Dita Silitonga
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this part is intended to know what extent the students‘ ability in perceiving and producing sibilant sounds at second grade students of SMA Negeri 4 Pematangsiantar is. Here are the data of final result of students in comprehensing and producing.
Table 4.1 Student‘s Comprehension and Production Final Result
No. Students Tribes Comprehension Result Production Result Score Category Score Category
1 Reynanda Javanese 66,6 Good 60 Acceptable
2 M. Najhan Javanese 60 Acceptable 26,6 Poor
3 Desi Tobanese 86,6 Very Good 60 Acceptable
4 Aivata Tobanese 80 Good 60 Poor
5 Kezia Simalungunese 80 Good 40 Poor
6 Juan Simalungunese 86,6 Very Good 66,6 Good
Total 76,6 52,2
From the table above, it can be concluded that students‘ comprehension is more dominant rather than production. Reynanda has good comprehension but he has acceptable production. M. Najhan has acceptable comprehension in sibilant sounds but he has poor production in pronouncing words containing final-word sibilant sounds. Desi has very good comprehension and she has acceptable production. Aivata has good comprehension but he has poor production. Kezia is a good category in comprehensing English sibilant
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 113 sounds, but unfortunatelly she has poor production in pronouncing words containing final- word sibilant sounds. Juan has very good comprehension and he still has good production in pronounciation.
This research proved that sometimes comprehension is easier for human than production as Brown and Bellugi (1964:135) have noted that what young children understand (their C-representations) often do not match what they say (their P- representations): They understand ―fish‖ but say ‗fis‘. In other case, some students understand how to form plural well, but in fact they do not know how to communicate it.
For example, they understand ―I have two books‖, but to communicate, they say ―I have two book‖.
The most dominant error that occured on students‘ production is the sounds /z/. It means that student are difficult to pronounce /z/ in English final-word sibilant sounds.
Students often pronounce /s/ to say /z. In the other case, students also pronounce /s/
becomes /z/, and /ɪz/ becomes /ɪs/. It means that the pronounciations that the students produced are not consistent.
Based on the all discussion related to the findings of this research, it is interesting to note that most students have low ability in pronouncing English sibilant sounds, although they have good comprehension in English sibilant sounds. There are several possible explanation regarding this finding. Firstly, this might be caused by the Javanese and Bataknese only have /s/ and /ɪs/ sibilant sounds. That‘s why there are some errors happened while the students pronounce English sibilant sounds, for example they pronounce /s/ for /z/ and /ɪs/ for /ɪz/. The second possible reason might be the ability of the students themselves. In this case, the students who were involved in this research were still second semester students who have not learned speaking or English Phonology.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data analyzed and findings from three tribes, there are some conclusions to be drawn:
a. Javanese students‘ comprehensions are categorized to be acceptable to good.
Tobanese students‘ comprehensions are categorized to be good to very good.
Simalungunese students‘ comprehensions are categorized to be good to very good.
b. Javanese students‘ productions are categorized to be poor to acceptable. Tobanese students‘ comprehensions are categorized to be poor to acceptable. Simalungunese students‘ comprehensions are categorized to be poor to good.
c. The data presented that students‘ comprehension is more dominant rather than production. It is showed from the data that the comprehension average score (76,6) is higher than production average score (52,2).
d. Most students have low ability in pronouncing English sibilant sounds, although they have good comprehension in English sibilant sounds.
e. The most dominant error that occured on students‘ production is the sounds /z/. It means that student are difficult to pronounce /z/ in English final-word sibilant
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 114 sounds. Students often pronounce /s/ to say /z. In the other case, students also pronounce /s/ becomes /z/, and /ɪz/ becomes /ɪs/. It means that the pronounciations that the students produced are not consistent.
f. Many Tobanese, Simalungunese and Javanese students got difficulties when they pronounced the words containing final-word sibilant sounds /z/. It may concluded that it is because of the students‘ mother tongue (Bataknese and Javanese). There is big influence of local language in speaking or pronunciation of English sibilant sounds.
REFERENCES
Brown, R., & Bellugi, U. 1964. Three Processes in the Acquisition of Syntax. Harvard Educational Review.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. 2011. An Introduction to Language. Canada:
Cengage Learning.
Gilbert, J. B. 2005. ―Clear Speech: Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in North American English‖. Teacher‘s resource and assessmentbook (4th ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. 2007. How to teach English. Malaysia: Longman.
Izumi, S. 2001. ―Comprehension and Production: How are they relevant to language learning?‖. Proceeding of International Conference Centre. Kitakyushu, Japan:
Sophia University.
Palmatier, R. A. 1972. A Glossary for English Transformational Grammars. New York:
Appleton-Century-Croffs.
Sadrieh, S. 2014. The Production and Perception of English Sibilant Fricatives by Mandarin Speakers. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Sinurat, B. 2013. English Suprasegmentals. Pematangsiantar: FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen.
Sinurat, B. 2013. General British and American Speech Sounds. Medan: FKIP Universitas HKBP Nommensen.
Sumner, M. 2013. A Phonetic Explanation of Pronunciation Variant Effects.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4807432/, downloaded on February, 3rd 2018) Tarigan, H. G. 1985. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 115