CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study

As the primary means of communication between people, language plays
an important role in understanding and expressing the world around us and
beyond. Because of this critical importance of language in people's social lives,
language has been studied from various aspects, such as structure, wholesome
processes, and cultural aspects. In this global world, we were bombarded by many
television shows, yet we also exposed with many languages. This means that in
one society there are various ethnic groups with their respective cultures. They use
a language with their own cultural background. They engage in cross-cultural and
linguistic communication. The main aspects of language considered in this study
are the cultural aspects and variations of language, which can be called
pragmatics.
Pragmatics refers to the study of language in context. As such, his focus is
on exploring the meaning given to utterances based on the social and situational
contexts in which they are embedded. (Yule, 1996) explains that pragmatics is the
study of contextual meaning. Consideration should be given to how the speaker
structures what he or she wants to say. There are many different ways people use
language in communication. Each community has its own way of using expressive
speech acts. These paths correspond to cultural contexts. (Wierzbicka, 2003)
found that each of the communities had different languages, cultures and speech
practices. This means that two different countries have different language codes,
and also different vocabulary, grammar and usage of codes. Speech act theory
forms a major platform for cross-cultural pragmatics. Speech acts focus on
specific speech events. The most noted speech acts included compliments,
apologies, denials, demands, complaints, greetings and disagreements. As Austin
defined the speech act (Austin, 1962), it is the act done by saying something.
(Searle, 1969) states that all oral communication involves speech acts, which form
the basic unit of communication. One commonly treated speech act is
compliments and compliment replies. People use compliments to initiate
communication. It may also be used to find close friends, avoid awkward feelings,
or facilitate interaction.
In communicating cross-culturally, participants from each culture and
language use different communication patterns and strategies. This means that to
convey a certain intent or message, they use different ways. The different ways of
communicating from each ethnic group are very interesting to study. The
participants, speakers and interlocutors, in cross-cultural and linguistic
communication, as claimed by Wierzbicka (1996, 2002) and Goddard (2004) use
certain speech modes and dictums. Furthermore, it is said that the mode of speech
can contain a dictum that can be delivered directly or indirectly. Besides
containing various speech meanings, an utterance can also contain the meaning of
the speaker. Therefore, in line with Wierzbicka and Goddarad, Thomas (1995)
says that the speaker's intention can be understood from two aspects or levels,
namely: the meaning of the speech as the first level and force (the speaker's
meaning) as the second aspect or level of the speaker's meaning. The claim of the
imperative dictum by some experts is “I want you to do something”. In principle,
the imperative dictum is a command. Commands are carried out in two ways,
namely: direct orders and indirect commands.
A speech act can be called an utterance. It means to make someone do
something. Searle (1979) states that there are five types of speech acts:
representative, referrer, comitative and expressor, and expository. Yule (1996)
adds that the term speech act includes “action''. They are requesting, questioning,
giving orders, making promises, and giving suggestions. Complaints are actually
a part of communication, information that informs the recipient of a statement,
product, service, etc., about an inappropriate situation. Complaints have several
linguistic variations. Complaints are often presented through declaration forms,
question forms and mandatory forms. By complaining, people show their
dissatisfaction through these expressions. The power of a speaker's complaint
depends on volume and context. The purpose of the complaint is clearly worded
and cannot be predicted from the wording. Complaints are spoken by many
complaint strategies. Complaints are utterances spoken to offend another person,
so most of the time, complainers use the direct accusation strategy of complaints.
The way people produce speech acts depends on the context. There are
many influencing factors such as gender (Tuner & Turhan, 2019) and culture.
Fundamentally, a person's words and actions influence their understanding of
behavior. In this case, the pragmatics also overlaps with other cultures and is
commonly referred to as cross-cultural pragmatics (Wierzbicka, 2003). One
example can be found in the international model competition titled MasterChef
Junior US and MasterChef Junior Indonesia. These competitions were chosen
because of the similarity of the two shows, both TV series featuring similar
‘naturally’ set condition dialogue but taking place in different contexts or cultures.
The reasons why the writer chose both shows because MasterChef Junior is the
biggest cooking competition and it aired all over the world. The original format is
the MasterChef which adults who are amateur cooks competing with each other to
show their ability to cook and win the title of MasterChef. According to BBC
(2023), MasterChef is a competitive television cooking show format developed by
Franc Roddam and launched in the UK in July 1990. This format was revived and
updated by him for the BBC in February 2005. It was done by executive
producers Rodham and John Silver, and series producer Karen Ross. The revived
form will be distributed internationally by Banijay. Its first international
adaptation was MasterChef Australia, which started in 2009. The show has since
been adopted by several other countries. The show format has been exported
worldwide under the same MasterChef logo and is now produced in over 40
countries and broadcast in over 200 territories. MasterChef Junior is the spin-off
of MasterChef for the children age 8 to 13 to show their cook ability and their
love towards food. The second reason is MasterChef Junior US aired on FOX
Season 5 got all the sharing at 3.0 of 4.0 according to Nielsen US (2017), while
MasterChef Junior Indonesia aired on RCTI also got 3.0 out of 4.0 according to
Nielsen Indonesia (2022). This thesis focuses on the commentary verbal speech
act created by the judges. Therefore, the writer interested to analyze both TV
shows when the judges use speech acts to give comments to the contestants,
especially when they are complaining about the contestants’ food. The writer also
observed in detail the differences between American and Indonesian cultures
when commenting on the candidates. The complaining strategies used are not in
the natural setting, but then it is on television. It means that it has been censored,
edited, and scripted by the producers. The format also could be adapted freely in
each country based on the country’s condition. For example, MasterChef Junior
US always presented some entertainment such as the judges are being poured by
cream, candies, and many more, while in MasterChef Junior Indonesia, the kids
would impossible to do so because they have to be polite to the judges because the
judges are older than the kids.
As noted above, the researchers noted the comments of the MasterChef
Junior US and MasterChef Junior Indonesia judges. The judges are interested to
analyze because it is defined as the person who decides whether or not a
candidate's career should progress to the next stage. Also, the judges are the
decision makers in the competition. The judges' comments are therefore
considered important to the contestants' development by providing suggestions
and advice for the contestants' success in each performance. Therefore, I am
interested in examining the complaints strategies of judges when making
comments. Due to the large number of seasons of these TV shows, this study is
limited to one season: MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and MasterChef Junior
Indonesia Season 3. These seasons are chosen because there are several problems
such as how the judges treated and how the junior contestants treated by the
judges. Second, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the complaint strategies
are more varied due to the set environment, especially media. Here, the writer
wants to see how the complaint strategies used in the media environment. Last,
MasterChef Junior US aired on FOX Season 5 got all the sharing at 3.0 of 4.0
according to Nielsen US (2017), while MasterChef Junior Indonesia aired on
RCTI also got 3.0 out of 4.0 according to Nielsen Indonesia (2022).
There are several studies that have examined the use of nonverbal speech
acts in various contexts. In the classroom, Budiasih et al. (2016) conducted a
study on the non-verbal behavior of international students in the Indonesian
learning environment by influencing the learning process. Malenab-Temporal
(2018) investigated her ESL learners' speech acts in classroom discourse. These
studies show that in the classroom, most speech acts are used to ask questions,
express opinions, and confirm. Speech act analysis was also performed on the
utterances. Rosyidi et al. (2019), for example, investigated Jokowi's non-verbal
speech act during the first Indonesian presidential debate in 2019. Putri (2018)
investigated Donald's nonverbal conduct in his Trump inaugural address. Both
studies showed that nonverbal acts are commonly used to express opinions,
promise, and persuade in political speech. As a further type of text, Sholihatin
(2020) analyzed verbal and verbal speech acts in defamatory texts. She found
nonverbal acts to be representative, declarative, and indicative. A review of these
previous studies helps show that each text her genre uses different speech act
features.
However, in previous studies, different aspects of speech act were
discussed only in one subject, for example in the classroom or in the context of
political speeches. We found limited research on cultural aspects, especially non-
verbal behaviors related to Indonesian culture. Practical research across cultures
has focused on politeness (eg, Nureddeen, 2008; Spencer-Oatey & Jiang, 2003). It
is therefore important to examine how speech acts, especially speech acts, are
applied in different contexts by identifying the relationship between speech acts
and other cultural aspects, particularly American and Asian cultures. The
researches above also focused on adults’ complaint strategies, but lack of
Furthermore, this paper aims to clarify the types and functions of non-verbal
speech acts performed by the comments of the judges of MasterChef Junior US
and MasterChef Junior Indonesia. The importance of this research is to provide
and enrich better insight into cross-cultural practical research, especially non-
verbal behavior that also considers cultural dimensions.
1. 2 Research Questions
There are three research questions according to the background of the
study:
1. What strategies of speech act performed by the judges of MasterChef
Junior US Season 5 and MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season 3?
2. What are the types and functions of complaining strategy performed by the
judges of MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and MasterChef Junior
Indonesia Season 3?
3. How the cultural background of the judges affect the complaining
strategies performed by the judges of MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and
MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season 3?

1.3 Research Objectives

There are three objectives of the research according to the background of
the study:
1. To explore types of complaining strategy performed by the judges of
MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season
3.
2. To explore functions of complaining strategy performed by the judges of
MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season
3.
3. To analyze cultural background of the judges affect the complaining
strategies performed by the judges of MasterChef Junior US Season 5 and
MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season 3.

1.4 The Significance of the Study

This study is expected to give both theoretical and practical contributions.
This study could help researches or studies in cross-cultural pragmatics. The
readers could enrich their knowledge about what is happening around them to
comprehend the complaining strategies, also could enhance understanding
between two different cultures, especially Indonesia and United States.

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance

Through this research, theoretically, the significance of the study is to
enrich researches or studies in cross-cultural pragmatics, especially in
complaining strategies done by the judges in Indonesia and United States,
especially in MasterChef Junior US and Indonesia. Through this cross-cultural
pragmatics study, the readers could enrich their knowledge about what is
happening around them to comprehend the complaining strategies.

1.4.2 Practical Significance

Practically, this research is expected to contribute to the understanding to
the society in different cultures from United States and Indonesia. Then, this
research gives us pictures how to give complaint, especially in our real life. The
choice of the utterance form from Indonesia could give benefit for students
outside Indonesia to learn about Indonesian complaining culture to avoid
misunderstanding in cross-cultural communication.
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a relatively new field (compared to syntax and semantics)
(Kasper 1992, Trosborg 1995). Webster's New World Dictionary defines
pragmatics as: The relationship between signs and signs, the symbol of the user.
In this proposal, a general definition of Levinson and Leech's pragmatics is
presented. According to Levinson, pragmatics in the traditional sense includes the
``study of language use'', which is distinct from syntax, and the “study of
meaning”, semantics (Levinson 1983:5). Direct language, conversational
entailment, premises, speech act, and conversational structure are his five main
areas in the study of linguistic pragmatics. Leach sees pragmatics as "the use of
language in communication" (Leech 1983:1).
He redefines pragmatics for the purposes of linguistics as the study of
meaning in relation to linguistic situations, concerned with ``the meaning of
utterances'' rather than “the meaning of sentences'' (Suprina 2003:7, Hill 1983:6).
Of particular concern is the distinction between semantic and pragmatic meaning.
Semantic meaning is simply defined as the expressive property of "What does X
mean?" We are looking at defined practical meanings from the point of view of
the person or user. (Leach 1983: 6).

2.1.2 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics

Cross-cultural pragmatics is the study of the importance of negotiation in
different cultures. Cross-cultural pragmatics is a subset of social pragmatics
created after pragmatic linguistics and social pragmatics by Leach (1983) and
Thomas (1983) and serves as a new tool for pragmatic research. According to
McConachy (2021), cross-cultural pragmatics is a study aimed at comparing
language behavior between different cultures speaking the same language, where
social context influences language choice. The field of cross-cultural pragmatics is
a unique field that contributes to a broader discussion of pragmatic phenomena
such as politeness that address patterns of language use from a variety of social
relationships and cultural values position (McConachy, 2021).

2.1.3 Complaining Strategies

Complaint file investigations were conducted within and across languages.
A limited number of intralingual studies examined complaints in languages such
as American English, Canadian French, and Chinese. Hartley (1998) surveyed his
120 American college students' dissatisfaction with American English. Their
analysis found that direct complaints accounted for only 20% of utterances,
whereas 75% to 80% of the surveys were mitigated complaints, indirect
complaints, and opt-out features. Laforest (2002) then analyzed
complaint/complain-response sequences in family conversations in Montreal.
Cognitive patterns inherited from the family corpus failed to make behavior
particularly good, and complainers tended to reject blame directed at them. It was
due to the close relationship between Three studies have been conducted in
Chinese so far.
According to Searle (1976), speech act theory does not consider only
utterances as statements. Not only as a statement, but also as a way of doing
things with words (Searle 1969). A speech act is a functional unit in
communication. Arans (2001:197) By definition, a speech act occurs when ``a
speaker/writer (S) utters an utterance (U) to a listener/reader (H) in context (C)''.
According to Austin's Speech Act Theory (1962), every utterance he has three
kinds of meanings. The first type is the speech act, the literal meaning of speech.
The second is the non-verbal act, which is the intended act of the speaker and the
social function of the spoken or written text. The third is the speech act, which
deals with what follows the utterance. The effect or "receipt" produced by the
utterance in that particular context.
Searle (1976) extended Austin's original work on speech act theory by
proposing into five main types:
1. a representative who entrusts the veracity of the uttered sentence to the
speaker (asserting, concluding)
2. a directive, that is, the speaker's attempt to persuade the addressee to
take action (requesting, questioning)
3. Commisives, which commit the speaker to some future course of action
(promising, threatening, offering)
4. Expressives, which express a psychological state (thanking,
apologizing,
welcoming, congratulating, complaining)
5. Declarations, which effect immediate changes in the institutional state
of
affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extralinguistic institutions
(excommunicating, declaring war, christening, marrying, firing from

employment).
A rational complainant uses three criteria: social distancing (D), relative
power (P), and ranking of imposition (R) to calculate the weight of facing such
threats (Brown and Levinson 1987). Evaluation may give the complainer a choice
between not complaining, complaining immediately, or complaining with
corrective action (Olshtain and Weinbach 1993). Finally, because the verbal act of
the appeal is negotiable, the appeal usually does not have her second part to
address. Many assertions intended to have the verbal function of complaining can
be viewed as simple comments, whereas many observations without the verbal
function can be viewed as laments, so such behavior is Not explicit in nature
(Edmonson 1981; Laforest 2002).
In reach terms, complaints (Trosborg 1995: 312) is representative of the
dispute function, which includes acts of intimidation, accusation, swearing, and
reprimanding. Olhstain and Weinbach (1993: 108) defines lamentation speech
acts as in the grievance speech act, S expresses displeasure or anger (blame) as a
reaction to past or ongoing behavior, the result of which S feels unfavorable. This
complaint is typically made to D, even when S is at least somewhat to blame for
the hostile behavior. Trosborg (1995: 311) The speech act of grief belongs to the
category of expressive functions. This category includes moral judgments that
express the speaker's disapproval of conduct related to behavior pointed out in the
judgment, especially communicative complaints, or moral reproaches or
reprimands.

2.1.4 Complaint Strategies of Indonesian Language

According to Heung, VA, and Lam (2003), culture is one of the factors
someone complains about. As a result, the differences in perceptions between
countries are becoming more pronounced. For example, in Central Java,
Indonesia, people tend to be polite to others during conversations. On the other
hand, Indonesian East Javanese people tend to be rude and loud when conversing
with others. In general, Indonesians tend to be indirect and silent when making
complaints (Gupta & Sukamto, 2020). Furthermore, Tjiptono (2006) defines that
he has four types of Indonesian citizens when filing grievances. First, they just
keep quiet and do nothing. Second, they only complain to family and close
friends. Third, they always "beat around the bush" when they complain. Fourth,
always smile and don't want to show excessive anger.

2.1.5 Complaint Strategies of American English Language

Individualist cultures like the US perceive complaining as their
responsibility and believe that complaining will bring better results in the future
(G. Hall & Cook, 2012). In addition, Wulandari (2021) defines that Americans are
not impressed with other people's business. Americans tend to be direct when
expressing complaints or pointing out something they don't like (G. Hall.
Cooking, 2012). Americans would rather be blunt than "play around". According
to (G. Hall. Cook, 2012), Americans are open and honest when communicating
with others. They believe that honesty is a good thing. On the other hand, some
issues should not be discussed, such as politics, beliefs and income, because
Americans think these should not be discussed (Abdolrezap & Eslami-Ras, 2010).

2.1.6 Pragmatic Aspects in Speech Acts

Since Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) established the speech act theory,
speech actions have typically been described in terms of the unique circumstances
in which they are done. This implies that language users must possess a certain
level of competence to direct the choice and interpretation of linguistic forms in
order for speech acts to be successful and understood. The capacity that allows a
language user to successfully perform and recognize speech acts is known as
"pragmatic competence" (also known as "speech act competence" in speech act
research; see, for example, Thomas 1983; Bechman 1990). Also, there is). The
language user's capacity for communication includes this as well. The definition
of practical competence is "the capacity to use language successfully and to
comprehend language in context to attain a specific purpose" (Thomas 1983:92).
Bachman (1990: 90-94) divides language users' pragmatic competence into two
components: illocutionary competence, which is the ability of a language user to
generate and identify speech acts, and (ii) sociolinguistic competence, which is the
ability of a language user to take into account characteristics of social context in
order to correctly perform and interpret speech acts. While Thomas (1983:101-
103) refers to the two elements of pragmatic competence as "pragmalinguistic
competence" and "sociopragmatic competence," Bachman (1990:90-94) uses the
terms "illocutionary competence" and "sociolinguistic competence." A language
user's ability to produce and understand utterances with a specific sense and
reference as well as a specific pragmatic force (i.e., a specific illocutionary force)
in a certain setting is referred to as pragmatic-linguistic competence. On the other
hand, sociopragmatic competence refers to a language user's capacity to produce
and comprehend utterances with a particular sense and reference as well as a
particular illocutionary force, all while adhering to the social context standards of
language behavior.
 Blum-Kulka (1982) demonstrated that the usage of speech acts (an aspect
of a language user's pragmatic competence) is universal in the sense that speech
actions exist and are utilized in all languages for the same purposes. Blum-Kulka
(1982:36) makes the following two broad assertions in her investigation of the
manner in which English-speaking Hebrew second-language learners do direct
and indirect speech acts: Users of any language can I pick and use speech acts in
either a direct or indirect form while adhering to the same principles, and (ii)
correctly interpret and grasp indirect speech acts from the context, depending on
the scenario or context that they can judge.
Researchers have also demonstrated that some facets of pragmatic
competence are not shared by all people. For instance, studies by Flowerdew
(1988) and Blum-Kulka (1982) have demonstrated that speakers of different
languages and cultures do not always employ the same grammatical forms or
structures to carry out the same speech act. For instance, Blum-(1982) Kulka's
study shown that speech acts are performed differently, either directly or
indirectly, depending on the culture. The way or choice for a specific way (in
terms of grammatical structure and direct or indirect form) of realizing a given
speech act in a given culture is conventionalized; hence, Blum-Kulka (1982: 32)
asserts that conventions of usage of speech actions depend on culture rather than
just understanding of language.
People engage in social interaction within an established cultural context,
according to Wierzbicka (2003). Speech acts are carried out and comprehended in
accordance with certain cultural norms and values. In this situation, Béal
investigated how extemporaneous speech was used by British-Australian and
French employees of a French company in Australia (Clyne, 1994). When asking
questions, French speakers favor the future tense, imperative, and il faut
expressions, whereas British Australians favor one of the two, alright, or other
plasticizers (Clyne 1994: 21). French speakers' perception of "strong egos" may
be the cause of the varied questioning techniques, according to Béal (Clyne,
1994:21).
 It has "vulnerability." According to the aforementioned Murphy and Neu
(1996) study, certain cultural values and conventions have an impact on how
speech actions are used. They looked into societal norms that complain in the
American academic setting. In this study, a number of students—including an
American native speaker and a Korean non-native speaker of English—were
forced to confront their professor about their subpar grades. As a result, American
speakers voiced their displeasure and non-English speaking Korean speakers
voiced their criticisms. Additionally, depending on the circumstance, each group
is aware of the proper speaking conduct (complaints or criticisms). Both native
and non-native students have the pragmatic proficiency to deliver an English
speech performance in needed to succeed their objective is to persuade the
professor to revise the grade.
Nonetheless, while being in the identical scenario, American native
speakers of English and Korean non-native English speakers do not conduct the
same speech act. From the standpoint of intercultural communication, Murphy
and Neu's (1996) study has demonstrated that a speech act is performed or
interpreted appropriately in a given culture if the manner in which it is performed
(or interpreted) is the accepted, usual, or common manner of realizing in that
culture. Ting Toomey (1999:23) emphasizes the need of communicators acting
and exchanging messages in accordance with the specific rules of interaction that
apply to the social and cultural context of interaction. These rules include the
language used, how it is used, participants' behavior, etc. Considering
methodology and in chronological sequence. Murphy and Neu (1996: 194)
emphasize the significance of using the native speaker's acceptability evaluation
of a non-native speaker's performance to ascertain if a speech act has been
executed appropriately or not in a given sociocultural setting.

2.2 Related Studies

There are some related studies to this research, and they are going to be
explored further. The first study is Illocution on Speech Acts of Foreign Students
in Indonesian Learning by Budiasih et al. (2016) conducted a study on the non-
verbal behavior of international students in the Indonesian learning environment
by influencing the learning process. This study conducted with qualitative
method. The findings are there are several illocutionary act found in this research,
they are assertive, directives, declaration, commissive, and expressive. The
differences between the researcher’s study and their study are first, their study
focused on all illocutionary acts, while the researcher’s study focused more on
complaining strategies. Then, their study focused in EFL classroom, while
researcher’s study focused more on TV shows, in this case MasterChef Junior
Indonesia and MasterChef Junior US.
Second research is Illocutionary Speech Acts Use by Jokowidodo in First
Indonesia Presidential Election Debate 2019 by Rosyidi et al. (2019). They
investigated Jokowi's non-verbal speech act during the first Indonesian
presidential debate in 2019. They used descriptive qualitative methods by
observing the arguments and collecting data from the arguments with reference to
the linguistics of theories derived from relevant literature sources. The data in this
study is the form of speech used by Joko Widodo in the 2019 Indonesian
presidential election debate, which includes elements of non-verbal speech acts.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the analysis. The authors found and
analyzed the nonverbal behavior of 13 dates. In this study, the author has data on
speech acts used in his 2019 presidential debate. Those are data six data was
included to Assertive Illocutionary Speech Act, three data was Directive
Illocutionary act, three data was Expressive Illocutionary Speech Act, and one
data was Commissive illocutionary speech acts. The differences between the
researcher’s study and their study are first, their study focused on all illocutionary
acts, while the researcher’s study focused more on complaining strategies. Then,
their study focused in speech, while researcher’s study focused more on TV
shows, in this case MasterChef Junior Indonesia and MasterChef Junior US.
Third research is Representative and Commissive Illocutionary Acts in
Donald Trump’s Inauguration Speech by Putri (2018). She investigated Donald's
nonverbal conduct in his Trump inaugural address. Both studies showed that
nonverbal acts are commonly used to express opinions, promise, and persuade in
political speech. The research method used in the study was qualitative analysis
method. The data were collected from the Donald Trump’s inauguration speech
transcript and then identified the function of the illocutionary act and explained
the intended meaning. Based on the analysis, the functions of the representative
illocutionary act that were found are stating, predicting. affirming, describing and
denying. Meanwhile, the function types of commissive illocutionary act are
assuring, promising and pledging. The intended meanings that were found in the
context of situation analysis are presenting, unifying, revealing, clarifying,
convincing and committing.
The differences between the researcher’s study and their study are first,
their study focused on all illocutionary acts, while the researcher’s study focused
more on complaining strategies. Then, her study focused in speech, while
researcher’s study focused more on TV shows, in this case MasterChef Junior
Indonesia and MasterChef Junior US.
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Research Approach
Qualitative approach is research that involves description and analysis
rather than, for example, the counting of features (Wray and Blommer 2006, 97).
Bogdan and Taylor (1975, 5) define qualitative approach as an investigation
procedure that produces descriptive data in the form of spoken or written words
and utterances from the observed people or society.
The researcher chose this approach because in qualitative approach the
data is in the form of spoken. Denzin and Lincoln (2005, 22) describe qualitative
research as involving “… an interpretive naturalistic approach to the world. “This
means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings
people bring to them.” In this research, the researcher conducted data collection
by analyzing the data, then classified the data, and interpreted the findings.
Therefore, researcher did observation, made an analysis, and explained the
results of the study.

3.2 Population and Sampling

MasterChef Junior Indonesia is a very popular TV show in Indonesia aired
on RCTI judged by Juna Rorimpandey, Arnold Poernomo, and Ririn Marinka.
This show was first debuted on January 31, 2011. The second program is
MasterChef Junior US is also a popular TV show in United States and aired on
FOX. This show was first aired on January 31, 2001.
There are several reasons why this show was selected. First, this show is a
popular show in countries aired this show. In Indonesia, their YouTube channel
mostly viewed by one million people per video. Second, the interviews in this
program take the form of semi-structured interviews. In semi-structured
interviews, the interviewer establishes a general structure by predefining the key
questions that will be asked and the basis that will be covered. However, a
detailed structure should be drawn up during the interview and the interviewee(s)
have quite a bit of freedom about what they should say, how they should say it
and what they should say (Drever, 1995).
The videos are going to be analyzed from the first episode until the final
episode for both countries to study more about complaining strategies. However,
the researcher limited the season into only one season because those seasons were
the most popular seasons in both countries. Due to the limitation, the researcher
chose purposive sampling as the method to take the samples.
Purposive sampling, also called deterministic, selective, or subjective
sampling, is a type of non-probabilistic sampling in which researchers rely on
their own judgment when selecting members of the population to participate in
the study. This sampling method relies on the investigator's judgment in
identifying and selecting individuals, cases, or events that are likely to provide
the best information to meet the study's objectives.

3.3 Techniques of Data Collection

Lexical transcription was produced for all videos. Transcoding
phenomenon is classified into two main types, according to the scheme of
Muysken (2000): insertion and substitution. A third category mentioned by
Muysken, synonyms, does not appear in the analyzed films and is omitted. It
should be noted, however, that phenomena which may be called transitions or
convergences have occurred in the data (see later), but analysis of these forms
would be more appropriate in the discussion of "British India". Degree". Raw
data extracted from the videos including the number of turns in a particular
interaction pattern (e.g., between two adults at home) contains at least one
insertion or interlacing. The total number of inserts or substitutions (tokens) in a
round doesn't matter - the ring index is counted.
3.4 Techniques of Data Analysis
The researcher conducted four stages to analyze the data. First, the
researcher was watching carefully to MasterChef Junior Indonesia Season 5 and
MasterChef Junior US Season 3 in the YouTube video data. Then, the researcher
was reading carefully the transcribed data and selecting the codes produced by
the judges as the data to be analyzed. After that, the researcher was exploring the
complaint strategies used by the judges of both programs based on the theory
used, in this case the researcher used the theory from Searle about complaint
strategies in pragmatics. The researcher here explored the functions based on the
strategies occurred in the episodes because functions came after strategies and
they are related. After that, the researcher was classifying the types and functions
based on the types and putting them into a table. After putting the data in the
table, then the researcher counted the number of occurrences from six
strategies of complaining that occurred in the episode the researcher has chosen.
It would help to classify the strategies used. Here is the example of the table for
the types and function.

1. Numbers of Complaint Strategies Used

Number Functions of Code- Number of occurrences
Total
Switching Video 1 Video 2 Video 3
1. Represeentative

2. Commisive
3. Directive

4. Expressive
5. Declaration
 REFERENCES
A. Z. Rosyidi, M. Z. (n.d.). Illocutionary speech acts use by Joko Widodo in First
Indonesia Presidential Election Debate 2019. International Journal of
Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(2), 735-740.
Austin, J. L. (1992). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clanrendon Press.
Bayat, N. (n.d.). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213-221.
Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chaer, A. (2015). Filsafat Bahasa. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse: a resource book for students (2nd
ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dorney, Z. (2007). Research method in applied linguistic: Quantitative,
qualititative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (2011). Logic and conversation. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.).
The Pragmatics Reader, pp. 43-54.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
H. Spencer-Oatey, W. J. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings:
moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles
(SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1633-1650.
H. Tuncer, B. T. (2019). Refusal strategies of Turkish pre-service teachers of
English: A focus on gender and status of interlocutor. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 1-19.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
L. T. Budiasih, A. A. (n.d.). Illocution on speech acts of foreign students in
Indonesian learning. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 6(2),
41-48.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malenab-Temporal, C. (n.d.). Conversation analysis of ESL learners’ speech acts
in classroom discourse. Australia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 6(3), 47-56.
Meyer, C. F. (2009). Introducing English Linguistics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in
Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-306.
Putri, P. D. (2018). Representative and commissive illocutionary acts in Donald
Trump’s inauguration speech. Jurnal Humanis, 22(4), 1057-1062.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression & Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sholihatin, E. (2020). An Analysis of Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Speech Act
in Defamation Texts. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language
Teaching, 7(1), 49-56.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Utaker, A. (1992). Form in Language: Wittgenstein and structuralism. (P. H.
Utaker., Ed.) Wittgenstein and Contemporary Theories of Language
Papers.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross cultural pragmatic – the semantic of human
interaction. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Wijana, I. D. (1996). Dasar-Dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Yogyakarta.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.