Jumat, 31 Desember 2010

LILIS FAUZIYAH (0713042032): ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

ANALYSES OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
(SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ASSIGNMENT)


By: Lilis Fauziyah
SRN: 0713042032










ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2010

PREFACE

This paper is constructed to fulfill a requirement of Second Language Acquisition subject. It contained an analyses of some talks which then, is directed to an exploration toward the negotiation of meaning occurred in the language used in the talks.

There are three talks to be analyzed, with two persons taking role as the addresser and the addressee respectively. Each of the talk has about three minute’s duration. All of them use the same language that is Javanese. The first is a male-to-female talk. Meanwhile the second is a male-to-male talk. And the last is a female-to-female talk.

Due to lack of experience and knowledge possessed by the writer, it is obvious that this analysis is still far from perfection. Thus, the writer is pleased looking for any suggestion and criticism from the readers.









I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

As advocated by Wagner (1996), the interest in the study of interactions within the last two decades is partly due to consideration of the role of communication for second/foreign language acquisition. The communication itself undoubtedly involves at least, if not one, two subjects, taking roles as the addresser and the addressee respectively. Each of them are trying to settle their knowledge and understanding of what is being talked.

However, in the process, there frequently occurs a misunderstanding or even non understanding by one of the speaker of his interlocutor’s utterances. Here, the function of negotiation of meaning plays its role in assisting an achievement of mutual understanding between the speakers.

Regarding the thoughtful view above, there subsequently emerges a reasonable question: “What is meant by negotiation of meaning?” Responding to this, there has been an attempt defining that negotiation of meaning is a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. In this case, when native speakers (Ns) and non native speakers (NNs) are involved in an interaction, both interactants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1988).
There have been many proposals of negotiation of meaning advocated by experts. Yet, this analysis tries to depart from a definition suggested by Pica et al (1989). They defined that negotiation of meaning basically consists of four interrelated moves. They are trigger, signal, response and follow-up moves.

The first to go, trigger, is viewed as any utterances followed by the addressee’s signal of total/partial lack of understanding. Then, signal is that of total or partial lack of understanding. There are some types of signal: (1) explicit statement or request for clarification, (2) request for confirmation through repetition on the addresser, (3) request for confirmation through modification of the addresser, and (4) request for confirmation through completion or elaboration of the addresser. The next is response, consisting of: (1) switch to a new topic, (2) suppliance of information relevant to the topic, but not directly responsive to addressee signal, (3) repetition of the addressee’s modification of trigger, (4) self modification of trigger, (5) repetition of the addresser’s trigger, (6) confirmation or acknowledgement of signal only, and (7) indication of difficulty or inability to respond. The last is follow-up moves that consist of: (1) comprehension signal, and (2) continuation move. All of the analysis below will much rely on the concept above.





a. The transcription of male-to-female talk
Delia : Yon, Yon..
Dion : Yoo..
Delia : Omahmu ki neng endi?
Dion : Arep ngopo emange?
Delia : Yoo.. Pengen reti wae.
Dion : Ooo.. neng iki ee, neng Batang Hari.
Delia : Batang Hari ki neng arah..
Dion : Telong poloh wolu (38).
Delia : Telong poloh wolu (38)?
Dion : Hooh..
Delia : Ooo.. Seng nompak mobil warna abang yo?
Dion : Hooh..
Delia : Ooo..
Dion : Seng anu, arah stadion kae lo..
Delia : Lo.. Stadion kan lurus?
Dion : Iyo.. kan kae belok..
Delia : Hooh.. Belok.. Belok.. Belok..
Dion : Kiri..
Delia : Kiri.. ngiwo yo?
Dion : Kiri wae lah, timbangane ngiwo, kowe angel.
Delia : Ooo.. belok kiri. Eee.. terus karo pasar.. pasar iku?
Dion : Ngko ngko ndisek.. Ki teko ndi ki?
Delia : Seng omahe Denik..
Dion : Nggak. Iki teko ndi? Mlaku neng omahku ki teko.. teko metro po..
Delia : Teko Metro lah.
Dion : Halte?
Delia : Halte ki ngendi?
Dion : Yo hal.. haaahh, halte meneh.. terminal.. terminal..
Delia : Ooo.. Yo, yo, yo. Seko terminal ki ngendi? Nompak mobil abang to?
Dion : Hooh.. Teko nganu.. numpake teko.. opo kae.. Rumah Sakit Umum..
Delia : Ooo.. Rumah Sakit Umum. Hooh.. hooh. Terus?
Dion : Terus.. kan teruuuuss.. nyampe pertigaan kae..
Delia : Hooh.. seng enek bunderane?
Dion : Hooh, pertigaan.. pat likur kae
Delia : Pat lik.. oo.. yo yo.. heeh.. heeh..
Dion : Hooh, pat likur.. belok kiri, teruus..
Delia : heeh. Nah.. terus nek tekan pasar?
Dion : Pasar.. pasar templek kae to?
Delia : Hooh..
Dion : Teruuuss..
Delia : jek terus?Adoh men lo..
Dion : hooh.. hohohoho….. Emang adoh.
Delia : Adoh men lo.. Sak pirang jam neng omahmu ki?
Dion : Nek nompak angkot yo sekitar telong poloh menitan.
Delia : Hoooh, adohe adohe..
Dion : hehehehehehe.. Sepuluh kilo lo..
Delia : Karo omahe Fitri terus?
Dion : Fitri sopo?
Delia : Fitri temen SMP..
Dion : Oo, Fitria Melina?
Delia : Seng..
Dion : Oo, seng..
Delia : Oo.. lali aku.
Dion : Hooh, seng Supermi ae to?
Delia : Seng duwur.
Dion : Hooh, hooh.. Terus, kae kan jek telong poloh wolu.
Delia : Oo, terus. Aku ora reti meneh seblah kono-kono ki.
Dion : Terus wae, melok dalan utama wae.
Delia : Omahmu pinggir jalan?
Dion : Hooh. Ngko ketemu pasar meneh, bar pasar kui pasar meneh.
Delia : Ooo, pasar opo iku?
Dion : Kui pasar patang poloh nem.
Delia : Oo. Omahmu sebelah kiri po sebelah kanan?
Dion : Kanan no, nyebrang ledeng
Delia : Oo.. nyebrang neng ledeng. Koe aduse neng ledeng no?
Dion : Yo orak no..
Delia : Halah, nagku wae, koe. Hahaha..
Dion : Hahahaha.. Orak, uduk wong Batang Hari Ogan ki.
Delia : Ooo.. Nek nompak angkot bayare piro?
Dion : Nek cah sekolah sewu mangatus..
Delia : Ooo, nek umum?
Dion : Nek umum rongewu mangatus nyampe telungewu.
Delia : rongewu mangatus.. Koke bedo-bedo ngono to?
Dion : Yo iyo no! Yo kan tarife bedo nggo anak sekolah kambek umum.
Delia : Ooo, ngono.
Dion : Hooh.
Delia : Yo wes nek ngono. Aku arep neng omahmu kapan-kapan. Arep njalok mangan.
Dion : Hahaha.. Ora oleh! Ora oleh!
Delia : Hahaha..
Dion : Ora oleh..
Delia : Yo wes yo, Good Bye!

b. The transcription of male-to-male talk
Dion : Takon opo? Arep takon opo? SPMB? Opo arep Ninja Game Saga? Hahaha..
Joko : Iku, opo?
Dion : Opo, opo?
Joko : Ndaftar pengawas ujian iku harus piye to?
Dion : Oo, TPI to?
Joko : Nah..Hooh.
Dion : Ooo.. kowe neng dosen bersangkutan.
Joko : Dosen bersangkutan?
Dion : Hooh. Dosen penanggung jawab, koordinator.
Joko : Siapa di sini?
Dion : Yo nek neng kene yo pak.. pak sopo? Pak Cucu.
Joko : Pak Cucu? Walah, ndak usah to pak Cucu to..
Dion : Ha? Pak Cucu..
Joko : Gak usah.
Dion : Pak Cucu kambek Pak Imam.
Joko : Pak Imam.. Enakan yang mana ini?
Dion : Yo.. Yo terserah lek koe arep neng daerah ndi. Nek Pak Imam neng Lampung..
Joko : Seng pasti dapet yang gede. Yang mana-mana? Yang pasti dapet.
Dion : Yo, yo.. Dosen kesayangan, Cucu Sutarsyah. Hehehehehe..
Joko : La kuwe, kemaren entok piro?
Dion : Aku yo entok nganu, Pak Cucu kui, Pesawaran. Hooh, Pesawaran.
Joko : Piro iku?
Dion : Opone? Duite?
Joko : Hooh.
Dion : pitung atus, pitung atus..
Joko : Pitung atus? Per hari po po?
Dion : Heh?
Joko : Per hari ku pitung atus?
Dion : Ora, Yo nyampek rampong, pitung atus sewu.
Joko : Pitung atus..?
Dion : Hooh..
Joko : Kowe.. dapet di mana, dapet di mana?
Dion : Neng Pesawaran. Aku entok neng Tegineneng, Tegineneng kan Pesawaran juga.
Joko : Tegineneng Pesawaran?
Dion : Pesawaran. Hehehehe..
Joko : Aku baru tahu ya..
Dion : Hehehehe..
Joko : Terus.. syarate opo wae? Syarate po wae?
Dion : Syarate yo ndafter wae kok, nggak perlu syarat aneh-aneh
Joko : Lah, kok? cuma dateng, ngadep, nama..
Dion : Uwes.
Joko : Uwes?
Dion : Hooh, ooo, karo kambek nomer.. nomer hap.. nomer HP. Ngko nganu, di sms.
Joko : Ooo..
Dion : Di sms kambek Pak Cucu.
Joko : Formulir-formulir iku?
Dion : Nggak perlu
Joko : ndak ada?
Dion : Oo, kuwi ngko. Nek uwes di sms kui. Kan awake dewe ndaftar ndisek. Ndaftar kui ngko, nek misale di sms kon rapat ngono kui, nah kui.. Berart agek di trimo. Nek ora di sms yo orak.
Joko : Waih..
Dion : E, kui nek Pesawaran. Nek Lampung Selatan diumumke neng mading.
Joko : Oo, yo yo yo..
Dion : Sak Pesawaran khusus koyo ngono, gak di sms.
Joko : Kowe mau daftar lagi?
Dion : Yo iyo no..
Joko : Jangan lupa ya, ngajak-ngajak ya..
Dion : Tenang wae.

c. The transcription of female-to-female talk
Lilis : Eeh, mbiyen Astiti sekolahe neng ngendi?
Astiti : Neng Purworejo.
Lilis : Purworejo ki Jawa Tengah kan?
Astiti : Jawa Tengah.
Lilis : Jawa Tengah. SMP?
Astiti : SMA. SMP-ne pun kulo teng iku, teng Kasui, teng Way Kanan.
Lilis : Kasui?
Astiti : Way Kanan niku lo.
Lilis : SMP?
Astiti : Nggeh.
Lilis : Terus SMA-ne?
Astiti : Terus SMA.. Terus SMA-nya? Teng ik.., opo, neng kono, neng Jowo, neng Purworejo.
Lilis : Hooh, terus?
Astiti : Terus opo.. Terus opo?
Lilis : SMP-ne Neng Way Kanan?
Astiti : Hooh.
Lilis : Kok? SMA-ne neng Purworejo kok iso?
Astiti : Yo karepku lah.
Lilis : Iiihh, kok karepku si?
Astiti : Hahaha.. Nggak. Iku, ngrencangi, opo, temenin mbah.
Lilis : Ngrencangi mbah sinten?
Astiti : Mbah kulo
Lilis : Ooo.. Mbahe jenengan.
Astiti : Nggeh.
Lilis :Terus wong tuwone neng ngendi?
Astiti : Yo teng Way Kanan.
Lilis : Ooo.. Dadi neng kono melok Mbah? Mbah.. Mbah putri nopo mbah jaler?
Astiti : Putri
Lilis : Mbah putri nopo mbah jaler?
Astiti : Mbah putri. Mbah jalere sampon.. sampon.. sampon.. sampon gone.
Lilis : Sampon nilar!
Astiti : Nggeh, sampon nilar! Yak, betul! Terus.. mbak Lilis teng pundi?
Lilis : Aku..
Astiti : SMA-ne?
Lilis : Neng Mbandar.
Astiti : Neng Bandar Jaya?
Lilis : Heeh. Haa.. anu, mbiyen kan SMP-ne neng Way Kanan,
Astiti : Heeh..
Lilis : Neng Lampung. Terus SMA-ne neng Njowo. Bedone opo SM.., sekolah neng Lampong karo..
Astiti : Yo bedo, wong-wonge yo bedo.
Lilis : Tapi, maksude sekolahe kualitase piye?
Astiti : Nggak.. lek..
Lilis : Jeree lek neng Njowo lebih iki yo? Lebih.. opo si? Maksude secara.. secara goblok-gobloknya orang kuliah di.. orang sekolah di sana akan jadi pinter sekolah di sini. Iya nggak?
Astiti : Hooh..
Lilis : Hooh?
Astiti : Aku yo ngarasakke mbiyen waktu SMP yo aku ki yo entok lah juara no kan..
Lilis : Juara..
Astiti : La pindah.. pindah..
Lilis : tiga besar?
Astiti : Nggeh. Pindah.. teng.. iku, Jo.. Purworejo.. dadine sepuluh besar wae wes sukur. Opo, dadini ki piye yo? yo.. fasilitase yo heeh, yo.. guru-gurune yo apik-apik kabeh to.. terus iku.. eeee…
Lilis : Emang dasare muride we neng kono wes pinter, wes bedo karo neng kene opo emang gurune terlalu..
Astiti : Yo jelas, yo la wajar, pinter neng kono yo wajar lah.
Lilis : Wajare?
Astiti : Yo neng kono fasilitase apik. Guru-gurune yo do pinter-pinter to.. yo yo menunjang ngono lah
Lilis : Nek sekolah.. sekolah kene seng berkualitas misale Smanda, nek masuk kono kiro-kiro posisine kepiye?
Astiti : persis! Podo lah
Lilis : Ooo..
Astiti : Podo lah, ora bedo.
Lilis : Tapi neng kono isek standar yo, biasa wae yo?
Astiti : Lek sekolahanku ki standar.
Lilis : Tapi lak masuk ken uwes-uwes lumayan yo?
Astiti : Apik.
Lilis : Koyok Smanda ngono kae?
Astiti : Heeh.
Lilis : Waw!
Astiti : Yo piye.. Uwes?
Lilis : Ha..
Astiti : Matur nuwon yo.. Lo kok aku seng matur nuwon si?
Lilis : Oiyo, matur nuwun..
Astiti : Oiyo.. hehehe..


II. ANALYSIS

a. the first talk analysis

In the first talk (the male-to-female talk) there is a trigger uttered by the addresser, that is when she said “Batang Hari ki neng arah...” This sentence indicates that she doesn’t know where it will be. That’s why she didn’t complete her sentence. Then, consequently, she has showed her trigger to the addressee to respond.

Hearing the addresser’s utterances unfinished, he tried to respond it by completing her sentence. He replied, “Telong poloh wolu.” He has helped the NNs understand that Batang Hari directs to block of thirty eight (telong poloh wolu).
After knowing the fact that Batang Hari directs to block of thirty eight, the NN tried to respond the NS by repeating his utterance. She said, “Telong poloh wolu”?
the NS, to show his comprehension signal, then he answered “Hooh.”
triggered by the NNS utterance of Ooo, the NS then gave his signal by saying “Seng anu, arah stadion kae lo.” After that, the NNS showed her signal confirmation or acknowledgement of signal only by saying “Lo, stadion kan lurus... The NS replied “Iyo, kan kae belok...” showing his response of continuation move. Again, the NNS gave her trigger by saying “Hooh, belok... belok... belok...” The same, the NS gave his signal of repetition by saying “Kiri.” Then the NNS gave her response by saying “Kiri... ngiwo yo?” The NS answered “Kiri wae lah, timbangane ngiwo, kowe angel”, showing his response of continuation move. The NNS triggered again by saying “Terus karo pasar... pasar iku?” The NS replied using his signal of request by saying “Ngo, ngko ndisek, iki teko ndi ki?” The NNS gave her response by giving her response of witching to a new topic and said “Karo omahe Denik?” The NS then gave his response of continuation move by saying “Nggak. Iki teko ndi? Mlaku neng omahku ki teko.. teko metro po.. again the NNS gave her trigger, by saying “Teko Metro lah”. Then, the NS gave his response of modification of the NNS by saying “Halte?”

b. the second talk

Here, the negotiation of meaning is started by the NNS by saying “Iku, opo?” Then, the NS replied by saying, “Opo.. opo?” The NNS tried to give his trigger by uttering, “Ndaftar pengawas ujian iku harus piye to?” The NS responded by saying “Oo, TPI to?”, giving both comprehension signal and continuation move. Then, the NNS gave his trigger by saying, “Dosen bersangkutan?” The NNS replied, “Hooh. Dosen penanggung jawab, koordinator”, was showing his elaboration of the NNS. The NNS said, “Pak Imam.. Enakan yang mana ini?”, started again his trigger. The NS said, “Yo.. Yo terserah lek koe arep neng daerah ndi. Nek Pak Imam neng Lampung..”, was showing his request for confirmation through elaboration of NNS. Utterance of the NNS: “Seng pasti dapet yang gede. Yang mana-mana? Yang pasti dapet.”, showing that he began to trigger the NS again. Then, the NS replied by saying, “Yo, yo.. Dosen kesayangan, Cucu Sutarsyah. Hehehehehe..”, still the same, that it is a form of request for elaboration of NNS. Next, the NNS said, “La kuwe, kemaren entok piro?”, defining that he started his next trigger. The NS then answered, “Aku yo entok nganu, Pak Cucu kui, Pesawaran. Hooh, Pesawaran.”, elaborating his signal. The NNS triggered the NS by asking, “Piro iku?” The NS answered, “Opone? Duite?”, giving request for clarification. The NS said, “Hooh”, confirming and acknowledging the signal. Then, the NS replied, “Pitung atus, pitung atus, signaling that he were continuing his move. Triggering the NS, the NNS then asked, “Pitung atus? Per hari po po?” The NS answered, “Heh?”, giving his request for clarification. Asking “Per hari ku pitung atus?”, the NNS showed the NS his self modification of trigger (production of modified language), that is a phonological modification. Responding again, this time in form of indication of difficulty, the first speaker questioned the second speaker again, “SMP?” Then, the second speaker reacted by answering “Nggeh”, giving her response of signal comprehension.

c. the third talk

Note : Exclusively, The third talk consists of two persons who have the same language. Therefore, to avoid misconception, the term of Native and Non Native Speaker are not used here. Instead, in this third analysis, the term used are “the first speaker” and “the second speaker”. Due to this fact, this third talk analyzes more the negotiation of meaning focusing on the information gaps occurred in the talk.

The first speaker opened her trigger by asking the second speaker, “Eeh, mbiyen Astiti sekolahe neng ngendi?” Then, the second speaker answered by saying “Purworejo” After that, the first speaker continued to response, “Purworejo ki Jawa Tengah kan?”, providing a suppliance of information relevant to the topic, but not directly responsive to the second speaker’s signal. Next, the second speaker answered, “Jawa Tengah”, as a form of her comprehension signal response. Then, the first speaker tried to give a response of repetition of the second speaker’s saying and switch to a new topic by saying, “Jawa Tengah. SMP?” The second speaker responded, “SMA. SMP-ne pun kulo teng iku, teng Kasui, teng Way Kanan.” as her continuation move. The first speaker asked “Kasui?”, trying to switch to a new topic. Next, the second speaker, again, gave her continuation move by answering “Way Kanan niku lo.” Responding again, this time in form of indication of difficulty, the first speaker questioned the second speaker again, “SMP?” Then, the second speaker reacted by answering “Nggeh”, giving her response of signal comprehension. Triggering the second speaker, the first speaker asked, “Terus SMA-ne?”
Giving her signal of request for confirmation through elaboration, she answered, “Terus SMA.. Terus SMA-nya? Teng ik.., opo, neng kono, neng Jowo, neng Purworejo. Triggering again, the first speaker asked, “Hooh, terus?” Then, the second speaker gave her response of request for clarification by asking the first speaker, “Terus opo? Terus opo?”








III. CONCLUSION

To summarize, negotiation of meaning has many definitions and classifications. One of those is as stated by Pica et al. They suggests that negotiation of meaning is generally consists of four interrelated moves. They are trigger, signal, response and follow-up moves.The first, a trigger, is viewed as any utterances followed by the addressee’s signal of total/partial lack of understanding. Next, signal, is that of total or partial lack of understanding. There are some types of signal: (1) explicit statement or request for clarification, (2) request for confirmation through repetition on the addresser, (3) request for confirmation through modification of the addresser, and (4) request for confirmation through completion or elaboration of the addresser. Then, response consists of: (1) switch to a new topic, (2) suppliance of information relevant to the topic, but not directly responsive to addressee signal, (3) repetition of the addressee’s modification of trigger, (4) self modification of trigger, (5) repetition of the addresser’s trigger, (6) confirmation or acknowledgement of signal only, and (7) indication of difficulty or inability to respond. The last is follow-up moves that consist of: (1) comprehension signal, and (2) continuation move.

All of those categories are well-studied by many experts. The basic and the main objective of the analysis is to know that there are always gaps in any communication. And to overcome this problem, it is the negotiation of meaning that plays its role well so that the communication can run well without any unnecessary misunderstanding.

TEACHER TALK, BY: LILIS FAUZIYAH (0713042032)

ANALYSES OF TEACHER TALKS
(SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ASSIGNMENT)

By: Lilis Fauziyah
SRN: 0713042032






ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2010


Preface

This paper relies on an assignment of Second Language Acquisition subject which aims at analyzing a talk occurred between a teacher and her students in a kindergarten in Kedaton. This kindergarten consists of three classes, with the first class as the subject of the analyses.

The writer held the research by recording the talk, dialogue, conversation and also other interactions shown by the teacher and the students. The tool that was used here is a digital camera that is by utilizing the audio-visual media to record the talk.

There are two talks that were analyzed. The talk takes five minutes duration respectively. And the transcriptions have been enclosed in the part of discussion.

Finally, the writer hopes that this paper will be beneficial for the readers. Hopefully this paper can give new information about a teacher talk complete with its nature, characteristics problems and discussions.




I. BACKGROUND

There are some types of talks as the result of researches of relationship between input and interaction in second language learning. One of them is teacher talk. Teacher talk is one of variations of foreigner talk in and educational setting research of teacher talk shows the process how native speaker teachers communicate with non native students. Henzl was the first person who gathered empirical data on what she called Foreign Language Classroom Register (1973, p.207). she compared features of texts recorded by Czech native speaker for adult native speakers with those recorded by the same native speakers for non-native speaker university learners of Czech. Then, form the comparison, it is obtained that the characteristics of the recordings were well-formed utterances, indicating systematic modification from the native speaker-directed tapes in aspects of phonology, syntax, lexicon, and delivery. Henzl also stated that foreigner talk in the classroom setting tend to be well-formed.

Further, Wong-fillmore (1985) suggests that there are some characteristics of teacher talk that might work as input, they are:
1. the talk has clear separation of language (no alteration or mixing).
2. the talk emphasizes on comprehension, it focuses on communication by:
- use of demonstration, enactment to convey meaning
- new information presented in context of known information
- heavy message redundancy
3. the language used is entirely grammatical, appropriate to eh activity by:
- using simple structure, avoiding complex structure.
- Repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
- Using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
4. the talk uses tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation form students.
5. the talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness.















II. ANALYSIS

a. Transcription of the first teacher talk
Students : Bu guru-bu guru…
Teacher : Iya.. tidak boleh lempar-lemparan ya..
Kakinya diluruskan.
Tadi kan habis olahraga ya..
Udah. Yuda, Angga, Rangga..tidak ada yang mainan..
Rangga, Febri, Ari.. Angga, Angga, Febri..
Nah, sekarang hitung satu sampai dua puluh!
Students : Satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima, enam, tujuh, delapan, sembilan, sepuluh, sebelas, dua belas, tiga belas, empat belas, lima belas, enam belas, tujuh belas, delapan belas, sembilan belas, dua puluh..
Teacher : Jangan dilipat kakinya, jangan dilipat.. udah..
Ga ada yang ribut ya.. ga ada yang ribut ya..
Satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima, enam, tujuh, delapan, sembilan, sepuluh, sebelas, dua belas, tiga belas, empat belas, lima belas, enam belas, tujuh belas, delapan belas, sembilan belas, dua puluh..
Students : following the teacher counting..
Teacher : audzubillaahiminasyaitan nirrajiim.. bismillaahirrahmaanirrahiim..
Alhamdulillaahirabbilalamiin..
Students : Following the same utterances until finished.
Teacher : Selamat pagi..
Students : Selamat pagi..
Teacher : Selamat pagi teman-teman
Selamat pagi bu guru..
Assalamualaikum..
Angga, tadi baca doa malah main aja..
Anak jempol apa anak kelingking itu ya?
Students : Anak kelingking..
Teacher : Qul auzubirabbinnas (followed by the students)..

b. Transcription of the second teacher talk

Teacher : Kursinya dibalik semua.
Dibalik kursinya.
Belakang, dibalik juga kursinya.
Tepuk tangan anak-anak.
Students : (Clapping their hands).
Teacher : Sekarang tangan ke atas.
Tepuk tangan.
Tidak ada yang bengkok.
Tidak ada yang bengkok.
Sekarang kita hitung sampai sepuluh kali.
Kalau ada yang lebih berarti tidak mendengarkan.
Tangan di atas..
Hei.. gini semua..
Semua duduk.
Gak ada yang bengkok ya..
Luruskan tangannya ke atas.
Mulai hitung satu sampai sepuluh.
Students : Satu..
Teacher : Nanti dulu.. ayo,,satu, dua, tiga..
Students : Empat, lima, enam, tujuh, delapan, sembilan, sepuluh
Teacher : Nah, kita hitung lagi ya.. dari satu..
Students : Satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima, enam, tujuh, delapan, sembilan, sepuluh.
Teacher : Udah. Sekarang berdiri semua
Berdiri semua
Berdiri semua
Ber..di..ri.. semua..
Siap.. grak..
Siap.. grak.. siap.. grak..
Tangan di depan, dibuka ke samping.
Tangannya, tarik tangannya.
Rentangkan, rentangkan.
Sekarang tangannya gini.
Wah, tepuk tangan sepuluh kali…
Pintar ya..
Sekarang dengarkan.
Sekarang duduk lagi, duduk, duduk
Duduk Hafids, Angga.
Menghadap ke sini semua.
Sekarang ibu guru Tanya.
Siapa yang di rumahnya punya TV?
Students : Saya.. saya..saya..saya..
Teacher : ApaTVnya warnanya?
Ada yang TVnya warnanya item putih?
Ada yang berwarna gak?
Ada yang warna merah, hijau..?
Siapa yang TVnya berwarna?
Students : Saya bu guru..saya..saya..
Teacher : Nah, sekarang bu guru mau Tanya lagi.
Siapa yang nonton TVnya sampai malem?
Students : Saya.. saya.. saya..

From the transcription above, it can be observed that the two talks have characteristics as follows:
1. As stated by Henzl (1979), the talks seemed to involve gestures that were used to emphasize the intention or the message the teacher wanted to give to the students. At least, it can be seen when the teacher asked the students to count numbers. She, at first gave the students direction and guidance by showing her fingers to the students with the numbers being said. Also, in the second talk, when the teacher asked the students to count numbers form 10ne up to ten, she tried to encourage them by putting their hands up each time they were counting.
2. The talks have clear separation of languages. It did not alter or mix the utterances. To make the students easy to catch her intention, the teacher carefully avoided mixing and alteration from the source language to the target language. In the first talk, the teacher said to the students not to be noisy by using a direct command, without altering the meaning. While in the second talk, the teacher also gave a direct command when she asked to students to turn their chairs round, again it is done without altering the original meaning of the utterances.
3. The talks emphasized on comprehension, for example, the teacher tried to assure herself that the students have already understood what she wanted them to do. It was done by giving them demonstrations that is an enactment of meaning; in this case the teacher used a picture to emphasize the students’ understanding, also by showing them new information presented in context of known information, and exposure of heavy message redundancy. In the first talk, it can be seen when the teacher asked the students “Anak jempol apa anak kelingking itu ya?” It is obvious that the students have already understood the meaning of the expression. That’s why the teacher wanted to recheck whether the students have comprehended the expression or not
4. The language used entirely grammatical, appropriate to the activity by using simple structure, avoiding complex structures, repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines, and using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation. It can be seen in the first talk, when the teacher asked the students not to play during the learning. She said “tidak ada yang mainan” instead of “jangan mainan” or “tidak boleh ada yang mainan”. Also in the second talk, the teacher showed her utterances by repeating them for times. It can be seen when the teacher asked the students to stand up. She repeated her command again and again, by saying “Berdiri semua. Berdiri semua. Ber..di..ri.. semua… These aim at making the students easy to grasp the intention of the teacher.
5. The talks used tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation from students. This obviously can be observed when the teacher tried to confirm the students’ understanding by asking “anak jempol apa anak kelingking ya?”. She wanted to assure that the students had understood her utterances.
6. The talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness. It may be the most typical characteristic of all above. Children tend to be easily learning in fun and enjoying circumstances. The teacher tried to cover this by producing utterances that implied playfulness. It can be identified form almost of the utterances she produced to the students. They obviously contained atmosphere of playfulness.

Then, as stated by Chaudron, the talks are rather different from those of other contexts
outside educational setting, yet it is not systematically and fundamentally different. Further, the adjustment in teacher speech was aimed at maintaining communication, clarifying information and eliciting learners’ response.

Input modifications
The modification of the teacher’s speech occurred at the level of linguistic and interaction. as advocated by hadrons, the modifications made by the teacher covers the terms of speech rate, phonology, intonation, articulation and stress, modification of vocabulary, modification of syntax, and modification of discourse.

a. modification in speech rate¸intonation, and speech sound articulation.

The speech rate used by the teacher seemed to be slower than the one in normal speech rate. Take for example, the teacher guided the students to have an opening prayer. She started by saying it very slowly; “audzubillaahiminassyaitaanirrajiim…”. The rate was obviously slower than the normal one.
It is also the same happening to the intonation used by the teacher to the students. Mostly her utterances, began form the first up to the last utterances are produced in a various intonation, completely from the low until the highest intonation, e.g. the teacher begin her opening utterances in high intonation, then decreased in the middle and increased again in the last utterances. It was done to really get the students’ attention, so that they followed all the direction well.
The last of modification input, the articulation of speech sound was done obviously by the teacher. All of her utterances were clearly articulated to the students. It was done very well by the teacher. She wanted her students to catch the meaning of what she said. And it was obviously different form that when she spoke with someone of the same level of language mastery.

b. modification of morphology and syntax

Typically, there are some characteristics covered in the modification of morphology and syntax, they are:
a. there is a shorter average length of T-units on input directed to NNSs than is found in NS-NS interactions, but there is no significant difference in the number of S-nodes per T-unit (Long, 1981). From the talks above it can be seen in all the sentences said by the teacher to the students. They were obviously shorter in length than those if said , for example, by the teacher to other teachers.
b. Modified interaction does not produce syntactically simplified and modified inp0ut described in the earlier descriptive studies of input (e.g. number of S-nodes per T-unit, lexical frequency of nouns and verbs, and higher proportion of copulas in total verbs (Long, 1981a, 1981b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Long and Sato, 1983, Pica and Long, 1986).
c. There is a wide variety of sentence types, (1.e. statements e.g. “Selamat Pagi teman-teman”, imperatives, e.g. “Iya, tidak boleh lempar-lemparan ya..” and questions, e.g. “Anak jempol apa anak kelingking itu ya?”), but the sentences are not more or less complex (Long, 1981b, 1983b,; Long and Sato, 1983.
d. Modified interactions may produce syntactically more complex, longer, and more repetitive input than non modified interactions (Pica et al., 1986, 1987). It can be seen that the teacher talks contained more complex, longer and more repetitive input than when they may talk with other teachers

c. modification of vocabulary

Chaudron (1988) advocated that the most common measure used to investigate vocabulary modification is the ration of number of different words to number of words produced (“type token”, the smaller the ratio the less diverse). Then, Patil (1994)suggested that the vocabulary directed to nonnative speakers was structurally simpler containing practically no phrasal idioms. Form the talks above, it can be seen that the words used by the teacher were not varied, yet they were more just repetitions of the previous ones to address the teacher message to the students.

d. modification of discourse

Rather different from other modifications, since there has not been enough agreement among experts, modification of discourse has not been deeply investigated. Yet, there began some studies trying to observe this kind of modification. Pica and Long (1986) in their study of sentence types revealed a tendency for teachers-particularly more experienced teachers- to use more questions with nonnative speakers and more declaratives with native speakers. In the two talks above, as can be seen, the teachers use more questions (“Anak jempol apa anak kelingking itu ya?”) to the pupils rather than declaratives. It was aimed to ensure themselves that the students have understood what they have said. Hatch (1978) has proposed taxonomy of interactional moves. Then, it was later reviewed and developed by Long (1981), Pica and her colleagues. The taxonomy includes comprehension check (“Nah, sekarang hitung satu sampai dua puluh!”) to see if the listener has understood), clarification request (“jangan dilipat kakinya, jangan dilipat, udah..”) for more information or explanation, exact other repetitions, restatement (or semantic self-repetition) by the speaker, other statement (semantic other—repetition), expansion (of native speakers’ statement), and topic switches.

III. CONCLUSION
From the explanation and analysis above, finally it can be concluded that researches of relationship between input and interaction in second language learning includes some types of talks. One of them is generally called teacher talk. Teacher talk is a kind of talk occurred between a teacher and his/her students in an educational setting. Wong-Fillmore (1985) advocates that there are some characteristics of teacher talk that might work as input, they are:
 the talk has clear separation of language (no alteration or mixing).
 the talk emphasizes on comprehension, it focuses on communication by:
- use of demonstration, enactment to convey meaning
- new information presented in context of known information
- heavy message redundancy
 the language used is entirely grammatical, appropriate to eh activity by:
- using simple structure, avoiding complex structure.
- Repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
- Using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
 the talk uses tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation form students.
 the talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness.
All of the studies and analyses are done for the sake of successful communication. The speaker can deliver his/her message to his/her interlocutors, in this case the teacher to the students. Finally, the effective teaching and learning process can be achieved well.

Romandani Adyan (0713042042) Analyzing Baby Talk

Second Language Acquisition
Analyzing of Baby Talk




By:
Romandani Adyan
0713042042






   ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2010


















Background of Problem

Language acquisition is  the process of learning a native or a second language. The acquisition of native languages is studied primarily by developmental psychologists and psycholinguists. Although how children learn to speak is not perfectly understood, most explanations involve both the observation that children copy what they hear and the inference that human beings have a natural aptitude for understanding grammar. While children usually learn the sounds and vocabulary of their native language through imitation, grammar is seldom taught to them explicitly; that they nonetheless rapidly acquire the ability to speak grammatically supports the theory advanced by Noam Chomsky and other proponents of transformational grammar.
 Baby talk is more effective than regular speech in getting an infant's attention. Studies have shown that infants actually prefer to listen to this type of speech. Some researchers, including Rima Shore (1997), believe that baby talk is an important part of the emotional bonding process between the parents and their child that help the infants learn the language. More than one language can also be learned because eventually, the child will be clever enough to differentiate the languages. It is easier to learn languages as an infant than as an adult. Other researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Wisconsin confirm that using basic “baby talk” helps babies pick up words faster than usual. Infants actually pay more attention when parents use infant-directed language, which has a slower and more repetitive tone than used in regular conversation.This research is proposed in order to identify how adults communicate with baby using baby talk.




The Research

This taping is held on 28 October 2010 . the child’s name is Annisa Rizkytia Fasya (Icha). She is a first daughter of a married couple Ahmad Amri and Aulia Senjani. Icha is two and half years old. The taping is held twice. First taping is the conversation between Icha and her aunt Indah Cipta septiani (a 20 year old girl) and the second taping is the conversation between Icha and widi, Icha’s neighbor (a 16 year old girl).


First conversation
Indah    : kamu uda mam de?
Icha    : mam…
Indah    : iya mam
Icha    : dah
Indah    : kapan mam nya?
Icha    : di cole (tadi sore)
Indah    :  pake apa?
Icha    : yam
Indah    : eh icah uda bsa nyanyi kan? Nyanyi dong!
Icha    : …………..
Indah    : coba nyanyi pelangi pelangi
Icha    : ga mauu……….
Indah    : ayo dong nyanyi, ntar aku kasi coklat deh
Icha    : ga mauuuuu…..
Indah    : kamu mau coklat gk?
Icha    : oklat mau
Indah    : nanyi dulu dong
Icha    : ga mauuuu (sembari lari menjauh)
Indah    : eh sni deh de ad gambar kuda ni
Icha    : na? (mana)
Indah    : ini sini makanya deket
Icha    : na? (mana? Sembari mendekat kearah Icha
Indah    : tuh kan kudanya gede
Icha    : uda… gede
Indah    : punya siapa kudanya?
Icha    : nya cha.. (punya icha)
Indah    : kudanya warna apa cha
Icha    : item
Indah    : ini coklat
Icha    : klat…
Indah    : iy kuda coklat
Icha    : uda oklat….
Indah    : hore
Icha    : orrreee








The Second conversation. Conversation between Icha and Widi.
Widi     : cha mana remot tv nya
Icha    : nyih
Widi    : makasi
Icha    : makaci
Widi    : nonton sponge bob aj y
Icha    : pong bok….
Widi    : yah sponge bobnya abis cha
Icha    : bisss
Widi    : kita nonton ini aj ya. Liat tu ad buayanya. Ihh sereemmm
Icha    : uaya, ceremm
Widi    : cha takut gk ma buaya?
Icha    : atut
Widi    : giginya gede gede tuh
Icha    : …..
Widi    : cha nakal gak?
Icha    : gak
Widi    : klo nakal nanti digigit buaya loh
Icha    : kamu ud mandi dek?
Icha    : uda
Widi    : pantesan wangi.
Icha    : ….
Widi    : td mandinya sama siapa
Icha    : ibu
Widi    : pake shampoo jg gk rambutnya/?
Icha    : pake biar wangi
Widi    : mana? Wangi tah? Cb sini mba cium
Icha    : ni..
Widi    : ih iya ya wangi
Icha    : hihhi
Widi    : cha ikut mba widi yuk
Icha    : mana mba??
Widi    : mba widi mau ke mol, main time zone
Icha    : ikut
Widi    : tapi boleh gak ama ibu
Icha    : leh
Widi    : coba Tanya sama ibu dulu boleh apa enggak
Icha    : buuuuu ibbbuuuu ( berlari menghampiri ibunya)
Icha    : bu kut ba widi ya
Ibu    : kemana?
Icha    : main
Ibu    : mo main ap sayang??
Icha    : moll










Analyzing and Discussion

From those two conversations among Icha, her cousin Indah and her neighbor Widi.

?    Firstly, we can analyze the baby or toddler (Icha) characteristics when she talked to adults.
1.    Icha used simple words to communicate. She used only two to three words. For example mam… uda oklat
2.    We can also identify that in his age, Icha is already able to respond what the adult say or ask to him. It can bee seen from her response when he talked to adults. she is also able to answer some simple open-ended questions which require more than “yes” or “no” answers. 
For example: Indah    : nanyi dong
    Icha        : ga mau

?    Secondly, we also can analyze the characteristics of adult when they communicate with toddler.
1. The adults communicate with Icha in short, simple and clear patterns in order to make Icha understand easily. For example, udah mam belum?
2. The adult sometimes could not get what Icha  said. They asked Icha repeat to know what she said. So, as an adult we should use patience when toddler is trying to say something you do not understand. If the child tries several times to communicate something to you and you still do not understand him, ask him to show you what she means.
3. Then, the adults encouraged Icha to talk by asking open-ended questions, which require more than “yes” or “no” answers. For example, uda mandi belum? cha takut gk ma buaya?


?    Thirdly, we can also identify the Input modification of the speaker that is used to simplify the language in order to be easily comprehended by the toddler. Modification by the speaker occurs at the level of linguistic and interaction. There are three kinds of modification that are used in this research

a.    Modification in speech rate, intonation and speech sound articulation.
It means that the adults try to simplify the language in speech rate, intonation and speech sound articulation in order to build well communication with the toddlers.
From the video we can see that the adults use slow speech rate, low intonation and clear articulation. Those all are done in order to make the toddler icha easy to catch the idea of what being talking by the adults.

b.    Modification of Morphology and Syntax
The second type of input modification is Modification of Morphology and Syntax. This modification of language simplify in the part of word formation. We can see in the videos hat the adult try to form simple construction of words that will be easy to the toddler to catch the meaning of the conversation. Susch as : giginya gege gede y




c.    Modification in Vocabulary
The next type of modification is Modification in Vocabulary. It means that the adults use the familiar vocabulary to communicate with the toodler. We can see on the video that adult use simple word that has been simplified by removing some letter from the word such as “mam” from makan  and “makasi” from terima kasih.



Finally, we can conclude that in interacting with toddler (in this case two and half years old) Adults use short and simple terms to communicate with toddler in order to make them understand easily. The adults also should get the baby or toddler attention when they want to talk with the toddler. It could be done by getting down to his level to talk face-to-face with toddler, showing a thing to the toddler when they want to talk about that thing, and using gesture. This will help the toddler hear what the adults are saying, and help him learned to pay attention when others talked to him. Next, the adults can encourage toddler to talk by asking open-ended questions, which require more than “yes” or “no” answers. The last the adults have to use iput modification which has been explained above.

Selasa, 28 Desember 2010

egra betaria 0713042005


PAPER of SLA
(Baby Talk)


By:
EGRA BETARIA
     0713042005

















Art language Education Department
English Education Study Program
Teacher Training and Education
Faculty University of Lampung
2010









CONTENTS



    Page
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................    1

II. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................   2
A.  Theories ...........................................................................................   2
      1. Telegraphic Speech .....................................................................   2  
      2. The Development of Inflection and Function Words..................   3
      3. The Development of ‘Transformations’.......................................   5
      4. Later Development .....................................................................   7
      5. The language Development of a Child........................................   8

B.  Transcription of DevelopmentLanguage Acquisition in L1 ............   10
C.  Analysis of Development Language Development in L1 ...............   13

III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................   16

REFERENCES

























INTRODUCTION




Language is a means of communication. Language is taught to a person since he/she was a baby. Language that is learnt at the first time is called as the first language, native language or mother tongue. There is a distinction between language learning and language acquisition. Language learning is defined as knowing the rules, having a conscious knowledge about grammar. In the other hand, the term of language acquisition refers to a process of a development of ability in a language by using it in natural, communicative situation.

Language development is a process starting early in human life, when a person begins to acquire language by learning it as it is spoken and by mimicry (Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia). Children's language development moves from simple to complex. Baby talk contributes to mental development, as it helps teach the child the basic function and structure of language. Usually, language starts off as recall of simple words without associated meaning, but as children grow, words acquire meaning, with connections between words being formed. As a person gets older, new meanings and new associations are created and vocabulary increases as more words are learned. The children learn their first language without conscious instruction from parents or caretakers. They learn their first language through some developmental stages. Those stages later will be discussed in this paper.










DISCUSSION




A. Theories
The stages of the children’s language development are:
1. Telegraphic speech
Telegraphic can be defined as the early speech of the children. This is because it lacks inflections and many of the small ‘function word’, such as articles and prepositions. The earliest stage consists of one word utterances. For example:
ü  More page (asking an adult to continue reading).
ü  Sweater chair (indicating where the sweater is).
It is clear that, because the utterances are reduced, the situation plays an important role in conveying the meaning. The result is the same two words might convey very different meanings in different situations. For example, one child was heard to say mommy sock on two occasion, when picking up her mother’s sockand when her mother dressed her. In the first instances, then, the relationship between the two words was one possession (as in ‘this mommy’s sock), whereas in the second, it was one of the agent and object (as in ‘mommy is putting on my sock’). Even at this stage, we cans see that children use the language creatively, sinc they use utterances, which they can never have actually heard. Nor can it be claimed that the utterances are simply imperfect attempts to imitate what the child might have heard from adults.
Los Bloom (1970) found that sentence containing two nouns were used to express five kinds of relationships depended on her observation of the child in an actual situation:
1.      Conjunction (e.g. cup glass, c.f. cup and glass).
2.      Description (e.g. party hat, c.f. a party hat).
3.      Possession (e.g. daddy hat, c.f. daddy’s hat).
4.      Location ( e.g. sweater chair, c.f. indicating where the sweater is).
5.      Agent-object (e.g. mommy book, ex. ‘mommy is reading a book’).

Dan Slobin (1979) looked at the communicative functions performed by two-word utterances in the speech of children acquiring six different languages. He found seven main types of function:
1.      Location or naming (e.g. there book, buch da).
2.      Demanding or desiring (e.g. more milk, mehr milch).
3.      Negating (e.g. not hungry kaffee nein).
4.      Describing an event or situation ( e.g. block fall, puppe kommt).
5.      Indicating possession (e.g. my shoe, mamas hut).
6.      Describing a person or a thing (e.g. pretty dress, milch heiss).
7.      Questioning (e.g. where ball, woo ball).

2. The development of inflections and function words
Telegraphic speech extends beyond the two-word stage. For example, as the child processing capacity grows, we find longer utterances, which are still telegraphic:
Andrew want that         Can stand up table
At the same time, however, children are in the process of mastering inflections (such as the s, which belongs on want and stand in the above examples) and function words (such as the article a or the, which are omitted above). In the relevant studies, these small items are usually referred to as morphemes, even though in normal linguistic terminology, ‘morpheme’ is a much wider concept.

Brown (1973) studied how three children acquired fourteen of these morphemes in their first language. He found that the fourteen morphemes were acquired in a sequence that was remarkably similar for the three children. The order of the morpheme was:
1.      Present progressive ing (as in she is running)
2.      Preposition on
3.      Preposition in
4.      Plural s (as in two books)
5.      Irregular past form (as in she went)
6.      Possessive ‘s (as in daddy’s hat)
7.      Uncontractible copula (e.g. is i n yes, she is)
8.      Articles a and the (which were classified together)
9.      Regular past end (as in she walked)
10.  Regular third-person singular s (as in she runs)
11.  Irregular third-person-singular forms (e.g. she has)
12.  Uncontestable auxiliary be (as in she was coming)
13.  Contractible copula (as in she’s tired)
14.  Contractible auxiliary (as in he’s coming)

3. The development of ‘transformations’
At the same time as children are interesting their mastery of grammatical morphemes, they are also increasing their ability to carry out ‘transformations’ on the sentence structure, in order to produce more complex utterances. The development of negatives and interrogatives has attracted particular attention. For both of these structures, children seem to follow similar sequences of development as in the following:
1.      At first, the negative element is not part of the structure of the sentence. It is simply attached to the beginning or end, as in:
No singing ong
No the sun shining

2.      At the second stage of the development, the negative element is inserted into the sentence. Instead no or not, children may use don’t or can’t, but they do not yet inflect these for different persons or tenses:
I no want envelope
He no bite you
He don’t want it

3.      Children begin to produce the appropriate part of do, be or the modal verbs, to suit the person or tense:
You don’t want some supper
Paul didn’t laugh
I am not a doctor
With interrogatives, too, children first produce sentences in which the internal structure of the sentence is not affected. In yes/no questions, they first use intonation:
See hole?
You can’t fix it?

For wh-interrogatives, the question word is at first simply placed in front of the sentence:
Where daddy going
Why you caught it?
Where my spoon goed?

Later, children master the use of inversion with the auxiliary do, as in the adult system. The development of these transformations provides interesting evidence that grammatical development is partly a matter of growing ‘competence’ (in the sense of underlying knowledge) and partly a matter of increasing ‘performance’ capacity. Ursulla-Klima (1968) found the following progression in th child’s ability to carry out more than one transformations in a single utterance:
1.      At one stage, the child can either invert subject and verb or purpose a question word, but do not do both. We thus find inversion in yes/no questions (e.g  can he ride a truck?) but not in wh- questions (e.g. where I can put them?).
2.      Later, the child is able to combine both operations, so that we find wh- questions in inversion (e.g. why can he go out?). however, it may still be beyond the child’s capacity to carry out three operation, so that the inversion may not take place if the sentence is also negotiated (e.g. why he can’t go out?).
3.      Eventually, this limitation goes and the child is able to perform all three operations in the same utterance prepose a question word, invert, and negate (as in why he can’t go out?).

4. Later development
It is clear that the limitations in the child’s performance become less restrictive and that he becomes able to perform operations of a more and more complex nature. As well as operations within a single clause, these include the joining of two or more clauses into a complex sentence. There is evidence that is later development starts with clauses used as objects of the verb (e.g. I think it’s the wrong way). Some subtle grammar distinction may be mastered much before age ten. For example, John asked Bill to come and John promised Bill to come (the person who is expected to come is Bill in the first sentence, but John in the second sentence). The child develops increasing knowledge of the conventions for varying speech according to the social situation. Craig Lawson found that even at the age of two, children were able to choose different styles of speech for addressing peers, older children, and adults (quotted in Ervin-Tripp, 1979). In a study by Claudia Mitchell-Kernan and Keith Kernan (1977), children of seven use a range of forms of making requests, which was comparable to the rage used by adults. They were also aware of the social significance of the various forms. Both the ability to produce complex language and the ability to use appropriate styles are domains in which development is likely to continue well into adult life, in response to the person’s widening communicative needs.

5. The language environment of the child
There have been a number of observational studies of the language addressed to small children by mothers, other adults or older children. These studies have shown that this so-called ‘caretaker speech’ has a number of characteristics which distinguish it from typical speech between adult. Foe example:
ü  It is generally spoken more slowly and distinctly.
ü  It contains shorter utterances.
ü  It is more grammatical, with fewer broken sentences or false starts.
ü  It contains fewer complex sentences (e.g. with two clauses).
ü  There is less variety of tenses.
ü  The range of vocabulary is more limited.
ü  There is more repetition.
ü  The speech is more closely related to the ‘here and now’

Caretaker speech seems particularly well suited to helping the cold to learn the rules and meanings of the language.  It is clearer to perceive and simpler in structure; the child has time to become familiar with a limited range of language; and meaning is clarified by repetition. If this special kind of input is an important factor in the learning process, it may provide us with clues as to the kind of input that is most likely to facilitate second language learning.

Simplification could also make caretaker speech more suitable as a model for imitation. However, the role of imitation in the acquisition process is not clear. It seems that when children imitate an utterance they have just heard, they usually change it so that it conforms to the grammar (i.e. creative rules) that they themselves are operating at the time. Another aspect that needs to be taken into account is correction by the caretaker. The following excerpt illustrates how an adult’s attempt to correct a child’s error seems to be meaningless. (from Mitchell and Myles, 1998).
CHILD: Want other one spoon, Daddy
FATHER: You mean, you want THE OTHER SPOON
CHILD: Yes, I want other one spoon, please daddy.
FATHER: Can you say ‘the other spoon’?
CHILD: Other...one...spoon.
FATHER: Say...’other’
CHILD: Other
FATHER: ‘Spoon’
CHILD: Spoon
FATHER: Other...Spoon’
CHILD: Other...spoon. now give me other one spoon.

This famous example is typical of such attempts, and this child is neither slow in her development, not particularly stubborn; it is as if she cannot make the alternative proposed by her father fit within her current grammar. From the above explanation, the following characteristics emerge:
1.      Children go through stages.
2.      These stages are very similar across children for a given language, although the rate at which individual children progress through them is highly variable.
3.      These stages are similar across language.
4.      Child language is rule-governed and systematic, and the rules created by the child do not necessarily correspond to the adult ones.
5.      Children are resistant to correction.
6.      Children processing capacity limits the number of rules they can apply at any one time, and they will revert to earlier hypotheses when two or more rules compete.

B. Transcription of Development language acquisition in L1
Ø  First participant is a mother
Ø  Second participant is her daughter (Ade), she is two years old.








The conversation as follow:
(The setting is in the living room)
The baby was name Asyhpa, she old 2 years. Her mother named Nora elisa and her father named siswanto. And Asyhpa the firs child of her parent.

Mother: Ya Allah, bawa apa itu sayang?
Ade: Idon, idon...         (Naming)
Mother: Bukan spidol, itu namanya stabilo.
Ade:  Ini ya mah? (Showing a correction pen/tip-X)        (Questioning)
Mother:  Ini tip-X.
Ade: Iya
Mother: Ini tip-X. E, kamu tu megang pulpennya yang salah. Kan udah diajarin                  sama mamah gimana megangnya.
Ade: Diatas...          (Locating)
Mother: Ha?
Ade: Diatas...                                                                                        
Mother: Iya diatas berdiri. Masa’ kayak gitu, coba puter.
Ade: Hm?           (Questioning)
Mother: Diputer.
Ade: Hm?
Mother: Dipindah..
Ade: Hm?
Mother: Iya megangnya gimana? Sikin aja bisa megang koq.
Ade: Mana?            (Questioning)
Mother: Megang pulpen Sikin. Sini, masa kebalik-kebalik gini ni ujungnya liat                     berdiriin dulu pulpennya, berdiri, pegang....Na.....
Ade: He...m....
Mother: Warna apa itu?
Ade: Warna itu...
Mother: Apa?
Ade: Warna olen.           (Describing a thing)
Mother: Pinter warnanya itu...warna olen. Wa...Pinter.
Ade: Untuk apa ni mah? Untuk apa ini?          (Questioning)
Mother: O....itu untuk ngapus.Itu namanya tip-X. Ade dapet ini dari siapa?
Ade:Hmmm
Mother: Ha?
Ade: Yang ini gimana ini? Gini?           (Questioning)
Mother: Diapain?
Ade: Gini...
Mother: Diapain? Ya udah ade yang nyoba...tadi gimana megangnya? Salah                        megangnya.
Ade: Euh...ni...eh...
Mother: Diriin dulu
Ade: Diriin dulu...           (Locating)
Mother: Nah, tu pinter.
Ade: Ni?         (Questioning)
Mother: Bukan gitu, dia ini di pencet. Seeeetttt......tu keluar kan? Udah dipencet                aja dikit-dikit.
Ade: Daaah....pencet...           (Describing an event or situation)
Mother: Ada, dah keluar tu. Heuh. Udah, nanti kena sarung maza. Jangan                           kenceng-kenceng. Ini, ih. Bolong. Ni  Ni kan udah putih ni. Ini kan buat                       ngapus ini.
Ade: Ihii..
Mother: Hee...
Ade: Ma...mana yang dipencet mana ma?            (Questioning)
Mother: Ha?
Ade: Yang dipencet mana?           (Questioning)
Mother:  Yang dipencet?
Ade: Iya...
Mother: Yang dipencet ya yang tengah.
Ade: Ni?           (Questioning)
Mother: Tengah sini maksudnya.
Ade: Hmh...
Mother: Megangnya, tu liat tangan dede putih tu. Putih kan? Duh, ga bisa ilang                    lho. Megangnya gimana sayang?
Ade:...............
Mother: Sholat yuk?
Ade: ........
Mother: Sholat yuk....
Ade: Minjem...minjem dulu...minjem...          (Demanding or desiring)
Mother: Tutup...tutup...tutup...Bukan, bukan itu...
Ade: Gimanain?          (Questioning)
Mother: Ini yang putih tutupnya kesini...ya tutup yang bener coba. Bisa ngga                      nutup?
Ade: Hm...Dipencet...            (Describing an event or situation)
Mother: Dipencet?
Ade: Yang ini...            (Describing a thing)





C. Analysis of Development Language Acquisition L1

The focus of analysis is the child; the aim is to analyze the language development of a child in acquiring her first language. Based on the conversation, the writer found some types of communicative functions that appeared in child speech during the conversation. Those communicative functions are:

1. Questioning
Questioning is the term when the children ask their parent or other person about something that they don’t understand.
Examples:
ð  Ade:  Ini ya mah?           (Asking her mother whether something that she                                             holds is a tip-marker).

ð  Ade: Hm?           (Indicating that she doesn’t understand about what her                                 mother says to her).
ð  Ade: Mana?           (Asking her mother who can holds the pen correctly).
ð  Ade: Untuk apa ni mah? Untuk apa ini?           (Asking her mother about                                                                                 the function of a thing, in                                                                                 this case is correction pen/                                                                                        tip-X).
ð  Ade: Yang ini gimana ini? Gini?            (Asking her mother how to use                                                                         correction pen).
ð  Ade: Ni?           (Asking her mother whether the way she holds correction                               pen is correct).
ð  Ade: Ma...mana yang dipencet mana ma?             (Asking her mother what                                                                                  should be pressed in the                                                                                  correction pen).
ð  Ade: Yang dipencet mana?            (Asking her mother what should be                                                                 pressed in the correction pen).
ð  Ade: Ni?            (Asking her mother whether the way she holds correction                               pen is correct).
ð  Ade: Gimanain?            (Asking her mother how to put the cap of                                                       correction pen).

2. Describing a thing
The term when the children describe about something to other person.
Examples:
ð  Ade: Warna olen.            (Describing the colour of a correction pen).
ð  Ade: Yang ini...          (Describing about the part of correction pen that                                            should be presssed).

3. Describing an event or situation
The term when the children describe about an event or situation to other person.
Examples:
ð  Ade: Daaah....pencet..                        (Describing about something that she is                                                         doing with the correction pen).
ð  Ade: Hm...Dipencet...             (Describing about something that she is                                                         doing with her correction pen).

4. Naming
The term when the children give the name about a thing.
Example:
ð  Ade: Idon, idon...            (Naming something that she holds, she names                                                stabilo as spidol/tip marker).   

5. Locating
The term when the children locate or give the position about a thing.
Examples:
ð  Ade: Diatas...            (showing the position of the pen should be).
ð  Ade: Diriin dulu...            (showing the position of the pen should be).


6. Demanding or desiring
The term when the children want or ask something to other person.
Example:
ð  Ade: Minjem...minjem dulu...minjem...          (Indicating what she wants, she wants to borrow the correction pen).   

















CONCLUSION




1.      Language that is learnt at the first time is called as the first language, native language or mother tongue.
2.      There first stage of language development in the first language is telegraphic speech. Telegraphic can be defined as the early speech of the children.
3.      There are some communicative functions performed by two-word utterances in the speech of children acquiring the language. They are:
location or naming, demanding or desiring, negating, describing an event or situation, indicating possession, describing a person or thing and questioning.
4.      Based on her analysis of the children of two years old in development the first language, the writer found that at that level of age, the children showed six communicative functions in her speech. They are questioning, ascribing a thing, describing an event or situation, naming, locating and demanding or desiring. But in this case, that child mostly made questioning rather than the other communicative functions. It happens because in that level of age the children have a big curiosity and they become very critical to know about something new.