Politeness strategies in asking for information and asking someone to do something used by customer service representatives - USD Repository

POLITENESS STRATEGIES

  

IN ASKING FOR INFORMATION

AND ASKING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING

USED BY CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

  

In English Letters

By

ARDITYA CANDRA PUTRA

  

Student Number: 054214086

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME

DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

  

2010

POLITENESS STRATEGIES

  

i

  

IN ASKING FOR INFORMATION

AND ASKING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING

USED BY CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

  

In English Letters

By

ARDITYA CANDRA PUTRA

  

Student Number: 054214086

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME

DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

  

2010

   

LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH

UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

  Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Arditya Candra Putra NIM : 054214086 Demi perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma, karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul Politeness

  

Strategies in Asking for Information and Asking Someone to Do Something

Used by Customer Service Representatives beserta perangkat yang diperlukan

(jika ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan Universitas

Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan ataupun mengalihkan dalam bentuk media

lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu ijin dari saya maupun pemberian

royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

  Demikian pernyataan yang saya buat dengan sebenar-benarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 30 Januari 2010 Yang menyatakan, Arditya Candra Putra

iv

   

   

v

PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN KARYA

   

  Saya menyatakan dengan sesungguhnya bahwa sekripsi yang saya tulis

tidak memuat karya atau bagian yang lain kecuali yang telah disebutkan dalam

kutipan dan dalam daftar pustaka sebagai mana layaknya karya ilmiah.

  Yogyakarta, 30 Januari 2010 Arditya Candra Putra

    Do not ever stop dreaming

In motivating the self to get something

What I get Is What I have been planting vi

   

    I dedicate this thesis to: My big family,

  For their big hope on me. vii

   

   

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  Finally I could end one of my journeys to get the better future in this final

assignment. First of all, my highest gratitude goes to Allah SWT for allowing me

to have the time in finishing the thesis.

  Moreover, this hard work is successfully accomplished on support of great

people. Then I have to thank Adventina Putranti, S.S., M.Hum., as my advisor, for

her guidance, patience, and her brilliant ideas during my thesis writing. I would

also like to thank to Dra. B. Ria Lestari, M.S. as my co-advisor who has given

several essential inputs in finishing this thesis.

  My next thanks I send to my lovely family; my mother, Ibu Susiarti, my

father, Alm. Bapak Suwandi, my older sisters, Rani and Indi, my younger brother,

Nanda, and my naughty nephew and naughty niece, Gilang and Echa, for many

things I can not mention one by one.

  During the process of thesis writing I was surrounded and helped by

wonderful people like Yuda who managed the schedule of the draft submission’s

deadline, my very best friends, Pewe, Rere, Alfa, and Tristan, for the togetherness,

Ciluk and Yessi, my new friends, who gave me an advice that thesis is a

dedication of time, Norie who made a deal of working on our own thesis together,

Agung who liked sharing the problems, my cousin, Dodi, for lending me his cell-

phone to collect the data, Michael, Charlie, Robert-Jan, Simon, Gilliano, Wout,

Archie, and Lisa who helped me in collecting the data of my thesis.

  I also thank all the lectures and the staff of English Letters Department for

the guidance and help during my study at Sanata Dharma University and all the

students of English Letters in the academic year of 2005. I also want to give my

hugs to my real friends that I found through Masdha FM. You will always be with

me, wherever I am. Last but not least, I want to give the thanks for those who

wish good things for everything.

  Arditya Candra Putra

viii

 

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TITTLE PAGE .............................................................................................. i

APPROVAL PAGE ...................................................................................... ii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ................................................................................. iii

LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ................... iv

PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN KARYA ....................................................... v

MOTTO PAGE ............................................................................................. vi

DEDICATION PAGE ................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. ix

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. xi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ xii

LIST OF DIAGRAM .................................................................................... xiii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... xiv

ABSTRAK ..................................................................................................... xv

  

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

A. Background of the Study ........................................................... 1 B. Problem Formulation ................................................................. 3 C. Objectives of the Study .............................................................. 3 D. Definition of Terms ................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW ................................................ 6

A. Review of Related Studies ......................................................... 6

  1. A Study of English Language Politeness Strategies in Daily Conversation as Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House ......................................................................... 6

  2. Impoliteness in Congreve’s The Way of The World ............. 7

  B. Review of Related Theories ....................................................... 7

  1. Theory of Conversation Analysis ........................................... 8

  2. Theory of Politeness .............................................................. 16

  C. Theoretical Framework .............................................................. 21

  

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 22

A. Object of the Study .................................................................... 22 B. Approach of the Study ............................................................... 23 C. Method of the Study .................................................................. 23

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 26

A. The Utterances to Ask for Information and to Ask the Customer to Do Something ........................................................ 26

  1. Conversation 1 ....................................................................... 27

  2. Conversation 2 ....................................................................... 32

  3. Conversation 3 ....................................................................... 36

ix

 

   

  B. Politeness Strategies Used in Utterances to Ask for Information and to Ask the Customer to Do Something ........... 43

  1. Bald on Record ...................................................................... 43

  2. Positive Politeness Strategy ................................................... 45

  3. Negative Politeness Strategy ................................................. 46

  

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................... 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 53

APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 55

x

   

    xi

    TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

  Acc : acceptance Ans : answer Ass : assessment Cl : clarification Clo : closing Co : confirmation CSR : customer service representative Cust : customer Gre : greeting In : information Off : offer Que : question Ref : refusal Rep : reply Repe : repetition Repo : reporting Req : request Sum : summons Th : thank

    xii

    LIST OF TABLES

  

Table 1 : Correlations of Content and Format in Adjacency Pair Second

Table 2 : The Utterances to Get Information Table 3 : The Utterances to Get Clarification Table 4 : The Utterances to Get Confirmation Table 5 : The Utterances to Ask Customer to Do Something Table 6 : The Use of Bald on Record Table 7 : The Use of Positive Politeness Strategy Table 8 : The Use of Negative Politeness Strategy

   

LIST OF DIAGRAM

  

Diagram 1 : The Application of Politeness Strategies

xiii

   

   

ABSTRACT

  

ARDITYA CANDRA PUTRA. Politeness Strategies in Asking for Information

and Asking Someone to Do Something by Customer Service Representatives.

Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma

University, 2010.

  This undergraduate thesis analyzes politeness strategies used by the

customer service representatives in a cellular phone operator. In relation to

politeness, the concept of face threatening act (FTA) that threatens one’s face, a

self public image of someone, comes along to elaborate the need of strategy.

Asking for information and asking someone to do something are two areas used to

see how the customer service representatives avoid the FTAs and the five

strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson become the directions in saving the

face.

  In the problem formulation, there are two questions to answer. The first

deals with the utterances used by the customer service representatives to ask for

information and to ask the customer to do something. Meanwhile, the second

problem deals with politeness strategies the customer service representatives use

in the utterances to ask for information and to ask the customer to do something.

  Since this study describes politeness strategies the customer service

representatives use, the method of the study is descriptive research, specifically a

case study, in which the data are recorded conversations between the customer

service representatives and the customers. Since pragmatics is the study of the

relationships between linguistic form and the users of those forms, it is used as the

approach to analyze the data of the study.

  The analysis shows that there are eight utterances to get information,

eleven utterances to get clarification, seven utterances to get confirmation, and

two utterances to ask the customer to do something in the three conversations. The

politeness strategies that the customer service representatives use are bald on

record, positive politeness, and negative politeness. Bald on record strategy is

used in nine utterances to get clarification. Here the utterances do not have any

mitigating devices. Positive politeness strategy is used in three utterances to get

confirmation, which is shown by mitigating devices showing friendliness.

Meanwhile, negative politeness strategy is used in eight utterances to get

information, two utterances to get clarification, four utterances to get

confirmation, and two utterances to ask the customer to do something. The use of

negative politeness strategy by the customer service representatives is shown by

mitigating devices which demonstrate the distance between the customer service

representatives and the customers and by avoiding intruding on the customers’

territory.

xiv

   

   

ABSTRAK

  

ARDITYA CANDRA PUTRA. Politeness Strategies in Asking for Information

and Asking Someone to Do Something by Customer Service Representatives.

Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma,

2010.

  Tugas akhir ini menganalisa strategi-strategi kesopanan yang digunakan

oleh customer service representatives di sebuah operator telepone seluler.

Berkaitan dengan kesopanan, konsep face threatening act (FTA) yang mengancam

face seseorang, gambaran umum diri dari seseorang, muncul untuk menjelaskan

kebutuhan akan strategi-strategi tersebut. Bertanya dan mengajukan permintaan

adalah dua hal yang digunakan untuk melihat bagaimana customer service

representatives menghindari FTA tersebut dan lima strategi yang dirancang oleh

Brown and Levinson menjadi acuan dalam menyelamatkan face tersebut.

  Ada dua pertanyaan yag dikembangkan di dalam perumusahan masalah.

Pertanyaan pertama berhubungan dengan tuturan-tuturan yang digunakan oleh

customer service represntaives untuk bertanya dan mengajukan permintaan.

  

Sedangkan yang kedua berhubungan dengan strategi-strategi kesopanaan yang

digunakan oleh customer service represntatives di dalam tuturan-tuturan untuk

bertanya dan mengajuka permintaan.

  Karena penelitian ini menggambarkan strategi-strategi kesopanan yang

digunakan oleh customer service representatives maka metode yang digunakan

adalah penelitian deskriptif, khususnya penelitian kasus, dimana datanya adalah

rekaman percakapan antara customer service represntatives dengan pelanggan.

Karena pragmatik merupakan ilmu yang mempelajari hubungan antara bentuk-

bentuk bahasa dengan penggunanya, maka ilmu ini digunakan sebagai pendekatan

untuk menganalisa data penelitian.

  Analisis menunjukkan bahwa terdapat delapan tuturan untuk menanyakan

informasi, sebelas tuturan untuk menanyakan klarifikasi, tujuh tuturan untuk

menanyakan konfirmasi di dalam tiga percakapan, dan dua tuturan untuk

mengajukan permintaan. Untuk strategi-strategi yang digunakan oleh customer

service representatives adalah bald on recod, positive politeness, dan negative

politeness . Strategi bald on record digunakana di dalam sembilan tuturan untuk

menanyakan klarifikasi. Disini, tuturan tidak memeliki mitigating device apapun.

  

Positive politeness strategy digunakan di dalam tiga tuturan untuk menanyakan

konfirmasi, yang ditunjukkan oleh mitigating devices yang menunjukkan

pertemanan. Sementara, negative politeness strategy digunakan di dalam delapan

tuturan untuk menanyakan informasi, dua tuturan untuk menyakan klarifikasi,

empat tuturan untuk menayakan konfirmasi, dan dua tuturan untuk mengajukan

permintaan. Penggunaan negative politeness stategy oleh customer service

representatives ditunjukkan oleh mitigating devices yang memperlihatkan jarak

antara customer service representatives dan pelanggan dan dengan menhindari

untuk mencampuri wilayah pelanggan.

xv

   

  

 

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study Human beings and language can not be separated from each other. Each

  plays an important role. To study how people use their language is very interesting. It is not only a matter of grammar or how to construct the written or the spoken language well, but it can be in bigger topics that the language has to study. One interesting topic is about the meaning that people create when talking to the other. Sometimes people are not aware of the language that they use. In this case, they do not know the impact of the use of the chosen words or sentences.

  They are actually dealing with the reason how the words or sentences are appropriate to use. This has become the task of linguist to describe it. Hymes (1971) suggests that linguists should also focus on communicative competence, the speaker’s ability to produce appropriate utterances not grammatical sentences (Coulthard, 1979: 30).

  Getting closer to the points of the language use, this paper discusses a pragmatic study on politeness. This study concerns about the use of politeness in conversation. According to Wardhaugh (1986: 280), politeness is a very important principle because one must address other’s feeling. Politeness itself in pragmatics refers to the choices or linguistic expressions made in language use which give people space and show a friendly attitude to them (Cutting, 2003: 45). Politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987) is described by the concept of face, the public

  2

   

  self-image of one (Cutting, 2003: 45). Every threat to the other’s face, created when a speaker says something is called face threatening act, or FTA (Yule, 1996: 61).

  When one is dealing with any other participants within a conversation, he is supposed to apply the right strategy, related to politeness, in order that the conversation goes well.

  For example, the use of colloquial language in a public setting associated with a particular style: it is a way of communicating the message, ‘I’m just folks’, and ‘we’re all equals’. At the same time, however, such usage of in- group language in a public situation may offend some listeners, those who do not honor camaraderie as the highest goal but would appreciate distance more (Tannen, 1988: 13).

  The above example gives an idea that applying politeness strategies is important, even in a small scope. One is demanded to respect the others’ wants.

  The study analyzes the types of politeness strategies that are used by customer service representatives in a cellular phone operator when speaking to customers. For those having interest in this study, theoretically this study will make them not only understand about the importance of politeness strategies and the way to apply them, but also know how to construct a conversation. Later, practically they will know how to identify the politeness strategies and how to treat other people well according to their wants.

  The data of this study are taken from the conversations, in English, between the customer service representatives in a cellular phone operator with their customers. One cellular phone operator in Indonesia is used in the study because it provides services in English for the customers. As a code of conduct the name of this cellular phone operator and the customer service representatives are

  3

   

  obscured. As a result they have fictitious name; operator A for the name of the company, and CSR 1, 2, and 3 for the name of the customer service representatives.

  To narrow down the analysis, the study focuses on utterances to ask for information and to ask someone to do something created by the customer service representatives. Asking for information and asking someone to do something are classified by Levinson as directives utterances, which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something (Levinson, 1984: 240). This automatically means that the two types of utterance contain FTA. How the customer service representatives deal with this FTA is the point of the study.

  B. Problem Formulation

  There are two problems to analyze in this paper. The two problems are in the following

  1. What utterances do the customer service representatives use to ask for information and to ask the customer to do something?

  2. What politeness strategies are used by the customer service representatives in the utterances to ask for information and to ask the customer to do something?

  C. Objectives of the Study

  In relation to the problem formulation above, there are two main objectives in this study. The first objective is to find the utterances that the customer service representatives use to ask for information and to ask the customer to do

  4

   

  something. The second objective of this study is to analyze what politeness strategies are applied by the customer service representatives in the utterances to ask for information and to ask the customer to do something.

D. Definition of Terms

  Definitions of important terms are needed in order to narrow down and to clarify ideas developed in this study

  1. Utterance The term utterance refers to any stretch of language, whether it is long or short and whether it contains many voices or not, with a clear beginning and end, produced by the same person(s) (Verschueren, 1998: 131).

  2. Asking for Information According to Leech (1983: 115) asking is an utterance whose intention meaning is to get the hearer to cause the speaker to be aware of information. He also states that asking is to do with passing information between speaker and hearer.

  This study uses the term ‘question’ for any utterances functioning to ask for information. As a result, in its appearances the term ‘question’ refers to utterance to ask for information.

  3. Asking Someone to Something Asking someone to do something, whether he or she is willing or able to do it, is corresponded with request (Leech & Svartvik, 1994: 167). To differentiate between asking for information and asking someone to do something in this study,

  5

   

  the term ‘request’ is used to name any utterances functioning to ask someone to do something. This also means that the utterance requires an action on the hearer.

4. Politeness Strategies

  Politeness strategies are strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson, employed to show awareness of other people’s face (Yule, 1996: 6).

  

 

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Review of Related Studies Some studies on politeness have been done before, but they have different

  focuses, purposes, objects, and etc. There are two previous studies showing that this study is different from the other studies.

1. A Study of English Language Politeness Strategies in Daily Conversation as

  Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, a Thesis Written by Dalmatius Jati Pangarsa

  In his thesis Pangarsa uses a play for the object of the study as a reflection of daily conversation and he explains how politeness strategies are applied by the characters in some certain situations in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. He analyzes how social distance and power influence the application of politeness strategies in conversations. Although he does not mention certain words used as the face saving acts, Pangarsa in his thesis (2007:51) concludes that the use of compliments, jokes, and phatic utterances during the conversations, in the play, can reduce the threat of unavoidable face threatening acts, which are expressed indirectly.

  7

    2.

   Impoliteness in Congreve's The Way of The World, a Thesis Written by Antonius Adhi Irianto

  Another study related to politeness strategies is also done by an English Letters Department student. The study analyzes the impoliteness used by the upper class people in a play through particular speech acts. He chooses blaming and accusing speech act as the main data to analyze. The reason why he uses play as the object of the study is because there, in the play, he can find where face-to- face interactions happen. Irianto in his thesis, Impoliteness in Congreve's The

  Way of The World, states

  The objectives of this study are to identify all impolite blaming and accusing speech act and to find out what are the politeness strategies violated in the impolite blaming and accusing speech act. (Irianto, 2006: x)

  In the analysis Irianto uses the reply of the addressee to indicate the use of impoliteness. Since most of the impolite blaming and accusing speech acts are performed by using bold on record, it is concluded that the impoliteness is delivered directly.

B. Review of Related Theories

  This part explains the theories that are going to be used in the analysis. All these following theories are leading this study to find out the answers of the problem being analyzed.

  8

    1.

   Theory of Conversation Analysis

  Conversation analysis is the study of talk in interaction. Here, the analysis attempts to describe and to explain how a conversation works. Conversational analysis significantly contributes to the understanding of utterances meaning (Levinson, 1984: 364). Conversation analysis is about studying the way that what speakers say dictates the type of answer expected, and that speakers take turns when they interact (Cutting, 2003: 24). It is also an approach which demonstrates a systematic structure of conversation by taking the data first and then examines the language. (Cutting, 2003: 28). The patterns of systematic structure of conversation are turn-taking, adjacency pairs, overall organization, preference structure, and pre-sequence.

  a.

  Turn-taking Conversation is characterized by some basic findings. One of them is turn- taking: one participant, A, talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and then the pattern becomes an A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talk across two participants (Levinson, 1984: 296). Each participant has the floor, the right to speak, and having control of it is called a turn (Yule, 1996: 72). A point when turn is possible to change is called transition relevance place or TRP (Cutting, 2003: 29).

  There are rules to operate on the turn units. The rules are slightly simplified from Sacks, Schegloff & Jeffeerson (1978), where C is current speaker, N is next speaker. Rule 1 – applies initially at the first TRP of any turn. (a)

  If C select N in current turn, then C must stop speaking, and N must speak next, transition occurring at the first TRP after N-selection.

  9

   

  (b) If C does not select N, then any (other) party may self-select, first speaker gaining rights to the next turn.

  (c) If C has not selected N, and no other party self-selects under option (b), the C may (but need not) continue (i.e. claim rights to a further turn-constructional unit).

  Rule 2 – applies at all subsequent TRPs.

  When Rule 1 (c) has been applied by C, then at the next TRP Rule 1 (a)-(c) apply, and recursively at the next TRP, until speaker change is effected.

  (Levinson, 1984: 298) During the conversation, overlap, pause, and backchannels have the possibility to occur. These elements are significant in connection with the analysis to know what is more being communicated than what is said. i.

  Pause Pause which is marked with brackets ( ) can be short and long. The short one can be a simply hesitation, while the longer one becomes a gap, a lapse, or an attributable silence. A gap occurs before a subsequent application of Rules 1 (b) or (c), a lapse occurs on the non-application of Rules 1 (a), (b), and (c), while attributable silence occurs after the application of Rule 1 (a) (Levinson, 1983: 299). “If one speaker actually turns over the floor to another and the other does not speak, then the silence is attributed to the second speaker and becomes significant.” (Yule, 1996: 73). ii.

  Overlap Overlap which occurs when both speakers try to speak at the same time before the TRP is marked by a double slash (//). Overlap can be interpreted as a difficulty in having conversation with an unfamiliar person, as an expression of solidarity or closeness, and as an interruption etc (Yule, 1996: 72-74).

  Unintentional overlap occurs frequently which is caused by self-selecting

  10

   

  (Coulthard, 1979: 56). According to Levinson (1984: 299) there are two possibilities for overlap to occur. They will occur as competing first starts, as allowed by Rule 1 (b) or occurs where TRPs have been misprojected for systematic reasons, e.g. where a tag or address term has been appended.

  When an overlap occurs, usually the speakers will cooperatively do resolution. ”In accordance with the local management system, one speaker will stop speaking to allow the other to have the floor”. (Yule, 1996: 73). When one speaker stops speaking first, if only by a syllable, he takes the next turn (Coulthard, 1979: 56). Levinson (1984: 300-301) also explains how to remedy overlaps. For the first, one speaker generally drops out rapidly. Therefore, to make it clear he typically recycles the part of the turn obscured by the overlap. Finally if one speaker does not immediately stop speaking, one of the speakers will win the floor in competitive system by increasing amplitude, showing tempo, lengthening vowels and other features. iii.

  Backchannel Another thing examined, to address the issue of attention in a conversation, is backchannel. Actually there are some ways to indicate the attention in a conversation such as; head nods, smiles, and other facial expression and gestures, but backchannel signals become the most common vocal indications. The signals such as ‘uh-uh’, ‘yeah’, ‘mmm’ that usually occur in extended talk signify attention, interest, and understanding and mean that the listeners receive the message (Yule, 1996: 75).

  11

   

  Speakers can also use ‘um’ or ‘uh’, but not as backchannel, inside of syntactic units to avoid providing TRP, so they can still hold the floor (Yule, 1996: 74-75).

  b.

  Adjacency Pairs Another local management organization in conversation is adjacency

  pairs . This is pairs of utterances in the structure of conversation, creating automatic patterns such as question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance.

  Schegloff and Sacks propose the characterization of adjacency pairs as sequences of two utterances. They are (a) adjacent, (b) produced by different speakers, (c) ordered as a first part and a second part, (d) typed, so that particular first part requires a particular second (or range of second parts) – e.g. offers require acceptances or rejections, greetings require greetings, and so on.

  (Levinson, 1984: 303) The first part is not always followed by the second part because sometimes another sequence exists within a sequence, which is called insertion sequence.

  Yule (1996: 78) says that an insertion sequence is one adjacency pair within another. Normally the pattern of one question-answer pair is Q

  1 -A 2 , but as there is

  an existence of insertion sequence the pattern can be Q -Q -A -A . The below

  1

  2

  2

  1 example describes how an insertion sequence occur within an adjacency pair.

  Agent : Do you want the early flight? (=Q

  1 )

  Client : What time does it arrive? (=Q )

  2 Agent : Nine forty-five (=A 2 )

  Client : Yeah-that’s great (=A

  1 )

  (Yule, 1996:78)

  12

   

  Adjacency pairs do not always follow the pattern of question-answer, request-acceptance or refusal etc, but it could be a first part followed by any notions showing the relevance for the second part.

  There is a conditional relevance which allows an adjacency pair has the second part just relevance and expectable. ….. What binds the part of adjacency pairs together is not a formation rule of the sort that would specify that a question must receive an answer if it is to count as well- formed discourse, but the setting up of specific expectation of the first part which have to be attended to (Levinson, 1984: 306).

  The below example shows how an explanation in turn 14 functions as a conditional relevance for an answer of a question in turn 3.

  T

  1 B : I ordered some paint from you uh a couple of weeks

  ago some vermilion T A : Yuh

  ((R ))

  2

  1 T

  3 B : And I wanted to order some more the name’s Boyd ((Q 1 ))

  T

  4 A : Yes // how many tubes would you like sir

  T

  5 B : // An-

  T

  6 B : U:hm (.) what’s the price now eh with V.A.T do you ((Q 2 ))

  know eh T

  7 A : Er I’ll just work that out for you ((HOLD))

  T

  8 B : Thanks

  ((ACCEPT)) (10.0)

  T

  9 A : Three pounds nineteen a tube sir ((A 2 ))

  T B : Three nineteen is it ((Q ))

  10

  3 T

  11 A : Yeah

  ((A

  3 ))

  T

  12 B : E::h (1.0) yes u:hm ((dental click)) ((in parenthetical

  tone)) e:h just-justa think, that’s what three nineteen That’s for large tube isn’t it ((Q

  4 ))

  T A : Well yeah it’s the thirty seven c.c.s ((A ))

  13

  4 T

  

14 B : Er, hh I’ll tell you what I’ll just eh eh ring you back (( CONDITIONAL

  I have to work out how many I’ll need. Sorry I did- RELEVANCE wasn’t sure of the price you see FOR A

  1 ))

  T

  15 A : Okay

  (Levinson, 1984: 305)

  13

    c.

  Overall Organization Overall organizations organize the totality of the exchanges within some specific kind of conversation. Telephone call is one kind of conversation with a recognizable overall organization (Levinson, 1984: 308-309). The overall organization consists of opening section, the first topic slot, and closing section. i.

  Opening Section Apart from adjacency pairs, a summons-answer sequence may start the beginning of the conversation. A summons-answer sequence dissolves the puzzle about why the receiver who is the person with the least information about the identity and the purpose of the other talk first (Levinson, 1984: 309). The below example describes a summons-answer sequence in conversation. T1 A : John? ((SUMMONS)) T2 B : Yeah? ((ANSWER)) T3 A : Pass the water wouldja? ((REASON FOR SUMMONS))

  (Levinson, 1983: 310) A summons-answer sequence, especially in the telephone conversation, mostly precedes greetings-greetings adjacency pair. This is shown by the following example. C : ((rings)) ((SUMMONS)) T1 R : Hello ((ANSWER)) + ((DISPLAY FOR RECOGNITION)) T2 C : Hi ((GREETINGS 1ST PART))

  ((CLAIM THAT C HAS RECOGNIZED R)) ((CLAIM THAT R CAN RECOGNIZE C))

  T3 R : Oh hi :: ((GREETINGS 2ND PART)) ((CLAIM THAT R HAS RECOGNIZED C))

  (Levinson, 1984: 312) Usually the opening section of conversation is described by a summon-answer sequence and an adjacency pair, but in some cases only one of them is used.

  14

    ii.

  The First Topic Slot The following part after the opening section of a telephone call is mentioned as first topic slot. First topic slot is announced by the caller for the reason of the call (Levinson, 1984: 311). After this part, a conversation may have a new and different topic. Topic can be characterized in terms of reference that A and B are talking about the same topic if they are talking about the same things or sets of referents or alternatively talking about the same or linked concept (Levinson, 1984: 312-313). iii.

  Closing Section Finally the overall organization of the telephone call comes to the last part, that is closing section. Levinson in Pragmatics (1984: 317) represents one very general schema of closing sections as (a) a closing down of some topic, typically a closing implicative topic; where closing implicative topics include the making of arrangements, the first topic in monotopical calls, the giving of regards to the other’s family members, etc,

  (b) one or more pairs of passing turns with pre-closing items, like Okay, All right,

  So : : , etc,

  (c) if appropriate, a typing of the call as e.g. a favour requested and done (hence

  Thank you ), or as a checking up on recipient’s state of health (Well I just wanted to know how you were ), etc., followed by a further exchange of pre-

  closing items, (d) a final exchange of terminal elements: Bye, Righteo, Cheers, etc.

  d.

  Preference Structure In the adjacency pairs, the first part creates an expectation of a particular second part. This ordered structure is called preference in which each first part has a preferred and a dispreferred response where the dispreferred responses tend to be the refusal and disagreement (Cutting, 2003: 30). Structurally the preferred is

  15

   

  the expected next act and the disprefereed is the unexpected next act (Yule, 1996: 79). The characteristic of dispreferred seconds are (a) delays: (i) by pause before delivery, (ii) by the use of a preface (see (b)), (iii) by displacement over a number of turns via use of repair initiators or insertion sequences,

  (b) prefaces: (i) the use of markers or announcers of dispreferreds like Uh and

  Well , (ii) the production of token agreements before disagreements, (iii) the

  use of appreciations if relevant (for offers, invitations, suggestions, advice), (iv) the use of apologies if relevant (for requests, invitations, etc), (v) the use of qualifiers (e.g. I don’t know for sure, but …), (vi) hesitation in various forms, including self-editing,

  (c) accounts: carefully formulated explanations for why the (dispreferred) act is being done,

  (d) declination component: of a form suited to the nature of the first part of the pair, but characteristically indirect or mitigated.

  (Levinson, 1984: 317) Since there is a structural characterization of preferred and dispreferred turns, the content and the sequential position can be related to the tendency to produce them in a preferred or dispreferred format. There is a consistent match between format and content found across a number of adjacency pair seconds as shown by table 1. Table 1. Correlations of Content and Format in Adjacency Pair Second

  FIRST PARTS: request offer/ invite assesment question blame SECOND PARTS: Preferred: acceptance acceptance agreement expected answer denial Dispreferred:

refusal refusal disagreement unexpected answer admission

or non-answer

  (Levinson, 1984: 336) e. Pre-sequence

  Pre-sequence refers to a certain kind of turn built to prefigure the specific kind of action that they potentially precede, like pre-closings used to recognize the

  16

   

  potential initiations of closings (Levinson, 1984: 345-346). There are some kinds of pre-sequence, such as pre-invitation, pre-request, pre-announcement.

  f.

  Transcription Conventions In structuring the recorded conversations, transcription symbols are needed in order to have the common way to understand the conversation. Apart of the symbols of overlap and pause, there are still other symbols used in the analysis. Each symbol has its own interpretation. Symbol Interpretation // point in which the overlap occurs (0.0) a timed pause (gap/ lapse/ attributable silence) (.) a short, untimed pause, 0.5-0.9 seconds :: lengthened syllables

• a sound cut off ? high rising intonation . low falling intonation , intermediate intonation contour; level, slight rise, slight fall ( ) uncertain passages of transcript

  (Levinson, 1984: 369-370) 2.

   Theory of Politeness

  The word ‘politeness’ is very familiar with social rules of behavior that work in society. In this study, related to pragmatics, politeness is seen in different way which “refers to the choices that are made in language use, the linguistic expressions that give people space and show a friendly attitude to them.” (Cutting, 2003: 45). Politeness, in this case, is used by people when they make an interaction via language. Yule explains that