ABSTRACT
Herlinda, E. Irene (2016). A Study on the Use of Conversation Gambits in English Debate Competitions. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study
Program, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.
Learning a new language is a challenging experience to have. Also, in learning English as foreign language (EFL), the learners should acquire the language skills and elements. Nowadays, the goal of learning language is to use the language in daily communication. It means that the EFL learners should improve their speaking skills. In order to use the language in daily communication, the learners should have more speaking practices in the classroom since they have only few opportunities to use English to communicate in the society.
Communicative activities, such as debate, can help the teacher to develop
the EFL learners’ speaking skills. It is because in a debate, the EFL learners are
required not only the ability to deliver ideas but also the ability to think critically. The EFL learners could vary their expressions in delivering speech by using conversation gambits. Conversation gambits are the expressions in which the learners can use them to open the discussion, to link the ideas, and to respond to the certain idea. In this study, the conversation gambits are used to start the discussion, to link the ideas, and to respond to the idea which is delivered in the debate.
This study analyzed the conversation gambits that were used by the debaters in English debate activities namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). The writer employed the theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002) to identify the gambits that were used in the English debate. In analyzing the functions of the used conversation gambits, the writer employed the theory of conversation gambits functions by Keller (1979).
Based on the findings of the analysis, the writer drew some conclusions. Firstly, all the debaters used some gambits of the opening gambits and the linking gambits. Meanwhile, the gambits of responding gambits were only used by some debaters. Secondly, the debaters used the gambits appropriately. However, there was a function shift for one of the opening gambits. It is expected that the result of this study will be useful and helpful in EFL learning, especially in improving the speaking skills.
ABSTRAK
Herlinda, E. Irene. (2016). A Study on the Use of Conversation Gambits in English Debate Competitions. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa
Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Mempelajari sebuah bahasa baru adalah pengalaman yang menantang. Hal itu juga berlaku dalam mempelajari bahasa Inggris untuk penutur asing dimana para pembelajar dituntut untuk bisa menguasai semua kemampuan berbahasa and elemen bahasa itu sendiri. Sekarang ini, tujuan dari belajar bahasa adalah kemampuan untuk menggunakan bahasa tersebut untuk komunikasi sehari-hari. Hal ini berarti bahwa pembelajar bahasa Inggris harus meningkatkan kemampuan berbicaranya. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, para pembelajar harus melakukan lebih banyak lagi praktik berbicara di dalam kelas. Hal ini disebabkan oleh terlalu sedikitnya kesempatan bagi mereka untuk praktik menggunakan bahasa Inggris di luar kelas.
Aktivitas dalam pembelajaran komunikatif, seperti debat, dapat membantu guru dalam mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara para pembelajar. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena di dalam debat para pembelajar dituntut untuk bisa tidak hanya menyampaikan pendapatnya tetapi juga mempunyai kemampuan berpikir kristis. Dalam menyampaikan pendapatnya, para pembelajar dapat menggunakan beberapa variasi dari conversation gambits. Conversation gambits adalah ekspresi yang digunakan untuk memulai diskusi, menghubungkan gagasan, dan merespon gagasan dari orang lain. Hal tersebut juga berlaku dalam penelitian dimana para pelaku debat menggunakan conversation gambits untuk memulai diskusi, menghubungan gagasan, dan merespon gagasan pelaku debat yang lain.
Penelitian ini menganalisa gambits apa saja yang digunakan oleh para pelaku debat dalam debatnya dalam acara Java Overland Varsities English Debate
(JOVED). Penulis menggunakan teory conversation gambits dari Keller dan
Warner (2002) untuk mengidentifikasi gambits yang digunakan dalam debat. Dalam menganalisa fungsi dari conversation gambits, penulis menggunakan teori fungsi conversation gambits dari Keller (1979).
Penulis menarik beberapa kesimpulan berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang telah dilakukan. Pertama, semua pelaku debat menggunakan gambits dari opening
gambits dan linking gambits. Untuk responding gambits, hanya beberapa pelaku
debat yang menggunakannya dalam debatnya. Kedua, para pelaku debat menggunakan ekspresi-ekspresi tersebut sesuai dengan funngsinya. Akan tetapi ada perubahan fungsi dari salah satu ekspresi dari opening gambits. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat berguna bagi perkembangan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, terutama dalam mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara.
v i
E G A P N O I T A C I D E D
et
a
ci
d
e
d
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
There are six sections in this chapter: research background, research
problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and
definition of terms. The research background presents the reasons why the writer
conducts this study. Then, the research problems present the questions being
answered in this study. Moreover, problem limitation is to limit the topic
discussed in this study. Next, the research objectives serve the goals of conducting
the study. The research benefits show the advantages of this study. Lastly,
definition of terms explains the terms related to the topic in this study.
A. Research Background
Learning a new language is a challenging experience to have. It is because
the language learners have to acquire the knowledge about the language and to
have the ability to apply the knowledge. In addition, to learn a new language is
also a great accomplishment which opens up doors to many new opportunities and
experiences.
The challenging experience in learning language also happens in learning
English as foreign language (EFL). In learning English as foreign language (EFL),
the learners have to acquire the knowledge about the language and know how to
use the language. In English, there are four language skills and three language
writing are important. In those language skills, there are also language elements
such as grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary.
Learning all language skills and elements can bring a desired result,
namely, the mastery of language functions for communication. It is related to the
goal of learning language is to be able to apply the language in daily
communication, especially in speaking. This is one of the reasons why the
learners should know the information on how to make communication sound
naturally. In oral communication, a speaker speaks not only a single complete
sentence but it can also be a single word, phrase, or fragment of sentence which
are meaningful and understandable (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, and Harnish,
2001).
Therefore, the ability to speak in target language is important in learning a
language because the learners can apply the language that they have learned to
communicate with others. Communication, especially oral communication,
requires the learners’ speaking skills in order to deliver messages. In other words, the learners have to improve their speaking skills in order to communicate well.
By improving their speaking skills, the learners can apply the language to
communicate with others and they can try to speak as if they are the speakers of
the language. This is related to Ur (2009) who argues that speaking skill is the
most important one since the learners are most interested in becoming the actual
speakers of the language.
It is important for a teacher to stimulate the EFL learners to communicate
the learners to acquire the knowledge and combine it with the skills that they have
learned, especially speaking skill. Therefore, English teachers must give
stimulation for the learners to perform their speaking skills by using
communication activities.
Debate is one example of communication activities that can occur both in
classroom and in social life. Debate is used as a teaching activity in
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). According to Littlewood (1981), as
cited by Richard and Rodgers (2001), in CLT there are two types of activities:
functional communication activities and social interaction activities. Functional
communication activities involve comparing pictures, working out in sequence of
events in a picture, giving and following instruction on how to draw a picture, and
solving problems from shared clues. Meanwhile, social interaction activities
include conversation, role play, simulation, skits, and debate. These activities
enable learners to attain the communicative objectives, engage learners in
communication, and require the use of communicative processes as information
sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction (Richard and Rodgers, 2001).
Since debate has been an activity in CLT and it also requires a
communicative process, learners can perform their speaking skills through debate.
In debate, learners also need to know how to make sentences to state their ideas
and to have the ability to apply their knowledge to give reason through theories,
values, and attitudes (Darby, 2007). The learners can also develop their critical
thinking through debate because they will think about how to respond others’
fluently so that they can state their idea in a limited time. In conclusion, debate is
a useful teaching activity to improve learners’speaking skills. By developing the speaking skill, it is believed that EFL learners are able to use English in actual
communication such as in debate.
In order to support the EFL learners’ ability to do debate, the learners need to know the information on how to start a debate, to respond the previous speaker,
and to close the debate. Therefore, they need to acquire the knowledge and they
also need more practice to make their performance better. In stating their idea in
debate, a learner will use some expressions to make their opinion runs naturally
and clearly. Expressions that occur in debate, also in daily conversation, can be
defined as conversation gambits. These gambits will help EFL learners to speak
out their ideas. For example, if the learners want to state their disagreement they
can use one of the gambits to indicate their purpose, such as “we do not think that …”, “I agree, but …”, or “yes, but …”. Those gambits also make the debate go naturally and contextually. Gambits are usually used to open, respond, and link a
topic in the debate, so that the EFL learners can decide which gambits that suit
their purpose well in their speeches.
In this study, the EFL learners are the learners who do not use English or
the target language to communicate in society. It is supported by Nunan (2008)
who states that foreign language learners only have few opportunities to use the
target language outside the classroom. This is one of the reasons why the EFL
learners should have more speaking practices in the classroom in order to improve
In fact, the EFL learners are able to develop their speaking skills from the
very beginning of their ages. However, the most suitable age for the EFL learners
to accomplish both critical thinking and the ability to speak up their idea is when
they are in adolescence. It is because when they are in age 12–18 years old, they have completed the stage of formal operations. This is a stage where the learners
are able to think logically about real life events. Even, the learners can also reason
about the contrary-to-fact ideas and experiences (Hoyer and Roodin, 2003). In
addition, in this stage the learners can engage in hypothetical-deductive thinking
in which the learners are capable of reasoning like scientist. These are the reasons
why the learners in formal operations stage are the most appropriate learners to
observe in doing debate since they are able to reason contrary-to-fact in real life
events.
Debate is an activity in which the speakers share different opinion on
certain motion. Also, it gives more opportunity for the learners to speak using
English. It is because debate gives each debater or speaker to have a speech. The
learners also can develop their debate and also speaking skills by joining debate
competition. There are many kinds of debate competition in Indonesia. One of the
debate competitions in Indonesia is Java Overland Varsities English Debate
(JOVED). JOVED is the first parliamentary English debate competition in
Indonesia. In the beginning until the 11th JOVED, JOVED used Australasian
Parliamentary style. However, in 2008 until present JOVED uses Asian
Parliamentary debate style. The participants of this event are from university
The writer is interested to propose this topic because she believes that
using gambits is one of the ways to develop EFL learners’ speaking skill, especially in formal situation such as in debate. Since the aim of learning
language is to use the target language for communication, it means that the
learners are expected to use it in daily communication, including in discussing a
topic. Therefore, by acknowledging the gambits and using them in the formal
speeches, such as in debate, the EFL learners will be able to speak more naturally
and more managed.
Since developing EFL learners’ speaking skill is important, English teachers should help the learners acquire the language. The teachers can use
debate as a medium to develop the learners’ speaking skill. Moreover, the learners can also use conversation gambits in their debates. It is because conversation
gambits can help the learners run their debates naturally and to state their idea
structurally. It also helps the learners run the debates well when they use
conversation gambits appropriately as their functions. In short, this study is aimed
to identify the use of conversation gambits in English debate activities.
B. Research Problems
This research is addressed to answer two research problems. The problems
are formulated as follows:
1. Which gambits do the debaters use in English debate competition?
2. What are the functions of the gambits used by the debaters in English
C. Problem Limitation
The writer makes some limitations for the problem stated above. In this
study, the writer will focus on which gambits the debaters usually use in English
debate activities. Here, the debaters are JOVED participants. The writer will
observe and record the English debate activities by being an audience. The writer
uses the recordings to analyze the object of the study.
D. Research Objectives
This research has two objectives to reach. The first objectives is to identify
the gambits are used by the debaters in the English debate competition. Secondly,
by doing this study, the writer is going to identify the functions of the used
gambits in English debate competition.
E. Research Benefits
By conducting this study, the writer hopes it will bring benefits for the
development of English, especially in Speaking and Debating. The writer expects
that it will bring more advantages especially for:
1. English Debate Trainers
The writer hopes that the result of this research will give English debate
trainers more information and activities to encourage the learners to speak in
English. By using the gambits, hopefully, the teachers can provide some
especially in debate. Since debate is one of activities in Communicative Language
Teaching, English teachers can use this result of research to encourage learners in
learning English through debate.
2. English Debate Participants
The writer hopes that the result of this study can give more information on
the various gambits that they can use for making the speech more natural.
Moreover, the debaters can use the gambits to vary their expressions in stating
arguments. Also, the result of the study can encourage the English debate
participants to be more confident in doing debate.
3. EFL Learners
The writer hopes that the result of this study will encourage the EFL
learners to be more confident to speak in English. In addition, this result of the
study can give them various expressions to start, respond to statement, and link
the ideas of the topic. In short, it helps the EFL learners to be able to manage
conversation and to communicate in English with others both inside and outside
classroom.
4. Other researchers
This research can be a stepping stone for the future researchers to conduct
a similar study. Hopefully, the future researcher can develop the idea of this study.
The writer hopes that the future researcher will conduct a similar study so that the
result of the research can be discussed deeper and be useful for the language
F. Definition of Terms
In order to avoid misunderstanding about the term of this research, the
writer would like to define some terms. The definition of terms will be presented
as follows:
1. Conversation Gambits
In this study, gambits means expressions that are used to start a discussion,
respond to a question or statement, and link the topic. These expressions are used
to be introductory phrase that ease the learners to state their idea. Referring to
Keller and Warner (2002) whosay that “a gambit is a word or phrase which helps us to express what we are trying to say”. It can be used to introduce a topic of conversation, to respond one’s opinion, and to link a topic. The examples of the
conversation gambits are ‘we think that …’, ‘we believe that …’ , ‘first/second …’, and ‘the problem is …’. In short, gambits refer to the expressions which are used to ease the speakers maintain their speeches to communicate with others in
day-to-day communication.
2. Debate
According to Richards and Renandya (2005), debate is an opinion sharing
activity in which the learners compare values, opinion, and beliefs in a certain
motion. Moreover, debate also means a social interaction between two groups of
people who discuss certain topic. In this case, debate is not a way to reach an
agreement but it is a way to state opinions about the topic and stand up on their
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in which the learners can develop
their communicative competence by using the target language to communicate
with others (Richard and Rodgers, 2001). In this study, debate is a means to share
opinion in which the speakers can speak up their thought about certain motion and
produce speeches where there are arguments and rebuttals to deliver. Moreover, it
is not an activity to reach an agreement on a certain motion. In short, debate is a
speaking activity that requires critical thinking and ability to deliver arguments
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, there are two sub chapters, namely, theoretical description
and theoretical framework of this study. The theoretical description presents a few
theories related to the study, whereas the theoretical framework describes the
major underlying theories employed to address the two research problems stated
previously.
A. Theoretical Description
In this section, the writer presents the theories used in conducting the
study. Theories that are used in this study are theory of Communicative Language
Teaching, theory of gambits and its function, and theory of debate.
1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
During the late 20th centuries, many language researches consider on how
people learn the language to speak. In order to use the language productively, a
language learner should use the language in communication. This is one of the
reasons why the method called Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) arose
(Nunan, 2003).
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a method that gives the
learners more opportunity to use the target language both in the classroom and
and in group work in order to develop the learners’ speaking skills. The examples of the activities are information gap, jigsaw activities, role plays, simulations, and
debate.
Information gap and jigsaw activities are pair-work activities in which the
learners try to give and get information from certain pictures or real objects. Here,
the learners are able to use their speaking skills in order to obtain information.
Moreover, they are able to enhance their vocabulary, grammar, and
communication strategies to complete the task (Richards, 2005).
Role plays and simulations are communicative activities in which the
learners play certain role and use the target language as a means of
communication. These activities are both in pairs and groups work. These
activities give the learners practice speaking the target language before they do it
in real environment (Nunan, 2003).
Debate is an opinion sharing activity in which the learners compare values,
opinions, and beliefs in a certain motion (Richards, 2005). In debate, the learners
can improve their speaking skills and their critical thinking since this activity
requires the learners to share their ideas, opinion, and beliefs about a certain topic.
Moreover, this activity also involves the process called negotiating for meaning in
which the learners are trying to understand and make themselves understood when
they are communicating in the target language. Here, the learners are able to
check to see if they have understood what others’ said, clarifying their understanding, and confirming that someone has understood your meaning
2. Gambits
A conversational speech can be viewed as text originating from a number
of different sources and also the outward manifestation of sociological structure in
constant realignment (Keller, 1979). It means that a conversational speech is a text
developed through dynamical situation in society and delivered in a spoken
language. The speaker needs to assure that the message through his/her
conversational speech is well delivered. In assuring that the message is well
delivered, a speaker can use special signals as a part of their conversation
strategies. These signals can ease the speaker to smoothly start conversation, hold
the listeners’ attention, and bow out from the conversation. Moreover, these signals are also useful for introducing the speaker shifts or preparing the listeners
for the next turn in the conversation (Keller, 1979). A set of these signals is
defined as gambits.
Keller and Warner (2002) say that “a gambit is a word or phrase which helps speakers to express what we are trying to say”. It can be used to introduce
an opinion, to respond other’s opinion, and to link a topic even to bow out from the conversation. In introducing an opinion, a speaker can use gambits “In my opinion …” or “The way I look at it …”. While in responding other’s opinion, the speaker can say “I don’t think that …” or “To be realistic …”. These gambits are
mostly in multiple word units. However, there are some gambits which are only in
communication. In this study this gambits is called as conversation since it is used
in conversational speech in a form of debate activities.
According to Keller and Warner (2002), there are three kinds of gambits in
conversation gambits. They are opening gambits, linking gambits, and responding
gambits. Those kinds of gambits have their own purposes and functions. The
elaboration about the kinds of gambits will be presented as follows:
a. Opening Gambits
Keller and Warner (2002) define opening gambits as gambits that are used
to help us introduce idea into the discussion. This gambit is used not only to start
a new discussion or conversation, but also to introduce new ideas during a
discussion or conversation. The examples of opening gambits are “You may not
believe it, but …”, “First, …”, “In my view …”, and “do you know …?”. Basically, there are still more examples of this kind of gambits. Therefore, the
complete list of opening gambits will be attached in the appendix 4.
b. Linking Gambits
Linking gambits are gambits used to link our own idea to the others’ idea
so that the discussion will be still going on because there will be agreement or
disagreement about a certain topic. Moreover, these gambits are also used to give
other speakers chance to speak or to take our turn to give opinion. There are some
c. Responding Gambits
A successful conversation is when the speakers can respond the others’ idea or develop others’ idea. In responding others’ idea there will be agreement or disagreement (Keller, 2002). These kinds of gambits allow the speakers to say
your agreement or disagreement, to show surprise, disbelief, or polite interest.
Here are the examples of responding gambits: “I agree, but …”, “You must be joking”, “Really?”, or “I don’t think that …”(Keller and Warner, 2002). This kind of gambits will ease the speakers to relax and be fluent in discussion or
conversation since the speaker will find it is easier to talk by using these
expressions. The complete examples of responding gambits will also be attached
in appendix 4.
In this study, the writer addresses the conversation gambits as
conversational strategy signals since the gambits used in this study is for giving
transition signal in the utterances. It means that the gambits used in the debate are
used to start discussion or to state ideas in debate, to respond to a question or
statement, and link the idea about certain topic. These expressions are used to be
introductory phrase that ease the speakers to state their idea. When it is easy for
stating idea, the discussion will flow naturally and contextually. It means that
there will be less or no jumping idea when it is used appropriately due to its
function.
Conversation gambits have purposes. These purposes ease the learners to
gambits appropriately in an utterance it will make the utterance becomes more
meaningful, natural, and contextual.
According to Keller (1979), conversation gambits have four main
functions. These functions help the writer to identify the functions of the used
gambits in the debate due to its purpose. Below are the four main functions of
conversation gambits:
a) Semantics framing
As Keller (1979) says that commonly, gambits refer to semantic
information. They serve to signal that the stretch of utterance to follow is to be
taken in particular manner, for example as an opinion, or as a piece of unpleasant
realism. Mostly, the expressions ending at three dots need the complement to
make them as full-fledged gambits. Also, they will convey specific meaning of a
complete sentence. As an example, the statement “In my opinion, he’s smart” contains specific meaning ‘he’s smart’ a meaning which is qualified by the gambit
as an opinion. As semantic framing, the gambits are mostly introducers. It means
that mostly the expressions are used in the beginning of the sentence and have
functions to introduce the idea contained in the sentence. In conclusion, this
function refers to opening gambits that are used to introduce idea both in the
beginning and during conversation.
b) Social context signals
The other function of gambits is to signal social context. In a discussion or
conversation, speakers will have their speaking turn. To signal that a speaker take
“Pardon me for interrupting, but …” or “What do you think of it”. The first
gambit signals that the speaker wants to have his/her turn while the second gambit
signals that the speaker wants the other speaker to take the active turn then s/he
becomes the passive one. These are the examples of gambits to take turn.
Basically, there are two types of social signal. The first one is gambits to
signal turn taking. This is used to signal when a speaker wants to have, keep, or
abandon their turn. Even, when a speaker wants to leave the conversation, it is
considered as turn taking signal. The other one is gambits to signal that the
speaker occupies special social role. It is more likely to signal in which side the
speaker takes their role. In other words, it is to signal intention or wishes
concerning the speakers’ turns in a conversation or discussion.
This social context signal function, especially in turn taking, only occurs in
formal occasion. It is because in informal occasion the turn taking can also
signaled non-verbally, for example by facial signs or clearing one’s throat.
Meanwhile, in formal occasion there a set of signals may be used such as “Our next speaker is …” or “It’s Lyra’s turn now”.This function is more likely to make the conversation run for a longer time so that each speaker can develop the idea of
the conversation. In short, since this function keeps the conversation running for
longer time, this fits to linking gambits which enable speaker to take their turn in
discussion or conversation.
c) State of consciousness signals
This is the function of gambits on how they are used to state consciousness
speaker to receive information, opinions, or emotions. Also, it indicates the
speakers’ action on what to do, to say, to listen, or to emphasize point. The examples of gambits related to this function are “I don’t think so”, “What I want to say is that …” or “Yes, but …”. These expressions are to indicate sharing or
non-sharing knowledge and emotions and to show one’s intended action. Sharing knowledge and showing one’s intended action are referred to how speaker
responds to certain idea. In this case, it fits to responding gambits which are used
to state response a speaker on certain ideas delivered by other speaker. In other
words, this function merely fits responding gambits up.
d) Communication control signals
It is how the speakers used gambits for assuring that the listeners receive
their message well. The speakers sometimes use gambits such as “Are you with me?” or “Is it clear?” for assuring that the listeners have understood their
message. Sometimes, it is also used for giving pause their speeches to give them
time to think without having silence during the speech. The speaker may use
gambits like “Umm”, or “You know” to fill up the sentence while they are
thinking about what to say next.
Those are the theories that the writer uses to conduct research and analyze
the results of the research. The theory about gambits helps the writer in
conducting the research by observing the gambits used by the debaters in English
debate activities. Meanwhile, the theory about functions of gambits helps the
these theories ease the writer in analyzing gambits and its functions because it has
been clearly stated in the theory kinds of gambits and its functions.
3. Debate
According to Richards (2005), debate is an opinion sharing activity in
which the learners compare values, opinion, and beliefs in a certain motion. In
debate, the learners can improve their speaking skills and their critical thinking
since this activity requires the learners to share their ideas, opinion, and beliefs
about a certain topic. Moreover, this activity also involves the process called
negotiating for meaning in which the learners are trying to understand and make
themselves understood when they are communicating in the target language. Here,
the learners are able to check to see if they have understood what others’ said,
clarifying their understanding, and confirming that someone has understood your
meaning (Nunan, 2003).
Moreover, debate also means a social interaction between two groups of
people who discuss certain topic. In this case, debate is not a way to reach an
agreement but it is a way to state opinions about the topic and stand up on their
arguments. Moreover, debate is an interactive activity that has greater
organization than other speaking activities. This activity also involves three
speakers or more in each group (Harvey-Smith, 2011).
Referring to Harvey-Smith (2011), debate is also a formal activity in
which every speaker has an important role to ensure the audience that the
speakers’ ability to conveymeaning through their argument. In addition, debate is one example of communicative activities that can occur both in classroom and in
special events. Debate is also used as teaching activity in Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT). According to Littlewood (1981), as cited by Richard
and Rodgers (2001), debate is included in social interaction activities. These
activities enable learners to attain the communicative objectives, engage learners
in communication, and require the use of communicative processes as information
sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction (Richard and Rodgers, 2001). In
debate, learners also need to know how to make sentences to state their ideas, and
to have ability to apply their knowledge to give reason through theories, values,
and attitudes (Darby, 2007). The learners can also develop their critical thinking
through debate because they will think about how to respond others’ opinion.
Moreover, debate also requires learners to be able to communicate fluently so that
they can state their idea in a limited time. In conclusion, debate has greater
requirements than other speaking activity.
There are some kinds of debate in English, but in this study the writer only
observes one kind of debate styles that is Asian Parliamentary Debate. Asian
parliamentary debate is a common debate style in Asia, especially in Indonesia. It
is because it has more simple structure. There are two debate teams in this debate
style: Government team and Opposition team. Government team plays in
proposition role while Opposition team is the cons team. Each team has three
According to the handbook of Asian Parliamentary Debate authored by
Muhammadin (2014), each debater has different role for example in Government
team the first speaker is called Prime Minister, the second speaker is Deputy of
Prime Minister, and the third speaker is Government Whip. Meanwhile, in the
side of Opposition team, the first speaker is called the Leader of Opposition, the
second speaker is Deputy Leader of Opposition, and the third speaker is
Opposition Whip. The first speaker of each team also becomes Reply Speaker or
the one that should convey the adjudicators and the audiences why their team
should win the debate.
In addition, each member has limited time to speak up their argument in
the debate. Each member has seven minutes to speak up their arguments. The
exception is only for the Reply Speaker of each team. They only have five
minutes for making conclusion of their arguments and for conveying the judges to
win them in the debate activities. In short, in one debate session it is about an hour
length debate.
In short, debate is seen as a formal communicative activity that requires
the speakers to convey their ideas in a certain topic to the audience. In conveying
the audience, the speakers need to make distinction for their ideas so that it will be
easier and clearer for the audience to understand their meanings. The speakers can
use some gambits to make the distinction.
In this study, debate is used as a medium in which the occurrence of
gambits will be found through the speakers’ speeches. For example, in order to
believe that…”, and “the point is …”. Moreover, the speakers also use gambits such as “first/ second/ third …” to point out their ideas through numeration. Those
are few examples on how gambits are used in the debate.
In doing the research, the writer observed a debate using Asian
Parliamentary Debate style since this debate style is mostly used in debate
activities in Indonesia. As the writer has stated before that Asian Parliamentary
Debate style has three speakers in one team. Also, the speakers have different role
and time to have a speech. These differences give a bigger possibility of the
occurrence of the gambits in the speakers’ speeches.
B. Theoretical Framework
In this research, there are two research problems. They are (1) Which
conversation gambits do the JOVED participants use in English debate activities?
and (2) What are the functions of the gambits used by JOVED participants in
English debate activities? In answering these two research problems, the writer
uses the theory from Keller and Warner (2002) about conversation gambits and
Keller (1979) about gambits’ functions.
The theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002) will help
the writer in identifying the conversation gambits used by the participants in
English debate activities. It will be used to identify the occurrence of conversation
gambits in the debate activities. This is aimed to answer the first formulated
problem. After identifying the used conversation gambits, the writer uses the
functions occurred in the utterance. This step is to answer the second research
problem. The theory about debate is used to help the writer understand the flow of
debate and the role of each speaker in the debate team. It also helps the writer to
24
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the writer presents the methodology in conducting the
research. The methodology covers research method, research setting, research
participants, instruments and data gathering technique, data analysis technique,
and research procedures.
A. Research Method
The research was conducted in order to identify the gambits that were used
by the debaters in English Debate competitions and to analyze the functions of the
gambits that were used in their speeches. It was a qualitative research because it
studied about a phenomenon that happened in the natural settings such as in social
activity: English debate competitions.
This study also used human as instrument to emphasize the unique role of
the writer and participants in the research. In this study, the writer was also a
human instrument that played a role as an observer and an audience. Moreover,
the writer was the instrument maker of, for instance, interview guidelines, to gain
information related to the study.
Moreover, the data gathered in this research was in a form of debate
activities recordings that contained speeches. It was in argumentative form.
by making coding, interpreting, and confirming the analysis. The coding was used
for identifying the debaters and kinds of gambit. Interpreting was applied in
analyzing the transcribed data. The analysis was presented in form of words rather
than in numbers because it dealt with interpretation (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen,
2010). By noting the characteristics of this research, it could be concluded that
this study was a qualitative research.
Specifically, this study belonged to a basic interpretive study in the
qualitative research. Basic interpretive study provides rich descriptive accounts on
phenomenon. The data gathered in this study is accomplished in some ways such
as from interviews, observations, and document review (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen,
2010). Since this study was studied about how debaters used gambits in their
speeches in English debate activities, firstly, it targeted to understand a
phenomenon, a process or a particular point of view from the perspective of those
involved (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen, 2010). Secondly, it attempted to interpret
experience and used some variations in collecting data such as interviews and
video recordings. Also, it took a short time in collecting the data since it only
observed a particular event, namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate
(JOVED). The time taken to collect the data was two days; those were on June,
27thand 28th, 2015.
In analyzing the data, the writer involved categorization of the themes and
interpretation of the data. In categorizing the themes, the writer also used coding.
her conclusion drawing. In conclusion, this study fulfilled the requirements of a
basic interpretative study in the qualitative research.
B. Research Setting
The research was conducted in an event namely Java Overland Varsities
English Debate (JOVED) held in Atmajaya Yogyakarta University. This is an
annual debate event for University students around Java. The writer conducted the
research in two days. The writer took Saturday, June 27th and Sunday, June 28th,
2015 debate sessions. The debate sessions started at 9.30 am and finished around
1 pm. On the first day, the event was held in Campus 3 Bonaventura Atmajaya
University. On the second day, the venue of the debate was moved to Campus 1
Alfonsus Atmajaya University. The writer joined this event as an audience and
she recorded the debate activities she followed. She followed the octo-final and
grand final debates. On the octo-final she joined the debate between Gadjah Mada
University (UGM) and Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW) teams, while the grand
final debate was between Padjadjaran University (UNPAD) and State University
of Surabaya (UNESA) teams.
C. Research Participants
The participants were the debaters of JOVED from the Universities
previously mentioned. The debaters were only observed in term of their speech
did not give treatment to the participants. She only observed and recorded the
debate activities, and then, analyzed the gambits used by the debaters.
There were two debate teams in each debate session. Each group consisted
of three members. Since the writer observed two debate sessions, the total
participants for this research were twelve people. In the octo-final, there were
UGM students as the opposition team and UNIBRAW students as the government
team. In the grand final, there were UNESA students as the opposition team and
UNPAD students as the government team.
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques
In this section, the writer presented the instruments that were used in
gathering the data. The instruments were presented as follows:
1. Video Recorder
This instrument was to record the debaters’ performances during the debate sessions. This video was aimed to keep in mind thedebaters’performances in the event and how the debaters used conversation gambits in their speeches.
Then, this video was transcribed to ease the writer in analyzing the data. Each
2. Interview Guideline
The writer used guided questions to interview the debaters. There were
some questions asked to the debaters related to their educational background and
debate they joined to. The interview was done three times with different
respondents. The first one was with the debaters after the grand final debate
session. The second one was with the debaters after analyzing the data gathered.
The last interview was with the debate trainers after analyzing the data.
The first interview was the interview to gain the information about the
background of the debaters. It was an informal interview because it came
spontaneously from the writer. The questions asked was more about the debaters’
educational background and their knowledge about gambits they used in the
debate. The interview flowed naturally and continually based on the answer of the
participants.
The second interview was an interview to confirm the analyzed data. It
was a formal interview because the writer had planned it before and prepared the
questions. The questions asked in the second interview were about the educational
background of the debaters, how long they joined debate, their difficulties in
debate, their preparations for debate, their knowledge about gambits, their
confirmations of the used gambits in their speeches, and their purpose on using
the gambits. The second interview focused more on the confirmation and the
1. Apa jurusan yang Anda ambil di Universitas? 2. Sejak kapan Anda ikut debat bahasa Inggris? 3. Kesulitan apa saja yang Anda hadapi saat debat?
4. Apa saja yang perlu disiapkan untuk mengikuti kompetisi debat? 5. Apakah Anda tahu apa itu Conversation Gambits?
6. Apakah Anda menggunakan gambit-gambit ini?
7. Apa saja fungsi gambit yang Anda gunakan ini dalam debat?
The last interview was also validation interview which was done with the
debate trainers. There were three debate trainers as the respondents. In the
following part, the writer presented the list of interview questions:
1. As debate trainers, do you know what Conversation Gambits is?
2. If you know it, do you teach the debaters on how to use the Conversation
Gambits in their speeches? If not, how do they learn to use the gambits in
their speeches?
3. Based on my data, the debaters mostly used gambits such as ‘we think that’, ‘we believe that’, ‘the problem is’, and many more. Why do they use those
gambits?
4. Are those gambits useful and helpful for the debaters? Why is it so?
Those were the interview guidelines that the writer made to gain
information related to the study. The complete results of interviews were attached
E. Data Analysis Techniques
In this section, the writer presented the steps in analyzing the data. The
steps consisted of transcribing, data reduction, data display, and data analysis
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). The information about each step was described in
the following page:
1. Transcribing
In this study, the writer collected the data in the form of recordings. The
writer recorded the debate activities. Since they were recordings that contained
speeches, it was simply impossible for the writer to remember all the details in the
recordings. Due to this restricted ability, the writer transcribed the data into a
written form. Silverman (2005) supported by stating that depending on our
memory, a person could only summarize what different people said. But, it was
simply impossible to remember such matters as pauses, overlaps, in breaths and
the like.
Transcribing the recording data was beneficial for the writer to help her in
analyzing the data. It was because the recording data could be replayed and the
transcript could be improved and completed (Silverman, 2005). The data
transcript covered all the speeches of the debaters during the debate activities.
Moreover, the transcript of the recorded data was helpful for the writer since it
helped the writer to remember all the speeches in the debate activities.
The writer spent two weeks to transcribe the recorded data in the first
debate session. She did it by listening and watching the video. Then, she wrote the
transcript for each speaker in one debate session. Sometimes, she also replayed
the recording in order to complete some blanks in the transcript. She did the same
steps for the second debate session and it also spent for about two weeks.
2. Data Reduction
After transcribing the data, the writer continued with the data reduction
step. It was aimed to select data whether it was valuable or not. In short, this
process helped the writer to eliminate unimportant utterances in the transcription.
Data reduction was done to select, focus, simplify, and transform the data appear
in the transcriptions (Miles & Hubberman, 1994).
The writer also made coding for each debater and also kinds of gambits.
This coding was used both in the first and second debate session. It was helpful
for the writer to identify the debaters. The writer coded the debater as follows:
GOV S1: Government team, First speaker
GOV S2: Government team, Second speaker
GOV S3: Government team, Third speaker
OPP S1: Opposition team, Fist speaker
OPP S2: Opposition team, Second speaker
Since there were many expressions in each kind of gambits, the writer
made coding for the kinds of gambits. This coding helped the writer to analyze the
gambits were used by debaters was belonged to. The following part was the
coding for kinds of gambits:
OG: Opening Gambits
LG: Linking Gambits
RG: Responding Gambits
After coding the data, the writer identified the gambits used in the
utterances by using table as follows:
Table 3.1. Table of Coding
Speaker Kinds of gambits
OG RG LG
GOV S1
OPP S1
GOV S2
3. Data Display
After doing data reduction, the writer displayed the data. The data were
displayedin a form of table. This table contained the debaters’ utterances and the
identification of the gambits they used. Miles and Hubberman (1994) said that a
data display is designed to assembly organized information into a compact and
conclusions. The complete data display was attached in appendix 2. The following
part was the example of data display:
Table 3.2. Table of Data Display Spea
ker
Role Speech Kinds of gambits
OG RG LG
GOV
S1
Prime
Minister
Social media has become one of daily basis needs in this erabecausethere are a lot of function and a lot of feature, for example, to express their opinion, their feeling, or even sharing their photo, public … or anything else, right? But, we think in current status quo this function has been shifting for trending of mocking and blast for certain individual or certain marginalized group. And the
first favor my honor speaker, we think this is a very problematic point because why? We think people that got, you know, mocked or even blast of me by certain people through social media and report to the government as well, then they give the evidencealso there will be
investigation from the government…
-We think -Then -The
problem is -First, -Second, -You know
- Right - For example - Because - Why we
think …? - But - That’s
why - Umm, - If
- Not only …, but … - Also - Not to
mention,
4. Conclusion Drawing and Verification
The last step of analyzing the data was conclusion drawing and
verification. In this step, the writer drew the final conclusion of the study. Also,
validation. The conclusions came after the writer analyzed the data and the result
of the analysis had to be validated. Miles and Hubberman (1994) said that
conclusion drawing is only half configuration and it needs to be verified to find
out the meanings emerging from the data including their plausibility, sturdiness,
and validity.
While making the conclusion drawing, the writer contacted the debaters
from UGM to do verification. The verification was done on Friday, October 16th,
2015 in Faculty of Law area, Gadjah Mada University. The writer met up with the
debaters from UGM who became Opposition team in the first debate session. In
this verification, they verified the gambits they used in debate and their purpose in
using them in their speeches. It was aimed to validate the conclusion and analysis
the writer made and to find out other stories from the debaters.
Moreover, the writer did data validation with some debate trainers in
Yogyakarta. This data validation was taken in some times those were on January
25th, 27th, and 30th, 2016. This step was taken to validate the conclusion and
analysis that the writer had drawn and to have enlightenment in completing the
discussion. This step helped the writer to understand the use of conversation
gambits in English debate activities from the trainers’ point of view.
F. Research Procedures
In conducting this research, the writer employed eight steps of research
1. Determining the Setting of The Research
The objective of this research was to identify the use of gambits in English
debate activities. The writer chose debate because debate is one of communicative
activities in language teaching which required the production of speech. In order
to obtain the data about debate, the writer looked for some information about
debate events in Yogyakarta. The writer obtained an information from her friend
that there was a debate event in Yogyakarta namely Java Overland Varsities
English Debate (JOVED). It was a national debate event in which the participants
were from university students around Java Island. The participants of this event
were university students who were around in their second and fourth semester.
These reasons also became the writer’s consideration for collecting the data. By
having university students as the participants, the occurrence of the data needed
by the writer was clearly possible because the speech productivity was
well-structured even though they were in under-pressure situation.
In the debate event, the writer recorded four debate sessions. However, she
only chose two of them which were the debate between Gadjah Mada University
(UGM) and Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW) and debate between Padjadjaran
University (UNPAD) and State University of Surabaya (UNESA) to be analyzed.
It was because the participants were EFL learners. It was related to the focus of
this study which was focus more on the EFL context. Moreover, the debaters used
this topic was completed. Fortunately, the topics of the debate were merely recent
news in this time such as cyber bullying in social media and child abuse
witnesses. So, these motions also helped the writer to understand the context of
the speeches delivered by the debaters.
2. Determining Research Instruments
Since this was a basic interpretive study in the qualitative research, the
writer also became human instrument: as an observer and an audience. To observe
the performance of the learners in debate and keep it in mind, the writer recorded
the debate activities. Moreover, the writer also used interview guidelines to gain
information. The main instrument of this research was the writer herself. This was
because the writer was the instrument to obtain, transcribe, and analyze the data.
3. Conducting Research
After preparing the instruments, the writer conducted the research. The
research was conducted by recording the English debate activities. The writer
played a role as an observer and an audience of debaters’ performance in the
debate event. On the first day, in Campus 3 Atmajaya University, the debaters
were divided into two chambers. The audiences could choose which chamber that
they wanted to join. Meanwhile, on the second day which was in Campus 1
Atmajaya University, because it was grand final debate, all the debaters and
duration for stating their idea for about 7 minutes. For the last speakers, they only
had 5 minutes to close the debate. Total debate time was about an hour length.
The motions of the debates were about cyber bullying on the social media
and criminalizing witnesses who failed to report child abuse cases. In the
octo-final, the debaters were debating about bullying on social media. In the grand
final, the debaters were debating about criminalizing the witnesses who failed to
report child abuse cases.
4. Analyzing the Data
After obtaining the data, the writer used some techniques to analyze the
data, namely transcribing the recording data, data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing. After displaying the data, the writer analyzed the data by
using theories that had been explained in the theoretical framework. These
processes of transcribing, reducing, and displaying the data eased the writer to
analyze the data because it had been in a written form. Moreover, it helped the
writer to make conclusion drawing after analyzing the data. The result of the data
analysis was about the conversation gambits that were used in English debate
38
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the elaboration on the research findings and
discussion based on the formulated problems which have been stated in Chapter I.
This chapter is divided into two sessions. The first section discusses the
conversation gambits that were used by the debaters in English debate
competitions. The second session elaborates the function of the conversation
gambits used by the debaters in Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED)
event.
A. Conversation Gambits Used by The Debaters in English Debate Competitions
In this section, the writer answered the first question in the research
problems that was stated in Chapter I. The writer analyzed the conversation
gambits used in JOVED debaters’ speeches. In identifying the gambits, the writer
used the list of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002). Based on the
identification, the writer found that all of the three kinds of gambits were used by
the debaters. All of the debaters used opening and linking gambits in their
speeches. However, there were only some debaters who used responding gambits.
There were twelve debaters to analyze. However, in their speeches there
were sixteen speeches because one of the debaters played two roles as Deputy
the first speaker of each team. The elaboration of the conversation gambits used in
debaters’ speecheswas presented in the following part.
1. Opening Gambits
Opening gambits are gambits that are used to help the speaker introduce
idea into the discussion (Keller and Warner, 2002). In these debate sessions, all of
the debaters used opening gambits. Some opening gambits were used by all the
debaters and the others were used only by some debaters. In this discussion, the
researcher presented the opening gambits that were used by the debaters in the
speeches.
In identifying the gambits used by the debaters, the researcher used the
theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002). The opening
gambits that were used by most of the debaters were personal opinion, telling a
story, listing excuses, the main trouble, offering suggestion, asking for
information, and sharing confidence. The discussions about the gambits were
presented as follows:
a) Stating personal opinion
There were five gambits to show personal opinion. They were ‘in my
opinion,…’, ‘to my mind,…’, ‘I think …’, ‘I believe …’, and ‘not everyone will
agree with me, but …’ (Keller and Warner, 2002). However, in this study there
were two gambits that were used by the debaters both in the first and in the second
case,the subject was changed from ‘I’ into ‘we’ because the debater spoke up the
group’s ideas. This was the reason why the subject changed.
In the following part, the writer presented the samples on how the debaters
used these gambits in their sentences. Firstly, the writer presented the samples on
how the debaters used the gambit ‘we think that …’ both in the first and in the
second debate sessions. The samples were presented as follows:
Table 4.1 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we think that…’ Debate
session
Speaker Sentences
F
I
R
S
T
D
E
B
A
T
E
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
GOV S1 “We think in the current status quo for example, there is a lot of
social media like twitter or in Facebook, for example, they are
trying to giving report a report of mechanism …”
“We think this is back clash of the function and the nature of the
social media itself.”
“Thus,we think it is also dealing with the idea of good lifestyle
for every single people and also for every single users in the end
of the day, my honorable speaker.”
OPP S1 “We think that this prerequisite is even already exist before
they actually having this account.”
GOV S2 “We think that those mechanism cannot counter this and we,
under the proposal, will give the solution of the problem.” “We think that we should … from her case on how the
environment of social media is still unhealthy and we should fix
this.”
OPP S2 “We think pensively speaking is not just because in the end the
legal responsibility should be on the hand of individual
perpetuator.”
“We think it’s not reasonable for you to expect these social
media to track the face account, to track the real id of these fake
users, ladies and gentleman.”
either you are using legal system, ladies and gentleman.”
“We think it’s unfair for them to impose the unreasonable
expectation for the social media, ladies and gentleman.”
GOV S3 “When they talking about how this kind of a law prerequisite
before you use social media, we think, we as the users, we
demand about the protection, we also demand about our privacy
keep,…”
“But, we think these social media also have, e, make incentive
to the perpetuator to do cyber bullying.”
OPP S3 “Even if not, the status quo is not enough, we think it is still
wrong to punish and burden a third party that is innocent,
Facebook to bear the responsibility.”
“We think it is a very good intention that why you create that
because you want to help people to connect people around the
world.”
OPP S1
(Reply
Speaker)
“We thinkthat it’s very extreme cases that they cannot take into beak.”
“So, we think what social media has already created the
regulation, why are you okay to actually punish them toward
these actual people that are misusing the term of condition.” “We think that your harm is even bigger because you also harm
all people that is not going to actually be harm in using this kind
of social media.”
GOV S1
(Reply
Speaker)
“We thinkwe have, you know, we don’t have any kind of trope
because this is automatically stated inside the motion itself,
right.”
“We think that awareness of these social media nothing
happening and there is no tangible thing that exist under the
parameter of the status quo itself, right.”
S
E
C
O
GOV S2 “And we think after the trial of investigation exist the
severity of the child abuse will actually be too bad to cure
on the children itself ladies and gentleman.”
