CLASSROOM DISCOURSE STRUCTURE IN MTS NEGERI RANTAUPRAPAT.

(1)

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE STRUCTURE

IN MTS NEGERI RANTAUPRAPAT

A Thesis

Submitted to English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

JUPRIAMAN

Registration Number: 8136112034

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

2016

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Jupriaman. 2016. Classroom Discourse Structure in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.

This study is concerned with the classroom discourse structure in English lesson in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. The objectives of this study were to describe the classroom discourse structure, to describe how the classroom discourse are realized by teacher and students and the reasons for the realizations of the way they are. The source of the data in this study were English teacher and also the students while the data of the study are the utterances from the teacher and the students and non verbal as marked in the text. The instruments used for collecting data were video tape recorder and researcher’s field note. The data were collected by observing and recording the utterances uttered by the teacher and students and writing all non verbal linguistic that teacher and students did in the classroom while teaching learning process and classified them into types of exchanges as Sinclair and Coulthard theory. The findings of this study showed that the classroom discourse structures were dominantly realized by Initiation and Response (IR) structure. It was reflected in Teacher direct, Teacher elicit and teacher information exchanges. was found that the classroom discourse structures were only threeexchanges as most dominantly occurred are teacher direct, teacher elicit and teacher inform. The other exchanges occur are boundary (framing and focusing move), directive, informing, check, accept, react, reply, nomination, marker, bid and conclusion acts. There were some reasons why the realization as the ways they are. (1) The teacher as a centre of interaction in the learning teaching process which is dominantly than the students. (2) The teacher gives some question without any caring to the evaluation, appreciation and feedback that makes the students only answer the teacher’s question without any feedback to make dialogue not suitable with IRF structure. (3) Students have been disciplined not to speak in classes without a teacher’s direction, and most of them are unwilling to speak English.

(6)

ABSTRAK

Jupriaman. 2016. Struktur Wacana Kelas di MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. Thesis, Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan.

Penelitian ini berkenaan dengan Struktur Wacana Kelas di MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan struktur wacana kelas, bagaimana struktur wacana kelas direalisasikan oleh guru dan murid dan alasan realisasi dari struktur wacana tersebut. Sumber data penelitian ini adalah guru dan murid MTS Negeri Rantauprapat dan data penelitiannya adalah ujaran dari guru dan murid dalam ujaran. Instrumen penelitian dalam pengumpulan data adalah video tape recorder dan catatan lapangan penelitian.

Data dikumpulkan dengan meneliti dan merekam ujaran guru dan murid dan menulis seluruh tanda non verbal linguistic reponse yang terjadi di dalam proses

belajar mengajar, mengklasifikasi ujaran dan menganalisa ujaran berdasarkan teori Sinclair dan Coulthard berdasarkan pembagian exchanges. Dari hasil data

analisa tersebut ditemukan bahwa struktur wacana kelas adalah teacher elicit, teacher direct, teacher information, boundary, pupil elicit, check, repeat, and reinitiation. Struktur yang dominan terjadi adalah teacher elicit, teacher direct and

teacher information. Struktur ini didominasi oleh struktur IR (Initiation, Response). Ada beberapa alasan mengapa hal ini terjadi. (1) Guru menjadi pusat

dikelas menyebabkan guru berbicara lebih banyak dan lebih aktif daripada murid berbicara yang menyebabkan pengajaran di kelas sama seperti metode konvensional. (2) Guru aktif memberikan pertanyaan tetapi belum menerikan balasan sebagai evaluasi dan apresiasi sehingga struktur belum mengikuti IRF. (3) Siswa belum memiliki disiplin untuk berbicara Bahasa Inggris tanpa pengawasan dan arahan guru dan siswa belum memiliki kesadaran dan kepedulian dalam berbahasa inggris.

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ... i

Abstrak ... ii

Table of Contents ... iii

Acknowledgements ... v

List of Tables ... vii

List of Figures ... viii

List of Appendices ... ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 8

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 9

1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 9

1.5 The Significances of the Study ... 10

CHAPTER II.REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 11

2.1.Classroom Discourse ... 11

2.1.1 Classroom Discourse Structure ... 16

2.1.2 Class of Lesson... 16

2.1. 3 Class of Transaction ... 17

2.1. 3 Class of Exchange ... 19

2.1.2.2 Class of Move... 22

2.1.2.3 Class of Act ... 18

2.1.3 Previous Relevant Studies ... 29

2.2 Conceptual Framework ... 32

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ... 35

3.1 The Research Design... 35

(8)

3.3 Instrument of Data Collection ... 36

3.4 The Procedure of Data Collection ... 36

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ... 37

3.6 The Trustworthiness ... 40

CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSIONS ... 43

4.1 Data Analysis ... 43

4.1.1 The Classroom Discourse Structure in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat ... 43

4.1.2 The Classroom Discourse Structure realized by the teacher and students in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat ... 49

4.1.3The reasons of Classroom Discourse Structure Realization as the Ways They are ... 57

4.2 Findings ... 59

4.3 Discussions ... 60

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 62

5.1 Conclusions ... 62

5.2 Suggestions ... 63

REFERENCES ... 65

(9)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the name of Allah the beneficent and most merciful who taught men what they knew not, All praises be to Allah the greatest and creator of the universe, the king of the world, to Him alone we pray, worship and to Him alone we ask for help.

Firstly, thank to Allah Almighty who has given me mercies and blessings till the writer able to accomplish this thesis can be completed in order to fulfill one of the academic requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) at English Applied Linguistics Program: Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.

Secondly, as Muslim, let us sent peace and salutation to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as the greatest man, greatest leader sent by Allah to guide human being from distraction era to the light of belief and Islamic.

Thirdly, the writer would like to express his sincere gratitude who have given valuable guidances, suggestions and useful influences on the writing of this thesis. The writer would like to deliver his grateful appreciation to his first advisor Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D. and his second advisor Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. Moreover, the writer would like to express to his examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A.,Ph.D, and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. Besides, the writer would also like to thanks to all the lectures of English Applied Linguistics Program who have given much encouragement and knowledge during taking the college.

(10)

His gratefulness also goes to the Staf of English Applied Linguistics Program, Posgraduate State University of Medan; Farid Ma’aruf, the head LTBI; Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M. Pd as the Director of Postgraduate School at State University of Medan.

The writer would also like to deliver his gratefulness to the head of MTS Negeri Rantauprapat, Drs. H. Dahlan Hasibuan, and Lila Suriani, S.Pd as the English teacher for giving chance to do research in this school.

Special thanks are also for his parents Muda Naibaho and Dingin Munthe and his siblings Dewi, Yusmawati, Guntur Halomoan, Juwita Sari Naibaho for their encouragement, care and love during doing this thesis. The best thanks also goes to his parents in law Drs. H. Bukhari Is, MM, Kons and Drs. Hj. Suryatik, M.Pd. and dedicated to Dwina Putry, S.Pd. as his forever lovely wife, his honey children; Daffa Ramadhan Naibaho and Dania Amanah Naibaho.

Super thanks goes also to the whole friends in LTBI B-2 especially Eva Novelia Siregar, Fitri Fuadi Rambe, Syahbudin Nasution, Rizki Rinaldi, Edi, and Aulia who helped his doing the thesis. Last but not the least for the dearest one Dwina Putry, S.Pd who supported for writing this thesis.

Finally, the writer hope this thesis will be useful for him and can be useful as branding references for the next research and enhance every one’s knowledge who read this thesis. May Allah bless us forever, wherever,whenever and however we are.

Medan, February 3rd 2016 The writer,

JUPRIAMAN NIM.8136112034

(11)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Classification of Speech Act ... 24

Table 2.2 Classroom Discourse Structure ... 26

Table 2.3 Discourse Structure realization ... 27

Table 4.1 Classroom Discourse Structure (I) ... 44

Table 4.2 Classroom Discourse Structure (II) ... 45

Table 4.3 Classroom Discourse Structure (III) ... 47

Table 4.2 Realization of Classroom Discourse Structure ... 50

(12)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework ... 34 Figure 3.1 Interactive Model Analysis, Miles and Huberman (2014) ... 40

(13)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of Study

Classroom is a particular room in a school where the lesson and learning teaching process takes place. Classroom discourse tends to be a main major interaction in the class. It is a central interaction between teacher and students because most of time spent in the class is communication or spoken discourse. In the other hand, discourse is spoken or written communication between people especially serious discussion of particular subject and discourse underpins everything that occur in the classroom setting (Rhymes, 2008).

The objective of learning English in the classroom based on curriculum 2013 is to increase students‟ skill in English communication (Nuh, 2014), that means the teacher is demanded to have good discourse and enable students to communicate in English. It is not easy thing for teacher and students to do it because English is still foreign language for them to use in their daily interaction. Thus, learning of English at schools can not be said successful because both teacher and students are busy with one goal, namely passing on the exam, although now the schools themselves hold the conversation exam for the students, the national exam is still what the teacher and students are worried about because what is stated in the curriculum is sometimes different from what is carried out in the classroom (Rini, 2014).

(14)

Teacher therefore is suggested to plan and design a good material to achieve the goal of learning English that able to make students to communicate in English through learning teaching process. Teaching activity is a work of teacher that helping their students to learn. Many teachers had just focused on method, strategy, techniques, and approach in teaching process, however, it is not conducive yet to enable students to communicate in English because teaching activity is not only giving material to students only but teacher and students must be able to share information where there is a good interaction and active communication between teacher and students in the classroom when the teaching process is going on. In other word, teacher will be able to enable students in speaking English if the teacher and students are paying attention to the importance of both communications in classroom.

Face to face, talking, conversation and language that teacher and students use to communicate with each other which most teaching takes place in the classroom is can be considered as classroom discourse. Discourse happens inside classroom tends to be different from what was going on outside of classroom. The process of classroom discourse is not same like social discourse which used in their daily interaction, for instance, in life of social discourse, teacher and students are not expected to hands up if they wish to speak up or raising question or giving suggestion and comment, however teacher and students uses discourse as a tool of expressing their request, demand, ideas, and wishes. Without discourse it is hard to imagine how teacher can interact and get along with students in the classroom.

(15)

Classroom discourse is normally considered as „formal‟ if the teacher want to teach, they should wear formal uniform, should behave and use polite discourse when they have interaction one each other. The students also should do the same things if they want to come in and come out from the classroom, they should say „greeting, having excuse in advance and usually raising their hands if they want to ask questions or to give a comment and to suggest a suggestion. it is unlike ordinary conversation, teacher are rarely ask question to which they do not know the answer, however, teachers‟ question in the classroom is normally want to know the students‟ capability, to repeat and test previous lesson but in real time, people generally ask questions to find out something they do not know. All those activities are done by discourse between teachers and students in the classroom. Classroom discourse analysis has a important role in development of students skill in communication. Rymes (2008:5) stated that there are four reasons why classroom discourse is important to be analyzed; 1. Insight gained from classroom discourse analysis have enhanced mutual understanding between teachers and students, 2. Teachers have been able to understand local differences in classroom talk going beyond stereotypes or cultural generalization, 3. When teachers analyze discourse in their own classroom, academic achievement improve and 4. The process of doing classroom discourse analysis can itself foster an intrinsic and lifelong love for the practice of teaching and its general life affirming potential. In line with that Sinar (2007:2) added and commented that teachers‟ discourse will enable the students develop through activities in the classroom. Furthermore, Marshall (2012) also argued that classroom discourse can affect various aspects of

(16)

student learning in science. In the same way, as teacher who teaches in the classroom, they are demanded to utilize classroom discourse to keep engage students on communication practice, to enhance and evaluate their communication skill.

The model of analysis will be used in this study is Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), he developed a model of classroom discourse involving a series of ranks and levels arranged in hierarchical order. A structure of three-part exchanges: Initiation (I), Response (R), and Feedback (F), known as IRF. The example of classroom analysis, as follow :

Teacher : Good Morning (Initiation : I) Student : Morning (Response :R) Teacher : Good, thanks (Feedback : F)

These three moves above, the teacher‟s initiation, the student‟s response and the teacher‟s feedback, consist of an exchange. Sinclair and Coulthard proposes that in teacher-student interactions, the response part of the exchange was typically followed by a third move on the teacher‟s part. This move consists of an evaluative commentary on the students‟ response, which they termed as feedback. This feedback move is a function of the teacher‟s power to control language and meaning since it signals what is to be viewed as relevant knowledge within the discourse. The IRF sequence has been widely accepted by the researchers as a beneficial category to analyze the classroom discourse.

Based on Dailey (2010) in his previous result study that examining discourse exchange structure; Initiation, Response, Feedback (IRF) through

(17)

Sinclair and Coulthard‟s model can provide a better understanding of the roles of the teacher and students, and how these roles are created and maintained by the language used, by observing the roles through the discourse, they can see how teacher and students use language in order to interact. Once teacher understand how their language affects their role in the classroom they can begin to use language more consciously. This type of analysis can help teacher become aware of how communication is transferred from teacher to students as well as become conscious of the functions and structures of the language and as a result how language affects classroom discourse. Anyway, in his data finding, he is still feel difficult to analyze part of classroom discourse when teacher only use his non verbal gesture to initiate and students response by verbal. Thus, he suggests this study is interesting to proceed by other researcher.

However, the fact, based on researcher preliminary observation in particular school that there is a teacher who does not aware and care with the importance of classroom discourse, but he just focus on English grammar (The teacher only teaches a subject; tenses by without caring whether the students are able to speak or not) and one teacher focuses on the subject or lesson only without caring of discourse analysis such as raising question, listen to student‟s response and giving feedback to students answer whether the students reply is appropriate or inappropriate, such as the following data :

Teacher : Ok, my students, ok my students! (I) Students : (No response)

Teacher : Last week, we had studied about passive voice, now we : we will study about “Bargain”

(18)

: Do you know what does it means by “bargain?” Students : (No Response)

Teacher : it‟s mean Penawaran (I)

From the data above that teacher is not belong to Sinclair and Coulthard model because it is not found any exchange of IRF along their dialogue. In other words, the teacher is busy with his business and his goal is only to give material and there is no evaluation. In line with matter above, Nicholson (2014) it was found that in the more traditional, teacher-centered classroom structure that was seen in the first half of the analysis, there was a high reliance on display questions and that these questions largely resulted in limiting student exposure to all the functional roles of communicative discourse. It was seen that in these types of discourse student output was low and, where it did exist, was largely confined to the response act in between the teacher opening elicit move and follow-up move. his analysis showed that discourse which followed the structure of the Sinclair and Coulthard model relied heavily on the use of display questions by the teacher and this produced low student output that was limited to only response acts in answering moves. Therefore, it is still interested to conduct the proceeding research which related with classroom exchange structure because from his recent analysis, he found the model to be useful for understanding classroom communication as it is an effective tool for seeing the roles classroom participants play is applying IRF structure model. It is enumerated by Yu (2009) in his conclusion of study that he strongly believe that the Sinclair & Coulthard model (IRF) and the accompanying analysis has been valuable on a professional level for

(19)

understanding classroom communication. If they want to prepare their students for real-world communication, they need to develop awareness of the language produced inside the classroom and the types of roles that they might possibly be limiting their students to communicate.

In other case, one teacher does not use English discourse in teaching English, it is stated by Simbolon (2014:01) in her recently study that English teacher and student are using source language a long their learning teaching process, they forget that the objective of teaching English is to enable students to be able to speak or communicate in English. And also he claims many teachers, especially English teachers, who teach English in school, almost do not teach in English. They focus on their attention on the transformation of academic knowledge or skills in source language.

Therefore, one of the most important to view intensively in this study is The analysis of classroom discourse structure in the teaching process because when both teacher and student can use and utilize the opportunity in the classroom as well as possible, thus, they will be easily to master English as a tool of communication in their daily classroom interaction.

Based on consideration above, it may now realize how important it is to study classroom discourse analysis to help and make students able to communicate in English. Walsh (2011:35) argues that one of the most useful ways to help teachers develop and improve their professional practices is to place classroom discourse at the centre of the process. By helping teachers understand interactional processes more fully and by getting teachers to study their own use

(20)

of language and its effects on learning, it is possible to greatly enhance deep understandings of classroom processes, thereby improving the quality of both teaching and learning. In line with point of view above, Simbolon (2014:5) sums up in her current study that to get students able to communicate in English at school; there should be teachers who have good discourse in English.

In accordance with this background, language teachers need to conduct classroom discourse Analysis as a tool to improve their own teaching quality and most importantly the education of their own students in general, therefore, the researcher want to carry out the research about the analysis of classroom discourse structure in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat in Labuhanbatu. Through this research, it is hoped can provide contribution and new finding that classroom discourse will give impact to enhance and generate teachers‟ quality and students‟ outcome. The researcher chooses the school is because it is model for other school in Labuhanbatu.

1.2Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study are: 1. What are the structures of the classroom discourse?

2. How is the classroom discourse realized by the teacher and students? 3. Why is classroom discourse realized is the way it is?

(21)

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation with the research problem above, this study has three objectives:

1. To describe the structures of the classroom discourse.

2. To explain how is classroom discourse realized by teacher and students. 3. To discover reasons why is classroom discourse realized is the way it is.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

To avoid of broad discussion of the study, the researcher need to make scope of study. The study simply confines and focuses its investigation on the classroom discourse structure in Junior High school students. The specific investigation and discussion of this study are accordingly in line with the research problems under study which simply encompass: (1) a description the structures of the classroom discourse. (2) Explanation how is classroom discourse realized by teacher and students when the process of learning and teaching based on IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) model which pioneered by Sinclair and Coulthard theory. IRF structure consists of five classes; 1. Lesson, 2. Transaction, 3. Exchange, 4. Move, 5. Acts.

1.5 Significance of the Study

After this research is done, it is suggested it can contribute and provide some benefits, there are two significances for this study, among which are as follows:

(22)

1. Theoretically

The result of research study is expected to enrich the previous theories about classroom discourse analysis and will contribute to the development of discourse. In addition, its findings can be reference for further studies.

2. Practically

The findings of the present study are expected to be great practical significance to the English teachers, especially to those who are interested in and concerned with the structure of classroom discourse analysis. This study will also give the view and current consideration to other researcher that the research has contribution in analysis of classroom discourse structure. Then, it can be utilized as references and update information and knowledge in carrying out a related research topic.

(23)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1Conclusions

Based on result and discussion held previously, it could be drawn a conclusion. The study concerned on English classroom discourse in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. The objectives of this study are to describe the classroom discourse Structures, to describe how classroom discourse structures are realized by teacher and students, and to reason for the realizations of the way they are. After having analyzed the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:

1. The classroom discourse structures were dominantly realized by Initiation and Response (IR) structure. It was reflected in Teacher direct, Teacher elicit and teacher information exchanges.

2. It was found that the classroom discourse structures were only three exchanges as most dominantly occurred in MTS Negeri Rantauprapat. They are teacher direct, teacher elicit and teacher inform. The other exchanges occur are boundary (framing and focusing move), , Directive, Informing, check, accept, React, Reply, nomination, marker, Bid and conclusion.

3. These classroom discourse structure were occurred for some reasons. It is because (1) the teacher as a centre of interaction in the learning teaching process which is dominantly than the students. (2) The teacher gives some question without any caring to the evaluation, appreciation and feedback that makes the students only answer the teacher’s question without any

(24)

feedback to make dialogue be suitable with IRF structure. (3) Students have been disciplined not to speak in classes without a teacher’s direction, and most of them are unwilling to speak English in front of their classmates because they fear making mistakes and causing laugh from others. The students simply can not speak freely because of their poor spoken English.

5.2 Suggestions

Based on the above conclusion, there were some suggestions that should be taken into account. Related to the conclusion of this study, the following suggestions are suggested:

1. It is suggested that English teacher should apply IRF strcuture and analyze their subject or lesson material by using Sinclair and Coulthard theory to find out their classroom discourse structures so they can achieve and chase the quality of their teaching learning process in the class.

2. It is suggested that teacher should give any feedback sucha as evaluation and appreciation to students in every exchange they communicate in the class, especially for elicitation exchange.

3. It is suggested that teacher gives chances for the students to practice based on their mind freely and appreciate them and then hopefully the classroom have a good discourse structures in the English communication and it will contribute to the effectiveness of teacher

(25)

students’ outcome and result in English classroom discourse in the class.

4. It is suggested to the next researcher to study classroom discourse strcuture between teacher and students in the learning teaching process which related with cultural implication and social perspective.

(26)

REFERENCES

Beaugrande d. R (1994). Function and Form in Language Theory and

Research:Functions of Language Journal 1/2, 1994, 163-200.

Behman. B. (2009). Classroom Discourse: Analyzing Teacher/ Learner

Interactions in Iranian EFL Task-Based Classrooms, Porta Linguarim

Journal. pp.117-132

Brazil, D (1995). Classroom and Spoken Discourse: the centre for English

language students. Birmingham.

Bokdan, R and Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative Reserach for Education. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, H.D (2001). Teaching by Principles (2nd Ed.). London: Longman.

Coulthard, M. and Brazil, D. (1992) “Exchange Structure.” In Coulthard, M.

Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 50-78.

Chang, D in Behman (2009). Classroom as Discourse as Communities,

retrieved from Porta Linguarium journal.

Dailey, A (2010) An Analysis of Classroom Discourse: The Usefulness of

Sinclair and Coulthard’s Rank Scale in a Language Classroom University of Birmingham.

Jones. S. (2009.) Application of the Sinclair and Coulthard discourse model to

a korean University English conversation course. Modul M TESOL & TEFL

Lauder. A. (2008). „The Status and Function of English In Indonesia: A

Review of Key Factors’, Journal of Makara Sosial Humaniora, Vol. 12, No. 1, 9-20

Liu .J. and Thoe Le (2012). A Case Study on College English Classroom

Discourse. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research Issue 2 2012

Malouf, R in Jones. S. (2009). Application of the Sinclair and Coulthard

Discourse Model to a korean University English conversation course. Modul M TESOL & TEFL

(27)

Marshall (2012), Interactions Between Classroom Discourse, Teacher

Questioning, and Student Cognitive Engagement in Middle School

Science.The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge

University Press.

Miles, B.M and Huberman, M.A (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A sourch

book of new methods. Beverly Hills, California.

Nicholson, J.S (2014) An Impetus for Change: Classroom Analysis Using

Sinclair and Coulthard‟s Model of Spoken Discourse. Foreign Languages Education Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

International Journal of LinguisticsISSN 1948-5425 2014, Vol. 6,No. 2

Nuh, Muhammad (2014), Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA/SMK kurikulum 2013,

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Jakarta.

Rini,E.J,(2014) English curriculum and challenging, Widya Mandala

Catholic University Surabaya, Vol.2, No.2,

Rymes. B. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis : a tool for critical

reflection. Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press.

Schiffrin, D. (2001) The Handbook of Discourse Analysi, Blackwell Publish,

USA.

Simbolon. L. (2014). Phasal Realization in Classroom Discourse, English

Applied Linguistic Study Program, Postgraduate School UNIMED, Medan.

Sinclair, J. And Coulthard .M (1975) Towards an Analysis of Classroom

Discourse, London : Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J., and Brazil .D (1982) Teacher Talk, Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992) “Towards an Analysis of Discourse.” In

Coulthard, M. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

Sinar. S.T (2007). Phasal and Experiential Realization in Lecturer Discourse

: a Systemic Functional Analysis. Kopertis Wilayah I Sumut NAD, Medan

(28)

Sinar , S.T. (2008). Teori Analisis Wacana : Pendekatan Sistematik

Fungsional. Pustaka Bangsa Press-USU, Medan.

Walsh.S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse : Language in Action,

London : Rotledge.

Yu, W. (2009). An Analysis of College English Classroom Discourse. China :