speech act analysis of anger in the film …/speech... · speaking some utterances or an utterance...

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

i

SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS OF ANGER

IN THE FILM ENTITLED SOMETHING THE LORD MADE

(Pragmatics Approach)

THESIS

Submitted As a Partial Fulfillment of Requirement

For the Sarjana Sastra Degree of the English Department

Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts

Sebelas Maret University

By:

NUNUNG PERMATA ISTIQOMAH

C1307019

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND FINE ARTS

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

SURAKARTA

2013


commit to user

ii


commit to user

iii


commit to user

iv


commit to user

v

MOTTO

But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and

perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah

Knows, while you know not. (QS 02:261)

If the going is real easy, beware, you may behead down

hill (anonymous)


commit to user

vi

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to:

1. Allaah SWT

2. My ‘number one’ husband in the world Mas Ingsinyur Sigit Rais Raharjo

and my Afifah Rais Kanataqiyya

3. My lovely grandmothers

4. All people who want me to finish this research.


commit to user

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil'alamin… All praise is due to Allah Azza Wa Jalla

who guides every step on my life that finally I can accomplish this thesis. Peace

and blessings upon His messenger, the Prophet Muhammad Shalallahu ’Alaihi

Wassalam. I realize that without supports from people surround me, I might not

able to accomplish this thesis. Therefore, I would like to extend a special thank to

those who have given valuable contribution.

1. Drs. Riyadi Santosa, M.Ed., Ph.D, the Dean of Faculty of Letters and Fine

Arts, for approving this thesis.

2. Drs. S. Budi Waskito, M.Pd, as the Head of English Non-Regular Program,

for for the big concern on his students.

3. Drs. Agus Hari Wibowo, M.A, Ph.D as my thesis consultant, for advices and

precious contributions to me from the beginning of the process of thesis

writing until the completion.

4. Dra. Rara Sugiarti, M.Tourism, as my academic consultant, who has helped

me during my academic years.

5. All of the lecturers of English Non-Regular Program who have taught and

provided me with valuable knowledge. Thank you very much for the amazing

experience you shared with us.

6. My beloved family for always believing on me and supporting every decision.

Especially for my grandmother and grandfather, mom and dad, my family in

law (bu’e, maslik, mbahuti, Iwi), sister Mimi, Ayin and Iyang. Without their

love and prayer, this work would have never been completed.


commit to user

viii

7. My husband Sigit Raharjo who always reminds me to be patient in

accomplishing my thesis. You are the best I ever have.

8. My “PMH” and “lascar TPA” thanks for togetherness, happiness, and sadness

with you all in such a great family. Be istiqomah in dakwah.

9. My family of English Non-Regular Program; De’ Ayuukk Nurwati (for her

generous time every time I need her), Alita darli, Fuyuu Dhian Dhilandy S.S,

(for the great friendship, love and support) Yume S.S, Arini Chan S.S,

Budosen Shoeshy_Nandi S.S, Indra, Ksatria Bisu “Dhika” (missing our

sms_short stories), ten angels (Mega and friends), class B (Hana and friends)

and many more. I hope we will maintain this friendship forever.

10. Everyone who loves and supports me in finishing the thesis.

I realize that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, I look forward

to any supporting criticisms and suggestions. I hope that this thesis will be useful

for everyone who reads it.

Surakarta, March 6, 2013

Nunung Permata Istiqomah


commit to user

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE……………………………………………………………….. i

APPROVAL BY THESIS CONSULTANT………………………... ii

APPROVAL BY THESIS BOARD OF EXAMINERS……………. iii

PRONOUNCEMENT……………………………………………..... iv

MOTTO…………………………………………………………....... v

DEDICATION…………………………………………………….... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………….... x

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................... xii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background……………………………………….. 1

B. Research Question...................................................................... 3

C. Research Objectives ……………………………………….... 3

D. Research Benefits....................................................................... 3

E. Research Limitation…………………………………….……... 4

F. Research Method.........……………………………….…….... 4

G. Thesis Organization………………………………………...... 5

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Pragmatics…………………………………………………… 6

B. Speech Acts………………………………………………….. 8

C. The Classification of Speech Acts…………………………... 10

D. Context.............................…………………………………….. 13

E. Expession of Anger…...……………………………………..... 17

F. Film Theory…….…………………………………................ 18

G. The Synopsis of the Movie Something the Lord Made..................... 19

H. Related Study…………………………………………………………21


commit to user

x

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Type of Research…………………………………………...... 23

B. Data and Source Data………………………………………... 24

C. Technique of Collecting Data……………………………….. 25

D. Technique of Analyzing Data……………………………….. 25

E. Technique of Coding Data....................................................... 26

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Introduction……………………………………………….... .. 27

B. Data Analysis……………………………………………........ 28

C. Discussion…………………………………………………..... 62

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion…………………………………………………… 70

B. Suggestion…………………………………………….......... .. 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX


commit to user

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. The type of speech act and the number of data…............................... 62

Table 4.2. The type of speech act and form of act……….................................... 63

Table 4.3. The reason why the characters deliver the anger………..................... 66


commit to user

xii

ABSTRACT

Nunung Permata Istiqomah. C1307019. Speech Act Analysis of Anger in the

Film Entitled Something the Lord Made. Thesis: English Department of Faculty

of Letters and Fine Arts. Sebelas Maret University.

The research is conducted to analyze the speech act of anger employed by

the characters in the film entitled Something the Lord Made. The research

explores the speech act to extend anger and the reason why the characters express

the anger.

The research uses pragmatics study to analyze the types of speech act to

deliver anger. The descriptive qualitative research is employed in this research.

All of anger utterances in the film Something the Lord Made are taken as the data.

There are 13 data which have been analyzed by using Searle’s theory of speech

act.

The findings of the analysis can be seen as follows: First, there are five

types of speech act employed by the characters in the film Something the Lord

Made to extend the anger. The types of speech act are directives, representatives,

declarations, commisives and expressive. Directive is mostly used by the

participants in the film. There are eleven scenes which show that the speakers

employ directive by conveying questions, commands and requests to extend anger

to hearers. Speakers use representative in four data by giving explanations and

claims to send anger. Speakers use declarations in four data by employing

declaration to send anger. The speakers use commisive in two scenes by giving

promise and threat. The last is expressive, the speaker uses this type once by

swearing.

Second, there are four reasons which influence the speakers to extend the

anger to hearers. They are legitimate power, close relationship, social distance

relationship and expert power. The speakers who have legitimate power tend to

use directive in delivering anger to the hearer. The choice of representative is

influenced by the social distance relationship in expressing the anger. While the

use of declaration is influenced by close relationship among the participants.

This research is expected to be beneficial for the readers in studying

speech act in anger expression. It is suggested that other researchers conduct other

studies about anger expression from different of view.


commit to user

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background

People use language to communicate with others. Language is used to

express the idea and convey all messages. In attempting to express those, people

do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words but

also perform actions via those utterances (Yule, 1996:47). It means that people

communicate each other to deliver message in verbal or non verbal language.

One of the utterances that often arouse in our daily life is anger expression.

Anger can give very positive functions when expressed properly. Some facts show

that anger can have beneficial effects on health, relationship and work of people.

Socially, many positive changes can happen from anger, for example, Indonesian

reformation in 1998 or the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Anger is important

among emotions that play an outstanding role in development of personality.

Anger is more frequently and easily aroused than other feelings. There are so

many ways to express our anger. Usually, we express out anger feeling by

speaking some utterances or an utterance in harsh intonation. Sometimes our

harsh intonation is followed by non verbal language like facial expression and

some attitude showing the anger.

In other words, it can be said that people have different ways to express

their anger. When the speaker delivers his anger straightforward to the hearer, the

hearer may lose his face. People often do many kinds of speech act due to their

1


commit to user

2

anger. Hence, the speaker needs to use certain kinds of act to deliver their anger so

that the expressions do not sound rude and the speaker will consider as a polite

person. Dealing with that occurrence, the writer takes a film entitled Something

the Lord Made produced by Joseph Sargent as the source of data.

In this section, the researcher will also explain about the reason of

choosing this film as source of data. The film Something the Lord Made is a film

based on the true story. It tells about the life of a white surgeon (Dr. Blalock) and

his lab technician (Vivien) who works together for years. In that era, the black

always got discrimination in all aspects in daily life. However, their relationship

as work partner leads them to achieve the greatest success in invention of cardiac

surgery. This film is very touching because in its era, the brilliant black (Vivien)

is almost never recognized for his invaluable assistance in that effort.

Beside the interesting story, the researcher uses this film as the source of

data because this film uses the language that represents the real conversation of

daily life. Even though this movie set in early 1940s, it still represents the validity

of using language in this era, especially the used of anger expression.

Based on the background above, the researcher is interested to conduct a

research in the form of thesis entitled Speech Act Analysis of Anger in the Film

Entitled Something the Lord Made.


commit to user

3

B. Research Questions

Based on the research objectives above, this research intends to answer the

following questions:

1. What speech acts are exploited by the characters in the film Something the

Lord Made to express the anger?

2. Why do the characters express the anger to hearer?

C. Research Objectives

The objectives of the research are:

1. To identify the speech act employed by the characters in the film entitled

Something the Lord Made to express the anger.

2. To discover the reason why the characters express the anger.

D. Research Benefits

The research of speech act analysis of anger expression in the film

Something the Lord Made is expected to give contributions as follows:

1. English Department students

The research gives an input and understanding about how speech act is

extended during anger. By conducting this research, the researcher expects

that English Department students are more aware about the speech act

during the anger in everyday conversation so that the research will help them

to study deeply.


commit to user

4

2. Other researchers

The research gives benefit for other researchers to conduct a deeper research

of related study. This research will help other researchers in the same topic

of speech act as a reference for further research.

3. Public

It will give more information about how to employ kinds of speech act. By

doing this research, the researcher expects that the public will have a

comprehension about how a certain act is exploited by considering the

context and situation during the anger.

E. Research Limitation

The research focuses on the scene containing anger expression. The

research identifies the kinds of speech acts used by the characters to extend the

anger expression and the factors influencing the characters to choose the kinds of

speech acts. To analyze the data, Searle’s theory of speech act of is applied in this

research. This research uses a movie entitled Something the Lord Made produced

by Joseph Sargent in 2004.

F. Research Method

This research employs a descriptive qualitative method. It intends to solve

problems by collecting data, classifying data, analyzing data, and drawing the

conclusion. The sources of data of this research are the conversations between

characters in the movie entitled Something the Lord Made. Purposive sampling

technique is applied to collect the data containing politeness strategies of


commit to user

5

extending anger and also the factors that support the use of each politeness

strategies. Further details of Research Method will be clarified in Chapter III.

G. Thesis Organization

The organization of this research is based on the following arrangement:

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. It consists of Research Background, Research

Objectives, Research Question, Research benefits, Research

Limitation, Research Methodology and Thesis Organization.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW. It provides the explanation of

Pragmatics, Speech Act, Context, Expression of Anger, Film

Theory, Review Related Study of Anger Expression and The

Synopsis of the Something the Lord Made.

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. It consists of the Type of

Research, Data and Source of Data, Sample and technique of

Sampling, Instruments of the Research, Technique of Analyzing

data, Data Coding and Technique of Analyzing Data.

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION. It reviews and discusses the

result of the research findings.

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION. It presents the conclusion

of the research and recommends possible avenues for further

research

BIBILIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX


commit to user

6

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In analyzing the data, some theories are needed as basic requirements. This

chapter provides some theories related to the topic which covers the definition

Pragmatics, Speech act, Classification of Speech act, Expression of anger, Film

theory, Synopsis of film and related study.

A. Pragmatics

In this part, the researcher provides some definitions of pragmatics taken

from several linguists. Pragmatics is one of linguistic branches that is newly

developed by linguists. This study is discovered after previous study of linguistics

field such as phonology, morphology, semantics and syntax. It concerns with the

study of utterance meaning by the speaker and interpreted by the hearer.

Levinson (1983:24) states that pragmatics is the study of the ability of

language users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they would be

appropriate. The definition leads to the analysis that pragmatics cannot be

separated from context and principles of language usage. Therefore, to understand

pragmatics meaning of the speaker, people should consider the principles of

language used by the speaker.

Meanwhile, Thomas (1995:22) defines pragmatics as meaning in

interaction. He states that in understanding speaker‟s meaning, it involves the

negotiation of meaning between the speaker and the hearer, the context of

utterance (physical, social and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an

6

6


commit to user

7

utterance. It is because meaning in interaction relates to context and meaning

potential of an utterance. Hence, it is not something which is inherent in the words

alone or is produced by the speaker or the hearer alone.

Yule (1996:3) states pragmatics as the study of contextual meanings. This

type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in the

particular context and how the context influences what is said. It also requires a

consideration of how speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with

who they are talking to, where, when and under what circumstance.

Yule (1996:3) develops the Thomas‟s definition and divides the definition

of pragmatics into four, pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning, pragmatics is

the study of contextual meaning, pragmatics is the study of how more gets

communicated than what is said and pragmatics is the study of the expression of

relative distance.

1. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning

Pragmatics relates to the study of meaning uttered by the speaker and

interpreted by the listener. It analyzes the meaning behind what people say

rather than what the words might mean by themselves.

2. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning

People always consider to whom they are talking to, where, when, and under

what circumstances in the communication. It is because a particular context

may influence what is said by the speaker.


commit to user

8

3. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than what is said

Pragmatic discovers how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of

what is communicated. Similarly, pragmatics is the study of „invisible

meaning‟.

4. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance

People will not say anything to anyone whom they do not recognize well.

Therefore, closeness whether it is physical, social or conceptual, implies

shared experience.

From many definitions above, it can be seen that pragmatics is a

significant field to study. A sentence can only be assigned the right truth

conditions if the context of a sentence is taken into an account. So, it can be

concluded that pragmatics is the study about language that is always related to the

context of the speaker and the hearer. In short, pragmatics stresses on the relation

between language and context. Thus the context has played a very important role

and it also has given many contributions either in spoken or in written language.

B. Speech acts

1. The Definition of Speech acts

Speech act is a part of Pragmatics. As Levinson (1983:27) defines, one of

the central topics of pragmatics is speech acts. This part will provide the definition

and the classification of speech acts. For the discussion of the definition of speech

acts, below is the quotation from John R. Searle and George Yule about speech

acts.


commit to user

9

According to Searle (1969: 16) the unit of linguistic communication is not

the symbol, word or sentence, but rather the production or issuance of the symbol

or word or sentence in the performance of the speech acts. Speech acts are the

basic minimal units of linguistic communication.

Meanwhile, Yule (1996:47) defines that speech acts is action performed

via utterance. In English, speech acts are commonly given more specific labels,

such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, request or any other

acts. She states that in attempting to express something, people not only produce

utterances containing grammatical structured words but also perform actions via

those utterances. Those actions, which are performed via utterance, are called

speech act. The action performed by producing an utterance will consist of three

related acts. Yule (1996:48) states that speech acts relate to three acts. They are

locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.

a. Locutionary act

It is the basic of utterance or the literal meaning of the utterance. In other

words, locutionary act is the utterance of a sentence which determines sense

and reference.

b. Illocutionary act

The act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance. The

illocutionary act can be uttered both directly and indirectly.

c. Perlocutionary act

A simple utterance has a function to bring the effect from that utterance.

Perlocutionary act is what a person does as the response of what we intend. It


commit to user

10

is the result or the effect produced by the utterance. A speaker may utter

sentence on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect intended.

In short, a locutionary act is the act of saying something.

Those acts above will be explained with the examples below:

“ The music is so noisy”

The locutionary act is the meaning of utterance itself. It means that the

music is so noisy. While the illocutionary act is the speaker intends to say “I want

to have a silence situation”, and the perlocutionary act is that someone might turn

off the music.

2. The Classification of Speech act

There are various classifications of speech act which are conveyed by

linguists. The researcher will provide the discussion of speech act classification

from John L. Austin and John R. Searle.

a. Austin’s Classification

The first classification of speech act was provided by Austin (1962). He

divided utterances into five categories. They are veridicatives, exercitives,

commisive, behabitives and expositives.

1) Veridicatives.

It is typed by giving verdict, estimate, grade or appraisal. For example: He

is a good husband.

2) Exercitives.

This kind of utterance is the exercising powers, right and influence.

For example: Give me the book!


commit to user

11

3) Commisive.

It is typed by promising or undertaking and committing one to do

something.

For example: I will give reward to anybody who can find my earing.

4) Behabitives.

This category is related with such matters as apologizing, congratulating,

blessing, cursing, and challenging.

For example: Congratulation for your graduation!

5) Expositives.

This term is used to refer to how people make utterances fit into argument

or exposition.

For example: My sister studies in Jakarta, while my brother studies in Solo.

b. Searle’s Classification

Searle (1979) provides classification of speech act in what he calls “the

basic categories of illocutionary acts”. The categories are representatives,

directives, commisives, expressive and declarations.

1) Representatives

This is a kind of speech act that states what the speaker believes to be the

case or not. The speaker‟s purpose in performing representatives is to

commit him / her to the belief that the prepositional content of the

utterances is true. Statements are of fact, assertions, conclusions,

description, etc.

For example: The earth is round


commit to user

12

2) Directives

The speaker‟s purpose in performing directives is to get the hearer to

commit him / her to the future course of action (verbal or non-verbal).

Usually directives are defined as all attempts by the speaker to get the

hearer to do something or not to do something. They are commands,

orders, request, prohibits, questions, suggestions, etc.

For example: Close the door!

3) Commisives

The speaker commits his/herself in varying degrees to some future course

action. On the other word, the speaker creates an obligation by committing

a certain future action. It is almost identical with Austin‟s commissives.

The direction of fit is “world to words”. They are promises, threats,

refusals, pledges, etc.

For example: I will buy you a present tomorrow.

4) Expressives

This type is to express a psychological state of the speaker. Thre is no

direction of fit, as the intention is neither to describe the world nor to exert

an influence on future events, rather the truth of the prepositional content

is taken for granted. They are flattering, giving compliment,

congratulating, welcoming, dislike, thanking, etc.

For example: She is like an angel to me.


commit to user

13

5) Declarations

The point of declaration is to declare something. It has function to change

the world via their utterance. The direction of fit included “words to

world” and “world to words” as actual expression of the declaration that

brings about a change in reality. They are declaring, naming, marrying,

etc.

For Example: I name this cat Catty.

C. Context

Language and context cannot be separated. Context has the important role

in understanding the meaning of an utterance. In this part, the researcher provides

some explanations about the importance of context in pragmatics.

Levinson (1983:21) states that pragmatics is the study of relation between

language and context. To understand the meaning of an utterance, people cannot

ignore the context since it might cause different interpretation from what is

expected.

In addition, Huang (2007:13) refers context to any relevant features of

dynamic setting or environment in which a linguistic unit is systematically used.

Furthermore, context can be seen as a composition of three different sources. The

first type is physical context which refers to physical setting of utterance. The

second type is the linguistic context which refers to surrounding utterances in the

same discourse. The third is general knowledge context. This involves a set of

background and assumption shared by the speaker and the addressee.


commit to user

14

Concerning the importance of context in any kind of language used,

Hymes sets the context of speech event into some factors abbreviated as

SPEAKING formula (in Fasold, 1996). The factors are the situation, the

participants, the ends, the act sequence, the key the instrument, the norms and the

genre.

1. Situation (S)

Situation is composed of the setting and the scene. The setting constitutes

physical circumstance in which speech takes place, including the time and

place. Scene refers to the abstract physiological setting or the cultural

definition of the occasion.

2. Participants (P)

Participants are persons who are involved in a conversation. Participants

consist of (a) An addresser, a speaker who produces the utterances. (b) An

addressee, a hearer who receives the utterances. (c) The audiences, the over

hearers may contribute to specification of the speech events.

3. Ends (E)

The ends can be divided into outcomes and goals. Outcomes can be described

as the purpose of speech based on the cultural point of view. Meanwhile, the

goal of a speech is a purpose of each participant during communication.

4. Act Sequence (A)

Act sequence comprises message form (how something is said) and message

content (what is said). Message form deals with how something is said by the


commit to user

15

participants, whereas the message content deal with what the participants talk

about or it is simply called a topic of conversation.

5. Key (K)

Key refers to tone, manner, or spirit in which speech is carried out, whether it

is mock or serious, per functionary or painstaking. Key also refers to the

feeling, atmosphere, and attitude. Manner, feeling, and attitude are used in

reference to the participants, whereas tone and atmosphere are used in

reference to the situation. The more detailed aspects of the key will be seen

clearly as follows:

a. Tone: it refers to general spirit of the scene, such as brave, fierce, and

tearful.

b. Manner: it refers to the participant‟s way of behaving toward, whether it is

polite, impolite, formal, informal, intimate, distant, relaxed, serious,

mocking, respectful, etc.

c. Feeling: it refers to emotions indicating happiness, terror, excitability,

anxiety, shock, desperation, anger, neutrality, irony, uncertainty,

frustration, etc.

d. Atmosphere: it refers to the feeling that affects the mind in a place or

condition, for example good, evil, or solemn.

e. Attitude: it refers to participant‟s way of thinking and behaving toward a

situation whether it is sympathy, optimistic, pessimistic, resolute, serious,

mocking, bitter, resentful, etc.


commit to user

16

6. Instrument (I)

Instrumentalities include both channel and form of speech. Channel simply

means the way a message travels from one person to another. The most

commonly used channels are oral and written, but message can also be

transmitted by such means as telegraph, smoke signals, semaphore, and etc.

Hymes defines forms of speech as the actual of speech employed such as

language, dialects, codes, varieties, and registers that is chosen

7. Norms (N)

Norms of communication include both interaction and interpretation. Cultural

aspects of certain community determine both of them. Norms of interaction

refers to an underlying something of non-linguistics rules which governs

when, how, and how often speech occurs which is commonly have by all

communities and varies from one culture to another. Norms of interpretation is

more or less, what we mean by the expression reading between the lines. It

involves trying o understand what is being conveyed beyond what is in actual

words used.

8. Genre (G)

Genre refers to the categories like poems, prayer, riddle, myth, tale, proverbs,

lectures, commercial message, etc. In Hymes view, casual speech is not in the

absence of any genre but a genre of its own.

In summary, context has many roles in spoken and written language. If

people do not know the context of situation, they may interpret different thing

from what is intended by the other one. Hence, context functions to help speaker


commit to user

17

in delivering and receiving meaning from hearer. On the other word, recognizing

the context of the situation is highly essential to understand the intended meaning

of the speaker in a conversation.

D. Expression of Anger

Anger is one of many reactions of human being in their life. Anger can

happen if there is an interaction between two or more people. Angry feeling is

human because man normally has experienced anger since he/she was a baby.

Based on the Encyclopedia of Experimental Psychology Vol.2, it is stated

that :

“Anger is a feeling that most typifies for striving for power and

domination. Its purpose is the rapid and forceful destruction of every

obstacle in the way of the anger person” (2004 : 533)

People usually use anger as the way to express their protest in a manner

that is very painful for everyone else (ibid :534). On the other words, anger is

expression of dislike with something as the result of the situation and condition

which are not suitable with the speaker.

Anger can vary widely (from mild irritation to intense fury) and can be

sparked by a variety of things (specific people, events, memories, or personal

problems). Anger is a natural and potentially productive emotion. However, anger

can get out of control and become destructive and problematic.

Rebecca (1992: 23) states that people get angry when their expectations

are not met -- whether those expectations are about the future, about themselves,

or about others. When our expectations are unmet, we revert to illusions of


commit to user

18

control, unrealistically expecting all people to behave and all situations to turn out

as we think they should. Anger over these unmet expectations often leads us to

blame others and shift aggression towards them.

Anger is an emotion related to one's psychological interpretation of having

been offended, wronged or denied and a tendency to undo that by retaliation. The

external expression of anger can be found in facial expressions, body language,

physiological responses, and at times in public acts of aggression. Humans and

animals for example make loud sounds, attempt to look physically larger, bare

their teeth, and stare. The behaviors associated with anger are designed to warn

aggressors to stop their threatening behavior. Rarely does a physical altercation

occur without the prior expression of anger by at least one of the participants.

E. Film Theory

Film is one of the art works. Film is the illusion of reality in visual media.

It shows the audience images in illusory motion, which is represented on the

screen, acted by stars, has its own style, genres, and social events.

The study of the film has a close relationship with society. Allen and

Gomery (1998) give a discussion in the relation films and societies. The making

of the film also has a social dimension for several reasons. Film makers are

members of society and as such are no less subject to social pressures and norms

than anyone else. Furthermore, all film occurs within some social context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_expression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression


commit to user

19

In accordance with the relation of society and also reflects social

phenomena as stated by Allen and Gomery (1998)

“In fictional films, characters are given attitudes, gestures, sentiments,

motivations, and appearance that is in part at least based on social roles

and on worker, debutante, mother, or husband is supposed to act”.

From the definition above, it can be concluded that whatever the kind of

film, it is a reflection of social life. “Something the Lord Made” is a genre of

drama film that represents an American citizen‟s life which has problematic issue

in the society of American segregation era.

F. The Synopsis of the Movie Something the Lord Made

Below is the description of the source of data, a film entitled Something

the Lord Made taken from www.imdb.com.

Title : Something the Lord Made

Starring : Alan Rickman as Dr. Alfred Blalock

Moss Def as Vivien Thomas

Kyra Sedgwick as Mary Blalock

Gabrielle Union as Clara Thomas

Writer : Peter Silverman and Robert Caswell.

Director : Joseph Sargent

Genre : Drama.

Release date : May 30, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rickman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Blalock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_Def

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyra_Sedgwick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Silverman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sargent


commit to user

20

Here is the synopsis of the film taken from www.imdb.com. The movie

tells about the true story of the extraordinary 34-year partnership which begins in

Depression Era Nashville in 1930, when Blalock hires Vivien Thomas as an

assistant in his Vanderbilt University laboratory to perform janitorial work. Alfred

Blalock is a young smart cardiologist who has high confidence and ambitious.

While Vivien Thomas, an African-American without a college degree who is a

gifted mechanic and tool-maker with hands finely skilled at surgery. Knowing the

Vivien‟s talent, Blalock asks him to be his lab technician. The drama starts when

they move in 1941 from Vanderbilt to Johns Hopkins, an institution where the

only black employees are janitors and where Thomas must enter by the back door.

Together, they boldly attack the devastating heart problem of Blue Baby

Syndrome, and in so doing they open the field of heart surgery. Blalock and

Thomas take on the challenge of blue babies and invent bypass surgery. After

many trials on dogs, their first patient is baby Eileen, sure to die without the

surgery. They succeed to save the baby‟s life through first heart surgery.

The film dramatizes their race to save dying Blue Babies against the

background of a Racial Segregation America, illuminating the nuanced and

complex relationship the two sustain. Thomas gets Blalock's respect, with Blalock

praising the results of Thomas' surgical skill as being "like something the Lord

made", and insisting that Thomas coach him through the first Blue Baby surgery

over the protests of Hopkins administrators. In 1941, in defiance of custom and

Jim Crow, Blalock brings Thomas into the surgery to advise him, but when Life

Magazine and kudos come, Thomas is excluded. This incident breaks their


commit to user

21

relationship because Thomas feels disappointed with the situation. Thomas

decides to resign from his work and tries other jobs. However he realizes that his

passion is working in Johns Hopkins lab. Finally, he goes back to Johns Hopkins

to continue his work at Johns Hopkins training surgeons with Blalock until

Blalock‟s death. In the end of the story, in a formal ceremony, Johns Hopkins

recognizes Thomas' work and awards him an honorary doctorate. A portrait of

Thomas is placed on the walls of Johns Hopkins next to Blalock's portrait, which

has been hung there years earlier.

G. Related Study

In conducting the research, the researcher uses some related study to find

out the research gap:

Firstly is a research entitled “Expression of Anger Used by Characters in

the Play Desire under the Elm Written by Eugene O‟neill”. This research was

conducted by Veronika Sintha Saraswati (2001). In her research, she focused on

the forms of verbal implicit anger expression and the reason behind of those

forms. She used pragmatic approach in analyzing the data. The purposes of this

research are how the form of verbal implicit anger expression used by characters

in the play and why do the characters choose this forms to express the anger.

Secondly is a research entitled “An analysis on the expression of anger

employed by the characters in the film entitled Crash”. The researcher is

conducted by Tri Lestari (2011). The research was conducted to describe the form

of expression of anger used by the characters in the film entitled CRASH, to


commit to user

22

describe how the characters in the film used the expression of anger and to find

out the reason of the use of the expression of anger in the film. She uses Socio-

pragmatic approach as the way of the analysis. She focuses on the forms of

expression of anger into direct and indirect form and the reasons why do the

character choose the anger expression.

In those researches, they only focused on the form of anger expression, the

context of situation, and the reason why the characters used the expression.

Meanwhile, this research will study about the type of speech act used by the

speaker to deliver the anger which has not been researched by previous researcher

as the gap of this research.


commit to user

23

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher presents the research method of this study.

The method is used to reach the objectives of the research which are stated in

chapter I. The researcher begins with the explanation about the type of this

research, data and the source of data and then continued with technique of

collecting data, technique of coding data, and technique of analyzing data.

A. Type of Research

The descriptive qualitative method is employed as the type of this

research. Wiersma (1994:12) states that qualitative research has its origins in

descriptive analysis and is essentially an inductive process, reasoning from the

specific situation to a general conclusion. Hence, qualitative research cannot be

separated from descriptive analysis.

Descriptive research means that the data are collected in the form of

words, sentences, or pictures having meaning other than merely number

(Moleong, 2001:6). Moreover, Bodgan and Taylor in (Moleong, 2001:3) state that

qualitative research is a research which presents descriptive data in the form of

written and oral words of human and human behavior that can be observed

For those reasons, this research belongs to descriptive qualitative research

since it focuses on the explanation of speech act used by the characters in the film

Something the Lord made to express the anger and the reason why characters send

the anger to hearers.

23


commit to user

24

B. Data and Source of Data

Sutopo (2002:47) states that qualitative research emphasizes inductive

analysis in which data are occupied as the basic modal of understanding not as

instrument to prove. Hence, the data play significant part in the research. The term

data refers to a collection of information. Subroto (1992:7) argues that in

qualitative research, the data may appear in the form of discourse, sentence,

clause, word or even morpheme. In this research, the data emerge in the form of

sentences from dialogues uttered by the characters of the movie containing anger

expression. All data are taken and then classified based on Searle’s theory of

speech act.

More detail, Schreiber (2008) affirms that qualitative data are generally

non-numerical but have a greater variety of sources. The data sources are

generally categorized as verbal and nonverbal. Nonverbal data sources include

items such as student concept maps, kinship diagrams, pictures, video, movie, art

and print advertisements. Hence, the researcher takes the movie entitled

Something the Lord made produced by Joseph Sargent in 2004 as the source of

data for this research. There are two reasons why the movie is taken as the source

of data:

1. The movie Something the Lord made represents daily life conversation which

tells about the partnership of two persons from different social background

and race. Hence, the researcher uses this movie as the source of data since its

validity of using language.


commit to user

25

2. Something the Lord made pictures the best way how two characters from the

different race and social status can have the great partnership. However, they

often express anger one to another. So, it is interested in knowing the way the

character delivers anger to other characters by using certain of speech act.

C. Technique of Collecting Data

The data of the research are collected by doing the following procedures:

1. Replaying the movie Something the Lord made as the source of data by

computer for several times.

2. Searching and copying the transcript of the movie Something the Lord made

from the internet on http://www.script-o-rama.com.

3. Comparing the conversation of the movie with the transcript.

4. Editing the transcript of the movie to the dialogues of the characters in the

movie by adding or deleting words or sentences.

5. Copying the conversation containing the expression of anger

6. Classifying the data based on the Searle’s theory of speech act.

7. Giving codes on each datum.

D. Technique of Analyzing Data

The collected data were analyzed based on the following procedures:

1. Describing the context of situation based on the theory of context.

2. Analyzing the data.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/


commit to user

26

3. Discussing the finding.

4. Drawing conclusion from data analysis and giving suggestions.

5.

E. Technique of Coding Data

In order to make the analysis easier, I give a code on each datum. The

coding is based on the order of datum and the exact time when anger occurs on

CD. The following is the example of coding:

Datum 1 CD 1/10.30”

William : You know what my grandfather did?

Harold : It has nothing to do with me going out on strike.

William : I said ‘Do you know what my grandfather did?’

Harold : Yes. He picked cotton in Mississippi. You told me a hundred times

William : My grandfather was a piece of property. No better than that

chair or table over there. His son became a free man at the age

of 15. He raised me with hardly an elementary school education.

Now I see my son graduate college and go on to teach school. So

don't tell me things don't get better over time.

Harold : Things don't just get better. People got to change things, Pop. Make

them better. If I don't do something, I'll be a dead man before I get

paid like white teachers do.

The coding Datum 1 CD 1/10.30” means it is datum number 1 in

the data found in the movie. The dialogue happens on CD 1 and it occurs in the

minute 10 pasts 30 seconds.


commit to user

27

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter aims to answer the research questions which are mentioned in

Chapter I. This chapter is divided into two sub-chapters. They are analysis and

discussion.

The first sub-chapter is data analysis where the data of the research is

analyzed based on the theories presented in the literature review part of this thesis.

There are three steps in analyzing the data. They are:

1. The scene containing anger expression.

In this section, the researcher presents the scene containing anger

expressions. The previous or the following scene which relates to the data is also

included. This is done in order to make the readers understand the scene easily.

2. The description of the context.

This part describes the context of the data where the anger expression

happens. It includes the participants in the situation, the action of the participants,

and any other related features of the situation which support the analysis of anger

expression.

3. The analysis of anger expression.

The research questions are answered one by one in this part by following

steps:

a. The researcher describes what type of speech act used by the speakers

to extend their anger. The type of speech acts are analyzed using

Searle’s theory of speech act .

27


commit to user

28

b. The researcher defines the reason why the characters express the anger

to hearer. Here, the researcher explains the whole result of the analysis

to answer the research questions stated in chapter I. They are what type

of speech acts used by the characters to extend the anger, and the

factors that influence the choice of speech act.

A. Data Analysis

Datum 1 CD 1/10.30”

William : You know what my grandfather did?

Harold : It has nothing to do with me going out on strike.

William : I said „Do you know what my grandfather did?‟

Harold : Yes. He picked cotton in Mississippi. You told me a hundred times

William : My grandfather was a piece of property. No better than that

chair or table over there. His son became a free man at the age

of 15. He raised me with hardly an elementary school education.

Now I see my son graduate college and go on to teach school. So

don't tell me things don't get better over time.

Harold : Things don't just get better. People got to change things, Pop. Make

them better. If I don't do something, I'll be a dead man before I get

paid like white teachers do.

The Description of Context

The participants of the conversation are William Thomas and Harold

Thomas. They have close relationship, as they are father and son. William

Thomas, a fifty years black African whose father is ex-slave. He lives with his

family in a small house in Nashville. He thinks that his family has the better

condition as he is primary school graduated, while his son, Harold, goes to

college. By this, he wants his son to thank this condition by doing his role as a


commit to user

29

black teacher rightly. He wants his son to stop his activity as activist that often

goes on strike to fight for the equality. Another participant of the conversation is

Harold Thomas. He is the oldest son in his family. He works as a teacher.

However, he does not satisfy with the race discrimination in which black people

do not get the same salary as white teachers. He wants to get the same right as

white by going on strike.

The conversation above takes place in their house, rightly in the living

room when William Thomas is reading a newspaper. Both participants have close

relationship as father and son who stay in the same house. However, they have

different roles of status. Father has superior status since he is the man who raises

Harold, while Harold has subordinate status as he is the son. Automatically,

Father has more legitimate power than Harold.

The film happens in 1930 when the black community is segregated.

Harold is the teacher as well as activist that often goes on strike to fight for black

right as teacher. He thinks that going on strike will help his community to get

better condition. However, William Thomas does not have the same opinion with

his son.

The Analysis of the anger expression

a. Type of speech act exploited in the scene

The anger is extended by William Thomas to his son, Harold. They are in

a long debate in the living room. Harold thinks that his act of going on strike is

right. However, his father wants his son to thank their condition now that is much

better than their family past. In order to make Harold understand, William repeats


commit to user

30

the same question to his son keeps “You know what my grandfather did?” Harold

does not answer the question, but then he says “It has nothing to do with me going

out on strike”. As the superior, William does not satisfy with his son’s answer.

William puts down the newspaper and then he repeats the question with higher

tone. Even though Harold answers rightly, Father is not happy with the statement

“You told me hundred times” in the end of his answer because it shows that his

father question does not give any effect to make Harold understand. William puts

down his newspaper and says, “My grandfather was a piece of property. No

better than that chair or table over there. His son became a free man at the

age of 15. He raised me with hardly an elementary school education. Now I

see my son graduate college and go on to teach school. So don't tell me things

don't get better over time” . He shows his anger by explaining about condition

of his family in the past and present. He emphasizes his anger in his last sentence

by saying command “So don't tell me things don't get better over time”. By

saying so, William wants his son to understand that their family in the present is

much better that the past. From the analysis, it can be concluded that William uses

type of speech act Directives and representative to express the anger. Directives

includes act of questioning and commanding. Representative includes act of

explaining.

b. The reason why the characters express the anger

There are two factors that influence William Thomas to use those kinds of

acts in his anger to Harold. First is their close relationship as father and son. As a

father, William Thomas feels free to express his anger to Harold baldly that he is a


commit to user

31

stubborn man. Next factor is that William Thomas has legitimate power to Harold

since he is the father. Hence, he has more authority to express his anger directly.

Datum 2 CD 1/13.01”

Mrs. Thomas : Gone?

But what are they talking about?

Harold : They talking about, it's gone, Ma

William : We'll all just have to start over. Can't fight it now, it's done

Vivien : It just feels so wrong.

Took me seven years to save that money.

Harold : You're not the only one who had money in that bank.

William : It's done! It's over with! Clara : We still got each other, Viv.

Harold : Yeah, we got each other.

That's all poor people ever have is each other.


The conversation takes place in the living room of Thomas family. The

participants of the conversation are Mrs. Thomas, William Thomas, Vivien

Thomas, Clara and Harold Thomas. Mrs. Thomas, William Thomas, Vivien

Thomas and Harold Thomas have close relationship, as they are family who stay

in the same house. They are African-American family who live in the American

Segregation Era. Mr. Thomas is the head of the family who has two sons, Harold

and Vivien. Harold Thomas is the oldest son of Mr. Thomas. He works as a

teacher.

Vivien is the youngest son of the family without a college degree. He is a

gifted mechanic and toolmaker with hands splendidly adept at surgery janitor. He

works hard and saves his money for his university study. He wants to be a doctor.


commit to user

32

When the conversation happens, Vivian works as a lab technician of Dr. Alfred

Alfred. Previously, he works as a carpenter. Clara is Vivien’s girlfriend who also

has the close relationship with the family.

The conversation happens in the family room. They sit in the sofa with the

unhappy situation. Vivien and Clara just went back from the bank where Vivien

saves his money for his college study. Unfortunately, the bank is bankrupt and the

customer cannot get their money back. Thomas family is very disappointed of the

incidents because they save their money in that bank. It seems that they cannot

accept it.

In this situation, Clara tries to strengthen his boyfriend, Vivien. He feels so

disappointed to realize that his hard work for seven years is gone in a day. It also

means that he cannot realize his dream to study in university to be a doctor. He

delivers his disappointment by saying “Took me seven years to save that money”.

It shows that Vivien still cannot accept it because he has collected the money for

seven years for his study. Thomas, Vivien’s older brother, thinks that Vivien is

not the one only who lost his money so he does not need to say that.

The Analysis of Anger Expression


Mr. Thomas extends his anger to his sons when they quarrel over their lost

money. Mr. Thomas as their father is not happy with his sons that quarrel each

other. In fact, Mr. Thomas is annoyed by his sons who seem not to accept the fact

that the bank is bankrupt and their saving is gone. He expresses his anger by


commit to user

33

declaring, “It's done! It's over with!”. Through his saying, Mr. Thomas wants his

sons in order to make them stop debating about their money. Hence, Mr. Thomas

delivers the anger to remind his sons that they shall be able to overcome the

problems by forgetting it. Mr. Thomas wants his family to forget it because they

cannot do anything to take their money back. From the analysis, it is known that

Mr. Thomas delivers his anger using declarations by declaring that everything is

done and over.


There are two factors which influence Mr. Thomas to express his anger.

First is their close relationship as family. As they always stay in the same house,

Mr. Thomas knows his sons very well. Hence, he feels free to express his anger

to his sons baldly that his sons should stop talking about their lost money. Next

factor is that Mr. Thomas has legitimate power to his sons since he is the father

that raises both of them. Hence, he has more authority to express the anger to his

sons directly.

Datum 3 CD 1/17:15”

Dr. Alfred : Let's look at the record of our work. Where's the smoked drums?

Vivien : I'm sorry?

Dr. Alfred : The smoked drums. You didn't set the smoked drums?

Vivien : What is a smoked drum?

Dr. Alfred : That's a smoked drum. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I record all the information I need on a smoked drum.

Vivien : I did not know that.

Dr. Alfred : Is nobody listening to me?

God damn it! I have to do everything myself. A whole day's

work goes down the toilet, and I have to start all over again.

Do you have sawdust or just plain shit for brains?

Dr. Alfred : Where the hell do you think you're going? Fine, get out of

here.


commit to user

34


The dialogue happens in Vanderbilt Experimental Surgery Laboratory

where Vivien does the experiment. The dialogue occurs between Dr. Alfred and

Vivien. Dr. Alfred is a young cardiologist who seems to be self-confident to the

point of arrogance. Vivien, an African-American without a college degree, is a

gifted mechanic and toolmaker with hands splendidly adept at surgery. When

Vivien comes to Dr. Alfred, he works as janitor. Then Dr. Alfred recognizes that

Vivien has the excellent memory. Therefore, he asks him to be his lab-technician.

They have not known each other very well since Vivien is a new lab

technician. Moreover, they have different role and status in their work. Vivien is

the black- lab-technician without college degree that has big passion to his work,

while Dr. Alfred is the white person who works as a doctor and the head of the

laboratory.

Dr. Alfred walks in to the laboratory where Vivien is preparing for the

experiment. When Dr. Alfred asks Vivien about the experiment tools, Vivien

answers that everything is ready for the experiment. After discussing some

method and theory of operating, Dr. Alfred asks Vivien to start the experiment,

operating a dog. He watches how Vivien operates the dog, he feels satisfied

because Vivien does all his instruction very well. However, there are some

misunderstandings between them.

After finishing the experiment, Dr. Alfred wants to see the record of the

experiment process from the beginning. Then he looks for something under the

experiment board, he looks for smoked drum (a tool that he uses to record all the


commit to user

35

information during the experiment). Unfortunately, he does not find the smoked

drum. He recognizes that Vivien does not set the smoked drum.



In this datum, Dr. Alfred sends his anger to Vivien. The anger occurs when Vivien

asks back to Dr. Alfred about what is smoked drum. Angrily Dr. Alfred throws a

tablecloth to the thing that he calls smoked drum and says, “That's a smoked

drum. What the fuck is wrong with you? I record all the information I need

on a smoked drum” The dialogue shows that Dr. Alfred uses explaining and

questioning to send his anger to Vivien. Vivien tries to explain that he does not

know that he has to set the smoked drum to record all the experiment information.

However, Dr. Alfred gets angrier with Vivien and he continues to express his

anger by saying, “Is nobody listening to me? God damn it! I have to do

everything myself. A whole day's work goes down the toilet, and I have to

start all over again. Do you have sawdust or just plain shit for brains?” The

utterances show that Dr. Alfred uses questioning by saying “Is nobody listening

to me?” and “Do you have sawdust or just plain shit for brains?”, swearing

by saying “God damn it!” , and explanation by saying “I have to do everything

myself. A whole day's work goes down the toilet, and I have to start all over

again” . He delivers his anger by explaining that he has wasted the whole day

work because of Vivien’s mistake. He shouts and uses the rude words to blame

Vivien. In sort, Dr. Alfred uses Directives by questioning, expressive by swearing

and representative by explaining to send his anger to Vivien.


commit to user

36


There are two factors which influence Dr. Alfred to express his anger to

Vivien. They are the legitimate power and the expertise power. Dr. Alfred has

more power than Vivien since he is the doctor who is also the head of the

laboratory. Here, Dr. Alfred has expertise power, as he has better knowledge

when it deals with the experiment. Dr. Alfred is a surgeon for years while Vivien

is a new lab technician who previously is a janitor. By having legitimate power

and expertise power, he has more authority to express his anger to Vivien

Datum 4 CD 1/18:30”

Dr. Alfred : Hold on a minute, will you?

Vivien : I was not raised to take that type of talk. Dr. Alfred : My apologies. I'm sorry I lost my temper.

Normally it takes assistants months to learn what you picked up in

days. It won't happen again.

Please.


The dialogue happens in Vanderbilt Experimental Surgery Laboratory,

exactly in the yard of the Laboratory. The participants of the dialogue are Dr.

Alfred and Vivien. Both participants have not known each other very well since

Vivien is a new lab technician, while Dr. Alfred is the head of the laboratory.

In the previous scene, Dr. Alfred says some rude utterances to Vivien. By

hearing that utterances, Vivien goes out from the experiment room to his locker

room to change his clothes. He seems disappointed with the rude utterances

express ed by his employer. Dr. Alfred lets Vivien go out from the room. A


commit to user

37

minute after Vivien gets out from the laboratory; Dr. Alfred recognizes that he has

misunderstood Vivien. He finds that Vivien notes all the information during the

experiment in a notebook that he puts on the table, beside the operating board.

Realizing that he has made Vivien upset, Dr. Alfred runs out the room for

Vivien. He finds Vivien in the laboratory yard walking out to the street. He tries

to stop Vivien and Vivien stops his walk. However, Vivien cannot keep his anger

to his employer. He express s his anger by saying the utterance that criticizes the

rude words from Dr. Alfred. The utterance shows that as a black lab-technician,

Vivien does not want his employer to look down at him by saying the rude words.



The anger expression in this datum is extended by Vivien to Dr. Alfred.

Dr. Alfred realizes that he misunderstands him. He confesses that he has made

mistake by saying rude words to him. Dr. Alfred runs after Vivien and he asks

Vivien to stop his walk. Vivien express s his anger to Dr. Alfred by explaining “I

was not raised to take that type of talk”. The utterance shows that as a black

lab-technician, Vivien does not want his employer to look down at him by saying

the rude words to him. By saying so, Vivien wants to give negative evaluation to

what Dr. Alfred has said to him. Vivien thinks that Dr. Alfred’s saying is really

hurting since he says impolite thing when he has done the best for the experiment.

Hence, Vivien delivers his anger indirectly by saying that he is not raised to take

that type of talk . Vivien sends the anger in low and serious serious tone as he


commit to user

38

realizes that he is a sub ordinate. From the analysis, it is found out that Vivien

uses representatives by explaining in his anger to Dr. Alfred.


There only factor which influences Vivien to express his anger to Dr. Alfred

is social distance between them. Vivien realizes that he is sub ordinate because he

is only the lab assistant while Dr. Alfred is superordinate since he is a surgeon.

Datum 5 CD 1/25:21”

Vivien : Try a devilled egg. They're real good.

Clara : I want to go home, Viv.

Vivien : Clara, it's our first week.

Clara : Yeah, and you said if we didn't like it, remember?

Vivien : Yes.

Clara : Our family's in Nashville. We had a home in a good

neighbourhood.

The schools were fine. Not living in this..I don't know how

we're gonna make it on that pay cheque and he got you serving

drinks at his party just to make ends meet. Come on

Vivien : Try to understand. When I started at Vanderbilt I was a janitor. Dr

Alfred saw what I could contribute, and he gave me a chance.

Sweetheart, it's important work. And it's a real opportunity and I

love what I'm doing.

Clara : So it doesn't really matter how I feel, then, does it? Vivien : Clara, you know it matters.


The conversation happens in the Vivien’s rented house. The participants

are Vivien and Clara. Both of them are black-African American couple who stay

in a new house. They have known each other very well since they have been

married for years. Clara is a patient and lovely wife of Vivien. She is a fulltime


commit to user

39

housewife who takes care of her two children. In the case of appearance, Clara is a

beautiful black American woman. She always looks casual. While Vivien works

as lab-technician in Johns Hopkins Hospital with a low salary. Vivien has to move

from Nashville to follow Dr. Alfred who works on John Hopkins hospital.

The scene happens when Vivien just went back from Dr. Alfred house for

serving drink in Dr. Alfred’s party. Vivien goes in to the house in when Clara just

put their children to the bed. They have a light conversation; Vivien offers

devilled egg that he brings from Dr. Alfred house. However, Clara does not

respond his offer; she says that she wants to go home to his old house in Nashville

because she does not like to stay in this new house. Vivien said, it is their first

week, so it is still too early to decide whether she is happy or not. Then, she says

that in Nashville they already have a house with all the goodness for them. It

seems much better compared to their new rented house with Vivien’s low salary.

Vivien explains that he wants Clara to understand their condition. Vivien is sure

that everything will be better. He explains that when he started at Vanderbilt he

was a janitor. Dr Alfred saw what he could contribute, and he gave Vivien a

chance. He describes that his work is very important and he loves it. Hearing the

explanation, Clara feels more disappointed to his husband. He feels that her

husband is very egoist because he only thinks about how he feels without

responding what Clara feels.


commit to user

40

The Analysis of Anger expression


Clara extends the anger to Vivien when they are debating about their new

rented house. Vivien recognizes that his wife is unhappy with the condition. He

tries to please her by offering delicious food from Dr. Alfred’s party. Clara is

angry because Vivien seems to ignore Clara’s feeling. Clara responds Vivien’s

offer by delivering a request “I want to go home, Viv”. However, Vivien says

that it is their first week. He believes that this new place is good for his family.

Clara tries to remind Vivien by asking a question “Yeah, and you said if we

didn't like it, remember?” By asking the question, Clara wants to remind Vivien

that they may go back to Nashville when they do not like the new place. Beside,

she gives the further explanation by saying “Our family's in Nashville. We had

a home in a good neighbourhood. The schools were fine. Not living in this..I

don't know how we're gonna make it on that pay cheque and he got you

serving drinks at his party just to make ends meet”. By this explanation, she

tries to make his husband understand her feeling is right. However, Vivien does

not give the positive respond. Vivien even hopes that Clara will understand the

situation. He explains that his employer is very good and he really loves what he

is doing in his work. Hearing Vivien’s explanation, Clara is angry because he

feels that his husband only pays attention on his own happiness. She continues his

anger by delivering question “So it doesn't really matter how I feel, then, does

it?”. Through the utterance, Clara wants to make sure whether her feeling is

important to her husband or not. From the use of question tag “does it” in her


commit to user

41

utterance, it is known that she wants to emphasize that she is unhappy. Literally, it

clearly shows that she wants her husband to care about his feeling. In sort, Clara

uses Directives by questioning and requesting and representative by explaining to

send his anger to Vivien.


The only factor which influences Clara in delivering his anger is their close

relationship. They have known each other very well as they have been married

and lived together in the same place for years. Therefore, she has no burden to

deliver her anger directly since they have close relationship as husband and wife.

Datum 6 CD 1 / 29.09”

Vivien : Where could I find someone to help us clean up the lab,

Doctor?

Dr. Edgar : Who do you think you're talking to? Vivien : I'm not sure. I'm Vivien Thomas, I work for Dr Blalock,

running this lab.

Dr. Edgar : I'm Dr Edgar V Hecker. Director of Laboratories.

I'd like some coffee and a doughnut. Vivien : Doctor. There must be a mix-up.

Dr. Edgar : Listen, I won't stand for insolence. We'll see about this.


The conversation takes place in Johns Hopkin laboratory. Participants of

the conversation are Dr. Edgar and Vivien. Dr. Edgar is a white-senior doctor of

John Hopkins as well as the director of the laboratory. While Vivien is Dr.

Alfred’s lab-technician who is just arrived in John Hopkins a few minutes before

and it is his first time for him to be in John Hopkins.


commit to user

42

A few minutes before Dr. Edgar coming, Dr Alfred asks Vivien to look for

someone to clean the laboratory because the laboratory is very dirty. When Vivien

and Dr. Alfred are in a small talk in the laboratory, Dr. Edgar watch them. He

wonders how such a black man wearing a white coat can be in the laboratory with

Dr. Alfred in a friendly conversation. A few minutes later, Dr. Alfred walks out

from the laboratory.

Dr. Edgar walks in to the laboratory where Vivien is still there. Seeing Dr.

Edgar walks in to the laboratory, Vivien finds that Dr. Edgar is the right person to

ask about someone for cleaning the laboratory. However, Dr. Edgar is unhappy

toward Vivien’s question. He delivers his unhappiness by asking back to Vivien

about who is Vivien talking to. However, it does not change Vivien’s mind.

Vivien explains that he is Dr. Alfred’s lab technician who will help Dr. Alfred to

run that lab. Dr. Edgar explains about himself and still threat Vivien as a black

worker by putting money on the table and asking some cooffe and doughnut.

Then, Vivien explains that there must be mix up. Vivien wants Dr. Edgar to know

that buying coffee and doughnut is not his duty because he is a lab technician.



The anger is extended by Dr. Edgar to Vivien when they are in the laboratory of

John Hopkins hospital. Dr. Edgar is angry when Vivien asks him about where he

can find someone to clean the laboratory. Dr. Edgar is unhappy with Vivien

question because he thinks that as a black new worker Vivien does not have any


commit to user

43

right to ask such kind of question to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar sends his anger by

employing a question “Who do you think you're talking to?” In this case, Dr.

Edgar extends his anger indirectly by asking a question which he does not intend

to obtain the answer. Vivien says that he does not know whom he is talking to. dr.

Edgar gets angrier and explain himself “I'm Dr Edgar V Hecker. Director of

Laboratories” Then he continues his anger by giving money and commanding

Vivien “I'd like some coffee and a doughnut” Vivien thinks that Dr. Edgar is

misunderstanding to him. Vivien gives the money back to Dr. Edgar. By this act,

Dr. Edgar gets angrier. He gives a command “listen” and continues by threatening

Vivien “I won't stand for insolence. We'll see about this” To conclude, Dr.

Edgar exploits Directives by questioning and commanding, representative by

explanation and commisives by threatening in sending his anger to Vivien.


The factors which influence Dr. Edgar to express his anger is the legitimate

power. In this case, Dr. Edgar has more power since he is the directur of the

hospital laboratory. In other word, Dr. Edgar has legitimate power to express his

anger to Vivien.

Datum 7 CD 1 / 37:04”

Man 2 You gotta take care of that sink up in 4-B.

And you were gonna fix these steps.

Vivien Yes Mr. Green, forgive me, I’ve been very busy at work.

Man 2 The deal is $7 off for odd jobs every month. You gotta pick up

the pace.


commit to user

44


The conversation happens in Vivien rented house. The participants of the

conversation are Vivien and Mr. Green who is Vivien’s land lord. Vivien is a lab-

technician in John Hopkins Hospital with a low salary. His low salary makes him

having side job such as repairing step and sink of his land lord rented houses. Mr.

Green is Vivien’s land lord who is an African-American with high temper. He

owns many houses. Vivien rents one of his houses. Unfortunatelly Vivien is not

able to pay his rent, so he takes side job from his landlord. However, Vivien has

been busy at work which makes him failed doing his side job in the right time.

The conversation happens when Vivien goes back from his work in John

Hopkins hospital laboratory. In his way home, he meets his land lord. His landlord

looks unhappy because Vivien has not done his job to repair the sink and step.

They have short conversation in front of Vivien rented house. He reminds Vivien

to do his work quickly as their deal.



The anger expression is sent by Vivien’s land lord to Vivien when they

meet in front of Vivien’s rented house. Vivien is going back from his work.

Suddenly, his landlord walks down from the step. He commands Vivien to do his

duty by saying “You gotta take care of that sink up in 4-B. And you were

gonna fix these steps” Vivien responds his lanlord’s command by asking

apologize and explains that he has been very busy at work. Mr. Green looks

unhappy with Vivien explanation. He delivers his anger by explaining “The deal


commit to user

45

is $7 off for odd jobs every month” and giving another commanding, “You

gotta pick up the pace” without responding Vivien utterance that asks

forgiveness. Mr. Green extends his anger in high tone as he feels that Vivien

answer is unreasonable. He thinks that by doing a lot of work in his office, Vivien

should be able to pay his rent without taking another side job such as repairing

sink and step. Vivien says that he is very busy. In fact, he cannot pay his rent

without having side job from his landlord. From the analysis, it is known that Mr.

Green employs Directives by commanding and representative by explaining to

extend his anger to Vivien.


The only factor which influences Mr. Green to express his anger is the

legitimate power that he has. In this case, Mr. Green has legitimate power since he

pays Vivien to do some side jobs in his rented houses. Besides, Mr. Green also the

landlord of Vivien rented house. By having legitimate power, Mr. Green has more

authority to send his anger.

Datum 8 CD 1 / 46:47

Man A : What you giving him extra for? What's wrong with me?

Woman A : Nothing minding your own business wouldn't cure.

Man A : You got that white coat, but you're just a class three worker, same as

me.In fact, I got two years' seniority on you. I'm making more than you.

Don't think you're some kind of big shot around here. Vivien : Excuse me, buddy. Class three. What does that mean?


commit to user

46


The conversation occurs in John Hopkins canteen. The participants are

Vivien, Man A (black- hospital cleaning service), woman A (black-canteen

keeper). Vivien is a black lab-technician in John Hopkins Hospital. He always

wears a white coat during his daily work. He is the only one of black man who

wears a white coat during his work. Man A is a black African-American who

works as cleaning service in John Hospital. He is in same age with Vivien. Man A

has high temper. Another participant is Woman A, a canteen keeper in John

Hopkins Hospital. She also has high temper. The conversation happens during the

lunch time. Woman A is putting lunch on Vivien’s plate. Man A looks unhappy

when he realizes that the woman gives Vivien extra food. Then, he complains to

woman A by asking why the woman gave the extra food for Vivien. The woman

A answers the question unhappily by saying that it is not his bussiness. During the

conversations of man A and woman A, Vivien keeps quiet. However, man A says

to Vivien that eventhough Vivien wears a white coat but he is not different with

other black workers in the hospital. He even says that he is better than Vivien

because he has two years seniority than Vivien. It means that he gets the salary

better than Vivien. Then, he angrily says to Vivien not to think that he is better

than other black workers. Hearing that, Vivien answer by asking about what is

class three workers means because he does not know that he is class three worker.

All the participants in the conversation have same role of status as they are black

workers in John Hopkins Hospital.


commit to user

47



The anger is extended by Man A to Vivien when they are in the hospital

canteen. Man A thinks that he is better than Vivien, in fact, the woman A

(canteen keeper) threatens Vivien better than him in giving food. He sends his

anger by asking “What you giving him extra for? What's wrong with me?” to

Woman A. Yet, he knows that he is unsuccessful to get reason from the woman A

why she gives Vivien extra food. Then, Man A delivers his anger to Vivien by

saying “You got that white coat, but you're just a class three worker, same as

me.In fact, I got two years' seniority on you. I'm making more than you”

Through the utterance, Man A claims that he is better than Vivien. He thinks that

wearing white coat is not making any different for Vivien. In fact, their job

classification is same as maintenance worker. Man A even thinks that he is better

because he has two years seniority and gets the higher pay than Vivien. He

commands Vivien by saying “Don't think you're some kind of big shot around

here”. Through the utterance, Man A wants Vivien to think that he is not special

or better than other black workers in John Hopkins Hospital. In this case, Man A

delivers his anger directly. From the analysis, it is found out that Man A conveys

Directives by questioning and commanding. Beside, he uses representative by

prohibiting in delivering his anger to Vivien.


commit to user

48


The only reason which influences Man A to express his anger is seniority

that makes him thinks that he has more power than Vivien. By having legitimate

power, Man A has more authority to extend his anger to Vivien baldly.

Datum 9 CD I/49:09”

Dr. Alfred : Any progress? If you kill that dog,

I swear I will take it out of your pay cheque.

Vivien : I'm finished here. Dr Longmire, would you mind

closing up for me? Thank you.

Dr. Alfred : Come on, Vivien. I was kidding about taking it out of your pay

cheque.

Vivien : Good luck, cos I only make $16 a week. For a 16-hour day. Dr. Alfred : That's all they can pay.

Vivien : That's all they can pay class three workers.

Dr. Alfred : What are you talking about?

Vivien : That's my job classification.

Dr. Alfred : Who cares what they call you? You and I both know how

valuable the work is that you do.

Vivien : If my work is so important, then why am I class three?

Two grades below what I do. In classification and pay.

Dr. Alfred : I don't know why. I don't pay attention to bureaucratic details.

Look, at Hopkins you can't be a technician without a college

degree. And where are you going?

Vivien : I need to fix some steps.

Dr. Alfred : We have works to do.

Vivien : Do I have your permission to do some work for my landlord

so I can pay my rent?


The conversation takes place John Hopkins Hospital, specifically in the

laboratory. The situation in the room is so quiet before Dr. Alfred goes in to the

room. The participants of the conversation are Dr. Alfred and Vivien. Dr. Alfred

is a white cardiologist who is also the Chairman of Surgical Department. While

Vivien is a black lab-technician who runs the lab perfectly as Dr. Alfred wants.


commit to user

49

Dr. Alfred has superior status to Vivien because he is the boss. Obviously,

he has more legitimate power than Vivien who works as his assistant in the

laboratory. They have close relationship since they have been working together

for many years. Dr. Alfred trusts Vivien to run his lab while he is busy doing his

duty as a cardiologist.

In the scene before, Vivien knows the fact that his name is registered as a

maintenance worker. It means that he is a class three worker in the job

classification. In fact, he works very hard as lab assistant. He runs the whole lab

because Dr. Alfred is so busy. He is frustrated after knowing the fact that he is

registered as maintenance worker in John Hopkins Hospital. He thinks that he gets

discrimination in job classification and in payment because of his race and

education. He realizes that what he gets is not as it should be with what he does.



Vivien extends the anger to Dr. Alfred when they are in laboratory. The

scene shows that Dr. Alfred is supervising Vivien experiment in the laboratory.

Vivien looks serious with his work. Dr. Alfred tries to make a joke by saying that

If Vivien kills that dog, he swears that he will take it out of his pay cheque.

Without responding Dr. Alfred’s Joke, Vivien asks Dr. Longmire to continue his

experiment. Dr. Alfred realizes that Vivien is unhappy with his joke. Dr. Alfred

tries to explain that it is only joke. However, Dr. Alfred’s joke is very sensitive for

Vivien. Vivien sends his anger by saying “Good luck, cos I only make $16 a

week. For a 16-hour day”. Through the utterance, Vivien wants to explain that


commit to user

50

his salary is not suitable with his work. Vivien continues his anger by saying

“That's all they can pay class three workers”, “That's my job classification”,

“Two grades below what I do. In classification and pay”, “I need to fix some

steps” By the utterances, Vivien wants to explain that the hospital is unfair to

him. Meanwhile he has to do side job because his salary is not enough to pay his

rent Beside, he also sends his anger by exploiting some questions “If my work is

so important, then why am I class three?” and “Do I have your permission to

do some work for my landlord so I can pay my rent? In this case, Vivien

extends the anger indirectly by asking a question which she does not intend to

obtain the answer. The question is not conceivably a question whether Dr. Alfred

will give permission to him or not. Vivien leaves the laboratory before Dr. Alfred

answers his question. To conclude, Vivien sends his anger to Dr. Alfred by using

Expressive by satirizing, representative by explaining and Directives questioning.


The factors which influence Vivien to express his anger to dr. Alfred are

the social distance and close relationship. Vivien realizes that he is sub ordinate

because he is only the lab assistant while Dr. Alfred is superordinate since he is a

Chairman of Surgical Department. Beside, they have close relationship since they

have been working together for many years.


commit to user

51

Datum 10 CD 2/04:13 ”

Dr. Walter : You're dangling your reputation off a cliff.

Dr. Alfred : Calm down. This isn't grand opera.

Dr. Walter : Isn't a doctor's first tenet, "Do no harm"?

Dr. Alfred : What are you saying? Dr. Walter : Postpone it until you have more experience.

Dr. Alfred : That means signing that baby's death warrant.

I will not do that.

Dr. Walter : But they'll ruin you.

Dr. Alfred : Walter, I'm operating tomorrow.

Dr. Walter : You're rushing this because

you don't want to admit to those parents that you spoke too soon.


The conversation happens in John Hopkins Hospital, where the

participants are walking on the hospital hall. The dialogue is conversed by Dr.

Alfred and Dr. Walter. Both participants are working together in John Hopkins

Hospital as doctor. Both participants have close relationship since they have been

working together for years. Dr. Walter is a senior doctor who is also the head of

administration department in John Hopkins. Dr. Alfred is a brilliant senior

Chairman of the Department of Surgery in John Hopkins. Besides, Dr Alfred is

also doing the research of heart surgery.

The scene shows that they are arguing about the operation. In that time,

Dr. Alfred has arranged to operate a baby girl with heart problem based on the

laboratory success on a dog. In that era, heart is one organ that should not be

touched or operated. Dr. Alfred is trying to challenge the ancient doctrinal myth in

medical field by performing the heart surgery on the baby girl. As the senior

doctor, Dr. Walter is trying to remind Dr. Alfred to postpone the operation

because it will break his reputation if the operation failed.


commit to user

52


c. Type of speech act exploited in the scene

The anger is conveyed by Dr. Alfred to Dr. Walter. Dr. Walter reminds his

friend to postpone the operation of a little girl with heart problem. Dr. Walter

thinks that Dr. Alfred is not ready to do the operation. However, Dr. Alfred is so

confident with his plan. Hence, he is angry when Dr. Walter says that a doctor's

first tenet is doing no harm. This utterance means that by doing the operation

means that Dr. Alfred is doing harm to someone’s life. Hearing Dr. Walter’s

statement, Dr. Alfred stops his step and looks at Dr. Alfred face seriously. He

express s his anger by saying “What are you saying?”. By raising the question,

it is found out that Dr. Alfred wants to challenge Dr. Walter’s statement about the

doctor’s first tenet. In this case, Dr. Alfred extends his anger directly by asking a

question which he intends to obtain Dr. Walter realizes what he said. Dr. Alfred’s

question conveys something more than what it literally means. However, Dr.

Walter suggests dr. Alfred to postpone his operation until he has more experience.

dr. Alfred responds dr. Walter’s suggestion by continuing his anger “That means

signing that baby's death warrant”. The utterance shows that dr. Alfred claims

that postponing the operation will bring the baby to death. He promises that he

will not postpone the operation by saying “I will not do that”. Dr. Walter says

that the operation would ruin dr. Alfred’s career. By saying so, dr Walter makes

dr. Alfred gets angrier. He continues his anger by saying “Walter, I'm operating

tomorrow” The utterance declares that dr. Alfred will not change his decision to

operate the baby. From the analysis, it is found out that Dr. Alfred uses Directives


commit to user

53

by questioning, representative by claiming, commisives by promising, and

declarations by declaring to send his anger to Vivien.

d. The reason why the characters express the anger

The only factor which influences Dr. Alfed to express his anger is their

close relationship. Both Dr. Alfred and Dr. Walter have been working together in

John Hopkins Hospital for a long time. Besides, they also close friend as shown in

some previous scenes.

Datum 11 CD 2/08.20”

Dr. Longmire : They won't page him.

Dr. Alfred : Why not?

Dr. Longmire : Something about hospital policy.

Dr. Alfred : Page Vivien Thomas immediately.

Dr. Longmire : Dr Blalock, what's wrong?

Dr. Alfred : It's all right.

I won't tell you again. Page him.

Nurse : We're only allowed to page doctors.

Dr. Alfred : Give me that goddamn phone.

Vivien Thomas, paging Vivien Thomas.

You're wanted in OR right now.

Come on the run, do you hear?


The conversation happens in front office of the operating room of John

Hopkins Hospital. The participants of the conversation are Dr. Longmire, Dr.

Alfred, and a nurse. Dr. Longmire is a young surgeon who takes challenge to join

in Dr. Alfred’s first-heart surgery. Dr. Alfred is a Chairman of Surgical

Department in John Hopkins Hospital. The hospital nurse is a senior nurse who

always does the hospital policy in his duty. There are three participants in the


commit to user

54

conversation above. However the anger expression occurs between Dr. Alfred and

the hospital nurse. For the status of role, Dr. Alfred has superior status since he is

the Chairman of Surgical Department, while the nurse places subordinate status.

In the scene before, Dr. Alfred was in operation room to operate a baby

girl with heart problem. Most all of the surgeons in John Hopkins Hospital were

watching the operation. It is the important operation since it is the first heart

surgery in medical world. A few second before starting the operation, Dr. Alfred

suddenly exited the operation room. He asked Dr. Longmire to call Vivien

Thomas. Dr. Alfred felt that he needed Vivien Thomas in his first heart surgery

because Vivien was the one who help Dr. Alfred along his heart surgery research.

A few minutes later, Dr. Longmire told Dr. Alfred that the nurse did not want to

page Vivien Thomas to go in the operation room as Dr. Alfred wants. Dr. Alfred

was getting angry with it. He walked quickly to the nurse and asked her to call

Vivien. However, the hospital nurse did not want to page Vivien though the

microphone because the hospital policy states that she only allows to page the

hospital doctor. In this case, Vivien is not a doctor. He is only Dr. Alfred’s lab-

assistant.



The anger expression is sent by Dr. Alfred to hospital nurse. In the

beginning, Dr. Alfred asks Dr. Longmire to page Vivien via hospital nurse.

However the nurse does not want to page Vivien. Then, Dr. Alfred goes to the


commit to user

55

place where the nurse does her work. He commands the nurse to page Vivien by

saying “Page Vivien Thomas immediately” and “I won't tell you again. Page

him” However, she says that she cannot page him. She tries to explain that the

hospital policy does not allow her to do what Dr. Alfred wants. Instead of getting

compliment of what she has explained, she gets angry from Dr. Alfred. He takes

the phone by force. Dr. Alfred extends his anger by commanding, “Give me that

goddamn phone” he angrily pages Vivien through the microphone by saying

“Vivien Thomas, paging Vivien Thomas. You're wanted in OR right now.

Come on the run, do you hear?” Dr. Alfred sends his anger in harsh intonation

as he is facing the important surgery. From the analysis, it is known that Dr.

Alfred employs Directives by commanding to extend his anger to the hospital

nurse.


The factor which influences Dr. Alfred to express his anger is the

legitimate power that he has. In this case, Dr. Alfred has legitimate power since he

is the senior surgeon in the hospital. By having legitimate power, Dr. Alfred has

more authority to express his anger to the hospital nurse when she does not obey

his command.


commit to user

56

Datum 12 CD 2/22.41”

Dr. Alfred : What the hell is this?

Vivien : I need to do something different.

Dr. Alfred : What about our work?

Vivien : You got all of those other people you were thanking.


Vivien : Belvedere Hotel.

Dr. Alfred : The Belvedere is segregated.

You were there?

Vivien : Snuck in, just like a bellhop.

Dr. Alfred : Is this about hobnobbing with the powers that be?

They will never let you into their club. It is naive to think

otherwise.

Will you stand still?

Vivien : I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about Hopkins.

I'm talking about you.

Dr. Alfred : Me? What have I ever done except fight in your corner? I have

taken you every step of the way with me, and now you want to

throw all that away? For what? Is that any way to show your

gratitude?

Vivien : I don't know. You tell me, Doctor.


The conversation happens in the laboratory of John Hopkins Hospital

where both of the participants work. The participants of the conversation are Dr.

Alfred and Vivien. Dr. Alfred is a white senior Chairman of the Department of

Surgery. Vivien is a Negro who works as lab-technician for Dr. Alfred. They have

been working as a good partner for many years. Even though Vivien is a Negro,

Dr Alfred threats him as his friend and trusts him to carry out those experiments

on his own.

In the scene before, Dr. Alfred is attending the celebration of his success

on first heart surgery in Belvedere Hotel. In that time, segregation happened in

America. Belvedere Hotel is one of the segregated place for negro. However,


commit to user

57

Vivien snuck in to the hotel as a bellhop to know how far Dr. Alfred appreciates

his contribution. Vivien is dissatisfied with Dr. Alfred because he does not

mention his name as the person who contributes on the first heart surgery in his

speech. In fact, Vivien is the important person in the research and in the surgery

itself. The scene shows that Dr. Alfred gives thank only to white doctor in his

speech. A day later, Vivien decides to sign out from John Hopkins.

Dr. Alfred walks in to the laboratory bringing the letter from Vivien, while

Vivien is packing his things. Vivien decides to sign out from his work in John

Hopkins Hospital without any discussion with Dr. Alfred. Dr. Alfred does not

understand why Vivien suddenly wants to sign out. Dr. Alfred tries to know what

happens.



The anger is extended by Vivien to Dr. Alfred when they are debating

about Vivien’s decision. Vivien decides to sign out from his work. He says that he

wants to do something different. In fact, he feels that Dr. Alfred does not

appreciate him so he decides to leave John Hopkins and packing his things. Dr.

Alfred tries to remind him about their work. Vivien answers by saying “You got

all of those other people you were thanking” and “Belvedere Hotel” Through

his utterances, Vivien claims that Dr. Alfred does not need Vivien because he has

all of those other people he was thanking in his speech at Belvedere Hotel in the

previous scene. Dr. Alfred explains that Vivien cannot enter the Belvedere Hotel

to join the party because the hotel is segregation. By saying so, Dr. Alfred wants


commit to user

58

Vivien to realize that the incident is out of his power as his employee and he

hopes Vivien stops packing his things. Vivien sends his anger by saying “I'm not

talking about them. I'm not talking about Hopkins. I'm talking about you”

Through the utterance, Vivien delivers his anger by claiming that his reason of his

decision is not the people in Belvedere Hotel or in John Hopkins, but it because of

Dr. Alfred. He does not mind when other people does not appreciate his work, but

it is a matter when Dr. Alfred does. In fact, Dr. Alfred’s speech in Belvedere

Hotel shows that Dr. Alfred does not appreciate Vivien. From the repeating of the

sentence “I’m not talking” it is known that Vivien wants to emphasize that he is

angry. Dr. Alfred responds Vivien by delivering some questions to Vivien.

Through his questions, dr Alfred tries to show that he has done many things for

Vivien. Hence, Vivien does not change his mind to resign from his job in John

Hopkins. He even answers Dr. Alfred question by declaring “I don't know” and

commanding “You tell me, Doctor”. By saying so, Vivien is so sure of signing

off from his work because he is dissatisfied of Dr. Alfred. To conclude, Vivien

uses representative by claiming, declarations by declaring and Directives by

commanding to extend his anger to Dr. Alfred.


There are two reasons which influence Vivien to express his anger to Dr.

Alfred. They are the social distance and close relationship. Vivien realizes that he

is sub ordinate because he is only the lab assistant while Dr. Alfred is

superordinate since he is a Chairman of Surgical Department. Beside, both


commit to user

59

participants have the close relationship since they have been working together for

many years.

Datum 13 CD 2/22.41”

Dr. Alfred : What the hell is this?

Vivien : I need to do something different.

Dr. Alfred : What about our work?

Vivien : You got all of those other people you were thanking.


Vivien : Belvedere Hotel.

Dr. Alfred : The Belvedere is segregated.

You were there?

Vivien : Snuck in, just like a bellhop.

Dr. Alfred : Is this about hobnobbing with the powers that be?

They will never let you into their club. It is naive to think

otherwise.

Will you stand still?

Vivien : I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about Hopkins. I'm

talking about you.

Dr. Alfred : Me? What have I ever done except fight in your corner? I

have taken you every step of the way with me, and now you

want to throw all that away? For what? Is that any way to

show your gratitude?

Vivien : I don't know. You tell me, Doctor.


The conversation happens in the laboratory of John Hopkins Hospital

where both of the participants work. The participants of the conversation are Dr.

Alfred and Vivien. Dr. Alfred is a white senior Chairman of the Department of

Surgery. Vivien is a Negro who works as lab-technician for Dr. Alfred. They have

been working as a good partner for many years. Even though Vivien is a Negro,

Dr Alfred treats him as his friend and trusts him to carry out those experiments on

his own.


commit to user

60

In the scene before, Dr. Alfred is attending the celebration of his success

on first heart surgery in Belvedere Hotel. In that time, segregation happened in

America. Belvedere Hotel is one of the segregated place for negro. However,

Vivien snuck in to the hotel as a bellhop to know how far Dr. Alfred appreciates

his contribution. Vivien is dissatisfied with Dr. Alfred because he does not

mention his name as the person who contributes on the first heart surgery in his

speech. In fact, Vivien is the important person in the research and in the surgery

itself. The scene shows that Dr. Alfred gives thank only to white doctor in his

speech. A day later, Vivien decides to sign out from John Hopkins.

Dr. Alfred walks in to the laboratory bringing the letter from Vivien, while

Vivien is packing his things. Vivien decides to sign out from his work in John

Hopkins Hospital without any discussion with Dr. Alfred. Dr. Alfred does not

understand why Vivien suddenly wants to sign out. Dr. Alfred tries to know what

happens.



Dr. Alfred extends the anger expression to Vivien. Dr. Alfred is

disappointed to Vivien because suddenly Vivien wants to sign out from his work

as Dr. Alfred lab-technician. Vivien has been working for Dr. Alfred almost for

15 years. Dr. Alfred feels that he always fights for Vivien goodness. Dr. Alfred

treats Vivien as his good partner not his worker without caring his race. Dr. Alfred

even breaks the hospital policy in registering Vivien from maintenance worker to


commit to user

61

lab-technician without college degree. Dr. Alfred also fights for Vivien in

increasing his salary.

Hence, Dr. Alfred is angry when Vivien decides to sign out from his work.

He extends his anger to Vivien by raising some questions, “Me? What have I

ever done except fight in your corner? I have taken you every step of the way

with me, and now you want to throw all that away? For what? Is that any

way to show your gratitude?” Thus, by raising some questions, Dr. Alfred

intends to show his anger on Vivien decision, which is totally lack of social

etiquette, since he wants to leave Dr. Alfred after all his goodness for him. Dr.

Alfred sends his anger directly by raising a question if Vivien signs out from his

work for showing his gratitude to Dr. Alfred. Dr. Alfred expresses his anger in

low and serious tone, since he really wants Vivien to realizes his fault. From the

analysis, it is found out that Dr. Alfred uses Directives speech act by questioning

to express his anger.


There are two reasons that influence Dr. Alfred to express his anger. The

first factor is the legitimate power owned by Dr. Alfred since he is a Chairman of

the Department of Surgery, while Vivien is his lab assistant. Hence, Dr. Alfred

has more legitimate power than Vivien. The second factor is the close relationship

between him and Vivien. Both Dr. Alfred and Vivien have known each other very

well since they work in the same place for about 15 years. In this case, Dr. Alfred

has no burden to express his anger baldly when he feels that Vivien decides the

wrong thing by signing out from his work without permission from him.


commit to user

62

C. Discussion

This chapter provides the whole result of the analysis. The researcher

divides this chapter into two parts with two branches in each part. The first part of

this chapter is about the finding of speech act used by the characters in the movie

Something the Lord Made in delivering the anger. The second part covers the

reasons why the characters express the anger.

1. Type of speech act exploited in the scene

There are 13 data have been analyzed. Table 4.1 shows the number of data

which use certain type of speech act to extend the anger:

Table 4.1. The type of speech act and the number of data

No. Type of speech act Number of data Data no.

1. Representatives 9 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12

2. Directives 11 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13

3. Commisives 2 6, 10

4. Expressive 1 3

5. Declarations 4 2, 4, 10, 12

Table 4.1 shows that there are five type of speech acts which are used by

the speakers to express their anger to hearers. Most of the speakers use directives

to express their anger. There are 11 data of 13 data using directives.

Representatives places in the second rank with 9 data. The fourth rank is placed

by commisives with 2 data, followed by expressive in the last rank with 1 datum.


commit to user

63

Below is the detail type of speech act and the form of speech act used by

the speaker to send anger to hearer.

Table 4.2. The type of speech act and form of act

Data

no.

Participants Type of speech

act

Form of act

Speaker Hearer

1. William Harold Directives Questioning, commanding

Representatives Explaining

2. William Vivien and Harold Declarations Declaring

3. Dr. Alfred Vivien Directives Questioning

Expressive Swearing


4. Vivien Dr. Alfred Declarations Declaring

5. Clara Vivien Directives Requesting, questioning,


6. Dr. Edgar Vivien Directives Questioning, commanding,


Commisives Threatening

7. Mr. Green Vivien Directives Commanding


8. Man A Vivien Directives Questioning, commanding

Representatives Claiming

9. Vivien Dr. Alfred Representatives Explaining

Directives Questioning


commit to user

64

10. Dr. Alfred Dr. Walter Directives Questioning

Representatives Claiming

Commisives Promising

Declarations Declaring

11. Dr. Alfred Nurse Directives Commanding

12. Vivien Dr. Alfred Representatives Claiming

Declarations Declaring

Directives Commanding

13. Dr. Alfred Vivien Directives Questioning

Table 4.2 shows that most of the speakers use directives to express their

anger. There are 11 of 13 data using directives. The speaker’s purpose in

performing directives is to get the hearer to commit him / her to the future course

of action. The speakers employ directives to get the hearer to do something or not

to do something. In this case, the speakers use questions, commands, prohibits,

requests. From 11 data using directives, eight of them contain questions; five of

data contain commands and one data contains request.

There are nine of 13 data using representatives. Representative states what

the speaker believes to be the case or not. The speaker’s purpose in performing

representatives is to commit him / her to the belief that the statement content of

the utterances is true. The speakers employ representatives by giving explanations

and claims due to their anger. From nine data of directives, six of them use


commit to user

65

explanations to express anger. Beside, three data of representatives employ claims

in delivering anger.

The speakers use declarations in four data. This type of speech act is

performed by declaring something to change the world via their utterance. The

speakers use four declarations in performing this type of speech act. This type of

speech act is employed in data 2, 4, 10 and 11.

There are two data use commisives to perform the anger. In this case, the

speaker creates an obligation by committing a certain future action by promising

in datum 10 and threatening in datum 6.

The last type of speech act performed by the speaker is expressive. There

is one of thirteen data using this type of speech act in performing the anger. In this

case, the speakers express a psychological state by swearing to express anger to

hearer. This type is occurred in datum 3.

From the discussion, it states that most American tends to choose

directives to express their anger. In the movie Something the Lord Made the Lord

Made shows that most of the characters express their anger to the hearer by giving

question. In some data, the speakers use this strategy by pretending to ask

something to the hearer, where it is actually an expression of anger to the hearer.

2. The reason why the characters express the anger

The speakers send their anger based on several reasons. The table

below shows the reasons in detail.


commit to user

66

Table 4.3. The reason why the characters express the anger

Data

no.

Participants The reason why the characters

express the anger Speaker Hearer

1. William Harold 1. Close relationship

2. Legitimate power

2. William Vivien and Harold 1. Close relationship

2. Legitimate power

3. Dr. Alfred Vivien 1. Legitimate power

2. Expertise power

4. Vivien Dr. Alfred Social distance relationship

5. Clara Vivien Close relationship

6. Dr. Edgar Vivien Legitimate power

7. Mr. Green Vivien Legitimate power

8. Man A Vivien Legitimate power

9. Vivien Dr. Alfred 1. Close relationship

2. Social distance relationship

10. Dr. Alfred Dr. Walter Close relationship

11. Dr. Alfred Nurse Legitimate power

12. Vivien Dr. Alfred 1. Close relationship


13. Dr. Alfred Vivien 1. 1. Close relationship

2. 2. Legitimate power


commit to user

67

The movie Something the Lord Made the Lord Made tells about the

long-term work relationship of a surgeon named Dr. Alfred Blalock who later

becomes Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Vivien Thomas as his

trusted lab-technician. The main characters of the movie are Dr. Alfred Blalock

and Vivien Thomas. In this movie, Dr. Alfred has higher status than Vivien. Dr.

Alfred as the super ordinate tends to extend his anger to Vivien who has

subordinate status. Below are the detail factors influencing the speaker to send the

anger to hearer.

1. Legitimate power

The legitimate power is the power owned by the speakers since they have

higher status than the hearers do. Most of the speakers express anger due to

their legitimate power. There are eight data which use legitimate power as the

factor influencing the speakers to send their anger. By having legitimate

power, the participants feel free to send their anger to other participants. For

example in Datum 4 CD 1/17:15”, Dr. Alfred is a surgeon while Vivien is

only his new lab technician. When Dr. Alfred realizes his employee is doing a

mistake, he extends to extend his anger baldly. He extends the anger in high

tone and harsh intonation. His anger is influenced by his legitimate power as

the head of the laboratory. In Datum 6 CD 1 / 29.09”, Dr. Edgar feels free to

send his anger to Vivien. Even though they never know each other before, Dr.

Alfred feels free in sending his anger to Vivien. This is because Dr. Alfred has

higher status as senior doctor in John Hopkins. Meanwhile Vivien is only a

negro who become new employee in John Hopkins Hospital. Speakers with


commit to user

68

higher status send their anger in high tone using rude words. By doing so, the

speakers want to show their power to hearer.

2. Close relationship

Based on data analysis, there are six data for close relationship as the reason of

anger. In the film, angry is also employed in situations where the characters

know each other fairly well, such as in family domain. In Datum 3 CD

1/13.01”, Mr. William deliver his anger to his sons, Harold and Vivien using

declaration since they have close relationship. They have close relationship

since they are family who stay in the same house. In some another data, close

relationship as a colleague also become the reason of the anger. Being close

makes people interact quite frequently. By interacting frequently,

disagreement arouses easily between participants which lead into anger.

3. Expertise power

The speakers own the expertise power by having special knowledge or

expertise in one field more than the hearers do. In Datum 4 CD 1/17:15”,

Vivien is a new lab technician who does not have the medical expert

background, as he is an ex carpenter. Dr. Alfred is skilled surgeon who has

worked in medical world for long time. When Dr. Alfred realizes that his

employee is doing a mistake in the experiment, he extends his anger by saying

rude words in high tone and harsh intonation. Even though they have not

known each other fairly well, Dr. Alfred feels free to send his anger to Vivien

since he has expert power.


commit to user

69


The analysis shows three data for social distance relationship as the reason of

anger. The speakers who have social distance relationship tend to express

their anger using low intonation to show politeness. In Datum 4 CD 1/18:30”

and Datum 9 CD I/49:09” , Vivien sends his anger to Dr. Alfred in low

intonation since he realizes that he is subordinate while Dr. Alfred is super

ordinate. Beside, they have not known each other well since Vivien is the new

worker there. In this case, the speakers are considered as participants who

have a social distance relationship since they never know each other before.

To sum up, American people still consider the social factors when

sending their anger to the hearers. The reasons that influence people to express

the anger are legitimate power, expertise power, close relationship between the

participants and social distance relationship.


commit to user

70

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

This chapter provides the conclusion from the result of the data

analysis and discussion in chapter IV. It covers the data analysis about the type of

speech act exploited by the character to express the anger and the factors which

influence the anger in the movie Something the Lord made. Referring to 13 data of

the data analysis and the problem statements, the conclusions are drawn as below:

1. There are four type of speech act employed by the characters in the movie

Something the Lord made to extend anger expression.

a. Directives

Based on the analysis, there are 11 dialogues which show that characters in

the movie Something the Lord made employ Directivess to extend anger

expression. The type is mostly used by the speakers who have higher

status than the hearer does. Using this type, the speakers convey questions,

commands, prohibit, and requests.

b. Representatives

There are four data showing the occurrence of representatives. The

speakers who have social distance relationship employ this strategy in

extending their anger. The speakers employ explanation and claim in this

type.

70


commit to user

71

c. Declarations

The analysis show 4 data use this type of speech act. The speaker conveys

declaration to express their anger using this type. This type is mostly

employs by the speaker who has close relationship to the hearer.

d. Commisives

There are 2 data contains Commisives. The speakers use threats and

promises in delivering the anger.

e. Expressive

The type is used by 2 data. Each of participants use swearing and satirizing

during the anger.

2. There are several reasons which influence the speaker to extend the anger.

They are legitimate power, close relationship, social distance relationship and

the expertise power.

From the explanation, it can be concluded that American people tend to

use many kinds of speech act to extend anger expression to others. The anger is

influenced by the social status and the expertise power that the speakers have and

also the close relationship between the participants.


commit to user

72

B. Suggestion

Based on the research of this thesis, the researcher presents some

suggestions that may be useful for the readers and other researchers who are

interested in this kind of field of study.

1. Readers

Anger expression is sensitive and threatening since anger often arouses in

people daily life. Therefore, it is suggested that the readers should be careful in

sending the anger. The readers should always consider the context of situation

around them when they want to extend their anger.

2. Other researchers

This research studies speech act in extending the anger between the speakers

and hearers. For future researchers, who are interested in speech act study, they

can conduct research about other category of speech act such as offer, request,

threat, refusal etc. By doing the research, there will be additional understanding

about speech act. Meanwhile for those, who are also interested in studying

more about anger expression; they can analyze it from different point of view.

They can make a research from racial point of view, from other data sources

such as novel, drama, in order to reveal the real description of anger expression

in today’s communication.

speech act analysis of anger in the film …/speech... · speaking some utterances or an utterance...

Documents