The Use of Women's Speech By The Main Female Characters in 'Miss Congeniality 2' and 'Taking Lives'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... i
ABSTRACT ... ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study ... 4
1.4 Methods of Research ... 4
1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6
CHAPTER THREE: THE USE OF WOMEN’S SPEECH BY THE MAIN FEMALE CHARACTERS IN MISS CONGENIALITY 2 AND TAKING LIVES …………... 13
3.1 Miss Congeniality 2 ...………. 13
3.1.1 Utterances which Conform to Lakoff’s Theory of Women’s Speech ……….. 14
3.1.2 Utterances which Violate Lakoff’s Theory of Women’s Speech ………... 17
3.2 Taking Lives ……… 22
3.2.1 Utterances which Conform to Lakoff’s Theory of Women’s Speech ... . 22
3.2.2 Utterances which Violate Lakoff’s Theory of Women’s Speech ……….. 26
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 35
(2)
ABSTRACT
Dalam penulisan tugas akhir ini, saya memilih dua buah film yang berjudul Miss Congeniality 2 dan Taking Lives sebagai sumber data penelitian saya. Pada kedua film ini, saya menemukan ada persamaan pada tokoh utama wanitanya, misalnya mereka sama-sama berprofesi sebagai polisi. Saya menganalisis bahasa kedua tokoh utama wanita tersebut yang biasanya dipakai oleh kaum wanita yang sesuai dengan teori yang dikemukakan oleh Robin Lakoff (1975). Selain itu saya juga menganalisis bahasa yang digunakan tokoh utama wanita dalam film Miss Congeniality 2 dan Taking Lives yang menyimpang dari teori tersebut.
Saya menganalisis ujaran-ujaran kedua tokoh utama wanita dalam kedua film tersebut. Saya juga menjelaskan alasan apa yang menyebabkan kedua tokoh utama wanita ini melakukan penyimpangan atau menggunakan bahasa yang sesuai dengan teori Lakoff berdasarkan teori faktor sosial yang dikemukakan oleh Janet Holmes dengan menggunakan pendekatan Sosiolinguistik
Dari hasil penelitian saya, dapat disimpulkan bahwa bahasa yang digunakan oleh kedua tokoh utama wanita dalam film Miss Congeniality 2 dan Taking Lives berbeda dengan bahasa yang digunakan wanita pada umumnya. Hal ini bisa terjadi karena tokoh-tokoh utama wanita di film tersebut terpengaruh oleh
(3)
bahasa yang digunakan oleh para pria di lingkungan kerja mereka sebagai polisi. Oleh sebab itu, mereka bisa saja melakukan penyimpangan dari teori Lakoff.
Saya berharap hasil penelitian ini dapat berguna bagi para pembelajar bahasa Inggris yang ingin menguasai bukan saja bentuk bahasa tetapi juga penggunaan bahasa yang bervariasi dan sesuai dengan lingkungan atau konteks pembicaraannya.
(4)
APPENDICES
Miss Congeniality 2
Hart’s utterances conforming to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech:
No Utterance Type of Women’s
Language
Social Factor(s) 1. Hart: Clonsky, where are you hit?
Clonsky: In the vest. I’m… Hart: Where?
Clonsky: I’m all alright. I’m all alright.
Hart:Oh my God.
Avoidance of strong swear word The function: Hart is expressing her concern
2. Reporter: What a great suit.
Hart: Thank you and you look
fabulous.
‘Empty’ adjectives
The setting: On a TV show
3. Cheryl: So, what happened?
Hart: Oh, I just had to end it because he was getting, you know,really clingy. But I’m fine. I’mgood. I’mGREAT.
Lexical hedges or filler, Intensifiers, ‘Empty’ adjectives, Emphatic stress The participants: Hart with her
best friend, Cheryl The topic: Hart shares about her
(5)
No Utterance Type of Women’s Language
Social Factor(s) 4. Fuller: Ida, you can walk!
Hart:Praise Jesus. Fuller: Moses!
Hart:Moses, I am walking again.
Avoidance of strong swear words The function: They are undercover
Hart’s utterances violating Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech:
No Utterance Violation of Type
of Women’s Language
Social Factor(s)
5. Hart:Take her. Take… Man: Take her.
‘Superpolite’ forms
The participants: Hart and her
partner The function: Hart asks her partner to take
one of the robbers 6. Hart: Oh,yeah. No way you
could’ve seen me standing there.
Fuller: Sorry.
McDonald: You were saying? Hart: Hey!Yo!
How about a real “sorry,”
huh? ‘Superpolite’ forms The function: Hart is expressing her annoyance
7. Hart: Keep the receptionist busy. We’re gonna ask some questions, assuming we can find anyone that can hear.
Hold my purse.
‘Superpolite’ forms
The function: Hart is the leader
of the investigation
(6)
No Utterance Violation of Type of Women’s
Language
Social Factor(s)
8. Fuller: You can do Tina Hart: Just take it. Fuller: I am not singing. Hart: Just take it.
‘Superpolite’ forms
The function: Hart wants Fuller
not to refuse her order singing on
the stage
Taking Lives
Scott’s utterances conforming to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech:
No Utterance Type of
Women’s Language
Social Factor(s)
9. Scott: Ithinkit was premeditated. Paquette: What?
Scott: Ithinkit was premeditated. Ithinkthe killer chose this site, specifically, and dug it in advance.
Lexical hedges or filler
The function: Scott is not 100% certain
about her utterance
9. 10. Scott: That’s agreatone. Mrs Asher: Oh, yes. Summer
vacation, Fort Rupert. Scott: And this?
Mrs Asher: Oh, that was our first symphony. The magic flute.
Scott: Of course. He’scute.
‘Empty’ adjectives The participants: Scott and Martin’s mother, Mrs Asher The function: Scott encourages Mrs Asher to tell more about her
(7)
No Utterance Type of Women’s Language
Social Factor(s)
11. Scott: It is averydangerous thing to do, but it is probably our best shot at catching this guy. All right?
Costa: All right. All right.
Intensifiers The function: Scott emphasizes the
danger
12. Costa: I wasn’t helping anybody. Scott: You’ve been great.
Costa: You’re making me sound nicer than I am.
Scott: You areNICE.
Emphatic stress The function: Scott emphasizes her
exaggerated emotion
Scott’s utterances violating Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech:
No Utterance Violation of Type
of Women’s Language
Social Factor(s)
13. Scott: I’m gonna handle this one on my own.
‘Superpolite’ forms
The function: Scott firmly shows that she
does not want Paquette to
interfere. 14. Scott: This is Agent Scott. Officer
down, 219 St. Amelie. (Pause).Shit!
Avoidance of strong swear
words
The function: Scott is angry because her partner is shot
(8)
No Utterance Violation of Type of Women’s
Language
Social Factor(s)
15.
Costa: Is he dead? Help! Is he dead?
Scott: Drop your weapon!
Costa: It’s him. It’s Asher!
Scott: Drop your weapon!
Costa: He shot Duval.
Scott:Drop your weapon, now! Drop it!
‘Superpolite’ forms
The function: Scott is being
firm and authoritative
16. Scott: If you have something to say,say it to me.
Paquette: What? What did you say?
…
(Paquette slaps her).
Rising Intonation on declaratives
The function: Scott challenges
Paquette to tell her directly what
he thinks
17. Costa: And I looked at you, and I saw you and you are beautiful. And we are the same.
Scott: No.
Costa: I’m right, aren’t I? Scott: No.
Costa: No, I’m right. Scott:Fuck you.
Avoidance of strong swear
words
The function: Scott is angry with Costa
(9)
(10)
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
In daily life, people use language to communicate. Language is “…considered to be an exclusively human mode of communication…” (Language). That is why, language has become one of the basic needs for people.
It is believed that gender, between male and female, plays an important role in using the language. So, both language and gender are closely related. Concerning language and gender, women speak differently from men. In general, women tend to use polite language while a lot of men tend to use impolite or even rude language. It is also said that, for women “They use neutral language for business but mostly feminine language when talking to friends” (Annotated Bibliography: Language, Gender, and Writing).Women may use the word terrific in a board meeting, but they may use the word divine when talking to their female friend. They utter two different words that have the same meaning. In this context, the participant is the social factor for women to speak differently. It will be more explained in chapter two.
(11)
There are some linguists who are interested in analyzing women’s language. Some of them are Janet Holmes, Deborah Tannen and Dell Hymes. Robin Lakoff is one of the linguists who are interested in and focuses on women’s language. She is a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. In her book, Language and Woman’s Place, Lakoff introduces ten features of women’s language, namely, “lexical hedges or fillers, tag questions, rising intonation on declaratives, ‘empty’ adjectives, precise colour terms, intensifiers, ‘hypercorrect’ grammar, ‘superpolite’ forms, avoidance of strong swear words, and emphatic stress” (Holmes 286). Lakoff’s theory portrays the characteristics of women’s language and from the theory above; women are expected to conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s language.
Men are expected to speak like men and women speak like women. But men may use a feminine style in speaking and women may use a masculine style. “The participants, setting, function, and topic” (Holmes 8) are the social factors for men and women to choose their speech style. The social factors play an important role in using different speech style.
In analyzing the data, I focus on showing the violations and conformations of Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech in two films. I choose to discuss “The Use of Women’s Speech by the Main Female Characters in Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives” as the topic of my thesis.
By using films, I can get clearer information about the character, setting, and events. Taking data from films takes less time than the other sources, such as novels and advertisements.
(12)
I use the films Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives because the main characters in these films have the same profession. They are FBI agents. Most of the time, they are surrounded by male. In the first movie, Miss Congeniality 2, Gracie Hart is an FBI agent who is also the runner-up of Miss United States pageant. The story is about her investigation with her team in Las Vegas to rescue her best friend, Cheryl Frazier, who is kidnapped. In the second film, Taking Lives, Illeana Scott is a successful FBI agent who goes to Montreal to help out the case of a serial killer named Martin Asher.
In their speeches, the two main female characters of the films, Hart and Scott, conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech. However, the police environments force them to violate the characteristics of female’s speech because they are surrounded by male colleagues who usually use rude language.
For my analysis, I use Sociolinguistics as an approach. “Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used” (Sociolinguistics). I use Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s language to analyze the data and this theory will be presented in detail in Chapter Two.
The result of this analysis is expected to be beneficial for English learners in realizing the different practice of language use by different speakers in different contexts. There are social factors which make women speak differently. They may conform to or violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s language.
(13)
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The problems that I want to analyze in my research are: 1. Does the utterance conform to or violate women’s speech?
2. What kind of women’s speech is involved in the characters’ utterances? 3. What social factors influence the characters to use a particular type of
women’s speech?
1.3 Purpose of the Study
Following the statement of the problems, the purposes of the study are: 1. To find out if the characters’ utterance conforms to or violates women’s
speech.
2. To show which characteristic of women’s speech is involved in the utterance.
3. To show which social factors influence the characters to use that type of women’s speech.
1.4 Methods of Research
First, I watch the films, Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives. Second, I collect the necessary data for my analysis. Third, I select the data according to the ten features of women’s speech proposed by Lakoff. Finally, I analyze the data by using some theories from text books and Internet references.
(14)
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One is the Introduction, which consists of the Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two is Theoretical Framework, which concerns with the linguistic theory and approach used in writing this thesis. Chapter Three is the Discussion, which contains the presentation of the findings, and the interpretation of the data. Chapter Four is the Conclusion, in which I give comments on my findings and analysis. Finally, this thesis ends with the Bibliography and Appendices.
(15)
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I would like to present some concluding remarks based on my findings in the previous chapter. I have three main problems for my thesis as I have already stated in the first chapter. I use two films, Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, as the sources of my data.
I use sociolinguistic approach to analyze the data. I focus on Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech that women are indicated to have different ways of talking from those of men. I realize that the way people use language indicates their social identity.
In analyzing the data, I find that the main female characters in both films show some evidences of using the utterances that conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech. However, when doing their job as police officers, the critical situations force them to use utterances that violate Lakoff’s theory.
Having watched the two films closely and discussed the use of women’s speech in them, I find some similarities between the two films. The main female characters, Gracie Hart in Miss Congeniality 2, and Illeana Scott in Taking Lives,
(16)
work as FBI agents. In their work place most of the officers are men. Naturally, their duties require them to speak clearly and briefly as men do.
From the two films, Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, I get seven-teen data: eight data from the first film and nine data from the second film. Some of the data that I have analyzed conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech, others violate them. There are some data that are related to more than one characteristic, such as data three. In it, the speaker uses a lexical hedge, an intensifier, an ‘empty’ adjective, and an emphatic stress. So, I have twenty utterances that conform to and violate the theory.
From the first film, Miss Congeniality 2, I get eleven utterances. Seven of the utterances conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women speech, while the other four utterances violate them. In Hart’s utterances which conform to women’s speech style, I get two which contain ‘empty’ adjectives, one containing lexical hedges, one dealing with emphatic stress, one related to intensifiers, and two reflecting avoidance of strong swear words. I get four utterances that violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech of ‘superpolite’ forms.
While in the second film, Taking Lives, I get nine utterances. Four of the utterances conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech and five utterances violate the theory. In Scott’s utterances which conform to women’s speech style, I get one containing ‘empty’ adjectives, one containing lexical hedges, one dealing with emphatic stress, and one concerning intensifiers. Then I get five utterances that violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech, two violations of ‘superpolite’ forms, one violation of rising intonation of on
(17)
In analyzing the data, I avoid discussing the use of ‘hypercorrect’ grammar and ‘superpolite’ forms that conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech. The reason is that there is not clear information about what it actually is. I have tried to search in the Internet, but they have different explanations.
Hart and Scott do not use Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech about women’s use of tag questions, rising intonation on declaratives, and precise color terms. Their profession as police officers always demands that they speak briefly, clearly, and straight to the point. This makes them look assertive and confident.
The main female character in Miss Congeniality 2, Gracie Hart, is an FBI agent and also the runner-up of Miss United States pageant. This situation causes her to change her masculine appearance and character to be feminine. She dresses like a woman and behave like a star. That is why I do not find her using swear words. She uses Oh my God to express her concern, Praise Jesus and Moses to express her feeling when she is shocked. While the main female character in Taking Lives, Scott, uses the swear words shit and fuck you to express her anger.
I use Holmes’ four social factors, which consist of participants, setting, topic, and function to analyze the reason for the two main female characters to use the utterance. The social factors play an important role in using different speech styles. The participants and function are the factors which Hart and Scott mostly use in their utterances. Hart and Scott use different speech styles when they talk to their superior. This is due to the relationship that has a high element of formality. But they change their speech style when they talk to their partners who are not
(18)
close with them. The function is the reason for Hart and Scott to show their feeling through the utterance.
In Miss Congeniality 2, there is only one data that is related to the setting in which the utterance takes place. It can be seen when Hart uses ‘empty’ adjectives to respond to the reporter’s statement on a TV show. The topic is the reason for Hart to use the utterance when she shares information about her ex-boyfriend and about her experience of skincare. In Taking Lives, setting and topic do not play an important role in Scott’s language choice.
In my opinion, Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech can reflect women’s speech style in general. It can be seen from my analysis that women’s speech style in Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, fits the theory. However, women can violate Lakoff’s theory when they are in a hurry or facing a critical situation. The social factors affect women to conform to or violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech.
I hope this thesis will be helpful to the other students who intend to take the same topic. However, they should really understand the theory. Besides, it is crucial to see that nowadays men and women more or less speak the same style of language. Therefore, there is not a clear-cut division between the so-called men’s and women’s languages.
(19)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited, 1994.
Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Internet Websites
Annotated Bibliography: Language, Gender, and Writing. 18 April 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 16 April 2008
<http://course1.winona.edu/pjohnson/gender/lakoff.htm>.
Exploring Language: How Intonation Works 7 Mar 2002. English Online. 1 Apr 2008<http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/ exp_ lang/how.html>.
Lakoff’s “Women Language” 18 April 2008.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~lggender/lakoff-women-language.html>. Language 18 April 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 16 April 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language>. Language and Gender 15 April 2008.
<http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm>.
Sociolinguistics 2 Apr 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 1 April 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics>.
(20)
Women’s Language 18 April 2008.
<http://changingminds.org/explanations/gender/womens_language. htm>.
CD-ROM
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. CD-ROM. 2004 ed. U.S.: 2004 Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. CD-ROM. 2009 ed. U.S.: 2009
(1)
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I would like to present some concluding remarks based on my findings in the previous chapter. I have three main problems for my thesis as I have already stated in the first chapter. I use two films, Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, as the sources of my data.
I use sociolinguistic approach to analyze the data. I focus on Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech that women are indicated to have different ways of talking from those of men. I realize that the way people use language indicates their social identity.
In analyzing the data, I find that the main female characters in both films show some evidences of using the utterances that conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech. However, when doing their job as police officers, the critical situations force them to use utterances that violate Lakoff’s theory.
Having watched the two films closely and discussed the use of women’s speech in them, I find some similarities between the two films. The main female characters, Gracie Hart in Miss Congeniality 2, and Illeana Scott in Taking Lives,
(2)
work as FBI agents. In their work place most of the officers are men. Naturally, their duties require them to speak clearly and briefly as men do.
From the two films, Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, I get seven-teen data: eight data from the first film and nine data from the second film. Some of the data that I have analyzed conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech, others violate them. There are some data that are related to more than one characteristic, such as data three. In it, the speaker uses a lexical hedge, an intensifier, an ‘empty’ adjective, and an emphatic stress. So, I have twenty utterances that conform to and violate the theory.
From the first film, Miss Congeniality 2, I get eleven utterances. Seven of the utterances conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women speech, while the other four utterances violate them. In Hart’s utterances which conform to women’s speech style, I get two which contain ‘empty’ adjectives, one containing lexical hedges, one dealing with emphatic stress, one related to intensifiers, and two reflecting avoidance of strong swear words. I get four utterances that violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech of ‘superpolite’ forms.
While in the second film, Taking Lives, I get nine utterances. Four of the utterances conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech and five utterances violate the theory. In Scott’s utterances which conform to women’s speech style, I get one containing ‘empty’ adjectives, one containing lexical hedges, one dealing with emphatic stress, and one concerning intensifiers. Then I get five utterances that violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech, two violations of ‘superpolite’ forms, one violation of rising intonation of on
(3)
In analyzing the data, I avoid discussing the use of ‘hypercorrect’ grammar and ‘superpolite’ forms that conform to Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech. The reason is that there is not clear information about what it actually is. I have tried to search in the Internet, but they have different explanations.
Hart and Scott do not use Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech about women’s use of tag questions, rising intonation on declaratives, and precise color terms. Their profession as police officers always demands that they speak briefly, clearly, and straight to the point. This makes them look assertive and confident.
The main female character in Miss Congeniality 2, Gracie Hart, is an FBI agent and also the runner-up of Miss United States pageant. This situation causes her to change her masculine appearance and character to be feminine. She dresses like a woman and behave like a star. That is why I do not find her using swear words. She uses Oh my God to express her concern, Praise Jesus and Moses to express her feeling when she is shocked. While the main female character in Taking Lives, Scott, uses the swear words shit and fuck you to express her anger.
I use Holmes’ four social factors, which consist of participants, setting, topic, and function to analyze the reason for the two main female characters to use the utterance. The social factors play an important role in using different speech styles. The participants and function are the factors which Hart and Scott mostly use in their utterances. Hart and Scott use different speech styles when they talk to their superior. This is due to the relationship that has a high element of formality. But they change their speech style when they talk to their partners who are not
(4)
close with them. The function is the reason for Hart and Scott to show their feeling through the utterance.
In Miss Congeniality 2, there is only one data that is related to the setting in which the utterance takes place. It can be seen when Hart uses ‘empty’ adjectives to respond to the reporter’s statement on a TV show. The topic is the reason for Hart to use the utterance when she shares information about her ex-boyfriend and about her experience of skincare. In Taking Lives, setting and topic do not play an important role in Scott’s language choice.
In my opinion, Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech can reflect women’s speech style in general. It can be seen from my analysis that women’s speech style in Miss Congeniality 2 and Taking Lives, fits the theory. However, women can violate Lakoff’s theory when they are in a hurry or facing a critical situation. The social factors affect women to conform to or violate Lakoff’s characteristics of women’s speech.
I hope this thesis will be helpful to the other students who intend to take the same topic. However, they should really understand the theory. Besides, it is crucial to see that nowadays men and women more or less speak the same style of language. Therefore, there is not a clear-cut division between the so-called men’s and women’s languages.
(5)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited, 1994.
Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Internet Websites
Annotated Bibliography: Language, Gender, and Writing. 18 April 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 16 April 2008
<http://course1.winona.edu/pjohnson/gender/lakoff.htm>.
Exploring Language: How Intonation Works 7 Mar 2002. English Online. 1 Apr 2008<http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/ exp_ lang/how.html>.
Lakoff’s “Women Language” 18 April 2008.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~lggender/lakoff-women-language.html>. Language 18 April 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 16 April 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language>. Language and Gender 15 April 2008.
<http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm>.
Sociolinguistics 2 Apr 2008. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 1 April 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics>.
(6)
Women’s Language 18 April 2008.
<http://changingminds.org/explanations/gender/womens_language. htm>.
CD-ROM
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. CD-ROM. 2004 ed. U.S.: 2004 Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. CD-ROM. 2009 ed. U.S.: 2009