Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

This chapter includes a review of related literature that the researcher

has unearthed to shed light on the topic under study. Both foreign and local

researchers found to have significant weight on the variables are included in

the research. The details that focused on the aspects that will help in the

development of this study came from select sources like books, journals,

articles, and other existing thesis that are believed to be useful in fostering

broader awareness relative to the current research.

Conceptual Literature

Foreign

Discourse Competence. The study of the discourse competence owes

discourse analysis and text linguistics the repertoire of notions, concepts

and terms language teaching theorists may use to understand the role of

discourse in language learning and teaching. There are many introductions

to discourse analysis the reader may turn to for a more detailed account of

that repertoire. (McCarthy 1991)

Some of the important notions in relation to the discourse competence

is started with the distinction between ‘discourse conveyed in the English

language classroom’ and ‘discourse generated in the English language

classroom’, which calls our attention towards the fact that discourse

competence is a dynamic procedural competence which is constantly in

action during the teaching and learning processes. Then, it goes on

commenting upon some important concepts in the field of relationships

between participants: status (as exemplified in the use of forms of address),

social roles, distance (as related to the categories of intimate, acquaintance

and stranger), politeness and face, theme and rheme, new and given

information, genre, turn-taking and repairing. To this list we would like to

add two other concepts equally important. (Llobera (1996)

Discourse competence could be defined within theoretical models of

communicative competence in areas of second language (Bachman, 1990).

Notwithstanding evident definition and terminological differences, coherence

and cohesion, which has significant influence on overall quality of writing

has been the subject of research (Dastjerdi and Talebinezhad, 2006)

The term cohesion could be defined as one of the properties of a text and

it is also the appropriateness of selecting and using cohesive devices in a

coherent manner to enforce the requirements under which writing is done. It

is also the text connectedness in writing patterns (Senoz, 2005). According

to Karadeniz (2017) citing Senoz (2005), “while other disciplines are

primarily interested in the content of the texts, information provided by the

texts, the delivery style of the text and the impact of the text, text linguists

are interested in the rules influencing the production of the text itself,

production of the texts substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and even lexical

words (Onursal (2003) and Balci (2009). Thus, connectedness holds

relations among words sentences and paragraphs in a text and their

communicative functions” in which the connectedness is achieved. This

achievement of connectedness is in terms of the use of reference,

substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and even lexical words (Onursal (2003)

and Balci (2009).

 Cohesion and Coherence. According to Diliduzgun (2013), authoring

a text based on text structure, separation of text structures, identification of

the elements of cohesion in the test structure and finding the elements of

coherence in the text, provide better understanding and interpretation of the

text. Further, Diliduzgun (2013), posits that the purpose of reading a text,

taking note of the text structure should not be limited to the reading and

understanding or identifying how the text is written but the text should be

read and explained by analyzing it in terms of purpose, viewpoint, plan,

integrity and its consistency.

Cohesion and Coherence theory in English has been formulated

throughout the work of one of the major figures of London School of

linguistics, M.A.K Halliday, who coauthored his famous account on this

theory with R. Hassan. Since then, the study of Cohesion and Coherence as

well as the relationship that brings them together have seen several

developments and treatments, which are to be tackled here taking into

account the Hallidayan perspective upon which the theory is based.

In their classic study of cohesion in English, Halliday and Hassan

(1976) define cohesion as "what occurs when the interpretation of some

elements in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one

presupposes the other in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded

except by recourse to it". Halliday and Hassan (1976:75-84) recognize five

types of cohesion: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical

cohesion. The first four types belong to the category of grammatical

cohesion. As for Lexical cohesion it refers to the relationships between any

lexical item and some previously occurring lexical item in the text quite

independently of the grammatical category of the items in question.

According to Diliduzgun (2013) and Karadeniz, (2017) in writing, how

the elements of cohesion and coherence affect the writing quality and how

the students are able to demonstrate the ability to use the tools of cohesion

to improve the qualities of a good text are the important issues. They

revealed that Students must know where to start the writing process, what

to do at each stage of the writing process and what is expected of them when

writing texts.

To another pair of scholars, writing starts as structured information in

the mind even before the writer starts the process of writing, so, it is

necessary for students to understand what they hear and read, so as to

structure the information in their minds before writing begins (Akdal and

Sahin, 2014). The debate of writing in the mind before the writing process

arose the text linguists interest to begin text linguistics. Text linguistics

arises as a new qualitative method being used in designing both what is

written and what is read. It is designed in such a way that the texts present

a structural integrity that can be systematized in minds.

Thus, academic or writing at the tertiary level aim at providing the

ability to express emotions and ideas properly (Yildirim, and Simsek, 2013).

With applied studies, writing usually involve grammatical errors in ESL

student essays; ambiguities in their written expressions and problems in

their structural qualities. Thus, problems with intra-textual qualities are

their concern. Applied studies rarely focus on intra-textual connections,

transitions, formation of text elements. Topic flow within the text and the
text structures that form the basis of text composition is also a problem

identified by scholars in ESL writing.

Deixis. Lysons 1977 states that the idea of deixis is identification by

pointing clearly as a form of referring that is tied to the speaker’s context. It

relates to the ways where language encode some grammatical features of the

context of utterance, wherein the interpretation of utterances depends on

the analysis of that context of utterance.

In the same idea Lyons (1977) added that, by deixis is mean the

location an identification of persons, objects, events, processes, and

activities that being talked about or referred to relating of the spatiotemporal

context are formed and determined by the act of utterance and the

participant in it, usually, it is spoken by a single speaker and at least one

addressee.

Levinson (1983) states that deixis essentially concerns the ways in

which language encode or grammatical feature of the context of utterance or

speech event, and thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of

utterance depends on the analysis of that context of utterance. In addition,

deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things we

use people instead of we do with utterance. It means ‘pointing’ via language

(Yule, 1996). Based on definition above, it is obvious that deixis is a way to

refer something in current time, place, and context of speaker and listener

via utterance, for example: (Samosir and Zainuddin (2013).

Example of Deixis
Jack was born in Jakarta. He lived there for ten years.
The word he and there is deixis.
1. He refers to Jack,
2. there refers to Jakarta.
 When people notice strange object and ask, ‘what’s that?’ they are

using deitic expression (that). Deitic expression sometimes is called

indexical. According to Peter Grundy (2000, p.23), indexical means the role

of context in helping to determine reference. The functions are to indicate

people via person deixis, spatial deixis, and temporal deixis. In Levinson’s

theory, discourse (or text) and social deixis should be added to make it

understandable.

Soekemi (2000) states a deictic word is one which takes some

elements of its meaning from the situation of the utterance in which it is

used. He gives example, Emi says “I’ll be there”. I refers to Emi and there

refers to a particular place. Other examples of deictic words are you, here,

today, his, sini, nanti. Deictic words help the hearer to identify the referent

of a referring expression through its spatial or temporal relationships with

the situation of an utterance.

Deixis is a subtype of indexicality, the linguistic anthropological

understanding of which is based on the semiotic theory of Charles Sanders

Peirce, further developed by Michael Silverstein and others. In this tradition,

indexicality is a semiotic function through which a “sign vehicle” or

“signifier” “points to” an object or entity by means of spatio-temporal

continguity. This indexical function is distinguished from two other

functions, symbolic, characterized by an arbitrary relationship, and iconic,

characterized by a relationship of resemblance. In Silverstein’s foundational

paper Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description (Silverstein

1976), referential indexicality is distinguished from nonreferential

indexicality. Since Silverstein’s paper, nonreferential indexicality has

received significantly more attention in linguistic anthropology. While

referential indexicals (i.e. deixis) contribute to the semantico-referential

meaning of an utterance, nonreferential indexicality generally does not

(although so-called “social deixis” straddles the line between the two).

Classic examples of nonreferential indexicality include regional (or other)

accents, practices indexing speaker’s sex, honorifics, speech levels, etc.

Subsequent work on indexicality in linguistic anthropology has focused on

the complex links between linguistic and other semiotic practices and

socially constructed identities. At the same time, deixis has been studied

more closely by linguists interested in the more referential aspects of

language. Descriptive linguistics has paid some attention to deixis, given its

universality in the world’s languages. Recent efforts at systematic

crosslinguistic comparison (Levinson et al. 2018) have made major

contributions to the understanding of natural language deixis while

simultaneously pointing to the significant lack of careful descriptive work on

the phenomenon. In addition to the advances in descriptive analysis of

deixis, important theoretical advances have been made in our

understanding of the “deictic field” and its embedding in broader social

fields (Hanks 2005). While many have been happy to accept the disciplinary

division of referential and non-referential deixis, Hanks has questioned this,

arguing that the “mundane act of referring” is “shot through with social

context” in ways that extend beyond aspects of the immediate spatial or

interactional context.

Conversational Structure. As one of a skill in English, conversation is

an important skill that has to be mastered. Based on Wright (1985) the

English word, conversation, is made up of a combination of two Latin roots,

‘con,’ and ‘vers.’ ‘Con’ means with, together. ‘Vers’ mean to turn about in a

given direction. Thus, to engage in conversation literally means to turn

about with others. According to Ciccourel as cited in Deborah Schiffrin

(1994), conversation is a source of much of our sense of social order, e.g. it

produces many of typification underlying our notions of social role.

Conversation also exhibits its own order and manifests its own sense of

structure.

Conversation is more than merely the exchange of information

because trough conversation it can be decided whether the message is

received by the hearer or not. Therefore it will promote not only a message

but also favorable response of the hearer. Besides that, conversation is

determined to build a social relationship or even to make decisions

Conversation is discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time

between speakers; it is usually informal and unplanned. Cook (1989) says

that talk may be classed as conversation when: 1. It is not primarily

necessitated by a practical task 2. The number of the participants is

partially suspended 3. Talk is primarily for the participants not for an

outside audience Fairclough (2001) states “conversation is systematically

structured, and that there is evidence of the orientation of participants to

these structures in the way in which they design their own conversational

turns and react to those of others.” Conversation consists of two or more

participants taking turns and only one participants speaking at any time.

Conversations are the ideal form of communication in some respects, since

they allow people with different views on a topic to learn from each other. A
speech on the other hand, is an oral presentation by one person directed at

a group. For a successful conversation, the partners must achieve a

workable balance of contributions. A successful conversation includes

mutually interesting connections between the speakers or things that the

speakers know.

Opening and Closing Conversations. Opening and closing is an

important part of conversation. It plays a big role which determines how the

conversation will be started and finished, and how the conversation will be

going on. Another reason why it is very important is that each culture in this

world uses that method of conversation to sign the relation between one

another. The way to open and close a conversation is also different

depending on where the conversation takes places. According to Paltridge

(2000), “openings and closings in conversations are often carried out in

typical ways.” They are also context and speech-event specific. For example,

how we open a conversation at the bus stop is very different from how we do

it on the telephone.

Openings and closings often make use of pairs of utterances

(adjacency pairs), such as: ‘Hi’, ‘How are you’ and ‘Bye’, ‘See you later’,

which are often not meant to be taken literally. Closings are often preceded

by pre-closings, such as: ‘Okay’, ‘Good’, statements such as ‘Well, it’s been

nice talking to you’ or ‘Anyway, I’ve got to go now’, and an accompanying fall

in intonation. These kinds of conversational ritual vary, however, from

culture to culture to culture, just because someone is able to open and close

a conversation in their first language does not mean that they will

necessarily know how to do this in a second language and culture.

 Communicative Competence. It is reasonable to assume that

communicative language teaching (CLT) (Widdowson, 1978; Savignon,

1990) should be based implicitly or explicitly on some model of

communicative competence (Hymes,1972). However, with the exception of the

work of Canale & Swain (1980) and Canale (1983), there has been no

serious endeavor to generate detailed content specifications for CLT that

relate directly to an articulated model of communicative competence. Several

attempts have, of course, been made to catalogue the content that should be

part of a communicative language syllabus (e.g., Wilkins, 1976; van Ek,

1977; Dubin & Olshtain, 1986; van Ek & Trim, 1991), but such content

specifications, while being very valuable and influential in the language

teaching profession, have not been carried out systematically with reference

to any well-defined and comprehensive communicative competence

construct As a result, they have tended to be slightly intuitive and ad hoc.

Among applied linguists there have been some notable attempts to recast

the construct of communicative competence within the context of language

assessment (e.g., Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, in preparation), but

such model-building has been carried out with reference to tests of language

proficiency rather than to objectives of language instruction. Given the

immediate practical need that many applied linguists and language teachers

are experiencing in connection with designing language syllabi and

instructional materials as well as assessment instruments in accordance

with CLT principles (cf. Savignon, 1990), another attempt to look at models

of communicative competence and their content specifications from a

pedagogical perspective seems warranted. Our current effort has been

motivated by our belief in the potential of a direct, explicit approach to the

teaching of communicative skills, which would require a detailed description

of what communicative competence entails in order to use the sub-

components as a content base in syllabus design.2 However, we believe, an

informed approach concerning the objectives of CLT will be conducive to the

teaching of communicative language abilities regardless of whether one's

philosophy of language teaching/learning favors implicit, indirect language

acquisition (e.g., Krashen, 1982) or more explicit, focused language

instruction (e.g., Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985; Spada &Lightbown,

1993; Schmidt, 1990, 1993). A model of communicative competence such as

ours does not directly imply anything about how teaching should proceed.

However, whatever teaching approach one selects, the content must at some

point undergo a "pedagogic conversion."

The first comprehensive model of communicative competence, which

was intended to serve both instructional and assessment purposes, is that

of Canale & Swain (1980), further elaborated by Canale (1983). This model

posited four components of communicative competence: Grammatical

competence - the knowledge of the language code (grammatical rules,

vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, etc.). Sociolinguistic competence - the

mastery of the sociocultural code of language use (appropriate application of

vocabulary, register, politeness and style in a given situation). Discourse

competence - the ability to combine language structures into different types

of cohesive texts (e.g., political speech, poetry). Strategic competence - the

knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies which

enhance the efficiency of communication and, where necessary, enable the

learner to overcome difficulties when communication breakdowns occur.

Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell model is more detailed than Canale

and Swain's in that actionable competence has been specified in its own

right. We differ from Bachman and Palmer in that our model places "lexical

knowledge" within linguistic knowledge, following Halliday (1985), who,

among others, believes that the line between lexicon and grammar cannot be

neatly drawn, and this results in a "lexico-gram-mar" that is part of

linguistic competence.The "actional competence" component of our

framework is similar to Bachman and Palmer's "functional knowledge" in

that it specifically concerns language functions. The difference in labelling

reflects our somewhat different perspective. Bachman and Palmer (see also

Bachman 1990) follow Halliday's (1973) theoretical conception of functional

language use, whereas our pedagogical approach involves a more detailed

description of speech acts and language functions as defined by Wilkins

(1976) and van Ek (1977). In the following discussion of the model, they

begin with linguistic competence as the most familiar component; we then

move on to discourse competence, the core, before treating sociolinguistic,

actional and strategic competence.

Figure 2 presents the chronological evolution of our model from the

Canale and Swain (1980) construct. The figure shows clearly that the main

tendency underlying the model's progress has been to elaborate

sociolinguistic competence. First Curate (1983) separated discourse

competence from it, and our model further narrows sociolinguistic

competence by specifying actional competence in its own right. This

tendency is understandable from a historical perspective. The term

"communicative competence" stems from Hymes' (1967,

1972) challenge to Chomsky's (1965) notion of "linguistic competence" from

a sociolinguistic perspective, and therefore originally the sociolinguistic

dimension of language proficiency was associated with everything that was

missing from linguistic competence. In fact, Canale & Swain (1980) had

already begun the process of narrowing down the broad sociolinguistic

dimension by separating strategic competence from sociolinguistic

competence.

In concern of language, one of the most popular word in the 20th

century is ―communication. It has a great influence in the language

teaching and learning not only because of its high frequency appearance in

the research world but also because of its essential meaning that represents

the gradual globalization in the past century. There are many competences

involved in the communication called communicative competence. Canale

and Swain (1980) proposed a theoretical framework of communicative

competence into grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse

competence. As a sub-component of communicative competence, strategic

becomes a basis for nonnative speakers. Its definition described by Canale

(1983) as verbal and non-verbalstrategies to compensate communication

breakdowns

due to performance variables or insufficient competence. According to Celce

Murcia, the components of strategic competence involved avoidance or

reduction, achievement or compensatory, stalling or time-gaining, self-

monitoring, and interactional Strategies. Celce (1995) also has drawn

discourse competence as the central competence that covers other

competences in communication. Discourse competence can be defined as

the ability to use (produce and recognize) coherent and cohesive texts in an

oral or written form (Bachman 1990b, p. 29). Moreover, Celce Murcia (1995)

added many sub-areas that contribute to discourse competence: cohesion,

deixis, coherence, generic structure, and the conversational structure

inherent to the turn-taking system in conversation. Spoken communication

always becomes interesting object to be investigated. Djoko Sutopo (2014)

has explored the ability of a kindergarten student of bilingual school in

producing negotiation of meanings. The finding of the study shows that the

child is capable to produce almost speech choices and all types of

negotiation, interpersonal negotiation and logico-semantic negotiation in the

conversation. In line with the previous study, casual conversation of English

foreign language learners will be rich data for analyzing strategic and

discourse competence. Therefore this study is decided to analyze strategic

and discourse competence of EFL learners‘ casual conversation.When the

problems of communication arise, and how is speakers‘ discourse

competence.
Local

The study by Lasala (2014) in the Philippines concluded that students

who had little to no instruction in reading and classroom interaction became

less skilled in English. In addition, Sandigan (2018) argues that even though

English is regarded as a second language in the nation, Filipino college

students still struggle with it. According to Reyes et al. (2021), many Filipino

students still struggle to use the language for conversational purposes. Their

research showed that among the difficulties indigenous students face

conversing in English is their perception that they lack certain language

skills, such as a limited vocabulary. Their difficulties also stem from their

uncertainty and insecurity. All these situations suggest that one of the

factors driving the ongoing need for English language instruction and

learning is the development of communicative competence.

The English language is no longer limited to a linguistic and cultural

phenomenon but a socio- political reality. English is also known as the

language of information and international affairs (Andrew, 2017). In

education, factors such as globalization and internalization of education and

the desire to compete internationally have given rise to the growth of the

English language in higher education worldwide (Gill & Kirkpatrick, 2013).

The Philippines is recognized globally as one of the largest English-speaking

nations with majority of its population having at least some degree of

fluency in the language. English has always been one of the official

languages of the Philippines and is spoken by more than 14 million

Filipinos. It is the language of commerce and law, as well as the primary

medium of instruction in education. English is considered the "prima

lingua" of the world. Learning and mastering this language provides a

myriad of employment opportunities for learners, as English is considered a

stepping stone to a better life. In addition, the key stakeholders from the

government, academe, private, and non-government sectors acknowledged

that even if the Philippines is doing fine in terms of English competency,

concerns on how much of a competitive advantage it still is for the country

were raised. The stakeholders agreed that the country needs to step up its

efforts in improving the teaching and learning of English, developing it as a

vital skill of the workforce (Cabigon, 2015)

Research Literature

Foreign

Discourse Competence. Discourse Competence refers to the way ideas are

linked across sentences in spoken language. Graduating students according

to Semarang State University Indonesia, suggested students to produce

more English in their daily activities in order those problems of

communication decrease and the students‘competences in casual

conversation increase.

Nordal (2006) studied about discourse competence that dicourse

processing is perceived differently from person to person. For a student it

may be difficult to understand discourse which is beyond his/her current

knowledge. However, the learning process involves filling in pieces in the

jigsaw puzzle. All students do to some extent have facts in their pool of

knowledge through which they understand and see different communicative

situations. Furthermore, Nordal (2006) wrote when reading a text or

participating in a conversation a students will establish an understanding of

the context in which the discourse is presented. Words, phrases and

passages that may seem unfamiliar to a student will soon be made

comprehensible in context.

Nordal (2006) studied that it is equally important language functions

and speech acts, whether they are of the interactional or the transactional

type, have a continuity in language stretches so that utterances are

combined logically. Also, Nordal (2006) wrote it should have activities which

will give focus on coherence, through cohesive devices e.g. discourse

markers, turn-taking or strategies to gain/give the floor. It is also important

that the students through such activities is able to distinguish between

various spoken texts and know how to create coherence for each.

Creating a text is not simply about expressing ideas by writing them

in a bundle of words. (Fitriati & Yonata, 2017)) Theoretically, a text has to be

built from adequate structural and grammatical resources for written form.

Beyond its form and structure, in writing a text it is further about

contemplating the purpose of the text as a way of communication between

the writer and the reader. Therefore, relationship between text and

communication has been asserted by Widdowson (2007) who explains that a

text, in general, may be defined as a piece of language as distinct from a

sentence and it has a communicative purpose.

Cohesion and Coherence. A good text has elements within bounded

together and need to make sense to the students. These elements of writing

are also known as cohesion and coherence of the text. (Thornbury, 2005)

He further explains that the cohesion is how a text hangs together to make a

‘text’ and the coherence is about the sense-making quality of a text.

 (Shirazi and Nadoushani, 2017) states in their study that Cohesion

and coherence are inextricable, in which both of these features were

examined. In addition, the cohesion of a text in their study derived from

cohesive devices or cohesive ties. These devices are prominent linguistic

markers in which the function is to relate each idea into a core principle of

the text.

Cohesion itself is the prerequisite of coherence. This idea is based on

Hasan (1976) as cited in Fitriati & Yonata (2017) who state that “cohesion

is the foundation on which the edifice of coherence is built”, and “the basis

for textual coherence lies in cohesion. In the study of Fitriati & Yonata

(2017) it states that the main focus is on coherence and the analysis of

cohesion is included directly as it is one of the requirements to make a

coherent text.

Coherence, moreover, is an attempt to make the entire text

understandable. As stated before that a written text is aimed to be a

medium of communication, not only interconnectedness among sentences

has to be linked with cohesive devices, but it needs coherence of the whole

text as a means of sense-making sentences (Rahman, 2013).

Yule (2009) said that a text which is cohesive does not necessarily

mean it is coherent. The text may be well connected with cohesive devices

but the student also may not be able to understand what the text is about.

According to Widdowson (2007) a text can be cohesive but a lack of

coherence in that, it does not bring the student into any familiar schema of

an interpersonal kind. Therefore, in reaching coherence, it depends on

how far the readers can relate the text contextually with their particular
socio-cultural knowledge they have. In academic perspective,understanding

a text is also affected by the readers’ level of knowledge.(Fitriati & Yonata

(2017)

Deixis. Nurhikmah (2019) study states that he most obvious way to

reflect the relationship between the structure of languages and contexts is

through deixis. Tfouni and klatzky (1983) conducted research entitled “A

discourse analysis of deixis: pragmatic, cognitive and semantic factors in the

comprehension of ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘here’ and ‘there’” This study used Children

(mean age 3; 6) were tested as to the comprehension of the deictic words

this, that, here and there in two conditions: as hearers addressees and as

hearers—spectators. Therefore, it was predicted that this and here would be

more difficult to comprehend than that and there. All the initial predictions

were confirmed by the analysis of variance. The results are discussed within

recent theories of pragmatics, semantics and cognitive development.(

Nurhikmah, 2019)

The term deixis refers to a class of linguistic expressions that are used

to indicate elements of the situational context, including the speech

participants, the time and location of the current speech event. (Lyons

1977) In English there are many linguistic expressions that are usually

called as deictics. Purwo (1984) stated that deictic refers to a word which

the referent is inconsistent, depending on who the speaker is, where and

when it is uttered.

According to Ramasari (2021) study the idea of deixis is

identification by pointing clearly as a form of referring that is tied to the

speaker’s context. It relates to the ways where language encode some

grammatical features of the context of utterance, wherein the

interpretation of utterances depends on the analysis of that context of

utterance. In the idea Lyons (1977) added that, by deixis is mean the

location an identification of persons, objects, events, processes, and

activities that being talked about or referred to relating of the spatiotemporal

context are formed and determined by the act of utterance and the

participant in it, usually, it is spoken by a single speaker and at least one

addressee. In the book of Soekemi (2000) states a deictic word is one

which takes some elements of its meaning from the situation of the

utterance in which it is used. In other words Carron (1992) points out that

deictic markers are used to designate what is being spoken about by

situating this within a system of reference defined by the situation of

utterance. He also states and cited by Ramasari (2021) that there are three

essential elements of the system of reference; Firstly, the participants of the

utterance are the personal markers of the first or second person (such as

pronouns: I, we, and you: possessives; verbal markers), put together the

third person designates a non-participant. Secondly, the place of utterance

designate the positions (here, there) and objects (this, that), generally, to

distinguish the position of the speaker as the reference point being near

speaker or away from speaker, and lastly, the time of utterance performs as

the foundation for a wide range of temporal landmarks marked by all

kinds of adverbial expressions (now, then, yesterday, tomorrow, etc), and

also tenses. Therefore, deixis is one of the most important linguistic

phenomenon that consideration of language could not ignore. It is, in a way,

the anchoring of language in the real world. This anchoring is achieved by

pointing of variables along its dimension. (Obayes & Abdulameer, 2021)

Conversational Structure. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974)

described conversation as a way of using language socially, of ‘ doing things

with words’ together with other persons. Conversation has its own dynamic

structure and rules and it is organized in sequence in order to make the

conversation meaningful, enjoyable and understandable.

In the study of Diptar (2019) conversation is one of the practical

devices in teaching oral English in the classroom. It explores the

patterns of social life represented in a conversation or dialogue

(Kristina, 2013). The analysis of conversation was first put forward by

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson in 1974 as cited in (Kristina, 2013),

initially focusing on studying the smallest units of conversation and it is

important in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other

aspects of spoken interaction. Moreover, Kristina (2013) proposed that

the discourse analysis primarily take a point of view of conversation

analysis influenced by ethnomethodological tradition.

Richards et al. (1992) suggested that structure conversation

analysis refers to the analysis of natural conversation in order to

discover what the linguistic characteristics of conversation are and how

conversation is used in ordinary life. In this case, conversation is not

restricted to casual and informal talk, but it also includes all forms of talk in

interactions (Schegloff et al., 2002), such as talks in educational

environment, in workplace or in classroom. It concerns about the macro-

level features of discourse including power, value systems, prestige and

status, and the micro-level features of discourse including falling or

rising intonation, stressed or unstressed syllabus, and grammatical

structures. (Riggenbach, 1999)

In the study of Maulidya (2019) the purpose of structure conversation

is keeping the conversation in order to make good flow and evade

overlapping in the conversation. Overlap means when the two speakers

speaking at the same time, it means one of them doesn’t interest with the

topic that had been talking before or maybe both speakers want to maintain

their argument. In addition, there are three parts in structure conversation,

those are opening, body, and closing. Opening and closing in the

conversation included in global structure, while the body of the conversation

included in the local structure. (Rui and Ting, 2014)