Introduction
1.
Introduction
Conversation is one of the most
prevalent uses of human language. All human beings engage in conversational
interaction and human society depends on conversation in order to function:
Social interaction is
the primordial means through which the business of the social world is
transacted, the identities of its participants are affirmed or denied, and its
cultures are transmitted, renewed and modified.
(C.
Goodwin and Heritage, 1990: 283).
Conversation is the way in which people
socialize and develop and sustain their relationships with each other. When
people converse they engage in a form of linguistic communication, but there is
much more going on in a conversation than just the use of a linguistic code.
Much that is important in conversation is carried out by things other than
language, including eye gaze and body posture, silences and the realworld
context in which the talk is produced.
Conversation has received a great deal
of attention from writers over a very long period of time; however, much of
what has been written about conversation is prescriptive in nature and deals
with the idea of what makes a 'good conversationalist' (see Burke, 1993). Such
approaches to conversation take the form of a set of prescriptive rules which describe
what a conversation should be. They present sets of social rules which indicate
which topics are appropriate or how language is to be used for maximum effect.
These principles of what constitutes good or appropriate conversation vary from
culture to culture and change over time (Burke, 1993). Such approaches to
conversation show little about conversation as a normal everyday human
activity, but frame conversation as an elite activity governed by the
conventions of 'polite society'. However, conversation is not solely an elite
activity, but rather an everyday one, and it is important to understand how it
is that people engage in this everyday activity as a structured social event.
The everyday nature of talk has often
been denigrated as a subject for study, with linguists such as Chomsky (1965)
seeing language used in actual instances of spontaneous communication as being
in some way defective and negatively influenced by non-linguistic factors. Such
views of language, however, divorce the linguistic system from its primary use
in human communication. Given the fundamental role of conversation in human
social life, it is ihmportant to understand conversation as a linguistic
activity, and since the 1960s increasing importance has been given to the analysis
of conversation as a field of study (dayman and Maynard, 1995; C. Goodwin and
Heritage, 1990; Heritage, 1989). (Liddicoat, 2007).
2.
Formulation of
Problem
There
are some problems that will be answered in these papers :
a. What
is conversation analysis?
b. What
is turn taking? What are the examples?
c. What
is adjacency pair? What are the examples?
d. What
is psychological or statistical in conversation analysis? What are the example?
e. What
are insertion and side sequences? What are the examples?
f. What
is topic change? What are the examples?
Discussion
Definition of Conversational Analysis
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. That is, conversational analysis studies three things. Those
are:
1. Firstly, the techniques that the speaker
employs in deciding when to speak during a conversation, such as rules of
turn-taking,
2. Secondly, the ways in which the utterances of
more than one speaker are related, for instance, conversational maxims,
adjacency pair, inserted sequence, etc, and
3. Thirdly, the different functions that
conversation is used for, for example, establishing roles, communicating
politeness, etc.
Turn Taking
In conversation
analysis, turn-taking is
a term for the manner in which orderlyconversation normally takes place. turn-taking in an exchange in
conversation is very important. The transition talk is an important requirement
conversation (Howe, 1983), because the transition talk will lead to change of
the role of participants in the conversation. This is in accordance with the
opinion of sack (under Hawe, 1983: 3-12), which states that the conversation
can occur if there are several people take turns speaking. Conversation
involving several people, but not too many people involved..
In
a conversation of adults, in general, the participants already know about the
convention who should speak, when to speak, and how much time spent talking
(Richards and schmidt, 1983). In the natural conversations of daily, talk
transitional arrangements were never found. According to Richards and Schmidt
(1983: 141-142), the transition of talk in the community there are several
variations. Said transition said depending on the culture of the language user.
Exemplified, expert speakers difference that occurs in children from America
and the children of Fijian Indian descent. Instead of talk that occurs in the
conversation is determined by the willingness and responsibility to develop
conversation conversation participants
According
to Sack, the transition speech follows a basic rule. The basic rule is
formulated as follows. First, if the turn of speech that has been determined by
designating the next speaker, participant designated that the right to speak on
the next turn. Second, if the change of speech is not predetermined, the
participants of the conversations that will decide who should speak on the next
turn, after the previous speaker provides an opportunity for other
participants. Third, if the change of speech is not predetermined and the other
participants do not take the initiative to become speaker, former speaker can
continue the conversation.
There
are some process of turn taking, such as :
1. ACQUIRE is how to take a turn to talk given by
previous speakers. Previous speakers provide opportunities for partners to
speak he said. Previous speakers provide the opportunity fully to the next
speaker marked by the silence of the previous speaker.
Example
:
A
: What do you think about the result of Final Exam in Tangerang?
B
: I think, the result of Final Exam in Tangerang is not really good.
2. CHANGING is turn taking to speak by replacing or
continue partner's talking because his/ her partners of turn taking are not
able to continue the conversation. This method is usually performed to maintain
a conversation.
Example
:
A
: Have you ever seen this thing?
B
: Yes, I think I’ve ever seen it.... Uhmm.. What is it??
A
: it’s a spoon.
B
: Yes it’s a spoon.
3. SEIZING is taking a turn to speak during the previous
speaker was talking, and he still wants to continue talks.
Example
:
A
: What are we doing in holiday?
B
: Picnic.
C
: Sleep
4. STEALING is taking a turn to speak is granted by the
previous speaker. Previous speakers provide opportunities for partners to speak
he said. Previous speakers provide the opportunity fully to the next speaker
marked with the previous speaker's silence.
Example
:
A
: Last night....
B
: earthquake, right?
Adjacency
Pairs
An
adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one trun
each by two speakers,the turn are functionally related to each other in such a
fashion that the first turn requires type or range of types of second turn.
Once the first utterance is spoken, the second is required. A few of the many
adjacency pairs that have been identified are shown. In pragmatics, a branch of linguistics, an adjacency
pair is an example of conversational turn-taking. An adjacency pair is composed
of two utterances by two speakers, one after the other. The speaking of the
first utterance (the first-pair part, or the first turn) provokes a responding
utterance (the second-pair part, or the second turn). Together the two turns constitute
an adjacency pair. For example, a question such as "What's your
name?" requires the addressee to provide an answer in the following turn,
thus completing the adjacency pair. A satisfactory
response could be "I'm James".
Cook (1989:156) holds: “two types of
conversation which typically occur together form an adjacency pair”. Sacks (1967) also observe that, a conversation is a string
of two turns. Some turns are more closely related than others, and isolates a
class of sequences of turns called adjacency pair. However, Sacks proposes a number of features
of ‘Adjacency pair’, which has been given below:
- They are two utterances
long,
- The utterances are
produced successively produced by different speakers;
- The utterances are
ordered- the first must belong to the class of first ‘pair parts’, the
second to the class of ‘second pair parts’;
- The utterances are
related, not any second pair can follow any first pair part, but only an
appropriate one;
- The first pair part often
selects next action- it thus sets up’ transition relevance’ and
expectation which the next speaker fulfils; in other words, the first part
of a pair predicts the occurrence of the second: given a question,
regularly enough an answer will follow.
- There is a class of first
pair parts which include questions, greetings, challenges,
acknowledgements, requests, offers, complaints, invitations, announcements
etc; for some first pair parts the second pair part is reciprocal
(greeting-greeting), for some only there is only one appropriate second
(question-answer), for some more than one
(complain-apology/justification).
For example:
1. greeting
→ greeting
2. "Heya!"
→ "Oh, hi!"
3. offer → acceptance/rejection
"Would you like to visit
the museum with me this evening?" → "I'd love to!"
- request →
acceptance/rejection
"Is it OK if I borrow this book?"
→ "I'd rather you didn't, it's
due back at the library tomorrow"
- question → answer
"What does this big red button do?"
→ "It causes two-thirds of the
universe to implode"
- complaint → excuse/remedy
"It's awfully cold in here" →
"Oh, sorry, I'll close the window"
- degreeting → degreeting
"See you!" → "Yeah, see you later!"
But looking
at conversations we often find that a first pair part (eg a question) is
sometimes followed by something that is clearly not an 'answer' in the required
sense - it might be a refusal to answer, a redirection to somebody else, a
challenge to the questioner's right or competence to ask that question, and so
on. If we look at a collection of 'unexpected' responses we'll find that they
are done differently from 'expected' ones. They are not so prompt, and will
have a hedge, or a request for clarification, or an account, or something that
alludes to a difficulty or an excuse.
A: “why don’t come to our party on
Sunday?”
(Pause)
B: "Well I'd like to but it's Hannah's birthday" [marked rejection]
(Pause)
B: "Well I'd like to but it's Hannah's birthday" [marked rejection]
This latter is an example of what is called a
'dispreferred' response. The rejection is (it is empirically found) marked by
hesitation and hedging and an account of why the preferred response wasn't
given. The mark is so powerful that it alone will suffice as a rejection:
A: “why don’t come to our party
Sunday?”
(pause)
B: "Well ..."
(pause)
B: "Well ..."
And A knows that B is declining the invitation.
But what
will happen if it gave the dispreferred reply without marking it:
A:"why don't you come to our party on
Sunday?"
B: "No"
That would look strange and
rude. We would infer something about what B was saying (e.g. that they were
sulking). The in formativeness of such deviation shows us that the substance of
the dispreferred SPP (e.g. that it is a rejection) and its markers (e.g. a
pause, a hedge) normally go together. So there are four possibilities: (commonly) expected and unexpected answer
which can be either marked or unmarked. Commonly expected answers tend strongly
to be unmarked.
Psychological or statistical:
It is important to appreciate
that 'dispreferredness' is not a psychological evaluation of the response. It's
purely a frequency judgment. The more frequent response to a greeting inquiry
about your health is 'fine, thanks, and you?'. But it's not meant to be an
accurate report. It's just a feature of the system that it has 'standard'
responses. It's useful because if someone wants to communicate that he is not fine, then all he need to do is
hesitate and delay. The listener will work out that he is giving the
'non-standard' response (and, in this case, are therefore not well).
In this example we can see a speaker calculating
what her or his listener's silence means:
A: So I was wondering would you be in your
office in Monday by any chance
(2.0)
(2.0)
B: Probably not
A is explicitly recognizing
that the other speaker has not done the proper thing (replied quickly), but A
does not simply pass over it; s/he assumes that B has some reason not to
respond quickly, that not-responding-quickly means something. Given (as we
noted in the last lecture) that preliminary pauses are generally used as
markers of dispreferred responses. A infers that what is coming is a rejection
and moves to deal with it.
Moreover, adjacency pairs are in the basic
structural units in conversation. They are employed for closing and opening
conversations, and are very important in conversations both for operating and
turn taking system by enabling a speaker to select the next action, and next
speaker, and for enabling the next speaker to avoid both gap and overlap. In
fine, adjacency pairs of the structure of conversation and are studied in
conversational analysis.
Insertion Sequence
An
insertion sequence is a sequence of turns that intervenes between the first and
second parts of an adjacency pair. The person towards whom the first part of an
adjacency pair has been directed may want to undertake some preliminary action
before responding with the second part. A request for clarification by the
recipient will take place after the first pair part but before the second pair
part. This is an insertion sequence. Here turn 1 and 4 make up one adjacency
pair inserted between the two parts of the first pair.
P:
Martin would you like to dance ?
M:
Is the floor is slippery?
P:
No its fine.
M:
Then I’d be happy to dance.
Moreover,
it can be defined as, the phenomenon of embedding; of one pair occurring inside
another is noticeable in conversations. Schegloff (1972) terms this type of
embedded pairs Inserted sequence. Cook (1989:156) holds: insertion sequence:
one set of related conversational turns occurring within, and helping the
bracketed part of the following conversation;
A:
Did you enjoy the meal?
B:
Did you?
A:
Yes.
B:
so did I.
Furthermore,
during the inserted sequence, the original question retains its transition
relevance, and if the second speaker does not then produce an answer it is
noticeably absent in exactly the same way as it would be if there were no
intervening sequence, and the questioner can complain about the lack of answer
in exactly the same way. Adjacency pairs are normative structures, the second
part ought to occur, and thus the other sequences are inserted between the
first pair part that has occurred and the second pair part that is anticipated.
It
is, finally, interesting that an inserted sequence can itself contain inserted
sequences:
A: Are you coming tonight?
B: Can I bring a guest?
A: Male or female?
B: What difference does that make?
A: An issue of balance.
B: Female.
A: Sure.
B: I’ll be there.
Side Sequence
In
the case of side sequence, Jefferson (1972) observes that the general drift of
conversation is sometimes halted at an unpredictable point a request for
clarification and then the conversation picks again where it left off. She,
from this observation, proposes type of embedded sequence different form
Schegloff’s insertion sequence and labels 'side sequence', for example, italic
part of the following conversation:
A
: One, two, three, (pause), four, five, six, (pause) seven, eight, nine, ten.
B
: Eleven?- eight, nine, ten.
A
: Eleven, eight, nine, ten.
B
: Eleven?
A
: Seven, eight, nine, ten.
B
: That's better.
Jefferson
initially suggests that the 'misapprehension sequence', a well-known type of
'side sequence' has a three-part structure consisting of :
1. a
statement of sorts,
2. a
misapprehension of sorts, and
3. a
clarification of sorts, for example:
Statement: A: If Percy goes with - Nixon
I'd sure like that.
Misapprehension: B: Who?
Clarification: A: Tessy. That young fella that
uh- his daughter was murdered.
Terminator:
B: Oh Yeah. Yeah.
Topic change:
Topic change is a technical way to avoid the topic which
one no longer wants to talk on a same topic for a long time. It is a natural
phenomenon occurring in conversation. Sacks(1971) observes that in a conversation
which is progressing well talk grits from one topic to another, and suggests
that the relative frequency of marked topic introduction is some measure of the
quality of a conversation. Since people do not talk on the same topic for long,
’topic change’ takes place.
As Sacks (1968) stresses, talking topically and talking
about some topic chosen by another speaker is not the same thing at
all. One can perfectly well have a sequence in which successive
speakers talk in a way topically coherent with the last utterance, but in which
each speaker talks on a different topic. Speakers are aware of this as a
problem and have ways of formulating a topic to make it more likely that other
speakers will talk to it. Sacks exemplifies with a hypothetical speaker who
wants to talk about surfing:
A:
I was at Malibu yesterday.
B:
Yeah? I was at County Line.
A:
How was it?
B:
Too low tide.
Conclusion
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.
