THE INTERRUPTION USED BY THE PARTICIPANTS IN "INI TALK SHOW" ON NET TV.

ABSTRACT
Veronica, Agustin. 2016. The Interruption Used by The Participants in Ini Talk
Show on Net TV. Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters and
Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
The Advisor: M. Thoriqussu’ud, M.Pd.
Key Terms: Conversation, Interruption, Participants, Ini Talk Show.
Talk show is a tools of people communicate to convey the important
information such as successed, or the phenomenon in society. In a talk show, they
using language to start conversation between the host and the guest stars who will
talk about a particular topic. Every human being communicate using different
languages to achieve the purposes. In this case, the language phenomenon often
occurs in a conversation. The language phenomenon often happened in
conversation is interruption.
Based on the background above this research investigates the interruption
used by the participants in Ini Talk Show on Net TV. The objectives of this
reserach are to identify the types and functions of interruption used by the
participants in the talk show. This research used descriptive qualitative as a
method. The form of the data were utterences that used by the participants in two
episodes of Ini Talk Show. The researcher was the primary instrument of this
research. The theories that used to analyzing the data are Ferguson (1977), Murata
(1983), Kennedy and Camden (1983), Han Z. Li (2001), Zimmermen and West

(1975).
The result of the research, the researcher found four types of interruption
used by the participants in the talk show are simple interruption (23), overlap
interruption (70), butting-in interruption (7), and silent interruption (13). There
were 113 data of interruption found in this research, the most type which appeared
(70) times by the participants is overlap interruption, because each participant can
not wait to give his or her opinion toward the topic of the conversation. In this
case, the current speaker does not give the turns before his or her finishing the
utterance but the interrupter still disrupted and talk in same time. Furthermore,
two functions of interruption are found in this talk show are cooperative
interruption consist of agreement (27), assistance (10), and clarification (29),
while intrusive interruption divided into disagreement (3), floor taking (21), topic
change (16), and tangentialization (7). The most function that appeared is
clarification. Clarification appeared (29) times, the participants do interruption not
only to shows the words does not understand but also to empahsizes the important
words that get from the participant messages.

xiii

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

INTISARI
Veronica, Agustin. 2016. The Interruption Used by The Participants in Ini Talk
Show on Net TV. Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters and
Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
The Advisor: M. Thoriqussu’ud, M.Pd.
Key Terms: Conversation, Interruption, Participants, Ini Talk Show.
Talk show adalah sarana orang dalam berkomunikasi untuk
menyampaikan informasi-informasi penting seperti kesuksesan, kejadian-kejadian
dimasyarakat. Dalam talk show, mereka menggunakan bahasa untuk memulai
percakapan antara pemandu acara dan bintang tamu yang akan berbicara tentang
suatu topik tertentu. Setiap manusia berkomunikasi dengan menggunakan
berbagai bahasa untuk mencapai tujuannya. Dalam hal ini, fenomena bahasa
sering terjadi di dalam sebuah percakapan. Fenomena bahasa dalam percakapan
yang sering terjadi adalah interruption.
Berdasarkan latar belakang di atas penelitian ini menyelidiki tentang
gangguan yang digunakan oleh partisipan dalam Ini Talk Show di Net TV.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi tipe dan fungsi interupsi yang
digunakan oleh para partisipan dalam talk show ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan
deskriptif kualitatif sebagai metode. Teori-teori yang digunakan untuk

menganalisis data adalah Ferguson (1977), Murata (1994), Kennedy dan Camden
(1983), Han Z. Li (2001), Zimmermen dan West (1975).
Hasil penelitian tersebut, peneliti menemukan empat jenis interupsi adalah
simple interruption (23), overlap interruption (70), butting-in interruption (7), dan
silent interruption (13). Jenis yang paling banyak terjadi (70) kali oleh peserta
adalah overlap inetrruption, karena setiap partisipan tidak sabar untuk
memberikan pendapatnya terhadap topik pembicaraan. Dalam hal ini, pembicara
yang sedang berbicara tidak memberikan giliran bicaranya sebelum dia
menyelesaikan ucapannya, tapi interrupter menginterupsi dan berbicara dalam
waktu yang sama. Selanjutnya, dua fungsi dari interupsi yang ditemukan di talk
show ini. Funsi interupsi ni adalah cooperative interruption yang terdiri dari
agreement (27), assistance (10), dan clarification (29), sedangkan intrusive
interruption dibagi menjadi disagreement (3), floor taking (21), topic change (16),
dan tangentialization (7). Fungsi dari interusi yang paling banyak muncul adalah
clarification. Clarification muncul (29) kali, partisipan melakukan interupsi tidak
hanya untuk menunjukkan kata-kata yang tidak dipahami tetapi juga untuk
menegaskan kata-kata penting yang didapatkan dari pesan partisipan.

xiv

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INSIDE COVER PAGE............................................................................................. i
INSIDE TITLE PAGE............................................................................................... ii
MOTTO....................................................................................................................... iii
DECLARATION PAGE............................................................................................ iv
DEDICATION PAGE................................................................................................ v
ADVISOR’S APPROVAL PAGE............................................................................ vi
EXAMINER’S APPROVAL PAGE......................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................xiii
INTISARI....................................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1

Background of the Study ............................................................... 1

1.2

Statement of the Problem .............................................................. 8

1.3

Objectives of the Study ................................................................ 9

1.4

Significance of the Study .............................................................. 9

1.5

Scope and Limitation ....................................................................... 10

1.6

Definition of Key Terms ........................................................... 10

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conversation Analysis ....................................................................................... 10
2.2 Interruption ......................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Type of Interruption.........................................................................................15
2.2.1.1......................................................................................................................... S
imple Interruption ........................................................................................ 18
2.2.1.2......................................................................................................................... O
verlap Interruption........................................................................................ 21

x

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

2.2.1.3......................................................................................................................... B
utting-in Interruption ................................................................................... 17
2.2.1.4......................................................................................................................... S
ilent Interruption .......................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Functions of Interruption.................................................................................19
2.2.2.1 Cooperative Interruption ............................................................................. 19
2.2.2.1.1 Agreement ................................................................................................. 20
2.2.2.1.2 Assistance ..................................................................................................21

2.2.2.1.3 Clarification ...............................................................................................21
2.2.2.2 Intrusive Interruption ...................................................................................22
2.2.2.2.1 Disagreement .............................................................................................22
2.2.2.2.2 Floor Taking ..............................................................................................23
2.2.2.2.3...................................................................................................................... T
opic Change ............................................................................................. 24
2.2.2.2.4...................................................................................................................... T
angentialization ....................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Approach ............................................................................................ 26
3.2 Instrument ........................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Data and Data Source .........................................................................................27
3.4 Data Collection ...................................................................................................28
3.5 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................29
CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Finding ................................................................................................................ 35
4.1.1 Type of Interruption ....................................................................................... 37
4.1.1.1 Simple Interruption.....................................................................................37
4.1.1.2 Overlap Interruption ..................................................................................39
4.1.1.3 Butting-in Interruption .............................................................................. 42

4.1.1.4 Silent Interruption ......................................................................................45

xi

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

4.1.2 Function of Interruption ................................................................................. 48
4.1.2.1 Cooperative Interruption ............................................................................. 49
4.1.2.1.1 Agreement ................................................................................................. 49
4.1.2.1.2 Assistance ..................................................................................................52
4.1.2.1.3 Clarification ...............................................................................................54
4.1.2.2 Intrusive Interruption ...................................................................................56
4.1.2.2.1 Disagreement ............................................................................................ 57
4.1.2.2.2 Floor Taking ..............................................................................................58
4.1.2.2.3 Topic Change ............................................................................................ 61
4.1.2.2.4 Tangentialization ...................................................................................... 63
4.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................72
5.2 Suggestion......................................................................................................... 73

REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... 78

xii

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This part introduces the present study. This part of research describes
background of study, problem of Study, objective of Study, significance of study,
scope and limitation of study, definition of key terms.
1.1

Background of Study
Recently, television is a part of life’s process which leads human being to

get the information and entertainment without going to wherever. There are many
kinds of Indonesian television programs, for instance; talk show, news, movie,
music, and others. Through the programs, people can get the some advantages

include get entertainment and education from watching the programs. One of the
popular programs is talk show that present by resource person as the guest who
speak about something which develop insight to the audience. The people can use
the language for some functions that depends on ourself to use language in
politness or impoliteness to interact with each other. If people watch talk show,
they can see the conversation of their daily life, it is about language phenomenon.
Talk show is a universally influential media phenomenon which highly
confrontational discursive genre, as well as a politically and morally controversial
form of entertainment (llie, 2006:489). It means that talk show is a genre
television or radio programs consist of group conversation or discussion to
explain about the news topic in society, and guide by host or co-host. Talk show
involves a conversation between two or more speaker to share and convey
information that many people want to know about it. The language that they use

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

2

to communicate with other not always smoothly, cooperatively, and effortlessly.
By language, people has different manners to communicate each other with the

purpose.
In Indonesian TV programs, there are many programs talk show for
instance; Hitam Putih, Ini Talk Show, Bukan Empat Mata, Mata Najwa, Kick
Andy, Just Alvin, Ada-ada Aja, Rumpi No Secret talk show, and others. Each talk
show program shows the uniques of the program which gives something different
with other, to interest the audience watching the talk show. From many kinds of
Indonesia talk show programs, the researcher more interest in Ini Talk Show
because the language that they use to convey information is very unique. Through
the participants conversation, we can see language phenomenon happens during
Ini Talk Show directly. One of the phenomenon often happen is interruption, they
uses some jokes to interrupt the speaker, and sometimes also giving the opinion
or idea.
Ini Talk Show is one of the most popular Indonesian talk show. The talk
show television that aired on Net Mediatama, which gives many interest programs.
Ini Talk Show is an comedy talk show which is talk about phenomenon that has
been discussed in society, particulary in social media. Ini Talk Show presents a
talk show that simple impressions and packed with a relax atmosphere but very
entertaining, and has its own appeal with the presence of the event guide. This talk
show is guided by comedians host and co-host and some supernumerary make the
program more interesting. Ini Talk show hosted by Sule (Entis Sutisna), he is a
indonesia comedian, singer and actor in movie. Sule is good comedian, the tallent

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

3

to give jokes is very creative and inspirative. Then, Andre (Andre Taulay) as cohost, he is a indonesia comedian, singer, and actor also, but he started the carier
becomes singer in group band. Besides,

the guests who are invited in this

program are generally the artist, and the material brought within the scope of the
entertianment and matters of public concern in social media.
In the present day, people use language to communicate in daily life. By
doing conversation, the people communication each other to some purposes
include exchanges about news information, exchange each ideas, question-answer,
and others. To convey the information in completely and comfortably, the
speakers should understand the sign of turn taking very well. Harwood (2006)
states that in authentic conversation, interruptions and overlaps are part of
negotiation of turn (cited in Maulidiah, I., et al, 2014:590). The system of turn
taking in conversation, when the speaker talk and the other speaker listen. If the
speaker cannot manage the speak well, so interruption must happen in the
conversation as a violation.
In the field linguistics, the study about how people can manage the spoken
discourse is conversation analysis. Conversation analysis studies of these practices
describe how people take turns at talk in ordinary conversation and negotiated
overlaps and interruptions (Heritage, p.222). The categorization of interruption in
conversation that can be analyzed used conversation analysis. Conversation
analysis share the view that everyday talk is a talk phenomenon that is worthy of
analysis in it is own right (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998:5).

It means that

conversation analysis investigated the phenomenon of conversation in daily life.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

4

Conversation analysis is an appropriate for studying interruption because
interruption happens in natural conversation.
Actually, interruption often happens in every human being in the daily
conversation. Interruption is an activity that happens when the first speaker begin
to talk while the second speaker cuts in the middle word or sentence when the first
speaker not finished the talk. Leman, P. J., et al (2010) states that interruption
disrupts turn taking in conversation. However, sometimes people are unconcious
when they produce interruption in conversation. It is because they enjoy and
interested with the topic that speaker talk, it occur because they can not wait the
turn of the talk. Nevertheless, the people by doing interruption to cut the rival of
speak to take the floor without give opportunity to the rival for continue the speak.
It is very violate the speaker because the speaker is still in the turn of the speak.
According to Tannen (1991:189), Interruption is an intrusion, a trampling on
someone else’s right to the floor, an attempt to dominate. However, someone used
interruption to dominate and take the floor the current speaker talk. From this
case, it is very important to know for what the speaker and listener doing
interruption. At the times, it is necessary they do interruption in conversation for
some functions to get communication goals.
The researcher conducted some previous research that related to the topic.
The first, the research was done by Pitaramita (2009). The research conducted
with the title The Purpose of Interruptions Produce by Petra Christiani
University’s Male and Female Students’ Group Interaction. Her research found
out that the females’ group interactions applied supportive interruption, she

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

5

assumsed that females are cooperative conversationalist. Meanwhile, the males
group interactions applied non-supportive interruption, and her assumsed that
males are competitive conversationalist.
Second, the research was done by Lawe (2011). She conducted the
research to investigated the reason of interruptions used by male and female
participants in a Chatholic Youth meeting, and compare about the differences
and/or similarities the reason of interruption. Her research found five reasons of
interruptions by wardhaugh used both the speakers. Completing is the mostfrequent reason of interruption used both male and female participants. In the
finding of the research, she concluded that the gender may influence the use of
interruption in a meeting. Then, interruption is also used to establish and develop
the conversation.
The similarity between Lawe and Pitaramita’s research, these researches
study about male and female used interruption. The different between these
researches are about the context. Lawe’s research was about comparing the reason
of interruption used by male participant and female participant in a mixed-sex
meeting, while Paramita’s resarch focusses on use the purposes and frequencies of
interruption by male and female students interactions. Different with this research
focusses on determining interruption that used by the participants in a talk show.
In those previous study above taken data analysis from a meeting in organization.
So this research different with those previous research above.
Third, the study of interruption was done by Olva Lita Uli Tadoe in 2012
focused on the differences and similarities of the reason of interruption in

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

6

transactional and interactional topic. She were taken the data from

the

conversations of 20 students for each department in an interview. Her finding
concluded that are topic and background discipline may influence the use of
interruptions by both civil engineering and communication science department
students. Besides, the interruption use both the students for trying to complete
others saying type in transactional topic may be caused they want to show their
agreement, while correcting others words as the most-frequently used type in
interactional topic may be caused they want to show their disagreement. So
interruption does not necessarily mean to cut and end a conversation, but to
establish and develop the conversation.
Fourth, the research about interruption was done by Yessica Hartono
(2013). Her research focussed on Interruption and Overlaps occuring in An
Indonesian Television Talk Show Indonesia Lawyer Club – Tv One. In the
research, she found that there were nine reasons on iterruption done by the host
and the panelist. The number of overlaps and interruption done by the host is
higher than the guest/penelist. Besides, from the findings, she found that the most
frequently of reasons of interruptions produced by the host is breaking up of 7
(29.16%), meanwhile the most frequently of reasons of interruptions produced by
the panelists is showing annoyance of 5 (21.7%). For all of the reason, she
conclude that interruptions and overlaps in this talk show were not violation.
From the previous research above, most of the researcher conducted the
research about comparing the reason, frequency and gender of the use of
interruption in a meeting of the university. In 2013, the study was conducted by

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

7

Hartono that related to this present research. The similarities between the present
research with Hartono’s research, both of the research uses Indonesia talk show as
the object of the research. Besides, many differences between the present research
with Hartono’s research. Firstly, Hartono’s research observed about compare the
use of overlaps and interruption in Indonesia Lawyer Club Talk Show on TV One,
but in present research focusses on the use of interruption in Ini Tlak Show on
NET TV. Secondly, Hartono’s research use theory from Wardhaudh (1985) to
classification of interruption, meanwhile, the present research use theory from
Murata (1994), Kennedy and Camden (1983) to classification functions of
interruption. Furthermore, use Ferguson (1977) theory to classification the types
of interruption. After learn from the previous research, this present research is to
fill the research gaps by investigating the types and functions of interruption that
used by the participants in Ini Talk Show on NET TV.
In this research, the researcher chooses interruption to analyzed the data
because the interruption often happens in daily conversation. In conversation,
sometimes people’s enjoy with the talk but do not realize when they produce
interruption. However, when the speaker start to talk and interrupt the other, they
are do not realize that what they do included violated or not. The researcher take
the topic about interruption because the interruption have purpose in some way,
for intance; for debate in politic discussion, for the speaker right of the floor in
television or radio talk show, and other. In conversation, we should know how we
do interruption well to determined the speaker as a violation. Tannen (1991:190)

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

8

explain that to determine whether a speaker is violating another speaker rights,
you have know a lot about both speakers and the situation.
The researcher chooses Ini Talk Show as the object of the research, firstly,
it is one of the most popular talk show in Indonesia shows the uniques
performance, because sometimes the participants sing a songs which the lyric
from the name of Indonesian traditional food that guided by host. Secondly, the
use of interruption often happens in every conversation by the participants. In
addition, the use of interruption cause when the other speaker may can not wait
the turn of the talk, then the other speaker wants to right’s the word or sentences
the speaker talk. Sometimes, the host uses interruption to show the respond to the
guests, on the contrary.
So, the researcher is interested in analyzing the participants that used
interruption in talk show, because the researcher found that interruption often
occur by the participants of the talk show. So, this research very important to
analyzing because the finding of the research different from the previous research.
So, this research conducted with the title The Interruption used by the participants
in Ini Talk Show on Net TV.
1.2

Problems of Study
Based on the background of the problem above, the researcher

conducted to answer the following questions:
1.

What are the types of interruption is used by participants in Ini Talk Show
on Net TV?

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

9

2.

What are the function of interruption is used by the partipants in Ini Talk
Show on Net TV?

1.3

Objectives of Study
Based on the problem of study, the researcher formulate objectives of

this study are:
1.

To describe the types of interruption used by participants in Ini Talk Show
on Net TV.

2.

To explain the function of interruption used by participants in Ini Talk
Show on Net TV.

1.4

Significance of Study
The significance of the study will be distinguished into two benefits:

1.

Theoritical benefit
The researcher hopes that the research generally to provide a deeper

understanding of conversation analysis. particularly, the interruption used by the
participants in Ini Talk Show on Net TV. Besides, this research expected to
provide knowledge of interruption in the conversation on talk show. On the other
words, this research can be references for other researchers who are interested to
make research about interruption more depth.
2.

Practical benefit
The researcher hopes, this research increases conciousnesss about the

use of interruption in daily conversation. Besides, this research to give the readers
to understand how the functions of interruption is used in particular situation

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

10

become more politeness in conversation. It will help the readears can achieve the
specific aim in interruptions use.
1.5

Scope and Limitation of Study
The scope of this research is conversation analysis. This research focuses

on interruption that found in the dialogues used by the participants in Ini Talk
Show on Net TV. The researcher limits the research on analyzing interruption
used by the participants in Ini Talk Show on Net TV, which consists of two
episodes (16 Oktober and 27 November 2015). The researcher chooses these
episodes, because the guests in these episodes are very interesting; the first, in 16
October 2015, the main guest is an International artist from Indonesia talk about
her talent. Second, in 27 November 2015, the main guest is the wife of the Major
of Bandung talk about the daily life ofe the Major family. The researcher found
interruption uttered by the participants in these episodes. Afterwards, the
researcher want to know what the types and the functions of interruption used by
the participants in Ini Talk Show on Net TV. Here, the participants means that all
of the actors who participate have a role in the talk show.
1.6

Definition of Key Terms
Interruption is when the first speaker process to finishing her or his

turn, at that same time another speaker cuts the first speaker speak to gaining a
turn for another speaker self. (Zimmerman and West, 1975:195)
The participants is all of the participants in the talk show, included
host, co-host, guests, and the other actors who participate in the talk show.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

11

Ini Talk show is a comedian talk show present by two or more guest
from different background to give information about news phenomenon from his
or herself and the matter’s of the public concern in social media. an inspiration to
the audience with the comedians host and co-host. This program guide by Sule as
a host and Andre as co-host. This talk show created with the relax situation, and
the participants do not to speak that dropped someone (bully), then many creative
jokes that uttered by the participants like from words, songs, and other.

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This parts will be discusses about the theory that connected with
Interruption. To analyze the data, there are some theories will be used by the
researcher. the researcher used theory from Ferguson (1977), Murata (1994),
Kennedy and Camden (1983), Han Z. Li (2001) to help analysis the data. Then,
supported some theories from Zimmerman and West (1975), Tannen (1990), and
wardhaugh (1985) to give the definition of interruption. Those theories will help
the researcher to answer the research problem.
2.1

Conversation Analysis
Conversation is an interaction between two or more speakers to

communicate each other for change information. Paltridge (2007:107) states that
conversation is the main way in which people come together, exchange
information, negotiate and maintain social relation. Conversation is the way in
which people socialize, develop, and sustain their relationship with each other
(Liddicoat, 2007). According to wardhaugh (1985:3), conversation is an activity
which makes use of many devices in order to reduce the risk to participants. The
participants of spoken interaction can be included news interview, doctor-patient
consultant, and classrooms interaction.
Conversation divided into three kinds: face-to-face exchanges, nonface-to-face-exchanges, and broadcast materials (Pridham, 2001:2). Face-to-face
exchanges means that the participants meet up in same place and same time to do

12
digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

direct conversation. They are talking about same context with face each other, for
examples; conversation in clasroom, and family, which included the speaker and
the listener. whereas, non-face-to-face exchanges means that the participants can
not direct face each other to do conversation because they are not in same place,
for example; in telephone conversation. Furthermore, broadcast material means
that the communication uses broadcast as mediator, they are can be face-to-face
and non-face-to-face conversation, for example; talk show in television or radio.
According to Paltridge (2007:), conversation analysis comes from the
field of sociolgy, thus, it is take a less of a “linguistic” view of spoken discourse
than some other forms of discourse analysis. The field of spoken discourse such as
adjency pairs, preference organization, turn-taking, interruption, feedback, repair,
conversational openings and closings, discourse markers and responses tokens
(Paltridge 2006, in Nugroho 2014:11). Conversation analysis has examined
aspects of Conversation analysis examined how they are can be organize and
develops spoken discourse in conversation.
Conversation analysis is the study of talk in conversation, it means that
how people manage the conversation interactions to organize their speaks.
Accoding to Sack (cited in Liddicoat, 2007), conversation is characterized by a
view of talk as activity through the speaker accomplish thing in interaction.
2.1.1

Interruption
Interruption is the phenomenon that happens in someone

conversation. It means that when the first speaker talk, the next speaker cuts the
first speaker talk into the speaker’s ongoing the utterance. Interruption is an

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

intrusion, a trampling on someone else’s right to the floor, an attempt to dominate
(Tannen 1990:189).
According to wardhaugh (1985:150), interruption is a violation of
another’s territory or right. It means that when someone interrupt their activity to
ask for help of strangers. For example, when a person knocks the door and says
“excuse me” it belongs to violating someone’s territory.
According to Zimmerman and West (cited in Tanen 1991:190),
ineterruption is a violation in conversation in wich the second speaker begins to
speak while the first was in the middle of word or change.

It means that

interruption happen when the second speaker cuts the first speaker in the middle
word without give chance first speaker to finished the word. Here, the example of
interruption happens in conversation that given by Zimmerman and West. The
following example:
Female : so uh you really can’t bitch when you’ve got all those on
the same day (4.2) bu I uh asked my physics professor if I
couldn’t chan ge that
Male

:

Don’t touch
that

(1.2)
Female : what?
(pause)
Male

: I’ve got everything jus’how I want it in that notebook,
you’ll screw it up leafin’ through it like that.

From the example above that the interruptin happens when the
second speaker interrupt the first speaker talk in the middle of word. The second

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

speaker give not chance to the first speaker to finished the utterance. The second
speaker interrupt the the first speaker because he wants to remind her about
something. It is not a violation because he do interruption to certain purpose.
Tannen (1991:190) states that interruption is inescapably a matter of interpretation
regarding someone right and obligation.
Sack et al. (1974) in zimmerman and west (1975:123) argue that
interruption are violation of a current speaker’s right to complete a turn, or more
precisely, to reach a possible transition place in a unity-type’s progression. It
means that interruption use to help the current speaker for completing the
utterance when he or she can not produce the words wants to say, and can reach to
develop the topic of the conversation. Covelli and Murray (1980) states that
interruption themselves are typically further subdivided into positive or negative
(cited in Leman, P.J., et al, 2010).
2.1.1.1

The Types of Interruption
This research, the researcher want to identify the types of

interruption. generally, to analyze the type of interruption some researchers used
theory from Ferguson (1977), he suggest four types of interruption; simple
interruption, overlap interruption, butting-in interruption, and silent interruption
(as cited in Beattie, 1982:101-103).
2.1.1.1.1

Simple Interruption
Accordinng to Ferguson (1977), simple interruption means

exchange of turns, simultaneous present, first speaker’s turn appears incomplete.
It means that silent interruption occur the second speaker takes the floor when the

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

current speaker still finishing the utterance. The second speaker succesed to
interrupt the first speaker talk, so the first speaker stop the talk. However, the first
speaker listens the second speaker’s talk until finishing the utterance. Then, the
first speaker can takes the floor back. The following example by Zimmerman and
West (1975:114):
A1: I know what you thought I know you
A2:

Ya still see
he anymore?

The example of conversation above that the second
speaker (A2) interrupt first speaker (A1). The simple interruption shows when the
first speaker can not completing his or her utterance and stop the speak while the
second speaker (A2) begin talk. The second speaker (A2) who take the floor can
speak completely.
2.1.1.1.2

Overlap Interruption
Accoding to Ferguson (1977), overlap interruption is

exchange of turns, simultaneous speech present, first speaker’s turn reaches
completion. It means that overlap interruption occur when the first speaker and
the second speaker talk in same a time. The current speaker still talk, but the
second speaker try to takes the floor. Moreover, the second speaker still interrupt
the first speaker even though the first speaker does not stop the talk until finishing
the utterance. After the topic of the first talk finish, the second speaker still takes
the floor, so there is no intermission in simultaneous speech. The following
example by Beattie (1982:102):

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

LG: ... I wonder whether people feel that this is because
the Labour Party has run out of some steam. It
hasn’t many new ideas.
I think i-, I think it’s because they are,

JC:

ah answer to what are, gross over claims by the
Consevative Party,...
From the example above shows overlap interruption occur
becaouse there is simultaneous speech between the first speaker (LG) and second
speaker (JC). The second speaker (JC) interrupt the first speaker (LG) when the
second speaker (JC) wants to talk about his opinion about the topic that they are
speak. However, the first speaker (LG) can finished the utterance into the last
word before the turn taking occure in his turn speak. JC can speak the opinion is
completely because LG does not try to take the floor again. Moreover, the second
speaker (JC) repeat two word which is same word, it is to make sure that the first
speaker (LG) hears his the beginning word who is utterance.
2.1.1.1.3

Butting-in Interruptin
According to Ferguson (1977), butting-in interruption

is no exchange of turns, simultaneous speech present. It means that butting-in
interruption occur when the second speaker wants to takes the floor and intend to
stop the first speaker talk, because the first speaker ignore the second speaker
interruption and keeps talking until finishing the utterance. This type still uses
simultaneous speech, but different with other which is always succesed to
interruption. The following example by Beattie (1982):

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

MT: ...if you’ve got the money in your pocket you can
choose wether you spend it on things which attract
Value Added Tax or not.
DT: You sMT:

And the main necessities don’t

DT:

You say a little
on Value Added Tax.

The conversation above shows the first speaker (MT)
inetrrupt the second speaker (DT). The first speaker (MT) who wants to take the
floor, but can not speak his opinion completly because the second speaker (DT)
successed to takes the floor again. Afterwards, (DT) continue his speak until
finished the utterance and seem there is no disruption from other speaker. So, the
first speaker (S2) unsuccessesful to take the floor.
2.1.1.1.4

Silent Interruption
According to Ferguson (1977), silent interruption is exhange

of turns, no simultaneous speech, first speaker’s utterance appears incomplete. It
means that in silent interruption, there is no simultaneous speech because the
current speaker pauses or stop the talk before the secon speaker interrupt. When
the current speaker pauses before completing the utterance, the second speaker
takes the floor. Actually, the first speaker pauses the talk because some
phenomenon such as; forget the word that the speaker wants to say, the speaker
wants to pauses for pull of breath and other but the second speaker interrupt
instead. The following example below:

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

S1: So, that time Kang Emil until open (pause)
S2:

Break fasting.

The conversation example above shows ther is no
simultaneous speech in conversation. The first speaker (S1) pauses the speak
when she can not completly the utterance. Afterwards, the second speaker (S2)
take the floor to speak her response toward S1 for help completing the word.
2.1.1.2

The Function of Interruption
The function of interruption divided into two categories of

interruption such as cooperative interruption and intrusive interruption.
2.1.1.2.1

Cooperative Interruption
According to Murata (1994), cooperative interruptions

intended to help the speaker by coordinating on the process and/or content of the
ongoing conversation. It means that the interrupter pay attention and listen the
speaker talk. With giving the feedback, when the speaker can not finishing the
uterrance, the interrupter shows the interesting to the topic that the speaker brings.
For instance, when the politicals discussion in the room, sometimes they are do
interruption to show the responds or opinion that they are agree or disagree with
the topic discussion. Murata does not make subcategories for cooperative
interruption. In this research, the researcher used theory from Kennedy and
Camden 1983 to represent two types: agreement and assistance. For the last type
is clarification, the researcher used theory from Han. Z. Li 2001 (in Han. Z.
Li.,2001:269).

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

1)

Agreement
According to Kennedy and Camden (1983), the interrupter

understanding and supporting what the first speaker talk. The interrupter shows
agreement by doing interruption, sometimes the interrupter explaning the idea
related to the topic. The following example by Janice (cited in Tannen, 1991):
P: The part I didn’t like was putting everybody’s snow pants and
boots and
M:

Oh yeah, that was the worst part.

The example above presents agreement interruption happen in the
conversation. It happens when the second speaker (M) interrupt the first speaker
(P) while tries to finishing the utterance. The second speaker (M) cuts the first
speaker (P) in the middle sentence after she saying “boots”, the she wants to
continue and finishing the utterance with say “and”, but the second speaker (M)
success takes the floor to showing the agreement about the first speaker (P) talk.
Then, the second speaker give opinion to support her agreement.
2)

Assistance
Based on Han. Z Li (2001:269) describe that the interrupter

perceives that the speaker needs help. It means that when the first speaker can not
continue the speak because of forget the word that wants to say, so the interrupter
takes the floor to help the first speaker completing the utterance. The interrupter
provides the current speaker with a word, phrase, sentence, or idea. The following
example cited in Tannen (1991:193):
D: It’s like the famouse to- (pause)

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

S:

Tongue twister.

The example above shows assistance interruption because the
current speaker stop the utterance and can not finishing it. Then, the interrupter
interrupt the current speaker to help his or her find the words that wants to say.
The interrupter takes the floor by saying “tongue twister”to help completing the
current speaker utterance. So, the interrupter successed to interrupt the current
speaker utterance but the functions still in positive case.
3)

Clarification
According to Kennedy & Camden (1983), this type of interruption

is usually initiated by the listener, with the intention to understand the message
being sent by the speaker. It means that when the first speaker speak while the
second speaker cut in the middle of word to get understand about the word that
speaker said. The following example as cited in Tannen (1991):
S: ... We had a TV, but we didn’t watch it all the time. We were
very young. I was four when my parents got a TV.
D:

You were
four?

The conversation above shows clarification interruption. The
interrupter interrupt the current speaker because wants to clarify the current
speaker statement about his or her age when the parrents got a TV. Then, the
interrupter takes the floor to clarify with reapedly the current speaker utternce, by
saying “you were four?”. It intends to emphasize that the current speaker does not

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

forget about the age when he or she wathcing TV firstly. However, it is include
successful interruption in positive case.
2.1.1.2.2

Intrussive Interruption
Intrussive interruption is intrusive interruptions pose threats

to the current speaker’s territory by disrupting the process and content of the
ongoing conversation by Murata 1994 (cited in Han. Z. Li 2001:269). Interussive
interruption divided into four kinds, but three types by Murata: disagreement,
floor taking, and topic change. Whilst, the last type: tangentialization by Kennedy
and Camden 1993.
1)

Disagreement
Murata 1994 (in Han. Z. Li 2001:269) states that disagreement

happens when the interlocutor in the role of the listener disagrees with what the
current speaker is saying and wants to voice his or her opinion immediately,
disagreement interruption occurs. It means that interruption happens when the
first speaker speak while the second speaker cuts what he or she utterance because
to shows disagreement with the first speaker utterance and wants to give opinion
or idea. The following example as cited in Tannen (1994):
S1: ‘Cause somebody tells you? Or yor figure it out.
S2:

No. Oh..

You you talking about me, or a deaf person.
The conversation above shows agreement interruption. the
interrupter (S2) interrupt the current speaker (S1) to shows disagreement toward

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id

the current speaker (S1) conveys. However, the interrupter takes the floor to
conveys different opinion toward the topic of conversation.
2)

Floor taking
According to Murata 1994 (in Han. Z. Li 2001:269),