Obama praised the character of Indonesian and he thought that it was something helped him in his presidency duties. Obama joked and laughed when he said
“Sate” and “Bakso”. Before the end of conversation, Obama asked Nababan to tell his
childhood friend that he apologized for his mistake. Obama performed FTA, order, by bald-on record strategy, and using
mitigating device, “please”. “Please tell him that i apologize for that, i felt so bad, i remember, feeling
terrible.” p. 78 In the end of conversation, Obama used in-group identity marker before
Nababan left the White House. “Terima kasih banyak, selamat jalan ” p. 78
Obama ended this interview by showing positive politeness strategy.
3. Power Difference and The Choice of Strategy
As explained in the theoritical framework, the difference of power level between speaker and hearer related to the chosen strategy. Here, in this interview,
Obama had more power than Nababan. It was caused by the occupancy, Obama as the President, and Nababan as journalist. It was also caused by the venue. The
interview was inside the White House where Obama lived. According the theory, the interview between Obama and Nababan, by considering the difference of
power level factor, should be as follows: a.
Less powerful speaker, Nababan, is expected to be polite, while more powerful speaker, Obama, is allowed to be impolite.
b. Speaker with lower status and less dominant role, Nababan,
should use more indirectness and more negative politeness features than participant with higher status, Obama. Bald on
record can be used by speaker with power, Obama. c.
A powerful participant, Obama, has more freedom to be impolite, because he is able to reduce the ability of the less
powerful participant, Nababan, by not giving any information needed.
The notions above will be compared to the real strategies applied by the two participants in this interview. Here is the table listing Nababan
’s and Obama’s politeness strategies and The FTAs performed.
Participant FTA
Politeness Strategy
Nababan
Requesting personal information
Negative show deference,
minimize imposition
Positive give empathy,
exaggerate, in-group marker, joke, ellipsis, assert his
knowledge, be optimistic Promise
Positive Joke
Reminding Off Record
, Negative
minimize imposition,
Positive in-group marker
Bringing bad news Negative
show deference,
Off Record
Compliment Negative
show deference, minimize imposition
No FTA
Positive
In-group identity marker
Talking about emotional or divisive topic
None Request information
None Interrupting
None Disagreement and
None
Accusation
Obama No FTA
Positive in-group marker,
give sympathy, jokes Bringing bad news
Positive intensify interest to
H, Joke, in-group marker, exaggerate, give sympathy
Disagreement Positive
give reason, sympathy
Order Bald on record
plus mitigating device
From the above table, we can conclude that: A.
Nababan performed FTA more than Obama did. B.
Nababan used more positive politeness strategies than negative politeness strategies. Obama was polite in all of his utterances by positive and bald
on record strategies. C.
Nababan performed some FTAs without strategy, while Obama never did FTA without applying any strategy. Here, Nababan performed some
impoliteness acts, while Obama did n’t. The impoliteness acts did by
Nababan are, based Jonathan Culpeper theory, making the others felt uncomfortable and turn-taking violations. It is true that Obama performed
bald on record here, but it is still considered polite act, because Obama is in the higher power rank.
In this interview, the power difference did influence the participants ’
strategies. Due to the power of Obama, the RCTI journalist spoke politely in some utterances. Nababan used negative politeness in asking sensitive
question. Nababan tried to be indirect in expressing statement by off record
strategy. On the other hand, Obama asked help of Nababan in a very relaxed way by bald on record strategy. All those were compatible with the notions.
However, from the above table, it was known that the incompatibilities of the notions happened more.
Nababan’s FTA without involving any strategy was a clear example
. Nababan’s positive politeness strategies were also good evidence. Therefore, by this explanation, we knew that the conversation
between Obama and Nababan was n’t only controlled by difference power
level factor. According to Spencer-Oatey theory, there are many things determined
strategy choices in a conversation. It is not only power but also other important factors. It includes the intended goals, types of activity being held
and what rapport orientation that speaker or hearer wanted. Using Spencer-Oatey perspective, the incompatibilities to the notions
above can be analyzed deeper. It was not influenced by the power diference between them. There were some other factors influencing Nababan and
Obama to use those strategies. They preferred to pay more consideration to those others. First, it was the intended goals of the two participants. Nababan
wanted to get something: much information in limited time. It was an obligation as a journalist to get news to be reported. He tried to get as much as
information in a less than forty minute interview. Therefore, the power difference between them wa
sn’t given the priority. Nababan didn’t want Obama to answer in a very long and clueless statement. He wanted Obama to
speak in a straight way. It made sense that Nababan asked Obama to answer
question in a direct way about military assistance and about his incident with his childhood mate. By that strategy, he was trapped in wrong way
linguistically. But his goals were achieved at least. Next, Nababan performed more positive politeness and spoke some
impolite utterances in this interview. It wa sn’t caused by carelessness. It was
by design as above. In the beginning, Nababan used Indonesian language to greet and open the interview. Knowing that Obama still remembered some
expressions in Bahasa Indonesia, Nababan asked Obama more questions using the language. Obama seemed comfortable. Obama enjoyed this
interview and tried to talk a lot about his childhood in Indonesia. Obama response made Nababan kept applying this strategy. Nababan got much
information from this strategy. Due to Obama’s way of speech in giving
information, which was so relaxed and excited, Nababan performed more positive politeness strategy. Nababan talked as if he were a friend of Obama.
Obama talked in a detailed way about Indonesian and his personal life. He was proud to be associated with Indonesia. He wanted to keep this relation as
stated explicitly by him that he enjoyed maintaining this connection. Obama paid attention on how to keep this relationship: between him and Indonesian
people. Therefore, in this interview, he joked, smiled, and laughed a lot. He talked common things about Indonesia at that time and praised Indonesia. This
goal of Obama could n’t be achieved if Obama used his higher power status by
speaking to Nababan in rough, rude and impolite ways although it was accepted pragmatically.
By applying Spencer-Oatey theory, the incompatibilities can be analyzed again differently. Nababan and Obama considered the kind of activity, which
is an interview, as the important factor. It is usual to ask as much as possible in an interview. An interviewer can ask anything ranging from private
information to personal view of some hot issues like terrorism. Nababan and Obama realized this. Obama never warned Nababan not to ask political issues
and military assistance. Nababan as journalist acted professionally by asking the needed information, whatever sensitive it was.
The last analysis using this theory is by what-so called rapport orientation. When a speaker and a hearer talked each other, they wanted to show
solidarity, sympathy or even hatred via their utterances. It is called rapport. Here, Nababan considered Obama as a part of Indonesia. Obama felt that he
was happy to be associated to Indonesia. They tried to talk smoothly. Obama wanted to make Nababan relaxed and comfortable in this interview. So, he let
Nababan to ask in his own style. Nababan wanted his presence in the White House made Obama joyful. He preferred to told Obama the interesting stories
of Indonesia in order to reduce Obama’s dissapointment of postponing the visit. They tried to strengthen the harmonius relation between them. It is one
of rapport orientation in Spencer-Oatey theory. By using Leech
’s scales and the Brown’s sociological variables, the approach that
can be used is the factor of social distance. Obama’s childhood in Indonesia made the social distance between him and Nababan getting
closer. Obama felt that Indonesia is a part of him, as stated in this interview
through his statement that he enjoyed much to be related to Indonesia. Therefore, Nababan was considered by him as his good friend, even as an
intimate brother due to his status as Indonesian. The power factor was less considerable in this interview. For Obama, it wa
sn’t appropriate in this situation, in which Obama was awaited by the people of Indonesia to come
and he postponed it, to show his power. He made Nababan as a medium to tell the Indonesian people that he was upset and disappointed to decide this.
Nababan isn’t a political agent that can give any advantages or disadvantages to his status as the President. Consequently, he used more positive politeness
strategy by joking, praising and talking a lot about Nababan’s homeland. The interview between Obama and the political agent, Indonesian President for
example, will absolutely be different although both Nababan and Yudhoyono has the same citizenship, has the same social distance level to Obama. If
Yudhoyono talked to Obama, it wouldn’t be an interview, but a bilateral meeting talk between two parties. It is a different type of activity from what
did by Nababan and Obama. Therefore, the perspective of Leech and Brown and Levinson must be
combined with Spencer-Oatey approach. It is no only the social distance of Obama and Nababan that determine the interview, but it is also by the
intended goals, type of activity between the two and the rapport orientation. Hence, by the three approaches, the writer concluded that this interview
was influenced by the power difference in few utterances. The difference of power is
n’t the single factor influencing the strategy of politeness. The other
important factors are the interlocutor’s goals, the social distance, the rapport orientation and the type of activity. Those four factors are considered more by
Nababan and Obama here rather than their power level difference. As long as power is
n’t put by the participants of communication as the most important factor,
it won’t influence much. It will not be the dominant factor. It will only be an ordinary factor influencing the choice of strategy, along with the other
considerations of speaker and hearer.
61
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
