A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE
TEACHERS’
SPOKEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE
ENGLISH TEACHING
(A Study of English Teachers in Public Junior High School 9
Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2016/2017)
A GRADUATING PAPER
Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.)
English Education Department of Teacher Training and
Education Faculty State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN)
Salatiga
By:
By:
NOFI ZULIYATI NINGSIH
NIM 113-12-159
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN)
v
MOTTO
Indeed, the legitimate action depends on the intention….
vi
DEDICATION
This graduating paper is proudly dedicated to:
1. My beloved Father (Muhammad Ridwan) and Mother (Siti Zuhriyah) who give me any support and the best education. You are the best parents in the world.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Lord of universe. The writer would like to express the gratefulness to Allah SWT for His blessing, chance, and guidance to finish this graduating paper as one of the requirement for Sarjana Pendidikan in English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty at State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga in 2016. Peace and salutation always be given to our beloved prophet Muhammad
SAW as the best human’s model in the world and who has guided us to be the
righteous human.
This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance, advice, and help from individual’s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to
express deep appreciation to:
1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd. as the Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga who has always given the best support and praying for his students.
2. Suwardi, M.Pd. as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.
3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., as the Head of the English Education Department of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga and as the writer’s
ix
ABSTRACT
Ningsih, Nofi Zuliyati. 2016. A Pragmatic Analysis of the Teachers’ Spoken Corrective Feedback on the English Teaching (A Study of English Teachers in Junior High Public School 9 Salatiga in the Academic Year of
2016/2017). A Graduating Paper. Educational Faculty, English
Departement, State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. Counselor: Noor Malihah, Ph.D.
Key words: Teacher’s Corrective Feedback, Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relation
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE ... i
DECLARATION ... ii
ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR ... iii
CERTIFICATION PAGE ... iv
MOTTO ... v
DEDICATION ... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vii
ABSTRACT ... ix
TABLE OF CONTENT ... x
LIST OF TABLES ... xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of the Research ... 1
B. Research Questions ... 4
C. Objectives of the Research ... 4
D. Benefits of the Research ... 4
E. Limitation of the Research ... 6
F. Definition of the Key Terms ... 6
G. Graduating Paper Outline... 10
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
A. Review of Related Researcher ... 12
B. Definition of Pragmatics ... 13
C. Concept of Utterance ... 16
xi
2. Kinds of Utterance ... 17
D. Feedback ... 19
1. Definition of Feedback ... 19
2. Corrective Feedback ... 21
a. Definition of Corrective Feedback ... 21
b. Strategies and Types of Corrective Feedback ... 23
c. Student’s Error and Mistake ... 27
E. Implicature ... 29
1. Conversational Implicature ... 30
a. Generalized Conversational Implicature ... 30
b. Particularized Conversational Implicature ... 30
c. Cooperative Principle ... 31
1) Violating Maxim of Quantity ... 35
2) Violating Maxim of Quality ... 36
3) Violating Maxim of Relation ... 36
4) Violating Maxim of Manner ... 37
2. Conventional Implicature ... 38
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 40
A. Type of the Research... 40
B. Research Approach ... 41
C. Data Source ... 42
D. Respondent of the Research ... 42
E. Method of Collecting Data ... 42
xii
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS ... 47
A. Distribution of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ... 47
B. Maxim Analysis of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ... 53
CHAPTER V CLOSURE ... 57
A. Conclusions ... 57
B. Suggestions ... 59
REFERENCES ... 61
CURRICULUM VITAE ... 65
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Table 2.1 Two dimensions of corrective feedback’s strategies ... 23 2. Table 2.2 Types of teachers’ corrective feedback ... 25 3. Table 3.1 Coding of the Kinds of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback ... 45 4. Table 3.2 Coding of the Maxims’ Analysis of Teachers’
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Research
Indonesian sets English as a foreign language. “English as a foreign language refers to a traditional term for the use or study of the English language by non-native speakers in countries where English is generally not the local medium of communication” (Nordquist, 2014). On the other hand, the people are expected to pay more attention if they want to master English which it has been determined as a foreign language.
Since English is a foreign language in Indonesia, English is not
usually used in the daily activity. But, sometimes we can find that English
is used in the learning process as the subject of study. As stated by
Broughton, et al. (1980: 6), “English as a foreign language is taught in
schools, often widely, but it does not play an essential role in national or
social life”. An essential role in national or social life means that English is
not frequently used as the normal medium of communication and instruction
in daily life.
In the teaching and learning process, the teachers have a duty to
teach, educate, and control their students to help them to gain the
development and the improvement of comprehension and skills accordance
2
the strategy of teaching, and preparing the subject matter in order to give understanding for the students about specific context of English and achieve the goal of teaching. Those challenges agree with what Wallace (1991: 28) has argued. He argues that different people have different attitudes to learn and their own individual ways of learning. These are the evidence that people can also have considerable control over which style of learning they use in particular situations. Thus, it needs the learning strategies which students can use as required.
Sometimes, the teaching and learning process do not occur fluently.
The teacher frequently meets the students’ difficulties in understanding the
material, even they often make a mistake. It is normal if the teacher gives
correction to the students’ mistake because it is expected to help the students
to know their mistakes, then they can produce the work well and will not do
the same mistake again in the future (Johnson, 1988, in Ellis, 2012: 136).
Discussing correction or feedback in the teaching and learning process, Richards and Lockhart (1996: 188) argue that feedback given by the teacher is an important aspect of teaching. Feedback could be a positive or negative statement to the students and not only find out the improvement of learners’ ability but also create the motivation and supportive classroom
environment.
Giving feedback has a variety of strategies applied in the classroom, such as by indicating an incorrect answer, praising, and modifying a student’s answer. Generally, there are two forms to produce a corrective
3
to be focus, this research limits on the oral corrective feedback produced by the teacher in the language teaching.
Corrective feedback includes the utterance produced by the teacher in the teaching and learning process. In pragmatics, each utterance produced by the speaker is discussed its meaning and social context which is involved. The researcher would like to note that pragmatics is the most appropriate field to do this research because the analysis has a close relationship to the study of utterance meaning, sentences which are used in communication, and also the study of meaning in language as a means of interaction and context.
There are also some principles used in communication in order to create a good communication, called as cooperative principles in communication or maxims (Grice, 1989). In fact, not all utterances produced by teachers in teaching and learning process, especially corrective feedback, obey these maxims. Sometimes, they unconsciously violate these maxims. According to this condition, the researcher tries to learn and analyze the types and the violating of maxims on the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in the teaching process. The researcher is inspired to conduct the paper entitled “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Teachers’ Spoken
4 B. Research Questions
To clarify the problem that is going to be analyzed, the researcher formulates the research questions as follow:
1. What the types of spoken corrective feedback are produced by teachers in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga?
2. How are the violations of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in English teaching of Public
Junior High School 9 Salatiga?
C. Objectives of the Research
The objectives of the research are as the following:
1. To find out the types of spoken corrective feedback produced by teachers in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga. 2. To describe the violation of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in
the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in English teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga.
D. Benefits of the Research
The results of the research are expected to give some important contribution to those related.
1. Practically
a. For the students
5
spoken corrective feedbacks that are used by the teacher in the learning process. The students can gain more information and understanding about corrective feedback. Furthermore, this research can be used to enrich knowledge about the study of corrective feedback and to be the reference to the other research related to the topic.
b. For the teacher
Feedback is given by the teacher to the students when they got an error in the learning process. The results of this research enable the teachers to gain information about corrective feedback. It will help the teachers to analyze and comprehend the corrective feedback they used. On the other hand, the teacher also gains the information about the suitability between the utterances which are produced with the theory of maxim which is analyzed in this research. In addition, the teachers are able to select the suitable feedback in the learning process in order to create good communication in teaching.
c. For English Education Department of IAIN Salatiga
6
knowledge about the pragmatic study and the results are able to be used to make a reference for another research or others related to the subject.
2. Theoretically
This research is expected to improve the understanding of the types of corrective feedbacks used by teachers in the teaching and learning process. It also can linguistically contribute the overview of a pragmatic analysis based on the theory of maxim on the corrective feedbacks used by teachers.
E. Limitation of the Research
The researcher limits this research in the field of teachers’ spoken
corrective feedback on the English teaching. This research focuses on the analysis of corrective feedback’s types produced by two English teachers in
Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017 based on the theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) and their pragmatic analysis which focus on the analysis of violating maxim of quantity and maxim of relation based on Grice’s theory (1989).
F. Definition of the Key Terms 1. Pragmatics
Levinson (1983: 21) states, “pragmatics is the study of the
7
elaborates the meaning of language itself related to the situation and the term of language understanding is related to producing inferences to what is said and assumed before.
Yule (1996: 4) states that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users, exactly speakers, of those forms. Here, linguistics form means the words or phrases or utterances produced by people and need a large interpretation to understand the meaning supported by recognizing the circumstances. 2. Utterance
According to Leech (1983: 14), “the utterances are the elements
whose meaning studied in pragmatics”. An utterance refers to the
product of a verbal act that may consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clauses combination spoken in context (Carter and McCarthy, language is incorrect. This explanation includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school every day’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘No, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes, he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’.
4. Theory of Cooperative Principle or Maxims in Communication
As stated by Grice (1989: 26), “cooperative principle makes
8
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”
There are four maxims as stated by Grice (1989: 26-27) as follow:
a. Maxim of Quantity
The principle theory of this maxim is serving the enough answers like what the people want to know. It gives the most helpful amount of information. This maxim is not too much, not too little, but just right as stated by Grice as follow:
1) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
b. Maxim of Quality
Only giving the right answer to the questioner and without any intention to tell untruth but 'tell the truth'. It is divided into super-maxim and sub-super-maxim as follow:
1) Super-maxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true. 2) Sub-maxim:
a) Do not say what you believe to be false.
b)Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. c. Maxim of Relation
9 d. Maxim of Manner
This maxim indicates about what the speaker’s say is in the
clearest, briefest, and most orderly manner. It is divided into super-maxim and sub-super-maxim as follow:
1) Super-maxim: Be perspicuous. 2) Sub-maxim:
a) Avoid obscurity of expression. b) Avoid ambiguity.
c) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). d) Be orderly.
In the communication, someone does not always obey the cooperative principle. Although the people seem to try to be cooperative, but potentially they produce the violation of maxims. The violation of maxim is happened when the speaker knows that the hearer will not understand all information that are being talked (Cutting, 2002: 40). There are the discussions about violating maxims in the communication as follow (Cutting, 2002: 40-41):
a. Violating the maxim of quantity
10 b. Violating the maxim of quality
The conversation can violate the maxim of quantity if the speaker is not being sincere and giving the hearer wrong information.
c. Violating the maxim of relation
A speaker who violates the maxim of relation is seen that she does not talk related to the topic which is being discussed.
d. Violating the maxim of manner
The violating of the maxim of manner happens when a speaker gives the ambiguous information to the hearer. The sentences are not orderly arranged and certainly difficult to be understood.
G. Graduating Paper Outline
The paper consists of five chapters. Each chapter will be discussed as follows:
Chapter I tells about introduction, which consists of background of the research, research questions, objectives of the research, benefits of the research, limitation of the research, definition of key terms, and graduating paper outline.
11
Chapter III extends the methodology of research. It discusses type of the research, research approach, data source, respondent of the research, method of collecting data and technique of analyzing data.
Chapter IV presents the research findings of data followed by the discussion that could be derived from the analysis. It consists of distribution and maxim analysis of teachers’ corrective feedback.
12
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this chapter, the researcher writes the theories that have correlation with the research. They consist of review of related researcher, definition of pragmatics, concept of utterance, theory of feedback and corrective feedback, and implicature which contains cooperative principles in pragmatics. Thus, they are expected to assist the process of the graduating paper.
A. Review of Related Researcher
The researcher starts to discuss some previous work related to the pragmatic study and the analysis of corrective feedback. Firstly, Esmaeili (2014) conducts a research about the study of corrective feedback and learner’s uptake in classroom interactions. She described and analyzed the patterns of corrective feedback utilized by Iranian teachers and the learners’ uptake and
repair of their errors. She also analyzed the achievement of the learners’ uptake as based on the teachers’ corrective feedback. She concluded that all the six
corrective feedback’s types suggested by Lyster and Ranta (1997) were used
with different frequencies by the teachers. There is also the other corrective feedback’s type used by teachers. Moreover, she concluded that the most
frequent type of corrective feedback does not always achieve the most effective way of learners’ uptake.
13
Rascals Save the Day” Movie. She observed about the violated conversation
principles, the most dominant of the conversation principle, and the contextual meaning of the conversational implicature used in that movie. She concluded that not all conversation is going well. Sometimes there is an implicit meaning in the utterance that should be understood more by the hearer.
Based on the review above, the researcher would analyze the different topic from both previous researchers. Here, the researcher conducts the research about the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback on English teaching in Public
Junior High School 9 Salatiga. This research would be focus on analyzing the types and the maxim analysis of the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback. Meanwhile, this research aims to find out and discusses them deeper in order to know the types of corrective feedback used by teachers based on the theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) and the maxim analysis based on Grice’s theory (1989).
B. Definition of Pragmatics
This research uses a pragmatic approach to analyze the teachers’ spoken
corrective feedback in the English classroom. According to Parker (1946: 11, as cited in Chotimah, 2015: 9-10), pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves.
14
account of language understanding”. Here, he declares that pragmatics
elaborates the meaning of language itself related to the situation and the term of language understanding is related to producing inferences to what is said and assumed before.
Similar to Levinson, Yule (1994: 3) defines “pragmatics is the study of
contextual meaning. It requires a consideration of how the speakers organize what they want to say accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under what circumstance”. He also states that pragmatics is the study of the
relationships between linguistic forms and the users, exactly speakers, of those forms (1994: 4). Here, linguistics form means the words or phrases or utterances produced by the human.
Mey (2001: 6) similarly states that pragmatics is the study of how people use language in communication accordance with the circumstance in society. The focus of pragmatics, consequently, does not only describe the way humans use their language but also involves social context which covers.
Pragmatics also discusses the utterance meaning or sentence used in communication between the speaker and the hearer. As stated by Adisutrisno (2008: 63), “pragmatics is the study of utterance’s meaning, sentences which
are used in communication, and also the study of meaning in language interaction between a speaker and a hearer”.
Based on the explanations above, pragmatics more focuses on the meaning of speakers’ utterances rather than on the meaning of words or
15
meaning, contextual meaning, how more gets communicated than is said and the expression of relative distance.
The study of pragmatics is quite interesting. It is in line with linguistics and sociolinguistics, dealing with how someone produces utterances, how the speakers clarify the meaning of their utterances, and how the circumstance around the speaker happened are learned here. Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it discusses how people make sense of each other linguistically, but it can be a frustrating area of study because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.
However, the researcher quite agrees with the definition of pragmatics as stated by Yule and Mey above. They define that pragmatics learns about how speakers express their utterances according to their assumptions of language by considering the circumstance. However, the researcher will use this concept to assist accomplishing the analysis of the research.
In addition, according to the explanation above, pragmatics frequently involves the study about utterances produced by the speakers. It is appealing. Because of the utterance is the object of pragmatics, that is the reason why the researcher will analyze the utterance using a pragmatic approach and the researcher focuses on one of the utterance’s type, called feedback. For more
16 C. Concept of Utterance
1. Definition of Utterance
One of the main purposes of this research is to analyze the utterances which are produced by the teacher in English teaching and merely contains feedback. According to Leech (1983: 14), “the utterances are the elements
whose meaning studied in pragmatics”. In linguistics, an utterance is a unit
of speech. The term ‘utterance’ refers to the product of a verbal act that may
consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clauses combination spoken in context (Carter and McCarthy, 2006).
More detailed, Hurford et al. (2007: 16) define:
17
the speaker in the communication to express their thought. A sentence can take utterance form, but not every utterance is a sentence.
2. Kinds of Utterance
There are several kinds of utterance and their functions (Adisutrisno, 2008: 67-68) as follow:
a. Declarative utterance
These utterances have the function to make the statement and give information.
For example:
Geoffrey : On Monday next week I will fly to Honolulu. I got a scholarship to study for a Master’s Degree in
Linguistics at the University of Hawaii. Alice : That is good news. I wish you Good Luck. Geoffrey : Thank you very much.
b. Interrogative utterances
These are the utterances to make questions. For example:
Lewis : Did your brother pass his final examination? Astrid : Yes, he did. He passed with a scoring grade.
18 c. Imperative utterances
The function of these utterances is to commands or requests. For example:
Gregory : Would you be so kind as to help me? I am carrying a heavy book.
Mathews : It is my pleasure. d. Exclamative utterances
These are utterances to exclaim surprise or delight. For example:
Pamela : What a brilliant idea you have! Nancy : Thank you for your compliment.
Based on the explanation of the utterance’s kinds above, there are
several functions of utterance in communication. They appear in a particular event. Here, the researcher assumes that an utterance can have the form of a feedback. So, there is an utterance in a feedback produced by the speaker, such as the form of feedback to give information, question, or request.
19 D. Feedback
1. Definition of Feedback
Feedback is the specific descriptions and suggestions which are given to a particular student’s work. Kluger and DeNisi (1996: 255) define
feedback as “actions taken by an external agent to provide information
regarding some aspects of one’s task performance”. This definition clearly puts emphasis on an external agent and performance. An external agent can be the teacher, whereas the classroom’s performances involve the learning,
the achievement, or the attitudes about the “work” that is being taught.
More detailed, Ellis (2009: 3) states that feedback is seen as contributing to language learning as a means of motivating the students and determining the linguistic accuracy. As supporting the language learning process, feedback typically can be consisted of constructive critique and advice, but could also be behavior, social interactions, and praise such as “Good job!” (Hattie, 2011: 1).
Feedback can be positive or negative. Based on Ellis (2009: 3), feedback has two types based on the teacher. There are positive and negative feedbacks. Positive feedback explains that the students’ responses
to an activity of any target language are correct. Here, the teacher provides the good feedback to appreciate students’ effort, such as saying “Good job”,
“Yes”, or “Right”. In this condition, the students can follow the learning
20
According to Ellis (2009: 3), there are some theories that discuss positive feedback produced by the teacher. First, in pedagogical theory, positive feedback is an important and effective way to support the students and excite the motivation in learning. When the students have comprehended a specific content and they receive an appreciation from their teacher, it will trigger their motivation to continue learning. Being different with the first concept of positive feedback, on the second theory, in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) states that teacher’s positive feedback has a little attention in the learning process. It is caused by the ambiguity of the feedback in the classroom interaction. For example, when a teacher says “Good” or “Yes”, do not always indicate that the student is correct. These responses may merely as a beginning to correct the student’s response or
modify the student’s utterance when they make a mistake. So, positive
feedback does not always give the best solution in the class because it is frequently ambiguous. Thus, it needs more analysis in order to get the accurate intention of the feedback.
Negative feedback indicates that the student’s utterance is far from
the linguistic correctness. The students lack in comprehending the target language. So, the teacher provides feedback to correct the mistake of the student. Thus, the teacher’s feedback that corrects the student’s mistake
called negative feedback and corrective feedback is one of the branches of negative feedback (Loewen, 2012: 24).
For example:
21 Teacher : Do we say the elephant?
The example above shows that the student lacks producing the sound which is opposite with the vowel sound. So, the teacher provides correction in order to give the opportunity for the student to correct his mistake.
2. Corrective Feedback
a. Definition of Corrective Feedback
The teacher’s corrective feedback can be defined as ‘a treatment
of error’ which is produced by the students. The term “treatment of
error” refers toany teacher’s behavior following an error that minimally
attempts to tell the students about the fact of error they made (Chaudron, 1988, in Tatawy, 2002: 1). The behavior does not only provide directly the corrective form of the error, but sometimes the teacher also makes the significant effort to elicit a revised student response. This second form allows the students to make a correction by themselves. Thus, corrective feedback is expected to eliminate the students’ error for the
target language.
Lightbown and Spada (1999, in Tatawy, 2002: 1) define corrective feedback as:
22
Here, Lightbown and Spada denote the way of teacher’s
corrective feedback in three types. The teacher may use the implicit, explicit or metalinguistic information to correct the students’ error. It is
also completed by the example of the correction form from each type.
Furthermore, Loewen (2012: 24) develops the meaning of corrective feedbacks. Corrective feedback also known as negative feedback is as information given by the teacher to the learners in their production of errors of their second language production. Here, the information can be oral or written feedback. By this action, the students are given the opportunity to revise their wrong response and understand about the error that they have made. Then, those errors are hoped to do not happen in the next process of learning.
As explained above, corrective feedback takes the form of a response to a student’s utterance which contains a linguistic error. The
23
This is an example of the parts of corrective feedback conducted by Ellis and Sheen (2006: 581):
S1 : What do you spend with your wife? T : What?
S1 : What do you spend your extra time with your wife? T : Ah, how do you spend?
S2 : How do you spend
The example above shows three parts of corrective feedback. The first student commits the error, then the teacher tries to give feedback. Because there is still a wrong response, the teacher gives the correct answer. Then, the second student can apply the correct form as the current explanation from the teacher.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that corrective feedback is any correction forms which are given by the teacher to the students when they perform a linguistic error of the target language. The goal of this treatment is to eliminate the students’ error
which may happen to the next learning process. Thus, the students truly understand the correct linguistic form and habitually use it.
b. Strategies and Types of Corrective Feedback
Ellis (2012: 139) defines the strategies of corrective feedback in two dimensions. He notes that some teacher’s corrective moves involve
24
Table 2.1 Two dimensions of corrective feedback’s strategies
Implicit Explicit
Input-providing Recast Explicit correction Output-The first dimension horizontally consists of input-providing and output-prompting strategies. The input-providing strategies are recast and explicit correction and the output-prompting strategies are repetition, clarification request, metalinguistic signal, elicitation, and paralinguistic signal. The second dimension vertically consists of implicit and explicit strategies. The implicit strategies are recast, clarification request, and repetition and the explicit strategies are explicit correction, metalinguistic signal, and elicitation.
Strategies can be input-providing. It means that the correct form is given to the student without prompt to correct by themselves. They can also be output-prompting, or the students are prompted to self-correct, so they are given the opportunity to make correction by themselves from the error they have made.
Another dimension is categorized into implicit and explicit strategies. Implicit corrective feedback means that teacher does not give the direct correction that indicates the student’s error or the corrective
25
feedback, teacher clearly indicates the student’s error then the corrective
force is overt.
For a complete information, Lyster and Ranta (1997: 46-49) elaborate each type of corrective feedback as follow:
Table 2.2 Types of teachers’ corrective feedback
No. indicates an error of the student’s utterance and provides the correct form. incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates
The teacher indicates that he or she has not
26 4.
Meta-linguistic signal
The teacher provides questions, comments, or information related to the formation of the
student’s utterance
without explicitly providing the correct form. (For example,
5. Elicitation The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student (1) by asking questions, (2) by pausing to allow the student to complete teacher’s utterance, or (3) by asking students to reformulate the utterance. Elicitation questions differ from questions that are
defined as
metalinguistic signal in that they require more than a yes or no response.
S: When the rain came, the children start to stop their games. adjusts intonation to draw student’s attention
Those are the types of corrective feedbacks’ strategies which are
produced by the teacher to correct the student’s error in the learning
27
c. Student’s Error and Mistake
Student’s error and mistake have a correlation with teacher’s
corrective feedback in the matter of something which is corrected. In teaching and learning process, the teachers often meet the mistake produced by the students. It is normal because the mistake is one of the processes of the student in gaining the goal of learning. However, the teacher should face it wisely. On the other hand, by knowing the students’ mistake, the teacher is also helped to indicate the students’
difficulties during the learning. In the teaching and learning process, there are two terms which have different meaning between “mistake”
and “error”.
Corder (1967, in Ellis, 2009: 6) explains that an error is a result of lack of knowledge which indicates a gap in competence. While a mistake takes place as a failure’s process of presenting a good
performance in the learning process. Sometimes, it is caused by a result of competing goals, limitations of memory, and lack of self-control. Both of error and mistake could be the content of students’ utterance,
the linguistic correctness of utterance, grammatical error of an utterance, and others.
Hedge (2000, in Alqahtani, 2011: 216) similarly says, “error
28
More detailed, Brown (2000: 217) states that mistake refers to a performance error that indicates a “slip” of the tongue, where the speaker fails to speak regularly and correctly. In a mistake, the reality shows that the students actually have recognized, known, and comprehended the certain pattern in a language they use. But, the mistakes appear because of a performance mistake in memorizing, even the physical factor such as fatigue and uncontrolled emotion. While an error is not caused by the failure of students in the slip of tongue, but it appears because the students have not yet recognized, known, and comprehended the pattern they used. Furthermore, “an error cannot be
self-corrected, while a mistake can be self-corrected if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker” (James, 1998, in Brown, 2000: 217).
Based on the explanation above, knowing the difference between mistake and error is important because an error performance is based on two different conditions. The mistake occurs to ‘error in performance’ and an error occurs to ‘error incompetence’. Thus,
mistakes can be concluded that the student knows the system but fails to use it, while the errors are caused by the student’s incorrect
comprehension or lack of knowledge.
About what should be corrected between error and mistake, the thing that should be corrected clearly is ‘error’ rather than ‘mistake’. Correcting students’ errors is necessary in order to help students
29
lets them because it happened unconsciously and the students can correct their mistakes by themselves.
In addition, the errors are related to the corrective feedback produced by the teacher. The teacher will produce corrective feedback to correct the students’ errors. Here, the researcher intends to analyze
deeply about the corrective feedback through one of the pragmatic principle’s theory. The corrective feedbacks will be analyzed using
maxims which are stated by Grice’s theory which the researcher will
discuss further in the next section.
E. Implicature
Sometimes, feedbacks do not always have the significant meaning. Like an utterance which is produced by someone, it usually has the other meaning which is not seen in the utterance itself. This is called an implicature. According to Yule (1996: 35), implicature is an additional meaning of an utterance which more than just what the words mean, but still can be delivered in a communication. Furthermore, Horn (2006: 3) states that “implicature is a
component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said.” For example, a teacher’s
utterance of “The flowers in front of the class are withered!” may imply that the
teacher does not only state that he looks the wilted plants in front of the class, but also more than that, he wants the students to water and look after them regularly. So, implicature is an additional meaning of speaker’s utterance that
30
According to Yule (1996: 40-45), there are two types of implicature, conversational implicature and conventional implicature. Both of them will be explained widely as follow:
1. Conversational Implicature
This implicature is derived from a general principle of conversation and a number of maxims, which the speaker will normally obey. Conversational implicature is classified into generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature as described below.
a. Generalized Conversational Implicature
It is an implicature that arises without any particular context or background knowledge of special scenario being necessary to make inferences.
For example:
Willy : Did you invite Bella and Cathy? Seline : I invited Bella.
Willy calculates the implicature that Seline just invites Bella. So, when making an inference which be cooperated with the conversation, Willy knows that Seline does not invite Cathy.
b. Particularized Conversational Implicature
31 For example:
Ricky : Hey, coming to the wild party tonight? Peter : My parents are visiting.
That conversation shows the example of using maxim of relation. It explains that Peter’s response seems not relevant. But, in order to make
relevant, Ricky must use some assumed knowledge that Peter has more important thing to do than coming to the party. Peter will spend his time with his parents, consequently, he does not come to the wild party.
c. Cooperative Principle
Implicatures can be established by envisaging four conversational rules or ‘Maxims’ comprised by the Cooperative
Principle. As stated by Grice (1989: 26), “cooperative principle makes
32
There are four maxims as stated by Grice (1989: 26-27) as follow:
1. Maxim of Quantity
The principle theory of this maxim is serving the enough answers like what the people want to know. It gives the most helpful amount of information. This maxim is not too much, not too little, but just right as stated by Grice as follow:
a) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
b) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
For example:
Girl : Why did you sell your mobile phone?
Boy : As you probably know, I need much money to pay the bill.
This conversation provides an enough information to the questioner.
2. Maxim of Quality
33
Maxim of quality is divided into super-maxim and sub-maxim as follow:
a) Super-maxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true. b) Sub-maxim:
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. For example:
The boy : I will ring you tomorrow afternoon then.
The girl : Emm, I shall be there as far as I know, and the meantime has a word with Mom and Dad if they are free.
The girl says ‘as far as I know’, meaning ‘I cannot be totally sure if
this is true’, so that if the boy rings up and finds that the girl is not
there, the girl is protected from accusations of lying by the fact that she did make it clear that she was uncertain. However, most hearers assume that speakers are not lying and most speakers know that.
3. Maxim of Relation
34
Here, the researcher uses the example of the maxim of relation illustrated by Cutting (2002: 35).
For example:
Ronald : There is somebody at the door. Dicky : I’m in the bath.
When Ronald says to Dicky that there is someone coming in front of their house, Ronald hopes that Dicky is available to open the door. But in the fact, Dicky is still in the bathroom. Here, Dicky’s answer
implies that he hopes Ronald understanding about where Dicky is at that time, so Dicky cannot open the door and see who comes. However, the relevancy between speakers is not always happened on the utterance’s meaning, but also in the additionally conveyed
meaning of the utterance.
4. Maxim of Manner
This maxim describes what the speaker’s saying is in the clearest, briefest, and most orderly manner. For example, if the speaker does not present what she says in a brief order for her argument, so she can be failed in a conversation. If the speaker’s statement is ambiguous, so she can lose control and the hearer will be not comfortable to discuss with her. This maxim is divided into super-maxim and sub-maxim as follow:
35
a) Avoid obscurity of expression. b) Avoid ambiguity.
c) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). d) Be orderly.
For example: This may be a bit confused, but I remember being
in a car.
That passage shows the use of the maxim of manner. It shows that although he is being in the bad condition, he tells his condition clearly, briefly, and orderly.
d. Violation of Maxims
In the communication, someone does not always obey the cooperative principles. Although the people seem to try to be cooperative, but potentially they produce the violation of maxims. The violation of maxim happens when the speaker knows that the hearer will not understand all information that are being talked (Cutting, 2002: 40). There are the discussions about violating maxims in the communication as follow (Cutting, 2002: 40-41):
1) Violating the maxim of quantity
If the speaker violates the maxim of quantity, he or she does not give the hearer enough information to know what is being talked about, because the speaker does not want the hearer to know the full information.
36
Roger : Does your dog bite? Dania : No.
Roger : (Bends down to stroke it and gets bitten) Ow! You said your dog doesn’t bite!
Dania : That isn’t my dog.
That conversation shows that Roger is standing up close to the dog. He is asking to Dania about the dog in front of them and not Dania’s
dog at home. It seems that Dania does not give him enough information about her dog, for reasons best known to herself.
2) Violating the maxim of quality
The conversation can violate the maxim of quality if the speaker is not being sincere and giving the hearer wrong information.
For example:
Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling? Wife : Thirty-five pounds (told a lie).
That conversation shows that the wife tells a lie about the real price of the dress.
3) Violating the maxim of relation
A speaker who violates the maxim of relation indicates that she does not talk related to the topic which is being discussed.
37
Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling?
Wife : I know, let’s go out tonight. Now, where would you like to go?
On that conversation, the wife distracts his husband to do not talk about the cost of the dress and she intentionally changes the topic of the communication.
4) Violating the maxim of manner
The violation of the maxim of manner happens when a speaker gives the ambiguous information to the hearer. The sentences are not orderly arranged and certainly difficult to be understood.
For example:
Lyster : What would the other people say?
Mey : Ah, well I don’t know. I wouldn’t like to repeat it
because I don’t really believe half of what they are
saying. They just get a fixed thing into their mind. On that conversation, Mey gives an obscure reference to the people’s opinions and in her statement of ‘a fixed thing’ contains a
general noun containing vague reference. She may be using these expressions to avoid giving a brief and orderly answer, for the moment.
38
violation of the maxim of quantity and the maxim of relation to the collected data.
2. Conventional Implicature
Conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or maxims. It is associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meaning when those words are used (Yule, 1996: 45). The English conjunction “but” is one of this words. The interpretation of any
utterance of the type p but q will be based on the conjunction p & q plus an implicature of ‘contrast’ between the information in q.
For example:
(1) Mary suggested black, but I chose white. (2) Mary suggested black and I chose white. The explanation:
In the sentence (1) shows the pattern of p >< q (Mary suggested black (=p) and I chose one (=q)). However, it has similar meaning with the sentence (2) which p & q plus implicature of p is contrast to q.
That sentence shows that something suggested by Mary is contrasted with the speaker’s choosing of white via the conventional implicature of
but.
Furthermore, Grice (1961, in Levinson, 1983: 127) mentions an example: the word but has the same truth-conditional content as the word
and, with an additional conventional implicature to the effect that there is
39 For example:
(3) He is an Englishman, but he is brave.
(4) He is an Englishman, and he is brave.
According to Grice, sentence (3) is similar to sentence (4). However, the
use of but in (3) and and in (4) results in different implicature. Example (3) may have same meaning as sentence (5) as follow:
(5) His being brave follows from his being English.
This is what is meant by conventional implicature because a specific word
40
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, there are six sections discussed. They are type of the research, research approach, data source, respondent of the research, method of collecting data and technique of analyzing data. The explanation of each point will be discussed further below.
A. Type of the Research
The type of this research is descriptive qualitative research and the researcher uses the statistical number to present the data analysis. Arikunto says that descriptive research is conducted by describing an event of the social phenomena (1998: 12). This research does not formulate the hypothesis in the process of conducting the research (Arikunto, 1998: 245).
According to Kothari (2004: 3) defines that qualitative research concerns the phenomena related to the human behavior. As such, by investigating the reasons for why people do a certain thing as a habit in order to discover the motives of human behavior.
41
Furthermore, according to Creswell (2007: 37), “qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of the theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”. It means that qualitative research
has any regular steps within its practice and involves the overview of human behavior in the society.
In presenting the data analysis, the researcher provides the statistical number in the table and gives a percentage as the measurement of the analysis. It seems to combine the qualitative method with the quantitative method, but this research is still descriptive qualitative research. As stated by Arikunto (1998: 246), the qualitative data in a qualitative research frequently are quantified in statistical number. It intends to facilitate the affiliation of two or more variable data in order to help the research to be easier understood and presented. Then, the result of the data analysis will be turned into a qualitative form. This technique is called descriptive qualitative technique with a percentage.
B. Research Approach
42
research, the researcher focuses analyzing data by using Grice’s theory about
maxim in communication.
C. Data Source
Data source is the subject from which the data are obtained (Arikunto, 2010: 172). The data source of this research is the conversation between teacher and students during the learning process in the English class of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga in the academic year of 2016/2017. The conversation performs an activity where the students are given question from the teacher, then the teacher gives spoken corrective feedback if the students make an error answer. Furthermore, as stated by Chaudron (1988, in Tatawy, 2002: 1) about the theory of corrective feedback, corrective feedback is produced by the teacher when the students make an error. Thus, those conversations will be analyzed using Grice’s theory about maxim and using theory from Lyster and
Ranta (1997) about the types of corrective feedback produced by teachers (see Chapter II).
D. Respondent of the Research
The respondents of this research are two English teachers of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga.
E. Method of Collecting Data
43
‘document’ that means the written objects. In conducting the method of
documentation, the researcher inquires the written objects such as the books, magazine, newspaper, the document, the daily note and historic inscription. The instrument of this method which the researcher uses in this research is a non-test instrument that performs document as the data. The document is gained by recording the conversation between the teacher and the students in the teaching and learning process as the technique of collecting data.
There are the steps that are used to collect data as follow:
1. The researcher contacted and took permission from two English teachers of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga to observe them in the class about the use of corrective feedback.
2. The researcher decided to observe four classes to obtain the data needed. 3. The researcher asked both teachers’ schedule and decided the specific
time and day to take observation in the class.
4. The researcher started to observe two classes from the first teacher. Then the observation was continued for the next two classes from the second teacher.
5. The researcher recorded the interaction between teacher and students during the learning process in the class for the duration of 2 x 40 minutes for each class.
6. The researcher merely collected the data from the conversation between teacher and students which only consist of teacher’s spoken corrective
44 F. Technique of Analyzing Data
To analyze the data collected in this research, the researcher has some procedures as follow:
1. The researcher identified the recorded data as the collected data which consist of conversations between teacher and students.
2. The researcher transcribed the recorded data which performed the teacher’s spoken corrective feedback and the error produced by
students.
3. The researcher classified the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback into two categories. There are two categories of classifying the data as follow:
a. The first category was classifying the collected data into the analysis of maxim. They contained the analysis of the violation of maxim of quantity, the violation of maxim of relation, the violation of both of maxims, and none violation of both maxims using Grice’s theory (1989) and Cutting (2002) (see Chapter II).
b. The second category was classifying the collected data into the distribution of the corrective feedback’s types then they are analyzed using theory from Lyster and Ranta (1997) (see Chapter II).
4. After the data was analyzed, the researcher rearranged the data by coding as the instrument used to serve the data analysis.
45
of teachers’ corrective feedback and the code for the maxims’ analysis of
teachers’ corrective feedback as shown in table 3.1 and 3.2.
Table 3.1 Coding of the Kinds of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
Field Code Information
First CFEC Corrective Feedback – Explicit Correction CFRC Corrective Feedback – Recast
CFCR Corrective Feedback – Clarification Request CFMS Corrective Feedback – Metalinguistic signal CFEL Corrective Feedback – Elicitation
CFRP Corrective Feedback – Repetition
Second A, B, C, … The series of corrective feedback as specified in the first field
Third 001,002,003, … The serial number of the whole collected data
For example:
CFEC-A001 represent the data of teacher’s corrective feedback with the type of explicit correction, in series A of all explicit correction’s types in the data
46
Table 3.2 Coding of the Maxims’ Analysis of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
Field Code Information
First CFMQ Corrective Feedback which violates the maxim of quantity
CFMR Corrective Feedback which violates the maxim of relation
CFNMQR Corrective Feedback which does not violate both maxims of quantity and relation
Second A, B, C, … The series of violation as specified in the first field
Third 001,002,003, … The serial number of the whole collected data
For example:
CFMQ-A001 represents the data of teacher’s corrective feedback which violates maxim of quantity in series A of all the violating’s type collected as
47
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
In this chapter, the researcher presents the answers to the research questions which have been explained in chapter I. The research questions are: what the types of spoken corrective feedback produced by the teachers in English teaching of
Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga and how the violation of maxim of quantity
and maxim of relation of the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback in English
teaching of Public Junior High School 9 Salatiga. In order to be more focus, the
researcher limits the maxim analysis of the violation of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation in the process of analyzing data.
There are the findings of the data analysis, as follow: A. Distribution of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
48
Each example of six types of corrective feedback is given below. (1) CFEC-A001
Student : Where is the boy’s from?
Teacher : Where is the boy. Before, we used ‘the boy’s name’ because we asked the name. You can ask him by saying “where is the
boy from?”, or because you have known his name so you can
say, “where is Reza from?”
Example (1) is the example of corrective feedback which has the type of “Explicit correction”. In that conversation, the student is seen asking a
question to his friend. But, he produces an error in his utterance. Then, the teacher directly indicates the student’s error and provides the correct form.
(2) CFRC-A003
Teacher : If we want to make two cheese fried eggs, how much cooking oil do we need?
Student : Ten spoon, ten spoon frying oil. Teacher : Yeah. Ten spoons full of frying oil.
Example (2) is the corrective feedback which uses the type of “Recast”. The conversation above shows that the teacher reformulates the student’s
49 (3) CFCR-B025
Student 1 : What is your pin BB?
Student 2 : My pin not to let.
Teacher : What is it?
Student2 : (in Bahasa) Tidak hafal.
Teacher : Oh. I do not remember my pin BB. Student 2 : I do not remember my pin BB.
On the example (3) indicates the corrective feedback which uses the type of “Clarification request”. In the conversation above shows that the second
student makes an error when he answers the question from his partner. His utterance cannot be understood well by the teacher. Then the teacher is seen to clarify what the student says by asking a question in order to give the chance to the student to reformulate his utterance.
(4) CFMS-A026
Teacher : How much water do you need to make coffee? Student 1 : One hundred.
Teacher : One hundred only?
Student 2 : One hundred and fifty milliliters.
The example (4) indicates the corrective feedback which uses the type of “Metalinguistic signal”. The conversation shows that a teacher is asking a
question to the student, but the student’s answer is not completed. Then the teacher provides question related to the formation of the student’s utterance
50 (5) CFEL-F033
Student 1 : How old are you? Student 2 : I am thirty years old. Teacher : Thirty or thirteen? Student 2 : Thirty.
Teacher : Thirty? So you are thirty years old? Student 2 : Thirteen.
Teacher : Please repeat!
Student 2 : I am thirteen years old.
Teacher : . Repeat again! I am… Student 2 : I am thirty
Teacher : Thirteen years old. Repeat, please! Student 2 : I am thirteen years old.
The example (5) above shows the corrective feedback which uses the type of “Elicitation”. The conversation seems that there is a dialogue where the
first student is asking a question for his partner or the second student. The second student shows that he produces an error of his utterance. Then the teacher directly elicits the correct form of the student’s utterance by asking
the question, pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s
utterance and asking the student to reformulate the utterance. Different from the question which is used in metalinguistic signal’s type where it requires
51 (6) CFRP-A035
Teacher : How much cooking oil do you need?
Student : Five cooking oil.
Teacher : Five cooking oil???
Student : Five spoons cooking oil.
Teacher : Yeah. Five spoons full of cooking oil.
The example (6) shows the conversation which uses corrective feedback’s type of “Repetition”. The conversation happened between the teacher and
the student where the student is being asked by the teacher and the student produces an error in his answer. The teacher corrects it by repeating the pppstudent’s error and adjusting the intonation to indicate the student’s
error. This correction is accepted by the student and he can reformulate the correct form.
Furthermore, based on the theory of corrective feedback’s types (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) which explains six types, in this data, the researcher finds all examples of each type. The finding shows that the most frequently used is Recast (60%) and the least used is Repetition (2.86%).
52
supported scaffolding which helps the students to take apart in the learning process when the target language is out of their abilities at this time. It is also used when the teachers are on the time limitation of classes (Ellis, 2012: 141).
Based on that theory as stated by Ellis above (2012: 141), the researcher assumed that recast is effective strategy to facilitate the communication of the difficult material and can be easily understood by the students. It is also brief in practicing, so it is appropriate to be used for the limited time in a class because the teacher merely reformulates the correct form of the student’s utterance
without indicates the student’s error. However, the time limitation of classes
often happens in the teaching and learning process. On the other hand, Recast shows that the teacher gives a chance to the student to recognize the error by themselves. So, this type indirectly can help the students correcting their errors on the limited time in the class and developing their abilities.
Therefore, Repetition (2.86%) is the least appear which the researcher assumed that this type is relatively difficult to be understood by the students because the teacher just repeats the student’s utterance and gives a high
intonation to indicate the student’s error. If the students cannot understand the
teacher’s utterance and correct the error by themselves, the learning process will
be going slowly. Here, the teacher might have considered the student’s ability
53
Based on the explanation above, there is the distribution of the types of corrective feedback shown in table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Distribution of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
No. Types of Corrective
Feedback Number
Percentage (%)
1. Explicit correction 2 5.71
2. Recast 21 60
3. Clarification Request 2 5.71
4. Metalinguistic signal 2 5.71
5. Elicitation 7 20
6. Repetition 1 2.86
Total 35 100
B. Maxim Analysis of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
54 (1) CFMQ-A001
Student : What is favorite subject?
Teacher : Your.
Student : What… what is favorite… What is your favorite subject? The example (1) shows the conversation which the teacher violates maxim of quantity. This conversation shows that the teacher is correcting the student’s utterance which produces an error in arranging the question. But,
her correction is quite short and difficult to be understood by the student although it is still relevant to his utterance. The student is seen confused to reformulate his utterance. Here, it might because the teacher does not give clearer corrective feedback as is required.
(2) CFNMQR-L015
Teacher : If we want to make two cheese fried eggs, how much cooking oil do we need?
Student : Ten spoon, ten spoon frying oil.
Teacher : Yeah. Ten spoons full of frying oil.
The example (2) shows the conversation that does not violate both of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation. It is the conversation between teacher and the student which the teacher is asking a question to the student related to the material which is being learned. Here, the student produces clear answer although it contains a little grammatical error. Then the teacher gives corrective feedback by reformulating the student’s utterance which is still
55
The result shows that there is none of the violation of maxim of relation in the teachers’ spoken corrective feedback (0). The researcher assumed that the
teachers always produce the relevant utterances of corrective feedback given to their students during the teaching and learning process because the teachers stay focus on the topic which is being discussed. So, there are not any obstructions of their utterances accepted by the students and their utterances could be understood well by the students. However, the result also shows that the mostly collected data do not violate both of maxim of quantity and maxim of relation. The researcher assumed that both teachers produce as informative as is required and relevant information related to the teaching and learning process. The teachers are also aware of how to communicate well to deliver messages to their students. Therefore, they might choose their utterances carefully during the teaching and learning process, so the teachers are successful in communication with students. They also tend to obey the cooperative principles in communication as stated by Grice (1989) (see Chapter II). Here, the teachers have attempted to achieve a good communication with their students, so the students can understand the teachers’ corrective feedback and they are assisted
