A STUDY ON THE USE OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES PRODUCED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF THANK YOU FOR SMOKING A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  A STUDY ON THE USE OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES PRODUCED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF THANK YOU FOR SMOKING A THESIS

  Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  By Lucia Desy Ari Kristiningrum

  Student Number: 061214122

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

  A Thesis on

  

A STUDY ON THE USE OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

PRODUCED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS

OF THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

  By Lucia Desy Ari Kristiningrum

  Student Number: 061214122 Approved by

  Sponsor

  A Thesis on

  

A STUDY ON THE USE OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

PRODUCED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS

OF THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

  By LUCIA DESY ARI KRISTININGRUM

  Student Number: 061214122 Defended before the Board of Examiners on 2 February 2011 and Declared Acceptable

  

Board of Examiners

  Chairperson : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________ Secretary : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________ Member : Drs. JB. Gunawan, M.A. __________________ Member : Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________ Member : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________ Yogyakarta, 2 February 2011 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education

  Sanata Dharma University Dean, Drs. Tarsisius Sarkim, M.Ed., Ph.D.

  STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

  Yogyakarta, 24 January 2011 The Writer

  Lucia Desy Ari Kristiningrum 061214122

  

ABSTRACT

  Kristiningrum, Lucia Desy Ari. 2011. A Study on the Use of Politeness Strategies

  

Produced by the Main Characters of Thank You for Smoking. Yogyakarta:

English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

  It has been obvious that learning language is also learning certain social rules and values of a society. This means that speakers should be able to adjust their use of words in different social situations, which is by paying attention carefully to both the messages that they want to convey and the suitable way of delivering those messages in order to avoid embarrassing other persons or making them feel uncomfortable. Speakers’ competence to select the suitable way of conveying feelings or thoughts has something to do with politeness. In fact, English speakers or learners still often face difficulties in choosing the most appropriate expression or utterance to express what they want to say in English politely. As a result, when having conversation with others, they sometimes produce English which still sounds strange. Moreover, it might lead to misunderstanding in conversation.

  Considering the English learners’ difficulties to speak English politely, a study on the use of politeness strategies was conducted. This study aimed at analyzing how the main characters of Thank You for Smoking use the politeness strategies in their conversations according to Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies theory, and at finding out the factors that influence the use of politeness strategies based on the socio-cultural variables of Brown and Levinson’s model and the social dimensions proposed by Holmes.

  The method employed in this study was a document analysis. The main characters’ utterances became the data of this study. They were Nick Naylor, Joey (Nick’s son), Polly Bailey (Nick’s best friend), BR (Nick’s boss), Jill (Nick’s ex- wife), and Senator Ortolan Finisterre (Nick’s rival). The writer analyzed the main characters’ utterances, and classified them into four types of politeness strategies, namely Bald on Record (direct), Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off Record (indirect). Afterwards, the writer analyzed what factors that may influence their use of politeness strategies.

  Based on the result of the analysis some conclusions were drawn. First, related to the first research question, the strategies appearing frequently are Bald on Record (93 times) and followed by Positive Politeness (64 times). Then, Off Record is employed about 16 times. Meanwhile, the least frequently used strategy is Negative Politeness (9 times). Second, related to the second research question, a) the use of politeness strategies in Thank You for Smoking was determined by the main characters’ social distance, relative power, as well as degree of imposition; b) using language appropriately involves not only understanding the grammatical aspects but also the sociolinguistic aspects. Finally, c) the acquisition of politeness strategies is just one of the ways in order to use language appropriately and politely. The classification of the politeness strategies proposed here hopefully would help learners, teachers, or lecturers to recognize the

  

ABSTRAK

  Kristiningrum, Lucia Desy Ari. 2011. A Study on the Use of Politeness Strategies

  

Produced by the Main Characters of Thank You for Smoking. Yogyakarta:

Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

  Sudah jelas bahwa mempelajari suatu bahasa itu sekaligus juga mengenal struktur atau nilai sosial suatu masyarakat. Yang berarti bahwa penutur bahasa sebaiknya dapat menyesuaikan pengunaan kata-kata sesuai dengan situasi sosial tertentu yaitu dengan memperhatikan baik itu pesan yang ingin disampaikan maupun cara penyampaian pesan tersebut agar tidak mempermalukan orang lain atau membuat mereka merasa tidak nyaman. Kemampuan penutur bahasa untuk memilih cara penyampaian perasaan atau pikiran yang tepat berkaitan dengan kesopanan. Pada kenyataannya, pelajar atau penutur bahasa Inggris masih sering kesulitan dalam memilih ekspresi atau kalimat yang paling tepat untuk disampaikan dalam bahasa Inggris dengan sopan. Akibatnya, ketika mereka mengobrol dengan orang lain, terkadang bahasa Inggris mereka masih terdengar aneh, bahkan bisa terjadi salah paham.

  Bertolak dari kesulitan yang dialami para pelajar bahasa Inggris, maka dilakukanlah sebuah penelitian penggunaan strategi kesopanaan. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah menganalisa bagaimana penggunaan strategi-strategi kesopanan yang dilakukan oleh para pemain utama film Thank You for Smoking berdasarkan teori strategi kesopanan Brown dan Levinson, dan mengetahui faktor- faktor apa saja yang mempengaruhi pengunaan strategi kesopanan mereka. Peneliti menggunakan kombinasi model variabel sosio-kultural Brown dan Levinson, dan teori faktor dimensi sosial milik Holmes.

  Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan metode analisis dokumen. Data dari penelitian ini adalah kalimat-kalimat para pemain utama. Mereka adalah Nick Naylor, Joey, Polly Bailey, BR, Jill, dan Senator Ortolan Finisterre. Peneliti menganalisa dan kemudian mengklasifikasikan kalimat-kalimat mereka ke dalam empat macam strategi kesopanan, yaitu Bald on Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off Record. Terakhir, peneliti menganalisa faktor sosial yang mempengaruhinya.

  Hasil penelitian tersebut adalah sebagai berikut. Pertama, berkatian dengan pokok permasalahan yang pertama, strategi kesopanan yang paling sering muncul adalah Bald on Record (93 kali) kemudian diikuti Positive Politeness (64 kali). Off Record digunakan sebanyak 16 kali, dan strategi yang paling jarang digunakan adalah Negative Politeness (9 kali). Kedua, berkatian dengan pokok permasalahan yang kedua, a) pengunaan strategi kesopanan di film ini dipengaruhi oleh jarak sosial, kekuasaan, dan tingkat pembebanan; b) menggunakan bahasa dengan baik berarti tidak hanya dapat bertindak tutur menurut kaidah tata bahasa, tetapi juga kaidah sosiolinguistik. Terakhir, c) penguasaan strategi kesopanan adalah salah satu cara berbahasa dengan benar dan sopan. Pengklasifikasian strategi kesopanan yang dijabarkan dalam penelitian ini

  

God always does things right

His way is ALWAYS the best way,

even if to us it seems all wrong

If you asked God for one thing and received another, TRUST

  

You can be sure that He will always give you what you need

at the appropriate time.............

  

What you want is not always what you need

God never fails to grant our petitions, so keep on going for Him

without doubting or murmuring.

Today is THORN, but tomorrow is FLOWER......

  (Unknown Author) This thesis is dedicated to These beloved people:

  

My beloved parents, Mama and Papa (Ch. Ismoyowati and Fx. Purwanto)

My beloved brother, Mas Fredy

  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  First of all, I would like to thank Jesus Christ who has given me strength and patience even in my worst time. Without His kindness and blessing, certainly I could not accomplish my study.

  Second, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my major sponsor,

  

Drs. JB. Gunawan, M.A. Because of his attention, patience, guidance, careful

correction, advice, criticism, and encouragement, finally I could finish this thesis.

  Third, I would like to thank all PBI lecturers (Pak Sasmoyo, Pak Markus, Pak Purba, Pak Prayit, Pak Pras, Pak Chosa, Bu Lanny, Bu Yuseva, Bu Ndari, Miss Frida, Bu Mita, Bu Marni, Bu Nanik, etc.) for the meaningful guidance during my study, and all the staff of PBI and Sanata Dharma University

  library for the help and cooperation.

  Next, my deepest gratitude goes to my beloved mother, father, and

  

brother, mas Fredy for their endless and fantastic affection. I am so thankful

  because I can have them in my life. I really love them. Besides, I also thank my

  

sisters and new brothers, mba Nana and mba Lina, then mas Galih and mas

Akank for the great attention, support, and prayer. I would like to let them know

  that I am very happy to have sisters and brothers like them. Besides, I thank my

  

lovely relatives, mba Ning and her family, Surabaya family , mba Dika and

  who always ask me when my “wisuda” is. I really thank them for the

  her family meaningful attention.

  My deepest thanks also fly to my best friends: Tista, Angga, Tita, Ayu,

  

Guntur, Ceye, Adit, Trio, Agnes, Zita, Susan, Riris, Intan, Chucky, and all

2006 PBI students . I thank them for spending the precious time together. I really

  enjoyed our laugh, jokes, and stress in EAD, EWD, SPD, and many precious moments.

  Finally, my special thanks also go to Vendi (PBI’03), mba Festy

  

(PBI’04), and Mrs. Yuseva (PBI lecturer) for spending their precious time to be

  the proofreaders of my thesis. I thank them a bunch! Then, I thank Romo for his blessing, YSS children (anak-

  Estaphanus Gerardus Willem Pau, Pr

anak jalanan Pingit) for reminding me to be always thankful of this beautiful life

  I have, Lektor Kumetiran and komunitas tari Kotabaru in which I could share my talent and spend my precious time during my study. With them I could grow better.

  Last but not least, I also thank anyone whom I haven’t mentioned here but have given a hand.

  May God always bless them Lucia Desy Ari Kristiningrum

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Page TITLE PAGE .............................................................................................. i APPROVAL PAGES ................................................................................. ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY........................................... iv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ v

  

ABSTRAK .................................................................................................... vi

  DEDICATION PAGE ................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... xii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................................................

  1 A. Research Background ......................................................

  1 B. Problem Formulation .......................................................

  4 C. Problem Limitation ..........................................................

  5 D. Research Objectives ........................................................

  5 E. Research Benefits ............................................................

  5 F. Definition of Terms .........................................................

  6 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .........................

  8 A. Theoretical Description ...................................................

  8 1. Pragmatics .......................................................................

  9 a. Context of Speaking ...................................................

  9 2. Speech Acts .....................................................................

  11 a. Locutionary, Illocutionary, Perlocutionary acts .........

  11 b. Classification of Illocutionary Speech Acts ...............

  12 3. Sociolinguistics ................................................................

  13 a. Language choice .........................................................

  15

  4. Politeness a. Politeness ....................................................................

  18 b. Positive and Negative faces ........................................

  18 c. Face Threatening Acts ................................................

  19 d. Politeness Strategies ...................................................

  20

  e. Socio-cultural Variables of Brown and Levinson’s Model.....................................

  31 B. Theoretical Framework ...................................................

  33 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................

  36 A. Research Method ..........................................................

  36 B. Research Subject ...........................................................

  37 C. Research Instruments ....................................................

  39 D. Data Gathering Technique ............................................

  39 E. Data Analysis Technique ..............................................

  40 F. Research Procedure .......................................................

  40 CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................

  43 A. The Use of Politeness Strategies by the Main Characters .................................................

  43 B. The Factors Influencing the Use of Politeness Strategy in Thank You for Smoking ............................................

  71 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS .........................

  76 A. Conclusions ......................................................................................

  76 B. Suggestions ......................................................................................

  78 References ................................................................................................

  80 Appendix: The Analysis of Politeness Strategies Produced by the Main Characters of Thank You for Smoking ...................

  82

  

LIST OF TABLES

  Page Table 1 : The Number of Each Character’s Dialogue....................................... 43 Table 2 : The Number of Politeness Strategies Produced by the Main Characters ..................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section is Research Background. This section covers the background of the study. The second section

  is Problem Formulation that contains questions to be answered in this study. The third section is the Problem Limitation. This section limits the scope of the study.

  The fourth section is Research Objectives. This section mentions the main purpose of this study. Next, Research Benefits contains the advantages of this study. The sixth section is Definition of Terms. It explains the terms used in this study to make a better understanding for the readers about this study.

A. Research Background

  Due to living in heterogeneous society, speakers will definitely face many differences such as age, sex, ethnic background, social context and many more.

  Consequently, the way speakers convey their messages will certainly differ to each other. Indeed, those factors influence the choice of appropriate ways of speaking. Therefore, it is obvious that in various social situations, speakers are obligated to adjust their use of words to fit the situation. Inappropriate linguistic choices may be considered rude. Hence, speakers should pay attention carefully to both the messages that they want to convey and the suitable way of delivering those messages. The speakers’ competence to select the suitable way of conveying

  According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 61), politeness is showing concern for people’s face: the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. Then, when a speaker says something that threatens a hearer’s face, it means that he or she conducts a face-threatening act (FTA). In other words, speakers should pay attention to others’ feeling, for example, by being friendly or respecting others, trying not to insult or threaten someone’s feeling in order to avoid embarrassing other persons or making them feel uncomfortable. Accordingly, it is indeed important to learn politeness strategies in order to lessen the threats and save someone’s face.

  However, in accordance with English language learning, particularly for ESL or EFL learners, problems may appear in the acquisition of politeness devices of a language, specifically English language in this case. English learners still often face difficulties in choosing the most appropriate expression or utterance to express what they want to say in English, politely. As a result, when having conversation with others, sometimes their English language still sounds comical and strange. Moreover, it might lead to misunderstanding in conversation.

  These problems might happen due to some reasons. First, the different concepts of politeness found in the target language. In Indonesian community, the most frequent ESL learners’ response to a compliment is denial. For example, a native speaker says, “You are good at English.” and the ESL learner answers, “No, no

  

that’s not true.” This kind of response is uncommon in English community, or

  even considered impolite. They tend to regard this response as a kind of of appropriate expressions is sometimes still influenced by their L1 knowledge and culture background (http://www.cc.mie-u.ac.jp/~lq20106/eg5000/master2001- 2.html). Third, ESL or EFL learners are still less aware of sociolinguistic competence, which means understanding the social context in which language is used, such as the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction (.

  In accordance with the issues and significance of politeness strategies elaborated above, it is perfectly clear that the acquisition of politeness strategies certainly could support English teaching and learning. Therefore, it is indeed interesting to investigate politeness strategies because it is not simple as a matter of saying “please” or “thank you” in the right place. In fact, it needs to understand about social distance, power, and many more. This study, therefore, is aimed at observing and analyzing the application of politeness strategies in conversation by applying the politeness strategies model proposed by Brown and Levinson. They are Bald on Record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Off Record.

  The writer analyzes the use of politeness strategies in movie, not in a group of people, class, novel, or song, because here in this study the writer wants to show that by watching movie can be another good way or media to learn about sociolinguistics, especially politeness strategies.

  The writer chose Thank You for Smoking as the source of her data. It tells about a chief spokesperson for the Academy of Tobacco Studies named Nick industry in public. It is chosen because of the writer’s considerations that first, in the beginning, the writer has decided to find a film that is simple or not serious so that it is good to watch and learn. Hence, the writer chose Thank You for Smoking. Second, it is a comedy-drama film satire, so definitely it describes a daily life: how the relationship between parents and child, between close friends, between employer and employee, and how the characters often express their intended meanings by giving hints (Off Record), or even telling straightforwardly (Bald on Record). Many conflicts or problems, and intentions frequently happen. Hence, this film certainly contains many various politeness expressions.

  Accordingly, the writer is truly eager to observe and analyze the use of politeness strategies and find out what factors that may influence the use of politeness strategies produced by the main characters of Thank You for Smoking in their conversations by applying Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies.

  Moreover, the writer believes that acquiring politeness strategies could assist English learners to be able to speak English more polite and appropriate in different social contexts.

B. Problem Formulation The question to be answered in this study is formulated as follows.

  1. How do the main characters of Thank You for Smoking use the politeness strategies in their conversations?

  2. What are the factors influencing the use of politeness strategies produced

  C. Problem Limitation

  This study is limited only to the use of politeness strategies of the main characters of Thank You for Smoking. There are six main characters. They are Nick Naylor, Joey (Nick’s son), Polly Bailey (Nick’s best friend), BR (Nick’s boss), Jill (Nick’s ex-wife), and Senator Ortolan Finisterre (Nick’s rival). It is chosen because of the writer’s consideration that they play the important roles in the movie. Therefore, they certainly have more portions in conversations than the other characters. Besides, they experience various things and face many kinds of conflicts dealing with expressing or revealing their feelings or thoughts.

  D. Research Objectives

  There are two objectives that will be gained in this study. The first objective of this study is to know how the main characters of Thank You for

  

Smoking use the politeness strategies in their conversations. The second objective

  is to find out what factors that may influence the use of politeness strategies produced by the main characters of Thank You for Smoking.

  E. Research Benefits

  The writer believes that first, this study will encourage English teachers or lecturers to be able to create kind of exercises not only focusing more on the grammatical aspects but also the sociolinguistic aspects. Second, it will make English learners more aware of sociolinguistic competences, especially politeness

F. Definition of Terms

  In order to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation, the writer feels that it is necessary to define some terms that will be used in this study. The definitions are as follows.

  1. Politeness Strategies

  According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 68), politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer’s face when face- threatening acts are inevitable or desired. They propose four kinds of strategies. They are Bald on Record strategy (direct strategy), Positive Politeness (solidarity strategy), Negative Politeness (deference strategy), and Off Record strategy (indirect strategy). Politeness strategies in this study are therefore dealing with the use of language or the way of talking of the main characters by considering those five strategies in order to minimize face threat or smooth their intentions or requests when they are engaging in conversations.

  2. Positive face and Negative face

  The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact (Goffman 1967: 5). Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson state that face is the public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself (1987: 61). They then divided face into two separate, but related aspects, namely positive face and negative face. Tracy explains that positive face concerns concerns a person’s want to be unimpeded and free from imposition (1990: 210). In this study, positive face is dealing with the main characters’ wants to be loved by others, for instance, by being appreciated or approved of when involving in conversations. Meanwhile, negative face is defined as the main characters’ feelings or wants not to be imposed by others in conversation.

3. FTA (Face Threatening Act)

  If a person says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is regarded as face threatening act (Yules, 1996: 61). Face threatening acts, in this study, are concerned with the main characters’ acts that may threaten either the positive or the negative face of their interlocutor.

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter consists of two parts. The first part is Theoretical Description. This part comprises brief discussions of basic theories of Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Sociolinguistics, and Politeness. The second part is the Theoretical Framework. It discusses the framework for identifying and analyzing the politeness strategies used by the main characters of Thank You for Smoking. A. Theoretical Description In this section, the writer would like to discuss four parts. The first part is Pragmatics. In this part, the writer will discuss the understanding of Pragmatics. It

  is significant to discuss since the writer will only focus on the conversation, so it will closely deal with analyzing meaning in context (Pragmatics). The second part is Speech Acts. In this part, the writer would like to discuss the theory of Speech Acts. The theory of Speech Acts cannot be separated from Pragmatics, for it concerns more on language use on communication. The third part is Sociolinguistics. It is quite significant to discuss the understanding of Sociolinguistics, since Politeness Strategies are under the scope of Sociolinguistics. In the last part, the writer would like to discuss Politeness Strategies, for the analysis and discussion of this study would emphasize on the application of the politeness strategies in Thank You for Smoking.

  Those theories above would be used to establish the framework of identifying

1. Pragmatics

  Levinson (1983: 8) states that Pragmatics is the study of those relations (language structure and principles of language usage) between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language.

  Meanwhile Leech, as quoted by Nirmala Sari, states that pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate. It concerns itself with how people use language within context and why they use language in particular ways (1992: 19). In everyday conversation, usually a speaker will communicate not only explicitly but also implicitly. The speaker will modify his utterance in order to get successful communication, for instance, using indirect speech, imperative speech, etc. To do this, the speaker always pays attention carefully to the context of speaking. Meanwhile, the hearer will interpret or infer what the speaker implies as well as possible in order to avoid miscommunication and to maintain a smooth conversation.

a. Context of Speaking

  According to Nirmala Sari, context can be divided into four subparts. The first one is called physical context that is where the conversation takes place, what objects present, and what actions take place. The second one which is called an epistemic context covers background knowledge shared by the speakers and the hearers. Third, there is a linguistics context which concerns with how the hearer interprets the speaker’s previous utterances. Finally, the fourth context which is illustrated in the social relationship and setting of the speakers and hearers is

  In order to build a smooth conversation, thus it is quite significant to pay attention to the context of speaking. For example, when we talk to an elementary student about global warming, we are supposed to use simple words instead of using scientific words. In other words, modifying our utterances by avoiding scientific words means that we comprehend the background knowledge of that person. In fact, the conversation could run well. The elementary student will get more interested in our explanation. Furthermore, Leech (1992: 14) clearly puts forward that:

  Categories and rules are set of conventions governing language use that preserves its integrity by requiring us, among other things, to be honest in its use, to have evidence for what we say relevant to the speech context.

  What is interesting about these conventions is that they were never officially proposed and voted to anybody, but instead have emerged naturally. Besides, we learn then in much the same way we learn most social rules, that is, by trial and error.

  Indeed, pragmatics is closely related to the use of language in conversation, which becomes the focus of this study. In other words, it has to do with the way we use language to communicate rather than the way language is structured internally. Therefore, by paying attention carefully to the meaning in context or the context of speaking in conversation, someone will be able to express meaningful utterances and interpret utterances correctly. It is one of the ways to being polite in order to make someone else more comfortable and respected (Politeness).

2. Speech Acts

  John Searle, one of the Austin’s students, developed and extended Austin’s ideas by assuming that all utterances, not just those containing performative verbs, constitutes acts (1987a: 54). Furthermore, Searle states that every speech act consists of three separate acts, namely an act of saying something, an act of doing something, and an act of affecting someone (1987b: 59). Further, in order to investigate these three different components, Searle adopted the following terminologies from Austin:

a. Locutionary, Illocutionary, Perlocutionary acts 1) Locutionary Act

  This act contains a description of what the speaker says about something. The speaker will simply utter his or her sentence from a language. Therefore, this act contains a description of what the speaker says, or could be perceived as the literal meaning of the utterance. For example, if a pupil says to a teacher or sends a note,

  

“It is hot in here,” the locutionary meaning would concern the warm temperature

of the classroom which means it is indeed really hot in here.

2) Illocutionary Act

  This act contains of the speaker’s intention to do something, by uttering sentence. In other words, this act is the social function of what is said.

  Illocutionary acts consist of act of stating, promising, apologizing, threatening, predicting, ordering, complaining, refusing, and act of requesting. For example, “It's hot in here”. The illocutionary meaning or function of that expression may

3) Perlocutionary Act

  This is the effect on the hearer of what the speaker says. Since this act concerns on the hearer’s point of view, perlocutionary act would include such effects as persuading, embarrassing, intimidating, boring, imitating, or inspiring the hearer (Searle, 1987). For example, if your boyfriend says to you ten times in five minutes, “Hurry up, Honey, we’re going to be late for the party” then, illocutionary meaning of this utterance is maybe one of urging. However, it can also be observed that the utterance above has a perlocutionary, that is, the act of irritating because the utterance is expressed emphatically, or repeatedly.

b. Classification of Illocutionary Speech Acts

  Searle has set up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts:

  1) Assertives

  Speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed

  2) Directives

  Speech acts that cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands, and advice.

  3) Commissives

  Speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths.

  4) Expressives

  Speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses, and thanks.

  5) Declarations

  Speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife. Referring to the discussion on pragmatics, speech acts and their component acts cannot be separated from the term of context. They have tight relationship.

  They influence each other. Meaning to say, they are extremely sensitive to the context of speaking, particularly to the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. For example, “You’d better do your homework”. It should be noted that the context of speaking would be able to influence the illocutionary act and perlocutionary act of the utterance. For instance , if a father utters that sentence to his school-age son, then illocutionary act might be one of ordering, and the perlocutionary act might be one of irritating (if that sentence is uttered for many times). Both of those acts will change depend on the context of speaking.

3. Sociolinguistics

  Sociolinguistics studies the relationship between language and society. They are interested in explaining why we speak differently in different social contexts, and they are concerned with identifying the social functions of language and the definition, there are several factors that take in this field. The factors are the social backgrounds of both the speaker and the addressee (for example age, social class, and ethnic background), the relationship between the speaker and the addressee (good friends or parent-child), and the context and manner of the interaction (in church, school, loudly, or whispering). These factors are closely related to the understanding of the structure and function of the language used.

  Llmas and Stockwell (2009: 21) give more specific definition of sociolinguistics, the study of the linguistic indicators of culture and power. The definition focuses on language as well as linguistic tools (grammar, vocabulary, corpus linguistic, discourse analysis, and pragmatics). Besides, it also concerns on the influence of several social factors such as ethnicity, gender, ideology, and social rank on language events. Considering this definition, sociolinguistics then principally focuses on language use.

  As it mainly concerns on language use, the majority of sociolinguistics studies then presented in a form of description. The goal of sociolinguistic studies involves scientific objectivity. Most studies deal with the description of social aspects of language in real world.

  Finally, Llmas and Stockwell (2009: 21) define sociolinguistics as the study of language variation and change. They argue, “Societies differ from each other

  

and change over time.” Language is part of societies and grows along with the

  processes. Therefore, all linguistic tools may be extended along with the process of the two dimensions: language variation and change.

  a. Language Choice

  Language choice is part of Sociolinguistics that deals with the code choice in certain society. Wardaugh (2002: 87) mentions the term code to indicate language and a variety of language. Code is considered as neutral because it refers to “any kind of system that two or more people employ for communication.” As a matter of fact, there are a lot of codes that exist in social life. Some people even use various codes in various circumstances. Holmes (2001:7) says that people may select different languages according to the situation in which they are speaking.

  The selection of language itself also cannot be separated from the influence of social factors. Holmes (2001:8) mentions four social factors that deal with language choice. They are the participants, the setting or social context of interaction, the topic, and the function. The participants consist of the speaker and the addressee. The setting includes where they are speaking. The topic contains what is being talked about. Finally, the function includes why they are speaking.

  b. Domain

  Related to those social factors, Holmes (2001:21) mentions the term domain in language use. A domain involves typical interactions between typical participants in typical settings. This is like a useful way in describing language choice in a society by putting the social factors into the points-to be-considered.

  For example, when imagining a typical family the typical participants are family members, the typical topics are family activities, and the setting is at home. setting, and choosing the Sunday liturgy as the topic (Holmes, 2001: 22). The next step of those two examples, then, is deciding what variety or code is going to be chosen.

  The examples above illustrate that domain exemplifies three social factors in code choice: participants, setting, and topic. Holmes (2001: 23) states that domain is useful for capturing broad generalizations about any speech community because the information about the domains of use in a community enables people to draw the model of the norms of language use. This is useful for bilingual and multilingual speech communities. Yet, Holmes adds, sometimes, the components of a domain are not congruent. For example, people discuss a particular work or school at home using the language in those domains rather than the language of the family domain.

  The situation cannot put domain as an effective way on language choice. Hence, Holmes (2001: 25) mentions other social factors influencing code choice. First is the social distance, whether the speakers are friends, strangers, brothers, or relatives. It is relevant when both participants share more than one variety.

  Speaker then will use different codes to different addressees. Second is the status relationship among people. A high-status person and a low-status person may use different language in many contexts. Social role can be an important factor contributing to status. Somebody will speak different code when becoming a father, another code when acting as a teacher, and different code when acting as a customer in a market. Third is formality. The formality of an event will affect variety will be different from the code used in the church porch. Another example is the codes used for radio lecture will be different from those used for adverts.

  Fourth is function or goal of the interaction. For certain function, people use different language, whether it is standard or vernacular. For example, when applying for a job, a person will use the best standard written language on the application form and formal standard spoken language on the interview. However, when talking to his friends, he will use less formal spoken language. Furthermore,

  (1997)

  Shumin states that:

  Learning to speak a foreign language requires more than knowing its grammatical and semantic rules, learners must also acquire the knowledge of how native speakers use the language in the context of structured interpersonal exchange. Besides, it involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and cultural values of the community.

  Accordingly, people should pay attention to the sociolinguistic aspects when they want to express or understand utterances in conversation. In other words, using language appropriately in communication involves knowing when to speak or when to be silent, knowing how to choose appropriate linguistic code (language choice), learning to take account of who you are talking to, etc. It is one of the ways to being polite in order to make someone else more comfortable and respected (Politeness).

4. Politeness

  In this part, the writer discusses five things concerning on politeness. They are theory of politeness, positive and negative face, face threatening acts,

  a. Politeness

  Politeness refers to behavior which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behavior. In other words, politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or ‘camaraderie’ (Holmes, 1996: 5). Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson (1987: 60) states that politeness is related to the psychological state, something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In addition, Leech’s view of politeness involves a set of politeness maxims analogous to Grice’s maxims. Among these are (Leech, 1983:132) tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. These maxims vary from to culture. What may be considered polite in one culture may be strange or downright rude in another.

  From the explanations above, it can be said that being polite means paying attention to others’ feeling. This could be gained by being friendly or respecting them. This will avoid us insulting or threatening someone’s feeling. Hence, it is indeed expected that when we engage in a conversation, we should present more positive concern toward people we are talking to rather than the negative one in order to maintain successful and meaningful interaction.

  b. Positive and Negative Faces

  is the “public self-image that a person wants for himself (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61-62). They defined positive face two ways: as "the want of

  "the positive consistent self-image or ' that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.

  Negative face was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, of action and freedom from imposition".

  Further, Brown characterized positive face by desires to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, nothing that one would threaten positive face by ignoring someone. At the same time, he characterized negative face by the desire not to be imposed upon, noting that negative face could be impinged upon by imposing on someone. Positive Face refers to one's while negative face refers to one's freedom to act. The two aspects of face are the basic wants in any and so during any social interaction.

c. Face-Threatening Acts

  Brown and Levinson (1987) state that positive and negative faces exist universally in human In social interactions, face-threatening acts are at times inevitable based on the terms of the conversation. A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Most of these acts are verbal, however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such as

  The threats to negative face might take the forms of orders, requests, suggestions, and advice. They potentially damage an individual’s autonomy. In contrast, disapproval, disagreement, accusation, and interruptions are threats to positive face, which potentially lower an individual’s self and social esteem. To lessen the threats and save face, people need politeness. It arises as a strategy speakers need to know in order to fight against face threatening acts and guarantee safety in conversation (Bernier, 2001).

d. Politeness Strategies

  Brown and Levinson (1987: 60) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect). The more an act threatens the speaker or hearer´s face, the more the speaker wants to choose a `higher-numbered´ strategy. The choice may be schematized follow.

  1) Bald On-record