and then followed by the second turn. Therefore, it can be said that some kinds of utterance are intended to precede the next action, while the other kinds of
utterance is intended to accomplish the preceded action. Those kinds of utterance which precede the action are called first pair parts FPP. Meanwhile, the other
kinds of utterance which follow the preceded utterance are called second pair parts SPP.
Furthermore, according to Bloomer and Griffth 2005: 60, adjacency pairs are related to the concept of conditional relevance. It means that when the
FPP is performed, the SPP starts to be related and expected. Furthermore, if the SPP does not occur, it will be considered as absent. In other words, the FPP of
adjacency pairs are arranged by a particular expected response which needs to be presented as the SPP. For example, a question is expected to be answered,
summon is followed by a reply and further. However, not all the FPPs directly get the SPP. It regularly occurs that a
question-answer sequence will be postponed while another question-answer is interrupted Yule, 1996: 77. This sequence pattern is called an insertion
sequence. Pridham 2001: 28 adds that the topic of an insertion sequence is connected to the initial sequence in which it happens and the question from the
initial sequence is put back to and replied following the insertion sequence. According to Liddicoat 2007: 109, there are only few kinds of adjacency
pairs which have a single form of SPP. For example, greeting leads to greeting, farewell is followed by farewell, etc. Meanwhile, there are many kinds of
adjacency pairs in which the SPPs have optional form of realization. As the
example, invitation leads to an acceptance but in some cases, it may leads to declination. From thus example, it can be concluded that invitation has two other
forms of SPP. Those differences between two forms of the SPP are dealt with the concept of preference organization.
4. Preference Organization
In the discussion of adjacency pairs, it has been presented that the FPP and SPP are closely related by the concept of conditional relevant; that is the FPP
of adjacency pairs creates a certain relevant response in the SPP. However, according to Buttny 1993: 42, there is no information in the conditional rule
about what types of relevant response that will occur after a request. However, these responses are not structurally equal. This statement is in line with
Holtgraves 2002: 96. He states that not all the SPPs are having equal ranks with the FPP. Moreover, some SPPs are preferable rather than the other SPP. For
examples, an agreement is preferred rather than a disagreement, an acceptance is preferred rather than a refusal and further. This concept is known as preference
organization. Liddicoat 2007: 110 adds that the preference organization does not
have any relation to the speaker‟s individual desire since it is related to the recurring conversation patterns in which the actions are performed. He also notes
that the primary difference in the preference organization is that in certain contexts, particular actions in conversation can be eluded or postponed, while the
other actions are commonly delivered directly with a little delay.
Yule 1996: 79 points out that the preference organization divides the SPPs into two kinds, namely preferred and dispreferred social act. The preferred
social act is described as an expected response performed in the next act, while the dispreferred social act is an unexpected response performed in the next act. Mey
2009: 140 adds that an agreement in the SPP is considered as the preferred social act and it is conveyed in an unmarked form. It means that the preferred
social act is performed without delays and designed directly and briefly. On the other hand, a disagreement is considered as the dispreferred social act and it is
carried out in a marked form. In other words, the dispreferred social act tends to be performed with some delays, mitigations, excuses, etc.
a. Types of Dispreferred Social Acts
Levinson in Mey, 1993: 231 presents the general patterns of dispreferred
social act as follows: 1
The Dispreferred Social Act of Request - Refusal
According to Becker in Achiba, 2003: 5, request is used by a speaker when he or she wants to ask the hearer to perform something. Levinson in Mey,
1993: 231 explains further that the request sets up an expectation of acceptance in the SPP; meanwhile the dispreferred social act of request is a refusal. For the
illustration, Richards and Smith 1983: 129 give an example as follows: A
: Can you mail this for me please? B
: Sure, but I won’t have time today
Richards and Smith, 1983: 129 The example above illustrates the dispreferred social acts of request. In
the FPP, A performs a request to B to mail something. In this case, A expects that
