ABSTRACTudThis research aims to examine and describe the types of disagreement acts employed in The Fault in Our Star movie, identify the way certain types of disagreement acts are expressed, and reveal the reasons for using certain types of disagreement acts in the movie. udThis research employed a descriptive qualitative approach. The data of the research were in the form of utterances that were spoken by the characters in The Fault in Our Stars movie. The context of the research was the dialogs of the movie. Meanwhile, the main data source of this study was a movie script of The Fault in Our Stars. The primary instrument of this study was the writer herself who was involved in the whole process of data collection and data analysis. The researcher conducted note-taking to collect the data and employed content analysis to analyze the data. The data were triangulated by verifying to the expert lecturers and other students about the relevant theories and the findings to enhance trustworthiness. udThe results of this research are as follows. First, there are two types of disagreement acts found in the movie. They are mitigated disagreement acts and unmitigated disagreement acts. The mitigated ones become the main type of disagreement acts performed by the characters. Second, each type of disagreement acts is realized in some ways. Mitigated disagreement acts are realized by (1) the use of hedges, (2) the use of modal verbs, (3) question objection, (4) objective explanation, (5) personal emotion, (6) changing topic, (7) shifting responsibility, (8) in-group identity marker, and (9) token agreement. Meanwhile, unmitigated disagreement acts are realized in the form of (1) a short direct of opposite orientation, (2) sarcastic remark, and (3) a short rude question. Objective explanation becomes the most used realization because the characters want to minimize biased information. Third, there are eight reasons for performing certain disagreement act strategies in the movie. Those reasons are categorized by analyzing the setting and the situation of the conversations depending on their contexts. The reasons that can be found are because the character is (1) showing uncertainty about his/her own idea, (2) respecting the first speaker, (3) refusing the first speaker’s judgment, (4) showing off authorities, (5) prohibiting the first speaker to do an action, (6) making an excuse of the initial statement, (7) avoiding the topic of conversation, and (8) criticizing the first speaker’s statement. The most appeared reason is because the characters are refusing the first speaker’s judgment as a result of entirely different arguments between two speakers.
展开▼
