THE PRIMARY CONCEPTION OF CONVERSATION IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

THE PRIMARY CONCEPTION OF CONVERSATION IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Introduction

Over past 36 years ago, there was an approach to analyze language named as discourse analysis. The discourse analysis used to develop language in meaning with context. The discourse analysis meant the language between the oral act and the written act. From the oral act, the analysis is used with the speech between two people such as, addresser and addressee. And then, the written act is a product from oral acts that shown as a symbol of letters. Consistently, the discourse analysis is learning the issue in language and how the language is used as the contexts.

The primary focus in the discourse analysis is how the language uses in the oral act or we can say the conversation in daily life. The conversation of the people certainly has a concept. This concept includes the way of conversation that from oral becomes text. The text, off course, consists of sentences that become paragraph. The paragraph includes discourse where it has several meaning and different meaning. This meaning appropriately come the context where it support the meaning and easy to interpret it. Thus, the primary conception of conversation is based on the context.  

In this paper the writer tries to explore the primary conception of conversation in discourse analysis. This analysis presents many examples where it can explain the really meaning as the context. This analysis is to explain the position of conversation in daily life and how to use it.  

Theory and explanation

1. Discourse Analysis

One approach that is used to describe language is a discourse analysis (discourse analysis). The term was first used by Zellig Harris in 1952 as the name for a method in analyzing the speech (or writing) which has a relation. This method was originally intended to seek a correlation between language and culture (Malmkkjaer, 1995: 100).

Discourse analysis emerged as an attempt to generate a description more complete language because there are language features that are not sufficient if simply analyzed by using aspects of structure and meaning alone. Therefore, through discourse analysis can be obtained an explanation of the correlation between what he uttered, what he meant, and what is understood in particular context. This is in accordance with the opinion of Cutting (2002: 1) the say that discourse analysis is an approach that examines the relation between languages with a background context. More detailed again Stubbs (1983: 1) argued that discourse analysis,

“attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers (dalam Schiffrin, 1992: 1)”.

Thus, discourse analysis is able to bring us to examine the social background and cultural background of the use of a language. In other words, discourse analysis able to examine the language is more than just describe it, but can also help us understand the rules that are part of the knowledge language users are reflected in daily communication (Bhatia, 1999 in Paltridge, 2000).

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that discourse analysis study of language in use and also assess how language becomes a meaningful and unified for the wearer. The emergence of discourse analysis is not apart from the contribution made provided by other disciplines. Schmitt (2002: 59-60), for example, argued that studies in discourse analysis have a large contribution from other disciplines such as sociology who gave birth to the study analysis conversation, and the philosophy which has contributed to the emergence of theory said acts and pragmatics.

Those contributions have been provided by other disciplines, this has enriched the study of discourse analysis. Even the discourse analysis has expanded so it can be used to analyze the other scientific fields such as law, history, communication time, and others. This is testament to the importance and hold of discourse analysis as a method to solve the problems of humanity and social sciences (Samsuri, 1986:6).  When viewed from its form, there are two categories of discourse, i.e. discourse oral and written discourse. This is consistent with what was raised by McCarthy (1991). According to him, discourse analysis is a study that examines relationship between language and context that shaped both verbal interaction and written (in Schmitt, 2002).

 Then, Paltridge (2000: 4) explains in more detail again that discourse analysis examines lingual unit that form the structure of paragraphs, text organization, and patterns of conversational interaction such as how speakers open conversation, closing the conversation, and sharing  turn in the conversation. Accordingly, Samsuri (1987:32) believes that oral discourse may be considered as a primary source of data language because the language comes first in the form of speech. Sources oral discourse very much. He can be a daily conversation, stories rhymes, fairy tales, and others. With regard to research writers do, is obvious from the above explanation that conversation analysis, study focusing on how participants manage their turn to speak, is part of discourse analysis.

Furthermore, Renkema (1993: 34-37) says that for consider whether lingual unit that can be said as a discourse or not the required seven criteria. The seven criteria are: (1) cohesion, namely the relationship which is produced during the interpretation of an element depends on other elements in the text. This means that cohesion concerns between components of semantic relations in text, (2) cohesion, namely the relationship based on something that comes from outside the text. Something is refers to the knowledge and experience possessed by the speakers or speaker; (3) intentional, regarding the purpose and function of language which is owned  participants in communication, (4) acceptance, referring to the series sentence is acceptable and can be understood by the interlocutor (speaker / reader) to be qualified as text, (5) informative, means that a text must contain new information and must be understood by interlocutor, (6) situation, concerning the place and time of text situations was generated, and (7) inter textual, referring to the connectedness of a discourse with other discourses that have been known. From the seven criteria, two things of the most fundamental and concern in many parties are cohesion and coherence where its more important to analyze in this paper.

2. Forming Elements of Discourse

As has been described previously, there are two elements forming discourse is a major concern. Both elements are cohesion and coherence.

 
2.1 Cohesion

Cohesion is basically associated with semantic aspects between components in the text. Cohesion is the relationship that was created as a result when textual interpretation of an element depends on other elements in the text (Renkema, 1993: 35). In other words, studies indicate that cohesion meaning described in the text is the meaning interpreted by speakers and speaker based on the conclusions they made about the relationship propositions that underlie what utterances (Schiffrin: 1992: 9).

Halliday and Hasan (1976) divide into five types of cohesion. Fifth these types are (1) substitution, which is a word or group counseling of word by another word for a particular purpose, (2) reference, namely reference relationship an element with another element of good that comes before, after, or 5 even outside the text, (3) ellipsis, ie deletion of a word or part of the sentence undertaken to discourse cohesion, (4) conjunctions, ie relationships indicates how a sentence or clause associated with sentence or other clause, and (5) lexical cohesion, ie semantic relationships between component forming discourse by making use of lexical items or words. In this case do not involve grammatical relations but these relations based on the meaning of the word it uses. There are two form of lexical cohesion, namely reiteration and collocation. Slightly different from Halliday and Hasan, although basically same, Cutting (2002) distinguishes cohesion devices into two groups large, namely (1) grammatical cohesion, which consists of reference, substitution, and ellipsis, and (2) lexical cohesion, which consists of repetition, synonymy, subordination, and general words or ‘common words’.

2.2. Coherence

Cohesiveness of a discourse is not only determined by the presence of marker cohesion which refers to the formal device of a text, as has been described previously. Cohesivenes of a discourse can be shown by contextual tools of a text, which form the text underlying the situation so that the text can be understood as a discourse is coherent (Paltridge, 2000: 139). As an illustration, consider the following example:

(a) A: That'll be the phone.  
     B: I'm in the bath
     A: OK.
     (Widdowson, 1978: 29)
           

In excerpts of the conversation over there was no cohesion markers used. However, participants in the conversation understand each other. We also as  presumably the reader can understand the conversation above, namely when the speakers A informs B that th person waiting on the phone, speaker B responds by telling the speech that he was in the shower. Grammatically did not look at the relation between utterances A and B. However, when associated with a context outside the text, namely the activities of participants B who are bath, participant A can understand that because of the unfinished conducted participant B, the participant B could not answer the phone. Basically in the two participants can understand each other because of the shared knowledge based on experience or habit-owned the second participant. Therefore, it can be said that the conversations talked in the text above is a coherent discourse that tend to the coherence situation.

2.3 Context in Discourse

Context is very important in discourse analysis because in essence that reviewed in the analysis of discourse is the meaning of words in context. Namely, analyze how the parts of meaning can be explained by knowledge of physical and social world, and the factors of socio-psychological affect communication. In addition, knowledge of the place and time these words are written diujarkan or even become part of analyzed (Peccei 1999; Yule 1996 in Cutting 2002). This means that context has a role which is essential to interpret the meaning contained both in oral discourse and written discourse. In line with opinion on Mey (2001: 39) also argues that the context is a dynamic concept and not a static concept. Therefore, context understood as a situation that is always changing, which makes the participants in communication processes can interact and also to the context of language expression they use in their interaction becomes understandable.

Hymes (1972) suggested that the context in discourse is formed from eight elements as contained in any communication language. To eight elements are (1) setting 'background', which refers to the place or space, time, and other physical conditions, (2) participants 'participants', which refers to participants involved in communication, such as speakers or writers and speaker and readers, (3) ends 'results', which refers to the objectives and results of communication; (4) act sequences (message), which refers to the form and content of the message, (5) keys'How', which refers to the way when doing communication, eg communication is done by a serious, casual, etc.., (6) instrumentalities 'Means', which refers to the means employed in the use of language,  which include (a) form of language that is spoken or written and (b) its utterances type  namely whether the language standard or with a particular dialect; (7) norms 'Norms', which refers to the behavior of participants in interaction, and (8) genre 'Type', which refers to the types of texts such as fairy tales, ads and deodorized (in Renkema, 1993: 44).

Still related to the context, Cutting (2002: 3-9) also argues that the context is one of the major studies in discourse analysis because discourse analysis very concerned about the meanings of words in the process of interaction and how the participants can communicate more from a mere information contained in the words they use. Slightly different Hymes, Cutting suggests that the context used in analyzing a discourse can be divided into three types. The three types of context are (1) the situational context 'context of situation', ie knowledge of speakers is based on everything they see on  surroundings, (2) background knowledge of context 'context knowledge base', ie knowledge of speakers of the interlocutor and also about the world. Context from this background knowledge consists of knowledge of culture and knowledge interpersonal and (3) co-Textual context or commonly known as the co-text, ie knowledge about what the speakers had he utters.
To clarify the understanding of the above three types of context, consider the following illustration:

(b) AF: (2) So you went to Arran. A bit of a come-down not it! (Laughs)
DM: It was nice actually. Have you been to Arran?
AF: No. I've not. (1) Like to go.
DM: Did a lot of climbing.
AF: / / (heh)
DM: / / I Went with Francesca (0.5) and David.
AF: Uhuh?
DM: Francesca's room-mate. (2) and Alice's - a friend of Alice's from London (1). There were six of us. Yeah we did a lot of hill walking. (0.5) We got back (1) er (2) Michelle and I got home she looked at her knees. (0.5) They were the resource persons like this. Swollen up like this. Cos We did enormous eight
hour stretch.
AF: Uhm.
(Cutting, 2002: 3) 

In excerpts of the conversation above, there are examples of words that have meaning based on the first type of context, namely the context of the situation. The words (Bold) contained in the sentence: They were the resource like this. Swollen up like this 'His knees like this. Swelling like this'. In that conversation, to give meaning to phrases like this 'like this’; DM signals a gesture or body language so that AF can see it. Gesture of meant is to clench his hands to show how Michelle experienced a large swelling in his knee. If a person only hear the speech of DM without looking directly at the current situation tells DM its utterances, it is difficult for him to imagine how badly swollen Michelle knee. In this case clearly seen how the contexts of the situation give meaning to this word. What about the importance of context in a situation conversation was shown clearly in the conversation that took place by phone, for example, when a person unwittingly add gesture by moving the hands or give a specific facial expression when he recalled the phone. This is odd because it becomes visible do not give much influence on the meaning of words they utter. This happens because the absence of participants in a conversation visually so they do not share the context of the situation. Therefore, based on exposure to the above, it can be concluded that the context of the situation is the state physical situation where the interaction between the speakers visually and speaker happen.

Based on the context of basic knowledge in the form of cultural knowledge, of sample scripts (9) can be seen that AF and DM have a background shared knowledge about the hills in the area (Arran), so AF do not be surprised if the DM and his friends walked up the hill and for eight hours can cause the knee to travel into swollen. As noted Sperber and Wilson (in Cutting 2002: 5) if the interlocutor came from the same group, they will assume normally the same knowledge about everything that they know. Still related to the context of background knowledge, from the example conversations above can also be shown that the AF and DM are both aware who is Michelle. This is what is called the interpersonal context. In previous conversation, it is probable that DM has told AF that his wife named Michelle, and maybe even tell where the DM has AF has visited his home and met his wife and DM so that sufficient AF Michelle knows. From the example above, it can be concluded that in order to share context of interpersonal knowledge or experience required verbal interaction previously. When viewed from the context of co-textual or co-text, from the sample above we can know that the personal pronouns 'us' and 'We' refers to Francesca, David, his roommate, and also his friend who has been mentioned in text. In essence, based on the formal utterances in conversation, interlocutor can anyone conclude that belong to the group 'Us' and 'We'. Therefore it can be said that the context of co-textual cohesion is obtained through the device as described earlier, so as to form grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.

3. Pragmatic

Pragmatics has been progressing very rapidly in the two twenty years. One proof is by a main seven international conference on pragmatics in Viareggio, 1985, Antwerp 1987, Barcelona, 1990, Kobe 1993, Mexico 1996, Reims, 1998, and Budapest 2000. Other evidence was the establishment of the International Association of pragmatic (International Pragmatics Association / IPrA) which has existed for about fifteen years, the existence of two international pragmatics ujrnal (Journal of Pragmatics Pragmatics since 1977 and since 1991) which both have publish nearly three thousand pages in each year, and many more publications (Mey, 2001; 3).

An interest of various parties to the study of pragmatics of course not just happens, but there are specific reasons that lie behind them. If viewed in historical, pragmatic approach began to be taken into account in analyze linguistic data since Lakoff and his friends in America argued that the syntax can not be separated from studies using
language. This indicates that the phenomenon of consciousness linguists’ disclosure of the nature of language is difficult to achieve, if not considering pragmatic that is studying how language is used in communication. Since then, linguistic experience an expansion of disciplines narrow the care of the physical data of grammatical, become a discipline that area that includes form, meaning, and context. However, at the time the founding fathers of Americans like Lakoff and Ross began to enter the region pragmatic, There has been a group of experts from the English language philosophy which has long enough to work on the area, such as Austin (1962), Searle, (1969), and Grice (1975). The philosopher is the greatest effect on development of modern pragmatics (see Leech, 1993: 1-3).

Function pragmatic approach in analyzing linguistic data departed from the traditional problems that have been cultivated for years in linguistic studies. Until initially pragmatic more are treated as data storage basket difficult described and which may easily be forgotten (Leech, 1993 and Mey 2001). But over time, attract a lot more pragmatic people's attention because it offers a pragmatic approach to new solutions for solve these problems. Through pragmatic, problems in linguistic research have been reviewed from different angles and even considering other disciplines. For example, concerns about conversation and turn the mechanism of the talk has been studied based on ethnometodology by sociologists, as well as issues about the arguments that have been
reviewed with effect from the discipline of philosophy, etc.. (Mey, 2001: 11).

In connection with the above explanation, there are some linguistic experts pragmatic definitions have been proposed. For example, Richards et al (1992) defines pragmatics as a science that examines the language interpretation depend on knowledge of the world, how speakers use and understand the speech, and how the sentence structure is influenced by the relationship between speakers and petutur (in Paltridge, 2000: 5). Thus, pragmatic more interested in what speakers mean by their utterances than words or phrases based on the literal meaning. Opinion Richards et al was then confirmed by Leech (1993: 8).  

According to the pragmatic Leech treat meaning as a relationship involving three terms (triadic). That is, the pragmatic meaning of the definition given in conjunction with or speakers of the language user or, more broadly with the situations said. In general, then Mey (2001: 12) defines pragmatics as the study which can examine the behavior of human language in depth and more complete. Therefore, based on some opinions on the above can concluded that in essence is the science of assessing pragmatic language by its nature as a tool used to communicate.  

In connection with the review of the research conducted by the author that is about the organization conversation, the author argues that the analysis conversations can not be separated from pragmatic studies. This was confirmed by Levinson of opinion that suggests that to obtain a very basic understanding about the phenomenon of pragmatic, one can review the conversation because conversation is a core or other type of prototype the most basic use of language. Various aspects of pragmatic shown clearly in the conversation (Levinson, 1983: 284-285). Thus the study of conversational organization must consider the pragmatic aspect. The same is true for interpreting the patterns of turn-taking mechanism or how the participants in a conversation shared turn to speak (turn-taking) is required pragmatic tools to analyze it, especially those relating to act said.

4. Speech Act

Act theory developed by a philosopher said of Oxford, namely JL Austin in the 1930s and has been described in more detail in series of lectures he gave at Harvard University in 1955. Results of the lecture later published in book titled 'How to do Things with Words' in 1962 (Malmkjaer, 1996: 416). The theory says further action had been developed after one his students, who named John Searle, publish works that
entitled Speech Act in 1969.

According to Mey (2001: 135-136) has historically been said act theory succeeded in proving that language is not merely a collection of sentences and  linguistics is not merely serve to describe the correspondence of meaning sound. Follow says is a way to do things with words, can even be said that the words work for the man in action
said. The most important thing is the function of the act said in a speech. What act said represented not so crucial, that a major concern is how the participants in a conversation using the act says.

Note the illustration below:
                     

( c ) 'Why can not you shut up? "

Viewed from the surface can be said that the speech at the represent the sentence asked. However, in the context of normal conversation speech above is used to express a command (which is less fun).

 The indirect speech (implicitly) express intention of this kind occurs because basically a lot people know how to judge things based on context. More than words, man as instinctively conversationalists in general have ability to recognize the content and purpose of the conversation. Therefore, act said in such cases is very important to identify the conversation because conversations often have a quality more than just what comes from the words explicitly.

Austin said the act defines as actions taken in tell us something. According to the said act theory, the action taken when said a speech to analyze in three levels: (1) acts locution, (2) illocution act, and (3) per locution act. For more details, look For example the following excerpt from a conversation conducted by three students was sitting and having lunch at a university in the first day of classes. The university is providing food called bun (a type of bread) as a sign of welcome for new students. Luncheon is expected to help them to know each other.

(d) MM I think I Might go and have another bun.
'Looks like I'll go and take the bun again'
AM I was going to get another one.
'I also want the bun again' 
BM Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please?
'Can you bring me the contents of tuna and corn bun
sweet? "
PM me as well?
'I also, yes? "
(Cutting, 2002: 16)

The first level to analyze the sample (d) are the words, as I think Might go and have another bun, I was going to get another bun, etc.. This called locution. What is spoken, the form of words spoken, and the action tells us something is known to act locution. The second level, illocution act, is what the speakers want to mean by it speech. From the sample (d) can be seen that speech AM, I think I Might Go and have another bun, and MM, I was going to get another one, to be assertive or used to declare their intentions about his actions, while the speech BM, Could you get me a tuna and sweet corn one please?, and AM, Me as well?, An action request to speaker. This is what called illocution power, that is what was meant by that is contained in speech spoken, or what the function of the words that are spoken, or what purpose contained a specific place in the minds of speakers. Examples of other acts can illocution of making appointments, giving orders, making invitations, giving advice, begged forgiveness, and other third step in analyzing the sample (d) is to look at the results from the words that are spoken, namely MM stand and bring AM and BM respectively a tuna and corn bun sweet. This is called with a follow per locution that is what has been done by telling speech. It could be argued also that the perlocution act has an effect experienced by speaker or a reaction speaker.

Austin has ever filed with the performative hypothesis states that behind every utterance there are performative verbs like to order, to warn, to admit, and to promise that makes power ilokusi expressed explicitly.

For example, the sample (d) can be reformulated into:
(e) MM I express my intention to go and have another bun.
AM I inform you That I was going to get another one.
BM I request you to get me a tuna and sweet corn one
AM I request you to get me one as well
(Cutting, 2002: 16)

However, Austin then leave this hypothesis because there some things that he realized later that caused him to be doubt with hypothesis. For example, Austin realized that often implicit performative or performative without a verb, sounds more natural. He also realized that implicit performative does not always have that explicit performative clearly understood.

 For example, the speech samples below:
(f) I'll be back!
'I'll be back'
Example (f) when performatifnya made explicit, there are two possibilities, namely
(g) I promise I'll be back
'I promise I'll be back' or
I warn you That I'll be back
'I warn you that I'll be back'

Furthermore, as the solution to the problem, Searle (1976) proposed classification of acts said to the macro-classes as follows:
(1) Assertive include providing a statement or representation, giving suggestions, grumbling, prosecution, reporting, and so forth.
(2) The directive intends to produce effects through an act (action)  by listeners or readers such as ordering, ordering, ask, advise.
(3) Comissive as promised, vowed, propose, and so forth.
(4) Expressive express psychological attitude like to say thank love, praise, sad statement, forgiving, and so forth.
(5) Declaration such as baptizing, fire, give your name, convict, define, isolate, and so forth. (See Cutting 2003: 15-17, Levinson, 1983:240; Clark and Clark,1977:88).  

Another approach to classifying acts can be said based on its structure, namely a (1) acts directly said and (2) indirect acts said. When the structure of an utterance has a direct relationship with its function, then renamed to act directly said. For example, when sentences are used to express declarative statement, then the sentence contains a direct act of said.

Consider the following example this:
(h) Please take out the garbage.
(Crabtree and Powers 1991 in Paltridge, 2000: 21)

In the example sentence (15), can be seen that the sentence is imperative sentences, which are marked with the subject and the Exclamation please. Imperative has said that such acts demand. This shows that the structure and function in the sentence has  direct relation in the sentence so that it contains acts of said directly. However, if the structure of a sentence has no relation in directly to its function, then the said act contained in the sentence these are acts of indirect said. Consider the example below:

(i) Could you pass the salt?

The structure of the sample (16) in the form of interrogative sentences or sentence asked, would but the functions contained in the sentence is not making a questions to obtain information that is expected, but rather serves as demand on speaker to do something.

5. Conclusion

Basically, conversation is a manifestation of the use of language to interact. Mey (2001: 137) argues that a form of language use can be seen from two aspects. The first aspect is the content, ie aspects pay attention to things like what topics are discussed in the conversation; how the topics presented in the conversation: whether explicitly, through presupposition, or implied by a variety of ways; what kind of topics lead to other topics and what the reasons behind this kind of thing occur, and so on. In addition, another focus of this aspect is an organization of topics in managed and how the topic of conversation, whether delivered in a way open or by manipulation in a closed session: usually in the form of acts of said indirect.

Second is the formal aspect of conversation. The main focus in the aspect these are things such as how conversation works, what rules observed; and how the sequencing of sequence 'can be achieved (give and obtain a turn or turn-taking mechanisms, pause, interruption, overlap, etc..).

When viewed from historical perspective, conversation analysis appears in midst of theoretical confusion after the emergence of linguistic revolution initiated by Chomsky in the late 50s and early 60s. Analysis this conversation was initiated by a group of nonprofessional observers of language (Sociologists such as Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson). They see that the language samples provided by professional linguists often unnatural, even some of the examples of speech is not appear in a natural conversation. Later, they also find that rules are adhered to in the conversation is more similar to the rules who used the community in social activities rather than by rules contained in linguistics. The rules were almost the same with the rules found by researchers from the fields of sociology and anthropology. Therefore, then emerge the method that ethnomethodology used to study conversation. Topics to be the center of attention expert analysis of these conversations are the organization and structure of the conversation.  They analyze the conversation naturally through their data record and transcript. For those not transcribe conversations just give to describe the phonetic nuances and classify phonemes and their variations, but as a technique capable help identify ways in which people construct 'traffic rules' in speech using the language (Mey, 2001: 138). This means that the technique of transcription, the rules that form the structure and organization of conversation can be identified. These rules are important for studied because by understanding the rules are expected to process production of verbal conversation participants can run smoothly or did not experience barriers. From the work of the expert analysis of this conversation, there are some basic findings. One is the turn-taking mechanism.

Bibliography

Clyne, Michael. 1994. Cultural Variation in the Interrelation of Speech Acts and Turn-Taking dalam Language Contact and Language Conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Coulthard, Malcolm. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Crawford, John R. 1978. Utterance Rules, Turn-taking, and Attitudes in Enquiry Openers dalam Studies in Descriptive English Grammar. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.

Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London & New York: Routledge.

Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik: Ancangan Metode Penelitian dan Kajian. Bandung: Eresco.

Finegan, Edward. 2008. Language: Its Structure and Use. United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth

Gumperz, John. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, Ruqaiyah. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Local, J.K., Kelly, J., & well, W.G.H. 1986: Towards a Phonology of Conversation: Turn-Taking in Tyneside English dalam Journal of Linguistics. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Malmkjaer, Kristen. 1995. The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.

Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Paltridge, Brian. 2000. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Gold Coast.

Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies: An Introduction Textbook. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sabat, Steven R. 1991. Turn-taking, turn-giving, and Alzheimer’s disease: A case study of conversation dalam The Georgetown Journal of Language and Linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Samsuri. 1986. Analisis Wacana, Diktat Kuliah Pascasarjana. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement II: An Exercise in Conversational Analysis dalam Linguistics in Context: Connection Observation and Understanding. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1992. Discourse Markers. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, Norbert. 2002. An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold

Selting, Margareth. 1996. On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Consitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation dalam Pragmatics. International Pragmatics Association.

Strensőm, Ann-Brita. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. UK: Longman Group. Suryabrata, Sumadi. 2000. Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: PT Rajagrafindo Persada.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.