1.

Introduction
Conversation is a crucial thing that is being included into the principal uses of
language human in daily life. According to Levinson (1983) Conversation is a
familiar predominant talk in which all participants freely alternate in speaking. In
addition,Yule (1996) creates an analogy for conversation that is like a dance with the
conversational partners synchronizing their movements smoothly. Briefly, every
people has chance to mention what they requaire, while some of them can provide a
respond to the previous speaker during in the intreaction. To analyze conversation
interaction between two people or more the appropriate theory was known as
Conversation Analysis (CA). According to Schiffrin (1994) “CA is like interactional
sociolinguistics in its concern with the problem of social order, and how language
both creates and is created by social context”.

In Conversation Analysis particular attention is given to everyday spoken interaction.

As a student, the researcher also uses daily conversation interaction. For example: in
the classroom, Conversation interaction will be used when the teacher start the class
and make some games for the students. Sometimes, the teacher gives a question and
the student responds. to find out how to get the conversation flows well, people need
to get understanding about conversation analysis relating to several aspects that can
help in the process of language learning especially in English conversation.

2. Convesation analysis
Coversation employs language as a social purpose. According Mey (1994), he depicts
conversation as ‘doing things’ with other people through words. On the other hand,
conversation is a source of much of our sense of social order, e.g. it produces many
typifications underlying our notions of social role. Conversation also exhibits its own
order and manifests its own order and manifest. Ciccourel as cited in Sciffrin (1994)
Therefore, a successful conversation includes mutually interesting connections
between the speakers or things that the speakers know. In this particular, conversation
must be related to the topic with happend in the situation which is involving the
speakers’ statements in order to provide for their fellow.
 Talking about the conversation is related to conversation analysis, namely: social life
and the intreaction with each other people in the different situation. Paltridge (2000)
says that conversation analysis, ordinary conversation is the most basic form of talk
and the main way in which people come together, exchange information and maintain
social relations. It means that, people have chance to share their statements or opinion
in the conversation and mostly, conversation consists of two or more participants
taking turns in which one speaker says before another speaker begins to speak, so that
they can provide the information and respects.

The aim of conversation analysis is to depute any study about oral commucation and
language use. In line with Paltridge (2000) argued that conversation analysis, ordinary
conversation is the most basic form of talk and the main way in which people come
together, exchange information and maintain social relations. Therefore, conversation
analysis has consist of some scopes to explore more how the way people to talk with
each other by giving chance, knowing the gesture and any others.
There are five scope of Conversation Analysis, first is Adjacency pairs. Adjacency
pair is characterized as paired utterances that are divided into a first pair part and a
second pair part (Levinson 1983 : 303). Second, Turn Taking, is a situation when a
speaker takes the chance to speak. Third, Preference Organization, is a possible
answer uttered by second speaker as a response of the first speaker’s utterance (Yule,
1996). Fourth, Sequence Organization, is a stretch of utterances or turns as defined
by Cutting (2002: 29). Fifth, Repair is a correction of what has been said by the
speaker about the previous statement they said during the conversation.

Based all these aspects are needed in the learning process especially performance
conversation analysis.

A. Turn-Taking
Turn taking is related to two people or more in order to communicate with each other in
which only of them speaking in on time. To make the conversation flows well, the
speaker have to know when they speak or listen in which this situations is called turn.
According to Yule (1996), turn is having the concept of floor and attempt to get the turn
is called turn taking. Turn occurs normally at certain well – defined junctures in
conversations such points are called transition relevant place. TRP can be exploited by the
speaker holding the floor. Floor is defined as the right to speak. It can be concluded that
transition relevant place is very important to prvide chance or turn to the speaker as long
as they have a floor to control the conversation.
 In the conversation, the speaker can take the natural break in order to pause in
convesation when they attempt to breath or think about somthing to say. Based all of the
points above, it is related to the natural transition which is called transition relevant place
which is a relay the right to speak to next speaker may occur. Mey (2001). On the other
hand, there are the formal rules of the next speaker selection ( turn allocation ) that
relagulate the turn taking.

1. Procedure for turn allocation

The turn allocation in turn taking for conversation are divided into two : Namely, 1. First the
current speaker selects the next speakers. 2. The next speaker are selected. Woffitt (2005). So
it can be seen the intial transition relavant place of a turn.

1.1 First the current speaker selects the next speakers

a. If the current speaker has selected or indentified in the particular next speaker, that
the next peaker should take a turn at that place.
For example : (talk show)
A: James welcome
B: I am happy to be her
In this part, the first speaker used name to indentify the appropriate the next
speaker.

b. If no such selection has been made, the any next speaker may (but need not) self –
selection occur, then first speaker has the right to the turn.
For example:
A: Ichi’s lost on our scale, about fourteen pounds
B : Oh (no)
C: ( tweleve ponds I think, wasn’t it ?)
As seen as the example, the first speaker is not directed to a specific recipient.
On the other hand, two people select themselves as the next speaker at the
transition place at the end “ pound”

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 selcted in which case thatspeaker gains the right to the turn.
 For example:
A :He, he and joe were like on the outs, you know ?
B : ( they always are)

1.2 Whichever option has operated, then rules 1-3 come into play again for the
transtio relevance place.

2. The turn taking mechanism

In the conversation analysis is associated of the various mechanims of turn involves
three basic strategies: Namely, taking the floor, holding the floor and yielding the
floor. Mey (2001)

a. Taking the floor

Taking the floor means that the listener’s response to give comment or answer the
question from the current speaker which has been done by the listener. It means that,
taking the floor is when the participants take a turn to speak. On the other hand, taking
the turn can be complicated due to the speaker who responds the current speaker may
not have done the preparation before. Stenstrom (2014). If the speakers does not
attention during the conversation that can make them easily confused and they do not
have any idea to talk. Briefly, taking the turn is complicated to the speakers in which
they should be able to face some problems during the conversation. Hence, the use of
taking the floor can provide turn to the speaker with adjusted the kinds of taking of
the floor. Such as: starting up, taking over and interruption. Stenstrom (2014)

2.1 Starting up
When the speaker begins to make a conversation, he or she has not done suitable
planning in carrying his or her talk. Thus, the speaker requires to use some lexical
items that signal hesitant start such as filled pause (am, a:m ) and verbal fillers (well,
I mean, you know) with aim to provide space or time for the speaker to convey her
or his part. Stenstrom (2014).
For instances, “ a:m. I mean that want to. Borrow your money.
(The example shows that the speaker intendet to need more time to mention what he
or she is going to say).
 On the other case, the speaker have prepared well before conveying her or his turn
and this term is called clean start in which the speaker does not require more
planning due to they have ensured the situations will be running well. In this
sitiuation, the speaker can use a starter to begin the turn it is signaled by “well”.
Stenstrom (2014)
For instance: Well, my strategy is pretty straightfoward, which is to study hard
everyday, to make sure that i alwys do my best to accomplish my task.
(In the example above, the speaker used the clean start which is signaled by well)

2.2 Taking over

Taking over means take a turn to speak when the second speaker take turn or repond
to the current speaker. On this occasion, The speaker can use uptakes (ah, no, yes,
well, yeah, and oh).
For example :
A:marry has new car, you know ?
B: “ yeah, I saw her with her new car in campus

Another strategy of taking over is links, means that the listener or the next speaker
takes the turn by using connecting words, such as: (and, but, cos and so ) Stenstrom
()
For example :
A: Don’t distrub me !
B: But, how i can tell you the information.

2.3 Interruption
Interruption means when speaker do not want to wait until the TRP. Next speaker
cannot be sure that the current speaker’s turn is complete, but they usually take the
end of sentences to indicate that the turn is possibly complete. Cutting (2002) it can be
said that take a turn to speak while the current speaker haven’nt finished his speaking
yet. The next speaker think the current speaker’s talk is enough. In the interruption is
divided in to two alert and meta comment.

Alert is done by listener to interrupt the current speaker by speaking louder than other
participant in order to attract the attention. They usually use words like: hey, listen,
 look. Usually, in doing an alert the speaker uses the high intonation in ore to show
that she or he interrupt other. By giving this action, the speaker attempt to stop what
the current talking about.

For example :
A: you must to listen what is your mother said because.....”
B: Listen, I’m not children anymore”.
(B interrupt A, so that A cannot continue his / her talking ).

The second is metacomment is also interrupting others but it is particurlary common

in formal situation and politely. (ex: can i just tell, let me just, may I halt you)
For instance:
A: since it is really a matter of nomenclature
B: could I halt you there
(The speaker B interrupts the preivious speaker politely)

b. Holding the floor

Holding the floor means to carry on talking. The participant who hold the floor has right
to bring conversation as well as he / she want. It happens when the speaker cannot
control or hold the turns all the time because it is quite diffcult to plan what to say at the
same time, speaker has to stop talking and start re planning halfway through the turn.
For example :
A : Hhh okay we have a new a.... detention system now
B: That if they don’t clear these they will become truants.

c. Yielding the floor

The aim of yeilding the floor is to give a turn to the next speaker.The current speaker
can use a question or statement yield other a turn Mey (2001)

A : If I could take away the money or your family

Which would you rather keep ?

B: Definetely the family, what kind of question is that ?

 In the example below: the first speaker gave the floor by asking question with fall
intonation in the end of the sentence. Then, the next speaker answered that he / she
would choose her/ his family and the second speaker took her / is turn by statement
with rise intonation in the end.

B. Adjacency Pairs

Adjancey pairs are related to the conversation analysis as the smallest unit of
converstaion, in which is consist two people or more. Richards and Schmidt as cited
in Patridge (2000) explain that “Adjacency pairs are utterances produced by two
successive speakers in such a way that the second second utterance is identified as
related to the first one as an expected follow up”. It is in line with Yule (1996) states
that adjacency pairs contain two parts and are formed by two different speakers.

In the adjancey pairs are divided into two part: Namely, first pair part and a second
pair part Levinson (1983). These parts are produced by the different participants in a
conversation in which the first speaker utter his or her part, then second speaker
immediately expected to convey his or her section in a conversation. In line with her,
Cutting (2002) briefly states that the utterance of one speaker makes a certain
response of the next speaker very likely. By those explanation above, the adjanceny
pairs are paired produce by two person or more during intreaction. As an example
about the conversatio from telephone call that can be illurtated below :

Ali : Hello Kumar, This is Ali, How’s ur life ?

Kumar : Hello Ali, I am pretty good, how about you?
Ali : Just fine

As seen the explanation below, the first speaker stops speaking and allows to the next speaker
to produce the expected of the second part in the conversation.

1. Feature of adjacency pair and their rule of operation

According to Schegloff (2007) proposed that most elementary features of adjacency
pairs with the rule of operation of adjacency pair. There are five the basic features of
adjency that can assits the learners to practice these rules in the intreaction.
  Composed of two turns
 Produced by different speakers
 adjacently placed; that is, one after the other
 These two turns are relatively ordered; that is, they are differentiated into “first
pair parts” (FPPs, or Fs for short) and “second pair parts” (SPPs, or Ss for short).
 pair-type related; that is, not every second pair part can properly follow any first
pair part. Adjacency pairs compose pair types; type are exchanges such as
greeting–greeting, question–answer, offer– accept/decline, and the like. To
compose an adjacency pair, the FPP and SPP come from the same pair type.

Based on the rule of operation shows that how to manage the use adjancency pairs,
namely: if a current speaker has produce a first part of some part of its first possible
completion, she or he must stop speaking, and the next speaker must stop speaking,
and the next speaker must produce a second part to the same pair Levinson (1983).
Here, there are some types of adjacency pair where an address term is content of the
first utterance of the pair clearly that will be followed by a relevant next speaker.

Table 1 : The Type of Adjencency pair

No First pair part Second pair part
1 Greetig Greeting
2 summons Answer
3 Apology Minimization
4 Question Answer
5 Request Acceptance/ refusal
6 Offer Acceptance / refusal
7 Blame Admission / denial
8 Invitation Acceptance / refusal
9 Asessment Agreemant / disagreement
10 Command Compliance / incompliance
11 Sugesstion Acceptance / refusal
12 Assertion Agreement / disagreement
13 announcement acknowledge

These types are compiled from many source stated by Levinson, Coulthard and Schegloff in
their book and it is possible if there are still other types of adjancey pairs.

2. Preference Organization
Preference organization is including into part of the second pair parts of adjecncy pairst. This
term is asscociated to the linguistic, when the current speaker conveys his/ her request to the
next speaker that might be accepted or refused, this situation is called disprefered utterance
are structurally more complicated than preferred ones in the adjacency. Preference
organization is a pair which gives freedom in responding to some first pair part whether it is
preferred or dispreferred one Paltridge (2000). Furthermore, Levinson (1983) writes in
Pragmatics that preference divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred acts.
Furthermore he explains, the preferred is expected next actions, while dispreferred is
unexpected next actions. He proposes a general pattern of preferred and dispreferred structure
as follow:

Table 2: Levinson’s General Pattern of Preferred and Dispreferred

Structure

First part Second parts preferred Dispreferred

Request Acceptance Refusal
Offer/Invite Acceptance Refusal
asssesment Agreement Disagreement
Question Expected Answer Unexpected answer or non
answer
compliment Acceptance Rejection

As seen in the table, according to Levinson, there are two preferences a second part or
speaker has to give response to the first speaker namely preferred and dispreffered in which
both of them have difference of intention. For instance, if the first is conveying his or her
request, the next speaker might be preferred which is tend to accept or he / she gives
dispreferred respond as a sign the second speaker refuse.

Based on Cutting (2002), dispreferred responses can be taken as meaningful or rude since the
responses tend to be refusals and disagreements. In this Part, the speaker have to attempt to
avoid a rude impression when he or she mention about dispreferred as refusal to the first
speaker by saying "no" or replacing some sentences with the intention of rejecting
something. For example, illustrate a dispreferred refusal response from the second part
adapted from Levinson, (1983).
 A. Um, I wondered if there’s any chance of seeing you tomorrow sometime morning or
before the seminar
B. Uhum, I doubt it.

In the above conversation, A, as the first speaker, invites the second speaker to meet the
following morning. This utterance, based on Levinson’s general pattern of preferred and
dispreffered, is considered as an invitation from the first part. Then, instead of saying ‘no’,
the second speaker shows dispreffered act, i.e. refusal, by saying ‘I doubt it’ to avoid
rudeness.

References
Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6,
Conversation Structure.
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. An Introduction, Second Edition. Oxford: Blakwell Publishing,
2001, print.
Paltridge, B. 2000. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Queensland: antipodean
Educational Enterprises.
Sciffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approach to Discourse. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Stenstromm, Anna- Barita. 2014. An Introduction to Spoken Intereaction. USA:
Routledge.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in
conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. 2002. Conversation analysis
and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190502000016
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.