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.
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.
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
i
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
vi
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.
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.
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.
ix
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.
x
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.
xi
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
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
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……….
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
however, the utterance means the speaker request the hearer to close the door. Observing the conversation context would help determine which act is performed.
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
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14
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
15
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)
16
(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?
17
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
18
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).
19
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
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
(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
24
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.
25
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).
26
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).
27
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.
28
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.
29
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
31
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.
32
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.
33
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
34
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
35
Table 3.3 Table of the Participants’ Utterances and its
Primary Act
No. Performer Utterances Primary Act
1. Brad Do you think it was a Volkswagen with a kit attachment?
Question
2. Patrick Isn‟t it easy to pass off a bunch of twisted medal as an old Ferrari?
Confirmation
3. Brad Are you gonna tell all my friends? Deny
D. Data Gathering Technique
This research employed content analysis. Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002) states that “the nature of this method was to use written documents to gain an
understanding of the phenomenon under the study” (p. 435). Besides in daily life, the phenomenon was found in Questions Only game. While watching the game show, the researcher made the video transcript. The transcript was used to ease the researcher in casting the data. By placing the transcript into the table 3.1, the researcher attempted to make the conversation more observable.
36
E. Data Analysis Technique
This research applied steps in order to obtain the finding. It employed three steps to analyze the data. The first step is familiarizing and organizing the data so it can be easily retrieved (Ary et al., 2010, p. 481). By watching the show game
Questions Only and making the transcript, the researcher intended to be plunged into the data. This research could use the transcript placed in Table 3.1 and also pay close attention on the conversation context.
The second step is coding. According to Ary et al. (2010), coding was sorting the data and put them into some categories with the other items which have the same characteristics (p. 483). The utterances were analyzed by the researcher in the context. The utterances felicity condition indicated the condition in which the utterance could perform a speech act successfully. The utterances primary acts then were put into Table 3.3 in which the act sequence was going to be analyzed. The next step was to observe the sequences of the primary act in the conversation. Based on adjacency pairs, this research observed the sequence to check whether the sequence was ill.
37
F. Research Procedure
This research employed some steps to conduct this research. By virtue of the research finding, these steps were intended to answer the research questions. 1. Selecting the Problem
The first step was selecting the problem. The researcher was interested in the video as the show showed some unusual game based on conversation and wanted to understand more about the ill-sequence conversation. Moreover, English learners might stumble on this similar case in which a conversation was requiring more reference than it usually and seemed not to have relation between the utterances.
2. Locating the Data Population
The second step was locating the data population. According to the data sampling, the researcher chose the WLIIA‟s game named Questions Only. The
data were generated from the show episodes ranging from season six to ten. There were seven episodes chosen as the research object. In those episodes, this research only focused on the questions only game.
3. Watching and Making the Video Transcript
38
The researcher then made the transcript by watching the video repeatedly. Some additional events that happen during the scene, if any, were also got to be included in the transcript. Some unusual vocabularies were also found in the conversation that closely related to the context of the conversation. To be able to write down the transcript, the researcher had to consult to some dictionaries and online description on those particular occasions for there were some slang words, idioms, or term of some particular events frequently used.
4. Organizing the Data
The transcript was useful to locate the conversation in which the participants engaged within it. The researcher identified the conversations between two performers as one conversation. It includes only the question said in the conversation. The researcher analyzed the conversation to find which utterance was considered as a question. The utterances which were not in form of question were eliminated and excluded from data collection.
5. Analyzing the Utterances Indirect Speech Acts
39
6. Analyzing the Act Sequence in the Conversation
After obtaining the indirect speech acts of the utterances, the next step was to see the sequence of the conversation. This step was expected to reveal the act sequences in the conversation and observe whether it had ill-sequence or not. Based on adjacency pairs, the researcher tried to analyze the coherence and the relevance between the utterances indirect speech acts in the conversation.
7. Writing down the Report
40 CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter elaborates this research result and findings required to answer the research questions. This chapter consists of two parts which represent the number of the research question. Its first part focuses on discussing the indirect speech acts through the utterance in the conversation. The second part elaborates the act sequence which performed through the utterances which are in form of question. The discussion is expected to reveal the coherence and relevance of the conversation apart from its ill-sequence resemblance.
A. The Primary Acts of utterances in Question Only Game as Analyzed Using Searle’s Indirect Speech Acts
This first part would address the first issue of this research interest in the
Questions Only game. As Huang (2006) and Leech (1983) point out that sentence type interrogative, among other sentences types, is recognized as performing act of questioning. Since then, the game is assumed to have an ill-sequence conversation. As well adjacency pair suggests, question must be followed by an answer. The conversations are, therefore, assumed to be irrelevant and incoherent since no participants give answer to the questions.
41
intonation). The researcher found that there were 252 utterances categorized as question. The numbers for each category were explained in table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1 Utterances Appearances Based on Its Type No. Type of Question Number of
Appearances
Percentages
1. Yes/No 148 58,73%
2. WH-question 59 23,41%
3. Tag question 0 0%
4. Echo question 2 0,79%
5.
Another type of question 1
17,06 %
- Ellipsis 29
- Raising intonation 13
Total 252 100%
By observing the data which consists of all questions, it can be concluded that the conversations are having ill-sequence.
42
This research attempts to reveal the utterances primary act. Leech (1983) and Levinson (1984) object to the notion of form-to-force relation between utterances said in question and act of questioning in particular. This research employed Searle‟s Indirect Speech acts in which he takes advantage of Grice‟s
Cooperative Principles. It assumes that the utterances have two speech acts, literal and nonliteral. This research did not only analyze the utterance form. It focused on the conversation context, since the utterance relied heavily on context.
The result suggested that many utterances in form of question did not perform the act of questioning. It verified the notion that a speech acts or an illocutionary act can be performed through different linguistic expressions. The questions in the conversation were able to perform act from the five categories of speech acts proposed by Searle. The finding can be seen in the table 4.2 which presents the detailed act performed in each category by the utterances.
43
Table 4.2Primary act of the performer’s utterances
No. Speech acts categories Number of
44
psychological state of this category is expressing speaker‟s belief on something through proposition uttered. Approving, asserting, clarifying, claiming, concluding, guessing, confirming, correcting, denying, describing, insisting, predicting, reporting, and stating were some examples of acts in this category. Those act appeared 73 (29.44%) from total 252 utterances in the conversation. The analysis below is the illustration of confirming act in the conversation. It appears 14 times.
EXCERPT Whose Line Is It Anyway?: Questions Only Season 8, Episode 11 [01:31]
[Scene: This conversation setting is in an old hotel, which turns out to be Frankenstein castle, where Wayne and Kathy stumbled upon earlier. Ryan, the receptionist, offers Wayne a bedroom in case he wants to have a stay for a bad weather outside. In this very occasion, Wayne is commenting about the bed type.] Wayne : Is that a King-sized bed?
Ryan : Is that your favorite type?
As the main theme of the game suggests, Wayne was stumbled across Frankenstein castle which was first assumed as a hotel. As offering Wayne to stay, Ryan showed a room which he offered to Wayne. After Wayne saw the room, he then asked Ryan about the bed size whether it was a King-sized bed or not. Ryan then responds by asking back saying “Is that your favorite type?” while smiling.
The analysis on the conversation is elaborated in the paragraphs below.
First, after being displayed to the bed, Wayne asked about the bed size. Ryan responded to that proposal by asking about Wayne‟s favorite bed size. Next,
