LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
LEM
BAR
AN
ILM
U
KEP
END
IDI
KAN
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
Volume 44, Nomor 2, September 2015
http://journal.unnes.ac.id
LIK
Volume 44
Nomor 2
Halaman
1-68
September 2015
Semarang
0216-0847
ISSN
DESKRIPSI
Terbit dua kali dalam setahun pada bulan April dan September. Berisi artikel yang bersumber dari hasil penelitian maupun gagasan pemikiran dalam rangka pengembangan pendidikan dan pengajaran di Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan (LPTK) maupun di satuan, jalur, dan jenis pendidikan lain. .
ISSN
0216 - 0847
Ketua Editor
Ahmad Sofwan
Anggota Editor
Heri Tjahyono Amin Yusuf Hari Bakti Mardikantoro Dyah Rini Indriyanti Priyantini Widiyaningrum Moh. Yasir Alimi Sutikno Ali Formen Rohani Sugiharto Eko Supraptono
Layout
Yoris Adi Aprilta
Pengelola E-Journal
Widiyanto
Sekretariat
Sunarti
ALAMAT PENERBIT
Kantor Pengembang Jurnal Gedung G Perpustakaan Pusat Lantai 1
Kampus Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, Indonesia 50229
() (024) 70344630 () [email protected] () http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Daftar Isi
Students’ Participation in Learning Argumentative Writing Through Writing Workshop
Triubaida Maya Ardianti Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini ...1
The Unique Different Features of Vocabulary of The British English (BrE) and American English (AmE): A Review I Wy Dirgeyasa ...9
Pengembangan Model Pendampingan Guru yang Mengintegrasikan Self Assessment dalam
Mengimplementasikan Kurikulum 2013
Sri Sulistyorini Parmin, Umar Samadi ... 22
Kontribusi Cara Belajar Mahasiswa terhadap Nilai Ujian Akhir Mata Kuliah Pengantar Teknologi Pendidikan di Universitas Baturaja
Eriyanti ... 35
Pengembangan Pembelajaran Daur Ulang Limbah Berorientasi Bioentrepreneurship dengan Model Project
Based Learning
Erna Yuniartiek Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Siti Alimah ... 41
Pelatihan Ketrampilan Berkarya Seni Kolase, Mozaik, dan Montase pada Guru-Guru SD Kecamatan Karangawen Demak
Kamsidjo Budi Utomo Mujiono... 48
Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran Lingkungan Hidup Bervisi Konservasi dengan Pendekatan Scientific Skill pada Pengolahan Sampah Organik di Sekolah
Imam Baihaqi1 Andreas Priyono Budi Prasetyo2, Amin Retnoningsih2 . 54
Keefektifan Pembelajaran Bervisi SETS Melalui Praktikum Identifikasi Bioindikator Sungai Cimanuk terhadap Ketuntasan Hasil Belajar Aspek Keterampilan Siswa Awan Usy Syuru Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Amin Retnoningsih ... 61
Upaya Meningkatkan Kompetensi Profesional dan
Merencanakan Pembelajaran Tematik Bagi Guru Kelas III Melalui Kegiatan Pelatihan Studi Kasus
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING
THROUGH WRITING WORKSHOP
Triubaida Maya Ardianti
Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini
Semarang State University, Indonesia
Info Artikel
_______________________Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Juli 2015 Disetujui Agustus 2015 Dipublikasikan September 2015
_______________________
Keywords:
Students participation, argumentative writing, writing workshop _____________________________
Abstrak
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan dinamika partisipasi siswa dalam belajar karangan argumentasi melalui lokakarya menulis. Subjek penelitian adalah 32 siswa kelas XI SMA. Angket dan observasi digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data, dan pekerjaan siswa juga dikumpulkan untuk memperkuat analisa data. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi siswa dalam membangun wacana argumentasi lisan dan tulis meningkat sepanjang siklus pembelajaran. Siswa berbicara lebih banyak ketika saling berargumen atas sebuah isu, dan menjadi lebih aktif ketika menulis secara kolaboratif dengan siswa yang lain sehingga kemampuan siswa dalam mengartikulasikan pemikiran mereka ke dalam karangan argumentasi meningkat ke arah yang lebih baik. Hal ini ditunjukkan oleh peningkatan pada rata – rata nilai karangan argumentasi dan kualitas argumentasi mereka.
Abstract
__________________________________________________________________________________________ The present study aimed at describing the dynamics of the students participation in learning argumentative writing through writing workshop. The subjects consisted of 32 eleventh graders of Senior High School. Questionnaires and observation were used to gather the data, and the students works were collected to support the data analysis. The results of the study showed that the students participation in establishing oral and written
argumentative discourse improved throughout learning cycles. The students produced more talk in arguing over an issue, and became more active in writing collaboratively with their peersm so they got better in articulating their
thoughts in written argumentation. It was affirmed by the improvements on the mean of the students
argumentative writing and the quality of their argumentation.
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
VanDerHeide and Newell argued that engaging students in a set of social practices to learn argumentative writing helped students foster their argumentative writing skills in a procedural way. Crowhurts (1988) asserted that students needed real audiences or readers to write about real issues. In this case, without being involved to interact within social practice, students had no understanding about audience or readers actual beliefs, attitudes, or experiences to gain audiences identification Newell et al., : . Consequently, although assertions were worth arguing, argument needs opposition points of view including qualifications and rebuttals (Fulkerson, 1996) to make the argument rational (Toulmin, 2003), so that it would be persuasive (Crowhurst, 1988; Stay, 1999). Joining the idea of VanDerHeide et al. and Crowhurst, viewing the study of argumentation as a set of social practices means engaging students in episodes within a socially mediated setting to provide opportunities for direct interaction with their peers in order to establish argumentative discourse. Not only can students establish their argumentative discourse in oral mode, but the episodes of social practices also help students develop their writing over time as the impact of the establishment of argumentative discourse in oral mode, and episodes within the writing stage itself such as peer-engagement through peer-evaluation (Felton & Herko, 2004).
The study of argumentative writing is also viewed from a dialogic/discourse analysis theory which emphasized the dialogic interaction within social practices to establish a relationship with audiences to create persuasive discourse (Evensen, 2002; Felton, & Herko, 2004). For example, Felton and Herko (2004) conducted a case study to engage 11th graders in learning argumentative writing through workshop structured reading, oral debate, reflection, and revision. Oral debate was an example of the dialogic approach. Felton and Herko argued that oral debates engaged students in double-voicing in the degree that they established their own claims; at the same time, shifting their focus to attend opponents claims through refutations. In this case, Felton and Herko
indicated that during oral debate, students were positioned as a speaker of their own argument, at the same time, a live critical audience p. who provided rebuttals to opponents claims. Therefore, oral debate gave students a real picture of two-sided arguments which they could then arrange in a written argument.
In addition, Felton and Herko provided a chain of instruction throughout the writing workshop to engage students in social practices as a means to shape their argumentation skills. In this case, Felton and Herko gave students multiple opportunities to elaborate their argument in oral mode through debates, and in written mode through argumentative writing. Furthermore, revision as part of instruction in writing workshop helped students get direct feedback from their peers to analyze their writing strengths and weaknesses in constructing written argumentative discourse. It shows that episodes of social practices support students in fostering their argumentation skills.
In sum, there are several theories operating under the study of argumentation within social paradigmatic notion such as classical theory, new rhetorical theory, social genre theory, and dialogic/discourse theory (Newell et al., 2011; Fulkerson, 1996; Sheehy, 2003; Stay, 1999). These theories reveal the same pattern showing that learning to create argumentation in a socially mediated setting (Newell et al., 2011; VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013) enables students to consider audience (Stay, 1997) in constructing their argumentative writing to the degree that it is sufficiently persuasive (Fulkerson, 1996).
was reasonable and reflective of their ability to prove their position on certain issues.
In fact, both argumentative writing and narrative transfered discourse from oral to written mode; however, it was more difficult to transfer argumentative discourse from oral to written mode since it required feedback from interlocutors (Reznitskaya et al., 2007). Additionally, Reznitskaya et al. (2007) elaborated that there was no model of argumentation within oral mode since argumentative discourse was produced in the response of an immediate preceding point within conversation. On the contrary, she emphasized that written mode demanded a new solitary ability to produce written discourse since there was particular structure for it (Freedman, & Pringle, 1984: 79 in Reznitskaya et al., 2007). Hence, students have difficulty composing argumentative writing because the particular structure for argumentative written discourse is not learned naturally in everyday lives.
Indonesia has been experiencing a national curriculum shift since its independence was proclaimed in 1945. The latest curricula implemented in Indonesian education are curriculum 2006 called KTSP 2006 (school-based curriculum), and 2013 Curriculum (Kusuma, 2013). With all the attention to develop the quality of Indonesian education through several changes in curricula, starting with KTSP 2006, teachers have been urged to provide meaningful learning which encouraged students to be active learners in discovering their own knowledge (Hasnawati, 2006; Kwartolo, 2007). Nevertheless, for almost a decade since being implemented, the application of KTSP which demanded students knowledge demonstration has not been in line with a lot of recent teaching practices in Indonesia.
In the case of KTSP 2006, Indonesian teachers were unprepared to implement KTSP 2006 (Sariono, 2013). This circumstance was closely related to the previous educational practices within the implementation of curricula 1984-2004 in English teaching. Lie (2007) claimed that encouraging students to be independent learners in English has emerged since Curriculum 1984. She reviewed previous studies on education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia since 1945 to 2005. Then, she indicated that there were shifts
in the commitment of English teaching pedagogy from grammar translation method in 1945 to audiolingual method in 1968-1975, and then, finally shifting to a communicative approach in 1984-2004. The commitment to implement a communicative approach meant that the teacher s domination in student learning should have been decreased since then. However, Lie pointed out that the practices within the curricula 1984-2004 showed that English was not portrayed as language for active communication. Consequently, learning tended to be teacher-centered. When KTSP 2006 was implemented, they were not ready to step out of teacher-centered learning which tended to be a legacy. Despite not having succeeded yet in achieving the purpose of KTSP 2006, Curriculum 2013 was implemented.
Even though Curriculum 2013 had a different concept than KTSP 2006, both curricula shared a similar purpose in challenging students to demonstrate what they have learned in something tangible (Sariono, 2013). In other words, both curricula had a common purpose to encourage student-centered learning. Related to this concept, the present study encouraged students to demonstrate their knowledge of argumentative discourse by constructing an argumentative piece of writing through an active interaction with their peers. In the subject of English, KTSP 2006 and Curriculum 2013 mentioned that grade 11 students should be able to master expository composition such as argumentative writing. To this extent, teachers should be able to promote student active learning to help students achieve this particular learning goal.
achieve or surpass the minimum requirement in constructing argumentative writing. To this extent, I inferred that the students needed a learning method which could enable them actively participate in the learning process. So that, they could feel motivated to establish oral and written argumentative discourse collaboratively.
To overcome this problem, a writing workshop is employed to help students learn argumentative writing. Atwell (1998) defined writing workshop as an approach consisting of a series of meaningful tasks from three big sections of reading territory, mini-lessons, and writing territory. Writing workshop has been implemented for decades to support students in writing. Numerous studies indicated that writing workshop could help students write in various genres (Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Graves, 2004), report (Moore-Hart, 2006), and argumentative writing (Felton & Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013). The practicality of writing workshop to teach argumentative writing (Felton & Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013) became the reason for choosing writing workshop as the strategy to help students construct argumentative writing in the present study.
In early 1970s through late 1990s, writing workshop had been initially employed to teach students creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Strout, 1970). Nevertheless, recently, writing workshop has been used to teach students various genres (Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as narrative (Atwell, 1989, 1998; Street, 2005; Kesler, 2012; Strout, 1970), report (Moore-Hart 2006), and argumentative writing (Felton, & Herko, 2004; Morgan, 2010). It shows that writing workshop has functioned as a practicable approach that was applicable for any genre.
Since the early 1970s to the late 1980s, the study of writing workshop has primarily focused on the first language classroom (Manion, 1988; Strout 1970). In the early 1990s, one qualitative case study examined the effectiveness of writing workshop in the ESL classroom. Peyton et al. (1994) conducted a qualitative case study including 16 teachers in applying writing workshop to teach English Language Learners (ELLs) in The Book Projects in Washington, DC.
Peyton et al. found that as ESL students, among individuals, they spoke different languages as their mother tongues. Some spoke Arabic, others spoke Spanish. At the same time, they had to deal with their English proficiency. From her survey and observations, Peyton et al. indicated that although it used to be employed in the first language classroom, writing workshop could be adapted to teach writing for ESL students. In case, Peyton et al. emphasized that teachers should provide more instructional support to reduce students language barriers due to their English deficiency. However, since students spoke different languages, teachers did not stress the use of the first language to help students understand the English instruction.
On the contrary, there is no empirical research in EFL contexts which investigates the effectiveness of writing workshop. Nevertheless, there is significant potential in writing workshop to be applied in this context. Likewise students in the ESL classroom, in the EFL classroom, students were dealing with English proficiency and the development of writing skills (Bacha, 2012; Yi, 2010). However, in the EFL classroom, teacher and students speak the same language, and students also communicate using the same language as their peers. Therefore, even though there may be language barriers to communicate in English, teachers may be able to find ways to avoid and solve misunderstanding using the same language as the students use throughout the practice.
Several case studies indicated that because of the notion of independent learning, and subsequent meaningful activities, writing workshop motivated reluctant writers (Moore-Hart, 2006; Street, 2005); struggling adolescent readers and writers (Casey, 2009), and students in general to discover their identity through writing practices. For instance, Street (2005) conducted a case study involving a class consisting of reluctant writers (participants were not specified). Street applied shared-authority between teacher and students in the writing process including choosing the writing topic, and developing their ideas. This shared-authority made students feel trusted; therefore, they were motivated to develop their writing responsibly.
scaffold students in producing writing products. Those activities include reading territories, mini-lesson, and writing territories (Atwell, 1998). Atwell elaborated that on one hand, reading territories could be considered when designing independent reading; on the other hand, writing territories could become part of student-teacher conferences as a means for students to communicate their writing problems to the teacher, and peer-evaluation to get feedback on their writing. Nevertheless, previous empirical research indicated that they can adapt the series of activities within writing workshop (Felton & Herko, 2004; Kesler, 2012; Whitney et al., 2011; Moore-hart, 2006).
This study is meant to describe the improvement of the students participation during the implementation of writing workshop.
METHODS
The present study took place in a senior high school in Blora, Central Java. It was joined by 32 eleventh grade students. A classroom action research design was used with three learning cycles conducted in 3 weeks of participant-observation and data collection. Qualitative-quantitative convergent parallel mixed methods following Creswell (2014: 219) was used in both data collection and analysis. The qualitative data were collected from observation and open-ended questionnaire and the quantitative data were collected from closed questionnaires and writing scores.
The video was transcribed, and decoded using Reflective and Analytical Observation Notes following Burns (1999, 2010). The open-ended questionnaires were decoded and categorized
based on the students responses. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to assess the students argumentation skill and the students writing achievement.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Newell et al. (2011) asserted that students may engage in a set of social practices to learn argumentative writing. In the questionnaire, the students expressed concern upon their participation in building oral argumentative discourse and writing collaboratively with their peers. All students in the class admitted challenges in writing argumentation. It was hard for them to exchange thoughts in discussion because they were not used to actively participating in the teaching and learning process. It was hard for them to build oral argumentative discourse as they produced little talk during the discussions. Consequently, they faced greater challenge in writing argumentation.
Figure 1Students response to the subsequent activities employed within writing workshop
Figure 1 above showed that the majority of the students affirmed the helpfulness of the subsequent activities employed within writing workshop to improve their participation in the process of learning argumentative writing.
The students participation dramatically improved across cycles. In cycle 1, the students barely produced talk during the discussions. I found out that the students concerned about using English to express their argumentative ideas. Further, range of writing topics was very large in cycle 1; thus, it was hard for the students to engage with their peers discussing their argumentative ideas from different writing topics. As in cycle 2 and cycle3 I gained a control over their writing topic and reading text, and allowed them to use their native languages to deliver their thoughts when they got stuck in finding out the English vocabulary to define their ideas, the students became more relaxed exchanging thoughts with their peers and the teacher. We may take a look at the following conversation.
Student 30: I think that the Customer C is the murderer.
Student 8: Kok dirimu isa yakin banget? (How could you be so sure?)
Student 30: Lihat ini, kebiasaan makannya beda (Look, they had different eating habits). Customer C itu handed (Customer C was
left-handed). Dilihat dari letak sendoknya (Seen from the spoon position).
Student 2: Aku setuju (I agree). Yang bikin bingung itu jejak kaki mereka itu lho.. (What makes confused were their footprints..)
... ...
Student 30: Jangan – jangan ini pembunuhan berencana (It might be a planned murder). Dan Ernie juga turut membantu (And, Ernie was the accomplice). Mungkin aja kan (It could be, couldn t it)? Jejak kaki ini kaki Ernie yang ambil air dari keran dapur (These footprints belonged to Ernie who took water from the kitchen sink)? Lihat, ini ada air (Look, there was water here).
Student 2: Nah, lha jejak kaki sing iki (What about these footprints)? (Pointing at the other footprints)
The conversation above showed the students became more active participating in small-group discussions. Across cycles, they demonstrated more active participation in the subsequent activities of completing their argumentative writing project.
We may take a look at Figure 2 to see the improvements on the mean of the students argumentative writing scores and the quality of the students argumentation.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
Figure 2. The students improvements on the writing scores and quality of argumentation
)n terms of mean of the students scores, the students could successfully improve their argumentative writing scores from 65.55 in cycle 1 which was below the minimum requirement to be 80.86 in cycle 3 which surpassed the minimum requirement. In terms of the quality of the students argumentation, the students could dramatically improve their quality from the level of poor in cycle 1 to good in cycle 3.
There were two patterns of analysis that could inferred from the analysis of the databases. First, language barriers became one of the major factors which obstructed the students active participation in learning argumentative writing. The students should go back and forth in the continuum of Indonesian, Javanese, and English languages to comprehend the reading text and write argumentation. Considering their background as EFL students who did not use English in everyday interaction, it was very hard for them to articulate their thoughts in oral and written modes. In this case, teacher should be culturally responsive (Pacino, 2008) in understanding the social contexts of language learning (Shin, 2013) in order to provide comfortable class athmosphere in learning second or foreign language. Consequently, as I allowed the students to use their native languages when they got stuck finding vocabulary to define their ideas, the students became more relaxed delivering their thoughts. Further, the discussions became more dynamic and fluid.
Secondly, the nature of argumentative writing which was more challenging than the other genres became a bigger challenge for the students to write better quality of argumentation. Like the
other genres, argumentative writing also required transfer from oral to written discourse. However, comparing to other genres, argumentative writing was challenging for the students because there was no model for oral argumentative discourse and written argumentative discourse was not learned naturally in everyday lives (Reznitskaya et al., 2007). As a result of minimum interactions in building oral argumentative discourse, the students as novice writers faced greater barrier in writing argumentation. Nevertheless, as I diminished the students language barrier, it helped the students to more actively participate in establishing oral argumentative discourse. After they became more knowledgeable about their topic and could build more solid oral argumentative discourse, it helped the students lessen their challenge in writing argumentation. Consequently, they could dramatically increased the mean of their argumentative writing scores across cycles from 65.55 to 80.86 and improved the quality of their argumentation from poor to good.
CONCLUSION
Students participation in learning argumentative writing had dramatically improved across cycles. By lessening the students language barriers (Shin, 2013), the students could be more confident to exchange thoughts and ideas. Their argumentation skill in establishing oral argumentative discourse with their peers was improving along the cycles. Further, as the students became more familiar with the application of writing workshop, they became
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
more relaxed to engage in collaborative writing throughout the teaching and learning process across the cycles. Dramatically, discussing ideas, communicating writing difficulties, and giving peer-evaluation became common activities to help them accomplish their writing project.
REFERENCES
Atwell, N. 1998. In The Middle: New Understanding about Writing, Reading, and Learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bacha, N. N. . Teaching the Academic Argument in
a University EFL Environment . Journal of English for Academic Purposes, volume 9, pp. 229 – 241.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Casey, (. K. . Engaging the Disengaged: Using
Learning Clubs to Motivate Struggling Adolescent Readers and Writers . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Volume 52 No. 4, pp. 284 – 294.
Creswell, J.W. . Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitativem and Mixed Methods Approaches . Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crowhurst, M. . Research Review: Patterns of Development in Writing Persuasive/ Argumentative Discourse . Department of Language Education: The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Evensen, L. S. . Convention from below:
Negotiating Interaction and Culture in
Argumentative Writing . Written
Communication, Volume 19 No. 3, pp. 382 – 413. Felton, M. K., & (erko, S. . From Dialogue to Two
-Sided Argument: Scaffolding Adolescents Persuasive Writing . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Volume 47 No. 8, pp. 672 – 683. Fulkerson, R. 1996. Teaching the Argument in Writing.
xx, The United States: The National Council of Teachers of English.
Kesler, T. . Writing with Voice . The Reading
Teacher, Volume 66 No. 1., pp.25 – 29.
Kusuma, D. C. 201 . Analisis Komponen – Komponen Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013 pada Bahan Uji
Publik Kurikulum . Jurnal Analisis
Komponen – Komponen Pengembangan Kurikulum, pp. 1 – 21.
Lie, A. . Education Policy and EFL Curriculum in Indonesia: Between the Commitment to Competence and the Quest for Higher Test Scores . TEFL)N Journal, Volume No. . Page – 14.
Manion, B. B. . Writing Workshop in Junior (igh -School: )t s Worth the Time. The English Journal, Volume 32 No. 2. Page 154 – 157.
Moore-Hart, M. A. . A Writers Camp in Action: A Community of Readers and Writers . The Reading Teacher, Volume 59 No. 4. Page 326 – 338.
Morgan, D. N. . Writing Feature Articles with
)ntermediate Students . The Reading Teacher, Volume 64 No. 3. Page 181 – 189.
Newell, G. E., Beach, S., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. 2011. Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research . Reading Research Quarterly, Volume 46 No. 3. Page 273 – 304.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. 1989. The Practitioners Guide to Teaching Thinking Series: Evaluating Critical Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., & Kuo, L. 2007. Teaching and leaning an argumentation . The Elementary School Journal, Volume 107 No. 5. Page 449 – 472.
Sariono. . Kurikulum : Kurikulum Generasi
Emas . E-Jurnal Dinas Pendidikan Kota Surabaya, Volume 3. Page 1 – 9.
Sheehy, M. . The Social Life of an Essay:
Standardizing Forces in Writing . Written Communication, Volume 20 No. 3. Page 333 – 385.
Stay, B. L. 1999. A Guide to Argumentative Writing. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Street, C. . A Reluctant Writer s Entry into a Community of Writers . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Volume 48 No. 8. Page 636 – 641. Strout, B. . Writing Workshop: What is )t? The
English Journal, Volume 59 No. 8. Page 1128-1130.
Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
VanDer(eide, J., & Newell, G. E. . )nstructional Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing in Classrooms . Written Communication, Volume No. 3. Page 300 – 329.
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
9
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
THE UNIQUE DIFFERENT FEATURES OF VOCABULARY OF THE BRITISH ENGLISH
(BRE) AND AMERICAN ENGLISH (AME):
A REVIEW
I Wy Dirgeyasa
English and Literature of FBS State University of Medan
Info Artikel
_______________________Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Juli 2015 Disetujui Agustus 2015 Dipublikasikan September 2015
_______________________
Keywords:
American English, British English, Vocabulary
_____________________________
Abstract
__________________________________________________________________________________________ It is a fact that there are some amazing differences between British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) such as spelling, meaning, pronunciation, usage, and even vocabulary. The two varieties of English, as a matter of fact, are often confusing especially who study and use English as second and foreign language. Because of their differences and distinctive features, the speakers often find difficulties which one to use. This condition, then can lead to misunderstanding and misinformation and this finally causes ineffective communication. This paper is attempting to review the unique features of BrEand AmEfocusing on the vocabulary.
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
This is a story about the daily life of New York Nate, who lives in the United States; and London Laura, who lives in England. As you can see, they have very similar lives but the vocabulary words they use are very different! Take a look how the women have different vocabulary usages. They have a lot different and diverse vocabulary to convey the same meaning in their lives.
First, New York Nate lives in an apartment, and London Laura lives in aflat. Second, every morning, when getting dressed, New York Nate puts on a pair of pantswhereas London Laura puts on a pair of trousers. Both New York Nate and London Laura have babies, but New York Nate needs to change the baby s diaper, and London Laura needs to change the baby s nappy. Third,when it s time to go to work, New York Nate takes the subway and London Laura takes theunderground (which is also called the tube).After getting off at the right stop, New York Nate walks along the sidewalk and London Laura walks along the pavementto reach their offices. Fourth, New York Nate works on the first floor of the building, and London Laura works on the ground floor. This means neither of them needs to take the elevator (for New York Nate) or the lift (for London Laura). Fifth, At work, both Nate and Laura need to send some important documents to a client – but New York Nate sends them by mail and London Laura sends them by post. Sixth, During the day, New York Nate snacks on cookies, french fries, and potato chips. London Laura eats the same things, but she calls them biscuits, chips, and crisps.
Both Nate and Laura get stomachaches, so on the way home from work New York Nate stops at the drugstoreor pharmacy and London Laura stops at the chemist s shop to pick up some medicine. Seventh, After work, Nate and Laura go shopping. They drive to the mall, and New York Nate puts his car in the parking lot, whereas London Laura puts hers in the car park.Both of them buy a lot of stuff, so New York Nate puts his purchases in the trunk,
and London Laura puts hers in the boot. Eighth, on the way home, New York Nate stops to fill up the car with gas and London Laura fills up her car with petrol. At the station, New York Nate sees a truck,
and London Laura sees a lorry.They both get home late, and New York Nate needs to take out the
garbage or trash; London Laura also needs to take out the rubbish.It s dark outside, so New York Nate
takes a flashlight, and London Laura takes a torch.Ninth,it s been a long day, and New York Nate thinks he s going to go crazy; London Laura thinks she might gomad. Finally, it must be time for a vacationfor New York Nate and a holiday for
London Laura!
(http://www.espressoenglish.net/british-english-vs-american-english-vocabulary/ the story goes as follows).
DESCRIPTION
Historically, most of the differences in lexis or vocabulary between British and American English are in connection with concepts originating from the 19th century to the mid 20th century, when new words were coined independently. For example,almost the entire vocabularies of the car/automobile and railway/railroad industries are different between the UK and US. Other sources of difference are slang or vulgar terms (where frequent new coinage occurs) and idiomatic phrases, including phrasal verbs. The differences most likely to create confusion are those where the same word or phrase is used for two different concepts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Ame rican_and_British_English.
Actually the differences in vocabulary between British and American English may be able to be classified into three categories such as 1) the complexity of form of the vocabulary, 2) idioms, and 3) social and cultural different by context.
The Complexity FormVocabulary of the British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
The complexity formof vocabulary of British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) actually can be divided into two patterns namely single word and compound word. These two types of British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) vocabulary are different and unique.
BrE which may or may not be single or compound word in AmE. Table 1 shows the list of the
differentvocabulary between British and American English of single form.
Table 1 The list of single form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) British English (BrE) American English
(AmE)
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
autumn autumn, fall lift elevator
aerial antenna lorry truck, semi, tractor
autumn autumn, fall luggage baggage, luggage
accelerator gas pedal, accelerator mad crazy, insane
anorak jacket, parka maize corn
braces suspenders mark grade
barrister attorney match game
bath bathtub/bath nappy diaper
bill (restaurant) bill, check pants, underpants underpants, drawers
biscuit cookie pavement sidewalk
booking reservation pylon utility pole
bonnet (clothing) hat property real-estate
bonnet (car) hood petrol gas, gasoline
boot trunk post mail
cap guy/man/boy pram baby carriage; stroller
car automobile/car primary (school( elementary (school)
caravan trailer pub bar
cot crib remould (tyre) retread
chips fries, French fries queue line
chemist drugstore receptionist desk clerk
cigarette; fag (slang)
cigarette or cigaret(in the US fag or faggot
means homosexual
man (rude, offensive)
rubbish garbage/trash
cinema the movies shop store
coffin coffin, casket serviette napkin
crisps potato chips stater/entree appetizer
cooker stove surname (British
preferred)
last name (American preferred)
curtain drapes reception (hotel) front desk
diamante rhinestone ring up/phone call/phone
dairy (personal
account) Journal/dairy return (ticket) round-trip
diversion detour rubber eraser (rubber means
condom in the US)
draught draft rubbish garbage, trash
dummy (for baby) pacifier saloon (car) sedan
dummy pacifier shop shop, store
duvet comforter silencer (car) muffler
engine engine, motor single (ticket) one-way
film film, movie solicitor lawyer, attorney
foyer lobby/foyer spanner wrench
flannel washcloth taxi taxi, taxi cab
Floor storey term semester (quarter)
fringe bangs tick check mark
garden yard timber lumber
grill broil tin can
handbag purse toilet rest room
hire rent torch flashlight
holiday vacation trainers sneakers
hoarding billboard tram streetcar; cable car
hob stovetop trolley shopping cart
hoover vacuum cleaner trousers pants, trousers
indicator turn signal tube (train) subway
jam jelly vest undershirt
jam jam, preserves wallet wallet, billfold
jug jug, pitcher zed (letter Z) zee
jumper sweater wing (of a car) fender
kennel doghouse wagon (on a train) car
Second, compound word-refers to that both British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) vocabulary which are compound in order to refer and convey the meaning.The compound form, in this context is originally based in BrE which may
or may not be single or compound word in AmE. Table 2 shows the list ofthedifferentvocabulary between British and American English of compound form:
Table 2. The list of compound form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) British English
(BrE)
American English (AmE)
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
action replay instant replay jacket potato baked potato
aerofoil airfoil Joe Bloggs John Doe
aeroplane airplane jumble sale yard sale
agony aunt advice columnist juggernaut 18-wheeler
Allen key Allen wrench ladybird ladybug
American Indian Native American lay the table set the table
at the weekend on the weekend letter box mail box
asymmetric bars uneven bars lost property lost and found
aubergine eggplant mackintosh raincoat
anti-clockwise counter-clockwise managing director CEO (chief executive
officer)
articulated lorry trailer truck mashed potato mashed potatoes
baking tray cookie sheet mobile (phone) cellphone
bank holiday national holiday,
federal holiday main road highway
base rate prime rate motorbike motorcycle
(bathing) costume swimsuit motorway freeway, expressway
breakdown van tow truck monkey tricks Monkeyshines
breeze block cinder block mangetout snow pea
bridging loan bridge loan market garden truck farm
black economy underground economy naughts and crosses tic-tack-toe
blanket bath sponge bath number plate license plate
block of flats apartment building needlecord pinwale
boiler suit coveralls newsreader newscaster
boob tube tube top noughts and crosses tic-tac-toe
bottom drawer hope chest off-licence liquor store; package
store
clothes peg clothespin opencast mining open-pit mining
common seal harbor seal
consumer durables durable goods ordinary share common stock
cornflour cornstarch oven glove oven mitt
candyfloss cotton candy paddling pool wading pool
car park parking lot paracetamol acetaminophen
central reservation median strip pay packet pay envelope
chest of drawers dresser/bureau pinafore dress jumper
chemist's shop drugstore, pharmacy plain chocolate dark chocolate
chest of drawers dresser, chest of
drawers, bureau plain flour all-purpose flour
clothes peg clothespin physiotherapy physical therapy
crossroads intersection;
crossroads (rural) polo neck turtleneck
cupboard cupboard (in kitchen);
closet (for clothes etc) positive discrimination reverse discrimination
cot death crib death postal vote absentee ballot
cotton bud cotton swab public toilet rest room, public
bathroom
city centre downtown, city center pavement sidewalk
cloakroom checkroom, coatroom pet hate pet peeve
clothes peg clothespin pocket money allowance
cotton wool cotton ball postbox mailbox
crossroads
crossroad (in the
country)
intersection (town and country)
postcode zip code
cotton wool absorbent cotton postman mailman, mail carrier,
letter carrier
council estate (housing) project potato crisp potato chip
court card face card power point electrical outlet
crash barrier guardrail public school private school
crocodile clip alligator clip public transport public transportation
cross-ply bias-ply punchbag punching bag
crotchet (music) quarter note pushchair stroller
current account checking account quantity surveyor estimator
curriculum vitae
(CV)
résumé
curriculum vitae
(depending on the
professional field)
reverse charge collect call
dinner jacket tux, tuxedo ring road beltway,
directory enquiries directory assistance road surface pavement, blacktop
double cream heavy cream roundabout traffic circle, roundabout
drawing pin thumb tack rubbish-bin garbage can, trashcan
dressing gown (bath) robe railway railroad
drink-driving drunk driving return (ticket) round-trip
driving licence driver's license racing car race car
dual carriageway divided highway railway railroad
dustbin garbage can, trash can real tennis court tennis
dustman garbage collector recorded delivery certified mail
danger money hazard pay registration plate license plate
demister (in a car) defroster remould (tyre) retread
dialling tone dial tone reverse the charges call collect
diamante rhinestone reversing lights back-up lights
double cream heavy cream right-angled triangle right triangle
draughts (game) checkers ring road beltway
drawing pin thumbtack room only European plan
dressing gown robe; bathrobe roundabout (at a fair) carousel
drink-driving drunk driving roundabout (in road) traffic circle
drinks cupboard liquor cabinet rowing boat rowboat
drinks party cocktail party sailing boat sailboat
driving licence driver s license sandwich cake layer cake
dual carriageway divided highway sanitary towel sanitary napkin
dust sheet drop cloth self-raising flour self-rising flour
earth wire ground wire semibreve (music) whole note
everywhere everyplace,
everywhere semitone (music) half step
expiry date expiration date share option stock option
estate agent real estate agent shopping trolley shopping cart
estate car station wagon show house/home model home
estate agent realtor silencer (on a car) muffler
ex-directory unlisted silverside rump roast
flannel face cloth, wash cloth skeleton in the cupboard skeleton in the closet
fancy dress costumes skimmed milk skim milk
Father Christmas Santa Claus skipping rope jump rope
fill in fill out skirting board baseboard
fire brigade fire department sleeper railroad tie
first floor second floor sleeping partner silent partner
fish-fingers fish-sticks slowcoach slowpoke
flick knife switchblade snakes and ladders chutes and ladders
fitted carpet wall-to-wall carpeting stockholder shareholder
full board (in hotels) American plan single ticket one-way ticket
flexitime flextime splashback backsplash
faith school parochial school spring onion green onion
financial year fiscal year stag night bachelor party
fire brigade/service fire
company/department Stanley knife utility knife
football soccer state school public school
full stop
gear-lever gearshift timetable schedule
gear lever gear shift toll motorway toll road, turnpike
Gents Men's Room toffee apple candy apple
goods train freight train touch wood knock on wood
ground floor
first floor
ground floor, first floor
second floor trade union labor union
groundsman groundskeeper trading estate industrial park
goods train freight train transport cafe truck stop
greaseproof paper wax paper/waxed
paper takeaway (food) takeout; to go
green fingers green thumb taxi rank taxi stand
holdall carryall
high street main street tea towel dish towel
high school,
secondary school,
comprehensive school
high school (junior
high, senior high) terrace house row house
hire purchase installment plan third-party insurance liability insurance
hairslide barrette underground (train) subway
hatstand hatrack wedding ring wedding band/ring
hen night bachelorette party windscreen windshield
hot flush hot flash zebra crossing pedestrian crossing
housing estate housing development wellington boots rubber boots, rain boots
hundreds and
thousands
sprinkles (for ice
cream) windscreen windshield
headmaster, head
teacher principal water ice Italian ice
hire purchase installment plan weatherboard clapboard
icing sugar confectioners sugar white coffee coffee with cream
lollipop lady (or
man) crossing guard white spirit mineral spirits
loudhailer bullhorn wholemeal bread wholewheat bread
low loader flatbed truck windcheater windbreaker
lucky dip grab bag
luggage van baggage car
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/british-and-american-terms
The Different Idioms of the British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
In terms of idioms, the facts show that British will say peaks and troughs, Americans say peaks and valleys, and the British spanner in the
works becomes a wrench or monkey wrench. A
British know-all often becomes a know-it-all
over here, and hilariously, a fuss-pot is now a
fussbudget Toni
Hargishttp://www.bbcamerica.com/mind-the- gap/2013/08/06/close-but-no-cigar-british-vs-american-idioms/).
Linguistically, idioms can have a literal meaning in one situation and a different idiomatic meaning in another situation. It is a phrase which does not always follow the normal rules of
meaning and grammar
(http://lostinthepond.blogspot.com/2013/02/brit
Table 3. The list of British English (BrE) and British English (BrE) idioms
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
a home from home a home away from home
a drop in the ocean a drop in the bucket, a spit in the ocean
a new lease of life a new lease on life
a storm in a teacup a tempest in a teapot
blow one's own trumpet blow (or toot) one's own horn
flogging a dead horse beating a dead horse
haven't (got) a clue don't have a clue or have no clue (haven't got a
clue is also acceptable)
lie of the land lay of the land
not touch something with a barge pole not touch something with a ten-foot pole
Put in your tuppence worth Put in your two cents' worth
see the wood for the trees see the forest for the trees
sweep under the carpet sweep under the rug*
skeleton in the cupboard skeleton in the closet
put a spanner in the works throw a (monkey) wrench (into a situation)
take it with a pinch of salt take it with a grain of salt
touch wood knock on wood
http://www.transpanish.biz/en/english-language.html.
The Different Vocabulary due to Social and Cultural Context
It is generally know that historically American is built against the British social and cultural values. American opposed some social and cultural values of British such as social stratification, religious beliefs, democracy, aristocracy system, social class, etc. American since its settlement would like to be the new people which are different from their mother country England. The development and improvement of the English is one of the domains showing that American is different form English.
The social and cultural differences also create the difference between British and American English in vocabulary domain. Some of thedifferent vocabulary and lexical item between the two English such as: in education, transportation, telecommunication,monetary amounts, date,and time, etc.
In education domain, both British and American English have different terms in vocabulary. The naming of school years in British (except Scotland) and American English are different. In British English at the age of 1-4 is named Nursery Playgroup while in American English, it is named Day care Preschool. Then, the
year of 5 – 6 in British, it is called Infants year whereas in it is Kindergarten in American English. The next level is called Secondary school or High School in British English and American English is called Junior High School(Longman, 1982).
In addition, in the US, 5th grade is typically a part of elementary school while 8th grade is often the third and final year of junior high. The US does not have a uniform nationwide system of schooling and even within individual states there can be different systems depending on the school district or town/city.In the UK the US equivalent of a high school is often referred to as a secondary school
regardless of whether it is state funded or private. Secondary education in the United States also includes middle school or junior high school, a two- or three-year transitional school between elementary school and high school. "Middle school" is sometimes used in the UK as a synonym for the younger junior school, covering the second half of the primary curriculum—current years 4 to 6 in some areas.
Cambridge. In the US a student studies or majors in
a subject (although concentration or emphasis is also used in some US colleges or universities to refer to the major subject of study). To major in
something refers to the student's principal course of study; to study may refer to any class being taken. In detail, table 4 shows how the terms are different.
Table 4. The different sentence patternsof British English (BrE) and British English (BrE)
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
"She read biology at Cambridge." "She majored in biology at Harvard."
"She studied biology at Cambridge." "She studied biology at Harvard."
"She did biology at Cambridge." (informal) "She concentrated in biology at Harvard."
In the context of higher education, the word
school is used slightly differently in BrE and AmE. In BrE, except for the University of London, the word school is used to refer to an academic department in a university. In AmE, the word school is used to refer to a collection of related academic departments and is headed by a dean. When referring to a division of a university, school is practically synonymous to a college.
Then, the"Professor" has different meanings in BrE and AmE. In BrE it is the highest academic rank, followed by Senior Lecturer and Lecturer. In AmE "Professor" refers to academic staff of all ranks, with (Full) Professor (largely equivalent to the UK meaning) followed by Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
In term of school fee, the word "tuition" has traditionally had separate meaning in each variation. In BrE it is the educational content transferred from teacher to student at a university. In AmE it is the money (the fees) paid to receive
that education (BrE: Tuition fees)(Longman, 1982).
In general, in both the US and the UK, a student takes an exam, but in BrE a student can also be said to sit an exam. The expression he sits for an exam also arises in BrE but only rarely in AmE; American lawyers-to-be sit for their bar exams and American master's and doctoral students may sit for their comprehensive exams, but in nearly all other instances, Americans take
their exams. When preparing for an exam students
revise (BrE) and review (AmE) what they have studied; the BrE idiom to revise for has the equivalent to review for in AmE.Examinations are supervised by invigilators in the UK and proctors
(or (exam) supervisors) in the US (a proctor in the UK is an official responsible for student discipline at the University of Oxford or Cambridge). In the UK a teacher sets an exam, while in the US, a teacher writes (prepares) and then gives
(administers) an exam. Look at the table 5 below they are different.
Table 5. The different sentence patterns of British English (BrE) and British English (BrE)
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
"I sat my Spanish exam yesterday." "I took my exams at Yale."
"I plan to set a difficult exam for my students, but I don't have it ready yet."
"I spent the entire day yesterday writing the exam. I'm almost ready to give it to my students."
In BrE, students are awarded marks as credit for requirements (e.g. tests, projects) while in AmE, students are awarded points or "grades" for the same. Similarly, in BrE, a candidate's work is
being marked, while in AmE it is said to be graded
to determine what mark or grade is given.
In politic, the political candidates stand for election, while in the US, they run for office. There is virtually no crossover between BrE and AmE in the use of these terms.Then, inbusiness/finance, the financial statements it is calledrevenue or sales in AmE and it is known in BrE as turnover (Hornby, 1973).
There are also differences in terminology in the context of rail transport. The best known is
railway in Britain and railroad in America, but there are several others. A railway station in the UK is a railroad station or train station in the US; trains have drivers (often called engine drivers) in Britain, while in America trains are driven by
engineers; trains have guards in the UK and
conductors in the US. Then, a place where two tracks meet is called a set of points in the UK and a
switch in the US; and a place where a road crosses a railway line at ground level is called a level crossing in Britain and a grade crossing in America. In Britain, the term sleeper is used for the devices that bear the weight of the rails and are known as
ties or crossties in the United States. The British term platform in the sense "The train is at Platform 1" would be known in the US by the term track, and used in the phrase "The train is on Track 1". Also, the British term Brake Van or Guard's Van, is a Caboose in the US. Finally the American English phrase "All aboard!" when getting on a train is rarely used in Britain; the nearest British equivalent is "Take your seats!", and when the train reaches its final stop, in Britain the phrase used by announcers is "All change!" while in America it is "All out!" (Houghton Mifflin Company (2005).
It is also generally known that BrE and AmE have different names in terms of levels of buildings or there are also variations in floor numbering. In most countries, including the UK, the "first floor" is one above the entrance level, while the entrance level is the "ground floor". In the US the ground floor is considered the first floor. In a British lift one would press the "G" or "0" button to return to the ground floor, whereas in an American elevator, one would push the "1", "G", or "L" (for Lobby) button to return to the ground floor. The "L" button (or sometimes "-1") in a British lift would take you to the lower ground floor, which implies that the building is built on a slope and thus there are two ground floors - there would similarly be a
"U" button (or "0") for upper ground floor. Also, American (AmE) apartment buildings (BrE) blocks of flats are frequently exceptions to this rule. The ground floor often contains the lobby and parking area for the tenants, while the numbered floors begin one level above and contain only the flats
(AmEapartments) themselves.
In terms of immigration, BrE and AmE have different vocabulary usage. In AmE, when immigrants apply for immigration benefits but are unsuccessful, they are said to be denied (e.g. visa application is denied, application for extension of stay is denied, entry to the US is denied). But, in BrE, those whose applications are unsuccessful are said to be refused that benefit] (e.g. visa application is refused, entry to the UK is refused).
The domains of units and measurement are also different in BrE and AmE. These domains include numbers, monetary amounts, dates, time, mass, mathematics, and holiday greetings, etc. They are described in detail how units and measurement are different in BrE and AmE.
First, when saying or writing out numbers, the British inserts an and before the tens and units, as in one hundred and sixty-twoortwo thousand and three. In the United States it is considered correct to drop the and, as in one
hundred sixty-twoortwo thousand three. For the house number (or bus number, etc.) 272, British people tend to say two seven two or two hundred and seventy two, while Americans tend to say two seventy-two. In addition, when referring to the numeral , British people would normally use
nought, oh, or zero, although nil is common in sports scores. Americans use the term zero most frequently; oh is also often used (though never when the quantity in question is nothing), and occasionally slang terms such as zilch or zip(Salim, 2006); (Webster, 1996);
Second, in monetary amounts-the monetary amounts in the range of one to two major currency units are often spoken differently. In AmE one may say a dollar fifty or a pound eighty, whereas in BrE, these amounts would be expressed one dollar fifty
and one pound eighty. For amounts over a dollar an American will generally either drop denominations or give both dollars and cents, as in two-twenty or
other hand, in BrE, two-twenty or two pounds
twenty would be most common.Then, in BrE,
particularly in television or radio advertisements, integers can be pronounced individually in the expression of amounts. For example, on sale for £399 might be expressed on sale for three nine nine, though the full three hundred and ninety-nine
pounds is at least as common. An American
advertiser would almost always say on sale for three ninety-nine, with context distinguishing ($399) from ($3.99). In British English, the latter pronunciation implies a value in pounds and pence, so three ninety-nine would be understood as £3.99.
)n addition, in BrE, the use of p instead of
pence is common in spoken usage. Each of the following has equal legitimacy: 3 pounds 12 p; 3
pounds and 12 p; 3 pounds 12 pence; 3 pounds and
12 pence; as well as just 8 p or 8 pence. While in AmE, words such as nickel, dime, andquarter for small coins are common. In BrE, the usual usage is a 10-pence piece or a 10p piece or simply a 10p, for any coin below £1, but pound coin and two-pound coin. BrE did have specific words for a number of coins before decimalisation. Formal coin names such as half crown (2/6) and florin (2/-), as well as slang or familiar names such as bob (1/-) and tanner (6d) for pre-decimalization coins are still familiar to older BrE speakers but they are not used for modern coins. In older terms like two-bob bit (2/-) and thrupenny bit (3d), the word bit had common usage before decimalisation similar to that of piece today.
Third, dates-dates are usually written differently in the short (numerical) form. Christmas Day 2000, for example, is 25/12/00 or
25.12.00 in the UK and 12/25/00 in the US, although the formats 25/12/2000, 25.12.2000, an
