error analysis proposal
IMPROVING STUDENTS’
SPEAKING SKILL IN RECOUNT TEXT BY USING TIME TOKEN ARENDS STRATEGY AT THE EIGHT
GRADE OF STUDENTS OF SMP IT AL-ITTIHAD PEKANBARU
CHAPTER I
ERROR IDENTIFICATION
So they can influence students’ in learning achievement
They are narrative text and recount text
Second student still used present tense
Students had many difficulties
They had problem in all aspect
Like vocabulary,pronunciation,
fluently,and so on
It can be identifies that there are number
The researcher will be hopefully useful
The researcher hopes that make the students
Strategy that structure that can be used
|
ERROR CORRECTION
So they can influence students’
learning achievement
They are Narrative text and Recount text
Second, student still used present tense
Students have many difficulties
They have problem in all aspect
Such as vocabulary,pronunciation,
fluently,and so on
It can be identified that there are number
The research will be hopefully useful
The researcher hopes is to make the
Students
Structured strategy that can be used
|
CHAPTER II
1.
|
Students must have ability to communication
Student’s speaking is challenging,however
They may be allowed several days or only a few minutes in which to
prepare
Are they using the language they are learning
Recount Text is a piece
C. the use of past tense
D. word that show
Cooperative learning develop by Arends
They have and idea that
To work together to help each other to construct a concept
Each students is give talking tokens
Depending on the time they spend
In speaking students must choose
The procedure can help the students to know to practice
The students have to perform their ideas they found
To proved this strategy got solved problem
Students low speaking skills
This problem can be solve use Time Tokens Arend Strategy
The researcher assums
This method can be use by the students
|
Students must have ability to communicate
Student’s speaking is challenge,however
They may be allowed several days or only a few minutes to prepare
Are they using the language that they are learning
Recount text is a piece
C. The use of past tense
D. Word that show
Cooperative learning developed by Arends
They have idea that
To work together, to help each other and to construct a concept
Each students is given talking
tokens
Depending on the time that they spend
In Speaking, students must choose
The procedure can help the students to know how to practice
The students have to perform their ideas that they found
To proved this strategy got problem solving
Students’ low speaking skills
This problem can be solved by using
Time Tokens Arend Strategy
The researcher assumes
This method can be used by the students
|
CHAPTER III
1.
|
The researcher was taken the students
The researcher was test the students
The researcher was given the students
The researcher was done all activities
And given reinforcement to the students
The teacher was analyzed the result
The students opinion
Activities that was happened during application process
|
The researcher was taking the students
The researcher was testing the
students
The researcher was given the students
The researcher has done all activities
And gave reinforcement to the students
The teacher has analyzed the result
The students’ opinion
Activities that was happening
during application process
|
Cohesion and texture
COHESION
AND TEXTURE
Cohesion is one part of
the study of texture, which considers the interaction of cohesion with other aspects
of text organization.
Texture, in turn, is
one aspect of the study of coherence,which takes the social context of texture
into consideration. The goal of discourse analysis in this tradition is to
build a model that places texts in their social contexts and looks
comprehensively at the resources which both integrate and situate them.
Cohesion can be defined
as the set of resources for constructing relations in discourse which transcend
grammatical structure (Halliday 1994: 309). The term is generally associated
with research inspired by Halliday (1964) and Hasan (2968) in systemic
functional linguistics (hereafter SFL) and by Gleason ((2968) in Hartford- based
stratificational linguistics.
All three variables -
cohesion, texture, and coherence -will be illustrated from the children's story
Piggybook by A. Brown. Section 1 looks at traditional approaches to cohesion as
nonstructural resources for textual organization. Then in section 2, a more semantic
perspective on cohesion in relation to texture is presented. Subsequently, in section
3, the social motivation of texture is considered.
1 Cohesion
Early work on cohesion
was designed to move beyond the structural resources of grammar and consider
discourse relations which transcend grammatical structure.
Halliday (e.g. 1973:
141) modeled cohesion as involving nonstructural relations above the sentence,
within what he refers to as the textual metafunction (as opposed to ideational
and interpersonal meaning). Pn Halliday and Hasan (2976) the inventory of cohesive
resources was organized as:
- · reference
- · dlipsis
- · substitution
- · conjunction
- · lexical cohesion.
Some
languages, including English, have in addition a set of place holders which can
be used to signal the omission - e.g. so and not for clauses, do for verbal
groups, and one for nominal groups. This resource of place holders is referred
to as sub~titution.~Reference, ellipsis, and substitution involve small, closed
classes of items or gaps,and have accordingly been referred to as grammatical
cohesion (e.g. Hasan 1968;Gutwinski 1976).
Also included as
grammatical cohesion is the typically much larger inventory of connectors which
link clauses in discourse, referred to as conjunction. For Halliday and Hasan
(1976) this resource comprises linkers which connect sentences to each other,
but excludes paratactic and hypotactic (coordinating and subordinating) linkers
within sentences, which are considered structural by Halliday. Gutwinski,
however,includes all connectors, whether or not they link clauses within or
between sentences.
2 Discourse Semantics
Halliday's
nonstructural textual resources were thus reworked as semantic systems
concerned with discourse structure, comprising:
- · identification
- · negotiation
- · conjunction
- · ideation.
I dentification is concerned with resources for tracking participants in discourse. This system subsumes earlier work on referential cohesion in a framework which considers the ways in which participants are both introduced into a text and kept track of once introduced.
Negotiation is
concerned with resources for exchange of information and of goods and services
in dialog. This system subsumes some of the earlier work on ellipsis and
substitution in a framework which considers the ways in which interlocutors initiate
and respond in adjacency pairs.
Conjunction is
concerned with resources for connecting messages, via addition,comparison, temporality,
and causality.
Ideation is concerned
with the semantics of lexical relations as they are deployed to construeainstitutional
activity.
3 Modeling Social
Context: Register and Genre
Types of meaning in
relation to social context
"Reality
construal" Contextual
variable
|
Interpersonal Social reality Tenor
Ideational
(logical, experiential) "Natural"
reality Field
Textual
Semiotic
reality Mode
|
social context in a
functional. theory which looks at what cohesion is realizing alongside the ways
in which it is realized. In SK social context is modeled through register and
genre theory.
4 Cohesion, Texture,
and Coherence
Following Martin (19921,
I described the ways in which cohesion can be recontextualized as discourse
semantics (identification, negotiation, conjunction, ideation).
Subsequently,the study
of texture was briefly reviewed, drawing attention to work on patterns of
interaction among discourse semantic, lexicogrammatical, and phonological
systems (cohesive harmony, method of development, point, and modal
responsibility).
Finally, I approached
coherence from the perspective of social context, suggesting that texture is
motivated by tenor, field, and mode, and the way in which genre phases these
register variables together into a trajectory of meanings that naturalizes a
reading position for reader/listeners. From an SPL perspective, I expect that
in the future our understandings of cohesion, texture, and coherence will be enhanced
by further work on cohesion in relation to other modules (both linguistic and
social) - so that our sense of how the social motivates patterns of cohesion is
improved.
REFERENCES :
Aziz, Y. Y. 1988. Cohesion in
spoken
Arabic texts. In B. Steiner and
R.
Veltrnan (eds), Pragmatics,
Discourse
and Text: Some
Systemically-inspired
Approaches. London: Pinter (Open
Linguistics Series). 148-57.
de Beaugrande, R. and W.
Dressler. 1981.
Introduction to Textlinguistics.
London:
Longman (Longman Linguistics
Library 26).
Benson, J. D. and W. S, Greaves.
1992.
Collocation and field of
discourse.
In W. A. hlann and 5. A. Thompson
(eds), Diverse Analyses of a Fund
Raising Text. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
397-409.
Berry, M. 1981, Systemic
linguistics and
discourse analysis: a
multi-layered
approach to exchange structure.
In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery
(eds), Studies in Discourse
Analysis.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
120-45.
jawaban soal discourse analysis
PART A
1.what is discourse analysis ?
Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies,
is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign
language use, or any significant semiotic event.
Discourse
analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the
sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern
linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study
of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of
words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences
(syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow
together.
Discourse analysis is a broad term
for the study of the ways in which language is used in texts
and contexts. Also called discourse studies.
2.Please mention
2 major areas of DA!
A.political
discourse
B.perspective
3. mention each
3 experts in DA and their works!
A. Elisabeth Le, University of Alberta
Expert In:
B.Glenn Stillar, University of Waterloo
Expert In:
C.Jeffery Yen, University of Guelph
Expert In:
4.mention each 3
experts in one specific areas of DA and their works!
A.LINDA ALDOORY
Dr. Aldoory
publishes in the areas of health communication, public relations and mass
media. She has served as advisor to the National Cancer Institute and the
Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Aldoory is the author of several articles and
co-editor of The
Gender Challenge to Media: Diverse Voices from the Field.
Particular
areas of interest include: Health Campaigns for Women, Disparities
in Health Communication, and Public Relations as a Gendered Profession.
B.KATHLEEN E.
KENDALL
Dr. Kendall is a
nationally known expert on American political campaign communication,
particularly the interaction of candidates and the media. She is the
author/editor of Communication
in the Presidential Primaries: Candidates and the Media, 1912-2000
and Presidential
Campaign Discourse: Strategic Communication Problems.
Particular
areas of interest include: Presidential Primaries, Presidential
Debates, Media & Politics.
C.SAHAR KHAMIS
Dr. Khamis's areas of teaching and research interest
include: Public Relations, Advertising, Public Opinion, Audience Research, Mass
Media Campaigns, Gender and Media Studies, Women's Media Images and Portrayals,
Mass Media and National Development, Ethnographic Media Studies, as well as
International and Intercultural Communication.
PART B
1.Discourse
Discourse is a conceptual generalization of conversation
within each modality and context of communication.
Discourse refers to how we think and communicate about
people, things, the social organization of society, and the relationships among
and between all three. Discourse typically emerges out of social institutions like media and politics (among others), and by
virtue of giving structure and order to language and thought, it structures and
orders our lives, relationships with others, and society.
2.Discursive
psychology
Discursive psychology (DP) is a form of discourse analysis that focuses on psychological
themes in talk, text and images.
Discursive psychology begins with
psychological matters as they arise for people as they live their lives. It
studies how psychological issues and objects are constructed, understood and
displayed as people interact in both everyday and institutional situations?c.
[It focuses] on matters that are 'psychological' for people as they act and
interact in particular settings—in families, in workplaces, in schools and so
on.
3.Discursive practice
Discursive practice addresses the processes by which
cultural meanings are produced and understood. This approach offers a
distinctive perspective on linguistic anthropology as well as cultural
anthropology as a whole. It subsumes, but extends well beyond, the traditional
field of linguistic anthropology and is central to contemporary cultural
anthropology, especially its concern with ethnographic methods.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
