38 EEJ 4 (1) (2014) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej PRONUNCIATION ERRORS MADE BY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN READING ENGLISH TEXTS ALOUD Wuri Syaputri  Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Info Artikel ________________ Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Oktober 2014 Disetujui Oktober 2014 Dipublikasikan Juni 2014 ________________ Keywords: Error analysis; Pronunciation; Reading aloud ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ The objective of this study was to identify the types of pronunciation error, causes of pronunciation error, the teacher/students way to overcome pronunciation error, and teacher’s influence in causing students pronunciation error. The method of this study was descriptive qualitative. The objects of this study were 15 students of eleventh graders Global Madani School Bandar Lampung. The texts were 15 texts consisted of 2.417 words. The text were read by the students then were analyzed by the researcher. The result of the data analysis showed that the student’s pronunciation errors were defined into three types. They were pre-systematic, systematic, and post-systematic errors. The students got the difficulties in pronouncing /ŋ/, /d/, /ʤ/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ð/, /θ/, /∫/, and /g/. These phoneme errors were found in the initial, medial and final positions of the words. The causes of errors were interference, intralingual and developmental errors. Interference errors were dialect, accent and the similarities of pronouncing the words between L1 and L2. Intralingual error was the result of the student’s generalization. The developmental error was the student’s result of lack of interlanguage knowledge. The teacher overcomes the errors by three ways. They were repetition, silence and correction. © 2014 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Alamat korespondensi: Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233 E-mail: pps@unnes.ac.id ISSN 2087-0108 Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 39 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 (2012) 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. RESEARCH METHODS In this study, the researcher observed the 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. There were five steps of the data analysis. 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. Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 40 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Types of Error There were several types of error according to experts. In this study I focused on Corder (1974) as cited in Ellis (1994: 56), there were three types of errors. Pre-systematic Errors 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. 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/, /ˈlɪstən /, /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/. Post-systematic Error Post-systematic error occurs 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 Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 41 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/. Causes of the Students’ Errors According to Richards (1971b) as cited in Ellis (1994:58) 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 Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 42 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. Students Strive to Overcome Errors 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”. Teacher’s Influence in Causing Students’ Errors 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. CONCLUSIONS 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 Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 43 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 my 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 there 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 there 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 studentsinterlanguage 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, the teacher/students try to 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 Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 44 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 students transfer knowledge in proper rules. REFERENCES Brown, H. Douglas. 1993. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. San Francisco: Prentice Hall Regents. Carbera, et. al. 2002.Input and Interlanguage in the EFL Classroom: a Case Study with Primary School Teachers. University of La Laguna and University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.CUCE, Revista de Fiologia y suDidactica, No. 25.Retrived on January 9th, 2014. Cline, F., Johnstone, C., & King, T. 2006.Focus Group Reaction to Three Definition of Reading (as Originally Developed in Support NARAP Goal 1). Minneapolis, M.N.: National Accessible Reading Assessment Project. Corder, S. P. 1980.research of second language errors. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Corder, S. P. 1981.Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Doddy, et. al. 2008.Developing English Competencies 2: for Senior High School (SMA/MA) Language Programme. SetiaPurna Invest. DepartemenPendidikanNasional. Doddy, et. al. 2008.Developing English Competencies 2: for Senior High School (SMA/MA) Natural and Social Science Programmes.SetiaPurna Invest. DepartemenPendidikanNasional. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. 1974. ‘Natural sequences in child second language acquisition’. Language Learning 24 pp 37-53. Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fauziati, Endang. 2011. Interlanguage and Error Fossilization: a Study of Indonesian Students Learning English as a Foreign Language. Indonesian Journal of Applied of Linguistics.Vol. 1.No. 1.Retrieved on January 9th, 2014. Ho, Caroline Mei Lin, 2003. Empowering English Teachers to Grapple with Errors in Grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 3, March 2003. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/ Retrieved on December 12th, 2013. Hojati, Alireza. 2012. A Study of the Iranian EFL Students' Errors in the Pronunciation of Ten High-frequency Technology-related English Loan Words.Yazd University.Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2. Retrived on January 9th, 2014. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/lee/default.html, Retrieved on January, 9th 2014 https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/eppcontent/glossary/app /resource/factsheet/4108.pdf, Retrieved on January 9th, 2014 Huang, Liangguang. 2010. Reading Aloud in the Foreign Language Teaching. Asian Social Science.Vol. 6, No. 4.Retrived on January 9th, 2014. Kelly, Gerald. 2000. How to teach pronunciation. Essex Longman. England. Larsen, Diane, et al. 1992. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.London: Longman. Luna, Rosa Muñoz. 2010. Interlanguage in Undergraduates’ Academic English: Preliminary Results from Written Script Analysis. Encuentro19, 2010, ISSN 1989-0796.Retrived on January 9th, 2014. Mees, et. al. 2012.Error Analysis of The Pronunciation of English Consonants by Faroese-Speaking Learners.Retrived on January 9th, 2014. Nogita, Akitsuka. 2010. Do Japanese ESL learners’ pronunciation errors come from inability to articulate or misconceptions about target sounds?.University of Victoria Linguistics. Victoria. Vol. 20. No 82-116. Retrived on January 9th, 2014. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/ http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/lee/default.html https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/eppcontent/glossary/app/resource/factsheet/4108.pdf https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/eppcontent/glossary/app/resource/factsheet/4108.pdf Wuri Syaputri / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 45 Nunan, D. (1992), Research Methods in Language Learning, Cambridge: CUP Ogden, Richard. (2009), An Introduction to English Phonetics, Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Paltridge, B. 1996.Genre, text type, and, and the language classroom.ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-243. Available on Grammar_Errors.html, Retrieved on December 12th, 2013. Plum, Guenter. A. 2004. Text and Contextual ConditioninginSpoken English. A Genre-Based Approach. Volume One: Text. Priyana, et. al. 2008.Interlanguage: English for Senior High School Students XI Language Study Programme.PusatPerbukuanDepartemenPendidi kanNasional Roach, Peter. 1984. English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Roach, Peter. 2000. English Phonetics and Phonology.Third Edition.Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Rustipa, Katharina. 2011. Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Interlanguage and the Implication to Language Teaching. Stikubank University (Unisbank) Semarang.RagamJurnalPengembanganHumanior a Vol. 11 No. 1.Retrived on January 9th, 2014. Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage”.International Review of Applied Linguistic in Language Teaching, 10/3, 209-231. Tarone, E. 2006.Interlanguage. Elsevier Ltd. Vol. 4. Retrived on January 9th, 2014.