ACQUISITION OF CLAUSE COMPLEXES BY INDONESIAN KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT MOTHERS SOCIAL CLASS.

ACQUISITION OF CLAUSE COMPLEXES BY INDONESIAN

KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT

MOTHERS’ SOCIAL CLASS

A Thesis

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

Magister Humaniora

By:

INDRA SARIMAN

Registration Number: 8126112015

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2014

ACQUISITION OF CLAUSE COMPLEXES BY INDONESIAN

KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT

MOTHERS’ SOCIAL CLASS

A Thesis

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

Magister Humaniora

By:

INDRA SARIMAN

Registration Number: 8126112015

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2014

iii ABSTRACT

Sariman, Indra. Registration Number: 8126112015. Acquisition of Clause Complexes by Indonesian Kindergarten Students with Different Mothers’ Social Class. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. 2014

The objectives of this descriptive qualitative research were to: (1) to describe what kinds of complex clauses are produced by kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mothers (2) to describe which ones of these kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mothers produce more clauses and (3) to describe the context of situation features in kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mothers’ clause complexes. The data were obtained from four Indonesian kindergarten children at the age of 4-5 years old at TKIT Muhaddis Kutacane, Aceh Tenggara. Two subjects were from lower social class mothers and the other two were from middle social class mothers. The results of this research showed that (1) Kindergarten’s students of either from lower or middle class mothers had acquired and produced paratactic elaboration, paratactic extension, paratactic enhancement, paratactic projection, paratactic locution and hypotactic elaboration and hypotactic enhancement (2) there were some differences of clause complex’s production in this study. The children of middle class mother were proven to produce more clause complexes than the children of lower class mothers and (3) based on the theory of context of situation proposed by Halliday, it was found that both groups of children uttered or produced clause complexes in different context of situation. In other words, they produced clause complexes in different field, tenor and mode. Children of lower class mothers uttered clause complexes in various topics. They produced the clauses to prohibit or command someone, to respond or comment something, to tell a story or something either during the lesson or the break. They just interacted and talked with their female mates. They hardly conversed with their teachers. Their clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous, consisting rhetorical mode. And the characteristics of the clauses were informative and imperative. On other side, children of middle class mothers produced clause complexes in various topics. The clause complexes were casual or non-technical. They uttered the clauses to command, help, and guide other friends during the lesson, to play games, to share food or drink at snack time, to report something, to ask the teachers about the lesson during the learning process and to go after or keep grasshoppers during the break. In this case, these children spoke with either teachers or friends. This group a bit more blended or interacted with teachers. They produced clause complexes as they spoke to them. The clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous speech, consisting largely command (rhetorical mode) and reports. The characteristic of the clause complexes were informative, imperative, semi interactive, and reportive.

iv ABSTRAK

Sariman, Indra. NIM: 8126112015. Pemerolahan Klausa Kompleks oleh Siswa TK Indonesia dengan Kelas Sosial Ibu yang Berbeda. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Program Studi Pascasarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2014.

Tujuan dari penelitian deskriptif qualitatif ini adalah: (1) untuk mendeskripsikan jenis-jenis klausa kompleks yang diucapkan oleh anak TK yang berasal dari ibu berkelas sosial bawah dan pertengahan (2) untuk mendeskripsikan yang mana dari kedua kelompok tersebut mengucapkan klausa kompleks yang lebih banyak dan (3) untuk mendeskripsikan konteks situasi pada klausa kompleks yang diucapkan oleh kedua kelompok. Data diperoleh dari empat anak TK Muhaddis Kutacane yang berumur dari 4-5 tahun. Dua berasal dari ibu yang berkelas sosial bawah dan dua lainnya berkelas sosial pertengahan. Setelah analisis, disimpulkan bahwa (1) anak dari kedua kelompok tersebut telah memperoleh dan mampu mengucapkan klausa kompleks parataktik projeksi, parataktik ekstensi, parataktik inhensmen, parataktik projeksi, parataktik lokusi dan hypotaktik elaborasi serta hypotaktik inhensmen (2) terdapat ada perbedaan antara kedua kelompok, anak yang ibunya berkelas sosial pertengahan terbukti lebih banyak mengucapkan klausa kompleks dan (3) berdasarkan dari teori konteks situasi Halliday, ditemukan bahwa kedua kelompok anak tersebut mengucapkan klausa kompleks pada konteks situasi yang berbeda, dalam kata lain, dengan field, tenor dan mode yang berbeda. Anak yang ibunya berkelas sosial bawah mengucapkan klausa kompleks dalam bermacam topik seperti melarang atau memerintah seseorang, merespons atau mengomentari sesuatu dan bercerita tentang sesuatu selama proses belajar dan istirahat. Mereka lebih inten berinteraksi dan berbicara dengan kawan sesama jenis dan hampir tidak berbicara dengan guru. Klausa kompleks kelompok ini adalah spontan yang bersifat informatif dan imperatif. Sedangkan, kelompok kedua yang ibunya berkelas sosial pertengahan juga mengucapkan klausa kompleks dengan topik bervariasi dan non-tekniks. Mereka mengucapkan klausa kompleks untuk menyuruh, membantu, dan memandu teman mereka ketika belajar, mengajak untuk bermain, berbagi minuman dan makanan, melaporkan sesuatu, menanya guru tentang pelajaran, dan berbicaran tentang belalang ketika waktu istirahat. Kelompok ini lebih aktif berbicara dengan teman dan guru mereka. Tenor klausa mereka adalah spontan dan rhetorical mode dan bersifat laporan. Kemudian karakteristiks dari klausa kompleks yang diucapkan adalah lebih informatif, imperatif, semi-interaktif dan bersifat laporan.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis has been written in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Magister Humaniora in English Applied Linguistics, Graduate Program, The State University of Medan (UNIMED). Thank Almighty Allah for your amazing mercy, endless love, and ceaseless guideline so I can accomplish this thesis.

This thesis would not have been brought into existence without the help of several people. On this account, the writer would like to express his sincere indebtedness to those who have given him valuable advice, suggestions, and guidance in the writing of this thesis.

First and foremost, he wishes to express his heartiest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, his first adviser as well as the Head of LTBI and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S, his second adviser as well as the Secretary of LTBI, for their generous assistance, advice, and precious time spent on correcting the thesis manuscripts. His special thanks also go to his reviewers Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd, and Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum, for their continuous constructive criticism, corrections, and suggestions on the manuscripts during the thesis proposal seminar and the research result seminar. The writer’s warm and sincere thanks also go to all lecturers who have assisted him with their knowledge and experience during his academic years at the institution. His truthful thank is also given to Mr. Farid and all the administration staffs in Magister Program for their cheerfulness, cooperation and friendliness in dealing with him.

Further, the writer forwards his hearty thanks and appreciation to his lovely mother Satimah for her sincere affection and wishes and to his beloved wife Ria Rahma, S.Pd, and his lovable baby son Willdan IQ Al-Jauzy, for their everlasting supports in the course of his studies and to all his classmates who cannot be written one by one for their help to improve the manuscript as well as their constructive criticism.

ii

Finally, he is fully aware that this thesis is not yet on its best format; therefore, any constructive criticism and advice from readers aimed at it for further improvement will be highly appreciated and warmly welcome, so that it can give significant contribution to the study of acquisition of Indonesian clause complexes .

Medan, Agustus 2014 The writer

Indra Sariman Reg. No. 8126112015

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF APPENDIXES ... viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 7

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 8

1.4 The Scope and Limitation of the Study ... 8

1.4 The Significance of the Study ... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Language Acquisition ... 9

2.1.1 Linguistic Approach as a Way to Understand Language Acquisition . 15 2.1.2 Language Acquisition of 4-5 year children ... 15

2.1.3 Characteristics of 4-5 year children... 17

2.1.4 Acquisition of Syntax ... 20

2.2 Clause Complex ... 20

2.3 Interaction and Children’s Language Acquisition ... 24

2.4 Social Class ... 25

2.5 Social Class and Language Acquisition ... 27

2.6 Kindergarten Students ... 30

2.6.1 The Meaning of Kindergarten ... 30

vi

2.7 Relevant Studies ... 33

2.8 Conceptual Framework ... 36

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 39

3.2 Subjects ... 40

3.3 Technique of Collecting the Data ... 40

3.4 Technique of Analyzing the Data ... 40

3.5 Trustworthiness of the Study ... 42

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Data Analysis ... 44

4.1.1 Kinds of Clause Complexes Produced by Kindergarten Children of Lower and Middle Class Mothers. ... 45

4.1.1.1 Paratactic Clause Complexes Acquired by Children ... 45

4.1.1.2 Hypotactic Clause Complexes Acquired by Children ... 48

4.1.2 The Kindergarten Children of Lower and Middle Class Mother Who Produced More Clauses ... 51

4.1.2.1 The Number of Clause Complexes Produced by Lower Class Mother ... 51

4.1.2.2 The Number of Clause Complexes Produced by Children of Middle Class mothers ... 53

4.1.2.3 The Clause Complexes Produced by Children of Lower and Middle Class Mothers by Reference to Taxis and Logico-semantic Relation ... 55

4.1.2.4 The Children Who Produced More Clause Complexes... 60

4.1.3 The Contexts of Situation Feature in Children’s Clause Complex Production ... 61

4.1.3.1 The Field of Children of Lower Class Mother’s Clause Complexes ... 61

4.1.3.2 The Tenor of Children of Lower Class Mother’s Clause Complexes ... 62

vii

4.1.3.3 The Mode of Children of Lower Class Mother’s

Clause Complexes ... 63 4.1.3.4 The Field of Children of Middle Class Mother’s

Clause Complexes ... 63 4.1.3.5 The Tenor of Children of Middle Class Mother’s

Clause Complexes ... 64 4.1.3.6 The Mode of Children of Middle Class Mother’s

Clause Complexes ... 65 4.2 Findings ... 65 4.3 Discussions ... 67 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions ... 72 5.2 Suggestions ... 73

viii

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Page Appendix 1 All Clause Complexes Produced by Both Groups of Students 78 Appendix 2 Clause Complexes Produced by Children of Lower and

Middle Class Mothers 84

Appendix 3 The Clause Complexes Produced by Children of Lower and Middle Class Mother with Relation to Taxis and Logico – Semantic Relation 92

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

Language is quintessentially human. Spoken language is used every day, face to face, as a means of communication and written language allows one to record and hold on to history across generations. Language calls for an intricate web of skills which is usually taken for granted. It is integral part of everybody life that one relies on to convey wants, needs, thoughts, concerns, and plan. But babies are not born talking. They learn language, starting immediately from birth. Language is not all cut from identical pattern, and this makes a difference in acquisition. Children’s language acquisition grows with the environment or social interaction or mother’s speech. Social interaction has essential roles in children language acquisition. Child’s language acquisition process has been explored and studied by some scientists, philosophers, and psychologists, such as: the acquisition of syntax in from 5 to 10 (Chomsky, 1969), the connection between biological foundation and the stages of child language acquisition (Lenneberg, 1967), and cognitive development and the acquisition of language (Herbert H. Clark, 1973).

The study of language acquisition by children is very interesting. It will make better understanding about the development of the children’s language and knowing uniqueness of children in producing a language. As a matter of fact each child has a unique process or way to acquire or even to learn a language.

For many years, many people assumed that the acquisition of children’s language was something usual; nothing special, especially in Indonesia. So they thought the study of children’s language acquisition was not important to conduct. In fact, that the assumption is not definitely true. The study of children’s language acquisition is quite important. One of

2 which, it is beneficial for the language teaching technique, especially preschool or kindergarten children. With such a study, the question of how to deal with and face the children who have come with various language backgrounds can be attained. Obviously, this study was expected to answer the problems of children’ language development in the kindergarten in which the researcher conducted the research. The problems were in terms of various languages produced by children when interacting with teachers and with one another. Different complexity of their languages often confused teachers and caused difficulties dealing with and associating with them. Consequently, it was likely put up continuous gaps of children’s language and cause very distinctive educational attainment if this was not fully noticed.

With relation to children’s language development, variation in complexity of children’s language can be viewed from aspects of syntax that is individual differences among children in acquiring and producing multi-clauses sentences or clause complexes. In recent decades there has been extensive work on syntactical development. While it is widely recognized that the acquisition of syntax depends on innately available structures in the child and it is also acknowledged that child must receive input in the language he or she is acquiring (Huttenlocher, 2001). To expand this, Hoff (2003) also states that individual differences in language acquisition could be the result of several factors including (a) biologically based differences in children’s abilities, caused by genes or health; (b) global effects of differences in family functioning and home environment; and (c) specific effects of differences in language learning experiences.

Huttenlocher (2001), in his study, found substantial individual differences in children mastery of multi-clauses sentences and a significant relation between those differences and the proportion of multi-clause sentences in parent speech. A parent in this case was mother. With respect to the input from parents in relation to children’s language, genetic similarity

3 within a family may be critical (Plomin, 1997). It may be difficult to determine which factors are critical in particular cases because of the co-variations that occur in natural environments. For example, better input in a family may be provided by higher ability parents.

In children’s language development, parents are children’s first teachers and family becomes the first teaching place (Huang, 2004). As Olson (1986) claims that mothers will give children the most input. From mothers’ speech, children can acquire the language gradually. This shows the importance of mothers’ speech to their children’s language. In children’s language development, mothers play the essential role. From their points the researcher can realize the importance of mothers in children’s language acquisition. Different social class mothers will affect children’s language development (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991), for example; (Kagan and Tulkin, 1972) state that middle class mothers engage in meaningful verbal interactions.

Low-income mothers always talk less to their children (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991). As what it was found by Rowe ( 2005) that mothers with fewer years of education read to their children less frequently and demonstrate less sophisticated language and literacy skills themselves, which affects the quantity and quality of their verbal interactions with their children.

The acquisition of complex sentences or clause complexes revealed significant differences across SES groups. Not only did these children begin to produce complex sentences earlier but they also had a significantly higher frequency and diversity of such sentences through the period of the study. Furthermore, the shape of the growth trajectories suggests that children from different SES groups may be moving further apart in frequency and diversity of complex sentences as they grow older ((Vasilyeva et al., 2008)

4 Complex sentences or clause complexes are structures that are built up of simpler sentences through the recursive operations of co-ordination and embedding. In the early period of syntactic development, children are working on the structure of simple sentences and do not yet have knowledge of these operations (Brown et al., 1969). The onset of ability with clause complexes greatly increases the child’s generative capacity and thus is an important step forward in language acquisition. The first complex sentences appear after simple sentences about four words long become common.

Children who hear more diverse language and more complex language develop language more quickly. For example, Huttenlocher (2002) showed that four-child-old children whose parents produced a lot of complex utterances containing more than one clause tended to be good at producing and understanding complex sentences. In line with this, Carpenter and colleagues have found that the type of interaction that parents engage in with their children has an effect at the younger ages (Carpenter et at., 1998). More specifically, they found greater language gains for young children whose parents engaged in a lot of joint engagement activities with their children. Many studies report that children of high socio-economic status (SES) or upper class tend to learn language earlier and faster than those of low socio-economic status (SES) (Hart & Risley, 1995)

SES or social class is usually defined in terms of the amount of education that parents have had, but sometimes in terms of occupational prestige or income. The most likely explanation is that more educated and advantaged parents talk more to their children and use more complex, varied language (Huttenlocher et al.,2008). In fact, Hart and Risley (1995) estimate that children from high SES families might hear as many as 1100 utterances per day whereas children from low SES families might only hear only about 700 utterances per day. In other words, children of high SES or upper class parents are more likely to experience a language-rich environment that children of low SES or lower class parents, which then affects

5 their language development.

As previously Olson (1986) claims that mothers transfer the most input to children. In relation with social class or social economic status (SES), different amount of education or occupational prestige or income mothers have results in different complex sentences or clauses they utter to their children. In this case, it is very likely that children utter clause complexes in different complexity as the input they acquire is different.

Generally, normal children progress through a predictable sequence of stages and master the basic syntactic relations of simple sentences at a relatively early age. Despite the commonalities, however, there is evidence of individual differences in syntactic growth among children. Most of this work concerns the early stages of syntactic development where variations have been found in the rate and course of acquisition (Fenson et al., 1994). There are some data to suggest that, at later ages, children show individual differences for more complex aspects of syntax.

It is possible that a stronger relation of input or interaction to complex sentences or clauses children produce. It could be found when children are old enough. Most studies indicate that the major types of complex sentences emerge between the age of about 2 and 4 (Bowerman, 1979). Still, the question of whether syntactical development (in this case complex sentences or clause complexes) is related to mothers’ social class has not been systematically studied. Possibly, this is because research on syntactic development has focused on the acquisition of the basic grammatical forms that appear early. And what’s more is complex syntax which appears later is a central aspect of language development.

Clause complexes generally emerge in a child’s speech when he or she has attained a mean length of utterance (MLU) of 3.0 (Lahey, 1988). The first clause complexes structures that emerge in children are (a) coordination of clauses with the word and (e.g., I like Barbies and he likes Batman/ saya suka Barbi dan dia suka Batman), (b) noun phrase complements

6 (also known as full propositional complements) (e.g., I wish I was bigger / seandainya saya lebih besar), and (c) infinitives with the same subject (e.g., I want to eat a banana / saya ingin makan pisang) (Bloom, 1991). These generally develop when a child has an MLU of between 3 and 4 (Paul, 2001). As children continue to develop, they add more embedded sentences to their language by using (a) infinitives with different subjects (I want you to go to sleep / saya ingin kamu pergi tidur) and (b) relative clauses (He is the man that I saw / dia laki-laki yang saya lihat) (Bloom, 1991). Paul reported that these skills develop when a child’s MLU is between 4 and 5. Other clause complexes generally developed during this time are gerunds (I liked seeing it / saya suka menontonnya), wh- infinitives (I know how to do it / saya tahu cara melakukannya), and unmarked infinitives (Watch me swing / perhatikan saya berayun). By the time the child has an MLU of 5.0, it is expected that 20% of his or her utterances will be complex. This is generally achieved by the age of 4 or 5 (Paul, 2001). In other word, children utterances are beginning to be more complex before or after they have entered kindergarten. As in Indonesia; normally, children at this age have been enrolled to kindergarten. As in GBPKB (1994) it is stated that kindergarten is an educational program for children between the ages of four to five.

As children get into kindergarten, it is likely that their clause complexes vary because variations in input they acquire from their parents; especially mothers. Nathan et al (1999) says that Individual differences in language development might be due to biological factors, to variations in input, or both. The effects of the frequency of word use were not mediated by biological similarity between mother and child. And language input was found to have a significant impact on language growth. While it is clear those differences in language input within the normal range lead to particular patterns of language growth in the early years of life. While, Olson (1986) claims that mothers will give children the most input. The language input children receive can vary with their home environments. Several studies of lower class

7 mothers show that they talk less to their children and spend less time engaged in mutual activities where language is used than do middle-SES mothers. Lower class mothers more often use speech to direct children’s behavior than to engage them in conversation; their speech is less frequently contingent on the child’s speech, including fewer instances where they improve on children’s expressions (Nathan et al, 1999).

With referring that above theory, the researcher assumed that kindergarten children of different class mothers show differences in acquiring and producing clause complexes. Most importantly, there was a striking correlation between the proportion of complex utterances in parent and child. Children who hear complex sentences more frequently are more skilled in understanding and producing them (Nathan et al, 1999).

This phenomenon had led the writer to conduct a small observation to children at the age of 4-5 years old who had entered kindergarten. This study described clause complexes the children utter related to mothers’ social class or socio-economic status (SES). It was hoped, this research would be a contribution to the field of psychology and language and to enrich readers’ knowledge about Indonesian language acquisition, particularly complex sentences or clauses development among children.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

With respect to the background that had been previously pointed out, the problems were formulated as follows:

1. What kinds of clause complexes are produced by kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mother?

2. Which ones of these kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mother produce more clauses?

8 social class mothers’ clause complexes?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study as conveyed in the problems were:

1. to describe what kinds of complex clauses are produced by kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mother.

2. to describe which ones of these kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mother produce more clauses.

3. to describe the context of situation features in kindergarten children of lower and middle social class mothers’ clause complexes.

1.4 The Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study of children language acquisition is a broad area to be studied because there are so many aspects to be discovered. In this study, the writer only dealt with the acquisition of Indonesian clause complexes. The children who were observed were kindergarten children at the age 4-5 years old at Taman Kanak-kanak Islam Terpadu (TKIT) Muhaddis Kutacane Aceh Tenggara. They had been observed for two months.

1.5 The Significances of the Study

Findings of the study were expected to be significantly relevant to theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the researcher’s findings were hoped to enrich knowledge and notice toward children’s language development.

Practically, since this research focused on clauses’ acquisition, especially; clause complexes, hopefully, it was useful for the other researchers who are interested in gaining some knowledge about clause complexes' acquisition by kindergarten students or children.

72

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

Based on the data analysis, it could be concluded that:

1. Kindergarten’s students of either from both lower and middle class mothers had acquired and produced paratactic elaboration, paratactic extension, paratactic enhancement, paratactic projection locution and hypotactic elaboration and enhancement.

2. This finding had also indicated that there were differences in this study. The children of middle class mothers were proven to produce more clause complexes than the children of lower class mothers.

3. Based on the theory of context of situation proposed by Halliday, it was found that both groups of children uttered or produced clause complexes in different context of situation. In other words, they produced clause complexes in different field, tenor and mode. Children of lower class mothers uttered clause complexes in various topics. They produced the clauses to prohibit or command someone, to respond or comment something, to tell a story or something either during the lesson or the break. In this case, these two children were the speakers as well as the hearers who always interacted and talked with their female mates. They hardly conversed with their teachers. The clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous, consisting rhetorical mode. And the characteristics of the clauses were informative and imperative. While children of middle class mothers produced clause complexes in various topics. The clause complexes were casual or non-technical. The uttered the clauses to command, help, and guide other friends during the lesson, to play games, to share food or drink during snack time, to report something, to ask the teachers about

73

the lesson during the learning and to go after or keep grasshoppers during the break. In this case, these children spoke with either teachers or friends. This group a bit more blended or interacted with teachers. They produced clause complexes as they spoke with teachers and friends. The clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous speech, consisting largely command (rhetorical mode) and reports. The characteristic of the clause complexes were informative, imperative, semi interactive, and reportive.

5.2 Suggestion

After the conclusion of the acquisition of clause complexes by kindergarten students with different mothers’ social class was made the researcher would suggest to teachers and other researchers:

1. To the teacher

The teacher who has directly involved to the social interaction and teaching-learning at school is suggested to take into account some factors which put impacts on children’s language development to improve the understanding of children’s outcomes and problems. If the teacher has known everything about the students, it will be easier to transfer or deliver a subject to them since each child or student probably comes from different language input. This is possible that the same language used by teacher will not be understood by all students.

2. To other researchers

This is suggested that there will be some further researches about this. Particularly, it will be concerning the acquisition of clause complexes by kindergarten students of different social class mother with larger number of subjects. Perhaps, there will be so many things different. Additionally, another research done is to get better understanding on this field and children’s language development.

REFERENCES

Arriaga RI, Fenson L, Cronan T, Pethick SJ. (1998). Scores on the MacArthur communicative development inventory of children from low- and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguistics

Baret, M.D. 1995. Early Lexical Development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bloom, B.S. (ed.) 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook 1.The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Bloom, B. S. 1989. Make children to learn completely. C. C., Hang (Trans.). Taipei: Shtabook.

Bloom, L. 1991. Language development from Two to Three. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, R. C & Sari K. B. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Allyn and Bacon. Boyson-Bardies, B. 1999. How Language Comes to Children. Massachusets: Massachusettss

Institute of Technology.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman. Clark, E. V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Dardjowidjojo, S. 2000. ECHA: Kisah Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta: Grasindo Jaya.

Demie. F. and K. Lewis. 2010. Raising the Achievement of White Working Class Pupils: Barriers and School Strategies. London: Lambeth Council.

Doda, Zeruhun. 2005. Introduction to Sociology. USA: Zeruhun Doda.

Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., & Pethick, S. J. 1994. Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(Serial No. 242).

Ferguson, C. A. & Snow, C. E. (Eds). 1977. Talking to children. Language input and acquisition. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Gerot, Linda, and Peter Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Gilbert, D. 2002. The American class structure: In an age of growing inequality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gleason, Jean Berko & Ratner. Nan Berstein. 1998. Language acquisition: in Gleason, Jean Berko and Ratner. Nan Berstein (Eds). Psycholinguistic. Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace College.

Goode and William, Hatt. 1982. A Critical Introduction to its Methods. London: Yale University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction into Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Hodder Headline Group.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction into Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Erward Arhold.

Hart, R. 1979. Children’s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington Press.

Hibanana S. Rahman. 2002. Konsep Dasar Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini. Jakarta: PGTKI Press.

Hoff-Ginsberg, E. 1991. Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings.Child Development, 62(4), 782-96.

Hong, Z. F. & Li, S. L. 2004. The impact of foreign spouses’ teaching attitude on children’s verbal expression. Thesis of the development of children education. National Hua-lien Teaching College.

Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic Theory A Formal Introduction. Standford, CA: CSLI.

Jefferson. 1996. The Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, Connecticut: Grollier Inorporated. Kagan, J. & Tulkin, S. R. 1972. Mother-Child interaction: In the first year of life. Child

Development, 43(1), 31-41.

Keown LJ, Woodward LJ, Field J. 2001. Language development of pre-school children born to teenage mothers. Infant and Child Development.

Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. 2011. Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:246–250.

Koopman, H. Domnique S, & Erdward S. 2013. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. UK. John Wiley & Sons.

Lahey, M. 1988. Language development and language disorders. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Laureau, Annette. 2007. Family and Social Class. Minneapolis: National Council.

Lewis, M.& Wilson, C. 1972. Infant development in lower-class American families Human Development, 15(2), 112-27.

McLoyd VC. 1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist.

Menyuk, P. 1971. The acquisition and Development of Language. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. Bever Hills, CA: Sage.

Nathan A. Fox, Lewis A. L., & John G. W. 1999. The Role of Early Experience Infant Development. USA: Johnson & Johnson.

National Equality Panel. 2010. An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK. London: Government Equalities Office.

Olson, S. L. 1984. Mother-infant Interaction and the Development of Individual Differences in Children's Cognitive Competence.Developmental Psychology 20(1), 166-79. Olson, S. L. 1986. Mother-child interaction and children's speech progress: A longitudinal

study of the first two years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32(1), 1-20. Open Stax College. 2013. Introduction to Sociology. Houston: Rice University Paivio, A and Begg, I. 1981. Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Paul, R. 2001. Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Pham, L. 1989. Functional Patterns in Infant Bilingualism. A Case Study for the Simultaneous Acquisition of Two Languages by a Three Year Old Vietnamese American Child. www. Ling. Upen.Edu/Courses/Summers-2004/Ling-001/lecture7.Html. Accessed in 20 Nopember 2013.

Rowe ML, Pan BA, Ayoub C. 2005. Predictors of variation in maternal talk to children: A longitudinal study of low-income families.Parenting: Science and Practice.

Shaughnessy, J.J. and Zechmeister, Eugene. D. 1994. Data Analysis and Interpretation in the Behavioral Sciences. Michigan: Thomson/Wordsworth.

Skinner, B. F. 1976. About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books. Tarigan, H. Guntur. 1986. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa.

Thompson, W., & Hicky, J. 2005. Society in focus. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walker D, Greenwood C, Hart B, Carta J. (1994). Prediction of School Outcomes Based on Early Language Production and Socioeconomic Factors. Child Development.

Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., & Eells, K. 1949. Social class in America: A manual of procedure for the measurement of social status. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). New

Wright, E. O. & Shin, K. Y. 1988. Temporality and class analysis. Sociological theory, 6, 58– 84.

Zulkifli, L. 2001. Psikologi Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosda Karya http:/.kompas.com/kompas%2Dcetak/0105/14dikbud/neor09.htm http:/www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/doks/kindergarten/kindchild.html.

72

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

Based on the data analysis, it could be concluded that:

1. Kindergarten’s students of either from both lower and middle class mothers had acquired and produced paratactic elaboration, paratactic extension, paratactic enhancement, paratactic projection locution and hypotactic elaboration and enhancement.

2. This finding had also indicated that there were differences in this study. The children of middle class mothers were proven to produce more clause complexes than the children of lower class mothers.

3. Based on the theory of context of situation proposed by Halliday, it was found that both groups of children uttered or produced clause complexes in different context of situation. In other words, they produced clause complexes in different field, tenor and mode. Children of lower class mothers uttered clause complexes in various topics. They produced the clauses to prohibit or command someone, to respond or comment something, to tell a story or something either during the lesson or the break. In this case, these two children were the speakers as well as the hearers who always interacted and talked with their female mates. They hardly conversed with their teachers. The clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous, consisting rhetorical mode. And the characteristics of the clauses were informative and imperative. While children of middle class mothers produced clause complexes in various topics. The clause complexes were casual or non-technical. The uttered the clauses to command, help, and guide other friends during the lesson, to play games, to share food or drink during snack time, to report something, to ask the teachers about

73

the lesson during the learning and to go after or keep grasshoppers during the break. In this case, these children spoke with either teachers or friends. This group a bit more blended or interacted with teachers. They produced clause complexes as they spoke with teachers and friends. The clause complexes were spoken (channel) and spontaneous speech, consisting largely command (rhetorical mode) and reports. The characteristic of the clause complexes were informative, imperative, semi interactive, and reportive.

5.2 Suggestion

After the conclusion of the acquisition of clause complexes by kindergarten students with different mothers’ social class was made the researcher would suggest to teachers and other researchers:

1. To the teacher

The teacher who has directly involved to the social interaction and teaching-learning at school is suggested to take into account some factors which put impacts on children’s language development to improve the understanding of children’s outcomes and problems. If the teacher has known everything about the students, it will be easier to transfer or deliver a subject to them since each child or student probably comes from different language input. This is possible that the same language used by teacher will not be understood by all students.

2. To other researchers

This is suggested that there will be some further researches about this. Particularly, it will be concerning the acquisition of clause complexes by kindergarten students of different social class mother with larger number of subjects. Perhaps, there will be so many things different. Additionally, another research done is to get better understanding on this field and children’s language development.

REFERENCES

Arriaga RI, Fenson L, Cronan T, Pethick SJ. (1998). Scores on the MacArthur communicative development inventory of children from low- and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguistics

Baret, M.D. 1995. Early Lexical Development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bloom, B.S. (ed.) 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook 1. The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Bloom, B. S. 1989. Make children to learn completely. C. C., Hang (Trans.). Taipei: Shtabook.

Bloom, L. 1991. Language development from Two to Three. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, R. C & Sari K. B. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Allyn and Bacon. Boyson-Bardies, B. 1999. How Language Comes to Children. Massachusets: Massachusettss

Institute of Technology.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman. Clark, E. V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Dardjowidjojo, S. 2000. ECHA: Kisah Pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta: Grasindo Jaya.

Demie. F. and K. Lewis. 2010. Raising the Achievement of White Working Class Pupils: Barriers and School Strategies. London: Lambeth Council.

Doda, Zeruhun. 2005. Introduction to Sociology. USA: Zeruhun Doda.

Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., & Pethick, S. J. 1994. Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(Serial No. 242).

Ferguson, C. A. & Snow, C. E. (Eds). 1977. Talking to children. Language input and acquisition. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Gerot, Linda, and Peter Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Gilbert, D. 2002. The American class structure: In an age of growing inequality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gleason, Jean Berko & Ratner. Nan Berstein. 1998. Language acquisition: in Gleason, Jean Berko and Ratner. Nan Berstein (Eds). Psycholinguistic. Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace College.

Goode and William, Hatt. 1982. A Critical Introduction to its Methods. London: Yale University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction into Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Hodder Headline Group.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction into Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Erward Arhold.

Hart, R. 1979. Children’s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington Press.

Hibanana S. Rahman. 2002. Konsep Dasar Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini. Jakarta: PGTKI Press.

Hoff-Ginsberg, E. 1991. Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings. Child Development, 62(4), 782-96.

Hong, Z. F. & Li, S. L. 2004. The impact of foreign spouses’ teaching attitude on children’s verbal expression. Thesis of the development of children education. National Hua-lien Teaching College.

Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic Theory A Formal Introduction. Standford, CA: CSLI.

Jefferson. 1996. The Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, Connecticut: Grollier Inorporated. Kagan, J. & Tulkin, S. R. 1972. Mother-Child interaction: In the first year of life. Child

Development, 43(1), 31-41.

Keown LJ, Woodward LJ, Field J. 2001. Language development of pre-school children born to teenage mothers. Infant and Child Development.

Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. 2011. Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:246–250.

Koopman, H. Domnique S, & Erdward S. 2013. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. UK. John Wiley & Sons.

Lahey, M. 1988. Language development and language disorders. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Laureau, Annette. 2007. Family and Social Class. Minneapolis: National Council.

Lewis, M.& Wilson, C. 1972. Infant development in lower-class American families Human Development, 15(2), 112-27.

McLoyd VC. 1998. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist.

Menyuk, P. 1971. The acquisition and Development of Language. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. Bever Hills, CA: Sage.

Nathan A. Fox, Lewis A. L., & John G. W. 1999. The Role of Early Experience Infant Development. USA: Johnson & Johnson.

National Equality Panel. 2010. An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK. London: Government Equalities Office.

Olson, S. L. 1984. Mother-infant Interaction and the Development of Individual Differences in Children's Cognitive Competence. Developmental Psychology 20(1), 166-79. Olson, S. L. 1986. Mother-child interaction and children's speech progress: A longitudinal

study of the first two years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32(1), 1-20. Open Stax College. 2013. Introduction to Sociology. Houston: Rice University Paivio, A and Begg, I. 1981. Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Paul, R. 2001. Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Pham, L. 1989. Functional Patterns in Infant Bilingualism. A Case Study for the Simultaneous Acquisition of Two Languages by a Three Year Old Vietnamese American Child. www. Ling. Upen.Edu/Courses/Summers-2004/Ling-001/lecture7.Html. Accessed in 20 Nopember 2013.

Rowe ML, Pan BA, Ayoub C. 2005. Predictors of variation in maternal talk to children: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Parenting: Science and Practice.

Shaughnessy, J.J. and Zechmeister, Eugene. D. 1994. Data Analysis and Interpretation in the Behavioral Sciences. Michigan: Thomson/Wordsworth.

Skinner, B. F. 1976. About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books. Tarigan, H. Guntur. 1986. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa.

Thompson, W., & Hicky, J. 2005. Society in focus. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walker D, Greenwood C, Hart B, Carta J. (1994). Prediction of School Outcomes Based on Early Language Production and Socioeconomic Factors. Child Development.

Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., & Eells, K. 1949. Social class in America: A manual of procedure for the measurement of social status. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). New

Wright, E. O. & Shin, K. Y. 1988. Temporality and class analysis. Sociological theory, 6, 58– 84.

Zulkifli, L. 2001. Psikologi Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosda Karya http:/.kompas.com/kompas%2Dcetak/0105/14dikbud/neor09.htm http:/www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/doks/kindergarten/kindchild.html.