36
this topic was completed. Fortunately, the topics of the debate were merely recent news in this time such as cyber bullying in social media and child abuse
witnesses. So, these motions also helped the writer to understand the context of the speeches delivered by the debaters.
2. Determining Research Instruments
Since this was a basic interpretive study in the qualitative research, the writer also became human instrument: as an observer and an audience. To observe
the performance of the learners in debate and keep it in mind, the writer recorded the debate activities. Moreover, the writer also used interview guidelines to gain
information. The main instrument of this research was the writer herself. This was because the writer was the instrument to obtain, transcribe, and analyze the data.
3. Conducting Research
After preparing the instruments, the writer conducted the research. The research was conducted by recording the English debate activities. The writer
played a role as an observer and an audience of debaters’ performance in the
debate event. On the first day, in Campus 3 Atmajaya University, the debaters were divided into two chambers. The audiences could choose which chamber that
they wanted to join. Meanwhile, on the second day which was in Campus 1 Atmajaya University, because it was grand final debate, all the debaters and
audiences were in one big room to see the grand finalists. Each debater had PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
duration for stating their idea for about 7 minutes. For the last speakers, they only had 5 minutes to close the debate. Total debate time was about an hour length.
The motions of the debates were about cyber bullying on the social media and criminalizing witnesses who failed to report child abuse cases. In the octo-
final, the debaters were debating about bullying on social media. In the grand final, the debaters were debating about criminalizing the witnesses who failed to
report child abuse cases.
4. Analyzing the Data
After obtaining the data, the writer used some techniques to analyze the data, namely transcribing the recording data, data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing. After displaying the data, the writer analyzed the data by using theories that had been explained in the theoretical framework. These
processes of transcribing, reducing, and displaying the data eased the writer to analyze the data because it had been in a written form. Moreover, it helped the
writer to make conclusion drawing after analyzing the data. The result of the data analysis was about the conversation gambits that were used in English debate
activities and the gambits’ functions.
38
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the elaboration on the research findings and discussion based on the formulated problems which have been stated in Chapter I.
This chapter is divided into two sessions. The first section discusses the conversation gambits that were used by the debaters in English debate
competitions. The second session elaborates the function of the conversation gambits used by the debaters in Java Overland Varsities English Debate JOVED
event.
A. Conversation Gambits Used by The Debaters in English Debate Competitions
In this section, the writer answered the first question in the research problems that was stated in Chapter I. The writer analyzed the conversation
gambits used in JOVED debaters’ speeches. In identifying the gambits, the writer used the list of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner 2002. Based on the
identification, the writer found that all of the three kinds of gambits were used by the debaters. All of the debaters used opening and linking gambits in their
speeches. However, there were only some debaters who used responding gambits. There were twelve debaters to analyze. However, in their speeches there
were sixteen speeches because one of the debaters played two roles as Deputy Government or Leader of Opposition and as Reply speaker of each team. It was
