AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

Gratis

0
0
124
4 days ago
Preview
Full text
(1)PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013

(2) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013 i

(3) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 Approved by Advisor Date July 30th, 2013 Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ii

(4) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 Defended before the Board of Examiners on August 15th, 2013 and Declared Acceptable Board of Examiners Chairperson : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. ____________ Secretary : Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. ____________ Member : Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ____________ Member : Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed., Ed.D.____________ Member : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. ____________ Yogyakarta, August 15th, 2013 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University Dean, Rohandi, Ph.D. iii

(5) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should. Yogyakarta, August 15th, 2013 The Writer Yustian Pristantyo 081214068 iv

(6) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Yustian Pristantyo Nomor Mahasiswa : 081214068 Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul: An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts beserta alat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 15 Agustus 2013 Yang menyatakan Yustian Pristantyo v

(7) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ABSTRACT Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Student’s writing ability is very important to sustain student’s achievement in English subject. Meanwhile, the students certainly make errors in their texts. The research utilized descriptive text to investigate students’ errors. This research also focused on the students’ errors in descriptive texts. This study discussed two problem formulations. The first one is SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students’ errors in descriptive texts. The second one is possible causes of errors of SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students. The researcher employed worksheets to gather the necessary data. The research instruments were 55 students’ worksheets. This research was an error analysis. To answer the first question, all students’ worksheets were examined in order to find sentences and words that contained errors. Afterward, the researcher classified the errors found in the students’ sentences to three main categories: syntax errors, morphological errors, and other findings. Each main category was also divided into some subcategories. The error categorization was based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez as cited by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982). To answer the second question, the researcher finished examining and categorizing students’ errors and afterward, the researcher concluded the possible causes of errors from the result of students’ worksheets examination. There were five possible causes of errors based on Norrish’s (1983). Based on the result of this research, some conclusions were drawn. From the discussion on the first question, the researcher concluded that syntax errors are the students’ area of difficulty. Syntax errors (63.18%) had the highest percentage compared to morphological errors (19.81%) and other findings (17 %). Most of the found errors dealt with omission and addition. The possible causes of students’ errors were basic grammar understanding of the students, overgeneralization, students’ carelessness, incomplete application of rules, and first language interference. The suggestions for the teacher are to employ various techniques of teaching and to provide more exposure to grammar and English texts. The suggestions for the students are to grow students’ motivation and interest of English subject, to be aware of their English errors and to increases exposure of English texts. Keywords: errors, descriptive texts, error analysis, Linguistic Category Taxonomy. vi

(8) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ABSTRAK Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Keahlian menulis siswa sangatlah penting dalam mempertahankan prestasi siswa dalam mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris. Sementara itu, para siswa pastilah membuat kekeliruan dalam karangan mereka. Penelitian ini terpusat pada kekeliruan-kekeliruan siswa dalam karangan deskriptif. Penelitian ini membahas dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah yang pertama adalah kekeliruan siswa kelas tujuh SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta dalam teks deskriptif. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah penyebab-penyebab dari kekeliruan siswa yang mungkin. Peneliti menggunakan kertas kerja siswa. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan berjumlah 55 kertas kerja siswa. Penelitian ini adalah analisa kekeliruan. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah pertama, kertas kerja siswa yang terkumpul diperiksa untuk mencari kalimat-kalimat dan kata-kata yang keliru. Setelah itu, peneliti mengelompokkan kekeliruan yang ditemukan dalam tiga kategori utama: kekeliruan sintaks, kekeliruan morfologis, dan temuan lain. Pengelompokan kekeliruan ini berdasar dari Linguistic Category Taxonomy oleh Dulay, Burt dan Krashen (1982). Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, peneliti menyelesaikan pemeriksaan dan pengelompokan kekeliruan siswa dan setelah itu, peneliti menyimpulkan penyebab-penyebab kekeliruan dari pemeriksaan pekerjaan siswa. Terdapat lima penyebab kekeliruan siswa yang didasarkan pada pernyataan John Norrish (1983). Berdasarkan hasil dari penelitian ini, peneliti membuat beberapa kesimpulan. Dari pembahasan rumusan masalah pertama, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa kekeliruan sintaks merupakan kesulitan utama siswa. Kekeliruan sintaks (61,6%) mempunyai persentase tertinggi dibandingkan dengan kekeliruan morfologis (20,7%) dan temuan lain (16,3%). Mayoritas kekeliruan yang ada berhubungan dengan penambahan dan pengurangan. Penyebab kekeliruan siswa yang mungkin adalah pemahaman dasar siswa akan tata bahasa, generalisasi berlebihan, kelalaian siswa, penerapan tidak lengkap dari aturan yang ada, dan pengaruh bahasa ibu. Saran untuk guru yaitu untuk menggunakan beragam teknik pengajaran dan memberikan paparan yang lebih banyak akan tata bahasa dan teks-teks bahasa Inggris. Saran untuk siswa yaitu untuk menumbuhkan minat terhadap pelajaran bahasa Inggris, sadar akan kekeliruan yang dilakukan dan meningkatkan pemaparan akan teks-teks bahasa Inggris. Kata Kunci: kekeliruan , teks deskriptif, analisa kekeliruan, Linguistic Category Taxonomy. vii

(9) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the enormous help given in finishing this research. I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His unconditional love and mercy that brought me into this big step of mine. I would not be able to finish this thesis without His blessings surrounding me every single day. The completion of this thesis was definitely because of the support and encouragement from advisor, lecturers, family and friends. I would like to deliver my sincere and deepest gratitude to my research advisor, Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for his great patience in my ‘come back’, guidance, constructive feedbacks, suggestions, encouragement, motivation and support for me in finishing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to all PBI lecturers of Sanata Dharma University who have given me great knowledge to support me in future life. I also would like to thank the headmaster SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta, Bruder Valentinus Naryo FIC, M.Pd., for his warm welcome, approval and support to me in conducting this research and the English teacher of SMP Pangudi Luhur, Bondan Rachmat Subagya, S.Pd., who has given me chances and great help in conducting this research. I also would like to thank Bu Priscillia Linawati, S.Pd., M.Pd., Maria Ivona Purwa Susanti, S.Pd., Margareta Okta Paulina, S.Pd., and Realino Oscar Artana, S.Pd., for providing me helpful information of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta and supporting me to conduct this research. viii

(10) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI My special gratitude goes to My Father (Late) Toesmono who has guided and inspired me from heaven since I entered college and my Mother Endang Setyowati for the great compassion and everlasting love given to me during my college life. I would like to thank my sister, Adisti Herliningtyas, S.S., for supporting and encouraging me in finishing this thesis. I also dedicate this thesis to my budhe, (Late) Toesnindarti, who could not see my graduation and had great patience supporting me from heaven. My special thanks go to Caroline Niken Hapsari, who has accompanied me through difficult times in finishing this thesis with her great love and patience. I thank her for supporting and reminding me to finish this thesis. I also would like to thank ‘Wuluh Squad’ (Ahsan, Brian, Dimas, Novianto and Dodi) and ‘Tutul Squad’ (Ahsan, Dendot, Didin, Monjali, Galih, Deni) for giving me great help and support to finish this thesis. My gratitude also goes to Christian, Sebastian, Mari, Bruder Makus, Sekar and Leo as my ‘Brothers and Sister in Arms’ of thesis struggle for sharing togetherness and help. The last is I would like to give thanks to all my friends of English Language Education Study Program (especially Class A,B and C of PBI Batch 2008), Rendezvous team, Bright Company ( Ratna, Ika, Tania, Yosua), Micro Teaching Lab Assistants (Seto, Boni, Nico, Paskalis, Adit, Andri), FKIP Dean officers (Mas Antok, mas Agus, Mbak Agnes, Endarto and Dhea), and ‘Power Rangers’ (Beni, Adhi Vrater, Yosua, Adam and Sherly) for the friendship, laughter and care. Yustian Pristantyo ix

(11) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................i PAGE OF APPROVAL ......................................................................................... ii PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ......................................................iv PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ......................................................... v ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................vi ABSTRAK .............................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ..xii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiii LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................xiv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 A. Research Background .................................................................. 1 B. Research Problems ...................................................................... 4 C. Problem Limitation ...................................................................... 4 D. Research Objectives .................................................................... 5 E. Research Benefits ........................................................................ 5 F. Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 7 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................... 12 A. Theoretical Description .................................................................. 12 1. Error Analysis ...................................................................... 12 2. Error and Mistakes............................................................... 16 3. Sources of Error ................................................................... 18 4. Causes of Errors................................................................... 19 5. Types of Errors .................................................................... 24 x

(12) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 6. Error Taxonomy (Linguistic Category Taxonomy) ............. 28 7. Descriptive Texts ...................................................................... 29 B. Theoretical Framework ................................................................. 30 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 33 A. Research Method ............................................................................. 33 B. Research Setting .............................................................................. 34 C. Research Participant ........................................................................ 34 D. Research Instrument ........................................................................ 37 E. Data Gathering Technique ............................................................. 38 F. Data Analysis Technique................................................................ 38 G. Research Procedure ......................................................................... 40 CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................... 43 A. Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by Seventh Grade Students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta ................................................. 43 B. Possible Causes of Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by Seventh Grade Students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta .. 72 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................................ 75 A. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 75 B. Suggestions ...................................................................................... 77 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 79 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 82 xi

(13) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LIST OF TABLES Figures Page 3.1 A Weighted Descriptive Texts Rubric adapted from Brown (2007) ............... 35 3.2. The Error Classification Table ........................................................................ 39 4.1. Syntax Errors and Frequency .......................................................................... 45 4.2. Morphological Errors and Frequency ............................................................. 46 4.3. Other Findings and Frequency ........................................................................ 46 4.4. Number of Errors in Use of Determiners ....................................................... 48 4.5. Number of Errors in Use of Prepositions ....................................................... 53 4.6. Number of Errors in Use of Pronouns ........................................................... 54 4.7. Number of Errors in Use of Verbs ................................................................. 57 4.8. Number of Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement .............................................. 60 4.9. Number of Errors in Use of Lexical Categories ............................................ 62 4.10. Number of Errors in Possessive Case .......................................................... 67 4.11. Number of Errors in Noun (Singular and Plural) .......................................... 68 4.12. Number of Errors in Use of Suffix .............................................................. 70 4.13. The Examples of Ortographic Errors ............................................................ 71 4.14. The Examples of Lexico-Semantic Errors .................................................... 71 xii

(14) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Examples of Students’ Errors ................................................................................ 82 APPENDIX B Students’ Exercise of Descriptive Text and a Brief Summary of Descriptive text ..................................................................................................... .91 APPENDIX C Examples of Students’ Descriptive Text ................................................................ 97 APPENDIX D Letter of Permission ............................................................................................. 109 xiii

(15) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the researcher will introduce the field and the background of his research. There are six parts in which the researcher presents the basic information of the research. Those are the research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits and definition of terms used in the research. A. Research Background Students‟ writing ability is very important toward the students‟ progress. Students‟ writing ability is also very important for the students themselves in their upcoming years. As the students learn writing, there must be an outcome of that process. The outcome could be students‟ improved writing skill, students‟ writing scores and also students‟ writing errors. Brooks (1960) as cited by Hendrickson (1981: 1) stated that errors have relationship with learning: “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected”. Based on Brooks‟ statement (1960), it is known errors are things that normally happen in every part of learning. Errors are also beneficial in learning process as supported by Corder (1973: 265) as cited by Hendrickson (1981: 3) as follows. “Errors provide feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show what parts of the syllabus he has been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need further attention. They enable him to decide whether he must devote more time to the item he has been working on.” 1

(16) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 2 This research was an Error Analysis and conducted based on one purpose. It was to identify the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. This research was conducted because the researcher proposed to investigate the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher decided to conduct this research because students‟ errors in writing are important to be investigated. Students‟ errors are disastrous for the students if they are not immediately taken care of. This research also helped the teacher to pinpoint parts of his teaching which still needs more emphasis in order to overcome the students‟ errors. This research also provided feedback in form of list of errors for the teacher as stated previously by Corder (1973). Zydatiss (1974), Lange (1977), and Lantolf (1977) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) stated that errors are signals that actual learning is taking place and errors can serve as indicators of progress and success. Therefore, this research also presented indicators of students‟ writing achievement in descriptive texts. In this research, the researcher had three regular seventh grade classes consisting of 43-44 students each class for this research. The reason why the researcher chose regular classes was that because the teacher wanted to seek out the students‟ progress in writing, especially descriptive texts. It was because descriptive text was taught in both semesters. In the odd semester, the students were taught about describing person‟s appearances and characteristics. Then, in the even semester, the students were taught about describing places. Moreover, the teacher also wanted the students to recall what they had learned about

(17) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 3 descriptive text in the odd semester by using material enrichment before they learned about describing places. In this research, the researcher utilized descriptive text for identifying the occurred errors. The reason why the researcher chose descriptive text was because the students of seventh grade junior high school were required to be able to make a good composition of descriptive text. That statement is stated in Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) syllabus. Descriptive text is also one important kind of texts because through this kind of text, the students can use and explore their sensory details like smells, sound, sights, feeling, tastes, and textures to create vivid images in reader‟s mind as stated by Henry, D. J. (2008). Descriptive texts enable the students to explore their vocabulary and senses, especially in describing a person. The researcher provided four famous characters and the students were required to describe one of them. In this research, there were errors found on the students‟ descriptive texts. One of the errors which mostly occurred in these three regular classes was that the omission of articles. That problem was quite serious, because the students‟ understanding of using article would affect the students‟ writing result in their upcoming time. Besides the use of article, there were found many other errors that also were important to identify such as the use of preposition, the omission of suffix and any other else. Those errors are important and valuable; because identifying those errors could locate in which part the students were facing difficulties and the teacher could take some follow-up actions toward the students‟

(18) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 4 difficulties. The teacher could also make preventive actions towards those errors for his future students. The benefit of this research toward the teacher was that it could help the teacher locate the students‟ weaknesses and the teacher could revise and emphasize on which the students were facing difficulties. This research also assisted the students with lists of students‟ errors. Therefore, the students could know which part to be fixed in their writing. The students were expected to be aware of their errors occurred in their descriptive texts and prevent their errors in their upcoming time. B. Research Problem This research comes up with two problems. They are formulated as follows. 1. What are the errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta? 2. What are the possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta? C. Problem Limitation This research is limited only in an Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts academic year 2012/2013. The researcher chose this type of research because errors in writing would give a disastrous impact if these problems were not immediately taken care of. The students needed to know their weaknesses in all part of English subject, in this

(19) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 5 case, descriptive texts. They needed to know the errors they made because the errors would show their weaknesses on a particular section. Therefore, they can improve their writing based on the Error Analysis‟ result. Furthermore, the researcher would examine the results of the material enrichment (materi pengayaan) which has been given in order to elaborate what kinds or errors and how many errors which appeared in students‟ descriptive texts. This research would be beneficial for the teacher in order to improve students‟ skills in writing. It also could make the students be aware of their grammar ability and through this research; they were expected to improve their writing skill and grammar acquisition afterwards. D. Research Objective This research objective is to find out the answers of the questions stated in problem formulation as follows. 1. The errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. 2. The possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta E. Research Benefit This research was expected to be beneficial for the teacher, the researcher, and the students.

(20) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 6 1. The teacher This research was conducted based on students‟ errors. The problem was about writing errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The teacher will get the benefit of this research through the research result. The teacher can emphasize more on some parts of descriptive texts, grammar, or writing which the students were facing difficulties in. According to Corder (1973), errors analysis could provide useful information about the teacher‟s technique effectiveness. Therefore, the teachers could improve their technique in teaching, especially for writing. Using this research‟ result, the teacher could locate the students‟ weaknesses in descriptive texts, writing and also grammar. Corder (1981: 10) also stated the benefit of Error Analysis as follows. “First to the teacher, in that they tell him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn”. Afterwards, the teacher could take some preventive actions toward the students‟ errors. 2. 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 University. This research was also beneficial for the researcher, because this research enabled the researcher to elaborate more SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors through Error Analysis. The problem of this research was errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher attempted to identify and analyze the errors found on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh

(21) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 7 grade students‟ descriptive text. Corder (1981: 11) also stated the Error Analysis benefit for the researcher as follows. “They provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learnt or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language”. 3. The Students The seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta were expected to be able to improve their writing skill, in this case, descriptive text. Corder (1981: 11) stated the Error Analysis benefit for the students as follows. “They are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the learner has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning. The making of errors then is a strategy employed both by children acquiring their mother tongue and by those learning a second language.” This research also helped the students recognize their errors in their descriptive texts. The students also can elaborate on their errors with the teacher‟s assistance: why the errors happened in their writing, how to overcome those errors and etc. The students could conduct peer-assessment in their classes assisted by the teacher. Therefore, the students could correct their errors and improve their writing skill in future time. Through this research, the students were expected to overcome their errors and produce improved descriptive texts in the upcoming time. F. Definitions of Terms In order to avoid misconception and misunderstanding, the researcher gives the specific terms.

(22) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 8 1. Writing In this study, writing is a method of expressing ideas about any subject content; it appears in classrooms everywhere and, therefore, must be the concern of every teacher (Tiedt, 1989). Writing is one kind of productive skill in English language acquisition. Maggie (2003) defined writing as both a process and a product. In writing, there is a process to make a writing composition. The processes are stated chronologically: imagining- organizing- drafting- editingreading and proofreading. Writing has a process to follow in order to obtain the best result. Besides a process, writing is also a product. This is called similar to that fact because writing skill is a productive skill and as a result, writing has a result in form of a writing composition. The researcher tended to assume that writing is a product, because in this research, the research samples were the SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. In this research, the researcher only examined 55 students‟ descriptive texts in order to identify the errors and provide feedback for the teacher. 2. Descriptive Text In this study, the term descriptive text is understood as a kind of text that enables SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade to visualize a person with all appropriate senses and describe the person‟s personality. McMurrey (1983: 239) points out that description is a way to enable the reader to visualize a person, place or things with some appropriate senses included. In this study, descriptive

(23) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 9 texts enabled the students to visualize famous characters they were interested in. Therefore, the students were expected to be able to explore more their writing compositions through their descriptive texts. Other definition of descriptive text by Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.) is that descriptive text is a kind of text which has a purpose to give information. The context of this text is the description of particular thing, animal, person or others. The social function of descriptive text is to describe particular person, place or thing. Descriptive text also has its generic structure as stated by Hammond (1992) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.). There are two main parts of the generic structure: Identification and Description. In identification, the phenomenon to be described is identified and in description, the phenomenon is described by parts, qualities, characteristics and etc. In this research, the researcher descriptive text about people‟s appearance and character. According to Berg (2011), descriptive texts can indicate who is in the picture. Descriptive texts actually can provide better face labeling in describing person. Berg (2011) also stated that descriptive texts can indicate appearance characteristics. Descriptive texts can discover visual attributes. Through descriptive, SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students were expected to be able describe a person in details. This describing person‟s appearance and character material had been taught in the odd semester of academic year 2012-2013. In the even semester, the researcher still attempted to conduct a research related to descriptive texts and Error Analysis as the teacher intended to check students‟ progress before going on describing places topic.

(24) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 10 3. Error Analysis In this study, Error Analysis was proposed by the researcher as a way to investigate the errors occurred in students‟ descriptive texts of seventh grade of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012) defined Error Analysis as “technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign language, using any of the principles and provided by linguistics”. In addition, Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by Abed (2012) defined Error Analysis as “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness”. This research is an Error Analysis. The researcher took students‟ worksheets as the object of his research. The researcher intended to search for the errors that occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts. Corder (1967) as cited by Ellis (1994: 78) stated the differences between mistakes and errors. He stated mistakes as “mistakes are akin to slips of the tongue”. He also stated errors are systematic and likely to happen repeatedly. Norrish (1983) definederrors. An error is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it wrong‟. Error Analysis also has its own benefits. Norrish (1983) stated that Error Analysis can give a picture of the type of difficulty learners are experiencing. The other benefits of errors analysis stated by Norrish (1983) are an Error Analysis can give useful information about a new class, an Error Analysis can indicate problems common to all and problems common to particular groups, and the teacher can

(25) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 11 assess objectively how his teaching helps the students. The researcher implemented the steps of Error Analysis by Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994) in this research. Those steps helped the researcher conduct this research. The researcher also added additional steps of Error Analysis by Gass and Selinker (2001) in order to obtain a reliable research result.

(26) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES In this chapter, the researcher presents the related theories and literatures that underline the research field. The related literatures are discussed here as the basis of answering the research question. There are two parts presented in this chapter. They are the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. In the theoretical description, the researcher presents theories related to error analysis, error and mistakes, sources of errors, causes of errors, error taxonomy, types of errors, and descriptive text. In the theoretical framework, the researcher presents the steps of conducting an error analysis on students‟ descriptive texts. A. Theoretical Description In this part the researcher discusses some fundamental theories of this research. 1. Error Analysis Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012) defined error analysis as “technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign language, using any of the principles and provided by linguistics”. Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by Abed (2012) defined error analysis as “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their 12

(27) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 13 seriousness”. In error analysis, there are steps to follow. Corder(1974) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated the steps of errors analysis. They are presented as follows. a. Collection of a sample of learner language Ellis (1994: 49) stated that “the starting point in EA is deciding what samples of learner language to use for the analysis and how to collect these samples”. Ellis (1994) also stated that there are three kinds of samples‟ size. They are massive sample, specific sample, and incidental sample. Ellis (1994: 49) stated the differences of three kinds of samples‟ size as follows. “A massive sample involves collecting several samples of language use from a large number of learners in order to compile a comprehensive list of errors, representative of the entire population. A specific sample consists of one sample of language use collected from a limited number of learners, while an incidental sample involves only one sample of language use produced by a single learner.” Besides the matter of samples‟ size, Ellis (1994) stated that the researcher also needs to pay attention on a variety of factors that the learners make errors.The researcher also has to decide regarding the manner in which the samples are taken. Ellis (1994: 50) stated that “an important distinction is whether the learner language reflects natural, spontaneous language use, or is elicited in some way. The researcher also has to decide whether to collect the samples cross-sectionally (one point at a time) or longitudinally (successive points over a period of time) (Ellis, 1994). Svartvik (1973b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that most error analyses use regular examination papers (composition, translations, etc.) b. Identification of Errors Identification of errors is carried out after all samples are taken. The first phase in identification is to decide which variety of target language should be the norm (Ellis, 1994). In this phase, the researcher also should consider the mother

(28) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 14 tongue and the target language of the learners. In phase two, the researcher is required to differentiate between errors and mistakes. Then, in phase three, Corder (1971a) as cited by Ellis (1994) suggested that the researcher also has to concern whether the errors are overt (clear deviation form) or covert (superficially wellformed but not reflecting the learners‟ intention). In phase four, the researcher also has to decide to investigate deviations in correctness or also deviations in appropriateness. Those phases are the steps in identification of errors. c. Description of errors Ellis (1994: 54) stated that “the description of learner errors involves a comparison of the learner‟s idiosyncratic utterances with a reconstruction of those utterances in the target language”. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) as cited by Ellis (1994) argue the need for descriptive taxonomies that focus only on observable, surface features of errors, as a basis for subsequent explanation. In description of errors, the researcher needs to use error taxonomy to describe the learners‟ errors in detail. One of error taxonomies is linguistic category taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez (1973). Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Ellis (1994) set their taxonomy with more general categories: morphology, syntax and vocabulary. This taxonomy allows for both a detailed description of specific errors and also for a quantification of a corpus of errors. In description of errors, the researcher also needs to quantify the errors that occurred. Schachter and Celce-Murcia (1977) as cited by Ellis (1994: 57) point out “to say anything worthwhile about error

(29) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 15 frequency we need to know the number of times it would be possible for learners to have committed different errors”. d. Explanation of Errors Ellis (1994) stated that explanation of errors is concerned with establishing the sources of the error. In explanation of errors, the researcher is required to seek out the sources of students‟ errors based on the collected errors. Taylor (1986) as cited by Ellis (1994) discovers three sources of errors. They are psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, epistemic and discourse. Psycholinguistic sources deal with the nature of the L2 knowledge system and the learners‟ difficulties in using the L2 knowledge system. Sociolinguistic sources deal with learners‟ ability in adjusting their language in accordance with the social context. Epistemic sources deal with learners‟ of world knowledge. Discourse sources deal with problems in organization of information into a coherent „text‟. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) also provides the sources of errors. The first one is interference errors. Interference errors occur as a result of the use of elements from one language while speaking another. The second is intralingual errors. Intralingual errors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply. The third is developmental errors. Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses about the target language on the basis of limited experience. Those sources of errors are for the consideration in explaining the students‟ errors.

(30) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 16 e. Evaluating Errors Evaluating errors is the last step in error analysis. Ellis (1994: 63) stated that “error evaluation involves a consideration of the effect that errors have on the person(s) addressed”. Ellis (1994) also stated the design of error evaluation. Error evaluation involves addressees, judges, errors to be judged and how to judge. The error judgment covers semantic or lexical aspects of English, grammatical features and spelling. In this research, the error evaluation was carried out by the teacher based on the result of description and explanation of students‟ errors. The researcher only assisted the teacher to identify the students‟ errors, therefore, the teacher could take evaluate his teaching and take some precaution actions towards the result of students‟ errors. Other steps of error analysis were also proposed by Gass and Selinker (2001). The steps are: (1) data need to be collected, (2) identify errors, (3) classify errors, (4) quantify errors, (5) analysis of the source, and (6) remediation. The steps of error analysis both by Richards (1971b) and by Gass and Selinker (2001) share the same characteristics. In this research, the researcher primarily used Richards‟ (1971b) steps and also considered Gass and Selinker‟s (2001) steps. 2. Error and Mistakes The researcher considered that his research is an error analysis. Therefore, he provided the theories related to error. Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994)stated that the researcher has to differentiate between errors and mistakes in identification of errors. Therefore, the researcher presents the theories related to

(31) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 17 error and mistakes. Norrish (1983) distinguishes between error, mistake, lapse and careless slip as they are known as “types of error”. They are explained as follows. a. Error Error is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it wrong‟. Norrish (1983) also mentions that in the same way, an ESL student makes an error systemically, that is because the student has not learnt the correct form. Norrish (1983) calls errors as “systematic deviations”.Corder (1967) as cited by Ellis (1994: 51) stated that “an error takes place when the deviation arises as a result of lack knowledge. It represents a lack of competence”. Errors occur as the result of students‟ lack of competence. Gass and Selinker (2001: 78) state that “an error, on the other hand, is systematic. That is, it is likely to occur repeatedly and is not recognized by the learner as an error”. In order to differentiate between errors and mistakes accurately, Ellis (1994)stated that frequency of occurrence is regarded the distinctive point. Error has high frequency of occurrence. Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) stated that errors are obviously systematic deviations. b. Mistake Norrish (1983) stated that a mistake occurs when a learner has been taught an English sentence pattern, and he uses the correct pattern and sometimes he uses the incorrect pattern. If that situation happens quite inconsistently and later that situation is called “inconsistent deviation” or “mistake”.Gass and Selinker (2001) also define mistakes as akin to slips of the tongue. Mistakes are generally onetime-only events. The learner who makes mistakes is able to recognize it as a

(32) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 18 mistake and correct it if necessary. Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) stated that performance errors are apparently mistakes. c. Lapse Norrish (1983) also presents lapse. Lapse happens because of the lack of concentration, shortness of memory, fatigue and other factors. Lapse happens when the students do not obtain a good atmosphere and situation of learning for example due to the weather, or other particular situations. Lapse is neither an error nor a mistake and lapse can happen to anyone at any time. d. Careless Slip Norrish (1983) also stated careless slip. Careless slip is caused by learner‟s inattentiveness in class. Learner‟s inattentiveness could be triggered by many factors. The factors are class‟ situation, learners‟ concerns and any other else. Careless slip is considered as a minor type of „errors‟. 3. Sources of Error In this research, the researcher also presents the theories about sources of error. The theories are presented in order to give clear explanation for the students‟ error in descriptive texts. Sources of errors are needed in the step of error analysis. The step is explanation of errors by Ellis (1994). Brown (1980) as cited by Hasyim(2002) presents the sources or errors. Brown (1980) classifies the sources of errors into four. They are: (1) Interlingual Transfer. This is negative influence of students‟ mother tongue. (2) Intralingual Transfer. This is negative transfer of items in the target language. In other word,

(33) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 19 this is the incorrect use of rules in the target language. (3) Context of Learning. This is the overlapping of the interlanguage transfer and intralingual transfer. The role of teacher and textbook is very important, because teachers and textbooks might make wrong generalization about the language.(4) Communication Strategies. Communication strategies are used as a conscious verbal mechanism for communicating when linguistics forms are not available to the students for some reasons. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 58) also presents three sources of errors. They are (1)interference errors. „Interference errors occur as a result of the use of elements from one language while speaking another‟. (2) Intralingual errors. „intralingualerrors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply‟. (3) Developmental errors.„Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses about the target language on the basis of limited experience‟. 4. Causes of Errors Norrish (1983) presents the causes of error. That is essential because those causes could explain the error made by seventh grade students of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta.Those causes are presented as follows. a. Carelessness Norrish (1983)stated that carelessness is often done due to lack of motivation. Another reason is that the teachers‟ materials do not suit the students‟

(34) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 20 capabilities. One aid to overcome those “carelessness” problems is to get the students to check each other‟s work. This activity requires the students‟ capabilities in English and English can be used as a class language in this activity. b. First Language Interference Norrish (1983)stated that learning language whether it is a mother tongue or a foreign language is a matter of habit formation. The learners‟ utterances were elaborated to be gradually shaped towards the language they were learning. Skinner (1957) as cited by Norrish (1983) stated a definitive statement of behaviorist theory of language learning. It says that a language is essentially a set of habits, and then when the learners try to learn the new habits, the former habits will interfere with the new habits. That is called mother tongue interference. The most appropriate way for teachers to overcome the first language interference is to re-teach a given structure, or a piece of vocabulary, in a way which allows the students to see the language item from as many points of view as possible. In addition to that way, the student must have chance to use the items in an appropriate situation. c. Translation Norrish (1983) also says that another popular idea why students make errors is due to translation. The students often do word-by-word translation in translating idiomatic expression. Errors due to translation may occur during the discussion. It is where students have reached the stage of concentrating more on the message (things they want to deliver) than the code they are using to express it (the language itself). The use of conscious or unconscious translation can be

(35) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 21 considered as a communication strategy. That means a learner can express himself in the language he is learning using „interlanguage‟ as bridge between his own language and the target language. d. Overgeneralization George (1972) as cited by Norrish (1983) explains an approach in study learner‟s errors. They are Overgeneralization by Richards (1974) and Redundancy Reduction by George (1972). The example of overgeneralization is that the students construct a deviant structure. Norrish (1983: 31) also stated that this error occur as “a blend of two structures in the „standard version‟ of the language” and also as “a result of blending structures learnt in the learning sequence”. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994:59) says that “overgeneralization errors arise when the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of other structures in the target language. Overgeneralization error generally involves the creation of one deviant structure in place of two target language structures”. The examples of overgeneralization are presented as follows. e.g.: a. We are visit the zoo. b. She must goes. c.Yesterday I walk to the shop and I buy. e. Incomplete Application of Rules Richards (1974) as cited by Norrish (1983) adds another kind of errors and that is incomplete application of rules. In this kind of error, Richards (1974) as cited by Norrish (1983: 32) suggests two possible causes of this error. They are (1) “the use of questions in the classroom and (2) the fact that the learner may

(36) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 22 discover that the learner can communicate perfectly adequately using deviant forms”. In this error, the students tend to use deviant forms of language. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 59) also explains that “incomplete application of rules involves a failure to fully develop a structure.” Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) also says that incomplete application of rules is included in intralingual errors. The examples of incomplete application of rules are presented below. e.g.: Teacher: Ask her where she lives. Students: Where you (she) live(s)? f. Material Induced Errors Norrish (1983) also stated there are two reasons regarded material induced errors. The first is a “false concept” and the second is “ignorance of rule restrictions”.False concept occurs when the material do not use appropriate context to explain the learners. The example of false concept is the use of present progressive tense in descriptive texts. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 59) explains that “false concepts hypothesized arise when the learner does not fully comprehend a distinction in the target language”. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 59) also explains that “ignorance of rule restrictions involves the application of rules to the contexts where they do not apply”.It is probably more difficult to avoid errors from ignorance of rule restriction than it is to avoid false conceptualization.

(37) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 23 g. Error as a part of language creativity Norrish (1983) stated that the learners who have limited capability in English would form a hypothetical rules related to English on insufficient evidence. The learners need to create new utterances, but with limited capability, they may make mistakes or even errors. Language creativity is divided into two major factors. The first factor is that the students‟ incapability to follow the target language rules. The second factor is creative arts. It deals with some works on literature such poems, novels or prose. The causes of errors by Norrish (1983) have been presented by the researcher. Those causes are essential because the origin of students can be found out by searching through those causes. In this research, the researcher also implements as Norrish (1983) suggested. It is to use correcting codes. The purpose of using correcting codes is that because correcting codes can lead the learners to work out for themselves what is wrong and to figure out some way towards correcting it. Norrish (1983) suggested some codes to correct students‟ writing. They are T (tense), WF (word form), WO (word order), S (syntax), A (agreement), V (vocabulary), Sp (spelling), P (punctuation), Art (article), R (reference unclear), St (style) and many more. The researcher made correcting codes which were adopted from Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez cited by Dulay et al (1982). Those codes could facilitate the teacher to give comments in a more student-friendly way instead putting a bunch of red ink on students‟ writing.

(38) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 24 5. Types of Errors Dulay et al (1982) explain the types of errors. These theories of error type underline this error analysis. They are presented as follows. a. Omission Dulay et al (1982) stated that omission happens because of the absence of an item that must appear in well-formed utterance. Some morphemes are potential to be omitted in writing. They are two kinds of morpheme, content morpheme and grammatical morpheme. The phenomenon that is often seen is the omission of the grammatical morphemes. The grammatical morphemes are noun and verb inflections (the s- in birds), articles (a, an, the), verb auxiliaries (is, will, can, is, was, am, etc), and prepositions (in, on, under,etc.) b. Additions Dulay et al (1982) stated that addition errors are the opposite of omissions. In this type or errors, the errors are characterized by the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance. This error happens because of the result of the too faithful use of certain rules. Additions are also divided into three different parts. They are double markings, regularizations, and simple additions. 1) Double Markings In some cases, the students who have acquired the tensed form for auxiliary and verb often place the marker on both. Dulay et al (1982: 156) stated that “many addition errors are more accurately described as the failure to delete

(39) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 25 certain items which are required in some linguistic constructions, but not in others”. The examples are he doesn’t knows my name or we didn’t knew about it.The error above is called double markings, because two items rather than one are marked for the same feature. 2) Regularization (additions) Dulay et al (1982) say that a rule typically applies to all linguistic items, however, some members of a class are exception to the rule. Regularization errors that are included in the addition category are those in which a marker that is typically added to a linguistic item is erroneously added to exceptional items of the given class that do not take a marker. The examples of regularization errors are eat- eated instead of ate, beat- beatedinstead of beat, sheep-sheepsinstead of sheep, put-putted instead of put and etc. 3) Simple Addition Simple addition is the last category of additions. If an addition error is neither a double marking nor a regularization error, it is called simple addition. This error is still based on adding unnecessary morphemes to sentences, and words. The examples of simple addition error are the train is gonnabroke it (past tense), a this (article a), and etc. c. Misformation Dulay et al (1982) stated that misformation errors are characterized by the use of wrong form of the morpheme or structure. The example of misformation errors is the dog eated the chicken. In that error, a past tense marker was added

(40) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 26 while it is not necessary. Misformation is also divided in three parts. They are regularizations, archi-forms, and alternating forms. 1) Regularization Errors (misformation) This error is caused by a regular marker used in a place if an irregular one. The examples are run- runnedinstead of run, goose- gooses instead of geese. Regularization errors occurred most in the verbal output of both first and second language learners. Dulay et al (1982: 160) also stated that “the overextension of linguistic rules to exceptional items occurs even after some facility with the language has been acquired”. 2) Archi forms The selection of one member of a class of forms to represent others in the class is a common characteristic of all stages of second language acquisition. The students‟ selected forms are called archi forms. For example, the students choose one demonstrative adjective (that, these, those, this) to add with some words, thatcar- that cars.Dulay et al (1982) stated that “for the learner, that is the archidemonstrative adjective representing the entire class of demonstrative adjectives”. 3) Alternating forms. These forms are still students‟ selected forms. This error happens because of the influence of the students‟ grammar-vocabulary grow. In this error, the students may alternate between the forms. The examples are those dog, this cats, he would have saw them, I seen her yesterday.

(41) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 27 d. Misordering Dulay et al (1982) state that misordering error is characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance.Misordering occurs systemically both in L1or L2 learners. For example, they produce wrong type of questions such what daddy is doing? The correct form is what is daddy doing? e. Interlingual errors Dulay et al (1982) stated that interlingual errors happen because the influence of students‟ native language. The sentences or words that are made are semantically similar or equivalent with the students‟ native language structure. For example, Spanish students may produce the man skinny, because they are influenced by their native language structure. That error is caused by the Spanish adjectival phrase (el hombre flaco). f. Ambiguous Errors Dulay et al (1982) stated that ambiguous errors are classified both as developmental error and interlingual error. This error reflects the students‟ native language structure and children acquiring first language. The example for this error is I no have car. In that example, it is shown that “no” shows two alternate error origin, the students‟ native language structure and also children acquiring first language.

(42) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 28 6. Error Taxonomy (Linguistic Category Taxonomy) This research is considered as an error analysis. Due to that fact, the researcher used Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez (1973) asDulay et al suggest (1982). Dulay et al (1982) as cited by Ellis (1994: 54) argue “the need for descriptive taxonomies of errors that focus only on observable, surface features of errors, as a basis for subsequent explanation”. Ellis (1994) also stated that the simplest type of descriptive taxonomy is based on linguistic category. Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Ellis (1994) begin their taxonomy with more general categories: morphology, syntax and vocabulary and they say that Linguistic Category Taxonomy allows for both a detailed description of specific errors and also for a quantification of a corpus of errors.The researcher used Linguistic Category Taxonomytoclassify the students‟ errors and using this taxonomy, the classification was faster and easier. The researcher used Linguistic Category Taxonomy to project the errors from general categories: syntax, morphology and other findings. Other findings consist of two kinds of errors: orthographic and lexico-semantic (Keshavarz, 2012as cited by Abed, 2012). After classified into generalcategories, the errors were, then, classified into some more specific categories such as omission, addition and etc, and it can enable the researcher to investigate deeper on the students‟ errors. The researcher also combined Linguistic Category Taxonomyby Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) with types or errors by Dulay et al (1982) in order to classify the errors in students‟ descriptive texts.

(43) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 29 7. Descriptive Texts McMurrey (1983) defined descriptionas a term used rather loosely in ordinary conversation and it is used to explain person, place or things with providing sensory details. McMurrey (1983) also says that description is often combined with other kinds of writing, especially narration. The goal of description as stated by McMurrey (1983) is to enable the reader to visualize a person, place or thing and the details must be provided as many as possible.Descriptive text also has its generic structure as stated by Hammond (1992) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.). There are two main parts of the generic structure: Identification and Description. In identification, the phenomenon to be described is identified and in description, the phenomenon is described by parts, qualities, characteristics and etc. Besides generic structure, descriptive text also has its language features as stated by Hammond (1992) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.). They are: (1)Descriptive texts focus on a specific participant. The examples are my favorite public figure, my beloved pet, and etc. Descriptive texts are made to describe one thing in detail.(2)Descriptive textsuse simple present tense. Simple present is used in descriptive texts because simple present tense explains general truth. Azar and Hagen (2009) define the simple present tense as follows.simple present expresses events or situations that always exist. The writer may use simple past tense if the thing to describe does not longer exist. (3) Descriptive textsuseverbs of being and having. The examples are: My pet is really lovely. It has a soft beautiful white fur. Verbs of being and having make some relational processes in the descriptive texts. Therefore, the descriptive

(44) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 30 texts may be coherently composed. (4) Descriptive textsuse descriptive adjectives. The examples of descriptive adjectives are white fur, strong legs, and black hair. Descriptive adjectives or attributive adjectives enable the writer to clearly describe the condition of item described. (5) Descriptive textsuse detailed noun phrase. The examples of detailed noun phrase arevery outstanding performance, sweet young lady, and etc. The purpose of using detailed noun phrase is to give information about the subject. (6)Descriptive textsuse action verbs. The purpose of using action verbs is to explain material processes such asIt eats flesh, It runs slow.(6)Descriptive textsuse adverbials. The purpose of using adverbials isto give additional information about the behavior of the object of description such fast, at tree house (7) Descriptive textsuse figurative language. Figurative language is used to clearly describe the object of description. The kinds of figurative language are simile, metaphor, personification and etc. Another use of figurative language is to compare the object of description with something else. One example of figurative language is John is white as chalk. B. Theoretical Framework This research wasan error analysis on SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher proposed to conduct an error analysis to investigate students‟ errors and find the possible causesof the students‟ errors. The researcher chose error analysis as a way to investigate errors in descriptive text. The researcher also employed some theories which are stated

(45) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 31 in Chapter 2 to conduct this research. Those theories were used as guidance in examining students‟ errors. The researcher implemented the steps of error analysis by Corder (1974) as cited Ellis (1994). Those steps were carried out one step at a time. In collecting samples, the researcher took massive samples because the samples which were taken covered three regular classes. Then, in identification of errors, the researcher searched all the errors and decided whether they are errors or mistakes. The researcher also decided to choose overt or covert errors to be investigated. After identifying the errors, the researcher described the occurred errors in description of errors. In description of errors, the researcher explained the errors with assistance from Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez as cited by Dulay et al (1982). The researcher also used types of errors by Dulay et al (1982) such as omission, addition and etc to clearly explain the errors. In this step, the researcher also quantified errors that occurred as suggested by Ellis (1994) and also Gass and Selinker (2001). That process was carried out to reveal the most errors which the students produced. Then, in explanation of errors, the researcher revealed the sources of students‟ errors. The last step is evaluation of errors. However, the researcher did not carry out error evaluation because error evaluation is the teacher‟s duty. The researcher only provided feedbackin what extent the students committed errors and understood the descriptive texts. The researcher continued to seek out the causes of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors in descriptive texts. The theories were completely provided and the researcher used them to find out the real causes of

(46) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 32 SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors in descriptive texts. The data gathering was conducted through students‟worksheets. The students‟ worksheets were collected from material enrichment (materipengayaan). The students‟ worksheets were taken by the teacher giving as an assignment. The students‟ worksheets were then examined with some error analysis aspects such as steps of error analysis, source of errors, causes of errors, and types of errors and also with Linguistic Category Taxonomy.

(47) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In this chapter, the researcher will present the research method, research setting, research participants, instrument and data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure. A. Research Method The research focused on errors which occurred in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students’ descriptive texts. The purpose of this research was to investigate errors in descriptive texts committed by SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students and provide feedback for the teacher as Corder (1973) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) stated. This research was to showcase kinds of students’ errors in descriptive texts and provide valuable information and feedback for the teacher. In this research, the researcher followed the steps of error analysis by Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994). The steps are: (1) collection of a sample learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, (4) explanation of errors, and (5) evaluation of errors. The researcher followed all of those steps in sequences in order to analyze students’ errors in descriptive texts. The researcher classified the errors into three main categories. They are morphological, syntactical and other findings. This research also aimed to seek the SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students’ area of difficulties. As 33

(48) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 34 stated by Corder (1974) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) that error analysis purpose is to provide feedback, the researcher only presented the result of this research to the teacher as feedback. Therefore, the researcher did not spent more time on teaching or fixing some ways of teaching, yet this research only required students’ worksheets of descriptive texts. The data from the student was examined and analyzed afterwards by the researcher without any intervention either from the teacher or the students. B. Research Setting This research was conducted in Sekolah Menengah Pertama Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta in the even semester of academic year 2012/ 2013 and to be specific, in April 20th, 2013. This school was selected to be the field of research because this school was proven as one of the best junior high schools in Yogyakarta. That fact was seen from the intelligence of the students. The researcher chose seventh grade students because seventh grade students had descriptive text in the odd semester of academic year 2012/ 2013. C. Research Participants The participants of this research were fifty students from three regular seventh grade classes of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Yogyakarta. The researcher chose systematic sampling to define the objects of the research. The total of collected students’ descriptive texts was 110 worksheets. The researcher only took half of them using systematic sampling technique by Fraenkel and

(49) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 35 Wallen (2009). The chosen students’ descriptive texts were 55 worksheets by 26 male students and 29 female students. The students’ level of competence was novice as stated by the teacher. In order to make sure, the researcher utilized a weighted descriptive texts rubric adapted from Brown (2007). The rubric is presented as follows: Table 3.1. A Weighted Descriptive texts Rubric adapted from Brown (2007) Aspects Content (C) 30% -Topic - Details Score 4 3 2 1 Organization (O) 20% -Identification - Description 4 3 2 1 Grammar (G) 20% - Use present tense - Agreement 4 3 2 Performance Description The topic is complete and clear and the details are related to the topic. The topic is complete and clear but the details are almost related to the topic. The topic is complete and clear but the details are not related to the topic. The topic is not clear and the details are not related to the topic. Identification is complete and descriptions are arranged with proper connectives. Identification is almost complete and descriptions are arranged with almost proper connectives. Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with few misuses of connectives. Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with misuse of connectives Very few grammatical or agreement inaccuracies Few grammatical or agreement inaccuracies but not affect on meaning Numerous grammatical or agreement inaccuracies Weighting 3X 2X 2X

(50) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 36 1 Vocabulary (V) 15% 4 3 2 1 Mechanics (M) 15% -Spelling -Punctuation -Capitalization 4 3 2 1 Frequent grammatical or agreement inaccuracies Effective choice of words and word forms Few misuse of vocabularies, word forms, but not change the meaning Limited range confusing words and word form Very poor knowledge of words, word forms, and not understandable It uses correct spelling, punctuations, and capitalization It has occasional errors of spelling, punctuation and capitalization. It has frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization It is dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. 1.5 X 1.5X Brown (2007) also stated the way to calculate the score from the rubric as follows: Score: 3 (C) + 2 (O) + 2 (G) + 1.5 (V) + 1.5 (M) 40 From the rubric above, the students’ level of competence could be obtained and the result of assessing students’ descriptive through this rubric helped the researcher draw final conclusions of this research. Another reason why the researcher chose the seventh grade was that because the descriptive text was

(51) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 37 taught in this grade. That fact was supported by the current Indonesia Educational Curriculum, Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Seventh grade is also a starting point for the students in junior high school. Their achievement in seventh might affect their achievement in their upcoming years. The researcher decided to take all the data from three regular seventh grade classes because the errors had been seen by the teacher in three seventh grade regular classes. D. Research Instruments In conducting this research, the researcher only used worksheets. The researcher applied error analysis to examine the errors found in the students’ descriptive texts. The instrument of this research was a material enrichment/ materi pengayaan for the students about descriptive texts. The researcher also considered the students’ descriptive texts as both objects of the study and research instruments. The worksheets were distributed to all students of three seventh grade regular classes. After retrieving the worksheets, the students carried out the exercises. The researcher was also helped by the teacher in distributing the material. This exercise was designed to make the students recall their understanding of descriptive text. The researcher examined students’ worksheets using error analysis theories and some supporting theories such as source of errors, types of errors, causes of errors and Linguistic Category Taxonomy (Politzer and Ramirez, 1973). Svartvik (1973b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that

(52) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 38 most error analyses use examination papers such as composition and etc. In this research, the researcher utilized students’ worksheets. E. Data Gathering Technique The first data collection was taken by giving a material enrichment to the students. This material enrichment was designed by the researcher for obtaining the primary data. This material enrichment would not affect the students’ marks. The material enrichment also helped the students recall what they have learnt in the previous semester. This material enrichment was also aimed by the teacher as a pre-lesson before the students carried on learning describing places. In this task, the students were required to write a descriptive text about people’s appearance and character. As the final sequence of data gathering, the researcher collected all the data: students’ worksheets. Afterwards, the researcher synthesized all the data in order to obtain a strong hypothesis using error analysis techniques on students’ descriptive texts. F. Data Analysis Technique This research was based on a linguistic description. The data analysis technique was based on linguistic category taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez, (1973) as cited by Dulay, et al (1982). In linguistic category taxonomy, Politzer and Ramirez, (1973) presented two basic linguistic categories: morphology and syntax. The researcher also found other errors that could not be included in morphology and syntax. They are lexico-semantic errors and orthographic errors

(53) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 39 by Keshavarz (2012) as cited by Abed (2012). Lexico-semantic and orthographic errors were, then, known as other findings as they were still essential for this study. Before classifying the errors, the researcher searched all sentences that contained errors from 55 students’ worksheets. After searching the sentences containing errors, then, the error classification began. The sentences containing errors from the students’ material enrichment were examined with linguistic category taxonomy by by Politzer and Ramirez, (1973) as cited by Dulay, et al (1982). The data was taken once. The error which was made by the students was, then, categorized into some aspects based on the linguistic category taxonomy. The researcher also quantified the errors found in the students’ worksheets. The researcher needed to quantify the frequency of errors because the quantification of errors defined the errors and mistakes as stated by Ellis (1994). The quantity of errors also described the area of students’ difficulties. The quantified errors, then, were classified based on linguistic category taxonomy. The researcher classified the errors into some specific error types based on linguistic category taxonomy. The example of the error classification table is presented below. Table 3.2. The Error Classification Table Error Sentences # Error Category Syntax Morphology Error Other Findings Frequency 1 After classifying the errors, the researcher could analyze in which part they were facing the problem. Linguistic category taxonomy helps the researcher

(54) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 40 pinpoint the errors found on students’ descriptive texts. The researcher also presented other findings besides morphological errors and syntax errors. Lexical errors described all errors that occurred in words. Lexical errors were divided into two categories. They are lexico-semantic and orthographic errors. Besides linguistic category taxonomy, the researcher also employed types of error by Dulay et al (1982) such as omission, addition, substitution and etc to clearly explain the errors in students’ descriptive texts. G. Research Procedure In research procedure, the researcher carried out this research in three main steps. They were research preparation, data gathering and data analysis. 1. Research Preparation For the initial step of this research, the research came and met the headmaster of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. That meeting was arranged in the even semester of academic year 2012/2013. On that meeting, the research permission and the detail explanation of this research were delivered to the headmaster. The researcher continued the step of his research by getting an official letter from PBI and FKIP. That action was carried out after getting the headmaster’s approval. The researcher also discussed the plan of his research with the teacher. It helped the researcher to have a proper time arrangement for distributing worksheets. Therefore, the researcher could properly conduct his research in the arranged time. The researcher also delivered his research proposal and students’ worksheets to the headmaster and the teacher. The researcher

(55) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 41 convinced the headmaster that this research would provide feedback for the teacher; therefore, the teacher could overcome the students’ error and attempt to minimize the frequency of errors. 2. Data Gathering In data gathering, the researcher proposed to obtain the data from 55 students’ worksheets (three regular classes). The reason why the researcher obtained the data from three regular classes was to provide feedback for the teacher; therefore, the teacher could know what happened exactly in three regular classes. The data gathering was carried out on April 11th-20th, 2013 of the even semester academic year 2012/ 2013. This data gathering was considered as a material enrichment of the descriptive text which had been taught in the first semester. The researcher gave the material enrichment to the teacher and the researcher gave the liberty for the teacher to assign this material enrichment as home work or class assignment. After the students were done with the material enrichment, then, the researcher compiled all the worksheets. 3. Data Analysis In data analysis, the researcher combined all the data from students’ worksheets. The researcher compiled all of the students’ worksheets. Then, the researcher assessed the students’ worksheets using a weighted descriptive texts rubric adapted from Brown (2007). Besides assessing the students’ worksheets, the researcher also searched for sentences containing errors. The students’ worksheets were examined and assessed in order to find the errors in descriptive text. After assessing students’ worksheets and searching for error sentences, the

(56) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 42 average score of students’ descriptive texts and sentences containing errors were obtained. The researcher examined the error sentences and looked for the kind of errors. After all error sentences were examined, the researcher categorized the errors based on Linguistic category taxonomy Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Dulay, et al (1982). The errors, which were found on the worksheets, were classified into some aspects based on linguistic category taxonomy. The found errors were also classified based on types of errors by Dulay, et al (1982). After classifying the errors, the researcher quantified how many errors which were found. The researcher quantified the total errors and figured out in what part of descriptive text or English grammar the students were facing difficulties. From the classification of errors and the error quantification, the researcher found some possible causes toward students’ errors in descriptive texts.

(57) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the researcher will present the discussion of the problem formulations. The discussion presents the result of the error analysis.The researcher provides some tables and detailed explanation related to error analysis on students‟descriptive texts. In this chapter, the researcher presents types of errors that were found on SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts and the possible causes of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors in descriptive texts. A. Errors Made on Descriptive textsby Seventh Grade Students of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta In this part, the researcher intended to explain what he found on the students‟ worksheet. The researcher focuses on the students‟ errors found on their worksheets. The researcher implemented the steps of error analysis by Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994). To have a clear explanation about implementing the steps of error analysis, the researcher presents the steps of error and also the explanation for each step. The explanation is presented as follows:  Collection of ASample of Learner Language In this step, the researcher took massive samples (Ellis, 1994). The samples which were taken were 55 students‟ worksheets from total 110 collected students‟ worksheets. The researcher chose the samples with systematic sampling 43

(58) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 44 system (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009). After collecting 55 students‟ worksheets, the researcher assessed all of the students‟ worksheets with a weighted descriptive texts rubric adapted from Brown (2007). This action was needed in order to elaborate students‟ level of competence. The result of assessing was that the average score of 55 students‟ worksheets was 6.63. From that result, the students‟ level of competence is not quite high. The students were considered novice learners as stated by the teacher. The students‟ worksheets which were collected reflected elicited language (Ellis, 1994). They were elicited because the students elicited on how to describe person appearance and characteristics. The data was taken cross-sectionally because the students‟ worksheets only were taken once (Ellis, 1994). After collecting all the students‟ worksheets, the researcher continued to identify the errors.  Identification of Errors In identification of errors, the researcher began searching sentences containing errors in 55 students‟ worksheets. The researcher found approximately 428 sentences containing errors. After obtaining 428 sentences, the researcher looked for overt errors which were clear deviant forms (Ellis, 1994). In identification of errors, all overt errors were all quantified in order to differentiate errors and mistakes. Some overt errors that only occurred once in the students‟ descriptive texts were eliminated because they were considered mistakes (Ellis, 1994). The researcher also investigated only on deviations in correctness, because

(59) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 45 seventh grade students of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta made some incorrect sentences, words, phrases and etc.  Description of Errors In description of errors, the researcher used Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Dulay, et al (1982). This taxonomy enabled the researcher to classify and describe the errors in details. The researcher classified the found errors into three main categories: syntax, morphological and other findings. Other findings consist of lexico-semantic errors and orthographic errors (Keshavarz, 2012). There were also types of errors that were used. They were misformation, addition, omission and substitution. The researcher created some abbreviations of errors in the error classification table. They are presented as follow with frequency of each abbreviation: Table 4.1. Syntax Errors and Frequency Abbreviations OA DSVP MSO OTB MP AA MHN OP DSVN SPD AP DV OCA OSP MAV MA Syntax Errors Errors Omission of Article Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Person) Misordering Omission of To Be Misuse of Preposition Addition of Article Mising Head Noun Omission of Preposition Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Number) Substitution of Possessive Determiner Addition of Preposition Double Verb Omission of Conjunction "And" Omission of Subject Pronoun Misuse of Auxiliary Verb Misuse of Article Frequency of Errors 118 82 60 55 19 16 15 12 11 11 10 9 9 9 6 6

(60) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 46 Syntax Errors Abbreviations Substitution 'his' for 'he is' Substitution 'it's' for 'is' Misuse of Main Verb Missing Adjective Misuse of Determiner Abbreviations SH SI MV MAJ MD Abbreviations 5 5 4 4 3 Table 4.2.Morphological Errors and Frequency Morphological Errors Abbreviations MVPT OS APC MPT AED OPC AS AIN Errors Misformation of Verbs in Present Tense Omission of suffix -s/-es (Plural Form in the noun) Addition of Possessive Case Misformation of Verbs in Past Tense Addition of Suffix -ed Omission of Possessive Case Addition of Suffix -s/-es (Singular Form Incorrect) Addition of Suffix -Ing Frequency of Errors 64 26 21 11 9 8 6 3 Table 4.3.Other Findings and Frequency Abbreviations OE LSE Other Findings Errors Ortographic Errors Lexico-Semantic Errors Frequency of Errors 66 61 From the explanation above, it can be inferred that most of the students were facing difficulties in many aspects. In description of errors, the researcher found many errors that had low frequency. However, as stated by Ellis (1994), errors have high frequency of occurrence and because of that, the low frequency errors were, then, eliminated.

(61) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 47  Explanation of Errors In explanation of errors, the researcher found out the sources of students‟ error in descriptive texts. The sources of errors were interference errors and intralingual errors as stated by Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994). Interference errors were reflected from the other findings. Orthographic errors and lexico-semantic errors occurred because of interference of mother language. Some evidence of interference shows that the students were still confused to spell English words correctly. Some students even mixed Indonesian words with English words. Intralingual errors were reflected from the errors that occurred because of students‟ lack of understanding. Richards (1971b) cited by Ellis (1994) stated the examples of intralingual errors. They are faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and etc. Brown (1980) as cited by Hasyim (2002) stated that intralingual errors are the negative transfer of items in the target language. The sources of errors were all identified. After explaining the errors, the next step is evaluating errors. Evaluating errors was not carried out the researcher, because that is the teacher‟s duty. The researcher presents the percentage of three main error categories. It is presented as follows

(62) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 48 80 60 40 20 0 63.19 Syntax Errors 19.81 17 Morphological Errors Other Findings The Percentage (%) Figure 4. 1. The Percentage of 3 Main Categories of Errors 1. Syntax Errors In this part, there are four main categories of syntax errors. They are noun phrase, verb phrase, word order, and another finding of syntax errors. Each category has its own subcategories and sub-subcategories. The purpose of the categorization is to ease the researcher in assessing students‟ errors. Therefore, the researcher could analyze the students‟ errors more specifically. Syntax errors are the highest percentage of four main categories of errors. Syntax errors hold 59.8% of overall found errors. a. Noun Phrase In noun phrase, there are 4 categories. They are the use of determiners, the use of prepositions, the use of pronouns, and the use of modifiers. In this part, the researcher explains the specific parts of those four categories. Therefore, the syntaxerrors could be appropriately explained. The explanations of four categories are presented below. 1) Use of Determiners The students‟ worksheets contain many errors of use of determiners.In this category, there were found 155 errors and this category is also divided into 6

(63) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 49 subcategories. The error distribution for this category is presented below.The explanation about the numbers of this error is presented as follows. Table 4.4.Number of Errors in Use of Determiners No. a) b) c) d) e) Types of Error Omission of Articles Addition of Articles Substitution of Possessive Determiners Misuse of Articles Misuse of Determiners Numbers of Errors 118 16 11 6 3 a) Omission of Articles This error is the major error in syntax error. It is because this error is counted 118 items from total 485 items of syntax errors. In this case, the students tended to omit or even ignore the article (a, an andthe) in their sentences. The researcher found this error almost in every sample that the researcher assessed. The students had tendencies to ignore or omit articles because article is considered as an unimportant part in sentences. On the contrary, articles are important in sentences because it can define whether the subject or the object is definite or indefinite and it is also used to show singularity of a noun. The examples of omission of articles are presented as follows.  He has øpointed nose. (R#2) Intended: He has a pointed nose.  He is øplayer in Real Madrid. (R#7) Intended: He is a player in Real Madrid.

(64) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 50  She isø pretty girl. (R#19) Intended: She is apretty girl. From the examples above, it can be inferred that omission of articles is an important problem that needs to solve. It is because the use of articles is important for students especially when they are required to write an English composition in the next level of their education. b) Addition of Articles This error happened when the students added an article to a plural form of a noun. This error seldom happened in the students‟ worksheets but it is considered as an error and the researcher perceived that this error needed to investigate. Although omission of articles covers almost all of the students‟ worksheets, addition of articles is also considered as the important problem in students‟ writing skill that needs to be solved. This error is counted 16 items out of 155 total items of errors in use of determiners. The examples of this error are presented below.  He has a strong legs. (R#18) Intended: He has strong legs.  He havea white skin. (R#21) Intended: He has white skin. From two examples above, the researcher concluded that this error is also important to be solved, because the students‟ misunderstanding of using articles could be disastrous for the students‟ in their upcoming years.

(65) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 51 c) Substitution of Possessive Determiners Substitution of possessive determiners is the error of distributing the possessive determiners (her, his, their, etc) with another form of word. This error happened because the students could not find the difference between the sound and the writing. In order to have a clear explanation about this error, the researcher presents the examples. The examples are presented as follows.  He‟s age is 28 year. (R#6) Intended: His age is 28 years.  He‟s name is cristiano Ronaldo. (R#6) Intended:His name is Cristiano Ronaldo.  She’s beloved pet is dog. (R#25) Intended: Her beloved pet is a dog. From the first two examples, the students were trying to explain the subject‟s possession, yet, they perceived that „his‟ is the same with „he‟s‟ because they are identically pronounced. The last example shows that the student could not find the possessive determiner of „she‟. Therefore, the student directly used the pronoun form (she) as the possessive determiner in the student‟s sentence. This error is counted 11 items out of 155 items of total errors in use of determiners. This error presently happened in a very few of the students. However, if the teacher does not take any precaution toward this error, this error may spread in other students‟ writing. This error is essential to be solved.

(66) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 52 d) Misuse of Articles The students often misused the articles, because few of them still could not differentiate which article is appropriate for a particular noun. They also could not differentiate between the definite article and indefinite article. Therefore, few of them were confused by the use of articles. The example of this error is presented below.  Cristiano Ronaldo is the famous soccer player. (R#46) Intended: Cristiano Ronaldo is a famous soccer player. From the example above, the researcher inferred that the appropriate article that should be used in that sentence is anindefinite article, because the context of that sentence is common. Therefore, an indefinite article is appropriate for that sentence. e) Misuse of Determiners This error is counted only 3 items from total 155 items in use of determiners. Although there are only 3 items of this error, yet, this error still needs to be investigated and also solved. To have a clear explanation, the researcher presented the examples as follows.  He contributed this golden shoes for support sacrifice Israel. (R#24) Intended: He contributed these golden shoes to support Israelis‟ sacrifice.  He has many money and øladies. (R#12) Intended: He has much money and many ladies. From the explanation above, it is clear that the students could not apply appropriate determiners for the nouns. In the first example, the student could not

(67) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 53 differentiate between singular and plural form of the determiner. The student might over generalize singular and plural form as the same determiner with similar function. While in the second example, the student could not apply the right determiner for an uncountable noun and he also omitted a determiner before the second object. Problems like those needs to solve, because it is important for students‟ correctness in writing in their upcoming levels. 2) Use of Prepositions Prepositions are also the main problem in students‟ writing, in this case, descriptive texts. The students‟ descriptive texts also contain some errors related to the use of prepositions. The errors in use of prepositions are counted 41 items.The explanation about the numbers of this error is presented as follows. Table 4.5. Number of Errors in Use of Prepositions No. a) b) c) Types of Errors Misuse of Prepositions Omission of Prepositions Addition of Prepositions Numbers 19 12 10 a) Misuse of Prepositions In this error, the students did not use prepositions properly in their descriptive texts. Prepositions are important in sentences because their functions are various. The students still did not apply the correct preposition for a particular word. This error is counted 19 items out of 41 items of total errors in use of prepositions. This error is the most found error in the use of prepositions. Therefore, the students have tendencies to misuse prepositions. The example of this error is presented below.

(68) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 54  He is very good on free kicks and penalty kicks. (R#6) Intended: He is very good atfree kicks and penalty kicks. From the explanation above, it can be inferred that the student made an error in choosing the appropriate prepositions for the words. Use of prepositions is obviously not taught in schools. Use of prepositions is presented in texts and writing. Therefore, the students do not know the proper use of prepositions in their writing. b) Omission of Prepositions This error happened when the students did not notice or omit prepositions that should be used. Prepositions are small parts in sentences, yet, it is important. The example of this error is presented below.  Then Ronaldo played for MU for coupleø season. (R#9) Intended: Then, Ronaldo played for MU for coupleof seasons. Omissions of prepositions were often found in the students‟ descriptive texts. The students had tendencies to omit the prepositions because most of them literally translated their descriptive texts from Bahasa Indonesia to English and the prepositions were also omitted. c) Addition of Prepositions Besides omission and misuse, prepositions were also added to some parts of the sentence. The students often added prepositions to their sentences although it could be added with prepositions. The example is presented below.  This famous lady love to traveling. (R#5) Intended: This famous lady loves øtraveling. (R#5)

(69) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 55 The example above tells that the student added a preposition (to) after the verb. It is not necessary because some verbs are not followed by prepositions. 3) Use of Pronouns Use of pronouns is considered by the researcher as an important part to explain. There were found some errors in use of pronouns in the students‟ descriptive texts. The numbers of each type of error is presented in a table below. Table 4.6. Number of Errors in Use of Pronouns No. a) b) Types of Errors Omission of Subject Pronouns Omission of Relative Pronoun 'That' Numbers 9 3 a) Omission of Subject Pronoun This error often happened in the students‟ descriptive texts. It happened when the students forgot or omitted the subject pronoun such as he, she, and etc. The sentence which has omission of subject pronoun turned to be confusing because there was no specific subject pronoun in the sentence. The examples of this error are presented as follows.  Emotional when he played. (R#34) Intended: He was emotional when he played. (R#34)  Now approximately 26 years old. (R#48) Intended: He is now approximately 26 years old. (R#48) From the explanation above, it can be inferred that the students made errors because they did not write the subject pronoun of their sentences. This situation could happen when the students made English sentences with Bahasa Indonesia‟s point of view.

(70) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 56 b) Omission of Relative Pronoun ‘That’ This error happened when the students omitted the relative pronoun „that‟ in their sentences. Relative pronoun „that‟ is important because it can relate one sentence to another. The examples of this error are presented below.  Selly has blue eyesø look like Anne. (R#32) Intended: Selly has blue eyes thatlook like Anne‟s.  Robert has brown eyes ø look like my uncle. (R#32) Intended: Robert has brown eyes thatlook like my uncle‟s. From the examples above, it is clear that the student omitted the relative pronoun „that‟. This error could happen because of the influence of the mother tongue. 4) Use of Modifiers In this part, the researcher only used one type of error to describe the error found in the students‟ descriptive texts. There were only 4 items in which this error was found. a) Missing Adjectives This error happens when the student forgot or omittedthe adjectives to the nouns in their sentences. This error was found only in four items and the researcher intends to explain one of them. The example is presented below.  He is around 30 years. (R#21) Intended: He is around 30 yearsold.

(71) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 57 The example above tells that the student did not write the adjective after the noun. For telling age, the adjective „old‟ is necessary to describe someone‟s age. b. Verb Phrases In verb phrases, the researcher presents two categories. They are the use of verbs and subject-verb agreement. Each category is divided into some subcategories. They are as presented below. 1) Use of Verbs In this part, the researcher intends to explain the errors or anomalies in the use of verbs. The researcher found five types of errors. They are presented as follows. Table 4.7. Number of Errors in Use of Verbs No. a) b) No. c) d) Types of Errors Omission of ‘To Be’ Double Verbs Types of Errors Misuse of Auxiliary Verbs Misuse of Main Verbs Numbers 55 9 Numbers 6 4 a) Omission of ‘To Be’ This error is the highest frequency error item in the use of verbs. This error is counted 55 items out of 77 total items of errors in use of verbs. To have a clear explanation, the researcher provides some examples of this error. They are presented as follows.  His ageø about 20 years old. (R#4) Intended: His age isabout 20 years old.

(72) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 58  The player‟s full nameø Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro. (R#11) Intended: The player‟s full nameis Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro.  Robert Pattinsonø born 13 May 1986 at London, England. (R#16) Intended: Robert Pattinsonwasborn on 13 May 1986 at London, England. From three examples above, it can be inferred that some students had tendencies to omit to be in their sentences. It is caused by the influence of mother tongue. The omission did not only happen in simple present tense but it also happened in simple past tense. This error is considered as the major error because its number is high and it is also dangerous for the students in their upcoming writing. b) Double Verbs This error happens when the students wrote two verbs in one sentence. This error is not considered as the major error but the teacher needs precaution toward this error. To be clearer, the examples of this error are presented as follows.  Robert Pattinsonis got black and straight hair. (R#17) Intended: Robert Pattinsongot black and straight hair.  He is use 7 number for his jersey. (R#8) Intended: He usesnumber 7 for his jersey. From the explanation above, the researcher infers that the students were still confused in using the main verbs and the auxiliary verbs. They added one main verb and one auxiliary verb in one sentence. It might be caused by their

(73) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 59 perception of English. The students might assume that a main verb is preceded by an auxiliary verb. c) Misuse of Auxiliary Verbs This error is about the misuse of auxiliary verbs. Few students made errors in auxiliary verbs. They did not use auxiliary verbs in a proper place. They used auxiliary verbs instead of main verbs in some sentences. The examples are presented below.  He is big body. (R#7) Intended: He hasa big body.  He has born on 5 February 1985. (R#6) Intended: He was born on 5 February 1985. The first example above shows that the student used an auxiliary verb to describe a person. The student chose „is‟ instead of „has‟. The correct verb to the first example is „has‟. The second example shows that the student could not differentiate between „has‟ and „was‟. The student might be confused between simple past tense and present perfect tense. d) Misuse of Main Verbs This error happened when the student did not proper verbs or main verbs in their sentences; instead, they used auxiliary verbs. The example of this error is presented below.  He is a very outstanding performance. (R#29) Intended: He presents/has a very outstanding performance.

(74) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 60 From the example above, the student tried to describe that his subject presents a very outstanding and the student used the auxiliary verb „is‟ rather than the main verb „presents‟. There were only 4 items in which this error was found in the students‟ descriptive texts. 2) Subject-Verb Agreement In this part, the researcher explains the errors in subject-verb agreement. This error often happened in the students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher found four types of errors. The explanation of the numbers of the errors is presented as follows. Table 4.8. Numberof Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement No. a) b) c) d) Types of Errors Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Person) Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Number) Substitution 'it's' for 'is' Substitution 'his' for 'he’s' Numbers 82 11 5 5 The explanation of each type of error is presented one by one as follows. a) Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Person) This error happened when the students did not apply the correct pattern or form of a verb in a particular tense. In this research, this error happened quite frequent in simple present tense because the students made descriptive texts. This error happened quite frequent because some students had a lack of subject-verb agreement especially in simple present tense. To have a clear explanation, the examples of this error are presented below.  He have almond- shaped eyes. (R#4) Intended: He has almond- shaped eyes.

(75) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 61  He have humble and hard working character. (R#17) Intended: He has a humble and hardworking character. The examples above show that the students did not apply the correct verbs to the subjects. The other examples also show that the students did not add suffix –s or –es in the verbs of their sentences. b) Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Number) This error is caused by the students not using right auxiliary verbs towards the subjects. The students did not use correct auxiliary verbs for their sentences. The examples of this error are presented below.  The lips is very thin. (R#25) Intended: The lips are very thin.  And his lips is thin. (R#4) Intended: And his lips are thin. The examples above show that the students did not choose correct auxiliary verbs for their sentence. c) Substitution 'it's' for 'is' This error happened when the students substituted the verbs in their sentences with the words that were similarly pronounced. In this case, the substitution occurred between it’s and is. Those two words are similarly pronounced, yet, they are different to each other. To have a clear explanation of this error, the examplesare presented below.  He‟s strong foot it’s right foot. (R#6) Intended:His strong foot isthe right foot.

(76) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 62  Ronaldo it’s so top player Real Madrid Football club. (R#1) Intended: Ronaldo isa so top player Real Madrid Football club. The explanation above shows the substitution of it‟s and is. This error happened because the student did not understand well about the use of auxiliary verbs. d) Substitution his for he’s This error happened when the students substitute the subject „he‟ attached with auxiliary verb („s) with the possessive determiner„his‟. This error is only found in 5 items in the students‟ descriptive texts. The examples are presented below.  Now his playing for Real Madrid. (R#9) Intended: Now he is playing for Real Madrid.  His playing for Real Madrid football club. (R#8) Intended: He is playing for Real Madrid football club. The examples above explain the students had misconception in differentiating a particular subject attached with auxiliary verb and possessive determiner. c. Word Order In word order, the researcher only presents one category. That is use of lexical categories. The explanation of use of lexical category is presented below. 1) Use of Lexical Categories In the use of Lexical Categories, the researcher provides two subcategories. They areMissing Head Nounand Misodering.

(77) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 63 In order to have clear information about the type of errors, the explanation of the abbreviation of each type of error is presented as follows. Table 4.9. Number of Errors in Use of Lexical Categories No. a) b) Types of Errors Misodering Missing Head Noun Numbers 60 15 a) Misodering This error happened when the students did not place each lexical item in a proper place. As a result, some of the students‟ sentences were mixed up because they had not understood the grammar well. The example of this error is presented below.  He has high speed and drible the ball very good.(R#6) Intended: He has high speed and a very good ball dribble. The example above shows that the student‟s sentence is disordered. The student might be confused by the sentence pattern and influenced by the student‟s mother tongue. This error is significant because this error has the highest number of error in use of lexical categories. b) Missing Head Noun This error happened when the students did not write the head noun in some sentences. This error happened quite frequent and it needs to be handled. The example of this error is presented below.  He is a handsomeø and have strong body. (R#6) Intended: He is a handsomeman and hasa strong body.

(78) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 64 The example above shows that the student did not write his sentence completely. The missing thing of the above sentence is the head noun „man‟ after the attributive adjective „handsome‟. This error also occurred in various ways in the students‟ descriptive texts. d. Other Finding of Syntax Errors This is the last part of syntax error. This category only consists of one subcategory and one sub-subcategory. The subcategory is Use of Conjunctions and the sub-subcategory is Omission of Conjunction „And‟. The researcher presents the finding as follows. 1) Use of Conjunctions This part only consists of one subcategory. This part only explains how the students used conjunctions in their descriptive text. The explanation of this part is presented in the subcategory. a) Omission of Conjunction ‘And’ This error happens when the students omitted connective conjunction „and‟ in their sentence. This error only was only found in 9 items in the students‟ descriptive texts. To have a clear explanation about this error, the examples of this error are presented below.  She is hard working,ø imaginative.(R#22) Intended: She is hard working andimaginative.  Robert is friendly, humorus, ømodest. (R#41) Intended: Robert is friendly, humorous, and modest.

(79) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 65 The examples above show that the students did not add connective conjunctions between attributive adjectives in their sentences. 2. Morphological Errors In this part, there are three main categories of morphological errors. They are verb inflection, noun inflection and the use of suffix. Each category has its own subcategories and sub-subcategories. Morphological errors are in the second place comparing to four types of errors. Each category is presented one by one as follows. a. Verb Inflection In this category, there are two categories. They are simple present tense and simple past tense. The two above categories mean that the errors are in relation to simple present tense and simple past tense. 1) Simple Present Tense This category only has one subcategory. It is Misformation of Verbs in Simple Present Tense. This category explains the students‟ errors in simple present tense. This category plays an important role, because this category holds the most error item in morphological errors. The numbers for this of errorare 64 items. a) Misformation of Verbs in Simple Present Tense This error happened when the students made error in forming words in simple present tense. The occurrence of this error is focused on how the students‟ sentences‟ verbs were incorrect in simple present tense. To have a clear explanation, the examples are provided by the researcher as follows.

(80) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 66  She’s wear sunglasses, white gloves, and green dress. (R#5) Intended:She wearssunglasses, white gloves, and a green dress.  He is use 7 number for his jersey. (R#8) Intended: He uses number 7 for his jersey. The examples above show that the students added morphemes and one lexical item to their sentences. Apparently, the sentences are incorrect and the correction is directed to the sentences‟ verbs. 2) Simple Past Tense This category also has only one subcategory. It is Misformation of Verbs in Simple Past Tense. This category is obviously similar to the previous category, simple present tense. In this category, the researcher explains how the students‟ errors occurred in simple past tense. This category is second place after simple present tense. a) Misformation of Verbs in Simple Past Tense This error occurred when the students did not apply the right pattern of simple past tense. This error is focused on how the students made errors in their verbs of simple past tense. The examples of this error are presented as follows.  Before he play in real Madrid, he is play in Manchester united football club. (R#8) Intended: Before he playedfor Real Madrid, he played for Manchester United football club.  He is join to Portugal National footbal, and play in world cup. (R#6)

(81) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 67 Intended: He joined Portugal National Football team and played in World Cup. The examples above show that the students did not apply the appropriate tense for their sentence. The sentences‟ context is already past, but the students used simple present tense context, instead. b. Noun Inflection This category has three subcategories. They are possessive case and noun (singular and plural). Each of them has their subcategories. In this category, the researcher intends to explain the phenomena in students‟ descriptive texts which happened to the nouns. 1) Possessive Case The researcher‟s purpose of this category is to explain the students‟ errors of applying possessive case in their descriptive texts. The errors in possessive case are divided into twotypes. The explanation of each type of error is presented as follows. Table 4.10. Number of Errors in Possessive Case No. a) b) Types of Error Addition of Possessive Case Omission of Possessive Case Numbers 21 8 a) Addition of Possessive Case In the addition of possessive case, the students unnecessarily added possessive cases to the subject pronoun or other parts of sentence in their descriptive texts. This error was found in 21 items in the students‟ descriptive texts. The examples of this error are presented below.

(82) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 68  She’s wear sunglasses, white gloves, and green dress. (R#5) Intended: She wears sunglasses, white gloves and a green dress.  He’s have white skin and short hair. (R#6) Intended: He has white skin and short hair. The examples above tell that the student unnecessarily added possessive case („s) in the subject pronoun of their sentences. This error occurred because of the students‟ grammar misunderstanding. The students perceived that their sentences are all right. e) Omission of Possessive Case In this error, the students omitted or ignored possessive case in their sentences. This error was found in8 items in students‟ descriptive texts. The example of this error is presented below.  My aunt name is Anne. (R#32) Intended: My aunt’s name is Anne. The example above gives information that the student omitted possessive case („s) of the subject pronoun. This error is considered minor, yet, it is also still considered as a phenomena happening in the students‟ descriptive texts. 2) Noun (Singular and Plural) In this part, the researcher shows the error occurred in the nouns of students‟ sentences. This error explains how the students form singular or plural nouns in their sentences. The researcher found two types of error. explanation of the numbers of each type of error is presented below. The

(83) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 69 Table 4.11. Number of Errors in Noun (Singular and Plural) No. a) b) Types of Error Omission of suffix -s/-es to Noun (Plural Form Incorrect) Addition of Suffix -s/-es to Noun (Singular Form Incorrect) Numbers 26 6 a) Omission of suffix -s/-esto Noun (Plural Form Incorrect) This error occurred when the students omitted or ignored suffix –s/-es of the plural nouns. This occurrence of this error is quite frequent because this error was found in 26 items. To have a clear explanation, the researcher gives some examples of this error. They are presented as follows.  He plays in many movie. (R#2) Intended:He plays in many movies.  With MU he was winning a few trophy of FA and…(R#13) Intended:With MU, he was winning a few trophies of FA… The examples above show the omission of suffix –s/-es of the nouns. This kind of error needs to be taken care of. b) Addition of Suffix -s/-es to Noun (Singular Form Incorrect) In this error, the students did the opposite way of the previous error. Some students added suffix –s/-es to the singular nouns which obviously do not need addition of suffix –s/-es. The example of this error is presented below.  Her hair styles is ponytail and layered. (R#22) Her hair style is ponytail and layered. The example above shows that the student added an unnecessary suffix –s to a singular noun.

(84) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 70 3) Use of Suffix The researcher also discovered some anomalies of suffixes in the students‟ descriptive text. The anomalies were minor compared to other anomalies. The researcher used type of errors to describe the minor anomalies of suffixes. In order to make a concise explanation, the researcher explains all the type of errors in a brief explanation. The explanation is presented as follows. Table 4.12.Number ofErrors in Use of Suffix No. Type of errors a) Addition of Suffix –ed b) Addition of Suffix – ing Numbers and Examples 9 E.g. His talent was showned by coach of Manchester United… (R#13) Intended: was seen 3 e.g. I will describing Cristiano Ronaldo. (R#23)Intended: I will describe Cristiano Ronaldo. The examples and the explanation above quite show that there are still found some errors in the use of suffix. Errors in use of suffix are minors, because the errors do not dominate the error finding. 3. Other Findings The researcher also found many lexical errors. This error was foundin totalof 127 items. Lexical errors are only divided into two main categories. They are ortographic errors and lexico-semantic errors. The explanation of each type of error is presented as follows. a. Ortographic Errors In this error, the students did not write their words in an appropriate spelling. This error is focused on how the students wrote the words for their descriptive texts and spell letters in the words. Some students did not properly

(85) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 71 spell words in their descriptive texts. This error is found 66 items in the students‟ descriptive texts. To have a clear explanation, the examples of ortographic errors are presented below. The examples presented below show how the students improperly spelled the words. The cause for that error is that some students perceived the spelling with their mother tongue point-of-view. As a result, some students‟ distorted words are apparently influenced by the Bahasa Indonesia spelling. Table. 4.13. The Examples of Ortographic Errors No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Distorted Words Energectic Profesional footbal drible spektacular nasionality Profesion Arroun Mascular takling Intended Words Energetic Professional football dribble spectacular nationality Profession Around Muscular tackling b. Lexico-Semantic Errors In this error, the researcher explains the lexico-semantic errors. This error is focused on how the students improperly used words in their descriptive texts. This error occurred quite frequent, because it is counted 61 items. The examples of this error are presented below. Table 4.11. The Examples of Lexico-Semantic Errors No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Misused Words …she wearhighhills. His face hair… He has sharp nose. He has many likes girl in word. He‟s body is high. Intended Words …she wears high heels. His facial hair… He has a pointed nose. He has many favorite girls in the world. His body is tall.

(86) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 72 The examples above show that some students properly spelled the words they used, yet, they did not use the words in a proper way. This error needs to be taken care of because this error is quite serious. Preliminary action toward this error is needed in order to prevent further students‟ misunderstanding. B. Possible Causes Of Errors Made On Descriptive texts By Seventh grade Students Of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta In this part, the researcher presents the causes of errors that occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts. There are many causes of errors provided by John Norrish (1983), yet, the researcher only chose some of them which are considered relevant for explaining the students‟ errors in descriptive texts. The researcher searched the causes of errors of the students‟ descriptive texts through errors found on students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher observed the students‟ answers from the questionnaires. The researcher concluded the possible causes of error of SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakartaseventh grade students afterwards. The possible causes of errors for SMP PangudiLuhur Yogyakarta are presented as follows. 1. Basic Grammar Understanding of The Students The students‟ basic grammar understanding is considered by the researcher as the first cause of error. The reason for that is because almost all of the students have problems with their basic grammar understanding. It is proved by the result of students‟ descriptive texts. Most of the errors that occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts were caused by their basic grammar understanding. The students

(87) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 73 did not have strong basic grammar understanding, therefore, the students made errors mostly related to grammar. 2. Overgeneralization Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that” overgeneralization errors arise when the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of other structures in the target language. It generally involves of one deviant structure in place of two target language”. Overgeneralization occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts. Most of the students dealt with the use of verbs in simple present tense. They over generalized that every verb of simple present tense is not added suffix –s or –es. Overgeneralization also occurred when the students formed plural nouns. The students tended to omit suffix –s or –es. 3. Students’ Carelessness Norrish (1983) stated that carelessness is also a cause of error. Yet, it is not the only cause of errors. He also stated that carelessness could be happen if the teacher‟s presentation or the text book does not suit the students. The researcher considered carelessness as one of causes of error in the students‟ descriptive texts. Carelessness is shown from the students‟ descriptive texts. Some errors represent students‟ carelessness in writing. Another proof for students‟ carelessness is misspelling. There were found some words which were misspelled. 4. Incomplete Application of Rules Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that “incomplete application of rules involves a failure to fully develop a structure”. In incomplete application of rules, the students incompletely applied rules in syntax and

(88) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 74 morphology. The example of incomplete application of rules is the omission of „to be‟ (is, am, are, was and were). In the students‟ descriptive texts, omission of „to be‟ contributed quite high frequency of errors. This kind of errors was discovered in more than one student‟s descriptive text. Based on this kind of error, the students were not aware of their omitting „to be. Besides omission of „to be‟, there are still many students‟ errors in descriptive texts which reflect incomplete application of rules. 5. First Language Interference Skinner (1957) as cited by Norrish (1982) stated a definitive statement of behaviorist theory of language learning. It says that a language is essentially a set of habits, and then when the learners try to learn the new habits, the former habits will interfere with the new habits. That is called mother tongue interference. The Skinner‟s(1957) explanation is clear towards this cause of error. The researcher considered first language or mother tongue interference as one of causes of error in student‟s descriptive texts. This consideration is based on the students‟ error. The proof for this cause of error is other findings. In this research, other findingsaredivided into two categories. They are ortographic errors and lexicosemantic errors. Lexico-semantic errors areone category that is very affected by students‟ first language interference. Some students used English words in this inappropriately. It is because some students perceived that the English words are all similar. Therefore, the students used the words which they perceived as the right words.

(89) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS In this chapter, the researcher draws the conclusion of his research and proposes some suggestions toward this research. The researcher also provides some suggestions for future research of error analysis. A. Conclusion The researcher initiated this research because of one purpose. That was to identify the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students’ descriptive texts. The error occurred in 55 students’ worksheets of three regular classes of seventh grade students in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. The researcher proposed descriptive texts as a tool to collect the errors. The researcher had the teacher’s and also the headmaster’s approval to carry on this research for the sake of the students. The researcher initiated this research with two main questions. The first question was “what are the errors made on descriptive writing by seventh grade students of Pangudi Luhur Junior High School?” This question was addressed to seek out all kinds of students’ errors in their descriptive texts. The second question was “what are the possible causes of errors made on descriptive writing by seventh grade students of Pangudi Luhur Junior High School?” This question was to facilitate the researcher in searching of possible causes of errors. The researcher started this research by obtaining the approval both from the teacher and the headmaster. The research instruments for this 75

(90) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 76 research are students’ descriptive writing about people’s appearance as suggested by the teacher and character. The researcher also provided a brief summary of descriptive text (people’s appearance and character) to each student with the intention that the students could recall what they have learned through the summary. The researcher distributed worksheets, and summaries to three regular classes: 7A, 7B and 7C. The predicted total of the participants is 131 participants. On the contrary, the actual total instruments are 110 collected students’ worksheets. The researcher chose 55 samples from 110 students’ worksheets through systematic sampling method (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009). The researcher examined 55 selected samples and found some errors. The errors were divided into three major categories. They are syntax errors, morphological errors and other findings. Each category is also divided into some subcategories. The researcher also used some abbreviations to each subcategory is order to ease the researcher in assessing students’ errors. In syntax errors, the students mostly made errors in articles (a, an and the) and simple present tense form. Omission and addition were also found in syntax errors. In morphological errors, the students mostly had problems with forming right verbs for simple present tense. Addition and omission were also found in morphological errors. The third one is other findings. Lexical errors deal with words’ spelling and use of words. This category is only divided into two subcategories. They are orthographic errors and lexico-semantic errors. The students frequently made errors of those two categories.

(91) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 77 As the second question is stated, the researcher also presents possible causes of errors in students’ descriptive texts. There are five possible causes of errors in students’ descriptive writing. They are basic grammar understanding of the students, overgeneralization, students’ carelessness, incomplete application of rules and first language interference. B. Suggestions In this research, the researcher provides some suggestions which are relevant to this research. The suggestions are presented as follows: 1. The teacher should make the students interested and motivated in learning English. It is because lack of interest and motivation could directly affect students’ score. The more motivated and interested students, the more knowledge the students can obtain. Lack of interest and motivation could be prevented by various techniques of teaching. The teacher can vary his techniques of teaching with games or other techniques which can enable the students to learn, in this case, English grammar. 2. In order to take care of students’ carelessness, the teacher can carry out students’ peer assessment of their writing. Therefore, the students are expected to be able to realize what their errors are. The teacher could also provide a Trial-and-Error action in classes. This action could trigger the students to know errors in writing or any other skills. After knowing errors, the students are also expected to fix their errors.

(92) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 78 3. In order to overcome over generalization and incomplete application of rules, the teacher could increase the exposure to English texts, and grammar. Therefore, the students could know the correct forms of English sentences or words. In the future time, the students would be able to apply correct forms of English sentences and words, and also the students could avoid overgeneralization. The result of this research would be meaningless if the students and the teacher do not follow up with some follow-up actions. This research’s purpose is to present the students’ error in writing in order to make the students realize their errors and they can fix their errors. This research is also limited by many circumstances. The researcher still needs further suggestions for this research. The researcher also welcomes future researchers to have research related to error analysis. This research is dedicated to improving teaching learning process in seventh grade regular classes of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta.

(93) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI REFERENCES Azar, B. S. & Hagen, S. A. (2009). Understanding and using English grammar (4th ed). New York: Pearson Education. Abed, A. Q. (2012). Error analysis. Baghdad: Baghdad University Press. Brook, N. (1960). Language and language learning (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Inc. Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. __________. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. __________. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). White Plains: Pearson Education. Berg, T.L. (2011). Learning from descriptive texts. New York: Stony Brook University Press. Corder, S.P. (1967). Significance of learner’s errors. Middlesex: Penguin Education. __________. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education. __________. (1974). Error analysis and remedial teaching. Washington.D. C. : ERIC Clearinghouse. __________. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed). London: Blackwell. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill Companies. 79

(94) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 80 Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar. Cammeray: Antipadean Educational Enterprises (AEE). Hasyim, S. (2002). Error analysis in the teaching of English. Surabaya: Kristen Petra University. Hendrickson, J. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Hammond, J. (1992). English for social purposes. Sydney: Macquarie University Press. Henry, D.J. (2008). Writing for life: Paragraphs to essay. New York: Pearson Longman. Keshavarz, M. (2012). Contrastive analysis and error analysis (2nd ed). Tehran: Rahamana Press. Lange, D. L. (1977). Report on Lange‟s keynote address: “Thoughts from Europe about learning a second language in the classroom.” Modern Language Journal, 265-267. Lantolf, J. P. (1977). “Aspects of change in foreign language study.” Modern Language Journal, 242-251. McMurrey, D. A. (1983). Writing fundamentals. New York: Macmillian CO. Inc. Mursyid, P.W. (n.d.). Learning descriptive texts. Retrieved August 16, 2013, from http://mmursyidpw.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/learning-description.pdf Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press.

(95) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 81 Politzer, R & Ramirez, A. (1973). “An Error Analysis of the Spoken English of Mexican-American Pupils in a Bilingual School and a Monolingual School.” Language Learning 23 (1): 38-61. Richards, J. C. (1971). “ A non-contrastive approach to error analysis.” Journal of English Language Teaching, 25 (3), 204-219. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Svartvik, J. (1973). Errata: papers in error analysis. Lund: Lund University Press. Schachter, J. & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 441-451. Tiedt, I.M. (1989). Writing: From topic to evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Zydatiss, W. (1974). A „kiss of life‟ for the notion of error. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 231-237.

(96) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI APPENDIX A Examples of Students’ Errors 82

(97) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 83 1. Syntactical Errors a. Noun Phrase 1) Use of Determiners a) Omission of Articles  He has ø pointed nose. (R#2) Intended: He has a pointed nose.  He is ø player in Real Madrid. (R#7) Intended: He is a player in Real Madrid.  She is ø pretty girl. (R#19) Intended: She is a pretty girl. b) Addition of Articles  He has a strong legs. (R#18) Intended: He has strong legs.  He have a white skin. (R#21) Intended: He has white skin. c) Substitution of Possessive Determiners  He’s age is 28 year. (R#6) Intended: His age is 28 years.  He’s name is cristiano Ronaldo. (R#6) Intended: His name is Cristiano Ronaldo.  She’s beloved pet is dog. (R#25) Intended: Her beloved pet is a dog. d) Misuse of Articles  Cristiano Ronaldo is the famous soccer player. (R#46) Intended: Cristiano Ronaldo is a famous soccer player.

(98) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 84 e) Misuse of Determiners  He contributed this golden shoes for support sacrifice Israel. (R#24) Intended: He contributed these golden shoes to support Israelis’ sacrifice.  He has many money and ø ladies. (R#12) Intended: He has much money and many ladies. 2) Use of Prepositions a) Misuse of Prepositions  He is very good on free kicks and penalty kicks. (R#6) Intended: He is very good at free kicks and penalty kicks. b) Omission of Prepositions  Then Ronaldo played for MU for couple ø season. (R#9) Intended: Then, Ronaldo played for MU for couple of seasons. c) Addition of Prepositions  This famous lady love to traveling. (R#5) Intended: This famous lady loves ø traveling. (R#5) 3) Use of Pronouns a) Omission of Subject Pronoun  Emotional when he played. (R#34) Intended: He was emotional when he played. (R#34)  Now approximately 26 years old. (R#48) Intended: He is now approximately 26 years old. (R#48)

(99) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 85 b) Omission of Relative Pronoun ‘That’  Selly has blue eyes ø look like Anne. (R#32) Intended: Selly has blue eyes that look like Anne’s.  Robert has brown eyes ø look like my uncle. (R#32) Intended: Robert has brown eyes that look like my uncle’s. 4) Use of Modifiers a) Missing Adjectives  He is around 30 years. (R#21) Intended: He is around 30 years old. b. Verb Phrases 1) Use of Verbs a) Omission of ‘To Be’  His age ø about 20 years old. (R#4) Intended: His age is about 20 years old.  The player’s full name ø Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro. (R#11) Intended: The player’s full name is Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro.  Robert Pattinson ø born 13 May 1986 at London, England. (R#16) Intended: Robert Pattinson was born 13 May 1986 at London, England.

(100) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 86 b) Double Verbs  Robert Pattinson is got black and straight hair. (R#17) Intended: Robert Pattinson got black and straight hair.  He is use 7 number for his jersey. (R#8) Intended: He uses number 7 for his jersey. c) Misuse of Auxiliary Verbs  He is big body. (R#7) Intended: He has a big body.  He has born on 5 February 1985. (R#6) Intended: He was born on 5 February 1985. d) Misuse of Main Verbs  He is a very outstanding performance. (R#29) Intended: He presents/has a very outstanding performance. 2) Subject-Verb Agreement a) Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Person)  He have almond- shaped eyes. (R#4) Intended: He has almond- shaped eyes.  He have humble and hard working character. (R#17) Intended: He has a humble and hard working character. b) Disagreement of Subject-Verb (Number)  The lips is very thin. (R#25) Intended: The lips are very thin.  And his lips is thin. (R#4)

(101) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 87 Intended: And his lips are thin. c) Substitution 'it's' for 'is'  He’s strong foot it’s right foot. (R#6) Intended: His strong foot is the right foot.  Ronaldo it’s so top player Real Madrid Football club. (R#1) Intended: Ronaldo is a so top player Real Madrid Football club. d) Substitution his for he’s  Now his playing for Real Madrid. (R#9) Intended: Now he is playing for Real Madrid.  His playing for Real Madrid football club. (R#8) Intended: He is playing for Real Madrid football club. c. Word Order 1) Use of Lexical Categories a) Misordering  He has high speed and drible the ball very good. (R#6) Intended: He has high speed and a very good ball dribble. b) Missing Head Noun  He is a handsome ø and have strong body. (R#6) Intended: He is a handsome man and has a strong body. d. Other Finding of Syntactic Errors 1) Use of Conjunctions a) Omission of Conjunction ‘And’  She is hard working, ø imaginative. (R#22)

(102) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 88 Intended: She is hard working and imaginative.  Robert is friendly, humorus, ø modest. (R#41) Intended: Robert is friendly, humorous, and modest. 2. Morphological Errors a.Verb Inflection 1) Simple Present Tense a) Misformation of Verbs in Simple Present Tense  She’s wear sunglasses, white gloves, and green dress. (R#5) Intended: She wears sunglasses, white gloves, and a green dress.  He is use 7 number for his jersey. (R#8) Intended: He uses number 7 for his jersey. 2) Simple Past Tense a) Misformation of Verbs in Simple Past Tense  Before he play in real Madrid, he is play in Manchester united football club. (R#8) Intended: Before he played for Real Madrid, he played for Manchester United football club.  He is join to Portugal National footbal, and play in world cup. (R#6) Intended: He joined Portugal National Football team and played in World Cup.

(103) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 89 b. Noun Inflection 1) Possessive Case a) Addition of Possessive Case  She’s wear sunglasses, white gloves, and green dress. (R#5) Intended: She wears sunglasses, white gloves and a green dress.  He’s have white skin and short hair. (R#6) Intended: He has white skin and short hair. b) Omission of Possessive Case  My aunt name is Anne. (R#32) Intended: My aunt’s name is Anne. 2) Noun (Singular and Plural) a) Omission of suffix -s/-es to Noun (Plural Form Incorrect)  He plays in many movie. (R#2) Intended: He plays in many movies.  With MU he was winning a few trophy of FA and…(R#13) Intended: With MU, he was winning a few trophies of FA… b) Addition of Suffix -s/-es to Noun (Singular Form Incorrect)  Her hair styles is ponytail and layered. (R#22) Her hair style is ponytail and layered. 3) Use of Suffix No. a) b) Types of Error Addition of Suffix –ed Addition of Suffix –ing Abbreviations and Examples E.g. His talent was showned by coach of Manchester United… (R#13) Intended: was seen e.g. I will describing Cristiano Ronaldo. (R#23) Intended: I will describe Cristiano Ronaldo.

(104) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 90 3. Other Findings a. Ortographic Errors No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Distorted Words Energectic Profesional footbal drible spektacular nasionality Profesion Arroun Mascular takling Intended Words Energetic Professional football dribble spectacular nationality Profession Around Muscular Tackling b. Lexico-Semantic Errors No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Misused Words …she wear highhills. His face hair… He has sharp nose. He has many likes girl in word. He’s body is high. Intended Words …she wears high heels. His facial hair… He has a pointed nose. He has many favorite girls in the world. His body is tall.

(105) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI APPENDIX B Students’ Exercise of Descriptive Text and a Brief Summary of Descriptive text 91

(106) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI Descriptive Text 92 DESCRIBING PEOPLE (APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER) Please write at least four (4) paragraphs of a descriptive text related to describing people (appearance and character). One paragraph must consist of at least three (3) sentences. Please choose one of the figures below to describe: Taken from:  Robert (http://robertpattinsonuk.com/?p=34589)  Anne (http://vainchic.com/anne-hathaways-wardrobe-in-the-devil-wears-prada/)  Ronaldo (http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/2634741/cristiano-ronaldo-polandgame-08/)  Kate (http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/403591/revolutionary-road-moviekate-winslet-10/) Please write your descriptive text (describing people’s appearance and character) on the answer sheet Do not forget to submit it.

(107) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 93 DESCRIBING PEOPLE (APPEARANCE AND CHARACTER) Descriptive Text Generic Structure: 1. Identification : contains the information about the thing or person that will be described. 2. Description : contains the explanation or description about the thing or person that will be described. Language Feature:  Focusing on a specific person or thing (My favorite public figure, my beloved pet, and etc)  Use of simple present tense  Use of descriptive adjectives (White fur, strong legs)  Use of detailed noun phrase (to give information about the subject) (A very outstanding performance, sweet young lady, and etc.) Describing People Appearance In describing people appearance, there are some points to be paid attention. They are as provided below: AGE HEIGHT BUILD young / middle-aged / elderly / old a baby/ toddler / teenager in his/her 20s / 30s … 165cm tall. of average / medium height tall / very tall / rather tall. short fat / overweight / plump /chubby

(108) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 94 skinny /thin / slim / plump well-built muscular HAIR black, straight hair CLOTHES a hat / earrings is in black DISTINGUISHING glasses / contacts / braces FEATURES a tattoo / a piercing GENERAL beautiful, pretty, handsome, sexy, cute, good-looking FACE SHAPE square, oval, round, triangular SKIN freckled, fair complexion, tanned, wrinkled, silky, baby-soft, glowing, dry, callused, rough, dark-skinned, olive-skinned EYES almond-shaped, squinty LIPS thin/full lips, pursed lips, pouting lips HAIR TEXTURE wavy, curly, straight, spiky, buzzed, shaved, neatly-combed, cropped, thick, bushy, coarse, scraggly, limp, flat, balding, bald, bald spot. HAIR STYLES braids, ponytail, pigtail, bun, twist, flip, layered, chopped, spiked, slicked down, permed, dyed, bleached, highlighted, weaved FACIAL HAIR beard, goatee, mustache, sideburns, unshaven, clean-shaven, trimmed, neatlytrimmed The example of the description: Image Source: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/64356/excerpt/9780521664356_excerpt.pdf

(109) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 95 Describing People Character People Character:                                ambitious bossy capable caring cheerful close-minded confident (in)considerate creative dull easygoing emotional empathetic energetic friendly funny generous gentle hard-working (dis)honest humorous imaginative independent intelligent kind lazy loyal mature mean modest moody                              naïve narrow-minded naughty nice noisy open-minded optimistic outgoing organized patient pessimistic polite (un)reliable (ir)responsible rude selfish sensible sensitive serious shy sincere smart sociable strong-minded stubborn stupid sweet sympathetic thrifty  tolerant Example of Describing People’s Character:   My little sister is really sweet. My friend Maria is very responsible and polite. My mum loves her.

(110) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 96  Susan is not only intelligent, but she is also a very hard-working person.  Peter is quite shy and quiet, but he’s very friendly.

(111) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI APPENDIX C Examples of Students’ Descriptive Text 97

(112) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 98

(113) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 99

(114) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 100

(115) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 101

(116) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 102

(117) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 103

(118) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 104

(119) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 105

(120) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 106

(121) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 107

(122) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 108

(123) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI APPENDIX D Letter of Permission 109

(124) PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 110

(125)

Dokumen baru

Aktifitas terkini

Download (124 Halaman)
Gratis

Tags

Dokumen yang terkait

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
88
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
91
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
300
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
86
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
83
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
181
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
149
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
89
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
84
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
77
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
226
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
111
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
96
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
159
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
143
Show more