• Ahmad Samingan


The purpose of this study is to analyze syntactical interference found in EFL Students’ English composition of IAIN Salatiga. The objectives are to find out type of interference, frequency of each type, the most dominant type, and the factors contribute to language interference in EFL students’ composition. This is a descriptive-qualitative research. The data were taken through elicitation technique, and then analyzed by using theory of language interference. The findings of this study showed that EFL students made five categories of interference error that belong to syntactical interference: the use of L1 structure in target language, the use of L1 structure in English noun phrase, literal translation in negation of verbal sentence, literal translation in negation of nominal sentence, and literal translation in nominal sentence of affirmative form.


Chaer, Abdul & Leonie Agustina. (2004). Sosiolingistik: Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Denzin, Norman K and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 1. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hayi, Abdul dkk. (1985). Interferensi Gramatika Bahasa Indonesia dalam Bahasa Jawa. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa
Kaweera, Chittima. (2013). Writing Error: A Review of Interlingual and Intralingual Interference in EFL Context. English Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 6, No. 7
Lott, D. (1983). Analyzing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal, vol.37/3, pp 256- 261.
Luo, Jianping. (2014). A study of mother tongue interference in pronunciation of college English learning in china. Journal of Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 4
Nababan. (1991). Sosiolinguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
Suhono. (2016). Surface Strategy Taxonomy on the EFL Students’ Composition: A Study of Error Analysis. Jurnal Iqra. Vol. 1 No. 2. 1-30
Salona, et al. (2014). Spanish Interference in EFL Writing Skills: A Case of Ecuadorian Senior High Schools. English Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 7
Somachai, Watcharapunyawong, & Usaha, Siriluck. (2013). Thai EFL Students’ Writing Errors in Different Text Types: The Interference of the First Language. English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 6, 1.http://www.aessweb.com/journal-detail.php?id=5007
Suhono. (2015). An Error Analysis on Written Production Made by EFL Students of International Program of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Eprints.ums. p.1-19 http://eprints.ums.ac.id/37938/18/Artikel%20Publikasi%20Ilmiah.pdf
Weinreich, Uriel. (1968). Language in Contact. Mouton: The Hauge-Paris.
Yusuf, Suhendra.( 1994). Teori Terjemah. Bandung: Mandar Maju
How to Cite
SAMINGAN, Ahmad. A SYNTACTICAL INTERFERENCE FOUND IN EFL STUDENTS’ ENGLISH COMPOSITION. Pedagogy : Journal of English Language Teaching, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 2, p. 102-112, dec. 2017. ISSN 2580-1473. Available at: <https://e-journal.metrouniv.ac.id/index.php/pedagogy/article/view/936>. Date accessed: 29 july 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.32332/pedagogy.v5i2.936.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.