Adjacency Pair Theoretical Description

26 Below are two examples of common adjacency pairs in English taken from Tracy 2002, p. 114. These adjacency pairs involve different acts. Example 1 accepts an invitation, and example 2 refuses an invitation. 1. Taryn : How about some lunch? Invitation Jjay 1 : Sound good. stand up Acceptance 2. Taryn : How aout some lunch ? Invitation Jay : pause Uhh, better bot. Refusal I’ve got to get this done by 2:00. Thanks though. How’s tomorrow? In offer, invitation or request, accepts are conversationally preferred to refusals. So, acceptances is a preferred action, and refusal in a dispreferred action. Talking about adjacency pair, it cannot be separated from the first part and the second part of a conversation. The first part is deal with the utterances from the speaker intended to the hearer while the second part is deal with the response from the hearer to response the speaker’s utterances. A response has two possibilies. They are preferred and dispreferred response. Ronald Wardhaugh 2002 states that certain kinds of adjacency pairs are marked by a preference for a particular type of second part. For example, requests, questions and invitations have preferred and dispreferred answer. Compare the following interactions, in which 1 has a preferred positive second part and 2 has a dispreffered negative second part: 1 Speaker 1 : I really enjoyed the movie last night. Did you? Speaker 2 : Yeah. I thought it was pretty good. 2 Speaker A : I really enjoyed the movie last night. Did you? Speaker B : No. I thought it was pretty crummy, though I can see how you could’ve liked certain parts of it. 27 In 1 the speaker 1 assessed about the movie which was watch by the speaker 2 in the previous night. In order to get the response, the speaker 1 asked a question to the speaker 2 whether she or he agreed or not. As the response, the speaker 2 showed her or his agreement that she or he really enjoyed the movie in the previous night. While in 2 with the same example of assessment, the speaker B as the response showed his or her disagreement. The speaker B thought that the movie was pretty crummy and he or she could see how the speaker A could have liked certain parts of it. To an assessment also, the preferred second part is agreement: 1 Speaker 1 : I think Ralp’s a pretty good writer. Speaker 2 : Yeah. I think so too. 2 Speaker A : I think Ralp’s a pretty good writer. Speaker B : Well, I can see how you’d find his imagery interesting, but apart from that I don’t really think he writes well at all. In 1 the speaker 1 assessed that Ralp was a pretty good writer. As the response, the speaker 2 showed her or his agreement by saying yeah. The word yeah had the same meaning with the word yes which expressed an agreement. In contrast, in 2 the speaker B showed her or his disagreement about the speaker A’s assessment. The speaker 2 thought that Ralp did not write well at all. Dispreferred second parts tend to be preceded by a pause and to begin with a hesitation particle such as well or uh. Preferred second parts tend to follow the first part without a pause and to consist of structurally simple utterances. 1 Speaker 1 : Would you like to meet for lunch tomorrow? Speaker 2 : Sure 2 Speaker A : Would you like to meet for lunch tomorrow? 28 Speaker B : Well, hmm. Let’s see…. Tomorrow’s Tuesday, right? I told Harry I’d have lunch with him. And I tol d him so long ago that I’d feel bad canceling. May be another time, okay? In 1 the speaker 1 requested the speaker 2 to meet him or her for lunch tomorrow in politely way. As the response, the speaker 2 showed the acceptance by saying sure. It indicated that the speaker 2 without any doubt would meet the speaker 1 for lunch on the day after that day. While in 2 the speaker B showed her or his rejection to the speaker A’s request. It is showed that the speaker B paused and to begin with a hesitation particle such as well, hmmm. In addition, dispreferred second parts often begin with a token agreement or acceptance, or with an expression of appreciation or apology, and usually include an explanation. The example of the explanation is below: Speaker 1 : Can I use your phone? Speaker 2 : Oh, I’m sorry, but I’m expecting an important long-distance call any minute. Could you wait ten minutes? The speaker 1 asked for permission to use the speaker 2’s phone. However, as the response, the speaker 2 could not give her or his phone because she or he would use it anytime to receive an important long-distance call. However, the speaker 2 showed her or his apology first before rejecting the speaker 1’s request. The speaker 2 used the words I’m sorry.

7. Politeness strategy

The essence of politeness contrasting human-human communication with human-computer communication. Computers have no feelings or pride or 29 sensitivity; they do not take offense if ordered to do something or if the user yells at it for some perceived misdeed. But humans do have sensitivities and feelings and might indeed by offended if commanded to do something negative face is threatened or if criticized for some failing positive face is threated. Politeness allows people to perform many interpersonally sensitive actions in a nonthreatening or less threatening manner. Politeness strategy is one of communication strategy which emphasizes the polite words and actions. There are four types of politeness strategy, described by Brown and Levinson 1987 that sum up human “politeness” behavior, namely Bald On-record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-record. The following figure 1.0 is representing the circumstance in determining the choice of strategy by Brown and Levinson. It is the super-strategies of politeness ordered against estimated risk of face loss Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 60. Figure 1.0. Super-strategies of politeness ordered against estimated risk of face loss Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 60 Figure 1.0 shows the circumstance in determining the choice of strategy. The speaker goes on record in doing the FTA if it is clear to the hearers what Strategy Do the FTA Don’t do the FTA On record Off record Without redressive action, baldly With redressive action Positive politeness Negative politeness 30 communicative lead the speaker to do the FTA. In contrast, if the speaker goes off record in doing the FTA, then there is more than one ambiguously attributable intention so that the speaker cannot be held to have committed himself or herself to one particular intent. Doing an act baldly, without redressive action, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible. By redressive action means an action which ‘give face’ to the hearers, that is, that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA. Redressive action has two forms; positive politeness and negative politeness. Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of the hearer, the positive self-image that he or she claims for himself or herself. Negative politeness, on the other hand, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying redressing the hearer ’s negative face, his or her basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination.

a. Bald on Record

Bald-on-record strategy is employed as an attempt to minimize the efficiency of speaking. Brown and Levinson 1987, p. 95 state Bald On-record is used in different situations since speakers can have different motives in doing Face Threatening Acts FTAs. Face is essentially our self-esteem in social interactions with others. By trying to preserve face instead of threatening it, we show our solidarity and our respect to our communicative partners. Bald On- record represents adherence to Grice’s maxims and hence is maximally efficient communication. For example, to perform a request bald-on-record a speaker would use the imperative, for ex ample “Close the door”; to perform a