SPEECH FUNCTIONS CLASSROOM INTERACTION.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Sulaiman, Ruwaida. Registration Number: 082188310065. Speech Functions in Classroom Interaction. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgrad .. ate School, State University ofMedan. 2010.

Interpersonal function is a tenn used in semantics as a part of classification of types of meaning. The function of language as the interpersonal function means

that language is used to enable people to participate in commooicative acts, to take on roles, to express and understand feelings, attitudes, and judgements. Speech Function is an action or performance done by language users such as: asking, commanding, and answering in order to fulfill the intention of the speakers and listeners. The objectives of the research are ( 1) to describe how the speech functions are coded and patterned in the English classroom interaction (2) to investigate the types of speech functions used in classroom interaction, to describe how the speech functions are patterned in classroom interaction, and (3) to investigate why the speech functions are realized in the ways they are. The research

used descriptive qualitative design based on Participant-Observation was conducted to discover Speech Fooctions in Classroom Interaction of the students. The students were from the Grade X consisting of 55 students State Senior High School 3 (Sekolah Menengah Atas: SMA 3) Medan. The research findings show that both teacher and students play an important role in classroom interaction. The teacher used almost all types of speech functions and the dominant speech functions used were question (27.91 %) followed by statement (18.60 %), and command & response offer to command (14.53 %), and then response statement to question (8.72 %), greeting and response to greeting (5.81 %), followed by offer (2.91 %), and acknowledge statement (1.16 %). This happens because the role of the teacher is as a leader of class. As the leader of class s/he has authority to inquire, ofter something, and to command all elements of c1ass. While the dominant speec function used by the students was statement ( 46.21%) which is almost of the whole utterances in classroom. It is because of students just answer questions from teacher and gave statements needed. And then they ask questions if they still do not understand or if they do not get knowledge or information. The second s~

function used by the students dominantly is response statement to question (33.10%), followed by question (10.34%), acknowledge statement (5.52%), and then greeting & response to greeting (2.07%), while offer (0.69 %). Calling &

response to calling, exclamation & response to exclamation, acknowledge offer, command & response offer to command were not used by students. The reasons are

students' ole and students' position is not a leader in class, they never command all elements in class.

(2)

-

z

?

•

m

STlJDY PROGliAl\'.l

SCHOOL

lJNi~l'ERSITY

O'F !ilEDAN

(3)

A THESIS

SPEECH FUNCTIONS IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION

By

RUWAIDA SULAIMAN

Registration Number :

082188310065

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY

OF

MEDAN

This hesis was examined on

29tb

June

2010

by the board examiners

Advise I

The Head of English Applied

Linguistics Study rogram

Approved by

Adviser

II

The Director of the Postgraduate

School,

(4)

Approval

This thesis was examined on 29th June 2010 by the Board Examiners.

Board examiners:

Prof. Tina Mariany Arifm, M.A., Ph.D

Nip.19440302 196902 2 001

Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D

Nip. 95501131982031002

Prof. D.

Tampubolon, Ph. D

(5)

Adviser's Statements

I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate in

scope and quality as a thesis for degree o:t:Magister Humaniora

I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate

in

scope and quality as a thesis for degree of Magister Humanio

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, the writer expresses her deepest gratitude to Allah SWT for His Blessings that has been poured to her especially in getting the golden In the process of completing this thesis, she has to confess her profound thankfulness for the generous idance and assistance which has been rendered to

her by many people. It would be impossible to list all names but in particular she wishes to mention the following people.

and continuous care and support, and also, as the former Head of English Ap lied Linguistics Study Program for being so was extraordinary. She was there to cheer up the "Bapeda" class and her encouragement up to this time is never ending.

To Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., her second adviser, who has given the guidance, comments, criticisms, suggestions, support, and special notes for the imp vement of the thesis from the very beginning up to the end of tliis thesis.

(7)

Prof. M. Butar Butar, M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M. Pd., Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed, TESP.

Thanks also to her reviewers and examiners, Prof. DP. Tampubolon, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., and Dr. Didik Santoso, M. Pd., for their suggestions and valuable inputs to shape this thesis.

Her truthfully gratefulness goes to Prof. Dr. Busmi Gurning, M. Pd and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd, Head and Secretary, English Applied Linguistics Study Program, and Prof. Dr. Belferik Manullang, Director of the Postgraduate School of the State University of Medan, for their suggestions and administrative assistance during the process of conducting the study and completing this thesis.

In addition, she would like to express her deepest thanks and endless appreciations to her parents, her sisters, and her brothers for their support, assistance, and prayer for her success in fmishing her study. A very special thanks to her beloved husband, Irsan Idris Nst, AP, Mora Karunia Nst her daughter, and her son, Alfisyah Idris Nst, for their motivation, care, endless love

understanding in fmishing her study on time.

(8)

any constructive ideas and critics that will improve the quality of the thesis. She also hopes this thesis would be useful for those who read it, especially majoring in English.

~~

The writer,

~

1ft

-

z

~

?

~

m

(9)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Speech Functions ... 10

2.2 Types of Speech Functi n. ... 11

2.3 Elaboration Realization of Speech Functions in Mood... . . 17

2.4 Speech Roles and Conunodities in Interaction... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . 19

2.5 Speech Functions and Responses... 21

2.6 SRCeCh Functions and Typical Mood of Clause... 23

2. 7 Speech Functions and Typical Clause and Non-typical Clause ofMood ... 24

2.8 Summary of Adjuncts ... ... 34

4.1 Proportion of Speech Functions by the Teacher ... 65

4.2 Proportion of Speech Functions by the Students ... 67

(13)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

2.1 The Derivations of Speech Functions... 12

-

z

?

(14)

LIST OF APPENDIXES

APPENDIX Page

A The Transcription ofthe Data ... 81

(15)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

K :Knower

A :Actor

T

Ss

acknow : acknowledgement

e. decl. mood :elliptical declarative mood modul interrogative mood : modulated interrogative mood

-

z

?

m

(16)

(17)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

The quality of classroom interaction to a greater extent is determined by the effectiveness of information given to the students. It is a fact, at present that the quality of Indonesian education is declining. The question is why education is poorl conducted. This leads to an expectation that education should be well carried out.

In the process of transferring knowledge language plays an imgortant role especially in social interaction. It is used for communication either for spoken or written interactions. In addition, it is a representation of thoughts, fee ings, objectives, and actions. Human beings use a language in their lives for various urposes. In order to achieve the purposes, the language is adjusted to->fhe context in which it is used. Further, people use language to talk about their ex riences of the world, including the worlds in their minds, to describe events,

(18)

Language serves many functions. The prime function of language is as a

tool of communication. Communication itself is an activity or process of

expressing ideas and feelings or of giving information. Giving information

involves transferring knowledge, facts or news by the speakers as the doers to the

listeners as the receivers. In the classroom, the interaction is between

teacher-students, students-teacher, and students-students. Communication refers to roles

played by the two sides, namely by the addressers (speakers) antl addressee

(listeners). While communicating the addressers and ad essee express their

_thoughts by speech. On the one hand speech is used by a teacher in a classroom

among others teach, to direct, to guide, to instruct, to suggest, and to ~rsuade

students. On the other hand, teachers use speech to silence students and deprive

them of their own words. All speeches they used have their own functions. IUs

functional in the sense that it is designed to account the language is used. Based

on Halliday (1994:30) states that speech functions are realized in four types, namely : statement, question, offer, and command. Thompson (2!).03: 12

emphasizes the important point that the use of language lies at the very heart of

social lives. In general, it is noted that communication and language are imwrtant

components of social life.

When people use language to express meanings, they do so in specific

elements of those situations (health institutions, in community, in educational

(19)

educational community but also of the society at large. The improvement of students' interaction and social skills has been seen as an important aim for education. The management of classroom discipline is one of the moral and ethical activities that enable students to improve their social and interaction skills. In the human lives' activities, communications aiid interaction cannot be separated from one another.

Ther are various kinds of interactions, of which teaching-learning interaction is the interaction which runs the process of education. Teaching-learning interaction involves interactions between teacher-students, students-teacher, students-students in the teaching-learning process.

This research addresses the interaction between

students-teacher in English classroom interaction during the teaching-learning process. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning is precisely that it entails this joint management of learning. The management of classroom discipline is one of the moral and ethical activities that enable students-to impro e their social and interaction skills. For teachers, classroom discipline management is an important but difficult aspects of their job. The organization gf classroom interaction and discipline management is an interpla~ between the verbal and nonv: hal activities as well as the visual and special resources used by teacher and

(20)

example hurt and excitement), are present in the interactions. Nonverbal signals are used when attitudes, experiences, and emotions are not so expressible by words (Argyle in Robinson, 1994:23). Nonverbal interaction consists of unconscious body movements, expressions, gestures, the use of personal, social, and public space, appearance, touch, and the wa people view time and environment. It also serves many functions in a classroom. Nonverbal behavior provides a soCial channel for providing information, regulating social interaction, expressing intimacy, exercising social control and facilitating sen'ice (Patterson in Robinson, 1994:36). Other functions of nonverbal communication are: expressing emotion, communicating interpersonal attitudes, accompanying and supporting speech, self presentation and rituals, for example: greetings and classroo rituals (Argyle in Robinson, 1994:24). Teacher communication can be intentional, for example when directing students through a transition; it can also be unintentional when treating students indifferently without meaning to do so. Thus, an effective classroom interaction plays an important role in the English classrQOm. And classroom interaction should be intensified in order that students can fully e their ideas and thoughts in English.

(21)

1.2 The Problems of the Study

The problems of the study are formulated as follows.

(1) How are speech functions linguistically coded in the classroom interactions? (2) What types of speech functions are used and how are speech functions

(3) Why are the speech functions realized in the ways they are? 1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are

(1) to describe how the speech functions are linguistically coded in classroom interaction,

(2) to investigate the types of speech functions are used in classroom interaction, to describe how the speech functions are patterned in classroom interaction, and

(3) to investigate why the speech functions are realized in the ways they_...are. 1.4 The Scope of the study

(22)

This study deals with interpersonal functions of language in which it is used to interact with other people. Specifically, this interpersonal functions defines clause as an exchange, an interaction between speaker and listener. In this study, the term speaker and listener specifically refer to the teacher-students, students-teacher, and students-students in classroom · teractions of Grade X in Senior High School 3 Medan.

The analysis is based on the four primary

statement, question, command, and offer. They are investtgated in their realizations of mood.

The Significance of the Study

A study conducted on classroom interaction is very challenging in terms of observing the dynamic process 'of communication and analyzing the activities of the students in sharing their full participation in the teaching-learning pracess.lt is intended to observe the practice of a two-way horizontal and vertical, to and bottom up between teacher-students and students-teacher.

The fmdings are expected to be useful especially for teache_ s dents should be involved and students' participation is a prerequisite.

(23)

English in the classroom and thus there should be an extensive and intensive interactions between teacher-students and students-teacher.

-

z

?

m

(24)

(25)

5.1 Conclusions

CHAPTERV

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The. function of a language as an interpersonal means that language is used to enable one to participate in communicative acts wifh another, to take on roles and to express and understand feelings, attitudes, judgements and to exchange their experience each other. This interpersonal function pours out

elements that participated in the interaction.

Based on the findings as presented in previous chapter, conclusions are drawn as the following.

(1) Linguistically, speech functions in classroom are coded into the fonn of Moods: declarative, elliptical declarative, interrogative, imperative, and modulated interrogative, both in unmarked and marked structure . Tlie moods used in giving response to types of speech function are declarative

and elliptical declarative mood.

(2) At lexicogrammar level the four speech functions in initiating are coded as coded by declarative mood. question coded by coded by (3) In the proportion of speech functions used by teacher and students are:

(26)

& response to exclamation, statement & acknowledge statement, question &

response statement to question, offer & acknowledge offer, and command &

response offer to command. The dominant speech functions used by them are statement and questions. The most dominant types of speech function used by teacher is question (27.91%), while the most dominant type of speech function used by student is statement (46.21%). This happens because both of teacher and students seek and

knowledge. Both of teacher and students play an important role in interaction in classroom. In giving response to the speech functions used by teacher · classroom, teacher gave response to greeting, question, and comman There were not response to calling and exclamation because teacher did JlOt use calling and exclamation in giving response to the speech functions used by students in classroom, stUdents. gave response to greeting and question. There were no response to calling, exclamation, and command.

(27)

5.2 Suggestions

In line with the fmdings, suggestions are staged as follows

(1) It is suggested that all elements of classroom (teacher and students) should know the interpersonal coding in order to avoid misunderstanding with one another in classroom interaction.

(2) All elements of classroom are suggested

~use using speech functions enable speakers and listeners to express their needs and messages and to give information clearly.

(3) It is worthy to suggesting to other researchers related with speech functions field.

-

z

?

(28)

REFERENCES

Argyle, M. 1988. Bodily Communication.

In

Robinson, H. A. 1994. The

Ethnography of Empowerment. The Transformative Power of Classroom

Interaction. The Palmer Press. Washington, D.C. London.

Beny, M 1981. SY.stemic lmguistics and Discourse Antilysis. Prentice-HalL New

York

Bloom, D and Stephanie Power Carter. 2005. Discourse -Analysis and The Study

of Classroom Language and Literacy Events. A Micro Etlinographic

Perspective. ew Jersey. London.

Bloor, T. ~ M. Bloor. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English. A proach. Oxford University Press. London.

Bogdan, R.C & S. K. Bik.len. 1992. Qualitative Research for Educatio . An

Introduction to Theory and Methods. The 2nd Edition. Boston.

Cegale, D.J. 1981. An elaboration of the Meaning of Interaction Involvement. New York: Moughton.

Coulthard, M. 1998. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. The 4th Impression. London.

D~ple, M; Ronald M. K; John. T. Maxwell. 1995. Formal Issues in

Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford. California.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act.

In

Sibarani, B. 2004. Qualitative Research

i Linguistics and Language Teaching. Medan: Graduate Pro State

l9niversity ofMedan {unpublished).

Freire, P. 1910. The Pedagogy ofihe Oppressed.

In

Robinson, R A. 1994. The

Et1inogr-an ..

hJ

o[_ Empowerment. The Transformative ower of Classroom

Interaction. The eillner Press. Washington, D.C. London.

(29)

Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London.

Green, K & Jill Le Bihan. 1996. Critical Theory and Practice: A Course Book.

Routhledge. New York.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London.

oro University Press. London. Hornby. As. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary,. Oxford University

Press. London.

Lamy, M.N and Regina Hanpel. 2007. Online Communication in Language

Learning and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.

Perangin-angin, S. 2006. Speech functions of men and women m 'Business

Transaction in the Tradition{ll Markets. Unpublished Master of

Humaniora Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Progra,m. Medan: Post Graduate School, State University ofMedan.

Patterson, M.L. 1983. Non Verbal Behavior. In Robinson, H. A. 1994.

;rhe

Ethnography of Empowerment. The Transformative Power v.f:-Classr,oom

Interaction. The Palmer Press. Washington, D.C. London.

Piirba, L. 2008./nterpersonal Meanings: Speech Functions in <Sou t Room Texts. Unpublished Master of Humaniora Thesis. English Applied inguistics Study

Rrogram.

Medan: Post Graduate School, State University of Medan.

Saragih, A. 2004. Discourse Analysis. A Systemic Functional Approaches to the

Analysis of Texts. Faculty of Language and Arts. The State University of

(30)

Saragih, A. 2004. Bahasa Dalam Konteks Sosia/. Faculty of Language and Arts. The State University ofMedan.

Schleppegrell, M.J. 2004. The Language of Schooling. A functional Linguistics Perspective. University of California, Davis. London.

Searle, J. R 1980. Speech Function. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language .

London. Cambridge.

Sembiring,

Y.

2007. Speech Functions in Slogan of Television Advertisement.

Unpublished Master of

Humaniora

Thesis. English Applied Linguistics

Study Program. Medan: Post Qraduate School, State University of

Medan.

Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London

Thompson, G. 2003. Communication and Language. London.

Wetherell, M. 2001. Discourse Theory and Practice. London.

Yule, George. 1985. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University. London

http://www.high beam.com/doc/1 088.classroom interaction.html. Accessed on January 15th, 2010

~ttp://apply.oxford joumals.org/cgi/pdf-extract/5/2/156. Accessed on January

16th, 2010

http://www.bookrags.com/essay.2004/ll/10/10654781. 16th, 2010

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1 088-classroom interaction.htm

(31)