The Study of Impoliteness in the Prison Break Series

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

THE STUDY OF IMPOLITENESS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

Fatchur Rachman Bangkit Susanto

Student Number: 131214165

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2018

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

STATEMENT OF WORK'S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, December 13th 2017

The Writer

Fatchur Rachman Bangkit Susanto

131214165

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Fatchur Rachman Bangkit Susanto

Nomor Mahasiswa : 131214165

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

THE STUDY OF IMPOLITENESS IN THE PRISON BREAK SERIES

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikan saya memberikan kepada Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikan di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya,

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 16 Januari 2018

Yang menyatakan,

Fatchur Rachman Bangkit Susanto

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRACT

Susanto, Fatchur Rachman Bangkit. (2018). The Study of Impoliteness in The Prison Break Series. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Art Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Impoliteness has become common in interaction. Although impoliteness is avoided in interaction, some people often use it intentionally or not. It is common that people use impoliteness to reach certain objectives. The teachers of English as a foreign Language (EFL) need to aware of this phenomenon. The teachers must avoid to use impoliteness in the teaching activity. The aim of the study is to analyse the use of impoliteness strategies in different speech acts types in two episodes of Prison Break Series. Furthermore, the study aims to reveal what impoliteness strategies are used the most and in what speech acts. The series tells about a life of a prison inmates, Michael Scofield, who tries to escape from the prison with his brother who is already there. The series is chosen because it presents the vast number of impoliteness phenomena examples which rarely to find in the real life. Thus, this series is an appropriate medium to conduct a study about impoliteness. This study has two research questions, they are (1) Which types of speech acts contain impoliteness in the Prison Break series? (2) Which impoliteness strategies are used in the Prison Break series? The theory of speech acts type by Searle (1979) is used to find the speech acts types. While, Culpeper’s (2005) theory about impoliteness superstrategies is used to investigate how the impolite utterances are generated. This study is qualitative study to find sociolinguistic phenomena based on the context. Furthermore, this study uses document analysis to collect the data. The research finds that the directive speech acts (36%) contains the largest number of impolite utterances. The research also reveals that bald on record impoliteness along with the positive impoliteness were dominant impoliteness strategy (28%). This means that the characters tend to use impolite utterance directly. Furthermore, when the data of speech acts and impoliteness were combined, the research found that the bald on record impoliteness in directive speech acts is the largest category (20%). In conclusion, the characters in the movie use impoliteness mainly to exercise power towards other.

Keywords: impoliteness, politeness, face, speech acts

vii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRAK

Ketidaksopanan telah menjadi umum dalam interaksi. Orang-orang kadang menggunakan kalimat yang tidak sopan, sengaja atau tidak. Walaupun seharusnya ketidaksopanan dihindari di interaksi, beberapa orang kadang dengan sengaja atau tidak sengaja menggunakannya. Sudah jadi kebiasaan bahwa beberapa orang menggunakan ketidaksopanan untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu. Guru Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing harus sadar terhadap fenomena ini. Para guru harus menghindari menggunakan ketidsopanan dalam kegiatan mengajar. Studi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa penggunaan strategi ketidaksopanan dalam berbagai tipe tindak tutur yang berbeda di dua episode film seri Prison Break. Selain itu, studi ini juga bertujuan untuk mengetahui stratrgi krtidaksopanan apa yang paling sering digunakan dan di tindak tutur apa. Film seri tersebut bercerita tentang seorang penghuni penjara, Michael Scofield, yang mencoba untuk keluar dari penjara itu bersam saudaranya yang sudah ada disana sebelumnya. Film seri ini dipilih karena menyediakan banyak contoh fenomena ketidaksopanan yang jarang ditemukan di kehidupan nyata. Oleh karena itu, film seri ini adalah lahan yang bagus untuk mengadakan studi tentand ketidaksopanan. Penelitian ini memiliki dua pertanyaan. (1) Di jenis tindak tutur mana sajakah terdapat ungkapan tidak sopan di film seri Prison Break? (2) Apa saja strategi ketidak sopanan yang dipakai dalam film seri Prison Break? Teori tindak tutur oleh Searle (1979) digunakan untuk menentukan jenis tindak tutur. Sementara, teori superstrategi ketidaksopanan oleh Culpeper (2005) digunakan untuk meneliti bagaimana ketidaksopanan dimunculkan. Studi ini adalah penelitian kualitatif untuk menemukan fenomena sosiolinguistik berdasarkan konteks. Kemudian, penelitian memakai analisa dokumen untuk mengumpulkan data-datanya. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa tindak tutur perintah (36%) mempunyai ungkapan ketidaksopanan terbanyak. Para karakter di film seri Prison Break menggunakan tindakan itu untuk menunjukan kuasa atas karakter lain. Penelitioan ini juga mengemukakan bahwa strategi kesopanan tersurat bersama strategi kesopanan positif adalah yang terbanyak muncul (28%). Ini berarti bahwa para karakter cenderung memakai ungkapan tidak sopan secara langsung. Kemudian, ketika data tindak tutur dan ketidak sopanan digabungkan, penelitian ini mengemukakan bahwa ketidak sopanan tersurat di tindak tutur perintah adalah kategori yang mendapat jumlah kemunculan paling banyak (20%). Kesimpulan, para karakter di film seri ini kebanyakan menggunakan ketidaksopanan untuk menunjukan kuasa mereka pada orang lain. Kata kunci: impoliteness, politeness, face, speech acts

viii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to devote my deepest gratitude to Allah SWT for giving me blessings, strength, and love in every moment of my life. I would like to send my huge gratitude and love to my beloved parents. Bapak Sugeng Susanto and Ibu

Dwi Rahmani for their unconditional love, support, and prayers for me. They are my biggest motivation in finishing this thesis. I also give thanks to my little brother Fathurrozi Bagas Susanto for his endless encouragement for me and my lovely Budhe Yuli Supriyati who always supports me and my brother financially.

Without her support, I would never enter this university.

I would always be grateful for my patient and awesome thesis advisor,

Truly Almendo Pasaribu S.S., M.A. Without her guidance, suggestion, and motivation, I would not be able to finish my thesis. I thank her for spending her valuable time to have a discussion with me and read my thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere thankfulness for all of the lecturers and staff of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University for the precious lessons they have shared with me, especially Markus Budiraharjo

M.Ed., Ed.D. as my academic advisor.

I would never forget to thank my friend, Laurentius Jalu Waskitho Jati for the movie file, so I could work on my thesis. In addition, thanks to Andreas Leo,

Arif Wayhu Aji and Yohannes Sonny who always motivated and supported me during my difficult and joyful times, but mostly only in joyful one. In addition, I would also express my gratitude to my “Thesis Oye” friends, especially to

Johannes and Meitika who always encouraged and helped me during the process

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

of making this thesis. Finally, my gratitude also goes to my classmates, members of Class E batch 2013, members of FKM Budi Utama and friends from other communities and committees in Sanata Dharma University. Without them, my study in college would not have been beautiful and meaningful and very useful for my life in the next step. Moreover, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those whose names cannot be mentioned one by one for their contributions and knowledge to me.

Author,

Fatchur Rachman Bangkit Susanto

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page TITLE PAGE ...... i APPROVAL PAGES ...... ii STATEMENT OF WORK'S ORIGINALITY ...... v PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...... vi ABSTRACT ...... vii ABSTRAK ...... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... xi LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xiv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Research Background ...... 1 B. Research Questions ...... 4 C. Research Benefits ...... 5 D. Definition of Terms ...... 6

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 7 A. Theoretical Description ...... 7 1. Speech Acts ...... 7 2. Impoliteness ...... 8 3. Face ...... 11 4. Impoliteness and Power ...... 12 5. Prison Break Series ...... 13 B. Theoretical Framework ...... 15

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 17 A. Research Method ...... 17 B. Instruments ...... 18 C. Data Gathering Technique ...... 19 D. Data Analysis Technique ...... 20

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 23 A. Speech Acts that Contain Impolite Utterances ...... 23 1. Declarations...... 24 2. Representatives ...... 25 3. Commissives ...... 26 4. Directives ...... 27 5. Expressives ...... 29 B. Impoliteness Superstrategies Analysis ...... 30 1. Bald on Record Impoliteness ...... 31 2. Positive Impoliteness ...... 32 3. Negative Impoliteness ...... 34 4. Off-record Impoliteness or Sarcasm ...... 34 5. Withhold Politeness ...... 35

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS...... 39 A. Conclusions ...... 39 B. Implications ...... 40 C. Recommendation ...... 41

REFERENCES ...... 43 APPENDICES ...... 45

xii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Speech Acts in The Prison Break Series……...…………………………... 24

4.2 Impoliteness Strategies in The Prison Break Series.…………………….... 31

4.3 Combination Table...……………………………………………………… 36

xiii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Data Findings …………………………………………………… 46

xiv

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of four parts which discuss the introduction of this research. They are the research background, the research questions, the benefits of the study, and the definition of terms. The background of the research concerns with the reasons for choosing the topic. Moreover, the background provides the reasons why this topic is important and worthwhile. The research questions deal with the questions that will be discussed in the chapter four. The benefits of the study explain the benefits of this study for the public. The last part is the definition of terms that contain additional information that also important in this research.

A. Research Background

This thesis analyses Paul Scheuring’s series, Prison Break from pragmatic

perspective, with the focus on impoliteness phenomena. The idea of impoliteness

in our daily life comes from the politeness concept. According to Watts (2003),

“Politeness is developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal

interaction” (p. 50). It is an important aspect of human interaction since we want

others to be polite to us as a regard that we are being polite to them. The aims of

politeness in the interaction itself are to create social harmony and to prevent

misunderstanding created by the high tension in the interaction. Politeness has

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

become the needs of every member in interaction. Violating the need of

politeness creates impoliteness that might damage the interaction.

The research of impoliteness is important due to the rarity of research on the concept of impoliteness. Bousfield and Locher (2008) said that “the enormous imbalance exists between academic interest in politeness phenomena as opposed to impoliteness phenomena” (p. 1). As a part of a language, impoliteness is as important as politeness. On the other hand, social restriction of impoliteness makes a great boundary for studying this concept. Impoliteness is rejected by the community as an unacceptable behavior. Furthermore, Watts (2003) noted that

“(im)politeness is a term that is struggled over at present, has been struggled over in the past and will, in all probability, continue to be struggled over in the future”

(p. 9). This research presents real examples of impoliteness phenomena that might give this topic more specific meaning.

In some case, people use impoliteness to reach certain objectives. Like politeness, impoliteness can be used to take an advantage from the other participant of the interaction. According to Bousfield (2008), “the exercise or contestation of power can be enacted through politeness as much as it can through impoliteness” (p. 140). Politeness and impoliteness are actually equal. They can be used to reach a same objective. They are different only in the matter of method.

Politeness is more accepted by society than impoliteness. In this study, the researcher’s goal is to find how the power is exercised using impoliteness.

The object this study is a series titled Prison Break. Prison Break is an

American television series created by Paul Scheuring, that was broadcast on Fox

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

for four seasons, from 2005 to 2009. The series revolves around two brothers, which one has been sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit, and the other devises an elaborate plan to help his brother escape prison and clear his name. The series was produced by Adelstein-Parouse Productions, in association with Original Television and 20th Century Fox Television. The researcher chose the sixth and the seventh episode of the first season, because those episodes contain many conflicts, for example the riots that happened.

The researcher uses movie as the object because it is easier to find impoliteness phenomena in the drama than in the real life. Culpeper (1996) noted that “Impoliteness is a type of aggression, and aggression has been a source of entertainment for thousands of years” (p. 86). In the case of drama, aggressions often take place in the dialogue. The writers of the drama are free to use any word in the dialogue that happened in a drama. This might happen because drama is a safe place to watch a conflict than in the real life. Moreover, the conflict in the drama is the main interest in it and becomes the central point of the plot.

In this study, the researcher focuses on how the characters perform the speech acts. According to Austin (1965) in his famous William James lecture, there are three categories of speech acts, which are locutionary, perlocutionary, and illucotionary acts. Lucotionary acts are acts that are performed in order to communicate. Perlucotionary acts are the by-products of acts of communication.

Illocutionary acts are speech acts that we accomplish by communicating our intention. Furthermore, this study uses Searle’s (1979) classification to classify

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the speech acts type. Using that speech acts theory, the researcher acknowledges the intention of the speaker and gathers them in one data.

The researcher uses Culpeper’s (2005) theory of five impoliteness superstrategies to understand how the impolite utterances are generated. The researcher uses the theory to classify the type of impoliteness strategies. The researcher, then, combines the data of speech acts type and impoliteness strategy to determine what impoliteness strategy that mostly occurs and in what speech acts type do they mostly occurs.

The researcher wants to study about the concept of impoliteness in order to strengthen the understanding of the concept of politeness itself. Impoliteness occurs by the result of failing to attempt politeness which called violating politeness. The researcher goals are to find why impoliteness occurs in interaction and how it is generated.

Besides, by studying about impoliteness, the researcher hopes that this study is raising awareness about this phenomenon. As the future teacher of

English as the second language, studying impoliteness is very important to make students understand about it. If students understood about impoliteness, students could prevent using impoliteness when they use English as a second language.

B. Research Questions

In writing this thesis, the researcher wants to answer two questions as

follows:

1. Which types of speech acts contain impoliteness in the Prison Break series?

2. Which impoliteness strategies are used in the Prison Break series?

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

C. Research Benefits

1. For students

The benefit of the study for students is that the student will understand the impoliteness expressions. By knowing this the students could avoid impoliteness expressions in their everyday conversation to prevent conflict. Furthermore, the knowledge of language could be used to understand the culture in the other country. In this context, the researcher uses an American series as the object. The students will learn to be more respective to foreign people and their custom. They will be able to socialize in the international environment.

2. For Teachers

By knowing the expressions of impoliteness, the teachers could avoid using those expressions in their teaching activity. Teachers could use this knowledge to teach their students to communicate clearly and fluently. The teacher will understand politeness as the important things in communication.

Furthermore, the teacher could use the knowledge about impoliteness to make the students understand more how to communicate properly.

3. For Future Researchers

The future researcher could use this research as one of the source books to study about impoliteness. This research contains some expert opinion about impoliteness. The researcher could use this opinion to conduct more research about impoliteness to gain more knowledge about this topic.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

D. Definition of Terms

1. Politeness

According to Watts (2003), politeness is developed in order to reduce the

frictions in the personal interaction. Politeness is an important aspect is personal

interaction since it could prevent the misunderstanding caused by the friction.

2. Impoliteness

Impoliteness is the opposite of the politeness. According to Bousfield and

Locher (2008) impoliteness is a behavior that face threatening in particular

context. Impoliteness occurs when in the particular situation.

3. Speech Acts

Austin (1962) defined speech acts is the action that occur when someone

saying something. Speech acts has three different levels, which are called

locutionary, perlocutionary and illocutionary act.

4. Face

Goffman (1967) defined face as a personal value that occurs and must be maintained in interaction. Face becomes the main indicator to determine an utterance to be impolite. The violation of face value by a participant of interaction means the impoliteness exists in the interaction.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter consists of two subchapters titled the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. The theoretical description is related to the knowledges related to the study matter. The theoretical framework discusses all major theories to assist the researcher in answering the research questions.

A. Theoretical Description

1. Speech Acts

Austin (1962) defined speech acts as the actions performed in saying something. According to Austin, linguistic acts can be analysed into three different levels, which are called “locutionary,” “perlocutionary,” and

“illocutionary” acts. Locutionary acts are the act that performed in order to communicate. Perlocutionary acts are the by-products of communication. It is the effect on the hearer, the hearer reaction. While illocutionary acts are the acts that we accomplish by communicating it. It deals with the intention of the speaker, the purpose that is in the speaker’s mind.

Searle (1979, as cited in Cutting, 2002, p. 16) has a solution in classifying speech acts, which is to group them in the five macro-classes. The first is declaration speech acts. This act changes the world using words and utterances.

The example of this category is the name giving of something or someone. The second is representative speech acts in which the words state what the speaker

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

believe to be the case. Some examples of this speech acts are the act of

‘describing’, ‘claiming’, ‘hypothesising’, ‘insisting’ and ‘predicting’. The third is commissive speech acts in which the words commit the speaker to future action.

The examples of this category are ‘promising’, ‘offering’, ‘threatening’,

‘refusing’, ‘vowing’ and ‘volunteering’. The fourth is directive speech acts in which the words are aimed to make the hearer do something. Some examples of this category are ‘commanding’, ‘requesting’, ‘inviting’, ‘forbidding’, and

‘suggesting’. And the last is expressive speech acts in which the words states what the speaker feels. The examples of this category are ‘apologising’, ‘praising’,

‘congratulating’, ‘deploring’ and ‘regretting’. The researcher further classifies the data based on this Searle’s classification.

The researcher uses that classification because it provides a clear distinction on every kind of speech acts and how to differentiate them. Every category in Searle’s theory has a clear distinction with the other. Besides, the researcher can analyse the intention of the speaker based on the theory.

2. Impoliteness

Impoliteness is a part of human interaction. Even though it is outlawed by publics, the phenomenon is happening in the society. According Bousfield and

Locher (2008), “impoliteness is behavior that is face-aggravating in a particular context” (p. 4). Impoliteness definition is not a fixed term, depends on the situation. Impoliteness occurs in a situation depends on the context. Culpeper

(2005) stated that impoliteness comes about when “(1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2)” (p. 38). From

Culpeper’s opinion, the researcher understands how to differentiate between impoliteness speech acts and common speech acts. Impolite utterance has a purpose to attack somebody’s face verbally. That is why impoliteness is categorized as a verbal aggression.

Bousfield (2008) identified five models based on Culpeper’s (2005) explanation on how impoliteness can be generated and conveyed, as follows: a. Bald on record impoliteness

According to Culpeper (2005), bald on record impoliteness is seen as typically being deployed where there is much face at stake, and where there is an intention of the speaker to attack the face of the hearer and/or where the speaker has the power to safely utter an impolite utterance. Bald on record impoliteness is where the utterance is deployed in a direct, clear and unambiguous manner where face is not relevant or minimalized. This strategy is the most direct approach of impoliteness. The speaker clearly intends to utter the utterance to attack the hearer’s face. b. Positive impoliteness

Positive Impoliteness, according Culpeper (2005, p. 41) involves “the use of strategies deployed to damage the recipient’s positive face wants”. Examples of such strategies include ‘ignore, snub the other’, ‘exclude the other from the activity’, ‘disassociate from the other’, ‘be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic’, ‘use inappropriate identity markers’, ‘use obscure or secretive

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

language’, ‘seek disagreement’, ‘make the other feel uncomfortable (e.g. do not avoid silence, joke, or use small talk)’, ‘use taboo words’, ‘call the other names’, etc. This strategy aims to damage the hearer’s positive face wants. The speaker aims to attack the hearer’s face by act undesirable or unwillingly. c. Negative impoliteness

Negative Impoliteness according Culpeper (2005) involves “the use of strategies deployed to damage the recipient’s negative face wants” (p. 41).

Examples of such strategies include ‘frighten’, ‘condescend, scorn, or ridicule’,

‘invade the other’s space’, ‘explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect’,

‘put the other’s indebtedness on record’, etc. In the other words, this strategy aims to attack the hearer’s privacy. d. Off-record impoliteness or Sarcasm

This super strategy was introduced by Culpeper (2005) as a replacement to the ‘meta-strategic’ nature of sarcasm (Culpeper, 1996). ‘Off-record impoliteness’ is one where the utterance is conveyed indirectly by way of an implicature and could be cancelled (e.g. denied, or an account, post-modification or other type of elaboration offered, etc.) but where, according to Culpeper (2005), “. . . one attributable intention clearly outweighs any others” (p. 44). This strategy uses politeness to cover the impolite intention of the speaker. e. Withhold politeness

Withhold politeness happens when someone keeps silent or fails to acts where politeness work is expected. Culpeper (1996) noted that impoliteness may

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

be realized through, “. . . the absence of politeness work where it would be expected” (p. 357). Culpeper (2005) gives the example that “failing to thank someone for a present may be taken as deliberate impoliteness” (p. 42). Culpeper

(1996) further noted that Brown and Levinson (1987) would appear to agree with the face-threatening aspects and implications surrounding the withholding of politeness when they claimed:

. . . politeness has to be communicated, and the absence of communicated politeness may, ceteris paribus, be taken as the absence of a polite attitude. (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 5) In other words, failing to present politeness in an interaction, deliberately or not, considered as an impolite behavior since the speaker does not defend the hearer’s face as expected.

3. Face

Every participant in an interaction must respect each other to keep the interaction flows. Every person has pride of himself and respect on others. Those things can be seen in the interaction with others. The people value in other mind is where the concept of face appears. Goffman (1967) defined face as:

[…] the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself. (p. 5, as cited in Bousfield, 2008, p. 33)

The concept of ‘face’ is crucial for the study of politeness and impoliteness, particularly in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) and Culpeper’s (1996,

2005) works. Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) stated that face is something that emotionally invested, could be gained, maintained or lost and must

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

be presented in interaction. Face is not something static. Thus, it is dynamic and vulnerable. One’s face depends on how it be maintained. Someone can defend the face if it is threatened (Brown & Levinson, 1987). On the contrary, one can attack another face too. It is general in every interaction, all participants must maintain each other’s face (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

From the previous paragraph, the researcher concludes that face is something valuable. The value that must be respected by participants of interactions and perhaps all society (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Therefore, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), face can be and routinely ignored, in case of social breakdown, urgent cooperation or efficiency.

Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) stated that there are two types of face wants, negative face wants and positive face wants. Negative face is the wants that his actions is unimpeded by others (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Example for this is the want to be listened or want that the listener does not interrupt his speech. On the other hand, positive face is the wants of every member that his wants must be desirable or recognised by the others (Brown &

Levinson, 1987). For example, the wants to be answered when asking questions or greetings. The understanding of the face is important in the impoliteness study since impoliteness deals how the face is threatened in interaction.

4. Impoliteness and Power

People often use impoliteness in their interaction even though it is outlawed by the society. The reason why this phenomenon exists is because impoliteness can be used to reach certain objectives, like politeness. Politeness

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

and impoliteness can be used to reach a same goal, but with a different approach.

Bousfield (2008) formulated that “linguistic politeness is (an attempt) to exercise power over one’s interlocutors whilst simultaneously ensuring that one’s interlocutors are not (overly) offended in the process. Conversely, linguistic impoliteness is (an attempt) to exercise power over one’s interlocutors whilst simultaneously ensuring that one’s interlocutors are (overly) offended in the process” (p.141). Politeness tend to be softer. The speaker ensures that the hearer is not offended. On the other hand, impoliteness uses the hard method. The speaker intentionally offends the hearer to show his power.

The choose to use politeness or impoliteness in interaction depends on the context of interaction. Culpeper (1996) argued that “A powerful participant has more freedom to be impolite, because he or she can (a) reduce the ability of the less powerful participant to retaliate with impoliteness (e.g. through the denial of speaking rights), and (b) threaten more severe retaliation should the less powerful participant be impolite” (p.354). Impoliteness more likely be used if the speaker has more power than the hearer. The speaker uses impoliteness to give the pressure to the hearer so they could not fight back and choose to obey the speaker.

In conclusion, impoliteness is often used as the tool of power by the participants of interaction towards others.

5. Prison Break Series

The object this study is the serial drama titled Prison Break. Prison Break is an American television serial drama created by Paul Scheuring, that was broadcast on Fox for four seasons, from 2005 to 2009. The series revolves around

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

two brothers. One brother is sentenced to death for a crime he does not commit, and the other devises an elaborate plan to help his brother escape the prison and clear his name. The series was produced by Adelstein-Parouse Productions, in association with Original Television and 20th Century Fox Television. The researcher only observes two episodes from the series.

This study uses two episodes from the series, which are episode 6 and 7. In this section, the researcher explains the situation and character that involved in the series. The main character in those episodes is Michael Schofield. He has roommate named Sucre who also involved in his plan to leave. Sucre has an idea to make a lockdown while drilling a hole in the prison wall. Meanwhile, T-Bag, a man who always be a troublemaker, just come back from the insolation cell. He always makes problem with Michael and Sucre, but he is inferior to Abruzzi that also become Michael’s friend. Moreover, the officers in the prison are corrupt and disrespectful towards the inmates. The head officer, Bellick, even distrust the head of the prison, Pope Warden and the other way.

Meanwhile, in the outside of the cell, Veronica, try to reveal the truth about Lincoln since she is his lawyer. He worked with Nick Savrin before she finds him untrustworthy. Meanwhile, Lincoln Jr, Lincoln’s sons struggles with his new father. Furthermore, Kellerman a secret agent named Kellerman is hired to stop every effort to prove that Lincoln is innocent.

This research uses Prison Break series because of various reasons. The first reason, this movie takes place in a prison. Prison is a place where the criminals go. Since there are many criminals in a place, a prison known as a hard

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

place. There are many restrictions in the prison. Besides, the resources that the inmates have is limited. The inmates must use the limited resource to do their everyday activity. They must share the prison facility with other inmates. That situation creates intensive interaction between inmates. The researcher seeks for impoliteness phenomena from those interactions.

Moreover, the series has many episodes. The vast numbers of episodes give the researcher time to understand the setting and search as many as data.

Since the impoliteness is outlawed by the public, the researcher thinks that a series with a many hour view is suitable for the object of this research.

B. Theoretical Framework

This study main goal is to analyse the impoliteness phenomena in the speech acts that occurs in the Prison Break series. Specifically, the researcher is looking for the impoliteness superstrategies in the performative speech acts. The researcher analyses the impoliteness strategies and how often it occurs in a speech acts type. The theory of speech acts will be used to analyse the intention of the speaker. The speech acts which are going to be analysed are the part of illocutionary acts in the Searle’s (1979) theory of speech acts. This theory will answer the first research problem. The researcher is looking for the most common speech acts type in the series. Then, the researcher will explain why a certain speech acts get highest number.

The theory of impoliteness will be used to answer the second research problem. According to Culpeper (1996), there are five ways how impoliteness are generated and conveyed. This theory, which is called the five super strategies of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

impoliteness, is the mirror of the five super strategies of politeness (Culpeper,

1996). This theory will explain how the characters in the series generate impolite utterances. Then, the researcher will group the utterances based on their impoliteness strategy. After that, the data will be gathered in tables, one for performative speech acts types and another for impoliteness strategies. In the end, the data will be gathered in one table which contains both speech acts types and impoliteness strategies.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains methodology which was used to conduct research.

There are four important parts discussed. They are research method, instruments, data gathering technique and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

This research was a qualitative research. According to Ary, Jacobs, and

Sorensen (2010), “Qualitative inquirers argue that human behavior is always bound to the context in which it occurs, that social reality cannot be reduced to variables in the same manner as physical reality, and that what is most important in the social disciplines is understanding and portraying the meaning that is constructed by the participants involved in particular social settings or events” (p.

420). The researcher used this method to find the linguistic phenomenon. The researcher chose this method because of the complexity of this research. The research itself talked about the linguistic phenomenon that grounded in the human everyday activity.

Furthermore, the researcher used a content analysis as the main method in this study. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), “Content or document analysis is a research method applied to written or visual materials for the purpose of identifying specified characteristics of the material” (p. 457). This study focused on analysing the conversation in a serial movie. The researcher analysed

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the speech acts that contain impoliteness. This was why the researcher used content analysis as the method to find the impoliteness phenomenon in the series.

B. Instruments

1. Human Instrument

The observer of this study was the researcher himself. The researcher became the only person who was involved in this study. The observer conducted the research about impoliteness in the series and analyse the data.

2. The Objects

The object this study was the serial movie entitled Prison Break. Prison

Break is an American television serial drama created by Paul Scheuring, that was broadcasted on Fox for four seasons, from 2005 to 2009. The researcher chose this series because the researcher loved the plot of the series. The series was about the live of inmates at the prison. The common stereotype of the prison is a hard place. The researcher thought there would be many impolite utterances that occur in the series. In spite of many episodes, the researcher only observed two episodes from the serial series. The researcher used two episodes from the first season, which is episode six and seven, titled Riots, Drills and the Devil part one and two.

This research used only those two episodes because they mainly focused on one event. That eased the analysis of the data since the setting was similar.

Beside the visual of the series, the researcher was helped by the script.

The script helped the researcher to understand the meaning of each utterance by

looking for the word that the character used. The researcher combined the live

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

video and the script when analysing the utterance to determine the speech acts

type and the impoliteness strategy.

C. Data Gathering Technique

In the process of collecting the data, the researcher watched two episodes of the serial series. The researcher watched the series three times, the first for the needs analysis, the second to search for speech acts that contain impoliteness, and the third to analyse the type of speech acts and impoliteness strategies that occurred there. In the needs analysis, the researcher analysed the background of the series, the culture, the characters and the setting. Then, the researcher watched the series again to get all speeches that contain impoliteness in the series. The researcher searched for at least 50 examples of speech acts that contained impoliteness. The last, the researcher watched the series again to determine the type of the speech acts and the impoliteness strategies that occurred in those speech acts. The researcher used the script to analyses the utterance deeper.

The researcher used a form to analyse all data that the researcher got. The form contained the data number, time, setting, the speaker, the utterance, the speech acts type and the impoliteness strategy of the data. When the data that was needed was found, the researcher began to analyse the data one by one. First, the researcher wrote down the time the utterance occurs, the setting in the event, the speaker and the impolite utterance. Then, the utterance was analysed to determine the speech acts type and the impoliteness strategy. The dialogs that happened before and after the utterance were also considered, but were not being included in

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the findings. After all data was analysed, they were grouped in the table for analysis.

D. Data Analysis Technique

In order to analyse the data, this study used three tables. All tables used the same data, but grouped based on different theories. In the first table, the researcher grouped the utterances that belong to a speech acts type group based on the Searle’s (1979) theory. The researcher analysed the data spread and looked for the biggest category. Then, the researcher grouped the utterances that belong to an impoliteness superstrategies using Culpeper’s (1996) superstrategies theory in the second table. The data were combined in a table that contain both speech acts types and impoliteness superstrategies. Then, the researcher looked for the most impoliteness strategies emerges and in what type of speech acts. Then the researcher looked on the data distribution to conclude the general fashion in impoliteness.

The researcher used table for analysing the speech acts types and another table for impoliteness strategies. For the speech acts types, the table contains five types of speech acts based on Searles’s (1979) classification. The table shows frequency and the percentage of each type.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Table 3.1 Speech Acts in The Prison Break Series

No Speech Acts Frequency Percentage 1 Declarations 2 Representatives 3 Commissives 4 Directives 5 Expressives Total Another table contains the five impoliteness superstrategies based on

Culpeper’s (1996) classification. The table shows the frequency and percentage of each strategies.

Table 3.2 Impoliteness Strategies in The Prison Break Series

No Impoliteness Frequency Percentage 1 Bald on record 2 Positive 3 Negative 4 Sarcasm 5 Withhold Politeness Total After all data had taken, the researcher, then, combined the data in two tables above into one table below to draw a conclusion.

Table 3.3 Combination Table

Impolite- Withh- ness Bald on old Positive Negative Sarcasm Total Speech record Polite- Act ness Declarations % % % % % % Representatives % % % % % % Commissives % % % % % % Directives % % % % % % Expressives % % % % % % Total % % % % % %

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The researcher drew conclusions from the last table. The researcher was looking for the most common impoliteness strategy in a certain speech acts. Then, the researcher used this data to draw conclusion about the impoliteness in the Prison

Break series.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This Chapter consists of two sections. The first section is the discussion about performative speech acts. The first section answers the first research problem. The second is the discussion about the impoliteness strategies in the

Series. It answers the second research problem. This chapter provides the findings based on the data gathered by the researcher.

A. Speech Acts that Contain Impolite Utterances

This part discusses the performative speech acts that occur in the series.

This discussion aims to answer the first research problem. The researcher classifies the speech acts based on Searle’s (1979) solution that is cited in Joan

Cutting’s (2011) book. There are five macro-classes of speech acts named declaration, representatives, commissives, directives and expressives. In this analysis, the researcher will focus on the speaker's intention in the conversation or the illocutionary force.

The researcher only takes the speech acts that contain impolite behavior.

The researcher will focus in the illocutionary force of the speech acts, in the form of the word that are used in the utterance.

From the data that the researcher collects from the script, the researcher found 50 speech acts. The researcher then divides them into five categories based on Searle’s (1979) solution. From the research that the researcher has done, the researcher gathered the data as follows:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Table 4.1 Speech Acts in The Prison Break Series

No Speech Acts Frequency Percentage 1 Declarations 0 0% 2 Representatives 12 24% 3 Commissives 15 30% 4 Directives 18 36% 5 Expressives 5 10% Total 50 100%

From the data that the researcher gathered, the researcher found each category appeared in different frequencies. The first category, declaration speech acts, has no appearance in this Series. The category that gets the most appearances is the directive speech acts, which appears 18 times and constitutes 36% of all speech acts. The second is commissive speech acts, that has 15 appearances.

Representative and expressive speech acts have 12 and 5 appearances respectively. The researcher explains the result further in the section below.

1. Declarations

According to Joan Cutting (2002), declaration aims to change the world or condition of something by the utterances that are delivered. The example of this category is the name giving of something or someone. The typical words that are used for the acts are ‘I named’, ‘I declare’ and etc. that change the perception of something. The declaration speech acts give or change the status of the object.

The researcher did not find any utterances of this category. From 50 utterances, none of them is a declaration speech acts. This might happen because

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the episodes that the researcher used are not the beginning episodes of the series.

As the results, there are not many introductions in the episodes that the researcher used. So, the characters were already introduced in the previous episodes. Hence, the researcher will not analyse this category further.

2. Representatives

According to Cutting (2002), representative speech acts expresses the speaker believe about something. In other word, this act is used to explain about something in the speaker’s mind. Some examples of this act are the act of

‘describing’, ‘claiming’, ‘hypothesising’, ‘insisting’ and ‘predicting’. This is the second largest category among the speech acts types. The researcher found 12 speech acts in this category.

The example of the speech acts in this category is found in this conversation:

Example 1:

Sucre : It's my house. You got a problem? T-Bag : Yeah, I got a problem. (Data 33, Appendix A)

In this conversation, on the surface, T-Bag simply answers Sucre question.

Indirectly, this the word ‘Yeah, I got a problem’ means that T-Bag claim that

Sucre has annoying him with the question.

Representative speech acts can also be found in an imperative sentence, although it usually categorizes as directive speech acts. As in this example:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Example 2:

Abruzzi : What the hell does this have to do with you anyway? This is not any of your concern. (Data 29, Appendix A)

On the surface, the sentence ‘What the hell does this have to do with you anyway?’ is a directive act to request for some answers. Indirectly, this is a representative act, functioning as claiming that the speaker thought that the hearer is absent in this matter, as in ‘This is not your problem’.

3. Commissives

According to Joan Cutting (2002), commissives is the act which the utterance commits the speaker future action. In the other word, the speaker expresses his will through the utterance, whether he will do it or not. The examples of this category are ‘promising’, ‘offering’, ‘threatening’, ‘refusing’,

‘vowing’ and ‘volunteering’. The researcher found 15 utterances that match with this category.

The researcher found some speech acts are commissives, functioning as a threatening force. The researcher provides some examples.

Example 3:

Kellerman : The problem is, Diamond, no one's gonna believe that if I take the heroin I have in my pocket and put it in the glovebox of the reasonably priced minivan you got parked over there. I will cuff you, I will drag you out of here in front of everyone. (Data 1, Appendix A)

On the surface, this utterance looks like a representatives with the illocutionary act of describing, as shown in the first sentence. Indirectly, this act is

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

a commissives with the force to threat the hearer, as in ‘You will get serious consequence if you do not follow my order’.

The researcher finds the same pattern occurs some times. For example, in the utterance below.

Example 4:

Sara : And I appreciate that, um, but, Officer Bellick, you and I both know that it's illegal to deny a prisoner medical care and you could lose your job over it. (Data 14, Appendix A)

Directly, the utterance is an explanation, functioning as a direct representatives, describing the consequences of an action. Indirectly, it is a commissive act with a threatening force, like ‘I will squeal about your action so you will be punished’.

Another type of commissive acts that researcher found is refusing act. One example can be found in the utterance below.

Example 5:

T-bag : We'll move when the temperature situation is rectified. (Data 11, Appendix A)

The sentence ‘We'll move when the temperature situation is rectified’ on the surface is a commissives act of vows that the speaker will take an act if a condition fulfilled. Indirectly, this is also a commissives with the illocutionary force of refusing. In this situation, the speaker refuses the command of the hearer as in ‘No, I will not do that’.

4. Directives

The main purpose of this speech acts category is to make hearer to do something (Cutting, 2002). As the name, this category aimed to direct the hearer

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

to do whatever the speaker wants. According to Joan Cutting (2002), some examples of this category are ‘commanding’, ‘requesting’, ‘inviting’,

‘forbidding’, ‘suggesting’ and so on. The researcher found 18 speech acts that fit in this category. This category is the largest among all.

Some of the acts directly use imperative words in the sentence. This kind of sentence often uses active imperative word.

Example 6:

Geary : Get your ass on the line, convict. (Data 10, Appendix A)

This utterance is a directive act, directly. The speaker uses the imperative word

‘get’. The speaker’s intention in this utterance, however, is not the literal meaning of that sentence. The speaker does not ask the hearer to ‘get his ass on the line’.

Yet the real intention of the speaker is to ask the hearer to line up.

The other directive acts are using rhetorical question. Theoretically, all questions are a directives since the speaker asks or demands an answer. On the other hand, rhetorical does not demand an answer. The researcher finds one example of the directive speech acts using rhetorical question.

Example 7:

Seth : It's getting so hot in here. T-Bag : Did I say you could talk, Cherry? You'll know when I want you to open your mouth. (Data 5, Appendix A)

On the surface, the sentence ‘Did I say you could talk, Cherry?’ is a directive speech acts of asking for answers. However, the speaker quickly continued speaking before he got any answer. This indicates that this question just a

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

rhetorical question. The real intention of the speaker is to ask the hearer to be quiet. Thus, that utterance categorizes as a directive speech acts with the illocutionary force of forbidding. The next sentence, ‘You'll know when I want you to open your mouth’, is also a directive speech acts with forbidding force, as in ‘don’t talk unless I ask you’. However, the last one is not a rhetorical question, but an interrogative utterance, which will be explained in the next paragraph.

Moreover, the researcher also finds some directive speech acts with the interrogative force. As interrogative utterances, these acts’ intention is to request for an answer.

Example 8:

Bellick : What the hell's going on in here? (Data 18, Appendix A)

This is a direct directive act of requesting, since the speaker clearly shows his intention to request the hearer to give an explanation. The same condition applies in this utterance.

Example 9:

Governor Tancredi : Disturbance? That's what you're calling a riot nowadays? Can any of these animals get to her? (Data 26, Appendix A)

The sentence ‘Can any of these animals get to her?’ is a direct directive act to request an explanation, as in ‘Explain about her condition’.

5. Expressives

According to Cutting (2002), this category is the words that are used to state what the speaker feels. The examples of this category are ‘apologising’,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

‘praising’, ‘congratulating’, ‘deploring’ and ‘regretting’. The researcher finds five speech acts are fit in this category.

One of the expressive speech acts is shown in the utterance below.

Example 10:

Bellick : You know, Teddy, you really let me down, and that's hard to do because I don't expect much from the inbred child of a retard. (Data 21, Appendix A)

In that utterance, the speaker expresses his feeling that he is disappointed to the hearer. The speaker directly says ‘you really let me down’ which show disappointment.

The same pattern also appears in the utterance below.

Example 11:

T-Bag : Your best is garbage. It's a hundred degrees in here. (Data 7, Appendix A)

The speaker in this act expresses his disappointment directly by saying ‘Your best is garbage’.

B. Impoliteness Superstrategies Analysis

This part discusses about the five superstrategies of impoliteness that occur in the Series. This discussion answers the second research problem. The researcher uses Culpeper’s (1996) Five Super Strategies of Impoliteness to classify the data. The strategies are bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, mock politeness or sarcasm, and withhold politeness.

In this part, the researcher analyses the locutionary act of the speech acts shown in the previous part. While the previous part analyses the illocutionary force

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

of the speech acts, this part analyses the locutionary act of the speech acts. In a sense, this part discusses how an impoliteness occurs in the utterance. The table below is the result data that researcher gathered.

Table 4.2 Impoliteness Strategies in Prison Break Series

No Impoliteness Frequency Percentage 1 Bald on record 14 28% 2 Positive 14 28% 3 Negative 10 20% 4 Sarcasm 10 20% 5 Withhold Politeness 2 4% Total 50 100%

The table shows that the bald on record and positive impoliteness get the most results with 28% or 14 utterance each. While the negative impoliteness and sarcasm also has the same result, which are 10 utterances or 20% each. The last, the withhold politeness has the fewest result with only 2 utterances.

1. Bald on Record Impoliteness

Bald on record impoliteness is the most direct strategies. According to

Culpeper (1996), the bald on record impoliteness is performed in ‘direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way’. The impolite utterances in this category are delivered in a direct way. There is a clear intention of the speaker to attack the hearer face (Bousfield, 2008).

After doing the research, the researcher found 14 bald on-record impoliteness in those speech acts. This is the largest strategy that the researcher found, which constitutes 28% of all strategies in the analysed speech acts.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The examples of the bald on-record strategy are shown below.

Example 12:

Geary : Get your ass on the line, convict. (Data 10, Appendix A)

Example 13:

Geary : Don't be a baby, T-Bag. (Data 15, Appendix A)

In the first utterance, the speaker use word ‘ass’ directly to the speaker. The speaker here clearly intents to attack the hearer’s face. The second utterance is also a bald on record strategy since the speaker uses word ‘baby’ to refer that the hearer acts like a baby. Both speakers in those utterances clearly intended to attack the hearer’s face since they choose abusive words ‘ass’ and ‘baby’. The word ‘baby’ is considered impolite, especially if it refers to a man. Man prefers to look strong and masculine, that contrast with the character of a baby, which is seen as a weak and cute creature. In the context of power, those utterance shows that Geary wants to show his power as an officer that was in charge. Since

Geary’s social position is higher than the hearer, the use of impoliteness was not necessary.

2. Positive Impoliteness

Positive impoliteness is designed to damage the hearer’s positive face

(Culpeper, 1996). This strategy aims to attack the hearer’s desire to be acknowledged. Examples of such strategies from Culpeper (1996) included

‘ignore, snub the other’, ‘exclude the other from the activity’, ‘disassociate from the other’, ‘be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic’, ‘use inappropriate

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

identity markers’, ‘use obscure or secretive language’, ‘seek disagreement’, ‘make the other feel uncomfortable’, ‘use taboo words’, ‘call the other names’, etc.

The researcher found 14 positive impolite utterances from the Series. One example of this strategy is the utterance below.

Example 14:

Lincoln : Veronica, he- Veronica : We don't know anything about this guy. (Data 4, Appendix A)

In that utterance, Veronica stops Lincoln’s speech. This action shows that

Veronica attacks Lincoln’s want to be heard. Besides, Veronica violates the rule of turn taking in this interaction as she stopped someone’s speech before it ends.

In the other hand, Veronica has violated the positive face of Lincoln. Veronica’s action is unacceptable since there are unwritten rule in interaction that require the hearer to listen the speaker until he finish his speech.

Another example of positive impoliteness can be found in the utterance below.

Example 15:

Geary : All of you, hit that line. T-Bag : We'll move when the temperature situation is rectified. (Data 11, Appendix A)

In the utterance above, the second speaker refuses to follow the first speaker command. The second speaker has attacked the first speaker’s face by denying his wants. T-Bag action is considered impolite since he denies the command that come from an officer that in charge of the prison. The prisoners must obey the officer in order to maintain the prison security.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

3. Negative Impoliteness

Negative Impoliteness occurs when the speaker attacks the hearer’s negative wants (Culpeper, 1996). For instance, the speaker attacks the hearer’s privacy. Examples of such strategies from Culpeper (1996) include ‘frighten’,

‘condescend, scorn, or ridicule’, ‘invade the other’s space’, ‘explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect’, ‘put the other’s indebtedness on record’, etc.

In this Series, the researcher found 10 utterances using negative impoliteness strategy. Most of them deal about how the speaker ‘frightens’ or

‘ridicule’ the hearer. One example of negative impoliteness is this utterance:

Example 16:

Kellerman : No, no. The problem is, Diamond, no one's gonna believe that if I take the heroin I have in my pocket and put it in the glovebox of the reasonably priced minivan you got parked over there. I will cuff you, I will drag you out of here in front of everyone. (Data 1 Appendix A)

In this utterance, the speaker frightens the hearer a threat to trap him. The speaker attacks the hearer’s negative face by forcing him to do what the speaker wants. In the social context, Kellerman action is unacceptable since he is the one who ask for help. Properly, the one who asks is the one who must lower his position in interaction.

4. Off-record Impoliteness or Sarcasm

Culpeper (1996) stated that “the FTA is performed with the use of politeness strategies that are obviously insincere, and thus remain surface realisations”. This means that this impoliteness strategy looks like a polite

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

utterance, but, the intention is impolite. One example of this strategy is this utterance.

Example 17:

Seth : It's getting so hot in here. T-Bag : Did I say you could talk, Cherry? (Data 5, Appendix A)

In this utterance, T-Bag seems to ask Seth politely whether he gave permission to

Seth to talk. He does not use an impolite word in this utterance. Literally, the question was aimed to ask for an answer. On the other hand, the question came after she complained about the temperature, while the room was quiet before he spoke. The researcher assumes that Seth made T-Bag uncomfortable with his word, so T-Bag uses that rhetoric question to represent his feeling and ask him to quiet. Moreover, Seth knows that T-Bag does not ask. He knows that the utterance had a purpose to make him quiet.

5. Withhold Politeness

According to Culpeper (1996), Withhold politeness happened because of the absence of politeness that expected. One example of this strategy from the

Series are shown as follows.

Example 18:

Sucre : It's my house. You got a problem? T-Bag : Yeah, I got a problem. (Data 33, Appendix A)

In this utterance, Sucre hopes that T-Bag will answer like ‘No, sorry’ because T-

Bag has made him uncomfortable. Unfortunately, T-Bag does not answer like that. It is clear that T-Bag has violated politeness need of Sucre. Properly, T-Bag

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

must not answer Sucre’s question or just simply say yes. But, he violates the socially acceptable manner and act in the other way.

This part is the analysis of speech acts and impoliteness super strategies connections. The researcher puts the data together to see the connection and trends of impoliteness strategies in the Series.

The researcher combines those table of speech acts types and impoliteness superstrategies into one table. This table aims to show the connection between speech acts and impoliteness strategies. It shows what impoliteness strategy and in what speech acts type occur. The table shows the distribution of impoliteness superstrategies in every speech acts. It indicates the purpose of impoliteness utterances. The table reveals the general trend in impoliteness usage.

Table 4.3 Combination Table

Impolite- Withh- ness Bald on old Positive Negative Sarcasm Total Speech record Polite- Act ness Declarations 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Representatives 2 4% 4 8% 2 4% 3 6% 1 2% 12 24% Commissives 0 0% 4 8% 6 12% 4 8% 1 2% 15 30% Directives 10 20% 4 8% 1 2% 3 6% 0 0% 18 36% Expressives 2 4% 2 4% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 5 10% Total 14 28% 14 28% 10 20% 10 20% 2 4% 50 100%

The table above shows the connection between speech acts and impoliteness strategies. The table shows which impoliteness strategies are used when the characters perform a speech acts. Furthermore, the table also shows which impoliteness strategies are commonly used and how many it is used. The table also reveals the connection of impoliteness strategies and the speaker’s

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

intention. In the context of power, this table reveals how the speakers exercise their power trough impoliteness strategies.

Form the table above, bald on record impoliteness in the directive speech acts gets the most frequency by 20% of all appearances or ten times from 50 data.

The second is the negative impoliteness in commissives speech acts which gets

12%. The directive speech acts aims to show the power of speaker to direct the hearer. While, bald on impoliteness is the most direct impoliteness strategies.

From the table above, the researcher concludes that the directive speech acts is a speech acts that contains largest impolite utterances in Prison Break Series.

Furthermore, Bald on-record impoliteness superstrategies is the main strategies in the impoliteness utterance in directive speech acts. The researcher concludes that the bald on-record impoliteness is the dominant strategies to direct in the directive speech acts.

The data shows where impoliteness is commonly generated. The directive speech act gets many utterances that contain impoliteness. Moreover, bald on record impoliteness is the main strategy in this act. This might happen because of the condition in the prison itself. The prison is a detention facility that limits the movement and freedom of its inmates. This condition forces the inmates or anyone who work there to use the resource or ability that they have effectively.

Prison might have limited tools for the inhabitant. Thus, they must ask others to help him. Since a prison is a detention facility, the inhabitants there are tough men. The inmates must show his power to be respected. The use of muscle power

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

should be limited in prison. Hence, the verbal power is the most effective way that the inmates generate trough impolite utterances in their everyday interaction.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This part consists of three main sections, those are the conclusions, implications and suggestions of the research. Conclusions deal with summary and brief answers to the research problems of the research. Implications deal with the relation of this research to the study of English education. The last, suggestions deal with some suggestions and recommendations from the researcher for the future researcher for their future researches, the English lecturers and teachers, and the language learners in studying English.

A. Conclusions

This research has two goals. The first goal is to look for the types of the speech acts that contains impoliteness utterances. The objects of the study are two episodes of Prison Break series season one. They are episode six titled Riot, Drills and the Devil, part one and episode seven titled Riot, Drills and the Devil, part two. The findings state that the directive speech acts is the speech acts that appears most in the series. This might happen because the characters want to show his power to others. Besides, the researcher found that directly ask people is the most effective way to get the things done in the prison. The limited resource and freedom in the prison make the prisoner and the officer tend to use their verbal power to take an advantage from others.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The second aim of this research is to look for the impoliteness superstrategies which are used in the Prison Break series. This research found that the bald on record impoliteness and positive impoliteness appear the most in the series. Although they have similar figures, they are different when the speech acts and impoliteness data are combined. The bald on record impoliteness in the directive speech acts has the highest number with 10 appearances or 20% of the total data. In this strategy, the speakers tend to present the impolite utterances directly. The impoliteness utterance delivered in a clear manner where the face is not relevant. This might be happening because the prison environment and restriction make the people there to talk efficiently. Moreover, bald on record impoliteness in the directive speech acts shows the tendency of people to use verbal aggression in order to exercise power.

B. Implications

Impoliteness is a part of our everyday communication. Although it tends to be avoided, sometimes people use impoliteness utterance intentionally or not. The success of the communication depends on the ability of the speaker to send the message clearly. The recipient also has an important role in communication. The speaker, as the active participant, must maintain the face of the hearer as well as his own face in communication. The fail of maintaining other’s face makes the other threatened and might lead to misunderstanding. The knowledge about speech acts is important for our everyday communication. People tend to not directly state his intention. The fail in understanding speech acts could lead misunderstanding between participants in the interaction.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

C. Recommendation

After finishing this research, the researcher has some recommendations for the teachers, students, and future researchers. The recommendations are given to the teachers of English language, students of English language and future researcher especially for them who will analyse the impoliteness phenomena.

1. For Teachers

The researcher expects that the teachers explain about speech acts more to the students. The knowledge of speech acts is very important due to the nature of the language as a communication tool. The teacher must teach the student how to analyse an utterance, especially in the second language. The utterance analysis is important to make students understand how to deliver messages as clearly as possible. The knowledge of impoliteness must be thought to the student so they are able to face the real world.

Furthermore, the result of the analysis shows that most impolite utterances occur in the directive speech acts. The teachers use directive speech acts over and over. The teachers must deliver the instruction carefully. Even though the students might not notice the impoliteness in the utterance, they could follow how their teachers talk to them. The students could think that it is the right way to say something. To prevent that, the teacher must be aware first about their own language. Then, they could raise the awareness among their students.

2. For Students

The researcher suggests that the students learn about pragmatic deeper.

The understanding of pragmatic could help students to understand the meaning of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

a sentence even though they do not understand the meaning of some words. The understanding of speech acts makes it easier to communicate. This is important for listening skill of the students. The students could understand the meaning easier if he understood the context. Furthermore, the understanding of speech acts makes them translate more accurately. The researcher hopes that the students learn more about understanding of impoliteness in order to communicate in a good manner.

3. For Future Researcher

The researcher suggests that this research opens more opportunity to study about impoliteness. The imbalance amount between politeness and impoliteness works is the main reason why the researcher conducts this research. The researcher hopes that other researcher continues on studying about impoliteness phenomena. Moreover, the researcher suggests that the future researcher will conduct more research on how the impoliteness is generated. The understanding of the nature of impoliteness could lead to a wider knowledge of this phenomena that might open our eyes on this avoided term.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

REFERENCES

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Sorensen, C. K. (2006). Introduction to research in education eighth edition. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bousfield, D. & Locher, M. A. (2008). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of pragmatics 25(3), 349–367.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and the weakest link. Journal of politeness research 1(1), 35–72.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: using language to cause offence. Edinburg: Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kadar D.Z. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. London: Macmillan Publisher

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Florence: Routledge.

Gomovies. (n.d). Prison break - season 1. Retrieved on February 6, 2017, https://gomovies.tech/film/prison-break-season-1-1643/.

Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

APPENDICES

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Data Findings Prison Break: Riot, Drill, And the Devil, Part 1 1. Time : 1:43 Setting : Kellerman asks Diamond to help him but get refused Speaker : Kellerman Kellerman : No, no. The problem is, Diamond, no one's gonna believe that if I take the heroin I have in my pocket and put it in the glovebox of the reasonably priced minivan you got parked over there. I will cuff you, I will drag you out of here in front of everyone. Speech Act Type : Commisive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 2. Time : 5:37 Setting : Veronica asks Nick to let her go Speaker : Veronica Nick : Veronica. Just wait a second. Will you hold on a second? [Grabbing Veronica's arm] Listen, what are you avoi- Veronica : Don't touch me, alright? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 3. Time : 7:22 Setting : Michael and Sucre are discussing Speaker : Michael Michael : Worse than the idea of losing Maricruz? Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Sarcasm 4. Time : 13.55 Setting : Veronica find Nick and Lincoln are discussing in prison Speaker : Veronica Lincoln : Veronica, he- Veronica : We don't know anything about this guy. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 5. Time : 15:22 Setting : Seth is holding nuts and T-bag lies on the bunk Speaker : T-bag Seth : It's getting so hot in here. T-Bag : Did I say you could talk, Cherry? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Sarcasm 6. Time : 15:26

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Setting : T-Bag is lying in the bed and Seth is standing ad listening to him Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : You'll know when I want you to open your mouth. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : On Record Impoliteness 7. Time : 15:41 Setting : T-Bag expresses his disappointment on the officer attempt to fix the AC Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Your best is garbage. It's a hundred degrees in here. Speech Act Type : Expressive Impoliteness Strategy : On Record 8. Time : 15:41 Setting : Officer Geary express his feeling about the temperature Speaker : Geary Geary : Look like I got frostbite to you? Speech Act Type : Expressive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 9. Time : 16:03 Setting : T-Bag are outside the cell with the other inmates face the officer Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Why don't you transfer us all some place cooler? Like Africa. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Sarcasm 10. Time : 16:09 Setting : T-Bag steps outside of the line when he is asked to line up Speaker : Geary Geary : Get your ass on the line, convict. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : On Record 11. Time : 16:18 Setting : T-Bag refuses to go when Geary asks the inmates to go back to the line Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : We'll move when the temperature situation is rectified. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 12. Time : 16:29 Setting : Bellick asks the other officer to handle the situation Speaker : Bellick

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Bellick : [Into his radio] Give them a smack, throw them on the line and write them up. If you can't handle it, don't cash your paycheck this week. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 13. Time : 16:47 Setting : Sara express his feeling about the temperature to Bellick Speaker : Sara Sara : I don't blame them. It's an oven in there. Speech Act Type : Expressive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 14. Time : 16:58 Setting : Bellick convinces Sara to go but Sara refuses. Speaker : Sara SARA : And I appreciate that, um, but, Officer Bellick, you and I both know that it's illegal to deny a prisoner medical care and you could lose your job over it. Now, I'm just looking out for your best interests. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 15. Time : 16:19 Setting : Geary confront T-Bag to go back to the line. Speaker : Geary Geary : Don't be a baby, T-Bag. It ain't that hot. Speech Act Type : Directives Impoliteness Strategy : Bald On Record 16. Time : 16:24 Setting : T-Bag refused to go back to the line. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Not that hot!? [Pointing at a black inmate] When this guy woke up this morning, he was white. Speech Act Type : Expressive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 17. Time : 16:49 Setting : An officer asked T-Bag to step back but he refuses Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : We'll step back when we get some wind blowing in here. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 18. Time : 16:28 Setting : Bellick asks his colleague about the prison condition. Speaker : Bellick

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Bellick : What the hell's going on in here? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 19. Time : 19:40 Setting : T-Bag confronts Bellick in the in front of others inmates. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Listen up, roses, listen up. [All fall quiet] Bellick, I got one for you. What do you call a piece of white trash who couldn't pass the cop's exam and now makes less than a mailman? A CO. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 20. Time : 19:55 Setting : Trokey hears T-Bag speech and responds it. Speaker : Trokey Trokey : Suck it, pig! Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 21. Time : 20:04 Setting : Bellick responds T-Bag’s confrontation. Speaker : Bellick Bellick : You know, Teddy, you really let me down, and that's hard to do because I don't expect much from the inbred child of a retard. Speech Act Type : Expressive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 22. Time : 20:15 Setting : Bellick confronts T-Bag when he tries to break to the office. Speaker : Bellick Bellick : That's right, Teddy. I read your psych records. About how your daddy raped his mongoloid sister and then nine months later, little Teddy pops out. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 23. Time : 26:38 Setting : T-Bag meets Lincoln and an officer and asks him to hand the officer. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Oh, I could make your last few weeks on Earth quite, quite enjoyable. Give you some demerol, some X. It'll make you forget about that big, bad chair. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Off record

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

24. Time : 27:08 Setting : T-Bag fights Lincoln Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Still, Sink. No blood needs to spill, Sink. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 25. Time : 31:38 Setting : Bellick asks pope for permission to use lethal weapons to end the riot. Speaker : Pope Pope : Oh, yeah. So we can end the riot today and start the funerals tomorrow? Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Off record 26. Time : 31:56 Setting : Governor calls Pope to asks the condition of his daughter. Speaker : Governor Governor : Disturbance? That's what you're calling a riot nowadays? Can any of these animals get to her? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 27. Time : 33:52 Setting : Bobby is in T-Bag custody. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : We're gonna have a little fun now, Bobby. Don't worry, I don't get the blickey. My pipes are clean. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Off record 28. Time : 36:31 Setting : Theo tries to reach Sara but she hit him with an injection. Speaker : Theo Theo : That bitch stuck me. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 29. Time : 37:42 Setting : T-Bag told Abruzzi to kill the officer because he might make trouble. Speaker : Abruzzi Abruzzi : What the hell does this have to do with you anyway? This is not any of your concern. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

30. Time : 38:55 Setting : Abruzzi and T-Bag are in Michael’s cell with an officer in their custody. T-Bag want him death but Abruzzi does not. Speaker : Abruzzi Abruzzi : Now, you listen, pervert. You're in as much trouble as he is, you understand. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record The Riot, The Drills and The Devil, part two. 31. Time : 4:35 Setting : Pope asks Bellick search for Sara, but Bellick refused. Speaker : Bellick Bellick : We can't do it, sir. Pope : Why not? Bellick : It's not by the book. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Off record 32. Time : 7:02 Setting : Sucre asks T-Bag to let the officer. Speaker : Sucre T-bag : You making up the rules now, SA? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 33. Time : 7:07 Setting : T-Bag refuses to obey Sucre Speaker : T-Bag Sucre : It's my house. You got a problem? T-Bag : Yeah, I got a problem. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Withhold Politeness 34. Time : 11:58 Setting : Governor just arrives at the prison. Speaker : Governor Governor : Just cut the crap, Warden, and tell me where my daughter is. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 35. Time : 12:35 Setting : T-Bag sees Bobby’s personal stuffs and finds some photos. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : I can't wait to kick it on a terrace.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 36. Time : 12:46 Setting : T-Bag sees Bobby’s personal stuffs and finds some photos. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : Prom? You know what they say about a prom dress, don't you? She didn't come home that night, did she? No, she wore that all night long. Next morning, she had to throw that dress in the trash can behind the motel so her momma didn't see. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 37. Time : 13:15 Setting : Abruzzi sees T-Bag confronts Bobby. Speaker : Abruzzi Abruzzi : Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey! What the hell are you doing? Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 38. Time : 11:23 Setting : Abruzzi asks T-Bag to let Bobby. Speaker : Abruzzi Abruzzi : I'll be very clear here, because you and I face an evolutionary gap. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Off record 39. Time : 18:07 Setting : Lincoln Jr. watches an report about the prison riot in TV when he, his mother and his stepfather wanted to go. Speaker : Lisa’s Husband : This is the kind of crap I have to deal with. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 40. Time : 24:50 Setting : Pope is explaining about the situation in prison. Speaker : Governor Governor : The hell she is! I ordered a state of emergency an hour ago. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 41. Time : 24:59 Setting : Governors wonders what do the officer done to end the riot. Speaker : Governor Governor : Now what the hell is going on out here?

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Bald on record 42. Time : 29:06 Setting : T-Bag threatened Booby. Speaker : T-Bag T-Bag : After I kill you, I'm gonna crawl out that hole and call me up a limousine and me and your baby's going to the prom. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 43. Time : 29:51 Setting : Governor and Pope is in the yard talking about the riot Speaker : Governor Governor : You'd better pray that Sara gets out in one piece. Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Off record 44. Time : 29:55 Setting : Governor and Pope is in the yard talking about the riot Speaker : Pope Pope : I do, Governor, but this is still my prison. Whatever happens, I take full responsibility. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Withhold Politeness 45. Time : 34:44 Setting : Sara and Nick get a call from a mysterious caller. Speaker : Unknown Caller Unknown Caller : I just want to let you know, as of now, both of you are dead. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 46. Time : 35:30 Setting : Lincoln just arrives in Michael’s cell and meets Sucre. Speaker : Lincoln Lincoln : And the paedophile thinks he's in! Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 47. Time : 36:35 Setting : Pope is talking with Bellick in the yard after the riot over. Speaker : Pope Pope : Maybe you'd like to share that with the governor. Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Strategy : Off record 48. Time : 36:40 Setting : Pope is talking with Bellick in the yard after the riot over. Speaker : Pope Pope : Next time you bad-mouth me to a superior, there are gonna be serious consequences. Speech Act Type : Commissive Impoliteness Strategy : Negative 49. Time : 36:45 Setting : Pope is talking with Bellick in the yard after the riot over. Speaker : Pope Pope : Do I make myself clear, Captain? Speech Act Type : Directive Impoliteness Strategy : Positive 50. Time : 38:45 Setting : Lincoln confronts T-bag when he tried to force Michael to kill Bobby. Speaker : Lincoln Lincoln : That ain't for you to decide! Speech Act Type : Representative Impoliteness Strategy : Positive