proved to be true that male students more often expressed swear word or taboo language, while female students did not produce it in conversation. Lastly, the
present researcher found that the male students made gossip, but they did not talk about their friends behind their back. In this case, the males liked to be
straightforward. It is also assumed that the male students might be close to each other and therefore they were comfortable if they created gossip in conversation.
In brief, this present study shows that although the graduate students conversed by using code switching occasionally, they still have sufficient English
proficiency. In addition, they were able to apply English phatic communication. They almost performed all of phatic expressions and achieved all functions of
phatic communication. However, they still have several differences in using language. The differences can be in a form of topic discussion, swear word, and
gossip.
B. Suggestions
This present study might have its shortcomings. Hence, the present researcher suggests several recommendations addressed to English learners and to
future researchers. First, it is suggested that English learners, especially in English language studies of Sanata Dharma University, master and apply English phatic
communication expressions either inside or outside the class. Since the graduate program in English language studies deals with English and therefore the students
had better use English as their daily communication and apply English phatic communication in campus.
Second, future researchers can conduct the study of phatic communication using different objects of the study. The other researchers might invite more than
two people and divide them into different groups, as example the same-sex groups and mixed-sex groups. Then, the conversation is recorded secretly to produce
more natural conversation. Moreover, the other researchers might not only focus on verbal communication, but they
might also observe non-verbal
communication, such as facial expressions, gestures, and other ways. The other researchers might also discuss politeness strategies. If possible, the other
researchers can also see gender differences by noting several conversational styles, such as interruption, back-channel response, vocabulary choice, and other
styles. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
109
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aries, E. 1996. Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the Differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burton, S., Déchaine, R., and Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. 2012. Linguistics for Dummies. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.
Bühler, K. 1990. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub.
Cheung, C. K., and Ma, S. K. 2011. Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research 103: 145-167.
Retrieved from http:www.jstor.orgstable41476511 on May 4, 2016. Coates, J. 2004. Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of
Gender Differences in Language, Third Edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Coupland, J., Coupland, N., and Robinson, J. D. 1992. “How are you?”:
Negotiating Phatic Communion. Language in Society, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 207-230. Retrieved from http:www.jstor.orgstable4168343 on August 1,
2016.
Coupland, J. 2000. Small Talk. Harlow: Longman. Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Duncan, S. 1974. On the Structure of Speaker-Auditor Interaction during
Speaking Turns. Language in Society, 2, 161-180. Eggins, S., and Slade, D. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London:
Cassell. Fellegy, A. M. 1995 Patterns and Functions of Minimal Response. American
Speech, 70: 186–98. Retrieved from http:www.jstor.orgstable455815 on May 19, 2016.
Fine, D. 2005. The Fine Art of Small Talk. New York: Hyperion Press Ltd. Pp 10, 29, 48. Retrieved from http:msport04.free.frSmall20Talk.pdf on
March 3, 2011. Frank, F., and Anshen, F. 1983. Language and the Sexes. New York: State
University of New York Press. Fukushima, S., and Haugh, M. 2011. The Role of Emic Understandings in
Theorizing Impoliteness: The Metapragmatics of Attentiveness, Empathy, and Anticipatory Inference in Japanese and Chinese.
Journal of PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
