Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL

Interactive Learning Atmosphere

Thoyyibatul Khusniyah and Rohmani Nur Indah

Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang Jalan Gajayana 50 Malang Indonesia 65145

Keywords: Language functions; EFL Teachers; interactive learning

Abstract: This study focuses on identifying the language functions effective for fostering EFL(English as Foreign

Language) interactive learning atmosphere. It explores the corpus of data taken from EFL teachers'

utterances, which contain various types of language functions during classroom interaction. Secondary data

cover in-depth interview to uncover the effectiveness of the language functions used. The analysis involves

Tribus framework (2017) rooted in Jakobson's (1960) style of language function. The result showed that EFL

teachers had employed various language functions during teaching and learning process with the dominant

types covering referential function, phatic function, and emotive function. These functions can effectively

foster interactive learning atmosphere in the EFL class, particularly in a high school setting with large class

size. Future studies are expected to explore other EFL context in a higher level of learning to bring up other

dominant functions effective for creating interactive learning process.

1 INTRODUCTION

Teachers in their role should be responsible for the

results of the learning activities of children through

the interaction of teaching and learning. The teacher

is known as one of the educators who are the best

informant to reach the purpose of the study.

Soelaeman (1985) said that the behavior and teacher’s

speech has a role in conveying ideas and information,

training skills (listening, reading, writing, and

speaking), and developing attitudes. Besides,

Richards and Renandya (2007) stated the interaction

between teacher and student has a significant role,

and it deals with the use of teacher's language that can

give a significant effect on the way student

communicates what they get well from teaching and

learning activities. Thus, the teacher's utterances

become the medium to reach the learning

achievement by interaction and communicative

competence (Cazden, 2017).

The definitions of language function have been

discussed by some linguists. One of them is,

according to Brown and Yule (1983) that there are

two language functions; it is transactional function

and interactional function. A transactional function is

a function to express content while the interactional

function is a function of language in social relations

and personal attitudes. The teacher, as the medium of

transferring the knowledge in the class, has a role in

controlling some stages in the learning process using

the interactional function. Teacher’s interactional

function further support leaner’s interactional

competence started from the classroom practices

(Pekarek-Doehler, 2018).

Moreover, language function is needed in

communication because it can give the manner to

catch the meaning. A language function explains why

someone says something (Beare, 2018). Therefore,

language function is essential to investigate because

it is the basic understanding of communication, which

the purpose of doing interaction can be conveyed.

There are some studies concerning with language

functions. The first study done by Andani (2015)

found language function in Caretakers Nanny

Mcphee in the big bang movie using Halliday theory

of language functions (1977). The second study done

by Ambrosio and her friends (2015) found language

functions in children’s classroom discourse, the result

showed that children's classroom comes to learning

experience when they use language functions to

explain children's purpose in negotiating to mean

using Kumupulainen & Wray framework (1997). The

third study done by Hayuningtyas (2017) found

language functions in tutors' utterances using Van Ek

theory of language functions (2011). Based on the

Khusniyah, T. and Indah, R.

Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL Interactive Learning Atmosphere.

DOI: 10.5220/0009398400170025

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on English Language Teaching, Linguistics and Literature (ELITE 2019) - Promoting Global Diversity, Partnership and Prosperity through

English Development, pages 17-25

ISBN: 978-989-758-459-6

study done above, there is not enough explanation

about language functions applied in teaching and

learning English in formal education, and the

researcher provides another theory of language

function.

Inevitably, the use of language function by a teacher

has taken an essential part in which to know the

information built by the student is interrelated with

the teacher's explanation. It, in turns, supports

student's acquired knowledge (Gass, 2017). Besides,

teacher and students interaction become significant in

all studies due to the educational context in which

knowledge is obtained, especially language learning

such as, English as a foreign language (EFL).

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the use of

language functions by EFL teachers in Ma'arif NU

Junior High School Blitar and also the purposes of

each function by EFL teachers in constructing

interactive learning during teaching and learning

activity using Jakobson theory (2017) of language

function and Sack (1960) approach of adjacency pairs

in conversational analysis. Specifically, this study

intends to examine the following questions:

1. What are the effective types of language functions

utilized to foster interactive EFL teaching-

learning process?

2. How do the language functions encourage the

interaction between teacher and students?

2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

The theoretical of this study is primarily based on

the pragmatic area, which focuses on language

functions. Pragmatic defines as the study which

identifies about the language used in communication;

it does not focus on the set of the rules and the sign

meaning, but it involves two parties in

communication both addressee and addresser (Aijmer

& Ruhleman, 2015). The statement before stated that

language in pragmatic as the instrument of

communication. Pragmatic works beyond the

knowledge of the language and the linguistic

component. It is written by Chapman (2011) that

pragmatic firmly tells the study about language in use

can be interpreted through context; not only from the

systematic rules. It portrays a pragmatic aspect is

connected to the situation and condition of the

speaker to know the language production not only has

a literal meaning, especially it brings impacted of

communication goals. From that aspect, this study

covers the pragmatic area in the goal of an utterance

or language function toward the goal of interactive

learning activities.

As the work of pragmatic is in the social interaction

between addresser and addressee, this study also

utilized conversational analysis (CA) as the approach

to write the data analysis. It is one of the steps in a

qualitative method which deals with social interaction

(Coulthard, 1977). There are several points of

conversational organizations by Sacks as quoted in

the conversational analysis of journal article (Hoey &

Kedrick, 2018); turn taking, sequence

organization/adjacency pair, turn design, and repairs.

This study only focuses on the conversation part

between teacher and student underlined in the

explanation of the adjacency pair. Adjacency pairs

(AP) are a group of two persons which the utterances

of interaction have the same function (Chapman,

2011). Based on the conversational analysis by Hoey

and Kendrick, there are some types of adjacency

pairs; greeting-greeting, question-answer, request-

acceptance/declination, offer-acceptance/declination,

invitation-acceptance/declination, assessment-

agreement, and complaint-account. The use of

adjacency pairs in this study is to maintain the

research data in seeing the coherent topic inside talk-

activities.

About the idea of this study, the main theory to

analyze the data is language function by Jakobson as

cited in the poetic function in the theory of Roman

Jakobson (Waugh, 1980). There are six types of

language function proposed by Jakobson created

from six factors of verbal communication. Those are

referential function, emotive function, conative

function, phatic function, metalingual function, and

poetic function. Tribus (2017) develops the new

version of language function by Jakobson in teaching

and learning. It contributes to the significances of

each function toward teaching and learning strategy.

Some significances of Jakobson’s model connected

with EFL teaching have some purposes. Tribus

(2017) stated that (1) referential function is expected

to help students interpret their cognitive ability with

seeking out the referent of the knowledge and also

draw the contextual knowledge, (2) emotive function

is expected to help student more understand about

their social relationships with controlling their

intonation in expressing feeling, (3) conative function

is expected to help students interpret the meaning of

the information, (4) phatic function is expected to

keep the connection between addresser and

addressee, (5) metalingual function is expected to

give effective feedback from the student for seeking

specific information, and (6) poetic function is

expected to lead the students knowing the meaning of

idiomatic expression. From those six types of

language functions before, this study investigates

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

what functions have a big effect on class interactive

in the teaching and learning process.

3 METHOD

This part outlined the process of doing this study.

The study used the descriptive qualitative method as

the research design. Qualitative is research

methodology in which concerned on a description and

interpreted the data rather than the counting of feature

(Wray & Bloomer, 2011). The data of this study are

explained through description and explanation. The

data sources of this study were two EFL teachers in

Ma'arif NU Junior High School Blitar. Besides,

another secondary data source was students in Ma'arif

NU Blitar which studied in first and second of Junior

High School. This study also limited the data from the

teacher's utterances, which used language function

and also the students' responses.

As the research instruments, this study applied

two instruments. The first was observation (non-

participation) to investigate the first research

question. Then, the second was an in-depth interview

with the EFL teachers to seek out the detailed

information in answering the second research

question. The data analysis of this study was done in

some stages. The first stage involved the

classification of language functions used by EFL

teachers based on the theory Jakobson (2017). The

second stage involved identification the data by

explaining the context and also the use of language

function from each category by Jakobson (2017) and

decided the classification through the conversational

interaction scripts which have been written

appropriately with Sacks (1960) as quoted in the

conversation analysis (Hoey & Kendrick). Last, the

third stage involved the description and discussion of

the functions based on the interview's result and

continued to make findings and discussions

4 RESULTS

4.1 Language Functions of Teacher 1

(T1)

Session 1

This part discussed the result of language functions

in the opening session on T1 utterances.

Table 4.1: Interaction in opening.

Conversation Adjacency Pairs

T:Good morning, students!

S:Good morning teacher

Greeting-Greeting

The conversation in table 4.1 was successful in

conversation, which involves understanding the

continuity between the teacher and the student, and it

occurred when T1 started the class with a morning

greeting. The use of the word was not only for

greeting, but the teacher tried to invite the students to

enjoying the class by showing expression. It was

identified from the first pair part of the teacher's talk

is always followed by the student's response; it is

called greeting in adjacency pairs. Besides, the

teacher also used emotive function during the

opening; it already showed that students' response

was active and enjoyable. In this case, T1 created a

goal of teaching and learning as a result of her

language use in the opening session as what she

already said during the interview:

"When I say hello or any other words to the student

and also ask about their news, I want to be able to

unite with students and also make them focus on my

learning in the order they can be comfortable

following me. Besides, we also need to know

whether students are ready to start learning or not.

When students are not ready, we also need to give

them time. Also, especially with a greeting, I want

students to be more focused and also feel cared"

[T1: 1].

The statement above-identified that the language

used by EFL teacher had a function to show the

expression or emotional feeling. This function builds

up an enjoyable or comfortable situation in beginning

the class. Jakobson's types of language function by

EFL teacher's utterances in table 4.1 are called as an

emotive function since the teacher always used

expressive words.

Session 2

The next discussed the result of language functions

in warming up on teacher 1 (T1) utterances.

Table 4.2: Interaction in warming up.

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: What is the last month in one

year?

S: The last month in December

T: And now, how many days in

February?

S: Twenty eight days

Question-

Answer

Question-

Answer

Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL Interactive Learning Atmosphere

The conversation in table 4.2 involves

understanding the continuity between the teacher and

the student, and it occurred when T1 wanted all

members of the class to focus before entering to the

core lesson. The use of language was not only to ask

about the knowledge but also to stimulate the students

in communication actively. In this case, T1 did not

mention all students explicitly to answer, but they

directly understood to give a response. T1 used some

simple questions which are related to the context of

the day, month, and date. The question-answer

generally checked the students' comprehension, and

most of them answered correctly. It also includes two

types of adjacency pairs, namely offer-acceptance

and question-answer, for creating a conducive

situation. The functions found are phatic function

and referential function. Those two functions had

marked the way T1 treated all students to mention

day, month, and date. This session showed that T1

gave stimuli using some questions before continuing

the core lesson. T1 made it a tactic to get the

conducive situation and active communication. Based

on the explanation of T1 that:

“I ask by linking to the day and month in order the

students are skilled and capable when invited to

communicate. The day, month, and date are basic

things, but that context is often used in

communication. Therefore, I do not want students

to forget the material about the day and month in

the 1

semester. Besides, I want students to give a

fast response, and I often ask using general context

to the students such as their circumstances in order

to make them easy to communicate" [T1:2].

The context used by T1 in the stimuli sentences was

based on the previous material. The other Jakobson’s

types of language function in table 4.2 are called the

referential function (the context of communication)

and phatic function (getting attention).

Session 3

This session discussed the result of language

functions in the main course on T1 utterances.

Table 4.3: Conversation in the main course

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: Still remember about

adjective?

S: Yes, kata sifat, Mrs.

T: I will make a sentence, please

translate into English! “Dia

laki-laki bijaksana."

S: He is wise

Question-

Answer

Order-

Acceptance

The conversation in table 4.3 involves

understanding the continuity between T1 and the

students to begin the whilst-teaching in the main

course. In this conversation, T1 wanted to review the

material, and the students have already had

background knowledge on the meaning of the

adjective. Tq asked a question to attract student back

to the context of what they had learned in the previous

meeting. After that, all students tried to find out the

information in their English guidelines book, and then

all together answered the question. Next, it led T1 to

make some sentences which were related to the

adjective context describing the character of a child

and asked students to translate it into English. There

were two adjacency pairs in this part; question-

answer and order-acceptance. It also had four types

of language functions; referential function, phatic

function, and emotive function. Those functions

implied in the utterances to lead all students

reviewing material and as a result of ordering pattern.

It had been clarified by T1 by saying:

"I called their name also used command sentences

during the teaching process to get students'

attention and their direct respond. It also makes my

students focused on my learning. Besides, I want to

train students' minds in order to not afraid to show

up themselves and another one I do want to

eliminate my students' fear in speaking English. So,

they can enjoy speaking in English and do not feel

difficult" [T1:4].

T1 tried to ask all members of the class in getting

English communication. She influenced the students

by asking them to answer the questions. Nevertheless,

the persuasion which occurred in the class interaction

was shaped spontaneously in order to get direct

students’ responses. The other Jakobson’s types of

language function in table 3.3 and 4.3 are a phatic

function (getting attention from addressee), and

referential function (the context of communication).

Session 4

The last session discussed the result of language

functions in the closing session on T1 utterances.

Table 4.4: Conversation in closing.

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: Any question so far?

S: No, Mrs.

T: Do you understand about

conjunction?

S: yes, understood

T: ok, good! the time is over, see you

next time

S: see you Mrs

Question-

Answer

Question-

Answer

Greeting-

greeting

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

The conversation in table 4.4 involves

understanding the continuity between T1 and the

student, and it occurred when T1 closed the material

in that meeting. In this conversation, T1 tried to

ensure the student’s comprehension of the material.

The question is meant that T1 told students to ask if

there was a material that had been understood well.

Besides, T1 wanted students' responses to the

material by ensuring their comprehension of the

material. In conclusion, T1 used question-answer,

greeting, and order-acceptance types of adjacency

pairs. There were referential functions, emotive

function, and phatic function used in the closing

session.

T1 used a language for some purposes. First is to

ensure that the students understand the materials well.

Then T1 asked a question related to the context.

Second is T1 also showed up her feeling in order to

give the appreciation to the whole members of the

class which attended the material well. The

appreciation made them freely interacted to the

teacher without any doubts in expressing their

emotional condition too. The third is that T1 kept to

get the attention of all students until the class was

ended. She used a language in commanding and

inviting the whole members praying together.

4.2 Language Functions of Teacher 2

(T2)

Session 1

This part discussed the result of language functions in

the opening session of T2 utterances.

Table 4.5: Conversation in opening.

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: How are you today?

S: I am fine, thank you, and you?

T: I am fine too

S: Are you sure Mrs?

T: Actually, I am not fine, but

because of you, I am well today.

S: Thank you, Mrs.

Question-

Answer

Question-

Answer

Question-

Answer

The conversation in table 3.6 involves

understanding the continuity between the teacher and

the student, and it occurred when she began teaching

and learning by greeting all the members of the class.

T2 did not only share about the conditional

information but also demonstrated another relation

closer as learning partner rather than teacher and

student. Besides, the students have already

understood to respect the teacher’s effort in attending

the class behind her sick condition. From the first

activity done, T2 wanted to check the preparation

before going to the main course. Besides, the teacher

also told about her real condition that she was not well

to the students. The emotional feeling showed by T2

toward students’ empathy that she tried to build up

students’ personality in following the class well and

conducive. The adjacency pairs used by teacher and

students are question-answer to open the session.

Besides, the teacher also used emotive function

during the opening. It already showed that students'

response was free in expressing their condition.

Besides, T2 felt that sharing about feeling or

emotional condition each other was remarkable. This

statement has been clarified by T2 in the interview

section:

"I always started the main interaction with asking

about their (students) condition and reciprocity

from them. Because of that, I know the situation that

is happening, and also it can be easier to

understand the path that I will go through at that

time". [T2: 1]

The statement above-identified that the language

used T2 had a function to show the expression or

emotional feeling. This function builds up an

enjoyable or comfortable situation in beginning the

class and also makes more talkative and friendly

between teacher and student. Jakobson's types of

language function by EFL teacher's utterances in

table 3.6 are called as an emotive function since the

teacher always used expressive words.

Session 2

The next discussed the result of language functions in

warming up on T2 utterances.

Table 4.6: Conversation in warming up.

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: Do you still remember our last

material?

S: Yes, simple past tense.

T: Good! Zaki, please mention what is

to be for simple past in nominal

sentence!

S: It is “is, am, are”

Question-

Answer

Order-

Acceptance

The conversation in table 4.6 involves

understanding the continuity between the teacher and

the student, and it occurred when T2 gave stimulation

before going to the main course. In this conversation,

the teacher wanted to review the material, and the

students have already had background knowledge

what meant by simple past tense. In this session, the

teacher linked some related questions to the last

Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL Interactive Learning Atmosphere

material, and she tried to build up the students'

memory. The questions also gave the students a

brainstorming to structure the lesson back. As a

result, the conversation before includes two types of

adjacency pairs, namely order-acceptance and

question-answer that held in class interaction for

leading conducive situation.

Furthermore, three functions are found in the

teacher's utterances; there are referential function,

emotive function, and phatic function. In this

activity, the first goal targeted was the students more

active by reviewing the last material. Based on the

explanation of T2 that:

"The goal in reviewing lesson is a warming up for

their minds (students' mind) before they get a new

material that is heavier than before. Moreover,

usually, the discussion taught will have continuity

with the last material. I hope with reviewing the

previous discussion; then students can be active and

not easily forget the material. So, not only the

teacher is active in the class, but the students are

also active because already known the last

material" [T2:2].

The statement before stated that the teacher used a

language to convey a message which referred to the

context of the communication. The context used in

the warming up session was about the previous

discussion. The teacher also tried to keep the students'

concentration using ordering sentence and also give

appreciation. The other Jakobson's types of language

function in table 4.6 are called a referential function

(the context of communication), emotive function

(expressing feeling), and phatic function (getting

attention).

Session 3

This session discussed the result of language

functions in the main course on T2 utterances.

Table 4.7: Conversation in the main course.

Conversation Adjacency

Pairs

T: (write the song)

Simple past tense, I did

Past continuous tense, I was doing

The past perfect tense, I had done

Past perfect continuous tense, I

had been doing

T: We start from a simple past, please

look at the example, and what is

the formula?

S: There are subject and verb 2

T: She refers to the one girl, is it

singular or plural?

S: Singular Mrs.

Question-

Answer

The conversation in table 4.7 involves

understanding the continuity between the teacher and

the student it occurred when T2 started to explain the

main course. The song lyric is used so that all students

can analyze the formula. Besides, the students also

have understood that T2 instruction of “look!” did

not mean that they have to be seen but also to be

understood and analyzed. T2 can create

communication with the students because she used a

song method in explaining the core lesson. The

written song given in the class had a relation to the

context of the material. From that song, T2 guided the

students learning through analyzing, questioning, and

also ordering the formula in the song.

In conclusion, T2 utterances contained three

functions of language use; there were referential

function, phatic function, poetic function and

metalingual function in the form of ordering and

questioning sentence. It had been clarified by T2 in

the interview section:

"Students will refer to the additional methods; one

of them is music or song. So by incorporating

learning material into the song, it will be easy for

students to capture what is in it as in the case of the

song which contains a tenses formula. Hopefully,

students can analyze by giving an appropriate

example of the formulas which have been heard

from the song before going to my explanation.

Besides, in my opinion, this method is more effective

than just relying on ordinary learning. So, students

also get the essence of the material that will be

discussed" [T2:3].

"I prefer a challenge. Therefore, I do not justify the

mistake made by students directly. I put more

emphasis on them (students) to explore what

discussed before giving an evaluation to them. I

think it can open their mind and they do not depend

on my correction" [T2:5].

The statement above meant that that language also

could be one of the varieties of methods to convey the

message with understanding the pattern and also

rhyme. It was identified from the structure of the

song. Besides, the other language used included a

definition of the message. T2 defined the incorrect

answer to help students in seeking the understanding

of knowledge by them. The other Jakobson's types of

language function are a phatic function (getting

attention from addressee), referential function (the

context of communication), poetic function

(conveying meaning with imagery) and emotive

function (showing expressions), and metalingual

function (conveying a message with a code).

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

Session 4

The last session discussed the result of language

functions in the closing session on T2 utterances.

Table 4.8 Conversation in closing

Conversation Adjacency Pairs

T: Yeah, that is all from me,

we continue to the next

meeting. Keep your

health! So, you can

study hard not lazy and

may we always in a

health condition.

S: Amin, and healthy soon

for Mrs. Sri.

Assessment-

Agreement

The conversation in table 4.8 involves

understanding the continuity between the teacher and

the student and it occurred when T2 checked the

students’ task in a group. In this conversation, she

tried to influence the students’ behavior by

motivating them. Besides, the motivation is used in

order to keep their spirit in study especially attending

English class. So, T2 tried to persuade the student

being healthy and to keep their health in always

before ending the class. In conclusion, she used

Assessment-Agreement type of adjacency pairs, and

there was a conative function used by the teacher in

the closing session. Also, T2 explained in the

interview section:

"After giving the material to them (students) and

asking them to listen what I said, that all might seem

to burden the students, but I'm here not only being

a teacher but also their learning partner. So, at the

end of the class giving motivation to them is one way

for appreciating one each other and it makes a

warm situation with students" [T2:6]

The last statement before signified that the teacher

cared about keeping a good relation with the students.

The teacher used a language in influencing the

students' behavior and also to persuade them more

respecting a time for studying. The other Jakobson's

types of language function in table 4.8 are an emotive

function (showing expressions), and conative

function (persuading the addressee).

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Types of Language Function by

EFL Teachers in Ma’arif NU Blitar

This research employed the whole factors proposed

by Jakobson (1960) as cited from poetic function in

the theory of Jakobson (Waugh, 1980), he proposes

six factors which influence in the process of verbal

communication as action. Those six elements are also

applied in this study to reach the goal of the research

which is stated in the research question. Those were

(1) addresser factor which was represented by

teachers in this study, (2) addressee factor which was

represented by students in this study, (3) code factor

which was in the form of langue occurred by teachers

and students in this study, (4) message factor which

was in the form of teachers’ utterances and students’

responses in this study, (5) context factor which

located in the class of English teaching and learning

in this study, and (6) contact factor which was

represented by the contact relation between teachers

and students in this study.

From six factor above, language function by

Jakobson (1960) as cited from poetic function in the

theory of Jakobson (Waugh, 1980) categorizes the

relation between the factor and the source of

communication. First, the referential function is

created from the relation between context and

message. This function explains about the use of

context which influences the meaning-making or the

goal of the message, and it is utilized by both EFL

teachers. Second, the emotive function is created

from the relation between addresser and message

(Hebert, 2011). This function explains about the

message which is created from the addressers'

condition and situation. Third, the conative function

is created from the relation between addressee and

message. This function describes the addressee's

personality especially thoughts and feeling. Fourth,

the phatic function is created from the relation

between contact and message. This function describes

the contact, which includes a connection between the

addresser and addressee. The fifth, metalingual

function is created from the relation between code

and message. The function explains about a message

which is organized by the speaker or addressee is in

the form of code or any other sign, and it is utilized

by both EFL teachers. Sixth, a poetic function is

created from the relation between message and

message. The function explains about a message

conveyed with imagery or parable.

This study found that both teachers had their

character in treating the interactive class. The first

teacher mostly used the combination function

between referential function and phatic function.

The teacher wanted to always connect the material

with the context of general communication and the

environment. The other function used is emotive

function and conative function in giving the

appreciation and also persuading the students during

Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL Interactive Learning Atmosphere

the class interaction. Moreover, she avoided the use

of metalingual function and poetic function

because the level of the class she taught is still in the

first Junior High School. On the other hand, T2

utilized the whole functions in her teaching process.

She emphasized on the use of poetic function and

metalingual function for explaining the core

material in the second of Junior High School.

Furthermore, there are some combination functions

applied, such as referential-poetic function and

referential-phatic function. T2 wanted that the

students were able to analyze the song and get the

formula of the song lyric. The other function used is

the emotive function and conative function. She

ensured that those functions could influence the

students' respect and give effect on students' behavior.

As a result, the dominant functions that occur in both

EFL teachers in this study are referential function,

phatic function, and emotive function. Both

teachers used those functions when they were trying

to interact with all members of the class.

5.2 The Functions of EFL Teachers’

Utterances in Ma’arif NU Blitar

JHS

Based on the findings, it is noted that both EFL

teachers used some functions designed by Jakobson's

theory of language function (Tribus, 2017) to have an

interactive class with their students. The use of these

functions already applied in the classroom according

to its functions. The first is the referential function

or context of communication. The referential function

can be found in this study as the manner toward

students' communication skill actively. Both teachers

mostly used this function in the warming up session

and also in the main course session. The second is the

emotive function or showing expression and

appreciation. This study showed that the use of

emotive function by both teachers has a function to

make students enjoyable, respect and caring in

following teaching organization. In this study, the

emotive function mostly appeared in the form of

greeting and appreciation. The third is a phatic

function or getting the attention of the addressee.

This study found that phatic function has been

utilized to keep the connection between teacher and

students in the same focus. In this study, the phatic

function can be signified in the form of command or

order sentences from teachers' instruction. Moreover,

the teacher's utterances expressing emotional and

phatic functions also reflect their humanist expressive

speech acts (Rini & Wagiran, 2018).

6 CONCLUSION

Based on research findings, the writer concludes

that language functions have influenced

communication between teachers and students in

creating an interactive learning atmosphere. Both of

the teachers used some functions such as referential

function, emotive function, and phatic function

during the conversation made in English learning.

Those principal functions were as a strategy to keep

the students actively in speaking skill.

From the research finding and discussion, the writer

gives some suggestions. For both teacher and

lectures, they can practice the use of the referential

function, emotive function, and phatic function while

doing the interaction with their students, so teacher's

utterances can be one of strategy to make students

more enjoyable and active in trying speaking skill.

Besides, teacher or lecturer also can avoid conative

function, so the communication built in the class can

be responded by students not only in the form of

reflection or effect on their attitude but also with

verbal communication (reciprocity). For students

themselves, they can know what they have to do in

responding to the teachers' utterances because the

teacher also needs a reciprocity interaction as the

form of cooperation. Students also can understand

each function as speaking training in the class. For

further, the next researcher is recommended to

examine the newest version of language functions

theory in another area, besides formal education such

as courses and home-schooling. It is also able to do

language function research in online teaching and

learning interaction.

REFERENCES

Aijmer, K., & Christoph R. (2015). Corpus Pragmatics A

handbook. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Ambrosio, Y. M., Cedra B., Ramsey F., & Jin Y. (2015).

Analysis of Language Function in Children’s

Classroom Discourse. International Journal of

Education and Research, 3, (2).

Andani, A. P. K. (2015). Language Form and Function of

Caretakers Found in Nanny Mcphee and The Big

Bang Movie. Jurnal penelitian Humaniora, 16, (1), 27-

39.

Beare, K. (2018). Using Language Functions to Learn and

Teach English, Retrieved October 15, 2018, from

https://www.thoughtco.com/using-language-functions-

to-learn-3888185

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. New

York; Cambridge University Press.

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

Cazden, C. B. (2017). How knowledge About Language

Helps the Classroom Teacher, Or Does It? A Personal

Account. In Communicative Competence, Classroom

Interaction, and Educational Equity (pp. 39-58).

Routledge.

Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse

Analysis. London; Longman Group.

Gass, S. M. (2017). Input, interaction, and the second

language learner. Routledge.

Hayuningtyas, R. D. (2017). Language Functions Used by

English Tutors in LPBA Nurul Huda Lowayu Dukun

Gresik. A thesis presented to the Maulana Malik

Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang in partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Sarjana

Sastra.

Hebert, L. (2011). The Functions of Language. Academic

Article, Signo [online], Rimouski (Quebec), Retrieved

November 05, 2018, from

http://www.signosemio.com/jakobson/functions-of-

language.asp

Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H. (2018). Conversation

Analysis. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics: A

Practical Guide, 2-3.

Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2

interactional competence: the development of L2

grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1),

3-24.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2007). Methodology

in Language Teaching; An Anthology of Current

Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rini, S., & Wagiran, W. (2018). Humanist Expressive

Utterance Function and Form in Teaching Learning

Interaction at Vocational High School. Seloka: Jurnal

Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 7(3), 244-

250.

Soelaeman. (1985). Menjadi Guru (Suatu Pengantar

Kepada Dunia Guru). Bandung: CV. DIPONEGORO.

Tribus, A. C. (2017). The Communicative Functions of

Language; An exploration of Roman Jakobson's

Theory. Tesol Collection. 732, 05-25.

Waugh, L. R. (1980). The Poetic Function in The Theory of

Roman Jakobson. Poetics Today, 02, (1a), 57-58.

Wray, A., & Bloomer, A. (2011). Projects in Linguistics

and Language Studies. London & New York:

Routledge.

Implementing Effective Language Functions to Create EFL Interactive Learning Atmosphere