The Occurrence of Humour Due To The Miscalculation of Politeness Strategies Used in The TV Series 'The Office'.

(1)

ii Maranatha Christian University

ABSTRACT

Fokus dari penulisan tugas akhir ini adalah untuk mengetahui pemakaian politeness strategy yang tepat di tempat kerja, terutama ketika para karyawan berinteraksi dengan sesama karyawan, atasan berinteraksi dengan bawahan, dan sebaliknya. Pemakaian strategi yang kurang tepat seringkali menyebabkan munculnya unsur komedi, yang merupakan fokus lain dari tugas akhir ini. Sumber data yang dipakai dalam penulisan tugas akhir ini adalah film serial TV Amerika yang berjudul The Office.

(2)

i Maranatha Christian University

APPENDIX

Scene 1:

Jim: You know? You should come with us because it could be a good chance to

see what people are like outside the office. I think it could be fun.(1)

Roy: It sounds good. Seriously, we (Roy and Pam) gotta get going.

Jim: Yeah…yeah..(pause)….Um..What’s in the bag?(2)

Roy: Tell her I’ll talk to her later.

Jim: Oh definitely. All right dude.(3) Awesome (4).

Scene 2:

Pam: Dwight, what...

Dwight: Knock please. Please knock.(5) This is an office.

Jim: It says ‘workspace’.

Dwight: Same thing.

Jim: if it is the same thing, why did you write ‘workspace’?

Dwight: Just knock. Please?(6) As a sign of respect for your superior.

(4)

55 Scene 3:

Darryl: Those are some awful tight pants you have on. Where’d you get them,

like, “Queers Are Us?” (7)

Michael: All right..all right..well, good yeah, but you know, the joke with not

necessarily at my expense. So, what’ve we got, like…

Darryl: Man, we could see all your business comin’ around the corner, okay?

You need to, you know, hide that.Good thing you don’t have a lot of business to

start with.(8)

Michael: Oh..okay. That was still about me.

Roy: Hey, hey…so you don’t have the biggest package, don’t feel bad.(9) Michael: I don’t feel bad.

Darryl: I think he feels bad.

Michael: No, I don’t.

Roy: Well, you look like you feel bad.

Michael: You know, not exactly. Thanks guy, thank you.

Roy: You look good in those pants.(10)

Darryl: He gets it from his mama.(11)

Scene 4:

Toby: Hey, we’re not all going to sit in a circle Indian style, are we?(12)

Michael: Get out!

Toby: I’m sorry.

(5)

56 Scene 5:

Dwight: Do you know what this is?

Phyllis: Yes, it’s marijuana.

Dwight: How do you know that?

Phyllis: It’s labeled.(14)

Scene 6:

Michael: Oh God help.

Toby: What happened?

Michael: I fell off the toilet. I’m caught between the toilet and the wall.

Toby: What do you need?

Michael: Not you, someone else. Get Pam.

Toby: I don’t think Pam’s gonna wanna come into the men’s room. (15).

Michael: You’re right. Get Ryan. He needs to lift me and he needs to clean me up

a little bit. Bring a wet towel. (Ryan is giving Toby a signal that he does

not want to help Michael)

Toby: Ryan is dead. (16).

Michael: No, he’s not. I just saw him.

Toby: Can you just get up yourself? You only grilled your foot. (17).

Michael: No. Forgot it. I’ll just get up myself.

Scene 7:

Michael: Dwight, what are you drinking?

(6)

57

Jim: Oh my God, Dwight, put that down! Give the bottle to Michael.

Dwight: No.

Michael: Give it to me Dwight. Just keep your eyes on the road (to Jim). Give the

bottle or you’re fired.

Dwight: You can’t fire me. I don’t work in this van. (18)

Michael: Just give it to me.

Jim: Michael, will you stop? Michael, stop. (19)

Michael: Just give it.

Scene 8:

Dana: And for you?

Michael: Tell me, Dana. How is your chicken breast?

Dana: Oh it’s great. It’s served with our world-famous wing sauce.

Michael: Hm...sounds yummy. I will have a chicken breast. Hold the chicken.

(Michael snickers). (20)

Dana: Is that what you really want?

Michael: No, I’m gonna have the gourmet hot dog.

(7)

1 Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Language is very important in communication. One must know how to conduct his speech well in order to make the conversation run smoothly. It is not easy to do this, but there is a language strategy that can be applied to fulfill these purposes, namely the „politeness strategy.‟ Politeness strategy is a strategy which is required to stabilize the relationship with others. In politeness strategy, there are some important factors that need to be considered to start a good interaction. Those factors include participants, context or setting, and function of the utterances. Participants here mean people who are engaged in an interaction. Context or setting deals with where the interaction takes place and whether it is a formal or informal interaction. Function of the utterances deals with why people do the communication and its purpose. (Brown and Levinson 91)

(8)

2 Maranatha Christian University considering the three factors which I have stated in the previous paragraph. Unfortunately, there are still many people who apply the inappropriate politeness strategies in their relationship with other people of the same level or the hierarchical relationship. Later, what will become the main discussion in this thesis is the misapplication of politeness strategy and its humourous effects produced.

Some people might not be aware of their use of language in a relationship. Should they not use politeness strategies well in communication, funny things will appear or other people may get hurt or angry. In fact, this thing often happens in a company and as a result, it might ruin the relationship between the superior and the subordinates such as the employees. When dealing with a participant, someone needs to consider his power or authority over the hearer, the imposition that might occur when someone is distracting the other while the person is busy working and the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, whether the relationship is close or distant.

(9)

3 Maranatha Christian University Politeness strategy belongs to the field of pragmatics, a branch of applied linguistics, since it deals with how people convey their contextual meaning within the utterances they make. In politeness strategy, we will have to be familiar with the term „face.‟ This term should not be defined literally because it actually means

„a self image of a person.‟ Later, I will use the theories stated by Brown and

Levinson, the linguists who discuss politeness strategy in details, in their book entitled Politeness. There are the calculation of face threatening act and several kinds of politeness strategies that I will discuss further. In analysing the data, I relate them to the theory of humour by McGhee and Suls. We also need to be aware that there are two views of humour. Holmes states that “something is humourous only if it was intended to amuse ... Others consider humour from the listener‟s or the audience‟s point of view, and some identify humour by the listener‟s response” (163).

(10)

4 Maranatha Christian University the manager, the employees and the warehouse workers interact with one another is clearly depicted. Moreover, the language registers used among them are various.

I hope this analysis can be used as an additional reference for the next researchers, especially those who are interested in discussing politeness strategy and its humourous effect in the workplace.

Number of words: 832

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Here are the statements of the problems of this thesis:

1. Which politeness strategies are miscalculated by the characters in this TV series?

2. How may this miscalculation of politeness strategy lead to humour?

1.3 Purpose of the Study

There are two purposes of this thesis:

1. To identify the politeness strategies which are miscalculated by the characters in this TV series.

2. To find out how the miscalculation of politeness strategy may lead to humour.

1.4 Methods of the Research

(11)

5 Maranatha Christian University Brown and Levinson and some journals. Then I gather the data for this thesis from the American television series The Office. This series is in the form of DVD and is divided into five seasons altogether. I take some parts of the series which I think are appropriate for the analysis of politeness strategies which lead to humour. After I gather adequate data, I will analyze and synthesize them and draw a conclusion.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of four chapters. The first chapter is Chapter One, the

(12)

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings that prevail in this thesis, in this chapter I would like to draw some important concluding points. All the eight data mainly focus on FTA done among the characters in the series The Office. The FTAs in this series are affected by the three factors, which are social distance (D), power (P) and rate of imposition (R). The FTA is big when the (D) is high, the (P) of someone towards others is none, and the (R) is great.

Based on the entire data, the weightiness of FTA can be big with the existence of only one factor, either power or social distance. To make the weightiness great, the speaker’s power should be none. In other words, one who does not have power can create such a big FTA towards others who have power.

(13)

50 Maranatha Christian University The speakers in my data seem to think that it is acceptable to use the on record strategy when the social distance with the hearers is high. They seem to think that this will not affect the level of FTA. As a matter of fact, this still makes the FTA big.

There is also a possibility that there are two factors determining the level of FTA. Based on the data, there is only one condition, that is when the speaker’s power is none and the rate of imposition is great at the same time. The off record strategy, such as being ironic and giving hints, is used in this prevailing condition as speakers start considering the need of not being too explicit in showing their intention so as not to make the FTA big. However, the FTA done is still big. Moreover, when hearers fail to get what speakers mean, speakers can start using the on record strategy.

The last possible condition is when all the three factors perfectly affect the

FTA. This happens when the speaker’s power is none, the social distance between

the speaker and the hearer is high and the rate of imposition is great at the same time. Like the FTAs done when two factors are involved, the off record strategy is used in the first step. When it is not successful, the speakers will use the on record strategy in this kind of condition.

(14)

51 Maranatha Christian University hierarchical relation between superiors and subordinates. (D) and (R) are relative because almost all employees know their co-workers, superiors and subordinates well and imposition is minimized when speakers only ask for trivial things.

When speakers have no power, they can use the off record strategy to lessen the level of FTA. However, there might be the consequence that the hearers might not be able to get what speakers mean. Therefore, the communication will be ineffective. On the other hand, when speakers use on record strategy, their intention is clearly stated, but the level of FTA is far bigger. Therefore, I suggest that speakers use the on record indicating negative politeness strategy in order to

lessen the level of FTA and deliver the speakers’ intention clearly at the same

time.

On the other hand, when speakers have great power over hearers but they have high social distance, speakers cannot use their power because the social distance between them acts as a wide rift. Speakers still have to use the on record indicating negative politeness as the most effective strategy.

(15)

52 Maranatha Christian University surprise and goes on to the step of finding the rule of the incongruity. Finally it ends in laughter when we can figure out the rule.

Generally, when speakers use inappropriate politeness strategies in a certain context, the condition will be contradictory to what we know in reality and thus it generates the surprise effect that we need to feel before we reach the laughter part in the figure of Incongruity Resolution.

From all the data analysed, every scene has their own resolution that we have to link between our common knowledge of what is supposed to happen in a real situation and the appropriate politeness strategy in a certain context. When we cannot find the element of surprise in the humour, then we are unlikely to understand the humourous effect generated. Another problem which occurs in this thesis is that sometimes humour can be assessed differently by different people; that is why, they really have to know how real conditions and the conditions in the story are different.

For further researches, I hope that this imperfect piece of research can be developed to reach a better conclusion. Since I conduct a research based on a film in which the setting of place is in the office, I hope that there will be researchers who analyze the misapplication of politeness strategies and its humorous effect in a different setting of place.

(16)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

References:

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

McGhee, Paul E. .Humour: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979.

Suls, Jerry M. . Cognitive Processes in Humour Appreciation. In Paul E. McGhee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, eds. Handbook of Humour research. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. , 1983.

The Office: Season 1 and 2. Prod. Ricky Gervais, Greg Daniels, Steven Merchant. Perf. Steve Carell, Rainn Wilson, B.J. Novak, Jenna Fischer. NBC, 2005.

Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Electronic Publication:

Holmes, Janet. Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the

Workplace. 2000. Retrieved July 30, 2010 from