Abstract
This analysis investigated the representation of characters in the cinematic work “Lion.” Used various kinds of politeness strategies. This study aims to analyze the positive and negative politeness strategies used by characters from Australia and India, in addition to determine the factors that shape these strategies. This study applies a qualitative approach. As a result, the conversations in the movie are carefully transcribed and analyzed descriptively through the perspective of politeness theory (Brown, 2020) and s cross-cultural pragmatics (Wierzbicka, 2009) to identify the influence of the characters' cultural backgrounds on their strategic communication choices. The conversations that occur between the Australian and Indian characters in the film serve as a valuable repository of information, that includes both positive and negative politeness strategies. To obtain the data, the researcher uses a few processes, including watching the movie, taking notes, and choosing conversations in which the actors use both positive and negative politeness strategies frequently. The findings of this study reveal that a total of 121 sentences were classified as either negative or positive politeness, with 68 instances identified as negative politeness and 53 as positive politeness strategies. The application of both negative and positive politeness strategies articulated by the characters is primarily influenced by their cultural context.
References
Ahluwalia, N., Agnihotri, R. K., & Subbarao, K. V. (1990). Gricean maxims and conversational goals. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 19(2), 111–125.
Bosuwon, T. (2015). Linguistic Politeness—A Major Tool for Cross-cultural Requests. The New English Teacher, 9(2), 94–107.
Brown, P. (2020). Politeness. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, 1–8.
Culpeper, J., & Holmes, O. (2013). (Im)politeness and exploitative TV in Britain and North America: The X factor and American Idol. Real Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action, 8(Im), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313461
Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: History, ideas, and issues. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, 1–60.
Ernovilinda, E. (2020). Politeness Strategy in Shanghai Knights Film. IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics), 5(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v5i1.571
Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18(3–4), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00041-1
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational Research 8th Edition: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New York: McGrew Hill Book Company.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 153–166.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill.
Hobbs, P. (2003). The medium is the message: Politeness strategies in men’s and women’s voice mail messages. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(2), 243–262.
Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective.
Lakoff, G. (2006). Conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 185–238.
Lakoff, R. T. (2005). Civility and its discontents. Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish–German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1836–1869.
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals–observations from Japanese. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2–3), 207–222.
P. Brown and s.c. Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universal In Language Usage. Cambridge Uinversity Press. Newyork.
Pandharipande, R. V. (1992). Defining politeness in Indian English. World Englishes, 11(2‐3), 241–250.
Pandharipande, R. V.(2006). Ideology, authority, and language choice. Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 141–164.
Pandharipande, R. V. (2010). Authenticating a Tradition in Transition: Language of Hinduism in the US. In The Sociology of Language and Religion (pp. 58–83). Springer.
Patton, M. Q., & Cochran, M. (2002). A guide to using qualitative research methodology. Medicins Sans Frontiers.
Scroope, C. (2018). Indian Culture. Cultural Atlas. Par, 1.
Sridhar, S. N. (2020). 9 Indian English. 1–37.
Srivastava, R. N., & Pandit, I. (1988a). The pragmatic basis of syntactic structures and the politeness hierarchy in Hindi. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(2), 185–205.
Srivastava, R. N., & Pandit, I. (1988b). The pragmatic basis of syntactic structures and the politeness hierarchy in Hindi. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90078-1
Subbarao, K. V, Agnihotri, R. K., & Mukherjee, A. (1991). Syntactic strategies and politeness phenomena.
Tannen, D. (1984). The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication 1. 3.
Valentine, T. (2015). A socially realistic view of world Englishes: Reflections on gendered discourse. World Englishes, 34(1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12126
Valentine, T. M. (1996). Politeness models in Indian english. LFE: Revista de Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 3, 279–302.
Valentine, T. M. (2019). Creative Acts of Gender in World Englishes. The Handbook of World Englishes, 578–593.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Walter de Gruyter Inc.
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Cross-cultural pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics: Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Yule, G. (2020). The study of language. Cambridge university press.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Anis Sulalah