Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 30, 2023
Published
Oct 17, 2023
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 47 Download : 18

Main Article Content

Abstract





ABSTRACT


This study aims to investigate the thought processes involve in the production of casual speech. Casual speech production is characterized by the existence of low power and distance among language users; therefore, the speakers find it cognitively easier to produce. The design of the research was qualitative. Ten EFL pre-service teachers were recruited as the research participants. The participants were requested to act out some scenarios of roleplay in the format of casual speech, namely, (1) self-introduction, (2) talking about hobbies, (3) talking about memorable memories, (4) commenting the viral issues on social media, (5) commenting about hopes for the next president of Indonesia. The participants were told to reveal all thought processes that they could observe in their mental during each speech production of the scenarios immediately. The participants’ verbal reports were recorded via writing. The results of the interview were transcribed and analyzed to find the patterns of thought processes in producing casual speech for each scenario. The findings showed that self-introduction and telling hobbies happened relatively fast as all the speakers did not involve in much thinking preparation in term of conceptual, grammatical and phonological speech planning. However, for other speech situations, the difficulty were inline with the individuals’ language 


 


Keywords: Second language production; thought processes; casual speech.





Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Amelia, R. (2023). Thought Processes in Producing Casual Speech. ELITE JOURNAL, 5(3), 639-650. Retrieved from http://elitejournal.org/index.php/ELITE/article/view/195

References

  1. Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F., & Marzulina, L. (2018). " If our English isn't a language, what is it?" Indonesian EFL Student Teachers' Challenges Speaking English. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145.
  2. Bialystok, E. (2009). Effects of bilingualism on cognitive and linguistic performance across the lifespan. In Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit–The Bilingualism Controversy (pp. 53-67). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  3. Cohen, A. (1996) Verbal reports as a source of insight into second language learners strategies. Applied language learning, 7, pp. 5-24. eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ539335.
  4. Cohen, A. & Olshtain, E. (1993) The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 33-56. Doi: 10.2307/3586950
  5. Dlali, M. (2003). The speech act of complaint in isiXhosa. South African Journal of African Languages, 23(3), 131-143.
  6. Gan, Z. (2013). Understanding English speaking difficulties: An investigation of two Chinese populations. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3), 231-248.
  7. Kaharuddin, A. & Hasyim, M (2020). The Speech Act of Complaint: Socio-Cultural Competence Used by Native Speakers of English and Indonesian. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(06).
  8. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught?. http://www. nflrc. hawaii. edu/NetWorks/NW06/.
  9. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. New Jersey: LEA.
  10. Kreishan, L. (2018). Politeness and speech acts of refusal and complaint among Jordanian undergraduate students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(4), 68-76.
  11. Laforest, Marty (2002). Scenes of family life: complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of pragmatics 34: 1595-1620.
  12. Lasan, I. (2021). Salience in EFL speakers’ perceptions of formality:(In) formal greetings and address forms combined with (in) formal nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Language Teaching Research, 13621688211055086.
  13. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language production: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  15. Mehta, G., & Cutler, A. (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech, 31 (Pt 2), 135–156.
  16. Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (2009). My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. In Speech acts across cultures (pp. 191-216). De Gruyter Mouton.
  17. Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (Eds.). (1996). Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research a comprehensive guide. Heinle. ELT.
  19. Onalan, O., & Cakir, A. (2018). A comparative study on speech acts: Formal complaints by native speakers and Turkish learners of English. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 239-259.
  20. Segalowitz, Norman. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
  21. Suh, Jae-Suk. (1999). ESL Korean learners’ decision-making processes in the performance of the speech act of requests. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED432908).
  22. Tucker, B. V., & Ernestus, M. (2016). Why we need to investigate casual speech to truly understand language production, processing and the mental lexicon. The mental lexicon, 11(3), 375-400.
  23. Van Patten, B. and Benati, A G. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum international.