THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOBA
BATAK CONVERSATIONS
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Department of Linguistics of The Graduate School of
North Sumatera University in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor in Linguistics
HILMAN PARDEDE
REG. NO. 078107003
GRADUATE SCHOOL
NORTH SUMATRA UNIVERSITY
MEDAN
ABSTRACT
This disertation focuses on Conversation Analysis (CA) regarding the structure of Adjecancy Pair (AP) and Turn-Taking in Toba Batak (TB) conversations. The aims of the research are to explain: a) how the AP of TB conversation operates, b) how the end of turn is grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected, and c) how the Turn-Taking in TB conversation operates. The main theory used is CA theory by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974). This theory assumes that there are four basic assumptions in conversation, they are: a) conversation is structurally organized, b) conversation is jointly produced among participants, c) conversation is contextual, and d) conversation is locally managed. Since conversation is structurally organized and sequentially constrained, there can be found structural approach, that is, adjacency pairs. This exemplifies structural organization as well as orderly sequence of interaction in conversation. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether responded or not. When the first is not responded, the second would be noticeably absent, that leads to a repair actions. As the joint production among participants, recipients show his or her intersubjectivity as the understanding and inferences of the the speaker’s utterance. Again, when recipients do not show his or her intersubjectivity, the speaker may reply with repair work in the next slot, which is called the third position repair. Since conversation is locally managed, it implies that turn-by-turn organization of conversation are analyzed.
The research was conducted using qualitative method. The data were collected based on audio recording and video recording of mundane conversation or casual talk which constitute fifty texts of conversations. These texts are categorized into two, they are forty texts dealing with Adjecancy Pair and ten texts dealing with Turn-Taking. The analysis is based on CA, that is sequential analysis.
silence occurs in lapse, 16) The ends of turn which are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected occur in TB conversation, 17) The rules of Turn-Taking and the organization such as silence, overlapping talk, and repair are applicable in TB conversation, 18) Turn-taking are not culturally bound.
The findings imply that learning the adjacency pairs of foreign language can not depend only on the mechanical structure, but on the ritual constraint, and this is also effective in the first language (TB). On the other hand, there is a room for turn-taking to be further studied based on ritual constraint.
It is concluded that there are negative cases in AP and turn-taking of TB.
ABSTRAK
Disertasi ini berfokus pada analisis percakapan yang mengkaji struktur pasangan berdekatan dan gilir berbicara dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memerikan: a) bagaimana pasangan berdekatan dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba dipraktekkan, b) bagaimana akhir gilir bicara diproyeksikan secara gramatikal, intonasional, dan semantikal, dan c) bagaimana gilir bicara dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba (PBBT) dipraktekkan. Teori utama yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah teori analisis percakapan oleh Sacks, Schegloff, dan Jefferson (1974). Terdapat 4 asumsi dasar dalam percakapan berdasarkan teori ini: a) percakapan terorganisasikan secara struktur, b) percakapan merupakan hasil produksi sesama partisipan, c) percakapan kontekstual, dan d) percakapan di kelola secara lokal. Karena percakapan itu terorganisir secara struktur dan dihadapkan pada urutan (sequence), maka ditemukan suatu pendekatan struktur yang disebut sebagai pasangan berdekatan. Ini menunjukkan organisasi struktur serta urutan interaksi yang teratur dalam percakapan. Pasangan berdekatan memberikan tempat kepada posisi/urutan berikutnya yang dapat direspon maupun tidak. Apabila yang pertama tidak direspon, yang kedua dapat dipertanggung jawabkan dan menimbulkan tindakan perbaikan. Sebagai produksi sesama partisipan, pendengar akan menunjukkan keterlibatannya karena mengerti ujaran pembicara. Apabila pendengar tidak menunjukkan keterlibatannya, pembicara akan melakukan tindakan perbaikan pada tempat berikutnya, yang disebut dengan perbaikan pada posisi ketiga. Karena percakapan dikelola secara lokal, hal ini mengimplikasikan adanya analisis giliran per giliran dalam percakapan.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metoda kualitatif. Data dikumpulkan dengan merekam secara audio dan video melalui percakapan kasual. Data yang dianalisis ada 50 data yang terdiri dari 2 bagian: 40 data digunakan untuk menganalis pasangan berdekatan, dan 10 data digunakan untuk menganalisis gilir bicara. Data dianalisis berdasarkan analisis percakapan, yaitu analisis sekuensial.
undangan mencakup tiga sekuen: perluasan awal, perluasan akhir, dan sekuen sisipan, 9) Pasangan tawaran dan undangan adalah berhubungan, 10) Pasangan tuduhan memiliki respon penolakan pada pasangan kedua sebagai yang diinginkan, 11) Pasangan pujian mempunyai respon penolakan yang dihaluskan pada pasangan kedua, 12) Pasangan keluhan mempunyai respon penolakan pada pasangan kedua sebagai yang diinginkan, diformulasikan dalam bentuk ketidakberpihakan, 13) Pasangan tuduhan, pujian, dan keluhan adalah berhubungan, 14) Kaidah pertama gilir-bicara (pembicara sekarang memilih pembicara berikut) tidak selalu dapat diaplikasikan dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba, 15) Kesenyapan panjang terjadi dalam percakapan yang terhenti sementara, 16) Akhir dari giliran yang diproyeksikan secara gramatikal, intonasional, dan semantikal terjadi dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba, 17) Kaidah gilir bicara dan organisasi seperti kesenyapan, percakapan tumpang tindih dan perbaikan dapat diaplikasikan dalam bahasa Batak Toba, 18) Gilir bicara tidak terikat secara kultural.
Implikasi temuan ini adalah bahwa belajar pasangan berdekatan bahasa asing dan bahasa pertama tidak dapat hanya tergantung pada struktur mekanis, tetapi juga harus tergantung pada hambatan ritual. Pada sisi lain, terbuka wacana untuk mengkaji gilir bicara berdasarkan hambatan ritual.
Dapat disimpulkan bahwa, terdapat kasus-kasus negatif yang menjadi temuan pada penelitian ini.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep gratitude to all those who lent their assistance and
advice in the preparation of this work. First, the members of my dissertation advisors:
Prof. Amrin Saragih, MA, Ph.D as promotor, Prof. Tengku Silvana Sinar, MA, Ph.D as
co-promotor, and Prof. Dr. Robert Sibarani, MS as co-promotor.
Second, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof. Tengku Silvana
Sinar, MA, Ph.D as chairman of Linguistic Program of Post Graduate school of North
Sumatera University for providing me access to learn from the beginning up to the end
of this study including the Sandwich Program I attended in USA.
I would like also to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Chairun Nisa, B.,
M.Sc for her effort so that I can enhance my knowledge in the beloved Post Graduate
school, especially when I could attend Sandwich Program in Auburn University,
Alabama, USA.
I am also indebted to the Rector of North Sumatera University, for the facilities
given that I could participate in any activities pertaining to all academic constraint in
the Post Graduate School.
Last but not least, I must express deepest gratitude to my wife, Lissa Donna
Manurung and my daughter, Claudia Benedita Pardede, for unfailing love, patience,
Hilman Pardede CURRICULUM VITAE
Hilman Pardede was born in Padang Sidempuan on May 25, 1960. He is the fourth son of Late BM. Pardede and Elfrida Lubis. He graduated from Elementary School SD Negeri No. 59 Pematangsiantar in 1973, Junior High School Methodist Pematangsiantar in 1979, Senior High School in Methodist Pematangsiantar in 1982, and S-1 English Program of North Sumatera University in 1987. In the year of 1992, he continued his study to S-2 Program of IKIP Malang , and graduated in 1994. Then he went to S-3 program in linguistics at North Sumatera University in the year of 2007. In 2008, he attended a Sandwich Program in Aurbun University, Alabama, USA. In 2010, he was a speaker in the International Seminar in Trang, Thailand. He presented a paper entitled “Adjecancy Pair in Toba Batak”
From 1987 up to 1989, he was appointed lecturer assistant in HKBP Nommensen University Pematangsiantar. Later in 1990, he became a permanent lecturer of HKBP Nommensen University Pematangsiantar. In 1998, he was appointed Head of English department of S-1 program HKBP Nommensen University Pematangsiantar. In his organization career, he was appointed as the President of Chistian National Party Pematangsiantar (KRISNA) in 1993. In 2001, he was appointed as Vice president of Christian Indonesia Party (PARKINDO) and as the Vice president of Democratic Party (DEMOKRAT) in 2006.
He has also done some field researches such as: 1) Sociocultural Values in Umpama of Toba Batak in 1994, 2) Syntactic Variation in Translation in 2008, 3) Differences Between Male and Female Speech in 2008. He wrote some books for students material, such as: 1) Semantics: A View to The Logic of Language, 2) Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3) Understanding Noun and Adjective, 4) Some Uses of English Verb.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of The Study ……… 45
2. Figure 2: Data Analysis Procedure ……… 62
3. Figure 3: Ellaboration of Analysis Procedure ……… 63
LIST OF TABLES
1. Table 1: Similarity between Toba Batak words, Malay, and Sankrit …… 38
2. Table 2. Turn Allocation and Its constraint ……… 206
LIST OF CHARTS
1. Chart 1: Question-Answer ……… 181
2. Chart 2: Greeting-Greeting ……… 181
3. Chart 3: Summon-Answer ……… 182
4. Chart 4: Offer-Ac/Rj ……… 183
5. Chart 5: Invitation-Ac/Rj ……… 184
6. Chart 6: AP mechanism of Acc-D ……… 185
7. Chart 7: AP mechanism of Cpm-Rj ……… 185
8. Chart 8: AP mechanism of Cpn-Rj ……… 186
9. Chart 9: Relation among AP Mechanism in Q-A, G-G, S-A ……… 191
10. Chart 10: Relation between APs of Offer and Invitation ……… 194
11. Chart 11: Relationship among Ac-D, Cpm-Rj, Cpn-Rj ……… 197
LIST OF TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS
Sequencing
[ point of overlap onset;
] point of which utterance terminates
= no gap between lines (latching utterances). When the same speaker
continues on the next line latching signs are not used
Timed intervals
(0.0) Lapsed time in tenths of a second e.g. (0.5)
Speech production characteristics
word underline indicates speaker emphasis;
! animated and emphatic tone;
? rising intonation, not necessarily a question;
he..he.. laughter particles;
Continuers
e indicate intention to start a turn
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
In = Interruption NI = Non-interruption
CU = Collaborative Utterance TO = Terminal Overlap CT = Choral Talk
LIST OF MAPS
1. Map 1. The North Sumatra Province ……… 47
2. Map 2. The Regency of North Tapanuli ……… 48
3. M ap 3. The Regency of Humbang Hasundutan ……… 49
4. Map 4. The Regency of Toba Samosir ……… 50
LIST OF PICTURES
1. Picture 1. A conversation about papaya ……… 70
2. Picture 2. A conversation about asking direction ……… 71
3. Picture 3. A conversation at a fishing pool ……… 72
4. Picture 4. A conversation about statue ……… 110 5. Picture 5. A conversation in a coffee-counter ……… 111 6. Picture 6. A conversation about a coupon-number ……… 122
7. Picture 7. A conversation about a learning-driver and a new-comer …… 124
8. Picture 8. A conversation about tomatoes-planting ……… 125
9. Picture 9. A conversation about pension ……… 134
10. Picture 10. A conversation about poor-family ……… 140
11. Picture 11. A conversation about family ……… 145
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS ………. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATION .……… xi
2.1 Relevant Approaches to Analyzing Conversation ……… 17
2.1.1 Conversation Analysis ……… 18
2.1.8 Systemic Functional Linguistics ……… 24
2.1.9 Critical Discourse Analysis ……… 25
2.2. Conversation ……… 26
2.2.1 Characteristics of Conversation ……… 26
2.2.2 Assumption in Conversation ……… 28
2.3. Adjacency Pairs ……… 30
2.4. Turn ……… 33
2.5. Turn – Taking ……… 34
2.6.1 Toba Batak Language ……… 36
CHAPTER IV THE STRUCTURE OF ADJACENCY PAIRS AND TURN-TAKING IN TOBA BATAK LANGUAGE ……… 66
4.1.1.7 Compliment- Acceptance/Rejection ……… 97
4.1.1.8 Complaint-rejection ……… 101
4.1.2 Turn-Taking in TB Conversation ……… 106
4.1.2.1 Completion Points ……… 111
4.1.2.1.1 Grammatical Completion Point ……… 111
4.1.2.1.2 Intonational Completion Point ……… 116
4.1.2.1.3 Semantic Completion Point ……… 120
4.1.2.2 Turn Allocation Component ……… 129
4.1.2.2.1 Current Speaker Selects Next ……… 131
4.1.2.5.3 Self-initiated, Other-repair ……… 168
4.1.2.5.4 Other-initiated, Other Repair ……… 170
4.2 Findings ……… 173
4.2.1 Introductory Remarks ……… 173
4.2.2 Negative Cases as new findings ……… 179
4.3 Discussion ……… 186
4.3.1 System Constraint ……… 187
4.3.1.1 Question-answer, Greeting-greeting, Summon-answer 187 4.3.1.2 Offer-Acceptance/Refusal, Invitation-Acceptance/Rejection 191 4.3.1.3 Accusation-denial, Compliment-Acceptance/Rejection, Complaint-Rejection ……… 195
4.3.1.4 TCU and TRP, Completion Point ……… 198
4.3.1.5 Turn Allocation, Repair, Overlapping Talk, Silence …… 201
4.3.2 Ritual Constrain ……… 207
4.3.2.1 Question-answer, Greeting-Greeting, Summon-Answer 207 4.3.2.2 Offer-Acceptance/Rejection, Invitation-Acceptance/ Rejection ……… 212
4.3.2.3 Accusation, Compliment, Complaint ……… 214
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ……… 223
5.1. Conclusions ……… 223
5.2 Suggestions ……… 227
REFERENCES …………..……….. 229
ABSTRACT
This disertation focuses on Conversation Analysis (CA) regarding the structure of Adjecancy Pair (AP) and Turn-Taking in Toba Batak (TB) conversations. The aims of the research are to explain: a) how the AP of TB conversation operates, b) how the end of turn is grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected, and c) how the Turn-Taking in TB conversation operates. The main theory used is CA theory by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974). This theory assumes that there are four basic assumptions in conversation, they are: a) conversation is structurally organized, b) conversation is jointly produced among participants, c) conversation is contextual, and d) conversation is locally managed. Since conversation is structurally organized and sequentially constrained, there can be found structural approach, that is, adjacency pairs. This exemplifies structural organization as well as orderly sequence of interaction in conversation. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether responded or not. When the first is not responded, the second would be noticeably absent, that leads to a repair actions. As the joint production among participants, recipients show his or her intersubjectivity as the understanding and inferences of the the speaker’s utterance. Again, when recipients do not show his or her intersubjectivity, the speaker may reply with repair work in the next slot, which is called the third position repair. Since conversation is locally managed, it implies that turn-by-turn organization of conversation are analyzed.
The research was conducted using qualitative method. The data were collected based on audio recording and video recording of mundane conversation or casual talk which constitute fifty texts of conversations. These texts are categorized into two, they are forty texts dealing with Adjecancy Pair and ten texts dealing with Turn-Taking. The analysis is based on CA, that is sequential analysis.
silence occurs in lapse, 16) The ends of turn which are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected occur in TB conversation, 17) The rules of Turn-Taking and the organization such as silence, overlapping talk, and repair are applicable in TB conversation, 18) Turn-taking are not culturally bound.
The findings imply that learning the adjacency pairs of foreign language can not depend only on the mechanical structure, but on the ritual constraint, and this is also effective in the first language (TB). On the other hand, there is a room for turn-taking to be further studied based on ritual constraint.
It is concluded that there are negative cases in AP and turn-taking of TB.
ABSTRAK
Disertasi ini berfokus pada analisis percakapan yang mengkaji struktur pasangan berdekatan dan gilir berbicara dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memerikan: a) bagaimana pasangan berdekatan dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba dipraktekkan, b) bagaimana akhir gilir bicara diproyeksikan secara gramatikal, intonasional, dan semantikal, dan c) bagaimana gilir bicara dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba (PBBT) dipraktekkan. Teori utama yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah teori analisis percakapan oleh Sacks, Schegloff, dan Jefferson (1974). Terdapat 4 asumsi dasar dalam percakapan berdasarkan teori ini: a) percakapan terorganisasikan secara struktur, b) percakapan merupakan hasil produksi sesama partisipan, c) percakapan kontekstual, dan d) percakapan di kelola secara lokal. Karena percakapan itu terorganisir secara struktur dan dihadapkan pada urutan (sequence), maka ditemukan suatu pendekatan struktur yang disebut sebagai pasangan berdekatan. Ini menunjukkan organisasi struktur serta urutan interaksi yang teratur dalam percakapan. Pasangan berdekatan memberikan tempat kepada posisi/urutan berikutnya yang dapat direspon maupun tidak. Apabila yang pertama tidak direspon, yang kedua dapat dipertanggung jawabkan dan menimbulkan tindakan perbaikan. Sebagai produksi sesama partisipan, pendengar akan menunjukkan keterlibatannya karena mengerti ujaran pembicara. Apabila pendengar tidak menunjukkan keterlibatannya, pembicara akan melakukan tindakan perbaikan pada tempat berikutnya, yang disebut dengan perbaikan pada posisi ketiga. Karena percakapan dikelola secara lokal, hal ini mengimplikasikan adanya analisis giliran per giliran dalam percakapan.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metoda kualitatif. Data dikumpulkan dengan merekam secara audio dan video melalui percakapan kasual. Data yang dianalisis ada 50 data yang terdiri dari 2 bagian: 40 data digunakan untuk menganalis pasangan berdekatan, dan 10 data digunakan untuk menganalisis gilir bicara. Data dianalisis berdasarkan analisis percakapan, yaitu analisis sekuensial.
undangan mencakup tiga sekuen: perluasan awal, perluasan akhir, dan sekuen sisipan, 9) Pasangan tawaran dan undangan adalah berhubungan, 10) Pasangan tuduhan memiliki respon penolakan pada pasangan kedua sebagai yang diinginkan, 11) Pasangan pujian mempunyai respon penolakan yang dihaluskan pada pasangan kedua, 12) Pasangan keluhan mempunyai respon penolakan pada pasangan kedua sebagai yang diinginkan, diformulasikan dalam bentuk ketidakberpihakan, 13) Pasangan tuduhan, pujian, dan keluhan adalah berhubungan, 14) Kaidah pertama gilir-bicara (pembicara sekarang memilih pembicara berikut) tidak selalu dapat diaplikasikan dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba, 15) Kesenyapan panjang terjadi dalam percakapan yang terhenti sementara, 16) Akhir dari giliran yang diproyeksikan secara gramatikal, intonasional, dan semantikal terjadi dalam percakapan bahasa Batak Toba, 17) Kaidah gilir bicara dan organisasi seperti kesenyapan, percakapan tumpang tindih dan perbaikan dapat diaplikasikan dalam bahasa Batak Toba, 18) Gilir bicara tidak terikat secara kultural.
Implikasi temuan ini adalah bahwa belajar pasangan berdekatan bahasa asing dan bahasa pertama tidak dapat hanya tergantung pada struktur mekanis, tetapi juga harus tergantung pada hambatan ritual. Pada sisi lain, terbuka wacana untuk mengkaji gilir bicara berdasarkan hambatan ritual.
Dapat disimpulkan bahwa, terdapat kasus-kasus negatif yang menjadi temuan pada penelitian ini.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background of the Study
The first motivation of this study stems from the problematic issue occurred in
English teaching of conversation for the homogenous students of Toba Batak (TB)
and in a TB interaction in a coffee-counter. When it was observed, the students in
responding the compliment of the other did not practise them as applied in English
conversation. A case in point is reflected in this extract:
A : You have a nice shirt! B : No, it is my old one.
From the above conversation, A’s compliment was rejected by B. It is not the
case in English conversation where compliment is not rejected, A’s compliment is
accepted in English conversation by an appreciation response such as, thank you.
Another case in point deals with a TB conversation of more than two
participants in the coffee-counter. It was noted that there is no regularity in terms of
the turn-taking among the interactants. The taking of turn and transition from one
speaker to another are haphazard. There are problems of turn-taking management in
such a conversation.
About conversation, Furo (2001:24) presented four asumptions in
produced among participants, 3) conversation is contextual, and 4) conversation is
locally managed. These asumptions indicate there are structures and process of
turn-taking in conversation as well as units that build the turn-turn-taking.
The second motivation of this study is derived from the statement: “there has
been a considerable shift in emphasis in linguistic research from phonology and
morphology to syntax and semantics and from there on to an increased interest in the
study of language in social context” (Platt and Platt 1975 : 1). There are two shifts of
linguistic research in the quotation above, i.e., the one from phonology and
morphology to syntax and semantics, and another one from syntax and semantics to
study of language in social context. The study of language in social context or in a
more specific term, a function - based study (Halliday,1994) was less emphasized than
the formal study of language.
Like Indonesian language, according to Sinar (1998 : 1), much of the study
done was centered on the formal aspect of the language. The trend is also true for the
study of the regional languages, such as that of the Toba Batak Language (TBL), in
other words, there has not been a concern with the language function or language use
especially in conversation, as what is going to be investigated in this study. The
available studies are mostly dealing with syntax, semantics, and morphology of TBL.
This study is a compromise one where there is a combination of formal and
functional aspect in the study of TBL. The functional aspect such as interactional
units: turn – taking, adjacency pairs, preference, silence, overlapping talk, and repair
properties: grammatical, intonational, and semantic properties are also studied, so that
the relationship between language and interaction can be explained in Toba Batak
Conversation.
A study on the structure of discourse involves examining utterances from both
linguistic and interactional view points since utterances are realizations of language in
use. In this case, one should begin with how particular units (utterances, actions) are
used and draw conclusion about the broader functions of such units from functional
analysis. In other words, “one would begin from observation and description of an
utterance itself, and then try to infer from analysis of that utterance and its context
what functions are being served”, (Schiffrin, 1994).
As this study focuses on the conversations in TBL, utterances would be the
basic unit of analysis which are viewed from formal and functional aspect of
categories. From formal view, three linguistic units (grammatical, intonational,
semantic) are examined to see the construction component, whether the grammatical,
intonational, and semantic completion point influence the speaker changes or
transition relevance places (TRPs). From the functional view, interactional units such
turn–taking, adjacency pairs, preferences, are examined to see the distribution
component.
One of the approaches in analyzing conversation is conversation analysis (CA),
which emerged in the pioneering researches of Harvey Sacks (Hutchby, 1998: 5) into
discovered some subtle ways in which callers to a suicide prevention center managed
to avoid giving their names, as shown in the conversation below :
A : This is Mr. Smith, may I help you?
B : I can’t hear you.
A : This is Mr. Smith.
B : Smith.
Sacks (Hutchby and Woffit, 1999:18) had observed that in the majority of cases if the
person is taking the call within the organization started off by giving their name, then
the suicidal person who was calling would be likely to give their name in reply. But in
one particular call, He noticed that the caller (B) as shown in the conversation above
seemed to be having trouble with the name of the answerer. Then the agent who took
the call found it difficult to get the caller’s name. For him, the avoidance of giving
one’s name in the conversation by answering “ I can’t hear you” leads to the
accomplishment of action or particular things given by an utterance. So, in this case
the utterance is an action.
However, Sacks (Hutchby and Woffit, 1998:8) here emphasizes that “I can’t
hear you” is not always an expression representing the way one avoids giving his
name. Rather he viewed the utterance as an action which is situated within specific
context. He also observed that by the caller’s “not hearing”, he is able to set up a
sequential trajectory in which the agent finds less opportunity to establish the caller’s
name without explicitly asking for it. Thereby the caller is able to begin the
Utterance as an action is also supported by Schegloff (2007: 1) as he focused
on action rather than a topic in talk-in interaction. An utterance like “Would
somebody like some more ice tea?” is better understood as “doing an offer” than as
“about ice tea”.
Conversation Analysis is derived from Ethnomethodology which is focused on
the methods by which the group conducts coversation. Group here refers to society’s
members which are considered having intersubjectivity and cammon-sense knowledge
realized in talk-in interaction in their daily life. Obviously, the member’s knowledge
meant by this method concerns with the member’s knowledge of their ordinary affairs,
knowledge that shows a sense of order in everyday conduct, and this is publicly
displayed in activity which is going on.
Austin and Searle (Schiffrin, 1994 : 6 ) developed speech act theory from the
basic insight that language is use, not just to describe the world, but it can perform an
action. The utterance “I promise to be there tomorrow” performs the act of
promising,and the utterance “The grass is green” performs the act of asserting. An
utterance can also perform more than one action as shown below.
Speaker : Can you pass the salt?
Hearer : / pass the salt/
The first action is an act of questioning the ability of the hearer, and the second
performs an act of requesting. This is what distinguishes utterance from sentence. In
neither a physical event nor a physical object, it is conceived of abstractly as a string
of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language.
Of Sacks’ observation on talk-in interaction (Hutchby et.al, 1999), he really
based his analysis on the naturally occurring data from which he did a turn by turn
details of the conversation so that a robust analytical basis would be used to get a
robust finding. What he observed then leads to the key insights which are treated on
the methodological basis for conversation analysis. These key insights can be
summarized below :
1. Talk – in interaction is systematically organized and deeply ordered.
2. The production of talk – in interaction is methodic.
3. The analysis of talk- in interaction should be based on naturally occurring data.
4. Analysis should not be constrained by prior theoretical assumption.
How then language is related with interaction? Ford and Thompson (1996)
observed grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. There are three
criteria in identifying grammatical completion point : well-formed clauses,
increments, and recoverable predicates. The verb put in this sentence ; I put the book
on the desk, projects a possible syntactic completion point which is after an argument
of a place. Because the verb put is a two place predicate (Haegemen, 1993 :39) and
takes two arguments, a direct object the book, and a place on the desk, and considered
as a well – formed clause, a grammatical completion point is marked after
prepositional phrase on the desk. However, I put the book , is not a well-formed
“Words and phrases that appear after the first grammatical completion point are
considered increment”(Furo, 2001:12). A grammatical completion point in sentence :
I bought the book yesterday is marked after the noun phrase the book as well as after
the adverb yesterday. Since the sentence I bought the book is well – formed, it is
considered grammatically complete. I bought the book yesterday is also a well –
formed clause, and the adverb yesterday is considered increment. So, another
grammatical point is marked after yesterday. In this way, grammatical completion
point is marked incremently after a well – formed clause.Recoverable predicates, that
is, the understood predicates that can be taken from the context are considered to form
complete clause. An example of recoverable predicate is answer to question, as seen
in this question : Where did you go last week?, the answer is ; to Jakarta. Although
the answer does not have a predicate, it is assumed to be completed from the context,
(I went) to Jakarta. A grammatical completion point is therefore marked after the
noun Jakarta.
Intonational completion point is determined by falling intonation designated by
period, and rising intonation designated by question mark. The sentence, He is a
doctor, has a falling intonation contour as found generally in positive statements, and
it is designated by period. This period characterizes the intonational completion point.
A rising intonation contour is commonly found in yes – no questions, such in
sentence : Are you a teacher? The question mark characterizes the intonational
Semantic completion point refers to floor right, floor-claiming utterance,
proposition, and reactive token. When the speaker has the right or obligation to hold
the floor, a semantic completion point is marked at the point where the right is
expired. This can be obtained by the speaker’s status (e.g. moderator) or obtained in
the course of interaction (e.g. the speaker who is asked a question) and thus selected
as the next speaker.
In floor-claiming utterance, when a longer turn is determined by words,
phrases, or preliminary action, or negotiated by interlocutor, a semantic completion
point is marked at the end of the projected longer talk. And when the longer talk is
finished, it is considered semantic completion point. When there is no such semantic
indication that projects the upcoming longer talk, semantic completion points are
designated at the end of the proposition, as in : I assumed that he is a good cook.
Reactive tokens are considered semantically complete, although they do not
have the full structure of a sentence. There are six categories of them :
1. Backchannel : um, uh
2. Reactive expression : great!
3. Repetition : He was funny
Was he funny?
4. Collaborative finish : A : more like a brunch
B : brunch
5. Laughter : hahaha
Sociolinguistics also concerns with language use in social interaction. In line
with this, examining the speech activities of social groups casts light on the conditions,
values, beliefs as well as the social order of the group. TBL can also be examined in
terms of speech activities as to find out what are there reflected in the social
interaction. In the context of Toba Batak conversation whether instituonally or daily
spoken, the success of talking is much depending on the individual’s verbal skill, as
this is central epecially in custom (adat) intraction. As what needs to be a means of
solution to the problems emerge in cultural activities is the ability to use the spoken
language in social interation. In marhusip (wishpering talk), a speaker who is skilled in
Toba Batak interaction will start to say to the audience (hearer) :
“ipe nuaeng bere….., porsea do hami di hatani ama ni anu nangkin, alai asa umpos roha nami denggan do paboaonmu manang naung sian roham do naeng manopot boru nami. jala asa tangkas botoon nami laos paboa ma jolo hira ise ma nuaeng lae na tumubuhon hamu, sian huta dia jala anak paipiga ma ho anak ni lae? (Simbolon, 1981: 15).
The equivalent English would read as the following:
now guy, we believe what we heard from the people. but to be more comfortable, please tell us if you really want to marry our daughter. to be precisely, let us know your personal family and social background.
The hearer who represents the guy will respond the question in more polite way
in order that the speaker would convince the guy to be the only person that will
propose their daughter. To be more successful in such an interaction the hearer as one
of the participants must understand his social role and the other role, as to fix what he
A description of all factors that are relevant in understanding how particular
comunicative even achieves its objectives was given by Hymes (1974) in his
SPEAKING formula, in which S refers to setting and scene, P stands for participant, E
for Ends, A is an act seqeunce, K is key, I refers to instruments, N is the norms of
interactions, and G stands for genre.
Setting deals with the palce and time (the concrete physical condition in which
speech takes places), while scene is the cultural definitions of the occasions.
Participants are combinations of speakers and listeners, addressors and addressee, or
senders and receivers. End concerns with the expected outcome of exchange as well as
with the pesonal goals that particpant seek to accomplish on particular accasions. Act
sequence refers to the actual form and content of what is said. Key refers to the tone,
manner of spirt in which a particular message is conveyed. Instruments deals with the
spesific behavior attached to speaking. Genre refers to types of utterance; poems,
provebs, riddles, sermons, etc.
The eight factors in speech potentially influence the success of speakers in talk.
These factors, especially the cultural ones, are used to see whether they can influence
the tructure of Toba Batak conversation, the interactions structure and the linguistc
structure, for both conversation in institutional and ordinary setting. In this research,
the focus is on the ordinary talk. The cultural factors have to do with ritual constraints.
Obviously it is looming from the discussions above there are four important
aspects underlying this research. Based on the langage use, conversation analysis
One that distinguishes CA from other appoaches that focused language use or function,
one of them is speech act, is that CA used naturally occuring data in its analysis.
Second, langauage is action, and realized in utterances, it is necessary to
scrutinize the action through the turn-taking and adjacency pairs in Toba Batak
conversation, so that the interaction among speakers and listeners can be accounted,
and the interaction structure of Toba Batak conversation can be explained.
Third, based on the language view, it is crucial to examine the lingustic
propeties like grammatical, intonation, and semantic completion point in the TB
conversation, because these properties can relate language with interaction in the
domain of transation relevance place (TRP).
Fourth, cultural factors in terms of ritual constraints play an important role in
social interaction, so influencing the structure of conversation interactionally,
especially the adjacency pairs, and in terms of system constraints which are not
cultural bound.
1.2 Research Problems
As the research focuses on conversation analysis of TBL, two of the four basic
assumptions on conversation are the point of departure to discuss what problems
emerge in conversation (Furo, 2001: 27). The first problem deals with the structure of
conversation, as the first assumption is that conversation is structurally organized, so
managed. If it is locally managed, it is done turn-by-turn analysis which is realized in
constructing turn construction units, turn distribution components and turn-taking
organization such as, silence, overlapping talk and repair. Turn Construction Units
(TCUs) are linguistic units like sentences, clauses, words, etc, in which at their end
there are linguistic completion points which ifluence interaction as at these ends it is
possible a transition from one speaker to another occurs. If this occurs, rules of turn
taking follows, and such other turn organizations can occur. Are all these problems
applicable in TB conversation?
Based on the previous decription and the question above, the problems of
research in this study are formulated on three questions as the following.
1. What are the interaction structures ( Adjacency Pairs) in TB conversation?
2. How are the ends of turn in TB conversation grammatically, intonationally,
and semantically projected?
3. How does the turn-taking of TB conversation operate?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
This study examines the interaction structures of the TB conversation and the
linguistic structures involved in TRP. When the interaction structures are analyzed in
terms of conversation analysis, the most basic unit of the interaction is adjacency pair,
the other unit is turn-taking. When language is used in interaction, linguistic
changes or transtion relevance places. Thus, the objectives of this study are to describe
the applicability of adjacency pairs, turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974),
and the applicability of completion points (grammatical, intonational, and semantic )
as in the TB conversations . Specifically, the objectives are :
(1) to examine the structures of adjacency pairs in TB conversations.
(2) to examine how the end of turn, grammatically, intonationnally, and
semantically are projected.
(3) to discuss how the turn-taking of TB conversations operates.
1.4 The Significance of Research
Examining adjacency pairs and turn-taking in the TB conversation is benificial
in two respects. First, we can recognize how the first pair part as component of
adjacency pair varies in the TB conversations. For Example, is greeting in Toba Batak
always followed by greeting? Secondly, one can describe how the turn taking system
in Toba Batak operate can be understood by examining the turn distribution
component. For example, does the current speaker select the next speaker, or the next
speaker applies the self select or the current speaker continues?
Analyzing the linguistic properties that can influence the interaction in the TB
conversation can construct the relation between language and interaction ;
grammatical, intonational, and semantic can project the end of a turn, so makes it
Practically the research findings can be made as a reference for teachers who
teach English conversation to homogenous students like that of Toba Batak.
1.5 The Scope of Research
As has been stated in the previous section, this study is examining the
interaction structures of Toba Batak conversation and the linguistic structures that
influence the interaction in the TB conversation.
The interaction structures in this study can be limited to adjacency pairs and
turn-taking. In adjacency pairs, two parts will be analyzed as their components, the
first pair part and the second pair part. In English, there is a greeting in the first part
and also greeting in the second pairs part like in :
A : Morning
B : Morning
Preferences is also a part of adjacency pair which are shown in invitation. The
response of invitation can be positive as reffering to preference and negative as
referring to dispreferences. So first pair part , second pair part, and preference would
be under discussion in adjacency pair.
The component of turn-taking such as, turn construction units, turn distribution
component, silence, overlapping talk, and repair are analyzed in Toba Batak
Conversation. Here, it will be examinined to what extent turn-taking proposed by
Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) are applicable to the different phenomena such
The elements of linguistic structure to be examined are grammatical,
intonational, and semantic units, as those which are realized in grammatical,
intonational, and semantic completion point related to transition relevance place in
turn-taking. So, the turn constructional unit is not included in interactional structure.
1.6 The Definitions of Key Terms
There are some key terms that should be defined in this study such as:
interaction structure, linguistic structure, conversation, Toba Batak conversation,
adjacency pairs, turn taking and utterances.
Interaction or conversational structures refer to adjacency pairs and turn-taking
in conversation (Tracy, 2002: 113). Lingustic structure comprises properties or units
like grammatical, intonational, and semantic units. In this study, these properties refers
to completion point which can influence the speaker changes (Ford and Thompson,
1996).
Conversation is defined as the spontaneous talk in interactions among two or
more participants in casual, informal setting of everyday life. In relation to this,
admittedly, the TB conversation is one which is used in the TB language of everyday
life.
Adjacency pairs which constitute successive uttreances by different speakers
A turn is the talk of one party bounded by the talk of the moment is changed. In
this case, the overlapping talk and silence can be problem, but they are considered as
structures of talk.
Utterances are units of language production that are inherently contextualized.
Defining discourse as utterances seems to balances both the functional emphasis on
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter is aimed at reviewing the literature of items which are the most
relevant to the study such as, relevant approaches to analyzing conversation,
conversation which consists of characteristic and assumption, adjacency pairs, turn,
turn taking, TB culture and language as well as previous studies.
2.1 Relevant Approaches To Analyzing Conversation
There have been various perspectives in analyzing conversation as the spoken
interaction in everyday life. Eggins and Slade (1997:23) present five persepective such
as ethnomethodology, sociolinguistic, logico-philosophic, structural-functional, and
social-semiotic. From Ethnomethodology point of view, an approach called
Conversation Analysis (CA) has been proposed as a part of discourse study as what the
others have. Sociolinguistic-based refers to three approaches, Ethnography of
Speaking, Interactioanal Sociolinguistic, and Variotion Theory. Logico-philosophic
deals with Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Structural-functional embodies two
approaches like Birmingham School and Systemic Functional Linguistics, and
Social-semiotic consist of Critical Discourse Analysis.
As this study deals with conversation Analysis, it is discussed firstly before the
2.1.1 Conversation Analysis
As a matter of fact, Conversation Analysis derived from Ethnomethodology.
According to Schiffin (1994:233), Garfinkel’s term “ethnomethodology” was modeled
after terms used in cross-culture analyses of ways of “doing” and “knowing”.
Ethnobotany, for example, is concerned with culturally specific systems by which
people “know about” (classify, label, etc) plants. The term “ethno” seemed to refer to
the availability to a member of common-sense knowledge. It is the ordinary
arrangement of a set of located practices. In other words, ethnomethodology concerns
with “a member’s knowledge of his ordinary affairs, of his own organized enterprises,
where that knowledge is treated by us as part of the same setting that is also makes
orderable. So uncovering what we know is a central concern for ethnomethodology.
For this, knowledge and action are deeply linked and mutually constitutive, which is an
important bearing on the study of language.
In the study of talk, ethnomethodology means an insistence on the use of
materials collected from naturally occuring occasions of everyday interaction. Eggins
and Slade (1994:25), stated that Conversation Analysis (CA) focused on conversation
because it offers a particulary appropriate and accessible resource for
ethnomethodology enquiry. Sharrock and Anderson (In Eggins and Slade, 1994:25)
further stated that “Seeing the sense of ordinary activities means being able to see what
people are doing and saying, and therefore one place in which one might begin to see
how making sense is done in terms of understanding of everyday talk”. In relation with
turn-taking. In conversation, speaker keep taking turns, and in the process of keeping turns,
a speaker has to be able to see the point when transfer of role is possible. This is done
by Turn Construction Units (TCU’s), units constructed to signal turn transfer. These
units are realized in grammatical units considered as the end of turn cannot always
determine who would be the next speaker. For this, Sacks et al. (1974) note that at the
end of TCU there are two possibilities of determining the allocation of turns. First, the
current speaker selects the next speaker. Second, if the current speaker does not select
the next speaker, the speaker may self-select. Sacks and Schegloff explained a concept
to explain the ordeliness of conversation, that is, adjacency pairs, a main format in
which talk is sequenced. Adjacency pairs is a sequence of two utterances which are
adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first part and second part, and
typed, so that the first part requires a particular second part. The common adjacency
part is question/answer sequence. The others are: request/grant, offer/accepted,
affer/reject, etc.
2.1.2 Ethnography of Speaking
The ethnography of speaking or communication is an approach to discourse that
is based on anthropology as critic of Dell Hymes to Chomsky’s well known
refocussing of linguistic theory on the explanation of competence –the tacit knowledge
of the abstract rules of language. According to Hymes (1974) communicative
directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. It includes interaction such
as a conversation at a party, ordering a meal, etc. However, the notion of
communication cannot be assumed to be constant across culture. Cultural conceptions
of communication are deeply intertwined with conception of person, cultural values,
and world knowledge, such that instances of communication behavior are never free of
the cultural belief and action system in which they occur. Hymes explained different
components of communication used to understand the social context of linguistic
interactions, in a grid known as SPEAKING (as has been explained in chapter one).
2.1.3 Interactional Sociolinguistics
The approach to discourse called interaction Sociolinguistics stems from
anthropology, sociology, and linguistics, and shares the concerns of all three fields with
culture, society, and language. This approach was inspired by Gumperz (1982) and
Goffman (1959) which was discuused by Eggins and Slade (1997:34). Gumperz
focuses on how people from different cultures may share grammatical knowledge of a
language, but differenly contextualize what is said such that very different messages
are produced. He demonstrated that interactants from different socio-cultural
backgrounds may hear and understand discourse differently according to their
interpretation of contextualization cues in discourse. Gumperz describes a number of
problems that have arisen between Indian English speakers and British English speaker.
For instance, Indian English-speaking women working in a cafetaria were getting
their conversatinal action, Gumperz dicovered that the British English patrons were
atributing rudeness to the staff because of the workers’ intonation patterns when they
offered service. Instead of saying “Gravy” with a rising intonation, as British English
speakers would to offer a service and be polite, the Indian Speaker were saying
“Gravy” with a falling intonation. For British English speakers, this conveyed an
identity message the suggested you are not important, so just take it or leave it.
Whereas Goffman focuses on how language is situated in particular
circumstance of social life, and how it adds (or reflects) different types of meaning and
structure to those circumstances. For Example, communicators may consciously work
to created certain impression or may do inadvertently. Goffman describes this as the
differences between meanings that itentionally given and those that are given off. A
person speaking to a group may work to present, telling a joke to get started, and so on.
On the other hand, if in speaking her voice cracks or she pauses just after a few words,
people will consider her as nervous. This is categorized as meaning that was given off.
2.1.4 Variation Theory
A variation approach to discourse stems from linguistic variation and change.
An important part of thre variationist approach to discourse is the discovery of formal
patterns in text (narratives). This theory was initially developed by Labov (1972), (in
Eggins and Slade, 1997), the majority of his analyzing the work on the structure of text
personal experience. This involves in six stages: Abstarct, Orientation, Complication,
Evaluation, Resolution, and Coda (see further Eggins and Slade, 1997:39).
2.1.5 Speech Act Theory
Speech act theory was developed by John Austin (1962) and John Searle
(1969), in Eggins and Slade (1997), from basic insight that language is used not just to
describe the world as been discussed previouly, but to perform a range of other actions
that can be indicated in the performance of the utterances itself. They call this as the
illocutionary force of an utterance. As example, the following utterances in Toba Batak
contex indicate a performance of forbidding:
A : Sian dia ho Tiur? (Where have you been?)
B : (Keep silent and immediately entering her room)
As seen from the example that A (father) asked B (daughter) the place where
she was from. B actually should have answered by naming the place she is from, but
she just kept silent and immediately came into her room. She understood that her father
was not just asking her but more than that, her father did not allow her to be outside at
midnight. So the utterances above can be understood as both a question and a
forbidding.
2.1.6 Pragmatics
A pragmatic approach to discourse is based primarily on the philosophical ideas
different types of meaning and argued that general maxims of cooperation provide
inferential routes to speaker’s communicative intention. He further developed some
maxims which are implicative in cooperative principle. These maxims are: maxim of
quality (say only the required quantity), maxim of quality (say honestly), maxim of
relevant (be relevant), and maxim of manner (be brief, not being ambiguous).
In describing conversation as cooperative, Grice did not mean to say that
conversation is only and always nice and pleasant. Conversation is a cooperative
activity in much the same way as football-playing. So, cooperative pribciples are not
obligatory in that they are not attached to rules.
2.1.7 Birmingham School
This approach according to Eggins and Slade (1997) was established through
the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Eggins and Slade (1994:44) say that it
derived from socio-semantic linguistic theory of J.R. Firth (1957), particulary as
developed by Halliday in the early description of scale-and-category grammar. The
Birmingham School focus on discourse structure, whereas Halliday oriented in
semiotic from the systematic perspective. Birmingham School distinguishes discorse as
a level of language organization from grammar and phonology. Distinct discourse unit
were indentified for analysis of interactive talk in terms of rank. The units are made of
one or more of the units immediately below it. In classroom discourse study, Sinclair
Transactions, and finally make up Lesson to be the largest units in teaching discourse.
The Birmingham school present such conversational structure in pedagogic context in
three moves: Initiation, Response and Feedback.
2.1.8 Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic functional linguistics is an approach developed by Halliday (1973),
(in Eggins and Slade, 1997) which is based on the model of language as Social
Semiotic to which it is elaborated to a functional-semantic interpretation of
conversation. Systemic approach offers major benefits in conversational analysis: 1) it
offers an integrated, comprehensive and systematic model of language which enables
conversational patterns to be described and quantified at different levels and in
different digree of detail, 2) It theorizes the links between language and social life so
that conversation can be approached as a way of doing social life. More specifically,
casual conversation can be analysed as involving different linguistic patterns which
both enact and construct dimensions of social identity and interpersonal relations
(Eggins, 1997:47).
Halliday (1994) states that in a casual conversation there are simultaneously
embedded three types of meaning; ideatioanal meaning, interpersonal meaning, and
textual meaning. Ideational meaning concern with the topic being talked about, when,
by whom, and how topic transition and closure is achieved. Interpersonal meaning
focused om what kinds of role relation are established through talk, what attitudes
how they negotiate to take turns. Textual meaning refers to different types of cohesion
used to tie chuncks of the talk together.
In contextual respect, Eggins and Slade (1997) related three types of meaning to
register. Ideational meaning is related to Field, interpersonal meaning to Tenor and
textual meaning to Mode. Genre is also included as a further level of context in
analyzing conversations.
2.1.9 Critical Discourse Analysis
In this approach, Fairclough (1995), (in Eggins and Slade,1997) studies the
relationship between language, ideology and power as well as between discourse and
sociocultural change. The contribution of this approach are realized in three main areas:
notions of text and difference, methods and techniques of conversation anlysis, and
critical account of genre.
Kress (1985), (in Eggins and Salde, 1997) explained it is differences that
motivate speech, as Argument to differences is of an ideological kind, interview to
differences arround power and knowledge, Gossip to differences around informal
knowledge, Lecture to differences arround formal knowledge. Kress argued that
individuals who come to interaction share membership of particular social groupings,
and learn modes of speaking or discourse associated with those institutions.
In critical discourse analysis, the micro-event and the macro-social structures
impression of ordeliness in interaction. Ordeliness arises from participants conformity
with their background knowledge about the norms, right and obligation appropriate in
interaction in particular context. As an example, a lecture in university is orderly, as
the lecturer and the students are in conformity to dominant discourse practice whereby
the lecture talks without invitation and the students listen without complaint.
2.2 Conversation
This part talks about the characteristic of conversation as well as the assumption
used in conversation. Here the characteristic of conversation deals with the strength of
mundane conversation used as data in conversation on Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson
study (in Furo, 2001).
2.2.1 Characteristic of Conversation
As has been defined before that conversation is spontaneous talk in interaction
among two or more participants in casual, informal settings of everyday life (Furo,
2001:25). This kind of conversation has also been touched by Goodwin and Heritage
(1990) as ordinary and mundane conversation. Whereas listeners freely alternate in
speaking, and this occurs in informal setting. By those definitions we can direcly
distinguish it from a talk that takes institutional setting as its context. For example, a
conversation which occurs in a debate , seminar, adat ceremony, all of which the
In ordinary conversation or casual talk, there is no an arrangement who, where,
and when to talk. All come spontaneously. Eventhough ordinary, and the general
impression is that it is chaotic and disorderly, it is useful for conversation analysis
which is based their work on ethnomethodological enquire.
Seeing the sense of ordinary activities means being able to see what people are
doing and saying, and therefore one place in which one might begin to see how making
sense is done in terms of the understanding of everyday talk (Sharrock and Anderson
in Eggin and Slade, 1997:25).
When there was an invention of recording devices, and the willingness to study
mundane conversation in depth, what people doing and saying in their everyday talk
are actually highly organized and ordered.
According to Furo (2001) conversation treated as data in conversation analysis
has three characteristic :
1. It reflected the communicative competence of the participant.
2. It is the most unmarked form of communication.
3. It reflected the interaction norms as well as the social system of the culture
where it occurs.
This communicative competence (Schiffrin in Furo, 2001) constitutes our tacit
knowledge of the abstarct rules of language, which is required both to produce
sound/meaning correspondences betweexn sounds, meaning formed in socially and
linguistic and pragmatic ability, or show the way participants use language in
interaction.
As the most unmarked form of communication, conversation can be treated as
the prototype of other forms of talk. Goodwin and Heritage (1990: 284) observed that
ordinary conversation is the point of departure of more specialized communicative
context. As it occurs in ubiquity, ordinary conversation has been familiar with the life
of Toba Batak. At this present time only talks in institutional setting, such as
conversation in adat ceremony has been under investigation. Of its mundane nature,
ordinary conversation may involve all people from all ranks, whereas instituonal talks
take limited participants, like only the married participants can participate in the
conversation.
As conversation carried out in cultural and social context, the action done can
reflect the identity of participants including interaction norms on social process in
interpersonal relationships (Schiffirin, 1994). In this case, conversation can indicate the
basic principles that govern the linguistic and non-linguistic behavior of the members
of the society in which the principles are constituted.
2.2.2 Assumption in Conversation
The four basic assumptions in conversation as discussed in chapter one (Furo,
2001: 24) are:
1. Conversation is structurally organized.
3. Conversation is contextual
4. Conversation is locally managed.
Since conversation is structurally organized and sequetially constrained
(Goodwin and Heritage, 1990), there can be found structural approach, that is,
adjacency pairs. This exemplifies structural organization as well as orderly sequence of
interaction in conversation. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether
responded or not. When the first is not responded, the second would be noticeably
absent, that leads to a repair actions.
As the joint production among participant, recipients show his or her
intersubjective as the understanding and inferences of the the speaker’s utterance.
Again, when recipients do not show his or her intersubjectivity, the speaker may reply
with repair work in the next slot, which is called the third position repair (Schegloff in
Furo, 2001).
Conversation is context dependent. This assumption means that conversation is
shaped in context, the prior context shaped) and the new context
(context-renewing). In this way, context does not refer to social one such as participants’
identities or situational settings but they are sequences of action and interpretation that
emerge in the organization of conversation (Goodwin and Heritage, 1990)
The fourth assumption conversation is locally managed, implies that
turn-by-turn organization of conversation are analyzed. These occur in the turn-by-turn-taking as
exchanges are systematically relaized with minimal gap and overlap because speakers
take transisition relevance place (TRPs).
2.3 Adjacency Pairs
We have noted above that structural view in interaction is related to adjecency
pairs. That is a sequence of two utterances which are adjecent, produced by different
speakers, ordered as a first pair part and second part, and typed, so that a first part
requires a particular second part (Schegloff and Sacks in Schiffrin, 1994).
According to Tracy (2002:114) there are many kinds of adjacency pairs. Some
pairs involve similiar acts like greetings and goodbye, while others involve different
acts, like invitations or offers followed by acceptances or refusals, and question
followed by answer.
Below are two examples of common adjacency pairs in English taken from
Tracy (2002:114). These adjacency pairs involve different acts. Example (1) accepts an
invitation, and example (2) refuses an invitation.
Taryn : How about some lunch ? Invitation 1
Jjay : Sound good. (stand up) Acceptance
2 Taryn : How aout some lunch ?
Jay : (pause) Uhh, better bot.
I’ve got to get this done by 2:00.
Thanks though. How’s tomorrow ?
Invitation
There would be an expansion of adjacency pairs. This is done by presequence.
If a speaker wanted to invite someone for a dinner, it is reasonable for the speaker to
ask the invited person if he has eaten yet. An adjacency pairs usually a
question-answer format come first, as in Example (3) below :
Taryn : you eaten yet ? Question
Jay : No Answer
3
Taryn : How about some lunch ?. Invitation
Another expansion of adjecency pairs is done by insertion sequences. Like
presequences, insertion sequences involve an inserted adjecency pairs to determine if
some condition applies that would make the conversationally preferred option possible.
This is presented in example (4) below :
Taryn : How about some lunch ? Invitation
Jay : You got $ 5 to lend me ? Request
Taryn : Yeah. Grant
4
Jay : Sounds good. Acceptances
However, the notion of adjacency pair is not always the most usual sequence. It
is possible for a question not to be answered by an answer, greeting by a greeting.
When the answer is not forth coming it is noticeably absent (Schegloff in Tracy,
2002). In this case, it is possible for the speaker makes a repair. Schegloff (in Have,
1999) observed that from 500 instances of the telephone opening, one instance deviated
(police makes call)
Receiver is lifted, and there is one second pause
Police : Hello.
Other : American Red-cross
Police : Hello, this is police Headquartes, or Officer Stratton.
The common one is that a telephone ring is as a summons opens a conditional
relevance for second part of a sequence, answer. If the answer is not forthcoming a
summons can be reissued. In the above conversation, the police reissued a summons by
saying, hello.
Another respect of adjacency pairs is preferences. Conversational preferences
refers to structurally preferred second act for adjecency pairs that may take one of two
forms (Tracy, 2002).
In offer, invitation or request, accepts are conversationally preferred to refusals.
So, acceptances is a preferred action, and refusal in a dispreferred action. In English,
conversationally dispreferred act is always longer, more conversationnaly marked and
elaborated. In example (2) before, the refusal of Jay as dispreferred action was not
immediately given, but there was a pause before elaborating it.
It seem that conversational preference varies from culture to culture as what
different languages tell us about the different concept of space in a certain culture
2.4 Turn
A proposed unit of conversation seen as something said by the speaker preceded,
followed or both by a turn of some other speaker is called a turn (Mathews, 1997:417).
Whereas Goodwin (1981) stated that turn is the talk of one party bounded by the talk
of other. From these two defenition it can be implied that in turn, there is unit of
conversation and boundaries of talk or speaker change. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson
(1974) stated that the unit of conversation refers to turn construction units (TCUs).
TCU is an utterance that is interpretable as recognizably complete. Grammar is
one key organizational resource in building and recognizing TCUs (Schegloff, 2007:3).
The second resource is phonetic realization, most familiarity in intonational packaging.
A speaker beginning to talk in a turn has the right and obligation to produce one TCU
which may realize one or more actions.
The conversation below is an example of which h TCUs are constructed as
giving actions, as quoted in Schiffrin (1994:6).
A : Can you pass the salt
B : Here you are
A : Thank you
B : You’re welcome
In this conversation, A makes 2 TCUs in two sentences : Can you past the salt ?, and
Thank you, A also performs two action : requesting and thanking. In similar case, B
