Discussion FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

61 In brief, Question-Answer is the basic way of interaction. To establish a good interaction, the speaker needs to understand more about the interlocutor, especially about the intent of utterance. The aim of understanding the interlocutor is giving the expected and suitable response, in order to get the good feedback. Thus, the good interaction will create the harmonious relationship between people. 62

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter outlines the conclusion of the findings and suggestion for future research.

5.1 Conclusion

Adjacency pair is one of the basic units in the conversational organization. An adjacency pair is a pair of interrelated utterances which consist of the first speaker and the second speaker. Both speakers have their respective roles, where the first part produces the utterances and the second part provides the response to the first part. The writer found 11 types of adjacency pairs based on analyzed data, they are Question-Answer, Greeting-Response, Summons-Response, Request- Acceptance Refusal, Command-Obedience Disobedience, Offer- Acceptance Rejection, Invitation-Acceptance refusal, Suggest-acceptance refusal, Assessment-Agree Disagree, Statement-Agree Disagree, and Apologize-Minimization. Based on those types, it indicates that the second part does not always provide the expected response preferred, there is also an unexpected response dispreferred. The types which have a dispreferred response are Request-Refusal, Command-Disobedience, Offer-Rejection, Invitation- Refusal, Suggest-Refusal, Assessment-Disagree, and Statement-Disagree. These dispreferred responses will trigger the emergence of feedback. The writer classified 7 forms of feedback of dispreferred response in accordance 63 with the results of the analysis; they are Act, Attitude, Expression, + Attitude Act, Act + Expression, Expression + Attitude, and No Response. For further information, the highest type of adjacency pairs in this study is Question-Answer, which is 73 data representing 37,6 of all data. Whereas, the lowest number is Invitation-AcceptanceRefusal, which is 3 data representing 1,5 of all data. Meanwhile, the highest form of feedback of dispreferred response is Attitude, with the frequency 15 and the percentage of 27.3. Whereas, the lowest form of feedback of dispreferred response is Act + Expression, with the frequency 2 and the percentage of 3.6. In conclusion, the utterances produced by all characters in Frozen movie is interrelated to one another. The pairs interrelated in the conversation indicates the various types of adjacency pairs. There are several types which provide dispreferred response in the second part. Certainly, this dispreferred response will trigger the emergence of feedback which is produced by the first part.

5.2 Suggestion

This study has focused on the types of adjacency pair and the feedback of dispreferred response to analyze adjacency pairs in the dialogues of Frozen movie. Both of them have interrelatedness to establish a good conversation. It is suggested for future research to determine the feedback of dispreferred response with different source of data, such as conversation in real life. The terms of feedback of dispreferred response are determined by the writer based on psychological context. So, it will be particularly interesting if the next 64 research can describe and classify the forms of feedback of dispreferred response with different context, such as linguistic context and social context. REFERENCES BSSRO. 2016, Descriptive Research. Accessed on June, 20 th 2016 at http:www.bssro.orgdescriptiveresearch.aspx Buck, C., Lee, J. Director. 2013. Frozen. [Motion Pictures]. Walt Disney Animation Studios. Accessed on February, 27 th 2014 at https:www.youtube.comwatch?v=ef0b-J-NJ_c Buck, C., Lee, J. Director. 2013. Frozen. [Movie Script]. Walt Disney Animation Studios. Accessed on October, 08 th 2015 at https:www.goodinaroom.comwp-contentuploadsfrozen Coulthard, M. 1985. An introduction to Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman Group. Accessed on June, 19 th 2016 at http:applij.oxfordjournals.orgcontentI2179.full.pdf Coulthard, M. 1992. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Accessed on June, 19 th 2016 at http:liduaeka.weebly.comuploads107610761275advances_in_spoke n_da.pdf Fitriana, G. A. 2013. Adjacency Pairs Analysis In “Red Riding Hood’s” Movie. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Accessed on March, 14 th 2016 at http:eprints.ums.ac.id25045902.NASKAH_PUBLIKASI.pdf Frozen. 2013. Accessed on June, 16 th 2016 at http:disney.wikia.comwikiFrozen Fuad, H. 2015. Adjacency pair in “Knight and day” Movie. States Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Accessed on March, 14 th 2016 at http:digilib.uinsby.ac.id2713 Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. Accessed on March, 17 th 2015 at http:samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk9781317820581_sample_840607.p df Given, L. M. 2008. The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. Accessed on June, 17 th 2016 at http:stiba- malang.ac.id...QUALITATIVE20METHOD20SAGE20ENCY.pdf Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge. Accessed on June,19 th 2016 at https:muse.jhu.eduarticle453059pdf Konnikova, M 2014. How “Frozen” Took Over The World. Accessed on July, 24 th 2016 at http:www.newyorker.comsciencemaria-konnikovahow-frozen-took- over-the-world Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press: NewYork. Accessed on June, 17 th 2016 at https:web.stanford.educgpottspaperspotts-pragmatics-oupcompling.pdf Litosseliti, L. 2010. Linguistics Research Methodology, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Accessed on March, 6 th 2015 at https:tainguyenso.vnu.edu.vnjspuibitstream12345678942708102071 000006.pdf Majid. N. A. 2011. Getting Beyond Conversation Analysis: Critical and Pedagogical Implications for TESOLBilingual Curriculum for Diverse Learners in the Age of Globalization. A journal of Education Inquiry. Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2011, pp.141–151. Accessed on April, 11 th 2016 at https:www.education- inquiry.netindex.phpeduiarticledownload2196928713 Makasau, R. 2015. Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. Sanata Dharma University. Accessed on March, 14 th 2016 at https:repository.usd.ac.id1022 Mc Carthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press. Accessed on March, 30 th 2015 at https:www.cambridge.orgdownload_file625092126722 Mills, S. 1997. Discourse. London: Routledge. Accessed on March, 18 th 2015 at http:profcohen.netltwl129mills.pdf