2.1.1 Conversation Analysis
As a matter of fact, Conversation Analysis derived from Ethnomethodology. According to Schiffin 1994:233, Garfinkel’s term “ethnomethodology” was modeled
after terms used in cross-culture analyses of ways of “doing” and “knowing”. Ethnobotany, for example, is concerned with culturally specific systems by which
people “know about” classify, label, etc plants. The term “ethno” seemed to refer to the availability to a member of common-sense knowledge. It is the ordinary
arrangement of a set of located practices. In other words, ethnomethodology concerns with “a member’s knowledge of his ordinary affairs, of his own organized enterprises,
where that knowledge is treated by us as part of the same setting that is also makes orderable. So uncovering what we know is a central concern for ethnomethodology.
For this, knowledge and action are deeply linked and mutually constitutive, which is an important bearing on the study of language.
In the study of talk, ethnomethodology means an insistence on the use of materials collected from naturally occuring occasions of everyday interaction. Eggins
and Slade 1994:25, stated that Conversation Analysis CA focused on conversation because it offers a particulary appropriate and accessible resource for
ethnomethodology enquiry. Sharrock and Anderson In Eggins and Slade, 1994:25 further stated that “Seeing the sense of ordinary activities means being able to see what
people are doing and saying, and therefore one place in which one might begin to see how making sense is done in terms of understanding of everyday talk”. In relation with
this, Sacks, et.al. 1974 proposed a fundamental activity in conversation, that is, turn-
Universitas Sumatera Utara
taking. In conversation, speaker keep taking turns, and in the process of keeping turns, a speaker has to be able to see the point when transfer of role is possible. This is done
by Turn Construction Units TCU’s, units constructed to signal turn transfer. These units are realized in grammatical units considered as the end of turn cannot always
determine who would be the next speaker. For this, Sacks et al. 1974 note that at the end of TCU there are two possibilities of determining the allocation of turns. First, the
current speaker selects the next speaker. Second, if the current speaker does not select the next speaker, the speaker may self-select. Sacks and Schegloff explained a concept
to explain the ordeliness of conversation, that is, adjacency pairs, a main format in which talk is sequenced. Adjacency pairs is a sequence of two utterances which are
adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first part and second part, and typed, so that the first part requires a particular second part. The common adjacency
part is questionanswer sequence. The others are: requestgrant, offeraccepted, afferreject, etc.
2.1.2 Ethnography of Speaking
Kategori