The function of positive face threatening acts baldly on-record without redressive action in household and cyberconflict: a pragmatic study
Keywords:
Conflict, Household, Cyber, Positive Face Threatening ActsAbstract
Humans as social beings cannot be free from conflict. Speech is one of the causes of conflict. This study discusses the function of Positive Face Threatening Acts on-record baldly without redressive action on household conflicts in a popular psychology book and cyber conflicts between netizens on Facebook. The method used in this research was descriptive qualitative method. The results showed that there were two main functions of the use of Positive Face Threatening Acts baldly on-record without redressive action in household conflicts taken from dialogues in a popular psychology book and cyber conflicts between netizens on Facebook comments, namely if it is used as a utterance then it functions to trigger conflict (PK) and if it is used as a response it serves to maintain FTA/Face/conflict (MK). Whatever the problems or conflicts background that occur both in the household and in the cyber world, conflicts can arise as a result of utterances and also with utterances these conflicts can be resolved or maintained. It depends on the participants involved in the conflict. In other words, utterances can be used either to threaten or defend one's self-esteem/face.
References
Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (2014). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others | Pearson. Pearson.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language usage Cambridge: Cambridge University. https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OG7W8yA2XjcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=Brown+and+Levinson+(1987)+&ots=w54zHpBo67&sig=t8JY31JmISEZXcyIyDMWYVZeV_Y
Culpeper, J. (1996). Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 573-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00053-4
Hurst, M. J., & Grimshaw, A. D. (1992). Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Language. https://doi.org/10.2307/416970
Kurniasih, N., Rahmansyah, S., & Kurnia N, I. (2019). POLITENESS STRATEGY TO PREVENT AND RESOLVE CYBER-CONFLICTS AMONG INDONESIAN INTERNET USERS: A CYBERPRAGMATICS APPROACH. Humanus. https://doi.org/10.24036/humanus.v18i1.103049
Lambrou, M., & Stockwell, P. (2007). Contemporary stylistics. In Contemporary Stylistics.
Mahsun, M. (2014). Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan, Strategi, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Mao, L. M. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: "Face" revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3
Pease, B. & A. (2013). WHY MEN DON'T LISTEN & WOMEN CAN'T READ MAPS. In BOOK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Rahmansyah, S., Nur, T., Marta, D. C. V, & ... (2020). The Impact of Face Threatening Acts on Hearer (The Wife) Face in A Household Conflict: A Pragmatic Study. In ELS Journal on
....
Tannen, D., Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1981). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Language. https://doi.org/10.2307/413709
Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In Handbook of language and social psychology.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. In Politeness. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184
Yao, Y., & Chen, X. (2019). Yan Huang: The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0011
Yus, F. (2012). Cyberpragmatics. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0309
