6
5. Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed through descriptive analysis technique. In this technique, the writer notes, separates and classifies utterances in the
film’s dialogues into appropriate politeness strategies. Then they will be analyzed and described by using Brown and Levinson’s theory particularly
Face Threatening Acts FTAs and politeness strategies.
F. Time and Place of the Study
The research has been started from March 2009 to January 2010 in English Letters Department of Letters and Humanities Faculty of State Islamic University
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
7
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Politeness Concept
Politeness refers to ‘having or showing that one has good manners and consideration for other people’ Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. It is also
associated to term such as ‘civility’, ‘courtesy’, ‘good manners’, or translated to such as French courtoisie, German Höflichkeit, Italian cortesia and urbanità or Dutch
beschaafdheid, beleefdheid and hoffelijkheid, and finally points up various associative connection: to ‘civil society’, ‘civilization’, or general quality of having ‘life-
experience’.
5
In the standard meaning of the word ‘polite’, at least three dimensions can be identified: 1 polite as civil or socially correct; 2 polite as kind or friendly; and 3
polite as tactful or diplomatic.
6
A quick look at the literature easily shows that different researchers have favoured different senses. Echoing Fraser 1990, one
could say that for Leech 1983 being polite involves making the hearer to feel good polite as friendly; to Brown Levinson 1987 it means making him not feel bad
polite as diplomatic; 3 for Fraser himself it is the expected state polite as socially correct.
On the other hand, as politeness is one of the basic socio-psychological guidelines for human behavior, Richard J. Watts on his book, Politeness, defined
politeness into two concepts, the first-order politeness or politeness
1
and the second
5
Eelen, Gino. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 2001 p.1
6
Escandell, Victoria. ‘Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory’. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11 1998: 45-57 p.46
8
order politeness or politeness
2
, with the former referring to the commonsense notion of politeness, and the latter to its scientific conceptualization. The first-order
politeness politeness1 is the various ways in which polite behavior is talked about by members of sociocultural group
7
, whereas second-order politeness politeness2 is a linguistic, scientific concept which is more technical notion which can only have a
value within an overall theory of social interaction.
8
Watts moreover states that politeness
1
is action behavior and politeness
2
is linguistic behavior. Example forms of action behavior are like opening door for others to enter or
exit before oneself, not belching at mealtimes, holding hand on mouth and turning head away when coughing, offering one’s seat in a bus to an older person or an
invalid are culturally specific and part of first-order politeness. And examples of social interaction using linguistic behavior are like saying please and thank you or
prefacing a request made of a strange with excuse me or apologizing with I’m sorry or pardon me.
B. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness