Misunderstanding Caused By Different Interpretations of Speech Act Classification and Ambiguities in 'The Naked Gun' Trilogy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................
i
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................
ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study .....................................................................
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................
Methods of Research ...........................................................................
Organization of the Thesis ...................................................................
1
4
4
5
5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................
6
CHAPTER THREE: MISUNDERSTANDING CAUSED BY DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION AND
AMBIGUITY IN THE NAKED GUN TRILOGY
3.1 Misunderstanding Caused by Different Interpretations of Speech Act
Classifications ................................................................................ 11
3.2 Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguities .................................... 21
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ............................................................ 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES
Table 1. Data of Misunderstanding of Speech Act Classifications ........ 39
Table 2. Data of Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguity ................... 40
i
Maranatha Christian University
ABSTRACT
Tugas Akhir ini mengangkat masalah kesalahpahaman dalam percakapan.
Saya mengambil data dari film trilogi The Naked Gun, sebuah film komedi
tentang seorang polisi bernama Frank Drebin yang sering menyalahartikan apa
yang orang lain katakan.
Film pertama menceritakan tentang Frank yang bertugas untuk melindungi
Ratu Elizabeth II. Film kedua menceritakan tentang Frank yang berusaha untuk
menghentikan seorang penipu membacakan laporan palsu tentang sumber energi
yang harus didukung oleh pemerintah. Di film ketiga, Frank bertugas untuk
menghentikan pembomban di gedung tempat Academy Award akan diadakan.
Bercakap-cakap sudah menjadi hal yang biasa kita lakukan setiap hari. Di
dalam percakapan kita sering salah mengartikan apa yang dimaksudkan oleh
orang lain. Kita bisa salah mengartikan sebuah kata, karena kata tersebut memiliki
lebih dari satu arti yang berbeda. Kita juga bisa salah mengartikan topik
percakapan, karena kita dan lawan bicara kita memiliki pemikiran yang berbeda.
Walaupun dalam percakapan bisa terjadi kesalahpahamaan, tidak berarti
bahwa hal itu merupakan sesuatu yang buruk. Sebaliknya, kesalahpahaman bisa
menjadi sesuatu yang menghibur dalam percakapan.
ii
Maranatha Christian University
APPENDICES
Table 1. Data of Misunderstanding of Speech Act Classifications
No.
Frank
1
2
3
4
Nordberg
Frank
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Wilma
5
Ed
Frank
Frank
6
7
Speech Act
Classification
Data
Ed
Frank
Vincent
Frank
: Nordberg, it's me, Frank. Who did this to
you?
: I...love you.
: I love you, too, Nordberg.
: Who were they?
: Ship... Boat...
: That's right Nordberg, a boat. When you're
better, we'll go sailing together, we’ll take
a cruise, just like last year.
: No... Drugs.
: Hey, nurse, quick, give this man some
drugs! Quick, can’t you see he’s in pain!
Give him a shot, quickly!
: No... Heroin! Heroin, Frank!
: Nordberg, that’s a pretty tall order. You
have to give me a couple of days on that
one.
: He never wanted to hurt anyone. Who
would do such a thing?
: It's hard to tell.
: Could be a gang of thugs, a blackmailer,
an angry husband, a gay lover...
: Good cop, needlessly cut down and
ambushed by some cowardly hoodlum.
: That’s no way for a man to die.
: You’re right, Ed. A parachute not opening.
That’s a way to die. Getting caught in
gears of a combine. Having your nuts bit
off by a Laplander, that’s the way I wanna
go.
: Cuban?
: No. Dutch-Irish. My father was from
Wales.
39
representative
expressive
representative
directive
representative
directive
representative
directive
expressive
directive
expressive
representative
Directive:
offer
question
Vincent
8
Frank
Vincent
Frank
Jane
9
Frank
Jane
Frank
Frank
10
11
12
13
Ed
Frank
Butler
Frank
: Do you have any idea what was out there,
just five years ago?
: Ya! (screaming in pain)
: You bet you do. Orange groves, acres of
them as far as the eye could see.
: Thank you. I wish to some way I could
repay you. How about dinner? I know this
a little out-of-the-way place that serves
great Viking food.
: That’s quite a tempting offer Lieutenant,
but I'm afraid I’m gonna get my rest this
evening, tomorrow being Arbor Day and
all.
: Of course. Well, perhaps some other time.
: How about a rain check?
: Well, let's just stick to dinner.
: That’s the red light district. Wonder why
Savage is hanging out down there.
: Sex, Frank?
: Uh…no, not right now, Ed. We got work
to do.
: Your coat, sir?
: Yes, it is. And I have a receipt to prove it.
Commissioner : Do you realize that because of you this
city is being overrun by baboons?
Frank
: Well, isn’t that the fault of the voters?
Frank
: Cigarette?
Tanya
: Yes, I know.
Priest
14
Mourners
Ed
15
Nordberg
expressive
representative
commissive
directive
representative
directive
Directive:
offer
question
representative
directive
Directive:
offer
question
: May he rest in peace in the arms of our
loving... Jesus Christ! (Screaming in expressive
declaration
surprise)
: Amen.
: Nordberg, look! That’s Frank at the
directive
Academy Awards.
representative
: Hey, how’d he get tickets?
Table 2. Data of Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguity
No.
Frank
1
2
Jane
Jane
Frank
Data
Ambiguity
: Hm…interesting. Almost as
syntactic
interesting as the photographs I saw ambiguity:
today.
referential
: I was young. I needed the work.
ambiguity
: Can I interest you in a nightcap?
lexical ambiguity
: No, I don’t wear them.
40
Jane
3
4
5
6
Frank
Waiter
Frank
: Sir?
: Give me the strongest thing you got.
(A body builder shows up)
Frank
Ed
Frank
: Red van.
: I know.
: Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police
Squad. This is my captain Ed Hocken.
: Is this some kind of bust?
: Well, it’s very impressive, yes… but
we need to ask you a few questions.
: I told Jane to meet us at the hotel’s
rear entrance.
: Where’s that, Frank?
: In the back.
: Frank, we’d better make our move.
: You’re right Ed. I’m thinking of
something more up-tempo, like
Guantanamera.
: Lieutenant Drebin. Frank, didn’t you
see that?
: What? Oh, yes, Kitty Litter. Two bags
for $ 1.00.
: Do you have an appointment
Mister…?
: Smith. Uh, no I don’t.
: Then take a number.
: Six.
: What?
: Is six taken? Does it have to be
between one and ten?
: When did you first notice the
problem?
: Uh…, in the backyard with my uncle.
: In the backyard. With your uncle?
: Yes, when he comes over to visit. We
like to go out in the backyard throw it
around for a while.
: And what did you and your uncle find
out?
: Oh…, I can’t keep up with him, mine
hurt especially on the long ones. I
can’t seem to straighten it out. It has
no feeling, it’s kind of numb. I may
Shopkeeper
Frank
Frank
7
8
Ed
Frank
Ed
Frank
Cashier
9
Frank
Nurse
10
: Yeah, you know, a white guy, with a
mustache, about 6’3”
: That’s an awfully big mustache.
Frank
Nurse
Frank
Nurse
Frank
Doctor
Frank
Doctor
Frank
11
Doctor
Frank
41
syntactic
ambiguity:
structural
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
have yanked it too much maybe.
: Sir? Mr. Smith, how are we doing?
: I’ve been busy if that’s what you
mean?
Doctor
: Would you like a video tape to assist
you?
Frank
: Oh. Do you have Dances with the
Wolves? Rocketeer? Lady and the
Tramp?
Ted
: We detected a high quantity of
nitroglycerin.
Ed
: Can you tell us where it came from?
Ted
: I'd be glad to. Billions of years ago,
the Earth was a molten mass.
Ed
: If Rocco finds out you’re a cop, you
might end up dead.
Frank
: “You might end up dead” is my
middle name.
Ed
: How about Jane?
Frank
: I don’t know her middle name.
Rocco
: All right, Slasher. You know what to
do.
Frank
: Right. Make sure the spare tire
inflated and check the fluid levels.
Ed
: I’m Ed Hocken and this is Nordberg
from Police Squad. We're here to
prevent a disaster.
Stage Director : You’re too late for that.
Frank
: Let me open this.
It’s the bomb!
(The producers from Sawdust and
Mildew stand up and the audience is
cheering)
Doctor
Frank
12
13
14
15
16
17
42
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The topic of this thesis is “Misunderstandings Caused by Different
Interpretations of Speech Act Classifications and Ambiguities in The Naked Gun
Trilogy.” Misunderstandings sometimes happen when we are having a
conversation. We may misunderstand what people are trying to say because we
misinterpret it. We misinterpret what people say probably because they say it
implicitly; they do not say directly what they want to say. For example, when we
want to go to the restroom, we do not say, “I need to piss.” because we would be
considered impolite. So, instead, we say, “I need to powder my nose.”, “I need to
drain the dragon.”, and so on. This, of course, can confuse someone who does not
understand the implicit meaning of the utterances, which then leads to
misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
My topic belongs to Pragmatics, Syntax, and Semantics. Pragmatics deals
with speaker meaning and contextual meaning (Yule 3). The theory I use to
analyze the data of my topic is speech acts, which exists in Pragmatics.
Speech acts are actions performed via utterances (Yule 47). When we say
something, we are not only saying it but also doing something. In interpreting
1
Maranatha Christian University
what a person really wants from us or what she or he wants us to do, speech act
has five classifications. They are declaration, representative, expressive, directive,
and commissive.
Different interpretations of speech act classifications happen normally
because a sentence can be categorized into more than one classification. Some
people may be unable to determine what classification of speech act the speaker
intends to say. For example, when we say, “You’re drinking too much.”, it can be
interpreted as a representative: the speaker only says what he or she believes to be
true, or as a directive: the speaker says it as an order or a suggestion that the
hearer should stop drinking. However, misunderstanding can still happen even
though we already understand the speech act classifications, that is when we
misinterpret the type of the speech act classification. For example, when we offer
something, the hearer may interpret it as a question. In this case, the speech act
classification interpreted by both the speaker and the hearer is directive, but the
types of directive are different. The type of directive intended by the speaker is an
offer, but the type of directive interpreted by the hearer is a question. For example,
the utterance “Soda?” can be interpreted as a question or an offer.
Another linguistic area that my research belongs to is Syntax. Syntax is
“the study of the relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in
sequence, and which sequences are well-formed.” (Yule 4). In Syntax, there is a
potential source of misinterpretation, namely syntactic ambiguity, which means
ambiguity caused by different interpretations of a structure of a sentence.
My research also belongs to Semantics. Semantics is “the study of
meaning of a word and a phrase.” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
2
Maranatha Christian University
1491). In Semantics, one potential factor of misunderstanding is semantic
ambiguity or lexical ambiguity; it means ambiguity caused by the different
interpretations of meanings of a word, a phrase, or a sentence.
To avoid ambiguities in a conversation, we need context. Context is “the
situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it.”
(Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 263). People talk with a lot of other
people, such as friends or family every day. We talk at different time and place. In
general, we talk in different contexts. Regardless of how many contexts we are in,
we can understand what our friends or family talk about because the context is
clear. For example, when we are in one’s house and the owner of the house offers
us a drink, we either accept or reject it. In this case, we understand what he or she
is trying to do, which is offering us a drink; we do not think that he or she is trying
to mock us. However, there are times when the context is not clear, which leads to
confusion, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of the context. For example,
when we want to offer someone a cigarette, it can be interpreted as an insult or an
offer; it depends on the context.
My sources of data are the movies The Naked Gun: From the Files of
Police Squad!, The Naked Gun 2 ½: The Smell of Fear, and Naked Gun 33 ⅓:
The Final Insult. The Naked Gun is a series of three comedy movies from 1988 to
1994. The Naked Gun trilogy is a story of a policeman named Frank Drebin. In
the first movie, he has a job to protect Queen Elizabeth II. In the second movie,
Frank has a job to stop a fraud from making a speech on what energy source the
government should support. In the third movie, Frank has a job to stop the
bombing of a building where the 66th annual Academy Award will be held. In
3
Maranatha Christian University
these movies, Frank often misinterprets what people say, even though the context
is clear. I also surf the Internet to get the scripts for each movie; therefore, I can
save my time. I choose these sources of data because in these movies, I can find a
lot of misinterpretations of speech act classifications, and syntactic and semantic
ambiguities.
The significance of my topic is to show how speech acts, syntactic and
semantic ambiguities are misinterpreted in these movies to build the comical
scenes. As a matter of fact, the misinterpretations of those linguistic features are
what we usually do every day. However, this can make The Naked Gun trilogy
very comical. In short, by analyzing the topic, I would like to prove that
something as ordinary as the misinterpretations of speech act classifications,
syntactic and semantic ambiguities can be an extraordinary source of the comical
scenes in The Naked Gun.
Statement of the Problem
In this thesis, I would like to discuss two things:
1. What utterances lead to misunderstanding in the movies?
2. How are the speech act classifications or syntactic and semantic ambiguities
misinterpreted so as to create misunderstandings leading to the comical
scenes?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of discussing the problems above is:
1. To find out the utterances that lead to misunderstanding in the movies.
4
Maranatha Christian University
2. To find out how the speech act classifications or syntactic and semantic
ambiguities are misinterpreted so as to create misunderstandings leading to the
comical scenes.
Method of Research
In gathering the data, I go through five steps. First, I watch the movies.
Second, I surf the Internet to find the scripts of the movies. Third, I choose the
conversations which contain misunderstanding in the movies. Fourth, I write the
conversations down. Last, I analyze the conversations by applying the theories of
speech act, syntactic and semantic ambiguities.
Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, consists
of Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study,
Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter 2 contains the
theory which I use to analyze the data. In Chapter 3, I put forward the analysis of
the data. Chapter 4 contains the conclusion of the thesis. Finally, the thesis ends
with the bibliography and the appendices.
5
Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
Having analyzed the data from the conversations in The Naked Gun
trilogy in the previous chapter, I have arrived to some conclusions. I find out that
the most frequent misunderstanding caused by different interpretations of speech
act classification happen when a representative utterance is misunderstood as a
directive utterance. The first reason why this can happen is that sometimes people
say something not in a form of a complete sentence, but using only one or two
words. Now that it is only one or two words, people are bound to misinterpret
what the other people are saying. Since there is not much to comprehend from just
one or two words, the hearer can think of several different things, which are all
related to the words. For example, when Frank hears “Ship… Boat…”, he thinks
it means that Nordberg wants to sail, which is not what Nordberg means.
In addition, there is another reason why a representative utterance can be
misunderstood as a directive utterance. The reason is that the sentence has a word
that has another meaning which can distract the hearer from understanding the
purpose of the utterance. For example when Frank hears the word baboons, he
misunderstands the meaning of the word baboons, because in this movie the
34
Maranatha Christian University
word has more than one meaning; as a result, he misunderstands the speech act
classification.
I also find out that misunderstanding in speech act classification does not
necessarily have to be of different speech act classifications, but it can also be of
the same classification. In this thesis, I find out that an offer can be misunderstood
as a question. An offer and a question are both classified as directive. In my
opinion, an offer can be misunderstood as a question because people can offer
something in the form of a question; as a result, the hearer thinks that the speaker
is asking a question. The exact reason why a question is misunderstood as an offer
is that the form used as an offer is incomplete. For example when Frank offers a
cigarette, he just says, “cigarette?”, which can be the incomplete way of saying
“would you like a cigarette?” as an offer or “do you know that this a cigarette?” as
a question.
On the other hand, in this analysis the least frequent misunderstanding
caused by different interpretations of speech act classification happen when a
directive utterance is misunderstood as a representative utterance. In spite of this,
actually in reality this kind of misunderstanding happens very often. I believe it is
just a coincidence why the reality about this misunderstanding is not reflected in
the film. A directive utterance can be misunderstood as a representative utterance
when people implicitly tell someone to do something, for example, when a person
says, “I have always wanted to have a diamond necklace.”, he or she does not
only say it but also hints that the hearer should buy a diamond necklace for him or
her.
35
Maranatha Christian University
The next thing I find out is that an expressive utterance can be easily
misunderstood as other speech act classification. In this thesis, an expressive
utterance can be misunderstood as a directive utterance, a representative utterance,
or a declaration utterance. In my opinion, this happens most probably owing to the
fact that the context allows the hearer to have a different interpretation of what it
is meant. The situation or the context when a conversation takes place can affect
someone’s understanding on what the speaker says. Therefore, a conversation at
different times and different places can have different interpretations. For
example, when a priest expresses his surprise by shouting, “Jesus Christ!”, and he
shouts it out at the end of a prayer in a burial ceremony, one can think that the
priest has just finished the prayer. Nevertheless, if the priest shouts, “Jesus
Christ!” when he is not in a burial ceremony, Jesus Christ! may not be understood
as a declaration utterance.
I also do not find a declaration utterance being misunderstood as any other
speech act classifications. I think this makes sense because we know that
declaration utterances can only be uttered by certain people of certain institution
and at a certain time and place. For example, a priest can only appropriately say,
“I now pronounce you husband and wife.” at a wedding ceremony. Seeing that it
can only be said appropriately by certain people of certain institution and at a
certain time and place, it is unlikely that someone will misunderstand declaration
utterances.
Another linguistic feature that may potentially create misinterpretation is
ambiguity. In this thesis, I find out that the type of ambiguity that most frequently
causes misunderstanding is referential ambiguity. The reason why this can happen
36
Maranatha Christian University
is that there is a word or a phrase that can refer to more than one thing. As a result,
people are bound to have a different idea of what is being talked about by the
speaker. Demonstrative pronouns and proper nouns are the examples of words
that can easily create referential ambiguity. For example, the word that in what is
that? can refer to anything. Another example, when a doctor says “what is your
problem?”, the word problem can refer to any problem. Nevertheless, the context
will limit what that or problem means so that the hearer will not have too many
interpretations of the words.
Another thing that I find out is that I do not find any utterance that
contains categorial ambiguity. I believe this kind of ambiguity is almost
impossible to happen when the speaker and/or the hearer knows English well.
Considering that categorial ambiguity is ambiguity that happens because a word
can refer to more than one part of speech, the speaker and the hearer must be
someone who has limited knowledge of English.
Last but not least, I would like to comment that misunderstanding caused
by misinterpretation of speech act classifications, syntactic ambiguity, and
semantic ambiguity are really an extraordinary source of a comedy movie. It can
make the movie funny and smart at the same time, because it can intrigue the
audience as they think of what is being talked about in the movie to understand
the comical scenes.
37
Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. Paramount Pictures, 1988
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear. Paramount Pictures, 1991
Naked Gun 331/3: The Final Insult. Paramount Pictures, 1994
REFERENCES
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press, 2003.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. England: Pearson Education
Limited, 2005.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
INTERNET SOURCES
Drew’s
Script-O-Rama.
10
September
2006
Ambiguity. 27 May 2007
38
Maranatha Christian University
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................
i
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................
ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study .....................................................................
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................
Methods of Research ...........................................................................
Organization of the Thesis ...................................................................
1
4
4
5
5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................
6
CHAPTER THREE: MISUNDERSTANDING CAUSED BY DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION AND
AMBIGUITY IN THE NAKED GUN TRILOGY
3.1 Misunderstanding Caused by Different Interpretations of Speech Act
Classifications ................................................................................ 11
3.2 Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguities .................................... 21
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ............................................................ 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES
Table 1. Data of Misunderstanding of Speech Act Classifications ........ 39
Table 2. Data of Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguity ................... 40
i
Maranatha Christian University
ABSTRACT
Tugas Akhir ini mengangkat masalah kesalahpahaman dalam percakapan.
Saya mengambil data dari film trilogi The Naked Gun, sebuah film komedi
tentang seorang polisi bernama Frank Drebin yang sering menyalahartikan apa
yang orang lain katakan.
Film pertama menceritakan tentang Frank yang bertugas untuk melindungi
Ratu Elizabeth II. Film kedua menceritakan tentang Frank yang berusaha untuk
menghentikan seorang penipu membacakan laporan palsu tentang sumber energi
yang harus didukung oleh pemerintah. Di film ketiga, Frank bertugas untuk
menghentikan pembomban di gedung tempat Academy Award akan diadakan.
Bercakap-cakap sudah menjadi hal yang biasa kita lakukan setiap hari. Di
dalam percakapan kita sering salah mengartikan apa yang dimaksudkan oleh
orang lain. Kita bisa salah mengartikan sebuah kata, karena kata tersebut memiliki
lebih dari satu arti yang berbeda. Kita juga bisa salah mengartikan topik
percakapan, karena kita dan lawan bicara kita memiliki pemikiran yang berbeda.
Walaupun dalam percakapan bisa terjadi kesalahpahamaan, tidak berarti
bahwa hal itu merupakan sesuatu yang buruk. Sebaliknya, kesalahpahaman bisa
menjadi sesuatu yang menghibur dalam percakapan.
ii
Maranatha Christian University
APPENDICES
Table 1. Data of Misunderstanding of Speech Act Classifications
No.
Frank
1
2
3
4
Nordberg
Frank
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Nordberg
Frank
Wilma
5
Ed
Frank
Frank
6
7
Speech Act
Classification
Data
Ed
Frank
Vincent
Frank
: Nordberg, it's me, Frank. Who did this to
you?
: I...love you.
: I love you, too, Nordberg.
: Who were they?
: Ship... Boat...
: That's right Nordberg, a boat. When you're
better, we'll go sailing together, we’ll take
a cruise, just like last year.
: No... Drugs.
: Hey, nurse, quick, give this man some
drugs! Quick, can’t you see he’s in pain!
Give him a shot, quickly!
: No... Heroin! Heroin, Frank!
: Nordberg, that’s a pretty tall order. You
have to give me a couple of days on that
one.
: He never wanted to hurt anyone. Who
would do such a thing?
: It's hard to tell.
: Could be a gang of thugs, a blackmailer,
an angry husband, a gay lover...
: Good cop, needlessly cut down and
ambushed by some cowardly hoodlum.
: That’s no way for a man to die.
: You’re right, Ed. A parachute not opening.
That’s a way to die. Getting caught in
gears of a combine. Having your nuts bit
off by a Laplander, that’s the way I wanna
go.
: Cuban?
: No. Dutch-Irish. My father was from
Wales.
39
representative
expressive
representative
directive
representative
directive
representative
directive
expressive
directive
expressive
representative
Directive:
offer
question
Vincent
8
Frank
Vincent
Frank
Jane
9
Frank
Jane
Frank
Frank
10
11
12
13
Ed
Frank
Butler
Frank
: Do you have any idea what was out there,
just five years ago?
: Ya! (screaming in pain)
: You bet you do. Orange groves, acres of
them as far as the eye could see.
: Thank you. I wish to some way I could
repay you. How about dinner? I know this
a little out-of-the-way place that serves
great Viking food.
: That’s quite a tempting offer Lieutenant,
but I'm afraid I’m gonna get my rest this
evening, tomorrow being Arbor Day and
all.
: Of course. Well, perhaps some other time.
: How about a rain check?
: Well, let's just stick to dinner.
: That’s the red light district. Wonder why
Savage is hanging out down there.
: Sex, Frank?
: Uh…no, not right now, Ed. We got work
to do.
: Your coat, sir?
: Yes, it is. And I have a receipt to prove it.
Commissioner : Do you realize that because of you this
city is being overrun by baboons?
Frank
: Well, isn’t that the fault of the voters?
Frank
: Cigarette?
Tanya
: Yes, I know.
Priest
14
Mourners
Ed
15
Nordberg
expressive
representative
commissive
directive
representative
directive
Directive:
offer
question
representative
directive
Directive:
offer
question
: May he rest in peace in the arms of our
loving... Jesus Christ! (Screaming in expressive
declaration
surprise)
: Amen.
: Nordberg, look! That’s Frank at the
directive
Academy Awards.
representative
: Hey, how’d he get tickets?
Table 2. Data of Misunderstanding Caused by Ambiguity
No.
Frank
1
2
Jane
Jane
Frank
Data
Ambiguity
: Hm…interesting. Almost as
syntactic
interesting as the photographs I saw ambiguity:
today.
referential
: I was young. I needed the work.
ambiguity
: Can I interest you in a nightcap?
lexical ambiguity
: No, I don’t wear them.
40
Jane
3
4
5
6
Frank
Waiter
Frank
: Sir?
: Give me the strongest thing you got.
(A body builder shows up)
Frank
Ed
Frank
: Red van.
: I know.
: Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police
Squad. This is my captain Ed Hocken.
: Is this some kind of bust?
: Well, it’s very impressive, yes… but
we need to ask you a few questions.
: I told Jane to meet us at the hotel’s
rear entrance.
: Where’s that, Frank?
: In the back.
: Frank, we’d better make our move.
: You’re right Ed. I’m thinking of
something more up-tempo, like
Guantanamera.
: Lieutenant Drebin. Frank, didn’t you
see that?
: What? Oh, yes, Kitty Litter. Two bags
for $ 1.00.
: Do you have an appointment
Mister…?
: Smith. Uh, no I don’t.
: Then take a number.
: Six.
: What?
: Is six taken? Does it have to be
between one and ten?
: When did you first notice the
problem?
: Uh…, in the backyard with my uncle.
: In the backyard. With your uncle?
: Yes, when he comes over to visit. We
like to go out in the backyard throw it
around for a while.
: And what did you and your uncle find
out?
: Oh…, I can’t keep up with him, mine
hurt especially on the long ones. I
can’t seem to straighten it out. It has
no feeling, it’s kind of numb. I may
Shopkeeper
Frank
Frank
7
8
Ed
Frank
Ed
Frank
Cashier
9
Frank
Nurse
10
: Yeah, you know, a white guy, with a
mustache, about 6’3”
: That’s an awfully big mustache.
Frank
Nurse
Frank
Nurse
Frank
Doctor
Frank
Doctor
Frank
11
Doctor
Frank
41
syntactic
ambiguity:
structural
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
have yanked it too much maybe.
: Sir? Mr. Smith, how are we doing?
: I’ve been busy if that’s what you
mean?
Doctor
: Would you like a video tape to assist
you?
Frank
: Oh. Do you have Dances with the
Wolves? Rocketeer? Lady and the
Tramp?
Ted
: We detected a high quantity of
nitroglycerin.
Ed
: Can you tell us where it came from?
Ted
: I'd be glad to. Billions of years ago,
the Earth was a molten mass.
Ed
: If Rocco finds out you’re a cop, you
might end up dead.
Frank
: “You might end up dead” is my
middle name.
Ed
: How about Jane?
Frank
: I don’t know her middle name.
Rocco
: All right, Slasher. You know what to
do.
Frank
: Right. Make sure the spare tire
inflated and check the fluid levels.
Ed
: I’m Ed Hocken and this is Nordberg
from Police Squad. We're here to
prevent a disaster.
Stage Director : You’re too late for that.
Frank
: Let me open this.
It’s the bomb!
(The producers from Sawdust and
Mildew stand up and the audience is
cheering)
Doctor
Frank
12
13
14
15
16
17
42
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
syntactic
ambiguity: ellipsis
syntactic
ambiguity:
referential
ambiguity
lexical ambiguity
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The topic of this thesis is “Misunderstandings Caused by Different
Interpretations of Speech Act Classifications and Ambiguities in The Naked Gun
Trilogy.” Misunderstandings sometimes happen when we are having a
conversation. We may misunderstand what people are trying to say because we
misinterpret it. We misinterpret what people say probably because they say it
implicitly; they do not say directly what they want to say. For example, when we
want to go to the restroom, we do not say, “I need to piss.” because we would be
considered impolite. So, instead, we say, “I need to powder my nose.”, “I need to
drain the dragon.”, and so on. This, of course, can confuse someone who does not
understand the implicit meaning of the utterances, which then leads to
misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
My topic belongs to Pragmatics, Syntax, and Semantics. Pragmatics deals
with speaker meaning and contextual meaning (Yule 3). The theory I use to
analyze the data of my topic is speech acts, which exists in Pragmatics.
Speech acts are actions performed via utterances (Yule 47). When we say
something, we are not only saying it but also doing something. In interpreting
1
Maranatha Christian University
what a person really wants from us or what she or he wants us to do, speech act
has five classifications. They are declaration, representative, expressive, directive,
and commissive.
Different interpretations of speech act classifications happen normally
because a sentence can be categorized into more than one classification. Some
people may be unable to determine what classification of speech act the speaker
intends to say. For example, when we say, “You’re drinking too much.”, it can be
interpreted as a representative: the speaker only says what he or she believes to be
true, or as a directive: the speaker says it as an order or a suggestion that the
hearer should stop drinking. However, misunderstanding can still happen even
though we already understand the speech act classifications, that is when we
misinterpret the type of the speech act classification. For example, when we offer
something, the hearer may interpret it as a question. In this case, the speech act
classification interpreted by both the speaker and the hearer is directive, but the
types of directive are different. The type of directive intended by the speaker is an
offer, but the type of directive interpreted by the hearer is a question. For example,
the utterance “Soda?” can be interpreted as a question or an offer.
Another linguistic area that my research belongs to is Syntax. Syntax is
“the study of the relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in
sequence, and which sequences are well-formed.” (Yule 4). In Syntax, there is a
potential source of misinterpretation, namely syntactic ambiguity, which means
ambiguity caused by different interpretations of a structure of a sentence.
My research also belongs to Semantics. Semantics is “the study of
meaning of a word and a phrase.” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
2
Maranatha Christian University
1491). In Semantics, one potential factor of misunderstanding is semantic
ambiguity or lexical ambiguity; it means ambiguity caused by the different
interpretations of meanings of a word, a phrase, or a sentence.
To avoid ambiguities in a conversation, we need context. Context is “the
situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it.”
(Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 263). People talk with a lot of other
people, such as friends or family every day. We talk at different time and place. In
general, we talk in different contexts. Regardless of how many contexts we are in,
we can understand what our friends or family talk about because the context is
clear. For example, when we are in one’s house and the owner of the house offers
us a drink, we either accept or reject it. In this case, we understand what he or she
is trying to do, which is offering us a drink; we do not think that he or she is trying
to mock us. However, there are times when the context is not clear, which leads to
confusion, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of the context. For example,
when we want to offer someone a cigarette, it can be interpreted as an insult or an
offer; it depends on the context.
My sources of data are the movies The Naked Gun: From the Files of
Police Squad!, The Naked Gun 2 ½: The Smell of Fear, and Naked Gun 33 ⅓:
The Final Insult. The Naked Gun is a series of three comedy movies from 1988 to
1994. The Naked Gun trilogy is a story of a policeman named Frank Drebin. In
the first movie, he has a job to protect Queen Elizabeth II. In the second movie,
Frank has a job to stop a fraud from making a speech on what energy source the
government should support. In the third movie, Frank has a job to stop the
bombing of a building where the 66th annual Academy Award will be held. In
3
Maranatha Christian University
these movies, Frank often misinterprets what people say, even though the context
is clear. I also surf the Internet to get the scripts for each movie; therefore, I can
save my time. I choose these sources of data because in these movies, I can find a
lot of misinterpretations of speech act classifications, and syntactic and semantic
ambiguities.
The significance of my topic is to show how speech acts, syntactic and
semantic ambiguities are misinterpreted in these movies to build the comical
scenes. As a matter of fact, the misinterpretations of those linguistic features are
what we usually do every day. However, this can make The Naked Gun trilogy
very comical. In short, by analyzing the topic, I would like to prove that
something as ordinary as the misinterpretations of speech act classifications,
syntactic and semantic ambiguities can be an extraordinary source of the comical
scenes in The Naked Gun.
Statement of the Problem
In this thesis, I would like to discuss two things:
1. What utterances lead to misunderstanding in the movies?
2. How are the speech act classifications or syntactic and semantic ambiguities
misinterpreted so as to create misunderstandings leading to the comical
scenes?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of discussing the problems above is:
1. To find out the utterances that lead to misunderstanding in the movies.
4
Maranatha Christian University
2. To find out how the speech act classifications or syntactic and semantic
ambiguities are misinterpreted so as to create misunderstandings leading to the
comical scenes.
Method of Research
In gathering the data, I go through five steps. First, I watch the movies.
Second, I surf the Internet to find the scripts of the movies. Third, I choose the
conversations which contain misunderstanding in the movies. Fourth, I write the
conversations down. Last, I analyze the conversations by applying the theories of
speech act, syntactic and semantic ambiguities.
Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, consists
of Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study,
Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter 2 contains the
theory which I use to analyze the data. In Chapter 3, I put forward the analysis of
the data. Chapter 4 contains the conclusion of the thesis. Finally, the thesis ends
with the bibliography and the appendices.
5
Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
Having analyzed the data from the conversations in The Naked Gun
trilogy in the previous chapter, I have arrived to some conclusions. I find out that
the most frequent misunderstanding caused by different interpretations of speech
act classification happen when a representative utterance is misunderstood as a
directive utterance. The first reason why this can happen is that sometimes people
say something not in a form of a complete sentence, but using only one or two
words. Now that it is only one or two words, people are bound to misinterpret
what the other people are saying. Since there is not much to comprehend from just
one or two words, the hearer can think of several different things, which are all
related to the words. For example, when Frank hears “Ship… Boat…”, he thinks
it means that Nordberg wants to sail, which is not what Nordberg means.
In addition, there is another reason why a representative utterance can be
misunderstood as a directive utterance. The reason is that the sentence has a word
that has another meaning which can distract the hearer from understanding the
purpose of the utterance. For example when Frank hears the word baboons, he
misunderstands the meaning of the word baboons, because in this movie the
34
Maranatha Christian University
word has more than one meaning; as a result, he misunderstands the speech act
classification.
I also find out that misunderstanding in speech act classification does not
necessarily have to be of different speech act classifications, but it can also be of
the same classification. In this thesis, I find out that an offer can be misunderstood
as a question. An offer and a question are both classified as directive. In my
opinion, an offer can be misunderstood as a question because people can offer
something in the form of a question; as a result, the hearer thinks that the speaker
is asking a question. The exact reason why a question is misunderstood as an offer
is that the form used as an offer is incomplete. For example when Frank offers a
cigarette, he just says, “cigarette?”, which can be the incomplete way of saying
“would you like a cigarette?” as an offer or “do you know that this a cigarette?” as
a question.
On the other hand, in this analysis the least frequent misunderstanding
caused by different interpretations of speech act classification happen when a
directive utterance is misunderstood as a representative utterance. In spite of this,
actually in reality this kind of misunderstanding happens very often. I believe it is
just a coincidence why the reality about this misunderstanding is not reflected in
the film. A directive utterance can be misunderstood as a representative utterance
when people implicitly tell someone to do something, for example, when a person
says, “I have always wanted to have a diamond necklace.”, he or she does not
only say it but also hints that the hearer should buy a diamond necklace for him or
her.
35
Maranatha Christian University
The next thing I find out is that an expressive utterance can be easily
misunderstood as other speech act classification. In this thesis, an expressive
utterance can be misunderstood as a directive utterance, a representative utterance,
or a declaration utterance. In my opinion, this happens most probably owing to the
fact that the context allows the hearer to have a different interpretation of what it
is meant. The situation or the context when a conversation takes place can affect
someone’s understanding on what the speaker says. Therefore, a conversation at
different times and different places can have different interpretations. For
example, when a priest expresses his surprise by shouting, “Jesus Christ!”, and he
shouts it out at the end of a prayer in a burial ceremony, one can think that the
priest has just finished the prayer. Nevertheless, if the priest shouts, “Jesus
Christ!” when he is not in a burial ceremony, Jesus Christ! may not be understood
as a declaration utterance.
I also do not find a declaration utterance being misunderstood as any other
speech act classifications. I think this makes sense because we know that
declaration utterances can only be uttered by certain people of certain institution
and at a certain time and place. For example, a priest can only appropriately say,
“I now pronounce you husband and wife.” at a wedding ceremony. Seeing that it
can only be said appropriately by certain people of certain institution and at a
certain time and place, it is unlikely that someone will misunderstand declaration
utterances.
Another linguistic feature that may potentially create misinterpretation is
ambiguity. In this thesis, I find out that the type of ambiguity that most frequently
causes misunderstanding is referential ambiguity. The reason why this can happen
36
Maranatha Christian University
is that there is a word or a phrase that can refer to more than one thing. As a result,
people are bound to have a different idea of what is being talked about by the
speaker. Demonstrative pronouns and proper nouns are the examples of words
that can easily create referential ambiguity. For example, the word that in what is
that? can refer to anything. Another example, when a doctor says “what is your
problem?”, the word problem can refer to any problem. Nevertheless, the context
will limit what that or problem means so that the hearer will not have too many
interpretations of the words.
Another thing that I find out is that I do not find any utterance that
contains categorial ambiguity. I believe this kind of ambiguity is almost
impossible to happen when the speaker and/or the hearer knows English well.
Considering that categorial ambiguity is ambiguity that happens because a word
can refer to more than one part of speech, the speaker and the hearer must be
someone who has limited knowledge of English.
Last but not least, I would like to comment that misunderstanding caused
by misinterpretation of speech act classifications, syntactic ambiguity, and
semantic ambiguity are really an extraordinary source of a comedy movie. It can
make the movie funny and smart at the same time, because it can intrigue the
audience as they think of what is being talked about in the movie to understand
the comical scenes.
37
Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!. Paramount Pictures, 1988
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear. Paramount Pictures, 1991
Naked Gun 331/3: The Final Insult. Paramount Pictures, 1994
REFERENCES
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press, 2003.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. England: Pearson Education
Limited, 2005.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
INTERNET SOURCES
Drew’s
Script-O-Rama.
10
September
2006
Ambiguity. 27 May 2007
38
Maranatha Christian University