Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 335 Download : 258

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research is aimed at finding types of interruption in turn taking irregularities at Speaking for Conversation Class and dominant type of interruption in turn taking irregularities at Speaking for Conversation Class. This research employed descriptive quantitative research. The subjects of this research were 2nd semester students of class A and C. The total subject was 80 students. This research used simple statistical (percentage) to analyze the data. The interruption in turn taking irregularities at Speaking for Conversation Class were classified using an instrument following Zimmerman & West theory and classified by Murata theory. The first finding showed seven types of interruption in turn taking irregularities at Speaking for Conversation Class, namely agreement, clarification, assistance, disagreement, floor taking, topic change, and tangelization. Meanwhile, the dominant type of interruption in turn taking irregularities was clarification types. These, the students didn’t like being interrupted in Speaking for Conversation Class either positive interruptions or negative interruptions. In conclusion, there were two types of interruption namely, cooperative and intrusive interruption. The cooperative interruption consists of agreement, clarification, and assistance. Then, the intrusive interruption consists of disagreement, floor taking, topic change, and tangelization. Than the dominant type of interruption was clarification types. It was suggested furthere researchers to used observation or recording instrument. More importantly, for furthere researchers also pay attention to the context and conditions of students.

Keywords

intteruption turn taking irregularities speaking for conversation class.

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of English Education and Teaching

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
How to Cite
Ani, I. L., Damayanti, I., & Sabarudin, S. (2024). Interruption in Turn Taking Irregularities at Speaking for Conversation Class. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(2), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.8.2.400-413
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ayuningrum, A., Pulungan, R., & Syafrizal, S. (2018). An Analysis of politeness Strategies applied by The Members of UKM Debat, The University of Bengkulu. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 2(4), 1-8.
  2. Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Routledge.
  3. Conklin, .G. (2009).Conversational: What to say and How to Say it.Massachhusetts the Floating Press.
  4. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis.
  5. Dewi, R. F., Suharsono, S., & Munir, A. (2018). Turn Taking Strategies and Its Relations to Efl Learners’personality and Power in The Interaction of English Conversation Class. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 4(2), 288-305.
  6. Hartono, J., & Gunawan, S. (2013). Interruptions And Overlaps Occuring In An Indonesian Television Talk Show Indonesia Lawyers Club–Tv One. Kata Kita, 1(1), 223-229.
  7. Hidayati, K. (2014). A Pragmatic Analysis of Turn-Taking IrregularitiesReflected in The Last Song Movie. Undergraduate Thesis, Yogyakarta University.
  8. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.
  9. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices andApplications. Oxford: Polity Press
  10. Jakob, J. C., & Pertiwi, S. A. (2019). An analysis of interruption in seminar setting. Research and Innovation in Language Learning, 2(1), 1-14.
  11. Larasati, C. K. (2014). A Conversation Analysis of Interruptions in Modern Family Season 1 Series. Undergraduate Thesis, Yogyakarta University. PDF File.
  12. Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation analysis. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 3, 153-162.
  13. Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 385-400.
  14. Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, London. Continuum.
  15. Sambas, R. A. (2017). Interruption in The Ellen Show (Doctoral dissertation).
  16. Sapabsri, O., Dhanesschaiyakupta, U., & Thep-Ackrapong, T. (2018). An analysis of gender and status affecting conversational interruptions. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 257-271
  17. Tiono, N. I., & Ansori, J. (2005). Turn-Taking Irregularities by African American Characters in the Movie" Why Do Fools Fall in Love". k@ ta lama, 7(2), 104-115.
  18. Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How conversation works. B. Blackwell.
  19. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York.
  20. Zimmerman, D. H., & West. C. 1975. “Sex roles, interruption, and silence inconversations.” In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and Sex:Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.