THE INFLUENCE OF FIRST LANGUAGE (L1) SYNTAX ON GRADE V

STUDENTS’ USE OF INDONESIAN IN EAST TOMONI SUBDISTRICT

EAST LUWU REGENCY
Harsia, Ide Said, Syahruddin, Kamaruddin

harsiaharsia@gmail.com

Universitas Negeri Makassar

Jln. Bonto Langkasa, Kampus Gunung Sari, Makassar
South Sulawesi, Indonesia
Postal Code 90222

ABSTRACT
This study is a descriptive study of the influence of first language (L1) syntax on the use of Indonesian as a second
language (L2), which aims to describe (i) the influence of first language syntax on second language (L2) analysis skills of
the grade V students in East Tomoni Subdistrict; (ii) the implication of the first language and Indonesian language
acquisition as a second language on syntax teaching to grade V students in East Tomoni Subdistrict. The results of this study
indicate that (i) the first language sentence patterns corresponding to the second language sentence patterns used by the
respondents consist of: (a) S-P, used by the respondents whose first language are Torajan, Buginese, and Balinese, (b) S-P-
O, used by all respondents (c) S-P-A, and (d) S-P-O-A, (ii) the use of the first language sentence patterns does not match the
second language sentence patterns used by the respondents in their essay, which includes: (a) O-P sentence pattern, (b) P-S-
A sentence pattern, (c) A-S-P sentence pattern of Torajan, Buginese, and Balinese as first languages, (d) S-P-S sentence
pattern, (e) A-S-P-O sentence pattern, (iii) the implication of first language and second language acquisition on syntax
teaching in schools is that there is a gap between the first language and the second language, meaning that the teaching of
Indonesian in schools is influenced by the use of the first language, both in terms of its rules and in terms of its accents.

Key words: syntax, sentence, first language (L1), second language (L2)

I. INTRODUCTION
The heart of Universal Grammar is X, in the sense that X is a head that can grow into a larger construction by the
addition of another element called Y. The presence of the element X and Y represents Universal Grammar, while how X and
Y are placed is the characteristic of every language. This kind of understanding is contained in the concept of parameter
setting.
A child born and then exposed to the use of English in a natural context, for instance, will adjust its Universal
Grammar by placing the words “a book” (element Y) to the right of the head “read” (element X), so that this child will
recognize that the head-initial rule applies to English language. If such a rule is already established, the child, when
encountering other transitive verbs, such as “buy”, “hit”, and “write”, for example, will automatically activate his/her pre-set
Universal Grammar by placing an object to the right of each of those verbs. With that rule, the child will produce two-word
utterances like “buy candy”, “hit ball”, and “write daddy”.
Unlike the case with a child from an English speaking environment, a child with Japanese language background
will adjust his/her Universal Grammar by placing the element Y to the left of element X. Furthermore, the child will
understand that the last-head rule applies to Japanese since Japanese children from birth have been exposed to an utterance
structure as in the sentence “E wa kabe ni kakatte imasu” (picture wall on is hanging) where the verb phrase is placed at the
end, while the preposition “ni” (on) is placed before the verb phrase. This exposure will encourage the child to adjust his/her
Universal Grammar by placing the head verb after the complement in the verb phrase, and the preposition comes after its
complement. Japanese children through intensive exposure using their linguistic intuitions will understand that Japanese is
head-last; or, as stated by Cook (1988: 7), the head is placed on the right side (head-right), not on the left side (head-left) as
children exposed to English.
In relation to this study, it is not profitable in practice in language acquisition if only adhering to Chomsky’s
theory.
Examples of the first language structure:
(01) Minung ka kopi ‘minum saya kopi’ (drink I coffee): Buginese sentence pattern (P-S-O)
Saya minum kopi (I drink coffee): Indonesian sentence structure (S-P-O)
(02) Unnalanaq pare dao mai alaἡ ‘Mengambil saya padi dari lumbung’ (take I rice from the barn): Torajan sentence
structure (P-S-O) (Salombe, 1988:69)
Saya mengambil padi dari atas lumbung (I take rice from the barn): Indonesian sentence structure (S-P-O)
(03) Kicking-nge putih tegul okkẻ ‘anjing putih ikat’ (a white dog tie up): Balinese sentence structure (O-P). (Sedeng,
2010:90)
Aku mengikat anjing putih itu (I tie up that white dog): Indonesian sentence structure (S-P-O)
(04) Balane arep takakehi ‘Temannya akan saya perbanyak’ (friends I will make): Javanese sentence structure (O-S-P).
(Arifin, et al. 1999:50)
Saya akan perbanyak temannya (I will make friends): Indonesian sentence structure (SPO)
Language Acquisition
Krashen (1985) explicitly distinguishes between language acquisition and language learning. Language acquisition
is a subconscious process. Language acquirers are usually unaware of the fact that they are acquiring a language. They only
know the importance of using language. Acquirers of a language are generally unaware of the rules of the language they are
acquiring. However, they can understand whether language forms they use are correct or not. Language acquisition can also
be referred to as implicit learning, informal learning, and natural learning.
The term language learning is used to refer to the conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing its rules,
being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. Therefore, this term can be equated with knowing a formal
language, learning explicitly, and learning naturally.
Some linguists assume that children acquire language, and adults can only learn language (Corder, 1973).
However, according to Krashen (1985), adults are able to acquire language in addition to learning the language. In his
acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis, Krashen explained that adults can also acquire language. Their ability to acquire
language does not cease at puberty. This does not mean that adults will be able to master a language like its native speakers.
It also does not mean that adults will not have a language acquisition device (LAD) as children do. However, it will be
evident that acquisition in adults is a very difficult process. Many researchers agree that language and cognitive processes in
children’s acquisition of a second language are essentially the same as the strategies they use in acquiring their first language
(Ravem, 1968, Milon, 1974, Dulay and Burt, 1974; Ervin Tripp, 1974).
The most encouraging result of studies on language acquisition is the discovery that the acquisition of grammatical
structures occurs in a predictable sequences. Brown (1983) reported that children who acquire English as a first language
tend to acquire certain grammatical morphemes or particles first and then acquire the others later. The –ing form and plural
marker –s are the first morphemes mastered, while the -s form as the third person singular verb ending and 's as the genitive
marker are acquired six months or a year later.

Theory of Semantic Approach

This theory according to Greenfield and Smith (1976) (in Chaer, 2007, p.190) was first introduced by Bloom. In
this case, Bloom (1970) integrates semantic knowledge with this syntactic development study based on Chomsky's theory of
transformational (sometimes called generative or transformational-generative) grammar (1965).
As we already know, this theory of transformational grammar states that the sentences we hear are "raised" from
surface-structure with physiological formulas. Meanwhile, this surface-structure is "raised" from the deep-structure with
transformational formulas. Thus, grammar is a system that connects sound with meaning. In this case, a syntactic base of
language (deep structure) provides input to the semantic components, and the surface-structure provides input to the
phonological components.
Chomsky's view or theory was challenged by several psychologists such as Schlesinger (1971) and Olson (1970),
and by some linguists such as Lakoff and Roos (1967), Mc. Cawley (1968), and Fillmore (1968). These opponents generally
reject Chomsky’s deep-structure. For instance, Schlesinger (1971) states that the so-called deep-structure is not really a
syntactic structure, but rather a semantic structure. Thus, it is meaning that determines structure (Chaer, 2007, p. 190).
One of the theories of grammar based on semantic components was introduced by Fillmore (1968) (in Chaer, 2007,
p.190), known as case grammar. This theory has been used by Bowerman (1973) and Brown (1973) as a basis for analyzing
language development data. In his theory, Fillmore points out that grammatical transformations are not governed by
syntactic formulas, but by semantic relations characterized by the categories of the cases. Thus, it is imperative to include
semantics in general, and semantic relationships in particular in analyzing grammatical knowledge. The semantic-based
structure is then used as the basis of the branch of transformational grammar theory known as semantic generative. Then, in
psycholinguistics, this development of semantic approach becomes the basis of a study.
The difference between this semantic approach and the innate universal grammar is that in the innate universal
grammar the syntactic relationships are applied in analyzing the structure of a child's utterances, whereas in the semantic
approach the structure of the utterance is found based on semantic relationships. Thus, the innate universal grammar applies
the syntactic structure of adults as presented below:
K FN + FV
is applied to a child’s utterances, while the semantic approach finds the structures below:
Agent + Verb + Object, or
Agent + Verb, or
Object + Verb
in a child's utterances, a structure that describes semantic relationships. However, according to Bowerman (1973) and Brown
(1973), these semantic relationships are not always aligned or in accordance with the syntactic relationships applied.

Interference
The term interference was first used by Weinreich (1968) to refer to a change of a language system in connection
with the presence of the language contact with other language elements performed by a bilingual speaker. Bilingual speakers
are speakers who use two languages interchangeably, and multilingual speakers, if any, are speakers who can use many
languages interchangeably. However, the ability of each speaker to use L1 and L2 varies greatly. There are speakers who
master L1 and L2 equally well, but some are not; even there are speakers who have poor ability to use L2. Bilingual speakers
who have the ability to use both L1 and L2 equally well have no difficulty in using those two languages whenever necessary.
This ability by Ervin and Osgood (1965, p.139) is called coordinate bilingualism. Meanwhile, poor ability to use L2 or not
equal to the ability to use L1 is called compound bilingualism. Speakers with compound bilingualism usually have difficulty
in using their L2 since it will be influenced by their L1. Process of language production of coordinate and compound
bilingual speakers is presented in the following diagram (Ervin and Osgood’s modification).
 rm im rm1 rm1

IA IB RB RA RB RA
rm1 im2

I B RB

Diagram 1. Interference
The diagram on the left side shows the process of language production of compound bilingual speakers. There are
two signaling devices (I) or languages, namely IA and IB signaling devices. These two signaling devices are connected by a
single device of the same representational mediation process (rm), rm --- im. On the interference side (im), this mediation
process is associated with two receiving devices or responses in both languages, namely language A and language B. Since
the process of mediation is the same, then input at IA can be output at RA. If that happens, then there is a process we call
interference (Nababan, 1984). Hartman and Stork (1972, p.115) do not call it "interference," but "error," resulting from the
influence of mother tongue or first language dialects on the second language dialects.
The right diagram shows the the process of language production of speakers with coordinate bilingualism. There
are two separate mediation processes, so there is no interference. Bilingual speakers like this can be referred to as true
bilingual. However, such speakers are rare. Most coordinate bilingual speakers are equally good in two languages but
usually in terms of different use of both languages (Chaer and Agustina, 2004, p.122).
In syntactic interference, an Indonesian sentence of a bilingual speaker of Javanese-Indonesian is taken as an
example. The sentence is "Di sini toko Laris yang mahal sendiri" (In here Laris mart is expensive itself) (taken from Djoko
Kentjono, 1982). This Indonesian sentence uses Javanese language structure as in Javanese it reads "Ning kene Toko Laris
sing larang dhewe". The word “sendiri” (-self) in the Indonesian sentence is a translation of the Javanese word “dhewe”.
Although the word “dhewe” in Javanese language means “-self”, as in another example "I dhewe sing took" (I come
myself), and "Kowe krungu dhewe?" (Did you hear it yourself?), the word “dhewe” accompanied by the word “sing”
becomes a superlative adjective (most/-est), like “sing dhuwur dhewe” (the highest), and “sing larang dhewe” (the most
expensive). Thus, in Indonesian, the above sentence should read "Toko Laris adalah toko yang paling mahal di sini" (Laris
mart is the most expensive mart here). Another example, an Indonesian sentence “Makanan itu telah dimakan oleh saya”
(The food has been eaten by me) is influenced by Sundanese language structure as in sundanese language it reads "Makanan
the atos dituang ku abdi”. In Indonesian standard language, the structure should be "Makanan itu telah saya makan" (I have
eaten the food) (Chaer and Agustina 2004, p.123-124).
In terms of language development, interference is a grace because it is a very important mechanism for enriching
and developing a language to be a perfect language so as to be used in all fields of activity. Hockett (1958) argues that
interference is one of the biggest, most important, and most dominant phenomena in language. In the development of
Indonesian language phonology, for example, before the EYD (perfected spelling system) was implemented in 1972, the
sound /f/ and sound /x/ originating from foreign languages had not been recognized as Indonesian phonemes. However, after
the implementation of EYD, they have been recognized as phonemes because of the existence of minimal pairs of these
sounds like the word kapan=kafan and has=kas (as we know that a requirement to determine whether a sound is a phoneme
is the existence of a minimal pair containing the sound).

Structure of Language
The syntactic and semantic development in children continues because of its continuous and widespread
experience, which implies that schools have a very important role. New experiences help the development of the semantic
system of children which includes two things. First, it is better for children to meet new people, objects, traits, activities,
information, and relationships, and their language should evolve including how to talk about them. Sometimes a new
element in an experience, however, is an act of thinking about a common experience at a certain level of consciousness.
The syntactic development in children takes place during elementary school as well; it will be clearly seen by their
teacher from the conversation and the texts contained in their books.
According to Chaer (2007, p.33-34), in every language analysis there are two concepts that need to be understood,
namely structure and system. Structure concerns the relationship between elements in units of speech production, for
example, between phonemes in words, between words in phrases, or between phrases in sentences. On the other hand,
system deals with the relationship between the elements of language in other units of speech production. The fact that the
predicate lies behind the subject in Indonesian language is a matter of structure, whereas the fact that active verbs and
passive verbs exist is a matter of system.

II. RESEARCH METHOD

This study examines three variables, namely (1) first language syntax (Buginese, Torajan, Javanese, and Balinese)
and (2) the use of Indonesian as a second language consisting of (a) the ability to analyze Indonesian language, (b) the ability
to synthesize Indonesian language and (3) the implication of the acquisition of the first language and Indonesian as the
second language on syntax teaching. The data of the syntax of the first language sentences was collected through essay test,
Indonesian discourse test, and first language discourse test. The data obtained from the three tests were analyzed using
descriptive analysis and qualitative statistical analysis. The results of the analyses were expected to reveal whether the
syntax of the first language sentence affects the use of Indonesian as a second language for grade V students. The population
of this study was all grade V students of 11 elementary schools in East Tomoni Sub-district East Luwu Regency, which
amounted to 407 students in academic year 2015-2016. From the population, four elementary schools were chosen, namely
(1) SD Negeri 179 Baku; (2) SD Negeri 175 Karawasan; (3) SD Negeri 171 Purwosari; and (4) SD Negeri 173 Kertoraharjo,
consisting of 169 students. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling which is a non-probability sampling
technique, a sampling technique based on certain considerations (Sugiyono, 2011, p.25).

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

a. Using the first language (Torajan language) in Indonesian sentences analytically
The use of sentence in this study is the students’ essay consisting of at least two or three elements of sentence
construction, namely subject, predicate, and object. The use of sentence by respondents represents some sentence structure
patterns and sentence variety. The use of sentence that appear in the respondents’ writing includes single sentences,
compound sentences, interrogative sentences, negative sentences, and passive sentences. The following describes the
sentence variety and its structure patterns found in the respondents' essay:

Declarative Sentence
Kami mau pergi (We want to go) (001)
Subject – Predicate (S – P)

Kami selalu membelinya (We always buy it) (002)

Subject – Predicate (S – P)

Waktu itu saya merayakan tahun baru (At that time I celebrated new year) (003)
Adverb-Subject-Predicate-Object (A-S-P-O)

Di sana saya menikmati keindahan pantai (There I enjoyed the beauty of the beach) (004)
Adverb-Subject-Predicate-Object (A-S-P-O)

Based on the corpus and its analysis, there are several sentence structure patterns found, namely S-O; A-S-P-O; P-
S-A; S-P-O; S-P-O-A; A-S-P; A-S-P-A; S-P-A. It shows that grade V students aged 10-11 years old have been able to write
sentences with varied patterns in Indonesian language.

b. Using the first language (Buginese language) in Indonesian sentences analytically

Declarative Sentence
Pada hari liburan sekolah saya dan keluarga ingin sekali pergi rekreasi (On school holidays I really want to go on a
picnic with my family (001)
Adverb – Subject – Predicate (A – S – P)

Di tengah perjalanan aku tertidur dan tidak lama kemudian kami pun tiba (In the middle of the trip I fell asleep and
soon we arrived
Adverb – Predicate – Subject -
di rumah nenek dan kakek (at grandma’s house) (002)
Adverb (A – P – S – A)

Aku dan ibu sudah duluan tidur (I and my mother slept first) (003)
Subject – Predicate (S – P)

Ibuku bilang setiap perayaan tahun baru, aku selalu tidur (My mother said that in every new year celebration I always
sleep) (004)
Subject – Predicate – Adverb (S – P – A)

Based on the corpus and its analysis, there are some sentence patterns found, namely S-P; S – P – O; S – P – A; A – S
– P; A – S - P – O; A– P – S – A. It means that grade V students aged 10-11 years old have been able to write sentences with
varied patterns in Indonesian language.

c. Using the first language (Javanese language) in Indonesian sentences analytically

Declarative Sentence
Bersama ayah dan ibu dengan tetangga-tetangga ikut bersama keluargaku (With my father and my mother my neighbors
go there with my family)
Subject - Predicate -
dengan mengendarai mobil (by car) (001)
Adverb (S – P – A)
 Aku dan ibu pergi ke rumah kakek dan nenek untuk merayakan hari raya idul (My mother and I went to grandma’s
house to celebrate Eid Al-)
Subject – Predicate – Object (S – P – O)
fitri (fitr) (002)

Pada malam hari aku dan teman-temanku bahas Ilhahi di poskamling (At night my friends and I discussed Ilahi at
Neighborhood Security Post) (003)
Adverb – Subject – Predicate – Adverb (A – S – P – A)

Aku pergi ke rumah saudaraku bersama kedua orang tua (I went to my brother’s house with my parents) (004)
Subject – Predicate – Object (S – P – O)

Referring to the corpus and its analysis, sentence structure patterns revealed are S – P – A; S – P – O; S – P – O –
A; A – S – P – A; S – A – P – O; S – P – A – O; dan O – P. This indicates that grade V students aged 10-11 years old have
been able to write sentences with varied patterns in Indonesian language.

d. Using the first language (Balinese language) in Indonesian sentences analytically

Declarative Sentence
Saya banyak melihat binatang-binatang yang lucu (I saw many cute animals) (001)
Subject – Adverb – Predicate – Object (S – A – P – O)

Saya pergi berekreasi ke pantai (I went on a picnic on the beach) (002)

Subject – Predicate – Adverb (S – P – A)
Saya menghidupkan kembang api bersama kakakku dari Makassar (I play with fireworks with my siblings from
Makassar) (003)
Subject – Predicate – Object – Adverb (S – P – O – A)

Kita melaksanakan Tri Sandya pahalanya akan semakin bertambah (We perform Tri Sandya to receive many rewards)
(004)
Subject – Predicate – Adverb (S – P – A)

Saat libur saya berekreasi bersama keluarga ke Meko (On holidays I and my family go to Meko) (005)
Adverb – Subject – Predicate – Adverb (Adverb – S – P – Adverb)

The corpus and its analysis reveal sentence structure patterns, namely S – P; O – P; S – P – O; S – P – A; S – P – S;
A – S – P; S – P – O – A; A – P – O; A – S – P – S; A – S – P – A; S – A – P – O; A – P – O – S. This indicates that grade V
students aged 10-11 years old have been able to write sentences with varied patterns in Indonesian language. In this case, the
sentence variety includes standard Indonesian and non-standard Indonesian that are influenced by the students’ first language
(local language).

CONCLUSION
The first language sentence patterns corresponding to the second language sentence patterns used by the
respondents in their essay include: (1) subject-predicate (S-P), used by respondents whose first language are Torajan,
Buginese, and Balinese except by respondents whose first language is Javanese, (2) subject-predicate-object (S-P-O), used
by all respondents in their essay, (3) subject-predicate-adverb (S-P-A), used by all respondents in their essay, and (4)
subject-predicate-object-adverb (S-P-O-A), used by all respondents in their essay except the respondents whose first
language is Buginese. The first language sentence patterns which are inconsistent with the structures of the second language
sentence (Indonesian) used by the respondents in their essay include: (1) object-predicate sentence pattern (O-P) pattern,
used by the respondents whose first language are Javanese and Balinese, (2) predicate-subject-adverb (P-S-A) sentence
pattern, used by the respondents whose first language is Torajan, (3) adverb-subject-predicate sentence pattern (A-S-P), used
by respondents whose first language are Torajan, Buginese, and Balinese, (4) subject-predicate-subject sentence pattern (S-
P-S), used by the respondents whose first language is Balinese, (5) adverb-subject-predicate-object sentence pattern (A-S-P-
O), used by the respondents whose first language are Torajan, Biginese, and Balinese, (6) adverb-subject-predicate-adverb
sentence pattern (A-S-P-A), used by the respondents whose first language are Torajan, Javanese, and Balinese, (7) adverb-
predicate-subject-adverb sentence pattern (A-P-S-A), used by the respondents whose first language is Buginese, (8) subject-
adverb-predicate-object sentence structure (S-A-P-O), used by the respondents whose first language are Javanese and
Balinese, (9) subject-predicate-adverb-object (S-P-A-O) sentence pattern, used by the respondents whose first language is
Javanese, (10) adverb-predicate-object-subject sentence pattern (A-P-O-S), used by the respondents whose first language is
Balinese, and (11) adverb-subject-predicate-subject sentence pattern (A-S-P-S), used by the respondents whose first
language is Balinese. Respondents who use interrogative sentences in their essay are those whose first language is Torajan,
Buginese, and Javanese except those whose first language is Balinese. For negative sentences, all respondents use the
negative word “no” in their essay. Most respondents in their essay use compound sentences that do not match the second
language (Indonesian) rules. Moreover, the use of passive and active sentences in their essay is not in line with the second
language (Indonesian) rules.
 The implication of first language and second language acquisition on syntax teaching in schools is that there is a
gap between the first language and the second language, meaning that the teaching of Indonesian in schools is influenced by
the use of the first language, both in terms of its rules and in terms of its accents.

REFERENCES
[1] Aitchison, Jean. (1984). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Hutchinson.

[2] Allwright, R. (ed). (1975). Working Papers: Language Teaching Classroom Research. University of Essex,
Departement of Language and Linguistics.

[3] Alwi, Hasan. dkk. (2003). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

[4] Arifin, Syamsul, dkk. (1999). Kalimat Pasif dalam Bahasa Jawa. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

[5] Ausubel, D.A. (1964). Adults versus children in second language learning: psychological considerations. Modern
Language Journal, (48), p.430-424.

[6] Beratha, Ni Lih Sutjiati. (1999). “Sintaksis Bahasa Bali Kuna dan Sejarah Perkembangannya” dalam Jurnal Linguistik
Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI.

[7] Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language Development and Language Disorders. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

[8] Brown, Douglas H. & Gonzo, Susan. (1994). Reading on Second Language Acquisition.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

[9] Carnie, Andrew. (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction Second Edition. Singapore: COS Printers Pte Ltd.

[10] Chaer, Abdul & Leonie Agustina. (2004). Sosiolinguistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

[11] Chaer, Abdul. (2007). Psikolinguistik Kajian Teoretik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
[12] Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.

[13] Chomsky, N. (1959). The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

[14] Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspecis of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

[15] Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

[16] Corder, Piet S. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmonsworth: Penguin Books.

[17] Djoko Kencono. (1982). “Beberapa Masalah Lafal Standar” Pengajaran Bahasa dan Sastra. Th. V. No. 5, p.16-23.

[18] Dulay, Heidi dan Burt, Marina. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. Tesol Quarterly, 8,
p.120 -136.
[19] Ellis, Rod. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[20] Ellis,Rod. (2003). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[21] Ervin, S.M. & C.E. Osgood. (1965). “Second Language Learning and Bilingalism” dalam C.E.Osgood & T.A. Sebeok
(Ed).

[22] Ervin Tripp, Susan. (1974). Is Second Language Learning Like the First?” TESOL Quarterly, 8, p.111 – 127.
[23] Felis, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition. Tubigen: Gunther Narr.

[24] Fowler, Roger Gunther Krees, dan Tony Trew. (1979). Language as Ideology. London-New York: Routledge.

[25] Hockett, Charles F. (1985). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Mac Millan Publising Co, Inc.

[26] Hymes, Dell. (1964). Linguage in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

[27] Junus, A.Muhammad & A.Fatimah. (2011). Sintaksis Bahasa Bugis. Makassar: Badan Penerbit UNM.

[28] Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). Principle and Practise in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

[29] Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (2008). Kamus Linguistik; Edisi Keempat. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
[30] Long, M. (1977). Teacher Feedback on Learner Error: Mapping Cognitions. In Brown (Eds.) (1977)

[31] Long, M. (1990). Second Language Classroom Research and Teacher Education. In Brumfit and Mitchell (Eds.)
(1990).

[32] Milon, J. (1974). The development of negation in English by a second language learner. TESOL Quarterly, 8, p.137 -
143.

[33] Mulyadi. (1987). Urutan Pemerolehan Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia Tulis Siswa SMP yang Berbahasa Ibu Bahasa Jawa.
Malang: Fakultas Pascasarjana IKIP Malang. (Tesis, tidak diterbitkan).

[34] Nababan, P.W.J. (1984). Sosiolinguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia

[35] Nurcholis, Hanif & Mafrukhi. (2007). Sasebi; Saya Senang Berbahasa Indonesia untuk Sekolah Dasar Kelas V; KTSP
2006. Jakarta: Erlangga.

[36] Padmadewi, Ni Wayan. (2006). “Analisis Percakapan dalam Bahasa Bali: Suatu Kajian Bahasa dan Gender”. dalam
Jurnal Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI

[37] Pasmidi, Made. (1998). “Pengajaran Bahasa Bali pada Sekolah Dasar di Bali” dalam Jurnal Linguistik Indonesia.
Jakarta: MLI.

[38] Piaget, J. (1969). The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Humanities Press.

[39] Ravem, Roar. (1968). Language acquisition in second language environment. IRAL, 6, p.175 – 176.

[40] Salombe, C. Dkk. (1979). “Struktur Morfologi dan Sintaksis Bahasa Toraja Saqdan” Ujung Pandang: Proyek
Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah Sulawesi Selatan.

[41] Salombe, C. (1982). Bahasa Toraja Saqdan Proses Morfemis Kata Kerja. Jakarta: Djambatan.

[42] Sande, J.S. dkk. (1984). Struktur Bahasa Toraja. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

[43] Sande, J.S. dkk. (1997). Tata Bahasa Toraja. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

[44] Saryono, Djoko. (2010). Pemerolehan Bahasa Teori dan Serpih Kajian. Malang: Nasa Media.

[45] Scovel, Thomas. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance”. Language Learning, 19,
p.245 – 254.

[46] Sedeng, I Nyoman. (2010). Morfosintaksis Bahasa Bali Dialek Sembiran; Analisis Tata Bahasa Peran an Acuan.
Bali: Udayana University Press.

[47] Selinger, Herbert W. & Elana Shohamy. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. New York: Oxford University
Press.

[48] Sobur, Alex. (2001). Analisis Teks Media, Suatu Pengantar untuk Analisis Wacana, Analisis Semiotik, dan Analisis
Framing. Bandung: PT. Remaja Riskakarya.

[49] Sogiharto, Setiono. (2005). An Empirical Study on Reanding-Writing Connrction: Research Insights for the
Classroom. dalam Jurnal Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI.

[50] Sriasih, Sang Ayu Putu. (2005). Perkembangan II Wacana Tulis Argumentatif Siswa Sekolah Dasar. dalam Jurnal
Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI

[51] Sudipa, I Nengah. (2010). Struktur Semantik Verba Keadaan Bahasa Bali. Bali: Udayana University Press.

[52] Sumarsono.(1997). “Bahasa Daerah sebagai Muatan Lokal:Ihwal Materi dan Metode” dalam Jurnal Linguistik
Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI.

[53] Syamsuddin, A.R. (1992). Studi Wacana Teori Analisis-Pengajaran. Bandung: FPBS Press.

[54] Taha, Z. (1985). Satu Wacana Dua Bahasa, Faktor-faktor Sosiolinguistik Alih Kode Bahasa Bugis-Bahasa Indonesia.
Ujung Pandang: Universitas Hasanuddin.
[55] Van Dijk, Teun (ed). (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies A Multidiciplinary Introduction. Vol.
2 London: Sage Publication.

[56] Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.

[57] Weinrich, Uriel. (1968). Language in Contact. The Hauge-Paris: Mouton.

[58] Widada. (1994). “Bahasa Jawa Etnis Bali: Telaah Struktur dan Fungsinya”. dalam Jurnal Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta:
MLI.

[59] Zain, M. (2006). “Pemerolehan Bahasa dan Penerjemahan: Analisis Kasus Pembelajar Bahasa Inggris Penutur Dewasa
Indonesia”. dalam Jurnal Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI.