109
42 R: responding: 109 Teacher
i The recorder – it works.
reply: answer R: rejoinder:
110 Albert
i Is it on or off?
challenging:
rebounding
In turn 110, Albert directly questioned the veracity of the prior information given by the teacher. He asked whether the recorder was on or off. This kind of
challenging speech function is called rebounding.
43R: respond: 128
Teacher i Farmer can go to school too.
confronting:
contradict ii
== No
problem.
R: rejoinder: 129
Bela i == see?
challenge:
detaching
Bela’s speech in turn 129 was intended to terminate interaction. Previously Albert argued that farmer could not go to school. When the teacher explained that
farmer could also go to school, Bela challenged Albert’s proposition before, but she wanted to stop the discussion on farmer as well.
44C: prolong: 189b Bela
i So I help him.
enhance
110
R: responding: 190 Teacher
i Good.
registering R: rejoinder:
191a Albert i I can not help.
challenge:
countering
C: prolong 191b
ii because I’m still finish my job to
Enhance make the river.
Albert’s speech in turn 191a gave an information of his rejection to Bela and the teacher’s proposition. When Bela could help Yane and the teacher praised
Bela for what she had done, Albert countered information that he could not help Yane. The reason why Albert could not help Yane was given in the following
move. Albert’s move in 191a is called countering.
45R: rejoinder: 193
Ken-ken i == He needs help, right?
tracking:
probing.
R: rejoinder: 194
Albert i == I don’t want to help him.
challenging:
refute
Albert’s speech in turn 194 provides a refusal to Ken-ken’s proposition in the prior move. He explicitly said that he did not want to help Yane when there is
111
a statement Yane needed help. He disproved the proposition. It is a refute speech function, another type of challenging speech function.
4.2.2 Linguistic Features in Children’s Spoken Interaction 4.2.2.1 Number of Turns
From Table 4.1, it can be seen that the 6 participants of the spoken interaction in the classroom interaction share the turn of speaking. All of them
have the opportunity to talk, to take turn in the interaction. However, the number of turns reveals the information that there is a remarkably unevenness in the
opportunity to talk. The teacher took turn for 126 times 41.72, one-third of the floor, indicated that she was the dominant speaker of the interaction. The rest of
the turn was divided almost equally to the students – Albert took turn for 39 times 12.91; Anthony, 38 12.58; Bela, 49 16.62; Ken-ken, 30 9.93; and
Satria, 20 6.62. Of the 5 students, Bela is considered as the talk-active student since she took turn more frequently compared to her 4 friends. Satria, on the other
hand, is judged to be the one who took less turn. Albert, Anthony, and Ken-ken were perceived to have almost equal opportunity to participate in the interaction.
The distribution of turns among the 6 participants in the study is not something extraordinary. Teacher as the manager of the class and the caretaker
only involved in one-third of the class portion. It means that students still have two-third of the class opportunity, a bigger portion than the teacher has. This fact
gives an understanding that the students eagerly participated in the interaction. They shared almost similar number of turns meaning that they had almost the
