FACE THREATENING ACTS AND POLITENESS STRATEGY PERFORMED BY DEBATERS AT DEBATE.ORG WEBSITE

Salisa Maulidiyah, 2813123141 (2016) FACE THREATENING ACTS AND POLITENESS STRATEGY PERFORMED BY DEBATERS AT DEBATE.ORG WEBSITE. [ Skripsi ]

Preview	Text Cover.pdf Download (231kB) | Preview
Preview	Text CHAPTER 1.pdf Download (149kB) | Preview
	Text CHAPTER 2.pdf Download (288kB)
	Text CHAPTER 3.pdf Download (146kB)
Preview	Text CHAPTER 4.pdf Download (447kB) | Preview
Preview	Text CHAPTER 5.pdf Download (179kB) | Preview
Preview	Text CHAPTER 6.pdf Download (129kB) | Preview
Preview	Text REFERENCES.pdf Download (93kB) | Preview

Abstract

ABSTRACT Maulidiyah, Salisa. Students Registered Number. 2813123141. 2016. Face Threatening Acts And Politeness Strategy Performed By Debaters At Debate.Org Website. Thesis. Englsih Education Department. Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training. State Islamic Institute (IAIN) of Tulungagung. Advisor: Dr. Nurul Choyimah, M.Pd. Keywords: FTA (face threatening acts), politeness strategy, debate. This research was conducted in order to find out politeness strategies used to minimize FTAs (face threatening acts) performed by debaters at online debate (debate.org). The first objective of this research is finding out face threatening acts commonly performed by debaters and the second objective is finding out politeness strategy performed by debaters in order to soften FTAs (face threatening acts). Those two objectives are analyzed by using Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness strategy and (FTAs) face threatening act. The statement of the research problems are: 1) What (FTAs) Face Threatening Acts commonly performed by the debaters?. 2) What Politeness Strategies are performed by the debaters to soften the Face Threatening Acts? In this research, the researcher used qualitative research as the research method in this study. The data of this study are debaters’ utterances taken from debate online that is debate.org containing face threatening acts and politeness strategies. The utterances were gotten from ten topics which are selected which one topic can be debated one until four rounds. The data collection of this study is documenting. The researcher obtained the data from debate.org by downloading and copying debaters’ utterances containing FTAs (face threatening acts) and politeness strategy. In gaining the trustworthiness of the data, the researcher used the theory credibility and transferability technique. Finally, in analyzing and interpreting the data, the researcher followed Donald Ary’s steps of data analysis, they are: 1) Organizing and familiarizing, 2) Coding and reducing, 3) Interpreting and representing. The result of data analysis shows that the debaters performed 85 times FTAs (face threatening acts). The debaters have threatened addresser’s positive face, addresser’s negative face, addressee’s positive face, and addressee’s negative face. The debaters often threaten addressee’s positive face 41 times, addressee’s negative face 23 times, addresser’s positive face 18 times, and addresser’s negative face only 3 times. There are 15 types of face threatening acts performed by debaters, they are: Threat/ warning, Agreeing, Expressing thanks, Accusing, Insulting, Disagreeing, Imposing, Suggesting, Self humiliating, Apologizing, Complimenting, Ordering, Asking to stop doing activity, Criticizing, and Annoying. Besides, the debaters performed politeness strategy in order to soften FTAs (face threatening acts) in only some cases. The debaters performed both positive and negative politeness strategy from the whole data only 13 times. Not all their FTAs (face threatening acts) are softened by performing politeness strategy. They often used negative politeness strategy rather than positive politeness strategy. This strategy is performed 8 times while positive politeness strategy is performed 5 times. There are only 9 types politeness strategies performed by debaters, they are: Using Exclamation, asking for permission, Agreeing, Complimenting, Using conventional indirect, Including both speaker and addressee in an activity, Giving reason, Noticing addressee’s good deeds, and Giving Freedom. From those results, the researcher conclude that the debaters tend to perform face threatening acts without mitigating devices rather than performing face threatening acts by using mitigating devices. Debaters do not need to understand the concepts of FTA and Politeness Strategy, but this topic is worth studying because it documents what is done by language users. The researcher hopes that this research will help the English Department Students in understanding the concept of Brown and Levinson about Face Threatening Acts and Politeness Strategy performed in debate. Thus it is expected for the linguistic students to be more sensitive toward the phenomenon so they can dig more information related to the FTA and Politeness strategy.

Actions (login required)

View Item