THINKING PROCESS DURING ENGLISH IMPROMPTU SPEAKING INDONESIAN STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FLUENCY.

THJNlO~G

PftOC£SS DUtHNG ENGLISH
Il\1PROMf''fU Sf'EAKJNG A!\lONG lNDO ESIA.N
1
1 iJ'F~NT
IO;!Tr
1i't- ·, . ,, ,"(.f ~~ :) '\ : J)l·.,' ~ .,
~ 1(_
' !: ,.. \~ . .Ll'LS
QPF ~-. , "L
)..,)
'lJ (...
1.9
A-"'1J.:~
·~ T t:"JJ i. t ~!-'

.~ ~:

.:..v ; :~ ~ l~i?:.
:·r.,

{.; ~ ; : · m.

f:t.

~;.t

, lt 'f.{~!

m

. l~.pv

.;' · t.tf
g l ;,·te

! !:ad

tht:R~qlu
r .: .:J~4tia

Lft:Ji~·;a

St,.;t{y ?;-ug
' ,c;~<

'i ts

t; In Fa

r t~ li't.

ftJr the .D!"!{r-t:e; >Jj

A THESIS
THINKING PROCESS DURING ENGLISH IMPROMPTU
SPEAKING AMONG INDONESIAN STUDENTS
OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FLUENCY
FITRIANY
Registration Number: 045010 46

English Applied Linguistics Study Program
Postgraduate School State University ofMedan
was examined on January 14th, 2010 by the board examiners
Approved by
Adviser Commissions

Adviser II

Prof. .DP;--Tampubolon., Ph. D

~

Name

: FITRIANY

Approved on

:January 14'h, 2010

1. Prof. D.P. Tampubolon, Ph.D

2. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd.

4. Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd.

5. Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd.

Approved by
Director of Post Gr~hol

&

UNIMED

Prof.Dr. Belferik Manullang
NIP. 19471015 197412 1 001

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillah, great thanks to Allah SWT, for the countless blessing
and guidance pour upon the writer. Because of her faith on the Almighty
Allah SWT, she survived the long endurance of fatigue and obstacles. And
her praise to the great prophet Muhammad SAW, her praise and unstopped
faith has brought her to the accomplishment of this thesis.
This thesis is written as a partial fulfillment of the requirements of
the degree f Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) from the English Applied
Linguistics Department of the Post Graduate School State University of
Medan.
During the writing of this thesis, suggestions, advises assistantS and
prays never once leave the writer. She is deeply indebted those who neve[
give up on her and also encourage her into accomplishing this thesi . Those
people are too many to be mentioned. however, those names will always be
crafted in her heart.
Her most gratitude is for her two advisors, Prof D.P. Tampubo on,
Ph.D and Dr. Berlin Sibarani, MPd for their priceless advises, guidance,
comments and valuable time spared for the writer. May God's blessing sliall
be poured upon them forever.
Deepest thanks to her board of examiners, Prof Dr. Busmin
Guming, MPd, Prof Dr. Lince Sihombing, MPd and Dr. Didiek Santoso,

MPd for the best critics on this thesis for the improvement of her writing
and research. The gratitude also expressed to the Director Prof Dr. Belferik
Manu/lang, and all UNIMED Post Graduate school staff for the easy access
to all administration matters and the chance given to the writer in
accomplishing her study.
Her deepest gratitude to the head of the English Applied Linguistics
Department, Prof Tina Mariany A., M, Ph.D and the secretary Pr-of. Dr.
ince Sihombing, MPd for the encouragement, priceless mental su P9ft and
assistance in all administration matters, her deepest thanks to all of her
lecturers for the knowledge during her studying in pursuing her magis et
title.
Her special and uns kable thanks to her beloved family. or her
belo_ved father Kf..Yusuf AR (Qiay Allah blessed him with the best place in
paratlise and her mother Saiyan for the never ending bless anct long nights
pray, and her youn~r
brothers and sisters, Hariman Hakim, ST; Syaiful FA,
ST; Juliana R, SS; Jamila A, S.Psi; and drg. Harmiyanti for the supports,
love and pray.
ii

Her special thanks to all of her students who voluntarily become the
subjects of her research. Her ever lasting love for Amira, Essy, Winda, Rani,
U/fa, Dini and others whose names forever crafted in her heart.
Y~a.
Finally, her deepest thanks to all of her fellow teachers at Yayasan
Pengembangan Persahabatan Indonesia- Amerika, Sinur, Anna, Ruth, Alji,
Ida, Lenny and the staff nina, shanti, whose love, support and anger have
accompanied her into mding the courage to carry out her thesis till the end ..
May·God always be with you all.

Medan, March 20 I 0
The writer,

FITRJANY
045010146

z

?

m

iii

TARLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................ .
ABSTRACT .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . ...

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .. ..... ... ............ .... .. .... .. .... .. .... ....

1v

v
vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1

The Background of the Study

1.2

The Problems of the Study .................................. .. .

1.3

The Objectives of the Study .................................. ..

1.4

The Scope of the Study ........................................ .

1.5

The Significances of the Study ........ .... .................... .

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1

Language and Thought .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . ... .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. ...

II

2.1.1 Language and Brain ....................................... .
2.2

Thinking Processes .............................................. .
Speech Production ................................................. 20
2.3.1 Thinking for Speaking ...................................... 20

iv

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1

Research Design ...................................................... 32

3.2

The Subjects of the Study ............ . .. .. ..... ............ ......... 33

3.3

The Techniques of Data Collecting .................................... 34

3.3.1 Elidtation ........ ...... .. ...................................... 34

............. ·:······· ............. .

3.4 The Technique of Data Analysis

3.5 The Method of Report Research Presentation .... .. ...... ............ 36
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 The Description of Data ...... .......................................... 37
4.2 The Analysis ofthe Data .............. ... .. ............................. 42
4.2.1 The Occurrence ofPauses ................................... 42
4.2.2 The Occurrence of other Disfluencies .................... .45
4.2.3 The Occurrence of Grammatical Error .................... .49
4.3 The Findings .............................................. , ................ 51

v

LIST OFT ABLES

Table
4.1

Page
The data of subjects' pauses, distractions and
speaking behavior during the impromptu speaking...........

39

4.2

The Occurnmc ofPauses during Impromptu Speaking.....

42

4.3

The Occurrence o Repetition and Self Correction.........

45

-z
~

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix

Page

Data of the subjects .. ... ......... ................................. .......

59

Transcription of The Recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

vii

ABSTRACT
Fitriany, Thinking Process During English Impromptu Speaking Among
Indonesia Students of Different Levels of Fluency. Thesis: English Applied
Linguistic Study Program, School of Post Graduate Unimed, 2010. Advisors
: (l)l>rof. D.P. Tampubolon, Ph.D, (2) Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd.
This research is qualitative descriptive of Multicase design. The descriptive
research studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current
status of phenomena which directed toward determining the nature of a
situation as it exists at the time of a study (Ary, Donald, 1979). The
objective of the research is to fmd out what happen when thinking processes
takes place prior to speaking impromptu and also to find out what kinds of
phenomena occur during the English impromptu speaking of students of
different levels of fluency. The subjects of this research are six Indonesian
students with different levels of fluency in English. They are classified as
elementary and advanced English level. The data obtained by way of field
note taking, tape recording and unobtrusive observation. The data analysis
procedure of this research is referring to Miles and Huberman models which
stages are data reduction, data display, then followed by conclusion
drawing/verification. In this research, the writer classified the data by the
subject's age, level ofEnglish fluency, time of studying English and type of
obstruction occurred. The speaking disruptive phenomena found from the
data reduction, is classified into kinds of pauses to be listed based on the
frequency of occurrences. This processes draw the researcher into the
findings which show that when thinking processes takes place, speakers
tend to find ways to draw the thought and stall the time by producing sounds
or silence which known as pauses. Since the research is focusing on the
subject of non native English, other phenomena following the pauses which
occur are the occurrence of repetition, self correction and grammaticaJ error.
The conclusion to be drawn from this research is spontaneous or
impromptu, given no time or several time to prepare, pauses, error and other
disfluencies in speaking still occur, despite the English competence of the
speakers.

CHAPTERV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After conducting research on seeing or finding out about thinking process
through the speech production, the researcher comes into some conclusions as
follows.
(I} The cognitive theories made by the world's researchers which mostly applied
on native Englisll peakers turn out to be applicable..to this research. The esearch
on this project shows that the pauses and repetition are the way to recall the
memory and to plan the next words to be uttered. The pauses maae by subjects ofi

level.
(2) Another disfluencies occur during the oral English production is
correction and grammatical error. The self correction occurs automatically
the subjects realize the grammatical error they made. The grammatical error and
self correction appear despite the level of fluency. The subjects in Advance
English level did not make a lot of error or self correction.
(3) Impromptu speaking which filled with disfluencies, unwanted pauses, filler,
diting expressions, self corrections and repeated words mostly indicat
problem, this phenomenon also occur in spontaneous speech.

55

56

infrequent used of the second language made the subjects unable to resist the
unconscious influence of their first language.
(5) Emotion and anxiety also affect a speaker in speaking their thoughts out. The
over exited speakers mostly speak faster although the speaking conducted in other
language.

5.2 Suggestions
In accordance o the conclusions and findings, there are some beneficial
suggestions to be notified.
(I) Pauses, both silent and filled ones shall not be considered as one's flaw in
speaking because they are part of thinking process.
(2) Non native English speakers should not be discouraged into speaking the

>
-

language out only because of the worries of making pauses or grammatical
error. Pauses are part of the thinking and speaking process, while error in
grammatical is normal for non-native English who use English in their daily
lives.
(3) Educators should manage to encourage and provoke the
English frequently in their English speaking environment.

57

REFERENCES
Ary, Donald. 1979. Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Beattie, Geoffrey W. and Butterworth, B.L. 1979. Contextual Probability and
Word Frequency as Determinants of Pauses and Errors in Spontaneous
Speech. (a research ~ournal
in Language and Speech, vol 22, Part 3).
Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Belson, David. 1955. What to Say and How to Say it. New Jersey: The Citadel
Press.
C:-~plan,

David. 1993.Language, Structure, Processing, and Disorders. London: A
Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Clark, Herbert H., and Clark, Eve V. 1977. Psychology and Language.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Incorporated

ew York:

Clark, Herbert H., and Wasow, Thomas. 1998. Repeating Words in Spontaneous
Speech, (Article no CG 980693). Stanford University: Academic Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Enlarged Edition Language and Mind. New
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Incorporated.
Foss, Donald J. and Hakes, David T. 1975. Psycholinguistics; an Introduction to
the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated.
Gentner, Dedre and Goldin, Susan. 2003. Language in Mind; Advances in Study
of Language and Thought. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Giffin, Kim., Linkugel, Wil A., and Patton, Bobby R. 1982. Responsib e Public
Speaking. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Ieason, Jean Berko., and Ratner, Nam Bernstein. 1998. Psyc olinguistics
(.'iecond Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hcnderso , Alan., Goldman-Eisler, Frieda., and Skarbek, Andrew. 1966.
Seqz entia Temporal Patterns in Spontaneous Speech, London: U iversity
College-London.
z, :Jer-rold J. 1966. The PhilosophyojL'llTiguage. New York:

Ha~r

& Row.

58

Lucas, Stephen E. 1992. The Art of Public Speaking. New York: Me Graw-Hill,
Incorporated.
Marlowe, Michael. 2004. The Effect of Language upon Thinking (an article).
www.bibleresearch.com.
Miles, Matthew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis.
Beverly Hills, California: Saga Publication.
Oliveira, Migue . Pausing Strategies as Means of Information Processing in
Spontaneous Narratives (a research report).
Paivio, Allan. 1981. Psychology ofLanguage. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Incorporated.
Papalia, Diane E., Olds, Sally Wendkos, and Feldman,
Human Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reardon,.· Kathleen Kelley. 1987. Interpersonal Communication. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth, Incorporated
Wortman, Camille B, and Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1988.
York: Princeton.

Websites:
http://www. wikimediafoundation.com
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech disfluencies

ew