THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTERLINGUAL AND INTRALINGUAL

INTERFERENCE IN LEARNERS’ GRAMMATICAL ERRORS MADE BY

INDONESIAN FOREIGN LEARNERS

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan

Elizabeth Nurieta

112009038

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SALATIGA

2013

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or

accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my

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

person except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2013. Elizabeth Nurieta and Sesilia Rani Setyo Sari, M. Hum

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the

permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of

Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.

Elizabeth Nurieta:

INTRODUCTION

The Classification of Interlingual and Intralingual Interference in Learners’

Grammatical Errors Made by Indonesian Foreign Learners

Elizabeth Nurieta

Abstract

This research studied the types and sources of errors made by foreign learners of

Indonesian; the errors were specified into two categories: interlingual (mother tongue) and

intralingual (learning strategies) interference which follow the strategies proposed by James

(1998). As Sugiyono (2007—as cited in Setyo Sari, 2011) suggested the whole population

theory, two students from unit five of IMLAC (Indonesia Multi—Language Acquisition Center)

participated in this research. In regard to data collection, the writer used copies of students‟ work

to be the subject of analysis. The purpose of this study is to reveal the most significant

interference between interlingual and intralingual as well as the most evident source of errors.

Throughout the research, the finding has uncovered that intralingual interference is more

significant than the interlingual one; this result is in line with the previous research done by

Husada (2007). Moreover, for future researchers, the writer recommends improvements in

increasing the number of participants and expanding the target-sampling length which would

present a more reliable and representative conclusion.

Key words: error analysis, interlingual, intralingual.

Background of the Study

Indonesian is the official language of Indonesia, and according to Furui and Lestari

(2010), it belongs to the Austronesian or Malayo-Polynesian group of languages. Overtime the

speakers of Indonesian have expanded to a broader community including people from English-

speaking countries. Since the foundation of Indonesia as an independent country, people from

different nationalities have sought to learn Indonesian as the acquisition of a local language; it is

considered essential for interactions with those around them. Subsequently, these language

learners have started learning Indonesian in educational institutional settings. Their goal has been

to master communications skills in order to have a cross cultural experience which includes

interactions with Indonesians.

However, learning a foreign language in a way to master the communication skills has its

own struggles. The sentence structures, grammar patterns, and rule application are a few of the

challenges in learning a foreign language. These differences are one of the main reasons for

grammatical errors that make the learners often feel stressed and discouraged in learning

Indonesian. Moreover, there are times when communication errors have led to cultural

misunderstanding that have created a communication gap between the language learners and the

local people. In other words, the goal of having a cross cultural experience through interactions

with Indonesian speakers has not been achieved. Instead, a cultural gap has been created.

Furthermore, it will affect how Indonesia as a country is seen globally. The more people

studying Indonesian culture, the greater possibility Indonesia has in promoting its natural

richness and its multicultural society to the global world.

From that concern, the writer decided to analyze some grammatical errors and the causes.

Using error analysis, the writer is going to classify errors which belong to interlingual and

intralingual interference. Moreover, based on the highest frequency of occurrence, the finding

will be used to determine which interference is more significant to be the cause of the errors.

To achieve this, the writer makes use of Error Analysis research method. Based on

Verlag (1979), error analysis works as an evidence to reveal learners‟ competence in learning a

foreign language. Moreover, it locates the difficulty points the learners are currently struggling

with. Therefore, it‟s one of the most effective ways to “keep on track” learners‟ learning

progress. Furthermore, the error analysis which is classified into interlingual and intralingual

interference will be elaborated further.

Statement of the Problem

Based on the background information above, there are two main areas of focus for this

research. The first area of focus considered in this paper is related to the use of error analysis. In

conducting an error analysis (EA), the writer followed the steps suggested by Corder (1974—as

cited in Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005) which as follows: 1) collection of sample of learner

language, 2) identification of errors, 3) description of errors, and 4) explanation of errors. For the

identification of errors, the writer used grammaticality as the principle to distinguish students‟

correct utterances from the erroneous ones. According to Corder (1971—as cited in James,

1998), erroneous utterances occur when it breaches the rules of the code. Ellis and Barkhuizen

(2005:60) state that errors can be easily identified when there‟s a difference between utterance

produced by native speakers and non-native speakers. In addition, after the erroneous errors have

been „marked‟, it was later be specified into those belong to overt errors; errors are considered

overt when it can be detected through its occurrence in sentence/utterance structure (instead of in

discourse level). Moreover, in regard to error taxonomy construction, the writer used strategies

proposed by James (1998) which will be entirely presented in Data Analysis.

The second area to be considered is the classification of errors. The occurrence of errors

is inevitable but yet it comes with a systematic sense (Corder, 1981:66). Corder (1981) assumes

that in order to make errors „systematic‟, learners must have had their own version of „personal

grammar‟ to base their outcome on. Therefore, the writer is trying to determine whether learners‟

errors derive from the influence of their native language (interlingual interference) or their

learning strategies (intralingual interference). Based on Lado (1971), most errors occur because

something is lacking in its native language. Learners tend to fail to apply certain rules/patterns

which are not present in their native language (L1). In the other words, the learners‟ L1 has a

significant role in determining the cause of grammatical errors. However, some research

indicates that errors are acclaimed not to be interrelated with the features of the mother tongue

(Corder, 1981:67). Instead, it is stated that learners‟ learning strategies hold a big role in

acquiring a foreign language.

In the further discussion, the writer would analyze how interlingual and intralingual

interference affect the students‟ learning process and how it was reflected through errors they

produce. Furthermore, the purpose of this research was to inform the teachers in which

interference is more significant to be the cause of learners‟ grammatical errors. Thus, it helps

teachers to focus on grammar elements they need to concentrate on once the causes of errors

have been revealed.

Moreover, the writer chose criteria proposed by Husada (2007) because it covers the

interlingual and intralingual interference thoroughly which will be explained further in Literature

Review. Throughout this research, the findings will be able to answer two research questions: 1)

between intralingual and interlingual interference, which interference has a higher frequency of

occurrences in learners‟ grammatical errors? 2) In regard to the types of errors, which source of

errors has the highest frequency of occurrences?

Purpose of the Study

The purposes of the study are:

o To show the distribution of errors which includes the most frequent

interference followed by its sources of errors

o to help teachers in deciding the most suitable method for grammar teaching as

the sources of errors have been revealed

Significance of the Study

This study is significant for many parties. First, for the writer herself, the analysis will be

helpful to be applied in the future teaching process as the writer is expecting to be an educator.

Second, for the teachers, the research will be useful in determining what grammar elements

needed to be emphasized. As the cause of errors has been revealed, teachers should be able to

evaluate their recent teaching method, and to find or even create the most suitable grammar

teaching method for their learners.

Next is for the learners. Learners are expected to find this research advantageous in a

matter of minimizing grammatical errors as the result of the more-focused teaching done by the

„informed‟ teachers. The writer is encouraged to have the students‟ grammar skill improved

which becomes the essential purpose of this research. Last but not least, for the language

institution itself, this research may add factual data to the development of knowledge of

Indonesian. Hence, the language school can maintain high standards and continue to provide the

most suitable teaching method to introduce Indonesian to foreign learners of Indonesian.

Moreover, over the long-term, the finding of this research will be beneficial for future

researchers to prolong and eventually come to a decision as to the best method to improve

grammar teachings. Therefore, the learners will be able to master the language and apply it

without having the fear of language barriers and communication gap.

Scope of the Study

The research has been undertaken at a private educational institution named IMLAC

(Indonesia Multi—Language Acquisition Center). It was chosen based on its credibility in two

key categories. First, in terms of the length of establishment, IMLAC was first found in 1975

with its central headquarter located in Bandung. Second, over the years, the learners of IMLAC

have expanded to a large number of students. Based on these two solid reasons, the writer chose

IMLAC Salatiga to be the subject of research.

In addition, since the learners‟ national background varies, the writer has limited the

research sample to learners whose native language is English. Due to the importance of learners‟

native language in determining the cause of errors, the writer decided to focus on native speakers

of English as English is the second language which the writer is proficient in. Also, as the

students have to write a short weekly writing journal, it was apparent that it would be easier for

the writer to examine the grammatical errors occurred in the writing papers.

Moreover, the writer chose unit-five students as the participants because the main

emphasis of unit five lies on the writing skills. Therefore, the students would have more chance

in showing their writing comprehension skills which underlies the learners‟ grammar

proficiency. Through students‟ writing papers, the writer was enabled to point out learner‟s

errors and classify it into interlingual and intralingual interference.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Nature of Errors

Errors are everywhere to be seen during a learning process. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen

(1982—as cited in Mardijono, 2003, p.68) stated that rather than being seen as a positive aspect

of the learning process, errors are instead seen as flaws. That is why, errors are considered as a

reflection of an incomplete learning process. However, Verlag (1979) mentions that errors are

viewed by modern linguists as evidence of learners‟ strategic approach in developing their

competence in learning a target language. Verlag (1979) also states that errors help in pointing

out some difficult struggles the students are having while learning the target language. In other

words, errors are considered as natural and beneficial in the learning process (Nunan, 2004).

Likewise, Husada (2007) asserts that errors are supposed to be seen as an essential feature in the

learning process.

Observing, analyzing, and categorizing errors are important to expose learners‟ operating

system (Brown, 2000—as cited in Mardijono, 2003, p.68). Thus, the writer has decided to focus

on the errors itself with the aim of analyzing the cause of errors. In addition, errors can‟t be

separated from the analysis of those errors as it‟s not a secluded self-reliant item (Verlag,

1979:107). Therefore, the writer uses the Error Analysis approach to examine the errors

thoroughly and to attain the most reliable findings.

Errors in Second Language Acquisition

Learning a foreign language is also called second language acquisition (SLA). In the

process of acquiring a second language/foreign language, errors are likely to occur due to the

learners‟ individual differences (Marwan, 2008). According to Nunan (1999), generalization,

transfer, and performance factors/communication strategies have one of the biggest impacts in

the error-making process. Moreover, based on Husada (2007), the causes of errors are

categorized into two interferences. First is the interlingual interference which focuses on the

influence of mother tongue/native language (L1). Evidently, Selinker (1994—as cited in

Mardijono, 2003, p.67) indicates that learners are likely to stop learning once they have found

some different rules between their L1 and the target language system as the effect of interlingual

interference. Secondly, Husada (2007) describes intralingual interference as one of the sources

of errors which comes from the learning strategies. In relation to this, Richards (1971—as cited

in Huang, J, 2002) cites four major types that are categorized under the intralingual interference

as the following: (1) overgeneralization, (2) ignorance of rule restrictions, (3) incomplete

application of rules, and (4) false concepts hypothesized. Moreover, this is emphasized by Cook

(1993—as cited in Mardijono, 2003, p.67) by saying that L2 learners have a tendency to have

grammars of their own.

Realizing the variations of sources of errors, the writer is going to focus on interlingual

and intralingual interferences. This is so that errors can shortly be analyzed deeply and

categorized based on these two classifications which are aimed at finding the most significant

impediment in the learners‟ learning process.

Interlingual and Intralingual interference

As stated in the previous statements, Husada (2007) did a research on The Second

Language Acquisition of English Concord focusing on students‟ interlingual and intralingual

interference. Moreover, the recent findings show that intralingual errors seem to be more

significant rather than the interlingual ones (2007:98). In other words, the findings show that

learners‟ learning strategies have bigger impacts in the error-making process rather than the L1

interference. This claim is also supported by Boey (1977) saying that not all SLA errors are

regarded as the interference of L1. In addition, Corder (1981) mentions that error-making

process are now acclaimed not to be closely interrelated with the features of the mother tongue.

In contrast however, Andersen (1983—as cited in Chan, 2004) brings up the idea of the

similarities between L1 and L2 that stimulate language acquisition. Correspondingly, the

differences restrain it. Similar to Chan, Nunan (1999) also affirms that where L1 and L2 oppose

each other, it has bigger opportunity for errors to occur. In other words, Nunan and Chan share

the same principle of how interlingual errors are more likely to become the main cause of the

occurrence of errors in SLA.

Based on the two apparent contradictory statements, the writer is encouraged to verify the

most significant impediment done by Indonesian language learners at IMLAC Salatiga. From

this research, the writer intends to be able to examine whether most errors derive from

interlingual or intralingual interference.

Previous Research

Husada (2007) conducted research entitled The Second Language Acquisition of English

Concord. The participants were fifteen English Department students of Satya Wacana Christian

University, Salatiga. The instruments that he used were data collection and interviews. This

research focused on university students‟ grammar errors that are categorized into interlingual and

intralingual interference. Based on his research finding using error analysis (EA) approach,

intralingual interference was more evident than the interlingual interference with the percentage

of 73.13% (intralingual errors), 11.94% (interlingual errors), and 14.93% (neither interlingual

nor intralingual).

Chan (2004) seemed to have a different result in her research. A research entitled

Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners was

conducted by Alice Y. W. Chan in 2004. Using 710 Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners, she

began to analyze the impact of students‟ native language (Cantonese) in English as second

language acquisition. Three methods such as self-reporting in individual interviews, translation

(with and without prompts), and grammatical judgment were used to conduct this research.

Moreover, Chan used the transfer analysis approach in analyzing students‟ impediment during

her research. The result is stated as follow:

“The results are in line with earlier claims in the field of SLA that similarities

between the target language and the L1 stimulate acquisition, but differences

restrain it (Andersen, 1983). The extent of syntactic transfer is particularly large

for complex target structures and among learners of lower proficiency levels,

though high-proficiency learners may also rely on the syntax and vocabulary of

their previous linguistic repertoire, the L1, when finding it difficult to produce

output in the target language (2004:69).”

In short, Chan (2004) asserts that based on her research, most grammatical errors derived from

the interlingual (L1) interference.

From these two research, the writer is going to use error analysis approach as its strength

has been proven by the previous research. Moreover, considering that Husada‟s research was

conducted in Salatiga, Indonesia and the languages involved were between English and

Indonesian, the writer is likely to follow Husada‟s research method in conducting the research.

However, there are bigger chances that the result varied as the participants are to some extent

different. Unlike the research done by Husada (2007), the participants used by the writer are

foreign learners of Indonesian whose native language is English. Throughout this research, the

effect of the variant of participants and language focus in determining the significance of sources

of errors can be clearly clarified. Furthermore, by using similar methodology and approach, the

writer will demonstrate whether the significance of intralingual interference is going to be as

dominant as the one shown in Husada‟s research. Finally, the ways in collecting data will be

discussed in the next chapter, which is on Research Methodology.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the writer would discuss about the process of gathering data information.

As mentioned in the statement of the problem, the writer would discover the most significant

impediment by means of knowing which interference has the highest percentage for causing

grammatical errors. For that reason, the data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

According to Dornyei (2007—as cited in Nunan & Bailey, 2009), qualitative and quantitative

research are the integration of two approaches that require both collection and analysis of the

data in the research process. Unlike quantitative research which is based on the numerical

findings of a study, qualitative data analysis works as it is equivalent to reading, reflecting,

questioning, exploring, and striving to find the patterns (Nunan & Bailey, 2009:416).

In this study, the analysis and classification of cause of errors would be analyzed deeper.

In addition, there are many forms of instruments in qualitative data classroom research written

by Nunan & Bailey (2009:414). Therefore, the writer limited the qualitative data instrument into

copies of students‟ work which would be elaborated further. In addition, the analysis of students‟

work were classified into two major cause of errors—interlingual and intralingual interference.

Afterward, the highest occurrence of either interference will be presented quantitatively as

quantitative research reports numerical data including percentages displayed in helpful graphics

such as bar graphs and pie charts (Nunan & Bailey 2009:372). In brief, the data were analyzed

both qualitatively and quantitatively in order to provide the most reliable finding.

Research Participants

In this thesis, the writer used Purposive sampling or criterion-based selection. According

to Blackledge (as cited in Zacharias 2011), Purposive sampling or criterion-based selection is

based on a group of people who is able to meet certain criteria. In relation to this research, the

writer used students from unit five of IMLAC (Indonesia Multi—Language Acquisition Center)

whose native language is English as the criteria. IMLAC is chosen based on the establishment

period which is over thirty seven years since it first operated in 1975 in Bandung. In addition,

there are reliable numbers of students per year who are enrolling to this language institution.

However, the number of the students is likely to vary each and every time due to the high

mobility of the Indonesian foreign learners living in Indonesia. For the unit five itself, there are

roughly three students at the moment. Although the number of students seems to be small in

quantity, the learners are being assisted with qualified teachers or what they call it as pelatih

(coach/trainer) in Indonesian. The teachers are professionals in the matter of delivering the

materials clearly and in providing personal assistance for the students. Therefore, regardless of

the number of the students, learners are ensured to have the most supportive and encouraging

learning atmosphere. Furthermore, each session lasts for two straight hours; and it usually takes

twenty days to pass each unit.

Importantly, students in unit five are focusing on writing comprehension skills. They are

required to write a short reflection to be submitted every week. The reflection usually consists of

their daily activities, exhilarating experiences, exciting stories, and many more. The goal of the

writing exercise is to familiarize the learners with Indonesian writing structures as well as the

grammar patterns. Based on the statements above, the writer chose students in unit five due to its

learning focus in writing which can help revealing the grammatical errors and analyzing the

classification of the cause of each error.

Furthermore, students whose mother tongue is English were being chosen. At IMLAC

itself, there are more than ten nationalities with approximately ten different language

backgrounds. However, since Odlin (1990) states that native language influences greatly on

Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the writer realized that there are close relations between

errors and students‟ native language in the term of interlingual interference. Therefore, it‟s

essential for the writer to limit the students‟ nationalities into one specific language background.

Considering that English is the one which the writer is proficient in, she decided to focus on

students whose native language is English.

Unfortunately, one out of the three students is Korean; the unfamiliarity regarding of

Korean native language simply doesn‟t meet the criterion the writer has preferably constructed.

Hence, two students were chosen to be the subject of participants. In relation to a very small

number of respondents, Sugiyono (2007—as cited in Setyo Sari, 2011) claims that even though

the number of participants is not proportional in numbers, the whole population should be used

as a sample.

Data Collection methods

This research is considered as both qualitative and quantitative research. Since the goal is

to figure out the most significant interference to be the cause of errors, the following

triangulation of data collection method was used. Moreover, the writer used primary sources

which data sources were directly taken from the subject of research itself, and not through any

other medium such as information from the internet, books, and data collected by other people.

In addition, Brown and Rodgers (2002—as cited in Zacharias, 2011) states that “original data” is

the basis of primary research.

Copies of students’ work

As mentioned in Nunan & Bailey (2009), the copies of students‟ work are one of many

forms of qualitative research data in second language classroom research. In this thesis, learners‟

weekly writing journals are chosen as an example of students‟ work to be the subject of analysis.

The writer used the journals to analyze learners‟ grammatical errors which soon be classified into

interlingual and intralingual interference. Subsequently, the classification of the cause of errors

based on the learners‟ weekly writing journal is calculated quantitatively. The highest percentage

of either interference would be the most evident finding to be the cause of grammatical errors

reflected in learners‟ weekly writing journal of unit five of IMLAC. Realizing the importance of

students‟ work in this research, the writer focused on analyzing it primarily.

Data Analysis

In this study, the writer used the analysis of students‟ weekly writing journals to answer

the research question. Moreover, as mentioned by Zacharias (2011:27) that “it is also common

for qualitative data to be analyzed quantitatively by counting the frequency of emerging themes”,

the results of the interviews and the analysis of students‟ work were analyzed qualitatively

whereas the conclusion will conclusively be displayed quantitatively—in numerical findings.

Moreover, after the data collection, the writer analyzed them as the following:

a. Data Reduction

Data reduction means sorting out data based on its relevance toward the research

question. In relation to this, the writer omitted the unrelated data which didn‟t

correspond with the research problems and questions. For example, if the

learners‟ errors reflected through the writing journal happen to be in the form of

spelling, the writer would not bother to thoroughly analyze it as it does not belong

to grammatical mistakes. In this way, it‟s easier for the writer to keep focused on

the specified scope of the research.

b. Data Display

After data reduction, the writer presented the data in a narrative way. In details,

the writer analyzed the cause of each error and classified it into interlingual and

intralingual interference. In this thesis, the finding is a calculation of the most

significant interference which generates the grammatical error-making process.

DATA ANALYSIS

This research is qualitative and quantitative in nature. The research involved two

participants that followed the theory suggested by Sugiyono (2007—as cited in Setyo Sari, 2011)

stating that regardless of the small number of respondents, a whole population should be used as

a sample. A 29-year-old Canadian (Julie Lynn Arnold) and a 23-year-old American (Stephanie

Harrison) are the two participants. Despite of their Indonesian learning background, they are

currently studying at IMLAC Language School and have reached unit five which focuses on

reading and writing skills with the purpose of developing communication competence. They both

share the same goal and expectation of learning Indonesian that is to communicate meaningfully

and easily in the Indonesian language within Indonesian culture.

Moreover, according to James (1998:20), samples which are taken on a series of separate

period of time help tracking down the development of learning. Thus, the samples are collected

three times with a two-week interval during their language study. After the data collection has

been completed, the data were analyzed qualitatively by the interference strategies proposed by

James (1998). Moreover, in order to prove which interference has the most occurrences,

quantitative method has been used to measure numerical statistics. Therefore, the whole set of

data in regard to finding the most evident interference between interlingual and intralingual

interference was discovered. Consequently, the answers to the research questions have been

revealed.

Classification of Errors

Classification of errors is the most important stage in error analysis approach (Ellis and

Barkhuizen, 2005:62); it involves determining the sources under the category of interlingual and

intralingual interference. The description of each source of errors under intralingual and

interlingual interferences followed the strategies suggested by James (1998). The writer has

categorized the errors in order to figure out the answer to the first research question regarding of

the most significant interference between interlingual and intralingual errors. Classification of

errors is considered essential to employ the quantitative method.

1. Intralingual Error

Intralingual error occurs when the learners have acquired new systems within their

learning strategies (Brown, 1980—as cited in Huang, 2002). Therefore, as Corder (1981)

stated, errors are predominantly caused by developmental stage rather than the influence

of the mother tongue. Below are the sub-categories of intralingual errors followed by an

example and its explanation:

a. False Analogy : a kind of over-generalization

Example: “…orang laki-laki itu kadang-kadang naik kuda yang dihiasi dengan kertas

dan bunga.”

Explanation: overgeneralizing that a person is always identified by the word „orang‟.

b. Misanalysis : wrongly assumes that one particular grammar feature can be applied in

all contexts

Example: “tetapi kalau motornya sudah agak lama, atau sudah memakai dan sekarang

dijual lagi…” Explanation: wrongly assumes that prefix me- works for passive

sentences.

c. Incomplete Rule Application : failing to indicate the correct word order

Example: “Khitanan kebiasaan di sebagian Indonesia berbeda dari kebiasaan di

bagian yang lain.”

Explanation: the failure to indicate wrong word order in the sentence. (it‟s supposed

to be „Kebiasaan khitanan‟)

d. Exploiting Redundancy : omitting grammatical features that do not contribute to the

meaning of an utterance.

Example: “Ibu Warni dan suaminya memilik warung…”

Explanation: omitting grammatical feature of suffix –i.

e. Overlooking Co-occurrence Restrictions: failing to recognize words that share the

same meaning, but do not collocate.

Example: “Kalau saya akan mengetahui orang Indonesia…”

Explanation: failing to recognize that „mengetahui‟ doesn‟t collocate with a person‟s

identity.

f. System-simplification : simplifying an utterance by substituting a single form in the

native language where the target language uses two or more.

Example: “…pasti kami harus membeli hal itu.”

Explanation: simplifying the usage of „thing‟ in their native language into one

specific sense („hal‟) in the target language.

2. Interlingual Error

In contrast to intralingual error, interlingual error believes greatly in the influence of the

mother tongue. Nunan (1999) utters that the differences between L1 and L2 make the

error construction inevitable. Below are the sub-categories of intralingual errors followed

by an example and its explanation:

a. Underproduction : learners may produce very few or no examples of a target

language structure

Example: This writing composition is not made by the learners

b. Overproduction : a consequence of underproduction

Example: This writing composition is not made by the learners

c. Substitutions : involve a use of native language forms in the target language

Example: “…dia juga berkata kalau kami di tempat yang ada harga fixed…”

Explanation: involving a use of native language (English word: fixed) within the

sentence.

d. Calques : errors that reflect very closely to a native language structure

Example: “Juga, saya mempelajari bahwa…”

Explanation: reflecting very closely to the usage of „also‟ (being put in the beginning

of a sentence) in the native language structure.

e. Hypercorrection : overreactions to a particular influence from the native language

Example: “…pasti kami bisa minta harga yang kurang dari dulu.”

Explanation: an overreaction to a particular form of native language which makes no

sense in the target language.

f. Misinterpretation : native language influence leads to learners inferring something

very different from what speakers of the target language would differ.

Example: This writing composition is not made by the learners

The numerical data of the frequency of occurrences is described in Figure 1.

No.

Source of Errors Participants T

otal

Total p

ercentag

e (%)

Interlingual

Interference

Intralingual

Interference

Julie Arnold Stephanie

Harrison

Assig

nm

ent 1

Assig

nm

ent 2

Assig

nm

ent 3

Assig

nm

ent 1

Assig

nm

ent 2

Assig

nm

ent 3

1. Calques 4 6 3 6 2 1 22 24.18

2. Substitutions - - 1 1 - - 2 2.20

3. Hypercorrection - - - 1 - - 1 1.09

4. Underproduction - - - - - - 0 0

5. Overproduction - - - - - - 0 0

6. Misinterpretation - - - - - - 0 0

4. Exploiting

Redundancy 2 8 4 1 1 1 17 18.68

5. Misanalysis 4 2 2 6 2 1 17 18.68

6. False Analogy 1 1 2 - - - 4 4.40

7. Incomplete Rule

Application 1 2 2 3 2 2 12 13.19

8.

Overlooking Co-

occurrence

Restrictions

2 3 1 1 1 6 14 15.38

9. System-simplification - - - 2 - - 2 2.20

Figure 1. Frequency of occurrences

From the total percentages displayed in the table above, it shows that intralingual

interference which is reflected through its source of errors has higher frequency of occurrences

(72.53%) in the error-making process rather than the interlingual ones (27.47%).

Figure 2 and Figure 3 below are a summary of the whole data analysis, which covers the

two research questions.

Figure 2. Different sources of intraligual errors

Exploiting Redundancy (ER) Misanalysis (MA) False Analogy (FA)

Incomplete Rule Application

(IRA)

Overlooking Co-occurrence

Restrictions (OCR) System-simplification (SS)

As for the intralingual errors, Exploiting Redundancy (ER) and Misanalysis (MA) come

up with the highest frequency of occurrence with an equivalent percentage of 18.68%. The

second highest would be Overlooking Co-occurrence Restrictions (OCR) with the percentage of

15.38% followed by Incomplete Rule Application (IRA) with total percentage of 13.19%.

Moreover, the lowest percentages would be given to False Analogy (FA) with the percentage of

4.4% and System-simplification (SS) with the percentage of 2.20%.

Figure 3. Different sources of interlingual errors

Interlingual errors, however, has quite a drastic result. Calques with the percentage of

24.18% maintains to have the highest frequency of occurrences. Unlike Calques, Substitutions

(2.2%) and Hypercorrection (1.09%) show an extreme contrast of measurement. Moreover, the

rest of interlingual source of errors including Underproduction, Overproduction, and

Misinterpretation seem to demonstrate zero results.

CONCLUSION

Summary of Research Findings

After analyzing and classifying the students‟ writing, the first research question as stated as

follows: “between intralingual and interlingual interference, which interference has a higher

frequency of occurrences in learners‟ grammatical errors?” has been answered empirically.

Based on the total occurrence of the source of errors, the most evident impediment belongs to

intraligual interference which comes with the total percentage of 72.53%. Intralingual

interference as the ultimate impediment in error-making process is based on developmental

strategy; this fact goes along with the previous research done by Husada (2007) supporting that

intralingual interference was more evident than the interlingual interference. To answer the

second research question which is “in regard to the types of errors, which source of errors has the

highest frequency of occurrences?” the result showed that the most apparent source of errors in

students‟ writing from unit five of IMLAC belongs to exploiting redundancy (ER) and

misanalysis (MA) with the same percentage of 18.68%. Even though statistically speaking

Calques has a higher percentage of 24.18%, the most frequent types of errors are chosen based

on the sources under the intralingual interference since intralingual interference has had the

highest percentage of occurrences.

Recommendations

For the pedagogical implications, through the disclosure of the source of errors, teachers

are expected to be more aware of how learners acquire the language, and therefore can help them

improve their language. Moreover, since it has been revealed that the most evident interference is

the intralingual one which relates to learning strategies, teachers may find it essential to make the

grammar teaching more suitable to their learners. In addition, in order to evaluate the

appropriateness of the „modified‟ grammar teaching method, researchers could compare the

previous writing task (using old grammar teaching) with the recent one in which the grammar

teaching has been adjusted to the students‟ way of learning. The effectiveness of the grammar

teaching method lies in the enhanced students‟ writing performance with expectantly a reduced

amount of errors.

Directions for Future Research

Acknowledging weaknesses in this research, the writer suggest some improvements in

some areas. First is the small number of participants; the writer admitted that the participants

have been limited into two learners that are insignificant in numbers and; therefore failed to

represent the whole foreign learners of Indonesian. Moreover, for future researchers who are

interested in conducting this research, the writer believed that the bigger number of the

participants the more representative and reliable the conclusion offers. The second limitation is

related to the length of the target-sampling. Instead of being limited to three samples during a

two-week interval, target-sampling should be taken during several periods of time in order to

help the researchers monitoring the learners‟ learning development over time. Following the

suggestions above, future researchers are ensured to have more reliable and objective results.

After the research finding has been revealed, the writer ought to present the result to the

manager as well as the teachers of IMLAC (Indonesia Multi—Language Acquisition Center).

The result will include a qualitative result along with the statistic table given to the language

school; it‟s considered as a formative evaluation because it works to improve some program that

are currently being used (Tayibnapis, 2008—as cited in Setyo Sari, 2011). In relation to that, this

finding which is in line with the purpose stated in chapter one, functions to provide information

concerning of the source of errors and the most evident interference in error-making process.

Therefore, this result can help teachers in deciding the most suitable method in grammar

teaching which in the long run may help improving the quality of grammar teaching approach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has given me supports in various

ways, and therefore has made this thesis completion possible.

Foremost, I am grateful for Jesus Christ who has given me the ultimate strength and

reassurance through His infinite love and faithfulness. Secondly, this thesis would not be utterly

completed without the help and supports from my supervisor, Sesilia Rani Setyo Sari who has

directed me patiently from the very beginning. My gratitude also belongs to my thesis examiner,

Gusti Astika who has shown supports through analytical comments which have helped me to

improve better. Importantly, I would give thanks to the English Department of Satya Wacana

Christian University under the leadership of the dean, Victoria Usadya, who provides the

essential support toward the thesis completion for the undergraduate students. I also

acknowledge my gratitude to IMLAC Language institution which has provided data used for my

subject of analysis.

Last but not least, I take this opportunity to express my biggest gratitude to my beloved

parents, Ishak S. Gamadhi and Lisda Tirtapraja and my wonderful brother, Danny A. Gamadhi as

without their constant and continuous love and encouragements, this thesis completion would

have not been a success. In addition, I would love to give thanks to anyone involved whose

names I can‟t say one by one.

REFERENCES

Boey, L. K. (1977). An Introduction to Linguistics for the Language Teacher. Singapore:

Singapore University Press.

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

Longman.

Chan, A. Y. W. (2004). Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of Hong Kong

Chinese ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 1, 56-73.

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

Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Analyzing Learner Language. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Furui, Sadaoki, and Dessi Puji Lestari. “Adaptation to Pronunciation Variations in Indonesian

Spoken Query-Based Information Retrieval.” IEICE TRANS: INF. & SYST, VOL. E93-D

(2010). Web. 9 September 2010.

Huang, J. (2002). Error analysis in English teaching: A review of studies. Journal of Chung-San

Girls’ Senior High School, 2, 19-34.

Husada, H. S. (2007). The Second Language Acquisition for English Concord. TEFLIN Journal,

Vol 18, Number 1.

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

Longman.

Lado, R. (1971). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers.

Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Marwan, A. (2008). The Exploration of Factors Triggering Foreign Language Anxiety:

Learner’s Voice. TEFLIN Journal, Vol 19, Number 2. Web.

Nunan, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A

Comprehensive Guide. Boston: Sherrise Roehr.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: International Thomson

Publishing Company.

Odlin, T. (1990). Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Setyo Sari, S. R. (2011). Improving the Quality of Recruitment and Teaching Standards at Three

Language Centres in Salatiga. Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

Verlag, J. G. (1979). Studies in Descriptive Linguistics: Studies in Constrastive Linguistics and

Error Analysis.

Zacharias, N. T. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods for Second Language Education: A

Coursebook. Salatiga: Satya Wacana Christian University Press.

APPENDIX A

Copies of student‟s work

(Julie Lynn Arnold)

APPENDIX B

Copies of student‟s work

(Stephanie Harrison)