3.png){kind=logo}
SYNTACTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS OF EFL LEARNER IN CONVERSATION CLASS AT ENGLISH LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM/ANALISIS KESALAHAN SINTAKSIS PEMBELAJAR BAHASA INGGRIS SEBAGAI BAHASA ASING PADA KELAS PERCAKAPAN DI PROGRAM STUDI SASTRA INGGRIS
Abstract
Abstract
The learner’s syntactical error analyses have long been interested in the second and foreign language researchers. This study aimed at investigating the syntactical error types, the form of error, and the frequencies of these errors that occurred in the sixth-semester student presentation on the conversation class at the English Literature Study Program in Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia. To achieve the objectives, the data were collected from the learner’s transcribed speech. The sampling of non-probability was used to select the classroom and participant’s characteristics. These data were collected by video recording, non- participant observation techniques, and documents. To classify the learner’s syntactical errors, Politzer & Ramirez’s (1973) syntactical errors taxonomy was adopted. Further, the qualitative method was applied in this study. Based on the result of the analysis, there were 64 syntactical errors uttered by the learner. The results of the analysis were then categorized into three forms: phrases, clauses, and sentences. The results of this study showed that the learner often made the syntactical error in the form of sentences. That was 32 errors (50%). Furthermore, the study found that the amount of confusion was the most commonly uttered as the type of error (26,56%). The learner often got confused to make the right use between the number and the subject mentioned. Thus, the findings indicated that even though the learner considered as the best; yet the learner still possibly made some errors. Therefore, lecturers or instructors should raise the students’ syntactical error awareness. So that it could improve the student’ speaking skills in their level of English.
Keywords: error analysis, syntactical error, conversation class, speaking skills
Abstrak
Analisis kesalahan sintaksis siswa telah lama menjadi hal yang menarik bagi peneliti bahasa kedua dan asing. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki jenis kesalahan sintaksis, bentuk kesalahan, dan frekuensi kesalahan tersebut pada presentasi siswa semester enam pada kelas percakapan di Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia. Untuk mencapai tujuannya, data dikumpulkan dari presentasi siswa yang telah ditranskripsikan. Sampling non-probabilitas diterapkan untuk memilih karakteristik kelas dan partisipan. Data tersebut dikumpulkan dengan menggunakan teknik perekaman video, pengamatan non-partisipan, dan dokumen. Untuk mengklasifikasikan kesalahan sintaksis mahasiswa, taksonomi kesalahan sintaksis Politzer dan Ramirez (1973) diadopsi. Lebih lanjut, metode kualitatif diterapkan dalam penelitian ini. Berdasarkan hasil analisis, terdapat 64 kesalahan sintaksis yang ditemukan pada presentasi siswa. Hasil analisis kemudian dikategorikan dalam tiga bentuk, yakni frase, klausa, dan kalimat. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa siswa sering membuat kesalahan sintaksis dalam bentuk kalimat, yakni 32 kesalahan (50%). Lebih jauh, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa ‘number of confusion’ merupakan jenis kesalahan yang sering diujarkan, yakni 26,56%. Pembelajar sering mengalami kebingungan dalam menggunakan antara nomor dan subjek yang disebutkan. Dengan demikian, temuan menunjukkan bahwa meskipun mahasiswa dianggap yang terbaik masih membuat beberapa kesalahan. Oleh karena itu, dosen atau instruktur harus meningkatkan kesadaran kesalahan sintaksis mahasiswa sehingga hal ini dapat meningkatkan keterampilan berbicara siswa di tingkat bahasa Inggris mereka.
Kata kunci: analisis kesalahan, kesalahan sintaksis, kelas percakapan, keterampilan berbicara
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
REFERENCES
Alamin, A., & Ahmed, S. (2012). Syntactical and punctuation errors: An analysis of technical writing of University Students science college, Taif University, KSA. English Language Teaching, 5(5), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n5p2
Asih, S.W., Asrianto, & Murwantono, D. (2020). Grammatical errors in speaking made by graduated students of Ahmad Dahlan university. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(3), 6567–6571.
Azar, B. . (2002). Understanding and Using COBIT. In Longman. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118691656.ch16
Bayram, F. (2015). Spoken Grammar in L2 Classrooms: ’I Mean in the Corpus. Journal of International Social Research, 8(41), 895–895. https://doi.org/10.17719/ jisr.20154115070
Eng, L.S., Luyue, C., & Lim, C.K. (2020). A comparison of the english grammatical errors of Chinese undergraduates from china and Malaysia. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 931–950. https://doi. org/10.29333/iji.2020.13160a
Faisyal, R. (2015). Morphological and syntactic errors found in english composition written by the students of daarut taqwa islamic boarding school klaten. 1–21.
Habibullah, M.M.K. (2010). An error analysis on grammatical structures of the students’ theses.pdf.
Helmanda, C.M., Safura, S., & Suriadi, E. (2018). The Grammatical Error Analysis of Students’ Speaking Performance. Jurnal Dedikasi Pendidikan, 2(1), 80–88.
Hervina, H. (2014). Grammatical Errors in Speaking Made by the Third Year English Department Students STKIP Abdi Pendidikan Payakumbuh. AL-Ta Lim, 21(3), 206. https://doi.org/10.15548/ jt.v21i3.106
Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An Analysis of the Common Grammatical Errors in the English Writing made by 3 rd Secondary Male Students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE. Institute of Education British University
in Dubai., 1–80. https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/
bitstream/1234/225/1/20050055.pdf Jayasundara, J. M. P. V. . &, & Premarathna, C. D. H. . (2011). A Linguistics Analysis on Errors Committed in English by Undergraduates. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 1(1),
–3153. www.ijsrp.org
Jiménez Catalán, R. (1996). Frequency and
variability in errors in the use of english prepositions. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 17(17), 171–188.
Karahan, P. (2011). An analysis of syntactic errors in the composition of Jordanian secondary students. Unpublished MA Thesis. Jordan. Yarmouk University. https://scholar.google.com.my/ scholar?q=related:EtfcldilhU0J:scholar. google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#7.
Kardiansyah, M. Y., & Qodriani, L. U. (2018). English Extracurricular and Its Role To Improve Students’ English Speaking Ability. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 4(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.22225/ jr.4.1.522.60-69
Khotari, C. . (2004). Research Methodology methods and Techniques.
Kuswoyo, H., Wahyudin, A. Y. (2017). Improving Student’s Listening Skill Using Task- Based Approach in EFL Classroom Setting. Proceedings of the 4th Asia Pacific Education Conference (AECON 2017). https://doi.org/10.2991/aecon-17.2017.24
Kuswoyo, H., & Susardi, S. (2017). Problems on Sfg Thematic Progression In Esl Academic Writing. Leksema: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra. https://doi.org/10.22515/ljbs. v2i1.655
Macdonald, S., Headlam, N., & Centre for Local Economic Strategies. (2008). Research methods handbook : introductory guide to research methods for social research.
Mahbub, M.A. (2019). Snakes and Ladders Game: an Alternative Instructional Strategy To Enhance the Learners’ Grammatical Proficiency. Aksara, 31(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.29255/aksara. v31i1.212.153-166.
Mat, N.H.D.C., Qodriani, L.U., & Kardiansyah, M.Y. (2019). Malaysian and Indonesian Syntactical Error Analysis of EFL Learner in Conversation Class at English Literature — 322 Study Program
Learners: They are Judges of How They Learn English Most Effectively in and out of Classrooms. Teknosastik, 14(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.33365/ts.v14i1.81.
Taura, H., Patterns, E., Countries, F., & Taura, H. (1997). Revival of Error Analysis-As an Effective Tool To Assess Development of Japanese ESL Learners.
Miller, J. (2013). An Introduction to Widianingsih & Gulö. (2016). Grammatical
English Syntax. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004.
Mohammed, S., Mohammed, H., & AbdalHussein, F. (2015). Grammatical error analysis of Iraqi postgraduate students’ academic writing. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(6), 283–294. www.ijern.com.
Ngangbam, H. (2016). an Analysis of Syntactic Errors Committed By Students of English Language Class in the Written Composition of Mutah University: a Case Study. European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature, 3(1), 1–13. www.idpublications.org.
Phettongkam, H. (2017). Grammatical Errors in Spoken English of Undergraduate Thai Leaners in a Communicative Business English Course. 10(1), 95–118.
Politzer, R.L., & Ramirez, A.G. (1973).
American Pupils in a Bilingual School and a Monolingual School ^.
Puspitasari, D. (2013). Grammatical Errors
Made By the Second Semester Students in Writing Ii Subject in the English Education Department of Yogyakarta State University in the. 1–188.
Qodriani, L.U., & Kardiansyah, M.Y. (2018). Exploring Culture in Indonesia English Textbook for Secondary Education. Pendidikan Indonesia), 7(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha. v7i1.13692.
Ruminar, H. (2018). Grammatical Errors in Esp Students’ Presentation Across Proficiency Levels. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 3(1), 15–22. https:// doi.org/10.26905/enjourme.v3i1.2152
Simbolon, M. (2015). An Analysis of Grammatical Errors on Speaking Activities. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 5(2), 71. https://doi. org/10.23971/jefl.v5i2.368
Difficulties Encountered. Grammatical Difficulties Encountered By Second Language Learners of English, May, 141. https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.1.4330.3284.
Zanoria, J.S., & Oliva, E.R.A. (2019). Syntactic Error Analysis on Oral Classroom Discourse. Journal of Educational & Psychological Research, 1(1), 1–9. https:// doi.org/10.33140/jepr.01.01.03.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
