VERBAL DISAGREEMENT STRATEGIES USED BY GREG TOWARD HIS FATHER AND HIS FUTURE FATHER-IN-LAW IN “MEET THE FOCKERS” MOVIE.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Arofa, Siti. 2015. Disagreement Strategies Used by Greg toward his Father and his Future father-in-law in “Meet the Fockers” Movie, Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

Advisor : Dr. Mohammad Kurjum, M.Ag.

Key Words : Disagreement, Strategy, Social Distance.

The writer focused on to analyze the verbal disagreements strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in the “Meet the Fockers” movie. This study is divided into three problems. First, what are the type of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father. Second, what are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law. Third, what are differences and similarities between the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law. In analyzing this research, the writer applied Locher’s theory (2004) on verbal disagreement strategies. The writer used descriptive qualitative approach supported by quantitative data in developing her research.

From the analysis, the writer found that Non-mitigated disagreement strategies is used the most by Greg to show his disagreement toward both his father and his future father-in-law. Greg shows his disagreement directly without paying attention to the FTAs. Shifting responsibility category is not used by Greg to his future father-in-law. This is probably because of the distance between Greg and his future father-in-law so that Greg is afraid of using this strategy. Moreover, Greg does not use repetition of an utterance by a next or the same speaker to show his disagreement toward his father. This is probably because he has lower power than his father so he tries to show his respect to his father.

In other hand, according to the writer, there were some other aspects that might influence the main character in uttering his disagreement. Non-mitigated disagreement strategy is used the most by Greg to his both father and his future father-in-law. This is probably because men do not care about the impact of face threatening acts, and showing disagreement directly is the easiest way to show disagreement.

(2)

INTISARI

Advisor : Dr. Mohammad Kurjum, M.Ag.

Key Words : Disagreement, Strategy, Social Distance.

Penulis memfokuskan untuk menganalisis strategi untuk menyampaikan ungkapan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayah dan ayah mertuanya di film “Meet The Fockers”. Penelitian ini dibagi menjadi tiga masalah. Pertama, apa bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayahnya. Kedua, apa bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayah mertuanya. Ketiga, apa perbedaan dan persamaan antara bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan greg kepada ayah dan ayah mertuanya. Dalam menganalisis penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan teori Locher (2004) dan menggunakan metode diskriptif kualitatif didukung oleh metode kuantitatif dalam mengembangkan penelitiannya.

Dari hasil analisis, penulis menemukan bahwa Greg menggunakan strategi secara langsung tanpa memperhatikan harga diri lawan bicara. Greg tidak menggunakan kategori pergeseran tanggung jawab terhadap ayah mertuanya. Hal ini kemungkinan karena hubungan yg tidak akrab antara Greg dan ayah mertuanya maka dari itu Greg takut menggunakan strategi ini. Selain itu, Greg tidak menggunakan pengulangan ungkapan untuk menunjukkan perbedaan pendapat terhadap ayahnya. Hal ini kemungkinan karena dia memiliki kekuasaan lemah daripada ayahnya maka dari itu dia mencoba untuk menunjukkan rasa hormatnya terhadap ayahnya.

Selain itu, penulis berpendapat bahwa ada faktor lain yang mempengaruhi cara Greg dalam mengungkapan ketidaksetujuannya. Strategi secara langsung digunakan paling banyak oleh Greg terhadap ayahnya and ayah mertuanya. Hal ini kemungkinan dikarenakan laki-laki tidak peduli tentang harga diri lawan bicara, dan strategi secara langsung merupakan cara paling mudah untuk menyatakan ungkapan tidak setuju.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Inside Cover Page ... i

Inside Title Page ... ii

Declaration Page ... iii

Motto ... iv

Dedication Page ... v

Advisor’s Approval Page ... vi

Examiner’s Approval Page ... vii

Acknowledgements ... viii

Table of Contents ... x

Abstract ... xiii

Intisari ... xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 4

1.3 Objective of the Study ... 5

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5

1.5 Scope and Limitation ... 5

(4)

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 7

2.1.1 Disagreement Strategies ... 7

2.1.1.1The use of hedges ... 8

2.1.1.1.1 The Use of well ... 8

2.1.1.1.2 The Use of just ... 9

2.1.1.1.3 Uhm and uh ... 10

2.1.1.1.4 The Function of I think ... 11

2.1.1.1.5 The Use of I don’t know ... 12

2.1.1.2Giving Personally or Emotionally Colored Reasons for Disagreeing ... 13

2.1.1.3The Use of Modal Auxiliaries ... 14

2.1.1.4Shifting Responsibility ... 14

2.1.1.5Objection in the Form of Question ... 16

2.1.1.6The Use of but ... 17

2.1.1.7The Function of Repetition of an Utterance by the Next or the Same Speaker ... 17

2.1.1.8Non-mitigated Disagreement Strategies ... 18

2.1.2 Social Distance amd Disagreement Strategies ... 19

2.2 Previous Studies ... 20

2.2.1 Strategies Used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the FilmThe Break Up in Showing Disagreement (Yuliana, 2009) ... 20

(5)

2.2.2 A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman and

Housewives in Sidoarjo by Oktavia (2003) ... 22

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Approach ... 23

3.2 Data and Data Source ... 23

3.3 Instrument ... 24

3.4 Data Collection ... 24

3.5 Data Analysis ... 24

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father 29

4.2 Types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law ... 35

4.3 Differences and similarities verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law ... 41

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ... 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48

(6)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

As social beings, humans need to communicate in order to interact with other people. Communication is human ability to share their beliefs, values, ideas, and feeling. In our everyday communication, we express our opinion and response to others opinion. Disagreement is often revealed by the speaker to show that her/his opinion is not the same as the hearer’s opinion. Expressing disagreement is an act that commonly happens in daily communication. Actually, disagreement happens when speaker thinks that her/his hearer is wrong, misguided, or unreasonable about some issue (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In expressing their disagreement, the speaker usually has some strategies because when the speaker expresses her/his disagreement, it can cause misunderstanding between the speaker and the hearer.

Brown and levinson (1987) in politeness of language consider disagreement as an act that threatens adressee’s positive face. Positive face here means the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others. In addition, disagreement is an act that threatens addressee’s positive want to be respected and appreciated. In order to avoid the face threatening act between the speaker and hearer, the speaker should use an appropriate strategy to express her/his disagreement. Locher (2004) had classified eight categories of disagreement strategies, consisting of hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for

(7)

disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement.

Furthermore, disagreement strategies are influenced by various factors, such as opportunity scale, indirect scale, power, and social distance (Leech, 1983). For this research, the writer focuses on social distance because it is one of social factor that play in the object of this study. According to Holmes (2001) social distance concern about the participants’ relationship. Besides, this scale is useful in emphasizing how well the participants know each other, namely intimate relationship (high solidarity) and distant relationship (low solidarity). Moreover, Locher (2004) says that people who do not know each other will have certain expectation about their conversational partners’ selves to give an impression about the people. Social distance can also happen in family, for example social distance between father and mother and their children which may be close or distant.

For the object of this study, the writer chooses a film entitled Meet the Fockers to be investigated because the film represents disagreement which happen between father and son with different social distance. Moreover, the writer chooses Greg, the main character in Meet the Fockers as the subject. The film tells about Greg, a 34 years old male nurse, who wants to marry his fiancée. However, before marrying his fiancée, his fiancée father wants to meet his family first as the requirement to get a license to wed from his fiancee’s father. In this movie, it is illustrated that Greg is very afraid of his future father-in-law and also has a burden

(8)

to give good impression as future father-in-law order to get permission to marry his fiancée.

Since that the fathers have higher power than their children, the power of either Greg’s father or Greg’s future father in-law is higher than Greg. However, there is difference concerning social distance between relationship of Greg and his father and relationship of Greg and his future father in-law. The relationship of Greg and his father is expected to be closer than relationship of Greg and his future father in-law since his future father in-law still can be considered an outsider by him.

The writer chooses men as the object of this study because men value disagreement more disagreement than women (Holmes, 1995 as cited in Locher, 2004). It means that men produce more disagreement than women do. The writer also chooses father-son relationship because in every father and son relationship, there will always come disagreement, regardless their personalities and involved intellect (Conroy, 2009). Different from mother-daughters relationship which is constantly close from time to time and seems to bind women together across generations, father-son relationship changes time to time depending on the age period of the son. As children, sons idolize and want to so much to please their fathers to receive their father’s approval and acceptance, and then they experience a period of having lots of conflict with their father which makes them feel angry or even fear of their father in their teenager ages (William, n.a). This relationship then evolves when the sons become young adults, although distance still is exist emotionally and they may even ignore each other. This relationship begins to

(9)

move into the stage of acceptance from the sons toward the fathers when the sons become adults in their 30 years old and 40 years old, when the fathers and the sons become friends, share common interests and express opinions without heated exchanges because during this time the sons may experience challenges as father with his own son (William, n.a).

Based on the above reasons, the writer will analyze the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father (Bernie) and to his future father-in-law (Jack) in Meet the Fockers movie, will find which categories of disagreement strategy used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law, and will find the differences or similarities the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father (Bernie) and to his future father-in-law (Jack).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1. What are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father in Meet the Fockers movie?

2. What are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law in Meet the Fockers movie?

3. What are differences and similarities between the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law?

(10)

1.3 Objective of the Study

Based on the statement of the problem, the objectives of this study are:

1. To find out the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father.

2. To find out the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his future father- in-law.

3. To find out what differences and similarties between the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and to his future father-in-law.

1.4 Significance of the Study

For the significance of this research, the writer hopes this study can help the readers how to show their verbal disagreement by using appropriate strategies. Furthermore, the writer hopes this study can be useful for the next researcher as a reference for the next study, especially about verbal disagreement strategies related to social distance.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

In this study, the writer analyzes Greg in showing verbal disagreement. The data is taken from a movie entitled Meet the Fockers. The writer limits this study by focusing on the analysis of the Greg’s verbal disagreement toward his father and his future father -in -law, especially verbal disagreement related to social distance.

(11)

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

1.6.1 Disagreement: A speaker’s expression to indicate that the hearer is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issues.

1.6.2 Strategy: The choice of speech acts to respond to a situation in which the speaker has to disagree with the hearer’s question or statement. 1.6.3 Social distance: It concerns with participant relationships, intimate

and distant. Intimate means high solidarity, while distant means low solidarity.

(12)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theories and previous studies related to the problem of this study. The theories and previous studies are put in two different parts. The first part is theoretical framework, while the second part is previous studies.

2.1 Theoretical Framework

The writer included Locher’s (2004) on disagreement as the main theory in analyzing the data and supported by theory of social distance.

2.1.1 Disagreement strategies

According to Locher’s theory (2004) “disagreement is likely to involve the exercise of power because it entails and therefore also a clash of interests”. According to Waldron and Applegate (1994) cited in Locher’s (2004) define verbal disagreement as a form of conflict. It is because verbal disagreements are taxing communication events which are characterized by incompatible goals, negotiation, and the need to coordinate self and other actions.

Locher (2004) divides eight categories of expressing disagreement, consisting of the use of hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by a

(13)

next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement. Locher (2004: 96) also adds explanation whether each category is threatening one’s face or not. This term is called FTA, face threatening act. FTA is something that said by the speaker that represents a threat to another person’s expectation regarding self image. Thus, the categories that threatening one’s face are unmitigated strategies, and the categories that are not threatening one’s face are mitigated strategies.

2.1.1.1The use of hedges

Hedges are linguistic devices such as sort of, maybe, I mean, well. Aijmer (1986:6) as cited in Locher’s book (2004:114) noted that hedges make frees the speaker from the responsibility for the word and saves him the trouble of finding a better word or phrase. Tannen, (1993) as cited in Locher’s book (2004) hedges may soften the impact of negative statement. It means that the use of hedge can soft the disagreement expression. According to Locher (2004) there are five categories of hedges which are mostly occured, they are well, just, uhm and uh, I think, and I don’t know.

2.1.1.1.1The use of well

Well is a multi-functional word. It can be used as an adverb, a noun, and a discourse marker. As a discourse marker, it is used as a marker of insufficiency which indicates some

(14)

problems on the content level of the current or the preceding utterance, as a face-threat mitigator which indicates some problems on the interpersonal level, as frame marking device which indicating a topic change or indicates direct reported speech, as a delay device, as sign of waiting for an overdue response, and as sign of aggressiveness (Locher, 2004).

Example:

229 Debbie: then that’s that’s valid? 230 Kate: ^absolutely

231 Meriam: well

232 [<X XX XXXX X>]

233 Steven: [well but but it’s ^not because it’s --]

In the example, Meriam and Steven uses well in showing their disagreement. It can be seen 231 that Meriam uses well as face-threatening mitigator to indicate some problems interpersonal level. However, in line 233 Steven uses well as a face threatening mitigator and as a marker of insufficiency to indicate some problems in the current utterance by combining its use with but.

2.1.1.1.2The use of Just

Just has five functions. It can be used as a booster or emphasize, as a restrictive adjunct, as a time adjunct, and as

(15)

hedge (Locher, 2004). The’ just ’could be replaced by ‘only’ without altering the overall meaning, which mean it is used as a booster.

Example:

183 Steven: but ^that^ the key

184 just because they’re genetically the same does ^not mean they=

185 =have ^equal, 186 ‘potential,

In the example, Steven uses just is showing his disagreement. It can be seen in line 184 that Steven uses just as a hedge to explain why he rejects statement.

2.1.1.1.3Uhm and uh

Uhm and uh is examples of hesitation markers which occur in spoken language (Locher, 2004). They are pauses that are used as steps in achieving speaker’s goal (Chafe, 1985 in Locher’s book (2004). The occurrences of uhm and uh in front of a word search is a form of constitute mitigation in that they try to protect the speaker’s own face because they help to indicate that speaker wishes to continue what the speaker want to say and give the speaker time to think about the next utterance (Locher, 2004).

(16)

Example:

355 Roy: [and] and because they aren’t ^that ‘many, 356 they were binned in ^four separate groups. 357 ‘first group was uhm,

358 ‘local uh community ^colleges.

In the example, Roy explains the study in greater detail and he can hence allow himself to choose his words carefully. Roy uses uhm and uh in showing his disagreement. It can be seen in line 357-358 that Roy uses uhm and uh to give him time to speak something. Locher’s argue Roy does not use hesitation uhm and uh as floor holding device. However, uhm and uh were used to mitigate an FTA to the addressees’ face. In this function they could act as a preface to disagreement.

2.1.1.1.4The function of I think

I think as a hedge or booster. It is used that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of her or his utterance. It expresses insecurity about the truth value of an utterance that said by the speaker.

Example:

52 Roy: ….well

53 … people are willing to ^pay it. 54 Kate: ..it’s the [^market,]

(17)

55 Roy: [<X that’s right, x>]

56 Kate: <X XX X> ^people are willing to ^pay [[and]] and I think it’swrong

In the example Kate uses I think in line 56 to indicate that her evaluation is personal. The use of I think protects her own face because her evaluation becomes less criticizable.

2.1.1.1.5The use of I don’t know

Tsui (1991) as cited in Locher’s book (2004) noted that I don’t know has eight functions, they are to declare of inability, to supply information, to avoid making an assessment, to preface a disagreement, to avoid an explicit disagreement, to avoid commitment, to minimize impolite beliefs, and to mark uncertainty (Locher, 2004).

Example:

59 Steven: ^How many students are on financial aid? 60 Roy: ^I don’t’ know

61 Kate: ^I think [[it’s wrong]]

In the example, Roy uses I don’t know in line 60 to indicate inability to supply information.

17 Kate: That’s not including room and board? 18 Steven: For an ‘undergrad

(18)

20 Steven: The <X XX X> cost 21 Roy: … I don’t know

In the example, Roy uses I don’t know in line 21 to avoid assessment.

2.1.1.2Giving personally or Emotionally Colored Reasons for Disagreeing

Giving a personal or emotional colored reason is also used to show disagreement. It is to point the subjectively of a disagreement protects both the speakers’ and addressees’ face (Locher, 2004). The addressees’ face is saved because they might have valid and better reason, which the speakers have not denied yet. For the same reason it also saves the speakers’ face because a personal statements based on feelings which cannot be easily disputed.

Example:

125 Roy:as long as those ^people are willing to pay it ^it why should we=

126 =reduce the price?

127 Kate:Uh it just make me ^mad I don’t know why

Kate uses her disagreement emotionally. It can be seen in line 127 that she uses mad, I don’t know why. Emphasizing personal or emotional reasons in disagreements often occurred in combination with stressing a speaker’s own point of view.

(19)

2.1.1.3The Use of Modal Auxiliaries

May, might, could, would and should can be used to soften FTAs. In the appropriate context may, might and could carry the meaning of possibility or ask for permission, would expresses probability or hypothetical meaning and should can express putative, hypothetical or tentative meaning (Quick et al. 1972:97-102 in Locher’s book (2004).

Example:

424 Roy: Steven would tell ^us nothing 425 I means ^nothing

426 I presented

427 Steven: It might mean ^something [but it would be very hard to draw a=

Roy uses would to criticize Steven in line 424. In line 424 represents an FTA for Steven which is only slightly softened by the modal auxiliaries. In line 427 Steven reacts to Roy’s criticism and defends himself. He hedges his disagreement with Roy by making a concession (it might mean ^something), which is downgraded by the use of might and something.

2.1.1.4Shifting Responsibility

Shifting responsibility is a strategy that allows interact ants to portray themselves as not responsible for what they are reporting

(20)

(Locher, 2004). This can be achieved by clearly marking an utterance as coming from a different source or by using pronoun such as they or you to exclude oneself to a certain context or when one is unavoidably included, to use we in order to spread responsibility.

The advantage of this strategy is that the content of what a speaker just said might be debatable, but the person as such is not as exposed to criticism as when he or she had reported the content as her or his own point of view (Locher, 2004). In this sense this strategy can be used as a face-protecting device for the speaker.

Example:

Miriam: But ^Roy what was the^aim of the sudy was it too look at the= =twins development in,

Roy : To lool and see whether,

the aim of the study as a suggested the ‘study, byt^Steven has fund^incredible flaws in this Kate : @@@@@

Roy does not agree with Miriam’s statement and Roy excludes Steven in his disagreement toward Miriam. Roy mentions Steven because he wants to say that Steven has found any flaws and it makes him disagrees with Miriam so that Roy does not take the responsibility alone when his opinion is debatable.

(21)

2.1.1.5Objection in the Form of a Question

The combination of a question with disagreement is effective especially with respect to action-restriction because both them called an answer (Locher, 2004). Furthetmore, disagreement in the form of question is considered as less directly. Locher quoted Leech’s (1983) opinion that indirectness is more polite than the direct utterances. The function of this strategy is to ask for a referential clarification of the previous statement, which contains disagreement.

Example:

453 Anne: well ^excuse me

454 in ^behalf of Steven [I have] to say somethingthough

455 Kate: [yeah]

456 Steven: ^please 457 Meriam: @

458 Anne: ^can it ‘be? 459 ..the ^prejudice of the

460 ..uhm= how do you say ^job giver

Kate reports that students from a renowned private university have better chance on the job market. Anne now intervenes on behalf of Steven. Anne expresses her disagreement in form of question to protect herself, as she becommes less vulnerable to criticism.

(22)

2.1.1.6The Use of but

The position of but in a statement influences the function of its use (Locher, 2004). When but occurred at the beginning of a speaker’s new turn and was used to attempt to get the floor as well as to oppose a previous speaker’s contribution. However, when but occurred within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterance.

Example: 282 Roy: ^fine

283 [^thank you very much]

284 Steven: [<X XX X>] the study ^can’t be done

285 Miriam: but ^Roy was the ^aim of the study was it to ‘look at the=

286 =twins ^development in

In the example, Miriam disagrees with Steven. She uses but in the beginning to show her direct opposition toward Steven’s contribution.

2.1.1.7The Function of Repetition of an Utterance by the Next or the Same Speaker.

The repetition is not only show that the addressee has understood the previous utterance and therefore encourage the addressee to continue, but they also support the primary speaker in that

(23)

the second speaker agrees to accept the firs speaker’s view (Locher, 2004). However, repetition of a previous utterance can also be a means of voicing of the utterance or to question the content of the utterance (Pomerantz, 1984) as cited in Locher’s book (2004).

Example:

26 Miriam: but that’s for a ^private school right that’s [not a--] 27 Roy: [yes]

28 It’s ‘not high ‘enough

29 Anne: ..not high ^enough? 30 Kate: ^Roy=

31 Roy:..that’s right 32 Debbie: @@@

33 Anne: ^excuse me?

In the example, Anne disagrees with Steven by repeating Roy’s statement in line 29 to emphasize point that she wants to make sure to get across. Her disagreement is also expressed in her intonation. The following ^excuse me further emphasizes her different point of view.

2.1.1.8Non-mitigating Disagreement Strategies

Kotthoff, 1993 as cited in Locher’s book (2004) says that “unmitigated disagreement can occur in contexts where it is more important to defend one’s point of view than to pay face considerations to the addressee”. Another possible motivation for using non mitigated

(24)

disagreement strategies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful. Unmitigated disagreement indicates straightforwards disagreement, which was not accompanied by any additional boosting.

Example:

512 Anne: and ^those are the students that are being recruited from=

513 =’Ivy League 514 [ <X XX X> ]

515 Roy: [‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no] 516 Kate: [‘no] ‘no ‘no? 517 Roy: [‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no] 518 Kate: ‘no

519 Roy: the ‘argument the argument is exactly the ^opposite Roy disagrees with Anne’s statement directly without softening in line 512. This is questioned by a surprised Kate, so that Roy repeats his disagreement in line 517 and explains it in line 519.

2.1.2 Social Distance and Verbal Disagreement Strategies

One of the social dimensions stated by Holmes social distance (2001). Social distance or solidarity usually effects on the suitable language choice because how well the speaker knows the interlocutor will become one of the most important factor influencing the way he or she talks (Holmes, 2001).

(25)

Talking about social distance, there will be two different terms: distant (low solidarity) and intimate (high solidarity). First, distant may refers to a greater social distance between the speaker and the addressee. It means the speaker and addressee do not know each other well (Pair, 2005). On the other hands, intimate may refers to a small social distance between the speaker and the addressee. In other words, the speaker and the addressee know each other well.

There is a correlation between social distance and verbal disagreement strategies. In relation to verbal disagreement strategies, social distance increases; the use of disagreement decreases. Moreover, toward a close person, people will use more unmitigated disagreement by doing FTA. However, toward a distant person, people will use more mitigated disagreement by softening the FTAs.

From this theory presented it can be concluded that social distance and disagreement are linked. Social distance occurs between two people influences the way the disagreement strategies they used. Aside from theories the writer also uses previous studies to support her research.

2.2 Previous Studies

2.2.1 Strategies Used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the FilmThe Break Up in Showing Disagreement (Yuliana, 2009)

Yuliana investigated in analyzing disagreement strategies employed by Gary as the major male actor and Brooke as the female actor in The Break

(26)

Up. The research questions that she wanted to answer were the disagreement strategies used by Gary in his conversations to Brooke as his interlocutor, the disagreement strategies used by Brooke in her conversations to Gary as her interlocutor, and the differences between them.

The main theory used by Yuliana was disagreement strategies by Locher (2004). There are eight categories: the use of hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement. All of the categories are provided with examples.

The approach she used was qualitative approach. In collecting the data, she used DVD of The Break Up to watch the movie. The duration of the whole movie is one hour and forty six minutes. While watching the movie, she looked for utterances which contain disagreement, produced by Gary and Brooke, and the utterances were used as the basic data of her research.

The finding of Yuliana’s study was Gary used hedges most in order to show his disagreement, while Brooke used non-mitigating disagreement most. This result found the theory that women are powerless and use softer ways in showing her disagreement than men. In this study, it was because Brooke has higher power than Gary, so as the result, Brooke become more direct than Gary.

There are some similarities between the present study and Yuliana’s study. Both of studies use the same theory by Locher (2004) as the reference.

(27)

Moreover, both of studies use movie as an object of the study. However, there is a difference between studies. Yuliana’s study focused on gender, while the present study focuses on social distance.

2.2.2 A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman and Housewives in Sidoarjo by Oktavia (2003)

Oktavia (2003) analyzed the disagreement produced by career woman and housewives in Sidoarjo. Her purpose was to investigate the types of disagreement that was used both career woman and housewives. In doing her research, she used Garcia as the main theory of disagreementand the theory of social status from Beebe and Takash (1989). Her finding of the study showed that career woman tend to use confrontational strategies include strong denial while the housewives tend to use non-confrontational strategies include down toned, suggestion, giving reason, expression of willingness to cooperate.

The writer chooses this study because this study has some similarities and differences. The similarity is both have the same scope discourse analysis, especially on the disagreement strategies. The difference is she analyzed only in woman’s disagreement while the writer examined only men’s disagreement and different theories. Oktavia used Garcia’s theory as the main theory while the writer used Locher’s theory. Moreover, Oktavia used discourse comprehension test in collecting her data while writer used DVD in collecting her data.

(28)

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Approach

In conducting this research, the writer uses descriptive approach supported by quantitative approach. Descriptive approach is taken as the about discussing, analyzing and finding the disagreement strategies. The writer uses this method because she wants to get a description and a rich understanding including the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law.

The writer also uses quantitative approach which focuses on how much or how many there is/are of particular characteristic or item (Lia Litosseliti, 2010:52). This method is also needed for this study because the writer needs percentage for each categories of disagreement to find out the differences between the categories of the disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

3.2 Data and Data Sources

The source of the data for this study is DVD of Meet the Fockers movie. The duration of the movie is 115 minutes. Moreover, the data for this study is utterances that contain disagreement strategies. The utterances are produced by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

(29)

3.3 Instrument

Research instrument is very important to get the result of this research. It is a set of method which is used to collect the data. The instrument that will be used in this research is the writer herself. She will collect and analyze the data by herself.

3.4 Data Collection

The writer uses several steps in collecting the data. The first step is looking for the script of Meet the Fockers from the internet. Then, the writer watches the film in order to get the feeling the character in the film and to check the accuracy of the script which is taken from internet. Next, the writer analyzes the data per sentence. Then, the writer gives number for each sentence which contains disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father in law. The given number for the father is ‘a’ and the given number for the future father in law is ‘b’. After that, the writer begins to analyze whole the data.

3.5 Data Analysis

After collecting the data, the writer analyzes the data. In order to answer the questions of this study, the writer makes procedures of data analysis are: first, the writer classifies each utterance of disagreement produced by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law to identify in which type of disagreement the utterance belonged to based on Locher’s theory (2004).

The writer analyzes Greg’s utterances toward his father into its type and put them in table. Meanwhile, Greg’s utterances toward his future father-in-law are

(30)

placed in table too. After that the writer gives a tick in the column in which the utterances belonged to. After that, the writer explains the analysis in the last column.

Table 1. Verbal Disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father

No. Utterances

Categories of Disagreement Strategies

Analysis

H PR MA SR O B R NM

Total

Table 2. Verbal Disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law

No. Utterances

Categories of Disagreement Strategies

Analysis

H PR MA SR O B R NM

Total

Note:

H = the use of hedges O = objections in the form of question PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but

(31)

SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement

Thus, the writer will able to answer the question number one and two about what type of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

To answer question number three, the writer counts the percentage of the frequency of each disagreement by using this formula:

�The quantity of certain categories of disagreement strategies_{Total quantity of all categories of disagreement strategies} 100%� Finally, after finishing counting the percentage of disagreement, the writer put the result on the table.

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg

Variable

Categories of Disagreement Strategies

H PR MA SR O B R NM

Greg to his father T %

Greg to his future father in law

T %

Note:

H = the use of hedges O = objections in the form of question PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but

(32)

MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance

SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement In this step, the writer finds out the differences between verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law by comparing the frequency used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. Finally, the writer gives conclusion for the findings.

(33)

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this chapter, the writer analyzes verbal disagreement strategies which are used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in the film Meet the Fockers based on Locher’s theory (2004). Then the writer also analyzes about the differences and similarities of verbal disagreement strategies that are used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. The data are presented in the tables and they show the strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

Toward his father, Greg uses six of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies to show his disagreement: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, shifting responsibility, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement. The verbal disagreement strategies which are not found in Greg’s utterance toward his father is modal auxiliary and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker.

While toward his future father-in-law, Greg uses sevent of eight types of verbal disagreement: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, stating objection, the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement, and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker. The verbal disagreement strategies which are not found in Greg’s utterances toward his father-in-law is shifting responsibility.

(34)

Table of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law

No. Utterances

Categories of Disagreement Strategies

H PR MA SR O B R NM

1 Greg toward his father _√ _√ _- _√ _√ _√ _- _√

2 Greg toward his future

father-in-law √ √ √ - √ √ √ √

Note:

H = the use of hedges O = objections in the form of question PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but

MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance

SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement

4.1 Types of verbal disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his father

This part discusses about the analysis on verbal disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his father which happens in the movie. The verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father are hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, shifting responsibility, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement.

(35)

4.1.1 Hedges

The use of hedges which may “soften the impact of negative statement (Locher, 2004). In general, Greg applies hedges to soften his disagreement toward his father’s satement. The power of father, which is higher than the son, makes it possible to use this category. Since father has to be respected, Greg keeps trying to respect his father by sometimes using softer ways to show his disagreement. It is shown in datum below.

Datum 1

Bernie : Oh, little baby. How are you, Little Jack? Greg : (a.4) Just talk to him like a person

Greg disagrees to his father’s statement which is talking to Little Jack with infant language. Since Jack told him to talk to Little Jack like talking to a person, Greg tells his father the same thing. He shows his disagreement by using just in order to soften his disagreement, and even gives a solution for it, that is to talk to Little Jack like a person.

4.1.2 Giving personal or Emotional Reasons for Disagreeing

Locher (2004) stated that giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing means using subjectivity of a disagreement to protect both speakers’ and the addresse’s face. Greg uses personal or emotional reasons when he disagrees over his his father’s statements but he may be unable to find any logical reason to disagree, or he wants to save his father’s face. To

(36)

respect his father, Greg keeps trying to protect his father’s face when he disagree with him.

Datum 2

Bernie : Gay, you are just in time to hear me tell the gang how you lost your virginity to Isabel.

Pam : You s-slept with Isabel? Bernie : We were relieved.

Greg : Why-why would you, why – why would you bring that up? Bernie : What’s the problem?

Greg : (a.11) It was, what, 15 years ago

Greg reacts to his father’s statement which is revealing his old story with Isabel. Greg uses a personal reason by saying it was 15 years ago which means for Greg, it is an old story so it is not necessary to talk about that thing.He tries to make people become sympathetic to him by using emotional reason so that his reason of disagreeing becomes accepted.

4.1.3 Shifting Responsibility

Shifting responsibility is a strategy when the speaker excludes the third person in her/his disagreement to spread responsibility. Usually the speaker will prefer use pronouns such as they or you to use we or I. Greg uses shifting responsibility when he disagree over his father’s statements which seems to blame him, when he dose not want to be included in his father’s mistakes, or when he does not want to be considered the one who has to be responsible. His closeness to his father makes Greg spread responsibility with his father

(37)

without considering his father’s face. The writer gives a datum to define shifting responsibility used by Greg toward his father.

Datum 3

Bernie : Hey!There you are. What the heck is that contraption? I thought you guys were flying in tonight

Greg : I left a message yesterday. We were driving - - Bernie : oh, I didn’t get a message

Greg : (a.1) I left you like five messages

Greg replies to his father’s statement who is surprised of Greg and the Bryness’ (his future father-in-law’s family) early coming. His father siad that he did not get any message. Then, Greg shows his disagreement by using you, which refers to his father, to show that he is irresponsible about that thing since he is sure that he has left messages in his father’s answering machine.

4.1.4 Stating Objection in the Form of Question

In this strategy, the speaker stated the objection in a form of question to express the disagreement to the addresse which means using questions with disagreement that requires a clarification from the addresser to the addressee (Locher, 2004). Greg uses question to show objections when he disagree about his father’s statements and he seeks his father’s clarification about it. The writer provides a datum to explain the objection in a form of question used by Greg toward his father.

(38)

Datum 4

Bernie : Gay, you’re just in tme to hear me tell the gang how you lost your virginity to Isabel

[Bernie] He was 19. A late bloomer Pam : You slept with Isabel? Bernie : We were relieved

Greg : (a.10) Why-why would you, why – why would you bring that up?

Greg reacts to his father who just revealed about his old story with Isabel. Since he disagree about that idea, he tries to show his disagreement toward his father. He asks why is father would have brought about that story up. He shows his disagreement in the form of questions so that his disagreement objection is stated less directly and it softens the FTAs.

4.1.5 The use of but

When but occured within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterances or to give an evaluation of the speaker’s own contribution.Greg uses but what he wants to give an evaluation or further explanation of his disagreement. The writer providesa datum to clarify the use of but used by Greg toward his father.

Datum 5

Bernie : Most people? Since when do you care about most people?

Greg : (a.8) I don’t, but Jack is really into winning and competition and sports

Greg’s father suspects that Greg has been changing in his ways of thinking, so he asks Greg since when he cares about most people. Since he does not feel he is like that, Greg disagrees about his father’s statement by

(39)

saying that he does not. However, the one who is like that is Jack. Greg uses but in order to give an evaluation of his denial of his father’s accusation.

4.1.6 Non-mitigated Disagreement

Locher (2004) stated that non-mitigated disagreement is there is no additional booster used to show the disagreement. Non-mitigated disagreement can occur in context where it is more important to defend one’s point of view than to pay face considirations to addressee. Another possible motivation for using no-mitigated disagreement startegies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful.To clarify non-mitigated disagreement used by Greg toward his father, the writer provides data below.

Datum 6

Bernie : Hey, we got him, didn’t we, dude, huh? Was he impressed?

Greg : (a.17) No, Dad, he wasn’t. That was a really hard shot. You could’ve hurt him

Greg disagrees about his father’s action for attacking Jack in the football game. His father thinks that he has done a good job by showing that he is stronger than Jack. Then, Greg gives a reason by saying you could’ve hurt himwhich means that it is possible that his father’s action could have hurt Jack even though it does not really happen

(40)

4.2 Types of verbal disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his future father-in-law.

This part discusses about the analysis on disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his future father-in-law which happen in the movie. The disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law are hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, repeating utterances by the next or the same speaker, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement.

4.2.1 Hedges

Greg applies hedges to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law’s statement. Since his future father-in-law is distant from him and Greg respects him a lot, Greg tries to soften his disagreement toward his future in-law. To define hedges used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the writer provides a datum below.

Datum 7

Jack : What did you do, Focker?

Greg : Nothing. He ... (b.3) I think he has to poop

Greg disagrees with his future father-in-law who seems to suspect him in everything he does. Greg shows his disagreement toward his future father-in-law by using hedges I think followed by a reason as an excuse for not being suspected.

(41)

4.2.2 Giving Personal or Emotional Reasons for disagreeing

Greg uses personal or emotional reasons when he disagrees with his future father-in-law’s statement but he still has to save his future faher-in-law’s face. Since his future father-in-law is distant from him and Greg has to respect him, Greg tries to respect future father-in-law by protecting his future father-in-law’s face when he disagrees with him.

Datum 8

Jack : Well, in these uncertain times, Greg, I opted for a Kevlar-reinforced hull with two inch thick. Plexiglas windows, just like the ones they design on the Russian Widowmaker submarines. I want you to conduct a field tet for us, Greg. I want you to demonstrate the impregnable outer skin of the coach. Throw it at the window.

Greg : Oh Jack, (b.1) I’m not gonna throw a brick at your window

Greg reacts to his future father-in-law who tells him to do a test of the impregnable outer skin of his future father-in-law’s coach. He disagrees about his future father-in-law’s idea. Greg uses a personal reason by saying I’m not gonna throw a brick at your window which is used by Greg to point the subjectivity of his disagreement. Greg says maybe because of his respect to his future father-in-law so that he is afraid of doing inappropriate things, like throwing a brick at his future father-in-law’s window, although his future father-in-law tells him so. However, Greg’s personal reason can protect both his face and his future father-in-law’s face. His future father-i-law’s face is saved because Greg does not deny his future father-in-law’s statement. However, Greg still able to show that he disagrees with the idea.

(42)

4.2.3 The Use of Modal Auxiliaries

The next category is the use of modal auxiliaries to soften disagreement (Locher, 2004). Greg uses modal auxiliaries to soften his disagreements toward his future father-in-law’s statement. Due to the distance, Greg tries to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law. The writer gives a datum in order to explain modal auxiliaries used by Greg toward his future father-in-law.

Datum 9

Jack : Well, in these uncertain times, Greg, I opted for a Kevlar-reinforced hull with two inch thick plexiglas windows, just like the ones they design on the Russian Widowmaker submarines. I want you to conduct a field test for us, Greg. I want you to demonstrate the impregnable outer skin of the coach. Throw it at the window, Greg : Oh Jack, I’m not gonna throw a brick at your window

Jack : It’s a simple demonstration Greg : (b.2) I’d – I’d really rather not

Greg disagrees with his future father-in-law who forces him to check the impregnable outer skin of his coach by throwing a brick at its window. Greg shows his diagreement toward his future father-in-law by using would rather, modal auxiliary of preference. He says that he would really rather not to do it. Actually, he use would to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law.

4.2.4 Repeating Utterances by the Next or the Same Speaker

The next category used is repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker which means continuing and supporting the previous speaker’s view

(43)

or the current speaker’s own view (Locher, 2004). Greg uses repetition of the next or the same speakers when he wants to emphasize his view. Greg tries to seek for other peoples statement and support it, or sometimes repeats his own statement to convince his future father-in-law that his future father-in-law is not right.

Datum 10

Greg : What are you holding? What’s in your hand? Jack : Nothing

Greg : Jack, I can see it in the mirror(b.13) what is it?you get something in your hand

Greg disagrees over his future father-in-law’s action which seems to be weird. Greg has seen that his future father-in-law is holding something in his hand and he suspects what the thing is. Firstly, he asks about it. However, his future father-in-law denies it by saying it is nothing. Then, Greg shows his disagreement toward his future father-in-law by repeating again his previous statement which asks what the thing is.

4.2.5 Stating Objection in the Form of Question

In this strategy, the speaker stated the objection in a form of question to express the disagreement to the addressee. Although his future father-in-law is distant from him, Greg is sometimes still brave to seek for clarification of what his future father-in-law has said. To give an example of objection in the form of question used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the writer provides data.

(44)

Datum 11

Jack : Yes, it is. You seem tense. I was going to ofer you a sedative Greg : (b.14) You’re Jocking right?

Greg disagrees over his future father-in-law’s action which seems to be weird.Greg shows his diagreement toward his future father-in-law by asking him, whether he is joking or not, to seek for clarification of his future father-in-law’s weird action.

4.2.6 The Use of but

When but occured within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterances or to give an evaluation of the speaker’s own contribution.Greg uses but what he wants to give an evaluation or further explanation of his disagreement. The writer provides data to explain the use of but used by Greg toward his future father-in-law.

Datum 12

Bernie : There is something you don’t see every day Jack : Focker! Focker!

Greg : Okay. (b.6) I know this looks bad,but I can explain it

Greg’s future father-in-law is angry because something terrible happened with his grandson. Since he does not feel I that he has to responsible with that thing, Greg admits his fault. However, Greg uses but in

(45)

order to disagree about his future father-in-law’s accusation which seems accusing him irresponsible with his future father-in-law’s grandson.

4.2.7 Non-mitigated Disagreement

Non-mitigated disagreement can occur in context where it is more important to defend one’s point of view than to pay face considirations to addressee. Another possible motivation for using non-mitigated disagreement strategies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful. Although his future father-in-law is distant from him, Greg sometimes still threatens his future father-in-law’s face in showing disagreement. To clarify non-mitigated disagreement used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the writer provides the data below.

Datum 13

Jack : Did you have a nice conversation with your son? Greg : Jack, I’ve never even met that kid before

Jack : Focker, you’ve been covering this up from the very beginning Greg : (b.11) No, I haven’t, Jack. It’s just another one of your crazy

theories.

Greg rejects a statement come from his future father-in-law. His future father-in-law accuses him that he hides a secret from Pam which he has a son. Greg disputes what his future father-in-law’s said. He uses direct disagreement by using no and followed any emphasize to show his disagreement to his future father-in-law.

(46)

4.3 The Differences and Similarities of the Verbal Disagreement Strategies Used by Greg toward his Father and his Future Father-in-law.

After discussing the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law, the writer will show the differences and similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. For further explanation, the writer discusses any differences and similarities of each category of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg one by one in the next part.

The writer uses the table below to help her easily in showing the differences and similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

Table 4.3 The frequency of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law

Variable

Categories of Disagreement Strategies

H PR MA SR O B R NM

Greg to his father

T 2 3 0 3 5 1 0 13

% 7.40 11.11 0 11.11 18.51 3.70 0 48.14 Greg to his

future father in law

T 1 4 1 0 2 1 1 7

% 5.88 23.52 5.88 0 11.76 5.88 5.88 41.17

Note:

(47)

PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but

MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance

SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement

The analysis shows the occurance of verbal disagreement strateges used by Greg in their conversation toward his father and his future father-in-law. The table above shows that Greg as son uses different strategies toward his father and his future father-in-law. Toward his father, Greg uses hedge is in the fifth position (7.40%). Moreover, in disagreement toward his future father-in-law the use of hedges is in the fourth position (5.88%). It shows that toward older people Greg still put respect to them so that the use of hedges in order to soften the disagreement is still frequent.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, giving personal or emotional reasons is in the third position (11.11%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law is in the second position (23.52%). Actually, the use of personal and emotional reasons in both of them shows that Greg uses subjective disagreement which protect both speakers’ and addresses’ face, which means Greg still put respects toward older people by not irritating them.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the writer didn’t find that Greg uses modal auxiliaries category. However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law is in the fifth position (5.88%). It is a common fact that older People, have higher power than younger

(48)

people. That is why Greg seems to put higher respect to his future father-in-law, so he tries to polite by softening his disagreements.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of shifting responsibility is in the fourth position (11.11%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of shifting responsibility is not found at all. This happen possibly because Greg is afraid of his future father-in-law so that he is afraid of “blaming” or spreading responsibility with his future father-in-law. It shows that Greg seems to put higher respect to his future father-in-law, or he is distant from him, so he is afraid of using this strategy.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of stating objection in the form of question is in the second position (18.51%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of stating objection in the form of question is in the third position (11.76%). It shows that Greg is more put higher to his future father-in-law than his father, it’s because since he is distant from his future father-in-law. Using this strategy makes his disagreements formulated less directly and helps him to soften the FTAs.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of but is in the sixth position (3.70%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of but are in the sixth position (5.88%). It can be seen this category is rarely used toward both Greg’s father and his future father-in-law. This happens possibly Greg tries his best to avoid using this category as his disagreement strategy, since the use of but might how any FTAs or

(49)

might show softened FTAs. It seems that he tries to play safe by not using this strategy.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker category is not found at all. However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker category is in the seventh position (5.88%). this happen possibly because Greg tries his best to minimize the use of this strategy.

In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of non-mitigated disagreement is in the first position of the frequency of the usage (48.14%). Moreover, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of non-mitigated disagreement is also in the first position (41.17%). As Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (2003) said that although men are not status conscious, which makes them do not really care about their personal relationships including impact of FTAs, showing disagreement directly is actually the easiest way to show disagreement. It does not always mean that it is used to show impoliteness but sometimes it has to be used so that people directly understand that there is a disagreement from others.

Based on the above explanation, it can be seen that Greg uses softer disagreement strategies more often toward his future father-in-law. It means that toward a more distant person, Greg uses softer disagreement strategies. Moreover, the differences in races between his family (American-Jewish) and his future father-in-law (American) seems to make his father and his future father-in-law’s

(50)

point of views different. This might result in the different disagreement strategies used by Greg toward them. Greg’s father, who is an American-Jewish believes that home is where people learn about hapiness and wholesomeness so that his relationship with Greg is close (Feder, 2011). This make Greg sometimes brave, even he seems harsh toward his father. However, as American who are famous of their individuality and high respect to privacy, the relationship of the Bryness is distant from one another, and so does to other people who do not belong to the family. This makes Greg is afraid of threatening his future father-in-law’s face so that will not be considered impolite or disrespectful by his future father-in-law.

In conclusion, the writer found that social distance factor influences Greg’s choice of verbal disagreement strategies toward both his father. It can bee seen from the result that non-mitigated disagreement strategies is used the most by Greg to show his disagreement toward both his father and his future father-in-law. Greg still shows his directly without paying attention to the FTAs. From the result, shifting responsibility category is not used by Greg to his future in-law. This is probably because of the distance between Greg and his future father-in-law so that Greg is afraid of using this strategy. Moreover, Greg does not use repetation of an utterance by a next or the same speaker to show his disagreement toward his father. This is probably because he has lower power than his father so he tries to show his respect to his father.

(51)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

This study talks about the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in Meet the Focker (2004) based on Locher’s theory (2004). Actually this study talks about the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law and differences or similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.

The result of data analysis shows that toward his father, Greg uses six of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies to show his disagreement: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, shifting responsibility, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement.While toward his future father-in-law, Greg uses sevent of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, stating objection, the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement, and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker.

For the similarity, to both his father and his future father-in-law, he uses non-mitigated disagreement category the most than other categories of disagreement to both his father and his future father-in-law. Moreover, other categories have no significant difference in terms of the frequency of their use. Although the finding shows that there are only slight dfferences in terms of the frequency, there are

(52)

some differences between verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. Toward his father, Greg is not afraid of using shifting responsibility but toward his future father-in-law, he never uses this category. Ths is probably because of the distance of Greg and his future father-in-law so that he is afraid of “blaming” or spreading responsibility with his future father-in-law. Moreover, toward his future father-in-law, he uses giving personal or emotional reasons category more than he does toward his father. It means that toward his future father-in-law, who is distant from him, Greg uses more strategies that soften FTAs.

Finally this research only analyzed the verbal disagreement strategies used by American so the writer suggests that those who are interested in this topic to do researches toward Asian, who is well-known for their indirectness. In addition, the writer suggests that those who are interested in this topic can choose objection with equal power so that the influences of social distance can be seen clearer. Moreover, this research only analyzed the verbal disagreement strategies used between male and male, so the writer also suggests that those who are interested in this topic can do researches of verbal disagreement strategies used between female and female.

(53)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Conroy W. (1985). Father vs. son tensions: What’s natural vs. mental illness. Retrieved March 6 2015 From

http://www.ssociatedcontent.com/article/2215325/father_vs_son_tensions_w hats_naturl.html?cat=25

Eckert, p. & McConell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feder, D. (2001). The Jewish Roots of Family Values. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-jewish-roots-family-values

Holmes, J. (2001). Introduction to Sociolinguistic. Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Hovatter, D. Understanding Conflict and Disagreement. West Virginia: West

Virginia University Extension Service, WL353.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication (Language ower and social process.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Meet the Fockers cript-dialogue transcript. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/meet-the-fockers-script-transcript.html

Oktavia, L. (2003). A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman andHousewives in Sidoarjo. (No. 1136/ING/2003). Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Petra Christian University, Surabaya.

Rummel, R. J. (n. a). Understanding conflict and war: vol. 2: the conflict helix Chapter 16 Distances. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP16.HTM

William, D. C. The Life Cycle of Father-Son Relationships. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from

(54)

Wu, X. H. (2006). A study of strategy used in showing disagreement and disagreement to other opinions. CELEA Journal 29(5) 55-65.

Yuliana. (2009). Disagreement Strategies used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the Film the Break Up in Showing Disagreement. (No.

0201186/ING/2009). Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Petra Christian University, Surabaya.

(1)

might show softened FTAs. It seems that he tries to play safe by not using this strategy.

Based on the above explanation, it can be seen that Greg uses softer disagreement strategies more often toward his future father-in-law. It means that

(2)

(3)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

disagreement.While toward his future father-in-law, Greg uses sevent of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, stating objection, the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement, and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker.

For the similarity, to both his father and his future father-in-law, he uses non-mitigated disagreement category the most than other categories of disagreement to

(4)

(5)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Conroy W. (1985). Father vs. son tensions: What’s natural vs. mental illness. Retrieved March 6 2015 From

http://www.ssociatedcontent.com/article/2215325/father_vs_son_tensions_w hats_naturl.html?cat=25

Eckert, p. & McConell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feder, D. (2001). The Jewish Roots of Family Values. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-jewish-roots-family-values

Holmes, J. (2001). Introduction to Sociolinguistic. Harlow Pearson Education Ltd.

Hovatter, D. Understanding Conflict and Disagreement. West Virginia: West Virginia University Extension Service, WL353.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in action: Disagreements in oral

communication (Language ower and social process.Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter

Meet the Fockers cript-dialogue transcript. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/meet-the-fockers-script-transcript.html

Oktavia, L. (2003). A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career

Woman andHousewives in Sidoarjo. (No. 1136/ING/2003). Unpublished

Undergraduate Thesis, Petra Christian University, Surabaya.

Rummel, R. J. (n. a). Understanding conflict and war: vol. 2: the conflict helix

(6)

Wu, X. H. (2006). A study of strategy used in showing disagreement and

disagreement to other opinions. CELEA Journal 29(5) 55-65.

Yuliana. (2009). Disagreement Strategies used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the Film the Break Up in Showing Disagreement. (No.

0201186/ING/2009). Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Petra Christian University, Surabaya.

VERBAL DISAGREEMENT STRATEGIES USED BY GREG TOWARD HIS FATHER AND HIS FUTURE FATHER-IN-LAW IN “MEET THE FOCKERS” MOVIE.

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF SWEARING WORDS USED BY CHARACTERS IN An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

AN ANALYSIS OF SWEARING WORDS USED BYCHARACTERS IN BLOOD FATHER MOVIE An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

INTRODUCTION An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

BIBLIOGRAPHY An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

An analysis of Amos McCracken`s reactions toward the reality of his life as seen in William Goldman`s Father`s Day.

A STUDY OF OKONKWO'S HATRED TO HIS FATHER IN CHINUA ACHEBE THINGS FALL APART.

NATHAN’S LOYALTY AND INTEGRITY TO HIS FATHER AS THE FUGITIVE OF WITCH IN HALF BAD BY SALLY GREEN.

THE PERSUASIVE UTTERANCES USED BY BARACK OBAMA IN HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES.

Dukungan

Links

VERBAL DISAGREEMENT STRATEGIES USED BY GREG TOWARD HIS FATHER AND HIS FUTURE FATHER-IN-LAW IN “MEET THE FOCKERS” MOVIE.

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF SWEARING WORDS USED BY CHARACTERS IN An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

AN ANALYSIS OF SWEARING WORDS USED BYCHARACTERS IN BLOOD FATHER MOVIE An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

INTRODUCTION An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

BIBLIOGRAPHY An Analysis of Swearing Words Used by Characters in Blood Father Movie.

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEMENT USED BY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT Politeness Strategies In Disagreement Used By English Department Students Of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta.

An analysis of Amos McCracken`s reactions toward the reality of his life as seen in William Goldman`s Father`s Day.

A STUDY OF OKONKWO'S HATRED TO HIS FATHER IN CHINUA ACHEBE THINGS FALL APART.

NATHAN’S LOYALTY AND INTEGRITY TO HIS FATHER AS THE FUGITIVE OF WITCH IN HALF BAD BY SALLY GREEN.

THE PERSUASIVE UTTERANCES USED BY BARACK OBAMA IN HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES.

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan