THE STUDENTS’ PHONOLOGICAL SPEECH ERRORS IN
COUNSELING INTERVIEWS
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
HAYA HARATIKKA Registration Number: 8146111021
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the almighty who has given her blessing health, strength and patience in the process of completing this thesis entitled the phonological speech errors in counseling interviews as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.
Although the researcher believe that it is not easy to imagine finishing the post graduate study without a tremendous amount of support and encouragement from many people. First of all, she would like to express her sincere gratitude to the first advisor, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd. and to Dr. Didik Santoso, M. Pd. the second adviser for their indescribable support, advice, their profound insight and enthusiasm as her advisers in finishing this thesis. With their invaluable guidance and suggestions, she learned how to research, write, give a talk, and discusses ideas and much more. They continually challenged her to understand the right way in writing a qualitative research as well as the details of her research.
vi
Program, State University of Medan who have given their valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.
Her deepest thanks go to the members of her examiners: Dr. Syaron Lubis, M.A, Dr. Zainuddin, M. Hum., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum for their valuable comments and suggestions on her thesis. Their precious time and critical feedback have greatly improved this thesis.
An un-expressible gratitude to her beloved parents, Paguita Simorangkir and Ramli Tarigan, for their love, patience, prayers, and support in keeping encouraging the writer to finish her study. Her sisters, brother, nieces Kesya and Anggi their sincere and most reliable comfort, and above all, their love and support.
And the last, it is an honoured for her to convey thanks to her colleagues for their help and support. Special thanks go to all her beloved classmates A1 LTBI 2014 for their motivation and support. Lastly, the writer offers her regards to SMP Negeri 4 Tebing Tinggi and all of those who supported her in any respect during the completion of this thesis. Thank you very much.
Medan, April 2016 The writer
Haya Haratikka
iii ABSTRACT
Haratikka, Haya. The Students’ Phonological Speech Errors in Counseling Interviews. A thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2016.
iv ABSTRAK
Haratikka, Haya. Kesalahan Pengucapan oleh Siswa dalam Berbahasa pada Percakapan Konseling. Tesis: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2016.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Acknowledgment……… i
Abstract………iii
Table of Contents ……… v
List of Tables …..………. vii
List of Appendices ……… viii
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1. The Background of Study ... 1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ... 8
1.3 The Objective of the Study ... 8
1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 8
1.5 The Significant of the Study ... 9
Chapter II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 11
2.1 Definition of Phonological Speech Errors ... 11
2.2 Types of Phonological Speech Errors ... 13
2.3 Process of Producing Phonological Speech Errors ... 23
2.4 Reasons of Producing Phonological Speech Errors ... 28
2.5. The Nature of Counselling Interview ... 30
vi
2.7 Conceptual Framework ... 42
Chapter III METHODOLOGY ... 43
3.1 Research Design ... 43
3.2 Research Setting ... 45
3.3 Data and Data Source ... 45
3.4 The Technique of Collecting Data ... 46
3.5 The Technique of Data Analysis ... 48
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 49
Chapter IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSION ... 51
4.1 Research Findings ... 51
4.2 Discussion ... 102
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 108
5.1 Conclusions ... 108
5.2 Suggestions ... 108
LIST OF TABLES
Pages Table 4.1 Total of Informants’ Phonological Speech Errors 96 Table 4.2 Students’ Reasons in Producing Phonological Speech Error 97 Table 4.3 Data Observation and Data Interview 98
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
Interviews are a widely used tool to access people’s experiences and their
inner perceptions, attitudes, and feelings of reality. Based on the degree of structuring, interviews can be divided into three categories: structured interviews, semi structured interviews, and unstructured interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2005).
A structured interview is an interview that has a set of predefined questions and the questions would be asked in the same order for all respondents. This standardization is intended to minimize the effects of the instrument and the interviewer on the research results. Structured interviews are similar to surveys; they are administered orally rather than in writing.
Semi-structured interviews are more flexible and less formal. An interview guide, usually including both closed-ended and open-ended questions, is prepared; but in the course of the interview, the interviewer has a certain amount of room to adjust the sequence of the questions to be asked and to add questions based on the context of the participants’ responses. A set of predetermined questions is used;
counselors are able to vary the order and wording of the questions. When using a semi structured interview, the counselor is given the freedom to tailor the interview to the specific client. Questions can be repeated or stated differently to help clients’ better understanding what is being asked. Counselors are able to
2
choose which components of the interview protocol need to be included and which can be omitted.
Unstructured interviews are some of the most common types of interviews used by counselors in a clinical setting. These interviews have no established form or structure. Unstructured interviews often start with a broad, open ended question. Subsequent questions are then asked based on client responses. This approach allows for the interview process to take on more of a conversational tone. Flexibility is a hallmark of the unstructured interview. These interviews are not completely devoid of structure. Questions are not asked of clients in a haphazard manner, jumping from topic to topic with no apparent rationale. Counselors are fully responsible for deciding what question to ask and how to analyze client responses.
An interview is a purposeful conversation, usually between two people but sometimes involving more (Morgan, 1988). They called as an interviewee and an interviewer. Interviewer is the person who asks some questions to the interviewee. Meanwhile, interviewee is the one who is asked by the interviewer. In interview activity, interviewer can obtain the interviewee’s answers: reasons, feelings, opinions and beliefs (Miller and Glassner, 1997). So, interviewee should make their answers be compatible and reasonable to be accepted by the interviewer.
3
they strive for what people call with “ideal delivery”, it is the correct way of executing a sentence where the speakers know what they really want to say and say it fluently (Clark and Clark, 1977).
In fact, speech refers to saying sounds accurately and in the right places in words; the sounds people use to communicate words; speaking fluently, without hesitating, or prolonging or repeating words or sounds and speaking with expression with a clear voice, using pitch, volume and intonation to support meaning (Arksey & Knight, 1999). So, ideally people should deliver their speech by referring to those rules. However, some of speakers still do some errors when they are interviewed. This is clearly seen in counseling interview.
In order to deliver a good speech based on Arksey & Knight (1999) above, speakers have to plan what they want to say based on how they want to change the mental state of their listeners. Then, they put their plan into execution, uttering the segments, words, phrases, and sentence that make up plan. The division between planning and execution, however, is not a clean one. At any moment speakers are usually doing a little of both. They are planning what to say next while executing what they had planned moments before. It is impossible to say where planning leaves off and execution begins. Despite these problems, planning and execution are convenient labels for the two end of speech production. The considerations that come into planning an utterance can generally be distinguished from those that go into execution (Frisch, 2002).
4
speech error into five categories: 1. The reality of the segment or phone, 2. Clusters as sequence of discrete phones or segments, 3. Affricates, 4. Complex vowel, and 5. The reality of phonetic features. While Clark (1977) found disfluencies or stuttering are types of phonological speech error which has some subtypes; silent pause, prolongation and repetition.
The speakers can shift, exchange, anticipate, perseverate, add, delete, substitute, and blend the words which arise within phonological processes in production result in both marked and unmarked outcomes; and mostly errors are biased to produce unmarked structures (Lombardi, 1999).
Furthermore, when someone is speaking, his messages are conveyed by more than just the words he uses. He can, for example, uses gesture to indicate what a phrase such as “thisone” refers to, or change his tone of voice to show his
feeling about what he is talking about, sometime he is crying after he seems like having a whisper in his speech these made the listeners get confused of his speech (Sheldon, 2010).
What Lombardi and Sheldon say seems correct and can be proved. The researcher found some speech error made by two students in counselling interview in her preliminary observation. The researcher took two examples of the students’ utterances which are errors; “saya buk duduk, pas duduk buk kepala
saya dipukulnya” (I was sitting Mam, when I was sitting Mam, my head was hit
by her), “pertama saya gak/gak mau ikut buk//tapi diajak sama Bang Dian” (at
first, I didn’t/didn’t want to follow Mam//but asked by Bang Dian). Those students
5
“gak”,”duduk” and “buk” for twice. It would be clear enough if he said “sewaktu duduk, kepala saya dipukulnya buk” and “awalnya saya gak mau ikut, tapi diajak Bang Dian”. The researcher found that the students repeated some words.
The first student was crying when interviewed by the counselor. He said his head is really painful after was hit hardly by his classmate. The second student was very afraid while interviewed by the counselor. It showed through his gesture while sitting face to face with the counselor. He was sitting complying with the low pitch volume answering the counselor’s questions. It seems he defeated himself in front of the counselor. The counselor interviewed him after knowing his guilty on his absence by sending a fake permission letter. Some of his friends said he is lying, he saw him somewhere with his friends wearing uniforms on the date he wrote the permission letter. His classmates told it to the counselor. Knowing that thing, the counselor felt surprised because she lives near with him. More or less, the counselor knows his background family. He has a low social economic status family and now he is in the ninth grade of Junior High School.
6
become afraid of those effects. These effects can be seen from their effort in producing speech.
Psychologically, feeling afraid and threatened can affect someone’s brain
in producing speech. As the result, most of the students who interviewed did such errors. The cognitive, psychological, and social reasons are the sources that lead the occurrence of speech errors. Cognitive reasons related to the complex subject that constraint the speaker to speech clearly. Psychological reasons related to certain conditions such as anxious, nervous, in hurry, or others that halter them to speech. It is based on feeling and emotion. Social reasons related to social relationship among people in their environment that influences the speaker to speech (Clark and Clark, 1977).
Since this counceling treatment is established, it is aimed as a process of helping others goes through the difficulties with the goal to help the person seeking counseling to feel comfortable and willing to share his or her concerns, (Geldard and Geldard, 2012). Usually, in counseling interview, counselor asks questions based on students’ problem and let the students to speak up in order to know the detail of the problem before resolving students’ problems (Geldard and
Geldard, 2012).
7
create a good and positive atmosphere to enable the students in overcoming their problems effectively so their ability develops into success in studying.
Since this study is going to discuss about the phonological speech error in counseling interview, the writer would like to analyze the phonological speech error, process of it and the reason why it happen. From the previous researches were found that speech error can be found in every interview in different types of errors, different topic to discuss and different category of speakers. For instance, Brennan & Williams (1995); Smith & Clark (1993) found that speech errors occur in utterances when speakers are uncertain, or when speakers have to make choice (Schachter et al. 1991; Schnadt & Corley). Speech errors affect the comprehension process, facilitating understanding (Brennan & Schober, 2001), and allowing the listeners to amend their predictions about what might be said next (Arnold et al. 2004; Corley et al. 2007) or evaluate the speaker’s confidence in what they are saying (Brennan &Williams, 1995). Speakers may produce errors automatically when there is a delay to the speech plan (Smith & Clark 1993).
8
1.2The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study above, below are the problems formulated in the form of questions.
1. What types of the phonological speech errors are produced by the students in counseling interviews?
2. How phonological speech errors are produced by the students in counseling interviews?
3. Why are the phonological speech errors produced by the students the way they are?
1.3The Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study are:
1. to find out the types of the phonological speech errors produced by the students in counseling interview,
2. to identify the way the phonological speech errors are produced by the students in counseling interview, and
3. to investigate the reason why the students produce phonological speech error in counseling interview.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
9
pragmatics (rules for appropriate social use and interpretation of language in context) (Gleason, 1998), the researcher limited this study into the phonological speech errors made by the students when talking to the counselor, answering the counselor’s questions or making statements. Then, the researcher related the
phonological speech errors made by the students with the types of phonological speech error based on Fromkin (1988) and Clark (1977). Students who are interviewed are those who have problems with their school. It can be in the form of their class attendance, some cases that happen inside and outside the class while the teaching learning is in progress or when they have a break time, students’ health, and fighting among the students. To support this study, the
researcher uses some theories that related to phonological speech errors, types of phonological speech errors, process of producing the phonological speech errors, reason of producing the phonological speech errors, and the nature of counseling interview.
1.5Significance of the Study
10
108
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1Conclusions
Having analyzed the data, the conclusions are drawn as the following. 1. The types of phonological speech errors in counseling interview produced by
the students are put on four types namely utterances stop, redundancy, mind distraction, and habitual locution.
2. The students produced those phonological speech errors by saying their words in a low pitch, bowing head; sad mimic, sitting stiffly, looking at somewhere flatly, and they were not brave enough to look at the counselor’s
eyes.
109
students who are counselled. Because this situation can halt students in producing speech. Moreover, the goal of the counseling will not be accepted by the students since they get the intimidation and threatened by the counselor.
2. The stakeholders at school should create an enjoyable situation and positive atmosphere at school so the students can feel comfortable studying at school. This can trigger the students’ willingness to do the unexpected things at school if the school situation and atmosphere is bad, such as they run away from classroom when the teaching learning process is in progress.
110 REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. 2005. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Arksey, H. and Knight, P.T. 1999. Interviewing for Social Scientists, London: Sage.
Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, R. J. Altmann, and Fagnano. 2004. The Old and thee, uh, New: Disfluency and Reference Resolution. Psychological Science 15.578-582.
Baars, B. J. 1980. The Competing Plans Hypothesis: An Heuristic Viewpoint on the Causes of Errors in Speech. The Hague: Mouton.
Bokdan, R.C and Biklen, S.K. 2007.Qualitative for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education.
Boomer, D. S., & Laver, J. 1947. Slips of the Tongue. British Journal of Disorders of Communication . The Hague: Mouton.
Boomer, D. S., & Laver, J. 1968. Slips of the Tongue. (Ed.), Speech Error as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.
Brennan, S. E., and Schober. 2001. How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44.274-296.
Brennan, S. E., and Williams. 1995. The Feeling of Another’s Knowing: Prosody and Filled Pauses as Cues to Listeners about the Metacognitive States of Speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34.383-398.
Butterworth. B. 1980. Evidence from Pauses. Language Production. Vol. 1. Hesitations in Speech Affect Language Comprehension. Cognition 105.658-668.
111
Dell, G. S. 1986. A Spreading Activation Theory of Retrieval in Sentence Production. Psychological Review 93. 283-321.
Dell. G. S. 1995. Speaking and Misspeaking. An Invitation to Cognitive Science. Vol.1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., & Meyer, A. S. 2000. Speech Errors, Phonotactic Constraints, and Implicit Learning: A Study of the Role of Experience in Language Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26. 1355-1367.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Introdction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fontana, A. and James F. 2005. Interviewing: The Art of Science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Freud, S. 1901. A General Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Liveright.
Frisch, S. 2002. Temporally Organized Lexical Representations as Phonological Units. Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283-298.
Frisch, S. A., & Wright, R. 2002. The Phonetics of Phonological Speech Errors: An Acoustic Analysis of Slips of the Tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30. 139-162.
Fromkin, V. 1968. Speculation on Performance Models. Journal of Linguistics, 4, 47-68.
Fromkin, V. 1988. The Grammatical Aspects of Speech Errors. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fromkin, V. 1995. Errors in Linguistics Performance: Slips of the Tongue,
Ear, Pen, and Hand. New York: The Viking Press.
Geldard, D., & Geldard, K. 2012. Basic Personal Counselling: A Training Manual for Counsellors. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson Australia.
Goldrick, M. 2002. Patterns of Sound, Patterns in Mind: Phonological Regularities in Speech Production. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore MD.
112
Goldrick, M. 2004. Phonological Features and Phonotactic Constraints in Speech Production. Journal of Memory and Language 51 586-603.
Karim and Syah. 2014. An Analysis of Speech Errors of English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) Learners at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 20 (Language for Communication and Learning): 58-66.
Lashley, K.S. 1958. Cerebral Organization and Behaviour in the Brain and Human Behaviour. Proceedings of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Diseases, 36, 1-18.
Lincoln,Y. S., & Guba, E.G.1984.Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lombardi, L. 1999. Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in
Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 267-302.
MacKay, D. G. 1972. The Structure of Words and Syllables: Evidence from Errors in Speech. Cognitive Psychology 3. 210-227.
Meringer. R., & Mayer. K. 1908. Aus dem Leben der Sprache. Berlin: Behrs
Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mowrey, R. A., & MacKay, I. R. A. 1990. Phonological Primitives: Electromyographic Speech Error Evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88. 1299-1312.
Nooteboom, S. G. 1969. The Tongue Slips into Patterns. (Eds.) Nomen Society, Leyden studies in linguistics and phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.
Saeed, J. I. 2000. Semantics. University of Dublin.
113
Schoenfield, M. K. 1977. Interviewing and Counseling Clients in a Legal Setting. University of Illinois.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Klatt, D. 1979. The Limited Use of Distinctive Features and Markedness in Speech Production: Evidence from Speech Errors. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41-55.
Sheldon, L. A. 2010. Using Motivational Interviewing to Help Your Students. The NEA Higher Education Journal. 153-159.
Smith, V. L., and Clark. 1993. On the Course of Answering Questions. Journal of Memory and Language 32.25-38.
Sweller, J. 1988. 'Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes'. (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. Journal of Cognitive Science 2. 89-91.
Wright, R., Frisch, S. & Pisoni, D. B. 1999. Speech Perception. In Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (J. Webster, editor), New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 175–195.
