Morphosyntactical Errors in Students' Recount Text

Atika Nur Alami Harahap, Nurlela Nurlela, Umar Mono

Abstract


The aims of the study are to identify the morphosyntactical errors which occur in students’ recount text, to describe the most and least of morphosyntactical errors in students’ recount text and to explain the reason of morphosyntactical errors occurrence in students’ recount text by XI AK at SMK Kartika 1-3 Medan. The primary data are all word, phrases and sentences in students’ recount text in the 2020 period. The method used was the qualitative method. The result of the research identified types of morphosyntactical errors; noun morphology, verb morphology, adverb morphology, adjective morphology, noun phrase, verb phrase, word order and transformation. Based the theory used to identify the error is adapted by dulay surface taxonomy, which are; addition, ommission, misorder, and misformation.  Misformation of verb morphology is the most frequent error made by the student around 45% of the total error came from this error and parameter. The second most frequently error are ommission of noun phrase with the total error sum up to 21%, misordering of noun morphology 13%, addition of verb 11%, addition of word order 8%, the last adverb and adjective morphology 1%. On the other hand, transformation parameters in all errors didn’t occur due to the monotonous of sentences used by student. Almost all the sentences are in the form of declarative sentence with a positive statement form. This research concludes that the student less of information about the use verb 2 in recount text, so they just write what they know and the student confused in used verb especially changed verb 1 into verb 2 in recount text. The reason behind this error is due to ‘Misconception’ of the student.


Keywords


morphosyntactical errors; recount text; dulay surface taxonomy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ba’dulu, Abdul Muis. (2004). Introduction to Linguistics. Universitas Negeri Makassar.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. San Francisco State University.

Chomsky, Noam. (2002). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Cohen, L. (2007). Research Method in Education. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Crane, et al. (1981). An Introduction to Linguistics. Canada: Simultaneously.

Dharmawati. (2021). An Analysis of Students’ Learning Independence in Learning English for Computer Using Google Classroom. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal). P. 1635-1642.

Dulay, Heidi, et al. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jack C. Richard & Willy A. Renandya. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Knapp, Peter & Watkins, Megan. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Australia: New South Wales Press Ltd.

Ramadani, et al. (2020). The Increasing of Students’ English Speaking by Using Community Language Learning (CLL) through Students English Association of LP3I (SEAL) at Politeknik LP3I Medan. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal). P. 2534-2542

Siahaan, S., & Shinoda, K. (2008). Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i2.1993

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 131 times
PDF - 99 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.