Pragmatic analysis in the dialogues of hendrik ibsen's drama 'adoll's house'

A BSTR A C T
Nur Istiqlawati, Pragmatic Analysis in the Dialogues of Henrik Ibsen’s Drama ‘a
Doll’s House’. Skripsi: Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University
of Syarif Hidayatullah, January 2008.

Here the writer studies the drama of A Doll’s House as the unit
of data analysis. Face Threatening Acts (FTA) in Pragmatics linguistic used to
analyze the dialogues. The method of the research is descriptive qualitative, which
tries to explain and describe the dialogues of two major characters with
the help of the Face Threatening Acts (FTA) theory provided by Brown and
Levinson.
During this study the writer has collected 33 dialogues of major
characters which consists Face Threatening Acts (FTA) strategies. When analyzing
the data, the writer tries to observe the FTA in the dialogues, describes the
situation where the characters are interaction, explain the uses of FTA
strategies in the dialogues, observes the reasons why Face Threatening Acts
(FTA) strategies are used by female character, and how payoff factor influence the
female character in choosing the FTA strategies.
As result of the research, the writer concluded that the female character in A
Doll’s House chooses some of FTA strategies to save her self image
‘face’, to maintain her face from potential of face losing risk, to minimize the

potential of face threat and to avoid conflict. Brown and Levinson's
politeness theory also explains how advantages (payoffs) and situational factors
influence peoples' choices in dealing with such identity threatening acts.
This study is also expected to help the readers understand Pragmatic and Face
Threatening Act’s theories in the dialogues of Henrik Ibsen’s Drama A Doll’s House.

APPROVAL SHEET OF ADVISOR
PR A G M A TIC A N A LY SIS IN TH E D IA LO G U ES O F
H EN R IK IBSE N ’S D R A M A ‘A D O L L ’S H O U S E ’
A THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of Adab and Humanities
In Partial Accomplishment of the Requirement for the Strata One Degree (S1)

By:

N ur Istiqlaw ati
103026027662

A pproved by:
A dvisor

D rs. A sep Saefuddin, M .Pd
N IP: 150 261 902

EN G LISH L ET TE R S D E PA R T M E N T
FA C U LT Y O F A D A B A N D H U M A N ITIES
SY A R IF H ID A Y A T U LLA H ST A TE ISLA M IC U N IV E R SITY
JA K A R TA
2008

LEG A LIZ A TIO N O F EX A M IN A TIO N C O M M ITTEE

A thesis entitled “Pragmatics Analysis in the Dialogues of Henrik
Ibsen’s Drama a Doll’s House” was examined by Examination Committee of the
Letters and Humanities Faculty State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah
on January 28,
2008. This thesis has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment
of the requirements for acquiring Strata One in English Letters Department.
Jakarta, January 28,
2008

Examination Committee
Chief,

M. Farkhan, M. Pd
NIP: 150 299 480

Examiner I

Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd
NIP: 150 299 481

Secretary,

Drs. A. Saefuddin, M.Pd
NIP: 150 261 902

Examiner II

Elve Oktaviyani, M.Hum

NIP: 150 317 725

D EC LA R A TIO N
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
institute,

except

where

degree

or

diploma

of

the

university

or

other

due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Jakarta, January 28, 2008

NUR ISTIQLAWATI

PREFACE
In the name of ALLAH, the most Merciful and Gracious

All praise is to ALLAH SWT, my greatest love, the lord of the w
who

has authority of creation in the whole world and bestowed upon the writer

completing this thesis. Salutation and benediction be unto the noblest of the
last prophet and beloved ALLAH SWT, Muhammad SAW, his family, companions,
and adherents.
On this occasion, the writer particularly would like to say great thanks to writer’s
lovely and wonderful parents (Drs. H. Zainuddin Aziz dan Hj. Hafifah) for love, prays,
inspiration, sacrifices, struggles and financial supports for the writer during the study and
the process in finishing this thesis. Writer’s sisters and brothers (Indah, Intan, and Isna)
who also supported her during writer’s study. Writer’s funny niece, Nyda.
Writer’s beloved

Kosim

Abdullah,

for

love,

joy,

time,

patient,

advices,

supports and all the encouragement for the writer, you always be in her heart…
The writer also would say special thanks to Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.pd
as

the writer’s thesis advisor and as the secretary of the Faculty of Adab and

Humanities who always gives his time, guidance, contribution in correcting and
helping the writer to finish this thesis writing.
And also to the following persons, they are:
1)

Dr. H. Abd. Chair, The Dean of the Faculty of Adab and Humanities

2)

Dr. H. M. Farkhan, M.Pd, The Head of the English Letters Department

3)

Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd and Elve Oktaviany, M.Hum, the
examiners of writer final examination.

4)

All lecturers in English Letters Department who have educated, guided
and given the valuable knowledge during writer’s study at this university.

5)

Writer’s lovely and best friends, Halimatussya’diah (Sanchay), Ria
Kartika, Andy Subagya, Hamdah Sunaini, Nur Cahya, Sri Wulandari, Fenti
Mariska, Eulis Aulia, Lika Nurrela, Ulfah, Yunie, Nabiel, Q2, Amel,
Indah, Bariroh, Nuniek, Fajriah, Put3, Fiermansyah, Ciko Permana, Va’i,
Edo, Davi, and all my colleagues in The English Letters Department
especially for class A and B who can not be mentioned one by one, who also
supported me and encouraged me. Thank U for the kindness, suggestions…and
thanks for being my friends…

6)

All the staffs of Faculty of Adab and Humanities, and UIN Jakarta

7)

The librarians of the Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University
of Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, University of Indonesia, University of

Atma
Jaya.

Last
being

but

not

least,

the

writer

realizes

this

paper

is

far

from

perfect. Therefore, it is really a pleasure for her to receive any constructive

criticism, suggestion, and

advices

to

accomplish

it.

The

writer

also

wishes

this work would be useful, particularly for her and for those who are interested on
it.
May Allah bless us by his love and always gives us prosperity in life, Amiin..

Jakarta, January 2008
NUR ISTIQLAWATI

TA BLE O F C O N TE N TS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................
i APPROVEMENT ...............................................................................................

ii

LEGALIZATION ..............................................................................................

iii

DECLARATION ...............................................................................................

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................
v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................

1

A. Background of the Study .........................................................

1

B. Focus of the Study ...................................................................

6

C. Research Questions .................................................................

6

D. Significance of the Study ........................................................

6

E. Research Methodology ...........................................................

7

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..........................................

9

A. The Meaning of Pragmatics ....................................................

9

B. Face Threatening Acts (FTA) .................................................

11

1.

The Definition of Face Threatening Acts .......................... 11

2.

Strategies in Doing Face Threatening Acts .......................

3.

Factors Influencing the Choice of the Strategies .............. 29

15

CHAPTER III DIALOGUES ANALYSIS .....................................................

33

A. Data Description ......................................................................

33

B. Interpretation of the Data ........................................................ 37
C. Data Analysis .......................................................................... 38
CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ...................................

63

A. Conclusion .............................................................................. 63
B. Suggestion ...............................................................................

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES

1

C H A PTE R I
IN TR O D U C TIO N

A. Background of the Study

Language
means

is

for

communicating

with

other

not

simply

a

of communicating information but also a very important means of

establishing and maintaining relationship with other people. 1 Language has
important roles in life. Through the language people might interact with their
social environment. Definition
of language itself is a system of arbitrary vocal symbol used by human
for cooperation, communication, and identification of himself. 2

being

The

language is used by components of society to convey opinions, feelings, and
experiences as well through communication. If love may be called the heart of
happy living, then communication could be called its lifeblood.
Communication has roles to establish and maintain social relationship. Here,
communication
hearer.
have

to

seen

as

the

joint

The speakers

as

the

persons

maintain

responsibility
who

of

participate

the
in

speaker

and

communication

their social interaction by seeing theirs language behavior,

because the use of language like most

other

forms

of

social

behavior

is

governed by social rules. Some rules are

1
2

Peter Trudgill, Sociolinguistics: An Introduction (England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1974), p. 13
Djoko Kentjono, Dasar-dasar Linguistik Umum (Jakarta: Fakultas FIB UI, 1984), p. 2.

2

designed to protect people’s feelings by showing respect and to protect the integrity
of our communication.
Communication success is achieved if the speaker chooses his words in such a
way

that

the

hearer

will,

under

the

circumstances

of

utterance,

recognize his communication intention. In communicating with other, the speakers
also must have competence and knowledge in use theirs language. A speaker’s
knowledge of what to say,

and

when

and

where

to

say

it,

is

what

ethnographers call ‘communicative competence’ which was formulated by Dell
Hymes. Communicative competence is the skill involved in matching the utterance
to an appropriate context of use; in other words, knowing when to be familiar
and when to be formal, knowing when to be direct and when to be
indirect, or simply knowing when to talk and when to keep quiet. 3
Dell Hymes, an American linguist also developed a valuable model to assist
the identification of component interaction that is driven by his view that in order to
speak language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but
also the context in which words are used.
Hymes constructs the acronym of S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G in language competence.
The model that is comprised of sixteen components within eight divisions, namely: S
as Setting and scene which refers to the time and place of speech. P is Participant,
refers to speaker and audience. E is Ends, as purposes, goals, and outcomes. A as an

3

Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short, and Peter Verdonk, eds., Exploring the
Language of
Drama: From Text to Context (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 38.

3

Act sequence, refers to form and order of the event. K-Key which refers to the clues
that

establish

the

“tone,

manner,

or

spirit”

of

the

speech

act.

I is

Instrumentalities, refers on forms and styles of speech. N-Norms, which
refers to the social rules governing the event and the participants’ actions and
reaction. The last one is G as Genre that refers to the kind of speech act or event. 4
However, in using language to communicate with other, with the same culture
one has to follow the norms that may indicate his identity, because
language has important
that

there

is

a

Language,

for

individual.

Language

roles

in

human

social

interaction.

In

fact

close interrelationship between language and society.

Saussure,

is

source

a
lies

social phenomenon.
in

society,

cultures codes, and in the language system. 5

in

It

can

not

be

an

the culture, in our share

Factors of gender, race, class, age

education, and knowledge play a major role in assumptions about the level of
appropriate linguistic behavior within particular communities.6 People who have
real

power

on

spoken

language

are

typically

those

who

feel

secure,

speaking easily, have flexibility and resilience that come from realizing how
complicated the world is. 7
High context communication is primarily concerned with maintaining
face
and group harmony, every word is considered carefully and many
expressions of

4

Abdul Chaer, Linguistik Umum (Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta, 2003), cet. Ke-2, h. 63.
Stuart Hall, Representations, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices
(London:
, 1997), p. 24.
6
Sara Mills, Gender and Politeness (United Kingdom: Cambrige University Press, 2003), p.
9.
7
Loban, Ryn, Squire. “Teaching Language and Literature,” ed. Williard B. Spalding (USA:
Harcourt, Brace& World Inc, 1961), p. 163.
5

4

respect and courtesy are included because every utterance intrinsically threatens face.
However, even in relatively mundane interaction our actions often threat the
other person’s face. Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can
be lost, maintained,

or

enhanced,

and

must

be

constantly

attended

to

interaction. 8 In the everyday sense of the word, face is involved in notions such
as reputation, prestige, and self-image.
Talking about face, Brown and Levinson formulates the notion of face which
consists of positive face as the desire to be approved of and negative face as the desire
to

be

unimpeded

interpreted

in

as making

one’s
a

action.

demand

Any
or

utterance

intruding

which
on

other

would

be

person’s

autonomy can be regarded a potential face threatening act. FTA is one of the
study that concerns in Pragmatics, a study of the mechanisms and motivation behind
any of the choice made when using language…and the effect they have or are
intended to have… 9
interaction

by

doing

In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in
FTA,

because

persons

have special right to face

protection.
In drama, language contributes the major share to the overall quality of play
and can play a vital role in advancing the action. Drama, like poetry and fiction is an
art of words, mainly words of dialogue because a performance of drama is more than

8

Brown Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson, Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambrige:
Cambrige University Press, 1978), p.61.
9
Mansoer Pateda, Linguistik Terapan (Flores NTT: Nusa Indah, 1991), p. 182.

5

just an art of words. 1 0 Drama represents man’s use of words and also as an arena
for human action manifested in speech. For example, the dialogues of A Doll’s
House, a social drama written by Henrik Ibsen.
Henrik Johan Ibsen is a greatest Norwegian author who was born on March
20th, 1828 in Skien, Norway. 1 1 Henrik Ibsen also is known as the father of
modern drama because he elevated theatre from entertainment to a forum for
exposing social problems, especially the position women in society. In his
quest for realism, Ibsen also wants his dialogues to be as natural as possible,
mirroring the way people spoke
to each other in everyday life.
A Doll’s House is one of his dramas published on December 4, 1879. 1 2 In
A Doll’s House, Ibsen creates the character of Nora Helmer, a woman
trapped in an unfulfilling role in a stifling marriage. Her husband continuously
patronizes her and treats her like a doll. Finally, Nora decides to leave her
marriage and children to pursue an independent life.
This drama also involves so many utterances of Face Threatening Acts as a
study that concerns in pragmatics. Those are the reasons why the writer interested to
do the research under the title Pragmatic Analysis in the Dialogues of Henrik Ibsen’s
Drama a Doll’s House.
10

Otto Reinert, Modern Drama: Nine Plays (Toronto: Little, Brown, and
Company Inc,
1961), p. xii
11
Evert Spinchorn, ed., IBSEN: Letters and Speeches (New York: A Drama Book Hill and
Wang, 1964), p. xiii.
12
A doll’s house summary and study guide of Henrik Ibsen, enotes.
http://www.enotes.com/dollshouse/.html, p.1

6

B. Focus of the Study
In this paper, the writer will focuse the study on the uses of Face Threatening
Acts

(FTA)

strategies

in

the

dialogues

of

Nora

Helmer

in

making

dialogues with Torvald Helmer. To analyze it the writer will focus on the
Brown and Stephen C. Levinson theory particularly about face threatening
act and other relevant theories which related to this study, especially pragmatics.

C. Research Questions
Based on the background of the study stated above the writer
has the problems to be analyzed in this research. The research questions of this
research are:
1.

What kinds of FTA strategies does Nora use in making dialogue with Torvald
Helmer in the Drama A Doll’s House?

2.

How does the payoff factor influence Nora in choosing these strategies?

D. Significance of the Study
The goals of this research are to analyze the using of Face Threatening Acts
(FTA) strategies in Nora dialogs towards Torvald Helmer and to know how factor of
payoff influence the choice of these FTA strategies. This research is also
hoped to increase
Face

our

Threatening Acts

knowledge
(FTA)

in
and

understanding
can

comprehension in appropriate daily conversation.

apply

pragmatic,
our

especially

knowledge

and

7

E. Research Methodology
1.

The Objective of the Research
Relates
intends

to

the

research

questions

to analyze

the

use

Face

of

above,

Threatening

this
Acts

research
(FTA)

strategies in Nora and Torvald’s dialogues, appropriately Nora in making
dialogues with Torvald. By analyzing their dialogues this research also
intends to know how factor of payoff influence Nora in choosing these
FTA strategies in the dialogues.

2.

The Method of the Research
To solve the problem that is presented in research questions, the writer
conducted the library research. The writer uses the books, drama, journal, and
websites relates to Pragmatics and Face Threatening Acts’ theory as the sources
of the research. The method used in this research is the qualitative method by
using descriptive analysis. In her analysis, the writer explains the dialogues of
Torvald and Nora that exists in the drama with the theories relates to the Face
Threatening Acts (FTA).

3.

The Unit of Data Analysis
The writer uses the Drama of A Doll’s House written by Henrik Ibsen
in 1879. The Drama published in 1993 by Sylvan Barnet, Morton
Breman, and William Burto in ‘An Introduction to Literature: Fiction,
Poetry, drama’, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

8

4.

Research Instruments
The instrument of the research is the writer himself through
reading the text, observing, and signing the possibility of the use of face
threatening acts strategies in Nora’s dialogs towards her husband, Torvald
Helmer.

5.

The Technique of Data Analysis
The collected data will be analyzed in qualitative description base on
the relevant theories of Pragmatics appropriately on the Face Threatening Acts’
theory. First, the writer read the text of the drama. Then, underlines
Nora’s dialogues that involve face threatening acts strategies. The writer also
tries to tabulate the data on the form of data description. Next, the writer
explains the dialogues of Torvald and Nora that exists in the drama with the
theories relates
to the Face Threatening Acts. Finally, the writer tries to find out how factor of
payoff influence Nora in choosing these FTA strategies.

9

C H A PTE R II
T H E O R ETIC A L FR A M E W O R K

A. The Meaning of Pragmatics
The modern usage of the term pragmatics is attributable to the influence of the
American philosopher Charles Morris, who defined pragmatics as the study
of the relation of signs to interpreters. 1 Although pragmatics is a relatively new
branch of linguistics, research on it can be dated back to ancient Greek and Rome
where the term ‘pragmaticus’ is found in Latin and ‘pragmaticos’ in Greek, both
meaning of being practical’. 2
According to Geoffrey Leech, pragmatics is the study about how language is
used in communication. 3 Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce
a communicative act or speech action a concrete speech situation. The
ability to comprehend
to

as

and

produce

a

communicative

act

is

referred

pragmatic competence, which often includes one’s knowledge about the

social distance, social status between the speakers involved, the cultural knowledge
such as politeness, and the linguistic knowledge.
Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are
basic to an account of language understanding. Here, the term
1

language

Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 1.
Shaoxhong Liu, What is Pragmatics?, Language Education. Accessed on September
18,
2007. http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/definition.html .p. 1.
3
Geoffrey N Leech, Principless of Pragmatics (London: Longman, 1983), p. 1.
2

10

understanding is used in the way favored by workers in artificial intelligence to draw
attention to the fact that understanding an utterance involves a great deal more than
knowing the meanings of words uttered and the grammatical relations between them.
Above

all,

understanding

an

utterances

involves

the

making

inferences

that will connect what is said to what is mutually assumed or what has been said
before. 4
Pragmatics has much contribute to sociolinguistics, for in trying to understand
the social significance of patterns of language usage, it is essential to understand the
underlying

structural

properties

and

processes

that

constrain

verbal

interaction. As explained by David Crystal, Pragmatics studies the factors that
govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on
others. 5 The factor of time, place, and social relationship between speaker
and hearer effect the ways in which language is used to perform different
functions. 6
Pragmatics also
situation. The

studies

meaning

in

relation

to

speech

addressers, the context of an utterance, the goal(s) of an utterance, a speech act, and
the utterance as a product of verbal act are the aspects of speech situation
that are dealing with pragmatic. 7

B. Face Threatening Acts (FTA)
1.

The Definition of Face Threatening Acts
4

Stephen C. Levinson (1983), op.cit. p. 21.
Pragmatics and Speech Act, Speech Act, Language Education. September 18,
2007. http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm#2 . p. 2.
6
Thomas W. Stewart and Nathan Vaillette, ed., Language Files: Materials for an
Introduction to Language and Linguistics (Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1977), p. 220.
7
Geoffrey N Leech (1983), op.cit. p. 13.
5

11

In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction. Because face
is

something

that

emotionally

invested,

can

be

lost,

maintained,

or

enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. The termination of
face first created by Erving Goffman in 1963, where he discusses face in reference to
how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is
constructed through our social interactions. 8 According to Goffman, face is the
positive social value a person effectively claims for him self by the line others
assume has taken during a particular contact, not a specific identity but successful
presentation of any identity.

Face is also a mask that changes depending on the audience and
the social interaction. In the everyday sense of the word, face is involved
in notions such as reputation, prestige, and self-image. Face refers to the respect
that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that ‘self-image’ in public
or in private situations. Normally, everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s
being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend their faces if
threatened, and in defining their own
to threaten other’s face.

Brown and Levinson use the concept of face to explain politeness. Brown and
Levinson's explanation of a number of such deviations is rooted in Goffman's (1967)
notion of face that is 'the public self-image that every member wants to
claim for

8

Theory, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Wikipedia2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory. p. 1.

Free

Encyclopedia.13

April,

12

himself' (1987: 61). They observe that such speakers have two 'face wants', positive
face and negative face. Positive face is a desire for identification, be appreciated and
approved of. Negative face is a desire to be unimpeded in the actions
action and freedom from imposition. 9
Brown and Levinson also add the notion of Face-Threatening Acts
(FTAs)
which they classify according to the kind of face threatened and according to the roles
of the participant speaker (S) or hearer (H). Face Threatening Acts (FTA) are acts that
infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his or her self image, and be
respected. 1 0
Any utterance which would be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on other
person’s autonomy can be regarded a potential face threatening act. Even suggestion,
advice and requests can be regarded as face threatening act, since they
potentially impede the other person’s freedom of action. Acts such as
these are called Face Threatening Acts (FTA).
Politeness tends to be grounded in the concept of face threatening
acts in
communication.
strategies

According

to

Brown

and

Levinson,

politeness

are developed in order to save the hearers' face. Politeness is

the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by
certain

face

threatening

acts toward another.

11

And being polite therefore

consists of attempting to save face for

9

Peter Stockwell, Sociolinguistics: a resource book for students (London: Routledge, 2002),

p. 23.
10

Tenille D. Dixon, University of Kentucky. 14 January , 2008.
http.//www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm

11

Sara Mills (2003), op.cit. 6.

13

another. Face is maintained by the audience, not by the speaker. Because of that, We
strive to maintain the face we have created in social situations.

According to Brown and Levinson there are some kinds of act
which intrinsically threats face, such as:

Acts that
indicating

threaten

the

addressee’s

(H’s)

negative

face

wants

by

(potentially) that the speaker (S) does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of
action, include: 1 2
1.

Acts that put some pressure on hearer(H) to do (or refrain from doing) the
act A:
(a) orders and request (S indicates that he wants H to do something to A)
(b) suggestions, advice
(c) remindings (S indicates that H should remember to do some A)
(d) threats, warnings, dares (S indicates that he- or someone will instigate
sanctions against H unless he does A)
2. Acts that put some pressure on H to accept or reject them:
(a) offers
(b) promises
3. Acts that predicate some desire of S toward H, giving H reason to think
that he may have to take action to protect the object of S’s desire or give it
to S:
(a) Compliments, expression of envy or admiration
(b) Expression of strong emotion toward H (S indicates
possible motivation for harming H or H’s good), e.g. hatred, anger, lust.

Acts that threaten the positive face wants by indicating that S does not care about the
H’s feelings, wants etc (in some important respect he doesn’t want H’s
wants), include: 1 3
12

Brown Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1978), op. cit. 65.

14

Acts that show that S has negative evaluation of some aspect of H’s positive
face:
(a)
Expression of disapproval, criticism, contempt, ridicule,
complaint, reprimand, accusation, and insult (S indicates that he
doesn't like/want one or more of H's wants, acts, personal
characteristics, goods, beliefs
or values).
(b) Contradictions, refusal, disagreements and challenge (S indicates
that he thinks H is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some
issue, such wrongness being associated with disapproval).
2. Acts that show that S does not care about H’s positive face:
(a) Expression of violent (out-of-control) emotions to fear or embraced H
(b) Irreverence, mention of taboo topics, including those
that are inapropriate in context.
(c) Bringing of bad news about H or boasting about S
(d) Tell the emotional or divisible topics, e.g. politics, race, religion.
(e) Non-cooperation activity, e.g. showing non attention
(f)
Use of address terms and other status marked identifications in
initial encounters (S may misidentify H in an offensive or
embrassing way, intentionally or accidentally)

1.

Acts that primarily threaten the speaker’s (S’s) negative face wants include: 1 4
1.

Acts that offends S’s negative face:
(a) Expressing thanks
(b) Acceptance of H’s thanks or H’s apology
(c) Excuses
(d) Acceptance of offers
(e) Responses to H’s faux pas
(f) Unwilling promises and offers
2. Acts that damage S’s positive face:
(a) Apologies
(b) Acceptance of a compliment
(c) Breakdown of physical control body, e.g. stumbling or falling down
(d) Self-humiliation, e.g. acting stupid, shuffling or cowering
2. Strategies in Doing Face Threatening Act
Every utterance is potentially a face threatening act (FTA), either

to the positive face or to the negative face. Therefore, the participants in
communication

13
14

Ibid. p. 66.
Ibid.

15

will try to avoid face threatening acts and choose five super strategies
for also performing an FTA to minimize the threat and the face losing risk, ordered
from the lowest to the highest risk of face loss, they are: 1) Bald, onrecord, 2) Positive politeness, 3) Negative politeness, 4) Off record, 5) Don’t do the
FTA.

Strategies in doing FTA may be schematized as in the figure below:
Lesser
1. without redressive action, baldy
On record

2. Positive
Politeness

Do the FTA
with redressive action
4. off record
5. Don’t do the FTA

Greater

3. Negative
Politeness

Figure 1: Face Threatening Acts’ strategies

The more an act threats S’s or H’r face, the more S will want to
choose a
higher-numbered strategy; this by virtue of the fact that these strategies afford payoff
of increasingly minimized risk.

These five strategies are used to safeguard speaker’s or hearer’s face in order
to avoid face loss in communication when performing an FTA. First, bald on record,
this strategy does not attempt to minimize the threats to the hearer’s face.
Bald on record is most often utilized by speakers who closely know
their

audience.

The participant in communication likely will performe this

strategy when the estimation
of risk of face loss is low, e.g. shut the door. The participant can doing baldly without

16

redress if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee because
of the danger of H’s face is very small without losing his own. As in
offers, requests, suggestion. Or baldly with redressive action, by action that give
face to addressee to
be achieved.

The second strategy is positive politeness, this strategy attempts to minimize
the threat to the hearers face. Quite often hedging and attempts to avoid conflict are
used, e.g. How about shutting the door?. Possitive politeness links to positif face by
giving a positive reason for H to act in the way to suggested. 1 5 The third strategy
is negative politeness which presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the
listener, e.g. could you shut the door?. The forth strategy is off record, the actor
may leaves himself an ‘out’ by providing him self with a number of
defensible interpretation include metaphor, irony and all kinds of hints, e.g. It’s
warm in here. The last one is
do not do the FTA, this strategy is the most polite strategy doing if someone (S or H)
does not act anything which can threats her face. Silence may be adopted when the
FTA is

too dangerous

to commit. `Better

not

to speak than

to

be

sorry´ is the understanding behind it.

Brown and Levinson in their book tell that there are three most
important strategies for doing FTA, such as:

positive

politeness,

negative

politeness, and off record. These strategies will be explained in the following below:

15

W. Peter Robinson, Language in Social World (University of Bristol: Blackwell Publishing,
2002), p. 162.

17

a.

Positive Politeness Strategy
Positive

politeness

strategy

aim

to

save

positive

face,

by

demonstrating closeness and solodarity, appealing to friendship, making other people
feel good, and emphasizing that both speakers have a common goal. 1 6 By doing
positive politeness,
a speaker can minimize the face threatening aspects of an act by
assuring the
addressee that S consider himself to be ‘of the same kind’, that he like him, and wants
his wants. By doing positive politeness S also can avoid or minimize
the debt implications of FTA.

17

Positive politeness seeks to build common ground between speaker
and
hearer.

Claim common ground is used by S toward H By indicating that S and

H both belong to some set of persons who share specific wants, including
goal and values. Claim common grounds in politeness strategy are: 1 8
Strategy 1: notice; attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, and goods)
S should take notice of aspects of H’s condition or by commenting on the H’s
appearance, belonging and so on (noticeable change, remarkable possessions,
anything which looks as though H would want S to notice and approve of it)
as in what a beautiful vase this is! Where did you come from?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

16

Joan Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse : A resource book for students
(London: Routledge, 2002), p. 48.
17
Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987), op. cit. p. 72.
18
Ibid. pp. 103-129.

18

This is often done with exaggerated intonation, stress, and other
aspects of prosodic, as well as with intensifying modifier as in how a
beautiful face you have! Another feature of this strategy is the exaggerative
or emphatic use of words or particles includes expression like for sure, really,
exactly, absolutely. Strategy3: intensify interest to H
S intensifies his interest to H in conversation by telling or making a
good
story. e.g. Purple I like, I always used it when I feel happy
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
In this strategy, S may explicitly claim the common ground with H
that is carried by that definition of the group by using any of the innumerable
ways
to convey in-group membership. Such as, the usage of address forms (mate,
buddy, dear, sweetheart, pal, blonde, babe, mom, guys. etc) to soften
FTA, e.g. help me with this chair here, will you pal? Or the usage of dialect,
jargon
or slang e.g. Lend me a couple of bucks OK?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
S using this way of claim common ground with H is to seek ways in which it
is possible to agree with him or to safe topics which allows S to
stress

his agreement with H to satisfy H’s desire to be right to be

corroborated in his opinion.
Strategy 6: avoid disagreement

19

A positive politeness desire to avoid disagreement can be doing with:

19

a. The social ‘white lie’, where S when confronted with the necessity to
state an opinion wants to lie as expressions of something that can not
be said as such, e.g. yes I do like your new dress, S answers ‘yes’, but
actually does nothing.
b. Hedging opinion by using of sort of, kind of, like, in a way (‘it’s really
beautiful, in a way’ or ‘I kind a think that abortion is wrong’), so S not
be seen to disagree.
The hedge frees the speaker from the responsibility for the word and
saves him the trouble of finding a better word and thereby softening
the impact of negative statements.
c.

Token

agreement

disagreement

–

by

desire

to

agree

or

to

hide

to respond to a preceding utterance with ‘Yes’

rather than a blatant ‘No’. The

speaker

starts

out

token

agreement by agreeing with the prior speaker's position before
voicing disagreement. In most cases, token agreement takes on the
yes, but ......
d. Pseudo- agreement, by using then or so as a conclusion marker. e.g. so
when are you coming to see us?
Strategy 7: presuppose/raise/assert common ground

19

Ibid. pp. 113-116.

20

S try to spend his time and effort with H, as a mark of friendship or interest in
him, gives rise to the strategy of redressing an FTA by talking for
a while about unrelated topics (Gossip or small talk),
Strategy 8: Joke
Joking is a basic positive-politeness technique. S may joke or a
joke may minimize an FTA of requesting, as in: How about lending me this
old heap of junk? (H’s new Cadillac)
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern
for H’s wants
One way of indicating that S and H are cooperators, and thus potentially to
put pressure on H to cooperate with S to imply knowledge of H’s wants and
willingness to fit one’ own wants in with them.
E.g. I know you love roses but the florist didn’t have anymore, so I brought
you sunflower. (Offer/apology)
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
Within a certain sphere of relevance whether H wants, S wants for him and
will help to obtain, even if they are false (I’ll drop by sometimes next week’)
they demonstrate S’s good intentions in satisfying H’s positive-face wants.

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

21

S to be so presumptuous as to assume H will help and cooperate
with him may carry a tacit commitment for S to cooperate with H as well
or because their mutual shares interest.
e.g. Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I borrow your pen.
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
By using an inclusive ‘we’ form as I ‘Let’s’, when S really means ‘you’ or
‘me’, he can upon the cooperative assumption and thereby redress FTAs.
e.g. let’s go to dinner or Give us a break
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
H give reason for S as to why he wants or what he wants. In his
practical reasoning, H is thereby led to see the reasonableness of
S’s FTA (or so S hopes). E.g. why don’t you close that window?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged
by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and
H, as in I’ll do something for you if you give me your attention. S may also
soften his FTA by negating the face threatening aspect of speech acts such as
criticism and complaint.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation
S may satisfy H’s positive face want by actually satisfying some of H’s wants.
Such as, the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened to,
and so on.

22

b.

Negative Politeness Strategy
Negative politeness is oriented toward H’s negative face: his want to have his

freedom

of

action

unhindered

and

his

attention

unimpeded.

Negative

politeness is predicated upon the need not to impinge on others or to assume that
their actions or beliefs are necessarily the same as the speaker's own. 2 0 By doing
negative politeness
the speaker can pay respect, deference, maintain social distance, and avoid the threat
(or the potential face loss) of advancing familiarity toward the addressee.
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
This strategy make a speaker is faced to the desire to give H an ‘out’ by being
indirect, and the desire to go on record. In this case, the speaker use phrases
and

sentences

those

have

contextually

unambiguous

meanings

which are different from their literal meanings. E.g I'm looking for a pen
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an
utterance. Hedges may intentionally or unintentionally be employed in both
spoken and written language since they are crucially important in
communication. Hedges help speakers and writers communicate more
precisely the degree of accuracy and truth in assessments. For instance, in
“All I know is smoking is harmful to your health”, all I know is a hedge that
indicates the degree of the speaker’s knowledge instead of only making a
statement.
20

Melinda Stewart, The Use of Yo in face to face interaction. Accessed on September 10,
2007. 09.37 a.m. www.http://wjmll.ncl.ac.uk/issue04-05/stewart.htm

23

Hedges also indicates how Gricean maxims are observed. In this case,
hedges are markers tied to the expectation of the maxims of quantity, quality,
manner, and relevance. ‘All I know is, smoking is harmful to your health’, it
can

be

observed

that

information

conveyed

by

the

speaker

is

limited by adding all I know and as you probably know. By so saying, the
speaker wants
to inform that he/she is not only making an assertion but observing the maxim
of quantity as well. In ‘They told me that they are married’, if the
speaker only says that “they are married” and they do not know for sure if
they are married, they may violate the maxim of quality since they say
something that they do not know to be true or false. Nevertheless, by
adding they told me that, the speaker wants to confirm that they are
observing the conversational maxim of quality.
In conversation, speakers may also be aware of the maxim of manner
by producing hedges like ‘I am not sure if all of these are clear to you, but
this is what I know’ , hedges are good indications the speakers are not only
conscious of the maxim of manner, but they are also trying to observe them.
Or the statement of ‘By the way, you like this car?’, by using by the way, what
has been said by the speakers is not relevant to the moment in
which the conversation takes place. Such a hedge can be found
in the middle of speakers’ conversation as the speaker wants to switch to
another topic that is different from the previous one. Threrefore, by the way
functions as a hedge

24

indicating that the speaker wants to drift into another topic or want to stop the
previos topic.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy gives redress to H’s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt
that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s speech act obtain.
E.g. could/ would you do X? or I don’t suppose you could close the window,
could you?
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition
Speakers can minimize the imposition by making it seem smaller than it is. 2 1
The expressions that minimize imposition are expressions: just, a tiny
little bit, a sip, a taste, a little, a bit, and a smidgen. e.g. I just want that cake or
in ‘I just

want

to

ask

you

if

I

could

use

your

computer?.’

Expression of ‘Just’ conveys both literal meaning of ‘exactly, only’ which
narrowly delimits the extent of the FTA.
Strategy 5: Give deference
There are two sides as the realization of deference: a) S humbles and abases
himself, b) where S raises H to pay him positive face of particular kind which
satisfies H’s wants to be treated as superior. In both cases what is conveyed is
that H is of higher status than S. e.g. excuse me, sir, would you mind if I asked
you to close the window
Strategy 6: Apologize
21

Joan Cutting (2002). Op.cit. p. 47.

25

Brown and Levinson consider apology as a face threatening act
which damages to some degree the speaker’s positive face, since in
doing it the speaker admits that he or she has done a transgression.
By apologizing for doing FTA, the speaker also can indicate his
reluctance to impinge on H’s negative face and thereby partially
redress that impingement.

S also

can attempt to show that he is reluctant to impinge on H with the use of hedges
or by means of expressing, as in ‘Sorry about this, but could I

...’or
in ‘I’m

rerribly sorry to put you out, but could you close the window?’
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H
One way of indicating that S doesn’t want to impinge on H is phrase of FTA
as if the agent were other than S, or only inclusive of H, in this case avoid the
use of inclusive ‘I and you’
E.g. Do this for me or Take that out!
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
S does not want to impinge H but is merely forced to by circumstances, is to
state

the

FTA

as

an

instance

of

some

general

social

rule,

regulation, or obligation. E.g. We don’t sit on the tables, we sit on chairs,
Johnny.
Strategy 9: Nominalize
By nominalizing the expression of the FTA
E.g. …..and that impressed us favorably, can be nominalized by
…was impressive to us

26

c.

Off-record Strategy
In off record strategy, the actor may leave himself an ‘out’ by providing him

self with a number of defensible interpretations; he can not be held to have committed
himself to just one particular interpretation in act. By going off record S
or H can avoids her responsibility for the potential face-damaging interpretations. 2 2
Strategy 1: Give hints
S invites H to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance e.g. It's a
bit cold in here (S has purpose to H to shut the window)
Strategy 2: Give association clues
This strategy associated to the act of H by precedent in S-H’s experience (oh
God, I’ve got a headache again)
Strategy 3: Presuppose
This

strategy

level

of

violates

the

Relevant

Maxim

just

at

the

its presuppositions which may implicate a criticism (I

washed the plate again today).
Strategy 4: Understate
This strategy can invite to make inferences by the speaker’s violation of the
quantity maxim ‘say as much as and more than is required’, S invites H to
consider why.

22

Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987), op. cit. p. 71.

27

Strategy 5: Overstate
S says more than necessary by the inverse of the understatement
principle
(choosing a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of affair)
e.g. I tried to tell him a hundred times
Strategy 6: Use tautologies
This strategy may violate the Quantity maxim ‘truth’. By uttering tautology, S
encourages H to look for informative interpretation of the noninformative utterance (Boys will be boys).
Strategy 7: Use contradictions
By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear
that he cannot be telling the truth (Well, yes and no)
Strategy 8: Be ironic
By saying the opposite of what he means, again a violation of Quality. S can
indirectly convey his intended meaning (lovely neighborhood, eh? (In a slum)
Strategy 9: Use metaphors
This strategy violates the Quality; for metaphors are literary false (Mary’s a
real fish)
Strategy 10: Use rhetorical questions
S wants H to provide him with the indicated information. E.g. what can I say?
(Nothing, it’s so bad)
Strategy11: Be ambiguous

28

Every off-record strategy essentially exploits ambiguity. Purposeful ambiguity
may be achieved through literal meaning or metaphor since it is not always
clear

exactly

which

of

the

connotation

of

a

metaphor

are

intended to be invoked. E.g. Paul’s a pretty smooth cookie
Strategy 12: Be vague
S may go off record within an FTA by being vague about the object of FTA,
as in criticism. E.g. Looks like someone…
Strategy 13: Over generalize
By show rule instantiation which may leave the object vaguely off record
e.g. the lawn has got to be mown.
Strategy 14: Displace H
S may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten and
hope that the real target will see that the FTA is aimed at him (Free gift).
Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis
e.g. Well, I didn’t see you…

3. Factors Influencing the Choice of the Strategies
A. Payoffs (advantages): a priori consideration
The more an act threatens the S’s or H’s face, the more S will want to choose a
higher-numbered strategy; this by virtue of the fact that the strategies afford payoffs
of increasingly minimized risk.

29

Derived on a priori grounds, there are certain payoffs that associated with each
of the strategies, such as:
1.

On Record, baldly
Bald on-record conforms to Grice´s Maxims. Grice (1975) claims
that

people entering into conversation with each other tacitly agree to co-operate towards
mutual communicative ends. He calls these conventions maxims and suggests that at
least the following four obtain which clarify how the cooperative principle work: 2 3
Maxim of quality: Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)
Maxim of quantity:
(a) Don´t say less than is required
(b) Don´t say more than is required
Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant
Maxim of manner: Avoid ambiguity and obscurity

Therefore, by going on record the speaker can get any of the following
profit or advantages:
a.

Can enlist public pressure against the addressee or in support on him.

b.

Get credit for honesty (for indicating that he trust the addressee)

c.

Get credit for outspokenness

d.

Avoid the danger of being seen to be a manipulator.

e.

Avoid the danger of being misunderstood

f. Can have the opportunity the pay back in face what ever he
potentially takes away by the FTA.

23

Elizabeth Black, “Pragmatic Stylistics,” eds. Alan Davies & Keith Mitchell
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), p. 23.

30

2.

Positive Politeness
This strategy is understood as a strategy of intimacy.
positive

By doing

politeness, S can get profits in the following ways:
a.

S has opportunit