A STUDY of CONVERSATIONAL STRUCTURE

PAPER

Submitted to fulfill the requirements of Pragmatics

Final Exam

By

Name : Ana Rohdiana

NIM : 157835463
Class : P2TK

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF SURABAYA
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
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 no exchange information or convey messages to
each other.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.
Participations in conversational 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.
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. (Hutcby and Wooffitt,2008)
states that conversation analysis is charactherized 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; analysis have studied the systematically
recurring linguistic units that open these conversations.
In this paper, we will discuss more about the conversational preference
structure.
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 conversational style do people have?
5. What is adjacency pair?
6. Explain 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 are
asked and answered, or news and information are exchanged.

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
devolves, and eventually dissolves the conversation, depending on the
participant intended ends.

2.2 . The Definition of Conversation Anaysis

(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.

2.3. Features of Conversation

a. Floor
According to (Yule, 1996a) Floor is the current right to speak in a
conversation.
 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.
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 spekaers 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 finished, usually by signaling a
completion point. Speakers can mark their turns as complete in a number of
ways: by asking a question, for example, or by pusing at the end of 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 transition 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.
 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 speakng
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 stps until B has finished.
Overlapped speech may be the result of a participants misreading of a
pause as the end of the speakers turn and sign of forfeiting the floor. When that
happens, the overlap may persist for some time before one of the participants
discontinues. Another possible reason for overlaps in conversation is when, at
the end of a speakers turn, two interlocutors take the floor at the same time. If
an overlap occurs at a point that is not a potential juncture for speaker change, it
is considered an interruption.

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, the 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 fill the pause with
hesitation marker suchas er, em, uh, ah (Yule, 2014).

f. Attribut Silence
Attribute 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 lenght of a pause between two turns. In any
culture, if the pause is intended to carry meaning, analysis call it an attribute
silence.
A ; Did you have a good time last night?
B ; (3) Yeah
A: So he asked you out then?
B : He did
B pauses for three seconds before her Yeah and A attributes to this silence an
affirmative answer and very positive sentiments. In the cultures in which there
is a low level of tolerance of silence between turns, if there is a lull in the
conversation extending past about ten second, 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 lsitening. 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, nut 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 : It can only save you money to switch to 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 lsitener is following, and not objecting to, what the speaker is saying. Given
this normal expectation, the absece of backchannels is typically interpreted as
significant. During telephone conversations, the absence of backshannels may
promp the speaker to ask if the 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 participation 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.
b. High Considerateness Style.
Speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between turns, do not
overlap nd avoid interruption or completion of the others turn.
When a speaker who typically uses the first style gets into a conversation with a
speaker who normally uses the second style, the talk tends to become one sided.
The active participation style will tend to overwhelm the other style. Neither
speaker will necessarily recognize that it is the conversational styles that are
slightly different. Instead, the more rapid-fire speaker may think the slower
paced speaker just doesnt have much to say, is shy, and perhaps boring or even
stupid.

2.5. Adjecency 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 adjacency 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 (1996a, 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.

Levinson offers a definition of adjacency pairs provided by Schegloff and

Sacks (1973) who define adjacency pairs according to the charactheristics of i.
Being adjacent: ii. Produced by different speakers: iii. Ordered as a first part
and a second part. Iv. Typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular
second ( or range of second parts). Typical adjacency pairs include greeting-
greeting, question- answer offer-acceptance/rejection patterns (Levinson,
1983;303).

In pragmatics, many conversational actions are accomplished through

establish adjacency pairs-automatic sequences that consist of two parts
produced by different speakers ( Yule, 1996;77), including greeting patterns,
compliments turn and request-acceptance/rejection sequences.
 A recognized rule working on adjacency pairs is that having produced a
first part of some pair, the current speaker is expected to stop speaking, and the
next speaker must produce at that point a second part to the same pair (Yule,
1996:77). If an initial request or greeting does not receive a second part or if
there is a delay can be symbol of hesitation, both showing between people in
conversation. In fact, many adjacency pairs are not that strict in that there will
often be see insertion sequences where one question-answer pair is embedded
within another or where a notification of temporary interaction exit and its
acceptance are embedded within a question- answer pair. ( Levinson,
1983;304).

Levinson has already recognized the importance of conditional relevance

and pointed out that the two parts of adjacency pairs are bound together by
setting up of specific expectations which have to be attended to (Levinso,
1983: 306) instead of simply the rule of one question necessarily receivingan
answer, which broadens the concept of the adjacency pair model.

What is also worth noting is that there are a variety of potential seconds
to a first part. Adjacency pairs represent social actions, and the social actions
that appera in the second parts are not of equal position. There will be
structurally expected next act called the preferred response and a structurally
unexpected act referred to as the unexpected (Yule, 1996: 79).

Acceptance or agreement is a preferred second part to a request or an

invitation because that is what we expect the other person to respond, while
request rejections, refusals and disagreements are usually marked as
dispreferred that contain more complex components and allow more room for
discussion.
 Greeting sequences are prototypical of adjacency pairs, in which one
geeting is expected to be returned by another. Some examples are ilustrated
below.

First Part Second Part

A: Hello B: Hello

A: Hows it going? B: Good

Generally greeting formulas are supposed to serve an effective function

and to establish non threatening contact and rapport ( Holmes, 2008;209). The
utterance of the first part immediately invites a second part. Either delayor
absence of the second part will indicate something significant and meaningful.
In terms of face theory, greeting other people when we see them by asking them
how they are, expressing admiration and approal for what they havebeen doing
and what they feel about things is one way to meet the positive face wants of
others (Coates, 2004; 105).

Adjajency pair as a basic unit of conversational organization.

Schegloff and Sacks (1973) noticed that there is a class sequences which is
widely operative. It consist of the following features:

1) Two utterance length

2) Adjacent positioning of component utterances
3) Different speakers producing each utterance.
4) The component utterances being related to each other in such a way that
the first component is a first pair part, the second a second pair part, and
they form a pair type. Schegloff and Sacks call such utterances an
adjajency pair. Question- answer, greeting-greeting, offer-
acceptance/refusal are some examples of adjajency pairs, the basic rule of
operation of which, as stated by schegloff and Sacks (1973;296), is :
Given the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible
completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce
a second pair part from the pair type of which the first is recognizably a
member
The concept of an adjacency pair as a description of conversational
sequencing and an organizational unit has been questioned. For example, some
of the conditions have been criticized as being too strongly stated. A fisrt pair
part is not necessary followed immediately by a second pair part, as in the case
of an insertion sequences (Schegliff 1972: 76-79).
The two pairs parts are not necessarily produced by two different
speakers, as in the case of a speaker answering his or her own question.
Utterance pair such as question/answer, insult/insult return,
greeting/greeting, accusation/apology, compliment/acknowledgement, and
summons/answer constitute adjajency pairs. These sequences are defined by the
following charactheristics :
1) Two utterances.
2) Contiquous location of the two utterances.
3) Each utterance is produced by different speakers.
4) Relative ordering of the utterances so that the first utterance of pair part
precedes the second utterance or pair part and.
5) Disciminative relations between utterances stipulate that the selection of a
specific second pair (e.g.,answer) is dependent on particular type of the
first part (e.g,question) (Schegloff & Sacks 1973, pp 295-296).
The sequential nature of utterances refers to the property in conversation
whereby, given a first utterance, a second utterance is expected. The
second is a second item to the first ( Schegloff, 1972 a, P.76).
Condition relevance not only operates prospectively but also works in
reverse. For example Schegloff (1972b) shows how, after some lapse in
the conversation, participants may hear in an utterance such as What?
 an unspoken summons. This property serves as an importnat basis for the
operation of adjacency pairs.
Schegloff and Sacks (1973) formulate a rule for adjacency pair operation
given the property of conditional relevance. The rule states that when a first pair
is produced and recognized by a listener, its speaker should stop and a co
speaker should produce a second part relevant to the pair type intorduced by the
initial utterance.
Adjacency pairs operate occurances to provide for the possibility of three
occurances. One, their use allows a speaker to demonstrate an orientation
towards the property of conditional relevance. When a speaker provides an
answer to anothers question she/he demonstrates that she/he has provided the
relevant second pair type, answer, to the first oair type, question, thus
acknowledging the sequence initiated by the fisrt speaker. Second, speakers can
constrain the selection of utterances by using the first pair part of an adjacency
pair to define the relevant range of possible next utterance(s).
If a person (e.g., an interviewer) is concerned about having another speak
directly about some topic (e.g., goal appraisal) she/he ready to talk about, she/he
may ask a question, thereby inducing the other to take the chance to respond
appropriately with an answer.
Third, adjacency pairs can provide close ordering or a general way for
insuring that some desired occurance will take place. Due to the utterance by
utterance natue of turn taking, unless speakers attempt close ordering there is no
systematic assurance that a desired utterance type or successive utterance will
occur.
b. Insertion Sequences
In adjacency pairs, not all first parts immediately receive their second
parts, howeve. It often happens that a question-answer sequence will be delayed
while another question-answer sequences intervenes. Or in other word, it often
happens in which one question answer pair is embedded within another which
is called insertion sequences.
According to Yule (1996b,p.78) an insertion sequenves 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.
c. Opening Section ( Summon _Answer Sequences)
One kind of conversation with a recognizable overall organization that
has been much studied is the telephone call. These tend to have clear beginings
and carefully organized closings. Thus, in telephone rings, and upon picking up
receiver, the person atvthe receiving and almost invariably speaks first, either
with a station 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 my get self identifiction 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 informtion about the
identity nd purposs of the other, almost invariably talks first.
Stephen C. Levinson (1983, p.310) suggests that the ringing of the
telephone is the summons component is such an adjacency pair, so that the first
turn at talk ( the receivers hello) is actually the second interaction move.
 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 socilly 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.

e. 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 turn are preferred and
others dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act.
First Part Second Part
Prefered Disprefered

Assessment Isnt that really great ? agree Yes, it is

Invitation Why not join us tonight? Accept Id love to

Offer Want some coffee? Accept Yes Please

Proposal Maybe we could go for a walk Agree Thatd be great

Request Can you help me? Accept Sure

As is often the case, the expression of a refusal can be accomplished

without actually saying no. We can use hesitation, preface, produce a kind of
token acceptance to show appreciation to the first speaker. For example,
hesitation and preface shown in dispreferred second parts to invitation :
Backy : Come over for some coffee later.

Wally : Oh eh Id love to _ but you see _ I _ Im supposed to get this

finished _ you know

After a preface (Oh) and hesitation (eh) , the second speaker produce
kind of token acceptance (Id love to) to show appreciation of the invitation.
Then, the others understandingis invoked (you see) and an account is presented
( Im supposed to get this finished) to explain what prevents the speaker from
accepting the invitation. This patterns associated with dispreferred second in
English are presented as a series of optional elements.

How to do dispreferres Examples

a. Delay/hesitate pause; er:em;ah

b. Preface
c. Express doubt
d. Token acceptance
e. Apology
f. Mention obligation
g. Appeal for understanding
h. Make it non personal
i. Give an account
j. Use mitigators
k. Hedge the negative
well ; oh
Im not sure; I dont know
Thats great : Id love to
Im sorry ; What a pity
I must do X ; Im expected in Y
You see; you know
Everybody else ; out there
Too much work ; no time left
Really; mostly ; sort of ; kinda
Iguess not ; not possible.
 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 How to Say It. London:
Funk & Wagnalls Company.
CookG.(1989). Discourse. 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 : Cambrdge University Press
Mazeland, H . (2006). Conversation Analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of language and linguistics. Cambridge : Elsevier.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vol1) : Blackwell publishing.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analyze: An Introduction. West Sussex: Wiley
Blackwell.
Siobhan Chapman, & Rourledge, 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.
Discourse Processes, 4, 258.
Yule, G.( 1996a). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (2014). The study of language : Cambridge University Press.
(Bilmes, 2014)
(Sacks,1995)
(Cambridge,2008)