Name : Ahmad Kirom
Nim : 07320064
ANALYSIS ON THE WHITE TIGER PLAY WITH SPEECH ACT, IMPLICATURES AND POLITENESS THEORY
A. Introduction
In this paper the writer will analyze this play script using some theories. This story was written by Mike for his play. This story tells about a family who live near the Kumgang Mountains in Korea. In the mountains there is a white tiger that always disturbs the people there. Father in this story is the finest gunman so that he wants to kill the white tiger. But he can not kill this white Tiger which lived in the Kumgang Mountains. The White Tiger continuously terrorized the village by preying on horses, cattle, and also humans. But the father never returns back to his home. His son has a dream to defeat the white tiger like his father so he always learns to be the finest gunman. And the last, he can kill the white tiger and brings back the people who has been caught by the white tiger especially his father. The characters of this story are Son, Mother, Innkeeper, Old Woman, Girl, and Father.
Before analyzing these play utterances, the writer will explain some theories first. The theory that the writer used are speech acts, in this theory the writer tends to analyze deeply the type of illocutionary acts by Searle because Searle said that the illocutionary act is the central of speech act analysis. In the second theory, the writer uses implicature theory by Herbert Paul Grice and the last analysis is politeness strategy by Brown & Levinson. This theory is very interesting to me because in this theory the writer can learn more about politeness strategies that is able to use in the society.
• Theory of Speech Act
Speech acts are actions performed via utterances (apology, complaint, compliment, etc). They apply to the speaker’s communicative intention in producing an utterance. The speaker normally expects that his/her communicative intention will be recognized by the hearer.
Speech act can be analysis with three levels. They are locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. locutionary act: the basic act of utterance, producing a meaningful linguistic expression. At this level, the locution is what the words say. Illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance, the function that we have in mind when we produce an utterance, what the words do. This is also known as the illocutionary force of an utterance. perlocutionary act is the effect you intend your utterance to have on the hearer. For example, the perlocutionary effect of the utterance It’s hot in here might be the hearer going to the window and opening it. This is also known as the perlocutionary effect of an utterance.
In this paper, the writer will analyze speech acts on “the white tiger play”, The writer will focus on Searle’s theory. Searle proposes five macro classes of illocutionary acts. Those are (1) Representative, (2) Directives (3) Commisives (4) Expressives, and (5) Declarative (Yule, 1996:53).
Datum 1
SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
SON: Don't worry, mother, I shall find the White tiger. I know it!
MOTHER: Very well, as you wish. But first let me ask you one thing. Your father used to have me stand with a water jug on my head. Then he would shoot off the handle of the water jug from one mile away without spilling any water. Can you do the same thing?
Analysis 1
From dialogue above, we know that the illocutionary act of son is asking permitting to his mother. He shows to his mother that he is really ready to kill the white tiger, so this utterance is directive illocutionary act. In the second utterance of son is commisive illocutionary act because in his utterance he promises to his mother that he will find the white tiger and kill it. The second utterance is mother utterance. In this case, mother tries to refute her son’s will because it is dangerous to her son. So she uses assertive illocutionary act to her son. This assertive illocutionary act includes suggesting. In the second utterance of mother, she tries to lie to her son so he will not go to defeat the white tiger.
Datum 2
MOTHER: I have to admit, I lied to you about all these tasks.
SON: What? You wasted six years of my life when I already could have destroyed the White Tiger?
MOTHER: I did it for your own good, son. I didn't want you to get killed. I was afraid for you. I see now that you are a fine gunsman and you are ready to go to the Kumgang Mountains to destroy the White Tiger.
SON: Thank you, mother. I will leave at sunrise tomorrow.
Analysis 2
In the dialogue above, we know that mother has lied to her son. She admits that her husband never did it. This is utterance is assertive illocutionary act because she admit what she has done. In the son utterance, he tries to complaint to his mother because his mother has lied to him. But after hearing what his mother wants, he thanks to her mother and he asks permission to her. in this utterance, the son uses assertive illocutionary act to complaint his mom, and than he uses expressive illocutionary act to say thank.
Datum 3
SON: My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death.
INNEKEEPER: Why, your father used to turn his back to that tree and then shoot down the highest leaf on the highest branch from over his shoulder. If you can't do the same thing, how can you expect to defeat the White Tiger?
INNKEEPER: With your skills now, you will surely avenge your father's death. There is one thing I must tell you before you leave. These tests I've been giving you are lies. Your father never did these tests. I did this because I didn't want you to end up like your father.
SON: There was no need for this! I thank you for your concern, but I was fine. I was and still am ready to destroy the White Tiger.
INNKEEPER: Well, here are some rice balls for your journey through the Kumgang Mountains.
SON: Thanks for everything. Bye.
Analysis 3
In the dialogue above we know that the son wants to defeat the white tiger because his father was killed by the white tiger. In the first and second utterances of son, the son uses representative illocutionary act because he wants that the innkeeper believes that he is able to kill the white tiger. The innkeeper Utterances is directive illocutionary act because the innkeeper wants the son to do something before he can kill the white tiger. And the last utterance of the innkeeper is that he makes sure to the son that he is able to kill the white tiger. That utterance is directive illocutionary act because he indirectly asks son to kill the white tiger.
Datum 4
SON: Finally the White Tiger has been killed! All my hard work has paid off!
GIRL: I thank you with all my heart. I owe you my life. Last night I was stolen from the White Tiger when I was washing my hair on the veranda.
SON: Is that you, father?
FATHER: Why, yes! I have missed you and your mother for such a long time.
MOTHER: Oh my! My husband and son returned! Thank goodness. I have waited for this for a lifetime.
Analysis 4
In the last dialogue above, the son is satisfied with what he has done. He has killed the white tiger and saves the people from the white tiger. In the utterance” All my hard work has paid off!” he uses commisive illocutionary act because he talks to himself that his work is done and he is success. And in the girl utterance, she uses expressive illocutionary act because she say thank to son because he has saved from the white tiger. So the father’s utterance is. And the last the mother uses expressive illocutionary act to express her happiness.
• The theory of Implicature
The theory of implicature, which is proposed by Herbert Paul Grice, is the one particularly used to analyze the words or utterances. Grice divided implicature into conventional and conversational implicature, and further he distinguished conversational implicature into generalized and particularized implicature. In addition, Grice proposed that participants in a communicative exchange are guided by a principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication. He called it the Cooperative Principle, which consists of four maxims (Grundy, 2000: 74). First, maxims of quantity, is in which you should make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Second, maxims of quality, in which you are not allowed to say what you believe to be false and also you are not allowed to say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Third, maxim of relation, everything you say must be relevant. Forth, maxim of manner, when you are speaking you have to avoid obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity), be orderly. A study of discourse analysis about implicature is extremely interesting to learn, where language (spoken or written) and context are inseparable.
Datum 1
SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
SON: Don't worry, mother, I shall find the White Tiger. I know it!
MOTHER: Very well, as you wish. But first let me ask you one thing. Your father used to have me stand with a water jug on my head. Then he would shoot off the handle of the water jug from one mile away without spilling any water. Can you do the same thing?
SON: I'll try.
Analysis 1
From that dialogue, there are implicatures that are used by son and mother. The first is “I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go”. This utterance is generalized conversational implicature since this utterance is clear enough to mother to understand, her child wants to defeat the white tiger after he knew that his father has killed by the white tiger. The second utterance is mother utterance; this utterance uses generalized conversational implicature because mother tries to advise son. This utterance doesn’t depend on the context. this utterance flout the maxim of quantity because mother doesn’t give information as required by son.
Datum 2
OLD WOMAN: Could you spare an extra rice ball for me?
SON: Why, sure.
OLD WOMAN: We don't see many strangers this deep into these mountains. What brings you here?
OLD WOMAN: Forget about shooting the terrible White Tiger. He is too quick! As soon as the White Tiger desires to pounce, his next prey is gone. From one day to the next, we never know whether we are going to survive to see the next day. You are a young man. You ought best to leave these mountains at once and go back home while you're still alive!
Analysis 2
From the utterance above, there are many implicatures that are used by son and old women. the first utterance is “Could you spare an extra rice ball for me”. This utterance uses generalized conversational implicature since the son understand what old women wants, and this utterance is called as rhetorical question for this question does not need the answer. the second utterance is “Why, sure”. this utterance is generalized conversational implicature. and this utterance flout the maxim of quality because son give information as required by old women.
• Theory of politeness
Three factors of politeness BY Brown & Levinson
1) The “social distance” (D). It distinguishes the closeness with whom we are saying. If there is closeness, it means that it does not need distance in saying.
2) The relative “power” (P). We are inclined to speak to our social equals differently than those whose status is higher or lower than our own in a given situation.
3) The “weight” of imposition (W). Some impositions are greater than others.
Four Politeness Strategies by Brown & Levinson
1) Bald on Record. This is with no effort to minimize threats to a person.
2) Positive Politeness (on record). This attempts to satisfy the addressee’s positive face wants (optimistic).
3) Negative Politeness (on record). It attempts to satisfy the addressee’s negative face wants (Pessimistic).
4) Off the Record. The interpretation is left to the addressee, because the risk of loss of face is great.
Datum 1
→ SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
→ MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
Analysis 1
The son‘s statement is less of power (-P), distance (-D) and weight of imposition(-W). This describes closeness relationship between the son and the adressee, his mother. There is also definitely no different social status between tose two people. According to Brown & Levinson, this statement belongs to “positive politeness“ because the speaker does not use really direct statement “I’ll go to find the white Tiger and defeat him. Let me go“, for example. The using of “positive politeness“ instead of “bald on record“ means the son indeed keeps respect to hir mother. Likewise, the son does not also use any utterances with the more avoiding FTA (Face Threatening Act) statement means he does not attempt to satisfy the addressee’s negative face wants or use any indirect saying because of the closeness and the optimism of the son. While her son uses “positive politeness”, the mother uses “off record” then uses ”positive politeness”. Both statements are less of power (-P), distance (-D) and weight of imposition (-W). She applies non conventional indirectness, at first (“off record”) “Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger.” The mother wants to advise her son not to go to kill the white tiger by reminding him what was happening to his father. The advice happens indirectly. And afterwards, she uses “positive politeness” when saying “Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.” in order to again prevent her son not to go.
Datum 2
→ SON : My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death.
→ INNKEEPER: Ah, yes. I knew your father. He was the greatest gunman in all the land. Why, he stopped here at this very inn, many years ago, before venturing into the Kumgang Mountains. Can you see that tall tree over there in the distance?
Analysis 2
The son‘s statement is less of power (-D), distance (-P) and weight of imposition (-W). This depicts closeness relationship between the son and the innkeper. It might possible that the son considers in the same social status with the innkeeper. This statement belongs to “positive politeness“. That is why he does not need to keep formality and distance. The son attempts to satisfy the innkeeper’s positive face wants by addreessing the statement “ My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death”. Although the son considers in the same social status with the innkeeper, the innkeeper is older than the son. That is why the son uses direct statement with still uses efforts to minimize threats to the inkeeper. Similar as the son, the innkeper also uses “positive politeness“ when addressing the statements to the son “Ah, yes. I knew your father. He was……..Can you see that tall tree over there in the distance?” Despite the younger age of the son, the innkeeper still applies the “positive politeness”. It is because the innkeeper keeps respect to the son’s father. He knows that the father is the one who struggled for many people’s safety by trying to kill the “white tiger”. Besides, he is accustomed “positive politeness”, even to the younger one.
Conclusion
In this play utterances, we can conclude that the directive illocutionry acts is mostly aplly in this play. The characters mostly use general coversational implicature and they flout maxim of quantity because the utterances are clear and don‘t depend on the context and mostly the second speaker‘ information is not requaired by the first speaker. And the last, The utterances analyzed above mostly apply “positive politeness“. As we know, “positive politeness“ goes in line with languages used in everyday interactions. There is no variety in the strategy of politeness. It is because the emotion of the speaker and the reaction of the hearer are not really different. They tend to keep in calmness when reacting to any situations. There are also not significance in power (P), distance (D) and weight of imposition (W) between the speaker and hearer.
’
Nim : 07320064
ANALYSIS ON THE WHITE TIGER PLAY WITH SPEECH ACT, IMPLICATURES AND POLITENESS THEORY
A. Introduction
In this paper the writer will analyze this play script using some theories. This story was written by Mike for his play. This story tells about a family who live near the Kumgang Mountains in Korea. In the mountains there is a white tiger that always disturbs the people there. Father in this story is the finest gunman so that he wants to kill the white tiger. But he can not kill this white Tiger which lived in the Kumgang Mountains. The White Tiger continuously terrorized the village by preying on horses, cattle, and also humans. But the father never returns back to his home. His son has a dream to defeat the white tiger like his father so he always learns to be the finest gunman. And the last, he can kill the white tiger and brings back the people who has been caught by the white tiger especially his father. The characters of this story are Son, Mother, Innkeeper, Old Woman, Girl, and Father.
Before analyzing these play utterances, the writer will explain some theories first. The theory that the writer used are speech acts, in this theory the writer tends to analyze deeply the type of illocutionary acts by Searle because Searle said that the illocutionary act is the central of speech act analysis. In the second theory, the writer uses implicature theory by Herbert Paul Grice and the last analysis is politeness strategy by Brown & Levinson. This theory is very interesting to me because in this theory the writer can learn more about politeness strategies that is able to use in the society.
• Theory of Speech Act
Speech acts are actions performed via utterances (apology, complaint, compliment, etc). They apply to the speaker’s communicative intention in producing an utterance. The speaker normally expects that his/her communicative intention will be recognized by the hearer.
Speech act can be analysis with three levels. They are locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. locutionary act: the basic act of utterance, producing a meaningful linguistic expression. At this level, the locution is what the words say. Illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance, the function that we have in mind when we produce an utterance, what the words do. This is also known as the illocutionary force of an utterance. perlocutionary act is the effect you intend your utterance to have on the hearer. For example, the perlocutionary effect of the utterance It’s hot in here might be the hearer going to the window and opening it. This is also known as the perlocutionary effect of an utterance.
In this paper, the writer will analyze speech acts on “the white tiger play”, The writer will focus on Searle’s theory. Searle proposes five macro classes of illocutionary acts. Those are (1) Representative, (2) Directives (3) Commisives (4) Expressives, and (5) Declarative (Yule, 1996:53).
Datum 1
SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
SON: Don't worry, mother, I shall find the White tiger. I know it!
MOTHER: Very well, as you wish. But first let me ask you one thing. Your father used to have me stand with a water jug on my head. Then he would shoot off the handle of the water jug from one mile away without spilling any water. Can you do the same thing?
Analysis 1
From dialogue above, we know that the illocutionary act of son is asking permitting to his mother. He shows to his mother that he is really ready to kill the white tiger, so this utterance is directive illocutionary act. In the second utterance of son is commisive illocutionary act because in his utterance he promises to his mother that he will find the white tiger and kill it. The second utterance is mother utterance. In this case, mother tries to refute her son’s will because it is dangerous to her son. So she uses assertive illocutionary act to her son. This assertive illocutionary act includes suggesting. In the second utterance of mother, she tries to lie to her son so he will not go to defeat the white tiger.
Datum 2
MOTHER: I have to admit, I lied to you about all these tasks.
SON: What? You wasted six years of my life when I already could have destroyed the White Tiger?
MOTHER: I did it for your own good, son. I didn't want you to get killed. I was afraid for you. I see now that you are a fine gunsman and you are ready to go to the Kumgang Mountains to destroy the White Tiger.
SON: Thank you, mother. I will leave at sunrise tomorrow.
Analysis 2
In the dialogue above, we know that mother has lied to her son. She admits that her husband never did it. This is utterance is assertive illocutionary act because she admit what she has done. In the son utterance, he tries to complaint to his mother because his mother has lied to him. But after hearing what his mother wants, he thanks to her mother and he asks permission to her. in this utterance, the son uses assertive illocutionary act to complaint his mom, and than he uses expressive illocutionary act to say thank.
Datum 3
SON: My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death.
INNEKEEPER: Why, your father used to turn his back to that tree and then shoot down the highest leaf on the highest branch from over his shoulder. If you can't do the same thing, how can you expect to defeat the White Tiger?
INNKEEPER: With your skills now, you will surely avenge your father's death. There is one thing I must tell you before you leave. These tests I've been giving you are lies. Your father never did these tests. I did this because I didn't want you to end up like your father.
SON: There was no need for this! I thank you for your concern, but I was fine. I was and still am ready to destroy the White Tiger.
INNKEEPER: Well, here are some rice balls for your journey through the Kumgang Mountains.
SON: Thanks for everything. Bye.
Analysis 3
In the dialogue above we know that the son wants to defeat the white tiger because his father was killed by the white tiger. In the first and second utterances of son, the son uses representative illocutionary act because he wants that the innkeeper believes that he is able to kill the white tiger. The innkeeper Utterances is directive illocutionary act because the innkeeper wants the son to do something before he can kill the white tiger. And the last utterance of the innkeeper is that he makes sure to the son that he is able to kill the white tiger. That utterance is directive illocutionary act because he indirectly asks son to kill the white tiger.
Datum 4
SON: Finally the White Tiger has been killed! All my hard work has paid off!
GIRL: I thank you with all my heart. I owe you my life. Last night I was stolen from the White Tiger when I was washing my hair on the veranda.
SON: Is that you, father?
FATHER: Why, yes! I have missed you and your mother for such a long time.
MOTHER: Oh my! My husband and son returned! Thank goodness. I have waited for this for a lifetime.
Analysis 4
In the last dialogue above, the son is satisfied with what he has done. He has killed the white tiger and saves the people from the white tiger. In the utterance” All my hard work has paid off!” he uses commisive illocutionary act because he talks to himself that his work is done and he is success. And in the girl utterance, she uses expressive illocutionary act because she say thank to son because he has saved from the white tiger. So the father’s utterance is. And the last the mother uses expressive illocutionary act to express her happiness.
• The theory of Implicature
The theory of implicature, which is proposed by Herbert Paul Grice, is the one particularly used to analyze the words or utterances. Grice divided implicature into conventional and conversational implicature, and further he distinguished conversational implicature into generalized and particularized implicature. In addition, Grice proposed that participants in a communicative exchange are guided by a principle that determines the way in which language is used with maximum efficiency and effect to achieve rational communication. He called it the Cooperative Principle, which consists of four maxims (Grundy, 2000: 74). First, maxims of quantity, is in which you should make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Second, maxims of quality, in which you are not allowed to say what you believe to be false and also you are not allowed to say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Third, maxim of relation, everything you say must be relevant. Forth, maxim of manner, when you are speaking you have to avoid obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity), be orderly. A study of discourse analysis about implicature is extremely interesting to learn, where language (spoken or written) and context are inseparable.
Datum 1
SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
SON: Don't worry, mother, I shall find the White Tiger. I know it!
MOTHER: Very well, as you wish. But first let me ask you one thing. Your father used to have me stand with a water jug on my head. Then he would shoot off the handle of the water jug from one mile away without spilling any water. Can you do the same thing?
SON: I'll try.
Analysis 1
From that dialogue, there are implicatures that are used by son and mother. The first is “I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go”. This utterance is generalized conversational implicature since this utterance is clear enough to mother to understand, her child wants to defeat the white tiger after he knew that his father has killed by the white tiger. The second utterance is mother utterance; this utterance uses generalized conversational implicature because mother tries to advise son. This utterance doesn’t depend on the context. this utterance flout the maxim of quantity because mother doesn’t give information as required by son.
Datum 2
OLD WOMAN: Could you spare an extra rice ball for me?
SON: Why, sure.
OLD WOMAN: We don't see many strangers this deep into these mountains. What brings you here?
OLD WOMAN: Forget about shooting the terrible White Tiger. He is too quick! As soon as the White Tiger desires to pounce, his next prey is gone. From one day to the next, we never know whether we are going to survive to see the next day. You are a young man. You ought best to leave these mountains at once and go back home while you're still alive!
Analysis 2
From the utterance above, there are many implicatures that are used by son and old women. the first utterance is “Could you spare an extra rice ball for me”. This utterance uses generalized conversational implicature since the son understand what old women wants, and this utterance is called as rhetorical question for this question does not need the answer. the second utterance is “Why, sure”. this utterance is generalized conversational implicature. and this utterance flout the maxim of quality because son give information as required by old women.
• Theory of politeness
Three factors of politeness BY Brown & Levinson
1) The “social distance” (D). It distinguishes the closeness with whom we are saying. If there is closeness, it means that it does not need distance in saying.
2) The relative “power” (P). We are inclined to speak to our social equals differently than those whose status is higher or lower than our own in a given situation.
3) The “weight” of imposition (W). Some impositions are greater than others.
Four Politeness Strategies by Brown & Levinson
1) Bald on Record. This is with no effort to minimize threats to a person.
2) Positive Politeness (on record). This attempts to satisfy the addressee’s positive face wants (optimistic).
3) Negative Politeness (on record). It attempts to satisfy the addressee’s negative face wants (Pessimistic).
4) Off the Record. The interpretation is left to the addressee, because the risk of loss of face is great.
Datum 1
→ SON: Mother, I'm ready now to set out for Kumgang Mountains to find the White Tiger and defeat him. Please, let me go.
→ MOTHER: Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger. Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.
Analysis 1
The son‘s statement is less of power (-P), distance (-D) and weight of imposition(-W). This describes closeness relationship between the son and the adressee, his mother. There is also definitely no different social status between tose two people. According to Brown & Levinson, this statement belongs to “positive politeness“ because the speaker does not use really direct statement “I’ll go to find the white Tiger and defeat him. Let me go“, for example. The using of “positive politeness“ instead of “bald on record“ means the son indeed keeps respect to hir mother. Likewise, the son does not also use any utterances with the more avoiding FTA (Face Threatening Act) statement means he does not attempt to satisfy the addressee’s negative face wants or use any indirect saying because of the closeness and the optimism of the son. While her son uses “positive politeness”, the mother uses “off record” then uses ”positive politeness”. Both statements are less of power (-P), distance (-D) and weight of imposition (-W). She applies non conventional indirectness, at first (“off record”) “Even a famous marksman like your father was lost to the terrible White Tiger.” The mother wants to advise her son not to go to kill the white tiger by reminding him what was happening to his father. The advice happens indirectly. And afterwards, she uses “positive politeness” when saying “Please, son, quit dreaming about such nonsense and stay safe here at home.” in order to again prevent her son not to go.
Datum 2
→ SON : My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death.
→ INNKEEPER: Ah, yes. I knew your father. He was the greatest gunman in all the land. Why, he stopped here at this very inn, many years ago, before venturing into the Kumgang Mountains. Can you see that tall tree over there in the distance?
Analysis 2
The son‘s statement is less of power (-D), distance (-P) and weight of imposition (-W). This depicts closeness relationship between the son and the innkeper. It might possible that the son considers in the same social status with the innkeeper. This statement belongs to “positive politeness“. That is why he does not need to keep formality and distance. The son attempts to satisfy the innkeeper’s positive face wants by addreessing the statement “ My father was a victim of White Tiger years ago, and I have practiced for many years to avenge my father's death”. Although the son considers in the same social status with the innkeeper, the innkeeper is older than the son. That is why the son uses direct statement with still uses efforts to minimize threats to the inkeeper. Similar as the son, the innkeper also uses “positive politeness“ when addressing the statements to the son “Ah, yes. I knew your father. He was……..Can you see that tall tree over there in the distance?” Despite the younger age of the son, the innkeeper still applies the “positive politeness”. It is because the innkeeper keeps respect to the son’s father. He knows that the father is the one who struggled for many people’s safety by trying to kill the “white tiger”. Besides, he is accustomed “positive politeness”, even to the younger one.
Conclusion
In this play utterances, we can conclude that the directive illocutionry acts is mostly aplly in this play. The characters mostly use general coversational implicature and they flout maxim of quantity because the utterances are clear and don‘t depend on the context and mostly the second speaker‘ information is not requaired by the first speaker. And the last, The utterances analyzed above mostly apply “positive politeness“. As we know, “positive politeness“ goes in line with languages used in everyday interactions. There is no variety in the strategy of politeness. It is because the emotion of the speaker and the reaction of the hearer are not really different. They tend to keep in calmness when reacting to any situations. There are also not significance in power (P), distance (D) and weight of imposition (W) between the speaker and hearer.
’
Komentar
Posting Komentar