AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON RESEARCH PROPOSAL OF THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Klara Ade Krisnawati
Student Number: 071214068
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
2011
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
i
AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON RESEARCH PROPOSAL OF THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Klara Ade Krisnawati
Student Number: 071214068
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
2011
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iv
When there is no turning back, we should concern ourselves only with the best way of going forward. -Paulo Coelho- When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you achieved it. -Paulo Coelho ‘the alchemist’- When there is a will...there is a way...
I dedicate this thesis to my father Antonius Ngadikin,
my mother Christina Kusumastuti, my brother Andreas Aris Ardianto,
and my sister Lucia Astri Noviyanti.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
v
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, December 7, 2011
The Writer
Klara Ade Krisnawati
071214068
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vi
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama : Klara Ade Krisnawati
Nomor Mahasiswa : 071214068
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON RESEARCH PROPOSAL
OF THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
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 7 Desember 2011
Yang menyatakan
Klara Ade Krisnawati
071214068
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vii
ABSTRACT Krisnawati, Klara Ade. (2011). An Error Analysis on Research Proposal of The Seventh Semester Students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
As professional teacher candidates, the students of English Language Education Study Program should be able to produce good academic writing. They should also become good models for their students. On the seventh semester, the English Language Education Study Program students experience to teach high school students. It requires them to have a good ability in listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. One of the courses which reflects the seventh semester students’ ability in writing is KPE 475 Thesis Writing Course. In this course, the students produce a research proposal as the final assignment. However, there are some errors still produced by the seventh semester students of English Language Education Study Program academic year 2007/2008 in writing Research Proposal. For this reason, it is beneficial to find out the errors made by students of English Language Education Study Program and the possible sources of error in writing Research Proposal. The research focuses on analyzing errors in Chapter I of Research Proposal because in this part, the students have an ample opportunity to write their opinions and ideas toward the topic of the thesis rather than in other chapters. This research aimed to answer two research questions. 1) What are the errors made by seventh semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in their Research Proposal of Thesis Writing Course? 2) What are the possible sources underlying the errors made by seventh semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in writing their Research Proposal of Thesis Writing Course? The researcher conducted a document analysis research. As a qualitative research, the results of the analysis were interpreted in the form of descriptive data. Twenty five documents of Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research Proposal of the academic year 2007/2008 students were the instruments in this research. The documents were analyzed based on surface structure taxonomy theory from Dulay, Burt, & Krashen.
The results showed the type of errors were classified into omission errors (73 errors or 42.94 %), addition errors (22 errors or 12.94 %), misinformation errors (45 errors or 26.47 %), and misordering errors (3 errors or 1.76 %). Besides, the researcher also found other errors (27 errors or 15.88 %). By using Ellis’ theory of possible source of errors, there were two possible sources of errors appeared. The first was errors which were resulted from interlingual process (misinformation and misordering errors). The second was intralingual process (all the types of surface structure taxonomy errors).
The researcher hopes this research will be useful for lecturers and students of English Language Education Study Program. The researcher also recommends some suggestions for the further researchers to follow up this research. Key words: error, research proposal, document analysis
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
viii
ABSTRAK
Krisnawati, Klara Ade. (2011). An Error Analysis on Research Proposal of The Seventh Semester Students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma. Sebagai para calon guru profesional, mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris harus mampu menghasilkan suatu tulisan akademik yang baik. Mereka juga harus mampu menjadi contoh yang baik bagi murid-muridnya. Di semester ketujuh, mahasiswa akan berpraktek langsung dalam mengajar murid-murid SMA dan SMP. Hal ini mengharuskan mahasiswa mempunyai kemampuan yang baik dalam mendengarkan, berbicara, membaca, dan menulis. Salah satu mata kuliah yang merefleksikan kemampuan menulis mahasiswa semester 7 adalah mata kuliah Thesis Writing. Sebagai tugas akhir mata kuliah ini, mahasiswa diwajibkan mampu menghasilkan suatu proposal penelitian. Namun demikian, masih terdapat banyak kesalahan yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris semester 7 tahun angkatan 2007/2008 dalam menulis proposal penelitian. Berdasarkan alasan tersebut, penelitian analisa dokumen dirasa perlu dilakukan untuk mengetahui kesalahan apa saja yang biasanya dibuat oleh mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris dan kemungkinan penyebab dari kesalahan tersebut dalam menulis proposal penelitian. Penelitian ini fokus menganalisa kesalahan-kesalahan yang dibuat di Bab I sebuah proposal penelitian. Bab I dipilih karena dalam bagian ini mahasiswa memiliki banyak kesempatan untuk menulis opini dan ide mereka tentang topik penelitian daripada di bab-bab yang lain. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjawab dua masalah. 1) Apa saja kesalahan yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris semester 7 di Universitas Sanata Dharma dalam penulisan proposal penelitian di mata kuliah Thesis Writing? 2) Apa saja kemungkinan penyebab dari kesalahan-kesalahan yang dibuat oleh mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris semester 7 di Universitas Sanata Dharma dalam penulisan proposal penelitian di mata kuliah Thesis Writing? Peneliti melakukan penelitian dengan menganalisa dokumen. Sebagai penelitian kualitatif, hasil data dari menganalisis dokumen akan diinterpretasikan ke dalam bentuk data diskripsi. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalah dokumen Bab I dari proposal penelitian. Peneliti mengumpulkan 25 dokumen proposal penelitian dari mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris tahun angkatan 2007/2008. Dokumen tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan teori surface structure taxonomy dari Dulay, Burt, dan Krashen.
Hasil data menunjukkan jenis-jenis kesalahan yang diklasifikasikan menjadi kesalahan omission (73 kesalahan atau 42.94 %), kesalahan addition (22 kesalahan atau 12.94 %), kesalahan misinformation (45 kesalahan atau 26.47 %), dan kesalahan misordering (3 kesalahan atau 1.76 %). Selain itu, peneliti juga menemukan kesalahan lain yang tidak bisa dikategorikan dalam salah satu jenis klasifikasi berdasarkan surface structure taxonomy, yaitu sebanyak 27 kesalahan atau 15.88 %. Dengan menggunakan teori penyebab kesalahan dari Ellis, dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua kemungkinan penyebab kesalahan, yaitu kesalahan
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ix
yang dihasilkan dari proses interlingual (misinformation dan misordering), serta kesalahan yang dihasilkan dari proses intralingual (semua jenis kesalahan dalam surface structure taxonomy).
Peneliti berharap agar penelitian ini berguna bagi para dosen dan mahasiswa di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Peneliti juga menyediakan beberapa saran bagi peneliti lain yang akan melanjutkan penelitian ini. Kata kunci: kesalahan, proposal penelitian, analisisa dokumen
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, my greatest gratitude goes to my Lord Jesus Christ and Mother
Mary, who always bless my whole life and everything I do in this world. I thank
Lord for giving me so many great people who always support me and make my
life wonderful.
I also would say my deepest gratitude to my beloved family. My parents:
Antonius Ngadikin and Christina Kusumastuti, for their eternal love, prayer,
and care. I earnestly thank to my brother, Mas Andre, and my sister, Astri, for
always loving, cheering me up, and helping me whenever I need. A big thanks
also goes to my grandparents for always praying, loving, and supporting my life.
I owe an immeasurable debt to my sponsor, Ag. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd.,
M.A., for his care, guidance, and helps to me, as well as his support and
encouragement in finishing the thesis. I thank him for always patiently answering
my confusion and guiding me in doing this thesis.
My great gratitude also goes to all the PBI lecturers who have guided me
along these years. I would also say thanks to Mbak Dhanik and Mbak Tari who
always help me during my study in PBI.
I address my sincerely thanks to all of PBI students academic year
2007/2008 for the kindness in allowing me to use their research proposals as the
main source of data in this research.
My special thanks also goes to all my beloved friends: Bertha, Oda,
Rieta, Wichan, Uni, Fendi, and also my friends in SPD’s group (Dwi, Beni,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xi
Susi), PPL and KKN, “Tangled” play performance, EMC, my seniors and
juniors, and my relatives, for the support and wonderful friendship during these
whole semesters in university. I thank for all the unforgettable happy and sad
moments we shared throughout the time spent. They are really colouring my life.
Lastly, my deepest thanks goes to Susan, Achi, Vita, Lui, Calvin, Ian,
Mas Heri, Mas Krisna, Mas Ardi, Mas Adit ‘Cool’, and Mas Daniel
‘Danconk’, and also everybody whom I cannot mention one by one, who have
supported and helped me in finishing this thesis. I thank them all for spending
their time for me, and for teaching me so many great lessons in my life.
Klara Ade Krisnawati
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………… i
APPROVAL PAGES……………………………………………………..... ii
DEDICATION PAGE……………………………………………………… iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY……………………………. v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI…………………………..... vi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………... vii
ABSTRAK....................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….. x
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….. xii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………... xv
LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………. xvi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Research Background ................................................................. 1
B. Research Problems........................................................................ 3
C. Problem Limitation ...................................................................... 4
D. Research Objectives ..................................................................... 4
E. Research Benefits ......................................................................... 4
F. Definition of Terms ....................................................................... 6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................ 10
A. Theoretical Description ................................................................ 10
1. Error .......................................................................................... 10
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiii
a. Errors and Mistakes ......................................................... 10
b. The Nature of Errors ....................................................... 12
2. Error Analysis ......................................................................... 12
3. Document Analysis ................................................................ 18
4. Thesis Writing Course............................................................ 20
5. Review of Previous Research ................................................ 21
B. Theoretical Framework ............................................................. 22
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................... 24
A. Research Method ....................................................................... 24
B. Research Setting ......................................................................... 25
C. Research Participants .................................................................. 25
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ................................... 26
E. Data Analysis Technique ................................................................ 26
F. Research Procedure ................................................................... 27
1. Planning the Research ............................................................. 27
2. Reviewing Literature ............................................................... 28
3. Finding the Participants and Data ........................................... 28
4. Analyzing the Data ................................................................... 28
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................... . 30
A. Research Results Presentation ..................................................... 30
B. Findings ....................................................................................... 32
1. Types of Errors in the Research ............................................... 32
a. Omission ........................................................................... 32
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiv
b. Addition ........................................................................... 35
c. Misinformation ................................................................. 37
d. Misordering ...................................................................... 42
e. Other Findings .................................................................. 42
2. Source of Errors ....................................................................... 44
a. Interlingual ....................................................................... 44
b. Intralingual ....................................................................... 45
c. Context of Learning ......................................................... 52
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION .............. 54
A. Conclusions ................................................................................. 54
B. Recommendation ......................................................................... 55
1. Lecturers ................................................................................... 55
2. Students ..................................................................................... 56
3. Further Researchers ................................................................... 56
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 58
APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 60
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Types of Error ............................................................................... 31
Table 4.2 Omission Error ............................................................................... 33
Table 4.3 Addition Error ................................................................................ 35
Table 4.4 Regularization of Misinformation Error ......................................... 38
Table 4.5 Alternating Forms of Misinformation Error ................................... 40
Table 4.6 Misordering Error ........................................................................... 42
Table 4.7 Other Findings ................................................................................ 43
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1. List of Errors .......................................................................... 60
Appendix 2. The Examples of Chapter I
of Students’ Research Proposals ............................................. 74
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the rationale for conducting the research. This
chapter includes research background, problem formulation, problem limitation,
research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.
A. Research Background
As professional teacher candidates, the students of English Language
Education Study Program should be able to produce good academic writing, since
as teachers, they should become good models for their students. They will
experience teaching high school students. It requires them to have a good ability
in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. One of the courses which reflects the
seventh semester students’ ability in writing is KPE 475 Thesis Writing Course. In
this course, the students are required to produce a research proposal as the final
assignment.
Unfortunately, the students, especially those in the seventh semester still
make some errors in producing academic writing. The researcher found some
errors when reading some of the Research Proposals of the students of Thesis
Writing Course. The error was seen in the sentence construction. For example,
there was missing subject or there was no agreement between subject and verb in
the sentence. For this reason, the researcher conducted a document analysis
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2 research to examine errors produced by the seventh semester students in writing
English academic writing.
The documents analyzed in the research were the students’ Chapter I of
Research Proposal. The research only focused on Chapter I of the proposal. In this
chapter, the students have an ample opportunity to write their opinions and ideas
toward the topic of the thesis rather than in other chapters. They have to convey
their thoughts in order to convince readers whether the research are worth
conducting or not. Besides, Chapter I is less of quotation and citation compared to
the other chapters. Chapter I is mostly containing the students own sentences. This
chapter shows the seventh semester students’ ability in producing a writing. For
that reason, it is important to conduct a document analysis research, especially in
this field, because it gives the information about errors that are usually made by
students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma
University in writing their Research Proposal of Thesis Writing Course.
The research was conducted in English Language Education Study
Program of Sanata Dharma University. The researcher chooses the seventh
semester students as the participants of the research. Seventh semester students
have already had good English proficiency level, as the students have learned
English for more than three years in university. Moreover, most of them have
done their teaching practice in high school students.
An error analysis research is chosen because the researcher believes that it
is helpful for teacher candidates to know the errors in their academic writing. Ellis
(2003) stated that error is reflecting gaps in a learner’s knowledge; they occur
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3 because the learner does not know what is correct. In other words, it can be said
that the learners make errors beause they are lack of consciousness in language
knowledge. As teacher candidates, the students of English Language Education
Study Program must be able to give the correct English example or good models
of English language for their students. Since this research shows their errors in
their academic writing, it is useful for them when they become teachers later. The
research’s findings can be the references for them in teaching their students,
especially in teaching writing. They can ask their students to be more careful in
writing academic essays, especially in the parts which is leading the students to
make errors. The researcher expects that the research will uncover the students’
errors in their academic writing, as well as possible sources of the errors.
B. Research Problems
This research is going to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the errors made by the seventh semester students of English Language
Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in their Research
Proposal of Thesis Writing Course?
2. What are the possible sources underlying the errors made by the seventh
semester students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata
Dharma University in writing their Research Proposal of Thesis Writing
Course?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4 C. Problem Limitation
This research focused on the Research Proposal of Thesis Writing Course
of the seventh semester students of English Language Education Study Program
of Sanata Dharma University academic year 2007/2008. This research only
covered the students’ Chapter I of Research Proposal of Thesis Writing Course
that was done in semester seven. It used twenty five documents of Chapter I of
Thesis Writing Research Proposal. The participants were chosen by using
purposive sampling technique.
D. Research Objectives
The objectives of the research are to answer the two research questions.
The research is conducted to find out the errors of the seventh semester students
of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University
academic year 2007/2008 in writing their Chapter I of Research Proposal of
Thesis Writing Course. The research is also conducted to find out the possible
sources underlying the errors made by seventh semester students of English
Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University academic year
2007/2008 in writing their Chapter I of Research Proposal of Thesis Writing
Course.
E. Research Benefits
Ellis (1997) stated the reasons of some researchers did the research on
errors, they are: (1) the researchers are conspicuous feature of learner language,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5 (2) it will be useful for teachers to know what errors learners make, and (3)
making errors may actually help learners to learn when they self-correct the errors
they make. Due to those reasons, this research hopefully can give benefits for the
readers, especially:
1. The Lecturers of English Language Education Study Program
This research will be very useful for the lecturers of English Language
Education Study Program especially the lecturers of Thesis Writing Course in
reminding their students to be more careful in writing their Thesis Writing
Research Proposal. They will find out the errors usually made by the students. It
also helps the lecturers to find out the sources underlying the errors. Therefore, the
lecturers can give or use more appropriate strategy or action to avoid the errors in
students’ Thesis Writing Research Proposal.
2. The Students of English Language Education Study Program
This research is conducted to help the students to be more careful in
writing so they do not have so many errors. This study provides several factors
that cause the students’ errors. Therefore, it can help students to be aware of those
factors and they can solve the factors that may influence the errors, and they can
do better in academic writing.
3. The Further Researchers
This research provides the results and findings about the students’ errors in
writing Thesis Writing Research Proposal. Hopefully it can help the further
researchers, especially to gain the information. It can be the inspiration in
developing the further research.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6 4. Sanata Dharma University
This research will be varying the research’s collection of Sanata Dharma
University’s library. It is also useful in order to help the students in find some
information or references for their study.
F. Definition of Terms
The researcher is going to discuss some terms used in the research to avoid
misinterpretation. The terms of the research are defined as follows.
1. Error and Mistake
In this research, the term error is understood as what Ellis (2003) stated
that error is reflecting gaps in a learner’s knowledge; they occur because the
learner does not know what is correct. Corder (1967) in Ellis & Barkhuizen
(2005) stated that there are three ways to signify the learner errors; they serve a
pedagogic purpose by showing teachers what learners have learned and what they
have not yet mastered, they serve a research purpose by providing evidence about
how languages are learned, and they serve a learning purpose by acting as devices
by which learners can discover the rules of the target language.
Based on Ellis (2003), in this research, mistake is reflecting occasional
lapses in performance; they occur because, in particular instance, the learner is
unable to perform what he or she knows. Chomsky (1965) as cited by Dulay,
Burt, & Krashen (1982) states that it is important to distinguish between errors
caused by factors such as fatigue and inattention or performance error, and errors
resulting from lack of knowledge of the rules of the language or competence error.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7 Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et. al. (1982), states that performance error have
been called “mistake”, while “error” is reserved for the systematic deviations due
to the learner’s still developing knowledge of the second language system.
The distinction between performance and competence errors is essential,
but it is difficult to determine the nature of a deviation without conducting a
careful analysis. Therefore, Dulay et. al. (1982) states that the term “error” can be
used to refer any deviation from a selected norm of language performance,
without considering the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be.
2. Error Analysis
According to Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), analysis meant the process of
identifying, describing, and explaining something. Error analysis consists of a set
of procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learner errors. Corder
(1974) in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) stated that there are five steps in conducting
error analysis; collecting the sample of learner language, identifying the errors,
describing the errors, explaining the errors, and evaluating the errors.
The term error analysis in this research refers to the procedures for
identifying, describing, and explaining the errors of the seventh semester students
of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University
academic year 2007/2008 in writing their Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research
Proposal.
In this research, the error analysis conducted in five steps. They are
collecting twenty five samples of students’ Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
8 Proposal, identifying the errors, describing the errors, explaining the errors, and
evaluating the errors.
3. Thesis Writing Course
Thesis Writing Course is one of the courses in English Language
Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University which requires the
students to produce a research proposal as the final assignment. It contains the
students’ plan for their thesis. In this proposal, the students have to produce
Chapter I (Introduction), Chapter II (Literature Review), Chapter III (Research
Methodology), and references.
Writing a proposal of research can be the most crucial and exciting step in
the research process (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh: 1990). In this part, the researchers
must demonstrate what they want to find through the research and they have to
persuade others that their researches are worthwhile. Research proposal must be
produced before the researchers collect data. Ary et.al. (1990) suggested a
guideline for writing a research proposal. It consist of introduction (statement of
the problem, review of the literature, and questions and/or hypotheses),
methodology (subjects, instruments, procedures), analysis of data (data
organization and statistical procedures), significance of the study (implications
and applications), and budget and time schedule (budget and time schedule).
In this research, the researcher uses documents of Thesis Writing Research
Proposal to be analyzed. The research proposal in this research is research
proposal produced by seventh semester students of English Language Education
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9 Study Program of Sanata Dharma University academic year 2007/2008 in Thesis
Writing Course. The researcher focuses on analyzing Chapter I.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter deals with some theoretical reviews used in the research.
There are two main parts in this chapter, namely theoretical description and
theoretical framework. The theoretical description consists of theories that are
relevant to the research and provides a review of related study, while the
theoretical framework provides the theoretical answers to the research problems.
A. Theoretical Description
In this part, the researcher provides some theories about error analysis,
Research Proposal of Thesis Writing, and document analysis that were stated by
some experts in language teaching.
1. Error
a. Errors and Mistakes
Brown (2000) said that mistakes and errors are two different phenomena.
A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a “slip”. It
fails to utilize a known system correctly. Error is the noticeable deviation from the
adult grammar of a native speaker, which reflects the competence of the learner.
Ellis (1997) in Second Language Acquisition, differentiated the definition
of error and mistake. Based on Ellis, error is usually reflecting gaps in a learner’
knowledge; it occurs because the learner does not know what is correct. While,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11 mistake is reflecting occasional lapses in performance; it occurs because, in
particular instance, the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows (p. 17).
Brown (2000) stated that human learning is fundamentally a process that
involves the making of mistakes. From the mistakes, human can obtain the
feedbacks from the environment, and that feedbacks are used to make new
attempts that successively approximate desired goals. In other words, it can be
said that language learning is like any other human learning.
Brown (2000) gave an illustration of the children learning their first
language making countless “mistakes” from the point of view of adult
grammatical language. The children learn how to produce the acceptable speech
in their native language from the feedbacks that they receive every time they make
mistakes.
Brown (2000) added that:
“…second language learning is a process that is clearly not unlike first language learning in its trial-and-error nature. Inevitably learners will make mistakes in the process of acquisition, and that process will be impede if they do not commit errors and then benefit from various forms of feedback on those errors”.(p. 217)
Language learning process may lead language learners to produce
mistakes. As the process goes by, the language learners will get feedback from
their environment leading them to learn from their mistakes and then know the
concepts which are correct.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12 b. The Nature of Errors
Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) stated about the nature of errors, that is the
learners sometimes produce errors and sometimes do not; in making errors, they
do not always use the same non-target form. Corder (1967), as cited in Ellis &
Barkhuizen (2005), divided the significant learner errors in three ways: (1) they
serve a pedagogic purpose by showing teachers what learners have learned and
what they have not yet mastered; (2) they serve a research purpose by providing
evidence about how languages are learned; and (3) they serve a learning purpose
by acting as devices by which learners can discover the rules of the target
language.
Ellis (1997) stated reasons of some studies that focus on errors, they are:
(1) the studies are conspicuous feature of learner language, (2) it will be useful for
teachers to know what errors learners make, and (3) making errors may actually
help learners to learn when they self-correct the errors they make.
2. Error Analysis
Based on Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), error analysis consists of a set of
procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learner errors. Error
analysis is the study of the errors made by the language learners in their speech
and writing. Brown (2000) said what was called by error analysis was that the
fact where the learners did make errors, and those errors could be observed,
analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating within the
learner, and guide into the study of learners’ errors.
Corder (1967), as cited by Brown (2000), noted that:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
“A learner’s errors…are significant in (that) they 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.” (p.217)
As stated by Brown that error analysis can keep us to focus on specific languages
rather than viewing universal aspects of language. By doing an error analysis
research, the researcher can understand why the learners lead to errors.
There are some steps to conduct an error analysis research. Corder (1974)
as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) explained the steps to conduct an error
analysis:
1) Collection of a sample of learner language
In this step, the researchers need to be aware that the nature of the sample
that is collected may influence the nature and the distribution of the errors
observed. It is possible for the researchers to wish to sample errors more generally
by collecting a broad sample reflecting different learners, different types of
language and different production conditions. Based on Ellis (1987) as cited in
Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), the sample was collected as part of a study designed to
investigate how different conditions of production (i.e. planned vs. unplanned)
affected learner language.
2) Identification of errors
The second step is identifying the errors. It involves a comparison between
what the learner has produced and what a native speaker counterpart would
produce in the same context. The researcher identifies the errors and categorizes
the errors into the errors classification.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14 3) Descriptions of errors
There are two kind of taxonomy used in describing errors based on Dulay,
Burt, & Krashen (1998) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005). They are (1) a
linguistic taxonomy and (2) a surface taxonomy.
a) Linguistic Taxonomy
Linguistic taxonomy is usually related to descriptive grammar of the target
language. Ellis & Barkhuizen gave a list of such a grammar included general
categories relating to basic sentence structure, the verb phrase, verb
complementation, the noun phrase, prepositional phrases, adjuncts, coordinate and
subordinate constructions, and sentence connection. Then each category can be
divided into some subdivision For example in verb phrase errors can be divided
into some categories relating to the different of verb tenses, aspect, subjunctive,
auxiliary verbs, and non-finite verbs. The other categories can also be divided into
some subdivided categories.
b) Surface Structure Taxonomy
Dulay, Burt, & Krashen (1982) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen’s Analyzing
Learner Language (2005), stated that surface structure taxonomy is based on the
ways surface structures are altered in erroneous utterances/sentences. There are
principals in which learners modify target forms.
The first is omission. The example is the omission of copula “be” in the
utterance “My sisters very pretty. The second is addition. Addition is when the
presence of a form that does not appear in a well-formed utterance. It is sub-
categorized into regularization (for example is eated for ate), double-marking (for
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15 example is He didn’t came.), and simple additions or the additions that not
describable as regularizations or as double-markings.
The third is misinformation. It is the use of the wrong form of the
morpheme or structure. It is categorized into regularization (for example Do they
be happy?), archi-forms (the learners use me as both a subject and object
pronoun), and alternating forms (for example is Don’t +V and No +V). The forth
is misordering. It is the error which characterized by the incorrect placement of a
morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance as in She fights all the time her
brother.
James (1998) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) adds one further
category called blends error. As Cook & Stevensen (2010) say that blends error is
an error in combining a prefix of source word with a suffix of another source
word. There may be overlap in the contribution of the source words, as in
fantabulous (fantastic and fabulous). This can be also resulted from over-
inclusion as in the sentence The only one thing I want which is an amalgam of The
only thing I want and The one thing I want.
4) Explanation of errors
It involves determining their sources in order to account for why they were
made. It is the most difficult part and it needs several strategies to do so. The
researchers can find and determine the possible sources of errors in this step.
Corder (1974) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) stated a view that error
analysis should focus attention on errors. Brown (2000) stated three possible
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16 sources of errors; they are interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, and context
of learning.
a) Interlingual Transfer
Corder (1974), as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), stated that
interlingual errors are the result of mother tongue influences (p. 65). Brown
(2000) said that interlingual transfer is a significant source of error for all learners.
Similar to Corder, the errors resulted from this process are influenced by the
native language. The learners are familiar with the native language before they
know the second language (Brown, 2000). Here, Brown also gave example of
English learners often say “the book of Jack” instead of “Jack’s book”.
b) Intralingual Transfer
Corder (1974) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), stated that
intralingual is an error which reflects the operation of learning strategies that are
universal, i.e. evident in all learners irrespective of their L1 (p.65). Brown (2000)
stated that once, learners have begun to acquire parts of the new system, more and
more intralingual transfer-generalization within the target language-is manifested.
Learners who are in the progress of second language learning will be influenced
by their previous experience, and they take the lesson from their experience then
begin to include structures within the target language itself (Brown: 2000). In this
explanation, Brown also gave the examples of the learners’ language errors.
“Does John can sing?” and other examples of abound-utterances like “He goed”
for meaning “He went”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
The intralingual errors are categorized into some types; they are false
analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy,
overlooking co-occurrence restrictions, and a system-simplification. Here is the
summary of strategies in analyzing errors of intralingual transfer provided by
James (1998) in Ellis & Barkhuizen book.
The first is false analogy. This is an error caused by a kind of over-
generalization. For examples are word boy boys and child childs.The second
is misanalysis. In this strategy, the errors are seen because of the learners wrongly
assume that the singular possessive pronoun -s is always forming plural. For
example is in possessive pronoun its is plural because it followed by –s. The third
is incomplete rule application. It is the under-generalization error. For example is
the failure in utilizing indicative word order in Nobody knew where was Barbie.
The forth is exploiting redundancy. It is omitting grammatical features that do not
contribute to the meaning of an utterance.
The fifth is overlooking co-occurrence restrictions. It is the error in failing
to recognize two words that have similar meaning, but sometimes it cannot be
used in the same context. For examples are words quick and fast. They have
similar meaning, but when they combined with food, fast food is more accepted
rather than quick food. The last is system-simplification. It is an error because of
simplifying the burden of learning by substituting a single form where the target
language uses two or more. The example is the use of that as a ubiquitous relative
pronoun.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18 c) Context of Learning
Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) stated that it is resulted because of the way
the language was taught in the classroom. Brown (2000) stated the third source is
the error that is resulted from the context of learning process. Context here is
referring to the place where the learners learn something or the language concept,
or the materials or textbook they used to learn something or language concept.
Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) called this process as natural or induced error. Brown
added that the students often make errors because of misleading explanation from
the teacher, faulty presentation of a structure or word in a textbook, or even
because of a pattern that was rote memorized in a drill but improperly
contextualized.
5) Error evaluation
It involves determining the gravity of different errors with a view to
deciding which ones should receive instruction.
3. Document Analysis
Document analysis is included in descriptive research. Ary et. al. (1990)
stated that it is usually called documentary or content analysis. Usually, one
researcher wants to investigate specific topics or themes such as level of difficulty
of textbooks, evidence of bias or prejudice, and prevailing practices. The data of
this research is interpreted into descriptive data. The data gathered are generally
expressed as frequency counts in various relevant categories.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19 As Merriam (2009) said about documents used in the research included
anything in existence prior to the research at hand. The examples of documents
are official records, letters, newspaper accounts, poems, songs, corporate records,
goverment documents, historical accounts, diaries, autobiographies, and so on. In
this research, the researcher uses students’ writing products as the document.
Documents could give rich descriptive information towards the research. It is
supported by Bogdan & Biklen (2003) that qualitative researchers are turning to
documents as their primary source of data. They also said that the findings of
document research are as well as the other research.The findings are rich of
information.
The strengths of documents to be used as the instrument in research as
stated by Merriam (2009) are the documents can be the best source of data on a
particular subject, better than observations and interviews. It is because
documents are easily to access, free, and they contain information that is needed
by the researchers. Documents are the best source of data would be studies that
rely on technical expertise such as medical reports, and studies of personal
relaionships that is not observable. The data found in documents can be used the
same as data from observations and interviews. The data can give the descriptive
information. Using documents in the research also shows its stability.
Documentary data are objective sources of data compared to other forms. The data
results from the documents are unaffected by the research process.The more
documents the researcher analyze, the more valid the conclusion from the study
will be.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
4. Thesis Writing Course
KPE 475 Thesis Writing Course is one of compulsory courses in English
Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The students
are required to produce a research proposal as the final assignment of this course.
Writing a proposal of research can be the most crucial and exciting step in
the research process (Ary et.al., 1990). In this part, the researchers must
demonstrate what they want to find through the research and they have to
persuade others that their researches are worthwhile. Research proposal produced
before the researchers collect data. Research proposal must be contained the
introduction, (statement of the problem, review of the literature, and questions
and/or hypotheses), methodology (subjects, instruments, procedures), Analysis of
Data (data organization and statistical procedures), significance of the study
(implications and applications), and budget and time schedule (budget and time
schedule). Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen (2006) said that a qualitative research
proposal is flexible. It means that a qualitative research proposal which begins
with a broad picture of the related study, the details of the study, the questions and
research procedures, can be changed during the process of research. But, it does
not mean that the research later on can be different. A research proposal should
reflect the format and the style of the final product (the final product here means
the research or thesis).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21 5. Review of Previous Research
There are several undergraduate theses of Sanata Dharma University,
which deal with Error Analysis. However, there is only one thesis that has a
relationship with the issue discussed in this study. The thesis is written by
Pambudi. The title of the thesis is A Study Grammatical Errors In The 2001/2002
PBI Students’ English Compositions. As it has been sketched previously,
Pambudi, in the thesis, has given details about the characteristics of errors and the
underlying sources. Pambudi classified and explained the errors based on Krashen
and Corder’s errors taxonomy. In the thesis, Pambudi coded the errors made by
2001/2002 PBI students’ English compositions and noted it in the table. He also
made the corrections in the next table. In the thesis, Pambudi found the underlying
sources of students’ errors by doing interview.
Pambudi’s research is similar to the research that is done by the
researcher. Both of the studies aim to know the errors made by the seventh
semester students of English Language Education Study Program and also the
possible source underlying the errors. The differents are, in this research, the
researcher does not specify the errors that will be analyzed. The researcher
conducts an error analysis research in research proposal produced by English
Language Education Study Program students. The researcher also does not use
interview to find the possible sources underlying the errors. The researcher is
analyzing the errors based on Brown’s theory of error source. Some of the same
theories related to the research will be used by the researcher, such as the theory
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22 of errors taxonomy by Krashen. In this research, the researcher uses Dulay, Burt,
and Krashen’s theory to classify and explain the errors.
B. Theoretical Framework
The research problems focus on the errors made by the seventh semester
students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma
University academic year 2007/2008 in writing Research Proposal of Thesis
Writing Course. The researcher also intends to investigate the possible sources
underlying the errors.
Dealing with those two problems, the researcher uses theory of errors
classification and possible sources of errors. For classifying the errors, this
research uses one of the theories of errors taxonomy by Dulay, Burt, & Krashen
(1998) as cited by Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005); they are linguistic taxonomy and
surface structure taxonomy. This research uses surface structure taxonomy theory
to classify the errors.
In discussing the possible sources underlying the errors, the researcher
focuses on the use of theory stated by Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) and Brown
(2000). There are three types of errors sources; intralingual, interlingual, and
induced error or context of learning sources. Interlingual source is when the errors
produced by the learners because of the experience in learning language
influenced by mother tongue. While, intralingual source shows that the learners
are irrespective of their LI. In this second source, the learners are irrespective in
learning L2 also. The last is natural error or called induced error (Ellis and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23 Barkhuizen: 2005). Brown (2000) calls it as context of learning. It occurs because
of the way the language is taught in the classroom. James’ theory of strategies in
analyzing errors is used by the researcher to help in analyzing and finding the
possible sources. Since the research does not focus on specific error, the
discussion concerns with some theories of grammar. The researcher does not
include those theories in this chapter because some various errors likely appear in
the research that cannot be predicted by the researcher.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides a rationale for the methods of research analysis,
describes the methods of research and analysis, outlines the procedure to be used
to gather and analyze the data, and reveals the boundaries of the research. This
chapter includes the research method, research settings and participants, research
instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research
procedures.
A. Research Method
The research used a document analysis as the method. Ary, Jacobs, &
Razavieh (2002) defined the document or content analysis as the research method
applied to written or visual materials for the purpose of identifying specified
characteristics of the material. They added some purposes of document analysis in
the research: to identify bias, prejudice, or propaganda in textbooks; to analyze
types of errors in students’ writing; to describe prevailing practices; to discover
the level of difficulty of material in textbooks or other publications; and the last to
discover the relative importance of, or interest in, certain topics.
The purpose of this research was to analyze types of errors, especially the
errors in Chapter I of Research Proposal produced by students in Thesis Writing
Course. The data resulted from analyzing the documents were interpreted in the
form of rich description. Qualitative research, as said by Ary et. al (2002), dealt
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25 with data in the form of words. It was also stated that qualitative researchers
attempted to get a rich of description from interviews, observations, and
collections of documents which were important for the studies.
B. Research Setting
The research was conducted in English Language Education Study
Program of Sanata Dharma University. The researcher collected the documents of
Research Proposal on March-May 2011. The documents were analyzed on June-
July 2011.
C. Research Participants
There were twenty five students of the seventh semester academic year of
2007/2008 who had taken Thesis Writing Course became the research participants
in the research. The participants were in the advance level of English proficiency
with the range of age between 21-23 years old.
The twenty five students were taken from different class of Thesis Writing
Course. The participants represented the writing ability of twenty five students of
English Language Education Study Program. Those twenty five covered three
fields in English Language Education Study Program research. They were
linguistic, literature, and lenguage teaching. The researcher took the students to
be the participants using purposive sampling technique. The researcher chose the
research proposal documents of the students who did the qualitative research. As a
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26 qualitative research, the result of the research would represent the errors made by
those twenty five participants.
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
The research used document as the instrument. The document used here
was the students’ Research Proposal produced in KPE 475 Thesis Writing Course.
The researcher started obtaining the documents on March 2011. The researcher
asked permission to twenty five students of the seventh semester of English
Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University academic year
2007/2008, to use their Research Proposals produced in Thesis Writing Course as
the data of the research. After obtaining the documents, the researcher read and
made a list of errors found in the documents.
E. Data Analysis Technique
By analyzing the students’ writing products in Chapter I of Research
Proposal produced by students in Thesis Writing Course, the researcher found the
data results and findings. The results and findings showed the students’ errors in
writing their Chapter I of Research Proposal. The researcher checked and
analyzed students’ writing products in Chapter I of Research Proposal by circling
and underlying the errors they made. The researcher made a list of errors. After
that, the researcher would code the data based on the type of the errors. Based on
Dulay, Burt, & Krashen (1998) as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), there are
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27 two types in describing errors. They are (1) a linguistic taxonomy and (2) a
surface taxonomy.
Based on that, the researcher would code the amount of errors in the table
based on the types of errors.
Table 1. Types of Errors
No Type of Error Frequency Percentage (%) Examples
1 Omission
2 Addition
3 Misinformation
4 Misordering
5 Blends
The researcher counted the errors from students’ writing, and then wrote
down in the Table 1. After that, the researcher interpreted and discussed the
results by describing the data in the Table 1, and the error analysis results in the
form of descriptive data. From the errors analysis results, the researcher classified
the error type that the seventh semester students still made in writing their Chapter
I of Research Proposal in Thesis Writing Course. The results were also used to
analyze the possible sources underlying the students’ errors.
F. Research Procedure
There were some steps in conducting the research.
1. Planning the Research
In this step, the researcher tried to plan for the research. The researcher
thought the topic for the research and tried to find some books as the references.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28 The researcher also learned from the phenomena happened related to English
learning; so that the researcher had many references to decide the topic to be
researched. The researcher also asked suggestion from the lecturer and friends
about the topic. The researcher decided to do the research in analyzing the errors
made by the seventh semester students of English Language Education Study
Program academic year 2007/2008 in writing their Chapter I of Research Proposal
in Thesis Writing Course.
2. Reviewing Literature
After finding the topic, the researcher looked for the references for the
research. The researcher tried to find the theories that could support the research.
The researcher also looked for the previous related research which discussed the
document analysis as the references.
3. Finding the Participants and Data
The researcher obtained the participants and the documents to be analyzed.
The researcher took twenty five documents of students’ Chapter I of Thesis
Writing Research Proposal. Then, the researcher analyzed the documents to find
the errors. The researcher coded the errors based on the types of errors in the
table. After that the researcher noted the errors, provided the correction, and found
the possible sources for the errors.
4. Analyzing the Data
After the data were collected, the researcher started to analyze the data
from the table. In this step, the researcher interpreted the data into descriptive
data. The researcher classified the errors based on its types. Here, the researcher
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29 used Dulay, Burt, & Krashen’ surface structure taxonomy of errors. The results
and findings were used to answer the research problems.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter provides two major sections of the research; there are
research results presentation and discussion. The first section presents the research
results gathered from the research and the second section deals with answering the
research questions including discussing the data gathered.
A. Research Results Presentation
The purposes of this research are to find the errors made by seventh
semester students of English Language Education Study Program in writing their
Chapter I of Research Proposal in Thesis Writing Course, and then find the
possible sources underlying the errors. In order to gain the data of students’ errors
based on Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s (1998) surface structure taxonomy theory,
the researcher analyzed twenty five Research Proposals of Thesis Writing Course
produced by the seventh semester students of English Language Education Study
Program. This proposal consists of three chapters, and the researcher just focused
on Chapter I. This chapter consists of around 6-10 pages.
After analyzing the students’ writing products, the researcher found the
errors made by students. The type of errors appear in this research are omission,
addition, misinformation, and misordering. Blends error was not found in the
research. However, the researcher found the other errors which cannot be
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31
categorized in the surface structure taxonomy. The results of errors are presented
in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Types of Errors
No Type of Error Frequency (%) Examples
1 Omission 73 42.94 *Should getting...
*The writer put certain target, that it is
only for ...
*...but some teacher still...
*...new word that are...
* ...teacher no only teaches...
2 Addition 22 12.94 *...some problems deals...
*..to follow Santiagos’s journey to...
*...teaching students are are those ...
*...that a lot of things surrounds us are
...
3 Misinformation 45 26.47 *...Is by show...
* Their listening ability was little bit
poor, ...
* The study program whose aims to ...
* To help make the study...
4 Misordering 3 1.76 * Do the exercise written...
* ...with the formulation problems,...
5 Other findings 27 15.88 *...what students needs...
*..analyze the sentence latter on.
Total 170 100
Based on Table 4.1, there are 170 errors found in the research. Omission
error has the biggest frequency or percentage; it is 73 or 42.94 %. The frequency
of addition error is 22 or 12.94 %. The frequency of misinformation error is 45 or
26.47 %. Misordering error has 3 frequencies or 1.76 %. Beside the errors
mentioned before, the researcher also finds 27 frequencies or 15.88 % of other
findings.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32
B. Findings
Based on the research results, the researcher discussed the findings as
follow.
1. Types of Errors in the Research
In this part, the researcher will describe the data presented in the Table 4.1
to answer the first research question; what the errors are usually done by semester
seven students in writing their Chapter I of Research Proposal of Thesis Writing.
Based on the data presented, there are five errors types that occur in the students’
writing products. These errors are classified based on Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s
(1998) surface structure taxonomy theory. Beside those five error types, the
researcher also found the other errors in the research. Those errors are categorized
as other findings because they cannot be included in the error classification based
on Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s surface structure taxonomy theory. The researcher
will discuss the errors one by one in the following parts.
a. Omission
The error that is mostly done by students in this research is omission.
From the research, the researcher found 73 or 42.94 % errors of omission.
Omission error is the error resulted from the wrongly omitting the language
features which do not have contribution to the meaning of words or sentences.
Table 4. 2 presents the examples of omission error found in this research.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
Table 4.2 Omission Error
Based on Table 4.2, the first and second sentences are the examples of the
omission of suffix –s in plural countable noun. Many students produced this error
in their writing. In the first example, teacher is a countable noun. It means that
when word some followed by noun teacher, there must be suffix –s in teacher. It
is because word some indicates plural. Acording to Azar (1992) a speaker often
uses some with a plural count noun. The same case also happens in the second
example. Word many is indicating plural. Azar (1992) stated that the word many
is usually used with countable nouns. So, in word passage should be added by
suffix –s. It is because passage is a countable noun. The sentences become:
1) Some teachers...
2) There are many reading passages in the...
The third example in Table 4.2 is error in omitting to be. In the example
above, the student is error to use to be is after subject. In English, an adverb is
always preceded by to be when the adverb is used after subject. The sentence
becomes: 3) ...so it is successfully done.
No Error
1
2
3
4
5
6
Some teacher ...
There are many reading passage in the ...
...so it successfully done.
The writer put certain target ...
The researcher believe that ...
Langan (2002) explain that...
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
There are also some errors dealing with subject-verb agreement. The forth
and fifth examples are the examples of errors dealing with subject-verb
agreement. In those two examples in Table 4.2, the time of the sentences that
students mean is in the present time. It is because the students say about the fact,
as Azar (1992) said that the simple present expresses general statements or facts.
It means that the sentences must be based on the simple present tense pattern. The
pattern is
Subject + Verb of simple form (es/s)
((I-You-We-They) + Verb of simple form)
((He-She-It) + Verb of simple form + es/s)
When the subject is singular, the verb used is Verb of simple form + es/s,
while for the plural subject the following verb must be Verb of simple form. In the
forth and fifth sentences, the subjects are singular; the writer and the researcher.
It means that the following Verb used must be added by es/s. So, the sentences
become:
4) The writer puts certain target....
5) The researcher believes that...
The error dealing with subject-verb agreement also happens in the simple
past tense sentence. It is seen in the sixth example in Table 4.2. It happens
because of the verb that the student used is not in the past form. Student does not
follow the simple past tense pattern; that is:
Subject + Verb II/ed + Object.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35
Based on that pattern, the example number six is containing error in using
verb, whether the context of the sentence is in the past or the present. Based on the
simple past tense form, the verb must be explained, and the sentence becomes:
6) Langan (2002) explained that...
While, based on simple present tense form, the verb must be explains
because the subject is singular, and the sentence becomes:
6) Langan (2002) explains that...
b. Addition
Addition is the error that happens when the presence of a form that does
not appear in a well-formed utterance. Based on Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, the
addition is divided into three: regularization, double-marking, and simple
addition. In this research, the researcher found 22 cases of errors or 12.94 %.
Table 4.3 presents the examples of addition errors found in this research.
Table 4.3 Addition Error
No Error
1
2
3
4
5
…readers are invited to follow Santiagos’s journey to
fulfill his wish.
Some companies surrounds us...
...map to helps learners ...
It will discuss about the...
...and deeply embeds into peoples’ minds.
The first example in Table 4.3 happens because of the error in adding -s
after apostrophe (’). It is included in the double marking addition. Based on Azar
(1992), the apostrophe (’) and –s are used with nouns to show possession. There
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36
are different patterns to show possession for the plural nouns, singular nouns, and
irregular nouns. The patterns are:
Singular Possessive Noun : noun + apostrophe (’) + -s
Plural Possessive Noun : noun + -s + apostrophe (’)
Irregular Plural Possessive Noun : noun + apostrophe (’) + -s
Based on the patterns above, the first example should be:
1)…readers are invited to follow Santiagos’ journey to fulfill his wish.
It is because noun Santiagos is ended by –s letter, so it follows the pattern
of plural possessive noun. Another example of this case is: I know the students’
names.
The other examples of addition error are seen in the second, third, and
forth examples in Table 4.3. Those three examples are included in the simple
addition errors. The second example contains an error in adding suffix –s to verb
surround. This error also relates to subject verb agreement. When the subject is
plural, the verb does not need to be added by suffix –s. In this sentence the subject
is plural because it uses article some, whereas the article some often uses with a
plural count noun. The plural count noun in this sentence is companies. So, the
sentence must be:
2) Some companies surround us...
The third example contains an error in adding suffix –s to verb help. This
error relates to infinitive. As stated by Azar (1992) that infinitive is to + the
simple form of a verb. So, the second sentence must be:
3) ...map to help learners...
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
The forth example contains an error in adding preposition about after verb
discuss. This error relates to phrasal verb. In this sentence, the student wanted to
form a phrasal verb discuss about to indicate the discussion of something. It
becomes an error because about is a preposition. Discuss about in this sentence is
prepositional verb. It does not have meaning when discuss followed by about. To
form the phrasal verb, the verb discuss can be followed by particle the. So, the
sentence becomes:
4) It will discuss the...
Discuss the in this sentence means talking about.
Another example of addition error is seen in the fifth example. The fifth
example in Table 4.3 is included in the regularization addition error. It is a kind of
error where the addition of a word or a morpheme makes the word or sentence
does not have meaning. This error also relates to the discussion of possessive
noun; that is irregular plural possessive noun. Irregular plural possessive noun is a
plural noun that does not end in –s, for example: children, men, people, and
women. In this example, the student wrote peoples’ minds. Readers might be
knowing what the student means, but it is error in grammar. So, the sentence must
be:
5) ...and deeply embeds into people’s minds.
c. Misinformation
Misinformation is the error that happens when the sentence uses wrong
form of the morpheme or structure. There are three types of misinformation error;
regularization, archi-forms, and alternating forms. In this research, only two types
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38
of misinformation error done by the students, they are regularization and
alternating forms. The researcher found 45 cases of errors or 26.47 %
misinformation errors in this research. Table 4.4 and 4.5 present the examples of
misinformation errors found in this research.
Table 4.4 Regularization of Misinformation Error
No Error
1
2
3
4
5
...is by show it...
By summarize the learner...
Their listening abilities was little bit poor, ...
...this study are going to ...
The material will be implement in the reading class.
The examples in Table 4.4 are the examples of regularization of the
misinformation error. Regularization error here is different from the previous one
(regularization of addition). The error here happens because of the using of wrong
form of the morpheme or structure, for example: Do they be happy? This sentence
has an error because it uses Do followed by a subject and to be. Do in
interrogative sentence must be followed by a subject then a verb. For example: Do
you feel happy? When the subject is followed by an adjective, the interrogative
sentence should use to be. For example: Are you happy?
The first example contains an error in using verb show after by. It relates to
the pattern of using by. Based on Azar (1992), by + a gerund is used to express
how something is done. In the first example, the student wanted to tell how
something is done, that is by showing it. While in the second example, the student
wanted to tell how something done is by summarizing.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
So, the sentences must be:
1) ...is by showing it.
2) By summarizing the learner...
The third example contains an error dealing with the use of verb be
following the plural subject. Be was is used when the subject is singular, and be
were is used when the subject is plural. In the third example, the subject is Their
listening abilities. Ability can be used as countable or uncountable noun. In that
sentence, the students used abilities to show that the subject is plural. Verb be that
is used in the sentence should be were. So, the sentence becomes:
3) Their listening abilities were little bit poor,...
The forth example in Table 4.4 has the similar error to the previous
example. The different is in time. The sentence in the forth example uses simple
present progressive tense. The auxiliary verbs be use here are: is and are. Be is
uses when the subject is singular, and be are uses when the subject is plural. In the
forth example, the subject is this study, which means the singular subject, so the
sentence must be:
4) ...this study is going to...
The fifth example of regularization misinformation error is dealing with
passive form sentence. From the context of the sentence, the readers can guess
that the student wanted to say something in the passive form. But, the fifth
example in Table 4.4 is not included as a passive sentence. Based on Azar (1992)
the form of all passive verbs is:
Be + Past Participle
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40
In the fifth example, the student uses simple form of verb after be. Based
on the explanation, the sentence should be:
5) The material will be implemented in the reading class.
Table 4.5 Alternating forms of Misinformation Error
No Error
1
2
3
4
5
...teacher no only teaches...
...the situation to study and learning...
...how they motivate the students, giving compliments for their
effort, and helping not torturing...
...education is conscious and planned...
To help make the study...
Those examples in Table 4.5 are included in the alternating forms of the
misinformation error. The error of the first example is dealing with negative
sentence of simple present tense. The pattern is:
Subject + does/do + Verb (simple form) + Object
From the pattern above, the first example is containing error because it does not
use does or do, and the verb teaches is not a simple form of verb. The sentence
should be:
1) ...teacher does not only teach...
The second example is dealing with the parallel verbs. Parallel verbs mean
the use of two or more verbs in a sentence. The verbs are usually connected by
and. In this case, the verbs must be in the same form. For example: Jim makes his
bed and cleans up his room every morning. The verbs makes and cleans are in the
same form. Those verbs are called as parallel verbs. Based on the explanation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41
above, the sentence of the second example contains an alternating form error
because the verbs are not parallel. The first verb is study and the second verb is
learning. The sentence should use the same form of verbs. It becomes:
2) ...the situation to study and learn...
The third example has the same error with the previous example; that is
parallel verbs. In that sentence, the student used simple form of verb and verb-ing.
The sentence should use simple form verbs because the subject is not followed by
the auxiliary verb be. It becomes:
3) ...how they motivate the students, give compliments for their effort, and
help not torturing...
or, if the student still wants to use verb-ing, the subject must be added by auxiliary
verb be (are or is). It becomes:
3) ...how they are motivating the students, giving compliments for their
effort, and helping not torturing...
The forth sentence is almost the same as the two previous examples. The
different is because the error deals with parallel construction. This sentence does
not use two verbs, but it uses adjective (conscious) and verb (planned). It should
use the same word class; for example an adjective and an adjective or a verb and
a verb.
The fifth sentence is containing error in using verb. There are two verbs
appear in that sentence. Those two verbs have the similar meaning in the sentence.
In order to correct the error, the student can choose one verb to be used in the
sentence. So, the sentences can be:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
To make the study... or To help the study…
d. Misordering
Misordering is an error that is characterized by the incorrect placement of
a morpheme or group of morphemes. In the research, the researcher only found
three errors of misordering or 1.76 %. They are presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Misordering Error
No Error
1
2
3
Do the exercise written...
...with the formulation problems,...
It also is applied...
The first example in Table 4.6 has an error in placing the adjective written
and noun exercise. Those two words form an adjective phrase. In adjective phrase,
a noun is preceded by an adjective. So, the sentence should be
1) Do the written exercise...
The second example has an error in placing noun formulation. It should be
placed after the noun problems. So, the sentence becomes:
2) ...with the problems formulation...
The third example has an error in placing to be is. To be in this sentence
must be placed after the subject, so the sentence becomes:
3) It is also applied...
f. Other Findings
Beside the errors found based on the Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s error
classification, the researcher also found other errors in this research. The other
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
43
errors here are varied and they cannot be categorized in the Dulay, Burt, and
Krashen’s surface structure error taxonomy. Here are the examples of the other
finding errors in this research presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Other Findings
No Error
1
2
And the book which is used in school sometimes does
not give enough what students needs.
...to analyze the sentence latter on.
The first example is error in punctuation; that is missing apostrophe (’).
This sentence contains the plural possessive noun. Based on the previous
discussion of possessive noun; plural possessive noun needs apostrophe (’) after
noun + -s. It is because this sentence has meaning the needs of the students. So,
the sentence becomes:
1) And the book which is used in school sometimes does not give enough
what students’ needs.
The second example has an error in spelling the word latter. The readers
will know the meaning of this sentence that is analyzing the sentence in the next
time. So, the word latter here should be later. The sentence becomes:
2) ...to analyze the sentence later on.
The errors discussed in this chapter are just the samples. All errors are
listed in Appendix 1.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44
2. Source of Errors
After identifying and classifying the errors made by students in writing
their Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research Proposal, the researcher will discuss
the second research question to find the possible sources underlying the errors. In
this part, the researcher analyzed the errors from the writing products of the
students’ Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research Proposal. The researcher identifies
the possible sources of errors based on the types of errors. The errors that students
made can be explained by seeing the process and the students’ products (in this
research are students’ writing products in Chapter I of Thesis Writing Research
Proposal).
a. Interlingual
The first is the error which is resulted from interlingual process.
Interlingual errors are the errors resulted from the influences of mother tongue.
The students produce target languages which follow the structure or construction
of mother tongue. Corder (1983), as cited by Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), gave the
example of this process:
Mariana no coming today.
That is the example of negative sentence produced by Spanish students
who learnt English. In this example, the students are using negation no to indicate
that Mariana did not come. This construction is following their mother language
(L1). In this case, the students produce English utterances using no + Verb, which
is included in the alternating form of misinformation error.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
In this research, the researcher also found the error resulted from this
process. It can be seen in the sentences:
1) ...teacher no only teaches...
2) Do the exercise written...
The participants of this research are the seventh semester students of
English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University academic year
2007/2008, who are Indonesian. Almost all of them use Bahasa Indonesia as their
L1. In Bahasa Indonesia, the sentences are:
1) ...guru tidak hanya mengajar...
2) Mengerjakan latihan tertulis...
For the first example, tidak is no in English. It becomes error because in
English, the pattern of no + Verb cannot be formed. If the students want to
produce negative sentence, they have to add do/does for simple present sentence
or did for simple past sentence before no. Then, for the second example, the
researcher has discussed in the discussion of misordering error that is in adjective
phrase, a noun is preceded by an adjective. So, the sentences become:
1) ...teacher does not only teach...
2) Do the written exercise...
b. Intralingual
The second is the error which is resulted from intralingual process. Brown
(2000) stated that this process is a major factor of error in second language
learning. Intralingual is a process of error that reflects the operation of learning
strategies that are universal (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). As Brown (2000) said
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46
that in this process, the language learners have begun to acquire parts of the new
system, and did the generalization within the target language. As learners progress
in the second language, what they learned in their previous experience begin to
include structures within the target language itself.
The intralingual error itself is categorized into some types; they are false
analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy,
overlooking co-occurrence restrictions, and system-simplification. Not all types of
intralingual errors process occur in this research. Only five types of intralingual
errors process occur in this research, they are: false analogy, misanalysis,
incomplete rule application, exploiting redundancy, and overlooking co-
occurrence.
1) False Analogy
It is an error that is caused by over-generalization process. Brown (2000)
called this process as negative intralingual transfer. He ilustrated the examples of
this process as: “Does John can sing?” and “He goed.” Those two examples
categorized as the over-generalization errors because in the first example, the
learners use does which is followed by modal can, and the sentence means that the
learners wanted to know whether John can sing or not. In English structure, there
is no pattern for: Does/do + Subject + Modal + simple Verb?
If the learners want to ask someone’s ability, the pattern is: Auxiliary + Subject +
simple verb? (Azar: 1992)
So, the sentence becomes: Can John sing?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47
For the second example, the learners did make an error in the using of past
form of verbs. The learners used goed as the past form of verb go. In English, go
is an irregular verb, and the past form for go is went. So, the sentence should be:
He went.
The processes of false analogy or over-generalization errors also occur in
this research. The examples are:
1) Some problems deals with...
2) Some companies surrounds us...
3) Mind map is tools which...
4) ...will be more wide...
5) ...students found an ambiguous sentences...
The first and second examples have errors in using verb of simple present
tense for the plural subject. The researcher has explained in the previous part that
the pattern of simple present tense is
Subject + simple form verb (+es/s) + Object
The simple form verb used when the subject is plural, while the simple
form verb + es/s used when the subject is singular. In those two sentences, the
subjects are plural, so the verbs should be without –es/s. The sentences should be:
1) Some problems deal with...
2) Some companies surround us...
The third example has an error because of the using of plural noun following
to be is. To be is used when the following noun is singular, while if the learners
want to use plural noun, the to be is are. To be is and are also used based on the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48
subject. If the subject singular, to is used, and for the plural subject, to be are
used. In the third example, the subject is singular (“mind map” without suffix –s,
is singular, it is countable noun), so, to be is must be followed by singular noun.
The sentence becomes
3) Mind map is a tool which...
The forth example has an error because it uses double comparatives. Azar
(1992) said that for most one-syllable adjectives, -er and –est are added. While,
for most two-syllable adjectives, more and most are used. In this sentence, the
adjective is one-syllable, it means that more in that sentence must be omitted. The
sentence becomes
4) ...will be wider...
The fifth example has an error in using particle an followed by plural noun.
Particle an is indicating singular noun. If the following noun is plural, it is better
to omit the particle an. The sentence should be
5)...students found ambiguous sentences... or
5) ...students found an ambiguous sentence...
2) Misanalysis
Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005) states that misanalysis is the process of error in
assuming the word formation. For example is the learners wrongly assume that the
singular possessive pronoun –s is always forming plural. The learners also
wrongly assume the subject without –s is always forming singular. The examples
of the errors found in this research are as follow:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
1) Literary works, such as prose, poems, drama, and novel is not only the...
2) Language and society is...
3) The attractive reading material and activity is...
Those three examples above are the examples of students wrongly assume in
using to be is following the plural subjects. Those errors resulted from the
students’ misanalysis in determining the subject. In those three sentences, the
subjects are plural even though they do not use suffix –s. The subjects in those
sentences use conjunction and which means more than one. Azar (1992) in her
explanation on “connecting ideas with and conjunction”, she stated that and
connects more than one items (p.222). Those sentences should be:
1) Literary works, such as prose, poems, drama, and novel, are not only
the...
2) Language and society are...
3) The attractive reading material and activity are...
The process of students wrongly assume that the singular possessive
pronoun –s is always forming plural was not found in this research.
3) Incomplete Rule Application
It is the intralingual process that happens because of the failure in utilizing
word order. It is also called under-generalization (Ellis & Barkhuizen:2005). The
process of this error mostly happens in misordering and blends errors. The
examples of the errors found in this research are as follow:
1) Do the exercise written...
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50
2) ...with the formulation problems,...
3) It also is applied...
4) To help make the study...
The researcher has explained the errors of those three sentences in the
previous part of discussion.
4) Exploiting Redundancy
It is an intralingual process that is omitting grammatical features that do not
contribute to the meaning of an utterance (Ellis & Barkhuizen, p.66). The
examples of this error are as follow.
1) Should getting...
2) The writer put certain target,...
3) ...tends to disable the...
4) ..beginner reader whose native language are Indonesian.
5) ...would not find it difficult to ...
Those errors happen in omission error. The first sentence has an error
because of the omitting be after modal should. If the students want to omit be,
then the verb must be in the simple form. The sentence becomes
1) Should be getting... or
1) Should get...
The second sentence has an error because of the omitting suffix –s for the
verb in simple present tense sentence which is using singular subject. It should be
2) The writer put certain target,...
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51
The third sentence has an error because of the omitting be before adjective.
Disable is adjective, when it appears with to, be must be added within to and
disable.
The sentence becomes
3) ...tends to be disable the...
The forth sentence has an error because of the omitting suffix –s in plural
subject which is followed by to be are. As the example has explained before in the
previous part, the different of using to be are and is. In this sentence, the subject is
singular. It means that the following to be should be is. While, if the students want
to use are, the subject must be in the plural form, that is beginner readers.
The sentence becomes
4) ...beginner reader whose native language is Indonesian. Or
4) ...beginner readers whose native language are Indonesian.
The fifth sentence has an error because of the omitting –s in possessive
adjective. Difficult in this sentence is an adjective Based on Azar (1992), the
possessive its is used only with a noun following it (p.79). The sentence should be
5) ...would not find its difficulty to ...
5) Overlooking Co-occurrence Restrictions
It is the intralingual error process which happens because of the failing in
recognizing two words that have similar meaning, but sometimes it cannot be used
in the same context (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). In this research, the researcher
only finds two examples, they are:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
52
1) The study program whose aims to ...
2) In the English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University,
whose aims to...
Those examples have the same errors, which are the using of whose as the
subject of adjective clause. The word whose here should be replaced by which or
that. Whose, which, and that have the same meaning, but they are different in the
using. Whose is to show possession (Azar: 1992). It combined with noun to form
an adjective clause. For example: The man whose car was stolen called the police.
In this research, those two sentences did not show the possession. The students
should use which or that because of those sentences formed adjective clauses. As
Azar (1992) said that which and that are used as the subject of an adjective clause.
She added that, which refers to things, and that refers to either people or things. In
those sentences, the subjects are things, so, the sentences become
1) The study program which/that aims to ...
2) In the English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University,
which/that aims to...
c. Context of Learning
Brown (2000) stated the third source is the error that resulted from the
context of learning process. Context here is referring to the place where the
learners learn something or the language concept, or the materials or textbook
they used to learn something or language concept. Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005)
called this process as natural or induced error. Brown also added that the students
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
53
often make errors because of misleading explanation from the teacher, faulty
presentation of a structure or word in a textbook, or even because of a pattern that
was rotely memorized in a drill but improperly contextualized.
In this research, the researcher does not find the error which is caused
by this process. Based on the theory of Context of Learning, it needs such an
observation towards the students in learning language, whether in class or outside
the class. The researcher in this research does not do that because this research
only focuses on analyzing the documents to get the research findings.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions. The conclusions
are derived from the research findings and discussion which are based on the
research questions. The suggestions are addressed for the lecturers, students, and
further researchers.
A. Conclusions
There are two conclusions derived from research findings and discussions
which are based on the research questions. The first is answering the first research
question that is the errors done by semester seven students of English Language
Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in writing their Chapter I
of Thesis Writing Research Proposal. After doing the research, the researcher
found that there are four error types appear in the students’ writing products. They
are omission, addition, misinformation, and misordering. The researcher uses
twenty five documents of Chapter I of Research Proposal produced by students in
Thesis Writing Course. From the research, there are 170 errors found based on the
theory of surface structure taxonomy. The omission errors are 73 errors or 42.94
%. The addition errors are 22 errors or 12.94 %. The misinformation errors are 45
errors or 26.47 %. The misordering errors are 3 errors or 1.76 %. Besides, the
researcher also found other errors which
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
could not be identified in those five types of error. The percentage of the other
errors finding is 15.88 % or 27 errors.
The second is to answer the second research question that is the
possible sources underlying the errors made by students. As the research does not
use interview or questionnaire to gain the data, the researcher identified the
students’ writing products which were having errors. By using Ellis’ theory of
possible source of errors, in this research there are two possible sources of errors
appear. The first is errors which are resulted from interlingual process. Based on
the discussion and criteria of interlingual process, misinformation and misordering
errors are defined as the errors resulted from this process. The second is
intralingual process. Based on the discussion of intralingual errors, all the types of
surface structure taxonomy errors are defined as the errors resulted from this
process.
In this research, the researcher also found the other error findings. It is
mostly related to the words spelling and punctuation.
B. Recommendation
Based on the findings, there are some recommendation addressed for
the lecturers, students, and further researchers.
1. Lecturers
The errors included in the surface structure errors are seemed very
simple and not complicated. However, from the findings, there are still many
students do those errors and it can be dangerous if those errors still appear in the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
semester seven students who are prepared to be teachers and they do the PPL in
that semester. Lecturers can ask the students to always recheck their writing
products before they submit it. Lecturers not only give comments on the content,
but it is also important for them to give comments on the students’ writing
product, such as sentence formations, structures, spellings, and punctuations.
2. Students
The students should give more attention toward their writing products,
not only in the content, but also in the grammars, structures, and any other things
related to the sentence formation. It is also important to always consult to
dictionary in order to make sure that the word classes they use are correct or not.
The students can ask their friends to help in checking. They can do peer checking
with their friends. Beside it can minimize the errors, the students can learn more
not only from their own products, but also from others.
3. Further Researchers
As there are other findings in this research, the further researchers can
do the research specifically toward the errors in punctuation, spelling, dictions, or
vocabulary used in the academic writing. They can also do the research in the
using of preposition by students in the academic writing. The possible sources of
errors in this research are investigated based on the process of interlingual and
intralingual. In this research, the researcher does not research whether the
psychological aspects, for example is motivation, influence the students in
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
producing errors. So, further researchers can conduct the research to investigate
the influence of psychological aspects, for example motivation, towards students’
errors in writing their academic writing. It will be very useful for the lecturers and
students to minimize the errors.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
REFERENCES
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education (4th ed.). Orlando: Holt.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in
education (6th ed.). Wadsworth: Thomson Learning. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in
education (8th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Azar, B. S. (1992). Fundamentals of English grammar (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Group.p 57 Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New
York: Longman. Cook, P. & Stevenson, S. (2010). Automatically identifying the source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics, 36(1), 129-149. Retrieved November 21st, 2011, from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J/J10/J10-1005.pdf Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford
University Press. Ellis, R. (1997). Oxford introduction to language study: second language
acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design an implementation.
San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Pambudi, A. (2006). A study grammatical errors in the 2001/2002 PBI students’
English compositions. An Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59
Prasetyo, A. H., Herawati, H., Prihatin, P. N., Budiraharjo, M., & Aji, G. P. (Eds.). (2007). Panduan Akademik (5th. Ed). Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Richards, J. C. (1973). Error analysis: perspective on second language
acquisition. London: Longman.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60
APPENDICES
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61
Appendix 1. List of Errors
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Should getting In pay attention Students comprehension ...Is by show Should be the teacher expectation ....the using of video to maximize students’ listening ability, the aim is, of course, ... The writer put certain target, that it is only for .... Their listening abilities was little bit poor, ..but some teacher still... ...like give long explanation... Do the exercise written... ..students decide not to join the learning activitiy. They left the classroom and teacher. ..some problems deals with...
Omission be Ommision “s” in subject verb agreement Ommision “s” Omission “subject and be”
Simple addition Simple addition
Regularization Regularization Alternating forms Regularization
Misordering
Pronoun/ Punctuation Punctuation Verb of present tense
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The most important thing is there are not stop contact ... Someday the target research will get familiar with any kind of learning activity, even though the writer only introduced one approach. Ninja, like Bushido and ... ..translator arouse as a new profession. ...in this case a novel. The firs part serves... ...to follow Santiagos’s journey to... ..new word that are... ..beginner reader whose native language are Indonesian. ...since the tteachers... ...all them oare related ... ...which delas with... ..Micro Teaching studenst... While in order to be ... ...to be an
Omission “be” Omission “s” Omission “be” Omission “s” Omission “s”
Simple addition Double marking
Regularization
Verb of present tense Verb present agreement Spelling error Spelling error Spelling error Spelling error Spelling error Punctuation Spelling
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
eefective teacher... ..teaching students are are those ... In the English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University, whose aims to... ...the factors that made them commit those subject ... ...would not find it difficult to ... ...since they are in the lower semester... The study program whose aims to ... ...that a lot of things surrounds us are ... Some companies surrounds us... ...In their company. ...education is conscious and planned... ...situation to study and learning
Omission “s” Omission “es” of plural form
Double marking Simple addition Simple addition
Regularization Regularization Regularization Regularization Alternating form (inconsistent paralel construction) Alternating form (inconsistent
error
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
process... ...there are many problems appears in ... ...tends to disable the... It cannot be reach without... Some technique to ... Learning problem which is related to conventional, uninteresting, and boring method and technique expects teacher to ... One of some technique to ... There are many passive student... ...of success in gaining some effort. ...is why mind mapping become the ... Nowdays, English become international... Reading comprehension dealing with... ...so it successfully done. In this study, the designer saw that the
Omission “be” Omission “s” of plural Omission “s” of plural Omission “s” of plural Omission “s” of plural Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “be” Omission “be”
Simple addition
paralel construction) Regularization Regularization (inconsistent
Punctuation Verb present agreement Verb present agreement
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
65
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
condition of reading learning process in the class is not effective. ...to road map to helps learners ... ...mind mapping help the learner... ...the learner understand and remember the important... ...this study are going to ... The researcher expect that ... ...useful to practicing their ... ...themselves to successfully achieve... The material will be implement in the reading class. Mind map is tools which... By summarize the learner... Their age was in the range of 15 until 18. ...of English language teaching and able to apply... ...academic year of 2007 ,
Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “be” Omission “be”
Simple addition Simple addition
tense) Regularization (to be) Regularization Regularization (passive) Regularization Regularization
Verb present agreement Verb present agreement Verb present agreement punctuation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
who... This business starting to rise... ...and deeply embeds into peoples’ minds. ...for example poverty, low education, disaster and the other examples. ..many purposes with one objective, profit. ...donate their money for poverty, education, disaster and so on. ...in PSA announcement say the truth... ...some public facilitation such as... Some scientific said that... ...began to describe, analyze the linguistic means and evaluate... ...that brings it’s characteristic to... ...the researcher conduct the analysis...
Omission “be” Omission “s” Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s”
Regulari Zation
Regularization Regularization
Punctuation Punctuation Punctuation Subject verb agreement Punctuation Subject verb agreement
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93
...PSA which focus on the... ..limited on some PSA which brings message... ..analyze the sentence latter on. ...the researcher analyze the... ...in PSA by analyze the... The researcher believe that those goals... ...using some theory from... This research discuss... ...discuss about the... ...some lexical term... ...will be more wide... ...it ca apply... ...text style use in the... ...is the one which contain... Those PSA which identify is those that... Printed media mean...
Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” Omission “s”
Simple addition Simple addition Double‐marking
Regularization Regularization Regularization (to be)
Subject verb agreement Spelling Subject verb agreement Subject verb agreement Subject verb agreement Spelling Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
...there were many research conducter... ...students found an ambiguous sentences... ...of ambiguous sentences occurs in... Many of students is less... The aspects includes... Language and society is... ...many years ago, students in Indonesia learn English... ...are related with... The attractive reading material and activity is... English which is learn by... ...reading material s enable... ...consists of three grades, that is, ... Gardner’s theory of multiple Intelligences explain... What the designed set of materials looks like? ...to do their
Omission “s” plural Omission “s” Omision “does” Omission
Simple addition Simple addition Simple addition Double marking
Regularization (to be) Regularization (to be) Regularization (to be) Regularization (preposition) Regularization (to be) Regularization (passive) Regularization (to be)
Spelling Subject verb present agreement
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 108 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
...to do their personal reflection. ...four skill of language. UNAS only emphasize on... This study provide... In this study, writing refer... After one year the learn in... ...so they students can... ...teacher view the role... ...teaching will to a large... ...the students is considered... ...such as their needs, interest and motivation. The researcher conduct a study... ...concerning about those problem... ...the students’ perceptions towards... ...to improving...
Omission “s” plural form Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “be” Omission “s” Omission “s” of plural form
Simple addition
Regularization (to be) Regularization (to infinitive)
Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present agreement Spelling Spelling Punctuation Subject verb present agreement
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134
...he teach... ...teacher deliver the... ...teacher no only teaches... ...how they motivate the students, giving compliments for their effort, and helping not torturing... ...has taught briefly or in a nut shell, ...reading, listening, writing, and the most important part which is speaking skill. ...usually the teacher talks much in front of the students without involve them... ...family that lack of knowlegde... ...with the formulated problems,... ...materials which appropriate... ...reading, listening,
Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission “does” Omission “s” Omission “be” Omission “be”
Simple addition
Alternating form (no+verb) Alternating form (paralel construction)
Misordering
Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present agreement Spelling Subject verb present agreement punctuation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
writing and speaking as ... ...four competences of English which is based on... ...a set of materials that cover... ...those four language competence... ...process in order the reach... ...international language which very important... It will discuss about the learner ... ...there are four skill should be... ...there are many reading passage in... ...given some question related... Langan (2002) explain that... ...what students needs... ...reading material which
Omission “s” Omission “s” of plural form Omission “be” Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” of plural form Omission “s” or “ed” Omission
Simple addition
Regularization (to be) Regularization (particle and preposition) Regularization
Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present agreement punctuation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
more interesting... Cushenberg (1985) explain that... ...design means create a... ...particular learner It also is applied... ...teaching lower semester class really influence their achievement... ...to give the contribution the lectures... ...professional teacher who are able... ...,its is expected... ...Curriculum and Materials Development, Language Learning Assessment and Instructional Design. Literary works, such as prose, poems, drama, and novel is not only the... Moreover, the education is gain from... Novel as one of the literary
“be” Omission “s” or ”ed” Omission “s” Omission “to” Omission “s” Omission “s”
Simple addition
Regularization (double verb) Regularization to be Regularization to be Regularization present continous tense
Misordering
Punctuation Subject verb present agreement punctuation Subject verb
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
73
No Errors Ommision Addition Misinformation Misordering Blends Others 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
work, mostly tell... ...the one who create culture... ...a novel also present... Firdaus, the main character of this novel always becomes... ...is interesting to discuss since... ...some important terms which is used... ... pronounciat Ion, grammar/ structure and vocabulary. To help make the study... ...still found it difficult in ... ...learning English not merely... ...better way to make it more interesting... ...learning activity and learning grammar still becomes bored ... ...the list of the terms which is used...
Omission “s” Omission “s” Omission to be “is” Omission to be “is” Omission to be “is”
Simple addition
Regularization passive Regularization to be Misinformation Regularization to be
present agreement Subject verb present agreement Subject verb present agreement Punctuation (;) after “this novel” punctuation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Appendix 2. Chapter I of Students’ Research Proposals
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
78
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
80
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
81
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
82
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
83
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
84
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
85
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
86
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
87
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
88
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
89
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
90
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
91
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
92
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
93
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
94
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI