ANALYSIS OF ADJACENCY PAIRS AND SPEECH ACTS OF PRAISE IN FACEBOOK

Transcription

1 ANALYSIS OF ADJACENCY PAIRS AND SPEECH ACTS OF PRAISE IN FACEBOOK Vidi Irawan Wijaya English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Binus University, Kemanggisan Ilir III No.45, Kemanggisan Palmerah, Jakarta Barat 11480, Jakarta, Indonesia ABSTRACT This research reveals about praises and responses happening in Facebook. Wallposts and responses are collected as words, phrases, or sentences to be analyzed using pragmatics approach on adjacency pairs and speech acts. There are three goals to accomplish through this research. First is to find structures and functions of the praises. Second is to reveal types and functions of the responses. Third is to figure out the relations between praises and responses. Qualitative research is applied in this research with observation and text analysis as the instruments of the research and supported with library research to find such references. This research results three conclusions. First, there are 11 types of praise statements in adjective, 6 types in verb, and 2 types in adverb. Second, there are 17 types of responses in confirmation, 5 types in denial, 3 types in hesitation, and 1 type in inquiry. Last, there are 27 correct pairs, 3 incorrect pairs, 20 preferred acts, 9 dispreferred acts, and 1 uncategorized act. According to the research, people tend to use adjectives most in praises, confirmations most in responses, and correct pairs and preferred acts in the pairs. Keywords: Praise, Pragmatics, Adjacency Pairs, Speech Acts, Facebook ABSTRAK Penelitian ini mengulas tentang pujian dan tanggapan yang terjadi di Facebook. Wallposts dan tanggapan dikumpulkan berupa kata-kata, frase, ataupun kalimat yang akan dianalisis dengan pendekatan pragmatik pada adjacency pairs dan speech acts. Ada tiga tujuan yang dicapai melalui penelitian ini. Pertama adalah untuk menemukan struktur dan fungsi dari pujian. Kedua adalah untuk mengungkapkan jenis dan fungsi tanggapan. Ketiga adalah untuk mengetahui hubungan antara pujian dan tanggapan. Penelitian kualitatif diterapkan dalam penelitian ini dengan observasi dan analisis teks sebagai instrumen penelitian dan didukung dengan penelitian kepustakaan untuk mencari referensi tersebut. Penelitian ini menghasilkan tiga kesimpulan. Pertama, ada 11 jenis pernyataan pujian dalam kata sifat, 6 jenis dalam kata kerja, dan 2 jenis dalam kata keterangan. Kedua, terdapat 17 jenis tanggapan dalam bentuk konfirmasi, 5 jenis dalam penyangkalan, 3 jenis dalam keragu-raguan, dan 1 jenis dalam keingintahuan. Terakhir, dalam adjacency pairs ada 27 pasang yang benar, 3 pasang yang salah, 20 preferred acts, 9 dispreferred acts, dan 1 yang tidak termasuk kategori keduanya. Menurut penelitian, orang cenderung menggunakan sebagian besar kata sifat dalam pujian, sebagian besar konfirmasi dalam tanggapan, dan pasangan adjacency pairs yang benar dan preferred acts. Kata kunci: Pujian, Pragmatik, Adjacency Pairs, Speech Acts, Facebook

2 INTRODUCTION Praise is an expression which everyone could express for many reasons, such as admiration for something great, gratitude for something nice, respect someone s idea, etc from the addresser to the addressee. The praise itself is delivered with different ways according to who the addresser is and whom the addressee is. According to Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11 th edition), praise (as a verb) means (a) express warm approval of or admiration for, (b) express respect and gratitude towards (a deity) and praise (as a noun) means (a) the expression of approval or admiration, (b) the expression of respect and gratitude as an act of worship. According to praise (as a noun) means an expression of approval, commendation, or worship. Praise always happens in the society through people s relationship depending on how intimate the relation is. It can happen either directly where the addresser and addressee are present in the exact place and time or indirectly where the addresser and addressee are not present in the same place and time. Furthermore, the development of social media as the alternative indirect communication media holds a prominent role in delivering the praise. Social media such as Facebook also provides the users with online updates which can be used to send an online text to the other users. It becomes easier for the users to express what they feel, think, hope, or want to say indirectly and distantly, including the praise itself. As indirect communication media, social media can not evade the negative impact which lies behind. Lowly emotional text in social media sometimes makes the addressee can not understand the whole meaning of the text. Yet, praise is also difficult to interpret if the text itself can not show the real emotion of the addresser. Therefore, the praise through social media must be analyzed using pragmatics approach to find the meanings of it in order to avoid the misunderstanding and misinterpretation through the functions of delivering the praise. Here, pragmatics approach is applied to analyze functions of some praises found in Facebook wallposts from the addressers. As said that praise is delivered to the addressee, it is unavoidable that responses appear to reply. Many kinds of responses may occur based on how the addressee understands and interprets the meaning of the delivered praise. The stated praise which is posted by the addresser to the addressee is called a statement, whereas the reply which is posted by the addressee to the addresser is called a response. A statement which is responded with a response and a response which appears after a statement are called adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs is a pragmatics approach to analyze the two related utterances by the two different speakers, in this case the speakers are the addresser who delivers a statement and the addressee who responds the statement. So, the writer uses adjacency pairs as a theory in the analysis of this research. The theory of speech acts is also applied in this research to deepen the analysis on the functions of praise and response. In Facebook, the statements of praise can be seen in the addressee s timeline in the form of post / wallpost / comment box and the responses can be seen in the comment box under the post / wallpost / comment box which states a praise. The writer decides to do a research about this topic because of three reasons. First, the writer is very fond of linguistics studies which lead the writer to do the research using pragmatics approach. Second, the writer is curious about the word praise which has become a social phenomenon happening in the society. For some reasons, praise can be expressed in many ways with such different structures and functions. This makes the writer feels excited to do a research about praise. Third, the writer, as a socialmedia user, thinks that social media such as Facebook is a very interesting place where many users communicate each other as the alternative place to socialize. Facebook also provides many options which the users can use them to chat, have a private talk, comment each others, share photos and videos, greet old friends, play games together, and many more. So, the writer thinks that Facebook is an interesting medium to provide useful data to conduct this research. Through this research, the readers will get some advantages in knowledge such knowing what the structures of praise look like, what the functions of praise are there, and what are the relation between praises and responses. Moreover, the writer hopes that the readers can interpret the meaning of the praise based on the functions of the praise and know how to respond the praise in appropriate way of communication. First research is from Zilvia (2012), a Binus University graduated student who researches about Language Characteristics of Males and Females in Expressing Emotions through Facebook Status. The

3 problem formulation reveals about what the direct and indirect words and phrases, as well as sentences are used by males and females to express different kinds of emotions on their Facebook statuses; what the most dominant word class is used by males and females to express emotions on their Facebook statuses; and what the most dominant emotion is expressed by males and females through their Facebook statuses. She uses library research and qualitative research as her research methods to analyze the data and concludes that there are various direct and indirect words and phrases, as well as sentences which are used by males and females in expressing emotions through Facebook statuses. Zilvia s research helps the writer s research in the way Zilvia conducting the data collection and using text analysis to analyze the data. The writer also applies the text analysis to analyze the data in Facebook to answer the problem formulations. Second research is from Yanti (2008), an Atma Jaya University Jakarta graduate who researches about Adjacency Pairs: Strategies for Answering informal Invitation. The research wants to answer McCarthy s (2000) statement about adjacency pairs of invitation. She also wants to figure out what types of adjacency pairs created by lecturers and students and what strategies used by them in making the response (a second-pair part) of an invitation. Qualitative research is done to draw some theories about discourse analysis and adjacency pairs used in the research. Yet, Yanti s research gives the writer enrichment in adjacency pairs theory and how to analyze using adjacency pairs theory. The writer can also compare the research object which Yanti uses invitation and the writer uses praise as the research object. There are many differences also in the way Yanti and the writer collect the data, apply the theories, and draw the results. Last is from Webster, Duvall, Gaines, and Smith (2003), in the Journal of Social Psychology entitled The Roles of Praise and Social Comparison Information in Experience of Pride. The research examines the roles of social comparisons, publicity of success, and praise on the experience of pride. It is an experiment to measure how a performance can be affected through the praise given. This research gives inputs on writer s knowledge about praise and the praise function which is an application of speech acts. Because praise is seldom analyzed using adjacency pairs and speech acts, the research suggests the writer to know more about praise, the background of influencial praise, and the function as well. There are three goals to accomplish through this research. First is to find the praises from the addressers wallposts in Facebook and then categorize them into structure and function of praise expressed to the addressees. Second is to reveal types and functions of the responses from the addressees comments to understand deeper about the meaning of responses which the addressees want to deliver. Last is to figure out the relation between praises and responses as pairs based on the pragmatics analysis on adjacency pairs. RESEARCH METHOD As the data of research, the writer uses 30 Facebook wallposts / posts and responses from random respondents (can be males or females who have different range of age, religion, race, hometown, hobby, education, and job). The wallposts / posts are searched and identified according to the contents which uses praises or not. Then, the writer only chooses 30 wallposts which contain praises to be analyzed in this research. The wallposts chosen are written mostly in English or Indonesian language which meaning can be interpreted by the writer. The writer also prioritizes the wallposts which are followed by some responses, especially from the addressees. A qualitative research is applied to collect data from online social media such as Facebook. The writer observes the data through the wallposts and the responses posted by the respondents (the addressers and addressees). Because of the simple tracking features, Facebook allows the writer to find the data easily though they were posted months ago. A library research is also implemented to gather the related information, theories, definitions, and also previous studies to support this research. The media which are used consist of books, journals, articles, thesis, and also some online resources such as e-books, e-journals, e-thesis, online researches, and websites. The writer collects the data such as wallposts and responses which are randomly picked from July 2012 until October The collected data are grouped based on the structure and function, and then the writer chooses 30 different praise statements (wallposts) with the pairs of the responses to analyze. The writer also uses Snipping Tool, a screen capture application to capture the wallposts in Facebook to be saved as the data of this research. Then, the captured pictures of wallposts are attached in the appendix.

4 After collecting the complete data, the writer uses text analysis method to analyze the structures and functions of the praise statements, to analyze the responses in terms of types and functions based on pragmatics approach on speech acts, and to analyze the relations of praises and responses using adjacency pairs and preference structures. Here, the writer intends to find some new classifications for the structures and functions of the praise. Some dictionaries are also used by the writer in analyzing the praises, especially for explanations and translations of some terms. Online dictionaries which are used by the writer are and The writer also uses offline dictionaries (computer softwares) such as KBBI Offline, Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th edition), and Kamus 2.04 (ebsoft). The writer divides the analysis into three segments where the first is the analysis of the statement of praise (from addresser to addressee), the second is the analysis of the response of praise (from addressee to addresser), and the last is the analysis of the relation between praises and responses. RESULT Structure and Function of Praise Analysis A praise consists of a topic and a comment or more. The topic of a praise can also be called as the subject of praise which usually leads into what, who, and whose. The comment of praise itself can be categorized as the predicate of praise which explains and gives information about the subject. In structure and function of praise, the writer analyzes the comments of praise and categorizes them into some word classes as the main point and some speech acts as the sub point based on the addressers praises. The writer also makes the selected word classes bold and underlines the speech acts in the comment of praise to make it easier to see and analyze. Table A. Structure and Function of Praise Analysis Category / Structure Adjective (21 samples, 11 types) 70% Function Sample Modified Text (6 samples) (Wan, I saw you wearing shirt and jeans trousers just now in campus. You are very cool! It is seldom to see you wearing suits like that. Hahaha.) (Fei, your photo with the boy initialing E is nice. Very cute(?) >.<) (Whee, Davin Wijaya s photo is very cute. Wahaha.) (Mey, the dress which you were wearing at the previous party is nice. It suits your appearance. Very beautiful!) (Markus, your poster design is very good. ^^) (Hey babe, you are very pretty today!) + Effect (3 samples) (Hey Har, your new hair is cool, so you look cuter) as Exclamation (Telllaaa, your PP is indeed very beautiful! I am very eager to see that. :3 :3) (Hello my beautiful neighbor! Actually, you look more beautiful in person. That s why I cannot immediately recognize you in this photo. Hehehe.) (1 sample) (I don t feel that I ve eaten 3 portions, but I don t feel full enough. Your cooking is incredible!) Ref

5 Adjective (21 samples, 11 types) 70% Verb (7 samples, 6 types) 23.33% Adverb (2 samples, 2 types) 6.67% as Appreciation as Exclamation (1 sample) (When I see my friends with the extraordinary achievements, I am really proud to know them) + Appreciation (1 sample) (Aw Peter! You won the 3rd place on National Mandarin Competition? Uber awesome! I m ultimately proud for having a friend like you. Haha. Congratulations! : ) ) + Thanks (1 sample) (Mey, you are really kind.. >_< thank you for making the PowerPoint and resume of jokyuu presentation) + Thanks + Appreciation (1 sample) (Bin, thank you. Your gift is perfectly awesome. I like it!) + Jokes (2 samples) (Fei, I swear that you were very beautiful and girly yesterday if your suits and make-up were like that. You just looked like a girl. Hahahahaa.) (Nikita, why are you very cute? No Nik, I did not eat something wrong. Ahaha.) + Suggestion (3 samples) (Whoa Pin, you re so handsome when you wear white clothes! Keep it everyday! :D) Quite impressed with your art work as always. Keep it up! (Hey, I saw you reporting! It was impressive! Hahahaha. Just put your hands down while speaking, girl. It looks so debating. Hehehehe. Good luck!) + Request (1 sample) (Sis, you are a nice BC, aren t you? Teach me that pre-lecture please. I do not understand it at all. Haha.) as Analogy (1 sample) (The most beautiful tower in the world is Eiffel tower, the most beautiful flower is cherry blossom and the most beautiful woman is you) (2 samples) (Erina, you look good in the photo of your dog contest!) (Vinn, I just saw your photos at your older sister s marriage. I swear that you look very beautiful there, babe! Wkwk :p) + Effect (1 sample) (Bro, long time no see you look more like Beckham. ^^ you look more handsome.) as Jokes (1 sample) (Vivi, what a pity you were not chosen as the most beautiful nominee yesterday! Even though your beauty has no cure. :) ) + Jokes (1 sample) (Whoa Fili, your math grade has just shaken the whole class. What did you eat? Get one hundred again and again.) + Request (1 sample) (Hey Sep, your fried rice really wakens my appetite. (Make it) again tomorrow please.) + (1 sample) (Sya, your short-story makes me Exclamation emotionally touched. Impressive!) + Motivation + (1 sample) (Whee Gre, You just played futsal Exclamation impressively. If you were there, you should win the game. Haha.. Big body does not block your way to play brightly, man! :D. Awesome!) + Exclamation (1 sample) as Exclamation + Appreciation (Ming, crazy! How impressively you played using Panda yesterday! Two thumbs up! Hahaa.. :D Nobody can beat you! ckck..)

6 From the analysis above, the writer concludes that there are three structures used as comments of praise. They are adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. In the category of adjectives, there are 11 types of praises from 21 samples of praises (70%)found through the analysis of 30 statements of praise: 1. Adjective(s) only: 6 samples of praises 2. Adjective + Effect: 3 samples of praises 3. Adjective as Exclamation: 1 sample of praises 4. Adjective as Appreciation: 1 sample of praises 5. Adjective as Exclamation + Appreciation: 1 sample of praises 6. Adjective + Thanks: 1 sample of praises 7. Thanks + Adjective + Appreciation: 1 sample of praises 8. Adjective + Jokes: 2 samples of praises 9. Adjective + Suggestion: 3 samples of praises 10. Adjective + Request: 1 sample of praises 11. Adjective as Analogy: 1 sample of praises In the category of verbs, there are 6 types of praises from 7 samples of praises (23.33%) found through the analysis of 30 statements of praise: 1. Verb only: 2 samples of praises 2. Verb + Effect: 1 sample of praises 3. Verb as Jokes: 1 sample of praises 4. Verb + Jokes: 1 sample of praises 5. Verb + Request: 1 sample of praises 6. Verb + Exclamation: 1 sample of praises In the category of adverbs, there are 2 types of praises from 2 samples (6.67%) of praises found through the analysis of 30 statements of praise: 1. Adverb + Motivation + Exclamation : 1 sample of praises 2. Exclamation + Adverb as Exclamation + Appreciation: 1 sample of praises Type and Function of Response Analysis A response of praise is a reply delivered by the addressee as the feedback of the statement of praise given by the addresser. In response analysis, the writer analyzes the response of praise and categorizes them into response types as the main point and some speech acts as the sub point based on the addressees responses. The writer also makes the selected response types bold and underlines the speech acts in the comment of praise to make it easier to see and analyze. Table B. Type and Function of Response Analysis Category / Response Direct Confirmation (4 types, 4 samples) 13.33% Indirect Confirmation (13 types, 16 samples) 53.33% Function Sample Modified Text + Jokes (1 sample) (Yes, I am, Fen. What? So far, I am not like a girl? Haahaahaa.) 6 + Jokes + Request (1 sample) (Yeah. It is all because of the role demand, Drew >.< Wakakakak. Please sing Kamu cantik cantik song :P *laughing*) 8 + Thanks + Like (1 sample) (Thanks a lot. Sure! :) ) 16 + Promise (1 sample) (Yes, of course! I will frequently write only for you. muaahhh) 21 + Inquiry (1 sample) (-_- I had my hair cut nearly three weeks ago. Haven t we met yet? Wkwkwk.) 1 with Like only (2 samples) (the addressee just liked the comment) 2 (the addressee just liked the comment) 22 + Reluctance (1 sample) (Whoa! I feel embarrassed. XD) 5 Ref

7 Indirect Confirmation (13 types, 16 samples) 53.33% Direct Denial (4 types, 5 samples) 16.67% Indirect Denial (1 type, 1 sample) 3.33% Hesitation (3 types, 3 samples) 10% Inquiry (1 type, 1 sample) 3.33% + Jokes (1 sample) (This is the first time that I am called cute. XD. You did not eat or drink something wrong, did you?) + Thanks + Like (1 sample) (Thank you, Elisa! :D) + Self-Depreciation (1 sample) (Hurray! Wkwkwk. I just can play right now, bro Ivan. Hehehe. :P But it is very joyful. Next Monday I can not go, bro. -_- T.T) + Thanks + Promise (1 sample) (Thank you so much for your suggestion, Sansan. I will keep it! I know I look so handsome.) + Prohibition + Thanks (1 sample) (Shh! But thanks :D) + Re-Praise (2 (And you are the most handsome man I samples) have. :D) + Thanks (1 sample) (Thank you. :D) + Thanks + Re- Praise + Reluctance + Jokes + Suggestio n + Thanks + Re-Praise (1 sample) (Wkwk. You are more professional, bro. Hwhwhhw.) + Like (Thanks bro. You are awesome as well. :) ) (2 samples) (Aw! Thank you very much, Prasetyawati Diah Pitaloka! I am also really glad to have you as my bestfriend. :D ) (Wkwkkwk. Oh my! I feel embarrassed. Wkakaka. Thanks, dear pretty, gentle and cute Cecil. Wkwkwkwk. :* :D) 27 (1 sample) (I eat bean sprouts everyday. :P so, eat bean sprouts in order to get a hundred!) (1 sample) (No, I didn t. You just saw the wrong one. :D) + Inquiry (1 sample) (-.- wkwk. Untrue. What do you want me to teach, Riz? I think in the group your friends have discussed it, haven t they?) + Self-Depreciation (2 samples) (No, it is ordinary. It is also for mutual benefit. Hehehe :) ) (No, I don t. I am this ugly, but you called me handsome.) + Re-Praise (1 sample) (No, it does not. I think the green fried rice you make is more delicious. :P. Yum yum yum.) + Thanks + Correction (1 sample) (Thanks Har. I m not cute but I m beautiful. I am fashionable at that moment. It is not even once in a year. Hahaha.) (1 sample) (Hmm.. Is that so?) 14 + Thanks (1 sample) (Really, sis? Thanks for the praise, sis. Heheh. :) ) 25 + Jokes (1 sample) (? Hey, are you crazy? Did you meet me in your dream world? Wkakak) 26 (1 sample) (Which dress?) 7

8 From the analysis above, the writer elucidates that there are four kinds of responses such as confirmation (direct and indirect), denial (direct and indirect), hesitation, and inquiry. In the category of confirmation, there are direct and indirect confirmation which consist of 17 types in total from 20 samples of responses (66.67%) in the total of 30 responses: 1. Direct Confirmation: 4 types from 4 samples of responses 1.1. Direct Confirmation + Jokes: 1 sample of responses 1.2. Direct Confirmation + Jokes + Request: 1 sample of responses 1.3. Direct Confirmation + Thanks + Like: 1 sample of responses 1.4. Direct Confirmation + Promise: 1 sample of responses 2. Indirect Confirmation: 13 types from 16 samples of responses 2.1. Indirect Confirmation + Inquiry: 1 sample of responses 2.2. Indirect Confirmation with Like only: 2 samples of responses 2.3. Indirect Confirmation + Reluctance: 1 sample of responses 2.4. Indirect Confirmation + Jokes: 1 sample of responses 2.5. Indirect Confirmation + Thanks + Like: 1 sample of responses 2.6. Indirect Confirmation + Self-Depreciation: 1 sample of responses 2.7. Indirect Confirmation + Thanks + Promise: 1 sample of responses 2.8. Indirect Confirmation + Prohibition + Thanks: 1 sample of responses 2.9. Indirect Confirmation + Re-praise: 2 samples of responses Indirect Confirmation + Thanks: 1 sample of responses Indirect Confirmation + Thanks + Re-praise + Like: 2 samples Indirect Confirmation + Reluctance + Thanks + Re-praise: 1 sample Indirect Confirmation + Jokes + Suggestion: 1 sample of responses In the category of denial, there are direct and indirect denial which consist of 5 types in total from 6 samples of responses (20%) in the total of 30 responses: 1. Direct Denial: 4 types from 5 samples of responses 1.1. Direct Denial only: 1 sample of responses 1.2. Direct Denial + Inquiry: 1 sample of responses 1.3. Direct Denial + Self-Depreciation: 2 samples of responses 1.4. Direct Denial + Re-praise: 1 sample of responses 2. Indirect Denial: 1 type from 1 sample of responses 2.1. Indirect Denial + Thanks + Correction: 1 sample of responses In the category of hesitation, there are 3 types in total from 3 samples of responses (10%) in the total of 30 responses: 1. Hesitation only: 1 sample of responses 2. Hesitation + Thanks: 1 sample of responses 3. Hesitation + Jokes : 1 sample of responses In the category of inquiry, there is only one type from 1 sample of responses (3.33%) in the total of 30 responses. Relation of Praises and Responses Analysis In this analysis, the writer wants to make pairs of praises and responses to show the relations between them. An approach on adjacency pairs is also applied to see whether the pairs are correct or not according to adjacency pairs. Then, according to the responses which follow the praises, the writer decides which ones are correct pairs and which ones are not pairs. The writer also determines whether the response is preferred or dispreferred act. Below, the writer categorizes the responses according to preferred and dispreferred act.

9 Table C. Relation of Praises and Responses Analysis Preference Structure Adjacency Pairs Praise Preferred Act Preferred Act Correct Pairs Incorrect Pairs Modified Text (Hey Har, your new hair is cool, so you look cuter) (Whee, Davin Wijaya s photo is very cute. Wahaha.) (Fei, I swear that you were very beautiful and girly yesterday if your suits and make-up were like that. You just looked like a girl. Hahahahaa.) (Vivi, what a pity you were not chosen as the most beautiful nominee yesterday! Even though your beauty has no cure. :) ) (Erinaa, you look good in the photo of your dog contest!) (Whee Gre, You just played futsal impressively. If you were there, you should win the game. Haha.. Big body does not block your way to play brightly, man! :D. Awesome!) (Whoa Pin, you re so handsome when you wear white clothes! Keep it everyday! :D) (Telllaaa, your PP is indeed very beautiful! I am very eager to see that. :3 :3) (The most beautiful tower in the world is Eiffel tower, the most beautiful flower is cherry blossom and the most beautiful woman is you) (Quite impressed with your art work as always. Keep it up!) (Nikita, why are you very cute? No Nik, I did not eat something wrong. Ahaha.) (When I see my friends with the extraordinary achievements, I am really proud to know them) (Aw Peter! You won the 3rd place on National Mandarin Competition? Uber awesome! I m ultimately proud for having a friend like you. Haha. Congratulations! : ) ) (Sya, your short-story makes me emotionally touched. Impressive!) (Hey, I saw you reporting! It was impressive! Hahahaha. Just put your hands down while speaking, girl. It looks so debating. Hehehehe. Good luck!) (Ming, crazy! How impressively you played using Panda yesterday! Two thumbs up! Hahaa.. :D Nobody can beat you! ckck..) (Vinn, I just saw your photos at your older sister s marriage. I swear that you look very beautiful there, babe! Wkwk :p) (Whoa Fili, your math grade has just shaken the whole class. What did you eat? Get one hundred again and again.) (Bin, thank you. Your gift is perfectly awesome. I like it!) (Hello my beautiful neighbor! Actually, you look more beautiful in person. That s why I cannot immediately recognize you in this photo. Hehehe.) Response (-_- I had my hair cut nearly three weeks ago. Haven t we met yet? Wkwkwk.) (Whoa! I feel embarrassed. XD) (Yes, I am, Fen. What? So far, I am not like a girl? Haahaahaa.) (Yeah. It is all because of the role demand, Drew >.< Wakakakak. Please sing Kamu cantik cantik song :P *laughing*) (Thank you, Elisa! :D) (Hurray! Wkwkwk. I just can play right now, bro Ivan. Hehehe. :P But it is very joyful. Next Monday I can not go, bro. -_- T.T) (Thank you so much for your suggestion, Sansan. I will keep it! I know I look so handsome.) (Shh! But thanks :D) (And you are the most handsome man I have. :D) (Thanks a lot. Sure! :) ) (This is the first time that I am called cute. XD. You did not eat or drink something wrong, did you?) (Thanks bro. You are awesome as well. :) ) (Aw! Thank you very much, Prasetyawati Diah Pitaloka! I am also really glad to have you as my bestfriend. :D ) (Yes, of course! I will frequently write only for you. muaahhh) (Thank you. :D) (Wkwk. You are more professional, bro. Hwhwhhw.) (Wkwkkwk. Oh my! I feel embarrassed. Wkakaka. Thanks, dear pretty, gentle and cute Cecil. Wkwkwkwk. :* :D) (I eat bean sprouts everyday. :P so, eat bean sprouts in order to get a hundred!) (the addressee just liked the comment) (the addressee just liked the comment)

10 Dispreferred Act Dispreferred Act Correct Pairs Incorrect Pairs (Wan, I saw you wearing shirt and jeans trousers just now in campus. You are very cool! It is seldom to see you wearing suits like that. Hahaha.) (Fei, your photo with the boy initialing E is nice. Very cute(?) >.<) (I don t feel that I ve eaten 3 portions, but I don t feel full enough. Your cooking is incredible!) (Mey, you are really kind.. >_< thank you for making the PowerPoint and resume of jokyuu presentation) (Sis, you are a nice BC, aren t you? Teach me that pre-lecture please. I do not understand it at all. Haha.) (Markus, your poster design is very good. ^^) (Bro, long time no see you look more like Beckham. ^^ you look more handsome.) (Hey Sep, your fried rice really wakens my appetite. (Make it) again tomorrow please.) (Hey babe, you are very pretty today!) (No, I didn t. You just saw the wrong one. :D) (Thanks Har. I m not cute but I m beautiful. I am fashionable at that moment. It is not even once in a year. Hahaha.) (Hmm.. Is that so?) (No, it is ordinary. It is also for mutual benefit. Hehehe :) ) (-.- wkwk. Untrue. What do you want me to teach, Riz? I think in the group your friends have discussed it, haven t they?) (Really, sis? Thanks for the praise, sis. Heheh. :) ) (No, I don t. I am this ugly, but you called me handsome.) (No, it does not. I think the green fried rice you make is more delicious. :P. Yum yum yum.) (? Hey, are you crazy? Did you meet me in your dream world? Wkakak) Uncategoriz ed Act Correct Pairs (Mey, the dress which you were wearing at the previous party is nice. It suits your appearance. Very beautiful!) (Which dress?) From the analysis above about preference structure, the writer concludes that there are 20 responses showing preferred acts, 9 responses showing dispreferred acts, and 1 uncategorized response. The writer also finds there are 27 correct pairs which have a relation between the statements (praises) and the responses and 3 incorrect pairs. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion After finalizing the research entitled Analysis of Adjacency Pairs and Speech Acts of Praise in Facebook, the writer concludes that there are three main conclusions drawn through this research. First is the structures and functions of praises found in the addressers wallposts in Facebook. Second is the types and functions of responses from the addressees comments as the replies of the praises. Last is the relations between praises and responses as pairs based on the pragmatics analysis on adjacency pairs. The first conclusion elucidates that there are various kinds and combinations of structures and functions of praises. Based on the 30 statements of praises in total, there are three categories of structures such as adjective, verb, and adverb which are used as the comments of praises. In adjective category, there are 11 types from 21 samples of praises. In verb category, there are 6 types from 7 samples of praises. In adverb category, there are only 2 types from 2 samples of praises. This result shows that people mostly use adjectives as the comments of praises (70%), fairly verbs (23.33%), and rarely adverbs (6.67%) with variations of exclamations, appreciations, thanks, suggestions, jokes, requests, effects, motivations, and analogies as speech acts applied in the functions of the praises. The second conclusion states that there are several types and functions of responses delivered to reply the statements of praises. In total of 30 responses, there are four categories of responses such as

11 confirmation (direct and indirect), denial (direct and indirect), hesitation, and inquiry. In confirmation category, there are two sub-categories: direct confirmation consisting of 4 types from 4 samples of responses and indirect confirmation consisting of 13 types from 16 samples of responses. In denial category, there are two sub-categories: direct denial consisting of 4 types from 5 samples of responses and indirect denial consisting of 1 type from 1 sample of responses. In hesitation category, there are 3 types from 3 samples of responses. In inquiry, there is only 1 type from 1 sample. The result shows that the responses use mostly indirect confirmation (53.33%), direct confirmation (13.33%), indirect denial (3.33%), direct denial (16.67%), hesitation (10%), and inquiry (3.33%) with variations of jokes, requests, thanks, likes, inquiries, reluctances, self-depreciation, promises, prohibitions, re-praises, suggestions, and corrections as speech acts applied in the functions of the responses. The last conclusion is the relations between praises and responses using the approach on adjacency pairs and preference structure. From 30 pairs of statements (praises) and responses, there are 27 correct pairs (related) or about 90% and 3 incorrect (unrelated) pairs or about 10%. There are also found 20 preferred acts (66.67%), 9 dispreferred acts (30%), and 1 uncategorized act (not both preferred and dispreferred) (3.33%). This means that there are some unrelated responses in replying the statements through Facebook. But as a whole, people have been using appropriate ways to respond the statements relationally by applying the correct (related) pairs of adjacency pairs. As a whole, the research finds out that in the use of praise, many people tend to use adjectives as the structure of praise rather than verbs and adverbs. The addressees mostly respond the praises using indirect confirmation type, followed by direct denial type in the second most, direct confirmation in the third, hesitation, indirect denial and inquiry. In relations between praises and responses, people mostly have used the correct adjacency pairs structure with the most preferred acts, some dispreferred acts, and an uncategorized act (not preferred not dispreferred). In the results of Zilvia s research (2012) about most dominant word class is used to express emotions on Facebook status, she concludes that the most dominant word class is adjectives. It is also the same in this research that the writer finds out that the most used structure in praises is also adjectives. The difference is that the focus of Zilvia s research is on the most dominant word class of emotions in Facebook status whereas the writer s research focuses on the structure of praises in Facebook. In the results of Yanti s research (2008) about types of adjacency pairs (responses) of informal invitation, she concludes that there are acceptance, rejection, partial agreement, and question in the types. The conclusion also shows a relation in writer s research about types of responses which consist of confirmation, denial, hesitation, and inquiry. The confirmation in this research has the same function with the acceptance in Yanti s research, denial with rejection, hesitation with partial agreement, and inquiry with question. The difference is that Yanti (2008) through the research wants to find out the adjacency pairs of informal invitation whereas in the writer s research the adjacency pairs are drawn from Facebook wallposts about praise. Suggestion First, the writer wants to suggest for those who want to do a research about praise. Praise is a very interesting topic to be analyzed because praise itself can have many functions and purposes. Supported with pragmatics studies, it is obviously interesting to do a research about praise deeper and deeper again, especially in its functions, meanings, implicatures, etc. Since everyone has his/her own ways in delivering and responding praise, praises also can have different ways to be delivered whether it is directly uttered or maybe indirectly uttered. A further particular research about speech acts using in praise is also very interesting because there will be many kinds of speech acts appearing more than in this present research. Second, the writer also wants to give a suggestion to the readers of this thesis. Since this present study reveals about how is praise expressed and responded, the writer really hopes that the readers can recognize, differentiate, and apply the appropriate ways to deliver or respond the praises or any other statements especially in social media such as Facebook to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

12 REFERENCES Christine. (2009). Conversation Analysis on News Interview with Barack Hussein Obama : A Pragmatic Approach. Jakarta: Universitas Bina Nusantara. Coulthard, Malcolm. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. USA: Longman Group UK Limited. Cutting, Joan. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge. Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Praise. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Social Media. Retrieved on January 6, 2013, from Finegan, Edward. (1999). Language Its Structure and Use. USA: Harcourt Brace. Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. (1983). An Introduction to Language. USA: CBS College Publishing. Holmes, Janet. (2008). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. England: Pearson Prentice Hall. Janis-Norton, Noël. (2012). Praise worth receiving. New Statesman, 141(5114), 16. Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. USA: Pearson Education Limited. Merriam Webster. (n.d.). Praise. Retrieved on December 16, 2012, from Peccei, J. S. (1999). Pragmatics. New York: Routledge. Russell, Kay. (2002). Emoticons and Internet shorthand. Computerworld, 36(3), 42. Todd, Loreto. (2000). An Introduction to Linguistics. Beirut: York Press. Webster, J. M., Duvall, J., Gaines, L. M., & Smith, R. H. (2003). The Roles of Praise and Social Comparison Information in the Experience of Pride. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(2), Yanti, Yusrita. (2008). Adjacency Pairs: Strategies for Answering informal Invitation. Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. Yule, George. (2008). Pragmatics. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Zilvia. (2012). Language Characteristics of Males and Females in Expressing Emotions through Facebook Status. Jakarta: Universitas Bina Nusantara. AUTOBIOGRAPHY Vidi Irawan Wijaya was born in Jambi on December 16, The writer was graduated for his first undergraduate program in Bina Nusantara University majoring English Department in 2013.