In order to support my research, here I present two related previous studies, which are directly related to my main topic, fillers.
The Use of Fillers by Different Preachers in the Church in Surabaya (Cahyadi, 2008)
In this research, Cahyadi observed the production of fillers used by different groups of preachers in a natural setting. The objects of investigation were the preachers who were in different groups at City of Faith, one of the satellites of Mawar Sharon Church in Surabaya. In this study, group referred to the title of the preachers in the church. Specifically, Cahyadi asked about the types, the frequency of occurrences, and the functions of fillers used by each preacher of different group.
Mainly, she used the theory on the types of fillers from Rose (1998). It was added with the theories of the types of fillers from Stenstrm (1994) and Baalen (2001). Also, she used the theory on the functions of fillers from Stenstrm (1994).
She used a descriptive qualitative approach since she focused more on finding about the types and the functions of fillers. As the source of data, Cahyadi took two sermons in the cell groups, in which each sermon was done by a preacher of different groups; Fasilitator and Penilik.
In the findings and discussion, Cahyadi found that the Fasilitator produced more fillers than the Penilik. The Fasilitator produced 270 fillers in her sermon, while the Penilik produced 238 fillers in his sermon. Secondly, the data showed Â
that both the Fasilitator and the Penilik produced more lexicalized than unlexicalized fillers. In terms of the functions of fillers, Cahyadi found that the types of fillers produced by both the Fasilitator and the Penilik had the functions as a holder to the turn, as a mark of hesitation, as empathizers, as time-creating device, and as an editing term. As a conclusion, Cahyadi concluded that the different group of the preachers affects the types, the frequencies, and the functions of fillers.
There are one similarity and three differences between my research and Cahyadi's. The similarity is both writers chose the same topic, which is about fillers in terms of the types and the functions in spoken interaction. Thus, the theories used in both researches were quite similar, although I used more theories than Cahyadi.
However, about the differences, first, Cahyadi's subject was the different groups of preachers; meanwhile, my subjects were the first and the seventh semester students of the English Department, Petra Christian University based on the length of studying time. Then, the second difference is Cahyadi's data were the sermons from different groups of preachers in the cell group, while my data were the spoken interaction between two students in pair from the same semester who discussed a certain topic. The last difference is Cahyadi's data were in Indonesian since in cell group, the language used was Indonesian, while my data were in English since I investigated fillers of the English Department students based on the length of studying time.
From Cahyadi's research, I learnt that the Fasilitator who has a higher level than the Penilik, produced more fillers than the Penilik. However, in terms of types of fillers produced, there is no difference since both the Fasilitator and the Penilik produced more lexicalized than unlexicalized fillers. There is also no difference in terms of the functions of the fillers because both the Fasilitator and the Penilik used fillers as a holder to the turn, as a mark of hesitation, as empathizers, as time-creating device, and as an editing term. Despite the differences in the purpose and limitation, Cahyadi's study still contributes to my study. It serves as a reliable base from which I conduct the study under the sameÂ
field, fillers. Therefore I was encouraged more to investigate further about fillers, but with different respondents and data.
