POLITENESS USED BY DIFFERENT GENDER IN THE
4
THDEMOCRATIC PARTY
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
NI KADEK AYUK ITA SARI DEWI 1201305066
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ARTS AND CULTURE
UDAYANA UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank God, the almighty, Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa for giving me strength
and capability in making this undergraduate thesis complete. I would like to express a
great gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ni Luh Sutjiati Beratha, M.A., the Dean of Faculty of
Arts, Udayana University; I Gusti Ngurah Parthama, S.S, M.Hum. as the Head of
English Department. In completing this report I loved to offer my thankfulness to I
Nyoman Tri Ediwan, S.S., M.Hum. as my first supervisor and Dra. Luh Putu
Laksminy, M.Hum. as my second supervisor, for their most valuable guidance,
advice, and suggestion that provided me for the period of carrying out this
undergraduate thesis.
Nothing is left, I will not forget to express my special deepest gratitude to my
beloved father and mother also for my brother and sister for understanding,
encouragement and prayer that they all have given to me. My appreciation also goes
to all of my best friends, they who always gives me the best suggestion thank for
everything and all of my friends in English Department 2012. Last but not least for I
Wayan Widiadnyana who always support, carries, and cheers me up whenever I am
down while doing this undergraduate thesis. Thank you.
Denpasar, May 2016
iii
1.5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data ... 4
1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data ... 5
iv
2.3.1.1 Bald on Record ... 12
2.3.1.2 Positive Politeness ... 14
2.3.1.3 Negative Politeness ... 19
2.3.1.4 Off Record ... 22
2.3.2 Women’s Language ... 28
2.3.3 Men’s Language ... 34
CHAPTER III POLITENESS USED IN THE 4TH DEMOCRATIC DEBATE ... 36
3.1 Meaning of Politeness ... 36
3.1.1 Bald on Record ... 36
3.1.2 Positive Politeness ... 41
3.1.3 Negative Politeness ... 44
3.1.4 Off Record ... 48
3.2 Women Language ... 50
3.3 Men’s Language ... 54
3.4 Gender and Politeness ... 56
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION ... 58
5 ABSTRACT
Language is a systematic resource for expressing meaning in context and linguistic. As a human, we cannot be separated from interaction among individuals. When we speak with others, there will be misunderstanding or misinterpretation if we do not understand the context and the situation. In order to convey our idea, we must know about the function of languages we produce when we are having conversation with others.
The objectives of this study are to find out the politeness strategies used by the characters
and the women’s and men’s language used by the participants. The data source of this study was taken from 4THDemocratic Debate of Presidential Candidates’ Debate script. The sentences used as the data source were sentences of the conversation which applied the types of politeness strategies in script. The data that has been collected was classified according to the theory of politeness strategy proposed by Brown and Levinson and the theory of women’s and men’s language proposed by Lakoff.
It was found on this study that the participants of this debate applied politeness strategies in expressing their opinion or delivering a statement. The women’s and men’s language features also occurred and expressed by the participants on communicating.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
Politeness has an important role in speech. It is the practical application of good manners.
However what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply
eccentric in another cultural context. The purpose of politeness is to make all of the parties
relaxed and comfortable with one another. In communication politeness strategies are used to
formulate messages in order to save the hearer’s positive face when face-threatening acts are
inevitable or desired. Brown and Levinson outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald
on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect).
Women and men have different ways of talking and hence, of realizing and interpreting
speech acts. Women and men use language in different way because they have different
perception of what language is for. Whereas men use language as a tool to give and obtain
information, women see language as a mean to keeping in touch. Women use more positively
oriented politeness and that men use more negatively oriented politeness. (Holmes, 1995:2).
There several elements of language that women use, as identified by Robin Lakoff in 1975. Of
course, not all women use all of this language all of time, some may question the whole.
Women’s language was distinguished in a number of ways including, hedging, super polite
forms, hyper correct grammar and pronunciation, tag question, speaking in italic, use of
implication, empty adjective approval, special lexicon, question intonation in declarative
statements, sense of humor lacking, speak less frequently, indirect speech, avoid coarse language
are weaker and less certain than men, justifying the treatment of women as having low status and
men’s treatment towards women. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie
Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley participated in Sunday’s NBC/Youtube
Democratic primary debate in Charleston, S.C. They have to use politeness in this debate to
maintain the good image to get support to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next
president of United States. It is interested on how the politeness and the women’s and men’s
language of them expressed on the interview.
1.2 Research Problem
1. What types of politeness expressed by the candidates on 4th Democratic debate?
2. How the politeness strategies applied by male and female candidates?
1.3Aims of The Study
1. To classify and explain the types of politeness expressed by the candidates on 4th
Democratic debate
2. To analyze the politeness strategies applied by male and female candidates
Related to the problems being mention above, this study focused only on the types of
politeness strategies and the women’s and men’s language expressed by Hillary Clinton, Bernie
Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Holt and Mitchell on debate. Four strategies of politeness such as,
bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off record were used to limit the
analysis of politeness strategies.
1.5Research Method
The procedures have important and very influential role to the success of a study. There
were three components of research methods used in this study. The research methods used in
analyzing the collected data in this study were data source, method and technique of collecting
data, and method and technique of analyzing data.
1.5.1 Data source
The data source of this article was taken from the video of the 4th Democratic debate on
Sunday’s NBC/Youtube Democratic primary debate participated by former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley on 17th
January in Charleston, S.C. They have to use politeness in this debate to maintain the good
image to get support to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next president of United
States. The debate was going about two hours, the three Democratic presidential contenders
engaged in heated exchanges on health care, gun control, former president Bill Clinton and other
issues. Besides, it has a lot of politeness sense, in terms of lexicon, structure and intonation.
The study used qualitative method. The data was collected by watching the video
carefully and note taking. The video of the 4th Democratic debate on 17th January 2016 Sunday’s
NBC/Youtube Democratic primary debate was downloaded from website Youtube.com. The
downloaded data that consist of utterances spoken by male and female candidates and the host
transcribed into written form. The transcription of the video was read and the utterances uttered
by the candidates were signed and categorized into four types of politeness strategies based on
the theory of politeness used on this study. The data of women’s language was taken from the
utterances uttered by Michelle and Clinton and the data of men’s language was taken from the
utterances uttered by Sanders, O’Malley, and Holt.
1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data
This study use qualitative analysis. The data found on the video of the 4th Democratic
debate which had been watching and note taking was transcribed and descriptively analyzed
based on the theory applied in this study. The data was selected and analyzed qualitatively by
using the descriptive method in which the collected data was presented and explained one by one
clearly and simply based on the theoretical frame work. The theory used on analyzing the data of
politeness strategies was the theory of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1987), meanwhile the women’s and men’s language was analyzed by using the theory proposed
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPT, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1Literature Review
There are several studies that had been conducted by the previous graduated students in
terms of Politeness. These studies supported on the analysis of politeness. Some analyses
concerned to this study are described as follows:
Lola on thesis (2009) entitled “The Analysis of politeness in Language Function In The
“Elizabeth The Golden Age” Movie”. This study aims to analyze and discusses about the polite
expression in terms of language function and factors that influence the politeness in the Elizabeth
the Golden Age. The data was analyzed based on the theory of politeness, which proposed by
Holmes (1992) and Wardhaugh (1986). The difference of this study with my own study is this
study also analyzed the factor that influences politeness. But this study does not explain about
the strategies of politeness that use in the Elizabeth the Golden Age.
Mustain (2011) on thesis entitled “Speech Function and Politeness in Indonesian
Communication”. In this study, the writer starts the discussion from the speech function and then
goes to the one on politeness theories in communication. The strength of this study is the writer
discussion and explains several types of speech function provided with Indonesian language
examples. The theory that used by the writer is the theory by Gricean maxims. The writer only
discusses how politeness is achieved in Indonesian language communication. He does not
Dewi on thesis (2008) entitled “The use of The Negative Politeness Strategies by The
Master of Ceremony”. In this study aimed to know the types of negative politeness strategies
used by the master of ceremony and to recognize the factors back grounding the MCs applying
those strategies. The data were analyzed based on the theory of politeness proposed by Brown
and Levinson (1978). The strength of this study is in this study, the writer also analyzed the
factor of how the MCs applying negative politeness strategies. But this study does not explain
the reason why the MCs using negative politeness.
Codreanu‟s article entitled“Politeness in Requests: Some Research Findings Relevant for
Intercultural Encounters” from An International Dresmara journal is worth reviewing, the major
aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between indirectness and politeness in requests.
The research project supporting the findings of the paper was undertaken in order to find out to
what extent politeness and indirectness are viewed as overlapping or mutually excluding
categories by Romanians compared to other nationalities, such as the British and the Hebrew.
Another inherent goal of the paper is to provide an example of the socio linguistics instruments
that can be employed in the investigation of the differences and similarities likely to emerge in
intercultural encounters. Thus, we believe that only through similar research undertaken in the
fields contributing to the emerging field of interculturality one can actually trespass the
theoretical assumptions and move on to the identification of the right tools and means through
which intercultural discourse to be approached at a pragmatic level and thus better understood
and taught in educational establishments. If compared with this study, the strength of her study is
on the analysis of the relationship between indirectness and politeness. Her study supports this
Shoshana‟s article entitled “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?”
from Journal of Pragmatic 11 aims to re-examine the notions of indirectness and politeness as
applied to requests. It is argued that (contrary to current theories of politeness) the two notions
do not represent parallel demensions; indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness, The
relationship between the two was examined in a series of experiments designed to tap native
speakers‟perceptions of politeness and indirectness in Hebrew and English. The results indicate
that the two notions are perceived as different from each other: The most indirect request
strategies were not judged as the most polite. The strategies rated as the most polite, on a scale of
politeness, were conventional indirect requests („on record ‟indirectness); the strategies rated as
the most indirect, on a scale of indirectness, were. hints used fom requests („off record‟
indirectness). These results are interpreted in the framework of a suggested model for politeness.
The thrust of the argument is that a certain adherence to the pragmatic clarity of the message is
an essential part of politeness. Politeness is defined as the interactional balance achieved between
two needs: The need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness. This balance is
achieved in the case of conventional indirectness, which indeed received the highest ratings for
politeness. Tipping the balance in favor of either pragmatic clarity or non-coerciveness will
decrease politeness; thus, direct strategies can be perceived as impolite because they indicate a
lack of concern with face, and non- conventional indirect strategies (hints) can be perceived as
impolite because they indicate a lack of concern for pragmatic clarity. The strength of her study
if compared with this study is she analyze the indirectness. Her study support this study on
Overall, all the studies described above have different data that analyzed although some
studies used the same theory to identify the data. The strength and weaknesses found will support
the study, the differences of each study will used as references to make this research reliable.
2.2Concepts
2.2.1 Politeness
Politeness is the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally
defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be
quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context. Politeness is universal, but the way to
show politeness is culturally bound. Politeness is much more influenced by sociocultural aspects
of the speaker. In the process of communication, both speaker and addresser are obliged to
follow the cooperative principles, even when what s/he means is not uttered explicitly. In
communication politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer‟s
positive face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. Brown and Levinson
(1987:56) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness,
positive politeness, and off-record (indirect).
2.2.2 Language and Sex
According to Holmes (1992:164), women and men speak differently. The use of
linguistic variation of a language is closely related to the sex of the speaker. It is claimed that
women are more linguistically polite than men and emphasize different speech function. Holmes
and Lakoff proposed some linguistics feature which consider as the linguistic features of male
Robin Lakoff (1975:53), an American linguist argued one stereotypes of women‟s speech
is that it is more polite than men‟s. He has made this claim, he mentioned a number of linguistic
features, which the subject and the verb of preceding statement is repeated in a question, of
typically reserved polarity, such as: Bill too Luke to the party last night, didn‟t he? Or Louise
and Lucille didn‟t leave together last night, did they? Lakoff claimed that female speakers tend to
make direct assertions, to avoid conflict with addresses.
2.2.3 Gender
There are two concepts of gender, the biological gender and the socially constructed
gender. A text written by Gayle Rubin„s in 1975 discusses gender as a sex/gender system, in
which the social gender is described as enhancing the idea of a biological gender, which in itself
creates gender. It implies that the image of gender image for both sexes is being distorted, due to
gender being socially constructed. In gender theory there is also the discussion of the power
aspect being built into the gender system: a system in which the male is the norm, making the
female the subordinate one of the two genders (Månsson 2010:243-245. Miegel & Johansson
2002:162). The starting point in gender theory then is that the features/traits that we consider as
being feminine or masculine is socially constructed, and has changed throughout history. The
woman is described as being watched/saved, while the man the one watching/saving (Bell 1995,
Miegel & Johansson 2002:158, 165-169).
2.3Theoretical Framework
Politeness is the expression of the speakers‟ intention to mitigate face threats carried by
certain face threatening acts toward another. Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages
in order to save the hearer‟s positive face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired.
Brown and Levinson (1987:56) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record,
negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect).
2.3.1.1Bald on-record
Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer‟s
face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize
face-threatening acts implicitly. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the
addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close
relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends. This bald on record consist of
several strategies as shown below:
(1) Maximum efficiency
This is well known to S‟s and the H‟s face redress is not required. In cases of great
urgency or desperation, redress would actually decrease the communicated urgency.
Example: (1) watch out!
(2) Metaphorical urgency for emphasis
When S speaks as if maximum efficiency is very important, he provides metaphorical
urgency for emphasis.
(3) Metaphorical urgency for high valuation of H‟s friendship
This strategy explain why orders and entreaties (or begging), which have inverted
assumptions about the relative status of S and H, both seem to occur in many languages with the
same superficial syntax-namely, imperatives.
Example: (3) excuse me.
(4) Case of channel noise
It occurs when communication difficulties exert pressure to speak with maximum
efficiency.
Example: (4) come here right now.
(5) Task oriented/paradigmatic form of instruction
Where the focus of interaction is task-oriented, face redress may be felt to irrelevant.
Example: (5) Lend me a hand here.
(6) Power difference between S and H
This strategy used if there are power differences between S and H, and S‟s power is
greater that H, S does not have to redress the expression in order to satisfy H‟s face.
Example: (6) Bring me wine, Parker – yes My Lady.
In doing the FTA, S conveys that he or she does care about H (and therefore about H‟s
positive face), so that no redress is required. Sympathetic advice or warning may be baldly on
record.
Example: (7) be careful! He is a dangerous man.
(8) Permission that H has requested
Granting permission for something that H has requested may likewise be baldly on
record.
Example: (8) yes, you may go.
2.3.1.2Positive politeness
Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer‟s positive face.
They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are
most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. It is used to
satisfy the positive face of the H by approving or including H as friend or as a member of the
group. The S applies positive politeness to give an impression that the S wants the H‟s want or at
least that S wants H‟s face to be satisfied.
This kind of strategy is usually used by people who have known one another in order to
indicate common ground in which S shares H‟s want. Positive politeness contains of 15
strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987:107) as seen below:
Brown and Levinson (1987:108) suggest that S should take notice of aspect of H‟s
condition (noticeable, changes, remarkable possessions, anything which looks as though H
would want to notice and approve of it).
Example: (9) Goodness you cut my hair!
(2) Exaggera (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
This is often done with exaggerated intonations, stress, and other aspects of prosodic, as
well as with intensifying modifiers. The expressions like for sure, really, exactly, absolutely.
Example: (10) he looked incredibly dirty.
(3) Intensify interest to H
Another way for S to communicate to H that he shares some of his wants is to intensify
the interests of his own S‟s contributions to the conversation.
Example: (11) I came down the stairs, and what do you think I see ?
(4) Use in-group identity markers
This strategy includes in-group usage of address forms of language or dialect, of jargon
or slang and contraction and ellipsis as the part of this strategy. Address forms used to convey
such in-group membership include generic names and terms like Mac, mate, buddy, pal, honey,
dear, duckie, luv, babe, mom, blondie, brother, sweetheart, guys, fellas.
(5) Seek agreement
Brown and Levinson (1978:117) explain that the raising of “save topics” allow S to stress
his agreement with H and therefore to satisfy H‟s desire to be right, or to be corroborated in his
opinions. It can be done by repeating part or all of what the preceding S has said in a
conversation.
Example: (13) It is cold tonight, is not it ?
(6) Avoid disagreement
Brown and Levinson (1978:118) Avoid disagreement is the desire to agree or appear to
agree with H leads to mechanisms for pretending to agree.
Example: (14) A: and they have not heard a word, huh?
B: Not a word, Not at all, except Mrs.Han maybe.
(7) Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
Stated by Brown and Levincon (1978:122) gossip, small talk is the value of S‟s spending
time and effort on being with H, as a mark of a friendship or interest in him, gives rise to the
strategy pf redressing a FTA by taking for a while about unrelated topics.
Example: (15) A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum.
B: yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know.
(8) Joke
Brown and Levincon (1978:129) pointed out the Joke is stressing shared background
Example: (16) Ok, if I tackle those cookies now, how about lending me this old heap of junk?
(9) Assert or presuppose S‟s knowledge of and concern for H‟s wants
This strategy is implying knowledge of H‟s wants and willingness to fit one‟s own wants
in with them by using negative question, is one way in indicating that S and H are cooperators,
and thus potentially to put pressure on H to cooperate with S.
Example: (17) I know you cannot bear parties, but this one will be good to come!
(10) Offer, Promise
The S may claim that whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain in order
to redress the potential treat of some FTAs.
Example: (18) I will drop by something next week.
(11) Be optimistic
It works by minimizing the size of the face treat, implying that it is nothing to ask or that
the cooperation between S and H means that such small things can be taken for granted.
Example: (19) I have come to borrow a cup of flour.
(12) Include both S and H in the activity
Brown and Levinson (1978:132) stated this strategy is using an inclusive “we” form,
Example: (20) Let‟s have a cookie, then.
(13) Give (or ask for reason) reasons
When S gives reasons as to why he wants what he wants. They add that giving reasons is
a way implying “I can help you” or “you can help me” and assuming cooperation, a way of
showing help is needed.
Example: (21) Why do not we go to the seashore?
(14) Assume or assert reciprocity
This strategy is in order to declare the cooperation between S and H and therefore to
soften the FTA by negating the debt aspect and the face-threatening aspect of utterance act such
as criticism and complaint.
Example: (22) I will give you the bonus if you can sell me a machine.
(15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
S may satisfy H‟s positive face wants by giving gifts, but not only true gifts there are also
human relation wants such as the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened,
and so on.
Example: (23) I am sorry to hear that.
2.3.1.3Negative politeness
Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer‟s negative face and
be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment
than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to
remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through
distancing styles like apologies. It is used to indicate that S is aware and respects the social
distance between S and H. Negative politeness contains of 10 strategies as follows:
(1) Be conventionally indirect
The use of phrases and sentences that have contextually ambiguous meanings which are
different from their literal meaning is very helpful. The S wants to communicate his desire to be
indirect even though in fact the utterance goes on record also claimed by Brown and Levinson.
Example: (24) Can you pass the salt?
(2) Question, hedge
It consists of the way of, make minimal assumption (the want not to presume H) about H
(his wants interest and worthy of his attention) and this is the primary and fundamental method
of disarming routine interactional treats.
Example: (25) I wonder if (you know whether) John went out.
(3) Be pessimistic
The strategy gives redress to H‟s negative face by indirectly expressing doubt that the
conditions, for the appropriateness of S‟s utterance act obtain.
(4) Minimize the imposition
One way of defusing the FTA is by minimize the imposition that indicated not in itself
great and leaving distance and power as weighty factors. Another expression that can be used
like: a tiny, little bit, a sip, a taste, a drop, a little, a bit.
Example: (27) could I have a taste (slice) of that cake ?
(5) Give deference (respect)
The strategy of give deference (respect) satisfies the H‟s want to be treated as supervisor
by giving him a respect.
Example: (28) Excuse me, sir, would you mind if I close the door ?
(6) Apologize
Brown and Levinson stated that S can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H‟s negative
face and thereby partially redress that impingement by apologizing.
Example: (29) I know this is a bore, but..
(7) Impersonalize S and H
One way of indicating the S does not want to impinge on H is to phrase the FTS as if the
agent were other than S. This strategy deals with the avoidance of “I” and “You”. (Brown and
Levinson, 1978:195).
Example: (30) I tell you that it is so.
One way of dissociating S and H from the particular imposition in the FTA, and hence a
way of communicating that S does not want to impinge but merely forced to by circumstances is
to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation. (Brown and
Levinson, 1978:211).
Example: (31) passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on train (not „you will refrain from flushing toilets on the train‟).
(9) Nominalize
This is what is meant by Brown and Levinson (1978:212) nominalized the subject in order to
make sentence more “formal”.
Example: (32) your good performance on the examination impressed us favorably. (better than „you performed well on the examination and we were favorably impressed‟)
(10) Go on record as not incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
The strategy reveals that by referring explicitly to the difficulty of H‟s complying, S
implicitly puts himself in debt to H for causing him the difficulty.
Example: (33) I would be eternally grateful if you would..(incurring debt) It would not be any trouble, I have to go right by there anyway. (disclaiming any indebts of H).
2.3.1.4Off-record (indirect)
The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the indirect strategy; this
strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. For
example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it‟s getting cold in here”
insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without
ways that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intentions to the act it can
be said that the actor leaves himself an “out” by providing himself with a number of defensible
interpretations. Off record consists of 15 strategies as stated below.
(1) Give hints
If S says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites H to search for an
interpretation of the possible relevance. For example, by stating motives or reason.
Example: (34) It is cold here (close the window)
(2) Give association clues
In a sense, association clues for indirect request are nothing but more remote hints of
practical reasoning premises. The specific knowledge extrinsic to H‟s desire act is required to
decode them especially.
Example: (35) Oh god, I have got a headache again. (it may be used to convey a request to borrow H‟s swimming suit, if S and H mutually know that they both have an association between S having a headache and S waiting to borrow H‟s swimsuit in order to swim off his headache).
(3) Presuppose
If S says something to H with this strategy therefore may implicate a criticism.
Example: (36) I wash the car again. (presuppose that he had done it before e.g last week)
(4) Understatements
It is one way of getting implicatures by saying less than is required. Typical ways of
Example: (37) A: what do you think of Harry ?
B: nothing wrong with him. ( I do not thing he is very good)
(5) Overstate
If S says more than necessary, he may do this by the inverse of the understatement
principle by choosing a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of affairs.
Example: (38) there were millions of people in the CO-op tonight! (is could convey an excuse for being late)
(6) Use tautologies
By uttering a tautology, S encourage H to look for an informative interpretation of a
non-informative utterance. It may be an excuse, critics, and a complaint.
Example: (39) boys will be boys. (it may be an excuse)
(7) Use contradictions
By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot be
telling the truth. Therefore, he encourages H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two
contradictory propositions.
Example: (40) A: are you upset about that?
B: well, yes and no. (it may convey a complaint or a criticism)
(8) Be ironic
By saying the opposite of what he means, S can indirectly express his intend meaning.
Example: (41) A: lovely neighborhood, eh? (in a slum)
(9) Use metaphors
The use of metaphor is perhaps usually on record, but there is a possibility that exactly
which of the connotations of the metaphor S intends may be off record.
Example: (42) Harry‟s a real fish. (he drinks/swims/ is slimy/is cold boolded like a fish)
(10) Use rhetorical questions
To ask a question with no intention of obtaining an answer is to break sincerity condition
on question namely, that S wants to provide him with the indicated information. Words may be
help to force the rhetorical interpretation of question.
Example: (43) How was I to know… (an excuse, I was not)
How many times do I have to tell you..? (a criticism, too man)
(11) Be Ambiguous
Stretching the term “ambiguity” to include the ambiguity between the literal meaning of
an utterance of any of its possible implicatures, it can be seen that every off record strategy
essentially exploits ambiguity in this wider sense.
Example: (44) John is a pretty sharp cookie. (it could be either a compliment or insult)
S may go off record with and FTA by being vague about which the object of the FTA is,
or what the offence is (in criticisms and euphemisms).
Example: (45) Perhaps someone did something naughty.
(13) Over generalize
Rule installation may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record, H then has the
choice of deciding whether the general rules applies to him.
Example: (46) a penny saved is a penny earned.
(14) Displace H
S may use off record as to who the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend to address the
FTA to someone whom it would not threaten, and hope that the real target will see that the FTA
is aimed at him.
Example: (47) a secretary in an office asks another-but with Ngative politeness- to pass stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the stapler that the other secretary. Professor‟s face is not threatened, and he can choose to do himself as a bonus “free gift”.
(15) Incomplete, use ellipsis
Elliptical utterance are legitimated by various conversational contexts is answers to
questions but they are also warranted in FTAs. By leaving an FTA half undone, S can leave the
Example: (48) Well, if one leaves one/s tea on the wobbly tab.
2.3.2 Women‟s language
Lakoff (1975:53) proposed that female‟s speech characterized by the linguistic feature
which she sees as comprising “women‟s language”, such as the following:
1.3.2.1 The use of hedges of various kinds
Lakoff started that female‟s speech seems in general to contain more instance of well, y‟
know, and so forth ; words that convey the sense that the speaker is uncertain about what he (or
she) is saying, or cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement. There words are fully
legitimate when, in fact, this is the case (for the example, if one says, “Ethan is sorta tall,”
meaning he‟s neither really impressively tall nor actually short, but rather middling, though
toward the tall side: 5 feet 9 rather than 6 feet 5, say). A hedge shows up anyway; the speaker is
perfectly certain of the truth of the assertion and there‟s no danger of offense. So, these hedges
do have their uses when one really has legitimate need for protection, or for deference (if we are
afraid that by making a certain statement we are overstepping our rights), but uses to excess,
hedges, like question intonation, give the impression that the speaker lacks of authority or
doesn‟t know what he‟s talking about.
1.3.2.2 The use of tag question
The tag question is a syntactic device listed by Lakoff which may express uncertainty. A
tag, in its usage as well as its syntactic shape (in English) is midway between an outright
statement and a yes-no question. Female is uncertain about something, and indicates this with a
tag which signals doubt about what she asserting. The tag appears anyway as an apology for
amking an assertion at all. Anyone may do this if she lacks self-confidence, as everyone does in
some situations. It is also precisely because they are socialized to believe that asserting
themselves strongly isn‟t nice or ladylike, or even feminine. Lakoff in Holmes (1992: 318) said
that tag question may be functioned to express affective maning (as facilitate or positive
politeness device and to soften a directive or criticism) and as confrontational and coercive
devices.
Example: (50) she is very nice, is not she ?
1.3.2.3 The use of rising or question intonation on declaratives
There is a peculiar sentence intonation pattern, found in English only among females,
which has the form of a declarative answer to a question, and is used as such, but has the rising
inflection typical of a yes-no question, as well as being especially hesitant. The effect is as
though one were seeking confirmation, though at the same time the speaker may be the only one
who has the requisite information.
Example: (51) it is really good?
It is group of adjectives which have another use that indicate the speaker‟s approbation or
admiration for something. Some of these adjectives are neutral for both sex of speaker; either
male or female may use them. But another set seems, in its figurative use, to be largely confined
to female‟s speech. Examples of these adjectives according to lakoff as follow:
Example: (52)
Empty adjectives used appropriately because the speaker feels that the idea referred to be
essentially frivolous, trivial, or unimportant to the world at large-only an amusement for the
speaker herself.
1.3.2.5 The use of precise color terms
Female make far more precise discriminations in naming colors than do male; words like
beige, ecru, aquamarine, lavender, and so on are unremarkable in a female‟s active vocabulary,
but absent from that most of male. If a male use these words, one might well conclude he was Neutral Females only
Great Adorable
Terrific Charming
Cool sweet
imitating a female sarcastically or was a home sexual or an interior decorator. People might ask
why fine discrimination of color is relevant for females, but not for males. A clue is contained in
the why many males in our society view other “unworldly” topics, like high culture, as the
outside the world of male‟s work, relegated to female and male whose masculinity is not
questionable. Males tend to relegate to females are not expected to make decisions on important
matters, such as what kind of job to hold, they are relegated the non-crucial decisions as a sop.
Deciding whether to name a color lavender or mauve is one such sop.
Example: (53) magenta, aquamarine.
1.3.2.6 The use of intensive adverbs, like „so‟ and „just‟
The use of this adverb is more frequent in females than male‟s language, though certainly
males can use it. It is attempted to hedge on one‟s strong feelings, as though to say: I feel
strongly about this- but I dare not make it clear how strong. To say “I like him very much” would
be to say precisely that we like him to great extent. To say “I like him so much” weasels on the
intensity: again, a device that you‟d use if you felt in unseemly to show you had strong emotions,
or to make strong assertions, but felt you had to say something along those lines anyway. The
intensifier just belongs to emphasize class and so belongs to amplifier booster class (Quirk &
Greenbaum, 1990: 214)
Example: (54) I just like him.
1.3.2.7 The use of hypercorrect grammar
Females are not supposed to talk rough. Lakoff stated that females are viewed as being
somewhat suspect in a male. In cultures where is values for itself, men are apt to be the guardians
of culture and the preservers of grammar.
Example: (55) I have been studying Architecture for three years.
1.3.2.8 The use of superpolite form
Females are supposed to speak more politely than males. Females are experts at
euphemism, more positively; females are the repositories of tact and know the right things to say
to other people. Female are supposed to be particularly careful to say “please” and “thank you”
and to uphold the other social conventions, certainly a female who fails at these task is apt to be
in more trouble than a male who does so.
Example: (56) Would you mind to teach me, please ?
1.3.2.9 The avoidance of strong swear words
The difference between using “shit” (or “damn”, or one of many others) as opposed to
“oh dear”, or “goodness,: or “oh fudge” lies in how forcefully one says how ones feels perhaps,
one might say, choice is a particle is a function of how strongly one allows oneself to feel about
something, so that the strength of the particle.
Allowing males stronger mean of expression than are open to females further reinforces
males‟ position of strength in the real world: for surely we listen with more attention the more
strongly and forcefully someone express opinions and a speaker unable- for whatever reason- to
be forceful in stating his views is much less likely to be taken seriously. Ability to use strong
its cause. But once again, apparently accidental linguistic usage suggests that females are denied
equality partially for linguistic reasons, and that an examination of language points up precisely
an area in which inequity exists.
Example: (57) oh my goodness.
1.3.2.10The use of emphatic stress
Females usually strengthen an utterance to describe their judgment about something.
Example: (58) it was a fantastic idea.
2.3.3 Men‟s language
According to the Holmes (1992:170) characterized male‟s linguistic features as follows:
2.3.3.1 The use of multiple negations
Holmes stated that females use more standard form than males and so, correspondingly,
males use more vernacular forms than females. In Detroit, for instance, multiple negations, a
vernacular feature of speech, is more frequent in males‟ speech than in females‟. Even in the
lowest social group, males use a third more instance of multiple negation than females.
Example: (59) You do not nothing.
Holmes had given examples that in New York males use this form more than females.
They delete the –ed which marked past tense at the end of words.
Example: (60) „kissed‟ will be pronounced „kiss‟
2.3.3.3 In Pronunciation, they also use –in „[in] form rather than –ing [iŋ] form
In western communities males and females use different quantities or frequencies of the
same forms. In all the English-speaking cities, where speech data has been collected, for
instance, females use more –ing [iŋ] pronunciation and fewer –in „[in] pronunciations than males
in words like swimming and typing. Both the social and the linguistic patterns in these
communities are sex-preferential (rather than sex-exclusive).
Example: (61) Talking will pronounced talkin.
2.3.3.4 The use of ungrammatical form
In many speech communities, when females use more of a linguistic form than males, it
is generally standard form- the overtly prestigious form- that females favor. When males use a
form more often than females, it is usually vernacular form, one which is not admired overtly by
the society as a whole, and which is not citied as the „correct‟ form. This pattern has been found
in western speech communities all over the world.
2.3.3.5 The use of impolite form like swearing and taboo language
According to Holmes, this form is mostly used by males to express solidarity and to
maintain social relationships. This form is an established males‟ speech activity.
