Positive politeness strategies as reflected by the character in Medea drama script.

POSITIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY THE CHARACTERS IN

MEDEADRAMA SCRIPT

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fullfilment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Degree of English Department Faculty of Arts and Humanities State Islamic University of

Sunan Ampel Surabaya

By :

HEMASHITA AINUR RIZA Reg. Number: A33213061

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA 2017

ABSTRACT

Riza, Hemashita Ainur. 2017. Positive Politeness Strategies as Reflected by the Character inMedeaDrama Script. English Department, Faculty of Arts and

Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya. The Advisor: Prof. Dr. Zuliati Rohmah, M. Pd

Key Terms:Politeness Strategy, Positive politeness, Cooperative Principle.

Politeness phenomena not only occur in daily conversations, but also in the dialogue found in a drama script. Medea is one of the interesting subjects to be analyzed in terms of positive politeness strategies. Medea is widely read as a proto-feminist text to the extent that it sympathetically explores the disadvantages of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Thus, the aims of this research are (1) to find the strategies of positive politeness expressed by the characters in Medea and also (2) to identify the types of maxim violation applied by the characters in Medea in expressing the positive politeness strategies.

This research employed descriptive qualitative research. The data were in the form of utterances uttered by the characters in Medea drama script. The main instrument of the study was the researcher herself and the secondary instrument was a data sheet.

The results of the research show two points. First, all of the fifteen strategies of positive politeness appear, except the strategy of asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat, seeking agreement and joke. In fact, the strategy of avoiding disagreement is the highest rank. Second, there are four types of maxim violation that appear when the characters are expressing positive politeness strategies. The maxim of manner is mostly violated by the characters. This research also shows that from 78 utterances of positive politeness strategies, only 18 utterances are violated. It means that the use of positive politeness strategies does not always influence the maxims of cooperative

INTISARI

Riza, Hemashita Ainur. 2017. Strategi Kesantunan Positif Sebagaimana Tercermin dari Karakter dalam Naskah DramaMedea.Jurusan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Seni Rupa dan Humaniora Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Penasihat:Prof. Dr. Zuliati Rohmah, M.Pd

Kata Kunci:Strategi Kesopanan, Kesopanan Positif, Prinsip Koperatif

Fenomena kesopanan tidak hanya terjadi dalam percakapan sehari-hari, tapi juga dalam dialog yang ditemukan dalam naskah drama. Medea adalah salah satu objek yang menarik untuk dianalisis dalam hal strategi kesopanan positif. Medea secara luas dibaca sebagai teks proto-feminis sejauh ia secara simpatik mengeksplorasi kelemahan menjadi wanita dalam masyarakat patriarki. Dengan demikian, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah (1) untuk mengetahui strategi kesopanan positif yang diungkapkan oleh tokoh-tokoh di Medea dan juga (2) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis pelanggaran paksaan yang diterapkan oleh tokoh-tokoh di

Medeadalam mengekspresikan strategi kesopanan positif.

Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif deskriptif. Data tersebut berupa ujaran yang diucapkan oleh tokoh dalam naskah drama Medea. Instrumen utama penelitian ini adalah peneliti sendiri dan instrumen sekunder adalah lembar data.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan dua poin. Pertama, kelima belas strategi kesopanan positif muncul, kecuali strategi untuk menyatakan pertukaran timbal balik atau tit untuk tat, mencari kesepakatan dan lelucon. Padahal, strategi menghindari perselisihan adalah pangkat tertinggi. Kedua, ada empat jenis pelanggaran pepatah yang muncul saat karakter tersebut mengekspresikan strategi kesantunan positif. Pepatah cara sebagian besar dilanggar oleh karakter. Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa dari 78 ujaran strategi kesantunan positif, hanya 18 ujaran yang dilanggar. Artinya, penggunaan strategi kesopanan positif tidak selalu mempengaruhi prinsip koperatif dalam penelitian ini

TABLE OF CONTENT

Inside Cover Page ...i

Inside Title Page ... .ii

Declaration Page... .iii

Dedication Page...iv

Motto... v

Thesis Advisor s Approval Page...vi

Thesis Examiner s Approval Page... vii

Acknowledgement... viii

Table of Contents... ix

Abstract... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1Background of Study... 1

1.2Research Problems... 6

1.3 Research Objectives... 7

1.4 Significance of the Research... 7

1.5 Scope and Limitations... 8

1.6 Definition of Key Terms... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 11

2.1Theoretical Framework... 11

2.1.1Pragmatic... 11

2.1.2 Politeness Strategy ... 12

2.1.3 Positive Politeness ... 13

2.1.4 Cooperative Principle ... 17

2.1.5 Violating Maxim………... 18

2.1.6 Relationship between Positive Politeness Strategies and Cooperative Principle ... 19

2.1.7Medeaby Euripedes ... 20

2.2 Conceptual Framework ... 21

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS... 24

3.1 Research Design ... 24

3.2 Data Collection ... 25

3.3 Data Analysis ... 26

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION... 33

4.1 Research Findings ... 33

4.1.1 Positive Politeness Strategies in Medea Drama Script ... 33

4.1.1.1 Noticing, attending to H (interests, wants, needs, goods) ... 33

4.1.1.2 Exaggerating…... 37

4.1.1.3Intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution ... 39

4.1.1.4 Using in-group identity markers in speech ... 40

4.1.1.5 Avoiding disagreement………... 42

4.1.1.6 Presupposing, raising, asserting common ground ... 43

4.1.1.7Asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concern for hearer’s want ... 44

4.1.1.8 Offering & promising... 44

4.1.1.9 Including both S and H in the activity... 45

4.1.1.10 Giving or asking for reasons………... 46

4.1.1.11 Giving gifts to H... 47

4.1.2 Maxim Violation when the Characters are Expressing Positive Politeness ... 48

4.1.2.1 Violation of Quantity Maxim ... 51

4.1.2.2 Violation of Quality Maxim ... 51

4.1.2.3 Violation of Relation Maxim…... 55

4.1.2.4 Violation of Manner Maxim... 57

4.2 Discussion ... 61

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION... 65

5.1 Conclusion ... 65

5.2 Suggestion ... 67

References... 68

Appendices Appendix 1: Positive Politeness Strategies Found in Medea Drama Script…71 Appendix 2: Violation Maxim Found in Positive Politeness Strategies……..74

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter explains background of the study, research problem, research objectives, significance of the study, scope and limitation, and definition of key terms which become the basis of this research

1.1 Background of the Study

Communication is usually defined as conversation, namely for sending and receiving message. If the message cannot be received it means that communication does not work well. In order to make communication run in harmony, the hearer should know the speakers aim. Moreover, every day we adapt our conversation to different situations. Among our friends for instance, we can easily say something that would be seen discourteous among strangers and we avoid over formally with our friends. In both situations above we tries to avoid makes the hearer embarrassed and uncomfortable.

When people use language to communicate with others, they always want to have a conversation that runs well and goes smoothly because by having a good conversation, they can maintain a good and close relationship with others. According to Wang (2010), speakers have to be able to choose various communicative strategies to maintain a good relationship between both interlocutors and they also need to apply strategies to construct a good conversation. These strategies are also known as politeness strategies.

2

Culpaper (2009) defines politeness as a strategy that is used by people to build a harmonious communication. Therefore, when somebody tries to have a polite conversation, he or she also has to pay attention to the hearer’s feeling. It is in line with Holmes’ statement (1995) that when people try to be polite, itmeans that they want to express respect towards the person they are talking to and avoid offending that person. Hence, it is not only important to speak well in terms of linguistics, but also important to think about other’s feeling.

As stated by Brown and Levinson (1987), a politeness theory is based on the concept that people have a social self-image. This sense of self-image is also known as “face.” The theory of “face” itself was developed in 1987 by Brown and Levinson. They state that people use various politeness strategies to protect the face of others when addressing them. In situations where a face threatening act (FTA) could arise, the politeness strategy used depends on how close the relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) stated that there are four politeness strategies which a speaker uses when dealing with FTA to the hearer. They are bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record. Each strategy is used differently depending on the situations. While in this research the researcher only focuses on the positive politeness strategy which isaddressed to the person’s positive face.

Positive politeness played an important role in human life. Positive politeness is not only for one group society, but also it is for everyone in all conditions. Using language is used as their tools in daily conversation in order to make a good social

3

interaction with other people in their life, (Fraser, 1990). Politeness phenomena not only accur in daily conversation, but also the dialouge found in a drama script. As one example of entertaiment media. Drama script is kind of literary work in written version of a story. Drama script similiar to literature and linguistic, presents the dialogues and words that have the meaning.

Medea is one of the interesting subject to be analyze in terms of positive

politeness strategies. The researcher chooses this drama script because Medea has won bronze medals and came in third place at the annual Athenian play competition at the Theatre of Dionysus. Furthermore, this drama script tells about the inner emotions of passion, love, and vengeance. Medea is widely read as a proto-feminist text to the extent that it sympathetically explores the disadvantages of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Therefore, the researcher thinks that there are many utterances in the dialogue of this drama script which contains politeness strategies. The data are from the dialogues which contain positive politeness strategies applied by the charachter in Medea drama script.

Beside the types of positive politenes strategies , the researcher also attempts to find the types violating maxim of cooperative principle in expressing the positive politeness strategies. It is because the researcher aims to analyze the relationship between positive politeness staretegies and the violating maxim. Cutting (2002) stated that there are four types of maxim violating. Those are violating maxim of quality, violating maxim of quantity, violating maxim of relation, violating maxim of manner.

4

There are some researchers who have analyzed politeness strategy: Issabelle Villota, (2013); Eva Indriani,(2014); and Ani Septiyaningsih, (2015). Following these, the research will focus to investigate positive politeness strategies based on Brown and Levinson theory. The researcher will focus on two problems. First is the kind of positive politeness strategies will find in Medea drama script by Euripides. Second, the researcher also attempts to find the type of violating maxim of cooperative principle in expressing the positive politeness strategies in Medea drama script by Euripides.

An analysis of positive politeness has been done by Eva Indriani (2014). She focused her study on Positive Politeness Strategies used by Grace and Meg in

Monte Carlo Movie.Her study aimed to find out the types of politeness strategies

produced by Grace and Meg in “Monte Carlo” movie.The result shows that Grace as the main character produced the highest number of positive politeness in her utterances compared to Meg. In her study, she collected the data in a movie that was selected by her. Since, this previous research similar with the present study, the researcher aims to continoue this research by using positive politeness based on Brown and Levinson theory but using a drama script to be analyeze.

Another previous study which relates to this present study of positive politeness also has been done by Ani Septiyaningsih, (2015). The research studies use of positive politeness strategy in the filmentitled “In Good Company”. It is conducted to find out the kinds of the positive politeness strategies employed by the characters and the factors influencing the characters to employ those strategies in relation to Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy. The result of the analysis shows that

5

there are 15 strategies of positive politeness employed by the characters in the dialogs of film entitled “In Good Company”. There are two factors influencing the characters when they employ this strategy namely, payoff and relevant circumstances. Concern with payoff, when the speaker employs positive politeness strategy, he can get any advantages. He can minimize the FTA by assuring the hearer that he considers himself to be the same kind, that he likes the hearer and wants to fulfil the hearer’s wants. This is found in the entire of the data. It is also different with this paper because it is can suggest that other researchers not only take a look at the use of the strategy from a different kind of angle e.g. bald on record, bald off record, negative politeness, and positive politeness but also pay intention in combining politeness strategy with other issues for example, is like this papper that will be investigate relationship between positive politeness strategy and violating of the maxim. Finally, the employment of positive politeness strategy by people in daily conversations will make the conversations between them run smoothly. Therefore, a harmonious relationship between one to another will be created in the society.

Furthermore, study of politeness strategies which focused on analyzing positive politeness and cooperative principle has been investigated by Issabelle Villota, (2013). Issabelle Villota’s study focused on the cooperative relavance and politeness principle in jokes became the object of her research. This present study will continue Issabelle Villota’s study by analyzing all kinds of positive politeness strategies which relate to cooperative principle’s theory.

6

Based on some previous studies above, it is very interesting for the researcher to focus on analyzing positive politeness strategies in relation with cooperative priciple especially violating of the maxim as reflected by the characters in Medea drama script based on some consideration. First, according to the object of the research the researcher will use a drama script to do her research. Since, the previous researchers have never analyzed a drama script. Second, most of researchers focused on analyzing positive politeness strategies, but they just analyzed the once type of fifteen kinds of positive politeness itself. Third, the researcherexpects that the reasearch can give meaningful cuntribution to study in linguistic field, especially about positive politeness which is a part in pragmatic.

1.2 Research Problems

From the review of previous studies above, the research problems raised in this study are:

1. What are the positive politeness strategies expressed by the character inMedea drama script ?

2. How are the maxim violated happened by the character when applying positive politeness strategies inMedeadrama script ?

1.3 Research Objectives

Based on the research problems above, this research is intended to achieve two objectives:

7

1. To find the positive politeness strategies expressed by the character in Medea drama script.

2. To identify the maxim violated happened by the character when applying positive politeness strategies inMedeadrama script

1.4 Significance of the Research

The researcher expects that the reasearch could give meaningful cuntribution to studies in linguistic field, especially about positive politeness which is a part in pragmatic. Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotic that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Positive politeness strategies seek to

minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face. They are used to make the hearer

feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually used in

situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. This research is conducted to understand the apply of positive politeness in the Medea Drama Script. Hence, the researcher hopes this reaserch can show about the way Politeness strategies are used toformulate messages in order to save the hearer’s positive face.

1.5Scope and Limitation

In this research, the researcher will focus only on two problems. First, the the researcher identify the positive politeness strategies expressed by the character. Brown and Levinson (1987) list fifteen kinds of positive politeness strategies. Second, the researcher analyze the type of violating maxim in expressing the

8

According to Grice (1975) elaborates the cooperative principles into four sub-principles which is known as maxims. Those are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

1.6 Definition of the Key Terms • Positive Politeness Strategy

Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of the hearer, the positive self-image that he claims for himself and his perennial desire that his wants (or the action / acquisition / values / resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable (1987). Brown and Levinson (1987) list 15 positive politeness strategies: (1) Notice. Attend to hearer's wants, (2) Exaggerate interest / approval, (3) Intensify interest, (4) Use in-group identity markers, (5) Seek agreement, (6) Avoid disagreement, (7) Presuppose / assert common ground, (8) Joke, (9) Assert knowledge of hearer's want, (10) Offer, promise, (11) Be optimistic, (12) Give (or ask for) reasons, (13) Assume / assert reciprocity, (14) Include speaker and hearer in the activity, (15) Give hints to the hearer (goods, sympathy, etc).Positive politeness utterances are not only used by the participants who have known each other fairly well, but also used as a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy to imply common ground or to sharing of wants to limited extent between strangers. For the same reason, positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as a kind of social accelerator for the speaker in using them indicates that he wants to ‘come closer’ to the hearer.

9

• Maxim of violation

Violation maxim is condition when the speaker says something that makes the hearer not know the true meaning of the utterance. Therefore, the hearer only knows the surface meaning of the utterance. Cutting (2002) describes the maxim violation is devided into four types. There are violation of quantity maxim, violation of quality maxim, violation of relation maxim, and violation of manner maxim.

• Medea by Euripides

Medea is an ancient Greek tragedy written by Euripides, based upon the myth Jason and Medea and first produced in 431 BCE. Medea is a young princess who falls in love with the Greek hero, Jason, and because of that love betrays her own father, helps Jason to steal the Golden Fleece and flees her homeland. They settle in Corinth and have two children. However, Jason scorns and abandons Medea in order to marry (for political motives) Glauce, the daughter of Creon, King of Corinth. Stateless and alone Medea wreaks a terrible revenge. To repay Jason for his betrayal and cold-hearted defection, the incensed Medea, having made a pact with Aegeus, King of Athens for safe refuge, poisons Glauce, Jason's newly-wed wife, and her father, Creon. Finally Medea kills her own children.

10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter deals with theoretical review, previous study, conceptual framework and analytical construct. The further explanation of the literature review’s section is described as follows. The first section describes some theories of language related to the problems of this study. The second section analyzes some related studies that the researcher used as references of this study.

2.1 Theoretical Review 2.1.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which concerns the connection between the forms of linguistics and the people who applying those forms (Yule, 1996). The language phenomena which are discussed in pragmatics mostly deal with the use of language by its user. As stated by Yule (1996), pragmatics is concerned with four areas. Firstly, pragmatics is the study of speaker’s utterances and the effort of the hearer to interpret those utterances. Secondly, pragmatics is the study of the interpretation of speaker’s utterance in particular context. In this case, both of the speaker and the hearer have to be aware of the context that follows the speaker’s utterance. Thirdly, pragmatics is the study of how to recognize the implied meaning of the speaker’s utterances. The last, pragmatics is the study which focuses on the expression of the closeness between the speaker and the hearer.

In studying language via pragmatics, there are advantages and disadvantages. According to Yule (1996), one of the advantages is that pragmatics

11

allows human to discuss about the speakers’ implied meaning, their purposes, and the sorts of actions that they are showing when they speak. Meanwhile, the disadvantage is that it is hard for human to be consistent and objective when he or she has to analyze those concepts. Therefore, pragmatics is an interesting study to be learnt because it is about how someone tries to understand other people linguistically. However, it is also a complicated study since it is about a deep understanding of what people have in their mind.

From all the opinions given by those scholars above, pragmatics can be best described as one of linguistics’ branches which studies how people use language in their conversation. As one of linguistics branches, pragmatics covers several scopes, such as cooperative principles and politeness.

2.1.2 Politeness Strategy

The theory of linguistic politeness first appeared in 1987 by Brown and Levinson. As stated by Brown and Levinson in Cutting (2002), a politeness theory is based on the concept that people have a social image. This sense of self-image is also known as “face”. It is a general typical in all cultures that the speakers should aware on the hearers' needs about their faces, consider of their feelings, and minimize face-threatening act (FTA). Yule (1996) states that FTA is an action which gives threat to aperson’s face. Thus, in brief, politeness is an act of showing awareness of the hearers’ social self-image.

12

2.1.3 Positive Politeness

As stated by Brown and Levinson in Watts (2003), positive face is described as an individual’s need to be respected andaccepted in any form of social interactions. Brown and Levinson in Cutting (2002) state that the aim of positive politeness strategy is to save the hearers’ positive face by expressing intimacy, engaging to friendship, making the hearers feel good, and showing that the speakers have a common purpose with the hearers. Furthermore, Brown and Levinson in Watts (2003) give fifteen strategies of positive politeness. Those fifteen strategies are discussed further in the section below, including the examples of each strategy.

• Noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods)

The first strategy of positive politeness suggests that the speakers should pay attention to the hearers’ condition. It can refer to their interests, wants, goods or anything that the hearers may want to be noticed. The speakers may express this strategy in the form of compliments. By expressing compliments, they can create a good impression on the hearers and make the imposition less inappropriate.

• Exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

In having a conversation, if the speaker wants to safe the hearer’s positive face, he or she can do this by using an exaggerated expression. This strategy can be done by making something seem important than it really is. The speaker uses this strategy to emphasize his or her feelings toward the hearer which may include interest, approval, or sympathy.

13

Another way for the speaker to show that he or she shares some common purposes with the hearer is by increasing the hearer’s interest to the speaker’s contribution. The speaker of this strategy may pull the hearer’s attention to the conversation by making a good story or narrative. Therefore, the narrative should be clearly explained by the speaker.

• Using in-group identity markers in speech

By applying in-group address forms in a conversation, the speaker can show solidarity and intimacy with the hearer. The hearer’s positive face is saved as the speaker calls him or her as“pal”,“buddy”,“sweetheart”or even his or her familiar nickname. These identity markers strengthen the closeness between the speaker and the hearer.

• Seeking agreement in safe topics

In expressing positive politeness, the speaker also can apply the strategy of seeking agreement in safe topics. It is a strategy that allows the speaker to find a possibility in which he or she can agree with the hearer’s statement in safe topics,

• Avoiding disagreement

Avoiding disagreement is one way to safe the hearer’s positive face. The speaker of this strategy may hide his or her disagreement by doing a white lie. As stated by Cutting (2002:40), a white lie is “a lie with good intentions.” Besid13es, the speaker also can hide his or her disagreement by pretending to agree through the use of hedges.

14

Another positive politeness strategy is presupposing, raising, asserting common ground. This can be done by sharing same interests, beliefs and opinions between the interlocutors. The speaker in this strategy makes a small talk that includes the hearer into the discussion. He or she usually uses pronoun “we” to include the hearer into the conversation

• Joking to put the hearer at ease

The speaker of positive politeness can show solidarity and familiarity to the hearer by making a joke which will make the hearer feel relieve.

• Asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concerning for hearer’s wants

In applying this strategy, the speaker shows his or her solidarity by emphasizing that he or she knows personal information about the hearer. The speaker also tries to fulfil what the hearer’s wants to show that the speaker is cooperated with the hearer. By fulfilling the hearer’s wants, the speaker can safe the hearer’s positive face.

• Offering & promising

In order to minimize the potential threat and to show that the hearer and the speaker are cooperated, the speaker can offer or promise something to the hearer. The speaker may state that the speaker certainly does something for the hearer. This strategy shows the speaker’s goodintentionin satisfying the hearer’swants.

• Being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants

In expressing positive politeness, the speaker can also apply the strategy of being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants. The speaker saves

15

the hearer’s positive faceby being optimistic that the hearer wants to do something as the speaker wants. In this case, the hearer cooperated with the speaker because they share same interest.

• Including both S and H in the activity

In order to include both theinterlocutorsin the activity, the speaker can use the pronoun “we”. Thus, the speaker has appreciated the hearer as a member of the same group and safe the hearer’s positive face

• Giving or asking for reasons

The speaker of this strategy shows cooperation with the hearer by giving or asking for reasons. The speaker does this to make his or her wish understandable by the hearer. Therefore, the hearer agrees to help the speaker in making his or her wish.

• Asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat

The existence of cooperation between the speaker and the hearer can also be shown by stating mutual exchange

• Giving gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

The last strategy of positive politeness is giving gifts to the hearer. The speaker may save the hearer’s positive face by satisfying some of the hearer’s wants. This strategy can be done not only by giving goods but also by giving sympathy, understanding, cooperation etc.

16

The cooperative principles is a theory developed by Grice in 1975. According to Grice in Yule (1996), the cooperative principles is a basic assumption in conversation that each interlocutor attempts to speak properly to construct a successful conversation. Grice (1975) elaborates the cooperative principles into four sub-principles which is known as maxims. Those are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner.

• Maxim of Quantity

The first maxim of cooperative principle emphasizes the speakers to be informative. A contribution should be as informative as it is required for the conversation. It should be neither too little, nor too much. Some speakers observe maxim of quantity by saying“to cut a long story short”,“as you probably know”, and“I won’t bore you with all the details”.

• Maxim of Quality

This maxim emphasizes the speakers to be truthful. They should not say something that they think or believe to be false, or make statement for which they have no proof. Some speakers try to observe this maxim by saying “as far as I know”,“I may be mistaken”,“I am not sure if this is right”and“I guess.”

• Maxim of Relation

The maxim of relation emphasizes the speakers to be relevant. They should make their contributions relevant to the previous statement. Garfinkel in Cutting (2002) gives an example “The baby cried. The mommy picked itup.” It can be assumed that the mother of the baby is the“mommy”and she picked it up because the baby was crying.

17

• Maxim of Manner

The last maxim of cooperative principles emphasizes the speakers to be clear. They should be brief and orderly, and prevent obscurity and ambiguity. Some speakers observe the maxim of manner by saying “I’m notsure”,“I dont’ know” or“just to clarify”.

2.1.5 Violating Maxim

According to Cutting (2002), when a speaker violates a maxim, heor she says something that makes the hearer not know the true meaning of the utterance. Therefore, the hearer only knows the surface meaning of the utterance. Cutting (2002) describes the maxim violation and provides some examples as follow.

• Violation of Quantity Maxim

The first type of maxim violation of cooperative principle is violation of quantity maxim. When a speaker violates the maxim of quantity, he or she does not provide enough information to the hearer to understand what is being talked about.

• Violation of Quality Maxim

The speaker who violates the maxim of quality may deliver the wrong information and not being sincere to the hearer. Thus, lying is a violation of quality maxim.

• Violation of Relation Maxim

If a speaker violates the maxim of relation, he or she will say something that is not relevant with the previous statement.

18

The last type of maxim violation is violation of manner maxim. When a speaker Moreover, the speaker may also avoid being brief and orderly in delivering his or her message tells an ambiguous statement, he or she can be said to violate the maxim of manner.

2.1.6 Relationship between politeness strategy and cooperative principle In pragmatics, people can study about cooperative principle and politeness strategy. However, according to Cutting (2002), the cooperative principle sometimes conflict with the politeness principle. If the speakers want to express positive politeness, they may violate cooperative maxims. The following is an example when a speaker expresses a positive politeness strategy and violates the cooperative maxims:

(2:48) A: How do I look?

B: Good (Thinks: “Awful”)

(Cutting, 2002)

It is clearly seen that B applies avoiding disagreement strategy of positive politeness. To save the hearer’s positive face, B prefers to tell a white lie than insult A with the reality. B hides his or her true opinion that A does not look good. Thus, B violates the maxim of quality by not being sincere.

2.1.7 Medea by Euripides

Medea is an ancient Greek tragedy written by Euripides, based upon the myth Jason and Medea and first produced in 431 BCE. Medea is a young princess who falls in love with the Greek hero, Jason, and because of that love betrays her own father, helps Jason to steal the Golden Fleece and flees her homeland. They

19

settle in Corinth and have two children. However, Jason scorns and abandons Medea in order to marry (for political motives) Glauce, the daughter of Creon, King of Corinth. Stateless and alone Medea wreaks a terrible revenge. To repay Jason for his betrayal and cold-hearted defection, the incensed Medea, having made a pact with Aegeus, King of Athens for safe refuge, poisons Glauce, Jason's newly-wed wife, and her father, Creon. Finally Medea kills her own children. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)

The researcher choose this drama script because Medea has won bronze medals and came in third place at the annual Athenian play competition at the Theatre of Dionysus. Furthermore, this drama script tells about the inner emotions of passion, love, and vengeance. Medea is widely read as a proto-feminist text to the extent that it sympathetically explores the disadvantages of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Therefore, the researcher thinks that there are many utterances in the dialogue of this drama script which contains politeness strategies. The data are from the dialogues which contain positive politeness strategies applied by the character in Medea drama script.

20

2.2 Conceptual Framework

This research studies the linguistics phenomenon under the pragmatics study. In this study, the researcher observes the positive politeness strategy employed by the characters in Medea and the maxim violating when they are using those strategies. The researcher examines the dialogues of all characters in the drama script that contain positive politeness strategies. The researcher uses the theory of politeness strategy proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) namely the positive politeness. Based on the theory, there are fifteen strategies of positive politeness.

Furthermore, the researcher also discusses the maxim violation of cooperative principles when the characters utter the positive politeness strategies. According to Cutting (2002), there are four types of maxim violation. Those are violation of quantity maxim, quality maxim, relation maxim and manner maxim. The researcher attempts to find out the relationship between positive politeness and the maxim

21

violation, especially the one which is related to the discussion of the drama script. The steps of the analysis are described as follows.

22

Figure.1 : Analytical Construct

Pragmatic

Positive politeness Negative politeness Bald off record Bald on record Politeness strategies Politeness principle

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE POLITENESS

STRATEGIES AS REFLECTED BY THE CHARACTERS INMEDEA

Violating of manner maxim Violatin g of relation maxim Violating of quantity maxim Violating of quality maxim 1. Noticing to H

2. Exaggerating 3. Intensifying interest 4. Using in-group identity marker 5. Seeking agreement 6. Avoiding

disagreement 7. Presupposing 8. Joking 9. Asserting

10. Offering, promising 11. Being optimistic 12. Including S & H 13. Giving reasons 14. Assuming Reciprocity

15. Giving gifts to H

Infringi ng Opting out Violating Flouting Cooperative principle Observance of maxim Non observance of

✁

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter presents the research methods and is divided into third sections. The sections of the research methods are explained as follows. The first section explores about the research design which is used in this research. The second section explains about the data collection that are includes of data and source of the data. The instruments that used to conduct this research, and also the techniques used to collect the data. The third section describes the techniques used in analyzing the data.

3.1 Research Design

This research applied a qualitative approach based on an analysis of pragmatics since this was the study of politeness and cooperative principles in a drama script. (Johnston, 2009) defines a qualitative research as a type of study which creates a descriptive text of the phenomena. Furthermore, he states that the aim of the qualitative research is more descriptive than predictive.

This research used a descriptive qualitative approach to understand the findings of language phenomena of politeness and cooperative principles deeply. Then, the findings tend to be more descriptive. Using the descriptive qualitative approach, this research was aimed at identifying the positive politeness strategies and the types of maxim violation in the Medea drama script. Hopefully, it can finally answer the research questions.

✂ ✄

The data and data source of this research are words, clauses, phrases, and sentences from a drama script by Euripides entitledMedea.

3.2.2 Research Instrument

In this research the primary instrument was the researcher herself. As the main instrument, researcher had the role of planning, collecting, analyzing and reporting the research findings.

The other instrument of this research was data sheet which were used to note the linguistic phenomena found in the form of utterances. The data sheet helped the researcher to classify, analyze, and interpret the data. The model of the data sheet can be seen in table 1 & table 2 steps of data analysis.

3.2.3 Techniques of Data Collection

The technique of data collection used in this research is note-taking.

Mahsun in Muhammad (2011) states that note-taking is a technique that allows the researcher to write the data on a data card. Therefore, the data of this research were collected by use the following steps:

1. Identifying the dialogues that contain of positive politeness and violating of the maxim appear:

The first step in data analysis was identified the dialogues that contain of positive politeness and violating of the maxim appear. After the researcher collected the data, she identified the dialogues by giving an underline or different color. See the picture below:

☎ ✆

Picture 1 : Data contains of positive politeness

Picture 2 : Data contains of Violating maxim that expressing positive politeness

2. Calssifying the data into each types of positive politeness and violating the maxim:

After identifying the dialogues, the researcher then classified the dialogues that have been identified in first step into each type of positive politeness and violating the maxim. You can see the example in data sheet ( Table 1 & Table 2 ).

✝6

No. Positive Politeness Data

1. Noticing, attending to H (her/his interests) (her/his wants)

(her/his needs, goods) 20;2...

2. Exaggerating with H (Interest)

20;3, 20;4,..

(Approval)

(Sympathy)

3. Intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution

19;3,..

4. Using in-group identity markers in speech 18;4,.. 5. Seeking agreement in safe topics

6. Avoiding disagreement 19;4,..

7. Presupposing, raising, asserting common ground 21;1, 21;3,.. 8. Joking to put the hearer at ease

✞ ✟

9. Asserting to knowledge of and concerning for hearer’s wants

20;3,..

10. Offering, promising 42;1,..

11. Being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker’s wants

19.3;...

12. Including both S and H in the activity 19;4,..

13. Giving or asking for reasons 18.3;....

14. Asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat

15. Giving gifts to H (Goods)

(Sympathy)

(Understanding)

✠8

No. Maxim Violation Data

1. Violation of the quantity maxim (QN) 42,1; 43,3;... 2. Violation of the quality maxim (QL)

3. Violation of the relation maxim (RM)

4. Violation of the manner maxim (MM) 21;1,...

3.3 Data Analysis

In this study, the researcher used Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness strategies andGrice’s (1975) theory of cooperative principle to analyze the data. After collecting the data completely from the drama script, the data was analyzed with the use of a referential method. Such a method analyzes the data in reference to the theory employed in this study..

1. Describing the relations of violating maxim when the characters are expressing positive politeness strategies.

After classifying the type of violating maxim and positive politeness happened by the characters in drama script, the researcher described or gave the explanation about the relation between maxim violating in expressing the positive politeness strategies.

Example:

CHORUS: He didn't want to tell on the kid. Like his friends would say he was a snitch. I mean let's be honest, Creon, it wasn't only a sense of honor.

✡ ☛

Explanation:

Chorus said that his son, did not want to discuss about the kid who hit him in the park. It was because his friends would say that he was a snitch. Furthermore, Michael said that it was not only a sense of honour. Creon did not agree with Chorus’s statement. However, in expressing her disagreement, he did not say “I do not agree with you.” he decided to use hedge words to minimize the imposition when she told her disagreement. By saying“You could say that. But…”, Creon hassaved Chorus’s positive face. Hedid not think that his statement was wrong or false. In this case, he employed a strategy of positive politeness, avoiding disagreement strategy and to express his disagreement about violated quality maxim that gave less information about it.

30

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the research and is divided into two sections. The first section presents and describes the examined data from Medea drama script. The data found are related to the positive politeness strategies and maxim violating in the script and presented in terms of frequency and percentage. The second section consists of a discussion of the data found inMedeadrama script. This section provides a deep explanation on the positive politeness strategies and maxim violating found in Medea drama script. There are some examples for the analysis to make the explanations clear.

4.1 Research Findings

This section consists of two parts. The first part describes the findings for the types of positive politeness strategies which are used by the characters inMedea drama script and the second part describes the maxim violation when the characters are expressing positive politeness strategies.

4.1. 1 Positive Politeness Strategies inMedeaDrama Script

Figure 1 below provides the descriptions related to the use of positive politeness strategies in Medea drama script. There are 78 data found by the researcher.

31

Figure 1: The Data Findings of Positive Politeness Strategies Applied by the Characters inMedeaDrama Script.

As it is drawn in Figure 1, there are 78 occurrences of positive politeness 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

DATA 1 : TYPES OF POSITIVE POLITENESS

1 Noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods) 2 Exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

3 Intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution 4 Using in-group identity markers in speech

5 Seeking agreement in safe topics 6 Avoiding disagreement

7 Presupposing, raising, asserting common ground 8 Joking to put the hearer at ease

9 Asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concerning for hearer’s wants 10 Offering, promising

11 Being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants 12 Including both S and H in the activity

13 Giving or asking for reasons

14 Asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat

32

apply most of strategies of positive politeness. In the highest rank, there are two strategies that appear more than 10 times. Those are the strategies of exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H) and giving or asking for reasons. Those are follow by the strategy of including both S and H in the activity in the second rank with 9 data. The third rank is the strategies of noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs,goods, etc.), and avoiding disagreement which occur in 7 data. Meanwhile, the last rank is covered by the strategies which have the occurrence less than 6 times, those are the strategies of intensifying, interest to the speaker to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution; presupposing, raising, asserting common ground; asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concerning for hearer’s wants; being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker’s wants. The explanations as well as examples for each strategy are presented as follows.

4.1.1.1 Noticing to hearer’s (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods, etc.) It is clearly seen in figure 1 phenomenon of positive politeness strategies in Medea drama script of noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods, etc.) among 78 places of occurrence, this strategy appears 9 times. The characters in Medeause this strategy by noticing to the hearers’ interests, wants, needs, goods, etc. This strategy can be expressed in the form of compliment as seen in the example below.

Data 1 : Noticing to the hearer’s good (p.20;2)

Nurse :You do your bestto keep them by themselves, as long as she's in this dark mood; don't let them go to her.

MEDEA : Oh, oh! What misery, what wretchedness I What shall I do? If only I were dead

33

It can be seen in the dialogue above that the nurse uses strategy of noticing, attending to H goods. As the owner of the house, Medea wants her son to go out from their house. After Medea comes closer, the nurse said “You do your best.” This statement indicates that she uses this strategy in the form of compliment. She appreciates Medea who makes the children to go out from her house . Thus, the nurse saveMedea’s positive face.

Another example of strategy of noticing, attending to H goods is as follows. Data 2 : Noticing to the hearer’s good (p. 23;5)

CHORUS : I heard her sobbing and wailing, Shouting shrill, pitiful accusations Against her husband who has betrayed her. She invokes Themis, daughter of Zeus, Who witnessed those promises which drew her Across from Asia to Hellas, setting sail at night, Threading the salt strait, Key and barrier to the Pontic Sea.

MEDEA : She is not shaken with weeping, but cool and self-possessed. like you are Chorus

This conversation happens between Chorus and Medea. They talk about the condition of Medea in this time. Medea is sad because her husband has betrayed. Then she makes a statement of strategy of noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods, etc.) by saying “She is not shaken with weeping, butcool and self-possessed. Like you are Chorus”.Thus, Medea has saved Chorus’s positive face.

4.1.1.2 Exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

The most-often appearing phenomenon of positive politeness strategies in Medeadrama script belongs to exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H) strategy appears in 20 out of 78 times of occurrence. An example of exaggerating

34

Data 3 : Exaggerating sympathy with H (p. 39;1)

AEGEUS : Worse still -extraordinary I Why, who has banished you? MEDEA : Creon has banished me from Corinth.

AEGEUS : And does Jason accept this?How disgraceful.

The conversation above shows that Aegeus employs positive politeness strategy, namely exaggerating sympathy with H. Medea cames back with her emotion. She tells about banishment that happened to her. Then, Aegeus makes something that seems really important than the reality. However, he exaggerates his statement using words“And does Jason accept this? How disgraceful.”By saying this, Aegeussaved Medea’s positive face.

In addition, another example of using in-group identity markers in speech strategy is shown in the following datum.

Data 4 : Exaggerating interest with H (p. 38;4)

AEGEUS : You know the King of Troezen, Pittheus, son of Pelops?

MEDEA : Yes, a most pious man.

AEGEUS : I want to ask his advice about this oracle. MEDEA :He is an expert in all matters.

In this conversation Aegeus and Medea talk about King of Troezen, Pittheus. Aegeus asks to the Medea because he wants to ask his advice about the oracle. Then Medea answers him by exaggerating her statement“He is an expert in all matters.”This word also uses positive politeness strategy, namely exaggerating interest with H to save Aegeus positive face.

The researcher exemplifies this strategy by using another datum as follows. Data 6 : Exaggerating sympathy with H (p. 38;6)

MEDEA : It is so. Once he loved me; now I am disowned.

35

MEDEA : Oh, passionately. He's not a man his friends can trust. AEGEUS :Well, It is like what I said. he's a bad lot, let him go. This conversation is still about Aegeus and Medea in Medea house in the middle of Corinth. Medea tells about her husband who has been betrayed her to the Aegeus. At this time Aegeus uses positive politeness strategy of exaggerating sympathy with Hto saved Medea’s positive face by saying “Well, It is like what I said.he’s a bad lot, let him go”.It is clearly seen that Aegeus officially exaggerates his statement when he talks about Medea’s husband.

4.1.1.3 Intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution

The strategy of intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution is the third strategy of positive politeness. It appears 3 times from the whole speeches. Based on the finding, the occurrences of such phenomenon can be seen from the datum below.

Data 7 (p. 19;2)

TUTOR : Poor fool-though she's my mistress and I shouldn't say it-She had better save her tears.You know, she has not heard the worst.

NURSE : The worst? What now? Don't keep it from me. What has happened?

The tutor and the nurse are discussing about the worst in their life. The tutor tries to tell about his worst that happens to the nurse. The worst itself about the crazy planing of Medea. Medea tells to the tutor that she wants to kill her own children. Medea thinks to kill her own children is the best way for her revenge with Jason. He intensifiesthe hearer’s interests into the topic being discussed by saying

36

hearer into the discussion, the tutor had satisfied the nurse’s positive face. He shows friendliness, closeness and solidarity to the nurse.

The data below are also examples of strategy intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution.

Data 8 (p. 43;3)

JASON : You sent for me: I have come. Although you hate me, I Am ready to listen. You have some new request; what is it? MEDEA : Jason, I ask you to forgive the things I said, are you

remember?

JASON ; What was you said?

MEDEA : You must bear with my violent temper; you and I Share many memories of love. I have been taking Myself to task. You are a fool,' I've told myself, 'You're mad, when people try to plan things for the best, To be resentful, and pick quarrels with the King And with your husband; what he's doing will help us all.

The conversation between Medea and Jason, when Jason tries to talk with Medea about the things that Medea wants to save their children from emotional mother that has been betrayed. Medea uses positive politeness strategy of intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution by saying “Jason, I

ask you to forgive the things I said, are you remember?”.After that, she explains about the things to Jason. By involving the hearer into the discussion, Medea has satisfied Jason’s positive face. She shows her closeness and solidarity to Jason.

4.1.1.4 Using in-group identity markers in speech

The phenomenon of using in-group identity markers in speech strategy in Medeadrama script appears 5 times out of 78 times of occurrences. An example of the strategy of using in-group identity markers in speech is presented as follow.

37

Data 9 (p. 18;4)

TUTOR : What are you doing, standing out here by the door, All alone, talking to yourself, harping on trouble? Eh? What does Medea say to being left alone?

NURSE : Old friend, tutor of Jason's sons, an honest slave. Suffers in her own heart the blow that strikes her mistress. It was too much, I couldn't bear it; I had to come

The tutor suddenly comes in the living room. Thus, he looks the nurse standing out in the door. The tutor asks the nurse, why she is standing alone and talking to herself. Then, the nurse answers by calling the tutor as “old friend”

instead of his real name of the tutor. She applies the strategy of using in-groups identity markers to show intimacy, closeness, solidarity to his friend. Therefore, she save’s the tutor positive face.

In addition, another example of using in-group identity markers in speech strategy is shown in the following datum.

Data 10 (p. 52;5)

MEDEA : Your news is excellent.

f;I count you from todaymy friend

and benefactor.

MESSENGER: What? Are you sane, or raving mad? When you've committed This hideous crime against the royal house, you're glad I At hearing of it? Do you not tremble at such things?

MEDEA : I could make suitable reply to that, my friend. But take your time now; tell me, how did they die? You'll give Me double pleasure if their death was horrible.

The participants in this conversation are Medea and the messenger. In respond to the messenger news, Medea tries to make him relax. She called him as

38

face and makes him feel good and relaxed. She employs a strategy of positive politeness, namely using in-group identity markers in speech.

4.1.1.5 Avoiding disagreement

The strategy of avoiding disagreement has third rank that appears in 7 out of 78 times of occurrences. The examples and explanation for this phenomenon are presented as follows.

Data 11 (p. 19;4)

NURSE : The worst? What now? Don't keep it from me. What has happened?

TUTOR : Why, nothing’s happened. I’m sorry I don’t said anything.

The nurse calls the tutor to come to her house and talk more about the problem of Medea sons. The nurse asks to the tutor about the worst that happened to him. Therefore, according to the tutor it should not be explain to the nurse because the worst itself about bad passion of Medea that wants to kill her own children. Medea thinks to kill her own children is the best way for her revenge with Jason. However, in expressing his disagreement, he decides to apply the strategy of avoiding disagreement by using hedge words“I’m sorry I don’t said anything …”

By employing this strategy, he had saved the nurse’s positive face.

The datum below is also one of the examples of avoiding disagreement strategy.

Data 12 (p. 9;17)

MEDEA : This is a bad time?

39

This dialogue happens when Medea’s son talks with his mother while he had some guests at his home. His mother asks him whether it is a bad time to talk or not. Medea’s son answers that it is not a bad time. He employs a strategy of positive politeness, namely avoiding disagreement strategy. By answering “No”, he hassaved his mother’s positive face. He respected her although in fact it was not a good time to talk him because he was having a cordial meeting with his friends.

4.1.1.6 Presupposing, raising, asserting common ground

The seventh strategy of positive politeness is presupposing, raising, asserting common ground strategy. Among the 78 occurrences, it happens 4 times. One research datum that portrays an occurrence of this strategy is as follows. Data 13 (p. 19;3)

NURSE : Do you realize how crude that is?

Tutor : Listen. We’re all decent people. How do we get all carried away, losing our tempers?

In this conversation, the tutor is arguing with the nurse. He says that the nurse certainly perked up since she vomited. Then, the nurse thought that the tutor’s statement is very crude. Therefore, the tutor tried to make the situation better by using one of positive politeness strategies named asserting common ground strategy. It is indicated by the use of pronoun“we”in the tutor’s opinion. He said that all four of them are decent people and they should not lose their tempers. He shows this strategy to save the hearer’s positive face.

40

4.1.1.7 Asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concern for hearer’s want The phenomenon of being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants strategy is found 3 times from 78 times of occurrences. The data are presented below.

Data 14 (p. 20;3)

NURSE :We should not let them go to her. I've watched her watching them, her eye like a wild bull's. There's something that she means to do; and I know this

MEDEA : Oh, oh! What misery, what wretchedness I What shall I do? If only i were dead

Another positive politeness strategy is asserting or presupposing knowledge of and concernsfor hearer’s want. In this conversation, the speaker tries to fulfill what the hearer wants by emphasizing that the nurse knows the personal information about what will happens to the hearer, by saying “We should not let them go to her. I've watched her watching them, her eye like a wild bull's. There's something that she means to do; and I know this.”

4.1.1.8 Offering & promising

The strategy of offering & promising has the same occurrence with the strategies of avoiding disagreement. It appears 7 times from the whole speeches. The following examples give clear description about the phenomenon of offering & promising strategy.

Data 15 (p. 42;1)

CREON : I'm no tyrant by nature. My soft heart has often Betrayed me; and I know it's foolish of me now; Yet none the less, Medea, you shall have what you ask.

MEDEA : I have in mind so many paths of death for them. I don't know which to choose.Should I set fire to the house. And

41

burn the bridal chamber? Or creep up to their bed And drive a sharp knife through their guts? There is one fear This conversation happens when Creon and Madea talk about Medea’s life. Creon tries to makes medea think twice for her decision of came back to her house. This conversation clearly shows that Medea and Creon are cooperated. Medea stresses her cooperation by offering the hearer by saying “Should I…“. Creon’s positive face has been appreciated by Medea.

4.1.1.9 Including both S and H in the activity

Based on the findings, the occurrences of this strategy appear 9 times out of the total 78. The examples and explanations for this phenomenon are presented as follows.

Data 16 (p. 4;30)

(4:30) Jason : What we want is for the boys to patch it up, make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Medea: Let's set up a meeting.

Jason expects that Medea would be able to solve their problems. The problem is about the threat’s of Medea that wants to kill their children. Jason ries to avoid her crazy planning for kill her children and Jason come and talk with Medea. Therefore, Medea suggests to set up a meeting. She uses the strategy of including both S and H in the activity to save the hearers’ negative face. She involvs the hearers into the discussion by using pronoun“us”. She wants to show that the goal is not only for her but also for the hearers.

42

Data 17 (p. 19;4)

TUTOR : Why, nothing's happened. I'm sorry I said anything.

NURSE : Look we're both slaves together: don't keep me in the dark.

In the provided finding, when the nursetalks with the tutor about the worst of medea’s and the worst itself about the crazy planing of Medea. Medea tells to the tutor that she wants to kill her own children. Medea thinks to kill her own children is the best way for her revenge with Jason. The nurse used pronoun“we”. It makes the request more polite because it indicates the cooperation between the nurse and the tutor that the goals are not only for the speaker but also for both of them.

4.1.1.10 Giving or asking for reasons

Besides the strategy of exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H) the strategy of giving or asking for reasons also in the first rank from the data compared to the others. This strategy appears 14 times. The datum of this strategy is presented below.

Data 19 (p. 45;2)

JASON : I am pleased, Medea, What's this? Why these floods of tears? Why are you pale? Did you not like what I was saying? Why do you turn away?

MEDEA : It is nothing. I was thinking About these children.

Jason finally meet up with Medea in her house to see the children. Jason is shock when he looks at the condition of his son. Then, he asks Medea to cancel her plan to kill their children. He decides to say“Why these floods of tears? Why are you pale? Did you not like what I was saying? Why do you turn away?”instead of

43

saying directly “You should cancel your plan for me” to make her request more reasonable for Medea.

Data 20 (p. 39;4)

MEDEA : Now confirm your promise with an oath, And all is well between us.

AEGEUS :Why? Do you not trust me? What troubles you?

It is clearly seen that Aegeus uses this strategy of giving or asking some reason by saying “Why? Do you not trust me? What troubles you?”Aegeus makes his statement more reasonable for Medea, Aegeus does not say directlywith “You must trust me, what troubles you?”but he adds the wordwhyfor asking the reason of interlocutor.

4.1.1.11 Giving gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Finally, the last strategy of positive politeness is giving gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) strategy. This strategy is in the second rank of the low-frequent data finding inMedeadrama script. It means that there is only 1 data out of 78 occurrences. A datum that portrays an occurrence of this function is as follows.

Data 21 : Giving gifts cooperation to H (p. 40;1)

MEDEA :Butif your promise is verbal, and not Sworn to the gods, perhaps you will make friends with them, and agree to do what they demand. I've no power on my side, while they have wealth and all the resources of a royal house.

,

AEGEUS : Your forethought is remarkable; but since you , I wish it I've no objection.

44

Medea gives her cooperation about her promise. She respondsAegeus’sstatement by saying“if your promise is verbal, and not Sworn to the gods, perhaps you will make friends with them, and agree to do what they demand.”Thus, Medea is save Aegeus’s positive face by using the strategy of giving gifts cooperation to the hearer.

4.1.2 Violation Maxim Happened when the Characters are Applying Positive Politeness

The phenomena of maxim violation can be found from the data findings of positive politeness strategies utterance by the characters in Medea drama script. Figure 2 below shows the phenomena of maxim violation occurred in the data related to the positive politeness strategies inMedeadrama script.

Figure 2: The Data Findings of Maxim Violation Applied by the Characters inMedeaDrama Script.

Violation of quantity maxim

30%

Violation of quality maxim

20% Violation of

relation maxim 15% Violation of manner maxim

35%

DATA 2 : TYPES OF VIOLATION MAXIM

Violation of quantity maxim Violation of quality maxim

45

As it is drawn in figure 2, the first rank is violation of manner maxim with 35% data out of the 100% data. Giving more information make the characters violate the maxim of manner, while giving less information make the characters violate the maxim of quantity. In other words, out of the total 100%, it is followed by violation of quality maxim, violation of quantity maxim, and violation relation maxim which have the occurrence less than 6 times. Meanwhile, the phenomenon of violation of relation maxim is less in the data of this research with 15%. It is because the characters prefer to violate other maxim then violate relation maxim. The following table and diagram will explain more detail:

Table 1: The Data Findings of Maxim Violation when the Characters are Expressing Positive Politeness Strategies

Positive politeness Violation maxim TOTAL Quantity Quality Relation Manner

Noticing, attending to H 1 - 1 2 4

Exaggerating 1 1 2 4

Intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution

- - - 1 1

Using in-group identity

markers in speech 1 - - - 1

Seeking agreement in safe

topics - - - -

-Avoiding disagreement 1 3 - - 4

Presupposing, raising, asserting

common ground - - - -

-Joking to put the hearer at ease - - - -

-Asserting or presupposing

knowledge - - - -

-Offering, promising - - - -

-Being optimistic that the hearer

46

Giving or asking for reasons 1 - 1 1 3

Asserting reciprocal exchange

or tt - - - -

-Giving gifts to H - - - -

-TOTAL 5 4 3 6 18

Figure 3: The Data Findings of Maxim Violation when the Characters are Expressing Positive Politeness Strategies

The diagram explains in positive politeness strategies ofnoticing, attending to Hit is found 4 forms of violation maxim of; 1 quantity maxim, 1 relation maxim, and 2 manner maxim. Then, inexaggerating strategyalso found 4 form of violation maxim; 1 quantity maxim, 1 relation maxim, and 2 manner maxim. Inintensifying

interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contributionstrategyjust found 1 of violation manner maxim. Similar to using in-group identity markers in speech strategyalso

1 1 1 1 1 1

3

1

1 1 1

2 2

1 1

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

POSITIVE POLITENESS VS VIOLATION MAXIM

Violation maxim Quantity Violation maxim Quality Violation maxim Relation Violation maxim Manner

47

found only 1 of violation quantity maxim. Next, the researcher finds 4 forms of violation maxim in avoiding disagreement strategy there are; 1 quantity maxim, and 3 quality maxim.Being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants strategy found 1 forms of violation quantity maxim. The researcher again find 1 forms violation quality maxim instrategy of including both S and H in the activity. The last strategy has found 3 forms violation maxim when expressing positive politeness by the writer in giving or asking for reasons strategy there are; 1 of quantity maxim, 1 of relation maxim, and 1 of manner maxim.

4.1.2.1 Violation of Quantity Maxim

The speaker should be as informative as required, they should give neither too less nor too much information to violate the maxim of quantity. The utterances are categorized as violation of maxim of quantity because the utterances do not fulfill the rule of maxim of quantity. As Yule (1996) assumed that those rules of maxims are, make your contribution as informative as is required and do not make your contribution less or more informative than is required.

InMedeadrama script the phenomenon of violation of quantity maxim in this research gets the second highest rank with the percentage of 30%. This means that there are five utterances that include violating the maxim of quantity. The strategy of positive politeness that violated quantity maxim are noticing, attending to H, exaggerating, using in-group identity markers in speech,

. Those utterances disobey the rule of quantity maxim. The result of the data can be seen as follows.

48

Data 1 (p. 19;5)

TUTOR : Poor fool-though she's my mistress and I shouldn't say it-She had better save her tears. it-She has not heard the worst. NURSE : The worst? What now? Don't keep it from me. What has

happened?

TUTOR :Why, nothing's happened. I'm sorry I said anything. The conversation happens between the tutor and the nurse. The tutor feels pity with Medea. The dialogues is occursin the Medea’s living room inthe Corinth. After many years of divorce and she was banished from her husband, finally she cames back in her house with her son. Then the tutor meet the assistant of Medea, that is the nurse. The tutor talks about past Medea and he tells that she is better to save her tears.

The tutor says“Poor fool-though she's my mistress and I shouldn't say it-She had better save her tears. it-She has not heard the worst”And the nurse looks surprised and replied: “The worst? What now? Don't keep it from me. What has happened?”.

The tutor decide to express positive politeness strategy of avoiding disagreement he wants save the nurse’s positive face by viola ted two maxims, those are violating maxim of quantity and quality. The violation of maxim of quantity occurs when the tutor answers questions very short and unclear. Then the violation of maxim of quality happens when the tutor says “Why, nothing's happened. I'm sorry I said anything”in order to the nurse knowing what he talks about and it is an answer that is not being sincere.

Data 2 (p. 19;11)

NURSE : But surely Jason won't stand by and let his sons Banished, even if he has a quarrel with their mother.

49

TUTOR : Old love is ousted by new love. Jason's no friend to this house.

NURSE : Then we're lost, if we must add new trouble to old, before we're rid of what we had already.

TUTOR :But listen: it's no time to tell Medea this. Keep quiet, say nothing about it.

The conversation occurs between the tutor and the nurse. In this situation, the tutor and the nurse wants to tell about the banishment of Medea and her son. Nurse says that Jason won't stand by and let his sons Banished, even if he has a quarrel with their mother. In that case, the tutor and the nurse are confused how to tell about it to Medea. When the nurse is going to tell to Medea, the tutor asks“But

listen: it's no time to tell Medea this. Keep quiet, say nothing about it”, becausehe wants to make them safe.

The tutor’s utterance shows that he violates the maxims of quantity. The utterance is “it's no time to tell Medea this. Keep quiet, say nothing about it”. The tutor is disobey the rule of quantity maxim. In this rule, the speaker says unclear and not to the point. When the nurse asks if she adds new trouble to Medea, the tutor should answerswith the words “Yes” or “no”. In this situation,the tutor replies by saying“it’s no time to tell Medea, keep quiet, say nothing about it.”Although the answer presented by the tutor that he violate quantity of maxim to expressing strategy of intensifying to the hearer in positive politeness with the word “But

listen…”

Data 3 (p. 46;1)

JASON : Why do you grieve so over the children?

MEDEA : I'm their mother. When you just now prayed for them to live long, I wondered Whether it would be so; and grief came

50

Corinth, I fully recognize That for me too this course is best. If I lived here I should become a trouble both to you and him. People believe I bear a grudge against you all. So I must go. But the boys I would like themto be. Brought up in your care. Beg Creon to let them stay.

JASON :I don't know.I can persuade him; and I'll try.

The conversation produced among Medea and Jason. Jason is Medea’s husband. At that time, Jason asks Medea why she grieves so much about their children. When Medea asks Jason for her life in the Corinth and her son with Creon King of Corinth as Jason father’s “I'm their mother. When you just now prayed for them to live long, I wondered Whether it would be so; and grief came over me. But I've said only part of what I had to say; Here is the other thing. Since Creon has resolved To send me out of Corinth, I fully recognize That for me too this course is best. If I lived here I should become a trouble both to you and him. People believe I bear a grudge against you all. So I must go. But the boys I would like them to be. Brought up in your care. Beg Creon to let them stay.”.Then Jasonanswered “I don't know.If I can persuade him; but I'll try”

By the dialogues, Jason’s utterance“I don't know.I can persuade him; and I'll try”contains violation maxim of quantity because Jason adds more information. Jason disobeys one of the rules of maxim of quantity. It makes his contribution is informative than required. Jason should answer I can persuade him; and I'll but he added “I don’t know”as an unimportant answer. In this story, Jason is expressing positive politeness strategy namely avoiding disagreement by violating the quantity maxim when he adds more information.

51

4.1.2.2 Violation of Quality Maxim

The researcher discovers some utterances that contain violation of quality maxim. These utterances are categorized as violation of quality maxim because it does not fulfill the rules of maxim of quality. According to Yule (1996), the violation of maxim of quality is not say what you believe to be false and not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

The characters violates the maxim of quality is most often done four times (20%). The phenomenon of violation of quality maxim in this research gets the third highest rank. The strategy of positive politeness that violated quantity maxim areAvoiding disagreement and Including both S and H in the activity. Therefore, the researcher describes the violation of quality maxim is asfollows.

Data 4 (p. 39;3)

AEGEUS : Worse still extraordinary I Why, who has banished you? MEDEA : Creon has banished me from Corinth.

AEGEUS : And does Jason Accept this? How disgraceful

MEDEA : Oh, no! He protests. But he's resolved to bear it bravely. Aegeus, see, I touch your beard as a suppliant, embrace your knees, Imploring you to have pity on my wretchedness. Have pity I am an exile; let me not be friendless. Receive me in Athens; give me a welcome in your house. So may the gods grant you fertility, and bring Your life to a happy close. You have not realized What good luck chance has brought you. I know certain drugs Whose power will put an end to your sterility. I promise you shall beget children.

The conversation happens between Aegeus and Medea. Medea comes to Aegeus in Athen to tell about her banishment. Then Aegeus asks who has banished her and does Jason accept this or not “And does Jason Accept this? How disgracefuI”. But Medea answers by saying“Oh, no! He protests. But he's resolved

59

arehiding the truth, satisfying the hearer, building one’s belief, and convincing the

hearer to save the face of the hearer.

This present study adds new results in the cooperative principle of violation maxim and in the field of positive politeness strategies. In the same side with the previous studies which have a result that violation maxim are appears when the characters expressing positive politeness strategies. It is as Cutting statement in Jeihan (2014) that cooperative principle sometimes conflict with the politeness principle. If the speakers want to express positive politeness, they may violate cooperative maxims. This study strengthens the result of previous study which all types of positive politeness and violation maxim are occurs in the character’s life.

60

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents conclusion of the findings of positive politeness strategy and violation of four maxims are used by the characters in Medeadrama script by Euripedes. The researcher also presents the suggestions for the future research.

5.1 Conclusion

Relate to the application of positive politeness strategies in Medea drama script, the findings show that all the positive politeness strategies can be found in the characters utterances, except the strategy of asserting reciprocal exchange or tit for tat, joking to put the hearer at ease and seeking agreement in safe topics. The researcher found out that there are 78 data on the dialogue of the script which contain positive politeness strategies. In this research, the percentage of noticing, attending to H (her/his interests, wants, needs, goods, etc.) strategy is happens in 11 times and is noted as the highest rank. Meanwhile, the last rank is covered by the strategies which have the occurrence less than 6 times, those are the strategies of intensifying, interest to the speaker to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution;

presupposing, raising, asserting common ground; asserting or presupposing knowledge of andconcerning for hearer’s wants.

Besides, there is relationship between the positive politeness strategy and violation of maxim. It can be shows that the most often violation of maxim done

61

maxim in expressing strategy of positive politeness that violated quantity maxim are noticing, attending to H, exaggerating, using in-group identity markers in speech has found in (30%), violation of maxim quality occurs in expressing positive politeness strategies of avoiding disagreement and including both S and H in the activity is found (20%), The strategy of positive politeness that violated relation maxim are noticing, attending to H, exaggerating, giving or asking for reasons founds in (15%), and violation of maxim manner (35%) contains positive politeness strategies that violates the maxim are happens in noticing, attending to H, exaggerating, intensifying interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution,

giving or asking for reasons strategy. Avoiding disagreement strategy, mostly violated the maxim of quality. Next, noticing, attending to H and exaggerating strategy mostly violated the maxim of manner in each 4 times. Then, intensifying

interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution, using in-group identity markers,

being optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants strategy also violated the maxim of quantity and relation which is happens in once time in the characters utterances.

Therefore, in this study, the kinds of positive politeness strategy that most used in conversation is of exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H) and violation of maxims that most used in expressing positive politeness strategy in drama script is violation of manner maxim.

62

5.2 Suggestions

In reference to the above findings, there are three suggestions that are considered by the researcher after conducting this research. The suggestions are as follows.

1. The readers

The readers can use this research as a reference to add their knowledge in using language to communicate with others. To conduct a harmonious communication, they should choose correct strategies that can be accepted by the interlocutors. Moreover, the use of correct strategies can maintain a good relationship between both interlocutors. It shows that the politeness strategies have an important role in communication. The strategies of politeness which are discussed in this thesis are positive politeness strategies. Hence, the readers can learn about how to safe the hearer’s positive face, that is the need to be accepted

and liked by others.

2. The linguistics students

As an English student majoring in linguistics, it is important to consider the language use, especially English language in practice. It is influenced by the context around it. By reading this research, it is expected that the students will learn more about the study of language under pragmatic approach. The students are supposed to learn pragmatics seriously. It is very important because pragmatics is a study which learns about the meaning behind a sentence.

REFERENCES

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse: A research book for students. London: Routledge.

Fraser, B. (1990) 'Perspective on Politeness'. In Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction:an Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation.” In:Syntax and Semantics 3:

Speech Arts. Eds. Cole, Peter and Jerry L. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Holmes, J. 1995.Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

Indriani, E. 2014. Positive Politeness Strategies Used by Grace and Meg in MONTE CARLO Movie. Skripsi SI. Published. Semarang: Faculty of Humanities Dian Nusawantoro University.

Leech. 1983.Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited. Litosselti, L. (2013).Research Methods in Linguistics.

Levinson, S. C. (1983).Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Liu, S. (2000). the study of Pragmatics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisher Inc.

Septiyaningsih, A. 2015.An analysis of positive politeness strategy in the film entitled “in good company” (a pragmatics study). Skripsi SI. Published. Surakarta: Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University

Johanston, V. 2009. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Violeta, I. 2013.The Cooperative, Relevance, and Politeness Principle in Joke. Skripsi SI. Published. Surakarta: Faculty of Letters and Fine Arts Sebelas Maret University

Wang, Y. 2010. “Analyzing Hedges in Verbal Communication: An Adaptation-Based Approach”. Henan: Henan University of Technology. Weiten, Wayne. 2007. Psychology: Themes and Variations. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Yule, G. 1996.Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Medeadrama script (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)

Culpeper, Jonathan, 2009. Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the

Languag of Offence. ECSR project