




































1 

 

 ELT FORUM 2 (1) (2013) 

 

English Language Teaching Forum 
 

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

GAMBITS FOUND IN THE CONVERSATIONS OF LOOK AHEAD 2 

(An English Textbook for Senior High School Students Year XI 

Published by Erlangga) 

 

Siti Maesaroh 

 

Department of English, Faculty Language and Arts, Semarang State University, Indonesia 

Info Artikel 

________________ 
SejarahArtikel: 

DiterimaJanuari 2013 

DisetujuiFebruari 2013 

DipublikasikanJuni 2013 

________________ 
Keywords: 

Gambits, Speech Act, 

Conversation, Textbook, 

Look Ahead 2 

____________________ 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________ 

This is a descriptive qualitative study aiming at finding out what speech acts and gambits found in 

the conversation models of Look Ahead 2 (an English textbook for senior high school grade XI 

published by Erlangga). This study was conducted in line with the important roles of gambits in 

spoken communication.Searle (1969) classified speech acts into five: directives, commissives, 

representatives, declaratives and expressive with further sub-classified by van Ek (1998) into six 

functions and 132 sub-functions. These speech act functions have become the basis of English 

curriculum in Indonesia. The speech acts realizations in utterances are usually hedged by gambits 

or discourse markers aiming at downgrading, upgrading, intensifying or avoiding a Face 

Threatening Act. The data were collected from the textbook Look Ahead 2 written by Th. M. 

Sudarwati and Eudia Grace. The study was focused only on five speech acts: asking for an 

opinion, giving opinion, agreeing to an opinion, disagreeing to an opinion, and giving 

suggestion/advice. Therefore, the data taken were only the sentences which indicate those five 

speech acts.16 conversations were taken as the data.  There were 38 clauses belonging to 11 speech 

act functions specified for XI grade students. The speech acts found were: asking for an opinion, 

giving opinion, expressing satisfaction, dissatisfaction, giving suggestion, warning, expressing 

relief, pain, sorrow, anger, and annoyance. There were 34 gambits found in five speech acts: four 

gambits were found in asking for an opinion, six in giving opinion, five in agreeing to an opinion, 

ten in disagreeing to an opinion, nine in giving suggestion/advice. Of the five speech acts 

understudy, there were three types of gambits namely opening, linking, and responding gambits. 

There were nine gambits belong to opening gambit, three gambits belong to linking gambit, and 22 

data for responding gambit.The finding indicated that among 14 speech acts required by the 

curriculum, 11 speech acts were found but the other three were not. They are expressing pleasure, 

expressing love and expressing embarrassment. The gambits found in five specific speech acts were 

used appropriately based on both Keller’s and Dörnyei’s classifications. Among three types of 

gambits, opening gambit was the most frequently used (52.9%). Responding gambit was the 

second frequently used (38.2%), and the least frequently used gambit was the linking gambit 

(8.8%).   

© 2013UniversitasNegeri Semarang 
Alamatkorespondensi:  

GedungB3Lantai3 FBSUnnes 

KampusSekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 

   E-mail: smilemae26@yahoo.com  

ISSN 2252-6706 

 

 

 



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

2 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

English is the most influential language. It 

is taught all over the world under many different 

circumstances. It is the most frequently used 

language in international communication. 

Almost all important international affairs use it 

as a medium to communicate.  

As many other languages, English has 

four skills which have to be learned by students. 

They are listening, speaking, reading and 

writing. According to Brown (2004:186), 

listening and reading belong to receptive skills in 

which learners are receiving stimuli to make 

them understand the language, while speaking 

and writing are productive skills in which 

learners are expected to produce spoken and 

written texts. 

Speaking is generally considered as a 

difficult skill to master in a language. Halliday 

(1994:76) says it is because speaking is 

spontaneous. The time to process a language 

input and to process how to respond it is very 

limited. According to Nunan (2003:48), many 

people feel that speaking in a new language is 

harder than reading, writing, and listening for 

two reasons. First, unlike reading, speaking 

happens in real time: usually the person you are 

talking to is waiting for you to speak right then. 

Second, when you are speaking, you cannot edit 

or revise what you wish to say, as you can do if 

you are writing. 

Along with this, Dӧrnyei and Thurrell 

(1992:ix) say that “… even the best language 

learners often complain that they feel at a loss 

when meeting and native speakers and engaging 

in real-life conversation”. 

Since English is the first international 

language which is spoken by most of people all 

over the world, students are better to learn it 

more than theoretically. As in the School-based 

Curriculum, the learners must learn English for 

communication. This is along with Jones 

(1993:3) says that for students to acquire this 

communicative competence, they must learn 

more than just grammar and vocabulary. They 

must learn which structures are appropriate to 

the situation they are in and the people they are 

with.  

When we speak, we produce stretches of 

utterances. A stretch of utterance usually has a 

head-act (which function to reveal the 

communication purpose or the speaker‟s intend) 

and hedges (in the form of gambits to smooth 

the conversation). Therefore, to make students 

speaking flows more natural, they need to learn 

gambits. In line with this, Hughes (2002:37) says 

that gambits oil the wheels of talk, and 

conversation without them will seem very 

„cranky‟. 

School-based Curriculum divides English 

speaking materials for senior high school into 

some speech acts. Grade XI students are to learn 

fourteen speech acts: asking for an opinion, 

giving opinion, expressing satisfaction, 

expressing dissatisfaction, giving 

suggestion/advice, warning, expressing relief, 

expressing pain, expressing pleasure, expressing 

love, expressing sorrow, expressing 

embarrassment, expressing anger and expressing 

annoyance. 

Based on the curriculum setting of 

speaking material into those speech acts and by 

seeing the fact that English natives include 

gambits in their speaking, it is important to 

provide gambits for all the speech acts specified 

by the curriculum. Realizing the importance of 

gambits in conversations, and textbooks as the 

media in English teaching and learning, I choose 

the topic “Gambits found in Look Ahead 2 (An 

English Textbook for Senior High School 

Students Year XI Published by Erlangga)” that 

hopefully can give a description of the 

importance of gambits to be provided in 

textbooks. 

Since my study is targeted to an English 

textbook of XI graders, I focused my study on 

analyzing speech acts as given by the School-

based Curriculum for grade XI students. 

Further, I focused only on gambits in five speech 

acts: asking for an opinion, giving opinion, 

disagreeing to an opinion, agreeing to an 

opinion, and giving advice/suggestion. 

 

 



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

3 

 

METHOD 

 

In this study, I chose conversation models 

given in the Look Ahead 2 (An English Textbook 

for Senior High School Students Year XI 

Published by Erlangga) as the object of the 

study. I wanted to find out what speech acts are 

found in the conversations of Look Ahead 2 

which are compatible with the curriculum. I also 

wanted to find out what gambits were found in 

the five specific speech acts (asking for an 

opinion, giving opinion, agreeing to an opinion, 

disagreeing to an opinion and giving 

suggestion/advice).  

I applied some steps in collecting the data.  

(1) Reading  

I read all the conversations given in Look 

Ahead 2 normally as general readers do to 

comprehend the information of the texts. 

(2) Retyping 

The conversations were printed in the 

book separately. Thus, to make the research go 

easier, I retyped all of the conversation models 

complete with their information (the chapter, 

page, and the purpose of each conversation). 

For the techniques of analyzing the data, I 

took two steps of analyzing. Those are as 

follows: 

(1) Identifying and coding conversations 

I identified the conversations contain all 

the speech acts specified in the School-Based 

Curriculum for XI grade students and gave them 

codes (C1, C2, C3 and so on). 

(2) Identifying and numbering clauses  

I identified the clauses belonging to 

speech acts compatible with the curriculum and 

gave numbers in front of each clause. 

(3) Identifying gambits  

I identified the gambits found in five 

speech acts: asking for an opinion, giving 

opinion, agreeing to an opinion, disagreeing to 

an opinion and giving suggestion/advice.  

(4) Analyzing the appropriateness of the 

gambits 

I analyzed whether the gambits found in 

the five speech acts under the study are used 

appropriately according to the theories of 

Dörnyei and Thurrell (1992) and Howe and 

Burton (in Kurniawan and Artiningsih, 2008). 

(5) Classifying gambits 

 I classified the gambits based on their 

type according to the classification from Keller 

and Warner (1988). 

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

The data of this study were collected from 

sixteen conversation models of Look Ahead 2. I 

found speech acts compatible with the School-

Based Curriculum. I also found gambits in the 

five specific speech acts I concerned. There were 

38 clauses belonging to 11 speech act functions 

specified for XI grade students. The speech acts 

found were: asking for an opinion, giving 

opinion, expressing satisfaction, dissatisfaction, 

giving suggestion, warning, expressing relief, 

pain, sorrow, anger, and annoyance. Three 

speech acts specified by the curriculum are 

expressing pleasure, expressing love and 

expressing embarrassment. The following table 

gives details of the speech acts found. 

From the speech acts listed above, I can 

see that there are thirty eight clauses belonging 

to the speech acts specified for senior high 

school grade XI. The speech act of giving 

suggestion/advice found in the most 

conversations (eight data found). The second 

most frequently found speech act is giving 

opinion (seven data found). 

Since this study is concerned in finding 

gambits in only five speech acts: asking for an 

opinion, giving opinion, agreeing to an opinion, 

disagreeing to an opinion and giving 

suggestion/advice, I identified the gambits in 

those speech acts. 

There were 34 gambits found in five 

speech acts: four gambits were found in asking 

for an opinion, six in giving opinion, five in 

agreeing to an opinion, ten in disagreeing to an 

opinion, nine in giving suggestion/advice. 

Gambits of asking for an opinion can be found 

in C1, C2 and C7; gambits of giving an opinion 

were found in C7, C9, C10 and C15; gambits of 

agreeing to an opinion are found in C4, C7 and 

C15; gambits of disagreeing to an opinion in C1, 

C7, C8, C9 and C10; and gambits of giving 



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

4 

 

suggestion/advice are found in C1, C2, C3, C7, 

C12, C14 and C15. The following table gives the 

detail of the gambits found and their 

classification according to Keller and Warner 

classification of conversation gambits (1988).  

There are four gambits found belonging to 

gambits of asking for an opinion. They are found 

in conversation no. one, two and seven. I can 

see that the gambits used the same phrase what 

do you think… and don’t you think… Three of the 

four gambits belong to opening gambits and one 

belongs to linking gambit. Five gambits found 

belong to gambits of agreeing to an opinion. 

They are found in conversation no. 4, 7 and 15. 

All the gambits found in agreeing to an opinion 

are responding gambits (according to Keller and 

Warner classification). Gambits in disagreeing 

to an opinion are found more than in any other 

speech acts. There are ten gambits found, eight 

belong to responding gambits and two belong to 

linking gambits. Gambits of disagreeing to an 

opinion are found in conversation no. 1, 7, 8, 9 

and 10. The last speech act being analyzed in 

this study is giving suggestion/advice. As given 

in the table 4.1 before, speech act of giving 

suggestion/advice is found in the conversation 

no. 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 14 and 15. The following table 

gives the detail of the finding gambits and their 

classification based on Keller and Warner 

(1988). There are nine data found belonging to 

gambits of giving suggestion/advice. Based on 

their functions, all of the gambits found in giving 

suggestion/advice are opening gambits. 

According to the theory of Dörnyei and 

Thurrel (1992), the gambits found in the five 

speech acts under this study are used 

appropriately. The chart below shows their 

percentages according to their classification 

based on Keller and Warner (1988). 

There are four gambits found in asking for 

an opinion. Three of them belong to opening 

gambit (8.82%) and another one belongs to 

linking gambit (2.94%). 

The opening gambits are What do you 

think…? (in C1); Mrs. Alison, what do you think…? 

(in C2); Don’t you think…? (in C7). While the 

linking gambit is … don’t you think…? (in C1). 

According to Keller and Warner (1988), speech 

act functions of asking for an opinion can be 

opening gambit or linking gambit. 

From the conversations being analyzed, I 

can see that the opening gambits are placed in 

the front of sentences to signal that the speakers 

are expecting the listeners‟ opinion about certain 

cases. Linking gambit is found to link between 

the speaker‟s opinion and the question to the 

listener‟s opinion. 

In giving opinion, all the gambits found 

are opening gambit (17.65% of all gambits 

found). This is in line with Keller‟s theory which 

classifies giving opinion into opening gambits. It 

is because when we are giving our opinion, we 

are giving new ideas, new discourse in our 

conversation.  

As given in the figure 4.2, there are 

14.71% gambits in agreeing to an opinion. All of 

the gambits belong to responding gambit. Their 

uses are appropriate since after we listen to 

other‟s opinion, they expect our response. They 

are wondering if we agree or disagree with their 

opinion. Thus, agreeing means that we are 

responding other‟s opinion. 

Disagreeing to an opinion is found in ten 

clauses. Each clause contains of each gambit of 

disagreeing to an opinion. Eight of the gambits 

belong to responding gambit (by 23.53%) and 

the other two belong to linking gambit (5.88%).  

Gambits of giving suggestion/advice are 

found more than other gambits (26.47%). All of 

the gambits function to give suggestion belongs 

to opening gambits. This is in line with Keller‟s 

classifications of gambits says giving suggestion 

means giving new idea to solve a problem. In 

C1, a husband is giving suggestion to his wife; in 

C2, Mrs. Wilson is giving her advice to her 

student; in C3, Eve is giving her opinion to her 

friend; in C12, a shopkeeper is giving his 

suggestion to a customer; and in C14 and C15, 

there are also suggestions to the speakers‟ 

spouse. 

 

 

 

 

  



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

5 

 

Table 4.1 Speech Acts of Look Ahead 2

No. Speech Acts Conversations No. Data No. Sum 

1 asking for an opinion C1, C2, C7 (1), (3), (4), (24) 4 

2 giving opinion 
C7, C8, C9, C10, C15 (20), (21), (23), (29), 

(31), (32), (34), (46) 
7 

3 expressing satisfaction C11 (36), (37) 2 

4 expressing dissatisfaction C12 (38) 1 

5 giving suggestion/advice 
C1, C2, C3, C7, C12, C14, 

C15 
(2), (5), (6), (7), (27), 

(39), (42), (45) 
8 

6 Warning C14 (43) 1 

7 expressing relief C5 (15) 1 

8 expressing pain C5 (10), (12) 2 

9 expressing pleasure - - 0 

10 expressing love - - 0 

11 expressing sorrow 
C5, C13, C16 (11), (13), (16), (41), 

(48) 
5 

12 expressing embarrassment - - 0 

13 expressing anger 
C5, C6, C12, C16 (14), (16), (19), (40), 

(49) 
5 

14 expressing annoyance C6 (17), (18) 2 

 Sum 38 

 Table 4.2 

Gambits Found in the Five Speech Acts 

Speech Act Conversation No. Data 
No. 

Gambits Used Kind of 
Gambit 

Asking for an 
Opinion 

1 

 

(1) What do you think…? Opening 

(3) … don’t you think…? Linking 

2 (4)  Mrs. Alison, what do you think…? Opening 

7 (24) Don’t you think…? Opening 

Giving opinion 7 (21) I think … Opening 

(23) In my opinion, ... Opening 

9 (31) I don’t think that … Opening 

(32) Well, I personally believe that… Opening 

10 (34) I believe that … Opening 

15 (46) I think … Opening 

Agreeing to an 
opinion 

4 (8) Okay, deal. Responding 

(9) Deal. Responding 

7 (28) Yes, I suppose you’re right. Responding 

15 (45) Yes. Responding 

(47) I agree with you because … Responding 

Disagreeing to an 
opinion 

1 (3) Well, I was thinking of that, but… Responding 

7 (21) I don’t think so. Responding 

(22) Maybe so, but… Linking 

(24) Yes, that’s true, but… Linking 

(25) Not at all. Responding 



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

6 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 Kinds of Gambits in Five Speech Acts 

 

  

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

ask for an
opinion

give opinion agree to an
opinion

disagree to
an opinion

give
suggestion

opening

linking

responding

(26) Sure, I agree, but… Responding 

8 (30) Not at all. Responding 

9 (33) I see your point, but… Responding 

10 (34) I don’t think so, … Responding 

(35) I can see your point, Komar, but 
can’t you see… 

Responding 

Giving 
suggestion/advice 

1 (2) Why don’t you … Opening 

2 (5) I think it would be a great idea for 
you to… 

Opening 

(5) Try  …ing Opening 

3 

 

(7) I think you shouldn’t… Opening 

(7) You can… Opening 

7 (27) It should Opening 

12 (39) Why don’t you … Opening 

14 (42) Let’s… Opening 

15 (45) Let’s… Opening 



 

Siti Maesaroh / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

7 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment. USA: 

Longman. 

Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Elite Olshtain. 2000. 

Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. London: Oxford 

University Press. 

Coulthard, Malcolm. 1977. An Introduction to 

Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. 

Cunningsworth, A. 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. 

Great Britain: The Bath Press. 

Dӧrnyei, Zoltan and  Sarah Thurrell. 1992. 

Conversation and Dialogues in Action. 

UK:Prentice Hall International Ltd. 

Eggins, Suzanne and Diana Slade. 1997. Analyzing 

Casual Conversation. London and Washington: 

Casell. 

Elizabeth, M. M. Ed. 2003. Painless Speaking. New 

York: Barron‟s Educational Serties, Inc. 

Hartoyo. 2011. Linguistic and Educational Research 

(Course Outline and Course Material).Semarang: 

Unnes press.  

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Spoken and Written Language. 

Victoria: Deakin University Press. 

Hatch, Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language 

Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Hornby, A.S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner‟s 

Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Hughes, Rebecca. 2002. Teaching and Researching 

Speaking. United Kingdom: Pearson Education 

Limited. 

van Ek, J.A. and J.L.M. Trim. 1998. Threshold 1990. 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Jones, Leo. 1993. Functions of English (Teacher's Book). 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Joyce, Helen d Silva. Ed. 2000. Teachers’ Voices 6: 

Teaching Casual Conversation. Sydney: Mcquire 

University. 

Keller, Eric and Sylvia T. Warner. 1988. Conversation 

Gambits - Real English Conversation Practices. 

Ottawa: Language Teaching Publication. 

Kurniawan, Lanny and Siti N. Artiningsih. 2008. 

English Today 2. Jakarta: Quadra. 

Lee, Beryl C. et al. “Discourse Marker Teaching in 

College Conversation Classrooms: Focus on 

well, you know, I mean” 通識 教 育 年 刊 第 

六 期. China: CEPS, 2004. pp. 177-199 

Longman. 1992. Dictionary of English Language Culture. 

New York: Longman Group Ltd. 

Matei, Mădălina. 2010. Discourse Markers as 

Functional Elements. Bulletin of the 

Transilvania University of Brasov . Vol. 3 (52). 

Series IV: Philology and Cultural Studies. 

Mujiyanto,Yan. 2011. Petunjuk Penulisan Skripsi. 

Semarang: Semarang State University Press.  

Mukhoyyaroh, Siti. 2010. A Final Project: An Analysis 

of Conversation Gambits Produced by the 

Participants (Broadcaster and Caller) of English 

Interactive Program “Pro 2 English Time” on RRI 

Semarang. Semarang: Unpublished. 

Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. 

New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. 

Nurmawati, Dwi. 2008. A Final Project: The Speech 

Functions Found on Ten Conversational Texts 

Displayed 0n “new snapshot pre-intermediate” 

Published by Longman. Semarang: Unpublished. 

Richards, Jack C. and Richards W. Schmidt. 1983. 

Language and Communication. London: 

Longman. 

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987.  Discourse Markers. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

________________, 2001. Discourse markers: 

language, meaning and context. In: Schiffrin, 

D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), The 

Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell, 

Malden, MA, pp. 54–75. 

Sudarwati. Th.M. and E. Grace. 2007. Look Ahead: An 

English Course for Senior High School Students 

Year XI. Jakarta: Erlangga. 

Tarigan, Drs. Djago and Prof. H.G. Tarigan. 1986. 

Telaah Buku Teks SMTA. Jakarta: Departemen 

Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Universitas 

Terbuka. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
84 


