AN ANALYSIS OF IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN FILM THE FAULT IN OUR STARS FILM

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanity Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One

RENITA ROSA

1110026000012

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2017

i

ABSTRACT

Renita Rosa, An Analysis of Impoliteness Stretegies in the Film the Fault in Our Stars Film. Thesis:

English Letters Department, Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta, August 2016.

Impoliteness strategies are used to create social disruption in the closed social-distance

among speaker and hearer. This research endeavors to analyze kinds of the impoliteness strategies

that occur in the film The Fault in Our Stars film, to classify the type of counter strategies used in

film, and to analyze the relation between power level difference and the choice of strategies.

Using Jonathan Culpeper theory in Impoliteness, the writers knows that the choices of the

strategies in some cases are different from the notion given that participant with lower power level

shouldnt perform impoliteness strategies. It was found too that some characters used the strategies

as the notion explained. The strategies and the notion were compatible each other. Here, power

level did not really influence the choice of impoliteness strategies.

To sum up, the impoliteness strategies is not a static matter in communication that is used

to create social disruption, but depends on the speaker and the hearer consideration and goals.

Furthermore, many factor influenced the use of impoliteness strategies in communication although

the power difference of the speaker and the hearer is evident

Keywords: Pragmatics, Impoliteness, Jonathan Culpeper, Politeness, Brown and Levinson,

communication strategies.

ii

APPROVEMENT

AN ANALYSIS OF IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE FILM THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Strata One

RENITA ROSA

NIM. 1110026000012

Approved by

Advisor 1 Advisor 2

Hilmi,M.Hum Rima Muryantina, S.Hum., M.ling.

19760918 100801 1 009

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2017

iii

LEGALIZATION

Name : Renita Rosa

NIM : 1110026000012

Title : An Analysis of Impoliteness Stretegies in the Transcript of the Fault in Our Stars

Film.

The thesis entitled above has been defended before the Letters and Humanities Facultys

Examination Committee on {April 12th, 2017}. It has been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of strata one.

Jakarta, April 12th, 2017

Examination Committee

Signature Date

1. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd. 19640710 199303 1 006

(Chair Person) ________ ________

2. Elve Oktafiyani, M.Hum.

19781003 200112 2 002

(Secretary) ________ ________

3. Hilmi, M.Hum. 19760918 200801 1 009

(Advisor I) ________ ________

4. Rima Muryantina,S.Hum., M.Ling.

5. Dr. H. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd. 19650919 200003 1 002

(Advisor II) ________ ________

6. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd. 19640710 199303 1 006

(Examiner II) ________ ________

(Examiner I)

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own words and that, to the best of my knowledge

and belief. It contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material

which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of

the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been

made in the text.

Jakarta, 12 Aprilth 2017

Renita Rosa

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the Name of Allah; the Merciful, the Compassionate. Pray, O Allah, for our Lord Muhammad

and his Family and the Men around him.

The present study never be completed without any helps, supports, advices, and

encouragements from many parties. The writer would like to express her honor for people in

department who gave massive helps in finishing this thesis, they are:

1. Mr. Prof. Dr. Sukron Kamil, M.Ag, as the Dean of Adab and Humanities Faculty, State

Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

2. Mr. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd, as the Head of English Letters Department.

3. Mrs. Elve Oktafiani, M.Hum, as the Secretary of English Letters Department.

4. Mr. Hilmi, M.Hum and Ms. Rima Muryantina, S.Hum., M.Ling., as,the smartest and

kindest advisor. With their provisions, it is an ease to do this work.

5. All the lectures who sincerely (learned with and) taught the writer from the first semester

until she accomplished the study.

6. All the staff of English Letters Department, especially the kind-hearted Ka Jess.

The utmost gratitude goes to the writers parents Wilda Binti Sanusi and Sutan Panduko

Sati who always pray and believe for the writers success.. Although this thesis is none of perfect

but it is especially dedicated to them, hopefully it will make both of them proud. Special

appreciation and love to Melia Rizka and Dedi Surya; the writers best siblings all over the world.

Throughout all the ups and downs in finishing the undergraduate study, they are always there to

give support in their special way. Love you to the moon and back, sis and bro.

Warmest hug to the craziest best friend; Nisa Fitria Ansori, Inas Ghina, Asri Sukowati,

Saidah Turrahmah, Dewi Afrianti. To lovely friends: Nuriz Maya Mufti, Hafidzha Adha, Ujang

Juhari, Ilham Putra, Fiky Firmansyah and Rifky Nugraha. Thank you so much for paying a lot of

attention to the writer, experiences we had together are perfectly divine memory that she will never

forget.

The writers appreciation also goes to all friends in Elbie Family, KKN Carano Syahid,

Linguistics A class, RATLABindo, IRMAFA, GYPSY Volunteer, KSR PMI UIN, and other who

cant be mentioned one by one. The writers will always remember all of them, thank you for the

priceless experiences.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.......... i

APPROVEMENT... iii

LEGALIZATION iv

DECLARATION.. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.... vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION... 1

A. Background of The Study... 1

B. Focus of The Study. 5

C. Research Questions. 5

D. Objective of The Study...... 6

E. Significance of the Study.... 6

F. Research Methodology.. 7

a. Method of The Study ... 7

b. Technique of Collecting Data and Data Analysis ...... 7

viii

c. Instrument of the research..... 8

d. Unit of Analysis. 9

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 10

A. Previous Research. 10

B. The Concept of pragmatics and Discourse Analysis..... 14

C. The Concept of Context in Pragmatics and Discourse,

and its Relation to Impoliteness ...... 15

D. The Concept of Face in Politeness and

Impoliteness Theory ............ 17

E. Types of Politeness and Impoliteness Theory........... 18

1. Brown and Levinson Politeness Theory....... 18

2. Politeness

Strategies............. 19

2.a. Bald on record politeness.......... 19

2.b. Offrecord....... 19

2.c. Positive politeness..

20

2.d. Negative Politeness.... 20

3. Jonathan Culpeper Impoliteness Strategy.... 20

4. The Impoliteness Strategy..... 21

4.a. Bald on record impoliteness...... 22

ix

4.b. Positive Impoliteness ...... 23

4.b.1. Ignore, snub the other..... 23

4.b.2 Disassociate from other . 23

4.b.3 Be disinterest, unconcerned,

and unsympathetic..... 24

4.b.4. Use inappropriate identity

marker ........... 24

4.b.5 Use obscure or secretive Language.... 25

4.b.6 Seek Disagreement..... 25

4.b.7 Make the other feel uncomfortable... 26

4.b.8. Use taboo words..... 26

4.b.7. Call the other names....... 26

4.c. Negative Impol iteness. 27

4.c.1 Frighten.. 27

4.c.2 Condescend, scorn, ridicule .. 27

4.c.3. Invade the others space .... 27

4.c.4. Explicity associate the other with

a negative aspect.... 27

4.c.5. Put the other indebtness in record...... 27

4.d. Off record Impoliteness..... 27

4.e Withold Impoliteness ........ 28

4.f. Sarcasm or mock politeness ...... 28

x

5. The strategies to Counter the Face Attack ...... 28

5.a. Offensive Encounter Strategies...... 29

5.a.1 Escalation......... 29

5.a.2. Repetition....... 29

5.b. Defensive encounter strategies........ 29

5.b.1 Inversion........ 29

5.b.2. Abrogation.... 30

5.b.3. Opt out record.... 30

5.b.4 Insincere Agreement......... 30

5.b.5 Ignore the implied face attack... 31

F. Social Distance Scale and the Choice of

Impoliteness Strategy.... 31

CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS... 33

A. Data Description... 33

B. Data Analysis 40

1. Datum 1... 40

2. Datum 2.... 42

3. Datum 3 ......... 44

4. Datum 4... 47

5. Datum 5........ 48

6. Datum 6 49

xi

7. Datum 7 51

8. Datum 8.... 53

9. Datum 9.... 55

10. Datum 10 . 56

11. Datum 11 . 57

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 59

A. Conclusions... 59

B. Suggestions... 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 61

APPENDICES. 64

xii

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Communication through languages can not be separated with many rules.

The concept of politeness is one of many communication rules which is existed

universal in all society. Everyone who communicates ideally pays attention to

politeness when he is speaking. Politeness is a border to make both speaker and

hearer comfortable with one another in order to keep the social relationship well. In

Pragmatics, politeness means affability in utterance (linguistic action) when

conveying the communication to express the relational function.1

A number of scholars have carried out research on linguistic politeness in a

wide range of culture. According to Goffman, the speaker and the addressee should

feel as member of a same society whose wants and personality traits are known and

liked, so that the positive image can be realized.2 Brown and Levinson propose

politeness principles as conflict avoidance; it is the strategy to maintain public self-

image when the public self-image attack happens, the public self-image then known

as term face.3

Brown Levinsons theory of politeness first appeared in 1978. Their theory

of Politeness is certainly the most influential since it has witnessed innumerable

1 George Yule. Pragmatics. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). p. 60.

2Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essay on Face-to-face Behaviour (New York:

Anchor Book, 1967), p.5.

3 Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usage. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 61 et seq.

2

reactions, applications, critiques, modifications, and revision. The names of Brown

and Levinson have become almost synonymous with the word politeness as it is

impossible to talk about politeness without referring to them. They see politeness

in terms of conflict avoidance; thus, politeness makes possible communication

between potentially aggressive parties.4

While hardly we do maintain the face we may trip over of politeness

inversion, because not all of people pay attention of the politeness principle

whenever they are speaking. There are, however, still other times in which people

consciously making an impolite remark to attack face, later the strategy known as

linguistic impoliteness.5 Impoliteness can be said as an extension of Brown and

Levinsons theory of politeness; they write that it is intuitively the case that certain

kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face.6

The first scholar to mention when talking about impoliteness is Jonathan

Culpeper (1996). He uses the term impoliteness to refer communicative strategies

designed to attack face, and thereby cause social conflict and disharmony. 7

Another scholar is Bousfield who claimed that impoliteness is not seen as failed

politeness but strategy to attack face. It is the reason why impoliteness has become

increasingly popular object of study in recent years. Locher and Bousfield define

impoliteness as behavior that is aggravating in particular context. To account for

the aspect of impoliteness, Culpeper proposes an impoliteness framework which is

4 Ibid. p. 5.

5 Richard J Watt, Politeness: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics, (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003), p. 5.

6Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, op. cit., p. 65.

7 Jonathan Culpeper, Toward an Anatomy of Impoliteness, in Journal of Pragmatics,

vol. 25 (Oxford: Elsevier, 1996), p. 349.

3

parallel but opposite to Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness.8 Thus, the key

difference between politeness and impoliteness is a matter of intention: whether it

is the speakers intention to support face (politeness) or to attack face

(impoliteness).9 In summary, in particular contexts, certain impoliteness activity is

not regarded as marginal activity but actually an essential part of communication

process.

Linguistic impoliteness has not received closely as much attention as

linguistic politeness, in Journal of Pragmatics only few of scholars have carried out

research on it. On the other hand, there are amount of individual journal papers

about politeness are written by renowned researcher such as in 1990 Bruce Fraser

wrote Perspective on Politeness10, in 2003 Geoffrey Leech wrote Toward an

Anatomy of Politeness in Communication,11 in 2004 Miriam A. Locher wrote Power

and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication12. Fortunately,

several well-known scholars have begun diminished the imbalance since the

beginning of 20th century. Jonathan Culpeper started in 1996 wrote Toward an

Anatomy of Impolitenesse13, in 2003 he together with Dereck Bousfield and Anne

8 Derreck Bousfield, Impoliteness in Interaction, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Co., 2008)., p.2.

9 Jonathan Culpeper, (Im) Politeness in Dramatic Dialogue in Exploring the Language

of Drama: From Text to Context eds. Jonathan Culpeper, M. Short, and P. Verdonk, (London and

New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 86.

10 Bruce Fraser, Perspective on Politeness in Journal of Pragmatics 14 (Oxford:

Elsevier, 1990), p. 219-236.

11 Jonathan Culpeper, Toward an Anatomy of Impoliteness in International Journal of

Pragmatics 14 (Oxford: Elsevier, 2003), pp. 101-123.

12 Miriam A. Locher, Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral

Communication (Berlin, Mouton De Gruyer, 2004)

13 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op. cit., pp. 349-367.

4

Wichmann wrote Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and

prosodic aspects.14

This study established because the impolite behavior in communication is

more likely to be commented and judged by wide range of culture, the judgment

often refers impoliteness as rudeness, abusive language or aggravating language

whereas none of that term is the notion of impoliteness.15 Moreover, this study is

contributed to increase the number of research in linguistic impoliteness although

there are other studies about linguistic impoliteness but still the amount of research

on linguistic impoliteness lesser than linguistic politeness. Last but not the least, it

is expected could add some understanding for linguistic student who wants to learn

linguistic impoliteness.

Film is chosen as the object of the study because it can reflect the linguistic

phenomena in general. There are many conflictive conversations in the film which

trigger the threats of the face. This film tells about Hazel Grace Lancester, an

intelligent girl who has terminal thyroid cancer that spread to her lungs and

Augustus Waters who has lost a leg from bone cancer. Those characters were

discredited by their families and friends because they suffer cancer.

In communication, both of characters above communicate with utterances

and/or expressions which are implicitly licensed to attack the addressee face only

because they are cancer patients. The situation makes them emotionally intractable.

14 Jonathan Culpeper, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichman, Impoliteness revisited:

With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects in Journal of Pragmatic 35 (London:

Elsevier, 2003), p. 1545.

15 Ibid. p. 38.

5

Although they were seriously ill, but there are some times they frustrated with their

family and snap them all.

The climax of the film started when they frustrated with an abrupt novel

ending and wanted to ask about it personally to the author. The situation

unexpectedly worsens when they intentionally flew from the USA to Netherland to

have direct explanation from the author yet they were shocked to find the author is

a mean-spirited alcoholic.

Film the Fault from Our Stars is a film based on novel of the same title; the

Fault in Our Stars and the corpus of this research use transcript of the film.

Transcript is one of discourse forms; therefore the analysis of this research

performed using discourse analysis with pragmatic approach. 16 Furthermore, one

of purposes of this research is to analyze the unity, meaning and purpose of the

transcript. Referring to Joan Cutting, both of discourse analysis and pragmatics

study the meaning in context about how the interaction creates more information

than the word use in communication.17

B. Focus of the Study

The study is limited to pragmatic analysis of impoliteness communicative

strategies on struggle for authority, which is applied in the main characters dialogue

with other characters film transcript entitled The Fault in Our Stars.

C. Research Question

16 David Nunan, Introducing Discorse Analysis, (London: Penguin Book, 1993), p. 7. 17 Joan Cutting, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students, (Florence:

Rouledge, 2002), p. 1.

6

According to background of the study, the research questions are formulated

as follows:

1. What impoliteness strategies that are used by characters in film The

Fault in Our Stars?

2. What encounter strategies used to respond the impoliteness strategies?

3. How power level difference affects the using of impoliteness strategies

in the film The Fault in Our Stars?

D. Significances of the Study

This research is expected to be beneficial in enriching an insight about

impoliteness concept in the approaches of pragmatics. It is also expected to be

useful in providing better understanding that there are different ways to use the

impoliteness strategy or the encounter strategy specifically in the Fault in Our Stars

film, so the audience will appreciate the movie in diverse perspective. It also

expected to be beneficial in enriching the perceptivity that the social distance and

the emotional closeness can influence the use of the encounter strategy.

E. Research Methodology

1. Objective of the Study

The research objectives are stated as follow:

1. To analyze the types of the impoliteness strategy used by characters in

The Fault in Our Stars film.

2. To analyze variety encountered strategies used by hearer to respond

impoliteness strategies used by speaker in the film.

7

To analyze how the main characters power affects the using of

impoliteness strategies in The Fault in Our Stars.

2. Method of the Study

This research is qualitative research. Qualitative research is relied

on verbal and non-numerical data as the basis of analysis and solving the

problem appears.18 Qualitative research is descriptive, the writer

meticulously the data in the from of words, in this case is the film

transcript.19 This study is the description of impoliteness strategies in The

Fault in Our Stars film transcript, to get understanding and deep

information without any statistical equipment on how impoliteness and

closeness are interact in the transcript.

3. Technique of Data Collecting and Data Analysis

The writer is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. 20 Data

have been obtained by the author are written into a card called data card, the data

cards contains data that has been take in the script of the film.21 Then, the data card

also used as instrument beside the writer herselfg.The data is collected in the

following steps:

18 David Nunan, Research Methods in Language Learning, (Cambridge:Cambridge

University Press, 1992) p. 77 19 Edi Subroto, Pengantar Metoda Penelitian Linguistik Struktural (Surakarta:Sebelas

Maret University Press, 1992) p. 77 20 Sharan B. Miriam, Qualitative research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (San

Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 2009) p. 15

21 Subroto. P. 42

8

1. To download the transcript of the Fault in Our Stars film;

2. To read the transcript;

3. To mark the utterances that might be contained the impoliteness

strategies;

4. To classify it by using Jonathan Culpepers impoliteness strategy22;

5. To write the chosen data onto a data card

6. To number the dialogue.

After the data has been collected, the next step is the data analysis. It is to

gain the specific data that concerned to analyze. The steps run as follows:

1. To categorize the utterances using Culpepers impoliteness

strategies

2. To access the relation between impoliteness strategies and the

characters closeness.

3. To assign how the addressees encountered the characters

impoliteness strategies.

4. To ake conclusions based on the description analysis.

4. Instrument of the research

To analyze the corpus, data card is used as instrument of research. Data card

is cards in certain shape and size where the object of the study is written as the

entry, it is used in order to write, to identify and to classify the data which is

22 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op. cit., pp. 349-367.

9

contained the face attack and other impoliteness strategies from the transcript. 23

The data that is collected in the data card then can be analyzed.

5. Unit Analysis.

The unit analysis of this study is the transcript of The Fault in Our Stars

film, which is taken from www.imdbs.com24

23 Edi Subroto, op. cit. 77

24 The transcript accessed on January 21, 2015, from

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Fault-in-Our-Stars,-The.html

http://www.imdbs.com/

10

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Previous Research

Research about linguistic impoliteness is still new in Indonesia because only

few of study about linguistic impoliteness found in some repository among some

state universities. It had not been studied specifically as the main topic of study yet

its theory is stated explicitly or implicitly in some politeness research as follows:

In repository of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, one of the studies about

Politeness is An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababans Interview with

Barack Obama written by Muh. Shohibussirri. This research used pragmatic

politeness approaches based from an interview between Putra Nababan and Barack

Obama. This qualitative research used Brown and Levinsons politeness strategy

and supported by other theories such as Jonathan Culpepers impoliteness strategy

and Spencer-Oateys rapport management to analyse the data.

The politeness strategy and the relation between power level difference and

the choices of strategy are analysed in the research. In this research, it is mentioned

that impoliteness is parasite of politeness. It is defined as the language act that is

oriented towards face attacking in particular context which is desinged to create

social disharmony.25

25 Muh. Shohibussiri, An Analysis of Politeness Strategy in Putra Nababans Interview

with Barack Obama, the thesis is accessed on April 1st 2015 from

http://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/3830

http://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/3830

11

However, impoliteness studies are already within many e-journals. There

are some researchers who had already analysed linguistic impoliteness which also

discuss the relation of impoliteness and some behavioural context. In this section,

some previous studies will be listed compared to this research, those are:

The very first study about impoliteness is established by Jonathan

Culpepers journal in 1996 titled Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. It focused

on communicative strategies with orientation to attack ones interlocutor and to

cause disharmony on the discourse of an army training camp and the discourse of

drama. Culpeper builds an impoliteness framework which is parallel but opposite

to Brown and Levinsons theory of politeness, then his study becomes the first

reference of impoliteness theory. He started by considering inherent impoliteness

and mock impoliteness, and then discussed the contextual factors that are associated

with impoliteness and the last he proposed a list of impoliteness strategies. He found

that in some circumstances impoliteness plays the main role in communication.26

In 2003, he and his friends; Derek Bousfield and Anne Wichmann, posted

another journal entitled Impoliteness Revisited: with Sspecial Reference to Dynamic

and Prosodic Aspects, this paper using television documentary recordings of

disputes between traffic wardens and car owners as the data. They revisit the

impoliteness framework mapped out in Culpepers paper in 1996.27

They explore the notion of impoliteness and consider whether the

impoliteness strategies identified in Culpeper can be found in another discourse

26 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), loc. cit.

27 Jonathan Culpeper, Derek Bousfield, Anna Wichmann, loc. cit.

12

type. They argue that for impoliteness to be fully appreciated they need to move

beyond the single strategy (lexically and grammatically defined) and examine both

how impoliteness pans out in extended discourse and the role of prosody in

conveying impoliteness. Their paper has important implications for politeness

theory and discourse studies in general, and the role of prosody in discourse in

particular.28

Derek Bousfield then released a book Impoliteness in Interaction in 2008.

In this book, he hypothesised some strategies of issuing and countering

impoliteness or even accepts impolite face attacks in certain discourse and certain

contexts in which impolite utterance may occur, when one is placed in a

confrontational, non-harmonious situation, such as military and civilian police

training, vehicle parking disputes, metropolitan and motorway policing and a

restaurant kitchen. This book showed how impoliteness may potentially be

countered, controlled and managed.29

Another book is edited by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher entitled

Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and

Practice. This book contains collection of papers on impoliteness after the

conference Politeness: Multidisciplinary Perspective on Language and Culture in

Nottingham in March 2005. This collection of papers on impoliteness and power in

language seeks to look at impoliteness systematically by discussing the different

28 Ibid. 29Derek Bousfield, (2008), op. cit., p. 4.

13

theoretical stances towards the study of impoliteness and the connection between

exercise of power and impoliteness.30

There is also an article written in 2013 by Grace P. Wibowo and Esther

Kuntjara, student of English Department Faculty of Letters at Petra Christian

University in Surabaya. They investigate how impoliteness strategies are used on

online comments in Okezone, an Indonesian football website, and what strategy is

mostly used. From 50 utterances collected for a month through the Okezone

website, they tabulate the findings of impoliteness strategies used and percentage

them to get the mostly used strategy. They also found that more than one strategies

can be used in one utterance.31

Referring from the previous studies and some resource book, this research

is conducted based on Culpepers impoliteness theory. His impoliteness strategies

are used to know how the hearer reacts toward impolite utterances and also to

indicate the distance relationship between characters dialogue in The Fault in Our

Stars film transcript.

30 Derek Bousfield, Miriam A.Locher , eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its

Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter GmbH & Co., 2008), p.

2. 31Grace P. Wibowo and Esther Kuntjara, Impoliteness Strategies Used on Online

Comments in an Indonesian Football Website, the article is accessed on June 24th, 2015, from

http://studentjournal.petra.ac.id/index.php/sastra-iggris/article/view/418

http://studentjournal.petra.ac.id/index.php/sastra-iggris/article/view/418

14

B. The Concept of Pragmatics

This research is based on impoliteness theory from pragmatics study.

Pragmatics is one of approaches to studying languages relation to the contextual

background features.32 It is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated

by a speaker and/or writer that is interpreted by a listener and/or reader. This study

necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context

and how the context influences what is said. This type of study explores how a

great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated.33

Pragmatics largely emphasized on the meaning analysis of speaker at the

level of speech in a sentence. However, since one speech, trough defenition,

detracted in context (including linguistic contexct, for example the text),

pragmatics often ended with discourse analysis and sometimes it completely gives

the meaning of discourse analysis. If simplified, pragmatics analyses focuse on

the meaning, context and communication..34

Pragmatics approaches focus on the meaning of words interaction and how

interactions communicate more information than the word they use.35 Besides,

pragmatics look at the use of language, text, or pieces of spoken or written

discourse, concentrating on how stretches of language become meaningful and

unified for their user.36 Pragmatics also discuss interactional sociolinguistics and

32 Joan Cutting, Pragmaticss and Discourse: A Resource Book for Student (London and

New York: Routledge, 2002) p.1 33George Yule, op.cit., p. 3. 34 Deborah Schiffrin, Ancangan Kajian Wacana, terj. Unang, Sunatri, Majid, et. al., ed.

Prof. Dr. Abd. Syukur Ibrahim (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2007), p. 270 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid.

15

finally it has fact that pragmatics concerned with function: the speakers short-

term purposes in speaking, and long-term goals in interacting verbally.37

C. The Concept of Context in Pragmatics and Its Relation to Impoliteness.

Pragmatics study the meaning of words in context, the analysis of the

speakers meaning is dependent on assumptions of knowledge that are shared by

both speaker and hearer.38 Take a look at this example, SAVE WATER, the

sentence will make sense whenever it has connection with the writer/reader of the

sentence, time and place. The sentence will create solid discourse if it was putted

on the top of sink, wash basin and toilet. Function of the sentence will be clear in

that as a warning for everyone to use water wisely.39

Another example is a famous word by Queen Victoria We are not

amused.. Pragmaticss would consider the contextual background features; why

Queen Victoria said this, and it was said to whom, where was she say it.

Pragmaticss and discourse analysis would take into the fact that, Victoria had been

in prolonged depression because of her husband death, and the words is shown to

her court.

While If we analyse what the word mean by themselves as they are in the

dictionary the word we indicates the person speaking, are identifies a state

rather than action, amused has a sense synonymous with entertained or

37 Ibid. 38 Ibid 39Untung Yuwono, Wacana in Pesona Bahasa , eds. Kushartanti, Untung Yuwono,

Multamia RMT Lauder, (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2007), p. 93.

16

distraced, this way is semantic analysis. Semantics is out of context, the analysis

would not consider who said it to whom, where and why.40

The context in which somebody says something has an effect on how people

understand it. Smiling may seem a straightforwardly nice thing to do, but imagine

if it was respond to a friend who has announced personal tragedy. The context is

also crucial in influencing the degree of suffering you experience as a result of

impoliteness.

Context may prime face components that are highly emotionally sensitive

or not, for example comments on somebodys shoe who is fashion conscious.

Moreover, context may affect the extent of perceived face exposure and face in

not an issue if it has no exposure. To sum up, the potential for face loss is related

to the degree of sensitivity of the face component at issue and also the perceived

degree of exposure.

D. The Concept of Face in Politeness and Impoliteness Theory.

The term face is a central concept in studying linguistic politeness and

impoliteness. Face is a concept that was first coined by Goffman.41 The best-

known figures that take the concept of face into the realm of pragmatics are Brown

and Levinson who derived the concept of face in their politeness theory.42 They

40 Joan Cutting (2002), loc. cit. 41 Endang Fauziati, Linguistic Impoliteness: A Brief Literature Review in Markhamah,

Agus Wijayanto, Miftakhul Hudaa, eds., Prosiding Seminar Nasional: Ketidaksantunan

Berbahasa dan Dampaknya Dalam Pembentukan Karakter, Surakarta 25 Januari 2014

(Surakarta: Muhamadiyah University Press, 2014), p. 12. 42 Penelope Brown and Strepen J. Levinson (1987), loc. cit.

17

define face as an individuals feeling of selfworth or self-image, reputation or

good names that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize.43

Such self-image can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through

interaction with others such as warning, threatening, commanding, ordering, etc.

Brown and Lavinson then introduced the term FTA; Face Threatening Act to refer

acts that damage the self-image. The purpose of politeness, therefore, is to soften

the FTA since it is in everyones mutual interest to do so.44 . However, there are

other times in some particular context where face threatening is not regarded as

marginal activity but actually an essential part of communication so through

communication the damage toward self-image cant always be avoided. Sometimes,

people intend to attack face to cause social disruption and the purpose of

impoliteness is to strengthen the face threat of a linguistic act.45

E. The Concept of Politeness Theory and Impoliteness Theory

1. Brown and Levinsons Politeness Theory

In social relation, it is common for people to use linguistic strategies to

maintain or promote harmonious relations. Brown Levinsons theory of politeness

first appeared in 1978, their theory of politeness is certainly the most influential

since it has witnessed innumerable reactions, applications, critiques,

modifications, and revision.46

43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., pp.59-60 45 Endang Fauziati (2014), loc cit. 46 Ibid.

18

The names of Brown and Levinson have become almost synonymous with

the word politeness as it is impossible to talk about politeness without referring to

Brown and Levinson.47 They see politeness in terms of conflict avoidance; thus,

politeness makes possible communication between potentially aggressive

parties.48

2. The Politeness Strategies

Any rational speaker wants to avoid FTAs and therefore uses certain

strategies to mitigate the threat. Brown and Levinson strategies for performing

FTA, namely:

a. Bald On-record politeness

This strategy is used in situations where people know each other well or in

a situation of urgency.49 For example, when face concerns are suspended in an

emergency, when the threat to the hearers face is very smal;

[01] Close the door!

[02] I want some beer.

or when the speaker is much more powerful than the hearer;

[03] You there, gimme beer said by a boss to his servant.

b. Positive Politeness

47 Penelope Brown and Strepen J. Levinson (1987), loc. cit.

48 Ibid. 49 Penelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 65.

19

This strategy tries to minimize the threat to the audiences positive face. The

speaker recognizes that the hearer has desire to be respected. The strategy also

confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity.This can

be done by attending to the audiences needs, hedging or indirectness, avoiding

disagreement, using humor and optimism, making offers and promises, and

invoking equality and feelings of belonging to the group. 50

[04] Could you please close the door?

[05] Is it OK for me to have a beer?

c. Negative Politeness

This strategy tries to minimize threats to the audiences negative face. Here,

the speaker recognizes the hearers face but in the same time also recognizes that in

some way the speaker imposing the hearer. An example of when negative politeness

would be used is when the speaker requires something from the audience, but

intends to maintain the herarers right to refuse.This can be done by being indirect,

using hedges or questions, minimizing imposition and apologizing.51

[06] I dont want to bother you but would you mind to close the door?

[07] I hope its not too forward, but would it be possible for me to have

a beer?

d. Offrecord

50 Ibid. pp. 101-129.

51 Ibid.pp. 129-210

20

This strategy is more indirect. The speaker does not impose on the hearer.

As a result, face is not directly threatened. By using this strategy, the speaker is

trying to asking for something. Instead the speaker would rather it be offered to

himself once the hearer sees that the speaker want one. This strategy often requires

the hearer to interpret what the speaker is saying.52

When you give hints to your friend to close the door:

[08] I feel cold. The weather is windy.

When you indirectly want your friend to offer you some beer

[09] Its so hot. It makes you really thirsty.

3. Jonathan Culpeper Impoliteness Theory

Politeness strategies are seen as a presumptive strategy; it is unmarked and

socially neutral, the natural presupposition underlying all communication.

However, there are other times in which people use linguistic strategies to attack

face or to strengthen the face threat of an act, i.e. they tend to be impolite. For this

reason, there comes the emergence of the theory of impoliteness.53

The first scholar to mention when talking about impoliteness is Culpeper.

He uses the term impoliteness to refer communicative strategies designed to attack

face, and thereby cause social conflict and disharmony54. Another scholar is

Bousfield who claimed that impoliteness is not seen as failed politeness but strategy

52 Ibid. pp. 213-227. 53 Endang Fauziati (2014), loc. cit.

54 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op. cit., p. 350.

21

to attack face.55 It is the reason why impoliteness has become increasingly popular

object of study in recent years.

Bousfield states that impoliteness constitutes the communication of

intentionally gratuitous and conflictive verbal facethreatening acts (FTAs) which

are purposefully delivered: (1) unmitigated, in contexts where mitigation is

required, and/or, (2) with deliberate aggression, that is, with the face threat

exacerbated, boosted, or maximized in some way to heighten the face damage

inflicted56.

Thus, the key difference between politeness and impoliteness is a matter of

intention: whether it is the speakers intention to support face (politeness) or to

attack face (impoliteness).57 To account for the aspect of impoliteness, Culpeper

proposes an impoliteness framework which is parallel but opposite to Brown and

Levinsons theory of politeness. In summary, in particular contexts certain

impoliteness activity is not regarded as marginal activity but actually an essential

part of communication process.

4. The Impoliteness Strategy

Based on Brown and Lavinsons model of politeness strategy Culpeper

wrote a seminal article on impoliteness. He identified impoliteness as the parasite

of politeness and the politeness strategies are the opposite of impoliteness

strategies.58 The opposite here refers to its orientation to face. Politeness strategy is

utilized to enhance or support face which can avoid conflict while impoliteness

55 Derek Bousfield (2008), op. cit., p. 72.

56 Ibid.

57 Jonathan Culpeper (1998), op. cit., p. 86.

58 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op.cit. p. 8.

22

strategies are used to attack face which cause social disharmony. As Culpeper

defines impoliteness as the use of strategies to attack the interlocutor's face and

create social disruption. For this Culpeper proposes five super strategies that

speaker use to make impolite utterances as follows:

a. Bald on record impoliteness

Bald on Record impoliteness strategy directly produced FTAs and

impositions of the same kind as in the politeness strategy. The FTA is performed in

a direct, clear, unambiguous and conciseway in circumstances where face is not

irrelevant or minimised. More importantly it is the intention of the speaker to attack

the face of the hearer.59

When you offer some food to you brokenhearted friend:

[10] Eat! Starve wont bring him back!

This is a command without any regressive action, and therefore, it is a

typical bald on record FTA

b. Positive impoliteness

The use of strategies designed to damage the addressees positive face

wants. An individual positive face is reflected in his desire to be liked, approved of,

respected and appreciated by other. This can be done through the following ways,

such as:

1. Ignore, snub the other

Fail to acknowledge the other's presence.

59 Jonathan Culpeper, Derek Bousfield, Anne Wichmann (2003), op. cit., pp.1553 -1554.

23

[09] Witness: And I note for the record that in my deposition I Clarified

that Lawyer: Thank you, Sir.

This example is from a courtroom setting where the lawyer interrups the

witness and ignores what he is about to say

2. Disassociate from the other

For example, deny association or common ground with the other; avoid

sitting together.

[11] GUS: I am not going anywhere with that monster.

LIDEWIJ: He is not invited.

August not allow himself to going around with Van Houten by saying that

he is monster. August keeps away the distance between them, the contact among

them is constrained by him who refused to go together with Van Houten

3. Be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic

[11] HAZEL: ugh you cant make me.

MICHAEL: Of course we can. Were your parent

Data [11] gives an example about having no personal involvement of or

receiving no personal advantage of something,. In this situation, Hazel should be

worried or interested with her dad, but she is not. She is not showing that she

understands or cares about his father attention, and therefore Hazel feels free to act

fairly.

4. Use inappropriate identity markers.

24

For example, use title and surname when a close relationship pertains, or

a nickname when a distant relationship pertains.

[12] GUS: Tell me you did not go to Disney World. Hazel Grace!

HAZEL: And Epcot Center.

Calling someones full name is not suitable for the situation in example

[12] above, because the way between Hazel and Gus feel and behave toward each

other is very close. They know each other very well, like each other a lot and they

see and talk each other a lot. Using full name makes their relationship look awkward

and makes them seem like strange to each other.

5. Use obscure or secretive language

For example, mystify the other with jargon, or use a code known to others

in the group, but not the target.

[13] HAZEL: Hey listen douchepants. Youre not gonna tell me

anything I dont know about illness.

Hazel is talking to Van Houten and she doesnt call him by his name but

with an unclear, difficult to understand and undefined name. In the [13] example,

the word douchepants is not known to many people which is like rude and

offensive name and it expresses that she is very angry to Van Houten and shows

that she doesnt respect him.

6. Seek disagreement

The criterion of the strategy is to select a sensitive topic in conversation.

[14] MICHAEL: Hazel, you need to get out of the house. Make friends.

Be a teenager.

HAZEL: ugh you cant make me.

MICHEL: Of course we can. Were your parents. Hazel you need to

get out of the house. Make friends. Be a teenager.

25

The FTA performed in the example [14] is seek disagreement where

Hazel gives argument in which she doesnt have the same opinion with her father.

By giving that argument or opinion, she wanted to cause his father to be upset or

angry so he wont ask her to go outside home.

7. Make the other feel uncomfortable

For example, do not avoid silence, joke, or use small talk.

[15] HAZEL: If you want me to be a teenager, dont send me to

support group, make me a fake ID so I can go to clubs and drink

gimlets and take pot.

MICHEL: You dont take pot

Hazel tries to frighten her dad to stop forces her hanging out because her

father always get a bit anxious if she does not go outside home for a while. She

wants her dad to know that problems or unpleasant things may happen if she

hanging around with other teenager.

8. Use taboo words

Swear, or use abusive or profane language.

[16] Im doing good. I get to knock off an hour early today. You

know why? because I kissed my boss ass.

It is not appropriate for someone to use such as kiss someones ass.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate to tell about personal problem with the boss to

other.

9. Call the other names - use derogatory nominations.

[17] Youre yellow, you Moron.

26

c. Negative impoliteness

The use of strategies designed to damage the addressees negative face

wants60. This can be done through the following ways, such as:

1. Frighten - instill a belief that action detrimental to the other will occur.

2. Condescend, scorn or ridicule - emphasize your relative power. Be

contemptuous. Do not treat the other seriously. Belittle the other (e.g. use

diminutives).

[18] In those two minutes that you spent actually looking at the book that

was the center of this controversy, was there anything in that two-

minutes review that you saw that you objected to?

The speaker is a lawyer who is ridiculing the witness, he is belittling the

witness knowledge about the matter at hand.

3. Invade the other's space - literally (e.g. position yourself closer to the

other than the relationship permits) or metaphorically (e.g. ask for or

speak about information which is too intimate given the relationship).

4. Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect - use the pronouns

'I' and 'you'. Personalize someone.

[19] You should have told me about that at the time, shouldnt you

be truthful?

The situation above is about a lawyer that is implying that the witness

has not been truthful earlier.

60Ibid. p. 1555.

27

5. Put the other's indebtedness on record.

d. Off Record Impoliteness

The FTA is performed by means of an implicates but in such a way that one

attributable intention clearly outweighs any others.

e. Withhold Impoliteness

This refers to the absence of politeness work where it would be expected.

For example, failing to thank somebody for a present may be taken as deliberate

impoliteness.61 To Culpeper, Brown and Levinson touch on the face-damaging

implications of withholding politeness work by saying that ...politeness has to be

communicated, and the absence of communicated politeness may be taken as the

absence of a polite attitude62

f. Sarcasm or mock politeness

Culpepers sarcasm or mock politeness is of course the opposite of Brown

and Levinson's social harmony that is achieved through off-record politeness. The

FTA is performed with the use of politeness strategies that are obviously insincere,

and thus remain surface realisations.63

[20] PATIENT : I had a couple headaches last month and I have trouble

concentrating. I was also thinking it might be fibromyalgia.

DOCTOR : Excellent diagnosis.

61 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op. cit., pp. 356-357.

62 Ibid. 63 Jonathan Culpeper (1996), op.cit, p. 356.

28

As the patient thinks he is an expert on diagnosing himself with the hekp of

internet, the doctor decides to play along and agree with the patient.

5. The Strategies to Counter the Face Attack

Both politeness and impoliteness study tended to overlook what the

recepient of face threat or attack does because the replay to an utterance can reveal

much about how utteranceis to be taken.64 Theoritically, when recepient of an

utterance perceive a strategic impoliteness act they have two choices to open to

them; they can either respond or not respon to it (i.e. stay silent).65

Participant who choose to respond to the impoliteness act have a further

theoritical set of choices to open to them; accept (apology) or they can counter it

(offensive and difensive).66 Offensive strategies primarily counter face attack with

face attack, and defensive strategies primarily counter face attack by defending

ones own face.67

Further, offensive strategies are listed as follows:

a. Escalation

Where each speaker uses a stronger strategy than previous speaker.

[21] Vallerie: Ill slap you on the face

Jerry : Ill kick you on the face, you gonna have bloody nose

b. Repetition

[22] Boy : Shut up you beer belly.

Girl : Go to hell.

Boy : Go on diet.

64 Jonathan Culpeper, Derek Bousfield, Anne Wichmann, op. cit., pp.1562. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. p. 1563.

29

Girl : Go to hell.

Turning now to defensive counter strategies, they are:

a. Inversion

Direct contradiction of what was said.

[23] Tamtam : Eat that you dodo!

Kiki : I am not dodo, you dumb-dumb.

Tamtam : Absolutely yes, you are.

Kiki : Automatically no, I am not.

b. Abrogation

Personal responsibility for the action or event that caused the interlocutor to

issue a face damaging utterance in the first place.

[24] Alpha : Dont you think this is a bit ridiculous?

Beta : Well, I am jus doing what is ordered.

Alpha : Yeah well I am asking you as your best friend dont you

think this is a bit stupid?

Beta : Well, yes and no.

c. Opt Out on Record

This strategy attempts to seal off the face threathening and attack act.

[25] Mom: Dee, explain to me how can you get F on English?

Child: Mom, I am hungry.

Mom: Let me know why, first.

Child: Can I have a plate of blueberry pancake?

Mom: Dewi Lestari, I am asking you!

Child: Mom, I am starving and diying here.

d. Insincere Agreement

To allow the locutor express his anger by surface agreement with the face attack.

[26] X: Youll get problem, you create it.

Y: Yeah.

X: No banned sign but you ticketed me for ilegal parking. Take the

cars off and bar the cars.

30

Y: Allright Sir, too many cars on road.

e. Ignore the implied face attack

The hearer accept the surface meaning of the utterance not the implied sarcastic

barb.

[27] A: Now you can go.

B: (sarcastically) Have a nice day.

A: I will do.

F. Social Distance Scale and the Choice of Impoliteness Strategy

There are factors in communication process which influence the choice of

politeness and impoliteness strategies and these factors become scale to measure

politeness and impoliteness level.68 Brown and Levinson list three sociological

variables that speaker employ in choosing the degree of politeness to use and in

calculating the amount of threat to their own face:

(1) The social distance of speaker and hearer

(2) The relative power of speaker

(3) The degree of imposition associated with the required expenditure of

goods or services.69

The greater the social distance between speaker and hearer or if they know

each other very little, the more politeness is generally expected. The greater the

perceived relative power of hearer over speaker, the more politeness is

recommended. The heavier the imposition made on the hearer or the more of their

68 Brown and Levinson (1987), op.cit. p. 74. 69 Ibid.

31

time required, or the greater the favor requested, the more politeness will generally

have to be used.

According to Leech, every interpersonal maxim has scale which defines the

utterances politeness level. Leechs scales are:

(1) Cost-benefit scale : Representing the cost or benefit of an act to speaker

and hearer

(2) Optionally scale : Indicating the degree of choice permitted to speaker

and/or hearer by a specific language act.

(3) Indirectness scale : Indicating the amount n of inferencing required of

the hearer in order to establish the intended speaker meaning

(4) Authority scale : Representing the status relation between speaker

and hearer.

(5) Social distance scale : Indicating the familiarity between speaker

and hearer.70

Referring to both scale above, politeness serves to both reflect and regulate

social distance, it is an integral part of life in human society; it may affect social

distance only within an acceptable range of politeness.71

Social norms specify the acceptable range of politeness in a specific

situation, within which the speaker may choose to be more or less polite and

thereby reduce or increase the sense of interpersonal closeness72

70 Geoffery N. Leech, Principle of Pragmatics, ( London: Longman, 1983), p. 13. 71 R. Kunjana Rahardi, Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia, (Jakarta:

Erlangga, 2005), p. 231. 72 Ibid.

32

Obviously, Brown and Levinson scale and Leech scale above complete one

and another. Both reflect the potential for doing politeness and impoliteness is

related to specific situation, and social norm and social distance. Those scales will

be combined in analyzing the relation between impoliteness and social distance.

32

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. Data Description

Bibliography technique is used to find the source of this research. 139 The

Fault In Our Starts film transcript was downloaded on the internet.140After the

corpus is found, it is read carefully to find the data that implied impoliteness

strategies and the strategies to encounter impoliteness by using Jonathan Culpeper

Impoliteness theory. The found strategies then marked, numbered, and total there

are about 43 (fourty three) strategies compiled into data card.141

Table 1. Data Finding of Impoliteness Strategies in Data Card

No. Impoliteness Strategy Data Findings

1. Bald on Record 08

2. Positive Impoliteness 13

3. Negative Impoliteness 12

4. Sarcasm or Mock Politeness 10

5. Withhold Politeness -

Total 43

Furthermore, the data obtained then classified using purposive sampling, to

gain only the impoliteness strategies that encountered by the encounter impoliteness

139 Edi Subroto, Op. Cit. p.77 140 IMSDB, The Fault in Our Stars, the transcript accessesd on January 21, 2015, from

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Fault-in-Our-Stars,-The.html. 141 Edi Subroto, Loc. Cit.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Fault-in-Our-Stars,-The.html

33

strategies, then the data reduced into only 24 number of data to be analyzed.142

Some strategies from the same sequence of time and place are combined into one

analysis, in accordance to create a clear context of the dialogue. Based on that

condition, the data became into 12 (twelve ) dialogues of countered impoliteness.

Table 2. List of dialogues contain impoliteness strategies that encountered by

encounter impoliteness strategy

(NB: Bold utterances show impoliteness strategy, Italic utterances show the

strategy to encounter impoliteness)

No. Utterances Impoliteness

Strategies

Encounter

Strategies

1. FRANNIE: she reads the same book over and over...

DOCTOR: Shes depressed.

HAZEL: Im not depressed!

(Page 2.)

Bald on record

impoliteness

Defensive

(Inversion)

2. DOCTOR: If youre depressed

HAZEL: (exasperated) Im not

de

DOCTOR: (ignoring her) --

support Groups are a great way

to connect with people who are...

HAZEL: What?

DOCTOR: (beat) On the same

journey.

HAZEL: Journey? Really?

FRANNIE : Hazel.

DOCTOR : Just give it a chance,

ok? For me.(Page 4.)

Negative

Impoliteness

(Challenging)

Negative

Impoliteness

(Scorn)

Defensive

(Ignore implied

face attack)

Defensive

(Ignore implied

face attack)

142 T Plays, Purposive Sampling in The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research

Methods, (vol.2), ed. L, M. Given (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), pp. 697-698.

34

3. HAZEL: ugh you cant make me.

MICHAEL: Of course we can.

Were your parent

HAZEL: If you want me to be a

teenager, dont send me to

support group, make me a fake

ID so I can go to clubs and

drink gimlets and take pot.

MICHAEL: You dont take pot.

(Page 7.)

Positive

Impoliteness

(be disinterest)

Positive

Impoliteness

Ofensive

(Escalation)

Defensive

(Inversion)

4. HAZEL: Are you gonna sit

here and wait the whole time?

FRANNIE: Of course not, no. I..

I have errands to run.

(Page 8.)

Negative

Impoliteness

(Condescend)

Defensive

(Inversion)

5. HAZEL: Why are you looking at me like that? GUS: Because you are beautiful

(Page 13.)

Bald on Record

Impoliteness

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

6. GUS: No I mean now. HAZEL: What?

GUS : Hmm?

HAZEL : What do you mean

now? GUS: Ive got a car.

HAZEL: You could be an axe

murderer

GUS: There is that possibility.

Come on Hazel Grace take a

risk. (Page 14.)

Positive

Impoliteness

(Disbelief)

Positive

Impoliteness

(Disbelief)

Bald on Record

Impoliteness

Defensive

(Escalation)

Defensive

(Abrogation)

Bald on Record

7. HAZEL: Oh my God. Oh my God. Youre kidding right?

You just ruined the whole

thing

GUS: Whole thing?

HAZEL: What you think thats

cool? Oh you idiot! What you

think thats cool? Oh you idiot! : Theres always Hamartia,

isnt there? And yours is

even though you had

FREAKING CANCER you

give money to a corporation

for the chance to acquire

EVEN MORE CANCER!?

Overlapping

Strategies:

Positive Impoliteness

(Taboo word)

Negative Impoliteness

(Frighten)

Overlapping

strategies:

Negative Impoliteness

(Frighten)

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

35

Ugh you were doing so well.

Let me tell you not being

able to breathe? Suck. Totally

sucks.

GUS: Hamartia?

(Page 14-15.)

Bald on Record Impoliteness

Negative Impoliteness

(Frighten)

(Condescend)

(Frighten)

8. GUS: Dont tell me youre the one of those people who

becomes their disease

HAZEL: No. I am just I dont

know un-extraordinary

GUS: I reject that out of hand.

(beat, Hazel shrugs) Think of

something you love. First thing

that comes to mind.

HAZEL: An Imperial

Affliction. (Page 21.)

Negative

Impoliteness

(Condescend)

Defensive

(Abrogation)

9. HAZEL: (laughing) What? No. GUS: Stormtroopers?

HAZEL: Seriously? (he shrugs)

Its not that kind of book.

GUS: Sounds horrible.

(Page 22.)

Positive

Impoliteness

(Condescend)

Defensive

(Inversion)

10. GUS: Tell me you did not go to Disney World. Hazel Grace!

You did not use your one dying

wish to go to Disney World!

HAZEL: And Epcot Center.

GUS: Oh my God!

HAZEL: We had fun on that trip.

GUS: That is the saddest thing

Ive ever heard!

HAZEL: I met goofy

GUS: Now Im embarrassed.

HAZEL: Why are you

embarrassed? (Page 37.)

Positive

Impoliteness

(underestimate)

Positive

Impoliteness

(Swear)

Positive

impoliteness

(underestimate)

Positive

impoliteness

(deploring)

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

Defensive

(Abrogation)

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

Defensive

(Inversion)

11. GUS : Hazel Grace, like so many before you - and I say this

with great affection - you spent

your Wish... moronically.

Negative

Impoliteness

(Ridicule)

Defensive

(Ignore the

implied face

attack)

36

HAZEL: I was thir

GUS: Hush! Im in the midst of

a grand soliloquy here.

HAZEL: Sorry. Please,

continue...

GUS: If you were smart, you

would have saved your wish till

the time in your life when you

really knew your true self.

HAZEL: But I didnt save

it.(Page 42.)

12. FRANNIE: Are you out of your mind? Its too much, Haze. We

cant accept something like

that from a virtual stranger. HAZEL: Hes not stranger.

(Page 43.)

Negative

Impoliteness

(Disbelief)

and (Explicitly

associate the

other with a

negative aspect)

Defensive

(Inversion)

A. Data Analysis

As the main purpose of the research, the impoliteness and encountered

impoliteness strategies which are extracted from The Fault in Our Stars film

transcript are examined, then social distance among characters in the dialogue also

examined by using social distance scale in Leechs theory and also Brown and

Levinsons theory.

Datum 1:

Hazels mother, Frannie, thought that Hazel was depressed because of her

sickness then she brought hazel to meet Doctor. To prove what she thinking was

right, she reported Hazels habit to Doctor.

HAZEL : Im not depressed.

37

Hazels legs dangle over the side of an exam table. Her mother FRANNIE (early

40s, younger than she feels) explains to the DOCTOR

FRANNIE : she eats like a bird. She barely leaves the house

HAZEL : Im not depressed.

FRANNIE : she reads the same book over and over...

DOCTOR : Shes depressed.

HAZEL : Im not depressed! (Page 2.)

The Doctors conclusion reflects Bald on record impoliteness strategy

because he diagnose without any effort to build effective communication with the

patient by examining further to Hazel.

There are steps in communication technique that should be followed by

doctor in order to build effective communication with patient. The communication

steps are giving attention, starting dialogue, finding solution or giving alternative

solution and concluding the result.143 However Hazels doctor misses that

procedure and the lack of such interaction seems like he has not given diagnosis but

judgement.

Hazel refused both of what Frannie and the Doctor taught using inversion

defensive strategy, she still insists that she is not depressed. Hazel knows she is not

depressed because she is just very ill. Hazel suffers stage IV thyroid cancer, she is

too sick to play outside, so she barely leaves the house and to kill the time she likes

reading her favorite book.

The relationship among Hazel, Frannie and Doctor is close enough. Frannie

is Hazels mother and they live together while the doctor is the one who evaluate

Hazels frailty every time Hazel comes for consulting or regular controlling. Since

143 Mulyohadi ali, Ieda Poernomo Sigit Sidi, eds., Komunikasi Efektif Dokter-Pasien

(Jakarta: Konsil Kedokteran Indonesia, 2006), p. vii.

38

they have quite a lot interaction, the Doctor can make diagnosis of Hazels condition

based on her record during her regular controlling plus with her mother report of

her daily in house. He can summarize up Frannies report into a diagnosis without

asking any further to Hazel.

However, Hazels refutation is also affect by their closeness. The repetition

of her refusing similar with kid when they believe of something then the kid will

insist about it all the times. She doesnt want to be labelled as depressed one by her

own mother and her doctor yet she wants their understanding that it is normal to be

sad when someone is too sick.

Datum 2

Still in the Doctors office, Frannie keep continue reporting to the Doctor.

While Hazel keep dangling her feet, the Doctor asking to Hazel whether she ever

come to Support Group that he advised once. Support Group is a community where

many of cancer survivors gathered to share story.

DOCTOR : Have you been going to that Support Group I suggested?

Instead of answering, Hazel looks at her Mom.

FRANNIE : Shes gone a few times.

HAZEL : Im not sure its for me.

DOCTOR : If youre depressed

HAZEL : (exasperated) Im not de

DOCTOR : (ignoring her) -- support Groups are a great way to connect

with people who are...

HAZEL : What?

DOCTOR : (beat) On the same journey.

HAZEL : Journey? Really?

FRANNIE : Hazel.

DOCTOR : Just give it a chance, ok? For me.

Hazel rolls her eyes, knows shes lost this battle.

DOCTOR : Who knows? You might even find it... enlightening. (Page

4.)

39

Hazel doing Negative Impoliteness by challenging the doctor, whether the

support group that he advised is a community the fighter of cancer survivor or a

community where the hopeless cancer survivor gather. However, Hazel doesnt

want to be labeled as a depressed cancer survivor, and she thinks that the Support

Group is not suitable with her because it is a place where lose hope cancer survivors

are gather.

The Doctor replied hazels challenge using defensive strategy, he ignored

the face attack then explained that Support Group is a place where cancer survivor

as her are gather. Here, the same journey which is mentioned by the doctor means,

same effort to fight and to struggle over cancer disease.

The doctor wants Hazel to positive thinking about that support group. The

Doctor believes that Hazel need to meet other cancer survivor. By joining that group

she wont feel as the only unlucky person who suffers over cancer and she can share

her story to empower and embrace each other, then she will not be over thinking

about dying and ended up in depression.

However, Hazel still doesnt believe with the doctors answer then she

replied using negative impoliteness strategy by requoting the doctors answer

Same journey with different intonation and she continued to ask Really? to

show her doubt as if the doctors answer is not something he really mean.

The doctor replied still using defensive strategy; he ignored the implied face

attack by Hazel and answered Just give it a chance, ok? For me which is mean

that he understand for Hazels disbelief of that group but Hazel need to believe him

as her personal doctor and his advice is for the sakes of Hazel best condition.

40

In this dialogue illustrates that the doctor gave suggestion for hazel to visit

a support group of cancer survivor. He gave the suggestion based on his monitoring

and examination in every Hazels controlling schedule, and he knows that someday

Hazel would feel depressed whenever her cancer gets worst. It is not the first time

he suggest Hazel to visit the support group because he concern with Hazels health

progress. This kind of attention shows their closeness, thats why the doctor keeps

being patient by ignoring the face attack and at last Hazel becomes soften and want

to follow his suggestion.

Datum 3

Hazels routines make her feels bored; watching reality shows, going to

doctors appointments, taking three times a day eight prescription drugs and worst

of all is attending support group. She thinks that Support group is something useless

because she doesnt get it helpful but wasting of time. Hazel always feels lazy to go

there and every Support Group schedule is coming Hazel parents have to force her

to go there.

HAZEL : ugh you cant make me.

MICHEL : Of course we can. Were your parents. Hazel you need to get

out of the house. Make friends. Be a teenager.

HAZEL : If you want me to be a teenager, dont send me to support

group, make me a fake ID so I can go to clubs and drink gimlets and take

pot.

MICHEL : You dont take pot (Page 7.)

Positive Impoliteness strategy appears when Hazel refuses her parents

persuasion to go to Support Group. Although she knows that her personal doctor

suggests and forces her to go, yet she wont to go there. Going to Support Group

41

becomes Hazels obligation since her personal doctor said it so, and Hazels refusal

to her parents persuasion means that she opposes and disobeys not only her parents

but also the doctor. By disagreeing with her parents, she expresses Positive

Impoliteness strategy because Hazel seeks disagreement of something urgent

related to her health and it causes her parents feels tired.

Michel replies Hazels Impoliteness strategy using escalation offensive

strategy whenever he says of course we can. His statement shows his will for

Hazel to obey him because he wants and knows what the best is for his daughter.

Moreover, when Michel continues to say were your parent, it reflects his power

as a father toward Hazel and it gives him authority to control and order what should

Hazel does. As a father, whenever he wants Hazel to go to Support Group for her

good, so she should go there without any excuse. He is worry about Hazels

psychological condition because he sees that Hazel always stay at home. He thinks

that she should to socialize like the other teenager at her age do. And going to

support group can help her to make some friends and also can help her to decimate

her stress.

Hazel comes again with Positive Impoliteness by seeking disagreement

toward his dad when her dad gives a piece of advice about being teenager. Michel

wants Hazel to go to Support Group where other cancer survivors on her age are

gathered. She confronts her dad that going to support group wont make her

becomes a teenager. For her, become teenager is about having fun or doing some

juvenile delinquencies like going to clubs, drinking gimlets and taking pot. By

42

making her dad feel uncomfortable, she wants Michel to stop forces her attend to

Support Group and let her stay at home.

In reply, Michel expresses inversion offensive strategy by changing Hazel

last statement into negative form. Hazel says she would take pot, Michel replies that

she wouldnt take pot. He knows Hazel is trying to threaten him, and he wont fall

into it.

The relationship among Hazel and her parents is very close and private, they

live in the same home, they look after one and another and they are family. Since

Hazel diagnosed with cancer, her parents become a bit possessive to her. Therefore

Michel often regulating, trammeling, and imposing his will to protect her and get

the best for her.

Datum 4

Finally, Hazel wants to go to Support Group, but not because she wanted to

or because she thought it would help. She decides to go there only to make her

parents happy. Outside the Support Group church which is a small Episcopalian

sanctuary in suburban Indianapolis, Frannies car pulls up to the back entrance. She

is dropping Hazel for her first attendance in the group. As Hazel shuts the cars

door, she asks her mom whether she will have an activity to do while shes waiting

for her.

HAZEL : Are you gonna sit here and wait the whole time?

FRANNIE : Of course not, no. I.. I have errands to run. (Page 8.)

43

Negative Impoliteness is expressed by Hazel when she asking her mother,

whether she will wait without anything to do or go back home and then come again

to pick her up. Hazel doesnt want to go to then Support Group because she thinks

there are other important things that her parents can do rather than accompany her

to the group.

Inversion offensive strategy is occurred when Frannie changing Hazel last

statement into negative form. Frannie denies that she would do nothing while

waiting for Hazel. She knows Hazel is trying to ease her but she wont make her

worry by saying she has nothing to do except waiting for her. Waiting for Hazel is

a kind of responsibilities for her; it is a kind of her duty.

Datum 5

Hazel is waiting for her moms car to appear in the parking lot when

Augustus comes to greet her. They arent yet to be friend in the Support Group, but

Augustus already amazed with Hazel when she gave her opinion to respond

Augustus answer about his biggest fear in the middle of discussion on the group.

From that moment, Augustus interest with Hazel and he try to be her friend and get

closer to her.

HAZEL : Why are you looking at me like that?

GUS : Because you are beautiful (Page 13.)

Bald on record,is performed by Hazel in the form of short and clear,

expressing what needs to be said without unnecessary words. She does not like to

be starred by August, her uncomfortable feeling is expressed in a way which makes

44

it completely clear as what it is meant. She says what she thinks in a very honest

way without worrying about August respons.

August replies in defensive encounter strategy to ignore the implied face

attack is showed by Hazel, he just react toward the surface meaning of statement

why as a question and he doesnt matter with the implied meaning that question.

He seriously amazed with Hazels beauty at that time, and when he says that he

really meant it.

Datum6

Still in the parking lot, Gus is asking Hazel to hang out with him.

GUS : Lets watch a movie.

HAZEL : Oh. Um. Uh... (yes!) Sure. Yeah. Im... pretty free this week

GUS : No I mean now.

HAZEL : What?

GUS : Hmm?

HAZEL : What do you mean now?

GUS : Ive got a car.

He shrugs. Hazel has never seen someone so confident.

HAZEL : You could be an axe murderer.

GUS : There is that possibility. (beat) Come on Hazel Grace... take

a risk. (Page 14.)

When Hazel says what?, she is expressing disbelief instead of merely

posing a question. Her disbelief of August intention shows positive impoliteness

because she damage August desire to be approved by other in communication. She

cant go with August because she is barely knows him and his invitation is too

sudden. She couldnt make any consideration toward sudden invitation from

stranger.

45

Defensive encounter strategy to ignore the implied face attack is showed by

Augusts speechless response, he just react toward the surface meaning of statement

what as a question and he doesnt matter with the implied meaning that question.

He seriously wants to go the cinema at that time. He waits for Hazel answer and he

want her to decide immediately.

Positive impoliteness appears once again when hazel asking and giving

emphasis on the word now what do you mean now? She still disbelief with

August and she refuses to answer before she makes sure whether August is serious

or not. She also perform Bald on Record Impoliteness by giving that question, the

question reflects that she cant go at that time, yet she want to go in other time or

moment.

Once again Gus performs ignore the implied face attack from defensive

strategies. He insists with his intention to go with hazel and still doesnt care much

with Hazel disbelieve of him. He has confident to ask her no matter what her

response is. He offer his car to make hazel sure that they can go wherever they can

at the time.

Hazel can accept that Gus has car, but she still cant go with him because

she barely know him. Then, she performs bald on record impoliteness strategies

when she said You could be an axe murderer which mean she couldnt go with

August because they has just meet, introduce and talk for a moment.

Offensive strategy comes up when Gus replied that Hazel must take the

challenge to go with stranger like him. He still tries to make her want to go with

46

him. He is not the only stranger, for him Hazel is also a stranger but he dares to ask

her to watch a movie. His challenge to Hazel makes Hazel look like a coward and

timid person.

Datum 7

It is still in the parking lot, and Augustus is still trying to make appointment

with hazel. As Hazel mulls this over, Gus reaches into his pocket and pulls out a

pack of cigarettes. He flips the box open, put a cigarette between his lips, it makes

Hazel in disbelieve.

HAZEL : What you think thats cool? Oh you idiot! What you think

thats cool? Oh you idiot! : Theres always Hamartia, isnt

there? And yours is even though you had FREAKING

CANCER you give money to a corporation for the chance

to acquire EVEN MORE CANCER!? Ugh you were doing

so well. Let me tell you not being able to breathe? Suck.

Totally sucks.

GUS : Hamartia?

Hazel folds her arms and turns away from him.

HAZEL : A fatal flaw.

Gus takes a beat and then moves to face her, the smile still etched on his face.

GUS : They dont hurt you unless you light them.

HAZEL : Sorry?

GUS : Ive never lit one.

Hazel turns back to him.

GUS : Its a metaphor. See? You put the thing that kills you between

your teeth. But you dont give it the power to do the killing.

Hazel is floored and impressed.

HAZEL : Metaphor. (Page 15.)

Overlapping strategies released when Hazel mumbling. First, she shows

mock impoliteness when she say idiot more than once, she also performs Bald on

record impoliteness when she say freaking cancer that describes August condition

that has bone cancer. Negative impoliteness also appears when she tells Oh youre

47

doing so well to frighten him that something bad will happen and condescend him

as if he does not know anything.

Gus doesnt response to all Hazels statement; he just ask question about a

word that attached in his ear, the hamartia. His short answer that asking back to

Hazel performs one of the defensive strategies, opt out on record where he tries to

seal off Hazels threatening act.

Short answer from Hazel shows bald on record impoliteness. She only

answers what hamartia is. That direct answer reflects that she is upset with Gus. It

is clear that she doesnt want to talk any further with him.

Gus knows Hazel is upset then he explains that he never smokes. He also

tells it is just a symbol when he put the cigarette on his lips but he never lit one. His

explanation that ignores that face attack act from hazel shows defensive strategy,

ignore implied face attack.

Datum 8

Finally, Hazel accept Gus invitation to hang out with him, he invites Hazel

to nowhere but his home. Hazel and Gus are sitting in Gus basement which already

turned into Gus bedroom while talking about their normal life, the life

experience without their cancer.

GUS : So whats your story?

HAZEL : I already told you my story. I was diagnosed

GUS : Not your cancer story. Your story. Interests, hobbies, passions,

weird fetishes...

HAZEL : Um...

GUS : Dont tell me youre the one of those people who become

their disease

HAZEL : No. I am just I dont know un-extraordinary

48

GUS : I reject that out of hand. (beat, Hazel shrugs) Think of

something you love. First thing that comes to mind.

HAZEL : An Imperial Affliction.

GUS : Ok. Whats that?

HAZEL : Its a novel. My favorite novel.

GUS : Does it have zombies?

HAZEL : (laughing) What? No.

GUS : Stormtroopers?