• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show"

Copied!
103
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

i

POLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY ELLEN DEGENERES

AND U.S. POLITICIANS IN THE ELLEN SHOW

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Carolina Yuni Rahastri K. Student Number: 131214013

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

vi ABSTRACT

Rahastri, Carolina Yuni. (2017). Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show.Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Learning a language, especially for EFL students, is related to learning the structural rules of the language, namely grammar. Meanwhile, there are other essential aspects required in learning the language. One of them is understanding how to use the language in social conditions. It means that students need to use the language appropriately. They will be able to avoid miscommunication if they understand the language. The capability of using language appropriately is related to politeness.

This study analyzed the application of politeness strategies in a talk show, namely The Ellen Show. Furthermore, the writer analyzed the interaction between the host, Ellen, and two U.S. politicians as the guest stars. The interaction between them represented the use of politeness strategies in social context. There were two research questions in this study: (1) Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show? and (2) What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show?

Discourse analysis which belongs to qualitative research was used by the writer to conduct this study. The writer analyzed the utterances that were produced by Ellen and U.S politicians by using the s and the transcripts of the talk show. The writer employed Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory to classify the use of politeness strategies that were used by the speakers. The factors that influence the choice of strategies were analyzed by using Brown and Levinson‘s theory as well.

The study revealed that Ellen and U.S. politicians used almost all of the politeness strategies. The factors that influence the choice of the strategies were the payoffs and the sociological variables which consisted of social distance and rank of imposition. The writer expected that the result of the study will be helpful for readers, especially for learners, teachers, and future researchers in understanding politeness in English.

(7)

vii ABSTRAK

Rahastri, Carolina Yuni. (2017). Politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show.Yogyakarta: Program Studi Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Mempelajari bahasa, terutama bagi mahasiswa yang mempelajari Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, berkaitan dengan mempelajari aturan-aturan dalam struktur kebahasaan, atau yang biasa disebut grammar. Sementara itu, terdapat beberapa hal penting yang diperlukan dalam mempelajari bahasa. Salah satunya adalah dengan memahami cara bagaimana menggunakan bahasa tersebut di dalam kehidupan bersosial. Hal ini menunjukan bahwa mahasiswa perlu menggunakan bahasa dengan sesuai. Mahasiswa dapat menghindari terjadinya miskomunikasi yang terjadi di antara mereka ketika mereka dapat memahami bahasa yang mereka pakai. Kemampuan dalam menggunakan bahasa dengan baik dan benar berkaitan erat dengan kesopanan.

Studi ini menganalisis tentang penggunaan strategi kesopanan dalam sebuah talk show bernama The Ellen Show. Selanjutnya, penulis menganalisis interaksi antara pembawa acara yang bernama Ellen dan para politisi Amerika sebagai bintang tamu. Interaksi yang terjadi diantara mereka menunjukan penggunaan strategi kesopanan dalam konteks sosial. Terdapat dua rumusan masalah dalam studi ini: (1) Strategi kesopanan apa saja yang digunakan Ellen dan politisi Amerika di The Ellen Show? (2) Faktor-faktor apa saja yang mempengaruhi Ellen dan politisi Amerika dalam menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam talk show tersebut?

Analisis wacana yang termasuk dalam penelitian kualitatif digunakan oleh penulis untuk melakukan studi ini. Penulis menganalisis ungkapan-ungkapan yang dikemukakan oleh Ellen dan politisi Amerika dengan menggunakan cuplikan video beserta transkrip yang terdapat dalam talk show. Penulis menggunakan teori dari Brown dan Levinson (1987) untuk mengklasifikasi penggunaan strategi kesopanaan yang diterapkan oleh pembicara. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan strategi kesopanan juga dianalisis dengan teori Brown dan Levinson.

Studi ini menyimpulkan bahwa Ellen dan politisi Amerika menggunakan hampir semua strategi kesopanan. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan strategi kesopanan adalah keuntungan untuk penutur dan variabel sosiologis yang mencakup jarak sosial dan tingkat pembebanan. Penulis berharap supaya hasil dari studi ini akan berguna bagi pembaca khususnya bagi pembelajar, pengajar, dan penulis selanjutnya dalam memahami kesopanan dalam bahasa Inggris.

(8)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It has been a long journey I went on to achieve my Sarjana Pendidikan degree. I would like to sincerely express my gratitude to those who kindly walked beside me to strengthen me and give me support during the process of writing this thesis.

First of all, I would like to praise Jesus Christ for all the blessings, time, and everything given to my life. His blessings have been guiding me through my journey. I would also like to thank Him for sending me the people who supported me during the writing of my thesis. Foremost, I would like to thank my beloved parents, Papa Yosep Adrianus Muljono and Mama Maria Caecilia Novitta Sri Sanggrama Hastawati Wuniasmoro, and my sisters, Crescentiana Diah Lindiyasari Kusumaningtyas and Lusia Ratih Desi Kusumaning Hapsari for their prayers and support throughout my life.

I respectfully express my gratitude to my advisor, Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D., for being very patient in guiding me. I thank him for spending his valuable time critically read my writing and advise me for better writing. My gratitude also goes to my academic advisor, Drs. Y.B. Gunawan M.A. for his patience in guiding me throughout my study in this university. I also thank all lecturers, staff, and students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University for everything. I would peculiarly thank Ibu Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. for kindly supporting me and giving me references in writing this thesis.

(9)

ix

friends in Class A batch 2013, all of GRISADHA members especially Yu Warni Emprit, Mas Agus, Swelana, and Yostin, all of my friends in Thesis class, REMBOL, and all of Kos Sagan No.22 girls. Last but not least, for all inspirations, I thank my beloved partner, Victor Wijaya Dewantara.

(10)

x

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7

A. Theoretical Description ... 7

6. Factors of Politeness Strategies ... 26

B. Review of Related Research ... 30

C. Theoretical Framework... 32

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ... 33

A. Research Method ... 33

(11)

xi

C. Data Gathering Technique ... 36

D. Data Analysis Technique ... 37

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 39

A. The Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and the U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 39

B. The Factors Which Influence the Application of Politeness Strategies by Ellen and the Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 56

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 65

A. Conclusions ... 65

B. Implications ... 67

C. Recommendations ... 67

REFERENCES ... 69

(12)

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. EFL = English as a Foreign Language 2. U.S. = United States

(13)

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 The Categorization of Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 38 4.1 Politeness Strategies Found in The Ellen Show ... 40

(14)

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A The List of Politeness Strategies Produced by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show ... 72

(15)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents four sections, namely the research background, research questions, research significance, and definition of terms. The research background presents the background issues and concerns of the study. The research questions formulate questions related to the study. The research significance presents the writer‘s contribution of the study. The definition of terms defines the significant keywords and phrases related to the study.

A. Research Background

People use language every day in their daily life to communicate with others. They use language as a tool in social activities. Based on Holtgraves (2002), language is a method that allows people to interact among themselves (p. 5). Furthermore, communication become one of the important aspects in human daily life. People use the language to interact and communicate for reasons and purposes especially in interpersonal communication. Through the language, people can express their thoughts and feelings, ask for help, criticize, and give compliment. The use of language is not about doing an action for one self, but also ―a social action that involves other people‖ (Holtgraves, 2002, p. 1). Clark (1996a) states that people should coordinate with others in using the language to understand and to be understood (as cited by Holtgraves, 2002).

(16)

language because it can harm other people who are involved in the conversation. Hence, they need to choose proper way and proper diction in producing their utterances. The adjustment of utterances and the way to consider what people feel can be identified as politeness. Politeness as said by Brown and Levinson (1987) is a psychological state that is related to something emotionally established and can be lost, maintained, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. Meanwhile, van Herk (2012) defines politeness as an act of behaving properly in any social interaction and treating the interlocutor properly. Generally, speaking politeness involves understanding the feelings of others. People who speak politely will make other people feel comfortable. Inappropriate choice of words and choice of the way people speak may be considered as rude.

(17)

culture in order to avoid misunderstanding in speaking different languages. It is clear that people need to firstly understand the culture of a language before they want to study thelanguage itself.

The writer aims to analyze how politeness strategies are used in the daily conversation. The focus of this study is to observe and analyze the use of politeness strategies in an American talk show named The Ellen Show. The writer wants to analyze how politeness strategies are used by Ellen DeGeneres, as the host, and the United States (U.S.) politicians as the guests. Ellen is well known as an American comedian in her first debut. Now, she has her own TV program named The Ellen Show. The writer choose this talk show because it provides dialogues which show interpersonal relationship. In addition, the writer choose Ellen DeGeneres as the subject of the study because the writer wants to know how Ellen, who has a background as comedian, used her politeness towards U.S. politicians as the guests of the talk show. Meanwhile, the politicians are chosen because the writer wants to know how politicians used their politeness in non-state events.

(18)

B. Research Questions

Based on the background of the study, two research questions are formulated as follows.

1. Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show?

2. What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show?

C. Research Significance

The writer expects that this study will be useful for English learners, English teacher candidates, English teachers, and future researchers. For English learners, the writer believes that this study will encourage them to be more aware in using English language. This helps them to be capable in using appropriate English utterances in social situations. For English teachers and teacher candidates, the writer believes that this study will encourage them to assess and evaluate not only the grammatical skill, but also the students‘ skill in using

language in social situations, in terms of politeness. For future researchers, the writer believes that this study will give them enough information about politeness so that it can be a reference for their own studies.

D. Definition of Terms

(19)

1. Politeness

Holmes (1996) states that politeness is a behavior that shows positive concerns for others. The theory accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face threatening acts (FTA) to addressees. Mills (2003) mentions that politeness is the speaker‘s expression to reduce the face threats that carried by assertive face threatening acts to the hearer. Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that emotional and social sense have a relation to everyone‘s self-public image and it will be expected by everyone else to recognize. The utterances in which the politeness were produced by Ellen and U.S. politicians will be the focus of this study.

2. Face Threatening Act

Brown and Levinson (1987) describe that Face Threatening Act is an act

that inherently threats hearer‘s or speaker‘s face. There are two different notions

that are stated by Brown and Levinson (1978), namely positive face and negative face. FTA is the expression that threats the positive face or negative face of both speaker and hearer within the interpersonal communication. In this study, FTA is

used to analyze the politicians and Ellen‘s interaction in The Ellen Show.

3. Politeness Strategies

(20)

The Ellen Show. Furthermore, the study will analyze how the politicians and the

host mitigate their utterances towards hearer‘s face.

4. The Ellen Show

(21)

7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter consists of two parts, namely the theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description includes the description of related theories that are used in this study. The theoretical framework summarizes and synthesizes all major relevant theories which will help the writer analyzes the study to answer the research questions.

A. Theoretical Description

This part discusses five major theories which can be the bases of this study, namely the study of language usage, language in society, discourse analysis, politeness, and politeness strategies. Since the study deals with the utterances which are produced by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show, it is necessary to include the pragmatic theory because it is related to the meaning within the context. The language and society theory is included because it focuses on how language is used in social context. Discourse analysis theory is included because the study deals with how people produce the language within the context. The other theories are the theories of politeness and politeness strategies which become the main theories of this study.

1. The Study of Language

(22)

states, ―pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate and also how someone uses language within context in particular ways in communication‖ (p. 19).

Besides, pragmatics aims to analyze the meaning of the language that is used by a speaker in connection with speech situations (Leech, 1983). The pragmatic theory is in accordance with the focus of this study which is how the language is used by people to communicate with others. It concerns how people use the language and why they use it in particular ways.

Meanwhile, pragmatics focuses on the study of the utterance‘s meaning conveyed by the speaker, not in grammatical form of the utterance. It is in line with Levinson‘s (1983) theory that ―pragmatics cover both context-dependent aspects of language structure and principles of language usage and understanding that have nothing or little to do with linguistics structure‖ (p. 9). Thus, the theory of pragmatics itself clarifies the language usage and language structure as the way to understand the context within the language that is used by the speaker in communicating with others.

2. The Study of Language and Society

(23)

language. There are four social variables which can affect people in doing conversation, such as age, gender, geography, and social class (Stockwell, 2002). Furthermore, each language is used by different people in different contexts within different reasons. It becomes essential that people need to consider those social variables in learning a language to communicate with each other.

3. Discourse Analysis

Nunan (1993) states that ―discourse analysis involves the study of language

in use‖ (p. 7). Based on this view, discourse conveys what the language is, how the speakers produce the language, and how the context within which the language is used (Nunan, 1993). In other words, discourse refers to the interpretation of the communicative event in context. Avdi and Georgaca (2007) state that discourse is defined as systems of meaning that is related to the interactional in wider sociocultural context and operate regardless of the speakers‘ intentions. In discourse analysis, language is also considered as a form of social action. Therefore, people use language to achieve certain interpersonal goals in specific interactional contexts (Nunan, 1993).

4. Politeness Theory

(24)

Meanwhile, there are two elements that are firmly related to the application of politeness strategies that are proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). The elements are the notion of face and Face Threatening Act (FTA). Before explaining the politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987), the writer discusses the elements in the following paragraphs.

a. Face

Brown and Levinson (1987) define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. There are two related aspects of face. The two aspects are negative face and positive face.

Negative face is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as ―the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction‖ (p. 61). Negative face is known as the want of every individual to be independent and be unimpeded by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 62). It means that every individual has the desire to be free from imposition and action towards him.

Positive face is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as the positive consistent self-image claimed by interactants. As Brown and Levinson (1987) state that positive face refers to ―the want of every member that his wants be

desirable to at least some others‖ (p. 62). The positive face crucially includes the

desire that self-image be appreciated and approved of. It means that positive politeness is used when an individual wants to be appreciated or to be approved and liked by others.

(25)

and she likes others to admire them. She is gratified when people say ‗What a lovely cat; I want to touch it. How do you take care of its fur?‖, implying that they

want just what she has wanted and achieved (Brown & Levinson, 1987). b. Face Threatening Act

When a speaker produces an utterance that violates hearer‘s positive or negative face, he does the Face Threatening Act (FTA). It is intuitively the case that the speaker‘s utterances threaten the hearer‘s face. The utterances will

threaten the hearer‘s face when there is a difference between the speaker and hearer‘s wants or desire. In other words, the speaker and hearer‘s wants run contrary. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that FTA is a threat used by a speaker that consists of mitigating statement and verbal repair or politeness (p. 66). The speaker may threaten the hearer‘s face, for example by asking for help which threatens hearer‘s negative face since the speaker is potentially imposing on the hearer or just simply by giving compliments which threatens hearer‘s positive face since the speaker satisfying the hearer. Furthermore, FTA can be done within verbal and non-verbal communication. However, the focus of this study is to analyze FTAs which are produced verbally.

(26)

serve four notions to save both speaker and hearer‘s face. The four notions will be described in the following section.

5. Politeness Strategies

Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are strategies which concern saving hearer‘s face by producing an expression that is less threatening for the hearer‘s face. There are four main strategies which are presented by Brown and Levinson (1987), namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record. The following points show deeper explanation of each politeness strategy.

a. Bald on Record

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that bald on record is the maximum efficiency in communication. The speaker uses bald on record when he does the FTA with maximum efficiency more than his wants to satisfy the hearer‘s face. On the other hand, there are two different classes of bald on-record depending on the cases and motives of the speakers to do the FTA with maximum efficiency, namely non-minimization of the face threat and the usage of FTA-oriented bald on record.

1) Non Minimization of the Face Threat

(27)

hearer‘s face is low and the case where doing the FTA by the speaker is primarily for hearer‘s interest. The case of great urgency shown in the utterance ―Watch out!‖ The speaker‘s low willingness to satisfy hearer‘s face is shown in the case when the speaker is more powerful, does not fear retaliation from hearer, or because the speaker wants to be rude. It is exemplified by the utterance ―Bring me

these clothes, John.‖ as said by the oldest sibling. The case where doing the FTA

by the speaker is primarily for hearer‘s interest is shown in the utterance ―Hey,

girl. Don‘t be sad.‖ and ―Be careful! The floor is wet.‖ Thus sympathetic advice

or warning can be performed baldly on record. 2) FTA-Oriented Bald on Record Usage

The second type is where a threat is minimized by the implication. Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), the threat which is inherently brought by the FTA is minimized by saving hearer‘s particular face. For instance, the utterance implicitly saves the hearer‘s face but the utterance that the speaker makes is an FTA. This nicely requires mutual orientation which involves the attempt of each participant of social interaction to foresee what the other participant attempts to foresee (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

There are three states which are included in this type of bald on record, namely welcomings, farewells, and the state where the speaker insists the hearer

to impose on speaker‘s face. The example of welcomings is the utterance ―Come

in. I‘m not busy.‖ as said by a person with higher power to the subordinate who is

waiting outside his room. The example of farewells is in the utterance, ―Good

(28)

impose on speaker‘s face is exemplified by the utterance, ―Don‘t worry about it.

I‘ll clean it up.‖ as said by the host to a guest, who wants to clean the mess. b. Positive Politeness

Positive politeness is a redress directed to the addressee‘s positive face, the want to be approved, desired, and accepted (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Holtgraves (2002) states that positive politeness is an approach depends on strategy. It refers to an action to minimize the distance between the speaker and hearer. By using positive politeness, the speaker wants to make the hearer feel accepted and feel good about his interest. Brown and Levinson (1987) divide positive politeness into three big mechanisms, namely claiming common ground, conveying that speaker and hearer are cooperators, and fulfilling hearer‘s want. 1) Claiming Common Ground

The first mechanism of positive politeness is claiming common ground which includes the act of indicating that the speaker and hearer belong to a particular group. The particular group here is considered as a group of people who share the same desire that includes goals and values. However, Brown and Levinson (1987) elaborate this mechanism into eight sub-strategies which are exemplified in the following paragraphs.

(29)

compliment. The example of this sub-strategy is the utterance ―Your performance is very good! Congratulations.‖

Sub-strategy 2 is the state where the speaker exaggerates interest, approval, and sympathy with the hearer. This strategy is often done by saying something more impressive than its actual status using exaggerated intonation or stress in the adjective. The example is the utterance ―What a fantastic car you have!‖

Sub-strategy 3 is intensifying interest to hearer. This sub-strategy is used when the speaker shares his wants to a hearer by making a good story and drawing the hearer into it. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that it is another way for the speaker to intensify the interest of his own contributions to the conversation. It is exemplified with the utterance state by Brown and Levinson (1987) ―I come down the stairs, and what you think I see? –a huge mess all over the place, the phone‘s off the hook and clothes are scattered all over…‖ (p. 106).

Sub-strategy 4 is done by using any of the innumerable way to convey in-group membership. It indicates that both the speaker and hearer belong to a in-group of people who share specific wants. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the use of address forms, language or dialect, jargon or slang, and ellipsis are the elements of in-group identity markers. The example is in utterance ―Come here, fellas.‖

Sub-strategy 5 is seeking agreement. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that

seeking agreement indicates speaker‘s wants to seek hearer‘s agreement and

therefore to satisfy hearer‘s desire to be ‗right‘. It is done by delivering safe topics

(30)

conversation. The example is proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) in the dialogue:

A: I had a flat tyre on the way home. B: Oh God, a flat tyre!

It can be seen that hearer B repeats the part of what the preceding speaker A has said in the conversation as the response to speaker A‘s safe topic.

Sub-strategy 6 is done by avoiding disagreement. There are four mechanisms of avoiding disagreement according to Brown and Levinson (1987). The mechanisms are token agreement that leads the speaker to twist his utterances to hide disagreement, pseudo-agreement which is the use of ‘then’ as a conclusory marker, white lies, and hedging opinions. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterances ―I‘ll be seeing you then.‖

Sub-strategy 7 is presupposing common ground. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that gossiping or having small talk is the example of presupposing or asserting common ground. This is an act of believing something happens before it is proven. The example is in the utterance ―I really had a hard time learning to

dive, you know.‖

(31)

2) Conveying that Speaker and Hearer are Co-operators

The second mechanism is conveying that the speaker and hearer are co-operators. It means that the speaker and hearer have the same goal and same wants in particular way. Brown and Levinson (1987) divide this strategy into six sub-strategies that will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Sub-strategy 1 is asserting speaker‘s knowledge of and concern for

hearer‘s wants. Brown and Levinson (1987) note that this sub-strategy purposes to

assert the hearer‘s wants and willingness based on the speaker‘s knowledge to fit

one‘s own wants within them. The example that is proposed by Brown and

Levinson (1987) is in the utterance ―I know you can‘t bear parties, but this one will really be good – do come!‖ (p. 125).

Sub-strategy 2 is offering or promising. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that offers and promises demonstrate speaker‘s good intention to satisfy the hearer‘s wants. The intention of satisfying the hearer‘s wants claims that the speaker will obtain whatever the hearer‘s wants. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―I‘ll drop by sometime next week.‖

Sub-strategy 3 is being optimistic. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this is the act of assuming that speaker‘s wants is also wanted by hearer and that

the hearer will help the speaker to obtain them. Thus, the speaker presumptuously assumes that hearer will cooperate with him because both of them share mutual interest. The example of the utterance is ―You‘ll lend me your lawnmower for the

(32)

Sub-strategy 4 is including the speaker and hearer in a particular activity. This sub-strategy is done by using an inclusive ‗we‘ form, when the speaker really means ‗you‘ or ‗me‘. By using ‗we‘ form, the speaker wants the hearer to be involved in the activity and eventually become cooperators. The example is in the utterance ―Let‘s get on with dinner, eh?‖ (i.e. you).

Sub-strategy 5 is giving or asking for reasons. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that giving or asking for reason is a way of assuming cooperation between the speaker and the hearer (H wants S‘s desires). This sub-strategy shows that help is needed as in a way of implying ‗I can help you‘ or ‗you can help me‘. The

example is in utterance ―Why don‘t I help you with that suitcase?‖

Sub-strategy six is assuming or asserting reciprocity. This sub-strategy is done by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations which are obtained between speaker and hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It is an act when the speaker and hearer create mutual advantages. The sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―I‘ll give you pizza if you win the competition.‖

3) Fulfilling Hearer’s Want

The third mechanism is fulfilling hearer‘s wants. It means that the speaker

(33)

with the utterance ―I heard that your son won yesterday‘s singing competition. I am happy for you.‖

c. Negative Politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that negative politeness is a redressible action addressed to the addressee‘s negative face. It is about the speaker‘s desires to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Negative politeness is more specific and focus rather than positive politeness which is free-ranging. There are four sub-strategies in the mechanism of negative politeness strategy that are classified by Brown & Levinson (1987).

1) Being Conventionally Indirect

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that conventional indirect forms can be seen by asking questions or asserting the felicity conditions underlying the act. The conventional indirectness occurs when the speaker uses phrases or sentences that have contextually unambiguous meaning which are different from their literal meanings. These sub-strategies can be performed when a speaker wants to bother a person for favors, for example, ―Can you shut the door?‖ In this way, the

speaker‘s on record utterance is conveyed indirectly. Brown and Levinson (1987)

add that ―conventional indirectness encodes the clash of wants and partially

achieves them both‖ (p. 132).

2) Avoid Presuming or Assuming

(34)

avoid performing a particular action regarding the hearer‘s belief is through the

use of hedges. For example, the use of ‗if‘ clause suspends the relevant felicity condition, as in the utterance ―Close the door, if you can‖; the use of hedges addressed to Grice‘s Maxim, as seen in the utterance ―I assume that junk food is

not good for health.‖, the hedge ‗assume‘ can suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance; the use of hedge on the relevance maxim to soften the imposition of topic changes, as in the utterance ―I‘m sorry to say this, but…‖ (as cited in Holtgraves, 2002, p.45).

3) Avoid Coercion

A strategy to lessen coercion includes not only conventional indirectness, but also an act which conveys pessimism regarding the appropriateness of the act that is performed by the speaker (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The use of subjunctive and tag questions, as in the utterance ―Would you open the door?‖, are

the output of this strategy. In addition, the other sub-strategies to lessen coercion include attempting to minimize the imposition, humbling themselves (downgrading a compliment), and giving deference (using formal address terms).

4) Communicate a Speaker’s Wants to Not Impinge on Hearer

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that communicating the speaker‘s wants to not impinge on the other can be accomplished by providing an apology which indicates reluctance, as in utterance ―I don‘t want to disturb you, but could you

lend me a hand?‖; admitting the impingement, as in utterance ―I know you are

(35)

borderline the addressee (hearer) from the act that will be delivered by the speaker linguistically. The sub-strategy is impersonalizing the speaker and hearer. For example, the use of pronoun ‗I‘ in ―It‘s wrong‖ rather than ―I tell you it‘s wrong‖;

and pronoun ‗you‘ as in ―Close the door‖ rather than ―You close the door‖; and

the use of passive rather than active instructions as in ―It is expected that students will follow the lesson‖ rather than ―I expect you to follow the lesson.‖

5) Go on Record of Incurring Debt

The last sub-strategy by Brown and Levinson (1987) is going on record of incurring debt or by disclaiming any indebtedness on the part of the hearer. An example of this sub-strategy is the utterance ―I‘d be happy for your help‖ and ―I could easily do it for you.‖

d. Off Record

(36)

1) Inviting Conversational Implicatures

If the speaker wants to do an FTA and chooses to do it indirectly, the speaker must give the hearer some clues. Besides, the speaker hopes that the hearer can interpret what the speaker really means to say. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the basic way to do the FTA is by inviting the conversational implicatures so that the speaker can assume an interpretation that makes the clues understandable. This mechanism is divided into ten sub-strategies that will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Sub-strategy 1 is by giving hints. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy is done by the speaker who says something that is not explicitly relevant. The speaker invites the hearer to find an interpretation of the possible relevance. An example for this sub-strategy is in the utterance ―This soup‘s a bit

bland‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 215). From the utterance, the speaker gives

hints to the hearer to pass the salt.

(37)

Sub-strategy 3 is presupposing prior event. The example of the strategy is in the utterance ―I washed the car again today.‖ The use of again is done by the speaker to force the hearer to find the relevance of the presupposed prior event (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Sub-strategy 4 is by understating what the speaker actually wants to say. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this is an act of saying something less than what is required. The example is in the utterance ―That dress is quite nice‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 218), when the speaker actually means that he does not particularly like it for understated criticism implicating, or the speaker actually likes it very much for understated compliment implicating.

Sub-strategy 5 is overstating. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who exaggerates or chooses a point on scale which is higher than what is required (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It is the opposite of the previous sub-strategy which is understating. The example of the sub-strategy is in the utterance ―There were a million people in the Co-op tonight!‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 219).

Sub-strategy 6 is using tautologies. It is done by the speaker who encourages the hearer to search for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance. As stated by Brown and Levinson (1987), the example is the utterance ―If I won‘t give it, I won‘t,‖ (c.i. I mean it!).

(38)

an interpretation that conforms both contradictory propositions. The example is ―Well, Johnis here and he isn‘t here‖ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 221).

Sub-strategy 8 is being ironic. This is an act where the speaker says the opposite of what he really means. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the speaker can indirectly convey his intended meaning by saying the opposite. The example is in the utterance ―Beautiful weather, isn‘t it!‖ (As said by the speaker to a postman drenched in rainstorm).

Sub-strategy 9 is using metaphors. In this sub-strategy, the speaker uses metaphor and hedges the utterance. By doing this, the speaker invites the hearer to interpret the meaning of the utterance. This sub-strategy is exemplified by the utterance ―Emma‘s a real fish.‖ (c.i. She swims like a fish).

Sub-strategy 10 is using rhetorical question. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker wants to ask a question with no intention for the hearer to answer the question. The example of this sub-strategy is in the utterance ‖What can I do?‖ As said by the speaker who actually has nothing to do.

2) Be Vague or Ambiguous

Being vague or ambiguous is another mechanism that can be used by the speaker to go off record. There are five sub-strategies of being vague or ambiguous that are explained in the following sections.

(39)

a pretty (sharp/smooth) cookie.‖ It could be either a compliment or an insult,

depending on which of the connotations of sharp or smooth are latched on to. Sub-strategy 2 is being vague. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the speaker can go off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object is or what the offence is. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―Perhaps someone did something naughty‖ as said by the speaker to convey criticism.

Sub-strategy 3 is over-generalizing. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker gives a rule instantiation which may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record. Then, the hearer have to decide whether the general rules apply to him. The example is in the utterance ―Mature people sometimes help do the dishes.‖

Sub-strategy 4 is displacing the hearer. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that this sub-strategy happens when the speaker pretends to address the FTA to someone whom it would not threaten. Thus, the speaker expects that the real target will understand that the FTA is aimed at him. The example case of this sub-strategy is stated by Ervin Tripp in which one secretary in an office asks another using negative politeness to pass the stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the stapler than the other secretary (as cited in Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 226). It does not threaten the professor‘s face and he may choose to do it himself as a bonus for the secretary.

(40)

same as rhetorical question. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―Oh sir, a headache…‖ as used by a niece to ask her father‘s younger brother for

an aspirin. This utterance gave him the option of telling her to take a rest rather than dispensing a precious pill.

6. Factors of Politeness Strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that there are two factors which can influence the speaker to use politeness strategies. The factors are the politeness strategies‘ payoffs and the sociological variables.

a. Payoffs

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that payoffs are the expected results of the politeness strategies. When politeness strategies are used by the speaker, there will be the expected result concealed in the strategies. In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that the expected results in applying the strategies must be beneficial for him. Therefore, every politeness strategy has its own advantages for the speaker.

The payoff is classified into four payoffs based on each politeness strategy, namely bald on record payoff, positive politeness payoff, negative politeness payoff, and off record payoff. The following sections discuss the four payoffs. 1) Bald On Record Payoff

(41)

on record strategy, the speaker avoids the possibility of being misunderstood, being seen to be a manipulator, and being dishonest. In addition, the speaker who uses this strategy can have the opportunity to give compensation for the face that has been threatened by the FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

2) Positive Politeness Payoff

Based on Brown and Levinson (1987), one of the advantages for the speaker who applies positive politeness strategy is that he can minimize the threat

of an FTA by assuring the addressee that he is ‗the same kind‘ as the hearer. It

means that the speaker likes the desire that a hearer wants. Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that ―positive politeness is used by the speaker to satisfy hearer‘s positive face in some respects‖ (p. 71). By doing so, the speaker wants to maintain social closeness toward the hearer. The speaker who uses positive politeness can value what the hearer has by giving compliments towards the hearer. Therefore, the speaker can also avoid or minimize the debt implication of doing the FTA by referring to the relationship between speaker and hearer. 3) Negative Politeness Payoff

Negative politeness is a strategy that is used by the speaker to satisfy hearer‘s negative face. Brown and Levinson (1987) explain that by using negative

(42)

perceiving the speaker‘s request. The speaker who uses negative politeness will clarify that he does not really expect the hearer to say ‗Yes‘ in perceiving the

speaker‘s request unless he wants to. Thereby, the speaker can minimize the

mutual face loss incurred if the hearer has to say ‗No‘. Furthermore, the speaker can avoid the threat of advancing familiarity towards the hearer by maintaining social distance (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

4) Off Record Payoff

Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the off record strategy is used by the speaker to satisfy the hearer‘s negative face and to minimize the threat which the speaker makes towards the hearer in a greater degree. By applying the off record strategy, the speaker can have profit in the following ways: the speaker can get credit for being sympathetic and non-coerciveness, avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation, and give the hearer an opportunity to be seen to care for speaker so that he can test hearer‘s feelings towards him.

b. Sociological Variables

(43)

1) Social Distance

As stated by Brown and Levinson (1987), social distance is ―symmetrical social dimension of similarity or difference‖ (p. 76). Moreover, Holmes (2001) describes that the dimension deals with the judgment of the relationship between the speaker and hearer. Thus, intimacy between the speaker and hearer affects the choice of the strategy.

Social distance also discusses how stable social attributes (age, social class, and ethnic background) affect the relationship between the speaker and hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In other words, it indicates the intimacy between the speaker and hearer whether they have close or distant relationship. If the speaker has high intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose the least polite strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record strategies. Meanwhile, if the speaker has less intimacy with the hearer, the speaker will choose more polite strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies.

2) Relative Power

(44)

3) Rank of Imposition

The last sociological variable is rank of imposition. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that ―the rank of imposition is the degree of a matter that is considered as the interference to the face of the hearer‖ (p. 77). The interference itself is the FTA that the speaker made. In other words, the degree of the FTA defines the rank of impositions. A speaker who wants to impose the hearer‘s negative face will choose more polite strategies as in negative politeness and off record strategies. Meanwhile, a speaker who wants to impose the hearer‘s positive face will choose less polite strategies as in positive politeness and bald on record strategies.

B. Review of Related Research

In this section, the writer will review other related studies previously done by other researchers. There are two studies that will be reviewed by the writer.

The first study was written by Oktorio (2015) entitled A Study of Politeness Strategies Used by The Four Main Characters of Yes Man. The study analyzed the types of politeness strategies that were used by the four main characters and the factors that influenced the four characters in using politeness strategies. The theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) about the types of politeness strategies and the factors in choosing the strategies was employed in the study. Oktorio (2015) applied document analysis method and used the movie script of Yes Man movie.

The second study was written by Gloria (2016) entitled The Use of Brown

and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies as seen in Elizabeth Gilbert’s Eat Pray Love.

(45)

Gloria (2016) analyzed the politeness strategies employed in a novel. The study discussed how the main characters of the novel used politeness strategies and what factors that affected them in choosing the politeness strategies. The theory of politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and the theory of Holmes (2001) about the factors affecting the use of politeness strategies were employed in the study. Gloria (2016) implemented a document analysis method in which it was associated with discourse analysis since the study was a socio-pragmatic research of a novel.

(46)

C. Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this study is to analyze the implementation of politeness strategies which are done by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show. There are two research questions, namely the types of politeness strategies implemented by Ellen and the U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show and the factors which influence the choice of politeness strategies in the conversation between Ellen and the politicians in the talk show. Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory is used to underlay the writer in analyzing the study to answer the research questions.

In order to answer the first research question, the writer uses Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) politeness strategies theory to analyze the utterances that are

produced by the speakers. Brown and Levinson (1987) elaborate the politeness strategies theory into four strategies, namely bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record strategy. The writer applies the four strategies to analyze the utterances which are produced by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show and classify the types of strategies that are used by them.

Meanwhile, in order to analyze the factors which affect the choice of the

strategies, the writer also uses Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) theory. Brown and

(47)

33 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a methodology rationale which is used to find the data for this study. This chapter is divided into four parts, namely the research method, research setting and data source, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In this study, the writer focused on the implementation of politeness strategies used by Ellen DeGeneres and U.S. politicians in a talk show namely The Ellen Show. The method used by the writer aimed to answer two research

questions. The two research questions in this study are (1) Which politeness strategies are used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show? and (2) What are the factors that influence Ellen and the politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show? This study discussed how language was used in a social context especially in the form of conversation as shown in the talk show. Therefore, the concern of the study was about the way how Ellen and the U.S. politicians implemented the politeness strategies in their conversation in The Ellen Show.

(48)

the politicians and to find the factors that influence the choice of the strategy. The goal of this qualitative research is a depth understanding in narrative description and interpretation, rather than a numeric data analysis (Ary, et al. 2002). Meanwhile, to answer the research questions, the writer applied a discourse analysis method since it concerned how language was used in the communication between Ellen and U.S. politicians (see Chapter 2, section A, p. 8). In this study, the utterances of the subjects that carried politeness strategies were discussed. The utterances became the model of how language was used in context. Therefore, discourse analysis method was considered as the most appropriate method for this study since it dealt with language used in social interactions.

B. Research Setting and Data Source

The writer started to analyze the data on November 10th, 2016. Specifically, the writer watched the clips of the talk show in order to know which politeness strategies that were used by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show. The talk show was televised in United States (U.S.) as one of the most favorite talk shows. The clips and the transcripts of the dialogue between Ellen and the politicians was provided in the clips uploaded by The Ellen Show You Tube channel.

(49)

The utterances that were analyzed in this study were produced mainly by three speakers in the talk show. The first speaker was Ellen DeGeneres as the host of the daytime talk show named The Ellen Show. Ellen DeGeneres is one of the most popular comedians and the host of a successful daytime talk show. She started her career as a stand-up comedian in the early 1980s. As a film actress, there are several movies that are starred, such as Mr. Wrong (1996) and The Love Letter (1999). She also dubbed the voice of Dory in the Pixar animated films

Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016). She becomes the host in The

Ellen Show since 2003. In hosting, she always creates an interesting performance

in every episode in The Ellen Show. She creates a pleasing atmosphere and sometimes she makes some jokes to entertain the audience and guest stars. The Ellen Show earned positive reviews and solid ratings across nation (―Ellen

DeGeneres, The Ellen Show‖). Moreover, The Ellen Show was nominated in

Emmy Award in 2004. That was a successful year for Ellen and The Ellen Show in

the early debut of the talk show.

(50)

Parameswaran (2009) states that American news media recorded the euphoric reaction of citizen around the world in the aftermath of the inauguration ceremonies.

The third subject was the President candidate of the United States of America Election 2016, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. In the time the writer conducted this research, Hillary Clinton was joining a campaign as the President Candidate of USA. She was born on October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois. She married Bill Clinton in 1975 and have a daughter named Chelsea Clinton. In her career she was elected as the first female senator from New York in 2000 and became a Secretary of State in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013. As stated by Taylor, Lord, McIntyre, and Paulson (2011), Hillary Clinton was in the top three most frequently mentioned successful woman. She was an advocate for gender equality and healthcare reform. In addition, she was appointed by President Carter to the board of Legal Service Corporation and won a Grammy for her recording of her book It Takes a Village (Taylor, et al., 2011).

C. Data Gathering Technique

(51)

the U.S. politicians. Further, the writer selected and collected the utterances which are produced by the speakers which carried politeness strategies. Thus, the selected utterances were used to find out the factors which influence the choice of politeness strategies.

Meanwhile, in conducting the research, the writer acted as human instrument. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that the writer as a human instrument has the ability to collect information concerning multiple factors simultaneously. Similarly, the writer employed some information taken from books, journals, internet, and previous studies in terms of supporting the process of data analysis.

D. Data Analysis Technique

All the utterances produced by Ellen and U.S. politicians were taken from the transcripts of the talk show. The writer analyzed the utterances in order to know how the speakers conveyed the messages and intentions. Meanwhile, there were three steps that were used by the writer to answer the research questions.

First, the writer made a checklist in the form of a table that contains the speakers, the utterances, and what politeness strategies were used. There were four types of politeness strategies written in the table, namely bald on record (BoR), positive politeness (PP), negative politeness (NP), and off record (OR). Thus, the purpose of the checklist was to classify which politeness strategies used by Ellen and U.S. politicians in the talk show.

(52)

is shown in Table 3.1. Meanwhile, the completed data analysis was presented in Appendix A. Furthermore, the selected utterances from the table were analyzed to answer the first research question by using Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness strategies theory.

Table 3.1 The Categorization of Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show

Speakers Utterances Politeness Strategies

Ellen Mr. President, it has been

awhile since we‘ve spoken. You look great. How are you?

PP

Barack Obama Ellen dog bowls are

somewhere. I‘m sorry, but…

NP

Hillary Clinton Don‘t let all the wonderful, beautiful

At last, the writer identified the utterances which carried politeness strategies that were described in the first research question‘s discussion to find out what factors that influence the speakers to use certain politeness strategy. Thus, the writer also used Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory to find out what factors that influence the speakers to use certain politeness strategies.

(53)

39 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussions to answer the research questions which were formulated in the first chapter. The first research question discusses the politeness strategies used by Ellen and the politicians in The Ellen Show. The second research question discusses the factors that influence Ellen and

U.S. politicians in using politeness strategies in the talk show.

A. The Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and the U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show

This section elaborated the results of the analysis of the utterances which were spoken by Ellen and U.S. politicians in The Ellen Show. Ellen was the host of the talk show while the U.S. politicians were the guest stars of the talk show. The selected U.S. politicians were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

(54)

Table 4.1 Politeness Strategies Found in The Ellen Show

Speaker

Politeness Strategy Positive

Politeness

Negative Politeness

Bald on

Record Off Record

Ellen 18 5 12 2

Barack Obama 14 1 1 -

Hillary Clinton 6 2 2 2

Total 38 8 15 4

The analysis of the politeness strategies used by the three speakers was elaborated in the following discussion based on the most frequent strategy until the infrequent one.

1. Positive Politeness Strategies Found in The Ellen Show

The function of positive politeness is to redress the addressee‘s positive face. Positive politeness has the basis to fulfill hearer‘s positive face by satisfying

their desire. It refers to the speaker‘s action to minimize the distance with the

hearer by using the intimate language. The speaker makes the hearer feel being accepted, respected, and wanted.

The three speakers in The Ellen Show applied the positive politeness while doing the conversation. The positive politeness strategy was shown through three mechanisms, namely claiming common ground, conveying that speaker and hearer are cooperators, and fulfilling hearer‘s want. From the data, the writer

(55)

The first mechanism of positive politeness was claiming common ground. It indicated that both speaker and hearer shared the same wants, including goals and values. In using this mechanism, the speaker wanted to satisfy the hearer that

hearer‘s desire was interesting to the speaker as well. There were three

applications of the sub-strategies in claiming common ground that were found in the talk show, namely exaggerating interest, intensifying interest to hearer, and using jokes. Dialogue 1 showed the application of exaggerating interest by Ellen and Obama.

The exaggerating interest or the positive politeness was labeled as ‗PP‘. Dialogue 1

Clip Title : Pres. Barack Obama on Ellen Breaking his Twitter Record Time : 03.59 – 04.34

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Obama : We were on a trip to New York, and the gap announced that they were gonna make sure that all their employees at least got paid $10 an hour, so they're increasing their wages for tens of thousands of employees across the country, and since we've been saying that America deserves a raise, and we should provide a minimum wage of at least $10.10 an hour. I thought it was great for me to be able to go frequent a store. That's doing right by their employees.

Ellen : Good for you.

Obama : I thought that was really important.

Ellen : [cheers and applause] Good for you. That's fantastic. (PP) (Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 78)

(56)

the audience that he was also satisfied to be able to visit the gap. Ellen responded Obama by saying ―Good for you. That‘s fantastic.‖ The word ‗fantastic‘ indicated

that Ellen was impressed by Obama‘s action. Moreover, in saying the word

‗fantastic‘, Ellen used the exaggerated stress to show her interest in Obama‘s statement and keep his positive face.

Intensifying hearer‘s interest was the next example of claiming common ground. It represented the way how the speaker communicated with the hearer to give contribution by making a good story to intensify hearer‘s interest. The use of exaggerated facts was one of the techniques to intensify the hearer‘s interest. Dialogue 2 showed the conversation between Ellen and Obama that was consisted

of intensifying hearer‘s interest mechanism. The intensifying interest or positive

politeness was labeled as ‗PP‘.

Dialogue 2

Clip Title : President Obama Discusses His Daughters Time : 01.02-1.24

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Obama : They don‘t have an attitude, they‘re courteous and kind to everybody. They work hard, they don‘t feel like they‘re entitled anything.

Ellen : Well, they have great parents. Both you and Michelle are really, really amazing. Michelle is such a strong, wonderful role model for all women. And she has been a great First Lady. (PP)

Obama : I agree, that I agree with. [Audience applause] (Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 85)

(57)

Responding to Obama‘s story, Ellen stated another related good story that could increase Obama‘s interest. Ellen said the good story to intensify her interest towards Obama‘s story. She shared her opinions about Obama and his wife,

Michelle, who have been raising Malia and Natasha. Moreover, Ellen used

exaggerated facts by saying, ―Michelle is such a strong, wonderful role model for

all women.‖Here, Ellen was trying to intensify Obama‘s interest by stressing her

good intention to give her opinions and expressing them dramatically.

Dialogue 3 also showed the use of intensifying interest to hearer mechanism in the conversation by Hillary Clinton. The use of intensifying interest to hearer or positive politeness was labeled as ―PP‖.

Dialogue 3

Clip Title : Hillary Clinton Catches Up with Ellen Time : 03.21-03.33

Participants : Ellen and Hillary

Ellen : You have a grand-daughter called Charlotte now.

Hillary : I do, yes. Yeah, she is going to be one year old on September 26. Ellen : That‘s a cute age.

Hillary : Yeah. On my way here, I stopped by just to see her, so that I could kinda catch a glimpse…(PP)

(Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 80)

Dialogue 3 showed the conversation between Ellen and Hillary who talked

about Hillary‘s grand-daughter. In responding to Ellen‘s statement, Hillary told a

(58)

Another example of claiming common ground was the use of joke. The use of joke explained that both the speaker and hearer shared the same background knowledge. The speaker put the hearer at ease so that it could minimize the threat from the speaker. Dialogue 4 showed the conversation between Ellen and Obama that consisted of joke. The use of joke or positive politeness was labeled as ‗PP‘.

Dialogue 4

Clip Title : Pres. Barack Obama on Ellen Breaking His Twitter Record Time : 00.11 – 00.23

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Ellen : Mr. President, it has been a while since we‘ve spoken. You look great. How are you?

Obama : I am doing great. You look wonderful also.

Ellen : Well, thank you so much for saying that. You didn‘t have to just because I said you look good, but that was nice of you. [Audience laughing] (PP)

Obama : It is true.

(Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 78)

The dialogue showed that Ellen greeted President Obama as her guest star via video call. She greeted Obama by giving him a compliment towards his appearance and asking him about his life. In order to satisfy Ellen‘s positive face,

Obama replied her with the compliment also. However, Ellen responded Obama by using a joke. Ellen said that Obama did not need to pay her compliment. However, Ellen immediately said ―that was nice of you‖ to Obama. This approach was done by Ellen because she wanted to put Obama at ease and to save his positive face from the threat.

(59)

Dialogue 5

Clip Title : Pres. Barack Obama on Ellen Breaking His Twitter Record Time : 00.24-00.48

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Ellen : I don‘t know if you know this, but I was aiming to break your record of retweets, and I apologize for doing it, but I broke your retweet record. (PP)

Obama : I heard about that. I thought it was a pretty cheap stunt myself, getting a bunch of celebrities in the background.

Ellen : That‘s the only thing— Obama : You feeding them pizza? Ellen : Yeah.

(Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 78)

Ellen told Obama that she broke his retweets‘ record. Obama‘s role as a

president of course gave so many influences in his daily life including his existence in social media. However, Ellen had broken Obama‘s record of retweets

in one of his social media, namely Twitter. Ellen was aware that her utterance

might threaten Obama‘s positive face. She might make Obama embarrassed since

they were having a live talk show. Thus, Ellen used a joke in delivering her intentions to Obama.

Another mechanism of positive politeness is conveying that speaker and hearer are co-operators. This mechanism indicates that both speaker and hearer are involved in the same activity. The speaker and hearer are cooperatively connected by a relevant activity. By cooperating, the speaker and the hearer share the same goals. Furthermore, giving offer and promise are the examples of the sub-strategies in conveying the speaker and hearer as co-operators.

(60)

intentions in satisfying hearer even though he could be wrong. Dialogue 6 showed the use of offering by Obama. The utterance of using offer was labeled as ‗PP‘ as the part of positive politeness.

Dialogue 6

Clip Title : Pres. Barack Obama on Ellen Breaking His Twitter Record Time : 03.23-03.32

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Ellen : I hate to say, but I hope they get tattoos. I really do.

Obama : Ellen, you should be a part of this. You should pledge to also get a tattoo with us. (PP)

(Full transcript can be seen in Appendix B, p. 78)

The dialogue above showed Ellen and Obama‘s conversation about making

tattoos. Ellen talked to the audience about her wish that Obama and his wife would have the tattoos. Then, Obama offered Ellen to get tattoos with them as well by saying, ―you should be part of this…‖ By saying that, Obama wanted to

demonstrate his good intention and to satisfy Ellen‘s positive face.

The use of promise was shown in Dialogue 7 when Obama gave his promise to Ellen and the audience. The use of promise was labeled as ‗PP‘ as the part of positive politeness.

Dialogue 7

Clip Title : Pres. Barack Obama on Ellen Breaking His Twitter Record

Time : 03.03-03.27

Participants : Ellen and Obama

Ellen : If your daughter got tattoos, that you and Michelle would also get the same tattoo in the same place, and you‘ll take a family photo of all the tattoos.

Gambar

Table 3.1 The Categorization of Politeness Strategies Used by Ellen and U.S. Politicians in The Ellen Show
Table 4.1 Politeness Strategies Found in The Ellen Show

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Saran dari hasil penelitian ini antara lain adalah perlu ada koordinasi perijinan usaha pariwisata antara BTNK dan Pemerintah Kabupaten Jepara yang lebih intens;

Maka dinyatakan Pelelanoan Gaoal, hasil evaluasiselengkapnya sebagaimana terlampir. Demikian untuk menjadi

Sesuai dengan jadwal yang tertera dalam SPSE dan sehubungan dengan akan dilaksanakannya pembuktian kualifikasi kepada peserta seleksi umum paket pekerjaan Pengawasan

Mulyasa (2002) menyatakan bahwa evaluasi hasil belajar dalam implementasi kurikulum berbasis kompetensi dilakukan dengan : a) penilaian kelas yaitu menggunakan ulangan harian,

Berdasarkan tabel 4, dapat diketahui bahwa kinerja pegawai pada LKM yang memberikan insentif lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan LKM yang tidak memberikan

partai maupun individu. Ada fakta bahwa terlalu banyaknya pemandangan umum anggota DPRD didalam fraksi yang perlu didengar, akhirnya kinerja Parlemen melemah.

Kesimpulan dari penelitian adalah modifikasi habitat yang berupa perlakuan variasi jenis pupuk berpengaruh terhadap frekuensi kehadiran arthropoda tajuk pada tanaman tomat,

Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah variasi rasio mol sikloheksanon : benzaldehida berpengaruh pada sintesis benzilidinsikloheksanon.. Rasio mol sikloheksanon