A.
The Title
:
POLITENESS
STRATEGY USED BY LOUANNE JOHNSON TO HER STUDENTS IN DANGERIOUS MIND MOVIE
B.
Background
of The study.
Language
as means of communication holds an important role in every human interaction.
Language is used to socialize and to interact with each other. By language
people can understand and cooperate each other easily. Using language to
cooperate and understand each other called communication. There are two ways
of communication, spoken and written. However, spoken language is used more
because it can express directly easily to the interlocutors in human daily interaction.
In interaction, people have to be aware on people’s face in order to
consider
other’s feelings or maintaining relationship with others. According to Yule
(1996:60), “as a technical term, face means the public self-image of a person”.
Therefore, it refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone
has and expects everyone else to recognize. Once to maintain face is politeness.
Politeness
is the behavior that can break down the face threatening acts into the harmony
life. According to Mills (2003:6) politeness is the expression of the speaker’s
intention to mitigate face threat carried by certain Face Threatening Acts
towards another. Being politeness, therefore, consist to attempting to save
face. Politeness theory states that some speech acts threaten other’s face.
According
to Yule (1996:60), “it is possible to threat politeness as a fixed concept, as
in the idea of , polite
social behavior or etiquette, within a culture”. It is also possible to specify
a number of different general principles for being polite in social interaction
within a particular culture. Some of this might include being tactful,
generous, modest, and symphatic toward others. Within an interaction, however,
there is a more narrowly specified type of politeness at work. Politeness, in
an interaction, can then be defined as a means employed to show awareness of
another person’s face. Politeness can be accomplished in situations of social
distance or closeness. Showing awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially
distant is often described in terms of respect or deference.
In every interaction people have different way of dealing with each
other. Their way of speaking may sound different toward people who have
different status from others. According to Holmes (1992:260-261), the way
people talk is influenced by the social context in which they talk. It matters
who can hear them and where they talk, as well as how they feel. People use
different styles in different social contexts and indicate aspects of their
social identity through the way they talk. The same message could be delivered
differently to the different people.
Holmes (1992:296) said that one of the factors influencing an interaction
is relationship to someone, especially solidarity. It means being
linguistically polite involves speaking to people appropriately in the light of
their relationship to others. Inappropriate linguistic choices may be considered
rude. Positive politeness is solidarity oriented. It emphasized shared
attitudes and values. On the other hand, negative politeness pays people
respect and avoids intruding on them. Negative politeness involves expressing
oneself appropriately in terms of social distance and respecting status
difference. To reveal politeness, people need certain strategies and usually
each people have their own different strategies.
The researcher chooses Dangerious Mind movie as the data of
this thesis because this movie
is based on a true story (My Posse Don't Do Homework, written by Louanne
Johnson). This movie tells us about Ex-Marine, Louanne Johnson comes to a Palo Alto high school in search of a
job as a student teacher. She gets instead is a full-time position teaching
English to a group of bright but "socially challenged" students that
she quickly dubs as the "rejects from hell."
The researcher is so interested in analyzing this movie since this movie provides
a lot of politeness strategies
produced by character’s conversation, especially conversation among
Louanne Johnson and her students when they are inside the classroom and outside the
classrooom. There are differences of conversation produced inside and outside
of the classroom, it is influenced
by situational context. According to Lee Mc Gaan situational context is what
the people who are communicating think of as (label) the event they are
involved in what we call the act we are engaged in. (e.g. having class, being
on a date, studying, playing a game, helping a friend with a problem, etc.) On the other hand, the
researcher wants to know what politeness strategies that Louanne Johnson used
to maintain her face in the front of her students, however she was ex-US Marine
and her students never respect her as their teacher.
Statements of
The problem
In line with the reasons above, this present study
is about politeness strategies used by Louanne John. In order to make the
investigation run well, the problems of the study are as follows :
1. What
types politeness strategies are used by Louanne John to her
students?
2.
What factors are influencing the use of those
strategies?
D. Scope of
The study
This study examines
politeness strategies used by Louanne Johnson to her sudents. Actually, in the movie Louanne Johnson
is conversing to her students, but in order to limit amount of the data, this
study focuses on analyzing of the types politeness stategies used by Louanne
Johnson. Brown and Lavinson ( 1987:94-227 ) theory is used to analyze the data.
This theory proposes four types of politeness strategy : bald on record, off
record, positive politeness, and negative politeness.
E.
Obejctives
of The study
In line with
the statements of the problem above, the objectives of the study can be
described as follows:
1. To
describe the types of politeness stategies are used by Louanne Johnson to her
students in the classroom.
2. To
identify factors influencing the use of those strategies.
F.
Significances
of The study
The result of this study are expected to be useful for :
1. The
researcher
The
researher can learns more specific about theories of linguistics, especially
for politeness strategy.
2. The
reader
The
reader will get knowledges because of this thesis.
3. The university
For an additional reference
especially for the library of Dian Nuswantoro university.
4. The teacher
Also
additional reference to
the teacher toward their bad students.
G.
Review of Related Literature
This chapter provides a brief overview on the aspects of politeness strategies. In addition, the writer
presents some previous related studies.
1.
Language
Language is used
to communicate, either orally or in written forms. With language, human being
can express his feeling in mind. Language is required as a medium of
communication. To establish the relationship we use language to interact with
others.
Language can be
formed as a dialogue that becomes a very important matter in communicating and
interacting with others. It can also build and develop social relationship at
the time when we communicate with others “a spoken language is a human natural
language in which the words are uttered through the mouth.” Most human
languages are spoken languages. In linguistics, spoken language reveals many
true features of human specch. One of the approach to language description
that reveals features of human speech is pragmatics.
2. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a way of investigating how sense can be made of certain texts
even when, from a semantic viewpoint, the text seems to be either incomplete or
to have a different meaning to what is really intended, for example, when
people consider a sign seen in a children's wear shop window: "Baby Sale -
lots of bargains". People know without asking that there are no babies are
for sale - that what is for sale are items used for babies. Pragmatics allows
us to investigate how this "meaning beyond the words" can be
understood without ambiguity. The extra meaning is there, not because of the
semantic aspects of the words themselves, but because people share certain
contextual knowledge withthe writer or speaker of the text (Campsall, 2011 : 26).
Pragmatics studies have related to many subjects, one of them is
politeness which the writer of this research wants to find more about
its strategies
used. According to Yule (1996: 59), a linguistic interaction is necessarily a
social interaction. In order to make sense of what is said inan interaction,
people have to look at various factors which relate to social distance and
closeness.
Some of These factors are established prior to an interaction and hence
are largely external factors. They typically involve the relative status of the
participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and power. A
linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. In order to make sense
of what is said in an interaction, people have to look at various factors which
relate to social distance and closeness. Some of these factors are established
prior to an interaction and hence are largely external factors. They typically involve
the relative status of the participants, based on social values tied to such
things as age and power. People take part in a wide range in interactions where
the social distance determined by the external factors is dominant. However there
are other factors, such as amount of imposition or degree of friendliness, which
are often negotiated during an interaction. These are internal to the interaction
and can result in the initial social distance changing, and being marked as
less, or more, during its course. These internal factors are typically more relevant
to participants whose social relationships are actually in the process of being
worked out within the interaction. Both types’factors, external and internal, have an influence not only on
what people say, but also on how people are interpreted. In many cases, the
interpretations goes beyond what people might have intended to convey and
include evaluations such as „rude’ and „inconsiderate’, or , considerate’ and , thoughtful’.
Recognizing the impact of such evaluations
makes it very clear that more is being communicated than is said. The investigation
of that impact is normally carried out in terms of politeness. In pragmatics, politeness isn’t refer to the
social rules of behavior such as letting people go first through a door, or
wiping the mouth on the serviette rather than on the back of the hand. Brown
and Levinson (1987) analyzed politeness and said in order to enter into social
relationship, we have to acknowledge and show an awareness of the face, the
public self-image, the sense of self, of the people that we address. Brown and
Levinson said that it is a universal characteristic across culture that speaker
should respect each other’s expectations regarding self image, take account of
their feelings and avoid Face Threatening Acts (FTA’s).
3. Face
Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Brown and Levinson (1987: 65) stated that Face Threatening Act or FTA means
an act that threatens the positive and negative face of the hearer. “If someone
says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image”,
it also can be described as FTA (Yule, 1996: 61). For instance, when someone is
using insult terms such as „stupid’, „bastard’,and
„jerk’ to another
person is an impingement on his self-image, which causes a threat to the hearer’s positive face, which wants
to be appreciated by everyone. In general, when people disagree with someone’s opinion it causes a threat
to his positive face, as it means that people indicate that he is wrong about something.
Meanwhile, when people request someone to refrain from doing something, it
threatens the negative face of the hearer, who expects to have freedom of
action. Also, when people ask someone to lend them money, it causes a threat on
that person’s negative
face as people have imposed themselves on him, that his want to be free from
being imposed has been encroached. Therefore, if people threaten someone’s positive or negative face,
but they do not mean it, then they need to minimize it by applying politeness strategies
as suggested by Brown and Levinson ( 1987:61 ).
4. Politeness
Strategies
Politeness strategies are strategies that are used to minimize or avoid
the face threatening acts that a speaker makes. According to Brown and Levinson
(1987: 68-69), politeness strategies consists of bald on record, positive
politeness, negative politeness, and off record. Bald on record consists of two
strategies, positive politeness consists of fifteen strategies; negative
politeness consists of ten strategies, and off record consists of fifteen strategies.
The main theory that the writer chooses is Brown and Levinson’s Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage (1987: 94-227). In general, there are four
categories namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and
off record. Each category is described below.
a) Bald
on Record
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:94-98), the prime reason for using
bald on record is when the speaker wants to do the face threatening acts with
maximum efficiency more than to satisfy hearer’s face, even to any degree. Bald on
record has two classes: those where face threatening is not minimized, where
face is ignored or irrelevant, and those where in doing the FTA, speaker minimizes
face threats by implication. This bald on record consists of two
strategies as shown below:
Strategy 1: Cases of
non-minimization of the face threat
If speaker and hearer both know that maximum efficiency is important,
noface redress is necessary. In cases of great urgency or desperation, redress
would decrease the communicated urgency. Speaker provides metaphorical urgency
for emphasis. For example:
Listen, I’ve got an idea...
Look, the point is this: ...
Speaker is
powerful and does not fear retaliation or non-cooperation from hearer (speaker’s want to satisfy hearer’s face is small).
For example:
Bring me wine, Jeeves.
Speaker does care about hearer,
so that no redress is required. For example:
Careful!
He’s a dangerous man. (warning hearer against someone who could threat him)
Strategy 2: Cases of
FTA-oriented Bald-on-record usage
This strategy is oriented to face. Usually, it is used in 1) welcomings
(or post-greetings), where speaker insists that hearer may impose on his
negative face, for example: Come in, it’s okay. I’m not busy, in 2)
farewells, where speaker insists that hearer may transgress on his positive
face by talking his leave, for example: Okay, I’m stay here, you go, in
3) offers, where speaker insists that hearer may impose on speaker’s face, for example: Leave
it to me (I’ll do it).
b) Positive
Politeness
Positive politeness is used to satisfy the positive face of the hearer by
approving or including him as a friend or as a member of an in-group. According
to Yule (1996: 64), a positive politeness strategy “leads the requester to
inquire for a common goal, and even friendship”. The tendency to use positive
politeness is to emphasize closeness between speaker and hearer. It can be seen
as a “solidarity strategy”. This strategy is usually used by people who have
known one another in order to indicate common ground and solidarity in which
speaker shares hearer’s
wants. Thus, the usage of positive politeness is not only to redress the FTA,
but also to indicate that speaker wants to come closer to hearer. Positive politeness
contains fifteen strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 101-129) as seen below:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend
to hearer (his interest, wants, needs, goods)
Speaker pays attention to any aspects of hearer’s condition (noticeable changes,
remarkable possessions, etc). For example:
Goodness you cut your hair!
(When someone cuts her hair)
What a
wonderful car this is! Where did it come from? (When someone buys a car)
Strategy 2: Exaggerate
(interest, approval, sympathy with hearer)
Speaker uses exaggerate intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodic
toshow interest, approval, and sympathy to hearer. For example:
How fantastic your house is!
He looked incredibly dirty.
Strategy 3: Intensify
interest to hearer
Speaker includes hearer into the middle of the events being discussed to intensify
the interest of speaker’s
contribution by “making a good story”. For example:
I came to
her house, and what do you think I see? A huge mess over the kitchen, the
clothes are scattered all over the room, and the phone’s off the hook...
Speaker uses of directly quoted speech such as the usage of tag questions
that draw hearer as a participant into that conversation. For example:
You know?
Speaker exaggerates facts to overstate. For example: There were a
million of people in the Co-op tonight!
Strategy 4: Use in-group
identity markers
1) In-group usages of address forms, it is to express such
in-group membershipinclude into generic names and terms of address. For
example: honey, buddy, swetheart, pals, guys, Blondie.
2) Use of jargon or slang, where speaker may evoke all the shared
associations and attitudes that both of them have toward an object. For
example: lend us two bucks then, wouldja pal?
3) Contraction and ellipsis, where speaker and hearer must share
some knowledge about the situation to understand the utterances, which is
marked by ellipsis and contraction. For example: mind if I smoke?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
Repetition, speaker stresses emotional agreement, interest, and
surprise by conversation, to show that he has heard correctly what was said and
to satisfy hearer. For example:
A: Ann wenot to Paris this
week.
B: To Paris!
When someone is telling a story, the addressee often utters brief
agreement after the speaker has spoken one or two sentences to indicate
emphatic agreement. For example:
A: I won the championship.
B: Really?
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
Token disagreement, speaker pretends to agree by twisting his
utterances in order to hide disagreement that is to respond „yes’ rather than „no’. For example:
A: So they haven’t heard a word, huh?
B: Not a word. Not at all.
Except Clara maybe.
Hedging
opinions, speaker may choose to be vague for his own opinions, so as not to
e seen to disagree. For example: I have absolutely no idea.
Strategy 7:
Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
1) Personal-center switch, speaker to hearer speaks as if hearer
was speaker or hearer’s
knowledge was equal to speaker’s
knowledge. For example: I just am sad, aren’t I?
2) The usage of tag questions is to claim hearer’s knowledge of situation, where hearer
couldn’t possibly know.
For example: I have a great time, you know, it’s very nice to go with him and people
have same hobbies, you know, he’s good.
3) Place switch, the use of here and this rather that there and
that seems to express increased participation or empathy. For example: This was
a lovely party VERSUS that was a lovely party.
4) Presuppose knowledge of hearer’s wants, tastes, habits, etc and
to redress the imposition of FTA. For example: Don’t you wanna drink?
(Offers)Presuppose familiarity in speaker-hearer relationship, the use of
familiar address forms is to presuppose that the addressee is „familiar and
soften the threat of FTA. For example: Look, you’re a pal of mine, so
how about ...
5) Presuppose familiarity in speaker-hearer relationship, the use
of familiaraddress forms is to presuppose that the addressee is „familiar and
soften the threat of FTA. For example: Look, you’re a pal of mine, so
how about ...
6) Presuppose hearer’s knowledge, the use of in-group codes
(language, dialect, and jargon, local terminology) to show that hearer
understands and shares the associations of that code. For example: I watched High
Life yesterday and ...
7) The use of pronoun where the referent hasn’t been made clear. For example: Oh, this
is wonderful (complimenting a skirt)
Strategy 8 : Joke
It is a technique for putting hearer „at ease or minimizing an FTA or requesting. For example:
Mind if I tackle those
choc chips now?
How about lending me this old heap of
junk? (hearer’s new
Cadillac)
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose speaker’s
knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants
It is a way to indicate
that speaker and hearer are cooperators and to put pressure on hearer to cooperate
with speaker. For example: Look I know you want the car back at 5, so
shouldn’t I go to town now?
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
To redress the potential threat of some FTA, speaker claims that whatever
hearer wants, speaker will help to obtain, to show speaker’s good intentions in satisfying hearer’s positive faces wants, even
if it is false. For example:
I’ll drop by sometimes next week.
I’ll come to your house sometimes.
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
It is another type of cooperative strategy. Speaker assumes that hearer wants
speaker’s wants for
speaker (or for both) and will help him to obtain them. For example;
I’ve come to borrow a cup of
flour.
You’ll lend me your
lawnmower for the weweekend, won’t you?
Strategy 12: Include both
speaker and hearer in the activity
Speaker uses an inclusive „people for, when speaker actually means „youor
„me, to call upon the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTA. For example:
Let’s stop for a bite.
(i.e. I want a bite, so let’s
stop)
Let’s have a cookie then. (i.e. Me)
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
Speaker gives reason as to why he wants what he wants and assumes (via optimism)
that if there are no good reasons why hearer shouldn’t or can’t cooperate, he will. For example:
Why don’t people go to the
beach!
Why don’t people try those
cookies!
Strategy 14: Assume or
assert reciprocity
Speaker asks hearer to cooperate with him by giving evidence of habit or obligations
obtained between speaker and hearer. Thus speaker may say, in effect, “I’ll do X for you if you do Y
for me” to soften his FTA. By pointing to the reciprocal right (or habit) of
doing FTA to each other, speaker may soften his FTA by negating the debt
aspects and/or the face threatening aspect of speech acts such as criticism and
complaints. For example: Well, I’ll keep quiet, if you keep it quiet about
me keeping me quiet.
Strategy
15: Givehints to hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Speaker may satisfy hearer’s
positive face wants (that speaker wants hearer’s wants, to some degree) but actually satisfying
some of hearer’s wants.
Hence people have the classic positive politeness action of gift-giving, not
only tangible gifts (with demonstrate that speaker knows some hearer’s wants and wants them to be
fulfilled), but human-relation wants such as those illustrated in many of the
outputs considered above-the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood,
listened to, and so on.
c) Negative
Politeness
Negative politeness is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to
have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. It is the
heart of respect behavior, just as positive politeness is the kernel of
„familiar and „joking behavior (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129-210).
The main focus for using this strategy is to assume that speaker may be
imposing by the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these
automatically assumethat there might be some social distance or awkwardness in
the situation.According to Brown and Levinson, there are ten negative strategies:
Strategy 1: Be
conventionally indirect
In this strategy a speaker is faced with opposing tensions: the desire to
give hearer an “out” by being indirect,
and the desire to go on record. For example:
Can you pass the salt?
Why for God’s sake are you painting your
house purple?
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
This strategy enjoins the speaker to question or hedge such assumptions. For
example:
I suppose that
Harry is coming. I wonder if (you know whether) John went out.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy gives redress to hearer’s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt that the
conditions for the appropriateness of speaker’s speech act obtain. For example:
mp over that five-foot fence?
I
don’t imagine there’d be any hope of you.
Strategy 4: Minimize the
imposition
This strategy indirectly may pay hearer defense. For example:
I just want to ask you if I can borrow a tiny bit of paper.
I just dropped by for a minute to ask if you...
Strategy 5: Give deference
Speaker humbles himself, his capacities, and possessions, namely that which
satisfies hearer’s
wants to be treated as superior. For example:
People look forward very much to dining with you.
Oh
yes thank you.
Strategy 6: Apologize
By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicates his reluctance
to impinge on hearer’s
negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement. For example:
I’m sure you must be very busy, but...
I hope this isn’t going to bother you too
much.
Strategy 7: Impersonalize
speaker and hearer
One way to indicating that speaker does not want to impinge on hearer so to
phrase the FTA as if the agent were other than speaker, or at least possibly
not speaker or not speaker alone, and the addressee were other than hearer, or
only inclusive of hearer. This results in a variety ways of avoiding the
pronouns „I and You. For example:
It seems to me that...
It
is not possible you do that.
Strategy 8: State the FTA as
a general rule
One way of dissociating speaker and hearer from the particular imposition
in the FTA, and hence a way of communicating that speaker does not want to impinge
but is merely forced to by circumstances, is to state the FTA as an instance of
some general social rule, regulation, or obligation. For example:
Passengers will please refrain
from flushing toilets on the train.
I’m sorry, but late-comers cannot be seated till the next interval.
Strategy 9: Nominalize
In English, degrees of negative politeness (or at least formality) run
hand in hand with degrees of nouniness, that is, formality is associated with
the noun end of the continuum.
For example:
People urgently request your
cooperation.
It
is my pleasure to be able to inform you...
Strategy
10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting hearer
Speaker can redress an FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness
tohearer, or by disclaiming any indebtedness of hearer, by means of expressions
such as for requests and for offers. For example:
I’d be eternally grateful if
you would ... (for request) I
could easily do it for you. (for offers).
d) Off
Record
Off record is an indirect politeness strategy in which the speaker says something
that can be interpreted in more than one way (Brown and Levinson, 1987:211-227).
A communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that it is
not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. In
other words, the actor leaves himself an, out by providing himself with a number of defensible
interpretations; he cannot be held to have committed himself to just one
particular interpretation of his act. Thus if a speaker wants to do FTA, but
wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record, and
leaveit up to the addressee to decide how to interpret it.According to Brown
and Levinson, there are fifteen off record strategies:
Strategy 1: Give hints
If speaker says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites
hearer to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance. The basic
mechanism here is a violation of the Maxim of Relevance. For example:
It’s cold in here. (i.e. Shut
the window)
What a boring movie! (i.e. Let’s leave)
Strategy 2: Give association
clues
A related kind of implicature triggered by relevance violations is
provided by mentioning something associated with the act required of hearer,
either by precedent in speaker-hearer’s experience or by mutual knowledge irrespective of their
interactional experience. For example:
My house isn’t very far away. There’s the path that leads to my
house. (i.e. Please come to visit me)
Are you going
to market tomorrow? There’s
a market tomorrow, I suppose. (i.e. Give me a ride there)
Strategy 3: Presuppose
A third set of
clues to speaker’s
intent is related in a different way to the Relevance maxim. An utterance can
be almost wholly relevant in context, and yetviolate the Relevance Maxim just at
the level of presuppositions. For example:
I washed the car again
yesterday.
John is in the bathtub yet
again.
Strategy 4: Understate
Speaker understates what he actually wants to say. In the case of a criticism,
speaker avoids the lower points of the scalar predicate, such as: tall, nice,
good, and in the case of a compliment, or admission, speaker avoids the upper
points. For example:
A: What do you think of Jim?
B: Nothing
wrong with him (c.i. I don’t
think he’s very good)
(The understatement of criticism.
Strategy 5: Overstate
Speaker exaggerates or chooses a point on a scale, which is higher that
the real situation. For example:
There were a
million of people in the Co-op tonight! (It could convey an excuse ofbeing
late)
You never doing washing
up. (convey a criticism).
Strategy 6: Use tautologies
By uttering a tautology, speaker encourages hearer to look for an informative
understanding of the non-informative utterance. For example;
Your
clothes belong where you clothes belong. My clothes belong where myclothes
belong. Look upstairs! (criticism)
Strategy 7: Use
contradictions
By stating two things that contradict each other, speaker shows that he cannot
be telling the truth and encourages hearer to look for an interpretation that reconciles
the two contradictory things. For example:
A: Are you upset about that?
B: Well, yes and no.
Strategy 8: Be ironic
By saying the opposite of what he means, speaker can indirectly express intended
meaning.
For example:
Jim’s real genius. (after Jim
has done twenty stupid things in a row)Lovely neighbor, eh? (in a slum)
Strategy 9: Use metaphors
There is a possibility for the use of metaphor by off record, which
marked with hedging particles such as: real, regular, sort of, as it were that
make their status explicit. For example:
Jim’s a real fish. (c.i. he drinks/swims/is
slimy/is cold-blooded like a fish)
The main thing is that (he)
„eats kicks. (let him suffer)
Strategy 10: Use rhetorical
questions
Speaker asks a question with no intention of obtaining an answer; it may be
used to do FTA. For example:
How was I to know ... (an
excuse, c.i. I wasn’t)
What can I say? (nothing, it’s so bad) (a criticism)
Strategy 11: Be ambiguous
Speaker achieves a purposeful ambiguity through metaphor. For example:
Jim’s a pretty sharp cookie. (it could be
either a compliment or insult)
Speaker goes off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object of
the FTA is, or what the offence is. For example: Looks like someone may have
had too much to drink. (vague understatement)
I’m going ... you know ... where.
Strategy 13: Overgeneralize
Speaker utters a rule instantiation which may leave the object of the FTA
vaguely off record. Hearer then has the choice of deciding whether the general rule
applies to him. For example:
Mature people
sometimes help do the dishes. A penny saved is a penny earned.
Strategy 14: Displace hearer
“Speaker goes off record as to whom the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend
to address the FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten and hope the real target will see that the FTA is
meant at him” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 226). For example:
A secretary in an office asks another – but with negative politeness to
pass the stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the
stapler than the other secretary. His face isn’t threatened, and he can choose to do
it himself as a bonus „free gift
Strategy 15: Be incomplete,
use ellipsis
Speaker purposely does not finish his utterance and leave an FTA
halfundone, thus leaves the implicature „hanging in the air, just as with
rhetorical questions. For example:
Wwell, I didn’t see you ...
Well, if one’s leaves one’s tea on the wobbly table...
When people start or begin a communication with others, they have to pay attention
on maintaining relationship with others. People have to consider their communications
are based on how close the relationship status that they have with others,
which on the theory it is called as social distance.
5. Social
Distance
Green (1996: 151) says that although many people associate the notion of politeness
exclusively with formal and informal behavior, both Lakoff and Brown and
Levinson take the ways which intimates are expected to show their regard to each
other as a natural extension of formal and informal politeness principles that govern
interpersonal interaction between non-intimates.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 17-22) attempt to characterize the factors which
make one rule or strategy more appropriate than the others, allowing a large power,
small distance relationship (e.g. parent-child) to count the same as the medium
power, medium distance (e.g. doctor-patient) in determining that the informal,
negative politeness strategy of offering options is called for. Then, Brown and
Levinson’s scheme (
1987:68-69 ) predicts that in situation where there is a largepower
differential between the participants, they will use different politeness strategy.
Speakers, even a particular speaker and addressee, may differ in their respective
estimates of social distance between them. In addition, speakers apply the
various politeness strategies and tactics in different ways according to their desire
to change that social distance, their beliefs about what kind of situation a certain
behavior is appropriate to, and finally according to their personal style.
H.
Research Method
In conducting this
research, it is important for a researcher to determine the research method
that researcher would like to use. This chapter will discuss research method
used in this research including: research design, unit of analysis, source of
data, technique of data collection and technique of data analysis.
1.
Research Design
The study is descriptive qualitative.
It provides the answers to the questions of how something
happened and who was involved, but not why something happened or why someone
was involved (explanatory research). Descriptive research provides a detailed
profile of an event, condition or situation using either quantitative,
qualitative or a combination of methods. Data gathering techniques such as field
research and case studies are for qualitative descriptive research. Based on statement above this
thesis is descriptive
qualitative because this thesis describes the way politeness strategies are used by someone.
The data of the research are the utterances, which contains politeness strategies
employed by Louanne Johnson to her students. This study has one primary data
source which is the video of Dangerious Mind. The researcher also used script of the dialogue of that
video taken from the internet.
2.
Unit
of Analysis
The
unit analysis of this study are utterances of Louanne Johnson to her students
that were taken from script of Dangerious
Mind movie.
3.
Source
of the data
The
Sources of data
of this study are video and data transcription. They were taken from http/ www.imsdb.com/
dangerious-mind.html. The movie was presented by Hollywood Pictures on August
11, 1995.
4.
Techniques
of Data Collection
a. Browsing
many kind of videos and its transcriptions from the internet
b. Choosing the video
and transcription of Dangerious Mind movie
c.
Downloading the video as well as its transcription from http/ www.imsdb.com/
dangerious-mind.html
5.
Techniques
of Data analysis
The data that have been collected then are
analyzed by using the following steps:
a. Watching
Dangerious Mind movie while reading
its script
b. Classifying
the utterances in the dialogue among Louanne Johnson and her students in the
classroombasedon the theory of politeness strategies.
c. Identifying
the politeness strategies used by
Louanne Johnson.
d. Classifying
the politeness strategies based on the framework proposed by Brown and Levinson ( 1987:94-227 ).
e. Analyzing
the factors influencing the politeness
strategies used by Louanne Johnson based on the theory of Brown and Levinson.
f. Interpreting
the data
I.
Research
schedule
|
No
|
Year
|
2012
|
|||
|
Month
|
March
|
April
|
May
|
June
|
|
|
1
|
Preparation
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Data
Collection
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Data
Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Report
Writing
|
|
|
|
|
J. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some
universals in languageusage. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge.
Green, Georgia M. 1996. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding.
New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Josephine Raharjo, 2012. Politeness Strategies Produced By Sayuri
Nita AndMameha In “Memoirs Of Geisha”. Semarang : Dian Nuswantoro University.
Lee McGaan, Qualitative Descriptive
Research Method. http://www.ehow.com/info_8687891_qualitative-descriptive-research-method.html#ixzz1wVaBwst1
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Website :file:///F:/dangerous_minds.html
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar