25 a pretty sharpsmooth cookie.‖ It could be either a compliment or an insult,
depending on which of the connotations of sharp or smooth are latched on to. Sub-strategy 2 is being vague. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that the
speaker can go off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object is or what the offence is. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance
―Perhaps someone did something naughty
‖ as said by the speaker to convey criticism. Sub-strategy 3 is over-generalizing. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain
that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker gives a rule instantiation which may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record. Then, the hearer have to
decide whether the general rules apply to him. The example is in the utterance ―Mature people sometimes help do the dishes.‖
Sub-strategy 4 is displacing the hearer. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that this sub-strategy happens when the speaker pretends to address the FTA to
someone whom it would not threaten. Thus, the speaker expects that the real target will understand that the FTA is aimed at him. The example case of this sub-
strategy is stated by Ervin Tripp in which one secretary in an office asks another using negative politeness to pass the stapler, in circumstances where a professor is
much nearer to the stapler than the other secretary as cited in Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 226. It
does not threaten the professor‘s face and he may choose to do it himself as a bonus for the secretary.
Sub-strategy 5 is being incomplete and using ellipsis. This is an act of saying unfinished utterance. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that by leaving an
FTA half undone, the speaker can leave the implicatur e ‗hanging in the air‘ as
26 same as rhetorical question. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance
―Oh sir, a headache…‖ as used by a niece to ask her father‘s younger brother for an aspirin. This utterance gave him the option of telling her to take a rest rather
than dispensing a precious pill.
6. Factors of Politeness Strategies
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that there are two factors which can influence the speaker to use politeness strategies. The factors are the politeness
strategies‘ payoffs and the sociological variables.
a. Payoffs
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that payoffs are the expected results of the politeness strategies. When politeness strategies are used by the speaker, there
will be the expected result concealed in the strategies. In addition, Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that the expected results in applying the strategies must
be beneficial for him. Therefore, every politeness strategy has its own advantages for the speaker.
The payoff is classified into four payoffs based on each politeness strategy, namely bald on record payoff, positive politeness payoff, negative politeness
payoff, and off record payoff. The following sections discuss the four payoffs.
1 Bald On Record Payoff
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that bald on record is used by the speaker when he wants to be clear, straight-forward, and efficient in expressing his wants.
Meanwhile, the speaker has particular intentions in applying this strategy that will give them some advantages. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that by using bald
27 on record strategy, the speaker avoids the possibility of being misunderstood,
being seen to be a manipulator, and being dishonest. In addition, the speaker who uses this strategy can have the opportunity to give compensation for the face that
has been threatened by the FTA Brown Levinson, 1987.
2 Positive Politeness Payoff
Based on Brown and Levinson 1987, one of the advantages for the speaker who applies positive politeness strategy is that he can minimize the threat
of an FTA by assuring the addressee that he is ‗the same kind‘ as the hearer. It means that the speaker likes the desire that a hearer wants. Furthermore, Brown
and Levinson 1987 state that ―positive politeness is used by the speaker to
satisfy hearer‘s positive face in some respects‖ p. 71. By doing so, the speaker wants to maintain social closeness toward the hearer. The speaker who uses
positive politeness can value what the hearer has by giving compliments towards the hearer. Therefore, the speaker can also avoid or minimize the debt implication
of doing the FTA by referring to the relationship between speaker and hearer.
3 Negative Politeness Payoff
Negative politeness is a strategy that is used by the speaker to satisfy hearer‘s negative face. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that by using negative
politeness, the speaker wants to pay his respect and deference towards the hearer for the FTA that he makes. In other words, by using negative politeness, the
speaker wants to respect other, maintain social distance, and avoid the threat that speaker gives to the hearer Brown Levinson, 1987. The example from this
case is when the speaker gives the hearer freedom to decide his choice in PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28 perceiving the speaker‘s request. The speaker who uses negative politeness will
clarify that he does not really expect the hearer to say ‗Yes‘ in perceiving the speaker‘s request unless he wants to. Thereby, the speaker can minimize the
mutual face loss incurred if the hearer has to say ‗No‘. Furthermore, the speaker
can avoid the threat of advancing familiarity towards the hearer by maintaining social distance Brown Levinson, 1987.
4 Off Record Payoff
Brown and Levinson 1987 state that the off record strategy is used by the speaker to satisfy the
hearer‘s negative face and to minimize the threat which the speaker makes towards the hearer in a greater degree. By applying the off record
strategy, the speaker can have profit in the following ways: the speaker can get credit for being sympathetic and non-coerciveness, avoid responsibility for the
potentially face-damaging interpretation, and give the hearer an opportunity to be seen to care for speaker so that he can test hearer‘s feelings towards him.
b. Sociological Variables
Another factor that influences the speaker in using politeness strategies is the sociological variables. There are three variables that are proposed by Brown
and Levinson 1987, namely social distance, relative power, and the rank of imposition. It is considered as the calculation in the assessment of the seriousness
of an FTA. The calculation affects the way the speaker uses the politeness strategies. Furthermore, each of the calculation has its own values that the hearer
knows. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
1 Social Distance
As stated by Brown and Levinson 1987, social distance is ―symmetrical
social dimension of similarity or difference‖ p. 76. Moreover, Holmes 2001
describes that the dimension deals with the judgment of the relationship between the speaker and hearer. Thus, intimacy between the speaker and hearer affects the
choice of the strategy. Social distance also discusses how stable social attributes age, social class,
and ethnic background affect the relationship between the speaker and hearer Brown Levinson, 1987. In other words, it indicates the intimacy between the
speaker and hearer whether they have close or distant relationship. If the speaker has high intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose the least polite
strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record strategies. Meanwhile, if the speaker has less intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose more polite
strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies.
2 Relative Power
Relative power is an asymmetric relation. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that relative power is the degree to which the hearer can impose his own
wants. It is supported by Holmes 2001 that using similar terms of relative power called
―relative status‖. It explains about the status of the hearer over the speaker which actually focuses on the power of the hearer over the speaker. It means that
the speaker will use more polite strategy when the speaker has lower power than the hearer. Meanwhile, when the speaker has higher power than the hearer, the
speaker will use less polite strategy. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30
3 Rank of Imposition
The last sociological variable is rank of imposition. Brown and Levinson 198
7 state that ―the rank of imposition is the degree of a matter that is considered as the interference to the face of the hearer
‖ p. 77. The interference itself is the FTA that the speaker made. In other words, the degree of the FTA
defines the rank of impositions. A speaker who wants to impose the hearer‘s
negative face will choose more polite strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies. Meanwhile, a speaker who wants to impose the
hearer‘s positive face will choose less polite strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record
strategies.
B. Review of Related Research
In this section, the writer will review other related studies previously done by other researchers. There are two studies that will be reviewed by the writer.
The first study was written by Oktorio 2015 entitled
A Study of Politeness Strategies Used by The Four Main Characters of Yes Man.
The study analyzed the types of politeness strategies that were used by the four main characters and
the factors that influenced the four characters in using politeness strategies. The theory of Brown and Levinson 1987 about the types of politeness strategies and
the factors in choosing the strategies was employed in the study. Oktorio 2015 applied document analysis method and used the movie script of
Yes Man
movie. The second study was written by Gloria 2016 entitled
The Use of Brown
and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies as seen in Elizabeth Gilbert’s Eat
Pray Love.
Different from Oktorio‘s 2015 politeness studies which analyzed a movie,
