Anang Rifqy

[email protected]

Abstract

Language learning is actually the process of trial and error, in which a learner forms a hypothesis and later on prove it, abort it or adjust it. Therefore, making some errors is unavoidable thing for learners in learning or acquiring language. This study attempts to find out what are the frequent errors committed by junior high school students in writing recount text. It is conducted in a private junior high school in one sub-urban area in Indonesia. The participants of the study are two students of grade eight who have learnt how to write a recount text for one semester. This study employs the error analysis (EA) proposed by Corder (1974) which examines and evaluate learners’ errors in longitudinal way. Data are two students’ recount texts as part of learning assessment in the last of the first semester year 2012-2013. The data are analyzed by means of error taxonomies in terms of surface strategy taxonomy which comprises addition, omission, misformation, and misordering proposed by Dulay et al 1982: 146) following the procedure suggested by Corder (1974) and Ellis (1994, cited in Saville, 2006). The findings show that the errors which frequently found in the students’ recount text are addition error as well as misformation error. Those errors are frequently occurred influenced by the interlingual and intralingual factors in the process of SLA. There is the hope that this study helps teachers to become familiar with the most frequent errors committed by EFL learner in writing recount text, so that leading them to make more objective on how to go about applying appropriate teaching strategies to help the EFL learners learn better.

Keywords: error analysis, error taxonomies, recount text, interlingual, intralingual. Introduction

The employment of Genre- Based Approach in Indonesia has leaded many researchers, including teachers, to investigate this approach in various fields. In its practices, GBA has opened a wide atmosphere of research in how to teach particular genres to the students and its contribution to foreign language learning and acquisition. Therefore many researches have been conducted to find out the best practices of teaching particular genre and its challenges for learners’ foreign language acquisition.

One of its challenges with the implementation of this approach is to find out how learners can get positive feedback from their adults, especially teachers, to learn better from the mistakes and errors they commit. It is unavoidable that all learners make mistakes and commit errors when they are acquiring or learning a language. The realization of the foreign language learners’ errors is potentially important for understanding the of the foreign language acquisition in this modern language process of teaching. For some years, there have been a lot studies on the process of first language acquisition and second language learning. Erdogan (2005) states that children learning their native tongue make plenty mistakes and errors is a natural part of language acquisition process. Since they get feedback and correction from adults, especially teachers, then they learn how semantically acceptable utterance and sentences in their native language.

Error analysis study, as proposed by Corder (1974), enables teachers and researchers to find out the sources of errors and take the pedagogical precautions towards them. Therefore, the analysis of learner language has become an urgent need to find an appropriate practice for acquiring and teaching a language.

In this context, the presents study is conducted, attempting to employ error analysis to find out the frequent particular error committed by learners. The study will investigate what are the frequent errors found in junior high school students’ recount texts. It is expected that the result may show the frequent learners’ errors in writing recount text and it can be a valuable source for teachers to have better teaching practice,

Literature Review Error analysis

Language learning is a process in which learners take the benefits from the errors and mistakes they made by obtaining feedback to make new attempt that successfully achieving the desired goal. Corder (1967) argues that learners’ errors can provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.

Heydari and Bagheri (2012) supported that a better understanding of the errors and the origin of such errors in the process of EFL teaching will help teachers know students’ difficulties in learning English. Moreover, it will aid in the adoption of appropriate teaching strategies and method to help learners learn better.

In respect to that case, Corder (1974) and Saville (2006) proposes the error analysis (EA) as an approach to the study of SLA which includes an internal focus on learners’ creative ability in constructing language. This study is based on the description and analysis of actual learner errors in L2 in both spoken and written language. Error analysis can be considered as a fundamental tool in language teaching since it reorganizes teachers’ point of view and readdresses his/ her methodology for fixing and fulfilling the students’ gaps (Londono Vasquez, 2007, cited in Heydari & Bagheri, 2012).

Corder (1967) defines EA as a procedure used by researchers or teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying the error in the sample, describing the errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness. The purpose of error analysis is, then, to find “what the learner knows and does not know” and to “ultimately enable teacher to supply him not just with the information that his hypothesis is wrong, but also, importantly, with the right sort of information or data for him to form more adequate concept of a rule in the target language” (Corder, 1974, p. 170).

In more detailed stepping stones of the error analysis, Ellis (1994, cited in Saville, 2006) includes the following steps in analyzing the errors:

1. Collection of a sample of learner language. In this step, most samples of learner language are collected from many speakers or writers who are responding to the same kind of task or
2. Identification of errors. Here, the analyst is required to determine the elements in the sample of learner language which deviate from the target L2 in some
3. Description of errors. For purpose of analysis, errors are usually classified according to language level (whether an error is phonological, morphological, etc.), general linguistic category (e.g., auxiliary system, passive sentence, ), or more specific linguistic elements (e.g. articles, preposition, verb forms, etc.)
4. Explanation of In this step, accounting for why an error was made is the most important step in trying to understand the process of SLA.
5. Evaluation of errors. This step involves analysis of what effect the error has on whoever is being

Error taxonomies

It is difficult to classify error precisely, for error can be classified in a number of possible ways. Up to now, there is errors categorization, which is simple and agreed upon by all analysis. Every analysis seems to have his own approach. This may make researchers have different findings from the same data with respect to the ways in categorizing errors. And one of the errors categorizations is surface strategy taxonomy which proposed by Dulay et al. (1982).

Surface strategy taxonomy highlights the ways surface structures are altered. Analyzing errors from a surface strategy perspective makes us aware that learners’ errors are based on some logic. They are not the result of laziness or sloppy thinking but of the learners’ use of interim principles to produce a new language (Dulay et.al, 1982). This taxonomy classifies errors as: Omission, Addition, misformation, and misordering.

1. Omission: Omission errors are characterized by the absence of an item that must appear in a well- formed

1. Three types of addition errors are double marking, regularization and simple addition.
   • Double marking is described as the failure to delete certain items which we are required in some linguistic construction, but not in For example, he didn’t went instead he didn’t go.
   • Regularization is defined as applying a rule to the class of exceptions. For example, Sheeps instead of sheep
   • Simple addition errors are the “grab bug” subcategory of additions. If an addition error is now which a double marking nor a regularization, it is called a simple addition. For example, it is consist instead of it consists of
2. Misformation errors are characterized by the use of the wrong form of a morpheme or structure. Three types of misformation errors are regularization errors, archi-forms and alternating
   • Regularization errors that fall under the misformation category are those in which a regular marker is used in place of an irregular one as runned for ran.
   • Archi-forms are one member of a class of forms selected by the learner to represent others in the class as those do or that dogs.
   • Alternating forms: As the learners’ vocabulary and grammar grow, the use of archi-forms often gives way to the free alternation of various members of a class with each other as those dog, this
3. Misordering errors are characterized by the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an For example, All the time in He is all the time late is misordered.

Sources of errors

Accounting for why an error was made is the most important step in trying to understand the process of SLA. Saville (2006) states that there are two of the most likely causes of L2 errors: first, interlingual (“between languages”) factors, which are the result from the negative transfer or interference from L1. Second, intralingual (“intralingual”) factors, which are considered developmental errors and often represent incomplete learning of L2 rules/ form or overgeneralization of them.

Genre of recount

Genre in Functional grammar can be defined as a culturally specific text-type which results from using language (written or spoken) to (help) accomplish something (Gerot and Wignell, 1994:17). Each genre is associated with particular purposes, particular stages, and particular linguistics features.

Recount, as one of the genres, records and expose ‘a sequence of events without significant disruption (Martin & Rose, 2008:51). It retells events for the purpose of informing and entertaining (Gerot and Wignell, 1994:194). The Generic structure of recount includes orientation, records of events, and reorientation. This generic structure helps to provide some information concerning events in a situation and temporal sequence bring past to present (Hyland, 2007) The complete feature of recount is as follows (Derewianka, 2004; Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Emilia, 2011).

Table 1 The feature of recount text

Method

The research is qualitative case study employing error analysis proposed Corder (1967). It is said that error analysis is a branch of applied linguistic emerged in sixties which deals with learners’ performance in terms of cognitive process they make use of in recognizing and coding the input they receive from the target language. Therefore, the focus of error analysis is on the evidence of learners’ errors provide with an understanding of the the underlying process of second language acquisition (Vacide Erdogan, 2005).

Error analysis, Corder (1967) stressed, has the significances in three different ways. First, to the teacher, in that they show how far towards the goal the learner has progressed. Second, they provide to the researcher evidence of how a language is acquired or learnt, what strategies the learner is employing in his learning. Thirdly, they are inevitable to the learner himself because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn.

The study is conducted in a private junior Islamic boarding school in Tasikmalaya that applies both national education and Islamic curriculum. The condition that students have to stay in the dormitory after school time, has led this school to place English as a priority as Arabic since both are used as daily language communication for all students and teachers in most of the time.

The participants of the study are two students of junior grade 8. The two students, indicated as student F and V, are chosen as they are the most active ones in the writing project. The grade 8 is chosen in consideration that is in the middle of the level, between lower and upper junior high. Their writing skills, then, may pose representativeness of the all level in the school. Moreover, most of the grade 8 students have been learning English for about one and half year in the school that their English performance may show how English has been taught in the school.

Data are two recount texts of the two students. Writing such a text is a part of students’ performance test in semester 1 year 2012-2013. The students have learnt how to write recount text before the performance test started. The text is about the students’ experiences in the holiday time which is categorized as a personal recount text that, Hyland (2007) states, can provide valuable insight into writers’ social and psychological aspect as it uses a first-person account of candid writing. Hence, what they write is a good source to understand their life through the use of language in the text.

The data are analyzed by means of the technique that is suggested by Ellis (1994, cited in Saville). Detail steps of the data analysis in this study are as follows:

• Collection of a sample of learner
• Identification of errors
• Description of
• Explanation of errors
• Evaluation of

These findings then will be discussed in terms of which types of error are mostly committed when writing the recount text. Those errors, then, will be classified based on the surface strategy taxonomy which covers addition, omission, misformation and misordering.

Results and discussion

The data are presented under the sub-heading of each student and discussed in terms of surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay et al (1982).

Student F

Regarding the errors in the text written by Student F, she tends to make addition and misformation errors more than the other. In the case of addition error, this can be shown by the use of massive unnecessary addition of one or more items a well-formed word and sentence. The percentage of addition error is more than a half of the total errors or 52,4% (11 out of 21 errors). For instance, she adds some to infinitive after modal auxiliary, and prepositional phrase “to which are unnecessary in the

context of formed sentences. From these evidences, student F has not mastered the system to infinitive and the use of preposition yet. The following are detailed samples:

On the other hand, she also makes some mistakes in the type misformation errors. It i highlighted by the use of the wrong form of a morpheme or structure. The percentage of this error reaches 42,8% out of 21 error) and ranks in the second after addition error. This shows that the most of the errors committed by student F is caused by over-generalized the past form of the verb. For examples, student F uses the word “gived” instead of “give”, “spended” instead of “spent “sleeped” instead of “slept”, etc, this is the evidence that student F is learning the English past verb system, but hasn’t yet mastered the distinction between the form of regular and irregular verb. The following are detailed samples taken from the data:

The last types of error which is found in the text is the omission errors. The percentage is only 4,8% (1 out of 21 errors). It is proved that the writer omits one items that must appear in the well-formed sentence. In her text, she omits the possession (‘s) in the well form of phrase. The evidences for both types of error can be seen as follows:

7. 1 could see my sister graduation Instead of sister’s graduation

From above samples, it can be assumed that student F commit several errors which are categorized as intralingual or developmental errors (Saville, 2006). These errors occur because of the incompleteness learning of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them.

Student V

Regarding the second text which is written by student V, in comparison with the previous one, she commits fewer errors but produces less word counts. In her short recount text entitled “My Last Holiday”, it is found only 13 errors. The error varies in type of addition (2 errors or 14,3%), omission (1 errors or 7,1%), and misformation (11 errors or 78,6%). Viewed from that calculation, student V tends to commit misformation error more frequent than the other one. The detailed samples of error in her text can be seen as follows:

The samples above are classified as misformation errors where the student V uses the wrong form of morpheme or structure frequently in the text. Those errors are made frequently because of the negative transfer from the writer’s L1 where she tries to translate the ideas literally by using the wrong form of conjunction and preposition. The samples of errors in number 1-2 are also categorized as interference where the occurance of errors are influenced by the interlingual (“between languages”) factors as the result of the negative transfer from L1 (Saville, 2006).

To compare between the error analysis from both texts above, the following table shows the numbers and percentage of errors found in those texts.

Table 2 The numbers and percentage of errors committed by student F and V

Types Of Error

To sumup. The integration of analysis from the two texts above has shown that the total errors committed by student F & V are 35 times. The most frequent error type is misformation which occurs 20 times or 57, 1% and followed by errors of addition 13 times (37,1%), errors of omission 2 times (5,7%), and none of the errors of misordering. The main sources of those errors are intralingual and interlingual factor of students’ foreign language acquisition.

Conclusions

This study has been devoted to introduce how error analysis study can be applied to investigate the learners’ error found in the recount text. This study is very essential specially to identify and classify what errors are frequently found in the students’ recount text at junior high school level.

After carrying the research out and analyzing the data, the researcher concludes as follows: First, the most frequent errors type from both texts is misformation which occurs 20 times or 57,1%. It is followed by errors of addition 13 times (37,1% errors of omission 2 times (5,7%), and none of the errors of misordering. Second, the errors made in text can be caused by interlingual factors which is the result of negative transfer from Lland intralingual factors which is the incompleteness of learning the rule of L2 and overgeneralization of them. Third, it suggests for the teachers to find out the possible and appropriate teaching strategy especially which focus on form and the linguistic feature involved in the recount text. On the other hand, giving frequent writing exercise which accompanied by corrective and positive feedback is considered a good way to avoid the students making and repeating the same errors in their further learning.

References

Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. 2008. School Discourse. UK. Continuum. Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-170.

Corder, S.P (1974). Error Analysis. Perspective on Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129-138.

Derewianka, B. 2004. Exploring How Texts Works. Australia: McPherson’s Printing Group. Dulay, Heidi et al. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. 2011. Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris: Petunjuk untuk Guru.

Bandung: Rizqi.

Erdogan, Vacide.(2005). Contribution of Error Analysis to Foreign Language Teaching. Mersin Univesity Journal of Faculty of education, vol. 1, pp.261-270.

Gerot, L & Wignell, P (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar: An Introductory Workbook Australia: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Heydari, P & Bagheri, M.S (2012). Error Analysis: Sources of L2 Learners’ Errors. Finland: Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 2, pp. 1583-1589. Hyland, K. 2007. Genre and Second Language Writing. US: The University of Michigan Press.

Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. UK and USA: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Saville, Muriel- Troike. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. UK. Cambridge University Press