MAKALAH

SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATIC

About

Politenes and interaction

Oleh Kelompok 10

Al-Fikriy Isra' Fasa 1914050067

Sahara putri 1914050054

Cia sintika rahma 1914050079

Lectures :

Prof. Dr. Hj. Martin Kustati, M.Pd

Honesti Trila, S.Pdi., M.Pd

TADRIS BAHASA INGGRIS

FAKULTAS TARBIYAH DAN KEGURUAN

UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI IMAM BONJOL PADANG

1443 H / 2022 M
 PREFACE
Praise and gratitude to Allah SWT who has bestowed His grace and gifts, so that we can
complete the assignment of Semantics and Pragmatics. Prayers and greetings do not get
bored we convey to our lord, our great prophet Muhammad SAW, We realize that in the
making of this paper there are still many shortcomings and far from perfection, therefore
we expect constructive criticism and suggestions from both lecturers and readers, so that in
the future our paper can be in accordance with the criteria proposed by the lecturer. ,
hopefully this paper is useful and can add insight to all of us.

Padang, 27 Februari 2022

Kelompok 10
 TABLE OF CONTENT

PREFACE.............................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENT ........................................................................ ii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1

A. Background of the paper....................................................... 1

B. Politenes and interaction ............................................................. 1

C. Purpose.................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER II THEORY AND DISCUSION ...................................... 2

A. Defenition and kinds of Speech Acts.................................... 2

B. Defenition and Types of Performative Verb......................... 4

CHAPTER III CLOSING.................................................................... 7

A. Conclusion ............................................................................ 7

B. Suggestion............................................................................. 7

REFERENCES...................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Politeness and Interaction

 According to Yule (1996:59), “a linguistic interaction is necessarily a social
interaction”. In order to make sense of what is said in an interaction, one has to
consider external as well as internal factors, which relate to social distance and
closeness. External factors are typically refer to the “relative status of the
participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and power” (Yule,
1996:59). On the other hand, internal factors are typically more relevant to
participants whose social relations are worked out within the interaction(Yule,
1996:59). Thus the amount of imposition and the degree of friendliness are
considered internal factors as they are often negotiated during a communicative
event.

B.Problem Formulation
1.self and Other: say nothing
2.Say Something : Off on RecordPositive and Negative Politeness

C. Purpose
1. Understanding the meaning politenes and interaction about self and Other: say nothing
Say Something : Off on RecordPositive and Negative Politeness

CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A.Politeness and Interaction on Pragmatics

linguistics interaction is necessarily a social interaction.Interaction occurs when speaker

and listener are active.However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition or
degree of friendliness, which are often negotiated during an interaction. These are internal
to the interaction and can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as
less, or more, during its course. These internal factors are typically more relevant to
participants whose social relationships are actually in the process o being worked out
within the interaction.

B.Self and Other: Say Nothing

A person who aims to have his/her needs figured out by the other person next to him/her
(the “Other”) is the “Self”.

The requirements of the self are sometimes not explicitly expressed, but are just conveyed
as vague intentions.

[•] Self: (looks in bag)

Other: (offers pen) Here, use this.

When we need express our speak by say nothing, then we should express our sentence by
do something related our sentence.

C.Say Something: Off and On Record

When this “say nothing” works, it is because “the other offers and not because the self
asks” (1996:62). Therefore, one can clearly conclude that more is communicated than is
said.

Nevertheless, if someone decides to say something, he/she does not have actually to ask for
anything, but simply produce a statement, as the following ones:

1) Whh, I forgot my pen.

2) Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.

Such statements are not directly addressed to the other. Consequently, the other can ignore
them, that is, act as if the statements have not been even heard. These statements, as stated
by Yule (1996:63), are “technically described as being ‘off record’.” In contrast to such
“off record” statements, the self can directly address the other as a means of expressing
his/her needs. These direct address forms are technically described as being “on record”.
The most direct address form among on record statements is known as “bald on record”. It
is signaled by the use of imperative forms and means that the other person is directly asked
for something, as in this example:

“Give me a pen”. (Bald on record)

Bald on record forms may be followed by expressions like “please” and “would like” which
make the demand softer and are called “mitigating devices”.

Most of the time, bald on record expressions are associated with speech events where the
speaker assumes that he/she has supremacy over the other and can control the other’s
behavior through language. Concerning Yule’s words on page 64, “in every-day interaction
between social equals, such bald on record behavior would potentially represent a threat to
the other’s face and would generally be avoided.

[•] a. Uh, I forgot my pen.

b. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.

[•] a. Give me a pen.

b. Lend me your pen.

Positive and Negative Politeness

[•] a. How about letting me use your pen?

b. Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you'd let me use your pen.

Avoiding a face threatening act is accomplished by face saving acts which use positive or
negative politeness strategies”.

A “positive politeness strategy”, according to Yule (1996:64), “leads the requester to

inquire for a common goal, and even friendship”. There is a greater risk for the speaker to
suffer a refusal during “on record expressions” than in “off record statements”. However, in
most English-speaking contexts, a face saving act is more commonly performed via a
“negative politeness strategy”. The most typical form used is a question containing a modal
verb, which results in forms that contain expressions of apology for the imposition. “These
questions present an opportunity for the other to answer in the negative to the question
without the same refusal effect of responding with a negative to a direct, bald on record
imperative” (Yule, 1996:65).

The use of a face-saving on record form represents a significant choice (more elaborate
negative politeness work is represented through longer talk, less direct, less clear, more
complex structure, and often with hesitations) because the speaker is making a greater
effort, in terms of concern for face/politeness, than is needed simply to get the basic
message across efficiently.

The tendency to use positive politeness form emphasizes closeness between speaker and
hearer. It can be seen as a “solidarity strategy”. Linguistically, this strategy can include
personal information, use of nicknames, and shared dialect or slang expressions. It is often
signaled by inclusive terms such as “we” and “let’s”. On the other hand, the use of negative
politeness form emphasizes the hearer’s right to freedom. It can be seen as a deference
strategy. It is involved in what is called “formal politeness” and it is impersonal, as if
nothing is shared. Language is characterized by an absence of personal claims.

These types of strategies are illustrated here by the use of utterances that are central to the
speech event. However, face saving behavior is often at work well before such utterances
are produced, in the form of “pre-sequences”. Face is typically at risk when the self needs
to accomplish something involving other. The greatest risk appears to be when the other is
put in a difficult position.

A good way of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to cease the
potentially dangerous act, using a pre-request, before simply making a request, for example.
After that, considering the answer provided by the hearer in the first question, the speaker
can go ahead or just stopping on that point.

John: Are you busy? (Pre-request)

Mary: Not really. (Go ahead)

John: Check over this memo. (Request)

Mary: Okay. (Accept)

Sometimes, some pre-requests are treated as being requests because they are answered in
the first moment (‘short-cut process’).

Tim: Do you mind if I use your phone?

Joan: Yeah, sure.

These forms are normally interpreted as a positive response, not to the pre-request, but to
the unstated request. Other examples with pre-invitation can be observed as follows:

Leo: What are you going to do this Friday? (Pre-invitation)

Giselle: Hmm, nothing so far. (Go ahead)

Leo: Come over for dinner. (Invitation)

Giselle: Oh, I’d like that. (Accept)

Leo: Are you doing anything later? (Pre-invitation)

Giselle: Oh, yeah. Busy, busy, busy (Stop)

Leo: Oh, okay.

When there is silence, it is generally interpreted as a “stop”. In conclusion, it is important to

say that the structure for any interaction must be carefully analyzed because what allows a
great deal to be communicated that is never said by the writers or speakers is the familiarity
readers and listeners have with the regularity of such structure.

D.negative politeness

According to Yule (1996:61-62), “a person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to

have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. (…) So, a face saving act
which is oriented to the person’s negative face will tend to show deference, emphasizing
the importance of the other’s time or concerns, and even including an apology for the
imposition or interruption”

E.positive politeness

Furthermore, Yule (1996:62) asserts that “a person’s positive face is the need to be
accepted or connected, even liked by others and be treated as a member of the same group.
Therefore, a face saving act, which is concerned with the person’s positive face, will tend to
show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing, and that they have a
common goal”

CHAPTER III
CLOSING
A. Conclusion
The relationship between these politeness concepts, positive or negative, and language
application depends on the concepts of “Self” and “Other”. A person who aims to have
his/her needs figured out by the other person next to him/her (the “Other”) is the “Self”.

The requirements of the self are sometimes not explicitly expressed, but are just conveyed
as vague intentions. When this “say nothing” works, it is because “the other offers and not
because the self asks” (1996:62). Therefore, one can clearly conclude that more is
communicated than is said.

B. Suggestion
In this paper, of course, there are shortcomings, both in terms of references and the author's
arguments, for that criticism and suggestions from dear readers are very welcome, thank
you.

REFERENCES :

1.https://ridhaharwan.blogspot.com/2013/02/politeness-and-interaction-on-
pragmatics.html?m=1

2.https://www.slideshare.net/dr.shadiabanjar/politeness-and-interaction-by-drshadiapptx

3.http://wwwdrshadiabanjar.blogspot.com/2009/05/politeness-and-interaction.html?m=1

4.https://ridhaharwan.blogspot.com/2013/02/politeness-and-interaction-on-
pragmatics.html?m=1