TURN TAKING IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION AT POST
GRADUATE PROGRAM UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MAKASSAR
Oleh:Muhammad Yunus,
Fakultas Sastra Universitas Muslim Indonesia
[email protected]
Department of English, ABA, Universitas Muslim Indonesia,
Jl. Urip Sumoharjo KM. 05 Makassar 90231, South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
ABSTRACT
The aims of this study are to discuss turn-taking, from the perspective
of interaction talk between the speaker and the next speaker and to
find what types and functions of turn taking used in a classroom
interaction. The method used was descriptive qualitative in which the
data were the utterances containing the types of turn-taking and it
functions, that is, interruption and overlap, which were uttered by
lecturer and the students. The results showed that the reasons of
interruption are clarification, completion and showing annoyance
while the reason of overlap is only completion. The reasons of
interruption occurred the most frequently in the classroom interaction
were completion and showing annoyance and the reason of overlap
occurred the most frequently in the classroom interaction was
completion. The function of interruption are responsive, informative,
affective, argumentative, and reproductional while the function of
overlap are reproductional and affective. The function of interruption
occurred the most frequently in the classroom interaction were
informative and the function of overlap occurred are variatived are
reproductional and affective.
Key words: Turn taking, classroom interaction
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In conversation analysis, one of the number of features observed is “Turntaking”. This is a basic form of organization for conversation. Turn-taking refers
to the exchange between the role of speakers and hearers during the process of the
conversation. In this process, only one participant is speaking. The right to speak
is changed between two participants which can keep the turn to speak by pausing
or prolonging discourse in the middle or in the end of the sentence.
Jaefferson (1974) revealed the turn-taking organization underlying
ordinary first language (L1) conversation, and laid the foundation for future
conversation analysis studies. According to the authors, when participants find
themselves talking “more that one at a time” (i.e., overlap), they are likely to stop
before finishing. The occurrence of overlaps is not uncommon but the majority on
instances of overlap are terminal overlap (Jefferson, 1984a), in which a next
29
speaker starts up the talk just as the final sound(s) of a possibly complete
utterance are being produced. Furthermore, as in Sacks et al. (1974), there are two
ways that turns get distributed: (a) current speaker selects next; or (b) selfselection; and this turn distribution system is ordered: (b) only operates when (a)
has not operated. The authors argue that other types of speech exchange systems
(i.e., debates, meetings, ceremonies, press conferences, seminars, therapy
sessions, interviews, trials, etc.) are different in how turns are allocated among
speakers.
Turn taking is somehow put into practice whether it is in a teacher fronted
or student centered class,. Perhaps, the difference may lie in the amount of turn
that is given and taken, and the kind of turn that is made. For example, in the
teacher oriented interaction, as Kramsch (1987:22) says, the teacher selects the
next speaker and automatically selects him or herself for the succeeding turn.
There is not much motivation for students to listen to one another, and the only
motivation to listen to the teacher is the fear of being caught short on an answer
(Ibid). Thus, we might say that the turn is usually distributed from the teacher to
the student and back to the teacher. However, in student centered class, there is a
possibility that there could be a student – student turn in addition.
Van Lier (1988: 94) suggests that interaction in the classroom, in
particular, is the matter of who speaks and when that is governed by regularities of
some kind, whether we call them rules, regulations, routines, or conversation. He
also adds that this randomness is probably characteristics of all interaction
anywhere but at times there appear to be more constraints at other times. This
could mean that the way interaction appears could affect students‟ participation.
As scholars suggest, interaction in the classroom promotes the learners‟ ability to
use the second or foreign language to express their ideas as it provides the
students with the opportunities to interact with each other (Allwright, 1984; Ellis,
1988; Van Lier, 1988).
Taking a close look at the situation of the students, therefore, turn taking
in the classroom interaction is very important to investigate about the types and
functions of turn taking. So the aims of this study are to discuss turn-taking, from
the perspective of interaction talk between the speaker and the next speaker and to
find what types and functions of turn taking used in a classroom interaction.
Literature Review
Discourse in Classroom Interaction
Many researchers focused their attention on the interactions that occur in a
classroom setting because a significant part of second language learning takes
place in such an environment. Parallel to such research in the field of SLA, in the
past decade, a similar trend has developed in classroom-oriented research by
subject area specialists Petkova (2009). Furthermore, Fasulo & Pontecorvo, 1999
in Maroni et.al. (ibid) argue that in most didactic sequence, the teacher starts with
a question, that can be addressed to a particular child or to anyone who is willing
to respond; a student responds and the teacher takes turn again, making an
evaluation of the student‟ s participation and/or allocating the next turn. This
relatively regular sequence in all classroom interactions affects the turn-taking
30
strategies, pause and silence values and conversational pace of this particular
context. Then, Van Lier (1988: 9-10) points out that some instances of classroom
interaction occur because they have been planned to occur that way, others
because circumstances at the moment demand action or reaction. Often, the
teacher‟s actions are a result of prior planning, and the learners may be aware or
unaware of the nature of the plan. Planned discourse can be very different from
unplanned discourse and discourse that is planned by one but not the other
participant(s) results in asymmetry.
As it can be noted from van Lier‟s view, most of the time what goes on in
the classroom appear to be the way it is planned. However, it also tells us that it
could also be spontaneous, without any prior planning, perhaps; this
characteristics of classroom discourse may make it a bit similar to natural
conversation, out side the classroom. Naturally, conversation outside the
classroom usually occurs because a certain circumstance requires „action‟ or
„reaction‟. Thus, it may be possible to say that natural conversation takes place
without prior planning.
Perhaps, one problem worth considering in classroom discourse could be
what van Lier has said in his final statement of the above quotation, “… discourse
that is planned by one but not the other participant(s) results in asymmetry.” In
classroom interaction, the teacher may expect a certain patter due to a planned
discourse and if the students do not meet the expectation of the teacher or even do
not know the routines, it might be possible that the discourse could be distorted.
On the other hand, Chaudron (1998) as quoted in Berhanemskel (2008) says,
“discourse analysis has contributed to a growth in awareness of the internal formal
structure and functional purpose of the verbal classroom interaction.”
Interaction and Language Development in Second Language
Second language development can be viewed from two aspects. One is, the
formal classroom where there will be a model teacher and the other, the outside
world where there will not be formal instruction. Most often, it is argued that
formal instruction or the classroom cannot be relied on to provide ample
opportunity for successful L2 development. However, it is possible to consider the
formal classroom as supplemental, complementary, facilitating and consolidating.
In fact, some argue that, as van Lier (1988:20) states, “if the classroom provides
(i.e. mirrors) the conditions that make language development possible in the
outside world, it can be successful.” Therefore, it can be said that the kind of
interaction that takes place in L2 classroom, plays a great role in the development
of second language.
It is also possible to say that for an interaction to take place in the
classroom the lesson must not be dominated by the teacher or it should not be a
one – way channel. As Rivers (1987:9) says, “Interaction can be two – way, three
– way or four – way, but never one way”. Therefore, if we talk about language
development through interaction, the teacher and the students should get involved
in it jointly. In other words, interaction has to be handled by every participant, not
just by the teacher; because interaction is not something that one do to people but
something people do together (Allwright and Bailey, 1991:19) in Berhanemskel
(2008). In order for a successful interaction to take place in the classroom,
Allwright and Bailey (1991) suggest that everybody has to manage at least five
31
different things: 1). who gets to speak?, 2). what do they talk about?, 3). what
does each participant do with the various opportunities to speak?, 4). what sort of
atmosphere is created?, and 5) what accent, dialect, or language is used? (ibid)
Perhaps, one important thing we have to consider in addition to the above
five points of management of interaction, is that the management of learning
which means what the students have to do with all the management of interaction
so that they can learn the language which is basically what we want from our
students. This is because whatever we do in the classroom is for learning to take
place. We manage interaction
in the classroom for the sake of giving the students the best possible opportunities
for learning the language.
Conversation Analysis
In simple terms, as Yule (1996:143) describes it, “English conversation is an
activity where for the most part, two or more people take turns at speaking”. Of
course, the name also indicates that it can happen in spoken form and since
speakers have to take turns, more than one person must get involved.
Conversation should not be seen as the product of two „speaker-hearers‟ who
attempt to exchange information or convey messages to each other. Have (2000:
3-4)) state that „Conversation‟ can mean that people are talking with each other,
just for the purpose of talking, as a form of „sociability‟, or it can be used to
indicate any activity of interactive talk, independent of its purpose.
Moreover, Conversation Analysis (CA) deals with real data of verbal
communication and from such studies that one can identify a number of
significant features of conversation that may be needed for teaching
conversational skills (Cunningsworth, 1995) in Haven (2000). Overall, then, CA
is the study of “recorded, naturally occurring talk – in – interaction” to use words.
From the above view, we might say that, CA goes more beyond just a talk; it is
about talk – in – interaction. CA strives for uncovering not just the exterior
organization of talk but how the participants display for one another their
understanding of what is going on.
According to the above view, CA does not concern itself in disorganized
and faulty appearance of linguistic competence. This is one reason why CA
analysts particularly concern themselves with the use of language to negotiate
role-relationships, peer-solidarity, and the exchange of turns in conversation, the
saving of face of both speaker and hearer (Brown and Yule, 1983:3). Thus, CA
emphasizes that analysis should be based entirely on closely transcribed examples
of actual talk recorded in naturally occurring settings, extracts from which are
made available as part of published research.
Turn Taking in Conversation
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) work was the first on the issue of
turn taking and has served as a foundational study for many researchers interested
in turn taking and conversation analysis. In their study, the authors outline a
model for describing how speakers manage turn taking in „mundane
conversation‟; the term „mundane‟ used in its technical sense to describe a
particular form of talk in which what people say, how they say it and the length of
32
the turn in which they say it – in other words, turn form, turn content and turn
length – are free to vary.
Hutchby and Wooffitt (2002:47), citing Sacks et. al (1974) note three basic
facts about conversation: turn taking occurs, one speaker tends to talk at a time,
and turns are taken with as little gap or overlap between them as possible. Of
course we might argue that there could be more than one person talking at the
same time and that there could be more than little overlap during a conversation.
As van Lier (1988:97) says, in general conversation turn taking is
governed by „competition‟ and „initiative‟; participants look for opportunities to
take the floor and try to maintain it even if there is another person who wants to
hold the floor as the current speaker does. And because of this, as long as the
current speaker holds the floor and does not want to let go of the opportunity,
obviously, the chance of the hearer‟s turn will be minimized. In such cases, the
hearers look for possible end points as a chance to get their turn, even if they
know that the present turn may take a longer time (Ibid).
Because conversations need to be organized, there are rules or principles
for establishing who talks and then who talks next. This process is called turntaking. There are two guiding principles in conversations: 1) turn taking occurs, 2)
only one person should talk at a time, and 2) turns are taken with as little gap or
overlap between them as possible. Of course we might argue that there could be
more than one person talking at the same time and that there could be more than
little overlap during a conversation.
The transition between one speaker and the next must be as smooth as
possible and without a break. We have different ways of indicating that a turn will
be changed: Formal methods: for example, selecting the next speaker by name or
raising a hand; adjacency pairs: for instance, a question requires an answer;
intonation: for instance, a drop in pitch or in loudness; gesture: for instance, a
change in sitting position or an expression of inquiry; and the most important
device for indicating turn-taking is through a change in gaze direction.
The instruction that some of us were given at school, "Look at me when
you speak to me", is unsoundly based. In normal English conversations, a speaker
does not look steadily at the listener but rather may give occasional quick glances.
Some people find it impossible to carry on a conversation with someone who is
reading the newspaper. We need to be able to see where someone's eyes are
directed to know whether we are being listened to.
Generally speaking, any conversation is somehow governed by certain
procedures. The procedures as van Lier (1988:96), says may be predetermined in
form of strict rules, or they may evolve as norms or routines in the interaction
itself. As he says, the procedures basically address the following issues: 1) the
„proper‟ size or length of a turn; 2) identification of the end of a turn; 3) the
sequence of turns, or „who‟s next‟. Therefore, for a „proper‟ interaction to take
place, participants must realize that they have to maintain
In telephone conversations, where we cannot see eye gaze, we have to use
other clues to establish whether the other person is listening to us. The rules of
turn-taking are designed to help conversation take place smoothly. Interruptions in
a conversation are violations of the turn-taking rule; interruption: where a new
speaker interrupts and gains the floor; butting in: where a new speaker tries to
33
gain the floor but does not succeed; and overlaps: where two speakers are talking
at the same time.
Responses such as mmmm and yeah are known as minimal responses.
These are not interruptions but rather are devices to show the listener is listening,
and they assist the speaker to continue. They are especially important in telephone
conversations where the speaker cannot see the listener's eyes and hence must rely
on verbal cues to tell whether the listener is paying attention.
Story-telling within a conversation is indicated by some kind of preface.
This is a signal to the listener that for the duration of the story, there will be no
turn-taking. Once the story has finished, the normal sequence of turn-taking can
resume. Young children, in learning about this convention, have to be asked not to
interrupt when someone is telling a story within a conversation.
Reasons of Interruption and Overlap
To better understand the nature of the differences in switching pauses
between the speaker and listener/hearer, it labeled system/operator utterances with
dialogue moves, which were grouped into four main discourse functions: opening,
initiation, response, and closing. Initiation and response moves follow the
classification proposed by Carletta et al. [1997] and already used to study the
timing of turn-taking in Matthew Bull‟s thesis [Bull, 1997] as quoted from Raux
(2006: 13). An initiation move is an utterance that introduces new expectations to
the dialogue (e.g. asking a question, setting a goal). A response move is one that
attempts to fulfill such an expectation (e.g. acknowledgment, response to a yes-no
or wh- question).
Additionally, we distinguish opening and closing moves (which
correspond to utterances such as ”Hello” and ”Thank you”, ”You‟re welcome”,
and ”Goodbye”) from other moves because they typically do not imply any
transfer of information and correspond more to the ”protocol” people use when
talking over the phone. In particular, because we are interested in switching
pauses occurring before different types of moves, we will not address opening
moves here. When an utterance contained several successive moves (e.g. an
acknowledgment followed by a yes-no question), we used the move that appeared
first since we assume that the pauses immediately preceding a turn are mostly
affected by what comes first in the turn (ibid: 14).
Functional Analysis of Verbal Interaction
The functional analysis of students‟ verbal interaction focuses on the
purposes for which verbal language is used in a given context. It investigates and
highlights the highlights the communicative strategies applied by individual
students whilst taking part in interaction (Halliday & Hasan, 1989). Analysis of
this nature often concentrates on the illocutionary force of an utterance, that is, on
its functional meaning (Austin, 1962; Edwards & Westgate, 1994). The functions
for which students use their oral language are closely linked to the topic of
discussion as well as to the individuals‟ expectations and evolving interpretations
of the situation shaped by the sociocultural context of the activity. The functions
of language used in the course of interaction serve both intra- and interpersonal
purposes. On the one hand, the purposes and intentions carried by means of verbal
34
language serve an ideational, i.e. cognitive function. On the other hand, they serve
an interpersonal function relating to the personal and social relationships between
the interactors (Halliday & Hasan, 1989).
Examples of language functions identified in peer group interaction across
learning situations are the Informative, Expositional, Reasoning, Evaluative,
Interrogative, Responsive, Organisational, Judgmental (agrees/disagrees),
Argumentational, Compositional, Revision, Dictation, Reading aloud, Repetition,
Experiential, and Affective functions. Some of these functions describe the nature
of interaction more from the activity point of view (e.g. dictation, reading aloud),
whereas others take a more interpretative/cognitive (e.g. informative, reasoning,
evaluative) or social perspective (e.g. affective, responsive, judgmental) on the
analysis of verbal interaction.
However, none of the functions should be seen as reflecting only one of
these dimensions. Conversely, each function in the framework is regarded as
reflecting the social-cognitive-discursive actions of the participants as they
verbally interact in their social activity. The language functions used in the course
of joint problem solving often differ across situations and contexts, thus these
functions presented in the analytic framework should not be understood as fixed,
pre-defined categories. Instead, the functions must be situationally defined for
each interaction situation on a post hoc basis.
An example of the use of this system to analyse peer interaction is given
below (for more information see Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002, p. 61). As can be
seen in this example, more than one function can occur within the same language
utterance.
Method
The design of this research was descriptive qualitative in which the data
were the utterances containing the types of turn-taking and it functions, that is,
interruption and overlap, which were uttered by lecturer and the students. The
source of data of this research were one of the lecturers and the students of
psycholinguistics and SLA lecture of postgraduate program at State University of
Makassar. The data were the utterance on interaction between lecturer and the
students during the lecture. An audiovisual recorder was used to record the
utterances produced by using; voices recorder in the video camera. Then a
transcription of the utterances was made as the data to be analyzed. The analysis
on the reasons what types and functions of turn taking occurred after marking the
interruption and overlap. The analysis to answer the first question began with the
searching of the types of turn-taking, that is, interruption and overlap. The
searching of interruption and overlap was done based on the definitions in the
theory used. The second question was answered by analyzing the reasons and
functions of interruption and or overlap in the conversation produced by the
utterances of lecturer and the students based on the context of the conversation in
the classroom interaction and on Wardhaugh and Kumpulainen‟s theories. The
analyzing data activities are data reduction, data display, and concluding. In data
reduction, the data were sorted out and classified into interruption and overlap
areas. Then data displayed before drawing the conclusion.
35
Finding and Discussion
Finding
Based on the data analysis, the findings showed that there were two types of
turn-taking in the conversation by lecturer and students of the psycholinguistics
and SLA classroom, that is, interruption and overlap, as kind of turn-taking that
occurred most frequently. The findings were put into tables that showed the types
of turn-taking, that is, intrruption and overlap, and its function.
From the analysis of the conversation, it was found that most of the students
of psycholinguistics and SLA classroom used a formal turn-taking which was
considered as turn-taking regularly, that is, interruption and overlap. The finding
of the two types of turn-taking irregularities was shown in table 1
Types of Turn-taking Irregularities
Total of Occurrences
Interruptions
3
Overlaps
2
Total
5
Table 1: Turn-taking Irregularities that occurred in the conversation
Table 1 showed that in the conversation, most of the students of
psycholinguistics and SLA classroom tended to interrupt or overlap the lecturer
and vice versa. Interruption happened in 3 occurrences and overlap happened in 2
occurrences.
Discussion
Reasons and Function of Interruption
Extract 1:
In the following extract, situation happened in the dialog between Lecturer
(LECT) and Lalu Suherman (LS) as the lecturer and student interaction formally
in the classroom. The lecturer starts by asking a student (LS) about the idea of
language production.
Convention:
LECT = Lecturer and LS = Lalu Suherman
Marks: + = pause for a second, ++ = 2 seconds, +++ = longer or more than 2
seconds
1 LECT
Have you any idea pak Lalu? (while seeing Lalu friendly).
2 LS
Yes
3 LECT
About production
4 LS
Em, yes ++for production ++we can see ah this ah psychologically
36
5
yah for children or baby when they try to produce words
In this dialogue, LS fulfils the role as a hearer. He task to give speaker a
hearer signal is realized by the use of “Yes” (2) as feedback signal; it occurs as an
entire utterance to support the speaker role of the current speaker where it means
that he still wants to clarify since LECT asking question “Have you any idea pak
Lalu?” (1). It shows that the LECT tried to finish his words by giving the
completion that the question should be “Have you any idea about production, pak
Lalu? After that, LS (4) completes a bit of talk and there are silences (++) two
seconds in twice before he takes up the talk again to complete his statement.
Data display of extract 1
Line
Dialogue
Interruption
2
Yes
showing annoyance/ verbalized
signals
3
About production
Completion
4
Em, yes
++we…
++
for
production Completion
Based on the theory, there were seven types of reasons of interruption but
the result of the analysis showed that there were only two reasons of interruption.
The two occurrences of interruption happened to show annoyance/verbalized
signals and completion. While the other reasons: clarification, rejection, asking for
help, correction, and urgency could not be seen in the seven interruptions such as
seen in table 2
Reasons of Interruption
Total of Occurrences
Clarification
0
asking for help
0
Rejection
0
Correction
0
Completion
2
Showing annoyance/ verbalized signals
1
Urgency
0
Table 2: Reasons of Interruption of extract 1
Based on 2, the reasons of interruption that got the different number were
completion (2 occurrences) and annoyance/verbalized signals (1 occurrence)
which the reasons could be seen in the other dialogs (extract) in the discussion.
One of the reasons of interruption in the conversation was completion that
37
happened because the interrupters (lecturer and student) wanted “to add a further
comment on the same topic or just simply to rephrase what the speaker said”
(Wardaugh, 1991: 154). According to Wardaugh, completion is a way of
interrupting that is less offensive. The other reason was annoyance/verbalized
signals that happened because interrupters (student) wanted to cover a variety of
verbalized signals. If something is not clear in a conversation, usually a person
would interrupt and ask to cover a variety of verbalized signals and to add
comment or just simply to rephrase what the speaker said.
After analyzed and discussed the reason of interruption of extract 1, the
identification of function required to the talk was stated above may be identified
as fulfilling more than one function as signal “Yes” is a function of responsive one of the functions of interaction in talk was identified as responsive because the
interrupter (student) wanted to respond a question or statement (Kumpulainen and
Wray, 2002: 49). Furthermore, utterances “About production” and “Em, yes ++for
production” is a function of informative – one of the functions of interaction in
talk was identified as informative because the interrupters (lecturer and student)
used utters as a means of providing information, their oral language was classed
as serving the informative function statement (ibid, 51). It can be concluded that
the function of turn taking appear in this extract are response to a question as
responsive function and providing information as informative function.
Extract 2:
In the extract 2, situation happened between Lecturer (LECT) and Sahril (SR) as
the lecturer and student interaction formally in the classroom. The lecturer starts
by continue the subject where he explain about the process of producing system of
perception, comprehension and production in psycholinguistics.
Convention:
LECT = Lecturer; and SR = Sahril
Marks: + = pause for a second, ++ = 2 seconds, +++ = longer or more than 2
seconds, different font and point = for indicating translation from bahasa to
English
1
2
3
LECT Yah ++ this perception, comprehension yah production bahkan =
even using language used ++ dicari itu dimana proses-prosesnya+++ =
looking for that, where are the processes+++
4
5
SR
Jadi harus dicari ini producing sistem prosesnya heheheh (laugh). = so,
must be looked for the process of producing system (laugh)
6 LECT Yeah, information system, saya kira perlu itu diketahui sekarang = I think
7
it is important to know psycholinguistic. Itu sudah banyak sekali
8
cabangnya sub-subnya yeah +++ = those are many branches ++ their
9
subs yeah +++. itu points saya kira = those points I think perception,
10
comprehension and then production. Jadi perlu diperdalam yah apa itu ++
11
mengapa orang, seperti pak Sahril katakan ++ = So it needs to be
12
deepened yea what‟s that ++ why people, as pak Sahril said.++
13
Ada yang sebenarnya yang mau dikatakan tapi tidak ada kata-katanya untuk itu.
38
= there is actually want to be told but no words for those. Ada lagi
kata-kata yang ingin dicapkan tapi tidak ada ++ yah yang menuntun. = there
are again, words want to be pronounced no one ++ yea want to
guide. It is because A‟s utterance (O, thank you where?) cuts B‟s
utterance right before B continues his/her words without
overlapping. Interruption is something that cannot be avoided and
appears frequently in people‟s daily conversation and so does
overlap. Topik +++ ini proses ++ saya ingin mengingatkan juga coba tetap
diperhatikan. = Topic +++ this process++ I want also remind to pay
attention. Juga, ++ pada topic yang lalu ++ kita membahas masalah = Also,
++on last topic ++ we discuss language perspective problem itu blum
tuntas, silahkan dippahami betul dibaca itu = it doesn‟t finish yet, please
be really understood, read that ++++ from apa = what language
perception itu dibaca trus itu = read that continuously ++.
Tadi malam kami sampe jam 12 disini. = Last night, we were till 12
o‟clock here.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
28 SR
29
30 LECT Ooh, mempelajari itu? = Oh, to learn that?
In this classroom interaction, SR was having a fight with LECT since he
utters as he tries to clarify his reason by utterance right before continues lecturer‟s
words without overlapping. SR‟s utterance (4 – 5) cuts LECT by interrupting is
something that cannot be avoided and appears frequently in classroom interaction.
Again in (28-29), SR cuts LECT‟s words to report that he was till 12 o‟clock here
to learn, means that SR as a student tries to annoy the floor at an inapropriate
time. Here, he turns for commenting or completing another‟s statement where
previously spoken words were SR was disturbed as if he had not noticed the
subject matter.
Data display of extract 2
Line
Dialogue
Interruption
4
So, must be looked for the….
28
Last night, we were till 12 o‟clock Showing annoyance/ verbalized
here.
signals
Clarification
Based on the theory, there were seven types of reasons of interruption but
the result of the analysis showed that there were only two reasons of interruption
in extract 2. The two occurrences of interruption happened to show clarification
and annoyance/verbalized signals. While the other reasons: asking for help,
rejection, correction, completion, and urgency could not be seen in the seven
interruptions such as seen in table 3.
Reasons of Interruption
Total of Occurrences
Clarification
1
39
asking for help
0
Rejection
0
Correction
0
Completion
0
Showing annoyance/ verbalized signals
1
Urgency
0
Table 3: Reasons of Interruption of extract 2
Based on table 3, the reasons of interruption that got the same number were
clarification and annoyance/verbalized signals in which each of the reasons could
be seen in the other dialogs (extract) in the discussion. One of the reasons of
interruption in the conversation was clarification as stated in Wardaugh (1991:
152) that “there are times when people need to interrupt other‟s talk in order to
seek clarification or to restate a point”. The other reason was
annoyance/verbalized signals that happened because interrupters (student) wanted
to cover a variety of verbalized signals. The other reason is completion that
happened because the interrupters (lecturer and student) wanted “to add a further
comment on the same topic or just simply to rephrase what the speaker said”
(ibid: 154). If something is not clear in a conversation, usually a person would
interrupt and ask to cover a variety of verbalized signals and to add comment or
just simply to rephrase what the speaker said.
The data analysis and discussion of the reason of interruption of extract 2,
the identification of function required to the talk was stated above may be
identified as fulfilling more than one function as clarification of “So, must be
looked for the…” was a function of affective - one of the functions of interaction
in talk is identified as affective because the interrupter (lecturer) was indicated by
the expression of personal feelings and emotions (Kumpulainen and Wray, 2002:
50). Furthermore, utter “Last night, we were till 12 o‟clock here” as showing
annoyance is function of informative – one of the functions of interaction in talk
was identified as informative because the interrupters (lecturer and student) used
speech or utter as a means of providing information, their oral language was
classed as serving the informative function statement (ibid, 51). It can be
concluded that the function of turn taking appear in this extract are expressing
personal feeling as affective function and providing information as informative
function.
Extract 3:
In the following extract, situation happened between Lecturer (LECT) and Sahril
(SR) as the lecturer and student interaction formally in the classroom. The lecturer
starts by talk about the contribution of psycholinguistics in language teaching.
Convention:
LECT = Lecturer and SR = Sahril
40
Marks: + = pause for a second, ++ = 2 seconds, +++ = longer or more than 2
seconds, different font and point = for indicating translation from bahasa to
English
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LECT
SR
LECT
SR
Itu sangat penting,= that is very important ++ so we always relates yah
+++ ada orang yang kalo berbicara gagap apa ++ = there are people if
they want to talk stammer what ++ repeat all the time +++ selalu =
always star with for +++ sehingga harus = so must repeat, repeat,
repeat the sentences yah, proses apa yang semuanya itu terjadi = yea,
what processes all those happened.
+++ Yah mungkin ada penelitian - penelitian yang sudah dilakukan itu saya kira
kita paham itu. = Yea, there might be research – research has been
done, that I think we understand.
Neurolinguistic
Mungkin ada orang yang menuju kesana = possibly, there are people
want to go there ++ neurolinguistic
Neurolinguistic
In this extract, SR was tried to complete the statement of LECT by utterance
right before continues lecturer‟s words to response him by uttering
“Neurolinguistic” (10 and 13) and SR interrupted that turn with a restatement of
his continuation of his comment in (13) that initiates a repair through a repeat of
LECT‟s turn (Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977). Beneath of that, LECT
inserts to annoy by giving a signal by uttering: “possibly, there are people want to
go there ++ neurolinguistic”. SR, again repeat the word “Neurolinguistic”, these
partial repeats by including an element of the prior turn, indicate that SR give a
clarification even more strongly the nature of the trouble source.
Data display of extract 3
Line
Dialogue
Interruption
10
Neurolinguistic
Completion
11
possibly, there are people want to Showing annoyance/ verbalized
go there ++
signals
13
Neurolinguistic
Clarification
As in the theory that there were seven types of reasons of interruption but
the result of the analysis showed that there were only three reasons of interruption.
The three occurrences of interruption happened to show completion,
annoyance/verbalized signals and clarification. While the other reasons:, rejection,
asking for help, correction, and urgency could not be seen in the seven
interruptions such as seen in table 4.
Reasons of Interruption
Total of Occurrences
Clarification
1
41
asking for help
0
Rejection
0
Correction
0
Completion
1
Showing annoyance/ verbalized signals
1
Urgency
0
Table 4: Reasons of Interruption of extract 3
Based on table 4, the reasons of interruption that got the same number were
clarification, completion, and annoyance/verbalized signals which the reasons
could be seen in the other dialogs (extract) in the discussion. One of the reasons of
interruption in the conversation was clarification as stated in Wardaugh (1991:
152) that “there are times when people need to interrupt other‟s talk in order to
seek clarification or to restate a point”. The other reason was completion that
happened because the interrupters (lecturer and student) wanted “to add a further
comment on the same topic or just simply to rephrase what the speaker said”
(Wardaugh, 1991: 154). According to Wardaugh, completion is a way of
interrupting that is less offensive. Next reason was annoyance/verbalized signals
that happened because interrupters (student) wanted to cover a variety of
verbalized signals. If something is not clear in a conversation, usually a person
would interrupt and ask to cover a variety of verbalized signals and to add
comment or just simply to rephrase what the speaker said.
From the analysis and discussion of the reason of interruption of extract 3,
the identification of function required to the talk was stated above may be
identified as fulfilling more than one function as completion of “Neurolinguistic”
(10) was a function of heuristic – one of the function of interaction in talk is
identified heuristic because the interrupter (student) talk was used to express
having found out something (Kumpulainen and Wray, 2002: 50). While an argue
“possibly, there are people want to go there ++” was an argumentational function–
one of the function of interaction in talk is identified as argumentational because
the interrupter (lecturer) was used of language for reasoning and supporting
judgment (Ibid, 51). Furthermore, the clarification “Neurolinguistic” (13) was a
function of reproductional - one of the functions of interaction in talk is identified
as reproductional because the interrupter (student) was repeated what had recently
been said by another person (Ibid, 49). It can be concluded that the function of
turn taking appear in this extract are expressing something as heuristic function,
reasoning and supporting judgment as argumentational function, and repeating
what had recently been said as reproductional function.
Reasons and Function of Overlap
Extract 1:
42
In the following extract, situation happened between Lecturer (LECT) and Jaenal
(JN) as the lecturer and student interaction formally in the classroom. The lecturer
starts by talk about how teaching material used to facilitate students comparison.
Convention:
LECT = Lecturer and JN = Jaenal
Marks: + = pause for a second, ++ = 2 seconds, +++ = longer or more than 2
seconds, different font and point = for indicating translation from Bahasa to
English, and  = overlapping speech of two more speakers temporally linked by
brackets.
1
2
3
4
5
6
LECT Yah, we still remember the so called + + comprehensive + +
comprehensible. Dimulai dengan huruf I ditambah dengan n = starting with
letter i + n
JN
Input plus one
LECT Ya + + the comprehensible input? Yes, very important the the aid
yah + the the comprehension + + comprehensible input.
In lines 2 and 3, LECT‟s “letter i + n” is overlapped by Jaenal‟s “input plus
one”. This exchange illustrate that in contrast to overlap does not necessarily pose
a face threat. In this case, the participant (4) complements the speaker by
completing the sentences (3). The recipients initiate a turn when a completion of
the current speaker's activity is predictable.
Data display of extract 1
Line
Dialogue
3
Overlap
Input plus one
Completion
In the theory, there were seven types of reasons of overlap but the result of
the analysis showed that there was only one reason of overlap. It is the occurrence
of completion. While the other reasons: clarification, asking for help, rejection,
correction, annoyance/verbalized signals, and urgency could not be seen in the
seven overlap such as seen in table 2.
Reasons of Overlap
Total of Occurrences
Clarification
0
asking for help
0
Rejection
0
Correction
0
Completion
1
showing annoyance/ verbalized signals
0
43
Urgency
0
Table 4.2.2.1: Reasons of overlap of extract 1
Based on table 2, the reasons of overlap that got is only completion which
the reasons could be seen in the discussion. One of the reasons of overlap in the
conversation was completion that happened because the overlaps (lecturer and
student) wanted “to add a further comment on the same topic or just simply to
rephrase what the speaker said” (Wardaugh, 1991: 154). According to Wardaugh,
completion is a way of overlapping that is less offensive.
After analyzed and discussed the reason of overlap of extract 1, the
identification of function required to the talk was stated above may be identified
as fulfilling more than one function as an argument “Input plus one” was a
function of reproductional - one of the functions of interaction in talk is identified
as reproductional because the interrupter (student) was repeated what had recently
been said by another person (Kumpulainen and Wray, 2002: 49). So, it can be
concluded that the function of turn taking appear in this extract is repeating what
had recently been said as reproductional function.
Extract 2:
In the following extract, the situation happened in the dialog between Lecturer
(LECT) and Jaenal (JN), as the lecturer and student interaction formally in the
classroom. The lecturer starts by talking about the level of comprehension in
teaching.
Convention:
LECT = Lecturer and JN = Jaenal
Marks: + = pause for a second, ++ = 2 seconds, +++ = longer or more than 2
seconds, different font and point = for indicating translation from Bahasa to
English, and  = overlapping speech of two more speakers temporally linked by
brackets.
1
2
3
4
5
LECT No + + no level comprehension dalam pengajaran +++ = in teaching
+++
That you apply in teaching + +. Kita mau tau sumbernya itu, + + dari mana
ini teorinya?++ = we want to know the resource, + + where is the
theory from?] ++
JN
Taxonomy Bloom]
LECT Sometimes, we do things that we don‟t know where, why we do it.
In the conversation above, JN‟s utterance is overlapping LECT‟s utterance.
It can be seen when LECT is still speaking (1, 2, and 3), JN is giving an
expression before LECT is finishing his words. LECT‟s words “where is the
theory from?” are overlapped with JN‟s words “taxonomy Bloom” and those
words are heard at the same time.
Data display of extract 2
Line
Dialogue
Overlap
44
3
Taxonomy Bloom
Completion
In the theory, there were seven types of reasons of overlap but the result of
the analysis showed that there was only one reason of overlap. It is the occurrence
of completion. While the other reasons: clarification, asking for help, rejection,
correction, annoyance/verbalized signals, and urgency could not be seen in the
seven overlap such as seen in table 3.
Reasons of Overlap
Total of Occurrences
Clarification
0
asking for help
0
Rejection
0
Correction
0
Completion
1
showing annoyance/ verbalized signals
0
Urgency
0
Table 3: Reasons of overlap of extract 2
Based on table 3, the reasons of interruption that got is only completion
which the reasons could be seen in the discussion. One of the reasons of overlap
in the conversation was completion that happened because the overlap utter of
(lecturer and student) wanted “to add a further comment on the same topic or just
simply to rephrase what the speaker said” (Wardaugh, 1991: 154). According to
Wardaugh, completion is a way of overlapping that is less offensive as in extract
2.
The data analysis and discussion of the reason of overlap of extract 2, the
identification of function required to the talk was stated above also identified as
fulfilling only one function as completing sentence of other utter as overlap
“Taxonomy Bloom” was a function of affective - one of the functions of
interaction in talk is identified as affective because the overlap person (student)
was indicated by the expression of personal feelings and emotions. It could arise
from surprise, admiration, pleasure, amazement, disappointment, happiness,
indignation and even fear. (Kumpulainen and Wray, 2002: 50). Then, it can be
concluded that the function of turn taking appear in this extract is the expression
of personal feeling what had recently been said as affective function.
Conclusions
From the findings and analysis, it could be figured out that the utterance
on interaction between lecturer and the students during the lecture of
Psycholinguistics and SLA classroom tended to do interruption and overlap in
their conversation. The reasons of interruption are clarification, completion and
45
showing annoyance while the reason of overlap is only completion. The reasons
of interruption occurred the most frequently in the classroom interaction were
completion and showing annoyance and the reason of overlap occurred the most
frequently in the classroom interaction was completion. The function of
interruption are responsive, informative, affective, argumentative, and
reproductional while the function of overlap are reproductional and affective. The
function of interruption occurred the most frequently in the classroom interaction
were informative and the function of overlap occurred are variatived are
reproductional and affective.
Based on what has been done in this research, it is suggested that other
similar researches with different subjects such as turn-taking made by classroom
interaction during the lecture. By conducting this research, probably it could be
figured out whether one‟s status can also determine the use of interruption and of
overlap.
References
Berhanemskel, Yohannes. 2008. The Nature of Gturn Taking patterns in Group
Discussio: 10+2 Students of Cruise Private School in Focus. Ethiopia:
Addis Ababa University - Unpublished Thesis
Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Longman
Ellis, R. 1992. Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1964. “An Analysis of Interaction of Language, Topic and
Listener” American Anthropologist. Vol. 66, No. 6, Part 2, 86-102
Have, Paul Ten. 2000. Doing conversation Analysis. A Practical; Guide. New
Delhi: Sage Publications
Kumpulainen, K. and Wray, D (Ed.) 2004. Classroom Interaction and Social
Learning. From Theory to Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London:
Continuum
Maroni, Barbara, Augusto Gnisci, Clotilde Pontecorvo. 2008. “Turn-taking in
Classroom Interaction; Overlapping, Interruptions and pauses in primary
School”. English Journal of Psychology of Education. Vol XXIII, No. 1, 5976
Raux, Antoine. 2006. Flexible Turn-Taking for Spoken Dialogue Systems.
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University: Unpublished Thesis
Sacks, Harvey., Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974 "A Simplest
Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation,"
Language Vol. 50, No. 4, Part 1, 696-735
46
Schiffrin, D. 1988. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------------. 1994. Approach to Discourse. Oxford UK: Blackwel University Press.
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis. An Introduction. United Kingdom:
Wiley-Blackwell
Tiono Nani I. & Jennyfer Ansori “Turn-Taking Irregularities by African
American Characters in the Movie Why Do Fools Fall in Love” Surabaya:
Petra Christian University – unpublished article
Van Lier, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: 12
Wardaugh, R. 1991. How Conversations Work. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yule, G. 1996. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47