Nababan and Obama made utterances in the form of questions and statements. Through their words, the writer analyzes the strategies employed. It is
not only Brown and Levinson theory that used, but also the supporting theories from Jonathan Culpeper, Thomas Jenny and George Yule. Then, the writer
analyzes the difference of power level influence in their communication using Spencer-
Oatey perspective, combined with the Brown’s sociological variables and Leech’s scale.
B. Data Analysis
1. Nababan’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy
It was clear that Obama’s visit to Indonesia became the headline of
Indonesian mass medias at that time. RCTI as one of the popular Indonesian television wanted to get the full news of Obama, not only his departure from
America, but also the commentaries of American people on their President, his childhood and Indonesia. Through Nababan, RCTI got a rare chance to interview
the President in the White House, and it was broadcasted. This broadcasted interview was viewed by many Indonesian people and it got a lot of comments.
Nababan began the interview by greeting and some small talks. After the greeting and some small talks in the White House, Nababan
asked Obama: “Yes, you know Mr. President, i have been here for almost 48 hours and i
felt the tense, the atmosphere of politics, national politics in America, i just wondering are you, i learnt that you postponed the trip to Indonesia
for three days and we know that to Indonesia, you are leaving Sunday
morning and we will expecting you on thursday, are you still on the plan?” p. 68
Requesting personal information is a kind of face-threatening act FTA. Hence, Nababan threatened the positive and negative face of Obama by “are you still on
the plan?”. Nababan performed FTA. But Nababan used a specific strategy before requesting. First
, Nababan showed deference to Obama by calling him “Mr. President”. It is a kind of deference by mentioning tittle and name in addressing
the hearer. Here, Nababan employed negative politeness strategy. Second, Nababan told Obama that he felt what Obama felt as the President: the political
tense of United States at that time. It was not only Obama and the Congress that felt it, Nababan did too. In Brown and Levinson theory, it is called assertion of
common ground by giving empathy. It is a strategy used to show positive politeness. Here, Nababan used negative and positive politeness strategy to
perform FTA. It wa
s one of the RCTI’s goal through Nababan to get the assurance of Obama
’s visit to Indonesia. Therefore, Nababan asked the matter directly to Obama. Getting the prompt answer from Obama that the visit was postponed,
Nababan then got a story of Obama childhood in Indonesia. Nababan listened it and then said:
“We can find you becak if you come on in summer p. 70 It was not a question, but a promise using the first conditional sentence pattern.
Nababan promised Obama to find him becak when going to Indonesia. Promise is a kind of FTA. By making a promise, Nababan threatened the face of Obama.
Here, he also threatened by reminding. Nababan reminded Obama that although
he had postponed the visit to Indonesia at this time, he have to come sometime in June, in summer. Nababan threatened Obama’s face twice. Fortunately, Nababan
expressed those in the intonation of joke, by smiling and laughing. Showing a joke, in this theory, is a kind of strategy to show positive politeness.
In another occasion, Nababan reminded Obama again about the visit that just postponed. But at this time he used different strategy. He opted to employ off
record politeness strategy. “I think they have been preparing for you, even your SD Asisi, SD
Menteng they all preparing, i dont know how they gonna take it” p. 71 Nababan reminded Obama about his planned visit through the preparation that
just done by the students of SD Menteng. Here, Nababan also performed another FTA. He gave a bad news to Obama. It was about the dissapointment of SD Asisi
students that had prepared many things to welcome Obama and he put it off. Giving bad news to the hearer is a kind of FTA. The strategy used here by
Nababan is off record. He did n’t say that the students would absolutely
dissapointed hearing this news. B ut he said “i dont know how they gonna take it”.
Obama knew what implied by Nababan statement. Accordingly, he told Nababan that actually he did
n’t want to dissapoint anybody by postponing the visit. Obama then asked Nababan to inform the reason to the people of Indonesia.
“Please let them know, i gonna let them know through you, i don’t want to dissapoint any body. The only reason that we delay, we decided to delay,
is because the most important domestic priority were in the US is going to be voted on this weekend or early next week and i have to be here.
Unfortunately, i dont have control over the legislature schedule, i am not
the prime minister...” p. 71
The RCTI journalist used different strategy in giving other bad news to the US President in this interview. Nababan told Obama that there was scepticism
prevailed for people in relation to the US policies to the Muslim world. The people hesitated and questioned
“will the policies be influenced by his Jewish campaign funding agent or purely by his own stance?
” “Mr. President, there is still prevailing scepticism that you will be unable
to act on your stance to rise out the muslim world, how do you respond to this?” p. 73
Here, Nababan used the negative politeness strategy by mentioning Obama’s tittle as address form. Nababan showed deference before giving bad news and
questioned. In this short interview, Nababan thought that Obama was an excellent
person who became a leader of super power country. He complimented Obama. “My last question Mr. President, what life lesson do you take from your
experience in Indonesia that help make you the person you are today? ”
p.76 Nababan through off record politeness strategy praised Obama by saying “make
you the person you are today”. It was an implied compliment. Nababan would not
ask Obama any life lesson he got from Indonesia if Obama was not an excellent person. It was not a life lesson which would be asked if Obama was not a to-be-
emulated figure, or he was just an ordinary one. Nababan questioned Obama because Obama had the quality of a succesful person. In this utterance, Nababan
was not only performing FTA by giving compliment, but he also asked about personal information that threatened both positive and negative face of the
President. In doing this, Nababan employed two strategies simultaneously. First,
by showing deference. Second, by minimizing imposition which is shown by the phrase “my last question”. It is true that this was not the last questions for Obama,
but there were many following questions aftermath. The two strategies used by Nababan are to show negative politeness.
In this widely broadcasted interview, Nababan asked many personal information of Obama.
“To confirm that some stories that you know when around in the country because you are so famous in the country, it is just gonna be quick and be
quick answer. Was one of your reading in Indonesian folklore like Mahabbarata and comics like Petruk and Gareng is your
favorite?.......And Gareng and Petruk?.... Do you really memorize
Pancasila?... You dont?... That’s i have to confirm. Is it true that you like nasi goreng and Bakso?...... You listen that?” p. 76-77
Nababan used many different strategy to perform this FTA. He exaggerated the status of Obama in Indonesia by usin
g intensifying modifier : “so famous”. Then, Nababan minimized the imposition by stating that these questions going to be
quick, and not in detailed ways. He also used in-group identity markers by expressing the food terms that mostly only known by the people of Indonesia.
Nababan also applied the strategy of joke to show positive politeness when requesting the other personal information of Obama.
“Is it true that you used to tease your female classmates to get their attention?” p. 77
Nababan asked the Obama naughtiness when in Indonesia: teasing his female classmate. By the intonation, Nababan questioned it in a relaxed way, as if it was
a real funny thing, not a mistake. Obama responded it two times. He said he did n’t
know at first. Then, he said he denied it.
Before leaving the White House, Nababan reminded Obama that he still have to visit Indonesia next time. Nababan threatened the face of Obama through
the statement below. “Sampai Jumpa di Jakarta ” p. 78
Nababan used the off record politeness strategy and at the same time he employed the in-group identity marker strategy, which is using Bahasa Indonesia.
As stated by Brown and Levinson, positive politeness strategy is n’t only
used to mitigate the FTA effect, but also used to indicate that the speaker wants to come closer to hearer. It is called social accelerator. In this interview, Nababan
employed this technique. He did not performed FTA, but he used the positive politeness strategy. Nababan wants to be closer to the interviewee.
“Mr. President, thank you for visiting RCTI TV for interview, Apa kabar Mr. President?
” “Masih bisa bahasa Indonesia?”
“This is quite good i think banyak latihan?Do you have practiced with...?
” p. 67-68 Here, by using Bahasa Indonesia, rather than formal English usage, Nababan used
in-group identity marker strategy. He also discussed the common things that only mostly only known by Indonesian.
In some utterances, Nababan used ellipsis strategy to perform FTA. Requesting personal information many times, he employed this strategy
recurrently. It meant Nababan wanted to show positive politeness through this technique.
“You have maybe your favorite sentence that you remember, that you know
?” p. 68 “Nasi goreng?” p. 69
“So, you are telling the Indonesian people through me that you are not coming on this Tuesday but instead you are going this summer?
” “You bring family?” p. 70
Nababan, in anot her chance, asked other Obama’s personal information, but by
employing diffferent strategy. He asserted his knowledge about Obama’s opinion on the cause of terrorism before asking. Nababan was also optimistic that the US
would give assistance to Indonesian government, although he knew that Obama postponed the visit and gave nothing yet. Then, he minimized the imposition by
telling that this was the last question, no more questions would be given to Obama.
“Since you mention about terrorism, that issue of terrorism is also facing Indonesia and you believe that the root of terrorism is poverty and
injustice. Aside from financial intelligent assistance that US giving, what kind of cooperation that US would give to rise out the root of terrorism in
Indonesia?
” p. 74 “The last one, is it true you wrote a poem stating that your dream is to
become a President? ” p. 78
In the first utterance, Nababan showed positive politeness strategy. He, in the
latter, employed a technique to show negative politeness strategy. In this interview, Nababan also performed FTA without strategy. He
threatened Obama’s face without using techniques in Brown and Levinson theory.
Jonathan Culpeper who elaborates more on their theory assumes that, in relation to the face concept, there can be impoliteness in analyzing communication by face
concept. Talking about the politics, the view of a person in the political conflict is a
a dangerously emotional topic. It is threatened the face of hearer.
“You mention about people to people, many Indonesians have high expectation that US under your leadership succesful implementing that the
two state solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, is this realistic expectation
?” p. 74 Here, Nababan asked a sensitive question. It was true that many people hope
Obama could solve the long conflict between Israel and Palestine. So, what Obama said here, his response, would be highlighted to the mass media around
Indonesia, even the world. It would be discussed anywhere. Obama was pressured to give his view on this conflict with widely-known information that Jewish
funding agent supported Obama in his campaign of election. Next, Obama was given a sensitive question once more. Nababan asked him about the possibility of
military assistance from US government to Indonesia. Obama implied his answer. Caused by off record response from Obama, Nababan interrupted when Obama
was on the floor. “Is this include the military assistance?” p. 72
Obama’s long response regarding the comprehensive partnership between the two countries meant Obama off-record strategy. Obama did
n’t want to talk about this matter. He did
n’t visit Indonesia yet, and he had no formal meeting with President Yudhoyono. Nababan made non-cooperative action by interrupting, without any
strategy involved. Nababan also raised a dangerously emotional topic, which is an FTA,
when asking Obama about his breaking arm incident. “Do you remember breaking someone’s arm?” p. 78
Nababan asked about the memory of Obama on his childhood incident, the sensitive one, without applying any strategy. Obama said that it was by accident
and he wanted to tell Nababan more. But, Nababan interr upted the Obama’s talk.
“You tickled the guy?” p. 78 Obama tried to continue his talk although interrupted by Nababan. Obama
explained the incident based on his personal view. Obama ended his turn by asking Nababan the condition of the broken-arm friend. But Nababan did
n’t respond to the question, rather he wanted Obama to admit that he tickled the guy
before the bike falling. “You tickled him from the back” p. 78
Obama avoided saying yes or no. He explained the incident as he remembered. Getting no required answer, Nababan then told Obama
“I think he is okay” p. 78 From those utterances, Nababan performed not only above mentioned FTA. He
also performed some others. First, he requested personal information. Second, he disagreed with Obama on the real story about the incident. Third, he accused that
Obama tickled the guy. Fourth, he is non-cooperative by interrupting Obama when on the floor.
Based on Jonathan Culpeper theory which derived from Brown and Levinson politeness theory, there can be impoliteness intrinsically. What Nababan
did, by performing FTAs without employing strategies, was a kind of impoliteness, aggravating the face of Obama in some ways.
2. Obama’s Utterances and His Politeness Strategy
