Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This chapter presents the data findings and discussions of the research,
which corresponds with the research questions proposed in chapter one. The first
and the second question of this research concerned with the type and
communicative function of speech acts that were produced by the teachers and
students of SDN 10 Pringgasela-East Lombok. The questions as such take account
of the theoretical stance held by Searle (1979) about the type of speech acts used
namely directives, assertives, commissives, expressives and declarations. In this
theoretical conception, the one who produces the assertives speech act is as to
commit the truth of the expressed proposition (such as stating, suggesting,
boasting, complaining and reporting). The second conception is directives. The
purpose of these is to produce an effect through some actions that the hearer did
(for example, order, command, and advice). The third is commissives speech acts
in which a person as a speaker commits himself/herself to do some future action
(such as promise, offer, and vow). The fourth one is the expressives speech acts.
The purpose is to express a psychological state of the hearer in the situation where
the hearer is engaging (thanking, congratulating, apologizing, threatening, and
condoling). And the last conception from Searle is declarations type. The
successful performance of this illocutionary is affecting a correspondence between
propositional content and reality (baptizing, naming, and appointing).
82
Day/Date
Tuesday,
January 15,
2013
Participants
Grade: 2
Teacher: Mrs. Uswatun
Hasanah
Data II
Monday,
January 28,
2013
Tuesday,
January 22,
2013
Grade: 2
Teacher: Mrs. Uswatun
Hasanah
Grade: 3
Teacher: Syakiruddin
Data III
Lesson/Topic
Lesson: IPA
Topic: Name and
Characteristics of
Animal.
Lesson: Math
Topic: Subtraction and
Addition
Lesson: IPA
Topic: Characteristics of
Things
83
Data
Day/Date
Data IV Saturday,
January 26,
2013
Participants
Grade: 3
Teacher: Syakiruddin
Lesson/Topic
Lesson: IPS
Topic: Jobs
Teacher
Number
%
569
1189
151
64
1973
20.93
43.75
5.56
2.35
72.59
Students
Number
%
730 26.83
10 0.37
0 0.00
5 0.18
745 27.41
Total
Number
%
1299
1199
151
69
2718
47.79
44.11
5.56
2.54
100
From the table 5 above, the total utterances produced by the teachers and the
84
students in the classroom are 2718 utterances. The utterances were collected from
4 data selected namely data 1 and 2 that were obtained through observation at
second grade classroom, and data 3 and data 4 obtained through observation at
third grade.
Generally the teachers produced more utterances than the students did. From
the data, it was found that the teachers produced 1973 utterances (72.59%), while,
the students produced 745 utterances (27.41%). The highest frequency of speech
acts was assertives (47.79%) and then followed by directives (44.11%),
expressives (5.56%), and commissives (2.54%). Total assertives speech act
produced by teacher and students in classrooms was 1299 utterances. It can be
seen that, 558 utterances were produced by the teachers and 725 utterances were
produced by students. Then, the total directives speech act produced in the
classroom was 1199 utterances in which 1189 utterances were produced by the
teachers and 10 utterances were produced by students.
The next speech acts produced was expressives. Total expressives occurred
in the classroom was 150 utterances or 5.56%. From the table, it was shown that
expressives speech acts produced by the teachers were 150 utterances; the
students did not produce a single of this speech acts utterance. Then, the
commissives produced shown in the table was 69 utterances. Meanwhile, there
were no utterances in as declarations found in the study.
The function of the speech acts discussed in this study used the Searles
theory (1979). Searle classified the speech acts into five namely directives,
assertives, commissives, expressives and declarations. These will be discussed in
turn.
The one who produces the assertives speech act is seen about commit the
truth of the expressed proposition (such as stating, suggesting, boasting,
complaining and reporting). The following are random example of assertives
produced by the teachers and students taken from the data.
(1) T : Tukang jait ino piak ne kamu kelambi sik belo. (Asr/D4.465)
[tuk i:t ino piy ne kmu: klmbi: si belo]
(tailor that make 3SG 2PL shirt ART long)
The tailor made for you long sleeves
(2) Ss
The assertives speech act was dominantly used by the teachers and students
during the learning process in the classroom. The assertives includes answering
and responding teachers questions and instructions. Therefore, this indicated that
the students understood and interpreted the messages being sent on the level of
meanings and implications.
The next speech acts was directives. The teacher arranged the directives in
form of interrogative/question. The following are the examples of directives
utterances produced in classroom.
(3) T : Karing sekali, ngumbe angkun suaran begang? (Dir/D2.48)
/kri skli:, umbe kun suwrn bga/
(again once, how like sound-LINK rat?)
86
In utterance (3) the teacher asked the yes/no question by using the question
words ngumbe. This question words means how. Furthermore, the example
of students assertives was the use of Bu that has a meaning can or generally
grouped as modal auxiliary. The word Bu in utterance (4) asked the agentive
subject's ability. It shows that the teaching and learning process used directives
speech act, specifically by the teachers. It was common if the teachers asked the
students to do the orders. To ask the students to answer the questions and to follow
the teachers instruction were common orders from the teachers. The expectation
of teachers in using directives in the classroom was students compliance. The
teachers tended to believe that the instructional process in the classroom with
regards to direct and indirect speech acts was to help the students.
Below is
In the utterance (5) the teacher threatened the students by expressing this
kind statement. In this sentence the teacher was giving a warning to a student who
87
made noise (play) when teaching and learning process was going on. The students
were asked to explain the lesson in front of the classroom. The hint meaning here
is the teacher knew that the students (the second grade of elementary school)
should be afraid being asked to stand in front of the class and explain certain
thing.
The teacher sometimes offers and promises something to the students. In
utterance (6) showed that the teacher was offering to the students that were going
to discuss/learn about the characteristic of things.
(6)
No
1
2
3
4
Speech Act
Category
Assertives
Directives
Expressives
Commissives
TOTAL
D1
54
194
13
2
263
D2
118
230
57
9
414
Teacher
D3
156
407
19
31
613
D4
241
358
62
22
683
SUM
569
1189
151
64
1973
%
28.84
60.26
7.65
3.24
100
89
acts which have a purpose to express a psychological state of the hearer in the
situation where the hearer was engaging. The examples are thanking,
congratulating, apologizing, threatening, and condoling (Searle, 1969).
From the data, the percentage of expressives speech act was 7.65% or 151
utterances. Those were produced by the teachers. This form includes agreeing,
congratulating and threatening.
Commissives defined as an illocutionary act which has a point to commit
the speaker to do some future action (Searle, 1979). The examples were promise
and offer as found in the data. Commissives speech act produced by the teachers
were 64 utterances or 3.24%.
4.2.2 The Type and Function of the Teachers Speech Acts
The concept of speech acts used in this study using the five Searles
classifications of speech acts. Follow these five categorizations, this research used
them as references and developed by the researcher. The teachers produced the
four of five Searles classifications, namely: (1) assertives, (2) commissives, (3)
directives, (4) expressives, and (5) declarations.
4.2.2.1 Directives Speech Acts
Most of the directives forms used in this research were asking for
information, followed by commanding, advising, ordering and recommending.
The form of directives speech acts were marked by the used of the some devices
marker as follow.
In advising the students, the teacher used dendek (do not) as the advice
90
91
92
(16) T : Mun ndek meq pedas, bareh bacaang dirik meq tini!
(Dir/D4.289)
/mun nde me pds, breh bc diri me ti:ni:/
(if not 2SG understand, next read self 2SG there!)
If you dont understand, next read it by yourself!
The following example (17) used a variation of mun that was lamun.
There was no special intention proposed. This also showed that as the preparation
action of the clause dendek te kantongang ie. This utterance was advising the
students not to put the cake inside their pocket of shirts/trousers.
(17) T : Oleh karena itu, lamun arak te embeng jaja sik inaq a,
dendek te kantongang ie, ya? (Dir/D2.132)
/:leh krn i:tu, lmun r t mbe jj si in dende
t knt iy, y/
(because of that, if there is 1PL give cake ART mother
3SG.POSS do not 1PL pocket 3SG, yes?
Because of that, if your mother gave you a cake, dont keep
it in your pocket.
Sometimes the mun clause was put at the end of utterance. This can be
illustrated at utterance (18). This showed that the advice had less stress than those
above examples.
(18) T : Ndek ne inik te ndatengang kepeng, mun ndarak jasan te.
[N-dateng] (Dir/D4.340)
/nde n ini t ndt kepe, mun ndr jsn t/
(not 3SG.CLT can 1PL ACT-earn money if not there is jasaLINK 1PL)
We could not earn some money if we dont have work.
The next directives was asking. It was used to ask the students about
something whether it used wh-question words, yes no questions or affirmative
statements (used the high intonation at the end of the utterances/as interrogative
tone).
93
(19)
The construction above showed that the teacher wanted to know who did
not present in the class at that time. The question word used was sai means
who. The following utterance applied the question word apa (what).
Sometimes the question word apa was put at the end of utterance or at the first
of the utterances. To illustrate these are at utterances (20) and (21).
(20) T : Tadi sudah ibu guru jelaskan pelajaran kita yaitu kita akan
mengubah bentuk pengurangan ke dalam bentuk apa?
(Dir/D1.3)
/tdi sudh ibu guru jlskn pljrn kit yitu kit
kn mubh bntu purn k dlm bntu p/
(PAST already mom teacher explain lesson 1PL is 1PL will
change form subtraction to in form what?)
Previously I have explained our lesson that is we will change
subtractions form to what form?
(21) T : Apa basan bu guru mun te nyedik? [N-(s)edik] (Dir/D1.18)
/p bsn bu guru mun t di/
(what language-LINK mom teacher if 1PL omit?)
What is my language if we omit something?
In utterance (20) the teacher, firstly, asserted the material the students had
learnt, then end with a question about the content of the lessons material. The
teacher employed the question word at the end of the sentence. But, it was no
special intention to put the question word at the beginning of the sentence, as may
be seen at utterance (21) in which the teacher asked about the knowledge of the
students on the teachers language.
In asking about the ways of certain things, the teacher asked their students
by applying ngumbe (how). In utterance (22), the teacher wanted to know the
94
ways of the students to overcome their problem (hungry) (see also example (23)).
(22) T : Melet te mangan malik, ngumbe entan te?
(Dir/D1.9)
/mlet t mn mlik, u:mbe ntn t/
(want 1PL have a meal again, how way 1PL?)
We want to have a meal again, how is the way?
(23) T : Mun masi lapar ngumbe ie?
(Dir/D1.11)
/mun msi: lpr umbe iy/
(if still hungry how 3SG?)
If (she/he) still hungry, what then?
Furthermore, similar to the ngumbe question word above was kumbeq
(how). In the following example (24) the word kumbeq showed that the teacher
needed to know the solution from the students about what had to do with the rice.
Meanwhile, in utterance (25), the teacher used kumbeq (how) to ask the reason
of human being to do certain job. Discussing these, kumbeq (how) should ask
certain thing (what to do to it). The speaker should put the agentive pronoun
precedes the verb kumbeq. And it should give a meaning of a prospective action.
But, when the pronoun/agentive subject was post verbal of kumbeq. It should
make its meaning similar to with why and should make it as perfective action.
(24) T : Te kumbeq nasi ono? (Dir/D1.15)
/t kumbe nsi ono/
(1PL how rice that?)
What to do with the rice?
(25) T : Nah kalau misal ie ada pekerjaan itu, kumbeq ne ampok te
pada begawean? (Dir/D4.191)
/nh klo misl iy d pkrjn itu, kumbe n mpo
t pd bgweyn/
(well if example 3SG there is job that, why 3SG and 1PL
together do job?)
Well, if there is a job, why do we need to do the job?
95
Another question word of asking was kan (why). This is employed to ask
the reason. Despite used kumbeq, the teacher used kan to ask the reason of
something. In utterance (26), the teacher wanted to know why the students and the
teacher know certain thing. But here the pronoun (clitic) should be post verbal. A
clitic is a linguistic element that the tests just given do not classify unambiguously
as being either a word or an affix (Anderson, 2005: 10). In other words, if the
pronoun was put before kan, it should be unaccepted utterance in Sasak
language.
(26) T : Yoh, kan te taok ie ngeno? (Dir/D3. 14)
/yoh, kn t to iy ngno/
(EXCL, why 2PL know 3SG that?)
Yoh, why do we know it?
The next question word applied by the teachers was pira (how many)
that involved the meaning of asking several things. The construction (27) showed
that the teacher wanted to know the result if fifteen was subtracted with five.
(27) T : Jadi limabelas te sediq lima, pira jari ne? (Dir/D1. 26)
/jdi limbls t sdi lim, pir jri n/
(so fifteen 1PL omit five, how many become 3SG.?
So how many is fifteen subtracted with five?
As the synonym of the question word above, sekumbe question word also
wanted to know the number of things. Sekumbe has a meaning of how many.
In utterance (28), the teacher wanted to know the number of rats in students
house.
(28) T : Sekumbe begang lek bale a? (Dir/D2. 46)
/skumbe bg lek bale /
(how many rat at house 3SG.POSS)
How many rats are there in your house?
96
The other question word that appeared in the data was mbe which one. It
is used to ask preference. Mbe has some variations such as: lek mbe at which and
sik mbe which one. In utterance (29), the teacher wanted to know that someone
was softener, certain thing (pointed by the teacher) or a stone.
(29) T
(30) T :
regardless of the students were able to make an example of the foods name only.
(32) T : Bu ke sekeq piakang makanan ene bu guru? (Dir/D2. 84)
/bu ke ske piy mknn ene bu guru/
(can SPEC one make-BEN feed this mom teacher?)
Can we write one kind of this food, mom?
The second device used in yes/no question was mele. This term has a
meaning want in English. In utterance (33), the teacher was asking the students
regardless of the students want to eat something that ex of the rats bitten.
(33) T : Mele anta ngaken salon begang? [N-(k)aken] (Dir/D2. 53)
/mele nt kn sln bg/
(want 2SG ACT-eat ex-LINK rat?)
Did you want to eat (the food) ex the rat?
The third expression in asking yes/no question used was kanggo
can/may. It contains meaning of an allowance. The utterance (34), the teacher
asked the allowance to eat the food that ex rats bitten.
(34) T : Oleh karena itu, kanggo ke te kaken salon bega::ng?
(Dir/D2.57)
/leh karn itu, kgo ke t kkn sln bg/
(by because that, can EXCL 1PL eat ex-LINK rat?)
Because of that, can we eat the (food) ex the rat?
The fourth yes/no question expression was tao. Tao expression contained a
meaning of can. This was used by the teacher to ask the ability of the students to
do certain things expressed in the verb. In utterance (35) below, the teacher asked
the students regardless the students make the example of certain things. Similar to
this, in (36) the students used taoq instead of tao. These two expressions were
similar in meaning and function as the ability asking expressions. Tao expression
was used when it is followed by the subjective pronoun, meanwhile taoq was used
when the pronoun put after the taoq was in clitic form.
98
though for asking (interrogative form); the teachers get the students to do
something (answer questions) (Searle, 1979). However, the researcher inspired to
discuss this speech acts as its proposition that the hearer (students) does some
future action, seems to be the same as the commissives point that it commits the
speaker (teacher) to some future actions. Those directives and commissives fit the
world to words. The teachers sometimes use the first plural te we in advising and
also questioning the students. Analyzing them, implicitly, the use of pronoun te
we shall do certain future action. In other words, the presence of te was a
proposal that the speaker and also the hearer did future action. This can be seen at
utterances (13) ndek te kanggo ndek gawek ie! (Dir/D4.280) ..we have to do
that, (17) dendek te kantongang ie, ya? (Dir/D2.132) do not keep it in (our)
pocket, (20) kita akan mengubah bentuk pengurangan ke dalam bentuk apa?
(Dir/D1.3) we will change subtractions form to what form?. So, the directives
point also obtains the point of the commissives does.
4.2.2.2 Assertives Speech Acts
In assertives speech act type, the data showed that it was appeared in
reporting, suggesting, complaining, and stating/declaring something. The point is
the teacher commits to something being the case, to the truth of propositions. It
fits the words to the world (Searle, 1979). The following are the examples of these
types.
In reporting something the teachers, mostly, restated the students
responds/answers. As illustrated in (40), the teacher restated what the students
sentences uttered before.
100
(39) Ss : bedeng.
/bed/
(black)
There is a black cow.
(40) T : Ya, arak bedeng.
/y r bed/
(yes, there is black)
Thats right, there is black cow.
Previously, in utterance (39) the students answered the teachers question
in a statement that the cow has colour of black. Then in utterance (40), the teacher
reported that the cow has also black colour.
The following construction (41) shows that the teacher was reporting about
the material that had been studied in the previous weeks. This was the other types
of reporting something produced by the teachers.
(41) T : Pada minggu-minggu yang kemarin, kita sudah mempelajari
ciri-ciri hewan yang kita lihat sehari-hari. (Asr/D2.255)
/pd migu-migu y kmrin, kit sudh mmpljri
ciri-ciri hewn y kit liht shri-hri/
(at weeks which yesterday, 1PL PAST learn characteristic
animal which 1PL see everyday)
At the previous weeks we learnt the characteristics of some
animals around us
Furthermore, the other function of assertives found in this study was
informing something. Shows in the utterance (42), the teacher informed the
students that it was a white cow.
(42) T : Arak puteq endah. (Asr/D2.265)
/r pute endh/
(there is white also)
There is also white (cow)
Further type of informing was formed in nasalization of verbs.
Nasalization is lowering of the soft palate such that the air-stream flows
101
simultaneously through the nasal cavities and mouth (MacMahon, 2006: 373).
Nasalization was an assertives speech acts functioned as syntactic modification. In
utterance (43) and (44), the teacher nasalized the verb raos speak and denger
listen to make it be a noun that are functioned as information. In this utterance
the teacher informed that the action showed by the student was not allowed by the
teacher. Furthermore, in utterance (44), the teacher informed the students that the
students who didnt pay attention to the teachers explanation.
(43) T : Ngeros, berarti ndek mele ndengerang bu guru ono.
[N-raos] [N-denger] (Asr/D2.268)
/ rs, brrti ndek mele ndrng bu guru n/
(ACT-talk, mean not want ACT-listen mom teacher that)
If you talk too much, it means that you dont want to listen
to me
(44) T : Ndek mele merhatiang bu guru. [N-perhatiang] (Asr/D2.269)
/nde mele mrhti bu guru/
(not want N-pay attention mom teacher)
(You) didnt want to pay attention to me
There are many varieties of assertives of informing used in the classroom.
The following utterance is the example.
(45) T : Ini namanya abu-abu. (Asr/D2.270)
/ini nm bu-bu/
(this name-3SGPOSS grey)
This color is grey
In example above (45), the teachers was informing the students about
certain colors name. Furthermore, the following utterance (46) showed that the
teacher informed the students that she should ask the boys students only.
(46) T : Sik mama ketoanin bu guru ene. (Asr/D2.272)
/si mm ktnin bu guru ene/
(ART boy ask mom teacher this)
I ask the boys
102
The following was the use of oah (already). In utterance (47) the teacher
tried to inform that certain thing had been mentioned.
(47) T : Oah sebut e. (Asr/D2.273)
/wh sbut /
(PAST mention 3SG)
It (has been) mentioned
Generally, the construction of Sasak (affirmative) language was in the
following structure. When the agentive pronoun of she/he (ne) was used after the
verb kaken eat. The verb must be in bare (root) form.
(48) T : Ie kaken ne. (Asr/D2.76)
/iy kkn n/
(3SG eat 3SG)
She/he eats it
Then the next informing was seen from the use of time phrase. Those were
laek formerly and lekan since. These mean that the activity or action was done
at the past (see also utterances (49) and (50)).
(49) T : Laek jaq ne nyontohang ine aran sekenek, sekenek, sekenek,
nengka jaq dait sifat ne harus ie lek kelas tel::?{u}[N-contoh]
(Asr/D3.492)
/ le j n ontoh ine rn skne, skne, skne,
nk j dit sift n hrus iy le kls tl::/
(formerly SPEC 3SG ACT-cite-BEN this name this, this, this,
now SPEC and characteristic 3SG.POSS must 3SG at class
three)
Formerly, the teacher gave us only the examples of thing,
now it will be explain also with the characteristics
(50) T : Oah lekan kelas sekeq, kelas dua, ne pelajarain ilmu alam
sik te kelekin aran benda. (Asr/D3.490)
/h lekn kls ske, kls du, n pljrin ilmu lm
si t klekin rn bnd /
(PAST since class one, class two, 3SG learn-LINK science
nature ART 1PL call-LINK name thing)
Since class one and two, we have learnt the natural scinece
about things
103
The use of ene this and ino that expressions were used to express that
the teacher wanted to inform the students to certain things. In utterance (51), the
teacher informed the students about the board that had been spoiled. And, but in
utterance (52) showed that the teacher informed the students about characteristics
of certain things.
(51) T : Ene papan no buek seda ka. (Asr/D3.503)
/ene ppn no bue sed k/
(this board SPEC complete spoil SPEC)
The board is completely spoiled
(52) T : Ino sifat ne. (Asr/D3.506)
/ ino sift n/
(that characteristic)
That is its characteristic
The use of misal example made the teacher forming the example of
certain things. Utterance (53) showed that the teacher gave an example of certain
lesson material; it was about the volume of the water. And, but in (54) the device
marak looks like shows that the teacher was reporting something implicitly.
(53) T : Misal, lek dalem botol, tetep so sepuluh meli ie. (Asr/D3.507)
/misl, lek dlm botol, ttp so spulu meli iy/
(example, at inside bottle, still SPEC ten milimeter 3SG)
For example, the volume (of water) in a bottle is still ten
millimeters
(54) T : Marak ongkat meq, sengsara ite. (Asr/D4.591)
/ mr kt me, ssr it/
(like speech-2SG.POSS, suffer 1PL)
Like what you had said, we will be suffered
In suggesting the students, the teachers used some devices that contained
prospective (future tense) meaning, the use of mun if clause, the use of mudaqmudaq easy, sekurang-kurang at least, kira-kira approximate, and the use of
104
(57)
The next type of suggesting expression used by the teacher was mudaqmudaq and sekurang-kurang. These were used to motivate the students as
illustrated in utterance (58).
105
(58)
(59)
T : Seke luek ite pada mbutuhang ie, seke panas taok takak te.
[N-butuh] (Asr/D3.532)
/ seke luwe it pd mbutuh iy, seke pns to tk
t/
(more and more many 1PL same need 3SG, more and more
hot place 1PL.POSS)
The more we need it (air), the hotter our place
The next type of suggesting expression, the teacher use agen. It was seen
at utterance (62) in which the teacher suggested the students to write the lessons
106
material. So, at the time of exam and exercise the students are able to answer the
tasks.
(62)
The other types of assertives shown in the data was complaining. The
complaining expressions were uttered in the high tone (especially at the end of
them) besides the expressions of the complain itself such as: epe, questioning,
banuk, lonto, kanso, laguk, negative, doang, specifies, padahal and kanyan. In
utterance (63), the teacher complained on the attitude of students whose book on
the table was not the book of the lesson that time.
(63)
(67)
(68)
108
(70)
(72)
In complaining speech act, the expression of kanso why was also used by
the teacher. This was used when the teacher disagreed with the students
responses/answers. As in data (73), the teacher was complaining when the
students answered about the hand of cow.
(73)
Negation form was the other type of complaining. The teachers used ndek
not to form a negative statement. In (74), the teacher put ndek followed by
modal tao as the complaining utterance. The teacher complained to the students
who was making noise in the class, therefore the teacher states that next time the
students should not able to do certain task based on the explanation given by the
teacher.
(74)
Beside the Sasak lexicon, the teacher also used certain Arabic word. As
illustrated in (75), the teacher used Astagfirullohaladziim (Arabic words used as
call to express a sense of wonder mixed with sadness). In this, the teacher
complained/disagreed on the attitude shown by the students (cf. (76), astaga was
the short term of Astagfirullahalaziim.
(75)
110
(76)
T : Astaga, marak ruan gelas ato apa ngen pak guru sik beruk.
(Asr/D3.542)
/stg, mr run gls to p ngn p guru si bru/
(oh my God, look like glass or what say father teacher
ART just now)
Astaga, it looks like a glass or as I said just now
The other type on complaining was the use of kedok deaf. It was used
when the teacher felt annoyed at the students acts. The term kedok was used when
the teacher really felt annoyed with the students who did not obey the teachers
suggestion (see utterance (77)).
In line with this, the term susah difficult (in utterance 78) the teacher felt
annoyed with the students act that did not pay attention to the teachers speech.
(77)
(78)
In complaining, from the data, the teacher used also a kind of metaphoric
utterances. The teacher used marak look like. This is an imaginative way of
describing the students by referring to something else that is the same in a
particular way. To illustrate this, the following utterance (79), the teacher said that
a students way of sitting looked as she was sitting at the cows cage (the student
put her legs on the chair).
(79)
(82)
112
T : Bagus. (Exp/D1.232)
/bgus/
(good)
That is good
Ss : Dua puluh.
/du pulu/
(twenty)
It is twenty
T : Dua puluh.
/du pulu/
(twenty)
It is twenty (that is good answer)
The next form is the event of restating the students answer followed by
the bagus good or betul right terms. For examples:
(85)
(86)
The other example was the existence of hebat excellent. This showed
that the students did some good or fascinating actions.
(87)
(88)
The second type of threatening to the students was the use of susahthat has
meaning difficult. The term was used to make the students to pay attention to the
explanation
given
by
the
teacher.
So,
the
students
did
not
face
obstacles/difficulties. In utterance (90) below the teacher asked the students to pay
attention to the explanation of mathematics, so, the students should not face an
obstacle in finishing the tasks.
114
(90)
The third threatening act was the use of baeh silik next will be punished.
The teacher asked the students to stop playing. If the students did not stop playing,
the teacher should get angry. The teacher should punish the students. The
expression (91) may illustrate this.
(91)
The fourth type of threatening act was the teacher used students
psychological boundaries. By questioning mele jari guru? the teacher warned the
students not to play in class. The teacher knew that it was impossible for the
students to be a teacher at their ages. So, this utterance seems to be useful threaten
the students.
(92)
The fifth type was laun jaq. The word laun means next time and, but jaq
works as specified marker. This marker pragmatically contained a threatening
feeling of the speaker. In utterance (93), the teacher threatened the students that if
the students sat improper way, it should cause of the bungkuk sickness of back to
the students.
115
(93)
The second was the utterance of kita akan we will. In line with the
example above, this also offered the students certain activity that was going to be
done. In (95), the teacher offered the students to study a natural science at that
period of time.
116
(95)
T : Nah, kita akan mulai dengan ilmu alam sains, ilmu IPA,
ngeno. (Com/D3.551)
/nh, kit kn muli dn ilmu lm sins, ilmu ip,
ngno/
(then, 1PL will start with natural science, science IPA, that is)
Then, now we are going to study natural science
The form of te + verb was the third type of offering terms. In (96), the
teacher offered to repeat a certain lesson material.
(96)
The next fourth type was baeh that is semantically means next time. This
offers the students that next time after the sentence uttered, the students should do
certain things. In (97) the teacher offered the students to reach the answer by
themselves.
(97)
The other type of offering this was the use of Obaq te let us. The teacher
invited the students try to do certain activity. In (142) the teacher offered the
students to sing a song.
(98)
The next form of offering is bareh next time syntactic form. In (100) the
teacher promised to ask for the students (the girls) later (see also 101).
(100) T : Bareh suruk sik nina mudian. (Com/D2.386)
/breh suru si nin mudin/
(next time ask for ART girl later)
Next time I will ask the girls
(101) T : Tagin ku bareh! (Com/D4.749)
/tgin ku breh /
(ask for 1SG next time!)
I will ask (you) next!
On the other hand, the students also make a promise. In utterance (102) the
promise was the use of sanggup can or aok yes (D3.582 and 425). The students
felt agree to do a certain thing.
(102) Ss : Sanggup. (Com/D3.582)
/sgup/
(can)
Yes I can
(103) Ss : Aok! (Com/D3.425)
/o/
(yes!)
Yes!
From the data above, the commissives speech act was figured out by the
attachment of the timing devices (adverb of time), such as nengka, baeh, akan,
and bareh. These devices characterized of the commissives differ with the
directives. Though this was in the directives discussion above that both of them
seem to be categorized as a category cause of the presence of pronoun te. As
118
Searle (1979) asserted that an utterance and the other that are the same often fit
into more than one category of speech acts.
4.3 Students Speech Acts
The students produced some speech acts namely assertives, directives, and
commissives. From the data the students produced the assertives in high
frequency.
4.3.1 The Frequency of the Students Speech Acts
The directives and assertives percentages of the teachers utterances were
different with the directives and assertives used by the students. The total speech
acts produced by the students in the classroom were 745 utterances. The following
table is the students speech act frequency.
Table 8: Students Speech Acts Frequency
No
1
2
3
Speech Act
Category
Assertives
Directives
Commissives
D1
101
4
1
D2
156
4
0
TOTAL
106
160
Students
D3
D4
295 178
0
2
4
0
299
180
SUM
730
10
5
%
97.99
1.34
0.67
745
100
The table above describes that the highest frequency of the students speech
act was assertives (97.32%) and then followed by directives (1.34%) and the
lowest frequency was commissives (0.67%). None of the students utterances
were indicated as declarations and expressives.
119
knowledge. Thus, the questions or the instructions given by the teacher should
give stimulation for students thinking other than giving factual information to
students. The teachers should employ two aspects of interactions in classroom;
that the teachers way in guiding taking turn in class, and delivering questions that
trigger the students to give information, reasoned, and socialized.
The data shows that the pattern of turn taking in the classroom interaction
looks to the domination of the teacher. The turn taking pattern employed in the
conversation repeatedly from the teacher then students during the class. This
indicates the main trigger of learning is the teacher. The teacher was an opener of
learning, questioning, as well as the main initiator of the overall learning process.
Meanwhile, the students as a follower who is behind the teachers follow the
teachers' instructions and directions. Students enough say one word only. The
following is the example of a taking turn between the teacher and students.
T : -Sugul!
/sugul/
(go out)
Go out!
-Batur a belajar, ndek kanggo tama ndih?
/btur bljr, ndek kgo tm ndih /
(friend 2SG.POSS learn, not may come in please?)
Your friend is learning, please do not come in
-Ka bagus tokol, julu andang!
/k bgus tkl, julu nd/
(EXCL good sit, front see)
Have a good seat, look at front
-Periri bangku meq!
/priri bku me/
(make up chair 2SG.POSS)
Make up your chair!
121
122
Ss : Tangga.
/ tga/
(home)
Our home
In addition, the teachers dominate the class and become the ruler of the
class. He/she became the main sources of the learning in classroom. The questions
of the teachers should give stimuli to students thinking. The fact that it occurred in
the process of learning in the class, that the teacher posed the question just on a
cognitive level that need the students remembering only.
4.4 Discussions
Established from the data above, the highest frequency of speech acts
occurred in the classroom was assertives speech act and then followed by
directives, expressives, and commissives. The teachers produced more utterances
than students did. In line with a research conducted by Fitria (2012) that focused
on the speech acts used by teachers and students in classroom at SDN Cisaranten
Kidul II Bandung. The teacher took dominant role in producing the speech in
class. Overall her findings, the teacher took up 67% of the talking time; the
distribution of talking time in the students favor was 33%. Furthermore, this
finding also had been established by Martaulina (2011) who conducted a research
on kindergarten students speech act in Medan. The results showed that the
children's speech act was realized in three moods: declarative, interrogative, and
imperative. The speech acts covered assertives, directives, expressives,
commisive functions. From the note in, in fact that the teacher produced more
utterances than students since methods used by the teachers was lecturing. This
123
such as sai who, apa what, ngumbe how, kan why, pira how many, and
mbe which. The position of those words might be put at the beginning or at the
end of the questions. Besides those expressions, in making question, the teachers
employed the Yes/No questions type. In making this, the teachers, based on data,
chose modal auxiliary expressions that were put at the beginning of the utterances,
such as: bau can, mele want, kanggo may, tao can, iniq can. Furthermore,
the expression oah already also used to make yes no question.
The existence of question and advice in the teaching and learning develop
the role of the teacher as initiator and sustainer of the interaction in the classroom
(Brown, 2001: 169). Appropriate questioning in an interactive classroom can
fulfill several different functions. This is in line with what Searle (1969:22) asserts
that directives is frequent kind of speech acts in classroom interaction.
The one who produces the assertives speech act is seen about commit the
truth of the expressed proposition. From the finding above, in assertives speech
act type, the data showed that it was appeared in reporting, suggesting,
complaining, and stating. In reporting something, the teachers sometimes form a
restatement of the students responds/answers.
Furthermore, informing something, the teachers of SDN 10 Pringgasela
employed the nasalized words as an assertives speech act. This expression change
functioned as syntactic modification. For example, in utterance (43), the teacher
nasalized the verb raos speak to make it as information namely [N-r(a)os] and
[N-dengerang]. Besides, the use of nasalized words, the informative assertives
employed certain markers, such as: oah, laek formerly and lekan since, and
125
(109) T
(110) T
130
This indicated that the students were actively involved in the teaching and
learning process. The teachers used question directives for asking certain
information. The function of question directives that frequently occurred in the
data was to ask the students about certain information. This function was
commonly occurred in the classrooms observed. The example of the utterances
above was formed in the question directives type. It can be said that question
directives was used to ask the students about certain information. Giving question
was a good way to involve the students in the teaching and learning process; two
ways of interactions can be formed though the students-teachers interaction seems
to be run in one-way communication since the small number of students
utterances. It was the teacher who had question in which the students response in a
word/syllable only.
Besides asking the students about certain information, question directives
also covers other function, such as: (1) to check the students knowledge about
certain information, (2) to check the students understanding about certain
information, and (3) to ask the students ability to do something. Meaning that one
type of directives speech act can have more than one function.
2) Bald Imperative
The utterance that categorized into bald imperative is as imperative
statement. This type of directives can be used in work setting peers or in group
setting. The use of it in work setting usually occurs from person who has higher
status in working area or superior to a person who has lower status in working
area or subordinate. The use of bald imperative also has some variants, such as,
131
the additional of please, tag question and also the omission of verb.
The use of bald imperative was the second level in quantity from the total
directives produced in the teaching and learning process. The following are the
examples.
(111) T
(112) T
: Latihan! (Dir/D1.128)
/ltihn/
(exercise)
Do the exercise!
(113) T
(114) T
: Becat! (Dir/D2.106)
/bct/
(soon)
Do it soon!
(115) T
Those examples above were the bald imperative produced by the teachers.
These were utterances used to command the students; to do certain action that was
stated in the verb, and these were considered to be impolite. Moreover, this bald
imperative was used by the superior to the inferior.
From the data, the teachers used directives speech act to command the
students. This function is formed by bald imperative type. It was a direct
relationship of the structure and the function of the utterance. It makes the
132
meaning of the message be clear. The directives (e.g. utterances 111 to 115) were
the utterances discovered in the data that have the same function- to command the
students. The teachers intention was controlling the classroom activities.
Observing this in the classroom, it was found that some students mess up the
teaching and learning process as can be seen at utterance (115).
Considering this reason, the teachers need to take control over their
classes. However, this reason should not respect listeners. By adding please or
changing it into the interrogative form, the utterances will have politeness value;
however, the function of the utterances might also change as well.
3) Embedded Imperative
Embedded imperative is indicated by use of interrogative form and the use
of modals. Embedded imperatives are also used in the classroom observed. The
use of ndih yes, ya yes devices and formal language (bahasa Indonesia) were
some variants of this type. The following are the examples of this function.
(116) T
133
The utterances (116), (117), and (118) were categorized into embedded
imperative. It was considered that the less direct and more polite because the use
of interrogative form and the existence of the ndih and ya devices. These
promoted the utterances judged as the polite command.
4) Need Statement
Directives in this research was also appeared in form of declarative
statement. Need statement type was used in classroom transactional setting. The
function was that having the students do the request from the teachers. The
following examples may illustrate this.
(119) T : Sik kiri kanan, ibu guru minta diam! (Dir/D1.111)
/si kiri knn, ibu guru mint dim/
(ART left right, mother teacher ask silent!)
The left and right side students, I want you keep silent!
(120)T : Pelajaran kita sekarang adalah I:PA (Dir/D2.3)
/pljrn kit skr dlh ip /
(lesson 1PL now is IPA)
Our lesson today is IPA
In utterance (119) the teacher was stating her need; request the students on
the right and left side to be quite. The responds showed by the students was non
oral responses; that were in quite (silent). In addition, utterance (120) showed that
the teacher expressed her need namely requesting the students to study the IPA
lesson.
5) Hint Directives
The structure of hint directives is as declarative statement; it is the same as
need statement. However, the meaning of this type of directives differs from need
134
statement; in hint directives, the meaning is the opposite of the truth statement
used by the speaker. In other word, hint directives is used in any situations when
the speaker makes the request implicitly. To illustrate this, the following examples
are the hint directives.
(121) T : Mbe taok bangku a, Hadi? (Dir/D2.128)
/mbe to bku , hdi/
(where place chair 3SG.POSS, Hadi?)
Where is your chair, Hadi?
(122) T : Papannya ada di muka! (Dir/D3.253)
/ppn d di muk /
(board.3SG-POSS there is at front!)
The board is in front!
In utterance (121) the teacher used hint directives. This utterance entailed
a meaning that the teacher tried to command a student to move into his chair
instead of saying pindah ke bangku mu move into your chair directly. The
teacher used the interrogative form that has function to direct the student to move
to his chair. Moreover, the second utterance (122) was also assumed as hint
directives. This was functioned as getting the students attention. The teacher did
not ask the student to pay attention, but by saying so (i.e. the board is in front), the
teacher wanted the students to pay attention to the materials was being given.
6) Permission Directives
The form of permission directives was in interrogative sentence. The
difference of this type from embedded imperative was on the subject. From the
utterance, nengka dua pulu, te sedik ie? now, we omit twenty (Dir/D1.61)
indicated that the teacher asked for permission to their students, before she omit
the number written on the board.
135
(124)
(125)
Jemaq ene!
/jm ene/
(tomorrow this)
This one is for tomorrow
(126)
137
(127)
(128)
(129) Ss :
Aoq
/o/
(yes)
Yes
Organizational function can be seen at utterance (123, 127 and 128). The
teacher organized the teaching and learning process by uttering those kinds of
sentences. The utterance kita akan melanjutkan yang tadi we will continue the
previous one uttered by the teacher when he tried to make the student to prepare
the lesson that was the continuation of the previous sentence. Furthermore, the
utterance sekarang semuanya yang laki-laki now, for all the boys produced by
the teacher to organize the boys to answer certain question that were going to be
delivered.
In utterances (124, 125, and 126) the teacher were functioned as the control
functions. By uttering Oloq pegawean bi juluk put your work first entailed a
meaning that the teacher was controlling the students actions that were not needed
in that occasion (see also utterances 125 and 126).
The other function of speech acts produced was evaluative/motivational
function. The following utterances may illustrate it.
138
(130)
(131)
(132)
In utterance (132) the teacher evaluated the students answer by restating the
students response. This also may be functioned as a motivational utterance. By
restating the students response, the teacher states that the students answer was
right implicitly instead of saying thats right in meaning. Toward, to the
instructional function of the speech acts in a classroom, the discourse move done
was the parameter of certain speech acts used.
The discourse moves done during the teaching and learning are presented
on table 8. The discourse moves were initiation moves (I-moves), that were done
by the teachers, followed by responses moves (R-moves) that were done by
students, and feedback moves (F-moves) executed by teachers. To begin means to
make the first move, to lead, to begin, to introduce an idea or concept for the first
time, to express ones own will.
Table 8: Discourse Moves Performed in the classroom
Move Type
I-moves
R-moves
F-moves
Performer
Teachers
778
35
129
Students
4
-
139
(137)
(138)
(139)
(140)
(141)
(142)
(143)
(144)
141
The teacher was evaluating the students wrong answer; the teachers need the
right one. While, in utterance (157) consisted of restating the students answer
combined with a description Selae ene sama dengan dua puluh lima in utterance
(158). This distinctive sequential pattern characterizes the speech acts in
classroom. Associating it with the core activity in that setting, therefore it was
considered as an instruction. Such the third position of evaluation utterance was
rarely found in conversation, precisely because pedagogic instruction (van Dijk,
1997: 107) was not frequently found in the conversational activity outside the
classroom. In the next example we found how the teacher used pedagogic
instruction.
(153) T : Ceretan.
/ceretn/
(kettle)
It is a kettle
(154)
Nah itu berupa barang.
/nh itu brup br /
(so that like goods)
That are goods
(155)
Pekerjaan yang menghasilkan bar:::
/pkrjn y mhsilkn br:::/
(work which produce thing)
The work that produced goods
(156) Ss : {ba} ra::ng.
/ br/
(goods)
That are goods
(157) T : Barang ino.
/br ino/
(goods that)
That is a goods
(158)
Nengka lalo anta ito lek pabrik.
/nngk llo nt ito le pbrik/
(now go 2SG there at company)
Now you went to a company
143
(159)
144
(168)
146
(173) Ss : Ndarak.
/ndr/
(no)
No, there are not
(174) T : Kanso dua neng a.
/knso du n /
(why two say 2SG)
Why did you say two?
(175)
Mun te, mun te girang bejorak jaq ndek te denger bu guru.
/mun t, mun t gir bjor j nde t dr bu guru/
(if 2PL, if 2PL like play not 2PL listen mom teacher)
If you always play means that you dont listen to me
(176)
Nengka Hadi, pira ima a manuk?
/nk hdi, pir im mnuk /
(now Hadi, how many hand 3SG.POSS chicken)
Now Hadi, how many the chickens hand?
(177) Ss : Ndarak.
/ndr/
(no)
No, there is not
(178) T : Ndarak.
/ndr/
(no)
No, there is not
(179)
Apa bedowe ima?
/p bdowe im/
(what has hand?)
What does have hand?
(200)
Apa bedowe ima?
/p bdowe im/
(what has hand?)
What does have hand?
(201) Ss : Manusia::.
/mnusi/
(human being)
It is human being
(202) T : Ya, bagu::s.
/y, bgus/
(yes, good)
Yes, that is good
(203)
Nah, perhatikan!
/nh, prhtikn /
(ok, pay attention)
Ok, pay attention
147
(204)
face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. Negative face is the
desire to remain autonomous. So, the speaker is more suitable to include an out
for the listener.
Regarding with Brown and Levinsons (1987) conception of negative
face, Seken (2004) subsume the Adat Balinese Leaders politeness strategies into
two main categories, such as: appealing strategies and softening strategies.
Borrowing the categorization of Adat Balinese Leaders politeness proposed by
Seken (2004) was used in this research to discuss the politeness strategies found
in the data. By simplifying it, the following are the teachers strategies in
producing the polite utterances.
Table 9: Politeness Strategies Used by Teachers at SDN 10 Pringgasela
Type
Appealing
Type of Politeness
Approval Seeker
Expression Used
Ndih yes
Ya yes
Willingness Seeker
Juluk first
Inclusivizer
Te first plural clitic
Cooperation
Inges beautiful
Tolong help
Gagah handsome
Type
Type of Politeness
Expression Used
Softening
Supportive move as
Mun if
Imposition Minimizer
En, if
Kanggo can
Downgrader-Conditionalizer
Mana-mana at least
Downgrader-Suspender
Ngeno that is
Downgrader-tentativizer
Coba try
(Adapted from ALBs Negative Politeness Strategies by Seken, 2004:146)
The politeness strategies discovered in this research, the teachers
attempted to decrease the imposition to the students by using those devices, in the
table, in their expressions. These devices applied by the teacher since the students
149
This also occurred in (207) that the teacher advised the students to sit in polite
manner. And, but in (208) the teacher ordered the students to finish the task given
based on the example.
The function of ndih in those examples were treated as suggestive
utterances. But, the event of ndih turned the utterances become interrogative ones.
These expressions showed a weaker imposition on the students. If the ndih
expression was omitted, the utterances nuances should be changed into
imperatives.
Besides the use of ndih the teachers in the classroom usually produced
.,ya! yes expression as a device to approve the hearer attention. As in (157),
the teacher seeks the approval nuances from the hearer (the students).
(209) T : Oleh karena itu, lamun arak te embeng jaja sik inaq a,
dendek te kantongang ie. ya? (Dir/D2.132)
/:leh krn i:tu, lmun r t mbe jj si in dende
t knt iy, y/
(because of that, if there is 2PL give cake by mother 3SGPOSS, do not pocketing 3SG, yes)
Please, because of that, if our mother gave us cakes dont
pocketing it!
The next expression that showed a politeness nuance was juluk. This
appealed for the students willingness to bring about the statement of affairs
denote in the intention of the FTA-carrying utterance. This was used when the
speaker makes a request and, but at the same time considers that the
communication situation requires the students to arrange certain thing to be done
at a later date, rather in immediately. This seems that the teacher tries to
imposition the students to do certain thing. Lexically this device had semantic
meaning comparable to first. When a speaker does not use this juluq device,
151
shall force on the assumption that the speaker gives more intention on the action
accomplishment.
(210) T : Peta maukan sik tene juluq! (Dir/D1.138)
/pet mun si tene julu /
(look for result ART here first)
Please, search for the result here first!
In (210), it was shown that the teacher required the students to search the
result of certain maths task but the students should find out certain formula first.
The juluq served as mitigating devices in which appears to have semantic and
syntactic impacts on the utterance of performing the requesting act. Utterance
(158), for example, has the sense I request you to search the result of this and but
without juluq the sense would be Search the result of this. So, it is clear enough,
that the event of juluq makes the act of requesting less direct, so that the students
should feel save from losing of face. In short, it can be said that by putting the
juluq expression makes the imperative sense in certain utterances change them
into declarative one.
As the eastern culture, the Sasak tribe also requires their communication
full on politeness marker. In face threatening acts, in requesting certain thing, it
was established that the teachers usually (almost) used the expression te (we).
This term occurs as inclusivizer marker. This was used to minimize the nuance of
imposing the students by including the teacher himself in the action he/she wanted
the students to perform. As an example, in utterance (211) the teacher was trying
to modify the act of request into suggestion nuance, that was naturally imposing
that straightly ask the students by stating (for example) balik nengka turn it over
now.
152
153
154
(216) T : Batur a belajar, ndek kanggo tama ndih? (Dir/ D4. 320)
/btur bljr, ndek kgo tm ndih /
(friend 3SG.POSS study, not may come in yes?)
Please, your friends are learning, dont come in
(217) T : Ndek kanggo bejorak, (Dir/ D2.73)
/ nde kgo bjr /
(not may play)
You may not play
The other type of politeness was downgrader conditionalizer. To use the
conditional expression was another mode that characterized the teachers negative
politeness strategies. The conditionalizer is the conditionalizing element in the
utterance, serves the function to show the act in such a way that its assertives
force is much weakened. It serves to modify the act, so that it lies two possibilities
namely it may and it may not be the case with regard to the statement of affairs
being conveyed in the act in question.
Placing the students in the position to decide two possibilities, the
conditional suppressed the coercive power of the act concerned. To illustrate,
consider the following examples.
(218) T : Mana-mana te ngojek aneng! [N-ojek] (Dir/D4.314)
/mn-mn t ojek n /
(at least 1PL ACT-ojek to)
We (may have a job) at least as ojek!
(219) T : Mana-mana te miak, apa aran ne, te betani ato te ngoan.
[N-(p)iak] (Dir/D4.315)
/mn-mn t miya, p aran, t btni to te n /
(at least 1PL ACT-make, what name 3SG-POSS, 1PL farming
or 1PL raising).
At least we may make (something), farm, or we have an
animal husbandry
From both of utterances above, the teacher wanted to remind the students
of the job/work that may be owned by the students. The teacher has an advising
155
nuance in it as what the teacher conveyed was you have to have a job at least
being ojek (218) or being a farmer or have an animal husbandry (219). On the
utterances, the reminding act was much weaker as the conditionalizer mana-mana
at least poses a possibility that the students did not need to take the action as
reminded unless in the case that he decided to do the other jobs. To make it clear,
it may be contrasted with the following utterances.
(a) Teacher :
(b) Teacher :
Te ngojek aneng!
/t ojek n /
(1PL ACT-ojek to)
We may have a job as ojek!
Te miak, apa aran ne, te betani ato te ngoan.
/ t miya, p aran, t btni to te n /
(1PL ACT-make, what name 3SG-POSS, 1PL
farming or 1PL raising)
We may make (something), farm, or we have
an animal husbandry
[N-ojek]
[N-(p)iak]
example (220).
(220) T : Ngeno, apa pegawean ngeno, adek ndak meq talon ate meq
nggitak inaq amaq meq sik ato semeton meq sik mauk mbeli
sepeda motor? (Dir/ D4. 300)
/ no p pgwen no, ade nd me tlon te me
git in m me si to smton me si mu mbli
spd motor/
(as-told, what job as-told, so not 2SG jealous 2SG ACT-see
mother father 2SG-POSS ART or brother 2SG.POSS ART
have ACT-buy motorcycle?)
(As wanted) what is the job that can make us not irritate to
father, mother or brother who are able buy motorcycle?
The utterance illustrated the use of ngeno in an advice act that represents
the teachers need for the students to be wiser in thinking of the life. The teacher
manipulated act syntactically by using an interrogative instead of an advice
directly. The speaker modified the utterance into an indirectness advice as he said
what is the job that can make us not irritate to father, mother or brother who are
able buy motorcycle? instead of saying you have to do whatever the job to get
money, so you will not irritate to father, mother or brother who are able buy
motorcycle.
The other expression type of politeness used by the teacher was coba.
Using this device, the teacher conveyed advice by showing his desire that
something was cautious. This meant that the teacher was doubt to concerning
what he/she wanted to the students to do or was not certain about the students
ability to do it. This can be considered in the following case.
(221) T : Coba tedok sik nine ndi::h? (Dir/D2.129)
/cob tdo si nin, ndih/
(try silent ART girl yes).
Please, the girls keep silent!
157
T :
Ss :
(223)
T :
Ss :
T :
Ss :
158
223). Grices cooperative principles found in the students speech acts were
employed that the students contribution is required by the accepted purpose or
direction of the talk exchange in the classroom. The students directly answered the
teachers question as was shown in examples above (222 and 223). For quantity
maxim, the students produced the responses as informative as required by the
teachers. The students do not be either over-informative or under-informative in
responding the teachers questions. The students also tried to make contribution
true, one for which the students have evidence (quality maxim). In addition, the
students employed the manner maxim when their utterances were clear as
possible. That is, avoid ambiguity and obscurity. And the students also keep the
relation with the teacher. The students produced the relevant for the exchange.
That is, the teachers asked the students then should be answered as efficient as
possible by the students. In short, it can be concluded that the students delivered
the information only. The student has no intention to produce the responses either
in compound or complex sentences.
Besides those judgments, Leech (1983) asserts that Minimize
disagreement between self and other; Maximize agreement between self and
other is related to agreement maxim. To the data, it was found that the students
minimize
disagreement
and
maximize
agreement.
In
responding
the
agreement by following what have been stated by the teachers and answer the
teachers question directly. In short, the students cooperate with the teachers in
building the conversation run harmonically.
161