FACE OBSERVANCE IN TWITTER CONVERSATIONS.

(1)

Moch. Armien Syifaa Sutarjo, 2014

FACE OBSERVANCE IN TWITTER CONVERSATIONS

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu ABSTRACT

This research entitled Face Observance in Twitter Conversations is aimed at investigating the politeness strategies used by the speakers in observing and non-observing their hearers’ face in

Twitter conversations, the response given by the hearers, and the effects which may be resulted

from (non) observance. This study employs a descriptive qualitative study. The data are taken from conversations made in Twitter. This study shows that the four types of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) namely, bald-on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record are used by the speakers in observing and non-observing their hearers’ negative and positive face. The hearers’ response to the (non) observance done by the speakers by using different strategies may produce some effects to the conversation itself. The result shows that there are two kinds of effects resulted from (non) observance done by the speakers. The first effect is that the conversation goes well without any distraction while the second one is that the conversation is distracted or even stopped. It is suggested that positive politeness strategy seems to be the preferred choice taken by the participants in maintaining a conversation.

(2)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE OF APPROVAL ……… i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ………. ii

PREFACE ………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …... iv

ABSTRACT ……….. vi

TABLE OF CONTENT ……… vii

LIST OF FIGURES ……….. ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ……….. x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………. 1

1.1. Background ……… 1

1.2. Research Questions ……….... 3

1.3. Aims of the Study ………..………... 3

1.4. Scope of the Study …...………... 3

1.5. Research Methodology ……..……… 4

1.5.1. Research Design ………... 4

1.5.2. Definition of Key Terms ……… 4

1.5.3. Data Collection ………... 4

1.5.4. Data Analysis ………... 4

1.6. Organization of the Paper ………... 5

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ………..………. 6

2.1. Face ………..……… 6

2.2. Politeness ………... 8

2.3. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) ……… 9

2.4. Politeness Strategies ……… 9

(3)

2.4.1.1Bald-on-record without minimizing the face treat

……… 11

2.4.1.2.Bald-on-record with FTA-oriented……… 12

2.4.2. Performing an FTA with redress (positive politeness) …. 12

2.4.3. Performing an FTA with redress (negative politeness)………... 16

2.4.4. Performing an FTA using off-record politeness …………. 18

2.5. Previous Research ……….. 21

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ……… 24

3.1. Formulation of Problems ………... 24

3.2. Research Method ………... 24

3.2.1. Research Design ..……….... 24

3.2.2. Participants ………... 25

3.2.3. Source of Data Collection ……….. 25

3.2.4. Data Collection ……….. 25

3.2.5. Data Analysis ………. 26

3.2.6. Clarification of Terms ……… 26

3.2.7. Examples of Data Analysis ……… 27

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ……… 30

4.1. Initiation and Response Phenomena ……….. 30

4.2. Overall Remarks ……… 42

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS……….…………... 44

5.1. Conclusions ……….……… 44

5.2. Suggestions ………. 45

References ………... 46

(4)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter deals with the methodology of the study. It contains the

formulation of the problems and the research design. The research design covers

several aspects, namely research methods, participants, source of data collection, data

collection, data analysis, clarification of terms and examples of data analysis.

1.1Formulation of Problems

The problems of the research are formulated as follows:

1. What strategies do the speakers use to observe their hearers’ face?

2. How does the hearer respond to the speaker as the realization of speaker’s observing hearer’s face?

3. What are the effects resulted from (non) observing?

3.2 Research Method 3.2.1 Research Design

The study applied a descriptive method in describing the data. As stated by

Kothari (2004), descriptive method enables the researcher to describe the

characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a group.

The study mainly employed a qualitative approach to analyze the data since

the study primarily aims to investigate the human behaviour in this case the way they

communicate to each other. Since the present study aims to reveal how the speakers observe their hearers’ face in the conversations, the qualitative method is suitable to explore such problem happening among people whether it is social problem or human

(5)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.2.2 Participants

The study involved 21 Indonesian Twitter users who were purposively

chosen. According to Kothari (2004), purposive sampling is also known as deliberate

sampling or non-probability sampling. It refers to purposive selected samples of the

universe which represents the universe itself. The participants were active Twitter

users who frequently posted a tweet at least 5 times a day and they got involved in

conversations during the six months period of the data collecting of the research

calculated from June 2013 until December 2013.

3.2.3 Source of Data

The data were taken from Twitter. Twitter is a real-time information network

that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find

interesting (www.twitter.com). The data were the tweets posted in the timeline of the

21 participants who got involved in conversations. There were 6 sets of conversation

with different topics and length. Each conversation was made by at least 3

participants. The data were taken only in the first two days after the initial tweet was

posted.

3.2.4 Data Collection

The data collection involved two steps. The first step was retrieving data from

Twitter website. The data were the tweets posted in the timeline of the 21 participants

who got involved in conversations. There were 6 sets of conversation with different

topics and length of which each conversation was made by at least 3 participants. The

data were taken only in the first two days after the initial tweet was posted. The

second step was deciphering the sets of conversations which have been collected to

(6)

until October 2013. The timelines of the participants were intensively observed in

order to get the complete conversations.

1.2.5 Data Analysis

The data collected were first analyzed and categorized by using the concept of

face and the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). The first,

each tweet was broken down into chunks. Second, every chunk was analyzed whether

it was observing or non-observing the hearers’ face. Third, each chunk was categorized based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies.

The next was the analysis of the hearers’ responses as the realization of the speakers’ observance. The responses given by the hearers were analyzed similarly to the steps as mentioned above. Each response was analyzed to reveal how hearers

(who then became a speaker) responded to the speakers (who then became a hearer),

whether they observed their speakers in the same way or not as the realization of the speakers’ observance. Furthermore, the effects resulted from the observance were analyzed by analyzing the flow of the conversation between the participants.

1.2.6 Clarification of Terms

1. Twitter

“Twitter is a real-time information network that connects you to the latest

stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find interesting”

(www.twitter.com).

2. Twitter timeline

“It is a twitter visualization tool that allows you to view your twitter feed

in a timeline format” (www.twittertimeline.com). 3. Tweet

Tweet can be both verb and noun. Tweet as a verb is defined as ‘the act of

(7)

message posted via Twitter containing 140 characters or fewer”

(www.support.twitter.com).

4. Face

“The self-image which must be kept and maintained. The face can be damaged or even lost” (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

5. Observance

@dexxx bang dey besok doang adanya? minggu ga ada? (c)

3. DRP @dexxx

@utomxxxx minggu ada Mr.Postman di Bismegaplex jam 4 sore utoo :)

Note:

1. First tweet

2. Initial tweet which starts a conversation a. Name of the Twitter user b. Username

c. Tweet

3. A reply to initial tweet (response)

The example above is an example of a tweet and its structure. A tweet posted

by speakers may consist of one or more utterances. The followings are the examples

(8)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Example [A]

14.WN @weadblxxx

@widyaxxx @sabaixxx ribut aja deh.. weekend2 masih ribut. hih!

15.I @sabaixxx

@weadblxxx @widyaxxx iya maap ya tante waaaay

@sabaixxx @widyaxxx ketemuan dong brantemnya. Hha

17.I @sabaixxx

@weadblxxx @widyaxxx ntar dipoyanin di depan fpbs lagi. Ogah

@sabaixxx @widyaxxx beneran mau? hayu lah kita nostalgilaan.

19.WA @widyaxxx

@weadblxxx @sabaixxx apa apa cepet bales bbm hih udah bangun nih aku

@widyaxxx @sabaixxx isty mah lama ahh.. ga nyampe2 ngirim k dia mah.

21.WA @widyaxxx

@weadblxxx @sabaixxx biasa wilayah jangkauannya kan sulit beb wajar (⌣.⌣')\('⌣' )

@widyaxxx @sabaixxx lg d kondangan dia. Pffft

23.WA @widyaxxx

@weadblxxx @sabaixxx watir ish ke kondangan batur ajah, kondangan sndri kapan dongs :p

24.I @sabaixxx

@widyaxxx @weadblxxx tinggalin aja gw tinggalin

The chunk of conversation above shows some tweets which contain some face

observance. The use of bald on-strategy with different form is found in tweet #19. By

saying cepet bales bbm hih ‘reply the bbm immediately’, WA does not observe I’s

negative face. She decides to use a bald on-strategy without any redress. The use of

bald on-strategy without any redress is needed to make the message delivered more

efficiently (Petríčková, 2012). Responding to Widya’s observance, I decides not to

observe WA’s and WN’s negative face in the same time. She uses an off-record

strategy by giving a contradictory statement (tweet #24). However, instead of

responding to WA’s order which asks her to reply the bbm immediately, she chooses

(9)

leave me’. When I gives a contradictory statement, she has created a new topic in the

conversation. As we can see in tweet #26 #27 and #28, they are talking about I who

(10)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions of the study and the suggestions for the

future studies.

5.1 Conclusions

This paper has examined the politeness strategies used in Twitter

conversations. It has revealed that Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies

have been successfully applied in analyzing the politeness strategies used by the

speakers in observing and non-observing their hearers’ face in the written

conversations data, such as in Twitter conversations.

It is revealed that the speakers do face observance and non-observance. In

observing and non-observing the hearers’ face, the speakers use four kinds of

politeness strategies: bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness and

off-record strategy. It is also found that positive politeness strategy arises as the preferred

strategy in observing the hearers’ face. Meanwhile, in non-observing the hearers’ face, the speakers use bald-on-strategy and off-record strategy.

A tweet posted by a speaker may consist of more than one strategy. A speaker

may use different strategies to observe or non-observe their hearers’ face. The

combination of the strategy is used in order to get a certain result. Each strategy used

by the speakers is employed in different kinds of forms or types.

However, the hearers’ responses to the observance and non-observance done

by the speakers are not the same. An observance or non-observance done by a

(11)

different politeness strategies as a response to the observance or non-observance done

by the speakers.

Moreover, the observance and non-observance done by the speakers produce

two different effects to the conversation. The first effect is that the observance or

non-observance done by the speakers makes the conversations go well or in other words

there is a good coordination between the speakers and the hearers. The second effect

is that, the observance or non-observance done by the speakers makes the

conversations do not go well or it is distracted and even stopped. There is no good

coordination between the speakers and their hearers.

5.2 Suggestions

The study has presented the answers to the formulation of the problems. It has

revealed how the speakers use politeness strategies in observing and non-observing

their hearers’ face, the response of the hearers, and the effects which were resulted in

Twitter conversations.

This study only involved 21 participants with 6 sets of conversations.

However, in relation to the research method of this study, other researchers should try

to find more data by adding more participants in Twitter conversations. In line with

face observance, other researchers should attempt to compare the case of face

observance in some other social media, for example, they can compare how face

observance happens in Twitter and in Facebook, so that the difference between how