Conversation Analysis and Its Implications to Language Teaching

Didin Nuruddin Hidayat



The present study analyzed the use of Conversation Analysis in casual conversation and how it can serve as a potential means in language teaching. Casual conversation concerns the type of conversation that people do when they talk just for the sake of talking (Eggins & Slade, 1997). This includes daily conversations among people. Employing a qualitative research methodology, data were taken from a casual conversation taking place in Australia regarding a birthday party preparation between a husband and a wife whose native language is Bahasa Indonesia. Data were first transcribed in Bahasa Indonesia using CA conventions, and then were translated into English. The transcription of the conversation attempted to follow the guidelines proposed by Cook (1990) and Bailey (2008). The study found that turn-taking systems, adjacency pairs, overlaps, response tokens, and repairs were evident from the analysis of conversation. The conversation confirms the theories of CA: the occurrence of a large number of response tokens, such as mm hm or yes, various types of adjacency pairs, each speaker speaks one at a time even though there are several gaps and overlaps, and so forth. The study drew the implication of CA to language teaching. CA contributes to language teaching in terms of offering not only the authentic real-life communication, but also the authentic spoken interaction which will encourage learners to be able to produce authentic utterances. Also, CA can serve as a potential means to shape the students’ ability as active participants in the learning process.


Studi ini menganalisis penggunaan Analisis Percakapan (Conversation Analysis, selanjutnya CA) dalam percakapan kasual dan mengulas bagaimana CA dapat berfungsi sebagai sarana yang potensial untuk dipergunakan dalam pengajaran bahasa. Percakapan kasual diartikan sebagai jenis percakapan yang dilakukan orang ketika mereka berbicara dengan topik sehari-hari (Eggins & Slade, 1997). Penelitian ini menggunakan metodologi penelitian kualitatif dengan mengambil data dari percakapan kasual antara suami istri yang berlangsung di Australia mengenai persiapan pesta ulang tahun. Bahasa ibu para pembicara adalah Bahasa Indonesia. Data pertama-tama ditranskripsikan dalam Bahasa Indonesia menggunakan konvensi CA, dan kemudian diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris. Transkripsi percakapan mengikuti panduan Cook (1990) dan Bailey (2008). Studi ini menemukan bahwa sistem turn-taking, adjacency pairs, overlaps, token response, dan repair terbukti dari analisis percakapan. Hasil penelitian mengkonfirmasi teori-teori CA: terjadinya sejumlah besar token response, seperti mm hm atau ya, berbagai jenis adjacency pairs, masing-masing pembicara berbicara satu per satu walaupun ada beberapa celah dan overlaps, dan sebagainya. Studi ini juga menggali implikasi CA terhadap pengajaran bahasa. CA berkontribusi pada pengajaran bahasa dalam hal menawarkan tidak hanya komunikasi kehidupan nyata yang otentik, tetapi juga interaksi lisan yang otentik yang akan mendorong peserta didik untuk dapat menghasilkan ucapan-ucapan otentik. Selain itu, CA dapat berfungsi sebagai sarana potensial membentuk kemampuan siswa untuk berperan aktif dalam proses pembelajaran.

How to Cite: Hidayat, D. N. (2019).   Conversation Analysis and Its Implications to Language Teaching  . TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, 6(2), 197-209. doi:10.15408/tjems.v6i2. 15138.



casual conversation; conversation analysis; education; language teaching; percakapan kasual; analisis percakapan; pendidikan; pengajaran bahasa

Full Text:



Al-Shboul, Y., & Huwari, I. F. (2016). Congratulation strategies of Jordanian EFL postgraduate students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 79–87.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: transcribing. Family Practice, 25(2), 127–131.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Rastin, H. (2015). Investigating metapragmatic information in language teachers’ books: A case of top notch. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 3(2), 47–56.

Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Advances in Discourse Studies. Routledge.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. SAGE Publication.

Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differences in language. Longman.

Cook, G. (1990). Transcribing infinity: Problems of context presentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 1–24.

Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis. Addison Wesley Longman.

Darweesh, A. D., & Abdullah, N. M. (2016). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump’s Sexist Ideology. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 87–95.

Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. Cassell.

El-dali, H. M. (2019). An alternative approach to linguistic theories of language acquisition: Focus on the cognitive theory. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 10, 1488–1522.

Fairclough, N. (2000). Critical analysis of media discourse. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media Studies: A Reader (pp. 308–328). New York University Press.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. SAGE Publication.

Fakhrudin, M. (2017). Penerapan Kaidah Berbahasa Dalam Percakapan Berbahasa Indonesia. Journal of Language Learning and Research, 1, 57–75.

Flaherty, T. (2018). An exploratory case-study into tensions between classroom practices and EFL teachers’, learners’ and coursebook writers’ beliefs on grammar instruction. Universitat de Barcelona.

Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins Publishing.

Ghasani, B. I., & Sofwan, A. (2017). Appraisal and Speech Structure of Contestants’ Speeches in Speech Contest of ESA WEEK Competition. English Education Journal, 7(2), 149–155.

Harwood, C. (2006). Discourse Analysis A study of turn-taking in a scripted conversation. February, 1–10.

Hermansyah, M. (2013). Preferred and dispreferred responses in the dialogues of junior high school’s electronic English textbooks. Universitas Airlangga.

Hilton, K. (2016). The perception of overlapping speech: Effects of speaker prosody and listener attitudes. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, 08-12-Sept(December), 1260–1264.

Huq, R., & Amir, A. (2015). When the tokens talk: IRF and the position of acknowledgement tokens in teacher-student talk-in-interaction. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 9(1), 60–76.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 1–14). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Jaafar-Mohammad, I., & Lehmann, C. (2011). Women’s rights in Islam regarding marriage and divorce. Journal of Law and Practice, 4(1), 1–13.

Jawhar, S. S. (2018). Small but Multi-Functional: Response Tokens in Content Language Integrated Learning Interaction. SSRN Electronic Journal, January 2016.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm.” Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–206.

Johnson, K. (1994). Teaching declarative and procedural knowledge. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teachers (pp. 121–131). Prentice Hall International.

Johnstone, B., & Marcellino, W. (2010). Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. SAGE Publication.

Jumiati, J., Gani, S. A., & Sari, D. F. (2017). Communication strategies used by the English teacher in teaching speaking skill. Research in English and Education (READ) Journal, 2(4), 53–62.

Kendon, a. (1967). This Week’s Citation Classic: Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26(44), 22–63.

Khalil, A. I. A. E. (2016). The Islamic perspective of interpersonal communication. Journal of Islamic Studies and Culture, 4(2), 22–37.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.

Liddicoat, A. (2011). An introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum.

Masats, D. (2017). Conversation analysis at the service of research in the field of second language acquisition (CA-for-SLA). In E. Moore & M. Dooly (Eds.), Qualitative Approaches to Research on Plurilingual Education (pp. 321–347).

Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23–48.

Mudra, H. (2018). Adjacency Pairs As Uttered in the Conversations of Sofia Coppola’S Lost in Translation Movie Script. Humanus, 17(1), 126.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd Editio). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Queiros, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369–387.

Riest, C., Jorschick, A. B., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018). Anticipation in turn taking: mechanisms and information sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 89(6), 1–14.

Riggenbach, H. (1991). Discourse analysis and spoken language instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 152–163.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, March, 71–93.

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell.

Semati, M. (2007). Media, the state, and the pro-democracy movement in Iran. In I. A. Blankson & P. D. Murphy (Eds.), Globalization and media transformation in new and emerging democracies (pp. 143–160). SUNY Press.

Sidnell, J. (2007). Comparative studies in Conversational Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 229–244.

Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An Introduction to spoken interaction. Longman.

Tang, C. (2011). Self-repair devices in classroom monologue discourse. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 1(January), 93–120.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). SAGE Publication.

Thompson, C. (2017). How do teachers view strategic planning as contributing to the development of speaking in EFL classes? Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 1(2), 90–112.

Truong, K. P. (2013). Classification of cooperative and competitive overlaps in speech using cues from the context,overlapper, and overlappee. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, 1404–1408.

Wong, J. (2002). Applying conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 37–60.

Wouk, F. (2001). Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 171–191.

Yang, L. C. (2001). Visualizing spoken discourse: Prosodic form and discourse functions of interruptions. Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue - Volume 16, 1–10.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

DOI: Abstract - 0 PDF - 0


  • There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, p-ISSN: 2356-1416, e-ISSN: 2442-9848

View My Stats