Vi ABSTRACT Nobella Indradjaja a Thesis a Critical Discourse Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ABSTRACT Nobella Indradjaja A Thesis A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Banters In Crime Drama Series NCIS: Los Angeles That Indicates Female Stereotyping This research analyzes the conversations in television crime drama series NCIS: Los Angeles. It will focus on the banters among the characters of NCIS: Los Angeles namely Marty Deeks, G Callen, Sam Hanna and Kensi Blye. Banters are witty, harmless, fun and pleasant wordplay. To find banters used in crime drama series are interesting. The conversations between the characters in crime drama series are usually serious, harsh and scientifically related to the criminal case. The aim of the research is to seek the type of banters between the characters and the stereotyping conveyed through the banters in a crime drama series. In conducting this qualitative research, I use critical discourse analysis perspective. The data collection is attained from the first season until the fifth season of television crime drama series NCIS: Los Angeles. The data analysis is based on the transcription or drama scripts obtained from reliable NCIS: Los Angeles fan based website. Then, a content analysis is conducted on the written transcript of utterances used from the series to observe the categories of meanings suggested by the banters. The obtained data are then analyzed by Van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis perspective, which discusses the relation between discourse, cognition and society. The discourse would be the banters and the cognition would be the intention categories and the society would be the social context produced through the banters. The expected outcome would indicate that there is a gender stereotyping conveyed through the banters in crime drama series. Keywords: Banters, Critical discourse analysis, Crime drama series vi Petra Christian University TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE…………………………………………………………………... i ACCEPTANCE SHEET………………………………………………. ii LEMBAR PERSETUUAN KARYA ILMIAH……………………….. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………… iv ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………… vi TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………… vii LIST OF FIGURES …………….……………………………………. ix LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………. x LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………… xi 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study……………………………… 1 1.2. Statement of the Problem……………………………… 5 1.3. Purpose of the Study…………………………………... 5 1.4. Significance of the Study……………………………… 6 1.5. Scope and Limitation………………………………….. 6 1.6. Definition of Key Terms………………………………. 6 1.7. Organization of the Study……………………………… 7 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis……………………………. 8 2.2. Van Dijk’s Triangle of Discourse: Discourse, Cognition and Society ……………………………….. 10 2.3. Crime Drama Series …………………………………. 12 2.4. Banters………………………………………………….. 14 2.5. Humor …………………………………………………. 16 2.6. Female Representation in Crime Drama Series………… 17 2.7. Stereotyping………………………………...................... 19 2.8. Feminine Characteristics……………………………….. 20 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Approach………………………………………………. 24 3.2. Data Collection………………………………………… 25 3.2.1. Data Selection………………………………. 26 3.2.2. Data Processing……………………………... 26 3.3. Data Analysis…………………………………………... 27 vii Petra Christian University 3.3.1. Analytical Framework………………………. 27 3.3.2. Unit of Analysis…………………………….. 29 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Findings ……………………………………………….. 33 4.1.1. Correlation between Humor Intention and Stereotypes Categories…………………….... 33 4.1.2. The Immediate Colleagues Stereotyping of Kensi Blye ………………………………… 39 4.2. Discussion ……………………………………………. 43 4.2.1. Humor Intention and Stereotyping Correlation ………………………………… 43 4.2.2. Kensi Blye’s Colleagues Representation of her through Banters ……………………… 50 4.2.2.1 Sam Hanna ……………………………. 50 4.2.2.2 G Callen ………………………………. 55 4.2.2.3 Marty Deeks ………………………….. 60 5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………. 74 BIBILIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………. 81 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………… 86 viii Petra Christian University LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 .............................................................................................................9 FIGURE 2.2 ...........................................................................................................11 ix Petra Christian University LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 Feminine Characteristics ....................................................................23 TABLE 3.1 Analytical Framework ........................................................................27 TABLE 3.1. (b) Recapitulation Occurrences of Humor Intention-Stereotypes .....28 TABLE 3.2 Characters Codes ................................................................................29 TABLE 3.3 Unit Analysis Banter Context ............................................................30 TABLE 3.4 Unit Analysis Humor Intention ..........................................................30 TABLE 3.5 Unit Analysis Feminine Characteristics .............................................31 TABLE 3.6 Unit Analysis Stereotyping ................................................................32 TABLE 4.1 Analytical Framework Outcome ........................................................33 TABLE 4.2 Recapitulation Occurrence of Humor Intention – Stereotypes ..........34 TABLE 4.3 Highest Occurrence Humor Intention ...............................................35 TABLE 4.4 Highest Occurrence Stereotypes ........................................................37 TABLE 4.5 Highest Occurrence Humor Intention – Stereotypes..........................39 TABLE 4.6 Quantitative Recapitulation Banters Speakers ...................................41 TABLE 4.7 Highest Occurrence Banters Speakers ...............................................42 TABLE 4.8 Humor Intention – Stereotyping .........................................................43 TABLE 4.9 Teasing – Sensitive ............................................................................44 TABLE 4.10 Teasing – Physically Weak ..............................................................46 TABLE 4.11 Sarcasm – Nurturing.........................................................................48 TABLE 4.12 Overstatement – Physically Weak....................................................50 TABLE 4.13 Sarcasm – Nurturing.........................................................................52 TABLE 4.14 Teasing – Submissive .......................................................................53 TABLE 4.15 Sarcasm – Nurturing.........................................................................55 TABLE 4.16 Sarcasm – Affectionate ....................................................................57 TABLE 4.17 Overstatement – Physically Weak....................................................58 TABLE 4.18 Sarcasm – Nurturing.........................................................................60 TABLE 4.19 Teasing – Physically Weak ..............................................................61 TABLE 4.20 Teasing – Sensitive...........................................................................63 x Petra Christian University LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A………………………………………………………… 84 APPENDIX B………………………………………………………… 86 APPENDIX C………………………………………………………… 88 xi Petra Christian University .