Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show

i

POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY ELLEN DEGENERES

AND U.S. POLITICIANS IN

THE ELLEN SHOW

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Carolina Yuni Rahastri K. Student Number: 131214013

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY ELLEN DEGENERES AND U.S. POLITICIANS IN THE ELLEN SHOW

By

Carolina Yuni RahastriK. Student Number: 131214013

Approved by

Advisor

Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D.

ii

Date 12 June 2017

POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY ELLEN DEGENERES AND U.S. POLITICIANS IN THE ELLEN SHOW

By

CAROLINA YUNI RAHASTRIK. Student Number: 131214013

Defended before the Board of Examiners on 11 July 2017

and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners

Chairperson Yohana Veniranda, M.Hum., M.A., Ph.D. Secretary : Christina Lhaksmita Anandari, Ed.M. Member : BarH Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D.

Member : Christina Lhaksmita Anandari, Ed.M. Member : Dr. Retno Muljani, M.Pd.

Yogyakarta, 11 July 2017

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

iii

---STATEMENT OF WORK'S ORIGINALITY

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

Yogyakarta, 11 July 2017 The Writer

Ca !ina Yuni RahastriK.

131214013

IV

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang belianda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dhanlla:

Nama

Nomor Mahasiswa

Carolina Yuni RahastriK.

131214013

Demi pengembangan i1mu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dhal111a karya i1miah saya berjudu1:

POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY ELLEN DEGENERES

AND U. S. POLITICIANS IN THE ELLEN SHOW

Dengan demikian saya membelikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dhanlla hak untuk menyimpan, menga1ihkan da1am bentuk media lain, menge101anya da1am bentuk pangka1an data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya se1ama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tangga1: 11 Juli 2017

Yang menyatakan

C

7;<

Car lina Yuni RahastriK.

vi ABSTRACT

Rahastri, Carolina Yuni. (2017). Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show.Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Learning a language, especially for EFL students, is related to learning the structural rules of the language, namely grammar. Meanwhile, there are other essential aspects required in learning the language. One of them is understanding how to use the language in social conditions. It means that students need to use the language appropriately. They will be able to avoid miscommunication if they understand the language. The capability of using language appropriately is related to politeness.

This study analyzed the application of politeness strategies in a talk show, namely The Ellen Show. Furthermore, the writer analyzed the interaction between the host, Ellen, and two U.S. politicians as the guest stars. The interaction between them represented the use of politeness strategies in social context. There were two research questions in this study: (1) Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show? and (2) What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show?

Discourse analysis which belongs to qualitative research was used by the writer to conduct this study. The writer analyzed the utterances that were produced by Ellen and U.S politicians by using the s and the transcripts of the talk show. The writer employed Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory to classify the use of politeness strategies that were used by the speakers. The factors that influence the choice of strategies were analyzed by using Brown and Levinson‘s theory as well.

The study revealed that Ellen and U.S. politicians used almost all of the politeness strategies. The factors that influence the choice of the strategies were the payoffs and the sociological variables which consisted of social distance and rank of imposition. The writer expected that the result of the study will be helpful for readers, especially for learners, teachers, and future researchers in understanding politeness in English.

vii ABSTRAK

Rahastri, Carolina Yuni. (2017). Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show.Yogyakarta: Program Studi Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Mempelajari bahasa, terutama bagi mahasiswa yang mempelajari Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, berkaitan dengan mempelajari aturan-aturan dalam struktur kebahasaan, atau yang biasa disebut grammar. Sementara itu, terdapat beberapa hal penting yang diperlukan dalam mempelajari bahasa. Salah satunya adalah dengan memahami cara bagaimana menggunakan bahasa tersebut di dalam kehidupan bersosial. Hal ini menunjukan bahwa mahasiswa perlu menggunakan bahasa dengan sesuai. Mahasiswa dapat menghindari terjadinya miskomunikasi yang terjadi di antara mereka ketika mereka dapat memahami bahasa yang mereka pakai. Kemampuan dalam menggunakan bahasa dengan baik dan benar berkaitan erat dengan kesopanan.

Studi ini menganalisis tentang penggunaan strategi kesopanan dalam sebuah

talk show bernama The Ellen Show. Selanjutnya, penulis menganalisis interaksi antara pembawa acara yang bernama Ellen dan para politisi Amerika sebagai bintang tamu. Interaksi yang terjadi diantara mereka menunjukan penggunaan strategi kesopanan dalam konteks sosial. Terdapat dua rumusan masalah dalam studi ini: (1) Strategi kesopanan apa saja yang digunakan Ellen dan politisi Amerika di The Ellen Show? (2) Faktor-faktor apa saja yang mempengaruhi Ellen dan politisi Amerika dalam menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam talk show

tersebut?

Analisis wacana yang termasuk dalam penelitian kualitatif digunakan oleh penulis untuk melakukan studi ini. Penulis menganalisis ungkapan-ungkapan yang dikemukakan oleh Ellen dan politisi Amerika dengan menggunakan cuplikan video beserta transkrip yang terdapat dalam talk show. Penulis menggunakan teori dari Brown dan Levinson (1987) untuk mengklasifikasi penggunaan strategi kesopanaan yang diterapkan oleh pembicara. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan strategi kesopanan juga dianalisis dengan teori Brown dan Levinson.

Studi ini menyimpulkan bahwa Ellen dan politisi Amerika menggunakan hampir semua strategi kesopanan. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan strategi kesopanan adalah keuntungan untuk penutur dan variabel sosiologis yang mencakup jarak sosial dan tingkat pembebanan. Penulis berharap supaya hasil dari studi ini akan berguna bagi pembaca khususnya bagi pembelajar, pengajar, dan penulis selanjutnya dalam memahami kesopanan dalam bahasa Inggris.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It has been a long journey I went on to achieve my Sarjana Pendidikan

degree. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude to those who kindly walked beside me to strengthen me and give me support during the process of writing this thesis.

First of all, I would like to praise Jesus Christ for all the blessings, time, and everything given to my life. His blessings have been guiding me through my journey. I would also like to thank Him for sending me the people who supported me during the writing of my thesis. Foremost, I would like to thank my beloved parents, Papa Yosep Adrianus Muljono and Mama Maria Caecilia Novitta Sri Sanggrama Hastawati Wuniasmoro, and my sisters, Crescentiana Diah Lindiyasari Kusumaningtyas and Lusia Ratih Desi Kusumaning Hapsari for their prayers and support throughout my life.

I respectfully express my gratitude to my advisor, Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D., for being very patient in guiding me. I thank him for spending his valuable time critically read my writing and advise me for better writing. My gratitude also goes to my academic advisor, Drs. Y.B. Gunawan M.A. for his patience in guiding me throughout my study in this university. I also thank all lecturers, staff, and students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University for everything. I would peculiarly thank Ibu Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. for kindly supporting me and giving me references in writing this thesis.

I am grateful to have cheerleaders in writing this thesis: Mas Yos (as my tutor since Structure 2 course), Mami Eggie, Monica, Cimbul, all of my

ix

friends in Class A batch 2013, all of GRISADHA members especially Yu Warni Emprit, Mas Agus, Swelana, and Yostin, all of my friends in Thesis class, REMBOL, and all of Kos Sagan No.22 girls. Last but not least, for all inspirations, I thank my beloved partner, Victor Wijaya Dewantara.

Carolina Yuni Rahastri Kusumarani (Aci)

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK‘S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xii

LIST OF TABLES ... xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Questions ... 4

C. Research Significance... 4

D. Definition of Terms ... 4

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7

A. Theoretical Description ... 7

1. The Study of Language ... 7

2. The Study of Language and Society ... 8

3. Discourse Analysis ... 9

4. Politeness Theory ... 9

5. Politeness Strategies ... 12

6. Factors of Politeness Strategies ... 26

B. Review of Related Research ... 30

C. Theoretical Framework... 32

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ... 33

A. Research Method ... 33

xi

C. Data Gathering Technique ... 36

D. Data Analysis Technique ... 37

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 39

A. The Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and the U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 39

B. The Factors Which Influence the Application of Politeness Strategies by Ellen and the Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 56

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 65

A. Conclusions ... 65

B. Implications ... 67

C. Recommendations ... 67

REFERENCES ... 69

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. EFL = English as a Foreign Language 2. U.S. = United States

3. FTA = Face-Threatening Act 4. BoR = Bald on Record 5. PP = Positive Politeness 6. NP = Negative Politeness 7. OR = Off Record

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 The Categorization of Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 38 4.1 Politeness Strategies Found in The Ellen Show ... 40

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A The List of Politeness Strategies Produced by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in

The Ellen Show ... 72 B The Transcript of The Ellen Show ... 78

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents four sections, namely the research background, research questions, research significance, and definition of terms. The research background presents the background issues and concerns of the study. The research questions formulate questions related to the study. The research significance presents the writer‘s contribution of the study. The definition of terms defines the significant keywords and phrases related to the study.

A. Research Background

People use language every day in their daily life to communicate with others. They use language as a tool in social activities. Based on Holtgraves (2002), language is a method that allows people to interact among themselves (p. 5). Furthermore, communication become one of the important aspects in human daily life. People use the language to interact and communicate for reasons and purposes especially in interpersonal communication. Through the language, people can express their thoughts and feelings, ask for help, criticize, and give compliment. The use of language is not about doing an action for one self, but also ―a social action that involves other people‖ (Holtgraves, 2002, p. 1). Clark (1996a) states that people should coordinate with others in using the language to understand and to be understood (as cited by Holtgraves, 2002).

Meanwhile, people need to control themselves in using the language especially in interpersonal communication. People need to avoid improper use of

language because it can harm other people who are involved in the conversation. Hence, they need to choose proper way and proper diction in producing their utterances. The adjustment of utterances and the way to consider what people feel can be identified as politeness. Politeness as said by Brown and Levinson (1987) is a psychological state that is related to something emotionally established and can be lost, maintained, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. Meanwhile, van Herk (2012) defines politeness as an act of behaving properly in any social interaction and treating the interlocutor properly. Generally, speaking politeness involves understanding the feelings of others. People who speak politely will make other people feel comfortable. Inappropriate choice of words and choice of the way people speak may be considered as rude.

It is important for learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to learn about politeness in order to be able to produce an utterance properly. Learning English Language for EFL students is not only understanding about the form and the structure of language, early named grammar. However, the students need to understand how to use the language in social conditions. Moreover, English learners will face difficulties in choosing the right way to communicate properly and politely by using different language. It can lead them into improper use of the language itself. However, EFL students need to have good knowledge in using English language as a tool to communicate in interpersonal communication. Different languages will lead English learners to different cultures as well. Furthermore, the different cultures can affect the way the English learners produce an utterance. Therefore, English learners shall also understand the diversity of the

culture in order to avoid misunderstanding in speaking different languages. It is clear that people need to firstly understand the culture of a language before they want to study thelanguage itself.

The writer aims to analyze how politeness strategies are used in the daily conversation. The focus of this study is to observe and analyze the use of politeness strategies in an American talk show named The Ellen Show. The writer wants to analyze how politeness strategies are used by Ellen DeGeneres, as the host, and the United States (U.S.) politicians as the guests. Ellen is well known as an American comedian in her first debut. Now, she has her own TV program named The Ellen Show. The writer choose this talk show because it provides dialogues which show interpersonal relationship. In addition, the writer choose Ellen DeGeneres as the subject of the study because the writer wants to know how Ellen, who has a background as comedian, used her politeness towards U.S. politicians as the guests of the talk show. Meanwhile, the politicians are chosen because the writer wants to know how politicians used their politeness in non-state events.

What makes this study different from other politeness studies is about the object. Many of politeness studies concern how politeness strategies are used in several movies or novels. Meanwhile, the writer of this study concerns how politeness strategies are used in the daily conversation as presented in a talk show. Besides, the selected clips of the talk show that will be discussed in this study are clips which containing the conversation between Ellen and the U.S. politicians.

B. Research Questions

Based on the background of the study, two research questions are formulated as follows.

1. Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show?

2. What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show?

C. Research Significance

The writer expects that this study will be useful for English learners, English teacher candidates, English teachers, and future researchers. For English learners, the writer believes that this study will encourage them to be more aware in using English language. This helps them to be capable in using appropriate English utterances in social situations. For English teachers and teacher candidates, the writer believes that this study will encourage them to assess and

evaluate not only the grammatical skill, but also the students‘ skill in using

language in social situations, in terms of politeness. For future researchers, the writer believes that this study will give them enough information about politeness so that it can be a reference for their own studies.

D. Definition of Terms

In this section, the writer will define three terms related to this study. The terms are:

1. Politeness

Holmes (1996) states that politeness is a behavior that shows positive concerns for others. The theory accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face threatening acts (FTA) to addressees. Mills (2003) mentions that

politeness is the speaker‘s expression to reduce the face threats that carried by assertive face threatening acts to the hearer. Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that emotional and social sense have a relation to everyone‘s self-public image and it will be expected by everyone else to recognize. The utterances in which the politeness were produced by Ellen and U.S. politicians will be the focus of this study.

2. Face Threatening Act

Brown and Levinson (1987) describe that Face Threatening Act is an act

that inherently threats hearer‘s or speaker‘s face. There are two different notions that are stated by Brown and Levinson (1978), namely positive face and negative face. FTA is the expression that threats the positive face or negative face of both speaker and hearer within the interpersonal communication. In this study, FTA is

used to analyze the politicians and Ellen‘s interaction in The Ellen Show.

3. Politeness Strategies

Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), ―politeness strategy is a strategy that concerns saving hearer‘s face by formulating an expression that is less threatening for the hearer‘s face‖ (p. 61). In this study, politeness strategy is dealing with interpersonal communication between U.S. politicians and the host in

The Ellen Show. Furthermore, the study will analyze how the politicians and the

host mitigate their utterances towards hearer‘s face.

4. The Ellen Show

In this study, The Ellen Show is used as the data source. The Ellen Show is a daytime American talk show which is hosted by a comedian and actress, Ellen DeGeneres. The talk show had its first debut on September 8, 2003. This talk show invites several types of guests who include celebrities, politicians, actors, musicians, newsmaker, and also interviews ordinary people who have extraordinary talents. This TV program was also nominated in Emmy Award in 2004 that became a successful year for The Ellen Show in the early debut of the talk show. The Ellen Show has unique concepts in each episode, for example audience participation games with prizes, Ellen dance moves with the guest star, and audience surprise introduction to their favorite celebrities.

7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter consists of two parts, namely the theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description includes the description of related theories that are used in this study. The theoretical framework summarizes and synthesizes all major relevant theories which will help the writer analyzes the study to answer the research questions.

A. Theoretical Description

This part discusses five major theories which can be the bases of this study, namely the study of language usage, language in society, discourse analysis, politeness, and politeness strategies. Since the study deals with the utterances which are produced by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show, it is necessary to include the pragmatic theory because it is related to the meaning within the context. The language and society theory is included because it focuses on how language is used in social context. Discourse analysis theory is included because the study deals with how people produce the language within the context. The other theories are the theories of politeness and politeness strategies which become the main theories of this study.

1. The Study of Language

Van Dijk (2009) describes that the study of language usage or pragmatics is one of the fields of linguistics and discourse studies that has most systematically studied the relations between context and language. Leech (1992)

states, ―pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate and also how someone uses language within context in particular ways in communication‖ (p. 19).

Besides, pragmatics aims to analyze the meaning of the language that is used by a speaker in connection with speech situations (Leech, 1983). The pragmatic theory is in accordance with the focus of this study which is how the language is used by people to communicate with others. It concerns how people use the language and why they use it in particular ways.

Meanwhile, pragmatics focuses on the study of the utterance‘s meaning conveyed by the speaker, not in grammatical form of the utterance. It is in line with Levinson‘s (1983) theory that ―pragmatics cover both context-dependent aspects of language structure and principles of language usage and understanding

that have nothing or little to do with linguistics structure‖ (p. 9). Thus, the theory of pragmatics itself clarifies the language usage and language structure as the way to understand the context within the language that is used by the speaker in communicating with others.

2. The Study of Language and Society

The study of language and society or sociolinguistics is a study that focuses on the social aspect of language and how the language is used (Davis, 1995). It concerns how people use the language in social life. Llamas and Stockwell (2009) state that ―societies differ from each other and change over time which show that language is variable‖ (p. 21). It means that language varies for one to another. Meanwhile, social variables make the variation in the use of

language. There are four social variables which can affect people in doing conversation, such as age, gender, geography, and social class (Stockwell, 2002). Furthermore, each language is used by different people in different contexts within different reasons. It becomes essential that people need to consider those social variables in learning a language to communicate with each other.

3. Discourse Analysis

Nunan (1993) states that ―discourse analysis involves the study of language in use‖ (p. 7). Based on this view, discourse conveys what the language is, how the speakers produce the language, and how the context within which the language is used (Nunan, 1993). In other words, discourse refers to the interpretation of the communicative event in context. Avdi and Georgaca (2007) state that discourse is defined as systems of meaning that is related to the interactional in wider sociocultural context and operate regardless of the speakers‘ intentions. In discourse analysis, language is also considered as a form of social action. Therefore, people use language to achieve certain interpersonal goals in specific interactional contexts (Nunan, 1993).

4. Politeness Theory

Brown and Levinson (1987) define politeness as a psychological state that is related to something emotionally established and can be lost, maintained, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. There are four strategies to maintain the psychological state in the interaction that are presented by Brown and Levinson (1987), namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record.

Meanwhile, there are two elements that are firmly related to the application of politeness strategies that are proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). The elements are the notion of face and Face Threatening Act (FTA). Before explaining the politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987), the writer discusses the elements in the following paragraphs.

a. Face

Brown and Levinson (1987) define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. There are two related aspects of face. The two aspects are negative face and positive face.

Negative face is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as ―the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction‖ (p. 61). Negative face is known as the want of every individual to be independent and be unimpeded by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 62). It means that every individual has the desire to be free from imposition and action towards him.

Positive face is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as the positive consistent self-image claimed by interactants. As Brown and Levinson (1987) state that positive face refers to ―the want of every member that his wants be

desirable to at least some others‖ (p. 62). The positive face crucially includes the desire that self-image be appreciated and approved of. It means that positive politeness is used when an individual wants to be appreciated or to be approved and liked by others.

To make it clear, consider an example. Mrs. Thompson is a cat lover. Much of her time and effort are expended on her cats. She is proud of her cats,

and she likes others to admire them. She is gratified when people say ‗What a

lovely cat; I want to touch it. How do you take care of its fur?‖, implying that they

want just what she has wanted and achieved (Brown & Levinson, 1987). b. Face Threatening Act

When a speaker produces an utterance that violates hearer‘s positive or negative face, he does the Face Threatening Act (FTA). It is intuitively the case

that the speaker‘s utterances threaten the hearer‘s face. The utterances will threaten the hearer‘s face when there is a difference between the speaker and hearer‘s wants or desire. In other words, the speaker and hearer‘s wants run contrary. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that FTA is a threat used by a speaker that consists of mitigating statement and verbal repair or politeness (p. 66). The

speaker may threaten the hearer‘s face, for example by asking for help which threatens hearer‘s negative face since the speaker is potentially imposing on the hearer or just simply by giving compliments which threatens hearer‘s positive face since the speaker satisfying the hearer. Furthermore, FTA can be done within verbal and non-verbal communication. However, the focus of this study is to analyze FTAs which are produced verbally.

People need to be aware of the utterance that they produced. They must be careful in choosing the words to be uttered to maintain the hearer‘s face. Any misunderstanding will happen if the speaker‘s utterance threatens the hearer‘s face. Besides, the misunderstanding will damage their interpersonal communication. Therefore, Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) politeness strategies

serve four notions to save both speaker and hearer‘s face. The four notions will be described in the following section.

5. Politeness Strategies

Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are strategies which concern saving hearer‘s face by producing an expression that is less

threatening for the hearer‘s face. There are four main strategies which are presented by Brown and Levinson (1987), namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record. The following points show deeper explanation of each politeness strategy.

a. Bald on Record

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that bald on record is the maximum efficiency in communication. The speaker uses bald on record when he does the FTA with maximum efficiency more than his wants to satisfy the hearer‘s face. On the other hand, there are two different classes of bald on-record depending on the cases and motives of the speakers to do the FTA with maximum efficiency, namely non-minimization of the face threat and the usage of FTA-oriented bald on record.

1) Non Minimization of the Face Threat

The first class of bald on record deals with the condition where the face threat is irrelevant. This class is the class where the FTA is ignored and not minimized. The communication difficulties of this class exert pressure to speak with maximum efficiency. The class where the FTA is ignored includes the case of great urgency or desperation, the case where the speaker‘s willingness to satisfy

hearer‘s face is low and the case where doing the FTA by the speaker is primarily

for hearer‘s interest. The case of great urgency shown in the utterance ―Watch

out!‖ The speaker‘s low willingness to satisfy hearer‘s face is shown in the case when the speaker is more powerful, does not fear retaliation from hearer, or because the speaker wants to be rude. It is exemplified by the utterance ―Bring me

these clothes, John.‖ as said by the oldest sibling. The case where doing the FTA

by the speaker is primarily for hearer‘s interest is shown in the utterance ―Hey,

girl. Don‘t be sad.‖ and ―Be careful! The floor is wet.‖ Thus sympathetic advice or warning can be performed baldly on record.

2) FTA-Oriented Bald on Record Usage

The second type is where a threat is minimized by the implication. Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), the threat which is inherently brought by the FTA

is minimized by saving hearer‘s particular face. For instance, the utterance implicitly saves the hearer‘s face but the utterance that the speaker makes is an FTA. This nicely requires mutual orientation which involves the attempt of each participant of social interaction to foresee what the other participant attempts to foresee (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

There are three states which are included in this type of bald on record, namely welcomings, farewells, and the state where the speaker insists the hearer

to impose on speaker‘s face. The example of welcomings is the utterance ―Come

in. I‘m not busy.‖ as said by a person with higher power to the subordinate who is waiting outside his room. The example of farewells is in the utterance, ―Good

impose on speaker‘s face is exemplified by the utterance, ―Don‘t worry about it. I‘ll clean it up.‖ as said by the host to a guest, who wants to clean the mess.

b. Positive Politeness

Positive politeness is a redress directed to the addressee‘s positive face, the want to be approved, desired, and accepted (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Holtgraves (2002) states that positive politeness is an approach depends on strategy. It refers to an action to minimize the distance between the speaker and hearer. By using positive politeness, the speaker wants to make the hearer feel accepted and feel good about his interest. Brown and Levinson (1987) divide positive politeness into three big mechanisms, namely claiming common ground, conveying that speaker and hearer are cooperators, and fulfilling hearer‘s want. 1) Claiming Common Ground

The first mechanism of positive politeness is claiming common ground which includes the act of indicating that the speaker and hearer belong to a particular group. The particular group here is considered as a group of people who share the same desire that includes goals and values. However, Brown and Levinson (1987) elaborate this mechanism into eight sub-strategies which are exemplified in the following paragraphs.

Sub-strategy 1 is the state where the speaker attends to notice the condition of the hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It includes noticing hearer‘s interests, wants, needs, and goods. Another aspect of notice output is when the speaker respects the hearer condition. It can be in the form of sympathy, care or even

compliment. The example of this sub-strategy is the utterance ―Your performance is very good! Congratulations.‖

Sub-strategy 2 is the state where the speaker exaggerates interest, approval, and sympathy with the hearer. This strategy is often done by saying something more impressive than its actual status using exaggerated intonation or stress in the adjective. The example is the utterance ―What a fantastic car you have!‖

Sub-strategy 3 is intensifying interest to hearer. This sub-strategy is used when the speaker shares his wants to a hearer by making a good story and drawing the hearer into it. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that it is another way for the speaker to intensify the interest of his own contributions to the conversation. It is exemplified with the utterance state by Brown and Levinson (1987) ―I come down the stairs, and what you think I see? –a huge mess all over the place, the phone‘s off the hook and clothes are scattered all over…‖ (p. 106).

Sub-strategy 4 is done by using any of the innumerable way to convey in-group membership. It indicates that both the speaker and hearer belong to a in-group of people who share specific wants. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the use of address forms, language or dialect, jargon or slang, and ellipsis are the elements of in-group identity markers. The example is in utterance ―Come here, fellas.‖

Sub-strategy 5 is seeking agreement. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that

seeking agreement indicates speaker‘s wants to seek hearer‘s agreement and

therefore to satisfy hearer‘s desire to be ‗right‘. It is done by delivering safe topics

conversation. The example is proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) in the dialogue:

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

It can be seen that hearer B repeats the part of what the preceding speaker A has said in the conversation as the response to speaker A‘s safe topic.

Sub-strategy 6 is done by avoiding disagreement. There are four mechanisms of avoiding disagreement according to Brown and Levinson (1987). The mechanisms are token agreement that leads the speaker to twist his utterances to hide disagreement, pseudo-agreement which is the use of ‘then’as a conclusory marker, white lies, and hedging opinions. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterances ―I‘ll be seeing you then.‖

Sub-strategy 7 is presupposing common ground. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that gossiping or having small talk is the example of presupposing or asserting common ground. This is an act of believing something happens before it is proven. The example is in the utterance ―I really had a hard time learning to dive, you know.‖

Sub-strategy 8 is using joke. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that joking is a basic positive-politeness technique. In this way, jokes can be used to stress mutual background knowledge and values that are shared by the speaker and hearer. The example is in the utterance ―OK if I tackle those cookies now?‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 124).

2) Conveying that Speaker and Hearer are Co-operators

The second mechanism is conveying that the speaker and hearer are co-operators. It means that the speaker and hearer have the same goal and same wants in particular way. Brown and Levinson (1987) divide this strategy into six sub-strategies that will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Sub-strategy 1 is asserting speaker‘s knowledge of and concern for

hearer‘s wants. Brown and Levinson (1987) note that this sub-strategy purposes to assert the hearer‘s wants and willingness based on the speaker‘s knowledge to fit

one‘s own wants within them. The example that is proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) is in the utterance ―I know you can‘t bear parties, but this one will really be good – do come!‖ (p. 125).

Sub-strategy 2 is offering or promising. Brown and Levinson (1987) state

that offers and promises demonstrate speaker‘s good intention to satisfy the

hearer‘s wants. The intention of satisfying the hearer‘s wants claims that the speaker will obtain whatever the hearer‘s wants. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―I‘ll drop by sometime next week.‖

Sub-strategy 3 is being optimistic. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that

this is the act of assuming that speaker‘s wants is also wanted by hearer and that

the hearer will help the speaker to obtain them. Thus, the speaker presumptuously assumes that hearer will cooperate with him because both of them share mutual interest. The example of the utterance is ―You‘ll lend me your lawnmower for the

Sub-strategy 4 is including the speaker and hearer in a particular activity. This sub-strategy is done by using an inclusive ‗we‘ form, when the speaker really

means ‗you‘ or ‗me‘. By using ‗we‘ form, the speaker wants the hearer to be involved in the activity and eventually become cooperators. The example is in the utterance ―Let‘s get on with dinner, eh?‖ (i.e. you).

Sub-strategy 5 is giving or asking for reasons. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that giving or asking for reason is a way of assuming cooperation between the speaker and the hearer (H wants S‘s desires). This sub-strategy shows that

help is needed as in a way of implying ‗I can help you‘ or ‗you can help me‘. The

example is in utterance ―Why don‘t I help you with that suitcase?‖

Sub-strategy six is assuming or asserting reciprocity. This sub-strategy is done by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations which are obtained between speaker and hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It is an act when the speaker and hearer create mutual advantages. The sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―I‘ll give you pizza if you win the competition.‖

3) Fulfilling Hearer’s Want

The third mechanism is fulfilling hearer‘s wants. It means that the speaker wants the hearer‘s desire for hearer himself. The speaker can satisfy the hearer‘s positive face by making the hearer satisfy about positive face he wants. Hence, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that satisfying hearer‘s wants is done by the act of gift-giving. The gift itself is not only in a form of tangible gift, but it also in the form of intangible gift, such as goods, sympathy, understanding, and cooperation that is done among the speaker and the hearer. This sub-strategy is exemplified

with the utterance ―I heard that your son won yesterday‘s singing competition. I

am happy for you.‖

c. Negative Politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that negative politeness is a redressible

action addressed to the addressee‘s negative face. It is about the speaker‘s desires to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Negative politeness is more specific and focus rather than positive politeness which is free-ranging. There are four sub-strategies in the mechanism of negative politeness strategy that are classified by Brown & Levinson (1987).

1) Being Conventionally Indirect

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that conventional indirect forms can be seen by asking questions or asserting the felicity conditions underlying the act. The conventional indirectness occurs when the speaker uses phrases or sentences that have contextually unambiguous meaning which are different from their literal meanings. These sub-strategies can be performed when a speaker wants to bother a person for favors, for example, ―Can you shut the door?‖ In this way, the

speaker‘s on record utterance is conveyed indirectly. Brown and Levinson (1987)

add that ―conventional indirectness encodes the clash of wants and partially achieves them both‖ (p. 132).

2) Avoid Presuming or Assuming

Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that avoiding presuming or assuming anything towards the hearer‘s belief includes avoiding presumption about the hearer, his wants, and what is the relevant of his attention (p. 144). The ability to

avoid performing a particular action regarding the hearer‘s belief is through the

use of hedges. For example, the use of ‗if‘ clause suspends the relevant felicity condition, as in the utterance ―Close the door, if you can‖; the use of hedges

addressed to Grice‘s Maxim, as seen in the utterance ―I assume that junk food is

not good for health.‖, the hedge ‗assume‘ can suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance; the use of hedge on the relevance maxim to soften the imposition of topic changes, as in the utterance

―I‘m sorry to say this, but…‖ (as cited in Holtgraves, 2002, p.45). 3) Avoid Coercion

A strategy to lessen coercion includes not only conventional indirectness, but also an act which conveys pessimism regarding the appropriateness of the act that is performed by the speaker (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The use of

subjunctive and tag questions, as in the utterance ―Would you open the door?‖, are

the output of this strategy. In addition, the other sub-strategies to lessen coercion include attempting to minimize the imposition, humbling themselves (downgrading a compliment), and giving deference (using formal address terms). 4) Communicate a Speaker’s Wants to Not Impinge on Hearer

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that communicating the speaker‘s wants to not impinge on the other can be accomplished by providing an apology which

indicates reluctance, as in utterance ―I don‘t want to disturb you, but could you lend me a hand?‖; admitting the impingement, as in utterance ―I know you are busy, but could you come to me please?‖; or by asking for forgiveness, for

borderline the addressee (hearer) from the act that will be delivered by the speaker linguistically. The sub-strategy is impersonalizing the speaker and hearer. For

example, the use of pronoun ‗I‘ in ―It‘s wrong‖ rather than ―I tell you it‘s wrong‖; and pronoun ‗you‘ as in ―Close the door‖ rather than ―You close the door‖; and

the use of passive rather than active instructions as in ―It is expected that students

will follow the lesson‖ rather than ―I expect you to follow the lesson.‖

5) Go on Record of Incurring Debt

The last sub-strategy by Brown and Levinson (1987) is going on record of incurring debt or by disclaiming any indebtedness on the part of the hearer. An example of this sub-strategy is the utterance ―I‘d be happy for your help‖ and ―I

could easily do it for you.‖

d. Off Record

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that an off record utterance is actually an indirect use of language. People who use the off record strategy will produce utterance that is either more general or essentially different from what others mean. It means that the utterance which is stated by someone contain less information so that the hearer have to interpret them in order to understand the real meaning. Thus, it is clear that the meaning of the utterance is not directly stated by the speakers since the utterance is categorized as an indirect utterance. It is supported by Holtgraves (2002), who states that off record strategy is an indirect communication. There are two mechanisms that are proposed by Brown and Levinson in the off record strategy, namely inviting conversational implicature and being vague or ambiguous.

1) Inviting Conversational Implicatures

If the speaker wants to do an FTA and chooses to do it indirectly, the speaker must give the hearer some clues. Besides, the speaker hopes that the hearer can interpret what the speaker really means to say. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the basic way to do the FTA is by inviting the conversational implicatures so that the speaker can assume an interpretation that makes the clues understandable. This mechanism is divided into ten sub-strategies that will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Sub-strategy 1 is by giving hints. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy is done by the speaker who says something that is not explicitly relevant. The speaker invites the hearer to find an interpretation of the possible relevance. An example for this sub-strategy is in the utterance ―This soup‘s a bit

bland‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 215). From the utterance, the speaker gives hints to the hearer to pass the salt.

Sub-strategy 2 is by giving association clues. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who gives a related kind of implicature triggered by relevance violations. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that ―it is provided by mentioning something associated with the act required of a hearer by mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional experiences‖ (p. 215). This sub-strategy is exemplified by the utterance ―Are you going to market tomorrow? There‘s a market tomorrow, I suppose‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 216). From the utterance, the speaker conveys a request to the hearer to give a ride there.

Sub-strategy 3 is presupposing prior event. The example of the strategy is in the utterance ―I washed the car againtoday.‖ The use of again is done by the speaker to force the hearer to find the relevance of the presupposed prior event (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Sub-strategy 4 is by understating what the speaker actually wants to say. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this is an act of saying something less than what is required. The example is in the utterance ―That dress is quite nice‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 218), when the speaker actually means that he does not particularly like it for understated criticism implicating, or the speaker actually likes it very much for understated compliment implicating.

Sub-strategy 5 is overstating. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who exaggerates or chooses a point on scale which is higher than what is required (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It is the opposite of the previous sub-strategy which is understating. The example of the sub-strategy is in the utterance ―There were a million people in the Co-op tonight!‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 219).

Sub-strategy 6 is using tautologies. It is done by the speaker who encourages the hearer to search for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance. As stated by Brown and Levinson (1987), the example is the utterance ―If I won‘t give it, I won‘t,‖ (c.i. I mean it!).

Sub-strategy 7 is using contradiction. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this sub-strategy is the act of stating two things that contradict to each other. In this case, the speaker cannot tell the truth and encourage the hearer to look for

an interpretation that conforms both contradictory propositions. The example is

―Well, Johnis here and he isn‘t here‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 221).

Sub-strategy 8 is being ironic. This is an act where the speaker says the opposite of what he really means. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the speaker can indirectly convey his intended meaning by saying the opposite. The example is in the utterance ―Beautiful weather, isn‘t it!‖ (As said by the speaker to a postman drenched in rainstorm).

Sub-strategy 9 is using metaphors. In this sub-strategy, the speaker uses metaphor and hedges the utterance. By doing this, the speaker invites the hearer to interpret the meaning of the utterance. This sub-strategy is exemplified by the utterance ―Emma‘s a real fish.‖ (c.i. She swims like a fish).

Sub-strategy 10 is using rhetorical question. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker wants to ask a question with no intention for the hearer to answer the question. The example of this sub-strategy is in the utterance ‖What can I do?‖ As said by the speaker who actually has nothing to do.

2) Be Vague or Ambiguous

Being vague or ambiguous is another mechanism that can be used by the speaker to go off record. There are five sub-strategies of being vague or ambiguous that are explained in the following sections.

Sub-strategy 1 is being ambiguous. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this sub-strategy is done by the speaker who makes purposeful ambiguity which may be achieved by using metaphor. It can be seen in the utterance ―John‘s

a pretty (sharp/smooth) cookie.‖ It could be either a compliment or an insult,

depending on which of the connotations of sharp or smooth are latched on to. Sub-strategy 2 is being vague. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the speaker can go off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object is or what the offence is. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―Perhaps someone did something naughty‖ as said by the speaker to convey criticism.

Sub-strategy 3 is over-generalizing. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker gives a rule instantiation which may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record. Then, the hearer have to decide whether the general rules apply to him. The example is in the utterance

―Mature people sometimes help do the dishes.‖

Sub-strategy 4 is displacing the hearer. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy happens when the speaker pretends to address the FTA to someone whom it would not threaten. Thus, the speaker expects that the real target will understand that the FTA is aimed at him. The example case of this sub-strategy is stated by Ervin Tripp in which one secretary in an office asks another using negative politeness to pass the stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the stapler than the other secretary (as cited in Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 226). It does not threaten the professor‘s face and he may choose to do it himself as a bonus for the secretary.

Sub-strategy 5 is being incomplete and using ellipsis. This is an act of saying unfinished utterance. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that by leaving an FTA half undone, the speaker can leave the implicature ‗hanging in the air‘ as

same as rhetorical question. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance

―Oh sir, a headache…‖ as used by a niece to ask her father‘s younger brother for

an aspirin. This utterance gave him the option of telling her to take a rest rather than dispensing a precious pill.

6. Factors of Politeness Strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that there are two factors which can influence the speaker to use politeness strategies. The factors are the politeness

strategies‘ payoffs and the sociological variables.

a. Payoffs

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that payoffs are the expected results of the politeness strategies. When politeness strategies are used by the speaker, there will be the expected result concealed in the strategies. In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that the expected results in applying the strategies must be beneficial for him. Therefore, every politeness strategy has its own advantages for the speaker.

The payoff is classified into four payoffs based on each politeness strategy, namely bald on record payoff, positive politeness payoff, negative politeness payoff, and off record payoff. The following sections discuss the four payoffs. 1) Bald On Record Payoff

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that bald on record is used by the speaker when he wants to be clear, straight-forward, and efficient in expressing his wants. Meanwhile, the speaker has particular intentions in applying this strategy that will give them some advantages. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that by using bald

on record strategy, the speaker avoids the possibility of being misunderstood, being seen to be a manipulator, and being dishonest. In addition, the speaker who uses this strategy can have the opportunity to give compensation for the face that has been threatened by the FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

2) Positive Politeness Payoff

Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), one of the advantages for the speaker who applies positive politeness strategy is that he can minimize the threat

of an FTA by assuring the addressee that he is ‗the same kind‘ as the hearer. It means that the speaker likes the desire that a hearer wants. Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that ―positive politeness is used by the speaker to

satisfy hearer‘s positive face in some respects‖ (p. 71). By doing so, the speaker wants to maintain social closeness toward the hearer. The speaker who uses positive politeness can value what the hearer has by giving compliments towards the hearer. Therefore, the speaker can also avoid or minimize the debt implication of doing the FTA by referring to the relationship between speaker and hearer. 3) Negative Politeness Payoff

Negative politeness is a strategy that is used by the speaker to satisfy

hearer‘s negative face. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that by using negative

politeness, the speaker wants to pay his respect and deference towards the hearer for the FTA that he makes. In other words, by using negative politeness, the speaker wants to respect other, maintain social distance, and avoid the threat that speaker gives to the hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The example from this case is when the speaker gives the hearer freedom to decide his choice in

perceiving the speaker‘s request. The speaker who uses negative politeness will

clarify that he does not really expect the hearer to say ‗Yes‘ in perceiving the speaker‘s request unless he wants to. Thereby, the speaker can minimize the

mutual face loss incurred if the hearer has to say ‗No‘. Furthermore, the speaker can avoid the threat of advancing familiarity towards the hearer by maintaining social distance (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

4) Off Record Payoff

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the off record strategy is used by the speaker to satisfy the hearer‘s negative face and to minimize the threat which the speaker makes towards the hearer in a greater degree. By applying the off record strategy, the speaker can have profit in the following ways: the speaker can get credit for being sympathetic and non-coerciveness, avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation, and give the hearer an opportunity to be

seen to care for speaker so that he can test hearer‘s feelings towards him.

b. Sociological Variables

Another factor that influences the speaker in using politeness strategies is the sociological variables. There are three variables that are proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), namely social distance, relative power, and the rank of imposition. It is considered as the calculation in the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA. The calculation affects the way the speaker uses the politeness strategies. Furthermore, each of the calculation has its own values that the hearer knows.

1) Social Distance

As stated by Brown and Levinson (1987), social distance is ―symmetrical social dimension of similarity or difference‖ (p. 76). Moreover, Holmes (2001) describes that the dimension deals with the judgment of the relationship between the speaker and hearer. Thus, intimacy between the speaker and hearer affects the choice of the strategy.

Social distance also discusses how stable social attributes (age, social class, and ethnic background) affect the relationship between the speaker and hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In other words, it indicates the intimacy between the speaker and hearer whether they have close or distant relationship. If the speaker has high intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose the least polite strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record strategies. Meanwhile, if the speaker has less intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose more polite strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies.

2) Relative Power

Relative power is an asymmetric relation. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that relative power is the degree to which the hearer can impose his own wants. It is supported by Holmes (2001) that using similar terms of relative power called ―relative status‖. It explains about the status of the hearer over the speaker which actually focuses on the power of the hearer over the speaker. It means that the speaker will use more polite strategy when the speaker has lower power than the hearer. Meanwhile, when the speaker has higher power than the hearer, the speaker will use less polite strategy.

3) Rank of Imposition

The last sociological variable is rank of imposition. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that ―the rank of imposition is the degree of a matter that is considered as the interference to the face of the hearer‖ (p. 77). The interference itself is the FTA that the speaker made. In other words, the degree of the FTA defines the rank of impositions. A speaker who wants to impose the hearer‘s negative face will choose more polite strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies. Meanwhile, a speaker who wants to impose the hearer‘s positive face will choose less polite strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record strategies.

B. Review of Related Research

In this section, the writer will review other related studies previously done by other researchers. There are two studies that will be reviewed by the writer.

The first study was written by Oktorio (2015) entitled A Study of Politeness Strategies Used by The Four Main Characters of Yes Man. The study analyzed the types of politeness strategies that were used by the four main characters and the factors that influenced the four characters in using politeness strategies. The theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) about the types of politeness strategies and the factors in choosing the strategies was employed in the study. Oktorio (2015) applied document analysis method and used the movie script of Yes Man movie.

The second study was written by Gloria (2016) entitled The Use of Brown

and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies as seen in Elizabeth Gilbert’s Eat Pray Love.

Gloria (2016) analyzed the politeness strategies employed in a novel. The study discussed how the main characters of the novel used politeness strategies and what factors that affected them in choosing the politeness strategies. The theory of politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and the theory of Holmes (2001) about the factors affecting the use of politeness strategies were employed in the study. Gloria (2016) implemented a document analysis method in which it was associated with discourse analysis since the study was a socio-pragmatic research of a novel.

However, there are some differences between the previous studies from this study. The studies by Oktorio (2015) and Gloria (2016) analyzed about politeness strategies in the movie and novel. However, this study will discussed the use of politeness strategies in a talk show, namely The Ellen Show. It becomes the new thing of this study because the writer analyze the conversation between a host and the guest stars which run spontaneously. It is different from the analysis of the conversation between the characters in the movie and novel which have been conducted before. Moreover, the focus of this study is to analyze how politeness strategies are used by Ellen as a multitalented host who has a background as comedian and two U.S. politicians who attended the talk show. The U.S. politicians are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The clips of the talk show will be the data source of this study. Specifically, most of the clips are taken during the presidential campaign.

C. Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this study is to analyze the implementation of politeness strategies which are done by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show. There are two research questions, namely the types of politeness strategies implemented by Ellen and the U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show and the factors which influence the choice of politeness strategies in the conversation between Ellen and the politicians in the talk show. Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory is used to underlay the writer in analyzing the study to answer the research questions.

In order to answer the first research question, the writer uses Brown and

Levinson‘s (1987) politeness strategies theory to analyze the utterances that are

produced by the speakers. Brown and Levinson (1987) elaborate the politeness strategies theory into four strategies, namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record strategy. The writer applies the four strategies to analyze the utterances which are produced by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show and classify the types of strategies that are used by them.

Meanwhile, in order to analyze the factors which affect the choice of the

strategies, the writer also uses Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory. Brown and Levinson (1987) elaborate the factors which influence the application of the politeness strategies into two factors. Those two factors are the payoffs of the politeness strategies and the sociological variables. The writer analyzes the utterances which are produced by Ellen and the politicians in the talk show in accordance with the two factors to see what factors which influence the choice of the strategies.

33 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a methodology rationale which is used to find the data for this study. This chapter is divided into four parts, namely the research method, research setting and data source, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In this study, the writer focused on the implementation of politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in a talk show namely

The Ellen Show. The method used by the writer aimed to answer two research questions. The two research questions in this study are (1) Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show? and (2) What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show? This study discussed how language was used in a social context especially in the form of conversation as shown in the talk show. Therefore, the concern of the study was about the way how Ellen and the U.S. politicians implemented the politeness strategies in their conversation in The Ellen Show.

The writer employed this study which was categorized as qualitative research. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2010) state that ―a qualitative research focuses on the understanding of social phenomenon from the perspective of the human participant in natural setting‖ (p.22). It was the same as the objectives of the study which were to analyze the politeness strategies employed by Ellen and

the politicians and to find the factors that influence the choice of the strategy. The goal of this qualitative research is a depth understanding in narrative description and interpretation, rather than a numeric data analysis (Ary, et al. 2002). Meanwhile, to answer the research questions, the writer applied a discourse analysis method since it concerned how language was used in the communication between Ellen and U.S. politicians (see Chapter 2, section A, p. 8). In this study, the utterances of the subjects that carried politeness strategies were discussed. The utterances became the model of how language was used in context. Therefore, discourse analysis method was considered as the most appropriate method for this study since it dealt with language used in social interactions.

B. Research Setting and Data Source

The writer started to analyze the data on November 10th, 2016. Specifically, the writer watched the clips of the talk show in order to know which politeness strategies that were used by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show. The talk show was televised in United States (U.S.) as one of the most favorite talk shows. The clips and the transcripts of the dialogue between Ellen and the politicians was provided in the clips uploaded by The Ellen Show You Tube

channel.

The clips that were chosen were all the clips in The Ellen Show that were attended by the politicians (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) from the last two years (2014 until 2016). Most of the clips were taken during the presidential campaign.

The utterances that were analyzed in this study were produced mainly by three speakers in the talk show. The first speaker was Ellen DeGeneres as the host of the daytime talk show named The Ellen Show. Ellen DeGeneres is one of the most popular comedians and the host of a successful daytime talk show. She started her career as a stand-up comedian in the early 1980s. As a film actress, there are several movies that are starred, such as Mr. Wrong (1996) and The Love Letter (1999). She also dubbed the voice of Dory in the Pixar animated films

Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016). She becomes the host in The Ellen Show since 2003. In hosting, she always creates an interesting performance in every episode in The Ellen Show. She creates a pleasing atmosphere and sometimes she makes some jokes to entertain the audience and guest stars. The Ellen Show earned positive reviews and solid ratings across nation (―Ellen

DeGeneres, The Ellen Show‖). Moreover, The Ellen Show was nominated in

Emmy Award in 2004. That was a successful year for Ellen and The Ellen Show in the early debut of the talk show.

The second subject was the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is a father of two daughters, namely Malia and Natasha, from his marriage with Michelle Robinson. He started his career as a civil rights attorney and professor and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. In November 2008, he was elected as President of USA. Furthermore, he was the first African-American president who was chosen to become the leader of America. He was really respected by the people who supported him.

Parameswaran (2009) states that American news media recorded the euphoric reaction of citizen around the world in the aftermath of the inauguration ceremonies.

The third subject was the President candidate of the United States of America Election 2016, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. In the time the writer conducted this research, Hillary Clinton was joining a campaign as the President Candidate of USA. She was born on October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois. She married Bill Clinton in 1975 and have a daughter named Chelsea Clinton. In her career she was elected as the first female senator from New York in 2000 and became a Secretary of State in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013. As stated by Taylor, Lord, McIntyre, and Paulson (2011), Hillary Clinton was in the top three most frequently mentioned successful woman. She was an advocate for gender equality and healthcare reform. In addition, she was appointed by President Carter to the board of Legal Service Corporation and won a Grammy for her recording of her book It Takes a Village (Taylor, et al., 2011).

C. Data Gathering Technique

In gathering the data, the writer firstly observed the selected clips of the talk show. Then, the writer analyzed the utterances which were produced by Ellen and U.S politicians with the help of the transcripts of the selected clips. In selecting the clips, the writer went to http://www.youtube.com/TheEllenShow. The clips with the transcripts were taken from The Ellen Show You Tube channel. After that, the writer determined the clips that would be used as the main source of the data. The writer chose all the clips of The Ellen Show that were attended by

the U.S. politicians. Further, the writer selected and collected the utterances which are produced by the speakers which carried politeness strategies. Thus, the selected utterances were used to find out the factors which influence the choice of politeness strategies.

Meanwhile, in conducting the research, the writer acted as human instrument. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that the writer as a human instrument has the ability to collect information concerning multiple factors simultaneously. Similarly, the writer employed some information taken from books, journals, internet, and previous studies in terms of supporting the process of data analysis. D. Data Analysis Technique

All the utterances produced by Ellen and U.S. politicians were taken from the transcripts of the talk show. The writer analyzed the utterances in order to know how the speakers conveyed the messages and intentions. Meanwhile, there were three steps that were used by the writer to answer the research questions.

First, the writer made a checklist in the form of a table that contains the speakers, the utterances, and what politeness strategies were used. There were four types of politeness strategies written in the table, namely bald on record (BoR), positive politeness (PP), negative politeness (NP), and off record (OR). Thus, the purpose of the checklist was to classify which politeness strategies used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in the talk show.

Second, the analysis was done by observing the occurrence of each politeness strategy that was used by each speaker. Then, the revealed strategies were listed based on the categorization that written in the table. The categorization

is shown in Table 3.1. Meanwhile, the completed data analysis was presented in Appendix A. Furthermore, the selected utterances from the table were analyzed to answer the first research question by using Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness strategies theory.

Table 3.1 The Categorization of Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show

Speakers Utterances Politeness Strategies

Ellen Mr. President, it has been

awhile since we‘ve

spoken. You look great. How are you?

PP

Barack Obama Ellen dog bowls are

somewhere. I‘m sorry, but…

NP

Hillary Clinton Don‘t let all the wonderful, beautiful young women who are

here, don‘t get

discouraged. Don‘t give in, don‘t give up. Don‘t

quit on yourself, on your dreams, on your future.

BoR

… … …

At last, the writer identified the utterances which carried politeness strategies that were described in the first research question‘s discussion to find out what factors that influence the speakers to use certain politeness strategy. Thus, the writer also used Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory to find out what factors that influence the speakers to use certain politeness strategies.

Macey : All right, so like, he, um, after his mama and grandma died he went off to be a cowboy.

Ellen : Did you know that?

Obama : You know, I gotta say Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorite presidents. So he lived a pretty exciting life, really.

Ellen : So you have questions for the president, this is a big moment. You can do whatever, you want to ask. What‘s your first question? Macey : So, is there really a Book of Secrets?

Obama : That‘s secret.

Ellen : What kind of secrets would you want to know, what would you, what would be in the Book of Secrets?

Macey : If aliens are real.

Obama : Well, what do you think?

Macey : Well, after watching these TV shows, I think aliens are probably real.

Ellen : Okay, well, which TV show?

Macey : I think, it's called like America's Book of Secrets. [audience laugh] Obama : There you go [laugh]

Ellen : Well, seems like somebody spill the secrets already. Obama : I thought that was classic. I didn't think there's a TV show. Macey : Yeah.

Obama : Well, the truth is Macey, we haven't actually made direct contact with aliens yet, but when we do I'll let you know. Ellen : Yeah, yeah. What else?

Macey : So, your dogs even have a secret service? [audience laugh] Obama : No. Bo and Sunny they‘re on their own, but usually we don‘t let

him out of the White House unless they‘re with us. So, you know, they‘re protected.

Macey : So, are you still using the Ellen dog bowls?

Obama : You know, Ellen dog bowls are somewhere. [audience laugh] I am sorry, but..

Um, Bo and Sunny, they--

Ellen : Give me, give me my trump back. [audience laugh]

Obama : You know that they had their favorite bowls and they, it turns out that they weren‘t the only bowl, you know, but I like Ellen dog bowls, sometimes I use the bail and bowls though.

Ellen : [laughs] All right, if you have more questions we’re going to ask him after the show, because the show is over, but is there any one last question you want to ask him?

Macey : Um. No.

Ellen : [audience laugh] Okay.

Obama : You know, I wish you‘re a reporter, because that would be great, if there is a press conference and then asking, ―Is there any more questions?‖ and she says ―no‖.

Ellen : [laughs] Okay.

such a presidential expert. Come here, so this is the Presidential Seal, see, and so wherever the president goes he always has the seal and I signed it on the back, so in case you become president, you will already have one.

You don‘t even have to get a new one. You‘ll be all set. Macey : Thank you. [smiling]

Obama : You‘re welcome.

Ellen : Yeah, all right, we‘re going on.

Transcript 4

Clip Title : President Obama Discusses His Daughters Published on : February 12, 2016

Ellen : So this is Malia is going off to college, and that's got to be. Obama : It‘s hard.

Ellen : Yes. Obama : Yeah.

Ellen : That‘s got to be.

Obama : Look. As Michelle reminds me, our job is to prepare them not need us. And both my daughters are wonderful people, and Malia is more than ready to leave. But I'm not ready for her to leave, and I was asked if I would speak at her graduation and I said

absolutely not. Because I'm gonna be sitting there with dark glasses sobbing.

She's one of my best friends and it's gonna be hard for me not to have her around all the time.

But she's ready to go. You know you can tell when they're she's just a really smart, capable person and she's ready to make her own way. And they're--

Ellen : Wow.

Obama : Wonderful, they're wonderful girls and I-- Michelle gets all the credit, maybe an assist from my mother in law.

But they really are just solid kids. They don't have an attitude, they're courteous and kind to everybody.

They work hard, they don't feel like they're entitled to anything. Ellen : Well, they have great parents. Both you and Michelle are

really, really amazing.

Michelle Is such a strong, wonderful role model for all women. And she has been a great First Lady.

Obama : I agree, that I agree with. [audience applause] Ellen : We have to take another break.

Obama : That is indisputable. Ellen : Yep.

And you have been a great President. And like you said people can say things over and over and over again about unemployment

or the economy or anything else.

If you listen to that, you're gonna believe it.

If you look into it and see what the facts are-- It's just not the truth. Obama : We're better off now then when I came in.

There's no doubt.

Ellen : You’ve done an amazing job.

Transcript 5

Clip Title : President Obama Talks The First Lady Published on : February 12, 2016

Ellen : Do you look at what’s going on now in the campaigning and do you miss it any way and do you look at them and go, you’re making big mistakes?

Obama : [laugh] I don‘t miss it.

Ellen : [laugh] It‘s always good to get out of Washington, which can sometimes be a little depressing. What will, to get out of Washington or to, what part is depressing?

Obama : Well, Washington. [audience laugh] Ellen : That’s, I would think so.

Obama : Yeah. [audience applause] Ellen : I mean, really.

Obama : Yeah, no, but--

Ellen : You‘re probably not kidding-- Obama : I’m kinda not kidding.

Ellen : Yeah, I mean, what was the biggest surprise for you when you became president, what surprised you the most?

Obama : Well, the fact is that most of the time if something reaches my desk, it means it's really hard, which is why they bumped it up to me ‗cuz nobody else could figure it out.

And when I came in, the economy was collapsing. We were about to go into a great depression.

We had to make a whole bunch of decisions about saving the auto industry or making sure that business has got back on their feet, or the housing market would recover.

And you're having to make big bets with incomplete information. You're not sure that everything's gonna work.

And I think that part of what's happened in this Instagram. You know, Twitter culture is that we expect quick answers without sacrifice, without having to make choices, and politicians play into that.

But the truth of the matter is, you know the world is a big complicated place.

The good news is that we're generally going in the right direction, and my hope is that we'll continue to do so.

Ellen : That’s everybody’s hope, but let’s talk about me. [Audience and Obama laugh]

I feel like. Don‘t you think if more people danced? Obama : Yes.

Ellen : And just had fun instead of, everyone takes everything so

seriously and I think that we have these people, I'm kinda kidding there, obviously, but I think we have people that we all have the one thing in common which is we just want a good quality of life. Obama : Right.

Ellen : And then we had these people that feel one way and if someone feels another way, we tend to hate them and it's just-

Obama : That‘s not helpful. Ellen : No, it’s not helpful.

Obama : The amount of stuff that is just put out there on the internet or on sometimes news broadcasts that are just factually inaccurate, is surprising.

And it's really hard to catch up.

Since I came into office, we reduced the deficit by two thirds. But if you ask the average person, they're sure that spending has shot up. And the reason is because there are a bunch of folks who say that. We‘re wildly overspending even though we aren‘t.

Ellen : Right.

Obama : And that's just one small example, but it happens all the time. And that's something that we have to fix partly by people paying more attention to what's going on every single day.

And it's hard because people are busy.

They're dropping off their kids, they're working. They're, you know, trying to figure out how they get some exercise, do some push-ups and.

Ellen : Speaking of her. Obama : Okay.

Ellen : What do you and Michelle disagree on? [audience laugh] Obama : Well.

Ellen : Like what do you fight about--

Obama : After about, 15 years, I finally figured out that she's always right.

So. [Audience applause] So then surprisingly we just stopped fighting. And there's no more fighting.

Ellen : Well, she‘s a cheater, you know that, when you talk about the push-ups.

I‘m not even gonna, I‘m not gonna argue about it anymore. [Obama laughs]

But she‘s a cheater. So look at how far down I went, and look how--

Obama : You‘re so upset about that.

claimed she had longer arms and so she's, listen, it was very impressive that she kept going but she didn't go down as far as me.

Obama : Okay.

Ellen : Look at, look!

Obama : She‘s going down pretty far. Ellen : No, no, no.

Not as far down as me. Look. [audience laughing]

Obama : I mean, those are good, you have good form.

Ellen : I have better form than her, and I – [all laughing] Obama : You have good form.

Ellen : All right. [applause]

Transcript 6

Clip Title : Hillary Clinton’s Debate Dance Moves Published on : October 14, 2016

Ellen : Everybody's talking about the debate, and everyone's talking about the winner of this debate, and clearly the winner of the debate was the guy in the red sweater.

Hillary : Yes.

Ellen : Ken Bone. And for some reason, no one is talking about this moment, but we have to show it.

~video playing~ Hillary : There's a lot at stake.

This is not an ordinary time, and this is not an ordinary election. [Audience laughing] We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for, not just for eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world, from the Supreme Court to energy and so much else. And so there is a lot at stake. It's one of the most consequential elections that we've had. And that's why I've tried to put forth specific policies and plans. Kind of get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is I wanna do as president.

Thank you very much both of you. ~video stopped~ Hillary : Yeah. [applause, laugh]

Ellen : You can move.

Hillary : That was the best dancing I‘ve ever done. Ellen : Yeah. [laugh] You can move.

Hillary : He wasn‘t bad either.

Ellen : No, Ken Bone was great. Listen, before I say goodbye to you, it is your 69th birthday in a few weeks.

Ellen : And I can imagine, but tell what you wish for for your birthday.

Hillary : Well, I have several wishes, one of them obviously includes the election, but I also, I really wish that I will be the president that are country needs right now, that's my deepest hope. [audience applause]

And, you're right, it is my birthday and just think of it this way, I will be the youngest woman ever elected President of the United States [Laugh]

Ellen : Yes, you will. Hillary : That‘s right.

Ellen : I cannot wait. I have high hopes and I trust in the good people of this country to make the right decision. After you are elected president, come back and see us.

Hillary : I will. Ellen : All right.

Hillary : Absolutely, absolutely. Ellen : We’ll be right back.