COMMUNICATION STYLES USED BY MALE AND FEMALE
TV TALK SHOW HOSTS
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
NOVI DIAN ISRA
Registration Number: 8126111025
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
NOVI DIAN ISRA. Communication Styles Used by Male and Female TV Talk Show Hosts. Post Graduate School of the State University of Medan, 2016
ii ABSTRAK
Novi Dian Isra. Gaya Berkomunikasi yang Digunakan oleh Pembawa Acara TV Talk Show Laki-laki dan Perempuan. Sebuah Tesis. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui gaya berkomunikasi yang digunakan oleh oembawa acara TV talk show laki-laki dan perempuan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah kualitatif deskriptif dengan memakai teknik documenter. Sumber data adalah ujaran-ujaran dari pembawa acara TV talk show laki-laki dan perempuan. Acara TV talk show yang dipilih adalah acara TV talk show yang membahas masalah-maslah politik dan social. Ada empat pembawa acara TV talk show yang dikaji. Dua diantaranya adalah pembawa acara laki-laki dan dua lainnya adalah pembawa acara perempuan. Video dari setiap pembawa acara dipilih secara acak dan kesemuanya ditayangkan pada bulan April 2015. Data dianalisa dengan menggunakan interactive model oleh Miles dan Huberman (2014). Penelitian ini menemukan hasil-hasil sebagai berikut: (1) baik pembawa acara TV talk show laki-laki dan perempuan menggunakan gaya berkomunikasi yang dominan, Socratic, Noble, dan Reflective ketika mewawancarai bintang tamu, (2) baik pembawa acara TV talk show laki-laki dan perempuan menggunakan fitur-fitur ujaran laki-laki dan perempuan, dan (3) pembawa acara TV talk show laki-laki dan perempuan menggnakan gaya berkomunikasi yang sama ketika mewawancarai bintang tamu karena baik pembawa acara laki-laki dan perempuan menunjukkan lebih banyak sifat-sifat pria daripada sifat-sifat wanita ketika mewawancarai bintang tamu.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis becomes a reality with the kind of support and help of many
individuals. The researcher would like to extend her sincere thanks to all of them.
Foremost, she would like to thank Allah Almighty for giving the strength
to finish this thesis. Without His blessings, she would not be able to accomplish
her study.
She would like to express her deepest gratitude to her advisers, Prof. Dr.
Sri Minda Murni, MS and Dr. I Wayan Dirgayasa, M.Hum for their full support,
expert guidance, understanding and encouragement throughout her research.
Without their incredible patience and timely wisdom, her thesis work would have
been a frustrating and overwhelming pursuit. In addition, she expresses her
appreciation to her reviewers, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Dr. Zainuddin,
M.Hum, and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum. Their thoughtful questions and
comments were valued greatly.
She would like to thank her mother for her endless prayers and support
and for believing her that she was able to handle the problems she faced
throughout the writing of this thesis. She would also like to thank her
parents-in-law for their support and taking care of the kids while she was busy with her
study.
She would also like to show her gratitude for having such a supportive
husband, Muhammad Herwin. He is always there for helping and supporting her
iv
Muhammad Rafif Izzat and Muhammad Azka Habibi for always hugging and
kissing her when she was down throughout the time of her study.
She would also like to express how grateful she is for having supportive
sisters and brother. They always help her whenever she needs and show her the
meaning of having the truly siblings.
Finally, she would also like to thank her friends in LTBI especially class
A2 2012 for sharing experience and knowledge. The moments shared with them
will not be forgotten
Medan, 5th September 2016
v
1.5. The Significance of the Study... 8
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 10
2.1. Theoretical Framework………..……….. 10 2.1.4. Male Versus Female Communication Styles……...
vi
2.1.6. TV Talk Shows... 25
2.2. Relevant Studies... 27
2.3. Conceptual Framework………. 31
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD... 34
3.1. Research Method... 34 3.6. The Trustworthiness of the Study... 36
3.7. Techniques of Data Analysis……... 38
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION.. 40
4.1. Data Analysis………..……….. 40
4.1.2.1. Male Speech Features…………..………...….. 51
4.1.2.2. Female Speech Features………...…..……... 56
4.1.3. The Reasons of Using Certain Communication Styles by the Male and Female TV Talk Show Hosts………..…... 63
4.1.3.1. Men’s Traits………..……… 64
4.1.3.2. Women’s Traits………..……….. 70
4.2. Findings………..……….. 73
4.3. Discussion………..………... 77
vii
5.1. Conclusions……….. 81
5.2. Suggestions………... 83
REFERENCES... 84
81 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions
With the reference to the research problems, some conclusions are drawn
as follows:
(1) The male and female TV talk show hosts used the same communication styles
while interviewing the guests. The used communication styles were the
Socratic, the Noble, and the Reflective communication styles. The Socratic
communication style was used the most since the hots showed its
characteristics the most and the most frequently, while the Noble and the
Reflective communication styles became the supporting communication styles
while interviewing the guests.
(2) The male and female TV talk show hosts used both of the male and female
speech features. They did not use all of the male speech features. However,
the male hosts used more features than the female ones did. They also used
these features more frequently than the female ones did. The male and female
hosts did not use all of the female speech features either. The female hosts
used more features than the male ones did. They used these features more
frequently too. However, the female hosts used the male speech features more
than the male ones used the female speech features.
(3) The male and female TV talk show hosts showed the common stereotypes of
men and women. Both of the male and female hosts did not show all of the
82
ones did. The female hosts only did not show one trait that the male ones did
which was the ‘dominant’ trait. They did not show the men’s traits as
frequently as the male ones did, but it was not too much different. The male
and female hosts did not show all of the women’s traits. The female hosts
showed more traits than the male ones did. The male hosts showed 2 women’s
traits which was also shown by the female ones. These two traits became the
most shown women’s traits by both of the male and female TV talk show
hosts. Furthermore, the male hosts showed the women’s traits as frequently as
the female ones did. It means that the female hosts did not really show that
they were female because they showed the men’s traits almost as frequently as
the male ones did. It brings to the conclusion that it became the factors which
caused the male and female TV talk show hosts used the same communication
styles. While interviewing the guests, the male and female TV talk show hosts
did not really show that they were psychologically different.
5.2. Suggestions
In relations to the conclusions which have been stated in the previous,
some constructive points are suggested as follows:
(1) In relation to the findings of this study, it is suggested to make academic
research in order to find out the use of certain communication styles between
men and women because a certain phenomenon may have different results
from the most academic research found as what was found in this study.
(2) it is suggested for the other researchers to make other research about the use of
83
find out whether the other participants will use similar or different
communication styles between the male and female.
(3) It is also suggested to make other research about TV talk show hosts since
they are potential participants which produce many languages which are
possible to be studied. It is also suggested because TV talk shows have been
very popular among society from time to time and, therefore, it is always
84
Allen et al. 2006. Communication Style and The Managerial Effectiveness of Male
and Female Supervisors. In Journal of Business and Economics Research.
7-18.
Bayyurt, Y. 2009. Roles and Identities in Turkish TV Talk Shows. A Journal. Bogazici University. Accessed on February 10, 2015
Basow, S. A. and Rubenfeld, K. 2003. Troubles Talk: Effect of Gender and
Gender Typing. In Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 51. 183-187
Bogden, R. C and Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA:
Allyn and Bacon
Braun, F. 2004. Reden Frauen anders? Entwicklungen und Positionen in der
Linguistischen Geschlechterforschung. in Eichhoff-Cyrus. Karin (ed),
Adam, Evaund die Sprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag 9-26.
Comstock, J. and Higgins, G. 1997. Appropriate Relational Messages in Direct
Selling Interaction: Should Salespeople Adapt to Buyers’ Communicator
Style. In The Journal of Business Communication. 34. 401
Deshotel, K. 2003. Behind The Scenes: Uncovering The Structures and
Manipulations of Tabloid Talk Show Workers, Guests and Audiences. A
Thesis. Louisiana State University. Accessed on February 17, 2015
Dimitrius, J. and Mazzarella, M. 2000. Put Your Best Foot Forward: Make a
Great Impression by Taking Control of How Others See You. New York:
Fireside
Dimitrius, J and Mazzarella, W. P. 2008. Reading People: How to Understand
People and Predict Their Behavior. New York: Ballantine
Duck, S. and McMahan, D.T. 2015. Communication in Everyday Life: A Survey
of Communication. California: SAGE Publication, Inc
Ersoy, S. 2008. Men Compete, Women Collaborate: A Study on Collaborative vs
Competitive Communication Styles in Mixed-Sex Conversations. A Journal.
85
Ferraro, G.P. 2002. The Cultural Dimension of International Business. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall
Gamson, J. 1998. Freaks Talk Back. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Giri, V. N. 2004. Gender Role in Communication. New Delhi: Concept
Publishing Company
Gray, J. 1992. Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: a Practical Guide
for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in a
Relationship. New York: HarperCollins
Gudykunst et al. 1997. The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism,
Self-Construal, and Individual Values on Communication Styles across Cultures.
In Human Communication Research. 22(4). 510-543
Gulati et al. 2014. Management. USA: Cangage Learning
Hahn et.al. 2011. Survey of Communication Study. Wikibooks. Retrieved on July
18, 2014
Hermes, S. 1998. Assertiveness Facilitator’s Guide. Minnesota: Hazelden
Ibrahim, F. and Ismail, N. 2007. Communication Styles among Organizational
Peers. A Journal. Universiti Putra Malaysia. Accessed on December 22,
2014
Ishii et.al. 1981. Communication Styles among College Students in Japan and the
Philipines. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Communication
Association of the Pacific Conference. Nagasaki. Japan
Kushal, S. J. 2010. Business Communication. New Delhi: V.K. (India) Enterprises
Lakoff, R. T. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row
McCallister, L. 1994. I Wish I’d Said: How to Talk Your Way out of Trouble and
into Success. USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc
Merchant, K. 2012. How Men and Women Differ: Gender Differences in
Communication Styles, Influence Tactics, and Leadership Styles. A Journal.
Claremont McKenna College. Accessed on September 29, 2013
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Methods Source Book. California: Sage Publication, Inc
Miller, L. D. 1978. Attraction and Communicator Style: Perceptual Differences
86
presented at the annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. Chicago
Moleong, L.J.2002. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosda
Karya.
Moskow, M. A. 2006. Language of American Talk Shows: Gender Based
Research on Oprah and Dr. Phil. A Journal. Institutionen for Individ och
Samhalle. Accessed on March 18, 2015
Norton, R. W. 1983. Commincator Style: Theory, Application and Measures.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
O’Barr, W. M. and Atkins, B. K. 1980. Women’s Language or Powerless
Language?. In S. McConnell-Ginet, N. Borker and R. Thurman (eds).
Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger
Pearson, J. C. 1985. Gender and Communication. Dubuque, I A: William C.
Brown
Penz, H. 1996. Language and Control in American TV Talk Shows: An Analysis
of Linguistic Strategies. Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen
Saphiere et.al. 2005. Communication Highwire: Leveraging the Power of Diverse
Communication Styles. USA: Intercultural Press, Inc
Saragih, A. 2012. Variations and Functional Varieties of Language. Medan: The
State University of Medan.
Schneider, D. 2005. The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press
Talbot, M. M. 2010. Language and Gender. Malden: Polity Press
Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don’t Uderstand: Women and Men Conversation.
New York: Ballatin Books
Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press
Thompson, N, 2003. Communication and Language. New York: Palgrave
McMillan
Timberg, B. and Erler, R. J. 2010. Television Talk: A History of the TV Talk
Show. Texas: The University of Texas Press
Vallet et.al. 2011. High-Level TV Talk Show Structuring Centered on Speakers’
Interventions. In TV Content Analysis: Techniques and Applications Edited
by Kompatsiaria, Y., Merialdo, B, and Lian, S. USA: CRC Press
Voegeli, F. 2005. Differences in the Speech of Men and Women. A Journal.
87
Warda, Y. 2013. Gender Differences in Coversational Style in “Apa Kabar
Indonesia Talk Show News Program on TVONE”. A Thesis. Medan: State
