Shouldn’t we stop for the night? Huh, you hear that?

62 Wayne might be aware that a woman wanted to be protected in a dangerous situation. Moreover, the place they were heading was a mysterious and scary place as they discuss about. Therefore, she wanted to go if Wayne went inside first. Preparatory condition for act of suggesting was that it was done to make others consider another idea to hearer‟s preference. Therefore, Wayne should be aware that he should go inside first . In the end, Kathy‟s remark was intended to give a suggestion to Wayne. 10. Why brother gonna go first? In response to Kathy‟s suggestion, Wayne made a remark asking the reason of why a brother should go in first. Assuming that Wayne was cooperative, he should respond to the suggestion by refusing or approving the suggestion. However, his response was not one of these. Thus, he might want to say more than he said. Kathy might be aware that brother here was a slang language used to address an Afro-American character was rarely being the main character. Therefore, the character was murdered earlier in the movie. Therefore he tried to relate the American horror movie custom with the current situation. Wayne was afraid of experiencing the same situation in the real life. Refusing act preparatory condition, or other commissives, was the ability to do the act predicated but the speaker did not want to carry out the act. He was not committed to do the act. Therefore, Kathy might be aware that Wayne did not want to have a same “fate” with the Afro-American character in the horror movie. Therefore, Wayne primary act was refusing the suggestion. 63 Based on the conversation, the finding from the first objective conveyed that some the questions did not perform ac of questioning. Based on that finding, the sequence then was analyzed accordingly with adjacency pair and some insertion types. The analysis would go to see them along with the direct speech act in the contextual sequence in the conversation. Utterance 1 was a suggestion which according to adjacency pair was needed to be responded with a refusal or acceptance. However, utterance 2 was not intended to respond to it directly. Its act was questioning and it required an answer to form a coherence conversation in which it was followed by utterance 3. It was performing act of questioning with a specific role as an insertion. Insertion was an utterance in between a macro sequence. The utterance 3 was followed by utterance 4 which described the sound. The describing act in utterance 4 was relevant which led to a denial 5 as the response for utterance 2. The sequences between utterances 2 and 5 were the macro sequence in which utterances 3 and 4, act of questioning and describing, came in between to prepare the participants to engage in the conversation. The next utterances, 6 and 7 had an unfinished sequence. Utterance 6 had the act of guessing. As the adjacency pair suggest, act of guessing was supposed to be followed by a confirmation or denial. In the next turn, Kathy responded with a utterance 7 function as an insertion. Based on the normal sequence, the insertion was bound in between a macro sequence. Since neither the macro nor the insertion had the other pair, it could be considered as incomplete pair.