Singapore
THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOBA BATAK CONVERSATIONS Hilman Pardede, Padang Sidempuan, May 25, 1960. He graduated from PressInternational English Program of North Sumatera THE STRUCTURE University in 1987. In the year of 1992 he took Magister Program in IKIP Malang, OF THE TOBA BATAK then he went to Doctoral Program in linguistics at North Sumatera University CONVERSATION in the year of 2007. In 2008, he attended
a Sandwich Program in Aurbun THEBATAK CONVERSATION TOBA OF University, Alabama, USA. In 2010, he was a speaker in the International Seminar in Trang, Thailand. He presented
a paper entitled “Adjecancy Pair in Toba STRUCTURE THE Batak”. HILMAN PARDEDE
This book is about the structure of the Toba Batak Conversations. The structures are categorized as interaction and linguistics. The interaction structures are restricted to adjacency pairs and turn-taking, and the linguistic structure to phonological, grammatical and semantic completion point. There are some negative cases in the structure of Toba
Batak conversations. These negative cases result from the Conversation HILMAN PARDEDE Analysis (CA) as a tool used to explain the interaction and linguistic structure in Toba Batak phenomena. ISBN: Singapore International Presss
Singapore International Press 2012
THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOBA BATAK CONVERSATIONS
Hilman Pardede
Singapore International Press 2012 THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOBA BATAK CONVERSATIONS By Hilman Pardede, Ph.D A Lecturer in English Language Teaching for Universitas HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar – Medan, Indonesia
@Hilman Pardede, Ph.D ISBN: First Edition 2012 Singapore
Do not circulate this book or any part of it in any binding or form by means of any equipment without any legal permission from Hilman Pardede, Ph.D!
Prodeo et Patricia
2 For
Lissa Donna Manurung and Claudia Benedita Pardede
3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep gratitude to all those who lent their assistance and advice in the preparation and publication of this book. First, thanks go to Paitoon M. Chaiyanara, Ph.D., a professor in Linguistics for National Institute of Nanyang Technological University Singapore for his valuable guidance and advice during the process of publication of this book. Second, the writer’s thanks should go to Drs. Sanggam Siahaan, M.Hum., for his suggestions and cooperation that enables the writer to complete this book. The writer’s sincere appreciations are addressed to Prof. Tengku Silvana Sinar, MA, Ph.D as chairman of Linguistic Program of Post Graduate school of North Sumatera University and Prof. Amrin Saragih, Ph.D., for their advice during the research from the beginning up to the end of the work. His thanks also go to Prof. Dr. Robert Sibarani, MS., for the assistance given which enables him to revise the construction of the research. To James, the English man who fully read the draft of the book. He is indebted to Dr. Jongkers Tampubolon, the Rector of HKBP Nommensen University, for the facilities given that he could participate in any activities pertaining to the publication of the book. Last but not least, he must express deepest gratitude to Lissa Donna Manurung and Claudia Benedita Pardede, for unfailing love, patience, and sage advice. Above all, He thanks God for His blessings.
Singapore, 2012
Hilman Pardede
4 PREFACE
This book is about a research focused on Conversation Analysis (CA) regarding the structure of Adjecancy Pair (AP) , Turn-Taking , and Linguistic Completion Points in Toba Batak (TB) conversations. The purposes are to explain: a) how the AP of TB conversation operates, b) how the end of turn is grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected, and c) how the Turn-Taking in TB conversation operates. The main theory used is CA theory by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974). This theory assumes that there are four basic assumptions in conversation, they are: a) conversation is structurally organized, b) conversation is jointly produced among participants, c) conversation is contextual, and d) conversation is locally managed. Since conversation is structurally organized and sequentially constrained, there can be found structural approach, that is, adjacency pairs. This exemplifies structural organization as well as orderly sequence of interaction in conversation. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether responded or not. When the first is not responded, the second would be noticeably absent, that leads to a repair actions. As the joint production among participants, recipients show his or her intersubjectivity as the understanding and inferences of the the speaker’s utterance. Again, when recipients do not show his or her intersubjectivity, the speaker may reply with repair work in the next slot, which is called the third position repair. Since conversation is locally managed, it implies that turn-by-turn organization of conversation can be analyzed. The research was conducted using qualitative method. The data were collected based on audio recording and video recording of mundane conversation or casual talk which constitute fifty texts of conversations. These texts are categorized into two,
5 they are forty texts dealing with Adjecancy Pair and ten texts dealing with Turn-Taking. The analysis is based on CA, that is sequential analysis. The results of the research are: 1) AP of question-answer in TB conversation is not a basic component in selecting the next speaker, 2) Noticably absent, other than showing a device to make a repair, it is used to show AP of greeting-greeting, 3) AP of question-answer shows greeting-greeting when the answer to the question is not informative, 4) AP of greeting-greeting, horas-horas is unique and typical as it is a basic component and able to perform as congratulation-response, leavetaking- leavetaking, 5) AP of summon-answer shows greeting-greeting since the summon is not responded by an answer, 6) APs of question-answer, greeting-greeting, and summon-answer are related, 7) Post-offer occurs in TB conversation, 8) AP of invitation embody three kinds of sequence: pre-expansion, post-expansion, inserted-sequence, 9) APs of offer and invitation are related, 10) The AP of accusation has a denial response in SPP as preferred, 11) AP of compliment in TB conversation has a downgrading response in SPP, 12) AP of complaint has a denial response in SPP as preferred. It is formulated in disafiliation, 13) APs of acquisition, compliment, and complaint are related, 14) The first rule of turn-taking (CSSN) is not always applicable in TB conversation, 15) Long silence occurs in lapse, 16) The ends of turn which are grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected occur in TB conversation, 17) The rules of Turn-Taking and the organization such as silence, overlapping talk, and repair are applicable in TB conversation, 18) Turn-taking are not culturally bound. The findings imply that learning the adjacency pairs of foreign language can not depend only on the mechanical structure, but on the ritual constraint, and this is also effective in the first
6 language (TB). On the other hand, there is a room for turn- taking to be further studied based on ritual constraint. It is concluded that there are negative cases in AP and turn- taking of TB.
Singapore, 2012
Hilman Pardede
7 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of The Study...... 22 Figure 2: Data Analysis Procedure…………………… 33 Figure 3: Ellaboration of Analysis Procedure ………. 34 Figure 4: Toba Batak Conversation and The constraint…………………………………… 133
8 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Similarity between Toba Batak words, Malay, and Sankrit …………………… 18
Table 2: Turn Allocation and Its constraint …………... 124 Table 3; Ellaboration of negative cases ……………...... 134
9 LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1: Question-Answer……………………………. 109 Chart 2: Greeting-Greeting …………………………… 109 Chart 3: Summon-Answer …………………………… 109 Chart 4: Offer-Ac/Rj ……..…………………………… 110 Chart 5: Invitation -Ac/Rj……………………………… 111 Chart 6: AP mechanism of Acc-D…..………………… 111 Chart 7: AP mechanism of Cpm-Rj………………….. 112 Chart 8: AP mechanism of Cpn-Rj ………………….. 112 Chart 9: Relation among AP Mechanism in Q-A, G-G, S-A ……………………………… 115 Chart10:Relation between APs of Offer and Invitation ………………………… 117 Chart11: Relationship among Ac-D, Cpm-Rj, Cpn-Rj…. ………………… 119 Chart12:TCU, TRP, and Completion Points in Toba Batak Conversation………………… 121
10 LIST OF TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS
Sequencing [ point of overlap onset; ] point of which utterance terminates = no gap between lines (latching utterances). When the same speaker continues on the next line latching signs are not used
Timed intervals (0.0) Lapsed time in tenths of a second e.g. (0.5)
Speech production characteristics word underline indicates speaker emphasis; ! animated and emphatic tone; ? rising intonation, not necessarily a question; he.he. laughter particles
Continuers e indicate intention to start a turn i enthusiatic tone = I agree a lot
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA = Conversation Analysis TB = Toba Batak TBL = Toba Batak Language = Toba Batak AP (s) = Adjacency Pair(s) TRP = Transition Relevance Place TCU = Turn Construction Unit FPP = First Pair Part SPP = Second Pair Part CSSN = Current Speaker Selects Next SS = Self Select SC = Speaker Continuation G = Greeting Q = Question A = Answer O = Offer S = Summon I = Invitation/interruption NI = Non-interruption D = Denial Rj = Rejection Acc = Acceptance Ac = Acusation Cpm = Compliment Cpn = Complaint SISR = Self-initiated, Self-repair OISR = Other-initiated, Self-repair SIOR = Self-initiated, Other-repair OIOR = Other-initiated, Other-repair CU = Collaborative Utterance TO = Terminal Overlap
12 CT = Choral Talk NI = Non-interruption RG = Respond to Greeting RA = Required Answer UA = Unrequired Answer RR = Required Response UR = Unreqired Response PS = Post Sequence CTS = Closing Third Sequence Ass = Assessment
13 LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1. A conversation about papaya ………………..38 Picture 2. A conversation about asking direction ………..39 Picture 3. A conversation at a fishing pool ……………. 40 Picture 4. A conversation about statue ………………… 64 Picture 5. A conversation in a coffee-counter …………...65 Picture6. A conversation about a coupon-number ……..72 Picture 7. A conversation about a learning-driver and a new-come ………………………………74 Picture 8. A conversation about tomatoes-planting ……75 Picture 9. A conversation about pension ……………… 80 Picture 10.A conversation about poor-family ………...... 84 Picture11. A conversation about family ……………88 Picture12. A conversation about land-reform ……….. 94
14 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………… ………… i ABSTRAK ………………………………………………………… ………… iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..…………………………………………………… v CURRICULUM VITAE ..…………………………………………………… vi LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………… ….. vii LIST OF TABLES ..………………………………………………………… … viii LIST OF CHARTS ..………………………………………………………… … ix LIST OF TRANSCRIPTION SYMBOLS ………………………………………. x LIST OF ABBREVIATION .…………………………………………………… xi LIST OF MAPS ..………………………………………………………… … xii
15 LIST OF PICTURES ..………………………………………………………… … xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………… xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..…………………………………………… 1 1.1 Background ………………………………………………………..… … 1 1.2 Research Problems ……………………………………………….…… 3 1.3 The Objective of Study ……………………………………………. 4 1.4 Significance of Research ……………………………………………. 4 1.5 Scope of Research ……………………………………………………. 5 1.6 Definition of Key Terms ……………………………………………. 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE …..……………………………….. 7 2.1 Relevant Approaches to Analyzing Conversation …………………… 7 2.1.1 Conversation Analysis …………………………………… 7 2.1.2 Ethnography of Speaking …………………………………… 8 2.1.3 Interactional Sociolinguistics …………………………………… 8
16 2.1.4 Variation Theory …………………………………………… 9 2.1.5 Speech Act Theory …………………………………………… 9 2.1.6 Pragmatics …………………………………………………… 10 2.1.7 Birmingham School …………………………………………… 10 2.1.8 Systemic Functional Linguistics …………………………… 10 2.1.9 Critical Discourse Analysis …………………………………… 11 2.2. Conversation ………………………………………………………… … 11 2.2.1 Characteristics of Conversation …………………………… 11 2.2.2 Assumption in Conversation …………………………………… 13 2.3. Adjacency Pairs …………………………………………………… 13 2.4. Turn ………………………………………………………… ………… 15 2.5. Turn – Taking ………………………………………………………… … 16 2.6 Toba Batak Language and Culture …………………………………… 17 2.6.1 Toba Batak Language …………………………………………… 17 2.6.2 Toba Batak Culture …………………………………………… 19
17 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY …………………………………………… 21 3.1 Research Design …………………………………………………… 21 3.2 Location of Research …………………………………………………… 22 3.3 Data ………………………………………………………… ………… 28 3.4 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………… … 32 3.5 Validity ………………………………………………………… … 35
CHAPTER IV THE STRUCTURE OF ADJACENCY PAIRS AND TURN-TAKING IN TOBA BATAK LANGUAGE …………………………… 36 4.1. Data Analysis …………………………………………………… 36 4.1.1 The Structure of Adjacency Pairs In TBL …………………… 37 4.1.1.1 Question-answer …………………………………… 37 4.1.1.2 Greeting-greeting …………………………………… 40 4.1.1.3 Summon-Answer …………………………………… 44 4.1.1.4 Offer-acceptance/refusal …………………………… 48
18 4.1.1.5 Invitation-acceptence/rejection …………………… 51 4.1.1.6 Accusation-denial …………………………………… 54 4.1.1.7 Compliment- Acceptance/Rejection …………………… 56 4.1.1.8 Complaint-rejection …………………………………… 58 4.1.2 Turn-Taking in TB Conversation …………………………… 61 4.1.2.1 Completion Points …………………………………… 65 4.1.2.1.1 Grammatical Completion Point …………… 65 4.1.2.1.2 Intonational Completion Point …………… 68 4.1.2.1.3 Semantic Completion Point …………………… 70 4.1.2.2 Turn Allocation Component …………………………… 76 4.1.2.2.1 Current Speaker Selects Next …………… 78 4.1.2.2.2 Self-select …………………………………… 81 4.1.2.2.3 Speaker Continuation …………………… 82 4.1.2.3 Silence …………………………………………………… 85 4.1.2.3.1 Gap …………………………………………… 85 4.1.2.3.2 Pause …………………………………… 89
19 4.1.2.3.3 Lapse …………………………………… 91 4.1.2.4 Overlapping Talk …………………………………… 93 4.1.2.4.1 Continuers …………………………………… 93 4.1.2.4.2 Collaborative Utterances …………………… 95 4.1.2.4.3 Terminal Overlap …………………………… 96 4.1.2.4.4 Choral Talk …………………………………… 97 4.1.2.5 Repair …………………………………………………… 98 4.1.2.5.1 Self-initiated, Self-repair …………………… 99 4.1.2.5.2 Other-initiated,Self-repair …………………… 101 4.1.2.5.3 Self-initiated, Other-repair …………………… 102 4.1.2.5.4 Other-initiated, Other Repair …………… 103 4.2 Findings ………………………………………………………… … 105 4.2.1 Introductory Remarks …………………………………………… 100 4.2.2 Negative Cases as new findings …………………………… 108 4.3 Discussion ………………………………………………………… … 111
20 4.3.1 System Constraint …………………………………………… 111 4.3.1.1 Question-answer, Greeting-greeting, Summon-answer 111 4.3.1.2 Offer-Acceptance/Refusal, Invitation- Acceptance/Rejection 116 4.3.1.3 Accusation-denial, Compliment- Acceptance/Rejection, Complaint-Rejection …………………………………… 118 4.3.1.4 TCU and TRP, Completion Point …………………… 119 4.3.1.5 Turn Allocation, Repair, Overlapping Talk, Silence …… 121 4.3.2 Ritual Constrain …………………………………………… 125 4.3.2.1 Question-answer, Greeting-Greeting, Summon-Answer 125 4.3.2.2 Offer-Acceptance/Rejection, Invitation- Acceptance/ Rejection …………………………………………… 127 4.3.2.3 Accusation, Compliment, Complaint …………………… 128
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS …………………… 135 5.1. Conclusions ………………………………………………………… … 135 5.2 Suggestions ………………………………………………………… … 137
21 REFERENCES …………..……………………………………………… .. 138
22 I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background of the Study The first motivation of this study stems from the problematic issue occurred in English teaching of conversation for the homogenous students of Toba Batak (TB) and in a TB interaction in a coffee-counter. When it was observed, the students in responding the compliment of the other did not practise them as applied in English conversation. A case in point is reflected in this extract:
A : You have a nice shirt! B : No, it is my old one.
From the above conversation, A’s compliment was rejected by B. It is not the case in English conversation where compliment is not rejected, A’s compliment is accepted in English conversation by an appreciation response such as, thank you. Another case in point deals with a TB conversation of more than two participants in the coffee-counter. It was noted that there is no regularity in terms of the turn-taking among the interactants. The taking of turn and transition from one speaker to another are haphazard. There are problems of turn- taking management in such a conversation. About conversation, Furo (2001:24) presented four asumptions in conversation: 1) conversation is structurally organized, 2) conversation is jointly produced among participants, 3) conversation is contextual, and 4) conversation is locally managed. These asumptions indicate there are structures and process of turn-taking in conversation as well as units that build the turn-taking. The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The second motivation of this study is derived from the statement: “there has been a considerable shift in emphasis in linguistic research from phonology and morphology to syntax and semantics and from there on to an increased interest in the study of language in social context” (Platt and Platt 1975 : 1). There are two shifts of linguistic research in the quotation above, i.e., the one from phonology and morphology to syntax and semantics, and another one from syntax and semantics to study of language in social context. The study of language in social context or in a more specific term, a function - based study (Halliday,1994) was less emphasized than the formal study of language. Like Indonesian language, according to Sinar (1998 : 1), much of the study done was centered on the formal aspect of the language. The trend is also true for the study of the regional languages, such as that of the Toba Batak Language (TBL), in other words, there has not been a concern with the language function or language use especially in conversation, as what is going to be investigated in this study. The available studies are mostly dealing with syntax, semantics, and morphology of TBL. This study is a compromise one where there is a combination of formal and functional aspect in the study of TBL. The functional aspect such as interactional units: turn – taking, adjacency pairs, preference, silence, overlapping talk, and repair would be under much emphasis, and the formal aspect such as the linguistic properties: grammatical, intonational, and semantic properties are also studied, so that the relationship between language and interaction can be explained in Toba Batak Conversation. A study on the structure of discourse involves examining utterances from both linguistic and interactional view points since utterances are realizations of language in
2 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations use. In this case, one should begin with how particular units (utterances, actions) are used and draw conclusion about the broader functions of such units from functional analysis. In other words, “one would begin from observation and description of an utterance itself, and then try to infer from analysis of that utterance and its context what functions are being served”, (Schiffrin, 1994). As this study focuses on the conversations in TBL, utterances would be the basic unit of analysis which are viewed from formal and functional aspect of categories. From formal view, three linguistic units (grammatical, intonational, semantic) are examined to see the construction component, whether the grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point influence the speaker changes or transition relevance places (TRPs). From the functional view, interactional units such turn–taking, adjacency pairs, preferences, are examined to see the distribution component. One of the approaches in analyzing conversation is conversation analysis (CA), which emerged in the pioneering researches of Harvey Sacks (Hutchby, 1998: 5) into the structural organization of everyday language use, accounted by his friend Schegloff (Have, 1999:5). According to Schegloff’s account, Harvey Sacks discovered some subtle ways in which callers to a suicide prevention center managed to avoid giving their names, as shown in the conversation below : A : This is Mr. Smith, may I help you? B : I can’t hear you. A : This is Mr. Smith. B : Smith. Sacks (Hutchby and Woffit, 1999:18) had observed that in the majority of cases if the person is taking the call within the organization started off by giving their name, then the suicidal
3 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations person who was calling would be likely to give their name in reply. But in one particular call, He noticed that the caller (B) as shown in the conversation above seemed to be having trouble with the name of the answerer. Then the agent who took the call found it difficult to get the caller’s name. For him, the avoidance of giving one’s name in the conversation by answering “ I can’t hear you” leads to the accomplishment of action or particular things given by an utterance. So, in this case the utterance is an action. However, Sacks (Hutchby and Woffit, 1998:8) here emphasizes that “I can’t hear you” is not always an expression representing the way one avoids giving his name. Rather he viewed the utterance as an action which is situated within specific context. He also observed that by the caller’s “not hearing”, he is able to set up a sequential trajectory in which the agent finds less opportunity to establish the caller’s name without explicitly asking for it. Thereby the caller is able to begin the conversation by avoiding giving a name without actually refusing to do so. Utterance as an action is also supported by Schegloff (2007: 1) as he focused on action rather than a topic in talk-in interaction. An utterance like “Would somebody like some more ice tea?” is better understood as “doing an offer” than as “about ice tea”. Conversation Analysis is derived from Ethnomethodology which is focused on the methods by which the group conducts coversation. Group here refers to society’s members which are considered having intersubjectivity and cammon-sense knowledge realized in talk-in interaction in their daily life. Obviously, the member’s knowledge meant by this method concerns with the member’s knowledge of their ordinary affairs, knowledge that shows a sense of order in
4 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations everyday conduct, and this is publicly displayed in activity which is going on. Austin and Searle (Schiffrin, 1994 : 6 ) developed speech act theory from the basic insight that language is use, not just to describe the world, but it can perform an action. The utterance “I promise to be there tomorrow” performs the act of promising,and the utterance “The grass is green” performs the act of asserting. An utterance can also perform more than one action as shown below. Speaker : Can you pass the salt? Hearer : / pass the salt/ The first action is an act of questioning the ability of the hearer, and the second performs an act of requesting. This is what distinguishes utterance from sentence. In the case above there is only one sentence, that is, an interrogative sentence. But there are two utterances with two contexts. As Schiffrin (1994: 40) put it, a sentence is neither a physical event nor a physical object, it is conceived of abstractly as a string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language. Of Sacks’ observation on talk-in interaction (Hutchby et.al, 1999), he really based his analysis on the naturally occurring data from which he did a turn by turn details of the conversation so that a robust analytical basis would be used to get a robust finding. What he observed then leads to the key insights which are treated on the methodological basis for conversation analysis. These key insights can be summarized below : 1. Talk – in interaction is systematically organized and deeply ordered. 2. The production of talk – in interaction is methodic. 3. The analysis of talk- in interaction should be based on naturally occurring data.
5 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4. Analysis should not be constrained by prior theoretical assumption. How then language is related with interaction? Ford and Thompson (1996) observed grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point.
1.2 Research Problems As the research focuses on conversation analysis of TBL, two of the four basic assumptions on conversation are the point of departure to discuss what problems emerge in conversation (Furo, 2001: 27). The first problem deals with the structure of conversation, as the first assumption is that conversation is structurally organized, so there can be found structural approach, adjacency pairs. The second problem deals with the turn-taking system, as the second assumption is that conversation is locally managed. If it is locally managed, it is done turn-by-turn analysis which is realized in constructing turn construction units, turn distribution components and turn- taking organization such as, silence, overlapping talk and repair. Turn Construction Units (TCUs) are linguistic units like sentences, clauses, words, etc, in which at their end there are linguistic completion points which ifluence interaction as at these ends it is possible a transition from one speaker to another occurs. If this occurs, rules of turn taking follows, and such other turn organizations can occur. Are all these problems applicable in TB conversation? Based on the previous decription and the question above, the problems of research in this study are formulated on three questions as the following. 1. What are the interaction structures ( Adjacency Pairs) in TB conversation?
6 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2. How are the ends of turn in TB conversation grammatically, intonationally, and semantically projected? 3. How does the turn-taking of TB conversation operate?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
This study examines the interaction structures of the TB conversation and the linguistic structures involved in Transition Relevance Place (TRP). When the interaction structures are analyzed in terms of conversation analysis, the most basic unit of the interaction is adjacency pair, the other unit is turn-taking. When language is used in interaction, linguistic properties such as grammatical, intonational, and semantic are related to show grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point to see the point of speaker changes or transtion relevance places. Thus, the objectives of this study are to describe the applicability of adjacency pairs, turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974), and the applicability of completion points (grammatical, intonational, and semantic ) as in the TB conversations . Specifically, the objectives are : (1) to examine the structures of adjacency pairs in TB conversations. (2) to examine how the end of turn, grammatically, intonationnally, and semantically are projected. (3) to discuss how the turn-taking of TB conversations operates.
1.4 The Significance of Research Examining adjacency pairs and turn-taking in the TB conversation is benificial in two respects. First, we can recognize how the first pair part as component of adjacency 7 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations pair varies in the TB conversations. For Example, is greeting in Toba Batak always followed by greeting? Secondly, one can describe how the turn taking system in Toba Batak operate can be understood by examining the turn distribution component. For example, does the current speaker select the next speaker, or the next speaker applies the self select or the current speaker continues? Analyzing the linguistic properties that can influence the interaction in the TB conversation can construct the relation between language and interaction ; grammatical, intonational, and semantic can project the end of a turn, so makes it possible to make speaker changes. Practically the research findings can be made as a reference for teachers who teach English conversation to homogenous students like that of Toba Batak.
1.5 The Scope of Research As has been stated in the previous section, this study is examining the interaction structures of Toba Batak conversation and the linguistic structures that influence the interaction in the TB conversation. The interaction structures in this study can be limited to adjacency pairs and turn-taking. In adjacency pairs, two parts will be analyzed as their components, the first pair part and the second pair part. In English, there is a greeting in the first part and also greeting in the second pairs part like in : A : Morning B : Morning Preferences is also a part of adjacency pair which are shown in invitation. The response of invitation can be positive as reffering to preference and negative as referring to dispreferences. So first pair part , second pair part, and preference would be under discussion in adjacency pair.
8 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The component of turn-taking such as, turn construction units, turn distribution component, silence, overlapping talk, and repair are analyzed in Toba Batak Conversation. Here, it will be examinined to what extent turn- taking proposed by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) are applicable to the different phenomena such as in Toba Batak Conversation. The elements of linguistic structure to be examined are grammatical, intonational, and semantic units, as those which are realized in grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point related to transition relevance place in turn- taking. So, the turn constructional unit is not included in interactional structure.
1.6 The Definitions of Key Terms There are some key terms that should be defined in this study such as: interaction structure, linguistic structure, conversation, Toba Batak conversation, adjacency pairs, turn taking and utterances. Interaction or conversational structures refer to adjacency pairs and turn-taking in conversation (Tracy, 2002: 113). Lingustic structure comprises properties or units like grammatical, intonational, and semantic units. In this study, these properties refers to completion point which can influence the speaker changes (Ford and Thompson, 1996). Conversation is defined as the spontaneous talk in interactions among two or more participants in casual, informal setting of everyday life. In relation to this, admittedly, the TB conversation is one which is used in the TB language of everyday life. Adjacency pairs which constitute successive uttreances by different speakers where the second pairs is type that is required and expected by the first type.
9 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A turn is the talk of one party bounded by the talk of the moment is changed. In this case, the overlapping talk and silence can be problem, but they are considered as structures of talk. Utterances are units of language production that are inherently contextualized. Defining discourse as utterances seems to balances both the functional emphasis on how language is used in context and the formal emphasis on extended patterns.
10 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter is aimed at reviewing the literature of items which are the most relevant to the study such as, relevant approaches to analyzing conversation, conversation which consists of characteristic and assumption, adjacency pairs, turn, turn taking, TB culture and language as well as previous studies.
2.1 Relevant Approaches To Analyzing Conversation There have been various perspectives in analyzing conversation as the spoken interaction in everyday life. Eggins and Slade (1997:23) present five persepective such as ethnomethodology, sociolinguistic, logico-philosophic, structural-functional, and social-semiotic. From Ethnomethodology point of view, an approach called Conversation Analysis (CA) has been proposed as a part of discourse study as what the others have. Sociolinguistic-based refers to three approaches, Ethnography of Speaking, Interactioanal Sociolinguistic, and Variotion Theory. Logico- philosophic deals with Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Structural-functional embodies two approaches like Birmingham School and Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Social-semiotic consist of Critical Discourse Analysis. As this study deals with conversation Analysis, it is discussed firstly before the others though it emerged during the 1960’s.
2.1.1 Conversation Analysis As a matter of fact, Conversation Analysis derived from Ethnomethodology. According to Schiffin (1994:233), Garfinkel’s term “ethnomethodology” was modeled after terms
11 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations used in cross-culture analyses of ways of “doing” and “knowing”. Ethnobotany, for example, is concerned with culturally specific systems by which people “know about” (classify, label, etc) plants. The term “ethno” seemed to refer to the availability to a member of common-sense knowledge. It is the ordinary arrangement of a set of located practices. In other words, ethnomethodology concerns with “a member’s knowledge of his ordinary affairs, of his own organized enterprises, where that knowledge is treated by us as part of the same setting that is also makes orderable. So uncovering what we know is a central concern for ethnomethodology. For this, knowledge and action are deeply linked and mutually constitutive, which is an important bearing on the study of language. In the study of talk, ethnomethodology means an insistence on the use of materials collected from naturally occuring occasions of everyday interaction. Eggins and Slade (1994:25), stated that Conversation Analysis (CA) focused on conversation because it offers a particulary appropriate and accessible resource for ethnomethodology enquiry. Sharrock and Anderson (In Eggins and Slade, 1994:25) further stated that “Seeing the sense of ordinary activities means being able to see what people are doing and saying, and therefore one place in which one might begin to see how making sense is done in terms of understanding of everyday talk”. In relation with this, Sacks, et.al. (1974) proposed a fundamental activity in conversation, that is, turn-taking. In conversation, speaker keep taking turns, and in the process of keeping turns, a speaker has to be able to see the point when transfer of role is possible. This is done by Turn Construction Units (TCU’s), units constructed to signal turn transfer. These units are realized in grammatical units considered as the end of turn cannot always determine who would be the next speaker. For this, Sacks et al. (1974)
12 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations note that at the end of TCU there are two possibilities of determining the allocation of turns. First, the current speaker selects the next speaker. Second, if the current speaker does not select the next speaker, the speaker may self-select. Sacks and Schegloff explained a concept to explain the ordeliness of conversation, that is, adjacency pairs, a main format in which talk is sequenced. Adjacency pairs is a sequence of two utterances which are adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first part and second part, and typed, so that the first part requires a particular second part. The common adjacency part is question/answer sequence. The others are: request/grant, offer/accepted, affer/reject, etc.
2.1.2 Ethnography of Speaking The ethnography of speaking or communication is an approach to discourse that is based on anthropology as critic of Dell Hymes to Chomsky’s well known refocussing of linguistic theory on the explanation of competence –the tacit knowledge of the abstract rules of language. According to Hymes (1974) communicative competence includes knowledge of how to engage in everyday conversation as well as other culrally constructed events, speech event. Speech event refers to activities that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. It includes interaction such as a conversation at a party, ordering a meal, etc. However, the notion of communication cannot be assumed to be constant across culture. Cultural conceptions of communication are deeply intertwined with conception of person, cultural values, and world knowledge, such that instances of communication behavior are never free of the cultural belief and action system in which they occur. Hymes explained different components of communication used to understand the social context of
13 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations linguistic interactions, in a grid known as SPEAKING (as has been explained in chapter one).
2.1.3 Interactional Sociolinguistics The approach to discourse called interaction Sociolinguistics stems from anthropology, sociology, and linguistics, and shares the concerns of all three fields with culture, society, and language. This approach was inspired by Gumperz (1982) and Goffman (1959) which was discuused by Eggins and Slade (1997:34). Gumperz focuses on how people from different cultures may share grammatical knowledge of a language, but differenly contextualize what is said such that very different messages are produced. He demonstrated that interactants from different socio-cultural backgrounds may hear and understand discourse differently according to their interpretation of contextualization cues in discourse. Gumperz describes a number of problems that have arisen between Indian English speakers and British English speaker. For instance, Indian English-speaking women working in a cafetaria were getting complaints from British English- speaking patrons about their rudeness. In looking at their conversatinal action, Gumperz dicovered that the British English patrons were atributing rudeness to the staff because of the workers’ intonation patterns when they offered service. Instead of saying “Gravy” with a rising intonation, as British English speakers would to offer a service and be polite, the Indian Speaker were saying “Gravy” with a falling intonation. For British English speakers, this conveyed an identity message the suggested you are not important, so just take it or leave it. Whereas Goffman focuses on how language is situated in particular circumstance of social life, and how it adds (or reflects) different types of meaning and structure to those circumstances. For Example, communicators may consciously
14 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations work to created certain impression or may do inadvertently. Goffman describes this as the differences between meanings that itentionally given and those that are given off. A person speaking to a group may work to present, telling a joke to get started, and so on. On the other hand, if in speaking her voice cracks or she pauses just after a few words, people will consider her as nervous. This is categorized as meaning that was given off.
2.1.4 Variation Theory A variation approach to discourse stems from linguistic variation and change. An important part of thre variationist approach to discourse is the discovery of formal patterns in text (narratives). This theory was initially developed by Labov (1972), (in Eggins and Slade, 1997), the majority of his analyzing the work on the structure of text within conversations. Labov and Waletzky (1967) in Eggins and Slade (1997) state that there are fundamental structure of narratives which are signaled in spoken narratives of personal experience. This involves in six stages: Abstarct, Orientation, Complication, Evaluation, Resolution, and Coda (see further Eggins and Slade, 1997:39).
2.1.5 Speech Act Theory Speech act theory was developed by John Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969), in Eggins and Slade (1997), from basic insight that language is used not just to describe the world as been discussed previouly, but to perform a range of other actions that can be indicated in the performance of the utterances itself. They call this as the illocutionary force of an utterance. As example, the following utterances in Toba Batak contex indicate a performance of forbidding:
15 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A : Sian dia ho Tiur? (Where have you been?) B : (Keep silent and immediately entering her room)
As seen from the example that A (father) asked B (daughter) the place where she was from. B actually should have answered by naming the place she is from, but she just kept silent and immediately came into her room. She understood that her father was not just asking her but more than that, her father did not allow her to be outside at midnight. So the utterances above can be understood as both a question and a forbidding.
2.1.6 Pragmatics A pragmatic approach to discourse is based primarily on the philosophical ideas of H.P.Grice (1975), (in Eggins and Slade, 1997). Grice proposed distinction between different types of meaning and argued that general maxims of cooperation provide inferential routes to speaker’s communicative intention. He further developed some maxims which are implicative in cooperative principle. These maxims are: maxim of quality (say only the required quantity), maxim of quality (say honestly), maxim of relevant (be relevant), and maxim of manner (be brief, not being ambiguous). In describing conversation as cooperative, Grice did not mean to say that conversation is only and always nice and pleasant. Conversation is a cooperative activity in much the same way as football-playing. So, cooperative pribciples are not obligatory in that they are not attached to rules.
2.1.7 Birmingham School This approach according to Eggins and Slade (1997) was established through the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Eggins and Slade (1994:44) say that it derived from
16 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations socio-semantic linguistic theory of J.R. Firth (1957), particulary as developed by Halliday in the early description of scale-and- category grammar. The Birmingham School focus on discourse structure, whereas Halliday oriented in semiotic from the systematic perspective. Birmingham School distinguishes discorse as a level of language organization from grammar and phonology. Distinct discourse unit were indentified for analysis of interactive talk in terms of rank. The units are made of one or more of the units immediately below it. In classroom discourse study, Sinclair and Coulthard introduced the terms Acts which are combined to make up Moves which in turn combined to make up Exchanges. Then exchanges are combined to make up Transactions, and finally make up Lesson to be the largest units in teaching discourse. The Birmingham school present such conversational structure in pedagogic context in three moves: Initiation, Response and Feedback.
2.1.8 Systemic Functional Linguistics Systemic functional linguistics is an approach developed by Halliday (1973), (in Eggins and Slade, 1997) which is based on the model of language as Social Semiotic to which it is elaborated to a functional-semantic interpretation of conversation. Systemic approach offers major benefits in conversational analysis: 1) it offers an integrated, comprehensive and systematic model of language which enables conversational patterns to be described and quantified at different levels and in different digree of detail, 2) It theorizes the links between language and social life so that conversation can be approached as a way of doing social life. More specifically, casual conversation can be analysed as involving different linguistic patterns which both enact and
17 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations construct dimensions of social identity and interpersonal relations (Eggins, 1997:47). Halliday (1994) states that in a casual conversation there are simultaneously embedded three types of meaning; ideatioanal meaning, interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning. Ideational meaning concern with the topic being talked about, when, by whom, and how topic transition and closure is achieved. Interpersonal meaning focused om what kinds of role relation are established through talk, what attitudes interactants express to and about each other, what kinds of things they find funny, and how they negotiate to take turns. Textual meaning refers to different types of cohesion used to tie chuncks of the talk together. In contextual respect, Eggins and Slade (1997) related three types of meaning to register. Ideational meaning is related to Field, interpersonal meaning to Tenor and textual meaning to Mode. Genre is also included as a further level of context in analyzing conversations.
2.1.9 Critical Discourse Analysis In this approach, Fairclough (1995), (in Eggins and Slade,1997) studies the relationship between language, ideology and power as well as between discourse and sociocultural change. The contribution of this approach are realized in three main areas: notions of text and difference, methods and techniques of conversation anlysis, and critical account of genre. Kress (1985), (in Eggins and Salde, 1997) explained it is differences that motivate speech, as Argument to differences is of an ideological kind, interview to differences arround power and knowledge, Gossip to differences around informal knowledge, Lecture to differences arround formal knowledge. Kress argued that individuals who come to interaction share
18 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations membership of particular social groupings, and learn modes of speaking or discourse associated with those institutions. In critical discourse analysis, the micro-event and the macro-social structures are inextricably linked. In order words, it is impossible to study verbal interaction separated from social structures. In this case it is explained why participants have the impression of ordeliness in interaction. Ordeliness arises from participants conformity with their background knowledge about the norms, right and obligation appropriate in interaction in particular context. As an example, a lecture in university is orderly, as the lecturer and the students are in conformity to dominant discourse practice whereby the lecture talks without invitation and the students listen without complaint
2.2 Conversation This part talks about the characteristic of conversation as well as the assumption used in conversation. Here the characteristic of conversation deals with the strength of mundane conversation used as data in conversation on Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson study (in Furo, 2001).
2.2.1 Characteristic of Conversation As has been defined before that conversation is spontaneous talk in interaction among two or more participants in casual, informal settings of everyday life (Furo, 2001:25). This kind of conversation has also been touched by Goodwin and Heritage (1990) as ordinary and mundane conversation. Whereas listeners freely alternate in speaking, and this occurs in informal setting. By those definitions we can direcly distinguish it from a talk that takes institutional setting as its context. For example, a conversation which occurs in a debate , seminar, adat ceremony, all of which the procedures: when, where, and how the participants talk are not spontaneous.
19 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In ordinary conversation or casual talk, there is no an arrangement who, where, and when to talk. All come spontaneously. Eventhough ordinary, and the general impression is that it is chaotic and disorderly, it is useful for conversation analysis which is based their work on ethnomethodological enquire. Seeing the sense of ordinary activities means being able to see what people are doing and saying, and therefore one place in which one might begin to see how making sense is done in terms of the understanding of everyday talk (Sharrock and Anderson in Eggin and Slade, 1997:25). When there was an invention of recording devices, and the willingness to study mundane conversation in depth, what people doing and saying in their everyday talk are actually highly organized and ordered. According to Furo (2001) conversation treated as data in conversation analysis has three characteristic : 1. It reflected the communicative competence of the participant. 2. It is the most unmarked form of communication. 3. It reflected the interaction norms as well as the social system of the culture where it occurs. This communicative competence (Schiffrin in Furo, 2001) constitutes our tacit knowledge of the abstarct rules of language, which is required both to produce sound/meaning correspondences betweexn sounds, meaning formed in socially and culturally appropriate ways. Conversation requires participants knowledge of both linguistic and pragmatic ability, or show the way participants use language in interaction. As the most unmarked form of communication, conversation can be treated as the prototype of other forms of talk. Goodwin and Heritage (1990: 284) observed that
20 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations ordinary conversation is the point of departure of more specialized communicative context. As it occurs in ubiquity, ordinary conversation has been familiar with the life of Toba Batak. At this present time only talks in institutional setting, such as conversation in adat ceremony has been under investigation. Of its mundane nature, ordinary conversation may involve all people from all ranks, whereas instituonal talks take limited participants, like only the married participants can participate in the conversation. As conversation carried out in cultural and social context, the action done can reflect the identity of participants including interaction norms on social process in interpersonal relationships (Schiffirin, 1994). In this case, conversation can indicate the basic principles that govern the linguistic and non- linguistic behavior of the members of the society in which the principles are constituted.
2.2.2 Assumption in Conversation The four basic assumptions in conversation as discussed in chapter one (Furo, 2001: 24) are: 1. Conversation is structurally organized. 2. Conversation is jointly produced among participants. 3. Conversation is contextual 4. Conversation is locally managed. Since conversation is structurally organized and sequetially constrained (Goodwin and Heritage, 1990), there can be found structural approach, that is, adjacency pairs. This exemplifies structural organization as well as orderly sequence of interaction in conversation. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether responded or not. When the first is not responded, the second would be noticeably absent, that leads to a repair actions.
21 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
As the joint production among participant, recipients show his or her intersubjective as the understanding and inferences of the the speaker’s utterance. Again, when recipients do not show his or her intersubjectivity, the speaker may reply with repair work in the next slot, which is called the third position repair (Schegloff in Furo, 2001). Conversation is context dependent. This assumption means that conversation is shaped in context, the prior context (context-shaped) and the new context (context-renewing). In this way, context does not refer to social one such as participants’ identities or situational settings but they are sequences of action and interpretation that emerge in the organization of conversation (Goodwin and Heritage, 1990) The fourth assumption conversation is locally managed, implies that turn-by-turn organization of conversation are analyzed. These occur in the turn-taking as presented by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jafferson (1974). They observed that turn exchanges are systematically relaized with minimal gap and overlap because speakers take transisition relevance place (TRPs).
2.3 Adjacency Pairs We have noted above that structural view in interaction is related to adjecency pairs. That is a sequence of two utterances which are adjecent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first pair part and second part, and typed, so that a first part requires a particular second part (Schegloff and Sacks in Schiffrin, 1994). According to Tracy (2002:114) there are many kinds of adjacency pairs. Some pairs involve similiar acts like greetings and goodbye, while others involve different acts, like invitations or offers followed by acceptances or refusals, and question followed by answer.
22 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Below are two examples of common adjacency pairs in English taken from Tracy (2002:114). These adjacency pairs involve different acts. Example (1) accepts an invitation, and example (2) refuses an invitation.
1 Taryn : How about some lunch ? Invitation Jjay : Sound good. (stand up) Acceptance
2 Taryn : How aout some lunch ? Invitation Jay : (pause) Uhh, better bot. refusual I’ve got to get this done by 2:00. Thanks though. How’s tomorrow ?
There would be an expansion of adjacency pairs. This is done by presequence. If a speaker wanted to invite someone for a dinner, it is reasonable for the speaker to ask the invited person if he has eaten yet. An adjacency pairs usually a question-answer format come first, as in Example (3) below :
3 Taryn : you eaten yet ? Question Jay : No Answer Taryn : How about some lunch ?. Invitation
Another expansion of adjecency pairs is done by insertion sequences. Like presequences, insertion sequences involve an inserted adjecency pairs to determine if some condition applies that would make the conversationally preferred option possible. This is presented in example (4) below :
4 Taryn : How about some lunch ? Invitation 23 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Jay : You got $ 5 to lend me ? Request Taryn : Yeah. Grant Jay : Sounds good. Acceptances
However, the notion of adjacency pair is not always the most usual sequence. It is possible for a question not to be answered by an answer, greeting by a greeting. When the answer is not forth coming it is noticeably absent (Schegloff in Tracy, 2002). In this case, it is possible for the speaker makes a repair. Schegloff (in Have, 1999) observed that from 500 instances of the telephone opening, one instance deviated from the common format summon-answer. As a matter of fact, this deviant is considered as noticeably absent. This can be seen in the following excerpt: (police makes call) Receiver is lifted, and there is one second pause Police : Hello. Other : American Red-cross Police : Hello, this is police Headquartes, or Officer Stratton.
The common one is that a telephone ring is as a summons opens a conditional relevance for second part of a sequence, answer. If the answer is not forthcoming a summons can be reissued. In the above conversation, the police reissued a summons by saying, hello. Another respect of adjacency pairs is preferences. Conversational preferences refers to structurally preferred second act for adjecency pairs that may take one of two forms (Tracy, 2002). In offer, invitation or request, accepts are conversationally preferred to refusals. So, acceptances is a preferred action, and refusal in a dispreferred action. In
24 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
English, conversationally dispreferred act is always longer, more conversationnaly marked and elaborated. In example (2) before, the refusal of Jay as dispreferred action was not immediately given, but there was a pause before elaborating it. It seem that conversational preference varies from culture to culture as what different languages tell us about the different concept of space in a certain culture (Duranti, 1997).
2.2.4 Turn A proposed unit of conversation seen as something said by the speaker preceded, followed or both by a turn of some other speaker is called a turn (Mathews, 1997:417). Whereas Goodwin (1981) stated that turn is the talk of one party bounded by the talk of other. From these two defenition it can be implied that in turn, there is unit of conversation and boundaries of talk or speaker change. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) stated that the unit of conversation refers to turn construction units (TCUs). TCU is an utterance that is interpretable as recognizably complete. Grammar is one key organizational resource in building and recognizing TCUs (Schegloff, 2007:3). The second resource is phonetic realization, most familiarity in intonational packaging. A speaker beginning to talk in a turn has the right and obligation to produce one TCU which may realize one or more actions. The conversation below is an example of which h TCUs are constructed as giving actions, as quoted in Schiffrin (1994:6). A : Can you pass the salt B : Here you are A : Thank you B : You’re welcome
25 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In this conversation, A makes 2 TCUs in two sentences : Can you past the salt ?, and Thank you, A also performs two action : requesting and thanking. In similar case, B makes 2 TCUs and two action: giving and granting, The types of units or TCUs may vary, such as sentence, clause, phrase, or word. A speaker approaches the possible of a first TCU in turn, transition to a next speaker can become relevant. If this is done, the transition to a next speaker is a accomplished just after the possible completion of the TCU in progress.
2.5 Turn-taking In everyday talk, there are no formal rules, about who can talk, when and about what, rather who gets a turn in a conversation. Turn-taking is the process through which the party doing the talk of the moment is changed. The definition implies that there is a process in turn – taking, that is a process of speaker changes. If it is a process of speaker changes, then there would be patterns from the rescursive process. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jafferson (1974:706) presente fourteen recuring patterns of turn taking in English : 1. Speaker change recurs, or at least occurs. 2. Overwhelmigly, one party talks at a time. 3. Occurences of more than one speaker at a time a re common, but brief. 4. Transition (from turn to a next), with no gap an no overlap are common. Together with a transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transition. 5. Turn order is not fixed, but varies 6. Turn size is not fixed, but varies 7. Length of conversation is not specified in advance 8. What parties say is not specified in advance. 9. Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance.
26 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
10.Number of parties can vary. 11.Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. 12.Turn allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party) : or parties may self –select in starting to talk. 13.Various turn – constructional units are employed ; e.g. turns can be projected one word long or they can be sentential in length. 14. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn – taking erros and violations, e.g. if two parties find themselve talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble. Those recuring patterns; turn construction units (TCUs), Turn distribution components, overlapping talks, turn order – adjacency pairs will be observed in Toba Batak conversation. About overlapping talks, Jefferson (in Furo, 2001: 31) states that a recipient has the capacity to place his or her with precise timing as well as to respond collaboratively and appropriately according to the current speaker’orientation. Here, the next speaker’s utterance is precisely place at the point where he or she understands the previous speaker’s utterances. West and Zimmerman (in Furo, 2001: 31) considered overlap talk as the brief simultaneous talk near posible completation points (within sylables). The example below is an overlapping talk as defined: A : I am sorry, I,can’t come B : [ I know For the turn-taking distribution, Sacks, et.al. (1974: 704) found rules as: 1) the current speaker the next makes self- select and 3) if there is no self-select, the current speaker conbtinues. This I done at initial talks, the current speaker
27 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations continues. This is done at initial talks. The features turn distribution are also investigated in Toba Batak conversation.
2.6 TB Language and Culture This section discusses about Toba Batak language culture.
2.6.1 TB Language Toba Batak Language (TBL) is one of Batak languages which is used by Toba Batak etnic group. According to Sinaga (2002: vii) TBL has a unique grammatical, phonetic, and semantic system. Sibarani (1997: 1) observes that TBL has its own grammatical system. TBL has a predicate-object-subject pattern, in this case, Verb precedes the Subject, as seen in sentences: Manuhor Boras Ibana Buy rice he ‘He bought some rice’
In its phonetic system, TBL undergoes assimilation, that is, a process of sound changing which is influenced by its phonological environment. There are 29 relation among phonems and syllable or words which lead to assimilation. As a case in point, the verb ribakhon “to tear”, phoneme /k/ and /h/ become /kk/ in its pronunciation, and thus pronounced as /ribakkon/. From semantic aspect, Sibarani observed lexical meaning in TBL. One of them is that the lexical meaning of sogot ‘tomorrow’, is not always literal, but it can refer to haduan ‘next time’, as in the following sentence: Ro pe au sogot molo masihol au come SP I tomorrow if long I ‘I’ll come if I long for you’
28 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In the context of language use, TB language is rarely researched. However, most of social interactions of TB are realized in spoken language-in ordinary or institutional conversation. Ordinary conversation always occur almost everday in all villages of TB, at family houses, and places such as markets, coffee counters, etc. People especially adult men can be easily seen talking at the coffee –counters every morning before they start working in the rice-field and every afternoon after working. They talk each other spontaneously and casually with any topic they come across in the conversation. TBL is not only spoken by Toba Batak people who dwell in the vilage, it is also used by those who have lived outside the area for years. As one of the regional languages in Indonesia, TBL should be maintained and developed by its speakers as a part of Indonesian culture as embedded in 1945 constitution (Halim in Sibarani, 1997). Some previous studies of TBL were dominated by formal approaches. In 1997 Sibarani observed the Syntax of TBL. He made a complete description of TB sentences, and in 2003 he made an analysis in TB semantic by explaining lexical meaning and grammatical meaning. Sinaga (2002) wrote the Grammar of Toba Batak. He described TB phonology and parts of speech. Another Grammar of Toba Batak was written by Nababan (1981). His research was about the phonology, morphology, and the syntax of Toba Batak. He described the phonomes in phonology and part of speech in morphologys as well as constructions in syntax. Parkin (1978: 107) studied about the vocabulary of Toba Batak in relation to the Sankrit as well as Malay vocabulary. He listed about two hundreds words of Toba Batak which have similarities with Malay and Sankrit. He said that
29 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Toba Batak vocabularies were influenced by the Sankrit. These are some similar words between Toba Batak, Malay, and Sankrit.
Table 1: Similarity between Toba Batak words, Malay, and Sankrit. No Batak Malay Sankrit Meaning 1 antara Antara antara between 2 arga Harga argha price of value 3 ari Hari hari day 4 arta Harta artha property 5 bisa Bisa visha poison 6 dangsina Daksina dakshina south Parkin (1978:107)
From functional aspect, there is only a few studies made. Pardede (1994) investigated the use of Umpama in adat ceremony. Simbolon (1981) discusses about kinship communication in Toba Batak culture. Sihombing (1989) wrote about Words used in Adat activity. A study on language in relation to culture has been done by some writers such as, a description of traditional expression (Umpama, Umpasa) which is concerning with adat ceremony (Situmorang, 1983) Siahaan (1982) wrote about a principal and its process in Adat Dalihan Natolu. In his book, he touched about the process of Marhata (talking). He introduced two terms concerning with the process of talking, they are: Panukkun and Pangalusi. Panukkun refers to one who starts a conversation by questioning, and Pangalusi refers to one who answers the question.
30 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Sianipar (1991) talked about language script and traditional expression (Umpasa) of Toba Batak. He divided Batak language in three daily languages, adat language, language for science and religion, and language for monk. He listed four different words for ear: for daily use, it is called Pinggol, for adat activity, it is Sipareon, for religion activity, it is Siparbinege, and for monk activity, it is Sipanangi.
2.6.2 TB Culture The real culture of Toba Batak, as a matter of fact, lies on three matrix system called “Dalihan Natolu”, meaning “The Three Stones”. Dalihan Natolu is a kind of stove which consists of three stones. These stones support a pan under which a fire is made to heat the water inside the pan. The three stones symbolize the three main parts of Toba Batak family : Dongan Sabutuha, a term which represents the son and his wife as well as his relatives under one sub-clan, Boru, a term representing the daughter and her husband as well as her relatives under one sub-clan, and Hula-hula is a term representing the wive and all her relatives. In adat interaction the presence of these three groups is a must, and in everyday conversation the topic of kinship which is related with this systerm is often presented. Harahap and Siahaan (1987:23) observed that the characteristic of Toba Batak culture lies on Dalihan Natolu. This is true, for when one is involved in social interaction s/he is not separeted from the social position which is derived from family system under the three basic devisions of the social standing (Dongan Sabutuha, Boru, Hula-Hula). The term Dongan Sabutuha “friends of the same womb”, meaning that every one who has the same sub-clan (marga) from the male side of the family represents the mentioned term. Hula-hula refers to wife’s families such as uncle, father-in-law, and those
31 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations treated under the same line. Boru “female” means the daughter’s family and her relatives. Each of Toba Batak has the same opportunity to be Hula-Hula, Dongan Sabutuha, or Boru (Rajamarpodang, 1992: 61). This is related to the activity held when there is a marriage. One who holds the activity is considered the centre of ceremony and he will represent Suhut “host”. This Suhut corresponds to the term Dongan Sabutuha, as he, his sons and those that have the same sub-clan or which are parallel to it, so that they belong to one group of Dongan Sabutuha. One will be treated as Hula-Hula if his daughter is taken as a wife by the other sub-clan. Boru acts as those who take the responbsibility of all work concerning with consumption and other logistic preparation. The philosophy such as, Somba Marhula-hula ‘respective to hula-hula’ ; Manat Mardongan tubu ‘care to Dongantubu’, and Elek Marboru ‘persuasive to Boru, are intertwined that make them as all for one and one for all, that still resist now. Manat mardongan tubu means that Toba Batak of the same marga should keep the friendliness among them. In other words, they should be careful in terms of how one behaves with the other, because when their sons or daughters get manrried they cooperated to cover the cost spent in the activity. If they are quarreling, the activity that has been planned may be postponed. Elek marboru means that when there is an activity, boru will take much responsibility in preparing things concerned with the job descriptions in the activity. Boru should arrange everythings from the beginning so that the ceremony can be started anytime it is intended to start by the suhut and the hula-hula. With this responsibility, the suhut as the holder of the activity should behave in a persuading way to boru, because if boru, refused to take part in the activity, it would be meaningless. In other words, the decision made will be useless.
32 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
So, boru should be persuaded in such a way that the procedures run well and sound decisions are made. The socialization of dalihan natolu, including marga (sub-clan), family system, and the clan relation, has been regarded as the basic primordial education of the etnic group (Harahap and Siahaan, 1987). It means that Toba Batak people build friendship and other social relations based on marga. Each marga has the posistion as hula-hula, dongan sabutuha, and boru. When for example, marga Pardede whose wife is from marga Pasaribu, met a Batak male whose marga is also Pasaribu, the Pardede would call the Pasaribu his hula-hula. When he meets marga Panjaitan, whose wife is marga Pardede (male), he will call him boru. The practice of this dalihan natolu can be seen in the activity, which is called uloan adat (custom ceremony). In Toba Batak culture, there is a term, Manghatai, pronounced as /makkatai/ which is concerned with a face-to- face interaction practiced wheather in institutional or ordinary talk or conversation. This study concerns with ordinary conversation. In adat conversation the traditional expressions are used as a tool to bridge the gap which emerges, and to base the decisions made on the reflected norms in umpama (Sihombing, 1989). Parhata (speakers) from both sides are appointed to be their representatives. So, both suhut and hulahula have their own speakers who had been selected before hand. Everything dealing with materials used supplementary to the activity is prepared by boru. These materials are used as symbols which are addressed to those who are legitimately supposed to receive them. They can be in the shape of meat, ulos (Batak blanket) or money. The distribution of this is always followed by the use of traditional expression.
33 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
III. METHOD
This part discusses Subject and Research Design, Location of Research, Technique of Collecting Data, Data Analysis, and Validity.
3.1 Research Design The subjects of the study are chosen randomly. They consist of young and old people of Toba Batak. The old people are those of pheasants. The young are teachers and students. A descriptive qualitative design is used in this study. A qualitative research refers to the meanings, concept, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbol, and description of things (Berg, 1989:2). Berg noted that the word quality refers to the what, how, when, and where, and where of a thing-its essence and ambience. Concerning with the research being done, some of those procedures are applied as what to be observed are people interaction in conversation. The researcher can observe what are involved in the interaction, when, where, and how people interact. Bogden and Biklen (1983) formulated the following characteristics of qualitative research 1) It has natural setting, 2) The qualitative researches tend to analyze the data inductively, and 3) Meanings are of essential concerns in qualitative research. Natural setting in this study refers to spontaneous conversation conducted by people in houses, markets, and coffee counters. The approach used in this research is Conversation Analysis (CA) proposed by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jafferson (1974). CA enables us to analyze the recurring patterns in conversation and to find the ordeliness as well as the turn-by- turn of interaction. In other words, CA is used to explain the adjacency pairs and turn-taking in Toba Batak Conversation.
34 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
To examine the influence of linguistic properties on the interaction in Toba Batak Conversation, as they can be considered to project possible completion points in relation to turn-taking, the writer uses Ford and Thompson theory (1996) which concerns with grammatical, intonational, and semantic points as has been presented in the previous discussion. From the discussion above, a theoretical framework for the present study is summarized in Figure 1.
Analysis, on Sack ati s rs Interaction Structure (1 e 9 nv 6 Co 4 -1 irs Turn 9 y Pa -tak 7 cenc ing 5 Adja ) Tu rts Tu rn A r Pa rn T lloca t Pai rts akin tion Firs ir Pa Ove g Ru , d Pa rlapp les, S con es ing T ilen Se renc alk, ce, Prefe Rep Batak Toba Conversation air Phenonema/Ritual Constraint Batak Toba Conversation Phenonema/ System Constraint
Transition Relevance ) G 6 C ra c s o m nti nt 9 mp m Place a oi 9 le at m P tio ica Se on 1 n l eti ( Po Intonation pl in om n C ts Completion C o om s p Points p le m tio Linguistic Structure o n h Po d T ints, Ford an
Figure 1: Theoretical35 Framework of The Study The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3.2 Location of Research As CA needs naturally occurring data, the writer takes the location of research in the origanal areas where TB people live. TB territory is a part of North Sumatera province which has now extended to four areas. The Regency of North Tapanuli, which is centered at Tarutung city, Regency of Toba Samosir centered at Balige, Regency of Humbang centered at Dolok Sanggul city, and Regency of Samosir centered at Pangururan city. The researcher collected data from the four cities; from the markets, family houses, and coffee-counters. The writer himself is the only instrument who will visit the research locations in collecting the data. The locations of research; North Sumatera province and the four regencies are mapped below. Map 1. The North Sumatra Province
36 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
37 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Map 2. The Regency of North Tapanuli
38 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Note: = Location of research
Map 3. The Regency of Humbang Hasundutan
39 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Note: = Location of research
Map 4. The Regency of Toba Samosir
40 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Note: = Location of research
41 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Map 5. The Regency of Samosir
42 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Note: = Location of research
43 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3.3 Data The data used in this research is ordinary talk. Ordinary talk is one that occurs in coffee counter, family houses, markets, etc. Institutional talk; one that is documented, is included to support the ordinary data in terms of ritual constraint. Forty data which were tape-recorded deal with APs, and ten data which were video-recorded deal with turn-taking. The data of research are in the form of conversation recorded in audio and video. The recordings were done in September 2009. Hutchby and Woofitt (1999) states that data in CA are the recorded interaction and transcribed one. But, what to be analyzed is the recorded interaction, and using the transcription as a convenient tool of reference. The transcription is seen as the representation of data while the tape is viewed as a reproduction. Wherever possible, the transcriptions used in conjunction with the tape during analysis. In this case repeated listening to the original recording is central to the CA technique. The first step in doing transcription is to understand the transcription convention. The system was developed by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (in Hutch and Woofitt, 1999) is in general used by conversation analyst. Transcription procedures then are designed to make more and more accurate of naturally occuring talk.
44 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
As the data are naturally-occuring ones there are some difficulties found when the researcher collected them, especially the data for analysis of turn-taking in the location of research. The difficulties are: 1. To get in touch with the local people 2. To get the real natural data 3. To transcribe the data 4. To find the negative cases
To handle out these difficulties, the researcherfollowsthefollowing procedures: 1. He, in getting touch with the people, met with the village chief to be brought to the location of the research and inform the people about the purpose of visiting them. Here, the researcher had to do a participant observation before collecting the data. This was as an orientation which spent two days time for each of the location of the research. 2. To get the real natural data, the researcher employed a hidden video shooting so that the informants did not know that they were shooted. If this is not enough, the researcher asked an assistant to make an ellicitation to get the data. 3. In transcribing the data, the researcher used Jefferson’s system of transcription. In this case, the researcher made a primer analysis by doing a turn-by-turn sequence analysis. 4. To find the negative cases, the researcher repeatedly analyze the corpus.
Below are the pricipal conventions of Jefferson (in Hutchby 1999) used to transcribe features of interaction.
45 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Overlapping Talk a. Overlapping onset is marked by left hand square bracket, ‘[‘ Example : 1. B : Uh huh and I’m sorry I didn’t get 2. Margaret I really’ve been waning to 3. D : [ will think she must’ve 4. Started out’v town 5. (0. 2) 6. B : I think so 7. D : [ in Fresno sh-see’n Pe :: g (0. 7) 8. drove over to ‘er sister’s oo lives in Fresno ::
b. Overlapping simultaneous talks are marked by double left- hand brackets, ‘[[‘ 1. I : Well, h Ia always feel it’s best to get it 2. All over at the same time you know 3. N : [ well yes::s] 4. N : Yes::s 5. I : It’s uh : 6. N : [[ And who did you so.
Utterance latched a. Utterance latched together, they may occur right next to each other with absolutely no gap, and no overlapping. It is symbolized as ‘ = ‘ 1. E : Is this swimming pool enclosed with the 2. gla: s bit? = 3. N : No::it’s uh : outs. ( . ) eh no outside b. Equal signs are also used to indicate the longer utterance, if during it’s uttered, another speaker says something. 1. N : But eh – it’s terrible to keep 2. People alive and you know and just let them =
46 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3. I : [right 4. N : Suffer day in and day out
Protracted spate of simultaneous talk This is marked by the combination of left and right bracket and equal signs. 1. E : Well, we don’t know what it’s all about 2. Ig – I (Sniff) Don’t get yourself = 3. N : = Oh, I’m not. I just you know I wish 4. C : [[ honey you’ve got to get a hold of your – I know] = 5. N : I’d – I’d kind of liked to go out there but 6. I was afraid of fog
Pause Intervals (pause) are sized in tenths of second. But pause can be short : two or three tenths of a second. 1. A : I – if you want to uh k (1.1) Maybe get up a game. Or they may occur between turns : 1. A : I – if you want to uh (1.1) Maybe get up a game. 2. Some morning while you are out there, = why that’s 3. always fun 4. B : Mm hm 5. ( 0.5 ) 6. A : So let me know. Pause less than 0.2 is indicated by period within parentheses (.) 7. : So let me know 8. : (.) 9. B : Yah will do :
47 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Breathiness Breathiness is marked by ‘h.’ for exhalation and ‘.h’ for inhalation. The followings are example of breathiness exhalation and inhalation. 1. P : Oh I mean uh : you wanna go to the store 2. er anything over the marked basket er anything? 3. E : [hhhhhhhh]h.
1. N : .hhh 2. (05) 3. N : Anyway 4. (.) 5. H : eh – eh, Hhhh. Uh : m
Laughter Laughter is spelled by ha ha, heh heh, hih hih, and so on. One of the difficulties with transcribing laughter is that participant laugh together. As seen in the example. 1. B : he : uh he uh ha 2. C : [he ha : ] ah ha ha ha ha The laugh of turn such that occurs in pause or silence will be counted by using a stopwatch, and it is measured in tenth a second. In Toba Batak conversation a few characteristics of the convention symbols can be drawn in the following data. 1. A : Baen dua jolo plastikna! 2. B : (5,4) 3. C : Nyon? 4. B : Pas, potong di on? 5. Nyon na, dia…salam? 6. sappulu onom.
48 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
7. C : Nyon? 8. B : Ikkan Bolut sapulu lima 9. Lis…buat jolo Lis…! 10. C : Nyon? 11. B : Sappulu opat, toe! 12. baetton ma, baetton ma! 13. C : (1.3) 14. B : Unang pola tawar, unang pola…. 15. C : Nyon? Sappulu dua ribu, baen asa-asa…! 16. B : [ sakilo hubaen ni, 17. bereng ma ni. Asa habis nama. 18. C : (1,2) 19. B : Dua pulu opat ito, dua kilo? 20. oke pas! 21. C : Boasa ndang ditambahi ho? 22. B : Ndang I…!unang majo…annon hubaen. 23. dia hubaen, dia hubaen ito, dia… 24. sappulu opat 25. nunga lobi on 26. laen ikan ni lae on 27. dua kilo. Na ro do nian manggambar 28. C : [ Nunga buat ma! 29. B : Tu pesta, marhua boan on mu? 30. C : Boan on hu?
English equivalent 31. A : Put this fish in two plastic packs. 32. B : (5.4) 33. C : What about this? 34. B : it’s exact. Do you want it cut? 35. Here you are. Which one, Samon? 36. Sixteen 37. C : This one?
49 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
38. B : Eel is Fivteen 39. Like….take it Lis…! 40. C : This one? 41. B : Fourteen, Okey! 42. That’s okey! 43. C : (1.3) 44. B : No bargain, no…. 45. C : This one? 12 thousand, I want a fresh-water fish 46. B : [ give you a kilo, 47. You can see. It has to be all bought. 48. C : (1.2) 49. B : Twenty four sister, you want 2 kilos? 50. It’s exact! 51. C : Could you give more? 52. B : No way! Now not, next time please. 53. I’ll pack it, fourteen 54. The height is over. 55. Give This guy’s Fish! 56. 2 kilos. The photographer is coming to get the data. 57. C : [ Take it! 58. B : To the party, What for? 59. C : Me that bring you?
From the data, it is seen that B is silent for 5.4 seconds, in case that he is selected as the next speaker. Of B’s silence, speaker C does a self-selection in his turn. This is an interesting phenomenon since the speaker which is being selected does not take his turn. It can also be found that there are two overlapping talks, one occurs within a turn as in (15) and (16), another occurs in syllable as in (27) and (28). B makes an overlapping
50 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations talk in (16) to show enforcement as to respond C’s need for buying the fish reduced to less than a kilo. In (28), C’s utterance overlaps within the syllable as to show agreement.
3.4 Data Analysis The construct of analysis is based on the basic assumptions in CA: 1) conversation is structurally organized, 2) conversation is jointly produced among participants, 3) conversation is contextual, 4) conversation is locally managed. These assumptions constitute a construct of the analysis in which the first assumption deals with the structure of APs, the second reflects intersubjectivity which has to do with silence, repair work, and overlapping talk, the third refers to contexts that agree with system constraint, when related to cultural context it will agree with ritual constraint, and the fourth assumption deals with turn by turn organization which conforms with the structure of turn taking and its organization. To ease the procedures in CA, Schegloff (in Have 1999: 110), a preparatory analytic virtues are summarized in three steps. 1. Check the episode carefully in terms of turn-taking : the construction of turns, pauses, overlaps, etc ; make notes of any remarkable phenomena, especially on any disturbances in the fluent working of the turn-taking system. 2. Then look for sequences in the episode under review, especially adjecency pairs and their sequals. 3. And finally, note any phenomena of repair, such as repair, initiators, actual repairs, etc. When these steps have been done, the next step is to follow the analysis procedures proposed by Schegloff (in Hutcby and Woffitt, 1999: 95) in three steps.
51 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1. Take a potentially interacting, possibly order phenomenon. 2. Having collected a number of instances, describe one particular occurance formally concentrating on its sequential context : the types of turn which precede and follow it. 3. Return to the data to see whether other instances of the phenomenon can be described in this account.
In analysing the TB conversation, those three steps are applied. The analysis is going to see the applicability of occurring patterns in turn-taking and adjacency pairs in TB conversation. For example, how adjacency pairs operate in TB conversation, is greeting followed by greeting? This is considered as potential interesting phenomenon. Put another term, the operation or mechanism of adjacency pairs and turn- taking are analysed under system constraint, and adjacency pairs which are cultural in context are discussed under ritual constraint.
Thus the data analysis procedures are summarized in figure 2 and 3 below.
Data
Interesting Phenomen Recurrent on Pattern Sequences Context 52 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Figure 2: Data Analysis Procedure
Figure 2 reflects four basic procedures of analysing data. First the process of collecting data from which the second process derives, identifying interesting phenomenon. When for example, silence is an interesting phenomenon, the researcher has to find the context of sequences where it occurs. This phenomenon should emerge uniquely that makes it as new categorization as new finding. This is the third process. The fourth is that to find out the recurrent patterns to make the finding reliable. The four basic analysis procedures are elaborated in more specific procedures as reflected in figure 3 below. Figure 3: Elaboration of Data Analysis Procedures
DATA
R DATA R E CATEGORIZATION E C C U U R AP CP TT R R R E E N TRANSCRIBED N T DATA T
ANALYSIS
53 FINDINGS
DISCUSSION
SYSTEM RITUAL CONSTRAINT CONSTRAINT The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Note: AP = Adjacency Pairs TT = Turn-Taking CP= Completion Points
Figure 3 above reflects more specific procedures of analysis which are summarized in the following steps. First, the data were collected by tape-recording and video-recording. Then through a repeated-listening the researcher selected the data based on three categories: they are data of APs, data of completion points as well as turn-taking. If through a repeated-listening the data were not clear yet, they were rechecked to the speakers. The next step was to make an analysis in order to get a transcribed-data. Then the transcribed data were based on sequence analysis of APs, turn-taking and completion points. From the analysis, the findings were generated in order to find out the answers to the research problems. The last step was to discuss the findings based on system and ritual constraints.
3.5 Validity To maintain the data validity, an accurate trancription is made by repeatedly listening and editing the recording. In CA,
54 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations repeated listening to the recorded data much influences the data categorization especially in turn-taking. When there is a doubt about the data, it would be verified to the speakers. So for the validity of data, the researcher applies the three steps: repeated- listening, transcribing, and verifying the data. For the validity of findings, the researcher analyzed negative cases as to which some phenomena will be different particular occurences as language or interaction may vary from culture to culture. Interviews are done with the native speakers and experts structurally and unstructurally by using notes. For the ethical purpose, the informant consents is sought from the participants. In case the data are not yet sufficient, elicitation technique was done in which the researcher was involved.
55 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
IV. THE STRUCTURE OF ADJACENCY PAIRS AND TURN-TAKING IN TOBA BATAK LANGUAGE
4.1 Data Analysis This chapter talks about data analysis which cover three areas based on the questions formulated in the research problems. The first analysis refers to how the AP of TB are realized in the structure of adjacency pairs. The second refers to how the turn-tuking of TB conversation operates in terms of how the ends of turn projected in interaction based on gramatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. The third refers to how turn-taking in the TB conversation operates which is ralized in the rules of turn-tuking headed under Turn Allocation Component and other organization such as, Silence, Overlapping Talk and Repair. The structure of adjacency pairs are based on the exerpts of the transcribed data containing those pairs. As has been explained in the previous section, adjacency pairs are ones which are adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as a first part pair and a second part pair, typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second. From this it can be understood that the features of adjacency pairs are: two utterance length, adjacent positioned, different speakers produce each utterance, when the first utterance is conveyed, the second would be a slot to be occupied by the second, in other words, the first action creates an opening or expectation in the conversation for the second action. Turn-taking is the process through which the party doing the talk of the moment is changed. As Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) put it, there are four-teen recurruing patterns of turn-taking in English: speaker change recurs,
56 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations overwhelemingly one party talks at a time, occurances of more than one speakers at a time are common but brief, transition from one turn to a next with no gap and overlap are common, turn order varies, turn size varies, length of converstion is not specified in advance, what party says is not specified in advance, relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance, number of parties can vary, talk can be continuous or discontinuous, turn allocation technique are obvious; a current speaker selects the next speaker or the other has a self-select, or if there is no self-select the current speakers continues to speak, various turn constructional units are employed; e.g. turn can be projected one word long or can be sentencial in length., and epair mechanism for the conversation problem. How turn- taking is organized is focused on two problems; the units that construct the turn and the method or technique that used to allocate the turn. The former has to do with completion points where it is possible to make transition relevance place, and they can be projected based on linguistic structures as to see the end of turn. The following analyses embody the three main problems as discussed in the first chapter and will obviously construct the adjacency pairs, turn-taking system consisting of turn construction component and completion point, and silence, overlapping talk, and repair.
4.1.1 The Structure of Adjacency Pairs In TBL There are various structures of adjacency pairs in TBL such as; question-answer, greeting-greeting, summon-answer, offer-acceptance/refusal, invitation-acceptance/rejection, accusation-denials, compliment-acceptance/rejection, and complaint-rejection, . These adjacency pairs are analysed in TBL phenomena based on CA method, and consequently developed into its further expanded forms in pre-sequences,
57 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations inserted sequences, post-sequences, and preferences including what action shows what behaviour, for example, how a party responses an invitation- accepting in certain behaviour or rejecting in another behaviour in the ralization of them in First Pair Part and Second Pair Part.
4.1.1.1 Question-answer In TBL a question-answer pair is mainly used to open a conversation in which the answer realized in the second pair part is expected to be informative. It is likely that if the answer to the question is not informative the first pair part is considered greeting, and the second pair part is a respond to the greeting. Exerpt 1 and exerpt 2 below exemplify these cases.
Exerpt 1 1 A : sian dia nakkingan i? ‘ siad dia nangkingan i? from where past it? ‘where is it from?’ ‘ 2 B : sian i, sian pollak i. ‘ from there, from farm the ‘from there, from the farm’
Exerpt 2 1 A : nga piga? past how many? ‘how many?’
2 (0.2)
3 A : nga piga dapot? past how many got?
58 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
‘how many have you got?’ 4 B : imbulu na dope dapot lae, ibbulu na dope dapot lae fur p yet got sir ‘I have only got its fur sir.
5 imbulu na. ibbuluna fur p ‘its fur’
In exerpt 1, the second pair part, line 2, is uttered as giving information as an answer to the question in the first pair part, line 1. It is also characterized by the latched utterance with no gap between the two utterances. Adjacency pair in question- answer is commonly practised and realized as informative when there is no gap between the first pair part and the second pair part. A asks B where is the papaya from, and B responses that it is from the farm as seen in picture 1 below.
Picture 1. A conversation about papaya
A B
C 59 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
This case too is discernible in the following excerpt. Exerpt 3 1 A : jai adong do dalan tu ginjang on? / jai adong do dalat tu gijjang on /? so any T way to up this? ‘so, is there any way up there?’
2 B : adong dingkan ai / adong dikkan ai / any over there ‘yes over there’
1 boi dope motor mardalan tu ginjang / boi dope motor mardalan tu gijjang / can yet cars walk to up ‘ cars can go up there’
The informative question uttered by A in excerpt 3 is immediately answered by B where she further continued to give information to A that other than the possibility to walk up, cars also can go up there. The illustration is given in picture 2 below.
Picture 2. A conversation about asking direction
A
60 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
B So one category of adjacency pair that can be considered phenomena in TBL is informative question-answer. Another category of question-answer AP is one that does not follow the rule like the one in formative question- answer. It is categorized as quasi-question- answer which leads to greeting as discernible in excerpt 2. In excerpt 2, A’s question was not immediately answered by B. There are two seconds pause before A initiates a repair to which it is responded by B with just a joking answer, in other words, the information that A asked (how many fish B has got in his fishing) was not given. This next-turn proof procedure determines that the first pair part of A’s turn is not always informative, as shown in picture 3.
Picture 3. A conversation at a fishing pool
B C A
In this
61 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations case, for the TBL context, such adjacency pair of question- answer is considered as greeting-greeting which can be further discussed in the following.
4.1.1.2 Greeting-greeting The most common sequence of greeting-greeting in TBL is horas-horas which is practised in various context. The basic meaning of horas can be; strong, tough, healthy, encouraged, safe. The first pair part is usually uttered more prominently than the second pair part, and the greeting in this form is not delayed in the respond that the occurance is considered natural. The sequence horas-horas embodies all the context where it occurs. When it is passed in the morning, it can mean ‘good morning’, when it is passed in the afternoon, it can be ‘good afternoon’, and so on, as seen in the following.
Excerpt 4 1 A : horas bapa! happy father! ‘good morning sir!’
2 B : horas happy ‘good morning’
Excerpt 5 1. A : horas lae! happy brother-in-law ‘good afternoon friend!
2 B : bah horas lae. PR happy brother-in-law ‘good afternoon friend’
62 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The response to greeting performed by B in excerpt 4 and 5 come immediately without any gap between utterances. In other words, B responds directly without any pause in performing his action. There are other sequences where the second pair part are realized in other forms. These sequences actually do not enact the greeting function only but reestablish the social relation by using term of address, as reflected in excerpt 6, and to develop the expanded adjacency pair in inserted sequence as seen in excerpt 7.
Excerpt 6 1 A : horas eda! happy sister-in-law ‘good morning friend’
2 B : bah, ho doi? PR you that? ‘ is that you?’
Excerpt 7 1 A : horas! happy! ‘ good day!’
2 B : ai sian dia hamu salelengon? / ai siad dia hamu saleleng on /? PR from where you a long this? ‘where have you been?’
63 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3. A : bah namangaranto do au bah sian bah namangaratto do au bah sian PR to wander about T I PR from ‘I have wandered about from
4 Jakarta bah Jakarta PR ‘Jakarta’
5 B : bah tu jabu majo hita PR to house just we ‘let’s come to my house’
In excerpt 6, B’s respond to A’s greeting is not realized in horas, but in other form; bah ho doi? This respond is passed to reconfirm the social relation which is marked by the address term, ho ‘you’, other than the greeting itself. In excerpt 7 too, the response is not coming in horas, but in question, where B asks A’s existence before. Here B’s response is an inserted sequence which consitutes a question considered as the first pair part 2 which is adjacent to A’s next answer as the second pair part 2. Although the utterances in lines 1 and 5 are not adjacent, the talk in lines 2, 3, and 4 displays an orientation to the conditional relavance of the second pair part 1. The initiation of the inserted sequences can be meant here to postpone the base SPP in order for the prospective recipient of the base FPP to be able to address problems before any next SPP can be launched. So an inserted sequence here is a place where recipient makes clarification. The inserted sequence is as a matter of fact another adjacency pair of question-answer. In excerpt 7, there is no a communication problem so that the base SPP is defered, but as has been explained, it would be more appropriate before the initiation of the next SPP.
64 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Adjacency pair of greeting-greeting as in the case above (excerpt 6 and 7), the former realized in two turns and the latter in four turns, leads to different interactional meaning. The one without inserted sequence is commonly done for phatic communion. The next interaction may or may not be continued. Whereas the one with inserted sequence seems to be continued and it functions as opening a conversation. The next adjacency pair of greeting-greeting in TBL is realized out of the format horas-horas, but in other forms. As has been stated before, one of the question-answer pairs consitutes a quasi-question-answer, that is, the question in FPP is not given the answer by SPP, so the question is not informative. The SPP is merely treated as response to greeting (excerpt 2). Other pairs of this kind can be seen in the following excerpts.
Excerpt 8 1 A : nga boha? Past how? ‘ how are you?’
2 B : ba ho do i? PR you T that? ‘ is that you?’
Excerpt 9 1 A : ai sai hira na massubasuba ho! PR keep like T to try you ‘it seems that you are going to’
2 B : massubasuba do ho nuaeng hu bereng! to try T you now I see ‘you are going to it seems’
65 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Greeting in excerpt 8 above is passed through question- question. However, the pair is still categorized as quasi- question-answer because the FPP does not need to have an informative answer, so is the SPP, it is an answer or respond to the greeting passed by A, and though it is in question, it is not necessarily answered by A. A in excerpt 9 is a woman of forty who passed the greeting to B, a man of twenty works as a bus conductor. A’s utterance is commonly a pre-sequence to anticipate one’s treat so that he who does it can defer his plan for doing something bad. So the utterance implies a caution not to bother as if it was done there would be a high risk. In the context above, the utterance of A (FPP) is not a pre-sequence, it is a greeting because the answer in SPP does not follow the expected respond of FPP. Such phenomena has been identified in question-answer treated as greeting. In responding A’s greeting, B repeats some parts of FPP in terms of joking for greeting. In TBL greeting can be realized in summon-answer pair, as exemplified in excerpt 10 below.
Excerpt 10 1. A : oi! ‘ oi!’ 2 B : bah beta! PR come! ‘come on’
In the conversation A greets B by calling, and the summon is not done by using B,s name. B’s answer is asking A to go in which it is not responded further by A. So B’s answer is just a respond to A’s greeting.
66 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
As has been discussed that greeting operated in opening a conversation, it can also operate in closing a conversation as well as passed in the middle of a conversation.
Excerpt 11 1 A : ido, pas do i. songon si Hutauruk on makan? yes, true T it. like T Hutauruk this isn’t it? ‘yes, that is true. like mr. hutauruk, isn’t it?’
2 B : ate Hutauruk, bah, boa do, horas ba, ai dia do? yes hutauruk, PR. how T. happy PR, PR where T? ‘isn’t it hutauruk, what about, good morning, what about?’
3 C : horas! happy ‘good morning!’
4 B : e? e ‘what?’
There is an inserted AP of greeting-greeting in excerpt 11. Horas in the case above is not just used for greeting though in passing his greeting B is responded by C in the form of horas, but it also functions as improving the conversation in at least C joins as one of the participants. However, in B’s utterance, two other interactional devices occur simultaneously with horas; boado and ai diado, each of which is used as to show greeting. The two forms that one precedes and another follows horas, are used as emphasizing the intimacy among the speakers. In this case C besides responding the greeting of B,
67 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations he is ready to take part in the conversation. B, besides greeting, he involved C to take part in the conversation.
4.1.1.3 Summons-Answer Summon-answer in TBL is commonly used to open a conversation. Summon is realized in address terms such as people names, and address kinship terms. Kinship terms in TBL are hierarchial which are centered on the basic philosophy of Toba Batak, Dalihan Natolu. Hula-hula, includes terms such as; tulang, nantulang, tunggane, lae, ito, eda. The terms derived from boru are: amangboru, namboru, lae, ito, eda, and dongan tubu include terms such as; angkang, anggi, bapa uda/amang uda, bapa tua/amang tua, ampara. Among those terms, lae, ito, and eda can be both hierarchial and neutral. If it is hierarchial there would be such a cultural constrain, and if it is neutral there is no suchcultural constrain, the terms are for a summon only. In a mundane conversation, especially in summon- answer, lae, ito, and eda are commonly used for their neutral forms which do not have to do with kinship relation. Lae is practised among males, ito between male and female, and eda among females. The three terms are realized in FPP in conversation with a greater prominent than the SPP, as constructed in excerpt 12, 13, and 14 below.
Excerpt 12 1 A : lae! brother-in-law! ‘guy!’ 2 B : aha i! what it! ‘what is it!’
68 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Exerpt 13 1 A : ito! sister! ‘miss!’
2 B : aha ito what sister? ‘what is it?’
Excerpt 14 1 A : eda! sister-in-law! ‘madam!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
There are various forms of the SPP. As excerpt 12 shows, the first SPP is realized in ahai, functioning as to answer the summons in a more polite way than if it is answered by aha. So, the answer can be replaced by aha and the result will be a bit rough or casual. The second SPP in excerpt 13 is realized in aha ito by which the second part of this sequence indicate politeness, and in any answer to summon, the addition of the address terms shows that what is stated in the first part as a casual answer is no longer considered or undeterminate. The answer to summon in excerpt 12, that is, ahai, can be accompanied by the second repeated term like lae, as ahai lae, to show more emphatic to politeness, and the first part is pronounced less prominent than
69 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations if it is without the second part. So the repeated second parts in answer to summon obviously emerge as politeness markers. The different case from answer to summon in excerpt 12 and 13 in terms of the composition of the answer occurs in excerpt 14. The answer is shorter which is reralized in backchannel, i.e., ou. This short answer is not followed by repeated second parts, as the forms ou lae, ou eda, etc, are not acceptable. Suppose that they be acceptable, they would be on the other side, as summon, by which the second parts would be pronounced more prominently. An answer of this kind also differs from aha, and ahai in that ou shows intimacy and another form is ong as showing the intimacy in family. Another backchannel as answer to summon is realized in e.. which is pronounced longer, as seen in excerpt 15 below.
Excerpt 15 1 A : eda! sister-in-law! ‘madam!’
2 B : e…! e…! ‘e…!’
If the answer is uttered shorter than the above case, it would be an agreement. The neutral use of kinship terms in summon-answer varies from place to place. When the terms amang, amangboru, tulang (sir), inang, namboru, nantulang (madam) are practiced as summons, each of them has its own realization based on the area where they are used. Amang and inang are used at the regency of Humbang Hasundutan, amangboru and namboru are used at the regency of North Tapanuli, and tulang as well as
70 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations nantulang are used at the area of Toba Samosir. The neutral use of these terms deploy into introductory conversation in the sense that one who summons does not recognice the interlocutor, and the summon itself is an access to introduction and conversation opening. Excerpt 16, 17, 18 exemplify the summon for the three males terms; amang, amangboru, tulang.
Excerpt 16 1 A : amang! father! ‘sir!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 17 1 A : amangboru! husband of father sister ‘sir!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 18 1 A : tulang! mother’s brother! ‘uncle!’
2 B : ou! ou!
71 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
‘what!’
The AP of summon-answer in TBL is not hierarchial in the case that there is no relation between the summon-answer with ideological stance to which it should be treated based on the three systems of Toba Batak family (Dalihan Natolu). However, the relation lies only in ones who pass the summon and answer. The summoner would be younger or of the same age with the answerer. So, the FPP in summon-answer both for males and females do not have to do with cultural practices. The SPP of the AP in summon-answer realized in ou as the marker of intimacy is not as a result of the casual setting of the conversation but summoning people by using such terms; amang, amangboru, tulang, inang, namboru, nantulang, are considered polite by the people who were summoned eventhough they are not in acquaintance with those who sommoned. So the state of being unaquaintance does not influence the answerer to have responded with such appropriate terms such as, ahai or aha, as what is common done. Those terms mentioned above can be said to be honorifics which are not related to kinship relation. The kinship terms which are practised in conversation as in summon-answer are different from those terms treated in their neutral use, especially in the answer. These can be constructed in the following excerpts.
Excerpt 19 1 A : amang! father! ‘sir!’
2 B : aha i ninna hamu!
72 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
what it says you! ‘what you say!’
Excerpt 20 1 A : tulang! mother’s mother! ‘uncle!’
2 B : aha bere! what sister’s child! ‘what guy!’
Excerpt 21 1 A : tulang! mother’s brother! ‘uncle!’ 2 B : aha poang! what T! ‘what!’
A in excerpt 19 was a man summoning his father-in- law, his wife’s father, by saying amang. The answer to this summon is ahai ninna hamu, a polite form which is practised as an answer to the summon that is honorific in TBL. There is an obligation for a man of TB to summon all his relatives from his wife by using honorific terms. He calls his wife’s father amang, and his wife’s mother inang. For his wife’s brother he calls lae and the wife of his wife’s brother is called inangbao. For his wife’s sisters he calls akkang or anggi in which the former refers to the older and the latter to the younger sister. The brother of his mother-in-law is called tulang, and the wife of his mother-in-law’s brother is called nantulang. Both his mother-in-law’s father and mother are called oppung, and his
73 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations mother-in-law’s sisters are called inang. His father-in-law’s brothers are called amang, and their wives are called inang, and his father-in-law’s sisters are called inangtua or inanguda. As has been said, the relatives from the wife’s family is categorized under one cultural term, that is, hula-hula. In the case of summon-answer, when one summons his hula-hula it is a constrain for hula-hula to respond the summon in a polite way, as in excerpt 19, expression such ninna hamu is added to basic form of answer to summon and this makes the answer so polite. The conversation in excerpt 20 contains a summon from a nephew addressed to his uncle by which this summon concerns with the cultural terms relating to kinship relation embedded in dalihan natolu. The term tulang in the summon is addressed to one from the line of hula-hula, that is, from the wife’s relatives. By inserting the term bere to the basic answer aha, becoming aha bere, it becomes polite. So in a conversation of this kind interlocutors should avoid using haphazard answer. Unlike in excerpt 21, the terms tulang is addressed to one who derives from the line of husband’s mother, that is, the brother of husband’s mother. The answer to summon in this case is more intimate that the term poang showing intimacy is added to the basic term aha, so as; aha poang.
4.1.1.4 Offer-acceptance/refusal AP of offer-acceptance/refusal in TBL as entititled above usually refers to mangalean (give) and manjalo (take). To offer is considered as to give and to accept is considered as to take. When offer is practised in Toba Batak conversation, the common response is acceptance. Excerpt 22 and 23 contain acceptance responses which are categorized as preferred responses. Preferred response refers to structurally preferred
74 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations second act. Refusal is a dispreferred act. The tendency of preference in TBL emphasizes the most in preferred than in dispreferred. This can be analyzed in the following to excerpts.
Excerpt 22 1 A : pangan hamu ito! eat you sister! ‘eat it miss!’
2 B : olo ito. yes sister ‘yes miss’
Excerpt 23 1 A : nyon baju di ho! this shirt for you! ‘take this shirt for you!’
2 B : mauliate namboru. / mauliate nabboru / thank you father’s sister ‘thank you, aunt’
The SPP in both excerpts above deal with preferred acts conveyed straightforwardly and simply. Dispreferred act can actually be found in TBL. When this occurs there would be an objection from the other side, from one who offers or from others who listen to the conversation. This can be seen in excerpt 24.
75 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 24 1 A : na! burju-burju ho da! this! kind you okay? ‘here you are! be kind’
2 B : ah, dang pola namboru. / ah, dak pola nabboru / ah, no just father’s sister ‘ah, no thanks madam’
3 A : na ma! dang boi songon i this T! not can like it ‘take it! you cannot refuse it.
4 B : mauliate namboru. / mauliate nabboru / thank father’s sister ‘thank you madam . A in the above conversation is an aunt who visited her nephew, B. When she was going to leave she offered her nephew some money. But the aunt’s offer was refused by the nephew. However, A again made a second offer by which she added her utterance by inserting an advice- dang boi songoni, to show that the act of refusing by B cannot be practiced anyway. From this it is undestood that an offer can be inserted as a response to a refuse, in which the preferred has been delayed in the first SPP in line 2, and this leads to an acceptance realized in the second SPP in line 4. It should also be noted here that the FPP enacts more than one SPP implementing different acts, the act of refusal and acceptance.
76 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 24, as a matter of fact, consists of 3 coherent APs, line 1 and line 2 as the first AP and line 3 and 4 as the second AP. The third AP consists of line 1 and 4. So the second AP is an expansion one. It can be said that it is a post AP in condition that line 3 be the FPP for the SPP in line 4. Line 2 and 3 are not treated as inserted expansion sequence. As line 2 is not adjacent to line 3. Line 3 occurs as a consequence of line 2. The third AP, line 1 and 4 is the original AP. The former is the base FPP and the latter is the base SPP. Line 2 is a post-first (post-FPP) and line 3 is a pre- second (pre-SPP). Post-first sequence deals with a sequence that initiates a repair. So it is an initiated repair-type sequence. Being an initiated repair-type sequence it sets backward to clarify the FPP, as also exemplified in excerpt 7. The pre- second is a sequence that is made to be preliminary to some particular types of SPP. Unlike post-first, pre-second looks forward to SPP as resource for implementing the delayed first SPP. Line 2 and 3 in excerpt 24 are inserted sequences of pre- second that result in the implementation of the expected or preferred SPP (line 4). In TBL there is a context in which the goods offered in the conversation was not forth coming or seen. This occurred when a host offered his or her guests to drink at the time when the guests were about to go home. Excerpt 25 illustrates such kind of an offer.
Excerpt 25 1 A : jolo minum hamu! ahead drink you! ‘please have a drink first!
2 B : ah, dang pola. ah, dak pola
77 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
ah, not just ‘no, thanks’
The above AP was practised to close a conversation as it happened at the very end of turns. However, B’s refusal may count as a preferred second, because an acceptance to A’s offer would disrupt or breach the conversation. How do the dispreferred response become preferred expected response? In conversation participants depend on the immediately prior utterance to help each other make sense of the current one and at the same time the current utterance is used to interprete the prior one. For the case above, the prior utterance was that B wanted to finish the interaction and did a leave-taking by saying: Toe mada, mulak jo au ‘Ok, see you’. This prior utterance becomes a presequence for a new AP in which A in offering B to drink is just showing a respected response for not to lose face, and B made a go-ahead response refusing the offer as to do the same. There is an AP in TBL contaning a real refusal in SPP, as in excerpt 26.
Excerpt 26 1 A : au ma manjangkit au ma majjakkit I T to climb ‘let me climb!
2 B : unang! no! ‘no!’
In line 1 A offers B a service to climb but it is refused. B’s refusal is understood as dispreferred response to A.
78 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In the previous analysis offers cannot be refused when what offered are goods present in the interaction. Even when the offer is refused, it has to be made accepted by applying new AP as presented in excerpt 24, line 3 and 4. It is, therefore, offering goods needs preferred response, and offering service requires both preferred and dispreferred responses. Both prefered an dispreferred responses are done straightforwardly without delay.
4.1.1.5 Invitation-acceptence/rejection There are two kinds of APs in TBL pertaining to invitation-acceptance/rejection, they are, one deals with invitation referring to service about general affairs and one with specific affairs of customary parties. Invitation about general affairs can have expected responses both in preferred and dispreferred as in excerpt 27 and 28.
Excerpt 27 1 A : ate, namboru! marnamboru ma au ate? / ate, nabboru! mar nabboru ma au ate /? yes, father’s sister PR father’s sister T I yes? ‘ ok aunt. I call you aunt?
2 B : e? I petaho e? it ok ‘e? that’s ok’
3 A : olo do namboru dohot tu Siantar? / olo do nabboru dohot tu Siantar /? want PR father’s sister come to Siantar? ‘ would you come along with us to Siantar?’
4 B : nandigan?
79 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
/ naddigan /? ‘when’
5 A : annon ‘afterwards’
6 B : aha i? what it? ‘what for?’
7 A : mardalani hita. to walk we ‘sightseeing’
8 B : aha, motor mu do i, nyon? what, car your T it, this? ‘ what, is this your car?’
9 A : olo. ‘yes’
10 B : alai ingkon sada bangku / alai ikkon sada bangku / but must one chair ‘but you should give me a seat
11 asa boi modom. that can sleep ‘ that I can sleep’ Excerpt 28 1 A : olo ho mandongani au mangan? / olo ho maddongani au mangan /? want you accompany I eat?
80 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
‘would you like to have lunch with me?’
2 B : naeng lao au. will go I ‘I have something to do’
3 A : satongkin do. / satokkin do / moment PR ‘just a moment’
4 B : ah, ho ma. ah, you PR ‘you yourself do it’
The invitation practiced in exerpt 27 contains preferred response whereas in excerpt 28, what occurs is a dispreferred response. Before a preferred response is forthcoming in excerpt 27 there are some sequences precede it, presequence and some sequences of AP. Presequence is a tactic in conversation to check out the situation before performing some action. Participants routinely inquire about the status of other participants, or the status of certain elements of the situation prior to making a request, invitation, or other action that attempts to engage someone’s cooperation (Nofsinger, 1991: 55). A in line 1 checks out the situation of B before making an invitation by stating B’s appropriate status so that it is feasible to launch the invitation. By a preceding repair, B’s preferred response signals the initiation of A’s invitation, that is, to invite B to come along for a picnic. The presequence which constitues an AP in line 1 and 2 is therefore a pre-invitation.
81 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A’s invitation in line 3 in excerpt 27 is delayed until it gets a preferred response in line 10. Here again there is a series of question-answer APs as constructed in line 4-5, 6-7, and 8-9, as inserted sequences before coming to the base SPP in line 10. However B’s response as the base SPP in line 10 is preceded by another presequence, line 8 and 9. When B’s question is answered by A with a preferred response the condition is relevance for B’s response to come as the base SPP for the FPP. In excerpt 28, A’s invitation in line 1 is rejected by B in line 2. A again made a second invitation in line 3, and B rejects it again in line 4. So line 2 is a response to line 1, and line 4 to line 3. Here there is a problem of adequacy of the base SPP (line 2) which makes it possible the next FPP to occur (line 3). The base SPP is expanded with a request in further FPP, and according to Schegloff (1995) it is called a non-minimal post- sequence. Then excerpt 28 actually contains two APs in which the first AP is the base and the second is post expansion. It is different with inserted sequence in that the AP inserted, and the SPP comes after to be the base. A non-minimal postsequence is usually an additional turn or a third turn after the base SPP which is not able to close the conversation. An invitation of the second kind in TBL that refers to one which presupposes specific affairs of customary party tends to have a preferred response, as shown in excerpt 29.
Excerpt 29 1 A : ro ho tu pesta nami da? come you to party our ok? ‘wouild you come to our party?’ 2 B : pesta aha? party what? ‘what party’
82 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3 A : muli itokku. muli ito hu married sister my ‘my sister is going to get married’
4 B : olo, ro pe au. . yes, come T I ‘I’ll come’ The expected response to A’s invitation is realized as preferred though it is not coming immediately, as preceded by an AP of question-answer. It is not because of the practice of the repair pairs in line 2 and 3 the base SPP occurs. However, in TBL conversation a preferred response to invitation for a party is commonly followed by giving an invitation card to the person being invited. Even when invitation card is not given the response would be the preferred regardless of whether or not the invited person attend the party.
4.1.1.6 Accusation-denial In general accusation in TBL is responded by denial. Although the person accused really did something wrong he/she will never admit it or make an apology. Put another way, an apology is not explicitly expressed in Toba Batak conversation. If there is an admission there would be a counter- reason to weaken the accusation. That is why there is no a word for apology in TBL. The data in excerpt 30 and 31 show how accusation-denial operated.
Excerpt 30 1 A : hoen namarmeami do ho. only to play T you. ‘you just keep playing’
83 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : ido, alai satongkin. / ido, alai satokkin / yes, but a moment ‘yes only a moment’
Excerpt 31 1 A : torus ho tarlambat. / torus ho tarlabbat / always you late ‘you are always late’
2 B : boa baeon, dao do jabukku. how to do, far T house my ‘what to do, my house is far away’
3 A : antong kos ma ho. / attong kos ma ho / so board T you ‘so you’d better stay in a dorm’
From excerpt 30 it is shown that B in line 2 responds in a preferred first before launching the dispreferred. For the situation above A has the right to accuse or blame B as they are brother and sister. Eventhough it is hierarchial that a brother is superior, anyhow, B as a sister has admitted her doing wrong in case of her counter reason. This means that B wants to hold her face or prestige. In excerpt 31, the dispreferred response in line 2 is assessed by A by a proposal for B to stay in a dorm so that she will not be late anymore. An assessment always occurs in third position as a minimal post expansion. This occurance with a dispreferred base SPP which is not able to close needs a post expansion, that is, the closing third sequence. A has a manuever
84 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations here to dilute the dispreferred response of B, as what is expected is the preferred over dispreferred. So the post sequence in the case is not only for closing but it is made as place to dilute the disagreement as dispreferred. The FPP speaker for accusation-denial expects the preferred response as proved by the third closing sequence, whereas the SPP speaker always respond in a disagreement or dispreferred. According to Sinwongsuwat (2010), when a minimal post expansion fails to achieve closure or is not chosen alternative, non-minimal expansion occurs. The base SPP is neither taken to be the end of the sequence nor followed by sequence-closing third. What follows is the continuation which not only serves to expand the sequence itself, but also to project further increment to the sequence, and the added turn serves as SPP projecting further turns, as shown in excerpt 28 previously mentioned.
4.1.1.7 Compliment- Acceptance/Rejection Complimenting is an unmarked action among Toba Bataks. According to Manes and Wolfson (Cited in Juan Yu, 2007), the main function of compliment is to create or reinforce solidarity by expressing appreciation or approval. In Toba Batak context compliment is built through interpersonal interaction which is considered interesting phenomena in opening conversation. So it can function as building relation when one is going to introduce an interaction to another whom unkonwn yet. Toba Batak speakers prefer to reject compliment, as shown in the following excerpt.
Excerpt 32 1 A : tabo do tempat muna on ate? good T place your this yes? ‘this is a good place, isn’t it?
85 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : ahama tabona. songonomma. aha ma tabo na songon on ma what T good T like this PR ‘I don’t think so. You can feel it’
3 (3.0)
4 B : jadi sian dia do hutatta? jadi siad dia do hutan ta so from where T village our ‘where are you from’
5 A : hami, par Siantar do hami inang. / hami, par Siattar do hami inang / we poss Siantar T we molther ‘we are from Siantar, madam’
A in line 1 compliments B by expressing positive evaluation on the village where B is living. But B rejects the compliment by downgrading, in other words, she responds in a humble way. It does not mean that she does not care with the appreciation or positive needs of A, but the cultural constrain that the complimenter commonly does not expect agreement. Though B’s response is a disagreement, after saying this, by a 3 seconds silence as shown in line 3, she launches a question to A. This means that the AP of compliment-response can be a pre-question in a specific sense and a pre-continuer in a broader sense. Put another way, that AP can be a greeting commonly functions as opening a conversation. The rejection response can be diluted by using implicit agreement before the dispreferred marked with contradiction marker such as, alai ‘but’, as shown in excerpt 33.
86 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Exerpt 33 1 A : bagak-bagak anak ni biang mi bah! nice child T dog your PR ‘your puppies are nice!
2 B : alai dang olo mangan. but no want eat ‘but they don’t like to eat’
B’s response in line 2 is actually preceded by embedded independent clause which is not explicitly stated. It is recoverable because the following dependent clause is a marker to fill the the preceding slot as a positive independent clause. The slot itself is an action of deluting the rejection response. The slot can be constructed as,
Bagak-bagak do biang nami, alai dang olo mangan. Nice T dogs ours but not want eat. They are beautiful but they don’t want to eat.
In the SPP of a compliment AP it is the rejection part to be on focus as an action. Suppose that the dogs liked to eat, the slot remains the same but the explicit response would be changed to other reasons, and the speaker of the SPP still uses the contradiction marker. There are markers of compliment response that can show an agreement such as toema and baemma, songonima ‘okay, yes’. However, those markers are used as to show the downgrading response to compliment. The agreement can be the harbinger of modesty, as shown in the following examples.
87 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 34 1 A : nga tammat anak mu ate? finish graduate child your yes? ‘your son has graduated, hasn’t he?
2 B : toe ma. ok T ‘yes’
Excerpt 35 1 A : tabo do ho, nga sohot sude gelleng mu. lucky T you, finish married all children your ‘you are lucky, all your sons have got married’
2 B : baem ma. make T ‘okay’
Excerpt 36 1 A : jago do ho ba, boi ho tu Amerika. great T you PR, can you to America ‘you are lucky, you could go to USA’
2 B : songon i ma. like it T ‘just so and so’
Compliments expressing appreciation conveyed by the three speakers in the excerpts are about compliments on abilities of the addressees. In exerpt 34, A compliments B on his well done job supporting his son including the accomplishment made by his son for his graduation to be
88 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations scholar. The compliment in excerpt 35 also refers to appreciation expression on the ability and accomplishment of B and his children. And excerpt 36 deals with compliment on the ability of the addressee. The compliment response in the three excerpts are deluted by downgrading the meaning of the three markers, toema, baemma, songonima in SPPs, to a more polite way. In other words, the three recipients show that by their success they do not want to demonstrate their individuality. The first word of each of the three markers are uttered prominently as to signal downgrading.
4.1.1.8 Complaint-rejection Complaint in TBL is used to convey negative feelings, emotions or attitudes such as discomfort, dissatisfaction, frustration, disapproval, anxiety, etc. It can be concerned with the complainee’s behaviour as it fails to meet the speaker expectation, or it can deal with the speaker’s behaviour. The complainee’s behaviour can be directly addressed to the hearer about his or her behaviour, or indirectly to the hearer about other’s and about the speaker. The first pair part (FPP) containing complaint has no stereotypical corresponding second pair part (SPP). The SPP can be realized in rejection, justification or remedy. In TBL complaints are inherently negative, and damaging the complainee’s positive face because they can be understood that the speaker’s wishes do not correspond to those of the hearer, especially direct complaints addressed to hearers. Excerpt 37 and 38 below deal with complaints.
Excerpt 37
1 A : gabe sega sude dibaenho.
89 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
/ gabe sega sude dibaekko / so broken all made you ‘you broke everything’
2 B : dang pola bohai. / dak pola boha i / not just matter it ‘it does not matter’
Excerpt 38
1 A : bohado, marsak au dang adong hepekku bah. boha do, marsak au dang adong hepeng hu bah how T, sorrow I not any money my PR ‘ I feel unhappy, I do not have any money’
3 B : hoen namarhaleti do antongho. / hoen na marhalet i do attokko / only T to date PR T just you ‘ ‘you just keep dating’ In line 1 excerpt 37, A directly addresses his complaint to B. The condition is that B has done something wrong that caused A discomfort. A,s complaint is rejected by B in the SPP, even B makes justification of his behaviour. A,s expression is common in showing complaint, and there is so much dissappointed on what has been done wrong to the complainnee. Such kind of complaint looks as if the complainee had destroyed everything. In fact the complaint of the speaker refers to only one behaviour of B. However, B considers his behaviour is still tolerated and appropriate. The complainer in exerpt 37 above evaluates or judges the past action or event by the complainee, and makes it retrospective.
90 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The complainer here does not intend to influence the complainee,s subsequent behaviour. In excerpt 38, the speaker in line 1 complains about his own state of affair of being having no money. Here he just let the hearer know his complaint hoping that there would be solution to the speaker’s problem. But the hearer’s response comes in a dispreferred one that the remedy the speaker expects is in reverse not given by the hearer. The SPP here functions as recomplaining the speaker’s negative behaviour as the cause of his problem. As a matter of fact, the hearer has reprimanded the retrospective behaviour of the speakers that makes it as counter-complaint. So, the complaint in FPP is responded by complaint in SPP. The speaker of the above conversation actually disagrees with the hearer’s rejection, as he feels that he did not do anything wrong. There is no such behaviour that really causing him in the state of problem, and he is a student who has not earned any money. In complaining directly to the second party about his or her retrospective behaviour or indirectly about his or her present condition, the dispreferred response can be realised in counter-complaint. It is direct when the complaint is made against the hearer, for it is the hearer that can be attributed with the responsibility of the perceived offence, as shown in excerpt 37. It is indirect when it is not the hearer or the second party that takes the responsibility (excerpt 38). In the following example, the complaint is launched by a tricycle-driver to another tricycle-driver. What he complained is that there was no any passanger during the day he was riding eventhough he has ridden all around the city. Another tricycle-driver rejected the complaint by giving a dispreferred respond, that is, a disbelief of what the complainer’s saying no passanger for the whole day riding. The conversation comes as follows.
91 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 39 1 A : dang adong sewa sa dari on bah. not any passanger one day this PR ‘there is no any passanger today’
2 B : tu dia lao sude sewa i! to where go all passanger that! ‘ Where are all the passangers!
The SPP in line 2 is functioning to reject the complaint constructed in FPP. Here again the speaker does not evaluate the hearer’s behaviour, and it is not the hearer who takes the responsibility of such condition, but he makes a justification of what he has responded. A complaint can be indirect if made against the third party and expresses the speaker’s lamentation about such third party’s conduct in a critical way. This can be shown in excerpt 40 below.
Excerpt 40 1 A : boa do bupati on, dalan pe holan na mar lubang- lubang. how T regent this, streets T only T Poss holes ‘what about the regent, the streets are full of holes’
2 B : so niboto bupation songon dia. / so ni boto bupati on songod dia / not I know regent this like what ‘I do not know why the hell did the regent make this damned streets!
92 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The utterance of A in line 1 refers to the fact or event with which both the speaker and hearer are acquainted. In other words, that is an indirect complaint that makes manifest assumption that is already manifest to each in their cognitive environment. So the FPP of indirect complaint. It also expresses approval and interest in the hearer that the utterance in the SPP tends to also approve or causes preferred response to the speaker’s complaint in FPP. It is shown by the SPP in excerpt 40 that indirect complaint against the third party is not responded the same way as the SPP in direct and indirect complaint against the second party which commits dipreferred response to complaint speaker, but responded in preferred one. However retrospective facts or events in indirect or direct complaint against the scond party may lead to prospective events which are expected by both speaker and hearer of indirect complaint against the third party. Like the condition shown in excerpt 40, the holly streets which create frustration to public are of course to be repaired by the government. So in the utterance embedded such a prospective manifestation. Without being influenced by the complainer, the subsequent behaviour of the government, there is such an obliged responsibility of the government which has been stated in the constitution. In the direct complaint against the second party, events can be prospective if the speaker influences the hearer’s subsequent behaviour. There is a direct complaint which is responded in disafiliation, as seen in the extract of excerpt 43 below.
9 A : jadi bohado? toria ah, ah. (2.6) so hea tombus /jadi boha do? toria ah, ah. so hea tobbus / so how PR? then ah, ah. No ever win so how? I never win 10 B : Naga! nga dia Sinaga i?
93 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Naga! past where Sinaga that? Naga! where is Sinaga?
B in line 10 does not affiliate with A, in other words, B does not care with A’s complaint.
4.1.2 Turn-Taking In TB Conversation As has been explained, turn-taking is the process through which the party doing the talk of the moment is changed. Before analysing turn-taking system in TBL, it is crucial to make a demarcation of turn in this study. There are two kinds of understanding of turn in conversation, they are mechanical and interactional. It is mechanical when turns are treated as units of talk in interaction and exclude any interpretation that regards social context. The basic units of utterance are considered as turn construction units (TCU). They are units that develop turn, and the types vary, such as, sentence, clause, phrase, or word. Turns also can be seen as an end boundary marked by turn claiming responses by participants. So turns in this sense refers to both utterances devided by speakers changes as well as opportunities for the speaker to take turn in interaction. In other words, turns are composed of TCU and transition relevance place (TRP) at the end of TCU. Interactional understanding of turn refers to exchange of speaker roles in interaction. Turn is an opportunity to hold the floor, not what is said while holding it. Turns here concern the speaker’s right or obligation to talk, as well as the concept of floor- who has the privelege to hold the floor. Goffman further stated that the distinction between mechanical and interactional approaches is somewhat similar to that between system constraints and ritual constraints that affect turn-taking. System
94 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations constraint is parallel to mechanical approach, that is, dealing with turn sequences are managed, like how the next speaker selected. So it is not considered to be influenced by social context. Ritual constraints vary from situation to situation and from culture to culture. Speakers are viewed in relation to others in social sense. So turns are also determined by cultural context. This section talks about TCU which is directed to completion points; grammatical, intonational and semantic completion points, turn allocation, silence, overlaps/interruption, and repair in TBL. All these components are analysed based on ten recorded data of ordinary conversation. TCU can vary from one word long, constructed with a single lexical item, a phrase: several words that do not constitute a sentence, clause, sentence, and even a unit of silent sound. What are analysed in TBL setting are grammatical, lexical, and phonological units that can possibly project the end of turn to ocassion TRP. These lead to analysing the turn-taking rules for transfer of speaker from one turn to another. In analysing TCU in TBL, grammatical, phonological, and semantical completion points are considered to be the places where it is possible to get speakers’s transition. Silence which consist of lapse, gap, and pause are found in Toba Batak conversation which are seen as interesting phenomena, as they can be used to signal TRP. The interpretation that participants give to silence as reflected in their subsequent utterances depends on the place of the silence in the turn-taking sequence. Overlap in Toba Batak is presented in terms of simultaneous talk and interruption. Simultaneous talk always occurs at the onset of a turn. Interruption occurs near TRP as well as before TRP.
95 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The last analysis is about repair. As in TBL, repair commonly emerges and it is considered as interaction problems like, mishear, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, etc. The analysis will see the mechanism of repair in TBL. In TBL, as in English, turns are constructed by such linguistic units; word, phrase, clause, sentence. TCUs has two features, first they have the property of projectability. It is possible for particpants to project in the course of a TCU, what sort of unit it is and at what point it is likely to end. The second feature as a result of this is that TCUs bring into play transition relevance places (TRPs) at their boundaries, that is, at the end of each unit, there is the possibility for legitimate transition between speakers. Thus, a word, a phrase, a clause, a sentence, or other units which are used as complete turns will have TRP at their ends. Excerpt 41 shows several different types of turn construction units.
Excerpt 41 1 A : adong do ion pesta ba , jonok do. 2 dang berengon muna? Ai nikku do. 3 B : daong, cerita aha majo hita oppung. 4 A : e ? 5 B : tuguan. Ha . . ha . . 6 A : tugu dia ? 7 C : molo lao au sogot.
8 B : nyan , ison ma oppung huddulah. 9 cerita cerita hita oppung. 10 A : tugu dia ma nuaeng, (1.3) ceritahonokku be nuaeng 11 B : Addo. 12 B : naeng mambege ido oppung baen naro .
96 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
13 C : [ Ai tugu nise doon tahe ? 14 A : e? 15 C : tugu nise do on tahe ? 16 A : tugu nami .
Exerpt 41 (English equivalent)
1 A : there is a wedding party there, it is near. 2 don’t you go there? That’s what I said. 3 B : no, we just tell story grandma. 4 A : what ? 5 B : the statue. Ha.. Ha.. 6 A : which statue? 7 C : [if I go tomorrow. 8 B : that one, we just sit here grandma. 9 : we tell a story graudma. 10 A : which statue shall I, (1.3) talk about now. 11 B : Addo! 12 : I am going to listen to it. 13 C : [whose statue is that ? 14 A : e ? 15 C : whose statue is that? 16 A : our statue.
There are fourteen turns in the conversation above. They are constructed by using sentences, clauses, phrases words. There are 7 turns which are constructed by using sentences, they are found in line 1-3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15. One turn is constructed by 3 sentences (line 1-2), and another turn by two sentences (line 8 and 9). The other five turns are constructed by one sentence only (line 10, 12-15). One turn is constructed by a clause, found in line 7. Two turns in phrases are showed by line 6 and 16. And the last is four turns using
97 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations words are showed in 4, 5, 11, and 14. For further analysis, picture 4 below can be referred.
Picture 4. A conversation about statue
C B A
From the picture above, a turn which is constructed in 3 sentences belongs to A (line 1-3), and another turn constructed in 2 sentences belongs to B (line 8, 9). C has a turn which is constructed in 1 sentence only (C is not seen in the picture but only his voice presented here). As has been explained that it is possible for participants to project where construction units end and at this end a particular turn might possibly be complete. This place where a transition from one speaker to another becomes relevant, that is called transition relevance place (TRP). So, a word or a sentence being used as a complete turn will have TRP at its
98 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations end. In the empirical data above it is found that at the end of a sentence as a TCU (line 1), a turn is not complete yet. When the sentence: Adong do ion pesta ba, jonok do, ends after the phrase jonok do, there is no TRP or speaker change. It is changed when the third sentence: Ai nikku do, ends. In TBL, the relation of TCU and TRP with speaker changes can be analysed based on completion points. These completion points can be illustrated in picture 5 below, especially the grammatical completion point and intonational completion point, and the analysis can be referred in excerpt 42.
Picture 5. A conversation in a coffee-counter
99 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4.1.2.1 Completion Points 4.1.2.1.1 Grammatical Completion Point There are three kinds of grammatical completion point, they are, well-formed clauses, increments, and recoverable predicate. These three categories are criteria for determining the syntactic projectability or projecting possible completion points in Toba Batak conversation. This can help participants understand when the turns can end and carry out smooth turn transitions. To see well-formed, increments, and recoverable predicate, the following data can be referred to.
Excerpt 42 1 A : si Morjo mungkin do songon on. Imana 2 songon na lansing dope berengon. 3 B : [ Dakkuparrohahon hamu isi bah. 4 C : alai nga jarang attong au mulakkan? 5 B : ai kulia i dia ho? 6 C : di USU. Alai nga tammat au. 7 A : isan do ra si Morjo. 8 B : ima nahuddul dijoloi. 9 C : aido? E di san. Ai sakalashu 10 hian do attong on. 11 A : he…he… 12 : ai ise namakkatai i? 13 ( 9.9 ) 14 B : jadi taon dua ribu piga do ho? 15 C : dua ribu opat. 16 B : dua ribu opat, dangi? 17 C : e. 18 B : oh, alai tor tammat ate? = D3? 19 C : S1. di FISIP do au. 20 B : [ S1 aha ?
100 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
21 C : FISIP. 22 A : sian USU, dangi ? ( 3.0 ). 23 nga karejo ? 24 C : dang dope. baru tammat dope au.
25 na bulan lima dope tammat au. ( 8.5 ). 26 mancoba- coba aha. Karejo.
Exerpt 42 (English equivalent)
1 A : Morjo is like this. He rather 2 looks slim now 3 B : [ I did not notice it. 4 C : but I seldom came home, didn’t I ? 5 B : where did you study ? 6 C : North Sumatera University. I have graduated. 7 A : may be Morjo is there. 8 B : there, who sat in front. 9 C : did he ? Yes, there. He was 10 my classmate. 11 A : he.. he.. 12 who is talking ? 13 ( 9.9 ) 14 B : so, are you two thousand and ? 15 C : two thousand and four. 16 B : two thousand and for, aren’t you ? 17 C : yes 18 B : but you soon graduated, didn’t you=Diploma 3 ? 19 C : strata one. at Sosial Politic Department. 20 B : [what strata one ? 21 C : Sosial Politics. 22 A : from North Sumatera University, didn’t you ? ( 3.0 ) 23 have you got working ?
101 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
24 C : not yet. I’ve just graduated. 25 : I graduated last May . ( 8.1 ) 26 : trying to find job.
To see the well-formed clauses as a marker of syntactic completion point at their end in the data, it is first of all fruitful to refer to the patterns of Toba Batak sentences. Sibarani (1997:9) proposed seven pattens of Toba Batak sentences which can be summarized as, 1) P (intransitive verb) – O – S, 2) P (transitive verb) – S, 3) P (semi-intransitive verb) – C – S, 4) P (passive transitive verb) – C – S – Adv, 5) P (adj) – S, 6) P (noun) – S – adv, 7) P (intransitive verb) – S – C (verb) – Adv. Sibarani further stated that Toba Batak sentences do not always have O (object), and P (predicate) is not always in verb, as showed in 5 and 6. From the empirical data above it should necessarily be added one more pattern as: P (adverb) – S (line 7 in excerpt 42). For well-formed clauses, subjects are considered indicators of grammatical completion points. Since TBL is a PSO or VSO language, and O is not an obligatory present in sentences, subjects can be considered as crucial point at which as a final position in sentences, grammatical completion points are marked after the subjects. If the object is present in a sentence, the grammatical completion point is marked after the object. Line 6 and 7 in excerpt 42 are examples of sentences without objects, and line 3 is one with an object. Line 6 consists of two TCUs, the first is constructed in a phrase, and the second with a sentence. Sentence: Alai nga tammat au, is considered a well-formed clause, and a grammatical completion point is marked after the subject, au. Sentence: Isan dora si Morjo (line 7) is a well-formed clause, and a grammatical completion point is marked after the subject, si Morjo. For the two sentences, once they are used without
102 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations subjects : Alai nga tammat, Isan dora, they become ungrammatical or not well-formed. The two well-formed clauses, at their ends, speaker changes can occur. Line 9 and 19 also show constitute wellformed clauses and there are speaker changes at the end of each sentence. In the first sentence (line 9): Ai sakalas hu hian ma attong on, the grammatical completion point is marked after the subject, on. In the second sentence (line 19): Di Fisip do au, the grammatical completion point is marked after the subject, au. Although there are speaker changes at their TRP, these two sentnces are preceded by other construction units which actually precedes the process of speaker changes. These will be discussed in the topic of turn allocation. A sentence with an object as shown in line 3: Dang huparrohahon hamu isi bah, the grammatical completion point is marked after the object, hamu. This is the first grammatical completion point, as it is a well-formed clause. Words and phrases that come after the first grammatical completion points are considered increments. The word, isi comes after the first grammatical completion point, and sentence: Dang huparrohahon hamu isi, is a well-formed clause, so the second grammatical completion point is marked after the word, isi. The same case is found in the word bah, it comes after the second grammatical completion point, and sentence: Dang huparrohahon hamu isi bah, is a well-formed clause, so the third grammatical completion point is marked after the word, bah. There is a transition of speaker after the word, bah. Actually this transition can occur after the word isi. But the speaker change is not coming, and this another case of turn allocation. The recoverable predicate is considered to form a complete clause, so it can be used to project the grammatical completion point. This is first shown by line 6 in the
103 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations conversation, the phrase, Di USU, is an answer to the question, Ai kuliah idia do ho? Although the answer does not have a predicate, it is assumed that the answer can be copleted as the clause, Kulia di USU do au ‘I study in USU’ from the context. So, the phrase Di USU is considered a complete clause containing recoverable predicate. The grammatical completion point is marked at the end of the phrase. The other kinds of recoverable predicates are shown in line 9; e di san, line 15; dua ribu opat, line 17; E, line 19; S1, line 21; Fisip, and line 24; dang dope. The phrase, E di san is considered a complete clause as derived from; e di san huddul ibana ‘He sat there’. The phrase, dua ribu opat, is derived from; Angkatan dua ribu opat do au ‘I am in the year of two thousand and four’. The word, e, comes from; e angkatan dua ribu opat do au. The word, S1, comes from; Program S1 do au’I take bachelor program’. The word Fisip, is assumed to be; Program S1 Fisip do au ’I take a bachelor program In Social Politics’. And the phrase, dang dope is derived from; dang karejo dope au ‘I have not got a job’. The grammatcal completion pints are marked at the end of each of the phrase or word. Those phrases and words which are considered as well- formed clauses through recoverable predicates are not all indicators of speaker changes. Only three speaker changes occur, they are, at the end of the words; dua ribu opat (line 15), at the end of the word; E (line 17)and Fisip (line 20). The other four would be discussed under different topics.
4.1.2.1.2 Intonational Completion Point Furo (2001: 14) stated that intonational features are transcribed in four different ways : commas used for non-final (continuing) intonation contour, periods for final (falling) intonation contours, question marks for final (rising) intonation contours, and a combination of comma and question marks for
104 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations continuing but rising intonation contours which are weaker than those indicated by regular question marks. The following are examples of the four types of intonational contours in TBL. 1) Comma for continuing intonation contour Si.. Si Morjo mungkin do songonon, 2) Period for falling intonation contour Isan dora si Morjo. 3) Question mark for rising intonation contour Alai nga jarang au mulakkan? 4) Combination of question mark and comma for continuing but rising intonation contour Among these four types, type 2 and 3 are identified as intonational completion points inTBL as they are indicators of possible TRP. Type 1, i.e. comma for continuing intonation contour, cannot project the completion point. Type 4 too, combination of question mark and comma for continuing but rising intonation contour, cannot project the possible completion point in which TRP possibly occurs. An example of type 1 can be seen in line 1 of excerpt 42 ; Si.. Simorjo mungkin do songonon, ibana songonna langsing dope berengon. Comma is used as a continuer that does not give the possible end for which TRP possibly occur. After the comma, the speaker here continues his utterance. Type 4 in line 18; Oh, alai tor tammat ate,? = D3?, the combination of question mark and comma gives the continuation to the prior utterance, that is by launching another question. There is no possible completion point after the question mark and comma, as there is a latch between the first question and the second question which is symbolized by equal sign. Type 2, period for falling intonation contour can be marked as giving intonational completion point. All sentences in excerpt 42 which end in period is marked as the end of TCUs and can indicate places for speaker transition. The intonation here is falling.
105 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
It should be noted here that type 3, question mark for rising intonation, can be expanded to question mark identifying intonation weaker than that of type 3. For clarification it is necessary to refer to questions in TBL proposed by Sibarani (1997:139, 150). There are two types of question, they are yes- no question and question by using question words. Yes-no question is identified by a raising intonation whether it is realised in a short or complete form. Question by using question words are constructed by eleven basic question words such as, aha ‘what’, ise ‘who’, andigan ‘when’ (future), nandigan ‘when’ (past), piga ‘how many’, sadia ‘how much’, boha ‘how’, dia ‘which’, boasa ‘why’, mahua ‘what happened’, and marhua ‘do what’. From these, eleven other question words are generated to form interrogative sentences to which prepositons inserted before the words such as; sian aha ‘made of what’, songon aha ‘what it likes’, tu aha ‘for what’, di dia ‘where’, sian dia ‘from where’, songon dia ‘like what’, tu dia ‘where to’, di ise ‘for whom’, sian ise ‘from whom’, songon ise ‘like whom’, and tu ise ‘to whom’. Questions constructed by these words have weaker intonation than those of yes-no questions, and this identifies possible TRP. In excerpt 42, there are two yes-no questions shown in line 4 and 18 ; alai nga jarang attong au mulakkan?, Oh, alai tor tammat ate?. The former, at the end of the sentence identified by raising intonation, at its TRP speaker change occurs. Where as the latter, at its end, there is no a speaker change. The condition of the absence of speaker change emerges when there is another TCU comes, built in a short question, D3?, and makes possible TRP. In this case the short question with raising intonation at its end signals the transition of speaker. Here, of course, it is not only that TCU can project TRP, but in the case above, TCU has to be related to how transition of speaker or turn-taking is allocated. There are two
106 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations other short questions in the excerpt with raising intonation; aido?, nga karejo?. The first is followed by other TCUs, so there is no a speaker change after it. The second is responded by the next speaker as the sign of speaker change. The short question with a weaker intonation is found in line 20; S1 aha?, and at its end there is a speaker change. Questions which are built by question words are shown in line 5, 12 ; ai kulia idia do ho?, Ai ise na makkatai i?. These are considered complete questions and have weaker intonation. The intonation completion points are marked at the end of the sentence or intonation. At their completion points there are speaker changes, but the one in line 12, the speaker change does not occur immediately as there is a lapse before transition of speaker. Question- tag in TBL can be used as TCUs as shown in line 16 and 22; dua ribu opat, dangi?, Sian USU, dangi? These two questions are ended in raising intonation. The first question results in speaker change, whereas there is no speaker change in the second, instead before the other TCU comes, a pause of three seconds occur. The intonational completion point in TBL can be realized among TCUs and these TCUs can project possible TRPs. It is found that at TRPs speaker changes are not always present.
4.1.2.1.3 Semantic Completion Point Furo (2001: 15) applies four criteria to identify semantic completion point, they are, 1) floor right, 2) floor-claiming utterance, 3) proposition, and 4) reactive token. Floor right refers to the right of speaker to hold the floor. When the right is expired or yielded, semantic completion point is marked at that place. In interaction, a speaker may ask question to the hearer, and this selects the hearer as the next speaker. Floor-claiming utterance deals with words, phrases or preliminary action which
107 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations project longer talk, and semantic completion point is marked at the end of the projected longer talk. When there is no an indication that the longer talk cannot be projected by words or phrases, the semantic completion point is marked at the end of proposition, like in a single or complex clause. Reactive tokens such as; backchannel, reactive expressions, repetition, collaborative finish, laughter, and short statement are considered semantically complete because they carry out recognizable actions. In Toba Batak conversation, the floor right can be identified from the data shown in excerpt 43 below.
Excerpt 43 1 A : jadi dapot do ibana ? 2 B : ise ? 3 A : bayon. 4 B : ah, dangadong. Sisia do dibaen. 5 C : [ sisia do di au. 6 : (31.7) 7 A : dua puluh ribu be hita. (1.8) Dua puluh ribu be. 8 C : sian au ma sude. 9 A : jadi boha do . Toria ah, ah. (2.6). So hea tobbus. 10 B : Naga ! nga dia si nagai ? 11 C : e . Alusi 12 A : [ alusi Naga . Oi, alusi donganmi! 13 D : [ [ ison do au. 14 E : [ [ nyon si naga 15 B : ai nagodangan Sinaga ison. Nai etokko do horoha. 16 nai etokko holan parkantor bupati Sinaga? 17 A : a tahe ba!
Exerpt 43 (English equivalent) 1 A : did he win?
108 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : who ? 3 A : this man. 4 B : no he didn’t. He put number 9. 5 C : [ I put number 9. 6 ( 31.7 ) 7 A : we are twenty thousands each (1.8) Twenty thousands each. 8 C : all from me. 9 A : so how. So, ah, ah. (2.6) Never win. 10 B : Naga ! Where is Sinaga ? 11 C : e. answer! 12 A : [answer Naga. Oi, answer your friend. 13 D : [[ I am here. 14 E : [[this is Sinaga. 15 B : there are many Sinaga. Do you think that. 16 do you think that only Sinaga of the regent officer? 17 A : a.. so and so.
From the data above, A in line 1 has the right to talk during the time he is talking. When time of talking or floor right is expired, the semantic completion point is marked at this place. A selects B as the next speaker by addressing the question to him (Picture 6). Picture 6. A conversation about a coupon-number
B C
D A
109 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The semantic completion point overlaps with the intonational completion point and grammatical completion point. When the intonation comes to be raised, at the end of this point there are intonational, semantic completion point, and grammatical completion point, as at these points it is possible that the ends are completed as the sign of possible TRP. This would be discussed further at the discussion section. The second semantic completion point, floor-claiming utterance, can be found in excerpt 42. A in line 1: Si Morjo mungkin do songonon.Ibana songon langsing dope berengon, makes a projected talk by using phrase as a cohesive device, songonon. The semantic completion point is marked at the end of the projected talk. So, the sentence containing songonon: Si Morjo mungkin do songonon, projects the upcoming explanation about what the phrase songonon refers to. The same case is found in line 26: Maccobacoba aha, karejo. The word aha is used to project the upcoming explanation about it, karejo. The semantic completion point is marked at the end of this projected word, karejo. Semantic completion point can be marked at the end of proposition of longer talk. This proposition includes not only single clauses, but also complex clauses, as shown in excerpt 44 for single clause, and excerpt 45 for complex clause.
Excerpt 44 1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 2 B : [ e? mahua ? 3 A : marsiajar. 4 B : ise ? 5 A : namabboan motoran. 6 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin.
110 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
7 A : e = 8 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa. 9 C : ise sian on ? 10 B : e. kedakkon.
Excerpt 45
1 A : dison nuaeng , tommat ni halak tulang. 2 tulang si aha , tulang anak si Edison. 3 dakkana songon ahai dope. 4 B : tibbona = 5 A : = nga nason tibbona , nga ro suhatna 6 angka tommat doi nikku? lagi aha dope. 7 B : songino do daba . adong do las si laga-laga. 8 hurasa anggo sappulu kilo sakkabona 9 adong ma tommatna. 10 C : [naiabbirangida. 11 B : i. 12 A : oh nion hape aha ni Janji i 13 .B : i Janji i.
Exerpt 44 (English equivalent)
1 A : the man in the car is still learning. 2 B : [ e ? what ? 3 A : learning. 4 B : who? 5 A : one who is driving the car. 6 B : oh (7.9) . They had been here. 7 A : yes = 8 B = who stayed at my father’s house. 9 C : who was here ? 10 B : e, this friend.
111 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Exerpt 45 (English equivalent)
1 A : our uncle’s tomatoes are here 2 the uncle of, the uncle of Edison’s son. 3 the branch is like that of.. 4 B : the height = 5 A : = the height is like this, the root has grown. 6 they are tomatoes I said. they are like.. 7 B : like this. this is a comparison. 8 I think there is one of 10 kilo a branch 9 of tomatoes. 10 C : [ that one on the left. 11 B : yes. 12 A : on that one at Janji. 13 B : yes. at Janji.
In excerpt 44 line 5, a single clause: Na mabboan motoran is the first example categorized as proposition in which at its end marked a semantic completion point. Although it is a subordinate clause which is uttered apart from the independent clause, it is considered a complete semantic unit and it can project the possible TRP leading to transition of spaker or speaker change (line 6). The second example of this kind is shown in line 8: Na modom di jabu ni bapa which at its end a semantic completion point is marked as it is also considered a complete semantic unit in interaction. And at its TRP there is a transition of speaker (line 9). (See further picture 7 below)
Picture 7. A conversation about a learning-driver and a new-comer
112 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
B D C A
Line 8 and 9 in excerpt 45 exemplify semantic completion point in a complex clause. The independent clause, Adong ma tommatna, at its end it is possible a TRP occurs. The adverb, hurasa is a part of the independent clause and constitues a semantic unit with the subordinate clause, anggo sappulu kilo sakkabbona. The independent clause here is a proposition that marks semantic completion point at its end. It is launched by B (see picture 8 below)
Picture 8. A conversation about tomatoes-planting
113 A B C The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Short responses to the primary speaker’s utterances which do not project an upcoming longer talk are reactive tokens. These reactive tokens, eventhough do not have full structure as sentences can be used to mark semantic completion point because they are considered recognizable actions. Reactive tokens are categorized as; backchannel, reactive expression, repetition, collaborative finish, laugher, and short statement. In Toba Batak conversation the six reactive tokens occur, as explained in the following analysis. Backchannels are realized in: E, Oh, I. The first is shown in excerpt 44 line 7 and 10, the second is shown in line 6, and the third is shown in excerpt 45 line 11. Both Es are continuers, that in the first (line 7) A by saying E, lets B continue his utterance that explains the prior one (line 6). Before launching A’s next utterance (line 8) there is a latched between. This means that the backchannel functions to let other continue. The second E (line 10) functions as to give continuation to the same speaker, B. The same case also occurs in excerpt 42 line 9. Eventhough both Es are continuers, they are considered TCUs that project TRP for which a speaker can make a transition, and therefore they are marked as semantic completion points. The next backchannel, Oh (line 6), which is used by the recipient to receive the information from the speaker, is considered a semantic completion point. B waits for nearly eight seconds until he continues his turn. At this lapse the transition of speaker can possibly occur, and at this interaction the current speaker continues speaking by the change of topic. Backchannel, I, is used to show receipt of information as to display informational and news value of the prior turn. The prior turn, Naiabbirangida (line 11, excerpt 45) is received as valued news or information by the recipient (B).
114 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Semantic completion point is marked by this backchannel as it is a recognizable action. Reactive expression such as, addo is realized in excerpt 41 line 11 which comes within a turn of other speaker. This B’s reactive expression emerges as a result of a non-verbal action, that is, B’s drawing the hand of the old woman out of her house for a talk with the boys. The reactive expresion, addo, is marked as the indicator of semantic completion point as it is a recocnizable action. Another reactive expression, a tahe ba, is found in excerpt 43 line 17. It is a reactive expression of the prior turns which reflects funny talk as a device of showing and building social relation. This is considered a semantic completion point because it shows a recocnizable action. Repetition as a device of showing semantic completion point is shown in excerpt 42 and 43. The first repetition; dua ribu opat, dangi? (line 16) repeats what is uttered in line 15, dua ribu opat. The question tag, dangi as the additional word completes the repetition that can also mark semantic completion point. However without the question tag, at the end of the repeated words there is a semantic completion point for which TRP is possible. The second example of repetition shown in excerpt 43 is, sisia do di au (line 5). In the conversation, C repeats a part of B’s utterance (line 4), and the semantic completion poin is marked at the end of the additional words. These repetitions display an understanding of how it confirms the prior turn which is repeated. Collaborative finish is considered to mark semantic completion point, as shown in excerpt 43, line 13 and 14. D’s turn, Ison do au, and E’s turn, Nyon sinaga, are in collaborative completion as shown by the left-hand bracket in the data. This is also a problem of simultaneous talk which will be further discussed. After their simultaneous talk the change of speaker
115 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations occurs, and in this interaction B continues his turn in line 15 and 16. Laughter is also considered a recognizable action as it can display a listenership, and through such marker there is a possibility of speaker change. Laughter is codified by: he.. he.., ha.., ha.., as seen in excerpt 41, line 5, and excerpt 42, line 11. The first laughter: . Ha.. ha.., is preceded by the word tuguan, so becomes, Tuguan. Ha.. ha… The laughter refers to the preceding word or done within utterance. So after the laughter, a semantic completion point is marked, and there is a speaker change here. The second laughter: He.. he.., is done on the completion of some utterance and it affiliate to the last utterance (line 9 excerpt 42). Semantic completion point is marked after the laughter. In this case there is no a speaker change. The last reactive token is short statement. Ther are many short statements in the data. For example, in exerpt 43 line 13, Ison do au, and line 14, Nyon Sinaga, in case of the collaborative finish in simultaneous talk, they are short statements at which ends marked semantic completion points. In excerpt 42 too, line 19, Di FISIP do au, as short statement, it marks a semantic completion point at its end.
4.1.2.2 Turn Allocation Component
Getting a turn can be a serious issue especially in ordinary conversation. In our life we always have mechanisms to organize our avtivities by apllying sequential or alternating turns. Football watchers buy tickets in sequence determined by the individual’s position in line. The first position in line is the first who gets the ticket. They queue based on the rule issued to them. To get a turn is an important thing that many people try to arrive hours or days ahead of time to ensure a place in line.
116 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
This system operates single turn, that is, one person at a time regardless of whether he buys more than one tickets though in some cases number of tickets are restricted. The other turn system can deal with one that allows all participants to take the turns at the same time as shown in guests having dinner party. In conversation it is important to have single sequential turns as humanbeings limited capacity to cope with several different spoken messages at once. People who talk in daily life may need to be the very next person to speak but even they desperately have an effort to do it they are difficult to get a word in edgewise. Unlike in institutional talk such as in seminar, debate or in adat ceremony of wedding in Toba Batak setting, who talks, when, how, have been pre-determined or pre-specified before. Sometimes it depends on the speaker status. In daily conversation turns are locally and interactionally managed . Locally managed means that the participants themselves determine who shall speak next, including turn size, turn length, number of parties, and what parties say. Turn allocation is not determined before participants begin. Interactionally managed means that one participant affects what the others may acceptably do, that is, if the current speaker chooses who speaks next, the chance to other speakers is reduced. This is a participant-managed turn system. How are turn allocated among participants? The following are basic set of rules for determining who gets the next turn, as shown below. 1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn construction unit : a) If the turn so far is constructed as to involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take next turn to speak;
117 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations no others have such rights or obligation, and transfer occurs at the place. b) If the turn so far is constructed as not to involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then self- selection for next speakership may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to turn, and transfer occurs at that place. c) If the turn so far is constructed as not to involve the use of a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique, then current speaker may, but need not continue, unless another self selects. 2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn- construction unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c reapplies at the next transition-relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effective. Rules 1a, 1b, and 1c are to be used in this analysis as they are the operational rules applied in conversation. It can be summarized that rule 1a deals with the ‘current speaker selects next’ (CSSN), rule 1b refers to ‘self select’ (SS), and rule 1c with the ‘speaker’ continuation’ (SC). The followings talk about the three rule in Toba Batak conversation.
4.1.2.2.1 Current Speaker Selects Next The previous discussion of adjacency pairs suggests one of the primary ways in which the current speaker selects next (CSSN hereafter) can be accomplished. The current speaker directs the first pair part of AP to other participant. The identity of this other person can be indicated by the current speaker in various ways, like eye-contact, using personal names, and so on. This is done during the current practice of interaction, in which at the first TRP the person who has been selected by the current sspeaker has a right to speak. For an
118 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations illustration the data from AP section can be referred, as shown in excerpt 3. A directs her question to B by saying: Jai adong do dalan tu gijjang on?, asking if there is a way up. B, as being selected, responds by saying: Adong dikkan ai. Boi dope motor mardalan tu gijjang, answering the question that there is a way up there, and even cars can go up. As there are only two participants in the conversation, the other person to whom the question is directed has the only next turn. A conversation does not consist only two persons, it can be more than two. CSSN can occur in multy parties conversation. In effect CSSN has priority over the other methods as it is employed before the TRP, and when it has been used no other participant may be selected as next speaker. In Toba Batak conversation CSSN has a constrain that the speaker selected is not always the next speaker but it is taken by other. The speaker other than one who is selected may preempt the turn. As an illustration the following excerpt can be seen.
Excerpt 46 1 A : jai na mabbuat pensiun do (1.3) inang . 2 B : taida ma. 3 manang aha do dohonona , sohuboto. 4 A : i do ate . tabo do hamu ate? 5 (2.2) 6 B : di dia ma tabona. 7 A : tabo mada . nga matua, ro hepeng 8 C : tabo do 9 : immuma 10 A : ni markalung muse , bagak kalungnga. 11 B : a, obat doi . 12 A : ima attong. na adong do horoha 13 mangirim tu hamu ate.
119 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
14 B : aha ? 15 C : he he 16 A : obati 17 B : adong pahopukki 18 A : ima ate tabo nai nei 19 B : ai godang horuk-horukku 20 A : mar henpon 21 museni,horukkorung,ipahorukkorung henp. 22 B : ai marbuluk-buluk do. 23 A : anggo ho memang,(1.6) aha nama on, 24 B : [ nei lao mabbuat balu, 25 C [ngai sokkik sude 26 B : lao mabbuat baluang. 27 A : moderen nama on.
Exerpt 46 (English equivalent)
1 A : so you want to take your pension (1.3) madam. 2 B : let’s see. 3 what they will inform. I don’t know. 4 A : yes it is. you are lucky, aren’t you ? 5 (2.2) 6 B : what is lucky. 7 A : you are lucky. You are old but gets money 8 C : [ you are 9 lucky, tell her. 10 A : you also have a necklace, a nice necklace. 11 B : ah, that is medicine. 12 A : yes it is. there is one sending ? 13 sending you, isn’t it ? 14 B: what 15 C : [[ he.. he..
120 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
16 A : [[ that’s medicine. 17 B : yes my grandson. 18 A : yes. that is very lucky of you. 19 B : I have many necklaces. 20 A : [ you have handphone. 21 too, necklace, handphone made as necklace. 22 B : that’s like piles. 23 A : that you are. (1.6) something called.. 24 B : [ going to take wall.. 25 C : [ they press all here. 26 B : going to take wallet. 27 A : something called modern.
In the data segment above, B (line 14) directs her question to A (line 16) by using CSSN technique (Picture 9 below can be referred)
Picture 9. A conversation about pension
C A B
121 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The conversation consists of a series of AP between A and B eventhough there are more than two participants take part. In her turn, C (line 15) preempts before A takes her turn. As what AP characterizes as adjacent, if FPP is launched then SPP is realized. If SPP does not come it is noticeably absent, meaning that the absence of SPP is accountable, and this leads to a repair work. So by preempting the turn C is considered violating the turn-taking etiquette. As a matter of fact, if B’s question is not directed to A it is no longer CSSN, as the participants in the conversation are free to take their turn. The second example of CSSN can be seen in the previous data segment, excerpt 41. A (line 6), directs her question: Tugu dia? to B (line 8), but C (line 7) preempts the turn. B has done prior CSSN by directing his statement to A by using address term oppung, and successively they ask and answer each other in the form of APs. The third CSSN is shown in the previous data segment, excerpt 44. The current speaker, B (line 6) selects D as the next speaker, but A (line 7) has become the next speaker. Excerpt 44 can be reconstructed in a more completed utterances below. 1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran. 2 B : e? mahua ? 3 A : marsiajar. 4 B : ise ? 5 A : namabboan motoran. 6 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin. 7 A : e = 8 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa.
122 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
9 C : ise sian on ? 10 B : e. kedakkon. 11 D : ai iseon? 12 C : ise on? 13 B : kedanni siaha. si, si Edu.
B (line 8) again selects D as the next speaker but C (line9) preempts the turn who applies again CSSN by selecting B as the next speaker. When D was selected as the next speaker, actually there was a repair in case of his absence for speaker being selected, but C (line 12) again preempts the turn. So CSSN does not always allow the selected speaker to display his turn. From the analysis of rule 1a, that is, CSSN, is not fully applied in Toba Batak conversation. There are such competition of taking turn that leads to the violation of turn etiquett. However, in adjacency pairs CSSN does not have any constrain except if the speaker so selected to take the next turn delays his turn in terms of speaking problem.
4.1.2.2.2 Self-select Some utterances do not require a particular participant to respond like what is found in adjacency pair. In other words CSSN is not applied or the current speaker does not select the next speaker to take turn. Moreover, not every utterance is a part of an adjacency pair. For this case, rule 1b is applied; if the current speaker does not select next, then at TRP any speaker may begin. The first starter is the person who has the turn. One who starts earlier has an advantage, and it becomes a problem for the slow starter participants. Rule 1b also allows speakers to compete for turns that will leads to overlapping talk or simultaneous talk. Self-select (SS hereafter) can be seen in excerpt 44 which has just been explained. A’s remark (line 1) is not
123 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations directed at anyone in particular, but it is a statement to the entire group. Furthermore, it is not the first part of an adjacency pair which does not require the next adjacent respond. At the end of A’s statement: Marsiajar dope horoa nai motoran, B self-selects with questions asking clarifiction or B initiates a repair of A’s statement. More self-selects can be found in excerpt 45 which can be reconstructed below.
1 A : dison nuaeng , tommat ni halak tulang. 2 tulang si aha , tulang anak si Edison. 3 dakkana songon ahai dope. 4 B : tibbona = 5 A : = nga nason tibbona , nga ro suhatna 6 angka tommat doi nikku? lagi aha dope. 7 B : songino do daba . adong do las si laga-laga. 8 hurasa anggo sappulu kilo sakkabona
9 adong ma tommatna. 10 naiabbirangida. 11 B : i. 12 A : oh nion hape aha ni Janji i. 13 B : i Janji i.
A (line 1) does not apply CSSN, his statement is not directed to a particular participant. At the end of A’s turn, B (line 4) self-selects. He can project the increment of A’s turn, by filling in the slot of the missing word. So B here not only projects TRP but also makes allignment to A. At the end of TCU (line 3); Dakkana songon ahai dope (tibbona), the word in parenthesis that should have been included by A in his utterance after dope, is completed by B in self-select turn. Then A (line 5, 6, and 12) , B (line 7, 8, and 9, 11, and 13), and C
124 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
(line 10) at the next turns make self-select. So who gets to speak is determined by who self-selects, when and how quickly they do it. This can give a place for participants to compete to get the first turn because the first starter would be the next speaker. A in line 5 takes a quick self-selecting at the end of B’s turn in line 4, which is shown by a latched utterance beteween them, symbolized by equal sign in the data.
4.1.2.2.3 Speaker Continuation Rule 1c is applied when neither of the two methods, CSSN and SS, are used to determine the next speaker. If the current speaker does not select next, and if no participants self select, then at transition relevance place, the current speaker may continue. This is an indicator that a single participant may have an extended turn especially if listeners do not notice time as important device to make the turns go smooth. Once SS listeners are late in displaying their turns, the current speaker continues to speak and extending his turn. So the existence of the speaker continues option is the reason for listeners to self- select quickly. In Toba Batak conversation speaker continuation technique can occur after a rather long silence. Here the current speaker does not select the next speaker and continues to speak after a long waiting for others to have self- select. Before the end of the current speaker completion another participant begins his turn eventhough he is not selected as the next speaker, as the speaker continuation is directed to a certain participant. This can be shown in the following data.
Excerpt 47
1 A : baru tu lurah ate . he..he.. 2 B : Gakin do pangidoanmu, adong mai.
125 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3 (3.6) he. .he. . ate tappu ?
4 A : ao,aot do tabo ni parpunguani ate lae,ate,e ? 5 B : boa do roham? 6 C : ba dos rohatta. 7 B : e ? 8 C : ba dos rohatta , nikku . 9 (2.3) 10 B : ai katua dope ho hubege 11 C : e . 12 B : katua dope ninna.
Exerpt 47 (English equivalent)
1 A : then to village chief, ok ? he.. he.. 2 B : do you want Gakin ? they have it. 3 (3.6) he.. he.. is that right Tappu ? 4 A : that’s the goodness of group, isn’t it ? 5 B : what about you ? 6 C : it depends on us. 7 B : e ? 8 B : it depends on us. I said. 9 (2.3) 10 B : I heard you are still the leader. 11 C : yes. 12 B : they said leader.
B (line 2) starts his turn by saying; Gakin do pangidoanmu, adong mai. He does not direct his statement to particular participant, and at the TRP, after the word, mai, there is no a self-select from the participants. So the current speaker continues after a silence of 3.6 seconds (line 3) by selecting
126 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations A next speaker; He.. he..ate Tappu? The next speaker selected does not come, it is again, B (line 5) takes the next turn by using CSSN before it is continued by C (line 6). Here, A’s turn (line 4) is considered interruption. It can be further referred to picture 10 below.
Picture 10. A conversation about poor-family
The second speaker continuation is shown in excerpt 44 which can be reconstructed below.
1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 2 B : [e? mahua? 3 A : marsiajar. B 4 B : ise ? 5 A : namabboan motoran. 6 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin. 7 A : e = 8 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa. C 9 C : ise sian on ? 10 B : e. kedakkon.
B (line 6) does not use CSSN as his statement (continuer) is directed to the entire group. After uttering this continuer, Oh, B kept silence but there was no participant who self-selects. The current speaker, B, continues to speak after a long silence, 7.9 seconds. Suppose that A (line 7) did a self-select before the current speaker continues speaking, there would be a misunderstanding between them, as B’s Oh in line 6 results from the prior talk (line 5) that signals the agreement about what the prior talk means. Whereas A in line 7 shows agreement about what B’s continuation after the long silence.
127 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A’s agreement by using continuer E, allows B to continue his turn as indicated by the latched shown by equal sign by which he completes the information prior to A’s turn displaying continuation. A turn with multi units that conforms to rule 1c occurs in Toba Batak conversation. It is indicated by TRP that occurs at the end of line 1 excerpt 45, as reconstructed below. The data is not fully presented. 1 A : dison nuaeng , tommat ni halak tulang. 2 tulang si aha , tulang anak si Edison. 3 dakkana songon ahai dope. 4 B : tibbona.
When TRP is indicated at the end of line 1, it allows line 2-3 an instance of current speaker continues. On the tape recording, A does not rush on through his turn that gives an empty space for TRP. As A does not select the next speaker, and no other participant does a self-select, the current speaker continues (line2), and the same speaker continuation occurs (line 3). Thus we find an extended turn of A which consists of more than one TCUs, realized in line 2-3. So the very nature of every day conversation of Toba Batak derives in large part from the turn-taking system. Its most noticeably characteristics are very close to the ways in which turns are constructed and the ways how turns are allocated by using the three rules.
4.1.2.3 Silence According to Sacks et al. (1974: 714) silence is a discontinuous talk which comprises gap, pause, and lapse, as its classification. It derives from what is found in daily conversation as ‘grossly apparent facts’, that is, one of them is that talk can be discontinuous. It occurs when at TRP there is
128 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations no participant takes turn,or during one’s turn he or she suddenly stops. Silence in Napp’s term (2000:4), nonvocalization talk, refers to phases of non-talk or absence of sound around or during a verbal interaction. Napp also classifies silence into lapse, gap, and pause. They are joint production interactionally accomplished by the verbal behaviour of all participants. This means that there are forms of behaviour realized in utterances related to silence. In TB conversation, silence is related to forms of behaviour, and these are shown by gap, pause, and lapse, as analyzed in the following sections.
4.1.2.3.1 Gap Gap is a silence at TRP when the current speaker has not selected a next speaker and a self-selecting has not yet started. In other words, gaps are instances of non-vocalizations that take place after the current speaker has terminated his or her turn and before the current speaker claims further to hold the floor or a subsequent speaker claims the next turn. So gap is the silence between the end of one turn and some listener-self selecting for the next turn. Gap in Toba Batak conversation is used as an indicator of focused interaction where participants gather closely together and openly cooperate to sustain a single focus of attention.. The single focus of attention is directed to the prior turn in which it is used to do social action, that is, the social relation of the participants in Toba Batak culture-kinship relation. The participants in the conversation, besides orient to the joint production, they also orient to how they try to build social relation. They show this as their forms of behaviour related to gap, as shown in the following.
Excerpt 48
129 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1 A : on? 2 B : olo. 3 A : Lumban ngalas. 4 B : Lumban? 5 A : Lumban ngalas 6 B : Lumban ngalas ate, oh. 7 A : aha margam? 8 B : Pardede do au, na.. 9 C : namardalani do hami. 10 B : namardalani do hami. 11 C : mamerengmereng. 12 B : horas lae. 13 A : ba. 14 D : horas ma amang. 15 C : he.. he.. 16 A : ai borumuna do parumaien sada. Boru marpaung. 17 B : ido? ba. 18 A : rappak Pardede doi. 19 B : ido.Sonakmalela do hami attong. 20 C : [ ido. 21 B : jadi songon amang, marga aha amang? 22 A : Sijabat. 23 B : oh. Sijabat ate. 24 : (2.4) 25 A : kebetulan tahun walupulu ia aha nuaeng. 26 D : baru siaddia do amang? 27 B : sian Siantar do hami. 28 D : Sijabat do hami. 29 B : Sijabat do hamu? 30 C : he.. he.. boru Manurung. 31 E : Butarbutar. 32 D : bah. he.. he.. 33 C : [ sedang idia inna amang?
130 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
34 A : Sidamanik do nuaeng parumaeni. 35 E : [Pardede, Butarbutar.
Exerpt 48 (English Equivalent) 1 A : this one ? 2 B : yes. 3 A : Lumban ngalas. 4 B : Lumban? 5 A : Lumban ngalas. 6 B : Lumban ngalas, is that ? Oh. 7 A : what’s your surename? 8 B : I am Pardede. 9 C : we want sightseeing. 10 B : we want sightseeing 11 C : keep looking. 12 B : good day Sir. 13 A : hm. 14 D : good day Sir. 15 C : he.. he.. 16 A : one of my daughter’s in laws is from your clan. that’s Marpaung. 17 B : it’s that ? oh. 18 A : that is the same with Pardede. 19 B : yes we are Sonakmalela. 20 C : [ yes. 21 B : so, like you Sir, what is your surename ? 22 A : Sijabat. 23 B : oh . Sijabat, yes. 24 : (2.4) 25 A : in 1980’s she is in.. 26 D : where just you from ? 27 B : we are from Siantar. 28 D : we are Sijabat.
131 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
29 B : are you Sijabat ? 30 C : he.. he.. I am Manurung. 31 B : Butar-butar. 32 D : oh. he.. he.. 33 C : where is she now Sir ? 34 A : at Sidamanik. 35 E : [Pardede, Butar-butar.
Gap occurs in line 24 between B’s turn and A’s turn. The gap comes at the end of B’s turn and before the next speaker, A, starts his turn. After a 2.4 seconds gap, A (line 25) starts his turn for a focused attention to his prior turn (line 16). This is a device to relate A’s kinship relation to B that each of them know and understand their standing in kinship system. C’s turn (line 33) is another proof functioning as focusing attention to A’s turn after the gap in line 24, and also referring back to the prior turn in line 16. This gap implies the reaction time for A to generate something relevant to say and begin talking. It can be further referred in picture 11 below
Picture 11. A conversation about family
B C A
132 D The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In the following data, there is a gap between turn, and it indicates a focused attention to the prior turn. It can be said that this gap is a reaction time for the next speaker to focuse his turn on the topic being discussed. The data is taken from excerpt 47 and reconstructed. 1 A : baru tu lurah ate . he..he.. 2 B : Gakin do pangidoanmu, adong mai. 3 (3.6) he. .he. . ate tappu ?
4 A : ao,aot do tabo ni parpunguani ate lae,ate,e ? 5 B : boa do roham? 6 C : ba dos rohatta. 7 B : e? 8 C : ba dos rohatta , nikku . 9 (2.3) 10 B : ai katua dope ho hubege. 11 C : e . 12 B : katua dope ninna.
The 2.3 seconds gap is between C’s turn (line 8) and B’s turn (line 10). It can be seen that the gap (line 9) is terminated by the next speaker, B with an utteranc: Ai katua dope ho hubege ‘I heard that you are still a leader’. B here focuses on the prior topic, that is about how to get an aid from the government via poor family community. So a leader means one who leads a poor family community. This community is especially called Gakin which stands for keluarga miskin means poor family. The leader has to do with poor family affairs especially pertaining to aid given by the government.
4.1.2.3.2 Pause
133 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A silence within a participant’s turn and attributed to that participant is called a pause (Nofsinger : 95). Knapp (2000 : 5) defined it as non-vocalizations in ongoing interaction. Nofsinger (ibid) further devides pause into three. First, when the speaker produce a silence during the course of his or her turn and it does not occur at TRP. This can be caused by variety of factors. Being distracted to searching for the right word is a case in point. Second the pause arises when, after a silence at the TRP, no listener self-selects and the current speaker elects to continue, and it is a pause within the speaker’s turn, retrospectively a silence at the TRP. And the third is a pause when the current speaker selects next speaker but the speaker selected delays or does not respond. The first kind of pause is shown in the following extract from excerpt 46 which is constructed again in its short forms.
1 A : jai na mabbuat pensiun do (1.3) inang . 2 B : [ taida ma. 3 manang aha do dohonona , sohuboto.
A pause in the above extract lies within A’s turn (line 1). She stops for 1.3 seconds before finishing the turn. When the pause occurs B starts her turn and overlaps the pause (line 2), as it is the right place for her to do it because at the pause there is a possible end of turn and makes a possible TRP. For A, the pause is a place to find the right address term for her partner, the old woman. B ‘s overlap is not the violation of the rule in turn-taking but the indicator that they orient to rule. So the pause shown in the data segment can display two interactional meaning. The first is that it is a place for the speaker within her turn to think or select the right words to come or that is also a strategy for the speaker to fulfil the recipient design. The second, it is a place for the next speaker
134 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations to read the TRP, as this is the place where a transition of speaker can be initiated. The same case as what is found in the above data can be seen in the other extract of excerpt 46 below.
22 A : anggo ho memang,(1.6) aha nama on. 23 B : [ nei lao mabbuat balu, 24 C : [ ngai sokkik sude 25 B : lao mabbuat baluang. 26 A : moderen nama on.
In the conversation, A (line 22) takes a pause of 1.6 seconds to select words for representing the old woman behaviour. In the tape-recording the old woman has used some attributes like a gold necklace and hand-phone worn as necklace that made A consider the old woman modern. A’s expression after the pause; aha namaon ‘it is going to be’, refers to her subsequent turn (line 26); Moderen nama on ‘It is going to be modern’. From the extract, B (line 23) overlaps A’s turn by preempting her turn before A finishes her turn. The second kind of pause, that is, after a silence at TRP, no listener self-selects, and the current speaker continues, can be seen between speaker’s turn, as presented in the following reconstruction of excerpt 42.
22 A : sian USU, dangi ? ( 3.0 ). 23 nga karejo ? 24 C : dang dope. baru tammat dope au. 25 na bulan lima dope tammat au. ( 8.5 ). 27 mancoba- coba aha. karejo.
The pause in the extract occurs between C’s turns (line 25 and 26) for 8.5 seconds. The length of pause is significant
135 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations where there is no listener self-selects and the current speaker elects to continue. In his continuation after the pause C extends his turn (line 26) to complete the information given in line 24 and 25 before the pause. So C uses the pause for planning his subsequent utterance or part of an utterance. The subsequent utterance refers back to the prior ones. Another example of the second type of pause is shown in the the extract from excerpt 44 which is reconstructed below.
1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 2 B : [e? mahua? 3 A : marsiajar. 4 B : ise ? 5 A : namabboan motoran. 6 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin. 7 A : e = 8 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa. 9 C : ise sian on ? 10 B : e. kedakkon.
The speaker of doing the pause, B (line 6) responds A’s turn (line 5) by saying, Oh, which indicates agreement for the prior turn. B in his agreement-turn does not select the next speaker, and there is a silence at TRP. But the self-selection is not done immediately until B elects to continue after a 7.9 silence which becomes a pause between turns. This pause for B is used to plan his subsequent utterance-an extended turn that refers to the next utterances (line 18 and 19) which is different from the previous example of pause that refers back to the prior turn. From the data we also find that the pause is used to change the topic.
136 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The third kind of pause, that is, the delay of the speaker selected by the current speaker, and this pause occurs at TRP. Pause of this kind is shown in the extract of excerpt 46 in its reconstructed form below.
4. A : i do ate . tabo do hamu ate? 5. (2.2) 6. B : di dia ma tabona.
After selecting B (line 6) as the next speaker by asking a question by A (line 1), B delays for 2.2 seconds before speaking. The pause is attributable to the person selected as next speaker. Thus the silence is considered B’s silence or pause. In the case above, the pause is used by B to respond A’s compliment by refusing it, and she focuses her attention on the A’s turn.
4.1.2.3.3 Lapse When the selection of next speaker is not employed or the current speaker does not select the next speaker, no listener has self-select, and current speaker does not continue, in other words, there is no option selected through any of the three turn- allocation techniques at the end of a turn, the phase of the non- talk constitutes a lapse. Sacks et al. (1974:715) further explained; if rule 1a has been employed, then the possibility of a lapse immediately following it is ruled out. A lapse occurs when rule 1a has not been employed, by a recycling of the options provided by rules 1b and 1c. This means when rule 1a has not been employed, next turn is available to a self-selecting next speaker; should not one self-select, then the current speaker may self select to continue. Should current speaker not self-select to continue, rule 1a remains in operative and there is further space or
137 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations another round available for self-selection, and in the absence of self-selection by another, self selection by current speaker to continue,etc. That is, by a series of rounds of possible self- selection by others and self-selection by current to continue – rules 1b and 1c may develop, in none of which are options to talked exercised, with the thereby constituted development of a lapse in the conversation. Lapse occurs in Toba Batak conversation, and it takes a significant length. The timing of length meant here is due to the times compared with pause and gap. Lapse is longer than pause and gap. The following analysis refers to lapses to see how they are operated and timed in Toba Batak conversation. The extract of excerpt 42 is reconstructed below.
11 A : he…he… 12 : ai ise namakkatai i? 13 ( 9.9 ) 14 B : jadi taon dua ribu piga do ho? 15 C : dua ribu opat.
A’s turn (line 11 and 12), eventhough it is a question, it is not directed to a particular participant but to the entire group, that is, the current speaker does not select the next speaker. The question in line 12; Ai ise na makkatai? ‘Who is speaking there?’, is a pre-lapse utterance which is preceded by a laughter, line 11, showing the participants that their interaction was troubled by people talking near by. Before they continue their conversation there is a 9.9 seconds lapse (line 13) in which this place is used to further continue the conversation. The next turn after the lapse (line 14) refers back to the topic discussed in the previous turns. The lapse is terminated by B when it is the appropriate time for him to ask more information from C as given in the next turn (line 15).
138 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A more significant length of time in lapse is also found in Toba Batak conversation as shown in the following reconstruction of the extract of excerpt 43. The conversation talks about illegal gambling which is called Togel. The winner of the gambling is determined by the exact number of the consumers’ coupon to the number issued by the gambling house. Among the participants none of them won it. They missed it.
1 A : jadi dapot do ibana ? 2 B : ise ? 3 A : bayon. 4 B : ah, dangadong. sisia do dibaen. 5 C : sisia do di au. 6 : (31.7) 7 A : dua puluh ribu be hita. (1.8) dua puluh ribu be. 8 C : sian au ma sude.
The convesation above lapses for 31.7 seconds (line 6). Question and answer between A and B (line 1, 2, 3, 4) who sit in one group deal with C’s affair (who sit with the other group) about his number 9 coupon that did not conform to or missed the exact number. At the end of C’s turn (line 5) there is no a self-select and the current speaker does not continue, then the conversation stops in a remarkable significant length. The lapse is terminated by A (line 7) by directing his utterance to C (line 8). A in this case, after the lapse changes the topic, from illegal gambling to bill-paying. Thus, other than continuing the conversation, the lapse is used as a place to come to a new topic as well as to allow smooth transition. It is also noted here that lapse is a place to make the interaction to be in focus, aspecially when the participants sit in groups. Lapse have a tendency to last longer than gap and pause. The 31.7 second
139 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations lapse indicates that there is a tendency for the participant not to continue the conversation. It is terminated when one of the participants present self-select as the next speaker. However, the termination of lapse will fulfil the definition of a gap. But it can be justified from the data that lapse is longer than gap.
4.1.2.4 Overlapping Talk Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson : 706). This means that overlapping talk occurs in conversation. The occurance of overlap has two bases : 1) Overlap derives from the projectability of possible completion or transition-relevance places. It is in the articulation of the projected last part of a projectably last component of a turn’s talk, which is in fact a consequential locus of articulatory variation, will expectedly produce overlap between a current turn and a next. 2) Rule 1b, in allocating a turn to the self-selector who starts first, encourages earliest possible start for each self-selector. It will provide for overlap by competing self-selectors for a next turn, when each projects his start to be earliest start at some possible transition-relevance place, producing simultaneous starts. The first base is considered as terminal overlap including choral talk or simultaneous talk, and the second base into continuers, and collaborative utterances. The researcher in analysing overlapping talk in Toba Batak conversation will successively analyse continuers, collaborative utterances, and terminal overlap as well as choral talk. The analysis also deals with how overlapping talk operates in terms of the time when it starts and ends.
4.1.2.4.1 Continuers
140 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
This kind of overlap refers to interpolation of continuers as elements of overlap by which recipients of another’s talk can show precisely that they understand that the speaker is in the course of an extended turn at talk wich is not yet complete. The overlap does not occur at or near TRP. In Toba Batak conversation overlap indicated by continuers can be analysed in the following conversation. The conversation consists of three participants which talks about land-reform.
Excerpt 49 1 A : sude ma annon baen annon = 2 B : = he ? 3 A : dohot nai hutai 4 B : ai godang tano ni jolma pangidoon. 5 hudokkon si Pospos dohonokku mangurusi soadong 6 A : [ e. 7 B : na olo mangalehon . Ba, jai aha bahenokku 8 gaji ni si Pospos . 9 C : dang adong.
Exerpt 49 (English Equivalent)
1 A : list them all. 2 B : what ? 3 A : including one in the village. 4 B : we can ask much land from people. 5 I said Mr.Pos-pos to settle it. no body agreed.. 6 A : [ yes. 7 B : to give. so I don’t have any money 8 for Mr..Pos-pos salary. 9 C : nothing.
141 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The onset of overlap does not occur at or near TRP of A’s turn (line 6). Whereas B (line 5), during the overlap does not delay his turn, and he continues to take next turns (line 7- 8). This shows that the overlap is not problematic, because the recipient here is only showing support of the speaker. The overlap is not used as critical indication eventhough it occurs not at the TRP. Thus it is not considered an interruption. The overlap here lasts very quickly, and there is no resolution device used. It can be illustrated further in picture 12 below. Picture 12. A conversation about land-reform
C B A
A continuer can function, besides as repairing the utterance that is problematic to its recipient, it also functions as extending the speaker’s turn. It does not occur at or near TRP, as shown in excerpt 44 which is reconstructed below.
1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 2 B : [ e? mahua ? 3 A : marsiajar. 4 B : ise ?
142 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
5 A : namabboan motoran. 6 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin. 7 A : e = 8 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa. 9 C : ise sian on ? 10 B : e. kedakkon. As seen in B’s turn (line 2), the overlap indicated by left-hand bracket starts when A (line 1) has not finished his turn yet. It has become a constraint as it is not supportive to the speaker. And from the tactic B used, he is going to dominate the turn, as seen in how he managed to take for the turns. Based on rule 1b, that is, the current speaker does not select the next speaker, here he directed his utterance to the entire grop for self-select. This makes the speakers have the same possibility to start first, as the first starter is the next speaker. However, B’s overlap is critical and unsupportive to the speaker. Thus it is considered an interruption. Another continuer which can be categorized as the one analysed above is shown in the next conversation. The conversation consists of five participants which talks about a family acquaintance. The data is the extract of excerpt 48 reconstructed below.
16 A : ai borumuna do parumaien sada. boru Marpaung. 17 B : ido? ba. 18 A : rappak Pardede doi. 19 B : ido.Sonakmalela do hami attong. 20 C : [ ido. 21 B : jadi songon amang, marga aha amang?
In the data segment, A (line 16) informed B that one of his daughters in law has the same surname as B. Then B (line
143 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
17) asks confirmation by which it is answered by A (line 18) that his daughter in laws’ surname, Marpaung, is the same with Pardede, as Pardede is the younger brother of Marpaung. B (line 19) agrees with A, and clarifies that those two sub-clans are under one same clan called Sonak Malela. During B’s turn, when he is not yet finishing it, C (line 20) starts his turn by using a continuer ido ‘yes’. This is an overlap talk realized in continuer. There is no a hesitate for B’s turn in line 19 by this overlap. It goes smooth, and B (line 21) continues his turn. So, the overlap here can function as a reconfirmation of a prior turn.
4.1.2.4.2 Collaborative Utterances Collaborative utterance occurs as a result of participant initiates an utterance and provides for another to complete it. In this case the collaborativeness is motivated by the speaker, not the recipient. In Toba Batak conversation collaborative utterances occur as a result of the recipient supportive behaviour and he is the source of supportive action. The overlap of collaborative utterance does not occur at or near TRP. This can be seen in the extract of excerpt 43 below. 1 A : jadi dapot do ibana ? 2 B : ise ? 3 A : bayon. 4 B : ah, dangadong. sisia do dibaen 5 C : [ sisia do di au.
In the conversation, A (line 1) asks B a question whether C won an illegal gambling. B (line 4) answers that C did not win it because he took number 9 and missed the winning number. C (line 5) take turn before B finishes. Although the overlap does not occur at TRP it is not considered an interruption as it is supportive to the speaker. By this
144 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations overlap A’s turn is smoothly done without precluded by C’s turn in case of its quick start.
4.1.2.4.3 Terminal Overlap This kind of overlap is called ‘terminal overlap’, that is, an overlap in which one speaker appears to be starting up by virtue of a prior speaker’s analyzably incipient finishing of a turn. So the overlap starts at or near the transition-relevance place. In Toba Batak conversation most overlap occurs at this place. Three data extract will be presented in the following analysis in their construction froms. It is started from the one that indicates an overlap which is resolved by delaying turn, as shown in the extract of excerpt 46 below. 18 B : ai godang horuk-horukku 19 A : [mar henpon 20 museni,horukkorung,ipahorukkorung henp. 21 B : ai marbuluk-buluk do. 22 A : anggo ho memang,(1.6) aha nama on, 23 B : [ nei lao mabbuat balu, 24 C [ngai sokkik sude 25 B : lao mabbuat baluang. 26 A : moderen nama on.
There are three participants in the above conversation. They are all women, one of them is very old, another is rather old, and the third woman is much younger. The very old woman and the younger one dominated the turns, and they ask and answer. The very old woman (B) behaved uniquely that the younger one was eager to continue asking. The uniqueness of the very old woman is that she used hand-phone and neck-lace, and she is still healthy enough to talk with the other women. In the prior turn, B complimented her by saying that she has a very nice neck-lace. By this compliment, the old woman (line
145 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
18) upgrade herself by saying that she has many neck-laces. A (line 19-20) continues complimenting as she wears the hand- phone as neck-lace, and B (line 21) responds this compliment by saying that all the attributes she wears become piles. The next turn (line 22) is used by A to mark the old woman behaviour as modern in which this representation does not come immediately at the very turn-it is delayed. It is delayed because B (line 23) launches her turn before A finishes or reaches the completion. But B overlaps at possible TRP after 1.6 second silence of A’s turn in line 22. At this overlap, A delayed her turn by stopping at he end of; aha nama on ‘this called..’, and this an activity of resolving overlap. The completion of A’s turn comes at line 26; moderen nama on ‘this is called modern’ An overlap which is used for the speaker to delay the turn also occurs in the conversation. C (line 24) takes her turn before B reaches the TRP (line 23). In this case, B overcomes this overlap by delaying the completion of her turn; Nei lao mabbuat balu.. ‘going to take ..’. To be a completed turn, the word balu should be added by ang, so becoming baluang ‘a place to keep money’. So here, the overlap is used by the speaker to delay the turn, but it does not occur at or near TRP. The second example of terminal overlap refers to reactive turn as a result of the prior turn. The overlap occurs near TRP, as shown in the extract of excerpt 43 reconstructed below.
10 B : Naga ! Nga dia Sinagai ? 11 C : e . alusi! 12 A : [ alusi Naga! oi, alusi donganmi!
B (line 10) directed his turn to the entire group asking where Sinaga is, in case of the presence of some persons called
146 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Sinaga in the coffee-counter. When C (line 11) responds B before reaching TRP but possible for the end of turn, A (line 12) takes his turn and makes an overlap. This overlap occurs near TRP, so it is not considered an interruption. As seen from the data, B produces reactive utterance, C responds it with a bit weaker, and A overlaps in a reactive expression to respond B’s couraged utterance.
4.1.2.4.4 Choral Talk Choral talk refers to forms of talk and activity that are treated by interactional co-participants as not to be done serially, not one after the other, but to be done simultaneously. There are activities such as collective greetings, leave-takings, and congratulations in response to announcements of personal good news. Such activities in multi- person settings are regularly produced chordally, not serially, and the chordal production is heard as not competitive. In Toba Batak conversation such choral or chordal talk is realized in simultaneous talk as a part of an overlap because it is a more than one speaking at a time. There are two data which refer to smultaneous talk. One is constructed with words and another with senteces. The first is reconstructed from excerpt 46 below. 10 A : ni markalung muse , bagak kalungnga. 11 B : a, obat doi . 12 A : ima attong. na adong do horoha 13 : mangirim tu hamu ate. 14 B : aha ? 15 C : he.. he.. 16 A : obati
As has been explained about excerpt 46, A is a participant who made a compliment to B. In the previous
147 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations section A’s compliment was responded by B in an upgrading behaviour. But in the data above, A’s compliment (line 10) is responded by B by downgrading , and then A (line 12) agrees and at this place, A makes a question where did B get the neck- lace for curing desease. This question of A is not directly answered by B (line 14) but initiated a repair by questioning again. After this turn C (line15) and A (line 16) starts simultaneously. It can be seen that B’s question in line 14 is directed to A, and A’s response in line 16 is a normal turn, an answer to question as a result of CSSN technique. Can B’s turn in line 15, as a laughter be said to be violating the rules of turn- taking? However, it cannot be considered an interruption as it is supportive to the speaker and uttered in a softer voice. C actually knows that B’s question is directed to A, and her overlap is just to orient to the next speaker turn, done by A. The second example of simultaneous talk is realized in the extract of excerpt 43 again. The overlap in this simultaneous talk is not considered an interruption as it occurs at TRP and the current speaker directs his utterance to the entire group eventhough he used an address term. It can be seen in the following data.
10 B : Naga ! nga dia Sinagai ? 11 C : E . alusi! 12 A : [ alusi Naga! oi, alusi donganmi! 13 D : [ ison do au. 14 E : [ nyon Sinaga.
At the conversation there are three Sinaga. B’s question is not actually directed to specific Sinaga, but it is even directed to the entire group. So the current speaker does not select next speaker. That is why C (line 11) who is not one called Sinaga takes the next turn. Then A (line12) does the same, he directs
148 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations the utterance to the entire group. As has been explained that the occurrence of overlap, one of the causes is that at possible TRP any speaker can have a turn, or it is rule 1b of turn-taking, that is, if the current speaker does not select the next speaker, self- select is applied. Thus there is a possibility of simultaneous talk occurrence as speakers compete for the next turn. D (line 13) and E (line 14) at TRP, starts simultaneously. This simultaneous talk is not problematic because it displays a clarification or a clear response to the prior turns.
4.1.2.5 Repair Repair mechanism exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations. The various organizations operative in conversation are susceptible to errors, violations, and troubles; and repair devices are available for them. This is true since conversation like our behaviour is not perfect. We can have an experience to forget a word or using the wrong one, starting a sentence with an over-start that something may be heard unclear. For this, participants in conversation jointly fix conversational problems in terms of repair. There is a distinction between the initiation of repair (that is, noticing or marking a source of trouble) and the outcome of the process (the resulting changes) which is called repair. A second distinction concerns with who produces the actual initiation or repair. When the speaker who produced the trouble source (which is called repairable) also produces the repair, it is called self-repair, and when some other participant does it is called other-repair. So self-repair refers to one in which the problematic item is produced by the same interlocutor, and other-repair refers to one in which the problem is addressed by a participant other than the one who has produced it.
149 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
There are two further sub-classes, they are self-initiated and other-initiated. Self-initiated refers to an activity of the trouble-item producer signalling its presence to the interlocutor. Whereas other-initiated refers to a party other than the one that produced the violation hightlight the need for repair. Thus the term initiated here deals with the pre-repair activity that causes the repair. Repair is not only pertaining to the activity of correcting but also to how problematic items produced by the participants in conversation. From the above explanation it can be summarized that there are four classification of repair which will be discussed in the following, they are, 1) self- initiated, self-repair (SISR), 2) other-initiated, self-repaired (OISR), 3) self-initiated, other- repair (SIOR), and 4) other-initiated, other-repair (OIOR). Their sequential positioning is also included in the discussion.
4.1.2.5.1 Self-initiated, Self-repair The repair of this kind is analysed based on excerpt 50 below, in Toba Batak conversation.
Excerpt 50 1 A : sian dia nakkiningani? 2 B : siani sian pollaki. 3 A : ise mabbuat? 4 B : bang Ben. 5 C : addigan ibuat ibanaon? 6 B : baru ibuat i. 7 C : tabo do on ate? 8 B : tabo do songonon . alai ummura 9 do on sian kates ahai, kates tentengi. 10 C : Tenteng ? 11 B : alai manis sian do on dibagas. 12 C : kates tenteng boha do tahe?
150 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
13 A : [ Simera doi?, simera doi ? 14 C : kates tenteng. 15 B : [ si Kuning . Nakuning do hubereng.
Exerpt 50 (English Equivalent)
1 A : where is it from ? 2 B : from the field. 3 A : who picked it ? 4 B : Mr. Ben. 5 C : when did he picked it up ? 6 B : he just picked it up. 7 C : it is nice, is that ? 8 B : this kind is nice. this is cheaper 9 than that kind of papaya, confection-papaya. 10 C : confection ? 11 B : but it is very sweet inside 12 C : confection with papaya, how is it ? 13 A : [ is that red papaya ? red papaya ? 14 C : confection with papaya. 15 B : [the yellow one. I see the yellow one.
The conversation occurred in a family house in which three participants talk about a yellow papaya. C (line 7) asks B (line 8) if the papaya tastes nice. B in the same turn reponds that the papaya is nice, as she has ever tasted it being the owner of the papaya field. The yellow papaya is not only nice but cheaper than that, the confection-papaya. Self-repair and self- initiated occurs at this turn (line8-9): Alai ummura do on sian kates ahai, kates tentengi ‘But this is cheaper than that of, the confection-papaya’. To recall, self-repair has been explained as the problematic item that is produced and corrected by the same interlocutor. In this case, B is the producer of the problematic
151 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations item, i.e., kates ahai, and she herself corrects it to be; kates tentengi. Self-initiated refers to the producer of the problematic item who signals its presence to the interlocutor. Here B introduced the problematic item to her interlocutors. So besides producing and correcting, B also signals or initiates to bring it to interlocutors, when talking about self-initiated, self-repair. This can be referred back to the previous picture (picture 1), a conversation about papaya. Initiations and repairs by the same speaker who produced the trouble source above occurs at the same turn as the trouble source, in other words, it is accomplished within a turn in the trouble source. There is a repair of this kind which occurs at the TRP following that turn or it is accomplish in the TRP space after the trouble source at the next turn after an overlap, as shown in the extract of excerpt 46 again reconstructed below. 23 A : anggo ho memang,(1.6) aha nama on, 24 B : [ nei lao mabbuat balu, 25 C [ngai sokkik sude 26 B : lao mabbuat baluang. 27 A : moderen nama on.
At the end of A’s turn after the 1.6 seconds silence (line 23), A’s repair should actually come immediately after aha nama on. But A drops out when two overlaps occur one after the other, and wait until B (line 24) finishes her turn (line 26). The self-repair is made by A (line 27) as the completion of her prior turn (line 23).
4.1.2.5.2 Other-initiated, Self-repair Self-repair can be initiated by a participant other than one who produced it. Here the same speaker produced the
152 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations trouble source or problematic item as well as correted it but other initiated it. This is shown in the extract of excerpt 43.
1 A : jadi dapot do ibana ? 2 B : ise ? 3 A : Bayon.
From the data segment, the self-repair can be seen from A’s turn (line 1) as it is the trouble source, and the other of A’s turn (line 3), the place where he makes a repair. The initiation is done by B at the second turn (line 2). The initiation at the second turn, the next turn after the trouble source is typical and termed by Schegloff et al. (1977) as next turn repair initiator (NTRI). This can be a one-word question, such, ise ‘who’ in the above example, or a partial repeat of the trouble source with or without a question word attached. A partial repeat of the trouble source as NTRI occurs in Toba Batak connversation, as shown in the following extract of excerpt 48. 1 A : on? 2 B : olo. 3 A : lumban ngalas. 4 B : lumban? 5 A : lumban ngalas.
In the conversation, A (line 1) asks a confirmation about a certain place of B’s question in the prior turn by saying; on? ‘this one’? Then B (line 2) responds by saying; olo ‘yes’. After that, A let B know the place by naming it; Lumban ngalas. The trouble source of the repair is A in line 1, and the NTRI is in line 3 realized in a partial repeat of the trouble source. In line 5 there is a self-repair by A by saying the complete name of the place; Lumban ngalas.
153 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In the other initiated with self-repair, there is something more than a lack of understanding on the part of the recipient. The recipient in this case wants to understand more information, such as indicated by two NTRIs in the following extract of excerpt 44.
1 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 2 B : [ e? mahua ? 3 A : marsiajar. 4 B : ise ? 5 A : namabboan motoran. The first NTRI is initiated by B (line 2) asking what happened to the man in the car, and it is responded in the first repair by A (line 3). The second NTRI occurs in line 4 done by B, asking who is learning to drive. A (line 5) makes a self- repair or the second repair. Thus all the repairs including the production of problematic item are made by A, and the initiations are made by B as other-initiated. It is, therefore other-initiated, self-repair. Self-repair, because A produced the problematic item or he is the trouble source,and makes the repair. Other –initiated, because other than A, tha is, B, the initiator of the repair.
4.1.2.5.3 Self-initiated, Other-repair If a speaker of a trouble source gets the recipient to repair the trouble like if a name is troublesome to remember or if a turn is not completed yet, this is a self- initiated, other- repair work. Below is an extract of excerpt 45 to display a repair of this kind in Toba Batak conversation.
1 A : dison nuaeng , tommat ni halak tulang. 2 tulang si aha , tulang anak si Edison. 3 dakkana songon ahai dope.
154 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4 B : tibbona = 5 A : nga nason tibbona, ngaro suhattna. 6 akka tommat doi nikku. lagi aha dope.
In the conversation, A (line 1-2) told B about the progress of his uncle’s tomatoes planting. But in A’s turn (line 3), his explanation about the branch of the plant is not clear, and this is the trouble source, as shown in utterance; Dakkana songon ahai dope ‘The branch looks like that of’. This utterance actually implies the description on the height progress of the plant, as shown in B’s turn (line 4). A did not know the term representing the height. After B made a repair by referring to the term; tibbona ‘the height’, A agrees and shows the height measurement (line 5). The second example of self-initiated, other-repair is taken from the extract of excerpt 48 again, as reconstructed below.
7 A : aha margam? 8 B : Pardede do au, na.. 9 C : namardalani do hami 10 B : namardalani do hami.
A’s turn (line 7) asks B (line 8) what his surname is, and then B told his surname by saying; Pardede do au, na ‘I am Pardede, going to..’. B here produced the source trouble and intiated it. The problematic item is on the discontinuous item; na.. . C (line 9) completed or made the repair by continuing B’s turn in his utterance; Namardalani do hami ‘We just wanted to go sight-seeing’. The speaker who initiates cannot find the right word, and someone else or recipient fills it for him. When the repair has been finished, B (line 10) repeats the repaired-turn.
155 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
This means that the repair work is joint production among participants in conversation.
4.1.2.5.4 Other-initiated, Other Repair This kind of repair occurs within recipent’s turn following speaker’s turn with trouble source. The repair can be both initiated and resolved in the same or different utterence(s). Below is the analysis of other-initiated, other-repair in Toba Batak conversation reconstructed in the extract of excerpt 46.
1 A : jai na mabbuat pensiun do (1.3) inang . 2 B : taida ma. 3 manang aha do dohonona , sohuboto. 4 A : i do ate . tabo do hamu ate? 5 (2.2) 6 B : di dia ma tabona.
A (line 1) asks B as a confirmation question if she would get her pension from the post-office. B’s turn (line 2-3) is not a preferred response since she felt doubt about the certainty of getting the pension that day. A’s next turn (line 4) responses as if B has got her pension, and this is realized in compliment. After a 2.2 seconds silence (line 5), B (line 6) initiates and resolves a repair. This repair is resulted from A’s compliment, that is, that B is lucky of getting pension in case of its less fact utterance. So B corrects it by saying, what is lucky. We can see that the repair comes at the second turn after the source trouble. B initiates and resolves the repair. The same kind of sequential position as the above repair is shown in the following extract of the same excerpt. 9. A : ni markalung muse, bagak kalungna. 10. B : a, ubat doi.
156 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
A’s compliment (line 9) is about the neck-lace B is wearing. B (line 10) considered the compliment problematic as it is not in accordance with the fact. The neck-lace is a kind of attribute in which it contains substance that can cure desease or it is used as a medicine. So the neck-lace is not nice as what A complimented. This is the trouble source that brought by A to be initiated as problem and then resolved. Other-initiated, other-repair can be found in different utterances. The trouble source is on the speaker’s side which is initiated and resolved by different recipients. In Toba Batak conversation, participants always manage to launch as many as turns that lead to repair work, as shown in the following extract of excerpt 42.
7 A : isan dora si Morjo. 8 B : ima na huddul di joloi. 9 C : aido? e disan. ai sakalassu 10 hian do attong on. A’s utterance (line 7); Isan dora si Morjo ‘Morjo may be there’ is the trouble source that B (line 8) specifies the place where Morjo is. This is the other-initiated, that is, the party other than the one that produced the trouble source (B) highlight the need for repair. At the end of his turn, C (line 9-10) repairs by elaborating Morjo’s profile, that he is C’s classmate. This repair is other-repair in which the problem is resolved by a participant other than the one who has produced it (C). A’s turn indicates a problem because it is an unclear information which is marked with uncertainty such as demonstrative, isan ‘there’, and modal, dora ‘maybe’. The repair occurs at the third turn and the initiation at the second turn. But the initiation is not an NTRI, if the third turn repair omitted out, the second turn would become an other-repair, not other-initiated.
157 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Other-initiated, other repair, in Toba Batak conversation is found at the fourth turn after the trouble source, as shown in the following extract of excerpt 45.
7 B : songino do daba . adong do las si laga-laga. 8 hurasa anggo sappulu kilo sakkabona 9 adong ma tommatna. 10 C : [naiabbirangida. 11 B : i. 12 A : oh nion hape aha ni Janji i. 13 B : i janji i.
B’s turn (line 7-9) made a comparison in progress of tomatoes planting showing that there is a tomato plant producing ten kilogram. For C (line 10), B’s information is not complete. C signals the problematic item, that is, the place where the tomatoes are planted; naiabbirangida ‘that is on the left side’. B did not mention the place. At the fourth turn, A (line 12) produced an other-repair utterance by mentioning the name of the place where the tomatoes are planted; tomatoes grown at the place called, Janji. For the sequential positioning, the other-initiated occurs at the second turn, and the other-repair at the fourth turn. The third and the fifth turn belong to B in which each of them supportive both to the initiation and repair. The first turn of B is the place for the trouble source. From the analysis of repair based on the location, there are more self-repair than other-repair. However, based on the frequency they occur (the four types of repair) it still need further discussion.
4.2 Findings 4.2.1 Introductory Remarks
158 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Throughout the research, AP in question-answer and summons-answer can result in greeting-greeting when the SPP in each of them does not give the response as what the FPP requires as particular second part. Adjacency pairs give slot to the next position whether responded or not. When the first part is not responded, the second would be noticeably absent that leads to a repair action . The next-turn proof procedures gives clarification to the question in FPP and SPP that they are not informative questions, in other words, they are Quasi-questions. Another summons-answer occurs as greeting in condition that the SPP be realized in invitation that by the next-turn procedure it would be a quasi-invitation. To be a pure question-answer pair the required response in SPP should give information to the informative question in FPP. It is necessary that the SPP be latched. Sequently organized, there are 3 kinds of greeting, 1) greeting which is composed of horas-horas, 2) greeting composed of horas-other form, and 3) greeting realized in other form-other form. So there are various forms of FPP and SPP. One of the intersting phenomena is that SPP can be realized in quasi-question. In greeting-greeting, another AP realized in question- answer can be inserted as to make clarification. AP then can be composed of inserted sequences as expanded sequences. APs of summon-answer are realized in address terms such as person names and kinship terms which are related to Toba Batak culture in FPPs, and in various answers in SPPs according to what are required by FPPs. Summon-answer pairs can be constrained by cultural binding which are practiced based on kinship relation manifested in Dalihan Natolu. Whereas summons-answer pairs which are not constrained by cultural binding are considered neutral.
159 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The responses to offer in Toba Batak conversation depends on what is offered, whether good or service. When the good is offered the common respond is preferred. The dispreferred respond can be considered preferred when the offer is used again in the second FPP, and the second SPP enacts a preferred respond. Here it is found that there is inserted sequence and post AP. The inserted sequence is after the base FPP and before the projected SPP. The one after FPP is post- first (post-FPP) and the one before SPP is pre-second (pre- SPP). When the good is offered at the end of a conversation, when the participant was going to leave, there would be an expected dispreferred or preferred second.When the service is offered the responses would be preferred or dispreferred. Both preferred and dispreferred responses are done straightforwardly. Invitation in Toba Batak conversation is preceded by AP of presequence as considered pre-invitation. There is a series of APs (inserted sequences) before the preferred response considered as base SPP. A minimal-post-sequence is found in Toba Batak, that is, an additional turn or third turn after the base SPP which is not projecting further sequence. The invitation pertaining to customary affairs have a preferred response provided that the invitation is responded initiated-repair turn. An accusation is denied in TB in case of one has done something wrong. The speaker of an accusation needs a preferred response as proved by the closing third turn. The third turn can be a minimal post expansion as the SPP is not able to close the conversation. It would be a non-minimal post expansion if the third turn is not able to close the conversation. When the minimal post expansion occurs, it can be an assessment.
160 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Toba Batak people reject compliment by downgrading. Alai ‘but’, is used to dilute the rejected response. Other markers: toema, baemma, songonima, are used to show agreement of the compliment but still rejecting it by menas of diluting. The compliment in FPP is rejected in SPP. FPP containing complaint has no streotype SPP. SPP can be realized in rejection, justification or remedy. A complaint in FPP can followed by a complaint in SPP. There are two kind of complaints, direct and indirect. It is direct when the complaint is made against the hearer, and indirect when it is not the hearer that takes the responsibility. Indirect complaint against the third party which expresses the speaker’s lamentation the third party’s conduct in critical way has a preferred response in SPP. A turn in Toba Batak Conversation can be constructed by one or more than one TCUs. At the end of TCU turn might be complete, the place where TRP is possible. The relation of TCU and TRP can be analysed based on grammatical, intonational, and sematic completion point. Three kinds of grammatical completion points: well- formed clauses, increments, and recoverable predicates occur as determining the syntactic projectability or projecting possible completion point where TRP is possible. In well- formed clauses, subjects are considered markers of grammatical completion point because TBL is a VSO language where O is optional. Increments show more than one grammatical completion points. Bah as particle put at the end is a marker of increment showing enforcement. Recoverable predicates are used to show grammatical completion point. Period is used to show intonational completion point which give falling intonation to a sentence. Question mark is an
161 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations indicator of raising and a weaker than raising intonation to show other intonational completion point. Semantic-completion-point in floor right overlaps with intonational completion point. When the sentence is ended by a question mark which indicates the raising or weaker than it, there is an intonational completion point and at the same time the right of speaker to hold the floor is expired which indicates semantic completion point. The floor-claiming utterance deals with such markers that project longer talk, and the semantic completion point is marked after the projected longer talk. At the end of proposition including clauses, single or complex, there is a semantic completion point. Other markers of semantic completion point are, backchannels, reactive expressions, repetition, collaborative-finished, laughter, and short statements. CSSN in Toba Batak can be realized in adjacency pair with two participants. In multi participants, the speaker selected is not always the next speaker but it is taken by the other. SS in Toba Batak is smoothly operated, and it can be used to project the prior turn increment. When the speaker in FPP does not direct his or her utterance to a certain speaker, or it is directed to entire group, SS is operated. When CSSN and SS are not operated, SC or rule 1c is applied. A longer silence signals the forthcoming of speaker continuation. The three parts of silence, gap, pause, and lapse occur in Toba Batak conversation. Gap in Toba Batak shows a focused attention of the prior turn, it occurs when the curent speaker does not select the next speaker and self-select has not started yet. There are three kind of pause. The first kind occurs during the speaker’s turn, not at TRP. The pause within one’s turn is used to find out the right word to fulfil the recipient design. The
162 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations second kind of pause occurs after a silence at TRP no listener self selects, then the speaker continues. This pause is used by speaker to extend turn and plan his subsequent utterance. This pause is also a place for listener to self-select. The third kind is a pause which is attributable to the speaker selected as the next speaker. The pause is used by the speaker selected to respond the current speaker’s utterance. Lapse occurs when none of the rule is applied. In Toba Batak conversation it has a significant length, and this place is used to continue the conversation, and to come to a new topic as well as to allow smooth transition. Overlapping talk in Toba Batak occurs is continuers, collaborative utterances, terminal overlap, and choral talk. The overlapping talk in continuers does not occur at or near TRP. Continuers as used by recipents to show agreement that the speaker could extend his turn. They can be problematic and unproblematic. When it is problematic it is supportive to the speaker, and when unproblematic it is supportive to the speaker. Collaborative utterance does not occur at or near TRP. It is unproblematic as it is supportive to the speaker. Terminal overlap occurs near or at TRP. It can be problematic and unproblematic. When it is problematic it is considered an interruption or unsupportive to the speaker, and the speaker who is interrupted has to delay his turn. The delay of turn has been considered as resolving the overlap. In Toba Batak conversation there is more than one speaking at a time or a simultaneous talk or choral talk. It occurs at TRP and does not make any problem as it displays a clarification to the prior turn. Self-initiated, self-repair refers to initiation and repair which is done by the same speaker. It is accomplish within a turn in the trouble source. Self-repair can be done by the speaker after the trouble source at the next turn after an overlap, it is delayed until the overlapping talk ends.
163 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Self –repair , other-initiated refers to the same speaker produces the trouble source as well as corrects it, but other initiates it. This kind of initiation is called next turn repair initiator (NTRI), as it is the second turn or next turn after the trouble source. In Toba Batak conversation there is an NTRI realised in partial repeat. More than one NTRIs can occur in Toba Batak conversation. Self-initiated, other repair, refers to the speaker of a trouble source who allows the recipient to do the repair. The repair is initiated by the speaker in which in the trouble source he does not give a complete information so that makes it possible for the recipient to complete it. The problematic item can be continuous or discontinuous. Continuous when the speaker turn has been completed, and discontinuous when the speakers, turn is not completed yet. It has to be completed by the recipient. In other- initiated, other-repair, the recipient, other than initiates he also resolves the trepair. It is done after the trouble source by the speaker. This kind of repair can also be found in different utterances occuring at the third turn as other repair, and at the second turn as other initiation. But the second turn is not an NTRI. Because the third turn is not the self-repair. Other-repair can also occur at the fourth turn in which the initiation is done at the second turn which is not an NTRI.
4.2.2 Negative Cases as New Findings All the cases in TB conversation which deviate from the theory are considered negative cases as new findings to the research. These new findings are constructed in the following. 1. AP of question-answer in TB conversation is not a basic component in selecting the next speaker. 2. Noticably absent, other than showing a device to make a repair, it is used to show AP of greeting-greeting.
164 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
3. AP of question-answer shows greeting-greeting when the answer to the question is not informative. 4. AP of greeting-greeting, horas-horas is unique and typical as it is a basic component and able to perform as congratulation-response, leavetaking-leavetaking. 5. AP of summon-answer shows greeting-greeting since the summon is not responded by an answer. 6. APs of question-answer, greeting-greeting, and summon-answer are related. 7. Post offer occurs in TB conversation. 8. APs of offer and invitation are related. 9. The AP of accusation has a denial response in SPP as preferred. 10. AP of compliment in TB conversation has a downgrading response in SPP. 11. AP of complaint has a denial response in SPP as preferred. It is formulated in disafiliation. 12. APs of acquisition, compliment, and complaint are related. 13. The first rule of turn-taking (CSSN) is not always applicable in TB conversation. 14. Long silence occurs in lapse. 15. Turn-taking are not culturally bound.
How the adjacency pairs operate can be seen in the following chart. Chart 1. Q-A a. FPP SPP Q A Q A
165 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations b. FPP SPP G G Note: Q UA FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, Q = Question, A = Answer, G = Greeting, UA = Unrequired Answer
Chart 2. G-G a. FPP SPP G G G RG
FPP SPP SPP SPP G G b. 1 2 2 1 G Q RA RG c. FPP SPP G G G RG/Q
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, G = Greeting, RA = Required Answer, RG = Response to Greeting
Chart 3. S-A a. FPP SPP S A
S RA166 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
b. FPP SPP G G S UA
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, G = Greeting, RA = Required Answer, RG = Response to Greeting, S = Summon, UA = Unrequired Answer
Chart 4 : Offer-Ac/Rj a. FPP SPP O ACC/RR
GOODS b. FPP SPP FPP SPP 1 1 2 2 O1 Rj/UR O2 ACC/RR
167 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations c. FPP SPP O Rj=RR
d. FPP SPP O ACC/Rj
SERVICE
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, ACC = Acceptance, Rj = Rejection, O = Offer, RR = Required Response, UR = Unrequired Response
AP Structure of Iinvitation-Acceptance/Rejection Chart 5 : Invitation-Acc/Rj a. FPP SPP
I 168 ACC
CUSTOMARY AFFAIRS The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
b. INSERTED PS FPP SPP AP
FPP I SPP ACC I ACC/Rj
GENERAL AFFAIRS
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, ACC = Acceptance, Rj = Rejection, I = Invitation, PS = Post Sequence
Chart 6 : Ac-D a. FPP SPP Ac D 169 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations b. FPP SPP CTS
Note: D FPP = First PairAcPart, SPP = Second pair Part, Ac = Accusation, ASS D = Denial, CTS = Closing Third Sequence, ASS = Assessment
AP Structure of Compliment-Rejection
Chart 7 : Cpm-Rj a. FPP SPP Cpm Rj/Dilution b. FPP SPP FPP SPP 1 1 2 2 CPM Rj/Dilution Q A
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, A = Answer, Rj = Rejection, Q = Question, Cpm = Complement,
AP Structure of Cpn-Rj
170 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Chart 8 : Cpn-Rj a. FPP SPP DIRECT Cpn Rj/Dispreferred b. FPP SPP INDIRECT Cpn Rj/Dispreferred c. FPP SPP INDIRECT Cpn Rj/Preferred
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, Rj = Rejection, Cpn = Complaint
4.3 Discussion The next section discusses the research findings in adjacency pairs and turn-taking based on system constraint and ritual constraint. Especially for adjacency pairs, system and 171 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations ritual constraint are under discussion. Whereas for turn-taking, the focus is system constraint. System constraint emphasizes on the mechanical process requiremenst of talk, and ritual constraint focuses on interpersonal requirements of talk. System constraint is not related to social context such as; age, education, sex, profession, etc, that consider these factors as influencing how adjacency pairs and turn-taking operated. Ritual constraint is bound by cultural constraint. So the interpersonal requirements of talk are restricted by social context in terms of the culture of Toba Batak. This influences the operation of AP and TT of Toba Batak conversation. The first discussion starts with the first three APs; question-answer, greeting-greeting, and summon-answer, then, offer- acceptance/rejection, invitation-aceptence/rejection as well as accusation-acceptance/denial, compliment- acceptance/rejection, and complaint-acceptance/rejection, and the next is TT or turn allocation on system constraint. The second would be a discussion of AP on ritual constraint.
4.3.1 System Constraint 4.3.1.1 Question-answer, Greeting-greeting, Summon- answer Question-answer is operated through question in FPP, and an answer or silence in SPP. The answer can be one that is matched to the question, and one that is not matched to the question. If it is not matched to the question it becomes greeting-greeting. Sacks, et.al (1974: 717) stated that question- answer is a basic component in terms of FPP for selecting the next speaker. In TB conversation a question is no longer an adjacency pair as it is used in selecting the speaker since it is directed to the entire group in conversation. So APs of question-answer in multy parties conversation are not considered basic component for selecting next speakers.
172 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The silence in SPP is categorized as noticeably absent. It is considered an action which can refer to speaking problems. These speaking problems can be resolved by applying a repair in conversation. In this case the recipient of FPP can cope with the problems by inserting a clarifying question. It would be another FPP of an AP and the answer is the SPP. This is an inserted sequence that has to do with repair initiation and repair resolve. Noticeably absent as Schegloff stated (in Have, 1999) is used for the speaker to make a repair, in TB conversation other than a device to repair the noticeably absent in question- answer is used to show AP of greeting-greeting. Greeting-greeting is operated in three ways; 1) The FPP is composed of horas, the SPP is also composed of horas, 2) The FPP is composed of horas, but the SPP is realized in other form, 3) The FPP and SPP are composed of other forms. The structure of greeting-greeting, horas-horas in TB conversation is unique since it is different from those of other languages. Schegloff and Sacks (in Williams, 2001: 50) presented the structures of English greeting-greeting, such as; hello-hi, good morning-hello, hello-did you just get home? Betholia (2009 : 109) presented three types of greeting expressions in Meitei speech community: 1) interactive greeting expression including inquiries like: have you had lunch?, where are you going?, where have you been?, 2) regards greeting expression like; how are you?, and 3) paralinguistic greeting expressions such as; nodding and smiling. These structures of greeting are various but they do not have the basic greeting. Horas-horas is unique and typical since it is a basic commponent, it also embody APs like; congratulation-response, leavetaking-leavetaking, etc. SPP of other form in greeting can be operated through questions which are not informative. These can be categorized as SPP of question whose FPP is built by horas and that which is built by other form in question for the FPP.
173 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
AP of summon-answer is operated through a summon in FPP and an answer in SPP. The pronunciation of FPP is more prominent than that of the SPP. The summon is built by address terms and kinship terms, and the answer is by the respond to summon such as; aha, ahai ou, and e. Aha and ahai can be followed by the address terms. There is a condition that a summon in FPP is not responded by an answer in SPP, but it is operated by other form in SPP. This is a kind of greeting-greeting as what the FPP expected to come is not the respond to the summon. From the discussion, the APs of question-answer, greeting-greeting, and summon-answer are related. There is no previous finding about relationship of APs’ structure. The previous studies only dealt with APs in isolation. The relationship of these APs in TB can be seen from how FPPs and SPPs are operated as discussed below. First, when the question in FPP of question-answer is not responded in SPP as what is expected, this AP would become greeting-greeting. This can be seen in excerpt 2 in which the answer does not come but it is responded with a silence. The answer to the question comes when there is a repair from the questioner. The answer in the next turn is not in accordance with the question. The unexpected or unrequired respond in SPP can also be operated through question (excerpt 8). This AP is actually formed in question-question, so as to lead to greeting because the next-turn proof is a device that the speaker greets and the listener responds the greeting. The answer to the question which is not informative is not fully a question, it is a semi or quasi question. Second, greeting can be responded by question in SPP, one that is not necessary to be answered and one that has an answer as required. One that has an answer remains greeting, as it is considered the second FPP that invites the second SPP as
174 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations an inserted AP of question-answer. This is a mechanism through which an answer to greeting is preceded by another AP of question and answer. This AP is a true question-answer pair. So greeting-greeting is related with question-answer in the SPP of greeting realized in question that is not answered or answered. If it is answered the respond to greeting comes after the answer (excerpt 7). Third, summon can be responded by an unexpected answer in SPP that leads to greeting. Not all summons are followed by the expected answers- responses to summons or not all of them APs of summon-answer, but some are APs of greeting (excerpt 10). So, AP of question-answer and summon-answer are related with greeting in condition that both SPPs enact unexpected responses or answers.and AP of greeting-greeting is related with question without any change. To see how APs of question-answer, greeting, and summon-answer relate each other, the following chart can be referred.
Chart 9 : Relation among AP structures in Q-A, G-G, S-A
FPP SPP G G G RG/RA
Q UA FPP SPP G G S UA
175 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In the previous explanation it was found that there are eight structures of Aps. The first three of these, after discussed, are related. Why they are related, it is discussed in another section under ritual constraint ( page 207).
4.3.1.2 Offer-Acceptance/Refusal, Invitation- Acceptance/Rejection Offer is operated through an offer in FPP and an acceptance in SPP if what offered is goods, and an acceptance or refusal in SPP if what offered is service. Offer in TB is passed directly to the offeree without preceded by a pre-offer. Schegloff,s study (2007 : 35) about AP of offer is that the oferer can pass a pre-offer to the oferee, and this is called a pre-expansion. In TB conversation what occured in offer is a post-expansion or post-offer (exerpt 24, line 3-4). Post-offer occurs when the offer is rejected. Why the second offer comes, it would be discussed in ritual constraint discussion. When the goods offered is refused in SPP as in the above case, another offer in another turn can be launched and results in accpetance. There would be 3 APs in such a second offer (excerpt 24, line 1, 2, 3, 4). The first AP is an offer with the dispreferred response, that is the base FPP and the first SPP. The second is the second offer in the second FPP with the preferred response in second SPP (post-expansion). And the third AP is the base FPP and the second SPP. The second AP
176 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations is an expansion of the first AP deriving from the second FPP as the expansion of the first FPP, and the second SPP is the expansion of the first SPP. The third AP results from the second offer in second FPP as the consequence of the refusal in first SPP. So, the first SPP and the second FPP are neither inserted sequences nor an AP. But this sequence causes the presence of the third AP. When it is a third AP (line 1 and line 4 in excerpt 24), then line 2 is the repair initiation type and line 3 is the repair resolve. There is a condition that the offer of goods is responded with refusal in SPP but as preferred response, that is, when the goods offered is not forthcoming and it is used to close a conversation. So the offer in FPP and refusal in SPP, but the refusal is an expected or required response (excerpt 25). Why the refusal has become an expected response, it would be discussed in ritual constraint, the section that will focuse the discussion with cultural context. AP of offer-acceptance/rejection is related with the AP of invitation-acceptance/refusal in terms of acceptance response. This relation is dicussed after the the explanation of how invitation-acceptance/rejection operates. The AP of invitation-acceptance/rejection is operated through the invitation in FPP and acceptance or rejection in SPP. Before coming to acceptance or rejection there are some delay in the form of inserted sequences of AP, post-first or pre- second, and before invitation is started, pre-sequence may come first. When the invitation is pertaining to adat ceremony the reponse in SPP would be the acceptance, and it would be acceptance or refusal in SPP if the invitation is about general affairs (excerpt 27, 28, 29). From these excerpts invitation in TB conversation embodies all the expansion sequences: pre- expansion, post-expansion, and inserted-sequence. So,
177 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Schegloff’s study (2009) about the three kinds of sequence are applicable in TB conversation. Form the discussion of APs of offer and invitation based on their mechanism of operation, both APs are related. First, when offer concerns with goods, and invitation concerns with adat ceremony the SPPs in both APs are acceptance. Second, when the offer concerns with service, and the invitation with general affairs, both APs have acceptance or refusal in SPP. Third, the responses to FPP of both APs can be delayed. The following chart shows the relation between APs of offer and invitation.
Chart 10 : Relation between APs of Offer and Invitation
a. GOODS
O ACC/RR FPP SPP I ACC/RR
SERVICE/ CUSTOMARY AFFAIRS 178 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
b. DELAYED
O ACC INSERTED PS FPP SPP SEQUENCE I ACC
DELAYED
Note: FPP = First Pair Part, SPP = Second pair Part, ACC = Acceptance, Rj = Rejection, I = Invitation, PS = Post Sequence, O = Offer, RR = Required Response
In terms of system constraint as has been discussed, this relation can also be discussed in terms of ritual constraint; why offer and invitation are accepted and in another case it is delayed before accepted.
4.3.1.3 Accusation-denial, Compliment- Acceptance/Rejection, Complaint-Rejection Levinson (in Zang Ping, 2007: 38) presented denial as the preferred, and admission as dispreferred response. In TB,
179 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
AP of accusation-denial is operated through an accusation in FPP and a denial in SPP. So, denial as preferred in SPP is the unamarked form. The denial can be preceded by dispreferred response that has been weakened. This AP can also be followed by a third turn realized in suggestion. This is a proof that AP is not always in a pair parts (excerpt 30 and 31). The existence of the third turn is because of the inability of the SPP to close the conversation so as to make the closing third sequence or minimal post expansion. By the occurrence of third closing sequence, the speaker of FPP expects the required response from the recipient in SPP. There are various forms of SPP of compliment based on studies by Ensaif (2009) and Billmyer (in Juan Yu, 2007). Ensaif presented six responses to compliment: acceptance or agreement, mitigation, rejection, non-acknowledgement, lack of knowledge, absence of compliment. Billmyer employed four responses in compliment: downgrading, questioning, shifting credit, returning. Pomerantz, et.al (in Fan Wang and Hua Tsai, 2003:125) listed 12 types of compliment responses in SPP: appreciation token, comment accpetance, praise upgrade, comment history, reasignment, return, scale down, question, disagreement, qualification, no acknowledgement, request interpretation. From the empirical data, AP of compliment- acceptance/rejection in TB is operated through a compliment in FPP and a rejection by downgrading or diluting, scaling down in SPP. So this downgrading response is a preferred one. AP of compliment can be a presequence to another AP and it is considered greeting to open a conversation. So this AP so treated can cause the occurrence of another AP as post- sequence (excerpt 32). The rejection in SPP can be preceded by implicit agreement before the dispreferred response. There are some markers of dilution used in SPP as agreement responses
180 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations but they are considered dispreferred (excerpt 34-36). So in this case the compliment is actually rejected eventhough diluted or downgraded. AP of complaint-rejection in TB is operated through a complaint in FPP and a rejection in SPP. The complaint in SPP is conveyed directly to the ccomplainee on his retrospective behaviour. The complainee is one that is directed to responsible about his behaviour (excerpt 37 and 38). Wyrwas (in Cruz, 2009 : 1211), explained that “what is clear is that complaint is the first part of an adjacency pair, and it has no streotypical corresponding second part, as it can be followed by a denial, rejection, justifica, apology, excuse, etc”. Whereas Traverso (2008 : 3-4) found a response to complain in SPP formulated in affiliation to the complaint and the four sequences of complaint: initiation, core part, complaint development, closing. The TB complaint AP is constructed in two sequences, and the reponse in SPP is a disafiliation. When the complaint is indirect the response in SPP is also a rejection. There are two condition of such indirect complaint. The first is that the recipient of complaint is not the one who takes the responsibility of the speaker’s complaint. It is not directly addressed to the speaker of SPP. The second indirect complaint is addressed to the third party via the second party and the response in SPP rejected differently than that of the first indirect complaint (exceprt 40). The speaker of SPP here agrees with the complaint but rejecting behaviour that is complained by the complainer. From the discussion of the three APs above, it is found that acusation, compliment, and complaint have in each of them a rejection or denial in SPP. The following charts can be seen to see their operation and relation. Their cultural connstrains will be discussed in subsequent part after this mechanism section. To see the relationship among Aps of accusation-
181 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations denial, complement-rejection, and complaint-rejection, the following chart can be referred
Chart 11 : Relationship among Ac-D, Cpm-Rj, Cpn-Rj
FPP Ac SPP Rj CTS FPP SPP Rj/Dilution POST AP Cpm SPP Rj
FPP Cpn
4.3.1.4 TCU and TRP, Completion Point As has been explained in the previous part that TCU has two features, they are, it has projectability and brings into play TRP, this TCU is linked with the taking of turn or turn- taking in the following ways. By TCU, participants can project where it will end, and thus a particular turn might possibly be complete. At this point a particular turn can be recognized as the potential end of turn where transition from one speaker to another becomes relevant, as what is called Transition Relevance Place (TRP). So what makes TCU; words, phrases, clauses, and sentences would end in completion point.
182 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In accordance with the linguistic units that build TCU, completion points such as, grammatical, intonatioanal, and semantic play an important role in bridging such units- linguistic with interaction, because at these points the local management of turn-taking is conducted through turn-taking rules. So after the completion points TRP takes place in which the speaker changes are possible. The first possible completion point leads to initial transition-relevance place. From the data in Toba Batak conversation, it is not always that there should be a transition from one speaker to another at completion points. It is true since completion points indicated by cues of the linguistic properties are not necessarily accompanied by the actual turn-transitions (Furo, 2001). At this point turn-taking rule is applied to understand the smooth process of turn-taking. In this discussion it is important to see how the ends of turn projected in terms of grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. From the analysis and findings, the link between linguistic properties and interaction of Toba Batak conversation can be indicated by grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. The three completion points are conjunction points which concur before the speaker changes, and called Complex Transition Relevance Places abbreviated as CTRPs (Ford and Thompson, 1996, as cited in Furo, 2001: 37). How the completion point are related, it can be discussed below. First, grammatical completion point is related with intonational completion point, and semantic completion point. One of grammatical completion points is marked after a well- formed clause which can be found in excerpt 42 line 12; Ai ise namakkatai i? ‘Who is talking’? In conversation, the recipient of this question will understand that the reconizable action would end after the verb or predicate, namakkatai i, because without a verb, the sentence is ill-formed, as the question word
183 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations ise preceded by particle ai should be followed by verb or predicate. The grammatical completion point above concurs with intonation completion point which is marked after the sustained intonation or weaker intonation than that of rising. One of semantic completion points is marked with floor-right, that is, when the right of speaker expires, at this place there is a completion point. This is indicated by such expiration marker; question as directed to listener would give the floor to the listener and at the same time the right of the speaker expires. So, in the above example, three completion points occur simultaneously- grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion point. Grammatical completion point is marked with ‘/’, intonational completion point with ‘?’, and semantic completion point with ‘>’. The conjunction points which relate the three completion points, called CTRPs, are marked with ‘#’. The above example can be presented in CTRP below. Ai ise namakkatai i?/>#
From the discussion it is found that grammatical, intonational, and semantic completion points can concur in a sentence or at least two of them are found to occur at the same time. It is true that language influences interaction because at TRPs or CTRPs there is a possible transition from one speaker to another. Below is the chart of how TCU, TRP, and completion points are linked.
Chart 12 : TCU, TRP, and Completion Points in Toba Batak Conversation
I e n r t s s e t u e t c s n t n r n t i i e a
t n o c o n i P P 184 c e o u T S
P t n r n i u o t o o n i i t t T o r n i e S e t l l n e s
e p p
R l u S - a p U c m m l
t i
C t o o C
a m P t r
T C C o k u s l l C i
a a i c c c n n
u i i
e t t t
o
s i
g u
n
a
t g a r
a
a h m r
n
P n m e i m o e t a L n r S
I
d
r G
o W The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4.3.1.5 Turn Allocation, Repair, Overlapping Talk, Silence Turn allocation techniques as have been analysed refer to three rules : 1) CSSN, 2) SS, and 3) SC. These three techniques have to do with repair, silence and overlapping talk in terms of normative character of the rules. As normative rules they are constrained by problems in speaking. In informal talk, like in daily talk or conversation, speakers and listeners are constraints in a number of ways, for example they must act quickly to avoid long pauses, to compete to take turns , etc ( Donaldson and Cohen, 1997 : 87). TB conversation constrains its speakers in the following ways. Rule 1a, CSSN, in Toba Batak is not always conformed to the next speaker selected by current speaker, takes the turn, or gives the required answer. As Sacks et.al (1974) noted that rule 1a implies the speaker selected by the current speaker must take the turn at the next TRP, this is not always the case in TB conversation as has been explained above. Rule 1b, SS leads to speakers’ competition on turn that makes overlapping talk, and the recipient of SS speaker can do
185 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations repair initiation like that of CSSN. Rule 1c, SC, is preceded by a longer silence. The following discussions are about how CSSN which is basically structured in AP constrained by repair when the speaker selected delays the required answer, how SS causes overlapping talk, and how SC is preceded by a longer silence. The first constraint found in CSSN is that the speaker selected is not always coming to respond that causes the speaker initiates and resolves the repair, SISR (excerpt 50, line 7 and 8). The second constraint found in CSSN is that the response to greeting in AP is delayed and repair initiation has to be launched by other speaker, and the repair is resolved by the producer of trouble items, that is, OISR (excerpt 7, line 2 and 3). So, the delayed response here leads to such kind of repair. The third is found in such an offer that is rejected by the recipient, and this rejection makes the speaker initiate a repair which is resolved by the reipient or other speaker, SIOR (excerpt 24, line 3 and 4). The fourth is found in CSSN in which the question as selecting the next speaker is responded by question by other speaker. This repair initiationis is also resolved by the same speaker, OIOR (excerpt 27, line 2). CSSN is considered to have constraints in overlapping talk; terminal overlap and choral talk. In terminal overlap its speaker overlaps at the possible completion point before the CSSN speaker complete his turn, and the overlap is not an interruption as it occurs at possible TRP (excerpt 46, line 2). When CSSN is apllied, constrained by a choral talk, one of its speaker overlapped when the selected speaker starts his turn (exerpt 46, line 15, 16). CSSN can be constrained by a silence in the SPP of an AP. This makes the speaker of FPP initiate a repair, and other speaker resolve it. As has been said that not all selected speakers response the utterance in FPP. This also makes CSSN
186 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations deals with the three kinds of pauses. The first kind occurs when CSSN speaker makes a pause within his turn, that is, the turn itself is not yet completed (excerpt 46, line 1). The second pause occurs when CSSN is applied, there is a silence at TRP, no listener self-selects, then the current speaker continues (exerpt 2, line 1-3). And the third kind of pause constrains CSSN in which this CSSN also consitutes speaker continuation (excerpt 46, line 4-5). This condition makes it possible that silence and repair occur as to make the turn go smoothly. Therefore, rule 1a (CSSN), based on the constraint, is linked to repair work; SISR, OISR, SIOR, OIOR, overlapping talk as well as silence. Rule 1b (SS) as has been explained, allocates a turn to self-selector who starts first. This encourages the earliest possible start for each self-selector and will produce an overlap because they compete for turns at possible transition-relevance place. When the overlapping is not supportive it does not occur at or near TRP, it is considered interruption. This means that rule 1b can produce an overlap before TRP. SS is also linked to repair work. A speaker of self- select can both initiate and resolve the repair which is called SISR (excerpt 45, line 1). When a speaker self-selects or when his utterance is addressed to the enitre group, the other self- select speaker who takes the turn can initiate a repair and the first speaker resolve the repair as what is called OISR (excerpt 44, line 1 and 2). The other self-select speaker can both initiate and resolve the repair, as called OIOR (excerpt 42, line 9). When the self-select speaker does the initiation of repair and other speaker resolves it, the process is called SIOR. This occurs when the self-select speaker found problem in selecting a word or forgot a word or term to complete his turn. SS which is linked to overlapping talk occurs in continuers (excerpt 44, 48, 49), collaborative utterance (excerpt
187 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
43), terminal overlap and choral talk (excerpt 43, 46). The continuer which marks overlapping talk is considered an interruption because it is not supportive to the speaker (excerpt 44, line 2). And those which are supportive are considered a non-interruption (excerpt 48, line 33, excerpt 49, line 6). Collaborative utterance which marks overlapping talk is not an interruption (excerpt 43, line 5). A non-interrupted overlap is realized in terminal overlap which is supportive, (excerpt 43, line 12). And this is also shown by a choral talk (excerpt 43, line 13-14). SS which is related to silence is realized in gap, pauses and lapse. In gap, the silence occurs at the end of current speaker’s turn with no CSSN, and a self-select speaker has not yet started (excerpt 48, 24). In pauses it can be found in the first and the second kind. In the first kind of pause, silence is indicated within the current speaker’s turn. When the current speaker makes a self-select turn, before ending it he stops a moment (excerpt 41, line 10). Silence in the second kind of pause occurs at TRP and the current speaker does not select the next speaker, then there is no a self-select so that the current speaker continued (excerpt 44, line 6). SS can be constrained by a lapse, that is, a longer silence than in gap and pause which occurs at the end of the current speaker who does not apply CSSN (excerpt 42, line 13, and excerpt 43, line 6). Speaker continuation (SC) is constrained by SISR, SIOR, and OIOR. When the current speaker does not select the next speaker and no participant self-selects, at TRP the current speaker may continue. This speaker continuation can be a place of initiating and resolving a repair, SISR (excerpt 50, line 8). When the current speaker continues Speaker continuation (SC) is constrained by SISR, SIOR, and OIOR. When the current speaker continues and in his turn he has trouble in finding a term by which it is initiated by him as current speaker to be
188 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations repaired and resolved by other, so as to make SIOR (excerpt 45, line 3-4). The speaker continuation is also used to resolve the repair which has been initiated in his prior turn. So it is initiated and resolved by the speaker other than one who has produced the problematic item, OIOR (excerpt 42, line 9-10). Overlapping talks which constrain speaker continuation (SC) are continuer, collaborative utterance, terminal overlap, and choral talk. Continuer occurs when the current speaker continues, but as an overlap it is supportive and thus non- interruptive (excerpt 49, line 6). Overlap in collaborative utterance is also non-interruptive as when the speaker continues the overlap comes before TRP but supporting the utterance of the speaker’s continuation (excerpt 43, line 5). In terminal overlap too, it comes at TRP or near TRP after the speaker continuation, it supports what the speaker after continuing his utterance said (excerpt 43, line 12). For choral talk, more than one speakers talk simultaneously after the speaker’s continuation which support what the speaker continues in his turn (excerpt 43, line 13-14). So, the overlapping talks which constrain speaker continuation are all non-interruptive. Speaker continuation (SC) is linked with a longer silence before the extended turn taken by the first speaker. Silence here refers to that of pause of second kind. The pause of this kind occurs after a silence, and at TRP no listener self selects, then the current speaker continues. At the time it was silent, the current speaker actually gave the longer chance to the self select speaker to take turn (excerpt 44, line 6). So, the speaker who gives the longer chance for self-select is tolerate that the process of turn-taking go smoothly. CSSN, SS, and SC are intersected by silence in terms of gap, pause, and lapse. CSSN, when it is applied in relation with silence, it overlaps SC. The silence is categorized as the third kind of pause, that is, the delay of the speaker selected by the
189 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations current speaker, and pause occurs at this place (excerpt 46, line 4, 5) Whereas when, in the same case SS is applied the kind of silence which occurs is gap (excerpt 47, line 8, 9). If CSSN is not applied, and there is no self select , the current speaker does not continue, lapse occurs in a significant length of time (excerpt 43, line 5, 6). SS and SC are linked by silence in terms of pause of the second kind. Before the speaker continuation there is a longer pause. This pause bridges the current speaker self- select with the speaker continuation that the conversation keeps on track and goes smoothly (excerpt 44, line 6). CSSN has also to do with the pause within speaker’s turn or that of the first kind. When the current speaker selects the next speaker, he, before ending his turn stops a moment to select the most appropriate term for the interlocutor. The following table shows how Turn Allocation, Repair, Overlapping Talk, and Silence are linked as to display the constraint of their structures.
Table 2. Turn Allocation and Its constraint
CONSTRAINT REPAIR OVERLAPPING TALK SILENCE CONTINUER CU TO CT TURN SISR OISR SIOR OIOR GAP PAUSE1 PAUSE2 PAUSE3 LAPSE ALLOCATION I NI I NI I NI I NI
CSSN + + + + - - - - - + - + - + + + -
SS + + + + + + - + - + - + + + + - +
SC + - + + - + - + - + - + - - + - -
Note : CSSN = Current Speaker Selects Next SS = Self-Select
190 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
SC = Speaker Continuation SISR = Self-initiated, Self-repair OISR = Other-initiated, Self-repair SIOR = Self-initiated, Other-repair OIOR = Other-initiated, Other-repair CU = Collaborative Utterance TO = Terminal Overlap CT = Choral Talk I = Interruption NI = Non-interruption (+) indicates a system constraint, meaning that in the occurance of turn other organization also occurs. (-) indicates the absence of constraint
4.3.2. Ritual Constrain 4.3.2.1 Question-answer, Greeting-Greeting, Summon- Answer There is an underlying expression in the philosophy of greeting in Toba Batak culture; Sise mulani tutur ‘Greeting is the beginning of friendship and kinship’. This means that before we start to talk to someone, to greet him is commonly practised. As has been explained the word horas is the very basic term in greeting. What is embedded in this word is a feeling, wisdom as well as politeness of Toba Batak people. The word horas can be presented in this traditional expression; Horas ma hita madingin pir ma tondi matogu ‘Happy those in coolness, tough the spirit in firmness’. According to Marpodang (1992: 116), the word horas derives from koras ‘tough’ which has the same meaning as pir ‘tough’. So, horas can be tough, hard or firm. The /k/ in koras is pronuounced /h/, so becoming horas. Sibarani (1987:191) proposed seventeen meaning of horas; 1) good morning, 2) good day, 3) good
191 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations afternoon, 4) good evening, 5) hello, 6) see you later, 7) good bye, 8) farewell, 9) be comforted, 10) be couraged, 11) congratulation, 12) thanks, 13) be recovered soon, 14) be healthy, 15), dear John/Mary, 16) your sincerely, and 17) excuse me. 1-8 are practised as greeting, as has been analysed in the reasearch. So in Toba Batak cultural context greeting should be related to that of politeness both used in formal and casual situation. So in Toba Batak cultural context greeting should be related to that of politeness both used in formal and casual situation. The use of horas is more formal when practised in customary ceremony. In mundane conversation horas is used hierarchially from the younger to the older. It is not polite when the younger people use other form of greeting or forms other than horas to greet the older people. So for greeting, forms other than horas are rooted in the word horas which can mean 1-8 above. When sise ‘greeting’ has been done or practised, other adjacency pairs follow, and question-answer is commonly practised to develop friendship or kinship, as what is embedded in this expression; Jolo sinukkun marga asa binoto partuturan ‘First to ask name of clan so that to know kinship’. When one is asked about his name of sub-clan he should let the questioner know, and they further talk about their kinship. Politeness plays an important role in kinship talk and it is centered at the basic principle of Dalihan Natolu. When Dalihan Natolu is practised in mundane talk there would be intersubjectivity understanding, that all participants have the same possibilty to take turns and AP of question-answers are dominant, but the hierarchial line is still followed. However, the expression above indicates that to ask and answer each other is primary to the application of Dalihan Natolu as this is the access to for one to be considered or given one of the positions in it.
192 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In practising question-answer, one should be careful of what he asks about, as embedded in this exprssion; Manatma hamu marsisukkunan, lehet marhusari ‘Be careful in asking, be good in thingking’. By this expression the answer to the question should be well thought. This means that to be a good decision maker one would keep questioning his partner or friend and discussing everything which is considered to be difficult. In customary talk, one who asks is called panukkun ‘questioner’, and one who answers is called pangalusi ‘answerer’. Even for these two terms the word raja ‘king’ always precedes, so, raja panise ‘king of questioner’, and raja pangalusi ‘king of answerer’ (Pardede et.al. 1981 : 23). The term raja refers to the responsibility, not to the real king. The notion of question-answer can also be seen in this expression: Sise mula ni hata, sukkun mula ni uhum. ‘To greet is the beginning of word, to ask is the beginning of law’ Here to greet someone is important as to start interaction. Greeting is a pre-condition for people to get in touch,and to ask someone is a further important activity as to start interaction concerning with customary law which is reflected in customary activities of Toba Batak people. From the activity of question-answer there would be such a talk related to to one position in the social system pertaining to Dalihan Natolu. Question-answer is basically rooted in ritual constraint which underlines all talk-in interaction. This has to do with formal-functional nature of six-steps activity in Toba Batak ritual context such as; horihori dinding/marhusip ‘orientation, marhata sinamot ‘dowry-talk’, martuppol/pudun saut ‘pre- wedding, marujjuk ‘wedding’, paulak une ‘ success returning’, and manikkir tangga ‘post-wedding’. In each of the activities, before coming to talk, as called marhata, all the participants have lunch together, as all formal talk should be preceded by a meal.
193 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In marhata, one who ask is called raja panise ‘king of question’, and one who answers is called raja pangalusi (king of answer). Below is an example how raja panise asks a Toba Batak man about his seriousness in engaging a lady:
‘ipe nuaeng bere, porsea do hami dihatani ama ni anu nakkin, alai asa umpos roha nami denggan do paboaonmu manang naung sian roham do naeng mano pot boru nami. jala asa takkas botoon nami laos paboa ma jolo hira ise ma nu aeng lae na tumubuhon hamu, sian huta dia jala anak papiga ma ho anak ni lae i?’ (Pardede, 1981 : 15).
English Equivalent
now guy. we believe what we heard from the people. but to be more satisfied please tell us if you really want to marry with our daughter. to be clearer, let us know your personal and social background.
From the expression, the king of question asks the man who he is, and whether he really wants to marry the lady. Then in turn the lady is also asked about the same thing up to the end of the talk, and this would formally be responded by the king of answer in the next activity, marhata sinamot. So, question- answer in mundane talk is rooted in ritual talk, meaning that the formal-functional talk underlies informal one. The fundamental basis for people to question has been constrained by the customary activity that has emerged long time ago, and
194 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations this is embedded in the traditional expression called umpama ‘proverb’. Umpama has an interactional value that in it embedded the such an AP of question-answer. Summon-answer in Toba Batak has to do with politeness in summoning the name. To mention or to call one’s name has been restricted to those who are counted younger and to those who have not got married. Mentioning and summoning the name of married people is considered impolite. When those married people are summoned, the real name should be hidden, if not they feel to be insulted and considered child. Names are practised among children in condition that they follow kinship norm, like the status of birth which is relevant to age. Take for example, a child in a family called Edu, he has a younger brother called Tumpak, Edu can summon Tumpak by mentioning Tumpak’s name, but Tumpak cannot do this, instead, Tumpak summon his brother by saying akkang ‘brother’. For adult people, names are not practised from lower to higher rank both in general and ritual affairs. For summoning, one should use the terms such as; amang, inang, lae, eda, ito, tulang, nantulang, amangboru, namboru. As has been analysed, these terms are used in general affairs in neutral communication and vary from place to place. In mundane talk ritual constraints overlap with system constraints in terms of summoning and answering. When the conversation is started by using address terms for neutral use, in the continuation these names can be related to ritual use based on the basic principle on Dalihan Natolu. It is common for people to talk about kinship in mundane talk. Eventhough it is cultural specific but the in interaction is locally managed.
4.3.2.2 Offer-Acceptance/Rejection, Invitation- Acceptance/Rejection
195 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Offer-acceptance in ritual constraint has to do with manjalo ‘to take’ and mangalean ‘to give’. In customary (adat) activity after a meal, a traditional expression (umpasa) that concerns with the two words is often practised, as seen in the following:
bagot na marhalto tubu di robean horas na manjalo gabe namangalean
English Equivalent
palm which is juicy grown in the hill good luck for hose who take bless for those who give
First it can be said that the speaker of this expression was from those who take. It is hoped that the God support those who take and those who give. What is symbolized by bagot na marhalto was that this is a kind of a palm-tree which is fruity and juicy. One of many other functions of the tree is that the juice is made as a traditional drink for keeping the body healthy. For the food-giver, a blessing in terms of health was addressed, and for the people who took, luck will be theirs. So from this expression, an activity of offering (give) and accepting (take) is basically lying on the customary activity related to belief that in this activity also lies blessings from the God in Toba Batak culture. Second, an activity of offer which deals with goods must be followed by an activity of taking, as embedded in this expression; Haccit mulak manjalo, humaccitan mulak
196 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations mangalean ‘It is hard when taking or asking is refused, but harder when giving is returned’. For Toba Batak people, it is worst to return the givings, and if a choice is given, it is better to refuse when one is taking or asking. To give a comparison, to take or to ask has no risk for the asker, in other words, it would not be a burden for him when asking refused. Whereas to give someone something, when rejected, there would be a burden in case that what is given is not free of charge. It is, therefore, when one rejects the offer of someone else, the one that offer or others present in the activity can comment or motivate one to whom the goods is offered so that the goods is accepted. Invitation-acceptance is formally used in adat ceremony especially in wedding, in which when it is conveyed orally and by invitation-card the person to whom it is given has to accept it regardless of whether he will be present or not in the wedding-party. Invitation in cultural context has a broader sense that before it is done there are two more steps to be included. To be clearer, three terms are introduced; boaboa ‘announcement’, mandokkon ‘to inform’, and manjou ‘to call’. Boaboa deals with announcing the people of village so as to make a meeting for preparation. Mandokkon has to do with informing all the members of Daliohan Natolu to take part in the activity. And Manjou refers to call the people who have been announced and informed to come to the activity. These three steps are now reduced to mandokkon and manjou which is written in the invitation-card of wedding-party. The expression which underlies the two steps in ritual sense is: Dokkon sipaimaon, joujou sialuson ‘Information to be awaited, invitation to be responded’. This expression is interpreted as invitation. In Toba Batak those who invite and those who are invited are of equal importance and and they are considered king. So invitation in Toba Batak will never be rejected. In the
197 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations case of offer and invitation in general affairs are delayed before accepted, it has to do with face-protecting, meaning that one who delayed the offer or invitation is necessary to keep his or her standing.
4.3.2.3 Accusation, Compliment, Complaint Accusation, compliment, and complaint are commonly responded in unexpected answer in Toba Batak. When these three Aps are practised in conversation, the ritual constraint can be referred back to cultural values which are inherently sticked to the basic principle of Toba Batak social system and law Dalihan Natolu. The following discussion will cover such accusation and complaint related to negative feeling deriving from speaker or from listener, and compliment related to positive feeling from the recipient which is diluted by the speaker. For the accusation, there is an expression that has been predetermined as a guide to keep away from the conflict: Jujur mula ni bada, bolus mula ni dame ‘blaming is the beginning of quarrel, greeting is the beginning of peace’. This expression contains an important reference that is used for reminding people not to unfold anyone’s badness as shown by the term jujur, regardless of the good and the bad doing of the accused or blamed. So to accuse or to blame is not good because this will lead to quarrel or dispute. The rejected response of accusation can be diluted, meaning that the accused thing is committed but downgraded (excerpt 31-32, line 2). It is common that people have weaknesses. In Toba Batak if one has a weakness, of bad behaviour, he could be warned in a gentle way. This is shown in the following proverb:
galagala sitelluk telluk marduguldugul
198 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
molo adong nahurang manat hamu magapulapul
English Equivalent
a hollow tree that of hollow and jointed if we have a weakness be gentle to advise
The above mentioned proverb has a social value that even if one has done something wrong we should carefully remind him from doing so. And when blaming him in front of the public he will get angry. So, one has not got to be blamed or accused before advising him, and this means that one who blames or accusess has opened a dispute. This is another reason why accusation is rejected. Even, once one stole and this was openly witnessed by other, then the one being stolen accused him, he who stole can reject the accusation by saying that he did it for the sake of something. If the stolen thing is money, he can say that he stole for buying food for being hungry. In Toba Batak it is called takko raja ‘kingly stealing’. Kingly stealing, being accused or not was tolerated eventhough the owner of the stolen thing was in objection. In a conversation if one absolutely rejects the accusation he would make a counter attack by using negation markers. The one who accuses is considered too brave to do so. There is an expression for advising people to think first before talk ; ‘Jolo ni dilat bibir asa nidok hata ‘ lip to lick first before to say’. It is not easy to say wihtout think it carefully. Another expression that has to do with careness so that one cannot ruin his life is; Pantun hangoluan, tois hamagoan ‘Courteousness is life, impudence is ruin’. In a broader sense,
199 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations pantun can mean, respected, good behaviour, civilized, noble character. Tois is the negation to these features. Thus if one wants to be success he should have such a good character reflected in pantun. If one belongs to such a negative character he will ruin his life including that of accusing or blaming. On the other side of the background of accusation is that Toba Batak people are bound with a norm of open or transparant attitude. This is marked with such expression ; Si boru buas si boru Bakkara, molo dung puas saema soada mara ‘The generous daughter the daughter of Bakkara, if all satisfied all in peace’. It is necessary that one should open what is hidden so that he is satisfied and not to keep revenge. The open character of Toba Batak can also be seen in this ; Tedek songon indahan di balanga ‘So open like rice on the big pan’. This expression indicates that when all have been discussed, no more suspicious and all be satisfied which results in peace. The rejection of complaint in Toba Batak is much based on the ritual constraint found in traditional expression. The following expression shows how people are directed not to complain.
hotang binebebebe, hotang pinulospulos unang hamu mandele ai godang tudostudos
English Equivalent
rattan is twisted, rattan is rolled not to complain because much to compare
Like rattan, whatever ways it is made to be broken it will stand on its original form, meaning that life should be strong, as
200 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations strong as rattan. What is complaint about can be replaced by ones that look alike. The tendency not to complain for the Toba Batak can also be indicated by the area where they live, a mountainy, hilly, and infertile land. So people have to work hard. The Late Nahum Situmorang, a Toba Batak composer, has produced a beautiful song which talks about how Toba Batak parents sacrifice almost everything in their possession for the education of their children. The following lines are quoted from the song :
hugogo pe mansari, arian nang bodari laho pasikkolahon gelekki ai ikkon marsikkola dosatibbotibbona sikkap ni na tolap gogokki
English Equivalent I work hard day and night to school my children to persue the higher education as hard as I can support it
This expression shows that a hard-work can educate people not to complain. Other than a hard-work, those who live in a state of poverty are prepared to go into debt for the continuity of the schooling of their children. As well, many of them are willing to neglect their health for the sake of their children’s future.They expect that their children will get official positions or company employment after graduation and thus contribute to the support of the family. Compliment is apositive speech act which build friendship an rapport among people. However,compliment in Toba Batak, as has been explained is always rejected in terms
201 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations of dilution or scale down. The ritual constraint has been practised in the activity of dowry-talk, the one that talks about the dowry proposed by a man’s side to the woman’s side. The following is the extract of dowry-talk in which the woman’s side compliment the man’s side eventhough the man’s side has comitted that they are in the state of being poor.
nunga ro hamu songon hau nabolon na boi parlinggoan disibahenon, godang ma pasahat hamu akka, sar do barita namora do hamu songon nidok ni umpama: pat ni gaja tu pat ni hora, anak ni raja do hamu pahoppu ni namora.
English Equivalent
you come like a big tree to be a shelter, so give us much dowry as your richness has been well known like an expression says: legs of elephant to legs of civet, you are the son of king the grandchild of the rich.
The above expression shows that the woman’s side compliments the man’s side in order that the dowry can be higher. But the man’s side bargains this by downgrading themselves, and it is expressed in the lines below:
tutu do rajanami, parhorbo, parlombu, parhoda do angka natua-tua na umpompar hami jala par mas, alai anggo hami dipudian ni ari on ba ndang mar pinahan jala ndang marmas be.
202 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
English Equivalent
that’s right our grandparents have buffalos, cows, horses, as well as gold. but nowadays we don’t have animals and gold anymore.
This response indicates that compliment in Toba Batak is commonly responded by a scaling down one. Eventhough what is complimented contains truth, the recipient of the compliment cannot accept it. When what is complimented rejected it does not mean they cannot maintain rapport. The exchanges will go smoothly based on the norms practised in each of customary talk. So, Toba Batak people always dilute compliment as they do not feel that they are easily satisfied. And this also does not mean that the people are not happy when they are complimented, but they just want to get sovereignity. As the first motivation of study came from foreign language teaching classroom, the findings suggests pedagogical implication for foreign language teaching; that the study can provide practitioners and material developers comparison with valid description of APs and turn-taking to enhance their materials. This findings also give a room for others to further analyze the turn-taking in cultural context.
203 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
The diagram below shows Toba Batak Conversation and its
constraint:Basic Assumptions in Conversation
204 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Structurally Joint Contextual Locally Organized Production Managed
AP Silence, OT, Turntaking Repair
System Constraint
Ritual Constraint TCU TTR
FPP SPP
GCP ICP SCP Pref Negative Cases
TRP Speaker Question-Answer change Greeting-greeting Summon-answer Offer-acceptance Invitation-acceptance Accusation-denial Compliment-rejection 205 Complaint-rejection The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Figure 4: The TB Conversation and The Constraints
Note: AP = Adjagency Pair FPP = First Pair Part SPP = Second Pair Part Pref = Preference TCU = Turn ConsructionUnit TTR = Turn Taking Rule OT = Overlapping Talk GCP = Gramatical Completion Point ICP = Intonational Completion Point SCP = Semantic Completion Point TRP = Transition Relevance Place
The negative cases can be elaborated in this table.
Component of Structure interaction English Toba Batak Question-answer Basic Not basic component Noticeably absent of Repair Greeting- Q-A greeting Greeting-greeting Common Unique Summon-answer Common Greeting- greeting Q-A, G-G, S-A Isolated Related 206 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Accusation Denial, Denial admission Offer Pre Post Offer and Invitation Isolated Related Compliment Grant Downgrade Complaint Affiliation Dissafiliation Accusation, Isolated Related compliment, complaint CSSN Applicable Unapplicable Lapse Common Long silence Ordinary talk Basic Not basic
Table 3. Ellaboration of Negative Cases
PART V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions Based on the previous analysis and discussions some conclusions are drawn as the following. (1) A Toba Batak conversation is well organized in its structure. With reference to the previous theories, the Toba Batak conversation are structured in adjacency pairs as:: Question-Answer, Greeting-Greeting, Summon-Answer, Offer- 207 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Acceptance/Refusal, Ivitation-Acceptance/Refusal, Accusation- Denial, Compliment-Acceptance/Rejection, Complaint- Acceptance/rejection. (2) The structures are operated in First Pair Part (FPP) and Second Pair Part (SPP). There is a Closing-Third Part in assessment. If FPP is launced SPP is required and adjacent to FPP. When SPP does not come it is considered noticeably absent and it is accountable as mundane conversation which follows the intersubjectivity. (3) Question-Answer is operated in two ways. First, the question in FPP responded in informative answer in SPP and this results in pure Question-Answer AP. Second the question in FPP responded in SPP in unexpected answer which results in Greeting-Greeting, and the question is considered quasi- question. Question-answer has a ritual constraint and this is cultural specific. It is in cultural context AP of Question-answer based. (4) Greeting-Greeting is operated in three ways. First the greeting in FPP and respond in SPP are the same; horas-horas, second, FPP and SPP are different; horas-other form, third, FPP and SPP are absolutely different; other form-other form. Greeting-Greeting in ritual constraint has to do with the very beginning of customary talk and it precedes question answer. (5) Summon-Answer is operated in two ways. First, the summon in FPP is responded in required answer in SPP. Second, the summon in FPP is responded in unrequired response in SPP which results in greeting-greeting. Hierarchial social system of Toba Batak constraints the AP of summon- answer. (6) Question-Answer, Greeting-Greeting, and Summon-Answer are related. Question-answer and Summon-answer when responded in unrequired the results are Greeting-greeting. Greeting-greeting in SPP can be in question.
208 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
(7) Offer-Acceptance/Rejection is operated in two ways. First, when goods is offered in FPP the reponse is acceptance in SPP. Second, when service is offered in FPP the response is acceptance or rejection. There is a condition in good-offering that the response in SPP is refused but considered as required answer. The good-offering is constrained by acceptance in cultural context. (8) Invitation-Acceptance/Rejection also operates in two ways. First when the invitaton deals with customry affair in FPP the reponse is acceptance in SPP. Second, when the invitation concerns with general affair the response in SPP is acceptance or rejection. There is a condition that a response to invitation is preceded by inserted Aps. Invitation can be constrained by one concerning with customary affairs. This lies in invitation to the three sides of social system in Dalihan Natolu which obliges the one who invites to give both written and oral invitation by directly meets the invited. (9) APs of offer and invitation are related in SPPs by which the responses remain the same, in acceptance, in condition that the former is about goods and the latter with customary affairs. Both Aps in SPP can be delayed in inserted sequence before the launching of SPP. (10) Accussation-Denial operates in two ways. First, the accusation in FPP is responded with denial in SPP. Second, there is a closing-third sequence realized in assessment. The denial in accusation has basically been based on the cultural values embedded in traditional culture of Toba Batak as a ritual constraint. (11) Compliment-Rejection operates in compliment in SPP and diluted rejection in SPP. It can be followed by expanded AP or post AP. The rejection of compliment is traced back to the traditional culture of Toba Batak.
209 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
(12) Complaint-Rejection operates in direct and indirect ways. Both responses in direct and indirect are rejections and dipreferred. There is a condition that the rejection in indirect complaint be considered preferred, that is the response is an expected one. Rejection to complaint has also derived from basic philosophy lying in the traditional culture as a ritual constraint. (13) Accusation-denial, Compliment-rejection, and Complaint- rejection are related in responses in SPP, they are rejected responses. (14) TCU in Toba Batak is composed of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. This TCU has projectability in terms of completion point. A turn in Toba Batak can be constructed by more than one TCUs. There are three completion points, they are grammatical completion point, phonological completion point, and semantic completion point. Linguistic structure in terms of TCU and completion point has a relationship with interaction in terms of TRP shown. These comp[letion points are indicators of TRP. Then at TRP there would a possibility of speaker transition ruled by turn-taking system. (15) Three kinds of grammatical completion point inToba Batak are : well-formed clauses, increments, and recoverable predicates. There are two kinds of phonological completion points : period and question mark. Question mark indicate two aspect, showing raising intonation and weaker than raising intonation. Semantic completion point consist of four criteria: floor right, floor-claiming utterance, proposition, and reactive token. (16) Rules of turn-taking are applicable in Toba Batak. These rules are: The current speaker speaker selects next (CSSN), self select (SS), and speaker continuation (SC).
210 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
(17) Silence occurs in gap, pause, and lapse. Overlapping talk are realized in continuers, collaborative utterances, terminal overlap, and choral talk. Repairs occur in Self-initiated, self- repair (SISR), Other-initiated, self-repair (OISR), Self-initiated, other-repair (SIOR), and Other-initiated, other-repair (OIOR). (18) Turn-taking in terms of its structures: TCUs in relation with linguistic completion points, allocation components, silence, overlapping talk, and repair are realized based on system constraints. (19) Toba Batak conversation is context-sensitive and context- free. Context-sensitive when each turn is constrained by the preceding utterance and determining the next turn. Context-free when social factors are not put into consideration especially in turn-taking. But Toba Batak conversation cannot be separated from cultural context, that is, it has ritual constraint especially in Adjacency Pair. (20) Toba Batak people based on the rules of turn-taking always practise repairs. This means that there are some problems in speaking for them. But in overlapping talk, Toba Batak people practised less interruption, as the overlapping talk is supportive to the speakers.
5.2 Suggestions
211 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
In relation to the conclusion, suggestions are staged to the relevance aspects. The suggestions are addressed to the subsequence researchers which are going to have a research of conversation analysis. First, this research has touched how adjacency pairs are operated in Toba Batak conversation. There are only eight adjencacy pairs under disscussed, so it is suggested that the next researchers can make a further study about other adjacency pairs. The adjacency pairs in this study is only discuss based on cultural context. The social factors can be furthered studied whether they are influencable in conversation analysis. This research only focuses on grammatical, phonological, and semantic completion point which influence the interaction. So, it is fruitful if the next researcher can focus on other linguistic structure which can influence interaction. These completion points are related only to the transition relevant place which is further develop with turn-taking rule. It is, of course, a more indepth study is needed to unfold the intersubjectivity of members of society. The turn-taking which is studied here is based on theory of conversation analysis, so it is a good to make a further study on turn-taking) conversation based on other theories. The turn- taking in conversation based on conversation analysis theory does not consier social factor, as it is locally manage by the speaker and listener.
212 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
REFERENCES
Berg, Bruce L. 1989. Qualitative Research Methods. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, Robert C. and Biklen, Sari Knopp. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston : Allign and Bacon Inc.
Brown, Gillian and Jule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Coulthard, Malcom. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London : Longman.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Lingustic Anthropology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Eggins, Suzanne and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London : Cassel.
Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. Interaction and grammar, ed. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134-184. Cambridge University Press.
Furo, Hiroko. 2001. Turn-Taking in English and Japanese. Routledge.
213 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Goodwin, Charles. And Heritage, John.1990. Conversation Analysis. Annual Reviews Inc. University of Australia.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London ; Arnold.
Harahap, Basyral. H. and Siahaan, Hotman M. 1987. Orientasi Nilai-Nilai Budaya Batak. Jakarta: Sanggar William Iskandar.
Have, Paul Ten. 1999. Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Sage Publication.
Heageman, Liliane, 1993. Introduction to government and binding theory. Offord : Blackwell.
Hutchby, Ia and Woffitt, Roin. 1999. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge : Polity Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Explorations in Ethnography of Speaking. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. eds.
Lerner, Gene, 2004. Conversation Analysis, Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lenvinson, Stephen.1983. Pragmatics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markee, Numa. 2000. Conversation Analysis. London : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
214 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Mathews, S.P.H. 1997. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Lingustic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLaughin, Margaret L. 1984. Conversation How Talk Is Organized. California: Sage Publication.
Nababan, P.W.J. 1981. A Grammar of Toba Batak. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pardede, Hilman. 1994. Sociocultural Values of Umpama of Toba Batak. Thesis. Malang: IKIP Negeri Malang
Parkin, Harry. 1978. Batak Fruit of Hindu Thought. Madras: Diocean Press.
Platt, John T. and Platt, Heidi, K. 1975. The Social Significance of Speech. Amsterdam: Worth-Holland Publishing Company.
Rajamarpodang, Gultom. 1992. Dalihan Natolu. Medan: CV.Armada.
Sacks, H. Schegloff, E. Jefferson, G. 1974. A Simplest Systematics For The Organization of TurnTaking For Conversation. Language. Vol 50. No 4.
Schegloff, Emanuel. A. 2007. Sequences Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
215 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford : Blackwell.
Searle, John R. et. al. 1992. (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shotter, John. 1993. Conversation Realities. London : Sange Publications.
Siahaan, Nalom. 1982. Adat Dalihan Natolu. Prinsip dan Pelaksanaannya. Jakarta: Grafina.
Sianipar, SHW. 1991. Tuho Parngoluan Dalihan Natolu. Sistem Bermasyarakat Bangso Batak.
Sibarani , Robert, at. al. 2003. Semantic Bahasa Toba Batak. Jakarta : Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Sibarani, Robert. al. al. 1997. Semantic Bahasa Toba Batak. Medan : Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Sihombing. T.M. 1989. Jambar Hata, Dongan Tu Ulaon Adat. Medan : Tapian Rakyat.
Simbolon, Apul 1981. Bahasa Tutur Parhataan dalam Upacara Adat Toba Batak. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Sinar, Tengku Silvana. 1998. Analysis Structure Skematika Genre. Medan : Universitas Sumatera Utara Press.
Sinaga, B. 2002. Tata Bahasa Batak Toba. Medan: Penerbit Bina Medan
216 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Situmorang, Billy H. 1983. Ruhut Ruhut Ni Adat Batak. Medan: BPK Gunung Mulia.
Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversation Style Analyzing Talk Among Friends. New Jersey : Albex Publishing Company.
Taylor, Talbot and Cameron, Deborah. 1987. Analysing Conversation Rules and Unit in the Structure of Talk. Oxford : Pengamon Press.
Tracy, Karen. 2002. Everyday Talk. New York : The Guilford Press.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. Discourse As Social Interaction. London : Sage Pulication.
Widdowson, HG. 2004. Text, Contex, Pretext. Oxford : Blackwell.
Wood, Leuda. A. and Kroger, Ralf. O. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis. California : Sage Publication.
APPENDIX: CORPUS
Exerpt 1
217 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1 A : Siad dia nakkingan i? ‘ sian dia nangkingan i? from where past it? ‘where is it from?’ ‘ 2 B : Sian i, sian pollak i. ‘ from there, from farm the ‘from there, from the farm’
Exerpt 2
1 A : Nga piga? past how many? ‘How many?’
2 (0.2)
3 A : Nga piga dapot? past how many got? ‘how many have you got?’
4 B : Ibbulu na dope dapot lae, fur poss yet got sir ‘I have only got its fur sir.
5 ibbulu na. fur poss ‘its fur’
Exerpt 3
1 A : jai adong do dalat tu gijjang on? jai adong do dalan tu ginjang on?
218 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
so any T way to up this? ‘so, is there any way up there?’
2 B : adong dikkan ai adong dingkan ai any over there ‘yes over there’
2 boi dope motor mardalan tu gijjang boi dope motor mardalan tu ginjang can yet cars walk to up ‘ cars can go up there’
Excerpt 4
1 A : horas bapa! happy father! ‘good morning sir!’
2 B : horas happy ‘good morning’
Excerpt 5
1. A : horas lae! happy brother-in-law ‘good afternoon friend!
2 B : bah horas lae. PR happy brother-in-law ‘good afternoon friend’
219 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 6
1 A : horas eda! happy sister-in-law ‘good morning friend’
2 B : bah, ho doi? PR you that? ‘ is that you?’
Excerpt 7
1 A : horas! happy! ‘ good day!’
2 B : ai siaddia hamu salelengon? ai sian dia hamu saleleng on? PR from where you a long this? ‘where have you been?’
3. A : bah namangaratto do au bah sian bah namangaranto do au bah sian PR to wander about T I PR from ‘I have wandered about from
4 Jakarta bah Jakarta PR ‘Jakarta’
220 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
5 B : bah tu jabu majo hita PR to house just we ‘let’s come to my house’
Excerpt 8
1 A : nga boha? Past how? ‘ how are you?’
2 B : ba ho do i? PR you T that? ‘ is that you?’
Excerpt 9
1 A : ai sai hira na massubasuba ho! PR keep like T to try you ‘it seems that you are going to’
2 B : massubasuba do ho nuaeng hu bereng! to try T you now I see ‘you are going to it seems’
Excerpt 10
1. A : oi! ‘ oi!’
221 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : bah beta! PR come! ‘come on’
Excerpt 11
1 A : ido, pas do i. songon si Hutauruk on makan? yes, true T it. like T Hutauruk this isn’t it? ‘yes, that is true. like mr. hutauruk, isn’t it?’
2 B : ate Hutauruk, bah, boa do, horas ba, ai dia do? yes hutauruk, PR. how T. happy PR, PR where T? ‘isn’t it hutauruk, what about, good morning, what about?’
3 C : horas! happy ‘good morning!’
4 B : e? e ‘what?’
Excerpt 12 1 A : lae! brother-in-law! ‘guy!’
2 B : aha i! what it! ‘what is it!’
222 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Exerpt 13
1 A : ito! sister! ‘Miss!’
2 B : aha ito what sister? ‘what is it?’
Excerpt 14
1 A : eda! sister-in-law! ‘madam!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 15
1 A : eda! sister-in-law! ‘Madam!’
2 B : e…! e…! ‘e…!’ Excerpt 16
223 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1 A : amang! father! ‘Sir!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 17
1 A : amangboru! husband of father sister ‘sir!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 18
1 A : tulang! mother’s brother! ‘uncle!’
2 B : ou! ou! ‘what!’
Excerpt 19
224 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1 A : amang! father! ‘Sir!’
2 B : aha i ninna hamu! what it says you! ‘what you say!’
Excerpt 20
1 A : tulang! mother’s mother! ‘Uncle!’
2 B : aha bere! what sister’s child! ‘what guy!’
Excerpt 21
1 A : tulang! mother’s brother! ‘uncle!’ 2 B : aha poang! what T! ‘What!’
Excerpt 22
1 A : pangan hamu ito!
225 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
eat you sister! ‘eat it miss!’
2 B : olo ito. yes sister ‘yes miss’
Excerpt 23
1 A : nyon baju di ho! this shirt for you! ‘take this shirt for you!’
2 B : mauliate nabboru. mauliate namboru thank you father’s sister ‘thank you, aunt’
Excerpt 24
1 A : na! burju-burju ho da! this! kind you okay? ‘here you are! be kind’
2 B : ah, dak pola nabboru. ah, dang pola namboru ah, no just father’s sister ‘ah, no thanks madam’ 3 A : na ma! dang boi songon i this T! not can like it ‘take it! you cannot refuse it. 226 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4 B : mauliate nabboru. mauliate namboru thank father’s sister ‘thank you madam .
Excerpt 25
1 A : jolo minum hamu! ahead drink you! ‘please have a drink first!
2 B : ah, dak pola. ah, dang pola ah, not just ‘no, thanks’
Excerpt 26
1 A : au ma majjakkit au ma manjangkit I T to climb ‘let me climb!
2. B : unang! no! ‘no!’
227 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 27
1 A : ate, nabboru! marnabboru ma au ate? ate, namboru! mar namboru ma au ate? yes, father’s sister PR father’s sister T I yes? ‘ ok aunt. I call you aunt?
2 B : e? I petaho e? it ok ‘e? that’s ok’
3 A : olo do nabboru dohot tu Siantar? olo do namboru dohot tu Siantar? want PR father’s sister come to Siantar? ‘ would you come along with us to Siantar?’
4 B : naddigan? nandigan? ‘when’
5 A : annon ‘afterwards’
6 B : aha i? what it? ‘what for?’
7 A : mardalani hita. to walk we ‘sightseeing’
8 B : aha, motor mu do i, nyon? what, car your T it, this?
228 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
‘ what, is this your car?’
9 A : olo. ‘yes’
10 B : alai ikkon sada bangku alai ingkon sada bangku but must one chair ‘but you should give me a seat
11 asa boi modom. that can sleep ‘ that I can sleep’
Excerpt 28
1 A : olo ho maddongani au mangan? olo ho mandongani au mangan? want you accompany I eat? ‘would you like to have lunch with me?’
2 B : naeng lao au. will go I ‘I have something to do’
3 A : satokkin do. satongkin do moment PR ‘just a moment’
229 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
4 B : ah, ho ma. ah, you PR ‘you yourself do it’
Excerpt 29
1 A : ro ho tu pesta nami da? come you to party our ok? ‘wouild you come to our party?’
2 B : pesta aha? party what? ‘what party’
3 A : muli itokku. muli ito hu married sister my ‘my sister is going to get married’
4 B : olo, ro pe au. . yes, come T I ‘I’ll come’
Excerpt 30
1 A : hoen namarmeami do ho. only to play T you. ‘you just keep playing’
230 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : ido, alai satokkin. ido, alai satongkin yes, but a moment ‘yes only a moment’
Excerpt 31
1 A : torus ho tarlabbat. torus ho tarlambat always you late ‘you are always late’
2 B : boa baeon, dao do jabukku. how to do, far T house my ‘what to do, my house is far away’
3 A : attong kos ma ho. antong kos ma ho so board T you ‘so you’d better stay in a dorm’
Excerpt 32
1 A : tabo do tempat muna on ate? good T place your this yes? ‘this is a good place, isn’t it?
2 B : ahama tabona. Songonomma.
231 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
aha ma tabo na songon on ma what T good T like this PR ‘I don’t think so. You can feel it’ 3 (3.0)
4 B : jadi siaddia do hutatta? jadi sian dia do hutan ta so from where T village our ‘where are you from’
5 A : hami, par Siattar do hami inang. hami, par Siantar do hami inang we poss Siantar T we molther ‘we are from Siantar, madam’
Exerpt 33
1 A : bagak-bagak anak ni biang mi bah! nice child T dog your PR ‘your puppies are nice!
2 B : alai dang olo mangan. but no want eat ‘but they don’t like to eat’
Excerpt 34
1 A : nga tammat anak mu ate? finish graduate child your yes? ‘your son has graduated, hasn’t he?
232 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
2 B : toe ma. ok T ‘yes’
Excerpt 35
1 A : tabo do ho, nga sohot sude gelleng mu. lucky T you, finish married all children your ‘you are lucky, all your sons have got married’
2 B : baem ma. make T ‘okay’
Excerpt 36
1 A : jago do ho ba, boi ho tu Amerika. great T you PR, can you to America ‘you are lucky, you could go to USA’
2 B : songon i ma. like it T ‘just so and so’
Excerpt 37
233 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
1 A : gabe sega sude dibaekko. gabe sega sude dibaen ho so broken all made you ‘you broke everything’
2 B : dak pola bohai. dang pola boha i not just matter it ‘it does not matter’
Excerpt 38
1 A : bohado, marsak au dang adong hepekku bah. boha do, marsak au dang adong hepeng hu bah how T, sorrow I not any money my PR ‘ I feel unhappy, I do not have any money’
3 B : hoen namarhaleti do attokko. hoen na marhalet i do antong ho only T to date PR T just you ‘ ‘you just keep dating’ Excerpt 39
1 A : dang adong sewa sa dari on bah. not any passanger one day this PR ‘there is no any passanger today’ 2 B : tu dia lao sude sewa i! to where go all passanger that! ‘ Where are all the passangers!
234 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
Excerpt 40
1 A : boa do bupati on, dalan pe holan na mar lubang- lubang. how T regent this, streets T only T Poss holes ‘what about the regent, the streets are full of holes’
2 B : so niboto bupation songoddia. so ni boto bupati on songon dia not I know regent this like what ‘I do not know why the hell did the regent make this damned streets!
Excerpt 41
8 A : adong do ion pesta ba , jonok do. 9 dang berengon muna? Ai nikku do. 10 B : daong, cerita aha majo hita oppung. 11 A : e ? 12 B : tuguan. Ha . . ha . . 13 A : tugu dia ? 14 C : molo lao au sogot.
8 B : nyan , ison ma oppung huddulah. 9 cerita cerita hita oppung. 10 A : tugu dia ma nuaeng, (1.3) ceritahonokku be nuaeng 11 B : Addo. 12 B : naeng mambege ido oppung baen naro .
235 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
13 C : [ Ai tugu nise doon tahe ? 14 A : e? 15 C : tugu nise do on tahe ? 16 A : tugu nami .
Excerpt 42 1 A : si Morjo mungkin do songon on. Imana 2 songon na lansing dope berengon. 3 B : [ Dakkuparrohahon hamu isi bah. 4 C : alai nga jarang attong au mulakkan? 5 B : ai kulia i dia ho? 6 C : di USU. Alai nga tammat au. 7 A : isan do ra si Morjo. 8 B : ima nahuddul dijoloi. 9 C : aido? E di san. Ai sakalashu 10 hian do attong on. 11 A : he…he… 12 : ai ise namakkatai i? 13 ( 9.9 ) 14 B : jadi taon dua ribu piga do ho? 15 C : dua ribu opat. 16 B : dua ribu opat, dangi? 17 C : e. 18 B : oh, alai tor tammat ate? = D3? 19 C : S1. di FISIP do au. 20 B : [ S1 aha ? 21 C : FISIP. 22 A : sian USU, dangi ? ( 3.0 ). 23 nga karejo ? 24 C : dang dope. baru tammat dope au.
25 na bulan lima dope tammat au. ( 8.5 ).
236 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
26 mancoba- coba aha. Karejo.
Excerpt 43 14 A : jadi dapot do ibana ? 15 B : ise ? 16 A : bayon. 17 B : ah, dangadong. Sisia do dibaen. 18 C : [ sisia do di au. 19 : (31.7) 20 A : dua puluh ribu be hita. (1.8) Dua puluh ribu be. 21 C : sian au ma sude. 22 A : jadi boha do . Toria ah, ah. (2.6). So hea tobbus. 23 B : Naga ! nga dia si nagai ? 24 C : e . Alusi 25 A : [ alusi Naga . Oi, alusi donganmi! 26 D : [ [ ison do au. 14 E : [ [ nyon si naga 15 B : ai nagodangan Sinaga ison. Nai etokko do horoha. 16 nai etokko holan parkantor bupati Sinaga? 17 A : a tahe ba!
Excerpt 44 11 A : marsiajar dope horoa na i motoran . 12 B : [ e? mahua ? 13 A : marsiajar. 14 B : ise ? 15 A : namabboan motoran. 16 B : oh. (7.9) sian on do halakon nakkinin. 17 A : e = 18 B : = na modom di jabu ni bapa.
237 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
19 C : ise sian on ? 20 B : e. kedakkon.
Excerpt 45
14 A : dison nuaeng , tommat ni halak tulang. 15 tulang si aha , tulang anak si Edison. 16 dakkana songon ahai dope. 17 B : tibbona = 18 A : = nga nason tibbona , nga ro suhatna 19 angka tommat doi nikku? lagi aha dope. 20 B : songino do daba . adong do las si laga-laga. 21 hurasa anggo sappulu kilo sakkabona 22 adong ma tommatna. 23 C : [naiabbirangida. 24 B : i. 25 A : oh nion hape aha ni Janji i 26 .B : i Janji i.
Excerpt 46 13 A : jai na mabbuat pensiun do (1.3) inang . 14 B : taida ma. 15 manang aha do dohonona , sohuboto. 16 A : i do ate . tabo do hamu ate? 17 (2.2) 18 B : di dia ma tabona. 19 A : tabo mada . nga matua, ro hepeng 20 C : tabo do 21 : immuma 22 A : ni markalung muse , bagak kalungnga. 23 B : a, obat doi . 238 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
24 A : ima attong. na adong do horoha 13 mangirim tu hamu ate. 14 B : aha ? 15 C : he he 16 A : obati 17 B : adong pahopukki 18 A : ima ate tabo nai nei 19 B : ai godang horuk-horukku 20 A : mar henpon 21 museni,horukkorung,ipahorukkorung henp. 22 B : ai marbuluk-buluk do. 23 A : anggo ho memang,(1.6) aha nama on, 24 B : [ nei lao mabbuat balu, 25 C [ngai sokkik sude 26 B : lao mabbuat baluang. 27 A : moderen nama on.
Excerpt 47 13 A : baru tu lurah ate . he..he.. 14 B : Gakin do pangidoanmu, adong mai.
15 (3.6) he. .he. . ate tappu ?
16 A : ao,aot do tabo ni parpunguani ate lae,ate,e ? 17 B : boa do roham? 18 C : ba dos rohatta. 19 B : e ? 20 C : ba dos rohatta , nikku . 21 (2.3) 22 B : ai katua dope ho hubege 23 C : e . 239 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
24 B : katua dope ninna.
Excerpt 48 1 A : on? 2 B : olo. 3 A : Lumban ngalas. 4 B : Lumban? 5 A : Lumban ngalas 6 B : Lumban ngalas ate, oh. 7 A : aha margam? 8 B : Pardede do au, na.. 9 C : namardalani do hami. 10 B : namardalani do hami. 11 C : mamerengmereng. 12 B : horas lae. 13 A : ba. 14 D : horas ma amang. 15 C : he.. he.. 16 A : ai borumuna do parumaien sada. Boru marpaung. 17 B : ido? ba. 18 A : rappak Pardede doi. 19 B : ido.Sonakmalela do hami attong. 20 C : [ ido. 21 B : jadi songon amang, marga aha amang? 22 A : Sijabat. 23 B : oh. Sijabat ate. 24 : (2.4) 25 A : kebetulan tahun walupulu ia aha nuaeng. 26 D : baru siaddia do amang? 27 B : sian Siantar do hami. 28 D : Sijabat do hami. 29 B : Sijabat do hamu? 30 C : he.. he.. boru Manurung. 240 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
31 E : Butarbutar. 32 D : bah. he.. he.. 33 C : [ sedang idia inna amang? 34 A : Sidamanik do nuaeng parumaeni. 35 E : [Pardede, Butarbutar.
Excerpt 49 8 A : sude ma annon baen annon = 9 B : = he ? 10 A : dohot nai hutai 11 B : ai godang tano ni jolma pangidoon. 12 hudokkon si Pospos dohonokku mangurusi soadong 13 A : [ e. 14 B : na olo mangalehon . Ba, jai aha bahenokku 8 gaji ni si Pospos . 9 C : dang adong. Excerpt 50
16 A : sian dia nakkiningani? 17 B : siani sian pollaki. 18 A : ise mabbuat? 19 B : bang Ben. 20 C : addigan ibuat ibanaon? 21 B : baru ibuat i. 22 C : tabo do on ate? 23 B : tabo do songonon . alai ummura 24 do on sian kates ahai, kates tentengi. 25 C : Tenteng ? 26 B : alai manis sian do on dibagas.
241 The Structure of the Toba Batak Conversations
27 C : kates tenteng boha do tahe? 28 A : [ Simera doi?, simera doi ? 29 C : kates tenteng. 30 B : [ si Kuning . Nakuning do hubereng.
242