7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Pragmatics

The content of this section will be some definitions of pragmatics taken

from several resources.

The term pragmatics, according to Thomas (1995 p.22), is defined as

meaning in interaction. As a dynamic process, making meaning involves the

negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance

(physical, social and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance. Thus,

this point of view signifies that meaning is not something which is inherent in the

words alone, nor is produced by the speaker or the hearer alone, but associated

with the context and the meaning potential of an utterance.

Yule (1996 p.3) then also comes with four definitions of pragmatics which

are described as follows:

a. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning

The words uttered by a speaker do not always have literal meaning, but

sometimes they have implied meaning. Pragmatics is related to the study

of meaning stated by a speaker and interpreted by a listener.

Accordingly, it has to do with the analysis of the intention behind what

people uttered than what the words in the utterance might mean by

themselves.

b. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning

8

The speakers need to consider how to organize what they want to say

according to whom they are talking to, where, when, and under what

circumstances since the particular context influences the utterance said

by the speakers.

c. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said

It deals with the analysis of invisible meaning since it explores how a

great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is

communicated. Hence, the hearer needs an ability to interpret the

intended meaning of the speaker.\

d. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance

Closeness, whether it is physical, social or conceptual, implies shared

experience. Thus, the speaker needs to measure whether he needs to say

something or not, regarding to the closeness or the distance to the hearer.

Another definition of pragmatics comes from Cruse (2000 p. 16) who states

that pragmatics in the widest sense is concerned with aspects of information

expressed through language which develops naturally beyond the meanings which

are typically determined by any particular aspect in the linguistic forms used, but

are not determined by the rule which are generally accepted in the linguistic forms

used. It also relates to the context in which the forms are used. Hence, the

information conveyed through language cannot always be accepted literally since

sometimes there is such a certain intention behind the utterance which is

9

transferred by using implicit code or gesture. Therefore, the hearer needs a

competence and sensitivity in order to be able to catch the real intention of the

speaker.

From the definitions stated above, it can be concluded that pragmatics is the

field of language study which deals with not only the explicit utterance but also

the implicit meaning behind the utterance itself. It cannot be separated from the

certain context of both speaker and hearer’s surroundings. Thus, all the aspects in

pragmatics which influence each other are united and cannot be separated each

other. The successful interpretation of the utterance can be attained when all the

aspects in pragmatics are engaged comprehensively.

B. Speech Acts

1. Definition of Speech Acts

Related to Austin and Searle’s theory of speech acts, Cummings (2005

p.4) affirms that speech act theory has central role within the multidisciplinary

study of pragmatics. According to some linguists, the followings are some

definitions of speech acts.

Based on Searle (1969 p.16), the unit of linguistic communication is not

the symbol, word or sentence, but rather the production or issuance of the symbol

or word or sentence in the performance of the speech acts. Speech acts are the

basic or minimal units of linguistic communication.

10

Another definition comes from Austin in Thomas (1995 p.51) who states

that speech acts originally refer to an utterance and the total situation in which the

utterance is issued.

Likewise, Yule (1996 p.47) terms speech acts as actions performed by

using utterances where in English commonly comprise any particular

characterization, such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or

request.

From some definitions above, it can be concluded that speech acts are

related to all forms of actions or deeds conveyed through language as the way to

communicate any idea among the people in making conversation by considering

the certain context and condition.

Levinson in Mey (1993 p.112) asserts that speech acts deal with these

following three aspects:

a. Locutionary aspect

This aspect relates to ‘the utterance of a sentence with determinate

sense and reference’.

b. Illocutionary aspect

It deals with ‘the naming of a statement, offer, promise, etc. in uttering

a sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it’.

c. Perlocutionary aspect

This aspect concerns with ‘the effect on the audience as a result of

uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of

utterance’.

11

Briefly, the locutionary aspect is the form of utterance; the illocutionary

aspect is the speaker’s intention behind the utterance; and the perlocutionary

aspect is the result of the illocutionary or the response of the hearer regarding to

the speaker’s intention.

2. Classification of Speech Acts

There are some different classifications of speech acts according to

different linguists. The former classification comes from John L. Austin who

classifies the speech acts into five types: ‘Verdictives’, ‘Exercitives’,

‘Commissives’, ‘Behabitives’ and ‘Expositives’ (Austin in Leech, 1983 p.176).

Searle in Leech (1983 p.176) explicitly disassociates himself from

Austin’s assumption of such a correspondence between verbs and speech acts

where ‘differences in illocutionary verbs are a good guide, but by no means a sure

guide to differences in illocutionary acts.’ He also intends to examine about the

deep structure of explicit performative sentences in each of Austin’s classification.

Furthermore, Searle in Leech (1983 p.205) categorizes the speech acts into

five categories: ‘Assertives’, ‘Directives’, ‘Commissives’, ‘Expressives’ and

‘Declarations’. Moreover, Leech (1983 p.196) states that his classification of

speech act is basically the same as the others, but the difference is in the point of

regarding those not as a key to the nature of illocutionary acts, but as the key to

how people talk about illocutionary acts. Thus, he comes to the five redefined

categories of speech acts: ‘Assertive’, ‘Directive’, ‘Commissive’, ‘Rogative’ and

‘Expressive’ (Leech, 1983 p.211).

12

At last, Yule (1996 pp.53-54) classifies the general functions of speech

acts into five types: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives and

commissives. Each type is described further as follows:

1. Declarations

Declarations are the kinds of speech acts which change the world by

the use of utterance. It means that the speaker is required to have a

particular institutional role in a certain context with the aim of

performing a declaration properly.

For example:

Priest : “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”

2. Representatives

Representatives are the kinds of speech acts which assert what the

speaker believes to be the case or not. The statement can be a fact,

assertion, conclusion and description.

For example: “The earth is flat.”

3. Expressives

Expressives are the kinds of speech acts which utter what the speaker

feels. The expressions can be psychological conditions such as

pleasures, pains, likes, dislikes, joys, or sorrows.

For example: “I’m really sorry!”

13

4. Directives

Directives are the kinds of speech acts which the speakers use to get

someone else to do something as they want. The expressions can be

commands, orders, requests and suggestions. They can also be positive

or negative.

For example: “Gimme a cup of coffee. Make it black.”

5. Commissives

Commissives are the kinds of speech acts which the speakers employ

to commit themselves to some actions in the future. The expressions

can be promises, threats, refusals and pledges.

For example: “I’m going to get it right next time.”

C. Context

The meaning behind utterances is impossible to understand properly

without any consideration of context. Since context plays significant role in

pragmatics, it cannot be neglected in every utterance. The term is explained more

in the following according to some linguists.

Mey (1993 p.38) states that the context is a dynamic, not a static concept.

It is understood as the surroundings, in the widest sense, that enables the

participants to interact in the communication process, and that make the linguistic

expressions of their interaction intelligible.

14

In another way, Malinowsky in Halliday and Hasan (1985 p.6) propose the

two notions of context which are called context of situation and context of culture.

Context of situation refers to the situation in which the text is uttered, while

context of culture refers to the cultural background or the history behind the

participants.

In addition, there is a further description of context of situation comes

from Firth in Halliday and Hasan (1985 p.8) which can be figured out as follows:

The participants in the situation which refers to persons and personalities or

the statuses and roles of the participants.

The action of the participants which refers to what they are doing, including

their verbal action and non-verbal action.

Other relevant features of the situation which refers to the surrounding objects

and events.

The effects of the verbal action which refers to the changes brought about by

what the participants in the situation have to say.

From all the descriptions above, it can be confirmed that recognizing the

context in all pragmatic utterances is truly important, since the certain utterance

may contain more than one meanings depending on the certain context around the

participants in a conversation. By understanding the context, the intended

meaning behind the utterance can be approved appropriately.

15

D. Arguments

The followings are some definitions which represent the definition of the

term arguing based on some linguists in linguistics field then followed by such a

brief discussion about the rules of arguing according to the theories.

There are two definitions of argument from O’Keefe in Cummings (2005

p.164). In the first definition, he states that argument is ‘a kind of utterance or a

sort of communicative act’ which is ‘on a par with promises, commands,

apologies, warnings, invitations, orders, and the like’. In the second definition, he

asserts that argument refers to ‘a particular kind of interaction’ which ‘is

classifiable with other species of interactions such as bull sessions, heart-to-heart

talks, quarrels, discussions, and so forth’.

Furthermore, another basic theory of argumentation comes from Ehninger

and Brockriede (1960 pp. 98-186) who refer to Toulmin’s about the three essential

components of argument, namely claim, data and warrant. Claim deals with the

conclusion of an argument, an explicit point that the speaker wishes his hearer to

accept. Data deals with materials of fact or opinion stated or implied by the

speaker and accepted by the hearer. Warrant deals with the part of an argument

which states or implies an inference and authorizes a mental leap from data to

claim.

In addition, Govier (2013 p.1) asserts that arguments are found where

there is any controversy or disagreement about a subject and people try to solve

that disagreement logically. When they state arguments, they offer reasons and

evidence to try to persuade others that their beliefs are correct. Moreover, an

16

argument is also defined as a set of claims presented as offering support for a

further claim. An argument is composed of the supporting claims and the

supported claim. A person offers an argument when he or she tries to justify a

claim by offering reasons for it.

Arguments have two basic parts: premises and conclusions. The

conclusion is the claim or statement that people are trying to support. The

premises are other claims, which offer evidence or reasons intended to support the

conclusion.

For example : “Human beings are neither naturally good nor naturally evil.

The reason is clear to see: human beings become either good or evil

because of the lives they lead, which in turn are the result of choices they

make in this world.” (Here, the first statement is the conclusion. An

indicator phrase follows, indicating the supporting premise.)

Commonly, there are some indicator words that can help to figure out the

argument, such as therefore, thus, so, because, since, etc.

For example : “Fear can cause accidents among older people. Therefore,

doctors should use discretion when counseling older people about the risks

of falling.” (Here, the indicator word therefore precedes the conclusion

and shows the structure of the argument.) (Govier, 2013 pp.6-20).

E. Politeness Strategy

1. The Classification of Politeness Strategies

In this part, there will be description about the classification of politeness

strategy based on Brown and Levinson. Brown and Levinson (1987 p.68-71) have

classified the politeness strategies based on the intensity of the speakers and

17

hearers in minimizing the threat which possibly occurs during the conversation.

The strategies can be come from doing the FTA directly with or without paying

attention to minimize the threat, or avoiding and not trying to do the FTA at all.

The strategies includes bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness and

off record. The further explanation is provided as follows:

a) Bald on-Record

Brown and Levinson (1987 p.95) state that the use of bald on-record

strategy aims to the main reason where the speaker wants to do FTA with

maximum efficiency more than he wants to satisfy the hearer’s face. It can be said

that bald on-record strategy does not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s

face. Furthermore, there are also different kinds of bald on-record usage in

different circumstances since the speaker probably have different motives for his

want to do FTA with maximum efficiency. Thus, bald on-record strategy is

classified into two clases according to Brown and Levinson (1987 p.95) as

follows:

1) Cases of non-minimization of the face threat

This strategy is employed by the speaker when maximum efficiency is

very important and is commonly known to both speaker and hearer in

case of great urgency or desperation.

For example: “Help!”

2) Cases of FTA-oriented bald on-record usage

18

This type of strategy is actually oriented to face of both speaker and

hearer. It can be said that each participant attempts to predict what the

other participant is attempting to predict since the way in which respect

for face involves mutual orientation.

For example: “Don’t bother, I’ll clean it up.”

b) Positive Politeness Strategy

Brown and Levinson (1987 p.70) define that positive politeness is the

strategy which is oriented by the speaker toward the hearer’s positive face or

positive self image that the speaker claims for himself. The speaker can fulfill the

positive face wants of the addressee by emphasizing that the speaker has the same

desire as the hearer.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987 pp.103-129), there are 15 types of

politeness strategies as follows:

1. Strategy 1 : Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

The strategy suggests that S should take notice of aspects of H’s

condition (noticeable changes, remarkable possessions, anything which

looks as though H would want S to notice and approve of it).

For example: “You must be hungry, it’s a long time since breakfast.

How about some lunch?”

2. Strategy 2 : Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

19

The strategy is often executed with exaggerated intonation, stress, and

other aspects of prosodic, as well as with intensifying modifiers. The

example below comes from the speech of a woman describing the

disreputable appearance of her drunken husband.

For example: “He looked as if he was still drunk; he looked incredibly

dirty, really uncombed hair, really crooked clothes,

really his belt half-tied!”

3. Strategy 3 : Intensify interest to H

Another way for S to communicate to H that he shares some of his

wants is to intensify the interest of his own (S’s) contributions to the

conversation, by ‘making a good story’.

For example: “I come down the stairs, and what do you think I see? —

a huge mess all over the place, the phone’s off the hook

and clothes are scattered all over. . .“

4. Strategy 4 : Use in-group identity markers

The strategy is executed by using any of the innumerable ways to

convey in-group membership. Thus, S can implicitly claim the common

ground with H that is carried by that definition of the group. These can

include in-group usages of language or dialect, jargon or slang, ellipsis,

and address forms to indicate that S and H belong to some set of

persons who share specific wants.

For example: “Bring me your dirty clothes to wash, honey.”

20

5. Strategy 5 : Seek agreement

Another way of claiming common ground or saving positive face of H

is to seek ways in which it is possible to agree with him. Seeking

agreement can be stressed by raising ‘safe topics’ like weather topics

and also by repeating part or all of what the preceding speaker has said

in a conversation.

For example:

A : “I had a flat tyre on the way home.”

B : “Oh God, a flat tyre!”

6. Strategy 6 : Avoid disagreement

The desire to agree or appear to agree with H leads also to mechanisms

for pretending to agree. By using the strategy, speakers may go in

twisting their utterances so as to appear to agree or to hide

disagreement.

For example:

A : “So is this permanent?”

B : “Yeah, it’s ‘permanent’ — permanent until I get married again.”

7. Strategy 7 : Presuppose / raise / assert common ground

The strategy is widely used by the speakers as a way to indicate that S

knows H’s wants, tastes, habits, etc., and thus partially to redress the

imposition of FTAs.

21

For example: “Don’t you want some dinner now?”

8. Strategy 8 : Joke

Jokes are based on mutual shared background knowledge and values.

Thus, jokes may be used to stress those shared background or shared

values. Joking is a basic positive-politeness technique, for putting H ‘at

ease’; or minimizing an FTA of requesting. Besides, jokes may be used

as an exploitation of politeness strategies as well, in attempts to redefine

the size of the FTA. The example below is the way a speaker who

wants to borrow his friend’s new Cadillac conveys his intention.

For example: “How about lending me this old heap of junk?”

9. Strategy 9 : Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for

H’s wants

The strategy is executed by asserting or implying knowledge of H’s

wants and willingness to fit one’s own wants in with them.

For example: “I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be

good — do come!”

10. Strategy 10 : Offer, promise

The strategy is executed to redress the potential threat of some FTAs.

Speaker may choose to stress his cooperation with H in another way.

He may also claim that whatever H wants, S wants for him and will

help to obtain.

22

For example: “I’ll drop by sometime next week.”

11. Strategy 11 : Be optimistic

The strategy assumes that H will cooperate with S since it will be in

their mutual shared interest.

For example: “You’ll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, I

hope.”

12. Strategy 12 : Include both S and H in the activity

The strategy is executed by using an inclusive ‘we’ form, when S

really means ‘you’ or ‘me’, he can call upon the cooperative

assumptions and thereby redresses FTAs.

For example: “Let’s stop for a bite.” (i.e. I want a bite, so let’s stop)

13. Strategy 13 : Give (or ask for) reasons

Another aspect of including H in the activity is for S to give reasons as

to why he wants what he wants. Besides, it works by demanding

reasons ‘why not’ and assuming that if there are no good reasons why

H shouldn’t or can’t cooperate, he will.

For example: “Why don’t we go to the seashore!”

14. Strategy 14 : Assume or assert reciprocity

The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or

urged by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining

between S and H.

23

For example: “I accompanied you to go shopping last week, so you do

that for me this week.”

15. Strategy 15 : Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding,

cooperation)

For the sake of satisfying H’s positive face, S may do the classic

strategy, that is, the classic positive-politeness action of gift-giving,

not only tangible gifts, but also human-relations wants, such as the

wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened to, and

so on.

For example: “You’re such a generous man. Would you help me to

park this car?”

c) Negative Politeness Strategy

According to Brown and Levinson (1987 p.129), negative politeness

strategy is redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want

to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Different

from positive politeness which is free-ranging, negative politeness is specific and

focused; it performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the

FTA unavoidably effects. The classification of negative politeness strategy can be

noticed as follows: (Brown and Levinson, 1987 pp.132-210)

1. Strategy 1 : Be conventionally indirect

24

The strategy is employed by using phrases and sentences that have

contextually unambiguous meanings which are different from their

literal meanings. In this way, the utterance goes on record, and the

speaker indicates his desire to have gone off record (to have conveyed

the same thing indirectly).

For example: “Can you pass the salt?”

2. Strategy 2 : Question, hedge

In the literature, a ‘hedge’ is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies

the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set that it is

partial, or true only in certain respects, or more true and complete than

perhaps might be expected. Furthermore, hedge may be functioned to

soften command and turn it into a politeness suggestion.

For example: “Come (if you want to) eat.”

3. Strategy 3 : Be pessimistic

The strategy gives redress to H’s negative face by explicitly expressing

doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s speech act

obtain.

For example: “Perhaps you’d care to help me.”

4. Strategy 4 : Minimize the imposition

One way of defusing the FTA is to indicate that the intrinsic seriousness

of the imposition is not great, though it is.

25

For example: “I just want to ask you if I can borrow a tiny bit of

paper.”

5. Strategy 5 : Give deference

There are two realizations of deference: one in which S humbles and

abases himself and another where S raises H (pays him positive face of

a particular kind which satisfies H’s want to be treated as superior).

For example: “Mr. President, if I thought you were trying to protect

someone I would have walked out.”

6. Strategy 6 : Apologize

By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicate his

reluctance to impinge on H’s negative face and thereby partially redress

that impingement.

For example: “I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but . . .”

7. Strategy 7 : Impersonalize S and H

One way of indicating that S doesn’t want to impinge on H is to phrase

the FTA as if the agent were other than S, or at least possibly not S or

not S alone, and the addressee were other than H, or only inclusive of

H.

For example: “That letter must be typed immediately (by you for me).”

8. Strategy 8 : State the FTA as a general rule

26

One way of dissociating S and H from the particular imposition in the

FTA, and hence a way of communicating that S doesn’t 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.”

9. Strategy 9 : Nominalize

Naturally, the more nouns are used in an expression, the more removed

an actor is from doing or feeling or being something, the less dangerous

an FTA seems to be.

For example: By nominalizing the subject, the sentence “Your good

performance on the examinations impressed us

favourably” gets more formal.

10. Strategy 10 : Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting

H

The strategy is employed by explicitly claiming his indebtedness to H

or by disclaiming any indebtedness of H, hence S can redress an FTA.

For example: “It wouldn’t be any trouble; I have to go right by there

anyway.”

d) Off Record

27

The last politeness strategy defined by Brown and Levinson is off record

strategy, which is indirect way. Brown and Levinson (1987 p.211) assert that a

communicative act is done off record if it is done whether it is not possible to

attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. Thus, if a speaker

wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can

employ off record strategy or indirect way and let the addressee make his own

interpretation of the FTA. Brown and Levinson (1987 pp.213-227) also classify

off record strategy into 15 strategies:

1. Strategy 1 : Give hints

Giving hints strategy is employed when S invites H to search for an

interpretation of the possible relevance whether he says something that

is not explicitly relevant. Commonly, the hints consist in ‘raising the

issue of’ particular desired act by stating motives or reasons for doing

the act.

For example: “It’s cold in here.” (c.i. Shut the window)

2. Strategy 2 : Give association clues

The strategy is applied by mentioning something associated with the act

required of H, either by precedent in S-H’s experience or by mutual

knowledge irrespective of their interactional experience.

For example: When someone actually wants someone else to visit him,

he says: “My house isn’t very far away . . . There’s the

path that leads to my house.”

28

3. Strategy 3 : Presuppose

The strategy is conducted by using an utterance which is relevant in

context and requires H to look for an interpretation of the possible

relevance just at the level of its presuppositions.

For example: When someone implicates a criticism and complains

about his friend’s responsibility to wash the car, he

says: “I washed the car again today.”

4. Strategy 4 : Understate

To generate implicatures by using understatements, S says less than is

required.

For example: When someone actually appraises ‘very bad’ about

something, he just says: “That’s somewhat amazing.”

5. Strategy 5 : Overstate

The strategy is employed by saying more than is required or necessary,

in other word, by exaggerating or choosing a point on a scale which is

higher than the actual state of affairs.

For example: “I tried to call a hundred times, but there was never any

answer.”

6. Strategy 6 : Use tautologies

29

By using a tautology, S encourages H to look for an informative

interpretation of the non-informative utterance.

For example: “Your clothes belong where your clothes belong, my

clothes belong where my clothes belong. Look

upstairs!”

7. Strategy 7 : Use contradictions

The strategy is applied by stating two contradictory things where S

makes it appear that he cannot be telling the truth. Thus, he encourages

H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two contradictory

propositions.

For example: Someone might say of a drunken friend to a telephone

caller: “Well, John is here and he isn’t here.”

8. Strategy 8 : Be ironic

To be ironic, S says the opposite of what he means. By doing it so, S

can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues (prosodic,

kinesics, or textual) which is relevant to certain context.

For example: When a man meets a postman drenched in rainstorm, he

says: “Beautiful weather, isn’t it!”

9. Strategy 9 : Use metaphors

30

The use of metaphor is usually on record, but there is a possibility that

the connotations of the metaphor intended by S may be off record.

For example: The utterance “Harry’s a real fish” means Harry swims

like a fish.

10. Strategy 10 : Use rhetorical questions

The strategy uses a question from S without any intention of getting an

answer from H. The questions leave their answers hanging in the air or

may be used to do FTAs.

For example: “What can I say?” which actually means ‘Nothing, it’s so

bad.’

11. Strategy 11 : Be ambiguous

The term ‘ambiguity’ contains the ambiguity between the literal

meaning of an utterance and any possible implicatures within it.

For example: The utterance “John’s a pretty sharp cookie” aimed to be

a compliment or an insult, depending on which of the

connotations of sharp are latched on to.

12. Strategy 12 : Be vague

S is being vague about who the object of the FTA is, or what the

offence is.

For example: The utterance “Perhaps someone did something naughty”

may emerge in criticism.

31

13. Strategy 13 : Over-generalize

The utterance which is stated may leave the object of the FTA vaguely

off record and H has the choice of deciding whether the general rule

applies to him afterwards.

For example: “If that door is shut completely, it sticks.”

14. Strategy 14 : Displace H

S may go off record to the target of his FTA or pretend to address the

FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten, and hope that the real

target will see that the FTA is aimed at him.

For example: In the case where one secretary in an office asks another

with negative politeness to pass the stapler, in case

where a professor is much nearer to the stapler than the

other secretary. In this situation, H’s face is not

threatened and he can choose to do it himself as a bonus

‘free gift’.

15. Strategy 15 : Be incomplete, use ellipsis

The strategy is applied by leaving an FTA half uncompleted and the

implicature ‘hanging in the air’ in the same way with rhetorical

questions.

For example: “Well, if one leaves one’s tea on the wobbly table . . . “

32

F. The Influencing Factors in Choosing the Strategy

There are some theories which are engaged in this section. According to

Brown and Levinson (1987 pp.71-77), there are two major factors which influence

the choice of politeness strategies: the payoffs and the circumstances. The details

are described more as follows:

1. The payoffs: a priori considerations

The speaker tends to choose certain strategy due to the payoffs or

advantages he may get afterward. Hence, the payoffs can be considered as the

gain when the speaker uses the strategies.

By means of bald on-record strategy, the intention of the utterance can

be clearer for the speaker and hearer. The speaker can get honor for honesty and

also avoid the danger of being misunderstood. On record strategy can be done

with positive and negative politeness. By going on record with positive politeness,

the speaker can please the hearer’s positive face as he wants his wants. Therefore,

the face-threatening acts can be minimized by the speaker. Besides, by using on

record with negative politeness, the speaker can please the hearer’s negative face

and avoid the threat or potential face loss. At last, by using off record, the speaker

can avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation and get

honor for being tactful and non-coercive.

2. The circumstances: Sociological variables

Brown and Levinson argue that there are some factors involved in the

circumstances in many cultures as follows:

33

a. The ‘social distance’ (D) of speaker and hearer

D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference between

S and H based on a consideration of the frequency of interaction

and the kinds of face exchanged between S and H.

b. The relative ‘power’ (P) of speaker and hearer

P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power. Generally,

there are two sources of P, either authorized or unauthorized which

is material control (over economic distribution and physical force)

and metaphysical control (over the actions of others).

c. The absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture

R is a defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which FTA

involved. Generally, there are two ranks which influence the

negative-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in proportion to the

spending of service and goods (including information and other

face payments); whereas the ranking for positive face FTAs

involves an assessment of the amount of ‘pain’ toward H’s face.

In addition, according to Holmes (1995 p.17), the power dimension refers

to the participant’s ability to influence circumstances of one another. The power is

determined by the ability in controlling the behavior of one person to another.

Moreover, power relations are important in politeness. According to Brown and

Levinson (1987 p.77), power is “the ability of one person to impose their will on

another”.

34

Furthermore, there are some factors influencing power differences. One of

them is the age differences. The different level of politeness is frequently

portrayed in conversations between people with different ages whereas people

with the same age commonly use familiar speech styles in conversation.

Another aspect of power is the notion of status. According to Bonvillain

(1993 pp.145-146), status differences may be based on ‘combinations of income,

occupation, education, and resulting differences in access to social, economic,

and/or political power and this reflect inequalities among sectors of a population’.

Also, there is an adoption from Brown and Levinson’s idea in this case that ‘the

more powerful a person, the more influential he is in the conversations’.

Besides, gender also has role as a factor relating to differences in

communicative styles. According to Speer (2002 p.347), women have a higher

tendency than men to apply politeness strategies in their speech such as the use of

more compliments, more apologies, and more thanks. Hobbs (2003 p.243)

perceives that when talking with same sex peers, women will use many positive

politeness strategies. On the other hand, men in similar circumstances do not show

this tendency.

Likewise, situation or speech situation, either formal or informal, is also an

influential factor in communication. Typically, people talking in formal situations

will use more polite speech whereas in informal situations, speakers tend to use a

more familiar style of speech. People also change levels of speech depending on

the situation, even when talking with the same person. Holmes (1995 p.17)

35

denotes this as the ‘formality dimension’, which concerns the situational factors

that influence people to be polite or not.

G. The Study of Politeness Strategy

The study of politeness was previously conducted by Anjarsari (2010)

entitled Politeness Strategies of Criticizing, a Study on a Movie The Ugly Truth.

Through the research, Anjarsari explored the politeness strategy to extend

criticism used by the characters in the movie. The criticism utterances were

analyzed by employing Brown and Levinson theory. The result of the research

shows that American young people tend to use bald on record strategy to extend

and respond the criticism to others. The choice of strategy is influenced by the

relative power that the speakers and hearers have, the close relationship between

the participants and the situational factor.

Another study comes from Shigemitsu (2003) entitled Politeness Study in

the Context of Argument in Japanese Debate Shows. Through this study,

Shigemitsu intends to figure out politeness strategies in the discourse of argument

situation in Japanese. The result of this study proves that negative politeness

strategies function to maintain harmonious atmosphere. Those negative politeness

strategies help the participants keep distant even in a direct face-to-face speech

events. This effect works to avoid any conflict among the speakers. Besides, the

use of positive politeness strategy in this case is limited when the participants

employ positive politeness strategy 5 ‘Seek agreement’. It is used for claiming

common ground with H. Stressing speaker’s agreement with hearer, speaker

36

satisfies hearer’s desire to be ‘right’. Thus, they corroborate each other even

though they have different opinions. During the interactions, Japanese participants

try to maintain harmonious atmosphere as possible.

In different case, through this research, the researcher conducts a study to

analyze the politeness strategy in arguing things used by the characters in the

movie entitled The Proposal. The arguments are then analyzed by using Brown

and Levinson’s politeness strategy theory.

H. The Synopsis of the Movie The Proposal

Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) is an assistant/secretary of a top editor of

a large publishing company in New York City, Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock).

Margaret whose characteristics are firm and bossy, asks Andrew to work late over

the weekend after she fired the fellow editor, Bob Spaulding (Aasif Mandvi)

because of his failure of doing his responsibility. Unfortunately, Andrew who

actually planned to visit his grandma in Sitka, Alaska for celebrating her 90th

birthday on the weekend asks for permission, but he gets no extra time to do that.

Shortly after, Margaret is bidden to meet her boss, Chairman Bergen (Michael

Nouri) who tells her that she will be deported to her hometown Canada due to her

expired visa. Owing to foil the matter, she desperately schemes a scenario that she

and Andrew will be married. Andrew does nothing then since he is too shocked

and speechless to hear that. Therefore, Bergen demands them to go to the

immigration office to legalize the engagement.

37

At Margaret’s office, Andrew is getting mad and insists Margaret to end

that foolish ploy, but Margaret promises and convinces him to divorce him

immediately after she gets her citizenship. Unavoidably, Andrew approves it as he

worries about the consequence to be fined or sentenced to jail if they just make

such a fake relationship. In return, Andrew demands Margaret’s promise to

publish 20.000 copies of his manuscript he has used. He asks Margaret to beg him

to marry her by getting down on her knees and she does it so.

Andrew and Margaret have a journey to Sitka, Alaska where Andrew’s

family lived in. Arrived there, Margaret is greeted by Andrew’s mother Grace

(Mary Steenburgen) and grandmother Annie (Gammie – Betty White). They tell

that the hotel reservation was canceled and ask Margaret to stay at their home.

Margaret is shocked and uncomfortable because of that. One more thing that

makes her surprised is in fact, Andrew is a rich guy.

Andrew conveys his intention to marry Margaret to his father, Joe (Craig

T. Nelson). His father is shocked to hear that, but his mother and grandmother are

delighted and curious to hear their love story. Consequently, Andrew and

Margaret have to make a fake story. Grace and Gammie then prepare a room for

them both.

At one night, Margaret confesses that she becomes tough just for the sake

of maintaining her reputation. She also reveals that her swallow tattoos are

actually meant to perpetuate her parents who passed away when she was sixteen.

Hearing that, Andrew takes a little bit pity of her.

38

The next morning, Grace, Joe and Gammie enter the room where Andrew

and Margaret slept in. They ask Andrew and Margaret to have a wedding

ceremony the following day in the barn where they ever had a marriage. They

doubtfully approve it as a granting of Gammie’s wish, that is, she wants her

grandson to get married before she dies.

Everything runs smoothly as what have been planned until the time when

the pastor is going to start the wedding ceremony, Margaret suddenly stands out at

the altar and confesses all about the sham. She apologizes to Andrew’s family and

leaves the barn immediately. Andrew pursues to stop Margaret’s plane, but

unfortunately, it is too late. Margaret still has 24 hours to pack and goes back to

Canada. She takes out the stuffs at her office afterward. In a moment, dashing into

the office, Andrew meets Margaret and says that even though he detests her too

much in the beginning, but his affection grows since they were together in Sitka.

Finally, Andrew proposes Margaret sincerely and asks her to marry him. Even

though Margaret is still slightly afraid, she accepts him after all as she admits that

she truly loves him too. They kiss and all the coworkers become the witness of

their love (Hoberman & Lieberman, 2009).