THE REALIZATION OF SPEECH FUNCTION IN ENGLISH FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ELF) SPEAKING CLASSROOM INTERACTION.
THE REALIZATION OF SPEECH FUNCTION IN ENGLISH
FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) SPEAKING
CLASSROOM INTERACTION
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
DEVI JULIANTI SIHOTANG
Registration Number: 2113121016
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Sihotang, Devi Julianti. 2016. 2113121016. The Realization of Speech Function in
English Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom Interaction. A Thesis.
English Department. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State University of Medan.
This study aims at analyzing the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and
students’ talk in the English Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classroom. The
research was conducted by using descriptive qualitative method. The data were
collected from the interaction betweenteacher and students in VII grade of SMP
St. Maria Medan which chosen purposively and was in the form of written
transcript. The findings of the research showed that there are 403 clauses made by
students and teacher where the teacher used 263 clauses and students 140 clauses.
The most dominant type of speech function used by Teacher is questions which
are80 clauses (30.4 %) followed by Command 74 clauses (28.1%), and Statement
71 clauses (27%) and students is Response statement to question 87 clauses
(54.3%) followed by Question 22 clauses (54.3%), Response Offer to Command
21 clauses (15.7%). It is happened since the role of teacher in the classroom is as a
leader of class while students just answer questions from teacher and give
statements needed.
Keywords: Speech Function, Classroom Interaction
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express the greatest gratitude to God for
the blessings, guidance, guarding, and everything that has been given to the writer
along her life until the writer finally accomplished her thesis. In completing this
thesis, the writer realized that she faced some problems and she had received the
academic guidance, suggestions, and comments and got a lot of assistance and
moral support from many people. Therefore, the writer would like to express her
gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Arts Faculty.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
Dra. Meisuri, M.A., the Secretary of English Department.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum., the Head of English Education
Study Program.
Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., her Thesis Advisor, who has given invaluable
advices, guidance, and precious time in the process of completing this thesis.
Drs. Elia Masa Gintings, M.Hum., her Academic Adviser who has supported
her throughout the academic years and as the Examiner who has given support
and advices in the process of completing her thesis.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., as
her Thesis Examiners who have given their precious time, guidance,
suggestions, and comments.
All Lecturers of English Department who have taught, guided, and advised
her throughout the academic years that could not be mentioned one by one.
Eis Sri Wahyuni, M.Pd., the Administration staff of English Department, for
her attention, assistance, and information.
Sr. Rusmiani Sihotang, S.Pd., the Principal of SMP St. Maria Medan and
Surya Kumar, S.Pd., the English teacher, for their permission and
opportunities given in allowing the writer to do observation.
ii
Beloved parents, (Alm) SL. Sihotang and L. Manihuruk for the patience,
affection, love, financial and support during the process of finishing this thesis.
Thank also given to her Sisters, Delince and Mayosevin for their shared-laugh
in her bad times.
All her classmates in Pend. B. Inggris Regular B 2011, especially the gourlz
Evelin, Roslinda, Martina, Fytri, Arnita, Dora and Harni who always
shared their happiness, laugh, ideas, and bitter-sweet of campus life together.
Her everlasting best friends, Ruth Yanti and Desy Veronica for their support
and attention to push her in finishing her thesis day by day.
Her lovely friend during the process of finishing her thesis, Anna and Ando
Simanjuntak for their togetherness and motivation when meet the advisor and
examiners.
Her friends, Nia, Ruth, Pina and Ido who have given their times for shared
ideas and information during the up-down in finishing this thesis.
Lastly but not the least, the writer would like to thank her partner in crime Eko
Simanjuntak who has patiently advised and motivated her to finished this
thesis as soon as possible.
Medan, February 2016
The Writer,
Devi Julianti Sihotang
Reg. No. 2113121016
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
ABSTRACT
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
viii
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
1
B. The Problem of the Study
4
C. The Objective of the Study
4
D. The Scope of the Study
4
E. The Significance of the Study
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
6
A. Theoritical Framework
6
1. Systemic Functional Linguistic
6
a. Ideational Function
7
b. Interpersonal Function
7
c. Textual Function
7
2. Speech Function
7
3. The Concept of mood Structure
13
a. The Elements of Mood
15
b. The Elements of Residue
16
4. Classroom Interaction
19
a. Aspects of Classroom Interaction
20
b. Participants in Classroom Interaction
21
c. Roles of Classroom Interaction
22
d. The Role of Teacher in Classroom Interaction
24
iv
5. Teaching English as Foreign Language
27
6. The Nature of Speaking
27
7. Characteristics of Speaking Classroom Interaction
B. Relevant Studies
29
31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
33
A. Research Design
33
B. The Source of Data
33
C. Technique of Collecting Data
34
D. The Technique for Analyzing Data
34
CHAPTER IV DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
36
A. The Data
36
B. Data Analysis
36
1. Types of Speech Function
36
2. Cause of dominant speech function
45
C. Research Findings
47
D. Discussions
48
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
51
A.
Conclusion
51
B.
Suggestion
52
REFERENCES
54
APPENDICES
56
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Speech functions
8
Table 2.2 Speech functions and response
10
Table 2.3 Types of Adjuncts
19
Table 4.1 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
Teacher in EFL (English Foreign Language) Speaking Classroom
Interaction
42
Table 4.2 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
Students in EFL (English Foreign Language) Speaking Classroom
Interaction
43
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Mood System
14
vii
LIST OF APENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1 The transcript of teacher and students talk
56
Appendix 2 The transcript of interview
69
Appendix 3 The analysis of speech function
71
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Every aspects of human’s life must be fulfilled by a language in
undergoing their daily routines, for instance, sign, symbol, or the oral speech, etc.;
those belong to a language. People use language in their daily life for chat to
family members, speak at meeting, serve customers and also organize children in
classroom. All of these are activities involving language. Language as the media
of transferring information and knowledge, communication and interaction in the
classroom should be noticed by all the elements related to the teaching and
learning process. It is used to enable the participant to participate in
communicative acts with other people; this function is known as the interpersonal
function (Yeibo, 2011). The function of language itself in exchange experience
(interpersonal), is an important factor in determine the pattern of the teacher and
students interaction in the classroom. It can be run effectively, or not.
Classroom interaction can be defined as a two-way process between the
participants in the learning process, the teacher influences the learners and vice
versa (Dagarin, 2004: 128). In the EFL (English Foreign Language) speaking
classroom, the interaction using target language is really important to support the
students’ speaking ability. Unfortunately, the use of target language all the time in
classroom seems to be difficult. It is happened since the EFL students have
common native languages (Brown, 2001).
1
2
In Indonesia, survey on sixty-two junior and senior high school teachers in
west Java, Banten and DKI revealed that most of the teachers rate their students
participation as very low and low (Suherdi, 2009). Suherdi explains it is because
students tend to be low confidence and lack independence in organizing their
learning. Those facts are supported by Huraerah’s findings in their research that
revealed the percentage of teacher talk is more than 54%. In other words, the
practice of teaching English as foreign language in Indonesia tends to be teacher
centered while the curriculum in Indonesia KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pelajar) focused on students centered. It can make students have less opportunity
to speak and motivation to increase their ability to talk in target language.
From the survey above, there is something that is still inappropriate yet in
the teaching and learning process. As a teacher who takes an important role in the
classroom, he is faced on the situation that requires an ability to do his function as
a teacher who conveys knowledge to the students through the languages. The
language or teacher talk employed by the teacher in the classroom can be said a
magical thing (Fikri, Dewi & Suarnajaya, 2014). Some experts who focused on
classroom interaction do not only define what teacher talk but also they account
for its importance and impact upon the teaching and learning process. The way
teachers talk do not only determine how well they make their lectures, but also
guarantee how well students will learn in foreign language teaching activities
(Yanfen & Yuqin, 2010). Appropriate teacher talk can create harmonious
atmosphere and at the same time promotes a more friendly relationship between
teachers and students. Even, teacher talk is claimed as a potentially valuable
3
source of comprehensible input for the learner since it is essential for language
acquisition (Krashen, in Fikri, et al., 2014). In addition, the power of teacher talk
can stimulate the students to improve their ability in speaking using target
language.
The interpersonal relationships between teacher and students in the
teaching and learning process is very helpful in materialized the harmonious
teaching and learning process. The used of the appropriate kinds and functions of
clause in the certain situation determines the acceptance of the message that want
to deliver. For instance: the used of interrogative mood by the teacher and
students in the classroom interaction. In what kinds of situation it will help them
determine the acceptance of the lesson? If the interpersonal relationship in the
classroom runs well, then it will stimulate the students to speak in target language
actively. That is why the importance of the interpersonal relationship between
teacher and students not only as the media of transferring information but also has
roles as the motivator and stimulator in supporting the students to speak.
Based on the elaboration above, the writer is interested in analyzed the
classroom interaction in the EFL speaking classroom, focussing on the analysis of
spoken language in the classroom interaction regarding Systemic Functional
Linguistics analysis on Mood types of interpersonal metafunction, which is
concerned with the analysis of communicative functions what Halliday refers to
as speech function (Eggins, 2004).
4
B. The Problem of the Study
1. What types of speech function are used by teacher and students in the EFL
speaking classroom?
2. Why is the most dominant speech function realized in the way it is?
C. The Objective of the Study
Based on the problem formulation above, the objective of this study is to
analyze the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL
speaking classroom. Besides, it is also aimed to identify the most dominant of
Speech Function that is teacher and students made in the EFL speaking classroom
and the reason for the use of the dominant speech function.
D. The Scope of the Study
In order to reach the expected goal, the writer limits the problem on the
following terms:
1. The study is limited the analysis on the realization of speech function of
teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL speaking classroom interaction using
systemic functional linguistic.
2. The subject of the research is limited to the A’ class of eighth grade students of
SMP Santa Maria Medan
5
E. The Significance of the Study
From this study, the writer expected that the result of the research can give
a contribution to the language teaching and learning theoretically and practically:
1. Theoretically for other researchers, who are interested in getting prior
information about linguistic features of classroom interaction
2. Practically, the findings are useful for :
a. English Teachers, who want to get much information related to their activities
in the classroom to improve the quality of language teaching.
b. Students, to improve their way of language learning in classroom especially in
speaking skill.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings as presented in previous chapter, conclusions are
drawn as the following:
1. The teacher and the students used the different speech function because they
have different roles in the classroom. The teacher as the leader used all types
of speech function (Statement, Question, Command and offer) while the
students only used 2 types of Speech function (Statement and Question). The
students did not use Command and Offer because the students’ role and
students’ position is not a leader in class, they never command all elements in
class. In responding Speech Function, the teacher only used three types of
responding to Speech Function (Acknowledgement, Answer and Contradict)
and students used four types of responding to speech function
(Acknowledgement, Answer, Disclaimer, compliance). Acknowledge and
contradict indicate that the teacher give the respond of the students’ statement
in order to make them understands and know exactly if their statement right
or wrong and in the term of answer, the teacher try to give clarification of
students question to make them get more information while students used
answer or disclaimer to respond the teacher question whether they surely
understand the question or not.
2. The most dominant types of speech function used by teacher are question
(30.4%) which is 80 clauses. It is happened since the role of teacher in the
classroom is as a leader of class. As the leader in the classroom he has an
51
52
authority to inquire, offer something, and to command all elements of class.
While the most dominant type of the total of initiating and responding to
speech function used by student is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses. Both
of teacher and students play an important role in interaction in classroom.
Teacher as the source of information and knowledge plays his role as the
leader in the classroom. It can be seen from the total of activities and the
dominant speech function made by teacher. He tends to be dominated of the
activities in the classroom in which from 404 clauses, he uttered 268 clauses
(66%) and also in the proportion of speech function where he used question
mostly than other activities. He wanted to give the opportunities to students to
share their arguments or ideas and actively involved in lessons and also
students answer the question from the teacher well, it can be seen from the
dominant speech function in the term of responding speech function made by
students is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses.
B. Suggestion
In line with the findings, suggestions are staged as follow:
1. Teacher is suggested to ask questions which can make students actively share
their arguments because mostly teacher just ask question with the short answer.
It is also suggested to teacher to get more training of how to teach based on the
genre through the related theory.
2. The students also should realize the importance of the interaction itself. The
dominant of speech function made by students is answer, while actually in the
speaking classroom the students may use question to challenge the teacher or
53
other student’s arguments. It can make the students have the critical thinking
and also as the can use the language well in order to exchange their experience
or information to others.
3. It is worthy to be suggested to other researchers related with speech functions
to do further studies from the perspectives or theories of other linguistics field
because in this study, still based on the analysis of verbal language. The
analysis of non-verbal analysis is also important on the analysis of classroom
interaction in order to realize the overall meaning or message in the classroom.
That is why, it is suggested to other researcher to consider of the non-verbal
aspects in analyzing the discourse in the classroom.
54
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Counihan, G. 1998. Teach Student to Interact, Not Just Talk. The Internet TESL
Journal Vol.IV, No. 7
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third Ediciton. USA: Sage.
Dagarin, M.2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English as a Foreign. Ljubljana : ELOPE.
Eggins, Suzzanne, 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.2nd
Edition. London.
Fikri,Z., Dewi,Ni & Suarnajaya, W. 2014. Mood Structure Analysis of Teacher
Talk in EFL Classroom: A Discourse Study Based on Systemic Functional
Linguistic Theory. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Pendidikan Ganesha Vol. 2, pp. 1-12
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. 2009. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gunderson, L. 2009. ESL (ELL) Literacy Instruction: A Guidebook to Theory and
Practice, Second Edition. Routledge. Retrieved June 7, 2015 from:
http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/English-As-A-Foreign-LanguageEfl.html
Ginting, S. A. (2015). Structure of Karonese Conversation in the Funeral: Case
Study in Indonesia. Asian Social Science Vol. 11, No. 13, pp.298-309
Halliday, MAK & Mathiessen Christian M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. Arnold
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition. New
York: Pearson Education
Huraerah, N. 2013. The Analysis of Verbal Interaction Between Teacher and
Students in the Classroom. ( A Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
2013. Unpublished)
55
Lipson, M. 2002. Exploring Functional Grammar. Retrieved on 24 July 2015
from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220322490/Exploring-FunctionalGrammar-2nd-Edition
Naimat, G. Kh. 2011. Influence of teacher-students interaction on EFL reading
comprehension. European Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
672-687
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY: MCGraw-Hill.
Richards, Jack C. 2003. Tactics for Listening. Oxford University Press,
Incorporated.
Sarosdy, et al. 2006. Applied Linguistics I. Ertekunki az Ember: Unpublished
Saragih, A.2014. Discourse Analysis. Unimed, Medan (unpublished)
Suherdi, D. 2009. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach.
Bandung: Celtics
Thapa, C. B. & Lin, A. M. Y. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms to
enhance students’ language learning. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from :
http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-inenglish
language-classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-language-learning/
Tubbs, Steward. 2001. A System Approach to Small Group Interaction. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Yanfen. Liu & Yuqin. Zhao. 2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in
English Classes. Harbin Industry. Chinesse Journals of Applied Linguistic
(Bimonthly) Vol 33, No. 33
Yeibo. 2011. A Discourse-Stylistic Analysis of Mood Structures in selected
Poems of J.P. Clark Bekederemo. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science Vol 1 No.16, pp. 197-203.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) SPEAKING
CLASSROOM INTERACTION
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
DEVI JULIANTI SIHOTANG
Registration Number: 2113121016
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Sihotang, Devi Julianti. 2016. 2113121016. The Realization of Speech Function in
English Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom Interaction. A Thesis.
English Department. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State University of Medan.
This study aims at analyzing the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and
students’ talk in the English Foreign Language (EFL) speaking classroom. The
research was conducted by using descriptive qualitative method. The data were
collected from the interaction betweenteacher and students in VII grade of SMP
St. Maria Medan which chosen purposively and was in the form of written
transcript. The findings of the research showed that there are 403 clauses made by
students and teacher where the teacher used 263 clauses and students 140 clauses.
The most dominant type of speech function used by Teacher is questions which
are80 clauses (30.4 %) followed by Command 74 clauses (28.1%), and Statement
71 clauses (27%) and students is Response statement to question 87 clauses
(54.3%) followed by Question 22 clauses (54.3%), Response Offer to Command
21 clauses (15.7%). It is happened since the role of teacher in the classroom is as a
leader of class while students just answer questions from teacher and give
statements needed.
Keywords: Speech Function, Classroom Interaction
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express the greatest gratitude to God for
the blessings, guidance, guarding, and everything that has been given to the writer
along her life until the writer finally accomplished her thesis. In completing this
thesis, the writer realized that she faced some problems and she had received the
academic guidance, suggestions, and comments and got a lot of assistance and
moral support from many people. Therefore, the writer would like to express her
gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Arts Faculty.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
Dra. Meisuri, M.A., the Secretary of English Department.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum., the Head of English Education
Study Program.
Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., her Thesis Advisor, who has given invaluable
advices, guidance, and precious time in the process of completing this thesis.
Drs. Elia Masa Gintings, M.Hum., her Academic Adviser who has supported
her throughout the academic years and as the Examiner who has given support
and advices in the process of completing her thesis.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., as
her Thesis Examiners who have given their precious time, guidance,
suggestions, and comments.
All Lecturers of English Department who have taught, guided, and advised
her throughout the academic years that could not be mentioned one by one.
Eis Sri Wahyuni, M.Pd., the Administration staff of English Department, for
her attention, assistance, and information.
Sr. Rusmiani Sihotang, S.Pd., the Principal of SMP St. Maria Medan and
Surya Kumar, S.Pd., the English teacher, for their permission and
opportunities given in allowing the writer to do observation.
ii
Beloved parents, (Alm) SL. Sihotang and L. Manihuruk for the patience,
affection, love, financial and support during the process of finishing this thesis.
Thank also given to her Sisters, Delince and Mayosevin for their shared-laugh
in her bad times.
All her classmates in Pend. B. Inggris Regular B 2011, especially the gourlz
Evelin, Roslinda, Martina, Fytri, Arnita, Dora and Harni who always
shared their happiness, laugh, ideas, and bitter-sweet of campus life together.
Her everlasting best friends, Ruth Yanti and Desy Veronica for their support
and attention to push her in finishing her thesis day by day.
Her lovely friend during the process of finishing her thesis, Anna and Ando
Simanjuntak for their togetherness and motivation when meet the advisor and
examiners.
Her friends, Nia, Ruth, Pina and Ido who have given their times for shared
ideas and information during the up-down in finishing this thesis.
Lastly but not the least, the writer would like to thank her partner in crime Eko
Simanjuntak who has patiently advised and motivated her to finished this
thesis as soon as possible.
Medan, February 2016
The Writer,
Devi Julianti Sihotang
Reg. No. 2113121016
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
ABSTRACT
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
iv
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
viii
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
1
B. The Problem of the Study
4
C. The Objective of the Study
4
D. The Scope of the Study
4
E. The Significance of the Study
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
6
A. Theoritical Framework
6
1. Systemic Functional Linguistic
6
a. Ideational Function
7
b. Interpersonal Function
7
c. Textual Function
7
2. Speech Function
7
3. The Concept of mood Structure
13
a. The Elements of Mood
15
b. The Elements of Residue
16
4. Classroom Interaction
19
a. Aspects of Classroom Interaction
20
b. Participants in Classroom Interaction
21
c. Roles of Classroom Interaction
22
d. The Role of Teacher in Classroom Interaction
24
iv
5. Teaching English as Foreign Language
27
6. The Nature of Speaking
27
7. Characteristics of Speaking Classroom Interaction
B. Relevant Studies
29
31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
33
A. Research Design
33
B. The Source of Data
33
C. Technique of Collecting Data
34
D. The Technique for Analyzing Data
34
CHAPTER IV DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
36
A. The Data
36
B. Data Analysis
36
1. Types of Speech Function
36
2. Cause of dominant speech function
45
C. Research Findings
47
D. Discussions
48
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
51
A.
Conclusion
51
B.
Suggestion
52
REFERENCES
54
APPENDICES
56
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Speech functions
8
Table 2.2 Speech functions and response
10
Table 2.3 Types of Adjuncts
19
Table 4.1 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
Teacher in EFL (English Foreign Language) Speaking Classroom
Interaction
42
Table 4.2 The Total Number of Types and Percentages of Speech Function of
Students in EFL (English Foreign Language) Speaking Classroom
Interaction
43
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Mood System
14
vii
LIST OF APENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1 The transcript of teacher and students talk
56
Appendix 2 The transcript of interview
69
Appendix 3 The analysis of speech function
71
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Every aspects of human’s life must be fulfilled by a language in
undergoing their daily routines, for instance, sign, symbol, or the oral speech, etc.;
those belong to a language. People use language in their daily life for chat to
family members, speak at meeting, serve customers and also organize children in
classroom. All of these are activities involving language. Language as the media
of transferring information and knowledge, communication and interaction in the
classroom should be noticed by all the elements related to the teaching and
learning process. It is used to enable the participant to participate in
communicative acts with other people; this function is known as the interpersonal
function (Yeibo, 2011). The function of language itself in exchange experience
(interpersonal), is an important factor in determine the pattern of the teacher and
students interaction in the classroom. It can be run effectively, or not.
Classroom interaction can be defined as a two-way process between the
participants in the learning process, the teacher influences the learners and vice
versa (Dagarin, 2004: 128). In the EFL (English Foreign Language) speaking
classroom, the interaction using target language is really important to support the
students’ speaking ability. Unfortunately, the use of target language all the time in
classroom seems to be difficult. It is happened since the EFL students have
common native languages (Brown, 2001).
1
2
In Indonesia, survey on sixty-two junior and senior high school teachers in
west Java, Banten and DKI revealed that most of the teachers rate their students
participation as very low and low (Suherdi, 2009). Suherdi explains it is because
students tend to be low confidence and lack independence in organizing their
learning. Those facts are supported by Huraerah’s findings in their research that
revealed the percentage of teacher talk is more than 54%. In other words, the
practice of teaching English as foreign language in Indonesia tends to be teacher
centered while the curriculum in Indonesia KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pelajar) focused on students centered. It can make students have less opportunity
to speak and motivation to increase their ability to talk in target language.
From the survey above, there is something that is still inappropriate yet in
the teaching and learning process. As a teacher who takes an important role in the
classroom, he is faced on the situation that requires an ability to do his function as
a teacher who conveys knowledge to the students through the languages. The
language or teacher talk employed by the teacher in the classroom can be said a
magical thing (Fikri, Dewi & Suarnajaya, 2014). Some experts who focused on
classroom interaction do not only define what teacher talk but also they account
for its importance and impact upon the teaching and learning process. The way
teachers talk do not only determine how well they make their lectures, but also
guarantee how well students will learn in foreign language teaching activities
(Yanfen & Yuqin, 2010). Appropriate teacher talk can create harmonious
atmosphere and at the same time promotes a more friendly relationship between
teachers and students. Even, teacher talk is claimed as a potentially valuable
3
source of comprehensible input for the learner since it is essential for language
acquisition (Krashen, in Fikri, et al., 2014). In addition, the power of teacher talk
can stimulate the students to improve their ability in speaking using target
language.
The interpersonal relationships between teacher and students in the
teaching and learning process is very helpful in materialized the harmonious
teaching and learning process. The used of the appropriate kinds and functions of
clause in the certain situation determines the acceptance of the message that want
to deliver. For instance: the used of interrogative mood by the teacher and
students in the classroom interaction. In what kinds of situation it will help them
determine the acceptance of the lesson? If the interpersonal relationship in the
classroom runs well, then it will stimulate the students to speak in target language
actively. That is why the importance of the interpersonal relationship between
teacher and students not only as the media of transferring information but also has
roles as the motivator and stimulator in supporting the students to speak.
Based on the elaboration above, the writer is interested in analyzed the
classroom interaction in the EFL speaking classroom, focussing on the analysis of
spoken language in the classroom interaction regarding Systemic Functional
Linguistics analysis on Mood types of interpersonal metafunction, which is
concerned with the analysis of communicative functions what Halliday refers to
as speech function (Eggins, 2004).
4
B. The Problem of the Study
1. What types of speech function are used by teacher and students in the EFL
speaking classroom?
2. Why is the most dominant speech function realized in the way it is?
C. The Objective of the Study
Based on the problem formulation above, the objective of this study is to
analyze the types of Speech Function of teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL
speaking classroom. Besides, it is also aimed to identify the most dominant of
Speech Function that is teacher and students made in the EFL speaking classroom
and the reason for the use of the dominant speech function.
D. The Scope of the Study
In order to reach the expected goal, the writer limits the problem on the
following terms:
1. The study is limited the analysis on the realization of speech function of
teacher’s and students’ talk in the EFL speaking classroom interaction using
systemic functional linguistic.
2. The subject of the research is limited to the A’ class of eighth grade students of
SMP Santa Maria Medan
5
E. The Significance of the Study
From this study, the writer expected that the result of the research can give
a contribution to the language teaching and learning theoretically and practically:
1. Theoretically for other researchers, who are interested in getting prior
information about linguistic features of classroom interaction
2. Practically, the findings are useful for :
a. English Teachers, who want to get much information related to their activities
in the classroom to improve the quality of language teaching.
b. Students, to improve their way of language learning in classroom especially in
speaking skill.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings as presented in previous chapter, conclusions are
drawn as the following:
1. The teacher and the students used the different speech function because they
have different roles in the classroom. The teacher as the leader used all types
of speech function (Statement, Question, Command and offer) while the
students only used 2 types of Speech function (Statement and Question). The
students did not use Command and Offer because the students’ role and
students’ position is not a leader in class, they never command all elements in
class. In responding Speech Function, the teacher only used three types of
responding to Speech Function (Acknowledgement, Answer and Contradict)
and students used four types of responding to speech function
(Acknowledgement, Answer, Disclaimer, compliance). Acknowledge and
contradict indicate that the teacher give the respond of the students’ statement
in order to make them understands and know exactly if their statement right
or wrong and in the term of answer, the teacher try to give clarification of
students question to make them get more information while students used
answer or disclaimer to respond the teacher question whether they surely
understand the question or not.
2. The most dominant types of speech function used by teacher are question
(30.4%) which is 80 clauses. It is happened since the role of teacher in the
classroom is as a leader of class. As the leader in the classroom he has an
51
52
authority to inquire, offer something, and to command all elements of class.
While the most dominant type of the total of initiating and responding to
speech function used by student is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses. Both
of teacher and students play an important role in interaction in classroom.
Teacher as the source of information and knowledge plays his role as the
leader in the classroom. It can be seen from the total of activities and the
dominant speech function made by teacher. He tends to be dominated of the
activities in the classroom in which from 404 clauses, he uttered 268 clauses
(66%) and also in the proportion of speech function where he used question
mostly than other activities. He wanted to give the opportunities to students to
share their arguments or ideas and actively involved in lessons and also
students answer the question from the teacher well, it can be seen from the
dominant speech function in the term of responding speech function made by
students is answer (50.3%) which is 72 clauses.
B. Suggestion
In line with the findings, suggestions are staged as follow:
1. Teacher is suggested to ask questions which can make students actively share
their arguments because mostly teacher just ask question with the short answer.
It is also suggested to teacher to get more training of how to teach based on the
genre through the related theory.
2. The students also should realize the importance of the interaction itself. The
dominant of speech function made by students is answer, while actually in the
speaking classroom the students may use question to challenge the teacher or
53
other student’s arguments. It can make the students have the critical thinking
and also as the can use the language well in order to exchange their experience
or information to others.
3. It is worthy to be suggested to other researchers related with speech functions
to do further studies from the perspectives or theories of other linguistics field
because in this study, still based on the analysis of verbal language. The
analysis of non-verbal analysis is also important on the analysis of classroom
interaction in order to realize the overall meaning or message in the classroom.
That is why, it is suggested to other researcher to consider of the non-verbal
aspects in analyzing the discourse in the classroom.
54
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Counihan, G. 1998. Teach Student to Interact, Not Just Talk. The Internet TESL
Journal Vol.IV, No. 7
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third Ediciton. USA: Sage.
Dagarin, M.2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English as a Foreign. Ljubljana : ELOPE.
Eggins, Suzzanne, 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.2nd
Edition. London.
Fikri,Z., Dewi,Ni & Suarnajaya, W. 2014. Mood Structure Analysis of Teacher
Talk in EFL Classroom: A Discourse Study Based on Systemic Functional
Linguistic Theory. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Pendidikan Ganesha Vol. 2, pp. 1-12
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. 2009. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gunderson, L. 2009. ESL (ELL) Literacy Instruction: A Guidebook to Theory and
Practice, Second Edition. Routledge. Retrieved June 7, 2015 from:
http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/English-As-A-Foreign-LanguageEfl.html
Ginting, S. A. (2015). Structure of Karonese Conversation in the Funeral: Case
Study in Indonesia. Asian Social Science Vol. 11, No. 13, pp.298-309
Halliday, MAK & Mathiessen Christian M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. Arnold
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition. New
York: Pearson Education
Huraerah, N. 2013. The Analysis of Verbal Interaction Between Teacher and
Students in the Classroom. ( A Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
2013. Unpublished)
55
Lipson, M. 2002. Exploring Functional Grammar. Retrieved on 24 July 2015
from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220322490/Exploring-FunctionalGrammar-2nd-Edition
Naimat, G. Kh. 2011. Influence of teacher-students interaction on EFL reading
comprehension. European Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
672-687
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY: MCGraw-Hill.
Richards, Jack C. 2003. Tactics for Listening. Oxford University Press,
Incorporated.
Sarosdy, et al. 2006. Applied Linguistics I. Ertekunki az Ember: Unpublished
Saragih, A.2014. Discourse Analysis. Unimed, Medan (unpublished)
Suherdi, D. 2009. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach.
Bandung: Celtics
Thapa, C. B. & Lin, A. M. Y. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms to
enhance students’ language learning. Retrieved on June 12, 2015 from :
http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-inenglish
language-classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-language-learning/
Tubbs, Steward. 2001. A System Approach to Small Group Interaction. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Yanfen. Liu & Yuqin. Zhao. 2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in
English Classes. Harbin Industry. Chinesse Journals of Applied Linguistic
(Bimonthly) Vol 33, No. 33
Yeibo. 2011. A Discourse-Stylistic Analysis of Mood Structures in selected
Poems of J.P. Clark Bekederemo. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science Vol 1 No.16, pp. 197-203.