ANALYSIS OF ADJACENCY PAIRS IN "FROZEN": A MOVIE BY CHRIS BUCK AND JENNIFER LEE.

(1)

THESIS

By Nur Hamidah Reg. Number A83212138

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA

2016

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities the State Islamic University


(2)

ANALYSIS OF ADJACENCY PAIRS IN “FROZEN”: A MOVIE

BY CHRIS BUCK AND JENNIFER LEE

THESIS

By Nur Hamidah Reg. Number A83212138

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA

2016

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities the State Islamic University


(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

i

Buck and Jennifer Lee. English Department, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

The Advisor : Prof. Dr. Zuliati Rohmah, M. Pd

Key Terms :Adjacency Pair, Dispreferred Response, Feedback.

To conduct the conversation, both of the speakers should be interrelated in producing the utterances. This interrelated utterance is called adjacency pairs. An adjacency pair is a pair of interrelated utterances which consist of the first speaker and the second speaker. The aim of this study is to analyze adjacency pairs applied by all characters in “Frozen” movie, especially, about types of adjacency pairs and feedback of dispreferred response.

The basic theories used by the writer in this study were Levinson’s theory, Yule’s theory, and Rymes’s theory. The writer applied conversation analysis approach and descriptive research to analyze the data. The data were the utterances, sentences -without song lyrics- and expressions of all characters in ‘Frozen’ movie script. In this study, the writer was the main instrument to collect and analyze the data. The data were collected by downloading the ‘Frozen’ movie and the transcript, then reading it before coding or underlining the parts of dialogue which include adjacency pairs. Furthermore, the data were analyzed by identifying, classifying, and describing the utterances which include types of adjacency pairs, then analyzing the feedback of dispreferred response.

The result of this study shows that the data include 194 types of adjacency pairs. Those data were classified into 11 types, 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. Besides, there are 55 feedbacks of dispreferred response which were classified into 7 forms of feedback, they are Act, Attitude, Expression, Act + Attitude, Act + Expression, Expression + Attitude, and No Response. The findings reveal that the highest type of adjacency pairs is Question-Answer, while the lowest type is Invitation-Acceptance/Refusal. Meanwhile, the highest form of feedback of dispreferred response is Attitude, while the lowest form is Act + Expression.


(8)

ii ABSTRAK

Hamidah, Nur. 2016. Analysis of Adjacency Pairs in “Frozen”: A Movie by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee. Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora. Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Pembimbing : Prof. Dr. Zuliati Rohmah, M. Pd

Kata Kunci : Pasangan ajasensi, Respon dispreferred, Umpan balik.

Untuk melakukanpercakapan, kedua pembicara harus saling berhubungan dalam memproduksi ujaran. Ucapan-ucapan yang saling terkait disebut pasangan ajasensi. Pasangan ajasensi adalah sepasang ucapan-ucapan yang saling terkait yang terdiri dari pembicara pertama dan pembicara kedua. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis pasangan adjacency digunakan oleh semua karakter dalam film "Frozen", terutama, tentang tipe-tipe pasangan ajasensi dan umpan balik dari respon dispreferred.

Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, teori-teori dasar yang digunakan penulis adalah teori Levinson, Yule dan Rymes. Penulis menggunakan analisis percakapan dan penelitian deskriptif untuk menganalisis data. Data adalah ucapan, kalimat – tanpa lirik lagu- dan ekspresi dari semua karakter dalam naskah film Frozen. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis adalah instrument utama dalam mengumpulkan dan menganalisis data. Data dikumpulkan dengan mengunduh film Frozen dan transkripnya, kemudian membaca transkrip tersebut sebelum memberi kode atau menggarisbawahi bagian dari dialog yang termasuk pasangan ajasensi. Selanjutnya, data dianalisis dengan mengidentifikasi, mengelompokkan, dan mendeskripsikan ucapan-ucapan yang meliputi tipe-tipe pasangan ajasensi, kemudian menganalisis umpan balik dari respon dispreferred.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa data meliputi 194 tipe pasangan ajasensi. Data tersebut diklasifikasikan menjadi 11 tipe yaitu 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, dan Apologize- Minimization. Selain itu, terdapat 55 feedback dari respon dispreferred yang diklasifikasikan kedalam 7 bentuk yaitu Act, Attitude, Expression, Act +Attitude, Act + Expression, Expression + Attitude, dan No Response. Dalam penemuan tersebut, tipe tertinggi dari pasangan ajasensi adalah Question- Answer, sedangkan tipe terendah adalah Invitation- Acceptance/ Refusal. Sementara itu, bentuk tertinggi umpan balik dari respon dispreferred adalah Attitude, sedangkan bentuk terendah adalah Act+ Expression.


(9)

Inside Title Page ... .ii

Declaration Page... .iii

Dedication Page ...iv

Motto ... v

Thesis Advisor’s Approval Page...vi

Thesis Examiner’s Approval Page ... vii

Acknowledgement ... viii

Table of Contents ... x

Abstract ... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1Background of Study ... 1

1.2Research Problems ... 7

1.3Research Objectives ... 7

1.4Significance of the Study ... 8

1.5Scope and Limitations ... 8

1.6Definition of Key Terms ... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 10

2.1Theoretical Framework ... 10

2.2Relevant Theories ... 10

2.2.1 Discourse Analysis ... 10

2.2.2 Conversation Analysis ... 12

2.2.3 Adjacency Pairs ... 13

2.2.4 Preference Structure ... 15

2.3Frozen Movie ... 17

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS ... 20

3.1Research Design ... 20

3.2Data and Data Source ... 21

3.3Instrument ... 21

3.4Techniques of Data Collection ... 21


(10)

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 27

4.1Findings ... 27

4.1.1 Types of Adjacency Pairs ... 27

4.1.1.1 Question-Answer... 30

4.1.1.2 Greeting-Response ... 32

4.1.1.3 Summons-Response ... 33

4.1.1.4 Request-Acceptance / Refusal... 34

4.1.1.5 Command-Obedience / Disobedience ... 35

4.1.1.6 Offer-Acceptance / Rejection ... 37

4.1.1.7 Invitation-Acceptance / Refusal ... 38

4.1.1.8 Suggest-Acceptance / Refusal ... 39

4.1.1.9 Assessment-Aggree / Disagree ... 41

4.1.1.10 Statement-Agree / Disagree ... 42

4.1.1.11 Apologize-Minimization ... 44

4.1.2 Feedback of Dispreferred Response... 45

4.1.2.1Act ... 48

4.1.2.2Expression ... 49

4.1.2.3Attitude ... 50

4.1.2.4Act+Expression ... 52

4.1.2.5Act+Attitude ... 53

4.1.2.6Attitude+Expression ... 54

4.1.2.7No Response ... 55

4.2Discussion ... 57

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 62

5.1Conclusion ... 62

5.2Suggestion ... 63 References


(11)

1

This chapter presents the explanation of background of study, research problems, research objectives, significance of the study, scope and limitations, and definition of key terms.

1.1 Background of Study

Language has the primary function of communication. Language is a tool used by people to communicate with one another. As known, there are two types of communication; verbal and nonverbal. One of the forms of verbal communication is a conversation. It is a form of social activity involves two or more participants in interacting or talking to each other. To conduct the conversation, both of the speakers should be interrelated in producing the utterances. This interrelated utterancesis called adjacency pairs. Therefore, in this study, the writer will analyze adjacency pairs, especially, about the types of adjacency pairs. In addition, the writer will also identify and describe the feedback of dispreferred response provided by all characters in Frozen movie.

Adjacency pair is one of the basic units of conversational organization.It is formed by two or more speakers consisting of the first speaker, the second speaker, and so on.

“Adjacency pairs as a two part interactional sequence in which the first part produces the expectation for the second part” (Rymes, 2008, p. 55).


(12)

2

“Adjacency pairs are tied pairs of utterances and ordered such that the issue of the first part in a turn sets up expectancy that the other will follow in the next turn” (p. 85).

Schegloff described that adjacency pairs are composed of a first pair part produced by one speaker directly and followed by second pair part’s utterance by a different speaker (2007, p. 13). The first parts are utterance types such as question, request, offer, etc. Whereas, the second parts are the response of utterance types such as answer, grant, accept, etc. It is concluded that in adjacency pairs, the component of utterances of the sequences must be adjacent and interrelated. For example,

Officer : Why do I have to wear this?

Manager : Because you are a new member in this room.

In the example above, it refers to Question-Answer type.Actually, there are some types of adjacency pairs presented by the theorists. Majid stated that there may be a large number of different types of adjacency pairs in a conversation and some of them might give more freedom for response as there are several options available as the second part. (2011, p. 142).

As known in adjacency pairs, there is often a choice of two likely responses produced by the second part. According to Levinson (1983, p. 332), it is called as preference organization or preference structure. It is divided into preferred and dispreferred. The preferred is an expected response and the dispreferred is an unexpected response, such as, if request as the first part, acceptance will be a preferred response and refusal will be a dispreferred response in the second part.


(13)

In the development of research about adjacency pairs, there are three parts of adjacency pairs structure, but it is produced by the first speaker and the second speaker. The rules are the utterances of the first speaker, then it followed by a response from the second speaker, and terminated by a further utterance from the first speaker (Mishler in Tsui, 1989, p. 548). The third turn is called as feedback.

Feedback is the response produced by the first speaker to the second speaker’s answer. The basic forms of feedback are classified by the writer as action, attitude and expression. These forms are inspired from psychological context. Then, it is combined with each other as another form, such as, act+attitude, act+expression, and attitude+expression. Besides, another form arises when this third turn does not occur, the writer called it ‘no response’. It is because the story moves on another topic of conversation, the setting or condition has changed, and there is another speaker interrupts the conversation.

The writer is interested in using movie as a data source for research, because a movie is an art of audiovisual storytelling that very enthused by society. In addition, people will get new information more easily by watching movie, such as, about culture, language, etc. From the statement, the writer chooses Frozen movie as data of research because there are many dialogues by the characters that refer to types of adjacency pairs and preference structure. Besides, this movie is famous in the world because the attractive storytelling


(14)

4

and the good soundtrack. It is indicated by the amount of income earned. As

reported by Konnikova (2014), a contributing writer for newyorker.com,

“Since its release, “Frozen” has earned $1.2 billion worldwide, becoming the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time and by far the highest-grossing animation. That’s not to mention two Academy Awards, a Bafta, a Golden Globe, a soundtrack that’s garnered more than a million album sales and seven million Spotify streams, official YouTube video views in the hundreds of millions, and a DVD that became Amazon’s best-selling children’s film of all time based on advance orders alone”.

From this effect, the writer sees the situation as a good way to introduce the linguistic study to every person. The writer also wants to prove that the linguistic study can be used to analyze modern literary works in movie form. In addition, the writer wants to contribute by introducing how to analyze the adjacency pair to students of Sunan Ampel State Islamic University of Surabaya. Hence, as long as the writer’s knowledge, there is only one research in the university which focused on adjacency pair. Even, it uses a different research problem. So, this will be a good paper and useful to understand more about conversation analysis, especially about adjacency pairs.

In understanding more about conversation analysis, the writer reviews the previous studies focusing on the same topic, which is about adjacency pairs. They are Fitriana (2013), Fuad (2015) and Makasau (2015). First, Fitriana (2013) examines the patterns of adjacency pairs and language functions of the utterances forming adjacency pairs. She focused on the dialogue of characters in Red Riding Hood Movie by Catherine Hardwicke.The theories used are the Levinson theory. She found the function of utterances that uttered and how the characters make conversation in this


(15)

movie. Every utterance had meaning and every conversation had a different pattern. The result of this study shows the patterns mostly used in the Red Riding Hood movie are automatic patterns. The pattern rarely used is the mixing of different sequences. In addition, the language functions are commonly used in the dialogue of Red Riding Hood Movie is request. While, other language functions which were rarely used include ‘hold’, ‘assessment’, ‘offer’, and ‘threat’.

Second, Fuad (2015) examines the conversation produced by those two main charactersin “Knight and day” movie -Roy Miller and June Heaven- and convinced that the conversation forms various types of adjacency pairs. He focused on four aspects of conversation those are turn – taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, and pre-sequence and insertion sequence. The theories used are the Levinson theory. The research approach used in this study is conversational analysis (CA) approach to understand the organization of conversational interaction between participants. He found types of adjacency pair constructed by Roy Miller and June Heaven. The result of this study shows that the dominant type of adjacency pair comes from question-answer. While, the least data of the type of adjacency pair is invitation and suggestion type. Besides, He found some conversation that occurs are pre-sequence and insertion pre-sequence and also turns which almost balance between Roy and June.

The next study also presented by Makasau (2015). She examines the types of adjacency pairs which dominantly occurred in teacher-student


(16)

6

interactions in indoor outdoor. She focuses on interaction between teacher and student in all occasion in English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School. The participants in this research were 23 students of grade IV – Pegasus, which consisted of 10 girls and 13 boys and a non-native English teacher. The theories used are Rymes theory. The results of this study show that the greatest amount of teacher talk in indoor and outdoor category is primarily due to an emphasis on giving information and giving instructions. In contrast, student talks in indoor and outdoor categories are largely in the functions of responding physically and acknowledging.

In addition, the writer also reviews the previous study about preference organization, especially, about dispreferred response. It is presented by Murti (2014), She examines the types of dispreferred act on the second pair part which are uttered by the main character in the movie Beauty and the Briefcase, the ways of doing dispreferred social act, and also social factors which influence the main character to do dispreferred act. This research used descriptive qualitative and descriptive quantitative research. The theory which was applied in this study was Levinson’s theory about preference structure. The results of the research are. (1) There are 7 types of dispreferred act which is used by the main character: assesment – disagreement, blame – denial, invitation – refusal, request – refusal, offer – rejection, question – unexepected answer, and proposal – disagreement. (2) There are 12 ways of doing dispreferred act, they are prefacing, delaying, ignoring and changing the topic, using a mitigator, hedging the negative, making it non – personal, appealing


(17)

for understanding, token yes, giving anaccount, mentioning obligation, saying an apology, and expressing doubt. (3) Social factors also influence the main character to do dispreferred act: the participants, the topic of conversation, function of the speaking, and the social context of interaction.

From the previous studies above, we can conclude that all focused on adjacency pairs, but they had different data sources and methods. Three of them have the same area with my research in collecting and analyzing the data, that is using data from movie. However, this study differs from those previous studies above. This study only focused on the types of adjacency pairs and the dispreferred response, especially, about feedback of it which was found in Frozen movie. Thus, this research will complete the previous studies.

1.2 Research Problems

The writer formulates the research problems as the following:

1. What are the types of adjacency pairs in the dialogue of Frozen’s, a

movie by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee?

2. How is the feedback of dispreferred response in the dialogue of

Frozen’s, a movie byChris Buck and Jennifer Lee?

1.3 Research Objectives

In the relation to the problem statement above, the writer formulates the research objectives:

1. To describe the types of adjacency pairs in the dialogue of Frozen’s, a


(18)

8

2. To explain the feedback of dispreferred response in the dialogue of

Frozen’s, a movie by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee.

1.4 Significance of the Study

Through this study, the writer wants to discover the application of adjacency pairs in the dialogue of the movie. The result of the research is expected to be used as one of the sources of information about adjacency pairs and preference structure. This might be used as a reference for those who are interested in studying conversational analysis in the movie.

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The scope of this research is text in the movie script and focused on adjacency pairs which found in Frozen Movie. This research limits the data of the types of adjacency pairs and the feedback of dispreferred responses which formed in Frozen movie through some theories about adjacency pairs. Then, the theories will be combined by the writer to collect and analyze based on the existing data.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

1. Conversation is a form of verbal communication, it is defined as an

activity which doing by two or more people; they are talking about something with the certain purpose.

2. Adjacency pair is a pair of interrelated utterances which consist of the


(19)

3. First part is the speaker who has the first turn in conversation, usually make stimulus like as question, statement or etc.

4. Second part is the speaker who has the second turn in conversation,

usually it is the response of the first part utterance.

5. Preference structure is a pattern of dialogue produced by the second

speaker that refers to like or dislike, agree or disagree.

6. Preferred response is an expected response produced by the second

speaker, such as agree, acceptance.

7. Dispreferred response is an unexpected response produced by the

second speaker, such as disagree, refusal/ rejection.

8. Act is a response of someone by doing something.

9. Attitude is an invisible response, but it will be shown by someone

before or without doing something such as approving, ignore.

10.Expression is a response that arises to express the feeling or emotion of

someone.

11.Frozen is a 3D movie, which tells about the relationship between two

sisters in a castle, Elsa and Anna. One of them has a magic that makes the entire of the city is frozen.


(20)

This chapter presents

which consist of discourse analysis; preference structure, and F

2.1Theoretical Framework

2.2Relevant Theories

2.2.1 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk (McCa

•Written •Spoken Discourse Analysis Conversation Analysis 10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical framework, the relevant theories discourse analysis; conversation analysis; adjacency pairs and

, and Frozen movie.

Theoretical Framework

Relevant Theories

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk (McCa

Written

Spoken

One of the basic rule in conversation Conversation Analysis •First Part •Second Part Adjacency Pair Preference Structure

relevant theories adjacency pairs and

Discourse analysis is a study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. Discourse analysts study language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk (McCarthy, p 5).

First Part Second Preferred Dispreferred Preference Structure


(21)

Discourse analysis focused on the constituent units and the structure of the sentence. In addition, it also analyzes the larger units and structures which are implicitly recognized by speakers and hearers at the level of discourse, rather than at the level of the sentence.

Discourse analysis can be used in analyzing conversation. Mills (1997, p. 136) explains conversations can be seen to be structured, and can be analyzed in terms of the moves which participants make to signal that, for example, they are initiating a new topic of conversation or that they are reviving an older topic of conversation; these are using discourse markers with phrases such as ‘well’, ‘OK’ and ‘anyway’. These discourse markers only have a function at the level of discourse, not at the level of the sentence. It is signalling the end of an exchange or the initiation of a new topic.

Gee (1999) also adds discourse analysis is based on the details of speech (and gaze and gesture and action) or writing that are arguably deemed relevant in the situation and that are relevant to the arguments the analyst is attempting to make. A discourse analysis is not based on all the physical features present, not even all those that might, in some conceivable context, be meaningful, or might be meaningful in analyses with different purposes (p 88).

From the explanation above, it can be seen how important discourse analysis in the production of language. Mills (1997, p. 142) states discourse analysis has provided a range of tools for describing


(22)

12

the structures and functioning of language within utterances, and it has forced many mainstream and traditional linguists to shift their attention from words in isolation to words within context.

2.2.2 Conversation Analysis

Conversational Analysis is an approach to the study of natural conversation. Peräkylä (2015) in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online, state that Conversation analysis (CA) is a method for investigating the structure and process of social interaction between humans. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson in Coulthard (1985, p. 59) also states “conversational analysis as a first step towards achieving a ‘naturalistic observational discipline’ to deal with details of social interaction in a rigorous, empirical and formal way”.

Conversation analysis learns about the descriptions of recurrent structures and practices of social interaction. Given (2008, p. 130) stated that the researchers in Conversational Analysis work on audio- or video recordings of interactions that are naturally occurring. Litosseliti (2010, p. 121), also assumed that in the conversation analysis, the use of audio or video recordings produced as transcripts, will help the analysts in examining directly how talk organizes the world within specific social settings. According to her, these following are the key features of the Conversational Analysisapproach:

a) Orderliness in talk-in-interaction: Ordinary, everyday speech exhibits a high level of regularity or orderliness. This


(23)

orderliness is not governed by innate cognitive structures of language (although grammatical features clearly inform the structure of utterances), but reflects a socially organized structure of interpersonal action. This orderliness, known as ‘the speech-exchange system’ is apparent in the pattern of sequential turn-taking.

b) A data-centred approach: Conversational Analysis has a primary interest in transcript data and what these data reveal. c) A neutral and objective stance: Analysts are discouraged from

bringing any theoretical or philosophical presuppositions to the data, in order to allow these to ‘speak for themselves’. A priori speculation in terms of speaker ‘orientations’, motivations and identities, social settings and cultural norms, are regarded as distracting and irrelevant. Factors ‘external’ to the data, such as gender inequalities or cultural misunderstandings may be ‘made relevant’ by the participants in the transcript data. It is on this basis alone that external factors become available to the analyst for comment and interpretation.

2.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

Yule (1996, p. 77) states “adjacency pairs are the automatic patterns in the structure of conversation”. It constantly contains a first part and a second part, formed by dissimilar speakers. In same line with that, Rymes (2008, p. 55) defined that adjacency pairs as a two


(24)

14

part interactional sequence in which the first part produces the expectation for the second part.

Some characteristics in adjacency pairs are presented by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), they are (i) adjacent; (ii) produced by different speakers; (iii) ordered as first part and second part; (iv) typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second or range of the second part (see at Levinson, 1983, p. 303).

Sacks and Schegloff (1973) described that the basic rule of adjacency pairs operations is to give the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce a second pair part from the pair type of which the first is recognizably a member (p. 74).

There are some types of adjacency pairs. According to Yule (1996, p. 77) they includes greeting-greeting, question-answer, a thanking-response, and request-accept. Whereas, Rymes classified that some typical of adjacency pairs are greeting/ greeting; question/ answer; invitation/ acceptance; assessment/ disagreement; apology/ acceptance; and summons/ acknowledgement (2008, p. 38). In addition, Majid stated that there may be a large number of different types of adjacency pairs in a conversation and some of them might give more freedom for response as there are several options available as the second part. (2011, p. 142).


(25)

2.2.4 Preference Structure

Levinson (1983, p. 332) stated that there is an element in adjacency pairs called as preference organization. It is divided into preferred and dispreferred. The first is preferred action, which is the action of the second part which gives an expected response to the first parts. While, the second one is dispreferred action, which is the action of the second part which gives an unexpected response to the first part. Yule (1996, p. 79) also has the same idea, preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred social act. The preferred is structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act.

The general pattern of preference structure according to Levinson in Yule (p. 79):

First Part Second Part

Preferred Dispreferred

Assessment Agree Disagree

Invitation Accept Refuse

Offer Accept Decline

Proposal Agree Disagree

Request Accept Refuse

Usually, the giving response by the second speaker will make the first speaker takes his turn to produce the response, is called feedback. The rules are the utterances from the first speaker, then it


(26)

16

followed by a response from the second speaker, and terminated by a further utterance from the first speaker (Mishler in Tsui, 1989, p. 548). The similar opinion is delivered by Coulthard (I992) in his research, he points out that there are three-part exchanges in classroom discourse: an initiation from the teacher, then followed by a response from the pupil, and then followed by a feedback from the teacher which evaluates the response provided by the pupil (p. 3).

Rankema (2004) also assumed that the sequence of the adjacency pair not only limited on the two adjacent sequences of utterances. There are also other sequences that often occur and need to be acknowledged as important as well, such as three-part sequences. According to her, the three-part structure is the response from the first speaker as a result of the act of the second speaker (p. 166). For example:

Student 1 : Can you help me? Student 2 : I’m sorry, I’m still busy. Student 1 : Please.

The example above explains about dispreferred response produced by the second speaker, then it followed by feedback of the first speaker.

To describe the feedback, the terms used are inspired from psychological context. The basic terms are Act, Attitude, and Expression. Act is known as a response arises as the result of external stimulus. Susanti et al.(2014) concludes


(27)

“Tindakan adalah mekanisme dari suatu pengamatan yang muncul dari persepsi sehingga ada respon untuk mewujudkan suatu tindakan”(p.46).

Meanwhile, Attitude is identified as “a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably to a class of objects” (Sarnoff in Sadighi & Zarafshan, 2006, p. 72). Attitude also identified as one’s readiness to act, it means that attitude can affect someone to act. The next term is expression. According to Darwin in Russel and Dolz (1997, p. 7), the notion of expression was extremely general. It is not only about a small set of facial "signal", but also describes any state of mind or feeling. It is intended by the writer as a response used by the speaker by showing the feeling or emotion.

2.3Frozen Movie

Frozen is an animated film served with 3D quality and produced by Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures. Frozen is starring by Elsa as the queen, Anna as a little sister of the queen, Kristoff as the mountain man, Olaf as a snowman and Hans as a prince of the southern isles.

The movie is a commercial success. This is evidenced by the amount over $1.2 billion in worldwide box office revenue, $400 million of which were earned in the United States and Canada and $247 million of which were earned in Japan. It ranks as the highest-grossing animated film of all time, the ninth highest-grossing film of all time, the highest-grossing film of 2013, and the third highest-grossing film in Japan. Besides, Frozen also won two


(28)

18

Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song ‘Let It Go’ (http://disney.wikia.com).

Besides, this movie also has an interesting story. The story of this movie tells about the relationship of two sisters, Elsa and Anna. The story begins on their close relationship when they were little, they love to make a snowman with ice magic Elsa. One day, the ice magic injured Anna's head while they are playing, so Anna fainted. Elsa is very shocked, She and her parents (the king and queen) are looking for the trolls to cure Anna. Grand Pabbie, as an elder troll, heals Anna by removing all memories of the magic, so Anna can not remember that Elsa has a magic. Because of the incident, Elsa always avoids and be indifferent to Anna.

The complication of this story occurs in the coronation day. Anna asked for the blessing to be married to Hans. When Elsa disapprove it, Anna protests and urged Elsa, finally, Elsa angry and accidentally ice magic was thrown out of her hand. It makes all people in shocked. Elsa feels fear and runs out from the castle. Anna feels guilty and tries to pursue Elsa. She meets Kristoff and Olaf in the middle of the way. At the last, they are looking for Elsa together.

When they meet Elsa, Anna asks Elsa to come back and stay in Arendelle, but, Elsa refuses it. When they are debating each other, accidentally, the magic of Elsa injures Anna’s heart. Anna becomes weak and her hair slowly white. Because of this effect, Grand Pabbie says that Anna can not be cured, except by an act of true love. They assume that an act of true


(29)

love is about kissing by someone who loves Anna. They assume that Hans is an intended person.

Figure 2.1 Frozen Movie

When Anna met Hans, she realizes that Hans does not really love her. In fact, Hans just wants to take over her kingdom. Hans leaves Anna at the locked room, but Anna can escape because Olaf helps her. Before this scene, Hans and Thugs find and caught Elsa after fighting, then locked her in prison. However, Elsa can escape because of her magic power.

Finally, when they escape in the storm of snow, Anna sees her sister in a danger. It is because Hans will kill her. Anna runs and saves her sister in the weak condition. Because of the magic effect, Anna’s body become froze when she arrest Hans's sword. Elsa realizes it, she cries and hugs Anna. This act makes the frozen thawed. So, the act of true love which referred in the story is not about kissing, but about two sisters who love each other. From the statement above, it shows that Frozen was the famous movie of the year.


(30)

20

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter explains about research design, data and data sources, instruments, techniques of data collection, and techniques of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

In this study, the writer applied the descriptive method because it focuses on the interaction between all characters in the movie. Aggarwal in Salaria (2012) states “Descriptive research is devoted to the gathering of information about prevailing conditions or situations for the purpose of description and interpretation” The Office of BSSRO (2016) also described that descriptive study is one in which information is collected without changing the environment or nothing is manipulated. So, it was the best methods for collecting the information and describing the existing data.

In addition, the writer used Conversational Analysis (CA) as a research approach to identify and describe the utterances that include adjacency pairs and preference structure in Frozen movie. Conversational Analysis is an approach within the social sciences that aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and a constitutive feature of human social life. (Sidnell, 2010, p. 1). Peräkylä (2015) in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online, alsostated that Conversation analysis (CA) is a method for investigating the structure and process of social interaction between humans.


(31)

3.2 Data and Data Source

The data of this study were the utterances, sentences -without song lyrics and expression of the conversation whole characters in Frozen movie script. Whereas, the data sources of this study were Frozen movie and the transcript. The movie was taken from YouTube, while the transcript was taken from www.goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/frozen in a pdf file.

3.3 Instrument

For the instrument of study, the writer used her own brain to collect and to analyze the data. In addition, the writer counted the frequency of types of adjacency pairs and described the feedback of dispreferred response by herself.

3.4 Techniques of Data Collection

The procedures of collecting the data in this study are:

1. The writer downloaded the Frozen movie, it was taken from YouTube. 2. The writer downloaded the transcript of Frozen movie, it was taken

from www.goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/frozen.

3. The writer read the transcript when she watched the movie to match and check the transcript.

4. The writer coded or underlined the utterances in the transcript that include adjacency pairs and preference structure.


(32)

First Part Question Greeting Summons Request Command Offer Invitation Suggest Assessment Statement Apologize The coding adjacency pair

analyze the data. The example of coding and underlining in analyzing data is present

Table 3.1 Coding: Types of Adjacency Pairs First Part Coding Second Part

Que Answer

Gre Response

Summons Sum Response

Req Acceptance/ Refusal

Command Com Obedience/ Disobedience

Off Acceptance/ Rejection Invitation Inv Acceptance/ Refusal

Sug Acceptance/ Refusal Assessment Ass Agree/ Disagree

Statement Sta Agree/ Disagree

Apologize Apo Acceptance/ Minimization

ding was obtained from the several theories about type adjacency pair as mentioned in the previous chapter. It was

analyze the data. The example of coding and underlining in analyzing presented as follows:

Figure 3.1 Example in Coding and Underlining.

22

of Adjacency Pairs Coding

Ans Res Res

Acc Ref Obe Dis Acc Rej Acc Ref Acc Ref Agr Dis Agr Dis Acc Min obtained from the several theories about types of

was compiled to analyze the data. The example of coding and underlining in analyzing


(33)

3.5 Techniques of Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the writer use 1. Identifying

based on theories.

Figure

From the figure the example

Figure

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the writer used several steps.

ing the types of adjacency pairs which is found in on theories.

Figure 3.2 Example in Identifying Type of Adjacency Pair

the figure above, the type of adjacency pairs which the example is Command-Disobedience.

Figure 3.3 Example in Identifying Type of Adjacency Pair

found in the transcript

f Adjacency Pairs.

which is found in


(34)

24

From the figure above, the type of adjacency pairs which is found in the example is Question-Answer.

2. Classifying the types of adjacency pairs which is found in the transcript.

The writer applied each total number of types of adjacency pairs into percentage by using the following formula:

Percentage of each type = x 100 %

x = Number of examples for each type of adjacency pairs. y = Total of examples of type of adjacency pairs.

Table 3.2 Data Analysis: Types of Adjacency Pairs.

Code Data Frequency Percentage

Que-Ans 5฀(13&15); 6฀(23-24); 11฀(41-42); 12฀(45-46); 14฀(58-59); 14฀(60-61); 17฀(64-65);

17฀(66-67); 8

Gre-Gre 18฀(68-69); 20฀(83-84); 2

Sum-Res 13฀ (55-56); 48฀(299-300); 2 Req-Acc

Req-Ref 3฀ (3-4); 29฀(139-140); 30฀(148-149); 3 Com-Obe

Com-Dis Off-Acc Off-Rej Inv-Acc Inv-Ref

Sug-Acc 7฀(30-31); 1

Sug-Ref Ass-Agr

Ass-Dis 35฀(204-205); 51฀(310-311); 2 Sta-Agr 13~(53-54); 24฀(118-119); 30฀(149-150); 3 Sta-Dis

Apo-Min 13~(57-58); 17~(64-65); 2

TOTAL


(35)

3. Describing the utterances which include the types of adjacency pairs.

Figure 3.4 Example of Type of Adjacency Pairs.

From the figure above, it describes that the first part, Anna, asks Olaf to give her privacy time to meet Elsa. It is responded by Olaf in the second part by saying “Okay” This is an example of Request-Acceptance.

4. Analyzing the feedback of dispreferred response which is uttered by the first part.

The writer analyzed the reason of dispreferred response then she described and classified the feedback based on the forms.


(36)

26

Figure 3.5 Example of Feedback of Dispreferred response.

From the figure above, the kind of preference structure which is found in the example is dispreferred response. As shown in the utterance “No,..” it means that Anna disobeys to Elsa, she protests by asking some questions. The feedback of this dispreferred response, Elsa can’t control her emotion, she shows her anger by saying “I said, enough” The form of feedback in this example is Expression.

5. The writer summed up the types of adjacency pairs and the feedback of dispreferred response which is found in Frozen movie by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee.


(37)

27

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the findings obtained from the research and discussion of the result. It deals with the analysis of adjacency pairs in Frozen movie.

4.1 Findings

The explanation of adjacency pairs in the Frozen dialogues is delivered in two parts. First, it is about the types of adjacency pairs. Second, it is about the feedback of dispreferred response. In this study, there are 722 turns in the conversation of the whole characters. The data include 194 types of adjacency pairs. Those data are classified into 11 types based on the dialogues of the characters which paired. For details of the data, it can be seen at appendix 1. In addition, the writer also found 7 of 11 types which have dispreferred responses and the data for feedback of dispreferred response has calculated by amount 55 data. For details of the data about feedback, it can be seen at appendix 2.

4.1.1 Types of Adjacency Pairs

The results of data analysis about types of adjacency pair appears in the following pie chart.


(38)

Based on figure 4.1, it ca Question-Answer, which lowest number is Invitation 1,5 % of all data.

For certain types of adjacency pairs, the first parts are not always responded positively (as preferred by the first speaker), some of them are responded negatively

specifically as shown in the follow

QUE-ANS COM-OBE/DIS ASS-AGR/DIS

Figure 4.1 Types of Adjacency Pairs

4.1, it can be seen that the highest type of adjacency pair Answer, which is 73 data representing 37,6 % of all data

lowest number is Invitation-Acceptance/Refusal, which is 3 data

For certain types of adjacency pairs, the first parts are not always responded positively (as preferred by the first speaker), some of them are responded negatively (dispreferred responses). The types are elaborated more specifically as shown in the following table.

GRE-RES SUM-RES REQ

OBE/DIS OFF-ACC/REJ INV-ACC/REF SUG

AGR/DIS STA-AGR/DIS APO-MIN

DATA 1: TYPES OF ADJACENCY PAIRS

28

of adjacency pairs is of all data. While, the data representing

For certain types of adjacency pairs, the first parts are not always responded positively (as preferred by the first speaker), some of them are types are elaborated more

REQ-ACC/REF SUG-ACC/REF


(39)

Table 4.1 Types of Adjacency Pairs (Part 2)

Types Frequency Percentage

Question-Answer 73 37,6%

Greeting-Response 6 3,1%

Summons-Response 10 5,2%

Request-Acceptance 9 4,6%

Request-Refusal 13 6,7%

Command-Obedience 9 4,6%

Command-Disobedience 8 4,1%

Offer-Acceptance 2 1,0%

Offer-Rejection 2 1,0%

Invitation-Acceptance 2 1,0%

Invitation-Refusal 1 0,5%

Suggest-Acceptance 2 1,0%

Suggest-Refusal 8 4,1%

Assessment-Agree 11 5,7%

Assessment-Disagree 5 2,6%

Statement-Agree 10 5,2%

Statement-Disagree 18 9,3%

Apologize-Minimization 5 2,6%

TOTAL 194 100%

For example of each type of adjacency pairs in Frozen movie, it can be seen at appendix 3. While, the further discussion for each type of adjacency pairs will be presented in the following below.


(40)

30

4.1.1.1 Question-Answer

Question-Answer type is the biggest amount of adjacency pairs which is found in the data. In this type, the second part will give the answer for the question by the first part. The writer has found 73 data for Question-Answer type. To represent this type, I provide 5 examples as follows:

 Example 1 (Page 11 Turn (41-42))

TEEN ELSA : Do you have to go?

KING : You’ll be fine, Elsa

In example 1, the first part, Teen Elsa, has uttered a question for her father clearly “Do you have to go?” This utterance is responded by the second part “You’ll be fine. Elsa” is indirect answer that means ‘yes’ the King has to go.

 Example 2 (Page 24 Turn (117-118))

HANS : (about her white streak) What’s this?

ANNA : I was born with it, although I dreamt I was kissed

by a troll.

In example 2, the first part, Hans, asks question about part of Anna’s hair because the color is white “What’s this?” It is answered by Anna by saying that she was born with white streak on her hair, even though she dreamt she was kissed by troll.

 Example 3 (Page 40 Turn (224-225))

OAKEN : A real howler in July, yah? Where ever could it be

coming from?


(41)

In example 3, the first part, Oaken, asks a question to Kristoff about the source of winter in July “Where ever could it be coming from?” It is answered directly by Kristoff in the second part that the source of winter is coming from the North Mountain.

 Example 4 (Page 45 Turn (256-257))

KRISTOFF : So tell me, what made the Queen go all ice-crazy? ANNA : ...Oh well, it was all my fault. I got engaged but

then she freaked out because I’d only just met him, you know, that day. And she said she wouldn’t bless

the marriage—

In example 4, the first part, Kristoff, asks question or explanation about the reason why Queen made the winter. He asks “…What made the Queen go all ice-crazy?” Anna answered it by explaining the reason of it in the second part “…it was all my fault. I got engaged but then she freaked out because I’d only just met him, you know, that day. And she said she wouldn’t bless”.

 Example 5 (Page 53 Turn (326-327))

OLAF : Wait, what am I looking at right now? Why are

you hanging off the earth like a bat?

ANNA : ...Okay. Wait one second.

In example 5, the first part, Olaf, is confused about his self. He asks “…Why are you hanging off the earth like a bat?” It is answered by Anna in the second part “Okay. Wait one second.” This response seems unrelated with the question. But, the act of Anna after saying “Wait one second” is the answer of the question: Anna changes the position of Olaf’s head.


(42)

32

4.1.1.2 Greeting-Response

Greeting-Response is a type of adjacency pairs which is uttered when the person wants to know each other, such as introduce the name or greeting (‘Hi’, ' Hello’). It occurs because both of the speakers never meet before. Sometimes, the response of greeting is greeting also, or maybe other responses. The writer has found 6 data and only 3 data will represent this type.

 Example 6 (Page 18 Turn (68-69))

HANS : Prince Hans of the Southern Isles.

ANNA : Princess Anna of Arendelle.

In example 6, the first part, Hans, gives a greeting to Anna by introducing himself as Prince Hans of the Southern Isles. Then, in the second part, Anna replies it by introducing herself as Princess Anna of Arendelle.

 Example 7 (Page 20 Turn (83-84))

ELSA : ...Hi.

ANNA : Hi me...? Oh. Um. Hi.

In example 7, the first part, Elsa, gives a greeting to Anna by saying “Hi” It is responded by greeting also “Hi me...? Oh. Um. Hi.” The response indicates that Anna hesitates, but at the last she answers the greeting.

 Example 8 (Page 53 Turn (316-317))

OLAF : Hi!


(43)

In example 8, the first speaker, Olaf, gives a greeting to Kristoff by saying “Hi” It is responded by Kristoff as the second speaker “You’re creepy” Although the response of Kristoff is not greeting also, but it occurs in the first meeting and this utterance is produced because Kristoff is shocked when he hold Olaf’s head.

4.1.1.3 Summons-Response

Summons-Response is a type of adjacency pairs which is produced to call someone. It often occurred at the beginning of meeting. Usually, the way of summons is calling the name of person. It means that the interlocutor has known each other. The response of summons can be call the name also or give other response. The writer has found 10 data for this type and only 3 data will represent it.

 Example 9 (Page 13 Turn (55-56))

KAI : Princess Anna...?

ANNA : Huh? Yeah?

In example 9, the first part, KAI, summons Anna from out of the door by calling “Princess Anna..?” It is replied by Anna in the second part by saying “Huh? Yeah?”.

 Example 10 (Page 65 Turn (418-419))

ANNA : Elsa? It's me...Anna?!

ELSA : Anna.

In example 10, the first part, Anna, summons her sister, Elsa, in the Elsa’s castle “Elsa? It's me...Anna?!” Then, it is responded by Elsa with shocked intonation by saying “Anna.”


(44)

34

 Example 11 (Page 75 Turn (485-486))

ANNA : Olaf!

OLAF : Hang in there, guys!

In example 11, the first speaker, Anna, summons Olaf because she sees Olaf has fallen into the ravine. It is responded by Olaf in the second part by saying “Hang in there, guys!”.

4.1.1.4 Request-Acceptance / Refusal

Request-Acceptance/Refusal type is a type of adjacency pair which is uttered when the person needs or asks someone to do something. There are 2 responses of this type: acceptance and refusal. Acceptance indicates the preferred response, while refusal indicates the dispreferred response. The writer has found 22 data for Request-Acceptance/Refusal type, it consist of 9 data is preferred response and 13 data is dispreferred response. To represent this type, I deliver 3 data as follows:

 Example 12 (Page 35 Turn 205-207))

HANS : I’m coming with you.

ANNA : No, I need you here to take care of Arendelle.

HANS : On my honor

In example 12, the first part, Anna, asks Hans to take care of Arendelle when she left to find Elsa. It is responded by Hans in the second part by saying “On my Honor.” This is an example of request which is responded by acceptance or it called by the preferred response.


(45)

 Example 13 (Page 44 Turn (249-250))

ANNA : Take me up the North Mountain.... Please.

KRISTOFF : We leave at dawn.... And you forgot the carrots for Sven.

In example 13, the first part, Anna, requests Kristoff to take her up to the North Mountain “Take me up the North Mountain.... Please.” It is responded by Kristoff in the second part by saying “We leave at dawn…” This response seems accept the request, but it is a refusal. It occurs because in fact, Anna wants to go as soon as possible. This is an example of request which is responded by refusal, or it called by the dispreferred response.

 Example 14 (Page 91 Turn (582-583))

ELSA : You have to tell them to let me go.

HANS : I will do what I can.

In example 14, the first speaker, Elsa, requests Hans to tell the guard to let her go. It is responded by Hans with indirect meaning. He says "I will do what I can." which indicates that Hans refused the request. This is another example of dispreferred response.

4.1.1.5 Command-Obedience / Disobedience

This is a type of adjacency pairs which is produced when the person wants to give instruction to other. There are 2 responses of this type: acceptance and refusal. Acceptance indicates the preferred response, while refusal indicates the dispreferred response. The writer has found 17 data for this type, it consists of 9 data is preferred


(46)

36

response and 8 data is dispreferred response. There are 3 data to represent this type as follows:

 Example 15 (Page 7 Turn (26-27))

KING : Do what you must.

GRAND PABBIE : I recommend we remove all magic, even memories of magic to be safe.... But don’t worry, I’ll leave the fun.

In example 15, the first part, King, gives a command to Grand Pabbie to do what the best for Anna’s condition by saying “Do what you must.” It is responded by Grand Pabbie in the second part by removing all magic on Anna’s mind. The response shows that Grand Pabbie is obey to the King. This is one of preferred response example.

 Example 16 (Page 92 Turn (586-587)) KRISTOFF : Stay out of sight, Olaf!

OLAF : I will!

In example 16, the first speaker, Kristoff, gives a command to Olaf to keep hide from people by saying “Stay out of sight, Olaf!” It is responded by Olaf as the second speaker with saying “I will!” The response points out that Olaf obey to Kristoff. This is another example of preferred response.

 Example 17 (Page 47 Turn (284-285)) KRISTOFF : Stop talking.

ANNA : No, no, no. I’d like to meet these—

In example 17, the first part, Kristoff, gives a command to Anna to stop talking because he listens to something suspicious by saying


(47)

“Stop talking.” Anna responds it in the second part by saying “No…” The response shows that Anna did not obey to Kristoff. This is one of dispreferred response examples.

4.1.1.6 Offer-Acceptance / Rejection

Offer-Acceptance / Rejection is a type of adjacency pair which is produced when the person wants to do something with intend to offer aid, service or etc. There are 2 responses of this type; acceptance and rejection. Acceptance indicates the preferred response, while rejection indicates the dispreferred response. The writer has found 4 data for Offer-Acceptance/Rejection type, it consists of 2 data is preferred response and 2 data is dispreferred response. There are only 2 data for representing this type.

 Example 18 (Page 25 Turn (126-127))

ANNA : Okay, can I just say something crazy?

HANS : I love crazy.

In example 18, the first part, Anna, offers to say something crazy to Hans “…can I just say something crazy?” It is responded by Hans with saying “I love Crazy.” The response points out that Hans accepted what Anna’s offer. This is one of preferred response example.

 Example 19 (Page 21 Turn (92-93))

DUKE : Your Majesty, as your closest partner in trade, it seems only fitting that I offer you your first dance as queen.


(48)

38

In example 19, the first part, Duke, offers Elsa to dance with him “…I offer you your first dance as queen.” It is replied by Elsa in the second part by saying “Thank you...only I don’t dance.” The response indicates that Elsa refused what Duke’s offer. This is an example of dispreferred response.

4.1.1.7 Invitation-Acceptance/Refusal

Invitation-Acceptance, it is the type which is uttered when the person wants to invite someone to follow or to come, usually using ‘come on’, ‘come with me’, or etc. There are 2 responses of this type; acceptance and refusal. Acceptance indicates the preferred response, while refusal indicates the dispreferred response. The writer has found 3 data for this type and all of them are representing it.

 Example 20 (Page 80 Turn (524-525) KRISTOFF : Wait. Come here.

ANNA : Oooh.... That’s nice.

In example 20, the first part, Kristoff, invites Anna to follow him to through the way “Wait. Come here.” It is responded by Anna in the second part by saying “Oohh... That’s nice.” It indicates that Anna accepted the invitation. This is the example of preferred response.

 Example 21 (Page 58 Turn (358-359))

OLAF : So, come on! Elsa’s this way. Let’s go bring back

summer!


(49)

In example 21, the first part, Olaf, invites Anna to follow him to through the way which Elsa ever passed “…come on! Elsa’s this way. Let’s go bring back summer.” It is responded by Anna with saying “I’m coming.” The response shows that Anna accepted Olaf’s invitation. This is another example of preferred response.

 Example 22 (Page 52 Turn (313-314))

ANNA : ...Yeah. Now come on. This way to the North

Mountain.

KRISTOFF : More like this way.

In example 22, the first part, Anna, invites Kristoff to follow him to through the way by saying “…Now come on. This way to the North Mountain.” In the second part, Kristoff refuses it by saying “More like this way.” This is one of dispreferred response example.

4.1.1.8 Suggest-Acceptance / Refusal

Suggest-Acceptance / Refusal is a type of adjacency pairs which produced when the person want to give a suggestion to others. There are 2 responses of this type; acceptance and refusal. Acceptance refers to the preferred response, while refusal refers to the dispreferred response. The writer has found 10 data for this type, it consists of 2 data is preferred response and 8 data is dispreferred response. To represent this type, I provide 3 data as sampling to represent this type.

 Example 23 (Page 87 Turn (568-569)

KRISTOFF : Anna, we’ve got to get you back to Hans.


(50)

40

In example 23, the first speaker, Kristoff, utters “Anna, we’ve got to get you back to Hans.” which means that Kristoff gave a suggestion to get Anna back because Anna in weak condition. Then, it is responded by Anna as the second speaker by saying “…Hans.” From the utterance and expression, it indicates that Anna accepted the suggestion. This is one of preferred response examples.

 Example 24 (Page 69 Turn (446-447))

ANNA : It’s okay, you can just unfreeze it

ELSA : No, I can’t. I don’t know how

In example 24, the first part, Anna, suggests her sister, Elsa, to make a better condition by saying “…you can just unfreeze it.” It is responded by Elsa by saying "No, I can’t…" The response points out that Elsa refused the suggestion. This is an example of dispreferred response.

 Example 25 (Page 102 Turn (662-663))

OLAF : No, no, no, no, no. You need to stay by the fire and

keep warm.

ANNA : I need to get to Kristoff.

In example 25, the first part, Olaf, suggests Anna to keep close to the fire and keep warm by saying “…You need to stay by the fire and keep warm.” It is responded by Anna by saying "I need to get to Kristoff." The response indicates that Anna refused the suggestion because she has an opinion to meet Kristoff. This is another example of dispreferred response.


(51)

4.1.1.9 Assessment-Agree / Disagree

Assessment-Agree / Disagree type is a type of adjacency pairs which is produced when a person assesses something/ someone. There are 2 responses of this type; agree and disagree. Agree refers to the preferred response, while disagree refers to the dispreferred response. The writer has found 16 data for this type, it consists of 11 data is preferred response and 5 data is dispreferred response. There are 3 data to represent this type.

 Example 26 (Page 25 Turn (122-123))

HANS : Twelve older brothers. Three of them pretended I

was invisible... literally...for two years.

ANNA : That’s horrible.

HANS : It’s what brothers do.

In example 26, the first part, Anna, assesses Hans story by saying “That’s horrible.” It is responded by Hans by saying “It’s what brothers do.” The response indicates that Hans agreed with the assessment about his brother. This is one of preferred response examples.

 Example 27 (Page 65 Turn (420-421))

ANNA : Elsa, you look different.... It’s a good different.... And this place is amazing.

ELSA : Thank you, I never knew what I was capable of.

In example 27, the first part, Anna, assesses her sister by saying that Elsa looks different and the place is amazing. It is responded by Elsa in the second part by saying “Thank you…” The response shows


(52)

42

that Elsa agreed with Anna’s assessment. This is another example of preferred response.

 Example 28 (Page 35 Turn (204-205))

HANS : Anna, no. It’s too dangerous.

ANNA : Elsa’s not dangerous. I’ll bring her back, and I’ll make this right.

In example 28, the first part, Hans assesses that Anna’s decision is dangerous. It responded by Anna by saying “Elsa’s not dangerous…” The response points out that Anna disagreed with Hans’s assessment. This is an example of dispreferred response.

4.1.1.10 Statement-Agree / Disagree

This is a type of adjacency pairs which is produced when the person wants to state or assert something. It is like the assertive sentence. There are 2 responses of this type; agree and disagree. Agree refers to the preferred response, while disagree refers to the dispreferred response. The data of this type was found by amount 28 data, it consists of 10 data is preferred response and 18 data is dispreferred response. There are 3 data to represent this type.

Example 28 (Page 102 Turn (663-664))

ANNA : I need to get to Kristoff.

OLAF : Why...? (realizing) Oh, oh, oh, I know why.

In example 28, the first speaker, Anna, states that she needs to meet Kristoff. It is responded by Olaf as the second speaker by asking "Why…?" then, when he realized Anna’s purpose, he immediately


(53)

agreed with saying "Oh, I know why." This is one of preferred response examples.

Example 29 (Page 107 Turn (688-689))

OLAF : An act of true love will thaw a frozen heart.

ELSA : Love...will thaw...(realizing) Love.... Of course. In example 29, the first part, Olaf, states that an act of true love will thaw a frozen heart. It is uttered when Olaf sees Anna’s body has thawed. It responded by Elsa as the second part “…Love... Of course.” The response means that Elsa realized about an act of true love, she agreed with the statement. This is another example of preferred response.

Example 30 (Page 56 Turn (353-354))

OLAF : Summer? (sinking into wistfulness) Oh, I don’t

know why but I’ve always loved the idea of summer, and sun, and all things hot.

KRISTOFF : Really? I’m guessing you don’t have much experience with heat.

In example 30, the first part, Olaf, states his feeling that he always loved the idea of summer and sun, and all things hot. It is responded by Kristoff by saying "Really? I’m guessing you don’t have much experience with heat." The response indicates that Kristoff disagreed with the statement. This is one of dispreferred response examples.

Example 31 (Page 67 Turn (439-440))


(54)

44

ANNA : You don’t have to protect me. I’m not afraid. Please don’t shut me out again.

In example 31, the first part, Elsa, states that she just trying to protect Anna, it uttered as her reason why she can’t live with Anna. Then, it is responded by Anna in the second part "You don’t have to protect me…" The response shows that Anna disagreed with Elsa’s statement. This is another example of dispreferred response.

4.1.1.11 Apologize-Minimization

This is a type of adjacency pair which is uttered when the person wants to apologize to others. The response of apologies is minimization. The writer has found 5 data for this type. To represent this type, I provide 2 data as follows:

Example 32 (Page 13 Turn (57-58))

KAI : Sorry to wake you, ma’am but--

ANNA : No, you didn’t. I’ve been up for hours.

In example 32, the first speaker, Kai, utters “Sorry to wake you, ma’am…” means that he apologized to Anna because he has to wake Anna. This utterance is responded by Anna as the second speaker by saying "No, you didn’t, I’ve been up for hours." The response points out that Anna forgive and minimized the problem.

Example 33 (Page 66 Turn (422-423))

ANNA : ...I’m so sorry about what happened. If I’d

known—

ELSA : No, it’s okay. You don’t have to apologize.... But


(55)

In example 33, the first part, Anna, apologize to Elsa about her mistakes which make a big problem by saying “I’m so sorry about what happened…” It responded by Elsa in the second part “No. It’s okay, You don’t have to apologize.” The response shows that Elsa forgive and minimized the problem.

To sum up, there are 11 types of adjacency pairs which found in the 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.

4.1.2 Feedback of Dispreferred Response

Feedback of dispreferred response is the reaction of the first speaker about the unexpected response which is uttered by the second speaker. Some reactions can be accompanied by the utterance. The writer has classified feedback of dispreferred response based on the data analysis into 7 forms; they are an act, expression, attitude, act + expression, act + attitude, attitude + expression and no response. The terms of these forms are created by the writer herself based on the existing data.

The writer found 7 types of adjacency pairs which have

dispreferred responses. It has calculated by amount 55 data. To describe it more clearly, it can be seen from the following table.


(56)

46

Table 4.3 Feedback of dispreferred response Dispreferred

Response

Form of Feedback

TOTAL Act Expression Attitude Expression Act+ Attitude Act+ Expression Attitude+ Response No

Req-Ref - 4 4 1 3 1 - 13

Com-Dis 2 2 - 1 1 - 3 9

Off-Rej - 1 - - - - 1 2

Inv-Ref - - - - - 1 - 1

Sug-Ref 2 - 3 - 1 - 2 8

Ass-Dis - 2 1 - 1 1 - 5

Sta-Dis 2 3 7 - 1 3 1 17

TOTAL 6 12 15 2 7 6 7 55

Figure 4.3 Feedback of dispreferred response in percentage Based on the diagram above, it appears that the highest form of feedback of dispreferred response is attitude, with the frequency 15 and the

Percentage; Act; 10,9%; 11%

Percentage; Expression; 21,8%; 22% Percentage; Attitude; 27,3%; 27% Percentage; Act+Expression; 3,6%; 3% Percentage; Act+Attitude; 12,7%; 13% Attitude+ Expression; 10,9% Percentage; No Response; 12,7%; 13%


(57)

percentage 27,3 %. While the lowest form of feedback of dispreferred response is Act + Expression, with the frequency 2 and the percentage 3,6%. The following diagram will explain more detail:

Figure 4.4 Feedback of dispreferred response

The diagram explains that in Request-Refusal adjacency pair, it is found 13 forms of feedback: 4 expressions, 4 attitudes, 1 act + expression, 3 acts + attitudes, and 1 attitude + expression. Then, in Command-Disobedience, is responded by 9 forms of feedback: 2 acts, 2 expressions, 1 act + expression, 1 act + attitude, and 3 no responses. Next, the writer has found 2 forms of feedback in Offer-Rejection, they are 1 expression and 1 no response. Fourth, there is only one type of feedback in Invitation-Refusal, it is attitude + expression. Fifth, in Suggest-Invitation-Refusal, it is found 8 forms of feedback: 2 acts, 3 attitudes, 1 act + attitude, and 2 no responses.

Req-Ref Com-Dis Off-Rej Inv-Ref Sug-Ref Ass-Dis Sta-Dis Form of Feedback


(58)

48

Sixth, there are 5 forms of feedback that found in Assessment-Disagree, they are 2 expressions, 1 attitude, 1 attitude + expression, and 1 act + attitude. And the last is Statement-Disagree, it is the biggest forms of feedback. The writer has found 17 forms of feedback: 2 acts, 3 expressions, 7 attitudes, 1 act + attitude, 3 attitude + expression, and 1 no response.

4.1.2.1 Act

It is the form of feedback to a dispreferred response to the previous turn in the form of doing something. The feedback can be

clamps, fights, gives, explains and walks. There are 6 data which

found in this form, with the percentage of 11%. To represent this form, I provide 2 examples as follows:

Example 34 (Page 89 Turn (575-576))

ELSA : Stay away!

Elsa shoots ice at the thugs. They duck out of the way and continue the attack.

THUG : Get her! Get her!

Elsa fights for her life.

This example is taken from the data analysis of command-disobedience. The first part, Elsa, gives a command to Thug to stay away from her, but the thug disobeys. He still attacks Elsa by giving a command to his friend to get Elsa. The feedback of this dispreferred response is Elsa fights the Thug to save herself. In this example, ‘fight’ includes a kind of act.


(59)

Example 35 (Page 96 Turn (628-629)) ANNA : You won’t get away with this. HANS : Oh, I already have.

Hans leaves and shuts her in, locking the door. Anna struggles to the door, yanks on the locked handle..

This example is taken from the data analysis of statement-disagree. The first part, Anna, asserts that Hans's expectation is never occurs. Hans disagree, he refutes by stating in the second part "Oh, I already have." then he leaves Anna in the room. The feedback of this dispreferred response is Anna tries to walk towards the locking door and asks for help. This feedback is a form of the act which performed by Anna.

4.1.2.2 Expression

It is the form of feedback to a dispreferred response to the previous turn in the form of showing the feeling of the speaker, such as disappointed, despair, worry, offend, angry, hesitate,

shocked and confused. There are 12 data has found in this form and

the percentage of 22%. I provide 2 examples to represent this form.

Example 36 (Page 105Turn (675&678))

ELSA : ...Just take care of my sister.

HANS : I tried to save her, but it was too late. Her skin was ice. Her hair turned white…

ELSA : What? No.

This example is taken from the data analysis of request-refusal. The first part, Elsa, requests Hans to take care of Anna, but


(60)

50

Hans refuses. It can be shown in the second part, the statement of Hans about Anna’s condition "I tried to save her, but it was too late. Her skin was ice. Her hair turned white.” The feedback of dispreferred response, Elsa is shocked about Hans’s statement “What? No.” In such instance, shocked is indicated as a kind of expression.

Example 37 (Page 51Turn (310-311))

KRISTOFF : It’s completely frozen.

ANNA : ...But it’ll be fine. Elsa will thaw it. KRISTOFF : Will she?

This example is taken from the data analysis of assessment-disagree. The first part, Kristoff assesses that Arendelle has completely frozen, but Anna disagrees. She believes that it will be fine because Elsa will thaw it. The feedback of this dispreferred response, Kristoff feels hesitate, it can be seen from the utterance “Will she?” In this example, hesitate is indicated as a kind of expression.

4.1.2.3 Attitude

It is the form of feedback to a dispreferred response to the previous turn in the form of a tendency to do an act. This type also influences someone to do something such as approves, ignores,

constraints, refuses, protests, and disagrees. The writer has found

15 data for this type, with the percentage of 27%. There are 2 examples will represent this type.


(1)

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-Acceptance/Refusal, 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.

5.2Suggestion

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


(2)

64

research can describe and classify the forms of feedback of dispreferred response with different context, such as linguistic context and social context.


(3)

REFERENCES

BSSRO. (2016), Descriptive Research. Accessed on June, 20th 2016 at http://www.bssro.org/descriptiveresearch.aspx

Buck, C., & Lee, J. (Director). (2013). Frozen. [Motion Pictures]. Walt Disney Animation Studios. Accessed on February, 27th 2014 at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef0b-J-NJ_c

Buck, C., & Lee, J. (Director). (2013). Frozen. [Movie Script]. Walt Disney Animation Studios. Accessed on October, 08th 2015 at

https://www.goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/frozen

Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman Group. Accessed on June, 19th 2016 at

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/I/2/179.full.pdf

Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Accessed on June, 19th 2016 at

http://liduaeka.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/7/6/10761275/advances_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, 14th 2016 at http://eprints.ums.ac.id/25045/9/02.NASKAH_PUBLIKASI.pdf

Frozen. (2013). Accessed on June, 16th 2016 at http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Frozen

Fuad, H. (2015). Adjacency pair in “Knight and day” Movie. States Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Accessed on March, 14th 2016 at http://digilib.uinsby.ac.id/2713/

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. Accessed on March, 17th 2015 at

http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781317820581_sample_840607.p df


(4)

Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications, Inc. Accessed on June, 17th 2016 at

http://stiba-malang.ac.id/.../QUALITATIVE%20METHOD%20SAGE%20ENCY.pdf Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays.

London: Routledge. Accessed on June,19th 2016 at https://muse.jhu.edu/article/453059/pdf

Konnikova, M (2014). How “Frozen” Took Over The World. Accessed on July, 24th 2016 at

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-frozen-took-over-the-world#

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press: NewYork. Accessed on June, 17th 2016 at

https://web.stanford.edu/cgpotts/papers/potts-pragmatics-oupcompling.pdf Litosseliti, L. (2010). Linguistics Research Methodology, London: Continuum

International Publishing Group. Accessed on March, 6th 2015 at https://tainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/42708/1/02071 000006.pdf

Majid. N. A. (2011). Getting Beyond Conversation Analysis: Critical and Pedagogical Implications for TESOL/Bilingual 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, 11th 2016 at

https://www.education-inquiry.net/index.php/edui/article/download/21969/28713

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, 14th 2016 at https://repository.usd.ac.id/1022/

Mc Carthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press. Accessed on March, 30th 2015 at

https://www.cambridge.org/download_file/625092/126722/

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge. Accessed on March, 18th 2015 at http://profcohen.net/ltwl129/mills.pdf


(5)

Murti, I, K. (2014). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Dispreferred Act on The Second

Pair Part by The Main Character in The Movie Beauty and The Briefcase.

Yogyakarta State University. Accessed on August, 7th 2016 at http://eprints.uny.ac.id

Peräkylä, A. Conversation Analysis, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. Accessed on May, 20th 2015 at

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/perakyla/files/2008/10/conversationanalysis_08l1.p df

Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Accessed on July, 18th 2016 at

http://linguistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_sprachwissenschaf t/StEOP/Renkema_2004_introduction_to_discourse_studies_1_174.pdf Russel, J. A, & Dolz, Jose Miguel. (1997), The Psychology of Facial Expression.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed on June, 20th 2016 at http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/96036250.pdf

Rymes, B. (2008). Classroom Discourse Analysis: a tool for critical reflection. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Accessed on June, 18th 2016 at https://books.google.co.id/books?id=EsY0CwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_boo k_other_versions

Sadighi, F. & Zarafshan, M. (2006). Effects of Attitude and Motivation on the Use

of Language Learning Strategies by Iranian EFL University Students.

Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring 2006 (SER. 46). Accessed on June, 20th 2016 at http://web3.apiu.edu/.../Teaching%20Method%20and%20Student%20Eng lish%20Learning

Salaria, N. (2012). Meaning of The Term- Descriptive Survey Research Method.

International Journal of Transformations in Business Management, Vol. No. 1, Issue No. 6, Apr-Jun. Accessed on June, 20th 2016 at http://jtbm.com/images/short_pdf/Apr_2012_NEERU%20SALARIA%20 2.pdf

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8: pg 289– 327.Accessed on June, 18th 2016 at


(6)

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Orgaization in Interaction: A primer in

Conversation Analysis I. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Accessed on June, 16th 2016 at

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511791208

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: an introduction. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Accessed on June, 18th 2016 at

https://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781444317510_sample_415215. pdf

Susanti, R., Sari, S. A., Milfayetti, S., Dirhamsyah, M. (2014). Hubungan Kebijakan, Sarana dan Prasarana dengan Kesiapsiagaan Komunitas

Sekolah Siaga Bencana Banda Aceh. Jurnal Ilmu Kebencanaan (JIKA)

ISSN 2355-3324. Pascasarjana Universitas Syiah Kuala. pp. 42- 49. Accessed on July, 25th 2016 at

http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/JIKA/article/view/2472

Tsui. B.M. A. (1989). Beyond the Adjacency Pair. A journal Language in Society. Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 545-564. Cambridge University Press. Accessed on October, 3rd 2015 at

https://lg411.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/tsui-article.pdf Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.