What? What’s that noise?

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. 64 Next, utterance 8 was a question made by Wayne to know whether Kathy would go inside the castle. In utterance 9, Kathy replied to Wayne by suggesting that Wayne should go in front. It implied that Kathy would not go in unless Wayne went in first. By replying with utterance 10, Wayne actually showed his objection to going inside referring to a horror movie. Thus, utterances 9 and 10 made a pair of suggest-refuse in which they are adjacent. The conversation analysis above was illustrating how the sequence was not ill. Some of the questioning acts in the conversation were utterances direct or secondary speech act. Its indirect speech acts were determined by the felicity condition fulfilled by the utterances in the context. The majority of the utterances fulfilled the felicity condition of some acts other question as its form suggest. The other analysis on the conversation was presented below using the same method. This conversation included some twisted idea in which the performers understand the utterance too literaly. On the other extent, the analysis would also explain the broken utterance sequence in the conversation as the participant ‟s utterance did not address other participant‟s utterance. EXCERPT Whose Line Is It Anyway: Questions Only Season Episode 3 [01:03] [Scene: The scene was about the chaos in Manhattan as Godzilla approaches. Godzilla was a fictional gigantic ancient creature which once attacked Manhattan in a movie. Colin met Brad in the middle of the crisis. However, Colin did not seem to be aware of the threat and just approached Brad like nothing happen] No. Participants Utterances Act 1. Colin : How is it hangin? Greeting 2. Brad : Me or Godzilla? Question 3. Colin : Do you mean Godzilla is back in town? Question 4. Brad : Didn‟t you hear? Affirming