Theoretical Framework REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

29

c. Pronomina Penunjuk Atributif

Bahasa Indonesia has pronomina penunjuk atributif which has almost the same function as demonstratives in English grammar. Pronomina penunjuk atributif is used as pewatas subyek or postmodifier. It is used when the speaker and the listener share the same reference yet the pronomina penunjuk atributif depends on the distance between the speaker and the thing referred, not the countability. Alwi et al. 1993 explains there are two pronomina penunjuk atributif used in Indonesia, namely ini and itu. Ini is used to refer to things both singular and plural which are near the speaker. While itu, it is used to refer to both singular and plural things which are far from the speaker p. 287. For instance 39 Pohon itu ditanam oleh Reinwardt. 40 Bunga-bunga itu ditanam oleh Pak Hasan. Those explanations show that Bahasa Indonesia does not differentiate ini and itu based on countability. It is different from demonstrative rule which considers countability.

B. Theoretical Framework

This study focuses on the students’ basic noun phrase. As the framework, some points can be summed up. The researcher uses the theory of basic noun phrases proposed by Quirk et al. 1972 and Lam 2004 and a descriptive text to obtain the data. According to Quirk et al. 1972 and Lam 2004, a basic noun phrase is classified into two types. Type 1 basic noun phrase consists of head only, those are pronouns or numerals. While type 2 basic noun phrase, it is 30 comprised of a noun as the head and determiners which occur before the head. In relation to a descriptive text, the researcher took describing an object, a type of a descriptive text, as the analytical tool to obtain data. The major theories which are used to analyze data are an error analysis and a surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982. Dealing with errors, the researcher does not differentiate between mistakes and errors. In this study, the term errors is drawn from the theories of errors proposed by Ellis 1997 who differentiates between error and mistake, Dulay et al. 1982 who call errors as any deviation from the norm of selected norm of mature language performance and Radford 1997 who states that misproductions and misinterpretations are performance errors. Thus, in this study, the term errors refer to any of the students’ misproduction which shows misunderstanding or failure to perform what the students have already understood about basic noun phrase formation. In relation to classifying the errors, the theory of surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dullay 1982 is relevant to the focus of this error analysis. There are four error sub-classifications, namely 1 omission 2 addition which covers double marking, regularization, and simple addition 3 misformation which consists of regularization, archi-form, and alternating form and 4 misordering. Nevertheless, the researcher does not differentiate between archi- forms and alternating forms as they both refer to errors as the result of free alternation. 31 In addition, besides the interview results and the researcher analysis, the theory of the causes of errors proposed by Brown 2000 is helpful in identifying the possible causes of the students’ errors. Here, the researcher highlights three possible causes of the students’ errors; they are interferences from mother tongue, overgeneralization and the context of learning. To see the interlingual transfer, the researcher explains it based on Indonesian noun phrase theory proposed by Alwi et al. 1993, Chaer 2009 and Dwijatmoko 1992. Moreover, there are several suggestions offered by the students and the English teachers to improve students’ understanding. Then, based on the interview results, the researcher presents two suggestions: giving feedback and increasing practices through interesting activities. The theory of giving feedback is proposed by Harmer 2007 and Lewis 2002. Furthermore, the theory of increasing practices through interesting activities is proposed by Dulay 1983 as cited in Harendita 2009, Ellis 2002 and Dörnyei 2001. 32

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will include a discussion of the method that is used in the study, the research setting, the research participantssubjects, the research instruments and data gathering techniques employed, the data analysis technique and research procedures.

A. Research Method

This study has three research aims. First, it seeks to basic noun phrase errors made by the students in the SMP Pangudi Luhur 1 Yogyakarta. Second, it attempts to discover the possible causes of the students’ errors and third, it suggests strategies for improving students’ understanding of basic noun phrases. To respond to these research problems, the researcher used a qualitative approach since the study dealt with data primarily collected from documents and interviews. This study was a document analysis. Ary, Jacobs Sorensen 2010 state a document analysis aims to identify specified characteristics of written or visual materials p. 457. This method was chosen because the researcher analyzed the written data in the form of students’ descriptive writing. Ary et al. 2010 argue that the qualitative researcher collects some numeric data as attempts to arrive at rich description of people, object, events, places conversation and so on p. 425. Similarly, this study also includes numbers which are generated to enable the researcher to summarize the types of errors in students’ writing.