THE REALIZATION OF SPEECH FUNCTION IN ENGLISH
FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) SPEAKING
CLASSROOM INTERACTION
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
DEVI JULIANTI SIHOTANG
Registration Number: 2113121016
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
i
ABSTRACT
Sihotang, Devi Julianti. 2016. 2113121016. The Realization of Speech Function in English Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom Interaction. A Thesis. English Department. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State University of Medan.
This study aims at analyzing the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and students’ talk in the English Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classroom. The research was conducted by using descriptive qualitative method. The data were collected from the interaction betweenteacher and students in VII grade of SMP St. Maria Medan which chosen purposively and was in the form of written transcript. The findings of the research showed that there are 403 clauses made by students and teacher where the teacher used 263 clauses and students 140 clauses. The most dominant type of speech function used by Teacher is questions which are80 clauses (30.4 %) followed by Command 74 clauses (28.1%), and Statement 71 clauses (27%) and students is Response statement to question 87 clauses (54.3%) followed by Question 22 clauses (54.3%), Response Offer to Command 21 clauses (15.7%). It is happened since the role of teacher in the classroom is as a leader of class while students just answer questions from teacher and give statements needed.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express the greatest gratitude to God for the blessings, guidance, guarding, and everything that has been given to the writer along her life until the writer finally accomplished her thesis. In completing this thesis, the writer realized that she faced some problems and she had received the academic guidance, suggestions, and comments and got a lot of assistance and moral support from many people. Therefore, the writer would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Arts Faculty. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
Dra. Meisuri, M.A., the Secretary of English Department.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum., the Head of English Education
Study Program.
Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., her Thesis Advisor, who has given invaluable
advices, guidance, and precious time in the process of completing this thesis.
Drs. Elia Masa Gintings, M.Hum., her Academic Adviser who has supported
her throughout the academic years and as the Examiner who has given support and advices in the process of completing her thesis.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., as
her Thesis Examiners who have given their precious time, guidance, suggestions, and comments.
All Lecturers of English Department who have taught, guided, and advised
her throughout the academic years that could not be mentioned one by one.
Eis Sri Wahyuni, M.Pd., the Administration staff of English Department, for
her attention, assistance, and information.
Sr. Rusmiani Sihotang, S.Pd., the Principal of SMP St. Maria Medan and
Surya Kumar, S.Pd., the English teacher, for their permission and
iii
Beloved parents, (Alm) SL. Sihotang and L. Manihuruk for the patience, affection, love, financial and support during the process of finishing this thesis. Thank also given to her Sisters, Delince and Mayosevin for their shared-laugh in her bad times.
All her classmates in Pend. B. Inggris Regular B 2011, especially the gourlz
Evelin, Roslinda, Martina, Fytri, Arnita, Dora and Harni who always
shared their happiness, laugh, ideas, and bitter-sweet of campus life together.
Her everlasting best friends, Ruth Yanti and Desy Veronica for their support and attention to push her in finishing her thesis day by day.
Her lovely friend during the process of finishing her thesis, Anna and Ando
Simanjuntak for their togetherness and motivation when meet the advisor and
examiners.
Her friends, Nia, Ruth, Pina and Ido who have given their times for shared ideas and information during the up-down in finishing this thesis.
Lastly but not the least, the writer would like to thank her partner in crime Eko
Simanjuntak who has patiently advised and motivated her to finished this
thesis as soon as possible.
Medan, February 2016 The Writer,
iv
v
5. Teaching English as Foreign Language 27 6. The Nature of Speaking 27 7. Characteristics of Speaking Classroom Interaction 29
B. Relevant Studies 31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 33
A. Research Design 33
B. The Source of Data 33
C. Technique of Collecting Data 34 D. The Technique for Analyzing Data 34
CHAPTER IV DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS 36
A. The Data 36
B. Data Analysis 36
1. Types of Speech Function 36 2. Cause of dominant speech function 45
C. Research Findings 47
D. Discussions 48
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 51
A. Conclusion 51
B. Suggestion 52
REFERENCES 54
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Speech functions 8
Table 2.2 Speech functions and response 10
Table 2.3 Types of Adjuncts 19
Table 4.1 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
Teacher in EFL (English Foreign Language) Speaking Classroom Interaction 42
Table 4.2 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
viii
LIST OF APENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1 The transcript of teacher and students talk 56
Appendix 2 The transcript of interview 69
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Every aspects of human’s life must be fulfilled by a language in
undergoing their daily routines, for instance, sign, symbol, or the oral speech, etc.; those belong to a language. People use language in their daily life for chat to family members, speak at meeting, serve customers and also organize children in classroom. All of these are activities involving language. Language as the media of transferring information and knowledge, communication and interaction in the classroom should be noticed by all the elements related to the teaching and learning process. It is used to enable the participant to participate in communicative acts with other people; this function is known as the interpersonal
function (Yeibo, 2011). The function of language itself in exchange experience
(interpersonal), is an important factor in determine the pattern of the teacher and students interaction in the classroom. It can be run effectively, or not.
Classroom interaction can be defined as a two-way process between the participants in the learning process, the teacher influences the learners and vice versa (Dagarin, 2004: 128). In the EFL (English Foreign Language) speaking classroom, the interaction using target language is really important to support the
students’ speaking ability. Unfortunately, the use of target language all the time in
2
In Indonesia, survey on sixty-two junior and senior high school teachers in west Java, Banten and DKI revealed that most of the teachers rate their students participation as very low and low (Suherdi, 2009). Suherdi explains it is because students tend to be low confidence and lack independence in organizing their learning. Those facts are supported by Huraerah’s findings in their research that revealed the percentage of teacher talk is more than 54%. In other words, the practice of teaching English as foreign language in Indonesia tends to be teacher centered while the curriculum in Indonesia KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pelajar) focused on students centered. It can make students have less opportunity to speak and motivation to increase their ability to talk in target language.
3
source of comprehensible input for the learner since it is essential for language acquisition (Krashen, in Fikri, et al., 2014). In addition, the power of teacher talk can stimulate the students to improve their ability in speaking using target language.
The interpersonal relationships between teacher and students in the teaching and learning process is very helpful in materialized the harmonious teaching and learning process. The used of the appropriate kinds and functions of clause in the certain situation determines the acceptance of the message that want to deliver. For instance: the used of interrogative mood by the teacher and students in the classroom interaction. In what kinds of situation it will help them determine the acceptance of the lesson? If the interpersonal relationship in the classroom runs well, then it will stimulate the students to speak in target language actively. That is why the importance of the interpersonal relationship between teacher and students not only as the media of transferring information but also has roles as the motivator and stimulator in supporting the students to speak.
4
B.The Problem of the Study
1. What types of speech function are used by teacher and students in the EFL speaking classroom?
2. Why is the most dominant speech function realized in the way it is?
C.The Objective of the Study
Based on the problem formulation above, the objective of this study is to analyze the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL speaking classroom. Besides, it is also aimed to identify the most dominant of Speech Function that is teacher and students made in the EFL speaking classroom and the reason for the use of the dominant speech function.
D.The Scope of the Study
In order to reach the expected goal, the writer limits the problem on the following terms:
1. The study is limited the analysis on the realization of speech function of
teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL speaking classroom interaction using
systemic functional linguistic.
5
E.The Significance of the Study
From this study, the writer expected that the result of the research can give a contribution to the language teaching and learning theoretically and practically: 1. Theoretically for other researchers, who are interested in getting prior
information about linguistic features of classroom interaction 2. Practically, the findings are useful for :
a. English Teachers, who want to get much information related to their activities in the classroom to improve the quality of language teaching.
51
1. The teacher and the students used the different speech function because they have different roles in the classroom. The teacher as the leader used all types of speech function (Statement, Question, Command and offer) while the students only used 2 types of Speech function (Statement and Question). The students did not use Command and Offer because the students’ role and
students’ position is not a leader in class, they never command all elements in
class. In responding Speech Function, the teacher only used three types of responding to Speech Function (Acknowledgement, Answer and Contradict) and students used four types of responding to speech function (Acknowledgement, Answer, Disclaimer, compliance). Acknowledge and
contradict indicate that the teacher give the respond of the students’ statement
52
authority to inquire, offer something, and to command all elements of class. While the most dominant type of the total of initiating and responding to speech function used by student is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses. Both of teacher and students play an important role in interaction in classroom. Teacher as the source of information and knowledge plays his role as the leader in the classroom. It can be seen from the total of activities and the dominant speech function made by teacher. He tends to be dominated of the activities in the classroom in which from 404 clauses, he uttered 268 clauses (66%) and also in the proportion of speech function where he used question mostly than other activities. He wanted to give the opportunities to students to share their arguments or ideas and actively involved in lessons and also students answer the question from the teacher well, it can be seen from the dominant speech function in the term of responding speech function made by students is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses.
B.Suggestion
In line with the findings, suggestions are staged as follow:
1. Teacher is suggested to ask questions which can make students actively share their arguments because mostly teacher just ask question with the short answer. It is also suggested to teacher to get more training of how to teach based on the genre through the related theory.
53
other student’s arguments. It can make the students have the critical thinking
and also as the can use the language well in order to exchange their experience or information to others.
54
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Counihan, G. 1998. Teach Student to Interact, Not Just Talk. The Internet TESL
Journal Vol.IV, No. 7
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third Ediciton. USA: Sage.
Dagarin, M.2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English as a Foreign. Ljubljana : ELOPE.
Eggins, Suzzanne, 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.2nd Edition. London.
Fikri,Z., Dewi,Ni & Suarnajaya, W. 2014. Mood Structure Analysis of Teacher Talk in EFL Classroom: A Discourse Study Based on Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Pendidikan Ganesha Vol. 2, pp. 1-12
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. 2009. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gunderson, L. 2009. ESL (ELL) Literacy Instruction: A Guidebook to Theory and
Practice, Second Edition. Routledge. Retrieved June 7, 2015 from:
http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/English-As-A-Foreign-Language- Efl.html
Ginting, S. A. (2015). Structure of Karonese Conversation in the Funeral: Case Study in Indonesia. Asian Social Science Vol. 11, No. 13, pp.298-309 Halliday, MAK & Mathiessen Christian M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. Arnold
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition. New York: Pearson Education
Huraerah, N. 2013. The Analysis of Verbal Interaction Between Teacher and
Students in the Classroom. ( A Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
55
Lipson, M. 2002. Exploring Functional Grammar. Retrieved on 24 July 2015 from: https://www.scribd.com/doc/220322490/Exploring-Functional-Grammar-2nd-Edition
Naimat, G. Kh. 2011. Influence of teacher-students interaction on EFL reading comprehension. European Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 672-687
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY: MCGraw-Hill. Richards, Jack C. 2003. Tactics for Listening. Oxford University Press,
Incorporated.
Sarosdy, et al. 2006. Applied Linguistics I. Ertekunki az Ember: Unpublished Saragih, A.2014. Discourse Analysis. Unimed, Medan (unpublished)
Suherdi, D. 2009. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach. Bandung: Celtics
Thapa, C. B. & Lin, A. M. Y. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms to enhance students’ language learning. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from : http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-inenglish language-classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-language-learning/
Tubbs, Steward. 2001. A System Approach to Small Group Interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yanfen. Liu & Yuqin. Zhao. 2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes. Harbin Industry. Chinesse Journals of Applied Linguistic
(Bimonthly) Vol 33, No. 33
Yeibo. 2011. A Discourse-Stylistic Analysis of Mood Structures in selected Poems of J.P. Clark Bekederemo. International Journal of Humanities and
