ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS’ DIALOGUES OF THE MOVIE
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST
A Thesis Submitted to Faculty of Letters and Humanities in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One
MUHAMMAD IHSAN FAUZI 105026000984
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
A POLITENESS STRATEGY ANALYSIS
ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS’ DIALOGUES OF THE MOVIE PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST
A Thesis Submitted to Faculty of Letters and Humanities in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One
Muhammad Ihsan Fauzi 105026000984
Approved by
Advisor
Drs. H. Abdul Hamid, M.Ed.
NIP. 150 181 922
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
LEGALIZATION
A thesis entitled ‘A Politeness Strategy Analysis on the Main Characters’ Dialogues of the Movie Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest’ has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Faculty’s Examination Committee on March 5th 2010. The thesis has been accepted as a partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of strata one in English Letters Department.
DECLARATION
This thesis in its entirety is the result of the writer own work, and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. It contains no material published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other or institutes or higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jakarta, March 5th 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The writer is grateful to Allah, the Lord and Cherisher, for guiding him to conceptualise, develop and complete this thesis. Indeed, without His Help and Will, nothing is accomplished. Praise and peace be upon the prophet Muhammad SAW and all his friends and followers.
The writer’s thinking about the issues analyzed in this thesis has been guided by his supervisor Drs. H. Abdul Hamid, M.Ed. The writer is indebted to him for his insightful and detailed comments, which prompted the writer to think twice more than once. His suggestions also helped him clarify and, hopefully, better articulate the writer’s ideas.
He would also like to express his appreciation to the Dean of Letters and Humanities Faculty, Dr. Abdul Chair, MA., to the Head of English Letters Department, Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd., and also to the Secretary of English Letters Department, Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd. for their support and help towards the writer’s thesis. His acknowledgement also goes to all the lecturers and office staffs of English Letters Department and all librarians of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah and UNIKA Atmajaya for their cooperations.
Hilal Fathurrahman, and his sister Ira Nadya Octavira. Without their encouragement and understanding it would have been impossible for him to finish this work.
In particular, the writer would like to thank to his beloved wife Uzumaki Kushina ‘Ma’, and his two little fairies Temari ‘Hilda’ and Tenten ‘Sophie’ for their unfailing support and high spirits.
Unfortunately for a writer working on politeness, words are sometimes not strong enough. So, let this work stand in acknowledgement of the love and encouragement of my parents, Dr. H.D. Silahuddin, MA. and E. Maemunah, SE. for supporting me through the highs and the lows.
Jakarta, February 2010
SYNOPSIS OF THE THESIS ENTITLED
A POILTENESS STRATEGY ANALYSIS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS’ DIALOGUES
OF THE MOVIE PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST
By Muhammad Ihsan Fauzi / 105026000984
A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
As a means of communication and a part of culture, language has an important role in human's life. Therefore, it reflects speaker’s behavior. That is also why language is able to build human relationships. But every speech which is spoken by speakers or hearers is not exactly alike. Those differences, generally, are influenced by education, age, personality, sex and setting. These factors are sometimes affected how close the relationship or the interaction between speaker and hearer is. The personality, for instance, as a matter of fact that describes our character being related with the emotional states. Or sometimes we are conditioned by setting either formal or informal so we should decide how to behave in order to appropriate with its situation.
Of course, the differences above influence people in using language whether it is regarded as polite language or not. Hornby stated that politeness itself is defined as hearing or showing the possession of good manners and consideration.1 It means that politeness in conversation is absolutely important to be able to establish one’s relationship with others. It should be realized by everyone in forming good conversation because the use of language can reflect the behavior or the attitude.
1
That is the reason why the writer chooses this topic as his research. Because politeness is a pragmatic matter, it is the main essential factor how to maintain the relationship well through language.
Politeness is a field of applied linguistics and pragmatics because politeness is one of main functional units in communication and any socio-cultural contexts which is its use is essential for various reasons. By using both the rules of speaking and the values of society, they assist someone in developing socio-culturally acceptable and grammatically appropriate communication. Furthermore, an in-depth look at studying politeness will help not only someone to understand more the important how to communicate well, yet usually disclose aspects of communication that are occasionally different from language structure, but also provide clues for improved cross-cultural communication.2
Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette in any circumstances of conversation. Moreover, speech behavior is mirror image of community norms and attitudes. Therefore it is a culturally defined phenomenon, and what is considered polite in one culture can often be quite rude or simply strange in another. It is because many languages have specific means to show politeness, deference, respect, or recognition of the social status of the speaker and the hearer.
For instance, German subjects tend to interact in ways that are more direct, explicit and verbose, more self-referenced and content-oriented than English.3 In Japanese which is perhaps the most widely known example of a language that encodes politeness at its very core. Many complications aside, Japanese has two main levels of politeness, one for intimate acquaintances,
2 Dogancay-Aktuna, Seran and Sibel Kamisli. Discourse of Power and Politeness through the Act of
Disagreement. Chicago: Annual Meeting. 1996.
family and friends, and other for the rest of the people, and verb morphology reflects these levels. Besides that, some verbs have special hyper-polite additional forms. This happens also with some nouns and interrogative pronouns. Japanese also employs different personal pronouns for each person according to gender, age, rank, degree of acquaintance, and other cultural factors.
Brown and Levinson proposed a theory that is widely recognized and remains relevant as universal theory of politeness. It means they considered that every society has same sort of norms for the appropriate behavior, though these norms are varied. Brown and Levinson introduce five main politeness strategies
(1) Bald on Record, (2) Positive Politeness, (3) Negative Politeness, (4) Off
Record, and (5) Don’t Do the FTA. They are chosen depending on how risky the
hearer’s face in conversation is. These strategies are important to act speech politely. 4
Shortly, the goal of politeness is to make both speaker and hearer relaxed and comfortable with one another, and to avoid disagreement of conversation in order to keep social relationship well. These essentials have inspired the writer to write the thesis which is concerned with politeness as a theoretical concept within pragmatics and with application of the theoretical model proposed by Brown and Levinson with a movie as object of research entitled ‘Pirates of the Caribbean:
Dead Man’s Chest’ . So, the topic of this study is the analysis of politeness
strategies on the movie of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.
4
B. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research applies qualitative methodology. It does not use any statistical procedure. Therefore, the writer tries to describe and analyze politeness strategies used by three main characters in the movie.
To analyze politeness strategies, the writer uses a movie Pirates of the
Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest as its unit of analysis, including its screenplay
which is written by Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio.
The instrument of this research is the writer himself by watching the movie
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and reading the film script.
The data will be analyzed through descriptive analysis technique. In this technique, the writer notes, separates and classifies utterances in the film’s dialogues into appropriate politeness strategies. Then they will be analyzed and described by using Brown and Levinson’s theory particularly Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) and politeness strategies.
C. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
a. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Face is defined as an individual's self esteem. It has two aspects, namely negative and positive face. Negative face is 'the desire to be unimpeded in one's actions' and positive face is 'the desire (in some respects) to be approved of'.5 When we interact with others in society, it is necessary to keep one's own face or to avoid threatening another's face. In order to avoid these face-threatening acts (abbreviated as FTA's), we try to employ politeness strategies in our interactions. Brown and Levinson classify different kinds of such politeness strategies used according to the ways we react to FTA's. They also point out that the determinants of the kinds of politeness strategies used are the following three sociological factors: the relative power of the hearer over the speaker, the social distance between the speaker and the hearer, and the ranking of the imposition in doing the face-threatening act.6
When a face-threatening act is involved in our interaction, we make a decision whether or not we should execute it. If we decide to do it, we can either do it directly, i.e. 'on record' by Brown and Levinson's term, or do it 'off record', which means it is done indirectly. If we do it without paying any consideration to the hearer, we do it 'baldly'. If we try to reduce the face-threatening effect to the hearer, we use either positive politeness or negative politeness. Positive politeness means that the speaker tries to save the hearer's positive face by reducing the distance between them. By negative politeness, on the other hand, the speaker tries to keep the hearer's negative face by valuing the hearer's personal territory.
5 Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987. p.13
b. Politeness Strategy
Politeness strategies, developed by Brown and Levinson, have function as a redressive action to Face Threatening Acts (FTA). Choosing them depend on how risky S wants to redress H’s wants. Simply, the more an act threatens H’s face, the more S will want to choose a higher-numbered strategy. This by virtue of the fact that the strategies afford payoffs of increasingly minimize risk.
There are five politeness based on Brown and Levinson’s theory, they are: 1) Bald on Record, 2) Positive Politeness, 3) Negative Politeness, 4) Off Record, 5) Don’t Do the FTAs.
D. RESEARCH FINDINGS
The writer describes of the three main characters: Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann, and Will Turner and analyzes them which led to the compilation of corpus of conversational data from filmscript of Pirates of the
Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. These corpus, then by the writer, are classified
into appropriate politeness strategies and going to be elaborated based on the plot of the movie and the appropriateness of Brown and Levinson’s theory. The data are shown below:
2 Jack Sparrow
Sparrow agreement: promise. I’ll find a way to sever Jones’ hold on you. And not rest until this blade pierces his heart. I will not abandon you. I promise.
E. CONSLUSION
The filmscript of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, after it is analyzed, has four politeness strategies utilized with positive politeness (ten expressions) as the most used strategies, bald on record (four expressions) and followed by negative politeness (three expressions), and off-record as the last and the rarest strategies with one expression.
The table below shows what politeness strategies mostly used by three main characters throughout the conversation.
Table 2
Summary of the use of three main characters’ politeness strategies
Characters Politeness strategies
Jack Sparrow Elizabeth Swann Will Turner
Bald on record 1 1 2
Positive
politeness 3 4 3
Negative
politeness 1 1 1
Off record 1 - -
Jack Sparrow seems to like to use positive politeness rather than other strategies. The used of this strategy means as a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy and generally as social accelerator where S indicates that he wants to ‘come closer’ to H. It is similar to Jack’s characteristic in the movie as friendly pirates, he always implies common ground or shares of his wants to everyone even strangers.
of positive politeness is much alike with Jack’s, those are to imply common ground and share her interest. And Elizabeth’s bald-on-record expressions are used as a way to give direct and easy-understanding to whom she speaks to. Besides, she uses them as urgency communication.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abate, Frank R. The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: The Ultimate Language
Reference for American Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996
Aktuna, Dogancay, Seran and Sibel Kamisli. Discourse of Power and Politeness
through the Act of Disagreement. Chicago: Annual Meeting. 1996
Ambady, Naliny, et. al. ‘More Than Words: Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Politeness in two cultures’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1996): 996-1011
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universal in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987
Eelen, Gino. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 2001
Escandell, Victoria. ‘Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory’. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11 (1998): 45-57
Fallon, Daniel. Positive and Negative Politeness. Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press. 2004
Foley, William. Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Indiana: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. 1997
Hayashi, Takuo. Reconstructing a Universal Theory of Politeness: Face, Politeness and Model of Realization. Osaka: St. Andrew’s University.
Hickey, Leo and Miranda Stewart. Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 2005
Hornby, AS. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Sixth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000
Kitamura, Noriko. Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘Politeness’ Theory to the Analysis of Casual Conversation. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Terkourafi, Marina. Three Levels in Politeness Theory and Practice. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Walter, Elizabeth. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT... i
APPROVEMENT... ii
LEGALIZATION... iii
DECLARATION... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS... vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION... 1
A. Background of the Study... 1
B. Focus of the Study... 4
C. Research Question... 4
D. Significance of the Study... 4
E. Research Methodology... 5
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 7
A. Politeness Concept... 7
B. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)... 9
C. Politeness Strategy... 11
1. Bald on Record... 11
2. Positive Politeness... 13
3. Negative Politeness... 20
4. Off Record... 27
5. Don’t do the FTAs... 33
CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS... 34
A. Data Description... 34
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION... 48
A. Conclusion... 48 B. Suggestion... 50
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
As a means of communication and a part of culture, language has an important role in human's life. Therefore, it reflects speaker’s behavior. That is also why language is able to build human relationships. But every speech which is spoken by speakers or hearers is not exactly alike. Those differences, generally, are influenced by education, age, personality, sex and setting. These factors are sometimes affected how close the relationship or the interaction between speaker and hearer is. The personality, for instance, as a matter of fact that describes our character being related with the emotional states. Or sometimes we are conditioned by setting either formal or informal so we should decide how to behave in order to appropriate with its situation.
Of course, the differences above influence people in using language whether it is regarded as polite language or not. Hornby stated that politeness itself is defined as hearing or showing the possession of good manners and consideration.1 It means that politeness in conversation is absolutely important to be able to establish one’s relationship with others. It should be realized by everyone in forming good conversation because the use of language can reflect the behavior or the attitude.
1 Hornby, AS. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Sixth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
That is the reason why the writer chooses this topic as his research. Because politeness is a pragmatic matter, it is the main essential factor how to maintain the relationship well through language.
Politeness is a field of applied linguistics and pragmatics because politeness is one of main functional units in communication and any socio-cultural contexts which is its use is essential for various reasons. By using both the rules of speaking and the values of society, they assist someone in developing socio-culturally acceptable and grammatically appropriate communication. Furthermore, an in-depth look at studying politeness will help not only someone to understand more the important how to communicate well, yet usually disclose aspects of communication that are occasionally different from language structure, but also provide clues for improved cross-cultural communication.2
Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette in any circumstances of conversation. Moreover, speech behavior is mirror image of community norms and attitudes. Therefore it is a culturally defined phenomenon, and what is considered polite in one culture can often be quite rude or simply strange in another. It is because many languages have specific means to show politeness, deference, respect, or recognition of the social status of the speaker and the hearer.
For instance, German subjects tend to interact in ways that are more direct, explicit and verbose, more self-referenced and content-oriented than English.3 In Japanese which is perhaps the most widely known example of a language that
2 Dogancay-Aktuna, Seran and Sibel Kamisli. Discourse of Power and Politeness through the Act of
Disagreement. Chicago: Annual Meeting. 1996.
encodes politeness at its very core. Many complications aside, Japanese has two main levels of politeness, one for intimate acquaintances, family and friends, and other for the rest of the people, and verb morphology reflects these levels. Besides that, some verbs have special hyper-polite additional forms. This happens also with some nouns and interrogative pronouns. Japanese also employs different personal pronouns for each person according to gender, age, rank, degree of acquaintance, and other cultural factors.
Brown and Levinson proposed a theory that is widely recognized and remains relevant as universal theory of politeness. It means they considered that every society has same sort of norms for the appropriate behavior, though these norms are varied. Brown and Levinson introduce five main politeness strategies (1) Bald on Record, (2) Positive Politeness, (3) Negative Politeness, (4) Off Record, and
(5) Don’t Do the FTA. They are chosen depending on how risky the hearer’s face in
conversation is. These strategies are important to act speech politely. 4
Shortly, the goal of politeness is to make both speaker and hearer relaxed and comfortable with one another, and to avoid disagreement of conversation in order to keep social relationship well. These essentials have inspired the writer to write the thesis which is concerned with politeness as a theoretical concept within pragmatics and with application of the theoretical model proposed by Brown and Levinson with a movie as object of research entitled ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest’ . So, the topic of this study is the analysis of politeness strategies on the movie of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.
4 Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage.
B. Focus of the Study
In this study, the writer is going to analyze the three main characters: Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann, and Will Turner in the movie of Pirates of the Caribbean:
Dead Man’s Chest, then the writer will concentrate on the realization of
face-threatening acts (FTAs) and will try to relate to what role politeness strategies defined by Brown and Levinson which may be possibly played by main characters of the movie. The writer will also pay close attention to independent social factorsto get information thoroughly.
C. Research Question
In this study, the writer is trying to answer the question stated below:
1. What politeness strategies are used by three main characters Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann, and Will Turner in the movie ‘Pirates of the Caribbean:
Dead Man’s Chest’?
2. What politeness strategies are mostly used by those three main characters?
D. Significance of the Study
E. Research Methodology
1. Method of the Study
This research applies qualitative methodology. It does not use any statistical procedure. Therefore, the writer tries to describe and analyze politeness strategies used by three main characters in the movie.
2. Objective of the Study
The objectives of the study are:
1. To describe models of speech-act in politeness discourse which are performed by three main characters of the movie.
2. To relate politeness strategies to Brown and Levinson’s concepts.
3. Unit of Analysis
To analyze politeness strategies, the writer uses a movie Pirates of
the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest as its unit of analysis, including its
screenplay which is written by Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio.
4. Instrument of the Research
5. Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed through descriptive analysis technique. In this technique, the writer notes, separates and classifies utterances in the film’s dialogues into appropriate politeness strategies. Then they will be analyzed and described by using Brown and Levinson’s theory particularly Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) and politeness strategies.
F. Time and Place of the Study
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Politeness Concept
Politeness refers to ‘having or showing that one has good manners and
consideration for other people’ (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). It is also
associated to term such as ‘civility’, ‘courtesy’, ‘good manners’, or translated to such as French courtoisie, German Höflichkeit, Italian cortesia and urbanità or Dutch
beschaafdheid, beleefdheid and hoffelijkheid, and finally points up various
associative connection: to ‘civil society’, ‘civilization’, or general quality of having ‘life-experience’.5
In the standard meaning of the word ‘polite’, at least three dimensions can be identified: 1) polite as civil or socially correct; 2) polite as kind or friendly; and 3) polite as tactful or diplomatic.6 A quick look at the literature easily shows that different researchers have favoured different senses. Echoing Fraser (1990), one could say that for Leech (1983) being polite involves making the hearer to 'feel good' (polite as friendly); to Brown & Levinson (1987) it means making him not 'feel bad' (polite as diplomatic); 3 for Fraser himself it is 'the expected state' (polite as socially correct).
On the other hand, as politeness is one of the basic socio-psychological guidelines for human behavior, Richard J. Watts on his book, Politeness, defined politeness into two concepts, the first-order politeness or politeness1 and the second
5 Eelen, Gino. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 2001 p.1 6 Escandell, Victoria. ‘Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory’. Revista Alicantina de
order politeness or politeness2, with the former referring to the commonsense notion
of politeness, and the latter to its scientific conceptualization. The first-order politeness (politeness1) is the various ways in which polite behavior is talked about by members of sociocultural group7, whereas second-order politeness (politeness2) is a linguistic, scientific concept which is more technical notion which can only have a value within an overall theory of social interaction.8 Watts moreover states that politeness1 is action behavior and politeness2 is linguistic behavior.
Example forms of action behavior are like opening door for others to enter or exit before oneself, not belching at mealtimes, holding hand on mouth and turning head away when coughing, offering one’s seat in a bus to an older person or an invalid are culturally specific and part of first-order politeness. And examples of social interaction using linguistic behavior are like saying please and thank you or prefacing a request made of a strange with excuse me or apologizing with I’m sorry
or pardon me.
B. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness
Brown and Levinson’s work consists of two parts. The first part is their fundamental theory concerning the nature of politeness and how it functions in interaction. The second part is their face theory which contains three basic notions: face, face threatening acts (FTAs) and politeness strategies with examples from three languages: English, Tzeltal, and Tamil.
7
Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. p.3
8
a. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Face is defined as an individual's self esteem. It has two aspects, namely negative and positive face. Negative face is 'the desire to be unimpeded in one's actions' and positive face is 'the desire (in some respects) to be approved of'.9 When we interact with others in society, it is necessary to keep one's own face or to avoid threatening another's face. In order to avoid these face-threatening acts (abbreviated as FTA's), we try to employ politeness strategies in our interactions. Brown and Levinson classify different kinds of such politeness strategies used according to the ways we react to FTA's. They also point out that the determinants of the kinds of politeness strategies used are the following three sociological factors: the relative power of the hearer over the speaker, the social distance between the speaker and the hearer, and the ranking of the imposition in doing the face-threatening act.10
When a face-threatening act is involved in our interaction, we make a decision whether or not we should execute it. If we decide to do it, we can either do it directly, i.e. 'on record' by Brown and Levinson's term, or do it 'off record', which means it is done indirectly. If we do it without paying any consideration to the hearer, we do it 'baldly'. If we try to reduce the face-threatening effect to the hearer, we use either positive politeness or negative politeness. Positive politeness means that the speaker tries to save the hearer's positive face by reducing the distance between them. By negative politeness, on the other hand, the speaker tries to keep the hearer's negative face by valuing the hearer's personal territory.
9 Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987. p.13
b. Politeness Strategy
Politeness strategies, developed by Brown and Levinson, have function as a redressive action to Face Threatening Acts (FTA). Choosing them depend on how risky S wants to redress H’s wants. Simply, the more an act threatens H’s face, the more S will want to choose a higher-numbered strategy. This by virtue of the fact that the strategies afford payoffs of increasingly minimize risk.
Fig.1
Circumstances determining choice of strategy
Circumstances determining
1. without redressive action, baldly
2. positive politeness
1. without redressive action, baldly
2. positive politeness
1. without redressive action, baldly
2. positive politeness
3. negative politeness
1. Bald on Record
Specifically, Brown and Levinson explained that an FTA will be done in this way only if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee, for example in circumstance where:
a) S and H both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency.
b) the danger to H’s face is very small, as in offers, request, suggestions that are clearly in H’s interest and do not require great sacrifices of S. c) S is vastly superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to
destroy H’s face without losing his own.11
They outlined various cases in which one might use the bald on-record strategy, including:
• Instances in which threat minimizing does not occur
a. Great urgency or desperation
Watch out!
b. Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary
Hear me out:...
c. Task-oriented
Pass me the hammer.
d. Alerting
Your headlights are on!
• Instances in which the threat is minimized implicitly
a. Welcomes
Come in.
b. Offers
Leave it, I'll clean up later.
Eat!
2. Positive Politeness
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 solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA). In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, and compliments.12
Positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as a kind of social accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates the he wants to ‘come closer’ to H.
a. Claim Common Ground
This category of positive politeness involves S claiming ´common ground` with H, by indicating S and H belongs to the same set of persons, who share specific wants, including goals and values. There are three ways of making this ways:
1. S may convey that some want (goal) of H’s is admirable or interesting to S too. (strategy 1-3)
2. S may stress common membership in a group or category. (strategy 4) 3. S can claim common perspective with H without necessarily referring to
in-group membership. (strategy 5-8)13
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)
In general, this output suggests that S should take notice of aspects of H’s condition including noticeable changes, remarkable possessions, and anything which looks as though H would want S to notice and approve of it. E.g.:
- What a beautiful case this is! Where did it come from?
- Goodness, you cut your hair! By the way, I came to borrow some
flour.
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interests, approval, sympathy with H)
Oxford Collocations Dictionary stated that exaggerated expression is
commonly used in politeness, moreover its thesaurus explained that it is the act of making something more noticeable.14 Simply, exaggeration is a way to give notice of H’s interests more highly.
This is often done with exaggerated intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodics, as well as with intensifying modifiers, e.g. How absolutely incredible!, What a fantastic garden you have!
13 Fallon, Daniel. Positive and Negative Politeness. Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press. 2004. p.8 14 Abate, Frank R. The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: The Ultimate Language Reference for
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
Another way for S to communicate to H that he shares some of his wants is to intensify the interest of his own (S’s) contribution to the conversation, by ‘making good story’. This may be done by using ‘vivid present’, tag question or expressions that draw H as a participant into the conversation, such as ‘you know?’, ‘see what I mean?’, ‘isn’t it?’.
A related technique is to exaggerate facts, e.g. You always do the dishes! I’ll do them this time.
Strategy 4: Use in-group markers
By using any of the innumerable ways to convey in-group membership, S can implicitly claim the common group with H that is carried by that definition of the group like address form, language or dialect, jargon or slang, and ellipsis or contraction. For example:
- Come here, buddy.
- I came to borrow your Audi if you don’t mind.
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
may also be stressed by repeating part or all of what the preceding speaker has said in a conversation. For instance:
A : She had an accident last week. B : Oh my God, an accident!
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
Avoiding disagreement is another characteristic of noticing what H speak. This can be shown by several ways below:
a) Token agreement, S should pretend to agree with H in order to hide disagreement.
E.g. A : You hate your Mom and Dad. B : Oh, sometimes.
b) Pseudo-agreement, by using then as a conclusory marker, an indication that S is drawing conclusion to a line of reasoning carried out cooperatively with the addressee. E.g. We’ll be talking together then.
c) White lies, S has to lie when confronted with the necessity to state an opinion. E.g. Yes I do like your new hat! (Even S does not like).
Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
a) Gossip or small talk, talking for a while about unrelated topics as a mark of
friendship or interest in H can give rise to the strategy of redressing an FTA.
b) Point-of-view operation, is a method of ‘taking the role of the other’ that can
reduce the distance between S’s and H’s point of view by using four ways below:
1. Personal-center switch: S to H. This is where S speaks as if H were
S, or H’s knowledge were equal to S’s knowledge. This can be expressed by using of tag question. E.g. I had a really hard time learning to drive, didn’t I? Or it can also be shown by giving empathy, S asserts what only H can know. E.g. Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know.
2. Time switch: The use of the ‘vivid present’, a tense shift from past to
present tense. E.g. John says do you want to come too?
3. Place switch: The use of proximal rather than distal demonstratives
(here, this, rather than there, that), where either proximal or distal would be acceptable, seems to convey increased involvement or empathy. For example, (on saying goodbye): This was a lovely party.
c) Presupposition manipulations, S presupposes something when he
1. Presuppose knowledge of H’s wants and attitudes. Negative questions, which presume ‘yes’ as an answer, are widely used as a way to indicate that S knows H’s wants, tastes, habits, etc. and thus partially to redress the imposition of FTAs. E.g. Don’t you want some dinner now?, Don’t you think it’s marvelous!?
2. Presuppose H’s values are the same as S’s values. The use of
scalar predicates such as ‘tall’ assumes that S and H share the criteria for placing people or things on this scale.
3. Presuppose familiarity in S-H relationship. The use of familiar
address forms like honey or darling presupposes that the addressee is ‘familiar’.
4. Presuppose H’s knowledge. The use of any term presupposes that
the referents are known to the addressee such as in-group codes, language, dialect, jargon, and local terminology. E.g. Well I was watching High Life last nigh and…
Strategy 8: Joke
b. Convey that S and H are cooperators
This category derives from the want to convey that S and H are cooperatively involved in the relevant activity. There are three ways of convey cooperation:
1. S’s may indicate his knowledge of and sensitivity to H’s ants. (strategy 9) 2. S and H can claim some kind of reflexivity between their wants. (strategy
10-13)
3. S may indicate, that he believes reciprocity to be prevailed between H and himself, thus that they are somehow locked into a state of mutual helping. (strategy 14)15
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s
wants
Asserting or implying knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit one’s own wants in with them is a way of indicating that S and H are cooperators that potentially put pressure on H to cooperate with S. E.g. I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good, do come!
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
In order to redress the potential threat of some FTAs, S may choose to stress his cooperation with H in claiming whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain.E.g. I’ll drop by sometime next week.
15 Fallon, Daniel. Positive and Negative Politeness. Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press. 2004.
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
S is optimistic to assume that H wants S’s wants for S and will help him to obtain them. Such optimistic expressions of FTAs seem to work by minimizing the size of the face threat by giving expressions like a little, a bit, for a second. E.g. I’m borrowing your pen for a sec, OK?
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
S uses an inclusive ‘we’ form when really means ‘you’ or ‘me’. By using this expression, S can call upon the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs. E.g. Give us break. (formerly, give me break.)
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
S gives reasons why he wants what he wants. By including H in his practical reasoning and assuming reflexivity (H wants S’s wants), H is thereby led to see the reasonableness of S’s FTA (or so S hopes). For example: Why don’t we go to the seashore!
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
c. Fulfill H’s want for some X
This category of positive politeness involves S deciding to redress H’s face directly by fulfilling some of H’s wants, thereby indicating that S wants H’s wants for H, in some particular respects.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
S may satisfy H’s positive-face wants by actually satisfying some of H’s wants. This may be done by action of gift-giving, not only tangible gifts but also human-relations wants such as the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened to, and so on.
3. Negative Politeness
Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologies.16
16 Foley, William. Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Indiana: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. 1997
a. Be direct
Negative politeness enjoins both on-record delivery and redress of an FTA. The simplest way to construct an on-record message is to convey it directly, as in bald on record usages.
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
In this strategy a speaker is faced with opposing tensions: the desire to give H an ‘out’ by being indirect, and the desire to go on record. In this case it is solved by the compromise of conventional indirectness, the use of phrases and sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meanings. E.g Could you pass the salt?
b. Don’t presume/assume
This strategy can redress H’s negative face by carefully avoiding presuming or assuming that anything involved in the FTA is desired or believed by H. This will include avoiding presumptions about H’s wants, relevant, interesting, or attention that keeps distance from H.
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
In the literature, a ‘hedge’ is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set.
a) Hedges on illocutionary force. It is performative hedges in particular that
‘don’t assume H is able/willing to do A’. Hedges on illocutionary force is divided into two: the first one is strengtheners, those that mainly act as emphatic hedges, like exactly, precisely, really, for sure. E.g. So, we’ll be talking together soon, for sure. The second one is weakeners, those that soften or tentativize what they modify such as perhaps, I guess, may be, in fact. E.g. Perhaps I’ll go too, do you think I could?
b) Hedges addressed to Grice’s Maxims. The speaker’s want to avoid
presuming may be partially satisfied by not assuming that H wants to cooperate, or by not assuming that S’s assessment of what would be a contribution to the cooperative enterprise of talking is the same as H’s.
1. Maxim of Quality Hedges
Quality hedges may suggest the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance such as I believe…, I think…,
I assume… Or they may stress S’s commitment to the truth of his
utterance, e.g. I absolutely promise that… Or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S’s assertion is to inform H, e.g. as you know…
2. Maxim of Quantity Hedges
3. Maxim of Relevance Hedges
Because of the sensitivity of topic changes as impositions on H’s face, such changes are often done off record. Hedges that mark the change, and perhaps partially apologize for it, include This may not be
appropriate, but…, Since it’s been on my mind…, Sorry, I’ve just
thought… and many more.
4. Maxim of Manner Hedges
Manner hedges can be used to redress all kinds of FTAs. Some common Manner hedges include: if you see what I mean, what I mean was…, now, to be absolutely clear, I want…
c) Hedges addressed to politeness strategies. Functioning directly as notices
of violations of face wants. Such as, frankly, to be honest, I hate to have to say this…
d) Prosodic and kinesic hedges. Most of the verbal hedges can be replaced
by prosodic or kinesic means of indicating tentativeness or emphasis. The raised eyebrow, the earnest frown, the umms and ahhs and hesitations that indicate the S’s attitude toward what he is saying, are often the most salient clue to the presence of an FTA.
c. Don’t coerce H
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy gives redress to H’s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s speech act obtain. The use of subjunctive seems also to be related to the satisfaction of this want, e.g. Would
you do X? Other way of polite pessimism can also be expressed in negative
usage like I don’t imagine there’d be any chance of you… and in the use of pessimistic hedges like Perhaps, you’d care to help me.
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition, Rx
One way of defusing the FTA is to indicate that Rx, the intrinsic seriousness of the imposition, is not in itself great, leaving only D and P as possible weighty factors. So indirectly this may pay H deference. This is achieved by expression like I just want ask you if you could lend me a single sheet of paper.
Strategy 5: Give deference
By conveying directly the perception of a high P differential, deference serves to defuse potential face-threatening acts by indicating that the addressee’s rights to relative immunity from imposition are recognized and moreover that S is certainly not in a position to coerce H’s compliance in any way. By using referent honorifics about something associated with H, such as eat/dine, man/gentleman,
Snuggs/Dr. Snugss, one gives respect to H. For example: We look forward very
Furthermore, Daniel Fallon explained that there are two different possibilities to realize the deference: 1) S humbles and abases himself, 2) S raises and H (pays him positive face of a particular namely that which satisfies H´s want to be treated superior. E.g. Yes, sir, I thought perhaps you wouldn´t mind and...“ 17
d. Communicate S’s want to not impinge on H
One way to partially satisfy H’s negative-face demands is to indicate that S is aware of them and taking them into account in his decision to communicate the FTA.
Strategy 6: Apologize
By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H’s negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement. To do this, there are four ways to communicate regret or reluctance.
a) Admit the impingement. S can simply admit that he is impinging on H’s
face, with expression like I’m sure you must be very busy, but…
b) Indicate reluctance. S can attempt to show that he is reluctant to impinge on
H with the use of hedges or by means of expressions such as I normally wouldn’t ask you this, but…
c) Give overwhelming reasons. S can claim that he has compelling reasons
for doing the FTA, thereby implying that normally he wouldn’t dream of infringing H’s negative face. For example: I simply can’t manage to…
17 Fallon, Daniel. Positive and Negative Politeness. Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press. 2004.
d) Beg forgiveness. S may beg H’s forgiveness, or at least ask for ‘acquittal’, that H should cancel the debt implicit in the FTA. E.g. I’m sorry to bother you…, I hope you’ll forgive me if…
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H
One way of indicating that S doesn’t want to impinge on H is to phrase the FTA as if the agent were other that S, or at least possibly not S or not S alone, and the addressee were other than H, or only inclusive of H.
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
One way of dissociating S and H from the particular imposition in the FTA, and hence a way of communicating that S doesn’t want to impinge but is merely force to by circumstances, is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation. The example below is shown that the first sentence avoids pronoun rather than the second sentence.
A : Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train. B : You will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.
Strategy 9: Nominalize
a) You performed well on the examinations and we were favourably impressed.
b) Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favourably.
With nominalizing the subject, S can get sentence more formal like in sentence b.
e. Redress other wants of H’s
A final strategy of negative politeness consists in offering partial compensation for the face threat in the FTA by redressing some particular other wants of H’s.
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
S can redress an FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness to H, or by disclaiming any indebtedness of H, by means of expressions such as the following, for requests: I’d be eternally grateful if you would…
4. Off record
something that is either more general or actually different from what one means. Therefore, H must make some inference to recover what was in fact intended.18
a. Invite conversational implicatures
If a speaker wants to do an FTA, and chooses to do it indirectly, he must give H some hints and hope that H picks up on them and thereby interprets what S really means to say. The basic way to do this is to invite conversational implicatures by violating, in some way, the Gricean Maxims of efficient communication. For instance, if S says ‘Hmmm, it’s pretty stuffy in here’, he may implicate a request that H open the window.
Strategy 1: Give hints
If S says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites H to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance. The basic mechanism here is a violation of the Maxim of Relevance. It is accomplished by hints that consist in ‘raising the issue of’ some desired act A, for instance, by stating motives or reasons for doing A. E.g. It’s cold in here. (c.i. Shut the window)
Strategy 2: Give association clues
A related kind of implicature triggered by relevance violations is provided by mentioning something associated with the act required of H, either by precedent in S-H’s experience or by mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional
18 Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
experience. For example, Oh God, I’ve got a headache again, may be used to convey a request for an aspirin, if S and H mutually know that they both have an association between S having a headache and S wanting H to give him an aspirin in order to swim off his headache.
Strategy 3: Presuppose
An utterance of this strategy can be almost wholly relevant in context, and yet violate the Relevance Maxim just at the level of its presuppositions. E.g. I
washed the car again today. He supposes that he has done it before and
therefore may implicate a criticism. The use of again forces H to search for the relevance of the presupposed prior event.
Strategy 4: Understate
Understatements are one way of generating implicatures by saying less than is required. Typical ways of constructing understatement are to choose point on a scalar predicate (e.g. tall, good, nice) that is well below the point that actually describes the state of affairs, or to hedge a higher point which will implicate the lower actual state of affairs. For example:
Strategy 5: Overstate
If S says more than is necessary, thus violating the Quantity Maxim in another way, he may also convey implicatures. S may do this by the inverse of the understatement principle by exaggerating or choosing a point on a scale which is higher that the actual state of affairs. However, the implicatures often lie far beyond what it is said. For example, I tried to call a hundred times, but there was never any answer.
Strategy 6: Use tautologies
A method of generating inferences by violations of the Quantity Maxim is to utter patent and necessary truths. By uttering a tautology, S encourages H to look for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance. E.g. If I won’t give it, I won’t. (c.i. I mean it!)
Strategy 7: Use contradictions
Contradictions, as well as the ironies, metaphor, and rhetorical questions involve violations of the Quality Maxim. This may be done by stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot be telling the truth. He thus encourages H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two contradictory propositions. For example:
Strategy 8: Be ironic
By saying the opposite of what he means, S can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues that his intended meaning is being convey indirectly. Such clues may be prosodic (e.g. nasality), kinesic (e.g. a smirk), or simply contextual, such as John’s a real genius. (after John has just done twenty stupid things in a row)
Strategy 9: Use metaphors
The use of metaphor is perhaps usually on record, but there is a possibility that exactly which of the connotations of the metaphor S intends may be off record. E.g. Harry’s real fish. (c.i. He drinks/swims/is slimy like a fish)
Strategy 10: Use rhetorical questions
This strategy can be accomplished by asking a question with no intention of obtaining an answer in order to break sincerity condition on questions, that S wants H to provide him with the indicated information. E.g. How many times do I have to tell you…? (c.i. Too many)
b. Be vague or ambiguous: Violate the Manner Maxim
Strategy 11: Be ambiguous
Purposeful ambiguity may be achieved through metaphor, since it is not always clear exactly which of the connotations of a metaphor are intended to invoked. For instance, John’s a pretty smooth cookie.
Strategy 12: Be vague
S may go off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object of the FTA is, or what the offence is. E.g. I’m going to you-know-where.
Strategy 13: Over-generalize
Rule instantiation may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record. E.g.
Mature people sometimes help do the dishes. The use of proverbs can also be
done though their implicatures may be conventionalized to the extent of being on record. E.g. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Strategy 14: Displace H
S may go off record as to who the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten, and hope that the real target will see that the FTA is aimed at him.
Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis
half undone, S can leave the implicature ‘hanging in the air’, just as with rhetorical questions. E.g. Well, I didn’t see you…
5. Don’t do the FTA
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. Data Description
In this chapter, the writer describes of the three main characters: Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann, and Will Turner and analyzes them which led to the compilation of corpus of conversational data from filmscript of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead
Man’s Chest. These corpus, then by the writer, are classified into appropriate
politeness strategies and going to be elaborated in the next sub-chapter. The data are shown below:
Table 1
The use of politeness strategies in the movie
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
second, but only
Sparrow Intensify interest promise. I’ll find a way to sever Jones’ hold on you. And not rest until this blade pierces his heart. I will not abandon you. I promise.
B. Data Analysis
The writer focuses 18 expressions of three main characters’ dialogue. They will be distributed into five politeness strategies and then analyzed according to the plot of movie and the appropriateness of Brown and Levinson’s theory.
1. Bald on record (four expressions)
a. Data 2
Playback Time: 00:16:49 Page: 11
Jack Sparrow to Gibbs: No no! Leave it! Run!
b. Data 12
Playback Time: 01:43:15 Page: 69
Elizabeth Swann to Jack Sparrow, Will Turner and Norrington: Stop it!
The three men who have come to island where the chest is buried begin fighting to own it for theirselves purpose. Seeing this situation, Elizabeth tries to stop them by yelling Stop it! This is a bald on record expression that means unambigous and is supposed as an urgency expression. In such a condition, Elizabeth may choose this strategy in order to make her statement brief and efficient. Will Turner and Norrington as the hearer must understand to what Elizabeth says, they must interpret that Elizabeth wants they to stop fighting each other, because the words Elizabeth says are very clear and easily understandable.
c. Data 16
Playback Time: 00:35:17 Page: 24 Will Turner to Crewmen: Hurry!
directly is a right strategy. Moreover, those whom Will Turner speaks to are crewmen who have well relationship each other.
d. Data 17
Playback Time: 00:37:33 Page: 26 Will Turner to Crewmen: Roll the cage!
The men in Will’s cage are unable to the cage open in time before the cannibals will reach them. In a quick-to-think situation, Will decides to roll the cage and order his crewmen by saying what he actually means. In such a situation, this expression takes a role on avoiding ambiguity and obscurity. Will knows that if he speaks with providing information too much than is required, it will make situation worst (cannibals will reach and capture Will and crewmen before they can open and get out of the cage). So the choice using bald on record is the best strategy.
2. Positive politeness (10 expressions)
a. Data 1
Playback Time: 00:13:04 Page: 9 Jack Sparrow to Bill Turner:
Bill Turner : You got the Pearl back, I see.
Jack Sparrow : I had some help retrieving the Pearl, by the way.
on Bill’s opinion but later he twists his own opinion by providing a few real information without showing disagreement. Using ‘by the way’ is also an additional way to hide disagreement while Jack expressiong his opinion.
b. Data 4
Playback Time: 00:43:50 Page: 30 Jack Sparrow to Will Turner:
William, I shall trade you the Compass, if you will help me to find this.
On the deck, Will Turner tells Jack Sparrow about the arrest of Elizabeth by Lord Cutler Beckett. He also tells that he needs Jack compass to free her. Jack notices he may also need Will’s help, then he trades Will the compass but Will must help Jack to find the key of a chest where the heart of Davy Jones is put. This expression uses positive politeness: assume or assert reciprocity in order to give existence of cooperation between S and H. Simply, what Jack says is giving evidence of reciprocal right or obligation obtaining between Jack and Will. Here is another expression of this strategy as an analogy to what Jack expresses. ‘I will lend you fifty thousand rupiahs, if you will help me to repair my bike.’
c. Data 5
Playback Time: 01:01:08 Page: 42
Jack Sparrow to Davy Jones: You’re a diamond, mate.
Jones, as if they are in mutual relationship. Besides, it also shows that Davy Jones’ own want in some respect similar to Jack’s want.
d. Data 7
Playback Time: 00:25:14 Page: 17
Elizabeth Swann to Governor Swann: Why don’t you tell me what’s happening?
Elizabeth Swann is jailed for helping Jack Sparrow escaped from jail. As a governor, her father tries to free Elizabeth. Governor Swann in a rush goes to jail and bring her out, Elizabeth does not know what is happening so her father tries to free her. She asks her father by giving reason ‘why not’. Elizabeth assumes with optimism that there are no good reasons why her father shoud not cooperate with her. This 13rd strategy: give (or ask for) reason is simply appropriate choice to fulfill Elizabeth’s want to make her father cooperatively tells about what is happening.
e. Data 8
Playback Time: 00:27:16 Page: 19
Elizabeth Swann to Lord Cuttler Beckett: I Expect then that we can come to some sort of understanding.
f. Data 9
Playback Time: 01:14:51 Page: 41 Elizabeth Swann to Jack Sparrow:
Jack Sparrow : ...poor William has been press-ganged into Davy Jones’ crew. Elizabeth : Davy Jones.
Elizabeth meets Jack Sparrow and asks him where Will Turner. With a sad mimic, Jack tells that Will Turner has been captured by Davy Jones’ and becomes his crew for all his life. To seek agreement, Elizabeth answers what Jack’s said by repeating some words of the speaker. It demonstrates that Elizabeth has heard correctly what was said.
g. Data 10
Playback Time: 01:28:03 Page: 58
Elizabeth Swann to Jack Sparrow: You do know Will taught me how handle a sword.
The italic words, ‘you do know’, is another ‘you know’. It is used to intensify interest to H (strategy 3: intensify interest to H) by drawing H as participant in a conversation. Elizabeth wants Jack know that she now can handle a sword, though in fact Jack absolutely doesn’t know.
h. Data 13
Playback Time: 00:11:17 Page: 8
is, to get both Jack and the Black Pearl. Will says Black Pearl because he presupposes Lord Beckett’s knowledge about this term. Will presupposes Lord Beckett should know that Black Pearl is a name of Jack’s ship. This uses politeness strategy: presuppose H’s knowledge. Will’s assumption that Lord Beckett does know this thing may operate as an expression of good intentions, indicating that Will assumes that Will and Beckett share common ground.
i. Data 15
Playback Time: 00:32:24 Page: 22
Will Turner to Gibbs: Well, we can’t just sit here and wait then, can we?
Will Turner and Gibbs are in the same cage in the cannibal island. He advices Gibbs then to get out of the cage. Will’s expression clearly uses personal-center switch: S to H in order to assert common ground between both of them. Will uses an inclusive ‘we’ as means H’s knowledge were equal to S’s knowledge. Moreover Will uses a tag question with falling intonation as one of feature of this strategy.
j. Data 18
Playback Time: 01:26:32 Page: 57 Will Turner to Bill Turner:
I take this with a promise. I’ll find a way to sever Jones’ hold on you. And not rest until this blade pierces his heart. I will not abandon you. I promise.
3. Negative politeness (3 expressions)
a. Data 6
Playback Time: 01:14:02 Page: 51 Jack Sparrow to Elizabeth Swann:
Darling, I am truly unhappy to have to tell you this, but...
After travelling some places, Elizabeth Swann, finally meets Jack to asks about the existence of Will. Jack tells the truth that Will is now arrested to serve on Davy Jones’ ship. To save Elizabeth’s negative face, Jack hedges his expression by some safe words, I am truly unhappy to have to tell you this, but..., to minimize violation of face wants. This is the use of strategy 2: hedges addressed to politeness strategies. Without adding these words, Jacks will must irritate Elizabeth negative’ face.
b. Data 11
Playback Time: 01:39:40 Page: 65 Elizabeth Swann to Jack Sparrow:
Jack Sparrow : You’re sitting on it. Elizabeth Swann : I beg your pardon.
c. Data 14
Playback Time: 00:23:55 Page: 16 Will Turner to Jack Sparrow:
Jack? Jack Sparrow! I can honestly say I’m glad to see you.
After meeting Jack, Will Turner expresses his gladness by hedging an adverb that has function as strengthener (strategy 2: hedging on illocutionary force). It is meant to emphasize what Will Turner meant and to satisfy Jack’ wants.
4. Off record (1 expression)
a. Data 3
Playback Time: 00:42:47 Page: 29 Jack Sparrow to Gibbs:
Gibbs : Let’s put some distance between us and this island, and head out to open sea.
Jack Sparrow : Yes to the first, yes to the second, but only insofar as we keep to the shallows as much as possible.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
1. The filmscript of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, after it is analyzed, has four politeness strategies utilized with positive politeness (ten expressions) as the most used strategies, bald on record (four expressions) and followed by negative politeness (three expressions), and off-record as the last and the rarest strategies with one expression.
2. The table below shows what politeness strategies mostly used by three main characters throughout the conversation.
Table 2
Summary of the use of three main characters’ politeness strategies
Characters Politeness strategies
Jack Sparrow Elizabeth Swann Will Turner
Bald on record 1 1 2
Positive
politeness 3 4 3
Negative
politeness 1 1 1
Off record 1 - -
that he wants to ‘come closer’ to H. It is similar to Jack’s characteristic in the movie as friendly pirates, he always implies common ground or shares of his wants to everyone even strangers.
Elizabeth Swann is quite similar with Jack Sparrow, however she mostly uses positive politeness during her interaction than Jack. The purpose of the use of positive politeness is much alike with Jack’s, those are to imply common ground and share her interest. And Elizabeth’s bald-on-record expressions are used as a way to give direct and easy-understanding to whom she speaks to. Besides, she uses them as urgency communication.
B. Suggestion
1. To enrich the study of politeness, those who are interested in studying politeness can use some other theories such as Lakoff’s, Leech’s and Scolon’s.
