A STUDY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE POLITENESS
STRATEGIES IN DAILY CONVERSATION AS SHOWN IN
HENRIK IBSEN’S
A DOLL’S HOUSE
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofSarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA Student Number: 03 4214 042
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA 2007
what we know,
we couldn t turn our
heads:
if we were at the
mercy of what
we understand,
our eyes couldn t see:
discovery is
praise
understanding is
celebration
(A.R. Ammons)
f or my beloved D ad and M om
Praise to God that finally I can finish my thesis. I have to thank so many
people who have supported me with their love, guidance and prayer. My highest gratitude goes to Jesus Christ for blessing me all my life and for guiding me in writing my undergraduate thesis.
I would like to thank Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M. Pd., M. A., my advisor, for his guidance, suggestions and time during the writing of my undergraduate thesis, and to
Adventina Putranti, S. S., M. Hum. as my co-advisor who has given several essential inputs in finishing this thesis.
I also thankall the lecturers for their guidance during my years of study,all the staffs of English Letters and Sanata Dharma University library for all the help. I thank them also for facilitating me and for the cooperation during my years of
study in Sanata Dharma University.
I also would like to show my gratitude tomy beloved parents andbrothers for supporting me in writing my undergraduate thesis. I am so happy to share my life
with all of them. I give special thanks to Maria Sri Ismayasari, who has been my soulmate, support and extra motivation. I thank her for encouraging me to finish my
thesis as soon as possible.
My special thanks also go to my best friends that have been so kind to me:
Yeri, Boim, Ajeng, Prita, Tyas, Tombro, Dika, Bagor, Vendhuz, Kosep, Tyo, Cosmaz, Mbings, Frida, Mbendol, Bayang, Richard, Tum-Tum, Ela, Dody,
Sushit, and Nitnot. I thank them for the happy and sad moments that we have shared. Thanks to all ofmy friends in academic year of 2003; my friends in Sastra Football Community and those whose names I cannot mention one by one for the supports and good wishes. I would be nothing without them.
Dalmasius Jati Pangarsa.
C. Method of the Study ……… 23
1. Data Collection ……… 23
2. Data Analysis ………. 24
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS ……… 26
A. Henrik Ibsen’sA Doll’s House: the Expressions from the Third Act ……….. 26
B. The Influence of Social Factors to the Power on Politeness ……….. 28
1. Between Men and Women ………. 29
2. Between Husband and Wife ………... 34
3. Between Friends ……… 39
C. The Use of Politeness Strategies by the Characters ……….. 41
1. The Use of Bald On-Record ……….. 42
2. The Use of Positive Politeness ……….. 45
3. The Use of Negative Politeness ………. 47
4. The Use of Off-Record or Indirect ………. 49
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ……… 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………. 55
APPENDIX ……… 57
Speech Acts Expressing Politeness in the Third Act of the Play A Doll’s House ………... 57
DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA. A Study of English Language Politeness Strategies in Daily Conversation as Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2007.
Sociolinguistics or the sociology of language is the field that studies the relation between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live. Developed under the scope of sociolinguistics; politeness is socially prescribed. The relative social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader is one of the most basic factors determining appropriate degree of politeness behaviour in societies. A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was the main source of this thesis since various utterances were found and also because of the patriarchal culture represented through the story.
There are two objectives that will be gained in this thesis. The first objective of this thesis is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the playA Doll’s House. The second objective is to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation.
The analysis is based on the data that are collected regarding three characteristics of linguistics as scientific study; objective, empirical and exact. Initially, the data were collected and analyzed. The total number of dialogues in the third act of the play A Doll’s House is 381. Certain expressions, such as gratitude, sympathy, joke, greeting, compliment, phatic utterances, directive, insults, complaints, disagreements and criticism are found from the dialogues.
To answer the first problem, it is found that personal relationship background and social status are the social factors that influence the power on politeness. The imposing language on the other characters’ circumstances will not take effect if the characters possess equal level of power. The influence of the social factors on English politeness in daily conversation also makes kind of restriction on the characters’ choice of words in a conversation. As for the second problem, the characters use politeness strategies in daily conversation depending on each character’s intention and to whom the characters are speaking to. Moreover, social factors force the characters to change the politeness strategy in the way they talk to the other characters. Bald on-record strategy is used by the characters to deliver complaints, directives, criticisms and insults utterances. Positive politeness strategy is used to minimize the distance or awkwardness between the characters who are involved in the dialogue. Negative politeness strategy is used to avoid imposing language or intruding behaviour in the conversation. Off-record strategy is used to overcome anxiety and to remove some pressure.
ABSTRAK
DALMASIUS JATI PANGARSA. A Study of English Language Politeness Strategies in Daily Conversation as Shown in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2007.
Sosiolinguistik atau sosiologi bahasa adalah ilmu yang mempelajari hubungan antara bahasa dengan masyarakat, yaitu hubungan antara penggunaan bahasa dan struktur sosial tempat masyarakat itu berada. Berkembang dalam lingkup sosiolinguistik, kesopanan ditentukan oleh nilai-nilai sosial dalam masyarakat. Jarak sosial yang berbeda antara penutur dan mitra tutur adalah salah satu faktor yang menentukan tinggi rendahnya tingkat kesopanan di kebanyakan masyarakat.A Doll’s House karangan Henrik Ibsen menjadi sumber data utama skripsi ini karena banyaknya macam ungkapan yang ditemukan dan juga karena budaya patriarkalnya.
Skripsi ini mempunyai dua tujuan. Tujuan pertama adalah untuk mengetahui faktor-faktor sosial yang mempengaruhi kekuasaan dalam kesopanan seperti yang terdapat dalam babak ketiga drama A Doll’s House. Tujuan kedua adalah untuk menganalisis bagaimana tokoh-tokoh dalam drama ini menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam percakapan sehari-hari.
Analisis didasarkan pada data yang telah dikumpulkan sesuai dengan ketiga ciri linguistik sebagai penelitian ilmiah, yakni objektif, empiris, dan pasti. Pertama, data dikumpulkan dan dianalisis. Jumlah total dialog yang terdapat dalam babak ketiga dramaA Doll’s House ada 381 dialog. Terdapat beberapa ungkapan yang dapat ditemukan dalam dialog, seperti terimakasih, simpati, lelucon, sambutan, pujian, basa-basi, instruksi, cercaan, keluhan, perselisihan, dan kecaman.
Jawaban untuk permasalahan yang pertama adalah sebagai berikut. Latar belakang hubungan pribadi dan status sosial adalah faktor-faktor sosial yang mempengaruhi kekuasaan dalam kesopanan. Pemaksaan kehendak terhadap tokoh lain tidak akan berhasil diantara tokoh dengan tingkat kekuasaan yang setara. Pengaruh faktor-faktor sosial dalam kesopanan berbahasa Inggris pada percakapan sehari-hari juga menciptakan batasan kepada tokoh-tokoh dalam pemilihan kata dalam percakapan. Jawaban untuk permasalahan yang kedua adalah sebagai berikut. Tokoh-tokoh dalam drama A Doll’s House menggunakan strategi kesopanan dalam percakapan sehari-hari tergantung dari maksud pribadi tokoh tersebut atau kepada siapa tokoh itu sedang berbicara. Selain itu, faktor-faktor sosial memaksa para tokoh untuk mengubah strategi kesopanan ketika sedang berbicara kepada tokoh lain. Strategi bald on-record digunakan menyampaikan keluhan, instruksi, kecaman, dan cercaan. Strategi kesopanan positif digunakan untuk mengurangi kekakuan diantara para tokoh yang terlibat dalam percakapan. Strategi kesopanan negatif digunakan untuk menghindari pemaksaan kehendak dalam percakapan. Strategi off-record digunakan untuk mengatasi kecemasan dan untuk menghilangkan tekanan.
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
According to Bernard Spolsky (2004), sociolinguistics or the sociology of language is the field that studies the relation between language and society, between
the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live. Sociolinguistics is a study of language that assumes that human society is made up of
many related patterns and behaviours. As a branch of the scientific study of language, sociolinguistics has grown into one of the most important of the ‘hyphenated’ field of linguistics. The goal of sociolinguistics is to understand communicative competence
by including both linguistic and social factors in the analysis—what people need to know to use the appropriate language for a given social setting.
Developed under the scope of sociolinguistics; politeness is socially prescribed (Wardhaugh, 1990:267). Therefore, the focus of my study is the social aspect and I will analyze the influence of social backgrounds of the speaker-writer
and the listener-reader in the limitations set in choice of the message form. The relative social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader is one of
the most basic factors determining appropriate levels of politeness behaviour in most societies. Brown and Levinson (1987) identify relative social distance as a relevant social dimension in all cultures, though the precise factors which contribute to
determining its importance in any community, and even in a particular interaction
will differ. I will look at the socially controlled choice of forms involved in selecting
an appropriate term with which to address the person to whom the speaker-writer is talking.
According to Holmes (1996), politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others. People may express concern for others’ feeling in various ways, both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects. Apologizing, greeting, opening a door for
another, and avoiding dirty words in conversation with the other people can be all considered examples of polite behaviour. In everyday usage, the term politeness
describes behaviour which is somewhat formal and distancing, where the intention is not to intrude or impose. Being polite means expressing respect towards the person we are talking to and avoiding offending them.
Politeness refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may
take the form of an expression of good-will or ‘camaraderie,’ as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). This definition is derived from the work of Brown and Levinson
(1987), which describes politeness as showing concern for people’s ‘face’. Face is a person’s public self-image (Yule: 1996). It is based on the everyday usage ‘losing
face’ and ‘saving face’. Everybody has face needs or basic wants, and people generally cooperate in maintaining each others’ face, and partially satisfying each others’ face. Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face
needs; first, negative face needs and secondly, positive face needs.
I choose the study of politeness in this study as a topic because some
languages seem to have built into them very complex systems of politeness, including English. Here I will analyze the influence of social background on English daily
conversation. Speech is a social activity and the primary locus of speech is conversation. Conversations take place between two or more participants in social and situational contexts, and linguistic change is one type of phenomena that is
passed from person to person in this situations.
The reason why I selected the playA Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen to be the main source of the analysis because various utterances were found and also because of the patriarchal culture represented through the story. The various samples from the play will help me to understand the influence of social background on English
politeness in daily conversation. Politeness may be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, but in this study I will focus on linguistic politeness, or ways in which
people express politeness through their usage of language.
B. Problem Formulation
The problems that will be analyzed in this study are
1. What social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of
the playA Doll’s House?
C. Objectives of the Study
There are two objectives that will be gained in this study. The first objective of this study is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as
shown in the third act of the playA Doll’s House. The second objective is to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation.
D. Definition of Terms
In studying the English politeness, there are five definitions of terms that will
be used in this study. 1. Politeness
Politeness is an expression of concern for the feelings of others. Politeness
refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may take the form of
an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes: 1996). Politeness shows concern for people’s ‘face’ (Brown and Levinson: 1987).
2. Face
Face is a person’s public self-image (Yule: 1996). The term ‘face’ is a
technical term in this study. While it is based on the everyday usages ‘losing face’ and ‘saving face’, it goes further in treating almost every action (including utterances) as a potential threat to someone’s face (Holmes, 1996:5).
Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face needs:
first, negative face needs or the need not to be imposed upon; secondly, positive face needs, the need to be liked and admired. Behaviour which avoids imposing on others
(or avoids ‘threatening their face’) is described as evidence of negative politeness, while sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards an addressee is positive politeness behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987).
3. Power
Power refers to the ability of participants to influence one another’s
circumstances (Holmes, 1996:17).
Brown and Levinson (1987:77) define relative power in a relationship as the degree to which one person can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of
other people. 4. Speech Act
Speech act is an action performed by the use of an utterance to communicate (Yule: 1996).
5. Speech Event
Speech event is a set of circumstances in which people interact in some conventional way to arrive at some outcome (Yule: 1996).
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter I will discuss the following: review of related studies, review of related theories,A Doll’s House and theoretical framework.
A. Review of Related Studies
Politeness is an important and famous study in linguistics. Besides, the study
of politeness can be done under the scope of sociolinguistics or pragmatics. I find out several studies related to politeness that have been done by other scholars. Simply spoken, when people describe someone as polite, or alternatively when people label
someone rude or impolite, there are many possible aspects of their use of language that might be referring to the description. In the following paragraphs I provide the
examples of related studies and explicate what makes this thesis distinct from other theses.
1.The Application of Brown + Levinson’s Universal Theory of Politeness to Much
Ado about nothing, Measure for Measure, The Taming of the Shrew, and Twelfth
Night, an essay written by Abdelaziz Bouchara (2002)
This essay is an example of the research on politeness. The aim of this research is to observe treatment of the variables power, rank and distance in the speakers as the way to classify their genres (Bouchara, 2002). In this essay, Bouchara
politeness as modified by Brown and Gilman in the study of drama. It is a good
reference for me as the supporting theory for my thesis because this essay explores more in the treatment of the variables power, rank and distance.
2. Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and The Dogs: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis, a
thesis written by Ayid Sharyan (1992)
This thesis is written by Ayid Sharyan before he graduated from Department
of English, Faculty of Education, University of Sana’a. Through this thesis, Sharyan tried to expose insight a universal phenomenon so as to promote tolerance and a
better understanding of cross-cultural settings (1992). This thesis is very useful as the reference for a better understanding of language and cultural parameters influencing by the literary consciousness and also the means and methods of literary
interpretation.
3.Impoliteness in Congreve’s The Way of the World, a thesis written by Antonius Adhi Irianto (2006)
Another example as the reference is the thesis written by Antonius Adhi Irianto (2006) before he graduated from Department of English Letters, Faculty of
Letters, Sanata Dharma University. The objectives of Adhi’s thesis are to identify all impolite blaming and accusing speech act and to find out what are the politeness
strategies violated in the impolite blaming and accusing speech act in William Congreve’sThe Way of the World.
Adhi (2006) focuses on the use of impoliteness in the language of upper class
examples of Comedy of Manners in Restoration Period. It is a play which satirizes
the customs, attitudes and manners of upper class people in Restoration Period. Impoliteness seen in the pragmatic perspective occurs in the speech acts of the
characters during the conversation. Since there are various kinds of speech acts, Adhi (2006) only discusses blaming and accusing speech acts in the playThe Way of the Worldby William Congreve.
B. Review of Related Theories
In this part I explain all theories needed to accomplish this thesis. Principally, there are five theories that shall be used to accomplish this thesis.
1. Politeness
Politeness refers to behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour. In other words, politeness may
take the form of an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). In its simplest terms, politeness consists of this recognition of the
listener and his or her rights in the situation.
Being polite is a complicated business in any language. Being polite means
expressing respect towards the person the speaker-writer is talking to and avoiding offending them. It is difficult because it involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and the cultural values of the community. People often do not
simply as a matter of saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ in the right places (Holmes,
2001:267). In fact it involves a great deal more than the superficial politeness routines that parents explicitly teach their children. Take the word ‘please’ for example.
Children are told to say ‘please’ when they are making requests, as a way of expressing themselves politely. Nevertheless, adults use ‘please’ far less than one might suppose, and when they do, it often has the effect of making a directive sound
less polite and more peremptory.
2. Politeness Strategies
There are four types of politeness strategies described by Brown and Levinson (1987) that sum up human "politeness" behaviour: Bald on-Record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Off-Record (indirect) strategy. This theory will
enable a thorough analysis of the characters dialogue and find out how the characters use politeness strategies when they are speaking.
a. Bald On-Record (1987): this strategy provides no effort by the speaker-writer to minimize threats to the listener-reader’s "face." The speaker-writer will most likely shock the person to whom he or she is speaking to, embarrass the person to
whom he or she is speaking to, or make them feel a bit uncomfortable. However, this type of strategy is commonly found with people who know each other well,
and are very comfortable in their environment, such as close friends and family. b. Positive Politeness (1987): this strategy is used when the speaker-writer
recognizes that the listener-reader has a desire to be respected. It also confirms
in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other
fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the listener-reader’s need to be respected.
c. Negative Politeness (1987): the speaker-writer uses the Negative Politeness strategy which is similar to Positive Politeness in that the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader wants to be respected however, the
speaker-writer also assumes that he or she is in some way imposing on the listener-reader and intruding on his or her space. Therefore, these automatically assume that
there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.
d. Off-Record or indirect (1987): this strategy is used when the main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of the writer. In this situation the
speaker-writer is removing him or herself from any imposition whatsoever.
The application of this theory will be on how a speaker-writer addresses the
other speaker or the listener-reader and how it is performed, whether it is off record or on record. In English, the people tend to use formal speech to address strangers and people of higher status. Meanwhile, informal speech is used to talk with family,
friends and colleagues (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: vii).
3. Scale of Politeness
Politeness and impoliteness is not two poles with two completely different ideas. Semantically speaking, politeness and impoliteness are considered gradable pairs of antonym. Thus, politeness and impoliteness do not provide an absolute scale.
depends on the relationship between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader, the
setting, the topic and many other factors (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: vii). Brown and Levinson, as stated in Sintesis Vol. 2 & 3 (2004) written by I. Praptomo Baryadi, propose three scale of politeness to measure the degree of politeness.
a. Social Distance Scale (2004): the social distance between the speaker-writer and the listener-reader will determine the degree of politeness which is used to
communicate between them. When the social distance between the speakers is getting far, the degree of politeness that they used will be higher. On the contrary,
when the social distance between the speakers is close, the degree of politeness that they used will be lower. The social distance between them is determined by the age, sex and the socio cultural background.
b. Power Rating Scale (2004): the power owned by the speaker-writer will determine the degree of politeness when he or she is speaking to the
listener-reader. When the speaker-writer possesses higher power than the listener-reader, the degree of politeness will be lower when he or she is speaking to the reader. Meanwhile, if the speaker-writer possesses lower power than the
listener-reader, the degree of politeness will be higher when they are speaking.
c. Speech Level Scale from the users’ culture view point (2004): in society, there are
lots of varieties of speech used to communicate. For example, the choice of words of someone when he or she is speaking to the king or president will be different with the choice of words when he or she is speaking to relatives or friends. Some
4. FTA (Face Threatening Acts)
Politeness may take the form of an expression of good-will or camaraderie, as well as the more familiar non intrusive behaviour which is labelled ‘polite’ in
everyday usage (Holmes, 1996:5). This definition derives from the theories proposed by Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987), which describe politeness as showing concern for people’s ‘face’. The term ‘face’ is a technical term in this
approach. It goes further in treating almost every action, including utterances, as a potential threat to someone’s face (Holmes, 1996:5).
Any utterances, including suggestions, advice, and requests, which could be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on another person’s autonomy can be regarded as Face Threatening Acts (FTA).
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face." Face refers to the respect that an individual has
for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Usually people try to avoid embarrassing the other people, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the
hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA's.
Brown and Levinson follow the concept which was firstly proposed by Erving Goffman. According to Goffman, the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken
being polite or being impolite in producing utterances and it is related to the
emotional control of the speaker which a playwright can apply in a character.
Everybody has face needs or basic wants and people generally cooperate in
maintaining each other’s face, and partially satisfying each other’s face needs. Politeness involves showing concern for two different kinds of face needs: first, negative face needs or the need not to be imposed upon; secondly, positive face
needs, the need to be liked and admired. Behaviour which avoids imposing on others (or avoids ‘threatening their face’) is described as evidence of negative politeness, while sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards an addressee is positive politeness behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987).
The speaker-writer uses the negative politeness strategy which is similar to
positive politeness in that the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader want to be respected however, the speaker-writer also assumes that he or she is in some
way imposing on the listener-reader and intruding on his or her space. Therefore, these automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.
While positive politeness strategy is used when the speaker-writer recognizes that the listener-reader has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the
relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. It is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and
5. Language and Power
Since the first objective of this thesis is to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in A Doll’s House, theories on language and power are needed to accomplish this thesis. Language is central to all human experience and society (Littlejohn, 2002:224). People experience is always prefigured by our culture’s language. It comes as no surprise that language is an instrument of
oppression. Those who accept the language essentially accepts its categories of truth and the vast majority of language users do so without question.
Cheris Kramarae, as stated in the book Theories of Human Communication written by Littlejohn, states that language is instrumental in constructing the world we live and that social power arrangements are largely embedded in language
(Littlejohn, 2002:224). Because language is patriarchal, it often creates an unsafe and uncomfortable world for women. Indeed, language makes a world that often silences
women in profound ways (Littlejohn, 2002:224). He adds that since men and women have different experiences based on the division of labour in society, they perceive the world differently. Women are forced by the power inequities in communication to
learn the male system of communication, but men in contrast do not need to learn the language of women.
Women do have their own forms of expression, as they have created their own ways of saying things that lie outside the dominant male system (Littlejohn, 2002:225). Letters, diaries, consciousness-raising groups, and alternative art forms
are the examples.
Scott A. Reid states that although language is not unique to humans, humans
are well equipped genetically and culturally to use words for accomplishing a variety of social acts (1999). Owing to its relevance to the study of social behaviour,
language use has been assimilated and continues to be assimilated in various guises into social psychology and is now wedded to a broad range of topics. Language, however, is not simply a medium for turning a power into influence. Depending on
how the threat is worded and the tone of voice in which it is delivered, the influence attempt can have varying degrees of success (Reid, 1999). For this reason, language
should not be seen solely as a passive conduit of power but as an active co player in the exercise of power.
Relative power or hierarchical status is another important consideration in
determining the appropriate degree of linguistic politeness (Holmes, 1996). Power refers to the ability of participants to influence one another’s circumstances (Holmes.
1996:17). It has been defined as the possibility of imposing one’s will upon other persons’, or the ability to control the behaviour of others.
In a conversation, the person who has more power may change the subject
when he or she is not comfortable with the previous subject in order to control the conversation (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: 97). Brown and Levinson (1987:77) define
relative power in a relationship as the degree to which one person can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of other people. The distribution of power in a particular context may derive from a variety of sources – money, knowledge, social
C. The playA Doll’s House
A Doll’s House is a famous classic modern play by Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), a Norwegian playwright. A Doll’s House is a play with its heroine, Nora, who abandons her husband and family. The play itself was written in 1879 and employed a lot of ‘everyday speech’, just like what the people usually use in daily conversation. Besides, the theme of the play also concerns with social issues in society, especially
in a family.
In some plays there are several sets, sometimes in sharp contrast, but in A Doll’s House there is only one set, and perhaps the readers come to feel that this omnipresent room is a sort of prison that stifles its inhabitants or, as the title of the play implies, that this room keeps its inhabitants as a distance from the realities of
life.
Some readers see the A Doll’s House is a play about a women’s place in a man’s world, or a play about women’s rights, but Ibsen himself, years after writing the play, said he had a larger theme: “I am not even sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has been a question of human rights.” Certainly the play deals, as Ibsen implies, with the enslavement of one person by another (Barnet, Burto, Ferris and Rabkin, 2001: 552).
The study of politeness under the scope of sociolinguistics is relevant in this work because of several reasons. First, the characters of the play come from different background. The different background can be seen from their education, economic,
the play is dissimilar since the relation between the characters is different. For
examples, the relation between Nora and Torvald are husband and wife, Torvald and Mrs. Linde are strangers, Nora and the maid are master and servant. Third, this play
is a modern play that employs lots of everyday speech on the dialogue between its characters. This is a guarantee that exaggerations are hardly to find in this play. This is very important reason since my analysis is based on the dialogue of the characters
that represents the people’s dialogue in daily conversation.
D. Theoretical Framework
Since the objectives of this study are to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of the playA Doll’s House and to analyze how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation, so I will try to explain the contributions of all theories and reviews
mentioned above in solving the problems of the study. It includes the significance of each theory and how they are applied in this study.
Part A, the review of related studies, will help me to explore the data of daily
conversation or utterances from the play A Doll’s House. Since I collect the data from the play, part A is useful because all the researches in the review of related
studies use similar method, which is to take the data from the literary works as the sources. The essay written by Bouchara (2002) is a good reference for this thesis because it applies the same theory on politeness, suggested by Brown and Levinson,
appropriate to the first problem formulation because this thesis is discussing about
power on politeness.
The thesis written by Ayid Sharyan (1992) helps me to understand more about
language and cross cultural setting. It is very useful since my thesis is developed under the scope sociolinguistics. While the thesis written by Antonius Adhi Irianto (2006) takes a role as the imaginary border for my thesis because Adhi’s thesis is
developed from pragmatics views point although it is also talking about politeness. I assure that my thesis is distinctive from researches mentioned in part A
because I also use a different literary work from different culture and time. Optimistically, various utterances will be found because the corpus of the data is a modern play,A Doll’s House, which has various conversations in different situations or circumstances. Basically, the review of related studies will take a role as the supporting theories to provide the data to be analyzed.
Part B, the review of related theories, has a role as the main theories that I am going to use to analyze the data found in the play. The theories in part B is very useful to analyze the various data that I found from the play using the supporting
theories in part A. First, the theory on politeness is necessary because this thesis is a study about politeness from the scope sociolinguistics. Better understanding on
the setting and the background of the story to the language that is spoken or uttered
by the characters.
Second, the politeness strategies are important to execute a thorough analysis
of the characters dialogue and find out how the characters use politeness strategies when they are speaking. Thirdly, the theory on scale of politeness is needed to measure the degree of politeness that is used by the characters of the play during the
conversation. Fourthly, the theory on Face Threatening Acts (FTA) is needed to support the theory on politeness and the theory on politeness strategies. It is because
politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' face. It will determine how far the speaker being polite or being impolite in producing utterances and it is related to the emotional control of the speaker which a playwright can apply in a
character. The theory on politeness, politeness strategies, the scale of politeness and the FTA are mostly used to solve the second problem formulation.
The fifth theory, the language and power theory is required to analyze thoroughly the relation between language and power that represent in the play through the conversation between the characters. This theory is combined with the
other theories mentioned above are essentially needed to solve the first problem formulation. Hopefully, the studies in part A and the theories in part B will be useful
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
Chapter III of this thesis covers three parts: Object of the Study, Approach of the Study and Method of the Study. Object of the Study shows the play analyzed in this thesis, a brief summary of the play and records concerning the play A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. In Approach of the Study I present the linguistic approach used to analyze the data from the play. In the last part, Method of the Study, I provide
the steps taken in doing the analysis in this thesis.
A. Object of the Study
This thesis is discussing about the social factors that give influence to the power on politeness as shown in the third act of A Doll’s House and how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation. For these reasons, the primary data of this thesis is the playA Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen.
The play is found in the book “Types of Drama: Plays and Contexts” by Sylvan Barnet, William Burto, Lesley Ferris, and Gerald Rabkin that was published in 2001 in New York by Longman. The play has 30 pages. However, I am focusing
on the last 10 pages since the analysis of this thesis is done using the third act of the play. The play contains lots of conversation in English that can help me to solve the problems in this study.
In order to execute the analysis thoroughly, I simplify the data and I choose
the third act of the play as the source of the data for this thesis. I concentrate on the third act of the play because I can find lots of cases related to politeness strategies
from the conversation between the characters which are related to this study. Moreover, the climax and the resolution part of the play are found in the third act.
Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is a play about a household mother named Nora who tries to live happily in marriage with her husband Torvald Helmer. Both of them came from middle class society, only Torvald possesses better education
background. He works in a bank to earn his family although his background is a lawyer. Nevertheless, the story of the play is developed more to explore Nora’s problem in defending her marriage life. She attempts to cover up a financial problem
from the past in front of her husband. The degree of politeness is reflected through the language during the conversation because the characters possess different
relationship background. At the end of the story Nora decides to abandon her husband and her family although the financial problem is solved. She realizes that she is not more than a doll before her husband when she remains at home.
The play itself was written in 1879 and employed a lot of ‘ordinary speech’, just like what the people usually used in daily conversation. Besides, the theme of the
play also concerns with social issues in society, especially in a family. For these reasons I conclude that the dialogues found in the play may represent the social background of the characters and it appropriates to the problems that I am going to
B. Approach of the Study
I use sociolinguistics approach to solve the problems in this thesis. Therefore, the major theories I use in the analysis are the theories that are developed from
sociolinguistics point of view, such as politeness theory, politeness strategies, scale of politeness, FTA and language and power theory. Bernard Spolsky (2004) says that sociolinguistics or the sociology of language is the field that studies the relation
between language and society, between the uses of language and the social structures in which the users of language live. According to Spolsky (2004), the goal of
sociolinguistics is to understand communicative competence by including both linguistics and social factors in the analysis. In other words, what people need to know is to use the language appropriately for a given social setting.
Wardhaugh suggests four different approaches to study the relationship between language and society. In relation with the problem formulation proposed in
chapter I, to accomplish this thesis I use the first approach from Wardhaugh which stated that social structure may either influence or determine linguistic structure and or behaviour (Wardhaugh, 1990:10).
Sociolinguistics approach is very useful to find the correlations between social structure and linguistics structure and to observe any changes that occur. Social
structure itself may be measured by reference to such factors as social class and educational background, and verbal behaviour and performance may be related to these factors (Wardhaugh, 1990:11).
A Doll’s House is a famous classic modern play written by Henrik Ibsen which concerns with social issues in society, especially in a family. Therefore, the study under the scope of sociolinguistics is considered relevant in this work.
C. Method of the Study
In this part I will explain the methods used in the research, including the data
collection and data analysis.
There are three characteristics of linguistics as scientific study. Those are
objective, empirical and exact (Dinnen, 1967:4-5). Objective means it provides evidences and proofs through the research to reach certain conclusion. The second characteristic is empirical which means that the research will be restricted to the
evidence which can be proven only. Exact means it gives precise explanation about the relation of each other of the elements.
There were two major steps that I used in this study. They were (1) data collection and (2) data analysis.
1. Data Collection
The object of this study was the social factors that give influence to the power on politeness as shown in the third act ofA Doll’s House and how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation, so the object taken as the source was the play itself.
First of all, I read closely the play from the beginning until the end. Having
source of the data. I chose the third act since there I could find lots of cases from the
conversation between the characters which were related to this study.
The playA Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen that I found in the book “Types of Drama: Plays and Contexts” was 30 pages long. However, I took the data only from the third act at the last 10 pages. Then I read the third act thoroughly once again to make sure that various expressions or utterances were found in this act.
I divided the conversation in the third act of the play A Doll’s House into several speech acts based on the participants, the setting and the topic of each speech
act. Later, I tried to make list of various expressions from the third act. I focused on several expressions, such as gratitude, sympathy, invitations, jokes, greetings, compliments, threats, phatic utterances, directives, insults, complaints, disagreements
and criticisms.
2. Data Analysis
The analysis was based on the theories mentioned in the chapter II. There were two points of problem to be analyzed; to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act of A Doll’s House and how the characters of the play use the politeness strategies in daily conversation.
First, I took one part of the conversation from the data that I had collected
before. Then I studied the utterances from the first data. I analyzed what the characters tried to convey through the utterances or what the characters’ responses on conversation. After that, I analyzed the intention or the purpose behind the utterances.
problem formulation. This theory was required to analyze thoroughly the relation
between language and power that represent in the third act of the play through the conversation between the characters. This theory was combined systematically with
the other theories mentioned in chapter II and the relevant point of view from the sociolinguistics approach to understand what social factors influence the power on politeness as shown in the third act ofA Doll’s House. I repeated these steps one by one for each parts of the conversation from the third act of the play.
To answer the second problem formulation, the theory on politeness,
politeness strategies, the scale of politeness and the FTA were mostly used. Using these theories, I tried to divide the utterances from the third act of the play into four categories based on the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson. Once
again, the sociolinguistics approach was needed to give logical reasons in analyzing manner, timing, tendency and intention of the characters when they use either one out
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULTS
In this chapter I would like to show the analysis results of my study. It is
about how the problems I have formulated in chapter I are answered. The theories in chapter II are used to analyze the data that I have collected from the third act of the playA Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. I divide this chapter into three subchapters. The first subchapter is referring to the data and the last two subchapters are referring to the problems that I have formulated at the beginning of this study.
A. Henrik Ibsen’sA Doll’s House: the Expressions from the Third Act
This subchapter contains the first analysis results. I have tried to organize the
data systematically, so it facilitates me to execute the analysis. The total number of dialogues in Act III is 381 and divided into 16 Speech Acts. 6 characters are involved
to contribute the conversation in this act. The data is arranged in Table 1 below: Table 1: The Number of Each Character’s Dialogues
After reading the third act thoroughly, I can find some important facts to be
considered. In each dialogue the number of the sentence is different. Each character’s dialogue may consist of more than one sentence or one sentence only. As what is
mentioned in the data collection in chapter III, I am focusing on certain utterances, such as gratitude, sympathy, invitations, jokes, greetings, compliments, threats, phatic utterances, directives, insults, complaints, disagreements and criticisms. To be more
specific, I compose a table (Table 2) to show the distribution of various expressions found from the third act of the playA Doll’s House. The expressions are taken from the characters’ conversation.
Table 2: The Number of Each Character’s Expressions Expression Nora Helmer Mrs.
Linde
Dr. Rank
Krogstad Maid
1. Gratitude 2 1 1 5 2
--2. Sympathy 2 5 1 -- 1
--3. Invitation -- -- -- --
--4. Joke 1 4 -- 2
--5. Greeting 3 4 5 --
--6. Compliment 4 10 1 3
--7. Threat -- -- -- --
--8. Phatic utterance 3 9 2 1
--9. Directive 14 12 12 7 3
--10. Insult -- 6 -- --
--11. Complaint 3 5 5 1 7
--12. Disagreement 1 5 2 1 4
--Table 2 is significant because it shows that certain expressions are certainly
found from the third act of the play. As the result of the initial analysis, table 2 shows that I cannot find two utterances, invitation and threat, from the third act. Invitation is
not found in third act of the play A Doll’s House because no characters convey invitation utterance. Nonetheless, invitation utterance is found from the play, but it is placed in the introduction part of the story. The introduction part of the story of the
play A Doll’s House is in the first and the second act of the play. Meanwhile, according to the result of the initial analysis, threat utterance is not found from the
play. My consideration for this case is that the rudest expressions found from the third act are categorized insult expressions. Later, in part B and C of this chapter I will exemplify that insult or the other expressions may have role as the threat for
other people based on the theories that I used to analyze the play.
The Maid’s dialogue is not discussed in this study because her utterance
cannot be analyzed partially or separated from other character’s dialogue. Besides, I assume that the Maid’s utterance is a statement of assertion and it is not included as one of expressions that I am going to analyze further.
B. The Influence of Social Factors to the Power on Politeness
To answer the problem formulated in chapter I, I analyzed the third act of the play A Doll’s House entirely. The analysis was done consecutively from the beginning till the end since the form of the data is a discourse. However, I did not put
parts of the discourse from the third act are presented in this chapter because some
data (see Appendix, pp.56-58) produce similar analysis results. Basically, the most common cases and the particular cases from the third act that generate a variety of
explanations will be included. 1. Between Men and Women
Various explanations or analysis have been proposed for gender differences in
language use. Out of various explanations, this thesis is developed to analyze gender-based differences in linguistic politeness concerning the differential distribution of
power in society. In this part, I am focusing on the relationship between men and women in general despite of their personal relationship.
This analysis result shows that the power of a man over a woman in the same
social status is the example of social factor that can determine politeness. This relationship is constructed in the play, especially in the third act. In this context, the
social status is observed through the story of the play A Doll’s House. It is likely observed in many communities or societies in reality.
I take some examples from the play to show the influence of social factors to
the power on politeness in the relationship between men and women. Speech Act 2 is the first quote which contains the dialogues between two characters, Mrs. Linde and
Krogstad, when they are involved in disagreement Speech Act 2:
….
Mrs. Linde: I had to talk to you.
Krogstad : Oh? And did it have to be here, in this house?
Come in. We are quite alone. The maid’s asleep and the Helmers
Mrs. Linde: Well then, Nils. Let’s talk.
Krogstad : Have we two anything more to talk about? Mrs. Linde: We have a great deal to talk about.
Krogstad : I shouldn’t have thought so.
Mrs. Linde: That’s because you never really understood me.
Krogstad : What else was there to understand, apart from the old, old story! A heartless woman throws a man over the moment something more profitable offers itself.
Mrs. Linde: Do you really think I’m so heartless? Do you think I found it easy to break it off.
….
(Barnet, Burto, Ferris and Rabkin, 2001:573-574)
Speech Act 2 above illustrates kind of interaction between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, starting from the directive expression used by Mrs. Linde when she is requesting Krogstad to have a talk. From Krogstad’s initial response, I analyze that
the complaint utterance is used as a potential threat towards Mrs. Linde. This threat can be interpreted as intruding utterance on Mrs. Linde autonomy and regarded as a
potential Face Threatening Act (FTA). It is said so because Krogstad shows less emotion control and no effort to soften the response.
Then, the reply from Mrs. Linde indicates that Krogstad possesses more
power, at least to influence Mrs. Linde’s will. The reply shows that Mrs. Linde minimizes FTA by giving logical reply with soften language. Mrs. Linde shows good
emotion control and reduces the attempt to argue further with Krogstad while she is offering to discuss the matter to resolve the conflict (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: 61).
The relationship between language and power is reflected through Speech Act
2. Krogstad who initially possesses more power, observed from the tone of his dialogues, attempts to impose on Mrs. Linde through his argument. However, Mrs.
Linde as the oppressed listener-reader has her own forms of expression to reduce Krogstad’s imposing language. By softening her language, Mrs. Linde expresses respect and avoids offending Krogstad as the person who possesses more power. This
case shows that relative power is another important consideration in determining the appropriate degree of linguistic politeness, fits with Holmes’ theory on language and
power (Holmes, 1996:16).
Furthermore, this case is in line with the theory suggested by Praptomo Baryadi (2004) that power owned by the speaker-writer will determine the degree of
politeness when he or she is speaking to the listener-reader. When the speaker-writer possesses higher power than the listener-reader, the degree of politeness will be lower
when he or she is speaking to the listener-reader. Meanwhile, if the speaker-writer possesses lower power than the listener-reader, the degree of politeness will be higher when they are speaking.
Mrs. Linde and Krogstad posses the equal social status in society. The difference is that Mrs. Linde is a woman and Krogstad is a man. From Speech Act 2,
will. Till the end of Speech Act 2, I analyze that neither Krogstad nor Mrs. Linde is
succeeded to impose their will. Both of them still argue to defend their own opinion. From Speech Act 2, I observe that Mrs. Linde is much more likely than
Krogstad to express friendliness in the way she uses language. Mrs. Linde’s utterances show evidence of concern for Krogstad’s feeling when she is talking to. In correlation with the story of the play, I assume that being polite is Mrs. Linde’s
solution to convince Krogstad about her factual situation in the past.
The other example taken from the third act ofA Doll’s House to observe the influence of social factors to the power on politeness in the relationship between men and women is described through the relationship between Helmer and Mrs. Linde. The next quote, Speech Act 9, contains the dialogues between Helmer and Mrs. Linde
when they greet each other before Mrs. Linde moves out from the Helmers’ house. Speech Act 9:
Helmer : (comes in again). Well, Mrs. Linde, have you finished admiring her?
Mrs. Linde: Yes, and now I must say good night. Helmer : Oh, already? Is this yours, this knitting? Mrs. Linde: (takes it). Yes, thank you. I nearly forgot it. Helmer : So you knit, eh?
Mrs. Linde: Yes.
Helmer : You should embroider instead, you know. Mrs. Linde: Oh? Why?
Helmer : So much prettier. Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and then you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long, graceful curve. Isn’t that right?
Mrs. Linde: Yes, I suppose so ….
Helmer : Whereas knitting on the other hand just can’t help being ugly. Look! Arms pressed into the sides, the knitting needles going up and down-there’s something Chinese about it. …. Ah, that was marvellous champagne they served tonight.
Mrs. Linde: Well, good night, Nora! And stop being stubborn.
Helmer : Well said, Mrs. Linde! Mrs. Linde: Good night, Mr. Helmer.
Helmer : (accompanying her to the door). Good night, good night! You’ll get home all right, I hope? I’d be only too pleased to …. But you haven’t far to walk. Good night, good night! (She goes; he shuts the door behind her and comes in again). There we are, got rid of her at last. She’s a frightful bore, that woman.
(Barnetet al, 2001:575-576)
Unlike the example shown in Speech Act 2, Speech Act 9 is the conversation between man and woman from different social status. From the context, Helmer possesses higher social status than Mrs. Linde and coincidently he is a man. In
general, both of them use phatic utterances to communicate in this excerpt. No serious intentions are expressed to impose one and another.
When Helmer gives advice for Mrs. Linde to embroider it shows that although he has no serious intention, he tries to impose his evaluation towards Mrs. Linde. According to Brown and Levinson (1987:77), only people with higher power can
impose evaluations to the other people. In this dialogue, the distribution of power is derived from Helmer’s knowledge of embroidering.
The different social status or the relative social distance between Mrs. Linde and Helmer is an example of social factor that can determine the appropriate level of politeness behaviour. Phatic utterances, which are used through Speech Act 9, show
that the characters try to reduce awkwardness. From Speech Act 9, I observe that Helmer makes use of this method for the most.
indicates that he wants to make an end on his conversation with Mrs. Linde. Helmer’s
will to make an end shows that he has power to influence Mrs. Linde’s circumstances and it fits with the statement from Tillitt and Bruder in controlling the conversation
(1985: 97). Helmer changes the subject because he is no longer comfortable to talk with Mrs. Linde. Recognizing Helmer’s sign, Mrs. Linde spontaneously says farewell utterance to Nora and later to Helmer. By saying the farewell utterance to Nora
firstly, Mrs. Linde tries to be indirect in delivering her intention. She uses this method to avoid imposing on Helmer.
Beside on the use of phatic utterances, a different social status is observed in the use of the family name when the characters greet each other. According to Holmes (1996:18), these kinds of people want to emphasize social distance. This is
interesting example since phatic utterance and the use of family name have different goal. The use of both methods implies that both of them try to minimize the
awkwardness without fully ignoring the fact that they have different social status and possess different power.
2. Between Husband and Wife
The only husband and wife relationship in the playA Doll’s House is between Nora and Helmer. The result of the analysis shows that the power of a husband over a
wife is the example of social factors that can determine politeness. In reality life, this kind of relationship is constructed in many societies. Interestingly, the playA Doll’s House offers some facts related to power on politeness.
The husband and wife relationship between Nora and Helmer is complicated
and I try to analyze it thoroughly, especially through their use of language according to the theories suggested in chapter 2. As what is said by Scott A. Reid language is
not simply a medium for turning a power into influence. Depending on how the threat is worded and the tone of voice in which it is delivered, the influence attempt can have varying degrees of success (Reid, 1999).
The only husband and wife relationship in the play is the relationship between Nora and Helmer. Let us observe the following dialogues to find out the influence of
social factors to the power on politeness in husband and wife relationship. Speech Act 14:
….
Helmer: What is this? Do you know what is in this letter? Nora : Yes, I know. Let me go! Let me out!
Helmer: (holds her back). Where are you going?
Nora : (trying to tear herself free). You mustn’t try to save me, Torvald! Helmer: (reels back). True! Is it true what he writes? How dreadful! No, no, it can’t possibly be true.
Nora : It is true. I loved you more than anything else in the world. Helmer: Don’t come to me with a lot of paltry excuses!
Nora : (taking a step towards him). Torvald …!
Helmer: Miserable woman …. what is this you have done?
Nora : Let me go. I won’t have you taking the blame for me. You mustn’t take it on yourself.
Helmer: Stop play-acting! (Locks the front door). You are staying here to give an account of yourself. Do you understand what you have done?
I choose this excerpt to be presented in the analysis result because I assume
significant because it is the climax of the story. From this scene, the story goes to the
resolution part. Through the disagreement illustrated in Speech Act 14, Helmer speaks many insult utterances respectively to show his anger and all of them are
directed to Nora. Helmer assumes that Nora is interfering ‘his personal businesses by borrowing money to fulfil the family need. According to Tillitt and Bruder, people generally do not intrude in other people’s personal matters, such as money, because it
will make people angry (Tillitt and Bruder, 1985: 59).
In this case, the insult utterances have a role as a threat to Nora. This threat is
an intruding behaviour which is considered as FTA. Helmer releases his anger since he wants to be respected. He hopes he can have his self-esteem back after the disagreement. Meanwhile, Nora conveys her response not to impose further on
Helmer. She avoids FTA in order to calm down the situation and because she realizes that Helmer wants to be respected as the leader in a family.
Helmer employs his power to control Nora’s behaviour. As the leader of a family he possesses this ability. Helmer utilizes language as the instrument of oppression. The distribution of power in this case may derive from the role in family.
Definitely, as the leader of a family, Helmer feels kind of humiliation after he knows what Nora has done in the past. Nora is forced by power inequity in communication
because she is living in patriarchal society.
Reid that threat can have varying degrees of success (Reid, 1999), Helmer’s intruding
language also receives various responses from Nora.
The other example related to the husband and wife relationship between Nora
and Helmer is in the turning point of the story presented in the next quote. Speech Act 15 is the essence of the whole story of the playA Doll’s House. From the power on politeness view point, the essence of story takes a role as the form of expression
for Nora to escape from Helmer’s intruding behaviour. Speech Act 15:
….
Nora : (shakes her head). You two never loved me. You only thought how nice it was to be in love with me.
Helmer: But, Nora, what’s this you are saying?
Nora : It’s right, you know, Torvald. At home, Daddy used to tell me what he thought, then I thought the same. And if I thought differently, I kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have liked it. He used to call me his baby doll, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls. Then I came to live in your house …
Helmer: What way is that to talk about our marriage?
Nora : (imperturbably). What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hand into
Helmer: There is some truth in what you say, exaggerated and hysterical though it is. But from now on it will be different. Play-time is over; now comes the time for lessons.
….
(Barnetet al, 2001:579-580)
If in Speech Act 14 the patriarchal world helps Helmer to silence Nora in profound way, in Speech Act 15 I reveal that Nora can create her own expressions to escape from Helmer’s intruding language and his patriarchal world. Nora escapes
from Helmer’s intruding behaviour by breaking the socio cultural values in the patriarchal world that constructs the world she lives and overshadows her own
behaviour. Unquestionably, Speech Act 15 is full of criticisms. Nora conveys them deliberately for the most. These criticisms are Nora’s form of expression which is aimed to Helmer to avoid FTA. Principally, these criticisms are spoken to reduce the
threat from Helmer. These criticisms allow Nora to influence Helmer’s will, although Helmer is the person who possesses more power from the beginning.
Nora’s language through her criticisms is supported by Holmes theory. Power is the possibility of imposing someone’s will upon other person’s will (Holmes, 1996:17). This fact is also appropriate with Scott A. Reid theory that language should
not be seen solely as a passive conduit of power, but as an active co player in the exercise of power (Reid, 1999). In addition, Nora’s language through her criticisms is
considered as an expression of good will because eventually the criticisms will bring the disagreement between Nora and Helmer into an end.
Considering the politeness point of view and the patriarchal world explained
which involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and the
cultural values of the society.
3. Between Friends
There are some examples taken from the third act of A Doll’s House to observe the influence of social factors to the power on politeness in the relationship between friends. The next quote presents this kind of relationship between Nora and
Mrs. Linde. The dialogue is about Mrs. Linde’s request on Nora to tell her husband, Helmer, about her secret from the past.
Speech Act 8: ….
Mrs. Linde: Nora … you must tell your husband everything. Nora : (tonelessly). I knew it.
Mrs. Linde: You’ve got nothing to fear from Krogstad. But you must speak. Nora : I won’t.
Mrs. Linde: Then the letter will.
Nora : Thank you, Kristine. Now, I know what’s to be done. Hush …! (Barnetet al, 2001:575)
Speech Act 8 shows the dialogue between Mrs. Linde and Nora as the example of the power significance between friends from the same social status. Mrs. Linde has no ability to impose her plan to Nora and vice versa. From the dialogue, it
is observed that Mrs. Linde speaks less politely to Nora by making a demand on Nora’s autonomy. It is regarded as FTA. Mrs. Linde may speak to Nora in such way
because she recognizes the social status between them. Their relationship background as close friend helps Mrs. Linde to suggest her directives utterances without avoiding FTA. This dialogue is the other illustration which explains that social factors can
The companionship between Dr. Rank and the Helmers is another example
found from the third act of the play A Doll’s House which can show the power significance between friends from the same social status. The next quote shows how
these three characters involve in conversation. Speech Act 11:
….
Nora : Dr. Rank … you are very fond of masquerades, aren’t you? Rank : Yes, when there are plenty of amusing disguises ….
Nora : Tell me, what shall we two go as next time?
Helmer: There’s frivolity for you … thinking about the next time already! Rank : We two? I’ll tell you. You must go as Lady Luck …
Helmer: Yes, but how do you find a costume to suggest that? Rank : Your wife simply go in her everyday clothes …
Helmer: That was nicely said. But don’t you know what you would be? Rank : Yes, my dear friend, I know exactly what I shall be.
Helmer: Well?
Rank : At the next masquerade, I shall be invisible. Helmer: That’s funny idea!
Rank : There’s a big black cloak … haven’t you heard of the cloak of invisibility? That comes right down over you, and nobody can see you.
Helmer: (suppressing a smile). Of course, that’s right.
Rank : But I’m clean forgetting what I came for. Helmer, give me a cigar, one of the dark Havanas.
Helmer: With the greatest pleasure. (He offers his case). Rank : (takes one and cuts the ends off). Thanks. ….
(Barnetet al, 2001:577)
They know each other fairly well. No awkwardness is observed through the
dialogue. The phatic utterances, jokes and the directives expressions which are spoken in the dialogue indicate that Dr. Rank and the Helmer cooperate in
