Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 131 Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability Frans Sayogie *, & Muhammad Fadhli Adbaka Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia * frans.sayogie@uinjkt.ac.id ARTICLE HISTORY Received : 22 March 2022 Revised : 17 May 2022 Accepted : 22 June 2022 KEYWORDS Interlingual Errors Minimal Pairs Pronunciation Speaking Ability Consonants ABSTRACT The majority of previous research observed phonemes produced individually to examine errors. As a result, based on the concept of minimum pairings, this study offered a novel way of assessing interlingual errors based on the concept of minimal pairings. This study examines the interlingual errors in consonant minimal pairs to see the correlation between the errors and the speaking ability that happened to high school students. There are several consonants which are being used such as /v/, /θ̠/, /ð̠/, /ʃ/, /t̠ʃ/, /ʤ/, /f/, /t/, /d/, /z/, and /s/ as indicators to find the interlingual errors. This study is descriptive qualitative research that examines the interlingual errors produced by high school students when utilizing English minimal pairs of consonants. All of the consonants acted as the test tool for the 19 selected students in the form of 10 minimal pairs. The research found that students did have difficulties when they were pronouncing the consonant minimal pairs such as /d/ & /ð/, /f/ & /v/, and /ʃ/ & /t̠ʃ/. Thus, the difficulties that occurred in the students’ pronunciation also generate speaking ability between students based on the interlingual errors. The findings showed that high school students mostly struggled with their pronunciation when uttering consonants that do not exist in the Indonesian language. In conclusion, interlingual errors play an important role as a method in teaching a foreign language to see the consonant errors happen in high school students when pronouncing the English language. 1. Introduction Learning how to pronounce words in foreign language is difficult since a foreign language may have a different sound systems from the mother tongue’s system (Sokip, 2020). According to a study performed by Pardede (2018), pronunciation of a language is difficult since its L1 strongly impacts the speakers in the L1 in various characteristics, such as accent, rhythm, intonation, and, of course, the language spoken every day. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that learning how to pronounce the sounds of other languages is difficult. It takes longer to memorize new or unknown vocabulary, which is problematic because learners may memorize all of the sound systems of vocabularies. First to speak fluently, it can also influence students to feel fear of being evaluated by others when speaking in a foreign language, or the fear of not being able to use all of the vocabulary that has previously been memorized. The faults or inaccuracies in pronouncing the English language are caused by learners producing vowels, diphthongs, and, consonants in English (Ramasari, 2017). These mistakes or errors might be caused by a variety of factors. First, most English language teachers ignore the pronunciation aspect in order to focus on the grammatical aspects of the language (Pourhosein Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2016). Interference/interlingual errors are the next element that might cause a departure from appropriate English language pronunciation, which refers to errors that occur when the mother tongue or native language has a negative impact on the second language. In interlingual or interference errors, the individual speaking the foreign language tends to follow the way he or she pronounces his or her native language (Sari, 2016). Another significant barrier is that the majority of English foreign learners are unable to distinguish consonants in the form of minimal pairs (Rahman, 2018). Many studies looked at the pronouncing minimal pairs when learning a second language. This study is being undertaken to investigate pronunciation errors made by English language learners in Indonesia and to raise awareness about the importance of pronunciation for anyone who wishes to learn another language, particularly English as a foreign language. The majority of previous studies examined phonemes that are produced separately in studies aimed at examining errors. As a result, this study proposed a novel method for examining interlingual mistakes based on the notion of minimum pairings. This study proposed using the idea of minimal pairs to evaluate and examine interlingual mistakes. The reason is to make it easier to distinguish and categorize mistakes amongst minimal pairings. As a result, its categorization is simpler and easier https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 132 to identify. In the dental consonants, for example, minimum pairs / θ ̠/ & / ð̠ / when the students pronounce the word “thin” and ‘them”. If the students pronounce them incorrectly, the interlingual error analysis will focus on dental consonants. This notion is further supported by research, which shows that when students use minimum pairs as the source of learning, they learn more about how to pronounce English consonants (Rahman, 2018). This study proposes a new research question for evaluating interlingual mistakes: ‘Is there any relationship between interlingual errors and the pronunciation skill ability for Indonesian EFL learners?’ Because the level of pronunciation of the eleventh grade in SMKN 47 South Jakarta is poor in pronouncing the English consonants, the use of minimum pairs is appropriate to investigate whether interlingual errors contribute to the deviations of the English consonant minimal pairs. The importance of studying English language phonology benefits for everyone (Namaziandost & Esfahani, 2019). Students also need phonological knowledge since the more accurately someone pronounces the sounds in English, the better their communication skills (Ape, 2014). The objective of this research is to investigate phonological awareness among students when pronouncing English words. 2. Literature Review Pronunciation in communication is an important component in conveying the meaning of language (Pratiwi & Indrayani, 2021). In learning, pronunciation should not be ignored by language teachers. Language learners should always try to improve language skills in the pronunciation of the target language (Yusriati & Hasibuan, 2019). There are two factors that cause errors in learning foreign languages, namely internal factors and external factors (Fadhillah & Miftakh, 2020). Internal factors refer to students' motivation in learning English, while external factors are related to students' learning environment (Lestari et al., 2020). Errors are defined as a failure to use the language system correctly. Language learners should be aware that speaking like a native speaker requires them to improve their organ of speech to the tense articulations of English words (Martanti, 2022). Phonological intervention in learning English is very important in improving critical skills in identifying sounds in language (Romupal et al., 2021). Phonological decoding in learning to speak English is proven to be effective in improving initial ability to identify phonological sounds in English (Yeung et al., 2013; Huo & Wang, 2017). When you pronounce words in English, you must be conscious of specific characteristics, such as the sound of the phonemes, the rhythm, or even the form of the phonemes. Speakers must be aware of these things (Hu, 2019). The phonological awareness can be expanded to include the capacity to differentiate phonemes (syllable, prefix, suffix), the ability to create sounds of words or phonemes, whether consonant or vowel, and the ability to express things properly (Khan & Khan, 2021). The need to increase awareness of phonemics as a form of the ability to pronounce sounds and analyze sounds as meaningful units is necessary (Bunce, 2020). Phonemic awareness, which is the same as phonological awareness, consists of three sub-skills that language users and learners, particularly language learners, must master in order to survive when learning and communicating in a language (Rokhman et al., 2020; Alhumsi, 2020). With this awareness implemented in the classroom, students can avoid some barriers when uttering sounds in English (Daud & Salamah, 2016). The language errors may occur when language learners accept the rules of the L1 and apply them when learning the L2 (Zhu, 2019). Errors are common in all areas of language that we are aware of, such as phonological features, grammatical aspects as in writing or reading, and so on (Crystal, 2008, p.173). Phonemes such as /v/, /z/ are frequently mispronounced by Indonesian English language learners since all of the phonemes stated above are not used on a daily basis by Indonesian language learners because they do not exist as Indonesian phonemes or consonants (James, 2013, p.179). The investigation of language errors must be conducted as a preliminary step before teaching English language (Mubarok & Nur’aisyah, 2020). 3. Method This study is descriptive and qualitative because it aims to examine, identify, analyze, and describe one specific case that the researcher finds interesting to investigate (Kim et al., 2017), in this case, the interlingual errors caused by high school students when utilizing English minimal pairs consonants. The research purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between interlingual errors and the pronunciation skill ability In order to achieve the desired outcome, 11 consonants will be employed in this study. These consonants are /f/, /v/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʤ/ /t/, /d/, /z/, /t̠ʃ/, /ʃ/ and /s/, and this study will investigate 10 minimal pairs for this study which will be displayed in 10 tables, which are minimal pairs /f/ & /v/, minimal pairs /f/ & /θ/, minimal pairs /d/ & /ð/, minimal pairs /d / & /ʤ/, minimal pairs /t̠/ & /t̠ʃ/, minimal pairs /t/ and /θ/, minimal pairs /ʃ/ & /t̠ʃ/, minimal pairs /s/ & /ʃ/, minimal pairs /s/ and /z/, and minimal pairs /z/ & / ð̠/. This study was conducted on the SMKN 47 in South Jakarta. The sampling data for this study are 19 students of SMKN 47 South Jakarta, as the main data for this research. Nonetheless, if no procedures are used to check the mistakes, the aforementioned source data would be squandered. The researcher employed two data gathering techniques. The first technique is a survey, which is used to https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 133 collect information from students such as their names, class, and desire to have their data evaluated by the researchers. After the researchers have gathered the raw data from the students, an interview approach will be used to collect data on interlingual errors of minimal pairs consonants, the interview technique has been conducted utilizing Google Meet and WhatsApp voice notes due to the restrictions of Covid-19 pandemic. The use of the Received Pronunciation style, which is the mainstream English language speaking style that originated in England, or as other people may know it, the BBC's English (Cao & Jin, 2018). Table 1. The CEFR Phonological Scale of Overall Phonological Control User’s Proficiency Common Reference Levels: global scale C2 Able to use all phonological features and prosodic features perfectly, no interference from any other features of accent from other languages C1 Able to use all phonological features and prosodic features perfectly, a little interference from any other features of accent from other language, but still clear B2 Able to use all phonological features and prosodic in an a good way, influenced by other languages’ accents, but still clear enough B1 Able to use all phonological features and prosodic features in an adequate manner, influenced by other languages’ accents, but still clear enough A2 Not able to use all phonological features and prosodic, heavily influenced by other languages’ accents, but still clear enough A1 Not able to use all phonological features and prosodic, heavily influenced by other languages’ accents, needs repetition, some clear enough and some are not The data analysis method is content analysis, which is a way of evaluating data that is highly reliant on recorded and written material, and to expose what is under previously obtained data (Bengtsson, 2016). The CEFR (the Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching and assessment) Phonological Scale was used to analyze and examine errors in order to obtain a conclusions and explanation. It is the most comprehensive pronunciation and language utilizing scaling that can be converted into many languages; and this phonological scale is separated into three branches: overall phonological control, sound articulation, and prosodic characteristics (Piccardo et al., 2018, p.136). 4. Results This study discovered that the concept of minimal pairs may be used to identify interlingual errors among students at SMKN 47 Jakarta for a variety of reasons. The first reason is because the minimal pairs approach has been adequately tested to be an instrument tool for teaching English language pronunciation abilities to students, particularly teaching consonants, vowels, or diphthongs that are not included in the L1 of English language learners. The second reason why minimal pairs can be used to analyze interlingual errors among students is that certain pairings in the method of minimal pairs are made up of one consonant from the L1 and one consonant from the L2. For example, minimum pairs such as /s/ & /z/, /t/ &/d/, /f/ & /v/, and many more can be regarded as pairs consisting of consonants familiar in the L1, such as /s/, /f/, and /d/. L2 consonants such as /t/ &/d/ can also be found with L1 consonants. Table 2. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /f/ & /v/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error fan – van /fæn/ - /væn/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except student 7, 8, 16. surfer – server /sɜːfə/ - /sɜːvə/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. proof - prove /pruːf/ /pruːv/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. ferry – very /ferɪ/ - /verɪ/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. /v/ → /p/ /perɪ/ - sample 18 define – divine /dɪˈfaɪn/ - /dɪˈvaɪn/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. save safe /seɪv/ - /seɪf/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 134 fast – vast /fɑːst/ - /vɑːst/ /v/ →/f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. /v/ → /p/ /pɑːst/ - sample 18 surface-service /sɜːfɪs/ - /sɜːvɪs/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. waif - waive /weɪf/ - /weɪv/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. fat – vat /fæt/ - /væt/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. /v/ → /b/ /bæt/ - sample 18 wafer - waver /weɪfə/ - /weɪvə/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. relief - relieve /rɪˈliːf/ - /rɪˈliːv/ /v/ → /f/ - all students except sample 7, 8, 16. Table 2 above shows the minimal pairings that are being assessed of the participants of this study. The words that contain the consonant /v/ do not exist from the pronunciation of the majority of the minimal pairs. Only three of the 19 students examined excelled in pronouncing the consonant minimum pairs for this minimal pair, particularly the sound /v/. All of the consonant /v/ changes into /f/ whenever they are pronouncing it, such as the vast or /vst/, and server as in /sv/ changes into /sf/, which is incorrect, Turning the consonant /v/ into the consonant /f/ is not the only error that students make during the interview section when pronouncing the minimal pairs in table one; there are also other errors that a student made when pronouncing the consonant /v/ in the minimal pairs above, particularly in the initial position. The first is that she alters the pronunciation of consonant /v/ in the terms extremely and vast into consonant /p/, as seen in the table. The second problem she made when committing this error was that she altered the consonant /v/ in the word vat into the sound /b/, which is unusual for faults in pronouncing the consonant /v/. Table 3. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /f/ & /θ/̠ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error fought - thought /fɔːt/ - /θɔːt/ /θ̠/ → /d/ /dɔːt/ - Sample 1 /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11,12 author - offer /ɔːθər/ - /ɔːfər/ /θ̠/ → /t+h/ /ɔːthər/ Sample 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11 /θ̠/ → /s/ Sample 12 /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 1, 9 deaf - death /def/ - /deθ/ /θ̠/ → /t+h/ /deth/ Sample 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 1, 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11 fin - thin /fɪn/ - /θɪn/ /θ̠/ → /t̠ʃ/ / t̠ʃɪn/ - Sample 1 /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11, 12 ruths - roofs /ruːθs/ - /ruːfs/ /θ̠/ → /t+h/ /ruːths/ Sample 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 1, 9 /θ̠/ → /s/ Sample 12 duff - doth /dʌf/ - /dʌθ/ /θ̠/ → /t+h/ /dʌth/ Sample 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 1, 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11 /θ̠/ → /s/ Sample 12 free - three /friː/ - /θriː/ /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ wreaths - reefs /riːθs/ - /riːfs/ /θ̠/ → /t+h/ /riːths/ Sample 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. - https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 135 Sample 11,12 /θ̠/ → /t/ Sample 1, 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11 /θ̠/ → /s/ Sample 12 frill - thrill /frɪl/ - /θrɪl/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 9 /θ̠/ → /f/ Sample 11,12 - - In Table 3, students made a lot of mistakes when pronouncing the dental fricative consonants, which are /θ/. Mistakes can be noticed, such as converting the dental fricative in the starting position to /d/, /c/, /f/, and /t/. The second step is to change the / in the medial position to t+h, /t/, /f/, and /s/. Finally, the students changed the dental fricative / into t+h, /t/, /f/, and /s/ in the final position of the minimal pairs. Only a few interviewees from the whole sample succeed in pronouncing this minimum pair, which are samples 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 19, and the pronunciation of the dental fricative consonant /θ/ is acceptable from samples 4, 5, 6, and 19. Samples 7, 8, and 16, on the other hand, pronounced the dental fricative consonant / almost as well as a native speaker, which is a plus. Table 4. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /d/ & /ð̠/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error day - they /deɪ/ - /ðeɪ/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 8 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 breather - breeder /briːðə/ - /briːdə/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 read - wreath /riːd/ - /riːθ/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 dine - thine /daɪn/ - /ðaɪn/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 8 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 header - heather /ˈhedə/ - /ˈheðə/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 lied - lithe /ˈlaɪd/ - /laɪð/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 den - then /den/ - /ðen/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 8 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 wordy - worthy /ˈwɜːdɪ/ - /ˈwɜːðɪ/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 1 /ð/ → /t+h/ load - loathe /ləʊd/ - /ləʊð/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 136 Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 dough - though /dəʊ/ - /ðəʊ/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 8 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 5, 6 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 feder - feather /ˈfedə/ - /ˈfeðə/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 had - hath /hæd/ - /hæθ/ /ð/ → /d/ Sample 1, 10, 11, 19 /ð/ → /θ/ Sample 7, 16, 17 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 The mistakes in Table 4 are nearly identical to the errors in the preceding table since the consonants presented in both tables come from the same way and place of articulation, which is dental fricative consonants. The table shows four sorts of deviations made by students throughout the interview: converting /ð/ into /d/, /ð/ into /t/, /ð/ into /θ/, and the last is turning /ð/ into t+h. Let's start with the first mistake, which is converting the /ð/ to /d/ and /t/. Essentially, the reasons that causes the occurrence of the interlingual mistake in the consonant / is the inability of the majority of the students to place their tongue in the appropriate position, which is in our mouth's rabbit teeth. The students who created this erroneously positioned their tongue in the alveolar ridge rather than behind the incisors, resulting in the alveolar consonants /d/ and /t/. In Indonesian students or individuals, the deviation of /ð/ is typically linked with the consonant /d/ because it is simpler to pronounce the consonant /d/ rather than putting the tongue in the correct place behind in the center of the incisors, which is rather difficult to follow (Irianto, Imranuddin, & Syafrizal S, 2018). The second error discovered during the interview section with the students was mispronouncing the voiced dental fricative consonant / as the voiceless dental fricative consonant / due to their knowledge limitation of the issue that there is also the voiced dental fricative in the English language that is shaped by the combination of the consonants /t/ and /h/ in the words. Table 5. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /d / & /ʤ/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error deep - jeep /diːp/ - /ʤiːp/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 murder - merger /ˈmɜːdə/ - /ˈmɜːʤə/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 bad - badge /bæd/ - /bæʤ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 dog - jog /dɒg/ - /ʤɒg/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 raiding - raging /ˈreɪdɪŋ/ - /ˈreɪʤɪŋ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 paid - page /peɪd/ - /peɪʤ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 dent - gent /dent/ - /ʤent/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 aiding - aging /ˈeɪdɪŋ/ - /ˈeɪʤɪŋ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 seed - siege /siːd/ - /siːʤ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 doused - joust /daʊst/ - /ʤaʊst/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 3 header - hedger /ˈhedə/ - /ˈheʤə/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 bud - budge /bʌd/ - /bʌʤ/ /ʤ/ → /g/ Sample 1, 3 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 137 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 /ʤ/ → /j/ Sample 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 According to Table 5 above, there are two major errors identified in the minimum pair above that were made by the students throughout my interview with them. Let's start with the first error in the minimum pair above: changing the palato-alveolar consonant /ʤ/ to the velar consonant /g/. Because of the similarity between the consonants, it makes sense if the pronunciation of the consonant /ʤ/ is turning into the consonant /g/ because the students were confused about how to place the tongue clearly and, of course, the English language knowledge limitation, particularly in this consonant (Maiza, 2020). The second error in this basic pair, which is already becoming the most prevalent, is changing the voiced palate-alveolar consonant /ʤ/ to one of the consonants in Indonesian, which is the consonant /j/. This occurs due to the absence of the voiced palate-alveolar consonant in the Indonesian language, and the closest /ʤ/ that the Indonesian people have in their language is the palatal and plosive consonant /j/ with the exception of a small amount of air coming out of the mouth when pronouncing it (Ma’arif & Robayanah, 2021). Table 6. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /t̠/ & /t̠ʃ/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error till - chill /tɪl/ - /ʧɪl/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 witter - witcher /ˈwɪtə/ - /ˈwɪʧə/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 /ʧ/ → /j/ Sample 1 bent - bench /bent/ - /benʧ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 time - chime /taɪm/ - /ʧaɪm/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 hitting - hitching /ˈhɪtɪŋ/ - /ˈhɪʧɪŋ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 beat - beach /biːt/ - /biːʧ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 taste - chased /teɪst/ - /ʧeɪst/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 kitten - kitchen /ˈkɪtn/ - /ˈkɪʧɪn/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 port - porch /pɔːt/ - /pɔːʧ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 /ʧ/ → /ʃ/ Sample 1 turps - chirps /tɜːps/ - /ʧɜːps/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 renting - wrenching /ˈrentɪŋ/ - /ˈrenʧɪŋ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 lint - lynch /lɪnt/ - /lɪnʧ/ /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 18 As seen in Table 6, only two students made the error for this minimum pair, which is converting the consonant /ʧ/ into the sound /j/ in Indonesian and the consonant /ʃ/ in English. The following student, sample 18, made a mistake by changing all of the consonants /ʧ/ to the consonant /c/ in Indonesian. Let us begin with the pronunciation variation of the consonant /ʧ/, which becomes the consonants /j/ and /c/ in the Indonesian language. I presume that the reason for turning the consonants /j/ and /c/ is the same as in the preceding table, where the consonant/ʧ/ is being replaced by both of the consonants in the Indonesian language, which are /j/ and /c/, owing to the absence of the consonant /ʧ/ in the Indonesian language. For the next error, which is turning the consonant /ʧ/ into the consonant /ʃ/, I seem to be unable to find the correlation of why the voiceless palate-alveolar consonant /ʧ/ is turning into the consonant /ʃ/ in the final position, which is quite random, and more in-depth research is required to determine the exact factor of why this occurred to the student. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 138 Table 7. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /t/ and /θ/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error tank - thank /tæŋk/ - /θæŋk/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19 eater - ether /ˈiːtə/ - /ˈiːθə/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 6, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 girt - girth /gɜːt/ - /gɜːθ/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 tree - three /triː/ - /θriː/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19 looter - luther /ˈluːtə/ - /ˈluːθə/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 6, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 part - path /pɑːt/ - /pɑːθ/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 trill - thrill /trɪl/ - /θrɪl/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19 nutting - nothing /ˈnʌtɪŋ/ - /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 6, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 debt - death /det/ - /deθ/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 tread - thread /tred/ - /θred/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19 rootless - ruthless /ˈruːtlɪs/ - /ˈruːθlɪs/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1, 6, 17 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 fate - faith /feɪt/ - /feɪθ/ /θ/ → /t/ Sample 1 /θ/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 This study also observed the variants of error consonants minimal pairs /t/ and /θ/ in Table 7, which only contains two varieties of mistake, which are the change of voiceless dental fricative consonant /θ/ into voiceless alveolar plosive consonant /t/ and the deviation of consonant /θ/ into the consonant /t+h/. Before performing the research on this minimum pair, I assumed that most of the students would make the mistake of pronouncing the voiceless dental fricative consonant /θ/ as the consonant /t/, which is a common mistake made by Indonesians when pronouncing this sort of minimal pair. For the time being, the specific elements for why students pronounce the consonant /θ/ as /t+h/ is the students' lack of pronunciation knowledge of this consonant. Nonetheless, further study on this subject may expand the number of triggering reasons for the variation in the pronunciation of dental fricatives consonants. Table 8. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /ʃ/ & /t̠ʃ/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error share - chair /ʃeə/ - /ʧeə/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 washer - watcher /ˈwɒʃə/ - /ˈwɒʧə/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 wash - watch /wɒʃ/ - /wɒʧ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 shoes - choose /ʃuːz/ - /ʧuːz/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 cashing - catching /ˈkæʃɪŋ/ - /ˈkæʧɪŋ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 swish - switch /swɪʃ/ - /swɪʧ /ʃ/ → /s/ https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 139 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 /ʃ/ → /z/ Sample 17 /ʃ/ → /k/ Sample 15 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 shop - chop /ʃɒp/ - /ʧɒp/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 /ʃ/ → /z/ Sample 17 busher - butcher /ˈbʊʃə/ - /ˈbʊʧə/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 leash - leach /liːʃ/ - /liːʧ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 cheer - sheer /ʧɪə/ - /ʃɪə/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 racial - rachel /reɪʃəl/ - /reɪtʃəl/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 crush - crutch /krʌʃ/ - /krʌʧ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /ʧ/ → /c/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15 The mistakes arise when the voiceless palate-alveolar fricative sound /ʃ/ is converted into the consonants /s/, /z/, and /k/ (Table 8). Not only that, but the voiceless palate- alveolar affricate consonant /ʧ/ is being changed to the consonant /c/ in Indonesian. This might be due to the absence of the consonant /ʧ/ in Indonesian, and the students substituted it with the closest consonant that closely matches the consonant /ʧ/ in English, which is the palatal plosive consonant /c/. The consonant /ʃ/ may be changed into the consonant /k/ because the consonant /k/ is a plosive consonant and the sound /ʃ/ is a fricative consonant, which is the same, thus the change makes sense. Nonetheless, additional research on this topic is required by closely examining the transitions of the consonant /ʃ/ into the sound /k/. For the error of converting the consonant /ʃ/ to the consonant /z/, it can be seen that both the consonants /ʃ/ and /z/ share the same method of articulation and the location of articulation for both of them is adjacent to each other, but the consonant /z/ is voiced, thus it is an odd one. Table 9. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /s/ & /ʃ/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error sea - she /siː/ - /ʃiː/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 10, 14, 15 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 13 dissing - dishing /ˈdɪsɪŋ/ - /ˈdɪʃɪŋ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 10 crass - crash /kræs/ - /kræʃ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 save - shave /seɪv/ - /ʃeɪv/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 13 messing - meshing /ˈmesɪŋ/ - /ˈmeʃɪŋ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 10 mass - mash /mæs/ - /mæʃ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 said - shed /sed/ - /ʃed/ /ʃ/ → /s/ least - leashed /liːst/ - /liːʃt/ /ʃ/ → /s/ puss - push /pʊs/ - /pʊʃ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 140 Sample 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 13 Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 10 Sample 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 sake - shake /seɪk/ - /ʃeɪk/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 10, 14, 15 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 13 fist - fished /fɪst/ - /fɪʃt/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /s / → / ʃ / Sample 10 bass - bash /bæs/ - /bæʃ/ /ʃ/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 Total 30 Total 40 Total 32 Table 9 is an extension of the mistakes in Table 8 where the voiceless palate-alveolar fricative consonant /ʃ/ transforms into the consonant /s/, and it happens again in this table. The next error in the table above is the deviation of the consonant /s/ into the c Let us begin with the first mistake, which is the substitution of the consonant /ʃ/ for the sound /s/. Students are likely to be perplexed as to which articulatory component is correct for pronouncing the consonant /ʃ/, and if they cannot get it correctly, they will default to the sound /s/, which they are already familiar with and employ in Indonesian. For the following error, which is converting the sound /s/ to the consonant /ʃ. The researchers believe it is simply because the students became confused about how to pronounce the words presented in the table. Table 10. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /s/ and /z/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error - - facing - phasing /ˈfeɪsɪŋ/ - /ˈfeɪzɪŋ/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10, 12, ice - eyes /aɪs/ - /ˈaɪz/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10 - - rices - rises /ˈraɪsɪz/ - /ˈraɪzɪz/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10 price - prize /praɪs/ - /praɪz/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10 - - - sauce - saws /sɔːs/ - /sɔːz/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10 - - - gross - grows /grəʊs/ - /grəʊz/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 /z/ → /ʃ/ Sample 10 As can be seen in Table 10, the start portion of the minimum pair of the consonants /z/ and /s/ does not occur in English, thus this table only contains the medial and final positions. Despite the lack of beginning position in this basic pair, we can observe that virtually every student who serves as the study's sample makes the error of changing the consonant /z/ to the consonant /s/. The second error in the table above is the translation of the consonant /z/ into the consonant /ʃ/, which is only done by two students, sample numbers 10 and 12. The absence of use of the sound /z/ in https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 141 our daily lives was the cause for the students' difficulty pronouncing it. It is true that there are certain terms in Indonesian such as zakat, ziarah, zamzam, and many more, however there are no words in Indonesian that contain the consonant /z/ in the medial or final position, only in the starting position. These terms are not often used by Indonesians on a daily basis, but rather when a specific event or series of events has occurred. Table 11. The Interlingual Errors of consonants minimal pairs /z/ & / ð̠/ INITIAL MEDIAL FINAL MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error MP and Transcript Students’ Error zen - then /zen/ - /ðen/ /z/ → /s/ /ð → /t/ Sample 1, 5, 11 /ð/ → /d/ Sample 9, 12, 13 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 15 teasing - teething /ˈtiːzɪŋ/ - /ˈtiːðɪŋ/ /z/ → /s/ /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 9 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 13 whizz - with /wɪz/ - /wɪð/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 9, 17, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 zee - thee /ziː/ - /ðiː/ /z/ → /s/ /ð → /t/ Sample 1, 5, 11 /ð/ → /d/ Sample 9, 12, 13 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 15 closing - clothing /ˈkləʊzɪŋ/ - /ˈkləʊðɪŋ/ /z/ → /s/ /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 9 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 13 close - clothe /kləʊs/ - /kləʊð/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 9, 17, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 closed - clothed /kləʊzd/ - /kləʊðd/ /z/ → /s/ /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 9 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 13 bays - bathe /ˈbeɪz/ - /beɪð/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 9, 17, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 wizard - withered /ˈwɪzəd/ - /ˈwɪðəd/ /z/ → /s/ /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t/ Sample 9 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 13 lies - lithe /ˈlaɪz/ - /laɪð/ /z/ → /s/ Sample 9, 17, 18, 19 /ð/ → /t+h/ Sample 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 This table contains four errors, which are the errors of converting the /ð/ to the consonants /d/, /t/, and /t+h/. There is just one mistake for the consonant /z/, which is the transformation of the sound /z/ into the consonant /s/. All of these errors occurred in the previous table, and we can see the pattern or errors that the students committed in this table. The interlingual mistake for the consonant /z/ would be the transformation of /z/ into /s/. The errors in the voiced dental fricative consonant /ð/ would be around the consonants /t/ and /t+h/. After knowing about the triggering variables, the researchers can certainly identify which students are engaged https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 142 in creating the errors in this research, which students make the most errors, and which students excel at pronouncing the minimum pairings given in question 1. As a result, in question 1, This research can identify that the students who are poor at pronouncing the minimal pairs and create more interlingual mistakes, as well as the students who are good at pronouncing the minimal pairs and generate less interlingual errors. The graph is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Chart of number of interlingual errors in every student The students who are always making interlingual errors in question 1 may be classified into four groups based on the amount of interlingual errors and the CEFR Phonological scale for pronunciation abilities. The first group is not able to use all phonological features, which are at the A1 level on the CEFR Phonological scale. I discovered some resemblance among all of the students in this pronunciation group with the A1 level. For starters, it is well known that all of them violated the majority of the consonants in the minimum pairs provided. This already violates one requirement of phonological awareness, which states that language users must understand the distinctions between vowels, consonants, and diphthongs. All of the students in the severe pronunciation group struggled with the pronunciation of the minimal pairings supplied. Most of them are unable to distinguish between consonants, vowels, and diphthongs; nevertheless, the mistakes with vowels and diphthongs are not as bad as the problems with minimum pairs. The clear articulation for consonant minimum pairs is the second criterion they violate. The articulation for the consonants when they were uttered by the severe category is not distinct enough to be used in communication since they occasionally said one consonant and then stated another consonant. Hence, the students in this group continue to talk haltingly during the pronunciation of the words, as if they are truly thinking and attempting to grasp the words in the table, but fail to do it correctly. Moreover, the pronunciation category is significantly affected by the Indonesian language, students in this category do not use a native-like manner while pronouncing these consonants. The next category is the poor category, or the A2 level on the CEFR Phonological scale. Overall, students in this group are almost identical to students in the severe pronunciation category since the number of errors they made is nearly identical to the number of errors in the severe pronunciation category, albeit not as many as the severe pronunciation category. Nonetheless, despite the similarities with the severe group, students in this category can distinguish the vowels, consonants, and diphthongs listed in the tables. They can distinguish them, but only in terms of basic skill. Sample 6 represents the middle category or B2 level in the CEFR phonological scale, where students have made significant progress. During the interview and her voice messages of the consonants, she was able to distinguish the vowels, consonants, and diphthongs and pronounce them correctly, despite the Indonesian accent still influencing her pronunciation. Most importantly, there was no hesitancy when pronouncing the consonants, which is beneficial for future communication with speakers and learners of other languages. Sample 6 represents the middle category or B2 level in the CEFR phonological scale, where students have made significant progress. During the interview and her voice messages of the consonants, she was able to distinguish the vowels, consonants, and diphthongs and pronounce them correctly, despite the Indonesian accent still influencing her pronunciation. Most importantly, there was no hesitancy when pronouncing the consonants, which is beneficial for future communication with speakers and learners of other languages. The final category in which students can be found is outstanding, or C1 on the CEFR Phonological Scale. They all spoke English at an extremely high degree in this category. They can already distinguish between vowels, consonants, and diphthongs, and they did it admirably. 5. Discussion This study explored the interlingual errors of consonants produced by Indonesian high school students when using English minimal pairs in the initial, medial, and final positions. Ambalegin and Arianto (2018) performed a study that supports the concept that the consonant /v/ is an anomaly for English language learners to the Indonesian people since we Indonesians do not use the consonant /v/. This study also indicated that the change from /v/ to /f/ by Indonesian EFL 0 50 100 150 S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S 7 S 8 S 9 S 1 0 S 1 1 S 1 2 S 1 3 S 1 4 S 1 5 S 1 6 S 1 7 S 1 8 S 1 9IN T E R LI N G U A L E R R O R S Excellent Good Bad Severe https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 143 learners in initial postion is very common (Purba, 2018; Andi-Pallawa & Alam, 2013). The transition from consonant /v/ to consonants /p/ and /b/ is common among Indonesians because we utilize the other labial consonants in our daily lives as Indonesians, which are consonants /p/ and /b/ (Hasyim, 2020). Untoro & Rustipa (2020) also claimed that the start position for the consonant /v/ is more difficult to speak than the medial and final positions since the first sound in the word is always difficult to pronounce Another interlingual error happened in English pronunciation because the students presume that the sounds of consonants in English like in Bahasa (Irianto, Imranuddin, & Sabaruddin, 2018). When it comes to the mistakes that the students made, each one had its own cause and elements for why the dental fricative /θ/ transformed into different consonants, and we can already detect a pattern in it. To pronounce both of these dental fricatives, we must additionally narrow our airway from the vocal chords, which happens spontaneously when we place our tongue behind our incisors. As a result, we already have our first answer as to why the majority of students struggle to pronounce the voiceless dental fricative, which is that they are unable to produce a breath of air from the air passage in the vocal chords when they place their tongue behind the incisors (Wafi et al., 2020), and this occurrence is typical of people who are pronouncing the voiceless dental fricative (Fauzi, 2020). When the point of articulation to pronounce the dental fricative consonant /θ/ is incorrect, the consonant /θ/ is also put as the consonant /f/ in by the students (Putra, 2019). This occurrence is also seen in Slovakian students (Metruk, 2017), and it appears that in this study, the percentage of students who chose consonant /f/ as a replacement for / θ/ is greater since both are in the form of a minimum pair. The consonants /d/ and /s/ have the same place of articulation, which is in the alveolar ridge in the mouth (the area where you can feel a slight non-flat thing behind your rabbit teeth) (Fuchs & Birkholz, 2019), and this is the tricky part for English language learners, because the place of articulation between the two is the same. However, additional study is required to determine why the deviation of the dental fricative consonant /θ/ can be changed into the alveolar consonants /d/ and /s/ (Puspandari, 2013). Not only that, but the mistake of the palato-alveolar consonant /t/ is surprising to exist since the place and manner of articulation are already distinct from the dental fricative consonants (Situmeang & Lubis, 2020). The most prevalent error discovered during the interview part with the students was that they separated the pronunciation of the consonant /t/ and the sound /h/. They follow their native consonant sounds when producing English consonant sounds (Silalahi, 2017). To pronounce the dental fricative consonant /θ/, we can observe that the consonant is produced by the consonants /t/ and /h/ in the words. This may be attributed to a lack of knowledge of how the dental fricative consonant /θ/ functions in the English language, as the dental fricative consonant /θ/ does not exist in Indonesian (Trisnawati et al., 2020). The pronunciation of voiceless dental fricative sounds /θ/ in the initial position is often pronounced /t/ by students (Merrita, 2021). Meanwhile, the pronunciation of /θ/ in the middle of a word is often produced using the sound /t/, /ð/, /d/ followed by the alveolar /s/ (Firdaus et al., 2020). The low motivation of students in learning English is due to weakness in the correct pronunciation of English words. This actually makes difficult for students to practice articulating consonant sounds that are not found in Indonesian. The inappropriate pronunciation in EFL students are caused by the incomprehensive prior instruction on the sounds by teachers (Bui, 2016). Another factor that can influence someone’s perception is ear’s perception. Indonesian EFL learners sometimes ignore the production of consonant sounds in English (Fadillah, 2020). EFL students have lack of phonological and phonetical awareness of the phonetic differences between their own native pronunciations and English sound consonants (Plailek & Al, 2021). This research is far from ideal in terms of mistake analysis and interlingual errors, therefore we have a few suggestions for future researchers. First, because it is still new, the newly proposed approach of assessing interlingual mistakes, which uses minimum pairings, requires additional research and development. Second, the novel research topic of determining the relationship between interlingual mistakes and speaking skill in English language learners requires more development and future research since the results of one successful study do not guarantee the same results in another. Third, numerous random mistakes were discovered in this study, and further research will be required to determine the unknown components that cause the random errors or unknown errors. Finally, the economic element is likely to occur since students in the C1 level of outstanding category stated that they learned English on their own, which is noteworthy because typically, someone who self-taught themselves English has enough or suitable facilities. Nonetheless, additional study will be required in this area. 6. Conclusion By using The CEFR Phonological Scale of Overall Phonological Control as a method, this study concludes that the consonant minimum pairings /d/ & /ð/ are the most often deviated minimal pair used by students in this study. The minimum pair of /f/ & /v/ comes the second, and the minimal pair of /ʃ/ & /t̠ʃ/ comes the third in the most interlingual errors in this study. The minimal pairs of /d / & /ʤ/ are in the fourth place, and the minimal pairings of /t/ and /θ/ are in the fifth place. If the consonants do not sound comparable to Indonesian consonants, students will have a difficult time pronouncing them. Third, for the remaining consonants that do not exist in the Indonesian language, the difficulty in determining the appropriate location of articulation and manner of articulation while pronouncing https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 144 the English consonants minimum pairs is the primary effect of their absence in the Indonesian language. Furthermore, despite the fact that consonants such as /z/ exist in the Indonesian language, the students found it difficult to pronounce it since Indonesians do not typically use the sound /z/ in everyday speech, but only to signify something specific. As a result, it may be inferred that students with lower or higher scores in the good (B2) and outstanding (C1) categories have good speaking ability since their phonological and phonemic awareness are in place. Meanwhile, students in the poor (A2) and severe (A1) categories do not have strong speaking ability due to a lack of phonological and phonemic awareness while uttering the consonant minimum pairs supplied. This demonstrates that interlingual mistakes are connected with students' speaking ability, the greater their speaking ability owing to the fulfillment of the norms in phonological and phonemic awareness. References Ambalegin, A., & Arianto, T. (2018). ENGLISH VOWELS AND CONSONANTS MISPRONUNCIATION OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA IN HIS OFFICIAL ENGLISH SPEECHES AND ITS INFLUENCING FACTORS. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 2(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v2i2.678 Andi-Pallawa, B., & Alam, A. F. A. (2013). A Comparative Analysis between English and Indonesian Phonological Systems. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(3), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v1i3.3892 Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8– 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001 Bui, T. S. (2016). PRONUNCIATION OF CONSONANTS /ð/ AND /θ/ BY ADULT VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2744 Bunce, P. (2020). Phonemic Awareness: A Core Phonological Skill in Learning English. JALT Postconference Publication, 2019(1), 314. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTPCP2019-37 Cao, R., & Jin, S. (2018). Phonological Differences between Received Pronunciation and Standard Scottish English. Proceedings of the 2017 International Seminar on Social Science and Humanities Research (SSHR 2017). 2017 International Seminar on Social Science and Humanities Research (SSHR 2017), Arnoma, Thailand. https://doi.org/10.2991/sshr- 17.2018.21 Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed). Blackwell Pub. Daud, B., & Salamah, U. (2016). Teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in English Beginning reading. English Education Journal, 7(3), 329–340. Fadhillah, M. F., & Miftakh, F. (2020). EFL STUDENTS’ PRONUNCIATION ERROR ANALYSIS ON ENGLISH SHORT VOWEL SOUNDS. 1, 9. Fadillah, A. C. (2020). PRONUNCIATION DIFFICULTIES OF EFL LEARNERS IN INDONESIA: A LITERATURE STUDY. Jurnal Budaya Brawijaya, 2(1), 7–13. Fauzi, F. (2020). Error Analysis of Sundanese English Pronunciation on Fricatives Sound. Buletin Al-Turas, 20(1), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.15408/bat.v20i1.3756 Firdaus, S. F., Indrayani, L. M., & Soemantri, Y. S. (2020). The Production of Interdental Fricatives by English as a Foreign Language Students in English Course Bandung. Linguistics and ELT Journal, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.31764/leltj.v8i1.2546 Fuchs, S., & Birkholz, P. (2019). Phonetics of Consonants. In S. Fuchs & P. Birkholz, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013 .410 Hasyim, M. (2020). PROBLEMATIC ENGLISH SEGMENTAL SOUNDS: EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIAN LEARNERS OF ENGLISH. Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), 10. KAHPES-2. Hu, M. (2019). The Relationship between English Phonological Awareness of Chinese English Learners and Their English Skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0901.07 Huo, S., & Wang, S. (2017). The Effectiveness of Phonological-Based Instruction in English As a Foreign Language Students at Primary School Level: A Research Synthesis. Frontiers in Education, 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00015 Irianto, N. A., Imranuddin, & Sabaruddin, S. (2018). AN ANALYSIS OF PRONUNCIATION ERRORS OF ENGLISH CONSONANTS: /?/ And /ð/ BY THE STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU. Journal of English Education and https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 145 Teaching, 2(3), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.2.3.18-28 Irianto, N. A., Imranuddin, & Syafrizal S. (2018). AN ANALYSISOFPRONUNCIATION ERRORS OF ENGLISH CONSONANTS : /θ/ and /ð/ BY THE STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 2(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.32678/loquen.v12i1.1676 James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman. Khan, M., & Khan, R. (2021). Phonological Awareness and Phonics Instruction: Inclusive practice that benefits all kinds of learners. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 8(1), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.3850/S2345734121000076 Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review: QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768 Lestari, D. D., Suryani, F. B., & Nuraeningsih, N. (2020). PRONUNCIATION ERRORS MADE BY EFL STUDENT TEACHERS IN SPEECH PERFORMANCE. Prominent, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.24176/pro.v3i2.5396 Ma’arif, M. S., & Robayanah, S. Q. (2021). KAJIAN FONOLOGI BAHASA INDONESIA DALAM KUMPULAN VIDEO MAK BETI KARYA ARIF MUHAMMAD. 1(01), 20. Maiza, M. (2020). An Analysis of Students’ Pronunciation Errors. Journal of English Education and Literature, 1(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.38114/joeel.v1i1.27 Martanti, I. F. R. (2022). Pronunciation Errors in Students’ Vlog Projects. Acitya: Journal of Teaching and Education, 4(1), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.30650/ajte.v4i1.3221 Merrita, D. (2021). THE PRODUCTION OF ENGLISH CONSONANTS /θ/ AND /ð/ BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS. LINGUA : JURNAL ILMIAH, 17(2), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.35962/lingua.v17i2.85 Metruk, R. (2017). Pronunciation of English Dental Fricatives by Slovak University EFL Students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n3p11 Mubarok, Y., & Nur’aisyah, A. H. (2020). Native Language Interference in Learning a Second Language. Buletin Al-Turas, 26(1), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.15408/bat.v26i1.13797 Pardede, P. (2018). Improving EFL Students’ English Pronunciation by Using the Explicit Teaching Approach. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 4(3), 143. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v4i3.852 Piccardo, E., Goodier, T., & North, B. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. www.coe.int/lang-cefr Plailek, T., & Al, E. (2021). Pronunciation Problems and Factors Affecting English Pronunciation of EFL Students. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(12), 2026–2033. Pourhosein Gilakjani, A., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). Why Is English Pronunciation Ignored by EFL Teachers in Their Classes? International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(6), 195. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n6p195 Pratiwi, D. R., & Indrayani, L. M. (2021). Pronunciation Error on English Diphthongs Made by EFL Students. TEKNOSASTIK, 19(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.33365/ts.v19i1.486 Purba, C. N. (2018). The Pronunciation Problems of the English Department Students in the University of HKBP Nommensen. Journal of English Teaching as a Foreign Language, 4(1), 57–67. Puspandari, A. (2013). Erroneous Production of Apico- Dental Fricative Consonant Sounds by Javenese School Students. Lexicon, 2(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.22146/lexicon.v2i2.42179 Putra, F. P. (2019). An Error Analysis of English Plosive and Fricative Consonants at Vocational High Schools. Wanastra : Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra, 11(2), 141– 150. https://doi.org/10.31294/w.v11i2.6213 Rahman, I. F. (2018). THE USE OF MINIMAL PAIR TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING PRONUNCIATION AT THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMAN 4 BANTIMURUNG. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 4(2), 276. https://doi.org/10.24252/Eternal.V42.2018.A11 Ramasari, M. (2017). Students Pronounciation Error Made in Speaking for General Communication. Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal, 1(1), 37– 48. https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v1i1.32 Rokhman, M. F., Lintangsari, A. P., & Perdhani, W. C. (2020). EFL learners’ phonemic awareness: A correlation between English phoneme identification https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 131-146 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693 How to cite this article: Sayogie, F., & Adbaka, M. F. (2022). Interlingual Errors in Indonesian EFL learners' Pronunciation: From Minimal Pairs to Speaking Ability. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2) 131-146. 146 skill toward word processing. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i2.467 Romupal, E. L., Rubio, C. M., & Toquero, C. M. (2021). Learning by Doing Intervention: Addressing Phonological Difficulties of Children through Audiolingual Method and Total Physical Response. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 3(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v3i3.6778 Sari, E. M. P. (2016). INTERLINGUAL ERRORS AND INTRALINGUAL ERRORS FOUND IN NARRATIVE TEXT WRITTEN BY EFL STUDENTS IN LAMPUNG. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 17(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v17i2.2501 Silalahi, R. M. P. (2017). Pronunciation Problems of Indonesian EFL Learners: An Error Analysis. Journal of English Language and Culture, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v6i2.263 Situmeang, I. T., & Lubis, R. F. (2020). Students’ Difficulties in Pronouncing Fricative Consonant. English Education : English Journal for Teaching and Learning, 8(01), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.24952/ee.v8i01.2676 Sokip, Dr. (2020). Overcoming the Problem of Learning Foreign Language Skills in the Classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 723–729. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080246 Trisnawati, I., Mulyani, S., & Syam, A. (2020). Error Analysis on English Consonant Pronunciation Produced By The Fifth Semester Students of English Education Department. TAMADDUN LIFE, 19(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.33096/tamaddun.v19i2.77 Untoro, S., & Rustipa, K. (2020). MISPRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES AND AFFRICATES PRODUCED BY ENGLISH STUDENTS OF STIKUBANK UNIVERSITY. Dinamika Bahasa Dan Budaya, 15(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.35315/bb.v15i2.8222 Wafi, A., Ratnawati, R., & Fuqaha’, A. (2020). Error Analysis on Voicing Sounds Uttered by English Department Students at State Islamic Institute of Madura. PANYONARA: Journal of English Education, 2(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.19105/panyonara.v2i2.3412 Yeung, S. S. S., Siegel, L. S., & Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9383-6 Yusriati, Y., & Hasibuan, S. H. (2019). The Analysis of English Pronunciation Errors by English Education Students of FKIP UMSU. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 3(2), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.3.2.230-248 Zhu, M. (2019). The Important Part of Error Analysis in Second Language Acquisition. 254–258. https://doi.org/10.2991/hsmet-19.2019.45 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9693