Syntax Literate : Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p–ISSN: 2541-0849

      e-ISSN: 2548-1398

      Vol. 4, No. 7 Juli 2019

 


THE ANALYSIS OF REFUSAL SPEECH ACT IN SOME SELECTED EPISODES IN “FRIENDS” DRAMA SERIES

 

Ade Mulyadi

Universitas Islam Al-Ihya Kuningan

Email: ademulyadi3315@gmail.com

 

Abstract

The study aims to known what are types of refusal speech act and dominant refusal in some selected episodes in Friends drama series, In this research the writer employs the qualitative research. The writer had divide into 5 steps. First, the writer watches of Friend’s video. Second, the writer reads of Friend’s script. Third, the writer gives a mark of refusal speech act on the script of “Friends” drama series. Fourth, the writer grouped the type of refusal speech act. And the last, the writer analyzed the classifying of type of refusal speech act and dominant type of the refusal speech act in communication used by all character of some selected episodes in Friends drama series. Based on the data analysis, it can be concluded that, this research the writer find seven types of refusal according to Turnbull and Saxton (1997:145-181), use of modality used by some selected episodes in “Friends” drama series with three episodes, those are: episodes: 1: The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate, episode 2: The One with the Sonogram at the End, episode 3: The One with the Thumb. They are: Negate request (35%), Use performatives (3%), Indicate reluctance (15%), Indicate Impediments (11%), Avoid decision (7%), Show goodwill (19%) and Suggest alternative (10%).

 

Key Word: Refusal, types of Refusal, Dominant type of Refusal.

 

Introduction

Rational

Speech act is action performed by producing the utterance appropriate the context (Yule, 1996:47). Speech act theory divided into some theories, one of them is refusal.

Refusing is a complex issue, as the speaker directly or indirectly says no to his/her. Chen (1996:13) says interlocutor’s request, invitation or suggestion; this speech act has attracted researcher’s attention due to the face-threatening nature it entails.

The writer is interested to this study because the data source has many contains refusal utterance in their communication. The writer takes object of research from some selected episodes in “Friends “drama series, there are three episodes in first season. Those are: The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate, The One with the Sonogram at the End,,The One with the Thumb. To conduct this analysis the writer use of Turnbull and Saxton (1997:145-181) theory. They examined the use of modality. Those are: Negate request, Use Performatives, Indicate reluctance, Indicate Impediments, Avoid decision, Show goodwill and Suggest alternative. Therefore, this study attempts to see how the speech acts used in communication used by some selected episodes in Friends drama series.

Previously, Al-Eryani (2005) student in the English Department in Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. He make the data collected through the Discourse-Completion-Test (DTC) are analyzed with questioner. The analysis was based on an independent examination of each response. The same semantic formulas as employed by Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990:57), then for this study the writer analyzed of refusal speech act use documentation of video and script in Friends drama series, and finding out the types of refusal strategies and dominant type refusal. Analyzing and describing the refusal used Turnbull and Saxton (1997:145-181) theory.

 

Theoretical Background

Pragmatic Theory

There are some definitions of pragmatics. According to Yule (1996:3) pragmatics is the study of the relationship between linguistic form and users of those forms. It is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by the speaker and interpreted by listener.

Speech Act

Speech act is a technical term in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Speech acts can be analyzed on three levels: illocutionary act, the performance of an utterance and its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaning full utterance; and illocutionary act: the semantic ‘illocutionary force’ of the utterance, thus its real, intended meaning; and in certain case a further perlocutionary act: its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not (Austin, 1975:3).

 

 

Refusal

In speech act according to Searle (1979:12-17) categories in illocutionary act based on varied criteria, there are Representative, Directives, Commisive, Expressive, and Declarations. In commisive, Searle divide some categories again there are: promise, threats, refusals, pledges,e.g. The writer take this study about refusal speech act divide of commisive.

Refusing is a complex issue, as the speaker directly or indirectly says no to his/her, Interlocutor’s request, invitation or suggestion. This speech act has attracted researchers ‘attention due to the face-threatening nature it entails. Refusals threaten the addressee’s negative face, that is, the desire that his/her future choice of actions or words be uninhibited (Chen 1996:13)

The pragmatic and sociocultural research in a monolingual framework has been directed toward finding out how the noncompliant nature of refusal, therefore the writer would classify refusing utterance in some selected episodes in Friends drama series by all character with seven types of refusal speech act according to Turnbull and Saxton (1997:145-181).Examined the use of modality, those are seven types of refusal speech act.

1.    Negate request: Refers to the straightforward performance or rejection when refusers deny the possibility of their granting the request. (No, probably not, no)

2.    Use Performatives refusal: This is when the refuser carries out the act of rejection by uttering a performative verb of similar illocutionary meaning to what can be delivered by verb refuse and decline. The performative verb is therefore often placed within the scope or modality to convey a sense of indefiniteness or compulsion. (I guess I’ll have to say no then).

3.    Indicate reluctance: Speakers may also decline on record by confessing their lack of interest or inclination toward the requested action. (No, I don’t think I’d be interested in one like that.)

4.    Indicate Impediments: These speakers are not able to grant the request. ( I won’t be able to make it)

5.    Avoid decision: Theses speakers neither reject nor accept the request, but simply point out that for the time being they cannot make a decision. ( If this the case temporarily I don’t quite know how to answer your question)

6.    Show goodwill: Where speaker replace a rejection with communication of a friendly pr helpful attitude towards other. ( I am sorry, but this is not better for you).

7.    Suggest alternative: to redirect the requester’s attention from the ongoing discussion of the requested event to another. ( I dislike, but you can choice what is another one you like)

 

Friends Drama Series

“Friends” is a comedy drama series from American sitcom created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994 to May 6, 2004. The series revolves around a group of friends in the borough of Manhattan, New York City. The series was produced by Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions, in association with Warner Bros. Television. The original executive producers were Crane, Kauffman and Kevin S. Bright, with numerous others being promoted in later seasons.

 

Methodology of the Research

In this research the writer employs the qualitative research. Qualitative research describes social phenomena as they occur naturally (Hancock, 1998). According to Alwasilah (2008), a qualitative study involves description and analysis rather than the counting features.

In this study the writer uses documentation. They are video and script of Friends drama series in some selected episodes. The research data target it using the refusal speech act analyzed by the writer.

The research data collection consist of some selected episodes in “Friends” drama series. There are many comprehension about refusal speech act that used by all character on their communication. The writer had divide into 5 steps. First, the writer watches of Friend’s video. Second, the writer reads of Friend’s script. Third, the writer gives a mark of refusal speech act on the script of “Friends” drama series. Fourth, the writer grouped the type of refusal speech act. And the last, the writer analyzed the classifying of type of refusal speech act and dominant type of the refusal speech act in communication used by all character of some selected episodes in Friends drama series

To know how many types of refusal speech act and dominant type of refusal speech act commonly in communication used by some selected episodes in Friends drama series, the writer uses the formula as follow:

Fk rel   = frequency of relative cumulative (percentage of types)

 Fk = frequency of cumulative (total types frequency of the sub-category)

 Frequency of total (total of all categories)

100% = percentage

(Subana, 2000: 47)

 

 

Finding and Discussion

Types of Refusal Speech Act in Communication Used by Some Selected Episodes in “Friends” Drama Series. There are seven types of refusal speech act takes in some selected episodes in ”Friends” drama series which consists of three episodes in the first season, those are: episode 1: The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate, episode 2: The One with the Sonogram at the End, episode 3: The One with the Thumb. Those dates interpreted in the below.

 

Data 1

Tabel 1.

Types of Refusal Speech Act in Communication.

No

Types of Refusal

Frequency

%

Utterance

1

Negate Request

6

30

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Oh, no don't! Stop cleansing my aura! No, just leave my aura alone, okay?

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No, it's good, it is good, it's just that- mm- doesn't she seem a little angry?

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               'Not-mine. Not-mine. Not-mine.' And even if I was happy, okay, and, and skipping- 'Not-not-mine, not-not-mine, not-not-mine, not-not-mine'.

-      Alright, don't tell me, don't tell me!

-      Uh, No, loosely translated we should do this again.

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No, he'll be fine. It's the other five I'm worried about.

2

Use  Performatives

1

5

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Well, maybe I don't need your money.

3

Indicate Reluctance

3

15

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I don’t want to be single, okay! I just wanna be married again!

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No, you have it, really, I don't want it.

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Oh, no! I- I can't drink this now!

4

Indicate Impediments

2

10

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I don’t want to her to go through what I went through wit Carl-oh!

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No no no, I am not giving you a cigarette.

5

Avoid Decision

2

10

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I don't think so.

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I don’t know, a little too Alan?

6

Show Goodwill

4

20

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I can't marry him! I'm sorry. I just don't love him. Well, it matters to me!

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Paul, was it?

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Yeah, I'm sorry too. But, I gotta tell you, I am a little relieved.

-      No, I am sorry, I can't do this, can't do this. We loved him.

 

7

Suggest Alternative

2

10

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Please, no, go, that’d be fine!

-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               No. 'Cause you need that. No, it's okay, thanks.

 

In all of episodes there are 90 utterances refusal, the writer analysis each of refusal utterance and calculate with Subana (2000) theory, and the result of the analysis exist in conclusion.

 

Presentation of Types and Dominant Refusal

Negate Request                        =     32x 100% = 35, 55=35%

                             90

Use Performatives                    =     3x 100% = 3, 33= 3%

                  90

Indicate Reluctance                  =     14 x 100% = 15, 55=15%

                                                         90

Indicate Impediments              =     10 x 100% =11%

                                                         90

Avoid Decision                        =     6 x 100% =6.67= 7%

                                                      90

Show Goodwill                        =     17 x 100% =18, 88 = 19%

                                                        90

Suggest Alternative                  =     9x 100% = 10%

                                                     90

Data 2

Dominant Type of Refusal Speech act in Communication Used by Some Selected Episodes in “Friends” Drama Series, Negate Request becomes very typical and frequently used in this analysis that used in communication by some selected episodes in Friends drama series, because in the “Friends” drama series refers to the straightforward performance or rejection when refusers deny the possibility of their granting the request.  the writer find six utterances of negate request in below that interpreted by the writer.

 

Conclusion and Suggestion

Conclusion

Based on the data analysis, it can be concluded that, this research the writer find seven types of refusal according to Turnbull and Saxton (1997:145-181), use of modality used by some selected episodes in “Friends” drama series with three episodes, those are: episodes: 1: The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate, episode 2: The One with the Sonogram at the End, episode 3: The One with the Thumb. They are: Negate request (35%), Use performatives (3%), Indicate reluctance (15%), Indicate Impediments (11%), Avoid decision (7%), Show goodwill (19%) and Suggest alternative (10%).

The dominant type refusal speech act in communication used by some selected episodes in “Friends” drama series is Negate Request with 35% occurrence, because negate request become very typical and frequently used in this analysis.

 

Suggestion

Language is used for conversation and to express the speakers mind and also deliver their ideas to whom they speak. Each speakers of language has different interpretation about the meaning of utterance. It depends on the speaker’s meaning and also the context where it happens. In order to successfully deliver this intends the hearer should understand the context and the.

Speaker’s idea; they must have the same knowledge about what they are talking about.

We can analyze the meaning of utterance by pragmatics and speech acts because pragmatics is a study of meaning and speech acts is a study of utterance.

The writer also needs the correction to this study because the writer does realize that he has limited knowledge in completing this study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Al-Eryani. (2005). Previus Study Of Refusal. India: Eanglish Departemen In Panjab University .

Alwasilah, A. C. (2008 ). Pokoknya Kualitatif . Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Austin, J. L. (1975). How To Do Thinks With Word (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Welt , R. (1990). Pragmatic Transfer In ESL Refusal.

Beebe, Leslie M., Tomoko Takahashi and Robbin Uliss-Weltz. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals.

 

Chen, H. J. (1996). Cross-cultural Comparison of English and Chinese Metapragmatics in Refusal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408860)

 

Marta Kauffman and David Crane (1994), “Friends” drama series, which aired on NBC.

 

Hancock, Beverley. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. University of Nottingham.

 

Hurford, J. & Heasley, B. (1984). Semantic: a course book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatic. London: Longman.

 

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatic. Cambridge University Press.

 

Paltridge, B. (2000). Making sense of Discourse Analysis. Gold Coast, Queensland: Antipodean Education Enterprise. 1-12

 

Searle, John R. (1979).  Expressoin and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Subana. (2000). Statistik Pendidikan. Bandung ; Pustaka Setia.

 

Turnbull, William and Karen L. Saxton. (1997). Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say ‘no’ right now. Journal of Pragmatics.

 

Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.