ANALYSING THE GRAMMAR OF CASUAL CONVERSATION:

ENACTING ROLE RELATIONS

Intan Permata Hapsari

Semarang State University

ABSTRACT
This article offers an overview of the conversation analysis (CA) method and its theoretical and practical
applications for qualitative social scientific research. The article also discusses the method's analytical
contributions and methodological applications based on the grammar of casual conversation offered by
Eggins and Slade (1997). For illustration, analyses of data fragments are presented, using English language
from telephone conversation recorded from one of radio programs. The recorded conversation was taken
from the English Program at RCT FM radio on Sunday. The analyses try to describe and explain how
language enables us to initiate and sustain casual talk. The article highlights CA's unique insights into the
way social processes, relations, and identities are constructed and experienced at the level of everyday
interaction, and draws attention to some of the ways in which the method can be of benefit to social
scientists from a variety of disciplines.

Key words:

INTRODUCTION interactions that the label casual conversation is

As socialized individuals, we spend much of our usually applied (Eggins and Slade 1997:6).
lives talking, or interacting, with other people. Despite its sometimes aimless appearance and
Interacting is not just a mechanical process of apparently trivial content, casual conversation is,
taking turns at producing sounds and words. in fact, a highly structured, functionally motivated,
Interacting is a semantic activity, a process of semantic activity. Motivated by interpersonal
making meanings. As we take turns in any needs continually to establish who we are, how
interaction we negotiate meanings about what we we relate to others, and what we think of how
think is going on in the world, how we feel about the world is, casual conversation is a critical
it, and how we feel about the people we interact linguistic site for the negotiation of such important
with. This process of exchanging meanings is dimensions of our social identity as gender,
functionally motivated: we interact with each generational location, sexuality, social class
other in order to accomplish a wide range of membership, ethnicity, and subcultural and group
tasks. Very often we talk to other people to affiliations. In fact, casual conversation is
accomplish quite specific, pragmatic tasks: we concerned with the joint construction of social
talk to buy and to sell, to find out information, to reality.
pass on knowledge, to make appointment, to get As stated by Eggins and Slade (1997:7), “we
jobs, and to jointly participate in practical treat conversation as an exchange of meanings,
activities. as text, and recognize its privileged role in the
At other times we talk simply for the sake of construction of social identities and interpersonal
talking itself. An example of this is when we get relations.” They (1997:8) also add that “casual
together with friends or workmates over coffee or conversation is the kind of talk we engage in
dinner and just have a chat. It is to these informal when we are talking just for the sake of talking.”

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 1
This raises the question of just what we mean by The apparent triviality of casual conversation
“casualness”. Berger and Luckman in Eggins and disguises the significant interpersonal work it
Slade (1997:18) point out that to see the taken- achieves as interactants enact and confirm social
for-granted background of everyday life, we need identities and relations. This is what we regard as
to problematize it in some way. How, then, can the central paradox of casual conversation. The
we problematize the casualness of casual paradox lies in the fact that casual conversation
conversation to discover what is going on? They is the type of talk in which we feel most relaxed,
state that we problematize the casualness of most spontaneous, and most ourselves, and yet
casual conversation by critically analyzing it. casual conversation is a critical site for the social
Critical analysis involves describing casual talk in construction of reality. The relaxed nature of
an explicit, systematic, and necessarily, technical casual conversation leads to a very common
way. It involves analysing how language is used perception by those who participate in such talk
in different ways to construct casual conversation that it is trivial and that „nothing‟ happens.
and how patterns of interaction reveal the social However, the evidence of analysis suggests that
relations among the interactants. conversation is anything but trivial. It suggests
Therefore through this article, I try to analyze that casual conversation, in fact, constructs
the interactional patterns in casual conversation social reality.
through which interactants jointly construct social
relations. However, I just analyzed the Conversation Analysis
grammatical patterns at the clause level which Conversation analysis is an approach to the
indicate power and subordination within study of natural conversation, especially with a
interaction. view to determining the following:
 Participants‟ methods of turn-taking,
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE constructing sequences of utterances across
Casual Conversation turns, identifying and repairing problems, and
Eggins and Slade (1997:8) state “casual employing gaze and movement.
conversation is the kind of talk we engage in  How conversation works in different
when we are talking just for the sake of talking.” conventional settings. Here are some
In casual conversation we see language being examples of conventional settings in which
used as a resource to negotiate social identity conversation analysis could take place:
and interpersonal relations. Casual conversation Interviews, Court hearings, Telephone
is motivated by interpersonal goals: people chat conversations, Card games.
not just to kill time, but rather to clarify and Conversation analysis (commonly
extend the interpersonal ties that have brought abbreviated as CA) is the study of talk in
them together. Interpersonal ties are the interaction (both verbal and non-verbal in
accumulation of values for four main dimensions: situations of everyday life). CA generally
the status relationships enacted by participants, attempts to describe the orderliness, structure
the frequency with which they come into contact, and sequential patterns of interaction, whether
the degree of affective involvement they feel institutional (in school, a doctor's surgery, court
towards each other, and their sense of affiliation or elsewhere) or in casual conversation. CA is
with each other. the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-in-

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V /2 April 2011 Page 2
interaction. But what is the aim of studying these such as interrogative, imperative, and
interactions? Principally, it is to discover how declarative. These patterns have to do with the
participants understand and respond to one presence and configuration of certain negotiable
another in their turns at talk, with a central focus elements of clause structure. Polarity is
on how sequences of action are generated concerned with whether clause elements are
(Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008). asserted or negated, while modality covers the
CA investigates social action with a focus on range of options open to interactants to temper or
participants' understanding of one another‟s qualify their contributions.
conduct. This premise (language use as social
action), as well as certain aspects of sequence RESEARCH METHOD
organization, which refers to relations between This research is based on the analysis of casual
turns such as adjacency pairs. Through their conversation of telephone conversation recorded
messages, participants accomplish actions and from the radio. The recorded conversation was
display their understanding of one another‟s taken from the „English Program‟ broadcasted by
actions, and these actions can stand in a RCT FM radio on Sunday. As usual there are
particular relation to one another. Moreover, for three speakers in that program, two as
CA the research data are typically naturally broadcasters, while the other is the participant of
occurring interactions. the program who calls them by phone. Each
participant/caller spends about 10 to 15 minutes
Grammatical Patterns in Casual Conversation to talk with the broadcasters. The speakers of the
The major grammatical resource which English „English Program‟ on that day were Andi and Asri
offers for making the interpersonal meanings: the as the broadcasters and the caller, Irwan.
clause systems of Mood is used. The analysis of There are three stages in analyzing the
mood choices in casual conversation can reveal grammar of casual conversation of the „English
tensions between equality and difference, as Program‟, namely: (1) Transcribing the
interactants enact and construct relations of conversation completed with the transcription
power through talk. The grammatical resources key; (2) Presenting the summary of turn, move
of the language here are used to construct and and clause completed with conversational
enact personal identity and interpersonal structure as offered by Eggins and Slade (1997).
relationships. It is aimed to describe the interactants‟ position
Grammatical patterns are revealed by by looking at who makes what kinds of moves,
studying the types of clause structures chosen by and who plays which roles in the exchanges of a
interactants and are displayed within each dialogue. This summary, then, is used as a base
speaker‟s turns. The patterned choices are part of quantifying Speech Function Choices (Table 1)
of what indicates the different social roles being and Mood Choices (Table 2). Based on those
played by the interactants, and how such roles two tables, it is possibly that the interactants‟
are constructed in our culture. position could be analyzed and interpreted; (3)
At the clause level, the major patterns which Making interpretation of the conversation based
enact roles and role relations are those of mood, on Speech Function and Mood Choices Analysis
with the associated subsystems of polarity and as offered by Eggins and Slade (1997).
modality. Mood refers to patterns of clause type,
LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 3
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION participant in that talk, and how the speaker
Based on the analysis of speech function choices expresses his proposition. The results of Speech
and mood choices, it may reveal whether the Function and Mood Choices analysis are
speaker is as dominant or as incidental presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1Summary of Speech Function Choices in “ English Program ”

No Speech Function Andi Irwan Asri
1. Number of Turns 29 25 25
Number of Moves 42 (7) ( NV 1, 2, 30 (3) 26 (2)
3, 4, 6, 9, 10 ) ( NV 7, 8, 11) ( NV 5, 11 )
Number of Clauses 53 35 31
2. OPEN
initiate : offer 2 - -
initiate : question : opinion 3 2 1
initiate : state : opinion 1 1 -
initiate : state : fact - 1 -
Total 6 4 1
3. CONTINUE
monitor 2 - -
prolong : elaborate 2 3 1
prolong : extend 2 1 -
prolong : enhance 2 1 -
append : elaborate - 2 -
append : extend 1 1 -
append : enhance 1 3 -
Total 10 11 1
4. REACT : RESPONDING
develop : elaborate - 1 -
develop : extend 3 - -
engage 1 1 1
register 12 1 17
reply : accept 2 - 1
reply : agree 2 - 2
reply : acknowledge - - 1
reply : answer 2 4 1
reply : affirm - 2 -
confront : disavow 1 - -
confront : contradict - 1 -
Total 23 10 23
5. REACT : REJOINDER
tracking : confirm - 1 -
tracking : clarify 3 - 1
tracking : probe - 1 -
response : resolve - 2 -
response : repair - 1 -
Total 3 5 1

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V /2 April 2011 Page 4
 Table 2
Mood Choices in “ English Program ”
No Mood Choices Andi Irwan Asri
1. Number of Turns 29 25 25
Number of Clauses 53 35 31
2. DECLARATIVES 23 ( 43,4% ) 19 ( 54,3% ) 13 ( 41,2% )
full 17 ( 32,1% ) 13 ( 37,1% ) 1 ( 3,2% )
elliptical 4 ( 7,5%) 6 ( 17,1% ) 4 ( 13% )
incomplete 2 ( 3,8% ) - 8 ( 25,8% )
3. POLAR INTERROGATIVE
full 2 ( 3,8% ) 1 ( 2,9% ) 1 ( 3,2% )
elliptical 1 ( 2% ) 2 ( 5,7% ) 2 ( 6,5% )
incongruent interrogative 2 ( 3,8% ) - 1 ( 3,2% )
4. WH-INTERROGATIVE
full 3 ( 5,7% ) 1 ( 2,9% ) 1 ( 3,2% )
elliptical 1 ( 2%) 1 ( 2,9% ) -
incomplete wh-interrogative 1 ( 2% ) - -
5. IMPERATIVE 1 ( 2% )
6. MINOR 14 ( 26,4% ) 4 ( 11,4% ) 9 ( 29% )
7. MOST FREQUENT I : 2; Irwan : 2; we I : 5; the topic : 1; Irwan : 2; you
SUBJECT CHOICE (Retmono & Asri) my time : 1; you (Irwan) : 1;
: 2; we (generic) : 1 (Asri) : 1; your impersonal : 1
; you (Irwan) : 7; opinion (Asri‟s
you (Asri) : 1; your opinion) : 1; we
opinion (Irwan & (generic) : 1;
Asri) : 1; impersonal : 3
impersonal : 6
8. NEGATION 1 ( 2% ) 1 ( 2,9% )
9. ADJUNCTS :
circumstantial 4 13 7
interpersonal 8 12 2
textual 20 9 7
10. MODALIZATION
(i) probability
high - 2 (subjective; impl.)
median - 5 (subjective; expl.)
low - 3 (subjective; impl.)
(ii) usuality
high 1 1
median - 1
11. MODULATION
(i) obligation
median : advice 1
Total no of modalities 1 13 -

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 5
 Number of Turns
Dominant and Incidental Participants There is a remarkably close similarity in the
We can see from the table 2 that there are three number of turns for each of the dominant players,
participants in “English Program” (Andi, Irwan with Andi just beating the others. This suggests
and Asri). It shows that Andi produces 29 turns that the three are competing for turns, or at least
while Irwan and Asri produce the same turns, 25. consider themselves to have the right to equal
This suggests that three of them are the turns at talk („talk among equals‟). Andi is
dominants. Although Irwan and Asri both have revealed as the most assertive interactant.
the same turn, Asri always tends to re-say what
Andi and Irwan have already said. It may be her Number of Moves
lack of shared knowledge (she does not have The number of moves produced by each
enough knowledge about the topic they are interactant is also almost similar, realizing the
talking about in that Sunday morning, so she is equality of their position. However, proportions
rather excluded from a lengthy section of the have changed slightly: Andi emerges as speech
talk). It can be seen from her moves; she often functionally dominant (he gets more moves into
produces supporting reactions (register). From his turns), while Irwan also gets more value out
the talk it shows that both Andi and Irwan do not of his turns, producing more moves though same
seem to listen to the moves made by Asri, as turns to Asri.
exemplified by the following utterances:
14 / c Andi (iii) and how much time you Number of Clauses
spend … == reading == Andi produces more clauses for his number of
15 / a Asri (i) == reading. turns/moves. This confirms that he gets more
16 / a Andi (i) == and get information from airspace than the others, more value from his
other sources. role as speaker. It also reveals that there is
substantial, but certainly not total, congruence
31 / a Irwan (i) No, no (ii) everyday. between moves and clauses, as we would expect
NV 4 Andi [ laughter ] in a casual context.
32 / a Asri (i) Oh, really ? By considering the categories of moves produced
NV 5 Asri [ laughter ] by the three speakers, Table 1 shows the
33 / a Irwan (i) You know, (ii) in a week I following:
must … meet with a … lecture,  Andi dominates openings, with Irwan opens
(iii) my lecture == four and Asri only once. This shows that Asri
Asri produces one initiating question of is strikingly dependent on the other
opinion, twenty four supporting reaction (2 agree, interactants: mostly she talks only in reaction
1 acknowledge, 1 answer, 1 accept, 1 engage, 1 to the contributions of others.
clarify and 17 register). In contrast, two other  As an opener, Andi favours questions to the
interactants are active in order to sustain the other interactants‟ opinion, suggesting that
conversation. It may suggest that the topic they he enacts a role of „stirrer‟. It also indicates a
are talking about is interesting and they know it certain egocentricity. Asri‟s single opening is
much better than Asri does. a question of opinion to Irwan in order to
know whether there is any other question to

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V /2 April 2011 Page 6
 Andi (Okay, is == that all Irwan ?). Her Rs: D: extend 44/b Andi (ii) but okay,
question to Irwan is caused by the limited mm … but … but honestly, that‟s what
time in “Engish Program” for each caller. most of us do.
Asri‟s single opening also indicates that she C: monitor 44/c (iii) Right?
does not risk presenting her own opinions for
debate.  In responding reactions, we see that both
 Irwan continues more often in which he has Andi and Asri produce the most, and Irwan
to prolong his statements by elaborating. It the fewest. Even though Asri produces the
shows that he wants to make his statements same responding reactions with Andi, she
understandable and clear for the other does not talk as much as him. In fact, the
interactants. It can be seen through the most of her responses are register (very
following moves: move 9/a – clause (i) “I minimal supporting reactions) with two
want to practice English”; move 24/a – agreeing reply. While other responses are
clause (i) “Maybe I… I [pause] must use time engage, accepting reply, acknowledge and
to… work mm… a job,”; move 26/b – clause answering reply. Thus, all her responses are
(ii) “maybe it needs about three hours a supporting, and many are minimal in
day.”; move 58/b – clause (ii) “Roberto negotiatory terms. She appears to be using
Benigni.” and move 68/a – clause (i) “What language to construct a role for herself as a
we will do to our beloved person.”. He also supporter.
continues his statements by qualifying them,  Andi‟s responses, on the other hand, are
thus using more argumentative strategies. proportionally similar to Asri‟s which 12 of his
However, when Andi continues, he is more 23 responses are registers. Thus, he can be
inclined to add information, a neutral means said as a facilitator and a supporter since he
of broadening the field. While Asri only encourages the other speaker to take turn.
continues once by elaborating her statement. His registering reactions are also used as
It seems that she does not try to keep her backchannel, as well as evaluative reactions,
talking for it is possibly that she does not for example in his utterances: hmm
have the idea or knowledge of what they are (backchannel) and oh, that’s nice (evaluative
talking about; consequently, it will be safe for reaction). Besides using confronting
her only as a listener. response, he also prefers extensions, a
 Andi monitors twice, while Irwan and Asri do continuation of his pattern in continuing
not. The first monitor, he checks to see moves. These results indicate that he plays a
whether the other interactant, Irwan, still confrontational role, in which he also adds
follow him (turn 18: Can you see it clearly ?). more to extend the discussion, while the
While the second one, he monitors whether others tend to keep things on the same
the other interactants, Irwan and Asri, terms. Irwan appears with 10 responses
support his response, as the following consisting of elaborating develop, engage,
description: register, answering reply, affirmation and
contradicting confront. Thus, Irwan appears
to be using language to construct a role for

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 7
 himself more than as a supporter. His In brief, the speech function analysis shows that
reaction in various responses shows that he interactants differ in the roles they play. These
can be called a good interactant since he is role differences can be summarized as follows.
not only able to elaborate his response, but  Andi takes on the role as a provocative
also able to express his engage, register, initiator, and offers much new information
answer, affirmation and contradicting after his initiations. He is willing to keep his
confront when he thinks it should be negotiation going on by his initiating open
confronted. and supporting of other‟s contributions.
 The number of rejoinders produced by each  Irwan keeps negotiating by his sustaining
speaker indicates that all speakers contribute moves, which is achieved either by
to the maintenance and open-endedness of continuing his contributions, or by reacting
the talk. We can see from the Table 1 that the others‟ contributions. He offers new
Irwan produces the most rejoinder which information after his initiations and also
nearly half of his rejoinders are tracking supports the others‟ contributions. His role is
moves (i.e. supporting). This suggests that to react, frequently giving responses (Andi‟s
Irwan supports sustaining interaction by questions), taking time to justify and develop
keeping the exchange open. Irwan confirms his position.
in which he seeks verification of what he  Asri is dialogically active, but again largely
indicates he has heard from Andi‟s through reacting to others‟ contributions. Her
statement. He is also the only one to probe, reactions are overwhelmingly supporting,
indicating the work he does to promote and this indicates a concern to facilitate and
continued talk. Besides that, he gets to uphold the talk.
resolve a lot, enacting his position as an
insider relative to Andi and Asri. He also Table 2 for Mood Choices both confirms and
repairs what he has said (turn 42: Oh… four extends on the picture which emerged from the
times). speech function analysis. In summary, Table 2
 However, all of Andi‟s rejoinders are tracking shows the following patterns:
moves (i.e. supporting). He clarifies by
seeking additional information in order to Declaratives
understand the prior move. This shows not Declarative clauses can be defined as clauses in
only his role as a supporter, but also his role which the structural element of Subject occurs
as a provocateur. before the Finite element of the clause.
 Asri‟s rejoinder on the other hand is only Approximately half of Andi‟s, Irwan‟s and Asri‟s
once. She also clarifies in order to seek contributions are declaratives. Both for Andi‟s
additional information from Irwan‟s statement and Irwan‟s contributions are mostly full
in turn 51 (Mm… I think I am interested in declaratives, but for Asri the figure is much less.
[pause] movie). The table shows that the figure for Andi‟s
contributions of full declaratives is the most.
This is consistent with his contributions being
more initiating than the others. His full declarative
clauses are also accounted for in his production

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V /2 April 2011 Page 8
of many qualifications and explanations of his 50 (Yeah, what are you interested in …
reactions: his develop and continue moves are Irwan?)
non-elliptical structures. This is further evidence Thus Andi‟s high use of full wh-interrogatives
that he does indeed get more value for his turns is another way in which he engages Irwan in talk
than other speakers, making full comments while retaining some status as an initiator.
rather than elliptical reactions.
Imperatives
Interrogatives Imperative typically do not contain the elements
There are two types of interrogatives, polar of Subject or Finite but consists of only a
interrogative and Wh-interrogative. The former is Predicator, plus any of the non-core participants
also known as yes-no interrogatives, can be of Complement and Adjunct.
identified as clauses where the Finite element Although the number of imperatives is very small,
occurs before the Subject, while the latter it is significant that Irwan and Asri do not produce
consists of a wh-question word e.g. who, what, any imperatives, while Andi does. Andi‟s
which, when, where, why, how, in what way, for imperative is addressed to Irwan. This is one way
what reason, etc. The purpose of the wh-word is Andi enacts his authority.
to probe for a missing element of clause
structure. Minor Clauses
If we aggregate all interrogatives (Andi: 10; One very important category of clauses in casual
Irwan: 5; and Asri: 5), the results are consistent conversation is that of minor clauses. These are
with suggestions that Andi takes his role as clauses which have no mood structure at all e.g.
initiator by requesting information from others. right, thanks, yeah. Minor clauses tend to be very
The supportive/facilitative nature of Andi‟s brief, and are often formulaic. However, their
questions is implied in wh-interrogatives (which brevity is not due to ellipsis. Minor clauses do not
give the respondent more room to respond) and have any mood structure, i.e. they do not consist
polar questions. of elements of Subject, Finite, etc.
For his incongruent interrogatives (in the form of Andi uses a strikingly high proportion of minor
declarative) can be aimed to ascertain what the clauses, indicating his supportive role in the
other interactant, Irwan, has done. It also shows interaction. He often provides feedback and gives
that he has close relationship with Irwan by not his full attention to the other interactant, Irwan, by
presenting standard interrogative pattern. He presenting minor clauses, such as: Oh, good;
may think that it will be more familiar if his hmm, yea; yeah; etc. in order to show that he is
utterances are expressed informally. still involved in the conversation. It also seems
Andi‟s wh-interrogative are mostly fully that Indonesian speakers tend to say “Okay”
expressed and aimed to: when they want to turn to another subject, such
(1) keep him as an initiatory role by greeting the as in:
caller of „English Program‟, Irwan, and asking (1) Andi‟s turn 12: (i) Okay
him to introduce himself, like Andi‟s turn no 1 (ii) So… tell us so …
(Okay, who’s this calling ?) (iii) we listen
(2) challenge prior talk by asking for other (2) Andi‟s turn 44: (i) Okay,
interactant‟s opinion, such as Andi‟s turn no

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 9
 (ii) but okay, mm… but… shows when both of them make confronting
but honestly, that‟s what most moves; they employ the negative and contrary
of us do. realizations.
(iii) Right?
(3) Asri‟s turn 70: (i) Okay, Adjuncts
(ii) is == that all Irwan? Adjuncts are elements which are additional,
rather than essential, to the proposition. They
Most Frequent Subject Choice function to add extra information about events
The subject is the pivotal participant in the expressed in the core of the proposition.
clause, the person or thing that the proposition is We find almost the same proportion of
concerned with and without whose presence circumstantial Adjuncts and interpersonal
there could be no argument or negotiation. A Adjuncts produced by Irwan. This seems to
casual conversation cannot proceed unless a suggest that Irwan‟s moves are concerned more
Subject is proposed. with adding extra details than the others. He also
We can see that Irwan is very frequently the often expresses his utterances with metaphorical
Subject of his own clauses, and while he just expressions of probability “I think” (in his moves
makes Asri the Subject, he never makes Andi the no. 9/c, 21/a, 51/a, 54/a and 66/a) and probability
Subject. This suggests that Irwan is by far the value in the clause through word “maybe” (in his
most egotistical of the speakers: his involvement moves 21/a, 24/a, 26/b and 35/a).
in the conversation is highly personal, as he Andi, on the other hand, produces a higher
frequently talks about himself and his interests. In proportion of textuals than the others. This
contrast, Asri never makes herself Subject. Her suggests that his moves are concerned more
preference for getting absent people, Irwan and with establishing coherence and continuity. This
generalization as Subject is further evidence of also indicates his orientation to the logical
her lack of personal engagement: she is getting continuity of his contribution in relation to prior
the talk going, but it does not closely touch her. talk (his own, or that of others) and his orientation
Andi does refer occasionally to himself as to the interactive continuity of his contribution.
Subject, but is strikingly oriented towards having We also can see that Asri has the same
Irwan as Subject. He makes Irwan the Subject proportion of circumstantials and textuals. This
either by appointing him with the word “you” or seems to suggest that Asri‟s moves are
using vocative, “Irwan.” It indicates that he concerned with adding
always supports Irwan‟s utterances. It also extra details and also with establishing
suggests that Andi has close relationship with coherence and continuity. But the analysis shows
Irwan by addressing his name as the Subject. It that in adding extra details, Asri only re-say what
may also indicate that Andi wants to intensify that Andi and Irwan have said in their contributions
his utterance is addressed to certain speaker (i.e. such as:
Irwan) that should be the next turn in his talk. (1) Andi‟s move 16/c : (iii) or you watch mm …
(iv) you know,
Negation (v) your activity every
Negation is not used at all by Asri while both Andi == day.
and Irwan produce one negated clause. This NV2 [ laughter ]

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V /2 April 2011 Page 10
 Asri‟s move 7/a : (i) == Everyday.
CONCLUSION
(2) Irwan‟s mov 26/b : (ii) maybe it needs about The categories and procedures involved in
three hours a day. analyzing the grammatical resources interactants
Asri‟s move 27/a : (i) Three hours a day. can draw on to make interpersonal meanings in
casual talk. The grammatical tools represent the
Modalities essential starting point for a comprehensive
One final dimension of Mood which needs to be analysis of casual conversation. Choices in mood
considered in the analysis of casual conversation have allowed us to explore, confirm, and extend
is that of modality. Modality refers to a range of our intuitive impressions of the differential roles
different ways in which speakers can temper or being enacted by conversationalists in a range of
qualify their messages. There are two types of excerpts. The analysis of mood choices in casual
modality: modalization and modulation. conversation can reveal tensions between
Modalization is a way of tempering the equality and difference, as interactants enact and
categorical nature of the information we construct relations of power through talk.
exchange. Modulation is a way of tempering the
directness with which we seek to act upon each REFERENCES
other. Figures for total modalities show that Irwan
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic
uses most, then followed by Andi while Asri does Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
not. In fact, Andi uses no modulation, and just
Eggins, S. and D. Slade. 1997. Analysing Casual
one modalization (a will of usuality). Conversation. London
Thus, it can be said that Andi modalizes
Gerot, L. and P.Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of
slightly more than Irwan, which is perhaps more
Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean
evidence of Irwan‟s assertive status in the Educational Enterprises.
interaction. Irwan uses most modalizations and
Hutchby, I. and R. Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation
he is concerned with life‟s uncertainty. He also
Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press
prefers to modalize subjectively, indicating his
ego-orientation.

LANGUAGE CIRCLE Journal of Language and Literature vol. V / 2 April 2011 Page 11