RHETORIC PATTERN IN CLASS DISCUSSION

Eva Eri Dia,1 Postgraduate Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

Suyono, 2 Postgraduate Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Widodo Hs, 3 Postgraduate Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Sunaryo H.S, 4 Postgraduate Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

Abstract: The characteristic of student's language as output that resulted of learning process, beside infulenced by input,
also it can influenced by other factors, those is learning strategy that chosen by lecture and covered by social
background.In university, students are given more chances by lecturer to do the conversation. This conversation is about
the model of using discussion as learning process. This discussion that practiced in university is never far from the role of
lecturer in class management in learning process. Class discussion is chosen by lecturer to treat the students in critical
thingking . One of the aspect that can support in diversity of rhetoric class discussion is rhetoric pattern. As rhetoric fact,
in the use of Indonesian language in the process of discussion that connect with applying the rhetoric pattern. The result
of the study are have two discussions, those are rhetoric pattern, that have found two points,those are reasoning pattern
and argumentation patter. In reasoning pattern divide into three, those are descriptive, inductive, and assortment. In
argumentative pattern is has two points, top down and bottom up. The conclusion in this reseacrh that entitled Rhetoric
Pattern in Class Discussion shows that there is differences in using rhetoric. Related to the use of rhetoric that divide into
two, reasoning pattern and argumentative pattern, are have differences related to the using rhetoric in students in S1, S2
and S3.
Keywords: student's language characteristic, rhetoric, pattern, learning process

Introduction

S Speaking is the process of giving some concepts in statement form which is level of ideas.
The communication process of people are not only just saying in simple statements. Using
the effective and communicative information is require art of speaking. The rhetoric
discussion related in class discussion is different in study that focus on rhetoric study in discourse
of speech or other written discourse. The characteristic in student langauge as an output that
resulted of learning process, also influenced by other factors, those are learning strategy that
chosen by lecturer and covered of social background. The problem of rhetoric in discussion is
become a point of this study, because the activity is necessity in discussion, especially in rhetoric
pattern. In discussion is also happen the activity of saying that try to solve the problem through
question and answer process, giving the information and justification among presenter,
audiences, and lecturer.
The scope of rhetoric is all of the argumentation process. Argumentation process in rhetoric
can do in critical and dinamic interaction between presenter and audiences. Class discussion in
university is involved speaking ability or speaking art of students. Focus of the study is rhetoric
pattern in class discussion that include Top Down and Bottom up pattern. In pragmatic view,
Leech (1993:22-24) defines rhetoric as a study about the use of effective language in
communication. Rhetoric is the use of effective language, the use of formal language and
programed for resulting certain effect in mind.
The connectivity of rhetoric as art of speaking ability or art of saying opinion, proposing
ideas, conveying information to other people in effectively with using language as a tools, in
written or oral, Wallace in Syafi'ie (1988:4-6) specify points of rhetoric elements, those are: (1)
good reasoning, (2) ethic and moral values, (3) language, (4) knowledge.

1
Corresponding Author: Eva Eri Dia, Jl. Pattimura III No 20 Jombang, Indonesia Language Education, Postgraduate
Universitas Negeri Malang, STKIP PGRI Jombang, Jombang, East Java, 61419, Indonesia. email: evaeridia@gmail.com
2
Suyono, Prof. Dr. M.Pd, Jl. Raya Candi III/455 Karangbesuki, Sukun, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri Malang,
Malang, 65146, Indonesia, suyono.fs@um.ac.id
3
Widodo Hs, Dr., Jl. Terusan Sigura-gura B-38 Malang 65145, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri Malang,
Malang, 65146, Indonesia
4
Sunaryo H.S., Dr. S.H., M.Hum, Jl. Terusan Sigura-gura C-7 Malang 65145, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri
Malang, Malang, 65146, Indonesia
 Reasoning is the process of arrange the logical relation between evidence and convictions to
get the conclusion. Argument is a set of statement in conviction forms and support toward it.
Argument is used to influenced other people to deal with it. To analyze the argumentation it can
use Top-Down dan Bottom-Up analysis (Harmowati, 2013).Top-Down is the dialogue process
that used in argumentative concept. The element composition of dialogue process is escort,
claiming with ingnorance or without ignorance. With this composition to construct a
argumentative text that need to shows understanding the meaning of text.
Bottom-Up is a monologue process that used in argumentative concepts, that sign with
problems/claim/sub-claim, followed with justification, and ended with induction. This
monologue process will showing the combination in every parts in argumentative text.
Reasoning model is a general ilustration about structure, style, or reasoning pattern
(argument). Reasoning with using Toulmin model consists of six elements. The correlation with
rhetoric pattern, Toulmin model is used to analyze the level of conclusion on correctness
background that made by speaker in explicitely. Toulmin Model is consist of six elements, (1)
data or base, (2) convictions, (3) base of correctness, (4) support, (5) modality, and (6) rebuttal
(Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik 1979). Data is use as the basis for made conviction form.
Data or base are same with proof or fact or factual condition that can seemed in objectively,
believes or premise that have accepeted the correctness, or conclusion that have agreed before.
Convictions means as opinons or conclusion that asserted by speaker in order to be accepted by
their partner. Correctness base are rule, principle, or agreement in certain aspects.
Correctness base is reasoning component that used to connect the data to convictions.
Support is a fact or conclusion that used to support or dealing principles that conveyed in
correctness base. Modality is a phrase that showing kinds and level of strength of correctness
base. Modality is have function to strengthen and showing validity of condition. Rebuttal is the
greatest condition or exception that can ruin the correctness base. With conveying rebuttal,
conviction can used more specific and reasoning can be stronger.

The Objective of the Research

Theoritically, this study is about rhetoric in learning, i do hope it can give additional
knowledge in pragmatic theory, psycolinguistic, semantic, and art of speaking (rhetoric). In art of
speaking theory (rhetoric) itself, this study can give knowledge about use of language style that
used by speaker in arrange the concept and logical things. For instance, function in lecturer or
teacher, this study is give addition perception about how to use rhetoric in learning process in
discussion forma in class or speech-question and answer form. The benefit for students, this
study is give knowledge that in conveying a concepts need to show the stregth of diction and
appropriateness in topic of speech in order to get the appropriate fact.

Methodology
This study is use qualitative approach with use inductive way. This study is focus on the use
of Indonesian language in interactive dialogue inter-students in class discussion. In this study, the
researcher acts as key's instrument of gathering data. As key's instrument, every process of
gathering the source of data, the researcher always present in class discussion. In this terms, the
researcher is has role play as observer. This study is takes the rhetoric device data and student's
rhetoric pattern in University of Malang. The subject of this study is post-student and post-
graduate students in all major. The data in this research is verbal data, there is students who
presented the role as a speaker and audiences, also lecturer who give the comments towards the
result of discussion. The source of data is lecturer and student's opinion in class discussion.

Data Collection
Data gathering in this study is done by observation technique and documentation. Observation
technique is done to showing the discussion phenomenon that happened in the class, and in
documentation technique, the researcher is do the recording process during discussion happened
also in question and answer in every discussion.

Instruments of Research

As deal with steps of data corps analysis that doing in this study, those steps are: (1) coding and
data reduction, (2) data analysis, (3) inferension and verification, so guider instruments that
served are : (1) coding corps guiding, (2)corps analysis data guider, and (3) inferension guiding.

Data Analyze and Data Validation

The researcher do three steps in data analyze, those are, preparation,data organization, data
reduction, data serving. To guarantee this study, every way have be done, for example to keep
the data through validity test. The level of credibility test is done by extend the duration of
observation, seek for diligence and carefulness in observing, and doing triangulation. Test
towards data positional degree is done with loosen the data and context in detailed and
structured.

Result and Discussion: Rhetoric Pattern

Rhetoric pattern in class discussion is explain with category as reasoning pattern and
argument pattern in class discussion.Reasoning pattern in class discussion is have kinds of
logical as inductive pattern and deductive reasoning pattern. In argumentative pattern in class
discussion is divide become argument pattern Top Downforms and reasoning pattern Bottom
Upforms.

Inductive reasoning pattern in class discussion.

Data or Base: related to the topic of our paper( unclear) right education in Indonesia, with
IPTEK development, then prestigious nation and future human and revitalisation of education
based on IPTEK development will keep forward demandingin allpeople
development.(Pen.Dsr.S3.H3204)
Support: the most effective way through education, then for be pretigious nation, Indonesia
must streghten (unclear) political instituation, ecomonic instituation, technology instituation, law
instituation, ethic instuation, social instituation, and cultural instituation. Then, Indonesian for the
future based on revitalisation of education through right learning is the first sensitive things that
musthave by human, and the second is big independent and have great
responsibility.(Pen.Dkg.S3.H3204)
If in theory of Toulmin have a series of reasoning elements are (1) base, (2) conviction, (3)
correctness base, (4) support, (5) modality, and (6) rebuttal. So, the data that have found by
researcher have far differences. It can say fhat because the elements of data are just have two and
unarranged. First element is showing the data or base in conveying the reason in class discussion.
The moderator is not use the base element of correcteness in speaking, until when support
element appeared without any correctness base, it is feels so unique and weird. That support
element can say it stands alone without any base of correctness followed which have function as
giving explanation on the problem that discussed in class discussion.

Deductive reasoning pattern in class discussion.

 Data or base: for the first I will explain about pleirialism development, it come from
perenialism which is took from perennial word that have meaning as(unclear) Because
Aristoteles consider education in nowdays is not need to back in the past based on our belief that
belief it use for us.(Pen.Dsr.S2.H2205). Modality: become values that according to him not
appropriate yet, so he adapt guidances in Christ. So thats why, in this era known as Neo-
Thomism (unclear) (Pen.Mdl.S2.H2205). Rebuttal: then, axident is special conditions that can
changed and the characteristic is not important than another essential.For example, i love singing
or my hobby is reading. Then, the role of teacher in student is not just a mediator, based on
perenialism, teacher not just their mediator, teacher also become a student. And as student who
learning while teaching and do moral (unclear) as like teach the positive of moral character to
their student. (Sgh.S2.H2205) The data in speaking above have three elements from six elements
that mentioned by (Toulmin, Rieke and Janik, 1979). Until this data can say as a half rhetoric
forms because it just have three elements, those are data elements, modality element, and rebuttal
element. This data has no other elements like, conviction, correctness base and support. It means,
this data cannot be fulfill the data criteria of the kind of rhetoric.

Top Down argument patterns

Evaluation: Okay ... that was the presentation from our group then the third meeting was
about "Ethics in Characterization" ee ... I think that's the explanation from us where we have to
understand research and non-research. (Arg.TD/Evl.S2.H3104). In conclusion that was happened
in the field regarding ethics we must understand and be better for the next time I give it to the
lecturer to explain the progress. (Arg.Spl.S2.H3104)
From the data above, it has two elements of the five elements presented by (Harmowati,
2013). So, this data can be said to be a little form of rhetoric because it only covers two elements,
namely the elements of evaluation and conclusions. This data does not have other elements such
as introductory, problems and solutions. It means, this data cannot be said that thid data has no
type of rhetoric criteria

Bottom Up argumentation pattern

Correctness. Okay, immediately answered the second question by our group, determine the
objects that taken by the sample then determinine the tools for research samples appropriate with
the specified amount. The second is do a random sample of clarification. This is done to divide
into several or samples that reflect quality improvement because the next population element is a
random and non-random centric sample (Arg.Pbr.S2.H3104).
Induction: Furthermore, the systematics of sample. So, for random sampling uses both
endocentric and non-endocentric methods. (Arg.Idk.S2.H3104)
From the data above, it has two elements of the three elements presented by (Harmowati,
2013). So that this data can be said to be a form of half rhetoric because it only includes two
elements, namely elements of acknowledgment and inclusion. This data does not have a problem,
means that it cannot be said appropriate with the data criteria that have a full type of rhetoric.

Conclusion

Based on reasoning pattern as the research focus taken. From the sixth sample object as like
moderators, presenters, questioners, answerers, objections, and lecturers. The sample object has a
comprehensive rhetorical pattern. Some objects include category of 'complet rhetoric', 'half
rhetoric', and 'little rhetoric' be related to the argumentation pattern, the argumentation pattern is
divided into two forms, namely Top Down and Bottom Up. From the sixth sample object based
on Top Down and Bottom Up. The sixth objects also have a comprehensive rhetorical pattern. .
Some objects include category of 'complete rhetoric', 'half rhetoric', and 'little rhetoric'.
 REFERENCES
Alisjahbana, S Takdir.1969. Tatabahasa Baru Bahasa Indonesia.Jakarta: Dian Rakyat.
Anwar, Khoirul. 2010. Rhetorical Patterns of Research Articles in Language Teaching Journals.
Disertasi. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Bogdan, Robert C and Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1982. Qualitative Researchn for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Method. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Bogdan, R. dan Taylor, J.S. 1993.Kualitatif Dasar-Dasar Penelitian.Terjemahan oleh A.K.
Afandi. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.
Bormann, Ernest G. dan Nancy C. Bormann. 1986. Retorika (Suatu Pendekatan Terpadu). Edisi
Keempat. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Chaer, Abdul. 2010. Kesatuan Berbahasa. Jakarta: PT Asdi Mahasatya
Creswell, John W. 2015. Penelitian Kualitatif dan Desain Riset.Memilih di Antara Lima
Pendekatan.Terjemahan.Edisi 3. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Dawud. 1998. Penalaran dalam Tuturan Bahasa Indonesia Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Disertasi.
Malang: IKIP Malang
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. 2012. Psikolinguistik (Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa Manusia).
Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Desak, Putu Eka Pratiwi. 2015. Ikatan Komersial pada Media Elektronik.Disertasi
Effendy, O.U. 1986. Dinamika Komunikasi. Bandung: Remandja Karya.
Golden, James L., dkk. 1984. The Rhetoric of Western Thought. Third Edition. Lowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
Harmowati.2013. Pola Retorika Naskah Pidato Siswa Kelas X SMA Negeri 7 Kota
Bengkulu.Tesis. Bengkulu: Universitas Bengkulu.
Harumi, Endah. 2008. Retorika Pidato Bupati Di Jawa Timur Pendekatan Tekstual. Disertasi.
Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Hendrikus, Dori Wuwur. 1991. Retorika. Terampil Berpidato, Berdiskusi, Beragumentasi,
Bernegosiasi. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Ibrahim, Abd Syukur. 1993. Kajian Tindak Tututr. Surabaya: Usaha Offset Printing
Iriantara, Yosal. 2014. Komunikasi Pembelajaran (Interaksi, Komunikatif, dan Edukatif dalam
Kelas). Bandung: Simbiosa Rekatama Meda.
Keraf, Gorys. 1981. Tatabahasa Indonesia untuk Sekolah Lanjutan Atas. Ende-Flores: Nusa
Indah.
King, Larry. 2008. Seni Berbicara Kepada Siapa Saja, Kapan Saja, di Mana Saja. Jakarta: PT
Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Maarif, Zainul. 2015. Retorika Metode Komunikatif Publik.jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Mahsun. 2007. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: PT
Raja Grafindo Persada.
Marta, Nengah. 2015. Retorika. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu
Moleong, J Lexy. 2005. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Moeliono, Anton dan Soenjono Dardjowidjojo.1988. Tatabahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia.
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Mujianto.1998. Retorika Wacana Orasi Ilmiah Bahasa Indonesia.Disertasi. Malang: Universitas
Negeri Malang
Mundiri. 2012. Logika. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Pateda, Mansoer. 2010. Semantik Leksikal. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta
Ramlan. 1987. Ilmu Bahasa Indonesia. Sintaksis.Yogyakarta: CV. Karyono.
Rahmat, Jalaludin. 2012. Retorika Modern Pendekatan Praktis. Bandung: PT Remaja
Rosdakarya.
Rofi’uddin, Ahmad. 1990. Studi Tentang Bentuk dan Fungsi Pertanyaan dalam Interaksi Kelas
Bahasa Indonesia dan Dalam Interaksi Keluarga.Disertasi. Malang: IKIP Malang.
Rogers, Natalie. 2003. Berani Berbicara di Depan Publik: Cara Cepat Berpidato dengan Efektif
dan Efisien. Terjemahan dari How to Speak Without Fear: Kaushal Goyal for GoylSaab.
Bandung: Nuansa Cendekia.
Samsuri. 1985. Tatakalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Sastra Hudaya.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2007. Ancangan Kajian Wacana. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Suparno, dkk. 2007. Bebicara. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka
Supratman, Dandan. 1982. Mengukur Keterampilan Berbicara. Media: Jurnal Fakultas Keguruan
Sastra Seni IKIP
Susandi. 2011. Retorika: Sebuah Pengantar. Malang: Indus Nesus Publishing.
Syafi’ie, Imam. 1988. Retorika dalam menulis. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan.
Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 2008. Berbicara sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung:
Angkasa.
Zaenal, Yusuf. 2013. Pengantar Retorika. Bandung: CV Pustaka Setia

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Eva Eri Dia, Lecture on Departement of Indonesian Literature Education, Jl. Pattimura III No 20
Jombang, Indonesia Language Education, Postgraduate Universitas Negeri Malang, STKIP PGRI
Jombang, Jombang, East Java, 61419, Indonesia.

Suyono, Prof. Dr. M.Pd, Professor on Departement of Literature Faculty, Jl. Raya Candi III/455
Karangbesuki, Sukun, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, 65146,
Indonesia.

Widodo Hs, Dr., Professor on Departement of Literature Faculty, Jl. Terusan Sigura-gura B-38
Malang 65145, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, 65146, Indonesia.

Sunaryo H.S., Dr. S.H., M.Hum, Professor on Departement of Literature Faculty, Jl. Terusan
Sigura-gura C-7 Malang 65145, Literature Faculty of Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang,
65146, Indonesia.