POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY THE ANTAGONIST
AND THE PROTAGONIST CHARACTERS
IN “THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS”
(A PRAGMATICS STUDY)
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
TITIK ISWATI
Registration Number: 8146112041
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
Iswati, Titik. Registration Number: 8146112041. Politeness Strategy Used By The Antagonist And The Protagonist Characters In “The Silence Of The Lambs” (A Pragmatics Study). Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan. 2017.
This research dealt with politeness strategy used in the movie The Silence of the Lamb. The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the kinds of politeness strategies used by the antagonist and protagonist characters when they expressed their utterances in the film
“The Silence of the Lambs”, (2) to explain how the strategies used by the two characters, (3) to know the reasons of those characters in employing politeness strategies. The research was conducted by using qualitative design. The source of data of this study was the movie. The data were collected through documentary technique and the instrument was the documentary sheet. The technique of data analysis was descriptive. The findings of this study revealed that: (1) Based on the categories of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson, all categories of politeness strategies were found in this film. (2) The bald on record strategy was used for eight times by the antagonist, while the protagonist used it for five times. From fifteen sub-strategies in positive politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson, the sub-strategy which was frequently employed by the antagonist was intensify interest to hearer. The protagonist also employed two sub-strategies frequently in positive politeness, those were, intensify interest to the hearer, and include both the speaker and the hearer in the activity. The antagonist more employed minimize the imposition in negative politeness, while the protagonist employed question, hedge. In off record, the antagonist used give hints, overstate, tautologies, rhetorical questions and be incomplete/used ellipsis but the protagonist only used two sub-strategies namely give association/clues and be incomplete/used ellipsis. (3) The use of politeness strategy by the antagonist and protagonist was aimed to perform acts based on J. R.
ii ABSTRAK
Iswati, Titik. Registration Number: 8146112041. Politeness Strategy Used By the Antagonist and the Protagonist Characters in “The Silence of the Lambs” (A Pragmatics Study). Thesis. Linguistic Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2017.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, in the name of Almighty ALLAH, the most Gracious and
the most Merciful, first of all, the writer would like to thank God for His blessing
in the completion of this Thesis. Praises are also addressed to our prophet
Muhammad SAW who guided us to the better life.
In the completion of this Thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge his
deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistance which has been given to
her by a lot of people.
The highest appreciation goes to her two advisors, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda
Murni, M.S, as her first advisor and Dr. I Wayan Dirgeyasa, M.Hum., as her
second advisor for their all guidance through the completion of this Thesis.
Then, his appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. as the
Head of the English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Holila
Pulungan, M.Hum. as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study
Program who have assisted her in processing the administration requirements
during the process of her studies in the postgraduate School of the State
University of Medan.
The writer’s great thank also goes to her reviewers and examiners, Prof.
Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., and Dr. Rahmad
Husein, M.Ed. They had given valuable inputs, suggestions, criticisms, and
improvements for this thesis. She also would like to express her thankfulness for
iv
Finally, her special gratitude is dedicated to the beloved parents, husband
and her beloved children who have given motivation, support, and also endless
praying. And also special thank for her sisters, brothers, and the whole families
who always support her and no suitable words that can fully describe their
everlasting love and express how much she loves them.
Then, last but not least, her gratitude goes to her friends of LTBI B2
XXIV who have supported her to conduct this Thesis.
Medan, April 2017 The Writer,
Titik Iswati
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ... i
ABSTRAK ... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
LIST OF APPENDIX ... xi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ... 8
A. Theoretical Framework ... 8
2.1 Pragmatics ... 8
2.2 Politeness Strategy ... 11
2.2.1 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory ... 13
2.2.2 Face and Face Threatening Acts (FTA) ... 13
2.2.3 Types of Politeness Strategy ... 15
vi
2.2.3.2 Positive Politeness Strategy ... 16
2.2.3.3 Negative Politeness Strategy ... 24
2.2.3.4 Off Record Strategy ... 28
2.3 Speech Act ... 34
2.3.1 The Definition of Speech Act ... 34
2.3.2 The Classification of Speech Acts ... 35
2.3.3 The Categorization of Speech Acts ... 35
2.4 Conversation ... 37
2.5 Character ... 38
a. Protagonist Character ... 38
b. Antagonist Character ... 39
2.6 Film / Movie ... 40
2.7 Multimodal Discourse Analysis on A Film ... 42
2.8 Self-Defense Mechanims ... 44
2.9 Synopsis of the Film ... 45
B. Relevant Studies ... 47
C. Conceptual Framework ... 54
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 56
3.1 The Research Method ... 56
3.2 The Data and the Source of Data ... 56
3.3 The Technique of Data Collection ... 57
3.4 The Instrument of Data Collection ... 57
vii
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 60
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 63
4.1 Data Analysis ... 63 Protagonist Characters in Expressing Their Utterances ... 68
4.1.2.5.2 The Ways Politeness Strategy Used by the Two Character ... 69
1. The Use of Bald On Record ... 69
2. The Use of Positive Politeness Strategy ... 74
3. The Use of Negative Politeness Strategy ... 77
4. The Use of Off Record Strategy ... 79
viii
3. Influencing ... 88
4.1.3 Data Display... 89
4.1.4 Drawing Conclusion ... 95
4.2 Research Findings ... 95
4.3 Discussion ... 97
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 99
5.1 Conclusions ... 99
5.2 Suggestions ... 100
References ... 102
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Kinds of Politeness Strategy Used By the Antagonist and Protagonist Characters ……….….. 88
Table 4.2 Bald on record strategy Used by the Antagonist and Protagonist ……….. 89 Table 4.3 Sub-strategies of Positive Politeness Used By the Antagonist
and Protagonist ………. 90 Table 4.4 Sub-strategies of Negative Politeness Used By the Antagonist
and Protagonist ………. 91 Table 4.5 Sub-strategies of Off Record Used By the Antagonist and the Protagonist
……… 92
LIST OF APPENDIX
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
Communication has an important role in our life. According to
Gartside(1986:1) communication is the art of sharing anything. In its vital
sense, it means a sharing of ideas and feelings in a mood mutual
understanding. We adapt our conversation to different situations. For
example, we can easily say something that would be seen discourteous
among strangers or among our friends and we avoid over formally with
our friends. In both situations above, we try to avoid making the hearer
embarrassed and uncomfortable.
Story has been the foundation of rituals that empower both
individual and collective values since society began. Story provides both
identity and standards to live by and is thus essential to our well being. It
serves as a mirror reflecting who we are and what we believe in. It is soul
which gives meaning to both life and art.
Normally in a real life, polite language is generally used by good
people and impolite language is used by bad people. This phenomenon
also happens in movies stories. Movie is the reflection of life. Some of the
scenes in the movie represent the reality of life. The conversations
between the characters in the film are the portrait of the real daily people
conversations. People can learn many beneficial things by watching movie
2
Sadistic, cruel or brutal characters in movies occasionally employ
rude and impolite words or expressions. This phenomenon did not occur in
the film “The Silence of The Lambs”. The psychopathic killer, Dr. Lecter,
performed polite words and expressions. The examples of his utterances
were as the following:
DR. LECTER: “Closer, please... Clo‐ser...”
CLARICE STARLING: (Clarice does not answer but she follows
Dr. Lecter instruction)
In this scene, Dr. Lecter wanted to see the officer’s credentials and she
held it up for his inspection. Although the antagonist, Dr. Lecter, had used
politeness strategy, namely bald on record, but his utterance did not seem
to be polite to the hearer’s perspective. She showed her fear when she
talkd to him.
In another example, Dr. Lecter instructed Clarice to sit in the chair
in front him. He talked slowly behinds his bars but Clarice seemed to be
very afraid although he spoke slowly to her. He used bald on record
strategy.
DR. LECTER: “Mmmmm... That's rather slippery of you Officer Starling. Sit. Please”.
CLARICE STARLING: (Clarice replies nothing but she follows the instruction).
The dialog in another scene was described as the officer, Clarice
Starling, rolled him the questionnaires, in his sliding food tray. Dr. Lecter
rose, glanced at it, turned a page or two disdainfully. He used negative
politeness strategy called minimize the imposition by using the word
3
DR. LECTER: “Oh, Officer Starling... do you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?”
CLARICE STARLING: “No. I only hoped that your knowledge”.
Although Dr. Lecter employed some politeness strategy in his
utterances, he was not really polite anyhow. He expressed something
politely but ironically the hearer felt uncomfortable when she talked to
him. In pragmatics, the utterances of the antagonist contained impoliteness
although he expressed the utterances politely.
People generally behave in accordance with their expectation
concerning their public self-image or face wants to be respected. Face
means public self-image of a person; it refers to the emotional and social
sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone to recognize (Yule,
1996:60). Face has two aspects, positive and negative.
An individual’s positive face is reflected in his or her desires to be
liked, approved of, respected of and appreciated by others. While an
individual’s negative face is reflected in the desire not be impeded or put
upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses (Thomas, 1995:169).
Therefore, people in their relationship need to preserve both kinds of faces
for themselves and the people they interact with the politeness utterances.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:65), certain kinds of acts
intrinsically threaten face, namely those acts that by their nature run
contrary to the face want of the hearer and / or of the speaker. For
example, the hearer’s positive face will damage when the speaker insulting
4
speaker order the hearer. It also could damage the speaker’s own positive
and negative face for example, when the speaker admits that he has failed
in his job and when the speaker offers help to the hearer. In order to avoid
or minimize to reduce the possibility of damage to the hearer’s face or to
the speaker’s own face, he or she may adopt certain strategies.
Brown and Levinson sum up human politeness behavior in four
strategies among them are the bald on record strategy, the positive
politeness strategy, the negative politeness strategy, and bald off record
strategy. Furthermore, the research is aimed to analyze the politeness
strategies based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy in a film.
There are some international journals which gave the contribution
to this study. First, the journal of Politeness Strategies in Email Exchanges
in Persian written by Izadi and Zilaie (2012). This study aimed to report on
the most frequent positive politeness strategies employed by a group of
Iranian Persian speakers in their email compositions to their close and
fairly close friends. The results indicated that positive politeness strategy
“group identity markers” and “give gifts to H” were the most dominant
strategies in the email exchanges. It is hoped that the results could foster
ways for intercultural computer mediated communication by introducing
the commonest politeness strategies in Persian email exchanges.
Another article is The Application of Politeness Strategies in
English and Chinese Movie Reviews by Mu (2015). Under the framework
of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy theory, this research explored
5
strategies in five English and five Chinese movie reviews. Both
quantitative and qualitative differences were found. English reviewers
used politeness strategies more frequently than Chinese reviewers. Top
five positive politeness strategies used by English and Chinese reviewers
are the same. However, as for negative politeness strategies, there are
slight differences between English and Chinese reviews. English reviews
use more questions, nominalizing, impersonalizing, minimizing the
imposition, and being pessimistic. However, instead of impersonalize S
and H; Chinese reviews tend to state FTA as a general rule. Also, the
order of top five negative politeness strategies is different between English
and Chinese reviews.
In addition, English reviews use more positive politeness strategies
like notice, exaggerate and offer than Chinese reviews. Chinese reviews
use more in-group identity markers, jokes, and give more reasons. When
comes to negative politeness strategies, English reviewers try to minimize
the imposition, impersonalize S and H, and nominalize when writing.
However, Chinese reviewers use more hedges, apologize more, and try to
state the FTA as a general rule. Those differences may be caused by
several possible reasons, including three main aspects: cultural differences,
different educational style, and different language systems.
The two journals above have given contribution on the theory of
6
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the research background above, the research problems
were as follows:
1. What kinds of politeness strategies used by the antagonist and
protagonist characters to express their utterances?
2. How were the strategies used by the two characters?
3. Why did the two characters employ politeness strategies?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In line with the problem statements, the research objectives were:
(1) to investigate the kinds of politeness strategies which were used by the
antagonist and protagonist characters when they expressed their
utterances.
(2) to explain how the strategies were used by the two characters.
(3) to know the reasons of those characters in employing politeness
strategies.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
There are four politeness strategies proposed by Brown and
7
negative politeness, and off record. The object of this study was politeness
strategy.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
The result of this research was expected to give some benefits as
follows:
1. Theoretically:
To give further information about the study in the topic concerned
so that it would be beneficial for developing this topic.
2. Practically:
a) To the researcher: this study would enrich the
understanding about the politeness strategy that was
actually faced every day so that this strategy could be
applied appropriately in order to make the conversation run
in harmony.
b) To the readers: this study would be beneficial for the
99 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Having analyzed the data, the conclusions of this study are drawn as the
following:
1. There were four kinds of politeness strategies found in the movie.
They were bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness
and bald off record strategies. Both of the characters dominantly
employed the positive politeness strategy. The antagonist character
used all of the four strategies.
2. From thirty two utterances, he employed bald on record for eight
times (24.2%), positive politeness for twelve times (34.4%),
negative politeness for five times (15.2%) and the last strategy
used was off record for eight times (24.2%). The protagonist
character also used all of the four strategies. From seventeen
utterances, she employed bald on record for five times (29.4%),
positive politeness for seven times (41.18%), negative politeness
for once (5.9%) and the last strategy used was off record for four
times (23.52%).
3. The use of politeness strategy by the antagonist and protagonist
characters was aimed to perform acts based on J. R. Searle’s
100
declaration. The antagonist employed the politeness strategy for
certain acts, namely representative (56.25%) which included ten
utterances of asserting and eight utterances of concluding,
directives (40.63%) which included eight utterances of requesting
and five utterances of questioning, and commissives (3.12%)
which included one utterance of threatening. The employment of
the four strategies and four acts by the antagonist was aimed to
reach the acts in being dominant and superior towards others in
which it could be seen from the antagonist mimes, expressions ad
tone when he spoke to the hearer. The protagonist employed the
politeness strategy for certain acts, namely representative (23.53%)
which included three utterances of asserting and one utterance of
concluding, directives (47.06%) which included five utterances of
requesting and three utterances of questioning, and commissives
(17.65%) which included three utterance of promising, declaration
(5.88%) included an utterance of excommunicating, and an
utterance did not fall into all those five speech acts categorization.
5.2Suggestions
This study has investigated the politeness strategy used by the antagonist
and protagonist character in a film. Based on the conclusions stated above, this
101
1) Multimodal discourse analysis can be used to analyze multiple modes,
like the modes in movies.
2) Further studies on politeness strategies in various movies genres such
as horror, drama, action, fiction and science-fiction should be carried
out because it is possible to find out other kinds of strategies and acts
102 REFERENCES
Adel, S.M.R., Davouidi, M. and Ramezanzadeh, A. 2016. A qualitative study of politeness strategies used by Iranian EFL learners in a class blog. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research
Allen, Robert C and Gomery, D.1993. Film History: Theory and Practice. NewYork: Mc Graw Hill
Altan, Asl. 2015. Politeness Strategies Used By L2 Turkish Speakers In Making Requests. International Journal of Language Academy Volume 3/4
Bogdan, R. and Taylor, S. J., 1975. Introduction To Qualitative Research Methods. New York: Wiley- Interscience.
Borràs-Comes, J., Sichel-Bazin, R. and Prieto, P. 2015. Vocative Intonation Preferences are Sensitive to Politeness Factors. Sage Publication. Language and Speech Vol. 58(1) 68–83
Brennan, S. E. 2010; In press. Conversation and dialogue. H. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Mind. SAGE Publications.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denzin, N. K. 1970. The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
Eshghinejad, S. and Moini, R. 2016. Politeness Strategies Used in Text Messaging: Pragmatic Competence in an Asymmetrical Power Relation of Teacher–Student. SAGE Publication. January-March 1–13
Gillani, Mariam. 2014.Politeness Strategies in Pakistani Business English Letters. International Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 6, No. 3
Glaser, Karen. 2009. Acquiring Pragmatics Competence in A Foreign Language-Mastering Preferred Speech Act. Chemnitz University of Technology: Germany.
Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics, Speech Act, 3, New York: Academic Press
103
Handerson, Gloria Mason, et al. 2006. Literature and our selves a Thematic Introduction for readers and writers. New York: Longman, Inc.
Izadi, Ahmad. 2012. Politeness strategies in email exchanges in Persian. Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture (JCLC) 86 Vol. 2, No. 1
James, W. 1977. Percept and concept: The import of concepts. In J. McDermott (Ed.), The writings of William James. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Janney, R. W. and Arndt, H. 1992. Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. eds. R.J. Watt, S. Ide, and E. Konrad. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Karanja, Ndichu. 2011. Face Threatening Acts And Standing Orders: ‘Politeness’ Or ‘Politics' In The Question Time Discussions Of The Kenyan Parliament. International Journal of Humanities And Social Science Vol. 1 No. 9
Kasper, G. & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press
Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K. and Takiura, M. 2012. Applicability of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to a Non-Western Culture: Evidence From Japanese Facework Behaviors. Sage Publication (October-Desember 2012)
Larry M. Sutton, et al. (1971). Journey: An Introduction to Literature. Boston: Book Press.
Levinson, S.C. 1985. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104
Morse, C. and Afifi, W. 2015. I’m Not Rude, I’m Just Moody: The Impact of Affect on Politeness in Initial Interactions. Sage Publication. Communication Research, Vol. 42(1) 87–106
Mu, Yuting. 2015. The Application of Politeness Strategies in English and Chinese Movie Reviews International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 5, No. 6. Canadian Center of Science and
Perrine, Laurence., and Thomas R. Arp. 1988. Literature Structure, Sound, and Sense. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publisher.
Pickering, James H., and Jeffry D. Hoeper. 1962. Concise Companion to Literature. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Rahardi, Kunjana, 2005. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Richard J. Watts. 2003. Politeness.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sell, D. Roger. 1992. Literary texts and diachronic aspects of politeness. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich, eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell publishing
Yazdanraf, S. and Bonyadi, A. 2016. Request Strategies in Everyday Interactions of Persian and English Speakers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4(1), (Jan., 2016) 47-62 47
