THE SPEECH FUNCTIONS IN THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE FOURTH SEMESTER ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS OF MURIA KUDUS UNIVERSITY AND SOME FOREIGNERS

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Titis Sulistyowati

Abstract

The fourth semester students of the English department of Muria Kudus University are suggested to take Academic Field Trip in order to provide the studentssome experiences outside of their campus. By observing the English Departmentstudents' interactions with English speakers from other countries, I expect that I can gainclear illustrations on their abilities in maintaining good conversation by applyingappropriate speech functions in the conversation. The main purposes of the study aredescribing the speech functions chosen by the students and the foreigners, explaining therole relation enactment among them, and also describing the contribution of speechfunctions in language education. The data of this study are transcriptions of the studentsand the foreigner's oral communication. I classify the speech functions produced by theparticipants into the speech functions classes introduced by Eggins and Slade. The resultsof the study over the four conversations show that the opening speech functions areproduced mostly by the students; it indicates that the students play as the initiators. Theforeigners show their respect and appreciation to the students as they respond to thestudent initiations by producing more responding and continuing moves. The number ofturns and moves produced by the students and foreigners are quite similar; it indicatesthat both of the participants get the same chance to take their roles. The foreigners astourists show they interest to some tourism objects by describing to the students someobjects they have visited and by comparing to their own country. Learning languagecannot be separated from its culture, therefore speech functions and culturalunderstanding should be taught in the classroom as part of language discourse.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Sulistyowati, T. (1). THE SPEECH FUNCTIONS IN THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE FOURTH SEMESTER ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS OF MURIA KUDUS UNIVERSITY AND SOME FOREIGNERS. English Education Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/149

References

Allwright, D. & K.M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on The Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP
Cohen D, Crabtree B. 2006. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. http://www.qualres.org/HomeWhat~3513.html assessed at August, 15, 2009
Cohen, Louis., Manion, Lawrence. & Morrison, Keith. 2007. Research Method in Education. New York: Routledge
Communicate Better Blog Spot. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Written and Spoken Communication. http://communicatebetter.blogspot.com/2008/ll/advatages-and-disadvantages-ofwritten.
html assessed at 6th February 2010
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Printer Publisher Ltd.
Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2 Edition). London: Continuum International Publishing Group
Eggins, Suzzane and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassel
Ellis, Rod. 2003. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. shttp://books.google.co.id/books?id=Wwdb7P0CG5AC&printsec=frontcover&dq =second+language+acquisition&source=bl&ots=es8- EUqGJo&sig=5xJr23GYmDRipRzRu4YpF9T9IMM&hl=:id&ei=ROF2TMXKH YWvAQ76LvlBg&
sa=X&oi=book result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEAO6AEwB g#v=onepage&q&f=false assessed at 26th August 2010
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Languge and Power. New York: Longman
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Gerrot, Linda. And Wignell, Peter. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray: Antipodean Educational Enterpses.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Victoria: Deakin University
Press
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hassan, Ruqaiya. 1985. Language, Context, and text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-Semiotics Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold
Haslett, Beth. 1987. Communication, Strategic Action in Context. Hillsdale: Lawrence Elbaum Assosiates.
http.7/books. google.co.id/books?id=lWoTMnEC vqEC&pg=PA 125&lpg=PA 125& dq=%22communication,+st^
Xo5slze&sig=rrY5zLvqHFJ2eEU6cTqVgCe99-o&hl=id. Assessed at July, 24, 2009
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. London: Cambridge University Press
Kamisi, Sibel and Dod'an§ay-Aktuna, Seran. (2007) Wiley Interscience: Effects of social power on language use across speech communities. International journal of applied linguistics: vol. 6 issued 2 (pg 199-222)
http://www3.interscience.wilev.eom/iournal/l 19954894/abstract?CRETRY= 1 & SRETRY=0 assessed at 20th May 2010
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Mathiesen, C. 1995. Lexico grammatical Carthography: English System. Tokyo: International Language Science Publisher.
Nunan, David. 1992. Research Method in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press OSPI State of Washington. Communication. http://www.kl 2. wa.us/cum^ assessed at 6th February 2010