The Use of Response Tokens in Waiting for Godot by
Samuel Beckett
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
By: M. Izzul Islam Reg. Number: A83211159
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES
THE USE OF RESPONSE TOKENS IN
WAITING FOR GODOT BY SAMUEL
BECKETT
By
Muhammad Izzul Islam
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES
DECLARATION
This thesis contains materials which have been accepted for the award of
Sarjana degree of English Department Faculty of Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel
Surabaya. It contains no material previously published or written by other person
APPROVAL SHEET
Thesis Entitled
THE USE OF RESPONSE TOKENS IN WAITING FOR GODOT BY SAMUEL BECKETT
This thesis has been approved by the Advisor and could be proposed to fulfill the requirement of Sarjana I Degree of English Department
Faculty of Letters and Humanities
State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya
By:
ABSTRACT
Islam, Muhammad Izzul. 2015. The Use of Response Tokens in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. English Department, Faculty of Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya. The Advisor : Murni Fidiyanti, M.A.
Key Terms : Response Tokens, Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon.
This thesis discusses about the use of response tokens in Waiting for Godot written by Samuel Beckett. It examines response tokens uttered by the main characters, Vladimir and Estragon. The writer tries to look for the answers upon two questions. They are (1) what kinds of response tokens uttered by the main characters in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett? and (2) what the functions of those response tokens in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.
The writer uses a qualitative approach because the data collected are in non-numerical form. He applies qualitative descriptive approach to obtain rich description and understanding about response tokens in Waiting for Godot. The data are taken form Vladimir's and Estragon's utterance only since they appear almost in the whole drama and they utter most response tokens.
The study results the fact that response tokens in Waiting for Godot are included in the all types of response tokens proposed by McCarthy (2003). The types of response tokens in the drama are single response token, response token preceding expanded response, premodified response token, negated token and doublet and triplet token. The writer describes further about the function of response token including the function of continuers, acknowledgement, newsmarker, change-of-activity, assessement and brief question token. The description also considers the context.
ABSTRAK
Islam, Muhammad Izzul. 2015. The Use of Response Tokens in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. English Department, Faculty of Humanities, State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya. The Advisor : Murni Fidiyanti, M.A.
Key Terms : Response Tokens, Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon.
Penelitian ini mendiskusikan tentang penggunaan response tokens dalam Waiting for Godot oleh Samuel Beckett. Ada dua karakter utama yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini, yakni Vladimir dan Estragon. Penulis mencoba untuk menjawab dua pertanyaan, yakni (1) apa saja jenis response tokens yang dituturkan oleh karakter-karakter utama dalam Waiting for Godot oleh Samuel Beckett dan (2) apa saja fungsi response tokens tersebut dalam Waiting for Godot oleh Samuel Beckett.
Penulis menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif karena data yang dikumpulkan tidak berupa angka. Selain itu, dia menggunakan pendekatan tersebut untuk memperoleh deskripsi dan pemahaman yang kaya tentang response tokens dalam Waiting for Godot. Data diambil hanya dari tuturan Vladimir and Estragon dikarenakan mereka selalu muncul sepanjang drama dan mereka mengucapkan response tokens paling banyak.
Penelitian ini menghasilkan fakta bahwa response token dalam Waiting for Godot ini masuk dalam semua tipe response token yang dikemukakan oleh McCarthy (2003). Tipe-tipe response token yang ada dalam drama tersebut yaitu single response token, response token preceding expanded response, premodified response token, negated token and doublet and triplet token. Penulis menjelaskan lebih jauh tentang fungsi response tokens tersebut termasuk fungsi continuers, acknowledgement, newsmarker, change-of-activity, assessement and brief question token. Penjelasan fungsi-fungsi tersebut juga mempertimbangkan konteks.
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... .. 9
2.2 Feedback and Response Tokens ... .. 9
2.3 Types of Response Tokens ... 10
2.2.1 Response Tokens without Expanded Content ... 11
2.2.2 Response Tokens Preceding Expanded Responses ... 12
2.2.3 Response Tokens with Premodification ... 13
2.2.4 Negated Response Tokens ... 13
2.2.5 Doublets and Triplets Tokens in Short Clauses ... 14
CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE STUDY 3.1 Research Method ... 23
3.2 Technique of Data Collection ... 23
3.2.1 Data Source ... 23
3.2.2 Instrument ... 24
3.2.3 Procedure ... 24
3.3 Technique of Data Analysis ... 25
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Findings ... ... 26
4.2.1 The Types of Response Tokens in the Utterance of Vladimir and Estragon ... 26
4.2.1.1 Response Tokens Without Expanded Content ... ... 27
4.2.1.2 Response Tokens Preceding Expanded Response ... ... 33
4.2.1.3 Response Tokens With Premodification ... 37
4.2.1.4 Negative Tokens ... 39
4.2.1.5 Doublet and Triplet Tokens in Short Clauses ... 41
4.2.2 The Functions of Response Tokens in the Utterance of Vladimir and Estragon ... 47
4.2.2.1. Continuers Token ... 48
4.2.2.2. Acknowledgement Token ... 49
4.2.2.3. Newsmarker Token ... 55
4.2.2.5. Assessment Token ... 60 4.2.2.6. Brief Question Token ... 65 4.2 Discussion ... ... 70
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Study
In everyday communication, sometimes we find a listener who does not
clearly attend the speaker. This situation can be annoying for the speaker and can
effect on the bad relationship. Hence, it is important for the listeners to give some
signals which indicating that he pays attention to the speaker, for example, the use
of response tokens like yeah or oh. By uttering response tokens, the speaker will
think that he/she is respected.
Harris et al. (1975) said t
constructing and consolidating social relations but as strategic mechanisms for
creating transitions into and out of transactional talk. Another opinion is conveyed
by McCarthy (2003). He said that the responses are not something that just sits in
the gaps between transactional episodes but actually facilitates the speakers and
enhances their efficiency. This issue becomes one aspect of spoken interactions
that has been examined by conversation analyst. It is the ways a speaker and
another (other) speaker(s) provide each other with feedback.
Feedback is the ways in which listeners show they are attending to what is being
position and the use of eye contact (Paltridge 2006).
Giving feedback by uttering response tokens can be achieved if the
2
means a speaker continues to speak and the other participants in the conversation
choose not to take turns. However, the listener is not silent. A turn of speaker is
not only constructed by the speaker him/herself, but also the listener. The listener
gestures including head movements such as nodding.
Response Tokens, based on the research of McCarthy (2003), are short
utterances consists of a syllable, or a word, a phrase or a small sentence which
uttered as a response of the primary speaker. Gardner (2005) said that they are
difficult to describe, because most of them lack meaning in the standard common
dictionary like Oxford dictionary. Response tokens often stand alone in a turn as
single items. Because of that difficulty, Gardner (2005) also stated that not many
researchers considered response tokens as their object of research. It is further
provided by a fact that even linguists interested in pragmatics and language-in use
have struggled to provide adequate and convincing descriptions of response
tokens. He added that this is especially true of more conventional linguistic
approaches to the study of a language in some regions.
Gardner (2005) said that the
-continuers, acknowledgement and newsmarkers into response tokens. Yngve
s not only minimal tokens but also
3
There is an argument conveyed by McCarthy (1991) about the practical
use of response tokens. He said that if we use response tokens like yeah or mm
with the purpose of giving attention to the speaker, we cannot use those words to
interrupt the speaker, thus wait until the speaker finish his/her talk. McCarthy said
that it is linguistic means of not taking the turn when one has the opportunity, or
simply of making it clear to the speaker that we are attending to the message.
Response tokens cannot be used to initiate a conversation. It requires
common expectations among participants about its appropriateness and a common
willingness to take part in the talk. Response token, though thematically
considered unimportant, is an essential aspect of conversation in that it provides a
(Schneider 1988).
People cannot arrange the amount of response tokens in their talk. They
occurs naturally where in one sequence of conversation there are many response
tokens but in another sequence of talk they hardly appear. This is proved in a
research conducted by Jefferson (1984) in Gardner (2005). She found that some
speakers of English use both Hmm and Yeah, whilst others use very few Hmms.
A research by Gardner (2005) has found that each response tokens is used
in different ways from others, and that each is a variable, multifunctional token in
its own right. Gardner said that this variability can be extreme, to the extent that
speakers regularly utter nonce words such as Nyem, Nyuh, which appear to be
4
The object of this response tokens research that examined is Waiting for
Godot drama written by Samuel Beckett. It was aired first on 5 January 1953 in
the Théâtre de Babylone, Paris (Wikipedia). This drama becomes phenomenal
since it represents a hopeless real life, which the main characters always wait for a
miracle and do nothing until the story comes to the end. The conversation below
is the example of the small utterances or response tokens in the drama:
Estragon: I can't have been listening Vladimir: Oh ... nothing very definite. Estragon: A kind of prayer.
means that the speaker can use different response tokens for a same purpose and
the speaker can use a same type of response token for different purpose. Second,
the study of response tokens is applicable and it is the most appropriate study in
the object of this research. Last, since many studies of conversation focus on turn
taking (Some signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversation by
Duncan 2011; Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Gramar and
Interaction by Tanaka 1999) and adjacency pairs (Significance of Adjacency Pairs
as Building Blocks of Social Interaction by Garratt 2009; Analysing
Conversational Data with Regards to Interactional Structures: Turn-Taking and
5
behavior of the listeners by producing response tokens is rarely used by
researchers.
by using response tokens study has been
most work has
focused on speakers, for example in the speech act tradition (e.g. Austin 1962;
Searle 1969, 1979, 1992) in (Gardner 2005), Gricean pragmatics (e.g. Grice 1975)
in Gardner (2005), and politeness theory (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1988) in
Gardner (2005), though there is also a focus on hearer-oriented speech acts in the
last of these (Gardner 2005).
The writer discusses Waiting for Godot as the object because this drama is
unique. Unique here means there are many small utterances which most of them
consist of only one word and they are produced by characters especially the main
characters, Vladimir and Estragon. This explains why the writer only uses their
utterance to dig the source of data.
1.2. Statements of the Problem
The study tries to investigate response tokens used by Vladimir and
Estragon in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. Specifically, this research
answers the following questions:
1. What are kinds of response tokens uttered by the main characters in Waiting for
6
2. What are the functions of those response tokens in Waiting for Godot by
Samuel Beckett?
1.3. Objectives of the Study
The study aims to describe paying attention signals in Waiting for Godot
referenced specially to Vladimir and Estragon. Specifically, the study tries to
accomplish the following objectives:
1. To describe kinds of response tokens uttered by the main characters in Waiting
for Godot by Samuel Beckett
2. To explain the functions of each response tokens also by considering the
context
1.4. Significance of the Study
Theoretically, this study is intended to find out how the interlocutors
provide response signals by uttering response tokens. The researcher hopes the
research provides knowledge of practical use and functions of uttering response
tokens. The researcher also expects that this research makes the readers
understand when they appropriately use response tokens and hence the
relationship between two speakers will be maintained. Practically, the writer
hopes this research inspires the readers, arouses curiosity and interest to other
linguists. The writer also hopes that Indonesian students are encouraged to discuss
this topic, since the study of response tokens are barely observed by students and
7
1.5. Scope and Limitation
There are some discussions of discourse analysis which researchers can
take; they are Adjacency pairs, turn-taking and opening and closing in
conversation. However, this research only uses the theory of the response tokens
type by McCarthy (2003) and the theory of response tokens functions by Gardner
(2005) to examine the conversation by Vladimir and Estragon that uses response
tokens. The writer also limits the examined characters. It is only Vladimir and
Estragon since they appear in the whole drama and utter most response tokens,
which raised the wr drama an object for the research.
1.6. Definitions of Key Terms
a. Response Tokens
Response Tokens, based on the research of McCarthy (2003), are short utterances
consists of a syllable, or a word, a phrase or a small sentence which uttered as a
response of the primary speaker. They are produced by an interlocutor who is
cutor Response
tokens cannot be used as initiate in conversation.
b. Waiting for Godot
Waiting for Godot according to http//:wikipedia.com is a drama written by
Samuel Beckett. It was first aired with the original title En Attendant Godot at 5
January 1953 in Paris. The characters are Vladimir, Estragon, Lucky, Pozzo, a boy
8
c. Vladimir and Estragon
Vladimir and Estragon are two main characters in Waiting for Godot drama. They
are two vagrants who hang their hope in someone named Godot. They believe that
Godot can solve their life problem. While waiting, they wander aimlessly, talk
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Feedback and Response Tokens
According to Paltridge (2006), feedback is the ways in which listeners
show they are attending to what is being said. This can be done, for example, by
by paraphrasing what the
other person has just said; or through body position and the use of eye contact.
Clancy et al. (1996) said that response token is short utterance produced by an
Discourse Analysis Conversa on Discourse Response Tokens
Types Func on
Nega e RT Doublet and Triplet
Tokens
RT preceding expanded responses New sm arkers Acknow ledgem ent
Brief Ques o
Co uers
RT w it hout expanded cont ent
RT ith pre odifica o Change-of-ac ity
10
speakership. The user of response tokens will normally not disrupt the primary
o not let themselves take the chance of giving their speech.
In the following example from the tutorial discussion by Paltridge, two students
of key words:
Example 2.1
Lecturer: And the middle one is Tadashi: Community.
Kylie: Community? Do you think it is? Tadashi: Yeah.
Kylie: Communi self community.
However, it is not always the case that an item of response token such as
n acknowledging function in a
conversation. Gardner (2005
many other functions as well. It may also serve to indicate a topic change instead
of providing an acknowledging function, a recycling of a topic, or it may also
the context.
2.3. Types of Response Tokens
According to McCarthy (2003), There are several kinds of response tokens
namely Response tokens without expanded content, Response tokens preceding
expanded responses, Response tokens with premodification, negative response
11
2.3.1. Response Tokens without Expanded Content
The first type of response tokens occupies the whole response move or
yes, yeah, okay, oh after the turn reverts to the
previous speaker (McCarthy 2003). He said that the specific use of those tokens
marks transactional or topical boundaries, where speaker makes arrangements or
agrees on some actions. Other examples of response tokens
wow really gosh ) said
that they potentially express strong affective responses of surprise, incredulity,
delight, shock, horror, and so forth, as part of their lexical meaning. Here is the
example of single response token without expanded content:
Example 2.2
ng to pay that much money? You know?
A: Really?
C: Are you serious?
B: Yeah. This one against Harvard is worth like thirty dollars. These are on the glass. Front row on the glass. Center ice.
A: Wow
Single token responses are often the result of the listener finding
himself/herself in the role of receiver of new information to which minimal
response is enough or else where the speaker has to say something important and
urgent quickly (McCarthy 2003). Although only a word, the choice of response
12
2.3.2. Response Tokens Preceding Expanded Responses
This type of response tokens prefaces expanded response moves. It means
that the response tokens are not the only words to talk when someone has turn to
talk. McCarthy (2003) stated that this type of response tokens shows the attention
to interactional continuity before entering on the next topic, as in example 2.3
when friends playing cards, discussing the odds of getting a particular suit:
Example 2.3
then. Of getting a heart. B:
B: Yeah but
for several further turns]
B ca since the function of response is divided with the
content after it, but the conversation will become awkward. As said by McCarthy
(2003), response tokens are needed because they create and maintain sociable
relations. He continues that response tokens with expanded turn-content as in this
category require turn-taking conditions where the listener is not bounded to
13
2.3.3. Response Tokens with Premodification
Response tokens often occurs premodified by adverb of degree, which
serve to intensify their interactional and affective meanings as follows in an
example of conversation transcribed by McCarthy (2003):
Example 2.4
t see each other that often, do they?
B: No they really
A: And yet they really do remember.
B: Most definitely.
McCarthy (2003) stated that simple intensification is one way in which
listeners can apparently boost the interactional effect of their response without
necessarily making a challenge for the floor and to converge with affective
reinfor .
2.3.4. Negative Response Tokens
Some response tokens may be negat
according to McCarthy (2003). He said that this is not a very frequent
phenomenon and is a reflection of the general tendency of the response tokens to
occur in one context. He gives an example of negative response tokens below.
Example 2.5
get well. B: Yeah.
14
In example 2.5, McCarthy (2003) explains that the negative token which
respond to negative utterance is convergent, not countering. A simple negation,
like simple intensification, provides a simple way to reinforce affective
convergence response without extended syntactic implications but at the same
time clearly contributing a great deal more than a single word no.
2.3.5. Doublets and Triplets Tokens in Short Clauses
Response tokens often occur as doublets. According to McCarthy (2003),
this is particularly noticeable in topic boundaries, where the doublet may signal a
discourse boundary and at the same time inject a strong relational element of
response to the situation. It can be the stronger satisfaction or agreement. The
example of doublets is presented in McCarthy (2003).
Example 2.6
sponse. McCarthy (2003) stated that doublet can be a repetition of the
same token, like great. great. In another case, triplets sometimes occur to
intensify the affective response to the ongoing topic. Triplets most frequently
15
eated used of the
same token (Schegloff 1982 in McCarthy 2003). In his further examples, many of
the triplets that occur as independent tokens also occur frequently in short clauses
2.4. Functions of Response Tokens
Response Tokens have some functions which are flexible and exhibits
multifunctionary of use (Gardner 2005). The functions are continuers,
acknowledgement, newsmarker, change-of-activity tokens, assessment and brief
question.
2.4.1. Continuers
The archetypical continuers are Mm hm and Uh huh, which are used to
pass up the opportunity to take a more substantial turn at talk (Gardner 2005). It
means that continuers are used by recipients to show that he or she understands
that the speech is on progress but is not yet completed. Gardner said continuers
have no apparent meaning and appear to work in very similar ways in
conversation. There is no significant difference between the use of Mm hm and Uh
huh.
The use of continuers has less to do with the sociability of the participants
than it has to do most proximately with the sequential structure of the turns into
which the talk is organized (Schegloff 1993 in Gardner 2005). They are usually
16
are most typically found as the only speech in their turn. It means that they are
rarely found with further speech. Gardner (2005) further stated that Yeah and Mm
can be used as continuers, but they are usually used as acknowledgement which
will be discussed below.
2.4.2. Acknowledgement
A research of Gardner (2005) found that the most frequently used of all
response tokens in ordinary conversation are Yeah, the archetypical
acknowledgement token in English. It claims agreement or understanding of the
prior turn. Gardner (2005) said that Mm is also very common, but it is weaker
acknowledgement than Yeah. The research of Gardner (2005) from several
situations of these tokens indicates that because of the lack of repair or of
dispreference in the respon
understanding or agreement.
The difference between acknowledgement and continuers is that
acknowledgement is not handing the floor back like continuers to the prior
speaker, but they make a claim to adequate talk of the prior turn (Schegloff 1982
in Gardner 2005). Gardner (2005) said that Yeah and another type of
acknowledgement, yes
are often accompanied by further talk, which are responses to an argument by the
prior speaker. Pomerantz (1984) in Gardner (2005) also said that they can be used
17
2.4.3. Newsmarker
According to Gardner (2005), newsmarker is a function of tokens which
orthy in some way. Gardner (2005) stated
that these tokens are more numerous in token quantity than the continuer or
acknowledgement, but at the core are a few tokens that regularly stand as sole
utteranc Oh, Right, Really as well as minimal
question such as Did they? Jefferson (1978) in Gardner (2005) takes oh as an
example, which it is a separated marker. It is produced by the speaker because
he/she has suddenly remembered a story and wishes to tell that story. Gardner
(2005) took the examination of oh
-of-kind of change in his or her locally current state of knowledge, information,
orientation or awareness. Schiffrin (1987) in Gardner (2005) also stated that Oh is
used to mark transitions in information states of speakers.
Based on Gardner (2005), One characteristic of Oh is that it is usually
followed by further talk by its speaker and often develops the talk topically. This
is usual because a speaker tends to comment on something new rather than
something which is already known. Oh does not stand alone. At least it appears
with other minimal tokens like oh, yeah or often repetitive talk. Gardner also
stated that Oh Gardner (2005)
said that newsmarker tokens
contrary to the expectations of the producer, but that the responder to the inquiry
18
inquiry itself. It can indicate that the inquiry being responded to is problematic to
its relevance.
2.4.4. Change-of-activity
This function of Change-of-activity tokens is tokens which mark a
transition to new activity or a new topic in the talk. The examples of
Change-of-activity tokens are Okay and Alright. As Beach (1993) said in Gardner (2005),
Okay signals varying degrees of activity shift and can be identified as momentary.
In other words, Okays
current topic or activity in the conversation into another one, or it can be used
when two speakers move out of the conversation together. Schegloff and Sacks
(1973) in Gardner (2005) notes that Okay had later use in what they are called a
pre-closing environment.
One major function of Okay thus appears to be the marking of junctures in
the talk, and it proposes a move from one topic, activity or phrase to another
(Gardner 2005). Okays are commonly prefaces to further talk by the same speaker
as it is new will need to be introduced into the talk. However, it can be noted that
they are not simply indicators of readiness to assume primary speakership.
Gardner (2005) stated that Okays appear to propose the next talk to be on a new
topic or activity in the conversation, whether it be a new or first topic, a new
phase, or the good-byes at the end of conversation.There is a difference between
19
to Okay, though with the possibility that Alright is a stronger signal and marks
more major transitions.
The function of Okay is not only change of topic. Guthrie (1997) explained
about the functions of okay which appear differently in different contexts. She
said Okay is primarily produced in one of two positions relative to the turn in
which it occurs: either turn initially, thus preceding further speech, or as the whole
okay that she put an interest is those okays
-distinction of okays that are produced in this way can be affirmatively respond to
a question.
2.4.5. Assessment
Assessment is the function which evaluates the talk of the prior speakers,
for example: Great, Good, What a load of rubbish. Schegloff (1982) in Young
and Lee (2004) said that this function were also recognized as co-constructing
disco
reaction to the current turn. Gardner (2005) stated that assessment can occur as a
last response to an extended turn, a position which is inappropriate for a continuer.
If assessment occurs in the position, it would most likely be indicative of a
problem with the telling. Assessment can be done by recipient or primary speaker.
There is difference between assessment and continuers in the producer. Gardner
(2005) said that continuers are purely recipient actions, whereas assessments can
20
said that they also provide participants with the ability to not simply display
alignment to ongoing talk, but establish and negotiate that alignment through a
systematic process of interaction while the talk is still in progress.
2.4.6. Brief questions
Another function of tokens, Gardner (2005) stated, is brief question used
for clarification or other types of repair, and it seeks to clarify mishearings or
misunderstandings. e.g. Who?, Huh? It is used as a repair token when someone
has not clearly heard what someone just said. Schegloff (1982) in Gardner (2005)
said that it is found in roughly the same form and function in spoken languages
across the globe.
2.5. Previous Studies
The study of response tokens is one of important studies in linguistic field.
There are some works considering the use of response tokens in daily life which
.
The first research entitled "
Tokens in Everyday Conversation" is written by Michael McCarthy and published
in 2003. The data of research are collected from the usage of response tokens
among American and British English by using corpus-analytical software.
McCarthy concludes that the use of responses shows a concern on the part of
listeners toward conversation as well as performing the necessary feedback
21
The second work is "Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in
Korean and English conversations" written by Richard F. Young and Jina Lee and
published in 2004. Here, the writers use term reactive tokens rather than response
tokens. However, the meaning is same. The writers conclude that reactive tokens
in English are resources by which the listener declines to take the opportunity for
a full turn. The same role is played by some reactive tokens in Korean. However,
a of placing a token is not simply to decline to take a turn at
talk, but it is rather to provide .
The third research entitled "Back channelling: The use of yeah and mm to
portray engaged listenership" is written by Kathrin Lambertz and published in
2011. The conversation analysis approach was applied because it is important to
transcribe every single utterance of a conversation to detect significant features
such as pitch, stress, overlapping, loudness and intonation. The research proves
that there are three different functions of yeah and mm as a back channel
utterance to signal engaged listenership: continuers, alignment tokens and
agreement tokens.
The writer of this study chooses those three studies as parts of his
references because their studies talk about response tokens and their practical use.
One of the differences
between the previous study and this study is the data source. While the previous
22
British English. Research by Young and Lee is resembled with McCarthy one but
the data source includes Korean conversation alongside the English conversation.
The study by Lambertz examines deeper about the function of tokens yeah and
mm. In this study, the writer describes the types and functions of response tokens
in the drama Waiting for Godot
23
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF THE STUDY
3.1. Research Method
In conducting this research, the writer applied qualitative research because
it attempted to provide in-depth and rich data (Litosseliti 2010). He wanted to
obtain rich description and understanding about the use of Response Tokens
uttered by Vladimir and Estragon. Qualitative research methods were suitable
with this study since its data were written form not the numerical one. Miles and
Huberman (1994) also explained that the research was interpretive. It means that
the results of the research came from the researcher's own subjective
interpretation of the data. The writer used qualitative descriptive research because
he agreed with Dornyei's point of view (2007) that qualitative descriptive research
is description of the state of affairs as it exists at present. He said further that it
involves data collection procedures that resulted primarily open-ended,
non-numerical data which was then analyzed primarily by non-statistical methods.
3.2. Technique of Data Collection
3.2.1. Source of Data
As said by Dornyei (2007), qualitative data usually involved any spoken
data which was transcribed into textual form. However, the data in this study were
textual form, thus the writer proceeded without transcribing. The source of data
24
Beckett which was published in 1982. There are six characters in this drama
including Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky, the boy and Godot. However, the
researcher only took the data from the conversation between Vladimir and
Estragon because they uttered most response tokens utterances which are relevant
with this study.
The data of this study were the words, expressions, phrases, or small
sentences produced by Vladimir and Estragon. The writer took dialogues in
Waiting for Godot drama that involved Vladimir and Estragon as the field to
collect the data.
3.2.2. Research Instruments
This study involved the writer as the main instrument. Bogdan and Biklen
(1998) stated that in qualitative research, the human investigator is the primary
instrument for the gathering and analyzing data. The writer selected the response
tokens in Waiting for Godot which were uttered by Vladimir and Estragon only.
After that, the writer started to analyze the found data.
3.2.3 Procedure
In collecting the data, the writer used these following steps. First, the
writer read Waiting for Godot drama thoroughly. Second, He found and collected
the words, phrases, expressions or small sentences by underlining those in the
document file of Waiting for Godot drama if only those were uttered by Vladimir
25
from the usual responses because not all words, phrases, expressions or small
sentences uttered by Vladimir and Estragon were included in response tokens
criteria.
3.3. Technique of Data Analysis
There were several methods to analyze the data. In this study, since the
data source was in written form, the researcher directly scanned the data without
transcribing the source. First, the writer classified the collected data by sorting and
arranging the data based on the types and functions of response tokens presented
by McCarthy (2003) and Gardner (2005). The writer did the coding process by
writing some numbers based on the types and the functions. He gives the first
number in the bracket for the types of the tokens and the second number is for the
functions of the tokens. Second, after the tokens has been classified, he examined
the data by considering the contexts that has been classified in the types and the
functions of response tokens to explain the meaning, to maintain validity, to
establish description and to obtain the information in the data. Last, he drew
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter reveals the findings obtained from the research and
discussion of the results. It deals with the analysis of kinds and functions in
4.1. Findings
In this sub-chapter, the writer presents the data of response token items
which appear in Vladimir's and Estragon's utterance. There are the data of
frequency of response tokens based on the types and the data of amount of
response tokens based on the functions. The writer analyzes the types and
functions of response tokens based on McCarthy's (2003) and Gardner's (2005)
theories.
4.1.1. The Types of Response Tokens in the Utterance of Vladimir and
Estragon
The writer analyses the data of response tokens types in the utterance of
Vladimir and Estragon based on McCarthy's theory (2003). There are five types of
response tokens namely Response tokens without expanded content, Response
tokens preceding expanded responses, Response tokens with premodification,
Figure 4.1 Types of Response Tokens
In figure 4.1, the most tokens uttered in Vladimir's and Estragon's
utterance are response tokens without expanded content that appear mostly in the
with total eighty three (83) tokens or thirty nine percent (39%) from the whole
data; Sixty seven (67) tokens or thirty three percent (33%) tokens appear in type
of response tokens preceding expanded response; fifty two (52) tokens or twenty
three percent (23%) occur in doublet and triplet tokens type; ten (10) tokens or
four percent (4%) appear as negative response tokens; response tokens with
premodification type occurs least of all in one percent (1%) or three (3) tokens.
4.1.1.1. Response Tokens Without Expanded Content
The first type of response tokens is response tokens without expanded
content. This type occurs as the whole response move (McCarthy 2003). It means
28
Estragon's utterance, there are eighty three (83) tokens of the first type or thirty
nine percent (39%) from the whole data. Single response tokens type occur mostly
in this drama. Here are the data of single tokens:
Data 1
VLADIMIR: One out of four. Of the other three two don't mention any
thieves at all and the third says that both of them abused him.
ESTRAGON: Who?
VLADIMIR: What?
ESTRAGON: What's all this about? Abused who? (p.7)
There is an example of response token without further content type in this
fragment. Both Estragon and Vladimir utters the same type of response token,
single response token without expanded content "who?" and "what?" Although
only a word, the response tokens uttered by both of them indicate the interactional
concerns that listeners attend to. The token "what?" is uttered after "who?" occurs.
Estragon says "who?"because he does not understand about who is abused
token "what?" because he does not
"who?" means.
Data 2
VLADIMIR: We'll come back tomorrow.
ESTRAGON: And then the day after tomorrow.
VLADIMIR: Possibly. (p.11)
The single type of token also appear in the dialogue above. Vladimir utters
29
utterance. Vladimir says that they will come back one day after the day and
Estragon makes the topic continue further by saying that they will come back
afterwards again. Vladimir thinks that the option by Estragon is not an impossible
thing.
Data 3
VLADIMIR: I don't hear a word you're saying.
ESTRAGON: (chews, swallows). I'm asking you if we're tied.
VLADIMIR: Tied? (p.24)
Another data of single response token is proposed above. Vladimir utters a
response token "Tied?" The token that appears solely without extended response
marks an expression of availability to align the talk. Estragon asks if both of them
are tied. However, He says the token because he does not clearly understand what
word produced by Estragon.
Data 4
ESTRAGON: Why doesn't he put down his bags?
VLADIMIR: Rubbish!
POZZO: Are you sure?
VLADIMIR: Damn it, haven't you already told us? (p.56)
Response token without further content type occurs in fragment 4 as well.
It is "rubbish!" uttered by Vladimir which stands alone without expanded
response tics towards previous
30
even though the three of them have already done something to Lucky. He thinks
that Lucky must put his bag to do their favor.
Data 5
VLADIMIR: What are you doing?
ESTRAGON: Pale for weariness.
VLADIMIR: Eh? (p.76)
Another data of response token without further content type occurs in this
fragment. Vladimir utters a response token "eh?" The token stands alone without
extended response which signifi
The token "eh?"
way, but in the dialogue above it indicates that Vladimir is surprised because
is not relevant with
Data 6
ESTRAGON: You can start from anything.
VLADIMIR: Yes, but you have to decide.
ESTRAGON: True. (p.92)
The single type of token appears in the dialogue above. It is a response
token "true" uttered by Estragon in the fragment. The token appears as the only
response in
signals the listener's agreement on Vladimir's speech. Vladimir suggests Estragon
to decide on something particular rather than becoming vague in decision.
31
Data 7
VLADIMIR: That prevents you from thinking.
ESTRAGON: You think all the same.
VLADIMIR: No no, it's impossible.
ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's contradict each another.
VLADIMIR: Impossible. (p.93)
Another single response type of response token appears in fragment 7. It
is "impossible" which is uttered by Vladimir. The token stands alone without any
further response, expressing Vladimir's strong affective responses of disbelief as
"impossible" is the
continuance of his first token he utters in this dialogue. It signifies Vladimir's
opinion towards estragon's utterance "you think all the same" and his opinion
towards Estragon idea to contradict each other that both of them are bad things to
do.
Data 8
VLADIMIR: On it's not the worst, I know.
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: To have thought.
ESTRAGON: Obviously. (p.96)
Response token without further content type occurs in fragment 8 as well.
Estragon utters them twice. The first response token is "what?" which stands
solely without expanded content. It signifies that Estragon does not really
understand on what being said by Vladimir. Thus, Estragon utters the token to
make Vladimir's utterance clear for him. The second token is "obviously" which
32
response tokens supports the interactional concerns that listeners attend to. In the
conversation, he thinks that Vladimir's speech is truly right.
Data 9
VLADIMIR: Show me your leg.
ESTRAGON: Which?
VLADIMIR: Both. Pull up your trousers. (p.100)
There is also data of response token without further content type in this
fragment. In Estragon's utterance, it is a response token "which?" that appears as a
single response token ion
towards the conversation. Estragon utters the token "which?" because he is still
not clear with what being said by Vladimir. Vladimir asks Estragon to show his
leg, but Estragon does not know which leg he should show to Vladimir. Thus, he
utters response token "which?"
Data 10
POZZO: (Looking at Lucky) Why doesn't he answer when I call?
VLADIMIR: I don't know. He seems to be sleeping. Perhaps he's dead.
POZZO: What happened exactly?
ESTRAGON: Exactly! (p.140)
Another single response type of response token appears in fragment 10. It
is "exactly" that occurs without any expanded response. It expresses curiosity
towards the primary speaker, Vladimir who thinks that Lucky seems to be
sleeping or maybe dead. It signifies that Estragon tries to evaluate the primary
interactional response, signified that
33
does not
and he affirms the question by uttering the token "exactly".
4.2.1.2. Response Tokens Preceding Expanded Response
The second type of response tokens is response tokens preceding expanded
response. McCarthy (2003) stated that this type of response tokens shows the
attention to interactional continuity before entering on the next topic. After a
response token occurs, it is followed by further content in that listener's turn.
There are sixty seven (67) tokens appearing in this type or thirty three percent
(33%) from the total response tokens in Vladimir's and Estragon's utterance.
These are the data of this response tokens type:
Data 11
VLADIMIR: (gloomily). It's too much for one man. (Pause. Cheerfully.)
On the other hand what's the good of losing heart now, that's what I say. We should have thought of it a million years ago, in the nineties.
ESTRAGON: Ah stop blathering and help me off with this bloody thing.
(p.3)
There is one of response tokens data preceding further content type in this
fragment. In Estragon's utterance, it is a response token "ah" that precedes
token "ah" appears as an indication that the interlocutor hears something
inapposite with his current situation. Estragon wants to take off something which
appears to be his boot. It is hard to remove so when Vladimir verbose about what
34
because he is busy with the "bloody thing", by uttering response token "ah" and
expanded response after the token. The writer found 18 tokens "ah" in this drama,
the second most uttered response tokens including the one in data 11.
Data 12
POZZO: Waiting? So you were waiting for him?
VLADIMIR: Well you see (p.29)
Another data of response tokens preceding expanded response type occurs
in this fragment. The response token is "well" uttered by Vladimir. It predates
expanded response
utterance. Pozzo asks Vladimir if he waits for someone. Vladimir does not answer
directly but he utters the token "well"since he still yet tries to look for an answer.
Data 13
VLADIMIR: It's for the kidneys. (Silence. Estragon looks attentively at
ESTRAGON: Nothing of the kind, we hardly know him.
VLADIMIR: True . . . we don't know him very well . . . but all the same ..
(p.29)
Response tokens preceding expanded response type occurs in fragment 14
as well. utterance, there are two response tokens, "oh" and "true"
that precede further response. The token "oh" is uttered as a signal of affective
haphazardly. He says that Godot is a kind of acquaintance even though in fact he
never meets Godot. On the other hand, he utters the token "true" because he
Both of
the tokens reinforce their alignment towards the ongoing talk about Godot.
Data 15
VLADIMIR: Haven't they?
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: Changed.
ESTRAGON: Very likely. They all change. Only we can't.
VLADIMIR: Likely! It's certain. Didn't you see them? (p.67)
In this fragment, there is a token "likely" that precedes extended response
36
reaction towards Estragon's utterance. The function of token is strengthened by
response than "very likely" before it.
Data 16
VLADIMIR: What is it?
BOY: Mr. Godot . . .
VLADIMIR: Obviously . . . (Pause.) Approach. (p.69)
Another data of the second type is shown in fragment 6. In the dialogue,
there is a token "obviously" uttered by Vladimir. The token precedes further
that makes the boy come. Thus, Vladimir comments on the boy's arrival by using
the response token "obviously" since he waits for Godot.
Data 17
ESTRAGON: You couldn't have stopped them.
VLADIMIR: Why not?
ESTRAGON: There was ten of them.
VLADIMIR: No, I mean before they beat you. I would have stopped you
from doing whatever it was you were doing. (p.84)
Response tokens preceding expanded response type occurs in fragment 17
as well. Vladimir utters a response token "no" which precedes expanded response
utterance where the
interlocutor thinks that the primary speaker is wrong. The token "no" is uttered as
a signal that Vladimir understands and pays attention to Estragon's utterance even
37
some people to beat him because there are then of them. Vladimir understands
Estragon's speech, but he gives different idea indicated by the token "no".
Data 18
VLADIMIR: And where were we yesterday evening according to you?
ESTRAGON: How would I know? In another compartment. There's no
lack of void.
VLADIMIR: (sure of himself). Good. We weren't here yesterday evening.
Now what did we do yesterday evening? (p.98)
Another second type of response token appears in fragment 17. In the
dialogue above, there is a token "good" uttered by Vladimir which predates
We weren't here yesterday evening. Now what did we do
yesterday evening? . Estragon does not exactly know where they were the day
before. He said that they were in a compartment. Vladimir thinks that it is a
before.
4.2.1.3. Response Tokens With Premodification
This is the least type of tokens that appear in Vladimir's and Estragon's
utterance. There are only three (3) tokens of the third response tokens type or one
percent (1%) from the whole data. Response tokens with premodification occurs
premodified by adverb of degree (McCarthy 2003: 52). In the data analyzed, some
38
Data 19
ESTRAGON: I can't have been listening.
VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite.
ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.
VLADIMIR: Precisely.
ESTRAGON: A vague supplication.
VLADIMIR: Exactly. (p.19)
In this fragment, Vladimir utters a response token included in premodified
tokens type " " after listening to Estragon's utterance " I
can't have been listening." The token is included in response token with
premodification since there is a premodifier "very". This type of token marks a
strong interactional effect of the response without holds the floor of talk. "Oh" is
said because there is something . Thus,
he utters "nothing very definite" as his judgment to the previous utterance.
Data 20
POZZO: How did you find me? (Vladimir and Estragon look at him
blankly.) Good? Fair? Middling? Poor? Positively bad?
VLADIMIR: (first to understand). Oh very good, very very good.
POZZO: (to Estragon). And you, Sir?
ESTRAGON: Oh tray bong, tray tray tray bong.
POZZO: (fervently). Bless you, gentlemen, bless you! (Pause.) I have
such need of encouragement! (Pause.) I weakened a little towards the end, you didn't notice?
VLADIMIR: Oh perhaps just a teeny weeny little bit. (p.51)
Another data of premodified response tokens is shown in the fragment. In
the dialogue, Vladimir utters a response token "oh very good, very very good". It
is a response tokens with premodifier "very" which intensifies their interactional
39
token "oh" and "very good, very very good". The token "oh" signifies that he
i
token "very good, very very good" as his valuation. Vladimir seems wanting to
satisfy Pozzo since he repeats the premodifier "very" three times. The premodifier
"very" signals stronger adjective word "good".
Data 21
VLADIMIR: Haven't they?
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: Changed.
ESTRAGON: Very likely. They all change. Only we can't.
VLADIMIR: Likely! It's certain. Didn't you see them? (p.67)
The last data of response token with premodification type is "very likely"
uttered by Estragon. The
strong convergence with affective reinforcement towards the
"Very likely" signifies that Estragon evaluates on Vladimir's speech about the
people around them who have changed except themselves. It adds stronger sense
e than an usual token
without premodifier.
4.2.1.4. Negative Token
The fourth type of response tokens is negative response tokens. According
to McCarthy (2003), response tokens sometimes appear to be negated with a
10)
negative response tokens or four percent (4%) from the whole response tokens in
40
Data 22
ESTRAGON: Then what are we complaining about?
VLADIMIR: Thinking is not the worst.
ESTRAGON: Perhaps not. But at least there's that.
VLADIMIR: That what?
ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's ask each other questions. (p.94)
The first data of negative token type occurs in the fragment. Estragon
utters a response token "perhaps not". The token is a negative token which express
affective
more than a single token "no". Vladimir says that thinking is not the worst.
However, Estragon evaluates that the idea could be wrong.
Data 23
VLADIMIR: And it's not over.
ESTRAGON: Apparently not.
VLADIMIR: It's only beginning. (p.45)
There is also data of negative token type of response tokens in this
fragment. Estragon utters the token "apparently not" where the token is followed
by postmodifier "not". It provides an effective way of affective response without
any expanded response and simultaneously it reinforces the conversation more
than just "no". It indicates that Estragon judges on the topic that Vladimir
conveys, even though Vladimir also does the valuation. The word "apparently"
41
4.2.1.5. Doublet and Triplet Tokens in Short Clauses
The last type of response tokens is doublet and triplet tokens in short
clause. Doublet is response tokens that consist of two words whereas triplet
consists of three words response tokens. McCarthy (2003) stated that doublet can
occur as a repetition of the same token. Many triplets occur as an independent
short clauses. There are fifty two (52) response tokens or twenty three percent
(23%) appear in doublet and triplet type. Further data of doublet and triplet in
Vladimir's and Estragon's utterance are proposed below:
Data 24
VLADIMIR: Where was I . . . How's your foot?
ESTRAGON: Swelling visibly.
VLADIMIR: Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story? (p.6)
The first data is shown in this dialogue. There is a doublet token "ah yes"
uttered by Vladimir. By using token "ah" and "yes" along, it can signal a strong
relation between the producer and the previous interlocutor. Vladimir utters
response tokens because he remembers something to tell to Estragon, it is the
story of two thieves. It is quite queer because a response to someone who feels
hurt must be a sad response. However Vladimir chooses to forget it and tells
Estragon another story. This shows the intimacy between the main characters and
oddity of the drama.
Data 25
ESTRAGON: It's the normal thing
VLADIMIR: I think so too
42
VLADIMIR: I beg your pardon? (p.20)
Other data of doublet and triplet type of token occurs in this fragment.
Both Estragon and Vladimir utters each a response token in the dialogue. Estragon
utters response token "and we?" and Vladimir utters a token "I beg your pardon?"
Both of the tokens are included in doublet and triplet token which shows the
strong affective response of inquiry towards the previous speakers. Estragon uses
the token "and we?" because he may look for the role of themselves in the topic.
However, because of the question, Vladimir utters a token "I beg your pardon?"
Because he does not know the reason of Estragon asking with the use of token
there is a response tokens " ". The token consists of a whole sentence. It
expresses Estragon's feeling of anxiousness and worry towards the prior speaker,
in this dialogue th
Data 27
POZZO: Gentlemen, you have been . . . civil to me.
ESTRAGON: Not at all!
43
In this fragment, Vladimir utters a response token included in triplet type.
He utters a response token in phrase form "what an idea!". Vladimir thinks that
Pozzo's statement is good when Pozzo comments about Estragon and Vladimir
who are being nice to him. It is a signal of evaluating token that has the added
Data 28
VLADIMIR: How those two have changed!
ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's make a little conversation. (p.67)
Triplet type of token occurs in fragment 28 as well. Estragon utters a
triplet token "that's the idea" contains a whole sentence. The token "That's the
idea" . Estragon realizes
he suggests his idea to Vladimir.
Data 29
ESTRAGON: For me it's over and done with, no matter what happens.
(Silence.) I heard you singing.
VLADIMIR: That's right, I remember. (p.82)
Another data of triplet token occurs in the dialogue above. Vladimir utters
a response token "that's right". It is a sentence form of triplet token that occur as
syntactically independent token. It indicates that the interlocutor wants to says that
something is over and done with. Then, Vladimir agrees on Estragon's utterance
44
Data 30
VLADIMIR: The tree, look at the tree.
ESTRAGON: Was is not there yesterday?
VLADIMIR: Yes of course it was there. Do you not remember? We
nearly hanged ourselves from it. But you wouldn't. Do you not remember? (p.86)
There is also data of doublet type of response tokens in this fragment. It is
a token "yes of course" uttered by Vladimir in his turn. The doublet reinforces the
vious utterance. The token "yes
VLADIMIR: Perhaps it's not quite the right word.
ESTRAGON: And now? (p.83)
Another data of doublet type of token occurs in this fragment. In
Estragon's utterance, the response token is "and now?" This token is a doublet
token that injects a strong relational element of response to the situation. It
signifies that Estragon seeks to clarify his misunderstanding towards Vladimir's
utterance. Vladimir says that a word may not be the right expression. Estragon,
however, does not clearly understand on what being said by Vladimir and thus
utters the token.
45
VLADIMIR: But we were there together, I could swear to it!. . . do you
not remember?
ESTRAGON: (a little calmer). It's possible. I didn't notice anything.
(p.88)
The triplet type of token appear in the fragment. Estragon utters a response
token "it's possible". The token occurs in a syntactically sentence form. It gives a
strong element of evaluating . Vladimir tries to make
Estragon remembers the place they were. Then, Estragon evaluates Vladimir's
utterance by saying it is possible for him to remember, even though it is still hard
since the occurrence of further content "I didn't notice anything" is contrast with
the triplet token.
Data 33
ESTRAGON: In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we
are incapable of keeping silent.
VLADIMIR: You're right, we're inexhaustible. (p.89)
In this fragment, Vladimir utters a response token included in triplet type.
He utters a sentence form of token "you're right". The independent triplet token
signals the relational and affective response of agreement to the topic. Estragon
suggests Vladimir to try and converse calmly. By saying "you're right", Vladimir
thinks that Estragon's suggestion is worth to do.
Data 34
VLADIMIR: That prevents you from thinking.
ESTRAGON: You think all the same.
VLADIMIR: No no, it's impossible.
46
VLADIMIR: Impossible. (p.93)
Another data of triplet token is proposed in fragment 11. There is a
response token "no no, it's impossible" uttered by Vladimir. It is a combination of
token "no no" and token "it's impossible". The token appears as a triplet token
which consists of two same words and an independent token in a sentence form.
The token suggests a close relationship between Vladimir and Estragon indicated
by the repeated token "no". The token indicates that Vladimir understands what
being said by Estragon even though he does not agree with him. It is then added
by the token "it's impossible" that signifies Vladimir's judgment towards
Estragon's utterance. The occurrence of the triplet token shows close relationship
between those two.
Data 35
ESTRAGON: We don't manage too badly, eh Didi, between the two of
us?
VLADIMIR: Yes yes. Come on, we'll try the left first.
ESTRAGON: We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the
impression we exist?
VLADIMIR: (impatiently). Yes yes, we're magicians. But let us persevere
in what we have resolved, before we forget. (p.105)
Doublet type of tokens occur in fragment 35 as well. Vladimir utters two
same response tokens "yes yes". The doublet provides stronger agreement than a
single token yes only. This type of token shows close relationship between the
recipient and the primary speaker. The tokens are uttered as the signals that
Vladimir agrees on what being said by Estragon. However, even though Vladimir
The further response in his last turn proves that he also disagree with the primary
4.2.2. The Functions of Response Tokens in the Utterance of Vladimir and
Estragon
The writer describes the functions of response tokens uttered by Vladimir
and Estragon based on theory of Rod Gardner (2005). Gardner says that response
tokens have some functions which are flexible. Indeed in this research the writer
found a token which can have two functions. There are six functions of response
tokens proposed by Gardner. They are continuers, acknowledgement,
newsmarker, change-of-activity, assessment and brief question. The amount of
response tokens classified based on the functions is shown in figure 4.2
