Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students

Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
Ainaaul Mardliyah
English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University Surabaya
mainaaul@gmail.com
Dr. H. Aswandi, M.Pd
English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, Surabaya State University
aswandi@unesa.ac.id

Abstrak
Semua peserta didik sering membuat kesalahan dalam belajar bahasa. Hal ini terjadi karena mereka tidak
memiliki pengetahuan yang memadai. Kesalahan biasanya terjadi pada komponen gramatikal, yaitu sintaks dan
morfologi. Selain itu, kesalahan ini timbul karena beberapa sumber. Memiliki kemampuan lisan yang bagus sangat
penting, terutama bagi guru karena mereka harus memberikan contoh berbahasa Inggris yang tepat. Namun, diketahui
bahwa tidak semua mahasiswa Jurusan Bahasa Inggris yang melakukan PPP memiliki produksi lisan yang baik. Dari
penelitian pendahuluan peneliti, ditemukan bahwa mahasiswa Jurusan Bahasa Inggris masih melakukan kesalahan
dalam sintaksis dan morfologi. Oleh karena itu, peneliti menyadari bahwa menganalisis kesalahan pada siswa jurusan
bahasa Inggris penting. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bermaksud untuk menjelaskan kesalahan morfologi dan sintaksis
dan sumber kesalahan pada produksi lisan mahasiswa. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis produksi lisan
peserta didik. Penelitian kualitatif adalah desain penelitian yang sesuai untuk penelitian ini. Subjek penelitian ini adalah
3 siswa jurusan bahasa Inggris semester 6 yang akan melakukan praktik mengajar. Data penelitian ini adalah frasa dan
kalimat, yang mengandung kesalahan sintaksis dan morfologis. Sumber data penelitian ini berasal dari transkripsi
rekaman produksi lisan peserta didik. Ada tiga hasil yang ditemukan dalam penelitian ini. Mereke adalah kesalahan
sintaksis, morfologis dan sumber kesalahan yang ditemukan di produksi lisan mahasiswa. Di kesalahan sintaksis,
mereka menambahkan kata – kata yang tidak perlu, fragmen, menghilangkan kata yang diperlukan, dan penyataan
urutan kata. Dalam kesalahan morfologis, mereka menghasilkan kesalahan di morfem infleksi dan derivatif. Kesalahan
terjadi karena kesalahan interlingual, intralingual dan unik. Dalam kesalahan interlingual, kesalahan disebabkan oleh
produksi. Semua subkomponen kesalahan intriringual merupakan sumber kesalahan yang dibuat siswa. Hasil penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa kesalahan yang paling banyak disebabkan oleh kesalahan intralingual. Dari hasil penelitian, dapat
disimpulkan bahwa siswa jurusan bahasa Inggris masih melakukan kesalahan. Mereka melakukan kesalahan dalam
kesalahan sintaksis dan morfologi. Selain itu, kesalahan yang paling banyak disebabkan oleh kesalahan intralingual.
Kata Kunci : Kesalahan, Analisa Kesalahan, Kesalahan Sintakis, Kesalahan Morfologi, Produksi Lisan

Abstract
All learners often make errors in learning language. This occurs since they do not have adequate knowledge.
Errors usually occur in grammatical components, which are syntactical and morphological errors. In addition, these
errors arise because of some sources. Having excellent oral production is important, especially for teachers since they
have to provide proper English exposure. However, it is known that not all English Department students who does
internship have good oral production. From researchers' preliminary study, it is found that English Department students
still commit errors in syntax and morphology. Therefore, the researcher realizes that analyzing errors of English
department students is important. The study intends to describe the morphological and syntactical errors and the source
of error in learners’ oral production. This research aimed to analyze learners’ oral production. Qualitative research is the
research design that is fit for this study. The subjects of this study were English department students of 6th semester who
did teaching practice. The data of the study were phrases and sentences, which contained syntactical and morphological
errors. The source of data was the recording transcription of learners’ oral production. There are three results found in
this study. They are syntactical, morphological and source of errors that are found in English Department students’ oral
production. In syntactical errors, they made unnecessary words, fragment, omitted words, and word order deviation. In
morphological errors, they produced inflectional and derivational morpheme deviation. The errors occurred because of
interlingual, intralingual and unique errors. In interlingual errors, the errors were caused by production. All of the
subcomponents of intralingual errors were the source of errors that students made. The result showed that the most
errors were caused by intralingual errors. From the research, it can be concluded that English department students still
commit errors. They committed errors in syntactical and morphological errors. Moreover, the most errors were caused
by intralingual errors.

Keywords: Error, Error Analysis, Syntactical Error, Morphological Error, Oral Production
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
INTRODUCTION
Learners often make errors in learning
something. That phenomenon also happens in
learning language. Making errors is included in a
process of language learning. We cannot blame
learners if they make errors since so many teachers
think that errors are bad things. It is because
learners cannot correct the errors by themselves, as
they are production of reflective of their current
stage of second language development (Larsen,
1992:59). When learners do not know what correct
form is, it called as errors (Ellis, 1997:17). On the
other hand, Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1982:138)
believe that making errors are good things because
it is a process of building a second language rule
system slowly but surely.
Moreover, errors usually arise in
communication in both oral and written. It means
that foreign language learners should master
English in both oral and written. However,
Richards states that having fine oral
communication ability is the main priority of
learning English (2008:19). Thus, learners should
master the requirement in order to have good oral
production, especially in linguistics components.
Besides, errors occur in the linguistic
component. Dulay et al (1982:146) claim that there
are four language components include phonology
(pronunciation), syntax and morphology
(grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and
vocabulary), and discourse (style). In this research,
the researcher only focus on analyzing morphology
and syntax since those components cannot be
separated.
Syntax and morphology cannot be separated
because they are connected to each other.
Morphology is the study of combining morphemes
into words. While syntax is, the study of combining
words into sentences. Fromkin and Rodman state
that when we combine words to form sentences,
these words are combinations of morphemes
(1978:152). It means that they are dependent to
each other. Morphology used to form new syntactic
category of words. For example, verb to adjective,
read + able, noun to verb, moral + ize, verb to
noun, sing + er, etc. Syntax also needs morpheme
to show the “third-person” as in sentence he sails
the ocean blue. Morpheme –s is also required by
syntactic rules of the language to signal tense.
Thus, syntax and grammar are two different things
that will form good sentences. Syntax and
morphology usually referred to grammar.
Many people who learn foreign language
sometimes get difficulty in understanding grammar
because of some sources. It might be caused by the
different rules of first language and foreign
language hence it leads to make errors (Al-
khresheh, 2016:49). This kind of source or error is
called language transfer or interlingual error.
Moreover, there is also possibility that learners
make errors because of their insufficient knowledge
about foreign language, which is called intralingual
error (Richard, 1971:6). The other source of error is
ambiguous errors, which caused by both language
transfer and learners’ knowledge of foreign
language. Making errors also might be caused by
unknown sources, which neither reflects to
interlingual, intralingual nor ambiguous errors
(Dulay et al, 1982:172).
There are related studies that have been
conducted. First, Afthoniyah (2012) conducted a
study in Smk Yasmu Manyar about error analysis
in morphological inflection made by the first year
students. He intended to find what errors the
students made also the causes of its errors. He
found that students commit errors in possessive
inflection frequently than the others inflection. He
also found that the most cause of errors is that false
concept hypothesized. Second, Prayoga (2011)
conducted a study about grammatical error analysis
in conditional sentence in English Department
students. He aimed to find errors in conditional
sentence that students made also how the students’
achievement in using it orally. He used question
and answer instrument to gather the data. As a
result, he found that English Department’s students
make most error in conditional sentence type 3. He
suggested to English Department students that they
have to improve their ability in conditional
sentence since they are going to be a teacher.
Moreover, the findings of those researches are
in line with the researcher’s preliminary study. The
researcher joined several students’ speaking
community groups to observe whether they commit
errors or not. Even in the highest level of learning
English, the researcher found that English
department students also committed errors. The
preliminary study reveals that English department
students made errors in syntax and morphology.
From the explanation above, it is important to
analyze students’ oral production in syntax and
morphology that covered inflectional morpheme
and conditional sentence in spite of analyze
morphology and grammar separately such those
related studies. Moreover, those two studies
mentioned use test and question and answer to
gather the data, which may make the subjects do
not give their true competence. It might happen due
to nervous and other obstacles that make the data
not natural. Thus, in this study, the researcher
wants to gain natural data through interview, which
have usual conversation concept. The researcher
believes that this way will make the subjects
present their true competence without any
obstacles. Furthermore, the researcher also attempts
to find out the source of errors.
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
Based on the background of the study, the
researcher formulates two research questions as
follows:
What kind of syntactical errors is that learners
commit in oral production?
What kind of morphological errors is that learners
commit in oral production?
What are the causes of errors learners commit in
oral production?
RESEARCH METHOD
This research is qualitative research since all the
data are obtained in the form of words. The
subjects of this study are three 6th semester students
of English Department students. They are in
Education major. They were chosen since they
were going to conduct teaching practice. They must
be good role model for their students. As teachers,
they must have good oral production since they will
speak a lot at school. They were chosen based on
their speaking class. Three students that achieved B
score were selected. The data of this study is
students’ utterances, which contained
morphological and syntactical errors. The source of
data of this is students’ utterances, which they
produced in the interview.
In gaining the data, the researcher conducted
interview. The subjects were asked about their
activities in campus. The questions asked were
meant to make the subjects to produce utterances in
present, past and future tenses. The interviews were
recorded. The recordings were transcribed and
printed. The errors were undelinded. The
underlined sentences were put on the instrument,
classified them into kind of grammatical, and
source of errors.
In order to answer the research questions, the
researcher used Ellis’ theory. There were four steps
in analyzing the errors.
1. First, the researcher identified the errors
by underlining the deviations of each
sentence on the transcription. The
underlined sentences considered as errors
since the subjects produced them
repeatedly.
2. Second step was comparing the erroneous
sentences whit the correct one in the target
language. This step was considered as the
way to know what kind of error that the
subjects committed. Then, the errors were
put in the instrument.
3. The third step was meant to answer the
first and second research question. In this
step, the researcher described and
classified them into types. The researcher
determined whether the errors belonged to
syntax or morphology. After that, the
researcher classified them into
morphology and syntax subcomponents.
4. In the last step, the researcher identified
them into source of error. The sources of
errors are intralingual, interlingual,
ambiguous and unique error. This step was
carried out to answer research question
number three
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1.1 Syntactical Errors Found in Learners’ Oral
Production
Syntactical errors occur when the learner do not
know how to construct well-formed sentences. In
this research, the learners committed four
subcomponents of syntax, which are unnecessary
word, omitting word, fragment and word order
deviation. Below are syntactical errors that are
identified in this study.
a. Unnecessary Words or Phrases
This error occurs when the learners add word or
phrase that is unimportant in a sentence. It should
be erased in order to form a good sentence
structure. In this study, the researcher found that all
the subjects committed this error. Subject no. 2
added pronoun, article or preposition in parallel
sentences. Subject no. 3 also always added
pronoun, article an preposition not only in parallel
sentences but also in declarative sentences. In
short, they made errors in common. Here are the
sentences, which contain errors:
Table 4.1 Erroneous sentences of unnecessary
words or phrases deviation
Subje Sente Erroneous Correction
ct nce Sentence
No.
1. 1. I think, *in the I think, last
last semester semester
is like roller was like
coaster roller
actually coaster
Sentence no. 1 contained error. The subject added
preposition *in before the subject. The preposition
was not needed in that sentence. It is because
subject should be in form of noun, pronoun,
gerund, etc not adverb. Hence, it will be better if
the preposition is deleted.
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students

b. Fragment class of the word. While the problem of subject no.

This deviation occurs because a sentence has no 3 is that, she could not place the order of the word
subject, predicate, object, or copula be. She found in statement sentence properly. The errors might be
that this error only occurs in oral production of confusing listeners. Thus, the errors were
subject no. 2. Subject no. 2 case is that, she was considered as global error. Below are the sentences,
unable to construct a good interrogative sentence. which contain errors:
She also could not answer closed question properly. Table 4.4 Erroneous sentences of word order
The answer had no predicate and object. Here is deviation
one of erroneous sentence: Subject Sentenc Erroneous Correctio
Table 4.2 Erroneous sentence of fragment e No. Sentence n
deviation
Subj Sente Erroneous Correction 2. 13. So we don’t So we
ect nce Sentence know about don’t
No. the *kkn know
literacy about the
2. 21. *About the Is it about literacy
preparation preparation kkn
or how? or how?
Subject no. 2 also had the same problem with
subject no. 1. In sentence no. 13, she did not know
Subject no. 2 could not construct a proper how to form modifier and modified noun
interrogative question. It should have copula be appropriately. She said kkn literacy rather than
which is marked it is interrogative sentence. It literacy kkn. Then, the correct sentence is ‘So we
should be corrected into ‘Is it about preparation or don’t know about the literacy kkn’.
how?’ 1.2 Morphological Errors Found in Learners’
c. Omitted Words or Phrases Oral Production
In this study, the researcher found that the
This kind of error occurs when the learners delete subjects committed morphological errors in three
word or phrase that actually really needed in a subcomponents of morphology. They committed
sentence. This error found in two of subjects’ oral errors in inflectional and derivational morpheme
production. Subject no. 1 could not construct deviation. Those errors occur since the subjects did
nominal sentences. Subject no. 2’s case is that she not know how to form morphemes properly. The
could not construct parallel sentence using following are the explanations of erroneous
conjunction not only and but also. She deleted one sentences.
of those conjunctions. Here are the sentences of a. Derivational Morpheme Deviation
each subject that contain errors. Derivational morpheme is morpheme that can
Table 4.3 Erroneous sentences of omitted words change the class of the word. The morphemes are
or phrases deviation usually prefix and suffix. This error occurs when
Subj Sente Erroneous Correction the learners cannot form those morphemes right.
ect nce Sentence The researcher found that two subjects, subject no.
No. 1 and 3, committed this error. They did not really
1. 10. *Still I am still know when they should added and deleted
confuse confused morphemes. The following erroneous sentences are
from those two subjects’ oral production:
Table 4.5 Erroneous sentences of derivational
Sentence no. 11 shows us that it has error. Subject morpheme deviation
no. 1 could not make nominal sentence properly. Subje Sentence Erroneous Correctio
The researcher thinks that it is because she often ct No. Sentence n
made verbal sentence. Once she made nominal 3. 1. Because I Because
sentence, she omitted be am. It should be corrected need to I need to
into ‘I am still confused’. divides my divides
d. Word Order Deviation time, beside my time,
for *work beside
This happens because the learners cannot place and for for
the order of the word properly. The researcher *study. working
found that the three subjects committed this error. and for
Subject no. 1 and 2 had the same problem. They studying.
could not form the proper modifier and modified
noun. Subject no. 1 also could not construct correct
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students

Subject no. 3 committed derivational morpheme mother tongue. It is also because they use the
deviation. She did not add morpheme –ing in words linguistic structure of their mother tongue. Subject
work and study. There is a rule that should be no. 1 and 2 always used the structure of Indonesian
applied in that sentence. The rule is that after using in present modified and modifier noun.
preposition for, the following word should be Table 4.7 Erroneous sentences of production
gerund while those words are verb. Hence, those Sentencu Erroneous Correction
words should be corrected into working and Subj e No. Sentence
studying. ect
b. Inflectional Morpheme Deviation
4. 1 I think, *kkn I think,
This kind of error occur when the learners cannot
. literacy literacy
use morphemes to show if a word is singular or
kkn
plural, past tense or not, comparative and
possessive. The three subjects committed this error.
Subject no. 1 and 2 committed this error. The
Subject no. 1 could not form morphemes to present
errors lie in noun phrase ‘kkn literacy’ and ‘the kid
that a word is plural or singular. She also could not
cute people’. It is because they use their mother
use morpheme as present tense mark. Subject no. 2
tongue structure. The rule of noun phrase in
had the same errors. She could not utilize
Indonesian is that the modifier follows the
morpheme as singular or plural and present tense
modified noun. Then, those two noun phrases
mark. In addition, she also could not form
should be “litracy kkn” which means literacy
morphemes as past participle mark. While the
modifies kkn.
problems of subject no. 3 are that, she could not use
a. Intralingual Error
morpheme as plural and past tense mark. Here are
This error occurs when the learners have no clear
the erroneous sentences from each subject:
understanding in English. It may also because the
Table 4.6 Erroneous sentences of inflectional language is hard to be understood. The researcher
morpheme deviation found that the subjects committed
overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules,
Subj Sente Erroneous Correction
ignorance of rule restrictions and false concept
ect nce Sentence
hypothesized error. The following descriptions are
No.
about those sources of errors.
3. 22. I got a lot of I got a lot of 1. Overgeneralization
*advices advice It may happen because of reducing the burden
rules of structures. Learners may add suffix –ed or
–d in irregular verb. They also omit suffix –s or –es
Sentence no. 22 shows that subject no. committed in singular verb. The researcher found that all
inflectional morpheme deviation since she could subjects committed this error. Subject no. 1 had
not form a morpheme to show singularity or problems in forming adjective and subject-verb
plurality. The word advice is uncountable noun. agreement. Subject no. 2 also had problem in using
Uncountable noun does not need morpheme –es or subject-verb agreement correctly. The problem of
–s to show plurality. Hence, that word should be subject no. 3 is that she could not change verb into
free from morpheme. It should be advice. adjective as subject no. 2 problem.
1.3 Source of Errors in Learners’ Oral Table 4.8 Erroneous sentences of
Production overgeneralization
Source of errors are divided into three categories, Subje Sentenc Erroneous Correction
which are interlingual, intralingual, ambiguous and ct e No. Sentence
unique error. The researcher found that all subjects
1. 11. The literacy The
committed intralingual, interlingual and unique
one because literacy
error. In this part, the researcher wants to explain *my mom one
the source of errors that found in learners’ oral ask me to because
production. stay in my mom
a. Interlingual Errors Surabaya asks me to
This source of error occurs when the learners use
eheheh stay in
their mother tongue structure. After analyzing the
Surabaya
source of error, the researcher found the subjects
eheheh
committed interlingual error, which is production.
The following points are the descriptions of the
source of error in interlingual error. Subject no. 1 committed error in subject-verb
1. Production agreement. The verb ask should be asks due to the
The learners committed this error because they singular subject. She over-generalized that all
use words that have the same meaning in their subjects, plural and singular, need suffix –es and –
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students

s. It may happened since subject no. 1 applies the Sub Sente Erroneous Correction
rule of plural subject, which does not need suffix – ject nce Sentence
es and –s. No.
2. Incomplete Application of Rules
This error takes place when learners fail to apply 2. 1. because in last It is because
rules completely because of the stimulus sentence. semester we in the last
It is also happens because the learners omit the *discuss about semester we
important part of structure due to interested on syllabus and discuss
communication purposes. The three subjects rpp syllabus and
committed this kind of error. Subject no. 1 often rpp
omitted copula be in nominal sentences. Subject
no. 2 omitted word in forming parallel sentence. Those two erroneous sentences had same kind of
She also omitted article that is needed. Subject no. error. They added unnecessary word in those
3 had problems in forming gerund and statement sentences. It is not like talking about, word discuss
sentence. does not need preposition about after it. She
Table 4.9 Erroneous sentences of incomplete ignored that rule and used the preposition after
application of rules discuss.
Subje Sentenc Erroneous Correction c. Unique Error
ct e No. Sentence Unique error is error that cannot be categorized
into interlingual, intralingual and ambiguous errors.
1. 12. *Still I am still
This error occurs because of unidentified sources.
confuse confused
In this study, subject no. 1 and 3 committed this
kind of error.
Subject no. 1 wanted to construct nominal Table 4.12 Erroneous sentence of unique error
sentence. However, she could not make it correctly. Subje Sentence Erroneous Correction
She omitted the subject, but it was mistake. She ct No. Sentence
also omitted copula be am that is important in 1. 6. Eh, actually Eh,
nominal sentence. She missed the rule of nominal I don’t know actually I
sentence that need copula be. The sentence should how to start don’t know
be corrected into “I am still confused”. the project how to
3. False Concept Hypothesized so we just start the
This error occurs when the learners *make it like project so
misunderstand of distinction in the target language. fun, watch we just
This error only found in all subjects. Subject no. 1 movie or make it fun
had wrong hypothesized in understanding singular read or make like watch
and plural word. Subject no. 2 had wrong concept a poetry or movie or
hypothesized of the subject-verb agreement rules. poem read or
She was unable to differentiate uncountable and together make a
countable noun that should have morpheme –es or poetry or
–s. poem
Table 4.10 Erroneous sentences of false concept together
hypothesized
Sub Sente Erroneous Correctio Subject no. 1 made error in sentence 6. She made
ject nce No. Sentence n word order deviation. The error was not caused by
3. 22. I got a lot of I got a lot either intralingual or interlingual. The structure of
*advices of advice presenting example in Indonesian and English is
almost the same. However, neither Indonesian nor
Subject no. 3 made sentence no. 22. The sentence English structure was used in that sentence. Then, it
contained error. She had wrong hypothesized also was not ambiguous error. Hence, the error
between noun that should have –es or –s mark. belonged to unique error.
Noun advice is uncountable noun. It does not need
–es or –s mark. Then, it should be advice. 2.1 Discussion
4. Ignorance of rule restrictions This research was conducted to describe what
This error occurs when learners fails to observe errors English Department students made in term of
the limit of a rules. This error occurred in subject syntax and morphology and the source of its error.
no. 2 and 3. They committed the same errors. Here The results point out that the learners still have
are the sentences that contained errors: difficulties in making sentence syntactically and
Table 4.11 Erroneous sentences of ignorance of morphologically correct. It is proved by the results,
rule restrictions which show that English department students made
morphological and syntactical errors. The errors are
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
caused by three sources, which are interlingual,
intralingual and unique errors. There are three main
findings from this research.
Firstly, the syntactical errors that found in
their oral production prove that English department
students have difficulties in forming sentence
syntactically correct. They tent to add unnecessary
words or phrases. They also omitted important
words and phrases. In addition, they could not form
the correct order of the word in noun phrase also in
presenting example. Moreover, they were unable to
construct correct interrogative sentence. It is
because they used Indonesian informal way to
present what they want to utter in the target
language.
The subjects added preposition, article,
pronoun and be in sentences. They most error made
in adding unnecessary word or phrases were added
preposition or article in parallel form. The rule of
parallel form is that no need to add preposition,
pronoun or article before noun or verb, which are
after conjunction. These errors occur because they
could not observe the rule properly.
In addition, they also added preposition
*about after discuss. The preposition was
unimportant. They thought that it was similar to
phrase talk about so that they added the
preposition. They made wrong analogy that verb
discuss should be followed by preposition about.
The strangest error was that they added
preposition and article that was unnecessary. They
put preposition in before subject in sentences that
made the sentence incorrect. They also added
preposition for after verb, which made the sentence
faulty. Another example was that one of the
subjects added article *the before determiner each
and adverb usually. This case almost the same in
word order deviation case. The errors neither refer
to Indonesian nor English rules.
The next error in syntax was they omitted
important word or phases in sentences. They often
omitted be am in nominal sentence as in I *still
confused. There was possibility that they
accustomed to make verbal sentence so that they
omitted be in nominal sentence. One of the subjects
omitted important word in parallel sentence. She
was unable to form parallel sentence using ‘not
only… but also’. She omitted word only.
Furthermore, the results show that they did
not use the correct order of the word in noun
phrase. The rules in forming phrase in English and
Indonesian are different. For example, noun phrase
red t-shirt if in Indonesian becomes baju merah.
From the example, we know that in Indonesian, the
noun precedes the adjective. One of the subjects
made noun phrases, which used Indonesian rule as
in phrase kkn literacy. In addition, the also made
deviation in word order which neither refer to
Indonesian nor English rules. The error was in
*make it like fun. She could not make the correct
form. In this case, English and Indonesian have the
same rule. That error should be corrected into make
it fun like, if in Indonesian membuat itu
menyenangkan seperti. Thus, the error did not use
Indonesian error since the correct one has the same
rule.
Secondly, the morphological errors that found
in their oral production prove that English
department students have problems in forming
morphemes. They were unable to form derivational
morphemes, which can change the class of the
word. For instance, they formed confuse as
adjective that should be confused. They also have
difficulties in forming inflectional morphemes,
which show singular-plural rule, comparative,
tense, and possessive.
In derivational morpheme, learners are
expected to be able to change the class of a word
by adding and deleting morpheme in a stem. In this
study, data analyzed shows that the subjects could
not add and delete morpheme to change the class of
a word. Two subjects committed this deviation.
They still used verb confuse as adjective. They also
could not apply the rule completely. They made
error that noun preceded preposition for. The rule is
that preposition for should be followed by gerund.
The last error in derivational deviation was that one
of the subjects formed organizational instead of
organization.
In inflectional morpheme deviation, they
committed errors in subject-verb agreement. They
generalized that all subjects both singular or plural
in a sentence must use plural verb. They did not
notice that verb and subject in a sentence must
agree with no. and person. They used plural verb
for singular subject. They formed plural verb ask
for singular subject my mom. In addition, the
sentence they formed had two verbs, singular and
plural, for singular subject. They used plural verb
depend and singular verb is for singular subject it.
The next case in inflectional morpheme
deviation was that they did not add morpheme –s or
–es to show plurality. One of the subjects produced
noun my friend that should be in plural, as she
wanted to tell the interviewer that all of her friends
did something at that time. Six sentences contained
similar error, which the subjects produced. They
also could not form the plural noun, which
preceded determiner other as in phrase other
student. They generalized the rules that no need
morpheme –s as plural mark and after determiner
other.
Furthermore, they also could not add
morpheme –ed or –d as past participle mark. It is
because they did not apply the complete rule of
regular verb. They formed prepare instead of
prepared in present perfect tense.
The last case was that one of the subjects
could not form morpheme –s as possessive mark.
The subject omitted the morpheme. The subject
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
was unable to complete the rule so that she
committed that error.
The last finding is that the source of the
errors. Analyzing the source of error enables the
researcher to know the reason why the learners
commit error. The researcher found that they
committed errors because of three main reasons.
The results show that their difficulties in making
well-formed sentences were from intralingual,
interlingual, and unique errors. In intralingual
errors, they committed errors because of their lack
of proper knowledge of the target language
(Richard, 1971:4). They committed
overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions,
concept hypothesized and incomplete rule
application. They also made interlingual errors
since they borrowed the first language rule to utter
what they desire to say in the target language. They
committed production in interlingual errors.
Moreover, they committed unique errors, which do
not reflect to mother tongue or second language
structures (Dulay and Burt, 1974:172).
In intralingual errors, they generalized the rule
of subject-verb agreement in singular for plural
subject. In other cases, they made wrong
conclusion about some rules such as made wrong
plural form of uncountable noun, added
unnecessary words in parallel form and put
preposition in wrong place. In addition, they were
unable to complete the requirement of some rules.
They omitted possessive morpheme, article,
important conjunction, morpheme of past
participle, be in nominal sentence, etc. The last one
is that they ignored exceptional rule.
They generalized some rules in English. They
often generalized the rules of subject-verb
agreement. They generalized that plural subject
needs singular object. For example, they formed
sentence Yes because my boyfriend *have come to
my house to ask me to my parent. They used
singular object has come for plural subject my
boyfriend. They also generalized that plural
subjects did not need morpheme –es or –s as plural
mark as they produced sentence And *my parent
ask me to continue. In the interview, the subject
said her mother and father and represented them as
her parents. However, she produced *my parent. In
addition, they generalized the rule of using other
and another. They used singular noun after
determiner other as determiner another precedes
singular noun. The last case in overgeneralization
errors was that they used confuse as adjective. They
generalized that confuse is also the adjective form.
Hence, they did not add morpheme –d to change it
into adjective.
The next source of error that was committed
by the subjects was false concept hypothesized.
They often added unnecessary words such as
preposition, pronoun and article in parallel
sentences. It is because they made wrong
conclusion of parallel rules. Parallel sentences do
not need the same words after the conjunction. For
instance, one of the subjects made sentence that
contained deviation, because I need to divides my
time, beside for work and *for study. The
underlined word was not needed since it was the
same word as word before the conjunction. They
also made wrong hypothesis of forming statement
sentence. One of the subjects made wrong
statement sentence. She did not put copula be in the
end of sentence as in sentence I don’t know *what
it is in English. In addition, they had false concept
of using determiner the. They added determiner the
before words that actually did not need it. For
instances as in phrases *the each and *the usually.
Moreover, one of the subjects made wrong
hypothesis that word advice is countable noun. She
added morpheme –s to mark it plural as countable
noun. She also had wrong conclusion of forming
noun by deleting and adding morpheme. She
produced organizational instead of organization as
noun. They also did not really understand the rule
of subject-verb agreement that led to false
assumption. They produced sentences But *there is
also still constant in the literacy and but *it’s
depend on the where we stay.
Furthermore, they did not apply the entire rule
completely. They omitted copula be needed in
sentences. In forming nominal sentences, copula be
is necessary. However, they did not put copula be
after the subject as in sentence Heeh, *I still
confuse about both of them. They also omitted
important morphemes. They omitted morpheme –d
in forming past participle, noun and adjective in
words. They constructed prepare instead of
prepared, work instead of working, confuse instead
of confused. Those errors occurred because they
were unable to apply fully. Moreover, they did not
apply the rule of possessive. They omitted
morpheme –s as in phase *the lecture name. Then,
they could not fulfill the requirement of parallel
sentence using conjunction ‘not only…but also’.
They omitted conjunction only. They also did not
complete the rule of plural noun and article. They
omitted morpheme –es in phrase some activity and
article a in clause*this is good.
The last source of error in intralingual errors
that committed by the subjects was ignorance of
rule restrictions. They committed errors in the same
case. They produced phrase discuss about. This
kind of error occurred because of they had false
analogy. They imitated phrase talk about. They
thought that that rule is also can be used after verb
discuss. Then, they produced that error.
The other sources was that interlingual errors.
They committed production errors. In production
error, they used their mother tongue rules.
Indonesian rule of forming phrase requires modifier
word is preceded by modified word. While English
structure is that requires modifier precedes
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students
modified word. The subjects formed phrases that
reflected to Indonesian rule. For examples, they
produced noun phrases kkn literacy, kkn posdaya,
kid cute, etc.
The last source of error is unique errors. This
error does not belong to intralingual, interlingual
and ambiguous errors. They added noun,
preposition and be in wrong place. For example,
they added preposition in before subject in a
sentence. The preposition made the sentence
deviant. They also could not form the correct order
of word in a sentence. They produced *make it like
fun that should be make it fun like. The structure of
those erroneous examples had no equivalent
structure in the first language. The error also was
not intralingual error since it had no the criteria of
intralingual error.
To sum up, the subjects committed syntactical and
morphological errors. They committed four
subcomponents of syntax and two components of
morphology. In syntax, they made unnecessary
words, omitted words, fragment and word order
deviation. While in morphology, they made errors
in derivational and inflectional morpheme
deviation. Moreover, after analyzing the errors, the
researcher found that the errors made are caused by
interlingual, intralingual and unique errors. They
just committed one subcomponent, production, in
interlingual errors. On the other hand, they
committed all the components of intralingual
errors, which are overgeneralization, incomplete
application of rule, ignorance of rule restrictions
and false concept hypothesized.
CONCLUSION
From the data analyzed, it shows that the learners
still had difficulties in making sentence
syntactically and morphologically correct.
Moreover, there are three conclusions from this
study.
The first conclusion is that the subjects committed
errors in four subcomponents in syntax. They are
unnecessary words or phrases, fragment, word
order and omitted words or phrases deviation.. In
unnecessary word deviation, the subjects add
conjunctions, articles, subject pronoun, copula be,
and prepositions. In fragment deviation, they omit
copula be in the interrogative sentence. Moreover,
the subjects use Indonesia structure in word order
deviation. In omitted words deviation, they omit
copula be and conjunction. The most error made in
syntax is unnecessary word or phrases.
Second, they made morphological errors. They
produced inflectional and derivational morpheme
deviation. In inflectional morpheme deviation, the
subjects add and omit prefix in words. While in
derivational morpheme deviation, they often omit
prefix in words that affect the class of the words.
The biggest error occurred in morphology is
inflectional morpheme.
The last conclusion is that they made errors
because of three sources of errors. They are
intralingual, interlingual, and unique errors. They
committed false concept hypothesized, incomplete
application of rules and overgeneralization errors in
term of intralingual errors. In interlingual errors,
they committed production errors. They also
committed unique errors, which refer to no other
source of errors. The most errors committed are
intralingual error, which means the learners do not
have good understanding about the language.
SUGGESTIONS
1. To Teachers or Lecturers
It is important for teachers or lectures to find
another way to make the learners to be more
competence in producing oral production,
especially in the aspect of syntax and morphology.
The researcher suggests that the learners have to
submit their oral production recording to their
supervisor. Hence, the supervisor will know what
aspects should be learn more by the learners as the
supervisor have great understanding in grammar.
2. To Students
The researcher hopes that the results of this study
will be a consideration to know the common
difficulties that are faced by college students.
Hence they might be aware to not to commit errors.
Moreover, they can correct their own errors if the
commit once.
3. For Future Research
This research is lack of analyzing communicative
effect on the learners’ oral production. Therefore,
the researcher suggests for other researchers who
are interested in the same area to analyze the
communicative effect on the learners’ oral
production. It has two classifications, which are
global and local errors of students’ errors in oral
production. By analyzing the global and local
errors, the researchers are able to know whether the
errors are incomprehensible to the listener or not.
The result of that analysis will be helpful for
teachers and students. It is also important to
analyze the cause of errors in teaching and learning
process. This kind of analysis will be helpful for
teachers, lecturers, and curriculum and book
developers. It may show which part of teachers and
lectures’ ways of teaching that should be improved.
It also helps curriculum and book developers to
evaluate their curriculum and book in order to
make students have proper oral production.
 Analysis of Syntactical and Morphological Errors in Oral Production of English Department Students

REFERENCES Scovel, T. (2001). Learning New Languages: A

Guide to Second Language Acquisition.
Akmajian, A., Farmer, A. K., Bickmore, L., &
Massachsetts: Heinle & Heinle.
Harnish, R. M. (1990). Linguistics: An
Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-
introduction to language and
International Review of Applied
communication. MIT press.
Lingusitics on Language Teaching
Al-khresheh, M. H. (2013). A Review Study of
10(1-4), 209-232.
Error Analysis Theory. International J
Van Valin, R. D. (2001). An Introduction to
ournal of Humanities and Social
Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Science Research, 2, 49-59.
Yule, Goerge. (2006). The Study of Language.
Al-khresheh, M. H. (2016). A Review of
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Contrastive Analysis Theory. Journal of
Advances in Humanities and Social
Sciences, 2 (6), 321-329.
Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and Corrective
Feedback: Updated Theory and
Classroom Practice. In Forum (Vol. 38, No.
4, pp. 20-25).
Ary, Donald., Jacobs, Lucy Cheser, Sorensen,
Chris, & Razavieh, Asghar. (2010).
Introduction to Research in Education (8
ed.). Belmoth, CA:Wadsworth.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Marrison, K. (2007).
Research in education sixth edition.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's
errors. IRAL-International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Corder, S. P. (1982). Error analysis and
interlanguage. Oxford University Press.
Dulay, Heidi., Burt, Marina., & Krashen,
Stephen. (1982). Language Two. New
York: Oxford Unversity Press.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford Uviversity Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2005). Treatment of Error in Second
Language Writing. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. (1978).
Introduction to Language (2nd ed.).
Nunan, David. (2003). Practical English
Language Teaching. McGraw-
Hill/Contemporary.
Politzer, R, Ramirez, A. (1973). An Error
Analysis of The Spoken English of
Mexican- American Pupils in A
Bilingual School and A Monolingual
School. Language Learning,
23(1).
Richard, Jack, C & Schmidt, Richard W. (2002).
Longman Dictionary of Langugae
Teaching and Applied Linguistic
(Third ed.). New York: Pearson
Education.
Richards, J, C. (1971). A Non-Contrastive
Approach to Error Analysis. Richards,
J.C edition.
Richard, J, C. (1974). Error Analysis: Perspective
on Second Language Acquisition.
London: Longman Group Ltd.