THE DIFFERENCES OF POLITENESS STRATEGY
USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF
TWILIGHT MOVIE BASED ON THE SCRIPT
A THESIS
B
Y
ERNI MARTLAND V. SIMBOLON
REG. NO. 080721036
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
FACULTY OF LETTERS
ENGLISH LITERATURE DEPARTEMENT
MEDAN
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I, ERNI MARTLAND VIRANTIKA SIMBOLON, declare that I am the sole
author of this thesis. Except where reference is made in the text of this thesis, this
thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part
from a thesis by which I have qualified for or awarded another degree.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main
text of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of another
degree in any tertiary education.
Signed : ………
COPYRIGHT DECLARATION
Name : Erni Martland Virantika Simbolon
Title of Thesis : The Differences of Politeness Strategy Used By Male and Female
Characters of Twilight Movie Based on the Script
Qualification : S-1 / Sarjana Sastra
Department : English
I am willing that my thesis should be available for reproduction at the discretion
of the Librarian of University of Sumatera Utara, Faculty of Letters, English
Department on the understanding that users are made aware of their obligation
under law of the Republic of Indonesia.
Signed : ………
ABSTRAK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ, The
Almighty God for blessing me in my every step so that I can finish this thesis.
Then, I would like to thank Prof. Syaifuddin, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of the
Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara. My sincere thanks go to Dra.
Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum, the head of English Department and Drs.
Parlindungan Purba, M.Hum as the secretary of English Department. Then, I want
to extend special thanks to my supervisor, Drs. Chairul Husni, M.Ed. TESOL, and
my co. supervisor, Dra. Roma Ayuni Lubis, M.A. In this opportunity, I also want
to extend my thankfulness to all the lecturers who have taught me during the
academic years. I cannot finish my study and complete this thesis without your
helps.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents (Mom and Dad),
my brothers (Eka and Erpan), little sister (Grace), and my extended family. I am
very grateful that I have all of you in my life whether or not I complete this thesis.
Also, I say thanks to Mr. Brown for accompanying me in every single night I have
spent in completing this thesis.
My special thanks are also due to my friends (Rani, Devi ‘mami’, Sarina,
and Dessy) who have given me spirit and motivation. I would like to thank kak
Novita Dewi, kak Riding, Egha sunbae for offering me help in finishing this
thesis. Thanks to kak Eppi and Rama for asking me when I will finish my study
me and making me believe that I can do this. Last but not least, thanks to kak Yeni
for being my friend in finishing this study.
Although I have spent several months and have done my very best effort
in completing this thesis, I realize that this thesis is still far from being perfect,
due to my limited knowledge and experience in English. Therefore, I will warmly
accept and highly appreciate any constructive and helpful criticisms addressed to
this writing.
Medan, July 2010
The Writer,
Erni Martland V. Simbolon
Face and Face Threatening Acts 14
2.3.1. Positive Face Threatening Acts 15
2.3.2. Negative Face Threatening Acts 18
Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy 20
Bald On-Record Strategy 20
Positive Politeness Strategy 22
Negative Politeness Strategy 24
Off-Record Indirect Strategy 28
CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH METHOD 33
3.1. The Method of Study 33
3.2. The Method of Collecting Data 33
3.3. The Method of Analysis 34
CHAPTER IV THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF TWILIGHT MOVIE 36
4.1.The Analysis 36
4.2.The Findings 71
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 75
5.1.Conclusions 75
5.2.Suggestions 75
ABSTRAK
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of Study
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics studying of the aspects of meaning
and language use that are dependent on the
features of the context of
(Parker 1986:11) says that pragmatics is the study of how language is used for
communication.
People usually communicate their ideas through conversation. A
conversation is
speaker(s) and hearer(s) or addressee(s). Speaker is person who speaks particular
words. Hearer is person who hears the words spoken by the speaker. Addressee is
person to whom the words addressed. In a conversation, an addressee must be the
hearer too, but a hearer is not always the addressee. It depends on the amount of
people involved in the conversation. In having conversation, people are advisable to
be careful in using strategy in order to maintain the communication. They also must
be aware of the politeness strategy to make their communication more acceptable by
the others.
The theory of politeness strategy is one of the topics discussed in
pragmatics. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are
individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or
in private situations. Usually people try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or
making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that
infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected.
Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these
FTA's.
Some studies (Lakoff, 1976; Beeching, 2002) have shown that women are
more likely to use politeness formulas than men, though the exact differences are
not clear. Most current research has shown that gender differences in politeness
use are complex, since there is a clear association between politeness norms and
the stereotypical speech of middle class white women, at least in the UK and US.
It is therefore unsurprising that women tend to be associated with politeness more
and their linguistic behaviour judged in relation to these politeness norms.
In this thesis, the writer considers it is important to analyze the differences
of politeness strategy used by the male and female characters of Twilight Movie.
The male characters are Edward Cullen and Charlie Swan, while the female
characters are Isabella "Bella" Swan and Jessica Stanley. They are selected
because they are involved mostly in the conversation though they have never been
in good relationship before. Twilight Movie is a two-and-a-half hour film adapted
from a novel by Stephenie Meyer. The original Twilight movie was released on
1.2 The Problem of Study
This thesis aims to know the differences of politeness strategy used by
male and female characters in Twilight movie. Therefore, the writer states the
problem of study, as follows:
1. How does the politeness strategy used by the male and female characters
of Twilight movie differ?
2. What is the politeness strategy most frequently used by the male and
female characters of Twilight movie?
1.3 The Objective of Study
In accordance with the problem of study, the objectives of the study are as
follows:
1. To find out how the politeness strategy used by male and female
characters of Twilight movie differs
2. To find out the politeness strategy most frequently used by the male and
female characters of Twilight movie
1.4 The Scope of Study
In order to be focus, the writer makes the scope of the study. The writer
focuses on the differences of politeness strategy used by the two male and two
female characters of Twilight movie. The writer uses the combination of
politeness strategy of Brown and Levinson, and Leech’s politeness maxims to
1.5 The Significance of Study
The writer hopes this study will be significant theoretically and practically.
The theoretical significances are:
1. to show the readers the kinds of politeness strategy used in conversation
2. to show that people usually use the politeness strategy in their daily
conversation whether they realize it or not
The practical significance of the study is to encourage another study of politeness
strategy in other created discourses like novels, short stories or even field research
about politeness strategy. The writer hopes this thesis can be one of the references.
1.6 The Method of Study
In writing this thesis, the writer did not conduct any field research though
the thesis analyzes the use of language to express politeness strategy. Instead, the
writer applied library research since all the data are in written form which were
taken from
pdf. Then, the writer gathered some information from other relevant books which
can provide ideas and theories to do the study.
1.7 Review of Related Literature
In completing this thesis, the writer read some relevant books containing
1. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:65-68) that positive and negative
face exist universally in human
acts are at times inevitable based on the terms of the conversation. A face
threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of th
speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Politeness
theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed
by face-threatening acts to addressees.
This book describes the theory of Face Threatening Acts (FTA’s) and
politeness strategy which provides most ideas and theories to analyze the data.
2. Principles of pragmatics
important to explain cooperative principle, and it is also the complement of
cooperative principle (politeness principle). He lists six maxims: tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy.
This book enriches the theory of politeness that used to complete the
study. The Leech’s theory of politeness principle or called Leech’s Maxims was
used by the writer rather than the cooperative principle by Grice (1975) or called
Gricean Maxims which has been existed before. The writer tends to use Leech’s
maxims since it is more appropriate to the Brown and Levinson’s politeness
cannot always answer why in a conversation the speakers tend to use indirect
ways to say what they intend to say.
3. Thesis: The Hedges Used By the Main Characters in Armageddon
Miftachul Hasana (2009) in her thesis discusses about one of the negative
politeness strategies, especially hedges that are focused on the dialogs of the main
characters in Armageddon movie. She uses qualitative descriptive analysis in her
thesis “The Hedges Used by the Main Characters in Armageddon”. The result
shows that from 62 data, not all types of hedges appear in the main characters
utterances. Three types of hedges are not found in the conversation. They are
introductory phrase (IP), compound hedges (CH) and relevance-hedges (RH).On
the other hand, the types of hedges that are used by the characters are modal
auxiliary verb (50%), If-clause (24.1%), modal lexical verb (9.7%), hedges
combined with the use of emphatics (6.5%), approximator (3.2%), prosodic and
kinesic hedges (3.2%), adverbial, adjectival, and modal noun phrase (1.6%), and
strong words (1.6%).
This thesis helps the writer to decide the method of analysis used in
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 The Politeness Theory
Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the
affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees. First formulated in
1987 by
expanded academia’s perception of politeness.
speakers’ intention to mitigat
toward another (Mills, 2003:6). The goal of politeness is to make all of the parties
relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally defined standards at
times may be manipulated to inflict
therefore consists of attempting to
There are some techniques to show politeness:
• Expressing uncertainty and ambiguity through
•
• Use o
• Preferri
store, weren't you?"
o
o
here long, have you?"
softeners reduce the force of what would be a brusque
demand. "Hand me that thing, could you?"
request being made. "You can do that, can't you?"
In a conversation, people can convey their own meaning by cooperating
with the addressee. Indeed, misunderstandings happen somehow but most
speakers and their interlocutors are able to understand each other. The general
principle of using language was formulated by Paul Grice (1975:45) and the term
used for the principles is cooperative principle. People who obey the cooperative
principle in their language use will make sure that what they say in a conversation
furthers the purpose of that conversation.
Grice states the cooperative principle as follow: Make your conversational
contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. The
cooperative principle then can be divided into four maxims, called the Gricean
Maxims:
• Maxims of Quantity: 1) Make your information as informative as
required (for the current purposes of exchange), 2) Do not make your
• Maxims of Quality: 1) Do not say what you believe to be false, 2) Do not
say that for which you lack adequate evidence
• Maxims of Relevance: Be relevant
• Maxims of Manner: 1) Avoid obscurity of expression, 2) Avoid
ambiguity, 3) Be brief, 4) Be orderly
Grice (1975:47) gives the illustrations as follow in order to explain the
maxims:
1) Quantity. If you are assisting me to mend me a car, I expect your contribution
to be neither more or less than is required; if, for example, at a particular
stage I need four screws, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six.
2) Quality. I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious. If I need
sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are asking me to make, I do not expect
you to hand me salt; if I need a spoon, I do not expect a trick spoon made of
rubber.
3) Relation. I expect a partner’s contribution to be appropriate to immediate
needs at each stage of the transaction; if I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I
do not expect to be handed a good book, or even an oven cloth (though it
might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage.)
4) Manner. I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making,
and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch.
Wijana (1996: 46-52) states that it needs the participants’ cooperation to
conversationalist gives contribution as much as needed by interlocutor. Maxim of
quality wants every participant says the real things based on adequate evidences.
Maxim of relevance wants every participant gives the relevant contribution.
Maxim of manner wants every conversationalist speaks directly, not ambiguously
and abundantly.
2.2 The Politeness Maxims
As mentioned before, for a successful conversation, the partners must
achieve a workable balance of contributions. Speaker and hearer in a rational
conversation will cooperate in order to make each of their aims reached. The
participants in a talk exchange do not only give deference to cooperative
principles as suggested by Grice (1975) but also politeness maxims. According to
Leech (1993:3), Grice’s cooperative principle (1975) could not always answer
why the participants in a talk exchange are more apt to use indirect way to convey
their meaning, so as not to follow maxim suggested in Grice’s cooperative
principle.
Leech thinks that politeness has a very important rule in a society, and it is
needed to elaborate cooperative principle and also a completion of cooperative
principle. To show the relation of politeness principle and the cooperative
principle, Leech illustrates as follow (1993:121-122):
B: “Well, we’ll all miss Bill.”
In this dialogue, B has broken the rule of Grice’s cooperative principle
especially maxim of quantity as B does not mention Agatha in his talk. From this
talk, there is an implication that not all people will miss Agatha. Why B does not
add “but we will not miss Agatha” in his talk is just for politeness reason, i.e. B
wants to avoid impolite act toward third part (Agatha). So, it can be concluded
that B hold some information for B merely obeys politeness principle.
According t
interaction. He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty,
agreement, and sympathy. The first and second maxim form a pair, as do the third
and the fourth one.
2.2.1 The Tact maxim
The tact maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply
cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other.
The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown a
strategy of minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive
politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs:
If I could just clarify this then
2.2.2 The Generosity maxim
Leech's Generosity maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of benefit to
self; maximize the expression of cost to self.' Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of
generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead
of the self.
You relax and let me do the dishes
You must come and have dinner with us
2.2.3 The Approbation maxim
The Approbation maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of beliefs which
express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express
approval of other.' It is preferred to praise others and if this is impossible, to
sidestep the issue, to give some sort of minimal response (possibly through the use
of
disagreement; the second part intends to make other people feel good by showing
solidarity.
John, I know you're a genius - would you know how to solve this math
problem here?
2.2.4 The Modesty maxim
The Modesty maxim states: 'Minimize the expression of praise of self;
maximize the expression of dispraise of self.'
Oh, I'm so stupid - I didn't make a note of our lecture! Did you?
2.2.5 The Agreement maxim
The Agreement maxim runs as follows: 'Minimize the expression of
disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement
between self and other.' It is in line with Brown a
strategies of 'seek agreement' and 'avoid disagreement,' to which they attach great
importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid
disagreement. It is simply observed that they are much more direct in expressing
agreement, rather than disagreement.
A: I don't want my daughter to do this; I want her to do that
2.2.6 The Sympathy maxim
The sympathy maxim states: 'minimize antipathy between self and other;
maximize sympathy between self and other.' This includes a small group of
speech acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and expressing condolences -
all of which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive
strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs.
I was sorry to hear about your father
2.3 Face and Face Threatening Acts
Brown and Levinson (1987:61) define face as follows:
Face, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself,
consisting in two related aspects: (a) negative face: the basic claim to
territories, personal preserves, rights to non distraction –i.e. to freedom of
action and freedom from imposition. (b) Positive face: the positive
consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that
this self image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.
In other words, it can be said that positive face is the desire of every member to be
liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, noting that one would threaten
positive face by ignoring someone. While, negative face can be characterized as
Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist universally in human
Threatening Acts (FTA).
A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the
other. Most of these acts are verbal, however, they can also be conveyed in the
characteristics of speech (such as
acts associated with an
within a single utterance.
2.3.1. Positive Face Threatening Acts
Positive face is threatened when the speaker or
about their interlocutor’s feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants.
Positive face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the
well being is treated less importantly, positive face is threatened.
Damage to th
• An act that expresses the speaker’s negative assessment of the
speaker can display this disapproval in two ways. The first
dislikes some aspect of th
personal attributes. The second approach is for the speaker to
express disapproval by stating or implying that the hearer is wrong,
irrational, or misguided.
Examples: expressions of disapproval (e.g. insults, accusations,
complaints), contradictions, disagreements, or challenges.
• An act that expresses the speaker’s indifference toward the
addressee’s positive face.
• The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker.
Examples: excessively emotional expressions.
• The speaker indicates that he doesn’t have the same values or fears
as th
Examples: disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate in
general or in the context.
• The speaker indicates that he is willing to disregard the emotional
well being of the
• The speaker increases the possibility that a face-threatening act will
occur. This situation is created when a topic is brought up by the
speaker that is a sensitive societal subject.
Examples: topics that relate to politics, race, religion.
• The speaker indicates that he is indifferent to the positive face
wants of the
non-cooperative behavior.
Examples: interrupting, non-sequiturs.
• The speaker misidentifies the
embarrassing way. This may occur either accidentally or
intentionally. Generally, this refers to the misuse of address terms
in relation to status, gender, or age.
Example: Addressing a young woman as "ma’am" instead of "miss."
Damage to the Speaker
• An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, and
unable to control himself.
• Apologies: In this act, speaker is damaging his own act by
admitting that he regrets one of his previous acts.
• Inability to control one’s
• Inability to control one’s
• Self-humiliation
• Confessions
2.3.2. Negative Face Threatening Acts
Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend to
avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's freedom of action. It can cause damage
to either the speaker or th
submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when
negative face is threatened.
Damage to th
• An act that affirms or denies a future act of the
pressure on th
Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminding, threats, or
warnings.
• An act that expresses the speaker’s sentiments of th
the
Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions
• An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker
toward the addressee. In doing so, pressure has been put on the
addressee to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt.
Examples: offers, and promises.
Damage to the Speaker
• An act that shows that the speaker is succumbing to the power of
the
• Expressing thanks
• Accepting a thank you or apology
• Excuses
• Acceptance of offers
• A response to th
• The speaker commits himself to something he does not want to do
Brown and Levinson (1987:66) explain that some acts could threat
both positive and negative face at times, as follow:
Note that there is an overlap in this classification of FTA, because
some FTA’s intrinsically threaten both negative and positive face (e.g.
complaints, interruptions, threats, strong expressions of emotion,
In accordance with Brown and Levinson idea (1987) that some acts
can at once threat both positive and negative face, Hayashi (1996:230-231)
classifies rejection as an act which can threat addressee’s positive and negative
face. That is why people need to use the strategy to make rejection sounds more
polite.
2.4 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategy
Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the
Levinson outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative
politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect).
2.4.1. Bald On-Record Strategy
Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to
the
used in trying to minimize FTA’s implicitly. Doing an act baldly, without redress,
involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible.
Normally, an FTA will be done in this way only if the speaker does not fear
retribution from the addressee, for example, in circumstances where (a) S and H
both tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the
interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to H’s face is very small,
great sacrifices of S (e.g. “Come in” or “Do sit down”); and (c) where S is vastly
superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy H’s face without
losing his own. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee,
and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a
close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends. Brown and
Levinson outline various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record
strategy, including:
Instances in which threat minimizing does not occur
• Great urgency or desperation
Watch out!
• Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary
Hear me out:...
• Task-oriented
Pass me the hammer.
• Little or no desire to maintain someone's face
Don't forget to clean the blinds!
• Doing the FTA is in the interest of the
Instances in which the threat is minimized implicitly
• Welcomes
Come in.
• Offers
Leave it, I'll clean up later.
Eat!
2.4.2. Positive Politeness Strategy
Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to th
positive face. They are used to make th
interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the
audience knows each other fairly well. In addition to hedging and attempts to
avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of
friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples from Brown and
Levinson:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)
You look sad. Can I do anything?
Goodness you cut your hair…By the way I came to borrow some flour
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
You know
See what I mean?
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
Heh, mate, can you lend me a dollar?
Help me with this bag, will you son?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
A: I had a flat tyre on the way home
B: Oh God, a flat tyre!
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly.
Yes, yes she is small, not really small but certainly not very big
Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
A: Oh, this cut hurts awfully, Mum
B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know
Strategy 8: Joke
OK if I tackle those cookies now?
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S's knowledge of and concern for H's wants
Look, I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good. Do
come!
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
You will lend me your lawnmower for the weekend. I hope
I’ll just come along, if you don’t mind
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course
Give us a break
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
Why not lend me your cottage for the weekend?
Why I don’t help you with that suitcase?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
I’ll lend you my novel if you lend me your article
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you
2.4.3. Negative Politeness Strategy
Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative
face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies
presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher
potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and
positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so
the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
Can you shut the door please?
Would you know where Oxford Street is?
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe
Do me a favour, will you?
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you?
Could you jump over that five-foot fence?
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition
I just want to ask you if I can borrow a single sheet of paper
It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks
Strategy 5: Give deference
Excuse me sir, but would you mind if I close the window?
Mr. President if I thought you were trying to protect someone, I would
have walked out
Strategy 6: Apologize
I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?
I hope this isn’t going to bother you very much, but can you give this
package to Mr. Smith?
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H
It is expected that you send this letter today
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train
International regulations require that the fuselage be sprayed with DDT
Strategy 9: Nominalize
Spitting will not be tolerated
Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favourably
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
I’ll never be able to repay you if you lend me a thousand dollars today
I’d be eternally grateful to you if you would tell me the truth
Favor seeking, or a speaker asking the hearer for a favor, is a common
example of negative politeness strategies in use. Held observes three main stages
in favor-seeking: the preparatory phase, the focal phase, and the final phase:
1. The preparatory phase is when the favor-seeking is preceded by elaborate
precautions against loss of face to both sides. It often involves signals of
openings and markers to be used to clarify the situation (e.g. ‘You see,’ or
‘so,’). The request is often softened, made less direct, and imposing (e.g.
past continuous ‘I was wondering’; informal tag ‘What d’you reckon?).
The speaker must also reduce his own self-importance in the matter and
exaggerate the hearer’s (down-scaling compliments).
2. The focal stage is subdivided into elements such as asker’s reasons or
constraints (e.g. ‘I’ve tried everywhere but can’t get one’), the other’s face
3. The third stage is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks,
promises, and compliments (e.g. ‘I knew you would say yes. You’re an
angel.’).
An example that is given by McCarthy and Carter is the following
dialogue from the Australian television soap opera,
Clarrie: So I said to him, forget your books for one night, throw a party next
weekend.
Helen: A party at number 30! What will Dorothy say about that?
Clarrie: Well, what she doesn't know won't hurt her. Of course, I'll be keeping
my eye on things, and (SIGNAL OF OPENING) that brings me to
my next problem. (EXPLAIN PROBLEM) You see, these young
people, they don't want an old codger like me poking my nose in,
so I'll make myself scarce, but I still need to be closer to hand, you
see. So, (ASK FAVOR) I was wondering, would it be all right if I
came over here on the night? What d'you reckon?
Helen: Oh, Clarrie, I...
Clarrie: Oh (MINIMIZATION) I'd be no bother. (REINFORCE
EXPLANATION) It'd mean a heck of a lot to those kids.
Helen: All right.
Clarrie: (THANK WITH BOOST) I knew you'd say yes. You're an angel, Helen.
All of this is done in attempt to avoid a great deal of imposition on the
hearer and is concerned with proceeding towards a goal in the smoothest way and
with sensitivity to one’s interlocutors. An English (‘Excuse me, sir, could you
please close the window’) is associated with the avoidance or downplaying of an
imposition; the more we feel we might be imposing, the more deferential we
might be. It is clearly a strategy for negative politeness and the redressing of a
threat to negative face, through things like favor-seeking.
2.4.4. Off-Record Indirect Strategy
The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the
indirect strategy. This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker
from the potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using the indirect
strategy might merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it
would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without
directly asking the listener to do so. Other examples of this strategy are:
Give hints:
Damn, I’m out of cash, I forget to go to the bank today
Be vague:
Perhaps someone should have been more responsible
Be sarcastic, or joking:
Choice of Strategy
primarily interested in the efficient conveying of messages. Brown and Levinson
use this argument in their politeness theory by saying that rational agents will
choose the same politeness strategy as any other would under the same
circumstances to try to mitigate face. They show the available range of verbal
politeness strategies to redress loss of face. FTAs have the ability to mutually
threaten face; therefore rational agents seek to avoid FTAs or will try to use
certain strategies to minimize the threat.
Speaker (S) will weigh:
1. the want to communicate the content of the FTA in question
2. the want to be efficient or urgent
3. the want to maintain H's face to any degree
In most cooperative circumstances where 3 is greater than 2, S will want to
minimize the FTA. The greater potential for loss of face requires greater
redressive action. If the potential for loss of face is too great, the speaker may
make the decision to abandon the FTA completely and say nothing.
The number next to each strategy corresponds to the danger-level of the
particular FTA. The more dangerous the particular FTA is, the more S will tend to
1. No redressive action
o Bald On-Record- leaves no way for H to minimize the FTA
2. Positive Redressive action
o S satisfies a wide range of H’s desires not necessarily related to the
FTA
Shows interest in H
Claims common ground with H
Seeks agreement
Gives sympathy
3. Negative Redressive action
o S satisfies H’s desires to be unimpeded—the want that is directly
challenged by the FTA
Be conventionally indirect
Minimize imposition on H
Beg forgiveness
Give deference
o This implies that the matter is important enough for S to disturb H
4. Off-Record
o S has the opportunity to evade responsibility by claiming that H’s
interpretation of the utterance as a FTA is wrong
Payoffs Associated with each Strategy
In deciding which strategy to use, the speaker runs through the individual
payoffs of each strategy.
• Bald on record
enlists public pressure
S gets credit for honesty, outspokenness which avoids the danger of
seeming manipulative
S avoids danger of being misunderstood
• Positive Politeness
minimizes threatening aspect by assuring that S considers to be of the
same kind with H
criticism may lose much of its sting if done in a way that asserts
mutual friendship
when S includes himself equally as a participant in the request or offer,
it may lessen the potential for FTA debt
“Let’s get on with dinner” to a husband in front of the TV
• Negative Politeness
Helps avoid future debt by keeping social distance and not getting too
pays respect or deference by assuming that you may be intruding on
the hearer in return for the FTA
"I don't mean to bother you, but can I ask a quick question?"
• Off record
get credit for being tactful, non-coercive
avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation
give the addressee an opportunity to seem to care for S because it tests
H's feelings towards S
If S wants H to close the window, he may say "It's cold in here." If H
answers Ill go close the window then he is responding to this
potentially threatening act by giving a “gift” to the original speaker and
therefore S avoids the potential threat of ordering H around and H gets
credit for being generous or cooperative
• Don’t Do the FTA
S avoids offending H at all
S also fails to achieve his desired communication
CHAPTER III
THE RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 The Method of Study
In writing this thesis, the writer did not conduct any field research though
the thesis analyzes the use of language to express politeness strategy. Instead, the
writer applied library research since all the data are in written form which were
taken from
pdf. Then, the writer gathered some information from other relevant books which
can provide ideas, concepts, definitions, and theories to do the study.
3.2 The Method of Collecting Data
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). As the primary data analyzed in this thesis are quoted
from Twilight movie’s script which is in written form, the method of collecting
data used by the writer can be classified into the third method.
As the first step of collecting data, the writer read the movie script once
thoroughly. Then, she reread the script by focusing her attention on male and
that the male characters that are mostly involved in conversation are Edward
Cullen and Charlie Swan, while the female ones are Isabella Swan and Jessica
Stanley. According to the four characters, it is found that there are three main
conversations in the script, i.e.:
1) the conversation among the four characters
2) the conversation between each of the four characters and other
characters
3) the conversation between other characters excluding the four
characters mentioned above
As the analysis on this thesis has to be limited, the scenes with no involvement of
the four characters were ignored. The writer decided to read the script again and
focus her attention on the scenes with conversations involving the four characters,
both those are among the four characters and between the four characters with
other characters. These conversations then were listed and numbered so that it is
easier to analyze the data in the process of analyzing the data.
3.3 The Method of Analysis
The writer agrees with Mahsun (2005:230) who says that data can be
found in two forms: number (or also called quantitative data) and non-number (or
also called qualitative data). Quantitative data is usually analyzed by the use of
quantitative analysis, while qualitative data can be analyzed by the use of
conversation quoted from Twilight movie’s script, the writer uses qualitative
method 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
one. In this thesis, the writer uses qualitative descriptive analysis, i.e. an analysis
used to describe the linguistic utterances produced by the participants in the
CHAPTER IV
THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF POLITENESS STRATEGY USED BY MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS OF TWILIGHT MOVIE
The following were taken from Twilight movie script and chosen from
several scenes. There are 19 scenes containing 205 numbered utterances of all
characters involved in the scenes. However, the data analyzed for the using of
politeness strategy are just the bold ones. The amount of data which were
analyzed is 64, i.e. 32 of male’s utterances and 32 of female’s utterances.
4.1 The Analysis
SCENE 13: INT. HIGH SCHOOL - A SERIES OF SHOTS
Bella (never without her IPOD) makes her way thru kids who stare openly; a few
brave ones say hi. They’re all talking about her. This is her hell. Bella wanders
the walkways looking for room numbers, lost. Constant stares at Bella, the
outsider... SERIES ENDS when a sweet, nerd-cute, motor mouth boy, ERIC,
appears in her path.
1. ERIC: You’re Isabella Swan, the new girl. Hi. I’m Eric. The eyes and ears of
this place. Anything you need. Tour guide, lunch date, shoulder to cry on.
2. BELLA: I’m kind of the “suffer in silence” type. (NPS)
3. ERIC: Good headline for your feature - I’m on the paper, and you’re news,
4. BELLA: I -- no, I’m not news -- I’m, seriously, not at all. (ORIS) 5. ERIC: Whoa, chillax. No feature.
6. BELLA: (relieved) Would you mind just pointing me toward Mr. Varner’s class? (NPS)
7. ERIC: You’ve missed a lot of the semester, but I can hook you up - tutor, cliff
notes, medical excuse...
Analysis
In this scene, the utterances that will be discussed belong to Bella. Bella
uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) in speech #2 and speech #6. In speech
#2, she uses hedge by using phrase like “kind of”, which is one of characters of
women’s speech as proposed by Lakoff in her most famous work Language and
Woman's Place (1975). While in speech #6, Bella tries to be pessimistic in asking
someone to do something for her, just like the Brown and Levinson’s negative
politeness strategy. In accordance with Lakoff’s idea of women’s speech
characters, Bella also uses (Super-) Polite forms by saying “would you mind”. In
this speech, Bella tries not to impose the addressee and avoid doing negative FTA.
In another marked speech, i.e. speech #4, Bella uses Off-Record Indirect
Strategy (ORIS) toward her interlocutor. She uses this strategy in order to remove
herself of imposing the hearer. Her interlocutor, Eric, previously has said that he
will make Bella as the headline of school paper but she does not want so.
However, Bella avoids stating it directly, she prefer to say it indirectly. Instead of
SCENE 15 INT: CAFETERIA
Follow Bella, Mike and Jessica as they carry their trays to a table. Eric appears,
and squishes into a seat next to Bella.
1. ERIC: Mike, you met my home girl Bella.
2. MIKE: Your home girl?
3. JESSICA: (to Bella) It’s first grade all over again, and you’re the shiny new toy. (PPS)
Bella smiles awkwardly.
Analysis
It is Jessica’s utterance that will be discussed in this scene, i.e. speech #3.
This speech can be considered as Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS) since Jessica
tries to make her new friend, Bella, feel good of herself.
SCENE 24: INT. FORKS COFFEE SHOP
ON A TOP SIRLOIN STEAK as it is set in front of Charlie. He shares a table with
Bella. Include the waitress, Cora, 30’s. She beams at Bella as she sets a plate of
cod in front of her. Several loggers at the counter offer Bella welcoming smiles.
She shrinks in her seat at the attention. Charlie’s oblivious.
1. CORA: Can’t get over how grown up you are. And so gorgeous.
Bella glances at Charlie, who keeps his eyes on his steak. A bearded, hippy
logger, WAYLON FORGE, 50, appears behind Cora, leaning over her
2. WAYLON: ‘Member me, honey? I was Santa one year.
3. CHARLIE: Waylon, she hasn’t had a Christmas here since she was four.
4. WAYLON: Bet I made an impression, though.
5. CHARLIE: You always do. (PPS)
6. CORA: Let the girl eat her cod, Waylon. (to Bella) When you’re done, I’ll
bring your favorite - berry cobbler. Remember? Your dad still has it. Every
Thursday.
7. BELLA: (doesn’t remember at all) That’d be great, thank you. (PPS) Cora shoos Waylon away. Left alone now, Charlie and Bella both reach for
the salt, knock hands. Charlie goes for the ketchup instead. Silence as they
eat. A burst of LAUGHTER from a nearby happy FAMILY only serves to
emphasize their discomfort. Bella tries to bridge the gap.
8. BELLA: So... you eat here every night?
9. CHARLIE: Easier than washing dishes.
10.BELLA: I can cook. (ORIS)
He looks up, as if confused by the concept.
11.BELLA: I do the cooking at home - in Phoenix. Mom’s not great in the
kitchen.
12.CHARLIE: I remember... (PPS)
They both laugh -- recalling an especially bad dinner.
13.CHARLIE: How was school? Meet anyone? (PPS)
14.BELLA: A few people... Do you know the Cullen family?
16.BELLA: No... well, a little.
17.CHARLIE: Just ‘cause they’re newcomers. We’re lucky to have a surgeon
like Dr. Cullen at our Podunk hospital. Lucky his wife wanted
to live in a small town. Lucky his kids aren’t like a lot of the hell-raisers
around here.
18.BELLA: ... Okay. (PPS)
19. CHARLIE: I just don’t like narrow-mindedness.
And he returns to his food. (Silence)
Analysis
The utterances that will be discussed in this scene belong to Charlie and
Bella. Firstly, Charlie’s utterance in speech #5 in which Charlie uses Positive
Politeness Strategy (PPS). In this part, Charlie as the speaker wants to make his
addressee feel good of himself. Previously, Charlie’s interlocutor said that he bet
he had made impression to Bella. By saying “You always do”, Charlie has also
followed Leech’s Approbation maxim, i.e. minimize the expression of beliefs
which express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which
express approval of other
Then, Bella’s utterance in speech #7 can be considered as PPS as Bella
tries to save her interlocutor’s positive face, i.e. a desire to be approved, agreed.
when she was a kid, Bella agrees to have it and thanks her interlocutor. She does
so to avoid doing positive threatening act toward the addressee.
In speech #10, we can see Bella uses Off-Record Indirect Strategy (ORIS)
when offering herself to cook for their meal. She uses indirect language and
removes herself from the potential to be imposing Charlie to ask her to cook.
However when she looks Charlie has not responded yet, Bella continues in speech
#11 telling how usual for her to cook. She says it in order to take Charlie’s guilty
off if he lets Bella cook. She also reminds her father how bad her mother’s cook
is. Charlie responds to this by using Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS) in speech
#12. Charlie satisfies Bella’s positive face by saying “I remember” because it
means he agrees with her opinion about her mother’s cook. Then, they laugh
together which it means the awkwardness of them has lessened. It makes Charlie
think they can speak more relax topic and then he uses PPS in line #13. Charlie
asks Bella about her first day in school which it means him as a speaker (S)
intensifies his interest to Bella as the addressee or hearer (H). In speech #17
Charlie states his opinion to Bella about Cullen family, about how lucky they are
to have the Cullens in their small town. It is quite different indeed with what Bella
has heard before about the Cullens, however she does not confront it with her
father. Bella avoids disagreement and tries to satisfy Charlie’s positive face, i.e. a
desire to be approved. It can be seen in line #18 where Bella uses PPS by saying
SCENE 33: EXT. CHARLIE'S HOUSE (CONTINUOUS)
ON BELLA’S FACE as she opens the door and stops, dismay filling her. It’s
pouring down rain -- the yard is full of puddles, some frozen. Bella shivers, wraps
her coat tight.
1. BELLA: Great.
WHIP PAN to the driveway as Charlie pulls in - driving her truck.
2. BELLA: Dad, I can drive myself to school. (NPS)
3. CHARLIE: You okay, Bells?
4. BELLA: Ice doesn’t help the uncoordinated.
5. CHARLIE: That’s why I got you new tires.
She looks over at the truck -- yep, four new tires.
Analysis
Bella uses indirectness in speech #2 to save her father’s negative face.
Bella does not want her father drive her to school. She recognized Charlie’s
freedom of action (negative face) however Bella also has her own will. In order to
satisfy her will and to save her father’s negative face, Bella uses NPS. Instead of
saying, “you don’t have to drive me”, for example, Bella says “Dad, I can drive
myself to school.”
SCENE 35: INT. BIOLOGY CLASS/HALLWAY
Rain beats on the roof as Eric walks Bella into class. She brushes water off her
1. ERIC: ... and yeah, prom committee is a chick thing, but I gotta cover it for
the paper anyway, and they need a guy to help choose the music --So I need
your play list --
Bella is about to respond when Mike comes up behind her.
2. MIKE: Come on, Arizona. Give it up for the rain.
And he shakes his wet baseball cap onto Bella’s head.
3. BELLA: Terrific.
She heads toward her seat, brushing off her hair. But she freezes when she
sees Edward. Bella straightens, girding herself. Then strides to the table, and
confidently drops her books down, ready to address him. But he looks up at
her --
4. EDWARD: Hello.
Bella stops. Stunned. He is direct, precise, as if every word is an effort for
him.
5. EDWARD: I didn’t have a chance to introduce myself last week. My name is
Edward Cullen.
She’s too shocked that he’s talking to her to answer.
6. EDWARD: (prompting) ... You’re Bella. (PPS)
7. BELLA: I’m... yes.
8. MR. MOLINA: (to the class) Onion root tip cells! That’s what’s on your
slides. Separate and label them into the phases of mitosis. The first partners to
He excitedly holds up a spray painted onion. Everyone just looks at him. He’s
disappointed by their apathy.
9. MR. MOLINA: Come on, people. Tick tock.
Everyone sets to work. Edward pushes the microscope to Bella, keeping his
distance, his voice controlled.
10.EDWARD: Ladies first. (NPS)
She grabs the microscope defensively and snaps the first slide in, adjusting the
lens. She’s curt as she addresses him.
11.BELLA: You’ve been gone.
12.EDWARD: Out of town. For personal reasons.
13.BELLA: Prophase.
She begins to remove the slide.
14.EDWARD: May I look? (NPS)
She slides him the microscope. He glances through the lens.
15.EDWARD: Prophase.
16.BELLA: (muttering) Like I said.
17.EDWARD: Enjoying the rain?
18.BELLA: Seriously? You’re asking me about the weather?
19.EDWARD: It appears.
20.BELLA: No. I don’t like the cold. Or the wet. Or the gray. Or parkas. Or turtle
Is that a smile playing on his lips? For the first time, he seems more intrigued
than agonized. He studies her. She still can’t tell if he despises her or not. It’s
infuriating.
21.BELLA: What?
He shakes his head and turns to the microscope, switching out the slides.
22.EDWARD: Anaphase.
23.BELLA: May I? (NPS)
(she looks through the lens) Anaphase.
24.EDWARD: Like I said.
25.EDWARD: (handing her the slide) If you hate cold and rain, why move to the
wettest place in the continental U.S.
26.BELLA: It’s complicated.
27.EDWARD: I think I can keep up. (NPS)
He actually seems interested. She looks into the microscope as --
28.BELLA: My mother remarried.
29.EDWARD: Very complex. So you don’t like him. (PPS) 30.BELLA: Phil is fine. Young for her, but nice enough.
(re: the slide) Interphase.
Analysis
The characters’ utterances that will be discussed in this scene belong to
Edward and Bella although there are other ones. It is the first time Edward and
the same class however they have not talked each other before. Moreover, Edward
seemed to avoid talking to her and even kept staying away from her. But now he
is starting greeting Bella with “hello” in speech #4 and continuing introducing
himself in speech #5. To respond to Bella’s silence of shock, Edward call Bella
with her own name in speech #6. It is a prompt indeed but it can be considered as
Positive Politeness Strategy (PPS). Edward had been rude to Bella when they first
met and tried to move to another class in order to avoid Bella. His behaviour
towards Bella had made Bella thought Edward does not like her. It has threatened
Bella’s negative face. It seems Edward want to redeem his former fault by
greeting her politely and trying to behave nicely. He tries his best effort; he even
knows Bella’s nickname. Usually Bella has to tell her new friends that she wants
to be called just with her nickname “Bella” rather than “Isabella”. Unpredictably,
Edward knows it and directly calls her with just “Bella”. It has saved Bella’s
positive face.
Then, in speech #10 Edward uses NPS by stating the FTA as a general
rule. Edward asks Bella to look the onion cells through microscope; however he
does not use direct words to ask her in order to save Bella’s negative face. Edward
decides to state general rule by saying “ladies first” to Bella.
Again, Edward uses NPS in speech #14 by using question when asking
Bella to give him a chance to see through the lens. And Bella does so in speech
#23 when asking the same thing to Edward. Both Edward and Bella also follow
which imply cost to other’, which fits in with Brown and
Still on Edward utterance in speech #27, Edward uses NPS again by
hedging his speech, “I think I can keep up.” The term ‘hedge’ was first used by
Lakoff (1972:194) to mean “words whose job is to make things more or less
fuzzy.” A hedge is a mitigating device used to lessen the impact of an utterance.
Hedge is one of the examples of Negative Politeness Strategy given by Brown and
Levinson. ‘I think’ is a hedge using cognition verb ‘think’ and personal pronoun
‘I’ precedes it to give a focus to the speaker’s assumption of personal
responsibility. Edward decides to use NPS in this conversation in order to save
Bella’s negative face. In previous conversation, speech #25, Edward asks Bella
the reason why she moves to the wettest place in the continental U.S. if she hates
cold and rain. Bella seems avoiding explain the reason; she only says that it is
complicated as noted in speech #26. Edward somehow really wants to know what
the reason is, but he understands that Bella has a freedom of act. That’s why
Edward chooses to hedge his words. Instead of repeating the same question which
will sound like a force, he says “I think I can keep up.” By saying so, Edward not
only save Bella’s negative face but also succeed to persuade her to tell him what
the reason is as noted in speech #28.
In speech #29 Edward uses PPS by showing his engagement in this
interaction with his comment “very complex”. It can be considered to satisfy
Bella’s positive face. Then, Edward seeks agreement by saying “so you don’t like
SCENE 36: INT. HIGH SCHOOL - HALLWAY
Bella exits holding the golden onion, and practically runs into Edward who is
directly in front of her.
1. EDWARD: Why didn’t you stay with your mom and step dad? (PPS) He waits for her answer, studying her, as if trying to decipher her. She’s
drawn in by his attention, oddly compelled.
2. BELLA: Alright, Phil’s a minor league baseball player, so he travels a lot. My mother stayed home with me but it made her unhappy. So I decided to spend time with my father. (PPS)
3. EDWARD: But now you’re unhappy. (BORS) 4. BELLA: No... I -- I just...
Bella turns away -- embarrassed, vulnerable.
Analysis
In the beginning of this scene, the conversation of Edward and Bella goes
very well. Both of them use PPS in speech #1 (Edward) and in speech #2 (Bella).
They are engaged in nice talk because their positive faces are saved, their desires
to be listened and perceived are fulfilled.
However, suddenly in speech #3 Edward uses Bald On-Record Strategy
(BORS) with little or no desire to maintain Bella’s face. He uses no redressive
action by directly saying “But now you’re unhappy.” As a result, Bella is nervous
SCENE 39: INT. HOSPITAL - RECEPTION
Charlie and Bella exit the treatment area.
1. CHARLIE: I just have to sign some paperwork. You better call your mom. (BORS)
2. BELLA: You told her?! She’s probably freaking. (BORS)
He shrugs and hurries off. Bella shakes her head, pulls out her cell phone. Is
about to dial, but then sees down the hall...
Rosalie is clearly furious at Edward who stands his ground. Dr. Cullen plays
intermediary.
3. ROSALIE: This isn’t just about you, it’s about all of us --
Dr. Cullen sees Bella and stops Rosalie --
4. DR. CULLEN: Let’s take this in my office.
Rosalie glares at Edward as she goes off with Dr. Cullen. Edward adopts a
nonchalant air as Bella approaches, determined.
5. BELLA: Can I talk to you for a moment? (NPS) (off his nod) How did you get over to me so quickly?
6. EDWARD: I was standing right next to you.
7. BELLA: You were next to your car, across the lot.
He steps closer to her. His expression turns icy hard.
8. EDWARD: No, I wasn’t.
She won’t be bullied. Steps closer to him.
9. BELLA: Yes. You were.
11.BELLA: I know what I saw.
12.EDWARD: And what, exactly, was that?
13.BELLA: You stopped that van. You pushed it away.
14.EDWARD: No one will believe that.
15.BELLA: I wasn’t planning to tell anyone. (PPS)
This registers with Edward. They’re inches from each other, the tension thick.
16.BELLA: I just want to know the truth.
17.EDWARD: Can't you just thank me and get over it? (NPS)
18.BELLA: Thank you.
A long beat as they look at each other, angry, defensive... and without a doubt,
attracted.
19.EDWARD: You’re not going to let it go, are you? (NPS)
20.BELLA: No.
21.EDWARD: (turns, walks away) Then I hope you enjoy disappointment. (BORS)
22.BELLA: Why did you even bother?
He stops, a beat. Looks back at her, unexpectedly vulnerable.
23.EDWARD: ... I don’t know.
And he keeps walking. Off Bella, confused, frustratingly attracted, and
absolutely determined to find out the truth.
Analysis:
In this scene, the utterances that will be analyzed are Charlie’s, Bella’s and
speech #1 and speech #2. Charlie and Bella use Bald On-Record Strategy in this
conversation. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee
but in this case it does not happen for they have a close relationship as father and
daughter (family). Also, the FTA’s are done in this way because the speaker does
not fear retribution from the addressee where the danger to addressee’s face is
very small.
Secondly, the conversation that will be discussed is conversation between
Bella and Edward. Bella is the one who starts it as noted in speech #5. In this
speech, it can be considered that Bella uses Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS).
She also follows the tact maxim proposed by Leech by minimizing the expression
of beliefs which imply cost to other. She asks for Edward’s agreement firstly
before she talks to him. Bella recognizes Edward’s negative face and does not
want to threat it however she has a will to talk to him. That’s why Bella says,
“Can I talk to you for a moment?” instead of saying “I have to talk to you”, for
example.
Still Bella and Edward’s conversation in this scene as noted in speech #6
until speech #14. During these speeches both Bella and Edward can be considered
has threaten their interlocutor’s face. They do not do any redressive action at all.
Both of them show their disagreement of what their partner has been said. It
means that they have threatened their interlocutor’s positive face. In this scene,
Edward and Bella are involved in quarrel about how Edward saved Bella from a
van crash. It can be seen in speech #6 that Edward says that he is just next to Bella
her disagreement in speech #7 that she is sure Edward was far away from her at
that time, and so does Edward. He directly refuses it by saying “No, I wasn’t” as
noted in speech #8. It threats Bella’s face again, so she clearly without any
redressive action denies it in speech #9 by saying “Yes. You were.” Their
impolitenesses still continue until speech #14.
However, in speech #15 Bella starts it again to redress. Bella promises that
she won’t tell anyone what Edward will might say. Bella states the promise as
Edward is unlikely to tell her the truth. Bella hopes Edward will tell her the truth
by using Positive Politeness Strategy.
To respond Bella, Edward leads her to another idea than idea of want to
know the truth. Previously, Edward has helped Bella from crashing but she has
not thanked him yet. Instead, Bella asks Edward of how he can save her very
quickly. Edward wants Bella to do something and not to do another thing, i.e. he
wants her just to thank him and not to ask any more question. Edward uses
Negative Politeness Strategy (NPS) by being conventionally indirect to convey his
idea as seen in speech #17. Edward tries not to threat Bella’s negative face by
using NPS in question form rather than in order form. The result is Bella thanks
him as noted in speech #18.
Although Bella has thanked him, Edward knows that Bella still wants to
know how he can move so fast. He states it in speech #19, “You’re not going to
let it go, are you?” In this section, Edward uses NPS strategy 2 by questioning. He
prefers usi
