Interlanguage Errors in English Textbooks for Junior High School Students in Surakarta

Endang Fauziati
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

Abstract: The present study deals with the English textbooks for Junior High
School students. It is worth studying because they are marked with a
significant number of errors both in the area of vocabulary and grammar. This
research is to find proof that the English used is still at the level of
interlanguage (IL). Theories on Error Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL)
have been used to analyze the data which consist of erroneous sentences taken
from the reading texts only. The result reveals that the English used in the
textbooks is still at the level of IL. The features of systematicity, permeability,
and fossilization of an interlanguage also existed in it.
Key words: interlanguage errors, English textbooks, junior high school
English textbooks for junior high school students are worth studying since they
have a great number of errors which include various linguistic items as well as
grammatical elements. Such errors suggest that the writers have not yet fully mastered
the rules of the language they have learnt. In general such errors are considered as "an
inevitable sign of human fallibility" (Corder, 1981:65), for example, as the consequence
of lack of attention or poor memory on the part of the learners or inadequacy of the
teachers' teaching. Anyhow, errors are inevitable in any learning situation, which
requires creativity such as in learning a second language. For text-book writers,
however, such errors cannot be admitted. They should not occur in English textbooks
from which the students learn English.
In 1976 Corder published a seminal article "The Significance of Learners Errors",
in which he proposed that the learner constructed his own version of the grammar of the
target language. The outgrowth of his ideas is labeled error analysis.. Errors, then, are
no longer viewed as mere deviations but rather as a source for studying the process used
by the learner in learning the target language. He stated that "Errors are evidence about
the nature of the process and of the rules used by the learner at a certain stage in the
course (1977: 167)." So if we want to study the learner's language systems, we should
find clues to the systems by analyzing the errors he commits.
Selinker (1977) proposes the term "interlanguage" to refer to the language system of
the second language learner, a system distinct from both the native as well as the target
language. His language system contains elements of both the first language as well as
the target language. Its sister terms are "Approximative System" (Nemser, 1977),
"Idiosyncratic Dialect" (Corder, 1977), and "Transitional Competence" (Dulay, Burt,
and Krashen, 1982). This "dialect" has the significant features usually attached to an IL,
namely systematicity, permeability, and fossilization (Adjemian, 1976).
The existing errors show that the textbook writers confront a lot of problems related
to vocabulary and grammar in their attempt to express the intended meaning in English.
Some words are retained in their native language, and others are literal translations that
result in errors because of the mismatching and the existence of superfluous
expressions. While the problems on the target language grammar have induced the
textbooks writers to commit a wide range of grammatical errors.
The purpose of the present study is two folds: to find the types of errors committed
by the textbook writers and to explain how and why those errors occur. This study has
yielded two important things. First, it gives us vivid pictures of the common
phenomenon which usually occur in foreign language learning. The answers to the
questions of what types of errors frequently occur, how and why the errors exist, have
led us to a deeper understanding of the process of second or foreign language learning.
Second, from a practical point of view, the findings have made us aware to reconsider
the use of such English textbooks for classroom resource materials. The fact shows that
in most foreign language instructions, teachers and students rely heavily on textbook
materials. Both teachers and students will make use of any textbooks most often
regardless of the quality. The findings of this study imply that nothing else is as
important to foreign language educators, especially in the junior high schools in
Surakarta, as having good, basic textbooks for their students.
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Grauberg (1971) has conducted a study on errors committed by adult foreign
language learners. The corpus of his investigation is 193 German foreign language
errors. The result of his investigation indicates that errors resulted from first language
interference are only one of the types of errors found in syntax, morphology and
lexicon of the students' writing in the target language.
Burt (1977) has conducted a study on errors made by adult learners. She has tried
to find the types of errors which cause the listeners or readers to misunderstand the
message intended by the English foreign language learners. The findings show that
errors which significantly hinder communication, in the sense that they cause the
listener or reader to misunderstand the message or to consider the sentence
incomprehensible, are of certain type, while those that do not hinder communication
are of an-other type. Both types of errors are easily distinguishable.
Smithies and Holzknecht (1983) has conducted a study of written English errors
committed by the tertiary level students in Papua New Guinea. The result of their
analysis shows a wide range of error types, namely the articles (11.37%),. prepositions
(10.6%), verb (10.50%), noun (7.5%), and spelling, (7.4%).
Wode (1986) has also conducted a study on errors made by second language
learners. The findings show that transfer does occur in learners' language. Transfer is
developmental, i.e. it is an integral part of how people learn languages. The occurrence
of transfer is systematic.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Several more in-depth studies which have given invaluable contributions to the
theories in EA. There are three basic stages in EA: recognition, description, and
explanation of errors.
The first stage in error analysis is recognition of errors. Among the many language
scholars whose works I have read, Corder (1978, 1981) is the only one who has
elaborated the procedure to detect errors. He suggests that errors can be detected by
comparing what the learner actually said with what he ought to have said to express
what he intended to ex-press. Thus, errors can be identified by comparing original
utterances with reconstructed utterances, that is, correct sentences having the meaning
in-tended by the learner.
Corder concludes that we have to consider the sentences produced by learners
based on two things: acceptability and appropriacy. Acceptability has something to do
with the language code (competence) and appropriacy with the proper use of the code
(performance). Sentences are, thus, erroneous if they are unacceptable or inappropriate.
However, a sentence may be unacceptable but appropriate, or acceptable but
inappropriate, or of course, both unacceptable and inappropriate. All of them are
considered erroneous. Only sentences which are both acceptable and appropriate, may
be free from errors, as seen in the tablel.
Table 1. Acceptability and Appropriacy of Sentences
acceptable appropriate free from error
acceptable inappropriate erroneous
unacceptable appropriate erroneous
unacceptable inappropriate erroneous
The second stage deals with classification of errors. Corder simply comments that
errors can be classified through a comparison process between the data being the
original erroneous utterance and the constructed one, that is the process similar to that
of contrastive analysis. He seems to have focused exclusively on one alternative for
classifying errors, i.e. error types in terms of linguistic categories.
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), however have presented a more complete work
on error classification, comparing with that of Corder. They propose several alternatives
for error classification. They classify errors in terms of (1) linguistic categories, (2)
surface strategy taxonomy, (3) comparative taxonomy, and (4) communicative effect
taxonomy (see Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 146).
The final stage is explanation of errors. First, Jain (1977) highlights on L1
independent errors. There are several factors causing LI independent errors, such as
learning strategies, teaching techniques, folklore about L2 (second language), and the
age of bilingualism. The latter means the period over which the L2 has been used by the
speech community to which the learner belongs.
Stenson (1980) has been attracted to observe errors that correlate with the teaching
techniques. If a learner is taking part in formal interaction, some errors will be a direct
result of misunderstanding caused by faulty teaching or materials. She gives the term
"induced errors", while Selinker (1977) called it "transfer of training errors".
In his works Selinker (1977, 1988) has presented a comprehensive discussion on
this matter. He correlates the issues of the sources of errors with the second language
learning process. He even proposes a special term to refer to the language system of the
second language learner, that is IL.
He has argued that IL is resulted from the learner's attempts to pro-duce the target
language norms. In other words, it is the product of the second language learning
processes. The five processes he describes are in terms of: (1) Language Transfer, (2)
Transfer of Training, (3) Strategies of Second Language Learning, (4) Strategies of
Second Language Communication, and (5) Ovcrgeneralization of the Target Language
Linguistic Materials.
Adjemian (1976) refines the IL hypothesis and singles out a number of important
characteristics of IL: syatematicity, permeability, and fossilization.
Systematicity follows from the hypothesis that IL are natural languages. This
means that an IL can not be a random collection of entities. It is, however, assumed to
be systematic from the start. Like any natural language system, IL seems to obey
universal linguistic constrains.
The second property of IL is permeability of the developing gram-mar. It refers to
"the susceptibility of IL to infiltration by first language and target language rules or
forms" (Yip, 1995:12). It is in accord with the statement given by Adjemian (1976:21)
that "IL systems are dynamic in character. The systems are thought to be by their nature
incomplete and in the state of flux." The structures of the IL can be invaded or
infiltrated by the L1 of the learner.
The third property of IL is fossilization. It is "the persistence of plateaus of nontarget
like competence in the interlanguage" (Selinker, 1988:92). When its permeability
is lost, the features of an IL become subject to fossilization. A learner is expected to
progress further along the learning continuum, so that his competence moves closer and
closer to the target language system and contains fewer and fewer errors. Some errors,
however, never disappear for good.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study is based on a library research in which the data consist of
erroneous sentences taken from seven English textbooks for Junior High School
Students. To limit this study, I have collected the erroneous sentences from the reading
texts in those textbooks only. There are 225 erroneous sentences that can be
accumulated. They are listed and used as the data.
The data analysis has been carried out through the following steps. First, the
accumulated data are classfied in terms of linguistic categories and comparative
taxonomy. Second, each type of errors is calculated to find out the total number and
frequency of each type of errors. Finally, the sources or causes of errors arc discussed.
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis of the data is presented in two major parts. The first part deals with
vocabulary and the second grammar.
ERRORS ON VOCABULARY
The data show a significant number of errors on vocabulary which include (1)
misuse of vocabulary or special expression that can be traced back to the textbook
writers' first language (L I) and (2) use of wrong vocabulary that cannot be traced back
to their first language. The former involves (1) the use of Indonesian lexical items, (2)
the mismatch of lexical system between Indonesian as the native language and English
as the second language, (3) the superfluous expression, and (4) the modified in:
(1) The wayang kulit performance needs a screen, [...].
(2) It rained day after day, the weather felt cold.
cuaca terasa
(3) According to your opinion, how people here live?
Menurut pendapatmu
(4) We classify them as furniture, clothes [... ]electronika and vehicles.
elektronika
Next, vocabulary that cannot be traced back to their L1 covers (1) the misuse of
vocabulary because of the similarity in form, (2) the misuse of vocabulary because the
similarity in meaning, and (3) the occurrence of wordiness such as in:
(1) [...] to the stationary and bought school utensils.
stationery
(2) They are also interested in. following sport [...].
taking part
(3) Mr. Lukman is old, [ ... ]he is retired on a pension.
retired/pension
ERRORS ON GRAMMAR
The analysis shows a wide range of error linguistic categories which include (1)
tenses, (2) affixation, (3) preposition, (4) article, (5) pronoun, (6) conjunction, (7)
omission of object, (8) clause redundancy, (9) passive voice, (10) adjunct, modifier,
and quantifier, and (11) parallel construction. There are very few errors which only
emerge once throughout the texts studied; they are categorized as (12) miscellaneous
errors.
(1) [... ] we may imagine as if we arc in a big city. were
(2) Violations against the rules should be punished. Violators
(3) Most women are skilled in weaving pandan mats. skillful
(4) We have English teacher niathematic teacher [... ]. mathematics
(5) If they obey the rules because they are afraid to the punishment [... ].
of
(6) Mr. Sutomo said "thank for God".
thank God
(7) So we are at school about six and half hours. for about
(8) ... J 1 like to read the books in the library. books
(9) People in Jakarta are very busy, so wgcan't [... ]. they
(10) My mother loves gardening, on the other hand my sister likes
' and/whereas reading very much.
(11) The clever cat will catch easily but [... J. catch the rat
(12) Mother wakes up early before every one wakes up.
wakes up early before every one else
(13) Thefestival was taken part by popular dancers.
Popular dancers took part in the festival.
(14) The Indonesian government's campaign topopularize
Bahasa Indonesia at present can L.].
At present, the Indonesian government ' s campaign to
popularize Indonesian Language
(15) Then Indonesia produces a lot of products for domestic use
as well as to be exported. domestic use as well as for export
(16) They bought a wool trousers, a cotton { ... ]. a pair of
woolen trousers
ERROR CLASSIFICATION BASED ON COMPARATIVE TAXONOMY
Classification of errors in a comparative taxonomy is based on `"comparison
between the structure of second language errors and certain other types of construction"
(Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982). In this study, the writer compares the textbook
writers' errors in English with their Indonesian equivalents. This comparison has yielded
three major categories in this taxonomy: (I) interlingual errors, (2) developmental
errors, and (3) others.
Table 1. Classification of Errors
Comparative
taxonomy
No. Linguistic Category Taxonomy
Vocabulary/
Grammar Inter
Lingu
al
Develop
mental
Othe
r
L Vocabulary that can be traced to Li
1 Indo. Words/Phrases 37 - , -
2 Mismatch of Lexical System 24 - -
3 Superfluous Expression 5 - -
4 Modified Indonesian words 4 -
IL Vocabulary that cannot be traced
to Ll
5 Similarity in Form - 4 -
6 Similarity in Meaning - 29 -
7 Wordiness - _ 11 -
III. Grammar
1 Tenses - 2 1
2 Affixation
7
- 6 3
3 Preposition
Wrong Preposition 3 13 -
Addition of Preposition 1 3 -
Omission of Preposition 1 3 -
4 Article
Addition of Article - 5 -
Omission of Article 3 - -
5 Pronoun 4 4 -
6 Conjunction
Wrong Conjunction 6 1 -
Addition of Conjunction 6 1 -
7 Object 5 -
8 Redundancy 5 4 2
9 Passive Voice 16 -
_
-
10 Adjunct and Modifier - 4 _ 1 -
11 Parallel Construction - 5 -
12 Miscellaneous 3 - -
Total 122 97 6
FREQUENCY OF ERRORS
The analysis shows a wider range of error categories. This means that the
percentage varies. The highest percentage is recorded for vocabulary (50.52%) which
includes the use of Indonesian words and abbreviations (16.45%), the mismatch of
lexical system (10.67%), superfluous expressions (2.22%), use of Indonesian words
which are slightly modified (1.78%), false friends in form (1.78%), false friends which
are similar in meaning (12.89%), and wordiness (4.89%).
The next most significant errors are recorded for preposition (10.67), passive voice
(7.11%), conjunction (6.23%), redundancy (4.89%), affixation, pronoun, and article
(3.56%). The next highest percentage is adjunct and modifier (2.22%), object (2.22%),
parallel construction (2.22%), tenses (1.34%) and errors which are categorized as
miscellaneous (1.34%).
Table 2. Frequency of Errors
Linguistic
Category
(Vocabulary &
Grammar)
Interlingu
al
Develo
pmenta
l
Other
s
sum
Vocabulary
Indo. Words/Phrases 37 - - 37 16.45
Mismatch of Lexical
System
24 - - 24 10.67
Superfluous Expression 5 - - 5 2.22
Modified Indonesian
words
4 - - 4 1.78
Similarity in Form - 4 - 4 1.78
Similarity in meaning - 30 - 29 12.89
Wordiness - 11 - 11 4.89
Grammar
Preposition 1 23 - 24 10.67
Passive Voice 16 - - 16 7.11
Conjunction 13 1 - 14 6.23
Redundancy 5 4 2 11 4.89
Affixation - 6 3 9 4
Pronoun 4 4 - 8 3.56
Article 3 5 - 8 3.56
Adjunct and Modifier 4 - - 4 1.7
Object 5 - - 5 2.22
Parallel Construction - 5 - 5 2.22
Tenses - 2 1 3 1.34
Miscellaneous 3 - - 3 1.34
Total 122 97
_
6 225 100%
Having described the errors linguistically, I will proceed to present the sources of
errors. This activity involves both the fields of linguistics and psycholinguistics
(Corder, 1981). This would state the way in which the textbook writers deviate from
the rules of the target language, and why they disregard or break the rules.
In general, the errors seem to have three main characteristics. First, there are
errors which bear a strong resemblance to the characteristics of the L1. The second
denotes errors which resemble to the TL. Finally, there are very few errors which
resemble to neither L1 nor TL. The three phenomena have led me to conclude that the
are triggered by four major sources: (1) strategy of L2 communication, (2) language
transfer, (3) overgeneralization of TL linguistic materials, and (4) psychological and
external pressure. Consider these examples.
(1) The wayang kulit performance needs, I...] (Code switch
to L l)
(2) LI: Menurut pendapatmu bagaimana orang-orang [... ]
IL: According to your opinion how do people [ ... ]?
(3) IL: L.] besides that he does not need [... ].
L2: [ ... ] beside that he does not need [ ... ].
(4) Everyone should sport to make our body healthy.
In conclusion, the sources or causes of errors made by the textbook writers in this
study can be summarized below. First, errors that reflect the rules, forms, or vocabulary
item of the textbook writers' first language, might be triggered by several factors such
as:
1. They are forced to communicate things beyond their target language mastery
(external pressure);
2. They consciously use strategy of word-for-word translation; They switch into their
native language in either unmodified or slightly modified in order to be able to
covey cultural-bound ideas (communicative strategy);
3. They try to reduce their learning burden by relying themselves to
what they have already known, mother tongue, (transfer strategy) and
4. They use over extension of analogy that they misuse vocabulary
items which share semantic feature.
Second, errors which cannot be traced back to their first language might have been
resulted from the following factors:
1. It is obvious that the textbook writers' linguistic knowledge of the TL is in sufficient;
2. The acquired vocabulary and grammatical rules are quite limited;
3. In coping with the inherent complexity of the target language, they rely on what
they have already known about the TL (overgeneralization);
4. They incompletely apply the rules of the TL they have already mastered;
5. They are careless especially when writing long and complex sentences; and
6. They seem to be forced to express meanings beyond their linguistic knowledge.
CONCLUSION
In this investigation, I have accumulated 225 sentences containing errors. In terms
of linguistic categories, there are two major linguistic elements affected by errors:
vocabulary and grammar. Vocabulary errors, which include seven categories, constitute
the major errors found throughout the texts (50,52%). Grammatical errors include
twelve different categories with various percentages. The highest percentage has been
recorded for preposition (10.67%) and the lowest is for partitive (0.45%), (see
miscellaneous errors).
Next, based on comparative taxonomy, the errors can be classified into three major
classifications. The constructions which resemble to the first language are grouped into
interlingual errors (54.22%). Other constructions, having similar characteristics to the
target language (English), are categorized as developmental errors (43.12%). Finally,
the constructions which do not resemble to both the first language as well as the target
language are categorized as others (2.66%).
The present study has also presented the logical explanations of the sources of the
errors. They are explainable through the underlying strategies the textbook writers have
utilized when they learned the language. The analysis has revealed that there are
basically four sources of errors: strategy of second language communication, language
transfer, overgeneralization, and psychological and external pressure.
In essence, I can draw a conclusion that (1) the textbook writers have been most
confronted with problems on vocabulary, especially in finding adequate equivalents for
the key words. (2) They certainly have got difficulties in translating Indonesian
cultural-bound words into English. In addition, they did not notice several words which
seemed to be adequate equivalents but turned out to ae false friends. And to make
things worst, they have got inadequate capability in translation skills that they use literal
translation when expressing the intended meanings. (3) The writers' language
system is neither that of first nor the target language. Their language system contains
elements of both the L 1 and TL, it is still at the particular level similar to that of the
learners. Using Selinker's term, it is a fossilized interlanguage with three major
features: systematicity, permeability, and fossilization.
REFERENCES
Adjemian, C. 1976. On the Nature of Interlanguage System. Language Learning. 26:
297-320.
Burt, K. 1977. Error Analysis in the Adult EFL Classroom. In James E. Alatis Ruth
Crymes (eds.) 1977 46--56.
Corder. S.P. 1977. The Significance of Learners Errors. In Jack C. Richards (ed.) 1977.
Interlanguage 19--30.
Corder. S.P. 1978. Error Analysis, Interlanguage and Second Language Acquisition. In
Valerie Kinsella, (Ed.): Language Testing and Linguistics: Surveys. Cambridge:
CUP 1978: 60-75.
Corder. S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. London: Oxford University
Press.
Dulay, H. Burt and Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Grauberg, W. 1971. An Error Analysis in German of First-Year University Stu-dents.
In G. Parren and J. Trim (Eds.) 1971: 257--263.
Jam, M.P. 1977. Error Analysis: Source, Cause, and Significance. In Jack C. Richards,
(Ed.) 1977: 189--215.
Nemser. 1977. Approximative. System of Foreign Language Learners Perspectives on
Second Language Acquisition. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.) 1977: 55--63.
Richards, Jack C. 1977. A Non Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. In Jack C.
Richards (Ed.) 1977. London: Longman Group 172--188.
Selinker, L. 1977. Interlanguage. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.) Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition. 1977: 31--54.
Selinker, L. 1988. Papers in Interlanguage. Occasional Papers No. 44. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Smithies, and Holzknecht. 1983. Errors in Papua New Guinea Written English at the
Tertiary Level. RELC Journal 12.2:10--38.
Stenson. 1980. Induced Errors. In Croft, Kenneth (Ed.)1980: 54--69.
Wode, H. 1986. Language Transfer A Cognitive Functional and Development
View. In Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.) Crosslinguistics Influence
in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford; Oxford Pergamon.
Yip, Virginia. 1995. Interlanguage and learnability from Chinese to English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin B.V.