Review of Literature REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS AND THEORITICAL

observation and interviewed. The writer used Holmes 1992 theory to analyze the data. The relevant of this study to the present study is in term of theoretical framework using Holmes’s theory 1992. The weakness of this paper is in the explanation of the data and theory. Compared to other studies related to the topic, the explanation of the data in this paper is too simple. English Pidgin Used by the Traders in Guwang Art Market by Surya 2008. The purpose in this study is generally to investigate about the forms of the English pidgin used by the Traders in Guwang Art Market. The writer discussed about the grammatical aspects of pidginization including the positive forms Positive Statements, Positive Instructions, and Positive Offerings, Negative forms Negative Statements and Negative Instructions and discussed about the Negative forms YesNo Questions, WH-Questions and Alternative Questions. The investigation conducted in this study was based on the sociolinguistic theory particularly the theory which proposed by Muhlhausler 1986 he clarify that in pidgin, the grammatical category of tense is lost. The observation was focused on the grammatical and phonological aspect. The relevant to this study are in terms of the object of the study which used traders as the informants and the discussion focused to the grammatical aspect. However, the difference of this study to present study is on the analysis. The present study divided the grammatical forms into syntactical and morphological forms. The Analysis of Pidginized English in Conversations between Vendors and Foreigners in Sanur Beach by Dian 2011. The writer tried to identify and describe the Pidginized English forms especially the syntax and morphology forms and also analyzing conversational activities which took place between vendors and foreigners in types of language functions that commonly used when they have conversation. Besides, the writer also tried to find out factors that influence the used of Pidginized English in Sanur Beach. She also used the theoretical framework from An Introduction to Sociolinguistics by Wardhaugh 1986 and Pidgin and Creole Linguistics by Mulhausler 1986. The writer gave clear explanation in analyzing the problems of her study. However, she did not attach the data of the informants as the appendix and for some sub chapters the writer did not explain them clearly. The relevant to this study is in term of the problems which is the first problem focuses on the syntax and morphology forms. However, the sub chapters were different between this study to present study depend on the data compiled during conducting the research. After reviewing those three undergraduate theses above, the data was compared to this study. The comparison between those studies and this recent study brings the similarities and differences. The similarities are all of the studies discuss about Pidginized English in Sociolinguistic study. However the data conduct in different places. The difference can also be found in the analysis. The previous theses focus discussing in grammatical or phonological point, however, in this study discuss about syntactical and morphological point of view. This study is also inspired by an article entitled “Pidgin and Hawai’i English: An overview” Katie Drager: 2010 in an International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication. This journal presents a brief discussion of the h istory of both the creole called Pidgin or Hawai’i Creole and the variety of English spoken in Hawai’i referred to as Hawai’i English. This study also treats Pidgin and Hawai’i English as independent from one another while commenting on some of the linguistic forms that are found in both. Lexical items, phonological forms, and syntactic structures of Pidgin and Hawai’i English are presented alongside a discussion of language attitudes and ideologies. The relevant of this journal to this study are in term of the pidginized English focuses in syntactical form.

1.2 Concept

In the concept explained about some definitions of word that was often used in this study. They are as follow:

1.2.1 Language

There are several definition of language propose by the linguist. According to Todd 1981:1 language is an arbitrary set of signs by which members of a speech community communicated and co-operate. According to Lyons 1981:3 language are purely human and non- instinctive method of communication ideas, emotions and desires by means of vocabulary that produces symbols. Bloch and Trager in Lyons 1981:4 define languages as a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperate Lyons, 1981:4 in quite same view, hall states that language is the institution where by human communicates and interacts with each other by means of habitually oral-auditory symbol Lyons, 1981:4 Language which is subordinate of code exists in number of varieties. The variety of language is “a set of linguistic items with similar distribution” Hudson, 1980:24. This definition allows one to say that English, French, the English of football commentaries are varieties. Variety is defined in terms of ‘linguistic items’ or ‘human speech patterns’ presumably sounds, words, grammatical features which we can uniquely associate with some external factors presumably a geographical area or social group Wardhaugh, 1986:22. Standard Language According to Holmes, 1992:83, generally, a standard variety is variety which is written and has undergone some degrees of regularization or codification, for example in a Grammar and in Dictionary. Dictionary writers have to decide which words to be included in the dictionary as part of the standard variety, which forms to mark as dialectal variety and which is omitted altogether. They generally take the usage of educated and socially prestigious members of the community as their criterion. Standard languages in this case Standard English are the only kind of variety which would be counted as a “proper language’ Hudson, 1980:32. It is the result of direct and deliberate invention by society. This intervention is called ‘standardization’; it produces a standard language where before they were just ‘dialects’ i.e. non-standard varieties. Trudgil in Wardaugh 1986:31 launched his ideas that Standard English is that variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers learning language. It is also the variety which