CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
By referring to the data analysis, findings and discussions which are elaborated in the previous chapter, these following conclusions are drawn:
1. Those five types of feature conversational style was identified and found 5
feature was found successfully from the eight eleven talk show; they are amount of talk , interruption , conversation support, compliment. Based on the data of
the features of conversational style used by female presenters are higher in using amount of talk and conversational support than male presenter do in the talk
show news. Meanwhile male are higher in using interruption and compliment than female do.
2. The different ways of communication between male and female presenters in
Eight eleven talk show program on metro TV conclude that the male presenters are able to communicate by female like strategies. And then vice versa female
speakers are able to communicate by male like strategies in this talk show. 3.
Male and female presenters are used by style differently in the talk show news, it is because male and female presenters have different characteristic in social life,
and these characteristic have affected them to be having different style in doing communication.
5.2 Suggestions
In relation to conclusions which have been state previously, some constructive points are suggested as the following:
1. In relation with the finding in this study, it is suggested to the student who
want to study about sociolinguistic branch above all in mastering the characteristics of male and female speakers in making the interaction.
2. It is suggested for other researcher, who want to elaborate the study about
gender differences and conversational style in other field. 3.
It is suggested for readers to develop the theory of gender conversational style in due to the interaction in other field.
REFERENCES
Bogdan, Robert. C and Sari Knopp Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education Second Edition; An Introduction to Theory and Methods. United States of
America: Allyn and Bacon.
Butler, Judith 1990: Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of identity. New York : Routledge.
Crowley, D., and Mitcell, D. 1994. Communication Theory Today. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher
Duncan, Starkey. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23:283-293. 1974.
On the structure of speaker –auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society, 2:151-180.
Eckert, Penelope, McConnel-Ginnel Sally. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
Elizabeth, Aries. 1976. Interaction patterns and themes of male, female and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7:7-18.
Fishman, p. 1983. Interaction: The work women do. Language, Gender and Society.In Swann. 2000, pp.227
Gumperz, Jhon J. and Hymes, Dell eds. 1972. Direction in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnograpgy of communication. New York: Holt. Rine hart, and Winston.
Hannah, Annete Murachver, Tamar. Gender and conversational style as predictors of Conversational behavior. Journal of language and social psychology, Vol 18
No.2, June. 1999 Hikmat, M.M. 2010. KomunikasiPolitik. Bandung: SimbiosaRekatama Media
Holmes, J., Miriam M. 1999. The Community of Practice : Theories and Methodologies in Language and Gender research. Journal language in society,
Vol.28: United of America.
Kilroy, Donahue Hubermas.The Genre of Talk Show.Retrieved on 1 march 2013 Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and women’s place. Journal language in Society, Vol.2,
No.1 Link, E. Kristen and Roger J. Kreuz. 1999. Do Men and Women Use Nonliteral
Language Differently When They Talk About Emotions?. Journal of Department
of Psychology, online, umdrive.memphis.edurkreuzwebPsycho99.pdf diakses 6 April 2013.
Maltz, D. and Borker, R. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Mary 2003,pp.122
Matei, Madalina. 2011. TheInfluence of Age and Gender on the Selection of Discourse Markers in Casual Conversations. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of
Brasov Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies, online, vol. 4 No.1, http:web.ebscohost.comehostdetail?sid=c25fdf85-7d06-436e-
ac676cfa253c81ad40sessionmgr15vid=1hid=18bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhv c3QtbGl2ZQ3d3ddb=a9hAN=73764034
Mayring, P. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. From: Qualitative Social research. http:ils.unc.eduayanzcontent-analysis.pdf
retrieved on 28 July 2012 Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1992. Qualitative Data Analysis.
London: Sage. Sacks, Harvey 1984: Notes on methodology. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and Jhon Heritage
eds. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21 – 7.
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Jefferson, Gail 1974: A simplest systematic for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50 : 696 - 735
Sperling, Susan 1991: Baboons with brief cases vs Langurs in lipstick. Feminism and functionalism in primate studies. In Micaela di Leonardo ed. Gender at the
cross roads of knowledge: feminist Anthrophology in the post modern Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 204 – 34.
Swann, Joan, Mestrhie, Rajend. 2000. Introduction to sociolinguistic 2
nd
Ed. Edinburg University Press.
Tripp, Ervin S. 1972.On Sociolinguistic Rules.Alternation and co occurenc.In JJ.Gumperz and D. HymesEds, Direction in Sociolinguistics: The ethnography
of communication. Pp 213-250. NewYork: Holt, RinehartWinston. Widyajati, Dwi, Tyrhaya Zein, et al Eds.. 2012. Gender in Hillary Clinton’s and
Barrack Obama’s Speeches in the United States of America 2008 Election. Proceedings of International Seminar on Language, Literature, Culture, and
Education in Southeast Asia II. Medan: Graduate School of Linguistics USU
West, C. and Zimmerman, D., 1985. Gender, Language and Discourse.Vol.4. 2009
Kategori