The Background of the Study

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Background of the Study

The first motivation of this study stems from the problematic issue occurred in English teaching of conversation for the homogenous students of Toba Batak TB and in a TB interaction in a coffee-counter. When it was observed, the students in responding the compliment of the other did not practise them as applied in English conversation. A case in point is reflected in this extract: A : You have a nice shirt B : No, it is my old one. From the above conversation, A’s compliment was rejected by B. It is not the case in English conversation where compliment is not rejected, A’s compliment is accepted in English conversation by an appreciation response such as, thank you. Another case in point deals with a TB conversation of more than two participants in the coffee-counter. It was noted that there is no regularity in terms of the turn-taking among the interactants. The taking of turn and transition from one speaker to another are haphazard. There are problems of turn-taking management in such a conversation. About conversation, Furo 2001:24 presented four asumptions in conversation: 1 conversation is structurally organized, 2 conversation is jointly 1 Universitas Sumatera Utara produced among participants, 3 conversation is contextual, and 4 conversation is locally managed. These asumptions indicate there are structures and process of turn- taking in conversation as well as units that build the turn-taking. The second motivation of this study is derived from the statement: “there has been a considerable shift in emphasis in linguistic research from phonology and morphology to syntax and semantics and from there on to an increased interest in the study of language in social context” Platt and Platt 1975 : 1. There are two shifts of linguistic research in the quotation above, i.e., the one from phonology and morphology to syntax and semantics, and another one from syntax and semantics to study of language in social context. The study of language in social context or in a more specific term, a function - based study Halliday,1994 was less emphasized than the formal study of language. Like Indonesian language, according to Sinar 1998 : 1, much of the study done was centered on the formal aspect of the language. The trend is also true for the study of the regional languages, such as that of the Toba Batak Language TBL, in other words, there has not been a concern with the language function or language use especially in conversation, as what is going to be investigated in this study. The available studies are mostly dealing with syntax, semantics, and morphology of TBL. This study is a compromise one where there is a combination of formal and functional aspect in the study of TBL. The functional aspect such as interactional units: turn – taking, adjacency pairs, preference, silence, overlapping talk, and repair would be under much emphasis, and the formal aspect such as the linguistic Universitas Sumatera Utara properties: grammatical, intonational, and semantic properties are also studied, so that the relationship between language and interaction can be explained in Toba Batak Conversation. A study on the structure of discourse involves examining utterances from both linguistic and interactional view points since utterances are realizations of language in use. In this case, one should begin with how particular units utterances, actions are used and draw conclusion about the broader functions of such units from functional analysis. In other words, “one would begin from observation and description of an utterance itself, and then try to infer from analysis of that utterance and its context what functions are being served”, Schiffrin, 1994. As this study focuses on the conversations in TBL, utterances would be the basic unit of analysis which are viewed from formal and functional aspect of categories. From formal view, three linguistic units grammatical, intonational, semantic are examined to see the construction component, whether the grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point influence the speaker changes or transition relevance places TRPs. From the functional view, interactional units such turn–taking, adjacency pairs, preferences, are examined to see the distribution component. One of the approaches in analyzing conversation is conversation analysis CA, which emerged in the pioneering researches of Harvey Sacks Hutchby, 1998: 5 into the structural organization of everyday language use, accounted by his friend Schegloff Have, 1999:5. According to Schegloff’s account, Harvey Sacks Universitas Sumatera Utara discovered some subtle ways in which callers to a suicide prevention center managed to avoid giving their names, as shown in the conversation below : A : This is Mr. Smith, may I help you? B : I can’t hear you. A : This is Mr. Smith. B : Smith. Sacks Hutchby and Woffit, 1999:18 had observed that in the majority of cases if the person is taking the call within the organization started off by giving their name, then the suicidal person who was calling would be likely to give their name in reply. But in one particular call, He noticed that the caller B as shown in the conversation above seemed to be having trouble with the name of the answerer. Then the agent who took the call found it difficult to get the caller’s name. For him, the avoidance of giving one’s name in the conversation by answering “ I can’t hear you” leads to the accomplishment of action or particular things given by an utterance. So, in this case the utterance is an action. However, Sacks Hutchby and Woffit, 1998:8 here emphasizes that “I can’t hear you” is not always an expression representing the way one avoids giving his name. Rather he viewed the utterance as an action which is situated within specific context. He also observed that by the caller’s “not hearing”, he is able to set up a sequential trajectory in which the agent finds less opportunity to establish the caller’s name without explicitly asking for it. Thereby the caller is able to begin the conversation by avoiding giving a name without actually refusing to do so. Universitas Sumatera Utara Utterance as an action is also supported by Schegloff 2007: 1 as he focused on action rather than a topic in talk-in interaction. An utterance like “Would somebody like some more ice tea?” is better understood as “doing an offer” than as “about ice tea”. Conversation Analysis is derived from Ethnomethodology which is focused on the methods by which the group conducts coversation. Group here refers to society’s members which are considered having intersubjectivity and cammon-sense knowledge realized in talk-in interaction in their daily life. Obviously, the member’s knowledge meant by this method concerns with the member’s knowledge of their ordinary affairs, knowledge that shows a sense of order in everyday conduct, and this is publicly displayed in activity which is going on. Austin and Searle Schiffrin, 1994 : 6 developed speech act theory from the basic insight that language is use, not just to describe the world, but it can perform an action. The utterance “I promise to be there tomorrow” performs the act of promising,and the utterance “The grass is green” performs the act of asserting. An utterance can also perform more than one action as shown below. Speaker : Can you pass the salt? Hearer : pass the salt The first action is an act of questioning the ability of the hearer, and the second performs an act of requesting. This is what distinguishes utterance from sentence. In the case above there is only one sentence, that is, an interrogative sentence. But there are two utterances with two contexts. As Schiffrin 1994: 40 put it, a sentence is Universitas Sumatera Utara neither a physical event nor a physical object, it is conceived of abstractly as a string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language. Of Sacks’ observation on talk-in interaction Hutchby et.al, 1999, he really based his analysis on the naturally occurring data from which he did a turn by turn details of the conversation so that a robust analytical basis would be used to get a robust finding. What he observed then leads to the key insights which are treated on the methodological basis for conversation analysis. These key insights can be summarized below : 1. Talk – in interaction is systematically organized and deeply ordered. 2. The production of talk – in interaction is methodic. 3. The analysis of talk- in interaction should be based on naturally occurring data. 4. Analysis should not be constrained by prior theoretical assumption. How then language is related with interaction? Ford and Thompson 1996 observed grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. There are three criteria in identifying grammatical completion point : well-formed clauses, increments, and recoverable predicates. The verb put in this sentence ; I put the book on the desk, projects a possible syntactic completion point which is after an argument of a place. Because the verb put is a two place predicate Haegemen, 1993 :39 and takes two arguments, a direct object the book, and a place on the desk, and considered as a well – formed clause, a grammatical completion point is marked after prepositional phrase on the desk. However, I put the book , is not a well-formed clause. Universitas Sumatera Utara “Words and phrases that appear after the first grammatical completion point are considered increment”Furo, 2001:12. A grammatical completion point in sentence : I bought the book yesterday is marked after the noun phrase the book as well as after the adverb yesterday. Since the sentence I bought the book is well – formed, it is considered grammatically complete. I bought the book yesterday is also a well – formed clause, and the adverb yesterday is considered increment. So, another grammatical point is marked after yesterday. In this way, grammatical completion point is marked incremently after a well – formed clause.Recoverable predicates, that is, the understood predicates that can be taken from the context are considered to form complete clause. An example of recoverable predicate is answer to question, as seen in this question : Where did you go last week?, the answer is ; to Jakarta. Although the answer does not have a predicate, it is assumed to be completed from the context, I went to Jakarta. A grammatical completion point is therefore marked after the noun Jakarta. Intonational completion point is determined by falling intonation designated by period, and rising intonation designated by question mark. The sentence, He is a doctor, has a falling intonation contour as found generally in positive statements, and it is designated by period. This period characterizes the intonational completion point. A rising intonation contour is commonly found in yes – no questions, such in sentence : Are you a teacher? The question mark characterizes the intonational completion point. Universitas Sumatera Utara Semantic completion point refers to floor right, floor-claiming utterance, proposition, and reactive token. When the speaker has the right or obligation to hold the floor, a semantic completion point is marked at the point where the right is expired. This can be obtained by the speaker’s status e.g. moderator or obtained in the course of interaction e.g. the speaker who is asked a question and thus selected as the next speaker. In floor-claiming utterance, when a longer turn is determined by words, phrases, or preliminary action, or negotiated by interlocutor, a semantic completion point is marked at the end of the projected longer talk. And when the longer talk is finished, it is considered semantic completion point. When there is no such semantic indication that projects the upcoming longer talk, semantic completion points are designated at the end of the proposition, as in : I assumed that he is a good cook. Reactive tokens are considered semantically complete, although they do not have the full structure of a sentence. There are six categories of them : 1. Backchannel : um, uh 2. Reactive expression : great 3. Repetition : He was funny Was he funny? 4. Collaborative finish : A : more like a brunch B : brunch 5. Laughter : hahaha 6. Short statement : That’s wonderful Universitas Sumatera Utara Sociolinguistics also concerns with language use in social interaction. In line with this, examining the speech activities of social groups casts light on the conditions, values, beliefs as well as the social order of the group. TBL can also be examined in terms of speech activities as to find out what are there reflected in the social interaction. In the context of Toba Batak conversation whether instituonally or daily spoken, the success of talking is much depending on the individual’s verbal skill, as this is central epecially in custom adat intraction. As what needs to be a means of solution to the problems emerge in cultural activities is the ability to use the spoken language in social interation. In marhusip wishpering talk, a speaker who is skilled in Toba Batak interaction will start to say to the audience hearer : “ipe nuaeng bere….., porsea do hami di hatani ama ni anu nangkin, alai asa umpos roha nami denggan do paboaonmu manang naung sian roham do naeng manopot boru nami. jala asa tangkas botoon nami laos paboa ma jolo hira ise ma nuaeng lae na tumubuhon hamu, sian huta dia jala anak paipiga ma ho anak ni lae? Simbolon, 1981: 15. The equivalent English would read as the following: now guy, we believe what we heard from the people. but to be more comfortable, please tell us if you really want to marry our daughter. to be precisely, let us know your personal family and social background. The hearer who represents the guy will respond the question in more polite way in order that the speaker would convince the guy to be the only person that will propose their daughter. To be more successful in such an interaction the hearer as one of the participants must understand his social role and the other role, as to fix what he will respond according to his status in participant relations. Universitas Sumatera Utara A description of all factors that are relevant in understanding how particular comunicative even achieves its objectives was given by Hymes 1974 in his SPEAKING formula, in which S refers to setting and scene, P stands for participant, E for Ends, A is an act seqeunce, K is key, I refers to instruments, N is the norms of interactions, and G stands for genre. Setting deals with the palce and time the concrete physical condition in which speech takes places, while scene is the cultural definitions of the occasions. Participants are combinations of speakers and listeners, addressors and addressee, or senders and receivers. End concerns with the expected outcome of exchange as well as with the pesonal goals that particpant seek to accomplish on particular accasions. Act sequence refers to the actual form and content of what is said. Key refers to the tone, manner of spirt in which a particular message is conveyed. Instruments deals with the spesific behavior attached to speaking. Genre refers to types of utterance; poems, provebs, riddles, sermons, etc. The eight factors in speech potentially influence the success of speakers in talk. These factors, especially the cultural ones, are used to see whether they can influence the tructure of Toba Batak conversation, the interactions structure and the linguistc structure, for both conversation in institutional and ordinary setting. In this research, the focus is on the ordinary talk. The cultural factors have to do with ritual constraints. Obviously it is looming from the discussions above there are four important aspects underlying this research. Based on the langage use, conversation analysis would be the most appropriate approach in analyzing the conversation of Toba Batak. Universitas Sumatera Utara One that distinguishes CA from other appoaches that focused language use or function, one of them is speech act, is that CA used naturally occuring data in its analysis. Second, langauage is action, and realized in utterances, it is necessary to scrutinize the action through the turn-taking and adjacency pairs in Toba Batak conversation, so that the interaction among speakers and listeners can be accounted, and the interaction structure of Toba Batak conversation can be explained. Third, based on the language view, it is crucial to examine the lingustic propeties like grammatical, intonation, and semantic completion point in the TB conversation, because these properties can relate language with interaction in the domain of transation relevance place TRP. Fourth, cultural factors in terms of ritual constraints play an important role in social interaction, so influencing the structure of conversation interactionally, especially the adjacency pairs, and in terms of system constraints which are not cultural bound.

1.2 Research Problems