POLITENESS PRINCIPLES IN THE 2014 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATE.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis has been written in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
degree of Magister Humaniora in English Applied Linguistics of Postgraduate
School in the State University of Medan (UNIMED). Alhamdulillah, the writer is
deeply grateful to ALLAH SWT for his blessings, so this thesis could be finished.
It is a great to pleasure to acknowledge her deepest thanks and gratitude to
first adviser Dr. I Wy Dirgeyasa,M.Hum for suggesting, supervision of the work
and for the invaluable guidance, the longtime and tremendous effort to offer every
possible help to finish this thesis. And Prof.Dr.Sumarsih, M.Pd as the second
adviser. for helpful discussions and lecturer of English applied linguistics study
program, for his encouragements and kind care to writer for finishing this thesis.
And her thanks to her reviewers Prof. Dr. Amrin Saragih, M.A. Ph.D, Dr.
Zainuddin, M.Hum and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed for their suggestions,
encouragements and critisms to help the writer in finishing this thesis to be better
one on manuscripts during the thesis proposal seminar and the research result
seminar.
He owes a deep sense of gratitude to all lecturers for their knowledge and
encouragements throughout the academic study period. And he thanks peofusely
to Mr. Farid and all the staffs of magister program administration for their kind
help and co-operation.
Then, the writer dedicates this thesis to his father Osmar Naibaho as a
strong and gentle soul who taught her to trust in ALLAH SWT, believe in hard
work and pray earnestly. And to his mother Sawiyah Damanik for his
encouragement, continous care and patience. Futher, the writer thanks to her
dearest older sister and older brother for their loves, suggests and cares all the
times. And he thanks to all her great buddy Intan Rizqi, Margaretha D.
Simanjuntak, Sumarni, Mam Suriati, Nora J Panjaitan, Indra J Damanik and his
classmate and all friends who cannot be written for their helps constructive critism
and supports to complete and improve this thesis manuscript.
i
Finally, he realizes that this thesis is not yet perfect format. Therefore, the
constructive critism from readers aimed to improve this thesis will be highly
appreciated. So, it can give significant contributions to study about Politeness
Principles
Medan, 22nd August, 2016
The Writer
Jamil Reja Naibaho
Reg. No. 8136112031
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………….….i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….ii
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF TABLE……………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF APPENDIX…………………………………………………………...viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Page
1.1. The Background of the Study ........................................................................ 1
1.2. The Problem of the Study .............................................................................. 6
1.3.The Objective of the Study ............................................................................. 7
1.4.The Scope of the Study................................................................................... 7
1.5. The Significance of the Study ....................................................................... 8
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………. 9
2.1. Pragmatics ..................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Politeness ....................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Politeness Principles ..................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Tact Maxim .............................................................................................. 21
2.3.2Generosity Maxim ..................................................................................... 21
2.3.3. Approbation Maxim ................................................................................ 22
2.3.4. Modesty Maxim....................................................................................... 22
v
2.3.5. Agreement Maxim ................................................................................... 23
2.3.6. Sympathy Maxim ................................................................................... 23
2.4. Public Speaking ............................................................................................. 24
2.5. Debate ............................................................................................................ 26
2.6. Language and Politics .................................................................................... 30
B. The Previous Study .......................................................................................... 34
C. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………. 36
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design ............................................................................................ 38
3.2. The Data and Source of Data ......................................................................... 38
3.3. Technique of Data Collection ........................................................................ 39
3.4. Instrument of Data Collection ...................................................................... 39
3.5. Technique for Analyzing Data………………………………………………..40
3.6. Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………….41
CHAPTER IV: DATA AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………
42
4.2 Findings…………………………………………………………………….
61
4.3 Discussions…………………………………………………………………. 62
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….
65
5.2 Suggestion…………………………………………………………………… 66
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 67
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………… 68
vi
LIST OF TABLE
Table 4.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 43
Table 4.2 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Table 4.3 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Table 4.4 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 50
Table 4.5 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Table 4.6 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 53
vii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………………………………. 71
Appendix 2 …………………………………………………………………………………. 132
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
The primary function of language is for communication. Cobley (2001:5) elaborates
communication as a form of semiotics which is concerned with the exchange of any message
whatsoever from the molecular code and the immunological properties of cells all the way
through to vocal sentences. Communication deals with the process of exchanging information,
ideas, thoughts, feelings and emotions through conversation, speech, debate, signals, writing or
behavior. In communication process, a sender encodes a message and then using a medium or
channel sends it to the receiver.
Beard (2000:2) states study the language of politics is important because it helps the
language users to understand how language is used by those who wish to gain power, those who
wish to exercise power and those who wish to keep power. Moreover, language has a powerful
tool in the hands of political leaders. They manipulate this language becomes the tool to suit their
purposes. When, politics is basically about struggling to control power, it is only through
language that such could be accomplished thereby making language has big effect.
In implementation of successful democratic rule in any country language of politics is
essential. Ayeomoni and Akinkuolere (2012:461) observe that language is the conveyer belt of
power, it moves people to vote, debate. Therefore, a central explanation of political stability or
polarization. Language is essential to politicians. Beard (2000:3) elaborates that politician is a
practitioner of the art of politics, essential to the working of human society. The language of
politics provides the opportunity for politicians to explore the resources available through
1
2
language to manipulate words to persuade them. Therefore, language could be regarded as the
vehicle of politics. The candidates of president also politicians, because politics is the practice to
influence other people to achieved and exercise positions of president. One activities perform by
the politicians are done through the language like speech or debate.
In line with explanation above, in recent years political debates between candidates of
president become one of interesting case to discuss they give lip service as it is a reality that must
be ahead of the election, because basically they want to win at the time of the next competencies,
so that they will race the race to get to the heart of society so that people would choose him to be
a leader. In political debate they often tell wash corruption, the promise of providing jobs,
building infrastructure in areas not yet awakened sold by the prospective future leaders. But the
fact is happening now, sometimes contrary to what was promised on the campaign. So until now,
a case of corruption in this country is not abating, so that's the reality of the democratic party, the
party that is supposed to be an arena for people to re-discover a leader who is able to bring
Indonesia into a better direction again. in election is supposed to serve as a platform to create and
realize the hopes of passing the selection of a leader who is able to implement the mandate and
vision of their mission at the level of action and not just words. but it is time to make this
election as a platform to realize the hopes and future goals brought Indonesia better direction
again
When debate we should use language as good as possible. How when we are talking or
arguing interlocutors feel comfortable with our statement. In this case language politeness is very
important. Politeness is part of pragmatics. According to Hill (1986:349) politeness define as one
of the constraints on human interaction, whose is to consider others’ feeling, establish levels of
mutual comfort and promote rapport. Politeness involves talking account the feeling of other.
3
Politeness is maintaining proper etiquette and speaking properly to a person without offending
them. People must not to be rude or offensive. People must use proper words to convey
something. They have to be choosy about words while conveying something. When people are
polite, they are minimizing the conflict that may be finding in communicating but rather
avoiding interpersonal conflict that’s why being polite in communication is really important. So
people should consider about politeness especially in communicating with other people.
When we communication with the other people politeness helps us to communicate well
where good communication gives us many advantages in interacting with others. When people
being polite to others it can make them be popular and more likeable. Others are friendly towards
you. Besides them, being polite can less chance of developing enemies. Being polite is a
complicated in any language. It’s difficult to learn because it involves understanding or just the
language but also the social and cultural values of the community. We often tend to think of
politeness simply as matter of saying please and thank you in the right place. In fact it involves a
great deal more than that and many of people can not be polite to others that caused conflict in
communicating. So it needs to study politeness that’s to make good communication where in
today’s modern world and interaction require conversational skill that makes good
communication.
According to Leech (1981:15) notes characterized the present approach to pragmatics as
rhetorical. The use of this term refers to the study of effective use of language in communication
which deals with the focus it places on a goal-oriented speech situation, in which speaker uses
language in order to produce a particular effect in the mind of hearer. As a set of conversational
principles which are related by their function, it is divided into interpersonal and textual.
Rhetoric interpersonal is divided into three principles: cooperative principle, politeness principle,
4
and irony principle. In this thesis, the researcher will focus on politeness principle. According to
the philosopher Leech (1983:132) there are six maxims of politeness principles: Tact maxim,
Generosity maxim, Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim, and Sympathy
maxim.
The main point of politeness principle is the effect of what the speaker said to the people.
So the speaker may speak untruth in order to make the hearer become pleased. Politeness
principle also teaches us how to produce utterances without making the hearer angry. In other
word, the speaker is allowed to speak a white lie to avoid conflict and get respect from others.
The example can be seen in presidential election debate ( jilid 5 topik: Pangan, Energi, dan
Lingkungan).
PS: Saya kaget dalam kampanye, bapak bilang petani tidak perlu koperasi, padahal koperasi
vital, sokoguru bagi kehidupan petani dan nelayan kita?
J: Mungkin bapak salah baca atau slah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu, koperasi adalah
sokoguru ekonomi kita. Tidak mungkin seorang jokowi mengatakan seperti itu. Hanya
masalahnya di desa ada beberapa hal yang harus kita tuntaskan….
From the example, PS as the first president candidates is given the chance by moderator
to taking his turn to asking J as second president candidates. After PS given the question and
then J answer mungkin bapak salah baca atau salah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu,
koperasi adalah sokoguru ekonomi kita. Tidak mungkin seorang jokowi mengatakan seperti itu.
J directly do not accept the question from PS because the question is not appropriate with what
happened. In this case J violated tact maxim which expects to minimize the expression of cost to
other and maximize the expression of benefit to others because he maximize the expression to
5
his self. Thus, in this point, J was considered as impolite since he attacks the other’s face. The
other example of this phenomenon can be seen in presidential election debate (jilid 2 topik:
Pembanguan Ekonomi dan Kesejahteraan Sosial)
PS: Apakah bapak setuju biaya wajib belajar 12 tahun karena butuh tambahan anggaran Rp40
triliun?
J: Di depan sudah saya sampaikan, pembangunan manusia dibidang pendidikan. Harus ada
evaluasi dan perubahan. Pendidikan ditingkat SD, 80% harus berbicara masalah berkaiatan
dengan pendidikan karakter, akhlak, mental baru 20% pengetahuan. SMP 60:40%, SMA
20:80%, untuk pembangunan karakter dan pengetahuan. Baru kita mempunyai manusia dengan
sikap mental, etos kerja, produktivitas dan daya saing tinggi. Pendidikan adalah hal utama
yang tidak bias kita tawar-tawar. Berapapun investasinya harus kita berikan, Rp40 triliun itu
bisa dicari. Dari BBM ke BBG bias menghemat Rp70 triliun. Masukkan saja ke pendidikan.
From the example, PS as the first president candidates is giving the question for J as
second president candidate. And then J answer the question from PS clearly, that J is agree with
Rp40 billion for education budget. In this case J as first president candidate obeyed the
agreement maxim which aims to minimize the expression of disagreement between self and
other and maximize agreement between self and other. So he is considered as polite person.
Since he had effort to minimize threat to other’s face.
When viewed from both the presidential candidates 2014, both of them come from or
support by major parties, this presidential election is very competitive because only two
candidates. Even though both of them same ethnics but they have different language when
communication. Prabowo as first candidate to communicate any way often explosive and very
6
emotional and high spirit. In contrast to the second candidates style of communication and
speech Jokowi not explosive, not emotional, and use everyday language simple and commonly
use by many people. So, people better understand the message of communication conveyed by
Jokowi. From the side physical, Jokowi is usual and tone delivered exceptional. However, the
topics covered by Jokowi are concrete problems. While, Prabowo used elit language when
communicate in public.
Related to the explanations above, researcher interesting to analyze politeness principle in
utterance of president candidates in presidential election Republic Indonesia 2014. Because when
they are making debates there some rules that should be obey to make the hearer is comfort
toward language that use by the candidates. How to deliver opinion, how to respond the
argument if we are not agree with statement. Each candidates should be wise to choose the
language. The candidates’ language has affect to their opponents. This research intends to find
out the politeness principle in utterance of president candidate in presidential election 2014.
1.2 The Problem of the Study
The study is based on the following research questions:
1. What types of politeness principles are used by president candidates in presidential
election debate 2014?
2. How are politeness principles in the 2014 presidential election debate?
3. Why are president candidates used politeness principles the way they do in the 2014
presidential election debate?
7
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation of the problems, the objectives of study are:
1. to describe the types of politeness principles are use by president candidates in
presidential election debate 2014.
2. to find out the realization of politeness principles in presidential election debate 2014? .
3. to find out the reason why politeness principles used by president candidates in
presidential election debate 2014
1.4 The Scope of the Study
As state in the previous explanation that politeness principle can occur not only in daily
conversation but also in debate, like in presidential election debate 2014. And this study
attempted to find out the politeness principle in presidential election debate 2014 that use by
Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla and Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa as president candidates and vice
president. The aspects observed were the occurrences of obeying and violating the politeness
principle in presidential debate candidates proposed by Leech (1983). Actually there are
some of politeness theories like Brown and Levinson theory (1987), Robin Lakoof’s theory,
(1972) Grice’s theory (1975) but this study focused on Leech (1983) theory which introduces
six maxims, namely tact maxim, generosity maxims, approbation maxim, modesty maxim,
agreement maxim, and sympathy maxim.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
The findings of this study have two general significances, theoretical and practical
significances.
Theoretically, the findings of this research are useful for:
8
1. The enrichment of Linguistics knowledge of the university students in the field of
Pragmatics especially in politeness principle.
2. Add up references to further studies.
Practically, the results of this research are useful for:
1. Teacher, lectures, and students of university as a reference performing politeness in their
daily life.
2. For speakers and listeners in daily communication. By obeying politeness principle, they
have a comfortable situation in communication. Then, they can create good
understanding in daily communication.
3. For other researcher as source to conduct the next further research
67
Reference
Almond, Gabriel A., Verba, Sidney The Civic Culture. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and
Company, 1965.
Al-Rassam, E. M. (2010) Analyzing Political Discourse: Towards a Pragmatic Approach.
University of Mosul
Ayeomoni, O.Moses. & Akinkuolere, O.S. (2012) A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and
Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar”Adua. Journal of Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 461-468
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. Routledge
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, Penelope; Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carnegey, D. & Esenwein, J. B. (2005) The Art of Public Speaking. Blackmask Online
Cobley, Paul 2001 “The Routledge Companion to semiotics and linguistics” Routledge
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. : Sage
Production, Inc. USA.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An Introduction to Language (8th ed.). Boston,
MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (2006) Propaganda and Persuasion. Mohan Cooperative
New Delhi
George Gerbner, 86, Researcher Who Studied Violence on TV, Is Dead". The New York Times.
January 3, 2006. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
Gunarwan (1994) Polite strategy used in Jakarta. The use of Isyarat Halus ( IH) for example is
not polite compared to Isyarat Kuat (IK)and both of these.
Hill, Beverly, Shachiko Ide, Shoko Ikuta, Akiko Kawasaki, and Tsunao Ogino (1986) Universals
of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English.
Journal of Pragmatics 10: 347-371.
Isolates, P. (2011) Analyzing Presidential Debates Functional Theory and Finnish Political
Communication Culture. Nordicom Review Journal No 32, pp 31-43
Kearns, K.(2000). Semantics. London: Macmillan Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). ‘The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's.’ Papers from the Ninth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society, 292-305.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22235-4.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E, G (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publication Inc, London
Mey, Jacob, 2001. Pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods. California; SAGE publications Inc.
Murni (2009) Politeness that used in DPRD SU, State University of Medan
Peccei, Jean Stilwell. 1999. Pragmatics. New York: Routledge
Rahardi, Kunjana. 2005. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga
Sembiring (2009) Politeness strategies used by Javanese speakers in different of types of
illocutionary acts: State University of Medan.
Spolsky, Bernard and Francis M. Hult eds. (2007) The Handbook of Educational
Linguistics. [1] eISBN 9781405154109.
Suwito. 1996. Sosiolinguistik. Surakarta: UNS Press.
Tanjung (2010) in applied linguistic study program entitled Gender differences in expressing
politeness in English, State University of Medan.
Trapp, R. (2007) The Debatebase Book: A Must-Have Guide for Successful Debate. IDEA Press
Books
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Westfall, M. and Jhon McCarthy. 2004. Great Debates: Language and culture skills for ESL
students, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Yahdi (2012) Study about the politeness strategies that are used by Javanes people, State
University Medan.
Yanda Li (2013) Politeness Principles Difference in Appellations between English and Chinese.
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State
University of Medan
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press
Zhu, Jiang. (2010). The Pragmatic Comparison of Chinese and Western “politeness” in cross
Cultural Communication. Journal of language Teaching and research, 1, 848-851
This thesis has been written in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
degree of Magister Humaniora in English Applied Linguistics of Postgraduate
School in the State University of Medan (UNIMED). Alhamdulillah, the writer is
deeply grateful to ALLAH SWT for his blessings, so this thesis could be finished.
It is a great to pleasure to acknowledge her deepest thanks and gratitude to
first adviser Dr. I Wy Dirgeyasa,M.Hum for suggesting, supervision of the work
and for the invaluable guidance, the longtime and tremendous effort to offer every
possible help to finish this thesis. And Prof.Dr.Sumarsih, M.Pd as the second
adviser. for helpful discussions and lecturer of English applied linguistics study
program, for his encouragements and kind care to writer for finishing this thesis.
And her thanks to her reviewers Prof. Dr. Amrin Saragih, M.A. Ph.D, Dr.
Zainuddin, M.Hum and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed for their suggestions,
encouragements and critisms to help the writer in finishing this thesis to be better
one on manuscripts during the thesis proposal seminar and the research result
seminar.
He owes a deep sense of gratitude to all lecturers for their knowledge and
encouragements throughout the academic study period. And he thanks peofusely
to Mr. Farid and all the staffs of magister program administration for their kind
help and co-operation.
Then, the writer dedicates this thesis to his father Osmar Naibaho as a
strong and gentle soul who taught her to trust in ALLAH SWT, believe in hard
work and pray earnestly. And to his mother Sawiyah Damanik for his
encouragement, continous care and patience. Futher, the writer thanks to her
dearest older sister and older brother for their loves, suggests and cares all the
times. And he thanks to all her great buddy Intan Rizqi, Margaretha D.
Simanjuntak, Sumarni, Mam Suriati, Nora J Panjaitan, Indra J Damanik and his
classmate and all friends who cannot be written for their helps constructive critism
and supports to complete and improve this thesis manuscript.
i
Finally, he realizes that this thesis is not yet perfect format. Therefore, the
constructive critism from readers aimed to improve this thesis will be highly
appreciated. So, it can give significant contributions to study about Politeness
Principles
Medan, 22nd August, 2016
The Writer
Jamil Reja Naibaho
Reg. No. 8136112031
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………….….i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….ii
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF TABLE……………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF APPENDIX…………………………………………………………...viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Page
1.1. The Background of the Study ........................................................................ 1
1.2. The Problem of the Study .............................................................................. 6
1.3.The Objective of the Study ............................................................................. 7
1.4.The Scope of the Study................................................................................... 7
1.5. The Significance of the Study ....................................................................... 8
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………. 9
2.1. Pragmatics ..................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Politeness ....................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Politeness Principles ..................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Tact Maxim .............................................................................................. 21
2.3.2Generosity Maxim ..................................................................................... 21
2.3.3. Approbation Maxim ................................................................................ 22
2.3.4. Modesty Maxim....................................................................................... 22
v
2.3.5. Agreement Maxim ................................................................................... 23
2.3.6. Sympathy Maxim ................................................................................... 23
2.4. Public Speaking ............................................................................................. 24
2.5. Debate ............................................................................................................ 26
2.6. Language and Politics .................................................................................... 30
B. The Previous Study .......................................................................................... 34
C. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………. 36
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design ............................................................................................ 38
3.2. The Data and Source of Data ......................................................................... 38
3.3. Technique of Data Collection ........................................................................ 39
3.4. Instrument of Data Collection ...................................................................... 39
3.5. Technique for Analyzing Data………………………………………………..40
3.6. Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………….41
CHAPTER IV: DATA AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………
42
4.2 Findings…………………………………………………………………….
61
4.3 Discussions…………………………………………………………………. 62
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….
65
5.2 Suggestion…………………………………………………………………… 66
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 67
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………… 68
vi
LIST OF TABLE
Table 4.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 43
Table 4.2 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Table 4.3 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Table 4.4 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 50
Table 4.5 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Table 4.6 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 53
vii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………………………………. 71
Appendix 2 …………………………………………………………………………………. 132
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
The primary function of language is for communication. Cobley (2001:5) elaborates
communication as a form of semiotics which is concerned with the exchange of any message
whatsoever from the molecular code and the immunological properties of cells all the way
through to vocal sentences. Communication deals with the process of exchanging information,
ideas, thoughts, feelings and emotions through conversation, speech, debate, signals, writing or
behavior. In communication process, a sender encodes a message and then using a medium or
channel sends it to the receiver.
Beard (2000:2) states study the language of politics is important because it helps the
language users to understand how language is used by those who wish to gain power, those who
wish to exercise power and those who wish to keep power. Moreover, language has a powerful
tool in the hands of political leaders. They manipulate this language becomes the tool to suit their
purposes. When, politics is basically about struggling to control power, it is only through
language that such could be accomplished thereby making language has big effect.
In implementation of successful democratic rule in any country language of politics is
essential. Ayeomoni and Akinkuolere (2012:461) observe that language is the conveyer belt of
power, it moves people to vote, debate. Therefore, a central explanation of political stability or
polarization. Language is essential to politicians. Beard (2000:3) elaborates that politician is a
practitioner of the art of politics, essential to the working of human society. The language of
politics provides the opportunity for politicians to explore the resources available through
1
2
language to manipulate words to persuade them. Therefore, language could be regarded as the
vehicle of politics. The candidates of president also politicians, because politics is the practice to
influence other people to achieved and exercise positions of president. One activities perform by
the politicians are done through the language like speech or debate.
In line with explanation above, in recent years political debates between candidates of
president become one of interesting case to discuss they give lip service as it is a reality that must
be ahead of the election, because basically they want to win at the time of the next competencies,
so that they will race the race to get to the heart of society so that people would choose him to be
a leader. In political debate they often tell wash corruption, the promise of providing jobs,
building infrastructure in areas not yet awakened sold by the prospective future leaders. But the
fact is happening now, sometimes contrary to what was promised on the campaign. So until now,
a case of corruption in this country is not abating, so that's the reality of the democratic party, the
party that is supposed to be an arena for people to re-discover a leader who is able to bring
Indonesia into a better direction again. in election is supposed to serve as a platform to create and
realize the hopes of passing the selection of a leader who is able to implement the mandate and
vision of their mission at the level of action and not just words. but it is time to make this
election as a platform to realize the hopes and future goals brought Indonesia better direction
again
When debate we should use language as good as possible. How when we are talking or
arguing interlocutors feel comfortable with our statement. In this case language politeness is very
important. Politeness is part of pragmatics. According to Hill (1986:349) politeness define as one
of the constraints on human interaction, whose is to consider others’ feeling, establish levels of
mutual comfort and promote rapport. Politeness involves talking account the feeling of other.
3
Politeness is maintaining proper etiquette and speaking properly to a person without offending
them. People must not to be rude or offensive. People must use proper words to convey
something. They have to be choosy about words while conveying something. When people are
polite, they are minimizing the conflict that may be finding in communicating but rather
avoiding interpersonal conflict that’s why being polite in communication is really important. So
people should consider about politeness especially in communicating with other people.
When we communication with the other people politeness helps us to communicate well
where good communication gives us many advantages in interacting with others. When people
being polite to others it can make them be popular and more likeable. Others are friendly towards
you. Besides them, being polite can less chance of developing enemies. Being polite is a
complicated in any language. It’s difficult to learn because it involves understanding or just the
language but also the social and cultural values of the community. We often tend to think of
politeness simply as matter of saying please and thank you in the right place. In fact it involves a
great deal more than that and many of people can not be polite to others that caused conflict in
communicating. So it needs to study politeness that’s to make good communication where in
today’s modern world and interaction require conversational skill that makes good
communication.
According to Leech (1981:15) notes characterized the present approach to pragmatics as
rhetorical. The use of this term refers to the study of effective use of language in communication
which deals with the focus it places on a goal-oriented speech situation, in which speaker uses
language in order to produce a particular effect in the mind of hearer. As a set of conversational
principles which are related by their function, it is divided into interpersonal and textual.
Rhetoric interpersonal is divided into three principles: cooperative principle, politeness principle,
4
and irony principle. In this thesis, the researcher will focus on politeness principle. According to
the philosopher Leech (1983:132) there are six maxims of politeness principles: Tact maxim,
Generosity maxim, Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim, and Sympathy
maxim.
The main point of politeness principle is the effect of what the speaker said to the people.
So the speaker may speak untruth in order to make the hearer become pleased. Politeness
principle also teaches us how to produce utterances without making the hearer angry. In other
word, the speaker is allowed to speak a white lie to avoid conflict and get respect from others.
The example can be seen in presidential election debate ( jilid 5 topik: Pangan, Energi, dan
Lingkungan).
PS: Saya kaget dalam kampanye, bapak bilang petani tidak perlu koperasi, padahal koperasi
vital, sokoguru bagi kehidupan petani dan nelayan kita?
J: Mungkin bapak salah baca atau slah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu, koperasi adalah
sokoguru ekonomi kita. Tidak mungkin seorang jokowi mengatakan seperti itu. Hanya
masalahnya di desa ada beberapa hal yang harus kita tuntaskan….
From the example, PS as the first president candidates is given the chance by moderator
to taking his turn to asking J as second president candidates. After PS given the question and
then J answer mungkin bapak salah baca atau salah dengar. Saya kira semua orang tahu,
koperasi adalah sokoguru ekonomi kita. Tidak mungkin seorang jokowi mengatakan seperti itu.
J directly do not accept the question from PS because the question is not appropriate with what
happened. In this case J violated tact maxim which expects to minimize the expression of cost to
other and maximize the expression of benefit to others because he maximize the expression to
5
his self. Thus, in this point, J was considered as impolite since he attacks the other’s face. The
other example of this phenomenon can be seen in presidential election debate (jilid 2 topik:
Pembanguan Ekonomi dan Kesejahteraan Sosial)
PS: Apakah bapak setuju biaya wajib belajar 12 tahun karena butuh tambahan anggaran Rp40
triliun?
J: Di depan sudah saya sampaikan, pembangunan manusia dibidang pendidikan. Harus ada
evaluasi dan perubahan. Pendidikan ditingkat SD, 80% harus berbicara masalah berkaiatan
dengan pendidikan karakter, akhlak, mental baru 20% pengetahuan. SMP 60:40%, SMA
20:80%, untuk pembangunan karakter dan pengetahuan. Baru kita mempunyai manusia dengan
sikap mental, etos kerja, produktivitas dan daya saing tinggi. Pendidikan adalah hal utama
yang tidak bias kita tawar-tawar. Berapapun investasinya harus kita berikan, Rp40 triliun itu
bisa dicari. Dari BBM ke BBG bias menghemat Rp70 triliun. Masukkan saja ke pendidikan.
From the example, PS as the first president candidates is giving the question for J as
second president candidate. And then J answer the question from PS clearly, that J is agree with
Rp40 billion for education budget. In this case J as first president candidate obeyed the
agreement maxim which aims to minimize the expression of disagreement between self and
other and maximize agreement between self and other. So he is considered as polite person.
Since he had effort to minimize threat to other’s face.
When viewed from both the presidential candidates 2014, both of them come from or
support by major parties, this presidential election is very competitive because only two
candidates. Even though both of them same ethnics but they have different language when
communication. Prabowo as first candidate to communicate any way often explosive and very
6
emotional and high spirit. In contrast to the second candidates style of communication and
speech Jokowi not explosive, not emotional, and use everyday language simple and commonly
use by many people. So, people better understand the message of communication conveyed by
Jokowi. From the side physical, Jokowi is usual and tone delivered exceptional. However, the
topics covered by Jokowi are concrete problems. While, Prabowo used elit language when
communicate in public.
Related to the explanations above, researcher interesting to analyze politeness principle in
utterance of president candidates in presidential election Republic Indonesia 2014. Because when
they are making debates there some rules that should be obey to make the hearer is comfort
toward language that use by the candidates. How to deliver opinion, how to respond the
argument if we are not agree with statement. Each candidates should be wise to choose the
language. The candidates’ language has affect to their opponents. This research intends to find
out the politeness principle in utterance of president candidate in presidential election 2014.
1.2 The Problem of the Study
The study is based on the following research questions:
1. What types of politeness principles are used by president candidates in presidential
election debate 2014?
2. How are politeness principles in the 2014 presidential election debate?
3. Why are president candidates used politeness principles the way they do in the 2014
presidential election debate?
7
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation of the problems, the objectives of study are:
1. to describe the types of politeness principles are use by president candidates in
presidential election debate 2014.
2. to find out the realization of politeness principles in presidential election debate 2014? .
3. to find out the reason why politeness principles used by president candidates in
presidential election debate 2014
1.4 The Scope of the Study
As state in the previous explanation that politeness principle can occur not only in daily
conversation but also in debate, like in presidential election debate 2014. And this study
attempted to find out the politeness principle in presidential election debate 2014 that use by
Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla and Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa as president candidates and vice
president. The aspects observed were the occurrences of obeying and violating the politeness
principle in presidential debate candidates proposed by Leech (1983). Actually there are
some of politeness theories like Brown and Levinson theory (1987), Robin Lakoof’s theory,
(1972) Grice’s theory (1975) but this study focused on Leech (1983) theory which introduces
six maxims, namely tact maxim, generosity maxims, approbation maxim, modesty maxim,
agreement maxim, and sympathy maxim.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
The findings of this study have two general significances, theoretical and practical
significances.
Theoretically, the findings of this research are useful for:
8
1. The enrichment of Linguistics knowledge of the university students in the field of
Pragmatics especially in politeness principle.
2. Add up references to further studies.
Practically, the results of this research are useful for:
1. Teacher, lectures, and students of university as a reference performing politeness in their
daily life.
2. For speakers and listeners in daily communication. By obeying politeness principle, they
have a comfortable situation in communication. Then, they can create good
understanding in daily communication.
3. For other researcher as source to conduct the next further research
67
Reference
Almond, Gabriel A., Verba, Sidney The Civic Culture. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and
Company, 1965.
Al-Rassam, E. M. (2010) Analyzing Political Discourse: Towards a Pragmatic Approach.
University of Mosul
Ayeomoni, O.Moses. & Akinkuolere, O.S. (2012) A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and
Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar”Adua. Journal of Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 461-468
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. Routledge
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, Penelope; Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carnegey, D. & Esenwein, J. B. (2005) The Art of Public Speaking. Blackmask Online
Cobley, Paul 2001 “The Routledge Companion to semiotics and linguistics” Routledge
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. : Sage
Production, Inc. USA.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An Introduction to Language (8th ed.). Boston,
MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (2006) Propaganda and Persuasion. Mohan Cooperative
New Delhi
George Gerbner, 86, Researcher Who Studied Violence on TV, Is Dead". The New York Times.
January 3, 2006. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
Gunarwan (1994) Polite strategy used in Jakarta. The use of Isyarat Halus ( IH) for example is
not polite compared to Isyarat Kuat (IK)and both of these.
Hill, Beverly, Shachiko Ide, Shoko Ikuta, Akiko Kawasaki, and Tsunao Ogino (1986) Universals
of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English.
Journal of Pragmatics 10: 347-371.
Isolates, P. (2011) Analyzing Presidential Debates Functional Theory and Finnish Political
Communication Culture. Nordicom Review Journal No 32, pp 31-43
Kearns, K.(2000). Semantics. London: Macmillan Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). ‘The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's.’ Papers from the Ninth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society, 292-305.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22235-4.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E, G (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publication Inc, London
Mey, Jacob, 2001. Pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods. California; SAGE publications Inc.
Murni (2009) Politeness that used in DPRD SU, State University of Medan
Peccei, Jean Stilwell. 1999. Pragmatics. New York: Routledge
Rahardi, Kunjana. 2005. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga
Sembiring (2009) Politeness strategies used by Javanese speakers in different of types of
illocutionary acts: State University of Medan.
Spolsky, Bernard and Francis M. Hult eds. (2007) The Handbook of Educational
Linguistics. [1] eISBN 9781405154109.
Suwito. 1996. Sosiolinguistik. Surakarta: UNS Press.
Tanjung (2010) in applied linguistic study program entitled Gender differences in expressing
politeness in English, State University of Medan.
Trapp, R. (2007) The Debatebase Book: A Must-Have Guide for Successful Debate. IDEA Press
Books
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Westfall, M. and Jhon McCarthy. 2004. Great Debates: Language and culture skills for ESL
students, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Yahdi (2012) Study about the politeness strategies that are used by Javanes people, State
University Medan.
Yanda Li (2013) Politeness Principles Difference in Appellations between English and Chinese.
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State
University of Medan
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press
Zhu, Jiang. (2010). The Pragmatic Comparison of Chinese and Western “politeness” in cross
Cultural Communication. Journal of language Teaching and research, 1, 848-851