1

A Study of Conversational Structure

PAPER

Submitted to fulfill the requirements of Pragmatics

Mid-term & Final Exams

By

Name : Tantri Sundari

NIM : 147 835 098

Class : P2TK

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM

STATE UNIVERSITY OF SURABAYA

2014

2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Based on (Conklin, 1912) conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous

communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette. It is

polite give and take of subjects thought of by people talking with each other for company.

Conversation is a central activity in social life. (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) said

conversation is not seen simply as the product of two speaker-hearers who attempt to

exchange information or convey messages to each other. Participants in conversation are

seen as mutually orienting to, and collaborating in order to achieve, orderly and

meaningful communication. Conversation also can not be separated from it context and

circumstance when it was uttered, somehow it is like a unity among the meaning, context

and lately conversation is connected with social.

However, how is ordinary conversation organized, how do people coordinate

their talk in interaction, and what is the role of talk in wider social processes? The study

of conversation became more interesting when Harold Garnfikel, an ethno methodologist

conducted a research on social action and interaction. Then, these ideas were developed

by Sacks who determined that conversation is an organized activity that has a systematic

structure. It is called conversational analysis (CA). According to (Sidnell, 2010)

conversation analysis (CA) is an approach within the social sciences that aims to describe,

analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of human social life.

Hutchby (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) states that conversation analysis is characterized by

the view that how talk is produced and how the meanings of that talk are determined are

the practical, social and interactional accomplishments of members of a culture.

According to (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009) the more important CA investigates

the sequential nature of conversation; analysts have studied the systematically recurring

linguistic units that open these conversations.

In this discussion, we will discuss more about the conversational and preference

structure. What kind of features that was existed in a conversation, and how do we do the

conversation will be discussed on the next chapter.

1.2 Formulation of Problems

There are six problems that we are going to discuss in this paper:

1. What is the definition of conversation?

2. What is the definition of conversational analysis?

3. What kinds of features are existed in a conversation?

4. What kinds of conversation style do people have?

5. What is adjacency pair?

6. Explain about preference structure!

3

1.3 Objective

The purposes of doing discussion about conversation and preference structure are:

1. To know more about the definition of conversation.

2. To understand more about the definition of conversational analysis.

3. Can identify kinds of features are existed in a conversation.

4. To recognize kinds of conversation style people have.

5. To know more adjacency pair.

6. To ccomprehend about preference structure

4

CHAPTER 2

DISCUSSION

2.1 The Definition of Conversation

Based on (Mazeland, 2006) conversation is talk between two or more people in

which thoughts, feelings and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and answered, or

news and information are exchanged. While according to (Cutting, 2005) conversation is

discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually

informal and unplanned. Contributions to a conversation are response reactions to what

has previously been said. They are essentially of an interactive nature.

Conversation follows rules of etiquette because conversations are social

interactions, and therefore depend on social convention. Specific rules of conversation

are called cooperative principle. Failure to adhere to these rules devolves, and eventually

dissolves the conversations. Conversations are sometimes the ideal form of

communication, depending on the participant intended ends.

(Cook, 1989) says that talk may be classed as conversation when:

a. It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task

b. Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended

c. The number of the participants is small

d. Turns are quite short

e. Talk is primarily for the participants not for an outside audience

2.2 The Definition of Conversation Analysis

According to (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009), conversation analysis (CA)

also known as ethno methodology – originated in the work of Harold Garnfikel, an ethno

methodologist whose research in the 1960s centred on how members of a certain

community conduct and understand social actions and interactions. These ideas were

developed by Sacks who determined that conversation is an organized activity that has

a systematic structure. However, Sacks and his collaborators, Emanuel Schegloff and

Gail Jefferson, proved that conversation is an orderly, collaborative activity characterised

by consistent principles that define what linguistic forms interlocutors use to open and

close their contributions, how they repair and rephrase their talk, and when they

take the floor during the course of a conversation. In addition to these, CA also

investigates the role of proxemics, or inter-personal distance and body language, in

communication. The principles of CA have significant implications for a number of

disciplines that include linguistics, social psychology and communication, to name a

few. It is therefore useful to summaries some of the areas in which CA has proved

useful or enlightening.

(Sidnell, 2010) explains conversation analysis (CA) is an approach within the

social sciences that aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and

constitutive feature of human social life. Whereas (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) states

5

conversation analysis is the analysis of the sequential organization of interaction. In

pragmatics, the term, Conversational analysis is used to mean the investigation into and

analysis of natural conversation so as to reveal what the linguistic features of

conversation is and how conversation is used in ordinary life.

To quote (Garfinkel, 1972) "You know more than you can say". Everyone is an expert in

conversation analysis, just like they are experts at walking down the street. Studying

conversation analysis lets us understand the detailed ordinary workings of our everyday

lives, from how we create and maintain relationships in the vital first few moments of a

greeting or how resources of power and control are exercised in the glances/ looks/

points during meetings.

2.3 Features of Conversation

a. Floor

According to (Yule, 1996a) Floor is the current right to speak in a conversation.

Example: (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009)

BM: You do you do Language Planning don't you?

DM: Yeah. I've stopped doing that though. I did stop doing that last week. SLA?

BM: I'm not doing that.

DM: Ah. We haven't got many things in common then.

BM: Wow. We've parted ways.

Every single turn that speaker has to speak is called floor. Such as ―You do you

do Language Planning don't you?‖ and ―Yeah. I've stopped doing that though‖

b. Turn Taking

The definition of turn taking based on (Yule, 1996a) is the change of

speaker during conversation. Whereas on his other book he said (Yule, 2014) the

way in which each speaker takes a turn in conversation. According to (Stephen C

Levinson, 1983) we may start with the obvious observation that conversation is

characterized by turn-taking: one participant, A, talks, stops; another, B,

starts, talks) stops; and so we obtain an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talk

across two participants.

Example: (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009)

BM: You do you do Language Planning don't you?

DM: Yeah. I've stopped doing that though. I did stop doing that last week. SLA?

BM: I'm not doing that.

DM: Ah. We haven't got many things in common then.

BM: Wow. We've parted ways.

The moment when DM takes the opportunity to speak after BM is called

turn taking. The pattern is like BM-DM- BM-DM- BM, that is how the

application of turn taking on the real conversation.

6

c. Transition relevance place (TRP)

(Cutting, 2005) state that transition relevance place is a point in a

conversation where a change of turn is possible. According to (Stephen C

Levinson, 1983) the end of such a unit constitutes a point at which speakers may

change; it is a transition relevance place, or TRP. Next speakers cannot be sure

that the current speaker‘s turn is complete, but they will usually take the end of a

sentence to indicate that the turn is possibly complete. For the most part,

participants wait until one speaker indicates that he or she has finished, usually by

signaling a completion point. Speakers can mark their turns as complete in a

number of ways: by asking a question, for example, or by pausing at the end of a

completed syntactic structure like a phrase or sentence. Other participants can

indicate that they want to take the speaking turn, also in a number of ways. They

can start to make short sounds, usually repeated, while the speaker is talking, and

often use body shifts or facial expressions to signal that they have something to

say.

The other thing that can be used as an indicator of transitions is the turn

allocation procedures. The turn allocation procedures for conversation are

distributed into two groups: those in which the current speaker selects the next

speaker, and those in which the next speaker is self-selected. So, at the initial

transition relevance place of a turn, the following options are relevant. According

to Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferso on (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) there are:

Rule 1(a) If the current speaker has identified, or selected, a particular

next speaker, then that speaker should take a turn at that place.

S : Oscar did you work for somebody before you worked for Zappa?

O : Yeh, many many. (3.0) Canned Heat for a year.

In this case, S uses a person‘s name to identify the appropriate next

speaker.

Rule 1(b) If no such selection has been made,then any next speaker may

(but need not) self-select at that point. If self-selection occurs, then first

speaker has the right to the turn.

Lil : Bertha‘s lost on our scale, about fourteen pounds.

D : Oh ::no::.

Jean: Twelve pounds I think wasn‘t it?

Here Lil‘s announcement is not directed to a specific recipient, and thus

two people select themselves as next speakers at the transition relevance

place at the end of ‗pounds‘.

Rule 1(c) If no next speaker has been selected, then alternatively the

current speaker may, but need not, continue talking with another turn

constructional unit, unless another speaker has self-selected, in which case

that speaker gains the right to the turn.

7

Ava : He, he ‘n Jo were like on the outs, yih know?

(0.7)

Ava : So uh,

Bee : They always are

Here, after Ava‘s observation, no next speaker has self-selected up to

nearly a second into the onset of a transition relevance place. Then Ava

attempts to continue her turn (‗so‘ indicating that what follows is

somehow connected to a prior turn), at the same time that Bee self-selects.

Ava then abandons her turn.

Rule 2 Whichever option has operated, then rules 1(a)–(c) come into play

again for the next transition relevance place.

d. Overlap

Based on (Yule, 1996a) overlap is a condition when more than one

speaker talking at the same time in conversation. Typically, only one person

speaks at a time and there tends to be an avoidance of silence between speaking

turns. If more than one participant tries to talk at the same time, one of them

usually stops, as in the following example, where A stops until B has finished.

Example: (Yule, 2014)

A: Didn‘t you know wh-

B: But he must‘ve been there by two

A: Yes but you knew where he was going

(A small square bracket is conventionally used to indicate a place where

simultaneous or overlapping speech occurs.)

Overlapped speech may be the result of a participant‘s misreading of a

pause as the end of the speaker‘s turn and a sign of forfeiting the floor. When

that happens, the overlap may persist for some time before one of the participants

discontinues. Another possible reason for overlaps in conversation is when, at

the end of a speaker‘s turn, two interlocutors take the floor at the same

time. If an overlap occurs at a point that is not a potential juncture for speaker

change, it is considered an interruption. O‘Grady in (Siobhan Chapman &

Routledge, 2009) believe that how overlaps are perceived is culture-specific.

Communities that speak the standard North American English varieties, they

argue, adhere to a rigid turn-taking mechanism, which results in very few

overlaps. The East European Jewish community in New York, however, views

overlaps favorably because they reflect the speakers‘ interest in the

conversation. Hence, they call overlaps in which speakers finish one another‘s

sentences ‗cooperative overlaps.‘ Beside cultural differences, other factors that

might determine overlaps include the topic, type of conversational interaction and

number of participants. In an interview setting, for instance, where only two

people are involved, overlaps are rare. On the other hand, if a large number of

people are involved in the discussion of a heated topic, overlaps are likely to

occur at a high rate.

8

e. Pause

(Yule, 1996a) states that pause is silence between turn. If the normal

expectation is that completion points are marked by the end of a sentence and a

pause, then one way to keep the turn is to avoid having those two markers occur

together. That is, don‘t pause at the end of sentences; make your sentences run on

by using connectors like and, and then, so, but; place your pauses at points where

the message is clearly incomplete; and preferably ―fill‖ the pause with a

hesitation marker such as er, em, uh, ah (Yule, 2014).

Example: (Yule, 2014)

X: well that film really was . . . wasn‘t what he was good at

Y: when di-

X: I mean his other . . . em his later films were much more . . . er really more in

the romantic style and that was more what what he was . . . you know . . . em

best at doing

Y: so when did he make that one

These types of strategies, by themselves, should not be considered

undesirable or domineering. They are present in the conversational speech of

most people and they are part of what makes conversation work. We recognize

these subtle indicators as ways of organizing our turns and negotiating the

intricate business of social interaction via language.

All cultures have their own preferences as to how long a speaker should

hold the floor, how they indicate that they have finished and another speaker can

take the floor, when a new speaker can start, whether the new speaker can overlap

and interrupt, when speakers can pause and for how long. According to (Cutting,

2005) for example, Latin Americans have pauses of a fraction of a second and it

is socially acceptable to overlap and interrupt, whereas North American Indians

expect a two second pause between turns, and for the Japanese it is unacceptable

to interrupt.

f. Attributable silence

Attributable silence is the absence of talk when a speaker is given the

right to speak in conversation (Yule, 1996a).

Each culture seems to have an unwritten agreement about the acceptable length of

a pause between two turns. In any culture, if the pause is intended to carry

meaning, analysts call it an attributable silence.

Example: (Cutting, 2005)

A : Did you have a good time last night?

B : (3) Yeah.

A : So he asked you out then?

B : He did.

B pauses for three seconds before her ‗Yeah‘, and A attributes to this

silence an affirmative answer and very positive sentiments. In the cultures in

which there is a low level of tolerance of silence between turns, if there is a lull in

the conversation extending past about ten seconds, speakers tend to utter

9

something like ‗um‘ or ‗So there you go‘, in order to break the silence. For those

who do not know each other well, a long non-attributable silence can feel

awkward.

g. Backchannels

Backchannels is indication that listener pay attention to speaker.

According to (Yule, 1996a) within an extended turn, however, speakers still

expect their conversational partners to indicate that they are listening. There are

many different ways of doing this, including head nods, smiles, and other facial

expressions and gestures, but the most common vocal indications are called

backchannel signals, or simply backchannels.

According to (Yule, 2014) in same-gender conversations, women

produce more backchannels as indicators of listening and paying attention. The

term backchannels describes the use of words (yeah, really?) or sounds (hmm, oh)

by listeners while someone else is speaking. Men not only produce fewer

backchannels, but appear to treat them, when produced by others, as indications

of agreement. In cross-gender interaction, the absence of backchannels from men

tends to make women think the men are not paying attention to them. The more

frequent production of backchannels by women leads men to think that the

women are agreeing with what they‘re saying.

Example: (Yule, 1996a)

Caller: if you use your long distance service a lot then you‘ll

Mary: uh-uh

Caller: be interested in the discount I‘m talking about because

Mary: yeah

Caller: itcan only save you money to switch to a cheaper service

Mary: mmm

These types of signals (‗uh-uh‘, ‗yeah‘, ‗mmm‘) provide feedback to the

current speaker that the message is being received. They normally indicate that

the listener is following, and not objecting to, what the speaker is saying. Given

this normal expectation, the absence of backchannels is typically interpreted as

significant. During telephone conversations, the absence of backchannels may

prompt the speaker to ask ifthe listener is still there. During face-to-face

interaction, the absence of backchannels may be interpreted as a way of

withholding agreement, leading to an inference of disagreement.

2.4 Conversational Style

Conversational style is divided by two categories according to the speaker (Yule,

1996a):

a. High involvement style

Speakers icipation in a conversation will be very active, that speaking rate will be

relatively fast, with almost no pausing between turns, and with some overlap or

even completion of the other‘s turn.

10

b. High considerateness style.

Speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between turns, do not overlap,

and avoid interruption or completion of the other‘s turn.

When a speaker who typically uses the first style gets into a conversation with

a speaker who normally uses the second style, the talk tends to become one-sided. The

active participation style will tend to overwhelm the other style. Neither speaker will

necessarily recognize that it is the conversational styles that are slightly different.

Instead, the more rapid-fire speaker may think the slower paced speaker just doesn‘t have

much to say, is shy, and perhaps boring or even stupid. In return, he or she is likely to be

viewed as noisy, pushy, domineering, selfish, and even tiresome.

While according to (Tannen, 1981) there four features of conversational style:

1. Topic (a) prefer personal topics, (b) shift topics abruptly, (c) introduce topics

without hesitance, (d) persistence (if a new topic is not picked up by others,

reintroduce it. Data show persistence up to a maximum of seven tries).

2. Genre (a) tell more stories, (b) tell stories in rounds, (c) preferred point of a

story is the emotional experience of the teller.

3. Pace (a) faster rate of speech (b) pauses avoided (silence has a negative

value; it is taken as evidence of lack of rapport, (c) faster rate of turn taking, (d)

cooperative overlap (the notion of back-channel responses is extended to include

lengthy questions and echoes, resulting from a process of participatory

listenership).

4. Expressive paraUnguislics (a) expressive phonology, (b) pitch and amplitude

shifts, (c) marked voice quality, (d) strategic pauses.

2.5 Adjacency Pair

a. Definition

The concept of Adjacency pairs is one of the most significant contributions of

Conversational Analysis. An adjacency pair is composed of two turns produced by different

speakers which are placed adjacently and where the second utterance is identified as related

to the first. Adjacency pairs include such exchanges as question/answer; complaint/denial;

offer/accept; request/grant; compliment/rejection; challenge/rejection, and instruct/receipt.

Yule (1996b, p. 77) states that almost automatic patterns in the structure of

conversation (as given below), e.g., in greetings and good-byes are called adjacency pairs.

WhileStephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 302) defines adjacency pairs is the kind of paired

utterances of which question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance, apology-

minimization, etc are prototypical. So from the definitions above it can be concluded an

adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn each by two

11

speakers. The turns are functionally related to each other in such a fashion that the first turn

requires a certain type or range of types of second turn.

According to Schegloff & Sack in Stephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 302) there are some

characteristics of adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances that are:

• Adjacent. It means that that is the first immediately follows the second

• Produced by different speaker

• Ordered as a first part and a second part

• Typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (or range of second

parts) E.g. offers requires acceptance or rejections, greetings require greeting and so

on.

From the characteristics above, it means that adjacency pair always consists of a first

part and a second part, produced by different speakers. The utterance of a first part

immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a second part of the same pair failure

to produce the second part in response will be treated as a significant absence and hence

meaningful.

b. Insertion sequences

In adjacency pairs, not all first parts immediately receive their second parts, however.

It often happens that a question-answer sequence will be delayed while another question-

answer sequences intervenes. Or in other word, it often happens in which one question-

answer pair is embedded within another which is called insertion sequences. According

toYule (1996b, p. 78) an insertion sequences is one adjacency pair within another. The

sequence will then take the form of Q1-Q2-A2-A1 (where Q1 labels the first question, A1 its

answer, and so on), with Q2-A2 as the insertion sequence. Although there appears to be a

question (Q2) in response to a question (Q1), the assumption is that once the second part (A2)

of the insertion sequence is provided, the second part (A1) of the initial question (Q1) will

follow. This pattern is illustrated in the following example.

Agent : so you want the early flight? (=Q1)

Client : what time does it arrive? (=Q2)

Agent : nine forty-five (=A2)

Client : yeah that‘s great (=A1)

Although the expression used may be question-answer sequences, other forms of

social action are also accomplished within this pattern. It is illustrated in the following

example:

12

Jean : Could you mail this letter for me? (Q1= Request)

Fred : Does it have stamp on it? (Q2)

Jean : Yeah. (A2)

Fred : Okay. (A1= acceptance)

From the example above it‘s shown there is a pair which consist of making a request-

accepting the request (Q1-A1), with an insertion sequence of a question-answer pair (Q2-A2)

which seems to function as a condition on the acceptance (A1) being provided. The delay in

the example above, created by the insertion sequence, is one type of indication that not all

first parts necessarily receive the kind of second parts the speaker anticipate delay represents

distance between what is expected and what is provided. Delay is always interpreted as

meaningful.

c. Opening section (Summon–Answer Sequences)

One kind of conversation with a recognizable overall organization that has been much

studied is the telephone call. These tend to have clear beginnings and carefully organized

closings. Thus, in telephone calls we can recognize the following typical components of an

opening section: the telephone rings, and, upon picking up the receiver, the person at the

receiving end almost invariably speaks first, either with a station identification (name of a

firm, telephone number, etc.) or a plain Hello, where upon the caller produces a Hello,

often with a self-identification.

For a start we may note that such openings are constructed largely from adjacency

pairs: thus we typically get paired Hellos as an exchange of greetings, we may get self-

identifications with paired recognitions, and an exchange of How are you each with their

paired responses. There is, moreover, a puzzle about why the receiver, the person with the

least information about the identity and purposes of the other, almost invariably talks first.

The puzzle dissolves when we assimilate the openings of telephone conversations to

summons-answer sequence. Where the first utterance (or action) is a summons, the second an

answer to the summons, the exchange establishing an open channel for talk. Schegloff in

Stephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 310) suggests that the ringing of the telephone is the

summons component in such an adjacency pair, so that the first turn at talk (the receiver's

Hello) is actually the second interactional move. So summons-answer sequences are actually

elements of (minimally) three-turn sequences, as illustrated below:

A: John ? ((SUMMONS)

B: Yeah ? ((ANSWER))

A: Pass the water wouldja? ((REASON FOR SUMMONS))

13

Many telephone conversation have as their first three turns the following, or something

closely similar:

C: ((rings)) ((summons))

T1 R: Hello (( Answer)) + (( Display for recognition))

T2 C: Hi ((Greeting its part))

(( claim that C has recognized R))

(( claim that R can recognize C))

T3 R: Oh hi:: (( greeting 2nd

part))

(( Claim that R has recognized C)

d. Closing Section

According to Levinson (1983:316) closings are a delicate, matter both technically, in

the sense that they must be so placed that no party is forced to exit while still having

compelling things to say, and socially in the sense that both over-hasty and over-slow

terminations can carry unwelcome inferences about terminations can carry unwelcome

inferences about the social relationship between the participants. We find typically that

conversation close in the following sort of manner:

A: Why don‘t we all have lunch?

B: Okay, so that would be in St. Jude‘s wouldn‘t it?

A: Yes

B: Okay so …

A: One o‘clock in the bar

B: Okay

A: Okay?

B: Okay then thanks very much indeed George –

A: - Alright

B: //See you there

A: //See you there

B: Okay

A: Okay // bye

B: // bye

The typical features here are the arrangements for a next meeting, a sequence of Okays

closing down the arrangements (or the topic) a Thank you produced by the caller, and a

14

further sequence of Okays just prior to a final exchange of good-byes. One general schema

for closing sections can be represented:

1 Closing down of some topic, typically a closing implicative topic

2 One or more pairs of passing turns with pre-closing items

3 A typing of the call

4 A final exchange of terminal elements

2.6 Preference Structure

Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal when

they occur as second parts of some pairs, e.g., a first part request expects an acceptance.

Alternative second parts to first parts of adjacency pairs are not generally of equal status;

rather some second turns are preferred and others dispreferred. The term used to indicate a

socially determined structural pattern and does not refer to any individual‘s mental or

emotional desires. Preference structure devides second part into preferred and dispreferred

social acts the preferred is structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the

structurally unexpected next act. (the general patters are presented in the following table.

First Part Second Part

Prefered Disprefered

Assessment Isn't that really great? agree Yes, it is disagree

Invitation Why not join us tonight? accept I‘d love to refuse

offer Want some coffee? accept Yes, please decline

proposal Maybe we could go for a walk. agree That'd be great disagree

request Can you help me? accept Sure refuse

As is often the case, the expression of a refusal can be accomplished without actually

saying ‗no‘. We can use hesitation, preface, produce a kind of token acceptance to show

appreciation to the first speaker. For example, hesitation and preface shown in dispreferred

second parts to invitation:

Backy : come over for some coffee later.

Wally : oh—eh—I‘d love to—but you see—I—I‗m supposed to get this finished—

you know

After a preface (Oh) and a hesitation(eh), the second speaker produce a kind of token

acceptance(I‘d love to) to show appreciationof the invitation. Then, the other‘s understanding

15

is invoked(you see) and an account is presented (I‘m supposed to get this finished) to explain

what prevents the speaker from accepting the invitation.

The patterns associated with dispreferred second in English are presented as a series

of optional elements

How to do a dispreferred Examples

a. delay/hesitate pause; er; em; ah

b. preface well; oh

c. express doubt I'm not sure; I don't know

d. token acceptance that's great; I'd love to

e. apology I'm sorry; what a pity

f. mention obligation I must do X; I'm expected in Y

g. appeal for understanding you see; you know

h. make it non-personal everbody else; out there

i. give an account too much work; no time left

j. use mitigators really; mostly; sort of; kinda

k. hedge the negative I guess not; not possible ,

16

CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION

1. Definition of conversation is conversation is talk between two or more people in

which thoughts, feelings and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and

answered, or news and information are exchanged.

2. Definition of conversational analysis is an approach within the social sciences that

aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of

human social life.

3. Kinds of features are existed in a conversation:

a. Floor

b. Turn Taking

c. Transition relevance place (TRP)

d. Overlap

e. Pause

f. Attributable silence

g. Backchannel

4. Kinds of conversation style based on the speakers are high involvement style, and

high considerateness style.

5. Adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn

each by two speakers. The turns are functionally related to each other in such a

fashion that the first turn requires a certain type or range of types of second turn.

In adjacency pairs, not all first parts immediately receive their second parts,

however it often happens that a question-answer sequence will be delayed while

another question-answer sequences intervenes. Or in other word, it often happens

in which one question-answer pair is embedded within another which is called

insertion sequences.

6. Preference structure devides second part into preferred and dispreferred social acts

the preferred is structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the

structurally unexpected next act. Dispreferreds take more time/language/effort

while preferred represents closeness and quick connection. Participants try to

avoid creating contexts for dispreferreds e.g., by using pre-sequences.

17

REFERENCE

Bilmes, J. (2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics,

64, 52-71.

Cambridge, D. (Ed.) (2008) (3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conklin, M. G. (1912). Conversation: What to say and How to Say It. London: Funk &

Wagnalls Company.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cutting, J. (2005). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London:

Routledge.

Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remark and Etnomethodology.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, Practices and

Applications. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation Analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language

and linguistics. Cambridge: Elsevier.

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1): Blackwell Publishing.

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

Siobhan Chapman, & Routledge, C. (2009). Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of

Language. London: Edinburgh University Press.

Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in dISCOUrse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discocrse

Processes, 4, 258.

Yule, G. (1996a). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yule, G. (2014). The study of language: Cambridge University Press.

18

(Bilmes, 2014)

(Sacks, 1995)

(Cambridge, 2008)

(Cambridge, 2008)