as much as other errors. The participants only

produced two types of spelling errors. For example, Jack was *forgiveble that bone’s thief. It

should Jack was forgivable that bone’s thief. The participant did not notice that he/she

produced spelling error of adding to final e, they did not realize the word forgive that have

final e would change if added suffix –able become forgivable. Another example was error in

silent letters spelling. The participant wrote, I’ll *com my hair before meet my darling. The

correct sentence was I’ll comb my hair before meet my darling. The participant did not realize

that he/she did not write the correct word, he/she was like write according to what he/she

spoke. Table 10 showed errors occured in spelling.

Table 10. Participants’ errors in using spelling


1. Mike was a *translater in….

Mike was a translator in….

Error spelling in adding to final e

2. *Althought they never caught a rabbit

Although they never caught a rabbit

Error spelling in silent letters

Errors in spelling occurred because the participants write their writing in the paper

directly without any helping from electronic dictionary and computer. However, the spelling

19

error of adding to final e and silent letters occurred because the participants did not realize

when they were writing, they would write what they said in their mind unconsciously.

The errors in the findings may or maybe happen because of mother tongue’s factor

(Interlingual), learning strategies (Intralingual) or habit (Developmental) that students made.

But if I looked from the high types of grammatical errors, it probably occurred because of the

learning strategies of the students. It could be the students did not master the pattern or the

rule of tenses or they did not write in complete sentences because lack of the

acknowledgment of tenses’ rule. Moreover, Indonesian students did not use time to show

event in their language.

By knowing the types of these grammatical errors by the students, I hope the teachers

or the lectures can help and guide the students to write English using better grammar and

reduce the errors that the students made. I also expect that this study will help the English

Department students recognize the failure in using English grammar. By recognizing their

grammatical errors, the process of learning can be more fluent, specifically to Indonesian

students who learning English; they will require it in the use of English grammar.

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication

The study was conducted to find out the types of grammatical errors made by 17

students from the Guided Writing, faculty of English Department, Satya Wacana Christian

University in their essays. The result of grammatical error’ types showed that tenses (181

errors or 24.89%) were the most. It was followed by errors in word choice (125 errors or

17.19%), punctuations (118 errors or 16.23%), subject-verb agreements (73 errors or

10.04%), prepositions (66 errors or 9.07%), articles (54 errors or 7.42%), singular/plurals (48

errors or 6.60%), pronoun (35 errors or 4.81%) and spelling (27 errors or 3.71%).

20

The study directs to a pedagogical implication on Second Language Acquisition.

Since tenses became the most common grammatical errors occurred in the participants’

writing, it was essential for the English lectures to focus on tenses as students’ weakness and

needed to strengthen students’ understanding in English tenses. The learning strategies of the

participant should be enhanced. The lectures could create teaching-learning activities which

carry important effects for students in learning L2. For example by giving the students

opportunities for personalization, which meant allowing students to create their own ideas,

feelings, attitudes, and content from their daily activities (Nunan, 2005; Dyarenggasti, 2012),

like writing what they like, for example, their favorite artist or food. The activity should be

given more than once, to accustom student’s understanding in English grammar.

I do not deny that this study has limitations. First, it concerns with the number of

participants (17 students). I believe if more participants could have involved in this study, the

results and conclusion would be more representative. Besides that, this study only based on

the past narration comic story which clearly showed that English tenses were the main

foundation. If topic used in writing as the data were various, there might be possibility that

the result of grammatical errors were more objective.

Looking at that limitation, for the future research which aims to find out grammatical

errors on learners’ writing from another department who has English course, for example

Agriculture Department. I suggest including a number of different topics on writing and

involving more participants. It might represent learners’ natural language use in English as

the data.

21

References

Abushihap, I., El-Omari, A.H., & Tobat, M. (2011). An Analysis of Written Grammatical Errors of Arab Learners of English as a Foreign Language at Alzaytoonah Private University of Jordan. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from http://aabulinguistics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/an-analysis-of-written-grammatical-errors-of-arab-learners-of-english-as-a-foreign-language-at-alzaytoonah-private-university-of-jordan.pdf.

Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum.html.

Bataineh, D. R. (2005). Jordanian Undergraduate EFL students’ errors in the Use of the Indefinite Article. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, 56-76.

Bolitho, R. & B. Tomlinson (2007). Discover English. Oxford: Macmillan.

Brown, D.B. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 3rd, New Jersey: Precentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning And Teaching. New York:Longman.

Byrd, P. (2003). Teaching Grammar: The Essentials of Language Teaching. NCLRC: The National Capital Language Resource Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/grammar/grindex.htm.

Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of form one Chinese students : A case study. Europian Journal of Social Science , 10, 242-245.

Darus, S., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of the Written English Essay of Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study. Europian Journal of Social Science, 162-170.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). You can't learn without goofing an analysis of children's second language errors. Language Learning , 95-99.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Langusge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fitikides, T. J. (1990). Common mistakes in English 5th Edition. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.

Goh, Y.S. (2007). Learning grammar in Chinese Pronunciation. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching vol. 6, no. 1, 100-107.

22

James, C. (1998). Error in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis, New York: Longman.

Kiser, E. (2009). In Error? Grammatical is a Legimate Adjectives. Winston-Salem Journal (March 8, 2009). Retrieved December 27, 2012, from http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/article_adf6dffd-0584-5713-a9b6-f16e97659d09.html.

Lado, M. J. (2008). Common errors in English. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc.

Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Oxford: Blackwell.

Maros, M., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K. (2007). Interference in learning English: Grammatical errors in English essay writing among rural Malay secondary school students in Malaysia. Journal e-Bangi, 2(2), 1-15. Retrieved April 19, 2011, from http://www.ukm.my/ebangi/index.php?option=com_jresearch&view=publication&task=show&id=33&lang=en.

Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System 30, 331-348.

Mickan, P. (2001) Beyond Grammar: Text as Unit of Analysis. In James, J.E. (2003). Grammar in the Language Classroom. (pp. 220-227). Singapore: SEAMEO. Regional Language Centre.

Richards, I.A. (1974). Techniques in Language Control. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.

Watcharapunyawong, S. (2013).Thai EFL Students’ Writing Errors in Different Text Types: The Interference of The First Langauge. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/84953075/thai-efl-students-writing-errors-different-text-types-interference-first-language.

23

Acknowledgement

This thesis would not been done without helps and supports from many people around

me. First, I would like to thank to my greatest Lord, Jesus Christ who always gives me His

blessing, power and faith during finishing this thesis, He always makes impossible be

possible. Second is my supervisor, Mr. Hendro Setiawan Husada, M.A. who always gave me

guidance, knowledge and helps throughout making this thesis. Big thanks also for my

examiner, Maria Christina Eko S, M. Hum, who had read, helped and given me guidance in

making this thesis better. Thank you for Mr. Andrew Thren, B.A for helping me in collecting

the data and also identification the errors of the students’ essays. Tri Buce S.Pd who gave me

some data. I also would like to give all the gratitude for my precious family, my beloved

father, mother and brother; Boas Liem Hindarto, Rut Ing Yuana, and Yonatan A.S who

always pray and also support me during making this thesis until finish. My best friend, Ayu

Dwijayanti, thank you for your helps, advices, supports, and also your time during I was

finishing my thesis. My beloved Yohanes Alison, thank you for the prayers and supports, you

always made me seriously making this thesis, and also thank you for always staying beside

me during my hard time. Thank you for mbak Tri kos, ce Esther, and ce Ricky who always

made and gave me the delicious meals when I was making my thesis and thank you for kak

Dwi Purwanti, Janti, Rike, Milo, Joyful Kids Impact’ team, all Ed teachers and all of friends

who I cannot mention here.

24

Appendix

Documents

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY …repository.uksw.edu/bitstream/123456789/3398/2/T1... · · 2014-01-28AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN STUDENTS’ ESSAY