Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal ELITERATE : Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies
Muhammad Irfan
Gunadarma University
Humanities Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
POLITENESS STRATEGIES AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BOOK THIEF Muhammad Irfan; Devi Hellystia
ELITERATE : Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies Vol 5, No 3 (2026): ELITERATE : Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies
Publisher : Faculty of Languages and Literature, Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/eliterate.v5i3.89177

Abstract

Politeness strategies are meaningful not only because they mitigate face threat but also because they index how speakers position themselves toward others. Previous film-based politeness studies have commonly classified Brown and Levinson’s strategies, while the relationship between strategy choice and relational orientation has received less systematic attention. This study examines 70 coded utterances produced by Liesel Meminger in The Book Thief (2013) and asks how politeness strategies relate to interpersonal meanings in scripted cinematic discourse. The study uses qualitative pragmatic analysis, applying Brown and Levinson’s framework to identify bald-on-record, positive-politeness, negative-politeness, and off-record strategies, while interpersonal meanings are interpreted through DeVito’s communication perspective together with contextual variables of social distance, relative power, and rank of imposition. In the coded corpus, bald on record is most frequent (43; 61.4%), followed by positive politeness (17; 24.3%), negative politeness (8; 11.4%), and off record (2; 2.9%). The primary relational orientations are intimacy (38; 54.3%), solidarity (16; 22.9%), conflict (15; 21.4%), and status/deference (1; 1.4%). The findings illustrate that directness in scripted dialogue can occur within close, cooperative, or conflictual relationships and that strategy interpretation depends on the face-threatening act, scene context, and P–D–R configuration rather than on linguistic form alone.
Co-Authors Devi Hellystia