22
automatically will be response by the student he addressed. It is also important to point out that adjacency pairs are not only focus on the first and second pair part;
the three parts should also be considered.
b. The Role and Function of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction
Considering interaction as a vital aspect of communicative-based language learning, adjacency pair is one of the main aspects implied in teacher-student
interaction. Adjacency pairs have an important part of the teacher-student interaction which cannot be neglected. As teachers, the language we choose, and
the way we choose to understand the language used by our students, significantly shapes what kinds of people show up in our classroom Rymes, 2008. Adjacency
pairs help teacher to predict what comes next in the conversation or in the interactional context with students. To be able to control the classroom or the
situational context, adjacency pairs should be established in teacher talk. Thus, Rymes 2008 states the function and the role of adjacency pairs in teacher-
student interactionare as provoking questions, discussion-starters questions, and thought-provoking. Rymes 2008 provides the examples of praise statements
below which do not probe for more:
Teacher: I liked your demonstration. or
You listened well today. or
Your pictures are great. When teacher uses the statements above for giving praise to students‟ project,
students might only response by saying „thank you‟ or even they just show
modesty by giving shy disagreement. According to Owocki and Goodman
23
2002:52, alternative forms of praise can change into compliments by using thought-provoking questions. The table below shows the examples:
I liked
your demonstration.
could be... what kind of practice did it take to get ready
for this demonstration? You listened well today.
could be... You seemed very interested today. What
caught your interest? Your pictures are great.
could be... Your pictures helped me enjoy your story.
How did you think to include the little anchor?
Figure 4. The example of teacher talk with and without considering of adjacency pairs Owocki and Goodman, 2002:52 cited in Rymes, 2008:69.
The table above provides the alternative choice for teacher about the follow up questions when giving praise for students. Whether the teacher expects students‟
further response or just to let the students acknowledge the praise by giving simple word like „thank you‟ or even just smile.
By carefully design the first pair part of adjacency pair, teachers have a great power to shape what comes next or to predict how students will participate
in a classroom talk Rymes, 2008. Teachers can provoke students to give response by creatively design the first part of adjacency pairs. It means that
teacher provides and facilitates students to engage in the conversation.
c. The Significance of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interactions
One of the primary tools driving interaction is the adjacency pair Tsui, 1989. The concept of adjacency pairs was developed by Sacks and Schegloff
1979, they stated that this is one of the most basic forms of speech that is used to produce conversation. In other words, adjacency pairs become the basic unit of
conversational interaction Tsui, 1989:546. Much of what teacher says talks everyday to students and how students answer back is predictable for example,
when teacher says „good morning‟ students will reply “good morning” or a
24
summon requires a response. Adjacency pair is a predictable interactional context in which these sequences occurred in a classroom-talk every day. Without this
kind of predictability, it would be difficult to conduct class at all Rymes, 2008:54. Since adjacency pairs consist of two or more sequences, teacher may
choose the first part of the adjacency pairs to predict the students‟ response will be. Thus, this first part of the adjacency pairs could be as a trigger of students‟
response to interact. As Wood and Kroger 2000 state that, there are two types of possible responses to the first parts of adjacency pairs they are preferred and
dispreferred. Preferred responses are those that are expected or conventional and dispreferred responses are those that are not.
d. Theoretical Basis of Adjacency pairs and Teacher-student interaction
There are three major basis theories will be discuss in this part, they are comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional hypothesis.
1. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
Input is used to refer to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. Input is defined as language
which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn Ellis, 2008. The input hypothesis theory is introduced by Krashen 1982: 22; he emphasizes
on the process of increasing ones‟ competence in acquiring language. In his theory, Krashen posted a question of „how do we acquire language?‟ this question
leads us to the process of how acquirers acquire a language, includes a target language. We acquire language by understanding language that contains structure
which beyond our current level of competence i + 1. This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information Krashen, 1982:21. Another argument
25
says, in order to maximize the exposure, L2 lesson should be taught in L2 Miles, 2004. In terms of language learning, teacher talk is important because it is
probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.
Language is not acquired in a short time. It needs a long process. Throughout this process learner become familiarized of the encounter words.
What makes them familiar with words for acquisition is the frequency of their usage and the number of encounters in different forms and contexts Nation,
1990; Schmidt, 2001. Learners should be provided with much natural input, especially extensive listening opportunities and particularly in the early stages of
learning. Krashen provides the requirements for optimal input they are 1 should be comprehensible. It can be maintained that teacher talk does provide
comprehensible input. 2 Interesting relevant. While Lado 1964 advises that the dialogue contain „useful‟ language, that it be age-appropriate and natural, most
dialogues fall far short of the mark of true interest and relevance. According to Krashen 1982, the primary function of language teaching is
to supply comprehensible input for those who cannot get it from outside the classroom and for the foreign language students who do not have input sources
outside the class. The classroom can be benefit when it provides an important contribution and becomes the major source of comprehensible input for students.
It can be argued that the class was the primary source of comprehensible input for students, considering Indonesian students learn English in a non-supportive
environment.
26
Krashen argued that the value of second language classes lies not only in the grammar instruction, but in the simpler “teacher talk”, that is the
comprehensible input. It can be an efficient place to achieve at least for the intermediate levels, as long as the focus of the class is on providing input for
acquisition” Krashen, 1982. Krashen claimed that simplified input and context can play a role in making input comprehensible.
2. Interaction Hypothesis
Interaction can facilitate acquisition by assisting learner‟s L2 production Long, 1996. Long 1983 argued that much second language acquisition takes
place through conversational interaction. He agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition. However, he is more
concerned with the question of how input is made comprehensible. According to him modified interaction as the necessary mechanism for this to take place. The
learners‟ need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic forms but rather an opportunity to interact with other speakers, in ways which lead them to adapt what
they are saying until the learner shows signs of understandings. The general claim of interaction hypothesis is that engaging in interpersonal oral
interaction in which communication problems arise and are negotiated facilitates incidental language acquisition. Interactive input is more important than non-
interactive input because it supplied learners with information relating to linguistic forms that were problematic to them. Interactional modifications may
remove the need for learners to develop their linguistic competence and thus have a negative effect on acquisition. For example, modified repetitions of learner
