( conversation analysis , hereinafter referred to as AP) is one approach to discourse analysis in the disciplines of sociology. AP was pioneered by Harold Garfinkel who is also known as the father of sociology. AP is rooted in an approach that has been developed previously, namely ethnometodology (influenced by the phenomenology of Alfred Schutz). However, AP is different from other branches of sociology in that it does not analyze social institutions themselves, but rather finds out how members of society shape the nature of social institutions.
In its analytical practice, AP pays attention to the problem of social institutions and the workings of language in shaping social institutions and the way the social context shapes language. AP is similar to ethnography of communication in terms of human knowledge. That approach also focuses on the detailed analysis of specific speech. However, AP is very different from that approach. AP has its own assumptions, methodology (including terminology), and theoretical framework.
AP also needs to be distinguished from pragmatic analysis. Indeed, pragmatics (in which there is a speech act concept ) analyzes conversation, but the analysis is based on the understanding that the conversation is a series of ” discrete acts ” (events that differ from one another). This method focuses on the interpretation of speech and how explanations about aspects of language use can be incorporated into the grammar model. Therefore, the theory of ” speech act” is also used by generative semantics experts in language recognition (see Yule, 2006; Gordon and Lakoff, 1971).
AP is rooted in ethnometodology. The term ethnometodology is used by Garfinkel (1974) in cross-cultural analysis related to the ways of doing ( doing ) and what is known ( knowing ) (in Schiffrin, 1994: 233) . What is known is not only limited to narrow knowledge, but also includes existing habits. The reasons for using the term above are in principle the same as the ethnomethodology understanding itself. The expert in this approach believes that conversation is a rule-governed activity . The conversation is neither random nor aimless), But rather an activity that demonstrates regularity ( regulaty ) and pattern ( patterns ) (Marcellino, 1993: 60).
The term ethnomethodology itself comes from Garfinkel’s research, which states that “methodology” in ethnomethodology means arranging considerations according to certain concepts with strong evidence, plausible explanations, and so on. By Garfinkel, ethnomethodology refers to the notion of ” a social actor’s, or community’s.” Own lay methodology ” (Taylor and Cameron, 1987: 101).
Ethnometodological research avoids idealizations and argues that what is produced is a type of symbol ( typification ), which is only based on the rules of interaction / organized conversation. This result is based on the fact that although language is a tool to form acceptable categories ( common sense categories ), on the other hand, the meaning and use of certain utterances are still negotiable and cannot be precisely determined. This means that the relationship between words and objects is a matter of studying the relationship of the social world (social sphere) and the activities in which the words are used.
Although conversations generally take place in pairs, there are ways in which partners can be expanded, namely before they are started (see Schegloff 1980; Levinson 1983: 345-64), after they have finished (see Fox 1987: 23-8), or even just as pair conversations take place ( see Jefferson 1972). An important issue underlying the conversation is the problem of “distribution”, namely how do speakers place their turn when speaking? How do they know when it is expected that the person will speak and the speech partner should be silent? How do people know when to stop talking, and the interlocutor should start speaking, with the smallest possible spacing and concurrent speech spacing between turns?
AP offers a solution to that problem (and its like) around shifting between conversations; a solution whose process is observed during a conversation. The solution is “a set of basic rules that govern turn formation, allocate the next turn in a group of conversation, and coordinate turn changes so as to reduce the spacing and spacing together” [Sacks (1974) in Schiffrin, 1994: 238].
In short, the focus of AP is the conversation as actual events, by means of the conversation recorded without engineering, the recordings are transcribed as they are. AP does not recognize weeding as a basis, both for social science and human behavior in action. Sacks (1984) argued that a lot of weeding in the social sciences produces general concepts that result in ambiguity and uncertainty of special relationships in a series of events (in Schiffrin, 1994: 234). In principle, the context of AP treatment is still based on ethnometodology. However, in making conversation transcripts, AP does not really pay attention to social relationships or social contexts, such as social identity, background, and personal attributes (Schiffrin, 1994: 235).
Heritage (1984) suggests three AP assumptions, namely (a) structurally organized interactions, (b) contributions to contextuality-oriented interactions, and (c) in interactions there are no speaker sequences, incidental or even irrelevant (no typification ) (see Schiffrin, 1994: 236). In other sources, it is stated that there are two perspectives that must be considered in AP, namely (a) the organization of the conversation and (b) the themes of the conversation (how the theme of the conversation is discussed, whether the conversation forms a common thread or is it even irrelevant to the theme).
Schiffrin (1994) also suggests that one of the conversational structures that needs to be considered is adjacency pairs , which are two paired / adjacent speeches spoken by two speakers consecutively (as the first part and the second part) so that the first part requires a special section or distance. from the second part. Consider the following example.
A: (a) That’s from = first, right?
B: (b) … Yes from volume one
(c) Yes from [volume] one to volume
A: (d) [XX]
B: (e) … four
(f) em = pat
B: (g) … You see
(h) Aa lazy
(i) if for example, buy by volume
A: (k) … Hurry up and lose it
B: (l) [Eh-eh]
The example above is a speech structure found in spontaneous language. The form of clauses arises in sequential and rotating conversations. What happens here is that A starts the conversation: That’s from = first, it opens up opportunities for the second sequence as an answer. Thus, clause (a) ” That’s from = first yes” and answers B (b) and (c) are considered as responses to an empty gap , in this case it is also considered a close pair, and so on .