Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Language could be considered as a part of a text and every human being must deal
with it in order to fulfill the communication goal. So a text is basically a unit of the language
found in spoken or written language. The text must full of content, meaning, and information
that could be understood by the readers. Based on (Thornbury: ) a text is a continuous piece
of spoken or written language, especially one with a recognizable beginning and ending. The
text appeared around us in every activity that we do in our life. To understand and to learn
about the structure of the text, the grammar, and the purpose of the text whether the text is
spoken or written. This action is called discourse analysis. It used to help people to engage
with the communicative purpose from a certain text related to the real world situation.
Thornbury stated that discourse analysis is the study of such language, and the analysis of the
features and uses of texts or text analysis is an integral component of discourse analysis. He
also mentioned that to differentiate between discourse and text was to think that discourse as
the process and text as the product.
Spoken language is the focus of this paper. It could be described as a language that
produced by sounds and has no written form. The term of spoken language than arose when
all this ‘spoken form of a language’ transcripted into a written form. Certainly, there would
be some different points to analyze between spoken and written language. This paper would
analyze some points that listed on Thornbury’s book called ‘Beyond the Sentence’. There
were six of them, they were; 1) Evidence of Spontaneity (Repetitions and false start; Filled
pause and Common tails-slot fillers; and Formulaic language or chunks), 2) Evidence of
interactivity (Questions; Back-channeling; Interruptions and overlapping turns), 3)
Interpersonal features (Hedging language; Discourse markers; and Evaluative language), 4)
Topic consistency (Lexical repetitions; Referring expressions; Substitutions; and Linkers), 5)
Macrostructures (Adjacency pairs; and Story structure), and 6) Negotiation patterns
(Interpersonal and Logicosemantic). Later, this paper used a 5 minutes casual conversation
that have been recorded before between 2 people.
FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS
a. Transcript
1. Evidence of Spontaneity
a. Repetitions and False Start
(66) Sekar : ...... background is lots of people. There are no, there is no scenery in
my picture.....
(68) Sekar : yes, oh so i have to.. so whre’s the place to buy souvenir there ?
(80) Sekar : .... tried to use the bracelet but it was really... i’m really
dissapointed...
2. Evidence of Interactivity
a. Questions
(1) Maryo : Hi sekar, how are you?
(2) Sekar : hi mas maryo, i’m fine thanks. How about you?
(3) Maryo : .... go to purwokerto. Is that true?
(5) Maryo : really? May I know Who they are?
(7) Maryo : .... That’s must be fun. How are you going to go there?
(15) Maryo : small world? What is that?
(28) Sekar : hey, that will be my next holiday. Why you go to Bandung?
(32) Sekar : .... Anyway, are you planning to visit factory outlets too?
(34) Sekar : pardon, what did you say just now?
(45) Maryo : do you like collecting the shell in shore beach?
(46) Sekar : what do you mean?
(55) Maryo : ...... people call it indrayanti. Have you ever heard?
(58) Sekar : ... Do you know how to get .....
(68) Sekar : .... so whre’s the place to buy souvenir there ?
(79) Maryo : .... oh okayy... then what happend next ?
(85) Maryo : ... okay. Ehm sekar, may i know wht’s the time ?
(86) Sekar : this is one pm. Do you want to go somewhere ?
b. Back Channeling
(i)
(10) Sekar : yeah, my hometown has no railway track... (response to (9) )
(63) Maryo : yes. An in jogjakarta, usually go to malioboro. ( response to (62) )
Utterances number (18), (20), (22), (25), (26), (31), (41), (49),(42),(54), (66), (68),
(69), (72) and (82) were also used the same chunk “yes” or “yeah” as a response to
the previous utterances.
(ii)
(58) Sekar : oh really ? maybe tonight I’ll searching....
(71) Maryo : okay. And one more thing, you have to be..... ( response to (70) )
Utterances number (13), (23), (32), (83), (84), (85), (89), (90) and (92) were also
used “okay” as a response to the previous utterances.
(iii)
For the utterances number (1) up to (6),(7) till (10), (12) to (20), (36) to (54), then
(73) until (79) were the interactivity utterances, since both speakers kept responding
to each other questions and answers.
(ii)
(74) Sekar : ..... for like 2 thousand rupiah but when i ...
b. Discourse Markers
(i)
(57) Maryo : .... Ah the scenery or the photography of the beach....
(56) Sekar : oh, indrayanti.. i heard that. I just passed.....
Utterances number (7), (11), (48), (58), (62), (68), (87) and (88) also used the same
term “oh”.
(ii)
(10) Sekar : yeah, my hometown has no railway track. It is near a mountain.
(69) Maryo : yeah. Because i have some experience, when....
Utterances number (31), (41), (76), (78), and (82) also used the same term “yeah” to
show they were agree with the previous utterances.
(iii)
(71) Maryo : okay. And one more thing, you have....
Utterances number (13), (23), (32), (79), (83), (84), (85), (89) and (92) also used the
same term “okay”.
(iv)
(72) Sekar : yes, i ever bought a bracelet made from you know skin.
c. Evaluative Language
(3) Maryo : i’m pretty good. Anyway .....
(7) Maryo : oh I see. That’s really great. That’s must be fun. ....
(58) Sekar : .... I want to go to the beach. I confused. What should....
(69) Maryo : .... to my neighbours, so it was shameful for me.
(80) Sekar : ... but it was really... i’m really dissapointed, because the..
4. Topic Consistency
a. Lexical Repetitions
Train (2x), Hometown (2x), Temanggung (2x), Purwokerto (3x), Mountain (4x),
Bandung (2x), Ushanka (3x), Beach (19x), Souvenirs (4x), Malioboro (4x), Bracelet
(5x), Jogjakarta (4x)
b. Referring Expressions
This transcript mostly used referring expressions such as it, there, they, we, you and
this. For example, it could be found in number (8),(10),(55) for ‘it’, (48) and (57) for
‘we’, (5) and (61) for ‘they’, (12) and (64) for ‘this’, then (6), (14), (66) for ‘there’,
and (1), (2), (3), (71) for ‘you’.
c. Substitutions
(8) Sekar : we are going to go there by train. Can you imagine that? ...
(56) Sekar : ... I just passed the beach, but i never visited that. I just .. ah..
(83) Maryo : ... so you will not be dissapointed like that.
Utterance number (13), (14), (15), (19), (71) also used the same term “like that”.
d. Linkers
This transcript mostly used linkers such as and, because, but, so and for example. It
could be found in number (12), (14), (66) for ‘and’, (69) for ‘because’, (14), (76) for
‘but’, (40), (51), (81) for ‘so’, (67) for ‘for example’.
5. Macrostructures
a. Adjacency Pairs
(i)
(3) Maryo : ..... you are going to go to purwokerto. Is that true?
(4) Sekar : that’s true. I’m going to go to there with our classmates next week.
(55) Maryo : .... people call it indrayanti. Have you ever heard?
(56) Sekar : oh, indrayanti.. i heard that. I just passed the beach, but i never
visited that. I just .. ah you know.
(ii)
The conversation in the transcript from number (1) up to (6),(7) till (10), (12) to (20),
(36) to (54), (73) until (80) indicated some questions and answer from both
interlocutors. Also, number (85) until (87) when the other speaker asked about the
time to the second speaker.
b. Story Structure
In the transcript it happened in utterances number (14), the second speaker said that
her friend and herself searched about the tourism places in Purwokerto on Instagram
as a reference from them before they went there. Here the second speaker used a
present tense when she supposed to use past. All the participants were clear but she
used the wrong temporal location that simply in the past.
Moreover the utterence (65) until (66), when the first speaker told that Malioboro was
so crowded, the second speaker shared her experience with her mom when they
visited Malioboro. The location was true, the participants, and the sequence of events.
But unfortunately, when the second speaker uttered this, she did not say it in the past
form, even though it happened a long time ago, she kept using present form. It seemed
that the second speaker always failed to perform a correct temporal location.
The other number was (68) until (69) when the first speaker said he bought an expired
food as souvenirs to his neighbors. He said it in the exact temporal location which
was in the past, the location was clear and also the participant.
6. Negotiation Patterns
a. Interpersonal Negotiation
In the transcript, it could be found in number (13) and (14), the first speaker asked
the reason why the second speaker want to go to Purwokerto although that town is
similar with her hometown, Temanggung. Then in number (55) and (56) when the
first speaker asked whether the second speaker ever heard Indrayanti beach or not.
Then the second speaker replied that she heard it before but she never went there.
There was another too in number (58) and (59) when the second speaker asked
where to buy souvenirs, then the first speaker explained about where to buy it and
suggested her to bargain the price whenever she wanted to buy one.
b. Logicosemantic Negotiation
In the transcript, it could be found in number (33) up to (37), the first speaker told
about what things that he want to buy, one of the place is ushanka, but the second
speaker did not understand what ushanka is. Then in number (72) until (78) when the
second speaker said something about bought a ‘skin’ bracelet, the first speaker then
repeated the word ‘skin’ cause it sounded weird (the second speaker should have use
leather instead of skin). Then the first speaker asked again about the price. The last
could be found in number (85) until (87) when the first speaker asked about the time,
then the second speaker replied it by telling him the time. Where the second speaker
asked why, the first answered that he need to go somewhere. This types of
conversation basically needed a confirmation of information or messages that the
other speaker uttered with no long explanation.
Evidence of Spontaneity
Maryo
42%
Sekar
58%
Meanwhile, for chunks, the second speaker used lots of them such as do you want, do
you like, do you know, I see and etc. While Maryo used do you, have you heard, what do you
think and etc, but only for 6 turns.
1.2 Pie chart for Evidance of Interactivity
Evidence of Interactivity
Maryo Sekar
46% 54%
From this chart, we could see that Sekar still dominate the points of evidence in casual
conversation analysis. In interactivity, the conversation was categorized as interactive if the
speaker interact by taking turns to speak, keep silent when others are speaking, interrupting at
times and signaling their agreement or amusement by grunts, laughs and chuckles.
Here, Sekar used 8 turns in questioning Maryo and 15 turns in back channeling. While
Maryo himself used 9 turns in questioning and 11 turns for back channeling. We could
conclude that Sekar was way more interactive than Maryo since she asked more questions
than him. She also let him talk more often since she used so many back channeling words
such as yeah, yes, okay and oh really. She let him take the floor in speaking by not giving
herself turns to speak or to interrupt him.
On the other hand, Maryo was the one who interrupted the conversation a lot, about 2
turns, while Sekar only once. They seemed to have a different point of view or something
was not clear for Maryo towards Sekar utterances, that was why he interrupted her twice to
have a better explanation about it.
1.3 Pie chart for Interpersonal Features
Interpersonal Features
Maryo Sekar
43% 57%
In communication, both of the speakers doesn’t always exchange information but also
interpersonal function. This function serves trust and solidarity between both speakers. Even
though if one of the speaker doesn’t agree to other’s statement, they tend to do it in a smooth
way in order not to threat other’s face. There are some strategies to achieve the goal of
interpersonal function such as laughter, chuckles, using hedges words, vague language or
evaluative language.
From the chart above, Sekar dominated in using all the three interpersonal features,
such as hedging words, vague and evaluative language. She used the discourse markers a lot
such as yeah, okay, oh and you know for 15 turns. While Maryo’s turn for discourse markers
were 13 times. Meanwhile, for hedging words, Sekar made in 7 turns while Maryo 4 turns.
The hedging words that mostly used is but, just, and maybe.
1.4 Pie Chart for Topic Consistency
Topic Consistency
Maryo
47% Sekar
53%
To maintain a good conversation, both speakers need to consistent to the topic they
were talking about. They need to be relevant it means that each other’s utterances both relate
to a mutually agreed topic and follow on from one another. Both of them could repeat some
words that mark the topic of the speaking. On the conversation, both speakers repeat some
words very often such beach (19x), bracelets (5x), souvenirs (4x), Jogjakarta (4x), Malioboro
(4x), and mountain (4x). It stated that the topic of the conversation was mostly about holiday
and tourism places in Malioboro, Jogjakarta. Both speakers also talked a lot about buying
souvenirs from the tourism places and the second speaker said that she bought the bracelet in
Malioboro but it didn’t quite like what she expected. This was the reason why bracelet kept
mention for 5 times.
1.5 Negotiation Patterns Pie Chart
Negotiation Patterns
Maryo Sekar
50% 50%
In a good communication that people do in their daily lives, they don’t talk to each
other like they talk to the bank cashier, or when they want to deliver things to the post office.
That kind of talk is a one-way communication where the other person only answers and give
the short answer depends on where both of the people are. This kind of talk called
Logicosemantic negotiation. While Interpersonal negotiation happens in the market when you
meet someone you knew and talked for a long time with different topics, or when parents and
children talk at dinner time. This conversation mostly a two-way communication with lots of
different topics and taking-giving turns between speaker.
Based on the chart above, both speakers delivered the same function in negotiation
patterns both interpersonal and logicosemantic. It means that both speakers did their job fairly
in a good communication. Even though in some parts, the first speaker didn’t catch the exact
meaning from the second speaker and asked a question for clarification. But the conversation
kept going smoothly until the end.
CONCLUSION
Analyzing a spoken text is interesting since people could do so many different ways
and strategies in delivering their messages within the communication. With the help of
Thornbury’s book, we could see that there are 6 point’s in analyzing a spoken text. All these
6 points could be a base pillar for creating a good communication between 2 or more people.
Based on the result of this paper, both of the speakers did communicate good but the second
speaker holds the most percentage in 6 points, while for the last point, negotiation patterns,
both of the speaker got the same percentage.
No matter how different the result was, the good communication should be build
based on the same topic that both speakers understand, the relevance to each other, various
strategies in taking-giving turns, use various discourse markers and so on. Hopefully that this
paper could help others to understand and to learn the structures or the patterns that occurred
in spoken text.