70
was the NP which was modified. Finally, there were one student 2.22 answered that CP functioned as the head. It was also incorrect because the head
should be occupied by a category which showed the sentence tense and marked the time frame. The CP did not take up those two roles. In addition, there were
two students 4.44 left the answer empty.
d. Drawing the Tree Diagram
The students were expected to be able to apply and to demonstrate the concepts and theories of the adjective clauses and the X schema to examine
subject-subject and object-subject adjective clauses in the form of the tree diagrams on the second part of the test. According to Alip 2006, tree diagrams
are very useful in analysing sentences. First, they are more practical to use because several phrase structure rules can be shown together. Second, tree
diagrams truly presents how one element of sentence is related to another. Therefore, it is important for the students to be able to perform grammatical
analyses by using the tree diagrams. The students had to draw tree diagrams of the matrix clauses [6] and [7] in
the part B. In order to draw the tree diagram, the students should apply all of the theories and concepts related to the X schema to do the analyses.
[6] The girl who speaks English is my friend. [7] I read the book which is on the table.
Question number one required the students to draw the tree diagram of the sentence [6].
71
The phrase the girl formed a NP because a determiner the merged with the noun girl. Similarly, the phrase my friend forms a NP because the determiner my
merged with the noun friend. The auxiliary verb is marked the tense and specified the time frame. Therefore, it should be dubbed as I. The I merged with the NP my
friend formed an I. Finally, I merged with another NP the girl formed an IP. On the other hand, the clause who is smart was labeled in a similar way. The word
English and the verb speaks merge to form an I. The I merged with the relative pronoun who to form an IP. However, it was actually a CP although it was labeled
as an IP. It was because this IP was an adjective clause which modified the noun phrase the girl O’Grady et al., 2005: 185.
By considering the Wh movement principle, the relative pronoun moved to the position under the CP next to the NP which was modified. In the end, Figure
4.5 clearly depicts the merge operation as well as the Wh movement operation.
Figure 4.5 The Correct Tree Diagram of the Sentence [6]
72
By looking at the Figure 4.5 above, it is clear that the adjective clause who speaks English was a CP which took its role to modify the NP. The NP merged to the I to
form an IP. It was also depicted in the figure that the head of the matrix clause was the auxiliary verb is which occupied the position of the I. The I took the NP
The girl who speaks English as its specifier and the NP my friend as its complement. It was also clear that the trace t showed the relative pronoun who
apparently moved under the position of CP although the actual words order in the sentence did not change as a result of the movement.
The result of the test revealed that in the question number one, there were five students 11.11 answered correctly by drawing the tree diagram as it was
required. However, 12 students 26.67 achieved 4. Based on the rubric, the students’ answer who achieved this score only missed on the Wh movement. The
resulted tree diagrams was illustrated in Figure 4.6a and 4.6b.
Figure 4.6a The Tree diagram of the Students Achieved Score 4
73
Figure 4.6b The Tree diagram of the Students Achieved Score 4
Based on Figure 4.6a and 4.6b the students were able to label each word of the matrix clause according to its category and to merge the category to form new
phrasal categories correctly. They were also able to distinguish between the main clause from the adjective clause in respect of the matrix clause and to merge their
constituents correctly. They assigned correctly the adjective clause as a CP and merge the CP to the NP which was modified correctly. As a result, they built an IP
of the matrix clause which consisted of a NP which was modified by the CP and an I which functioned as the head. However, the students on figure 4.6a did not
account for the Wh movement at all and the students on figure 4.6b made mistake in the Wh movement operation O’Grady et al., 2005: 184-186 by mistakenly
located the original position of the Wh phrase. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Next, there were six students 13.33 of the students achieved 3. According to the rubric, the students were able to label each word of the matrix
clause according to its category and to merge the category to form new phrasal categories correctly. They were also able to distinguish between the main clause
from the adjective clause in respect of the matrix clause and to merge their constituents correctly. Nevertheless, they made mistake in the CP. They
incorrectly labeled or merged the adjective clause, which should be a CP, as other categories or the students merged the CP incorrectly, which should be merged
with NP, with other categories. Figure 4.7a and 4.7b depicted the students work on this category.
Figure 4.7a The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 3
The Figure 4.7a showed that the students were able to label each word of the matrix clause according to its category and to merge the category to form new
75
phrasal categories correctly. They were also able to distinguish between the main clause from the adjective clause in respect of the matrix clause and to merge their
constituent correctly. However, they mistakenly merged the CP directly to the position of the IP. In fact, they should merge the CP to the NP because the CP
functioned as a modifier of the NP O’Grady et al., 2005: 185. Similarly, Figure 4.7b illustrated that the students were correctly able to assign each category of
word and the resulted phrase from the merge operation. They also account for the CP. However, they mistakenly labeled the adjective clause as an IP. It was
incorrect because the adjective clause should be labeled as a CP because it modified the NP O’Grady et al., 2005: 185
Figure 4.7b The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 3
The Figure 4.7b illustrated that the students incorrectly labeled the adjective clause who speaks English as an IP in which it should be denoted as a CP.
Next, there were five students 11.11 achieved 2. In this case, the students were able to label each word of the matrix clause according to its
76
category to form new phrasal categories. However, they were not able to perform that they can distinguish between the main clause and the adjective clause. As a
result, they incorrectly merged the constituents of the main clause and the adjective clause. Therefore, they built awkward tree diagrams although some of
the students built up to the level of the IP of the matrix clause. Figure 4.8a, 4.8b and 4.8c depicted this students’ performance.
Figure 4.8a The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 2
Although the students built the tree diagram up to the level of the IP of the matrix clause, it was incorrect because the noun English could not join to the auxiliary
verb is because those two categories belonged to the different clauses O’Grady et al., 2005: 185. As a result, the students considered the phrase English is my friend
as an IP whereas in fact it could not because the noun English should be merged with the verb speaks. Therefore, the auxiliary verb is was should also be merged
with the NP The girl. In addition, Figure 4.8b illustrated the other students’ mistakes in analysing the sentence.
77
Figure 4.8b The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 2
In Figure 4.8b, the student made mistakes in assigning the merger between the NP The girl and the VP speak English. The VP should be merged with the
NP who first and the merged with the NP O’Grady et al., 2005: 185. In the figure, the students were also unable to merge the NP who with another category.
Figure 4.8c also depicted similar mistakes.
Figure 4.8c The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 2
78
In figure 4.8c the students made mistake in labeling the complementizer. The phrase speaks English is my friend should not be denoted as C because they
belonged to the different categories and none of the words in the phrase belonged to the category of the complementizer O’Grady et al., 2005: 153. Moreover, the
students were also not able to distinguish between the adjective clause and the main clause so that merged their constituents incorrectly.
Finally, most of the students achieved score 1 for the first question in the part B. There were 17 students 37.78 got the score. They were only able to
label each word of the matrix clause according to its category. Nevertheless, they incorrectly labeled the new phrasal categories resulted from the merge operations
of the category. Figure 4.9a and 4.9b depicted the students’ mistakes on this category.
Figure 4.9a The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 1
The figure illustrated that the student made mistakes in most of the part. They merged the adjective clause speak English is my friend to be a C. It was a mistake
because it belonged to different part of the clauses Murphy, 1985: 184. In this case, the student also made mistake in merging the auxiliary verb is. In addition,
79
students who came in the category only assigned each category and they did not to continue to merge the category to form new categories. Figure 4.9b illustrated it.
Figure 4.9b The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 1
In this case, the students only labeled the category of words. Although they had tried to merge the category by drawing the lines, they did not continue to do the
analyses. Question number two was similar to question number one. The students
were required to draw the tree diagram of the matrix clause [7]. The difference was on nature of the sentence. Sentence [7] was an object-subject adjective clause
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999: 574-575 whereas the former was a subject-subject adjective clause.
To draw the tree diagram, first, it should be clear about each category of the word. The phrase the book forms an NP because the determiner the merge
with the noun book. Next, it merged with the verb read to form a VP. Since read specified the time frame and marked the tense, it should be dubbed as I to form an
I. Finally, the I merged with the pronoun I to form an IP. The NP the table merged together with the preposition on and it formed a PP. The auxiliary verb is
also specified the time frame and marked the tense therefore it should be dubbed as I. Then, the I merged with the PP to form an I. At the end, the I merged with
the NP to form an IP. Needless to say, this IP was embedded into another sentence by the presence of the relative pronoun which. Therefore, it was categorized as a
80
CP. Following the principle of the Wh movement which required to move Wh under the CP, the relative pronoun which moved under the position of CP. The
best tree diagram of those merges and movement operation were depicted on Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10 The Correct Tree Diagram of the Sentence [7]
Although the arrangement of words remained the same, the trace could locate and showed that the relative pronoun which really moved. It was also
depicted by the figure that the verb read functioned as the head of the matrix clause. It merged with the pronoun I and the NP the book which was modified by
the CP to form an IP. The test revealed that there were five students 11.11 drew the tree
diagram correctly. On the other hand, there were nine students 20 achieved score 4. The students who achieved this score were able to label each word of the
matrix clause according to its category and to merge the category to form new phrasal categories correctly. They were also able to distinguish between the main
81
clause from the adjective clause in respect of the matrix clause and to merge their constituents correctly. They assigned the adjective clause as a CP and correctly
merged the CP to the NP which was modified. As a result they built an IP of the matrix clause which consisted of a NP which was modified by the CP and an I
which functioned as the head. However, they did not account for the Wh movement. Figure 4.11 illustrated the students’ work of this score.
Figure 4.11 The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 4
The test also revealed that there were six students 13.33 achieved score 3. The students who achieved this score were able to label each word of the matrix
clause according to its category and to merge the category to form new phrasal categories correctly. They were also able to distinguish between the main clause
from the adjective clause in respect of the matrix clause and to merge their constituent correctly. Nevertheless, they made mistake in the CP. They incorrectly
labeled or merged the adjective clause, which should be a CP, as other categories or the students incorrectly merge the CP, which should be merged with NP, with
82
other categories. Figure 4.12a, 4.12b and 4.12c illustrated the students’ performance who achieved this score.
Figure 4.12a The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 3
The figure illustrated that the students were able to classify the words based on their categories and to merge each category to form new phrasal categories up to
the level of IP of the matrix clause. They were also able to distinguish between the adjective clause and the main clause. It was proven that they were able to denote
the adjective clause as a CP. Unfortunately, they merged the CP incorrectly. The CP should be merged to the NP the book O’Grady et al., 2005: 185 whereas on
the figure the CP was merged to the VP. It should be merged with the NP because the CP functioned as the modifier of the NP and not the VP. Moreover, they also
did not account for the Wh movement which should be present on the CP. Figure 4.15b and 4.15c also showed the similar and typical students’
performance of this score. They also made mistake on the area of merge between the CP and the NP which was modified.
83
Figure 4.12b The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 3
Figure 4.12c The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 3
The Figure 4.12b illustrated that the students were able to assign each category of word correctly. They were also able to merge the category to form new phrasal
categories. However, they made mistake on the merger between the adjective clause and the NP the book. They should label the resulted phrase as a NP not a
CP O’Grady et al., 2005: 185. Moreover, they also did not account for the Wh PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
84
movement. Similarly, Figure 4.12c illustrated that the students were able to assign each category of word correctly. However, they mistakenly labeled the adjective
clause as an IP. Although an adjective clause was actually an IP, they should be denoted as a CP in respect to its role in the matrix clause O’Grady et al., 2005:
165-166. In addition, there were seven students 15.56 achieved score 2. Figure
4.13 illustrated the students’ performance on this case.
Figure 4.13 The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 2
The students who achieved this score were correct in assigning to each category. They were able to label each word of the matrix clause according to its category to
form new phrasal categories. However, they were not able to distinguish between the main clause and the adjective clause. As a result, they
incorrectly merge the constituents of the main clause and the adjective clause. It was depicted in the picture that the students incorrectly labeled the phrase on the
table as a NP and the students could not differentiate between the adjective clause PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
85
and the main clause so that they merged incorrect constituents. In fact, they should have merge the adjective clause which is on the table that functions as a modifier
to the NP the book O’Grady et al., 2005: 185-186 Finally, most of the students or 18 students 40 achieved score 1. The
students were only able to label each word of the matrix clause according to its category. Nevertheless, they incorrectly labeled the new phrasal categories
resulted from the merge operations of the category. Figure 4.14a, 4.14b and 4.14c illustrated the typical students’ performance who achieved this score.
Figure 4.14a The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 1
Figure 4.14b The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 1
In Figure 4.14a, the students actually had assigned each category of word. They also merged some of the categories to form a new phrasal category but they
incorrectly labeled the phrase is on the table as a PP. On the other hand, the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
86
students in Figure 4.14b had correctly merged the VP read the book. However, they did not continue to merge other categories. Similarly, the students depicted
by the Figure 4.17c had labeled each category of the words but they did not continue the analysis.
Figure 4.14c The Tree Diagram of the Students Achieved Score 1
In this case, the students were only correct in assigning each category of word. They did not try to merge the category to form new phrasal categories. The
students in this part of the test commonly made these types of work. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION
Conclusions, teaching implications and suggestions of this endeavor research come up in this chapter. Conclusions of the research which are related to
the research questions are restated briefly to emerge important details of the research findings. Teaching implications to the English Language Educations
students are presented to attain better performance. Finally, suggestions are also outlined to trigger for other researchers to attain development in the practice of
language teaching.
A. Conclusion
The writer asked two questions in this research. The first one was asking about the performance of the sixth semester students in analysing the adjective
clause using X schema. The result of the research disclosed that the performance of the students on analysing the adjective clause using of X schema was
considered sufficient. The performance was sufficient because the test, which was used to measure the students’ performance, showed that the students achieved
57.77 in average. In details, the average score of the first part of the was 64.67. In this part of the test, the students were required to recognise, recall,
indicate and identify concepts and theories which are related to the X schema and the adjective clause. On the other hand, the average score of the second part was
50.89. In this part of the test, the students were required to analyse two types of
87 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
