INTERFERENSI DALAM BAHASA JEPANG DITINJAU DARI KAPASITAS WORKING MEMORY OTAK: SUATU KAJIAN NEUROLINGUISTIK

Ruri Fadhillah Hakim

Abstract


This thesis is about the Japanese interference interms ofthe working memorycapacity in the brain of Andalas University Japanese Literaturestudent by Neurolinguistic perspective. This studyaim to examining the forms of Indonesian interference into Japanese, and to identifying relation between the working memory capacity of brain with language interference. Research data collection is done by applying the method of observation by observing thereading abilityas measured by the reading span test and interference test. Data analysis was performed using referential method and distributional method by applying subtitution techniques, intrusion techniques, and deletion techniques. The results ofthe data analysis are presented using formal and informal methods. The results shows that the working memory capacity of Japanese literature student in 2012 class was 57% with a medium interpretation. Furthermore, it was found that the brain's memory suffered proactive and retroactive interference in speech producing. The results of this study also indicate the presence of interference in Japanese on students with forms of interference were found are: (1) Interference morphology in the form of interference di- -kan affix and interference reduplication; (2) Interference semantics in the form of interference on the verb, adjective, noun phrases and pronouns; (3) Interference of Syntax in the form of interference noun + de + norimasu particles, interference mashita verb form (past), interference adjective / phrase adjektifa + noun / noun phrase, interference noun + noun, noun + interference the verb form of masu, interference subjunctive, interference form the passive voice, interference the use of o, ga, and ni particle. Furthermore, it was found that there is a correlation between working memory capacity with interferencein learning Japanese language, and the variables that affectthe relationship between interferencein information storagein the form of stimulus words in the working memory capacity are (1) the number of stimulus sentences in stimulation on memory load, (2) semantic link age word, (3) the position ofthe wordand, (4) variations in the type ofword. This study proved that the dominance of usage the target language in foreign language teaching more effective in habituation and comprehension the students.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, J. R. 1990. Learning and memory: An integrated approach.New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Arifudin. 2010. Neuropsikolinguistik. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada. Alwi, H, dkk. 1998. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Baddeley, A. 1992.Working Memory, Science, Vol 255, pp 556-559

Baddeley, Alan. D., & Hitch, G. 1974. Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), Thepsychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

Bloomfield, L. 1958. Language. New York: Henry Hold and Company.

Bergsleithner, J.M. 2011. “The Role of Noticing and Working Memory Capacity in L2 Oral Performance”. Organon.

Brown H. D. “Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th.ed., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Copyright 2000 Excerpts from chapters 04 and 07” (diakses Tanggal23 Februari 2014)

Chaer, A. dan Leonie, A. 2004. Sosiolinguistik. Jakarta: PT RinekaCipta.

Chaer, Abdul. 2003. Psikolinguistik: Tinjauan Teoritis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Conway, A. R. A. 2007. Towse Variation in Working Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dardjowidjojo, S. 2010. Psikolinguistik: Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa Manusia. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Djodjko, S. 1997. Konsep Kajian Kosakata Bandingan untuk Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Jepang. Prasasti.No.26. Unipress.IKIP Surabaya.

Hayi, A. dkk. 1985. Interferensi Gramatika Bahasa Indonesia dalam Bahasa Jawa. Jakarta. Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.

Galvao, dkk.2009. “Linguistic Interference in Translated Academic Texts: A case study of Portuguese Interference in Abstracts Translated into English”. School of Humanities G3 Bachelor’s Course.

Gordon. P.C, dkk. 2002. “Memory Load Interference In Syntactic Processing”. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Fishman, JA.ed. 1972. The Sociology of Language. Rowley Massachasett: New Buy House Publisher.

Iwabuchi, Tadasu. 1989. Nihon Bunpoo Yoogo Jiten. Tokyou: Sanseido

Ingram, J.C.l. 2007. Neurolinguistic: An Introduction to Spoken Language Processing and Its Disorders. New York: Cambridge.

Jendra, I.W. 1991. Dasar-dasar Sosiolinguistik. Denpasar: Ikayana.

Juffs, A. 2006. “Working Memory, Second Language Acquisition and Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Learners”. Department of Linguistics: University of Pittsburgh Lekova B. “Language Interference and Methods Of Its Overcoming in Foreign Language Teaching”. Bulgaria: Trakia University.

Keraf, G. 1997. Komposisi: Sebuah Pengantar Kemahiran Bahasa. Ende, Flores: Penerbit Nusa Indah.

Samsuri. 1987. Interferensi Berbahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Sutedi, Dedi. 2011. Dasar-dasar Linguistik Bahasa Jepang, Bandung: Humaniora.

Kridalaksana, H. 2008. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: PT.Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Lado, R. 1960. Linguistics Across Culture: Applied Linguistic for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lahey, B. B. 2003. Psychology an introduction (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Mahsun.2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa Tahapan Strategi, metode dan tekniknya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Miyake, A., Just M.A & Carpenter P.A.2000. Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A.F Healy & L.E Bourne Jr. (Eds), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moentaha, Solihen. 2006. Bahasa dan Terjemahan. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc. Paradis, M. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Passer, M. M., & Smith, R. E. 2007.Psychology: The science of mind and behavior (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pujiono, M. 2006. “Interferensi Gramatikal dan Leksikal bahasa Indonesia Terhadap Bahasa Jepang”. Tesis. Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Santrock, J. W. 2004. Educational Psychology 2nd Edition. New York: Mc Graw- Hill.

Sastra, Gusdi. 2010. Neurolinguistik: Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Simanjuntak. 2009. Pengantar Neuropsikolinguistik. Menelusuri Bahasa, Pemerolehan Bahasa dan Hubungan Bahasa dengan Otak. Jakarta: Radar Jaya Offset

Sternberg, R. J. 2006. Cognitive psychology. (4th ed.). Belmont: Thompson Wodsworth

Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.

Sudaryanto. 1995. Linguistik Identitasnya, Cara Penanganan Objeknya dan Hasil Kajiannya. Yogyakarta. Duta wacana University Press.

Sudaryanto. 1990. Aneka Konsep Kedataan Lingual dalam Linguistik. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.

Sugondo, D. 1999. Berbahasa Indonesia dengan Benar. Jakarta: PT. Penebar Swadaya.

Sugiyono. 2010. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan; Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D (cet. IX). Bandung: AlfabetaTarigan, H.G. 1986. Pengajaran pemerolehan Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa

Weinreich, U. 1970. Language and Contact Reading and Problems. Paris: Mouton The Haugue.

Wibisono, B. 1990. Kajian Theoritis Tentang Pengaruh Bahasa Pertama Terhadap Bahasa Kedua” dalam Nurhadi dan Roekhan. 1990. Dimensi–Dimensi dalam Belajar Bahasa Kedua. Malang dan Bandung: YA3 dan Sinar Baru.

Wiguna, T. Dkk. “Uji Diagnostik Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS) Versi Bahasa Indonesia dan Proporsi Anak Sekolah Dasar dengan Kesulitan Belajar dan Defisit Working Memory di Jakarta”. Departemen Psikiatri Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia/RS Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo, Jakarta. Via Sari Pediatri, Vol. 14, No. 3, Oktober 2012.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.