Turn Taking Analysis Of Debate Forums In Indonesia Lawyer Club And Indonesia Lawak Klub.

(1)

Vivi Rizqi Untari, 2015

Turn Taking Analysis Of Debate Forums In Indonesia Lawyer Club And Indonesia Lawak Klub

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TURN TAKING ANALYSIS OF DEBATE FORUMS IN INDONESIA

LAWYER CLUB AND INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB

A Research Paper

Submitted to Department of English Education, Indonesia University of Education

as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree

By

Vivi Rizqi Untari

1005508

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

TURN TAKING ANALYSIS OF DEBATE FORUMS IN INDONESIA LAWYER CLUB AND INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB

Oleh

Vivi Rizqi Untari

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Sastra

pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Juni 2015

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

TURN TAKING ANALYSIS OF DEBATE FORUMS IN INDONESIA LAWYER CLUB AND INDONESIA LAWAK KLUB

A Research Paper

by:

Vivi Rizqi Untari

Approved by:

Supervisor

Dadang Sudana, MA., Ph.D NIP. 196009191990031001

Head of Department of English Education

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

(4)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides general introduction of the study including Background,

Research Questions, Aims of the study, Significance of the study, Methodology and

Clarification of Key Terms.

1. Background

Debate can be understood as a forum in which people can present their idea by using

language as the medium. According to International Debate Association Education, ‘debate is

a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals’. Debate is seen as a tool

in developing a democracy and open society. People debate in order either to support their

beliefs or oppose other’s. In debate, the aim of debaters is to win over their opponents.

Therefore, in debate people are expected to share their idea in a very convincing way without

purposing to insult other people. Wattles and Radić-Bojanić (2007) proposed eight

characteristics of debate such as interaction of two or more people, face to face interaction

and usually using formal speech. Based on these characteristics, debate can be considered as

a form of conversation because it requires the interaction of two people or more, and the

language used is mostly spoken language.

Conversation can be understood as a way in which people build their relationship by

talking in their daily life. Liddicoat (2007) states that conversation is ‘the way in which

people socialize and develop and sustain their relationship each other’. Conversation is one of

the major area studies of discourse analysis which is called conversation analysis.

Conversation analysis focuses on the analysis of ordinary spoken communication.

Conversation analysis aims to understand how people manage their interaction (Paltridge,

2006). The analysis of conversation focuses on turn-taking, gaps and overlaps, adjacency and

preference organization, expanding sequences, repair, and opening and closing conversation

(Liddicoat, 2007). This study limits its scope on turn-taking of conversation analysis.

Repair refers to the process when people have problem with their talk and then they

correct it. Paltridge (2006) refers repair as ‘the way speakers correct things they or someone

else has said, and check what they understood in conversation’. In the same line Sack et al. (1974, cited in Liddicoat 2007:73) state that current speaker continues strategy in turn taking

(5)

conversation based on who initiated it and who repair the talk. Repair can be initiated by the

speaker (self-initiated repair) or by someone else (other-initiated repair), and repair can be

made by the speaker of the repairable item (self-repair) or it may be made by the recipient

(other-repair). However, often time in comedy repair is not pure repair but implicature which

is intentionally made. It is because sometimes the repair which is made in this conversation is

considered as the strategy in creating laughter.

In a conversation, often time one person speaks at a time and after that she/he

probably nominates another person or another person may take up the turn without being

nominated (Sacks et al, 1974; Sacks, 2004, cited in Paltridge, 2006). Most of the time people

will instinctively know when they can speak although they are not aware of the sign of their

turn. There are some signals which indicate the end of turn such as the use of falling

intonation, pausing and also the speaker can use the word such as ‘mmm’ or ‘anyway’ to end

his/her turn. There are three rules of turn taking which highly possible occur in a

conversation; Current Speaker Selects (CSS), Self-Select (SS), Current Speaker Continuous

(CSC). However, it is possible that those rules are violated in conversation. Overlaps and

problematic are two common features of conversation. Overlaps and problematic are often

time considered as the way people’s attempt to take the ‘floor’.

Another feature in conversation is that we notice that many turn at talk occur as pairs.

When someone says greeting then it will be followed by greeting, a farewell by a farewell, or

a question by an answer. This pair can be understood as adjacency pairs. In a conversation

people also may choose the way they develop their talk. The term of preference deals with

the ways in which conversational action may be accomplished. For example, in order to state

their agreement people may say ‘that was good’ (Liddicoat, 2007).

There are some studies regarding the analysis of debate. One of these studies is

conducted by Emmertsen in 2007 who conducted a study in some British Broadcast panel

interview. The study tried to show that interviewers’ initial challenging questions polarized

interviewees’ positions and that confrontation between interviewees was an expected and

normative part of the interaction and also to show that the grammatical, lexical and sequential

design of interviewers’ initial challenges were constructed by the interviewers’ formal

neutrality as provided by the turn-taking system for the news interview. The results of this

study found that the debate interview cannot be adequately understood as organized

according to one turn-taking system, but rather as organized by the turn-taking system for

news interviews as well as by a conversational turn-taking system. In the same vein, Ikeda

(6)

stated that political debates were particularly set up so that it involved arguments. She

reviewed some models of political debate in British and North America. It stated that those

kinds of debates were a bit different with formal debate in which the debate was for the

audience. The different structure of debate was also found in presidential or vice presidential

debate where it was only moderator who could set a topic for the candidates.

Another study is conducted by Hossein Shokouhi & Neida Hamidi (2010). They

analyzed a writing conversation in the internet chat. The study focused on 400 chat samples

from 100 university students. Eggins and Slade’s (1997) model of conversation was used in which they provided nine categories of opening speech function. The study found that the

salient speech function that was found in the data was stating opinion which provided

attitudinal and evaluative information. In the same year, Mustofa (2010) analyzed turn taking

in program ‘Debate TV One’. This study analyzed how conversation was managed and

distributed in the program and the purpose of interruption and overlaps which were made in

the program. This study found that: first there were particular characteristics of speaker

change in the program. The second was that question-answer pair was the most pair that was

found in the data. And the last was that the purpose of the overlaps and interruption was to

get more information from the current speaker, change questions, and agree or disagree to a

particular argument.

In Indonesia there are many debate forums which are broadcast on television. Some of

them are Indonesia Lawyer Club (ILC) which has been parodied by Indonesia Lawak Klub

(ILK). Being the parody of ILC, ILK almost has the same structure and organization like ILC

for instance in term of where the participants are seated. However, in terms of conversation

structure, it seems that there are some differences between them. For example, in the opening

of the forum the host of ILC, Karni Ilyas, will be introduced by a narrator, meanwhile in ILK

the host introduces himself. The difference between them also can be seen in the way repair

is made. In ILK, often time repairs are made by others because in this case the mistakes

emerge not merely because the speakers have problem with their talk but it may be done on

purpose. Meanwhile, in ILC the speaker usually makes the repair by him/her self in order to

make people understand what he/she means. In light with this, this study will attempt

discover the differences that may or may not occur between ILK and ILC by using the

(7)

2. Research Questions

Every study has to have a guidance that will help the researcher to conduct its research. In a

conversation, every participant has the right to speak. However, the participant knows that

they cannot just talk at the same time. Therefore in a conversation turn taking is an important

part of a conversation. Without turn taking the conversation will probably become too

monotonous or every participant will talk at the same time. This study tries to analyze the

differences of conversation organization between ILK (Indonesia Lawak Klub) and ILC

(Indonesia Lawyer Club) which focuses on turn taking. Therefore, this study uses four

research questions below as the guidance:

1. What rules of turn taking occur in conversation among participants in ILK and ILC?

2. Between ILK and ILC, which one has the most overlaps?

3. How often does repair occur in ILK and ILC?

4. What is the purpose of repairs made in ILK and ILC?

3. Aims of the study

Both ILK and ILC are Indonesia Debate forums which have different style compared to other

debate forums for instance presidential debate. Even though ILK is a parody program for

ILC, in term of conversation analysis both of that debate forum have differences. By using

research questions above, this present study aims to:

1. To discover what rules of turn taking which occur in ILK and ILC.

2. To compare which debate forum that has most overlaps.

3. To discover whether repair occurs in debate and how often it occurs,

4. To discover the purposes of repair made in the debate,

Through the analysis of the data, this study attempts to describe the different strategies and

organization of talking that are used in managing the conversation in both forums.

4. Methodology

Largely, this present study uses descriptive qualitative methodology as the main

research methodology. Research that uses descriptive qualitative methodology describes a

(8)

non-numerical data such as interviews, case studies, or participant observation (see Richard

and Schmidt, 2002: 152 & 435).

The data for study are firstly in the form of video recorded which is downloaded via

web http://www.youtube.com. The videos are two debate forums named Indonesia Lawak

Klub and Indonesia Lawyer Club which are broadcast in two different television stations in

Indonesia. The length of Indonesia Lawak Klub is approximately 41.52 minutes, meanwhile

Indonesia Lawyer Club is about 60 minutes and later these videos are transcribed in order to

make the analysis easier.

Furthermore, this study employs conversation analysis (CA) in order to describe how

debate is built in spoken discourse. Conversation analysis focuses on the characteristics of

spoken interaction. The data are analyzed according to Liddicoat (2007) theory of

conversation analysis.

This analysis involves the analysis of turn-taking overlaps and interruption, and

repair. Turn taking analysis have three rules which are proposed by Sack et al. (1974), those

rules are Current Speaker Select (CSS), Self-Select (SS), Current Speaker Continuous (CSC).

The second analysis is overlaps analysis which consist of unproblematic and problematic

overlaps. The analysis of repair is divided into three categories based on the purpose of

repairs which are found. The analysis will be presented in the form of table which shows the

number of occurrences of the findings and then a conclusion can be made based on this

analysis.

5. Significance of the study

The results of this study are expected to uncover the different strategies in building

conversation between two debate forums, which are Indonesia Lawak Klub and Indonesia

Lawyer Club, because although both programs are debate programs and those programs are

identical each other but those programs have different purposes. Furthermore, this study

expects give more information that in conversation there is some basic principles that are

applied in order to build conversation whether the participants realize it or not.

6. Clarification of Key Terms

In order to make this present study more understandable, there are some terms that need

(9)

1. Discourse

Fairclough understands discourse as a tool which is used in various fields including

meaning making and a way in construing aspects of the world which is associated with a

particular social perspective. Meanwhile, Leeuwen derives Foucault’s definition of

discourse as a way of knowing the aspect of reality which is constructed socially (Wodak

& Meyer, 2009). Based on those definitions, discourse can be understood as a socially

constructed ways of knowing reality which is used in various fields such as meaning

making. And discourse analysis is a way in analyzing written and spoken text.

2. Conversation

The way people communicate and express their feeling in daily life in order to build and

maintain relationship among them. Meanwhile according to Liddicoat (2007)

conversation analysis is ‘an approach to the study of talk in interaction’.

3. Turn taking

order to indicate they finish their turn. A variety of grammatical unit which is function as

TCU are example words, phrases, clauses and sentences.

5. Turn Relevance Places.

In a conversation, there is the time when a speaker possibly completes his/her own talk

and at that point another speaker may take turn and change speaker.

6. Unproblematic overlap

problematic interruption is often referred as interruption.

8. Repair

Repair refers to the processes when a speaker can deal with the problem which occurs in

(10)

7. Organization of The Research Paper

This paper will be organized as follows:

Chapter I : this chapter provides an overall introduction of the paper. It consists of

Background, Research Questions, Aims of the study, Significance of the study, Methodology,

significance of the study and Clarification of Key Terms.

Chapter II : this chapter will provide the explanation of the theory that is used as the

framework for the data analysis

Chapter III : this chapter provides explanation of the methodology, and steps in

conducting this study. This chapter consists of research methodology, data collection and data

analysis.

Chapter IV : this chapter provides the analysis of the data and the result of analysis.

(11)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

This present study of turn taking analysis in Indonesia Lawyer Club and Indonesia Lawak

Klub finds that conversation principle is applied in the data. The first turn taking element

which is analyzed in this present study is the occurrence of turn taking rules in ILK and ILC.

Turn taking rule as the most basic principle in conversation occurs in both data. Current

Speaker Select the next Speaker rule, Self-Select rule and Current Speaker Continues rule are

found in ILC and ILK. The result of turn taking analysis in ILC shows that Current Speaker

Select the Next Speaker (CSTNS) rule is the most used rule and ILK mostly used SS rule.

The act of select the next speaker and become the person who is selected occur 187 times in

ILC and 257 times in ILK. In selecting the next speaker both in ILC and ILK use the same

strategy which are using name-addressing, personal pronoun, question and other which is

combination of more than one strategy such as name addressing and question.

The second element of turn taking that is analyzed in this present study is overlaps.

Overlaps have two types which are divided based on the effect on the current speaker turn.

The types are unproblematic and problematic overlaps. In both debate forum unproblematic

overlap is found much more than problematic overlap. This result slightly violate the

conversation basic principle which is ‘one speaker speaks at a time’. Mostly the occurrences of unproblematic overlap are found in the end of the current speaker’s turn. The next speaker

starts talking even before the current speaker stops but not enough to interrupt the current

speaker’s turn. Problematic overlap which is well known as interruption is also found in the

debate programs but the number of problematic overlaps is less than unproblematic overlaps.

The last turn taking element which is analyzed in this present study is repair. This

present study finds that there are 111 repairs made in ILC and 126 repairs made in ILK. The

most basic purpose of repair is to correct the mistake. However, it is found that in both debate

programs that repair is used to reach different purpose. The analysis of repair in ILC and ILK

finds that there three purposes. The first is to correct the mistakes. This mistakes can be in the

form mispronounce word or problem at finding the suitable words. The second is to be a tool

to defend argument and at the same time repair can also be used to offend someone’s

argument. And the last is that repair is used as the tool to insult each other directly or

(12)

5.2 Suggestion

Conversation analysis has many element and principles that could not analyzed in this study.

The turn taking analysis is merely a piece of conversation element. Further research of

conversation analysis is necessary in order to complete the data and discover the variety of

conversation structure such as how body gesture and intonation can be supporting the turn

taking system. To put an end to this present study, the researcher hope that the present

(13)

REFERENCES

Ãlvaro, R. N. (2011). The Role of Conversational Maxims, Implicature and Presupposition in

the Creation of Humor: An Analysis of Woody Allens’ Anything Else(Master’s Thesis). Universitas Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spanyol.

Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P., & Merrison, A. (2005). Introducing language in use a coursebook.

London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlab

k&AN=63251

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative

Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Debate Format. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2014, from International Debate Association:

http://idebate.org/about/debate/formats

Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Conversation analysis: a method for research into

interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expectations, 4,

58-70.

Emmertsen, S. (2007). Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews.

Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 570–591

Gardner, R., Fitzgerald, R., & Mushin, I. (2009). The underlying orderliness in

turn-taking. Australian Journal of Communication, 36(3), 65-89.

Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and Conversation. in Peter. Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds) Syntax and

Semantics . Vol 3. Speech Arts . New York: Academic. 41-58.

Have, P. ten. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London ;

(14)

Hörleinsberger, B. (2011). Of geeks and nerds (Doctoral dissertation). University of Vienna,

Wien, Austria.

Hsieh, F. (2009). Repetition in Social Interaction: A Case Study on Mandarin Conversations.

International Journal on Asian Language Processing , 19(4), 153-168.

Ikeda, K., & Ikeda Yoshiko. (2008). A Conversation Analytic Account of the Interactional

Structure of "Arguments". Language and Culture Studies, 29(2), 289-304.

Kato, F. (2000). Discourse Approach to Turn-Taking from the Perspective of Tone Choice

between Speakers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, United

Kingdom.

Kaufmann, D. (2014). Interruptive vs.Cooperative Speech Overlaps in All-Female Discourse

of the Santa Barbara Corpus - a Qualitative Conversation Analysis. Introduction to

Lingustics II. 1-15.

Khosravizadeh, P., & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of

the Maxim of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for

Schmucks. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research, 26.

122-127.

Köhler, A. (2007). Repair in the Context of Theater Rehearsals: A Conversation Analytic

Approach (Master's Thesis). University of Postdam, Postdam, Germany.

Leeuwen, T. V. (2008). Discourse and practice new tools for critical discourse analysis.

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Hoboken,: Taylor & Francis.

Mehrabi, A. (2011). Self-Repair in Persian Conversation. International Proceedings of

Economics Development & Research, 26.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. (n.d.). Retrieved. December 1, 2014, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor.

Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: an introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Mustafa, M. S. (2010). The Interpretation of Implicature: A Comparative Study between

Implicature in Linguistics and Journalism. Journal of Language Teaching and

(15)

Mustofa, A. (2010). Analisis Wacana Percakapan ‘Debat TV One’ (A Paper submitted as

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Degree). Universitas Sebelas

Maret, Surakarta.

Nanda et al. (2012). Conversational Implicature of the Presenters in Take Me Out Indonesia.

Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2),120-138.

Nuraeni, Q. (2012). An Analysis Of Turn-Taking Rules In A Comedy Film Entitled Bruce

Almight (A Paper submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana

Sastra Degree). Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, Indonesia.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. London: Continuum.

Rahayudi, B. and Poppe, R.W. and Heylen, D.K.J. (2014) Twente Debate Corpus - A

Multimodal Corpus for Head Movement Analysis. International Conference on

Language Resources and Evaluation, 4184-4187.

Richard, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and

Applied Linguistics. London: British Library

Schenkein, J. (Ed.). (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New

York: Academic Press.

Shokouhi, H. , & Hamidi, N. (2010). A conversation analysis of the Iranian youths' written

chats of English, Iranian journal of applied linguistics, 13( 1), 149-177.

Wattles, I., & Radić-Bojanić, B. (2007). The Analysis of an Online Debate - The Systemic Functional Grammar Approach. Linguistics and Literature , 1, 47 - 58.

What is Debate? (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2014, from international debate association:

http://idebate.org/about/debate/what

Why Debate? (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2014, from International Debate Association:

http://idebate.org/about/debate/why

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage

Publication Ltd.

Xiaosu, Yao. (2009). Conversational Implicature Analysis of Humor in American Situation

(16)