EFL LEARNERS’ GRAMMATICAL DEVIATIONS FROM CONCORD: What degree did they become mistakes and errors?

Amri Isyam(1),
(1) Jurusan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris FBSS Universitas Negeri Padang  Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2017 Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/ld.v3i2.7372

Full Text:    Language : en

Abstract


This article, based on the other part of the research entitled EFL Learners’ Concord Mastery and their grammatical Deviations carried out by the writer, aims at describing to what degree EFL learners have committed grammatical deviations from 3 types of concord: subject-verb concord (SVC), subject-complement concord (SCC), and subject-object concord (SOC) and to what extent those deviations became mistakes and errors. With the population of 120 EFL learners of three classes of the third year students of the English Department of the Faculty of Languages, Literature, and Arts of the State University of Padang, and with one class of them chosen as the sample comprising of 32 subjects by cluster-sampling technique, the data were gathered through a fifty-item test with one administration but with 4 versions of the answers. Thus, with 4 versions of grammatical deviations (GD): GD of version 1 (GD1), GD2, GD3, and GD4 taken from the answers of the test of version 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, and the overall grammatical deviations (OGD) as the accumulation of the 4 versions of GD, and by using quantitatively descriptive method, it was found out that on the average the EFL learners’ GD1 was more than one-third of the total test items (TTI), and that of the OGD was nearly a half of TTI. Besides, after the split of OGD into mistakes and errors it was known the ratio between the two kinds of GD was about 2:5, or in every 7 GD there were 2 mistakes and 5 errors on the average. Furthermore, there were 3 types of grammatical errors (GE) found for each kind of concord: omission, addition, and misformation. Misformation had the greatest percentages of GE for SVC and SOC. Most of the GE of this type dealt with the use of plural verbs for singular ones, that of possessive adjective (their) for reflexive genitive (their own), that of reciprocal pronoun referring to 2 peeople (each other) for reciprocal pronoun referring to 3 people or more (one another) and that of object pronoun (them) for reciprocal pronoun referring to 3 people or more (one another). For SCC the omission type of the GE had the greatest, and most of them were absence of plural indicators –s/-es.


Keywords


grammatical deviations, mistakes, errors, omission, addition, and misformation.

References


Brown, H. Douglas. 1994a. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1994b. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2003. Language Assessments: Principles and Classroom Practice. San Francisco: Longman Group Ltd.

Brown, J. Dean. 1991. Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press

Collerson, John. 1995. English Grammar: A Functional Approach. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Cook, Stanley J. and Richard W. Suter. 1980. The Scope of Grammar: A Study of Modern English. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Downie, N. M. and R. W. Heath. 1970. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York: OUP.,

Ellis, Rod. 2003. Second Language Acquisition. New York: OUP.

Genesee, F., and J. A. Upshur. 2002. Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education. New York: CUP.

Gay, L. R. 1987. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.

Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Hongkong: OUP.

Hendrickson, James M. 1987. “Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice”. In Long, M. H., and

J. C. Richards (eds.) Merthodology in TESOL: A Book of Readings. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Herndon, Jeanne H. 1976. A Survey of Modern Grammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kaikkonen, and J. Lehtovaara. 2001. Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education. London: Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2003. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Toronto: Newbury House.

Long, Michael H., and J. C. Richards (eds.). 1987. Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Readings. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

McNamara, Tim. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Nunan, David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. London: Prentice Hall International Ltd.

Scovel, Tom. 2001. Learning New Languages: A Guide to Second Language Acquisition. Ontario: Newbury House

Seliger, H. W., and E. Shohamy. 1989. Second Language Research Method Oxford: OUP.

Stenson, Nancy. 1974. “Induced Errors”. In John Schumann and Nancy Stenson (editors), New Frontiers of Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.

Thornbury, Scott. 2001. How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman Group Ltd.


Article Metrics

 Abstract Views : 336 times
 PDF Downloaded : 97 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa

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