The Differences Of Politeness Strategy Used By Male And Female Characters Of Twilight Movie Based On The Script

(1)

THE DIFFERENCES OF POLITENESS STRATEGY

USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF

TWILIGHT MOVIE BASED ON THE SCRIPT

A THESIS

B

Y

ERNI MARTLAND V. SIMBOLON

REG. NO. 080721036

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA

FACULTY OF LETTERS

ENGLISH LITERATURE DEPARTEMENT

MEDAN

(2)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, ERNI MARTLAND VIRANTIKA SIMBOLON, declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. Except where reference is made in the text of this thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or awarded another degree.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of another degree in any tertiary education.

Signed : ……… Date : ………

(3)

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

Name : Erni Martland Virantika Simbolon

Title of Thesis : The Differences of Politeness Strategy Used By Male and Female Characters of Twilight Movie Based on the Script

Qualification : S-1 / Sarjana Sastra

Department : English

I am willing that my thesis should be available for reproduction at the discretion of the Librarian of University of Sumatera Utara, Faculty of Letters, English Department on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligation under law of the Republic of Indonesia.

Signed : ………

(4)

ABSTRAK

Percakapan adalah hal yang tidak bisa dihindari setiap orang normal dalam kehidupannya sehari-hari. Percakapan merupakan bentuk komunikasi paling umum dan paling sering dijumpai dalam berbagai keadaan. Dalam sebuah percakapan bisa saja timbul kecanggungan karena penyampaian bahasa yang salah, khususnya yang berkaitan dengan strategi kesopanan. Disadari atau tidak, setiap pribadi baik laki-laki maupun perempuan memiliki keinginan untuk diterima dan dihargai. Itulah sebabnya, setiap orang seharusnya memperhatikan strategi kesopanan berbahasa dalam percakapan agar bisa diterima oleh semua pihak yang terlibat. Tulisan ini membahas tentang penggunaan strategi kesopanan berbahasa dalam sebuah film yang berjudul Twilight. Pembahasan difokuskan pada perbedaan strategi kesopanan berbahasa yang digunakan tokoh pria dan wanita dalam film tsb. Para tokoh pria yang diamati adalah Edward Cullen dan Charlie Swan, sedangkan tokoh wanitanya adalah Isabella Swan dan Jessica Stanley. Penulis memilih untuk menganalisis penggunaan bahasa dari para tokoh ini karena mereka adalah yang paling sering terlibat dalam percakapan sepanjang cerita film. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam pengerjaan skripsi ini adalah metode kepustakaan karena semua data yang digunakan dalam bentuk tulisan, termasuk data percakapan para tokoh yang diunduh dari internet dalam bentuk skrip. Metode analisis data yang digunakan adalah metode deskriptif kualitatif. Teori strategi kesopanan yang digunakan dalam pembahasan adalah teori Brown dan Levinson serta memperhatikan maksim kesopanan Leech. Adapun tujuan dari pembahasan ini adalah untuk memaparkan perbedaan strategi kesopanan yang digunakan pria dan wanita dalam film Twilight dan untuk mengetahui strategi kesopanan mana yang paling sering digunakan oleh pria maupun wanita dalam film ini. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa dari empat jenis strategi kesopanan, strategi kesopanan negatif adalah yang paling sering digunakan pria dalam film ini, yaitu sebanyak 43.75% dari 32 data yang dianalisis. Sementara wanita dalam film ini cenderung lebih sering menggunakan strategi kesopanan positif, yaitu sebanyak 40.625% dari 32 data yang dianalisis.

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ, The Almighty God for blessing me in my every step so that I can finish this thesis.

Then, I would like to thank Prof. Syaifuddin, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of the Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara. My sincere thanks go to Dra. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum, the head of English Department and Drs. Parlindungan Purba, M.Hum as the secretary of English Department. Then, I want to extend special thanks to my supervisor, Drs. Chairul Husni, M.Ed. TESOL, and my co. supervisor, Dra. Roma Ayuni Lubis, M.A. In this opportunity, I also want to extend my thankfulness to all the lecturers who have taught me during the academic years. I cannot finish my study and complete this thesis without your helps.

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents (Mom and Dad), my brothers (Eka and Erpan), little sister (Grace), and my extended family. I am very grateful that I have all of you in my life whether or not I complete this thesis. Also, I say thanks to Mr. Brown for accompanying me in every single night I have spent in completing this thesis.

My special thanks are also due to my friends (Rani, Devi ‘mami’, Sarina, and Dessy) who have given me spirit and motivation. I would like to thank kak Novita Dewi, kak Riding, Egha sunbae for offering me help in finishing this thesis. Thanks to kak Eppi and Rama for asking me when I will finish my study almost every time you see me at the office. Thanks to mami Eland for believing

(6)

me and making me believe that I can do this. Last but not least, thanks to kak Yeni for being my friend in finishing this study.

Although I have spent several months and have done my very best effort in completing this thesis, I realize that this thesis is still far from being perfect, due to my limited knowledge and experience in English. Therefore, I will warmly accept and highly appreciate any constructive and helpful criticisms addressed to this writing.

Medan, July 2010 The Writer,

Erni Martland V. Simbolon Reg. No. 080721036

(7)

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ii

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION iii

ABSTRACT iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. The Background of Study 1

1.2. The Problem of Study 3

1.3. The Objective of Study 3

1.4. The Scope of Study 3

1.5. The Significance of Study 4

1.6. The Method of Study 4

1.7. The Review of Related Literature 4

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 7

The Politeness Theory 7

The Politeness Maxims 10

The Tact Maxim 11

The Generosity Maxim 12

The Approbation Maxim 12

The Modesty Maxim 13

The Agreement Maxim 13

(8)

Face and Face Threatening Acts 14

2.3.1. Positive Face Threatening Acts 15

2.3.2. Negative Face Threatening Acts 18

Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy 20

Bald On-Record Strategy 20

Positive Politeness Strategy 22

Negative Politeness Strategy 24

Off-Record Indirect Strategy 28

CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH METHOD 33

3.1. The Method of Study 33

3.2. The Method of Collecting Data 33

3.3. The Method of Analysis 34

CHAPTER IV THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF TWILIGHT MOVIE 36

4.1.The Analysis 36

4.2.The Findings 71

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 75

5.1.Conclusions 75

5.2.Suggestions 75

(9)

ABSTRAK

(10)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of Study

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics studying of the aspects of meaning and language use that are dependent on the features of the context of (Parker 1986:11) says that pragmatics is the study of how language is used for communication.

People usually communicate their ideas through conversation. A conversation is speaker(s) and hearer(s) or addressee(s). Speaker is person who speaks particular words. Hearer is person who hears the words spoken by the speaker. Addressee is person to whom the words addressed. In a conversation, an addressee must be the hearer too, but a hearer is not always the addressee. It depends on the amount of people involved in the conversation. In having conversation, people are advisable to be careful in using strategy in order to maintain the communication. They also must be aware of the politeness strategy to make their communication more acceptable by the others.

The theory of politeness strategy is one of the topics discussed in pragmatics. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face." Face refers to the respect that an

(11)

individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Usually people try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA's.

Some studies (Lakoff, 1976; Beeching, 2002) have shown that women are more likely to use politeness formulas than men, though the exact differences are not clear. Most current research has shown that gender differences in politeness use are complex, since there is a clear association between politeness norms and the stereotypical speech of middle class white women, at least in the UK and US. It is therefore unsurprising that women tend to be associated with politeness more and their linguistic behaviour judged in relation to these politeness norms.

In this thesis, the writer considers it is important to analyze the differences of politeness strategy used by the male and female characters of Twilight Movie. The male characters are Edward Cullen and Charlie Swan, while the female characters are Isabella "Bella" Swan and Jessica Stanley. They are selected because they are involved mostly in the conversation though they have never been in good relationship before. Twilight Movie is a two-and-a-half hour film adapted from a novel by Stephenie Meyer. The original Twilight movie was released on November 21, 2008.

(12)

1.2 The Problem of Study

This thesis aims to know the differences of politeness strategy used by male and female characters in Twilight movie. Therefore, the writer states the problem of study, as follows:

1. How does the politeness strategy used by the male and female characters of Twilight movie differ?

2. What is the politeness strategy most frequently used by the male and

female characters of Twilight movie?

1.3 The Objective of Study

In accordance with the problem of study, the objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To find out how the politeness strategy used by male and female

characters of Twilight movie differs

2. To find out the politeness strategy most frequently used by the male and female characters of Twilight movie

1.4 The Scope of Study

In order to be focus, the writer makes the scope of the study. The writer focuses on the differences of politeness strategy used by the two male and two female characters of Twilight movie. The writer uses the combination of politeness strategy of Brown and Levinson, and Leech’s politeness maxims to analyze the politeness strategy.

(13)

1.5 The Significance of Study

The writer hopes this study will be significant theoretically and practically. The theoretical significances are:

1. to show the readers the kinds of politeness strategy used in conversation

2. to show that people usually use the politeness strategy in their daily

conversation whether they realize it or not

The practical significance of the study is to encourage another study of politeness strategy in other created discourses like novels, short stories or even field research about politeness strategy. The writer hopes this thesis can be one of the references.

1.6 The Method of Study

In writing this thesis, the writer did not conduct any field research though the thesis analyzes the use of language to express politeness strategy. Instead, the writer applied library research since all the data are in written form which were taken from pdf. Then, the writer gathered some information from other relevant books which can provide ideas and theories to do the study.

1.7 Review of Related Literature

In completing this thesis, the writer read some relevant books containing information about politeness strategy; women, men, and language.

(14)

1. Politeness: Some Universals in Language

According to Brown and Levinson (1987:65-68) that positive and negative face exist universally in human 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 th speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees.

This book describes the theory of Face Threatening Acts (FTA’s) and politeness strategy which provides most ideas and theories to analyze the data.

2. Principles of pragmatics

important to explain cooperative principle, and it is also the complement of cooperative principle (politeness principle). He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy.

This book enriches the theory of politeness that used to complete the study. The Leech’s theory of politeness principle or called Leech’s Maxims was used by the writer rather than the cooperative principle by Grice (1975) or called Gricean Maxims which has been existed before. The writer tends to use Leech’s maxims since it is more appropriate to the Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy. Moreover, Leech (1993:120) says that cooperative principle of Grice

(15)

cannot always answer why in a conversation the speakers tend to use indirect ways to say what they intend to say.

3. Thesis: The Hedges Used By the Main Characters in Armageddon Miftachul Hasana (2009) in her thesis discusses about one of the negative politeness strategies, especially hedges that are focused on the dialogs of the main characters in Armageddon movie. She uses qualitative descriptive analysis in her thesis “The Hedges Used by the Main Characters in Armageddon”. The result shows that from 62 data, not all types of hedges appear in the main characters utterances. Three types of hedges are not found in the conversation. They are introductory phrase (IP), compound hedges (CH) and relevance-hedges (RH).On the other hand, the types of hedges that are used by the characters are modal auxiliary verb (50%), If-clause (24.1%), modal lexical verb (9.7%), hedges combined with the use of emphatics (6.5%), approximator (3.2%), prosodic and kinesic hedges (3.2%), adverbial, adjectival, and modal noun phrase (1.6%), and strong words (1.6%).

This thesis helps the writer to decide the method of analysis used in completing her thesis.

(16)

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 The Politeness Theory

Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees. First formulated in 1987 by expanded academia’s perception of politeness. speakers’ intention to mitigat toward another (Mills, 2003:6). The goal of politeness is to make all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally defined standards at times may be manipulated to inflict therefore consists of attempting to

There are some techniques to show politeness:

• Expressing uncertainty and ambiguity through

•

• Use o

• Preferri

store, weren't you?"

(17)

here long, have you?"

 softeners reduce the force of what would be a brusque demand. "Hand me that thing, could you?"



request being made. "You can do that, can't you?"

In a conversation, people can convey their own meaning by cooperating with the addressee. Indeed, misunderstandings happen somehow but most speakers and their interlocutors are able to understand each other. The general principle of using language was formulated by Paul Grice (1975:45) and the term used for the principles is cooperative principle. People who obey the cooperative principle in their language use will make sure that what they say in a conversation furthers the purpose of that conversation.

Grice states the cooperative principle as follow: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. The cooperative principle then can be divided into four maxims, called the Gricean Maxims:

• Maxims of Quantity: 1) Make your information as informative as

required (for the current purposes of exchange), 2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

(18)

• Maxims of Quality: 1) Do not say what you believe to be false, 2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

• Maxims of Relevance: Be relevant

• Maxims of Manner: 1) Avoid obscurity of expression, 2) Avoid

ambiguity, 3) Be brief, 4) Be orderly

Grice (1975:47) gives the illustrations as follow in order to explain the maxims:

1) Quantity. If you are assisting me to mend me a car, I expect your contribution to be neither more or less than is required; if, for example, at a particular stage I need four screws, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six. 2) Quality. I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious. If I need

sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are asking me to make, I do not expect you to hand me salt; if I need a spoon, I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber.

3) Relation. I expect a partner’s contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction; if I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I do not expect to be handed a good book, or even an oven cloth (though it might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage.)

4) Manner. I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making, and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch.

Wijana (1996: 46-52) states that it needs the participants’ cooperation to make the communication process goes well. Maxim of quantity wants every

(19)

conversationalist gives contribution as much as needed by interlocutor. Maxim of quality wants every participant says the real things based on adequate evidences. Maxim of relevance wants every participant gives the relevant contribution. Maxim of manner wants every conversationalist speaks directly, not ambiguously and abundantly.

2.2 The Politeness Maxims

As mentioned before, for a successful conversation, the partners must achieve a workable balance of contributions. Speaker and hearer in a rational conversation will cooperate in order to make each of their aims reached. The participants in a talk exchange do not only give deference to cooperative principles as suggested by Grice (1975) but also politeness maxims. According to Leech (1993:3), Grice’s cooperative principle (1975) could not always answer why the participants in a talk exchange are more apt to use indirect way to convey their meaning, so as not to follow maxim suggested in Grice’s cooperative principle.

Leech thinks that politeness has a very important rule in a society, and it is needed to elaborate cooperative principle and also a completion of cooperative principle. To show the relation of politeness principle and the cooperative principle, Leech illustrates as follow (1993:121-122):

(20)

B: “Well, we’ll all miss Bill.”

In this dialogue, B has broken the rule of Grice’s cooperative principle especially maxim of quantity as B does not mention Agatha in his talk. From this talk, there is an implication that not all people will miss Agatha. Why B does not add “but we will not miss Agatha” in his talk is just for politeness reason, i.e. B wants to avoid impolite act toward third part (Agatha). So, it can be concluded that B hold some information for B merely obeys politeness principle.

According t interaction. He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. The first and second maxim form a pair, as do the third and the fourth one.

2.2.1 The Tact maxim

The tact maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other. The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown a strategy of minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs:

(21)

If I could just clarify this then

2.2.2 The Generosity maxim

Leech's Generosity maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize the expression of cost to self.' Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of the self.

You relax and let me do the dishes You must come and have dinner with us

2.2.3 The Approbation maxim

The Approbation maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other.' It is preferred to praise others and if this is impossible, to sidestep the issue, to give some sort of minimal response (possibly through the use of disagreement; the second part intends to make other people feel good by showing solidarity.

(22)

John, I know you're a genius - would you know how to solve this math problem here?

2.2.4 The Modesty maxim

The Modesty maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of dispraise of self.'

Oh, I'm so stupid - I didn't make a note of our lecture! Did you?

2.2.5 The Agreement maxim

The Agreement maxim runs as follows: 'Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other.' It is in line with Brown a strategies of 'seek agreement' and 'avoid disagreement,' to which they attach great importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid disagreement. It is simply observed that they are much more direct in expressing agreement, rather than disagreement.

A: I don't want my daughter to do this; I want her to do that

(23)

2.2.6 The Sympathy maxim

The sympathy maxim states: 'minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and other.' This includes a small group of speech acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and expressing condolences - all of which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs.

I was sorry to hear about your father

2.3 Face and Face Threatening Acts

Brown and Levinson (1987:61) define face as follows:

Face, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non distraction –i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. (b) Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.

In other words, it can be said that positive face is the desire of every member to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, noting that one would threaten positive face by ignoring someone. While, negative face can be characterized as the want of every member that his actions be unimpeded by others. According to

(24)

Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist universally in human Threatening Acts (FTA).

A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the other. Most of these acts are verbal, however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such as acts associated with an within a single utterance.

2.3.1. Positive Face Threatening Acts

Positive face is threatened when the speaker or about their interlocutor’s feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants. Positive face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the well being is treated less importantly, positive face is threatened.

Damage to th

• An act that expresses the speaker’s negative assessment of the

speaker can display this disapproval in two ways. The first approach is for the speaker to directly or indirectly indicate that he

(25)

dislikes some aspect of th personal attributes. The second approach is for the speaker to express disapproval by stating or implying that the hearer is wrong, irrational, or misguided.

Examples: expressions of disapproval (e.g. insults, accusations, complaints), contradictions, disagreements, or challenges.

• An act that expresses the speaker’s indifference toward the

addressee’s positive face.

• The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker. Examples: excessively emotional expressions.

• The speaker indicates that he doesn’t have the same values or fears as th

Examples: disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate in general or in the context.

• The speaker indicates that he is willing to disregard the emotional well being of the

(26)

• The speaker increases the possibility that a face-threatening act will occur. This situation is created when a topic is brought up by the speaker that is a sensitive societal subject.

Examples: topics that relate to politics, race, religion.

• The speaker indicates that he is indifferent to the positive face wants of the non-cooperative behavior.

Examples: interrupting, non-sequiturs.

• The speaker misidentifies the

embarrassing way. This may occur either accidentally or intentionally. Generally, this refers to the misuse of address terms in relation to status, gender, or age.

Example: Addressing a young woman as "ma’am" instead of "miss."

Damage to the Speaker

• An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, and

unable to control himself.

• Apologies: In this act, speaker is damaging his own act by

admitting that he regrets one of his previous acts.

(27)

• Inability to control one’s

• Self-humiliation

• Confessions

2.3.2. Negative Face Threatening Acts

Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's freedom of action. It can cause damage to either the speaker or th submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when negative face is threatened.

Damage to th

• An act that affirms or denies a future act of the

pressure on th

Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminding, threats, or warnings.

• An act that expresses the speaker’s sentiments of th

the

Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, lust).

(28)

• An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker toward the addressee. In doing so, pressure has been put on the addressee to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt.

Examples: offers, and promises.

Damage to the Speaker

• An act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of

the

• Expressing thanks

• Accepting a thank you or apology

• Excuses

• Acceptance of offers

• A response to th

• The speaker commits himself to something he does not want to do Brown and Levinson (1987:66) explain that some acts could threat both positive and negative face at times, as follow:

Note that there is an overlap in this classification of FTA, because some FTA’s intrinsically threaten both negative and positive face (e.g. complaints, interruptions, threats, strong expressions of emotion, requests for personal information)

(29)

In accordance with Brown and Levinson idea (1987) that some acts can at once threat both positive and negative face, Hayashi (1996:230-231) classifies rejection as an act which can threat addressee’s positive and negative face. That is why people need to use the strategy to make rejection sounds more polite.

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy

Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the Levinson outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect).

2.4.1. Bald On-Record Strategy

Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the used in trying to minimize FTA’s implicitly. Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible. Normally, an FTA will be done in this way only if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee, for example, in circumstances where (a) S and H both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to H’s face is very small, as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly in H’s interest and do not require

(30)

great sacrifices of S (e.g. “Come in” or “Do sit down”); and (c) where S is vastly superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy H’s face without losing his own. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends. Brown and Levinson outline various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record strategy, including:

 Instances in which threat minimizing does not occur

• Great urgency or desperation Watch out!

• Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary Hear me out:...

• Task-oriented

Pass me the hammer.

• Little or no desire to maintain someone's face Don't forget to clean the blinds!

• Doing the FTA is in the interest of the

(31)

 Instances in which the threat is minimized implicitly

• Welcomes

Come in.

• Offers

Leave it, I'll clean up later. Eat!

2.4.2. Positive Politeness Strategy

Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to th positive face. They are used to make th interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples from Brown and Levinson:

 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) You look sad. Can I do anything?

Goodness you cut your hair…By the way I came to borrow some flour

 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) What a fantastic garden you have

(32)

That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?

 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H You know

See what I mean?

 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers Heh, mate, can you lend me a dollar? Help me with this bag, will you son?

 Strategy 5: Seek agreement

A: I had a flat tyre on the way home B: Oh God, a flat tyre!

 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly.

Yes, yes she is small, not really small but certainly not very big

 Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground A: Oh, this cut hurts awfully, Mum

B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know

 Strategy 8: Joke

OK if I tackle those cookies now?

 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S's knowledge of and concern for H's wants Look, I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good. Do come!

 Strategy 10: Offer, promise I’ll drop sometime next week

(33)

If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor

 Strategy 11: Be optimistic

You will lend me your lawnmower for the weekend. I hope I’ll just come along, if you don’t mind

 Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course Give us a break

 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons

Why not lend me your cottage for the weekend? Why I don’t help you with that suitcase?

 Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

I’ll lend you my novel if you lend me your article

 Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you

2.4.3. Negative Politeness Strategy

Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologies. Strategies and examples from Brown and Levinson include:

(34)

 Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect Can you shut the door please?

Would you know where Oxford Street is?

 Strategy 2: Question, hedge

Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe Do me a favour, will you?

 Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you? Could you jump over that five-foot fence?

 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition

I just want to ask you if I can borrow a single sheet of paper It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks

 Strategy 5: Give deference

Excuse me sir, but would you mind if I close the window?

Mr. President if I thought you were trying to protect someone, I would have walked out

 Strategy 6: Apologize

I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?

I hope this isn’t going to bother you very much, but can you give this package to Mr. Smith?

 Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H

It is expected that you send this letter today I would go and see the Dean if I were you

(35)

 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule

Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train

International regulations require that the fuselage be sprayed with DDT

 Strategy 9: Nominalize

Spitting will not be tolerated

Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favourably

 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H I’ll never be able to repay you if you lend me a thousand dollars today I’d be eternally grateful to you if you would tell me the truth

Favor seeking, or a speaker asking the hearer for a favor, is a common example of negative politeness strategies in use. Held observes three main stages in favor-seeking: the preparatory phase, the focal phase, and the final phase:

1. The preparatory phase is when the favor-seeking is preceded by elaborate precautions against loss of face to both sides. It often involves signals of openings and markers to be used to clarify the situation (e.g. ‘You see,’ or ‘so,’). The request is often softened, made less direct, and imposing (e.g. past continuous ‘I was wondering’; informal tag ‘What d’you reckon?). The speaker must also reduce his own self-importance in the matter and exaggerate the hearer’s (down-scaling compliments).

2. The focal stage is subdivided into elements such as asker’s reasons or

constraints (e.g. ‘I’ve tried everywhere but can’t get one’), the other’s face (e.g. ‘You’re the only person I can turn to’), and more.

(36)

3. The third stage is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks, promises, and compliments (e.g. ‘I knew you would say yes. You’re an angel.’).

An example that is given by McCarthy and Carter is the following dialogue from the Australian television soap opera,

Clarrie: So I said to him, forget your books for one night, throw a party next weekend.

Helen: A party at number 30! What will Dorothy say about that?

Clarrie: Well, what she doesn't know won't hurt her. Of course, I'll be keeping my eye on things, and (SIGNAL OF OPENING) that brings me to my next problem. (EXPLAIN PROBLEM) You see, these young people, they don't want an old codger like me poking my nose in, so I'll make myself scarce, but I still need to be closer to hand, you see. So, (ASK FAVOR) I was wondering, would it be all right if I came over here on the night? What d'you reckon?

Helen: Oh, Clarrie, I...

Clarrie: Oh (MINIMIZATION) I'd be no bother. (REINFORCE EXPLANATION) It'd mean a heck of a lot to those kids.

Helen: All right.

Clarrie: (THANK WITH BOOST) I knew you'd say yes. You're an angel, Helen.

(37)

All of this is done in attempt to avoid a great deal of imposition on the hearer and is concerned with proceeding towards a goal in the smoothest way and with sensitivity to one’s interlocutors. An English (‘Excuse me, sir, could you please close the window’) is associated with the avoidance or downplaying of an imposition; the more we feel we might be imposing, the more deferential we might be. It is clearly a strategy for negative politeness and the redressing of a threat to negative face, through things like favor-seeking.

2.4.4. Off-Record Indirect Strategy

The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the indirect strategy. This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to do so. Other examples of this strategy are:

 Give hints:

Damn, I’m out of cash, I forget to go to the bank today

 Be vague:

Perhaps someone should have been more responsible

 Be sarcastic, or joking:

(38)

Choice of Strategy

primarily interested in the efficient conveying of messages. Brown and Levinson use this argument in their politeness theory by saying that rational agents will choose the same politeness strategy as any other would under the same circumstances to try to mitigate face. They show the available range of verbal politeness strategies to redress loss of face. FTAs have the ability to mutually threaten face; therefore rational agents seek to avoid FTAs or will try to use certain strategies to minimize the threat.

Speaker (S) will weigh:

1. the want to communicate the content of the FTA in question 2. the want to be efficient or urgent

3. the want to maintain H's face to any degree

In most cooperative circumstances where 3 is greater than 2, S will want to minimize the FTA. The greater potential for loss of face requires greater redressive action. If the potential for loss of face is too great, the speaker may make the decision to abandon the FTA completely and say nothing.

The number next to each strategy corresponds to the danger-level of the particular FTA. The more dangerous the particular FTA is, the more S will tend to use a higher numbered strategy.

(39)

1. No redressive action

o Bald On-Record- leaves no way for H to minimize the FTA

2. Positive Redressive action

o S satisfies a wide range of H’s desires not necessarily related to the

FTA

 Shows interest in H

 Claims common ground with H

 Seeks agreement

 Gives sympathy

3. Negative Redressive action

o S satisfies H’s desires to be unimpeded—the want that is directly

challenged by the FTA

 Be conventionally indirect

 Minimize imposition on H

 Beg forgiveness

 Give deference

o This implies that the matter is important enough for S to disturb H

4. Off-Record

o S has the opportunity to evade responsibility by claiming that H’s

interpretation of the utterance as a FTA is wrong 5. Don't do the FTA

(40)

Payoffs Associated with each Strategy

In deciding which strategy to use, the speaker runs through the individual payoffs of each strategy.

• Bald on record

 enlists public pressure

 S gets credit for honesty, outspokenness which avoids the danger of

seeming manipulative

 S avoids danger of being misunderstood

• Positive Politeness

 minimizes threatening aspect by assuring that S considers to be of the same kind with H

 criticism may lose much of its sting if done in a way that asserts

mutual friendship

 when S includes himself equally as a participant in the request or offer, it may lessen the potential for FTA debt

 “Let’s get on with dinner” to a husband in front of the TV

• Negative Politeness

 Helps avoid future debt by keeping social distance and not getting too familiar with the addressee

(41)

 pays respect or deference by assuming that you may be intruding on the hearer in return for the FTA

 "I don't mean to bother you, but can I ask a quick question?"

• Off record

 get credit for being tactful, non-coercive

 avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation

 give the addressee an opportunity to seem to care for S because it tests H's feelings towards S

 If S wants H to close the window, he may say "It's cold in here." If H answers Ill go close the window then he is responding to this potentially threatening act by giving a “gift” to the original speaker and therefore S avoids the potential threat of ordering H around and H gets credit for being generous or cooperative

• Don’t Do the FTA

 S avoids offending H at all

 S also fails to achieve his desired communication

(42)

CHAPTER III

THE RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 The Method of Study

3.2 The Method of Collecting Data

There are three methods of collecting data, i.e. interview, observation, and analysis on written documents such as quotation, notes, memorandums, publications and official reports, diaries, and written answer to questioner and survey (Suyanto, 1995:186). As the primary data analyzed in this thesis are quoted from Twilight movie’s script which is in written form, the method of collecting data used by the writer can be classified into the third method.

As the first step of collecting data, the writer read the movie script once thoroughly. Then, she reread the script by focusing her attention on male and female characters who are mostly involved in the conversation. The writer found

(43)

that the male characters that are mostly involved in conversation are Edward Cullen and Charlie Swan, while the female ones are Isabella Swan and Jessica Stanley. According to the four characters, it is found that there are three main conversations in the script, i.e.:

1) the conversation among the four characters

2) the conversation between each of the four characters and other

characters

3) the conversation between other characters excluding the four

characters mentioned above

As the analysis on this thesis has to be limited, the scenes with no involvement of the four characters were ignored. The writer decided to read the script again and focus her attention on the scenes with conversations involving the four characters, both those are among the four characters and between the four characters with other characters. These conversations then were listed and numbered so that it is easier to analyze the data in the process of analyzing the data.

3.3 The Method of Analysis

The writer agrees with Mahsun (2005:230) who says that data can be found in two forms: number (or also called quantitative data) and non-number (or also called qualitative data). Quantitative data is usually analyzed by the use of quantitative analysis, while qualitative data can be analyzed by the use of qualitative one. Since the data (primary and secondary data) are language, i.e.

(44)

conversation quoted from Twilight movie’s script, the writer uses qualitative method to analyze all the data.

Qualitative analysis can be defined as an analysis aimed at recognizing and explaining the phenomena being analyzed. Basically, there are two strategies in qualitative analysis, i.e. qualitative descriptive analysis and qualitative verificative one. In this thesis, the writer uses qualitative descriptive analysis, i.e. an analysis used to describe the linguistic utterances produced by the participants in the conversation to express politeness.

(45)

CHAPTER IV

THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF TWILIGHT MOVIE

The following were taken from Twilight movie script and chosen from several scenes. There are 19 scenes containing 205 numbered utterances of all characters involved in the scenes. However, the data analyzed for the using of politeness strategy are just the bold ones. The amount of data which were analyzed is 64, i.e. 32 of male’s utterances and 32 of female’s utterances.

4.1 The Analysis

SCENE 13: INT. HIGH SCHOOL - A SERIES OF SHOTS

Bella (never without her IPOD) makes her way thru kids who stare openly; a few brave ones say hi. They’re all talking about her. This is her hell. Bella wanders the walkways looking for room numbers, lost. Constant stares at Bella, the outsider... SERIES ENDS when a sweet, nerd-cute, motor mouth boy, ERIC, appears in her path.

1. ERIC: You’re Isabella Swan, the new girl. Hi. I’m Eric. The eyes and ears of this place. Anything you need. Tour guide, lunch date, shoulder to cry on. 2. BELLA: I’m kind of the “suffer in silence” type. (NPS)

3. ERIC: Good headline for your feature - I’m on the paper, and you’re news, baby, front page.

(46)

4. BELLA: I -- no, I’m not news -- I’m, seriously, not at all. (ORIS) 5. ERIC: Whoa, chillax. No feature.

6. BELLA: (relieved) Would you mind just pointing me toward Mr. Varner’s class? (NPS)

7. ERIC: You’ve missed a lot of the semester, but I can hook you up - tutor, cliff notes, medical excuse...

Analysis

In this scene, the utterances that will be discussed belong to Bella. Bella uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) in speech #2 and speech #6. In speech #2, she uses hedge by using phrase like “kind of”, which is one of characters of women’s speech as proposed by Lakoff in her most famous work Language and Woman's Place (1975). While in speech #6, Bella tries to be pessimistic in asking someone to do something for her, just like the Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategy. In accordance with Lakoff’s idea of women’s speech characters, Bella also uses (Super-) Polite forms by saying “would you mind”. In this speech, Bella tries not to impose the addressee and avoid doing negative FTA. In another marked speech, i.e. speech #4, Bella uses Off-Record Indirect Strategy (ORIS) toward her interlocutor. She uses this strategy in order to remove herself of imposing the hearer. Her interlocutor, Eric, previously has said that he will make Bella as the headline of school paper but she does not want so. However, Bella avoids stating it directly, she prefer to say it indirectly. Instead of asking Eric not to do it, Bella states that she is not news, not at all.

(47)

SCENE 15 INT: CAFETERIA

Follow Bella, Mike and Jessica as they carry their trays to a table. Eric appears, and squishes into a seat next to Bella.

1. ERIC: Mike, you met my home girl Bella.

2. MIKE: Your home girl?

3. JESSICA: (to Bella) It’s first grade all over again, and you’re the shiny new toy. (PPS)

Bella smiles awkwardly. Analysis

It is Jessica’s utterance that will be discussed in this scene, i.e. speech #3. This speech can be considered as Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS) since Jessica tries to make her new friend, Bella, feel good of herself.

SCENE 24: INT. FORKS COFFEE SHOP

ON A TOP SIRLOIN STEAK as it is set in front of Charlie. He shares a table with Bella. Include the waitress, Cora, 30’s. She beams at Bella as she sets a plate of cod in front of her. Several loggers at the counter offer Bella welcoming smiles. She shrinks in her seat at the attention. Charlie’s oblivious.

1. CORA: Can’t get over how grown up you are. And so gorgeous.

Bella glances at Charlie, who keeps his eyes on his steak. A bearded, hippy logger, WAYLON FORGE, 50, appears behind Cora, leaning over her shoulder to Bella

(48)

2. WAYLON: ‘Member me, honey? I was Santa one year.

3. CHARLIE: Waylon, she hasn’t had a Christmas here since she was four.

4. WAYLON: Bet I made an impression, though.

5. CHARLIE: You always do. (PPS)

6. CORA: Let the girl eat her cod, Waylon. (to Bella) When you’re done, I’ll bring your favorite - berry cobbler. Remember? Your dad still has it. Every Thursday.

7. BELLA: (doesn’t remember at all) That’d be great, thank you. (PPS) Cora shoos Waylon away. Left alone now, Charlie and Bella both reach for the salt, knock hands. Charlie goes for the ketchup instead. Silence as they eat. A burst of LAUGHTER from a nearby happy FAMILY only serves to emphasize their discomfort. Bella tries to bridge the gap.

8. BELLA: So... you eat here every night?

9. CHARLIE: Easier than washing dishes.

10.BELLA: I can cook. (ORIS)

He looks up, as if confused by the concept.

11.BELLA: I do the cooking at home - in Phoenix. Mom’s not great in the

kitchen.

12.CHARLIE: I remember... (PPS)

They both laugh -- recalling an especially bad dinner. 13.CHARLIE: How was school? Meet anyone? (PPS)

14.BELLA: A few people... Do you know the Cullen family?

(49)

16.BELLA: No... well, a little.

17.CHARLIE: Just ‘cause they’re newcomers. We’re lucky to have a surgeon

like Dr. Cullen at our Podunk hospital. Lucky his wife wanted to live in a small town. Lucky his kids aren’t like a lot of the hell-raisers around here.

18.BELLA: ... Okay. (PPS)

19. CHARLIE: I just don’t like narrow-mindedness. And he returns to his food. (Silence)

Analysis

The utterances that will be discussed in this scene belong to Charlie and Bella. Firstly, Charlie’s utterance in speech #5 in which Charlie uses Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS). In this part, Charlie as the speaker wants to make his addressee feel good of himself. Previously, Charlie’s interlocutor said that he bet he had made impression to Bella. By saying “You always do”, Charlie has also followed Leech’s Approbation maxim, i.e. minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other

Then, Bella’s utterance in speech #7 can be considered as PPS as Bella tries to save her interlocutor’s positive face, i.e. a desire to be approved, agreed. Though Bella does not remember that berry cobbler was her favourite dessert

(50)

when she was a kid, Bella agrees to have it and thanks her interlocutor. She does so to avoid doing positive threatening act toward the addressee.

In speech #10, we can see Bella uses Off-Record Indirect Strategy (ORIS) when offering herself to cook for their meal. She uses indirect language and removes herself from the potential to be imposing Charlie to ask her to cook. However when she looks Charlie has not responded yet, Bella continues in speech #11 telling how usual for her to cook. She says it in order to take Charlie’s guilty off if he lets Bella cook. She also reminds her father how bad her mother’s cook is. Charlie responds to this by using Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS) in speech #12. Charlie satisfies Bella’s positive face by saying “I remember” because it means he agrees with her opinion about her mother’s cook. Then, they laugh together which it means the awkwardness of them has lessened. It makes Charlie think they can speak more relax topic and then he uses PPS in line #13. Charlie asks Bella about her first day in school which it means him as a speaker (S) intensifies his interest to Bella as the addressee or hearer (H). In speech #17 Charlie states his opinion to Bella about Cullen family, about how lucky they are to have the Cullens in their small town. It is quite different indeed with what Bella has heard before about the Cullens, however she does not confront it with her father. Bella avoids disagreement and tries to satisfy Charlie’s positive face, i.e. a desire to be approved. It can be seen in line #18 where Bella uses PPS by saying “okay”.

(51)

SCENE 33: EXT. CHARLIE'S HOUSE (CONTINUOUS)

ON BELLA’S FACE as she opens the door and stops, dismay filling her. It’s pouring down rain -- the yard is full of puddles, some frozen. Bella shivers, wraps her coat tight.

1. BELLA: Great.

WHIP PAN to the driveway as Charlie pulls in - driving her truck. 2. BELLA: Dad, I can drive myself to school. (NPS)

3. CHARLIE: You okay, Bells?

4. BELLA: Ice doesn’t help the uncoordinated.

5. CHARLIE: That’s why I got you new tires.

She looks over at the truck -- yep, four new tires.

Analysis

Bella uses indirectness in speech #2 to save her father’s negative face. Bella does not want her father drive her to school. She recognized Charlie’s freedom of action (negative face) however Bella also has her own will. In order to satisfy her will and to save her father’s negative face, Bella uses NPS. Instead of saying, “you don’t have to drive me”, for example, Bella says “Dad, I can drive myself to school.”

SCENE 35: INT. BIOLOGY CLASS/HALLWAY

Rain beats on the roof as Eric walks Bella into class. She brushes water off her coat as he chats her up.

(52)

1. ERIC: ... and yeah, prom committee is a chick thing, but I gotta cover it for the paper anyway, and they need a guy to help choose the music --So I need your play list --

Bella is about to respond when Mike comes up behind her. 2. MIKE: Come on, Arizona. Give it up for the rain.

And he shakes his wet baseball cap onto Bella’s head.

3. BELLA: Terrific.

She heads toward her seat, brushing off her hair. But she freezes when she sees Edward. Bella straightens, girding herself. Then strides to the table, and confidently drops her books down, ready to address him. But he looks up at her --

4. EDWARD: Hello.

Bella stops. Stunned. He is direct, precise, as if every word is an effort for him.

5. EDWARD: I didn’t have a chance to introduce myself last week. My name is

Edward Cullen.

She’s too shocked that he’s talking to her to answer. 6. EDWARD: (prompting) ... You’re Bella. (PPS)

7. BELLA: I’m... yes.

8. MR. MOLINA: (to the class) Onion root tip cells! That’s what’s on your

slides. Separate and label them into the phases of mitosis. The first partners to get it right, win... the golden onion!

(53)

He excitedly holds up a spray painted onion. Everyone just looks at him. He’s disappointed by their apathy.

9. MR. MOLINA: Come on, people. Tick tock.

Everyone sets to work. Edward pushes the microscope to Bella, keeping his distance, his voice controlled.

10.EDWARD: Ladies first. (NPS)

She grabs the microscope defensively and snaps the first slide in, adjusting the lens. She’s curt as she addresses him.

11.BELLA: You’ve been gone.

12.EDWARD: Out of town. For personal reasons.

13.BELLA: Prophase.

She begins to remove the slide. 14.EDWARD: May I look? (NPS)

She slides him the microscope. He glances through the lens.

15.EDWARD: Prophase.

16.BELLA: (muttering) Like I said.

17.EDWARD: Enjoying the rain?

18.BELLA: Seriously? You’re asking me about the weather?

19.EDWARD: It appears.

20.BELLA: No. I don’t like the cold. Or the wet. Or the gray. Or parkas. Or turtle necks.

(54)

Is that a smile playing on his lips? For the first time, he seems more intrigued than agonized. He studies her. She still can’t tell if he despises her or not. It’s infuriating.

21.BELLA: What?

He shakes his head and turns to the microscope, switching out the slides.

22.EDWARD: Anaphase.

23.BELLA: May I? (NPS)

(she looks through the lens) Anaphase.

24.EDWARD: Like I said.

25.EDWARD: (handing her the slide) If you hate cold and rain, why move to the wettest place in the continental U.S.

26.BELLA: It’s complicated.

27.EDWARD: I think I can keep up. (NPS)

He actually seems interested. She looks into the microscope as --

28.BELLA: My mother remarried.

29.EDWARD: Very complex. So you don’t like him. (PPS) 30.BELLA: Phil is fine. Young for her, but nice enough.

(re: the slide) Interphase.

Analysis

The characters’ utterances that will be discussed in this scene belong to Edward and Bella although there are other ones. It is the first time Edward and Bella get involved in conversation since they met. They have been met before in

(55)

the same class however they have not talked each other before. Moreover, Edward seemed to avoid talking to her and even kept staying away from her. But now he is starting greeting Bella with “hello” in speech #4 and continuing introducing himself in speech #5. To respond to Bella’s silence of shock, Edward call Bella with her own name in speech #6. It is a prompt indeed but it can be considered as Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS). Edward had been rude to Bella when they first met and tried to move to another class in order to avoid Bella. His behaviour towards Bella had made Bella thought Edward does not like her. It has threatened Bella’s negative face. It seems Edward want to redeem his former fault by greeting her politely and trying to behave nicely. He tries his best effort; he even knows Bella’s nickname. Usually Bella has to tell her new friends that she wants to be called just with her nickname “Bella” rather than “Isabella”. Unpredictably, Edward knows it and directly calls her with just “Bella”. It has saved Bella’s positive face.

Then, in speech #10 Edward uses NPS by stating the FTA as a general rule. Edward asks Bella to look the onion cells through microscope; however he does not use direct words to ask her in order to save Bella’s negative face. Edward decides to state general rule by saying “ladies first” to Bella.

Again, Edward uses NPS in speech #14 by using question when asking Bella to give him a chance to see through the lens. And Bella does so in speech #23 when asking the same thing to Edward. Both Edward and Bella also follow the tact maxim proposed by Leech, i.e. ‘minimizing the expression of beliefs

(56)

which imply cost to other’, which fits in with Brown and

Still on Edward utterance in speech #27, Edward uses NPS again by hedging his speech, “I think I can keep up.” The term ‘hedge’ was first used by Lakoff (1972:194) to mean “words whose job is to make things more or less fuzzy.” A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an utterance. Hedge is one of the examples of Negative Politeness Strategy given by Brown and Levinson. ‘I think’ is a hedge using cognition verb ‘think’ and personal pronoun ‘I’ precedes it to give a focus to the speaker’s assumption of personal responsibility. Edward decides to use NPS in this conversation in order to save Bella’s negative face. In previous conversation, speech #25, Edward asks Bella the reason why she moves to the wettest place in the continental U.S. if she hates cold and rain. Bella seems avoiding explain the reason; she only says that it is complicated as noted in speech #26. Edward somehow really wants to know what the reason is, but he understands that Bella has a freedom of act. That’s why Edward chooses to hedge his words. Instead of repeating the same question which will sound like a force, he says “I think I can keep up.” By saying so, Edward not only save Bella’s negative face but also succeed to persuade her to tell him what the reason is as noted in speech #28.

In speech #29 Edward uses PPS by showing his engagement in this interaction with his comment “very complex”. It can be considered to satisfy Bella’s positive face. Then, Edward seeks agreement by saying “so you don’t like him”, which is one of strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson.

(57)

SCENE 36: INT. HIGH SCHOOL - HALLWAY

Bella exits holding the golden onion, and practically runs into Edward who is directly in front of her.

1. EDWARD: Why didn’t you stay with your mom and step dad? (PPS) He waits for her answer, studying her, as if trying to decipher her. She’s drawn in by his attention, oddly compelled.

2. BELLA: Alright, Phil’s a minor league baseball player, so he travels a lot. My mother stayed home with me but it made her unhappy. So I decided to spend time with my father. (PPS)

3. EDWARD: But now you’re unhappy. (BORS) 4. BELLA: No... I -- I just...

Bella turns away -- embarrassed, vulnerable.

Analysis

In the beginning of this scene, the conversation of Edward and Bella goes very well. Both of them use PPS in speech #1 (Edward) and in speech #2 (Bella). They are engaged in nice talk because their positive faces are saved, their desires to be listened and perceived are fulfilled.

However, suddenly in speech #3 Edward uses Bald On-Record Strategy (BORS) with little or no desire to maintain Bella’s face. He uses no redressive action by directly saying “But now you’re unhappy.” As a result, Bella is nervous and turns away since she is embarrassed.

(58)

SCENE 39: INT. HOSPITAL - RECEPTION Charlie and Bella exit the treatment area.

1. CHARLIE: I just have to sign some paperwork. You better call your mom. (BORS)

2. BELLA: You told her?! She’s probably freaking. (BORS)

He shrugs and hurries off. Bella shakes her head, pulls out her cell phone. Is about to dial, but then sees down the hall...

Rosalie is clearly furious at Edward who stands his ground. Dr. Cullen plays intermediary.

3. ROSALIE: This isn’t just about you, it’s about all of us -- Dr. Cullen sees Bella and stops Rosalie --

4. DR. CULLEN: Let’s take this in my office.

Rosalie glares at Edward as she goes off with Dr. Cullen. Edward adopts a nonchalant air as Bella approaches, determined.

5. BELLA: Can I talk to you for a moment? (NPS) (off his nod) How did you get over to me so quickly?

6. EDWARD: I was standing right next to you.

7. BELLA: You were next to your car, across the lot. He steps closer to her. His expression turns icy hard.

8. EDWARD: No, I wasn’t.

She won’t be bullied. Steps closer to him.

9. BELLA: Yes. You were.

(59)

11.BELLA: I know what I saw.

12.EDWARD: And what, exactly, was that?

13.BELLA: You stopped that van. You pushed it away.

14.EDWARD: No one will believe that.

15.BELLA: I wasn’t planning to tell anyone. (PPS)

This registers with Edward. They’re inches from each other, the tension thick. 16.BELLA: I just want to know the truth.

17.EDWARD: Can't you just thank me and get over it? (NPS)

18.BELLA: Thank you.

A long beat as they look at each other, angry, defensive... and without a doubt, attracted.

19.EDWARD: You’re not going to let it go, are you? (NPS)

20.BELLA: No.

21.EDWARD: (turns, walks away) Then I hope you enjoy disappointment. (BORS)

22.BELLA: Why did you even bother?

He stops, a beat. Looks back at her, unexpectedly vulnerable.

23.EDWARD: ... I don’t know.

And he keeps walking. Off Bella, confused, frustratingly attracted, and absolutely determined to find out the truth.

Analysis:

In this scene, the utterances that will be analyzed are Charlie’s, Bella’s and Edward’s. Firstly, the conversation between Charlie and Edward as noted in

(60)

speech #1 and speech #2. Charlie and Bella use Bald On-Record Strategy in this conversation. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee but in this case it does not happen for they have a close relationship as father and daughter (family). Also, the FTA’s are done in this way because the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee where the danger to addressee’s face is very small.

Secondly, the conversation that will be discussed is conversation between Bella and Edward. Bella is the one who starts it as noted in speech #5. In this speech, it can be considered that Bella uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS). She also follows the tact maxim proposed by Leech by minimizing the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other. She asks for Edward’s agreement firstly before she talks to him. Bella recognizes Edward’s negative face and does not want to threat it however she has a will to talk to him. That’s why Bella says, “Can I talk to you for a moment?” instead of saying “I have to talk to you”, for example.

Still Bella and Edward’s conversation in this scene as noted in speech #6 until speech #14. During these speeches both Bella and Edward can be considered has threaten their interlocutor’s face. They do not do any redressive action at all. Both of them show their disagreement of what their partner has been said. It means that they have threatened their interlocutor’s positive face. In this scene, Edward and Bella are involved in quarrel about how Edward saved Bella from a van crash. It can be seen in speech #6 that Edward says that he is just next to Bella when the crash happened, so it is easy to save her. However, Bella directly says

(61)

her disagreement in speech #7 that she is sure Edward was far away from her at that time, and so does Edward. He directly refuses it by saying “No, I wasn’t” as noted in speech #8. It threats Bella’s face again, so she clearly without any redressive action denies it in speech #9 by saying “Yes. You were.” Their impolitenesses still continue until speech #14.

However, in speech #15 Bella starts it again to redress. Bella promises that she won’t tell anyone what Edward will might say. Bella states the promise as Edward is unlikely to tell her the truth. Bella hopes Edward will tell her the truth by using Positive Politeness Strategy.

To respond Bella, Edward leads her to another idea than idea of want to know the truth. Previously, Edward has helped Bella from crashing but she has not thanked him yet. Instead, Bella asks Edward of how he can save her very quickly. Edward wants Bella to do something and not to do another thing, i.e. he wants her just to thank him and not to ask any more question. Edward uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) by being conventionally indirect to convey his idea as seen in speech #17. Edward tries not to threat Bella’s negative face by using NPS in question form rather than in order form. The result is Bella thanks him as noted in speech #18.

Although Bella has thanked him, Edward knows that Bella still wants to know how he can move so fast. He states it in speech #19, “You’re not going to let it go, are you?” In this section, Edward uses NPS strategy 2 by questioning. He prefers usi show politeness as mentioned before in the previous chapter.

(62)

In speech #21, Edward uses Bald On-Record Strategy (BORS) with no redressive action by saying “then I hope you enjoy disappointment” to Bella. In this utterance, the speaker does not try to minimize the threat at all. It tends to be sarcastic that can hurt the addressee’s feeling.

SCENE 43: INT. COMMUNITY COLLEGE GREENHOUSE - FIELD TRIP Mr. Molina and a Tour Guide lead several dozen kids through the greenhouse. Bella keeps an eye on Edward who’s up ahead with Alice and Jasper. When Bella sees Edward pause by an ancient staghorn fern, alone, she takes a breath for courage and strides up to him.

1. BELLA: Hello, Edward.

He glances at her, merely nodding. We notice his FISTS clench, and unclench. Bella looks at him, appalled by his rudeness.

2. BELLA: Really?

No response. She turns, starts to walk away.

3. EDWARD: What’s in Jacksonville?

She turns back to him.

4. BELLA: How did you know about that?

5. EDWARD: You didn’t answer my question. (BORS) 6. BELLA: You haven’t answered any of mine. (BORS)

You won’t even say hello. (NPS)

7. EDWARD: Hello.

(63)

9. EDWARD: Adrenaline rush. Very common. Google it.

10.BELLA: (not buying it) Floridians. That’s what’s in Jacksonville.

She turns to storm off but she stumbles over the irrigation hose. Edward steadies her, catching her scent -- still so powerful... He clenches his jaw. 11.EDWARD: It helps if you actually watch where you put your feet.

(BORS)

Insulted, she keeps moving. He keeps pace, serious now. 12.EDWARD: I know I’ve been rude, but it’s for the best.

She just looks at him like he’s crazy. He walks away as Jessica suddenly rushes up.

13.JESSICA: Guess who just asked me to prom!

Bella smiles.

14.JESSICA: I totally thought Mike was going to ask you, Bella. Is it gonna be weird?

15.BELLA: No way. Zero weirdness. You guys are great together. (PPS) 16.JESSICA: I know, right? (PPS)

Analysis

In speech #5 and speech #6, Edward and Bella use Bald On-Record Strategy (BORS) as both of them do not attempt to minimize the threat to the then tries to save Edward’s face in speech #6 by saying “you won’t even say

(64)

hello’”. This can be considered as NPS for Bella uses pessimistic strategy to save Edward’s negative face.

Then, in speech #11 Edward uses Bald On-Record Strategy (BORS) to Bella. It can be considered impolite since Edward uses BORS with no desire to maintain Bella’s face. And the result is Bella is insulted.

The next discussion is the utterances of Bella and Jessica as noted in speech #15 and speech #16. They both use Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS). In speech #15, Bella uses in-group identity markers by using guys as in “you guys are great together.” She makes her hearer feel good of herself and saves hearer’s positive face. While, Jessica shows her agreement in order to raise common ground with the speaker, Bella. It can be seen that they follow Leech’s agreement maxim by minimizing the expression of disagreement between self and other and maximizing the expression of agreement between self and other.

SCENE 44: EXT. COMMUNITY COLLEGE GREENHOUSE - THE BUSES 1. EDWARD: Bella, it would be better if we weren't friends. (NPS)

2. BELLA: Too bad you didn’t figure that out earlier. (ORIS)

You could have let the van crush me and saved yourself all this regret. 3. EDWARD: You think I regret saving you? (BORS)

4. BELLA: I know you do.

5. EDWARD: You don’t know anything.

His harshness stings her. Suddenly, Alice appears at Edward’s side. She eyes Bella with curiosity.

(65)

6. ALICE: The bus is leaving.

(to Bella) Hi. Will you be riding with us? 7. EDWARD: No. Our bus is full. (ORIS)

He purposefully walks Alice away. But he glances back at Bella with, is that... remorse? She doesn’t see it.

Analysis

Edward uses NPS to Bella in speech #1 when he wants to ask Bella to stay away from him. It can be considered as NPS for Edward tries to minimize the negative FTA. He uses strategy #7 proposed by Brown and Levinson, i.e. impersonalizing speaker and hearer.

In speech #2, Bella uses Off Record Indirect Strategy (ORIS) to Edward when she says “too bad you didn’t figure that out earlier”. She removes herself from any imposition by using sarcastic joke.

Edward uses BORS to Bella in speech #3. He asks Bella by doing it baldly, without redress, in the most direct and clear way.

In speech #7 Edward uses ORIS to Bella. By stating the bus is full, Edward wants to remove himself from any imposition. He does not want to be blamed of FTA that might appear. It is a kind of hint to what a speaker wants to communicate, without doing so directly, so that the meaning to some degrees negotiable.

(66)

SCENE 45: INT. CHARLIE’S HOUSE - KITCHEN

Bella enters, throws down her book bag and coat, still angry. She starts upstairs but Charlie enters from the kitchen.

1. CHARLIE: Your mother called. Again.

2. BELLA: Your fault, for telling her about the accident. (BORS)

3. CHARLIE: She always did know how to worry. But... she’s changed, too. She

seems happy. Phil sounds all right. 4. BELLA: He is. (PPS)

Analysis

Bella uses BORS when talking to Charlie in speech #2. There is no attempt to minimize the threat to Charlie’s face in this speech; however it can be tolerated because of their close relationship as family. And it can be seen that Charlie is not humiliated at all because of it.

In speech #4, Bella uses PPS by showing her agreement with the speaker, Charlie. By doing it, Bella has saved Charlie’s positive face. It also follows the agreement maxim proposed by Leech.

SCENE 46: INT. HIGH SCHOOL - CAFETERIA - ON BELLA’S FACE

1. ERIC: La Push, baby. You in?

2. BELLA: Should I know what that means? (NPS)

3. MIKE: La Push beach, down on the Quileute rez. We’re all going after school. Big swell coming in.

(67)

4. ERIC: And I don’t just surf the internet.

5. JESSICA: Eric, you stood up once. On a foam board.

6. ANGELA: There’s whale watching, too. Come with.

7. ERIC: La Push, baby.

8. BELLA: I’ll go if you stop saying that.

Analysis:

Bella uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) toward the hearers in speech #2 by being conventionally indirect. She actually wants someone to tell her the meaning of Eric words in speech #1. However, she does not want to ask directly in order to save hearers’ negative face.

SCENE 47: THE SALAD BAR STATION

Bella artfully designs an architectural salad. As she reaches for an APPLE, Edward is suddenly next to her

1. EDWARD: (charmed) Edible art... (PPS)

Startled, she fumbles and drops the apple -- Edward catches it with his foot, hackeysack style, then bounces it back into his hand, the red of the apple, stark against his pale skin. He presents it to her with small smile.

2. BELLA: Thanks... but your mood swings are giving me whiplash.

3. EDWARD: I said it would be better if we weren't friends, not that I didn't want to be. (NPS)

(68)

5. EDWARD: It means if you were smart, you’d avoid me. (NPS)

6. BELLA: So let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I’m not smart. Would you talk to me? Tell me the truth? (NPS)

7. EDWARD: Probably not. I’d rather hear your theories. (NPS) 8. BELLA: Okay... how ‘bout radioactive spiders? Kryptonite?

9. EDWARD: (levels his gaze, challenging) You’re talking about superheroes. What if I’m not a hero? What if I’m a bad guy?

10.BELLA: (beat, looking closer at him) No. I don’t believe that. You’re not bad. You can be a jerk, but it’s like this... mask. To keep people away. (PPS)

He’s taken aback by her honesty, her insight, drawn in by her...

11.BELLA: Look, why don’t we just - hang out. Like... come to the beach with us. It’ll be fun - sand fleas, wind burn, salt water stinging your eyes... (PPS)

12.EDWARD: (small smile, considering it) Which beach?

13.BELLA: La Push.

His smile lessens almost imperceptibly.

14.BELLA: Is something wrong with that beach?

Edward glances over at Mike - the two exchange cold looks. 15.EDWARD: It's just a little crowded.

Analysis

In speech #1 Edward uses PPS by giving special attention to Bella. He praises Bella’s architectural salad to satisfy her positive face. Then, he continues

(1)

The Findings

The findings of the analysis on politeness strategy used by male and female of Twilight movie based on the script, are below:

BORS PPS NPS ORIS Total

Male

9 7 14 2 32

Female

5 13 11 3 32

In order to transform the findings into percentage, the following formula is used:

X _{x 100% = N} Y

Notes: X: number of the data of each kind of politeness strategy Y: total number of the data

N: the percentage The Percentage:

BORS PPS NPS ORIS

Male

28.125 % 21.875% 43.75% 6.25%

Female

15.625% 40.625% 34.375% 9.375%

The result shows that males in this movie realize their interlocutor's freedom of action and choice; they minimize negative FTA more often than females. It proved by the percentage above, which shows that males use Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) more than females do.

(2)

While, females are apt to make the hearers feel good of themselves; they minimize the threat to th above, which shows that females use Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS) more than males do.

The degree of using Bald On-Record Strategy (BORS) between male and female is needed to be noticed. As we know, bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to th in certain circumstances mentioned in the previous chapter or the speaker and the addressee have a close relationship. The using of BORS excluding such conditions could be considered as impoliteness. Based on the above analysis, the comparison of using BORS by males and females in Twilight movie is following:

No. Using Of BORS by Males Normal (use under certain conditions)

Impolite (embarrass the

addressee)

1 Scene 36 speech #3 

2 Scene 39 speech #1 

3 Scene 39 speech #21 

4 Scene 43 speech #5 

(3)

No. Using of BORS by Females Normal (use under certain conditions

Impolite (embarrass the

addressee)

1 Scene 39 speech #2 

2 Scene 43 speech #6 

3 Scene 45 speech #2 

4 Scene 54 speech #1 

5 Scene 58 speech #2 

The table above shows us that males are more likely to use impoliteness formulas than female.

The result of this analysis also leads us to conclude that females are more apt to take the pressure off of themselves than males. It is proved by the percentage showing that females use Off Record Indirect Strategy (ORIS) more than males do.

(4)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Conclusions

Having analyzed the data, the writer comes into conclusions as following: 1. People usually use the politeness strategy in their daily conversation no

matter what the theory proposed by the linguist or expert.

2. There is always potential awkwardness between two or more different people involving in a conversation, whether they have a close relation or not. That is why politeness strategies are needed to maintain the communication.

3. There are several differences of male and female in using language, especially in using politeness strategy through language.

4. The politeness strategy most frequently used by the male characters of

Twilight movie based on the script is Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS).

5. The politeness strategy most frequently used by the female characters of

(5)

Suggestions

After finishing this thesis, the writer has some suggestions, i.e.:

1. Everyone especially educated people should know the politeness strategy for it is important in daily life. So, it can be considered as one of lecture in campus.

2. Other studies about politeness strategy should be done to improve the result and finding, and it is better done in other genre conversation.

(6)

REFERENCES

pdf.

Beeching, K. 2002. Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Brown, P. a Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”, Syntax and Semantics, Speech Act,

3. New York: Academic Press.

Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago: Linguistics Society Papers.

Lakoff, R. 1975 Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. Prinsip-prinsip Pragmatik (Diterjemahkan oleh M.D.D. Oka dan Setyadi Setyapranata). Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia. Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan

Tekniknya. Jakarta: PT RajaGrafindo Persada.

Mills, Sara. 2003 Gender and Politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Parker, Frank. 1986. Linguistics for Non Linguists. London: Taylor and Francis,

Ltd.

The Differences Of Politeness Strategy Used By Male And Female Characters Of Twilight Movie Based On The Script