Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ)
Volume 6, Issue 2, July 2020
p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index
189
Abstract: The aim of this research is to find out the types of morphological interference on students' English
writing. Through qualitative research method applying a design of the case study, twenty of university
students were chosen. Data were collected from written tests and classified based on the Politzer and
Ramires (1973) on theory of Linguistic Category. The results revealed that, whilst it is inevitable that the
English morphology features governed by the distinctive rules and systems have been the potential target for
interference taking place, Bahasa Indonesia, which stands as the official language, becomes the source of
transfer. From six types of morphological interference based on Polizter and Ramirez’ (1973), in this study
the writer only found three of them. These types encompass of the morphological properties from the use of
article, plural marker and simple past tense. Furthermore, there are 40 morphological mistakes in total, in
which four mistakes represent the intralingual transfer and 36 data describe the interference. In terms of the
mistakes made as a result mostly from the interference transfer. This study makes a significant contribution
to the teaching and learning process of linguistic interference.
Keywords: linguistic interference; morphology; students’ writing.
MORPHOLOGICAL INTERFERENCE ON STUDENT’S WRITING
Muziatun
Department of English Language, Faculty of letters and culture, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia
Email: muziatun@ung.ac.id
Indri Wirahmi Bay
Department of English Language, Faculty of letters and culture, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia
Email: indri_wirahmi@yahoo.com
Sitti Maryam
Department of English Language, Faculy of letters and culture, State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia
Email: sittimaryam249@gmail.com
APA Citation: Muziatun, M., Bay, I. W., & Maryam, S. (2020). Morphological interference on student’s writing.
Indonesian EFL Journal, 6(2), 189-196. doi: 10.25134/ieflj.v6i2.3425.
Received: 12-04-2019 Accepted: 14-06-2019 Published: 01-07-2020
INTRODUCTION
In foreign language learning, English Foreign
Language (EFL) students will always confront
some difficultiess in mastering English (Misbah,
2017). When they are learning English, they
regularly make mistakes whether in their speaking
or writing. Therefore, in learning English as a
foreign language, learners need to learn about the
system and rules of writing well, because the
system and the rules for both English and
Indonesian are different (Raissah & Aziz, 2020;
Sari, 2016; Septiana, 2020). The difference may
cause errors or mistakes. Based on Samingan
(2016), in his research foreign language learners
sometimes get difficulty in mastering English. It
happens because of the interference of first
language learning (FLL) into English.
Furthermore, what they have found when studying
English will depend on the degree and ability of
what they have obtained in English. It means
when a learner can understand English well, the
possibility of mistakes in writing English will be
less compared to a learner who has not fully
understood English. Many factors influence
students in mastering English skills, one of them
is because of the interference of first language
learning (Budiharto, 2019).
Interference is the exchange of language
systems used in other elements of language which
is viewed as a mistake because it deviates from
the rules of the language used (Jafaroya, 2017;
Syaputri, 2019). Interference is the deviation of
language norm in usage as the effect of
multilingual toward some other languages
(Irmalia, 2016; Qomariana & Rahayuni, 2019;
Alkhudiry, 2020). Interference happens when the
students using the target language (English) and
ones that are interfered with the target language is
the first language learning (Lao, 2017; Bacala,
2017).
Indonesia and English are different in some
language features, one such difference are the
construction of noun and verb. For instance, when
an Indonesian language student uses the word
“go”, it’s not a mistake he uses one word go but
when using it in a simple sentence in the
Indonesian language “dia pergi” instead of” he
goes” or “she goes”. A student who learns English
might say “he go”. This is caused of no system of
agreement or concord between noun and verb
mailto:muziatun@ung.ac.id
Muziatun, Indri Wirahmi Bay & Sitti Maryam
Morphological interference on student’s writing
190
(subject and predicate) in the Indonesian
language; all the subjects are followed by the
same predicate (verb) such as “I go”, ”She go”,
“They go” (Mu’in, 2008, p. 7). However, when
Indonesian students who are lack of practice in
English, they often make mistakes in the form of
interference from the first language (FLL) and
they do not even realize the differences.
Based on the lecturer of the participants,
researcher’s preliminary visit, when she gave an
examination to the participant, the lecturer said
that the students had some difficulties to write
paragraphs, especially the paragraphs that
describe past event, because of the alteration of
verb/auxiliary verb from present to past tense.
Furthermore, the students said it was hard to
choose the types of verb when making
paragraphs in past event, such as describe an
experiment that happened in the past. In general,
mostly students feel writing is a complicated skill.
(Karademir & Gorgoz, 2019; Setyowati &
Sukmawan, 2016; Mantra & Widiastuti, 2019;
Ximenes, Guterres, & Pereira, 2019), Therefore,
it can b concluded that morphological
interference become a serious problem in learning
writing especially for the foreign language
learners such as twenty students of C class of
English Department state University of
Gorontalo. By seeing this fact, an analysis is
needed to know what are the types of
morphological interference that made by the
students.
METHOD
This study aim to answer the following research
question: What are the types of morphological
interference committed by the students in the fifth
semester of the English department state
University of Gorontalo academic year of 2019-
2020 in their English writing?
This study employs the qualitative case study
since the data is in form of words, phrases, and
sentences. It is also because the qualitative case
study is descriptive in nature and related to
human behavior of how people behave, feel, and
think (Gammelgaard, 2017).
The participants of this study were the fifth-
semester students. The number of students in
class C of the English Department of the fifth
semester was 20 students. It consists of 15 female
students and 5 male students. In order to gather
the data, twenty of document analysis is
conducted.
The data of document were analyzed based on
the qualitative data analysis of document model
by Harding (2018);
Identifying the interference
In starting the process of data analysis, the
researcher identified the mistake that is found in
determining the morphological types. In doing
this process, the writer also provided suggested
constructions of the mistake so that it would be
clear that a particular deviant form in the words or
even sentences is considered as a mistake. Since
this case study had been one to spot the
morphological interference in English writing, all
data from the text were underlined on which the
interlingual transfer is based and classified for
further analysis.
Classifying the interference
After identifying the interference into
morphological interference as determining the
interference types, the writer, then, classified the
mistake into some specific categories based on
morphological types. Linguistics Category
Taxonomies, by using Politzer and Ramirez’s
model taxonomy. Based on this model of
taxonomies, morphological interference in this
research is classified into six categories which are
indefinite article, possessive, plural marker,
simple past, past participle, comparative
adjectives, or adverbs. Additionally, surface
taxonomy of Dulay, et al.as cited in Rusmiati
(2019) was applied as the scheme to support the
categorized or location of the interference fall that
made by the participants.
Explanation of the interference
In this step, the writer explained how and why the
sentences called to be interference. this step
consists of the phenomena that happen regarding
the interference, how the interference could
happen, why the data called to be interference,
how the previous study dealt with this
phenomena, and the theories that could strengthen
the data. This step has been explained in the
discussion part.
Conclusion
Drawing a conclusion from the explanation of the
data, in the form of answering the research
question is to achieve the objectivity of this
research.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The findings and discussion are presented
consecutively and organized based on its
relevance with the research question. The finding
of the study was dealing with the theory of
interference in chapter II, and several related
studies. To best categorize the data into the type
of morphological interference, this study employs
Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ)
Volume 6, Issue 2, July 2020
p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index
191
the theory by Politzer and Ramirez as cited in
Andre (2018) which were indefinite articles,
possessive, plural marker, simple past, past
participle, comparative adjective or adverb. The
results show that there were only three types of
morphological interference occur in students’
writing (descriptive text). They were an article,
plural marker, and simple past tense. Dealing with
the process of foreign language learning, the
influence of FLL behavior still dominates
students’ cognitive process in selecting the
morphological interference on students’ English
writing.
The data were presented and categorize based
on the types of morphological interference those
are organized based on the frequency of
occurrences. In order to visualize the types, was
depicted in the following tables:
Table 1. Indefinite article of morphological interference occurrence on students’ English writing
Indefinite article
No. Identified of the Interference Nt De Reconstruction
1. We immediately built *tent
and cooked
We immediately built a tent
and cooked
2. After I got an permission from
my parents to .....
After I got a permission from
my parents to .....
3. I had a amazing experience
when .....
I had an amazing experience
when .....
Table 2. Plural marker of morphological interference occurrence on students’ English writing
Plural marker
No. Identified of the Interference Nt De Reconstruction
1. I had some creepy experience I had some creepy experiences
2. I could meet them again after
six month.
I could meet them again after
six months.
3. After two week, I should back
to my dormitory.
After two weeks, I should back
to my dormitory.
4. I took some photograph of the
bridge.
I took some photographs of the
bridge.
5. I climbed mount Ambang three
month ago.
I climbed mount Ambang three
months ago.
6. We took some picture. We took some pictures.
7. I went to the market and
bought some seasoning at
there.
I went to the market and bought
some seasonings at there.
8. We spent holiday by visiting
some favorite place in my
home town.
We spent holiday by visiting
some favorite places in my
home town.
9. We took some photo with the
beautiful view of twins tower.
We took some photos with the
beautiful view of twins tower.
10. I was so happy, but there were
some correction that he gave to
me.
I was so happy, but there were
some corrections that he gave to
me.
11. We met many friends from
other province, they were so
kind and friendly.
We met many friends from other
provincies, they were so kind
and friendly.
12. It is one of the beautiful
mountain in Gorontalo
It is one of the beautiful
mountains in Gorontalo
Table 3. Simple past tense of morphological interference occurrence on students’ English writing
Simple past tense
No. Identified of the Interference Nt De Reconstruction
1. In my holiday last year, I
visited my aunt’s house and
stay for two weeks there.
In my holiday last year, I visited
my aunt’s house and stayed for
two weeks there.
2. Last week, I was cooking in
my room when my mother call
Last week, I was cooking in my
room when my mother called
Muziatun, Indri Wirahmi Bay & Sitti Maryam
Morphological interference on student’s writing
192
me. me.
3. Last year, for the first time I
celebrate my birthday without
my parents.
Last year, for the first time I
celebrated my birthday without
my parents.
4. My friend said he would paid
my food.
My friend said he would pay my
food.
5. A few minutes later, finally I
could moved my body and
opened my eyes.
A few minutes later, finally I
could move my body and
opened my eyes.
6. I had a little problem that I
could not forgot.
I had a little problem that I could
not forget.
Table 4. Type and number of errors in each category made by the students
No. Types of morphology Cases Nt De
1. Plural marker 18 18 0
2. Past tense 14 10 4
3. Article 3 0 3
4. Possessive ‘s 0 0 0
5. Past particple ing/ed 0 0 0
6. Comparative/superlative adjective 0 0 0
As follows from several tables above, it has
been found that there were therty five features
that indicate as morphological Interference. The
dominant types of occurrences were plural
marker, past tense, and article. The table above
provides the results of the written tests obtained
from the participants that illustrate the mistakes
in the order of words. It is apparent from this
table that mistakes arising under those tables
were mostly affected by interference.
Research Question: Kinds of morphological
Interference in English Writing
The question of this study sought to find out the
types of morphological features that contain
interference in students’ English writing.
Previous studies into the types of morphological
interference in students’ English writing have
revealed that the interference occurring within
the field of morphology are adequate rampant in
the analysis of the learners’ English written
production. Those interference comprise mainly
of the uses those mistakes comprise mainly of the
uses indefinite article, possessive case, plural
marker, simple past tense, past participle and
comparative, and the last, adjective/adverb
(Hamzah, 2012; & Indri, 2018). Yet, to address
the research question this present study anchored
to the linguistic taxonomy of Politzer and
Ramirez (1973) as the main conceptual
theoretical framework by which the
morphological interference in all participants’
writing was coded. Moreover, to better recognize
the alteration to English morphological form,
surface taxonomy of Dulay, et al. (1982) was
applied as the scheme to support the location of
the interference made by participants.
Grounding in the research framework, this
study found three kinds of morphological
interference in all that contained interference
emerging from the test results where these types
of morphological interference committed by
participants slightly vary with each respondent.
These three types encompass the morphological
interference from the article, plural marker, and
past tense marker. In the following subsections,
all these categories of morphological errors are
discussed. Preceding the analysis is the
discussions of the existing categories of Politzer
and Ramirez’s (1973) morphological which will
be discussed in isolation.
The explanation of morphological interference
types has been found, how, and why the
sentences called to be interference. This step
consists of the phenomena that happened
regarding the interference, how the interference
could happen, why the data called to be
interference, how the previous study dealt with
this phenomena, and the theories that could
strengthen the data. The types of morphological
interference that has been found in this research
are explained below;
The first morphological interference which is
found on students' writing is an identified article.
It is the lowest mistake in students writing. It
likely occurs because the students' faulty
understanding of distinctions of target language
items leads to false conceptualization or the
students get confused about the concept to
identify an article itself.
In the element of determiner, the findings
indicated that the uses of articles, which include
the definite and indefinite article, have been a big
deal for the students in this present study so far
Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ)
Volume 6, Issue 2, July 2020
p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index
193
since morphological interference in the noun
phrase had mostly been found within this type.
Mistakes that occurred inside this type were
predominantly omission and misformation where
a certain particular item of the TL (English)
which ought to exist properly based upon its
well-formed structure has been left out. A sample
representing mistake in this type is as follows:
“..., We immediately built * (a) tent and cooked”.
As seen in this datum, the participant omitted a
necessary item of the definite article that
modifies the noun “tent”. For a native speaker,
distinguishing and using the articles properly in a
sentence need no effort; non-native speakers, by
contrast, will have difficulties figuring out their
use in a sentence (Indri, 2018). Regarding this,
the omission of mistakes in English articles has
been inevitable for participants in this study
because articles do not exist in the previous
languages of participants.
The second interference which is found on
students writing is a plural marker. It is the
dominant mistake that students produce in this
text. Plural markers have occurred on omission
and addition. The omission of mistakes in plural
markers has happened because the students omit
the suffix –s at the end of the word noun. In this
case, the students make the mistake of nouns that
should be followed by a plural noun, but the
students do not apply it to their writing. While
the addition of mistakes has occurred when an
item that should not be appeared in a well-formed
of the noun which is there is additional letter or
suffix –s at the end that is not necessary on the
word. In this case, the students add suffix –s at
the end of the word. It might happen because in
the Indonesian language there is no adding suffix
–s in the and of the word noun when it makes
plurality. It is supported by Hamzah (2012, p.2)
states that the mistake may be attributable to the
different system of plurality between Indonesian
language and English where the Indonesian only
has quantifiers before nouns without an
additional affixed plural marker to a noun.
Moreover, the certain English Noun phrase
that happened under the omission of mistakes has
with the element of number. This element as
stated by Nani (2019) essentially deals with the
singular and plural form of a count noun inside
the construction of the noun phrases.
Accordingly, when these modifiers denote
plurality, a noun that precedes one of them then
should be in the plural form. Conversely, a noun
will be in the form of singular when one of these
modifiers is in the singular form. In the previous
languages of participants, the rule of plurality,
however, does not exist, because such a concept
in the previous languages of participants is
comprehensible through their context. As such, it
is unsurprising that mistakes of omission within
this type can be found as in “...We took some
picture* (pictures)…”
The third type is simple past tense. The
mistakes occurred when the tenses in writing
should be past tense and the students made all of
the verbs in the present tense. It happens because
both languages have a different structure. In
Indonesia the verb will not change based on the
time, it just had ‘keteranganwaktu’ like sekarang,
kemarin, lalu, besok, lusa, and nanti. While in
English the verb should be changed based on the
time. When the time is a past time then the verb
must be added by –ed or changed the word to
verb2. In addition, the students do not know after
auxilary verb should be followed by verb one, not
verb two. In this case, the students produce verb
mistake on their documentary because the student
does not understand the usage of modal auxiliary
and the similar expression of the modal.
Furthermore, the students put suffix -ed in the
end of the word verb after a modal. It also
happened because, in Indonesian, there is no
auxiliary verb. Therefore, the student made a
mistake in making a sentence in English. They
did not insert verb1 after an auxiliary verb.
Based on the explanation above, those types
of morphological interference found on students'
text can be concluded that most of the students
weak are plural, past tense, and article in
morphological interference. In this case, the
writer can be seen many students are more
interfered with within identified the plural
marker. It might happen because in the
Indonesian language there is no agreement about
plurality. Moreover, there is no adding suffix –s
at the end of the word noun that becomes the
symbol of plurality.
Paying attention to the above analyses, this
study indicated that interference in English
morphological features commonly occurs in
certain patterns which in particular have
structural rule distinction between English and
Indonesian rules. More simply, all the findings as
regards the kinds of morphological interference
emerged from the participants’ writing indicated
that the entire mistakes positively arise by dint of
the different systems and rules governing in the
languages. With this in mind, it is then clear as to
why misformation of English patterns as
discovered in this formation (article and past
Muziatun, Indri Wirahmi Bay & Sitti Maryam
Morphological interference on student’s writing
194
tense), the omission of necessary morphological
items as found in plural marker and past tense,
and addition are likely to be committed by the
participants in this study.
Hamzah (2012) study exposed findings
strikingly similar to the results of this present
study: students normally committed to excluding
English linguistic features, such as plurality
markers, and past tense. Recently investigators
also highlighted that interference in students’
English writing typically takes place in the plural
marker, SVA, past tense, and progressing –ing
and those mistakes arise in studied misuse the
linguistic items, misformationon the items,
omission to the essential items and even addition
redundant items in sentences (Samingan, 2016).
Overall, the result of this writer is different
with Indri’s finding (2018), in her study that she
found, there are six types of morphological
interference, such as plurals, tenses,
demonstrative, VSA, participle –ing and –ed,
and to the infinitive in academic writing of
students proposal’s. In addition, another writer,
Syaputri (2018) who investigated interference
made by EFL at the University of Indonesia has
also reported the difference finding regarding
morphological interference. In her research, she
found that the students produce interference on
morphology in the plural, singular, and repeated
words in students' descriptive texts.
The result of this study reveals from six types
of morphological interference. Further, there are
three types of morphological interference are
committed namely plural, past tense, and article.
From all the types that have been found, it means
that the students do not understand the concepts
of using them in a correct sentence. It proofs that
the students were lack of knowledge about the
morphological differences between first language
learning and target language so that they made
some mistakes regarding those three points.
On the other hand, three types of
morphological interference have not been found
in the data set. Those were of them are possessive
(‘s), participle (-ing and –ed), and comparative or
superlative (-er or –est). It proofs that the
students understood or mastered those types. If
the students mastered the rules of morphology
and the concepts of writing so that the students
will not produce those types of mistakes. As a
result, those three types are not taking part in
mistakes on students’ descriptive text, but it can
be the gap for the next writer who is interested in
doing such a study. For that reason, the other
mistakes might be showing up on different topics
or different writing types on morphological site.
CONCLUSION
The primary question guiding this present
research attempted to address one case which
was types of English morphological features in
which linguistic interference may take place.
Overall, the findings of this research revealed
that interference in the morphological field
mostly occurs within certain morphological
elements in which those items bear differences in
terms of systems and rules governing in the
languages and that constitute grounds for
linguistic interference. From six types of
morphological interference based on Politzer and
Ramirez’ theory, the writer only found three of
them. These types encompass the morphological
properties from the use of an article, plural
marker, and simple past tense. From those types
that have been found, it means that the students
were lack understanding. Moreover, three types
that have not been found were possessive,
participle, and comparative or superlative
adjectives. Significantly the students were
mastering those types. Therefore, the mistake
will not be committed by the students in their
writing.
REFERENCES
Alkhudiry, R. I., Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H., &
Alkhudiry, R. (2020). Analysing EFL Discourse
of Saudi EFL learners: Identifying Mother
Tongue Interference. The Asian ESP Journal,
89.
Andre, S. (2018). Grammatical Errors And Mistakes
In Compositions Made By The First Year
Students Of Accounting Department In
Economics Faculty Of Andalas
University (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas
Andalas).
Bacala, F. (2017). Preliminary reviews to interference
of second language learning caused by first
language and culture. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Bay, I. W. (2018). Interferensi Gramatikal Bahasa
Indonesia dalam Penggunaan Bahasa Inggris.
Yogyakarta: Zahir Publishing.
Budiharto, R. A. (2019). Native language
interference on target language writings of
Indonesian EFL students: An exploratory case
study. Indonesian EFL Journal, 5(1), 107-116.
Lao, Y. A. (2017). First Language Interference into
English Writing Skill of the XIIth Grade
Students of SMA Negeri 1 Kupang in Academic
Year 2017/2018.International Journal of
Research - Granthaalayah, 5(12), 33-44.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.1133564.
Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ)
Volume 6, Issue 2, July 2020
p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index
195
Gammelgaard, B. (2017). The qualitative case
study. The International Journal of Logistics
Management.
Hamzah. (2012). An analysis of the written
grammatical errors produced by fresment
students in English writing. Lingua Didaktika.
6(2), 17-25.
Harding, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: From
start to finish. SAGE Publications Limited.
Irmalia, M. (2016). Indonesian interference in
students’ writing. English Education
Journal, 7(4), 496-508.
Jafarova, K. (2017). The problem of interference and
its influence of learners native language. Trakia
Journal of Science, 15(4), 292-296.
Karademir, C. A., & Gorgoz, S. (2019). English
teachers' problems encountered in teaching four
basic language skills. International Education
Studies, 12(4), 118-127.
Mantra, I. B. N., & Widiastuti, I. A. M. S. (2019). An
Analysis Of Efl Students’writing Ability To
Enhance Their Micro And Macro Writing
Skill. International Journal of Linguistics and
Discourse Analytics, 1(1), 29-34.
Misbah, N. H., Mohamad, M., Yunus, M. M., &
Ya’acob, A. (2017). Identifying the Factors
Contributing to Students’ Difficulties in the
English Language Learning. Creative
Education, 8(13), 1999-2008.
Mu’in, F. (2008).Interference and
Integration.https://english.fkip.ulm.ac.id/2008/1
0/18/interference-and-integration/.
Nani, I. (2019). Syntactic Interference in Multilingual
Students' Writing.(Skripsi),
UniversitasNegeriGorontalo, English
Department, Gorontalo. Retrieved Oktober 10,
2019, from
http://eprints.ums.ac.id/40975/16/JURNAL.pdf.
Politzer, R. L., & Ramirez, A. G. (1973).An Error
Analysis of the Spoken English of Mexican-
American Pupils in a Bilingual School and a
Monolingual School.School of Education,
Stanford University.Stanford Center for
Research and Development. Retrieved April 17,
2019, from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED073879.pdf.
Qomariana, Y., Puspani, I. A. M., & Rahayuni, N. K.
S. (2019, April). Mother tongue interference on
EFL: The case of English department students in
Udayana university. In PROCEEDINGS OF
THE 65th TEFLIN INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE (Vol. 65, No. 01).
Raissah, N., & Aziz, Z. A. (2020). An Investigation
Of Interlingual And Intralingual Interference
Found In English As A Foreign Language (Efl)
Students’composition Of Recount Text. English
Education Journal, 11(2), 251-275.
Rusmiati, R. (2019). Surface Strategy Taxonomy On
Foreign Language Writing: A Study On Verb
Tense Usage. Jurnal Serambi Ilmu, 20(2), 189-
201.
Samingan, A. (2016). First language interference in
EFL students’ Composition of IAIN Salatiga.
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), 87-95.
Septiana, A. R. (2020). The indonesian grammatical
interference on EFL students’ writing. Journal
of Research on English and Language Learning
(J-REaLL), 1(1), 46-52.
Setyowati, L., & Sukmawan, S. (2016). EFL
Indonesian students’ attitude toward writing in
English. Arab World English Journal, 7(4), 365-
378.
Syaputri, W. (2019, March). First Language
Morphological Interference of English Language
Learners (EFL). In Seventh International
Conference on Languages and Arts (ICLA
2018). Atlantis Press.
Ximenes, L. P., Guterres, C. F., & Pereira, S. (2019).
A study on the ability of 4th semester students’
writing skill of English study program in the
academic year 2018. ISCE: Journal of
Innovative Studies on Character and Education,
3(1), 155-164.
https://english.fkip.ulm.ac.id/2008/10/18/interference-and-integration/
https://english.fkip.ulm.ac.id/2008/10/18/interference-and-integration/
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED073879.pdf
Muziatun, Indri Wirahmi Bay & Sitti Maryam
Morphological interference on student’s writing
196