Speech Act Classification In Slumdog Millionaire

(1)

SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION IN SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

A THESIS BY

LIA AGUSTINA DAMANIK REG. NO. 080705023

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2012


(2)

SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION IN SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

A THESIS BY

LIA AGUSTINA DAMANIK REG. NO. 080705023

SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR

Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed, TESP.

19570412 198403 1 001 19560705 198903 1 002

Drs. Ridwan Hanafiah, SH. MA.

Submitted to Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara Medan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from Department of English

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2012


(3)

Approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara (USU) Medan as thesis for The Sarana Sastra Examination

Head, Secretary,

Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S

19541117 198003 1 002 19590419 198102 2 001


(4)

Accepted by the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.

The examination is held in Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Smatera Utara on July, 23th 2012.

Dean of Facult of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara

NIP.19511013 197603 1 001 Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, MA

Board of Examiners

Dr. H. Muhizar Muchtar, MS Dr. Hj. Nurlela, M. Hum Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed. TESP. Dr. Ridwan Hanafiah, MA


(5)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I LIA AGUSTINA DAMANIK DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED ELSE WHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A THESIS BY WHICH I HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER DEGREE IN AN TERTIARY EDUCATION.

Signed :


(6)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

NAME : LIA AGUSTINA DAMANIK

TITLE OF THESIS : SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION IN SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

QUALIFICATION : S-1/SARANA SASTRA

DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH

I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.

Signed :


(7)

ABSTRAK

Skripsi yang berjudul Speech Act Classification in Slumdog Millionaire ini menganalisis tindak ilokusi yang dihasilkan oleh seluruh karakter melalui percakapan mereka di dalam film tersebut berdasarkan kategorinya masing-masing menurut pengklasifikasian tindak ilokusi oleh Austin yang membaginya menjadi Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabitives, dan Expositives. Tujuan penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk menemukan jenis-jenis tindak ilokusi yang dihasilkan oleh para karakter di Slumdog Millionaire, menemukan jenis tindak ilokusi yang paling dominan muncul dalam film tersebut dan memberikan penjelasan mengenai tindak ilokusi yang diputuskan sebagai yang paling dominan di antara tindak ilokusi yang lain. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif, langkah-langkah yang dilakukan penulis dalam menyelesaikan masalah dalam skripsi ini adalah memahami jalan cerita dan peran tiap karakter dalam film tersebut. Lalu mengutip skrip dialog lengkap film Slumdog Millionaire yang diperoleh dari internet yang di kemudian disesuaikan dengan dialog yang terdapat dalam film tersebut. Kemudian, penulis mengambil dialog-dialog yang dianggap perlu untuk kemudian dianalisis. Hasil yang ditemukan penulis setelah melakukan analisisnya adalah ditemukannya seluruh kategori tindak tutur (Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabitives, dan

Expositives) dalam film Slumdog Millionaire. Dengan menggunakan rumus umum

statistik untuk mencari tindak ilokusi yang paling dominan dalam film tersebut, ditemukanlah bahwa tindak tutur Expositives adalah yang paling dominan dengan frekuensi 228 ujaran (60,15%) kemudian tindak tutur Behabitives dengan frekuensi 89 ujaran (23,5%), tindak tutur Exercitives dengan frekuensi 36 ujaran (9,5%), tindak tutur Commissives dengan frekuensi 18 ujaran (4,74%), dan yang terakhir adalah tindak tutur Verdictives dengan frekuensi 8 ujaran (2,11%). Expositives merupakan tindak tutur yang paling dominan dalam film tersebut karena tindak tutur tersebut tidak membutuhkan karakteristik tertentu dalam pengucapannya. Selama penutur mampu menyesuaikan ucapannya agar sesuai dengan kondisi dimana ia berbicara, ia sudah menghasilkan tindak tutur Expositives dalam tuturannya.


(8)

TABLE OF CONTENT

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD OF DEPARTMENT BOARD OF EXAMINERS AUTHOR’S DECLARATION COPYRIGHT DECLARATION ABSTRAK

TABLE OF CONTENT...i

I INTRODUCTION...1

1.1. Background of the Study...1

1.2. Scope of the Analysis...3

1.3. Problems of the Study...3

1.4. Objectives of the Study...4

1.5. Significance of the Analysis...4

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE...5

2.1. Brief Explanation of Pragmatics...5

2.2. Speech Act Theory...5

2.2.1. Locutionary Act...8

2.2.2. Illocutionary Act...9

2.2.2.1. Illocutionary classification...10

1) Verdictives...11

2) Exercitives...11


(9)

4) Behabitives...13

5) Expositives...13

2.2.4. Perlocutionary act...14

III METHOD OF RESEARCH...18

3.1. Research Design...18

3.2. Data and Data Source...18

3.3. Data Collecting Method...18

3.4. Data Analysis...19

a. Data Reduction...19

b. Data Display...19

c. Inference/ Verification...20

VI DESCRIPTION AND FINDING...21

4.1. Data Description...21

4.2 Finding...21

1. Verdictives...21

2. Exercitives...22

3. Commissives...25

4. Behabitives...26

5. Expositives...32

V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION...47

5.1 Conclusion...47

5.2. Suggestion...49

REFERENCES APPENDICES


(10)

ABSTRAK

Skripsi yang berjudul Speech Act Classification in Slumdog Millionaire ini menganalisis tindak ilokusi yang dihasilkan oleh seluruh karakter melalui percakapan mereka di dalam film tersebut berdasarkan kategorinya masing-masing menurut pengklasifikasian tindak ilokusi oleh Austin yang membaginya menjadi Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabitives, dan Expositives. Tujuan penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk menemukan jenis-jenis tindak ilokusi yang dihasilkan oleh para karakter di Slumdog Millionaire, menemukan jenis tindak ilokusi yang paling dominan muncul dalam film tersebut dan memberikan penjelasan mengenai tindak ilokusi yang diputuskan sebagai yang paling dominan di antara tindak ilokusi yang lain. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif, langkah-langkah yang dilakukan penulis dalam menyelesaikan masalah dalam skripsi ini adalah memahami jalan cerita dan peran tiap karakter dalam film tersebut. Lalu mengutip skrip dialog lengkap film Slumdog Millionaire yang diperoleh dari internet yang di kemudian disesuaikan dengan dialog yang terdapat dalam film tersebut. Kemudian, penulis mengambil dialog-dialog yang dianggap perlu untuk kemudian dianalisis. Hasil yang ditemukan penulis setelah melakukan analisisnya adalah ditemukannya seluruh kategori tindak tutur (Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabitives, dan

Expositives) dalam film Slumdog Millionaire. Dengan menggunakan rumus umum

statistik untuk mencari tindak ilokusi yang paling dominan dalam film tersebut, ditemukanlah bahwa tindak tutur Expositives adalah yang paling dominan dengan frekuensi 228 ujaran (60,15%) kemudian tindak tutur Behabitives dengan frekuensi 89 ujaran (23,5%), tindak tutur Exercitives dengan frekuensi 36 ujaran (9,5%), tindak tutur Commissives dengan frekuensi 18 ujaran (4,74%), dan yang terakhir adalah tindak tutur Verdictives dengan frekuensi 8 ujaran (2,11%). Expositives merupakan tindak tutur yang paling dominan dalam film tersebut karena tindak tutur tersebut tidak membutuhkan karakteristik tertentu dalam pengucapannya. Selama penutur mampu menyesuaikan ucapannya agar sesuai dengan kondisi dimana ia berbicara, ia sudah menghasilkan tindak tutur Expositives dalam tuturannya.


(11)

I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

As the part of society, people can see that something connect one to another is language. People use language to utter their thoughts, ideas and also feelings. Even, the blinds and deaf also use language to communicate each other by using the signs. And the fact people can see in their life is language shows the continuous action. Devito (1985: 4) mentions “although we may talk about communication as if it were static and at rest, it is never so; it is always an ongoing process”. It can be shown by an example of teacher explains a theory in front of the class and then the students give her feedback by asking a question or give a conclusion, and then the teacher answers her students’ questions or conclude it is right or wrong for their conclusion.

In communicating to each other, people will try to get their partner to get what they mean and give response or appreciate it. It means people want to reach a certain purpose when they utter their words. Like what Devito (1985: 3) tells that “communication refers to the act, by one or more persons, of sending and receiving messages that are dissorted by noise, occur within a context, have some effect, and provide some opportunity for feedback”.

But, different people will create different result for their utterances based on who they are, who the people they talk to are, and what condition they are speaking in. For example, when a United State woman said that she declares a war to Iraqi, nothing happens. But when the President Barack Obama says that, what will happen?


(12)

The woman says something that understood by the people of the country but they give nothing as the response. So what is missing from the communication that make it failed?

When the United State woman declares a war to Iraqi, what she said is only nonsense for the people of United State, but when it is said by President Barack Obama, it is more than just a statement. It can be a proof that different people will create different class of utterance. This case that makes the writer wants to analyze further more about the speech act which means the communication is getting influenced by the speaker, the listener and the condition of the speaker and the listener build a conversation.

(changeminds.org/explanations/theories/speech_acts.htm)

The reason for choosing Slumdog Millionaire as the object for this thesis is this movie is consists of the characters that come from some different class in the society. There are people come from the lowest class who live in the slum, the educational polices, host, director and staff of TV programme. That means, every character comes from different class who is supported by the different dialogue condition will create different utterance in every conversation they build. Some examples of the movie dialogues are:

1. PREM: Welcome to Who Wants To Be a Millionaire!

2. PREM: Who was the star of the 1973 hit film Zanjeer.

3. PREM: Guess what? You’re right. You just won one thousand rupees!

The three utterances are built by one character but they have different class of utterances. In the first sentence, the character Prem is showing an attitude by


(13)

welcoming the audiences. Next to the second one, the character Prem is challenging the contestant to answer the question of who the star of the 1973 hit film Zanjeer was. And the last one shows that the character Prem uses his right to make a verdict which the contestant gives the right or wrong answer.

Welcoming, challenging, and verdicting created by Prem’s utterances explain that people is doing an action not only when they speak but their utterances themselves also the forms of actions. It is what speech act theory explicitly conceptualizes (Jannedy, 1994: 229). Speech act theory shows how speakers and hearer use language, and how the condition gives influence for both of them.

1.2. Scope of the Analysis

As has previously been mentioned in the background of the study that what people do with their words like welcoming, challenging, and verdicting show that they perform an action by using the language, the concept of an illocutionary act is considered as the central to the concept of a speech act. Because shortly, illocutionary act will show “what people do with their words”. Therefore, this thesis will be focused on the illocutionary act classification based on Austin’s speech act theory. As the developer of speech act theory, his work continues to have a specific relevance for language theorizing. Austin is widely associated with the concept of the speech act and the idea that speech is itself a form of action.

1.3. Problems of the Study

Dialogue is one of the main element in a movie where is one character interacts with the other one to build the full story line. If Slumdog Millionaire is consists of the characters that come from some different class in the society, each character will


(14)

make different class of utterance, these facts drive the writer to the following questions:

1. What are the classifications of Illocutionary Act found in Slumdog Millionaire?

2. What is the dominant Illocutionary Act found in Slumdog Millionaire?

3. What is the explanation for the finding dominant Illocutionary Act in

Slumdog Millionaire?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

In line with the problems of study above make the writer to make these as the objective of analysis:

1. To find the classifications of Illocutionary Act in Slumdog Millionaire.

2. To find the dominant Illocutionary Act in Slumdog Millionaire.

3. To give explanation what the reason for concluding the finding of dominant Illocutionary Act in Slumdog Millionaire is.

1.5. Significance of the Analysis

Although it is still far from perfection, the writer hopefully this thesis would give advantages for theoretical or practice use for the readers. So, the readers will be able to use this thesis to be one of their sources to make the better one in understanding and practicing Pragmatics generally and the Speech Act theory especially.


(15)

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Brief Explanation of Pragmatics

Yule (1996: 3) explains Pragmatics is branch of Linguistics that is concerned with the study of meaning as communication by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people meant by their utterances might mean by themselves. Yule (1996: 3) explains Pragmatics as below:

- Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. - Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.

- Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. - Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.

Contrast to Pragmatics, Semantics, as other branch of Linguistics that also concerned with the study of meaning, it is the study of the relationship between linguistics form and entities in the world; that is, how words literally connect to things.

2.2. Speech Act Theory

The speech act theory is traceable to Austin (1962), an Oxford philosopher of language, in a series of lectures at Harvard. Collinge (1990: 175) mentioned Austin and other philosophers were interested in the way natural human language conveys meaning, as a way of understanding the nature of thought, logic and communication. In his famous work, “How to do Things with Words”, J. L. Austin outlined his


(16)

theory of speech acts and the concept of performatives language, in which to say something is to do something. Austin (1962: 94) told that to say something is to do something, or in saying something we do something, and even by saying something we do something.

Austin notes that language is not only a tool for constatives assertions about the world, assessed on the basis of truth or falsity alone but also, it is a tool for creating reality. Austin argues that utterances are of two kinds: constatives and performatives. The both utterances are not only difference in its uttering but also in its situation and requirements to be fulfilled (Kaelan, 2006: 85). Constatives, to Austin, describes a reality and therefore, may be assessed as either true or false. Constatives are utterances for which a truth value conceivably could be determined. Thus, one could ascertain the truth of the utterance, “It’s snowing out” by looking out the window.

Performatives, on the other hand, according to Austin, “can never be either true or false”. Austin describes performatives as below:

“The name is derived, of course, from ‘perform’, the usual verb with the noun ‘action’: it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action – it is not normally thought of as just saying something.” (Austin, 1962: 6-7).

They are used to perform an action. An action, in the words of Austin that can scarcely be performed with so much precision, in any other way.

Examples:

1. I name this ship, Liberty. 2. I apologize.


(17)

The uttering of performatives such those above constitutes the performance of the actions specified – naming (1), apologizing (2) and welcoming (3). Those utterances cannot be true or false. When one says, “I apologize”, one is performing an act, but one’s perform is not amenable to a truth-conditional analysis. Although one cannot determine the truth value of performatives, there are various ways in which they can be either successful or not, or to use Austin’s term, be infelicitous. For example, a request would be ‘infelicitous’ (Collinge: 1990: 178):

a. If it did not refer to a future act.

Example: “Could you please phone me by 5 o’clock last Tuesday?” b. Or if hearer were unable to do the act.

Example: “Would you mind translating this letter into Swahili?” (Spoken to someone who knows no Swahili).

c. Or if speaker did not want hearer to do the act.

Example: “Please phone me at the office tomorrow.” (Spoken by someone who does not want to be phoned, and indeed will be not at the office tomorrow; in this case the request would be effectively performed, but would not be sincere) d. Or if the utterance did not count as an attempt to get hearer to do the act.

Example: “Would you kindly refrain from the laughter?” (Spoken by a TV comic in a situation where there was a clear intention to provoke laughter)

Other example for Austin’s term of infelicity, when a United State woman utters the performatives “I declare war on Iraqi”. She will fail to substantially alter the world. Her remark will have no effect (it misfires according to Austin) because she has no authority to declare war. Her utterance, although neither true nor false, is clearly infelicitous.


(18)

Austin (1962: 14) proposed three sets of conditions required for the felicitous performance of performatives.

1. There must be a conventional procedure performed by an appropriate person in an appropriate context that has a conventional effect. For example, a minister can perform a marriage by uttering, in the appropriate context, “I now pronounce you man and wife.”

2. The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and completely.

3. The person performing the act must have the requisite thoughts, feelings, or intentions (e.g., to perform a felicitous promise the speaker must intend to perform the promised act).

Leech (1993: 316) told that the right way to start a study of verbs of Speech Act is by presenting Austin’s classification of speech act; Austin described three speech act characteristics, Locutionary act (doing the act of saying something),

Illocutionary act (doing the act in saying something), and Perlocutionary act

(doing the act by saying something).

2.2.1. Locutionary Act

Austin (1962: 94) called the act of “saying something” as the performance of a locutionary act. Locutionary acts include phonetic acts, phatic acts, and rhetic acts. Phonetic acts are acts of pronouncing sounds, phatic acts are acts of uttering words or sentences in accordance with the phonological and syntactic rules of the language to which they belong, and rhetic acts are acts of uttering a sentence with sense and more or less definite reference.


(19)

Like what Austin (1962: 95) explains:

1. The phonetic act is merely the act of uttering certain noises.

2. The phatic act is the uttering of certain vocables or words, i.e. noises of certain types, belonging to and as belonging to, a certain vocabulary, conforming to and as conforming to a certain grammar. Example: ‘He said “The cat is on the mat”. 3. The rhetic act is the performance of an act of using those vocables with a certain

more-or-less definite sense and reference. Example: ‘He said that the cat was on the mat’

A similar contrast is illustrated by the pairs by Austin (1962: 95):

Phatic act Rhetic act

He said “I shall be there” He said he would be there He said “Get out” He told me to get out

He said “Is it in Oxford or Cambridge?” He asked whether it was in Oxford or Cambridge.

2.2.2. Illocutionary Act

According to Austin (1962: 98), “to perform a locutionary act is in general, it might be performed an illocutionary act”. To determine what illocutionary act is so performed we must determine in what way we are using the locution:

- asking or answering a question

- giving some information or an assurance or a warning - announcing a verdict or an intention

- pronouncing sentence

- making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism


(20)

The trouble is ‘in what way are the locution is used’. When the performing of a locutionary act, the speech is used, but in what way precisely are the speech used? For there are very numerous functions of or ways in which the speech used, and it makes a great difference to our act in some sense. Which way and which sense the speech is being ‘used’. It makes a great difference whether it was advising, or merely suggesting, or actually ordering, whether it was strictly promising or only announcing a vague intention, and so forth.

For example, in order to make a promise one must make clear to one’s hearer that the act she is performing is promise, and in the performance of the act one will be undertaking an obligation to do the promise thing: so promising is an illocutionary act. In other words, illocutionary act is the contextual function of the utterance. Performance of an act in saying something as opposed to performance of an act of saying something; Austin refers to types of function of language or what Austin called ‘illocutionary forces’.

2.2.2.1. Illocutionary classification

Austin (1962: 150) made classes of utterance, classified according to their illocutionary force, by the following more-or-less rebarbative names:

1. Verdictives 2. Exercitives 3. Commissives 4. Behabitives 5. Expositives


(21)

1) Verdictives

Verdictives is the utterance in which the speaker is verdicting something. Verdictives consist of utterances used in delivering findings, official or unofficial based on evidence.

“Verdictives are typified by the giving of a verdict, as the name implies, by a jury, arbitrator, or umpire. But they need not be final; they may be, for example, an estimate, reckoning, or appraisal. It is essentially giving a finding as to something-fact, or value which is for different reasons hard to be certain about.” Austin (1962: 150)

Examples by Austin (1962: 152):

Acquit convict find (as a matter of fact)

Hold (as a matter of fact) interpret as understand

read it as rule calculate

reckon estimate locate

grade rank rate

assess value describe

characterize diagnose analyze

date measure place

Austin (1962: 152) continues explaining:

“A verdictives is a judicial act as distinct from legislative or executive acts, which are both exercitives. But some judicial acts, in the wider sense that they are done by judges instead of for example, juries, really are exercitives. Verdictives have obvious connexions with truth and falsity as regards soundness and unsoundness or fairness and unfairness. That the content of a verdict is true or false is shown, for example, in a dispute over an umpire’s calling ‘Out’, ‘Three strikes’, or ‘Four balls’.”

2) Exercitives

Exercitives cover utterances that involve some authority. Austin (1962: 150) explains exercitives are the exercising of powers, rights, or influence. They are


(22)

characterized by the giving of a decision in favor of or against a certain course of action. It is a very wide class.

Examples by Austin (1962: 154):

appoint degrade demote

dismiss excommunicate name

order command direct

sentence fine grant

levy vote for nominate

choose claim give

Bequeath pardon resign

Warn advise plead

Pray entreat beg

Urge press recommend

Proclaim announce quash

Countermand annul repeal

Enact reprieve veto

Dedicate declare closed declare open

3) Commissives

Commissives are typified by promising or otherwise undertaking. The whole point of a commissives is to commit the speaker to a certain course of action.

Examples by Austin (1962: 156):

Promise covenant contract

Undertake bind myself give my word

Determined to intend declare my intention

Mean to plan purpose

Propose to shall contemplate

Envisage engage swear

Guarantee pledge myself bet

Vow agree consent

Dedicate myself to declare for side with

Adopt champion embrace


(23)

4) Behabitives

Behabitives are a very miscellaneous group, and have to do with attitudes and social behavior. Examples are apologizing, congratulating, commending, condoling, cursing, and challenging.

“Behabitives are a class of speech acts used in reaction to other people’s behavior and fortune and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else’s past conduct or imminent conduct. There are obvious connections with both stating or describing what our feelings are and expressing, in the sense of venting our feelings, though behabitives are distinct from both of these.” Austin (1962: 159)

Examples by Austin (1962: 159): a. For apologies we have ‘apologize’. b. For thanks we have ‘thank’.

c. For sympathy we have ‘deplore’, ‘commiserate’, ‘compliment’, ‘condole’, ‘congratulate’, ‘felicitate’, ‘sympathize’.

d. For attitudes we have ‘resent’, ‘don’t mind’, ‘tribute’, ‘criticize’, ‘grumble about’, ‘complain of’, ‘applaud’, ‘overlook’, ‘commend’, ‘deprecate’, and the non-exercitives uses of ‘blame’, ‘a approve’, and ‘favor’.

e. For greetings we have ‘welcome’, ‘bid you farewell’.

f. For wishes we have ‘bless’, ‘curse’, ‘toast’, ‘drink to’, and ‘wish’ (in its strict performatives use).

g. For challenges we have ‘dare’, ‘defy’, ‘protest’, ‘challenge’.

5) Expositives

Austin (1962: 151) explained that “expositives are difficult to define”. “They make plain how our utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation, how we are using words, or, in general, are expository. Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of


(24)

views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references. Examples are ‘I reply’, ‘I argue’, ‘I concede’, ‘I illustrate’, ‘I assume’, ‘I postulate’.”

Here then is a list of expositives by Austin (1962: 161):

Affirm deny state describe class

Identity remark mention interpose inform

Approse tell answer rejoin ask

Testify report swear conjecture doubt

Know believe accept concede withdraw

Agree demur to adhere to object to recognize

Repudiate correct revise postulate deduce

Argue neglect emphasize begin to turn to

Conclude by interpret distinguish analyze define

Illustrate explain formulate mean refer

Call understand regard as

Based on Austin’s classification of illocutionary acts, it can be concluded that one can exercise judgment (Verdictives), exert influence or exercise power (Exercitives), assume obligation or declare intention (Commissives), adopt attitude, or express feeling (Behabitives), and clarify reasons, argument, or communication (Expositives).

Austin’s interest of his work for pragmatics (also Searle (1969)) centre around illocutionary acts and illocutionary force (understood as the functions or meanings associated with illocutionary acts). Therefore when the term ‘Speech Act Theory’ is used in Pragmatics, it refers to illocutionary acts (Collinge, 1990: 177).

2.2.3. Perlocutionary act

If locutionary and illocutionary act are based on the speaker’s role, perlocutionary act is a hearer’s based or the result of the act upon the listener. Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading. To make


(25)

clearer what the difference between the three speech act characteristics is, these are the examples by Austin (1962: 101-102):

Locution Illocution Perlocution

He said to me ‘Shoot her !’ meaning by ‘shoot’ shoot

and referring by ‘her’ to her.

He urged (or advised, ordered, &c.) me to shoot her.

1. He persuaded me to shoot her.

2. He got me to (or made me, &c.) shoot her.

He said to me, ‘You can’t do that’.

He protested against my doing it.

1. He pulled me up, checked me.

2. He stopped me; he brought me to my senses, &c.

3. He annoyed me

On this view, all speech acts have a dimension of meaning (or propositional content) and a particular force. In other words, one is doing something with one’s words. But what exactly is one doing? In Austin’s speech act theory, any utterance involves the simultaneous performance of a number of different acts (Holtgraves, 2002: 11).

Relevant Study

An Analysis of Speech Acts on Film Script Entitled The Proposal by Rinandes Minthauli Banjarnahor (2011)

In her thesis, Rinandes analyzed the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts produced by the two main characters in the movie of The Proposal, Margareth Tate


(26)

and Andrew Paxton based on each category of illocutionary acts by Searle(1979), those are representative, commissives, directives, expressives, rogatives, and declaratives. By using the descriptive method and the steps done by her are first, watching the movie several times and the next step is collecting the two main characters to be analyzed the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts produced by them. The results for her thesis are found 365 utterances that consist of 190 representatives (52,21%), 72 directives (19,72%), 66 rogatives (18,08%), 20 commissives (5,4%), 13 expressives (3,5%), and 4 declaration (1,09%). Rinandes also found 14 perlocutionary acts produced by Margareth and Paxton.

The writer uses Rinandes’ thesis as the relevant studies because her thesis is the current thesis analyzing illocutionary act classification before this thesis. The similarity between this thesis and Rinandes’ is the subject and the object for both of this theses illocutionary act classification in movies aside her perlocutionary act analysis. But, there are several differences between this thesis and Rinandes’:

a) The first one is the difference theory used in the both of thesis. Rinandes used Searle’s theory which classifies illocutionary acts to be declaratives

(speaker’s utterance that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration), representatives (what the speaker believes to be the case or not), commissives (the speaker commits to some future action), directives (the speaker causes the hearer to take a particular action), expressives (the speaker expresses her attitudes and emotions towards the proposition).While this thesis is done by using Austin’s illocutionary act classification which classifies it to be verdictives (the utterance of verdicting something like done by jury), exercitives (utterance which needs the authority to make a decision), commissives


(27)

(the speaker commits herself to do a certain action in the future),

behabitives (utterance which has a connection to the social behavior), and

expositives (utterance which fit the conversation).

b) The second is Rinandes only analyzed the illocutionary produced by the two main characters of the movie. It is may be caused by the two main characters have the biggest role in the movie so their dialogues have been the main storyline builder. But in Speech Act Classification in Slumdog Millionaire, the writer is analyzing the whole characters’ English dialogues because the main character cannot be separated from the others. The main character’s dialogue always has connection to others that is way this thesis is analyzing the whole characters’ English dialogues.

c) The writer is using Rinandes’ method of research as one of her reading source. But, in the practicing the writer does not use the sample method like what Rinandes did in her thesis. The findings in this thesis are done by showing the whole utterances categorized for each illocutionary act classification by giving the explanation underneath it. Additionally the writer gives the superscript for every utterance to make it easy to find the more explanation for it in the appendices.


(28)

III METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1. Research Design

This thesis will be done by applying the qualitative method of case study. Case study research is a study which explores a problem with the detailed limitation, has deep data retrieval, and include various sources of information (Afriani, 2009). Bogdan and Taylor (Moleong, 2005: 4) mention qualitative research method is a procedure generates data in the form of descriptive words written or spoken from people and observed behavior. With the qualitative research, researcher can follow and understand the chronology and causality in research. (Miles & Huberman, 1992).

3.2. Data and Data Source

The data source of this thesis is the movie Slumdog Millionaire and the data are the whole dialogues of the movie uttered in English that is in the form of sentence.

3.3. Data Collecting Procedures

The data of this thesis is collected by using the method of document. Where the document is the movie Slumdog Millionaire. The important one is the data that occurs are in the forms of words and not numeric. The printed movie dialogue script will be matched to the playing movie to get the certain picture of what the dialogues talk about are.


(29)

Data collecting

3.4. Data Analysis

Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Mode (Miles & Huberman, 1992)

d. Data Reduction

Data reduction is defined as the process of selection that focus attention on simplification, abstract, and transformation data ‘rough’ appears from the written records on the field. Data reduction is a form of analysis that sharpen, classifies, redirect, removing unnecessary, and organize data in a manner such that the final conclusions can be drawn and verified. The dialogues considered do not have relation to what this thesis points to will be removed so it will make easy for the research.

e. Data Display

Data display is a set of structured information that gives the possibility of taking the inference and action. Presentation of the most frequently used in qualitative data in the past is a form of narrative text. But, now the data presentation can be in various forms such as matrices, graphs, and charts designed to combine the information arranged in a coherent form to make the conclusion.

Data presentation

Data reduction


(30)

f. Inference/ Verification

An inference is the activity of the whole configuration. The conclusion is also verified during the research. Meanings from the data must be verifiable, that is the validity.


(31)

IV DESCRIPTION AND FINDING

4.1. Data Description

The data of this thesis is consisting of dialogues, in the form of sentence in English by all characters in Slumdog Millionaire because there are some parts of it are uttered in Indian. Each dialogue will be analyzed based on the speaker and condition, supported by Austin’s speech act theory to decide which illocutionary act the utterance will be. The whole dialogues will be collected by following how they are uttered originally in the movie.

4.2. Finding 1. Verdictives

Verdictives, are typified by the giving of a verdict, as the name implies, by a jury, arbitrator, or umpire. Verdictives consist in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial, upon evidence or reasons as to value or fact, so far as these are distinguishable. Utterances from Slumdog Millionaire which can be characterized as this type of illocutionary act are shown below:

1. PREM: Well, ladies and gentlemen, Jamal Malik, a chi-wallah from anchi Mumbai, let’s play Who Wants to be a Millionaire!20

2. PREM: So, remember. You have three lifelines. Ask the Audience, 50/50 and Phone a Friend. So, the first question for one thousand rupees here we go.44


(32)

4. PREM: You’ve just won sixteen thousand rupees!73

5. PREM: Guess what? You’re right.84

6. PREM: Jamal Malik. You’re absolutely right.214

7. PREM: Wait. 197 first class centuries, the answer is D. Jack Hobbs!303

8. PREM: Jamal Malik, Call Centre Assistant from Mumbai, chi-wallah, for two Core, twenty million rupees, you were asked who the Third Musketeer was in the novel by Alexander Dumas. You answered A. Aramis which is I have to tell you. The right answer!373

The dialogues above were categorized as Verdictives for consisting the characteristics of giving a verdict. In Slumdog Millionaire, Prem is the only one who has an ability to make the utterances of Verdictives. His position as the host of the show makes him to be able to lead to start or end the game show, rule it, decide the contestant’s answer is right or not and also tell if he/she is right or not to get the amount of prize.

2. Exercitives

Exercitives are the exercising of powers, rights, or influence. It is a decision that something is to be so. Utterances from Slumdog Millionaire which can be characterized as this type of illocutionary act are shown below:

1. CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Name!6

2. CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Stop crying!9

3. INSPECTOR: A little electricity will loosen his tongue. Give him!25

4. INSPECTOR: Now listen!29


(33)

6. INSPECTOR: So, Mister Malik, the man who knows all the answers. Talk.38

7. JAMAL: A-Amitabh Bacchan.46

8. JAMAL: Ask the audience.54

9. JAMAL: A bow and arrow.69

10.JAMAL: Final answer.71

11.PREM: Computer-ji, ‘D’ lock kiya-jaye.72

12.JAMAL: Surdas.81

13.JAMAL: Yes.83

14.DIRECTOR: Okay, he hasn’t got a clue. This is going to be a walk-away. Stand by.112

15.JAMAL: It’s C-Benjamin Franklin.117

16.INSPECTOR: Who’s on the thousand rupee note?121

17.INSPECTOR: Don’t get clever or I’ll get the electricity out again.125

18.INSPECTOR: Explain the $100 bill.128

19.MAMAN: Get them out of here!133

20.JAMAL: A-Samuel Colt.142

21.JAMAL: Final answer.144

22.PREM: Computer-ji, ‘A’ lock kiya-jaye.146

23.INSPECTOR: You puzzle me, Slum dog. Admitting murder to avoid a charge of fraud is not exactly clever thinking. Now, why would you do that?186

24.INSPECTOR: So, how did you manage to attend this show?188

25.JAMAL: I’ll go for D-London.212

26.PREM: Computer-ji, ‘D’ lock kiya-jaye.213


(34)

28.PREM: Okay. Computer, take away two wrong answers, please.293

29.JAMAL: D.296

30.JAMAL: D. Jack Hobbs.298

31.PREM: Computer-ji ‘D’ lock kiya-jaye.302

32.JAMAL: No. I’ll play.344

33.JAMAL: I’d like to phone a friend.346

34.JAMAL: A.367

35.JAMAL: Yes. Final answer. A. Aramis.371

36.PREM: Computer-ji, ‘A’ lock kiya-jaye.372

Austin calls exercitives is a decision that something is to be so which depends on the speaker’s authority. The dialogues by Prem like ‘Computer-ji, ‘D’ lock kiya jaye’ which means he tells the computer system to lock ‘D’ as contestant’s answer and ‘Computer-ji, take away two wrong answers, please’ which means he tells the computer system should take away the two wrong answers from the four options are utterances of exercitives that need an authority Prem has to utter them.

The second character who has right to utter Exercitives is Jamal. As a contestant, Jamal is right to choose which answer he wants, decide which lifeline he wants to use first or does not use it at all, and also decide to continue or stop to play. And the next characters who have right to utter Exercitives are Inspector, Constable Srinivas, Director and Maman.

His responsibility to investigate Jamal makes Inspector is right to order Jamal to talk, order Srinivas to do what he says, and start or end the investigation. Srinivas, although his authority is under Inspector, but when inspector is giving him


(35)

responsibility to investigate Jamal, at the time he gets the right to utter the exercitives. And the next is director. As the leader of the backstage crews, Director is surely right to make an order and also Maman who is also the leader of the gangster.

3. Commissives

Commissives are utterances that commit the speaker to do something, by promising or otherwise undertaking include also declarations or announcements of intention, which are not promises, and also rather vague things. Utterances from

Slumdog Millionaire which can be characterized as this type of illocutionary act are shown below:

1. MAMAN: Ohh... Maman can make an exception.139

2. JAMAL: I’m not!151

3. JAMAL: I’ll kill you.171

4. SALIM: Go now. Or Gun master G-9 will shoot you right between the eyes. Don’t think he won’t. I’ll give you five seconds. One, two,-175

5. OPERATOR: Please. Just for 5 minutes.201

6. JAMAL: There is no massage. There is no message. There is no message. I will never forgive you.227

7. SALIM: You think I am going to let you out of my sight again, huh? You stay with me now younger brother. Now go to my place.236

8. JAMAL: Baba, I am your dishwasher!241

9. JAMAL: Come away with me.256

10. JAMAL: Love.258

11. JAMAL: Come away with me, now.260


(36)

13. JAMAL: Anything.268

14. JAMAL: What? No. I’ll wait at VT station five o’clock every day until you come.270

15. PREM: We’ll be right back.278

16. JAMAL: I’m not going to become a millionaire. I don’t know the answer.280

17. JAMAL: No, I really. This time I don’t.282

18. SALIM: I’ll take care of him.328

The dialogues above show the speakers are commit themselves to do certain action in the future. For examples, when Jamal says ‘Love’ to Latika, he promising that he will give Latika love if they live together. When Salim utters “Go now. Or Gun master G-9 will shoot you right between the eyes”, Salim is committing to shoot Jamal if the boy still block his way. And also the operator man who promises will leave his duty to Jamal only for five minutes.

4. Behabitives

Behabitives are utterances that have to do with attitudes and social behavior like apologizing, congratulating, commending, condoling, cursing, and challenging. Utterances from Slumdog Millionaire which can be characterized as this type of illocutionary act are shown below:

1. PREM: Welcome to Who Wants to be a Millionaire!1

2. PREM: Good luck!3

3. PREM: Please give a big applause to our very first contestant of the night, Jamal Malik from our very own anchi Mumbai!4


(37)

4. CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: You have a name. Good.8

5. PREM: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.10

6. PREM: Ohh! So, you’re the one who calls me up every single day of my life with Special Offers, huh?15

7. PREM: An Assistant basher? And what does an Assistant Phone-basher do, exactly?17

8. PREM: A chi-wallah!19

9. CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: I’msorry, Sir.31

10.PREM: So, Jamal. Are you ready for the first question for one thousand rupees?39

11.JAMAL: Yes.40

12.PREM: No. Yes. No. Is that your final answer?43

13.PREM: Who was the star of the 1973 hit film Zanjeer.45

14.PREM: A picture of three lions is seen in the national emblem of India. What is written underneath? A) The truth alone triumphs, B) Lies alone triumph, C) Fashion alone triumphs, D) Money alone triumphs.52

15.PREM: Congratulations, Jamal. You’ve just won four thousand rupees!66

16.PREM: For sixteen thousands rupees. Religion! Interesting. In depictions of the God Rama, he is famously holding what in his right hand?67

17.PREM: Well done, my friend. Time for a commercial break. Don’t go away, now.74

18.PREM: Got lucky, huh? If I were you, I’d take the money and run. You’ll never get the next one.75

19.PREM: Welcome back to Who Wants to be a Millionaire!76


(38)

21.JAMAL: Yes.79

22.PREM: The song ‘Darshan Do Ghansyam’ was written by which famous Indian poet. Was it A) Surdas, B) Tulsidas, C) Mira Bai, D) Kabir.80

23.JAMAL: Is this heaven?88

24.JAMAL: Of course, Madam. Please follow me.94

25.TOURIST MAN 2: Is that so? That’s amazing.106

26.TOURIST WOMAN 2: You okay?107

27.PREM: On an American one hundred dollar bill there is a portrait of which American statesman? A) George Washington, B) Franklin Roosevelt, C) Benjamin Franklin, D) Abraham Lincoln.110

28.PREM: Pay or play, Jamal? You decide.111

29.PREM: Jamal, get a lot of hundred dollar bills in your line of work?114

30.JAMAL: The minimum tip for my services.115

31.PREM: Ohh...Now I know why my cell phone bills are so high. They tip the chi-wallah in hundred dollar bills!116

32.JAMAL: I’ve heard of him.124

33.MAMAN: Look who we have here, Punnoose. Hello again, Jamal. Salim. Never forget a face. Especially one that I own.130

34.MAMAN: Please continue, Master-ji.132

35.SALIM: No. Move. Get over there.134

36.SALIM: Money.136

37.PREM: Who invented the revolver?141

38.PREM: I was right. The chi-wallah has done it again! Incredible!147

39.LATIKA: You’re a sweet boy, Jamal.154


(39)

41.JAVED: Good.159

42.JAVED: My enemy’s enemy is my friend. Come in, my friend.160

43.LATIKA: Salim, please-170

44.SALIM: I am number one, now.172

45.JAMAL: The most beautiful woman in the world.181

46.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: He means a bitch from the slum.182

47.TEACHER: Thank you, Jamal.193

48.JAMAL: Dave.200

49.OPERATOR: Hallo. I’d like to be a contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire.205

50.OPERATOR: Bloody bastard. I never get it.206

51.OPERATOR: How the hell do you know that?208

52.PREM: Cambridge Circus is not in Cambridge? Dare I ask why?210

53.PREM: Getting hot in here, isn’t it?215

54.JAMAL: Are you nervous?216

55.JAMAL: Oh. Yes. Sorry.218

56.PREM: A few hours ago, you were fetching tea for the phone-wallahs. And now you are richer than they will ever be. What a player, Ladies and Gentleman! What a player.219

57.SALIM: Jamal!220

58.SALIM: God is good, bhai. God is good.221

59.JAMAL: Baba, I am the new cook from the agency. A thousand apologies, I am so late for the Memsaab.239

60.JAMAL: Your face. You’ve hurt your eye?244


(40)

62.JAVED: Shut up! The cricket’s on.253

63.JAVED: Why do you always watch that shit, huh? I’m already a millionaire.254

64.JAVED: Come on. I’m hungry. Give me a sandwich.255

65.JAVED: What is this shit? Get out!265

66.JAMAL: I love you.271

67.PREM: So, Jamal. Which cricketer has scored the most first class centuries in history? A) Sachin Tendulkar, B) Ricky Ponting, C) Michael Slater, D) Jack Hobbs.273

68.PREM: But, remember if you answer wrong, you lose everything. Just like this. So, do you wanna do this?274

69.PREM: Welcome back to Who Wants to be a Millionaire?287

70.PREM: In the chair tonight is Jamal Malik, as if we don’t know!288

71.PREM: Jamal Malik, Millionaire!304

72.PREM: I can’t believe that, Ladies and Gentlemen. You have to dance. Come on.305

73.PREM: Well done.306

74.PREM: So, are you ready for the final question, for twenty million rupees?308

75.PREM: Ooh! What a show, Ladies and Gentlemen, what a show.311

76.PREM: Great show. See you tomorrow. Be on time. Bye.313

77.SALIM: Andfor what I have done, please forgive me.331

78.SALIM: Have a good life.332

79.PREM: Welcome back to Who Wants to be a Millionaire?334

80.PREM: Are you ready for that question?336


(41)

82.PREM: Lucky! In Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers, two of the musketeers are called Athos and Porthos. What was the name of the third musketeer? A) Aramis, B) Cardinal Richelieu, C) D’Artagnan, or D) Planchet.340

83.PREM: The kind of brother who’d go for a walk on the twenty million rupee question?350

84.LATIKA: Hallo? Hallo, Jamal?353

85.LATIKA: My name is Latika.355

86.PREM: Jamal Malik, double Crorepati! What a night! We have all been present here to create history, well done.374

87.SALIM: God is great.375

88.JAMAL: Latika.376

89.LATIKA: Kiss me.379

The dialogues about are categorized as Behabitives for their characteristics like what Austin explains that Behabitives is related to social behavior. Like greeting like what Prem has done in his “Welcome to Who Wants to be a Millionaire!”, challenging like what Prem has done in his “Lucky! In Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers, two of the musketeers are called Athos and Porthos. What was the name of the third musketeer? A) Aramis, B) Cardinal Richelieu, C) D’Artagnan, or D) Planchet.”, and apologizing like what Jamal has done in his “Baba, I am the new cook from the agency. A thousand apologies, I am so late for the Memsaab.”


(42)

5. Expositives

Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references. They make plain how the utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation, how people are using words, or, in general, are expository. Examples are ‘I reply’, ‘I argue’, ‘I concede’, ‘I illustrate’, ‘I assume’, ‘I postulate’. Utterances from Slumdog Millionaire which can be characterized as this type of illocutionary act are shown below:

1. PREM: Are you ready?2

2. PREM: Let’s play.5

3. JAMAL: Jamal Malik.7

4. PREM: So, Jamal. Tell me something about yourself.11

5. JAMAL: I work in a call centre in Juhu.12

6. PREM: A Phone-basher! And what type of call centre would that be?13

7. JAMAL: XL 5 Mobile phones.14

8. JAMAL: No, actually, I’m an assistant.16

9. JAMAL: I get tea for people and-18

10.INSPECTOR: So,has he confessed, yet?21

11.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Except his name, I could not get anything of the runt.22

12.INSPECTOR: You’ve been here whole bloody night, Srinivas. What have you been doing?23

13.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: He’s atough guy.24


(43)

15.INSPECTOR: So, were you wired up? A mobile or a pager? A coughing accomplice in the audience? Or, microchip under the skin, huh?27

16.INSPECTOR: It’s hot and my wife is giving me hell, I’ve got a desk full of murderers, rapists, extortionists, bum-bandit and you. So, why don’t you save us both a lot of time? And tell me how you cheated.28

17.INSPECTOR: He’s unconscious, chutiya. What good is that? How many times have I told you, Srinivas?30

18.INSPECTOR: Aré wa, Srinivas, now we’ll have Amnesty International in here next, peeing their pants about human rights.32

19.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Sir, I was thinking-33

20.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Sir, what do you think if he did know the answers?35

21.INSPECTOR: Professors, doctors, lawyers, general knowledge wallahs never get beyond sixteen thousand rupees. He’s on ten million? What the hell can a slum dog possibly know?36

22.JAMAL: The answers. I knew the answers.37

23.PREM: Not bad money to sit in a chair and answer a question. Better than making the tea, no?41

24.JAMAL: No. Yes. No.42

25.JAMAL: You don’t have to be a genius.48

26.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: I knew it was Amitabh Bacchan.49

27.JAMAL: Like I said. You don’t have to be a genius.50

28.JAMAL: He’s the most famous man in India!51

29.PREM: What do you think, Jamal? The most famous phrase of our country. Would you like to phone a friend?53


(44)

30.PREM: Put the poor man out of his misery, Ladies and Gentlemen.55

31.INSPECTOR: My five-year-old daughter can answer that question. But, you couldn’t. That’s strange for a millionaire genius. What happened? Your accomplice nip out for a piss?56

32.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: The Inspector is asking something.57

33.JAMAL: How much is panipuri at Harish’s stall on Chowpatty?58

34.INSPECTOR: What?59

35.JAMAL: Panipuri. One plate. How much?60

36.CONSTABLE SRINIVAS: Ten rupees.61

37.JAMAL: Wrong. Fifteen since Divali.62

38.JAMAL: Who stole Constable Varma’s bicycle outside Santa Cruz Station last Thursday?63

39.INSPECTOR: You know who that was?64

40.JAMAL: Everyone in Juhu knows that. Even five year-olds.65

41.JAMAL: I wake up every morning wishing I didn’t know the answer to that question? If it wasn’t for Rama and Allah, I would still have a mother.68

42.PREM: Final answer?70

43.PREM: Our contestant, Jamal Malik, call centre assistant from Mumbai, is on sixteen thousand rupees and has already used one lifeline: Ask the Audience.77

44.PREM: Surdas? Is that your final answer?82

45.JAMAL: Blind singers earn double. You know that.85

46.INSPECTOR: What happened to the girl? They blinded her, too?86

47.JAMAL: They had other plans. Though it took me a long time to find out.87


(45)

49.JAMAL: So what’s it?90

50.JAMAL: Some hotel, huh?91

51.TOURIST WOMAN 1: Please, what time is the next tour?92

52.TOURIST WOMAN 1: We’re on a very tight schedule, you see. Have to see the Red Fort this afternoon. Would it be possible to show us around now? Obviously we understand it would cost more for just the two of us.93

53.JAMAL: The Taj Mahal was built by the Emperor Khurram for his wife Mumtaz who was maximum beautiful woman in the world. When she died, the Emperor decided to build this five star hotel for everyone who like to visit her tomb but, he died in fifteen eighty-seven, before any of the rooms were built. Or the lifts. The swimming pool as you can see was completed on schedule in top class fashion.95

54.TOURIST WOMAN 1: It says nothing of this in the guide book.96

55.JAMAL: The guide book is written by a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing, Indian beggars.97

56.JAMAL: And this, Lady and Gentleman, is the burial place of Mumtaz.98

57.TOURIST WOMAN 1: How did she die?99

58.JAMAL: A road traffic accident.100

59.TOURIST WOMAN 1: Really?101

60.JAMAL: Maximum pile-up.102

61.TOURIST MAN 1: I thought she died in child-birth.103

62.JAMAL: Exactly, Sir. She was on the way to the hospital when it happened.104


(46)

63.JAMAL: This Mister David, is the biggest dhobi ghatbin the whole of India. They say that every man in Uttar Pradesh is wearing a kurta that has been washed here at least one time.105

64. JAMAL: You wanted to see the ‘real India’, Mister David. Here it is.108

65.TOURIST WOMAN 2: Well, here’s a bit of the real America, son.109

66.VISION MIXER: No, he’s going to play with him, first.113

67.PREM: You gonna paly?118

68.JAMAL: I think I had answered.119

69.PREM: Yes, you answer C.120

70.JAMAL: I don’t know.122

71.INSPECTOR: It’s Gandhi-ji!123

72.JAMAL: Look. They didn’t ask me that question. I don’t know why. Ask them.126

73.INSPECTOR: Funny, you don’t seem that interested in money.127

74.JAMAL: Bombay had turned into Mumbai.129

75.MAMAN: You really thought you could just walk in and take my prize away? Latika, come. Have you any idea how much this little virgin is worth, bhen chod?131

76.MAMAN: Let’s not be foolish, Salim. Heavy, isn’t it? Give it to me.135

77.MAMAN: You can have money. Here. Take it. Go. Disappear with your friend and we’ll forget all about this. Okay?137

78.SALIM: Maman never forgets. Isn’t that right?138

79.SALIM: Ican’t take that risk, Maman. Sorry.140


(47)

81.PREM: Jamal Malik, You are not dreaming runt. I have to say you gonna win more.145

82. JAMAL: I found something.148

83.LATIKA: Stay there. Look away.149

84.LATIKA: I know if you’re looking.150

85.LATIKA: Is Salim still there? Where’s Salim?152

86.JAMAL: I dunno.153

87.SALIM: I’m looking for Javed.155

88.MAMAN: Ja, mada chod. He’s not looking for you. Ja!156

89.JAVED: You really killed him?158

90.JAVED: I’ve been looking for someone like you.161

91.LATIKA: You came back for me.162

92.JAMAL: Of course.163

93.LATIKA: I thought you’d forgotten.164

94.JAMAL: I never forgot. Not for one moment. I knew I’d find you in the end. It’s our destiny.165

95.SALIM: Hei. Come.166

96.JAMAL: No. Brother, you’ve had a lot to drink.167

97.SALIM: I am the elder. And I am the boss. For once, you do as I say. Now, get out.168

98.SALIM: I saved your bloody life, didn’t I?169

99.JAMAL: Salim, open!173

100.SALIM: Shut up! The man with the Colt 45 says shut up.174

101.LATIKA: Go, Jamal. Go.176


(48)

103.JAMAL: I wouldn’t be here if I had.178

104.INSPECTOR: Was she pretty?179

105.INSPECTOR: Iguess not.180

106.INSPECTOR: Well, well. The slum dog barks. Money and women. The reasons to make most mistakes in life. Looks like you got mixed up with both.183

107.INSPECTOR: Srinivas, you need the exercise, go and get me something to eat.184

108.SRINIVAS: Yes, Sir.185

109.JAMAL: When somebody asks me a question, I tell them the answer.187

110.TEACHER: Okay, everyone. Listen up, it’s been a big week for UK. Kat is back.189

111.BARDI: She’s already back.190

112.TEACHER: Bardi. Jamal?191

113.JAMAL: Oh. Well. She did come back, then she went away when Alfie split up with her and now she’s: back again. But it looks as if Alfie still fancies Mo after all, so-192

114.TEACHER: Keep up, Bardi. The chi-wallah knows more than you.194

115.TEACHER: Anyway,there’s also a festival in Edinburgh. Anybody knows Edinburgh?195

116.STUDENT 1: Kilts, castles, haggis? Ben Nevis?196

117.STUDENT 2: Inspector Taggart, Whisky, Sean Connery!197

118.TEACHER: And lochs. Their word for lakes.198

119.OPERATORS: Jamal, come here. Today I’d like to be a contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire.199


(49)

120.JAMAL: I can’t.202

121.OPERATORS: Sit here. If the boss come, just pretend you are offering Friend and Family programme.203

122.JAMAL: 2 minutes.204

123.JAMAL: You have to dial when Prem says “if”. That’s when they open the lines.207

124.JAMAL: That’s what Anjum in technical says. He put the system in.209

125.JAMAL: Too obvious. There’s definitely an Oxford Circus in London, and there’s a rowing race between Oxford and Cambridge so there’s probably a Cambridge Circus too.211

126.PREM: What? Am I nervous? You’re the one who’s in the hot seat, my friend.217

127.SALIM: Maman’s guys were after us. We just had to skip.222

128.JAMAL: Liar.223

129.SALIM: I Left a message at your work. Waited weeks for you in Nagpur.224

130.JAMAL: There was no message.225

131.SALIM: Bhai, I definitely left a message.226

132.SALIM: I know.228

133.SALIM: That is used to be our slum. Can you believe that, huh? We used to live right there, bhai? Now it’s all business. India is at the centre of the world, now, bhai. And I am at the centre of the centre. This is all Javed-bhai’s.229

134.JAMAL: Javed Khan? The Gangster from our slum? You work for him?230

135.SALIM: Come on. Who else you think would save us from Maman’s guys, huh?231


(50)

136.JAMAL: What do you do for him?232

137.SALIM: Anything he asks.233

138.SALIM: He is coming. You need to go now. Take my card.234

139.JAMAL: What for?235

140.JAMAL: Salim, where’s Latika?237

141.SALIM: Still? She’s gone, brother. Long gone. Now go. Go to my place.238

142.DOOR-KEEPER: Excuse me. There’s nothing about any cook. There’s supposed to be a dishwasher being delivered. Do you know anything about that?240

143.LATIKA: Jamal, look at you!242

144.JAMAL: I found you.243

145.LATIKA: Why are you here?245

146.JAMAL: To see you.246

147.LATIKA: You see me. Now what?247

148.JAMAL: Why does everyone love this programme?248

149.LATIKA: It’s the chance to escape, isn’t it? Walk into another life.249

150.LATIKA: Javed will kill you. Now, here.250

151.JAMAL: Javed? You with him?251

152.LATIKA: Where? And live on what?257

153.JAMAL: Salim will help us.260

154.LATIKA: Salim? You still believe in Salim?261

155.JAMAL: Where?263

156.LATIKA: You think he’d tell me?264

157.LATIKA: Now go, before he kills us both.266


(51)

159.LATIKA: Then forget me.269

160.LATIKA: So what? It’s too late, Jamal? Now go.272

161.PREM: Dreams of so many on the floor.275

162.PREM: Time for commercial break, Ladies and Gentlemen.276

163.PREM: I know. I can’t stand the tension either.277

164.PREM: A guy from the slums becomes a millionaire overnight. You know who’s the only other person who’s done that? Me. I know what it feels like. I know what you’ve been through.279

165.PREM: You’ve said that before, yaar.281

166.PREM: Come on. You can’t take the money and run now. You’re on the edge of history, kid!283

167.JAMAL: I don’t see what else I can do.284

168.PREM: Maybe it is written, my friend. I don’t know. I just get some feeling you will win this. Trust me, Jamal. You’re gonna win.285

169.PREM: Do the right things and in approximately three minutes you will be as famous as me. And as rich as me. Almost. From rags to Raja. It’s your destiny.286

170.PREM: For ten million rupees. The question once again. Which cricketer has scored the most first class centuries in history.289

171.JAMAL: I know that it wasn’t Sachin Tendulkar.290

172.PREM: That’s a start. So, it could be Ricky Ponting, Jack Hobbs or Michael Slater.291

173.PREM: Well, you were right about Sachin Tendulkar. That leaves you a fifty-fifty choice, Jamal. B) Ricky Ponting or D) Jack Hobbs.294


(52)

174.PREM: What do you think? Decision time. For ten million rupees. B) Ricky Ponting or D) Jack Hobbs.295

175.PREM: Not B) Ricky Ponting? The Australian Great cricketer?297

176.PREM: You know?299

177.PREM: So it could be B, Ricky Ponting?300

178.JAMAL: Or D. Jack Hobbs. Final Answer. D.301

179.PREM: I cannot believe what I am seeing here, tonight, Ladies and Gentlemen.307

180.JAMAL: No. But , maybe it is written.309

181.PREM: Maybe.310

182.PREM: Join us tomorrow night to see if Jamal Malik has made the biggest mistake of his life or has just won the biggest prize in the history of Indian television. Same place, same time. You wouldn’t dare miss it. Goodnight!312

183.DIRECTOR: What’s going on?314

184.PREM: He’s a cheat.315

185.DIRECTOR: How do you know he’s cheating?316

186.PREM: Even when I fed him the wrong answer the little shit got it right.317

187.DIRECTOR: You gave him an answer?318

188.PREM: Not exactly. But, what is the matter? It’s my show. It’s my fucking show.319

189.INSPECTOR: It is a bizarrely plausible. And yet.320

190.JAMAL: Because I am a slum dog, chai- wallah, I am a liar, right?321

191.INSPECTOR: Most of you are. But you are not a liar, Mister Malik, that is for sure. You are too truthful. We’re done.322


(53)

192.JAMAL: I don’t know where they had taken her. Latika. I went to the show because I thought she will be watching.323

193.SALIM: That guy. He will never give up. Never. Crazy chutiyé.324

194.SALIM: Ja. Go.325

195.SALIM: Just drive. There won’t be another chance.326

196.LATIKA: He will kill you.327

197.LATIKA: Salim, I can’t.329

198.SALIM: You have to. For God’s sake, hold on to it.330

199.SRINIVAS: You’ll back on the show.333

200.PREM: I can safely say that tonight is the biggest night of both of our lives. Jamal Malik, the Call Centre worker from Mumbai has already won ten million rupees. Tonight, he can walk away with that in his pocket or make the biggest gamble in television history and go for the final question and a staggering twenty million rupees!335

201.PREM: Big reader, are you Jamal?338

202.JAMAL: I can read.339

203.PREM: The final question, for twenty million rupees and he’s smiling. I guess you know the answer.341

204.JAMAL: Would you believe it? I don’t.342

205.PREM: You don’t? So, you take the ten millions and walk?343

206.PREM: Let me remain you, Jamal. If you get the answer wrong, you will lose everything. Ten million rupees, Jamal.345

207.PREM: We are going to the wire. The final Life-line. Here we go.347

208.PREM: It’s ringing. Who’s it?348


(54)

210.JAMAL: It’s the only number I know.351

211.PREM: You are on your own, Jamal.352

212.PREM: I’m guessing that isn’t your brother. This is-354

213.PREM: Okay! Latika, you want to hear the question one more time? And let’s be clear about this. Twenty million rupees ride on your answer. You have thirty seconds. Jamal, please read out the question to Latika. Now.356

214.JAMAL: Is that really you?357

215.LATIKA: Yes.358

216.PREM: The question, Jamal. The question.359

217.JAMAL: In Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers, two of the musketeers are called Athos and Porthos. What was the name of the third musketeer? Was it A) Aramis, B) Cardinal Richelieu, C) D’Artagnan, D) Planchet.360

218.PREM: Fifteen seconds.361

219.JAMAL: Where are you?362

220.LATIKA: I’m safe.363

221.PREM: Ten seconds. Latika, what do you think?364

222.LATIKA: I don’t know. I’ve never known.365

223.PREM: You really are on your own, now, Jamal. Your final answer for twenty million rupees.366

224.PREM: A. Because?368

225.JAMAL: Just. Because.369

226.PREM: Final answer?370

227.LATIKA: Jamal. I thought we would meet again only in death.377


(55)

Expositives shows how our utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation and how we use our words. When Jamal says “Jamal Malik”, his utterance is fit into Constable Srinivas’ question for what is Jamal’s name. And also when Prem utters “I can safely say that tonight is the biggest night of both of our lives. Jamal Malik, the Call Centre worker from Mumbai has already won ten million rupees. Tonight, he can walk away with that in his pocket or make the biggest gamble in television history and go for the final question and a staggering twenty million rupees!” is fit into the condition that Jamal will lose his ten million rupees if he gives the wrong answer.

After analyzing all the utterances by the whole characters in Slumdog Millionaire, it is found that there are 382 utterances which can be characterized for each illocutionary acts category. This table will show the whole findings of classifications of illocutionary acts in Slumdog Millionaire:

Illocutionary Acts Classifications Frequency

Verdictives 8

Exercitives 36

Commissives 18

Behabitives 89

Expositives 228


(56)

The general statistics formula will be used to find the dominant illocutionary act in Slumdog Millionaire and the formula is:

=

×

���

%

In which:

x: percentage of illocutionary acts category

F: individual frequency of illocutionary act category N: population of the whole illocutionary acts category

The formula above will be applied to the finding of each illocutionary act category and it will be:

1. Verdictives: 8

378 × 100% = 2,11%

2. Exercitives: 36

379 × 100% = 9,5%

3. Commissives: 18

379 × 100% = 4,74%

4. Behabitives: 89

379 × 100% = 23,5%

5. Expositives: 228


(57)

V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion

Back to the problems of this thesis:

1. What are the classifications of Illocutionary Act found in Slumdog Millionaire?

2. What is the dominant Illocutionary Act found in Slumdog Millionaire?

3. What is the explanation for the finding dominant Illocutionary Act in Slumdog Millionaire?

After analyzing the whole utterances in English by the characters in the movie the writer takes the conclusion as below:

1. There are found the whole categories of illocutionary acts in Slumdog

Millionaire, they are Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives,

Behabitives, Expositives.

2. From the analyzing of illocutionary act classifications in Slumdog

Millionaire, it can be concluded that Expositives is the dominant

illocutionary act in the movie with 235 utterances (61,52 %) followed by Behabitives with 85 utterances (22,25 %), Exercitives with 35 utterances (9,16 %), Commissives with 19 utterances (4,97 %) and the last is Verdictives with 8 utterances (2,1 % ).

3. Expositives shows how our utterances fit into the course of an argument or conversation and how we use our words. When Prem utters “I can


(58)

safely say that tonight is the biggest night of both of our lives. Jamal Malik, the Call Centre worker from Mumbai has already won ten million rupees. Tonight, he can walk away with that in his pocket or make the biggest gamble in television history and go for the final

question and a staggering twenty million rupees!” is fit into the

condition that Jamal will lose his ten million rupees if he gives the wrong answer. Not like Verdictives which the speaker must have a condition where he/she can make a verdict, Exercitives where the speaker must have an authority to make a decision, a Commissives where the speaker should commit to do something and Behabitives which has connection to social behavior, Expositives is class of illocutionary act which need not the condition that must be fulfilled. That means every people who utter something, as long as their utterances are fit to the conversation, they have created an Expositives. That is why Expositives is the most dominant illocutionary act classification is Slumdog Millionaire.

5.2. Suggestion

The writer hopes there will be the next students who will read this thesis and after reading it, the readers will be more understand what Speech Act is. Compared to some theses before which discuss the same topic but using difference theory, Searle, Akmajian, Peccei and this thesis is done using Austin’s speech act theory, hopefully the readers will continue the research with the wider objects and use other


(59)

theorist’s speech act theory. It means to enrich the next readers to see the comparison how one theorist classifies illocutionary act to other theorist’s classification.


(60)

REFERENCES

Afriani, Iyan. 2009. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Retrieved fro (July 2012)

Alvarez, Elena. Performative Speech Act Verbs in Present Day English. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Retrieved from

dialnet.uniroja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=3697086

Austin, J.L. 1962. How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bach, Kent. Meaning, Speech Acts, and Communication. Retrieved from online.sfsu.edu/~kbach/oldies/MSAC.pdf (December 2011).

Collinge, N.E. 1990. An Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Routledge.

Deborah, Schiffrin. 1994. Ancangan Kajian Wacana. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

DeVito, Joseph. 1985. Human Communication: The Basic Course. Third Edition.

New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Halion. Kevin. Deconstruction and Speech Act Theory: A Defence of the Distinction

between Normal and Parasitic Speech Act. Retrieved from

Holtgraves, Thomas. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and

Language Use. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Jannedy,Stefanie et.al. 1994. Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Sixth Edition. Ohio State University Press.


(61)

Kaelan. 2006. Perkembangan Filsafat Analitika Bahasa dan Pengaruhnya Terhadap

Ilmu Pengetahuan. Sleman: “Paradigma” Yogyakarta.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia

Miles & Huberman. 1992. Analisis Data Kualitatif, Buku Sumber Tentang Metode-metode Baru. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia (UI Press)

Miller, Katherine. 2002. Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. United States of America: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Moloeng, Lexy. 2005. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Oishi, Etsuko. 2006. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation. Retrieved from www2.units.it/eserfilo/art106/oishi106.pdf (December 2011)

Rahardi, Kanjana. 2009. Sosiopragmatik. Yogyakarta: Erlangga

Stilwell Peccei, Jean. 1999. Pragmatics. China: Taylor and Francis Limited

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press

Slumdog Millionaire Movie Script. Retrieved from

November 2011)

Speech Act Theory. Retrieved from

changeminds.org/explanations/theories/speech_acts.htm (December 2011)

Understand and Act Classical Rethoric, Speech Acts, and the Teaching of Critical Democratic Participation. Retrieved from rethorica.net/docs/Dissertation.pdf (January 2012)


(1)

Jamal concedes he does not know the answer of who the third musketeer in Alexandre Dumas' book, The Three Musketeers is.

361. PREM: You don't? So, you take the ten millions and walk? IAC: Expositives

Prem defines if Jamal does not know the answer of who the third musketeer in Alexandre Dumas' book, The Three Musketeers is, he will take the ten million and forget the twenty million rupees.

362. JAMAL: No. I'll play. IAC: Exercitives

Jamal decides he will play the final question.

363. PREM: Let me remain you, Jamal. If you get the answer wrong, you will lose everything. Ten million rupees, Jamal.

IAC: Expositives

Prem emphasizes Jamal to think twice before he gives the wrong answer and lose everything.

364. JAMAL: I'd like to phone a friend. IAC: Exercitives

Jamal chooses to use the Lifeline of Phone a Friend.

365. PREM: We are going to the wire. The final Life-line. Here we go. IAC: Expositives

Prem informs that Jamal uses his final Lifeline and it is going to the wire.

366. PREM: It’s ringing. Who’s it? IAC: Expositives

The phone is connected and Prem asks Jamal who he has been phoned.

367. JAMAL: It’s my brother’s number IAC: Exopositives


(2)

Jamal told that the phone will connect to his brother.

368. PREM: The kind of brother who'd go for a walk on the twenty million rupee question?

IAC: Behabitives

Prem jokes Jamal that he phones a brother who will help him to win the twenty million rupees question.

369. JAMAL: It’s the only number I know. IAC: Expositives

Jamal explains Prem that his brother’s number is the only one he knows.

370. PREM: You are on your own, Jamal. IAC: Expositives

Prem remains Jamal that he is the only one who can decide what he will do.

371. LATIKA: Hallo? Hallo, Jamal? IAC: Behabitives

Latika answers Jamal’s phone from ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ line.

372. PREM: I'm guessing that isn't your brother. This is- IAC: Expositives

Prem guess that the one who receives Jamal’s call is not his brother so he asks who the girl is.

373. LATIKA: My name is Latika. IAC: Behabitives


(3)

374. PREM: Okay! Latika, you want to hear the question one more time? And let's be clear about this. Twenty million rupees ride on your answer. You have thirty seconds. Jamal, please read out the question to Latika. Now.

IAC: Expositives

Prem asks Latika if he wants to hear the question again and prize of twenty million rupees is based on Latika’s answer for the question. Prems also mentions that Latika just has thirty seconds to hear the question and then straight to her answer.

375. JAMAL: Is that really you? IAC: Expositives

Jamal asks if the one in the line of his phone is really Latika.

376. LATIKA: Yes. IAC: Expositives

Latika answers that she is really her.

377. PREM: The question, Jamal. The question IAC: Expositives

Prem remains Jamal to read the question for the time is keep going.

378. JAMAL: In Alexander Dumas' book, The Three Musketeers, two of the musketeers are called Athos and Porthos. What was the name of the third musketeer. Was it A) Aramis, B) Cardinal Richelieu, C) D'Artagnan, D) Planchet.

IAC: Expositives

Jamal describes that Latika must answer who the third musketeer in Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers is.

379. PREM: Fifteen seconds. IAC: Expocitives


(4)

Prem informs Jamal that the time he has in waiting Latika gives her answer for the question of who the third musketeer in Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers is, is only fifteen seconds left.

380. JAMAL: Where are you? IAC: Expositives

Jamal asks where Latika is.

381. LATIKA: I'm safe. IAC: Expositives

Latika states she is safe, she can run from Javed’s place.

382. PREM: Ten seconds. Latika, what do you think? IAC: Expositives

Prem remains Latika to give her answer for the question of who the third musketeer in Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers is, because it is ten seconds left.

383. LATIKA: I don't know. I’ve never known. IAC: Expositives

Latika tells she does not know and never known who the third musketeer in Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers is

384. PREM: You really are on your own, now, Jamal. Your final answer for twenty million rupees.

IAC: Expositives

Prem states Jamal should decide his own answer because Latika cannot help him.

385. JAMAL: A. IAC: Exercitives


(5)

386. PREM: A. Because? IAC: Expositives

Prem asks why Jamal chooses ‘A’ as the answer for the question of who is the third musketeer is Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers.

387. JAMAL: Just. Because. IAC: Expositives

Jamal cannot explain why he chooses A but it is a must for him to choose one.

388. PREM: Final answer? IAC: Expositives

Prem asks if ‘A’ is Jamal’s final answer for the question of who is the third musketeer is Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers.

389. JAMAL: Yes. Final answer. A. Aramis. IAC: Exercitives

Jamal affirms he keep ‘A’ for the question of who is the third musketeer is Alexander Dumas’ book, The Three Musketeers.

390. PREM: Computer-ji, ‘A’ lock kiya-jaye. IAC: Exercitives

Prem commands the computer system to lock Jamal’s answer.

391. PREM: Jamal Malik, Call Centre Assistant from Mumbai, chi-wallah, for two Crore, twenty million rupees, you were asked who the Third Musketeer was in the novel by Alexandre Dumas. You answered A. Aramis which is I have to tell you. The right answer!

IAC: Verdictives

Prem verdicts Jamal is winning the highest prize on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ for his right answer.


(6)

392. PREM: Jamal Malik, double Crorepati! What a night! We have all been present here to creat history, well done.

IAC: Behabitives

Prem congrats Jamal for winning twenty million rupees.

393. SALIM: God is great. IAC: Behabitives

Salim is praising God.

394. JAMAL: Latika. IAC: Behabitives

Jamal greets Latika when they meet at VT station.

395. LATIKA: Jamal. I thought we would meet again only in death. IAC: Expositives

Latika tells Jamal her thought that they will never meet again.

396. JAMAL: I knew you'd be watching. This is our destiny. IAC: Expositives

Jamal interposes his sure that Latika must be watching him on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ and it has been their destiny.

397. LATIKA: Kiss me. IAC: Behabitives