ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING CONSTRUCTION OF EFL WRITING CLASS THROUGH DECLARATIVE SPEECH ACTS APPROACH
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This study investigates how Indonesian undergraduate EFL students construct argumentative essays through critical discussion using Declarative speech acts and pragmatic approaches. This study employed a qualitative research method. The data consist of argumentative essays authored by undergraduate students majoring in English at a private university in Indonesia (N=34). Students worked in pairs to discuss a controversial topic, separated into protagonist and antagonist groups. The analysis showed that students used four steps of argumentation: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and conclusion. Most students used confrontation and opening stages in the introduction, argumentation stage in developing a paragraph, and end with a conclusion. To understand the purpose of argumentation, the students used four types of speech acts, which have different functions: assertive, commissive, declarative, and directive speeches. Implementing the declarative speech acts theory helps the students comprehend argumentative writing and trains them to have good critical thinking in resolving different opinions.
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini mengkaji bagaimana siswa EFL Indonesia menuliskan esai argumentatif melalui diskusi kritis dengan menggunakan pendekatan pragma-dialektika Van Eemeren dan Grootendorst (1970) dan pragmatis Searle (1969). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif. Data berasal dari esai argumentatif semester ketiga yang ditulis oleh mahasiswa Indonesia di jurusan bahasa Inggris. Tiga puluh empat siswa di kelas menulis mendiskusikan topik yang berbeda. Siswa bekerja berpasangan untuk mendiskusikan topik kontroversial, dipisahkan menjadi kelompok protagonis dan antagonis. Analisis mengklaim bahwa siswa menggunakan empat langkah argumentasi: konfrontasi, pembukaan, argumentasi, dan kesimpulan. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa sebagian besar siswa menggunakan tahap konfrontasi dan pembukaan dalam pendahuluan, tahap argumentasi dalam mengembangkan paragraf, dan diakhiri dengan kesimpulan. Untuk mengetahui tujuan penggunaan argumentasi, siswa menggunakan empat tindak tutur, yang memiliki fungsi berbeda: asertif, komisif, deklaratif, dan direktif. Menerapkan teori pragma-dialektika membantu siswa memahami tulisan argumentatif dan melatih mereka untuk memiliki pemikiran kritis yang baik dalam menyelesaikan pendapat yang berbeda.
How to Cite: Nasihah, D., Elfiyanto, S. (2022). Argumentative Writing Construction of EFL Writing Class Through Declarative Speech Acts Approach. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 9(2), 192-210. doi:10.15408/ijee.v9i2.28522
Keywords
References
Allani, S. (2018). Academic writing for Spanish scholars: Exploring the challenges with argumentation analysis. LSP in Multi-Disciplinary Contexts of Teaching and Research, 59–64.
Andrews, R. (2000). Introduction: Learning to Argue in Higher Education. In R. Andrews & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Heinemann (pp. 1–14). Boynton/Cook.
Fahmi, R. N., & Rustono, R. (2018). Types of Speech Acts in Indonesian Debate Argumentative Discourse. Seloka Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesian, 7(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.15294/seloka.v7i1.22941
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577–589.
Fisher, A. (2013). Critical Thinking: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Humblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.
Indrilla, N., & Ciptaningrum, D. S. (2018). An approach in teaching writing skills: Does it offer a new insight in enhancing students’ writing ability. A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 21(2), 124–133.
Kaldjärv, M. (2011). Declarative speech actss on the basis of state examination composition. Problems of Education in The 21st Century, 38, 37–49.
Kamariah. (2021). Argumentative Indicators in Mata Najwa Talk Show Declarative speech actsal Study. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Arts and Humanities 2021. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211223.033
Kementerian Pendidikan dan kebudayaan RI. (2020). Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pendidikan dan kebudayaan 2020-2024. https://dikti.kemdikbud.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RENSTRA-KEMENDIKBUD-full-version.pdf
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514
Ma, J., & Chen, H. (2009). A Declarative speech actsal study of pragmatic argumentation in academic argument. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology, 2, 209–219.
Marchal, A. H. (2021). The interactionist approach to speech acts and its role in the analysis of argumentation. Proceedings of the X Conference of the Spanish Society of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 10–13.
Miri, T. (2014). Toward finding an approach for improving the rhetorical organization of EFL learners’ argumentative writing. The International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature (IJALEL), 3(3), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.164
Saifudin, A. (2019). Teori tindak tutur dalam studi linguistik pragmatic. Lite Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Budaya, 15(1), 1–16.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in The Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Setyowati, L., Sukmawan, S., & Latief, M. A. (2017). Solving the students’ problems in writing argumentative essay through the provision of planning. CELT: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 17(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v17i1.1140
Svačinová, I. (2021). Declarative speech actsal Reconstruction of Crisis Diary-Writing as a Communicative Activity Type. Argumentation, 35, 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09524-0
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, & Meuffels. (1984). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 6(4), 297–310.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Declarative speech actsal Procedure for a Critical Discussion. Argumentation, 17, 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026334218681
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The Declarative speech actsal approach. Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Routledge.
van Eemeren, Houtlosser, & Henkemans. (2007). Argumentative Indicators: A Declarative speech actsal Study. Springer.
van Rees, M. A. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A Declarative speech actsal perspective. Springer.
Walton, D. (2007). Dialogue Theory For Critical Argumentation. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DOI: 10.15408/ijee.v9i2.28522
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
