ABSTRACT
Arofa, Siti. 2015. Disagreement Strategies Used by Greg toward his Father and his Future father-in-law in “Meet the Fockers” Movie, Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Advisor : Dr. Mohammad Kurjum, M.Ag.
Key Words : Disagreement, Strategy, Social Distance.
The writer focused on to analyze the verbal disagreements strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in the “Meet the Fockers” movie. This study is divided into three problems. First, what are the type of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father. Second, what are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law. Third, what are differences and similarities between the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law. In analyzing this research, the writer applied Locher’s theory (2004) on verbal disagreement strategies. The writer used descriptive qualitative approach supported by quantitative data in developing her research.
From the analysis, the writer found that Non-mitigated disagreement strategies is used the most by Greg to show his disagreement toward both his father and his future father-in-law. Greg shows his disagreement directly without paying attention to the FTAs. Shifting responsibility category is not used by Greg to his future father-in-law. This is probably because of the distance between Greg and his future father-in-law so that Greg is afraid of using this strategy. Moreover, Greg does not use repetition of an utterance by a next or the same speaker to show his disagreement toward his father. This is probably because he has lower power than his father so he tries to show his respect to his father.
INTISARI
Arofa, Siti. 2015. Disagreement Strategies Used by Greg toward his Father and his Future father-in-law in “Meet the Fockers” Movie, Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Advisor : Dr. Mohammad Kurjum, M.Ag.
Key Words : Disagreement, Strategy, Social Distance.
Penulis memfokuskan untuk menganalisis strategi untuk menyampaikan ungkapan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayah dan ayah mertuanya di film “Meet The Fockers”. Penelitian ini dibagi menjadi tiga masalah. Pertama, apa bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayahnya. Kedua, apa bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan Greg kepada ayah mertuanya. Ketiga, apa perbedaan dan persamaan antara bentuk strategi pernyataan tidak setuju secara verbal yang digunakan greg kepada ayah dan ayah mertuanya. Dalam menganalisis penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan teori Locher (2004) dan menggunakan metode diskriptif kualitatif didukung oleh metode kuantitatif dalam mengembangkan penelitiannya.
Dari hasil analisis, penulis menemukan bahwa Greg menggunakan strategi secara langsung tanpa memperhatikan harga diri lawan bicara. Greg tidak menggunakan kategori pergeseran tanggung jawab terhadap ayah mertuanya. Hal ini kemungkinan karena hubungan yg tidak akrab antara Greg dan ayah mertuanya maka dari itu Greg takut menggunakan strategi ini. Selain itu, Greg tidak menggunakan pengulangan ungkapan untuk menunjukkan perbedaan pendapat terhadap ayahnya. Hal ini kemungkinan karena dia memiliki kekuasaan lemah daripada ayahnya maka dari itu dia mencoba untuk menunjukkan rasa hormatnya terhadap ayahnya.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Cover Page ... i
Inside Title Page ... ii
Declaration Page ... iii
Motto ... iv
Dedication Page ... v
Advisor’s Approval Page ... vi
Examiner’s Approval Page ... vii
Acknowledgements ... viii
Table of Contents ... x
Abstract ... xiii
Intisari ... xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 4
1.3 Objective of the Study ... 5
1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5
1.5 Scope and Limitation ... 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 7
2.1.1 Disagreement Strategies ... 7
2.1.1.1The use of hedges ... 8
2.1.1.1.1 The Use of well ... 8
2.1.1.1.2 The Use of just ... 9
2.1.1.1.3 Uhm and uh ... 10
2.1.1.1.4 The Function of I think ... 11
2.1.1.1.5 The Use of I don’t know ... 12
2.1.1.2Giving Personally or Emotionally Colored Reasons for Disagreeing ... 13
2.1.1.3The Use of Modal Auxiliaries ... 14
2.1.1.4Shifting Responsibility ... 14
2.1.1.5Objection in the Form of Question ... 16
2.1.1.6The Use of but ... 17
2.1.1.7The Function of Repetition of an Utterance by the Next or the Same Speaker ... 17
2.1.1.8Non-mitigated Disagreement Strategies ... 18
2.1.2 Social Distance amd Disagreement Strategies ... 19
2.2 Previous Studies ... 20
2.2.2 A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman and
Housewives in Sidoarjo by Oktavia (2003) ... 22
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Approach ... 23
3.2 Data and Data Source ... 23
3.3 Instrument ... 24
3.4 Data Collection ... 24
3.5 Data Analysis ... 24
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father 29
4.2 Types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law ... 35
4.3 Differences and similarities verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law ... 41
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ... 46
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
As social beings, humans need to communicate in order to interact with other people. Communication is human ability to share their beliefs, values, ideas, and feeling. In our everyday communication, we express our opinion and response to others opinion. Disagreement is often revealed by the speaker to show that her/his opinion is not the same as the hearer’s opinion. Expressing disagreement is an act that commonly happens in daily communication. Actually, disagreement happens when speaker thinks that her/his hearer is wrong, misguided, or unreasonable about some issue (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In expressing their disagreement, the speaker usually has some strategies because when the speaker expresses her/his disagreement, it can cause misunderstanding between the speaker and the hearer.
2
disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement.
Furthermore, disagreement strategies are influenced by various factors, such as opportunity scale, indirect scale, power, and social distance (Leech, 1983). For this research, the writer focuses on social distance because it is one of social factor that play in the object of this study. According to Holmes (2001) social distance concern about the participants’ relationship. Besides, this scale is useful in emphasizing how well the participants know each other, namely intimate relationship (high solidarity) and distant relationship (low solidarity). Moreover, Locher (2004) says that people who do not know each other will have certain expectation about their conversational partners’ selves to give an impression about the people. Social distance can also happen in family, for example social distance between father and mother and their children which may be close or distant.
3
to give good impression as future father-in-law order to get permission to marry his fiancée.
Since that the fathers have higher power than their children, the power of either Greg’s father or Greg’s future father in-law is higher than Greg. However, there is difference concerning social distance between relationship of Greg and his father and relationship of Greg and his future father in-law. The relationship of Greg and his father is expected to be closer than relationship of Greg and his future father in-law since his future father in-law still can be considered an outsider by him.
4
move into the stage of acceptance from the sons toward the fathers when the sons become adults in their 30 years old and 40 years old, when the fathers and the sons become friends, share common interests and express opinions without heated exchanges because during this time the sons may experience challenges as father with his own son (William, n.a).
Based on the above reasons, the writer will analyze the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father (Bernie) and to his future father-in-law (Jack) in Meet the Fockers movie, will find which categories of disagreement strategy used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law, and will find the differences or similarities the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father (Bernie) and to his future father-in-law (Jack).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1. What are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father in Meet the Fockers movie?
2. What are the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law in Meet the Fockers movie?
5
1.3 Objective of the Study
Based on the statement of the problem, the objectives of this study are:
1. To find out the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father.
2. To find out the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his future father- in-law.
3. To find out what differences and similarties between the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and to his future father-in-law.
1.4 Significance of the Study
For the significance of this research, the writer hopes this study can help the readers how to show their verbal disagreement by using appropriate strategies. Furthermore, the writer hopes this study can be useful for the next researcher as a reference for the next study, especially about verbal disagreement strategies related to social distance.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
6
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
1.6.1 Disagreement: A speaker’s expression to indicate that the hearer is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issues.
1.6.2 Strategy: The choice of speech acts to respond to a situation in which the speaker has to disagree with the hearer’s question or statement. 1.6.3 Social distance: It concerns with participant relationships, intimate
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents the theories and previous studies related to the problem of this study. The theories and previous studies are put in two different parts. The first part is theoretical framework, while the second part is previous studies.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
The writer included Locher’s (2004) on disagreement as the main theory in analyzing the data and supported by theory of social distance.
2.1.1 Disagreement strategies
According to Locher’s theory (2004) “disagreement is likely to involve the exercise of power because it entails and therefore also a clash of interests”. According to Waldron and Applegate (1994) cited in Locher’s (2004) define verbal disagreement as a form of conflict. It is because verbal disagreements are taxing communication events which are characterized by incompatible goals, negotiation, and the need to coordinate self and other actions.
8
next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement. Locher (2004: 96) also adds explanation whether each category is threatening one’s face or not. This term is called FTA, face threatening act. FTA is something that said by the speaker that represents a threat to another person’s expectation regarding self image. Thus, the categories that threatening one’s face are unmitigated strategies, and the categories that are not threatening one’s face are mitigated strategies.
2.1.1.1The use of hedges
Hedges are linguistic devices such as sort of, maybe, I mean, well. Aijmer (1986:6) as cited in Locher’s book (2004:114) noted that hedges make frees the speaker from the responsibility for the word and saves him the trouble of finding a better word or phrase. Tannen, (1993) as cited in Locher’s book (2004) hedges may soften the impact of negative statement. It means that the use of hedge can soft the disagreement expression. According to Locher (2004) there are five categories of hedges which are mostly occured, they are well, just, uhm and uh, I think, and I don’t know.
2.1.1.1.1The use of well
9
problems on the content level of the current or the preceding utterance, as a face-threat mitigator which indicates some problems on the interpersonal level, as frame marking device which indicating a topic change or indicates direct reported speech, as a delay device, as sign of waiting for an overdue response, and as sign of aggressiveness (Locher, 2004).
Example:
229 Debbie: then that’s that’s valid? 230 Kate: ^absolutely
231 Meriam: well
232 [<X XX XXXX X>]
233 Steven: [well but but it’s ^not because it’s --]
In the example, Meriam and Steven uses well in showing their disagreement. It can be seen 231 that Meriam uses well as face-threatening mitigator to indicate some problems interpersonal level. However, in line 233 Steven uses well as a face threatening mitigator and as a marker of insufficiency to indicate some problems in the current utterance by combining its use with but.
2.1.1.1.2The use of Just
10
hedge (Locher, 2004). The’ just ’could be replaced by ‘only’ without altering the overall meaning, which mean it is used as a booster.
Example:
183 Steven: but ^that^ the key
184 just because they’re genetically the same does ^not mean they=
185 =have ^equal, 186 ‘potential,
In the example, Steven uses just is showing his disagreement. It can be seen in line 184 that Steven uses just as a hedge to explain why he rejects statement.
2.1.1.1.3Uhm and uh
11
Example:
355 Roy: [and] and because they aren’t ^that ‘many, 356 they were binned in ^four separate groups. 357 ‘first group was uhm,
358 ‘local uh community ^colleges.
In the example, Roy explains the study in greater detail and he can hence allow himself to choose his words carefully. Roy uses uhm and uh in showing his disagreement. It can be seen in line 357-358 that Roy uses uhm and uh to give him time to speak something. Locher’s argue Roy does not use hesitation uhm and uh as floor holding device. However, uhm and uh were used to mitigate an FTA to the addressees’ face. In this function they could act as a preface to disagreement.
2.1.1.1.4The function of I think
I think as a hedge or booster. It is used that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of her or his utterance. It expresses insecurity about the truth value of an utterance that said by the speaker.
Example:
52 Roy: ….well
12
55 Roy: [<X that’s right, x>]
56 Kate: <X XX X> ^people are willing to ^pay [[and]] and I think it’swrong
In the example Kate uses I think in line 56 to indicate that her evaluation is personal. The use of I think protects her own face because her evaluation becomes less criticizable.
2.1.1.1.5The use of I don’t know
Tsui (1991) as cited in Locher’s book (2004) noted that I don’t know has eight functions, they are to declare of inability, to supply information, to avoid making an assessment, to preface a disagreement, to avoid an explicit disagreement, to avoid commitment, to minimize impolite beliefs, and to mark uncertainty (Locher, 2004).
Example:
59 Steven: ^How many students are on financial aid? 60 Roy: ^I don’t’ know
61 Kate: ^I think [[it’s wrong]]
In the example, Roy uses I don’t know in line 60 to indicate inability to supply information.
17 Kate: That’s not including room and board? 18 Steven: For an ‘undergrad
13
20 Steven: The <X XX X> cost 21 Roy: … I don’t know
In the example, Roy uses I don’t know in line 21 to avoid assessment.
2.1.1.2Giving personally or Emotionally Colored Reasons for
Disagreeing
Giving a personal or emotional colored reason is also used to show disagreement. It is to point the subjectively of a disagreement protects both the speakers’ and addressees’ face (Locher, 2004). The addressees’ face is saved because they might have valid and better reason, which the speakers have not denied yet. For the same reason it also saves the speakers’ face because a personal statements based on feelings which cannot be easily disputed.
Example:
125 Roy:as long as those ^people are willing to pay it ^it why should we=
126 =reduce the price?
127 Kate:Uh it just make me ^mad I don’t know why
14
2.1.1.3The Use of Modal Auxiliaries
May, might, could, would and should can be used to soften FTAs. In the appropriate context may, might and could carry the meaning of possibility or ask for permission, would expresses probability or hypothetical meaning and should can express putative, hypothetical or tentative meaning (Quick et al. 1972:97-102 in Locher’s book (2004).
Example:
424 Roy: Steven would tell ^us nothing 425 I means ^nothing
426 I presented
427 Steven: It might mean ^something [but it would be very hard to draw a=
Roy uses would to criticize Steven in line 424. In line 424 represents an FTA for Steven which is only slightly softened by the modal auxiliaries. In line 427 Steven reacts to Roy’s criticism and defends himself. He hedges his disagreement with Roy by making a concession (it might mean ^something), which is downgraded by the use of might and something.
2.1.1.4Shifting Responsibility
15
(Locher, 2004). This can be achieved by clearly marking an utterance as coming from a different source or by using pronoun such as they or you to exclude oneself to a certain context or when one is unavoidably included, to use we in order to spread responsibility.
The advantage of this strategy is that the content of what a speaker just said might be debatable, but the person as such is not as exposed to criticism as when he or she had reported the content as her or his own point of view (Locher, 2004). In this sense this strategy can be used as a face-protecting device for the speaker.
Example:
Miriam: But ^Roy what was the^aim of the sudy was it too look at the= =twins development in,
Roy : To lool and see whether,
the aim of the study as a suggested the ‘study, byt^Steven has fund^incredible flaws in this Kate : @@@@@
16
2.1.1.5Objection in the Form of a Question
The combination of a question with disagreement is effective especially with respect to action-restriction because both them called an answer (Locher, 2004). Furthetmore, disagreement in the form of question is considered as less directly. Locher quoted Leech’s (1983) opinion that indirectness is more polite than the direct utterances. The function of this strategy is to ask for a referential clarification of the previous statement, which contains disagreement.
Example:
453 Anne: well ^excuse me
454 in ^behalf of Steven [I have] to say somethingthough
455 Kate: [yeah]
456 Steven: ^please 457 Meriam: @
458 Anne: ^can it ‘be? 459 ..the ^prejudice of the
460 ..uhm= how do you say ^job giver
17
2.1.1.6The Use of but
The position of but in a statement influences the function of its use (Locher, 2004). When but occurred at the beginning of a speaker’s new turn and was used to attempt to get the floor as well as to oppose a previous speaker’s contribution. However, when but occurred within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterance.
Example: 282 Roy: ^fine
283 [^thank you very much]
284 Steven: [<X XX X>] the study ^can’t be done
285 Miriam: but ^Roy was the ^aim of the study was it to ‘look at the=
286 =twins ^development in
In the example, Miriam disagrees with Steven. She uses but in the beginning to show her direct opposition toward Steven’s contribution.
2.1.1.7The Function of Repetition of an Utterance by the Next or
the Same Speaker.
18
the second speaker agrees to accept the firs speaker’s view (Locher, 2004). However, repetition of a previous utterance can also be a means of voicing of the utterance or to question the content of the utterance (Pomerantz, 1984) as cited in Locher’s book (2004).
Example:
26 Miriam: but that’s for a ^private school right that’s [not a--] 27 Roy: [yes]
28 It’s ‘not high ‘enough
29 Anne: ..not high ^enough? 30 Kate: ^Roy=
31 Roy:..that’s right 32 Debbie: @@@
33 Anne: ^excuse me?
In the example, Anne disagrees with Steven by repeating Roy’s statement in line 29 to emphasize point that she wants to make sure to get across. Her disagreement is also expressed in her intonation. The following ^excuse me further emphasizes her different point of view.
2.1.1.8Non-mitigating Disagreement Strategies
19
disagreement strategies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful. Unmitigated disagreement indicates straightforwards disagreement, which was not accompanied by any additional boosting.
Example:
512 Anne: and ^those are the students that are being recruited from=
513 =’Ivy League 514 [ <X XX X> ]
515 Roy: [‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no] 516 Kate: [‘no] ‘no ‘no? 517 Roy: [‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no ‘no] 518 Kate: ‘no
519 Roy: the ‘argument the argument is exactly the ^opposite Roy disagrees with Anne’s statement directly without softening in line 512. This is questioned by a surprised Kate, so that Roy repeats his disagreement in line 517 and explains it in line 519.
2.1.2 Social Distance and Verbal Disagreement Strategies
20
Talking about social distance, there will be two different terms: distant (low solidarity) and intimate (high solidarity). First, distant may refers to a greater social distance between the speaker and the addressee. It means the speaker and addressee do not know each other well (Pair, 2005). On the other hands, intimate may refers to a small social distance between the speaker and the addressee. In other words, the speaker and the addressee know each other well.
There is a correlation between social distance and verbal disagreement strategies. In relation to verbal disagreement strategies, social distance increases; the use of disagreement decreases. Moreover, toward a close person, people will use more unmitigated disagreement by doing FTA. However, toward a distant person, people will use more mitigated disagreement by softening the FTAs.
From this theory presented it can be concluded that social distance and disagreement are linked. Social distance occurs between two people influences the way the disagreement strategies they used. Aside from theories the writer also uses previous studies to support her research.
2.2 Previous Studies
2.2.1 Strategies Used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the
FilmThe Break Up in Showing Disagreement (Yuliana, 2009)
21
Up. The research questions that she wanted to answer were the disagreement strategies used by Gary in his conversations to Brooke as his interlocutor, the disagreement strategies used by Brooke in her conversations to Gary as her interlocutor, and the differences between them.
The main theory used by Yuliana was disagreement strategies by Locher (2004). There are eight categories: the use of hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement. All of the categories are provided with examples.
The approach she used was qualitative approach. In collecting the data, she used DVD of The Break Up to watch the movie. The duration of the whole movie is one hour and forty six minutes. While watching the movie, she looked for utterances which contain disagreement, produced by Gary and Brooke, and the utterances were used as the basic data of her research.
The finding of Yuliana’s study was Gary used hedges most in order to show his disagreement, while Brooke used non-mitigating disagreement most. This result found the theory that women are powerless and use softer ways in showing her disagreement than men. In this study, it was because Brooke has higher power than Gary, so as the result, Brooke become more direct than Gary.
22
Moreover, both of studies use movie as an object of the study. However, there is a difference between studies. Yuliana’s study focused on gender, while the present study focuses on social distance.
2.2.2 A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman
and Housewives in Sidoarjo by Oktavia (2003)
Oktavia (2003) analyzed the disagreement produced by career woman and housewives in Sidoarjo. Her purpose was to investigate the types of disagreement that was used both career woman and housewives. In doing her research, she used Garcia as the main theory of disagreementand the theory of social status from Beebe and Takash (1989). Her finding of the study showed that career woman tend to use confrontational strategies include strong denial while the housewives tend to use non-confrontational strategies include down toned, suggestion, giving reason, expression of willingness to cooperate.
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Approach
In conducting this research, the writer uses descriptive approach supported by quantitative approach. Descriptive approach is taken as the about discussing, analyzing and finding the disagreement strategies. The writer uses this method because she wants to get a description and a rich understanding including the disagreement strategies used by Greg to his father and his future father-in-law.
The writer also uses quantitative approach which focuses on how much or how many there is/are of particular characteristic or item (Lia Litosseliti, 2010:52). This method is also needed for this study because the writer needs percentage for each categories of disagreement to find out the differences between the categories of the disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.
3.2 Data and Data Sources
24
3.3 Instrument
Research instrument is very important to get the result of this research. It is a set of method which is used to collect the data. The instrument that will be used in this research is the writer herself. She will collect and analyze the data by herself.
3.4 Data Collection
The writer uses several steps in collecting the data. The first step is looking for the script of Meet the Fockers from the internet. Then, the writer watches the film in order to get the feeling the character in the film and to check the accuracy of the script which is taken from internet. Next, the writer analyzes the data per sentence. Then, the writer gives number for each sentence which contains disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father in law. The given number for the father is ‘a’ and the given number for the future father in law is ‘b’. After that, the writer begins to analyze whole the data.
3.5 Data Analysis
After collecting the data, the writer analyzes the data. In order to answer the questions of this study, the writer makes procedures of data analysis are: first, the writer classifies each utterance of disagreement produced by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law to identify in which type of disagreement the utterance belonged to based on Locher’s theory (2004).
25
[image:30.595.112.515.228.728.2]placed in table too. After that the writer gives a tick in the column in which the utterances belonged to. After that, the writer explains the analysis in the last column.
Table 1. Verbal Disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father
No. Utterances
Categories of Disagreement Strategies
Analysis
H PR MA SR O B R NM
Total
Table 2. Verbal Disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law
No. Utterances
Categories of Disagreement Strategies
Analysis
H PR MA SR O B R NM
Total
Note:
H = the use of hedges O = objections in the form of question PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but
26
SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement
Thus, the writer will able to answer the question number one and two about what type of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.
To answer question number three, the writer counts the percentage of the frequency of each disagreement by using this formula:
�The quantity of certain categories of disagreement strategiesTotal quantity of all categories of disagreement strategies 100%�
[image:31.595.108.512.245.750.2]Finally, after finishing counting the percentage of disagreement, the writer put the result on the table.
Table 3. Frequency and Percentage of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg
Variable
Categories of Disagreement Strategies
H PR MA SR O B R NM
Greg to his father T
%
Greg to his future father in law
T
%
Note:
27
MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the writer analyzes verbal disagreement strategies which are used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in the film Meet the Fockers based on Locher’s theory (2004). Then the writer also analyzes about the differences and similarities of verbal disagreement strategies that are used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. The data are presented in the tables and they show the strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.
Toward his father, Greg uses six of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies to show his disagreement: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, shifting responsibility, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement. The verbal disagreement strategies which are not found in Greg’s utterance toward his father is modal auxiliary and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker.
[image:34.595.114.516.159.528.2]
29
Table of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law
No. Utterances
Categories of Disagreement Strategies
H PR MA SR O B R NM
1 Greg toward his father √ √ - √ √ √ - √
2 Greg toward his future
father-in-law √ √ √ - √ √ √ √
Note:
H = the use of hedges O = objections in the form of question PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but
MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance
SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement
4.1 Types of verbal disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his
father
30
4.1.1 Hedges
The use of hedges which may “soften the impact of negative statement (Locher, 2004). In general, Greg applies hedges to soften his disagreement toward his father’s satement. The power of father, which is higher than the son, makes it possible to use this category. Since father has to be respected, Greg keeps trying to respect his father by sometimes using softer ways to show his disagreement. It is shown in datum below.
Datum 1
Bernie : Oh, little baby. How are you, Little Jack? Greg : (a.4) Just talk to him like a person
Greg disagrees to his father’s statement which is talking to Little Jack with infant language. Since Jack told him to talk to Little Jack like talking to a person, Greg tells his father the same thing. He shows his disagreement by using just in order to soften his disagreement, and even gives a solution for it, that is to talk to Little Jack like a person.
4.1.2 Giving personal or Emotional Reasons for Disagreeing
31
respect his father, Greg keeps trying to protect his father’s face when he disagree with him.
Datum 2
Bernie : Gay, you are just in time to hear me tell the gang how you lost your virginity to Isabel.
Pam : You s-slept with Isabel? Bernie : We were relieved.
Greg : Why-why would you, why – why would you bring that up? Bernie : What’s the problem?
Greg : (a.11) It was, what, 15 years ago
Greg reacts to his father’s statement which is revealing his old story with Isabel. Greg uses a personal reason by saying it was 15 years ago which means for Greg, it is an old story so it is not necessary to talk about that thing.He tries to make people become sympathetic to him by using emotional reason so that his reason of disagreeing becomes accepted.
4.1.3 Shifting Responsibility
32
without considering his father’s face. The writer gives a datum to define shifting responsibility used by Greg toward his father.
Datum 3
Bernie : Hey!There you are. What the heck is that contraption? I thought you guys were flying in tonight
Greg : I left a message yesterday. We were driving - - Bernie : oh, I didn’t get a message
Greg : (a.1) I left you like five messages
Greg replies to his father’s statement who is surprised of Greg and the Bryness’ (his future father-in-law’s family) early coming. His father siad that he did not get any message. Then, Greg shows his disagreement by using you, which refers to his father, to show that he is irresponsible about that thing since he is sure that he has left messages in his father’s answering machine.
4.1.4 Stating Objection in the Form of Question
33
Datum 4
Bernie : Gay, you’re just in tme to hear me tell the gang how you lost your virginity to Isabel
[Bernie] He was 19. A late bloomer Pam : You slept with Isabel? Bernie : We were relieved
Greg : (a.10) Why-why would you, why – why would you bring that up?
Greg reacts to his father who just revealed about his old story with Isabel. Since he disagree about that idea, he tries to show his disagreement toward his father. He asks why is father would have brought about that story up. He shows his disagreement in the form of questions so that his disagreement objection is stated less directly and it softens the FTAs.
4.1.5 The use of but
When but occured within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterances or to give an evaluation of the speaker’s own contribution.Greg uses but what he wants to give an evaluation or further explanation of his disagreement. The writer providesa datum to clarify the use of but used by Greg toward his father.
Datum 5
Bernie : Most people? Since when do you care about most people?
Greg : (a.8) I don’t, but Jack is really into winning and competition and sports
34
saying that he does not. However, the one who is like that is Jack. Greg uses but in order to give an evaluation of his denial of his father’s accusation.
4.1.6 Non-mitigated Disagreement
Locher (2004) stated that non-mitigated disagreement is there is no additional booster used to show the disagreement. Non-mitigated disagreement can occur in context where it is more important to defend one’s point of view than to pay face considirations to addressee. Another possible motivation for using no-mitigated disagreement startegies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful.To clarify non-mitigated disagreement used by Greg toward his father, the writer provides data below.
Datum 6
Bernie : Hey, we got him, didn’t we, dude, huh? Was he impressed?
Greg : (a.17) No, Dad, he wasn’t. That was a really hard shot. You could’ve hurt him
35
4.2 Types of verbal disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his
future father-in-law.
This part discusses about the analysis on disagreement strategies produced by Greg toward his future father-in-law which happen in the movie. The disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law are hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, repeating utterances by the next or the same speaker, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement.
4.2.1 Hedges
Greg applies hedges to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law’s statement. Since his future father-in-law is distant from him and Greg respects him a lot, Greg tries to soften his disagreement toward his future in-law. To define hedges used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the writer provides a datum below.
Datum 7
Jack : What did you do, Focker?
Greg : Nothing. He ... (b.3) I think he has to poop
36
4.2.2 Giving Personal or Emotional Reasons for disagreeing
Greg uses personal or emotional reasons when he disagrees with his future father-in-law’s statement but he still has to save his future faher-in-law’s face. Since his future father-in-law is distant from him and Greg has to respect him, Greg tries to respect future father-in-law by protecting his future father-in-law’s face when he disagrees with him.
Datum 8
Jack : Well, in these uncertain times, Greg, I opted for a Kevlar-reinforced hull with two inch thick. Plexiglas windows, just like the ones they design on the Russian Widowmaker submarines. I want you to conduct a field tet for us, Greg. I want you to demonstrate the impregnable outer skin of the coach. Throw it at the window.
Greg : Oh Jack, (b.1) I’m not gonna throw a brick at your window
37
4.2.3 The Use of Modal Auxiliaries
The next category is the use of modal auxiliaries to soften disagreement (Locher, 2004). Greg uses modal auxiliaries to soften his disagreements toward his future father-in-law’s statement. Due to the distance, Greg tries to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law. The writer gives a datum in order to explain modal auxiliaries used by Greg toward his future father-in-law.
Datum 9
Jack : Well, in these uncertain times, Greg, I opted for a Kevlar-reinforced hull with two inch thick plexiglas windows, just like the ones they design on the Russian Widowmaker submarines. I want you to conduct a field test for us, Greg. I want you to demonstrate the impregnable outer skin of the coach. Throw it at the window, Greg : Oh Jack, I’m not gonna throw a brick at your window
Jack : It’s a simple demonstration Greg : (b.2) I’d – I’d really rather not
Greg disagrees with his future father-in-law who forces him to check the impregnable outer skin of his coach by throwing a brick at its window. Greg shows his diagreement toward his future father-in-law by using would rather, modal auxiliary of preference. He says that he would really rather not to do it. Actually, he use would to soften his disagreement toward his future father-in-law.
4.2.4 Repeating Utterances by the Next or the Same Speaker
38
or the current speaker’s own view (Locher, 2004). Greg uses repetition of the next or the same speakers when he wants to emphasize his view. Greg tries to seek for other peoples statement and support it, or sometimes repeats his own statement to convince his future father-in-law that his future father-in-law is not right.
Datum 10
Greg : What are you holding? What’s in your hand? Jack : Nothing
Greg : Jack, I can see it in the mirror(b.13) what is it?you get something in your hand
Greg disagrees over his future father-in-law’s action which seems to be weird. Greg has seen that his future father-in-law is holding something in his hand and he suspects what the thing is. Firstly, he asks about it. However, his future father-in-law denies it by saying it is nothing. Then, Greg shows his disagreement toward his future father-in-law by repeating again his previous statement which asks what the thing is.
4.2.5 Stating Objection in the Form of Question
39
Datum 11
Jack : Yes, it is. You seem tense. I was going to ofer you a sedative Greg : (b.14) You’re Jocking right?
Greg disagrees over his future father-in-law’s action which seems to be weird.Greg shows his diagreement toward his future father-in-law by asking him, whether he is joking or not, to seek for clarification of his future father-in-law’s weird action.
4.2.6 The Use of but
When but occured within the turn of the same speaker, it was used to indicate disagreement with a previous speaker’s utterances or to give an evaluation of the speaker’s own contribution.Greg uses but what he wants to give an evaluation or further explanation of his disagreement. The writer provides data to explain the use of but used by Greg toward his future father-in-law.
Datum 12
Bernie : There is something you don’t see every day Jack : Focker! Focker!
Greg : Okay. (b.6) I know this looks bad,but I can explain it
40
order to disagree about his future father-in-law’s accusation which seems accusing him irresponsible with his future father-in-law’s grandson.
4.2.7 Non-mitigated Disagreement
Non-mitigated disagreement can occur in context where it is more important to defend one’s point of view than to pay face considirations to addressee. Another possible motivation for using non-mitigated disagreement strategies is the wish to be rude, disruptive or hurtful. Although his future father-in-law is distant from him, Greg sometimes still threatens his future father-in-law’s face in showing disagreement. To clarify non-mitigated disagreement used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the writer provides the data below.
Datum 13
Jack : Did you have a nice conversation with your son? Greg : Jack, I’ve never even met that kid before
Jack : Focker, you’ve been covering this up from the very beginning Greg : (b.11) No, I haven’t, Jack. It’s just another one of your crazy
theories.
41
4.3 The Differences and Similarities of the Verbal Disagreement Strategies
Used by Greg toward his Father and his Future Father-in-law.
After discussing the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law, the writer will show the differences and similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. For further explanation, the writer discusses any differences and similarities of each category of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg one by one in the next part.
[image:46.595.110.512.255.698.2]The writer uses the table below to help her easily in showing the differences and similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.
Table 4.3 The frequency of verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law
Variable
Categories of Disagreement Strategies
H PR MA SR O B R NM
Greg to his father
T 2 3 0 3 5 1 0 13
% 7.40 11.11 0 11.11 18.51 3.70 0 48.14
Greg to his future father in
law
T 1 4 1 0 2 1 1 7
% 5.88 23.52 5.88 0 11.76 5.88 5.88 41.17
Note:
42
PR = personal or emotional reasons B = the use of but
MA = modal auxiliaries R = repetition of an utterance
SR = shifting responsibility NMD = non mitigating disagreement
The analysis shows the occurance of verbal disagreement strateges used by Greg in their conversation toward his father and his future father-in-law. The table above shows that Greg as son uses different strategies toward his father and his future father-in-law. Toward his father, Greg uses hedge is in the fifth position (7.40%). Moreover, in disagreement toward his future father-in-law the use of hedges is in the fourth position (5.88%). It shows that toward older people Greg still put respect to them so that the use of hedges in order to soften the disagreement is still frequent.
In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, giving personal or emotional reasons is in the third position (11.11%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law is in the second position (23.52%). Actually, the use of personal and emotional reasons in both of them shows that Greg uses subjective disagreement which protect both speakers’ and addresses’ face, which means Greg still put respects toward older people by not irritating them.
43
people. That is why Greg seems to put higher respect to his future father-in-law, so he tries to polite by softening his disagreements.
In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of shifting responsibility is in the fourth position (11.11%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of shifting responsibility is not found at all. This happen possibly because Greg is afraid of his future father-in-law so that he is afraid of “blaming” or spreading responsibility with his future father-in-law. It shows that Greg seems to put higher respect to his future father-in-law, or he is distant from him, so he is afraid of using this strategy.
In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of stating objection in the form of question is in the second position (18.51%). However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of stating objection in the form of question is in the third position (11.76%). It shows that Greg is more put higher to his future father-in-law than his father, it’s because since he is distant from his future father-in-law. Using this strategy makes his disagreements formulated less directly and helps him to soften the FTAs.
44
might show softened FTAs. It seems that he tries to play safe by not using this strategy.
In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker category is not found at all. However, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker category is in the seventh position (5.88%). this happen possibly because Greg tries his best to minimize the use of this strategy.
In disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father, the use of non-mitigated disagreement is in the first position of the frequency of the usage (48.14%). Moreover, in disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his future father-in-law, the use of non-mitigated disagreement is also in the first position (41.17%). As Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (2003) said that although men are not status conscious, which makes them do not really care about their personal relationships including impact of FTAs, showing disagreement directly is actually the easiest way to show disagreement. It does not always mean that it is used to show impoliteness but sometimes it has to be used so that people directly understand that there is a disagreement from others.
45
point of views different. This might result in the different disagreement strategies used by Greg toward them. Greg’s father, who is an American-Jewish believes that home is where people learn about hapiness and wholesomeness so that his relationship with Greg is close (Feder, 2011). This make Greg sometimes brave, even he seems harsh toward his father. However, as American who are famous of their individuality and high respect to privacy, the relationship of the Bryness is distant from one another, and so does to other people who do not belong to the family. This makes Greg is afraid of threatening his future father-in-law’s face so that will not be considered impolite or disrespectful by his future father-in-law.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
This study talks about the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law in Meet the Focker (2004) based on Locher’s theory (2004). Actually this study talks about the types of verbal disagreement strategies used by by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law and differences or similarities of the verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law.
The result of data analysis shows that toward his father, Greg uses six of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies to show his disagreement: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, shifting responsibility, stating objection in the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement.While toward his future father-in-law, Greg uses sevent of eight types of verbal disagreement strategies: hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, modal auxiliaries, stating objection, the form of question, the use of but, and non-mitigated disagreement, and repeating an utterance by a next or the same speaker.
47
some differences between verbal disagreement strategies used by Greg toward his father and his future father-in-law. Toward his father, Greg is not afraid of using shifting responsibility but toward his future father-in-law, he never uses this category. Ths is probably because of the distance of Greg and his future father-in-law so that he is afraid of “blaming” or spreading responsibility with his future father-in-law. Moreover, toward his future father-in-law, he uses giving personal or emotional reasons category more than he does toward his father. It means that toward his future father-in-law, who is distant from him, Greg uses more strategies that soften FTAs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Conroy W. (1985). Father vs. son tensions: What’s natural vs. mental illness. Retrieved March 6 2015 From
http://www.ssociatedcontent.com/article/2215325/father_vs_son_tensions_w hats_naturl.html?cat=25
Eckert, p. & McConell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feder, D. (2001). The Jewish Roots of Family Values. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-jewish-roots-family-values
Holmes, J. (2001). Introduction to Sociolinguistic. Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Hovatter, D. Understanding Conflict and Disagreement. West Virginia: West
Virginia University Extension Service, WL353.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication (Language ower and social process.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Meet the Fockers cript-dialogue transcript. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/meet-the-fockers-script-transcript.html
Oktavia, L. (2003). A Study of Disagreement Strategies Produced by Career Woman andHousewives in Sidoarjo. (No. 1136/ING/2003). Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Petra Christian University, Surabaya.
Rummel, R. J. (n. a). Understanding conflict and war: vol. 2: the conflict helix Chapter 16 Distances. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP16.HTM
William, D. C. The Life Cycle of Father-Son Relationships. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from
49
Wu, X. H. (2006). A study of strategy used in showing disagreement and disagreement to other opinions. CELEA Journal 29(5) 55-65.
Yuliana. (2009). Disagreement Strategies used by the Major Male and Female Actors in the Film the Break Up in Showing Disagreement. (No.
