1

A Study of Conversational Structure

PAPER
Submitted to fulfill the requirements of Pragmatics
Mid-term & Final Exams

By
Name

: Tantri Sundari

NIM

: 147 835 098

Class

: P2TK

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF SURABAYA
2014

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Based on (Conklin, 1912) conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous
communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette. It is
polite give and take of subjects thought of by people talking with each other for company.
Conversation is a central activity in social life. (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) said
conversation is not seen simply as the product of two speaker-hearers who attempt to
exchange information or convey messages to each other. Participants in conversation are
seen as mutually orienting to, and collaborating in order to achieve, orderly and
meaningful communication. Conversation also can not be separated from it context and
circumstance when it was uttered, somehow it is like a unity among the meaning, context
and lately conversation is connected with social.
However, how is ordinary conversation organized, how do people coordinate
their talk in interaction, and what is the role of talk in wider social processes? The study
of conversation became more interesting when Harold Garnkel, an ethno methodologist
conducted a research on social action and interaction. Then, these ideas were developed
by Sacks who determined that conversation is an organized activity that has a systematic
structure. It is called conversational analysis (CA). According to (Sidnell, 2010)
conversation analysis (CA) is an approach within the social sciences that aims to describe,
analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of human social life.
Hutchby (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) states that conversation analysis is characterized by
the view that how talk is produced and how the meanings of that talk are determined are
the practical, social and interactional accomplishments of members of a culture.
According to (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009) the more important CA investigates
the sequential nature of conversation; analysts have studied the systematically recurring
linguistic units that open these conversations.
In this discussion, we will discuss more about the conversational and preference
structure. What kind of features that was existed in a conversation, and how do we do the
conversation will be discussed on the next chapter.
1.2 Formulation of Problems
There are six problems that we are going to discuss in this paper:
1. What is the definition of conversation?
2. What is the definition of conversational analysis?
3. What kinds of features are existed in a conversation?
4. What kinds of conversation style do people have?
5. What is adjacency pair?
6. Explain about preference structure!

1.3 Objective
The purposes of doing discussion about conversation and preference structure are:
1. To know more about the definition of conversation.
2. To understand more about the definition of conversational analysis.
3. Can identify kinds of features are existed in a conversation.
4. To recognize kinds of conversation style people have.
5. To know more adjacency pair.
6. To ccomprehend about preference structure

CHAPTER 2
DISCUSSION

2.1 The Definition of Conversation

Based on (Mazeland, 2006) conversation is talk between two or more people in
which thoughts, feelings and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and answered, or
news and information are exchanged. While according to (Cutting, 2005) conversation is
discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually
informal and unplanned. Contributions to a conversation are response reactions to what
has previously been said. They are essentially of an interactive nature.
Conversation follows rules of etiquette because conversations are social
interactions, and therefore depend on social convention. Specific rules of conversation
are called cooperative principle. Failure to adhere to these rules devolves, and eventually
dissolves the conversations. Conversations are sometimes the ideal form of
communication, depending on the participant intended ends.
(Cook, 1989) says that talk may be classed as conversation when:
a. It is not primarily necessitated by a practical task
b. Any unequal power of participants is partially suspended
c. The number of the participants is small
d. Turns are quite short
e. Talk is primarily for the participants not for an outside audience
2.2 The Definition of Conversation Analysis
According to (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009), conversation analysis (CA)
also known as ethno methodology originated in the work of Harold Garnkel, an ethno
methodologist whose research in the 1960s centred on how members of a certain
community conduct and understand social actions and interactions. These ideas were
developed by Sacks who determined that conversation is an organized activity that has
a systematic structure. However, Sacks and his collaborators, Emanuel Schegloff and
Gail Jefferson, proved that conversation is an orderly, collaborative activity characterised
by consistent principles that dene what linguistic forms interlocutors use to open and
close their contributions, how they repair and rephrase their talk, and when they
take the oor during the course of a conversation. In addition to these, CA also
investigates the role of proxemics, or inter-personal distance and body language, in
communication. The principles of CA have signicant implications for a number of
disciplines that include linguistics, social psychology and communication, to name a
few. It is therefore useful to summaries some of the areas in which CA has proved
useful or enlightening.
(Sidnell, 2010) explains conversation analysis (CA) is an approach within the
social sciences that aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and
constitutive feature of human social life. Whereas (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) states

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

pragmatics, the term, Conversational analysis is used to mean the investigation into and
analysis of natural conversation so as to reveal what the linguistic features of
conversation is and how conversation is used in ordinary life.
To quote (Garfinkel, 1972) "You know more than you can say". Everyone is an expert in
conversation analysis, just like they are experts at walking down the street. Studying
conversation analysis lets us understand the detailed ordinary workings of our everyday
lives, from how we create and maintain relationships in the vital first few moments of a
greeting or how resources of power and control are exercised in the glances/ looks/
points during meetings.
2.3 Features of Conversation
a. Floor
According to (Yule, 1996a) Floor is the current right to speak in a conversation.
Example: (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009)
BM: You do you do Language Planning don't you?
DM: Yeah. I've stopped doing that though. I did stop doing that last week. SLA?
BM: I'm not doing that.
DM: Ah. We haven't got many things in common then.
BM: Wow. We've parted ways.
Every single turn that speaker has to speak is called floor. Such as You do you
do Language Planning don't you? and Yeah. I've stopped doing that though
b. Turn Taking
The definition of turn taking based on (Yule, 1996a) is the change of
speaker during conversation. Whereas on his other book he said (Yule, 2014) the
way in which each speaker takes a turn in conversation. According to (Stephen C
Levinson, 1983) we may start with the obvious observation that conversation is
characterized by turn-taking: one participant, A, talks, stops; another, B,
starts, talks) stops; and so we obtain an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talk
across two participants.
Example: (Siobhan Chapman & Routledge, 2009)
BM: You do you do Language Planning don't you?
DM: Yeah. I've stopped doing that though. I did stop doing that last week. SLA?
BM: I'm not doing that.
DM: Ah. We haven't got many things in common then.
BM: Wow. We've parted ways.
The moment when DM takes the opportunity to speak after BM is called
turn taking. The pattern is like BM-DM- BM-DM- BM, that is how the
application of turn taking on the real conversation.

c. Transition relevance place (TRP)

(Cutting, 2005) state that transition relevance place is a point in a
conversation where a change of turn is possible. According to (Stephen C
Levinson, 1983) the end of such a unit constitutes a point at which speakers may
change; it is a transition relevance place, or TRP. Next speakers cannot be sure
that the current speakers turn is complete, but they will usually take the end of a
sentence to indicate that the turn is possibly complete. For the most part,
participants wait until one speaker indicates that he or she has nished, usually by
signaling a completion point. Speakers can mark their turns as complete in a
number of ways: by asking a question, for example, or by pausing at the end of a
completed syntactic structure like a phrase or sentence. Other participants can
indicate that they want to take the speaking turn, also in a number of ways. They
can start to make short sounds, usually repeated, while the speaker is talking, and
often use body shifts or facial expressions to signal that they have something to
say.
The other thing that can be used as an indicator of transitions is the turn
allocation procedures. The turn allocation procedures for conversation are
distributed into two groups: those in which the current speaker selects the next
speaker, and those in which the next speaker is self-selected. So, at the initial
transition relevance place of a turn, the following options are relevant. According
to Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferso on (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) there are:
Rule 1(a) If the current speaker has identified, or selected, a particular
next speaker, then that speaker should take a turn at that place.
S : Oscar did you work for somebody before you worked for Zappa?
O : Yeh, many many. (3.0) Canned Heat for a year.
In this case, S uses a persons name to identify the appropriate next
speaker.
Rule 1(b) If no such selection has been made,then any next speaker may
(but need not) self-select at that point. If self-selection occurs, then first
speaker has the right to the turn.
Lil : Berthas lost on our scale, about fourteen pounds.
D : Oh ::no::.
Jean:
Twelve pounds I think wasnt it?
Here Lils announcement is not directed to a specific recipient, and thus
two people select themselves as next speakers at the transition relevance
place at the end of pounds.
Rule 1(c) If no next speaker has been selected, then alternatively the
current speaker may, but need not, continue talking with another turn
constructional unit, unless another speaker has self-selected, in which case
that speaker gains the right to the turn.

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

(0.7)
Ava : So uh,
Bee : They always are
Here, after Avas observation, no next speaker has self-selected up to
nearly a second into the onset of a transition relevance place. Then Ava
attempts to continue her turn (so indicating that what follows is
somehow connected to a prior turn), at the same time that Bee self-selects.
Ava then abandons her turn.
Rule 2 Whichever option has operated, then rules 1(a)(c) come into play
again for the next transition relevance place.
d. Overlap
Based on (Yule, 1996a) overlap is a condition when more than one
speaker talking at the same time in conversation. Typically, only one person
speaks at a time and there tends to be an avoidance of silence between speaking
turns. If more than one participant tries to talk at the same time, one of them
usually stops, as in the following example, where A stops until B has nished.
Example: (Yule, 2014)
A: Didnt you know whB:
But he mustve been there by two
A: Yes but you knew where he was going
(A small square bracket is conventionally used to indicate a place where
simultaneous or overlapping speech occurs.)
Overlapped speech may be the result of a participants misreading of a
pause as the end of the speakers turn and a sign of forfeiting the oor. When
that happens, the overlap may persist for some time before one of the participants
discontinues. Another possible reason for overlaps in conversation is when, at
the end of a speakers turn, two interlocutors take the oor at the same
time. If an overlap occurs at a point that is not a potential juncture for speaker
change, it is considered an interruption. OGrady in (Siobhan Chapman &
Routledge, 2009) believe that how overlaps are perceived is culture-specic.
Communities that speak the standard North American English varieties, they
argue, adhere to a rigid turn-taking mechanism, which results in very few
overlaps. The East European Jewish community in New York, however, views
overlaps favorably because they reect the speakers interest in the
conversation. Hence, they call overlaps in which speakers nish one anothers
sentences cooperative overlaps. Beside cultural differences, other factors that
might determine overlaps include the topic, type of conversational interaction and
number of participants. In an interview setting, for instance, where only two
people are involved, overlaps are rare. On the other hand, if a large number of
people are involved in the discussion of a heated topic, overlaps are likely to
occur at a high rate.

e. Pause
(Yule, 1996a) states that pause is silence between turn. If the normal
expectation is that completion points are marked by the end of a sentence and a
pause, then one way to keep the turn is to avoid having those two markers occur
together. That is, dont pause at the end of sentences; make your sentences run on
by using connectors like and, and then, so, but; place your pauses at points where
the message is clearly incomplete; and preferably ll the pause with a
hesitation marker such as er, em, uh, ah (Yule, 2014).
Example: (Yule, 2014)
X: well that lm really was . . . wasnt what he was good at
Y:
when diX: I mean his other . . . em his later lms were much more . . . er really more in
the romantic style and that was more what what he was . . . you know . . . em
best at doing
Y: so when did he make that one
These types of strategies, by themselves, should not be considered
undesirable or domineering. They are present in the conversational speech of
most people and they are part of what makes conversation work. We recognize
these subtle indicators as ways of organizing our turns and negotiating the
intricate business of social interaction via language.
All cultures have their own preferences as to how long a speaker should
hold the oor, how they indicate that they have nished and another speaker can
take the oor, when a new speaker can start, whether the new speaker can overlap
and interrupt, when speakers can pause and for how long. According to (Cutting,
2005) for example, Latin Americans have pauses of a fraction of a second and it
is socially acceptable to overlap and interrupt, whereas North American Indians
expect a two second pause between turns, and for the Japanese it is unacceptable
to interrupt.
f. Attributable silence
Attributable silence is the absence of talk when a speaker is given the
right to speak in conversation (Yule, 1996a).
Each culture seems to have an unwritten agreement about the acceptable length of
a pause between two turns. In any culture, if the pause is intended to carry
meaning, analysts call it an attributable silence.
Example: (Cutting, 2005)
A : Did you have a good time last night?
B : (3) Yeah.
A : So he asked you out then?
B : He did.
B pauses for three seconds before her Yeah, and A attributes to this
silence an afrmative answer and very positive sentiments. In the cultures in
which there is a low level of tolerance of silence between turns, if there is a lull in
the conversation extending past about ten seconds, speakers tend to utter

something like um or So there you go, in order to break the silence. For those
who do not know each other well, a long non-attributable silence can feel
awkward.
g. Backchannels
Backchannels is indication that listener pay attention to speaker.
According to (Yule, 1996a) within an extended turn, however, speakers still
expect their conversational partners to indicate that they are listening. There are
many different ways of doing this, including head nods, smiles, and other facial
expressions and gestures, but the most common vocal indications are called
backchannel signals, or simply backchannels.
According to (Yule, 2014) in same-gender conversations, women
produce more backchannels as indicators of listening and paying attention. The
term backchannels describes the use of words (yeah, really?) or sounds (hmm, oh)
by listeners while someone else is speaking. Men not only produce fewer
backchannels, but appear to treat them, when produced by others, as indications
of agreement. In cross-gender interaction, the absence of backchannels from men
tends to make women think the men are not paying attention to them. The more
frequent production of backchannels by women leads men to think that the
women are agreeing with what theyre saying.
Example: (Yule, 1996a)
Caller: if you use your long distance service a lot then youll
Mary:
uh-uh
Caller: be interested in the discount Im talking about because
Mary:
yeah
Caller: itcan only save you money to switch to a cheaper service
Mary:
mmm
These types of signals (uh-uh, yeah, mmm) provide feedback to the
current speaker that the message is being received. They normally indicate that
the listener is following, and not objecting to, what the speaker is saying. Given
this normal expectation, the absence of backchannels is typically interpreted as
significant. During telephone conversations, the absence of backchannels may
prompt the speaker to ask ifthe listener is still there. During face-to-face
interaction, the absence of backchannels may be interpreted as a way of
withholding agreement, leading to an inference of disagreement.
2.4 Conversational Style
Conversational style is divided by two categories according to the speaker (Yule,
1996a):
a. High involvement style
Speakers icipation in a conversation will be very active, that speaking rate will be
relatively fast, with almost no pausing between turns, and with some overlap or
even completion of the others turn.

10

b. High considerateness style.

Speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between turns, do not overlap,
and avoid interruption or completion of the others turn.
When a speaker who typically uses the rst style gets into a conversation with
a speaker who normally uses the second style, the talk tends to become one-sided. The
active participation style will tend to overwhelm the other style. Neither speaker will
necessarily recognize that it is the conversational styles that are slightly different.
Instead, the more rapid-re speaker may think the slower paced speaker just doesnt have
much to say, is shy, and perhaps boring or even stupid. In return, he or she is likely to be
viewed as noisy, pushy, domineering, selsh, and even tiresome.
While according to (Tannen, 1981) there four features of conversational style:
1.

2.
3.

4.

Topic (a) prefer personal topics, (b) shift topics abruptly, (c) introduce topics
without hesitance, (d) persistence (if a new topic is not picked up by others,
reintroduce it. Data show persistence up to a maximum of seven tries).
Genre (a) tell more stories, (b) tell stories in rounds, (c) preferred point of a
story is the emotional experience of the teller.
Pace (a) faster rate of speech (b) pauses avoided (silence has a negative
value; it is taken as evidence of lack of rapport, (c) faster rate of turn taking, (d)
cooperative overlap (the notion of back-channel responses is extended to include
lengthy questions and echoes, resulting from a process of participatory
listenership).
Expressive paraUnguislics (a) expressive phonology, (b) pitch and amplitude
shifts, (c) marked voice quality, (d) strategic pauses.

2.5 Adjacency Pair

a. Definition
The concept of Adjacency pairs is one of the most significant contributions of
Conversational Analysis. An adjacency pair is composed of two turns produced by different
speakers which are placed adjacently and where the second utterance is identified as related
to the first. Adjacency pairs include such exchanges as question/answer; complaint/denial;
offer/accept; request/grant; compliment/rejection; challenge/rejection, and instruct/receipt.
Yule (1996b, p. 77) states that almost automatic patterns in the structure of
conversation (as given below), e.g., in greetings and good-byes are called adjacency pairs.
WhileStephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 302) defines adjacency pairs is the kind of paired
utterances of which question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance, apologyminimization, etc are prototypical. So from the definitions above it can be concluded an
adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn each by two

11

speakers. The turns are functionally related to each other in such a fashion that the first turn
requires a certain type or range of types of second turn.
According to Schegloff & Sack in Stephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 302) there are some
characteristics of adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances that are:

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

Produced by different speaker

Ordered as a first part and a second part

Typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (or range of second
parts) E.g. offers requires acceptance or rejections, greetings require greeting and so
on.
From the characteristics above, it means that adjacency pair always consists of a first

part and a second part, produced by different speakers. The utterance of a first part
immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a second part of the same pair failure
to produce the second part in response will be treated as a significant absence and hence
meaningful.
b. Insertion sequences
In adjacency pairs, not all first parts immediately receive their second parts, however.
It often happens that a question-answer sequence will be delayed while another questionanswer sequences intervenes. Or in other word, it often happens in which one questionanswer pair is embedded within another which is called insertion sequences. According
toYule (1996b, p. 78) an insertion sequences is one adjacency pair within another. The
sequence will then take the form of Q1-Q2-A2-A1 (where Q1 labels the first question, A1 its
answer, and so on), with Q2-A2 as the insertion sequence. Although there appears to be a
question (Q2) in response to a question (Q1), the assumption is that once the second part (A2)
of the insertion sequence is provided, the second part (A1) of the initial question (Q1) will
follow. This pattern is illustrated in the following example.
Agent : so you want the early flight?

(=Q1)

Client : what time does it arrive?

(=Q2)

Agent : nine forty-five

(=A2)

Client : yeah

thats great

(=A1)

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

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

12

Jean

: Could you mail this letter for me?

(Q1= Request)

Fred

: Does it have stamp on it?

(Q2)

Jean

: Yeah.

(A2)

Fred

: Okay.

(A1= acceptance)

From the example above its shown there is a pair which consist of making a requestaccepting the request (Q1-A1), with an insertion sequence of a question-answer pair (Q2-A2)
which seems to function as a condition on the acceptance (A1) being provided. The delay in
the example above, created by the insertion sequence, is one type of indication that not all
first parts necessarily receive the kind of second parts the speaker anticipate delay represents
distance between what is expected and what is provided. Delay is always interpreted as
meaningful.
c. Opening section (SummonAnswer Sequences)
One kind of conversation with a recognizable overall organization that has been much
studied is the telephone call. These tend to have clear beginnings and carefully organized
closings. Thus, in telephone calls we can recognize the following typical components of an
opening section: the telephone rings, and, upon picking up the receiver, the person at the
receiving end almost invariably speaks first, either with a station identification (name of a
firm, telephone number, etc.) or a plain Hello, where upon the caller produces a Hello,
often with a self-identification.
For a start we may note that such openings are constructed largely from adjacency
pairs: thus we typically get paired Hellos as an exchange of greetings, we may get selfidentifications with paired recognitions, and an exchange of How are you each with their
paired responses. There is, moreover, a puzzle about why the receiver, the person with the
least information about the identity and purposes of the other, almost invariably talks first.
The puzzle dissolves when we assimilate the openings of telephone conversations to
summons-answer sequence. Where the first utterance (or action) is a summons, the second an
answer to the summons, the exchange establishing an open channel for talk. Schegloff in
Stephen C. Levinson (1983, p. 310) suggests that the ringing of the

telephone is the

summons component in such an adjacency pair, so that the first turn at talk (the receiver's
Hello) is actually the second interactional move. So summons-answer sequences are actually
elements of (minimally) three-turn sequences, as illustrated below:
A: John ? ((SUMMONS)
B: Yeah ? ((ANSWER))
A: Pass the water wouldja? ((REASON FOR SUMMONS))

13

Many telephone conversation have as their first three turns the following, or something
closely similar:
C: ((rings))

((summons))

T1

R: Hello

(( Answer)) + (( Display for recognition))

T2

C: Hi

((Greeting its part))

(( claim that C has recognized R))
(( claim that R can recognize C))

T3

R: Oh hi::

(( greeting 2nd part))

(( Claim that R has recognized C)

d.

Closing Section

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

the sense that they must be so placed that no party is forced to exit while still having
compelling things to say, and socially in the sense that both over-hasty and over-slow
terminations can carry unwelcome inferences about terminations can carry unwelcome
inferences about the social relationship between the participants. We find typically that
conversation close in the following sort of manner:
A: Why dont we all have lunch?
B: Okay, so that would be in St. Judes wouldnt it?
A: Yes
B: Okay so
A: One oclock in the bar
B: Okay
A: Okay?
B: Okay then thanks very much indeed George
A: - Alright
B: //See you there
A: //See you there
B: Okay
A: Okay // bye
B: // bye
The typical features here are the arrangements for a next meeting, a sequence of Okays
closing down the arrangements (or the topic) a Thank you produced by the caller, and a

14

further sequence of Okays just prior to a final exchange of good-byes. One general schema
for closing sections can be represented:
1

Closing down of some topic, typically a closing implicative topic

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

A typing of the call

A final exchange of terminal elements

2.6 Preference Structure

Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal when
they occur as second parts of some pairs, e.g., a first part request expects an acceptance.
Alternative second parts to first parts of adjacency pairs are not generally of equal status;
rather some second turns are preferred and others dispreferred. The term used to indicate a
socially determined structural pattern and does not refer to any individuals mental or
emotional desires. Preference structure devides second part into preferred and dispreferred
social acts the preferred is structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the
structurally unexpected next act. (the general patters are presented in the following table.
Second Part

First Part
Prefered

Disprefered

Assessment

Isn't that really great?

agree

Invitation

Why not join us tonight?

accept

Id love to

refuse

offer

Want some coffee?

accept

Yes, please

decline

proposal

Maybe we could go for a walk.

agree

That'd be great

disagree

accept

Sure

refuse

request

Can you help me?

Yes, it is

disagree

As is often the case, the expression of a refusal can be accomplished without actually
saying no. We can use hesitation, preface, produce a kind of token acceptance to show
appreciation to the first speaker. For example, hesitation and preface shown in dispreferred
second parts to invitation:
Backy : come over for some coffee later.
Wally : ohehId love tobut you seeIIm supposed to get this finished
you know
After a preface (Oh) and a hesitation(eh), the second speaker produce a kind of token
acceptance(Id love to) to show appreciationof the invitation. Then, the others understanding

15

is invoked(you see) and an account is presented (Im supposed to get this finished) to explain
what prevents the speaker from accepting the invitation.
The patterns associated with dispreferred second in English are presented as a series
of optional elements
How to do a dispreferred

Examples

a. delay/hesitate

pause; er; em; ah

b. preface

well; oh

c. express doubt

I'm not sure; I don't know

d. token acceptance

that's great; I'd love to

e. apology

I'm sorry; what a pity

f. mention obligation

I must do X; I'm expected in Y

g. appeal for understanding

you see; you know

h. make it non-personal

everbody else; out there

i. give an account

too much work; no time left

j. use mitigators

really; mostly; sort of; kinda

k. hedge the negative

I guess not; not possible ,

16

CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSION
1. Definition of conversation is conversation is talk between two or more people in
which thoughts, feelings and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and
answered, or news and information are exchanged.
2. Definition of conversational analysis is an approach within the social sciences that
aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of
human social life.
3. Kinds of features are existed in a conversation:
a. Floor
b. Turn Taking
c. Transition relevance place (TRP)
d. Overlap
e. Pause
f. Attributable silence
g. Backchannel
4. Kinds of conversation style based on the speakers are high involvement style, and
high considerateness style.
5. Adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn
each by two speakers. The turns are functionally related to each other in such a
fashion that the first turn requires a certain type or range of types of second turn.
In adjacency pairs, not all first parts immediately receive their second parts,
however it often happens that a question-answer sequence will be delayed while
another question-answer sequences intervenes. Or in other word, it often happens
in which one question-answer pair is embedded within another which is called
insertion sequences.
6. Preference structure devides second part into preferred and dispreferred social acts
the preferred is structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the
structurally unexpected next act. Dispreferreds take more time/language/effort
while preferred represents closeness and quick connection. Participants try to
avoid creating contexts for dispreferreds e.g., by using pre-sequences.

17

REFERENCE
Bilmes, J. (2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics,
64, 52-71.
Cambridge, D. (Ed.) (2008) (3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conklin, M. G. (1912). Conversation: What to say and How to Say It. London: Funk &
Wagnalls Company.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cutting, J. (2005). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London:
Routledge.
Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remark and Etnomethodology.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, Practices and
Applications. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation Analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language
and linguistics. Cambridge: Elsevier.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1): Blackwell Publishing.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Siobhan Chapman, & Routledge, C. (2009). Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of
Language. London: Edinburgh University Press.
Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in dISCOUrse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discocrse
Processes, 4, 258.
Yule, G. (1996a). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (2014). The study of language: Cambridge University Press.

18

(Bilmes, 2014)
(Sacks, 1995)
(Cambridge, 2008)
(Cambridge, 2008)