8. At last, the researcher reported the result of the research in a form of descriptive.
28
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter the researcher discusses the answers of the research questions as stated in Chapter I. The research questions are: 1 what are the
language features appear in the Micro teaching Class Sanata Dharma University? 2 What types of teacher’s questions occur in Micro Teaching Class? To answer
those questions the researcher provides the answers and discussion based on the data collected. The research findings and discussion are elaborated into one
section.
A. Woman Language Features in Micro Teaching Class
This section discusses the findings to answer the first research problem which is the women language features which occur in Micro Teaching Class. The
researcher found that not all women language features stated by Lakoff are expressed during the class. Table 4.1 is used to cover the detail description on the
findings of each participant toward each feature of women language. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Table 4.1 Women Language Features in Micro Teaching Class No
Woman Language Features Number of Utterances
1 Hedges Fillers
48 utterances 2
Intensifiers 5 utterances
3 Raising Intonation
31 utterances 4
Precise Terms 0 utterance
5 Empty Adjective
0 utterance 6
Direct Quotations 0 utterance
7 Super Polite Forms
8 utterances 8
Tag Questions 10 utterances
9 Hypercorrect Grammar
12 utterances 10 Humor
0 utterance
Table 4.1 shows the indication of women’s language features from 12 participants. The frequency of women’s language features which are found in
Micro Teaching Class are 114. They consist of hedges and fillers, intensifiers, super polite forms, hypercorrect grammar, tag questions, raising intonation and
lack of humor. Other features such as empty adjective, direct quotation and precise term do not occur in this class. Hedging and fillers are the most frequent
feature occur in Micro Teaching class while the lowest is intensifiers. The following explanation is the findings and discussion on each feature.
1. Hedges and Fillers
The findings on the first women language feature shows that some of the teachers express both hedges and fillers but some others only express fillers. Most
of the teachers do fillers for more than 4 times during the learning process while PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
only some of them express hedging during the learning process. Holmes 2001 divides lexical hedges into two. The first is hedge in which the lexical is used by
women to indicate uncertainty and fillers which are defined as ‘meaningless particles’ and pause fillers.
Lexical hedge is believed by Lakoff 1975 as to mitigate the possible unfriendliness or unkindness of a statement p. 54. The researcher found that case
in [001]: I guess it would be better if you come in front to read it aloud. The addition of lexical I guess and the supporting politeness expression which is
would be better shows that the teacher uses hedging as its function to ask something as suggestion.
Fillers which are expressed by the participants occur in some types. Some of them indicate ‘meaningless particles’ while some others occur as pause fillers.
Here are some examples when they occur as meaningless particles in the beginning of the sentences.
[031] : Okay em..what did you learned in last meeting with Ms.Eva? [047] : well, each of you have to take a picture.
The first case [031] is expressed by the participant in the beginning of the class. The teacher does review on the previous material. In this case, filler okay is
expressed. The existence of word okay in this sentence is classified as one of the fillers for the reason that without adding word okay, this sentence still has its own
meaning. Holmes 2001 explains that the existence of meaningless particles will not change original meaning of the statement. Case [047] shows the same
