embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts FTA’s are acts that infringe on the hearers’ need to maintain hisher self esteem and be
respected. There are several ways of being polite; however, this study is focused only on negative
politeness. In order to analyze the data, the basic theory applied in this study to proposed by Brown and Levinson 1978 and this theory which specifically focuses on negative politeness
strategies as one of the goal – oriented strategy verbal communication
2.3.1 Negative Politeness
A person generates negative politeness in order to show that he cares and respect the negative marks in the face of his addressee. He assures that he does not intend to impede on their
freedom of action by humbling or not showing off, being formal and restraining himself. If he did or would do a Face Threatening Acts FTA, he will want to minimize the impact of the FTA
by using deference , hedges and other play down strategies Brown and Levinson, 1987 Negative politeness is usually used to show that speaker’s cares and respect the negative
face of interlocutors. Unlike positive politeness which function to minimize social distance, negative politeness is used to indicate that the speaker is aware and respect the social distance
between him or her and the hearer. Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and
emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment
than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the listener, through
distancing styles like apologies. Example from Brown and Levinson include:
A. Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
In relation to this strategy, Brown and Levinson 1978:137 state that there are two tensions that a speaker faced in this strategy: to desire to give H an out by being indirect and the desire to go
on record. In order to solve this problem, the use of phrases and sentences that have contextually ambiguous meaning which are different from their literal meaning is very helpful. The S wants to
communicate his desire to be indirect even though in fact the utterance goes on record also claimed by Brown and Levinson.
Example : Can you shut the door please? Brown and Levinson,1987:133
B. Strategy 2: Question, hedge
It consist of the way of, make minimal assumption about H and this is the primary and fundamental method of disarming routine interactional threats.
Example : You are quite right. Brown and Levinson,1987:145
John is a true friend Brown and Levinson,1987:145 C.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic This strategy give redress to H’s negative face by indirectly expressing doubt that the conditions,
for appropriateness of S’s speech act obtain. Example
: Will there be a cigarette on you right? Brown and Levinson,1987 : 174 I don’t suppose there’d be any chance of you right? Brown and Levinson,1987 :
174 D.
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition Speaker redress the seriousness of the FTA to pay hearer deference. ‘Just’ conveys both its literal
meaning of ‘exactly’ and ‘only’
