PRONUNCIATION ERRORS MADE BY SENIOR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN READING ENGLISH TEXTS ALOUD
Wuri Syaputri
English
Department, State University of Semarang
Abstract
The objectives of this
study identified the types, causes, the teacher/ students overcome, and teacher’s
influence in causing students pronunciation errors. The method of this study
was qualitative descriptive. The result of the data analysis showed that the
student’s pronunciation errors were defined into pre-systematic, systematic,
and post-systematic errors. The students got the difficulties in pronouncing /ŋ/,
/d/, /ʤ/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ð/, /θ/, /∫/, and /g/. The causes of
errors were interference, intralingual and developmental errors. The teacher overcomes the errors by repetition,
silence and correction.
Key Words: Error
analysis; Pronunciation; Reading aloud.
1. INTRODUCTION
Learning English is not only knowing
the meaning of the words and the structures but also knowing how to pronounce
the words correctly and clearly. These difficulties are due to the fact that
irregular spelling of the English words offers poor guidance to its pronunciation,
another due to interference or negative transfer from the mother tongue of the
students to the target language.
Selinker (1992) in (Ho, 2003) stated that errors were
indispensable to learners since the making of errors could be regarded as 'a
device the learner used in order to learn. Error was the process of student’s
interlanguage completeness. When the students passed the errors, this was an
alarm of the students’ progress in target language. But that was not possible
the students did the errors at several times. The student errors were come from
their target language achievement.
Many factors influence the target
language pronunciation of non-native speakers when they try to make on
excellent pronunciation. Locality, social surrounding, early influence and some
individual problems affected students pronunciation. Reading aloud could be
used as a tool of practicing pronunciation. Reading is oral matter and need
full understanding letter to produce the right voice which has meaning and
sense of context in the text. In teaching reading, the one thing that has to be
concerned by teacher was a good pronunciation. The teacher should be a good
model for the students.
There were four previous studies to
complete this study as the additional information. The first study was written
by Nogita (2010) from University of Victoria Linguistics. The second
previous study was written by Hojati (n.d.)from University of Yazd. The third
previous study was written by Mees and Hjøllum (2012) from Copenhagen Bussiness School. The fourth study
was written by Fauziati (2011) from Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
2.
METHOD
In this study, the researcher observed an analysis
of students interlanguage. The purpose
of this study was finding
out the error pronunciation made by the senior high school students in reading
English text aloud. The
method of this study was qualitative descriptive. Qualitative
research assumed that all knowledge was relative and tends to be an effort to generate
descriptions and situational interpretations of phenomena that the researcher
could offer colleagues, students, and others for modifying their own
understandings of phenomena.
In this
study, the data collection
was used documentation technique. After collected the data, I analyzed the data. The steps of collected
the data were recording standard
reader’s reading English texts aloud and recording students reading English
texts aloud.
There
were two units of data analysis. They were native English transcribing result
and the students transcribing result. Firstly, the Native English was a student
of Darmasiswa Program at State
University of Semarang. Her name is Angela Arunasirakul. She comes from United
States of America. Secondly, the students were eleventh graders of Senior High
in Global Madani School. They were Social class students. The class consisted
of fifteen students.
In
this study there were five steps of the data analysis that adopted from Cohen (2007). Those steps were done by
proper organized. The steps to analyze the data were recorded the students’
performance in reading aloud, transcribed the students’ recorder in
phonological symbols, identified the texts to know the error
pronunciation made by the senior high school students in reading English texts
aloud, classified each types
of the pronunciation error
made by the senior high school students in reading English text aloud and
described the result based on the problem of the study.
3.
FINDING
AND DISCUSSION
There were several types of error according to experts. In this study I
focused on Corder (1974) as cited in Ellis (1994), there were three types of errors. They were pre systematic,
systematic and post-systematic errors.
The first was pre systematic error. This error occurred when the learner
was unaware of the existence of a particular rule in the target language. These
were happened in random situation. The learner could not give any reason of why
a particular form was chosen. It made as
a result of the learner not yet knowing the rule. For example, when the student
pronounced “prohibition” then he pronounced by /prɒhibitɒn/ although the
correct pronounced was /proʊəbɪʃən/ he just spoke word without any correction.
He believed that they spoke well. The students could not correct themselves
even the teacher points them out. So, teacher did not need to correct every
error.
Regarding
to the finding of the study, the most of fifteen students in eleventh graders
of Global Madani School faced the difficulties in pronouncing consonants
phonemes, such as /ŋ/, /d/, /ʤ/, /ʧ/, and /z/ that happened on each positions.
There were three positions of the phonemes. They were initial, medial and final
positions.
The second is Systematic error. Systematic
errors occurred when the learner had discovered a rule but it was the wrong
one. The learner was unable correct the errors but could explain the mistaken
rule used and type. It might happen when the learner had
formed an inaccurate hypothesis about the target language. Based on the data,
it was 567 error pronounced words or 94,4%. From 567 words, it was divided into
three categories. Firstly was a systematic error without any correction both from
the teacher or students. For example “shocked,
anything, listen and although” they read by /sʊk/, /enitɪŋ/, /ˈlɪstən̩/, /ɔːlˈtog/.
They could not pronounce /t∫/ in shocked, /θ/ in “anything”, “thanksgiving” and
“although”. Meanwhile there were some multiple pronunciation errors in the word
“the”. The student was read by /də/ and /də/ for /ðə/ and /ði:/. Other
examples from multiple errors pronounce were “they”, “that”, “other”, and
“characters”. Besides, there were errors pronouncing the words
by beyond properly sound. Such as “are”, “primarily”, “in”, “caused” and
“from”. The student was read by /də/, /arni/, /of/, /korn/
and /də/.
Secondly were the students’ pronunciation errors but got right correction
from the teacher. The numbers of this error type were 69 error words
pronounced. In this case, the students pronounced the words by wrong
pronunciation, and then the teacher gave right correction. For example when the
student pronounced “died” by /di:/, the teacher gave the correction by
pronounce /dʌɪd/. When the student heard the correction from the teacher, he/
she followed him by pronouncing /dʌɪd/.
Thirdly
was systematic error that got wrong correction from the teacher. It got 12 total numbers. The students did
wrong pronunciation, then teacher gave correction but the correction also wrong
pronunciation of the words. For example when the student pronounce “tiny” by
/ti:n/. The teacher heard that wrong pronunciation of his student. He tried to
give correction by pronounce /tɪnɪ/. But it still wrong pronounced word.
Because of the proper pronunciation of the word “tiny” was /tʌɪnɪ/.
The last is post-systematic error.
Post-systematic error occured when the learner knew the proper target language
rule but used it inconsistently (makes a mistake) the learner can explain the
target-language rule that was normally used. For example, it was when the
student pronounced the word “promise”. The student read “promise”, he read by
/pro/. After that, he gave the correction by /prɒm/, and then he kept silent
for a few second. He continued pronounced that word by /ˈprɒmɪs/. The student's interlanguage system was pretty much mastered. An
error could be self-corrected without prompting. The students could correct
themselves even if the errors appear. The teacher provides the students with
more opportunities to practice.
Based on the data analyzed, this error
type got16 numbers of error or 2,66%. In this type, the student did error but
they could give right correction by themselves. But, that proper pronunciation
got the process became properly. The word “sitting”, “long”, “designed”,
“china”, “replaid”, “cage”, “program”, “something”, “kind”, and “apples”. These
words properly read by /sɪtɪŋ/, /lɔŋ/, /dɪzaɪnd/, /ʧaɪna/, /rɪplaɪd/, /keɪʤ/,
/prəʊgræm/, /sʌmθɪŋ/, /kaɪnd/,
and /æpləz/. But in the fact of the students reading aloud, when the
student read the word “sitting”, they read firstly by /sɪt/, /lɔ/, /dɪz/, /ʧaɪn/,
/rɪp/, /keɪg/, /pro/, /sʌm/, /ka/, and /æplə/.. And then the student continued
and reapeted read by /sɪtɪŋ/, /lɔŋ/, /dɪzaɪnd/, /ʧaɪna/, /rɪplaɪd/, /keɪʤ/, /prəʊgræm/,
/sʌmθɪŋ/, /kaɪnd/, and /æpləz/.
The other words were “biodegrate”, “enchanting” and “begin”. The students
firstly read by /baɪɔdegred/, /enhantɪŋ/ and /bɪʤɪn/. secondly, they did the
same. It was happened in three times. After they did it for three times, the
students silence for some seconds. In the fourth times the students repeated
again and got the proper pronunciation by pronounced /baɪɔdɪgreɪd/, /enʧantɪŋ/
and /bɪgɪn/.
According
to Richards (1971b) as cited in Ellis (1994) there were three causes of errors. They were
interference, intralingual and developmental errors. Interference error was the
result of students interlanguage that influenced by another language. For
example the students mother tongue. The students pronunciation also affected by
their mother tongue because the dialect, accent and the similarities in pronouncing
a word. I found a student that her mother tongue was Lampung language. Usually,
a Lampungnese was difficult to differentiate between /p/ and /f/. I found this
student pronounced a word “thanksgiving” by /teŋksgipiŋ/. Although the teachers
gave her correction by /θæŋksˈgɪv.ɪŋ/,
she made pronunciation error again and again. Another example was “kangaroo”.
Indonesian called it by kangguru. So
when the students met that word, he/she read it by /kʌŋgʊru/. It iwas because
of the students learnt Bahasa older than English.
Intralingual error was the result of the student
generalization. The students believe that all of the English phonemes have the
same pronunciation in every word. For example when the student meet a word
“put”. The student read it word by /pʌt/. the student believe that it is right
pronounced. It was because he heard his friend read “cut” by /kʌt/, “run” by /rʌn/
and “fun” by /fʌn/. Because it has the similarities letter of the phoneme “u”,
then he pronounced “put” by /pʌt/. Another example is the word “centuries”.
Because he and his friend read “country” by /kʌntrɪ/, “crazy” by /kreɪzɪ/,
“can” by /ken/, and “car” by /kʌr/ and then the word “centuries” he pronounced
by /kentris/ although the correct pronounce was /sent∫əris/.
Developmental error was the student’s result of
lack of interlanguage knowledge. The students made the correction but they
still wrong. For example in pronounced the word “treasure”. The student made a
hypothesis to pronounce by /tresər/, and then gave the correction by /trɪsər/.
The student believes that her / his pronounciation was correct.
In short, there were three causes of errors.
They were interference, intralingual and developmental errors. In the classroom
interaction, the teacher and students were communicating each other. The
teacher transferred his knowledge to the students. The students could do
anything do develop their knowledge in the classroom. The teacher transfers
his/her knowledge to the students in order to help the students develop the
students’ knowledge.
There were three ways in overcome the error that
came from the teacher and the students. They were repetition, silence, and
correction. The students sometimes did the repetition in reading the text. The
students tried search the right pronunciation. While they repeated in
pronouncing the word, they believe that their repetition was proper wording.
For example when the student read the word “begin”, the student spoke by /bɪdʒən/ and then
repeated by /bɪdʒən/. After the
second repetition the student silence for a few second. He thought for the
correct pronounce of “begin”. After he was silent for a few second, he
continued by pronounce /bɪˈgɪn/. The other example was in the word “question”.
The student read by /kʊɪsən/. He
repeated by /kʊɪsɪn/. This was the example of the correction came from self
correction or student correction. But in this example the student gave wrong
correction.
The other example
was wording “exchange”. The student was read it by /eks/. He repeated by /eks/.
The last he pronounced by /ɪksˈʧeɪnʤ/. This called by the student right
correction. He gave the correction in the right pronunciation of the word.
Another word was “answer”. The student who read the master ceremony text, he
read the word “answer” by /ʌnswɪr/. After the teacher heard that pronunciation,
the teacher gave the correction by /ˈænsər/. The student gave the respond by
pronounced /ʌnswɪr/. The teacher gave the correction again by /ˈænsər/. The
student respond was /sər/. The teacher was repeating the correction again by /ˈænsər/.
Finally the student was repeating his pronunciation by /ˈænsər/. This was a
kind of the right correction from the teacher. The teacher was not always in
the right rules. Sometimes he made wrong correction. That happened in the word
“tiny”, “cumulonimbus”, “spectacular”, “imbued”, “valley”, “excitedly”,
“current”, “Jakarta”, “honoured”, “pleaded”, and “heavy”.
Based on the systematic errors data, there were
twelve words became pronunciation error caused by the teacher. The students got
the teacher correction, but they got wrong correction. Based on the data there
were twelve words that got the un-proper teacher correction. Those words were
“tiny”, “cumulonimbus”, “spectacular”, “imbued”, “brighten”, “valley”,
“excitedly”, “current”, “Jakarta”, “honoured”, “pleaded” and “heavy” that have
proper pronunciations by /taɪniː/, /kjuːmjəloʊˈnɪmbəs/, /spektækjʌlər/, /ɪmˈbjuːd/,
/braɪtn/, /væliː/, /ɪksaɪtɪdli/, /kɜːrənt/, /dʒʌkərdʌh/, /ɑːnərd/, /pliːdɪd/ ænd /heviː/. The teacher gave the correction by /tɪni/, /kɒlɒnɪmbʊs/, /spekˈtækulər/,
/ɪmbuːd/, /ˈbrɪtən/, /valej/, /ekzaitədli/, /kurənt/, /ʒʌkʌrtʌ/, /hɒnɒrd/,
/pledɪd/ and /heviː/. The students followed that pronunciation correction by the teacher. So,
the students were in un-proper pronunciation. As the sentence above, the
teacher was not always in the right pronunciation. The teacher sometimes gave
the correction but in unsuitable rule of pronouncing the word.
4.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The conclusion of this study was containing by the findings of the study’s
problem. They were the types of pronunciation errors, the causes of students
pronunciation errors, the teacher/ students overcame the errors and the last
was the teacher influence in causing of the students pronunciation errors.
There were
six types of pronunciation errors words in the texts. They were the right
pronunciation, pre-systematic errors, systematic errors without correction,
systematic errors by right teacher correction, systematic errors by wrong
teacher correction, and post-systematic errors. Systematic errors divided into
3 types. They were systematic errors without correction, systematic errors got
right teacher correction and systematic errors got wrong teacher correction.
There were eleventh error letters. They are /ŋ/, /d/, /dʒ/, /t∫/
and /z/ from the pre-systematic errors, and /ð/, /θ/,
/∫/, /z/, /d/ and /g/ from systematic errors.
This were
causes of errors, teachers or students overcome the errors, and teacher influence
in causing of students errors. The causes of errors were interference,
intralingual and developmental errors. The researcher found the causes of
pronunciation errors in reading the texts aloud. These came from the students
selves, the teacher and also the students friends. Although the students were
making errors, sometimes they obey their teacher correction. Sometimes the
teacher gave wrong correction but sometimes the teacher gave the right
correction to the students. The students that did wrong correction because of
got the teacher correction. The teacher correction was not always in suitable
rule to pronounce the words. But the numbers of it was very low. On the other
hand, the students sometimes got their correct corrections. They got it by themselves
knowledge. They got these correction by their repetition, quiet, and correction.
The
suggestion of this study came from the finding and the discussion. The finding
of the discussion found four problem answers. The problem answers were
entailing with the types of pronunciation errors, the causes of the students
pronunciation errors, the teacher/ students overcome the errors and the teacher
influence in causing of the students pronunciation errors. My suggestions were
bound with each problem answers.
Firstly were the types of students pronunciation errors. There were three
types of students pronunciation errors. They were pre-systematic error,
systematic error and post-systematic error. Based on the finding of the
discussion the students was much more did the error in systematic type. The
students discovered the rule of pronunciation but the students still did the
errors. In this type, the students was unable corrected the errors but could
explain the mistaken rule used and type. It means that the students got the
knowledge theoretically but the students got the difficulties in practically.
The solution of this problem was need more practicing the language knowledge
for the students whether with the teacher monitoring in order gave the
correction when the students did the error n the spot. Besides this solution, I
had another solution. The used of pronunciation application. There were many
pronunciation applications could be used. For example pronunciation checker,
pronunciation trainer, practice phonetics, pronunciation app, etc. the maximum
used of these application will really helping the students in practicing their
pronunciation. They could practice everywhere and simple pronunciation training
everyday.
Secondly were the causes of pronunciation errors. The causes of
pronunciation errors were interference error, intralingual error and
developmental error. Interference error was the result of the students
interlanguage influenced by another language. In this case the students
interlanguage was influenced by Lampung language. Lampung language was really
heavy of /p/. Lampungnese was difficult to differentiate between /p/ and /f/.
Intralingual errors were the result of the students generalization. The
developmental errors were the students lack of knowledge in correcting their
pronunciations but they still un-proper result. The solution was really close
with the first problem’s solution. The students should practice more. Because
of practice could make perfect. The more students practice their language knowledge
the more students pronunciation become well.
Thirdly were the teacher/ students overcome the errors. There were three
ways the teacher/ students overcome the errors. They were repetition, silence
and correction. The students did those three ways in overcome the errors.
Sometimes the students got the proper pronunciation correction sometimes did
the errors. The students need much more paying attention with the words that
they read. Thinking what the proper pronunciation was. In this case the teacher
need gave more times to the students in order to make the students feel free in
thinking the words wording.
Fourthly was the teacher influence in causing of the students
pronunciation errors. In this study I found only twelve words got the teacher
wrong corrections from 2.417 word. It means that the teacher was being a good
model. But the teacher should transfer his knowledge hardly to the students in
order to make him students knowledge transfer process in proper rules.
All in all, there were three suggestions in this study. Firstly was extra
pronunciation practice for the students. The students were practicing by
themselves, by the teacher monitoring and pronunciation application help.
Secondly the teacher should provide his students when practicing pronunciation
in order to give the students more times in thinking the words wording. The
last, the teacher should extra patient when transfer his knowledge to the
students.
5. REFERENCES
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second
language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/books?hl=id&lr=&id=3KglibyrZ5sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=larsen+An+Introduction+to+Second+Language+Acquisition+Research+1992&ots=wDWmjo3EzY&sig=ncWTM0USZX6uV3M9s8VlHWW7jao
Fauziati, E. (2011). Interlanguage and error
fossilization: A study of Indonesian students learning English as a foreign
language. 620, 102. Retrieved from
http://jurnal.upi.edu/620/view/620/interlanguage-and-error-fossilization:-a-study-of-indonesian-students-learning-english-as-a-foreign-language.html
Hjøllum, E. Í., & Mees, I. M. (2012). Error
analysis of the pronunciation of English consonants. Moderna Spr\a Ak, 106(2),
73–84.
Ho, C. M. L. (2003). Empowering English teachers to
grapple with errors in grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3).
Retrieved from
http://202.200.82.45/englishonline/jxyj/iteslj/Ho_Grammar_Errors.html
Hojati, A. (n.d.). A Study of the Iranian EFL
Students’ Errors in the Pronunciation of Ten High-frequency Technology-related
English Loan Words. Retrieved from http://efl.shbu.ac.ir/efl2/6.pdf
Louis, C., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. (2007).
Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
Nogita,
A. (2010). Do Japanese ESL learners’ pronunciation errors come from inability
to articulate or misconceptions about the target sounds? Working Papers of
the Linguistics Circle, 20(1), 82–116.Published here
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar