THE CORRELATION BETWEEN
STUDENTS
‟ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND
THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
(A Correlational Study at 4thsemester students of academic year 2009 of Departmentof English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training,
State Islamic University of ' Syarif Hidaytaullah')
“Skripsi”
Presented to Department of English Education
In a partial fulfillment of requirements for the Degree of Strata 1 (S.Pd)
By:
AMIN MUBAROK 104014000356
DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF
„SYARIF
HIDAYATULLAH
‟
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:
Nama Lengkap : Amin Mubarok
No. Induk Mahasiswa : 104014000356
Jurusan : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Judul Skripsi : The Correlation Between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and
Their Speaking Skill Achievement (A Correlational Study at
Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and
Teachers Training, State Islamic University of ' Syarif
Hidaytaullah')
Atas bimbingan skripsi oleh:
Nama Dosen : Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
No. Induk Pegawai : 19491122 1978 03 1 001
Dengan ini saya selalu penulis menyatakan bahwa:
1. Skripsi merupakan hasil karya asli saya dengan sebenar-benarnya untuk diajukan
kepada fakultas ilmu tarbiyah dan keguruan untuk memenuhi salah satu
persyaratan memperoleh gelar sarjana (S.Pd) di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Semua sumber yang saya pergunakan dalam penulisan skripsi ini telah saya
cantumkan sesuai ketentuan yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
3. Jika di kemudian hari terbukti karya ini bukan hasil karya saya, maka saya pun
bersedia menerima sanksi yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta:
Nama : Amin Mubarok
NIM : 104014000356
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Skripsi saya yang berjudul:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INTELLI-
GENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta hak untuk me-nyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di In-ternet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Jakarta
Pada tanggal : 4 Januari 2017
Yang menyatakan
ABSTRACT
Mubarok, Amin. 2011, The Correlation between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and Their English Speaking Skill Achievement, (A Correlational study at 4th semester students academic year 2009 of Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, State Islamic University of „ Syarif Hidaytaullah'), “Skripsi”, Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, “Syarif Hidayatullah” State Islamic
Universiversity, Jakarta.
Advisor : Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Key word : Linguistic Intelligence, English Speaking Skill Achievement.
Linguistic intelligence, the ability to construct clear idea and to use the words competently in spoken and in written form of language either in first language or second language and even in the foreign language, is one of the human capacities that naturally exists in human‟ s brain since their birth. When the students use this potential, they are supposed to master any skills of the foreign language such as English speaking skill.
The aims of the research are to know the correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence and their English speaking skill achievement in English
Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher‟ s Training, Jakarta State Islamic
University of „Syarif Hidayatullah‟ .
After doing the research by using the correlational technique, the writer finds correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence is too low on their English speaking skill achievement. It is showed by the result of the research (0.042). It belongs to very low correlation. It means that there is no significant correlation between x variable (students‟ linguistic intelligence) and y variable (students‟ English speaking skill achievement).
ABSTRAK
Amin Mubarok, 2011, Hubungan Antara Kecerdesan Linguistik Dengan Hasil Belajar Berbicara Bahasa Inggris Siswa, (Studi Hubungan Pada Mahasiswa Semester 4 Angkatan 2009, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta), Skripsi, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, FITK, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Pembimbing : Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Kata kunci :Kecerdasan Berbahasa, Prestasi Belajar Keterampilan Berbicara Bahasa Inggris
Kecerdasan berbahasa, sebuah kemampuan untuk menyusun ide yang jelas dan menggunakan kata-kata secara kompeten dalam bahasa ujaran dan dalam bahasa tulisan, baik dalam bahasa pertama atau bahasa kedua dan bahkan bahasa asing, adalah salah satu diantara sekian kemampuan manusia yang secara alami sudah ada di dalam otak mereka sejak mereka lahir. Ketika siswa menggunakan potensi ini dengan maksimal, maka dimungkinkan mereka akan menguasai keterampilan berbahasa apapun dalam bahasa asing seperti keterampilan berbicara dalam bahasa inggris.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui sejauh mana hubungan antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa dengan prestasi belajar keterampilan berbicara bahasa inggris mereka di Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Setelah melakukan penelitian dengan teknik korelasi, penulis menemukan bahwa hubungan antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa terhadap prestasi keterampilan berbicara bahasa inggris sangat rendah. Hal itu ditunjukkan dengan hasil penghitungan rumus korelasi (0,042) di mana skor ini menunjukkan hubungan yang sangat rendah. Itu berarti bahwa, tidak hubungan yang signifikan antara variabel
x (kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa) dan variabel y (hasil belajar keterampilan berbicara bahasa inggris).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise be to Allah swt, the Almighty and the Lord of the worlds, the Light who enlighten all the univers, who has bestowed upon the writer in completing this “Skripsi”. Peace and blessing be upon our prophet Muhammad saw, his family, his companions, and his followers.
The writer would like to express his deepest honor and respect to:
1. His beloved parents: Tarjoyo and Siti Aisyah who always pray and support him to give the best, and to his sisters (Mustaqimah, Faihatul Muhbitin, Faidhul Yumna, Badiatul Ulwiyah) who give the motivation and encouragement to complete this “Skripsi”
2. Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA, as the advisor who has given his time and guidance for the writer and has encouraged to finish this „Skripsi‟ .Prof. Dr. Dede Rosyada, MA, the Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training.
3. All the lecturers of English Department who have given the writer their knowledge.
4. The Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training, Prof. Dr. Dede Rosyada, MA.
5. The Chairman of English Department, Drs. Syauki M.Pd and the secretary of English Department, Neneng Sunengsih, S.Pd
6. The lecturer of Psycholinguistics, Zahril Anasyi, M.Hum., who has helped the writer in doing the research.
7. The lecturer of Speaking, Drs. Suyono Kasim, M.Ed., who has helped the writer in designing the instrument of the research.
8. The stuff and officer of the UIN libraries and ATMAJAYA
9. Some of PBI students of academic year 2009 who have participated in the writer‟ s research related to this „Skripsi‟ by doing the test of linguistic intelligence.
The writer would also like to give his gratitude to his best friends, Asep Mutaqin Abror and Fitriah AB, who have given the motivation and
encouragement for the writer to finish this „Skripsi‟ .
Finally, the writer hopes that this „skripsi‟ would be the contribution for the insight development in English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiya and Teachers‟ Training. Therefore the writer is pleased to receive criticism and suggestions from the readers especially teachers and parents to improve this
„Skripsi‟ .
Jakarta, July 16, 2011
The Writer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……….. v
ABSTRAK……… vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……….. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……… ix
LIST OF TABLES………. xii
LIST OF FIGURES ... xiii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION……….. 1
A. Background of the study……….. 1
B. The Limitation and statement of the problem………. 4
C. The significance of the study………. 5
D. The method of the study……….. 5
E. The organization of the writing……… 6
CHAPTER II : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……….… ... 7
A. Linguistic Intelligence………... 7
1. The Understanding of Linguistic Intelligence………… 7
2. Criteria of Linguistically Intelligent People……… 12
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence………….. 13
4. Ways to increase the linguistic intelligence………….. 27 B. Speaking………. 28
1. The Definition of Speaking……… 28
2. The Purpose of Speaking………...….……… 29
3. The Elements of Speaking………. 30
C. Achievement……….. 33
1. The Definition of Achievement………. 33
2. The Factor of Learning Achievement……… 34 D. Conceptual Frame……….. 36
E. The
Hypothesis……… 41
CHAPTER III : PROFILE OF PBI……….………... 42
A. English Education Department Identity……… 42
B. Brief History of English Education Department…………... 43
C. Vision and Mission………. 44
D. Objective of Course……… 44
E. Students……… 45
F. Lectures……… 47
G. Curriculum……… 48
H. Facilities………... 49
I. The Facilities and Activities Supporting the Linguistic Intelligence……… 51
CHAPTER IV : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS……….. 52
A. Research Methodology……….. 52
1. Objective of the Research………. 52
2. Time and Location……… 52
3. Method of the Research……… 53
4. Population and Sample………. 53
5. Technique of Collecting the Data……… 53
6. Technique of Analyzing the Data……… 53
B. Research Findings……….…….. 55
1. Description of the Data………... 55
2. Data Analysis……… 66
3. Interpretation of Data Analysis and Test Hypothesis….. 68
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION……… 71
A. Conclusion………. 71
B. Suggestion………... 71
BIBLIOIGRAPHY……… 73
GLOSSARY………... 78
APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Annual Students‟ Progress……….... 45
Table 3.2 Lecturers Composition……….. 48
Table 3.3 Components Curriculum……… 49
Table 4.1 The level of Correlation………. 54
Table 4.2 Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores……….. 55
Table 4.3 Computation of the mean from a frequency distribution of Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores……….. 57
Table 4.4 Students‟ Score of Speaking……….. 62
Table 4.5 Computation of mean from a frequency distribution of Students‟ Score of Speaking……….…………. 63
Table 4.6Basic statistic correlation formula of students‟ linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement……… 66
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Brain Localization……….. 19
Figure 2.2Brain and Language Function‟s Area……… 20
Figure 2.3The Factors of Learning Achievement……….. 35
Figure 4.1 Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.3)……… 57
Figure 4.2 Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.5)……….. 64
Figure 4.3 Coefficient Correlation between x and yVariable……….... 67
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of Study
English is the world‟ s most widely studied foreign language, five hundred years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of education, commerce, religion, and government in the western world1.
Realizing the importance of English as the international language, English in Indonesia becomes compulsory subject from elementary school until university level but most of the students are still difficult to produce the language fluently either in a written or in a spoken form. And one of the problems of foreign language learner in mustering productive skills usually happens in a speaking skill. And it commonly happens in Indonesia as a country which treats English as a foreign language.
Even the variety of education curriculum in Indonesia have changed periodically (1994, 1999, 2004 / Competence Based Curriculum and 2006 / KTSP); English is still being difficult subject for most students. And one of its indicators is most of graduate students of senior high school still cannot master English passively and actively either in the spoken form or in the written form. And even we know the English curriculum in Indonesia emphasizes on the
1
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.1
2
importance of communicative way to teach English but in reality some students still difficult to speak English fluently.
The writer believes there are some reasons why English speaking skill is still becoming problem for Indonesian people in producing it, first, the practicing of English language teaching in Indonesia do not support the communicative way to teach a language. Second, there are some lexically, grammatically, and phonologically differences between English and Bahasa Indonesia. And the third, there is not a wide English community in Indonesia that makes Indonesian people have a little chance to use English in their social life.
Talking of fluency in producing language; basically it cannot be separated from Linguistic Intelligence because it relates to the ability to construct minds clearly and ability to express mind in speaking, reading and writing. Moreover, Linguistic Intelligence as one of Howard Gardner‟ s Multiple intelligences theory; is the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what is on your mind and to understand people.
Linguistically intelligent people usually like to read, write, listen, and play word games. They are good at spelling, sensitive to pattern of sound and grammar, and systematic in thinking. They have a good memory for general knowledge and ability to reason therefore People with high linguistic intelligence not only show the mastery of language properly, but also tell a story, debate, discuss, make a report and finish a variety of task which has a correlation with speaking and writing2.
According to those criteria, the linguistically intelligent people may learn English (as a foreign Language) faster. They know how to arrange the words and the sentence systematically and syntactically, they understand speech pattern semantically, and they are able to communicate their viewpoints in a clear, beautiful, and refined manner.
Actually, the developing both philosophical and practical basis for language teaching is not merely derived from tradition (such as grammar
2
3
translation method) and practical realities (such as determination of reading as the goal in American schools and college); but also from linguistics, psychology, or a mixture of both of them3.
Then, linguistic intelligence as one of psychology and linguistic theory can be a good contribution and insight for a development of language teaching. It answers how the language is produced by part of brain, how speech pattern is produced by the human, and how the language proficiency can be increased by students.
Talking of the linguistic intelligence, it cannot be separated from brain function which controls all the human behavior include the language control. It is mentioned in Neurolinguistic that there is part of brain which control the language and speech production. And it is approved by many researchers such as Edwin smith, an American, acquired in 1862 a papyrus scroll that many believe contains the first mention of the consequences of brain injury. Parts of this scroll have been dated to 3000 B.C. Forty eight cases were discussed in this papyrus. Case 22 (quoted above) notes that the loss of speech skills was possible following head trauma. Many have regarded it as the first mention of aphasia (loss of language abilities due to brain damage). To this day, trauma (injury to the brain produced by external force) continues to provide us with insight into brain function. Moreover, Hippocratic Scholars (460-370 B.C) correctly observed that brain injury often produced contralateral (opposite-sided) paresis (semiparalysis). They also noted that speech disturbances commonly accompanied left-side brain injury and right-side paresis4.
As what the writer mentioned above, there is a correlation between Linguistic intelligence and the speaking fluency. Therefore the writer is interested in finding out whether there is a significant correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement. To measure this, the writer has to use the valid instrument and to choose the appropriate object of
3
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, p.14.
4
4
research–that is the students who learn the foreign language (English) intensively. And forth semester students of English department at Faculty of Tarbiya and Teachers‟ Training Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University can be one of the options of the research object. The writer chooses the forth semester students because for some things the quality of their English skill is getting better than at the first semester and because they have been doing some activities that can increase their linguistic intelligence such as learning English intensively from 1st to 4th semester, reading English text excessively (novel, newspaper, book, etc) that can make them acquire much vocabularies, and practicing the English conversation through discussion and sharing among English students, lecturer, and English facilitators that can make them increasingly skilled in speaking ability. For those reasons the writer is interested in running and writing a „paper‟ under the title:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS‟ LINGUISTIC
INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILLS
ACHIEVEMENT AT FOURTH SEMESTER ACADEMIC YEAR 2007
B. Limitation and Formulation of Problem
1. The limitation of Problem
The writer will limit this “skripsi” exclusively on:
a. Speaking skill is one of the most complex skills because it is related with the problem of thinking what one wants to say in the foreign language. Actually there are some factors affecting the difficulty in speaking skill such as the lack of vocabulary and different structure between the first language and foreign language, therefore to solve this problem the writer will focus on the discussion of factors which affect the fluency in speaking.
5
related to this problem therefore to avoid unclear discussion the writer is going to focus on the discussion up to finding the evidence that there is a correlation between Linguistic Intelligence and speaking skill or fluency in speaking.
2. The Formulation of Problem
In this “skripsi”, the writer formulates the problem; is there any significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and the English speaking skill achievement?
C. The Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is one of considerable reference to address correlation in student‟ s linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement.
Hopefully, furthermore this “skripsi” will be a considerable construction and as a substantial points for himself and everyone who is interested in speaking and or especially on how to increase the speaking ability by increasing the linguistic intelligence.
D. The Method of the Study
The writer does library research and field research to get relevant data. In the library research, he tries to observe some theories and collects data related to his concern, while in getting primary data he runs the observation by measuring the level of students' linguistic intelligence as the first variable and students' English speaking fluency as second variable. The obtaining of these scores will be correlated by using the correlation formula of product moment, that is:
6
among those variable is high, but if r is approaching 0 it means the linear correlation among variable x and y is so weak or may not at all.5
Finally, he has written them down carefully and descriptively as soon as he has completed his data.
E. The Organization of Writing
This “skripsi” is divided into five respective chapters:
Chapter I presents introduction which consist of background of the study, this is the main part of fives chapter as in this chapter the writer shows his acceptable and considerable reason why he runs his paper, then it also presents the limitation and formulation of the problem, the significance of the study, the method of the study and the last is the organization of writing.
In chapter II the writer explains theoretical framework which consist of concept of linguistic intelligence, Speaking, Learning Achievement, and the correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement.
In chapter III the writer explains detail descriptive Profile of English Education Department in which he runs his research.
Chapter IV provides first, research methodology in this chapter, she concerns with the purpose of research, place and time of research, population and sample of research, the method and instrument of research, the research procedure and the technique of data analysis. And second, research finding, in this sub-chapter: description of data only and the interpretation of data.
Chapter V is conclusion, in this chapter the writers divides two areas: Conclusion which sums up all provided explanation above and last is suggestion. In this last sub-chapter, the writer gives a considerable room for those who is interested in and concern with in order to construct or evaluate some must evaluated points regarding with this subject paper.
5
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Linguistic Intelligence
1. The Understanding of linguistic Intelligence
The theory of linguistic intelligence for the first time was introduced by L. L. Thurstone in 1938 as the reaction of his rejection on the notion of general intelligence. In his multiple-factor theory, he stated that intelligence consists of seven primary abilities: verbal comprehension, number ability, word fluency, spatial visualization, associative memory, reasoning, and perceptual speed. Thurstone argued that a person could be competent in one area of intelligence (such as verbal comprehension) and far less competent in another (such as perceptual speed).1
Linguistic intelligence was also introduced by Howard Gardner in his
multiple intelligence theory which is proposed in 1983 as the result of his examining on human cognition through a number of discrete disciplinary lenses like psychology, neurology, biology, sociology, and anthropology. 2
1
Halonen, Jane S & W Santrock, John, Psychology: Context & Application, ThirdEdition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College, 1999), p.251
2
Howard, Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective In “Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences For 21st Century”, (New York: basic book, 1999). P.33
8
Gardner viewed that human has eight kinds of intelligence; they are (1) verbal/linguistic intelligence, (2) logical/mathematical intelligence, (3) visual/spatial intelligence, (4) musical-rhythmic intelligence, (5) bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, (6) intrapersonal intelligence (7) interpersonal intelligence and (8) Naturalistic Intelligence.3
Furthermore, it is very necessary to analyze its syntactical components, to understand comprehensively what linguistic intelligence means. Actually there are two words that construct linguistic intelligence; they are
„Linguistic‟ and „Intelligence‟ . Therefore the writer tries to describe the meaning of Linguistic Intelligence from the word Linguistic, Intelligence, and then Linguistic Intelligence.
a. Linguistic
To ignore the misinterpretation of the meaning of linguistic, it is important to know the difference between linguistics (with s) and spoken and written that is based on a system of symbols. Think about how important language is in our everyday life. We need language to speak to others, listen to others, read and write. Our language enables us to describe past events in details and plan for the future. Language
3
May Lwin, Et.al. How to Multiply Your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide for Parents of Seven-Year-Olds and below, (USA: Prentice Hall, 2003), p 10
4
Jack C. Richards and Richard Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of Language Teachingand Applied Linguistics, Third Edition, (London: Pearson Education, 2002)., p. 312
5
Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd, An introduction to Linguistics, (Jakarta: UIN Jakarta Press, 2006)., p.1
6
9
let us pass down information from one generation to the next and create a rich cultural heritage7.
b. Intelligence
Gazzaniga said, intelligence is a difficult concept to define, as it can take a number of different forms, but most definitions agree that (1) humans have a range of different abilities, and (2) intelligence can be equated with how a person measures on a particular ability scale8. Even intelligence is a difficult concept to define; intelligence has frequently been defined as the ability to adjust to the environment or to learn from experience.9
Gazzaniga himself proposed a definition of intelligence as a collection of high level mental process – in today‟ s term, things such as “verbal,” “mathematical,” and “analytical” abilities.10
And according to Jane S Halonen, intelligence is Verbal ability, problem solving skills, and the ability to learn from and adapt to the experiences of everyday life11. The definitions of intelligence which are proposed by Gazzaniga and Jane S Halonen according to Howard Gardner are the classical definition of intelligence where the psychologist just defined the intelligence as cognitive ability such as verbal, logical-mathematical ability and problem solving.
Therefore Howard Gardner in 1983 tried to redefine intelligence as the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued
7
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application, Third Edition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College), p.240
8
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science, (USA: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2003), p.257
9
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik, (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2010) p. 262
10
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science,……, p.257
11
10
within one or more cultural setting12. Howard Gardner argued that intelligence is not only the ability to solve problems but also to create products.
Nearly two decades later Howard Gardner offered more refined definition. He stated that intelligence is Bio-psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are value in a culture13. He argued that this modest change in wording is important because it suggests that intelligences are not things that can be seen or counted. Instead, they are potential–presumably, neural ones–that will or will not be activated, depending upon the values of particular culture, the opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made by individuals and/or their families, schoolteachers, and others.
Based on the concepts above, the writer tries to make a conclusion of intelligence definition as the cognitive or mental capacity of an individual to solve problem and to create product, which can be affected and activated by culture and environment.
c. Definition of linguistic intelligence
After explanation of linguistic and intelligence above, it can be stated that linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, our native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what is on our mind and to understand other people14. According to Arifuddin linguistic intelligence is the ability to use and arrange the words effectively either in spoken or in written form. Linguistic intelligence has a correlation with the using and developing language generally,
12
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in “Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21st
century,……,p.33
13
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in “Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21st
century,……., p.34
14
11
either in spoken or in written language. People who possess the linguistic intelligence are able to use the language fluently and are able to develop their knowledge with clear idea. They can easily catch the spoken and written language and they also have a good memorization.15
While Howard Gardner, defined linguistic intelligence as sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to use language to accomplish goals, as well as the ability to learn new languages.16
Moreover May Lwin stated that linguistic intelligence is the ability to construct clear idea and to use the words competently in speaking, reading and writing.17
Actually, linguistic intelligence not merely consists of the ability to use a language correctly, but also beautifully. It involves a deep understanding of words and sensitivity to literal as well as the figurative meanings of words. It also involves highly developed written and oral communication skills, proper knowledge of grammar rules and the information about as well as a zest to learn different types of languages.
From those definitions, it can be concluded that Linguistic intelligence is the ability to use language either in spoken or in written form clearly and correctly and the ability to use it to accomplish goals.
15
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,….., p. 265
16
The Reading Matrix Vol.8, no. 2, September: On The Relationship Between Multiple Intelligences And Language Proficiency by Sayyed Ayatollah Razmjoo, Shiraz
University
17
12
2. Criteria of linguistically intelligent people
According to Grow, a well-developed linguistic intelligence shows itself in attention to words, overtones of words, relations among them, syntax, and the beauty and substance of style. In addition Grow viewed that the linguistic intelligence appears to be a combination of several differently evolved systems–expressive gesture, intonation, and the cognitive abilities of naming and classifying, and syntactical parsing.18
From those descriptions, it can be said that linguistic intelligence is not only the ability in using the spoken form of language (listening and speaking) but also in the spoken of written (reading and writing). This view is strengthened by Gardner's observation on Aphasic which shows that damage on certain specific areas of brain disturbed speech and the ability to write. And it is also strengthened by the fact that deaf people who are not suffering damage on brain language area can still learn the language through writing and sign language.19 Therefore linguistic intelligence not only can be seen on the people who can speak rhetorically (such as debate and public speaking) but also can write beautifully (such as writing poems, journal, and novel)
From the explanation above, it can be concluded that linguistically intelligent people have some special criteria, they are:
(1) They are able to communicate their view-point in a clear, beautiful and refined manner. (2) They enjoy reading, writing and learning language. (3) They understand the beauty of a language and are able to make creative use of it. (4) They take pleasure in the rhythms and the phonetics of words. (5) They take keen interest in learning correct pronunciation and experiencing the hidden melody in words. (6) They are good with spelling words and sensitive towards language patterns. (7) They are mostly found to be orderly and systematic with a strong ability to reason. (8) They are often observed
18
Gerald Grow, Ph.D, Writing and Multiple Intelligences, A Working Paper, (USA: School of Journalism, Media & Graphic Arts - http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow)
19
13
possessing good memory and doing well in word games20. (9) They are also frequently skilled at explaining, teaching and oration or persuasive speaking, and (10) those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very easily and as they have high verbal memory and recall, and an ability to understand and manipulate syntax and structure.21
As what the criteria mentioned above, we can easily see the professions of linguistically intelligent people as: writers, poets, journalists, scriptwriters, speech writers, novelists, lawyers, politicians, and teachers.
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence
To know what are the factors affecting linguistic intelligence we should know how the language (L1 & L2) is acquired, is learned and developed within the human, and we should know how the language is controlled by part of brain. Therefore the writer tries to analyze the factors affecting linguistic intelligence from the theories of language acquisition, neurolinguistic (neurology of linguistic) and psycholinguistic. And the writer here tries to divide the factors that have a great influence on linguistic intelligence into two parts, they are:
a. Bio-psychological Factors22
Biological factors according to the writer mean the factor that biologically exists since human born such as genes, gender, health, age and brain.
One of the linguists who believe that every infant which is born is given the mental capacity to process the language (innate mechanism) is Noam Chomsky. In his Universal Grammar theory, he believes that
20http://www.buzzle.com/articles/
21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Verbal-linguistic
22
14
language acquisition device (LAD) is the series of universal syntaxes, structural property which is commonly found in all the languages. This syntactical structure is gained since human born. Something which is learned by the infant is the vocabulary. The infants have the unlimited creativity by using both the device and limited language pattern. Thus the infants produce the sentences based on the vocabulary which is learned by innate syntactical pattern. Therefore infants made the grammatically mistakes which will not be repeated.23
Chomsky also stated that language is not the collection of habit but it is the principle system which is built in the human. The process of language acquisition is not fixed by the imitation, reinforcement, and the forming of habit, but it because of the existence of internal capacity within the learner.
Chomsky views that language learning is mental activity. It emphasizes the importance of self learner contribution, not the environment24.
The first strong evidence that supports Chomsky's Universal Grammar theory is that children all over the world acquire language milestone at about the same time developmentally and in about the same order, despite vast variations in the language they receive. For examples, in some cultures adults never talk to infants under 1 year of age, yet these infants still acquire language. Also, there is no other convincing way to explain how quickly children learn language than through biological foundations.25
The similarity of the process of language acquisition is not only caused by the similarity of biological elements and neurology of
23
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p. 149
24
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……., p. 135
25
15
language, but also caused by the existence of language mental aspect like what Chomsky mentioned in his theory of mentality.26
The second evidence that supports innate hypothesis and Chomsky's universal grammar theory is the result of observation by scientist on the brain and its role in language functioning27 and language process.28
The philosophers, linguists, neurologists, and psychologists since centuries ago have attempted to observe the relationship between brain and language functioning by studying the case of brain injury that affects on loss of language abilities.
According to Berko the observation of brain anatomy and physiology which have been done by the researcher from Aristotle, Shakespeare, Hippocratic scholars, Leonardo da Vinci, Herophilus and Galen offered a significant insight that inform brain language function, but none of them have proved empirically how language was organized within the brain.29
Finally in nineteenth century researcher made the first concentrated attempts to understand how language was organized within the brain by studying aphasic patients. The first behavior of any type to be localized within the human brain was articulate (spoken) language.
It was the French surgeon Pierre Paul Broca (1824-1880), who made this remarkable discovery. As a founding father of what we now
26
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p.114
27
Language function is the reasons why someone makes a speech. The most important of language function is to communicate. Communication with language is held through two kinds of basic human activity that is speaking and listening.
28
Language process is the description of instruments, material, and procedure within our mental which are used by the human to produce and understanding the language.
29
16
call physical anthropology, Broca was greatly intrigued with brain size and its relationship to age, sex, intelligence, race and environment.30
Aphasia (language and speech disorders) cases which are studied by Broca have given us the great potential to see the roles that particular parts of the brain apparently play in language production and understanding.
And here are the four examples of aphasia in speakers of English: (1) Broca‟s Aphasia. “Yes…ah…Monday…er…Dad and Peter
H…(his own name), and Dad…er…hospital…and ah…Wednesday… Wednesday, nine o‟ clock. Ah
doctors…two… an er…teeth…yah.” (Patient‟ s effort to explain that he came into the hospital for dental surgery.) This aphasia is caused by brain damage in Broca‟ s area which localizes on lateral surface of the cerebral cortex.
(2) Wernicke‟s Aphasia. “Well, this is…mother is away here working her work out here to get her better, but when she‟ s looking, the two boys looking in the other part. One their small tile into her time here. She‟ s working another time because she‟ s getting, too…” (patient‟ s description of a scene in which two children are stealing cookies while the mother‟ s back is in turned.) This aphasia is caused by brain damage in cortical area for hearing.
(3) Jargon Aphasia. “All right. Azzuh bezzuh dee pasty hass rih tau dul too. Aulaz foley ass in duh porler dermass died duh
paulmasty kide the, the, baidy pahsty bide uh … laidy faid …
uh … tiny bride. Uh … uh … orlihmin fee in a do … but uh, think, what‟ s it called purple, more on the purple order this is (In answer to the question: tell me about this marble.)31
30
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS,……, p. 54
31
17
Those samples of speech disorders which are caused by brain injury become the strong evidence that brain has a great deal of influence on speech and language function. It informs us that linguistic intelligence is controlled by brain in particular areas of cerebral cortex. It also strengthen the Chomsky's view that biological basis has a significant role in processing the language.
From the study of aphasia, we can see clearly the particular parts of brain which has significant role in language function and language process.
The first brain area which controls the language function is Broca‟ s area; it exists in inferior frontal gyrus of frontal lobe. This area has responsible to control speech production. Like the example of Broca's aphasia described above, damage in this area cause Broca‟ s aphasic has a difficulty in express an idea in grammatically correct sentence.
The second brain area which has a contribution to language function is Wernicke‟ s area. It takes place in temporal lobe especially in superior temporal gyrus (cortical area for hearing). This area has a role in understanding speech sound; damage to this area can make Wernicke‟ s aphasic has a difficulty in understanding speech sound. Even the Wernicke‟ s aphasic can produce the speech in grammatically correct sentence; their speech does not make a sense. Unlike Broca‟ s aphasics, these patients are fluent – so garrulous in fact that they have been termed logorrheic. For the most part, this patient‟ s speech has discernible grammatical structure. However, it doesn‟ t appear to make such sense; consider the somewhat random array of words in the phrase, “one their small tile into her time here.” Whereas Broca‟ s aphasics are accurately aware of their language problems, Wernicke‟ s aphasics often are not and may even deny that they are ill. Both
18
addressed to othem but wander furthure astray as they responds. Some patients produce jargon such using “jabberwocky” words that do not exist in English, such as porler, demass, and ahrdimidehsty. Even when such jargon is absent, their speech rapidly becomes meaningless and filled with inappropriate words. As the speech samples and our discussions illustrate, Broca‟ s and Wernicke‟ s aphasia differ strikingly. The Broca‟ s aphasic is nonfluent and uses language seems spares, labored, and agrammatic (missing important grammatical morphemes), although comprehension appears reasonable. The Wernickes‟ aphasic appears fluent and uses long complicated utterances that unfortunately make little sense. Their speech is apt to be full of neologism (nonsense words). Finally, they appear quite disordered in their ability to understand both the speech of others and their own output.
Both Broca and Wrnicke‟ s area exist in left hemisphere. Moreover Sidiarto conclude that Broca and Wernicke‟ s area becomes strong evidence that language functioning exist in left hemisphere. Sidiarto explained in detail that word production (expressive language) takes place in front, and understanding functioning (receptive ability) is controlled by backside of brain. This statement strengthens the view that language function is controlled dominantly by left hemisphere.
The word “dominant” implicitly has a meaning that right hemisphere may have a contribution to processing and language function.32 The last development proves that the right hemisphere has responsible in language use.
There have been so many discoveries and the view of expert that support the view which stated that brain language function can be done cooperatively by both left and right hemisphere; it because of the right hemisphere has the specialization in understanding the emotion and
32
19
face and understanding structure of something globally without analysis
Another discovery, from technique of sketch of brain, it is found that the right hemisphere has responsible in processing information holistically.33
To make the understanding of brain language function clear, the writer tries to give the figure of brain and its language area as follows:34
Figure 2.1 brain localization
33
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p. 81
20
Figure 2.2 Brain and language function's area
Moreover gender also has great deal on the linguistic intelligence / language development. Some studies which were held by Farhady showed that female is better in language ability, while male is better in visual-spatial ability. It is caused by the different shape between male and female brain, which is left hemisphere on female, is bigger than the right hemisphere.35 The study which was held by Eisestein also found the same result, that is female surpass male in understanding speech sound.36 Murphy also found that female subject is higher in the
35
Larsen-Freeman, D. and M.H. Long, An Introduction to second LanguageAcquisition Research, (England: Longman Group, 1991), p. 205
36
21
ability of language mastery and the level of language perception than male.37
Some experiments prove that the way female and male‟ s brain work is different. Male uses left hemisphere to speak, while female use the both of left and right hemisphere. Male has a good skill for spatial, logical, and visual.38
In physiological aspect, the female‟ s eyes show the white side wider than male. In addition female has the ability to listen better than male and has the ability to differentiate high sounds. Both the female‟ s left and right hemispheres cooperate while hearing something. Those discoveries explain why female is able to listen to ones‟ talking in front of her while she is still listening to others who still making the conversation. It also explains why male find difficulties in listening to the conversation while there is another sound from television, plate, and phone ringing. The male will ask help to people to stop talking and turn down the sound of music, turn off the television before take the phone; while the woman just take the phone without feel disturb.
Besides that, the female‟ s right hemisphere develops better than male‟ s right hemisphere and a female sensory is stronger. The female can use eyes, ear and their intuition more effective. They can memorize better in many more word that they have ever heard, seen, and read. With that strength, they are so creative in making games, playing the words, imitating the voice and sounds, or lyrics. (Duyek, 1996). That strength is caused by the neurons in female's brain is much more than the male.
37
Jamaluddin, Pembelajaran Yang Efektif, (Jakarta: Proyek sinkronisasi dan koordinasi pembangunan Pendidikan Nasional Direktorat Genderal Kelembagaan Agama Islam), p.58
38
22
Because of having special zone for language, the girls have the ability to muster the foreign language faster than male. It also shows why woman is better in mastering grammar, word and spell.39
Another biological factor that affecting child's language development, is age. From the study of critical period40, it is viewed that, after the critical period for language acquisition has passed, around the time of puberty, it becomes very difficult to acquire another language fully.41
In addition to biological factors, another internal factor affecting the linguistic intelligence is cognitive factors. This cognitive theory is proposed by Jean Piaget (1896-1980). Piaget views that there is a high correlation between cognition and child's language development because language depends on cognition.42
Some experts view, that cognitive superiority on adult learner may make them learn language better than children. Moreover, Genesse (1977) noted that the maturation of cognitive system on adult people supported by their ability to make the abstraction, classification, and generalization, is appropriate with the second language acquisition which is more complex than first language acquisition.43
In addition, Prof. Dr. Samsunuwiyati Mar‟ at, Psi state: the relationship between language and the development of cognitive from the psycholinguistic perspective nowadays is described as follow:
39
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,…… p. 88
40
Critical period is the time from birth to puberty during which normal first language acquisition can take place. This critical period hypothesis claimed that there is the most effective period to acquire language, and this period has been scheduled biologically and naturally, Arifuddin, p. 117
41
George Yule, The Study of Language, third edition, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p.164
42
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,….p. 165
43
23
Children acquire language is caused by something innate, different from Chomsky's and Skinner's view, innate here means the process of cognitive development in general. Thereby 'transformation' which is discussed in Transformational Generative Grammar is exactly the operation of cognitive which is not only reflected in the language but also in visual perception. For example, people are able to differentiate noun and verb in one language is the result of cognitive strategy in differentiating between object and the relation among object.44
b. Environment-Cultural Factors
The most heated debate in the psychological sciences over the last several decades: Is intelligence determined by genes or environment? The question has been continuous because the potential implications are dramatic. If genes are the primary factor, does this mean that some people are “biologically smarter” than others, and the pursuit of education is pointless for “less smart” people”. If the environment is the primary factor, why aren‟ t we doing more to ensure equal access to quality education for people of all cultures and socioeconomic classes?
44
24
the same familial environment due to adoption. In studies of this sort, a high correlation between intelligence of the non related individuals would suggest that, for the most part, the environment was acting as the primary determinant of intelligence. However in studies of both sorts, the problem has been that different researchers have produced different results. Indeed, evidence exists to support proponents on each side of the debate. independent of the given environment, people cannot exist without their genes.45
Based description above, it can be concluded that linguistic intelligence as one of nine kinds of intelligence is not merely human gift which biologically exists since human born (read: innate), but it is also greatly affected by environment and can be activated in cultural setting. It was proved by the observing on nude boy running the woods in France. The boy was captured when he was 11 years old. It was believed he had lived in isolation in the woods for at least 6 years. He was called the Wild Boy of Aveyron (Lane, 1976). When the boy was found, he made no effort to communicate. Even after a number of years, he never learned to communicate effectively.
Sadly, a modern-day wild child named Genie, who had been raised in silent isolation in cruel conditions by her parents, was found in Los Angeles in 1970. Despite intensive intervention, Genie never acquired more than a primitive form of language46. It was said in 1970 a
45
Michael S. Gazzaniga, & Heatherton, psychological science, p. 260-261
46
25
California social worker made a routine visit to the home of partially blind woman who had applied for public assistance. The social worker discovered that woman and her husband had kept their 13-year-old daughter Genie locked away from the world. Kept in almost total isolation during childhood, Genie could not speak or stand erect. She was forced to sit naked all day on a child‟ s potty seat, restrained by a harness her father had made–she could only move her hands and feet. At night she was placed in a kind of straitjacket and caged in crib with wire mesh sides and a cover. Whenever Genie made a noise, her father beat her. He never communicated with her in words but growled and barked at her.
Genie spent a number of years in extensive rehabilitation programs, such as speech and physical therapy (Curtiss, 1977; Rymer, 1993). She eventually learned to walk upright with a jerky motion and to use the toilet. Genie also learned to recognized many words and to speak in rudimentary sentences. At first she spoke in one-word utterances. Later she was able to string together two-word combinations, such as “big teeth,” “little marble,” and “two hand”. Consistent with the language development of most children, three-word combinations followed–for examples, “small two cups.” Unlike normal children, however did not learn how to ask questions and she doesn‟ t understand grammar. Genie is not able to distinguish between pronouns or passive and active verbs. Four years later she began stringing word together, her speech still sounded like a garbled telegram. As an adult speak in short, mangled sentences, such as
“father hit leg,” “Big wood” and “Genie hurt.” 47
Both cases prove that culture and environment (family, parents, schoolteachers and others) have big contribution to child's language development and linguistic intelligence. It also strengthens the theory
47
26
of Lev Vygotsky which stated that the environment has a great deal of influence on a child‟ s acquisition of language.
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist interested in applying Marxist social theory to individual psychology, developed the first major theory that emphasized the role of social and cultural context on cognition and language development. At the time, in the 1920s, most psychological theories were behaviorist or gestalt in orientation. Vygotsky believed that these theories failed to explain the development of higher cognitive processes in ways that made senses given what was known about genetics and biological development. According to Vygotsky, human are unique because they use symbols and psychological tools, such speech, writing, maps, art, and so on, through which they create culture. Culture, in turn, dictates what people need to learn and the sort of skills that need to be developed. For example, some cultures might value science and rational thinking whereas others might emphasize supernatural and mystical forces. Some cultures emphasize keeping social distance whereas others encourage people to be in close proximity. These cultural values shape how people think about and relate to the world around them. Vygotsky made a distinction between elementary mental functions such as innate sensory experiences, and higher mental functions, such as language, perception, abstraction, and memory. As children develop, their elementary capacities are gradually transformed, primarily through the influence of culture.
27
thoughts that direct behavior and cognition. Your thoughts are based on the language that you acquire through your culture, and this ongoing inner speech reflects higher-order cognitive process.48
4. Ways To Increase The Linguistic Intelligence
Like what described before, it can be said that both bio-psychological and environmental factor has a great deal of influence on child‟ s linguistic intelligence and the language development; therefore we can strengthen our linguistic intelligence from those two approaches. From the approach of bio-psychological factor, linguistic intelligence can be increased through training the cognitive ability by doing some exercises and drill. It because the skill cannot be achieved by just giving one example of sentence or one formula, but the skill has to be practiced continuously and frequently.49
From the approach of environmental factor, linguistic intelligence can be increased through giving student a good environment that gives the opportunity to use the language as good as possible. It is what Grow did to some students to increase their linguistic intelligence by sending them back to their roots – which are often rural – to capture the narratives and inventive language of the storytellers in their hometowns. Grow viewed that an easy way to get close to linguistic genius is to read and talk to preschool child over several months.50
And these are the examples of exercises to enhance our linguistic intelligence:
(1) Learn new words or vocabulary to find its meaning on dictionary.
48
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science, p.375
49
Prof. Dr. Muljanto Sumardi, M.A. and Nida Husna, M.Pd, Metode Pengajaran Bahasa Asing, (Jakarta: Universitas Islam Negeri Jakarta, 2007), p.70
50
28
(4) Solve word puzzles and crosswords
(5) Participate in debates and discussions. (It helps in the development of reasoning skills.)
(6) Practice letter writing, essay writing. (It encourages expression of thoughts in the right words, same with practicing story telling.)
B.
Speaking
1. The definition of speaking
According to Jeremy Harmer speaking is a form of communication, so it is important that what you say is conveyed in the most effective way. How you say something can be as important as what you say in getting your meaning across.51
Speaking is an activity which is done by a person to communicate with others to express ideas, feelings, as well as opinions to achieve a particular goal.52
Speaking consist of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning. Utterances are simply things people say. Speaking is “an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information”.53
Moreover, Kayfetz states speaking is human verbal communication which sets out with the ability of utilizing mechanism that will involve oral production of language. Oral production of language is the main concern is speaking.54
51
Jeremy Harmer. How to Teach English. (London: Addison Wesley Longman, 1996)., p.14
52
Philip M. Brudden. Effective Speaking, 2nded. (New York: The Bob‟ s Merill Company, 1995)., p. 85
53
Florez, M.A.C. Communicative Language Teaching: The State of Art. (TESOL, Quarterly, 1991)., p.261-277
54
29
From the definitions of speaking above, the writer tries to synthesize the definition speaking as an activity of verbal communication which is done by a person by producing systematic verbal utterances to communicate with others to express ideas, feelings, as well as opinions to achieve a particular goal.
2. The Purpose of Speaking
Hance said that “most the speaking you do, no matter what you say, has some purpose. Even in the most conversation, you trying to tell somebody about something he doesn‟ t know, or you trying to convince him that this singer is better than that singer, or you are telling him a joke amuse him; whatever you doing, it has some purpose.”55
When two people are engaged in talking to each other we can be fairly sure that they are doing so for good reasons. What are these reasons?
a. To express an idea
This is the general reason for speaker to speak to others to express their idea, feeling and needs.
b. For communicative purpose
The communicative purpose is the reason for speaker to communicate to others in order to achieve some goals. Speakers say things because they want something happen as a result of what they say. The form of expression for this communicative purpose can be complaining, agreeing, asking help, discussing, negotiating, etc.
55
30
c. To express new terminology and sentences
Native speakers have an infinite capacity to create new sentences. Therefore if they have difficulty in expressing a certain concept / thought in a certain way they will use another ways of saying those things.
These three generalizations apply to equally to someone having a private conversation and to politician giving speech to thousands56
3. The elements of Speaking
There are some important elements needed for speaking skill. Those elements are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
a. Pronunciation
Pronunciation is the way in which a word is pronounced, spelling does not determine pronunciation57
b. Grammar
Grammar is an analysis of the structure of a language, either as encountered in a corpus of speech or writing (a performance grammar). In addition, grammar is an analysis of the structural properties which define human language (a universal language). Theoretical grammar, in this context goes beyond the study of languages, using linguistic data as a means of developing insight into the nature of language as such, and into the categories and process needed for linguistic analysis. The formalized techniques of logic and mathematics may also be used as a part of the analysis, and this too is referred to as formal grammar.
56
Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching, New Edition, (London: Longman, 1991). P.46
57
31
Grammar is also defined as a level of structural organization which can be studied independently of phonology and semantic. It generally sub-divided into the domains of syntax and morphology58
c. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is considered as the most important part in learning a language. Without a sufficient vocabulary we cannot communicate effectively or express ideas. Having limited vocabulary is also a barrier that presents students from learning a foreign language.59
While according to Pyles, vocabulary is the focus of language. It is in words, that sounds and meaning interlock to allow us to communicate with one to another, and it is words that we arrange together to make sentences, conversations, and discourse of all kinds.60
Moreover, according to Michael Mc Chauty, conversation contains a large amount of vocabulary whose function is mainly 'relational' or 'interactional' (i.e. in the service of establishing and reinforcing social relations), rather than 'transactional' (i.e. function services). Issues such as convergence and communicative accommodation between students are thus relevant to the study of lexical patterning. Mc Chauty added that, conversation also contains a significant number of prefabricated lexical expressions which facilitate fluency and which are idiomatic in structure and meaning.61 It means that without having much vocabulary the speaker cannot express his mind in speaking fluently.
58
A.M. Zainuri, Linguistics, (Jakarta: The English Department, The Faculty of Tarbiyah of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2003), p. 36
59
Yang Zhihong, Learning Words: English Teaching Forum, (London: July 2000) vol. 34. No.3, p. 18
60
Thomas Pyles and John Algeo, English: an Introduction to language, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc, 1968), p. 69
61
32
d. Fluency
Fluency is the property of a person or of a system that delivers information quickly and with expertise. Fluency is also speech language pathology term that means the smoothness or flow with which sounds, syllables, words, and phrases are joined together when speaking quickly.62
Moreover, according to Nation fluency has the following characteristics in all of the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Those characteristic are:63
(1) Fluent language use involves “the processing of language in real time”. That is, learners demonstrate fluency when they take part in meaning-focused activity and do it with speed and ease without holding up the flow of talk. There are observable signs that can be used to measure changes in fluency. These include speech rate and number of filled pauses such as um, ah, er, and number of unfilled pauses.
(2) Fluent language use does not require a great deal of attention and effort from the learner.
(3) If we consider the four goals of Language, Ideas, Skill, Text (LIST), fluency is a skill. Although it depends on quality of knowledge of the language, and it‟ s development involves the addition to and restricting of knowledge, in essence it involves making the best possible use of what is already known.
e. Comprehension
Comprehension is an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something (or the knowledge acquired as a result).
62 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency
63
