CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Sociolinguistics is a branch of science that study about the combination between

sociology and linguistics. One of part of sociolinguistic is language in interaction. Language

is an important aspect in human interaction. Good language it may be oral, written and

gesture, people will do a communication and social interaction. Language also known as

someone behaviour because language can be interpreted as reflection of mine, thinking, and

attitude. However, someone maybe smart and full of brilliant idea, but they can deliver what

their idea, suggestion and result of thinking because they cannot deliver in good language.

Interaction is a social process of meaning-making and interpreting. Interaction has an

important place in education as it allows active engagement with ideas and interpretation

Language is made up of socially shared rules that include the following:

– What was mean (ex, star refers to bright object in the night sky or celebrity

– How to make new word (ex, friend, friendly, unfriendly)

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon

one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as

opposed to a one way causal effect.

Language in interaction examines how speakers use language in interaction with

others, an area of sociolinguistics study what goes by various name, including interactional

sociolinguistics, the ethnography of speaking, ethnography of communication, or

ethnographically oriented discourse analysis. In examining how speakers vary their use of

accents, dialects or languages to communicative effect. Other aspects of language use have

also been of interest to sociolinguistics, however: the way people talk to one another - how

they hold conversation, tell stories, make jokes, argue or tease one another – will vary in

different cultural contexts, studies of these phenomena frequently adopt a qualitative

approach to the study of language, drawing on anthropological or ethnographic methods of

research.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION
 Language in interaction consists of five parts such as Speaking and Silence,

Narratives, Conversational Style, Encoding Relationship, and Asymmetrical Talk.

A. Speaking and Silence

Silence is the relative or total lack of audible sound. By analogy, the word silence

may also refer to any absence of communication, even in media other than speech. Silence in

pingo social interaction is the absence of speech. Silence in this arena can be divided into

three categories (Bruneau, 1973): mental, social, or both. These are defined according to

time, context, and perception. In discourse analysis, brief absences of speech mark the

boundaries of prosodic units used by speakers. Silence in speech can be the result of

hesitation, stutters, self-correction, or the deliberate slowing of speech for the purpose of

clarification of processing of ideas. These are short silences. Longer pauses in language occur

in interactive roles, reactive tokens, or turn taking.

According to cultural norms, silence can be interpreted as positive and negative. For

example, in a Christian Methodist Faith organization silence and reflection during the

sermons might be appreciated by the congregation, while in a Southern Baptist Church,

silence might mean disagreement with what is being bicho, or perhaps disconnectedness from

the congregated community.

B. Narratives

Narratives refer not just to more formal storytelling performances but also to the

routine accounts of incidents and events that permeate everyday conversation. In telling a

story, narrators need to make certain choices – about the inclusion of certain episodes, the

description of people and events, and in many communities the use of one (or more)

language varieties rather than others, as well as choices between different linguistics forms
 and structures. Narratives cannot be regarded simply as neutral, factual accounts: they are

always representations, constructed by the narrator to make a certain point. The choices

made in narrating a story allow narrators to represent themselves in a certain light, and to

evaluate other people and event in the story.

Narrative may contain additional elements: Labov argues that a fully formed

narrative may include the following:

• Abstract, which summarize the events to come and offers a preliminary assessment of the

significance of those events.

• Orientation, which identifies the setting character and other background and contextual

details relevant to the narrative.

• Complicating Action, a series of narrative clauses, as illustrated above the basic details of

the story line.

• Evaluation(s), which indicate the point of the story or the reason(s) why the speaker

thinks the story is worth (re) telling. Such material may occur at the end, but may also be

included at any point within the narrative.

• Result or Resolution, which resolves he story.

• Coda, which signal the end of the narrative and may bridge the gap between the narrative

and the present time.

Narratives may seem like monologues, in that one person is talking for most, if not all

of the time, but Hill’s analysis, like Maybin’s, would suggest that they are dialogic. Both

researchers emphasise the importance of the interaction between different voices within the

narrative, and the cultural values represented these. A more general point is that any utterance

may be seen as, in part, a response to previous utterances from the same or earlier texts, and a

forerunner of later utterances: to return to Bakhtin, no speaker is ‘the first speaker, the one

who disturbs the eternal silence of the universe’ (1986: 69). Maybin argues that the children’s

narratives which she analysed could themselves be seen as turns in a ‘ long conversation’,
 carried on over time in different context as the children revisited themes and ideas that were

important to them, exploring these form different perspectives. Finally, the immediate

audience plays in important part in any narrative. A narrative may be elicited b something

said by another speaker; the narrator will take account of (even silent listeners in deciding

how to tell a story; and listeners may also contribute directly to a narrative.

A. Conversational Style

Conversational styles consist of two: Turn Taking and Minimal Responses. Turn

taking was not pre-specified has it might be a ceremony or a debate, and turns could be of

any length, how did speakers know when a current turn was about to tend and they could

begin speaking? How did successive speakers coordinate their conversational efforts so that

the talk flowed smoothly. Model of turn-taking suggests that, normally, only one person

speaks at a time; that any gaps between successive turns are very brief; and that overlapping

speech is minimal, and normally located around transition relevance places.

Based on the explanation above, as we know that Turn – Taking is while we talking

our friends talk as well. And turn – Taking consist of two namely, positive turn-taking and

negative turn-taking.

Minimal responses that are generally analysed, not as speaking turns in their own

right, but as conversational support provided by listeners, indicating their involvement in the

conversation. One of the ways in which the communicative competence of men and women

differ is in their use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as ‘mhm’ and

‘yeah’, which is behaviour associated with collaborative language use (Carli,1990).

B. Encoding Relationship

While the example of research discussed so far have focused on the different ways

in which conversations are structured, it has also been apparent that such differences give rise
 to conversational outcomes: to positive or negative perceptions of different speakers, or

groups of speakers, for instance: in speaking in a particular way, a speaker is saying

something about the kind of person they are, and constructing a certain kind of relationship

with others. In engaging conversation, speakers are necessarily doing a certain amount of

‘identity work’ trough their use of conversational style as well as their use of a particular

accent, dialect or language.

Sometimes, relationship between speakers and listeners are explicitly encoded in

language. In many languages, speakers can signal their relative status through the use of

certain forms of address.

C. Asymmetrical Talk

Relationship between speakers frequently unequal, or asymmetrical, in that one

speaker, or group of speakers, is in a more powerful position than others. This may be evident

in the use of status-related terms, such as those discussed in the previous section, but it will

also affect the overall organisation of an interaction and the different speaking style adopted

by participants. Man, researchers with an interest i this topic have focused on institutional

contexts (such as hospital and clinic, schools and colleges, police station and law courts,

workplaces). Speakers in such contexts may have different formal statuses (doctor/patient,

teacher/student, barrister/witness, and employer/employee) which affect their participation in

interactions: they may be expected to have greater or fewer interactional ‘rights depending on

their relative status. Cultural differences in interactional style, which we mention earlier, will

also be important in such contexts, intersecting with status to affect both the conduct of

interaction and their outcomes.

 CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

Sociolinguistic have been concerned not simply with the forms of language but with

how these are used to communicative effect in particular cultural contexts. This emphasis

extends and sometimes challenges ideas about language use. While most sociolinguistic

research takes account of something called ‘context’, for instance, what this means in practice

varies considerably between different sociolinguistic approaches. In the case of interactional

sociolinguistic, ‘context’ refers to naturally occurring contexts of use, rather than different

contexts constructed by the researcher.

Sociolinguistic research has been concerned to document the language use of different

social group, often drawing contrasts between members of different social classes, age

groups, ethnic and other groups. A danger with this approach is that it may give rise to a

rather fixed notion of social identity: in practice, speakers’ allegiances are likely to be more

fluid and variable. In using certain interactional styles, in addressing or referring to others in

certain ways. Even relationship that seems to be relatively fixed, such as doctor-patient

relationship, are maintained (and may be redefined) in routine encounters. Power often plays

an important part in relation between people, a factor that has been recognised by several

studies discussed.

Many studies of interaction have investigated contexts in which speakers from

different cultural backgrounds, come into contact. There has often been a focus on factors

that contribute to ‘miscommunication’ misperceptions of speakers (as in Basso’s contention

that Athapaskan speakers were felt to lack ‘personal warmth’, or Eades’ discussion of

‘frustration’ in encounters between Aboriginal and white Australian speakers); or

misunderstandings of what people mean (as in Roberts et al.’s account of a job interview) –

in each case, because of differences in interactional style.

GROUP 7, MEMBERS

Hermanto A1D2 06077

Dwi Luppy Hastuti A1D2 06013

Sarifaintan A1D2 06005

FitrianiA1D2 07076

Lusni A1D2 07090

Arfalina A1D2 07089

Arnida Fachrany A1D2 06025

Sarniati Nuru M A1D2 05107

Vivi Vibriani A1D2 06115

Andi Suanting A1D2 05108