ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 73
SPOKEN-LANGUAGE FEATURES IN CASUAL CONVERSATION
74 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)
them tend to be script-based which is considered as written text in which the conversation runs unnaturally.
Since this study mainly looks at the spoken language features in student‘s everyday conversation, we present a little bit more about it. Spoken text is characterized by several elements; context dependent, turn- taking organization, language as accompanying actions, language as process (dynamic structure). Context dependent stresses that the messages delivered are recovered by context in which not all information are explicitly stated, otherwise explaining all information is tended to be unnatural communication. Besides, the language usage depends on certain context of situation in which subject matter (field), participants involved (tenor), and channel (mode) contribute to develop ideal communication. Turn taking organization refers to the participant‘s attempt to get control to speak. In this case, conversation is made up of turns speakers alternate:
Participants in sequence takes chance to speak (participant A says something, then participant B, then participant A...). In the case of language as accompanying action, it concerns with the use of language as means to demonstrate particular activity, in such phase, the participants commonly use everyday lexis, non-standard grammar, and lexical sparse. In terms of language as process (dynamic structure), it portrays the main essence of communication is the interactive staging where the exchanging information that involves of various topics occurred, it is indicated by the existence of repetition certain lexical element, and opening and re-opening. By doing so, it is portrayed that the participants has embodied communicative conversation.
Furthermore, according to thornburry (2005) states that the spoken language features are characterized by four elements; spontaneity, interactivity, interpersonality, and coherence.
The element of spontaneity deals with the situation in which communication is developed in certain context of situation that all utterances or meanings used are produced naturally depends on the participants‘ minds, the feature of this element encompasses filled pause, repetitions, false start and backtracking, and incomplete utterances. The element of interactivity refers to the situation where the participants are involving in both verbal and non-verbal communication, they interact by taking turn, stay silence when the counterparts are speaking, interrupt at once and show their dis/agreement by producing certain back-channeling/discourse markers.
The element of interpersonality focuses on how people are behaving through the language usage, so that the essence of this feature is not merely as tool of exchanging the meaning, it is used to express interpersonal function that allows the participants to linkage the group solidarity.
While the element of coherence is about the connectedness of the elements above that leads the text in sequence order. In this sense, Coherence is seen as crucial aspect that develops communicative communication.
This study aims at analyzing the characteristics of spoken language feature in casual conversation that involves of spontaneity, interactivity, interpersonality, and coherence.
Methodology
This study is a spoken discourse analysis.
The data was obtained from the final assignment of Discourse Studies in which students were assigned to record casual conversation in approximately 15 minutes.
The students were in the second semester of graduate program in the 2016/2017 academic year. We randomly chose three recordings out of 24 to be analysed. The conversation transcriptions had been already enclosed by the students. Thus, it enabled us to do carry out data analysis. The units of analysis of this study involved turns and moves in the utterances produced by the interlocutors.
ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 75 They were analysed in terms of __ major
aspects of spoken language proposed by Thornburry (2005) embracing spontaneity, interactivity, interpersonality, and coherence.
To analyse those features in the conversations, coding was done, and the results of the analysis were presented in the tables in the form of numerical data to be interpreted.
Finding and Discussion Spontaneity Features
As casual conversation is produced with little or no time for planning, it involves spontaneous characteristics which can be realized in the forms of ‗one-clause-or- phrase-at-a‘ time construction, smaller runs, or chunks. The analysis result of spontaneity features is displayed in the following table.
Table 1. Spontaneity Features
Features
Frequency
Conv. 1 Conv. 2 Conv. 3
Filled Pauses 64 12 5
Repetitions 11 2 -
False Starts and Backtracking 17 2 -
Incomplete Utterance - - 19
Total 92 16 24
The table above portrays that most of the features occur in both conversation 1 and 2, but conversation 3 only shares few of them.
Some of the features are also absent in some conversations. In fact, Thornburry (2005) asserts that the segmentation into bite-sized chucks not only makes production easier, but it makes processing on the part of the listener easier too. The absence of incomplete utterance or repetition in some conversation,
for example, makes the conversation unnatural.
Interactivity Features
Casual conversation also allows the speaker to interact by taking turns, keeping silent when others are speaking, back-channeling, laughing, and even chuckling. Interactivity features embraces six points, and the analysis results shows the following results.
Table 2. Interactivity Features
Features Frequency
Conv. 1 Conv. 2 Conv. 3
Taking Turns 229 108 82
Keeping silent when others are speaking 207 108 82
Signaling interlocutor‘s amusement 17 1 15
Back-channeling 22 15 -
Overlapping 53 - -
Discourse Markers 77 41 24
Total 605 273 203
Interactivity features are easily found in the conversation, and they are distributed differently in terms of their proportion in each conversation. However, some of the features, back-channeling and overlapping, are missing in some conversation.
Interpersonality Features
Conversation is not simply the exchange of information, but also has interpersonal function. The finding of interpersonality features is displayed in the following table.
76 ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online)
Table 3. Interpersonality Features
Features Frequency
Conv. 1 Conv. 2 Conv. 3
Laughter, Chuckles 17 1 2
Hedges - 9 21
Vague Language 43 - 2
Markers 77 41 5
Repeating other words 17 - -
Exaggeration - - 19
Swearing words, Expletive - - 3
Total 154 51 52
The most features found in the conversations are markers, vague language, and hedges.
However, some features do not occur in the
conversation. In fact, the absence of speakers‘ involvement in can make the conversations run cold.
Coherence (negotiation features)
Features Frequency
Conv. 1 Conv. 2 Conv. 3
Interpersonal 140 86 56
Logico-semantic 86 101 57
Total 226 187 113
Conclusions
This study aims at analyzing the characteristics of spoken language feature in casual conversation that involves of spontaneity, interactivity, interpersonality, and coherence. Based on the finding and discussion above, it could be summarized as follows;
First, the three conversations above could be considered as spoken text, this finding is supported by the characteristic of spoken language feature that is proposed by Thornburry (2005). Second, the participants have used various feature of spoken language, however, some features such as Spontaneity (repetitions, false star and backtracking, and incomplete utterance); Interactivity (back-channeling, overlapping); Interpersonality (hedges, vague language, repeating other words, exaggeration, swearing word/expletive) are not fully used by the participants in all conversations. Third, based on previous finding, it could be significant evidence for teachers or lectures to raise EFL learners‘ awareness of spoken features in conversations. Thus, the students can develop their communicative competence as the native speakers of English do.
References
Brown, H.Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition.
NY: Pearson Education.
Cresswell, John. W. 1994. Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. London: SAGE Publication.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers.
Gerot, L and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Gerd Sabler.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Thornbury, Scott. 2005. Beyond the Sentence.
Macmillan: Macmillan
Martin J.R. and David Rose (2007) Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (Open Linguistics Series).
London: Continuum.
Miles, Mattew B., and Michael A Huberman.
1994. Qualitative Data Analysis.
California: SAGE Publication, Inc
ISSN 2580-1937 (Print); 2580-7528 (Online) 77