CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

	In this chapter, the writer reviews some theories that are relevant to the problems. Thus, she discusses philosophical background of Pragmatics, Context, Speech Acts Theory, politeness theories in Pragmatics, The Management of Face, Novel, and Dialogue.
A.	Philosophical Background of Pragmatics
Discussing Pragmatics is not an extraordinary thing to do nowadays. Pragmatics becomes an interesting topic in studying language since the awareness of “meaningful language” arise among language scholars, language teacher, students, and even among common people. People awake that they have to use language appropriately in their various activities, where they should express their self and interact with other people well. Thus, in last two decade, Pragmatics and every problem within become more interesting to be studied.
Pragmatics as branch of Linguistics started its development in American Linguistics in 1970 after transformative-generative linguists like Ross and Lakoff stated that syntactic studies could not be separated from context.  However, the study of meaning, which is the major of Pragmatics, had been developed before in British country. The Oxford language philosopher John Langsaw Austin built his theory about meaning in his posthumous work How to Do Things with Words. Austin’s theory then codified and developed by his student, the American philosopher John R. Searle and came to be known as “speech act theory”. From Searle’s work, Pragmatics was taken to and developed in America and spread all over the world. 
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has also come into being.
The term “pragmatics” was introduced by Charles Morris who was concerned to outline, after Charles Sanders Pierce and John Locke, the general shape of a science of signs, or semiotics. Within semiotics, there are three distinct branches: syntax, being the study of the formal relation of signs to one another; semantics, the study of the relation of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable; and pragmatics, the study of the relation of signs to interpreters.  
There are various definitions of Pragmatics. Stephen C. Levinson defined Pragmatics as the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language. We could say that pragmatics studies the use of the form and structure of language in language usage and the relation between language form and language usage in human life. 
Moreover, language usage is influenced by the context of society. As Jacob L. Mey, in Kunjana Rahardi (2008) stated, “Pragmatics is the study of the conditions of human language uses as these are determined by the context of society.” 
And, Grundy defined Pragmatics as a study about explaining how we produce and understand such everyday but apparently rather peculiar uses of language.As we know, people produce and understand utterances (and other form of language) continually in their unlimited interaction so they create communication to express and share their thought, feeling, desire, etc.  
Those definitions of Pragmatics above approved that Pragmatics studies on utterances, how it is produced and comprehended. It concerns itself with how people use language in particular ways. As mentioned in those definitions, utterances cannot be separated from its context. To understand the meaning of an utterance is impossible without understanding its context. An utterance can be intelligible only if we know well what the background of the utterance. So meaning depends on the situation and condition surrounds the utterance and based on the background knowledge of the speaker and hearer, it is what Pragmatics deals with.

B.	Context
Context is words that come before and after a word, phrases, statement, etc. helping to show what its meaning is. Also, it is circumstances in which something happens or in which something is to be considered.
Moreover, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics stated, context is that occurs before and/or after a word, a phrase or even a longer utterance or a text. The context often helps in understanding the particular meaning of the word, phrase etc. The context may also be the broader social situation in which a linguistic item is used.
Context is everything surrounds a text. It helps a thing come into a meaning. Thus, meaning truly negotiated within unfolded factors.
Context is a dynamic concept: it is continually changing surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the participants in the communication process to interact, and which the linguistic expression of their interaction become intelligible. Context is user oriented, so it can be expected to differ from user to user, from user group to user group, and hence also from language to language.
Context is more than just reference. Context is action. It is about understanding what things are for; it is also what gives our utterances their true pragmatic meaning and allows them to be counted as true pragmatic acts. 
Context can be divided into four subparts:
1.	Physical context; it is where a conversation takes place, what objects are present, and what actions taking place.
2.	 Epistemic context; it is background knowledge shared by the speakers and the hearers.
3.	Linguistic context; they are utterances previous to the utterance under consideration.
4.	Social context; it is the social relationship and setting of the speakers and the hearers.
Context involves social context and societal context. Social context is context that appears as the effect of social interaction in a social group or culture. Then societal context is context that caused by the rank of the social member of the social institutions in a social group or culture. The basis of societal context is the power in the society, and then the basis of social context is the solidarity of the society.   

C.	Speech Acts Theory
Speech Acts are words with which to do things. John Langsaw Austin introduced speech acts in his book How to Do Things with Words. Austin work then codified and developed by his student John R. Searle. Searle (1969: 16) defined speech acts as “the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication”. Speech acts are produced in actual language use, by people having something “in mind”. 
Austin stated that every utterance in speech acts always involves three aspect of meaning; 1) Locutionary acts; the utterance of a sentence with determinate ‘sense’ and reference. This is the activity a speaker engages in when (s)he says something , 2) Illocutionary acts; the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc. in uttering a sentence by virtue of the conventional force associated with it, and 3) Perlocutionary acts; the effect of the utterance might have. It is the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance. 
Furthermore, Searle classified speech acts into:
1)	Representatives (assertives); these speech acts are assertion about a state affairs in the world and thus carry the values of ‘true’ or ‘false’, such as asserting, concluding, etc. For example: “Audrey’s house is large and beautiful,” said Hannah to Mark.
2)	Directives; these speech acts embody an effort on the part of the speaker to get the hearer to do something, such as requesting, questioning. For example: Sarah invites Peggy, “Peggy, please come to my wedding anniversary party tonight!” 
3)	Commissives; these speech acts get the speaker to do something in the future, such as promising, threatening, offering. For example: “I promise, I will never come late anymore,” said a student in front of his teacher and his friends in a class.   
4)	Expressives; these speech acts express the inner state or a psychology state of the speaker, such as thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating. For example: “Congratulation for your new baby, Sam!” said Jim to Sam after visiting Sam’s wife and baby in the hospital.
5)	Declarations; these speech acts bring about some alternation in the status or condition of the referred to object or objects solely by virtue of the fact that the declaration has been successfully performed. These speech acts effect the immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions, such as excommunicating, declaring, baptizing, christening. For example: “I hereby declare you to be husband and wife!” declared a priest in a wedding ceremony. 

D.	Politeness Theory in Pragmatics
Politeness is a general term for human being. Everybody around the world knows what politeness is. For some people, politeness is assumed as a way to make someone happy. Other people probably define politeness as a way to respect someone. Other people may define it in other way because politeness is understood in different ways based on the context of each society.
Pragmaticists try to build the concept of politeness which can be accepted universally. So the theory can be applied in people’s life all over the world, not limited in a certain tribe or society. 
Grundy, for example, states that politeness is a way of encoding distance between speakers and their addressees and it is the term we use to describe the extent to which actions, including the way things are said, match addressees’ perception of how they should be performed.
Other linguist J. Thomas stated, “…politeness is interpreted as a strategy (or series of strategies) employed by a speaker to achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relationship.”  
According to J. Thomas, there are four approaches of politeness in Pragmatics. Each approach has their own view of politeness which conducts different politeness strategies. Those approaches are:
a.	Politeness Principles; by Leech
Leech explained politeness in terms of principles and maxims. Those politeness maxims are:
1.	Tact Maxim: a) Minimize cost to other; b) Maximize benefit to other.  
2.	Generosity Maxim: a) Minimize benefit to self; b) Maximize cost to self.
3.	Approbation Maxim: a) Minimize dispraise of other; b) Maximize praise of other. 
4.	Modesty Maxim: a) Minimize praise of self; b) Maximize dispraise of self. 
5.	Agreement Maxim: a) Minimize disagreement between self and other; b) Maximize agreement between self and other.
6.	Sympathy Maxim: a) Minimize antipathy between self and other; b) Maximize sympathy between self and other. 
b.	The Management of Face; by Brown and Levinson
Brown and Levinson explained politeness as strategies to save or maintain other’s ‘face’ in order to avoid face threatening acts. Those strategies are:
1.	Bald-on-record
2.	Positive politeness
3.	Negative politeness
4.	Off record
5.	Do not do FTA
Since the writer use the Management of Face as the focus of the study, she will discuss the Management of Face and its strategies in the next section. 
c.	Politeness viewed as a conversational contract; by Fraser
Fraser asserted that people are constrained in interaction by what he calls a ‘conversational contract’ (CC), that understanding which people bring to an interaction of the norms obtaining within that interaction and of their rights and obligations within it. 
d.	Politeness   measured along pragmatic scale; by Spencer-Oatey
Spencer-Oatey criticized Brown and Levinson’s and Leech’s politeness theories as culturally biased. In order to overcome the problems of cultural-specificity, Spencer-Oatey proposes three sets of dimension by selecting the point on the scale according to the cultural values that can be used in the research on politeness.
Spencer-Oatey (in Thomas (1995) mentioned those scales as follow:
1.	Need for Consideration: 
autonomy 		– 	imposition
2.	Need to be Valued: 
approbation 	– 	criticism
interest/ concern 	– 	disinterest  
3.	Need for  Relational Identity: 
inclusion 		 – 	exclusion
equality		 – 	superordination/ subordination  

E.	The Management of Face
The Management of Face is known as the most influential theory of politeness in Pragmatics which was put forward by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in 1978 and revised in 1987.  Following Grice, Brown and Levinson stated that conversation is a rational activity. In speaking, a speaker has his/her certain goals, so conversation is goal-oriented interaction. Hence, Brown and Levinson defined politeness as strategies which are developed in order to save hearer’s face. Thus, the speaker may conduct strategies to make his/her goal achieved through speaking. People use politeness strategies in order to get their conversation run well and go smoothly. 
Central to Brown and Levinson theory is the concept of ‘face’ which is derived from the work of Canadian anthropologist Erving Goffman. 
a.	Definition of Face
The term ‘face’ is Chinese in origin. Chinese language has three common words meaning ‘face’; “mian”, “lian”, and “yan”.
1.	“Mian” means face as; personal esteem, countenance, surface, and side, occurs in words like:
a.	“mianzi”, means face as; side, reputation, self-respect, prestige, honor, and social standing.
b.	“mianmu” (literally: "face eyes"), means face as; appearance, respect, social standing, prestige, and honor.
c.	“mianpi” (literally: "face skin") means; facial skin, complexion, feelings, sensitivity, and sense of shame.
d.	“timian” (literally: "body face"), means face as; good looking, honor, dignity, and prestige.
e.	“qingmian” (literally: "feelings face"), means face as; prestige, favor, kindness, and partiality.
2.	 “Lian” means face as; countenance, respect, reputation, and prestige, occurs in words like:
a.	“lianshang” (literally: "face on/above"), means; one's face, honor, and respect.
b.	“lianmian” (literally: "face face"), means face as; self-respect, prestige, and influence.
c.	“lianpi” (literally: "face skin"), means face as; sensitivity, and compassion.
3.	“Yan” means face as; prestige, reputation, and honor, occurs in words like:
a.	“yanhou” (literally: "face thick") or “houyan”, means; thick-skinned, brazen, shameless, and impudent.
b.	“yanmian” (literally: "face face"), means face as honor and prestige,
Goffman, in J. Thomas (1996), 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 himself.” 

Meanwhile, Brown and Levinson defined face as individual self-worth or self-esteem. Face consists of two specific kinds of two specific kinds of desires (face-wants) attributed by interactants to one another: the desire to be unimpeded in one’s action (negative face), and the desire to be approved of (positive face). Positive Face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act. According to Brown and Levinson, both positive and negative face exist universally in human culture.  Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. The two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction, and so during any social interaction, cooperation is needed amongst the participants to maintain each others' faces. Brown and Levinson argued that ‘face’ is always in threaten condition while people interact one-another. Some illocutionary acts take place in threatening others’ face or so called ‘Face Threatening Acts’ (FTA). FTA usually occurs in hearer/ addressee side. However, FTA can also occur in speaker side.
To avoid FTA, a speaker should conduct strategies in order to save hearer’s face, or so called ‘Face Saving Acts’ (FSA). The strategies of FSA are called Face-Management strategies. To apply the strategies, Brown and Levinson asserted the scale of politeness so the speaker can use the strategy appropriately.
b.	Brown and Levinson’s Scale of Politeness:
There are three scales to measure the degree of the politeness of utterances. Understanding those scales leads the speaker calculates the ‘weightiness’ of the FTA which in turn influences the strategy used. Those scales that are based on factors of contextual, social, and cultural situations involve: 
1.	The speaker and the hearer relative as usually called as power rating (P). This scale is based on asymmetric position between speaker and hearer. 
2.	Social distance (D) between speaker and hearer which is influenced by the different age, sex, and socio-cultural background. This parameter is usually symbolized by (+) solidarity for close distance and (-) solidarity for far distance.
3.	The degree or rating of imposition (R) associated with the required expenditure of goods or services. This scale is based on the relative position between one speech act and others.
The strategies of the Management of Face are presented in the next point below. 
c.	The Management of Face Strategies
1)	Bald-on-record
The strategy is derived from Grice’s Conversational Maxims which emphasized on achieving maximally efficiency of communication. Bald-on-record strategy is categorized into two classes: 
1.	Cases of non minimization of the face threat (non compensation strategy), e.g. “Watch out! It’s dangerous!” said a keeper to a tourist in front of tiger’s cage in a zoo.
2.	Cases of FTA-oriented bald-on-record usage (with compensation strategy), e.g. “Thanks for picking me up, Joe!” said Emily to her class mate Joe in front of Emily’s home before they go to the college. 
2)	Positive Politeness
The strategy is oriented to the positive face of the hearer. It is categorized into:
1.	Claim common ground, by indicating that speaker (S) and hearer (H) being to the same want, goal, or value, e.g. “What a great meal!” said a guest to the host of a dinner party. 
2.	S stresses common membership in a group with H, e.g. “Hi, arek Surabaya! What’s up?!” said an NBA player when he became a guest star in local basketball event in Surabaya.
3.	S claims perspective, view point, empathy, etc. with H without referring to in-group membership, e.g. “Great choice, Bob! Beautiful!” Bill comments Bob’s new home.
4.	 Convey that S and H are cooperators by indicating knowledge of and sensibility to H’s wants, e.g. “I’m sure that you wont miss this Dewa 19 great album!” said Eva to her best friend Kirana. Dewa 19 is Kirana’s favorite group music. 
3)	Negative Politeness 
The strategy is derived from negative face of the hearer. It is categorized into:
1.	Be conventionally indirect, e.g. “Can you please take me home?” said Farida to her friend Jana. 
2.	Question and hedge, e.g. “You are quite right,” Marina agreed her sister suggestion.
3.	Be Pessimistic, e.g. “Oh, you must be so busy… it’s impossible to ask you to accompany me in my badminton practice, ” said Suki to Naruto. Actually she asked Naruto to accompany her.
4.	Minimize the imposition, e.g. “John…I want to talk little,” said Amanda to his brother John.
5.	Give deference, e.g. “Excuse me, Madam. May I go out?” asked Peter to his teacher after he finished doing the examination. 
6.	Apologize, e.g. “It’s so sorry to disturb your work. May I borrow your mobile phone for one call?” said Brandon to his work mate Lily in the office. 
7.	Disassociate speaker and hearer from the particular imposition, e.g. “OK, class, pay attention to this diagram!” the teacher explains the distribution theory in economy class.
8.	Redress other wants of hearer’s (go on record as incurring a debt or not indebting hearer), e.g. “It wouldn’t be any trouble. I have to go there right now,” said Mark to make his girlfriend Jane quite. 
4)	Off Record 
The strategy uses indirect language that construct more general utterance or uses more than one meaning utterances. The strategies are:
2.	Give Hints; the strategy is a violation of Grice’s Maxim of Relevant, e.g. “It’s cold here,” said Emily and shut the window.
3.	Give association clues by mentioning something associated with the act required of hearer, precedent in S-H’s experience and mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional experience, e.g. “Liz, have you gone to the Golden Theater? There’s a good film there…” John hoped that Liz would accompany him to the theater.
4.	Presuppose; an utterance is relevant in context but in the relevant maxim just at presuppositions, e.g. “I washed the car again today.” From the sentence has done before (for example, last week).
5.	Understatement; it is a way of generating implicature by saying not informatively, e.g. “Hmmm…it’s not half bad.” The speaker actually means that it is surprisingly good.
6.	Overstatement; it is the opposite of understatement e.g. “Pam, I tried to go to your home last night…but the heavy rain stopped me…” Harry actually apologizes to Pam because he could not come to Pamela’s birthday party.
7.	Use tautologies to encourage hearer to look for an informative interpretation of non-informative utterance, e.g. “I’m with you, Ishaa. I’m with you.” Raj means he will always accompany and help Ishaa. 
8.	Use contradiction by stating contradicting words in an utterance so the speaker can encourage hearer to look for an interpretation of S’s utterance, e.g. “Yanti called me but didn’t call me…” said the drunken Agus on phone.
9.	Be ironic by saying the opposite of what S really means, e.g. “Gabriella is a real singer!” comments Jose while Gabriella is singing nevertheless he means that Gabriella cannot sing at all. 
10.	Use metaphors by using the connotation of the metaphor in an utterance, e.g. “Larasati is a real prenjak…” commented Setadewa to his childhood friend Larasati. Prenjak is a kind of energetic bird from Java Island.
11.	Use rhetorical question to provide H with the indicated information in purpose of leaving the answer hanging in the air, e.g. “What should I explain more…?!”(S means (s)he had explained H more)
12.	Be ambiguous to include the literal meaning of the utterance and its possible implicature, e.g. “Mr. Handoko is hot!” said Juminten to Sumirah in Handoko family reunion.
13.	Be vague to focus in the object of the FTA, e.g. “Looks like someone may have had too much to drink.” (vague understatement)
14.	Over generalize; it is used when S makes generalization of what is said, e.g. “Mature people sometimes help do the dishes,” said Umi to her first daughter Binti in the kitchen.
15.	Displace hearer by pretending to address the FTA to someone it would not threaten and hope the real target will realize it, e.g. “Ah, Surya…you always wear worse!” said Nadia. Actually, she wants to comment on Jaka’s look. 
16.	Be incomplete. Use ellipsis; elliptical utterance is legitimated by various conversational contexts that use a half undone FTA, so S can leave the implicature hanging in the air, e.g. “Mom…so hungry…” (it means that S asked for a meal) 
5)	Do not Perform FTA (be silent)
The strategy is used when the degree of FTA is too high. Brown and Levinson do not discuss this strategy, but Tanaka in J. Thomas (1996) discusses two sorts of “saying nothing.” She terms the “opting out choice (OOC)” into:
1.	OOC genuine; S does not perform a speech act and genuinely intends to let the matter remain closed (S does not intend to achieve perlocutionary effect).
2.	OOC strategies; S does not perform speech act but intends to achieve perlocutionary effect.
For example: 
(Elias and Tony are chatting in front of class while Mr. Black, their physics teacher passes them)
Elias: Mr. Black is stingy teacher
Tony: …..  
As the strategies above mainly influenced by Grice’s conversational maxims, they are conducted for goal-oriented conversation. However, Noriko Kitamura in her paper Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘Politeness’ Theory to the Analysis of Casual Conversation concludes that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory can be a powerful tool to analyze ‘politeness’ phenomena,  not  only  in goal-oriented interaction,  but  also  in  non-goal-oriented interaction of this nature such like in a casual interaction.
Novel can be a good source to derive both goal-oriented and moreover non-goal oriented conversation since it presents dialogues among the character inside which refer to the interaction in real life. The next section will present definition and part of Novel and its advantages for pragmatic study. 

F.	Novel
In the study, the term “novel” means a kind of literary work. Novel is an invented story in prose, long enough to fill a complete book. It is a kind of narrative fiction (narrative prose) containing more than 50,000 words.
Novel deals with truths, problems, and conflict. It aims to entertain and to inform the readers. The elements of structure of a novel are: 
1.	Title; the title of a novel may name the chief character, some significant object, name a place, or indicate the nature of the story.
2.	Point of view; point of view is the way an author permits the reader to observe the story. Point of view may be first person, third person, dramatic, or omniscient.
3.	Dramatic conflict; dramatic conflict is a kind of action in a novel. Conflict appeals to the emotions of the reader. It may be physical, social, psychological, or it may be a combination of these.
4.	Theme; theme of a novel is its underlying idea or wisdom that the author is presenting.
5.	Plot; plot is the action of the story or the sequences of events involving the character or characters. It may be simple or complex. A novel usually uses complex plot. Complex plot has several groups of characters; the story deals with one, takes up another, returns to first, then takes up another.
6.	Characterization; characterization is the depicting of clear images of a person. There are two methods of characterization: the dramatic and the analytic. In the dramatic we form our opinions of the characters from what they do and say, from their environment, and from what other character think of them. In the analytic method the author comments upon the characters, explaining their motives, their appearances, and their thoughts.  
7.	Situation; situation is what gives background to the story. It shapes the action and provides the tone through setting and description.
8.	Style; style is the way in which an author selects, arranges, and presents his words. It is his manner of expression.

G.	Dialogue
We can find two meanings of dialogue. The first meaning of dialogue is spoken or written conversation, and the second one is a discussion between two people in which opinions are exchanged. In the study, the researcher used the first meaning since the subjects of the study are dialogues of the characters in the novel Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea by Jules Verne. The dialogues present conversations among the characters in the novel and represent idea, thought, desire, or feeling of the characters trough their utterances. Dialogues play important role in building the plot of the novel.