A STUDY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DAILY CONVERSATION AS SHOWN IN HENRIK IBSEN’S A DOLL’S HOUSE

  

A STUDY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE POLITENESS

STRATEGIES IN DAILY CONVERSATION AS SHOWN IN

HENRIK IBSEN’S A DOLL’S HOUSE

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

  Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

  By

DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA

  Student Number: 03 4214 042

  

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2007

  if we looked only by what we know, we couldn t turn our heads: if we were at the mercy of what

we understand,

our eyes couldn t see: discovery is praise understanding is celebration

  (A.R. Ammons)

  iv

  

f or my beloved D ad and M om

  v

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  Praise to God that finally I can finish my thesis. I have to thank so many people who have supported me with their love, guidance and prayer. My highest gratitude goes to Jesus Christ for blessing me all my life and for guiding me in writing my undergraduate thesis.

  I would like to thank Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M. Pd., M. A., my advisor, for his guidance, suggestions and time during the writing of my undergraduate thesis, and to

  

Adventina Putranti, S. S., M. Hum. as my co-advisor who has given several

essential inputs in finishing this thesis.

  I also thank all the lecturers for their guidance during my years of study, all

  

the staffs of English Letters and Sanata Dharma University library for all the

  help. I thank them also for facilitating me and for the cooperation during my years of study in Sanata Dharma University.

  I also would like to show my gratitude to my beloved parents and brothers for supporting me in writing my undergraduate thesis. I am so happy to share my life with all of them. I give special thanks to Maria Sri Ismayasari, who has been my soulmate, support and extra motivation. I thank her for encouraging me to finish my thesis as soon as possible.

  My special thanks also go to my best friends that have been so kind to me:

  

Yeri, Boim, Ajeng, Prita, Tyas, Tombro, Dika, Bagor, Vendhuz, Kosep, Tyo,

  

Sushit, and Nitnot. I thank them for the happy and sad moments that we have

  shared. Thanks to all of my friends in academic year of 2003; my friends in Sastra

  

Football Community and those whose names I cannot mention one by one for the

supports and good wishes. I would be nothing without them.

  Dalmasius Jati Pangarsa. vii

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ………………………………………………………………... i APPROVAL PAGE

  2. Politeness Strategies ………..……………………………….. 9

  D. Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………... 17

  C. The play A Doll’s House …………………………………………… 16

  5. Language and Power ……………………………………….. 14

  4. FTA (Face Threatening Acts) ………………………………. 12

  3. Scale of Politeness ……………………………………….….. 10

  d. Off-Record or Indirect …………………………………… 10

  c. Negative Politeness ……………………………………….. 10

  b. Positive Politeness ……………………………………….. 9

  a. Bald On-Record ………………………………………….. 9

  1. Politeness ……………………………………………………. 8

  ……………………………………………………......... ii

  B. Review of Related Theories ………………………………………… 8

  3. Impoliteness in Congreve’s The Way of the World ………… 7

  2. Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and The Dogs: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis ………………………………. 7

  

The Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night ………………. 6

  1. The Application of Brown + Levinson’s Universal Theory of Politeness to Much Ado about nothing, Measure for Measure,

  

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………........ 6

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

  4 D. Definition of Terms ………………………………………………… 4

  CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………… 1 A. Background of the Study …………………………………………… 1 B. Problem Formulation ……………………………………………….. 3 C. Objectives of the Study …………………..........................................

  

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ……………………………………………………… iii

MOTTO PAGE ……………………………………………………………... iv

DEDICATION PAGE …………………………………………………….... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………… vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………… viii

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………….. x

ABSTRAK …………………………………………………………………… xi

  

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………. 20

A. Object of the Study …………………………………………………. 20

  C. Method of the Study ………………………………………………… 23

  1. Data Collection ……………………………………………… 23

  2. Data Analysis ………………………………………………. 24

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS ……………………………………… 26 A. Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: the Expressions from

  the Third Act …………………………………………………….. 26

  B. The Influence of Social Factors to the Power on Politeness ……….. 28

  1. Between Men and Women …………………………………. 29

  2. Between Husband and Wife ………………………………... 34

  3. Between Friends …………………………………………… 39

  C. The Use of Politeness Strategies by the Characters ……………….. 41

  1. The Use of Bald On-Record ……………………………….. 42

  2. The Use of Positive Politeness …………………………….. 45

  3. The Use of Negative Politeness ……………………………. 47

  4. The Use of Off-Record or Indirect …………………………. 49

  

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………… 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………. 55

APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………… 57

Speech Acts Expressing Politeness in the Third Act of the Play A Doll’s House …………………………………………….................. 57

  

ABSTRACT

  DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA. A Study of English Language Politeness

Strategies in Daily Conversation as Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.

Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2007.

  Sociolinguistics or the sociology of language is the field that studies the relation between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live. Developed under the scope of sociolinguistics; politeness is socially prescribed. The relative social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader is one of the most basic factors determining appropriate degree of politeness behaviour in societies. A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was the main source of this thesis since various utterances were found and also because of the patriarchal culture represented through the story.

  There are two objectives that will be gained in this thesis. The first objective of this thesis is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the play A Doll’s House. The second objective is to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation.

  The analysis is based on the data that are collected regarding three characteristics of linguistics as scientific study; objective, empirical and exact. Initially, the data were collected and analyzed. The total number of dialogues in the third act of the play A Doll’s House is 381. Certain expressions, such as gratitude, sympathy, joke, greeting, compliment, phatic utterances, directive, insults, complaints, disagreements and criticism are found from the dialogues.

  To answer the first problem, it is found that personal relationship background and social status are the social factors that influence the power on politeness. The imposing language on the other characters’ circumstances will not take effect if the characters possess equal level of power. The influence of the social factors on English politeness in daily conversation also makes kind of restriction on the characters’ choice of words in a conversation. As for the second problem, the characters use politeness strategies in daily conversation depending on each character’s intention and to whom the characters are speaking to. Moreover, social factors force the characters to change the politeness strategy in the way they talk to the other characters. Bald on-record strategy is used by the characters to deliver complaints, directives, criticisms and insults utterances. Positive politeness strategy is used to minimize the distance or awkwardness between the characters who are involved in the dialogue. Negative politeness strategy is used to avoid imposing language or intruding behaviour in the conversation. Off-record strategy is used to overcome anxiety and to remove some pressure.

  

ABSTRAK

  DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA. A Study of English Language Politeness

Strategies in Daily Conversation as Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.

Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2007.

  Sosiolinguistik atau sosiologi bahasa adalah ilmu yang mempelajari hubungan antara bahasa dengan masyarakat, yaitu hubungan antara penggunaan bahasa dan struktur sosial tempat masyarakat itu berada. Berkembang dalam lingkup sosiolinguistik, kesopanan ditentukan oleh nilai-nilai sosial dalam masyarakat. Jarak sosial yang berbeda antara penutur dan mitra tutur adalah salah satu faktor yang menentukan tinggi rendahnya tingkat kesopanan di kebanyakan masyarakat. A Doll’s karangan Henrik Ibsen menjadi sumber data utama skripsi ini karena

  House banyaknya macam ungkapan yang ditemukan dan juga karena budaya patriarkalnya.

  Skripsi ini mempunyai dua tujuan. Tujuan pertama adalah untuk mengetahui faktor-faktor sosial yang mempengaruhi kekuasaan dalam kesopanan seperti yang terdapat dalam babak ketiga drama A Doll’s House. Tujuan kedua adalah untuk menganalisis bagaimana tokoh-tokoh dalam drama ini menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam percakapan sehari-hari.

  Analisis didasarkan pada data yang telah dikumpulkan sesuai dengan ketiga ciri linguistik sebagai penelitian ilmiah, yakni objektif, empiris, dan pasti. Pertama, data dikumpulkan dan dianalisis. Jumlah total dialog yang terdapat dalam babak ketiga drama A Doll’s House ada 381 dialog. Terdapat beberapa ungkapan yang dapat ditemukan dalam dialog, seperti terimakasih, simpati, lelucon, sambutan, pujian, basa-basi, instruksi, cercaan, keluhan, perselisihan, dan kecaman.

  Jawaban untuk permasalahan yang pertama adalah sebagai berikut. Latar belakang hubungan pribadi dan status sosial adalah faktor-faktor sosial yang mempengaruhi kekuasaan dalam kesopanan. Pemaksaan kehendak terhadap tokoh lain tidak akan berhasil diantara tokoh dengan tingkat kekuasaan yang setara. Pengaruh faktor-faktor sosial dalam kesopanan berbahasa Inggris pada percakapan sehari-hari juga menciptakan batasan kepada tokoh-tokoh dalam pemilihan kata dalam percakapan. Jawaban untuk permasalahan yang kedua adalah sebagai berikut. Tokoh-tokoh dalam drama A Doll’s House menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam percakapan sehari-hari tergantung dari maksud pribadi tokoh tersebut atau kepada siapa tokoh itu sedang berbicara. Selain itu, faktor-faktor sosial memaksa para tokoh untuk mengubah strategi kesopanan ketika sedang berbicara kepada tokoh lain. Strategi bald on-record digunakan menyampaikan keluhan, instruksi, kecaman, dan cercaan. Strategi kesopanan positif digunakan untuk mengurangi kekakuan diantara para tokoh yang terlibat dalam percakapan. Strategi kesopanan negatif digunakan untuk menghindari pemaksaan kehendak dalam percakapan. Strategi off-record

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study According to Bernard Spolsky (2004), sociolinguistics or the sociology of

  language is the field that studies the relation between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live.

  Sociolinguistics is a study of language that assumes that human society is made up of many related patterns and behaviours. As a branch of the scientific study of language, sociolinguistics has grown into one of the most important of the ‘hyphenated’ field of linguistics. The goal of sociolinguistics is to understand communicative competence by including both linguistic and social factors in the analysis—what people need to know to use the appropriate language for a given social setting.

  Developed under the scope of sociolinguistics; politeness is socially prescribed (Wardhaugh, 1990:267). Therefore, the focus of my study is the social aspect and I will analyze the influence of social backgrounds of the speaker-writer and the listener-reader in the limitations set in choice of the message form. The relative social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader is one of the most basic factors determining appropriate levels of politeness behaviour in most societies. Brown and Levinson (1987) identify relative social distance as a relevant social dimension in all cultures, though the precise factors which contribute to determining its importance in any community, and even in a particular interaction will differ. I will look at the socially controlled choice of forms involved in selecting an appropriate term with which to address the person to whom the speaker-writer is talking.

  According to Holmes (1996), politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others. People may express concern for others’ feeling in various ways, both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects. Apologizing, greeting, opening a door for another, and avoiding dirty words in conversation with the other people can be all considered examples of polite behaviour. In everyday usage, the term politeness describes behaviour which is somewhat formal and distancing, where the intention is not to intrude or impose. Being polite means expressing respect towards the person we are talking to and avoiding offending them.

  Politeness refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or ‘camaraderie,’ as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). This definition is derived from the work of Brown and Levinson (1987), which describes politeness as showing concern for people’s ‘face’. Face is a person’s public self-image (Yule: 1996). It is based on the everyday usage ‘losing face’ and ‘saving face’. Everybody has face needs or basic wants, and people generally cooperate in maintaining each others’ face, and partially satisfying each others’ face. Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face

  I choose the study of politeness in this study as a topic because some languages seem to have built into them very complex systems of politeness, including English. Here I will analyze the influence of social background on English daily conversation. Speech is a social activity and the primary locus of speech is conversation. Conversations take place between two or more participants in social and situational contexts, and linguistic change is one type of phenomena that is passed from person to person in this situations.

  The reason why I selected the play A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen to be the main source of the analysis because various utterances were found and also because of the patriarchal culture represented through the story. The various samples from the play will help me to understand the influence of social background on English politeness in daily conversation. Politeness may be expressed both verbally and non- verbally, but in this study I will focus on linguistic politeness, or ways in which people express politeness through their usage of language.

B. Problem Formulation

  The problems that will be analyzed in this study are

  1. What social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the play A Doll’s House?

  2. In what ways do the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation?

  C. Objectives of the Study

  There are two objectives that will be gained in this study. The first objective of this study is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the play A Doll’s House. The second objective is to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation.

  D. Definition of Terms

  In studying the English politeness, there are five definitions of terms that will be used in this study.

  1. Politeness Politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others. Politeness refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes: 1996). Politeness shows concern for people’s ‘face’ (Brown and Levinson: 1987).

  2. Face Face is a person’s public self-image (Yule: 1996). The term ‘face’ is a technical term in this study. While it is based on the everyday usages ‘losing face’ and ‘saving face’, it goes further in treating almost every action (including utterances) as a potential threat to someone’s face (Holmes, 1996:5).

  Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face needs: first, negative face needs or the need not to be imposed upon; secondly, positive face needs, the need to be liked and admired. Behaviour which avoids imposing on others (or avoids ‘threatening their face’) is described as evidence of negative politeness, while sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards an addressee is positive

  politeness behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

  3. Power Power refers to the ability of participants to influence one another’s circumstances (Holmes, 1996:17).

  Brown and Levinson (1987:77) define relative power in a relationship as the degree to which one person can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of other people.

  4. Speech Act Speech act is an action performed by the use of an utterance to communicate (Yule: 1996).

  5. Speech Event Speech event is a set of circumstances in which people interact in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome (Yule: 1996).

  Speech event refers to communicative use of language (Spolsky: 2004).

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter I will discuss the following: review of related studies, review of related theories, A Doll’s House and theoretical framework. A. Review of Related Studies Politeness is an important and famous study in linguistics. Besides, the study

  of politeness can be done under the scope of sociolinguistics or pragmatics. I find out several studies related to politeness that have been done by other scholars. Simply spoken, when people describe someone as polite, or alternatively when people label someone rude or impolite, there are many possible aspects of their use of language that might be referring to the description. In the following paragraphs I provide the examples of related studies and explicate what makes this thesis distinct from other theses.

1. The Application of Brown + Levinson’s Universal Theory of Politeness to Much

  

Ado about nothing, Measure for Measure, The Taming of the Shrew, and Twelfth

Night, an essay written by Abdelaziz Bouchara (2002)

  This essay is an example of the research on politeness. The aim of this research is to observe treatment of the variables power, rank and distance in the speakers as the way to classify their genres (Bouchara, 2002). In this essay, Bouchara politeness as modified by Brown and Gilman in the study of drama. It is a good reference for me as the supporting theory for my thesis because this essay explores more in the treatment of the variables power, rank and distance.

  

2. Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and The Dogs: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis, a

thesis written by Ayid Sharyan (1992)

  This thesis is written by Ayid Sharyan before he graduated from Department of English, Faculty of Education, University of Sana’a. Through this thesis, Sharyan tried to expose insight a universal phenomenon so as to promote tolerance and a better understanding of cross-cultural settings (1992). This thesis is very useful as the reference for a better understanding of language and cultural parameters influencing by the literary consciousness and also the means and methods of literary interpretation.

  

3. Impoliteness in Congreve’s The Way of the World, a thesis written by Antonius

Adhi Irianto (2006)

  Another example as the reference is the thesis written by Antonius Adhi Irianto (2006) before he graduated from Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University. The objectives of Adhi’s thesis are to identify all impolite blaming and accusing speech act and to find out what are the politeness strategies violated in the impolite blaming and accusing speech act in William Congreve’s The Way of the World.

  Adhi (2006) focuses on the use of impoliteness in the language of upper class examples of Comedy of Manners in Restoration Period. It is a play which satirizes the customs, attitudes and manners of upper class people in Restoration Period.

  Impoliteness seen in the pragmatic perspective occurs in the speech acts of the characters during the conversation. Since there are various kinds of speech acts, Adhi (2006) only discusses blaming and accusing speech acts in the play The Way of the World by William Congreve.

B. Review of Related Theories

  In this part I explain all theories needed to accomplish this thesis. Principally, there are five theories that shall be used to accomplish this thesis.

1. Politeness

  Politeness refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). In its simplest terms, politeness consists of this recognition of the listener and his or her rights in the situation.

  Being polite is a complicated business in any language. Being polite means expressing respect towards the person the speaker-writer is talking to and avoiding offending them. It is difficult because it involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and the cultural values of the community. People often do not simply as a matter of saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ in the right places (Holmes, 2001:267). In fact it involves a great deal more than the superficial politeness routines that parents explicitly teach their children. Take the word ‘please’ for example.

  Children are told to say ‘please’ when they are making requests, as a way of expressing themselves politely. Nevertheless, adults use ‘please’ far less than one might suppose, and when they do, it often has the effect of making a directive sound less polite and more peremptory.

2. Politeness Strategies

  There are four types of politeness strategies described by Brown and Levinson (1987) that sum up human "politeness" behaviour: Bald on-Record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Off-Record (indirect) strategy. This theory will enable a thorough analysis of the characters dialogue and find out how the characters use politeness strategies when they are speaking.

  a. Bald On-Record (1987): this strategy provides no effort by the speaker-writer to minimize threats to the listener-reader’s "face." The speaker-writer will most likely shock the person to whom he or she is speaking to, embarrass the person to whom he or she is speaking to, or make them feel a bit uncomfortable. However, this type of strategy is commonly found with people who know each other well, and are very comfortable in their environment, such as close friends and family.

  b. Positive Politeness (1987): this strategy is used when the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader has a desire to be respected. It also confirms in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the listener-reader’s need to be respected.

  c. Negative Politeness (1987): the speaker-writer uses the Negative Politeness strategy which is similar to Positive Politeness in that the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader wants to be respected however, the speaker- writer also assumes that he or she is in some way imposing on the listener-reader and intruding on his or her space. Therefore, these automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.

  d. Off-Record or indirect (1987): this strategy is used when the main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of the speaker-writer. In this situation the speaker- writer is removing him or herself from any imposition whatsoever.

  The application of this theory will be on how a speaker-writer addresses the other speaker or the listener-reader and how it is performed, whether it is off record or on record. In English, the people tend to use formal speech to address strangers and people of higher status. Meanwhile, informal speech is used to talk with family, friends and colleagues (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: vii).

3. Scale of Politeness

  Politeness and impoliteness is not two poles with two completely different ideas. Semantically speaking, politeness and impoliteness are considered gradable pairs of antonym. Thus, politeness and impoliteness do not provide an absolute scale. depends on the relationship between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader, the setting, the topic and many other factors (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: vii). Brown and Levinson, as stated in Sintesis Vol. 2 & 3 (2004) written by I. Praptomo Baryadi, propose three scale of politeness to measure the degree of politeness.

  a. Social Distance Scale (2004): the social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader will determine the degree of politeness which is used to communicate between them. When the social distance between the speakers is getting far, the degree of politeness that they used will be higher. On the contrary, when the social distance between the speakers is close, the degree of politeness that they used will be lower. The social distance between them is determined by the age, sex and the socio cultural background.

  b. Power Rating Scale (2004): the power owned by the speaker-writer will determine the degree of politeness when he or she is speaking to the listener- reader. When the speaker-writer possesses higher power than the listener-reader, the degree of politeness will be lower when he or she is speaking to the listener- reader. Meanwhile, if the speaker-writer possesses lower power than the listener- reader, the degree of politeness will be higher when they are speaking.

  c. Speech Level Scale from the users’ culture view point (2004): in society, there are lots of varieties of speech used to communicate. For example, the choice of words of someone when he or she is speaking to the king or president will be different with the choice of words when he or she is speaking to relatives or friends. Some

4. FTA (Face Threatening Acts)

  Politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). This definition derives from the theories proposed by Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987), which describe politeness as showing concern for people’s ‘face’. The term ‘face’ is a technical term in this approach. It goes further in treating almost every action, including utterances, as a potential threat to someone’s face (Holmes, 1996:5).

  Any utterances, including suggestions, advice, and requests, which could be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on another person’s autonomy can be regarded as Face Threatening Acts (FTA).

  According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face." Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Usually people try to avoid embarrassing the other people, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA's.

  Brown and Levinson follow the concept which was firstly proposed by Erving Goffman. According to Goffman, the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken being polite or being impolite in producing utterances and it is related to the emotional control of the speaker which a playwright can apply in a character.

  Everybody has face needs or basic wants and people generally cooperate in maintaining each other’s face, and partially satisfying each other’s face needs.

  Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face needs: first, negative face needs or the need not to be imposed upon; secondly, positive face needs, the need to be liked and admired. Behaviour which avoids imposing on others (or avoids ‘threatening their face’) is described as evidence of negative politeness, while sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards an addressee is positive

  politeness behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

  The speaker-writer uses the negative politeness strategy which is similar to positive politeness in that the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader want to be respected however, the speaker-writer also assumes that he or she is in some way imposing on the listener-reader and intruding on his or her space. Therefore, these automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.

  While positive politeness strategy is used when the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. It is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and

5. Language and Power

  Since the first objective of this thesis is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in A Doll’s House, theories on language and power are needed to accomplish this thesis. Language is central to all human experience and society (Littlejohn, 2002:224). People experience is always prefigured by our culture’s language. It comes as no surprise that language is an instrument of oppression. Those who accept the language essentially accepts its categories of truth and the vast majority of language users do so without question.

  Cheris Kramarae, as stated in the book Theories of Human Communication written by Littlejohn, states that language is instrumental in constructing the world we live and that social power arrangements are largely embedded in language (Littlejohn, 2002:224). Because language is patriarchal, it often creates an unsafe and uncomfortable world for women. Indeed, language makes a world that often silences women in profound ways (Littlejohn, 2002:224). He adds that since men and women have different experiences based on the division of labour in society, they perceive the world differently. Women are forced by the power inequities in communication to learn the male system of communication, but men in contrast do not need to learn the language of women.

  Women do have their own forms of expression, as they have created their own ways of saying things that lie outside the dominant male system (Littlejohn, 2002:225). Letters, diaries, consciousness-raising groups, and alternative art forms

  Scott A. Reid states that although language is not unique to humans, humans are well equipped genetically and culturally to use words for accomplishing a variety of social acts (1999). Owing to its relevance to the study of social behaviour, language use has been assimilated and continues to be assimilated in various guises into social psychology and is now wedded to a broad range of topics. Language, however, is not simply a medium for turning a power into influence. Depending on how the threat is worded and the tone of voice in which it is delivered, the influence attempt can have varying degrees of success (Reid, 1999). For this reason, language should not be seen solely as a passive conduit of power but as an active co player in the exercise of power.

  Relative power or hierarchical status is another important consideration in determining the appropriate degree of linguistic politeness (Holmes, 1996). Power refers to the ability of participants to influence one another’s circumstances (Holmes. 1996:17). It has been defined as the possibility of imposing one’s will upon other persons’, or the ability to control the behaviour of others.

  In a conversation, the person who has more power may change the subject when he or she is not comfortable with the previous subject in order to control the conversation (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: 97). Brown and Levinson (1987:77) define relative power in a relationship as the degree to which one person can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of other people. The distribution of power in a particular context may derive from a variety of sources – money, knowledge, social

C. The play A Doll’s House

  A Doll’s House is a famous classic modern play by Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906),

  a Norwegian playwright. A Doll’s House is a play with its heroine, Nora, who abandons her husband and family. The play itself was written in 1879 and employed a lot of ‘everyday speech’, just like what the people usually use in daily conversation. Besides, the theme of the play also concerns with social issues in society, especially in a family.

  In some plays there are several sets, sometimes in sharp contrast, but in A

  

Doll’s House there is only one set, and perhaps the readers come to feel that this

  omnipresent room is a sort of prison that stifles its inhabitants or, as the title of the play implies, that this room keeps its inhabitants as a distance from the realities of life.

  Some readers see the A Doll’s House is a play about a women’s place in a man’s world, or a play about women’s rights, but Ibsen himself, years after writing the play, said he had a larger theme: “I am not even sure what women’s rights really

  

are. To me it has been a question of human rights. ” Certainly the play deals, as Ibsen

  implies, with the enslavement of one person by another (Barnet, Burto, Ferris and Rabkin, 2001: 552).

  The study of politeness under the scope of sociolinguistics is relevant in this work because of several reasons. First, the characters of the play come from different background. The different background can be seen from their education, economic, the play is dissimilar since the relation between the characters is different. For examples, the relation between Nora and Torvald are husband and wife, Torvald and Mrs. Linde are strangers, Nora and the maid are master and servant. Third, this play is a modern play that employs lots of everyday speech on the dialogue between its characters. This is a guarantee that exaggerations are hardly to find in this play. This is very important reason since my analysis is based on the dialogue of the characters that represents the people’s dialogue in daily conversation.

D. Theoretical Framework

  Since the objectives of this study are to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the play A Doll’s House and to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation, so I will try to explain the contributions of all theories and reviews mentioned above in solving the problems of the study. It includes the significance of each theory and how they are applied in this study.

  Part A, the review of related studies, will help me to explore the data of daily conversation or utterances from the play A Doll’s House. Since I collect the data from the play, part A is useful because all the researches in the review of related studies use similar method, which is to take the data from the literary works as the sources. The essay written by Bouchara (2002) is a good reference for this thesis because it applies the same theory on politeness, suggested by Brown and Levinson, appropriate to the first problem formulation because this thesis is discussing about power on politeness.

  The thesis written by Ayid Sharyan (1992) helps me to understand more about language and cross cultural setting. It is very useful since my thesis is developed under the scope sociolinguistics. While the thesis written by Antonius Adhi Irianto (2006) takes a role as the imaginary border for my thesis because Adhi’s thesis is developed from pragmatics views point although it is also talking about politeness.

  I assure that my thesis is distinctive from researches mentioned in part A because I also use a different literary work from different culture and time.

  Optimistically, various utterances will be found because the corpus of the data is a modern play, A Doll’s House, which has various conversations in different situations or circumstances. Basically, the review of related studies will take a role as the supporting theories to provide the data to be analyzed.

  Part B, the review of related theories, has a role as the main theories that I am going to use to analyze the data found in the play. The theories in part B is very useful to analyze the various data that I found from the play using the supporting theories in part A. First, the theory on politeness is necessary because this thesis is a study about politeness from the scope sociolinguistics. Better understanding on politeness is important to accomplish this thesis because politeness is not only a language, but also the social and the cultural values of the community. In the play A

  

Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen better understanding on politeness will help to relate the setting and the background of the story to the language that is spoken or uttered by the characters.