CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPT, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Literature Review There are several studies that had been conducted by the previous graduated students in terms of Politeness. These studies supported on the analysis of politeness. Some analyses concerned to this study are described as follows: Lola on thesis (2009) entitled The Analysis of politeness in Language Function In The Elizabeth The Golden Age Movie. This study aims to analyze and discusses about the polite expression in terms of language function and factors that influence the politeness in the Elizabeth the Golden Age. The data was analyzed based on the theory of politeness, which proposed by Holmes (1992) and Wardhaugh (1986). The difference of this study with my own study is this study also analyzed the factor that influences politeness. But this study does not explain about the strategies of politeness that use in the Elizabeth the Golden Age. Mustain (2011) on thesis entitled Speech Function and Politeness in Indonesian Communication. In this study, the writer starts the discussion from the speech function and then goes to the one on politeness theories in communication. The strength of this study is the writer discussion and explains several types of speech function provided with Indonesian language examples. The theory that used by the writer is the theory by Gricean maxims. The writer only discusses how politeness is achieved in Indonesian language communication. He does not discuss about the strategies of politeness.
Dewi on thesis (2008) entitled The use of The Negative Politeness Strategies by The Master of Ceremony. In this study aimed to know the types of negative politeness strategies used by the master of ceremony and to recognize the factors back grounding the MCs applying those strategies. The data were analyzed based on the theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978). The strength of this study is in this study, the writer also analyzed the factor of how the MCs applying negative politeness strategies. But this study does not explain the reason why the MCs using negative politeness. Codreanu s article entitled Politeness in Requests: Some Research Findings Relevant for Intercultural Encounters from An International Dresmara journal is worth reviewing, the major aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between indirectness and politeness in requests. The research project supporting the findings of the paper was undertaken in order to find out to what extent politeness and indirectness are viewed as overlapping or mutually excluding categories by Romanians compared to other nationalities, such as the British and the Hebrew. Another inherent goal of the paper is to provide an example of the socio linguistics instruments that can be employed in the investigation of the differences and similarities likely to emerge in intercultural encounters. Thus, we believe that only through similar research undertaken in the fields contributing to the emerging field of interculturality one can actually trespass the theoretical assumptions and move on to the identification of the right tools and means through which intercultural discourse to be approached at a pragmatic level and thus better understood and taught in educational establishments. If compared with this study, the strength of her study is on the analysis of the relationship between indirectness and politeness. Her study supports this study on the analysis of politeness.
Shoshana s article entitled Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different? from Journal of Pragmatic 11 aims to re-examine the notions of indirectness and politeness as applied to requests. It is argued that (contrary to current theories of politeness) the two notions do not represent parallel demensions; indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness, The relationship between the two was examined in a series of experiments designed to tap native speakers perceptions of politeness and indirectness in Hebrew and English. The results indicate that the two notions are perceived as different from each other: The most indirect request strategies were not judged as the most polite. The strategies rated as the most polite, on a scale of politeness, were conventional indirect requests ( on record indirectness); the strategies rated as the most indirect, on a scale of indirectness, were. hints used fom requests ( off record indirectness). These results are interpreted in the framework of a suggested model for politeness. The thrust of the argument is that a certain adherence to the pragmatic clarity of the message is an essential part of politeness. Politeness is defined as the interactional balance achieved between two needs: The need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness. This balance is achieved in the case of conventional indirectness, which indeed received the highest ratings for politeness. Tipping the balance in favor of either pragmatic clarity or non-coerciveness will decrease politeness; thus, direct strategies can be perceived as impolite because they indicate a lack of concern with face, and non- conventional indirect strategies (hints) can be perceived as impolite because they indicate a lack of concern for pragmatic clarity. The strength of her study if compared with this study is she analyze the indirectness. Her study support this study on analyzing the politeness.
Overall, all the studies described above have different data that analyzed although some studies used the same theory to identify the data. The strength and weaknesses found will support the study, the differences of each study will used as references to make this research reliable. 2.2 Concepts 2.2.1 Politeness Politeness is the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context. Politeness is universal, but the way to show politeness is culturally bound. Politeness is much more influenced by sociocultural aspects of the speaker. In the process of communication, both speaker and addresser are obliged to follow the cooperative principles, even when what s/he means is not uttered explicitly. In communication politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer s positive face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. Brown and Levinson (1987:56) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect). 2.2.2 Language and Sex According to Holmes (1992:164), women and men speak differently. The use of linguistic variation of a language is closely related to the sex of the speaker. It is claimed that women are more linguistically polite than men and emphasize different speech function. Holmes and Lakoff proposed some linguistics feature which consider as the linguistic features of male and female.
Robin Lakoff (1975:53), an American linguist argued one stereotypes of women s speech is that it is more polite than men s. He has made this claim, he mentioned a number of linguistic features, which the subject and the verb of preceding statement is repeated in a question, of typically reserved polarity, such as: Bill too Luke to the party last night, didn t he? Or Louise and Lucille didn t leave together last night, did they? Lakoff claimed that female speakers tend to make direct assertions, to avoid conflict with addresses. 2.2.3 Gender There are two concepts of gender, the biological gender and the socially constructed gender. A text written by Gayle Rubin s in 1975 discusses gender as a sex/gender system, in which the social gender is described as enhancing the idea of a biological gender, which in itself creates gender. It implies that the image of gender image for both sexes is being distorted, due to gender being socially constructed. In gender theory there is also the discussion of the power aspect being built into the gender system: a system in which the male is the norm, making the female the subordinate one of the two genders (Månsson 2010:243-245. Miegel & Johansson 2002:162). The starting point in gender theory then is that the features/traits that we consider as being feminine or masculine is socially constructed, and has changed throughout history. The woman is described as being watched/saved, while the man the one watching/saving (Bell 1995, Miegel & Johansson 2002:158, 165-169). 2.3 Theoretical Framework 2.3.1 Politeness
Politeness is the expression of the speakers intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another. Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer s positive face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. Brown and Levinson (1987:56) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect). 2.3.1.1 Bald on-record Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer s face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize face-threatening acts implicitly. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends. This bald on record consist of several strategies as shown below: (1) Maximum efficiency This is well known to S s and the H s face redress is not required. In cases of great urgency or desperation, redress would actually decrease the communicated urgency. Example: (1) watch out! (2) Metaphorical urgency for emphasis When S speaks as if maximum efficiency is very important, he provides metaphorical urgency for emphasis. Example: (2) Look at the point is this
(3) Metaphorical urgency for high valuation of H s friendship This strategy explain why orders and entreaties (or begging), which have inverted assumptions about the relative status of S and H, both seem to occur in many languages with the same superficial syntax-namely, imperatives. Example: (3) excuse me. (4) Case of channel noise efficiency. It occurs when communication difficulties exert pressure to speak with maximum Example: (4) come here right now. (5) Task oriented/paradigmatic form of instruction Where the focus of interaction is task-oriented, face redress may be felt to irrelevant. Example: (5) Lend me a hand here. (6) Power difference between S and H This strategy used if there are power differences between S and H, and S s power is greater that H, S does not have to redress the expression in order to satisfy H s face. Example: (6) Bring me wine, Parker yes My Lady. (7) Sympathetic advice or warnings
In doing the FTA, S conveys that he or she does care about H (and therefore about H s positive face), so that no redress is required. Sympathetic advice or warning may be baldly on record. Example: (7) be careful! He is a dangerous man. (8) Permission that H has requested record. Granting permission for something that H has requested may likewise be baldly on Example: (8) yes, you may go. 2.3.1.2 Positive politeness Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer s positive face. They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. It is used to satisfy the positive face of the H by approving or including H as friend or as a member of the group. The S applies positive politeness to give an impression that the S wants the H s want or at least that S wants H s face to be satisfied. This kind of strategy is usually used by people who have known one another in order to indicate common ground in which S shares H s want. Positive politeness contains of 15 strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987:107) as seen below: (1) Notice, attend to H
Brown and Levinson (1987:108) suggest that S should take notice of aspect of H s condition (noticeable, changes, remarkable possessions, anything which looks as though H would want to notice and approve of it). Example: (9) Goodness you cut my hair! (2) Exaggera (interest, approval, sympathy with H) This is often done with exaggerated intonations, stress, and other aspects of prosodic, as well as with intensifying modifiers. The expressions like for sure, really, exactly, absolutely. Example: (10) he looked incredibly dirty. (3) Intensify interest to H Another way for S to communicate to H that he shares some of his wants is to intensify the interests of his own S s contributions to the conversation. Example: (11) I came down the stairs, and what do you think I see? (4) Use in-group identity markers This strategy includes in-group usage of address forms of language or dialect, of jargon or slang and contraction and ellipsis as the part of this strategy. Address forms used to convey such in-group membership include generic names and terms like Mac, mate, buddy, pal, honey, dear, duckie, luv, babe, mom, blondie, brother, sweetheart, guys, fellas. Example: (12) Come here, honey!
(5) Seek agreement Brown and Levinson (1978:117) explain that the raising of save topics allow S to stress his agreement with H and therefore to satisfy H s desire to be right, or to be corroborated in his opinions. It can be done by repeating part or all of what the preceding S has said in a conversation. Example: (13) It is cold tonight, is not it? (6) Avoid disagreement Brown and Levinson (1978:118) Avoid disagreement is the desire to agree or appear to agree with H leads to mechanisms for pretending to agree. Example: (14) A: and they have not heard a word, huh? B: Not a word, Not at all, except Mrs.Han maybe. (7) Presuppose/raise/assert common ground Stated by Brown and Levincon (1978:122) gossip, small talk is the value of S s spending time and effort on being with H, as a mark of a friendship or interest in him, gives rise to the strategy pf redressing a FTA by taking for a while about unrelated topics. (8) Joke Example: (15) A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum. B: yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know. Brown and Levincon (1978:129) pointed out the Joke is stressing shared background knowledge and values.
Example: (16) Ok, if I tackle those cookies now, how about lending me this old heap of junk? (9) Assert or presuppose S s knowledge of and concern for H s wants This strategy is implying knowledge of H s wants and willingness to fit one s own wants in with them by using negative question, is one way in indicating that S and H are cooperators, and thus potentially to put pressure on H to cooperate with S. Example: (17) I know you cannot bear parties, but this one will be good to come! (10) Offer, Promise The S may claim that whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain in order to redress the potential treat of some FTAs. Example: (18) I will drop by something next week. (11) Be optimistic It works by minimizing the size of the face treat, implying that it is nothing to ask or that the cooperation between S and H means that such small things can be taken for granted. Example: (19) I have come to borrow a cup of flour. (12) Include both S and H in the activity Brown and Levinson (1978:132) stated this strategy is using an inclusive we form, when S really means you and me, Let s also uses as English exclusive we form.
Example: (20) Let s have a cookie, then. (13) Give (or ask for reason) reasons When S gives reasons as to why he wants what he wants. They add that giving reasons is a way implying I can help you or you can help me and assuming cooperation, a way of showing help is needed. Example: (21) Why do not we go to the seashore? (14) Assume or assert reciprocity This strategy is in order to declare the cooperation between S and H and therefore to soften the FTA by negating the debt aspect and the face-threatening aspect of utterance act such as criticism and complaint. Example: (22) I will give you the bonus if you can sell me a machine. (15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) S may satisfy H s positive face wants by giving gifts, but not only true gifts there are also human relation wants such as the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened, and so on. Example: (23) I am sorry to hear that. 2.3.1.3 Negative politeness Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the speaker will
be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologies. It is used to indicate that S is aware and respects the social distance between S and H. Negative politeness contains of 10 strategies as follows: (1) Be conventionally indirect The use of phrases and sentences that have contextually ambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meaning is very helpful. The S wants to communicate his desire to be indirect even though in fact the utterance goes on record also claimed by Brown and Levinson. Example: (24) Can you pass the salt? (2) Question, hedge It consists of the way of, make minimal assumption (the want not to presume H) about H (his wants interest and worthy of his attention) and this is the primary and fundamental method of disarming routine interactional treats. Example: (25) I wonder if (you know whether) John went out. (3) Be pessimistic The strategy gives redress to H s negative face by indirectly expressing doubt that the conditions, for the appropriateness of S s utterance act obtain. Example: (26) Will there be a cigarette on you? Perhaps you could care to help me.
(4) Minimize the imposition One way of defusing the FTA is by minimize the imposition that indicated not in itself great and leaving distance and power as weighty factors. Another expression that can be used like: a tiny, little bit, a sip, a taste, a drop, a little, a bit. Example: (27) could I have a taste (slice) of that cake? (5) Give deference (respect) The strategy of give deference (respect) satisfies the H s want to be treated as supervisor by giving him a respect. Example: (28) Excuse me, sir, would you mind if I close the door? (6) Apologize Brown and Levinson stated that S can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H s negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement by apologizing. Example: (29) I know this is a bore, but.. (7) Impersonalize S and H One way of indicating the S does not want to impinge on H is to phrase the FTS as if the agent were other than S. This strategy deals with the avoidance of I and You. (Brown and Levinson, 1978:195). Example: (30) I tell you that it is so. (8) State the FTA as a general rule
One way of dissociating S and H from the particular imposition in the FTA, and hence a way of communicating that S does not want to impinge but merely forced to by circumstances is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation. (Brown and Levinson, 1978:211). Example: (31) passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on train (not you will refrain from flushing toilets on the train ). (9) Nominalize This is what is meant by Brown and Levinson (1978:212) nominalized the subject in order to make sentence more formal. Example: (32) your good performance on the examination impressed us favorably. (better than you performed well on the examination and we were favorably impressed ) (10) Go on record as not incurring a debt, or as not indebting H The strategy reveals that by referring explicitly to the difficulty of H s complying, S implicitly puts himself in debt to H for causing him the difficulty. Example: (33) I would be eternally grateful if you would..(incurring debt) It would not be any trouble, I have to go right by there anyway. (disclaiming any indebts of H). 2.3.1.4 Off-record (indirect) The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the indirect strategy; this strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say wow, it s getting cold in here insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to do so. A communicative act is done off record if it is done in such
ways that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intentions to the act it can be said that the actor leaves himself an out by providing himself with a number of defensible interpretations. Off record consists of 15 strategies as stated below. (1) Give hints If S says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites H to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance. For example, by stating motives or reason. Example: (34) It is cold here (close the window) (2) Give association clues In a sense, association clues for indirect request are nothing but more remote hints of practical reasoning premises. The specific knowledge extrinsic to H s desire act is required to decode them especially. Example: (35) Oh god, I have got a headache again. (it may be used to convey a request to borrow H s swimming suit, if S and H mutually know that they both have an association between S having a headache and S waiting to borrow H s swimsuit in order to swim off his headache). (3) Presuppose If S says something to H with this strategy therefore may implicate a criticism. Example: (36) I wash the car again. (presuppose that he had done it before e.g last week) (4) Understatements It is one way of getting implicatures by saying less than is required. Typical ways of constructing understatements are to choose a point on a scalar predicate.
Example: (37) A: what do you think of Harry? (5) Overstate B: nothing wrong with him. ( I do not thing he is very good) If S says more than necessary, he may do this by the inverse of the understatement principle by choosing a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of affairs. Example: (38) there were millions of people in the CO-op tonight! (is could convey an excuse for being late) (6) Use tautologies By uttering a tautology, S encourage H to look for an informative interpretation of a noninformative utterance. It may be an excuse, critics, and a complaint. Example: (39) boys will be boys. (it may be an excuse) (7) Use contradictions By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot be telling the truth. Therefore, he encourages H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two contradictory propositions. Example: (40) A: are you upset about that? (8) Be ironic B: well, yes and no. (it may convey a complaint or a criticism) By saying the opposite of what he means, S can indirectly express his intend meaning. Example: (41) A: lovely neighborhood, eh? (in a slum) B: John s a real genius (after John has just done twenty stupid things in a row)
(9) Use metaphors The use of metaphor is perhaps usually on record, but there is a possibility that exactly which of the connotations of the metaphor S intends may be off record. Example: (42) Harry s a real fish. (he drinks/swims/ is slimy/is cold boolded like a fish) (10) Use rhetorical questions To ask a question with no intention of obtaining an answer is to break sincerity condition on question namely, that S wants to provide him with the indicated information. Words may be help to force the rhetorical interpretation of question. Example: (43) How was I to know (an excuse, I was not) (11) Be Ambiguous How many times do I have to tell you..? (a criticism, too man) Stretching the term ambiguity to include the ambiguity between the literal meaning of an utterance of any of its possible implicatures, it can be seen that every off record strategy essentially exploits ambiguity in this wider sense. Example: (44) John is a pretty sharp cookie. (it could be either a compliment or insult) (12) Be Vague
S may go off record with and FTA by being vague about which the object of the FTA is, or what the offence is (in criticisms and euphemisms). Example: (45) Perhaps someone did something naughty. (13) Over generalize Rule installation may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record, H then has the choice of deciding whether the general rules applies to him. Example: (46) a penny saved is a penny earned. (14) Displace H S may use off record as to who the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom it would not threaten, and hope that the real target will see that the FTA is aimed at him. Example: (47) a secretary in an office asks another-but with Ngative politeness- to pass stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the stapler that the other secretary. Professor s face is not threatened, and he can choose to do himself as a bonus free gift. (15) Incomplete, use ellipsis Elliptical utterance are legitimated by various conversational contexts is answers to questions but they are also warranted in FTAs. By leaving an FTA half undone, S can leave the implicature hanging in the air, just as rhetorical question.
Example: (48) Well, if one leaves one/s tea on the wobbly tab. 2.3.2 Women s language Lakoff (1975:53) proposed that female s speech characterized by the linguistic feature which she sees as comprising women s language, such as the following: 1.3.2.1 The use of hedges of various kinds Lakoff started that female s speech seems in general to contain more instance of well, y know, and so forth ; words that convey the sense that the speaker is uncertain about what he (or she) is saying, or cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement. There words are fully legitimate when, in fact, this is the case (for the example, if one says, Ethan is sorta tall, meaning he s neither really impressively tall nor actually short, but rather middling, though toward the tall side: 5 feet 9 rather than 6 feet 5, say). A hedge shows up anyway; the speaker is perfectly certain of the truth of the assertion and there s no danger of offense. So, these hedges do have their uses when one really has legitimate need for protection, or for deference (if we are afraid that by making a certain statement we are overstepping our rights), but uses to excess, hedges, like question intonation, give the impression that the speaker lacks of authority or doesn t know what he s talking about. Example: (49) you know, sort of, well, you see.
1.3.2.2 The use of tag question The tag question is a syntactic device listed by Lakoff which may express uncertainty. A tag, in its usage as well as its syntactic shape (in English) is midway between an outright statement and a yes-no question. Female is uncertain about something, and indicates this with a tag which signals doubt about what she asserting. The tag appears anyway as an apology for amking an assertion at all. Anyone may do this if she lacks self-confidence, as everyone does in some situations. It is also precisely because they are socialized to believe that asserting themselves strongly isn t nice or ladylike, or even feminine. Lakoff in Holmes (1992: 318) said that tag question may be functioned to express affective maning (as facilitate or positive politeness device and to soften a directive or criticism) and as confrontational and coercive devices. Example: (50) she is very nice, is not she? 1.3.2.3 The use of rising or question intonation on declaratives There is a peculiar sentence intonation pattern, found in English only among females, which has the form of a declarative answer to a question, and is used as such, but has the rising inflection typical of a yes-no question, as well as being especially hesitant. The effect is as though one were seeking confirmation, though at the same time the speaker may be the only one who has the requisite information. Example: (51) it is really good? 1.3.2.4 The use of empty adjectives, such as cute, sweet, and lovely
It is group of adjectives which have another use that indicate the speaker s approbation or admiration for something. Some of these adjectives are neutral for both sex of speaker; either male or female may use them. But another set seems, in its figurative use, to be largely confined to female s speech. Examples of these adjectives according to lakoff as follow: Example: (52) Neutral Females only Great Adorable Terrific Charming Cool sweet Neat Lovely Empty adjectives used appropriately because the speaker feels that the idea referred to be essentially frivolous, trivial, or unimportant to the world at large-only an amusement for the speaker herself. 1.3.2.5 The use of precise color terms Female make far more precise discriminations in naming colors than do male; words like beige, ecru, aquamarine, lavender, and so on are unremarkable in a female s active vocabulary, but absent from that most of male. If a male use these words, one might well conclude he was
imitating a female sarcastically or was a home sexual or an interior decorator. People might ask why fine discrimination of color is relevant for females, but not for males. A clue is contained in the why many males in our society view other unworldly topics, like high culture, as the outside the world of male s work, relegated to female and male whose masculinity is not questionable. Males tend to relegate to females are not expected to make decisions on important matters, such as what kind of job to hold, they are relegated the non-crucial decisions as a sop. Deciding whether to name a color lavender or mauve is one such sop. Example: (53) magenta, aquamarine. 1.3.2.6 The use of intensive adverbs, like so and just The use of this adverb is more frequent in females than male s language, though certainly males can use it. It is attempted to hedge on one s strong feelings, as though to say: I feel strongly about this- but I dare not make it clear how strong. To say I like him very much would be to say precisely that we like him to great extent. To say I like him so much weasels on the intensity: again, a device that you d use if you felt in unseemly to show you had strong emotions, or to make strong assertions, but felt you had to say something along those lines anyway. The intensifier just belongs to emphasize class and so belongs to amplifier booster class (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1990: 214) Example: (54) I just like him. 1.3.2.7 The use of hypercorrect grammar Females are not supposed to talk rough. Lakoff stated that females are viewed as being the preservers of literacy and culture, where literacy and culture are viewed as being the
somewhat suspect in a male. In cultures where is values for itself, men are apt to be the guardians of culture and the preservers of grammar. Example: (55) I have been studying Architecture for three years. 1.3.2.8 The use of superpolite form Females are supposed to speak more politely than males. Females are experts at euphemism, more positively; females are the repositories of tact and know the right things to say to other people. Female are supposed to be particularly careful to say please and thank you and to uphold the other social conventions, certainly a female who fails at these task is apt to be in more trouble than a male who does so. Example: (56) Would you mind to teach me, please? 1.3.2.9 The avoidance of strong swear words The difference between using shit (or damn, or one of many others) as opposed to oh dear, or goodness,: or oh fudge lies in how forcefully one says how ones feels perhaps, one might say, choice is a particle is a function of how strongly one allows oneself to feel about something, so that the strength of the particle. Allowing males stronger mean of expression than are open to females further reinforces males position of strength in the real world: for surely we listen with more attention the more strongly and forcefully someone express opinions and a speaker unable- for whatever reason- to be forceful in stating his views is much less likely to be taken seriously. Ability to use strong particles like shit and hell is, of course, only incidental to the inequity that exists rather than
its cause. But once again, apparently accidental linguistic usage suggests that females are denied equality partially for linguistic reasons, and that an examination of language points up precisely an area in which inequity exists. Example: (57) oh my goodness. 1.3.2.10 The use of emphatic stress Females usually strengthen an utterance to describe their judgment about something. Example: (58) it was a fantastic idea. 2.3.3 Men s language According to the Holmes (1992:170) characterized male s linguistic features as follows: 2.3.3.1 The use of multiple negations Holmes stated that females use more standard form than males and so, correspondingly, males use more vernacular forms than females. In Detroit, for instance, multiple negations, a vernacular feature of speech, is more frequent in males speech than in females. Even in the lowest social group, males use a third more instance of multiple negation than females. Example: (59) You do not nothing. 2.3.3.2 In terms of pronunciation, they usually delete ed at the end of a verb
Holmes had given examples that in New York males use this form more than females. They delete the ed which marked past tense at the end of words. Example: (60) kissed will be pronounced kiss 2.3.3.3 In Pronunciation, they also use in [in] form rather than ing [iŋ] form In western communities males and females use different quantities or frequencies of the same forms. In all the English-speaking cities, where speech data has been collected, for instance, females use more ing [iŋ] pronunciation and fewer in [in] pronunciations than males in words like swimming and typing. Both the social and the linguistic patterns in these communities are sex-preferential (rather than sex-exclusive). Example: (61) Talking will pronounced talkin. 2.3.3.4 The use of ungrammatical form In many speech communities, when females use more of a linguistic form than males, it is generally standard form- the overtly prestigious form- that females favor. When males use a form more often than females, it is usually vernacular form, one which is not admired overtly by the society as a whole, and which is not citied as the correct form. This pattern has been found in western speech communities all over the world. Example: (62) you re with her/?
2.3.3.5 The use of impolite form like swearing and taboo language According to Holmes, this form is mostly used by males to express solidarity and to maintain social relationships. This form is an established males speech activity. Example: (63) Damn, this tape doesn t work