An Analysis of ill-sequence conversation in questions only game based on Searle`s indirect speech act.

(1)

vii ABSTRACT

Kristiawan, Titus. (2015). An Analysis of Ill-Sequence Conversation in Questions Only Game Based on Searle’s Indirect Speech Act. Yogyakarta: English Language Study Program, Department of Language and Arts, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

This thesis was conducted to observe the occurrence of the ill-sequence conversation in the Questions Only game. In the game, the performers are allowed to speak only in question. This conversation is considered as violating the common feature of conversation. However, the conversations seem to go normally and also sound relevant and coherent. In response to the case, Searle suggests indirect speech act which allows an act to have different speech acts based on the context.

From that point, the research aims to observe the conversation based on its act movement. Hence, the research problems are formulated as follows: 1. Which speech acts are performed by the questions said in the Question Only game conversation? 2. How do the sequences of the conversation in the game show go as suggested by each utterance’s primary act?

This research employs content analysis. Its objects were 7 videos in which the Questions Only game is played. This research took the videos from season six to ten. Based on the sampling plan, it would only observe the conversation in which a pair of performers spoke in question. Some references from books, general knowledge, films, dictionaries, and online websites are used in the research to assist the researcher recognizingthe various topics used in the conversation.

Based on the analysis, the research found that in the conversation the questions did not only perform the act of questioning. Its primary acts was widely spread across the five speech acts categories. Thanks to indirect speech act, the utterances setting were allowing them to perform acts other than questioning within Searle’s speech act typology namely: Representatives, Directives, Commisives, Expressives, and Declaratives.

The second finding, which was derived directly from the first one, conveyed that the conversation was well constructed. Its sequence was mostly progressed according to adjacency pair. The sequences of question-question in the conversation were proved not to affect the act performed by the performers. Keywords: conversation, ill-sequence conversation, indirect speech act

(2)

viii ABSTRAK

Kristiawan, Titus. (2015). An Analysis of Ill-Sequence Conversation in Questions Only Game Based on Searle’s Indirect Speech Act. Yogyakarta:

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Skripsi ini dibuat untuk menganalisa ill-sequence conversation di dalam permainan Questions Only. Di dalam permainan tersebut, para penampi lhanya diperbolehkan untuk bercakap-cakap dengan bertanya. Percakapan tersebut dinilai menyalahi ketentuan baku dari sebuah percakapan. Meskipun begitu, percakapan tersebut dapat berjalan secara normal dan bahkan tetap terdengar relevan dan koheren. Dalam kaitannya dengan kasus ini, Searle menggagas tindak tutur tidak langsung yang memungkinkan satu ucapan memiliki tindak tutur yang berbeda berdasarkan konteksnya.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengamati pergerakan tindak tutur dari masing-masing ucapan di dalam percakapan. Oleh karenanya, rumusan masalah dirumuskan sebagai berikut: 1)Tindak tutur utama apa saja yang ada dalam pertanyaan yang diucapkan di dalam permainan Questions Only? 2) Bagaimana urutan tindak tutur dari percakapan di permainan tersebut berdasarkan tindak tutur utama yang ditemui?

Peneitian ini menerapkan metode analisis isi. Objek dari penelitian ini adalah 7 buah video saat permainan Questions Only dimainkan. Penelitian ini hanya mengambil video tersebut dari musim enam sampai sepuluh. Berdasarkan skema pengambilan data, penelitian ini hanya memasukkan percakapan diantara pelaku dalam bentuk pertanyaan. Beberapa buku, pengetahuan umum, film, kamus, dan website digunakan untuk memahami topik-topik khusus yang digunakan di dalampercakapan.

Dari analisis tersebut, penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa di dalam percakapan, sebuah pertanyaan tidak hanya bertindak tutur bertanya. Tindak tutur utama dari pertanyaan tersebut tersebar di hampir semua kategori tinda ktutur. Bahkan berkat tindak tutur tidak langsung, konteks dari sebuah pertanyaan memungkinkan pertanyaan untuk memiliki tindak tutur selain bertanya di dalam tindak tutur kategori yang lain yaitu: Representatives, Directives, Commisives, Expressives, and Declaratives.

Penemuan kedua, yang didasarkan dari penemuan pertama, menunjukkan bahwa urutan tindak tutur di dalam percakapan tersebut tersusun sesuai ketentuan. Meskipun hanya terdiri atas pertanyaan, hampir seluruh urutan tindak tutur di dalam percakapan sesuai dengan adjacency pair. Ini menunjukkan bahwa urutan pertanyaan-pertanyaan di percakapan terbukti tidak berpengaruh langsung dengan tindak tutur yang dibuat ole pelaku.

(3)

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY GAME

BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By Titus Kristiawan Student Number: 091214066

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(4)

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY

GAME BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By Titus Kristiawan Student Number: 091214066

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

I dedicate this thesis to my father, my mother, my sister, and also my-hard working-self that goes hibernating for too

long.

Hard work beats talent when

talent fails to work hard.

(10)

vii ABSTRACT

as suggested by each utterance’s primary act?

(11)

viii ABSTRAK

Kristiawan, Titus. (2015). An Analysis of Ill-Sequence Conversation in Questions Only Game Based on Searle’s Indirect Speech Act. Yogyakarta:

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

(12)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to One Above All for His blessing through the time when I was doing my thesis. Especially during the anguish which I felt like nothing worked. He has become a great company when I ran late as most of my peers had successfully moved on to the next level. I thank Him for allowing me to step on the next level myself.

I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Carla Sih Prabandari, S. Pd., M. Hum., for her guidance and advices so I can finally finish my thesis as glorious as it could possibly be. More importantly, I thank her for the patience in guiding me as there were some hiatuses and a lot of setbacks during the process. I also thanked Yuseva Ariyani Iswandari, S.Pd., M.Ed. who helped proofreading my thesis. Her careful correction and her availability to have a discussion allowed me to improve my thesis grammar and details.

My sincere love would go to my parents, Petrus Sagiyat and Anastasia Partini, for giving me a chance they did not have to study in the university. Their never ending support and countless prayers are the never drained source of force for me to bounce back every time I fall. Their love and trust always encourage me to move further and further in my life. I would also like to express my love to my sister, Klara Krismunita, for being an extraordinary sister and inspiration to me.

I would like to express my gratitude to Sesi and Erda for the discussion session on brainstorming the thesis idea. A very special regard goes to Pungki, Soni, Angi, Dion, and Bayu for sharing a tons of foolish and joyful moment as

(13)

well as struggles and setbacks during the study and the thesis as well. Without those moments and laughs, I would be a very different person now. I also thank to my peers thesis guidance group, Kristin, Septi, Angel, Disa and Ine for sharing information and spirit during the thesis consultation. My sincere gratitude goes to Wanda, Rini, Hehen, Tya, Awang, Wisnu, Tiara, Rena, Monik, Agnes, Alis, Evi, and Kandi for being a great comrade inside and outside campus. I also thank all PBI students batch 2009, especially class B, for thriving together since the freshman year in the college.

(14)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE………..

APPROVAL PAGES………..

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY………

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN………..

DEDICATION PAGE………. ABSTRACT……….

ABSTRAK……….

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………

TABLE OF CONTENTS……….

LIST OF TABLES………...

i ii iv v vi vii viii ix xi xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background………..

B. Research Questions………. C. Problem Limitation………. D. Research Objectives……… E. Research Benefits……… F. Definition of Terms………

1 5 5 6 6 7

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Theoretical Description………...

1. Conversation………..

2. Question ………

3. Speech act………..

4. Indirect speech act……….

B. Theoretical Framework………...

10 10 14 17 24 28

(15)

xii CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method……….

B. Research Object………...

C. Research Instrument………

D. Data Gathering Technique………...

E. Data Analysis Technique……….

F. Research Procedure……….

30 31 32 35 36 37

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. The Primary Acts of utterances in Question Only Game as

Analyzed Using Searle’s Indirect Speech Acts………...

B. Act Sequences of the Game Questions Only………...

40 55

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

A. Conclusions……….

B. Recommendations………...

C. Implications...

69 70 71

REFERENCES………. 73

(16)

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2

Participants’ Utterance in the Show………

Utterances Based on Questions Typology………..

Participants’ Utterance and Its Primary Act………... Utterance Appearances Based on the Type………

Primary Act of the Performer’s Utterance………. 33 34 35 41 43

(17)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter delivers the background information of the research in six parts. First, research background elaborates the importance of conducting the research. Research questions present the question raised based on the background. Then, problem limitations limit the focus and the scope of the research. The research objectives present the researcher the goals. Next, the research contributions to other person or institution are presented in the research benefits. Finally, definition of terms explains specific terms used in this research.

A. Research Background

Learning a language does not only mean to learn constructing a grammatically and semantically correct sentence. To use language in a real world setting is more crucial skill to learn. The ability to use the language in a context correctly demonstrates one‟s communicative competence. Van Herk (2012) states that “communicative competence is native speakers‟ ability to produce and understand grammatically acceptable and situationally appropriate sentence” (p. 117). The competence allows the speaker to produce a grammatical sentence as well as appropriate sentence in a given context.

The context in which a sentence is uttered may critically affect the meaning intended by the speaker (Department of Linguistic of Ohio State University, 2011, p. 270). The sentence “It‟s raining outside.” can be used to

(18)

simply inform the other person that it is raining. On the other hand, when a mother said the sentence to her 5-years-old son, she might want to prohibit him from playing outside. The sentence indeed acts differently in each context. Based on the case, a contextalized sentence is therefore called utterance.

Communicative competence is therefore crucial for one‟s participation in a conversation. A conversation allows participants to alternate their turn or the topic freely. They are required to understand the topic and respond appropriately based on the context. Language users should be aware of two conventions in conversation. First is that the participants are speaking one at a time. Each participant takes the turn as a speaker or hearer interchangeably. The second is the participants‟ contribution. Case in point is when a participant asks a question, the other participant is expected to provide the answer.

However, in our daily life, we might find various conversations. Language users might try to speak in a more interesting way. The conversation below is the example of participants negotiating their contribution by not giving answer to the question.

EXCERPT

[Setting : The two people were walking around a new place to them. At one point,

Andy was not sure which turn they should take. He then asked Buzz to ensure his choice. The conversation was illustrated below.]

Andy : So, we go left from here, right?

Buzz : Don‟t you read the sign?

Andy : That one? Oh. So, go ahead.

Based on the utterances syntactical form, the conversation is considered as violating the convention. It can be seen that neither Buzz nor Andy gives a

(19)

sufficient response in the conversation. They do not give an answer to respond the questions in the conversation.

By observing the conversations context, however, the utterances relations indicate the conversation coherence and relevance implicitly. According to Levinson (1984), “relevance” is the topical relation between utterances in a conversation while “coherence” is the sense of one unit within the conversation (p. 31). Andy was indeed not sure which turn they need to take. Buzz then asked whether Andy read the sign carefully. In the setting, there might be a road sign which told them which direction they headed for. Through his utterance, Buzz might intend to tell Andy that there was a sign telling him the direction. Andy therefore tried to find the sign and after reading it, he had the information he needed previously.

The other example of the conversation can be found in a game named

Questions Only. The game is a part of the improvisational game show entitled

Whose Line Is It Anyway. In the game, the four participants are required to make a conversation based on the host‟s suggestion. The game is played by two performers with the other two waiting behind each performer. Its rule says that the performers are allowed to speak only in questions. If they respond the questions by making a statement, they will get buzzed and be replaced by the other participants who stand behind them.

The researcher understands that the conversation sequence could be explained directly in the level of speech act. Conventionally, question is identified as having a questioning act, while a statement is identified as having answering

(20)

act. Levinson (1984) illustrates utterances speech acts using letter X, Y, and Z. Each letter symbolizes question, answer, and possibly followed by expressing gratitude to form a well-formed XYZ sequence (pp. 291-292). On the contrary, the conversation act sequences will be XXX since the performers are speaking only in question. This case then is known as ill-sequence conversation.

The conversations in Questions Only mainly rely on performers‟ conversational competence. All of the conversation in the game would be considered ill as they are allowed to speak only in questions. However, the performers could make up some relevant utterances in the conversations. They are responding to each other based on their understanding of the context. Therefore, the researcher is going to analyze the act sequence in the conversation to see whether the conversations are considered ill.

In order to analyze the contextual meaning, this research employs some pragmatics principles. Fasold and Connor-Linton (2006) state that pragmatic “concerns both the relationship between context of use and sentence meaning, and the relationship among sentence meaning, context of use, and speaker‟s meaning” (p. 157). Pragmatics mainly focuses on the utterances contextual meaning. It employs the conversation using Searle‟s Indirect Speech Act to understand the conversation occurred in the show. This notion is suitable to observe utterances act since it believes that an utterance can perform more than one speech act.

The researcher is interested in the ill-sequence conversations occurred in the show. Apparent from the rule that the performers are allowed to speak in question, the conversation seem to be relevant and coherent. This research would

(21)

be beneficial to the education field for it is closely related to speaking subject. This research can enhance the English language learners‟ knowledge of participating in a conversation. In the pragmatics study, the topic would widen the view on the use of speech act and inference. By employing indirect speech act, this research would hopefully explain the relation between utterances to establishing discourse within the conversation.

B. Research Questions

This research formulates two research questions based on the research background. The research questions are:

1. Which speech acts are performed by the questions said in the Question Only

game conversation?

2. How do the sequences of the conversation in the game show go as suggested by each utterance‟s primary act?

C. Problem Limitations

This research analyzes question-questions sequence of conversations in

Questions Only game. It is chosen for the game is not scripted. This research observes conversations within the game. In the game, the performers are allowed to speak only in questions. This research covers the game utterances primary. It is decided based on the condition fulfilled by the utterances in the given context. After locating which acts are performed by the utterances, its sequences in the conversations would also be explained.

(22)

This research primary data was the recorded video of the game. Its transcript was not found so that the researcher made it at last. However, the main data is the video since the researcher does not only observe the utterances, but also its meaning within the conversation context. Each gesture or facial expression might play a role in the utterances meaning. This research only took seven games from the seven episodes ranging from season 6 and 10.

D. Research Objectives

This research has two main objectives. The first objective is to identify the primary act of the utterances in the conversation context. Apart from the literal acts which suggest all of the utterances possess act of questioning, this research attempts to identify its primary act. It is based on the context in which the utterances said in a conversation as suggested by Searle‟s indirect speech act.

The second objective is to identify the sequences of the game. Since it exclusively allows the speaker to speak in question, the conversation is considered as an ill-sequence conversation. The syntactical form of the utterances agrees with that statement. However, this research tries to observe the sequence based on the first objective finding. It will give explanation to which assumption identifies it as an ill-sequence conversation.

E. Research Benefits

This research is beneficial for the English learners. It is expected to give a new insight on how to understand a conversation. It is expected to let the language

(23)

learners aware the importance of the conversational competence. Regardless of the utterances form, the language users could make a meaningful conversation. Using language in a daily basis therefore is an important activity besides understanding its grammar.

This research also allows the readers to see the other segment of an indirect speech act other than politeness. For English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, this research can give additional topic in the field of Pragmatics subject. This research would present some overview of language use in a particular case. The conversation in the game show could be used as a case in point of the subject.

For the future researchers, this research could be considered as an example of observing similar conversation. This research might be a starting point to do the similar research. Nonetheless, as the researcher believes that this research does not give the full coverage of the topic, the other researcher could do the similar works in this area. It might be a part of other research concerning human conversation.

F. Definition of Terms

This research would use some specific terms. Some notable terms are explained below.

1. Ill-sequence Conversation

Ill-sequence conversation is a condition of utterances which do not follow the expected occurrence of a pair in a conversation. The expected pairs of utterances in conversation are for example question-answer, offer-refuse/accept,

(24)

or invitation-refuse/accept sequences. However, the ill-sequence conversation abandons the trait. Levinson (1984) illustrates the example in which there were set of speech acts in utterance namely X, Y, and Z act. The assumption is that a well-formed conversation is the XYZ sequence. “Thus, the sequence of XZX, YXX, YZX, and so on are considered as ill-formed sequences (pp. 291-292)”. Therefore, the conversation which allows the participants to speak only in question is seen as an ill-sequence conversation.

2. Questions Only

Questions Only is one of games played in a improvisational game show named Whose Line Is It Anyways?. The show has four performers in which they make up conversation based on the host suggestion, as do the Questions Only

game. The rule says that the performers are allowed to speak only in questions. If they do not, the host will buzz the performer and the other performers will take the place. The conversations therefore become ill-sequence conversation. In this research, the game is the research object. This research analyzes the conversation to explain the conversations occurrence.

3. Indirect Speech Acts

According to Searle (1975), indirect speech act is a condition in which an utterance performs one act as the indicator for one act but can also perform other act (p. 60). Case in point, someone might say “Can you close the door?”. As the example illustrates, one can literally asks the person‟s ability to close the door which might be a heavy door not many people can close. In a cold evening,

(25)

however, the utterance means the speaker request the hearer to close the door. Observing the conversation context would help determine which act is performed.

Indirect speech act is employed to analyze which act performed by the game participants. As the conversations in the game consist of questions only, the indirect speech act would to determine which act is performed by the utterance. As the context can alter the utterance act, therefore, the analysis needs to observe the felicity condition fulfilled by the utterance. This way the conversation sequence can have a further analysis.

(26)

10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents some theories used in this research. There are two sections in this chapter. Theoretical description covers the theories directly related to and supported this research. In this part, there are four parts in theoretical description namely: conversation, question, speech act, and indirect speech act. Those theories are applied as the basis in conducting this research itself. While theoretical description elaborates how the theories applied in this research.

A. Theoretical Description

This part consists of some important theories to conduct this research. The theories are devised to help the researcher answering the problem formulation mentioned in the earlier chapter. This research employs some earlier work of other researchers, they are, Leech (1983), Levinson (1984), and Searle (1969; 1975; 1979).

1. Conversation

Conversation is the examples on how people use the language in a real world setting. Levinson (1984) defines that “conversation may be taken to be the familiar predominant kind of talk in which two or more participants freely alternate in speaking, which generally occurs outside specific institutional settings like religious services, law courts, classrooms and the like” (p. 284). The participants exchange their speeches freely as it is made spontaneously. It is set

(27)

based on the participants‟ knowledge about the conversation topics by relying on their communicative competence. It distinguishes conversation from other kind of speech as mentioned earlier.

Cutting (2002) and Levinson (1984) present some characteristics of a common conversation. First, Cutting (2002) states that “cooperation in conversation is managed by all the participants through turn-taking” (p.29). This characteristic is recognized in most culture as a condition in which one participant speaks at a time. Every participant plays the role as speaker and listener in turns.

The following common feature of a conversation is adjacency pair. Cutting (2002) explains that “adjacency pair is a pattern likely to happen in a pair of utterance (p. 30)”. Levinson (1984) adds, “adjacency pairs are profoundly inter-related to the turn-taking structure as a notice indicates the next speaker contribution” (p.303). Question-answer, offer-accept/refuse, blame-deny, request-accept/refuse, and so-on, are some pattern used in a conversation.

One distinct pair is question-answer. By observing the utterances syntactical form, a question generally is in interrogative form while answer in a declarative one. Based on this case, conversation‟s sequences are frequently determined as a successful one based on sentences type order. However, Levinson (1984) objects it by stating the “precise specification of the underlying expectation upon which the regularities are based is not so easy” (p. 303). This research understands that to some extent the notion failed to explain its occurrence in conversation.

(28)

The last feature is sequencing, which is defined by Cutting (2002) as “the negotiation of the participants‟ utterance on which a mutual conversation is occurring” (p. 31). Cutting categorizes sequence into three namely pre-sequences, insertion sequences, and opening and closing. Pre-sequences prepare the ground for a further utterance and signal the type of utterance to follow (Cutting: 2002, p. 30). Three types of pre-sequence are pre-invitation (Will you come if I get you another tickets?), pre-request (Do you have some time?), and pre-announcement (You‟ll never know!).

Insertion is a pair embedded within other adjacency pairs which act as macro-sequences (Cutting: 2002, p. 30). The invitation “Let‟s go to the movies tonight.” might result to a question “What time will the movie start?” from the second participant before the answer to the first participant is given. It is common to have a question which was responded with another question as the speakers try to know the detailed information. According to Cutting (2002), opening-closing sequence shows the speaker‟s attempt to start a new conversation or end it. Greeting is most likely used to open the conversation and the leave taking is used to close the conversation.

Those common characteristics indicate the participants‟ contribution in the attempt to generate a relevant and coherent conversation. According to Levinson (1984), relevance in conversation comes from the topic related between the preceding and the following utterances (p.31). On the other hand, coherence means “the overall sense of a discourse that results from relationships (a) within a sequence of utterances and (b) between those utterances and their context (p.31)”.

(29)

A relevant conversation then is achieved when the speakers are talking about the same topic in the context while coherent means the sense of discourse between the utterances. The example is when a participant makes a question, the other participant is expected to give answer as suggested by the adjacency pairs.

As mentioned earlier, one of the problems with coherent and relevant conversation is an ill-sequence conversation. Levinson (1984) illustrates the common sequence of a conversation as utterance X, followed by Y, and then Z and they have to occur in that order to be recognized as a coherence conversation. However, there is a case in which the sequence is not XYZ as mentioned (p. 291 - p. 292). If a question is symbolized as an X, the Questions Only utterances sequence, in which the participants are allowed to only speak in question, should be XXX sequence. As suggested by Levinson, the sequence was considered ill. Also, according to adjacency pair, a question is expected to be followed by an answer.

On the other hand, there are some objections to the notion. First is the term answer itself is not a simple term to determine. As suggested by adjacency pair, question-answer pair is the most observable pair among others. This pair, syntactically, can be pointed out as the interrogative sentence will be followed by a statement. However, Coulthard (as cited in Levinson, 1984, p. 293) states that a conversation is not ruled by such pairs and the rules are not merely related to sentences form or category. Another objection states that to define „answer‟ which suggests “answerhood is a complex property composed of sequential location and

(30)

topical coherence across two utterances, amongst other things” (Levinson, 1984: p. 293).

Some experts object further to the conversation sequences. Labov & Fanshel (as cited in Levinson, 1984, p. 288) states “obligatory sequencing is not to be found between utterances but between the action that are being performed”. The utterances type or form is not responsible for the coherence of a conversation. According to Levinson (1984), the order and coherence of a conversation is not located in the utterances form but in the speech acts performed by the speaker through their utterance (p. 288). It is the act performed through the utterances which make utterances coherence one another.

2. Question

Leech and Svartvik (1994) state “questions are typically sentences by which someone asks the hearer to give information” (p. 125). In a conversation, a statement is usually used to give the information needed. As the language user concern, there are several ways to ask question to other. However in a conversation, the questions‟ pattern might differ from the written one. Based on Radford (1988) and Leech and Svartvik (1994), there are some distinct characteristic of questions typology. Based on their typology, the question types are divided into:

a. Yes/No question

Leech and Svartvik (1994) state that “yes/no questions are so-called because they permit only „Yes‟ and „No‟ (or their counterparts in other languages)

(31)

as its appropriate replies” (p. ). The following dialogue shows the example of the questions and its appropriate replies. :

(1)John : Are you free now? Marry : Yes/No

In a difference circumstance when a participant is encountered this kind of questions, the speaker might reply with „Maybe‟, „I don‟t think so‟, „That‟s right‟, „Why do you ask?‟, „Mind your own business‟, and so forth. However, responding with a yes or no is seen as the appropriate response. Note also that a Yes/No question has rising intonation.

Another kind of this type is negative questions. Some people might argue about it being biased. Indeed, Leech and Svartvik (1994) suggest it is actually a combination of positive and negative bias:

(2)Don‟t you know the place?

This type of question usually expresses one‟s surprise. In utterance (1), Tom and Jerry are coming to a famous play ground around. Tom assumes that as is a well-known one, Jerry would have well-known where it is already. Turns out, Jerry does not know and Tom has to guide Jerry there.

b. Wh-question

As stated by Radford (1988), this category employs the use of interrogative words beginning with wh- namely: why, what, when, where, which, and how. The example bellow shows the questions preceded by the wh- words are asking particular information of something.

(3)What is his job? (Asking a particular thing)

(4)When do you go to Jakarta? (Asking a particular time of an event) (5)Why do you come late? (Asking the reason of an event to occur)

(32)

(6)Which flower do you like? (Asking one‟s choices of some alternative) (7)Where does Kim work? (Asking specific place of an event)

(8)How do you get that car? (Asking the particular way ) c. Tag question

Leech and Svartvik (1994) define tag question as “an attempt done by the speaker to request a confirmation from the hearer” (p. 127).

(9) You are a student, aren‟t you? (10) You are not a student, are you?

While the answer to it means: positive if the answer is „Yes‟ and negative if the answer is „No‟. The forms of the tag question are if the statement is positive, the tag is negative, but if the statement is negative, the tag is positive.

d. Echo question and Non-echo question

Echo questions are denoted that way because they involve one person echoing the speech of another. It can be either in form of yes/no question or wh- question. In a conversation, the one uttering this type of question might want the speaker to repeat some information (Leech & Svartvik, 1994, p. 130).

Furthermore, this type of question is able to echo not only question and statement, but also an imperative. Here are some examples of the echo question:

(11) Allen : I brought a new cell phone.

Lisa : You bought a new cell phone? or You bought (a) what? (12) Allen : Don‟t touch my cell phone.

Lisa : Don‟t touch your what?

In contrast to echo question, non-echo questions are questions which do not echo the speech of others, but which can be used, for example, to initiate a conversation on some topics. Basically, non-echo questions are those question normally used in conversation which are not echoing the previous one.

(33)

e. Another type of question

According to Radford (1988), there are other types of question mentioned above, of which forms are normally used in spoken English. There is an „incomplete‟ sentence:

(13) More coffee? (14) Need you ask?

When one sees a friend‟s glass is empty, asking the question (13) could indicate one‟s concern on others to have another glass. Similarly, the question (14) can be used to ask other‟s necessity of asking a question to others. Perhaps, it is because the answer is very obvious.

Another case in point is in the form of statement with a raising intonation. By using this form, it is assumed that the answer is „Yes‟:

(15) You got home safely then?

The speaker might see nothing bad happen to the hearer and make assumption that the trip is going well. There is a negative form that assumes the answer is „No‟:

(16) The shops weren‟t open?

The case possibly is seen when someone come home with an empty shopping basket.

3. Speech Acts

Speech acts has been learned a long time by some experts. Sadock (2004) defines speech act as the “acts done in the process of speaking” (p. 53). Along

(34)

with any information, an utterance said by someone might be intended to achieve a certain goal. One can make a promise, an order, or a greeting by saying an utterance.

Austin divides the speech acts into three levels namely locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. Each level constantly occurs when the interlocutor is saying the utterance. The first level is locutionary acts. According to Sadock (2004), locutionary act is the act done when one says or utters something (p. 54). Leech (1983) affirms that locutionary act is “roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a certain sense and reference” (p. 176). When producing a meaningful expression, one is identified as performing a locutionary act.

The following level is illocutionary act. Austin (as cited in Sadock, 2004, p. 54) states that illocutionary acts “are acts done in speaking”. So to speak, one is doing a particular act while speaking. Someone can do some acts, for example, requesting, commanding, suggesting etc. In short, it is an act accomplished in speaking (Huang, 2006, p. 1002).

The last level is perlocutionary acts. A perlocutionary act concerns the effect an utterance may have on the addressee (Huang, 2006, p. 1003). This act was the by-product of the illocutionary act made by the speaker. According to Austin (as cited in Levinson, 1984: p. 236), perlocutionary act is act intended as the effect in the hearer by the time the utterance is said. It identified when the hearer does something as the effect of the speaker‟s utterance.

(35)

All these level are constantly performed when one is saying an utterance. In a burglary, the police will say “Drop your weapon.” to the criminal. The police here are counted as doing locutionary act which is the act of saying the utterance. In saying it, the police is performing illocutionary act of ordering the criminal to throw away the gun. At last, the utterance might result in a perlocutionary act causing the criminal to get persuaded and then throw the gun away or the police will put out of action toward him.

This research will focus on illocutionary act. It sticks to Austin interest of the illocutionary act since he believes that the other two dimensions are detachable (Levinson, 1984, p. 236). It needs to be clarified that illocutionary act is synonymous with speech act. This research is going to observe each act performed by the utterances in the conversation.

Due to the large numbers of acts can possibly be done through a speech, some experts have tried to classify speech acts and make it visible to observe the act underlies an utterance. Among others, this research follows Searle‟s typology of speech acts. Searle (1979) establishes the typology based on illocutionary point, direction of fit, and the psychological state of the utterances. This research summaries the category based on the explanation from some experts works. Based on Searle‟s typology, there are five speech acts categories.

a. Representative

According to Levinson (1984), this category shows speaker‟s commitment to believe the truth of the uttered proposition (p. 240). It signifies speaker‟s belief in the proposition content expressed through the utterance. Unless the speaker

(36)

believes the truth of the propositional content of the utterance, the representative act is not achieved. This act category makes the words fit the world, which Huang (2006) describes as the “speakers‟ attempt to represent the world the way they believe it”. Afterward, it makes the words fits the world as the speakers perform the act (p. 1004).

By saying “Chelsea will win the English Premier League this season.”, the speaker commits to the truth believed about the future or the league result. Plus, he might also have the evidence for his prediction. Another example was when the speaker says, “Boiled food is much healthier than the fried one”. One can be identified as claiming the truth of the utterance without evidence. However, if the speaker is a person with a competence in healthy food like a doctor, it could be an act of asserting. Beside predicting and claiming, other acts included in this category are describing, acknowledging, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, asserting, concluding, and remarking (Verschueren, 1998, p. 24; Alston, 2000, p. 3).

b. Directives

Cutting (2002) states that “this category covers acts in which the words are aimed at making the hearer do something” (p. 17). As the definition suggests, the acts in this category goal is to make the hearer do the predicated act in the utterances. As suggested by Huang (2006), it represents one‟s psychological state which is the desire to get something done (p. 1004). In performing this act within the utterance, the speaker attempts to make the world fits the words (Huang, 2006,

(37)

p. 1004). The speaker tries to make his words into reality by asking other to carry it out.

Case in point when one is trying to get in to a locked room, sentence “Open the door.” can be used by the speaker to make the hearer inside open the door. In the world or the setting, the door is closed and locked that the speaker orders the hearer to match the door with the words the speaker said. At last, it shows the speaker desires get the door opened. The other acts included in this category are commanding, requesting, inviting, forbidding, suggesting, ordering, and imploring (Verschueren, 1998, p. 24; Alston, 2000, p. 3).

c. Commissives

Commisives, according to Levinson (1984), indicates the speaker‟s commitment to do an act in the future time (p. 240). This category consists of act which commits the interlocutor to commit in doing an action in the future. It declares speaker‟s psychological state which is his intention to carry out the predicated action in the utterance (Huang, 2006, p. 1004). By saying the utterance, the interlocutor attempts to bring about a change in the world according to the words said earlier.

A teacher might say “I will be at the common room if you still have any question” after the class. It shows teacher‟s intention in offering a help to the students who still has some problem in the topic they learn. The goal of this utterance is to make the speaker commit to an act in the future. This act would be successfully performed if the teacher is really at the room as the students go to the

(38)

common room. Some acts in this category are promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering (Verschueren, 1998, p. 24; Alston, 2000, p. 3).

d. Expressives

Verschueren (1998) states that this category “simply counting as expression of a psychological state” (p. 24). Unlike the other four categories, this speech act category has no direction of fit between the words and the world. The act of this category merely used to articulate the speaker‟s psychological state in certain situation. The speaker‟s psychological state are varied based on their feeling (Huang, 2006, p. 1004).

A simple expression, for example “Hurray.”, aimed to show one‟s joy toward something happens to him recently. “I should have finished my study earlier.” might also be used to show one‟s concern of the study or express regret. Acts included in this category are apologizing, praising, congratulating, deploring, and regretting. This act can also be used to express contempt, relief, enthusiasm, and delight of the speaker.

e. Declaratives

According to Cutting (2002), declaratives are “words and expressions that change the world by their very utterance” (p. 16). By saying this illocutionary acts, one will result in making a new reality. As Verschueren (1998) points out its direction of fit which is “making both the words fit the world and the world fit the words, and the point of which is to bring about a change in (institutional) reality”

(39)

(p. 24). Acts in this category also do not employ a particular psychological state of the interlocutor.

For example, a random person cannot turn a man and woman state as a married couple by saying “I pronounce you man and wife” since the person does not possess the institutional power to do so. Therefore, only a priest who possesses an institutional status can marry off that couple. The other acts found in this category are “adjourning, appointing, nominating, pardoning,” (Verschueren, 1998, p. 24; Alston, 2000, p. 3).

Based on this, an utterance performs a more specific act within the category. Illocutionary point, direction of fit and psychological state of the interlocutor‟s utterance leads us to some categories it fits. Further, Searle (1965) also proposes a condition in which an utterance can be categorized as doing what action (p. 139). Based on Searle (as cited in Huang, 2006, p. 1003) remark, the condition is called felicity conditions which mean the condition to be fulfilled by the world in which the sentence uttered so the act could be successfully performed. Felicity conditions consist of four conditions. They are propositional content condition, preparatory condition, sincerity condition, and essential condition.

Propositonal content condition deals with the content expressed through the utterances, for example, future act of the hearer in directives. Preparatory condition suggests how an action is possible for the doer to carry out. Sincerity condition reflects one‟s psychological state in saying the utterances which is synonymous with the psychological state of the category. Finally, essential

(40)

condition states the goal of the utterance expressed by the speaker. Those conditions need to be fulfilled by the speaker in order to successfully carry out the act of requesting.

A request can be performed when the utterance propositional content expressed future act of the hearer. The preparatory conditions fulfilled are the hearer is capable of doing the action requested and it is not obvious whether the hearer would do the act without being asked. If the hearer is planning on doing the act, there is no point for the speaker to request the hearer to do it anyway. Sincerely then, speaker truthfully wants the hearer to carry out the act. The essential condition suggests that the act is an attempt to get the hearer doing the act predicated in the speaker‟s utterance. By observing all of the utterance conditions in a given context, the researcher is able to determine its act in context.

4. Indirect Speech Act

In the light of the utterances felicity conditions, some acts are closely associated with some utterance syntactical form. According to Leech (1983), three basic sentence types, namely declarative, interrogative, and imperative, are known to associate with these following speech acts namely “assertion”, “question”, and “command” (p. 114). Each sentence type is conventionally identified with the three speech acts mentioned above. Based on this notion, we can therefore identify interrogative sentence as having a force of questioning in conversation.

However, this notion is failed to explain some cases regarding to the use of the interrogative in some contexts. The utterance like “Why don‟t you try to lose

(41)

some weight?” might serve as a question to elicit some information about somebody‟s choice to not go on diet. However, in the other given context, if someone is complaining about his or her fitness to the speaker, the same response above can be taken as a suggestion instead of question.

This failure followed by some experts‟ objection on the notion. According to Leech (1983), the connection between the sentences type and its conventional speech acts are not that define (p. 115). In addition, Levinson (1984) agrees that “there simply is no form-to-force correlation” (291). Based on the case above, an exclusive relation between the utterance form and its act performed is not possible since the context plays the role as well. As mentioned earlier, the act will be successfully performed as long as the felicity condition is fulfilled.

Searle‟s (1975) proposes an approach which views the utterances possess two speech acts. Huang (2006) elaborates that the utterance which possesses an indirect speech acts is assumed to have two speech acts, literal which can be identified from utterance linguistic traits as direct speech act or secondary act, and the nonliteral which is performed beneath the utterance is the indirect speech act or primary act (p. 1005). To decide whether the utterance operates indirect speech act, this research has to observe the significant felicity conditions in the context (Huang, 2006, p. 1005).

Searle (1975) defines indirect speech acts as “cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” (p. 168). In the example, the speaker made a suggestion by questioning the hearer about his choice for not losing weight. This condition leads to two categories of speech acts:

(42)

Direct and Indirect. Aitchison (2003) states that a “direct speech act is expressed overtly by the most obvious linguistic means” (p. 103). On the other hand, according to Aitchinson (2003), indirect speech acts possesses the different syntactical traits which frequently linked to another act (p. 107).

In the same stance, according to Huang (2006) direct speech act is the result of a direct connection between sentence type and the speech act. Conversely, indirect speech act occurs when the sentence type is not associated with the speech act frequently performed using it (p. 1005). These notions clarify how the examples mentioned in this part earlier can perform acts other than questioning in different context.

The felicity conditions which are compatible with the context will decide the act performed by the utterance. So to speak, an indirect speech act is decided based on the relevant condition in the conversation. According to Searle (1975), understanding indirect speech act requires three points to be employed namely theory of speech act, certain general principles of cooperative conversation (proposed by Grice) and mutual background knowledge of the participants (p. 169).

Searle (1975) proposes a set of steps to decide the utterance speech act. These steps are the illustrations of the steps undergone by the participants as they confronted by the indirect speech act possible utterance. The three points mentioned above make clear that the indirect speech act wants the participant to derive an inference based on the utterances contextual meaning rather than the

(43)

conventional meaning. The steps to find the utterances primary act are elaborated below.

a. Understand the fact of conversation, what the speaker said and the context as well.

b. Unless the participants are opting out from the conversation, it could be assumed that the speaker is following principle of conversational cooperation c. Then, establishing a factual background information of the given context is the

next step

d. Take a reasonable account to that utterance. This step facilitates the move to the step 5.

e. At this point, draw out an inference based on the four previous steps.

f. Next, seek to find a possible condition of which fulfill an act‟s felicity condition (theory of speech acts).

g. The inference drawn from the steps one up to six in relation with the possible primary illocution in the contextual background is required.

h. As mentioned earlier, understanding background information or the condition at which the utterance is said is crucial to decide the primary act.

i. The inference from the steps seven and eight are facilitating the next move to establish the primary act of the utterance.

j. At last, based on the inference from steps five and nine, the primary illocutionary force can be established by then.

If the utterances linguistic traits fulfill the felicity condition, it is considered as performing a direct speech act. On the other hand, if the utterances need to go

(44)

through the steps above to be relevant and coherent, the utterances have performed the indirect speech act. This indirectness, according to Leech (1983), makes sure that each semantical type can perform all of the pragmatic types or speech acts (p. 115).

B. Research Framework

The related theories in the previous part allow the researcher to observe the traits of the unusual conversations in the game show. Based on its interest on the ill-sequence conversation, this research employs Leech and Svartvik (1994) and Radford (1988) typology to check whether the utterances are questions. Then, Cutting‟s (2002) and Levinson‟s (1984) notions are useful to illustrate the typical conversation. The researcher is curious about the conversations made by the performers under an unusual rule.

To answer the first research question, this research employs Searle‟s indirect speech act. As Leech (1983) had explained, question is associated with questioning act. When question performs act other than questioning as it is associated with, the utterance is possessing indirect speech act. To reveal the utterance primary act, this research analyzes the act using the ten steps mentioned earlier. The act performed indirectly, however, is defined by its felicity condition in the context.

To answer the second research question, the researcher analyzes the sequence based on the adjacency pair. Based on Levinson (1984) and Cutting (2002), utterances sequences follow a likely pattern to happen in a conversation. It

(45)

is therefore used to check whether the utterances indirect speech acts follow the adjacency pair. If the utterances sequences follow the adjacency pairs, it will be considered as a coherent and relevant conversation. Regardless of the utterances syntactical form, the sequences are focused on the act performed by the utterances.

(46)

30 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method applied in this research. There are six parts in this chapter. The first part is research method which discusses the method applied in this research. Research object elaborates the research object and its applied sampling method. Research instrument explains the instruments used in conducting the research. The technique used by the researcher to collect the data is explained in data gathering technique. Data analyzing technique delivers the technique employed to analyze the data in the research. Research procedure discusses the steps taken in obtaining the finding to answer the research question.

A. Research Method

This research is qualitative research. According to Wildemuth (as cited in Myers, 2000, pp. 1-2), the qualitative paradigm seeks to recognize human communication trait from the respondent‟s view, through the symbolic actions and some abundant meaning in the relation with their recognizable behavior. By employing qualitative research, this research is expected to explain the conversation occurred in a particular context. Myers (2000) also states that “one of the greatest strength of the qualitative approach is the richness and depth of exploration and description” (p. 2). Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen (2010) add that “the goal is a holistic picture and depth of understanding rather that a numeric analysis

(47)

of data” (p. 29). It tried to deliver an in-depth description and an explanation for the conversation in the Questions Only game.

As its objects were videos of Questions Only game, this research employed content analysis. Krippendorf (2004) states that “content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from text (or other meaningful matter) to the context of their use” (p. 18). Ary et al. (2010) emphasize that “content analysis is a research method applied to written or visual materials for the purpose of identifying specified characteristics of the material” (p. 457). The videos display the human communication which was observed in order to obtain the explanation for the game conversation.

B. Research Objects

The research objects were conversations found in Questions Only game. It is part of US improvisational TV game show entitled Whose Line is it anyway. According to Bromley (2014), “improvisation is a type of comedy (or acting) where there is no script; it is free-form and requires the performers to make up dialogue and situations as they go along”. It was matched for the researcher‟s interest in observing people‟s communicative competence in a conversation. The show videos were seen as a matter of human communication (Krippendorf: 2004). To watch each show, there is a website (http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/ internet/whose_line_is_it_anyway/index.html) which provides the free streaming.

The performers are to make up a spontaneous conversation based on the topic given by the show host. However, it allows the performers to speak only in

(48)

question during the conversation. If the performers do not speak in question or take too long to respond, the host will oust them and the other performer will take the place and continue the game. Two performers are playing this game, with the other two performers waiting behind the performing ones.

This research employed purposive sampling. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2009), purposive sampling is a way to gather the data by defining the research subject as required by the analysis (p. 431). It employed theoretical sampling which Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) explain as “one that helps the researcher to understand a concept or theory” (p. 431). This research chose the research objects in accordance with the research questions. There are total seven episodes chosen, they were, season 6 (episode 3 and episode 9), season 7 (episode 25), and season 8 (episode 3, episode 8, episode 11, and episode 19).

C. Research Instrument

This research employed some instruments. The first instrument was human instruments. Ary et al. (2010) state “the researcher needs an instrument flexible enough to capture the complexity of the human experience, an instrument capable of adapting and responding to the environment” (p. 457). As the data were the human conversations in a game, the researcher is required to be able to capture any notable thing occurred.

The next instrument is the video transcript. According Fraenkel and Wallen (2009), the researcher does not necessarily correct the utterances grammar to prevent a shifted meaning (p. 480). This was related to the utterance sense or

(49)

meaning shift caused by the correction. Krippendorff (2004) states that “a data language is the descriptive device in which terms analysts cast their data” (p. 150). In other words, the video transcript was intended to make the data more visible.

The researcher transcribed the conversation. It is because the show was not scripted. In transcribing the videos, the researcher checked the utterances with various dictionaries as well as some online descriptions of some topics. It is because some topics frequently come along with some specific term or slang words of a specific field.

The following instruments are tables. The tables were intended to make the data which was collected easier to locate. The researcher put the performers‟ conversation in Table 3.1. It was supplied with the information on the minute it was said. In every game, there are four participants participating. They would ask each other question in turns. The researcher would collect all the utterance said in the conversation and put them into the table.

These conversations are divided into several sequences based on the pair. Each pair would be marked with a different color and count as one sequence. The conversations between two performers were perceived as one sequence.

Table 3.1 Participants’ Utterance in the Game Questions Only

No. Participants Utterance Minute in

Video

1. Brad Do you think it was a Volkswagen with a

kit attachment?

1.33

2 Patrick Isn‟t it easy to pass off a bunch of twisted

medal as an old Ferrari?

1.36

(50)

Table 3.2, was used to identify whether the utterances were question. Based on the categorization understood by this research, there are five types of questions: Yes/No question, Wh- question, Tag question, Echo question, and Ellipsis. The researcher checked whether the utterances belonged to any category of it or not. Sentence which was not in form of question was not put in the data collection.

Table 3.2 Utterance Based on Questions Typology

No. Utterances

Type of Question

s/No

-T

ag E_ch

o E li p sis / In ton a -tion

1. Do you think it was a

Volkswagen with a kit

attachment? √

2. Isn‟t it easy to pass off a bunch of twisted medal as

an old Ferrari? √

3. Are you gonna tell all my

friends? √

Table 3.1 and 3.2 were made in order to help this research in gathering the data before the analysis took place.

Table 3.3 was used to present the analysis finding. Each of the utterances was put into the table followed by its primary act. By observing the table, the researcher could see the sequence of the conversation in the game. It helped the researcher answering the second research questions as the table systematized the utterance within the conversation.

(1)

1. Collin was asking about the place where he could place the piano. Since Ryan was the one in charge, Collin wanted to know the information from him. The preparatory conditions for a question were that the speaker did not know the information to complete the proposition and it was not obvious that the hearer would give the information without being asked.

2. In response to Collin‟s question, Ryan asked whether over the place he pointed at was good enough. Assuming that Ryan was cooperating in the conversation, his remark was supposed to be relevant. A relevant response should be a statement about a particular place. However, Ryan‟s literal utterance was not a statement, instead it was a question. Thus, he probably meant more than he said.

By observing the setting, Collin should be aware that the two were trying to find the best fit place to set the piano. Thus, Ryan might tell a possible place to set Collin‟s piano in which he did not feel sure himself. A preparatory condition for a suggestion was that the speaker thought the action was a possible option and it was not obvious to both speaker and hearer that the hearer would do the act in a his own accord. Thus, by uttering the question, Ryan was showing a possible place to set Collin‟s piano. Therefore, Ryan primary act was to suggest Ryan to set the piano in that place.

3. In response to Ryan‟s suggestion, Collin made a question whether the place was near the punch. He was asking the question to elicit the information that they were in agree-ment about the place. It might not be certain to Collin about the exact place the thought of. Thus, he needed the nformation. This utterance was intended to be an insertion before they agree about the place to set the piano.

4. In response to Collin‟s question on the place, Ryan asked Collin whether the place they pointed at was a punch. The utterance had fulfilled the preparatory condition of a question which was an exam question. Its condition was that the speaker asked the question to ask whether the hearer knew the proposition. In this setting, Ryan asked Collin to check whether he knew the thing he pointed at earlier.

5. In his next turn, Collin asked Ryan whether Ryan wanted to hear his first selection. Assuming that Collin was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. The conversation setting was not likely interested in Ryan‟s preference to hear the song by Collin. However, the selection would be played no matter what in the show and it was not necessarily to hear it earlier. Thus, Collin might mean more than he said.

A preparatory condition for an offering was that the act was in the hearer preference and it was not sure to both speaker and hearer that the speaker would do the predicated act in a normal course of event. Therefore, Collin had asked a question in which the preparatory conditions for an offering were fulfilled. As they were in a party, Collin might need to practice and hear some opinion on his selection earlier. Thus, he had alluded the satisfaction of offering preparatory condition. Therefore, his primary act was to offer to play some songs for Ryan.

(2)

Conversation 5

No. Performers Utterances Primary Acts

1 2 3 4 5

Greg Collin Greg Collin Greg

Do you have a room booked here at the hotel?

How big the room? How lonely are you?

Could I have the one with a water bed? Do you need a water bed?

Question Question Assert Request Question 1. Greg asked whether Collin had a room booked at the hotel. He did not know

the complete proposition. Thus, he asked Collin the information he needed and it was expected that Collin would give it. Greg did not know the information and it was not obvious to Greg and Collin whether Collin would give the information unless Greg asked him.

2. In response to Greg‟s question, Collin asked Greg on the room sized. This utterance was intended to be an insertion. Before Collin gave the answer, he wanted to know the specific size of the room wanted by Greg. The preparatory condition for a question was that Collin did not know the room size wanted by Greg and it was not obvious to Collin that Greg would give the detailed information if Collin did not ask. Thus, his primary act was conformed to literal one, a question.

3. In response to Collin‟s question, Greg questioned him about how lonely he was. Assuming that Greg was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. A relevant response should be a discussion on the room size. However, Greg literal utterance was a question. Therefore, he might mean more than he said.

It might be a kind of relation between lonely and room size for the more lonely someone, the bigger the room to be filled with people. Thus, Greg probably wanted to tell Collin about the relation between the two things. The preparatory conditions for an assertion were that the speaker had the reasons for the truth of the proposition and it was not obvious to both participants that the hearer knew the propositions. Thus, in response to Collin question, the room size needed depended on how lonely Collin was. Therefore, Greg primary act was to assert the room size needed.

4. Collin asked a question whether he could get a water bed in the room. Assuming that he was cooperating, his utterance should be intended to be relevant. The conversational setting was not interested in his ability to have a water bed in the bedroom. Furthermore, the question answer was yes, if the hotel provided it. Thus, his remark should be intended to mean more than he said.

Preparatory condition for a request was that the hearer had the ability to carry out the act predicated and it was not obvious that the hearer would provide in a normal course of event. Therefore, Collin had asked an affirmative question which entailed the preparatory condition of requesting the bed type. In the hotel, a certain service was provided if the guess wanted to have a specific request. Collin had alluded the satisfaction of a request he

(3)

likely wanted Greg to bring about. Thus, Collin‟s primary act was to request a water bed in his room.

5. In response to Collin‟s request, Greg asked Collin whether he needed a water bed. Greg asked for the answer and it was an attempt to get the information wanted by him. The preparatory condition for a question was that the speaker did not know the information about on the proposition and it was not sure whether the hearer would provide the information if the hearer did not ask. Conversation 6

No. Performers Utterances Primary Acts

1 2 3 4

Greg Wayne Greg Wayne

Can I get you some punch? Do these look real?

Did you pay for them? Do you think I did?

Offer Question Question

Deny 1. Greg was made a question whether he could get Wayne some punch.

Assuming that Greg was cooperating in the conversation, his remark must have a point. The conversational setting did not indicate Greg question on asking his own ability to get Wayne the punch. Moreover, he should be well aware of his own ability which was likely the answer was yes. Therefore, his question might not be a mere question and have another act.

The preparatory condition for an offering was the speaker was willing to carry out immediate action prior the hearer‟s preference and the action did not happen in normal course of event. Therefore, Greg had asked an affirmative question that implied the preparatory condition of an offer. Greg and Wayne now were at a party and it was normal for someone helping the other with some drinks or foods. Greg had alluded the action to the satisfaction of the offering he would likely to bring about. Thus, his primary action was to offer a drink to get Wayne a drink.

However, in the scene, Wayne had already taken the drink by his own and the conversation was going on.

2. Wayne raised a question to Greg about his ring, asking whether it looked real. The question was an exam question which meant to check whether the hearer knew the proposition. In this case, Wayne wanted to know whether Greg knew the ring was a real thing.

3. In response to Wayne‟s question, Greg asked whether Wayne pay for those rings. This utterance was seen as Greg‟s attempt to get the information about the jewelry. The preparatory condition of a question was that the speaker did not know the truth of the proposition and it was not obvious to both participants that the hearer would provide the information if the speaker did not ask.

4. In response to Greg‟s question, Wayne asked whether Greg thought he did. Assuming that Wayne was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. A relevant response should be a confirmation or denial. However,

(4)

Wayne‟s literal utterance was not one of these. Thus, he might mean more than he said.

Wayne was emphasizing on the Greg opinion that Wayne was buying the ring by himself. He was likely to say a contradictive thing to what he was said in the proposition. Thus, he might want to imply the opposite of his utterance as he might not but the ring by himself. The preparatory condition for a denial was that the speaker did not agree with the proposition of the utterance and it was not obvious to both participants that the hearer knew the proposition. Thus, in contrast, Wayne might want to say that he did not buy the ring by himself. Therefore, his primary act was to deny Greg‟s earlier comment. Conversation 7

No. Performers Utterances Primary Acts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Collin Ryan Collin Ryan Collin Ryan Collin Ryan Collin

Are you a cop?

You have a permit to sell alcohol? Do I need one?

Well can you just take your hands up please?

Like this? (Raising his hand in front of the police)

Where did you learn that? Didn‟t you see me on Cops?

Would you like me to freeze, Keeno1? Could you?

Question Question

Deny Appoint Question

Confirm Report

Offer Accept 1. Collin had asked a question to Ryan who showed up in the party. He did not

know the information whether Ryan was a cop and it was not obvious to both participants that Ryan would give the information without being asked.

Without giving a confirmation whether he was a cop, Ryan went on asking Wayne. The confirmation in the conversation was obtained through the question uttered by Ryan as the question was not normally asked by ordinary people. 2. Ryan did not try to answer Collin‟s question. He then asked whether Wayne

got the permit to sell alcohol, as a party was regularly served some alcoholic drink. He had the desire to get the answer by was asking Collin give him the answer.

3. In response to Ryan‟s question, Collin asked whether he needed to have the permit. Assuming that Collin was cooperating in the conversation, his remark should be intended to be relevant. A relevant response should be a confirmation or denial. However, his literal utterance was not one of these. Thus, Collin might mean more than he say here.

Ryan might be aware that when someone was asked about a requirement of something and asked back was implying that the speaker did not aware of it. Thus, in result he might in fact did not have the predicated thing asked by Ryan earlier. A preparatory condition for a denial was that the

(5)

speaker did not know the truth of the proposition. Therefore, Ryan probably was aware that the Collin said something in the fact that he did not own the permit. Thus, his utterance primary act was to deny Ryan question.

4. Collin makes proposal about the necessity of having a permission to sell alcohol. In response to the proposal, Ryan made a remark that Collin must put his hands up.Collin assumes that Ryan is not opting out from the conversation and cooperating with him. Therefore, his remark must be meant to be relevant. However, a relevant response to Collin‟s utterance must be confirmation, denial, or any further discussion. Unfortunately, Ryan‟s response was not one of these and it could be considered as not a relevant response to Collin‟s utterance earlier. Therefore, Ryan probably means more than what he actually says.

Ryan was coming and checking about Wayne‟s place permit to sell alcohol that later Collin do not have it. Therefore, Ryan is aware that Collin does not follow the regulation that has been set out regarding to selling alcohol and since he is a cop, he is supposed to do something about the business without permit. A preparatory condition of a Declaration act that is the speaker had an institutional position in order to make the world fit the word vice versa. Therefore, Collin knows that Ryan has said that Collin was not following the regulation and should be arrested for his regulation violation. Thus, Ryan primary illocutionary point was not questioning but to appoint that Collin was guilty for selling alcohol without permission.

5. In response to Ryan‟s appointing, in which Collin responded the literal utterance of Ryan, Collin asked whether the way he raised his hand was correct. The preparatory condition for a question was that the speaker did not know the information he required and that it was not sure that the hearer would provide the answer unless the speaker asked the question. Despite asking the truth of his act, Collin was doing the act predicated in the Ryan‟s utterance.

6. In response to Collin‟s question, Ryan asked where Collin learned the way to raise hands. Assuming that Ryan was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. A relevant response should be a confirmation or a denial. However, his literal response was not one of these. Thus, Ryan might mean more than he said.

A way to particularly do a thing was not all people knew respectfully. Thus, Ryan might be delighted on how perfect Collin raised his hand. A preparatory condition for a confirmation was that the speaker agreed with the other people who said an earlier proposition and that it was not obvious that the hearer knew the proposition. Thus, Ryan probably was impressed with the way Collin perfectly raised his hand. Therefore, Ryan primary act was to confirm that Collin was correct.

7. As Ryan‟s primary act was a confirmation, previously elaborated, the utterance was also seen as having an act of questioning. Thus, in response, Collin made a remark whether Ryan saw him on Cop. Assuming that Collin was cooperating, his utterance should be intended to be relevant. A relevant response to the question should be a discussion on a place or event. However,

(6)

since the response was a question, the literal utterance was not that. Thus, Collin might mean more than he said.

Regardless the answer whether Ryan saw Collin on Cop, Collin had actually mentioned that he was once on Cop, a TV serial about police. Thus, Collin might want to report where he learnt the move. The preparatory condition for a report was that the speaker had evidence of the event which happened in the past time and it was not sure to both participants that the hearer knew the event. Thus, Collin was reporting to Ryan that he got the knowledge from the series. Therefore, his primary act was to report the event he got the knowledge from.

8. In response to Collin‟s report, Ryan asked whether Collin would like to see Ryan freeze. Assuming that Ryan was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. However, the conversational setting did not indicate the interest on the Collin interest. However, took it from Collin‟s excitement in mentioning Cops which led Ryan to call him keeno, Collin should be enjoying the act. Thus, Ryan probably meant more than he said.

Preparatory condition for an offering was that the speaker would be able to carry out the act in which it was in the hearer‟s interest and it was not obvious to both participants that the speaker would do the predicated act in a normal course of event. Therefore, Ryan had asked an affirmative question to which entailed the preparatory condition for offering him doing the predicated act. As Ryan assumed that he met a keen person about cops, therefore he alluded the satisfaction of preparatory condition for the act he would likely to carry out. Thus, Ryan‟s primary act was to offer Collin to do freeze thing like in Cops.

9. In response to Ryan‟s offering, Collin questioned him whether he could. Assuming that Collin was cooperating, his remark should be intended to be relevant. The relevant response to the offering was a acceptance or refusal. However, Collin‟s literal utterance was not one of these. Thus, he might mean more than he said through his utterance.

As Ryan already offered to do the act, it meant already that he was able to do that as it was the preparatory condition of the act. Therefore, Collin‟s affirmative question was entailed the satisfaction of the preparatory condition for a acceptance. Preparatory condition for an acceptance was that the speaker preferred the hearer to do the act and it was not obvious to both participants that the speaker would do the act in the normal course of event. Thus, Collin‟s affirmative question implied that he was likely to see Ryan did the offering. Therefore, the utterance primary act was to accept the offering made by Ryan.

Keeno : Originates from the word 'keen' and means someone who is keen to impress their teacher in class. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?term=Keeno)

An Analysis of ill-sequence conversation in questions only game based on Searle`s indirect speech act.

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY GAME

BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY

GAME BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

Hard work beats talent when

talent fails to work hard.

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

An Analysis Of Direct And Indirect Speech Acts In “Now Is Our Time”

An Analysis Of Illocutionary Acts In Joko Widodo’s Political Speeches

An Analysis Of Feminism In Maya Angelou’s Selected Poems

Pragmatics Analysis In Humorous Text In Reader’s Digest Magazine

An Analysis Of Feminism In L. A. Meyer’ S Bloody Jack

An Analysis On My Apple Students’ Ability To Use Demonstrative Pronoun And Demonstrative Adjective

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

AN ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACT IN BILLBOARD.

AN ANALYSIS OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES USED IN THE FILM ROMEO AND JULIET ( BASED ON A SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS ).

Dukungan

Links

An Analysis of ill-sequence conversation in questions only game based on Searle`s indirect speech act.

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY GAME

BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

AN ANALYSIS OF ILL-SEQUENCE CONVERSATION

IN QUESTIONS ONLY

GAME BASED ON SEARLE’S

INDIRECT SPEECH ACT

Hard work beats talent when

talent fails to work hard.

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

An Analysis Of Direct And Indirect Speech Acts In “Now Is Our Time”

An Analysis Of Illocutionary Acts In Joko Widodo’s Political Speeches

An Analysis Of Feminism In Maya Angelou’s Selected Poems

Pragmatics Analysis In Humorous Text In Reader’s Digest Magazine

An Analysis Of Feminism In L. A. Meyer’ S Bloody Jack

An Analysis On My Apple Students’ Ability To Use Demonstrative Pronoun And Demonstrative Adjective

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

AN ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACT IN BILLBOARD.

AN ANALYSIS OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES USED IN THE FILM ROMEO AND JULIET ( BASED ON A SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS ).

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan