Negative Politeness Politeness Strategies

23 Sub-strategy 3 is presupposing prior event. The example of the strategy is in the utterance ―I washed the car again today.‖ The use of again is done by the speaker to force the hearer to find the relevance of the presupposed prior event Brown Levinson, 1987. Sub-strategy 4 is by understating what the speaker actually wants to say. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this is an act of saying something less than what is required. The example is in the utterance ―That dress is quite nice‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 218, when the speaker actually means that he does not particularly like it for understated criticism implicating, or the speaker actually likes it very much for understated compliment implicating. Sub-strategy 5 is overstating. This sub-strategy is done by the speaker who exaggerates or chooses a point on scale which is higher than what is required Brown Levinson, 1987. It is the opposite of the previous sub-strategy which is understating. The example of the sub-strategy is in the utterance ―There were a million people in the Co- op tonight‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 219. Sub-strategy 6 is using tautologies. It is done by the speaker who encourages the hearer to search for an informative interpretation of the non- informative utterance. As stated by Brown and Levinson 1987, the example is the utterance ―If I won‘t give it, I won‘t,‖ c.i. I mean it. Sub-strategy 7 is using contradiction. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this sub-strategy is the act of stating two things that contradict to each other. In this case, the speaker cannot tell the truth and encourage the hearer to look for PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 24 an interpretation that conforms both contradictory propositions. The example is ―Well, John is here and he isn‘t here‖ Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 221. Sub-strategy 8 is being ironic. This is an act where the speaker says the opposite of what he really means. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that the speaker can indirectly convey his intended meaning by saying the opposite. The example is in the utterance ―Beautiful weather, isn‘t it‖ As said by the speaker to a postman drenched in rainstorm. Sub-strategy 9 is using metaphors. In this sub-strategy, the speaker uses metaphor and hedges the utterance. By doing this, the speaker invites the hearer to interpret the meaning of the utterance. This sub-strategy is exemplified by the utterance ―Emma‘s a real fish.‖ c.i. She swims like a fish. Sub-strategy 10 is using rhetorical question. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker wants to ask a question with no intention for the hearer to answer the question. The example of this sub- strategy is in the utterance ‖What can I do?‖ As said by the speaker who actually has nothing to do. 2 Be Vague or Ambiguous Being vague or ambiguous is another mechanism that can be used by the speaker to go off record. There are five sub-strategies of being vague or ambiguous that are explained in the following sections. Sub-strategy 1 is being ambiguous. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this sub-strategy is done by the speaker who makes purposeful ambiguity which may be achieved by using metaphor. It can be seen in the utterance ―John‘s PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 25 a pretty sharpsmooth cookie.‖ It could be either a compliment or an insult, depending on which of the connotations of sharp or smooth are latched on to. Sub-strategy 2 is being vague. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that the speaker can go off record with an FTA by being vague about who the object is or what the offence is. This sub-strategy is exemplified with the utterance ―Perhaps someone did something naughty ‖ as said by the speaker to convey criticism. Sub-strategy 3 is over-generalizing. Brown and Levinson 1987 explain that this sub-strategy is done when the speaker gives a rule instantiation which may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record. Then, the hearer have to decide whether the general rules apply to him. The example is in the utterance ―Mature people sometimes help do the dishes.‖ Sub-strategy 4 is displacing the hearer. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that this sub-strategy happens when the speaker pretends to address the FTA to someone whom it would not threaten. Thus, the speaker expects that the real target will understand that the FTA is aimed at him. The example case of this sub- strategy is stated by Ervin Tripp in which one secretary in an office asks another using negative politeness to pass the stapler, in circumstances where a professor is much nearer to the stapler than the other secretary as cited in Brown Levinson, 1987, p. 226. It does not threaten the professor‘s face and he may choose to do it himself as a bonus for the secretary. Sub-strategy 5 is being incomplete and using ellipsis. This is an act of saying unfinished utterance. Brown and Levinson 1987 state that by leaving an FTA half undone, the speaker can leave the implicatur e ‗hanging in the air‘ as