EXCHANGE STRUCTURES BETWEEN SELLERS AND BUYERS AT THE DELI OLD TOWN TRADITIONAL MARKET.
ABSTRACT
BUKIT, HERAWATI. Exchange Structures between Sellers and
Buyers at the Deli Old Town Traditional Market. Postgraduate School
of the State University of Medan, 2016.
This research is aimed to derive exchanges structures occurring between
sellers and buyers in the market, investigate how exchanges are realized
linguistically and reason for the use of exchanges structures between sellers
and buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market. This research was
conducted by using descriptive qualitative research. The data was the
clauses produced by the sellers and the buyers. The data was analyzed based
on Martin theory (1992). The result of analysis found that there were two
conversational systems, namely, of typical and uncommon contexts or
congruent and metaphorical coding. In conversational structures, as the
realizations of conversational systems, it was found some marked structures.
Normally, the structures of giving and asking for information are
represented by k1 and k2, but it was found some hindrances in bargaining
language, there are other representations, namely k2 followed by k1(k2) or
question followed by question. It was happened because social context
influences the exchange structure in the dialogues and the verbal violence
that are the social context, situation and concept of traditional market that
include to language style of sellers and buyers whereas sellers and buyers
retaining the price, whereas the negotiation will success if the price give
benefit to seller and it is fit to buyer. The buyers want to get best product
with cheapest price, while the sellers want to get most benefit from their
product. In addition, exchanges structure that found was exchange dynamic
since it was found ch, rch, cf, rcf, cl, rcl and the exchange structure that
found were k1, k2^k1, k2^k1^k2f, k2^k1^k2f^k1f, dk1^k2^k1^k2f, a1,
a2^a1,
a2^a1^a2f,
a2^a1^a2f^a1f,
da1^a2^a1,
da1^a2^a1^a2f,
da1^a2^a1^a2f^a1f. Based on the findings, it was recommended to the other
researchers who are interested in analyzing the Exchanges Structure to
conduct such a research with different variable such as can use the
newspaper or other sources to know and understand the flow of
conversation.
Keywords : Exchange Structures, Congruent coding, Metaphorical
coding, Social context, Market concept, Bargaining language, Language
Style, Exchange Dynamic.
i
ABSTRAK
BUKIT, HERAWATI. Struktur Percakapan antara Penjual dan
Pembeli di Pasar Tradisional Deli Old Town. Sekolah Pascasarjana
Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh struktur percakapan yang terjadi
antara penjual dan pembeli di pasar, menyelidiki bagaimana struktur
tersebut direalisasikan secara linguistic dan apa alasan penggunaan struktur
percakapan antara penjual dan pembeli di Pasar Tradisional Deli Old Town.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan penelitian deskriptif
kualitatif. Data penelitian ini adalah klausa yang dihasilkan oleh penjual dan
pembeli. Data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan teori Martin (1992). Hasil
analisis menemukan bahwa ada dua sistem percakapan, yaitu dari konteks
yang biasa (lazim) dan metafora (tidak lazim). Dalam struktur percakapan,
sebagai realisasi dari sistem percakapan, ditemukan beberapa struktur yang
lazim. Biasanya, struktur memberi dan meminta informasi ditandai dengan
k1 dan k2, tapi itu ditemukan beberapa kendala dalam bahasa tawar
menawar, ada representasi lain, yaitu k2 diikuti oleh k1 (k2) atau pertanyaan
dibalas dengan pertanyaan. Itu terjadi karena konteks sosial mempengaruhi
struktur percakapan dalam dialog dan kekerasan verbal yang merupakan
konteks sosial, situasi dan konsep pasar tradisional yang mencakup gaya
bahasa penjual dan pembeli dimana penjual dan pembeli saling
mempertahankan harga, sedangkan negosiasi akan sukses jika harga
memberikan manfaat kepada penjual dan cocok untuk pembeli. Pembeli
ingin mendapatkan produk terbaik dengan harga termurah, sedangkan
penjual ingin mendapatkan keuntungan dari produk mereka. Selain itu,
struktur percakapan yang ditemukan adalah pertukaran dinamis karena
ditemukan ch, rch, cf, rcf, cl, rcl dan struktur percakapan yang ditemukan
adalah k1, k2 ^ k1, k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f, k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f ^ k1f , dk1 ^ k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f,
a1, a2 ^ a1, a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f, a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f ^ a1f, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1 ^
a2f, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f ^ a1f. Berdasarkan temuan penelitian ini, dianjurkan
agar para peneliti yang lain yang juga tertarik dalam menganalisis struktur
percakapan supaya melakukan penelitian tersebut dengan variabel yang
berbeda seperti menggunakan surat kabar atau sumber lain untuk
mengetahui dan memahami aliran percakapan.
Kata Kunci : Struktur percakapan, bahasa lazim, bahasa tidak lazim,
konteks sosial, konsep pasar, bahasa tawar menawar, gaya bahasa,
struktrur percakapan dinamis.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to thanks due to the Almighty God, Jesus
Christ, for without His Blessing, Guidance and Mercy, this thesis would have not
been completed. Jesus Christ always guided the writer to the better life of today.
This Thesis is written to fulfill partial requirements for the Degree of Magister
Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Postgraduate
School, State University of Medan.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge his
deepest gratitude for all generous guidance, assistance and valuable knowledge
which has been given to her by a lot of people whose names cannot be mentioned
here one by one.
The highest appreciation goes to her advisors, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting,
M.Pd. and Dr. Anni Holilla Pulungan, M.Hum. for their invaluable time spent in
correcting work draft, responsibilities and by providing her with valuable
suggestions for improvement her thesis.
Then, her appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M. Ed. as the
Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Holilla
Pulungan, M.Hum. as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study
Program who have assisted her in processing the administration requirements
during the process of her studies in the Postgraduate School of the State
University of Medan.
iii
The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers and examiners, Prof.
Amrin Saragih M.A.,Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd., Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum.,
and Dr. Rahmat Husein, M.Ed. They had given valuable inputs, suggestions,
criticisms, and improvements for this thesis. She also would like to express her
thankfulness for all lecturers taught her during the academic years of LTBI.
Finally, a very special debt of gratitude is dedicated to her beloved
husband Johanes Fransiscus S and her beloved children, her beautiful daughter
Princess Shahena S and her handsome son Rafael Rayn Aurelio S who give her
love, care, motivation, support and also endless praying. And also special
gratitude thank is directed to her beloved parents, A. Bukit and Pt. T.K. Br
Ginting Suka, together with her beloved sisters, Nellytawati Bukit, S.E., SPd.,
Melysa Bukit, SH., Rasninta Devi Ansela Bukit, and to her beloved brother Harry
Christian P. Bukit, SSn. and also the whole families for their supports in many
ways and no suitable word that can fully describe their everlasting love and
express how much she loves them.
Then, last but not least, her gratitude goes to her friends of LTBI A2 who
have supported her to conduct this thesis, especially for Sarma, Devi, Wiwit,
Annisa, Muslim, Senadaman, Orli, Yusi, Husni, Juli, Novra, Evin, Neneng, Lia,
Amel, Kiki, Kesya, Moses, Noni, for their friendship and cooperation.
Medan, June 2016
The writer,
Herawati Br Bukit
Reg. No. 8146111023
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………..
ABSTRAK
……………………………………………………………..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………….....
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………….
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………….
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………..
i
ii
iii
v
vii
viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………..
1
The Background of the Study …………………………….
The Problems of the Study ……………………………….
The Objectives of the Study ..………………………………
The Scope of the Study …………………………………....
The Significances of the Study ……………….……………
1
7
7
7
8
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………
9
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
2.1. Discourse Analysis ……………………………………..…
2.2. Metafunctions ……………………….…………………….
2.2.1. Ideational Metafunction / Experiential Meaning
/ Transitivity ……………………………………….
2.2.2. Interpersonal Metafunction …………………………..
2.2.3. Textual Metafunction
…………………………….
2.3. Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA) …………………….…
2.4. Exchange Dynamic ……………………………….……….
2.4.1. Tracking ……………………………………………
2.4.2. Challenging ………………………………..……….
2.5. Speech Function …………………………..………………
2.6. Mood System …………………………………………….
2.7. Traditional Markets In Indonesia ……….…………………
2.7.1. Bargaining …………………………………………
2.7.2. Seller and Buyer Interaction Deli Old Town Traditional
Market ……………………………………………….
2.8. Relevant Studies ……………………………………….….
2.9. Conceptual Framework ……………………………………
9
12
12
13
14
15
21
23
24
25
3
37
39
40
43
47
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ……………………………….
50
Research Design …………………………………………...
The Data and the Source of Data …… ………………..…
The Research Instruments …………………………………
The Techniques for Collecting Data …………………….
The Techniques for Analyzing the Data …………………..
Trustworthiness of Data Analysis ………………………….
50
51
52
53
53
55
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
v
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION…
4.1. Data Analysis………………………………………………..
4.1.1. Exchange Structures that were found between Sellers
and Buyers at Deli Old Town Market ………………
4.1.2. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically between
Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market
4.1.2.1. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of
Speech Function ………………………….
4.1.2.2. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of Mood ..
4.1.2.3. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of Congruent
and Metaphorical Coding ………………..
4.1.3 The Reasons Exchange Structures Realized by the
Sellers and the Buyers in the Deli Old Town
Traditional Market ………………………………….
4.2. Research Findings
………………………………………
4.3. Discussion
………………………………………………
58
58
60
68
69
72
74
74
79
82
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS …………….
5.1. Conclusions ……………………………………………….
5.2. Suggestions ……………………………………………….
84
84
85
………………………………………………………….
86
……………………………………………………………
89
APPENDIX II ……………………………………………………………
95
REFERENCES
APPENDIX 1
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1. Creativity in Lexicogrammar to Code Meanings ………………… 10
Table 2.2. Key to Codes Used in ESA (Martin, 1992) ..……………………. 20
Table 2.3. Corresponding Moves of Information and Goods & Service
Exchanges ………………………………………………………… 21
Table 2.4. Speech Functions ………………………………………………… 26
Table 2.5. Unmarked Realizations of Speech Function ……………………… 29
Table 2.6. The Basic Speech Function and Their Congruent Mood Realization
Rising to The Seven Adjacency Pairs ……………………………. 31
Table 2.7. The Mood Types (Gerrot and Wignell,1994:38) ………………… 36
Table 2.8. Semantic Interpretation of Central Mood System ……………… 36
Table 4.1. Corresponding Moves of Information and Goods and Services
Exchanges at Deli Old Town Traditional Market ……………….. 61
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1. The Relationship Between Context, Meanings and Wordings ……
Figure 2.2. System Network of Speech Function for Dialogue ………………
Figure 2.3. Realization of Speech Function in Moods ……………………….
Figure 2.4. Mood System ……………………………………………………
Figure 3.1. The Qualitative Data Analysis Component ………………………...
viii
12
27
28
32
54
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Pages
APPENDIX 1 ...……………………………………………………
APPENDIX 2 ………………………………………………………
ixvii
92
143
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background of the Study
Market is a place where buyers and sellers meet, goods and services that
available in that place is for sale and there will be transfer of property rights
(Swastha, 1996:50). The meeting between buyers and sellers allow social
interaction. In the course of buying and selling, every individual both sellers and
buyers will do the social relationships that are influenced by the social context of
a growing culture in public life. It means that traditional market is where buyers
and sellers conduct transactions directly and accompanied by a process. Traded
goods are goods of daily needs of society, such as food, cakes, fruits, clothes,
electronic goods, and services. The process of interactions that occur either in the
form of buying and selling activities and other activities that will bring other
forms of interaction, they are accepted or rejected from two sides.
Market is the important place for human life whereas going to the market
is a daily activity for human body help. But human body must see the social and
culture context because in the market communities the language that used among
one seller with another seller or one buyer with the other buyer is different, but the
most language that they used not standardized and informal. To determine the
understanding of the communication, it needs to know the relationship between
language and context. If human body doesn’t see the social context, the sale
interaction will not happen and it also occur the social gap. Therefore, it must be
studied to know or to understand the meaning that is intended by the researcher, it
1
2
is not only to understand the intended meaning or phrase is used, but it is required
to take knowledge and conclusion about what it was said or written by use the
existing context and also analyzed the exchange structure that produced from
seller and buyer.
Fishman (2001:5-6) confirms that the use of language not only determined
by linguistic factors, but also by non linguistic factors, such as social factors and
situational factors. Social factors include status social, educational level,
economic level, age, and gender. The situational factors which include who is
talking, what language that s/he use, who, when, where, and what issues are
discussed. In accordance with this assertion, it means the domination of social and
situational factors in language usage will affect the appearance of language
variation. In this study, the variation in spoken language is a tool used sellers and
buyers in sale interaction. The language used was varied.
The social and cultural differences between sellers and buyers cause the
unique of language use, especially bargaining activities in the market. The social
differences such as job, education level, age and gender influence someone
characteristics. Sellers’s speeches that occur in a market community have aims to
direct, guide, instruct, suggest and to persuade purchasers. All their speeches have
their own functions. This matter intended to simplify and speed up the interaction
of sale reached fast. It also occurs between sellers and buyers that influence
bargain language that use to get the exact price according to buyers and also give
benefit to sellers. The main problem of this case is the exchange structure that
occurs between sellers and buyers to reach the agreement in bargain interaction.
3
Someone will use language to interact each other, they are doing the
establishing a relationship between the person speaking now and the person who
are probably speak next. The basic unit for analyzing dialog is the exchange,
which is a set of moves which together develop a single proposition (or in some
cases, a propositional complex). The dialogue is ‘a process of exchange’
involving two variables: a commodity to be exchange: either information or goods
and services, and roles associated with exchange relations: either giving or
demanding. The simultaneous cross classification of these two variables of
exchange commodity and exchange role defines the four basic speech functions.
The four functions which are used by speaker in exchanging the
experiences are question, statement, command and offer. These four are realized
in the form of mood, modality, epithet, exchange structure, which builds
conversational structure. From the speaker’s point of view in a verbal exchange,
the commodity that the speaker may be giving or demanding is information. In
such cases, the speaker makes statement to give information, or asks a question to
demand it and the listener receive (understand) the information that the speaker
gives or provides the information demanded (answers the question). But
sometimes the demanding of information or goods and services is not always done
by making the statement, it can be done by making order or question. It depends
on the relationship between the speaker (addresser) and listener (addressee). It
means that, whether the addressee or the addresser must be focus on what will be
done by them to exchange their experiences, giving and demanding information or
goods and services because the exchange of commodity is closely related with the
use of speech functions.
4
Interaction between addressee and addresser in face to face conversation
with in written conversation is different. Face to face conversation always
involves body languages and gestures. But in written conversation that can be
only realized in move. Move is defined as the function and the commodity being
exchange. When somebody is raising question (asking information) the move
made by the addresser is termed k2 “secondary knower” whereas another is
providing the answer (proving information) the move made by the addressee is k1
“primary knower”. When the interaction between the addresser and addressee is
exchange information on goods and services, terms of a2 “secondary actor” and
a1”primary actor”, the move is structured by a2 ^ a1 and further may be followed
by a2f ^ a1f.
Delitua Traditional Market opened on 1960, it is located at the major road
DelituaPamah, Delitua eastern village, district of Delitua, but since 2013, Delitua
Traditional Market change name into Deli Old Town Traditional Market. Deli Old
Town Traditional market is place to interact between sellers and buyers, sellers
sell a variety of merchandise ranging from our daily needs such as rice, fish,
vegetables, glassware, clothing, and others. When there is interaction between
seller and buyer, they use language as a communication tool and they do the
exchange of their conversation and the exchange of each utterance that they used
occur directly without see the structure of each utterance, whereas exchange
structure is the subject in this study, researcher wanted know exchange structures
are used in social interaction at Deli Old Town Traditional Market.
The researcher has an experience about a communication between seller
and buyer at Deli Old Town Traditional Market. It happened when the researcher
5
accompanied her mother shopping at that market. Her mother wanted buy chili.
The communication that the researcher heard between seller and her mother as
buyer can be seen as follow:
a1
Penjual
Seller
a2(k2) Pembeli
Buyer
k1
Penjual
Seller
ch
Pembeli
Buyer
rch
Penjual
Seller
a2
Pembeli
Buyer
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
cabebik, inimasihsegerlahbik
‘chili aunt, it still fresh’
1 kgnyaberapa?
‘What is the price of chili per kg?’
murahkokbik, cuma 30.000 la
‘It’s cheap aunty, it’s only 30.000 per kg.’
mahalitu, kurangindikit. Disanatadidapatnyamurah
‘It’s too costly, less it. In other place is cheaper than you.’
disanagaksegarcabenyabik,punyakuinimasihsegar
kali
lahbik, iniharganyasudah pas bik
: ‘Their chili wouldn’t be fresh aunty, but I’ve all the fresh
chili, the price can’t down again.’
: yaudah, kurangilah 25.000 ajayabiarkubeli 1 kg
: ‘OK! But less the price, I’ll give you 25.000 so that I buy
1kg’
Penjual
Seller
ch
Pembeli
Buyer
a1
Penjual
makasih
Seller
:
:
:
:
:
(Diam)
(Silent / Non verbal response)
bolehnggak?
‘May I?’
yaudah la bikboleh. (Membungkuscabe)
Iniyabik,
: ‘Ok, you can. (Package chili). Here it is. Thanks.’
The dynamics of the conversation that occurred in the above conversation,
seller is primary actor (a1) because seller exchange goods to buyer, but the replies
of the seller exchange good doesn’t a2 but it replies by k2 because buyer is
secondary knower (k2), because they don’t know what is the chili price so they
want to get information from seller. But, when buyer asks information from seller,
seller didn’t answer directly their question by saying the right price, although s/he
has known what is the answer, they must do this exchange structure firstly
because s/he wants get much profit from her/his sale. When the seller said "murah
kok bik, cuma 30.000 la" it means that the seller was giving the delayed
information about the chili price. Then the buyer tried to negotiate it by giving the
6
pretend statement with differentiate to the other sellers by saying "mahal itu,
kurangin dikit. Disana tadi dapatnya murah", it means that the buyer commanded
the seller to cutting under chili price. So, it results the dynamics step which is a
challenge that symbolize as ch. Then the seller tried to persuade the buyer by
giving information about the other’s chili and said that her/his chili is fresher than
other, but the buyer was still in her opinion by commanding the seller to agree the
new price, finally the seller gave up by agreeing the buyer’s price. It is a
conversation technique in sales and purchasing whereas buyers and sellers both
want to get much benefit. So, between the seller and the buyer must be equally as
smart as to maintain their negotiation in transaction.
Conversation structure above shows that the dynamics of the move that is
also a cause of the length and complexity of the structure, so that it makes the
researcher wants to research exchange structure between seller and buyer at Deli
Old Town Traditional Market. Beside it, researcher also wants to investigate the
types of speech function (statement, question, command and offer) that used by
both participants (seller and buyer). The reasons for this study are, firstly, sellers
and buyers have the uniqueness of their language when make negotiation and we
must know the social and culture context in the market, if we don’t know about it,
the sale interaction will not be happened and it will be happen the social gap. This
case results the structure of the selling and buying conversation is very dynamic
and complex and sometimes it doesn’t fulfill the system and conversation
structure that proposed by Martin (1992) and this case is important problem in this
research. Secondly, their speech functions are usually realized in interaction
although they use body language. And thirdly, throughout the researcher's
7
knowledge, study of exchange structure that performed at Deli Old Town
Traditional Market don’t ever do by other researchers, this factor that make
researcher is interested to study it.
.
1.2. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the researcher formulates the problems of
the study as following.
1. What exchanges structures are found between sellers and buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market?
2. How are the exchange structures realized linguistically between sellers and
buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market?
3. Why are the exchanges structured in the way they are?
1.3. The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are.
1. to derive exchanges structures occurring between sellers and buyers at Deli
Old Town Traditional Market,
2. to investigate how exchanges are realized linguistically between sellers and
buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market, and
3. to reason for the use of exchanges structures.
1.4. The Scope of the Study
The study is focused on exchange structure uttered by the main
participants in the market namely seller and buyer at Deli Old Town Traditional
8
Market which is located at the major road Delitua Pamah, Delitua eastern village,
district of Delitua. Then, analyze the exchange structure and the structures of
interaction which are speech function and move that are found in conversation.
1.5. The Significances of the Study
Findings of study are expected to give some relevant contributions
theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the findings are expected to add up
more horizons in theories of conversation or exchange structures. In addition, the
findings can be preferences for further studies.
Practically, Firstly to the findings of this study is expected to be useful as a
model to identify and understand exchange structure for social interaction,
especially in traditional market, where it involves sellers and buyers’ speeches so
that it can be used as an evaluation matter to become the guidelines for work and
reference for having an effective conversation in daily life communication.
Secondly, the findings can be a helpful way for developing and increasing
the education world especially for English Students, it becomes reference matter
to conduct the research deals with studying exchange structure in conversation in
different cases.
And thirdly, the findings are also useful for other researchers who want to
use the result of this research as a comparison or reference of the next researches.
REFERENCES
Berry, M. 1981. Towards Layers of Exchange Structure for Directive Exchanges.
In : Network, 2.
Bogdan, C.R. & Biklen, K.S. 1992. Second Edition. Qualitative Research for
Education. United States: Word Crafters.
Dongoran. 2014. The Analysis of Structure Exchange in Pabuat Boru Ceremony
on Mandailing Culture. Thesis. Medan. UNIMED.
Eggin, S. 1994.. An introduction to Systematic Functional Systemic. London :
United Kingdom.
Eggin, S., & Slade, D. 2005. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London :
Wellington House.
Fishman, A., J. 2001. Reading in The Sociology of Language. Paris : Yeshiva.
Gerot, L. and P. Wignel, 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney :
Tanya Stabler.
Gallion, E. 1986. The Urban Pattern City Planning and Design. New York : Van
Nostrand.
Ginting, S. A. 2015. Structure of Karonese Conversation in the Funeral: Case
Study in Indonesia. Asian Social Science : Canadian Center of Science and
Education.
Ginting, S. A. 2010. Sistem dan Struktur Percakapan dalam Bahasa Karo.
Disertasi. Medan. USU.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York : Anchor Books / Doubleday.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Context and Text : Aspects of Language in
Social Semiotic Perspectives. Geelong : Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London : Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London :
Edward Arnold.
Hasan, R. 1981. What’s Going On : A Dynamic View of Context. Seventh LACUS
Forum. Columbia : Hornbeam Press.
Hoftsede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences : International Differences in Work
Related Values. London : Sage.
86
87
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London : Longman.
Huberman, M and Miles, M.B & Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis : A
Methods Sourcebook. Los Angeles : Sage.
Kharismayanti. 2012. An Analysis of Structure Exchange in Jonathan Franzens
Novel Freedom. Thesis. Medan. UNIMED.
Kress, G. 1985. Ideological Structures in Discourse. In Van Dick, T.A. (Ed)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 4. London: Academic Press.
Kotler, P., & Keller, L.,K. 2007. Manajemen Pemasaran. Edisi Kedua Belas, Jilid
I, dialihbahasakan oleh Benjamin Molan. Jakarta : Indeks.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London : Longman.
Lincoln, Y.S, & Guba, E, G. 1985. Effective Evaluation. San Fransisco : Jossey
Bass.
Lipson, M. 2002. Exploring Functional Grammar. www.facli.unibo.il/maxne
web/despensa Exploring Functional Grammar.
Lock, Graham. 2002. Functional English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Louis, C., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. 2007. Research Method in Education.
London : Routledge Falmer.
Martin, J. R. 1992.
Benjamins.
English Text: System and Structure.
Amsterdam: John
Martin, J., Matthiessen, C., & Painter, C. 1997. Working With Functional
Grammar. London : Arnold.
Mc Kitterick J.B. 1957, What is the Marketing Management Concept? In: The
Frontiers of Marketing T.
Mulyana, 2000. Ilmu Komunikasi Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: Remaja Rosda
Karya.
Nielsen, A., C. 2009. Persaingan Pasar Tradisional Versus Pasar Modern.
http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/ekonomi/promarketing/2004/0622/prom1.ht
ml.9april2009.
Opara, S.C. 2005. Discourse-Stylistics of Speech in Buchi Emechela’s Prose
Fiction. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Ibadan.
Osisanwo, W. 2003. Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Lagos :
Femous-Fetop.
88
Salamuddin. 2008. Struktur Percakapan dalam Bahasa Alas. Thesis. Medan.
USU.
Santosa, R. 2009. Forms and meaning of conjunctive relation in Indonesian
magazines. A Ph.D. thesis draft, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Saragih, A. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. Medan : UNIMED.
Saragih, A. 2013. Discourse Analysis : A Study on Discourse Based on Systematic
Functional Linguistic Theory. Medan : UNIMED.
Thomas et al. 2000. Language Society and Power. London : Routledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203426968.
Young, L. and B. Fitzgerald. 2006. The Power of Language : How Discourse
Influences Society. London : Equinox.
Yulia. 2012. Exchange Structure in Antigone Plays by Sophocles Oedipus. Thesis.
Medan. UNIMED.
Ventola, E. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction : A Systemic Approach to
The Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.
BUKIT, HERAWATI. Exchange Structures between Sellers and
Buyers at the Deli Old Town Traditional Market. Postgraduate School
of the State University of Medan, 2016.
This research is aimed to derive exchanges structures occurring between
sellers and buyers in the market, investigate how exchanges are realized
linguistically and reason for the use of exchanges structures between sellers
and buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market. This research was
conducted by using descriptive qualitative research. The data was the
clauses produced by the sellers and the buyers. The data was analyzed based
on Martin theory (1992). The result of analysis found that there were two
conversational systems, namely, of typical and uncommon contexts or
congruent and metaphorical coding. In conversational structures, as the
realizations of conversational systems, it was found some marked structures.
Normally, the structures of giving and asking for information are
represented by k1 and k2, but it was found some hindrances in bargaining
language, there are other representations, namely k2 followed by k1(k2) or
question followed by question. It was happened because social context
influences the exchange structure in the dialogues and the verbal violence
that are the social context, situation and concept of traditional market that
include to language style of sellers and buyers whereas sellers and buyers
retaining the price, whereas the negotiation will success if the price give
benefit to seller and it is fit to buyer. The buyers want to get best product
with cheapest price, while the sellers want to get most benefit from their
product. In addition, exchanges structure that found was exchange dynamic
since it was found ch, rch, cf, rcf, cl, rcl and the exchange structure that
found were k1, k2^k1, k2^k1^k2f, k2^k1^k2f^k1f, dk1^k2^k1^k2f, a1,
a2^a1,
a2^a1^a2f,
a2^a1^a2f^a1f,
da1^a2^a1,
da1^a2^a1^a2f,
da1^a2^a1^a2f^a1f. Based on the findings, it was recommended to the other
researchers who are interested in analyzing the Exchanges Structure to
conduct such a research with different variable such as can use the
newspaper or other sources to know and understand the flow of
conversation.
Keywords : Exchange Structures, Congruent coding, Metaphorical
coding, Social context, Market concept, Bargaining language, Language
Style, Exchange Dynamic.
i
ABSTRAK
BUKIT, HERAWATI. Struktur Percakapan antara Penjual dan
Pembeli di Pasar Tradisional Deli Old Town. Sekolah Pascasarjana
Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh struktur percakapan yang terjadi
antara penjual dan pembeli di pasar, menyelidiki bagaimana struktur
tersebut direalisasikan secara linguistic dan apa alasan penggunaan struktur
percakapan antara penjual dan pembeli di Pasar Tradisional Deli Old Town.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan penelitian deskriptif
kualitatif. Data penelitian ini adalah klausa yang dihasilkan oleh penjual dan
pembeli. Data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan teori Martin (1992). Hasil
analisis menemukan bahwa ada dua sistem percakapan, yaitu dari konteks
yang biasa (lazim) dan metafora (tidak lazim). Dalam struktur percakapan,
sebagai realisasi dari sistem percakapan, ditemukan beberapa struktur yang
lazim. Biasanya, struktur memberi dan meminta informasi ditandai dengan
k1 dan k2, tapi itu ditemukan beberapa kendala dalam bahasa tawar
menawar, ada representasi lain, yaitu k2 diikuti oleh k1 (k2) atau pertanyaan
dibalas dengan pertanyaan. Itu terjadi karena konteks sosial mempengaruhi
struktur percakapan dalam dialog dan kekerasan verbal yang merupakan
konteks sosial, situasi dan konsep pasar tradisional yang mencakup gaya
bahasa penjual dan pembeli dimana penjual dan pembeli saling
mempertahankan harga, sedangkan negosiasi akan sukses jika harga
memberikan manfaat kepada penjual dan cocok untuk pembeli. Pembeli
ingin mendapatkan produk terbaik dengan harga termurah, sedangkan
penjual ingin mendapatkan keuntungan dari produk mereka. Selain itu,
struktur percakapan yang ditemukan adalah pertukaran dinamis karena
ditemukan ch, rch, cf, rcf, cl, rcl dan struktur percakapan yang ditemukan
adalah k1, k2 ^ k1, k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f, k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f ^ k1f , dk1 ^ k2 ^ k1 ^ k2f,
a1, a2 ^ a1, a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f, a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f ^ a1f, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1 ^
a2f, da1 ^ a2 ^ a1 ^ a2f ^ a1f. Berdasarkan temuan penelitian ini, dianjurkan
agar para peneliti yang lain yang juga tertarik dalam menganalisis struktur
percakapan supaya melakukan penelitian tersebut dengan variabel yang
berbeda seperti menggunakan surat kabar atau sumber lain untuk
mengetahui dan memahami aliran percakapan.
Kata Kunci : Struktur percakapan, bahasa lazim, bahasa tidak lazim,
konteks sosial, konsep pasar, bahasa tawar menawar, gaya bahasa,
struktrur percakapan dinamis.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to thanks due to the Almighty God, Jesus
Christ, for without His Blessing, Guidance and Mercy, this thesis would have not
been completed. Jesus Christ always guided the writer to the better life of today.
This Thesis is written to fulfill partial requirements for the Degree of Magister
Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Postgraduate
School, State University of Medan.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge his
deepest gratitude for all generous guidance, assistance and valuable knowledge
which has been given to her by a lot of people whose names cannot be mentioned
here one by one.
The highest appreciation goes to her advisors, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting,
M.Pd. and Dr. Anni Holilla Pulungan, M.Hum. for their invaluable time spent in
correcting work draft, responsibilities and by providing her with valuable
suggestions for improvement her thesis.
Then, her appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M. Ed. as the
Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Holilla
Pulungan, M.Hum. as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study
Program who have assisted her in processing the administration requirements
during the process of her studies in the Postgraduate School of the State
University of Medan.
iii
The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers and examiners, Prof.
Amrin Saragih M.A.,Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd., Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum.,
and Dr. Rahmat Husein, M.Ed. They had given valuable inputs, suggestions,
criticisms, and improvements for this thesis. She also would like to express her
thankfulness for all lecturers taught her during the academic years of LTBI.
Finally, a very special debt of gratitude is dedicated to her beloved
husband Johanes Fransiscus S and her beloved children, her beautiful daughter
Princess Shahena S and her handsome son Rafael Rayn Aurelio S who give her
love, care, motivation, support and also endless praying. And also special
gratitude thank is directed to her beloved parents, A. Bukit and Pt. T.K. Br
Ginting Suka, together with her beloved sisters, Nellytawati Bukit, S.E., SPd.,
Melysa Bukit, SH., Rasninta Devi Ansela Bukit, and to her beloved brother Harry
Christian P. Bukit, SSn. and also the whole families for their supports in many
ways and no suitable word that can fully describe their everlasting love and
express how much she loves them.
Then, last but not least, her gratitude goes to her friends of LTBI A2 who
have supported her to conduct this thesis, especially for Sarma, Devi, Wiwit,
Annisa, Muslim, Senadaman, Orli, Yusi, Husni, Juli, Novra, Evin, Neneng, Lia,
Amel, Kiki, Kesya, Moses, Noni, for their friendship and cooperation.
Medan, June 2016
The writer,
Herawati Br Bukit
Reg. No. 8146111023
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………..
ABSTRAK
……………………………………………………………..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………….....
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………….
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………….
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………..
i
ii
iii
v
vii
viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………..
1
The Background of the Study …………………………….
The Problems of the Study ……………………………….
The Objectives of the Study ..………………………………
The Scope of the Study …………………………………....
The Significances of the Study ……………….……………
1
7
7
7
8
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………
9
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
2.1. Discourse Analysis ……………………………………..…
2.2. Metafunctions ……………………….…………………….
2.2.1. Ideational Metafunction / Experiential Meaning
/ Transitivity ……………………………………….
2.2.2. Interpersonal Metafunction …………………………..
2.2.3. Textual Metafunction
…………………………….
2.3. Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA) …………………….…
2.4. Exchange Dynamic ……………………………….……….
2.4.1. Tracking ……………………………………………
2.4.2. Challenging ………………………………..……….
2.5. Speech Function …………………………..………………
2.6. Mood System …………………………………………….
2.7. Traditional Markets In Indonesia ……….…………………
2.7.1. Bargaining …………………………………………
2.7.2. Seller and Buyer Interaction Deli Old Town Traditional
Market ……………………………………………….
2.8. Relevant Studies ……………………………………….….
2.9. Conceptual Framework ……………………………………
9
12
12
13
14
15
21
23
24
25
3
37
39
40
43
47
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ……………………………….
50
Research Design …………………………………………...
The Data and the Source of Data …… ………………..…
The Research Instruments …………………………………
The Techniques for Collecting Data …………………….
The Techniques for Analyzing the Data …………………..
Trustworthiness of Data Analysis ………………………….
50
51
52
53
53
55
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
v
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION…
4.1. Data Analysis………………………………………………..
4.1.1. Exchange Structures that were found between Sellers
and Buyers at Deli Old Town Market ………………
4.1.2. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically between
Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market
4.1.2.1. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of
Speech Function ………………………….
4.1.2.2. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of Mood ..
4.1.2.3. Exchange Structures Realized Linguistically
between Sellers and Buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market in Term of Congruent
and Metaphorical Coding ………………..
4.1.3 The Reasons Exchange Structures Realized by the
Sellers and the Buyers in the Deli Old Town
Traditional Market ………………………………….
4.2. Research Findings
………………………………………
4.3. Discussion
………………………………………………
58
58
60
68
69
72
74
74
79
82
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS …………….
5.1. Conclusions ……………………………………………….
5.2. Suggestions ……………………………………………….
84
84
85
………………………………………………………….
86
……………………………………………………………
89
APPENDIX II ……………………………………………………………
95
REFERENCES
APPENDIX 1
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1. Creativity in Lexicogrammar to Code Meanings ………………… 10
Table 2.2. Key to Codes Used in ESA (Martin, 1992) ..……………………. 20
Table 2.3. Corresponding Moves of Information and Goods & Service
Exchanges ………………………………………………………… 21
Table 2.4. Speech Functions ………………………………………………… 26
Table 2.5. Unmarked Realizations of Speech Function ……………………… 29
Table 2.6. The Basic Speech Function and Their Congruent Mood Realization
Rising to The Seven Adjacency Pairs ……………………………. 31
Table 2.7. The Mood Types (Gerrot and Wignell,1994:38) ………………… 36
Table 2.8. Semantic Interpretation of Central Mood System ……………… 36
Table 4.1. Corresponding Moves of Information and Goods and Services
Exchanges at Deli Old Town Traditional Market ……………….. 61
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1. The Relationship Between Context, Meanings and Wordings ……
Figure 2.2. System Network of Speech Function for Dialogue ………………
Figure 2.3. Realization of Speech Function in Moods ……………………….
Figure 2.4. Mood System ……………………………………………………
Figure 3.1. The Qualitative Data Analysis Component ………………………...
viii
12
27
28
32
54
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Pages
APPENDIX 1 ...……………………………………………………
APPENDIX 2 ………………………………………………………
ixvii
92
143
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background of the Study
Market is a place where buyers and sellers meet, goods and services that
available in that place is for sale and there will be transfer of property rights
(Swastha, 1996:50). The meeting between buyers and sellers allow social
interaction. In the course of buying and selling, every individual both sellers and
buyers will do the social relationships that are influenced by the social context of
a growing culture in public life. It means that traditional market is where buyers
and sellers conduct transactions directly and accompanied by a process. Traded
goods are goods of daily needs of society, such as food, cakes, fruits, clothes,
electronic goods, and services. The process of interactions that occur either in the
form of buying and selling activities and other activities that will bring other
forms of interaction, they are accepted or rejected from two sides.
Market is the important place for human life whereas going to the market
is a daily activity for human body help. But human body must see the social and
culture context because in the market communities the language that used among
one seller with another seller or one buyer with the other buyer is different, but the
most language that they used not standardized and informal. To determine the
understanding of the communication, it needs to know the relationship between
language and context. If human body doesn’t see the social context, the sale
interaction will not happen and it also occur the social gap. Therefore, it must be
studied to know or to understand the meaning that is intended by the researcher, it
1
2
is not only to understand the intended meaning or phrase is used, but it is required
to take knowledge and conclusion about what it was said or written by use the
existing context and also analyzed the exchange structure that produced from
seller and buyer.
Fishman (2001:5-6) confirms that the use of language not only determined
by linguistic factors, but also by non linguistic factors, such as social factors and
situational factors. Social factors include status social, educational level,
economic level, age, and gender. The situational factors which include who is
talking, what language that s/he use, who, when, where, and what issues are
discussed. In accordance with this assertion, it means the domination of social and
situational factors in language usage will affect the appearance of language
variation. In this study, the variation in spoken language is a tool used sellers and
buyers in sale interaction. The language used was varied.
The social and cultural differences between sellers and buyers cause the
unique of language use, especially bargaining activities in the market. The social
differences such as job, education level, age and gender influence someone
characteristics. Sellers’s speeches that occur in a market community have aims to
direct, guide, instruct, suggest and to persuade purchasers. All their speeches have
their own functions. This matter intended to simplify and speed up the interaction
of sale reached fast. It also occurs between sellers and buyers that influence
bargain language that use to get the exact price according to buyers and also give
benefit to sellers. The main problem of this case is the exchange structure that
occurs between sellers and buyers to reach the agreement in bargain interaction.
3
Someone will use language to interact each other, they are doing the
establishing a relationship between the person speaking now and the person who
are probably speak next. The basic unit for analyzing dialog is the exchange,
which is a set of moves which together develop a single proposition (or in some
cases, a propositional complex). The dialogue is ‘a process of exchange’
involving two variables: a commodity to be exchange: either information or goods
and services, and roles associated with exchange relations: either giving or
demanding. The simultaneous cross classification of these two variables of
exchange commodity and exchange role defines the four basic speech functions.
The four functions which are used by speaker in exchanging the
experiences are question, statement, command and offer. These four are realized
in the form of mood, modality, epithet, exchange structure, which builds
conversational structure. From the speaker’s point of view in a verbal exchange,
the commodity that the speaker may be giving or demanding is information. In
such cases, the speaker makes statement to give information, or asks a question to
demand it and the listener receive (understand) the information that the speaker
gives or provides the information demanded (answers the question). But
sometimes the demanding of information or goods and services is not always done
by making the statement, it can be done by making order or question. It depends
on the relationship between the speaker (addresser) and listener (addressee). It
means that, whether the addressee or the addresser must be focus on what will be
done by them to exchange their experiences, giving and demanding information or
goods and services because the exchange of commodity is closely related with the
use of speech functions.
4
Interaction between addressee and addresser in face to face conversation
with in written conversation is different. Face to face conversation always
involves body languages and gestures. But in written conversation that can be
only realized in move. Move is defined as the function and the commodity being
exchange. When somebody is raising question (asking information) the move
made by the addresser is termed k2 “secondary knower” whereas another is
providing the answer (proving information) the move made by the addressee is k1
“primary knower”. When the interaction between the addresser and addressee is
exchange information on goods and services, terms of a2 “secondary actor” and
a1”primary actor”, the move is structured by a2 ^ a1 and further may be followed
by a2f ^ a1f.
Delitua Traditional Market opened on 1960, it is located at the major road
DelituaPamah, Delitua eastern village, district of Delitua, but since 2013, Delitua
Traditional Market change name into Deli Old Town Traditional Market. Deli Old
Town Traditional market is place to interact between sellers and buyers, sellers
sell a variety of merchandise ranging from our daily needs such as rice, fish,
vegetables, glassware, clothing, and others. When there is interaction between
seller and buyer, they use language as a communication tool and they do the
exchange of their conversation and the exchange of each utterance that they used
occur directly without see the structure of each utterance, whereas exchange
structure is the subject in this study, researcher wanted know exchange structures
are used in social interaction at Deli Old Town Traditional Market.
The researcher has an experience about a communication between seller
and buyer at Deli Old Town Traditional Market. It happened when the researcher
5
accompanied her mother shopping at that market. Her mother wanted buy chili.
The communication that the researcher heard between seller and her mother as
buyer can be seen as follow:
a1
Penjual
Seller
a2(k2) Pembeli
Buyer
k1
Penjual
Seller
ch
Pembeli
Buyer
rch
Penjual
Seller
a2
Pembeli
Buyer
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
cabebik, inimasihsegerlahbik
‘chili aunt, it still fresh’
1 kgnyaberapa?
‘What is the price of chili per kg?’
murahkokbik, cuma 30.000 la
‘It’s cheap aunty, it’s only 30.000 per kg.’
mahalitu, kurangindikit. Disanatadidapatnyamurah
‘It’s too costly, less it. In other place is cheaper than you.’
disanagaksegarcabenyabik,punyakuinimasihsegar
kali
lahbik, iniharganyasudah pas bik
: ‘Their chili wouldn’t be fresh aunty, but I’ve all the fresh
chili, the price can’t down again.’
: yaudah, kurangilah 25.000 ajayabiarkubeli 1 kg
: ‘OK! But less the price, I’ll give you 25.000 so that I buy
1kg’
Penjual
Seller
ch
Pembeli
Buyer
a1
Penjual
makasih
Seller
:
:
:
:
:
(Diam)
(Silent / Non verbal response)
bolehnggak?
‘May I?’
yaudah la bikboleh. (Membungkuscabe)
Iniyabik,
: ‘Ok, you can. (Package chili). Here it is. Thanks.’
The dynamics of the conversation that occurred in the above conversation,
seller is primary actor (a1) because seller exchange goods to buyer, but the replies
of the seller exchange good doesn’t a2 but it replies by k2 because buyer is
secondary knower (k2), because they don’t know what is the chili price so they
want to get information from seller. But, when buyer asks information from seller,
seller didn’t answer directly their question by saying the right price, although s/he
has known what is the answer, they must do this exchange structure firstly
because s/he wants get much profit from her/his sale. When the seller said "murah
kok bik, cuma 30.000 la" it means that the seller was giving the delayed
information about the chili price. Then the buyer tried to negotiate it by giving the
6
pretend statement with differentiate to the other sellers by saying "mahal itu,
kurangin dikit. Disana tadi dapatnya murah", it means that the buyer commanded
the seller to cutting under chili price. So, it results the dynamics step which is a
challenge that symbolize as ch. Then the seller tried to persuade the buyer by
giving information about the other’s chili and said that her/his chili is fresher than
other, but the buyer was still in her opinion by commanding the seller to agree the
new price, finally the seller gave up by agreeing the buyer’s price. It is a
conversation technique in sales and purchasing whereas buyers and sellers both
want to get much benefit. So, between the seller and the buyer must be equally as
smart as to maintain their negotiation in transaction.
Conversation structure above shows that the dynamics of the move that is
also a cause of the length and complexity of the structure, so that it makes the
researcher wants to research exchange structure between seller and buyer at Deli
Old Town Traditional Market. Beside it, researcher also wants to investigate the
types of speech function (statement, question, command and offer) that used by
both participants (seller and buyer). The reasons for this study are, firstly, sellers
and buyers have the uniqueness of their language when make negotiation and we
must know the social and culture context in the market, if we don’t know about it,
the sale interaction will not be happened and it will be happen the social gap. This
case results the structure of the selling and buying conversation is very dynamic
and complex and sometimes it doesn’t fulfill the system and conversation
structure that proposed by Martin (1992) and this case is important problem in this
research. Secondly, their speech functions are usually realized in interaction
although they use body language. And thirdly, throughout the researcher's
7
knowledge, study of exchange structure that performed at Deli Old Town
Traditional Market don’t ever do by other researchers, this factor that make
researcher is interested to study it.
.
1.2. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the researcher formulates the problems of
the study as following.
1. What exchanges structures are found between sellers and buyers at Deli Old
Town Traditional Market?
2. How are the exchange structures realized linguistically between sellers and
buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market?
3. Why are the exchanges structured in the way they are?
1.3. The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are.
1. to derive exchanges structures occurring between sellers and buyers at Deli
Old Town Traditional Market,
2. to investigate how exchanges are realized linguistically between sellers and
buyers at Deli Old Town Traditional Market, and
3. to reason for the use of exchanges structures.
1.4. The Scope of the Study
The study is focused on exchange structure uttered by the main
participants in the market namely seller and buyer at Deli Old Town Traditional
8
Market which is located at the major road Delitua Pamah, Delitua eastern village,
district of Delitua. Then, analyze the exchange structure and the structures of
interaction which are speech function and move that are found in conversation.
1.5. The Significances of the Study
Findings of study are expected to give some relevant contributions
theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the findings are expected to add up
more horizons in theories of conversation or exchange structures. In addition, the
findings can be preferences for further studies.
Practically, Firstly to the findings of this study is expected to be useful as a
model to identify and understand exchange structure for social interaction,
especially in traditional market, where it involves sellers and buyers’ speeches so
that it can be used as an evaluation matter to become the guidelines for work and
reference for having an effective conversation in daily life communication.
Secondly, the findings can be a helpful way for developing and increasing
the education world especially for English Students, it becomes reference matter
to conduct the research deals with studying exchange structure in conversation in
different cases.
And thirdly, the findings are also useful for other researchers who want to
use the result of this research as a comparison or reference of the next researches.
REFERENCES
Berry, M. 1981. Towards Layers of Exchange Structure for Directive Exchanges.
In : Network, 2.
Bogdan, C.R. & Biklen, K.S. 1992. Second Edition. Qualitative Research for
Education. United States: Word Crafters.
Dongoran. 2014. The Analysis of Structure Exchange in Pabuat Boru Ceremony
on Mandailing Culture. Thesis. Medan. UNIMED.
Eggin, S. 1994.. An introduction to Systematic Functional Systemic. London :
United Kingdom.
Eggin, S., & Slade, D. 2005. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London :
Wellington House.
Fishman, A., J. 2001. Reading in The Sociology of Language. Paris : Yeshiva.
Gerot, L. and P. Wignel, 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney :
Tanya Stabler.
Gallion, E. 1986. The Urban Pattern City Planning and Design. New York : Van
Nostrand.
Ginting, S. A. 2015. Structure of Karonese Conversation in the Funeral: Case
Study in Indonesia. Asian Social Science : Canadian Center of Science and
Education.
Ginting, S. A. 2010. Sistem dan Struktur Percakapan dalam Bahasa Karo.
Disertasi. Medan. USU.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York : Anchor Books / Doubleday.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Context and Text : Aspects of Language in
Social Semiotic Perspectives. Geelong : Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London : Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London :
Edward Arnold.
Hasan, R. 1981. What’s Going On : A Dynamic View of Context. Seventh LACUS
Forum. Columbia : Hornbeam Press.
Hoftsede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences : International Differences in Work
Related Values. London : Sage.
86
87
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London : Longman.
Huberman, M and Miles, M.B & Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis : A
Methods Sourcebook. Los Angeles : Sage.
Kharismayanti. 2012. An Analysis of Structure Exchange in Jonathan Franzens
Novel Freedom. Thesis. Medan. UNIMED.
Kress, G. 1985. Ideological Structures in Discourse. In Van Dick, T.A. (Ed)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Volume 4. London: Academic Press.
Kotler, P., & Keller, L.,K. 2007. Manajemen Pemasaran. Edisi Kedua Belas, Jilid
I, dialihbahasakan oleh Benjamin Molan. Jakarta : Indeks.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London : Longman.
Lincoln, Y.S, & Guba, E, G. 1985. Effective Evaluation. San Fransisco : Jossey
Bass.
Lipson, M. 2002. Exploring Functional Grammar. www.facli.unibo.il/maxne
web/despensa Exploring Functional Grammar.
Lock, Graham. 2002. Functional English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Louis, C., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. 2007. Research Method in Education.
London : Routledge Falmer.
Martin, J. R. 1992.
Benjamins.
English Text: System and Structure.
Amsterdam: John
Martin, J., Matthiessen, C., & Painter, C. 1997. Working With Functional
Grammar. London : Arnold.
Mc Kitterick J.B. 1957, What is the Marketing Management Concept? In: The
Frontiers of Marketing T.
Mulyana, 2000. Ilmu Komunikasi Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: Remaja Rosda
Karya.
Nielsen, A., C. 2009. Persaingan Pasar Tradisional Versus Pasar Modern.
http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/ekonomi/promarketing/2004/0622/prom1.ht
ml.9april2009.
Opara, S.C. 2005. Discourse-Stylistics of Speech in Buchi Emechela’s Prose
Fiction. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Ibadan.
Osisanwo, W. 2003. Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Lagos :
Femous-Fetop.
88
Salamuddin. 2008. Struktur Percakapan dalam Bahasa Alas. Thesis. Medan.
USU.
Santosa, R. 2009. Forms and meaning of conjunctive relation in Indonesian
magazines. A Ph.D. thesis draft, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Saragih, A. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. Medan : UNIMED.
Saragih, A. 2013. Discourse Analysis : A Study on Discourse Based on Systematic
Functional Linguistic Theory. Medan : UNIMED.
Thomas et al. 2000. Language Society and Power. London : Routledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203426968.
Young, L. and B. Fitzgerald. 2006. The Power of Language : How Discourse
Influences Society. London : Equinox.
Yulia. 2012. Exchange Structure in Antigone Plays by Sophocles Oedipus. Thesis.
Medan. UNIMED.
Ventola, E. 1987. The Structure of Social Interaction : A Systemic Approach to
The Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.