The Correlation Between Students’ Linguistic Intelligence And Their English Speaking Skill Achievement
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN
STUDENTS‟ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND
THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
th
(A Correlational Study at 4 semester students of academic year 2009 of Department of
English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training,
State Islamic University of
' Syarif Hidaytaullah')
“Skripsi”
Presented to Department of English Education
In a partial fulfillment of requirements for the Degree of Strata
1 (S.Pd)
By:
AMIN MUBAROK
104014000356
DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF „SYARIF
HIDAYATULLAH‟
JAKARTA
2011
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:
Nama Lengkap
: Amin Mubarok
No. Induk Mahasiswa : 104014000356
Jurusan
: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Judul Skripsi
: The Correlation Between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and
Their Speaking Skill Achievement (A Correlational Study at
Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and
Teachers Training, State Islamic University of ' Syarif
Hidaytaullah')
Atas bimbingan skripsi oleh:
Nama Dosen
: Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
No. Induk Pegawai
: 19491122 1978 03 1 001
Dengan ini saya selalu penulis menyatakan bahwa:
1. Skripsi merupakan hasil karya asli saya dengan sebenar-benarnya untuk diajukan
kepada fakultas ilmu tarbiyah dan keguruan untuk memenuhi salah satu
persyaratan memperoleh gelar sarjana (S.Pd) di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Semua sumber yang saya pergunakan dalam penulisan skripsi ini telah saya
cantumkan sesuai ketentuan yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
3. Jika di kemudian hari terbukti karya ini bukan hasil karya saya, maka saya pun
bersedia menerima sanksi yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Jakarta, 11 Juni 2011
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Islam
Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta:
Nama
: Amin Mubarok
NIM
: 104014000356
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Skripsi saya yang berjudul:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
hak untuk me-nyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya
dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan
mempublikasikannya di In-ternet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis
tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya
selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Jakarta
Pada tanggal : 4 Januari 2017
Yang menyatakan
( Amin Mubarok )
ABSTRACT
Mubarok, Amin. 2011, The Correlation between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and
th
Their English Speaking Skill Achievement, (A Correlational study at 4
semester students academic year 2009 of Department of English Education,
Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, State Islamic University of „
Syarif Hidaytaullah'), “Skripsi”, Department of English Education, Faculty of
Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, “Syarif Hidayatullah” State Islamic
Universiversity, Jakarta.
Advisor
: Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Key word
: Linguistic Intelligence, English Speaking Skill Achievement.
Linguistic intelligence, the ability to construct clear idea and to use the words
competently in spoken and in written form of language either in first language or
second language and even in the foreign language, is one of the human capacities that
naturally exists in human‟ s brain since their birth. When the students use this
potential, they are supposed to master any skills of the foreign language such as
English speaking skill.
The aims of the research are to know the correlation between students‟
linguistic intelligence and their English speaking skill achievement in English
Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher‟ s Training, Jakarta State Islamic
University of „Syarif Hidayatullah‟ .
After doing the research by using the correlational technique, the writer finds
correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence is too low on their English
speaking skill achievement. It is showed by the result of the research (0.042). It
belongs to very low correlation. It means that there is no significant correlation
between x variable (students‟ linguistic intelligence) and y variable (students‟
English speaking skill achievement).
After getting the result of the research, the writer can conclude that linguistic
intelligence is the ability which simply cannot be measured as in the academic
potential test (Tes Potensi Akademik). Based on the result of the research, the writer
gives suggestion as follows: (1) there should be more comprehensive analysis to
design the test to measure the linguistic intelligence accurately. (2) Students should
realize that each of them have the innate capacity to master any language. (3)
Students should be confident in speaking in English. (4) The teachers should give
great opportunity for students to use the language naturally. (5) The teacher should
pay attention on students‟ affective factors in teaching the foreign language. It is
important because some of students are still afraid of making a mistake in performing
English
ABSTRAK
Amin Mubarok, 2011, Hubungan Antara Kecerdesan Linguistik Dengan Hasil
Belajar Berbicara Bahasa Inggris Siswa, (Studi Hubungan Pada Mahasiswa
Semester 4 Angkatan 2009, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas
Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta), Skripsi, Jurusan Pendidikan
Bahasa Inggris, FITK, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Pembimbing : Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Kata kunci :Kecerdasan Berbahasa, Prestasi Belajar Keterampilan Berbicara
Bahasa Inggris
Kecerdasan berbahasa, sebuah kemampuan untuk menyusun ide yang jelas
dan menggunakan kata-kata secara kompeten dalam bahasa ujaran dan dalam bahasa
tulisan, baik dalam bahasa pertama atau bahasa kedua dan bahkan bahasa asing,
adalah salah satu diantara sekian kemampuan manusia yang secara alami sudah ada di
dalam otak mereka sejak mereka lahir. Ketika siswa menggunakan potensi ini dengan
maksimal, maka dimungkinkan mereka akan menguasai keterampilan berbahasa
apapun dalam bahasa asing seperti keterampilan berbicara dalam bahasa inggris.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui sejauh mana hubungan
antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa dengan prestasi belajar keterampilan
berbicara bahasa inggris mereka di Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas
Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Setelah melakukan penelitian dengan teknik korelasi, penulis menemukan
bahwa hubungan antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa terhadap prestasi
keterampilan berbicara bahasa inggris sangat rendah. Hal itu ditunjukkan dengan
hasil penghitungan rumus korelasi (0,042) di mana skor ini menunjukkan hubungan
yang sangat rendah. Itu berarti bahwa, tidak hubungan yang signifikan antara variabel
x (kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa) dan variabel y (hasil belajar keterampilan
berbicara bahasa inggris).
Setelah mendapatkan hasil penelitian, penulis mendapatkan kesimpulan
bahwa kecerdasan berbahasa adalah sebuah kemampuan yang secara sederhana tidak
bisa diukur seperti apa yang ada dalam tes potensi akademik. Dan berdasarkan hasil
penelitian, penulis memberikan saran seperti berikut: (1) Harus ada analisis yang
lebih dalam dan komprehensif untuk men-desain sebuah tes kecerdasan berbahasa
yang lebih akurat. (2) Mahasiswa harus sadar bahwa masing-masing mereka memiliki
kemampuan bawaan untuk menguasai bahasa apapun. (3) Mahasiswa harus lebih
percaya diri dalam berbicara dalam bahasa inggris. (4) guru harus memberikan
kesempatan yang lebih besar terhadap mahasiswa/siswa dalam menggunakan bahasa
secara alami. (5) Guru harus memperhatikan faktor afektif mahasiswa/siswa dalam
mengajar bahasa asing. Hal ini sangat penting karena ada beberapa mahasiswa/siswa
yang masih takut melakukan kesalahan dalam mempraktekkan bahasa Inggris.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise be to Allah
swt, the Almighty and the Lord of the worlds, the Light who enlighten all the
univers, who has bestowed upon the writer in completing this “Skripsi”. Peace
and blessing be upon our prophet Muhammad saw, his family, his companions,
and his followers.
The writer would like to express his deepest honor and respect to:
1. His beloved parents: Tarjoyo and Siti Aisyah who always pray and support
him to give the best, and to his sisters (Mustaqimah, Faihatul Muhbitin,
Faidhul Yumna, Badiatul Ulwiyah) who give the motivation and
encouragement to complete this “Skripsi”
2. Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA, as the advisor who has given his time and guidance
for the writer and has encouraged to finish this „Skripsi‟ .Prof. Dr. Dede
Rosyada, MA, the Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training.
3. All the lecturers of English Department who have given the writer their
knowledge.
4. The Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training, Prof. Dr. Dede
Rosyada, MA.
5. The Chairman of English Department, Drs. Syauki M.Pd and the secretary
of English Department, Neneng Sunengsih, S.Pd
6. The lecturer of Psycholinguistics, Zahril Anasyi, M.Hum., who has helped
the writer in doing the research.
7. The lecturer of Speaking, Drs. Suyono Kasim, M.Ed., who has helped the
writer in designing the instrument of the research.
8. The stuff and officer of the UIN libraries and ATMAJAYA
vii
9. Some of PBI students of academic year 2009 who have participated in the
writer‟ s research related to this „Skripsi‟ by doing the test of linguistic
intelligence.
The writer would also like to give his gratitude to his best friends, Asep
Mutaqin Abror and Fitriah AB, who have given the motivation and
encouragement for the writer to finish this „Skripsi‟ .
Finally, the writer hopes that this „skripsi‟ would be the contribution for
the insight development in English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiya and
Teachers‟ Training. Therefore the writer is pleased to receive criticism and
suggestions from the readers especially teachers and parents to improve this
„Skripsi‟ .
Jakarta, July 16, 2011
The Writer
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………..
v
ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………..
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………
ix
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………. xii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION………………………………………..
1
A. Background of the study…………………………………..
1
B. The Limitation and statement of the problem…………….
4
C. The significance of the study……………………………….
5
D. The method of the study…………………………………..
5
E. The organization of the writing……………………………
6
CHAPTER II : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………….… ........... 7
A. Linguistic Intelligence……………………………………...
7
1. The Understanding of Linguistic Intelligence…………
7
2. Criteria of Linguistically Intelligent People…………… 12
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence…………..
13
4. Ways to increase the linguistic intelligence………….. 27 B.
Speaking……………………………………………………. 28
1. The Definition of Speaking……………………………
28
2. The Purpose of Speaking…………………...….………
29
3. The Elements of Speaking……………………………. 30
C. Achievement……………………………………………….. 33
1. The Definition of Achievement………………………. 33
2. The Factor of Learning Achievement………………… 34 D.
Conceptual Frame………………………………………….. 36
ix
E.
Hypothesis………………………………………………
The
41
CHAPTER III : PROFILE OF PBI………………….…………………... 42
A. English Education Department Identity……………………
42
B. Brief History of English Education Department…………...... 43
C. Vision and Mission…………………………………………. 44
D. Objective of Course…………………………………………
44
E. Students……………………………………………………… 45
F. Lectures……………………………………………………… 47
G. Curriculum…………………………………………………… 48
H. Facilities……………………………………………………... 49
I. The Facilities and Activities Supporting
the Linguistic Intelligence…………………………………… 51
CHAPTER IV : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AND FINDINGS………………………………………..
52
A. Research Methodology…………………………………….. 52
1. Objective of the Research………………………………. 52
2. Time and Location………………………………………
52
3. Method of the Research…………………………………
53
4. Population and Sample………………………………….
53
5. Technique of Collecting the Data………………………
53
6. Technique of Analyzing the Data………………………
53
B. Research Findings…………………………………….…….. 55
1. Description of the Data………………………………..... 55
2. Data Analysis…………………………………………… 66
3. Interpretation of Data Analysis and Test Hypothesis…..
x
68
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION…………………
71
A. Conclusion……………………………………………. 71
B. Suggestion……………………………………….......... 71
BIBLIOIGRAPHY………………………………………………………… 73
GLOSSARY………………………………………………………………... 78
APPENDIX
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Annual Students‟ Progress………………………………....
45
Table 3.2
Lecturers Composition……………………………………..
48
Table 3.3
Components Curriculum……………………………………
49
Table 4.1
The level of Correlation…………………………………….
54
Table 4.2
Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores……………………..
55
Table 4.3
Computation of the mean from a frequency distribution
of Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores…………………..
57
Table 4.4
Students‟ Score of Speaking………………………………..
62
Table 4.5
Computation of mean from a frequency distribution
of Students‟ Score of Speaking………………….………….
63
Table 4.6Basic statistic correlation formula of students‟ linguistic
intelligence and their speaking skill achievement…………… 66
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Brain Localization…………………………………………..
19
Figure 2.2Brain and Language Function‟s Area………………………
20
Figure 2.3The Factors of Learning Achievement……………………..
35
Figure 4.1
Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.3)……………………………………………………
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
57
Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.5)…………………………………………………..
64
Coefficient Correlation between x and y Variable………....
67
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of Study
English is the world‟ s most widely studied foreign language, five hundred
years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of education, commerce,
1
religion, and government in the western world .
Realizing the importance of English as the international language, English
in Indonesia becomes compulsory subject from elementary school until university
level but most of the students are still difficult to produce the language fluently
either in a written or in a spoken form. And one of the problems of foreign
language learner in mustering productive skills usually happens in a speaking
skill. And it commonly happens in Indonesia as a country which treats English as
a foreign language.
Even the variety of education curriculum in Indonesia have changed
periodically (1994, 1999, 2004 / Competence Based Curriculum and 2006 /
KTSP); English is still being difficult subject for most students. And one of its
indicators is most of graduate students of senior high school still cannot master
English passively and actively either in the spoken form or in the written form.
And even we know the English curriculum in Indonesia emphasizes on the
1
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.1
1
2
importance of communicative way to teach English but in reality some students
still difficult to speak English fluently.
The writer believes there are some reasons why English speaking skill is
still becoming problem for Indonesian people in producing it, first, the practicing
of English language teaching in Indonesia do not support the communicative way
to teach a language. Second, there are some lexically, grammatically, and
phonologically differences between English and Bahasa Indonesia. And the third,
there is not a wide English community in Indonesia that makes Indonesian people
have a little chance to use English in their social life.
Talking of fluency in producing language; basically it cannot be separated
from Linguistic Intelligence because it relates to the ability to construct minds
clearly and ability to express mind in speaking, reading and writing. Moreover,
Linguistic Intelligence as one of Howard Gardner‟ s Multiple intelligences
theory; is the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other
languages, to express what is on your mind and to understand people.
Linguistically intelligent people usually like to read, write, listen, and play
word games. They are good at spelling, sensitive to pattern of sound and grammar,
and systematic in thinking. They have a good memory for general knowledge and
ability to reason therefore People with high linguistic intelligence not only show
the mastery of language properly, but also tell a story, debate, discuss, make a
report and finish a variety of task which has a correlation with speaking and
2
writing .
According to those criteria, the linguistically intelligent people may learn
English (as a foreign Language) faster. They know how to arrange the words and
the sentence systematically and syntactically, they understand speech pattern
semantically, and they are able to communicate their viewpoints in a clear,
beautiful, and refined manner.
Actually, the developing both philosophical and practical basis for
language teaching is not merely derived from tradition (such as grammar
2
May Lwin at all, How to Multiply your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide
for parents of Seven-Year-Olds and Below, (USA: Prentice Hall, 2003) p.11
3
translation method) and practical realities (such as determination of reading as the
goal in American schools and college); but also from linguistics, psychology, or a
3
mixture of both of them .
Then, linguistic intelligence as one of psychology and linguistic theory can
be a good contribution and insight for a development of language teaching. It
answers how the language is produced by part of brain, how speech pattern is
produced by the human, and how the language proficiency can be increased by
students.
Talking of the linguistic intelligence, it cannot be separated from brain
function which controls all the human behavior include the language control. It is
mentioned in Neurolinguistic that there is part of brain which control the language
and speech production. And it is approved by many researchers such as Edwin
smith, an American, acquired in 1862 a papyrus scroll that many believe contains
the first mention of the consequences of brain injury. Parts of this scroll have been
dated to 3000 B.C. Forty eight cases were discussed in this papyrus. Case 22
(quoted above) notes that the loss of speech skills was possible following head
trauma. Many have regarded it as the first mention of aphasia (loss of language
abilities due to brain damage). To this day, trauma (injury to the brain produced by
external force) continues to provide us with insight into brain function. Moreover,
Hippocratic Scholars (460-370
B.C)
correctly observed that brain injury often
produced contralateral (opposite-sided) paresis (semiparalysis). They also noted
that speech disturbances commonly accompanied left-side brain injury and right4
side paresis .
As what the writer mentioned above, there is a correlation between
Linguistic intelligence and the speaking fluency. Therefore the writer is interested
in finding out whether there is a significant correlation between students‟
linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement. To measure this, the
writer has to use the valid instrument and to choose the appropriate object of
3
4
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, p.14.
Jean Berko Gleason and Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTIC: second
edition, (USA: HARCOURT BRACE PUBLISHER, 1998) P. 53
4
research–that is the students who learn the foreign language (English) intensively.
And forth semester students of English department at Faculty of Tarbiya and
Teachers‟ Training Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University can be one of
the options of the research object. The writer chooses the forth semester students
because for some things the quality of their English skill is getting better than at
the first semester and because they have been doing some activities that can
increase their linguistic intelligence such as learning English intensively from 1
to 4
th
st
semester, reading English text excessively (novel, newspaper, book, etc)
that can make them acquire much vocabularies, and practicing the English
conversation through discussion and sharing among English students, lecturer, and
English facilitators that can make them increasingly skilled in speaking ability.
For those reasons the writer is interested in running and writing a „paper‟ under
the title:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS‟ LINGUISTIC
INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILLS
ACHIEVEMENT AT FOURTH SEMESTER ACADEMIC YEAR 2007
B. Limitation and Formulation of Problem
1. The limitation of Problem
The writer will limit this “skripsi” exclusively on:
a. Speaking skill is one of the most complex skills because it is related
with the problem of thinking what one wants to say in the foreign
language. Actually there are some factors affecting the difficulty in
speaking skill such as the lack of vocabulary and different structure
between the first language and foreign language, therefore to solve this
problem the writer will focus on the discussion of factors which affect
the fluency in speaking.
b. Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, our native
language, and perhaps other languages either in written or in the
spoken form, to express what is on our mind and to understand other
people. In this situation the writer believes there are so many areas
5
related to this problem therefore to avoid unclear discussion the writer
is going to focus on the discussion up to finding the evidence that there
is a correlation between Linguistic Intelligence and speaking skill or
fluency in speaking.
2. The Formulation of Problem
In this “skripsi”, the writer formulates the problem; is there any
significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and the English
speaking skill achievement?
C. The Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is one of considerable reference to address
correlation in student‟ s linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill
achievement.
Hopefully, furthermore this “skripsi” will be a considerable construction
and as a substantial points for himself and everyone who is interested in speaking
and or especially on how to increase the speaking ability by increasing the
linguistic intelligence.
D. The Method of the Study
The writer does library research and field research to get relevant data. In
the library research, he tries to observe some theories and collects data related to
his concern, while in getting primary data he runs the observation by measuring
the level of students' linguistic intelligence as the first variable and students'
English speaking fluency as second variable. The obtaining of these scores will be
correlated by using the correlation formula of product moment, that is:
If the result of this calculation (r) = +1 or -1, it means there is perfect
linear correlation between variable x (linguistic intelligence) and y (English
speaking achievement). If r is approaching +1 or -1 it means the correlation
6
among those variable is high, but if r is approaching 0 it means the linear
correlation among variable x and y is so weak or may not at all.
5
Finally, he has written them down carefully and descriptively as soon as he
has completed his data.
E. The Organization of Writing
This “skripsi” is divided into five respective chapters:
Chapter I presents introduction which consist of background of the study,
this is the main part of fives chapter as in this chapter the writer shows his
acceptable and considerable reason why he runs his paper, then it also presents the
limitation and formulation of the problem, the significance of the study, the
method of the study and the last is the organization of writing.
In chapter II the writer explains theoretical framework which consist of
concept of linguistic intelligence, Speaking, Learning Achievement, and the
correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill
achievement.
In chapter III the writer explains detail descriptive Profile of English
Education Department in which he runs his research.
Chapter IV provides first, research methodology in this chapter, she
concerns with the purpose of research, place and time of research, population and
sample of research, the method and instrument of research, the research procedure
and the technique of data analysis. And second, research finding, in this subchapter: description of data only and the interpretation of data.
Chapter V is conclusion, in this chapter the writers divides two areas:
Conclusion which sums up all provided explanation above and last is suggestion.
In this last sub-chapter, the writer gives a considerable room for those who is
interested in and concern with in order to construct or evaluate some must
evaluated points regarding with this subject paper.
5
Ronald E. Walpole, Pengantar Statiska, edisi ke 3, (Jakarta: PT.
GRAMEDIA PUSTAKA UTAMA, 1993), p.371
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Linguistic Intelligence
1. The Understanding of linguistic Intelligence
The theory of linguistic intelligence for the first time was introduced
by L. L. Thurstone in 1938 as the reaction of his rejection on the notion of
general intelligence. In his multiple-factor theory, he stated that intelligence
consists of seven primary abilities: verbal comprehension, number ability,
word fluency, spatial visualization, associative memory, reasoning, and
perceptual speed. Thurstone argued that a person could be competent in one
area of intelligence (such as verbal comprehension) and far less competent in
another (such as perceptual speed).
1
Linguistic intelligence was also introduced by Howard Gardner in his
multiple intelligence theory which is proposed in 1983 as the result of his
examining on human cognition through a number of discrete disciplinary
lenses like psychology, neurology, biology, sociology, and anthropology.
2
1
Halonen, Jane S & W Santrock, John, Psychology: Context & Application,
Third Edition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College, 1999), p.251
2
Howard, Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective In
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences For 21 Century”, (New York: basic book, 1999).
P.33
7
8
Gardner viewed that human has eight kinds of intelligence; they are (1)
verbal/linguistic intelligence, (2) logical/mathematical intelligence, (3)
visual/spatial
intelligence,
(4)
musical-rhythmic
intelligence,
(5)
bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, (6) intrapersonal intelligence (7) interpersonal
intelligence and (8) Naturalistic Intelligence.
3
Furthermore, it is very necessary to analyze its syntactical components,
to understand comprehensively what linguistic intelligence means. Actually
there are two words that construct linguistic intelligence; they are
„Linguistic‟ and „Intelligence‟ . Therefore the writer tries to describe the
meaning of Linguistic Intelligence from the word Linguistic, Intelligence, and
then Linguistic Intelligence.
a. Linguistic
To ignore the misinterpretation of the meaning of linguistic, it is
important to know the difference between linguistics (with s) and
linguistic (without s). Linguistics means the study of language as a
system of human communication.
adjective related to language.
5
4
The word linguistic means
Moreover, according to Gillard
linguistic is the adjective connected with language or the study of
6
language. And language itself is a form of communication, both
spoken and written that is based on a system of symbols. Think about
how important language is in our everyday life. We need language to
speak to others, listen to others, read and write. Our language enables
us to describe past events in details and plan for the future. Language
3
May Lwin, Et.al. How to Multiply Your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide for
Parents of Seven-Year-Olds and below, (USA: Prentice Hall, 2003), p 10
4
Jack C. Richards and Richard Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Third Edition, (London: Pearson Education, 2002)., p. 312
5
Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd, An introduction to Linguistics, (Jakarta: UIN
Jakarta Press, 2006)., p.1
6
Patrick Gillard, Cambridge Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, (UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 727
9
let us pass down information from one generation to the next and
7
create a rich cultural heritage .
b. Intelligence
Gazzaniga said, intelligence is a difficult concept to define, as it
can take a number of different forms, but most definitions agree that
(1) humans have a range of different abilities, and (2) intelligence can
8
be equated with how a person measures on a particular ability scale .
Even intelligence is a difficult concept to define; intelligence has
frequently been defined as the ability to adjust to the environment or to
learn from experience.
9
Gazzaniga himself proposed a definition of intelligence as a
collection of high level mental process – in today‟ s term, things such
10
as “verbal,” “mathematical,” and “analytical” abilities.
And according to Jane S Halonen, intelligence is Verbal ability,
problem solving skills, and the ability to learn from and adapt to the
11
experiences of everyday life . The definitions of intelligence which
are proposed by Gazzaniga and Jane S Halonen according to Howard
Gardner are the classical definition of intelligence where the
psychologist just defined the intelligence as cognitive ability such as
verbal, logical-mathematical ability and problem solving.
Therefore Howard Gardner in 1983 tried to redefine intelligence as
the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued
7
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application, Third
Edition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College), p.240
8
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science, (USA: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc, 2003), p.257
9
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik, (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2010) p. 262
10
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science,……, p.257
11
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application,…., p.250
10
12
within one or more cultural setting . Howard Gardner argued that
intelligence is not only the ability to solve problems but also to create
products.
Nearly two decades later Howard Gardner offered more refined
definition. He stated that intelligence is Bio-psychological potential to
process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
13
problems or create products that are value in a culture . He argued
that this modest change in wording is important because it suggests
that intelligences are not things that can be seen or counted. Instead,
they are potential–presumably, neural ones–that will or will not be
activated, depending upon the values of particular culture, the
opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made
by individuals and/or their families, schoolteachers, and others.
Based on the concepts above, the writer tries to make a conclusion
of intelligence definition as the cognitive or mental capacity of an
individual to solve problem and to create product, which can be
affected and activated by culture and environment.
c. Definition of linguistic intelligence
After explanation of linguistic and intelligence above, it can be
stated that linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, our
native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what is on
our mind and to understand other people14. According to Arifuddin
linguistic intelligence is the ability to use and arrange the words
effectively either in spoken or in written form. Linguistic intelligence
has a correlation with the using and developing language generally,
12
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21 century,……,p.33
13
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21 century,……., p.34
14
http://www.wilywalnut.com/linguistic_intelligence
11
either in spoken or in written language. People who possess the
linguistic intelligence are able to use the language fluently and are able
to develop their knowledge with clear idea. They can easily catch the
spoken and written language and they also have a good
memorization.
15
While Howard Gardner, defined linguistic intelligence as
sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to use
language to accomplish goals, as well as the ability to learn new
languages.
16
Moreover May Lwin stated that linguistic intelligence is the ability
to construct clear idea and to use the words competently in speaking,
reading and writing.
17
Actually, linguistic intelligence not merely consists of the ability to
use a language correctly, but also beautifully. It involves a deep
understanding of words and sensitivity to literal as well as the
figurative meanings of words. It also involves highly developed
written and oral communication skills, proper knowledge of grammar
rules and the information about as well as a zest to learn different types
of languages.
From those definitions, it can be concluded that Linguistic
intelligence is the ability to use language either in spoken or in written
form clearly and correctly and the ability to use it to accomplish goals.
15
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,….., p. 265
16
The Reading Matrix Vol.8, no. 2, September: On The Relationship Between
Multiple Intelligences And Language Proficiency by Sayyed Ayatollah Razmjoo, Shiraz
University
17
May Lwin, Et.al. How to Multiply Your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide
for Parents of Seven-Year-Olds and below. P. 11
12
2. Criteria of linguistically intelligent people
According to Grow, a well-developed linguistic intelligence shows
itself in attention to words, overtones of words, relations among them, syntax,
and the beauty and substance of style. In addition Grow viewed that the
linguistic intelligence appears to be a combination of several differently
evolved systems–expressive gesture, intonation, and the cognitive abilities of
naming and classifying, and syntactical parsing.
18
From those descriptions, it can be said that linguistic intelligence is not
only the ability in using the spoken form of language (listening and speaking)
but also in the spoken of written (reading and writing). This view is
strengthened by Gardner's observation on Aphasic which shows that damage
on certain specific areas of brain disturbed speech and the ability to write. And
it is also strengthened by the fact that deaf people who are not suffering
damage on brain language area can still learn the language through writing
and sign language.
19
Therefore linguistic intelligence not only can be seen on
the people who can speak rhetorically (such as debate and public speaking)
but also can write beautifully (such as writing poems, journal, and novel)
From the explanation above, it can be concluded that linguistically
intelligent people have some special criteria, they are:
(1) They are able to communicate their view-point in a clear, beautiful
and refined manner. (2) They enjoy reading, writing and learning language.
(3) They understand the beauty of a language and are able to make creative use
of it. (4) They take pleasure in the rhythms and the phonetics of words. (5)
They take keen interest in learning correct pronunciation and experiencing the
hidden melody in words. (6) They are good with spelling words and sensitive
towards language patterns. (7) They are mostly found to be orderly and
systematic with a strong ability to reason. (8) They are often observed
18
Gerald Grow, Ph.D, Writing and Multiple Intelligences, A Working Paper, (USA:
School of Journalism, Media & Graphic Arts - http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow)
19
Arifuddin, Neuropskilinguistik, ….., p. 102
13
20
possessing good memory and doing well in word games . (9) They are also
frequently skilled at explaining, teaching and oration or persuasive speaking,
and (10) those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very
easily and as they have high verbal memory and recall, and an ability to
understand and manipulate syntax and structure.
21
As what the criteria mentioned above, we can easily see the
professions of linguistically intelligent people as: writers, poets, journalists,
scriptwriters, speech writers, novelists, lawyers, politicians, and teachers.
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence
To know what are the factors affecting linguistic intelligence we
should know how the language (L1 & L2) is acquired, is learned and
developed within the human, and we should know how the language is
controlled by part of brain. Therefore the writer tries to analyze the factors
affecting linguistic intelligence from the theories of language acquisition,
neurolinguistic (neurology of linguistic) and psycholinguistic. And the writer
here tries to divide the factors that have a great influence on linguistic
intelligence into two parts, they are:
22
a. Bio-psychological Factors
Biological factors according to the writer mean the factor that
biologically exists since human born such as genes, gender, health, age
and brain.
One of the linguists who believe that every infant which is born is
given the mental capacity to process the language (innate mechanism)
is Noam Chomsky. In his Universal Grammar theory, he believes that
20 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/
21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Verbal-linguistic
22
Biopsychological is the term which is used by Howard Gardner in defining the
intelligence. He stated that intelligence is Biopsychological potential to process information that
can be activated in a cultural setting. It means that there are two elements of intelligence that is
biological and psychological elements.
14
language acquisition device (LAD) is the series of universal syntaxes,
structural property which is commonly found in all the languages. This
syntactical structure is gained since human born. Something which is
learned by the infant is the vocabulary. The infants have the unlimited
creativity by using both the device and limited language pattern. Thus
the infants produce the sentences based on the vocabulary which is
learned by innate syntactical pattern. Therefore infants made the
grammatically mistakes which will not be repeated.
23
Chomsky also stated that language is not the collection of habit but
it is the principle system which is built in the human. The process of
language acquisition is not fixed by the imitation, reinforcement, and
the forming of habit, but it because of the existence of internal capacity
within the learner.
Chomsky views that language learning is mental activity. It
emphasizes the importance of self learner contribution, not the
24
environment .
The first strong evidence that supports Chomsky's Universal
Grammar theory is that children all over the world acquire language
milestone at about the same time developmentally and in about the
same order, despite vast variations in the language they receive. For
examples, in some cultures adults never talk to infants under 1 year of
age, yet these infants still acquire language. Also, there is no other
convincing way to explain how quickly children learn language than
through biological foundations.
25
The similarity of the process of language acquisition is not only
caused by the similarity of biological elements and neurology of
23
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p. 149
24
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……., p. 135
25
Edition, p.243
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application, Third
15
language, but also caused by the existence of language mental aspect
like what Chomsky mentioned in his theory of mentality.
26
The second evidence that supports innate hypothesis and
Chomsky's universal grammar theory is the result of observation by
27
scientist on the brain and its role in language functioning
language process.
and
28
The philosophers, linguists, neurologists, and psychologists since
centuries ago have attempted to observe the relationship between brain
and language functioning by studying the case of brain injury that
affects on loss of language abilities.
According to Berko the observation of brain anatomy and
physiology which have been done by the researcher from Aristotle,
Shakespeare, Hippocratic scholars, Leonardo da Vinci, Herophilus and
Galen offered a significant insight that inform brain language function,
but none of them have proved empirically how language was
organized within the brain.
29
Finally in nineteenth century researcher made the first concentrated
attempts to understand how language was organized within the brain
by studying aphasic patients. The first behavior of any type to be
localized within the human brain was articulate (spoken) language.
It was the French surgeon Pierre Paul Broca (1824-1880), who
made this remarkable discovery. As a founding father of what we now
26
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p.114
27
Language function is the reasons why someone makes a speech. The most
important of language function is to communicate. Communication with language is held through
two kinds of basic human activity that is speaking and listening.
28
Language process is the description of instruments, material, and procedure within
our mental which are used by the human to produce and understanding the language.
29
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS:
second edition, (USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1998), p. 53
16
call physical anthropology, Broca was greatly intrigued with brain size
and its relationship to age, sex, intelligence, race and environment.
30
Aphasia (language and speech disorders) cases which are studied
by Broca have given us the great potential to see the roles that
particular parts of the brain apparently play in language production and
understanding.
And here are the four examples of aphasia in speakers of English:
(1) Broca‟s Aphasia. “Yes…ah…Monday…er…Dad and Peter
H…(his
own
name),
and
Dad…er…hospital…and
ah…Wednesday… Wednesday, nine o‟
clock. Ah
doctors…two… an er…teeth…yah.” (Patient‟ s effort to
explain that he came into the hospital for dental surgery.) This
aphasia is caused by brain damage in Broca‟ s area which
localizes on lateral surface of the cerebral cortex.
(2) Wernicke‟s Aphasia. “Well, this is…mother is away here
working her work out here to get her better, but when she‟ s
looking, the two boys looking in the other part. One their small
tile into her time here. She‟ s working another time because
she‟ s getting, too…” (patient‟ s description of a scene in
which two children are stealing cookies while the mother‟ s
back is in turned.) This aphasia is caused by brain damage in
cortical area for hearing.
(3) Jargon Aphasia. “All right. Azzuh bezzuh dee pasty hass rih
tau dul too. Aulaz foley ass in duh porler dermass died duh
paulmasty kide the, the, baidy pahsty bide uh … laidy faid …
uh … tiny bride. Uh … uh … orlihmin fee in a do … but uh,
ordimis fihd and it was ahdrimidehsty by uhbuhtray di
(unintelligible) you do you know. (In answer to the question:
What kind of work did you do?)
(4) Dementia. “Well, it‟ s about half and half. It‟ s a marble and
it‟ s half and half. Uhm, that uhm, I‟ m trying to think what the
and ya know and I‟ ve been doing all this color work and uhm.
I‟ m trying to think. There is a white and there is a, uhm, uhm,
I‟ m trying to think, uh, it it‟ s, like uhm, oh, what that called?
Ym, more of, oh damn, in the colors that I have in mu book is
uhm more vivid, and this is a little darker, and I‟ m trying to
think, what‟ s it called purple, more on the purple order this is
31
(In answer to the question: tell me about this marble.)
30
31
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS,……, p. 54
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS…, p. 56
17
Those samples of speech disorders which are caused by brain
injury become the strong evidence that brain has a great deal of
influence on speech and language function. It informs us that linguistic
intelligence is controlled by brain in particular areas of cerebral cortex.
It also strengthen the Chomsky's view that biological basis has a
significant role in processing the language.
From the study of aphasia, we can see clearly the particular parts of
brain which has significant role in language function and language
process.
The first brain area which controls the language function is Broca‟ s
area; it exists in inferior frontal gyrus of frontal lobe. This area has
responsible to control speech production. Like the example of Broca's
aphasia described above, damage in this area cause Broca‟ s aphasic has a
difficulty in express an idea in grammatically correct sentence.
The second brain area which has a contribution to language
function is Wernicke‟ s area. It takes place in temporal lobe especially
in superior temporal gyrus (cortical area for hearing). This area has a
role in understanding speech sound; damage to this area can make
Wernicke‟ s aphasic has a difficulty in understanding speech sound.
Even the Wernicke‟ s
aphasic can produce the speech in
grammatically correct sentence; their speech does not make a sense.
Unlike Broca‟ s aphasics, these patients are fluent – so garrulous in
fact that they have been termed logorrheic. For the most part, this
patient‟ s speech has discernible grammatical structure. However, it
doesn‟ t appear to make such sense; consider the somewhat random
array of words in the phrase, “one their small tile into her time here.”
Whereas Broca‟ s aphasics are accurately aware of their language
problems, Wernicke‟ s aphasics often are not and may even deny that
they are ill. Both
Broca‟ s and Wernicke‟ s aphasics have comprehension problems, but
the problems much more severe in Wernicke‟ s aphasia. Many
Wernicke‟ s patients appear to understand at least some of what is
18
addressed to othem but wander furthure astray as they responds. Some
patients produce jargon such using “jabberwocky” words that do not exist
in English, such as porler, demass, and ahrdimidehsty. Even when such
jargon is absent, their speech rapidly becomes meaningless and filled with
inappropriate words. As the speech samples and our discussions illustrate,
Broca‟ s and Wernicke‟ s aphasia differ strikingly. The Broca‟ s aphasic
is nonfluent and uses language seems spares, labored, and agrammatic
(missing important grammatical morphemes), although comprehension
appears reasonable. The Wernickes‟ aphasic appears fluent and uses long
complicated utterances that unfortunately make little sense. Their speech
is apt to be full of neologism (nonsense words). Finally, they appear quite
disordered in their ability to understand both the speech of others and their
own output.
Both Broca and Wrnicke‟ s area exist in left hemisphere.
Moreover Sidiarto conclude that Broca and Wernicke‟ s area becomes
strong
STUDENTS‟ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND
THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
th
(A Correlational Study at 4 semester students of academic year 2009 of Department of
English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training,
State Islamic University of
' Syarif Hidaytaullah')
“Skripsi”
Presented to Department of English Education
In a partial fulfillment of requirements for the Degree of Strata
1 (S.Pd)
By:
AMIN MUBAROK
104014000356
DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF „SYARIF
HIDAYATULLAH‟
JAKARTA
2011
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:
Nama Lengkap
: Amin Mubarok
No. Induk Mahasiswa : 104014000356
Jurusan
: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Judul Skripsi
: The Correlation Between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and
Their Speaking Skill Achievement (A Correlational Study at
Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and
Teachers Training, State Islamic University of ' Syarif
Hidaytaullah')
Atas bimbingan skripsi oleh:
Nama Dosen
: Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
No. Induk Pegawai
: 19491122 1978 03 1 001
Dengan ini saya selalu penulis menyatakan bahwa:
1. Skripsi merupakan hasil karya asli saya dengan sebenar-benarnya untuk diajukan
kepada fakultas ilmu tarbiyah dan keguruan untuk memenuhi salah satu
persyaratan memperoleh gelar sarjana (S.Pd) di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Semua sumber yang saya pergunakan dalam penulisan skripsi ini telah saya
cantumkan sesuai ketentuan yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
3. Jika di kemudian hari terbukti karya ini bukan hasil karya saya, maka saya pun
bersedia menerima sanksi yang berlaku di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Jakarta, 11 Juni 2011
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Islam
Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta:
Nama
: Amin Mubarok
NIM
: 104014000356
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Skripsi saya yang berjudul:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL ACHIEVEMENT
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
hak untuk me-nyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya
dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan
mempublikasikannya di In-ternet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis
tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya
selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Jakarta
Pada tanggal : 4 Januari 2017
Yang menyatakan
( Amin Mubarok )
ABSTRACT
Mubarok, Amin. 2011, The Correlation between Students‟ Linguistic Intelligence and
th
Their English Speaking Skill Achievement, (A Correlational study at 4
semester students academic year 2009 of Department of English Education,
Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, State Islamic University of „
Syarif Hidaytaullah'), “Skripsi”, Department of English Education, Faculty of
Tarbiyah and Teachers‟ Training, “Syarif Hidayatullah” State Islamic
Universiversity, Jakarta.
Advisor
: Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Key word
: Linguistic Intelligence, English Speaking Skill Achievement.
Linguistic intelligence, the ability to construct clear idea and to use the words
competently in spoken and in written form of language either in first language or
second language and even in the foreign language, is one of the human capacities that
naturally exists in human‟ s brain since their birth. When the students use this
potential, they are supposed to master any skills of the foreign language such as
English speaking skill.
The aims of the research are to know the correlation between students‟
linguistic intelligence and their English speaking skill achievement in English
Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher‟ s Training, Jakarta State Islamic
University of „Syarif Hidayatullah‟ .
After doing the research by using the correlational technique, the writer finds
correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence is too low on their English
speaking skill achievement. It is showed by the result of the research (0.042). It
belongs to very low correlation. It means that there is no significant correlation
between x variable (students‟ linguistic intelligence) and y variable (students‟
English speaking skill achievement).
After getting the result of the research, the writer can conclude that linguistic
intelligence is the ability which simply cannot be measured as in the academic
potential test (Tes Potensi Akademik). Based on the result of the research, the writer
gives suggestion as follows: (1) there should be more comprehensive analysis to
design the test to measure the linguistic intelligence accurately. (2) Students should
realize that each of them have the innate capacity to master any language. (3)
Students should be confident in speaking in English. (4) The teachers should give
great opportunity for students to use the language naturally. (5) The teacher should
pay attention on students‟ affective factors in teaching the foreign language. It is
important because some of students are still afraid of making a mistake in performing
English
ABSTRAK
Amin Mubarok, 2011, Hubungan Antara Kecerdesan Linguistik Dengan Hasil
Belajar Berbicara Bahasa Inggris Siswa, (Studi Hubungan Pada Mahasiswa
Semester 4 Angkatan 2009, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas
Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta), Skripsi, Jurusan Pendidikan
Bahasa Inggris, FITK, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Pembimbing : Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA
Kata kunci :Kecerdasan Berbahasa, Prestasi Belajar Keterampilan Berbicara
Bahasa Inggris
Kecerdasan berbahasa, sebuah kemampuan untuk menyusun ide yang jelas
dan menggunakan kata-kata secara kompeten dalam bahasa ujaran dan dalam bahasa
tulisan, baik dalam bahasa pertama atau bahasa kedua dan bahkan bahasa asing,
adalah salah satu diantara sekian kemampuan manusia yang secara alami sudah ada di
dalam otak mereka sejak mereka lahir. Ketika siswa menggunakan potensi ini dengan
maksimal, maka dimungkinkan mereka akan menguasai keterampilan berbahasa
apapun dalam bahasa asing seperti keterampilan berbicara dalam bahasa inggris.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui sejauh mana hubungan
antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa dengan prestasi belajar keterampilan
berbicara bahasa inggris mereka di Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas
Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Setelah melakukan penelitian dengan teknik korelasi, penulis menemukan
bahwa hubungan antara kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa terhadap prestasi
keterampilan berbicara bahasa inggris sangat rendah. Hal itu ditunjukkan dengan
hasil penghitungan rumus korelasi (0,042) di mana skor ini menunjukkan hubungan
yang sangat rendah. Itu berarti bahwa, tidak hubungan yang signifikan antara variabel
x (kecerdasan berbahasa mahasiswa) dan variabel y (hasil belajar keterampilan
berbicara bahasa inggris).
Setelah mendapatkan hasil penelitian, penulis mendapatkan kesimpulan
bahwa kecerdasan berbahasa adalah sebuah kemampuan yang secara sederhana tidak
bisa diukur seperti apa yang ada dalam tes potensi akademik. Dan berdasarkan hasil
penelitian, penulis memberikan saran seperti berikut: (1) Harus ada analisis yang
lebih dalam dan komprehensif untuk men-desain sebuah tes kecerdasan berbahasa
yang lebih akurat. (2) Mahasiswa harus sadar bahwa masing-masing mereka memiliki
kemampuan bawaan untuk menguasai bahasa apapun. (3) Mahasiswa harus lebih
percaya diri dalam berbicara dalam bahasa inggris. (4) guru harus memberikan
kesempatan yang lebih besar terhadap mahasiswa/siswa dalam menggunakan bahasa
secara alami. (5) Guru harus memperhatikan faktor afektif mahasiswa/siswa dalam
mengajar bahasa asing. Hal ini sangat penting karena ada beberapa mahasiswa/siswa
yang masih takut melakukan kesalahan dalam mempraktekkan bahasa Inggris.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise be to Allah
swt, the Almighty and the Lord of the worlds, the Light who enlighten all the
univers, who has bestowed upon the writer in completing this “Skripsi”. Peace
and blessing be upon our prophet Muhammad saw, his family, his companions,
and his followers.
The writer would like to express his deepest honor and respect to:
1. His beloved parents: Tarjoyo and Siti Aisyah who always pray and support
him to give the best, and to his sisters (Mustaqimah, Faihatul Muhbitin,
Faidhul Yumna, Badiatul Ulwiyah) who give the motivation and
encouragement to complete this “Skripsi”
2. Dr. Atiq Susilo, MA, as the advisor who has given his time and guidance
for the writer and has encouraged to finish this „Skripsi‟ .Prof. Dr. Dede
Rosyada, MA, the Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training.
3. All the lecturers of English Department who have given the writer their
knowledge.
4. The Dean of faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher‟ s Training, Prof. Dr. Dede
Rosyada, MA.
5. The Chairman of English Department, Drs. Syauki M.Pd and the secretary
of English Department, Neneng Sunengsih, S.Pd
6. The lecturer of Psycholinguistics, Zahril Anasyi, M.Hum., who has helped
the writer in doing the research.
7. The lecturer of Speaking, Drs. Suyono Kasim, M.Ed., who has helped the
writer in designing the instrument of the research.
8. The stuff and officer of the UIN libraries and ATMAJAYA
vii
9. Some of PBI students of academic year 2009 who have participated in the
writer‟ s research related to this „Skripsi‟ by doing the test of linguistic
intelligence.
The writer would also like to give his gratitude to his best friends, Asep
Mutaqin Abror and Fitriah AB, who have given the motivation and
encouragement for the writer to finish this „Skripsi‟ .
Finally, the writer hopes that this „skripsi‟ would be the contribution for
the insight development in English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiya and
Teachers‟ Training. Therefore the writer is pleased to receive criticism and
suggestions from the readers especially teachers and parents to improve this
„Skripsi‟ .
Jakarta, July 16, 2011
The Writer
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………..
v
ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………..
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………
ix
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………. xii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION………………………………………..
1
A. Background of the study…………………………………..
1
B. The Limitation and statement of the problem…………….
4
C. The significance of the study……………………………….
5
D. The method of the study…………………………………..
5
E. The organization of the writing……………………………
6
CHAPTER II : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………….… ........... 7
A. Linguistic Intelligence……………………………………...
7
1. The Understanding of Linguistic Intelligence…………
7
2. Criteria of Linguistically Intelligent People…………… 12
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence…………..
13
4. Ways to increase the linguistic intelligence………….. 27 B.
Speaking……………………………………………………. 28
1. The Definition of Speaking……………………………
28
2. The Purpose of Speaking…………………...….………
29
3. The Elements of Speaking……………………………. 30
C. Achievement……………………………………………….. 33
1. The Definition of Achievement………………………. 33
2. The Factor of Learning Achievement………………… 34 D.
Conceptual Frame………………………………………….. 36
ix
E.
Hypothesis………………………………………………
The
41
CHAPTER III : PROFILE OF PBI………………….…………………... 42
A. English Education Department Identity……………………
42
B. Brief History of English Education Department…………...... 43
C. Vision and Mission…………………………………………. 44
D. Objective of Course…………………………………………
44
E. Students……………………………………………………… 45
F. Lectures……………………………………………………… 47
G. Curriculum…………………………………………………… 48
H. Facilities……………………………………………………... 49
I. The Facilities and Activities Supporting
the Linguistic Intelligence…………………………………… 51
CHAPTER IV : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AND FINDINGS………………………………………..
52
A. Research Methodology…………………………………….. 52
1. Objective of the Research………………………………. 52
2. Time and Location………………………………………
52
3. Method of the Research…………………………………
53
4. Population and Sample………………………………….
53
5. Technique of Collecting the Data………………………
53
6. Technique of Analyzing the Data………………………
53
B. Research Findings…………………………………….…….. 55
1. Description of the Data………………………………..... 55
2. Data Analysis…………………………………………… 66
3. Interpretation of Data Analysis and Test Hypothesis…..
x
68
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION…………………
71
A. Conclusion……………………………………………. 71
B. Suggestion……………………………………….......... 71
BIBLIOIGRAPHY………………………………………………………… 73
GLOSSARY………………………………………………………………... 78
APPENDIX
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Annual Students‟ Progress………………………………....
45
Table 3.2
Lecturers Composition……………………………………..
48
Table 3.3
Components Curriculum……………………………………
49
Table 4.1
The level of Correlation…………………………………….
54
Table 4.2
Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores……………………..
55
Table 4.3
Computation of the mean from a frequency distribution
of Students‟ linguistic intelligence scores…………………..
57
Table 4.4
Students‟ Score of Speaking………………………………..
62
Table 4.5
Computation of mean from a frequency distribution
of Students‟ Score of Speaking………………….………….
63
Table 4.6Basic statistic correlation formula of students‟ linguistic
intelligence and their speaking skill achievement…………… 66
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Brain Localization…………………………………………..
19
Figure 2.2Brain and Language Function‟s Area………………………
20
Figure 2.3The Factors of Learning Achievement……………………..
35
Figure 4.1
Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.3)……………………………………………………
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
57
Histogram and Frequency Polygon (Plotted from data in
Table 4.5)…………………………………………………..
64
Coefficient Correlation between x and y Variable………....
67
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of Study
English is the world‟ s most widely studied foreign language, five hundred
years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of education, commerce,
1
religion, and government in the western world .
Realizing the importance of English as the international language, English
in Indonesia becomes compulsory subject from elementary school until university
level but most of the students are still difficult to produce the language fluently
either in a written or in a spoken form. And one of the problems of foreign
language learner in mustering productive skills usually happens in a speaking
skill. And it commonly happens in Indonesia as a country which treats English as
a foreign language.
Even the variety of education curriculum in Indonesia have changed
periodically (1994, 1999, 2004 / Competence Based Curriculum and 2006 /
KTSP); English is still being difficult subject for most students. And one of its
indicators is most of graduate students of senior high school still cannot master
English passively and actively either in the spoken form or in the written form.
And even we know the English curriculum in Indonesia emphasizes on the
1
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.1
1
2
importance of communicative way to teach English but in reality some students
still difficult to speak English fluently.
The writer believes there are some reasons why English speaking skill is
still becoming problem for Indonesian people in producing it, first, the practicing
of English language teaching in Indonesia do not support the communicative way
to teach a language. Second, there are some lexically, grammatically, and
phonologically differences between English and Bahasa Indonesia. And the third,
there is not a wide English community in Indonesia that makes Indonesian people
have a little chance to use English in their social life.
Talking of fluency in producing language; basically it cannot be separated
from Linguistic Intelligence because it relates to the ability to construct minds
clearly and ability to express mind in speaking, reading and writing. Moreover,
Linguistic Intelligence as one of Howard Gardner‟ s Multiple intelligences
theory; is the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other
languages, to express what is on your mind and to understand people.
Linguistically intelligent people usually like to read, write, listen, and play
word games. They are good at spelling, sensitive to pattern of sound and grammar,
and systematic in thinking. They have a good memory for general knowledge and
ability to reason therefore People with high linguistic intelligence not only show
the mastery of language properly, but also tell a story, debate, discuss, make a
report and finish a variety of task which has a correlation with speaking and
2
writing .
According to those criteria, the linguistically intelligent people may learn
English (as a foreign Language) faster. They know how to arrange the words and
the sentence systematically and syntactically, they understand speech pattern
semantically, and they are able to communicate their viewpoints in a clear,
beautiful, and refined manner.
Actually, the developing both philosophical and practical basis for
language teaching is not merely derived from tradition (such as grammar
2
May Lwin at all, How to Multiply your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide
for parents of Seven-Year-Olds and Below, (USA: Prentice Hall, 2003) p.11
3
translation method) and practical realities (such as determination of reading as the
goal in American schools and college); but also from linguistics, psychology, or a
3
mixture of both of them .
Then, linguistic intelligence as one of psychology and linguistic theory can
be a good contribution and insight for a development of language teaching. It
answers how the language is produced by part of brain, how speech pattern is
produced by the human, and how the language proficiency can be increased by
students.
Talking of the linguistic intelligence, it cannot be separated from brain
function which controls all the human behavior include the language control. It is
mentioned in Neurolinguistic that there is part of brain which control the language
and speech production. And it is approved by many researchers such as Edwin
smith, an American, acquired in 1862 a papyrus scroll that many believe contains
the first mention of the consequences of brain injury. Parts of this scroll have been
dated to 3000 B.C. Forty eight cases were discussed in this papyrus. Case 22
(quoted above) notes that the loss of speech skills was possible following head
trauma. Many have regarded it as the first mention of aphasia (loss of language
abilities due to brain damage). To this day, trauma (injury to the brain produced by
external force) continues to provide us with insight into brain function. Moreover,
Hippocratic Scholars (460-370
B.C)
correctly observed that brain injury often
produced contralateral (opposite-sided) paresis (semiparalysis). They also noted
that speech disturbances commonly accompanied left-side brain injury and right4
side paresis .
As what the writer mentioned above, there is a correlation between
Linguistic intelligence and the speaking fluency. Therefore the writer is interested
in finding out whether there is a significant correlation between students‟
linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill achievement. To measure this, the
writer has to use the valid instrument and to choose the appropriate object of
3
4
Jack C. Richards, Approach and Methods in Language Teaching, p.14.
Jean Berko Gleason and Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTIC: second
edition, (USA: HARCOURT BRACE PUBLISHER, 1998) P. 53
4
research–that is the students who learn the foreign language (English) intensively.
And forth semester students of English department at Faculty of Tarbiya and
Teachers‟ Training Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University can be one of
the options of the research object. The writer chooses the forth semester students
because for some things the quality of their English skill is getting better than at
the first semester and because they have been doing some activities that can
increase their linguistic intelligence such as learning English intensively from 1
to 4
th
st
semester, reading English text excessively (novel, newspaper, book, etc)
that can make them acquire much vocabularies, and practicing the English
conversation through discussion and sharing among English students, lecturer, and
English facilitators that can make them increasingly skilled in speaking ability.
For those reasons the writer is interested in running and writing a „paper‟ under
the title:
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS‟ LINGUISTIC
INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILLS
ACHIEVEMENT AT FOURTH SEMESTER ACADEMIC YEAR 2007
B. Limitation and Formulation of Problem
1. The limitation of Problem
The writer will limit this “skripsi” exclusively on:
a. Speaking skill is one of the most complex skills because it is related
with the problem of thinking what one wants to say in the foreign
language. Actually there are some factors affecting the difficulty in
speaking skill such as the lack of vocabulary and different structure
between the first language and foreign language, therefore to solve this
problem the writer will focus on the discussion of factors which affect
the fluency in speaking.
b. Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, our native
language, and perhaps other languages either in written or in the
spoken form, to express what is on our mind and to understand other
people. In this situation the writer believes there are so many areas
5
related to this problem therefore to avoid unclear discussion the writer
is going to focus on the discussion up to finding the evidence that there
is a correlation between Linguistic Intelligence and speaking skill or
fluency in speaking.
2. The Formulation of Problem
In this “skripsi”, the writer formulates the problem; is there any
significant correlation between linguistic intelligence and the English
speaking skill achievement?
C. The Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is one of considerable reference to address
correlation in student‟ s linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill
achievement.
Hopefully, furthermore this “skripsi” will be a considerable construction
and as a substantial points for himself and everyone who is interested in speaking
and or especially on how to increase the speaking ability by increasing the
linguistic intelligence.
D. The Method of the Study
The writer does library research and field research to get relevant data. In
the library research, he tries to observe some theories and collects data related to
his concern, while in getting primary data he runs the observation by measuring
the level of students' linguistic intelligence as the first variable and students'
English speaking fluency as second variable. The obtaining of these scores will be
correlated by using the correlation formula of product moment, that is:
If the result of this calculation (r) = +1 or -1, it means there is perfect
linear correlation between variable x (linguistic intelligence) and y (English
speaking achievement). If r is approaching +1 or -1 it means the correlation
6
among those variable is high, but if r is approaching 0 it means the linear
correlation among variable x and y is so weak or may not at all.
5
Finally, he has written them down carefully and descriptively as soon as he
has completed his data.
E. The Organization of Writing
This “skripsi” is divided into five respective chapters:
Chapter I presents introduction which consist of background of the study,
this is the main part of fives chapter as in this chapter the writer shows his
acceptable and considerable reason why he runs his paper, then it also presents the
limitation and formulation of the problem, the significance of the study, the
method of the study and the last is the organization of writing.
In chapter II the writer explains theoretical framework which consist of
concept of linguistic intelligence, Speaking, Learning Achievement, and the
correlation between students‟ linguistic intelligence and their speaking skill
achievement.
In chapter III the writer explains detail descriptive Profile of English
Education Department in which he runs his research.
Chapter IV provides first, research methodology in this chapter, she
concerns with the purpose of research, place and time of research, population and
sample of research, the method and instrument of research, the research procedure
and the technique of data analysis. And second, research finding, in this subchapter: description of data only and the interpretation of data.
Chapter V is conclusion, in this chapter the writers divides two areas:
Conclusion which sums up all provided explanation above and last is suggestion.
In this last sub-chapter, the writer gives a considerable room for those who is
interested in and concern with in order to construct or evaluate some must
evaluated points regarding with this subject paper.
5
Ronald E. Walpole, Pengantar Statiska, edisi ke 3, (Jakarta: PT.
GRAMEDIA PUSTAKA UTAMA, 1993), p.371
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Linguistic Intelligence
1. The Understanding of linguistic Intelligence
The theory of linguistic intelligence for the first time was introduced
by L. L. Thurstone in 1938 as the reaction of his rejection on the notion of
general intelligence. In his multiple-factor theory, he stated that intelligence
consists of seven primary abilities: verbal comprehension, number ability,
word fluency, spatial visualization, associative memory, reasoning, and
perceptual speed. Thurstone argued that a person could be competent in one
area of intelligence (such as verbal comprehension) and far less competent in
another (such as perceptual speed).
1
Linguistic intelligence was also introduced by Howard Gardner in his
multiple intelligence theory which is proposed in 1983 as the result of his
examining on human cognition through a number of discrete disciplinary
lenses like psychology, neurology, biology, sociology, and anthropology.
2
1
Halonen, Jane S & W Santrock, John, Psychology: Context & Application,
Third Edition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College, 1999), p.251
2
Howard, Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective In
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences For 21 Century”, (New York: basic book, 1999).
P.33
7
8
Gardner viewed that human has eight kinds of intelligence; they are (1)
verbal/linguistic intelligence, (2) logical/mathematical intelligence, (3)
visual/spatial
intelligence,
(4)
musical-rhythmic
intelligence,
(5)
bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, (6) intrapersonal intelligence (7) interpersonal
intelligence and (8) Naturalistic Intelligence.
3
Furthermore, it is very necessary to analyze its syntactical components,
to understand comprehensively what linguistic intelligence means. Actually
there are two words that construct linguistic intelligence; they are
„Linguistic‟ and „Intelligence‟ . Therefore the writer tries to describe the
meaning of Linguistic Intelligence from the word Linguistic, Intelligence, and
then Linguistic Intelligence.
a. Linguistic
To ignore the misinterpretation of the meaning of linguistic, it is
important to know the difference between linguistics (with s) and
linguistic (without s). Linguistics means the study of language as a
system of human communication.
adjective related to language.
5
4
The word linguistic means
Moreover, according to Gillard
linguistic is the adjective connected with language or the study of
6
language. And language itself is a form of communication, both
spoken and written that is based on a system of symbols. Think about
how important language is in our everyday life. We need language to
speak to others, listen to others, read and write. Our language enables
us to describe past events in details and plan for the future. Language
3
May Lwin, Et.al. How to Multiply Your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide for
Parents of Seven-Year-Olds and below, (USA: Prentice Hall, 2003), p 10
4
Jack C. Richards and Richard Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Third Edition, (London: Pearson Education, 2002)., p. 312
5
Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd, An introduction to Linguistics, (Jakarta: UIN
Jakarta Press, 2006)., p.1
6
Patrick Gillard, Cambridge Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, (UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 727
9
let us pass down information from one generation to the next and
7
create a rich cultural heritage .
b. Intelligence
Gazzaniga said, intelligence is a difficult concept to define, as it
can take a number of different forms, but most definitions agree that
(1) humans have a range of different abilities, and (2) intelligence can
8
be equated with how a person measures on a particular ability scale .
Even intelligence is a difficult concept to define; intelligence has
frequently been defined as the ability to adjust to the environment or to
learn from experience.
9
Gazzaniga himself proposed a definition of intelligence as a
collection of high level mental process – in today‟ s term, things such
10
as “verbal,” “mathematical,” and “analytical” abilities.
And according to Jane S Halonen, intelligence is Verbal ability,
problem solving skills, and the ability to learn from and adapt to the
11
experiences of everyday life . The definitions of intelligence which
are proposed by Gazzaniga and Jane S Halonen according to Howard
Gardner are the classical definition of intelligence where the
psychologist just defined the intelligence as cognitive ability such as
verbal, logical-mathematical ability and problem solving.
Therefore Howard Gardner in 1983 tried to redefine intelligence as
the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued
7
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application, Third
Edition, (USA: McGraw-Hill College), p.240
8
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science, (USA: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc, 2003), p.257
9
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik, (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2010) p. 262
10
Gazzaniaga & Heatherton, Psychological Science,……, p.257
11
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application,…., p.250
10
12
within one or more cultural setting . Howard Gardner argued that
intelligence is not only the ability to solve problems but also to create
products.
Nearly two decades later Howard Gardner offered more refined
definition. He stated that intelligence is Bio-psychological potential to
process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
13
problems or create products that are value in a culture . He argued
that this modest change in wording is important because it suggests
that intelligences are not things that can be seen or counted. Instead,
they are potential–presumably, neural ones–that will or will not be
activated, depending upon the values of particular culture, the
opportunities available in that culture, and the personal decisions made
by individuals and/or their families, schoolteachers, and others.
Based on the concepts above, the writer tries to make a conclusion
of intelligence definition as the cognitive or mental capacity of an
individual to solve problem and to create product, which can be
affected and activated by culture and environment.
c. Definition of linguistic intelligence
After explanation of linguistic and intelligence above, it can be
stated that linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, our
native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what is on
our mind and to understand other people14. According to Arifuddin
linguistic intelligence is the ability to use and arrange the words
effectively either in spoken or in written form. Linguistic intelligence
has a correlation with the using and developing language generally,
12
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21 century,……,p.33
13
Howard Gardner, Theory of Multiple Intelligences: A Personal Perspective in
st
“Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for 21 century,……., p.34
14
http://www.wilywalnut.com/linguistic_intelligence
11
either in spoken or in written language. People who possess the
linguistic intelligence are able to use the language fluently and are able
to develop their knowledge with clear idea. They can easily catch the
spoken and written language and they also have a good
memorization.
15
While Howard Gardner, defined linguistic intelligence as
sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to use
language to accomplish goals, as well as the ability to learn new
languages.
16
Moreover May Lwin stated that linguistic intelligence is the ability
to construct clear idea and to use the words competently in speaking,
reading and writing.
17
Actually, linguistic intelligence not merely consists of the ability to
use a language correctly, but also beautifully. It involves a deep
understanding of words and sensitivity to literal as well as the
figurative meanings of words. It also involves highly developed
written and oral communication skills, proper knowledge of grammar
rules and the information about as well as a zest to learn different types
of languages.
From those definitions, it can be concluded that Linguistic
intelligence is the ability to use language either in spoken or in written
form clearly and correctly and the ability to use it to accomplish goals.
15
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,….., p. 265
16
The Reading Matrix Vol.8, no. 2, September: On The Relationship Between
Multiple Intelligences And Language Proficiency by Sayyed Ayatollah Razmjoo, Shiraz
University
17
May Lwin, Et.al. How to Multiply Your Child‟s Intelligence: A Practical Guide
for Parents of Seven-Year-Olds and below. P. 11
12
2. Criteria of linguistically intelligent people
According to Grow, a well-developed linguistic intelligence shows
itself in attention to words, overtones of words, relations among them, syntax,
and the beauty and substance of style. In addition Grow viewed that the
linguistic intelligence appears to be a combination of several differently
evolved systems–expressive gesture, intonation, and the cognitive abilities of
naming and classifying, and syntactical parsing.
18
From those descriptions, it can be said that linguistic intelligence is not
only the ability in using the spoken form of language (listening and speaking)
but also in the spoken of written (reading and writing). This view is
strengthened by Gardner's observation on Aphasic which shows that damage
on certain specific areas of brain disturbed speech and the ability to write. And
it is also strengthened by the fact that deaf people who are not suffering
damage on brain language area can still learn the language through writing
and sign language.
19
Therefore linguistic intelligence not only can be seen on
the people who can speak rhetorically (such as debate and public speaking)
but also can write beautifully (such as writing poems, journal, and novel)
From the explanation above, it can be concluded that linguistically
intelligent people have some special criteria, they are:
(1) They are able to communicate their view-point in a clear, beautiful
and refined manner. (2) They enjoy reading, writing and learning language.
(3) They understand the beauty of a language and are able to make creative use
of it. (4) They take pleasure in the rhythms and the phonetics of words. (5)
They take keen interest in learning correct pronunciation and experiencing the
hidden melody in words. (6) They are good with spelling words and sensitive
towards language patterns. (7) They are mostly found to be orderly and
systematic with a strong ability to reason. (8) They are often observed
18
Gerald Grow, Ph.D, Writing and Multiple Intelligences, A Working Paper, (USA:
School of Journalism, Media & Graphic Arts - http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow)
19
Arifuddin, Neuropskilinguistik, ….., p. 102
13
20
possessing good memory and doing well in word games . (9) They are also
frequently skilled at explaining, teaching and oration or persuasive speaking,
and (10) those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very
easily and as they have high verbal memory and recall, and an ability to
understand and manipulate syntax and structure.
21
As what the criteria mentioned above, we can easily see the
professions of linguistically intelligent people as: writers, poets, journalists,
scriptwriters, speech writers, novelists, lawyers, politicians, and teachers.
3. Factors affecting the linguistic intelligence
To know what are the factors affecting linguistic intelligence we
should know how the language (L1 & L2) is acquired, is learned and
developed within the human, and we should know how the language is
controlled by part of brain. Therefore the writer tries to analyze the factors
affecting linguistic intelligence from the theories of language acquisition,
neurolinguistic (neurology of linguistic) and psycholinguistic. And the writer
here tries to divide the factors that have a great influence on linguistic
intelligence into two parts, they are:
22
a. Bio-psychological Factors
Biological factors according to the writer mean the factor that
biologically exists since human born such as genes, gender, health, age
and brain.
One of the linguists who believe that every infant which is born is
given the mental capacity to process the language (innate mechanism)
is Noam Chomsky. In his Universal Grammar theory, he believes that
20 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/
21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Verbal-linguistic
22
Biopsychological is the term which is used by Howard Gardner in defining the
intelligence. He stated that intelligence is Biopsychological potential to process information that
can be activated in a cultural setting. It means that there are two elements of intelligence that is
biological and psychological elements.
14
language acquisition device (LAD) is the series of universal syntaxes,
structural property which is commonly found in all the languages. This
syntactical structure is gained since human born. Something which is
learned by the infant is the vocabulary. The infants have the unlimited
creativity by using both the device and limited language pattern. Thus
the infants produce the sentences based on the vocabulary which is
learned by innate syntactical pattern. Therefore infants made the
grammatically mistakes which will not be repeated.
23
Chomsky also stated that language is not the collection of habit but
it is the principle system which is built in the human. The process of
language acquisition is not fixed by the imitation, reinforcement, and
the forming of habit, but it because of the existence of internal capacity
within the learner.
Chomsky views that language learning is mental activity. It
emphasizes the importance of self learner contribution, not the
24
environment .
The first strong evidence that supports Chomsky's Universal
Grammar theory is that children all over the world acquire language
milestone at about the same time developmentally and in about the
same order, despite vast variations in the language they receive. For
examples, in some cultures adults never talk to infants under 1 year of
age, yet these infants still acquire language. Also, there is no other
convincing way to explain how quickly children learn language than
through biological foundations.
25
The similarity of the process of language acquisition is not only
caused by the similarity of biological elements and neurology of
23
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p. 149
24
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……., p. 135
25
Edition, p.243
Jane S Halonen & John W Santrock, Psychology Context & Application, Third
15
language, but also caused by the existence of language mental aspect
like what Chomsky mentioned in his theory of mentality.
26
The second evidence that supports innate hypothesis and
Chomsky's universal grammar theory is the result of observation by
27
scientist on the brain and its role in language functioning
language process.
and
28
The philosophers, linguists, neurologists, and psychologists since
centuries ago have attempted to observe the relationship between brain
and language functioning by studying the case of brain injury that
affects on loss of language abilities.
According to Berko the observation of brain anatomy and
physiology which have been done by the researcher from Aristotle,
Shakespeare, Hippocratic scholars, Leonardo da Vinci, Herophilus and
Galen offered a significant insight that inform brain language function,
but none of them have proved empirically how language was
organized within the brain.
29
Finally in nineteenth century researcher made the first concentrated
attempts to understand how language was organized within the brain
by studying aphasic patients. The first behavior of any type to be
localized within the human brain was articulate (spoken) language.
It was the French surgeon Pierre Paul Broca (1824-1880), who
made this remarkable discovery. As a founding father of what we now
26
Arifuddin, Neuropsikolinguistik,……, p.114
27
Language function is the reasons why someone makes a speech. The most
important of language function is to communicate. Communication with language is held through
two kinds of basic human activity that is speaking and listening.
28
Language process is the description of instruments, material, and procedure within
our mental which are used by the human to produce and understanding the language.
29
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS:
second edition, (USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1998), p. 53
16
call physical anthropology, Broca was greatly intrigued with brain size
and its relationship to age, sex, intelligence, race and environment.
30
Aphasia (language and speech disorders) cases which are studied
by Broca have given us the great potential to see the roles that
particular parts of the brain apparently play in language production and
understanding.
And here are the four examples of aphasia in speakers of English:
(1) Broca‟s Aphasia. “Yes…ah…Monday…er…Dad and Peter
H…(his
own
name),
and
Dad…er…hospital…and
ah…Wednesday… Wednesday, nine o‟
clock. Ah
doctors…two… an er…teeth…yah.” (Patient‟ s effort to
explain that he came into the hospital for dental surgery.) This
aphasia is caused by brain damage in Broca‟ s area which
localizes on lateral surface of the cerebral cortex.
(2) Wernicke‟s Aphasia. “Well, this is…mother is away here
working her work out here to get her better, but when she‟ s
looking, the two boys looking in the other part. One their small
tile into her time here. She‟ s working another time because
she‟ s getting, too…” (patient‟ s description of a scene in
which two children are stealing cookies while the mother‟ s
back is in turned.) This aphasia is caused by brain damage in
cortical area for hearing.
(3) Jargon Aphasia. “All right. Azzuh bezzuh dee pasty hass rih
tau dul too. Aulaz foley ass in duh porler dermass died duh
paulmasty kide the, the, baidy pahsty bide uh … laidy faid …
uh … tiny bride. Uh … uh … orlihmin fee in a do … but uh,
ordimis fihd and it was ahdrimidehsty by uhbuhtray di
(unintelligible) you do you know. (In answer to the question:
What kind of work did you do?)
(4) Dementia. “Well, it‟ s about half and half. It‟ s a marble and
it‟ s half and half. Uhm, that uhm, I‟ m trying to think what the
and ya know and I‟ ve been doing all this color work and uhm.
I‟ m trying to think. There is a white and there is a, uhm, uhm,
I‟ m trying to think, uh, it it‟ s, like uhm, oh, what that called?
Ym, more of, oh damn, in the colors that I have in mu book is
uhm more vivid, and this is a little darker, and I‟ m trying to
think, what‟ s it called purple, more on the purple order this is
31
(In answer to the question: tell me about this marble.)
30
31
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS,……, p. 54
Jean Berko Gleason & Nan Bernstein Ratner, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS…, p. 56
17
Those samples of speech disorders which are caused by brain
injury become the strong evidence that brain has a great deal of
influence on speech and language function. It informs us that linguistic
intelligence is controlled by brain in particular areas of cerebral cortex.
It also strengthen the Chomsky's view that biological basis has a
significant role in processing the language.
From the study of aphasia, we can see clearly the particular parts of
brain which has significant role in language function and language
process.
The first brain area which controls the language function is Broca‟ s
area; it exists in inferior frontal gyrus of frontal lobe. This area has
responsible to control speech production. Like the example of Broca's
aphasia described above, damage in this area cause Broca‟ s aphasic has a
difficulty in express an idea in grammatically correct sentence.
The second brain area which has a contribution to language
function is Wernicke‟ s area. It takes place in temporal lobe especially
in superior temporal gyrus (cortical area for hearing). This area has a
role in understanding speech sound; damage to this area can make
Wernicke‟ s aphasic has a difficulty in understanding speech sound.
Even the Wernicke‟ s
aphasic can produce the speech in
grammatically correct sentence; their speech does not make a sense.
Unlike Broca‟ s aphasics, these patients are fluent – so garrulous in
fact that they have been termed logorrheic. For the most part, this
patient‟ s speech has discernible grammatical structure. However, it
doesn‟ t appear to make such sense; consider the somewhat random
array of words in the phrase, “one their small tile into her time here.”
Whereas Broca‟ s aphasics are accurately aware of their language
problems, Wernicke‟ s aphasics often are not and may even deny that
they are ill. Both
Broca‟ s and Wernicke‟ s aphasics have comprehension problems, but
the problems much more severe in Wernicke‟ s aphasia. Many
Wernicke‟ s patients appear to understand at least some of what is
18
addressed to othem but wander furthure astray as they responds. Some
patients produce jargon such using “jabberwocky” words that do not exist
in English, such as porler, demass, and ahrdimidehsty. Even when such
jargon is absent, their speech rapidly becomes meaningless and filled with
inappropriate words. As the speech samples and our discussions illustrate,
Broca‟ s and Wernicke‟ s aphasia differ strikingly. The Broca‟ s aphasic
is nonfluent and uses language seems spares, labored, and agrammatic
(missing important grammatical morphemes), although comprehension
appears reasonable. The Wernickes‟ aphasic appears fluent and uses long
complicated utterances that unfortunately make little sense. Their speech
is apt to be full of neologism (nonsense words). Finally, they appear quite
disordered in their ability to understand both the speech of others and their
own output.
Both Broca and Wrnicke‟ s area exist in left hemisphere.
Moreover Sidiarto conclude that Broca and Wernicke‟ s area becomes
strong