POLITENESS IN KYOKO MORI’S POLITE LIES
A THESIS
BY:
ERLIN SITINJAK
040705041
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
FACULTY OF LETTERS
ENGLISH LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
MEDAN
POLITENESS IN KYOKO MORI’S POLITE LIES
A THESIS BY:
ERLIN SITINJAK 040705041
SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR
DRS. SYAHRON LUBIS, M.A. DRS. UMAR MONO, M.HUM
NIP. 130535807 NIP. 131570486
Submitted to Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara Medan In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
In English Department
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA FACULTY OF LETTERS
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT MEDAN
Approved by the English Department Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara as Thesis for the Sarjana Sastra Examination
Chairwoman of English Department Secretary of English Department
Dra. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum Drs. Yulianus Harefa, MEd. TESOL
Accepted by the Board of Examiners in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra from the English Department Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara Medan
The Examination is held on the 14th day of June 2008
Faculty of Letters
University of Sumatera Utara
The Dean of Faculty of Letters
Name NIP.
Broad of Examiners:
... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise and worship to Father in Heaven for the mercies that He has been
blessing through all my life, especially during the process of completing my thesis
entitled Politeness in Kyoko Mori’s Polite Lies. There were countless problems
that I could not avoid and made me down. However, He never leaves me and lets
me by myself. Instead, He would always take my hands and lift me up to face all
those problems until the day I come out as the winner.
My great honor to my late father, who, in his very short life, had given me
much to remember. All the words that he said to me when we were together
speaking of the meaning of life have made me stronger in living my life in this
world, which is full of uncertainty.
My love to my mother, the most gorgeous woman in this world. With her
smile and gentle touch, she never stops loving me. Also to my only sister Marina
and two brothers Lego and Bonar P. Sitinjak, who always encourage me in
everything I do. Your presence confides me that I always have someone who
loves and cares for me.
I would like to thank the chairwoman of English Department, Dra.
Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum; the secretary, Drs. Yulianus Harefa, Grad.Dip.
Ed.TESOL, MEd. TESOL, my supervisor Drs. Syahron Lubis, M.A.; my
co-sepervisor Drs. Umar Mono, M.Hum; Dra. T. Thyrhaya Zein, M.A.;
and all my lecturers that I cannot name one by one. I thank you all for your
willing to share your time and knowledge with me. As your student, I realize that
Last but not least, I want to greet my friends Merlin H. Napitupulu,
Ikarowina Tarigan, Rosalina Munthe, Agustina Situmorang, Siska O. Ginting,
Rosalina Tobing, B. Christy Esfandiarti, Marilyn, Rudi P. Situmorang, Damianus
Sitanggang, and all my classmates in English Department. Many things happened
during these eight semesters, but after all, I thank God for having friends like you.
You help me learn that this world is wonderfully colorful.
I wish God of Heaven and Earth will always be with us from the day we
were born until the day we go back to Him.
Medan, 14th of June 2008
Love
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgement ... i
Abstract ... ii
Table of Contents ... iii
Chapter I Introduction ... 1
1.1. Background of the Analysis ... 1
1.2. Scope of the Analysis ... . 4
1.3. Problem of the Analysis ... . 5
1.4. Objective of the Analysis ... . 5
1.5. Significance of the Analysis ... . 5
Chapter II Theoretical Review on Politeness Theories ... . 7
2.1. Facework ... . 7
2.1.1. Politeness in Facework ... . 8
2.1.2. Supportive Facework ... . 9
2.2. Politic Behavior ... . 9
2.3. Linguistic Politeness ... . 11
2.3.1. Formulaic and Semi-Formulaic Expression... . 12
2.3.2. Expressions of Procedural Meaning ... . 14
Chapter III Methodology ... . 18
3.1. Method of Research ... . 18
3.2. Method of Collecting Data ... . 18
3.3. Method of Analysis ... . 19
Chapter IV Analysis and Findings ... . 21
4.1. Linguistic Utterances in Kyoko Mori’s PoliteLies
is Open to Interpretation as Polite ... 52
4.2. Kyoko Mori Evaluates Linguistic Utterances Negatively as Polite Lies ... . 57
Chapter V Conclusions and Suggestions ... . 60
5.1. Conclusions ... . 60
5.2. Suggestions ... . 61
Bibliography ... Appendixes ...
1. Kyoko Mori’s Biography ...
2. Kyoko Mori’s Works ...
ABSTRAK
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
…, the Japanese announcement welcoming us to the flight reminds me of the
polite language I was taught as a child: always speak as though everything in the
world were your fault.
[Kyoko Mori’s PoliteLies, p. 5]
1.1.Background of the Analysis
The word polite, according to TheBarnhartConciseDictionaryofEtymology
is borrowed from Latin politus ‘refined’, ‘polished’, and ‘elegant’, from past
participle of polire ‘to polish’. The meaning of ‘refined’, ‘elegant’, ‘cultured’ is
first recorded in English in 1501 and that of ‘courteous’, ‘behaving properly’, in
1762 (Barnhart, 1988:581). Since then, the use of this word expands so
enormously that in 2003, Roget’sSuperThesaurus offers us great more varieties
of synonyms to this word as ‘well-mannered’, ‘courteous’, ‘gracious’, ‘civil’,
‘considerate’, ‘thoughtful’, ‘courtly behaved’, ‘gentlemanly’, ‘ladylike’, ‘refined’,
‘nice’, and ‘diplomatic’ (Thesaurus, 2003:443). In the same year as the
publication of the 11th edition of the Thesaurus, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary provides us various definitions to the word polite as following:
1. a) of relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture
b) marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and
belles letters
2. a) showing or characterized by correct social usage
We, ourselves, have been introduced to and taught about this word, since we
were children, by our parents, teachers, and those who are regarded qualified and
having knowledge about this. We were trained to be polite, either in acting or
speaking, in every aspects of life. For example, we were taught how a child should
walk when he passes by an elder man or woman, how a woman should laugh, how
a man should talk, how an employee should write a letter to her/his boss, etc.
All these forms of politeness, of course, are not taught and learned for no
reasons and purposes. Adapting Wardraugh’s idea that to achieve group identity
with, and group differentiation from, other speakers, the speakers in the same
community share some kind of common feeling about social, cultural, political,
ethic, and linguistic characteristics in the community (Wardraugh, 1986:114), it
can be said that everybody is trying to behave and speak politely, according to the
culture of the community where he lives, to make her/him feel that s/he is member
of the same community
Moving from polite behavior in general to the more specific case of polite
language usage, we would better take a glance at the definition of the word
politeness given by Jack Richards’ Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.
Here, politeness is defined as ‘the study of how languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationship and how face-work—the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face during conversation—is carried out in a speech community’. From this definition we can say that politeness is the study of how participants in verbal interaction
recognize both their place and face in the society and realize it through the
It should be noted that languages differ in how they express politeness
(Richards et al 1985: 222). Sachiko Ide (Ide 1989: 230 in Watts, 2003:82), posits
that there are societies, particularly those in Asia, e.g. China, Japan, Thailand,
Korea, etc., in which politeness is determined by discerning the appropriate
features of the ongoing social interaction, i.e. those features of the interaction
which determine politic behavior, and choosing socially appropriate strategies of
interaction. The Japanese word for the ability to discern the correct form of
behavior in the ongoing situation is wakimae. To behave according to wakimae is
to show verbally and non-verbally one’s sense of ‘place’ according to social
conventions.
However, the case is not that simple. Even in one society the term polite and
politeness are still in discursive dispute. There is not a uniformity of idea or
concept on what is being polite and what politeness itself is. Everybody has
her/his own idea over these two terms. While one defines the word polite
positively as synonyms and definitions given above, others define it negatively as
‘standoffish’, ‘haughty’, ‘insincere’, ‘hypocritical’, ‘dishonest’, ‘distant’,
‘unfeeling’, etc. (Watts, 2003:1-2).
It is this phenomenon reflected in the novel Polite Lies. Through her fourth
novel, Kyoko Mori provides us a story of herself, a Japan-born American woman
who spends her first twenty years of life in Japan and the next twenty years in
America until she finally decides to be an American citizen. During her visit to
Japan, Kyoko interacts with her Japanese families, relatives, and friends. From the
story I find out and Kyoko herself acknowledges that verbal interaction carried
that she firmly and clearly states that politeness in Japan is not more than polite lies—small lies we tell to protect ourselves and/or others from trouble or embarrassment.
Then, how are linguistic utterances in Kyoko Mori’s PoliteLies open to the
interpretation as polite? How Kyoko does evaluates those polite utterances
negatively as polite lies? Through my thesis entitled Politeness in Kyoko Mori’s
Polite Lies I will reveal the answers to those questions and explain them by the
use of Watts’ radical new approach to politeness.
1.2.Scope of the Analysis
As has previously been mentioned in the background of my analysis that
politeness does not only deal with language usage, but also with behavior, I would
like to emphasize that my present thesis is focused on the politeness deals with
language usage in Japan as reflected in Kyoko Mori’s PoliteLies. Since language
itself can be expressed by the use of words and gestures (body language), I would
also like to emphasize that my analysis is limited only to the language expressed
by the use of words, i.e. the linguistic utterances of participants in the
conversations (or piece of conversation) in the novel.
It should be noticed notice that what I will analyze here is not the
grammaticalization of Japanese language to express politeness since the
conversation in Kyoko Mori’s Polite Lies is not in Japanese, but in English.
Instead, I would analyze the pragmaticalization of the language to express
politeness according to the place and face of the each participant in the
1.3.Problem of the Analysis
The fact that the main character in Kyoko Mori’s Polite Lies tends to define
Japanese politeness as polite lies directly drives my analysis to the following
questions:
1) How are linguistic utterances in Kyoko Mori’s Polite Lies open to the
interpretation as polite?
2) How does Kyoko evaluates those polite utterances negatively as polite lies?
1.4.Objective of the Analysis
In line with the object of the analysis above, my thesis have purposes as listed
below:
1) To describe how linguistic utterances in Kyoko Mori’s Polite Lies are open to
the interpretation as polite.
2) To describe how Kyoko evaluates those polite utterances negatively as polite
lies.
1.5.Significance of the Analysis
I strongly believe that my thesis would give significant advantages either for
theoretical or practical use. Theoretically this thesis will be the first reference for
student of English Department of University of Sumatera Utara for this would be
the first thesis analyzing the politeness phenomena. From the theory I use in this
thesis, reader will come to a new understanding that politeness can never be
Practically, reader will have better knowledge about the very basic principles
of politeness. By having true understanding on politeness phenomena, one would
be able to establish and maintain social community within comprehensible and
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW ON POLITENESS THEORY
There was no way I could say that to her directly; nor was there any need to.
…. As soon as I uttered my symbolic platitude, every one nodded and smile at me.
They knew exactly what I meant.
[Kyoko Mori’ Polite Lies p. 154]
2.1. Facework
Watts (Watts 2003: 122) agrees that the definition of politeness relies on the
notion of ‘face’. This notion is firstly developed and defined by the sociologist
Erving Goffman as ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for
himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Line
itself is defined as ‘a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which s/he expresses
her/his view of the situation and, through this, her/his evaluation of the
participants, especially her/himself. The number of possible lines we can take
during a verbal interaction may be restricted, but we are still left with choice.
Watts (Watts 2003: 124) notes that Goffman’s notion of face is a highly
changeable, almost unstable entity. Therefore, face is not a permanent aspect of
our construction of the self. It is a socially attributed aspect of self that is
temporarily on loan for the duration of the interaction in accordance with the line
or lines that individual has adopted. This fact leads us to Goffman’s facework,
which he defines as ‘the action taken by a person to make whether he is doing
consistent with her/his face. Facework serves to counteract “incidents” – that is
Thus, Watts (Watts 2003: 121) maintains that Politeness Theory can never
be fully equated with Face Theory because, in one hand, linguistic expressions
used in face-maintenance are not automatically examples of linguistic politeness.
On the other hand, speech activities which ‘look’ and ‘sound’ polite, in fact, aim
to achieve the opposite of face-maintenance.
2.1.1. Politeness in Facework
Politeness is part of the construction and management of everyday
life. In his book Politeness, Watts (Watts 2003: 119) offers two ways of
approaching the study of politeness (italics mine):
1) as general conditions on the conventions of social activity types and their
interaction orders
2) as the forms of linguistic behavior that are produced in requirement in
certain conditions
From these two ways of approaching the study of politeness, it is
obvious that Watts consciously take the condition of the verbal interaction in
which the participants involved into his consideration. The condition of the
verbal interaction is not less important than what Goffman calls face since
face itself can only be developed through repeated socio-communicative
verbal interaction with others. Before a participant in verbal interaction takes
the action appropriate to her/his face, s/he should first recognize the
condition of, especially her/his place in the verbal interaction. After this,
s/he then could easily determine what line s/he should adopt to show her/his
2.1.2. Supportive Facework
When one of the interactants is about to fall out of line, or
immediately after s/he has fallen out of line, that interactant may take
measures to indicate to the other participants that the overall attribution of
face for the interaction is still valid. This action called supportive facework
because it contributes towards the overall facework of the interaction.
Supportive facework aims at avoiding conflict and aggression and, if
possible, at creating comity amongst the participants, but it does not
automatically involve politeness.
2.2. Politic Behavior
Watts (Watts 2003:144) introduces the concept of politic behavior,
i.e. that behavior, linguistic and non-linguistic, which the participants
construct as being appropriate to the ongoing social interaction, to mediate
between facework and politeness. He strongly emphasizes that his politic
behavior is not equivalent to what is called polite behavior, which says
nothing about how members evaluate it. He argues that politic behavior is
consistent with the dispositions of the habitus in accordance with the social
features of the situational context.
Politeness is one of the means by which participants in verbal
interaction (interactants) are able to adapt behavior to that which is
appropriate to the social interaction type in which they are involved. Thus,
each interactant should have knowledge about what forms of behavior are
appropriate and inappropriate to that type of situation. This knowledge is
gained from previous experiences, constructed through their own personal
history and the way it has been linked in the past with objectified social
structures.
Watts (Watts 2003: 164) argues that interactants can only know what
the appropriate behavior in a particular social situation is by virtue of the
interaction between the objectified structures of the social field and the
habitus that the individual has internalized by virtue of the capital s/he has
acquired in that field. And, since there is no objective means to measure the
feel for politic behavior, there are only two ways in which one can become
aware of the appropriate politic behavior:
1) When the values it symbolizes are withdrawn in an instance of social
practice
2) When more values are provided than are felt to be necessary
The evaluation remains individual and can at best become interpersonal and
intersubjective, but can never be objectively verifiable. Based on this theory,
there can never be objective criteria for deciding on what is or is not politic
behavior except for the past experiences of the individual and the perception
Watts (Watts 2003: 167) acknowledges, even that politic behavior is
a predictive theory and the specific forms of consideration might differ from
one culture or subculture to the next, they are still understood as governing
all forms of social interaction since individuals may have acquired fairly
similar forms of habitus. He gives an example that in highly institutionalized
forms of social interaction, routinized forms of language will form part of
the politic behavior of the social interaction reciprocally shared by the
participants, e.g. forms of deferential language such as terms of address,
greetings, and leave-taking. However, he argues that such routinized forms
of linguistic expression are not instantiations of linguistic politeness.
2.3. Linguistic Politeness
Watts argues that linguistic expressions that are frequently said to instantiate
politeness in the research of literature are realizations of politic behavior.
Linguistic politeness, as a form of linguistic payment, has been the focus of
Watts’ politeness theory.
Linguistic politeness: any linguistic behavior which goes beyond the bounds of politic behavior is open to potential classification as ‘polite’, which includes potential irony, aggressiveness, abuse, etc. It is thus open to dispute. The imputation of politeness to a linguistic structure however does not automatically mean that it will be given a positive evaluation. The opposite might easily occur. …. Linguistic ‘payment’ in excess of what is required is open to interpretation as ‘polite.’ (Watts 2003: 161)
Watts (Watts 2003: 168) notes that there is no linguistic structures can be
politeness, but rather that they lend themselves to individual interpretation as
‘polite’ in instances of ongoing verbal interaction.
2.3.1. Formulaic and Semi-Formulaic Expressions of Linguistic Politeness
In order to show that there is no linguistic structures which are
inherently polite; Watts first defines the first new term which he calls the
ritualized, formulaicexpressions:
Highly conventionalized utterances, containing linguistic expressions that are used in ritualized forms of verbal interaction and have been reduced from fully grammatical structures to the status of extra-essential markers of politic behavior. They have little or no internal syntactico-semantic structures. (Watts 2003: 168)
In other words, it can be said that ritualized, formulaic expressions are those
expressions formulated and agreed to be used in certain ritual circumstances.
As the examples of this first type of structure, Watts (Watts 2003:
169) gives three examples of ritualized, formulaicexpression as following:
1) terms of address including first name (Bill, David; deferential titles (Sir);
first name + surname (Richard Wells); title + surname (Dr. Weber).
2) Formulaic expressions of specific speech act types like thanking (very
many thanks; thank you; thank you very much indeed) or apologizing
(excuse me)
The second term, semi-formulaic expression, which is the majority
of linguistic expressions, then by Watts defined as below:
Conventionalized utterances containing linguistic expressions that carry out indirect speech acts appropriate to the politic behavior of a social situation. They may also be used, in certain circumstances, as propositional structures in their own right. (Watts 2003: 169)
As Watts names it semi-formulaic expression, the expressions
formulated and agreed to be used by members of certain circumstances are
much different from formulaic, ritualized utterances. If the first type of
structure carries out direct speech act, the second type carries out indirect
speech acts.
The following examples belong to semi-formulaicexpression:
1) hedges of different kinds, i.e. linguistic expressions which weaken the
illocutionary force of a statement: by means of attitudinal predicates (I
think, I don’t think, I mean) or by means of adverbs (actually)
2) Solidarity markers, i.e. linguistic expressions which appeal to mutual
knowledge shared by the participants, or support and solidarity from
participants (you know)
3) Boosters, i.e. linguistic expressions enhancing the force of the illocution
in some way (of course, clearly, etc.)
4) Sential structures containing specific modal verbs (may I ask you to
As has previously been mentioned, structures such as these are
generally not perceived by participants as overt expressions of politeness,
even though they all make supportive contributions toward the facework
being negotiated among the participants and thus contribute towards the
politic behavior of the interaction. Because of their frequent lack of salience
for the participants, they structure that form part of the politic behavior
rather than expressions of politeness. However, if they are used in excess of
what is necessary to maintain the politic behavior of an interaction, they are
open to evaluation as polite.
2.3.2. Expressions of Procedural Meaning (EPMs)
In order to achieve our communicative goals in social interaction, we
carry out processes of pragmatic inferencing and, in doing so, linguistic
forms become so conventionalized that they begin to lose their flexibility of
reference. Some become fixed as structural elements in the language system
itself (grammaticalization), while others lose most or all of their
propositional content and begin to function as metapragmatic ‘signposts’ or
‘instructions’ to the addressee on now to process propositions
(pragmaticalization). Watts (Watts 2003: 180) called the pragmaticalized
linguistic expressions to signal procedural meaning Expressions of
Procedural Meaning (EPMs for short).
EPMs are essential feature of linguistic practice since they are
largely responsible for generating inferences in the addressee that bear on
they instruct the addressee where and how to derive inferences from
propositional values. EPMs are therefore part of the politic behavior of
different forms of the politic behavior of different forms of linguistic
practice. The following structural categories, which are suggested by House
and Kesper, are represented by EPMs and thus frequently used to signal
politeness and impoliteness:
1) Politeness markers, by which they mean expressions added to the
utterance to ‘show deference to the addressee and to bid for cooperative
behavior’, e.g. politeness marker please, if youwouldn’t/don’t mind, tag
questions with the modal verb will/would following an imperative
structure.
2) Play downs, by which they understand syntactic devices which ‘tone
down the perlocutionary effect an utterance is likely to have on the
addressee’. For example, use the past tense I wondered if ..., I thought
you might …, progressive aspect together with past tense I was
wondering whether … I was thinking you might…, an interrogative
containing a modal verb would it be a good idea …, could we …, a
negative interrogative containing a modal verb wouldn’t it be a good
ideaif …, couldn’tyou ….
3) Consultative devices, by which they understand structures which seek to
involve the addressee and bid for her/his cooperation, e.g. would you
mind …, couldyou ….
4) Hedges, by which they understand the avoidance of giving precise
impose her/his own intent, e.g. kind of, sort of, somehow, more or less,
rather, and whathaveyou.
5) Understaters, which is a means of underrepresenting the propositional
content of the utterance by a phrase functioning an adverbial modifier or
also by an adverb itself, e.g. a bit, a little bit, a second, a moment,
briefly.
6) Downtoners, which ‘modulate the impact’ of the speaker’s utterance,
e.g. just, simply, possibly, perhaps, really.
7) Committers, which lower the degree to which the speaker commits
her/himself to the propositional content of the utterance, e.g. I think, I
believe, Iguess, inmyopinion.
8) Forewarning, which is a strategy that could be realized by a wide range
of different structures in which the speaker makes some kind of
metacomment on an FTA (e.g. pays a compliment or invokes a generally
accepted principles which s/he is about to flout, etc. For example, farbe
itfor metocriticize, but …. Youmay find thisabit boring, but …. You
are good atsolvingcomputerproblems, but ….
9) Hesitators, which are pauses filled with non-lexical phonetic material,
e.g. err, uhh, ah, or an instance of stuttering.
10)Scope-stater, which express a subjective opinion about the state of
affairs referred to in the proposition, e.g. I’m afraid you’re in my seat,
I’mdisappointedthatyoucouldn’t …. Itwasashameyoudidn’t ….
11)Agent-avoiders, which refer to propositional utterances in which the
from the addressee to some kind generalize agent, e.g. passive structures
or utterances such aspeopledon’tdoX.
12)Cajolers, which help to increase, establish, or restore harmony between
interlocutors, e.g. Imean, yousee, youknow, actually, basically, really.
13)Appealers, which try to elicit some hearer confirmation and are
characterized by rising intonation patterns, e.g. okay, right, yeah.
14)Steers, which try to steer the addressee towards fulfilling the interests of
the speaker, e.g. Wouldyoumindmakingapotoftea?
15)Grounders, which give reasons for the FTA, e.g. I’m thirsty. Get me a cocacola, willyou?
16)Preparators, i.e. meta-statement expressing what the speaker wants the
hearer to do, e.g. I’mgoingtotestyourknowledgenow. Whatis …? 17)Overstaters, which are adverbial modifiers through which the
propositional content of the utterance is ‘overrepresented’, e.g.
absolutely, purely, terribly, awfully, etc.
18)Intensifier, which are markers intensifying the degree to which an
element of the propositional content of the utterance, e.g. very, so, quite,
really, just, indeed, etc.
When these EPMs are missing, their absence is easily interpretable
as impoliteness, and when they are in excess of what is required by the
situation, they are easily interpretable as politeness. The evaluation of
politeness might be positive or negative and to reach such a decision it
depends on being able to determine what constraints the politic behavior of a
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Not a week goes without my telling lie, but I suppose that is the same
for most people. The polite but untrue compliments we offer can be dismissed as “white lies”—small lies we tell to protect ourselves and others from trouble or embarrassment.
[Kyoko Mori, Polite Lies p. 211]
3.1. Method of Research
Even though my present thesis analyzes the use of language to express
politeness in certain language community, I do not conduct any field research.
Instead, I perform library research since all the data are taken from Kyoko Mori’s
novel PoliteLies. In order to keep my analysis is always on the right path, I gather
some information by reading the books, dictionaries, and journals which supply
relevant definition, concept, idea, and theory to my research.
3.2. Method of Collecting Data
During the process of collecting data, I apply what Dede Oetomo says in
Suyanto’s Metode Penelitian Sosial that there are three methods of collecting
data, i.e. interview, observation, and analysis on written documents such as
quotation, notes, memorandums, publications and official reports, diaries, and
written answer to questioner and survey (Suyanto 1995: 186). Oetomo’s way of
is that Mahsun (Mahsun 2005: 218) does not clearly provide certain area to the
data taken from written document since he replaced Oetomo’s the third way of
collecting data with survey. Since my primary data will be analyzed in this thesis
are quoted from Kyoko Mori’s novel Polite Lies, I can classify my method of
collecting into the third method.
As the first step of collecting the data, I read the novel once through. Then, I
reread the novel by focusing my attention on the verbal interaction, i.e.
conversation performed by the characters in the novel. According to the
relationship between the main character, Kyoko Mori, and other characters, I find
out that there are two main contexts of conversation, i.e.:
1) The conversation between Kyoko Mori and her Japanese families, relatives,
and friends
2) The conversation between Kyoko Mori and her husband, who is American,
and her American friends
As the analysis on my present thesis is limited to the politeness phenomena in
Japan, I reread the novel for the third times and focus my attention to the
conversation carried out by Kyoko Mori and her Japanese families, relatives, and
friends. These conversations then I list and number so that it is easier to analyze
the data in the process of analyzing the data.
3.3. Method of Analysis
For method of the analysis, Mahsun (Mahsun 2005: 230) agrees with and
Ahsen who says that data can be found in two forms: number (or also called
data is usually analyzed by the use of quantitative analysis, while qualitative data
can be analyzed by the use of qualitative method. As my data (primary and
secondary data) are language, i.e. conversation quoted from Kyoko Mori’s Polite
Lies, I use qualitative analysis to analyze all the data.
Qualitative analysis can be defined as an analysis aimed at recognizing and
explaining the phenomena being analyzed. Basically there are two strategies in
qualitative analysis, i.e.: qualitative descriptive analysis and qualitative
verificative analysis. For my present thesis, I use qualitative descriptive analysis,
i.e. an analysis used to describe the linguistic utterances produced by the
participants in the conversation to express politeness.
Mahsun (Mahsun 2005: 235) says, there are a great number of methods used
in qualitative analysis, especially in social science. Some of them are: content
analysis, domein analysis, taxonomic analysis, componential analysis, discovering
cultural analysis, constant comparative analysis. However, as my present thesis
tries to analyze the data by relating and comparing the extra elements (context and
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
…. There is nothing more to understand. All I can do, to go on, is to treat these
feelings as aberrations from my otherwise smooth life—to politely and stoically
ignore them in the way I was brought up to do.
[Kyoko Mori’s PoliteLies, p. ]
4.1.Analysis Chapter I Data 1:
Jumpei: “I was wondering if you could spare a week to come here.
PLAY-DOWN
INTERPRETED AS POLITE
I know you’re busy with school, but maybe you could make the time if it’s not FOREWARNING
POTENTIALLY INTERPRETED AS POLITE
too inconvenient.
Kyoko: (Agree)
Jumpei: “It’llbegoodtoseeyou.” POSITIVE FACEWORK
INTERPRETED AS POLITE
Kyoko: I’ll call my travel agent right away and then call you back.”
This conversation between Kyoko and her only brother is performed via
telephone shortly after their father’s funeral. In score 1, Jumpei is making an
indirect request that Kyoko make a visit to Japan. Through this request, Jumpei
interpretation as polite because they provide more values than merely making
requests, i.e. Kyoko is given freedom from imposition to fulfil the request.
Through the play-down, Jumpei implicitly shows his expectation that Kyoko will
fulfil the request. Meanwhile, through the forewarning, Jumpei express his
solidarity of Kyoko’s being busy. As a response to Kyoko’s agreement (score 2),
Jumpei uses the expression It’llbe good to see you, which is also interpreted as polite way of appreciating Kyoko’s willingness and of ending the formal-like
conversation. In score 4, Kyoko agrees to end the conversation by simply saying
that she’ll call her travel agent right away and call Jumpei back
Jumpei’s using those linguistic utterances either to make a request or to
appreciate Kyoko’s willingness is his facework that he is consistent with his face
without threatening Kyoko’s face. Kyoko herself evaluates those utterances as
polite. However, the evaluation is potentially negative. Kyoko’s preference not
mentioning what she says in score 2 and her simple answer in score 4 are
indications of her not feeling comfortable with the atmosphere of the
conversation, which is full of polite but ambiguous expressions that Kyoko finds
it difficult to express herself in her own way.
Data 2:
Kyoko: “But how could these people have known what to do?” CONTRADICTION
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
A Japanese friend: “You didn’t tell them. They should have done it without being asked. It’s no good if I have to spell things out to them. They should have
SCOPE-STATERS
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
In score 1, Kyoko’s but tries to show the contradiction between people’s way of making request and their wish that their request would be fulfilled. As a
response to this politic way of asking question, Kyoko’s Japanese friend uses the
scope-stater It’s no good if, which is appropriate to save her face, as part of these people, without threatening Kyoko’s face. Since this utterance carries out positve
face, it is open to interpretation as polite.
Data 3: 1
Michiko: “Hirohata-cho is that near Itami station?”
2
Mariko: “Yes. About ten minutes north, on foot. Please come and visit us. I am RITUALIZED EXPRESSION
OPEN TO THE INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
home every afternoon, except on Wednesday. If you would call from the station, POLITENESS MARKER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
I would be very happy to come and meet you there.”
3
Michiko: “Youarewelcometovisithereanytime, too. OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
You already know where I live, but here is my address anyway.
APPEALER + CONTRADICTION + DISOCURSE MARKER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
4
Mariko: “I will look forward to seeing you.” OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
6 ….
6
Kyoko: “AreyoureallygoingtohaveMichikoovertoyourhouse?” OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
7
Kenichi: “We didn’t mean to be insincere, but we don’t really expect her to
FOREWARNING INTENSIFIER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
8
Kyoko: “So you were just being polite?”
NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF KENICHI’S STATEMENT
NON-POLITIC
POTENTIALLY IMPOLITE
9
Kenichi: “Of course.” BOOSTER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
This conversation is carried out some minutes before Kyoko and her aunt
and uncle, Mariko and Kenichi, leave Michiko’s house. As a host, Michiko opens
the leave-taking conversation by asking Mariko about Hirohatha-cho. In her
response to Michiko’s question, Mariko uses the ritualized expression please,
which is open to interpretation as polite. This attempt to be polite is emphasized
by the politeness marker If you would. As Michiko also evaluates these linguistic utterances this way, she pays Mariko’s politeness by making use the appealer
You already know in score 3. It functions to indicate the sense of solidarity that they have shared knowledge. Michiko’s discourse marker anyway in the end of her payment turns the politic behavior into an utterance which is open to
interpretation as polite. These linguistic utterancesis evaluated positively and thus
paid with polite expression I will look forward to seeing you.
In score 5, Kyoko’s question whether Mariko was really going to have
Michiko over to their house is a clue that she knows something wrong about the
relationship between her aunt and uncle and her step mother. She could have
directly said You are not really going to have Michiko come to your house.
Her decision to ask a question is, thus, open to interpretation as polite. As Kenichi
realizes that Kyoko is trying to know the truth in a polite way, he pays the
insincere, but. Unfortunately, at this point, Kyoko evaluates this payment negatively by directly concluding that her uncle and aunt were just being polite.
Since this conclusion threatens Kenichi’s face, it is open to interpretation as
impolite. Kenichi’s booster, Of course, in score 9, is the politic behavior and evidence that Kenichi recognizes the negative evaluation, but cannot deny it.
Chapter II: Data 4: 1
Kenichi: “I was amazed by how much you could remember.” POSITIVE FACEWORK
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
2
Kyoko: “Of course I remember a lot.” COMMITER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
3
Kenichi: “There’s one thing I felt really bad about.” FOMULAIC STRUCTURE INTENSIFIER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
4
Kyoko: “What was that?”
5
Kenichi: “Remember those diaries your mother kept when she was in high school? There were many of them, in those glossy, yellow notebooks.”
6
Kyoko: “Yes. I have them.”
7
Kenichi: “But you don’t have all the volumes. Doyouknowwhy?”
CONTRADICTION FORMULAIC STRUCTURE
POLITIC BEHAVIOR POLITIC BEHAVIOR
8
Kyoko: (shook her head)
9
Kenichi: “When your mother finished high school and was in Kobe, working as a secretary, I was living in that house in the country with your grandparents and your aunt Keiko. We were just kids. Those diaries were already in the attic then. When I was in grade school, I found them there. The notebooks had such beautiful
white paper—thick and glossy. I was only eight or nine, you have to remember. GROUNDER
I tore the pages out and made paper airplanes. Everyday, I would sit on top of the stairs, tear out page after page of your mother’s diary, and fold paper airplanes. I watched them flying down the stairs. I got pretty good at folding planes. Some of them went quite long away. That’s how a couple of those notebooks got lost. When I read your novel, I remembered that and felt so bad.
I can’t believe how stupid I was as a kid.” SCOPE-STATER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
10
Kyoko: “Don’t worry about it. Your telling me about it now makes for
CAJOLER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
everything.”
In score 1, Kenichi notices his interest to Kyoko’s being able to remember
a lot about her mother. Since this utterance carries out positive facework, it is
open to interpretation as polite. As a response to this polite utterance, Kyoko uses
the booster Of course. In score 3, Kenichi uses linguistic utterance to express his feeling of guilty. This expression leads these two participant to a smooth
conversation until, in score 7, Kenichi uses the contradiction but to take Kyoko closer to the truth that she does not have all the volumes. In score 9, in his a quite
long narration about his past when he did something wrong that he regrets now,
Kenichi uses the grounder I was only eight or nine before threatening Kyoko’s face by asking her to remember this. And, in the end of the narration Kenichi uses
the scope-stater I can’t believe how stupid I was as a kid to illustrate the intensity of his regret. These two linguistic utterances have been appropriate to
express her feeling, but not yet interpreted as polite. however, as Kyoko evaluates
those utterances positively, she tries to restore the harmony and with the cajoler
Chapter III: Data 5: 1
Akiko: “I don’t feel very well this morning. I’m going to lie down for a while.” INTENSIFIER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
2
Kyoko: “Are you all right? What’s the medicine for? FORMULAIC STRUCTURE
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
3
Akiko: “My liver.”
4
Kyoko: “You still have problems with your liver?”
5
Akiko: (nodded)
6
Kyoko: “Doyouknowwhat’swrong?” FORMULAIC STRUCTURE
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
7
Akiko: “Oh, nothing much.” HESITATOR
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
8
Kyoko: “Butyousaid you didn’t feel well.” CONTRADICTION + REFERENCE
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF AKIKO’S UTTERANCE
9
Akiko: “I don’t feel that bad, my doctor doesn’t want me to get too run down. JUSTIFICATION
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
‘Anytime you feel tired,’ he told me, ‘go lie down for a few hour at least.’ He says I can’t expect to be the same as before.”
10
Kyoko: “How do you mean? You can’t be the same as before what?” FURTHER EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE EVALUATION
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
11
Akiko: “That surgery really took a lot out of me.”
INTENSIFIER
12
Kyoko: “But the surgery was three years ago.” CONTRADICTION
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE EVALUATION
13
Akiko: “At my age and with my problems, I’m lucky if I can be up and active for a couple of days and then lie down and rest the next day. My doctor tells me to be careful. ‘Either you learn to take it easy at home,’ he threatens me, ‘or I’ll make you check in and rest in the hospital.”
In score 2, Kyoko’question Are you all right? is a politic behavior appropriate to respond Akiko’s statement. In score 3, Akiko leaves the question
untouched and only answers the second question. In score 6, Kyoko asks Akiko
what’s wrong with her. The answer to this question is initiated with the hesitator
Oh. This utterance is open to interpretation as polite since Kyoko understands that Akiko is trying to save her face by not giving trouble to Kyoko. This value of the
answer, however is doubted by Kyoko as, in score 8, she uses the contradiction
But and referential you said to show her negative evaluation. Akiko’s justification in score 9 is the evidence of her being aware of Kyoko’s negative
evaluation. Still, in score 10, Kyoko keeps showing her negative evaluation of
Akiko’s justification with the expression How do you mean? This question forces Akiko to tell Kyoko exactly what was wrong with her liver. The intensifier
really functions to upgrade the sense that she indeed has serious problem with her liver. As Akiko’s two previous answer contradict to her new one and what Kyoko
knows, she uses another but in score 12, which is further evidence of her negative evaluation of Akiko’s statement.
Data 6: 1
2
Kyoko: “She recovered very well after that, right?” APPEALERS
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
3
Kazumi: “Yes.”
4
Kyoko: “Howdidyouknow she had cancer?” FORMULAIC STRUCTURE
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
5
Kazumi: “After the surgery the doctor said to me, ‘Well, it might have been DISCOURSE MARKER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
cancer, but whatever it was, it’s all gone.’”
6
Kyoko: “Mighthavebeen?”
EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF DR’S UTTERANCE
7
Kazumi: “That’s how he put it, anyway. I told my mother what he said, and she DISCOURSE MARKER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
didn’t say much about it.”
8 ….
9
Kazumi: “I’m so glad you were able to see my mother last year when we all had POSITIVE FACEWORK
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
dinner in Kobe. She was still very healthy then. You were able to see her then.”
This conversation is carried out in a restaurant, a year after Kazumi’s
mother, Akiko, died from cancer. In score 2, Kyoko uses the apealer right? to elicit confirmation of Kazumi’s statement in score 1. In score 5, Kazumi quotes a
statement from the doctor, who used the discourse marker well to tell Kazumi that her mother might have had cancer. This utterance is open to interpretation as
polite because, however, it is is directly criticized by Kyoko as she evaluates this
anyway to politically answer Kyoko’s question in score 6. This conversation is ended with a polite expression from Kazumi that he’s glad Kyoko was able to see
her mother before the day she died. This expression is open to interpretation as
polite since it carries out positive facework and indicates solidarity and intimacy
between speaker and hearer.
Data 7: 1
Michiko: “I need your signature.” GROUNDER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
2 ….
3
Michiko: “The bank won’t give me any cash until the account’s changed over into my name. Isn’t that ridiculous? While your father was alive, I was the one
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
INVITING AGREEMENT BY THE ADDRESSEE
who went to the bank to make deposits and withdrawals. They knew who I was and never gave me trouble. But now that he is gone, they froze the account. They won’t let me withdraw any money until you’ve signed this statement. I can’t even go to the store until I get more money.”
4 ….
5
Michiko: “As soon asI get some cash, I’d like to pay for your plane fare.”
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
6
Kyoko: “You don’t have to. I came here because I wanted to, not because I NON-POLITIC
POTENTIALLY IMPOLITE
thought you would give me the money.”
7 ….
8
Michiko: “I’m so angry at the people at the bank. They shouldn’t trouble us with INTENSIFIER
paperwork at a time like this. They called only a day after your father passed away and wanted me to pick up the papers. I was so mad I couldn’t go. Your poor
brother had to go for me.”
In score 1, Michiko uses the grounder without any FTA following the
utterance. In score 3, Michiko uses the appealer to invite Kyoko’s agreement with
her low opinion of the bank. However, as her first utterance, her second utterance
does not either receive any response from Kyoko. In score 5, Michiko finally
decides to be polite by making Kyoko a promise that she will pay her plane fare.
To Michiko’s surprise, this polite behavior is evaluated negatively by Kyoko, who
explicitly refuse Michiko’s idea. The two participants are silent for a while until in
score 8, Michiko is back to the main problem, i.e. about the bank. By the use of
intensifier so, she politically expresses her feeling about the bank.
Data 8: 1
Keiko: “I went to see a doctor about six months ago because I had trouble eating and I was always tired. I thought he was going to say there was nothing wrong with me except the normal signs of aging—after all, I am almost sixty. But the doctor kept asking me to come back for more tests, and each time I saw him, he was more vague about what the tests for. So I knew. I knew it was something very serious, anyway.”
2
Kyoko: “You know right away?”
3
Keiko: “Everyone knows. It’s silly to pretend.” AGENT AVOIDER + SCOPE-STATER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
4
Kenichi: “Yourauntisbrave.” POSITIVE FACEWORK
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
5
Keiko: “I don’t think so. If anything I was a coward. I made the doctor explain HEDGE
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
6
Mr. Maeshiba: “Keiko and I made a promise to each other a long time ago. If she had a terminal disease and the doctor told me, I would tell her—and she would do the same for me. We wouldn’t keep a secret from each other. The doctor told me that I had cancer and it had spread quite a lot.
7
Akiko: “I made him explain the various types of surgery and medication that were available to remove or slow down the cancer. I found out that if he performed the surgery—which was what he wanted to do—he would be removing a large portion of my stomach and liver. More than likely, the cancer would keep growing, so the doctor would have to remove more later. I didn’t want to be slowly chopped to death like that. I said, ‘No surgery,’ even though the doctor was shocked by my choice. My decision has nothing to do with being brave. I couldn’t stand the idea of someone cutting me up just to prolong my life by a few months.”
8
Kyoko: (Couldn’t say anything)
9
Akiko: “I don’t want to be tired and forgetful, the way people get with pain pills. I don’t want to be all drugged up. I want to be able to think clearly till the end.
Let’s stop this depressing talk. I have said enough.” GROUNDER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
10
Mr. Maeshiba: “Yes. We don’t want you to visit our house and feel sad.” 11
….
12
Kenichi: “I don’t think I could face my death so easily. Maybe I’ve been too
COMMITER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
unkind about Keiko’s religion. Her faith must give her courage—but she was
FOREWARNING CONTRADICTION
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
always a courageous person anyway. It isn’t just the religion.” DISCOURSE MARKER + INTENSIFIER
POTENTIALLY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
is open to interpretation as polite because it carries out positve facework.
However, this polite utterance is denied by Keiko. In score 9, Keiko uses the
grounder to asks all the participants in the conversation to stop talking about what
she call depressing talk.
In score 12, Kenichi uses the committer I don’t think, which is the politic
behavior appropriate to the situation, before he politely express his positive
opinion about Keiko’s faith. Here, the forewarning, which is actually politic
behavior, is open to interpretation as polite because the discourse marker anyway, provides extra value that enables Kenichi to acknowledges Keiko’s bravery to
face her death.
Chapter IV: Data 9: 1
Akiko: “We need flower for hotoke-sama. We want something with pretty
GROUNDER GROUNDER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR POLITIC BEHAVIOR
colors. Give me a few of those roses to begin with.” FTA
2
The man: “Areyousure? You said this was for hotoke-sama.” FORMULAIC STRUCUCTURE + REFERENTIAL
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
3
Akiko: “Oh, it’s been a long time. Not a recent death.” HESITATOR
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
4
Kyoko: “It’s for someone who loved pretty flowers.”
give me, have been appropriate to the situation. In score 2, the man uses the formulaic linguisitic structure and the referential you said to politely give a clue that Akiko might have made mistake in choosing the flower. This attempt is
understood by Kyoko. However, he denies the doubt and through the hesitator in
score 3, she pays the politeness tells the man that that she is not making mistake
and she has reason why she chooses that flower. As Kyoko realizes the reason is
vague she, in score 4, says that the flower is for someone who loves pretty colors.
Chapter V: Data 10: 1
Akiko: “Oh, no. Okiyo-san was his lover long before Michiko. She was the HESITATOR
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
woman who lived in Mizushima.
2
Kyoko: She lived in Mizushima? Is that the woman who used to send us peaches?”
3
Akiko: (nodded)
4
Kyoko: “I remember those peaches. I had no idea that they were from my COMMITER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
father’s lover.”
5
Akiko: “Your father was seeing Okiyo-san long before you two were born. She lived in Mizushima and owned a bar your father went to when he was in town on business. That’s how he met her. Pretty soon, he was telling all his friends from work to visit the bar when they were in Mizushima. ‘She’s a special friend of mine,’ he told them, making no secret of their affair. After your mother was gone, he would have married Okiyo-san if she hadn’t already been married. She had a husband, though he was seldom in town because he was a sailor. Okiyo-san
So I guess for a while before your mother’s death, your father had two lovers. HEDGE + COMMITER
OPEN TO INTERPREATATION AS POLITE
mother said that both of them called the house and got upset if he was gone—your mother was laughing and crying at the same time when she told me. ‘Now I’ve got two women looking for him,’ she said.”
In score 1, Kyoko uses the hesitator oh before she reject Kyoko’s perception about her father’s affair. Rather different from the no in data 9 score 3, the hesitator here is not open to interpretation as polite since it is not aimed at
protecting or saving anyone’s face. In score 4, Kyoko uses the committer I had no idea to express that she still doubts the fact that the peaches are from her father’s lover. This doubt is immediately responded by Akiko who makes a short narration
about her father’s affair. This narration is closed with the committer I guess to politely say that she knows that Kyoko’s father had two lovers. Her decision not
to directly says that Kyoko’s father had two lover is aimed at minimizing the
threat that might arise from the utterance. Therefore, this utterance is open to
interpretation as polite.
Chapter VI: Data 11: 1
Hiroko: “Didyouknow that Nobuko has gotten married? About a year ago. OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
Nobuko decided to get married.”
2
Kyoko: “To whom?”
3
Hiroko: “She had no one in mind. But she quit her job so she could put all her efforts into finding a suitable husband. She and her mother looked at stacks of resumes from older men looking for a wife.
4 ….
5
hundred of resumes. They were looking for a well-to-do older man in Kobe or Osaka.”
6
Kyoko: “What do you mean older?”
INTERRUPTION (NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF HIROKO’S UTTERANCE)
NON-POLITIC
POTENTIALLY IMPOLITE
7
Hiroko: “Late forties, fifties, sixties. There are not many young men younger than forty-five who are widowers.”
8
Kyoko: “But there must have been some men our ages who were single because CONTRADICTION
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
they’d never married.”
9
Hiroko: “Sure, but those men who have never been married because they have BOOSTER + CONTRADICTION
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
health problems, or they aren’t settling down type, or their mothers are too domineering. Men like those don’t make a lot of money, and they don’t make good husbands. Nobuko and her mother were looking for reliable men who had been married once and then widowed. She didn’t quit her job only to marry a playboy, a mommy’s boy, or an invalid. Anyway, Nobuko got lucky. She found a
DISCOURSE MARKER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
business executive of a trading company whose wife had passed away a couple of years ago. He was younger than most—in his late forties—and both of his kids were already in college, so she doesn’t have to raise someone else’s kids. It was by fat the best situation.”
10
Kyoko: “Have you met her husband?”
11
Hiroko: “No. My husband and I were still in Chicago when they got married. Soon afterward, Nobuko’s husband got transferred to New York, so they moved there. I didn’t get a chance to meet him or to say goodbye to Nobuko.”
12
Kyoko: “Have you heard from her? Is she happy?”
13
Hiroko: (didn’t answer)
14
Kyoko: “At least she’ll get use to her English.” HEDGE
15
Hiroko: “I know. That’s one of the reasons the man wanted to marry her. Even COMMITTER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
when he was stationed in Osaka, he worked mostly with Americans and Europeans. … She’s mart. She can talk about anything.”
16 ….
17
Hiroko: “Nobuko had to hurry because it was the last chance for her to be married. Time was running out.”
18
Kyoko: “Why? You said she was only looking to be a second wife to someone REFERENTIAL
POLITIC BEHAVIOR
older. A second wife almost never has her own kids. She could have waited ten, fifteen years to be an old man’s wife.”
19
Hiroko: “Oh, come on. Nobody marries a woman over forty, even if he doesn’t HESITATOR + APPEALER + AGENT AVOIDER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
plan to have a child with her. Nobuko didn’t have that much time.”
20
Kyoko: “All right. So let’s say she was getting too old and didn’t have much
HEDGE + APPEALER INTENSIFIER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
time. ButIstilldon’tunderstand. Whydidshewanttogetmarriedatall? CONTRADICTION + COMMITER POLITIC BEHAVIOR
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
I thought she was happy working for Hilton.” COMMITER
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
21
Hiroko: “It was a good job, I’m sure. But Nobuko worked so hard everyday COMMITER + CONTRADICTION INTENSIFIER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
This informal conversation is between Kyoko and her another Japanese
friend, Hiroko. In score 1, Hiroko invites Kyoko to the conversation by asking
Kyoko whether or not she knows that Nobuko has gotten married. Since Hiroko
could have said Nobuko has gotten married, which is still appropriate to open an informal conversation, Hiroko’s question is open to interpretation as polite. The
conversation goes smoothly until, in score 6, Kyoko makes an interruption, asking
Hiroko what she means by the word older. This interruption is evidence of her
negative evaluation of Hiroko’s utterance. In score 8, Kyoko makes another
interruption showing contradiction between her idea and Hiroko’s statement. This
interruption is politely responded by the booster sure and the contradiction but. At this point it is Hiroko’s sure which makes the utterance interpreted as polite. Before she comes to the statement showing the fact which is contradictory to
Kyoko’s idea and thus might threaten her face, Hiroko first supports Kyoko’s
idea. Meanwhile the discourse marker anyway is the politic behavior to say that Nobuko is lucky that she got a business executive to be her husband. In score 13,
Kyoko makes uses the hedge at least to express her wish for Nobuko’s lucky. This utterance is open to interpretation as polite since it is possibly used as
supportive facework to restore the harmony between her and Hiroko, who decides
not to answer Kyoko’s questions in score 12. This wish, again, is supported by
Hiroko by the committer I know.
In score 17, Kyoko uses the referential you said to make the question why,
appropriate to the situation. This negative evaluation is politely responded by
combination of the hesitator and the appealer which make the interpretation open
to interpretation as polite since, if only Hiroko does not use these two EPMs, the
utterance is still appropriate to the situation. In score 19, Kyoko uses the hedge all right to agrees with Hiroko’s statement. This is immediately followed by the appealer claiming for common ground let’s say and the intensifier too old before she politely shows the contradiction between the fact and her perception that
Nobuko enjoyed her job. Here, it is the combination between the contradiction
and the committer which makes the utterance interpreted as polite since, even
without these EPMs, the utterance is still appropriate to the situation. However,
this perception is politely denied by Hiroko as in score 20, she uses the committer
I’m sure to say that she agrees with Kyoko that the job is good before she shows that Nobuko did not really enjoy the job.
Chapter VII: Data 12: 1
Kazumi: “When I took my first class from a Dutch teacher in Osaka, I had to learn about colors. … We had never been taught about the color wheel or the complementary colors.”
2
Kyoko: “Colorsaren’timportantinikebana?” NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF KAZUMI’S UTTERANCE
3
Kazumi: “Not really.” COMMITER
SUPPORTIVE FACEWORK
POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
Kyoko’s question in score 2 is evidence of her negative evaluation of
committer Not really, which is the politic behavior appropriate to save his face that he has given a low appreciation over his own culture.
Data 13: 1
Kazumi: “Well, everyone has faults. Faults and regrets—they are big parts of DISCOURSE MARKER + AGENT AVOIDER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS POLITE
everyone’s life.
2
Kyoko: “That’s true. We all regret something in our lives.” POSITIVE FACEWORK + AGENT AVOIDER
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AS LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
In score 1, Kazumi successes in using two linguistic utterances open to
interpretation as polite. They are open to interpretation as polite because both the
discourse marker Well and the agent avoider everyone are more than needed to respond Kyoko’s previous statement (Kazumi could have only said Everyone has faults and regrets without threatening Kyoko’s face). In score 2, Kyoko manages to pays the politeness with positive facework That’s true. The agent avoider We all has the same function with Kazumi’s everyone, i.e. to avoid Kyoko from threatening Kazumi’s face. As these two linguistic utterances are also more than
needed to make an appropriate response, they are also open to interpretation as
polite.
Data 14: 1
Michiko: “So I suppose you will be staying at Akiko’s house.” COMMITERS
2
Kyoko: “Of course I will stay at aunt Akiko’s. Listen, I called because I want to
BOOSTER APPEALER
POLITIC BEHAVIOR POLITIC BEHAVIOUR
speak to my brother. When will he be home?”
This conversation is carried out via telephone before Kyoko makes a visit
to Japan. In score 1, Michiko’s committer I suppose functions to modify her statement that Kyoko will be staying at Akiko’s house. Since this utt
