TURN TAKING IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT GENDER.
TURN TAKING IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION AMONG
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT GENDER
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
BAHRIN SIMAMORA
Registration Number: 8146112004
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Simamora, Bahrin. NIM 8146112004. Turn Taking in the Classroom
Interaction among Junior High School Students of Different Gender. A
Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
This study deals with the turn taking in the classroom interaction by male and
female students. The objective of this study were to: 1) find out kinds of turn
taking used by male and female students in classroom interaction, 2) elaborate the
realization of different gender doing turn taking performed by male and female
students and 3) provide the reasons why male and female students perform the
turn taking in the way they are. It was applied by using descriptive qualitative
research. It was conducted at SMP Negeri 29 Medan involving 15 male and 15
female students. The data were collected through observing, recording and
interviewing them. The data of this study were 30 male and female students’
utterances which were taken in the classroom area. The findings showed that 1)
turn constructional component dominatly used by male students so did turn
allocational component occur in male students’ utterances if compared to female
students’ utterances, 2) male students perfomed turn constructional dominantly
namely Single Word (SW) was the highest is 52,83%, while female is 48,56%.
Then, for the turn allocational component, male students dominantly used
Compliment/Rejection (Com/R) was the highest is 44,44%, while female
dominantly used Challenge/Rejection is 66,67 and 3) There were two factors
causing male and female students doing turn taking in the way they are namely
interlocutors and age. The first reason is interlocutor. Male and female students
dominantly used single word (SW) when talking to each other. The second reason
is age. Male and female students doing turn taking while having interaction with
the close friend or someone who has the same age with them.
Keywords: Turn taking, classroom interaction, students.
i
ABSTRAK
Simamora, Bahrin. NIM 8146112004. Interaksi Alih Gilir di dalam Kelas
pada Siswa SMP dengan Berbeda Gender. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik
Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan,
2016.
Penelitian ini mengenai bahasa siswa dan siswi dalam interaksi alih gilir
(percakapan) di dalam kelas. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah 1) untuk mencari
tahu jenis-jenis alih gilir yang digunakan oleh siswa dan siswi dalam berinteraksi
di dalam kelas, 2) untuk menjabarkan bagaimana realisasi alih gilir oleh siswa dan
siswa dalam berinteraksi dalam kelas, dan 3) untuk menjelaskan alasan-alasan
mengapa siswa dan siswi melakukan alih gilir dengan cara mereka. Penelitian ini
dibuat dengan menggunakan desain deskriptive kualitatif. Penelitian ini
dilaksanakan di SMP Negeri 29 Medan yang melibatkan 15 siswa dan 15 siswi.
Data diperoleh dengan mengobservasi, merekam dan mewawancarai mereka. Data
di penelitian ini adalah dari 30 ujaran siswa dan siswi yang diambil di dalam
kelas. Penemuan ini menunjukkan bahwa 1) komponen alih konstruksional
dominan digunakan oleh tuturan siswa jika dibandingkan dengan tuturan siswi, 2)
tuturan siswa dominan menggunakan Single Word (SW) yaitu sebesar 52,83%,
sedangkan siswa sebesar 48,56%. Kemudian, pada komponen alih alokasional,
siswa cenderung menggunakan Compliment/Rejection (Com/R) yaitu sebesar
44,44%, sedangkan siswi cenderung menggunakan Challenge/Rejection yaitu
sebesar 66,67 dan 3) ada dua faktor yang menyebabkan siswa dan siswa
melakukan alih gilir dengan cara mereka sendiri, yaitu interlokutor dan umur.
Alasan pertama yaitu interlokutor. Siswa dan siswi cenderung menggunakan
single word (SW) saat berbicara satu sama lain. Alasan kedua yaitu usia. Siswa
dan siswi malakukan alih gilir dalam berbicara disaat berinteraksi dengan teman
yang di anggap dekat atau sebaya dengan mereka.
Kata kunci: Alih gilir, interaksi dalam kelas, siswa.
.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express his gratitude to the Almighty
God Allah s.w.t, the most gracious and the most merciful who has given him
healthy, chance, strenght, and patience in the process of completing this thesis.
Then, shalawat and salam to the messenger of Allah Prophet Muhammad s.a.w
who has brought people from the darkness to the lightness until this time.
I would like to thanks all those who contributed to the making of this
thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank to the first adviser Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing,
M. Pd and the second adviser Dr. Rahmad Husein, M Ed who have taught, guided
and supervised his thesis during his academic years at the State University of
Medan in 2014-2016.
Secondly, he would also like to express the gratitude to the Head of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and his
secretary Dr. Anni Kholila Pulungan, M. Hum., also to the staff Farid Ma’ruf for
their assistance regarding to the administrative procedures. Special thanks to the
all lecturers of the English Applied Linguistics program, who have given the
writer the valuable knowledge in their lectures. The writer would also like to
convey the greatest thanks to the reviewers and examiners as well as Prof. Dr.
Sumarsih, M.Pd, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd and Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum who
have examined his thesis, suggesstions and improvement to be the good one.
Thirdly, the writer dedicated the thanksfulness to his beloved wife
Hj.Rosmaini Hasibuan ,daughter Maulidah Hayati Simamora ST and son Khaidar
Ali Simamora ,Amd for their support to the writer in taking his Master Degree
Program.
Fourthly, thanks to his colleagues; Rahmat Huda, S.Pd, M.Hum, Saddam
Syarif Nasution, Edward Wilson Purba, Gabby Maureen Pricilia, S.Pd, M.Hum
Sartika Dewi Harahap, S.Pd, M.Hum, Makhraini Agustina, S.Pd, M.Hum, Frida
Dian Handini, S.Pd, M.Hum, Orli Binta Tumanggor, S.Pd, M.Hum, Ina Swari
Sijabat, Mairtati Dewi, Nur Alfi Syahri, Hajar Affiah, S.Pd, M.Hum, Nurlaili
Khaira Khalid, Tita Nirmala Ginting, Afer Jayanti Mendrofa, Jien Rizki Magsara
Rumahorbo, S.Pd, M.Hum, Marwah, and Isrami Andika Pebianti, for their
sincere, love and support.
Lastly, thanks to the Head of SMP Negeri 29 Medan Drs. Bowonaso
Lahagu, MM, and all of his students for their help and support.
Medan, 16th December 2016
The writer
BAHRIN SIMAMORA
NIM. 8146112004
iii
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................
LIST OF CONTENTS .............................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………...
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………….
i
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study .........................................
1.2. Problem os Study .....................................................
1.3. Objectives of the Study ............................................
1.4. Scope of the Study ...................................................
1.5.Significance of the study...........................................
1
5
5
6
6
CHAPTER II : RIVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Turn Taking .............................................................
2.1.1. Types of turn taking .....................................
a. Turn-constructional component .............
b. Turn-allocational component .................
2.1.2. The rules ......................................................
a. Starting up ..............................................
b. Taking over ............................................
c. Interrupting ............................................
2.1.3. Holding the turn ...........................................
2.1.4. Yielding the turn ..........................................
a. Prompting ..............................................
b. Appealing...............................................
c. Giving up ...............................................
2.2. Classroom interaction ..............................................
2.2.1. Types of classroom interaction ....................
2.2.2. The role of teacher in the classroom ............
2.3. Conversation analysis ..............................................
2.4. Language and gender ...............................................
2.4.1 Differences of male and famale in communication
2.5. Relevant Studies ......................................................
2.6. Conceptual Framework ............................................
7
7
8
10
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
21
22
25
27
28
30
32
34
CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
3.1. Research Design ......................................................
3.2. Data and Source of Data ........................................
3.3. Instrument of Data Collection .................................
3.4. Technique of Data Collection ..................................
3.5. Technique of Data Analysis.....................................
a. Data Condensation .............................................
b. Data Display ......................................................
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
iv
c. Data verification/ drawing conclusion ..............
3.6. Trustworthiness of Data ...........................................
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDING, AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Data Analysis ................................................. .........
4.1.1. Types of Turn Taking ..................................
4.1.2. Types of Turn Taking Performed by Male
Students .......................................................
4.1.3. Types of Turn Taking Performed by
Female Students ..........................................
4.1.4. The relialization of turn taking by different
gender ..........................................................
4.1.5. Factors Which Affected Male and Famale
Students Doing Turn Taking .......................
4.2. Findings...................................................................
4.3. Disscussion..............................................................
39
36
43
44
44
47
49
50
50
51
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclussions ..............................................................
5.2. Implication...................................................................
5.3. Suggestions ................................................................
55
55
56
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................
APPENDIX ................................................................................................
57
60
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1.
Six diffrences of male and female in communication ...........
30
Table 4.1.
The types of turn taking of constructional component
by male students ...................................................................
44
Types of turn taking of allocational component
by male students .....................................................................
44
Table 4.3
The types of male turn taking are summarized .....................
45
Table 4.4.
The types of turn taking of constructional component
by female students ................................................................
46
Types of turn taking of allocational component
by female students ..................................................................
47
Table 4.6
The types of turn taking by female .......................................
48
Table 4.7
The types of turn taking by male and femal..........................
49
Table 4.2.
Table 4.5
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1.
Conceptual Framework of turn taking ...................................
vii
35
CHAPTER I
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions
According to research findings, it can be concluded that;
First, types of turn taking include two primary (main) points, namely
turn constructional component (single word, single phrase, single clause),
Second,
turn
allocational
component(complaint/denial,
compliment/rejection, challenge/rejection). In this research male students
performed turn constructional dominantly used single word on students’ turn
taking in the classroom interaction,
Third, male and female students mostly used single word of turn
constructional component, while in the turn allocational component male
students mostly used compliment/rejection whether female students mostly
used challenge/rejection.
5.2. Implications
The results of this research seem to have some important implications
for students and for further research studies 1. ‘single word’ were not used in
the right places and in appropriate moments, which indicates that listeners use
them to support the speakers talk. 2. Furthermore, the use of the hedge ‘you
know’ is wide spread in our community especially in informal settings. But in
formal settings it has two indications, if the speaker uses ‘you know’ and
continues without hesitation, so it means that he/she is confident. On the other
55
56
hand, if the speaker uses it and s/he stops during his/her talk for two or three
seconds, this means that s/he is uncertain of what s/he is saying.
5.3. Suggestions
Conversation analysis in turn taking is quite important for the next
researchers who concern with communication in social life, because in social
community,the language users
must have their
own rules, regarded to
culture, language and mentality to reach an ideal and understanding
communication.
This research may give a few suggestions for the next researchers
that will analyze conversation among more than 30 participant. They also can
analyze conversation between participants who use different languages for
example, three participants talk about something in conversation and each
conversation use different languages and other participans understand what the
speaker says, so conversation flows well.
57
REFERENCES
Auer, J. C. P. 1988. A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-Switching and
Transfer. In Wei, L. (ed.). (2000) The Bilingualism Reader. pp.166-187.
London: Routledge.
Auerbach, C. F. and Silverstein, L. B. 2003. Qualitative Data. New York: New
York University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. et al. 1991. Developing Pragmatic Awareness: Closing The
Conversation. In Hedge, T. and N. Whitney. (eds.). (1996). Power,
Pedagogy & Practice. pp. 324-337. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bodgan, R.C, and Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Method (3rd Edition). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Culpeper, J. (2001). Language and Characterization: People in Plays and other
Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Coulthard, R. M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Second Edition.
Harlow: Longman.
Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Dagarin, MAteja. (2004). Classroom Interaction And Comunication Strategies In
Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.
Duncan, S. 1972. Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in
Conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Goronga, P. 2013. Challenges experienced by students with disabilities when
pursuing programmes with Zimbabwe Open University. SAVAP
International, 513, Vol.4, No.4.
Hughes, R. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. Essex: Pearson Education.
Herazo Rivera, J. (2010). Authentic oral interaction in the EFL Class: What it
means, what it does not. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 12(1).
Jefferson, G. 1973. ‘A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary
Conversation:Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing
Sequences’. Semiotica. 9:47-96.
57
58
Jane Francoise Stephenen 1987
Towards a Model of Turn Taking in
Conversation pp 33-37 University of Sheffied
Kato, F. 2000. Discourse Approach to Turn-Taking from the Perspective Tone
.
Choice between Speakers. University of Birmingham: Edgbaston,
London
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills:
California.
Mey, J. L. 2000. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Second Edition. Massachusetts:
Blackwell.
Mey, J.L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Massachsetts: Blackwell.
Miles, M. Huberman, A.M and Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly
Hills: California.
Radford, L. 2011. The ethics of being and knowing: Towards a cultural theory of
learning. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in
mathematics education: Epistemology, history, classroom, and culture
(pp. 215–234). Rotterdam: Sense.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. ‘A Simplest Systematics for
the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’. Language. Journal
of the Linguistic Society of America. Vol. 50.
Sacks, H., Schegloff. 1972. A simplest Systematics for the Organization of TurnTaking for Conversation. London, Oxford University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for
Conversation. New York: Longman.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stake, R. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Stenstrom, A.B. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London and New
York: Longman.
Tang, E. 2010. The reflective journey of preservice ESL teachers: an analysis of
interactive blog entries. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. Volume
22, Issue 4, pp. 449-457.
59
Wardhaugh, R. 1998. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Third Edition. Oxford.
Wong, J. and Waring, H.Z. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Language Pedagogy
(A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group,
New York.
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT GENDER
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
BAHRIN SIMAMORA
Registration Number: 8146112004
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Simamora, Bahrin. NIM 8146112004. Turn Taking in the Classroom
Interaction among Junior High School Students of Different Gender. A
Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
This study deals with the turn taking in the classroom interaction by male and
female students. The objective of this study were to: 1) find out kinds of turn
taking used by male and female students in classroom interaction, 2) elaborate the
realization of different gender doing turn taking performed by male and female
students and 3) provide the reasons why male and female students perform the
turn taking in the way they are. It was applied by using descriptive qualitative
research. It was conducted at SMP Negeri 29 Medan involving 15 male and 15
female students. The data were collected through observing, recording and
interviewing them. The data of this study were 30 male and female students’
utterances which were taken in the classroom area. The findings showed that 1)
turn constructional component dominatly used by male students so did turn
allocational component occur in male students’ utterances if compared to female
students’ utterances, 2) male students perfomed turn constructional dominantly
namely Single Word (SW) was the highest is 52,83%, while female is 48,56%.
Then, for the turn allocational component, male students dominantly used
Compliment/Rejection (Com/R) was the highest is 44,44%, while female
dominantly used Challenge/Rejection is 66,67 and 3) There were two factors
causing male and female students doing turn taking in the way they are namely
interlocutors and age. The first reason is interlocutor. Male and female students
dominantly used single word (SW) when talking to each other. The second reason
is age. Male and female students doing turn taking while having interaction with
the close friend or someone who has the same age with them.
Keywords: Turn taking, classroom interaction, students.
i
ABSTRAK
Simamora, Bahrin. NIM 8146112004. Interaksi Alih Gilir di dalam Kelas
pada Siswa SMP dengan Berbeda Gender. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik
Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan,
2016.
Penelitian ini mengenai bahasa siswa dan siswi dalam interaksi alih gilir
(percakapan) di dalam kelas. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah 1) untuk mencari
tahu jenis-jenis alih gilir yang digunakan oleh siswa dan siswi dalam berinteraksi
di dalam kelas, 2) untuk menjabarkan bagaimana realisasi alih gilir oleh siswa dan
siswa dalam berinteraksi dalam kelas, dan 3) untuk menjelaskan alasan-alasan
mengapa siswa dan siswi melakukan alih gilir dengan cara mereka. Penelitian ini
dibuat dengan menggunakan desain deskriptive kualitatif. Penelitian ini
dilaksanakan di SMP Negeri 29 Medan yang melibatkan 15 siswa dan 15 siswi.
Data diperoleh dengan mengobservasi, merekam dan mewawancarai mereka. Data
di penelitian ini adalah dari 30 ujaran siswa dan siswi yang diambil di dalam
kelas. Penemuan ini menunjukkan bahwa 1) komponen alih konstruksional
dominan digunakan oleh tuturan siswa jika dibandingkan dengan tuturan siswi, 2)
tuturan siswa dominan menggunakan Single Word (SW) yaitu sebesar 52,83%,
sedangkan siswa sebesar 48,56%. Kemudian, pada komponen alih alokasional,
siswa cenderung menggunakan Compliment/Rejection (Com/R) yaitu sebesar
44,44%, sedangkan siswi cenderung menggunakan Challenge/Rejection yaitu
sebesar 66,67 dan 3) ada dua faktor yang menyebabkan siswa dan siswa
melakukan alih gilir dengan cara mereka sendiri, yaitu interlokutor dan umur.
Alasan pertama yaitu interlokutor. Siswa dan siswi cenderung menggunakan
single word (SW) saat berbicara satu sama lain. Alasan kedua yaitu usia. Siswa
dan siswi malakukan alih gilir dalam berbicara disaat berinteraksi dengan teman
yang di anggap dekat atau sebaya dengan mereka.
Kata kunci: Alih gilir, interaksi dalam kelas, siswa.
.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express his gratitude to the Almighty
God Allah s.w.t, the most gracious and the most merciful who has given him
healthy, chance, strenght, and patience in the process of completing this thesis.
Then, shalawat and salam to the messenger of Allah Prophet Muhammad s.a.w
who has brought people from the darkness to the lightness until this time.
I would like to thanks all those who contributed to the making of this
thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank to the first adviser Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing,
M. Pd and the second adviser Dr. Rahmad Husein, M Ed who have taught, guided
and supervised his thesis during his academic years at the State University of
Medan in 2014-2016.
Secondly, he would also like to express the gratitude to the Head of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and his
secretary Dr. Anni Kholila Pulungan, M. Hum., also to the staff Farid Ma’ruf for
their assistance regarding to the administrative procedures. Special thanks to the
all lecturers of the English Applied Linguistics program, who have given the
writer the valuable knowledge in their lectures. The writer would also like to
convey the greatest thanks to the reviewers and examiners as well as Prof. Dr.
Sumarsih, M.Pd, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd and Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum who
have examined his thesis, suggesstions and improvement to be the good one.
Thirdly, the writer dedicated the thanksfulness to his beloved wife
Hj.Rosmaini Hasibuan ,daughter Maulidah Hayati Simamora ST and son Khaidar
Ali Simamora ,Amd for their support to the writer in taking his Master Degree
Program.
Fourthly, thanks to his colleagues; Rahmat Huda, S.Pd, M.Hum, Saddam
Syarif Nasution, Edward Wilson Purba, Gabby Maureen Pricilia, S.Pd, M.Hum
Sartika Dewi Harahap, S.Pd, M.Hum, Makhraini Agustina, S.Pd, M.Hum, Frida
Dian Handini, S.Pd, M.Hum, Orli Binta Tumanggor, S.Pd, M.Hum, Ina Swari
Sijabat, Mairtati Dewi, Nur Alfi Syahri, Hajar Affiah, S.Pd, M.Hum, Nurlaili
Khaira Khalid, Tita Nirmala Ginting, Afer Jayanti Mendrofa, Jien Rizki Magsara
Rumahorbo, S.Pd, M.Hum, Marwah, and Isrami Andika Pebianti, for their
sincere, love and support.
Lastly, thanks to the Head of SMP Negeri 29 Medan Drs. Bowonaso
Lahagu, MM, and all of his students for their help and support.
Medan, 16th December 2016
The writer
BAHRIN SIMAMORA
NIM. 8146112004
iii
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................
LIST OF CONTENTS .............................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………...
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………….
i
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study .........................................
1.2. Problem os Study .....................................................
1.3. Objectives of the Study ............................................
1.4. Scope of the Study ...................................................
1.5.Significance of the study...........................................
1
5
5
6
6
CHAPTER II : RIVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Turn Taking .............................................................
2.1.1. Types of turn taking .....................................
a. Turn-constructional component .............
b. Turn-allocational component .................
2.1.2. The rules ......................................................
a. Starting up ..............................................
b. Taking over ............................................
c. Interrupting ............................................
2.1.3. Holding the turn ...........................................
2.1.4. Yielding the turn ..........................................
a. Prompting ..............................................
b. Appealing...............................................
c. Giving up ...............................................
2.2. Classroom interaction ..............................................
2.2.1. Types of classroom interaction ....................
2.2.2. The role of teacher in the classroom ............
2.3. Conversation analysis ..............................................
2.4. Language and gender ...............................................
2.4.1 Differences of male and famale in communication
2.5. Relevant Studies ......................................................
2.6. Conceptual Framework ............................................
7
7
8
10
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
21
22
25
27
28
30
32
34
CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
3.1. Research Design ......................................................
3.2. Data and Source of Data ........................................
3.3. Instrument of Data Collection .................................
3.4. Technique of Data Collection ..................................
3.5. Technique of Data Analysis.....................................
a. Data Condensation .............................................
b. Data Display ......................................................
36
37
37
37
38
38
39
iv
c. Data verification/ drawing conclusion ..............
3.6. Trustworthiness of Data ...........................................
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDING, AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Data Analysis ................................................. .........
4.1.1. Types of Turn Taking ..................................
4.1.2. Types of Turn Taking Performed by Male
Students .......................................................
4.1.3. Types of Turn Taking Performed by
Female Students ..........................................
4.1.4. The relialization of turn taking by different
gender ..........................................................
4.1.5. Factors Which Affected Male and Famale
Students Doing Turn Taking .......................
4.2. Findings...................................................................
4.3. Disscussion..............................................................
39
36
43
44
44
47
49
50
50
51
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclussions ..............................................................
5.2. Implication...................................................................
5.3. Suggestions ................................................................
55
55
56
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................
APPENDIX ................................................................................................
57
60
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1.
Six diffrences of male and female in communication ...........
30
Table 4.1.
The types of turn taking of constructional component
by male students ...................................................................
44
Types of turn taking of allocational component
by male students .....................................................................
44
Table 4.3
The types of male turn taking are summarized .....................
45
Table 4.4.
The types of turn taking of constructional component
by female students ................................................................
46
Types of turn taking of allocational component
by female students ..................................................................
47
Table 4.6
The types of turn taking by female .......................................
48
Table 4.7
The types of turn taking by male and femal..........................
49
Table 4.2.
Table 4.5
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1.
Conceptual Framework of turn taking ...................................
vii
35
CHAPTER I
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions
According to research findings, it can be concluded that;
First, types of turn taking include two primary (main) points, namely
turn constructional component (single word, single phrase, single clause),
Second,
turn
allocational
component(complaint/denial,
compliment/rejection, challenge/rejection). In this research male students
performed turn constructional dominantly used single word on students’ turn
taking in the classroom interaction,
Third, male and female students mostly used single word of turn
constructional component, while in the turn allocational component male
students mostly used compliment/rejection whether female students mostly
used challenge/rejection.
5.2. Implications
The results of this research seem to have some important implications
for students and for further research studies 1. ‘single word’ were not used in
the right places and in appropriate moments, which indicates that listeners use
them to support the speakers talk. 2. Furthermore, the use of the hedge ‘you
know’ is wide spread in our community especially in informal settings. But in
formal settings it has two indications, if the speaker uses ‘you know’ and
continues without hesitation, so it means that he/she is confident. On the other
55
56
hand, if the speaker uses it and s/he stops during his/her talk for two or three
seconds, this means that s/he is uncertain of what s/he is saying.
5.3. Suggestions
Conversation analysis in turn taking is quite important for the next
researchers who concern with communication in social life, because in social
community,the language users
must have their
own rules, regarded to
culture, language and mentality to reach an ideal and understanding
communication.
This research may give a few suggestions for the next researchers
that will analyze conversation among more than 30 participant. They also can
analyze conversation between participants who use different languages for
example, three participants talk about something in conversation and each
conversation use different languages and other participans understand what the
speaker says, so conversation flows well.
57
REFERENCES
Auer, J. C. P. 1988. A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-Switching and
Transfer. In Wei, L. (ed.). (2000) The Bilingualism Reader. pp.166-187.
London: Routledge.
Auerbach, C. F. and Silverstein, L. B. 2003. Qualitative Data. New York: New
York University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. et al. 1991. Developing Pragmatic Awareness: Closing The
Conversation. In Hedge, T. and N. Whitney. (eds.). (1996). Power,
Pedagogy & Practice. pp. 324-337. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bodgan, R.C, and Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Method (3rd Edition). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Culpeper, J. (2001). Language and Characterization: People in Plays and other
Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Coulthard, R. M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Second Edition.
Harlow: Longman.
Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Dagarin, MAteja. (2004). Classroom Interaction And Comunication Strategies In
Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.
Duncan, S. 1972. Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in
Conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Goronga, P. 2013. Challenges experienced by students with disabilities when
pursuing programmes with Zimbabwe Open University. SAVAP
International, 513, Vol.4, No.4.
Hughes, R. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. Essex: Pearson Education.
Herazo Rivera, J. (2010). Authentic oral interaction in the EFL Class: What it
means, what it does not. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, 12(1).
Jefferson, G. 1973. ‘A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary
Conversation:Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing
Sequences’. Semiotica. 9:47-96.
57
58
Jane Francoise Stephenen 1987
Towards a Model of Turn Taking in
Conversation pp 33-37 University of Sheffied
Kato, F. 2000. Discourse Approach to Turn-Taking from the Perspective Tone
.
Choice between Speakers. University of Birmingham: Edgbaston,
London
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills:
California.
Mey, J. L. 2000. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Second Edition. Massachusetts:
Blackwell.
Mey, J.L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Massachsetts: Blackwell.
Miles, M. Huberman, A.M and Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly
Hills: California.
Radford, L. 2011. The ethics of being and knowing: Towards a cultural theory of
learning. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in
mathematics education: Epistemology, history, classroom, and culture
(pp. 215–234). Rotterdam: Sense.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. ‘A Simplest Systematics for
the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’. Language. Journal
of the Linguistic Society of America. Vol. 50.
Sacks, H., Schegloff. 1972. A simplest Systematics for the Organization of TurnTaking for Conversation. London, Oxford University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for
Conversation. New York: Longman.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stake, R. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Stenstrom, A.B. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London and New
York: Longman.
Tang, E. 2010. The reflective journey of preservice ESL teachers: an analysis of
interactive blog entries. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. Volume
22, Issue 4, pp. 449-457.
59
Wardhaugh, R. 1998. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Third Edition. Oxford.
Wong, J. and Waring, H.Z. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Language Pedagogy
(A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group,
New York.