Paralinguistic Features in Students’ Speaking Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32734/lingpoet.v2i2.4452Keywords:
Nonverbal communication; PRAAT; Paralinguistic features and production; Speaking.Abstract
Analyzing paralanguage in students’ speaking is important especially in the EFL ( English as a Foreign Language) context. The research aims to find out the students’ productions of the paralinguistic features that is pitch and intonation in their speaking performance. The researcher used qualitative research and the data were taken from the eight videos of the speaking project of the students of the English department, Universitas Sumatera Utara.The interpretation of the data showed that each student uses the same feature in their speakings but produced the feature in a different way. The research revealed by seeing their paralinguistic features productions by using an instrument, PRAAT. The researcher found that some students produced low pitches in their speaking and some are high. There was a significant difference between men and women speakers in producing pitch. The research showed that PRAAT can help to reveal that both the students and the lecturer of speaking need to give more attention to the paralinguistic features and the production to build a good speaking and to be able to produce and follow the norms and rules in language they are learning.
Downloads
References
Ahlam, G., & Abdolreza, P. (2015). The Effect of Explicit Teaching Paralinguistics Features on Iranian EFL Learners’ Performance in English Conversation in EFL context. International Journal of Language Teaching, volume 3.
Ary, D., Jacob, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th Ed.). Wadswort: Nelson Education, Ltd.
Alastair, P. (1985). Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Paralanguage, Communication, and Education.
Bancroft, W.J. (1999). Suggestopedia and Language Acquisition. Gordon and Breach.
Ernest, B. G., & Nancy, B.C. (1986). Speech communication: A basic approach (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
Byrne. (1984). Teaching oral English. New Jersey: Longman Group Ltd.
Crystal, D. (1966). The linguistic status of prosodic and paralinguistic features. Proceedings of the University of Newcastle-upon Tyne Philosophical Society 1, 93–108.
Fraenkel, Jack R. Wallen, Norman E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th Ed.). New York: MCGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Fraenkel, Jack R. & Wallen, Norman E. (2011). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Teri, K. G., & Michael, G. (2017). Nonverbal messages tell more; A practical guide to nonverbal communication. Routledge.
Teri, K. G., & Michael, G. (2005). Communication works. Philip McGraw Hill.
Immy, H. (1997). Basic concepts of qualitative research (1st ed.). Blackwell Science
Pelin, I. (2017). Paralinguistics in spoken English: Investigating the use of proxemics and kinesics in an efl context. International Journal of Language volume 9. doi:10.5296/ijl.v9i3.11178
Mark, L. K., (1992). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction.(3rd ed). Ted Buchholz.
Mark, L. K., (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Holt; Rinehart and Winston.
Miles,M.B, Huberman,A.M, dan Saldana,J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis, a methods sourcebook, Edition 3. USA: Sage Publications.
Rahman, M. H. (2018). Paralinguistics features in tesol- an action based approach. International journal of current research, volume 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.32499.10.2018
Pearson,et al. 2011. Human communication.(4th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Peter, A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and Functions Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Fernando, P. (2002). Nonverbalcommunication across Diciplines: Paralanguage, kinesics, silence, personal and enviromental interaction. (2nd ed.). John Benjamin Publishing company.
Kang, Q. (2013). Paralanguage. Canadian Social Science, volume 9. doi:10.5296/ijl.v9i3.11178
Rosdiana, S. 2012. The analysis of paralinguistic features in twitter text. Surakarta: S-1 Thesis, English Department, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Stewart, L. T., ( 2003). Human Communication;principles and contexts. McGraw Hill.
Vanderstoep, S.W. and Johnston, D. (2009). Research methods forveryday Life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. Jossey-Bass.
Wahyuni, S. (2011). Qualitative research method; theory and practice. Salemba Empat.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 LingPoet: Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
