Arif Rahman

Penulis Buku : "Ketika Udara Terjungkir Di Bawah Langit Bumi.

Arif Rahman

Jasa Ghost Writer Professional.

Arif Rahman

Arif Rahman dan yulia Diana.

Kamis, 06 Oktober 2011

Pesan Cinta Untuk Hatimu


Wanita, rindu berharap akan senyum tulus.
Tapi bibirmu terlalu jauh.
Mata hanya bisa melampiaskan pada warna-warna kaku.

Kau tau, seringkali airmata mengiringi dengan sopan.
Agar kau datang lebih cepat, supaya aku mengejarmu lebih kencang.
Meski kau tak pernah lari.

Pria sepertiku tak terlalu nyaman menunggu sampai malam datang.
Bahkan saat tak cukup banyak yang nyata.
Kau tau itu.

Mataku tak akan ringkih meski lama menunggu.
Baginya itu stasiun untuk rindu yang lebih bermakna.
Cinta hanya khawatir saat kau terlalu jauh.

Cinta hanya khawatir saat kau terlalu jauh.





Kau merasakannya lebih baik dari yang kutulis, aku tau.

Selasa, 04 Oktober 2011

Presupposition (Praanggapan/ Menduga Sebelumnya)

a.      Pengertian : to suppose beforehand (menduga sebelumnya), dalam arti sebelum pembicara atau penulis mengujarkan sesuatu ia sudah memiliki dugaan sebelumnya tentang kawan bicara atau hal yang dibicarakan .

b.      Pendapat para ahli :
Levinson (dalam Nababan, 1987: 48) memberikan konsep praanggapan yang disejajarkan maknanya dengan presupposition sebagai suatu macam anggapan atau pengetahuan latar belakang yang membuat suatu tindakan, teori, atau ungkapan mempunyai makna.

How Does Phonemic Awareness in ESL Learners Impact Reading and Writing?

Anthony S. Terrell
J.E.B Stuart High School
Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools
Submitted June 1999

Abstract

This paper documents the findings of an 18-week action research project to measure the effectiveness of a curriculum which included systematic phonemic instruction provided to two experimental groups of students, versus a traditional whole-language curriculum that did not include this instruction, provided to two control groups of ESL learners.  A total of thirty-eight intermediate level secondary ESL learners were divided into four groups, two high intermediate groups and two lower intermediate groups.  One group at each level served as the experimental group, the others as the control groups.  The experimental group participated in the curriculum featuring Jane Fell Green’s Language! program as part of a traditional whole-language approach to second language instruction.  Language! is a reading/language program that is sequential, cumulative, and taught to the level of automaticity.  Students in the high intermediate experimental group averaged a gain of 12.2 points on the Degree of Reading Power (DRP) post-test over pre-test scores.  Those in the control group posted an average 6.8 point gain on the same test.  Students in the lower intermediate experimental group scored an average 9.5 point gain on the DRP post-test over pre-test scores.  The lower intermediate control group posted an average 10.4 point gain.  In the area of writing, the lower intermediate group posted a 1.1 point gain in pre and post writing scores on a writing sample, compared to a 0.3 point gain posted by the control group.  There was no significant change in writing scores at the higher intermediate level.  The results of the research suggests that phonemic instruction is of greater benefit to high intermediate level ESL learners’ reading and that the instruction benefits lower intermediate ESL learners’ writing.  Both quantitative and qualitative research findings are presented.  

Phonological & Phonemic Awareness

Phonological awareness is the ability to understand the sound structures of spoken language at the word, syllable, and phoneme levels. Developing phonological awareness in young children focuses on skills that help them build awareness of the sound structure of the language they are going to need to learn to read (Adams, 1990).

When students have phonological awareness, they understand that speech is made up of sounds (phonemes). Phonological awareness is developed when students understand:

Minimal Pairs


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)
In phonology, minimal pairs are pairs of words or phrases in a particular language, which differ in only one phonological element, such as a phone, phoneme, toneme or chroneme and have a distinct meaning. They are used to demonstrate that two phones constitute two separate phonemes in the language.
As an example for English vowels, the pair "let" + "lit" can be used to demonstrate that the phones [ɛ] (in let) and [ɪ] (in lit) do in fact represent distinct phonemes /ɛ/ and /ɪ/. An example for English consonants is the minimal pair of "pat" + "bat". In phonetics, this pair, like any other, differs in a number of ways. In this case, the contrast appears largely to be conveyed with a difference in the voice onset time of the initial consonant as the configuration of the mouth is the same for [p] and [b]; however, there is also a possible difference in duration, which visual analysis using high quality video supports.[citation needed]
Phonemic differentiation may vary between different dialects of a language, so that a particular minimal pair in one accent is a pair of homophones in another. This does not necessarily mean that one of the phonemes is absent in the homonym accent; merely that it is not present in the same range of contexts.
Definition

A minimal pair is two words that differ in only one sound.

Examples (English)

Sounds which differ: /p/ and /b/

  • [lQp] ‘lap’
  • [lQb] ‘lab’


Allmorphoms
An allomorph is a different form of a Morpheme. The regular Simple Past ending is -ed. In the verb 'advised' the ending is pronounced /d/, but in 'walked' it is pronounced /t/ and in 'wanted' it is pronounced /i:d/. A verb ending in -e, like 'hire' only takes -d. These are different forms of the same thing; they are allomorphs of the simple past tense ending.
Contrast in analogous environment
Definition

Contrast in analogous environments is the difference between two phonetically similar segments that occur in two separate words and have similar adjacent sounds.

Discussion

If neither segment has been modified or affected by its environment, the segments are separate phonemes.

Examples (Kaiwa, Brazil)

The segments [p] and [b] contrast in analogous environments in the following words:

  • [opa] 'it is finished'
  • [aba] 'place'
Definition

Phonetically similar segments are two or more sounds which share phonetic features and are frequently found as variants of a single phonological unit in a language.

Discussion

Most phonetically similar segments are adjacent to each other in a phone chart, and differ only slightly in one or two articulatory features.

PHONEMIC ANALYSIS

Phonemic analysis is/was motivated by several considerations:

1. A need to overcome the massive detail that ever narrower description provides. 




2. A practical need to create alphabetic systems appropriate for a given language.
3. A belief that people have a psychologically real notion of the sounds of their language, in a fashion that corresponds to phonemes, not to phones.
4. A recognition that there are constancies across dialects that involve objects more abstract than sounds; these objects are phonemes. (This is closely related to 2, and perhaps 3 as well).

A phonemic analysis is a process that takes as its input either (1) a set of utterances, transcribed phonetically or (2) a speaker of a language, and produces a set of symbols which represent distinct phonemes. (There are 7 further conditions: )
1. The set must be minimal, in the sense that there may be no smaller set of phonemes that satisfies the conditions for phonemic analysis.
2. It must be possible to represent every utterance of the language as a string of phonemes.
3. It must be possible to represent every utterance of the language as a string of phones, where phones are the symbols used in the phonetic transcription.
4. There must be a one-to-one relationship between the phonemes in (2) and the phones in (1).
5. It must be possible to establish rules of allophony: these rules specify the correspondences between the two levels of representation mentioned in (4). In particular, a rule of allophony says, "Phoneme M is realized as Phone P in context C", where context C says what sounds are present to the left or right (or both) of Phone P. More graphically:
M1  M2  M3
 P1   P2    P3

Typical rule of allophony: 




"M2 is realized as P2 when followed by P3, otherwise it is realized as P9"
6. Uniqueness: A phonemic analysis must provide a unique phonemic representation for any given phonetic representation.
Typographical convention: phonemes are placed inside slashes /phonemes/, and phones at the phonetic level are placed within square brackets: [phones].
I-Raising: /ay/ is realized as [^y] when followed by a voiceless obstruent (ptksf) in the same word, otherwise it is realized as [a:y].
A rule of allophony always ends with the statement, "otherwise it is realized as ..." – if only because that is the simplest way to state it (i.e., one realization can be stated without specifying the context).
What does a symbol mean?
Philosophy #1: A phonetic symbol is understood to represent a specific linguistic sound. A phonemic symbol has meaning only insofar as it relates to specific phones. The particular symbol used has essentially no other significance. The mean lies in the correspondence rules (rules of allophony).
Philosophy #2: Human beings are extraordinarily good at discovering the phonemic relationships (allophony rules) that structure language, and the realization that is given in the "otherwise" formulation of the allophony rule is the (psychologically) real sound-image that comprises the phoneme.
Ø      Phonemic analysis is primarily practical: it is meant to be practiced.
In practice, students are taught to look at all pairs of sounds that are similar and to test whether these two sounds are in an allophonic relationship (i.e., whether they might be realizations of the same phoneme). This requires one to learn what it means for two sounds to be similar (of course, one could simply consider all pairs of sounds....). Next, one (successively, iteratively) looks at each pair of sounds, and asks whether that pair might be realizations of the same phoneme.
The best test of whether two phones might be realizations of the same phoneme is the minimal pair test: if we can find two words that are different words and which are identical, except that one contains phone P, and the other contains phone Q in the same position, then the two constitute a minimal pair with regard to the pair P and Q, and P and Q cannot be allophones of the same phoneme. E.g. I and e in English: pit and pet are different words; hence these two sounds cannot be allophones of the same phoneme. By contrast, the two sounds occur in French Canadian, where no such minimal pairs exist.
If we cannot find any minimal pairs distinguishing two phones P and Q, then we can look for a principle that will specify a context in which one of them is used (with the other used "elsewhere"). If we can find such a principle, then we have established that the two are allophones of a single phoneme. (Convince yourself that this is techically always possible if the corpus is finite.)
7. There is another possibility that phonemic theory allows which we have not discussed: two phones P and Q which are realizations of the same phoneme M may be in free variation (in some context, or in all contexts): a word containing the sound P may be changed by replacing P by Q, and the result is another acceptable pronunciation of the same word.
Notice that both the statement of free variation and the definition of minimal pair requires being able to know whether two words are the same or different.
Bottom-up philosophy: phonemics is deeply rooted in a conception of analysis beginning with the phonetic, followed by analysis at the phonemic, followed by analysis of morphemes, and so on. This bottom-up philosophy can be interpreted as scientific methodology or as psychological theory about human speakers – or both. If it is taken as a theory about language users, it is a theory of language hearers rather than speakers. (Why?)
I said above that with a finite corpus and no minimal pairs for sounds P and Q, it is always possible in principle to establish a phoneme that is realized as P and Q. But it is generally understood that the principles of allophony must have some phonological simplicity or naturalness to them.
This was generally understood to mean, in addition, that the phones P and Q must not be too different phonetically, but that phrase was never successfully defined. Phonemicists all knew that some such clause was necessary to prevent an analysis in which [h] and the velar nasal are allophones of the same phoneme. (Why?)