An analysis of adjacency pairs in Purple Hearts (2022) film
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30872/jbssb.v9i3.22634Abstract
This study focuses on the use of adjacency pairs in dialogues between characters in the film Purple Hearts (2022). This study uses conversation analysis theory from Hutchby and Wooffitt as the main framework. The aim is to explore the types of adjacency pairs and how adjacency pairs are used in the dialogues of the film Purple Hearts (2022). The research data consists of film dialogues containing adjacency pairs, which are analyzed using qualitative methods. The Findings show that adjacency pairs are frequently used to shape interactions. These adjacency pairs are not only a structural part of conversation but also reflect emotional dynamics and relationship development. Early dialogues demonstrate conflict, sarcasm, and mistrust, while subsequent interactions highlight intimacy, care, and mutual support. This study indicates that adjacency pairs carry deeper meaning about how characters negotiate emotions, relationships, and social roles through communication.
References
Ali, Z., & Ansari, A. A. (2025). Why saying “Hi” can be complicated: Participation frameworks in Real-World encounters. In SP Publications & International Journal of English and Studies (IJOES), International Journal of English and Studies (IJOES), 7(7), p. 681. https://doi.org/10.47311/IJOES.2025.18.07.688
Baiat, G. E., Coler, M., Pullen, M., Tienkouw, S., & Hunyadi, L. (2013). Multimodal analysis of “well” as a discourse marker in conversation: A pilot study. In 2013 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1109/coginfocom.2013.6719257
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
DiDomenico, S. M., Raclaw, J., & Robles, J. S. (2018). Attending to the mobile text summons: Managing multiple communicative activities across physically copresent and technologically mediated interpersonal interactions. Communication Research, 47(5), 669–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218803537
Dykema, J., Schaeffer, N. C., Garbarski, D., Assad, N., & Blixt, S. (2022). Towards a reconsideration of the use of agree-disagree questions in measuring subjective evaluations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 18(2), 2335-2344.
Fine, K. (2018). Compliance and command ii, imperatives and deontics. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 11(4), 634-664.
Foley, K. I. (2023). Adapting the classics: Making the invisible visible.
Frankfurt, H. (2018). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. In Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities (pp. 17-25). Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and Responses. Language in Society, 5(3), 257–313. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166887
Herr, A. (2016). Deconstructing the So-called Silent Assent: The Chain of Command, Compensated Compliance, and Resistance. In The Holocaust and Compensated Compliance in Italy: Fossoli di Carpi, 1942–1952 (pp. 69-89). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Hine, D. W., Kormos, C., & Marks, A. D. (2016). Agree to disagree. Research Methods for Environmental Psychology, 71.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.
Kim, N., Htut, P. M., Bowman, S. R., & Petty, J. (2022). $^2$: Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10003.
King, M. (2020). Attending to blame. In Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 177(5), 1423–1439.
Klarer, M. (2013). An introduction to literary studies. Routledge.
Licoppe, C. (2017). Skype appearances, multiple greetings and ‘coucou’: The sequential organization of video-mediated conversation openings. Pragmatics, 27(3), 351-386.
Marmorstein, M., Koivisto, A., Vepsäläinen, H., & Virtanen, M. T. (2023). Why say ‘hi’?: Framed openings in Hebrew WhatsApp messaging. Conversation Analytic perspectives to digital interaction: practices, resources, and affordances, 43-69.
Miles, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks.
Mires, E. C. (2016). Determining the presence of misrecognition in multilingual organizations (Doctoral dissertation, The University of the Rockies).
Moleong, J. L. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. PT Remaja Rosda Karya.
O’Brien, R., Beeke, S., Pilnick, A., Goldberg, S. E., & Harwood, R. H. (2020). When people living with dementia say ‘no’: Negotiating refusal in the acute hospital setting. Social Science & Medicine, 263, 113188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113188
Ozuru, Y., Mock, K., Bowie, D., & Kaufman, G. (2015). Why do people disagree with a statement they do not understand? Relations between comprehension and evaluation of a simple assertion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1024681
Paltridge, B. (2014). An Introduction Discourse Analysis, 2nd edition. In Bloomsbury. 2(2).
Restall, G. (2015). Assertion, denial, accepting, rejecting, symmetry, and paradox. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 310–321). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198715696.003.0011
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistic. Longman.
Schraub, D. (2019). Deliberation and dismissal. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 22, 1319.
Snedegar, J. (2023). Dismissing blame. J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., 26, 469.
Sommers, R., & Bohns, V. K. (2018). The voluntariness of voluntary consent: Consent searches and the psychology of compliance. Yale LJ, 128, 1962.
Wojatzki, M., Zesch, T., Mohammad, S., & Kiritchenko, S. (2018). Agree or disagree: Predicting judgments on nuanced assertions. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (pp. 214-224). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S18-2026
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Every work in Ilmu Budaya: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni, dan Budaya is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
