A B ST R A C T
Nur Istiqlawati,Pragmatic Analysis in the Dialogues of Henrik Ibsen’sDrama ‘a Doll’sHouse’. Skripsi: Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah, January 2008.
Here the writer studies the drama of A Doll’s House as the unit of data analysis. Face Threatening Acts (FTA) in Pragmatics linguistic used to analyze the dialogues. The method of the research is descriptive qualitative, which tries to explain and describe the dialogues of two major characters with the help of the Face Threatening Acts (FTA) theory provided by Brown and Levinson.
During this study the writer has collected 33 dialogues of major characters which consists Face Threatening Acts (FTA) strategies. When analyzing the data, the writer tries to observe the FTA in the dialogues, describes the situation where the characters are interaction, explain the uses of FTA strategies in the dialogues, observes the reasons why Face Threatening Acts (FTA) strategies are used by female character, and how payoff factor influence the female character in choosing the FTA strategies.
As result of the research, the writer concluded that the female character in A Doll’s House chooses some of FTA strategies to save her self image
‘face’, to maintain her face from potential of face losing risk, to minimize the potential of face threat and to avoid conflict. Brown and Levinson's politeness theory also explains how advantages (payoffs) and situational factors influence peoples' choices in dealing with such identity threatening acts.
This study is also expected to help the readers understand Pragmatic and Face
A THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of Adab and Humanities
In Partial Accomplishment of the Requirement for the Strata One Degree (S1)
By:
N ur Istiqlaw ati
103026027662
A p p roved b y:
A d visor
D rs. A sep S aefud d in , M .Pd
N IP : 150 261 902
E N G L IS H L E T T E R S D E P A R T M E N T
F A C U L T Y O F A D A B A N D H U M A N IT IE S
SY A R IF H ID A Y A T U L L A H S T A T E IS L A M IC U N IV E R SIT Y
JA K A R T A
L E G A L IZ A T IO N O F E X A M IN A T IO N C O M M IT T E E
A thesis entitled “Pragmatics Analysis in the Dialogues of Henrik Ibsen’s Drama a Doll’s House” was examined by Examination Committee of the Letters and Humanities Faculty State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah on January 28,
2008. This thesis has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for acquiring Strata One in English Letters Department.
2008
Jakarta, January 28,
Examination Committee
Chief, Secretary,
M. Farkhan, M. Pd Drs. A. Saefuddin, M.Pd
NIP: 150 299 480 NIP: 150 261 902
Examiner I Examiner II
Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd Elve Oktaviyani, M.Hum
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 institute, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jakarta, January 28, 2008
PREFACE
In the name of ALLAH, the most Merciful and Gracious
All praise is to ALLAH SWT, my greatest love, the lord of the w who has authority of creation in the whole world and bestowed upon the writer completing this thesis. Salutation and benediction be unto the noblest of the last prophet and beloved ALLAH SWT, Muhammad SAW, his family, companions,
and adherents.
On this occasion, the writer particularly would like to say great thanks towriter’s
lovely and wonderful parents (Drs. H. Zainuddin Aziz dan Hj. Hafifah) for love, prays, inspiration, sacrifices, struggles and financial supports for the writer during the study and the process in finishing this thesis. Writer’s sisters and brothers (Indah, Intan, and Isna) who also supported her during writer’s study. Writer’s funny niece, Nyda. Writer’s beloved Kosim Abdullah, for love, joy, time, patient, advices,
supports and all the encouragement for the writer,you always be in her heart… The writer also would say special thanks to Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.pd as the writer’s thesis advisor and as the secretary of the Faculty of Adab and Humanities who always gives his time, guidance, contribution in correcting and helping the writer to finish this thesis writing.
And also to the following persons, they are:
1) Dr. H. Abd. Chair, The Dean of the Faculty of Adab and Humanities 2) Dr. H. M. Farkhan, M.Pd, The Head of the English Letters Department 3) Dr. Frans Sayogie, M.Pd and Elve Oktaviany, M.Hum, the
Kartika, Andy Subagya, Hamdah Sunaini, Nur Cahya, Sri Wulandari, Fenti Mariska, Eulis Aulia, Lika Nurrela, Ulfah, Yunie, Nabiel, Q2, Amel,
Indah, Bariroh, Nuniek, Fajriah, Put3, Fiermansyah, Ciko Permana, Va’i,
Edo, Davi, and all my colleagues in The English Letters Department especially for class A and B who can not be mentioned one by one, who also supported me and encouraged me.Thank U for the kindness, suggestions…and thanks for being my friends…
6) All the staffs of Faculty of Adab and Humanities, and UIN Jakarta
7) The librarians of the Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University of Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, University of Indonesia, University of Atma
Jaya.
Last but not least, the writer realizes this paper is far from being perfect. Therefore, it is really a pleasure for her to receive any constructive criticism, suggestion, and advices to accomplish it. The writer also wishes
this work would be useful, particularly for her and for those who are interested on it.
May Allah bless us by his love and always gives us prosperity in life, Amiin..
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
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 ... 6
C. Research Questions ... 6
D. Significance of the Study ... 6
E. Research Methodology ... 7
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 9
A. The Meaning of Pragmatics ... 9
B. Face Threatening Acts (FTA) ... 11
1. The Definition of Face Threatening Acts ... 11
2. Strategies in Doing Face Threatening Acts ... 15
3. Factors Influencing the Choice of the Strategies ... 29
CHAPTER III DIALOGUES ANALYSIS ... 33
A. Conclusion ... 63 B. Suggestion ... 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
C H A PT E R I
IN T R O D U C T IO N
A. Background of the Study
Language is for communicating with other not simply a means of communicating information but also a very important means of
establishing and maintaining relationship with other people.1 Language has important roles in life. Through the language people might interact with their social environment. Definition
of language itself is a system of arbitrary vocal symbol used by human
being for cooperation, communication, and identification of himself.2 The language is used by components of society to convey opinions, feelings, and experiences as well through communication. If love may be called the heart of happy living, then communication could be called its lifeblood.
Communication has roles to establish and maintain social relationship. Here, communication seen as the joint responsibility of the speaker and
hearer. The speakers as the persons who participate in communication have to maintain their social interaction by seeing theirs language behavior, because the use of language like most other forms of social behavior is governed by social rules. Some rules are
1
Peter Trudgill,Sociolinguistics: An Introduction(England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1974), p. 13
2
designed to protect people’s feelings by showing respect and to protect the integrity of our communication.
Communication success is achieved if the speaker chooses his words in such a way that the hearer will, under the circumstances of utterance, recognize his communication intention. In communicating with other, the speakers also must have competence and knowledge in use theirs language. A speaker’s
knowledge of what to say, and when and where to say it, is what ethnographers call ‘communicative competence’ which was formulated by Dell Hymes. Communicative competence is the skill involved in matching the utterance to an appropriate context of use; in other words, knowing when to be familiar and when to be formal, knowing when to be direct and when to be indirect, or simply knowing when to talk and when to keep quiet.3
Dell Hymes, an American linguist also developed a valuable model to assist the identification of component interaction that is driven by his view that in order to speak language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but also the context in which words are used.
Hymes constructs the acronym of S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G in language competence. The model that is comprised of sixteen components within eight divisions, namely: S as Setting and scene which refers to the time and place of speech. P is Participant, refers to speaker and audience. E isEnds, as purposes, goals, and outcomes. A as an
3
Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short, and Peter Verdonk, eds., Exploring the Language of
3
Act sequence, refers to form and order of the event. K-Key which refers to the clues that establish the “tone, manner, or spirit” of the speech act. I is Instrumentalities, refers on forms and styles of speech. N-Norms, which refers to the social rules governing the event and the participants’ actions and
reaction. The last one is G as Genre that refers to the kind of speech act or event. 4 However, in using language to communicate with other, with the same culture one has to follow the norms that may indicate his identity, because language has important roles in human social interaction. In fact that there is a close interrelationship between language and society. Language, for Saussure, is a social phenomenon. It can not be an individual. Language source lies in society, in the culture, in our share
cultures codes, and in the language system.5 Factors of gender, race, class, age education, and knowledge play a major role in assumptions about the level of
appropriate linguistic behavior within particular communities.6 People who have real power on spoken language are typically those who feel secure, speaking easily, have flexibility and resilience that come from realizing how
complicated the world is.7
High context communication is primarily concerned with maintaining face
and group harmony, every word is considered carefully and many expressions of
4
Abdul Chaer,Linguistik Umum(Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta, 2003), cet. Ke-2, h. 63.
5
Stuart Hall, Representations, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices
(London: , 1997), p. 24.
6
Sara Mills,Gender and Politeness(United Kingdom: Cambrige University Press, 2003), p. 9.
7
respect and courtesy are included because every utterance intrinsically threatens face. However, even in relatively mundane interaction our actions often threat the
other person’s face. Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to
interaction.8 In the everyday sense of the word, face is involved in notions such as reputation, prestige, and self-image.
Talking about face, Brown and Levinson formulates the notion of face which consists ofpositive faceas the desire to be approved of andnegative faceas the desire to be unimpeded in one’s action. Any utterance which would be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on other person’s
autonomy can be regarded a potential face threatening act. FTA is one of the study that concerns in Pragmatics, a study of the mechanisms and motivation behind any of the choice made when using language…and the effect they have or are
intended to have…9 In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction by doing FTA, because persons have special right to face protection.
In drama, language contributes the major share to the overall quality of play and can play a vital role in advancing the action. Drama, like poetry and fiction is an art of words, mainly words of dialogue because a performance of drama is more than
8
Brown Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson,Some Universals in Language Usage(Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, 1978), p.61.
9
5
just an art of words.1 0 Drama represents man’s use of words and also as an arena for human action manifested in speech. For example, the dialogues of A Doll’s House, a social drama written by Henrik Ibsen.
Henrik Johan Ibsen is a greatest Norwegian author who was born on March 20th, 1828 in Skien, Norway.1 1 Henrik Ibsen also is known as the father of modern drama because he elevated theatre from entertainment to a forum for exposing social problems, especially the position women in society. In his quest for realism, Ibsen also wants his dialogues to be as natural as possible, mirroring the way people spoke
to each other in everyday life.
A Doll’s House is one of his dramas published on December 4, 1879.1 2 In A Doll’s House, Ibsen creates the character of Nora Helmer, a woman trapped in an unfulfilling role in a stifling marriage. Her husband continuously patronizes her and treats her like a doll. Finally, Nora decides to leave her marriage and children to pursue an independent life.
This drama also involves so many utterances of Face Threatening Acts as a study that concerns in pragmatics. Those are the reasons why the writer interested to do the research under the title Pragmatic Analysis in the Dialogues of HenrikIbsen’s Drama a Doll’s House.
1 0
Otto Reinert, Modern Drama: Nine Plays (Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company Inc,
1961), p. xii
1 1
Evert Spinchorn, ed., IBSEN: Letters and Speeches(New York: A Drama Book Hill and Wang, 1964), p. xiii.
1 2
B. Focus of the Study
In this paper, the writer will focuse the study on the uses of Face Threatening Acts (FTA) strategies in the dialogues of Nora Helmer in making
dialogues with Torvald Helmer. To analyze it the writer will focus on the Brown and Stephen C. Levinson theory particularly about face threatening act and other relevant theories which related to this study, especially pragmatics.
C. Research Questions
Based on the background of the study stated above the writer has the problems to be analyzed in this research. The research questions of this research are:
1. What kinds of FTA strategies does Nora use in making dialogue with Torvald Helmer in the DramaA Doll’s House?
2. How does the payoff factor influence Nora in choosing these strategies?
D. Significance of the Study
7
E. Research Methodology
1. The Objective of the Research
Relates to the research questions above, this research intends to analyze the use of Face Threatening Acts (FTA) strategies in Nora and Torvald’s dialogues, appropriately Nora in making dialogues with Torvald. By analyzing their dialogues this research also intends to know how factor of payoff influence Nora in choosing these FTA strategies in the dialogues.
2. The Method of the Research
To solve the problem that is presented in research questions, the writer
conducted the library research. The writer uses the books, drama, journal, and websites relates to Pragmatics and Face ThreateningActs’theory as the sources of the research. The method used in this research is the qualitative method by using descriptive analysis. In her analysis, the writer explains the dialogues of Torvald and Nora that exists in the drama with the theories relates to the Face Threatening Acts (FTA).
3. The Unit of Data Analysis
4. Research Instruments
The instrument of the research is the writer himself through reading the text, observing, and signing the possibility of the use of face
threatening acts strategies in Nora’s dialogs towards her husband, Torvald
Helmer.
5. The Technique of Data Analysis
The collected data will be analyzed in qualitative description base on the relevant theories of Pragmatics appropriately on the Face ThreateningActs’
theory. First, the writer read the text of the drama. Then, underlines
Nora’s dialogues that involve face threatening acts strategies. The writer also tries to tabulate the data on the form of data description. Next, the writer
explains the dialogues of Torvald and Nora that exists in the drama with the theories relates
to the Face Threatening Acts. Finally, the writer tries to find out how factor of payoff influence Nora in choosing these FTA strategies.
C H A PT E R II
T H E O R E T IC A L F R A M E W O R K
A. The Meaning of Pragmatics
The modern usage of the term pragmatics is attributable to the influence of the American philosopher Charles Morris, who defined pragmatics as the study
of the relation of signs to interpreters.1 Although pragmatics is a relatively new branch of linguistics, research on it can be dated back to ancient Greek and Rome where the term ‘pragmaticus’ is found in Latin and ‘pragmaticos’ in Greek, both meaning ofbeing practical’.2
According to Geoffrey Leech, pragmatics is the study about how language is used in communication.3 Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech action a concrete speech situation. The ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic competence, which often includes one’s knowledge about the social distance, social status between the speakers involved, the cultural knowledge such as politeness, and the linguistic knowledge.
Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding. Here, the term language
1
Stephen C. Levinson,Pragmatics(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 1.
2
Shaoxhong Liu, What is Pragmatics?, Language Education. Accessed on September 18,
2007.http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/definition.html.p. 1.
3
understanding is used in the way favored by workers in artificial intelligence to draw attention to the fact that understanding an utterance involves a great deal more than knowing the meanings of words uttered and the grammatical relations between them. Above all, understanding an utterances involves the making inferences that will connect what is said to what is mutually assumed or what has been said
before.4
Pragmatics has much contribute to sociolinguistics, for in trying to understand the social significance of patterns of language usage, it is essential to understand the underlying structural properties and processes that constrain verbal interaction. As explained by David Crystal, Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on
others.5 The factor of time, place, and social relationship between speaker and hearer effect the ways in which language is used to perform different
functions.6
Pragmatics also studies meaning in relation to speech situation. The
addressers, the context of an utterance, the goal(s) of an utterance, a speech act, and the utterance as a product of verbal act are the aspects of speech situation
that are dealing with pragmatic.7
B. Face Threatening Acts (FTA)
1. The Definition of Face Threatening Acts 4
Stephen C. Levinson (1983),op.cit. p. 21.
5
Pragmatics and Speech Act, Speech Act, Language Education. September 18, 2007.http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm#2. p. 2.
6
Thomas W. Stewart and Nathan Vaillette, ed.,Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics(Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1977), p. 220.
7
11
In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction. Because face is something that emotionally invested, can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. The termination of facefirst created by Erving Goffman in 1963, where he discusses face in reference to how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is
constructed through our social interactions.8 According to Goffman, face is the positive social value a person effectively claims for him self by the line others assume has taken during a particular contact, not a specific identity but successful presentation of any identity.
Face is also a mask that changes depending on the audience and
the social interaction. In the everyday sense of the word, face is involved in notions such as reputation, prestige, and self-image. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that ‘self-image’ in public or in private situations. Normally, everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s
being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend their faces if threatened, and in defining their own
to threaten other’s face.
Brown and Levinson use the concept of face to explain politeness. Brown and Levinson's explanation of a number of such deviations is rooted in Goffman's (1967) notion of face that is 'the public self-image that every member wants to
claim for
8
himself' (1987: 61). They observe that such speakers have two 'face wants', positive face andnegative face. Positive face is a desire for identification, be appreciated and approved of. Negative face is a desire to be unimpeded in the actions
action and freedom from imposition.9
Brown and Levinson also add the notion of Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
which they classify according to the kind of face threatened and according to the roles of the participant speaker (S) or hearer (H). Face Threatening Acts (FTA) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his or her self image, and be
respected.1 0
Any utterance which would be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on other
person’sautonomy can be regarded a potential face threatening act. Even suggestion, advice and requests can be regarded as face threatening act, since they potentially impede the other person’s freedom of action. Acts such as
these are called Face Threatening Acts(FTA).
Politeness tends to be grounded in the concept of face threatening acts in
communication. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' face. Politeness is the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by
certain face threatening acts toward another. 1 1 And being polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for
p. 23.
9
Peter Stockwell,Sociolinguistics: a resource book for students(London: Routledge, 2002),
1 0
Tenille D. Dixon, University of Kentucky. 14 January , 2008.
1 1
another. Face is maintained by the audience, not by the speaker. Because of that, We strive to maintain the face we have created in social situations.
According to Brown and Levinson there are some kinds of act
which intrinsically threats face, such as:
Acts that threaten the addressee’s (H’s) negative face wants by indicating
(potentially) that the speaker (S) does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action, include:1 2
1. Acts that put some pressure on hearer(H) to do (or refrain from doing) the act A:
(a) orders and request (S indicates that he wants H to do something to A) (b) suggestions, advice
(c) remindings (S indicates that H should remember to do some A) (d) threats, warnings, dares (S indicates that he- or someone will instigate
sanctions against H unless he does A)
2. Acts that put some pressure on H to accept or reject them: (a) offers
(b) promises
3. Acts that predicate some desire of S toward H, giving H reason to think that he may have to take action to protect the object ofS’sdesire or give it to S:
(a) Compliments, expression of envy or admiration
(b) Expression of strong emotion toward H (S indicates possible motivation for harming H or H’s good), e.g. hatred, anger, lust.
Acts thatthreaten the positive face wants by indicating that S does not care about the
H’s feelings, wants etc (in some important respect he doesn’t want H’s
wants), include:1 3
1 2
14
1. Acts that show that S has negative evaluationof some aspect ofH’s positive face:
(a) Expression of disapproval, criticism, contempt, ridicule, complaint, reprimand, accusation, and insult (S indicates that he doesn't like/want one or more of H's wants, acts, personal characteristics, goods, beliefs
or values).
(b) Contradictions, refusal, disagreements and challenge (S indicates that he thinks H is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue, such wrongness being associated with disapproval).
2. Acts that show that S does not care about H’s positive face:
(a) Expression of violent (out-of-control) emotions to fear or embraced H (b) Irreverence, mention of taboo topics, including those
that are inapropriate in context.
(c) Bringing of bad news about H or boasting about S
(d) Tell the emotional or divisible topics, e.g. politics, race, religion. (e) Non-cooperation activity, e.g. showing non attention
(f) Use of address terms and other status marked identifications in initial encounters (S may misidentify H in an offensive or embrassing way, intentionally or accidentally)
Acts that primarily threatenthe speaker’s (S’s)negative facewants include:1 4
1. Acts that offends S’s negative face:
(a) Expressing thanks
(b) Acceptance of H’s thanks or H’s apology (c) Excuses
(d) Acceptance of offers (e) Responses to H’s faux pas
(f) Unwilling promises and offers 2. Acts that damage S’s positive face:
(a) Apologies
(b) Acceptance of a compliment
(c) Breakdown of physical control body, e.g. stumbling or falling down (d) Self-humiliation, e.g. acting stupid, shuffling or cowering
2. Strategies in Doing Face Threatening Act
Every utterance is potentially a face threatening act (FTA), either to the positive face or to the negative face. Therefore, the participants in
communication
1 3
Ibid. p. 66.
1 4
will try to avoid face threatening acts and choose five super strategies for also performing an FTA to minimize the threat and the face losing risk, ordered from the lowest to the highest risk of face loss, they are: 1) Bald, on-record, 2) Positive politeness, 3) Negative politeness, 4) Off record, 5) Don’t do the
FTA.
Strategies in doing FTA may be schematized as in the figure below:
Lesser
1. without redressive action, baldy
On record 2. Positive Do the FTA Politeness
with redressive action 4. off record
5.Don’tdo the FTA 3. Negative
Politeness
Greater Figure 1: Face Threatening Acts’ strategies
The more an act threats S’s or H’r face, the more S will want to choose a
higher-numbered strategy; this by virtue of the fact that these strategies afford payoff of increasingly minimized risk.
These five strategies are used to safeguardspeaker’s orhearer’s face in order to avoid face loss in communication when performing an FTA. First, bald on record, this strategy does not attempt to minimize the threats to the hearer’s face. Bald on record is most often utilized by speakers who closely know their audience. The participant in communication likely will performe this strategy when the estimation
16
redress if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee because of the danger of H’s face is very small without losing his own. As in offers, requests, suggestion. Or baldly with redressive action, by action that give face to addressee to
be achieved.
The second strategy is positive politeness, this strategy attempts to minimize the threat to the hearers face. Quite often hedging and attempts to avoid conflict are used, e.g. How about shutting the door?. Possitive politeness links to positif face by
giving a positive reason for H to act in the way to suggested.1 5 The third strategy is negative politeness which presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the listener, e.g. could you shut the door?. The forth strategy is off record, the actor may leaves himself an ‘out’ by providing him self with a number of defensible interpretation include metaphor, irony and all kinds of hints, e.g. It’s warm in here. The last one is
do not do the FTA, this strategy is the most polite strategy doing if someone (S or H) does not act anything which can threats her face. Silence may be adopted when the FTA is too dangerous to commit. `Better not to speak than to be sorry´ is the understanding behind it.
Brown and Levinson in their book tell that there are three most important strategies for doing FTA, such as: positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record. These strategies will be explained in the following below:
1 5
a. Positive Politeness Strategy
Positive politeness strategy aim to save positive face, by demonstrating closeness and solodarity, appealing to friendship, making other people
feel good, and emphasizing that both speakers have a common goal.1 6 By doing positive politeness,
a speaker can minimize the face threatening aspects of an act by assuring the
addressee that S consider himself to be‘ofthe samekind’,that he like him, and wants his wants. By doing positive politeness S also can avoid or minimize
the debt implications of FTA.1 7
Positive politeness seeks to build common ground between speaker and
hearer. Claim common ground is used by S toward H By indicating that S and H both belong to some set of persons who share specific wants, including
goal and values. Claim common grounds in politeness strategy are:1 8
Strategy 1: notice; attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, and goods)
S should take notice of aspects of H’s condition or by commenting on theH’s
appearance, belonging and so on (noticeable change, remarkable possessions, anything which looks as though H would want S to notice and approve of it) as inwhat a beautiful vase this is! Where did you come from?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
1 6
Joan Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse : A resource book for students
(London: Routledge, 2002), p. 48.
1 7
Brown and Stephen C. Levinson (1987),op. cit. p. 72.
1 8
18
This is often done with exaggerated intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodic, as well as with intensifying modifier as in how a beautiful face you have! Another feature of this strategy is the exaggerative or emphatic use of words or particles includes expression likefor sure, really, exactly, absolutely.Strategy3: intensify interest to H
S intensifies his interest to H in conversation by telling or making a good
story. e.g. Purple I like, I always used it when I feel happy
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
In this strategy, S may explicitly claim the common ground with H that is carried by that definition of the group by using any of the innumerable ways
to convey in-group membership. Such as, the usage of address forms (mate, buddy, dear, sweetheart, pal, blonde, babe, mom, guys. etc) to soften
FTA, e.g. help me with this chair here, will you pal? Or the usage of dialect, jargon
or slang e.g.Lend me a couple of bucks OK?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
S using this way of claim common ground with H is to seek ways in which it is possible to agree with him or to safe topics which allows S to stress his agreement with H to satisfy H’s desire to be right to be corroborated in his opinion.
A positive politeness desire to avoid disagreement can be doing with: 1 9
a. The social ‘white lie’, where S when confronted with the necessity to state an opinion wants to lie as expressions of something that can not be said as such, e.g. yes I do like your new dress,S answers ‘yes’, but actually does nothing.
b. Hedging opinionby using of sort of,kind of,like,in a way (‘it’sreally beautiful, in away’or‘Ikind a think that abortion is wrong’), so S not be seen to disagree.
The hedge frees the speaker from the responsibility for the word and saves him the trouble of finding a better word and thereby softening the impact of negative statements.
c. Token agreement by desire to agree or to hide disagreement – to respond to a preceding utterance with ‘Yes’ rather than a blatant ‘No’. The speaker starts out token
agreement by agreeing with the prior speaker's position before voicing disagreement. In most cases, token agreement takes on the yes, but ...
d.Pseudo- agreement,by using then or so as a conclusion marker. e.g. so when are you coming to see us?
Strategy 7: presuppose/raise/assert common ground
1 9
20
S try to spend his time and effort with H, as a mark of friendship or interest in him, gives rise to the strategy of redressing an FTA by talking for a while about unrelated topics (Gossip or small talk),
Strategy 8: Joke
Joking is a basic positive-politeness technique. S may joke or a joke may minimize an FTA of requesting, as in: How about lending me this old heap of junk?(H’snew Cadillac)
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
One way of indicating that S and H are cooperators, and thus potentially to
put pressure on H to cooperate with S to imply knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit one’own wants in with them.
E.g. I know you love roses but the florist didn’t have anymore, so I brought you sunflower.(Offer/apology)
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
Within a certain sphere of relevance whether H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain, even if they are false (I’ll drop by sometimes next week’) they demonstrate S’s good intentions in satisfyingH’s positive-face wants.
S to be so presumptuous as to assume H will help and cooperate with him may carry a tacit commitment for S to cooperate with H as well or because their mutual shares interest.
e.g.Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I borrow your pen.
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
By using an inclusive ‘we’ form as I ‘Let’s’, when S really means ‘you’ or
‘me’, he can upon the cooperative assumption and thereby redress FTAs. e.g.let’s go to dinner or Give us a break
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
H give reason for S as to why he wants or what he wants. In his practical reasoning, H is thereby led to see the reasonableness of
S’s FTA (or so S hopes). E.g.why don’t you close that window?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and H, as in I’ll do something for you if you give me your attention. S may also soften his FTA by negating the face threatening aspect of speech acts such as criticism and complaint.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation
S may satisfyH’spositive face want by actually satisfying some ofH’swants.
22
b. Negative Politeness Strategy
Negative politeness is oriented towardH’snegative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Negative politeness is predicated upon the need not to impinge on others or to assume that
their actions or beliefs are necessarily the same as the speaker's own.2 0 By doing negative politeness
the speaker can pay respect, deference, maintain social distance, and avoid the threat (or the potential face loss) of advancing familiarity toward the addressee.
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
This strategy make a speaker is faced to the desire to give H an‘out’by being indirect, and the desire to go on record. In this case, the speaker use phrases
and sentences those have contextually unambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meanings.E.g I'm looking for a pen
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an utterance. Hedges may intentionally or unintentionally be employed in both
spoken and written language since they are crucially important in communication. Hedges help speakers and writers communicate more precisely the degree of accuracy and truth in assessments. For instance, in
“All I know is smoking is harmful to your health”, all I know is a hedge that indicates the degree of the speaker’s knowledge instead of only making a statement.
2 0
Hedges also indicates how Gricean maxims are observed. In this case, hedges are markers tied to the expectation of the maxims of quantity, quality, manner, and relevance. ‘All I know is, smoking is harmful to your health’, it can be observed that information conveyed by the speaker is
limited by adding all I know and as you probably know. By so saying, the speaker wants
to inform that he/she is not only making an assertion but observing the maxim of quantity as well. In ‘They told me that they are married’, if the speaker only says that “they are married” and they do not know for sure if they are married, they may violate the maxim of quality since they say something that they do not know to be true or false. Nevertheless, by adding they told me that, the speaker wants to confirm that they are observing the conversational maxim of quality.
In conversation, speakers may also be aware of the maxim of manner
by producing hedges like ‘I am not sure if all of these are clear to you, but this is what I know’ , hedges are good indications the speakers are not only conscious of the maxim of manner, but they are also trying to observe them. Or the statement of‘Bythe way, you like this car?’,by usingby the way, what has been said by the speakers is not relevant to the moment in which the conversation takes place. Such a hedge can be found in the middle of speakers’ conversation as the speaker wants to switch to
24
indicating that the speaker wants to drift into another topic or want to stop the previos topic.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy gives redress toH’snegative face by explicitly expressing doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’sspeech act obtain.
E.g.could/ would you do X? or I don’tsuppose you could close the window, could you?
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition
Speakers can minimize the imposition by making it seem smaller than it is.2 1 The expressions that minimize imposition are expressions: just, a tiny little bit, a sip, a taste, a little, a bit, and a smidgen. e.g.I just want that cakeor in ‘I just want to ask you if I could use your computer?.’
Expression of ‘Just’ conveys both literal meaning of ‘exactly, only’ which narrowly delimits the extent of the FTA.
Strategy 5: Give deference
There are two sides as the realization of deference: a) S humbles and abases himself, b) where S raises H to pay him positive face of particular kind which satisfiesH’swants to be treated as superior. In both cases what is conveyed is
that H is of higher status than S. e.g.excuse me, sir, would you mind if I asked you to close the window
Strategy 6: Apologize
2 1
Brown and Levinson consider apology as a face threatening act which damages to some degree the speaker’s positive face, since in doing it the speaker admits that he or she has done a transgression. By apologizing for doing FTA, the speaker also can indicate his
reluctance to impinge on H’s negative face and thereby partially
redress that impingement. S also
can attempt to show that he is reluctant to impinge on H with the use of hedges or by means of expressing, as in ‘Sorry about this, but could I ...’or in ‘I’m rerribly sorry to put you out, but could you close the window?’
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H
One way of indicating that S doesn’twant to impinge on H is phrase of FTA as if the agent were other than S, or only inclusive of H, in this case avoid the
use of inclusive ‘I and you’
E.g.Do this for meorTake that out!
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
S does not want to impinge H but is merely forced to by circumstances, is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation. E.g. We don’t sit on the tables, we sit on chairs, Johnny.
Strategy 9: Nominalize
By nominalizing the expression of the FTA
E.g. …..and that impressed us favorably, can be nominalized by
26
c. Off-record Strategy
In off recordstrategy, the actor may leave himself an ‘out’by providing him self with a number of defensible interpretations; he can not be held to have committed himself to just one particular interpretation in act. By going off record S
or H can avoids her responsibility for the potential face-damaging interpretations.2 2
Strategy 1: Give hints
S invites H to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance e.g.It's a bit cold in here (S has purpose to H to shut the window)
Strategy 2: Give association clues
This strategy associated to the act of H by precedent in S-H’s experience (oh God, I’ve got a headache again)
Strategy 3: Presuppose
This strategy violates the Relevant Maxim just at the level of its presuppositions which may implicate a criticism (I washed the plate again today).
Strategy 4: Understate
This strategy can invite to make inferences by the speaker’s violation of the quantity maxim ‘say as much as and more than is required’, S invites H to consider why.
2 2
Strategy 5: Overstate
S says more than necessary by the inverse of the understatement principle
(choosing a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of affair) e.g.I tried to tell him a hundred times
Strategy 6: Use tautologies
This strategy may violate the Quantity maxim‘truth’.By uttering tautology, S encourages H to look for informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance (Boys will be boys).
Strategy 7: Use contradictions
By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot be telling the truth (Well, yes and no)
Strategy 8: Be ironic
By saying the opposite of what he means, again a violation of Quality. S can indirectly convey his intended meaning (lovely neighborhood,eh? (In a slum)
Strategy 9: Use metaphors
This strategy violates the Quality; for metaphors are literary false (Mary’s a real fish)
Strategy 10: Use rhetorical questions
S wants H to provide him with the indicated information. E.g.what can I say? (Nothing, it’s so bad)
28
Every off-record strategy essentially exploits ambiguity. Purposeful ambiguity may be achieved through literal meaning or metaphor since it is not always clear exactly which of the connotation of a metaphor are intended to be invoked. E.g.Paul’s a pretty smooth cookie
Strategy 12: Be vague
S may go off record within an FTA by being vague about the object of FTA, as in criticism. E.g. Looks like someone…
Strategy 13: Over generalize
By show rule instantiation which may leave the object vaguely off record e.g.the lawn has got to be mown.
Strategy 14: Displace H
S may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom itwouldn’tthreaten and hope that the real target will see that the FTA is aimed at him (Free gift).
Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis
e.g. Well, I didn’t see you…
3. Factors Influencing the Choice of the Strategies A. Payoffs (advantages): a priori consideration
The more an act threatens theS’s orH’sface, the more S will want to choose a
Derived on a priori grounds, there are certain payoffs that associated with each of the strategies, such as:
1. On Record, baldly
Bald on-record conforms to Grice´s Maxims. Grice (1975) claims that
people entering into conversation with each other tacitly agree to co-operate towards mutual communicative ends. He calls these conventions maxims and suggests that at
least the following four obtain which clarify how the cooperative principle work:2 3 Maxim of quality: Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)
Maxim of quantity:
(a) Don´t say less than is required (b) Don´t say more than is required Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant
Maxim of manner: Avoid ambiguity and obscurity
Therefore, by going on record the speaker can get any of the following profit or advantages:
a. Can enlist public pressure against the addressee or in support on him. b. Get credit for honesty (for indicating that he trust the addressee) c. Get credit for outspokenness
d. Avoid the danger of being seen to be a manipulator. e. Avoid the danger of being misunderstood
f. Can have the opportunity the pay back in face what ever he potentially takes away by the FTA.
2 3
30
2. Positive Politeness
This strategy is understood as a strategy of intimacy. By doing positive
politeness, S can get profits in the following ways:
a. S has opportunity to give face to satisfy H’s positive face
b. S can minimize the face threatening aspects of an act by assuring the addressee that S consider himself to be ‘of the same kind’,
he likes him, and wants his wants.
c. S may lose much of its sting because of the assertion of mutual friendship. d. On going relationship between the adressee and himself by including the
addressee and him self in activity (with an inclusive ‘we’)
3. Negative Politeness
By doing positive politeness, S can get profits in the following ways: a. S can pay respect to satisfy the addressee’snegative face. b. Deference to the addressee in return for the FTA
c. Can avoid incurring (or lessen) a future debt d. Maintain social distance
e. Avoid the threat (or the potential face loss) of advancing the familiarity towards the addressee, can givereal ‘out’ to the addressee.2 4
2 4
4. Off record
Off-record´ utterances are indirect uses of language which precise meaning
has to be interpreted. S gets profits of this strategy in the following ways: a. S can get credit for being tactful
b. Non-coercive
c. Run less risk of his act entering the ‘gossip biography’
d. The S may get credit for being generous and cooperatives
e. Avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation. In other word, S can satisfy negative face to a
degree greater than that afforded by negative-politeness strategy. 2 5
5. Don’t do FTA-payoffs
a. S can avoids offending H at all with this particular FTA b. The S also fails to achieve his desired communication.2 6
2. The Circumstances: Sociological Variables
In choosing a particular strategy, sociological variables are also the important factors relating to both speaker and hearer choose the strategies. They include relative power (P), absolute social distance (D), and the ranked (R) of the face-threatening act. The ranked extremity refers to the precise nature of the imposition being made
2 5
Ibid
2 6
32
and will form an important constraint: the greater the imposition, the greater the use of politeness.
These universal sociological variables have been introduced by Brown and Levinson that play a role in calculating‘Wx’or the weightiness of FTAs, to know the context dependence (P, R, D), P, R, and D as independent variables,
ambiguity and disambiguation as evidence for P, D, and R. 2 7
2 7
Ibid, pp. 76-83.
A. Data Description
The writer chooses the dialogue of HenrikIbsen’sdramaadoll’shouseas the object of the study. The writer just collects 33 dialogues and then analyze them. Here, the writer tries to tabulate the collected data through the following table consists of 68 expressions of FTA strategies used by Nora and its utilized strategies. The tabulated data that the writer obtains can be presented on the table below:
No The Utilized Strategies The Expressions Page
1 Positive Politeness: 6
surely we can let ourselves go a little this year!
3 Negative Politeness: 4 (minimize the imposition)
We can let ourselves go a little this year!
4 Possitive Politeness: 6 (token agreement)
Oh yes, Torvald, we can be little extravagant now,can’twe? 5 Negative Politeness: 4
(minimize the imposition)
We can be little extravagant now 6 Negative Politeness: 4
(minimize the imposition)
Just a tiny bit?
7 Baldly on record You’ve got a big salary now
34
9 Baldly on record I should be able to manage with this. 10 Possitive Politenes: 6
(Token agreement)
Yes, yes, of course I will. But come over here
11 Negative Politeness:7 (Impersonalize S and H)
come over here
They’re nothing much, but she’ll pull them apart in a few days.
14 Positive Politeness: 6 (hedging opinion - avoid disagreement)
Very well, Torvald. As you say 920
15 Baldly on record Oh, pooh, I don’t want anything. 921 16 Off Record: 7
If you really want to give me something, you could–you could --!
18 Baldly o record You could give me money 19 Negative Politeness: 4
(minimize the imposition)
Only as much as you feel you can afford
20 Possitive Politeness: 4 (using group identity marker)
yes, Torvald dear, please! Then I’ll wrap up …
21 Possitive Politeness: 8 (joke)
Then I’ll wrap up the notes in pretty gold paper and hang them on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?
22 Possitive Politeness: 6 (token agreement- avoid disagreement)
Yes, yes, squanderbird, I know. But let’s……
23 Negative Politeness:12 (Include both S and H in activity)
Let’s do as I say
24 Baldly on record I save every penny I can 25 Possitive Politeness: 6
(hedge- avoid disagreement)
Oh, I wish I’dinherited more ofpapa’s qualities.
26 Possitive Politeness: 10 (Promise)
No, Torvald―I promise you, honesty― 27 Negative Politeness: 2
(question)
, once the Christmas tree has been lit. Have you remember to invite Dr. Rank? 28 Possitive Politeness:
(White lies-avoid disagreement)
I didn’t find it boring 923
29 Negative Politeness:3 (don’t coerceH)
May I introduce you ----?This is Christiine
932 30 Possitive Politeness:4
(group identity marker)
Mrs. Linde, Torvald dear. Christine Linde
31 Negative Politeness: 2 (Hedge assumption)
Oh yes, that’s quite right – Krogstad was here for a few minute
939
32 Positive Politeness: 1 (attends to H’s interest,
wants)
If you hadn’tbeen so busy, I was going to ask you an enormous favor
940
33 Positive Politeness: 2 (exaggerate)
You know I trust your taste more than anyone’s
34 Negative Politeness: 3 (be pessimistic)
Torvald,couldn’tyou help me to decide what I shall go as, and what kind… 35 Positive Politeness: 6
(white lies)
Yes, Torvald. I can’t get anywhere without your help. 36 Off Record: 8
(Be ironic)
If little squirrel asked you really prettily to grant her a wish
945 37 Negative Politeness: 3
(Be pessimistic)
Would you grant it to her? 38 Positive Politeness : 14
(assume/assert reciprocity)
Squirrel would do lots of pretty tricks for you if you granted her wish 39 Off Record: 1
Yes, Torvald, I must, I know. Ican’tget anywhere without your help.
I can’t dance tomorrow if I don’t practice with you
44 Positive Politeness: 6 (white lying)
36
45 Positive Politeness : 15 (Give cooperation and sympathy to H)
Aren’t you very tired, Torvald?
46 Possitive Politeness:6 (White lies)
Yes, I’m very tired. Soon I shall sleep 47 Possitive Politeness:6
(token agreement)
Yes, that’s terrible sweet of you. But you can get rid of one of the other clerks instead of Krogstad
48 Possitive Politeness:6 (white lies)
Oh yes, yes, yes –I know you never thinking of anything but me 49 Baldly on record Read your letters now, Torvald.
50 Baldly on record Leave me, Torvald! Get away from me. I don’t all this
51 Positive Politeness: 2 (exaggerate)
I’ve loved you more than anything else in the world.
52 Negative Politeness: 7 (impersonalize S and H)
Sit down. I’ve a lot to say to you 971
53 Baldly on record You don’t understand me. And
I’ve never understood you―until this evening. No, don’t interrupt me
54 Negative Politeness: 4 (minimize the imposition)
Just listen what I have to say 55 Baldly on record We have never exchanged a
serious word on a serious subject
56 Baldly on record I haven’t ever been happy 972
57 Positive Politeness: 4 (minimize the imposition)
No. I’ve just had fun
58 Negative Politeness:5 (humble)
You’ve always been very kind to me 59 Baldly on record I’vebeen your doll-wife
60 Baldly on record You’re not the man to educate me into being the right wife for you.
61 Baldly on record I can’t help that. 973
62 Negative Politeness: 4 (minimize the imposition)
I only know that I must do this 63 Possitive Politeness:6
(White lies)
64 Baldly on record I can’t help it. I don’t love you any longer.
65 Positive Politeness: 2 (exaggerates the intensity)
Yes, absolutely sure. That’s why I can’t go on living here any longer.
974
66 Positive Politeness: 3 (intensify interest)
Millions of women have done it. 67 Negative Politeness: 2
(Hedge assumption)
That’s may be. But you neither think… 68 Baldly On Record But you neither think nor talk like
the man I could share my life with. …
B. Interpretation of the Data
Face Threatening Acts (FTA) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his or her self image, and be respected. Speakers have strategies for lessening the threat of face’ need either the positive face or the negative face by performing the FTA.
The speakers may doing positive politeness strategies as the strategy of intimacy and solidarity, includes claiming common ground, showing cooperation, expressing friendliness, a positive thinking, positive
remark and opinion. The speakers also may going negative politeness, as the strategy of showing respect by hedging opinion, apologyzing, impersonalizing S and H, and indicating deference. May also going on record, the direct way but uncooperative. Or off record, trying to avoid the direct of FTA by indirectly makes minimal asumptions through a number of defensible interpretations.
From the tabulated data above, the writer may infer that there are just
38
politeness strategy, negative politeness strategy, on record strattegy, and off record strategy.
C. Data Analysis
From the tabulated data on the table above, the writer tries to analyze the selected data one by one. In the process of analysis, the writer gives the number of the data 1 until 33 to be analyzed one by one. From 33 data, the writer finds that there are
29 positive politeness expressions, 18 negative politeness expressions, 16 on record expressions, and 5 off record expressions which are utilized by Nora in the drama of ADoll’s House. To get further description of analysis, the writer tries to illustrate as follows:
Data 1
The dialogue below is the first encounter between Torvald and Nora Helmer Helmer : Is that my squirrel rustling?
Nora : Yes! Analysis:
Torvald Helmer addresses Nora with tenderness and authority calling her his
conflict and consider herself that S and H both belong to some set a person who has same prespective in thinking.
Data 2
Nora : Oh, Torvald, surely we can let ourselves go a little this year! It’sthe first Christmas been overspending again?
Helmer : Well, you know, we can’t afford to be extravagant.
Nora : Oh yes, Torvald, we can be little extravagant now, can’t we? Just a tiny
bit? You’vegot a big salary now, and you’regoing to make lots and lots of money.
Analysis:
Nora’s conversational behavior comes as something of a surprise. Nora uses strategy 11 of positive politeness (be pessimistic) to avoid or minimize the debt implication of FTA by indicating that Nora becomes so presumptuous to assume that Torvald will cooperate with her to overspend in Christmas
day. Nora also uses strategy 4 of negative politeness (minimizing the imposition) to avoid incurring (can thereby lessen) a future debt; she uses the expression of ‘a little’ that conveys meaning of ‘a small peace’. To protect his face, Torvald uses strategy 7 of positive politeness (personal centre switching) to assert common ground; he uses the expression of ‘You know’ to assert they can’t afford to be extravagant. In other hand, Nora who also
being threats also tries to minimize face losing risks by going strategy
40
Data 3
Helmer: Nora! (Goes over to her and takes her playfully by the ear) what a little
spendthrift you are! Suppose I were to borrow fifty pounds today, and you spent it all over Christmas, and then on NewYear’sEve a tile fell off a roof on to my head―
Nora (puts her hand over his mouth): Oh, Torvald! Don’t say such dreadful things! Analysis:
With seriously tone, Torvald threats Nora’s positive when Torvald chastises
his wife for being a spendthrift (baldly on record), a bad calling from a husband toward his wife. In this dialog Torvald express his negative evaluation of some aspect
of Nora’s positive face (H’s positive face) about Nora’s action to spend a lot of money for Christmas. In her response, Nora finally uses baldly on record strategy because has the opportunity to pay back in face whatever she potentially takes away
by the FTA,by sayingDon’t say such dreadful things! Data 4
Nora (counts them) : One –two—three—four. Oh, Thank you, Torvald, thank you! I should be able to manage with this.
Hemer : You’ll have to.
Nora : Yes, yes, of course I will. But come over here, I want to show you everything I’ve bought. And so cheaply! Look, here are new clothes for Ivan – and a sword. A horse and a trumpet for Bob. A doll and a cradle for Emmy – they’re nothing much, but she’ll pull them apart in a few days. And some bits of material and handkerchiefs for the maids.
Analysis:
Nora’s utterance of thanks threats her positive face wants, then she uses on record strategy to avoid the danger of being seen to be a manipulator
41
Nora’s face by warnings that she have to manage the money that Torvald give for houskeeping. Nora uses positive politeness strategy 6 to avoid disagreement by doing token agreement, before voicing disagreement. Nora exciting to asks Torvald to look everything that she has bought, it shows the way Nora in voicing disagreement, by also using strategy 7 of negative politeness (avoids the usage of
inclusive‘IandYou’
to show that Sdoesn’twant to impinge on H ‘sface) to pay respect or deference. She also uses strategy 4 of negative politeness (minimize the imposition) by using expression of ‘so cheaply’ ‘they’re nothing much’ and ‘some bits’
which norrowly delimits the extent of the FTA.
Data 5
Helmer: Oh, Nora, Nora, how like a women! No, but seriously, Nora, you know how I feel about this. No debts! Never borrow! A home that is founded on debts can never be a place of freedom and beauty. We two have stuck it out bravely up to now; and we shall continue to do so for the short time we still have to.
Nora (goes over towards the stove): very well, Torvald. As you say. Analysis:
face threatening aspects and on going relationship between S and H, Very well, Torvald. as you say.
According to writer, a positive politeness desire to avoid disagreement can be doing byhedging opinion; S may choose to be vague about his opinions so as not to be seen to disagree.2 8
Data 6
Helmer : …tell me, you little spendthrift, what do you want for Christmas? Nora : Me? Oh, pooh, I don’t want anything.
Helmer : Oh, yes, you do. Now tell me, what, without reason, would you most like? Nora :No, I really don’t know. Oh, yes –Torvald --!
Helmer : Well?
Nora (plays with his coat-buttons; not looking at him): If you really want to give me something, you could–you could --!
Helmer : Come on, out with it.
Nora (quickly): you could give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you feel you can afford; then leter I’ll buy something with it.
Helmer : But, Nora
---Nora : Oh yes, Torvald dear, please! Then I’ll wrap up the notes in
pretty gold paper and hang them on the Christmas tree.Wouldn’t that be fun? Analysis:
By calling his wife little spendthrift, Torvald Helmer offers his wife money for christmas. To protect her self image, at the first time Nora uses no record strategy
‘Oh pooh, I don’t want anything’, to get credit for honesty and to pay back iin face she potentially takes away by FTA. But then Nora uses strategy 3 of negative politeness (Be pessimistic) to avoid the potential face loss by explicitly expressing doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s
speech act obtain, and uses
2 8
43
baldly on record to get credit for outspokenness ‘you could give me money’. It becomes apparent that she is hesitant to tell Torvald what she wants.
Nora also uses strategy 4 of negative politeness through minimize the imposition of the money by using the expression of ‘only’ to enlist public pressure against H. Nora be aware her utterance makes her threats after Torvald uses strategy
15 of off record bybeing incomplete. She uses positive politeness strategy 4‘Oh, yes, Torvald dear, please!’to minimize her positive face by using the markers of‘dear’to confirm that the relationship is friendly. Nora also uses strategy 8 of positive politeness (Joke) to minimize the debt implication of an FTA, to soften an
FTA, and
to lose much of its sting ‘I’ll wrap up the notes in pretty gold paper and hang them on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?’
Data 7
Helmer: What’s the name of that littlebird that can never keep any money?
Nora : Yes, yes, squanderbird; I know. Butlet’sdo as I say, Torvald; then I’llhave time to think about what I need most.Isn’tthat the best way? Mm?
Helmer (smiles): To be sure it would be, if you could keep what I give you and really buy yourself something with it. But you’ll spend it on all sorts of useless things for the house, andthen I’ll have to put my hand in my pocket again.
Analysis:
Torvald again accuses Nora of being wastefull by going off record strategy
with metaphor, Helmer threats Nora’s positive face wants by indicating that S does not care about the H’s feelings which be showed by Helmer with negative evaluation
44
reflect the same perspective between S (Speaker) and H (Hearer) or to minimize the face threatening aspects while Nora is called as his bird‘squanderbird’that can never keeps any money. This dialog shows us how Helmer Never believes Nora to save money and does not care about Nora’s feeling.
Token agreement is used as the desire to agree or to hide disagreement– to respond to a preceding utterance with ‘Yes..’rather than a blatant‘No’.2 9
Data 8
Helmer: You can’t deny it, Nora dear. (puts his arms around her waist) the
squanderbird’ss pretty little creature, but she gets through an awful lots of money. It’s incredible what an expensive pet she is for a man to keep.
Nora : For shame! How can you say such a thing? I save every penny I can. Analysis:
In this dialog Torvald’s utterance is baldly on record and strategy 9 of off record (use metaphors) to convey that Nora like a pet
‘squanderbird’s pretty little creature’. Torvald’s utterance threats Nora’s
positive face (insult, ridicule). To protect her self image, in her responses Nora says that he really shall not speak of such shameful things, she tries to ask for reason (positive politeness: 13) ‘How can you say such a thing?’ , Nora feels that she has the opportunity to pay back in face whatever she potentially takes
away of FTA. Then, she uses bald on record strategy
by clearly says ‘Isave every penny Ican’,she always tries to save every penny of the money.
2 9
