Pragmatic approach to Indonesian speaking skills for student vocational high schools

https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v7n4.1795

Authors

  • Veronika Unun Pratiwi Doctorate Program in Indonesian Language Education, Sebelas Maret University and Veteran Bangun Nusantara University, Sukoharjo, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Rohmadi Postgraduate Program, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia

Keywords:

appropriate language, indonesian speaking, interpreting data, language learning, pragmatic approach, speaking skills

Abstract

The Indonesian language serves as a bridge between the various languages, customs, ethnicities and cultures in the country. The problem that occurs in class is that students are less able to speak Indonesian well and are not in accordance with the situation and context, so there is a need for learning innovation. Purpose (1). Students are able to communicate well (2). Practicing oral expressions between teachers and students (3). The learning process of speaking Indonesian subjects. The research method used a descriptive qualitative approach. Supporting instruments in this study by observing, processing and interpreting data in accordance with the objectives. Data collection techniques through (a). interview (b). Observation (c). Take notes. The analysis process is in accordance with the following stages: (1) data collection; (2) data reduction; (3) presentation of data (4) draw conclusions. Conclusion: Appropriate language competence in language learning is supported through structural language learning. Through learning about external aspects that often affect the communication process. Learning speaking skills through a pragmatic approach is effective in enhancing active learning, and improving students' speaking skills inside and outside the classroom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Angelina, P. (2019). Improving Indonesian EFL students’ speaking skill through PechaKucha. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 22(1), 86-97.

Cavendish, J. C. (1995). Integrating feature-based surface design with freeform deformation. Computer-Aided Design, 27(9), 703-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(95)00011-F

Chaniago, S. M., & Mukti, U. S. Maidar Arsyad. 1997. Pragmatik. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.

Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (Vol. 30). John Wiley & Sons.

Davies, A. (2007). Introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory: from practice to theory. Edinburgh University Press.

de Pablos-Ortega, C. (2011). The pragmatics of thanking reflected in the textbooks for teaching Spanish as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2411-2433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.016

Deda, N. (2013). The role of Pragmatics in English language teaching. Pragmatic competence. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4), 63-63.

del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002

Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The Effect of Explicit Metapragmatic Instruction on the Speech Act Awareness of Advanced EFL Students. TESL-EJ, 8(2), n2.

Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.005

Holland, A. L. (1991). Pragmatic aspects of intervention in aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 6(2), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(91)90007-6

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion. Sage.

Jorda, M. P. S. (2004). An analysis on EAP learners' pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, (8), 23-39.

Jordà, S. (2004, November). Digital instruments and players: Part ii-diversity, freedom and control. In ICMC.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual review of applied linguistics, 19, 81-104.

Kecskes, I. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of pragmatics, 32(5), 605-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6

Kusmiarti, R., & Yuniati, I. (2020). Improving Student Communication Skills in Learning Indonesian Language Through Collaborative Learning.

Leech, G. N. (1983). 1983, Principles of Pragmatics. London; New-York.

Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking (pp. 13-45). Cambridge University Press.

Mulyani, M. (2019, June). Kajian pragmatik terhadap materi pembelajaran pada silabus bahasa inggris wajib kelas x sma kurikulum 2013. In Seminar Nasional Pendidikan 2015 (pp. 456-464).

Nababan, P. W. J. (1987). Ilmu pragmatik (teori dan penerapannya). Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Nurhadi, T. B. P. (1995). Landasan Penyusunan Buku Pelajaran Bahasa. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press, tt.

Paul, R. (2008). Interventions to improve communication in autism. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America, 17(4), 835-856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2008.06.011

Rohmadi, M. (2014). Kajian pragmatik percakapan guru dan siswa dalam pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia. Paedagogia, 17(1), 53-61.

Simpson, J. (2006). Differing expectations in the assessment of the speaking skills of ESOL learners. Linguistics and Education, 17(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.007

Stone, M. H. (1990). Treatment of borderline patients: a pragmatic approach. Psychiatric Clinics, 13(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(18)30366-6

Sutopo, H. B. (1996). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Metodologi penelitian untuk ilmu-ilmu sosial dan budaya). Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta.

Taguchi, N. (2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001

Taguchi, N. (2018). Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. System, 75, 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.010

Tarigan, H. G. (2008). Reading as a language skill. Bandung: Angkasa.

Tarvin, L. D. (2014). Communicative competence: its definition, connection to teaching, and relationship with interactional competence. Education Specialists Thesis. University of Missouri. Retrieved from: https://www. academia. edu/19300994/Communicative_Competence_Its_Definition_Conn ection_to_Teaching_and_Relationship_with_Interactional_Competence.

Torky, S. A. E. (2006). The Effectiveness of a Task-Based Instruction Program in Developing the English Language Speaking Skills of Secondary Stage Students. Online Submission.

Van Wynsberghe, A., & Robbins, S. (2014). Ethicist as designer: a pragmatic approach to ethics in the lab. Science and engineering ethics, 20(4), 947-961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9498-4

Widiasri, D. A., Budiarsa, M., Sudipa, I. N., & Satyawati, M. S. (2019). Speech act in Indonesian language teaching: an ethnography communication study. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 5 (5), 55-62.

Yohanes, B. (2006). Pragmatic Approach. http://digilib.upi.edu/pasca/available/etd-1127106-110028/

Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics (5th Impression). Oxford Oxford University Press.

Published

2021-05-24

How to Cite

Pratiwi, V. U., & Rohmadi, M. (2021). Pragmatic approach to Indonesian speaking skills for student vocational high schools. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(4), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v7n4.1795

Issue

Section

Research Articles