AN ANALYSIS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY BETWEEN ELLEN DEGENERES AND BARRACK OBAMA IN THE ELLEN SHOW

Transcription

1 i AN ANALYSIS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY BETWEEN ELLEN DEGENERES AND BARRACK OBAMA IN THE ELLEN SHOW A Thesis Submitted to Faculty of Adab and Humanities In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Strata One (S1) GADING AYU KUSUMA LISTY ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA 2016

2 i ABSTRACT Gading Ayu Kusuma Listy, An Analysis of Politeness Strategy between Ellen DeGeneres and Barrack Obama in The Ellen Show. Thesis. Jakarta: English Letters Department, Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah, August This research is on pragmatics politeness of an interview between Ellen DeGeneres and the United States President, Barrack Obama in Ellen DeGeneres show episode 12 February It is a qualitative research that used Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy (1978), supported by J.L. Austin s speech act theory (1962). By applying the theories, the writer found that Both Ellen and Obama were observed politeness strategy. In Ellen s utterance, the writer found two Brown and Levinson s strategies which are positive and negative politeness. Meanwhile, in Obama s utterance, the writer found one Brown and Levinson s strategy which is positive politeness. The choices of strategy from the participants are influenced by varied payoffs and sociological factors. The payoffs factors are save and satisfy guest s face, save and satisfy host s face, and save and satisfy viewers face. Meanwhile, the sociological factors are the social distance between speaker and hearer and the relative power of speaker and hearer. Keywords: Pragmatics, Politeness, Positive strategy, and Negative strategy. i

3 ii

4 iii

5 DECLARATION I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institutes of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been made in the text. Jakarta, August 28 th 2016 Gading Ayu Kusuma Listy iv

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful All praises be to Allah SWT. The real writer s guide, who amazingly and mysteriously guides and helps her in the process of making this thesis. Peace and salutation be upon the greatest prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, companions, and adherents. The writer wants to say many thanks to her family: her mother (Mrs. Lilis Mawati) and father (Mr. Erlangga Wijaya Kusuma) who have taken care the writer and always support her much morally and materially, their merits and sacrifice will never be paid, and her beloved sisters (Anindita and Sajida) who have given her supports and kindness. The writer also wants to give her gratitude to Mrs. Alfi Syahriyani, M.Hum as the thesis advisor for her time, guidance, and contribution in correcting and helping the writer in finishing this thesis, so, the writer can complete the research. She thanks for all of her advices that have been delivered to her; and may Allah SWT bless her and her family. In writing this thesis, the writer would like to express her deepest gratitude to the following persons: 1. Prof. Dr. Syukran Kamil, M.Ag. as the Dean of Faculty of Letters and Humanities. 2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd as the Head of English Letters Department. 3. Elve Oktafiyani, M.Hum, as the Secretary of English Letters Department. v

7 4. All lectures of English Letters Department, who have taught and educated the writer very well during her study at State Islamic University Syarif Hidatullah Jakarta. 5. Finally, the writer would like to thank everybody, all friends who are important to the successful realization of the thesis, as well as expressing her apology that the writer could not mention personally one by one. Thanks for being good friends. The writer also thanks to Abrar Alifian Epsa, her beloved who always support, strengthen, help, and motivate the writer. May Allah, the all-hearer, and all-knower gives his blesses to us and gives them more that what they have been given to the writer. Ameen. Jakarta, August 28 th, 2016 The Writer vi

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... i APPROVEMENT... ii LEGALIZATION... iii DECLARATION... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... v TABLE OF CONTENS... vii LIST OF TABLES... ix LIST OF DIAGRAM... x LIST OF ABBREVIATION... xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1. Background of the Study Focus of the Study Research Question Objectives of the Study Significances of the Study Research Methodology Method of Research Unit of Analysis Technique of Data Collecting & Processing Technique of Data Analysis Conceptual Framework vii

9 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Previous research Pragmatics Speech Act Politeness Strategy CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDING Data Description Data Analysis CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION Conclusions Suggestions WORKS CITED APPENDIC viii

10 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 The five general function of speech act Table 3.1. Politeness strategies in corpus data Table 3.2. The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.3 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.4 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.5 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.6 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.7 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.8 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.9 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.10 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.11 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.12 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table 3.13 The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue Table Politeness strategies used by Ellen Table Politeness strategies used by Obama ix

11 LIST OF DIAGRAM Diagram 1.1. Conceptual Framework x

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation S H X Explanation Speaker Hearer Situation xi

13 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Background of Study One of the best human s treasures which cannot be found in animals or other creatures is their languages skill (Dardjowodjojo 189). Human s languages skill can help them communicate and exchange information with others, verbally or not. Communication is a process where somebody or some people, group, organization, and society created and use information in order to be connected with the environment and others (Stewart 4). The aim of communication is to share knowledge or experience through spoken language, written, movement, and broadcasting. The greatest benefit from communication according to Stewart and Brent is to build the social network and nothing more important than the relationship with the others, family ties, friendship, and colleague. (Stewart 5) The process can be done through interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication is the communication between one person and another or others. It is often referred to as face-to-face communication between two or more people. Both verbal and nonverbal communication and body language, play a part in how one person understands another. In verbal interpersonal communication, there are two types of messages being sent: a content message and a relational message. (Trenholm and Jensen 360) 1

14 2 Content messages are messages about the topic at hand and relational messages are messages about the relationship itself. This means that relational messages come across in how one says something and it demonstrates a person s feelings, whether positive or negative, towards the individual they are talking to, indicating not only how they feel about the topic at hand, but also how they feel about their relationship with the other individual (Trenholm and Jensen 360) Sometimes when people do a communication, they can be possibly uttering words that can hurt their interlocutor s feeling, so it is very important to keep the interlocutor s feeling while having a conversation in order to avoid a possible gap in the relationship with the others. Communication process can be done privately or watched by the public, for example, is the communication process in the talk show. The talk show is a television programming or radio programming genre in which one person or group of people discusses various topics put forth by a talk show host. (Niven, Lichter and Amundson 118) Usually, guests consist of a group of people who are learned or who have great experience in relation to whatever issue is being discussed on the show for that episode. One of the most successful talk show is Ellen DeGeneres Show. It is an American television talk show hosted by comedian / actress Ellen DeGeneres. Debuting on September 8, 2003, it is produced by Telepictures and airs in syndication, including stations owned by NBC Universal, (When It's On The Ellen DeGeneres Show) in the United States and Canada. The program combines comedy, celebrity, musical guests and human-interest stories. Other

15 3 non-celebrities have been featured in an attempt by DeGeneres to give them 15 minutes of fame. Guests in this role have included intelligent children, small business owners, etc. The program often features audience participation games where prizes are awarded. In Indonesia, Ellen DeGeneres Show is available in Life Time Asia Channel. The show has won 38 Daytime Emmy Awards, including four for Outstanding Talk Show (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) and three for Outstanding Talk Show Entertainment (2010, 2011, 2013). DeGeneres herself has won the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show Host four times (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). The show has also won Emmys for numerous writing and technical categories. It won the Genesis Award for "Best Talk Show" in 2010 and DeGeneres has won the People's Choice Award for "Favorite Daytime TV Host" 14 times. The show averages around 3.9 million viewers per episode, according to daytime television ratings, making it a highly viewed daytime show. (Seidman) Ellen DeGeneres, as the successful talk show host who has won many awards and got millions viewers for her talk show has a responsibility to take care of her talk show s value. Ellen has to maintain her utterance in order to save her dignity as a speaker and to respect the guest s feeling as an interlocutor. In the episode, February 12, 2016, the guest who attended the show is Mr. Barrack Obama, President of United Stated. Ellen not only has a responsible to save Mr. Obama s feeling, but also to save his dignity as President since their

16 4 communication was watched by millions of people. Beside Ellen, Mr. Obama also needs to maintain his utterance in order to save his dignity as President. It is attracted writer to do a research on this talk show, because writer identifies the application of politeness strategy in the dialogue of the talk show which the speaker must rationally assess the possible face-threatening nature or utterances that can hurt hearer s feeling which speaker is about to make and then decide either to avoid it entirely, or at least to soften or minimize it by choosing an appropriate linguistic strategies. Politeness Strategy is a theory by Brown and Levinson. In the spirit of Grice, Brown and Levinson posit a Model Person (MP) with the ability to rationalize from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals. In doing so, the MP has to assess the dangers of threatening other participants (and hence her/his own) face and to choose the appropriate strategies in order to minimize any face threats that might be involved in carrying out the goal-directed activity. In contrast to Leech s model, therefore, Brown and Levinson s model can be seen as an attempt to formulate a theory of how individuals produce linguistic politeness, i.e. it is a production model. (Watts 85) Face in Brown and Levinson s model is a theoretical construct which The MP, with the ability to rationalize from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals, seems to fit well with their redefinition of face, but it is questionable whether the phenomenon of politeness can be reduced to forms of rational means--goals behavior. They claim they have taken from the

17 5 work of Erving Goffman. (Gunarwan 261) The MP in Brown and Levinson s model refers to the speaker, and the only reason the addressee is brought into the picture is in order that the MP can assess which the most appropriate politeness strategy to use in the circumstances. No mention is made of the ways in which the addressee may react to the politeness strategy produced. Focus in Brown and Levinson s model is thus on the speaker, whereas in Leech s model it is on the hearer. (Watts 85) Based on that background, the writer is attracted to do a research to find out the politeness strategy that is implied in the dialogue of the talk show. Research is a series of activities that are arranged in a systematic and procedural to find the truth, to prove theories or assumptions that have been discovered, or solve a problem (Farkhan 2). To analyze and assess the strategies used on Ellen DeGeneres talk show, the writer uses Politeness Strategy Theory by Brown and Levinson. 2. Focus of the Study According to the background of the study which has been described above, the writer considers the need to focus on the main problem. The writer limits the research only on the application of politeness strategy between Ellen and Obama in Ellen DeGeneres talk show episode February 12, 2016, which is viewed from Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy theory.

18 6 3. Research Questions Based on the main problem of this research that has been outlined earlier, the writer has formulated the questions as follow: 3.1. What kinds of politeness strategies used by Ellen as the host of Ellen DeGeneres Show when communicate with the guest of the talk show which implied to save the speaker s and interlocutor s face from Face Threatening Act (FTA) caused by her speech? 3.2. What kinds of politeness strategies used by the guest of the show, Mr. Barrack Obama when communicate with Ellen DeGeneres which implied to save the speaker s and interlocutor s face from Face Threatening Act (FTA) caused by his speech? 3.3. What are the factors influencing speaker to choose kinds of politeness strategies in the dialogue? 4. Objectives of Study In general, this research aims to describe the application of politeness strategy in Ellen DeGeneres talk show episode 12 February 2016 which is viewed from Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy theory. In particular, this research aims to:

19 Describe kinds of politeness strategies used by Ellen as the host of Ellen DeGeneres Show when communicate with the guest of the talk show which implied to save the speaker s and interlocutor s face from Face Threatening Act (FTA) caused by her speech Describe kinds of politeness strategies used by the guest of the show, Mr. Barrack Obama when communicate with Ellen DeGeneres which implied to save the speaker s and interlocutor s face from Face Threatening Act (FTA) caused by his speech Know the factors influencing speaker to choose kinds of politeness strategies in the dialogue. 5. Significances of the Study This research of politeness strategy in Ellen DeGeneres Show is expected to give benefits theoretically and practically. Theoretically, this research can enrich the previous research on politeness strategy and speech act. Practically, this research becomes one of useful reference materials for the readers who are interested in politeness strategies in Ellen DeGeneres talk show. Besides, it can give recommendations for readers in choosing communication strategy and give advantageous for practitioners in the communication field.

20 8 6. Research Methodology Research methodology is a set of principles which is essential for the research process. (Farkhan 52) In this research, the research methodology is divided into some parts as follow: 6.1. Method of Research This research is in the pragmatics field and conducted by using qualitative research method. The qualitative data refers to types of information that are non-countable or not expressed numerically. This information includes elements that are termed intangible or immeasurable because they express qualities, values, the state of mind, and ideas. (Franklin 17). According to the analysis, this research applies descriptive analysis that involves gathering data that describe events and then organizes, tabulates, depicts, and describes the data collection (The Association for Educational Communications and Technology) The reason of using qualitative research is because this research uses a transcript data from a talk show s dialogue which is a verbal and not numerical data and the data will focus on the state of mind and ideas of the speakers.

21 Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis in this research is the politeness strategies in Ellen DeGeneres talk show episode February 12, The data is a transcription from the dialogue in the talk show which contains politeness strategy. The source of the data is from YouTube Technique of Data Collecting & Processing According to Ed. Subroto, key element for the qualitative research method is the writer (Subroto 4). The writer does some steps to collect and process the data as follow: 1. Identifying the problem by watching Ellen DeGeneres talk show video, listens carefully to the dialogue, makes a transcription of the dialogue, reads the whole dialogue transcription. 2. Justifying the main problem of the research by picking the dialogue of the host and guest of the talk show which assumed contain politeness strategy. 3. Reducing the dialogue that is not accordance with the research problem. 4. Coding the dialogues which contain politeness strategy by numbering the transcription.

22 Technique of Data Analysis In this research, the writer does some steps in analyzing data, such as: Classifying politeness strategy that implied Face Saving Act (FSA) of the speaker and interlocutor based on the context, illocutionary act, and kind of politeness strategy Analyzing speech act sentences using Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy theory and J.L. Austin s speech act theory which are used as the main theories in this research Explaining politeness strategy that implied Face Saving Act (FSA) of the speaker and interlocutor to avoid Face Threatening Act (FTA) Drawing a conclusion about linguistic phenomena based on the data that has been analyzed.

23 11 7. Conceptual Framework The data of the research is from dialogue in Ellen DeGeneres Show episode February 12, 2016, which contain politeness strategy. Next, the data processed by classifying politeness strategy that implied Face Saving Act (FSA) of the speaker and interlocutor and analyzes speech act sentences using Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy theory and J.L. Austin s speech act theory. The output of this research is to explain the application of politeness strategy on it and the Factors influencing the choice of strategy Input Process Output The dialogue in Ellen Degeneres talk show episode Februari 12, 2016 which contains politeness strategy Classifying politeness strategy that implied Face Saving Act (FSA) of the speaker and interlocutor based on the context, illocutionary act, and kind of politeness strategy. Analyzing speech act sentences using Brown and Levinson s politeness strategy theory and J.L. Austin s speech act theory. Kinds of politeness strategies used by Ellen as the host of talk show which implied to save the speaker s and interlocutor s face from Face Kinds of politeness strategies used by guest of the show, Mr. Barrack Obama Factors influencing the choice of strategy Diagram 1.1. Conceptual Framework

24 12 CHAPTER II THEORICAL FRAMEWORK 1. Previous Research The writer has observed some previous researches which correspond with this research in some aspects. The aim of reviewing previous research is to know other researches in the same subject area which applied similar theory or corpus. The previous research can be one of the important references in making a research; it can help the writer to enrich the theories that used in the research. Here are some previous researches in the form of journals that related to this research: The first previous research was titled Redressive Strategies for FTA in Oprah Winfrey s Talk Show. This research analyzed the application of PP (Politeness Principle) from the pragmatics perspective. It employed two theories, the PP and its redressive strategies (especially redressive strategies). The analytical data for the present study are collected from Oprah Winfrey s Talk Show. This paper analyzed and investigated Oprah Winfrey s Talk Show from different perspectives by means of qualitative approach. The purpose of this study is the application of these two theories in the daily talk, and the analysis of how they do FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts). (Xiao-yan 7) Overall, the first previous research was blameless, it analyzed the dialogue very well; described the dialogue s context, the speaker s reason for using politeness strategy, and how speaker s utterance counted as politeness strategy. 12

25 13 This research also mentioned what kinds of the strategy used by the speaker, it explained the kinds of politeness, negative or positive and the strategies which implied to save speaker s and hearer s face. The correlation with this first previous research is it applied politeness strategy theory in some episodes of Oprah Winfey talk show, differently here the writer analyzes Ellen DeGeneres the talk show in only one episode, the writer also analyzes it based on the illocutionary act of the utterances. Another difference is the writer s research not only focus on the politeness strategies used by the host of the show but it also put attention to the politeness strategy used by the guess of the show. The second previous research was titled Politeness in s of Arab Students in Malaysia. This study analyzed the politeness strategies found in Arab postgraduate students s to their supervisors during their period of study at Malaysian universities. This research used quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze eighteen s that were sent by six Arab postgraduate students to their supervisors. The politeness strategies were analyzed according to Brown and Levinson s (1987) politeness theory, and the degrees of directness were categorized according to Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Pattern (CCSARP) Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) coding scheme. (Zena Moayad Najeeb 21) It gave a great description of the theory that used on the research; its finding and discussion also gave a clear explanation for certain dialogues and discovered the percentage of every strategy. This research also applied politeness strategy theory, differently this research analyzes written communication and

26 14 focused on the directness which categorized according to Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Pattern (CCSARP). While writer s research here analyze spoken communication in the form of a dialogue transcription and only focus on the strategy used by speakers. 2. Pragmatics Modern use and current practice of pragmatics are credited to the influence of the American philosophical doctrine of pragmatism. The pragmatic interpretation of semiotics and verbal communication studies in Foundations of the Theory of Signs by Charles Morris in 1938, for instance, helped neatly develop the differences of mainstream enterprises in semiotics and linguistics. (Levinson 3) According to Yule, pragmatics is the study of the relationship between linguistic form and the users of those forms. (4) There are four areas that pragmatics is concern with, as follow: 1. Pragmatics is study of speaker meaning. Pragmatics concern with the study of meaning uttered by the speaker or written by writer and interpreted by listener or reader. 2. Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. It includes the relationship of what people mean in a specific context and how the context effect what is said. 3. Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. This approach also explores how the listener can interpret what the speaker s proposed meaning. This type of study discovers

27 15 how a great deal of what is unsaid is predictable as part of what is communicated. 4. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance. The choice between said and unsaid was determined by the notion of distance. Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared experience. On the supposition of how close or distance the listener is, speaker decide how much needs to be said. (3) The central topics of linguistic pragmatics are those aspects of meaning which are dependent on context. (Cruse 3) Context can be interpreted as the immediately preceding discourse and the situation of the participants. (Black 3) There are some clues which can help listener in a communication to determine the meaning of an utterance; the first one is tone of voice or intonation which is an important contextualize of meaning. On occasions, it may even enable hearer to reverse the apparent sense of something. (Finch 154) The second clue is the thematic force. This kind of force is concerned with the way the speaker to announce to the audience what it is that the speaker is principally concerned about; it is often reflected in the syntactic organization of the communication. Putting an item first in a sentence, for example, is a good way of drawing attention to it and let listener or reader know what it is that speaker or writer wishes to focus on. (Finch 155) According to Cruse, there are two important particulars in pragmatics; the first type is conversational implicature. This refers to meanings which a speaker

28 16 intends to convey but does not explicitly express. The second type of contextdependent meaning concerns expressions which designate different things, places, or times in the world, in different contexts: this table, over there, last night. (3) 2.1. Implicature The word implicature is derived from the verb to imply, as it cognate implication. Originally, to imply mean to fold something into something else; hence that which is implied is folded in, and has to be unfolded to be understood. A conversational implicature is, therefore, something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use. (Mey 45) To get the meaning of what someone said, interlocutors have to interpret what they say. But interpretation is a tricky affair; misunderstandings are always possible, and sometimes seem to be a rule rather than an exception. (Mey 47) As Leech remarks, interpreting an utterance is ultimately a matter of guesswork, or (to use the more dignified term) hypothesis formation (Leech 30) 2.2. Context Context is a dynamic, not a static concept: it is to be assumed as the repeatedly changing surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the participants in communication process to interact, and in which the linguistic expression of their interaction become understandable. (Mey 39) Context is more than just a reference.

29 17 Context is action. Context is about understanding what things are for; it is also what provides speaker s utterances their true pragmatics meaning and let them be counted as true pragmatic acts. It is absolutely important not only in conveying the proper values to reference and implicature but also in dealing with other pragmatics issues. (Mey 41) An important part of the language in use, and therefore of pragmatics, is what people are essentially doing with language when they state; whether they are informing, criticizing, blaming, warning, congratulating, christening a baby, and so on. This is the topic of speech acts. Other topics covered by pragmatics are politeness as expressed linguistically and conversational analysis, which deals with the way conversations are structured. (Cruse 4) 3. Speech Act Speech act theory originated from the works of the Oxford philosopher of ordinary language John Langshaw Austin ( ). Austin first presented the main tenets of his theory in the lectures he gave at Oxford in the years under the title Words and deeds, and subsequently in the William James Lectures he delivered at Harvard University in In 1969 one of Austin s pupils, the American philosopher John R. Searle, published his own version of the theory. Searle s systematization and development of Austin s ideas has been very influential, to the point that Searle s interpretation of the theory is at times taken as the definitive view of speech acts. (De Gruyter Mouton, Wolfram Bublitz, Neal R. Norrick)

30 18 Definition of speech acts based on A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics by Cruse, are the acts which crucially involve the production of language. It is usual to recognize three basic types: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. (167) While according to Yule speech acts are utterance actions which commonly given more spesific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request. (47) The central tenet of speech act theory is that the uttering of a sentence is, or is part of, an action within the framework of social institutions and conventions. (Huang 93) Austin said that to utter the sentence (in, of course, the appropriate circumstances) is not to describe my doing of what I should be said in so uttering to be doing or to state that I am doing it: it is to do it. (6) According to Austin, saying something amounts to simultaneously performing three types of acts: i) A Locutionary act, which is the stating of a sentence with sense and reference. The locutionary act can be separated into a phonetic act (the act of uttering certain noises), a phatic act (the act of uttering sounds that have sense and reference), and a rhetic act (the act of uttering noises that belong to a certain language vocabulary and grammar). i) An Illocutionary act, which is the action performed by virtue of the force associated with a given linguistic expression. This level of action depends on the social conventions that allow us verbally to carry out clearly recognizable actions. The illocutionary force of an utterance can be isolated by asking in which sense we were using a given utterance. (99)

31 19 ii) A Perlocutionary act, which is the production of a consequence by the utterance. Contrary to what occurs at the illocutionary level, perlocutions are not directly achieved by the conventional force of an utterance. Also, perlocutions occur at a further level, as the interlocutor s actual reaction to the speech act. (101) 3.1. Classification of Illocutionary Acts Speech acts may be appropriately categorized by their illocutionary type, such as asserting, requesting, promising, and apologizing, for which we have familiar verbs (Bach 200) Yule who following Searle said in his book that there are five general functions of speech acts: Table 2.1. The five general function of speech act (55) Speech act type Direction of fit S= speaker X= situation Declaration Words change the world S cause X Representatives Make words fit the world S believes X Expressive Make words fit the world S feels X Directives Make the world fit words S wants X Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X According to Leech, Searle s illocutionary acts classification is based on diverse criteria, wich are defined as follow: 1. Assertives Assertives commit speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, such as stating, suggesting, boasting, complaining, claiming, and reporting.. (105)

32 20 2. Directives Directives intended to produce some effect through action by the hearer, for examples are ordering, commanding, requesting, advising, and recommending. They frequently belong to the competitive category, and therefore comprise a category of illocutions in which negative politeness is important. 3. Commissive Commissives commit the speaker to some future action to a greater or lesser degree, promising, vowing, and offering are the examples. These tend to be convivial, being performed in the interests of someone other than the speaker. 4. Expressives Expressives have an expressing function or making known, the speaker s psychological attitude towards a state of affairs which the illocution presupposes, such as thanking, congratulating, pardoning, blaming, praising, condoling, etc. They tend to be convivial, and therefore intrinsically polite. The reverse is true, however, of such expressives as blaming and accusing. (106) 5. Declaration Declarations are illocutions whose successful performance bring about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality, for examples are resigning, dismissing, christening, naming, excommunicating, appointing, sentencing, etc. (Leech 107)

33 21 4. Politeness Theory This theory was presented by Goffman (1963) and from the English folk term, which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or losing face. (Brown & Levinson 61) In this theory, two main types of face that are universally recognized in human cultures are the positive and negative faces. Negative face is the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others. Positive face is the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some other. (Brown & Levinson 62) Politeness theory was formulated by Brown and Levinson. It addresses the affront to face posed by face-threatening acts to addresses. Ferguson defines politeness as formulas in terms of interpersonal rituals (138). Politeness helps us to achieve effective social living (Watts, T. J, & Ehlich, K. 2). Politeness is a pervasive phenomenon in all communities. It became the major component of a dominant ideological discourse in Britain in the eighteenth century (Watts 40). Fraser sees politeness as a property associated with an utterance in which, according to the hearer, the speaker has neither exceeded any rights nor failed to fulfill any obligations (13). The social relationships outlined through history in near Eastern and later European societies show the manner in which the forms of politeness gradually evolved in specific conditions (R. Watts & K. Ehilch)

34 Face Threatening Acts Face-Threatening Acts (FTA) can be defined as acts that inherently damage the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other (Brown & Levinson 26). For negative Face Threatening Acts, Brown and Levinson (1978) state that negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intends to avoid the obstructions of his interlocutor's freedom of action. Because of the negative face, the speaker or hearer will have trouble in communication which results in the submission of will to the other and the construction of communication. When a negative face is threatened on the hearer and the speaker, as explained in the section that follows, freedom of choice and action is obstructed. a) Damage to the Hearer: Through the form of orders, requests, suggestions, advice, threats. b) Damage to the Speaker: An act or communication that shows the speaker is under the power of the hearer; expressing compliments and thanks, accepting thanks or saying excuse me. In the case of positive Face Threatening Acts, the speaker or hearer does not care about the other person s needs or feelings. Damage to the hearer or speaker could result from positive face threatening acts. Therefore, when a person is obligated to be apart from a group of people, their well-being is dealt with less care and threatens positive face.

35 23 a) Damage to the Hearer: An act that shows the speakers expressions toward the hearer s positive face. The speaker expresses his willingness to disregard the emotion of well-being to the hearer. b) Damage to the Speaker: An act that shows the speaker is unable to control himself and that would call for the need of apology and regret for doing an act. (Zena Moayad Najeeb 130) 4.2. Politeness Strategy According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are used to save the hearer s face when face-threatening acts are desired or necessary (68). These strategies are: A. Bald On-record: doing act baldly, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible. It is mostly used where the danger to H s face is very small, as in offers, requests, and suggestions (e.g. come in or do sit down). Another example can be seen in instances of urgency: Watch out! or Be careful! In instances of efficiency: come in.(69) B. Positive Politeness: oriented to reduce a threat to the hearer s positive face and to ensure that the hearer is comfortable, such as: prevent disagreement and jokes, be optimistic, use of solidarity, make a promise, listen and attend to the hearers needs and wants. (70) Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods, etc. Example: Jim, you re really good at solving computer problems.

36 24 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H). Example: Good old Jim. Just the man I wanted to see. I knew I d find you here. Strategy 3: Intensify interest to the hearer in the speaker s contribution. Example: You m never guess what Fred told me last night. This is right up your street. (FTA) [begins a narrative] Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers in speech. Example: Here s my old mate Fred. How are you doing today, mate? Strategy 5: Seek agreement in safe topics. Example: I agree. Right. Manchester United played really badly last night, didn t they? Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement. Example: Well, in a way, I suppose you re sort of right. But look at it like this Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, and assert common ground. Example: People like me and you, Bill, don t like being pushed around like that, do we? Strategy 8: Joke to put the hearer at ease. Example: Great summer we re having. It s only rained five times a week on average. Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for hearer s wants. Example: I know you like marshmallows, so I ve brought you home a whole box of them. Strategy 10: Offer, promise. Example: I ll take you out to dinner on Saturday.

37 25 Strategy 11: Be optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants, i.e. that the FTA is slight: I know you re always glad to get a tip or two on gardening, Fred. Strategy 12 Include both S and H in the activity. Example: I m feeling really hungry. Let s stop for a bite. Strategy 13 Give or ask for reasons: I think you ve had a bit too much to drink, Jim. Strategy 14 Assert reciprocal exchange. For example: I ll mow the lawn after school tomorrow. (FTA) if you help me with my math homework. Strategy 15 Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, and cooperation). Example: A: Have a glass of malt whiskey, Dick. B: Terrific! Thanks. A: Not at all. (Watts 89-90) C. Negative Politeness: This is usually oriented from the hearer s negative face. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more appropriate to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologize (Mills, 2003). Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect. Example: Could you tell me the time, please?

38 26 Strategy 2: Do not assume willingness to comply. Question, hedge. Example: I wonder whether I could just sort of ask you a little question. Strategy 3: Be pessimistic about ability or willingness to comply. Use the subjunctive. Example: If you had a little time to spare for me this afternoon, I d like to talk about my paper. Strategy 4: Minimise the imposition. Example: Could I talk to you for just a minute? Strategy 5: Give deference. Example: (to a police constable) Excuse me, officer. I think I might have parked in the wrong place. Strategy 6: Apologise. Example: Sorry to bother you,but... Strategy 7: Impersonalise the speaker and the hearer. Example: A: That car s parked in a no-parking area. B: It s mine, officer. A: Well, it ll have to have a parking ticket. Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule. Example: Parking on the double yellow lines is illegal (FTA) I m going to have to give you a fine. Strategy 9: Nominalise to distance the actor and add formality. Example: Participation in an illegal demonstration is punishable by law. (FTA) Could I have your name and address, madam?

39 27 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H. Example: I ll buy you a beer at lunchtime. (FTA) If you could just sort out a problem I ve got with my formatting. (Watts 90-91) D. Off record: This strategy includes metaphor and irony rhetorical questions, understatement, tautologies, and uses connotations instead of direct requests. For example, a speaker might say my home is too far from here, which would imply to the listener to take an action, such as drive the speaker home or let the speaker stay in hearer s place, without directly asking him/her to do so. (Brown & Levinson 69) Strategy 1: give hints. Example: it s cold here (shut the window) Strategy 2: give association clues. The act of implied something associated with S-H s mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional experience. Strategy 3: presuppose. An utterance of this strategy can be almost wholly relevant in context. Strategy 4: understate. Example: A: what a beautiful house B: oh I don t know it s a house Strategy 5: overstate. Example: I have seen it thousand times, but she s not there. Strategy 6: use tautologies. Example: if I won t say it, I won t.

40 28 Strategy 7: use contradictions. Example: so happy that my teacher doesn t care about be. Strategy 8: be ironic. Example: Abrar s a real genius (after he just done stupid things) Strategy 9: use metaphor. Example: Abrar s real fish (He drinks/ swims like a fish) Strategy 10: use rhetorical questions. Example: how many times do I have to tell you about that? Strategy 11: be ambiguous. Example: Frank s a pretty smooth cookie. Strategy 12: be vague. Example: I m going to you-know-where. Strategy 13: over-generalize. Example: people who live in glass houses shouldn t throw stones Strategy 14: displace H. Example: he never comes here for a long time. Strategy 15: be incomplete, use ellipsis. Example: well, I didn t see you in class this morning. (Brown & Levinson) E. Do not do FTA or zero strategy: if the speaker decides that degree of the FTA is too great, he may decide to avoid offending H at all with this particular FTA, or he prefers to say nothing verbally or non-verbally. (Leech 72)

41 Factors Influencing the Choice of Strategies: 1. The payoffs: a priori considerations. Here is the list of the payoff associated with each of the strategies, derived on a priori grounds. a) Bald on record payoffs: Efficiency, Clarity, perspicuous, Demonstrable non manipulativenes. Example: yes you may enter the room. By uttering that, the speaker can get the advantage of getting the acclaim of honesty, for indicating that he trusts the addressee. (Brown & Levinson 71) b) Positive politeness payoffs: To satisfy H s positive face, in some respect. Example: what a beautiful house, it just like a princess castle. The speaker can reduce FTA by declaring the hearer that he considers himself to be of the same kind.(71) c) Negative politeness payoffs: To satisfy H s negative face, in some degree. Example: Can you possibly help me with this? (189) the speaker can thereby avoid incurring a future debt.(72) d) Off record payoffs: speaker can satisfy negative face to a degree greater than that afforded by the negative politeness strategy. The speaker can avoid the inescapable accountability, the responsibility for his action, that on record strategies entail. Example: I can t open this jar. The speaker can avoid the potential threat of ordering the hearer to help him open the jar.(72) e) Do not do the FTA payoffs: speaker avoids offending hearer at all. (72)

42 30 2. The Circumsance: Sociological factor. Brown and Levinson argue that the assessment of the seriousness involves the following factors in many and perhaps all culture: a) The social distance (D) of S and H (a symmetric relation). Example: 1. Excuse me, would you by any chance have the time? 2. Got the time, mate? (80) Where speaker and hearer are strangers, speaker could use (1) and where speaker and hearer are close, speaker could use (2). The distance of the speaker and hearer is the variable that changes (1) to (2) and vice versa. b) The relative power (P) of S and H (an asymmetric relation). Example: 1. Excuse me sir, would it be all right if I take it? 2. Mind if I take it? In the same situation, (1) might be said by an employee to his boss, while (2) might be said by the boss to the employee. Power of the hearer which greater than speaker is the only variable that changes (2) to (1) and vice versa c) The absolute ranking (Rx) of imposition in particular culture. Example: 1. Look, I m terribly sorry to bother but would there be any chance of your borrowing me your phone? I must have lost my phone and I can t go home without calling my husband. 2. Hey, can I use your phone? Both might be said in the airport by a traveler to a stranger. The only variable is R, and it must because the value of R is lower in (6) that the language applicable to a low FTA value is employed there. (80-81) 3. The integration of assessment of payoff and weighting of risk in the choice of strategies. If it is empirically the case that FTA danger is assessed by estimating P, D, and R values. Then the speaker will choose a higher numbered strategy as the threat increase. (84)

43 31 CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS 1. Data Description The data for this research was collected from an interview between Ellen DeGeneres and Barrack Obama. The interview held on February 12, 2016 has duration 21 minutes 49 seconds and broadcasted for Ellen DeGeneres Talk Show. The data is from Ellen s and Obama s utterance which contain politeness strategy and transcript into a script form. Below are the corpus data the writer has obtained: Table 3.1. politeness strategies in corpus data No. Politeness Strategies Observance of Politeness Strategies 1 Bald on record - 2 Positive politeness 17 3 Negative politeness 4 4 Off record - 5 Do not do the FTA - Total 21 Ellen as the host of talk show and Obama as the guest made utterances in the form of question and statement. Through their words the writer analyzed strategies employed by them. The analysis is divided into three parts the first one is Ellen s politeness strategy, the second is Obama s politeness strategy, and the last is the speaker s factors of for using some kinds of strategies. The theories 31

44 32 used for analyzed for the data are politeness strategy by Brown and Levinson, and speech act by Austin. 2. Data Analysis In this part, the analysis has been divided into 12 dialogues which contain politeness strategy. Every dialogue has been analyzed based on the context of utterance, illocution act, FTA, and the factors influencing the choice of strategy. Dialogue 1 (1) 0:12 Ellen: When I was a little girl growing up in New Orleans I never dreamed that have my own show and I certainly never thought I'd be able to say these words. Please welcome the President of the United States Barack Obama (audiences clapping) (2) 0:51 Obama: Can I just say I was watching some of the dance moves on that stage. You guys don t forget? I like it (3) 1:00 Ellen: Yap the gentlemen they were on the floor touch falling very well a. Politeness Strategy in Dialogue 1 In datum (1) Ellen used negative politeness in strategy 2 which is hedge by mentioning word Please before she uttered a direction. Here Ellen asked her audiences to welcome Mr. President while he was entering the talk show stage. The illocution used here is directive, where S want X or speaker wanted situation. In this case, the situation that is wanted by Ellen as speaker was her audiences in the studio were welcoming Mr. President. This action could be threatening

45 33 negative face of her audiences because it predicted some future act of hearer and in so doing put some pressure on hearer to do the act. In the meantime, Obama used positive politeness in strategy 9 in datum (2) which is assert or presuppose speaker s knowledge of and concern for hearer s wants. This is the first utterances Obama uttered after he entered the talk show stage. Obama ever saw the dance on talk show stage several times ago in his previous interview with Ellen. The illocution used by Obama was assertive because he was reporting something. b. Factors Influencing the Choice of Strategy in Dialogue 1 1. Payoff to Use Politeness Strategies Ellen s payoff in datum (1) for using negative politeness in strategy 2 is to save the audience s negative face. By using this strategy, Ellen could give a direction to her interlocutors without threatening their negative face. This strategy could redress audiences negative face by carefully avoiding presuming or assuming that anything involved in the FTA is desired by them. Meanwhile, Obama s payoff in datum (2) for using positive politeness in strategy 9 is to satisfy his interlocutor s face. It derives from the want to convey that the speaker and the addressee are cooperatively involved in the relevant activity. He wanted to show that he had been familiar with the stage because he had come there before.

46 34 2. Sociological value The social distance factor in datum (1) has a great value for the FTA weightiness. The social distance between Ellen and her audience was great based on an assessment of the frequency of the interaction. Table 3.2. The analysis of politeness strategy in dialogue 1 No. Data Speaker FTA 1 Ellen Request 2 Obama No FTA Politeness strategy negative politeness in strategy 2; hedge positive politeness in strategy 9; assert or presuppose speaker s knowledge of and concern for hearer s wants Factor the Choice of Strategy Payoff save the audience s negative face satisfy audience s face Sociological Distance - Dialogue 2 (9) 1:18 Ellen: the last time you were here you are running for president and now you're leaving I feel like I have something to do with this both. An obvious question but what how do you feel now compared to when you were here before? (10) 1:32 Obama: older (11) 1:35 Ellen: yes you can say that. Tired?