A study on adjacency pairs in political interviews with the u s president joe biden

Trang 5 ABSTRACT This is a study of adjacency pairs in conversations extracted from political interviews between international journalists and the U.S President Joe Biden during the peri

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

THAI THI NGUYEN TRANG

A STUDY ON ADJACENCY PAIRS IN POLITICAL INTERVIEWS WITH THE U.S PRESIDENT

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN

THÁI THỊ NGUYÊN TRANG

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CẶP KẾ CẬN TRONG CÁC CUỘC PHỎNG VẤN CHÍNH TRỊ VỚI TỔNG THỐNG HOA KỲ

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I totally assure that thesis ―A Study on Adjacency Pairs in Political Interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden‖ is my own work for the purpose

of graduating the MA course of English Linguistics

The content of this thesis has not been published or written by any other authors except for some references which are used in this thesis

Thesis has not been submitted for any degree or diploma in any university

Binh Dinh, November, 2023

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The total completion of this scientific research project is the result of not only my efforts but also the precious assistance of those to whom I would like

to express my sincere gratitude

First of all, I would like to express the most special appreciation and the deepest thanks to my supervisor, Dr Bui Thi Dao, for her useful advice, aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticisms, and especially for her endless patience and warm encouragement during my whole study

Secondly, my deep indebtedness comes to Quy Nhon University, the Department of Foreign Languages and the Post-Graduate Training Office for permitting me to conduct this research

Thirdly, I am extremely thankful to all lecturers of the Master Course of English Linguistics K24B who were dedicated to teaching me useful knowledge about linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, etc as well as instructing me on how to write well a scientific research or an academic writing in order that I can have a source of inspiration to proudly complete my research project

Last but not least, I owe an unpaid debt to all the generous support, love, and care from my beloved families and friends, which has given me more strength, belief, and motivation to overcome all troubles in the whole process

of this research

ABSTRACT

This is a study of adjacency pairs in conversations extracted from political interviews between international journalists and the U.S President Joe Biden during the period of 2020-2023 The study aims to examine the types and frequencies of adjacency pairs and to explore preferred and dispreferred responses in the second pair parts of adjacency pairs, sequence types and verbal strategies for doing dispreferred responses in the investigated data Descriptive method is conducted as the main method in the combination

of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in this study

Based on the analysis of the data, the results of the research show types

of adjacency pairs in which the highest type is Question – Answer, while the lowest occurrence belongs to Threat – Counter Threat type The research further indicates preferred responses and dispreferred responses in the second parts of adjacency pairs Moreover, sequences types including insertion sequences and post-sequences are also found to be embedded in the second part of adjacency pairs Lastly, all verbal strategies for doing dispreferred second parts are found in the examined data of dispreferred adjacency pairs Those are delaying, using preface, expressing doubt, using token Yes, apologizing, mentioning obligation, appealing for understanding, making it non-personal, giving an account, using mitigators and hedging the negative The study results are also expected to help English language learners and other scholarship researchers understand clearly about adjacency pairs to communicate and interact speaking effectively

Keywords: adjacency pairs, preferred responses, dispreferred responses, sequence types, verbal strategies.

TABLE OF CONTENT

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENT vi

ABBREVIATIONS viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aim and objectives 4

1.2.1 Aim 4

1.2.2 Objectives 4

1.3 Research questions 5

1.4 Scope of the study 5

1.5 Significance of the study 6

1.6 Organization of the study 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Conversation 8

2.2 Conversation Analysis 9

2.3 Political Interview 10

2.4 Adjacency Pairs 11

2.4.1 Definitions of Adjacency Pairs 11

2.4.2 Types of Adjacency Pairs 13

2.4.3 Ways of recognizing Adjacency Pairs through responses in the second pair parts 17

2.5 Previous Related Studies 27

2.6 Biography of the U.S President Joe Biden and political interviews with him 31

2.7 Summary 32

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 34

3.1 Research design 34

3.2 Research methods 34

3.3 Data Collection 36

3.4 Research Procedures 36

3.5 Validity and Reliability 37

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 39

4.1 Types and frequencies of adjacency pairs in the investigated data 39

4.2 Characteristics of recognizing adjacency pairs in the investigated data57 4.3 Discussions 70

4.4 Summary 72

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 75

5.1 Conclusions of the study 75

5.2 Implications of the study 77

5.3 Limitations of the study 77

5.4 Suggestions for future studies 78

REFERENCE 79 APPENDICES

ABBREVIATIONS

The A.P The Associated Press of America

[L-L] Leave taking – Leave taking response

[T-Ct] Threat – Counter Threat

conversations 63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Preference organization in adjacency pairs by Yule (1997) 18 Figure 4.1 The dominant types of Adjacency Pairs 41 Figure 4.2 The rate of preferred and dispreferred responses in the second

parts of adjacency pairs 59

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to set the context for this study The chapter is organized into six sections It begins with presenting the reason for conducting a study on adjacency pairs in political interviews with the President U.S Joe Biden The research aim, objectives and the research questions are followed Finally, it outlines the structure of this thesis

1.1 Rationale

Language has been considered a medium to communicate with each other in social life and the most important means of communication in social interaction Related to that, language has the most important role in all aspects

of life People use language to communicate with each other through meanings produced by both speakers in conversations (Tarigan, 2016) It can

be said that communication activities might involve good coordination between speakers and listeners in order for the conversation to go well It means that the speaker should convey the message clearly so that the listener can understand what the speaker means, and then when the message has been transferred and can be understood by the two speakers, For this reason, there

is a correlation in the conversation (Sacks and Schegloff, 2000)

In a discussion, the speaker's and the hearer's tasks are both obviously autonomous, meaning that each of them is aware of what to say and how to react depending on the previous utterance of the speaker The practice of allowing each speaker and listener to speak and listen in turn during a conversation is known as turn-taking (Garcia, 1991) However, both the speakers and the listeners find dialogue challenging The reason for this is that communication is a challenging process in which the speakers and the hearers share roles As both the speaker and the hearer suggest comparable or

dissimilar speech acts during conversation, each role might be mutually opposed For instance, if a speaker asks a question, the hearer should then respond However, if the hearer asks the speaker a different question, the expected response may be different As a result, it has become common knowledge that each speaker has a response in mind that the first speaker either expects or does not expect (Coates, 2004; Orestrom, 1983)

According to Sacks and Schegloff (2000), the fundamental structural factor in conversation analysis is called the adjacency pair Adjacency pair has been considered one of the most important studies in language communication because it is a basic way to organize conversations As Partridge (2006:107) described, ―conversation is the main way in which people come together, exchange information, negotiate, and maintain social relations.‖ According to Partridge, conversational interaction is an activity of people‘s senses where two or more people talk to transfer an idea or information from a speaker to a listener to build social interaction

Adjacency Pairs are also defined by Coulthard (1985:70) as constructive exchanges in a conversation that aid in identifying the first speaker, whose responsibility it is to initiate a discussion, and the second speaker, who acts as the hearer and responds to the first speaker's initiated act Adjacency Pairs also assist in maintaining the speakers‘ and learners‘ roles and prevent them from abusing their turn as the discourse progresses Adjacency Pairs are systematically formed in two utterances by the speakers and the hearers, according to Yule (1996:77), who supports this

Thus, this research has been done in order to find out more information about conversation analysis through adjacency pairs, in which an utterance made by one speaker is responded to by another utterance from another speaker As Sacks and Schegloff (2000) stated, an adjacency pair, which is the most important part of conversational structure, is composed of two

utterances by two speakers, one after the other (as cited in Coulthard, 1985) The speaking of the first utterance (the first pair part) conveys a responding utterance (the second pair part) Adjacency pairs exist in every language and vary in context and content based on the cultural values held by speakers Sacks and Schegloff (2000) further explain that in conversational communication, adjacency pairs also explore the politeness and willingness of one speaker to deal with the feelings of the second speaker, as exhibited in conventional greetings, invitations, and requests

Jack and Schmidt (1983) also note that since the goal of language teaching is to enable learners to use language in ways that are communicatively effective and appropriate; the research of communicative language has taken on an increasingly important role in recent years However, a common interest emerges in how language reflects the utterance it performs, as well as the processes involved in using adjacency pairs for communication The adjacency pair is considered one of the most effective forms of communication and plays a key role in social interaction Sacks and Schegloff (2000)

Vietnamese linguists identify adjacency pairs as ―cặp kế cận‖ (Diệp Quang Ban, Đỗ Hữu Châu) or ―cặp thoại‖ (Nguyễn Đức Dân, Nguyễn Thiện Giáp) based on different points of understanding to create the diversity in theoretical scope of conversational analysis research

Đỗ Hữu Châu (2001) clarifies that discourse is the result of speech acts

in which all speech acts need a response compatible with an introduction act, forming pairs such as asking/answering, greeting/greeting, thanking/responding, or requesting/replying to be called adjacency pairs Similarly, Diệp Quang Ban (2009) defines an adjacency pair as a sequence of utterances made by different speakers It is considered one of the central concepts of conversational analysis research, which shows the integration of

the mechanism of turn-taking and the choice of the next person creating the next turn in a sequence of actions

In his different theoretical approach, Nguyễn Đức Dân (1998) states that the two turns of a speech are intimately connected and stand next to each other to create an adjacency pair Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000) also agrees that adjacency pairs are two utterances that are directly related to each other

Despite certain variations, an adjacency pair is a key unit of the discourse structure It is the smallest unit that reflects the speaker's and listener's interactions

For all the above reasons, this study is thus focused on adjacency pairs in political interviews, in order not only to help English learners improve their English communication skills but also to help other people who are interested

in the political aspects understand the meanings of the political dialogues or strategies of national leaders These interviews are so new that there has been

no study on adjacency pairs regarding ―political interviews with President Joe

Biden." That‘s the reason why the research title “A study on adjacency pairs

in political interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden” has been chosen

first to help learners achieve their communicative goals and avoid misunderstanding, and then, to some extent, to give some practical values in language teaching

1.2 Aim and objectives

 To examine the types and frequencies of adjacency pairs in political interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden

 To recognize adjacency pairs through responses of the second pair parts, i.e., preferred and dispreferred, and verbal strategies in conversations of political interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden

1.4 Scope of the study

This study is focused on a descriptive account of the types and frequencies of adjacency pairs used in the conversations of ―the political interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden‖ based on the classification of theories given by Paltridge (2000), including 11 typical patterns of adjacency pairs, i.e., Greeting – Greeting, Request – Agreement, Assessment – Agreement, Question – Answer, Compliment – Acceptance, Leave taking – Leave taking response, Complaint – Response, Warning – Acknowledgement, Blame – Denial, Threat – Counter Threat, and Offer – Acceptance

In this study, how adjacency pairs can be recognized from conversations through the illocutionary forces of linguistic means has not been explored due

to the limitations of an M.A thesis Thus, the researcher only describes the ways of recognizing adjacency pairs through the responses of second-pair parts, i.e., preferred and dispreferred, sequences and verbal strategies based

on theories of Schegloff (2007) and Yule (1996) There are 6 rules for

preference organization in conversational analysis, including 2 rules for preferred responses as simple and without delay and 4 rules for dispreferred responses such as mitigation, elaboration, default, and positioning in producing second pair parts; 2 types of sequence systems in answers, including insertion sequence and post-sequence; as well as 11 verbal strategies for doing dispreferred responses, i.e., delaying or hesitating; using a preface; expressing doubt; using a token yes; apologizing; mentioning obligation; appealing for understanding; making it non-personal; giving an account; using mitigators; and hedging the negative

The data have been explored from 162 conversations from 5 political interviews conducted by reporters with the U.S President Joe Biden during the time of his government from 2020 to 2023

1.5 Significance of the study

This study intends to have both theoretical and practical significance In theory, this study can be used to get information and improve knowledge related to types of adjacency pairs, especially in the field of political interviews, to further understand conversational analysis The researcher can contribute to and deepen this research for readers and future scholars through this research Furthermore, this data could be used to conduct additional research on verbal strategies for doing the dispreferred second part of adjacency pairs, which is commonly done unintentionally in discussion or conversation

This study will also intend to provide readers with a practical understanding of how to organize conversational experiences in real life related to all social, economic, and political issues It can be further expected

to give practical examples that readers can utilize to make daily conversation more communicative and effective

1.6 Organization of the study

The study consists of five chapters

Chapter 1, “Introduction”, presents the rationale, aims and objectives,

research questions, the scope of the study, the significance of the study and the organization of the study

Chapter 2, “Literature Review”, briefly reviews the literature of

previous studies related to this study This chapter also provides theoretical background of adjacency pairs

Chapter 3, “Research Methodology”, deals with the research design,

research methods, the description of the data, data analysis and research procedures This chapter also presents the reliability and validity of the data

Chapter 4, “Findings and Discussions”, focuses on describing,

analyzing and discussing the data to answer two research questions with the charts and figures clearly shown

Chapter 5, “Conclusion and Implications”, reveals a summary of the

results of the study It also offers implications for adjacency pairs and preferred and dispreferred pair parts withdrawn from political interviews with U.S President Joe Biden and mentions the limitations of the study and the suggestions for further research

To sum up, this chapter has described the reason for the researcher to conduct the present study It has also described the research aims and objectives, the research questions, and the structure of this thesis The next chapter, Chapter 2, will present theoretical framework that this study is based

on

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The chapter includes seven sections The study lists theoretical frameworks of conversation, conversational analysis, political interviews, and adjacency pairs Then, it gives discussions on some relevant studies related to adjacency pairs carried out in many fields Lastly, it mentions the biography

of Joe Biden, who is the research object of the study, and summarizes the content of the chapter

at least two turns; or, in other words, conversation is a sequence of utterances between two interlocutors Conversation is a source of much of our sense of social order; for example, it generates various typifications that underlie our concepts of social role, according to Ciccourel, as stated in Sciffrin (1994)

"Conversation is systematically structured," according to Fairclough (2001), and "participants' orientation to these structures is evidenced by the way they design their own conversational turns and respond to those of others." Two or more people engage in conversation by switching off, and only one person can speak at a time In most talks, answers are a spontaneous reaction to what has already been said Themes of conversation in political interviews, on the other hand, are frequently pre-scripted In the meantime,

"interacting with other people is not just a mechanical process of taking turns producing sounds and words but is rather a semantic activity or a process of

making meanings." Eggin and Slade (1997)

According to Eggins and Slade (1997), there are two types of conversation: formal and informal, as follows:

(i) The presence or absence of a conversation's obvious pragmatic goal (ii) The number of participants, whether multilogue or dialogue

(iii) Formality of a conversation: whether it uses colloquial language expressiveness and humor or serious tone-based work involving diverse an act

of courtesy The methodology for spoken language analysis was analyzed with conversation analysis (CA)

Based on all the concepts discussed above, it can be seen that conversation is one of the most important things in people‘s lives Therefore, the investigation agrees that there must be a certain organization or structure that frames a conversation As a result, the purpose of doing this research is to find out more information about conversation analysis

2.2 Conversation Analysis

The primary purpose of conversation is to talk Conversation analysis is

a branch of linguistics that focuses on coherence and sequential order in conversation, such as opening and closing sequences (Levinson, 1983) Its studies evaluated the beginnings and endings of discussions Empirical research has revealed how they are formed and comprehended The discovery

of recurring patterns led to the development of theory According to Levinson (1983), there are specific systems that guide our conversations

The term "Conversation Analysis" refers to any study of people conversing with one another, sometimes known as "oral communication" or

"language use." According to Paltridge (2000), ordinary conversation is the most basic type of discussion and the primary mechanism for individuals to get together, share information, and sustain social relationships Conversation

analysis is a method for learning how people do social actions through talk

By evaluating real-life interactions, conversation analysis investigates the rules and practice of talking The conversation analysis in this study focuses

on the adjacency pairs and linguistic features of the second part supplied by the speakers in the political interviews with THE U.S President Joe Biden

2.3 Political Interview

The political interview is a relatively new genre; nonetheless, it has spread and been enforced to the point that it now "competes in importance with parliamentary debate" (Chilton, 2004) It is a sort of instructive speech and a genre of political discourse (Chilton, 2004), since it is an important vehicle for the propagation of political messages

Furkó and Abuczki (2014) defined mediated political interviews as dyadic encounters between an interviewer and an interviewee directed at a public audience Political interviews share the characteristics of institutional talk, and the institutional settings determine the participants' roles and their motivations Political interviews follow a specific mechanism where an asymmetrical relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee is adhered to The role of the interviewer is to produce the first-pair part of adjacency pairs; these pairs are usually a question followed by a comment, while the interviewee produces the second-pair part, which usually includes responses and reactions to the interviewer's questions or comments, and not vice versa Hence, political interviews usually follow the Question – Answer (Q-A) pairs Typically, the content of the interviewee's second-pair part is relevant to the interviewer's first-pair part If the second pair part of the

interviewer is irrelevant or disprefered (e.g., showing disagreement), it will be

duly noted by the interviewer Further, avoiding direct answers and using discourse markers are typical features in political interviews

Therefore, political interviews are a dynamic and contentious theatrical

aspect, particularly in broadcast journalism, and are designed to elicit a suitable response from the interviewee who has accepted to be exposed to a media discussion for that purpose However, it is frequently noted in political interviews that politicians evade, lie, and complicate

2.4 Adjacency Pairs

2.4.1 Definitions of Adjacency Pairs

The basic structural unit in conversation analysis is called adjacency pairs Adjacency pairs are pairs of utterances produced by different speakers

To compose an adjacency pair, there must be at least two speakers There are several ways to pick the next speaker by signaling or addressing the appropriate individual The system of adjacency pairs is a particularly good representation of this method (Gebhardt, 2004) Tsui (1994) defines adjacency pairs as a class of sequences of turns in which an utterance made by one speaker is responded to by another utterance from another speaker According to Sacks and Schegloff (2000), adjacency pairs, which are the most important part of conversational structure, consist of two main features: first pair parts (FPP) and second pair parts (SPP), as also cited in Coulthard (1985) Furthermore, Paltridge (2006) mentions that ―adjacency pairs are utterances produced by two successive speakers in the way that the second utterance is identified as related to the first one as an expected follow-up to that utterance." It is one of the primary smallest units of turn-taking, where the second part‘s utterance by the second speaker is related to and expected

by the prior speaker Yule (1997) affirmed that an adjacency pair includes a first part and a second part (by different speakers), with the second being a response to the first

A: How are you?

(ii) Produced by different speakers

(iii) Ordered as first part and second part

(iv) Typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second part (v) The rule governing the use of adjacency pairs, namely: having produced a first part of some pair, current speaker must stop speaking, and next speaker must produce at that point a second part to the same pair

Furthermore, according to Liddicoat (2007), adjacency pairs are made

up of sequences that exhibit the following characteristics:

(i) Comprises two turns,

(ii) Uses a different speaker,

(iii) Which, in their most basic form, are put next to each other

(iv) Which are sorted, and

(v) Which are classified as pair types

In conjunction with this, Richards et al (1992, p 12) describe adjacency pairs as "a sequence of two related utterances by two different speakers." The second is usually an answer to the first

This is demonstrated by:

E.g: (1) A: Could you assist me with this?

B: Sure

(2) A: Can you tell me what time it is?

B: Around 8:00 p.m

In the preceding cases, a request is likely to be replied by an acceptance (1), and a question is likely to be addressed by an answer (2)

2.4.2 Types of Adjacency Pairs

There have many types of adjacency pairs (about 13-16 types) found in many sources of books written by Levinson (1983), Coulthard (1985) and Yule (1996) Some types of adjacency pairs proposed by those authors are: (i) Greeting – Greeting, (ii) Question – Answer, (iii) Summons – Acknowledgement, (iv) Assessment – Agreement, (v) Assessment – Disagreement, (vi) Invitation – Acceptance, (vii) Invitation – Refusal, (viii) Offer – Acceptance, (ix) Offer – Decline, (x) Proposal – Agreement, (xi) Proposal – Disagreement, (xii) Request – Acceptance, (xiii) Request – Refusal, (xiv) Announcement – Acknowledgment, (xv) Thanking – Response and (xvi) Apology – Acceptance

It's probable that there are still additional sorts of adjacency pairs, despite the fact that Levinson, Coulthard, and Schegloff collated these types from a variety of sources and included them in their books The answer might consist of conventionally preferred and dispreferred second parts as well as preferred common adjacency pairs

For this research, the writer has taken theory of Paltridge (2000, 99), there are 11 kinds of Adjacency pairs, as detailed as follows:

p.91-1 Greeting – Greeting [G-G]

According to Paltridge (2000), greeting is a way of saying hello and salutation It may be stated that the greeting in this scenario tends to start a conversation that is initiated by both the first and second pair portions

Mercutio: Good afternoon, fair lady (Fauzia, 2015, p 49)

2 Request – Acceptance [R-A]

According to Levinson (1983), a request means the first pair part wants

to request something from the second pair part, or vice versa It is fairly typical for speakers to make requests of other speakers in order to obtain something The recommended reaction in these adjacency pairs is acceptance, while the dispreferred response is refusal

A request is asking someone to do something, which can be responded to with acceptance or refusal

B: Sure (Yule, 1996, p 77)

3 Assessment – Agreement [A-A]

According to Paltridge (2000), assessment can be formed into an opinion seek or comment, which is asking for another‘s opinion or agreement It is responded to with agreement Assessment is a type of evaluative behavior The first pair component can be taken as a query, while the second pair component will offer an opinion The desired answer of assessment is therefore called agreement, while disagreement is referred to as a dispreferred response

amazing

Elsa: Thank you, I never knew what I was capable of

(Hamidah, 2016, p 40)

4 Question – Answer [Q-An]

Theory proposed by Tylor and Tylor (1990) stated that a question is an essential thing that must be uttered by the speakers because this part is the foundation of adjacency pairs in communication Because this section provides the basis for adjacency pairs in communication, the speakers must ask a crucial inquiry A question can be formed into information seeking, clarification seeking, etc It is about asking something of someone It is responded to by providing information, clarification, etc The preferred

response of a question is called the expected answer, and the dispreferred response of this pair is called the unexpected response

Tom: No, I don‘t like it very much (Inthavong, 2018, p 31)

5 Compliment – Acceptance [C-A]

According to Herbert (1986), compliments are indications of appreciation and good relations with others Herbert (1986) also defines a compliment response as the appreciation of another's endeavors to praise one‘s action or behavior It means a compliment is the way of praising another about something he or she has It is responded to with acceptance

amazing

Elsa: Thanks, I never knew what I was capable of

(Hamidah, 2016, p 40)

6 Leave taking adjacency pair [L-L]

According to Paltridge (2000), leave taking is an utterance with the purpose of ending the conversation This type of adjacency pair describes how the first pair part ends a conversation

B: ―See you!‖ (Nurhayati, 2020, p.85)

7 Complaint – Response [C-R]

According to Widyanti (2017), a complaint is an utterance response, which indicates feeling unsatisfied about something The way to respond to the complaint is with an apology, which expresses regret, or rejection, which expresses disagreeing

Waitress: ―I‘m sorry, sir I‘ll give you another one.‖

(Widyanti, 2017, p.13)

8 Warning – Acknowledgement [W-Ac]

Paltridge (2000) defines a warning as an utterance to warn someone about something While acknowledgement is a statement that shows that the warning is already acceptable

B: ―Okay Thank you!‖ (Nurhayati, 2020, p.85)

B: ―No, I don‘t.‖ (Widyanti, 2017, p.13)

B: ―No, I won‘t.‖ (Nurhayati, 2020, p.85)

11 Offer – Acceptance [O-A]

According to Paltridge (2000), an offer in conversation is an utterance that gives something to someone; it may be in the form of goods or services Based on the explanation above, offer here is a kind of first-pair part that tends to offer something or give something to another speaker Acceptance is

a response indicating that the offer is accepted

Hans: I love crazy (Hamidah, 2016, p.37)

Types of adjacency pairs based on Paltridge‘s theory are summarized in

the table below

Table 2.1 Types of Adjacency pairs proposed by Paltridge (2000: 91-99)

2.4.3 Ways of recognizing Adjacency Pairs through responses in the second pair parts

There are many ways of recognizing adjacency pairs In this thesis, the researcher mainly realizes the adjacency pairs through responses in the second pair parts, including preference organization, sequences, and verbal strategies

in conversations

1) Preference Organization

The adjacency pairs are formed basically when a speaker starts a first pair part, then he or she should stop talking and allow a second pair part produced by the next speaker Preference indicates a social determination by structural pattern, as stated by Yule (1996:79), while Levinson (1983:333) mentioned that preference does not tend to be a psychological claim about the

desires of the speaker or hearer Preference here refers to the responses produced by speakers as the result of turn-taking in the second pair part

The below figure shows the preference responses in adjacency pairs as proposed by Yule (1996:79)

Figure 2.1 Preference organization in adjacency pairs by Yule (1996)

Naturally, a discussion created by two or more individuals is connected

to one another, such as a question followed by a response, and the reaction (answer) of the second part may be expected (preferred) or unexpected (dispreferred) Preference is divided into two responses to the first pair part, called the preferred response and the dispreferred one (Paltridge, 2000) Furthermore, Schegloff (2007: 61) says that it is not the matter of "motives, desires, or likings of the participants, whether speaker or recipient." The preferred response is a kind of positive utterance, which means that both the speaker and the hearer are dealing with each other Whereas the dispreferred response is a kind of rejection or disagreement, it can be a negative utterance that indicates both the speaker and hearer are not dealing with each other There is a certain amount of freedom in responding to some first-person parts

B: ―Oh, thanks.‖ (Acceptance)

Preference Structure

Preferred Response Dispreferred Response

Structurally expected next act Structurally unexpected next act

The second pair of adjacency pairs, which are divided into preferred and dispreferred organizations, can be summarized in the table below

Table 2.2 Common Adjacency Pairs and typical preferred and dispreferred

second pair parts (Levinson, 1983)

No First Pair Parts Second Pair Parts

Preferred responses Dispreferred responses

or Non-Answer

In addition, to easily categorize preferred and dispreferred responses, the features have been shown below

A Characteristics of Preferred Response

Simple and no delay are two main features that are used to recognize preferred responses (Schegloff, 2007) The preferred responses are likely to

be clear, short answers, and they come right away after the first pair part

While Riswan (2008: 29–30) states that the characteristics of preferred responses are:

(i) Delivered promptly

(ii) Brief and to the point

E.g: Child: Could you hh could you put on the light for my hh room?

Father: Yep (Levinson, 1983, p.307)

 FPP: Request – SPP: Acceptance (preferred, no delay)

Additionally, Schegloff (2007:66) mentions that ―preferred responses are likely to be short and to the point, and are not ordinarily treated as

"accountable."

B Characteristics of Dispreferred Response

Dispreferred responses have more complicated qualities than preferred responses Schegloff (2007) categorizes some features, such as mitigation, elaboration, default, and positioning, to recognize a dispreferred response Similar features are also presented by Levinson (1983), which are delays, prefaces, accounts, and the declination component as a sign of a dispreferred response

i) Mitigation

To minimize overt disalignment, dispreferred responses are usually mitigated or attenuated Furthermore, dispreferred answers are never expressed because they are attenuated to the vanishing point

E.g: T: Is this near Batu?

F: It‘s not too far (Hafidzoh, 2016, p.20)

FPP asks whether she is near Batu or not, SPP replies using ―not too far‖

to mitigate the distance  dispreferred response smoothly

ii) Elaboration

Dispreferred responses are commonly accompanied by, among other

things, hedges, apologies, and appreciations

There are two techniques to mitigate and elaborate on the dispreferred responses

a Accounts: formulated explanations for why the (dispreferred) act is being done (Levinson, 1983)

b Prefaces: - The use of markers or announcers like Uh or Well

- Appreciation (it is very sweet of you)

- Apologies (I‘m sorry)

- Disclaimer (I don‘t know), etc

(Levinson, 1983, p.334-336, Schegloff 2007, p.73-78)

E.g: H: Not bad for a test drive

Keep the suit! I‘ll be in touch!

Sc: (scared face) No! No! No! Thank you! (Hafidzoh, 2016, p.20)

FPP: H requests Sc to keep the suit that he‘s wearing

SPP: Sc answers ―No‖ but elaborates an appreciation ―Thank you‖ 

dispreferred response, a refusal to a request

iii) Default

Default is the way of responding by using reference or repair According

to Schegloff (2007), what amounts to dispreferred responses may be molded

in their development as preferred responses

E.g: Ct: Tell me that isn‘t what I think it is (taking formula)

H (serious and emotional face): That depends if you think it‘s a poor attempt to replicate my work even for this group that takes nerve

FPP: Ct wants to know the fact that the formula is not an imitation

SPP: H uses the words ―That‖, ―It‘s‖ to refer the formula The reference

here is to tell the truth that formula is an itimation  dispreferred response

shaped in a preferred response

FPP: A requests B to forgive him

SPP: B rejects to forgive by asking A to be away from B Also, there is a gap of 3 seconds before the SPP  dispreferred response, called as inter-turn gap

b Turn-Initial delay: delays in the initial position of the second turn

which can be pauses, discourse markers (e.g Uh, Well) or hedges (e.g I dunno) They delay the second pair part within the turn (Putri, 2014)

A: What are you doing this Friday?

B: Hmm Nothing so far (Yule, 1996, p.68)

FPP: A asks B what his intension

SPP: B answer ―nothing so far‖ to reply, and a discourse marker ―Hmm‖

is used to show a delay using before answer  dispreferred response, initial delay

turn-c Anticipatory accounts: dispreferred responses are not gone with hedges but also by accounts, excuses, appreciations, and so on

E.g: F: Bill, will you go to the library early tomorrow?

E: Well, I actually have a lot of dirty clothes that I have to wash tomorrow I don‘t know Maybe not too early (Hafidzoh, 2016, p.24)

FPP: F asks whether E will go to the library early

SPP: E answers F with using an account ―I actually have a lot of dirty clothes‖, hedge ―I don‘t know‖ and a turn-initial marker ―well‖ 

dispreferred response, anticipatory accounts

d Pro-forma agreements: occurs when agreement and disagreement are combined so agreement response can serve to delay dispreferred response

E.g: A: They haven‘t heard a word huh?

B: Not a word Uh-huh Not-not a word Not at all

Except – Neville‘s mother got a call (Sacks, 1987,p.63)

FPP: A asks B to seek the same assessment on somebody

SPP: B seems to agree with A, but with except which actually shows disagreement  dispreferred response, pro-forma agreements

e Preemptive reformulation with preference reversa: Before the dispreferred response comes, the speaker reformulates the turn so the SPP of the dispreferred response can be said in a preferred way

E.g: E: It is cute

(0.8)

E: Nothing uniqueness

N: No, depends on you yourself (Hafidzoh, 2016, p.26)

FPP: E asks N‘s opinion about the bag to buy Before N answers, E revises her assessment into negative after a gap of 8 seconds

SPP: N answers using No, but it‘s not the answer for the sentence ―It‘s cute‖, N answer for ―nothing uniqueness‖ to mean a dispreferred response

with preference reversa

C Non-vocal activities of preferred and dispreferred responses

According to Schegloff (2007), people respond to others' speech through body language or non-verbal activity Furthermore, non-verbal activities cannot be separated from preferred and dispreferred responses because non-

verbal activities are commonly used to show expressions and emphasize responses (nod the head for preferred responses and shake the head for dispreferred responses)

2) Sequences in answer of adjacency pairs

There are many sequences that involve the expansion of adjacency pairs They are pre-sequence (before the first pair part), insertion sequence (between the first and the projected second pair part), and post-sequence (after the second pair part) In the scope of research, the author analyzes the second part

to realize the adjacency pairs; thus, insertion sequence and post-sequence are

There is an insertion sequence with the middle pair (Q2-A2) inside Q2-A2-A1 The goal of using an insertion sequence is to convey a specific purpose, such as hiding something or information that others do not want to know, expressing or affirming an emotion when questioned by another speaker, or recognizing something distinctive

Q1-E.g: A: I wanted to order some more paint (Request)

B: Yes, how many tubes would you like, sir? (Question 1)

A: Um, what's the price with tax? (Question 2) Insertion

B: Three nineteen a tube, sir (Answer 2) sequence

A: I'll have five, then (Answer 1)

B: Here you go (Acceptance) (Levinson, 1983, p.304-305)

In the above adjacency pair (Request-Acceptance), there are 2 pairs of

question-answer embedded inside, called the Insertion Sequence

B Post-sequence

According to Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974), the prior speaker is more likely to be picked as the next speaker; therefore, if A speaks first, followed by B, A is the more likely next speaker This bias may be noticed in post-expansions, when the speaker of a first turn (the first pair part) takes an additional turn relevant to the sequence after the second turn (the second pair part) According to Schegloff (2007), expansion is conceivable after all adjacency pairs, although sequences involving preference structure are more likely to happen post-expansion

2 B: 6 o‘clock

3  A: Oh (Jacknick, 2011, p.40)

E.g: 1 A: How was the game?

2 B: It was fun

3 C: It‘s nice you all had a good time (Schegloff, 2007, p.143)

The above examples show two cases of post-sequence The first example shows a post-sequence given by A: "Oh,‖ suggesting that A did not previously know the time, whereas the second one also presents a post-

sequence given by C: ―It‘s nice you all had a good time,‖ to sympathize with

the previous pair They can also be called sequence-closing thirds or sequences

post-3) Verbal strategies and examples in dispreferred responses

In an adjacency pair, the hearer can reply to the speaker in several ways, both verbally and non-verbally, depending on what he or she chooses Non-verbal responses are easily generated as an act of doing what the first speaker says, but verbal responses might be more complicated A verbal response can

be defined as a pair of utterances This pair of utterances also includes a social component in which individuals can agree on a message without losing someone else's face This pattern is then called a preference, which is an observed pattern in talk and not a personal wish (Yule 1996:79) The preference is classified by Yule as the second half of a conversational structure He categorizes the second section as preferred and dispreferred social acts Preferred is the structurally expected next act, and dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act

In the scope of this research, the writer only considers ways of doing dispreferred second pair parts in adjacency pairs through verbal strategies as proposed by Yule (1996)

Yule (1996, p.81) defines 11 verbal strategies for doing dispreferred second parts, namely: (1) Delaying/Hesitating, (2) Using preface, (3) Expressing doubt, (4) Using token yes, (5) Apologizing, (6) Mentioning obligation, (7) Appealing for understanding, (8) Making it non-personal, (9) Giving an account, (10) Using mitigators, and (11) Hedging the negative Some examples illustrating a disagreement as a dispreferred structure in the second pair part of adjacency pairs, which are taken from the reference Lecture Notes on Pragmatics by Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn (2009, p 13) reflecting Yule theory‘s verbal strategies, are presented as follows:

- A delay: er, mm, hmm

E.g: Mm, I don‘t think we can get it done if we do it this way

- Prefacing filler: well, oh

E.g: A: Well, you have a right to your opinion, but I ;

B: Oh, come off it Enrique! I didn‘t see it was funny at all

- A structure of expressing doubt: I‘m not sure,

E.g: I‘m not quite sure, but I believe

- An apology: I‘m sorry,

E.g: I‘m sorry to disagree, but his so-called humor did nothing to me in that film;

I‘m sorry, Alicia, but it just doesn‘t appeal to me

- An appeal for understanding: you see, you know,

E.g: You know, I don‘t think I can this weekend

- A non-personal expression: everyone else, one,

E.g: Everyone has different tastes I thought everyone could appreciate classical

music!

- An explanation,

E.g: This is the way I like my living room

I really enjoy it, actually

I find it quite a good use of my time, especially because it‘s very relaxing

- A mitigator: really, mostly,

E.g: You can‘t really be serious;

I think the yellow paint really brightens it up

- An obligation: I must do X, I have to do X,

E.g: I really have to go home;

I‘m sorry but I already have a commitment

- A hedge for the negative answer: as a matter of fact, to a certain extent, actually,

E.g: I guess we have different tastes, then

2.5 Previous Related Studies

There have been various studies conducted with data collected from conversations and interviews Putra Gigih Pamungkas (2012) studies adjacency pairs in a scripted interview between presenter Oprah Winfrey and Facebook founder Mark Zukerberg, focusing on four aspects of conversation: adjacency pairs, topic management, preference organization, and turn-taking The study finds 18 turns and analyzes them based on theory by Paltridge on conversation analysis

Another study was written by the team of researchers, Eka, Ridwan, and

Thyrhaya (2020), to analyze the political interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the Sky News Australia Channel This study also uses Paltridge‘s theory on conversational interactions to discover seven aspects, including adjacency pairs, preference organization, turn-taking, feedback, repair, opening, and closing conversations conducted by interviewers and interviewees In collecting and analyzing the data, the researchers apply the documentation method and qualitative content analysis

Junita Siahaan (2018) investigates the adjacency pairs in the conversation between David Frost and Paul McCartney Similar to the above studies, the writer uses Paltridge‘s theory (2000) for finding adjacency pairs, but he further takes Jakobson‘s theory (1960) for testing communicative functions From the findings, it can be concluded that question-answer is the most commonly used type of adjacency pair, while for communicative functions, the referential function is the most commonly used in the conversation between the famous British television host and the well-known singer of the Beatles legend band

Widyanti (2017) carries out the study on adjacency pairs in the conversations between hotel front-office assistants and guests The first research question focusing on the types of adjacency pairs is answered based

on an adjacency pair compilation proposed by Paltridge (2000), Tylor and Tylor (1990), Levinson (1983), Coulthard (1985), and Schegloff (2006) The second question, focusing on the communicative functions of the adjacency pairs, is answered by the classification of functions based on Jakobson (1960) Six kinds of communicative functions are: referential, poetic, emotive, conative, phatic, and metalingual

In reality, a huge majority of English students struggle to speak smoothly and confidently To have the skills of communication, they need to understand aspects of conversational interaction, especially adjacency pairs

Dhelta Hery Khusuma (2018) implements an analysis of preferred and dispreferred responses in the telephone conversation used by the English students The research uses Levinson‘s theory (1983) to find out the types of preferred and dispreferred responses The Preferred Responses are: Request - Acceptance, Offer - Acceptance, Assesment - Agreement, Question - Expected Answer, and Blame - Denial The Dispreferred Responses are; Request - Refusal, Offer - Refusal, Assesment - Disagreement, Question - Unexpected Answer or Non-Answer, and Blame - Admission

Meanwhile, Win (2020) conducts the journal article, taking data from the Global Level 1 audio script and the English Language Textbook to analyze the types of adjacency pairs proposed by Finegan (1999) The result is that 64% of adjacency types belong to the type ―Question – Answer.‖

On the other side, Nguyễn Thị Hồng Ngân (2012) studies Vietnamese

adjacency pairs or exchanges (cặp thoại) in teaching conversations at

secondary schools in Vietnam The writer analyzes that in Vietnamese

linguistics, cặp thoại can be used to reflect two different theories The data

shows that a teaching exchange is a conversation unit composed of at least two moves, which coincides with adjacency pairs, but teaching conversations may have many different types of exchanges, which are typically three moves

Adjacency pairs are also found in conversations in films Lê Thị Trinh

Nữ (2020) makes a study on adjacency pairs in the conversations of the film

―Call Me by Your Name," directed by Luca Guadagnino, with a focus on 16 types of adjacency pairs proposed by Yule (1996) and 11 verbal strategies for doing the dispreferred second parts also proposed by Yule (1996) The result

of this study found 250 adjacency pairs collected from 85 conversations in the film

Whereas, Fitriana, Aprilia, Laila, and Wijayanto (2013) describe the way

characters in the Red Riding Hood movie show patterns of adjacency pairs and the language function of the utterances forming adjacency pairs in the dialogue by using theories suggested by Levinson (1983) In collecting the data, the writers apply documentation and observation The results show that the patterns of adjacency pairs used in the Red Riding Hood movie are an automatic pattern and a mix of different sequences, and the language functions used in the dialogues were request, question, complain, offer, threat, and hold

On the contrary, Irma Krisna Murti (2014) focuses on the term dispreferred social act in the second pair part, which is portrayed by the main character in the movie Beauty and the Briefcase The findings of the research find seven types of dispreferred acts on the second pair part, which were assessment: disagreement, blame: denial, invitation: refusal, request: refusal, offer: rejection, question: unexpected answer, and proposal: disagreement It also has 12 ways of doing a preferred act, which are applied by the main character in Beauty and the Briefcase They are prefacing, delaying, ignoring, and changing the topic, using a mitigator, hedging the negative, making it non-personal, appealing for understanding, saying yes, giving an account, mentioning obligation, saying an apology, and expressing doubt

Until now, there has been no study on types and frequencies as well as how to realize the adjacency pairs through responses of second pair parts, i.e., preferred and dispreferred, sequence systems, and verbal strategies used in conversations in the political interviews with the U.S President Joe Biden This thesis, thus, shall focus on the field of political interviews based on adjacency pairs' theories proposed by Paltridge (2000), Schegloff (2007), and Yule (1996) to meet such study needs