The use of conversation gambits in English debate competitions.

ABSTRACT

Herlinda, E. Irene (2016). A Study on the Use of Conversation Gambits in English Debate Competitions. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Learning a new language is a challenging experience to have. Also, in learning English as foreign language (EFL), the learners should acquire the language skills and elements. Nowadays, the goal of learning language is to use the language in daily communication. It means that the EFL learners should improve their speaking skills. In order to use the language in daily communication, the learners should have more speaking practices in the classroom since they have only few opportunities to use English to communicate in the society.

Communicative activities, such as debate, can help the teacher to develop the EFL learners’ speaking skills. It is because in a debate, the EFL learners are required not only the ability to deliver ideas but also the ability to think critically. The EFL learners could vary their expressions in delivering speech by using conversation gambits. Conversation gambits are the expressions in which the learners can use them to open the discussion, to link the ideas, and to respond to the certain idea. In this study, the conversation gambits are used to start the discussion, to link the ideas, and to respond to the idea which is delivered in the debate.

This study analyzed the conversation gambits that were used by the debaters in English debate activities namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). The writer employed the theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002) to identify the gambits that were used in the English debate. In analyzing the functions of the used conversation gambits, the writer employed the theory of conversation gambits functions by Keller (1979).

Based on the findings of the analysis, the writer drew some conclusions. Firstly, all the debaters used some gambits of the opening gambits and the linking gambits. Meanwhile, the gambits of responding gambits were only used by some debaters. Secondly, the debaters used the gambits appropriately. However, there was a function shift for one of the opening gambits. It is expected that the result of this study will be useful and helpful in EFL learning, especially in improving the speaking skills.

ABSTRAK

Herlinda, E. Irene. (2016). A Study on the Use of Conversation Gambits in English Debate Competitions. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Mempelajari sebuah bahasa baru adalah pengalaman yang menantang. Hal itu juga berlaku dalam mempelajari bahasa Inggris untuk penutur asing dimana para pembelajar dituntut untuk bisa menguasai semua kemampuan berbahasa and elemen bahasa itu sendiri. Sekarang ini, tujuan dari belajar bahasa adalah kemampuan untuk menggunakan bahasa tersebut untuk komunikasi sehari-hari. Hal ini berarti bahwa pembelajar bahasa Inggris harus meningkatkan kemampuan berbicaranya. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, para pembelajar harus melakukan lebih banyak lagi praktik berbicara di dalam kelas. Hal ini disebabkan oleh terlalu sedikitnya kesempatan bagi mereka untuk praktik menggunakan bahasa Inggris di luar kelas.

Aktivitas dalam pembelajaran komunikatif, seperti debat, dapat membantu guru dalam mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara para pembelajar. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena di dalam debat para pembelajar dituntut untuk bisa tidak hanya menyampaikan pendapatnya tetapi juga mempunyai kemampuan berpikir kristis. Dalam menyampaikan pendapatnya, para pembelajar dapat menggunakan beberapa variasi dari conversation gambits. Conversation gambits adalah ekspresi yang digunakan untuk memulai diskusi, menghubungkan gagasan, dan merespon gagasan dari orang lain. Hal tersebut juga berlaku dalam penelitian dimana para pelaku debat menggunakan conversation gambits untuk memulai diskusi, menghubungan gagasan, dan merespon gagasan pelaku debat yang lain.

Penelitian ini menganalisa gambits apa saja yang digunakan oleh para pelaku debat dalam debatnya dalam acara Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). Penulis menggunakan teory conversation gambits dari Keller dan Warner (2002) untuk mengidentifikasi gambits yang digunakan dalam debat. Dalam menganalisa fungsi dari conversation gambits, penulis menggunakan teori fungsi conversation gambits dari Keller (1979).

Penulis menarik beberapa kesimpulan berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang telah dilakukan. Pertama, semua pelaku debat menggunakan gambits dari opening gambits dan linking gambits. Untuk responding gambits, hanya beberapa pelaku debat yang menggunakannya dalam debatnya. Kedua, para pelaku debat menggunakan ekspresi-ekspresi tersebut sesuai dengan funngsinya. Akan tetapi ada perubahan fungsi dari salah satu ekspresi dari opening gambits. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat berguna bagi perkembangan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, terutama dalam mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara.

T EH USEOFCONVERSATION GAMBITSI NENGLISH S N O I T I T E P M O C E T A B E D

A SARJANAPENDIDIKANTHESIS

s t n e m e ri u q e R e h t f o t n e m ll if l u F l a it r a P s a d e t n e s e r P e h t n i a t b O o

t SarjanaPendidikanDegree m a r g o r P y d u t S n o it a c u d E e g a u g n a L h s il g n E n i y B a i m e h p u

E IreneHerilnda 0 4 1 2 1 1 1 : r e b m u N t n e d u t

S 0 9

M A R G O R P Y D U T S N O I T A C U D E E G A U G N A L H S I L G N E N O I T A C U D E S T R A D N A E G A U G N A L F O T N E M T R A P E D N O I T A C U D E D N A G N I N I A R T S R E H C A E T F O Y T L U C A F Y T I S R E V I N U A M R A H D A T A N A S A T R A K A Y G O Y 6 1 0 2

i

T EH USEOFCONVERSATIONGAMBITSINENGLISH N O I T I T E P M O C E T A B E D S

ASARJANAPENDIDIKANTHESIS

s t n e m e r i u q e R e h t f o t n e m ll if l u F l a it r a P s a d e t n e s e r P

Oto btaint heSarjanaPendidikanDegree n o it a c u d E e g a u g n a L h s il g n E n

i StudyProgram

y B a i m e h p u

E IreneHerilnda 0 4 1 2 1 1 1 : r e b m u N t n e d u t

S 0 9

M A R G O R P Y D U T S N O I T A C U D E E G A U G N A L H S I L G N E N O I T A C U D E S T R A D N A E G A U G N A L F O T N E M T R A P E D N O I T A C U D E D N A G N I N I A R T S R E H C A E T F O Y T L U C A F Y T I S R E V I N U A M R A H D A T A N A S A T R A K A Y G O Y 6 1 0 2

ii i

v i

E G A P N O I T A C I D E D

et

a

ci

d

e

d

I

t

ih

s

ht

e

s

si

t

o

ht

o

s

e

w

h

o

ol

v

e

s

rt

u

g

lg

ni

g

,

!

g

ni

z

a

m

a

e

r

a

y

e

h

T

.s

m

a

e

r

d

ri

e

ht

g

ni

u

s

r

u

p

d

n

a

,g

ni

n

r

a

el

v Y T I L A N I G I R O S ’ K R O W F O T N E M E T A T S k r o w e h t n i a t n o c t o n s e o d , n e tt ir w e v a h I h c i h w , s i s e h t s i h t t a h t e r a l c e d y lt s e n o h I e h t d n a s n o it a t o u q e h t n i d e ti c e s o h t t p e c x e , e l p o e p r e h t o f o k r o w e h t f o s tr a p r o . d l u o h s r e p a p c if it n e i c s a s a , s e c n e r e f e r tr a k a y g o

Y a ,Augus t2nd_{, 2016} W

e h

T rtier

a d n il r e H e n e r I a i m e h p u E 9 0 0 4 1 2 1 1 1

i v N A U J U T E S R E P N A A T A Y N R E P R A B M E L S I M E D A K A N A G N I T N E P E K K U T N U H A I M L I A Y R A K I S A K I L B U P : a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U a w s i s a h a m a y a s ,i n i h a w a b i d n a g n a t a d n a tr e b g n a Y a m a

N :EuphemiaIreneHerilnda M

I

N :111214009

n a a k a t s u p r e P a d a p e k n a k ir e b m e m a y a s n a u h a t e g n e p u m li n a g n a b m e g n e p i m e D :l u d u jr e b g n a y a y a s h a i m li a y r a k , a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U

T EH USEOFCONVERSATIONGAMBITSI NENGLISH E

T A B E

D COMPETITIONS

n a g n e

D demikian ,saya membeirkan kepada Perpustakaan Universtias Sanata p m i y n e m k u t n u k a h a m r a h

D an , mengailhkan dalam bentuk media lain , n a d s a t a b r e t a r a c e s n a k i s u b ir t s i d n e m , a t a d n a l a k g n a p k u t n e b m a l a d a y n a l o l e g n e m g n it n e p e k k u t n u n i a l a i d e m u a t a t e n r e t n I i d a y n n a k i s a k il b u p m e

m an akademi s

n a k ir e b m e m n u p u a m a y a s i r a d n ij i a t n i m e m u lr e p a p n a

t royalit kepada saya

.s il u n e p i a g a b e s a y a s a m a n n a k m u t n a c n e m p a t e t a m a l e s . a y n r a n e b e s n a g n e d t a u b a y a s i n i n a a t a y n r e p n a i k i m e D a tr a k a y g o Y i d t a u b i D :l a g g n a t a d a

P 2Agustus2016 g

n a

Y menyatakan

a d n il r e H e n e r I a i m e h p u E

ii v T C A R T S B A e n e r I . E , a d n il r e

H (2016) .A Study on the Use o fConversaiton Gambti sin e t a b e D h s il g n

E Compeititons. Yogyakatra :Engilsh Language Educaiton Study f o y tl u c a F , m a r g o r

P Teacher sTrainingandEducaiton,SanataDharmaUniverstiy . . e v a h o t e c n e ir e p x e g n i g n e ll a h c a s i e g a u g n a l w e n a g n i n r a e

L Also ,in

e h t e ri u q c a d l u o h s s r e n r a e l e h t , ) L F E ( e g a u g n a l n g i e r o f s a h s il g n E g n i n r a e l e s u o t s i e g a u g n a l g n i n r a e l f o l a o g e h t ,s y a d a w o N . s t n e m e l e d n a s ll i k s e g a u g n a l e h

t language in daliy communicaiton .I tmean stha tthe EFL learner sshould y li a d n i e g a u g n a l e h t e s u o t r e d r o n I . s ll i k s g n i k a e p s r i e h t e v o r p m i e h t n i s e c it c a r p g n i k a e p s e r o m e v a h d l u o h s s r e n r a e l e h t , n o it a c i n u m m o c i n u tr o p p o w e f y l n o e v a h y e h t e c n i s m o o r s s a l

c itest o useEngilsh t o communicate

. y t e i c o s e h t n i p o l e v e d o t r e h c a e t e h t p l e h n a c , e t a b e d s a h c u s , s e it i v it c a e v it a c i n u m m o C n i e s u a c e b s i tI . s ll i k s g n i k a e p s ’ s r e n r a e l L F E e h

t adebate, t heEFL l earner sare

a e d i r e v il e d o t y ti li b a e h t y l n o t o n d e ri u q e

r s bu talsot heablitiyt ot hink ciritcally . d l u o c s r e n r a e l L F E e h

T vary thei rexpression sin deilve irng speech by using e h t h c i h w n i s n o i s s e r p x e e h t e r a s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o C . s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o c a e d i e h t k n il o t , n o i s s u c s i d e h t n e p o o t m e h t e s u n a c s r e n r a e

l s ,and t o r espond t o

e h t t r a t s o t d e s u e r a s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o c e h t , y d u t s s i h t n I . a e d i n i a tr e c e h t e h t n i d e r e v il e d s i h c i h w a e d i e h t o t d n o p s e r o t d n a , s a e d i e h t k n il o t , n o i s s u c s i d . e t a b e d y b d e s u e r e w t a h t s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o c e h t d e z y l a n a y d u t s s i h

T the

h s il g n E s e it i s r a V d n a lr e v O a v a J y l e m a n s e it i v it c a e t a b e d h s il g n E n i s r e t a b e d y b s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o c f o y r o e h t e h t d e y o l p m e r e ti r w e h T . ) D E V O J ( e t a b e D h s il g n E e h t n i d e s u e r e w t a h t s ti b m a g e h t y fi t n e d i o t ) 2 0 0 2 ( r e n r a W d n a r e ll e K g n i z y l a n a n I . e t a b e

d the funciton so fthe used conversaiton gambtis ,the wrtie r .) 9 7 9 1 ( r e ll e K y b s n o it c n u f s ti b m a g n o it a s r e v n o c f o y r o e h t e h t d e y o l p m e . s n o i s u l c n o c e m o s w e r d r e ti r w e h t ,s i s y l a n a e h t f o s g n i d n if e h t n o d e s a B d e s u s r e t a b e d e h t ll a , y lt s ri

F somegambti soft heopening gambti sand the ilnking s

ti b m a

g .Meanwhlie,t hegambti sofr esponding gamb ti swereonly used bysome e r e h t , r e v e w o H . y l e t a ir p o r p p a s ti b m a g e h t d e s u s r e t a b e d e h t , y l d n o c e S . s r e t a b e d d e t c e p x e s i tI . s ti b m a g g n i n e p o e h t f o e n o r o f tf i h s n o it c n u f a s a

w thatt her esul to f

e h t g n i v o r p m i n i y ll a i c e p s e , g n i n r a e l L F E n i l u f p l e h d n a l u f e s u e b l li w y d u t s s i h t .s ll i k s g n i k a e p s : s d r o w y e

ii i v K A R T S B A e n e r I . E , a d n il r e

H . (2016) .A Study on the Use o fConversaiton Gamb ti sin e t a b e D h s il g n

E Compeititons. Yogyakatra: Program Stud iPendidikan Bahasa . a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U , s ir g g n I l a H . g n a t n a n e m g n a y n a m a l a g n e p h a l a d a u r a b a s a h a b h a u b e s i r a j a l e p m e M a l e p m e m m a l a d u k a lr e b a g u j u

ti jar ibahasa Ingg ir suntuk penutu rasing dimana d n a a s a h a b r e b n a u p m a m e k a u m e s i a s a u g n e m a s i b k u t n u t u t n u ti d r a j a l e b m e p a r a p h a l a d a a s a h a b r a j a l e b i r a d n a u j u t , i n i g n a r a k e S . ir i d n e s u ti a s a h a b n e m e l e k i n u m o k k u t n u t u b e s r e t a s a h a b n a k a n u g g n e m k u t n u n a u p m a m e

k as isehair-hair .

n a u p m a m e k n a k t a k g n i n e m s u r a h s ir g g n I a s a h a b r a j a l e b m e p a w h a b i tr a r e b i n i l a H . a y n a r a c i b r e

b Untuk mencapait ujuant ersebut ,parapembelaja rharu smelakukan u l a lr e t h e l o n a k b a b e s i d i n i l a H . s a l e k m a l a d i d a r a c i b r e b k it k a r p i g a l k a y n a b h i b e l i d s ir g g n I a s a h a b n a k a n u g g n e m k it k a r p k u t n u a k e r e m i g a b n a t a p m e s e k a y n ti k i d e s . s a l e k r a u l u t n a b m e m t a p a d , t a b e d i tr e p e s , fi t a k i n u m o k n a r a j a l e b m e p m a l a d s a ti v it k A .r a j a l e b m e p a r a p a r a c i b r e b n a u p m a m e k n a k g n a b m e g n e m m a l a d u r u

g Hali n idapa t

a n e r a k i d a jr e

t d idalam deba tpara pembelaja rdtiuntu tuntuk bisa itdak hanya . s it s ir k r i k i p r e b n a u p m a m e k i a y n u p m e m a g u j i p a t e t a y n t a p a d n e p n a k i a p m a y n e m n a k a n u g g n e m t a p a d r a j a l e b m e p a r a p , a y n t a p a d n e p n a k i a p m a y n e m m a l a D i r a d i s a ir a v a p a r e b e

b conversaitongambtis. Conversaitongamb tisadalahekspres i n o p s e r e m n a d , n a s a g a g n a k g n u b u h g n e m , i s u k s i d i a l u m e m k u t n u n a k a n u g i d g n a y a r a p a n a m i d n a it il e n e p m a l a d u k a lr e b a g u j t u b e s r e t l a H . n i a l g n a r o i r a d n a s a g a g n a k a n u g g n e m t a b e d u k a l e

p conversaiton gambtis untuk memula i diskusi , . n i a l g n a y t a b e d u k a l e p n a s a g a g n o p s e r e m n a d , n a s a g a g n a g n u b u h g n e m a s il a n a g n e m i n i n a it il e n e

P gamb tis apa saja yang digunakan oleh para a r a c a m a l a d a y n t a b e d m a l a d t a b e d u k a l e

p JavaOverlandVarsiite sEngilshDebate ) D E V O J

( . Penu il s menggunakan teory conversaiton gambtis dar i Kelle r dan i s a k if it n e d i g n e m k u t n u ) 2 0 0 2 ( r e n r a

W gambist yang digunakan dalam debat . i r a d i s g n u f a s il a n a g n e m m a l a

D conversa itongamb tis ,penuil smenggunakan t eor i i

s g n u

f conversaitongambtisdar iKeller( 1979 .) e b e b k ir a n e m s il u n e

P rapa kesimpulan berdasarkan hasi lpeneilitan yang n a k a n u g g n e m t a b e d u k a l e p a u m e s , a m a tr e P . n a k u k a li d h a l e

t gamb tisdar iopening

s ti b m a

g dan ilnking gambtis .Untuk responding gambtis ,hanya beberapa pelaku a p , a u d e K . a y n t a b e d m a l a d a y n n a k a n u g g n e m g n a y t a b e

d ra pelaku deba t

i s e r p s k e n a k a n u g g n e

m -ekspres itersebu tsesua idengan funngsinya. Akan tetap i i r a d i s e r p s k e u t a s h a l a s i r a d i s g n u f n a h a b u r e p a d

a opening gambtis . Hasi l

a s a h a b n a r a j a l e b m e p n a g n a b m e k r e p i g a b a n u g r e b t a p a d n a k p a r a h i d i n i n a it il e n e p e t ,s ir g g n

I rutamadalammengembangkankemampuanberbicara .

i c n u k a t a

x i S T N E M E G D E L W O N K C A , d r o L y m o t e d u ti t a r g t s e t a e r g y m s s e r p x e o t e k il d l u o w I , ll a f o t s ri

F Jesu s

t s i r h

C ,whoalway sgive smeblessings ,spriti ,andi deasi nw iritngt hist hesis .He . n o it e l p m o c s ti o t s e m o c s i s e h t y m t a h t o s s i s e h t y m e ti r w o t e m s d a e l s y a w l a y l d n o c e

S , I would ilke to send my grattiude to my beloved parents , d P . S , o t r a n i W s u n it n e r o l

F . and Sisiila Sumini ,S.Ag., w ho alway ssuppor tme y d u t s y m g n i h s i n if n

i .I alsot hankmy belovedbrother sCosma sWennySep itan d

n

a PatrickNoorPamungkaswhohaveaccompani edmei n ifnishingt hist hesis. , r e t s i s e lt ti l y m k n a h t o t e k il d l u o w I , o s l

A Agatha Rosaila Vinny Febiola Paat , s

a h o h

w accompanied met or efreshmymind. Ialso t hankmybelovedboyf irend , , a n a l e k s i r K o d E s i u o

L who ha ssuppo tred and helped me to do thi sthesis . k n a h t I , y lt s a

L mysel fa sa person who ha ssrtuggled fo revery stiuaiton and s e h t s i h t g n i h s il p m o c c a n i n o it i d n o

c i s .

s i h t g n i h s i n if n i e m d e p l e h e v a h o h w e s o h t r o f e d u ti t a r g y m d n e s o s l a I s i s e h

t .Frislty ,It hank my advisor ,Dr .Retno Mu jlani, M .Pd. fo rhe rpaitence , o p p u s , e r a c , s s e n g n il li

w tr ,and suggesitons du irng the proces so f ifnishing the s

i s e h

t . Ialso t hankSimon Arsa Manggala ,S.S. ,M. Hum. who ha sbecomemy s n o it s e g g u s d n a s n o it c e r r o c y n a m e m s e v i g d n a r e d a e r f o o r p s i s e h

t . Also ,It hank

, S . S , s a y t g n i n a m u s u K a s a y it r a k e

S whoha shelpedmeconductt her esearch. y m s s e r p x e o t e k il d l u o w I , n o it i d d a n

I sincere grattiude to my academic ,r o s i v d

a Chrisitna Lhaksmtia Anandari ,S.Pd. ,Ed.M,. and al lPB Ilecturers .I B P n i y d u t s y m g n ir u d s e l o r r i e h t r o

f Also ,I t hank t he PB Isecretary staf ffo r .I B P n i y d u t s y m g n ir u d p l e h r i e h t

x o

s l a

I send ym grattiude to m y amazing firends ,Star de Acyuta :Chlia , k

a

K Tina ,CikYo ,andMakNanaf orbeingt hebes tpatrner swhokindlysuppor t e h t m o r f s i s e h t s i h t g n i h s i n if n i s s e c o r p y m d n a y d u t s y m g n ir u d e

m beginning

d n e e h t l it n

u . Ithank my close firends ,Yoan iWulan, Wulan Hasitn ,Ratna , i r a d n a l u

W and themember so fSt .Roseilna CathoilcYouthCommuntiy fo r g n ir u d n e r i e h

t suppo tri n ifnishingmys tudy. Iwouldalso ilket othankmys econd n i y li m a

f Lembaga Bahasa Universtia sSanata Dharma fo rthei rmoitvaiton s . s i s e h t y m g n i h s i n if n i s n o it s e g g u s d n a o h w e l p o e p e h t o t e d u ti t a r g y m e v i g o t t n a w I , y lt s a

L m Icanno tmeniton

n i s s e c o r p g n i n r a e l e h t g n ir u d e m d e p l e h d n a d e tr o p p u s e v a h o h w e n o y b e n o o t d e s s e l b o s m a I . P S E L

E have eil d v andknowntheminmyl fie .Theygivemea . e fi l y ti s r e v i n u l u f g n i n a e m

Sincerely ,

a d n il r e H e n e r I a i m e h p u E

i x S T N E T N O C F O E L B A T E G A P E L T I

T ... i S E G A P L A V O R P P

A ... ii E G A P N O I T A C I D E

D ... v i Y T I L A N I G I R O S ’ K R O W F O T N E M E T A T

S ... v

T E S R E P N A A T A Y N R E

P UJUANPUBLIKASI ... v i T C A R T S B

A ... iiv

K A R T S B

A ... v iii S T N E M E G D E L W O N K C

A ... .. ix S T N E T N O C F O E L B A

T ... ix N O I T C U D O R T N I .I R E T P A H

C ... 1 .

A Backgroundoft heStudy ... 1 .

B ResearchProblems... 6 .

C ProblemLimtiaiton ... 7 .

D ResearchObjecitves... 7 .

E ResearchBeneftis ... 7 .

F De ifniitono fTerms... 9 E R U T A R E T I L D E T A L E R F O W E I V E R . I I R E T P A H

C ... 11

.

A Theoreitca lDescirpiton... . 1 1 .

1 CommunicaitveLanguageTeaching( CLT )... 11 .

2 Gambti s ... 31 .

3 Debate ... 91 .

B Theoreitca lFramework ... 22 .I I I R E T P A H

C METHODOLOGY ... 42 .

A ResearchMethod ... 42 .

ii x .

C ResearchParitcipants ... 62 .

D Insrtument sandDataGathe irngTechnique s... 72 .

E DataAnalysi sTechnique s ... 03 .

F ResearchProcedure s ... 3 4 .

V I R E T P A H

C RESEARCHRESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS ... 83 .

A The Conversaiton Gambti sUsed by The Debaters in e

t a b e D h s il g n

E Compeititons ... 83 .

1 OpeningGambti s ... 93 .

2 LinkingGambti s ... 35 .

3 RespondingGambtis... 17 .

B The Funciton o fConversaiton Gambti sUsed by The s

r e t a b e

D inEngilshDebateCompeititons ... 76 .

1 Acitnga sSemanitcI nrtoductory ... 76 .

2 Relatedt oSocia lContex to fConversaiton ... 78 .

3 ShowingStateo fConsciousnes s ... 97 .

4 Acitnga sCommunicaitonCon rto l... 08 D

N A S N O I S U L C N O C . V R E T P A H

C RECOMMENDATIONS... 82 .

A Conclusion s ... 82 .

B Recommendaiton s ... 84 .. S

E C N E R E F E

R ... 86 S

E C I D N E P P

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

There are six sections in this chapter: research background, research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms. The research background presents the reasons why the writer conducts this study. Then, the research problems present the questions being answered in this study. Moreover, problem limitation is to limit the topic discussed in this study. Next, the research objectives serve the goals of conducting the study. The research benefits show the advantages of this study. Lastly, definition of terms explains the terms related to the topic in this study.

A. Research Background

Learning a new language is a challenging experience to have. It is because the language learners have to acquire the knowledge about the language and to have the ability to apply the knowledge. In addition, to learn a new language is also a great accomplishment which opens up doors to many new opportunities and experiences.

The challenging experience in learning language also happens in learning English as foreign language (EFL). In learning English as foreign language (EFL), the learners have to acquire the knowledge about the language and know how to use the language. In English, there are four language skills and three language elements to learn. Language skills involving reading, listening, speaking, and

writing are important. In those language skills, there are also language elements such as grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary.

Learning all language skills and elements can bring a desired result, namely, the mastery of language functions for communication. It is related to the goal of learning language is to be able to apply the language in daily communication, especially in speaking. This is one of the reasons why the learners should know the information on how to make communication sound naturally. In oral communication, a speaker speaks not only a single complete sentence but it can also be a single word, phrase, or fragment of sentence which are meaningful and understandable (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, and Harnish, 2001).

Therefore, the ability to speak in target language is important in learning a language because the learners can apply the language that they have learned to communicate with others. Communication, especially oral communication, requires the learners’ speaking skills in order to deliver messages. In other words,

the learners have to improve their speaking skills in order to communicate well. By improving their speaking skills, the learners can apply the language to communicate with others and they can try to speak as if they are the speakers of the language. This is related to Ur (2009) who argues that speaking skill is the most important one since the learners are most interested in becoming the actual speakers of the language.

It is important for a teacher to stimulate the EFL learners to communicate with others orally, especially in classroom, by using English. It can be a way for

the learners to acquire the knowledge and combine it with the skills that they have learned, especially speaking skill. Therefore, English teachers must give stimulation for the learners to perform their speaking skills by using communication activities.

Debate is one example of communication activities that can occur both in classroom and in social life. Debate is used as a teaching activity in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). According to Littlewood (1981), as cited by Richard and Rodgers (2001), in CLT there are two types of activities: functional communication activities and social interaction activities. Functional communication activities involve comparing pictures, working out in sequence of events in a picture, giving and following instruction on how to draw a picture, and solving problems from shared clues. Meanwhile, social interaction activities include conversation, role play, simulation, skits, and debate. These activities enable learners to attain the communicative objectives, engage learners in communication, and require the use of communicative processes as information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction (Richard and Rodgers, 2001).

Since debate has been an activity in CLT and it also requires a communicative process, learners can perform their speaking skills through debate. In debate, learners also need to know how to make sentences to state their ideas and to have the ability to apply their knowledge to give reason through theories, values, and attitudes (Darby, 2007). The learners can also develop their critical thinking through debate because they will think about how to respond others’

fluently so that they can state their idea in a limited time. In conclusion, debate is a useful teaching activity to improve learners’speaking skills. By developing the speaking skill, it is believed that EFL learners are able to use English in actual communication such as in debate.

In order to support the EFL learners’ ability to do debate, the learners need to know the information on how to start a debate, to respond the previous speaker, and to close the debate. Therefore, they need to acquire the knowledge and they also need more practice to make their performance better. In stating their idea in debate, a learner will use some expressions to make their opinion runs naturally and clearly. Expressions that occur in debate, also in daily conversation, can be defined as conversation gambits. These gambits will help EFL learners to speak out their ideas. For example, if the learners want to state their disagreement they can use one of the gambits to indicate their purpose, such as “we do not think that …”, “I agree, but …”, or “yes, but …”. Those gambits also make the debate go

naturally and contextually. Gambits are usually used to open, respond, and link a topic in the debate, so that the EFL learners can decide which gambits that suit their purpose well in their speeches.

In this study, the EFL learners are the learners who do not use English or the target language to communicate in society. It is supported by Nunan (2008) who states that foreign language learners only have few opportunities to use the target language outside the classroom. This is one of the reasons why the EFL learners should have more speaking practices in the classroom in order to improve their speaking skills in English.

In fact, the EFL learners are able to develop their speaking skills from the very beginning of their ages. However, the most suitable age for the EFL learners to accomplish both critical thinking and the ability to speak up their idea is when they are in adolescence. It is because when they are in age 12–18 years old, they have completed the stage of formal operations. This is a stage where the learners are able to think logically about real life events. Even, the learners can also reason about the contrary-to-fact ideas and experiences (Hoyer and Roodin, 2003). In addition, in this stage the learners can engage in hypothetical-deductive thinking in which the learners are capable of reasoning like scientist. These are the reasons why the learners in formal operations stage are the most appropriate learners to observe in doing debate since they are able to reason contrary-to-fact in real life events.

Debate is an activity in which the speakers share different opinion on certain motion. Also, it gives more opportunity for the learners to speak using English. It is because debate gives each debater or speaker to have a speech. The learners also can develop their debate and also speaking skills by joining debate competition. There are many kinds of debate competition in Indonesia. One of the debate competitions in Indonesia is Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). JOVED is the first parliamentary English debate competition in Indonesia. In the beginning until the 11th JOVED, JOVED used Australasian Parliamentary style. However, in 2008 until present JOVED uses Asian Parliamentary debate style. The participants of this event are from university students of all over Java Island.

The writer is interested to propose this topic because she believes that using gambits is one of the ways to develop EFL learners’ speaking skill, especially in formal situation such as in debate. Since the aim of learning language is to use the target language for communication, it means that the learners are expected to use it in daily communication, including in discussing a topic. Therefore, by acknowledging the gambits and using them in the formal speeches, such as in debate, the EFL learners will be able to speak more naturally and more managed.

Since developing EFL learners’ speaking skill is important, English teachers should help the learners acquire the language. The teachers can use debate as a medium to develop the learners’ speaking skill. Moreover, the learners can also use conversation gambits in their debates. It is because conversation gambits can help the learners run their debates naturally and to state their idea structurally. It also helps the learners run the debates well when they use conversation gambits appropriately as their functions. In short, this study is aimed to identify the use of conversation gambits in English debate activities.

B. Research Problems

This research is addressed to answer two research problems. The problems are formulated as follows:

1. Which gambits do the debaters use in English debate competition?

2. What are the functions of the gambits used by the debaters in English debate competition?

C. Problem Limitation

The writer makes some limitations for the problem stated above. In this study, the writer will focus on which gambits the debaters usually use in English debate activities. Here, the debaters are JOVED participants. The writer will observe and record the English debate activities by being an audience. The writer uses the recordings to analyze the object of the study.

D. Research Objectives

This research has two objectives to reach. The first objectives is to identify the gambits are used by the debaters in the English debate competition. Secondly, by doing this study, the writer is going to identify the functions of the used gambits in English debate competition.

E. Research Benefits

By conducting this study, the writer hopes it will bring benefits for the development of English, especially in Speaking and Debating. The writer expects that it will bring more advantages especially for:

1. English Debate Trainers

The writer hopes that the result of this research will give English debate trainers more information and activities to encourage the learners to speak in English. By using the gambits, hopefully, the teachers can provide some introductory phrase or sentence for the learners to state their idea in English

especially in debate. Since debate is one of activities in Communicative Language Teaching, English teachers can use this result of research to encourage learners in learning English through debate.

2. English Debate Participants

The writer hopes that the result of this study can give more information on the various gambits that they can use for making the speech more natural. Moreover, the debaters can use the gambits to vary their expressions in stating arguments. Also, the result of the study can encourage the English debate participants to be more confident in doing debate.

3. EFL Learners

The writer hopes that the result of this study will encourage the EFL learners to be more confident to speak in English. In addition, this result of the study can give them various expressions to start, respond to statement, and link the ideas of the topic. In short, it helps the EFL learners to be able to manage conversation and to communicate in English with others both inside and outside classroom.

4. Other researchers

This research can be a stepping stone for the future researchers to conduct a similar study. Hopefully, the future researcher can develop the idea of this study. The writer hopes that the future researcher will conduct a similar study so that the result of the research can be discussed deeper and be useful for the language learners and also teachers.

F. Definition of Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding about the term of this research, the writer would like to define some terms. The definition of terms will be presented as follows:

1. Conversation Gambits

In this study, gambits means expressions that are used to start a discussion, respond to a question or statement, and link the topic. These expressions are used to be introductory phrase that ease the learners to state their idea. Referring to Keller and Warner (2002) whosay that “a gambit is a word or phrase which helps us to express what we are trying to say”. It can be used to introduce a topic of conversation, to respond one’s opinion, and to link a topic. The examples of the conversation gambits are ‘we think that …’, ‘we believe that …’ , ‘first/second …’, and ‘the problem is …’. In short, gambits refer to the expressions which are used to ease the speakers maintain their speeches to communicate with others in day-to-day communication.

2. Debate

According to Richards and Renandya (2005), debate is an opinion sharing activity in which the learners compare values, opinion, and beliefs in a certain motion. Moreover, debate also means a social interaction between two groups of people who discuss certain topic. In this case, debate is not a way to reach an agreement but it is a way to state opinions about the topic and stand up on their arguments (Harvey-Smith, 2011). Also, debate is one of activities in

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in which the learners can develop their communicative competence by using the target language to communicate with others (Richard and Rodgers, 2001). In this study, debate is a means to share opinion in which the speakers can speak up their thought about certain motion and produce speeches where there are arguments and rebuttals to deliver. Moreover, it is not an activity to reach an agreement on a certain motion. In short, debate is a speaking activity that requires critical thinking and ability to deliver arguments naturally and contextually.

11 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, there are two sub chapters, namely, theoretical description and theoretical framework of this study. The theoretical description presents a few theories related to the study, whereas the theoretical framework describes the major underlying theories employed to address the two research problems stated previously.

A. Theoretical Description

In this section, the writer presents the theories used in conducting the study. Theories that are used in this study are theory of Communicative Language Teaching, theory of gambits and its function, and theory of debate.

1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

During the late 20th centuries, many language researches consider on how people learn the language to speak. In order to use the language productively, a language learner should use the language in communication. This is one of the reasons why the method called Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) arose (Nunan, 2003).

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a method that gives the learners more opportunity to use the target language both in the classroom and outside the classroom. CLT has various activities which can be done in pair work

and in group work in order to develop the learners’ speaking skills. The examples

of the activities are information gap, jigsaw activities, role plays, simulations, and debate.

Information gap and jigsaw activities are pair-work activities in which the learners try to give and get information from certain pictures or real objects. Here, the learners are able to use their speaking skills in order to obtain information. Moreover, they are able to enhance their vocabulary, grammar, and communication strategies to complete the task (Richards, 2005).

Role plays and simulations are communicative activities in which the learners play certain role and use the target language as a means of communication. These activities are both in pairs and groups work. These activities give the learners practice speaking the target language before they do it in real environment (Nunan, 2003).

Debate is an opinion sharing activity in which the learners compare values, opinions, and beliefs in a certain motion (Richards, 2005). In debate, the learners can improve their speaking skills and their critical thinking since this activity requires the learners to share their ideas, opinion, and beliefs about a certain topic. Moreover, this activity also involves the process called negotiating for meaning in which the learners are trying to understand and make themselves understood when they are communicating in the target language. Here, the learners are able to check to see if they have understood what others’ said, clarifying their

understanding, and confirming that someone has understood your meaning (Nunan, 2003).

2. Gambits

A conversational speech can be viewed as text originating from a number of different sources and also the outward manifestation of sociological structure in constant realignment (Keller, 1979). It means that a conversational speech is a text developed through dynamical situation in society and delivered in a spoken language. The speaker needs to assure that the message through his/her conversational speech is well delivered. In assuring that the message is well delivered, a speaker can use special signals as a part of their conversation strategies. These signals can ease the speaker to smoothly start conversation, hold the listeners’ attention, and bow out from the conversation. Moreover, these signals are also useful for introducing the speaker shifts or preparing the listeners for the next turn in the conversation (Keller, 1979). A set of these signals is defined as gambits.

Keller and Warner (2002) say that “a gambit is a word or phrase which helps speakers to express what we are trying to say”. It can be used to introduce

an opinion, to respond other’s opinion, and to link a topic even to bow out from the conversation. In introducing an opinion, a speaker can use gambits “In my opinion …” or “The way I look at it …”. While in responding other’s opinion, the speaker can say “I don’t think that …” or “To be realistic …”. These gambits are

mostly in multiple word units. However, there are some gambits which are only in one single word such as “First”, “Second”, and “Generally”. These gambits refer to the gambits which ease us to communicate smoothly with others in day-to-day

communication. In this study this gambits is called as conversation since it is used in conversational speech in a form of debate activities.

According to Keller and Warner (2002), there are three kinds of gambits in conversation gambits. They are opening gambits, linking gambits, and responding gambits. Those kinds of gambits have their own purposes and functions. The elaboration about the kinds of gambits will be presented as follows:

a. Opening Gambits

Keller and Warner (2002) define opening gambits as gambits that are used to help us introduce idea into the discussion. This gambit is used not only to start a new discussion or conversation, but also to introduce new ideas during a discussion or conversation. The examples of opening gambits are “You may not

believe it, but …”, “First, …”, “In my view …”, and “do you know …?”. Basically, there are still more examples of this kind of gambits. Therefore, the complete list of opening gambits will be attached in the appendix 4.

b. Linking Gambits

Linking gambits are gambits used to link our own idea to the others’ idea

so that the discussion will be still going on because there will be agreement or disagreement about a certain topic. Moreover, these gambits are also used to give other speakers chance to speak or to take our turn to give opinion. There are some examples of linking gambits such as “Because of …”, “But the problem is that …”,and “Let me put it another way” (Keller and Warner, 2002). Since there are many expressions of linking gambits, it will be attached in appendix 4.

c. Responding Gambits

A successful conversation is when the speakers can respond the others’ idea or develop others’ idea. In responding others’ idea there will be agreement or disagreement (Keller, 2002). These kinds of gambits allow the speakers to say your agreement or disagreement, to show surprise, disbelief, or polite interest. Here are the examples of responding gambits: “I agree, but …”, “You must be joking”, “Really?”, or “I don’t think that …”(Keller and Warner, 2002). This kind of gambits will ease the speakers to relax and be fluent in discussion or conversation since the speaker will find it is easier to talk by using these expressions. The complete examples of responding gambits will also be attached in appendix 4.

In this study, the writer addresses the conversation gambits as conversational strategy signals since the gambits used in this study is for giving transition signal in the utterances. It means that the gambits used in the debate are used to start discussion or to state ideas in debate, to respond to a question or statement, and link the idea about certain topic. These expressions are used to be introductory phrase that ease the speakers to state their idea. When it is easy for stating idea, the discussion will flow naturally and contextually. It means that there will be less or no jumping idea when it is used appropriately due to its function.

Conversation gambits have purposes. These purposes ease the learners to decide which gambit is appropriate to use. In other words, when a speaker uses

gambits appropriately in an utterance it will make the utterance becomes more meaningful, natural, and contextual.

According to Keller (1979), conversation gambits have four main functions. These functions help the writer to identify the functions of the used gambits in the debate due to its purpose. Below are the four main functions of conversation gambits:

a) Semantics framing

As Keller (1979) says that commonly, gambits refer to semantic information. They serve to signal that the stretch of utterance to follow is to be taken in particular manner, for example as an opinion, or as a piece of unpleasant realism. Mostly, the expressions ending at three dots need the complement to make them as full-fledged gambits. Also, they will convey specific meaning of a complete sentence. As an example, the statement “In my opinion, he’s smart” contains specific meaning ‘he’s smart’ a meaning which is qualified by the gambit

as an opinion. As semantic framing, the gambits are mostly introducers. It means that mostly the expressions are used in the beginning of the sentence and have functions to introduce the idea contained in the sentence. In conclusion, this function refers to opening gambits that are used to introduce idea both in the beginning and during conversation.

b) Social context signals

The other function of gambits is to signal social context. In a discussion or conversation, speakers will have their speaking turn. To signal that a speaker take their speaking turn, Keller (1979) gives some turn taking signals gambits such as

“Pardon me for interrupting, but …” or “What do you think of it”. The first

gambit signals that the speaker wants to have his/her turn while the second gambit signals that the speaker wants the other speaker to take the active turn then s/he becomes the passive one. These are the examples of gambits to take turn.

Basically, there are two types of social signal. The first one is gambits to signal turn taking. This is used to signal when a speaker wants to have, keep, or abandon their turn. Even, when a speaker wants to leave the conversation, it is considered as turn taking signal. The other one is gambits to signal that the speaker occupies special social role. It is more likely to signal in which side the speaker takes their role. In other words, it is to signal intention or wishes

concerning the speakers’ turns in a conversation or discussion.

This social context signal function, especially in turn taking, only occurs in formal occasion. It is because in informal occasion the turn taking can also signaled non-verbally, for example by facial signs or clearing one’s throat.

Meanwhile, in formal occasion there a set of signals may be used such as “Our next speaker is …” or “It’s Lyra’s turn now”.This function is more likely to make the conversation run for a longer time so that each speaker can develop the idea of the conversation. In short, since this function keeps the conversation running for longer time, this fits to linking gambits which enable speaker to take their turn in discussion or conversation.

c) State of consciousness signals

This is the function of gambits on how they are used to state consciousness concerning information, opinions, and emotions. It includes the readiness of the

speaker to receive information, opinions, or emotions. Also, it indicates the

speakers’ action on what to do, to say, to listen, or to emphasize point. The examples of gambits related to this function are “I don’t think so”, “What I want to say is that …” or “Yes, but …”. These expressions are to indicate sharing or

non-sharing knowledge and emotions and to show one’s intended action. Sharing knowledge and showing one’s intended action are referred to how speaker

responds to certain idea. In this case, it fits to responding gambits which are used to state response a speaker on certain ideas delivered by other speaker. In other words, this function merely fits responding gambits up.

d) Communication control signals

It is how the speakers used gambits for assuring that the listeners receive their message well. The speakers sometimes use gambits such as “Are you with me?” or “Is it clear?” for assuring that the listeners have understood their

message. Sometimes, it is also used for giving pause their speeches to give them time to think without having silence during the speech. The speaker may use

gambits like “Umm”, or “You know” to fill up the sentence while they are

thinking about what to say next.

Those are the theories that the writer uses to conduct research and analyze the results of the research. The theory about gambits helps the writer in conducting the research by observing the gambits used by the debaters in English debate activities. Meanwhile, the theory about functions of gambits helps the writer in analyzing the functions of the gambits used by the debaters. In short,

these theories ease the writer in analyzing gambits and its functions because it has been clearly stated in the theory kinds of gambits and its functions.

3. Debate

According to Richards (2005), debate is an opinion sharing activity in which the learners compare values, opinion, and beliefs in a certain motion. In debate, the learners can improve their speaking skills and their critical thinking since this activity requires the learners to share their ideas, opinion, and beliefs about a certain topic. Moreover, this activity also involves the process called negotiating for meaning in which the learners are trying to understand and make themselves understood when they are communicating in the target language. Here,

the learners are able to check to see if they have understood what others’ said,

clarifying their understanding, and confirming that someone has understood your meaning (Nunan, 2003).

Moreover, debate also means a social interaction between two groups of people who discuss certain topic. In this case, debate is not a way to reach an agreement but it is a way to state opinions about the topic and stand up on their arguments. Moreover, debate is an interactive activity that has greater organization than other speaking activities. This activity also involves three speakers or more in each group (Harvey-Smith, 2011).

Referring to Harvey-Smith (2011), debate is also a formal activity in which every speaker has an important role to ensure the audience that the discussed subject gets full and deep analysis. In other words, debate also requires

speakers’ ability to conveymeaning through their argument. In addition, debate is one example of communicative activities that can occur both in classroom and in special events. Debate is also used as teaching activity in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). According to Littlewood (1981), as cited by Richard and Rodgers (2001), debate is included in social interaction activities. These activities enable learners to attain the communicative objectives, engage learners in communication, and require the use of communicative processes as information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction (Richard and Rodgers, 2001). In debate, learners also need to know how to make sentences to state their ideas, and to have ability to apply their knowledge to give reason through theories, values, and attitudes (Darby, 2007). The learners can also develop their critical thinking

through debate because they will think about how to respond others’ opinion.

Moreover, debate also requires learners to be able to communicate fluently so that they can state their idea in a limited time. In conclusion, debate has greater requirements than other speaking activity.

There are some kinds of debate in English, but in this study the writer only observes one kind of debate styles that is Asian Parliamentary Debate. Asian parliamentary debate is a common debate style in Asia, especially in Indonesia. It is because it has more simple structure. There are two debate teams in this debate style: Government team and Opposition team. Government team plays in proposition role while Opposition team is the cons team. Each team has three members as the speakers (Muhammadin, 2014).

According to the handbook of Asian Parliamentary Debate authored by Muhammadin (2014), each debater has different role for example in Government team the first speaker is called Prime Minister, the second speaker is Deputy of Prime Minister, and the third speaker is Government Whip. Meanwhile, in the side of Opposition team, the first speaker is called the Leader of Opposition, the second speaker is Deputy Leader of Opposition, and the third speaker is Opposition Whip. The first speaker of each team also becomes Reply Speaker or the one that should convey the adjudicators and the audiences why their team should win the debate.

In addition, each member has limited time to speak up their argument in the debate. Each member has seven minutes to speak up their arguments. The exception is only for the Reply Speaker of each team. They only have five minutes for making conclusion of their arguments and for conveying the judges to win them in the debate activities. In short, in one debate session it is about an hour length debate.

In short, debate is seen as a formal communicative activity that requires the speakers to convey their ideas in a certain topic to the audience. In conveying the audience, the speakers need to make distinction for their ideas so that it will be easier and clearer for the audience to understand their meanings. The speakers can use some gambits to make the distinction.

In this study, debate is used as a medium in which the occurrence of

gambits will be found through the speakers’ speeches. For example, in order to

believe that…”, and “the point is …”. Moreover, the speakers also use gambits such as “first/ second/ third …” to point out their ideas through numeration. Those

are few examples on how gambits are used in the debate.

In doing the research, the writer observed a debate using Asian Parliamentary Debate style since this debate style is mostly used in debate activities in Indonesia. As the writer has stated before that Asian Parliamentary Debate style has three speakers in one team. Also, the speakers have different role and time to have a speech. These differences give a bigger possibility of the

occurrence of the gambits in the speakers’ speeches.

B. Theoretical Framework

In this research, there are two research problems. They are (1) Which conversation gambits do the JOVED participants use in English debate activities? and (2) What are the functions of the gambits used by JOVED participants in English debate activities? In answering these two research problems, the writer uses the theory from Keller and Warner (2002) about conversation gambits and

Keller (1979) about gambits’ functions.

The theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner (2002) will help the writer in identifying the conversation gambits used by the participants in English debate activities. It will be used to identify the occurrence of conversation gambits in the debate activities. This is aimed to answer the first formulated problem. After identifying the used conversation gambits, the writer uses the theory of conversation gambits function by Keller (1979) to indentify the gambits’

functions occurred in the utterance. This step is to answer the second research problem. The theory about debate is used to help the writer understand the flow of debate and the role of each speaker in the debate team. It also helps the writer to indentify the functions of gambits by seeing their role in the debate.

24 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the writer presents the methodology in conducting the research. The methodology covers research method, research setting, research participants, instruments and data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedures.

A. Research Method

The research was conducted in order to identify the gambits that were used by the debaters in English Debate competitions and to analyze the functions of the gambits that were used in their speeches. It was a qualitative research because it studied about a phenomenon that happened in the natural settings such as in social activity: English debate competitions.

This study also used human as instrument to emphasize the unique role of the writer and participants in the research. In this study, the writer was also a human instrument that played a role as an observer and an audience. Moreover, the writer was the instrument maker of, for instance, interview guidelines, to gain information related to the study.

Moreover, the data gathered in this research was in a form of debate activities recordings that contained speeches. It was in argumentative form. Hence, it was not statistical or numerical data. Furthermore, the data was analyzed

by making coding, interpreting, and confirming the analysis. The coding was used for identifying the debaters and kinds of gambit. Interpreting was applied in analyzing the transcribed data. The analysis was presented in form of words rather than in numbers because it dealt with interpretation (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen, 2010). By noting the characteristics of this research, it could be concluded that this study was a qualitative research.

Specifically, this study belonged to a basic interpretive study in the qualitative research. Basic interpretive study provides rich descriptive accounts on phenomenon. The data gathered in this study is accomplished in some ways such as from interviews, observations, and document review (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen, 2010). Since this study was studied about how debaters used gambits in their speeches in English debate activities, firstly, it targeted to understand a phenomenon, a process or a particular point of view from the perspective of those involved (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen, 2010). Secondly, it attempted to interpret experience and used some variations in collecting data such as interviews and video recordings. Also, it took a short time in collecting the data since it only observed a particular event, namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). The time taken to collect the data was two days; those were on June, 27thand 28th, 2015.

In analyzing the data, the writer involved categorization of the themes and interpretation of the data. In categorizing the themes, the writer also used coding. After categorizing and interpreting the data, the writer did confirmation to verify

her conclusion drawing. In conclusion, this study fulfilled the requirements of a basic interpretative study in the qualitative research.

B. Research Setting

The research was conducted in an event namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED) held in Atmajaya Yogyakarta University. This is an annual debate event for University students around Java. The writer conducted the research in two days. The writer took Saturday, June 27th and Sunday, June 28th, 2015 debate sessions. The debate sessions started at 9.30 am and finished around 1 pm. On the first day, the event was held in Campus 3 Bonaventura Atmajaya University. On the second day, the venue of the debate was moved to Campus 1 Alfonsus Atmajaya University. The writer joined this event as an audience and she recorded the debate activities she followed. She followed the octo-final and grand final debates. On the octo-final she joined the debate between Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW) teams, while the grand final debate was between Padjadjaran University (UNPAD) and State University of Surabaya (UNESA) teams.

C. Research Participants

The participants were the debaters of JOVED from the Universities previously mentioned. The debaters were only observed in term of their speech production in the debates especially the use of gambits in the speeches. The writer

did not give treatment to the participants. She only observed and recorded the debate activities, and then, analyzed the gambits used by the debaters.

There were two debate teams in each debate session. Each group consisted of three members. Since the writer observed two debate sessions, the total participants for this research were twelve people. In the octo-final, there were UGM students as the opposition team and UNIBRAW students as the government team. In the grand final, there were UNESA students as the opposition team and UNPAD students as the government team.

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques

In this section, the writer presented the instruments that were used in gathering the data. The instruments were presented as follows:

1. Video Recorder

This instrument was to record the debaters’ performances during the debate sessions. This video was aimed to keep in mind thedebaters’performances in the event and how the debaters used conversation gambits in their speeches. Then, this video was transcribed to ease the writer in analyzing the data. Each video had duration for about an hour length.

2. Interview Guideline

The writer used guided questions to interview the debaters. There were some questions asked to the debaters related to their educational background and debate they joined to. The interview was done three times with different respondents. The first one was with the debaters after the grand final debate session. The second one was with the debaters after analyzing the data gathered. The last interview was with the debate trainers after analyzing the data.

The first interview was the interview to gain the information about the background of the debaters. It was an informal interview because it came spontaneously from the writer. The questions asked was more about the debaters’

educational background and their knowledge about gambits they used in the debate. The interview flowed naturally and continually based on the answer of the participants.

The second interview was an interview to confirm the analyzed data. It was a formal interview because the writer had planned it before and prepared the questions. The questions asked in the second interview were about the educational background of the debaters, how long they joined debate, their difficulties in debate, their preparations for debate, their knowledge about gambits, their confirmations of the used gambits in their speeches, and their purpose on using the gambits. The second interview focused more on the confirmation and the participants’ point of view in using the gambits. The list of questions that the writer asked to the debaters was presented in the following part:

1. Apa jurusan yang Anda ambil di Universitas? 2. Sejak kapan Anda ikut debat bahasa Inggris? 3. Kesulitan apa saja yang Anda hadapi saat debat?

4. Apa saja yang perlu disiapkan untuk mengikuti kompetisi debat? 5. Apakah Anda tahu apa itu Conversation Gambits?

6. Apakah Anda menggunakan gambit-gambit ini?

7. Apa saja fungsi gambit yang Anda gunakan ini dalam debat?

The last interview was also validation interview which was done with the debate trainers. There were three debate trainers as the respondents. In the following part, the writer presented the list of interview questions:

1. As debate trainers, do you know what Conversation Gambits is?

2. If you know it, do you teach the debaters on how to use the Conversation Gambits in their speeches? If not, how do they learn to use the gambits in their speeches?

3. Based on my data, the debaters mostly used gambits such as ‘we think that’, ‘we believe that’, ‘the problem is’, and many more. Why do they use those gambits?

4. Are those gambits useful and helpful for the debaters? Why is it so?

Those were the interview guidelines that the writer made to gain information related to the study. The complete results of interviews were attached in the appendix 3.

E. Data Analysis Techniques

In this section, the writer presented the steps in analyzing the data. The steps consisted of transcribing, data reduction, data display, and data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The information about each step was described in the following page:

1. Transcribing

In this study, the writer collected the data in the form of recordings. The writer recorded the debate activities. Since they were recordings that contained speeches, it was simply impossible for the writer to remember all the details in the recordings. Due to this restricted ability, the writer transcribed the data into a written form. Silverman (2005) supported by stating that depending on our memory, a person could only summarize what different people said. But, it was simply impossible to remember such matters as pauses, overlaps, in breaths and the like.

Transcribing the recording data was beneficial for the writer to help her in analyzing the data. It was because the recording data could be replayed and the transcript could be improved and completed (Silverman, 2005). The data transcript covered all the speeches of the debaters during the debate activities. Moreover, the transcript of the recorded data was helpful for the writer since it helped the writer to remember all the speeches in the debate activities. Furthermore, the writer used the transcript as the main data to analyze.

The writer spent two weeks to transcribe the recorded data in the first debate session. She did it by listening and watching the video. Then, she wrote the transcript for each speaker in one debate session. Sometimes, she also replayed the recording in order to complete some blanks in the transcript. She did the same steps for the second debate session and it also spent for about two weeks.

2. Data Reduction

After transcribing the data, the writer continued with the data reduction step. It was aimed to select data whether it was valuable or not. In short, this process helped the writer to eliminate unimportant utterances in the transcription. Data reduction was done to select, focus, simplify, and transform the data appear in the transcriptions (Miles & Hubberman, 1994).

The writer also made coding for each debater and also kinds of gambits. This coding was used both in the first and second debate session. It was helpful for the writer to identify the debaters. The writer coded the debater as follows: GOV S1: Government team, First speaker

GOV S2: Government team, Second speaker GOV S3: Government team, Third speaker OPP S1: Opposition team, Fist speaker OPP S2: Opposition team, Second speaker OPP S3: Opposition team, Third speaker

Since there were many expressions in each kind of gambits, the writer made coding for the kinds of gambits. This coding helped the writer to analyze the gambits were used by debaters was belonged to. The following part was the coding for kinds of gambits:

OG: Opening Gambits LG: Linking Gambits RG: Responding Gambits

After coding the data, the writer identified the gambits used in the utterances by using table as follows:

Table 3.1. Table of Coding

Speaker Kinds of gambits

OG RG LG

GOV S1 OPP S1 GOV S2

3. Data Display

After doing data reduction, the writer displayed the data. The data were displayedin a form of table. This table contained the debaters’ utterances and the identification of the gambits they used. Miles and Hubberman (1994) said that a data display is designed to assembly organized information into a compact and accessible form so that the writer could see what is happening and could draw

conclusions. The complete data display was attached in appendix 2. The following part was the example of data display:

Table 3.2. Table of Data Display Spea

ker

Role Speech Kinds of gambits

OG RG LG

GOV S1

Prime Minister

Social media has become one of daily basis needs in this erabecausethere are a lot of function and a lot of feature, for example, to express their opinion, their feeling, or even sharing their photo, public … or anything else, right? But, we think in current status quo this function has been shifting for trending of mocking and blast for certain individual or certain marginalized group. And the first favor my honor speaker, we think this is a very problematic point because why? We think people that got, you know, mocked or even blast of me by certain people through social media and report to the government as well, then they give the evidencealso there will be investigation from the government…

-We think -Then -The

problem is -First, -Second, -You know

- Right - For example - Because - Why we

think …? - But - That’s

why - Umm, - If

- Not only …, but … - Also - Not to

mention,

4. Conclusion Drawing and Verification

The last step of analyzing the data was conclusion drawing and verification. In this step, the writer drew the final conclusion of the study. Also, the writer confirmed the analyzed data to some participants and trainers as data

validation. The conclusions came after the writer analyzed the data and the result of the analysis had to be validated. Miles and Hubberman (1994) said that conclusion drawing is only half configuration and it needs to be verified to find out the meanings emerging from the data including their plausibility, sturdiness, and validity.

While making the conclusion drawing, the writer contacted the debaters from UGM to do verification. The verification was done on Friday, October 16th, 2015 in Faculty of Law area, Gadjah Mada University. The writer met up with the debaters from UGM who became Opposition team in the first debate session. In this verification, they verified the gambits they used in debate and their purpose in using them in their speeches. It was aimed to validate the conclusion and analysis the writer made and to find out other stories from the debaters.

Moreover, the writer did data validation with some debate trainers in Yogyakarta. This data validation was taken in some times those were on January 25th, 27th, and 30th, 2016. This step was taken to validate the conclusion and analysis that the writer had drawn and to have enlightenment in completing the discussion. This step helped the writer to understand the use of conversation gambits in English debate activities from the trainers’ point of view.

F. Research Procedures

In conducting this research, the writer employed eight steps of research procedures. In the following page, the writer presented the eight steps employed.

1. Determining the Setting of The Research

The objective of this research was to identify the use of gambits in English debate activities. The writer chose debate because debate is one of communicative activities in language teaching which required the production of speech. In order to obtain the data about debate, the writer looked for some information about debate events in Yogyakarta. The writer obtained an information from her friend that there was a debate event in Yogyakarta namely Java Overland Varsities English Debate (JOVED). It was a national debate event in which the participants were from university students around Java Island. The participants of this event were university students who were around in their second and fourth semester. These reasons also became the writer’s consideration for collecting the data. By having university students as the participants, the occurrence of the data needed by the writer was clearly possible because the speech productivity was well-structured even though they were in under-pressure situation.

In the debate event, the writer recorded four debate sessions. However, she only chose two of them which were the debate between Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW) and debate between Padjadjaran University (UNPAD) and State University of Surabaya (UNESA) to be analyzed. It was because the participants were EFL learners. It was related to the focus of this study which was focus more on the EFL context. Moreover, the debaters used gambits frequently in their speeches so that the purpose of conducting research in

this topic was completed. Fortunately, the topics of the debate were merely recent news in this time such as cyber bullying in social media and child abuse witnesses. So, these motions also helped the writer to understand the context of the speeches delivered by the debaters.

2. Determining Research Instruments

Since this was a basic interpretive study in the qualitative research, the writer also became human instrument: as an observer and an audience. To observe the performance of the learners in debate and keep it in mind, the writer recorded the debate activities. Moreover, the writer also used interview guidelines to gain information. The main instrument of this research was the writer herself. This was because the writer was the instrument to obtain, transcribe, and analyze the data.

3. Conducting Research

After preparing the instruments, the writer conducted the research. The research was conducted by recording the English debate activities. The writer played a role as an observer and an audience of debaters’ performance in the debate event. On the first day, in Campus 3 Atmajaya University, the debaters were divided into two chambers. The audiences could choose which chamber that they wanted to join. Meanwhile, on the second day which was in Campus 1 Atmajaya University, because it was grand final debate, all the debaters and audiences were in one big room to see the grand finalists. Each debater had

duration for stating their idea for about 7 minutes. For the last speakers, they only had 5 minutes to close the debate. Total debate time was about an hour length.

The motions of the debates were about cyber bullying on the social media and criminalizing witnesses who failed to report child abuse cases. In the octo-final, the debaters were debating about bullying on social media. In the grand final, the debaters were debating about criminalizing the witnesses who failed to report child abuse cases.

4. Analyzing the Data

After obtaining the data, the writer used some techniques to analyze the data, namely transcribing the recording data, data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. After displaying the data, the writer analyzed the data by using theories that had been explained in the theoretical framework. These processes of transcribing, reducing, and displaying the data eased the writer to analyze the data because it had been in a written form. Moreover, it helped the writer to make conclusion drawing after analyzing the data. The result of the data analysis was about the conversation gambits that were used in English debate activitiesand the gambits’ functions.

No. Purpose Gambits

1. Right or wrong Correct:

That’s correct... Right...

OK... Yes, … Exactly! Wrong:

No, I’m afraid not... Not quite...

You’re close... ????

I don’t know... I’m not sure...

2. Crowd reactions Agreeing:

Hear! Hear!

You’re absolutely right! You said it!

I agree! So do I! Neither can I! Disagreeing: That’s just not true! Oh, come on! Rubbish!

Don’t give us that! 3. Getting to know someone Agreeing:

That’s very true... I agree with you there...

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Disagreeing:

Yes, but don’t you think... I agree with you, but ... Yes, but in the other hand... I don’tsee it quite like that... 4. Can I help you? I’m afraid I don’t know...

I’m afraid can’t decide...

I’m afraid I can’t make up my mind. I will have to think about it.

I’m not really sure

I think I’ll leave it, thank you.

5. The love test Strong agreement:

Of course I would... I certainly would... Mild agreement: I think I would... I might...

I might consider it. I think so.

Indecision: I don’t know. I can’t decide.

I can’t make up my mind. I’m not sure.

Mild disagreement: Probably not. I don’t think so. I doubt it.

Strong disagreement: Never in million years! Not on your life!

Not even if you paid me! Not for all the tea in China! 6. I haven’t a clue I’m afraid I don’t know.

I’m sorry I don’t know. I haven’t a clue.

I couldn’t tell you. I’m not sure.

Oh, it slipped my mind. I’ve forgotten.

It’s no good, I can’t remember. 7. It serves you right It serves you right.

It’s your own fault. What did you expect? Perhaps that I’ll teach you. 8. Analyze your handwriting Agreeing:

I’m not surprised.

That doesn’t surprise me. Yes, that sounds like me. I knew it!

I thought so.

Just what I’ve always thought. Absolutely!

Disagreeing: You’re joking! You must be joking! I don’t believe it!

No, definitely not! Come on!

I don’t think so.

I don’t think that’s very fair. Are you pulling my leg? That’s news to me. 9. Being sympathetic Less serious news:

Oh no! What a pity! What a shame! What a nuisance! Poor you.

Very sad news: How awful! How terrible!

I’m really sorry to hear that. That must have been awful! 10. The interview Well, let me see…

Well, let me think …

I’ll have to think about that … That’s a good question. How shall I put it? Let’s put it this way…

The best way I answer that is …

Mm, that’s difficult question. Let me see.

11. Showing interest Right. OK. Yes?

And? Really? And then? Auxiliaries: Did you? Have you? Are you? Were you? Was it?

12. Are you following me? Repetition Gambits:

Would you mind repeating that? Sorry, I didn’t catch the last part. Sorry, you have lost me.

Sorry, I don’t follow you. What was that again? Checking gambits: Are you with me? Are you still with me? Is that clear?

OK so far? Have you got it?

Do you understand so far? 13. Communication problems Sorry, what did you say?

Sorry?

I didn’t get the bit about …

I’m sorry I can’t hear you. It’s a very bad line.

14. Accepting compliment Oh, thank you.

It’s very kind of you to say that. Do you really think so?

Thanks. I needed that. You’ve made my day!