5. 6684-26814-1-CE.pmd EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Journal homepage: http://jurnal.unmer.ac.id/index.php/enjourme/index Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and hadError analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and hadError analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and hadError analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and hadError analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had 11111Veni Nella Syahputri, Veni Nella Syahputri, Veni Nella Syahputri, Veni Nella Syahputri, Veni Nella Syahputri, 22222Meta Keumala, Meta Keumala, Meta Keumala, Meta Keumala, Meta Keumala, 33333Zahratul IdamiZahratul IdamiZahratul IdamiZahratul IdamiZahratul Idami 1Political and Social Science Faculty, Teuku Umar University, Meulaboh, 23651, Indonesia. 2Insan Qurani Islamic Senior High School, 23361, Aceh Besar, Indonesia 3Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, Institute Agama Islam Negeri Langsa, 24411, Langsa, Indonesia Corresponding author: venninellasyahputri@utu.ac.id ARTICLE INFO Received 04 November 2021 Accepted 17 June 2022 Available online 15 July 2022 Keywords: Error analysis, writing, grammati- cal analysis, auxiliary, and students’ error. DOI: 10.26905/enjourme.v7i1.6580 How to cite this article (APA Style): Syahputri, V.N., Keumala, M., & Idami, Z. (2022). Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had. EnJourMe (English Jour- nal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 7(1) 53-61, d o i : h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 6 9 0 5 / enjourme.v7i1.6684 ABSTRACT Error analysis is considered as a significant part in second and foreign language teaching. It helps teachers in understanding the better approaches for instructing by giving the input on the errors produced by students because students can learn from their errors. This study aimed at analyzing the errors produced by students in using do/does, have/has, and had. The methodology employed in this study was qualitative design. The population in this study was 149 students from all study programs. During the data collection, random sampling was utilized and there were 19 female students and 19 male students involved as the sample of this study. The instrument of this study was the instrument of this research adapted from Harald (2011). Later, the data were analyzed using Taxonomic Analysis. The result of the test showed that from the 38 students as the sample, 12 students were in high level of error, 8 students were in the level of fair, and 18 students were considered in the low level of error. These errors are assumed due to the interference of students’ first language structure to English. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Vol. 7, No, 1, July 2022, Page 53–61 1. Introduction In the time of globalization, world improvement is progressively powerful in every sector, in- cluding in Indonesia. The most engaged language then is English. English is the most usually commu- nicated language of the world, and it is additionally the first language spoken by more than 400 millions individuals all through the world, which makes English as a global language. Dominating English is additionally significant in Indonesia, despite the fact that English is an unknown dialect in Indonesia. It is instructed in all degrees of education: elementary school, middle school, senior sec- ©2022 The Authors. Published by University of Merdeka Malang This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Vol. 7, No. 1, July 2022, pp. 53–61 ondary school, and college level (Yoestara et al., 2020). Certain individuals even decide to enter English Language Instruction program or courses. In learning English, there are four language abili- ties that should be mastered: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. These skills later are considered vital and supporting towards one another. Writing is indeed troublesome, and being a good writer needs innumerable expertise as it has numerous correlation with reading ability as well (Ismail & Fata, 2021; Williams, 2008). Additionally, Norrish (1983) characterizes writing as the language abil- ity with which the local speakers has more issues with, and one which is least mastered. This is a strong reason that makes writing is seen as the hardest skill to acquire. This situation becomes even harder when the teaching and learning process is not carried out in physical classroom (Syahputri et al., 2020). Students in their writing frequently make a few mistakes, including when they need to adapt on clear structure. It could happen regarding the fact that the students do not focus on the writing components such as syntax and structure itself only; but it incorporates the substance, association, jargon, language, and mechanics (Al-Zoubi, 2018; Chen, 2006; James, 1998). These components are not just significant in elucidating ideas that we normally use in our day to day routines, yet addition- ally in each sort of writing. There are many sorts of classification to understand the students’ error, one of them is Surface Strategy Taxonomy. Surface technique scientific classification by Dulay et al. (1982). This taxonomy features the manner in which the erros are produced from the formation stances. The normal mistakes in this taxonomy procedure are omission, addition, misinformation, and misordering. Students might miss morpheme or vital word or add pointless item in their paragraph when writing (Al-Jarf, 2000). In addition, Suhartoyo et al. (2021) exposed students’ barrier in online Writing class. Among all the problems that the students faced, one of them is students low motivation. Thus, studies mentioned the importance of providing essential instruction to develop students’ Writing motivation (Suhartoyo et al, 2021), increase students’ Writing achievement (Hafidz, 2021), and develop students’ academic vocabulary (Lailiyah & Setiyaningsih, 2021). Error analysis is a development to unveil the learning results achieved by students in making interlanguage structure recorded as a speaking and writing which bridges the relationship between the errors made in target language and and source language (Marza & Hafizd, 2013). Errors are viewed to be an absolute process in language learning as they can be recorded during speaking and writing. Fang and Xue-Mei (2007) express error analysis as a study and evaluation of students misleading performance in a language production. Erdogan (2005) portrayed that errors analysis deals with the students’ cognitive performance in seeing or coding the data or information they get from the objective language. Thus, a fundamen- tal point of convergence of errors analysis is considered significance in foreign language teaching and learning process. Error analysis focuses on the syntatic analysis in students’ interlanguage system. Briefly, it can be generally clarified that errors analysis is an action to identify, classify and describe the errors made by students in speaking or writing and it is performed to obtain information on funda- mental difficulties in learning a certain language (Sadiah & Royani, 2019). Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) grouped errors into two classes. They are interlingual errors brought about by the native language impedance, and intralingual errors which happen during the learning system of the second language at organize when they have not genuinely secured information about the target language. To begin with, it is interlingual errors. Interlingual move is essential focal point for language students. Interlingual errors might occur at different levels, for example, at the level of phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexica-semantic parts of the source language into the | 54 | Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had Veni Nella Syahputri, Meta Keumala, Zahratul Idami | 55 | goal language (Erdogan, 2005; Ananda et al., 2014). We can deduce that these kind of mistakes are affected by the essential language which interfere with target language learning. in production this type of errors, the students will interpret word by word conversational verbalizations and the syntac- tic guidelines of the students’ initial language into the subsequent language. The other one is intralingual errors. Intralingual mistakes result from unfinished or incomplete learning of the objective language. They may be achieved by the effect of one objective language thing upon another (James, 1998). For instance, students try to use two tense markers all the while in one sentence since they have not mastered the language at this point. To put it simpler, intralingual errors happen because students speculate about the correctness of the language on their knowledge basis—which is still incomplete and lacking. Thus, on the basis of the above problem description, the researchers interested in investigating the students’ errors in the use of do/ does, have/ has, and had at Insan Qurani Islamic Senior High School, Aceh Besar, Indonesia. There are two kinds of importance that can be profited from this study. Theoretically, the result of this study is expected to help the other researchers acquire informa- tion on the similar hypotheses, and perhaps they can take on further exploration in a the similar discipline. It is also expected that this study can deliver another hypothesis in regards to the analysis of student errors in teaching and learning process. Ideally this study is expected to be helpful for teachers by understanding the students’ syntactic errors. Teachers will then focus favoring the subject that students mostly make errors on. The authors hope that this study can help the teachers in enrich- ing their teaching skill so the students can comprehend the of auxiliaries especilly Do/ Does, Have/ Has, and Had. Concerning about the limitation of time, this study only focused on the analysis of Do/ Does, Have/ Has, and Had found on the students’ mistakes. Besides, the paragraph writing was also dimin- ished into sentence writing alone. Indeed, this study focus on the students’ errors produced in their surface grammar. However, this study does not focus on the causes of the students making errors because of factors from inside of the students or outside, which mean, the researcher does not explain any further analysis on other entailing variables. 2. Method The method of the research is qualiative where researchers focused on describing students’ difficulties in using auxiliary verbs “do, does, has, have, and had”.The subject of this study was the students in the first grade of Insan Qurani Islamic Senior High School which is located in Sub-district of Sukamakmur, Aceh Besar district, and the object of this study was the errors found in their written English test. The population of this research was all of students in first grade of the senior high school which consists of 149 students from all study programs. The researchers gave all students chances to be the subjet of the research by randomizing all of them to be selected. The students were chosen randomly in which there were no criteria in choosing the participant. Thus, the researchers random- ized the students from all classes in grade X. In this study, the researchers selected the samples by doing lottery method. Since the lottery method is quite burdensome if it is done by hand, lottery method is calculated by using Microsoft Excel in order to save time, more effective and efficient. There were 19 | 56 | EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Vol. 7, No. 1, July 2022, pp. 53–61 male and 19 female students with total 38 students who were then chosen to be the subjects of the research. In line with this, Creswell (2013) explains that a slight variation of probability sampling is to use the simple random sampling procedure. Moreover, the researchers use a grammar test as the instrument of this research. The test was compiled by the researchers based on a worksheet composed by Harald (2011). The researchers adapted twenty sentences in which the students were asked to choose the correct auxiliary for each sentence including do, does, have, has, and had. Four sentences were provided for each auxiliary so the total was 20 sentences. The analysis of the research was done by first, collecting the data from the student (the result of students’ work). Second, calculating the result of the existing students’ work. Third, analyzing the data by using Taxonomic Analysis. This analysis focuses on grammatical structure of using auxiliary verbs (do, does, has, and have). The analysis of the data was based on the identificantion of errors as proposed by Dulay et. al (1982). In calculating the number of errors and the frequency of errors, Walizer and Wiener’s (1990, p. 96) statistical calculation to display the error percentage was employed. Then, the researchers classifies the students’ error based on the levels as proposed by Arikunto (2010) where >75% is considered as high, 60-75% is fair,<60% is low. Lastly, drawing conclusion where the researchers analyze the causes of the students’ error in term of using the auxiliary verb (do, does, has and have). 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Results The results of the study can be described as follows. First, students’ difficulties in understanding auxiliary verbsdo, does, have, has and had are devided into two parts, male and female students. The data is provided in Table 1. Table 1. The error analysis results No Students' Code Gender Errors in Auxiliaries Total Error Total Correct Answers Students' Score do does hav e has had 1 AM Male 1 1 2 2 2 8 12 60 2 ARL Male 2 1 1 2 3 9 11 55 3 FZI Male 1 0 2 1 4 8 12 60 4 HH Male 0 0 2 1 3 6 14 70 5 HD Male 0 1 1 1 2 5 15 75 6 MHA Male 1 1 2 1 3 8 12 60 7 MIA Male 2 1 1 2 2 8 12 60 8 MKA Male 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 85 9 MPM Male 1 0 2 2 2 7 13 65 10 MMT Male 0 0 1 1 1 3 17 85 11 MA Male 1 1 0 0 2 4 16 80 Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had Veni Nella Syahputri, Meta Keumala, Zahratul Idami | 57 | 12 MHF Male 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 85 13 MZU Male 0 0 0 0 1 1 19 95 14 NI Male 0 1 2 1 3 7 13 65 15 RAF Male 1 1 2 2 3 9 11 55 16 RZF Male 1 1 0 0 2 4 16 80 17 TSR Male 1 2 1 1 3 8 12 60 18 TMS Male 1 0 2 2 2 7 13 65 19 YAP Male 1 1 1 1 1 5 15 75 20 AAB Female 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 85 21 AN Female 1 1 2 2 3 9 11 55 22 AU Female 1 1 0 0 2 4 16 80 23 HS Female 1 2 1 1 3 8 12 60 24 NA Female 2 1 1 1 4 9 11 55 25 NI Female 1 1 1 1 2 6 14 70 26 NE Female 0 0 1 1 2 4 16 80 27 NS Female 0 0 0 1 1 2 18 90 28 NR Female 0 0 1 1 2 4 16 80 29 NM Female 0 1 2 1 3 7 13 65 30 NW Female 1 1 2 2 3 9 11 55 31 NIK Female 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 85 32 NIS Female 1 0 2 2 2 7 13 65 33 QA Female 1 1 1 1 1 5 15 75 34 RA Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 100 35 RM Female 1 0 0 1 2 2 18 90 36 RN Female 1 2 1 2 3 9 11 55 37 SN Female 1 0 2 2 2 7 13 65 38 SH Female 0 0 0 0 1 1 19 95 TOTAL ERRORS 26 23 39 43 83 214 Total Errors (Male Std) 14 12 22 22 43 113 Total Errors (Female Std) 12 11 17 21 40 101 Percentage of Errors 12% 10% 18 % 20% 39% 100% Second, it can be seen from the table that total errors of male students are 113 while the female students are 101. It is clear that male students produce higher mistakes than female. In detail, male students make 14 errors in using auxiliary do, 12 in auxiliary does, 22 in auxiliary have, 22 in auxil- iary has, and 43 in auxiliary had. In addition, female students make 12 errors in auxiliary do, 11 errors in auxiliary does, 17 errors in auxiliary have, 21 errors in auxiliary has, and 40 errors in auxil- iary had. So, the percetage of errors are: 12% in the use of auxiliary ‘do’, 10% in auxiliary ‘does’, 18% in auxiliary ‘have’, 20% in auxiliary ‘has’, and 39% in auxiliary ‘had’. Furthermore, to see the interval score of the students, Table 2 is provided. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Vol. 7, No. 1, July 2022, pp. 53–61 Table 2 - Score Interval of Male and Female Students No. Score Interval Male Female 1 55-60 7 5 2 65-70 4 4 3 75-80 4 4 4 85-90 3 4 5 95-100 1 2 TOTAL 19 19 Table 2 shows that there are five range of scores as the interval of the students’ achievement. The first range is score 55-60 where there are 7 male students and 5 female students in this row. Second, 65-70 has the same number which is 4 per each. Third, range 75-80 where there are also the same total students per each as the previous range. Fourth, range 85-90 where there are 3 male students and 4 female students. Finally, range 95-100 where there are only one male student and 2 female students who get these scores. 3.2. Discussion This research was conducted to investigate the students’ problems in using auxiliary verbs ‘do’, ‘does’, ‘have’, ‘has’, and ‘had’. The researcher focuses on grammar to analyze the test result. The researchers differentiate the errors based on the auxiliary verbs ‘do’ and ‘does’ in the simple present tense, ‘have’ and ‘has’ in the present perfect tense, and ‘had’ in the past perfect tense. To begin with, as an auxiliary verb do and does are used with other verbs to form emphatic, interrogative, negative and shortened verb forms. The ‘do’ auxiliary usually use in simple form of the verb (the infinitive without to). It is used only in the simple present tense (do or does). And the use of ‘do’ and ‘does’ in simple present tense is in question and negative forms, for example in the sentence, “She does not do her homework every evening” and “Do I know you?” The result of the study shows that the errors in the use of auxiliary do and does are the lowest. Mostly, the students were confused in using the correct auxiliary verbs for third person singular. This is in line with the results of the study carried out by Nugroho (2014) that the students face problems in using auxiliary verbs ‘do’ and ‘does’, because the student cannot recognize appropriate auxiliary verb for personal pronoun. In fact, the students face problems in using auxiliary verbs ‘do’ and ‘does’, because the student cannot recognize appropri- ate auxiliary verb for personal pronoun. Similar case also found in the use of auxiliary verbs have, has and had where students, both male and female, made many errors in using them. The researchers found that male students made more errors than female students. The students were confused by the subject of the sentence whether it is singular or plural, so that in the present perfect tense, most students chose the auxiliary have. In more complicated case, some students even chose auxiliary does where it should be used in the simple present tense. In this situation, the students were conclosed by the adverb of time which were not clearly mentioned in the sentences. | 58 | Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had Veni Nella Syahputri, Meta Keumala, Zahratul Idami | 59 | There have been studies on the role of first language to second language acquisition (Odlin, 1989 as cited in Susanti, 2019). It is “a popular belief that second language is strongly influenced by the learner’s first language (Ellis, 1985 as cited in Susanti, 2019). It ispossiblybecause many learners carry first language rules in their effort to learn the present perfect, which may partly contribute to learners’ difficulties. Learners’ difficulties may likely caused by the following factors: a) the Indone- sian language expresses the English perfect with and without the aspect sudah; b) in certain present perfect meaning, i.e. resultative past, the use of sudah is compulsory. In other meaning, it is not obligatory; c) The definite adverbial of time such as on Wednesday, yesterday, last year are never used with the present perfect in English. In Indonesian, those definite adverbials of time can be used comfortably in the sudah + verb construction, which is equivalent to the present perfect. Quirk, et al. (1972) for instance, states that the present perfect indicates a period of time stretching backwards into some earlier time. It is the past with ‘current relevance’. McCoard (1978) claims that English perfect has frequently been placed in the category of aspect, partly because of the persistent connection between the perfect and meanings of completion or result. He further asserts that these meanings of completion and result are not actually intrinsic to perfect, rather they come from an interaction with other elements of the linguistic and general pragmatic concepts. Concerning the function of present perfect, the defining purpose of perfect in English, according to McCoard (1978), is to indicate the pastness of the condition(s) encoded in the lexical verb, as well as a specific application, relevancy, or significance of said prior event(s) to the context of encoding. As Susanti (2019) states that analyzing the present perfect in English to the present perfect in Indonesian may uncover semantic discrepancies. Maybe it was the contrast between high perfective discourse markers in English and a weaker one in Indonesian. It is really a comparative of English meanings that appear to be detailed and complex with Indonesian meanings that appear to be sim- pler. The present perfect, as opposed to the simple past tense, is frequently stated as referring to past with current relevance, or past containing the present, when connecting different languages that may not having a similar interpretation. 4. Conclusion After analyzing the data of the research, it can be concluded that some students still made errors in determining the auxiliary verbs in the sentences. Some of them were confused with ‘do’ and ‘does’ in related with singular and plural terms, meanwhile some others were difficult to determine the use of ‘have’, ‘has’, and ‘had’ in the sentences of present perfect tense and past perfect tense. The result of the test showed that from the 38 students as the sample, 12 students were in high level of error, 8 students were in the level of fair, and 18 students were considered in the low level of error. These errors are assumed due to the interference of students’ first language structure to English. Finally, the writers propose some suggestions as follows: the students should practice their grammar in the form of auxiliary verbs in English sentences more frequently not only in written form but also in daily conversation. In addition, they should notice and use auxiliary verbs correctly in written and spoken practices. Moreover, the teachers should find and apply more appropriate meth- ods and strategies to teach the students about the use of auxiliary verbs in the sentences to facilitate a more interesting learning atmosphere in the classroom. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English Vol. 7, No. 1, July 2022, pp. 53–61 | 60 | 5. References Al-Jarf, R. (2000). Grammatical agreement errors in L1/L2 translations. IRAL, 38, 1-15. Al-Zoubi, S. M. (2018). The significance of error analysis in written production: A case study of Ajloun National University students. International Journal of English Language and Literature Stud- ies,7(4),150-159. Ananda, R., Gani, S. A., & Sahardin, R. (2014). A study of error analysis from students’ sentences in Writing. Studies in English Language Education, 1(2), 81-95. Arikunto, S. (2010). Metode penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Chen, L. (2006). The effect of the use of l1 in a multimedia tutorial on Grammar learning: An error analysis of Taiwanese beginning EFL learners’ English essays. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(2), 76-110. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press. Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to Foreign Language teaching. Mesin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(2), 261-270. Fang, X., & Xue-Mei, J. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom eaching. Dalian Liaoning, 4(9). Hafidz, M. (2021). The graphic organizer’s effect on the students’ writing achievement in argumentative paragraph. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka) : Culture, Language, and Teachingof English, 6(1), 11-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.26905/enjourme.v6i1.5701 Harald, J. (2011). Do/does+Have/has. Accessed from: Do/does+Have/has - ESL worksheet by johnharald (eslprintables.com) on October 1, 2021. Ismail, N. M., & Fata, I. A. (2021). Improving reading TOEFL score through note taking strategy. Al-Ta’lim Journal, 28(1), 46-54. James, C. (1998). Error in language and use. Longman. Lailiyah, M., & Setiyaningsih, L. A. (2021). Academic vocabulary of EFL students’ Writing: A corpus- based study. Proceedings, 5, 28–32. Marza, L., & Hafizd, M. (2013). Teaching writing recount text to Junior high-school students by using facebook peer-comment. Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(2), 25-37. McCoard, Robert W. (1987). The English perfect tense-choice and pragmatic inferences. North Holland Linguistic Series. Nugroho, A.P. (2014). The students’ problem in differentiating between the use of auxiliary verb do and auxiliary verb does: A case study of the first grade of SMP N 2 Ayah academic year 2013/2014. A Thesis. English Education Program Teacher Training and Education Faculty Muhammadiyah University of Purworejo. Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors. The MacMillan Press Limited. | 61 | Error analysis on auxiliary verbs do/ does, have/ has, and had Veni Nella Syahputri, Meta Keumala, Zahratul Idami Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English (Vol. 1985). London: Longman. Sadiah, S., & Royani, S. A. (2019). An analysis of grammatical errors in students’ writing descriptive text. PROJECT, 2(6), 764-770. Suhartoyo, E., Heriyawati, D., & Ismiatun, F. (2021). Unveiling students’ writing argumentative essays barriers in online learning. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka) : Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 6(2), 142-151. doi:https://doi.org/10.26905/enjourme.v6i2.6800 Susanti, I. L. (2019). The students’ difficulties in understanding the meaning of present perfect form of the second semester students of english education. Daiwi Widya Jurnal Pendidikan, 6(1), 24-36. Syahputri, V. N., Idami, Z., & Ismail, N. M. (2020). Online teaching and teachers’ mental burdens during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Proceeding of The 3rd International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research, 3(1), 109-114). Walizer, M. H., & Wiener, P. C. (1990). Research method and analysis: Searching for relationship. Harper and Row. Williams, H. (2008). Plagiarism. Green Haven Press. Yoestara, M., Putri, Z., & Ismail, N. M. (2020). School appreciation and teachers’ competence: Are they correlated? International Journal of Language Studies, 14(3), 47-66.