V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter contains the conclusion of the study. There are also some suggestions provided here. The suggestions are expected to be beneficial for
linguists, English teachers, education practitioners, and the next researchers.
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the results of the observation and data analysis, the discussion was made in the previous chapter. Here, based on the result and discussion there
are some conclusion can be taken. The first concluding statement is that the languages in conversational
writing and interactional speaking are not really different, both are spoken-like. From the average lexical density, number of phrase and clause, the utterances are
all closer to spoken language. Essentially, what was done in the chat rooms and short messages was still
considered as writing. The issue here is not just the setting, but also the subjects’
ways of getting their English as a language. The setting made the language turn into less formal. In further consideration the subjects, who are English learners
who did not get the language through acquisition, are not aware of the difference between written and spoken language, therefore they used the same language in
any situation, despite the speed of producing utterances and settings. Although not both subjects reported to tend to say what they have written,
there is still a minor conclusion that the schemata formed when writing can be
used when speaking. Considering that, it is quite safe to say that even adult learners can still improve their language in oral performance up to the native-like
level when they are provided with enough writing practice with authentic language to help the form the schemata.
No matter how proficient a writer is, the context and settings always have a power to determine the characteristics of the language used. The strategies used
in writing, however, are relative, no exact rule that governs the mind for this matter. The only one thing that may control the mind is the cultural awareness
that defines the way someone says something depending on the communication setting.
5.2. Suggestions
Based on the findings, discussions, and conclusions, the researcher here would like to propose some suggestions. The first one is for the linguists and
researchers. It is suggested that the role of schemata in determining the language production, whether written or spoken-like, is investigated further. It is also
interesting to collect a larger database for investigating whether there are more tendencies in choosing and using the same words, phrase, expressions, and
rhetorical pattern in writing and speaking. A more interesting study on the difference or similarities between spoken
and written language of native and non-native speaker is also suggested to be taken into account. For those who are interested in Second Language Acquisition,
it might be worthy to find out whether those who have English as second language are aware of the use of spoken and written language.
In regard to education, the English teachers and education practitioners are suggested to try utilising the text message and chat rooms for introducing the
‘new language’ while avoiding a real life contact that might cause students get nervous. Still on this matter, the applied linguists are also suggested to analyse
further the impact of writing on the development of oral proficiency. The discussion has now been concluded, and the suggestions were
presented. This is the end of this research.
REFERENCES
Allen, W, and Waugh, S. 1986. Dealing With Accuracy in Communicative Language Teaching. TESL Canada Journal.
http:www.teslcanadajournal.caindex.phpteslarticleview1005824
. Last time retrieved : September 30
th
, 2013
Amalia, R. 2011. The Correlation Between Writing Skill and Speaking Ability of The Secondary Year Students at SMA NU 1 Gresik. Gresik : Digilib Universitas
Muhammadiyah Gresik. http:digilib.umg.ac.idgdl.php?mod=browseop=readid=jipptumg--rizkiamali-
1050
. Last time retrieved : September 30
th
, 2013
Bailey, K.M. 2006. Issues in teaching speaking skills to adult ESOL learners. In J. Comins, B. Garner, and C. Smith eds. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Volume 6:
Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 113-164.
Burns, A, and Joyce, H. 1997. Thumbnail on Focus on Speaking. Sydney : National Centre for English Language Teaching.
Bogdan, R.C. Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston, Massachusetts : Allyn Bacon, Inc.
Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. Essex : Longman.
Chaney, A. L, and Burk, T.L. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Boston : Allyn Bacon.
Crystal, D. 2005. Speaking of Writing and Writing of Speaking. http:www.pearsonlongman.comdictionariespdfsSpeaking-Writing-Crystal.pdf.
Pearson Education.
Last time retrieved : September 30
th
, 2013
Doff, A. 1987. Teaching English. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Fraenkel, J. R. Wallen, N. E. 2006. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.
New York. McGraw-Hill International. Gleason, J.B. 2005. The Development of Language. Massachusetts : Pearson.
http:vig.pearsonptr.com:8081samplechapter0205394140.pdf
. Last time retrieved : September 30
th
, 2013.
Goldstein, B. E. 2008. Cognitive Psychology : Connecting Mind, Ressearch, and Everyday Experience 2nd edition. Thomson. http:grammar.about.comodilglanguageterm.htm. Last
time retrieved : April 3
rd
, 2014.
Gould, E. 1989. The act of Writing. New York : Random House. Hairston, M. 1986. Successful Writing. New York : W.W. Norton Company.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Hong Kong : Oxford University Press.
Hammond, J. 1987. Oral and Written Language in The Educational Context. A Paper presented at the 8
th
World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Sydney University, August 1987.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London : Longman. Harris, D. 1974. Testing English. Bombay : Tata McGraw Hill.
Heaton, J.B. 1991. Writing English Language Test. New York : Longman. Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Second Language Classroom. Oxford :
Oxford University Press. Hubert, M. D. 2008. The Relationship Between Writing and Speaking in The U.S University
Spanish Language Classroom. http:docs.lib.purdue.edudissertationsAAI3330267
. Last time retrieved : September 30
th
, 2013.
Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobs, H.L, et al. 1981. Testing ESL Composition : A Practical Approach. Massachusetts : Newbury House.
Jespersen, O.1894. Progress in language, with special reference to English. London[etc]: Swan Sonnenschein.New edition with an introduction by James D. McCawley.
Amsterdam Philadelphia: Benjamins 1993. Lado, R. 1961. Language Testing : The Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests.
New York : McGraw Hill Book Company. Lado, R. 1970. English Pattern Practices : Establishing the Patterns as Habits. Ann Arbor :
University of Michigan Press. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M.B. Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. London : SAGE Publications.
Moxley, R.A. 1990. On the Relationship Between Speech and Writing With Implications for Behavioral Approaches to Teaching Literacy. West Virginia University.
Nunan. D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. London : Prentice Hall.
